portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

actions & protests | government | media criticism

Code Pink leads a Day of Action and Discussion Thursday May 29th!

From the Code Pink Website, Thursday May 29th ( a week from now ) Code Pink will be demonstrating against the FCC at 4:30 p.m. in front of the Clear Channel Offices at 4949 SW Macadam Avenue (wish I had a clue where that was or what bus gets you there)

And later in the evening there will be a celebration focused around activist Emma Goldman at In Other Words
From the codepinkportland.org website:

Thursday May 29th: National Day of Protest to Stop the Media Monopoly. Code Pink Portland will lead a protest against Clear Channel once again! 4:30 pm in front of their offices at 4949 SW Macadam Avenue. Join us, tell Portland we don't want more media control and censorship a la Clear Channel!

"Who's Emma?" - Thursday, May 29th: an evening of celebration and activist networking, with readings and herstorical information about Emma Goldman. Sponsored by Code Pink . At In Other Words Women's Books and Resources, 3734 SE Hawthorne, 6:30 pm. More info coming soon.

homepage: homepage: http://codepinkportland.org/

Location 22.May.2003 08:19

Pink Panther

Bus 35 should get you there. Map attached.
Map to Clear Channel 4949 SW Macadam
Map to Clear Channel 4949 SW Macadam

Wiliam Saffire on FCC Ruling 22.May.2003 09:57

From Internet

William Saffire (Ugh!) of the NY Times had this to say about FCC Ruling:

The future formation of American public opinion has fallen into the lap of an ambitious 36-year-old lawyer whose name you never heard. On June 2, after deliberations conducted behind closed doors, he will decide the fate of media large and small, print and broadcast. No other decision made in Washington will more directly affect how you will be informed, persuaded and entertained.

His name is Kevin Martin. He and his wife, Catherine, now Vice President Dick Cheney's public affairs adviser, are the most puissant young "power couple" in the capital. He is one of three Republican members of the five-person Federal Communications Commission, and because he recently broke ranks with his chairman, Michael Powell (Colin's son), on a telecom controversy, this engaging North Carolinian has become the swing vote on the power play that has media moguls salivating.

The F.C.C. proposal remains officially secret to avoid public comment but was forced into the open by the two commission Democrats. It would end the ban in most cities of cross-ownership of television stations and newspapers, allowing such companies as The New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune to gobble up ever more electronic outlets. It would permit Viacom, Disney and AOL Time Warner to control TV stations with nearly half the national audience. In the largest cities, it would allow owners of "only" two TV stations to buy a third.

We've already seen what happened when the F.C.C. allowed the monopolization of local radio: today three companies own half the stations in America, delivering a homogenized product that neglects local news coverage and dictates music sales.

And the F.C.C. has abdicated enforcement of the "public interest" requirement in issuing licenses. Time was, broadcasters had to regularly reapply and show public-interest programming to earn continuance; now they mail the F.C.C. a postcard every eight years that nobody reads.

Ah, but aren't viewers and readers now blessed with a whole new world of hot competition through cable and the Internet? That's the shucks-we're-no-monopolists line that Rupert Murdoch will take today in testimony before the pussycats of John McCain's Senate Commerce Committee.

The answer is no. Many artists, consumers, musicians and journalists know that such protestations of cable and Internet competition by the huge dominators of content and communication are malarkey. The overwhelming amount of news and entertainment comes via broadcast and print. Putting those outlets in fewer and bigger hands profits the few at the cost of the many.

Does that sound un-conservative? Not to me. The concentration of power political, corporate, media, cultural should be anathema to conservatives. The diffusion of power through local control, thereby encouraging individual participation, is the essence of federalism and the greatest expression of democracy.

Why do we have more channels but fewer real choices today? Because the ownership of our means of communication is shrinking. Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals than they realize resent the loss of local control and community identity.

We opponents of megamergers and cross-ownership are afflicted with what sociologists call "pluralistic ignorance." Libertarians pop off from what we assume to be the fringes of the left and right wings, but do not yet realize that we outnumber the exponents of the new collectivist efficiency.

That's why I march uncomfortably alongside CodePink Women for Peace and the National Rifle Association, between liberal Olympia Snowe and conservative Ted Stevens under the banner of "localism, competition and diversity of views." That's why, too, we resent the conflicted refusal of most networks, stations and their putative purchasers to report fully and in prime time on their owners' power grab scheduled for June 2.

Must broadcasters of news act only on behalf of the powerful broadcast lobby? Are they not obligated, in the long-forgotten "public interest," to call to the attention of viewers and readers the arrogance of a regulatory commission that will not hold extended public hearings on the most controversial decision in its history?

So much of our lives should not be in the hands of one swing-vote commissioner. Let's debate this out in the open, take polls, get the president on the record and turn up the heat.


thanks 22.May.2003 10:01

didn't notice the earlier post

thanks for the directions!

see ya there! thanks for keeping the focus on these nasty FCC regs -- biggest threat to ever getting media reform yet

please no vanguard party 22.May.2003 15:07


I really like the wrok that COde Pink is doing, but I must say that the attitude of "leading" a demo is annoying. Please dont feel you need to coax people into revolutionary thought. I certianly do not want someone leading me into anything. I will stand beside you, not behind.

My Wording, Not Code Pink's 23.May.2003 18:15


Actually nowhere in any of the posting by Code Pink is there any mention of leading anything... I am the one who reposted (and restated) the article and wasn't aware that they had it all covered... I was overzealous and hadn't yet read their newswire post announcment that went up almost right before this one-- hadn't refreshed my screen.

Sorry pink panther and others for misrepresenting.... I'll stop worrying that the word isn't getting out fast enuf and trust you are doing things at your own pace.

What would Emma do? 25.May.2003 16:20

Michael C. Marino info@thesocialistparty.org

"Women have been the guardians of life - not because we are better or purer or more innately nurturing than men, but because the men have busied themselves making war." -Code Pink

I do not remember Emma Goldman as having advocated segregation of the sexes. From her autobiography, I got the impression that she was usually a member of groups that accepted people of either sex. And I don't remember busying myself making war -- I seriously question Code Pink's thinking on this and ask:

"What would Emma do?"

(503) 241-8217
P.O. Box 5633, Portland, OR 97228