LAT editorial on Kerry's hearings into baseball deal.

[ProSense]

EDITORIAL

A swing and a miss

Just because Sen. John Kerry can't watch baseball games on demand doesn't mean that it's a federal issue.
March 7, 2007

MEMO TO SEN. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin: Baseball is the national pastime, not the nationalized one.

Kerry and Martin are crying foul over a deal being negotiated by Major League Baseball and DirecTV, the leading satellite service in the country. The agreement would sell the TV rights to "out of market" games — the ones played by non-hometown teams — exclusively to DirecTV. The same package is available today to an estimated 75 million subscribers to the various cable TV and satellite systems; the pending deal would cut that number to DirecTV's universe of 15 million customers. At the same time, the deal would create a new, 24-hour baseball channel on DirecTV.

Kerry, playing the populist card like the presidential candidate he used to be, has ginned up a Senate hearing to determine whether Congress should step in. "I have serious problems with any mega-deal that makes it harder for people across the country to follow their favorite baseball team," he said last month. At Kerry's request, Martin launched an inquiry to determine whether new laws were needed to protect fans.

Snip...

Nor is there any public entitlement to televised baseball. Yes, fans who want to watch out-of-market games but who aren't DirecTV subscribers would be inconvenienced by the pending deal. Those who won't or can't switch to the satellite service can sign up for Major League Baseball's online broadcasts, which the league says will have the same picture quality as conventional TV. Of course, the webcasts wouldn't deliver the same experience unless viewers had a high-speed Internet line and a PC connected to their TV. Everyone else would have to settle for watching games on their computers or not watching them at all.

Is this a bad thing for fans? Probably. Is it a bad thing for the game? That's for the league to decide, not Congress or the FCC. The proposed deal is similar to the exclusive ones DirecTV has struck with the NFL and NASCAR, neither of which brought down Washington's regulatory fist. Kerry and Martin should stay in the bleachers and let the business of baseball operate like a business.

Isn't it funny how many people called on Congress to deal with the steroids issue, that Faux News' misleading banner on the Libby verdict appears to have missed the media's scrutiny, and didn't we go through the issue of media ownership with ABC's Path to 9/11?

[beachmom]

1. Yeah, I saw that. Thing is, when I wrote a diary about it,

there were actually a lot of Kossaks (real ones, not trolls) who also didn't agree with Kerry on this. I just hope the web gets better soon, so that EVERYONE can watch what they like, and don't have to purchase a cumbersome satellite or cable. From what I've heard, it's not that nice watching the baseball online.

Perhaps some baseball fans can chime in. I like writing about this once, but frankly, since I'm not a fan, I just can't conjure much passion up for it, except the idea that corporations deprive consumers of choice.

[ProSense]

2. It's strange.

They freaked out about net neutrality and the airing of Path to 9/11. It's kind of strange being selective when it comes to connecting the dots between what Congress' oversight responsibilities are and public access.

[blm]

3. Except that baseball is EXEMPT from regular business guidelines, so they SHOULDN'T

be treated as any other 'just doing business' business.

[MH1]

4. Bingo. n/t

[Luftmensch067]

5. Just saw something on PBS the other day

About how the LAT was being discouraged from "national reporting", i.e. the War, and encouraged (by their obviously conservative board or owner -- not sure which because I came in in the middle) to report on "local" matters of real interest to Angelenos such as "fashion, Hollywood, food", etc. I kid you not. Interesting to see this sort of editorial in that context...

[TayTay]

6. Yup. Their coverage of IRaq was incrdible

Not surprised they are being leaned on to do this.

Also, memo to self, check on the owners of this company, see if they are cross-pollinated to either Baseball ownership or or DirectTV ownership. It would be very bad if the major stockholders of this company had any cross-ownership interests in the mega-bucks deal that would interfere with their honest opinions on the deal.

[Luftmensch067]

9. I wish I knew what that program was I saw only part of...

...trying to find info now on ownership, but no luck yet.

What I did see was truly jaw-dropping. Whoever this administrator or board member was was saying the most incredible things, like that there were already three papers on the ground in Iraq: NYT, WaPo and USA Today and, really, why should the LAT just clutter up the place when they were already on it. And he really did say that thing about how Angelenos aren't really interested in Iraq, they'd rather read about fashion and Hollywood!

[karynnj]

12. They are owned by the Tribune company which owns the Chicago Cubs

So, they have a conflict of interest - unlike the good Senator.

"Tribune owns 22 television stations and, with its cable and satellite coverage, reaches 75 percent of U.S. television households. It has long promoted coordination among its various media properties, including a cable TV station and its newspaper Internet sites. It will also hold many other media properties such as the magazines Field & Stream and The Sporting News, the Chicago Cubs professional baseball team and a publisher of educational materials"

http://money.cnn.com/2000/03/13/deals/tribune/

Direct TV is owned by News Corp - Murdoch's company. So, this is a real right wing feast. How do we get through to people that the RW supports neither the troops or access to baseball - how unAmerican can you get!

"Companies like News Corp, headed up by Rupert Murdoch which owns Fox, Direct TV, the New York Post and some 30 odd TV stations, Viacom, owner of CBS, MTV and Viacom Cable, AOL TimeWarner, owner of CNN, aol.com, Time Inc. and Clear Channel Communications, one of the largest owners of radio stations in the U.S.

http://www.freepress.net/news/19701

[Firespirit]

13. Oh, that is beautiful. /nt

[TayTay]

14. Oh you're beautiful when your bookish

A wonk after my own heart.

Wonderful.

Anybody want to diary on DKos on this. I can supply more stuff on this, but Karynnj just hit one out of the park.

[ProSense]

15. I remember that from last year. I was going crazy trying to find

this: New LA TIMES publisher is a Right Wing Hatchet man with ties to Judge Roberts and Ken Starr

Here is his first op-ed: Rumsfeld was my squash partner

[mloutre]

16. hmm. if we can also establish that they're against...

...mom and apple pie while we're at it, that'd be a grand slam.

[JI7]

18. LA Times use to be a good paper until the Tribune Comp bought it

i thought they were far better than the New York Times which i found to have a "liberal Republican" side to it. LA Times then did do a lot of reporting on issues important to California and Los Angeles but it was on things like jobs, education, minority issues , trade etc. not crap like hollywood and fashion. of course they reported on hollywood and other stuff but it was usually kept in the entertainment section.

plus they did excellent reporting on national and world affairs.

i use to read it regularly even when i started getting access to the internet. it was the only paper i got. but not anymore.

[wisteria]

7. This sounds like the parties on the receiving end of this 'nice" deal are fighting back

and trying to discredit the effort portraying it as another example of government controlling things they have no business controlling. I think the government should have an interest in not allowing monopolies and promoting more competition.
Besides, Baseball, like apple pie is the "all American sport".

[MH1]

8. Interesting, related article on net neutrality: compares internet to other media

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2100176,00.asp?kc=EWGOVEMNL030707EOAD

Berners-Lee's Talk Goes Back to the Web's Future
By Jim Rapoza
March 2, 2007

Opinion: Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium, presents a good argument for net neutrality.

When it comes to testimonies in front of congressional committees, the term "sleeping aid" usually comes to my mind. But when I saw that Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium, would be speaking in front of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet about the future of the Web, I knew I had to pay attention.

(snip)

I've always thought that if some major ISP decided to start limiting or slowing down access to popular Web sites, customers would revolt and head to ISPs that were keeping the Internet open and non-discriminatory.

But now that I think about it, who would they run to? Here in Massachusetts, I really have only two options for high-speed Internet access: Comcast and Verizon. Since both are against net neutrality, there's little doubt that both would be limiting Web sites.

And as Sir Tim was talking about the Web's past and how the open nature of the Internet made it possible for him to create—without anyone's permission—one of the most powerful inventions of all time, lots of what-if scenarios kept running through my mind.

What if the Internet wasn't designed the way it was? What if it worked more like cell phone or satellite TV networks do here in the United States?

Hey, I hear there's this great search engine called Google that supposedly works really well and offers all kinds of cool online apps. Problem is, you have to be a Verizon customer to get it. And if I leave Verizon, I won't be able to access the eBay auction site anymore, because that's a Comcast-only site.

And if I leave Comcast, I won't get VOIP anymore, as Verizon completely blocks that. Oh yeah, I also hear that the BitTorrent thing you can do on Cox Communications' cable service is pretty cool.

Does this sound ridiculous? Well, just change some of the things around. Like iPhones only on Cingular. Or cell phone TV only on Verizon. Or NFL Sunday Ticket only on DirecTV.

(snip)

Yep, the first thing I thought of after reading this, was JK questioning the baseball deal. There really is some similarity.

[ProSense]

10. Interesting. Thanks. While the LAT ed board wants Congress to butt out of the baseball deal,

the paper was okay with killing the story about NSA spying.

But after working for two months with LA Times reporter Joe Menn, Klein says he was told the story had been killed at the request of then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and then-director of the NSA Gen. Michael Hayden.

The Los Angeles Times' decision was made by the paper's editor at the time, Dean Baquet, now the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times.

Baquet confirmed to ABCNews.com he talked with Negroponte and Hayden but says "government pressure played no role in my decision not to run the story."

Baquet says he and managing editor Doug Frantz decided "we did not have a story, that we could not figure out what was going on" based on Klein's highly technical documents.

Wow!

[karynnj]

11. The best answer may be to say if baseball wants to operate as a

business like all other businesses, then they should voluntarily drop their special, unique exemption from the anti-trust laws.

[globalvillage]

17. This is sad.

... and let the business of baseball operate like a business.

I always thought baseball was more than a business. I know there's tons of money involved, but it's always been more that that to me. Do little kids dream of being businessmen? Do they trade businessman cards and put pictures of them on the walls of their rooms and pretend they're their favorite business hero when they play ball?

Is it bad for the fans? Probably.

Isn't that the point?

*sigh* It's just so sad.

[whometense]

19. Salon's sports reporter has a comment:

http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2007/03/09/friday/index.html

March 9, 2007 | Major League Baseball and DirecTV announced their much-anticipated agreement on the Extra Innings package of out-of-town games Thursday, and it isn't as bad as many fans had feared.

Yet.

The deal had been reported for weeks as exclusive, meaning that only subscribers of the DirecTV satellite service would be able to see the 60 or so out-of-town games each week without resorting to streaming video on MLB.tv. But baseball left the door open Thursday for "incumbents," meaning those already carrying Extra Innings -- the Dish satellite network and cable companies through their In Demand network -- to match the DirecTV offer and continue to carry the package.

That move seems to have come in response to political pressure from Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and others. Kerry wrote a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking it to investigate the reported $700 million, seven-year exclusive MLB-DirecTV deal, saying it would shut many baseball fans out...

.. Actually, what baseball has done, if you'll indulge a mixed sporting metaphor, is hit a brilliant volley, putting the ball squarely in the court of In Demand and Dish. In the space of one paragraph, MLB has turned them from victims to villains if they don't go along.

Until Thursday, opponents of the deal -- including this column but especially the cable companies and Dish -- had been whining that MLB was the bad guy, denying hardworking, puppy-loving baseball fans their precious out-of-town games in the venal pursuit of a few bucks.

So now baseball says, "OK, In Demand and Dish, if you're going to crusade for the inalienable right of baseball fans to be able to see their national game as much as they ever have, match DirecTV's offer and you'll get your wish."

And all of a sudden it's not about the inalienable rights of baseball fans anymore, is it? It's about the cable companies and the Dish Network not liking the terms of the deal. Who's keeping baseball fans who can't or don't want to sign up for DirecTV from getting Extra Innings now?...

[beachmom]

20. Wow -- incredible! I hope Dish and In Demand consider the

consumers of their products. Otherwise, they'll have really gone and shot themselves in the foot. Had Sen. Kerry and the FCC not gotten involved, I wonder if this new wrinkle would ever have happened.