Exposing the Other EPA, the "Environmental Policy Alliance"

It's important to look behind the curtains to expose the paid political consultants doing the bidding of corporate interests in ads like these:

Of course it's ridiculous to paint those concerned about the effects of fracking on the environment as the flat-earth science deniers when that crown belongs to those who stop their ears and scream to avoid hearing about climate change, but big lies repeated often, and broadcast on TV, have a way of working their way in the public conversation. So who are the people behind that other EPA, the "Environmental Policy Alliance," which created this ad about Colorado citizens who voted against fracking? It's a front group of a well-connected Washington PR firm, Berman & Co, which also operates front groups defending corporate interests in all areas from tobacco to liquor to dietary fat to oil and gas fracking. Here's its leader, Rick Berman, smirking his way through an interview with Rachel Maddow in 2010.


And here's a long list of Berman & Company's current list of front organizations polluting the public debate with corporate money.

Other Berman Front Groups

• ActivistCash.com
• AFT Facts
• American Beverage Institute
• AnimalScam.com
• Big Green Radicals
• Center for Consumer Freedom
• Center for Economic and Entrepreneurial Literacy
• Center for Organizational Research and Education
• Center for Union Facts
• CREW Exposed
• CSPI Scam
• Defeat the Debt
• EmployeeRightsAct.com
• Employment Policies Institute
• Enterprise Freedom Action Committee
• EPA Facts
• Green Decoys
• Hands Off My Bacon
• HumaneWatch.org
• Interlock Facts
• Interstate Policy Alliance
• LaborPains.org
• LEED Exposed
• Maternity Pens
• MinimumWage.com
• NegligentDriving.com
• No Drink Tax
• ObesityMyths.com
• PETA Kills Animals
• Physician Scam
• Protecting Bad Teachers
• Responsible Limits
• Rethink Reform
• Rotten ACORN
• SEIU Exposed
• Sweet Scam
• Teachers Union Exposed
• The New Prohibition
• Tipped Wage
• Unite Here Exposed
• Vote Our Future
• WorkerCenters

And How Many of His Houses and Condos Get Their TV Reception Over the Air?

I was reminded of the upcoming Digital TV Conversion fiasco (a.k.a, The Death of Free Television), when I stumbled upon this "Goodbye Rabbit Ears" column in the Times, and a link in its comments section to the DTVRedAlert.org blog, which is dedicating itself to questions about this transition during which cable companies and electronics manufacturers are planning to make a fortune.
It all just seems to fit so nicely with the (unanswerable) question about how many dwellings that John & Cindy McCain own (we can assume that none of them lack cable).
When John was pushing this Death of Free TV bill back in 2004, could he possibly empathize with a person getting his or her fuzzy moving pictures of the news and sports and game shows through the air with rabbit ears? Or was all his empathy spent on those with whom he shared private jets?

An Update on the Death of Free Television on 2/17/2009

Click here to see an interesting forum over at ConsumerReports.org about the current state of digital television (non-)reception over the air. It seems I'm not the only one who has hooked up my government-subsidized converter box but failed to find a signal using my existing indoor antenna (my failed autoscan on a Magnavox TB 100MG9 converter is shown in the attached shot from this morning).
The Consumer Reports article is much more honest than the ads being run on local stations, which make it seem the box alone will solve your DTV conversion problems. After going through a fair amount of detail about adding the box and better outdoor antennas, the Consumer Reports blog post states,

Unfortunately, there's a chance no antenna will work for you. Recent reports indicate that some households are in fringe areas with poor reception, and for them, off-air digital TV might not be a good option.
In any case, start soon. If you encounter problems, there will be plenty of time to resolve them before next February so you're not left out in the cold.

Since I can't install an outdoor antenna (and weren't they beautiful when forests of them did top the rooftops of the nation back in the sixties and seventies??), I expect not to be watching television at this time next year (unless you count DVDs on a computer screen as TV), but I think it's going to be a shock for a lot of people who don't have cable. Plus, I'm only in my apartment for a handful of waking hours a day. I can live without television. There are millions of others who shouldn't have to.
I put my personal case forward in the comments to the Consumer Reports article and the only answer I got was that I would need to get cable, but not to worry because there are basic plans for broadcast-only channels at about $15/month and other plans for only $40/month. Who is really benefiting from this DTV transition if thousands of people who are not currently paying a penny to the cable/satellite corporations will now be forced to pay a minimum of $180 - $480 per year to those companies if they want to continue receiving the most basic television services? (And remember that even if you do have cable, that second or third or fourth TV without cable that you watch in the kitchen or garage will be dead on 2/17/2009.)
OK, it's hard to think of a constituency that is less well-connected politically (or electronically) than the people who have no access to television other than the waves that are coming to them for free through the air, and this group probably didn't come up in conversation when John McCain and Vicki Iseman were discussing the transition to digital television in her clients' private jets. Even though the televisions of the uncabled won't start going black until next February 17th, there's nothing to stop the rest of us from spreading the word now that this Death-of-Free-TV bill bears a very heavy imprint of John McCain's, and that it was passed in the Senate by a 51-50 vote, with tie-breaking vote number 51 belonging to Richard "Dick" Cheney and the other 50 yea votes belonging to Republicans too.

The Death of Free TV?

I live in an area where many (including myself) take the train to New York City, but it's a fringy area of television reception. If I adjust my indoor antenna correctly, I can currently get New York channels 2,4,5,7,9,11,13 (and sometimes 21 and some other UHF channels); I don't get any of them well enough to see a moving hockey puck or a golf ball on my cheap 13-inch set, and they're not always in color, but I can see any show that's on broadcast (analog) television by wiggling a rabbit ear.

Last weekend I used my $40 DTV coupon to buy a $49 digital converter box, a Magnavox TB100MG9. When I scan for digital channels, it finds nothing available in this area of Central New Jersey. When I check AntennaWeb, it becomes clear that from my zip code there are no digital stations that are currently available yet without a heavy-duty outdoor antenna. The new converter box confirms this; when I put it on autoscan, it finds no signals.

Because digital television is either on or off -- perfect or nonexistent -- there is no such thing as the fringy, fuzzy signal to which I've become accustomed. I cannot add an outdoor antenna on the roof of my apartment building (nor do I feel I should be asked to), and I have no desire to give any money to one of John McCain's campaign-contributing cable companies. So unless digital signals are strengthened or added before then, this is what I'll be looking at on February 17, 2009 when free analog television dies:
On the downside, I'll miss Bill Moyers and "Nova" and the occasional college football game, and "The Office" and "30 Rock" and "CBS Sunday Morning", and being able to check the weather before I leave the apartment in the morning. I'll miss these shows, but I'm not going to add a monthly bill to my budget to start receiving them again. Once they're gone, I'll just listen to more NPR (until radio is made digital) and play more guitar.

On the plus side, I'll no longer be tempted to flip past the combination of greed, bathos, peer pressure, and statistical stupidity that is Howie Mandel's "Deal or No Deal" just because I'm bored. I'm no longer going to know which automobile ad has resurrected (and therefore ruined) the coolest song from my childhood, and which car looks sleekest while speeding through closed coastal California curves under the guidance of a professional driver. I'm no longer going to believe that the purple pill will make me want to run through fields of wildflowers like it's 1968 again, and that the blue pill will find me an attractive sexual partner to lie down with me in that field. Which makes me wonder what Big Pharma and the (not quite so) Big Three think about losing access to a slice of their potential customers. Is it possible that there's going to be some push back from these powerful economic engines?

This was a bill pushed by all the cable and communications industries and passed 51-50 (with Richard "Dick" Cheney cast in the role of "The Decider") on December 21, 2005. Will it become less popular as other casual TV watchers -- and there are many who live farther from TV transmission antennas than I do -- and advertisers, find out just how many are affected by this change? Or will all the last holdouts (or almost all of them) simply give in and agree to begin paying extortion fees to the cable and satellite companies for something they used to get over the air for free?

Will John McCain's role as a major advocate for this change, and a tool of cable lobbyists, be an issue in the coming election? Or will it only be a big issue next February, when sets actually go black?