Read this post from mysterious Philly blogger “JF”. Brian Tierney’s shell game, including his 7+% interest in TrumpStreet and the fact that his PR firm represents Foxwoods, is held up for closer scrutiny- and folks, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Nothing that we didn’t already know, but it’s good to see all the dots connected so nicely, isn’t it?

Hallwatch asks a good question today. Can the Inquirer offer unbiased coverage of the casino issue? It turns out that Brian Tierney, owner, publisher and now editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer (and owner of the Daily News too) has a 7% interest in the TrumpStreet casino and sits on its five-member board. Hmmm. Conflict of interest when it comes to reporting on the benefits versus the drawbacks of casinos on neighborhoods? I think so.

The papers have been struggling financially; their fall revenues so far are coming in short of projections. They are in the middle of negotiations with the newspaper union amid lots of talk of cost-cutting. People just don’t want to buy the papers. Maybe if the Inquirer actually reported more of the news? Just a suggestion.

PhillyIMC posted an article about the progress being made in the Wireless Philadelphia project. It appears that, as the project approaches completion of its test phase, the plans for community engagement are being truncated. Not good news. When the doors start to close, the people usually get the shaft.

Today, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown introduced a resolution that asks the FCC to stand by its rules on cross-ownership, and to continue to limit the media outlets in any given market that one company can own. Here’s the story. Way to stand up Philly!!

Last night, Bill Moyers presented a report on PBS, “The Net at Risk”, concerning network neutrality and the possible fate of the internet if the big telecom companies and their allies have their way. Their view of the internet is as a poaching ground for future company profits, when in fact, the internet provides a public space and should be protected as such, just as roads or telephone connections are. In fact, the rules of network neutrality were in existence since the beginning of the internet. They account for the phenomenal innovation that has created the internet as we now know it, and were only jeapardized last August, when the FCC weakened them.

Moyers points out that when President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the idea was that the telecoms were going to deliver a state of the art fiber optics networks to replace their existing copper network. Well, they never did; they pocketed the money instead. Now they’re back saying we need money to build out this new fiber optics system. Because of stiff opposition mounted against them at the federal level, they’ve now taken a state by state approach to the issue. Pennsylvania is dealing with this currently in the cable franchise legislation, that was recently shelved until Verizon could scare up more support (read my interview with PennPIRG about the issue). Meanwhile, cities across the country have been building their own systems, despite litigation against them filed by the telcom industry (check out Lafayette’s struggle). The way these cities see it, they have every right to prepare themselves so that they will be better able to take advantage of emerging technologies. They shouldn’t have to rely on the timetable and agenda of the telecom industry.