Television viewers in more than 3 million homes in New York City and its suburbs discovered this morning that their cable TV provider was no longer carrying local station WABC, flagship of the ABC Television network, raising the possibility that they might not be able to watch tonight’s globally-televised 82^nd annual Academy Awards ceremony.

The cutoff came after the breakdown of negotiations between The Walt Disney Company, which owns ABC, and Cablevision Systems Corporation, one of the nation’s largest cable companies.   Disney wants more from Cablevision in so-called “retransmission fees” for the right to transmit the WABC signal to the cable company’s subscribers.  When the two sides couldn’t reach agreement by their current contract deadline, Disney pulled the WABC signal.

These two prosperous companies will undoubtedly sort out their dispute, maybe even in time for tonight’s orgy of Hollywood self-congratulation.   What’s notable about the confrontation, however, is the harsh public language used by corporate combatants and the hints it provides of progress in the movement toward corporate governance reform.

On its web site for customers, for example, Cablevision argued: “It is wrong for ABC to demand $40 million in new fees, which is nothing more than a new TV tax, to help pay the salaries and bonuses for top ABC executives.”  (Translation: Executive compensation levels at Disney are a real issue.  That affects the type and quality of TV programming you receive.)

Disney’s WABC fired back: “Cablevision pocketed almost $8 billion last year, and now customers aren’t getting what they pay for – again.  It’s time for Jim Dolan and the Dolan family dynasty to finally step up, be fair, and do what’s right for our viewers.”  (Translation: The Dolan family makes an awfully good living because it tightly controls publicly-held Cablevision through its ownership of a special Class B common stock.  That affects the type and quality TV programming you receive.)

It’s no wonder that The Morning Bridge, a TV industry newsletter, published a special Sunday morning bulletin focusing on the war of words and asking: “Think anybody wins in these situations?”

(Update: Disney and Cablevision reached a tentative agreement and the ABC signal was restored 14 minutes into the Oscar broadcast.)

Is the tide turning?

Well, it could be that the movement for corporate governance reform is actually beginning to score some wins, if only because average citizens and small shareholders are beginning to understand that these issues can really mean something to them.  The question is whether these victories are only short-term tactical advantages or constitute signs of longer-term success.

“Up until now, it’s been sort of a Soviet system,” is the way shareholder democracy is described by Stephen Davis, executive director of the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance at the Yale School of Management.  “We have been operating in the United States under the myth that boards have been accountable to shareholders.”

Davis’s views are reflected in a generally upbeat weekend New York Times article on shareholder democracy which concludes that “the tide is beginning to turn, albeit slightly” for shareholders.  In addition to various rules changes, the Times cites the availability of more Web resources that help educate smaller investors to the issues, including ProxyDemocracy.org, Shareowners.org and MoxyVote.com.

Governance activist and blogger James McRitchie agrees that that the tide “is turning to become more balanced through increased voice from shareowners. Of course, we are still a long way from the point where most directors feel more accountable to shareowners than CEOs,” he adds.  McRitchie says his optimism about the outlook for shareholders, like that of other activists, is also fed by the work of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s newly-formed Investor Advisory Committee.

“A many-splendoured thing…”

Bob Monks

Seemingly less sanguine about the prospects for shareholder democracy is Robert A.G. “Bob” Monks, one of the world's most provocative thinkers on corporate governance.  Back in 2005, my colleague Marjorie Kelly, co-founder and then Editor of Business Ethics Magazine, wrote that “Monks seems to have invented the term ‘corporate governance.’”  As a co-founder with Nell Minow of the Corporate Library, a governance research firm, and founder of Institutional Shareholder Services (acquired in 2007 by RiskMetrics Group), Monks has an established track record in the field.

“Clearly, the modern shareholder, like love, is a many-splendoured thing, but while we can admire such diversity, we also have to ask whether any single class so broadly writ can ever begin to exercise its ownership rights vis a vis entrenched and well-funded corporate power,” Monks writes in a new, lengthy and colorfully-written post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.

Monks goes on: “The practical effect of having ownership spread so broadly is that shareholders as a group have virtually no effective ownership rights they can exercise. Senior management pays itself, boards sit idly or complacently by, corporations abrogate ever more authority to themselves and gain an ever stronger voice in the political process, and when it comes time for the piper to be paid, the shareholders pony up in lost equity value and increasingly of late taxpayers pick up the final tab. This is a condition that ultimately serves no public good.”

One possible solution, suggests Monks, is a standard corporate structure with two classes of stock ownership: “passive shareholders, who choose not to exercise ownership rights, and stewardship shareholders, who already bear a fiduciary responsibility for funds under their management.”  Accomplishing that, Monks says, would require federal government action to create “a framework of legally enforceable responsibility.”

Speaking of Oscars…

None of this is likely to help some 3 million Cablevision subscribers in the New York area watch the Academy Awards tonight.   Their outrage is reflected in the comments on local newspaper web sites:

“GREED THY name is america.......if you make a gazillion dollars you want a bazillion......”

“Corporate blackmail with the consumer caught in the middle. Time for regulatory reform.”

Indeed, the current state of shareholder rights calls to mind the Oscar-winning performance of Peter Finch as TV anchorman Howard Beale in the prophetic 1976 film “Network.” Outraged by the respective states of society and the TV industry, Beale explodes spontaneously on-camera, driving ratings through the roof as he gets millions of viewers to join him in screaming: “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.” (YouTube)

It’s a message that the senior management and boards of Cablevision and Disney – and many other publicly-held U.S. companies – should listen to again and take to heart.

Disclosure: Michael Connor is a past employee of Cablevision Systems Corporation and ABC Television.

Oscar Photo: Darren Decker / ©A.M.P.A.S.

As a teen in 1984 (in the waning days of the brutal and corrupt "Baby Doc" regime), I spent a day wandering near-blind through Port-au-Prince, Haiti, searching in vain for a pharmacy to replace the contact lens cleaning solution that was in my luggage that the airline had lost. It strikes me that most people's understanding of the socio-political complexity of Haiti (including my own) is about as clear as my vision was then: fuzzy at best. Yet we are all now confronted with the moral question of how best to respond to the January 12 earthquake (which measured 7.0 on the Richter Scale) that struck this already-vulnerable island nation.

I was there to visit the Hôpital Albert Schweitzer (HAS) in Deschapelles in the Artibonite Valley, the poorest region in the Western hemisphere, where my dad was volunteering on surgical rotation from Yale. There, I interviewed the hospital's founder, Larry Mellon of the wealthy Pittsburgh family, who in his 40s had forsaken his high-society life to attend medical school (along with his wife Gwen) so that he could tend to the "poorest of the poor" in Haiti. One thing he said imprinted itself deeply on my conscience: he insisted on charging all patients at least a nominal fee, not because the hospital needed the money (though it did), but primarily to allow patients to maintain dignity and self-empowerment, instead of submitting to charity.

Bill Baue

Mellon's words returned to me years later, reading Tracy Kidder's Mountains Beyond Mountains about another doctor committed to caring for the poorest of the poor in Haiti: Zanmi Lasante (or Partners in Health in Haitian Kreyol) founder Paul Farmer scorned the practice of charging these destitute patients (though he didn't name Mellon or HAS): "I'm going to build my own fucking hospital. And there'll be none of that there, thank you." And Clinique Bon Sauveur was born in Cange in 1985, thirty years after the founding of HAS and the damming of the Artibonite River, a "development" project that effectively diverted water needed in the Artibonite Valley to Port-au-Prince.

In the current state of emergency and disaster, donations of cash and vital resources are now imperative for humanitarian relief - the United Nations called for $562 million for humanitarian operation in Haiti. In a Miami Herald op-ed, Paul Farmer urged donors to prioritize cash donations, and limit in-kind donations to those supporting vital aid functions, such as water, medical supplies and personnel, and, perhaps most importantly, coordination support.

The corporate community is stepping up to fill these needs, with $83.2 million donated by January 19. For example GE pledged $2.5 million, Becton, Dickinson $1.2 million, and Avon, UPS, Royal Caribbean, Abbott, and PepsiCo each pledged $1 million. In addition to giving cash, many of these private sector donations include much-needed resources, such as medical supplies from BD and Abbott, transportation and logistics from UPS, supply delivery from Royal Caribbean, and water from PepsiCo. The nonprofit sector is similarly stepping up - for example, AmeriCares airlifted $6 million in medical aid, along with a team of relief workers, PSI (Population Services International) shipped millions of liters of safe drinking water, and National Nurses United deployed 7,500 registered nurses to Haiti for disaster relief.

Companies are shifting their normal operations in order to help by providing cash and on-the-ground resources and coordination. For example, CSRwire, PR Newswire and Marketwire waived distribution fees for news releases related to the Haitian earthquake, Cablevision extended free calling to Haiti, and Visa is scaling back its income from donations for Haitian earthquake relief by donating revenues from these contributions directly to the American Red Cross, and also waiving interchange fees on donations made to certain charities.

Such actions expose companies to criticism. For example, MoveOn.org launched a petition for credit card companies to waive all fees on charitable donations, and Cory Doctorow pointed out the irony that Royal Caribbean delivered not only 40 pallets of relief supplies, but also a boatload of tourists to frolic at Labadee, a private beach leased from the Haitian government that is sixty miles from the earthquake's epicenter. The company contends that the tourism brings much-needed revenue to Haiti, and the company is further donating all its proceeds from the visits to the relief effort.

Which brings us back to the thorny question of the role of charity in solving endemic problems. In the face of such a disaster, all charity plays a key role in relieving the acute suffering - the main question is, how best to coordinate donations for the most effective, targeted outcome. As necessary as it is to focus our vision closely on the immediate scene, though, what happens when we step back to look at the bigger picture? In a New York Times op-ed, David Brooks widened his perspective to point out that the 1989 San Francisco quake (which likewise measured 7.0 on the Richter Scale) killed 63, while up to 50,000 are feared dead from the Haitian quake. Accordingly, he called the Haitian earthquake less a "natural disaster story," and more of a "poverty story."

His solution? Not international development, which Brooks likens to "throwing money" at the problem, nor even micro-aid, which he considers effective though limited in reach - but ultimately, he throws his weight behind what he calls "intrusive paternalism," where benevolent local leaders adopt "middle-class assumptions, an achievement ethos and tough, measurable demands." This "father knows best" approach seems to suffer from the same tunnel-vision of solutions imposed on Haiti since time immemorial, this time viewing the problem through red, white and blue colored glasses. UN Special Envoy to Haiti Bill Clinton seeks to support Haiti to "build back better" after the earthquake. The question is whether this effort will give room for self-empowered Haitians to identify and redress systemic, symptomatic problems, or whether it will continue to wander near-blind through the haze, or perhaps worse yet, gaze through lenses obscured by benevolent paternalism.

Bill Baue is Executive Director of Sea Change Media, and Executive Producer/Host of Sea Change Radio, a nationally syndicated show with a global podcast audience.  This article was first published on CSRWire.