FCC to Monitor News Rooms

[fskimospy]

Thank you sooo much for posting this right before I posted the FCC's notice that they were doing something wrong and have now stopped.

I have every faith that once you get your exploded head back together again, you'll have a nice spin. Perhaps all the FCC commissioners are ultra right wing partisan political appointees.

Lol, this just shows me that you can't read for comprehension. I never made any statement as to the merits of that study here, I just noted that you guys were fools to take partisan sources at face value.

I mean seriously, did you ever bother to read what I wrote before launching into the same shit you say in every other thread?

 

[michal1980]

its only true if the liberal msm report it. otherwise it never happened.

 

[OutHouse]

I just noted that you guys were fools to take partisan sources at face value.

whut? you are are one of the biggest partisans in this board. ihave never seen you not support the dems or Obama or his admin. no matter what fucked up shit they do like this FCC crap you defend it and try to spin it that its a big conspiracy by right wing nut jobs...

dude even the FCC are like wtf. they have no idea who started this, who approved the company to do the study or why its even needed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol, this just shows me that you can't read for comprehension. I never made any statement as to the merits of that study here, I just noted that you guys were fools to take partisan sources at face value.

I mean seriously, did you ever bother to read what I wrote before launching into the same shit you say in every other thread?

You surely should not play the partisan card. "You conservatives" is one of the first stock phrases you reach for if someone objects to your party"s line. Your entire criticism of the WSJ link is that the writer must be a right wing hack. That may be but it might not, and the FCC IS a hack political organization run by whoever the head of the bureaucratic snake happens to be.

I'd like to see a serious response by journalists with principles, but that's also questionable.
Humor but not funny.

The integrity of reporting has been shattered long ago and the smiling politicians who would "correct" this are hardly better. It seems we have to pick between evils for a champion these days.

 

[Oldgamer]

If it hasn't been posted already the FCC is backing off this idea http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/21/fcc-announces-it-will-back-off-plan-to-monitor-newsrooms/

 

[88keys]

This is what happens before you declare martial law and take over the country!

Breaking News: Obama Orders FCC to Monitor News Rooms!

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2...orders-fcc-to-monitor-news-rooms-2599026.html

What is the difference between the US Federal Govt and a Communist Country? It is getting awful hard to tell!

If you compare this to how much arms and ammunition Homeland Security has purchased, it starts to become alarming.

Somebody has been smoking too much Alex Jones.

 

[IGBT]

just like the USSR. Your obama want's "political" officers around and about to assure the liberal agenda is complied with.

 

[TerryMathews]

Well here's the research study for this:

http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf

It sound like observational work that any project would do to collect market data. Seems like they are looking at barriers to entry more than anything.



No outrage found. These types of studies are done very often by private and government institutions.

So, riddle me this Batman: How much can you learn about the ownership of a news station in the news room? That's like going to an assembly line to learn about owning a factory.

Hint: no one in the news room knows a damn thing about owning a news station, unless they owned one that went bankrupt (which would be why there were once again a working stiff)

 

[Matt1970]

lol, the question was never if a study existed, but the nature of the study. I have no doubt that you take the op-eds written by partisan political appointees as gospel, but that's because they tell you what you already want to hear. This is the same reason why you quote other ultra right wing sources as corroboration.

For you so long as it fits what you want to believe, it's true. If anyone points out how gullible you are they are part of the conspiracy against you. When people point out that you're basing your ideas on bullshit sources, they are evil scheming liars.

Maintain the delusions at all costs. Questions and contrary ideas must be suppressed. Every issue, every time.

Seems like maybe the bullshit sources weren't such BS if the FCC decides to abandon the study siting that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required according to Chairman Wheeler.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems like maybe the bullshit sources weren't such BS if the FCC decides to abandon the study siting that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required according to Chairman Wheeler.

If someone tells you the truth half the time and lies to you the other half of the time they still aren't a credible source. That's like saying the National Enquirer is a reputable news source because they got the John Edwards thing right. So saying 'hey look, it was right this one time!' in no way makes relying on bullshit sources any less foolish.

BTW it appears that the FCC was trying to conduct this study in order to DEREGULATE, not to regulate, which I find funny. By freaking out about it conservatives have probably prevented regulations from being rolled back.

 

[fskimospy]

You surely should not play the partisan card. "You conservatives" is one of the first stock phrases you reach for if someone objects to your party"s line. Your entire criticism of the WSJ link is that the writer must be a right wing hack. That may be but it might not, and the FCC IS a hack political organization run by whoever the head of the bureaucratic snake happens to be.

I'd like to see a serious response by journalists with principles, but that's also questionable.
Humor but not funny.

The integrity of reporting has been shattered long ago and the smiling politicians who would "correct" this are hardly better. It seems we have to pick between evils for a champion these days.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here as it doesn't seem to have any bearing on what we're talking about. Since I am not a news source, my partisanship or lack thereof has no bearing on the credibility of news you get from me, as I don't provide news.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here as it doesn't seem to have any bearing on what we're talking about. Since I am not a news source, my partisanship or lack thereof has no bearing on the credibility of news you get from me, as I don't provide news.

So tl;dr you are proud to be a political hack. Got it.

 

[fskimospy]

So tl;dr you are proud to be a political hack. Got it.

Oh sweet jesus, this is getting pathetic.

First of all, you are one of the last people who should be trying to call someone a 'political hack'. Second of all, what I write is quite clearly my opinion. I would never expect someone to take what I assert as fact without evidence. Credible news sources are frequently taken as evidence. "Eskimospy says" is not, and should not be.

If you thought somehow that people expressing their opinions was the same as a news source, this might explain why you are so gullible when it comes to evaluating other sources.

 

[TerryMathews]

Oh sweet jesus, this is getting pathetic.

First of all, you are one of the last people who should be trying to call someone a 'political hack'. Second of all, what I write is quite clearly my opinion. I would never expect someone to take what I assert as fact without evidence. Credible news sources are frequently taken as evidence. "Eskimospy says" is not, and should not be.

If you thought somehow that people expressing their opinions was the same as a news source, this might explain why you are so gullible when it comes to evaluating other sources.

Embrace it baby.

 

[fskimospy]

Embrace it baby.

lol. Don't blame me because you think people posting on an internet forum is the same as a news source. Again though, this does explain an AWFUL LOT of the posts on this forum, huh?

 

[TerryMathews]

lol. Don't blame me because you think people posting on an internet forum is the same as a news source. Again though, this does explain an AWFUL LOT of the posts on this forum, huh?

Nowhere in my post did I say that but that's never stopped you before.

 

[fskimospy]

Nowhere in my post did I say that but that's never stopped you before.

If that wasn't what you thought, your post had no point.

Then again, that's never stopped you before either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here as it doesn't seem to have any bearing on what we're talking about. Since I am not a news source, my partisanship or lack thereof has no bearing on the credibility of news you get from me, as I don't provide news.

Yeah, okey doke then. AFAIK none of us provide "news" although some are more qualified to evaluate some things than others. On other topics people aren't really qualified at all to make a judgement of truth, however that has never stopped very many. That the person isn't a reporter does not mean he's automatically part of some right wing agenda. For that matter it doesn't say the opposite. Please, continue.

 

[OutHouse]

I would never expect someone to take what I assert as fact

funny, you dismiss everything written against Obama and the dems as fiction.

 

[TerryMathews]

If that wasn't what you thought, your post had no point.

Then again, that's never stopped you before either.

Not true.

The post you replied to said that you were a very partisan poster. Your reply was that since you weren't a news agency, it didnt matter whether you were partisan or not.

Implicitly acknowledging that you are partisan. Of course, as we know from the other thread, you can't understand implied answers so its not surprising that you failed to understand your own.

 

[fskimospy]

Not true.

The post you replied to said that you were a very partisan poster. Your reply was that since you weren't a news agency, it didnt matter whether you were partisan or not.

Implicitly acknowledging that you are partisan. Of course, as we know from the other thread, you can't understand implied answers so its not surprising that you failed to understand your own.

I am learning a lot about why you post things sometimes. Saying that whether or not I am partisan is not relevant is not agreeing that I am partisan. (I don't give a shit about the democrats, as they are far too conservative for me. They are only appealing as an alternative to the batshit crazy that passes for modern American conservatism)

It is funny that you would make a post about what is implied by something while completely missing the point of the post you were supposedly analyzing. Physician, heal thyself huh?

I also find it funny how obsessed people on here are about successfully labeling someone else as partisan. The best part about it is that these accusations almost always come from the biggest ideologies on here.

 

[dmcowen674]

Who needs to go to Russia when President Obama is bringing Russia here, complete with the war on journalists?

The return of the Fairness Doctrine - sorry, this totally fair and impartial CIN study - is being led by Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Representative James Clyburn. Just to make sure it's fair and impartial, of course.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-o...s-first-amendment-protections/article/2544363


So just to wrap it up, the FCC without a vote, or a debate, or even bothering to tell the other commissioners gives out a no-bid contract to Social Solutions International (whose principle accomplishment has been to use President Obama's reign to firmly lock its corporate jaws onto Uncle Sugar's teat) to go into every news agency* to study "perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations", led by the child of a powerful Democrat House member whose own great accomplishment is getting the FCC to lower the price of prison phone calls. 'Cause the FCC is looking out for the little guy. Assuming he's in prison anyway.

*Including newspapers which aren't even with the FCC's jurisdiction - but hey, when you're ready to rule you can't be inconvenienced by silly little laws.

Evidently Obama's plan to reboot our relationship with Russia is to make America a more authoritarian, one party nation, thereby making Russia look good so hopefully they'll like us and want to braid our hair.

So it's OK for Bush, Murdock, Koch brothers and fellow Republicans to do it but god forbid Dems give out No-bid contracts.

Gotcha

 

[michal1980]

I am learning a lot about why you post things sometimes. Saying that whether or not I am partisan is not relevant is not agreeing that I am partisan. (I don't give a shit about the democrats, as they are far too conservative for me. They are only appealing as an alternative to the batshit crazy that passes for modern American conservatism)

It is funny that you would make a post about what is implied by something while completely missing the point of the post you were supposedly analyzing. Physician, heal thyself huh?

I also find it funny how obsessed people on here are about successfully labeling someone else as partisan. The best part about it is that these accusations almost always come from the biggest ideologies on here.

don't worry we all know your a commie.

And its always amusing seeing you call someone out for being an ideologist.

Its also amusing to hear you say you don't like the democrats, when all you do is defend their every action.

 

[werepossum]

You surely should not play the partisan card. "You conservatives" is one of the first stock phrases you reach for if someone objects to your party"s line. Your entire criticism of the WSJ link is that the writer must be a right wing hack. That may be but it might not, and the FCC IS a hack political organization run by whoever the head of the bureaucratic snake happens to be.

I'd like to see a serious response by journalists with principles, but that's also questionable.
Humor but not funny.

The integrity of reporting has been shattered long ago and the smiling politicians who would "correct" this are hardly better. It seems we have to pick between evils for a champion these days.

Well said. Objective journalism was long ago replaced by advocacy journalism; this happened due to Watergate and Vietnam, when people began to enter the field to "change the world". One contemporary exception might be NPR, where they openly admit their liberal bias and actively attempt to be fair in spite of it. Another might be the Christian Science Monitor, oddly enough. Frankly I doubt journalism was ever much better in accuracy than these as it always depended upon reporters with their own biases and flaws, and the only two times I was directly involved with news the reporters were factually wildly wrong (albeit with no apparent political/ideological basis for being wrong) but reportage did not used to be such a team sport.

Somebody has been smoking too much Alex Jones.

Yeah . . . This comment probably would seem less stupid before the FCC admitted they were doing wrong and promised not to do it.

If someone tells you the truth half the time and lies to you the other half of the time they still aren't a credible source. That's like saying the National Enquirer is a reputable news source because they got the John Edwards thing right. So saying 'hey look, it was right this one time!' in no way makes relying on bullshit sources any less foolish.

BTW it appears that the FCC was trying to conduct this study in order to DEREGULATE, not to regulate, which I find funny. By freaking out about it conservatives have probably prevented regulations from being rolled back.

LOL!

I believe climate change scientists are heading down a dead end path. Clearly the increased tornadic activity is caused by your spinning. Deregulation - that's rich!

 

[werepossum]

So it's OK for Bush, Murdock, Koch brothers and fellow Republicans to do it but god forbid Dems give out No-bid contracts.

Gotcha

It's neither better nor worse, but it's one thing to give out no-bid contracts to a unique company specializing in putting out oil well fires or supplying troops in foreign countries, which both Pubbies and Dems do to the same companies. It's quite another to give out a no-bid contract to a company to do a study which could be done by MANY companies, including some with a history of such studies not possessed by this particular company. A no-bid contract in this situation is pure to guaranty the desired conclusion, and everyone knows it.

Deregulation! That shit never gets old.