FCC to Monitor News Rooms

[WelshBloke]

I have a healthy distrust of government, irrespective of political party, tyvm. And there's a few thousand years of recorded history to back up that distrust.

Believing any old crap people say the gov is up to is not a healthy distrust. It just shows that you're gullible and easy to influence.

 

[Matt1970]

Believing any old crap people say the gov is up to is not a healthy distrust. It just shows that you're gullible and easy to influence.

Well maybe if our government wasn't constantly lying to us, we wouldn't have so much distrust.

 

[WelshBloke]

Well maybe if our government wasn't constantly lying to us, we wouldn't have so much distrust.

Theres a difference between distrust and believing any old crap someone shovels at you.

Do you not see the problem in the logic?

I distrust entity A therefore I will accept anything said about A by B regardless of the source or motives of B.

 

[Matt1970]

Theres a difference between distrust and believing any old crap someone shovels at you.

Do you not see the problem in the logic?

I distrust entity A therefore I will accept anything said about A by B regardless of the source or motives of B.

True, but if you have a history of lying to someone, don't surprised if they start double checking things you so or if you ever cheat on your spouse, don't be surprised when she starts asking where you were for so long even though you were just at the grocery store for an hour.

Entity A has a track record of lies and deceit so it makes anything said about A by B worth a second look.

 

[WelshBloke]

True, but if you have a history of lying to someone, don't surprised if they start double checking things you so or if you ever cheat on your spouse, don't be surprised when she starts asking where you were for so long even though you were just at the grocery store for an hour.

Entity A has a track record of lies and deceit so it makes anything said about A by B worth a second look.

I have no problem with the bolded, you should do that for all information.

 

[fskimospy]

True, but if you have a history of lying to someone, don't surprised if they start double checking things you so or if you ever cheat on your spouse, don't be surprised when she starts asking where you were for so long even though you were just at the grocery store for an hour.

Entity A has a track record of lies and deceit so it makes anything said about A by B worth a second look.

You realize the same thing could be said about cnsnews, right?

 

[JEDIYoda]

lol.

It has only been a couple of days since the last right wing news story got put up here by a gullible individual. Nothing was learned.

I hate to do this..but....I guess I will exercise my free will -- :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[rudder]

Believing any old crap people say the gov is up to is not a healthy distrust. It just shows that you're gullible and easy to influence.

Well the Obama administration in particular has a horrible track record in that regard. For example... at first it was journalists phone records being collected (without a warrant)... but now we see government snooping is way larger than anyone could have imagined.

 

[BoberFett]

There really should be a Department of Information with a council of ordinary citizens overseeing it making sure it stays 100% news.

That sounds like a great idea. That way we can get even MORE coverage of American Idol!

 

[Paratus]

/Waits to see who comes along to defend this...

Homer will

 

[werepossum]

Homer will

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

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs." Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.

The initiative, known around the agency as "the CIN Study" (pronounced "sin"), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. "This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced," says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC's five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). "I've never had any input into the process," adds Pai, who brought the story to the public's attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

Advocates promote the project with Obama-esque rhetoric. "This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens," said FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn in 2012. Clyburn, daughter of powerful House Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, was appointed to the FCC by President Obama and served as acting chair for part of last year. The FCC, Clyburn said, "must emphatically insist that we leave no American behind when it comes to meeting the needs of those in varied and vibrant communities of our nation -- be they native born, immigrant, disabled, non-English speaking, low-income, or other." (The FCC decided to test the program with a trial run in Ms. Clyburn's home state, South Carolina.)

The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to do a study defining what information is "critical" for citizens to have. The scholars decided that "critical information" is information that people need to "live safe and healthy lives" and to "have full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities," among other things.

The study identified eight "critical needs": information about emergencies and risks; health and welfare; education; transportation; economic opportunities; the environment; civic information; and political information.

It's not difficult to see those topics quickly becoming vehicles for political intimidation. In fact, it's difficult to imagine that they wouldn't. For example, might the FCC standards that journalists must meet on the environment look something like the Obama administration's environmental agenda? Might standards on economic opportunity resemble the president's inequality agenda? The same could hold true for the categories of health and welfare and "civic information" -- and pretty much everything else.

"An enterprising regulator could run wild with a lot of these topics," says Pai. "The implicit message to the newsroom is they need to start covering these eight categories in a certain way or otherwise the FCC will go after them."

The FCC awarded a contract for the study to a Maryland-based company called Social Solutions International. In April 2013, Social Solutions presented a proposal outlining a process by which contractors hired by the FCC would interview news editors, reporters, executives and other journalists.

"The purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the process by which stories are selected," the Social Solutions report said, adding that news organizations would be evaluated for "station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

There are a lot of scary words for journalists in that paragraph. And not just for broadcasters; the FCC also proposes to regulate newspapers, which it has no authority to do. (Its mission statement says the FCC "regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable…")

Questioning about the CIN Study began last December, when the four top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked the FCC to justify the project. "The Commission has no business probing the news media's editorial judgment and expertise," the GOP lawmakers wrote, "nor does it have any business in prescribing a set diet of 'critical information.'"

If the FCC goes forward, it's not clear what will happen to news organizations that fall short of the new government standards. Perhaps they will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance with the administration's journalistic agenda. What is sure is that it will be a gross violation of constitutional rights.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol.

Instead of op-eds we have moved onto conservative advocacy magazines for our newest news on the FCC for our "uncritically swallowing whatever someone says so long as it tells me what I want to believe" fix for the day.

Why is it that nobody seems to be able to find a source outside the ultra right? Let me guess, the media (that you claim the president is now trying to control) is already part of the conspiracy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Imagine if the media were working with Hitler to exterminate the Jews. We would never want to do anything about such media bias, now would we. And if Fox News and right wing radio aren't creating a mass psychosis of an altered reality for the conservative brain defective, we wouldn't want to do anything about that either. Maybe if we can kill a hundred million people in a nice little war somewhere, we will begin to figure this out.

 

[Doppel]

Imagine if the media were working with Hitler to exterminate the Jews. We would never want to do anything about such media bias, now would we. And if CNN and left wing radio aren't creating a mass psychosis of an altered reality for the liberal brain defective, we wouldn't want to do anything about that either. Maybe if we can kill a hundred million people in a nice little war somewhere, we will begin to figure this out.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Believing any old crap people say the gov is up to is not a healthy distrust. It just shows that you're gullible and easy to influence.

All I'm saying is that I'm skeptical; that's what a 'healthy distrust' implies. That's not being gullible. I have no idea what the overall intent is with this 'study', but (over time) large governments tend to act more in their own interests vs the people they allege to serve. As I said, I have history backing me up on this. Americans (as a general lot) treat their freedoms for too casually.

Knowledge isn't power; applied knowledge is power. The question remains, what will they do with the info gained from this study? It may indeed turn out to be a big nothing - yet another waste of our money. What makes me laugh is that if this study were being run under the stupid party' administration, the usuals here on the left would be in a frothing panic.

/heads off to get coffee

 

[FerrelGeek]

True, but if you have a history of lying to someone, don't surprised if they start double checking things you so or if you ever cheat on your spouse, don't be surprised when she starts asking where you were for so long even though you were just at the grocery store for an hour.

Entity A has a track record of lies and deceit so it makes anything said about A by B worth a second look.

I have no problem with the bolded, you should do that for all information.

Exactly. This was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Moonbeam]

Imagine if the media were working with Hitler to exterminate the Jews. We would never want to do anything about such media bias, now would we. And if CNN and left wing radio aren't creating a mass psychosis of an altered reality for the liberal brain defective, we wouldn't want to do anything about that either. Maybe if we can kill a hundred million people in a nice little war somewhere, we will begin to figure this out.

My job is to demonstrate to any who can still think and reason the fundamental propagandized condition of the modern American conservative mental state, it's delusional and defensive nature, its lack of critical capacity and its substitution of the capacity for intellectual debate with bullying and imbecilic rationalization.

 

[compuwiz1]

And this comes on the heels of Obama blaming Fox news for some of his failure. Surprise....surprise. What else would you expect from a tyrant? There should not be even a smidgen of talk about monitoring what we hear from the media. We have a 1st amendment and the government has no business trying to control the dissemination of information. When they do we are no longer a free country.

 

[werepossum]

Lol.

Instead of op-eds we have moved onto conservative advocacy magazines for our newest news on the FCC for our "uncritically swallowing whatever someone says so long as it tells me what I want to believe" fix for the day.

Why is it that nobody seems to be able to find a source outside the ultra right? Let me guess, the media (that you claim the president is now trying to control) is already part of the conspiracy.

I know it doesn't really exist until the New York Times deigns to notice it, but here's the article from the FCC itself.

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



Note that the OP's OpEd was an OpEd actually penned by a sitting FCC commissioner, but unfortunately in an "ultra right wing" newspaper (aka not the New York Times) the Wall Street Journal.

Every issue, every thread, every new threat, it's the same old thing.
1. This isn't true.
2. It is true, but it's just business as usual.
3. It may not be not business as usual, but it's nothing malevolent.
4. This malevolence by Obama is clearly the Congressional Republicans' fault for passing a law forcing him to do these things its authors claim he isn't even authorized to do.

This is from one of the FCC's web sites, so I think we can move to step 2. We've already heard "people do studies all the time", so at least some of our proggies should be ready to move to step 3. Some of you I'm sure will need a week or two to assert that government has always monitored news broadcasts (including newspapers!) for how well they are meeting the CINs of a diverse population. Wake me when you're ready to move to step 4 and blame Obama's actions on the Republicans.

Wait, you know what? Don't.

 

[fskimospy]

I know it doesn't really exist until the New York Times deigns to notice it, but here's the article from the FCC itself.

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

Note that the OP's OpEd was an OpEd actually penned by a sitting FCC commissioner, but unfortunately in an "ultra right wing" newspaper (aka not the New York Times) the Wall Street Journal.

Every issue, every thread, every new threat, it's the same old thing.
1. This isn't true.
2. It is true, but it's just business as usual.
3. It may not be not business as usual, but it's nothing malevolent.
4. This malevolence by Obama is clearly the Congressional Republicans' fault for passing a law forcing him to do these things its authors claim he isn't even authorized to do.

This is from one of the FCC's web sites, so I think we can move to step 2. We've already heard "people do studies all the time", so at least some of our proggies should be ready to move to step 3. Some of you I'm sure will need a week or two to assert that government has always monitored news broadcasts (including newspapers!) for how well they are meeting the CINs of a diverse population. Wake me when you're ready to move to step 4 and blame Obama's actions on the Republicans.

Wait, you know what? Don't.

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.

 

[werepossum]

LOL Talk about timing.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-325727A1.pdf

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY
I welcome today’s announcement that the FCC has suspended its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN study. This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong. The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices.

This is an important victory for the First Amendment. And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives not infringe on our constitutional freedoms.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0221/DOC-325722A1.pdf

“By law, the FCC must report to Congress every three years on the barriers that may prevent entrepreneurs and small business from competing in the media marketplace, and pursue policies to
eliminate those barriers. To fulfill that obligation in a meaningful way, the FCC's Office of Communications Business Opportunities consulted with academic researchers in 2012 and selected a contractor to design a study which would inform the FCC’s report to Congress. Last summer, the
proposed study was put out for public comment and one pilot to test the study design in a single marketplace – Columbia, S.C. – was planned.

“However, in the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate. Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required. Last week, Chairman Wheeler informed lawmakers that that Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters and would be modifying the draft study.

Yesterday, the Chairman directed that those questions be removed entirely. “To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study. The pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final. Any subsequent market
studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters.
“Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America's newsrooms is false. The FCC looks forward to fulfilling its obligation to Congress to report on
barriers to entry into the communications marketplace, and is currently revising its proposed study to achieve that goal.”

Now proggies can jump directly to "See, they're not going to do it now - not that there would be anything wrong with doing it."

When this kerfuffle dies down, they'll be attempting the same thing again.

 

[OutHouse]

Da! Commissar!!

 

[Fern]

Hahaha, I love the ongoing paranoid obsessions of the right since Obama got elected. Remember the absolute guarantees that Obama was going to start a race war to prevent the last elections and seize power as infinite dictator for life? How many people swore up and down we wouldn't see an actual election? That Obama was comin' fer yer guns! How many *FEMA death camps!!!* stories do you need to freak out over before you realize you've been a rube and that Obama is a middle-of-the-road president, not some apocalyptic horseman?

No, I don't remember that. But I do remember the left wing making that claim about Bush once his second term was up. (It wasn't a race, but another attack on some Arab/Muslim nation.)

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.

If you actually believe that this is ('was' now, it appears) about "barrier to entry" as you claim I suggest you read the info in your own link - specifically Appendix A (pg 25 of 78 on my pdf reader)

These are the same questions mentioned by FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, who Eskimospy immediately waives off as partisan and non-truthful etc.

We might not like the media, but it's ours and not the government's.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

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.

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.