Why Did the FCC’s Plan to Invade Newsrooms Only Inspire ‘Conservative Outcry’?

Mediaite ^ | February 21, 2014 | Noah Rothman

[2ndDivisionVet]

“Proposed FCC study of news organizations sparks conservative outcry,” The Washington Post declared on Friday. The story revealed details of the backlash against a Federal Communications Commission plan to investigate the news-gathering and information dissemination practices of a variety of print and broadcast media outlets.

The Post quickly amended that headline, as someone decided the study should have sparked a general “outcry,” even though it apparently did not –- at least, not in The Post’s newsroom. Still, some bright fellow at The Post noted that this latest encroachment by the federal government should be met with at least a perfunctory protest from the members of the press.

But what a stunning admission The Post’s original headline contained. There, in that one little word, decades of ideological baggage tainting that industry was carelessly unpacked.

The spectacular imbecility in which the FCC, the regulatory commission which wields over news outlets the ability to renew or revoke their license to broadcast, approached this voluntary study inspired more chortles than shudders from journalists -– that is, those journalists who fancy themselves neutral political arbiters.

The proposed study, conducted by an outside contractor with no experience studying communications, and which has virtually imploded on the launch pad due entirely to the incompetence of its design and roll-out, was supposedly devised to shed light on the news-gathering process. The FCC explained that they wanted “to ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight [Critical Information Needs] and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

Where are the “dog whistle” decoders when you need them? Show of hands as to how many in the audience think “underserved populations” refers to disaffected conservative news consumers? Does anyone believe that “perceived station bias” is the province of the federal government to identify and/or correct? And in what universe is it the domain of communications regulatory agency to identify “critical information needs” that extend beyond alerting the public to civic emergencies?

The lack of outrage from the establishment press over this infringement on the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment was powerfully captured in the lack of “outcry” this story inspired Wednesday on Fox’s On the Record. A visibly incensed Greta Van Susteren seemed truly confounded by The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard and WaPo‘s Karen Tumulty, both of whom could only muster a head shake and an eye-roll in response to this infringement on the autonomy of journalists. Watch here [post continues below that]:

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

I have argued that the foolish way in which the FCC went about imposing themselves on newsrooms (including print newsrooms, which are beyond the purview of the FCC to regulate) would likely result in this study being scuttled or scaled down. Americans should be far more concerned with the FCC’s quiet plan to make a third attempt at imposing the tenets of net neutrality on the internet and to regulate yet another field of communications which courts have previously ruled is beyond the reach of this body. The FCC’s determination to expand its influence beyond the realm of television and radio is self-evident.

But there is room in American thought for two simultaneous outrages, particularly when the infractions are as egregious as these.

Perhaps the political class has simply become accustomed to regulatory agency overreach. There is no shortage of examples of this form of sprawl; from the FCC, or the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or the Federal Trade Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Internal Revenue Service, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive, etc., etc.

But the journalistic community, of all communities, should be acutely aware of the threat posed by these ever-expanding bureaucracies. It would seem, however, that episodes like the most recent infraction by the FCC have become so commonplace that the establishment media is unmoved by them to the point of indifference.

If there’s one “critical information need” that the media should be providing the public, it is to keep government’s endless ambition in check. But most of the supposedly non-ideological media could only muster a chuckle. To the extent that it was covered, as exemplified by The Post, the FCC’s plan to invade newsrooms was covered as a political story – one of relevance only to conservatives.

That is toxic. That is terrifying.

[Doogle]

..because the bootlickers knew Odungo wanted to go after FOX and Rush.....

[RginTN]

The leftwing media doesn’t want a free press. Leftists think the govt should control all media. I’ve had talks with such Leftists who also think the Constitution says the govt should provide for the general welfare. Marxists idiots.

[onyx]

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
~Harry S Truman, August 8, 1950

You'd better believe Free Republic is important.


Free Republic is Your Voice and Your Forum!
We Really Need and Appreciate Your Loyal Support!

PLEASE Make Your Donation Today, Monthly, if You POSSIBLY & RELIABLY can!

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
~Harry S Truman, August 8, 1950

You'd better believe Free Republic is important.


Free Republic is Your Voice and Your Forum!
We Really Need and Appreciate Your Loyal Support!

PLEASE Make Your Donation Today, Monthly, if You POSSIBLY & RELIABLY can!

[jespasinthru]

Because it is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Duh!

[skinkinthegrass]

if you control it; why "monitor" it?

[Political Junkie Too]

It's because they're all married to each other on the liberal side. As far as they are concerned, what's the difference if the government is in their office or in their bedroom, since it's the same people in either case.

-PJ

[max americana]

“Leftists think the govt should control all media.”

Been saying that for years. The objective for modern liberalism is to have the gubmint’ be your god, guardian and parent. Simply put, liberals want to be slaves and that’s why they get a hard on’ for commie dictators.

[firebrand]

I think there were some. I saw Lanny Davis mentioned. When the press/media is attacked, they usually see the light. The Associated Press snooping etc. Too bad they only react when their ox is gored, except for a very special few.

[ArmstedFragg]

Put it in the category of an admission. They knew the proposal wouldn’t be applied to them.

[Hostage]

It’s a good question but I think the answer should be fairly obvious.

Conservative news media (Fox News, Talk Radio, etc.) have soundly defeated their counterparts on the liberal side.

The Fairness doctrine comes to mind, that liberal news media support such doctrines because it brings them an audience that they wouldn’t have otherwise.

The short answer is because it’s good for business on the liberal side.

[Gene Eric]

Cuz when the Libs complained no one listened, no one cared...

[firebrand]

And remember Daniel Pearl? If only that level of outrage was reached at every beheading by the religion of two pieces.

[dennisw]

The proposed study, conducted by an outside contractor with no experience studying communications, and which has virtually imploded on the launch pad due entirely to the incompetence of its design and roll-out, was supposedly devised to shed light on the news-gathering process.

As always follow the money in DC.
My bet is that useless eater Mignon Clyburn knows these contractors. That these contractors are "connected" are "dialed in". Feeding at the public trough all the time meaning they do not exist without taxpayers money

Mignon Clyburn is head of FCC and daughter of well known black racist James Clyburn. Congress critter from South Carolina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mignon_Clyburn        named after a steak is what Rush said about her (lulz)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The spectacular imbecility in which the FCC, the regulatory commission which wields over news outlets the ability to renew or revoke their license to broadcast, approached this voluntary study inspired more chortles than shudders from journalists -– that is, those journalists who fancy themselves neutral political arbiters.

Theodore Roosevelt famously asserted that

"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . . 

The idea that journalism is superior to production of goods and services is the idea that it is “the critic who counts.” And if that be true, the logical corollary is that “the critic” should be in charge of “the man in the arena” who organizes production. Put that way, I hope it is clear that, and why, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between a socialist politician and a journalist. Other than the funny hat with a “Press” card sticking out of the headband that the journalist notionally wears . . .

The same “liberal" who was a politician yesterday can, today, be hired as a journalist - and instantly be promoted as being “objective” (“neutral,” in this article).

If there’s one “critical information need” that the media should be providing the public, it is to keep government’s endless ambition in check. But most of the supposedly non-ideological media could only muster a chuckle. To the extent that it was covered, as exemplified by The Post, the FCC’s plan to invade newsrooms was covered as a political story – one of relevance only to conservatives.

That is toxic. That is terrifying.

It is actually a reprise of the “Fairness Doctrine” which was the bane of conservatives until Reagan got rid of it, and which prevented “conservative" talk radio. Now we have the experience of the fact that “conservative" discussion blossoms in the absence of the pseudo fairness of government regulation - and we don’t wanna go back to “all government, all the time” radio.

The reality is that the broadcasting of journalism - defined as short-deadline nonfiction - is unnecessary (the Republic did without it for over a hundred years) and illegitimate (because of its tendency to crowd out “conservative” perspectives which take time to adequately develop but which are far more likely to stand the test of time). The government not only shouldn’t be in the business, it shouldn’t be licensing and putting its imprimatur on the business, either.

[Olog-hai]

Yes; they misinterpret “promote the general Welfare” in the Premable as “provide social welfare”. Deliberately, of course.

[onyx]

She is no longer in charge, but you're right. She is the communist who came up with this horrid idea.

FCC Leadership

[Darksheare]

Minion be her name.

[RginTN]

Actually this Marxist didn’t misinterpet that line at all. She wrote that is what is should say. And wrote it intentionally wrong. She thought no one would correct her.
Ofcourse she wasn’t dealing with Conservatives who were taught CommonCore civics.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

A lot of the FCC’s strategies came from an avowed Marxist organization called “Free Press”, led by a college professor (the name Joel Rodgers comes to mind, but you will need to Google “Free Press” for some history).

One of the FP members got a job as FCC leftist Commissioner Genochowski’s aide. Talk about an inside job. No security check for this red gal.

FP called for Net Neutrality as a method for teh FCC to take away or withhold re-licensing of stations/networks if they did not carry leftist crap to balance conservative items.

Now they have changed their tactics but not their goals.

So-called “Free Speech” and “First Amendment” organizations on the Far Left and just plain Left are not protesting because they are more devoted to silencing conservatives and anti-communists than they are devoted to upholding the First Amendment.

Their efforts have been thwarted for a while, but they will find another way to hamper, hinder or silence conservative voices. Color them Red.