Posted on 02/21/2014 11:59:30 PM PST by 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.
Socialists are not troubled by authoritanism -- so long as it's their guy.
Inside every liberal, there is an "inner totalitarian" struggling to get out.
They understand that coercion will be necessary to achieve their goals for society.
Because to get control, you have to monitor the media to allow the problem reporters to be identified and dealt with. The gov't has an agenda and to be sucessful, the media has to be controlled.
Start watching at 4 minutes to see one of the ways the press helped the US government discredit the witnesses to the biggest crime in history.
The video has nothing to do with the discussion but actually it has EVERYTHING to do with it. The US government learned how to control the media decades ago but now is much more effective and radical than the first baby steps back then. We no longer have any semblance of a free press.
Get control of the press and you can destroy America without firing a shot.
We have seen many examples. The Obama regime has given them the confidence to come out with their true beliefs. Shelia Jackson Lee has done so in many stupid ways. Many blacks take it as a personal insult that we don't bow and scrape to their mocha messiah.
The dog that doesn’t bark knows its owner.
They can feel free to be personally insulted all they want. I won't bow to their punk a$$ MO FO messiah in a million eternities. Do you think that is long enough?
IIRC, as Rush explained, this plot of censorship intimidation was exposed by one of the two Republican FCC board members (three are Democrat).
While likely not an overt plan to conduct actual censorship at this point, the plan definitely was a RECCE to get the lay of the land and find out where the main forces need to be positioned.
This plan would result in such a battle plan in a year or two where the entire industry would be presented with a regulatory fait accompli much like Obamacare. And in its execution, they would be making up all sorts of sh!t as they go along - just like Obama.
Because the plan is for the FCC to do an IRS and only go after conservatives.
Why Did the FCC’s Plan to Invade Newsrooms Only Inspire ‘Conservative Outcry’?
Because most of the media, with few exceptions, already marches in lockstep with this corrupt administration, and will not be bothered by government control.
The democrat party has embraced radical communism, and whole heartedly approves of the march towards fascism.
Clearly, the Dimwit Dem and his Dimwit buddies were in collusion---in a sub rosa conspiracy---perhaps even planning legislation to effect a defeat for the USA?
HOW DID THIS MORON GET INTO OFFICE? The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that Clyburn's constituents have apparently been educated in public schools----and therefore are operating with an even lower IQ than the sap-happy congressman.
SOURCE: http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-obama-initiative-tramples-first-amendment-protections/article/2544363
=======================================
Social Solutions International web site
http://www.socialsolutions.biz/cms/index.php
(FROM THE SPANISH/ENGLISH WEB SITE) Social Solutions is a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of positive change for underserved populations. Our work touches those in our community and in countries worldwide. We are a mission-driven organization that believes that superior science can improve the world--services including parent child communication about sexuality for African American and Latino families---international evaluation of drug treatment and prevention programs in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean funded by the US Department of State.
Social Solutions
Suite 201
8070 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 1 (866) 901-6583
Fax: 1 (866) 369-6809
email@socialsolutions.biz
Rep Jim Clyburnn (Dim-SC)
In 2009, when she was still just a nominee for the Federal Communications Commission, Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of Rep. Jim Clyburn (DIM-SC), told the Senate Commerce Committee, “The FCC is not in the content business.”
But just over a year since she was confirmed, the FCC is marching forward with a questionnaire for newsrooms that critics have ripped as invasive – and possibly a shot across the bow in a push to reinstate the Reagan-era fairness doctrine.
Titled the "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the FCC will send researchers to question reporters, editors, and broadcast station owners about their editorial decision-making, among other issues.
Outcry about the questionnaire has already prompted the FCC to backpeddle. In a Feb. 14 letter to Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the questionnaire is being amended and that the FCC “has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists."
However, the move has spooked freedom of speech advocates.
“News outlets have the freedom to decide what information Americans need to know. It is not the government’s place to decide what information is ‘critical’ and what is not. That’s why it is inappropriate for a government agency to ask news organizations why they are covering certain stories but not others,” FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said in a statement to Breitbart News.
“And that’s why there has been a groundswell of public opposition to the CIN study. The government has no place in the newsroom, and I will oppose any study that involves the FCC entering it," he added.
Mignon Clyburn, whose father is a vocal proponent of the fairness doctrine, will be running the CIN study. Interestingly, a field test of the CIN will be happening in Jim Clyburn’s own home state of South Carolina within the city limits of Columbia.
Not only conservatives - Howard Stern caught on...
correct——— another hack who never wants to be forced to work in the dreaded private sector. She has been on Gov’t welfare for a few decades via a few Gov’t jobs
Great thread. It answers “Why”. From the socialist mind of FDR (one of KingHussein’s heroes), and one of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. - United Socialists of America.
http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/communications_act.htm
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
“...over this infringement on the spirit, if not the letter,...”
This is why it will come to bloodshed, because NO ONE will EVER call a spade a SPADE. It was an absolute outrage against the law.
Hi Liz
My opinion is its all about “gettin paid” They will do and say what it takes to keep getting paid by the taxpayers. They are extremely allergic to laboring in the dreaded private sector. All Federal taxpayers have to chip in to pay racist idiots like the Clyburn father and he is entrenched. The black district he represents is poor so they aren’t paying him. You and I are!!!!!!
There is more to this. I believe that what the DOJ did to the Fox reporter (James Rosen?) and to Cheryl Atkinnson was a trial balloon to see if this would fly. When nothing came out of that and no one was punished, they figured they could sneak this through.
One thing we know now is the left is going all out to make sure that in 2014 and 2016 they solidify their positions. Which means cheating, lying and intimidation.
While I do not agree with it and will no longer vote for the RINO, maybe this isn’t the time to fight amongst ourselves. That just maybe, the RINO’s are so intimidated by the rats that they do not know how to get the correct message out.
I am thinking the right side of the media is thinking that first having the majority, then fight for the ideological directon is more important than having the ideology part first. You have to fight from strength and having the majority is strength.
Just my dos centavos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.