Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No I suggestion the FCC has some interest in regulating "independant local news " sources following the model of KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org model.
Im not aware of any right wing or centrist Not for prfit news orgs they all seem to be leftwing.
I didnt think the news needed to be more leftwing... there must be a point to it ?
Many of the elements of Copps's proposal suffer from the same defect of subjective values. Copps made it clear that he was discussing "quantifiable" changes in news programming - as opposed to qualitative ones, which would affect the content of coverage, not simply the amount, or the resources devoted to it. But who determines how much local coverage is enough? How "local" does coverage need to be to fall under the definition? Who decides which issues are most important to the community? Copps would say the community would decide, but who reconciles the inevitable disagreements within the community?
Some of those questions have actually been answered in previous examinations of "localism." Under prior formulations of the concept, "community advisory boards" would hold hearings to decide whether broadcast content satisfied the "needs" of the local community. Though it sounds reasonable, those boards would represent direct government control over radio and broadcast television content.
Read more: Is FCC Commissioner Michael Copps Trying to Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? | NewsBusters.org
These are totalitarian diktats forcing private companies to fund anti-capitalist entities who wish to see their newly conscripted benefactors ended, imposed by a rogue FCC that lords too much power over private agreements between private parties.
Read more: Did FCC Pressure Comcast to Incorporate 'Localism' Into NBC Deal? | NewsBusters.org
Newsbusters??? Oh, well, now THAT lends more credence to the panic.
I'm seriously beginning to think there must be a gene missing in some of your brains to actually believe all the crap you see on the Internet's heavily biased blogsites.
I don't care who it is, the koch bros., soros, the muppets ..it sounds like, ...that is sounds like the FCC has decided to attach a rider to a merger that tells the buyer they have to hand over a segment of coverage/air time to...well anyone? forget who it is, how is this legal or better yet justifiable?
I don't care who it is, the koch bros., soros, the muppets ..it sounds like, ...that is sounds like the FCC has decided to attach a rider to a merger that tells the buyer they have to hand over a segment of coverage/air time to...well anyone? forget who it is, how is this legal or better yet justifiable?
I think what they're probably TRYING to do is get the corporate influence out of news reporting.
"Proponents of the growing nonprofit news movement are hoping that NBCs FCC-mandated efforts will bear fruit and encourage other commercial TV stations to seek out nonprofit partners."
Fitnah seems to think nonprofit = leftist influence, which is hogwash. I'm interpreting it as the FCC looking for complete nonbias, at least in local reporting. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't care who it is, the koch bros., soros, the muppets ..it sounds like, ...that is sounds like the FCC has decided to attach a rider to a merger that tells the buyer they have to hand over a segment of coverage/air time to...well anyone? forget who it is, how is this legal or better yet justifiable?
the airwaves are public property.
yes in that they are regulated, does this regulation extend to telling a broadcaster what they have to allow or not as to on air content that does not break the regulations as to say explicit content?
A price must be paid to the public.
this means what exactly? carrying the signals of the emergency BC system, when told too?
No I suggestion the FCC has some interest in regulating "independant local news " sources following the model of KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org model.
Im not aware of any right wing or centrist Not for prfit news orgs they all seem to be leftwing.
I didnt think the news needed to be more leftwing... there must be a point to it ?
Many of the elements of Copps's proposal suffer from the same defect of subjective values. Copps made it clear that he was discussing "quantifiable" changes in news programming - as opposed to qualitative ones, which would affect the content of coverage, not simply the amount, or the resources devoted to it. But who determines how much local coverage is enough? How "local" does coverage need to be to fall under the definition? Who decides which issues are most important to the community? Copps would say the community would decide, but who reconciles the inevitable disagreements within the community?
Some of those questions have actually been answered in previous examinations of "localism." Under prior formulations of the concept, "community advisory boards" would hold hearings to decide whether broadcast content satisfied the "needs" of the local community. Though it sounds reasonable, those boards would represent direct government control over radio and broadcast television content.
Read more: Is FCC Commissioner Michael Copps Trying to Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? | NewsBusters.org
These are totalitarian diktats forcing private companies to fund anti-capitalist entities who wish to see their newly conscripted benefactors ended, imposed by a rogue FCC that lords too much power over private agreements between private parties.
Read more: Did FCC Pressure Comcast to Incorporate 'Localism' Into NBC Deal? | NewsBusters.org
No I suggestion the FCC has some interest in regulating "independant local news " sources following the model of KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org model.
Im not aware of any right wing or centrist Not for prfit news orgs they all seem to be leftwing.
I didnt think the news needed to be more leftwing... there must be a point to it ?
Many of the elements of Copps's proposal suffer from the same defect of subjective values. Copps made it clear that he was discussing "quantifiable" changes in news programming - as opposed to qualitative ones, which would affect the content of coverage, not simply the amount, or the resources devoted to it. But who determines how much local coverage is enough? How "local" does coverage need to be to fall under the definition? Who decides which issues are most important to the community? Copps would say the community would decide, but who reconciles the inevitable disagreements within the community?
Some of those questions have actually been answered in previous examinations of "localism." Under prior formulations of the concept, "community advisory boards" would hold hearings to decide whether broadcast content satisfied the "needs" of the local community. Though it sounds reasonable, those boards would represent direct government control over radio and broadcast television content.
Read more: Is FCC Commissioner Michael Copps Trying to Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? | NewsBusters.org
These are totalitarian diktats forcing private companies to fund anti-capitalist entities who wish to see their newly conscripted benefactors ended, imposed by a rogue FCC that lords too much power over private agreements between private parties.
Read more: Did FCC Pressure Comcast to Incorporate 'Localism' Into NBC Deal? | NewsBusters.org
Newsbusters??? Oh, well, now THAT lends more credence to the panic.
I'm seriously beginning to think there must be a gene missing in some of your brains to actually believe all the crap you see on the Internet's heavily biased blogsites.
what do you object to in this article..exactly?
Did FCC Pressure Comcast to Incorporate 'Localism' Into NBC Deal?
Read more: Did FCC Pressure Comcast to Incorporate 'Localism' Into NBC Deal? | NewsBusters.org
Only in your mind.
The FCC did something that benefited Murdoch.
The FCC did something that benefited Soros.
Both have or will have presence in the local arena to spew their extreme ideologies.
I don't care who it is, the koch bros., soros, the muppets ..it sounds like, ...that is sounds like the FCC has decided to attach a rider to a merger that tells the buyer they have to hand over a segment of coverage/air time to...well anyone? forget who it is, how is this legal or better yet justifiable?
I think what they're probably TRYING to do is get the corporate influence out of news reporting.
"Proponents of the growing nonprofit news movement are hoping that NBC’s FCC-mandated efforts will bear fruit and encourage other commercial TV stations to seek out nonprofit partners."
Fitnah seems to think nonprofit = leftist influence, which is hogwash. I'm interpreting it as the FCC looking for complete nonbias, at least in local reporting. And there's nothing wrong with that.
so if the ownership, the corp. cannot influence their property, who can? who says they the 'non profits' are any better? nonbias? whose nonbias? In whose eyes?
can you make a case for comcast influence that is any less or more detrimental to what again?
I dont think the agenda is hidden in anyway shape or form with the exception of willfull blindness.I'm objecting not to the quoted material on the FCC ruling, but the direct implication that nonprofits have some hidden agenda, which they will now be allowed to spew even more on the local news channels. That's crap.
I think what they're probably TRYING to do is get the corporate influence out of news reporting.
"Proponents of the growing nonprofit news movement are hoping that NBCs FCC-mandated efforts will bear fruit and encourage other commercial TV stations to seek out nonprofit partners."
Fitnah seems to think nonprofit = leftist influence, which is hogwash. I'm interpreting it as the FCC looking for complete nonbias, at least in local reporting. And there's nothing wrong with that.
so if the ownership, the corp. cannot influence their property, who can? who says they the 'non profits' are any better? nonbias? whose nonbias? In whose eyes?
can you make a case for comcast influence that is any less or more detrimental to what again?
Content is obviously the decision of the ownership. When something is blatantly biased, then I do think it's fair to accuse the organization of being unfair. But to just assume that some sort of partnership with nonprofit news groups is going to be biased to the left is ridiciulous. I get all three networks, of course, and my local news at 6AM and 6PM, and I've never tried to "notice" if they're being biased. With only an hour twice a day, I hardly think local news management has any intention of getting into political frays, and I'm confident people watching local news in San Diego feel the same way I do.
You posted that just to make your point about George Soros, period. So with FoxNews denigrating him on a regular basis, your choice of where you get your own news is pretty obvious. If you don't like the new local news format because you're scared it will suddenly be preaching new world orders and caliphates coming soon to a town near you, then go out and buy a local newspaper.
Sorry, Trajan, I momentarily forgot that I wasn't responding to Mr. Fitnah. I know you didn't post the opener, so ignore the last paragraph. It was for him.
Content is obviously the decision of the ownership.
No I suggestion the FCC has some interest in regulating "independant local news " sources following the model of KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org model.
Im not aware of any right wing or centrist Not for prfit news orgs they all seem to be leftwing.
I didnt think the news needed to be more leftwing... there must be a point to it ?
Many of the elements of Copps's proposal suffer from the same defect of subjective values. Copps made it clear that he was discussing "quantifiable" changes in news programming - as opposed to qualitative ones, which would affect the content of coverage, not simply the amount, or the resources devoted to it. But who determines how much local coverage is enough? How "local" does coverage need to be to fall under the definition? Who decides which issues are most important to the community? Copps would say the community would decide, but who reconciles the inevitable disagreements within the community?
Some of those questions have actually been answered in previous examinations of "localism." Under prior formulations of the concept, "community advisory boards" would hold hearings to decide whether broadcast content satisfied the "needs" of the local community. Though it sounds reasonable, those boards would represent direct government control over radio and broadcast television content.
Read more: Is FCC Commissioner Michael Copps Trying to Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? | NewsBusters.org
These are totalitarian diktats forcing private companies to fund anti-capitalist entities who wish to see their newly conscripted benefactors ended, imposed by a rogue FCC that lords too much power over private agreements between private parties.
Read more: Did FCC Pressure Comcast to Incorporate 'Localism' Into NBC Deal? | NewsBusters.org
Kudos to the 'Paul Revere of USMB': Mr. F!
More links folks should know about:
1. Net neutrality rules must be implemented while the government should quintuple federal funding for public and community broadcasting, argued Ben Scott, the State Departments recently appointed policy adviser for innovation.
2. Scott was writing last year in a radical magazine in an article co-authored by Robert W. McChesney (left), an avowed Marxist activist who has called for the dismantlement, brick-by-brick, of the U.S. capitalist system, with America being rebuilt as a socialist society.
3. McChesney is the founder of the George Soros-funded Free Press, which petitions for more government control of the Internet and news media.
4. Scott and McChesney also recommended the U.S. impose ownership limits on local radio, TV, and cable channels while pushing for more control of the media by the FCC.
5. In February 2009, McChesney wrote in a column, In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.
6. The board of Free Press has included a slew of radicals, such as Obamas former green jobs czar Van Jones, who resigned after it was exposed he founded a communist organization.
7. In May, Free Press published a study advocating the development of a world class government-run media system in the U.S.
8. Free Press has ties to other members of the Obama administration:
Obamas Internet czar, Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Presss May 14, 2009, Changing Media summit in Washington, D.C.
Crawfords pet project, OneWebNow, lists as participating organizations Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition teams Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George Soros-funded public interest group.
A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.
Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros Open Society Institute.
Klein: Look who wants to quintuple funding for government media. State adviser, Marxist also want more FCC control of airwaves RBO
No I suggestion the FCC has some interest in regulating "independant local news " sources following the model of KNSD-VoiceOfSanDiego.org model.
Im not aware of any right wing or centrist Not for prfit news orgs they all seem to be leftwing.
I didnt think the news needed to be more leftwing... there must be a point to it ?
Many of the elements of Copps's proposal suffer from the same defect of subjective values. Copps made it clear that he was discussing "quantifiable" changes in news programming - as opposed to qualitative ones, which would affect the content of coverage, not simply the amount, or the resources devoted to it. But who determines how much local coverage is enough? How "local" does coverage need to be to fall under the definition? Who decides which issues are most important to the community? Copps would say the community would decide, but who reconciles the inevitable disagreements within the community?
Some of those questions have actually been answered in previous examinations of "localism." Under prior formulations of the concept, "community advisory boards" would hold hearings to decide whether broadcast content satisfied the "needs" of the local community. Though it sounds reasonable, those boards would represent direct government control over radio and broadcast television content.
Read more: Is FCC Commissioner Michael Copps Trying to Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? | NewsBusters.org
These are totalitarian diktats forcing private companies to fund anti-capitalist entities who wish to see their newly conscripted benefactors ended, imposed by a rogue FCC that lords too much power over private agreements between private parties.
Read more: Did FCC Pressure Comcast to Incorporate 'Localism' Into NBC Deal? | NewsBusters.org
Kudos to the 'Paul Revere of USMB': Mr. F!
More links folks should know about:
1. Net neutrality rules must be implemented while the government should quintuple federal funding for public and community broadcasting, argued Ben Scott, the State Departments recently appointed policy adviser for innovation.
2. Scott was writing last year in a radical magazine in an article co-authored by Robert W. McChesney (left), an avowed Marxist activist who has called for the dismantlement, brick-by-brick, of the U.S. capitalist system, with America being rebuilt as a socialist society.
3. McChesney is the founder of the George Soros-funded Free Press, which petitions for more government control of the Internet and news media.
4. Scott and McChesney also recommended the U.S. impose ownership limits on local radio, TV, and cable channels while pushing for more control of the media by the FCC.
5. In February 2009, McChesney wrote in a column, In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.
6. The board of Free Press has included a slew of radicals, such as Obamas former green jobs czar Van Jones, who resigned after it was exposed he founded a communist organization.
7. In May, Free Press published a study advocating the development of a world class government-run media system in the U.S.
8. Free Press has ties to other members of the Obama administration:
Obamas Internet czar, Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Presss May 14, 2009, Changing Media summit in Washington, D.C.
Crawfords pet project, OneWebNow, lists as participating organizations Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition teams Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George Soros-funded public interest group.
A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.
Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros Open Society Institute.
Klein: Look who wants to quintuple funding for government media. State adviser, Marxist also want more FCC control of airwaves RBO
Ooooohhhh, another major conspiracy brewing to take over all media. Uh huh... I wonder why the right wasn't complaining when some _______ist advisor to George Bush tried to feed news to al Jazeera to make it appear the U.S. were such good guys in Iraq, or allow the FCC under Republican control to approve a monopoly by News Corps to own and operate all Clear Channel airwaves, or even to attempt to censure scientific data. Where was the outrage then?
I don't care who it is, the koch bros., soros, the muppets ..it sounds like, ...that is sounds like the FCC has decided to attach a rider to a merger that tells the buyer they have to hand over a segment of coverage/air time to...well anyone? forget who it is, how is this legal or better yet justifiable?
yes in that they are regulated, does this regulation extend to telling a broadcaster what they have to allow or not as to on air content that does not break the regulations as to say explicit content?
A price must be paid to the public.
this means what exactly? carrying the signals of the emergency BC system, when told too?
You need educatin.
the news used to be a public service not a money making enterprise.
You need educatin.
the news used to be a public service not a money making enterprise.
yes in that they are regulated, does this regulation extend to telling a broadcaster what they have to allow or not as to on air content that does not break the regulations as to say explicit content?
this means what exactly? carrying the signals of the emergency BC system, when told too?
You need educatin.
the news used to be a public service not a money making enterprise.
I am well aware, thx for the 'advice'.
I addressed the point of the news divisions at networks undergoing a 'shift' becoming a profit center in the mid 70's at length in another thread.
and the other part of the post?
[
You need educatin.
the news used to be a public service not a money making enterprise.
so if the ownership, the corp. cannot influence their property, who can? who says they the 'non profits' are any better? nonbias? whose nonbias? In whose eyes?
can you make a case for comcast influence that is any less or more detrimental to what again?
Content is obviously the decision of the ownership. When something is blatantly biased, then I do think it's fair to accuse the organization of being unfair. But to just assume that some sort of partnership with nonprofit news groups is going to be biased to the left is ridiciulous. I get all three networks, of course, and my local news at 6AM and 6PM, and I've never tried to "notice" if they're being biased. With only an hour twice a day, I hardly think local news management has any intention of getting into political frays, and I'm confident people watching local news in San Diego feel the same way I do.
You posted that just to make your point about George Soros, period. So with FoxNews denigrating him on a regular basis, your choice of where you get your own news is pretty obvious. If you don't like the new local news format because you're scared it will suddenly be preaching new world orders and caliphates coming soon to a town near you, then go out and buy a local newspaper.
Sorry, Trajan, I momentarily forgot that I wasn't responding to Mr. Fitnah. I know you didn't post the opener, so ignore the last paragraph. It was for him.
Content is obviously the decision of the ownership.
well it doesn't appear so here
if it appears that the op is reaching so is the FCC, why would they insert themselves into the process in this fashion minus data and proof that comcast needs to share their broadcasts due to ....what? Where is the offense? THEY, the FCC are initiating the change, so I think the burden falls on them.
It appears to me that there is no offense to be corrected because they just bought it,apparently there is a presumption of comcast bias, and this needs to be corrected in the fashion they have outlined? so wheres does this all come from? who says that a non profit just because its a nonprofit no matter who owns or manages it has any less bias or less blatantly bias than something they have not even shown nor proven vis a vis comcast............its a fix looking for a problem which I don't see presented anywhere.
Although the stations must cooperate with the non-profits, they are not obliged to carry any of the programming they produce, the source said.
The requirements imposed on the Comcast-GE joint venture are hardly onerous. Anyone who remembers the broadcast license renewal regime in the pre-Mark Fowler era knows that. Thousands of hours of additional local programming spread across how many O&Os with all their sub-channels? It is barely a return to our local public service requirements that were in force until the mid 1980s. In addition, requirements for local programming sometimes, if not often, bring out some genuine creative genius in the program and news staff. Some of the programs they created went on to success in syndication. One in particular comes to mind...it used to be a local show on New York's WABC-TV. It is now "Live with Regis & Kelly." Local programming is not only good business for a TV station, but it also creates a farm team for bigger platforms. If broadcasters are to remain central to the mass media business, they have to be creative. If Comcast and General Electric found the requirements at odds with their business model, they could have fought them or dropped the joint venture plan.
