What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd assume it's because 'news channels' fall under a certain category, and given how Fox and MSNBC are now little more than propaganda outlets, they might have to be reclassified.

As usual, you would be wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ONLY think the FCC ought to be concerned about is their willingness to allow media

Monopolies​

to exist.

Who to blame?

BLAME BTH PARTIES, that's who.

I blame government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was resently announced that the FCC would be doing investigations into the content (and reasons behind it) of news outlets.

First Amendment breach anyone?
(Anyone else scared as all #}//)

What’s ‘frightening’ is the extent of your ignorance and stupidity, and anyone else who believes this constitutes a First Amendment ‘violation.’

Yes, because the FCC is now questioning the free speech of the news organizations. That you don't see that is beyond frightening...considering your profession.

When did janitor become a profession?

 

[Dante]

Fearing another thread, I thought I'd take a stap, but first it would be helpful to at least understand what the FCC is doing. The FCC purportedly wants to learn whether people are getting the news/information that deem important. The FCC contracted with some private polling company. The methodology is summarized below, and you can find the actual information by tracking down an internet link to the company's website describing their effort. I linked it yesterday. I found it by using "fairness doctrine" as a search term.

6 geographical areas are divided by various population categories, ethnic, disadvantaged, etc. There are (I think ) 8 general categories of news, weather and such. A sampling in each group is asked to identify what story was important within each category.

Then various new outlets, like tv and radio stations and newspapers are combed to see if they covered the stories. Also, the study seeks to match the ethnic/socio-econ/age group the news outlets say is there audience with the population category sampled. For example, is there a tv station that says it serves a latino population, but doesn't report what latinos said was important.

At this point, it seems innocuous. The FCC allocates space on radio and broadcast tv. It has an interest. HOWEVER, WHAT WILL THE FCC DO WITH THE INFO

In the civil rights era, the FCC forced minority owned media into markets by taking away (or not renewing) licenses from whites. I think its a fair bet that all news radio will not be catering to this market.

Imo, the results would be a useful tool. Unlike 1960, there is no minority group that isn't allowed to buy goods anywhere they want, or to vote (well the gop's gonna get rid of that maybe, but still). But if there's some group that advertisers aren't reaching .... I see an economic opportunity for private news providers.

BUT IS THE FCC GOING TO USE A FAIRNESS view that seeks to have all groups served by all kinds of media? Seriously, is the gummit gonna argue that some poor group isn't being adequately informed?

I saw Ajit Varadaraj Pai on the dreaded MSNBC (Jack Tapper) and he was all aflutter over this .. but I happen to k now he's a conservative reactionary - American Legislative Exchange Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - AJIT said there was no evidence the media had issues with keeping others out. We all know there is a small consortium of people who own most of the major and secondary media. Blogs on the world wide web are mere pamphlets with very little power compared to the smallest major media outlet

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correct.

It would also help to understand what constitutes a violation of freedom of the press.

And the FCC's news monitoring isn’t it.

Prior restraint concerns the government’s desire to not allow certain information to be disseminated via the news media, where news organizations that do so are subject to potential punitive measures.

In order for prior restraint to be justified, the government must have a compelling and documented interest, such as not broadcasting sensitive military information that could endanger soldiers’ lives.

In the case of the FCC's news monitoring, there is no information the government is seeking to disallow news organizations from broadcasting, and no news origination is subject to any potential punitive measure.

Absent these two fundamental elements, therefore, it’s nonsense to claim that freedom of the press is being ‘violated,’ and those who do so merely exhibit their ignorance, or are partisan demagogues attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists.

The FCC Commisioner disagrees with you.

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 notinfringe on our constitutional freedoms.

That's not "the FCC Commissioner" -- it's one of the five Commissioners. And again, he's a Republican. Appointed by O'bama. And writing in a Murdoch newspaper.

For shit's sake people, look at the context.

That does not change the fact that the study has been canceled, despite your claim that it is a legitimate exercise of the FCC charter, which was only made after people forced you to admit you don't know everything.

 

[Dante]

Everyone despises the msm yet they fear any look into it because of ideological gamesmanship?

Big media wins one again!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone despises the msm yet they fear any look into it because of ideological gamesmanship?

Big media wins one again!!!

Damn, I am consistent about not letting the government **** with people, I should be shot.

 

[blackhawk]

This dumb idea has been shot down as it should be the media already has a monitor the public if they don't like what they are seeing and hearing from any media outlet turn them off.

 

[Dante]

Everyone despises the msm yet they fear any look into it because of ideological gamesmanship?

Big media wins one again!!!

Damn, I am consistent about not letting the government **** with people, I should be shot.

The government looking into businesses it grants licenses to in the name of the people need to be fucked and fucked with

 

[Dante]

This dumb idea has been shot down as it should be the media already has a monitor the public if they don't like what they are seeing and hearing from any media outlet turn them off.

Choices? Try and get a 'public' license to use the people's airwaves


When the choices of major media are limited there is no choice without regulation insuring so.

Things have not improved over the years unless you believe blogs and radio have as large an audience as msm

 

[blackhawk]

This dumb idea has been shot down as it should be the media already has a monitor the public if they don't like what they are seeing and hearing from any media outlet turn them off.

Choices? Try and get a 'public' license to use the people's airwaves


When the choices of major media are limited there is no choice without regulation insuring so.

Things have not improved over the years unless you believe blogs and radio have as large an audience as msm

Utterly pointless response there is plenty of choice out there your just looking to argue for the sake of arguing I'm sure someone will want to spend Friday doing that with you I pass have a nice night.

 

[Dante]

This dumb idea has been shot down as it should be the media already has a monitor the public if they don't like what they are seeing and hearing from any media outlet turn them off.

Choices? Try and get a 'public' license to use the people's airwaves


When the choices of major media are limited there is no choice without regulation insuring so.

Things have not improved over the years unless you believe blogs and radio have as large an audience as msm

Utterly pointless response there is plenty of choice out there your just looking to argue for the sake of arguing I'm sure someone will want to spend Friday doing that with you I pass have a nice night.

Plenty of choice in the licensed media? Not when fewer and fewer people own more and more of major media

 

[Pogo]

The FCC Commisioner disagrees with you.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY

That's not "the FCC Commissioner" -- it's one of the five Commissioners. And again, he's a Republican. Appointed by O'bama. And writing in a Murdoch newspaper.

For shit's sake people, look at the context.

That does not change the fact that the study has been canceled, despite your claim that it is a legitimate exercise of the FCC charter, which was only made after people forced you to admit you don't know everything.

... Huh?

Hittin' the bottle a bit early today arencha? What is it, Friday?

 

[Pogo]

The FCC Commisioner disagrees with you.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY

That's not "the FCC Commissioner" -- it's one of the five Commissioners. And again, he's a Republican. Appointed by O'bama. And writing in a Murdoch newspaper.

For shit's sake people, look at the context.

Why would Obama appoint a Republican?

He wouldn't, unless he needed another scapegoat.

Because it's required. FCC structure says that no more than three commissioners can belong to the same party. It's part of that structure designed to keep it non-partisan.

Hey, why'd he appoint Ray LaHood to transportation? Chuck Hagel to Defense?

You guys that see real differences between Democans and Republicrats are so quaint.

 

[Pogo]

That was not my challenge to you, mine to you was to point out how that was even possible under the fairness doctrine.

Exactly. It's a challenge that can't be answered, which is why it never has been. And I brought it up here in response to the bullshit in post 18 and post 24 that misrepresents what the doctrine was. And I've brought it in the past for the same purpose -- some wag starts spewing about big scary Fairness Doctrine monster with all sorts of bullshit. Usually led by Sean Hannity or Lush Rimjob with their own baseless fearmongering crapola.

I challenge them to back up the bullshit, and there IS no answer. That's the whole point. Once again, it's having a damn basis for what you're talking about versus just rambling with no source.

Exactly?

Newsflash, oh he who never says what he said, you were the one that said that it could be used that way, and then claimed that the fact that they didn't is proof that it worked.

Actually I said it could not be used that way. Hence the unanswerable challenge to prove me wrong.

Understand now?

Helloooo?


Anybody home?

 

[Pogo]

FCC Announces It Will Back Off Plan to Monitor Newsrooms | TheBlaze.com




The Federal Communications Commission said Friday that it will hold off on its study of American newsrooms after lawmakers complained it was too intrusive.

Some of the study’s proposed questions for reporters and news directors “may not have been appropriate,” FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said in a prepared statement.

“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,” she explained.

“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,” it continued. “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.”

The FCC said Friday that the proposed pilot study in South Carolina will be put on hold until further notice or until the agency can finalize a “new study design.”

“To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study,” the statement said.

Gilson stressed that future studies will not call for interviews with “media owners, news directors or reporters.”

“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,” Gilson said.


She added: “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 is supposed to examine barriers to entry for smaller businesses in the media industry. The proposed study was reportedly meant to help the FCC understand the broader picture.

“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.

-- And that contractor was Social Solutions International, whose proposal I linked last night in Post 71. They came up with these questions -- not the FCC.

... Anything else?

 

[Dante]

That's not "the FCC Commissioner" -- it's one of the five Commissioners. And again, he's a Republican. Appointed by O'bama. And writing in a Murdoch newspaper.

For shit's sake people, look at the context.

Why would Obama appoint a Republican?

He wouldn't, unless he needed another scapegoat.

Because it's required. FCC structure say that no more than three commissioners can belong to the same party. It's part of that structure designed to keep it non-partisan.

Hey, why'd he appoint Ray LaHood to transportation? Chuck Hagel to Defense?

You guys that see real differences between Democans and Republicrats are so quaint.

touche!

 

[Dante]

FCC Announces It Will Back Off Plan to Monitor Newsrooms | TheBlaze.com




The Federal Communications Commission said Friday that it will hold off on its study of American newsrooms after lawmakers complained it was too intrusive.

Some of the study’s proposed questions for reporters and news directors “may not have been appropriate,” FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said in a prepared statement.

“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,” she explained.

“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,” it continued. “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.”

The FCC said Friday that the proposed pilot study in South Carolina will be put on hold until further notice or until the agency can finalize a “new study design.”

“To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study,” the statement said.

Gilson stressed that future studies will not call for interviews with “media owners, news directors or reporters.”

“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,” Gilson said.


She added: “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 is supposed to examine barriers to entry for smaller businesses in the media industry. The proposed study was reportedly meant to help the FCC understand the broader picture.

“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.

-- And that contractor was Social Solutions International, whose proposal I linked last night in Post 71. They came up with these questions -- not the FCC.

... Anything else?

facts win every time

 

[TooTall]

You do seem to imagine a strange correlation between pajamas and RE-20s, not to mention an obsession with boys in pajamas that's more than a little weird....

But you know as well as I do that FCC has nothing to do with broadcast content and never did.

So then, this is Obama's "change we can believe in?"

Hey, managed news worked for Venezuela, why not here?


{Now breaking, the Obama war on first amendment rights has won a glorious victory, party members celebrate.}

I pointed this out waaaay back Pothead -- the FCC is a separate entity from the Administration. ANY administration. It's kept independent and nonpartisan by having commissioners appointed on staggered terms, and they can't be dominantly from one political party.

Nice try at a false equivalence, but I'd expect no less from a poster who sees every adversary as Pol Pot.

All five FCC Commisioners presently serving were appointed by Obama. At least three of them are Democrats, including the Chairman. I suggest that it may be independent, but no way is it non-partisan.

 

[HenryBHough]

There are enough make-believe Republicans (RINOs) in the world to give The New Messiah free reign to stack any agency to suit his agenda.

Sometimes a steamroller is just a steamroller.