FCC to police newsrooms

[mad cow]

What on earth is the FCC thinking?

The last thing we need is the government mucking around with news content.

The title of this Big Brother-ish effort by the Federal Communications Commission sounds innocuous enough: “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs.” But it’s a Trojan horse that puts federal officials in the newsroom, precisely where they shouldn’t be.

Don’t take my word for it. The FCC says it wants to examine “the process by which stories are selected,” as well as “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

Perceived station bias? Are you kidding me? Government bureaucrats are going to decide whether a newsroom is being fair?

Keep in mind that the commission has the power to renew or reject broadcast television licenses. During Watergate, Richard Nixon’s FCC challenged two TV licenses of stations owned by the Washington Post. So mere information gathering can become a little more serious, given that enormous clout.

As FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai notes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the commission “plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their 'news philosophy' and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.” The first test is slated for this spring in Columbia, S.C.

Unbelievable,government censors in the newsroom.More at link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/why-fcc-should-keep-its-nose-out-tv-newsrooms/

[heavenlyboy34]

So, how's that first ammendment thing working out for y'all, Constitutionalists? ;) :(

[LibertyEagle]

So, how's that first ammendment thing working out for y'all, Constitutionalists? ;) :(

Go screw yourself, hb.

Our government hasn't been following the Constitution. Is this news to you? Where ya been? Ron Paul has been talking about it for decades. That is why he went to Congress in the first place.

Do you think you are helping anything with your continual smug and pompous remarks? What are you doing to actually help? Anything at all?

[Anti Federalist]

CIA and NSA spooks have been crawling all over the production of "newz" for years now.

Of course, that does not excuse this for one second.

But hey, what do I know?

Nothing says freedom like government spooks censoring and approving "news", amirite?

Ain't that Daytona 500 coming up?

<belch>

[mad cow]

So, how's that first ammendment thing working out for y'all, Constitutionalists? ;) :(

How's it working out for y'all Constitution haters?

[Lucille]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/20/why-would-the-fcc-ask-newsrooms-about-th


[...]the commission also plans to look at newspaper and Internet content, areas that are outside the FCC's regulatory dominion.
[...]
But because it's a federal agency—worse yet, an agency that decides whether the stations it's studying will have their broadcast licenses renewed—we have a case here of regulators probing people's speech and then being in a position to use its findings against them. What's most worrisome about this research plan may be the way its authors never pause to consider whether it's appropriate for the FCC to be asking about such things in the first place. (The closest it comes is when it notes that some of its questions might be seen as "sensitive." But it treats that as a barrier to getting sources to open up, not a reason to reconsider the project.) Nor is there any awareness of the idea that the government shouldn't be in the role of deciding what news is important. (Presumably we all agree that we need to know about, say, upcoming weather emergencies. But when you start asking reporters about the stories their editors spiked, you're bound to enter dicier territory.) Evidently, the Federal Communications Commission is so accustomed to seeing itself in the information management business that it takes these things for granted.

But then, why shouldn't it? It's been regulating speech for decades now. Start worrying about this stuff, and you might start asking whether the First Amendment, properly understood, actually allows the FCC to issue licenses based on what people say or don't say on the air. And that isn't a conversation the commission will ever be eager to have.

[Anti Federalist]

How's it working out for y'all Constitution haters?

Let me come to HB's defense here a little bit...

Can you find a hole in this logic?


But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner

I suppose the only counter argument could be that we failed the constitution...and I don't have any response for that, other than to say that the writers and framers were warned what would happen, what natural human tendencies were, and how they would turn the nation into a despotic tyranny, all perfectly legally and constitutionally.

The Anti Federalists told them exactly what would happen, if the constitution was adopted as written.

They were ignored.

Then, as today.

And so, here we are.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul Departs (Congress) With ‘Our Constitution Has Failed’

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/ron-paul-departs-with-our-constitution-has-failed/

Nov 14, 2012 6:01pm

Rep. Ron Paul, the iconic libertarian congressman from Texas, has delivered what will most likely be his final address to Congress.

In a sprawling, 52-minute speech to the House chamber, Paul lambasted U.S. government, politicians and special interests, declaring that the U.S. people must return to virtue before the government allows them to be free, and that the Constitution has failed to limit the scope of an authoritarian bureaucracy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q03cWio-zjk

Rep. Ron Paul, the iconic libertarian congressman from Texas, has delivered what will most likely be his final address to Congress.

In a sprawling, 52-minute speech to the House chamber, Paul lambasted U.S. government, politicians and special interests, declaring that the U.S. people must return to virtue before the government allows them to be free, and that the Constitution has failed to limit the scope of an authoritarian bureaucracy.

“Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed,” Paul said.

“The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.”

For the retiring Republican, 77, the “current crisis” isn’t quite what it is for other members of Congress, who routinely use that word to describe the economic recession that followed the 2008 financial crash. To the Texas Republican, that’s part of it, but the causes are deeper, and it’s also a crisis of governmental authoritarianism and the vanishing of personal liberty.

“If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis, we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties,” said Paul, an obstetrician-gynecologist by training.

The problem isn’t just government’s size, but its use of force, both in starting preemptive wars and as it coerces U.S. citizens with police power. To Paul, this is the fault of Americans who no longer prioritize liberty, and it will lead to the unraveling of orderly society unless people change.

“Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society,” Paul said. “We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc., numbering over 100,000 civil society.”

More than coercive, to Paul the government is also corrupt: “All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power,” he said.

Throughout his speech, Paul questioned not only the fundamental health of America’s social compact, but specifics like fiat money, the power of the Federal Reserve, the PATRIOT Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act modifications, undeclared war, the illegalization of medical marijuana, mandatory sentencing requirements for drug crimes, the illegalization of hemp, TSA searches, federal debt and borrowing, the White House’s authority to assassinate those it declares terrorists, the legalization of detaining U.S. citizens for national-security purposes, the political power of AIPAC, and the regulation of light bulbs and toilets in people’s homes.

For Paul, the list of grievances is long, and he might not have accomplished much in Congress: “In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little,” he said. “No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without congressional declaration.”

In thinking about the champions of liberty, his lesson is a bitter one: “History has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled,” but his prescription is hopeful.

Paul left the podium, for the last time, offering an “answer” to all of these problems: that people should choose liberty and limit government, and seek change within themselves.

“The number one responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow,” Paul said, urging an end to two motives that have hindered U.S. society: envy and intolerance.

“I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out the plain truth of things. The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people worldwide, is to pursue the cause of liberty. If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.”

[Occam's Banana]

The last thing we need is the government mucking around with news content.

I recall a study from some years back which found that 90% of cited news sources were government agencies, officials or contractors.

So I'm LMAO LAH (Like A Hyena) @ the notion that the government isn't already "mucking around with news content" ...

And I mean, seriously - what the hell can the FCC really do here, anyway?

After all, it's not like the MSM can get any more blandly & reflexively pro-establishment than it already is.

[mad cow]

@AF,

Ron Paul "What is a libertarian?A strict Constitutionalist."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVZKHYRfyoE

We could go back and forth on this all day,I bet I can find more links from Ron Paul in support of the Constitution than you can cite instances where he derogates it.

Or we could stick to the subject in the original OP...

BTW,Lucille's link is much better than mine.

[heavenlyboy34]

How's it working out for y'all Constitution haters?
Just as badly as the original Consitution-haters (teh Anti-Federalists) predicted it and then some.

[Anti Federalist]

We could go back and forth on this all day,I bet I can find more links from Ron Paul in support of the Constitution than you can site instances where he derogates it.

I don't see it as that.

I think it is just an honest diagnosis from an honest doctor.

No worries though, we'll drop it and stop the thread derail.

[heavenlyboy34]

Let me come to HB's defense here a little bit...

Can you find a hole in this logic?



I suppose the only counter argument could be that we failed the constitution...and I don't have any response for that, other than to say that the writers and framers were warned what would happen, what natural human tendencies were, and how they would turn the nation into a despotic tyranny, all perfectly legally and constitutionally.

The Anti Federalists told them exactly what would happen, if the constitution was adopted as written.

They were ignored.

Then, as today.

And so, here we are.
Ah, ya beat me to it! Sorry for the dedundancy of my previous post, but repetition is necessary for modern audiences, so no harm-no foul. :o

[Henry Rogue]

Taking into account everything everyone has said thus far, this is still a really bad thing.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't see it as that.

I think it is just an honest diagnosis from an honest doctor.

No worries though, we'll drop it and stop the thread derail.

Actually, at the point we are in right now, the argument is stupid as all hell. The fact is that if our government was following the Constitution, we wouldn't be in this mess. This is what Ron Paul has been arguing since he first went to Congress. So, here we are. Do you think the best course of action is to drive people away from the the limitations put on government by the Constitution, or to reinforce the need for such limitations? Think about it.

[Occam's Banana]

Taking into account everything everyone has said thus far, this is still a really bad thing.

The most the FCC can do here is tweak & fine-tune a propaganda engine that is already humming right along.

That's certainly not a good thing. But on the margin, I just don't see how it's that big a deal.

IOW: Establishment mainstream media gonna mainstream the establishment,

[Anti Federalist]

Actually, at the point we are in right now, the argument is stupid as all hell. The fact is that if our government was following the Constitution, we wouldn't be in this mess. This is what Ron Paul has been arguing since he first went to Congress. So, here we are. Do you think the best course of action is to drive people away from the the limitations put on government by the Constitution, or to reinforce the need for such limitations? Think about it.

I have thought about it, quite a bit in fact.

It pained me to come to the same conclusion that Ron did.

So in the short term of course, it would be best to try and reign in the government back to within its constitutional boundaries.

But I don't think that will happen.

ETA - UNLESS...unless...we can somehow harness the same energy that we did in the guns rights movement, and get people to understand and protect all rights, not just gun rights.

That is what got me started in this fight over thirty years ago now, and if you had told me we'd be in the relatively good shape that we are on that front, I'd have said you were nuts.

[DamianTV]

So, how's that first ammendment thing working out for y'all, Constitutionalists? ;) :(

I was pretty backed up for a while, but took a Laxative to fix it...

---

Ive been seeing this story on numerous sites, all pointing to the Orwellian mandatory TV in the Newsroom for spreading Govt Propoganda through the MSM. How long do you think it will be before Bloggers and any Licensed "Journalists" are also required by Law to have the Propoganda spewing Govt Livestream TV in their places of operation?

Behold the rise of Orwells "Department of Truth" fully realized.

[acptulsa]

Unbelievable,government censors in the newsroom.

I don't see that as more unbelievable--or any different at all--from corporate sponsors in the newsroom. The only difference this could make is it could allow the FCC to nip independent, credible and useful journalists in the bud before anyone even hears of them. Or, in other words, this could leave the computer and net as useless as the television.

[mad cow]

I don't see that as more unbelievable--or any different at all--from corporate sponsors in the newsroom. The only difference this could make is it could allow the FCC to nip independent, credible and useful journalists in the bud before anyone even hears of them. Or, in other words, this could leave the computer and net as useless as the television.

Corporate sponsorship is voluntary on both sides.Corporate sponsors don't have guns to enforce their "suggestions" on how they would like you to slant your stories.

[FindLiberty]

There is not enough room for the FCC to also live here with me in my Mom's basement!

[Henry Rogue]

The most the FCC can do here is tweak & fine-tune a propaganda engine that is already humming right along.

That's certainly not a good thing. But on the margin, I just don't see how it's that big a deal.

IOW: Establishment mainstream media gonna mainstream the establishment,
Yeah, for the current media not much affect perhaps. Could have unforseen affects, if a rich libertarian ever wanted to buy a cable news channel, he or she may think the added risk of losing a license not worth it. IDK

[Peace&Freedom]

CIA and NSA spooks have been crawling all over the production of "newz" for years now.

Of course, that does not excuse this for one second.

But hey, what do I know?

Nothing says freedom like government spooks censoring and approving "news", amirite?

Ain't that Daytona 500 coming up?

<belch>

The late Gore Vidal, upon his last interview in the CNN studios in 10 years, asked what had changed in between. He mused "I didn't see the little general in the corner dictating policy." Apparently the embedded message control agents have been replaced by more CIA folks, who being in plain clothes aren't as conspicuous.

[Anti Federalist]

The late Gore Vidal, upon his last interview in the CNN studios in 10 years, asked what had changed in between. He mused "I didn't see the little general in the corner dictating policy." Apparently the embedded message control agents have been replaced by more CIA folks, who being in plain clothes aren't as conspicuous.

No kidding.

[LibertyEagle]

I have thought about it, quite a bit in fact.

It pained me to come to the same conclusion that Ron did.
No, it didn't. He's not arguing for throwing out the Constitution. You are.


So in the short term of course, it would be best to try and reign in the government back to within its constitutional boundaries.

Uh huh.


But I don't think that will happen.

Maybe not, but it is a gathering spot. Something to drive people towards.


ETA - UNLESS...unless...we can somehow harness the same energy that we did in the guns rights movement, and get people to understand and protect all rights, not just gun rights.

That is what got me started in this fight over thirty years ago now, and if you had told me we'd be in the relatively good shape that we are on that front, I'd have said you were nuts.

[Anti Federalist]

No, it didn't. He's not arguing for throwing out the Constitution. You are.

Don't put words in my mouth, I am not saying a thing, other than exactly, precisely, what Ron Paul did:

"The constitution has failed".

What to do about that can take many forms, but does not change the underlying fact.

[belian78]

Let me come to HB's defense here a little bit...

Can you find a hole in this logic?



I suppose the only counter argument could be that we failed the constitution...and I don't have any response for that, other than to say that the writers and framers were warned what would happen, what natural human tendencies were, and how they would turn the nation into a despotic tyranny, all perfectly legally and constitutionally.

The Anti Federalists told them exactly what would happen, if the constitution was adopted as written.

They were ignored.

Then, as today.

And so, here we are.
You are correct, THE PEOPLE failed the constitution, not the other way around.

[jtap]

So things would go from the media being the "unofficial" mouthpiece for the government to being the "official" mouthpiece for the government...move along, nothing to see here. :cool:

[mad cow]

Update:FCC backs off newsroom survey plan.


The Federal Communications Commission announced Friday that it was putting on hold a controversial study of American newsrooms, after complaints from Republican lawmakers and media groups that the project was too intrusive.

FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed with critics that some of the study's proposed questions for reporters and news directors "overstepped the bounds of what is required."

The agency announced that a proposed pilot study in South Carolina will now be shelved, at least until a "new study design" is finalized. But the agency made clear that this and any future studies will not involve interviews with "media owners, news directors or reporters."

Commissioner Ajit Pai, who was one of the staunchest critics of the proposal, heralded the decision Friday as an acknowledgement that government-backed researchers would not be dispatched into newsrooms, as feared.

"This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn't belong," he said in a statement. "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."
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/fcc-backs-off-newsroom-survey-plan/

Great news,I guess the bad press they were getting killed this horrible authoritarian plan in the cradle.

For now....

[DamianTV]

Its only one of many coming attempts to fully co-op the MSM to become a full time Govt Propoganda Machine. Expect even more attempts to be made until they get what they want.

[Origanalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F5D8T5xxEo

[Origanalist]

FCC Suspends invasive Newsroom Questionnaire;

The Federal Communication Commission announced it will no longer ask editors and reporters about their newsroom practices in a controversial questionnaire that critics ripped as invasive and having troublesome implications.
Questions in the document for editors and reporters will be “removed entirely” from the questionnaire, FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said in a statement (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0221/DOC-325722A1.pdf) released Friday.

Gilson added that, “Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America's newsrooms is false.”
:rolleyes:

The questionnaire, which is being promoted by Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of noted Fairness Doctrine proponent Rep. Jim Clyburn, spooked freedom of speech advocates.

more..http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/21/FCC-Suspends-Invasive-Newsroom-Questionnaire

[donnay]

Update:FCC backs off newsroom survey plan.


Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/fcc-backs-off-newsroom-survey-plan/

Great news,I guess the bad press they were getting killed this horrible authoritarian plan in the cradle.

For now....

Yeah they said that about a lot of things...but they are not to be trusted. Complacency has got us where we are.

[Noob]

Michigan Democrat Threatens to Shut Down TV Stations Airing Anti-Obamacare Ad. Rep. Gary Peters of Dexter, Michigan is threatening to bring the FCC down on the operator of a television station playing an anti-Obamacare advertisement.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/michigan-democrat-rep.-gary-peters-threatens-tv-station-licenses-over-obamacare-ad/article/2544430

[Noob]

Michigan Democrat Threatens to Shut Down TV Stations Airing Anti-Obamacare Ad. Rep. Gary Peters of Dexter, Michigan is threatening to bring the FCC down on the operator of a television station playing an anti-Obamacare advertisement.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/michigan-democrat-rep.-gary-peters-threatens-tv-station-licenses-over-obamacare-ad/article/2544430

[tod evans]

Yeah they said that about a lot of things...but they are not to be trusted. Complacency has got us where we are.

Complacency and pacifism...

When government wages war on it's citizens flowers and ballot boxes are an ineffective response....