# What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring



## bendog

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?


----------



## OKTexas

Why bother spending the money, after all they already have media matters.


----------



## Zander

Fuck the FCC. ...they have way too much free time on their hands....They need to cut their budget.


----------



## Unkotare

bendog said:


> 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.




No it doesn't. At that point the danger is crystal clear.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

bendog said:


> 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?



In a word, everything.


----------



## bendog

No, not everything.  For example, in an urban area with a high % of latinos, it would not surprise me if they were getting info they consider important via radio.  That might fly in the face of assumptions about clear channel.

IN my urban area, I think they'd find that the 33% or so whites receive info largely though tv, and that has implications of whether they feel adequately informed.

If the information is used to make it easier for new outlets to enter communication markets, govt is actually doing it's job under Thatcherism.  If the information is used to remove some providers from a market, because govt deems them to need replacing, then its very dangerous


----------



## HenryBHough

Meanwhile, Democrats in The U.S. Senate are caucusing over the most serious matter to come to their attention in decades!

Whether to rename Washington "Beijing West" or "Caracas North" in respect of the proposed Federal Ministry of Truth effort to sanitize the news media.


----------



## OriginalShroom

One of the people that Obama was considering appointing to the FCC, and I don't remember if he got appointed or not, actually stated that he felt that broadcast stations should lose their licenses if they were owned by Whites until a quota of minority owned stations were in the same market.


----------



## whitehall

bendog said:


> 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?



The FCC has neither the mandate nor the authority to poll the viewing habits of citizens. Leave it to the left to bring up a race issue where there is clearly no such thing involved.


----------



## nodoginnafight

I don't think the media is any of the government's business. So what are they going to do if they find a population of people who are not getting the news they want?

Nothing - I hope. Because it's not for the government to meddle with the press. So if they can't do anything about the results, why waste money on the study?


----------



## tinydancer

Good grief! How could anyone find this acceptable or justify this action taken by the FCC.

PRAVDA here we come!


----------



## Freewill

But have.

1. NSA spying on Americans without warrant.

2. Killing of Americans, by drone, without due process.

3. What we are hearing about monitoring news rooms.

The only way these would have been good is if they were done to the extent they are today during the Bush administration.  If they had then a lot of liberals would be dead from swallowing their tongue in outrage.


----------



## tyroneweaver

under a dem administration.
I'm sure we're all schocked


----------



## bendog

whitehall said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has neither the mandate nor the authority to poll the viewing habits of citizens. Leave it to the left to bring up a race issue where there is clearly no such thing involved.
Click to expand...


That's untrue.  The fcc's charge is

"make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." 

This controversy is actually illuminating in that it POSSIBLY pits two different views of govts role.

Thatcherism:  the only legit reason for govt is to facilitate private entities getting into and out of markets.  This view believes private markets will best serve people who desire a good or commodity

"the bad liberal:" govt must act to make sure every citizen is served an appropriate amount of information.  This view distrusts people acting in their own self-interest.

What the FCC has done so far could fit into either view.  I think it bears close scrutiny, however.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Its really none of the FCC's business knowing what demographics, questions, or news topics being discussed.  Its as simple as that.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Freewill said:


> But have.
> 
> 1. NSA spying on Americans without warrant.
> 
> 2. Killing of Americans, by drone, without due process.
> 
> 3. What we are hearing about monitoring news rooms.
> 
> The only way these would have been good is if they were done to the extent they are today during the Bush administration.  If they had then a lot of liberals would be dead from swallowing their tongue in outrage.



Yep.  It always seems innocuous but never is, just more invasive.


----------



## CaféAuLait

bendog said:


> 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?



As you asked what is the government going to do with this information? Create a market for some individual with the results? IOW doing the research for someone who can do their own research. 

The private individual you mention can do the study and not off the taxpayers dollar. There is no reason for the FCC to do this study unless they intend on acting on the results IMO.


----------



## The T

LordBrownTrout said:


> Its really none of the FCC's business knowing what demographics, questions, or news topics being discussed. Its as simple as that.


Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?

 And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.


----------



## The T

whitehall said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has neither the mandate nor the authority to poll the viewing habits of citizens. Leave it to the left to bring up a race issue where there is clearly no such thing involved.
Click to expand...

Isn't it ALWAYS their tactic to use RACE and "Minorities" and give them a fair shot in the marketplace of ideas? It's an attempt to silence entities the Government doesn't approve of, plain and simple. Remember the "Fairness Doctrine"?


----------



## RandallFlagg

bendog said:


> 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?




Yeah, you're right. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, comrade.


----------



## whitehall

It wasn't long ago that the left was outraged when left wing media broke the story that Bush's homeland security monitored selected overseas calls without a warrant. It was a legitimate concern but the left leaning media turned it into a major issue. Now that we have a radical left wing administration it seems that anything goes including wholesale evesdropping by intelligence networks, snooping by the IRS and the freaking FCC monitoring viewer preferences. The radical left will justify any assault on the Constitution as long as it is done by a fascist administration.


----------



## The T

whitehall said:


> It wasn't long ago that the left was outraged when left wing media broke the story that Bush's homeland security monitored selected overseas calls without a warrant. It was a legitimate concern but the left leaning media turned it into a major issue. Now that we have a radical left wing administration it seems that anything goes including wholesale evesdropping by intelligence networks, snooping by the IRS and the freaking FCC monitoring viewer preferences. The radical left will justify any assault on the Constitution as long as it is done by a fascist administration.


And the left makes it difficult as to which of their faces to address, doesn't it? Their ultimate goal is control, but feign outrage if there is the slightest hint that the other side might be doing it...they lead double lives and wouldn't surprise me if they do see two faces in the mirror every morning when they get up.


----------



## Katzndogz

Is obama mad because Al Jazzerra isn't getting the audience they wanted?


----------



## The T

*Anyone Remember the Fairness Doctrine?*



> RUSH: You still don't believe me about this newsrooms monitor business?  Let me give you two words: Fairness Doctrine. Have you ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine?  Before I leave here today, I am going to convince you that this would end up being totally supported by America's journalists.  If it is aimed at getting rid of talk radio, you think they'll support it?  Remember, the monitors are gonna be in TV and radio newsrooms, radio stations.
> 
> You know that the Regime, you know the Democrats have wanted to reenact the Fairness Doctrine ever since Reagan got rid of it in 1987, and you know that they have purposely misconstrued what it even is.  They have purposely tried to convince people the Fairness Doctrine is "equal time," and it isn't.  But you know they would love to revive it.  They've tried to.  It's been shot down two or three times. The FCC finally gave it up.  Now we're back to monitors in the newsroom.
> 
> To do what?


 
 Read more of the opinion at the link on top...and here are two more related links:


FOXNews: Why The FCC Should Keep Its Nose Out Of TV Newsrooms - Howard Kurtz 
AdWeek: FCC Backs Off Study of Newsroom Editorial Practices. GOP Said Study Violated Freedom Of The Press


----------



## The T

Katzndogz said:


> Is obama mad because Al Jazzerra isn't getting the audience they wanted?


NO he's angry because his numbers are slipping and it's largely due to Talk radio and other enterprises outside Media that supports him.

 Remember when he ran the first time he admonished Americans for listening to Rush, Sean Hannity, FOX News (Remember the Superbowl Interview with O'Reilly where he got on his case about Fox NEWS "your TV Station")?

 This is just putting it into practice and hoping no one will notice...

 Think he will be even more pissed that WE DO notice and take extreme exception to trodding on the First Amendment?


----------



## Unkotare

Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

bendog said:


> 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?



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.


----------



## Rozman

What's next fines if news organizations are critical of our supreme leader...


----------



## Rozman

This is very scary stuff...


----------



## Pogo

tinydancer said:


> Good grief! How could anyone find this acceptable or justify this action taken by the FCC.
> 
> PRAVDA here we come!



Good grief -- how could you take this cockamamie OP seriously?  No link, no article, no quote no nothing, just a hallucinatory and pointless ramble based on absolutely nothing.  Zero.

Jesus christ on a bicycle, some of y'all will swallow anything.

For the record, FCC has never, and does not now, regulate anything based on what a broadcast outlet's content is.  That idea is complete bullshit.  FCC wants a broadcast outlet to show how it serves its community.  HOW it does that is entirely up to that broadcaster.  There is no litmus test, there are no guidelines or requirements.    And that's why the OP's not linked.  Because it's made up.  Nor does anything described have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the 1980s) which had nothing to do with news stories.

This thread is going straight to TBB.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

bendog said:


> No, not everything.  For example, in an urban area with a high % of latinos, it would not surprise me if they were getting info they consider important via radio.  That might fly in the face of assumptions about clear channel.
> 
> IN my urban area, I think they'd find that the 33% or so whites receive info largely though tv, and that has implications of whether they feel adequately informed.
> 
> If the information is used to make it easier for new outlets to enter communication markets, govt is actually doing it's job under Thatcherism.  If the information is used to remove some providers from a market, because govt deems them to need replacing, then its very dangerous



For example, it is none of the FCC business what stories get reported. Any news outlet that isn't delivering the news that people want will lose ratings, and money, they don't need the FCC asking them why they make decisions when the answer is obvious to anyone with a brain.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

bendog said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has neither the mandate nor the authority to poll the viewing habits of citizens. Leave it to the left to bring up a race issue where there is clearly no such thing involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's untrue.  The fcc's charge is
> 
> "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."
> 
> This controversy is actually illuminating in that it POSSIBLY pits two different views of govts role.
> 
> Thatcherism:  the only legit reason for govt is to facilitate private entities getting into and out of markets.  This view believes private markets will best serve people who desire a good or commodity
> 
> "the bad liberal:" govt must act to make sure every citizen is served an appropriate amount of information.  This view distrusts people acting in their own self-interest.
> 
> What the FCC has done so far could fit into either view.  I think it bears close scrutiny, however.
Click to expand...


Which explains why they are surveying newspapers how?


----------



## mudwhistle

I think it's important for the government to tell everyone officially what they want us to know......instead of doing it behind closed doors like they're doing now. 

This eliminates all of the subterfuge.


----------



## Pogo

The T said:


> *Anyone Remember the Fairness Doctrine?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RUSH: You still don't believe me about this newsrooms monitor business?  Let me give you two words: Fairness Doctrine. Have you ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine?  Before I leave here today, I am going to convince you that this would end up being totally supported by America's journalists.  If it is aimed at getting rid of talk radio, you think they'll support it?  Remember, the monitors are gonna be in TV and radio newsrooms, radio stations.
> 
> You know that the Regime, you know the Democrats have wanted to reenact the Fairness Doctrine ever since Reagan got rid of it in 1987, and you know that they have purposely misconstrued what it even is.  They have purposely tried to convince people the Fairness Doctrine is "equal time," and it isn't.  But you know they would love to revive it.  They've tried to.  It's been shot down two or three times. The FCC finally gave it up.  Now we're back to monitors in the newsroom.
> 
> To do what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more of the opinion at the link on top...and here are two more related links:
> 
> 
> FOXNews: Why The FCC Should Keep Its Nose Out Of TV Newsrooms - Howard Kurtz
> AdWeek: FCC Backs Off Study of Newsroom Editorial Practices. GOP Said Study Violated Freedom Of The Press
Click to expand...


Bullshit sources produce bullshit.

Nothing described in the hallucinatory OP has any relationship to the Fairness Doctrine.  What the FD did in its day was say that if I have a radio station and I go on the air and  declare that "The T eats babies", then The T gets, if he wants, equal time to respond.  It's the same doctrine Joe McCarthy invoked to respond to Edward R. Murrow's exposé on him (and he got an entire show to do that).  It has never had anything to do with news reporting.  

And I know what I'm talking about; I worked in broadcasting for 25 years both during and after the FD was in effect; I worked on radio station license applications and everyday operations to keep the stations legal.  I know what the fucking rules are, trust me.

Fox Noise.  Please.


----------



## hjmick

*If an FCC commissioner thinks it's a bad idea... *




> The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.
> 
> This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?


----------



## Pogo

Unkotare said:


> Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com



Another bullshit source/bullshit story.

The FCC (which the article admits in its first sentence as the subject, contradicting its own headline) is not the "Obama Administration".  The FCC is governed by five commissioners, appointed on staggered terms and limited by political party.  It's a separate entity, not part of this or any administration.

Gullible's Travels...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Why the fuck not?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.



News flash, prior restraint is never justified. If it was, the government would have won the Pentagon Paper debate and we wouldn't know anything about the secrets Snowden stole.

But you have never let actual facts influence your analysis of the law before, why start now?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.



Why the fuck do the want it then? If you can't answer that, you can't defend it. 

In fact, you probably couldn't defend it even if you could since you think the government can actually use prior restraint to prevent people from publishing things.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.



No it isn't. If it actually worked that way it would be legal for the government to enter your house and search for drugs as long as they didn't arrest you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief! How could anyone find this acceptable or justify this action taken by the FCC.
> 
> PRAVDA here we come!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief -- how could you take this cockamamie OP seriously?  No link, no article, no quote no nothing, just a hallucinatory and pointless ramble based on absolutely nothing.  Zero.
> 
> Jesus christ on a bicycle, some of y'all will swallow anything.
> 
> For the record, FCC has never, and does not now, regulate anything based on what a broadcast outlet's content is.  That idea is complete bullshit.  FCC wants a broadcast outlet to show how it serves its community.  HOW it does that is entirely up to that broadcaster.  There is no litmus test, there are no guidelines or requirements.    And that's why the OP's not linked.  Because it's made up.  Nor does anything described have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the 1980s) which had nothing to do with news stories.
> 
> This thread is going straight to TBB.
Click to expand...


Because, unlike you, most people don't get their news from this forum?


----------



## HenryBHough

I recall there being a Fairness Doctrine exemption for bona-fide newcasts.  For that reason the networks were careful to call certain broadcasters "commentators" and never let them be heard on any newscast.  Lowell Thomas.  Gabriel Heatter.  H. V. Kaltenborn.  Fulton Lewis, Jr.  Walter Winchell (later turned gossip columnist) Drew Pearson and even Edward R. Murrow who most falsely remember as a news reporter.

I also remember strict management rules about "NO EDITORIALS" as anything resembling commentary within a newscast could get the whole broadcast re-classified and require free and equal time.  

The worst part was that if one viewpoint were expressed stations not only had to allow equal time to opposing views they were at times required to search out opposing views.

Even after The Fairness Doctrine was dead and buried some station managers still would not allow anything resembling editorial content.  Vividly do I recall a news producer being fired for including in a local TV newscast an ABC network story about mistreatment of an elephant at a zoo within the coverage area.  In the clip - that was used by the network itself - a noted animal rights activist expressed an opinion.  Despite the network having cleared it (those things were reviewed by the lawyers at that time) the local manager wasn't going to allow any opinions on anything to be on HIS air.


----------



## Pogo

The T said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really none of the FCC's business knowing what demographics, questions, or news topics being discussed. Its as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?
> 
> And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.
Click to expand...


Once again, that's absolute bullshit.  Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded.  Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?



Answer:




Zero.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief! How could anyone find this acceptable or justify this action taken by the FCC.
> 
> PRAVDA here we come!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief -- how could you take this cockamamie OP seriously?  No link, no article, no quote no nothing, just a hallucinatory and pointless ramble based on absolutely nothing.  Zero.
> 
> Jesus christ on a bicycle, some of y'all will swallow anything.
> 
> For the record, FCC has never, and does not now, regulate anything based on what a broadcast outlet's content is.  That idea is complete bullshit.  FCC wants a broadcast outlet to show how it serves its community.  HOW it does that is entirely up to that broadcaster.  There is no litmus test, there are no guidelines or requirements.    And that's why the OP's not linked.  Because it's made up.  Nor does anything described have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the 1980s) which had nothing to do with news stories.
> 
> This thread is going straight to TBB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, most people don't get their news from this forum?
Click to expand...


I don't know what the fuck that means but I do know when you start a thread you gotta base it on something besides the magic mushrooms you had for lunch.


----------



## HenryBHough

The usual technique was to designate for hearing (expensive and prolonged) for any station accused of violating The Fairness Doctrine.  

The Fairness Doctrine ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

The linked article states that only one license was ever revoked but gives no stats on how many were designated for hearing.

As to which license, it was that of WXUR, Philadelphia, PA in 1973. There followed an extreme chill and a few experiments in what was to become known as "talk radio" were shut down by local managements to avoid the onslaught of aggrieved, some of whom really were offended by something but most of whom wanted a license somebody else had.

It all came crashing down in 1987 when The Red Lion Case hit the US Supreme Court.

Myself, I could have accepted The Fairness Doctrine were it extended to newspapers and magazines.  But that, of course, would have been so blatantly unconstitutional that even FDR, in his wildest moments, couldn't imagine even trying it.


----------



## Darkwind

Two questions.

Who determines what is the right programming.

Who watches the watchers?


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really none of the FCC's business knowing what demographics, questions, or news topics being discussed. Its as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?
> 
> And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, that's absolute bullshit.  Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded.  Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero.
Click to expand...



Link


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> I recall there being a Fairness Doctrine exemption for bona-fide newcasts.  For that reason the networks were careful to call certain broadcasters "commentators" and never let them be heard on any newscast.  Lowell Thomas.  Gabriel Heatter.  H. V. Kaltenborn.  Fulton Lewis, Jr.  Walter Winchell (later turned gossip columnist) Drew Pearson and even Edward R. Murrow who most falsely remember as a news reporter.
> 
> I also remember strict management rules about "NO EDITORIALS" as anything resembling commentary within a newscast could get the whole broadcast re-classified and require free and equal time.
> 
> The worst part was that if one viewpoint were expressed *stations not only had to allow equal time to opposing views they were at times required to search out opposing views*.
> 
> Even after The Fairness Doctrine was dead and buried some station managers still would not allow anything resembling editorial content.  Vividly do I recall a news producer being fired for including in a local TV newscast an ABC network story about mistreatment of an elephant at a zoo within the coverage area.  In the clip - that was used by the network itself - a noted animal rights activist expressed an opinion.  Despite the network having cleared it (those things were reviewed by the lawyers at that time) the local manager wasn't going to allow any opinions on anything to be on HIS air.



Apparently it's been a long time since you were behind an RE-20.  Weren't they using stone tablets back then?

The bold is bullshit.  FCC rules don't work pro-actively that way, you should know that. Equal time had to be requested by the involved party.  You didn't have to go seek it out.  That's crazy talk.  Now no doubt some NDs voluntarily sought out that kind of balance just to avoid having to have an FD request put on the air.  Just as they might, as you also noted, err on the side of caution as far as content.  We did that too in facilities I worked that were not news-oriented (part of my jobs was to screen for non-neutral language in on-air scripts).  That doesn't mean we weren't allowed to say these things.

One day one of our talent read a press release that had circumvented the screening system (me) verbatim, something about "don't get Bushwacked" inciting people to come to an anti-Bush rally.  I didn't hear it air but a listener called in complaining about it.  When I found out what happened I immediately wrote him a script to read on his next break, apologizing and disclaiming the press release he had just read.

We didn't _have to_ do that; it wasn't illegal.  But the station was not political in its programming and didn't wish to be.  That was a management decision, strictly.  FCC had zero to do with it.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?
> 
> And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, that's absolute bullshit.  Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded.  Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link
Click to expand...


You actually want me to link to nothingness?

I'll get right on that.

This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship.  This goes back about ten years.

Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?


Zero.

Good luck.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> The usual technique was to designate for hearing (expensive and prolonged) for any station accused of violating The Fairness Doctrine.
> 
> The Fairness Doctrine ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
> 
> The linked article states that only one license was ever revoked but gives no stats on how many were designated for hearing.
> 
> As to which license, it was that of WXUR, Philadelphia, PA in 1973. There followed an extreme chill and a few experiments in what was to become known as "talk radio" were shut down by local managements to avoid the onslaught of aggrieved, some of whom really were offended by something but most of whom wanted a license somebody else had.
> 
> It all came crashing down in 1987 when The Red Lion Case hit the US Supreme Court.
> 
> Myself, I could have accepted The Fairness Doctrine were it extended to newspapers and magazines.  But that, of course, would have been so blatantly unconstitutional that even FDR, in his wildest moments, couldn't imagine even trying it.



Red Lion was 1969.  I don't even need to look that up.
As I recall WXUR was in Media PA, not Philadelphia.  I don't need to look that up either.  I grew up there.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, that's absolute bullshit.  Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded.  Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually want me to link to nothingness?
> 
> I'll get right on that.
> 
> This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship.  This goes back about ten years.
> 
> Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?
> 
> 
> Zero.
> 
> Good luck.
Click to expand...


They tried it back in the 80s. That was more than 10 years ago.

Prove the nobody ever got their license pulled or STFU.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually want me to link to nothingness?
> 
> I'll get right on that.
> 
> This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship.  This goes back about ten years.
> 
> Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?
> 
> 
> Zero.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried it back in the 80s. That was more than 10 years ago.
> 
> Prove the nobody ever got their license pulled or STFU.
Click to expand...


I don't need to.  That would be attempting to prove a negative.  What do you want me to do, list the entire license histories of every broadcast outlet ever, with a note on the side saying "not censored by the Fairness Doctrine"?

Don't be absurd.  If you claim such exist, then burden of proof is all yours.

As I said.... rotsa ruck on that.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Myself, I could have accepted The Fairness Doctrine were it extended to newspapers and magazines.  But that, of course, would have been so blatantly unconstitutional that even FDR, in his wildest moments, couldn't imagine even trying it.



To address the latter bullshit part of this post (as opposed to the top bullshit already addressed), what you're suggesting would be impossible by definition.  The Fairness Doctrine never, and could never, apply to print, that's absurd and if you have even a day behind the mic as you claim, you damn well know that.

The whole idea of the FD when (conservatives) brought it out in 1949 was that the radio dial was limited space and only a few could have a station before that dial filled up.  Therefore the FD would ensure a powerful few could not dominate the discourse.

Since newspapers and magazines are printed on wood pulp, which is a renewable resource and not *finite* like the airwaves, there was no basis to employ the same guideline on newspapers or magazines.   A dissenting view simply printed itself.  Nothing like that was ever suggested.  And you damn well know this, so don't pull this bullshit.  I won't let you get away with it.  The OP based on nothing was bad enough without you mythmongering along.

Indeed the fact that internet resources, hundreds of channels of cable space and Twitter and the like are now commonplace is the very argument _against _bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.  And has been for years.  Because mass media is not as technologically limited as it was in 1949.  And that's the entire reason the FD was there in the first place.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its really none of the FCC's business knowing what demographics, questions, or news topics being discussed. Its as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?
> 
> And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, that's absolute bullshit.  Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded.  Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero.
Click to expand...


Can you point to the part of the fairness doctrine that gave the FCC the authority to impose fines or deny licenses for violations?

Didn't think so.


----------



## whitehall

The only hope for the high water mark in American socialism under Barry Hussein is to confiscate liberties and pretend that fascism is synonymous with freedom.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief -- how could you take this cockamamie OP seriously?  No link, no article, no quote no nothing, just a hallucinatory and pointless ramble based on absolutely nothing.  Zero.
> 
> Jesus christ on a bicycle, some of y'all will swallow anything.
> 
> For the record, FCC has never, and does not now, regulate anything based on what a broadcast outlet's content is.  That idea is complete bullshit.  FCC wants a broadcast outlet to show how it serves its community.  HOW it does that is entirely up to that broadcaster.  There is no litmus test, there are no guidelines or requirements.    And that's why the OP's not linked.  Because it's made up.  Nor does anything described have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the 1980s) which had nothing to do with news stories.
> 
> This thread is going straight to TBB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, most people don't get their news from this forum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what the fuck that means but I do know when you start a thread you gotta base it on something besides the magic mushrooms you had for lunch.
Click to expand...


Yet you never do.


----------



## Wasthatneeded

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 #}//)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually want me to link to nothingness?
> 
> I'll get right on that.
> 
> This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship.  This goes back about ten years.
> 
> Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?
> 
> 
> Zero.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried it back in the 80s. That was more than 10 years ago.
> 
> Prove the nobody ever got their license pulled or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to.  That would be attempting to prove a negative.  What do you want me to do, list the entire license histories of every broadcast outlet ever, with a note on the side saying "not censored by the Fairness Doctrine"?
> 
> Don't be absurd.  If you claim such exist, then burden of proof is all yours.
> 
> As I said.... rotsa ruck on that.
Click to expand...


You don't know how to prove a negative?


----------



## Katzndogz

The reason is to have more diversity in the news.  What they will do is stop all reporting of black on white crime as if it isn't happening.   The media tried by just not reporting the race of perpetrators unless it was a white.  That didn't work.   Now it's going to just be don't report the crime at all.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?
> 
> And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, that's absolute bullshit.  Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded.  Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point to the part of the fairness doctrine that gave the FCC the authority to impose fines or deny licenses for violations?
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...


It didn't exist.  Licensing and such will be in CFR Title 47.  The Fairness Doctrine was specifically about operations while using that license.  It's got nothing to do with licensing.

And you don't get a license "denied"; you get a _renewal _denied.  In the case of irresponsible operation, violations, or failure to make your case that you deserve one.


----------



## blackhawk

The backlash against this will stop it dead in it's tracks your going to have a very hard time saying news needs more diversity in this day and age of cable, satellite, and the internet you can find all the diversity you could ever want.


----------



## Wasthatneeded

Still, they aren't supposed to get involved at all. 

Ah, but it's nice to see an optimistic person.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, most people don't get their news from this forum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what the fuck that means but I do know when you start a thread you gotta base it on something besides the magic mushrooms you had for lunch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you never do.
Click to expand...


I don't start many threads but feel free to point out an example.








Didn't think so.  And this isn't my thread.
Nice try at deflection, but the fact remains, you don't start a thread with some rambling incoherency you think you heard somewhere and can't link.

But feel free to make the case for that too.


----------



## WelfareQueen

Welcome to the police state that is now America.  Bush started the shit....Obama has made it 10x worse.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, that's absolute bullshit.  Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded.  Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to the part of the fairness doctrine that gave the FCC the authority to impose fines or deny licenses for violations?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't exist.  Licensing and such will be in CFR Title 47.  The Fairness Doctrine was specifically about operations while using that license.  It's got nothing to do with licensing.
> 
> And you don't get a license "denied"; you get a _renewal _denied.  In the case of irresponsible operation, violations, or failure to make your case that you deserve one.
Click to expand...


In other words, your post was based on bullshit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what the fuck that means but I do know when you start a thread you gotta base it on something besides the magic mushrooms you had for lunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't start many threads but feel free to point out an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.  And this isn't my thread.
> Nice try at deflection, but the fact remains, you don't start a thread with some rambling incoherency you think you heard somewhere and can't link.
> 
> But feel free to make the case for that too.
Click to expand...


Just one?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/329216-the-reason-for-the-season.html

The fact remains, this thread was a response to another thread, and is intended as a defense of the FCC, yet you attacked it because you were scared that someone might have a legitimate argument against the government taking control of something.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to the part of the fairness doctrine that gave the FCC the authority to impose fines or deny licenses for violations?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't exist.  Licensing and such will be in CFR Title 47.  The Fairness Doctrine was specifically about operations while using that license.  It's got nothing to do with licensing.
> 
> And you don't get a license "denied"; you get a _renewal _denied.  In the case of irresponsible operation, violations, or failure to make your case that you deserve one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, your post was based on bullshit.
Click to expand...


Go forth and multiply.  The challenge was, and is, and will remain, find me one case of any broadcast outlet having its content censored or controlled via the FD.  I didn't maintain that the FD itself mandates fines or license renewals.  Because that's not where those regulations live.

Take some English lessons someday.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't exist.  Licensing and such will be in CFR Title 47.  The Fairness Doctrine was specifically about operations while using that license.  It's got nothing to do with licensing.
> 
> And you don't get a license "denied"; you get a _renewal _denied.  In the case of irresponsible operation, violations, or failure to make your case that you deserve one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your post was based on bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go forth and multiply.  The challenge was, and is, and will remain, find me one case of any broadcast outlet having its content censored or controlled via the FD.  I didn't maintain that the FD itself mandates fines or license renewals.  Because that's not where those regulations live.
> 
> Take some English lessons someday.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, your post was based on bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go forth and multiply.  The challenge was, and is, and will remain, find me one case of any broadcast outlet having its content censored or controlled via the FD.  I didn't maintain that the FD itself mandates fines or license renewals.  Because that's not where those regulations live.
> 
> Take some English lessons someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not my challenge to you, mine to you was to point out how that was even possible under the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## hazlnut

Wasthatneeded said:


> 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 #}//)




If you're doing mostly editorial and propaganda, you shouldn't have "News" in your name.


----------



## Wasthatneeded

hazlnut said:


> If you're doing mostly editorial and propaganda, you shouldn't have "News" in your name.



Would 'Press' work better?

As I understand it, they aren't allowed to mess with neighborhood tabloids, much less widely read/watched press releases.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wasthatneeded said:


> 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.


----------



## Wasthatneeded

Well, what constitutes a violation for you?

And, if it would not bother you, please avoid being offensive. Truth be told, I have yet to see an intellectual conversation take place among name-calling.


----------



## Pogo

This "issue" (if that's what it is) was apparently generated by this editorial in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.  The writer of the editorial is a Republican FCC Commissioner appointed by O'bama.  Basically it's a study of how information is processed.

Yes, the government is doing a study.   When has that ever happened...  

Rather than biased editorials, half-wits fanning flames of mythologies and OPs that give no basis for themselves whatsoever, let's go right to the heart of the matter.  Here's the actual proposal from the research company designed to execute this study.  The reader will note it's a year old already.

Excerpt:
>>* Overall	Project	Goals	and	Objectives	*

We understand that the purpose of this Study of Critical Information Needs (CINs) is to provide 
a comprehensive analysis of access/barriers to CINs in diverse American communities.	
The objectives of the study are to: 
&#8226; collect data to inform: 
o the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC; 
o the media that makes up media ecologies (i.e., what media is actually included in that ecology; ownership of that market; what specific type of content dominates those media ecologies; what is the flow of information within the ecology, etc); 
o the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies (i.e., how do different layers of the ecology interact to provide for CINs; how do individuals of diverse neighborhoods/communities differ in terms of access to CINs); 
&#8226; validate data collection tools/templates and protocols; 
&#8226; demonstrate high internal validity and reliability of measured constructs 

*Study	Goals	and	Objectives	*

The objectives of the study are to help FCC answer the following questions: 
&#8226; How does this study inform the acquisition and/or barriers to CINs in American communities? 
&#8226; What barriers to entry exist in the FCC regulated markets and to what extent do those barriers to entry have a negative impact? 
&#8226; Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of internal validity? Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of reliability across diverse target markets?  <<

Sorry but that's the boring reality.  As you were with the fantasies...


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama Administration&#8217;s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition*

Feb. 19, 2014 5:30pm Fred Lucas 

A plan by the Federal Communications Commission to study how news organizations select stories has prompted about 10,000 people to sign a petition demanding: &#8220;no government monitors in newsrooms.&#8221;

That&#8217;s according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which announced the petition Wednesday and said it reached that number within the first two hours.

...

But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, said he worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.

&#8220;This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,&#8221; Sekulow said in a statement. &#8220;We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.&#8221;

The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, not over cable news or print publications. Networks, local stations and most radio stations would be subject to evaluation.

&#8220;Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists,&#8221; Sekulow said. &#8220;It&#8217;s clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics &#8211; at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.&#8221;

...

Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> *Obama Administration&#8217;s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition*
> 
> Feb. 19, 2014 5:30pm Fred Lucas
> 
> A plan by the Federal Communications Commission to study how news organizations select stories has prompted about 10,000 people to sign a petition demanding: &#8220;no government monitors in newsrooms.&#8221;
> 
> That&#8217;s according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which announced the petition Wednesday and said it reached that number within the first two hours.
> 
> ...
> 
> But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, said he worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.
> 
> &#8220;This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,&#8221; Sekulow said in a statement. &#8220;We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.&#8221;
> 
> The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, not over cable news or print publications. Networks, local stations and most radio stations would be subject to evaluation.
> 
> &#8220;Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists,&#8221; Sekulow said. &#8220;It&#8217;s clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics &#8211; at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.&#8221;
> 
> ...
> 
> Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com





Late to da party yet again, Jizzhat; we shot this down earlier.  Same self-contradicting article; the FCC is not the Administration.  Two different things.

This is a study.  That's all it is.  In fact the post just before yours laid all that out, with a link directly to the study itself.  Yet here you come trotting in with Blaze Bullshit that's already been shot down.  That's why it's a good idea to read the thread before you post something that's already been answered.

Well you have a unique sense of timing, gotta give you that.


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama Administrations Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition*
> 
> Feb. 19, 2014 5:30pm Fred Lucas
> 
> A plan by the Federal Communications Commission to study how news organizations select stories has prompted about 10,000 people to sign a petition demanding: no government monitors in newsrooms.
> 
> Thats according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which announced the petition Wednesday and said it reached that number within the first two hours.
> 
> ...
> 
> But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, said he worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.
> 
> This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration, Sekulow said in a statement. We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.
> 
> The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, not over cable news or print publications. Networks, local stations and most radio stations would be subject to evaluation.
> 
> Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists, Sekulow said. Its clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics  at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.
> 
> ...
> 
> Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Late to da party yet again, Jizzhat; we shot this down earlier.  Same self-contradicting article; the FCC is not the Administration.  Two different things.
> 
> This is a study.  That's all it is.  In fact the post just before yours laid all that out, with a link directly to the study itself.  Yet here you come trotting in with Blaze Bullshit that's already been shot down.  That's why it's a good idea to read the thread before you post something that's already been answered.
> 
> Well you have a unique sense of timing, gotta give you that.
Click to expand...


T/S, file a grivance and cut the salunsky spin it's not working...


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you never do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't start many threads but feel free to point out an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.  And this isn't my thread.
> Nice try at deflection, but the fact remains, you don't start a thread with some rambling incoherency you think you heard somewhere and can't link.
> 
> But feel free to make the case for that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/329216-the-reason-for-the-season.html
> 
> The fact remains, this thread was a response to another thread, and is intended as a defense of the FCC, yet you attacked it because you were scared that someone might have a legitimate argument against the government taking control of something.
Click to expand...


Do you actually practice at being an imbecile, or does it come naturally?

That thread isn't a news story at all.  Plus, it's got two videos in the OP as background.

Obviously you were wrong.  Again.

And how in the blue fuck is this thread a "response to another thread"?  Where is it?
No stupid, the fact remains, you don't just start a thread with some nebulous ramblings that aren't linked to anything.  That is pure bullshit.

Which kind of explains why you're here.  Nice to see ya.  Safe trip home now.


----------



## jon_berzerk

whitehall said:


> It wasn't long ago that the left was outraged when left wing media broke the story that Bush's homeland security monitored selected overseas calls without a warrant. It was a legitimate concern but the left leaning media turned it into a major issue. Now that we have a radical left wing administration it seems that anything goes including wholesale evesdropping by intelligence networks, snooping by the IRS and the freaking FCC monitoring viewer preferences. The radical left will justify any assault on the Constitution as long as it is done by a fascist administration.



we have come along way baby 

progress 

*Forward!*


----------



## jon_berzerk

Katzndogz said:


> Is obama mad because Al Jazzerra isn't getting the audience they wanted?



no he is mad because there are voices 

that does not agree with his agenda


----------



## jon_berzerk

Rozman said:


> What's next fines if news organizations are critical of our supreme leader...



the targeting of the opposition continues


----------



## jon_berzerk

WelfareQueen said:


> Welcome to the police state that is now America.  Bush started the shit....Obama has made it 10x worse.



*Progress!*


----------



## The T

American_Jihad said:


> *Obama Administrations Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition*
> 
> Feb. 19, 2014 5:30pm Fred Lucas
> 
> A plan by the Federal Communications Commission to study how news organizations select stories has prompted about 10,000 people to sign a petition demanding: no government monitors in newsrooms.
> 
> Thats according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which announced the petition Wednesday and said it reached that number within the first two hours.
> 
> ...
> 
> But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, said he worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.
> 
> This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration, Sekulow said in a statement. We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.
> 
> The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, not over cable news or print publications. Networks, local stations and most radio stations would be subject to evaluation.
> 
> Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists, Sekulow said. Its clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics  at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.
> 
> ...
> 
> Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com


Living the dreams of his Commie parents.


----------



## The T

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't start many threads but feel free to point out an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't think so. And this isn't my thread.
> Nice try at deflection, but the fact remains, you don't start a thread with some rambling incoherency you think you heard somewhere and can't link.
> 
> But feel free to make the case for that too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/329216-the-reason-for-the-season.html
> 
> The fact remains, this thread was a response to another thread, and is intended as a defense of the FCC, yet you attacked it because you were scared that someone might have a legitimate argument against the government taking control of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually practice at being an imbecile, or does it come naturally?
> 
> That thread isn't a news story at all. Plus, it's got two videos in the OP as background.
> 
> Obviously you were wrong. Again.
> 
> And how in the blue fuck is this thread a "response to another thread"? Where is it?
> No stupid, the fact remains, you don't just start a thread with some nebulous ramblings that aren't linked to anything. That is pure bullshit.
> 
> Which kind of explains why you're here. Nice to see ya. Safe trip home now.
Click to expand...

EXPLAIN to us why YOU'RE here son.


----------



## S.J.

The Obama presidency can be summed up in two words - Crime Spree.  He has attacked the foundation of our republic from every possible angle, in every possible way, and by any means he can find.  Executive orders, IRS, NSA spying, recruiting cable companies to snitch, banks, ACA to obtain medical records, FCC, TSA, FBI.  I'm sure I've missed a few, as the assault has been non-stop for 5 years now.


----------



## Politico

Wow five pages for something that is not going to happen.


----------



## mudwhistle

Politico said:


> Wow five pages for something that is not going to happen.



Well, the FCC is submitting news stations to questioning isn't all that bad. They do the same thing with conservative talk show hosts through the IRS. Questions after questions after questions. 

Do you have something to hide? Huh? You can end all of this if you just give Obama a break once in awhile. Maybe even try to give him a little positive spin while he's trying to transform America.

Do that and we might leave you alone.



Now it's the FCC.

Are you broadcasting what we in the government feels is suitable programming?

That would never stifle anti-government programming. No sir. Uh-uh. No way.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

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.


----------



## bedowin62

Delta4Embassy said:


> 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.






what else are you willing to bend over for genius?



 i mean really einstein; you want the government to decide what is "real" news or not?


 cuz it's not like govvernments ever engage in propaganda or anything; when has THAT ever happened in the history of civilization?





idiots and hypocrites


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually want me to link to nothingness?
> 
> I'll get right on that.
> 
> This isn't my first message board; I've been in this issue before and I've repeatedly put out invitations to any poster anywhere, to cite me even one case of FD censorship.  This goes back about ten years.
> 
> Know how many responses I've gotten to that challenge in ten years?
> 
> 
> Zero.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried it back in the 80s. That was more than 10 years ago.
> 
> Prove the nobody ever got their license pulled or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to.  That would be attempting to prove a negative.  What do you want me to do, list the entire license histories of every broadcast outlet ever, with a note on the side saying "not censored by the Fairness Doctrine"?
> 
> Don't be absurd.  If you claim such exist, then burden of proof is all yours.
> 
> As I said.... rotsa ruck on that.
Click to expand...


To any rational person it should be clear that just because it hasn't happened before, this Administration would never do it. That's just not a valid argument. Not anymore. Obama said he's going to go around Congress, and in effect, go around the Constitution. It has become clear that he doesn't really believe in following our laws, so what makes you think this case is any kind of an exception? This Administration has given us plenty of reasons to be skeptical. It doesn't matter how much you want to insult our intelligence, we don't have any reason to trust anything Obama and his regime does. 

I wonder why we always have these liberals who show up on this board who seem to know everything about what's going on, they tell us all kinds of things no average American should know, and after years of listening to them harp about how great it's going to be, it turns out that just about everything we were afraid of was true. 

Greenbeard had all of these facts and he effectively countered every claim, yet now that we have found out what's in Obamacare, he doesn't have all that much to say. Mainly because the jig is up. Unfortunately it's too late for anyone to do anything about it.


----------



## Mac1958

Delta4Embassy said:


> 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.




I agree with your point about Fox and MSNBC, but going forward it's going to be flat-out impossible for a governing body to police the media for bias and propaganda.  It just can't be done.  And that doesn't even *count *the freakin' *internet.*

Rather than expecting the Feds to choose the winners and losers, the best thing to do is educate the populace to the fact that our media is simply one source of information, get them to understand that traditional journalism has (sadly) morphed into advocate journalism.  

At least then people know to take this crap with grain of salt, perhaps (hopefully) it will motivate more people to get multiple sources on any given issue.

.


----------



## mudwhistle

New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections | WashingtonExaminer.com



> The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs." Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.
> 
> The initiative, known around the agency as "the CIN Study" (pronounced "sin"), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. "This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced," says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC's five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). "I've never had any input into the process," adds Pai, who brought the story to the public's attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.


----------



## bedowin62

Regardless of what you think of Fox News; or even the raging, angry, hypocritical, unhinged idiots at MSNBC; it boggles my mind that people think it's a good idea for people to allow the government to decide what is "real" news or not.  have you no sense or notion of history?


----------



## mudwhistle

A president who was raised a communist would never try to infringe on freedom of the press. Never.

Too bad freedom of health care from government oppression wasn't written into the constitution.


----------



## editec

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.


----------



## Unkotare

Pogo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another bullshit source/bullshit story.
Click to expand...




How many times are you going to feel compelled to repeat that mantra now that you've dug your hole this deep? 

Take off the cheerleader outfit and start thinking instead of nuthugging. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wasthatneeded said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## HenryBHough

Pogo said:


> Apparently it's been a long time since you were behind an RE-20.  Weren't they using stone tablets back then?



RE-20?

Oh, those thing used by pajama-boy disc jockeys!

Last good American made mic was RCA's 77-DX but the 44's could put balls on even a pajama-boy jock.  Too bad they'd all be snapped up by collectors before your day.  

You remember it your way; I'll remember it mine.

But really, do something about that speech problem.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it's been a long time since you were behind an RE-20.  Weren't they using stone tablets back then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE-20?
> 
> Oh, those thing used by pajama-boy disc jockeys!
> 
> Last good American made mic was RCA's 77-DX but the 44's could put balls on even a pajama-boy jock.  Too bad they'd all be snapped up by collectors before your day.
> 
> You remember it your way; I'll remember it mine.
> 
> But really, do something about that speech problem.
Click to expand...


  yup, pajama Lush Rimjob has his gold plated.  Hey, it's the standard.  I ween that when you were on the air the Dixie cup had just been invented.  And by the time the end product gets to the listener's ear you might as well have used an SM-57 anyway.

What speech problem is this then?  Proximity effect?  Are my words too booming and profound for you?  Want me to roll off the bass?


----------



## williepete

*Echoes of the IRS in the FCC Snooping Scandal*

By David French 

The IRS targeting scandal is of course multi-faceted, but one of its key elements was the use of comprehensive IRS questionnaires to determine everything from tea-party donor and member lists to the actions and activities of family members and even identifying persons or entities with which you maintain a close relationship. In other words, the Obama administration IRS was abusing its regulatory authority to essentially discern the inner workings of an entire political and cultural movement.

Last week, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai disclosed the existence of the FCCs new Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs, a study that would send FCC researchers (monitors?) into newsrooms across the nation to determine, among other things, whether news organizations are meeting citizens actual as opposed to perceived information needs. As designed, the study empowers researchers to not only ask a series of questions of news staff, it also provides (in pages 10 and 11) advice for gaining access to employees even when broadcasters and their Human Resources refuse to provide confidential employee information. The Obama administration FCC is abusing its regulatory authority by attempting to discern the inner workings of American newsrooms.

And what will these FCC monitors ask when they do get access? Heres the list of questions to station owners, managers, or HR:


 What is the news philosophy of the station?

 Who is your target audience?

 How do you define critical information that the community needs?

 How do you ensure the community gets this critical information?

 How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?

 What are the demographics of the news management staff (HR)?

 What are the demographics of the on air staff (HR)?

 What are the demographics of the news production staff (HR)?

And heres the list of questions to on-air staff:


 What is the news philosophy of the station?

 How much news does your station air every day?

 Who decides which stories are covered?

 How much influence do you have in deciding which stories to cover?

 Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?

o If so, can you give an example?

o What was the reason given for the decision?

o Why do you disagree?

*Since when is a stations philosophy or its inter-office disputes any of the federal governments business? For that matter, how is the federal government qualified to determine what a citizen needs to know. Are citizens not qualified to make that determination themselves?

The Obama governing philosophy combines the regulatory state with an intolerance of dissent. Taken together, this means an extreme level of government intrusion into private activity. Any entity whose business touches the federal government (and given the vast scope of the government, it touches and regulates virtually every entity) is deemed an open book for bureaucratic inquiry. The chilling effect is obvious and broadcasters decline to participate at their own risk.*

I spend a lot of time in our own radio studio (at the ACLJ we have a daily radio program that broadcasts on 850 stations nationwide), and I was trying to imagine todays broadcast with an FCC researcher in the studio. Its not hard to guess what theyd think, what their report would say, and what it would recommend. We believe the public has a critical information need to hear about Obama-administration overreach.

I suspect his FCC disagrees.

Echoes of the IRS in the FCC Snooping Scandal | National Review Online


----------



## Pogo

editec said:


> 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.





Bingo, Double Bingo, and BOOM.  The mouth breathers sweat bullets about trivial shit like this; where were they when Telcom 96 was being pushed through and signed by Bullshit Clinton?  Where the hell were they in 2001 when Michael Powell (walking example of both the DC revolving door and proof that talent skips a generation) answered a question about the digital divide by stating, "I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one".   Where were these voices when Powell and his ilk tried to hand over the entire airwave spectrum to corporatia and had to be overturned in court, Congress and public opinion?  Missing in action, that's where.  Over on the side murmuring "yes master, may I have another".

Puppets...


----------



## Pogo

williepete said:


> *
> 
> I spend a lot of time in our own radio studio (at the ACLJ we have a daily radio program that broadcasts on 850 stations nationwide), and I was trying to imagine todays broadcast with an FCC researcher in the studio. Its not hard to guess what theyd think, what their report would say, and what it would recommend. We believe the public has a critical information need to hear about Obama-administration overreach.
> 
> I suspect his FCC disagrees.
> 
> Echoes of the IRS in the FCC Snooping Scandal | National Review Online*


*

David French is a commentator, not a news reporter.  And once again, the FCC is not part of this or any administration.  It conducts studies all the time.  Always has.

This entire list, and the entire survey, was posted last night.  In full.*


----------



## Pogo

bedowin62 said:


> Regardless of what you think of Fox News; or even the raging, angry, hypocritical, unhinged idiots at MSNBC; it boggles my mind that people think it's a good idea for people to allow the government to decide what is "real" news or not.  have you no sense or notion of history?



It _would_ be outrageous.  If there were such a thing going on.  Y'all are fueling yourselves off an OP that is linked to absolutely nothing, and you swallowed it whole without question.

There's some lesson there about gullibility.  Think about it.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They tried it back in the 80s. That was more than 10 years ago.
> 
> Prove the nobody ever got their license pulled or STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to.  That would be attempting to prove a negative.  What do you want me to do, list the entire license histories of every broadcast outlet ever, with a note on the side saying "not censored by the Fairness Doctrine"?
> 
> Don't be absurd.  If you claim such exist, then burden of proof is all yours.
> 
> As I said.... rotsa ruck on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To any rational person it should be clear that just because it hasn't happened before, this Administration would never do it. That's just not a valid argument. Not anymore. Obama said he's going to go around Congress, and in effect, go around the Constitution. It has become clear that he doesn't really believe in following our laws, so what makes you think this case is any kind of an exception? This Administration has given us plenty of reasons to be skeptical. It doesn't matter how much you want to insult our intelligence, we don't have any reason to trust anything Obama and his regime does.
> 
> I wonder why we always have these liberals who show up on this board who seem to know everything about what's going on, they tell us all kinds of things no average American should know, and after years of listening to them harp about how great it's going to be, it turns out that just about everything we were afraid of was true.
> 
> Greenbeard had all of these facts and he effectively countered every claim, yet now that we have found out what's in Obamacare, he doesn't have all that much to say. Mainly because the jig is up. Unfortunately it's too late for anyone to do anything about it.
Click to expand...


None of this was the issue.  The issue was the bullshit posts that misrepresent what the Fairness Doctrine was.  It referred to the _past_, not the future.  I see you're feeling the need to move the goalposts in a temporal sense.


----------



## Pogo

Delta4Embassy said:


> 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.



The FCC doesn't "classify" by format.  Format is totally up to the broadcaster.  And these two entities are on cable anyway, not the airwaves.  FCC doesn't regulate what cable operators do.  Which doesn't mean they wouldn't be part of the study, since the study isn't about regulation; it's about analyzing systems.

I linked it last night.  You can read the whole thing.


----------



## Pogo

The T said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/329216-the-reason-for-the-season.html
> 
> The fact remains, this thread was a response to another thread, and is intended as a defense of the FCC, yet you attacked it because you were scared that someone might have a legitimate argument against the government taking control of something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually practice at being an imbecile, or does it come naturally?
> 
> That thread isn't a news story at all. Plus, it's got two videos in the OP as background.
> 
> Obviously you were wrong. Again.
> 
> And how in the blue fuck is this thread a "response to another thread"? Where is it?
> No stupid, the fact remains, you don't just start a thread with some nebulous ramblings that aren't linked to anything. That is pure bullshit.
> 
> Which kind of explains why you're here. Nice to see ya. Safe trip home now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EXPLAIN to us why YOU'RE here son.
Click to expand...


Believe me Goober, if I'm your "son", not only have we grossly violated the laws of linear time, but I'm going to need a length of rope and a chair.


----------



## peach174

Pogo said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what you think of Fox News; or even the raging, angry, hypocritical, unhinged idiots at MSNBC; it boggles my mind that people think it's a good idea for people to allow the government to decide what is "real" news or not.  have you no sense or notion of history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _would_ be outrageous.  If there were such a thing going on.  Y'all are fueling yourselves off an OP that is linked to absolutely nothing, and you swallowed it whole without question.
> 
> There's some lesson there about gullibility.  Think about it.
Click to expand...



The left has been very upset that they do not control the media industry any longer.
They have been complaining about Fox and right wing talk radio since the beginning.
If you think that they won't use this to shut them up then you are the gullible one.
This is the same agency that renews those licenses and it is the perfect way for them to have some bogus made up excuse not to renew them.


----------



## Unkotare

Some 'people' are so invested in their partisanship, so far up obama's crack, that they will play the apologist for literally anything coming out of this administration. Such people are unqualified for citizenship, and a danger to the Republic.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to.  That would be attempting to prove a negative.  What do you want me to do, list the entire license histories of every broadcast outlet ever, with a note on the side saying "not censored by the Fairness Doctrine"?
> 
> Don't be absurd.  If you claim such exist, then burden of proof is all yours.
> 
> As I said.... rotsa ruck on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To any rational person it should be clear that just because it hasn't happened before, this Administration would never do it. That's just not a valid argument. Not anymore. Obama said he's going to go around Congress, and in effect, go around the Constitution. It has become clear that he doesn't really believe in following our laws, so what makes you think this case is any kind of an exception? This Administration has given us plenty of reasons to be skeptical. It doesn't matter how much you want to insult our intelligence, we don't have any reason to trust anything Obama and his regime does.
> 
> I wonder why we always have these liberals who show up on this board who seem to know everything about what's going on, they tell us all kinds of things no average American should know, and after years of listening to them harp about how great it's going to be, it turns out that just about everything we were afraid of was true.
> 
> Greenbeard had all of these facts and he effectively countered every claim, yet now that we have found out what's in Obamacare, he doesn't have all that much to say. Mainly because the jig is up. Unfortunately it's too late for anyone to do anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of this was the issue.  The issue was the bullshit posts that misrepresent what the Fairness Doctrine was.  It referred to the _past_, not the future.  I see you're feeling the need to move the goalposts in a temporal sense.
Click to expand...


If the goalpost is freedom of the press i'm not the one moving them.


----------



## Pogo

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what you think of Fox News; or even the raging, angry, hypocritical, unhinged idiots at MSNBC; it boggles my mind that people think it's a good idea for people to allow the government to decide what is "real" news or not.  have you no sense or notion of history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _would_ be outrageous.  If there were such a thing going on.  Y'all are fueling yourselves off an OP that is linked to absolutely nothing, and you swallowed it whole without question.
> 
> There's some lesson there about gullibility.  Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The left has been very upset that they do not control the media industry any longer.
> They have been complaining about Fox and right wing talk radio since the beginning.
> If you think that they won't use this to shut them up then you are the gullible one.
> This is the same agency that renews those licenses and it is the perfect way for them to have some bogus made up excuse not to renew them.
Click to expand...


That's a totally public process, and whatever the FCC does invites public comment.  And license renewals are nearly automatic, more so than they should be IMO, so if there was a renewal denied, it would be _big_ news.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> To any rational person it should be clear that just because it hasn't happened before, this Administration would never do it. That's just not a valid argument. Not anymore. Obama said he's going to go around Congress, and in effect, go around the Constitution. It has become clear that he doesn't really believe in following our laws, so what makes you think this case is any kind of an exception? This Administration has given us plenty of reasons to be skeptical. It doesn't matter how much you want to insult our intelligence, we don't have any reason to trust anything Obama and his regime does.
> 
> I wonder why we always have these liberals who show up on this board who seem to know everything about what's going on, they tell us all kinds of things no average American should know, and after years of listening to them harp about how great it's going to be, it turns out that just about everything we were afraid of was true.
> 
> Greenbeard had all of these facts and he effectively countered every claim, yet now that we have found out what's in Obamacare, he doesn't have all that much to say. Mainly because the jig is up. Unfortunately it's too late for anyone to do anything about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this was the issue.  The issue was the bullshit posts that misrepresent what the Fairness Doctrine was.  It referred to the _past_, not the future.  I see you're feeling the need to move the goalposts in a temporal sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the goalpost is freedom of the press i'm not the one moving them.
Click to expand...


That's a crucial _if_, innit?


----------



## HenryBHough

Those pajama-boy disc jockey types would love to have government inspectors in the newsrooms.  That way a whole slew of stations would eliminate news entirely and they'd have more time to fool around with their rap music.  

Forgetting, of course, that once those bureaucrats no longer had news to inspect they'd start inspecting PJB favourite music for politically incorrect lyrics.


----------



## Unkotare

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It _would_ be outrageous.  If there were such a thing going on.  Y'all are fueling yourselves off an OP that is linked to absolutely nothing, and you swallowed it whole without question.
> 
> There's some lesson there about gullibility.  Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left has been very upset that they do not control the media industry any longer.
> They have been complaining about Fox and right wing talk radio since the beginning.
> If you think that they won't use this to shut them up then you are the gullible one.
> This is the same agency that renews those licenses and it is the perfect way for them to have some bogus made up excuse not to renew them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a totally public process, and whatever the FCC does invites public comment.  And license renewals are nearly automatic, more so than they should be IMO, so if there was a renewal denied, it would be _big_ news.
Click to expand...




"Yeah, if Germany were to invade Poland, it would be _big_ news. Let's wait to see if that happens before we start paying attention."


----------



## Pogo

Unkotare said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has been very upset that they do not control the media industry any longer.
> They have been complaining about Fox and right wing talk radio since the beginning.
> If you think that they won't use this to shut them up then you are the gullible one.
> This is the same agency that renews those licenses and it is the perfect way for them to have some bogus made up excuse not to renew them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a totally public process, and whatever the FCC does invites public comment.  And license renewals are nearly automatic, more so than they should be IMO, so if there was a renewal denied, it would be _big_ news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Yeah, if Germany were to invade Poland, it would be _big_ news. Let's wait to see if that happens before we start paying attention."
Click to expand...


Hey not bad, we had over 100 posts before Godwin showed up.  We're improving.


----------



## HenryBHough

The most common reason that broadcast (particularly AM radio) licenses go away is that they aren't being used.  At any given moment there are tens of stations that have gone silent, usually because the owners went broke.  They cling to the license under what is called "The greater fool theory".  That is, the owners admit to themselves that they were a fool to have not dumped the non-performing business sooner but cling to the license in hopes of finding a greater fool to buy it.

It's a long process but silent stations DO get deleted.  Not revoked.  Just deleted.


----------



## Uncensored2008

tyroneweaver said:


> under a dem administration.
> I'm sure we're all schocked



People are perfectly content with state control of the media in Venezuela, so Obama is sure no one will mind here...


----------



## Uncensored2008

And Obama's war on the First Amendment marches on...


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Those pajama-boy disc jockey types would love to have government inspectors in the newsrooms.  That way a whole slew of stations would eliminate news entirely and they'd have more time to fool around with their rap music.
> 
> Forgetting, of course, that once those bureaucrats no longer had news to inspect they'd start inspecting PJB favourite music for politically incorrect lyrics.



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.

Again this study is on analyzing systems (and it's linked in full, providing the opportunity to discuss actual content rather than innuendo and out the other--- even while wearing pajamas).

Perhaps such an analysis can expose news gathering "systems" such as this, from 2006: 
>> The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

"We know we only had partial access to these VNRs and yet we found 77 stations using them," said Diana Farsetta, one of the group's researchers. "I would say it's pretty extraordinary. The picture we found was much worse than we expected going into the investigation in terms of just how widely these get played and how frequently these pre-packaged segments are put on the air."

Ms Farsetta said the public relations companies commissioned to produce these segments by corporations had become increasingly sophisticated in their techniques in order to get the VNRs broadcast. "They have got very good at mimicking what a real, independently produced television report would look like," she said.

The FCC has declined to comment on the investigation but investigators from the commission's enforcement unit recently approached Ms Farsetta for a copy of her group's report.

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, *one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items*.  (-- Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV')

Would that not be useful?  I'd damn sure like to know.
Long story short, to quote Chico Esuqela: always keep you eye on de ball.
Yes, there IS a ball in play.  It's just not in the hands of the player you think.  The old hidden ball trick -- still works.


----------



## HenryBHough

Now we know what happened to all those failed commentators who joined the unemployed when Air America went down the tubes!

They became anti-Bush obsessed Obama spokes_persons_!


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Now we know what happened to all those failed commentators who joined the unemployed when Air America went down the tubes!
> 
> They became anti-Bush obsessed Obama spokes_persons_!



Actually they just went to new syndicators like DialGlobal and Premiere.  They're still on the air around here; they never left.

There seem to be a lot of fantasies in those pajamas.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this was the issue.  The issue was the bullshit posts that misrepresent what the Fairness Doctrine was.  It referred to the _past_, not the future.  I see you're feeling the need to move the goalposts in a temporal sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the goalpost is freedom of the press i'm not the one moving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a crucial _if_, innit?
Click to expand...


The if is getting smaller by the hour.

What's next? Nationalized thermostats?


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the goalpost is freedom of the press i'm not the one moving them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crucial _if_, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The if is getting smaller by the hour.
> 
> What's next? Nationalized thermostats?
Click to expand...


Better not be.  Most people couldn't take my settings.


----------



## Unkotare

Uncensored2008 said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> under a dem administration.
> I'm sure we're all schocked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are perfectly content with state control of the media in Venezuela, so Obama is sure no one will mind here...
Click to expand...



Seems like obama read that book chavez gave him...


----------



## Unkotare

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the goalpost is freedom of the press i'm not the one moving them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a crucial _if_, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The if is getting smaller by the hour.
> 
> What's next? Nationalized thermostats?
Click to expand...



Well, he did mention something in his first campaign...


----------



## nodoginnafight

> n 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&#8217;s nonsense to claim that freedom of the press is being &#8216;violated,&#8217; and those who do so merely exhibit their ignorance, or are partisan demagogues attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists.
> __________________



OK, then what action is going to be taken based on the findings of this study?

Is there any legitimate role for government to play?

I say there is not - so why waste time and taxpayer money on the study?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> 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.}


----------



## Uncensored2008

nodoginnafight said:


> OK, then what action is going to be taken based on the findings of this study?



Outlaw Fox News Channel and prohibit the broadcasting of Rush Limbaugh - to start with.



> Is there any legitimate role for government to play?



Asking such questions could have serious consequences.



> I say there is not - so why waste time and taxpayer money on the study?



State control of information is a tried and true program for rulers. Obama views this as vital.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.}
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> 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.



Kinda like the IRS then?



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



If y'all didn't act so much like the Khmer Rouge, you might avoid that comparison.

Say, did the state control the media under the Khmer Rouge...

Well I'll be, I think they did.....


----------



## natstew

bendog said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has neither the mandate nor the authority to poll the viewing habits of citizens. Leave it to the left to bring up a race issue where there is clearly no such thing involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's untrue.  The fcc's charge is
> 
> "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."
> 
> This controversy is actually illuminating in that it POSSIBLY pits two different views of govts role.
> 
> Thatcherism:  the only legit reason for govt is to facilitate private entities getting into and out of markets.  This view believes private markets will best serve people who desire a good or commodity
> 
> "the bad liberal:" govt must act to make sure every citizen is served an appropriate amount of information.  This view distrusts people acting in their own self-interest.
> 
> What the FCC has done so far could fit into either view.  I think it bears close scrutiny, however.
Click to expand...


The Constitution trumps the FCC's charge.


----------



## TooTall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> It would also help to understand what constitutes a violation of freedom of the press.
> 
> And the FCC's news monitoring isn&#8217;t it.
> 
> Prior restraint concerns the government&#8217;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&#8217; 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&#8217;s nonsense to claim that freedom of the press is being &#8216;violated,&#8217; and those who do so merely exhibit their ignorance, or are partisan demagogues attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists.
Click to expand...


The FCC Commisioner disagrees with you.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY



> I welcome today&#8217;s announcement that the FCC has suspended its &#8220;Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,&#8221; or CIN study. This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn&#8217;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.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like the IRS then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try at a false equivalence, but I'd expect no less from a poster who sees every adversary as Pol Pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If y'all didn't act so much like the Khmer Rouge, you might avoid that comparison.
> 
> Say, did the state control the media under the Khmer Rouge...
> 
> Well I'll be, I think they did.....
Click to expand...


I'm sure they did, it's how dictators work.

And if you see that going on here, outside your own comic book, I have to wonder if you can spell the names of the medications you're on.  If that were the case Lush Rimjob would not exist.  How's his career working out?


----------



## Pogo

TooTall said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## HenryBHough

Amusing, in a sad sorta way, when liberals fulminate over the success of an entertainer in a field where they, themselves, always fail.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Amusing, in a sad sorta way, when liberals fulminate over the success of an entertainer in a field where they, themselves, always fail.



Then why are you pajama freaks always yammering about Bill Maher?


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Yeah, no way Obama could bribe them or scare them into starting this attempt to silence a free press.  No way.

It's just a few rogue agents in Cincinnati.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Why would Obama appoint a Republican?

He wouldn't, unless he needed another scapegoat.


----------



## RandallFlagg

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/21/fcc-announces-it-will-back-off-plan-to-monitor-newsrooms/




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&#8217;s proposed questions for reporters and news directors &#8220;may not have been appropriate,&#8221; FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said in a prepared statement.

&#8220;Last summer, the proposed study was put out for public comment and one pilot to test the study design in a single marketplace &#8211; Columbia, S.C. &#8211; was planned,&#8221; she explained.

&#8220;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,&#8221; it continued. &#8220;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.&#8221;

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 &#8220;new study design.&#8221;

&#8220;To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study,&#8221; the statement said.

Gilson stressed that future studies will not call for interviews with &#8220;media owners, news directors or reporters.&#8221;

&#8220;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,&#8221; Gilson said.


She added: &#8220;Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America&#8217;s newsrooms is false.&#8221;

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.

&#8220;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&#8217;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&#8217;s report to Congress.

&#8220;The FCC looks forward to fulfilling its obligation to Congress to report on barriers to entry into the communications marketplace, and is currently revising its proposed study to achieve that goal,&#8221; it added.


----------



## HenryBHough

Weasel words.

The scheme will be back as soon as the furor dies down.


----------



## SillyWabbit

It may or may not be related, but I heard a brief snippet on the radio about a California court's decision that, essentially, monitoring everyone's communication without their knowledge doesn't violate their rights because they don't know it's happening. 

Brain hurts...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually practice at being an imbecile, or does it come naturally?
> 
> That thread isn't a news story at all. Plus, it's got two videos in the OP as background.
> 
> Obviously you were wrong. Again.
> 
> And how in the blue fuck is this thread a "response to another thread"? Where is it?
> No stupid, the fact remains, you don't just start a thread with some nebulous ramblings that aren't linked to anything. That is pure bullshit.
> 
> Which kind of explains why you're here. Nice to see ya. Safe trip home now.
> 
> 
> 
> EXPLAIN to us why YOU'RE here son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe me Goober, if I'm your "son", not only have we grossly violated the laws of linear time, but I'm going to need a length of rope and a chair.
Click to expand...



What laws of linear time? Is that like your belief that everything you don't know is bullshit?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go forth and multiply.  The challenge was, and is, and will remain, find me one case of any broadcast outlet having its content censored or controlled via the FD.  I didn't maintain that the FD itself mandates fines or license renewals.  Because that's not where those regulations live.
> 
> Take some English lessons someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not my challenge to you, mine to you was to point out how that was even possible under the fairness doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> This "issue" (if that's what it is) was apparently generated by this editorial in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.  The writer of the editorial is a Republican FCC Commissioner appointed by O'bama.  Basically it's a study of how information is processed.
> 
> Yes, the government is doing a study.   When has that ever happened...
> 
> Rather than biased editorials, half-wits fanning flames of mythologies and OPs that give no basis for themselves whatsoever, let's go right to the heart of the matter.  Here's the actual proposal from the research company designed to execute this study.  The reader will note it's a year old already.
> 
> Excerpt:
> >>* Overall    Project    Goals    and    Objectives    *
> 
> We understand that the purpose of this Study of Critical Information Needs (CINs) is to provide
> a comprehensive analysis of access/barriers to CINs in diverse American communities.
> The objectives of the study are to:
>  collect data to inform:
> o the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC;
> o the media that makes up media ecologies (i.e., what media is actually included in that ecology; ownership of that market; what specific type of content dominates those media ecologies; what is the flow of information within the ecology, etc);
> o the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies (i.e., how do different layers of the ecology interact to provide for CINs; how do individuals of diverse neighborhoods/communities differ in terms of access to CINs);
>  validate data collection tools/templates and protocols;
>  demonstrate high internal validity and reliability of measured constructs
> 
> *Study    Goals    and    Objectives    *
> 
> The objectives of the study are to help FCC answer the following questions:
>  How does this study inform the acquisition and/or barriers to CINs in American communities?
>  What barriers to entry exist in the FCC regulated markets and to what extent do those barriers to entry have a negative impact?
>  Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of internal validity? Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of reliability across diverse target markets?  <<
> 
> Sorry but that's the boring reality.  As you were with the fantasies...



Actually, idiot, they aren't doing a study because multiple people,. on both sides of the aisle, pointed out that they don't even have the authority to ask the questions.

But, please, keep pretending you are suddenly smart enough to actually understand the issues, it amuses me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> 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

editec said:


> 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

LordBrownTrout said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasthatneeded said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


When did janitor become a profession?


----------



## Dante

bendog said:


> 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

Pogo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Dante said:


> 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 fuck 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

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fuck with people, I should be shot.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Dante

blackhawk said:


> 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

Dante said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

blackhawk said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


... Huh?  

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


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Obama appoint a Republican?
> 
> He wouldn't, unless he needed another scapegoat.
Click to expand...


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

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Understand now?

Helloooo?


Anybody home?


----------



## Pogo

RandallFlagg said:


> 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

Pogo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


touche!


----------



## Dante

Pogo said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


   facts win every time


----------



## TooTall

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Pogo

TooTall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Nothing is completely nonpartisan (witness what a commissioner can do such as Mark Fowler (Reagan appointee) or the aforementioned sleazebag Michael Powell).  But that's the way the structure is set up, for that purpose.  Commissioner O'Reilly is also a Republican.

Not every Commissioner necessarily has a political party since it's not a political job.  Chairman Wheeler, I'm not sure his party is known or if he even has one (link?) but mostly he's a businessman.  That in itself is cause for concern more than what his political party is (again, as if we even have two parties).  And all of them have to be confirmed by the Senate.

Anyway no more than three can be from the same political party.  Them's the rules.


----------



## TooTall

Pogo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> It would also help to understand what constitutes a violation of freedom of the press.
> 
> And the FCC's news monitoring isn&#8217;t it.
> 
> Prior restraint concerns the government&#8217;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&#8217; 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&#8217;s nonsense to claim that freedom of the press is being &#8216;violated,&#8217; 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&#8217;s announcement that the FCC has suspended its &#8220;Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,&#8221; or CIN study. This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn&#8217;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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


I printed the FCC Commisioner, not* "the* FCC Commisioner."  You would have a point if I had printed the Charman of the FCC, but I didn't.  Perhaps you need to look at context.

On edit:  You are the one posting that the FCC Commisioner that made the announcent was a Republican and he did it on a Murdoch station.  Then you proceed to attempt to make a case that the Commision is non-partisan.  Think about it!


----------



## HenryBHough

The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content.  Yes, surely not constitutional.  
Remember that?  The Constitution?  You DO!  Then prepare to be re-educated.


----------



## Dante

HenryBHough said:


> The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content.  Yes, surely not constitutional.
> Remember that?  The Constitution?  You DO!  Then prepare to be re-educated.



really?  you have credible links to this?


thought not


----------



## Pogo

TooTall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I printed the FCC Commisioner, not* "the* FCC Commisioner."  You would have a point if I had printed the Charman of the FCC, but I didn't.  Perhaps you need to look at context.
Click to expand...


It said "The FCC Commissioner" on my screen.  Still does too.


----------



## HenryBHough

Dante said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content.  Yes, surely not constitutional.
> Remember that?  The Constitution?  You DO!  Then prepare to be re-educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?  you have credible links to this?
> 
> 
> thought not
Click to expand...


In fact I do:

Constitution of the United States - Official

Though I do encourage you to read it I also urge you not to print it out and carry it with you when doing foolish things like trying to board an airliner.


----------



## Dante

HenryBHough said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content.  Yes, surely not constitutional.
> Remember that?  The Constitution?  You DO!  Then prepare to be re-educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?  you have credible links to this?
> 
> 
> thought not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fact I do:
> 
> Constitution of the United States - Official
> 
> Though I do encourage you to read it I also urge you not to print it out and carry it with you when doing foolish things like trying to board an airliner.
Click to expand...



can't find 

"a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content" in the US Constitution (American English version)


----------



## HenryBHough

Dante said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?  you have credible links to this?
> 
> 
> thought not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact I do:
> 
> Constitution of the United States - Official
> 
> Though I do encourage you to read it I also urge you not to print it out and carry it with you when doing foolish things like trying to board an airliner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> can't find
> 
> "a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content" in the US Constitution (American English version)
Click to expand...


Start reading the thread from the top instead of jumping in toward the end.  Read for comprehension not just sounding out each word.


----------



## TooTall

Pogo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I printed the FCC Commisioner, not* "the* FCC Commisioner."  You would have a point if I had printed the Charman of the FCC, but I didn't.  Perhaps you need to look at context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It said "The FCC Commissioner" on my screen.  Still does too.
Click to expand...


He IS one of the FCC Commisioners. It is normal to capitalize the first word in a sentence or a title if that is your problem.  The second statement in my post was "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI."  Your cute little ploy bolding *the* didn't fool anyone.  It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.


----------



## Dante

HenryBHough said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact I do:
> 
> Constitution of the United States - Official
> 
> Though I do encourage you to read it I also urge you not to print it out and carry it with you when doing foolish things like trying to board an airliner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can't find
> 
> "a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content" in the US Constitution (American English version)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start reading the thread from the top instead of jumping in toward the end.  Read for comprehension not just sounding out each word.
Click to expand...


"The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content. Yes, surely not constitutional."

your pathetic opinion(s) is duly noted


why leave out the few who are buying up all the major media?


----------



## HenryBHough

TooTall said:


> It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.



Sort of a hive mind, so to speak!


----------



## Pogo

TooTall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I printed the FCC Commisioner, not* "the* FCC Commisioner."  You would have a point if I had printed the Charman of the FCC, but I didn't.  Perhaps you need to look at context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It said "The FCC Commissioner" on my screen.  Still does too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He IS one of the FCC Commisioners. It is normal to capitalize the first word in a sentence or a title if that is your problem.  The second statement in my post was "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI."  Your cute little ploy bolding *the* didn't fool anyone.  It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.
Click to expand...


Uh -- no, it isn't.  That's the Chairman's job.

I singled out "The FCC Commissioner" because the definite article indicates you thought there was only one commissioner.  If you knew he was one of five you would have said "*an* FCC Commissioner" or *this* FCC Commissioner".  And "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI" doesn't change that in any way.

You thought Pai was the one and only FCC Commissioner.  So I corrected you.  You're welcome.

Some people -- give 'em a million bucks and they'll complain about the color of the money.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dante said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 fuck with people, I should be shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government looking into businesses it grants licenses to in the name of the people need to be fucked and fucked with
Click to expand...


A tactic that I have gone on record as opposing.

But, please, keep trying to use things I have already condemned to prove that I am the hack.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dante said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of choice in the licensed media?  Not when fewer and fewer people own more and more of major media
Click to expand...


The only thing the government gives a license to are the airwaves. 

Unless, of course, they get net neutrality running the way some people  want.


----------



## HenryBHough

The DNC talking points mill has ground long and hard today but doesn't seem to gaining a whole lot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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&#8217;s proposed questions for reporters and news directors &#8220;may not have been appropriate,&#8221; FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said in a prepared statement.
> 
> &#8220;Last summer, the proposed study was put out for public comment and one pilot to test the study design in a single marketplace &#8211; Columbia, S.C. &#8211; was planned,&#8221; she explained.
> 
> &#8220;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,&#8221; it continued. &#8220;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.&#8221;
> 
> 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 &#8220;new study design.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study,&#8221; the statement said.
> 
> Gilson stressed that future studies will not call for interviews with &#8220;media owners, news directors or reporters.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;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,&#8221; Gilson said.
> 
> 
> She added: &#8220;Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America&#8217;s newsrooms is false.&#8221;
> 
> 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.
> 
> &#8220;*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&#8217;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&#8217;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?
Click to expand...


And the FCC didn't read them before they put them out for public comment?

The reason they came up with that particular study is that they got a contract asking them for ways to delve into that type of thing, and you are defending the idea that the FCC should regulate things it clearly has no business regulating.















​I am putting this in white just to make a point. I can see it now. You are going to claim you never said that, and try to point out that all you did was talk about this in an abstract way because you are so fucking stupid you never think about anything.

Changed it to red because the point was made.

Idiots will be idiots.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> facts win every time
Click to expand...


And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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&#8217;s proposed questions for reporters and news directors &#8220;may not have been appropriate,&#8221; FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said in a prepared statement.
> 
> &#8220;Last summer, the proposed study was put out for public comment and one pilot to test the study design in a single marketplace &#8211; Columbia, S.C. &#8211; was planned,&#8221; she explained.
> 
> &#8220;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,&#8221; it continued. &#8220;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.&#8221;
> 
> 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 &#8220;new study design.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study,&#8221; the statement said.
> 
> Gilson stressed that future studies will not call for interviews with &#8220;media owners, news directors or reporters.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;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,&#8221; Gilson said.
> 
> 
> She added: &#8220;Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America&#8217;s newsrooms is false.&#8221;
> 
> 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.
> 
> &#8220;*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&#8217;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&#8217;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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the FCC didn't read them before they put them out for public comment?
> 
> The reason they came up with that particular study is that they got a contract asking them for ways to delve into that type of thing, and you are defending the idea that the FCC should regulate things it clearly has no business regulating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I am putting this in white just to make a point. I can see it now. You are going to claim you never said that, and try to point out that all you did was talk about this in an abstract way because you are so fucking stupid you never think about anything.
> 
> Idiots will be idiots.
Click to expand...


Where did I say jack squat about what FCC would "regulate" under this?

Oops, that's another one you can't answer.  I'm such a meanie.

So -- _fifty_ cuckoos.
found another bottle, didja?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.
Click to expand...


How do you know they've been paid?  Link?

So you'd have them do what -- _not_ put it out for comment?


----------



## HenryBHough

People who demand links are simply too lazy to do their own research.  That's why they do so well in the news departments of MSNBC & CNN.  That's also why they find themselves confronted with the need to apologize as often as they are - something they rarely find the fortitude to do. 

But when they do _they're so cute_!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the FCC didn't read them before they put them out for public comment?
> 
> The reason they came up with that particular study is that they got a contract asking them for ways to delve into that type of thing, and you are defending the idea that the FCC should regulate things it clearly has no business regulating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I am putting this in white just to make a point. I can see it now. You are going to claim you never said that, and try to point out that all you did was talk about this in an abstract way because you are so fucking stupid you never think about anything.
> 
> Idiots will be idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say jack squat about what FCC would "regulate" under this?
> 
> Oops, that's another one you can't answer.  I'm such a meanie.
> 
> So -- _fifty_ cuckoos.
> found another bottle, didja?
Click to expand...


Do me a favor, highlight the post you just quoted and read the paragraph in white.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> facts win every time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know they've been paid?  Link?
> 
> So you'd have them do what -- _not_ put it out for comment?
Click to expand...


Because that is standard procedure, idiot. If I am wrong, feel free to pretend I am stupid by saying I am making things up, and that I am being mean to you.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the FCC didn't read them before they put them out for public comment?
> 
> The reason they came up with that particular study is that they got a contract asking them for ways to delve into that type of thing, and you are defending the idea that the FCC should regulate things it clearly has no business regulating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​I am putting this in white just to make a point. I can see it now. You are going to claim you never said that, and try to point out that all you did was talk about this in an abstract way because you are so fucking stupid you never think about anything.
> 
> Idiots will be idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say jack squat about what FCC would "regulate" under this?
> 
> Oops, that's another one you can't answer.  I'm such a meanie.
> 
> So -- _fifty_ cuckoos.
> found another bottle, didja?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do me a favor, highlight the post you just quoted and read the paragraph in white.
Click to expand...


So --- now you're admitting to making it up... before you make it up?
And that means ..... what?

How many bottles did you come up with exactly?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they've been paid?  Link?
> 
> So you'd have them do what -- _not_ put it out for comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that is standard procedure, idiot. If I am wrong, feel free to pretend I am stupid by saying I am making things up, and that I am being mean to you.
Click to expand...


Yes of course it is standard procedure.

... AND??


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they've been paid?  Link?
> 
> So you'd have them do what -- _not_ put it out for comment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is standard procedure, idiot. If I am wrong, feel free to pretend I am stupid by saying I am making things up, and that I am being mean to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course it is standard procedure.
> 
> ... AND??
Click to expand...


They requested the study, gave them an outline of what they wanted to know, read what they were handed, approved payment, and then put it out for public comment, all because they didn't see a problem at any point.

That tells me all I need to know, even if you are so stupid you think it proves they didn't get paid.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is standard procedure, idiot. If I am wrong, feel free to pretend I am stupid by saying I am making things up, and that I am being mean to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course it is standard procedure.
> 
> ... AND??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They requested the study, gave them an outline of what they wanted to know, read what they were handed, approved payment, and then put it out for public comment, all because they didn't see a problem at any point.
> 
> That tells me all I need to know, even if you are so stupid you think it proves they didn't get paid.
Click to expand...


So this fake "issue" is now down to whether Social Solutions got paid?  

You have no issue.  All you're doing is trolling at this point.  This is not an issue at all. 

O'bama Administration meddling in newsrooms: disproven.
Something to do with Fairness Doctrine: disproven
The FD in turn having anything to do with broadcast content: disproven.
The FCC developing intrusive questions: disproven
O'bama stacking the FCC: disproven.

And you yourself pointed out the study isn't happening anyway, as did others.

Again .... anything else, troll?  Other than this new practice of pre-admitting when you make stuff up, in invisible font?

Smoke a freaking joint and go to bed.

Sheesh.  Wackos.


----------



## American_Jihad

Memories...





from IH/wincoast

'NET NEUTRALITY PROTECTORS' SWEPT AWAY BY MIDTERM WAVE
by CAPITOL CONFIDENTIAL  6 Nov *2010*

---> 'Net Neutrality Protectors' Swept Away by Midterm Wave

Maybe this time you'll lose da senate too...


----------



## TooTall

Pogo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It said "The FCC Commissioner" on my screen.  Still does too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He IS one of the FCC Commisioners. It is normal to capitalize the first word in a sentence or a title if that is your problem.  The second statement in my post was "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI."  Your cute little ploy bolding *the* didn't fool anyone.  It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh -- no, it isn't.  That's the Chairman's job.
> 
> I singled out "The FCC Commissioner" because the definite article indicates you thought there was only one commissioner.  If you knew he was one of five you would have said "*an* FCC Commissioner" or *this* FCC Commissioner".  And "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI" doesn't change that in any way.
> 
> You thought Pai was the one and only FCC Commissioner.  So I corrected you.  You're welcome.
> 
> Some people -- give 'em a million bucks and they'll complain about the color of the money.
Click to expand...


I haven't heard the Chairman or any of the other Commisioners present an opposing view, so the conclusion I come to it is Commisioner Pai presented either the majority or the unanamous opinion of the Commision. 

Your mind reading ability needs some work, so don't pretend to know what I thought since you will be wrong every time.


----------



## TooTall

HenryBHough said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of a hive mind, so to speak!
Click to expand...


Sort of like the Supreme Court having one Justice deliver the majority opinion, and another the dissenting opinion, and not requiring the Chief Justice to write the opinion after every decision.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Progressive Founding Fathers Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Fidel all monitored and controlled their media, so to a Progressive, there's nothing wrong here

Can you imagine "Jeb Bush's FCC to monitor media outlets"?


----------



## Pogo

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Progressive Founding Fathers Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Fidel all monitored and controlled their media, so to a Progressive, there's nothing wrong here
> 
> Can you imagine "Jeb Bush's FCC to monitor media outlets"?



Jeb Bush woulnd't have an FCC.  It's not part of any administration.


----------



## Pogo

TooTall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He IS one of the FCC Commisioners. It is normal to capitalize the first word in a sentence or a title if that is your problem.  The second statement in my post was "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI."  Your cute little ploy bolding *the* didn't fool anyone.  It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -- no, it isn't.  That's the Chairman's job.
> 
> I singled out "The FCC Commissioner" because the definite article indicates you thought there was only one commissioner.  If you knew he was one of five you would have said "*an* FCC Commissioner" or *this* FCC Commissioner".  And "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI" doesn't change that in any way.
> 
> You thought Pai was the one and only FCC Commissioner.  So I corrected you.  You're welcome.
> 
> Some people -- give 'em a million bucks and they'll complain about the color of the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't heard the Chairman or any of the other Commisioners present an opposing view, so the conclusion I come to it is Commisioner Pai presented either the majority or the unanamous opinion of the Commision.
> 
> Your mind reading ability needs some work, so don't pretend to know what I thought since you will be wrong every time.
Click to expand...


The Commission doesn't have a collective "view".  It's a proposal by a research company.  FCC does studies all the time.  You can't have a "view" before you've done the study and develop some kind of response to it -- if you could there would be no need for the study.

This particular Commissioner (this just in-- there are five of them) opined that the study wasn't structured properly, and went public with that view in the WSJ.  That's it.

FCC doesn't work like the SCOTUS.  When some resolution does come up on an actual action, _*then*_ they will take a vote.  And while some Commissioner may then individually expound on how they came to their own vote either way, it's not set out like a Constitutional interpretation, which is what SCOTUS does.

And they're different things anyway; SCOTUS is testing a law already on the books, whereas FCC would be creating a new regulation.

Actually when they come up with some new idea it's "tried" in the court of public opinion so to speak with a comment period for the public.  For instance when Michael Powell tried to dump the airwaves on big business, public opinion  came in somewhere between 98 and 99% against it, and that had an impact on its demise. 

This was just a survey, made up by a company that doesn't usually deal with media.  Apparently some are skittish about the questions that would have been asked, even tholugh their real concern is what would be done with them afterward.  But again, anything resolved out of those results would have been (and will be) subject to public commentary.  I don't believe SCOTUS does that.


----------



## Pogo

Seeing as how the study aims at how news is gathered, perhaps this is not unrelated....

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ1mA1NeUmU&list=FLGCe_sFWL22uFs9f03mSZAA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ1mA1NeUmU&list=FLGCe_sFWL22uFs9f03mSZAA[/ame]

See also post 115 concerning VNRs.

When you've done that, let me know if you see the difference between stifling speech and controlling it.  And who the controllers are.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course it is standard procedure.
> 
> ... AND??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They requested the study, gave them an outline of what they wanted to know, read what they were handed, approved payment, and then put it out for public comment, all because they didn't see a problem at any point.
> 
> That tells me all I need to know, even if you are so stupid you think it proves they didn't get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this fake "issue" is now down to whether Social Solutions got paid?
> 
> You have no issue.  All you're doing is trolling at this point.  This is not an issue at all.
> 
> O'bama Administration meddling in newsrooms: disproven.
> Something to do with Fairness Doctrine: disproven
> The FD in turn having anything to do with broadcast content: disproven.
> The FCC developing intrusive questions: disproven
> O'bama stacking the FCC: disproven.
> 
> And you yourself pointed out the study isn't happening anyway, as did others.
> 
> Again .... anything else, troll?  Other than this new practice of pre-admitting when you make stuff up, in invisible font?
> 
> Smoke a freaking joint and go to bed.
> 
> Sheesh.  Wackos.
Click to expand...


And threat to freedom of the press: debunked. 

This is indeed a non issue, yet another partisan contrivance by the right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course it is standard procedure.
> 
> ... AND??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They requested the study, gave them an outline of what they wanted to know, read what they were handed, approved payment, and then put it out for public comment, all because they didn't see a problem at any point.
> 
> That tells me all I need to know, even if you are so stupid you think it proves they didn't get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this fake "issue" is now down to whether Social Solutions got paid?
> 
> You have no issue.  All you're doing is trolling at this point.  This is not an issue at all.
> 
> O'bama Administration meddling in newsrooms: disproven.
> Something to do with Fairness Doctrine: disproven
> The FD in turn having anything to do with broadcast content: disproven.
> The FCC developing intrusive questions: disproven
> O'bama stacking the FCC: disproven.
> 
> And you yourself pointed out the study isn't happening anyway, as did others.
> 
> Again .... anything else, troll?  Other than this new practice of pre-admitting when you make stuff up, in invisible font?
> 
> Smoke a freaking joint and go to bed.
> 
> Sheesh.  Wackos.
Click to expand...


No, dickwad, the non fake issue is that the FCC saw this as part of their job in the first fucking place.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -- no, it isn't.  That's the Chairman's job.
> 
> I singled out "The FCC Commissioner" because the definite article indicates you thought there was only one commissioner.  If you knew he was one of five you would have said "*an* FCC Commissioner" or *this* FCC Commissioner".  And "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI" doesn't change that in any way.
> 
> You thought Pai was the one and only FCC Commissioner.  So I corrected you.  You're welcome.
> 
> Some people -- give 'em a million bucks and they'll complain about the color of the money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard the Chairman or any of the other Commisioners present an opposing view, so the conclusion I come to it is Commisioner Pai presented either the majority or the unanamous opinion of the Commision.
> 
> Your mind reading ability needs some work, so don't pretend to know what I thought since you will be wrong every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Commission doesn't have a collective "view".  It's a proposal by a research company.  FCC does studies all the time.  You can't have a "view" before you've done the study and develop some kind of response to it -- if you could there would be no need for the study.
> 
> This particular Commissioner (this just in-- there are five of them) opined that the study wasn't structured properly, and went public with that view in the WSJ.  That's it.
> 
> FCC doesn't work like the SCOTUS.  When some resolution does come up on an actual action, _*then*_ they will take a vote.  And while some Commissioner may then individually expound on how they came to their own vote either way, it's not set out like a Constitutional interpretation, which is what SCOTUS does.
> 
> And they're different things anyway; SCOTUS is testing a law already on the books, whereas FCC would be creating a new regulation.
> 
> Actually when they come up with some new idea it's "tried" in the court of public opinion so to speak with a comment period for the public.  For instance when Michael Powell tried to dump the airwaves on big business, public opinion  came in somewhere between 98 and 99% against it, and that had an impact on its demise.
> 
> This was just a survey, made up by a company that doesn't usually deal with media.  Apparently some are skittish about the questions that would have been asked, even tholugh their real concern is what would be done with them afterward.  But again, anything resolved out of those results would have been (and will be) subject to public commentary.  I don't believe SCOTUS does that.
Click to expand...


It was not a proposal by a research company, it was the end result of a government contract where the FCC went to them and asked them to develop a survey to figure out how they could learn about the massively understudied issue of the FCC not regulating the content of news programs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They requested the study, gave them an outline of what they wanted to know, read what they were handed, approved payment, and then put it out for public comment, all because they didn't see a problem at any point.
> 
> That tells me all I need to know, even if you are so stupid you think it proves they didn't get paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this fake "issue" is now down to whether Social Solutions got paid?
> 
> You have no issue.  All you're doing is trolling at this point.  This is not an issue at all.
> 
> O'bama Administration meddling in newsrooms: disproven.
> Something to do with Fairness Doctrine: disproven
> The FD in turn having anything to do with broadcast content: disproven.
> The FCC developing intrusive questions: disproven
> O'bama stacking the FCC: disproven.
> 
> And you yourself pointed out the study isn't happening anyway, as did others.
> 
> Again .... anything else, troll?  Other than this new practice of pre-admitting when you make stuff up, in invisible font?
> 
> Smoke a freaking joint and go to bed.
> 
> Sheesh.  Wackos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And threat to freedom of the press: debunked.
> 
> This is indeed a non issue, yet another partisan contrivance by the right.
Click to expand...


Any argument that [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] is comeptent to wipe his ass conclusively destroyed.

Tell me something, O Purveyor of Everything, if this is not an issue why did they drop the survey before the public comment period was over?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard the Chairman or any of the other Commisioners present an opposing view, so the conclusion I come to it is Commisioner Pai presented either the majority or the unanamous opinion of the Commision.
> 
> Your mind reading ability needs some work, so don't pretend to know what I thought since you will be wrong every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commission doesn't have a collective "view".  It's a proposal by a research company.  FCC does studies all the time.  You can't have a "view" before you've done the study and develop some kind of response to it -- if you could there would be no need for the study.
> 
> This particular Commissioner (this just in-- there are five of them) opined that the study wasn't structured properly, and went public with that view in the WSJ.  That's it.
> 
> FCC doesn't work like the SCOTUS.  When some resolution does come up on an actual action, _*then*_ they will take a vote.  And while some Commissioner may then individually expound on how they came to their own vote either way, it's not set out like a Constitutional interpretation, which is what SCOTUS does.
> 
> And they're different things anyway; SCOTUS is testing a law already on the books, whereas FCC would be creating a new regulation.
> 
> Actually when they come up with some new idea it's "tried" in the court of public opinion so to speak with a comment period for the public.  For instance when Michael Powell tried to dump the airwaves on big business, public opinion  came in somewhere between 98 and 99% against it, and that had an impact on its demise.
> 
> This was just a survey, made up by a company that doesn't usually deal with media.  Apparently some are skittish about the questions that would have been asked, even tholugh their real concern is what would be done with them afterward.  But again, anything resolved out of those results would have been (and will be) subject to public commentary.  I don't believe SCOTUS does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not a proposal by a research company, it was the end result of a government contract where the FCC went to them and asked them to develop a survey to figure out how they could learn about the massively understudied issue of the FCC not regulating the content of news programs.
Click to expand...


I linked the whole thing back in post 71 Einstein.  Go ahead back there and cite the parts dealing with "regulating the content of news programs".

Idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Commission doesn't have a collective "view".  It's a proposal by a research company.  FCC does studies all the time.  You can't have a "view" before you've done the study and develop some kind of response to it -- if you could there would be no need for the study.
> 
> This particular Commissioner (this just in-- there are five of them) opined that the study wasn't structured properly, and went public with that view in the WSJ.  That's it.
> 
> FCC doesn't work like the SCOTUS.  When some resolution does come up on an actual action, _*then*_ they will take a vote.  And while some Commissioner may then individually expound on how they came to their own vote either way, it's not set out like a Constitutional interpretation, which is what SCOTUS does.
> 
> And they're different things anyway; SCOTUS is testing a law already on the books, whereas FCC would be creating a new regulation.
> 
> Actually when they come up with some new idea it's "tried" in the court of public opinion so to speak with a comment period for the public.  For instance when Michael Powell tried to dump the airwaves on big business, public opinion  came in somewhere between 98 and 99% against it, and that had an impact on its demise.
> 
> This was just a survey, made up by a company that doesn't usually deal with media.  Apparently some are skittish about the questions that would have been asked, even tholugh their real concern is what would be done with them afterward.  But again, anything resolved out of those results would have been (and will be) subject to public commentary.  I don't believe SCOTUS does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a proposal by a research company, it was the end result of a government contract where the FCC went to them and asked them to develop a survey to figure out how they could learn about the massively understudied issue of the FCC not regulating the content of news programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I linked the whole thing back in post 71 Einstein.  Go ahead back there and cite the parts dealing with "regulating the content of news programs".
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Feel free to prove they asked those questions out of concern about the ability of minorities to break into the newspaper business, which is not even close to being any of their business.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a proposal by a research company, it was the end result of a government contract where the FCC went to them and asked them to develop a survey to figure out how they could learn about the massively understudied issue of the FCC not regulating the content of news programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I linked the whole thing back in post 71 Einstein.  Go ahead back there and cite the parts dealing with "regulating the content of news programs".
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to prove they asked those questions out of concern about the ability of minorities to break into the newspaper business, which is not even close to being any of their business.
Click to expand...


"Feel free" to "prove" a point I never made about entities I never brought up, huh.

What a great opportunity.  I feel like I just hit the lottery.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     

Weirdo.


----------



## HenryBHough

So the monitors will magically appear in radio and TV newsrooms one fine day.  They'll say:  "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" and the sheep will meekly line up to be shorn.  Or be invited to dinner at The Obama (formerly White) House where they'll be served - with mint jelly.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> So the monitors will magically appear in radio and TV newsrooms one fine day.  They'll say:  "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" and the sheep will meekly line up to be shorn.  Or be invited to dinner at The Obama (formerly White) House where they'll be served - with mint jelly.



And arugula.  Don't forget the arugula.


----------



## HenryBHough

Something just bleated.  

Albeit faintly......


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Something just bleated.
> 
> Albeit faintly......



Your pajamas mayhaps?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I linked the whole thing back in post 71 Einstein.  Go ahead back there and cite the parts dealing with "regulating the content of news programs".
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to prove they asked those questions out of concern about the ability of minorities to break into the newspaper business, which is not even close to being any of their business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Feel free" to "prove" a point I never made about entities I never brought up, huh.
> 
> What a great opportunity.  I feel like I just hit the lottery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weirdo.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you didn't actually say any of this.



Pogo said:


> This "issue" (if that's what it is) was apparently generated by this editorial  in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.  The writer of the  editorial is a Republican FCC Commissioner appointed by O'bama.   Basically it's a study of how information is processed.
> 
> Yes, the government is doing a study.   When has that ever happened...
> 
> Rather than biased editorials, half-wits fanning flames of mythologies  and OPs that give no basis for themselves whatsoever, let's go right to  the heart of the matter.  Here's the actual proposal from the research company designed to execute this study.  The reader will note it's a year old already.
> 
> Excerpt:
> >>* Overall    Project    Goals    and    Objectives    *
> 
> We understand that the purpose of this Study of Critical Information Needs (CINs) is to provide
> a comprehensive analysis of access/barriers to CINs in diverse American communities.
> The objectives of the study are to:
>  collect data to inform:
> o the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC;
> o the media that makes up media ecologies (i.e., what media is actually  included in that ecology; ownership of that market; what specific type  of content dominates those media ecologies; what is the flow of  information within the ecology, etc);
> o the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies  (i.e., how do different layers of the ecology interact to provide for  CINs; how do individuals of diverse neighborhoods/communities differ in  terms of access to CINs);
>  validate data collection tools/templates and protocols;
>  demonstrate high internal validity and reliability of measured constructs
> 
> *Study    Goals    and    Objectives    *
> 
> The objectives of the study are to help FCC answer the following questions:
>  How does this study inform the acquisition and/or barriers to CINs in American communities?
>  What barriers to entry exist in the FCC regulated markets and to what  extent do those barriers to entry have a negative impact?
>  Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of internal validity?  Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of reliability across  diverse target markets?  <<
> 
> Sorry but that's the boring reality.  As you were with the fantasies...



Why does your account get hacked more than anyone else's on the board?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to prove they asked those questions out of concern about the ability of minorities to break into the newspaper business, which is not even close to being any of their business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Feel free" to "prove" a point I never made about entities I never brought up, huh.
> 
> What a great opportunity.  I feel like I just hit the lottery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weirdo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you didn't actually say any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "issue" (if that's what it is) was apparently generated by this editorial  in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.  The writer of the  editorial is a Republican FCC Commissioner appointed by O'bama.   Basically it's a study of how information is processed.
> 
> Yes, the government is doing a study.   When has that ever happened...
> 
> Rather than biased editorials, half-wits fanning flames of mythologies  and OPs that give no basis for themselves whatsoever, let's go right to  the heart of the matter.  Here's the actual proposal from the research company designed to execute this study.  The reader will note it's a year old already.
> 
> Excerpt:
> >>* Overall    Project    Goals    and    Objectives    *
> 
> We understand that the purpose of this Study of Critical Information Needs (CINs) is to provide
> a comprehensive analysis of access/barriers to CINs in diverse American communities.
> The objectives of the study are to:
> &#8226; collect data to inform:
> o the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC;
> o the media that makes up media ecologies (i.e., what media is actually  included in that ecology; ownership of that market; what specific type  of content dominates those media ecologies; what is the flow of  information within the ecology, etc);
> o the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies  (i.e., how do different layers of the ecology interact to provide for  CINs; how do individuals of diverse neighborhoods/communities differ in  terms of access to CINs);
> &#8226; validate data collection tools/templates and protocols;
> &#8226; demonstrate high internal validity and reliability of measured constructs
> 
> *Study    Goals    and    Objectives    *
> 
> The objectives of the study are to help FCC answer the following questions:
> &#8226; How does this study inform the acquisition and/or barriers to CINs in American communities?
> &#8226; What barriers to entry exist in the FCC regulated markets and to what  extent do those barriers to entry have a negative impact?
> &#8226; Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of internal validity?  Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of reliability across  diverse target markets?  <<
> 
> Sorry but that's the boring reality.  As you were with the fantasies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does your account get hacked more than anyone else's on the board?
Click to expand...


That's a _quote from a link_, illiterate hack.  Wtf do you think >> and <<  are there for?


----------



## Agit8r

Hopefully the gathered information will be used to determine that cable "news" outlets can't false-advertise by calling themselves "news" anymore:

"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood."
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to John Norvell (June 14, 1807)


----------



## beagle9

The next thing you will see if they keep it up, is federal agents sitting in your company, trying to see how the business is being run, and that it is being run in a fashion that satisfies them in that the company is doing what the feds want them to do in respect to pay, the employee's etc. Yall know, it is all for the collective now.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> The next thing you will see if they keep it up, is federal agents sitting in your company, trying to see how the business is being run, and that it is being run in a fashion that satisfies them in that the company is doing what the feds want them to do in respect to pay, the employee's etc. Yall know, it is all for the collective now.



This reminds me of Atlas Shrugged where the steel maker Hank Reardon had a government appointed "minder" whose job was to report back to the authorities anything Reardon did that the bureaucrats didn't like.

It's scare how close reality has come to resemble that book.


----------



## JoeB131

So new rule. 

We don't let agencies even look at anything for fear we might find out things the nutters don't want to hear. 

Kind of like when Kellerman determined a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a house hold member than a bad guy, the NRA and Gun Industry made sure that THEY NEVER STUDIED THAT AGAIN!!!!

Vested interest representation.  

On a serious note, six companies control 90% of the media in this country.  How does anyone see this as a good thing?


----------



## mudwhistle

They cancelled the program temporarily, till the heat is off.

Maybe in a few years they may be able to trick enough people into buying this BS and get it instituted.


----------



## mudwhistle

JoeB131 said:


> So new rule.
> 
> We don't let agencies even look at anything for fear we might find out things the nutters don't want to hear.
> 
> Kind of like when Kellerman determined a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a house hold member than a bad guy, the NRA and Gun Industry made sure that THEY NEVER STUDIED THAT AGAIN!!!!
> 
> Vested interest representation.
> 
> On a serious note, six companies control 90% of the media in this country.  How does anyone see this as a good thing?



_"A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad" - *Albert Camus*_​


----------



## mudwhistle

Obama is simply attempting to legalize (or legitimize) what he's already done to the press.........

At least most of it.......except Fox and talk radio.....


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Obama is simply attempting to legalize (or legitimize) what he's already done to the press.........
> 
> At least most of it.......except Fox and talk radio.....



... Link?


----------



## HenryBHough

People who demand links are layabouts who refuse to do their own research and want YOU to do it for them.

So very........very......well.....CNN.


----------



## Pogo

JoeB131 said:


> So new rule.
> 
> We don't let agencies even look at anything for fear we might find out things the nutters don't want to hear.
> 
> Kind of like when Kellerman determined a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a house hold member than a bad guy, the NRA and Gun Industry made sure that THEY NEVER STUDIED THAT AGAIN!!!!
> 
> Vested interest representation.
> 
> *On a serious note, six companies control 90% of the media in this country.  How does anyone see this as a good thing?*



You're not the first to note that here, and you'll get the same response they got and the same response I always get....

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA[/ame]


I understand Budddy Holly gets a royalty though, so it's not all bad


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> People who demand links are layabouts who refuse to do their own research and want YOU to do it for them.
> 
> So very........very......well.....CNN.



*I DIDN'T MAKE THE POINT, ASSHOLE.*

How in the wide world of fuck is it my job to make _somebody else's_ point? HOW?

Dumb shit.


----------



## HenryBHough

Pogo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who demand links are layabouts who refuse to do their own research and want YOU to do it for them.
> 
> So very........very......well.....CNN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I DIDN'T MAKE THE POINT, ASSHOLE.*
> 
> How in the wide world of fuck is it my job to make _somebody else's_ point? HOW?
> 
> Dumb shit.
Click to expand...


Typical liberal denial.

Now when conservatives want to challenge something we research the data ourselves.  But liberals?  They want you to do everything for them.  If you refuse they first try name-calling.  When that fails they want a government grant.


----------



## GreenBean

OKTexas said:


> Why bother spending the money, after all they already have media matters.



Media Matters is losing ground thanks to the arrival of a small core of opposing Mani Stream media -primarily centered around *Fox News*.

The stated purpose of Media Matters was to combat what they call "conservative misinformation"  they define conservative misinformation as  news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda, basically anything that presents or attempts to present a rebuttal to the leftist diarrhea that the media had been dumping on the public for decades.

The Daily Caller in 2012 published an exposÃ© that revealed the extent to which MMfA had become engaged in dictating the content of media reports. Newspapers such as the 
NY Times, 
Washington Post, 
Los Angeles Times 
*All took dictation from Media Matters . *

The Caller reported that by 2008, "Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls [and orders]" * We were pretty much writing [MSNBC's] prime time,... But then, virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff stated one former Media Matters employee.* -Daily Caller Article

MMfA Dictates the content of many mainstream media reports

MMfA Engages in underhanded mud-slinging tactics against conservatives attempting to label them as liars and racists

MMfA attempts to create the illusion that conservatives dominate the mainstream media

*MMfA Had regular contact and strategy sessions with political operatives within the Obama Regime*

The FCC move is simply another blow from the Socio-Fascists at their campaign to monopolize the Media and gain absolute control over the minds of the Masses.

*Media Matters for America*


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who demand links are layabouts who refuse to do their own research and want YOU to do it for them.
> 
> So very........very......well.....CNN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I DIDN'T MAKE THE POINT, ASSHOLE.*
> 
> How in the wide world of fuck is it my job to make _somebody else's_ point? HOW?
> 
> Dumb shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical liberal denial.
> 
> Now when conservatives want to challenge something we research the data ourselves.  But liberals?  They want you to do everything for them.  If you refuse they first try name-calling.  When that fails they want a government grant.
Click to expand...


As I said, it's a fallacy and you can't answer it. 

"Run! Martians are invading the earth!"

"Yeah?  Where'd you hear that?"

"Go look it up, I can't do everything for you!"

Fucking idiot.  No wonder you don't have a clue what news is.


----------



## Mojo2

bendog said:


> 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?



Once you understand and believe Obama's ultimate goal is to make the American people subjects that he can force to do as he and his ruling class cronies wish, the sooner you and all the other sincere Patriotic leftists and liberals and Progressives will see through his lies.



> Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press."
> 
> Not really.  That's second, a very close second.  But you want to know the truth? Every major repressive Regime of the modern era has begun with universal health care.  That's the first thing Hitler did.  That's partly how you get the media on your side.  Is it championing issues all of them support.  Then you go get total control over them.  But health care is the first thing, because that is direct control, total control over everybody in your country.
> 
> So it's health care they go after first, repressive regimes.  It's not the media.  And just as it is elsewhere around the world, it's health care here, and now they're going for the media.
> 
> Now, imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories the same way MSNBC or Al Jazeera does.



Journalists Won't Put Up with Regime Monitors in Newsrooms? Don't Be So Sure... - The Rush Limbaugh Show


----------



## HenryBHough

Pogo said:


> As I said, it's a fallacy and you can't answer it.
> 
> "Run! Martians are invading the earth!"
> 
> "Yeah?  Where'd you hear that?"
> 
> "Go look it up, I can't do everything for you!"
> 
> Fucking idiot.  No wonder you don't have a clue what news is.



The start with denial.
Then they move to name-calling.
Then they start to get violent.

Natural progression - if there's a civil war in America it obviously will be started by some liberal, overwhelmed by reality.  But, not to fear, they'll not make any effort themselves, just demand that government hire some mercenaries to to their job for them.

But then they won't want any news of what they've done and will look to their government "monitors" to suppress anything like that as "not in the public interest".

In between they send waspish personal messages, displaying liberal civility at its best: _"You are a fucking idiot. Go ahead moron -- explain how it's MY job to prove SOMEBODY ELSE'S POINT. Brainless cretin. You're not even qualified to post."_

Behaviour that needs must be rewarded.....


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> So new rule.
> 
> We don't let agencies even look at anything for fear we might find out things the nutters don't want to hear.
> 
> Kind of like when Kellerman determined a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a house hold member than a bad guy, the NRA and Gun Industry made sure that THEY NEVER STUDIED THAT AGAIN!!!!
> 
> Vested interest representation.
> 
> On a serious note, six companies control 90% of the media in this country.  How does anyone see this as a good thing?


OH, so you see it all as being part of the bigger plan of wealth redistribution in the nation, and this while under Obama and his minions ? Otherwise all these prgrams will ultimately teach how to lead more to that redistribution somewhere in the future right ? They will also pin point who will be slated to be removed somewhere in the future also, but of course not right away, because it's just a harmless ole study right now don't you see?


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it's a fallacy and you can't answer it.
> 
> "Run! Martians are invading the earth!"
> 
> "Yeah?  Where'd you hear that?"
> 
> "Go look it up, I can't do everything for you!"
> 
> Fucking idiot.  No wonder you don't have a clue what news is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The start with denial.
> Then they move to name-calling.
> Then they start to get violent.
> 
> Natural progression - if there's a civil war in America it obviously will be started by some liberal, overwhelmed by reality.  But, not to fear, they'll not make any effort themselves, just demand that government hire some mercenaries to to their job for them.
> 
> But then they won't want any news of what they've done and will look to their goverment "monitors" to suppress anything like that as "not in the public interest".
Click to expand...


AGAIN  -- feel free to explain how when one party posits an idea it becomes  _*somebody else's responsibility*_ to back it up.

Intellectual sloth, employed by rhetorically destitute pissants who can't be bothered to come up with an original idea of their own.  You want to fabricate arguments and then have somebody else back them up for you.

And it's not even your allegation in the first place, moron.


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So new rule.
> 
> We don't let agencies even look at anything for fear we might find out things the nutters don't want to hear.
> 
> Kind of like when Kellerman determined a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a house hold member than a bad guy, the NRA and Gun Industry made sure that THEY NEVER STUDIED THAT AGAIN!!!!
> 
> Vested interest representation.
> 
> On a serious note, six companies control 90% of the media in this country.  How does anyone see this as a good thing?
> 
> 
> 
> OH, so you see it all as being part of the bigger plan of wealth redistribution in the nation, and this while under Obama and his minions ? Otherwise all these prgrams will ultimately teach how to lead more to that redistribution somewhere in the future right ? They will also pin point who will be slated to be removed somewhere in the future also, but of course not right away, because it's just a harmless ole study right now don't you see?
Click to expand...


That fact has nothing to do with "wealth distribution"; it refers to oligarchy.  And when our channels of information are constricted to an oligarchy, that's just harmless ole Bidness right now, don't you see?

It's not about who has the wealth; *it's about who controls the information*.  Think about it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Feel free" to "prove" a point I never made about entities I never brought up, huh.
> 
> What a great opportunity.  I feel like I just hit the lottery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weirdo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you didn't actually say any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "issue" (if that's what it is) was apparently generated by this editorial  in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.  The writer of the  editorial is a Republican FCC Commissioner appointed by O'bama.   Basically it's a study of how information is processed.
> 
> Yes, the government is doing a study.   When has that ever happened...
> 
> Rather than biased editorials, half-wits fanning flames of mythologies  and OPs that give no basis for themselves whatsoever, let's go right to  the heart of the matter.  Here's the actual proposal from the research company designed to execute this study.  The reader will note it's a year old already.
> 
> Excerpt:
> >>* Overall    Project    Goals    and    Objectives    *
> 
> We understand that the purpose of this Study of Critical Information Needs (CINs) is to provide
> a comprehensive analysis of access/barriers to CINs in diverse American communities.
> The objectives of the study are to:
>  collect data to inform:
> o the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC;
> o the media that makes up media ecologies (i.e., what media is actually  included in that ecology; ownership of that market; what specific type  of content dominates those media ecologies; what is the flow of  information within the ecology, etc);
> o the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies  (i.e., how do different layers of the ecology interact to provide for  CINs; how do individuals of diverse neighborhoods/communities differ in  terms of access to CINs);
>  validate data collection tools/templates and protocols;
>  demonstrate high internal validity and reliability of measured constructs
> 
> *Study    Goals    and    Objectives    *
> 
> The objectives of the study are to help FCC answer the following questions:
>  How does this study inform the acquisition and/or barriers to CINs in American communities?
>  What barriers to entry exist in the FCC regulated markets and to what  extent do those barriers to entry have a negative impact?
>  Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of internal validity?  Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of reliability across  diverse target markets?  <<
> 
> Sorry but that's the boring reality.  As you were with the fantasies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does your account get hacked more than anyone else's on the board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a _quote from a link_, illiterate hack.  Wtf do you think >> and <<  are there for?
Click to expand...


Which you posted as proof that everyone who has a problem with the FCC asking the questions is ddelusional.

In other words, you somehow think the FCC has some logical reason for asking newspapers, whom they have absolutely no legal authority over, about their editorial decisions because, somehow, that means that they can better enforce diversity.

That puts the ball in your court. Would it help if I gave you a link to another article you could cut and paste while pretending you don't agree with it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> So new rule.
> 
> We don't let agencies even look at anything for fear we might find out things the nutters don't want to hear.
> 
> Kind of like when Kellerman determined a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a house hold member than a bad guy, the NRA and Gun Industry made sure that THEY NEVER STUDIED THAT AGAIN!!!!
> 
> Vested interest representation.
> 
> On a serious note, six companies control 90% of the media in this country.  How does anyone see this as a good thing?



How about this one.

Old rule, agencies do not do anything outside the scope of their duties.

On a serious note, there is a lot more to the media than cable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So new rule.
> 
> We don't let agencies even look at anything for fear we might find out things the nutters don't want to hear.
> 
> Kind of like when Kellerman determined a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a house hold member than a bad guy, the NRA and Gun Industry made sure that THEY NEVER STUDIED THAT AGAIN!!!!
> 
> Vested interest representation.
> 
> On a serious note, six companies control 90% of the media in this country.  How does anyone see this as a good thing?
> 
> 
> 
> OH, so you see it all as being part of the bigger plan of wealth redistribution in the nation, and this while under Obama and his minions ? Otherwise all these prgrams will ultimately teach how to lead more to that redistribution somewhere in the future right ? They will also pin point who will be slated to be removed somewhere in the future also, but of course not right away, because it's just a harmless ole study right now don't you see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That fact has nothing to do with "wealth distribution"; it refers to oligarchy.  And when our channels of information are constricted to an oligarchy, that's just harmless ole Bidness right now, don't you see?
> 
> It's not about who has the wealth; *it's about who controls the information*.  Think about it.
Click to expand...


At this point in time, no one controls it. I want to keep it that way, you want the government to have control.

Don't worry though, that doesn't make you crazy, just ask Joe.


----------



## HenryBHough

Of course Walt Kelly's creation feels strongly that only government should control information because surely government knows best.  Since the vast majority of print media are owned by a few loyal Democrats with Marxist leanings this sort of logic would lead a future conservative government to Jones for the same thing these lathered liberals would unleash on broadcasters.  At which time the left would writhe in indignation that anyone would dare suggest such an assault on liberty.  They're not worried about anything like that now because the current regime has already owned the oligarchs who run the presses.

It would be tempting, when Obama is out of office and remains but a bad joke, for a future administration to try the little trick itself.  But that would be wrong - and earn that administration the sobriquet "regime" just as has the current one.

Still, it would be fun to see one proposed it, tongue-in-cheek, just to make the little dolls dance.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you didn't actually say any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your account get hacked more than anyone else's on the board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a _quote from a link_, illiterate hack.  Wtf do you think >> and <<  are there for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you posted as proof that everyone who has a problem with the FCC asking the questions is ddelusional.
> 
> In other words, you somehow think the FCC has some logical reason for asking newspapers, whom they have absolutely no legal authority over, about their editorial decisions because, somehow, that means that they can better enforce diversity.
> 
> That puts the ball in your court. Would it help if I gave you a link to another article you could cut and paste while pretending you don't agree with it?
Click to expand...


You're lucky Henry's here so that this isn't the stupidest logic in the whole thread.

*I do not write what's in my links.  When I quote from them they're verbatim.*  You want to take issue with what's in them?  Address the source of it.]

Frankly I don't care what the purpose internal to the study was.  I'm busy with the far more basic logic of misrepresenting what the story is.

And I might add I'm the only one who even _*bothered *_to go find out and link it.  The OP, as noted way back, didn't even bother to link to ANYTHING.


----------



## HenryBHough

It's OK to cry out for an American "Ministry of Truth".

Really.

So long as it doesn't happen.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH, so you see it all as being part of the bigger plan of wealth redistribution in the nation, and this while under Obama and his minions ? Otherwise all these prgrams will ultimately teach how to lead more to that redistribution somewhere in the future right ? They will also pin point who will be slated to be removed somewhere in the future also, but of course not right away, because it's just a harmless ole study right now don't you see?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That fact has nothing to do with "wealth distribution"; it refers to oligarchy.  And when our channels of information are constricted to an oligarchy, that's just harmless ole Bidness right now, don't you see?
> 
> It's not about who has the wealth; *it's about who controls the information*.  Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point in time, no one controls it. I want to keep it that way, you want the government to have control.
> 
> Don't worry though, that doesn't make you crazy, just ask Joe.
Click to expand...


Apparently you missed the part of his post that read, "six companies control 90% of the media".

We have for instance, over thirteen thousand radio stations and over two thousand TV stations.  Fifteen thousand plus to... six.

How would you like to have this post repeated over 2500 radio and TV stations?  That's what that proportion works out to. 

And that's just on-air broadcast; factor in that a SINGLE given Big Media company might own not only multiple TV and radio in a given area but newspapers, internet providers, movie production companies, book publishers, pop magazines, news magazines, billboards and other advertising, multiple cable channels, satellite radio channels, record companies, concert promoters, even sports teams, sports events and sports venues... and even you could figure out that this is a formula to dictate what the news is.  And what it isn't.

No conflict of interest there, nope... 

It never ceases to amaze me that those who protest the loudest -- rightly -- about government control of media then turn on a dime and plop their heads in the sand about corporate-collusion control doing the _*same thing*_.

Pick your poison and "die if you want to, you innocent puppet".


----------



## HenryBHough

Where are the whining protests about the oligarchs who control print media?

Where are the cries for monitoring (read "censorship") of print media newsrooms?  Why no demands that ownership of printing presses be federally licensed?  Why no proposals to deny mailing privileges to promoulgators of unpleasantness uncovered in government?

They're playing possum just now.  But if some future conservative government proposes those things........

They'll do what they do best.

Lie on the floor.
Kick their heels.
Hold their breath and turn blue.
Cry little rivers.

But it won't happen because we conservatives are too chicken to try their crap - even just as a joke.  For now.  For now.


----------



## Pogo

> At this point in time, no one controls it












But we can't post this graphic without its partner --


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Where are the whining protests about the oligarchs who control print media?
> 
> Where are the cries for monitoring (read "censorship") of print media newsrooms?  Why no demands that ownership of printing presses be federally licensed?  Why no proposals to deny mailing privileges to promoulgators of unpleasantness uncovered in government?
> 
> They're playing possum just now.  But if some future conservative government proposes those things........
> 
> They'll do what they do best.
> 
> Lie on the floor.
> Kick their heels.
> Hold their breath and turn blue.
> Cry little rivers.
> 
> But it won't happen because we conservatives are too chicken to try their crap - even just as a joke.  For now.  For now.



Exactly.  Thanks for making my point.



> Where are the cries for monitoring (read "censorship") of print media newsrooms?


Exactly.  Why would there be?



> Why no demands that ownership of printing presses be federally licensed?


Exactly.  Why would there be?



> Why no proposals to deny mailing privileges to promoulgators of unpleasantness uncovered in government?


Other than wanton alliteration this sentence doesn't even make any sense.


----------



## HenryBHough

Idea:

Since The FCC is concerned with Communications and The Internet is a prime means of communicating then it surely needs to monitor it carefully to be certain the needs of all Americans are met.

Why not require all operators of news media and bulletin-boards to provide office space and appropriate equipment to allow 24/7 monitoring of all content.  Certainly not prior to publication - only (for now) after.

Or, if that's offensive, not have to do their fair share through providing space and equipment.  Instead, contract out the service and impose a user-fee on all who access the internet to fund it.

Naturally the monitors could only report to responsible federal agencies (perhaps a "Ministry of Truth") which would be vaguely charged with regulating and balancing content.  That might require some sort of "journalist" license as has been so often proposed by various agencies of The United Nations.  Of course licenses of finite term, say 2 years, with peer review and ongoing continuing education to ensure all needs are recognized and met.  Certainly no revocations for deviation, merely required remedial courses for those who fail to meet standards.  Of course those students would be forbidden to blog or even Tweet until they have satisfactorily passed the exam at the end of the remedial courses.  Recognizing, of course, that some might require longer....much longer....than others.

But that's the price of true freedom-----      isn't it?

_We has met the enemy and he is us!_

No, wait, that's not ethnically balanced.  how about....

_Weez dun met duh enema and he beez us!_

(/s)


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Idea:
> 
> Since The FCC is concerned with Communications and The Internet is a prime means of communicating then it surely needs to monitor it carefully to be certain the needs of all Americans are met.



Wrong.  Strawman detected, premise fails.

The FCC, originally the Federal Radio Commission, was formed to regulate the airwaves, which are by definition finite.  Because before the FRC in the early 1920s there was chaos, where anyone with a transmitter could overpower anyone else with a transmitter.

FCC was not, and has never been, involved in regulating content.  Of anything.  Ever.

And as an alleged radio person, you damn well know all this.  But then facts haven't gotten in your way all day, so color me surprised that you're toting in strawmen in search of a point you can't make.


----------



## HenryBHough

_*Let's play FCC monitor!*_

Now here's the report on one individual who has initiated 24 new threads in the last six months.

22% were critical of how this board functions.
16% were concerned with sex or homosexuality.
15% were were in one way or another related to politics.
15% were complimentary toward others or other subjects.
09% were critical toward others.
08% were on one or another technical subject.
08% concerned recorded music or performances
08% were intended in some way to be humorous (it seems)
------
101% total due to rounding

The subject seems fixated upon denigrating this board which is puzzling because he/she/it does not absent him/her/itself.  This suggests a need for an attitude intervention by an appropriate agency.

Sex and homosexuality were slightly more prominent than other subjects but not alarmingly so.  No need for social adjustment seems warranted at this time.

The concern arises so much from subjects addressed; rather from the absence of subjects which should be critical concerns of patriotic supporters of the current administration.

There was no origination of a topic involving proper nutrition.
None concerning the benefits of regularly scheduled exercise.
None opposing Global Climate Change.
No mention of the plight of the poverty stricken.

All in all this individual has exhibited a limited perspective and would be a good subject for additional education in social needs.  It is the recommendation of this monitor that he/she/it be invited to participate in a corrective program, retaining closely supervised blogging privileges whilst in-program.  Should the invitation be declined serious consideration should be given to restricting participation in message boards other than those devoted to healthy subjects.

The invoice for this study will follow within 10 working days.  Please remit in Swiss Francs.


----------



## Pogo

_*Let's play thread monitor!*_

101% of that post is


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a _quote from a link_, illiterate hack.  Wtf do you think >> and <<  are there for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you posted as proof that everyone who has a problem with the FCC asking the questions is ddelusional.
> 
> In other words, you somehow think the FCC has some logical reason for asking newspapers, whom they have absolutely no legal authority over, about their editorial decisions because, somehow, that means that they can better enforce diversity.
> 
> That puts the ball in your court. Would it help if I gave you a link to another article you could cut and paste while pretending you don't agree with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're lucky Henry's here so that this isn't the stupidest logic in the whole thread.
> 
> *I do not write what's in my links.  When I quote from them they're verbatim.*  You want to take issue with what's in them?  Address the source of it.]
> 
> Frankly I don't care what the purpose internal to the study was.  I'm busy with the far more basic logic of misrepresenting what the story is.
> 
> And I might add I'm the only one who even _*bothered *_to go find out and link it.  The OP, as noted way back, didn't even bother to link to ANYTHING.
Click to expand...


Did you use that link as a factual argument,  or did it just show up by accident?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That fact has nothing to do with "wealth distribution"; it refers to oligarchy.  And when our channels of information are constricted to an oligarchy, that's just harmless ole Bidness right now, don't you see?
> 
> It's not about who has the wealth; *it's about who controls the information*.  Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in time, no one controls it. I want to keep it that way, you want the government to have control.
> 
> Don't worry though, that doesn't make you crazy, just ask Joe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you missed the part of his post that read, "six companies control 90% of the media".
> 
> We have for instance, over thirteen thousand radio stations and over two thousand TV stations.  Fifteen thousand plus to... six.
> 
> How would you like to have this post repeated over 2500 radio and TV stations?  That's what that proportion works out to.
> 
> And that's just on-air broadcast; factor in that a SINGLE given Big Media company might own not only multiple TV and radio in a given area but newspapers, internet providers, movie production companies, book publishers, pop magazines, news magazines, billboards and other advertising, multiple cable channels, satellite radio channels, record companies, concert promoters, even sports teams, sports events and sports venues... and even you could figure out that this is a formula to dictate what the news is.  And what it isn't.
> 
> No conflict of interest there, nope...
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that those who protest the loudest -- rightly -- about government control of media then turn on a dime and plop their heads in the sand about corporate-collusion control doing the _*same thing*_.
> 
> Pick your poison and "die if you want to, you innocent puppet".
Click to expand...


Apparently, you think that cable news is the entire media, and that the media is the only source of information.

Then again, I never thought you were very smart.


----------



## HenryBHough

Pogo said:


> _*Let's play thread monitor!*_
> 
> 101% of that post is



Disappointed that you don't like that for which you so earnestly wish(ed?).


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you posted as proof that everyone who has a problem with the FCC asking the questions is ddelusional.
> 
> In other words, you somehow think the FCC has some logical reason for asking newspapers, whom they have absolutely no legal authority over, about their editorial decisions because, somehow, that means that they can better enforce diversity.
> 
> That puts the ball in your court. Would it help if I gave you a link to another article you could cut and paste while pretending you don't agree with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lucky Henry's here so that this isn't the stupidest logic in the whole thread.
> 
> *I do not write what's in my links.  When I quote from them they're verbatim.*  You want to take issue with what's in them?  Address the source of it.]
> 
> Frankly I don't care what the purpose internal to the study was.  I'm busy with the far more basic logic of misrepresenting what the story is.
> 
> And I might add I'm the only one who even _*bothered *_to go find out and link it.  The OP, as noted way back, didn't even bother to link to ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you use that link as a factual argument,  or did it just show up by accident?
Click to expand...


Very much on purpose, the objective _of the link_ being to insert actual fact into what had been a thread based on nothing but wispy notions, vague unlinked commentaries, innuendo and out the other.  So that we could have something actually *real *to work with.  You're welcome.

But the fact remains that the objective _of the study_ was developed by the FCC and the research firm -- not by me.  It was quoted as a description of what it is, and equally for what it *isn't*, which refers to these vague wispy comic book fantasies of FCC storm troopers behind the back of every newscaster.  You'll recall that I pointed you to that post/link challenging you to find anything in it that spoke of government news manipulation.  You'll recall that your response was crickets.

Which is what I expected.  That's what I do -- ask a question that I already know can't be answered, to demonstrate that what you're suggesting at the time has no basis.

I've yet to get you to admit that though.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in time, no one controls it. I want to keep it that way, you want the government to have control.
> 
> Don't worry though, that doesn't make you crazy, just ask Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you missed the part of his post that read, "six companies control 90% of the media".
> 
> We have for instance, over thirteen thousand radio stations and over two thousand TV stations.  Fifteen thousand plus to... six.
> 
> How would you like to have this post repeated over 2500 radio and TV stations?  That's what that proportion works out to.
> 
> And that's just on-air broadcast; factor in that a SINGLE given Big Media company might own not only multiple TV and radio in a given area but newspapers, internet providers, movie production companies, book publishers, pop magazines, news magazines, billboards and other advertising, multiple cable channels, satellite radio channels, record companies, concert promoters, even sports teams, sports events and sports venues... and even you could figure out that this is a formula to dictate what the news is.  And what it isn't.
> 
> No conflict of interest there, nope...
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that those who protest the loudest -- rightly -- about government control of media then turn on a dime and plop their heads in the sand about corporate-collusion control doing the _*same thing*_.
> 
> Pick your poison and "die if you want to, you innocent puppet".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you think that cable news is the entire media, and that the media is the only source of information.
> 
> Then again, I never thought you were very smart.
Click to expand...


Nowhere in that post did I say, imply, intimate, indicate or suggest that "cable news is the entire media".  I actually constructed a list that makes the opposite point.

Have you considered donating your brain to science?  Because what's going on in there just ain't right.


----------



## HenryBHough

When one has found their job no longer required following the purchase of a facility by a larger entity it is not uncommon to see them become bitter and negative.  It's happened to so many I've had to lay off over the years.  I don't like it but, if you're going to make a custard pie ya gotta break some eggs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you missed the part of his post that read, "six companies control 90% of the media".
> 
> We have for instance, over thirteen thousand radio stations and over two thousand TV stations.  Fifteen thousand plus to... six.
> 
> How would you like to have this post repeated over 2500 radio and TV stations?  That's what that proportion works out to.
> 
> And that's just on-air broadcast; factor in that a SINGLE given Big Media company might own not only multiple TV and radio in a given area but newspapers, internet providers, movie production companies, book publishers, pop magazines, news magazines, billboards and other advertising, multiple cable channels, satellite radio channels, record companies, concert promoters, even sports teams, sports events and sports venues... and even you could figure out that this is a formula to dictate what the news is.  And what it isn't.
> 
> No conflict of interest there, nope...
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me that those who protest the loudest -- rightly -- about government control of media then turn on a dime and plop their heads in the sand about corporate-collusion control doing the _*same thing*_.
> 
> Pick your poison and "die if you want to, you innocent puppet".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you think that cable news is the entire media, and that the media is the only source of information.
> 
> Then again, I never thought you were very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowhere in that post did I say, imply, intimate, indicate or suggest that "cable news is the entire media".  I actually constructed a list that makes the opposite point.
> 
> Have you considered donating your brain to science?  Because what's going on in there just ain't right.
Click to expand...


I obviously misspoke. 

Apparently, you think you can think.


----------



## beagle9

Pogo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So new rule.
> 
> We don't let agencies even look at anything for fear we might find out things the nutters don't want to hear.
> 
> Kind of like when Kellerman determined a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a house hold member than a bad guy, the NRA and Gun Industry made sure that THEY NEVER STUDIED THAT AGAIN!!!!
> 
> Vested interest representation.
> 
> On a serious note, six companies control 90% of the media in this country.  How does anyone see this as a good thing?
> 
> 
> 
> OH, so you see it all as being part of the bigger plan of wealth redistribution in the nation, and this while under Obama and his minions ? Otherwise all these prgrams will ultimately teach how to lead more to that redistribution somewhere in the future right ? They will also pin point who will be slated to be removed somewhere in the future also, but of course not right away, because it's just a harmless ole study right now don't you see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That fact has nothing to do with "wealth distribution"; it refers to oligarchy.  And when our channels of information are constricted to an oligarchy, that's just harmless ole Bidness right now, don't you see?
> 
> *It's not about who has the wealth; it's about who controls the information.  *Think about it.
Click to expand...


Who controls the information, also controls the path to the wealth in protection of or in confiscation of, so to take control of the information, is to easily shut down the path to the wealth in some and/or in many ways. This = redistribution of that wealth over time as the links are then severed or broken that leads one to that wealth.. Think about it !

Wild eyed ideas showing up all over the place now, has become a huge red flag for many about what is now being attempted it seems by this President and his minions.


----------



## Pogo

beagle9 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH, so you see it all as being part of the bigger plan of wealth redistribution in the nation, and this while under Obama and his minions ? Otherwise all these prgrams will ultimately teach how to lead more to that redistribution somewhere in the future right ? They will also pin point who will be slated to be removed somewhere in the future also, but of course not right away, because it's just a harmless ole study right now don't you see?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That fact has nothing to do with "wealth distribution"; it refers to oligarchy.  And when our channels of information are constricted to an oligarchy, that's just harmless ole Bidness right now, don't you see?
> 
> *It's not about who has the wealth; it's about who controls the information.  *Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who controls the information, also controls the path to the wealth in protection of or in confiscation of, so to take control of the information, is to easily shut down the path to the wealth in some and/or in many ways. This = redistribution of that wealth over time as the links are then severed or broken that leads one to that wealth.. Think about it !
> 
> Wild eyed ideas showing up all over the place now, has become a huge red flag for many about what is now being attempted it seems by this President and his minions.
Click to expand...


There you go again.  Again this point has nothing to do with "wealth".  It has to do with *control*.  When virtually all the control of information is in the hands of a half-dozen old-boy network types, that's cause for concern.  Information is not wealth; it's *power*.

And as noted earlier, nobody wants to acknowledge or confront this; y'all rail about _gummint _media control while simultaneously bending over for Corporatia doing the same thing.  As always, all we get is crickets, or in this case an attempt to deflect to some other topic: "wealth".

And considering it's Corporatia that actually _runs _the gummint (because it sure as hell ain't We the People), the irony of who's playing who like a cheap banjo is especially poignant.


----------



## HenryBHough

And, of course, Americans cannot be certain that anything they might see or hear is good for them unless it's monitored and approved by unelected Washington bureaucrats.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> And, of course, Americans cannot be certain that anything they might see or hear is good for them unless it's monitored and approved by unelected Washington bureaucrats.



Or back here in the real world, by unelected megacorporate profiteers.


Consider just for one example how many pharmaceutical ads fuel television stations and networks.

Now consider the likelihood of those networks _ever_ reporting honestly on those pharmaceutical companies.

Lather, rinse, repeat.  Until you wake up.


_Disclaimer: Side effects may include alertness, shock, disillusionment, sudden awareness of one's puppet strings and persistent viewing of the man behind the curtain.
If bothered by these symptoms, discontinue use and go back to yapping at the gummint's heels as your corporate masters demand so as to keep your eye off them._


----------



## HenryBHough

Yup.

Gotta stamp out capitalism if you're going to have a control and command economy!


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Yup.
> 
> Gotta stamp out capitalism if you're going to have a control and command economy!



Nope.  Gotta stamp out oligarchy is what cha gotta do.  The pubic forum run by oligarchy is no longer a pubic forum; it's an oligarchy forum.

But don't mind me... see if there's anything good on...






Yes Master .... May I have another...​


----------



## HenryBHough

It's sad when Marxists are unable to admit, even to themselves, what they have become.  I'd like to say to them "I weep for you".

But I, unlike their New Messiah, prefer not to lie.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> It's sad when Marxists are unable to admit, even to themselves, what they have become.  I'd like to say to them "I weep for you".
> 
> But I, unlike their New Messiah, prefer not to lie.



I believe that's spelled "f-a-s-c-i-s-t-s".  Marxists don't have messiahs.

Here comes yours now... don't forget to hear and obey.... oh and pretend they're not really running the gummint...




There's a good drone


----------



## Dante

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing the government gives a license to are the airwaves.
> 
> Unless, of course, they get net neutrality running the way some people  want.
Click to expand...


OMFG! call the con pc police!


----------



## Dante

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.
Click to expand...


Government is not the problem, stupid people are


----------



## HenryBHough

Quantum Windbag said:


> And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.




Don't you just love seeing _your tax dollars at work_???


----------



## Tresha91203

Pogo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recall there being a Fairness Doctrine exemption for bona-fide newcasts.  For that reason the networks were careful to call certain broadcasters "commentators" and never let them be heard on any newscast.  Lowell Thomas.  Gabriel Heatter.  H. V. Kaltenborn.  Fulton Lewis, Jr.  Walter Winchell (later turned gossip columnist) Drew Pearson and even Edward R. Murrow who most falsely remember as a news reporter.
> 
> I also remember strict management rules about "NO EDITORIALS" as anything resembling commentary within a newscast could get the whole broadcast re-classified and require free and equal time.
> 
> The worst part was that if one viewpoint were expressed *stations not only had to allow equal time to opposing views they were at times required to search out opposing views*.
> 
> Even after The Fairness Doctrine was dead and buried some station managers still would not allow anything resembling editorial content.  Vividly do I recall a news producer being fired for including in a local TV newscast an ABC network story about mistreatment of an elephant at a zoo within the coverage area.  In the clip - that was used by the network itself - a noted animal rights activist expressed an opinion.  Despite the network having cleared it (those things were reviewed by the lawyers at that time) the local manager wasn't going to allow any opinions on anything to be on HIS air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it's been a long time since you were behind an RE-20.  Weren't they using stone tablets back then?
> 
> The bold is bullshit.  FCC rules don't work pro-actively that way, you should know that. Equal time had to be requested by the involved party.  You didn't have to go seek it out.  That's crazy talk.  Now no doubt some NDs voluntarily sought out that kind of balance just to avoid having to have an FD request put on the air.  Just as they might, as you also noted, err on the side of caution as far as content.  We did that too in facilities I worked that were not news-oriented (part of my jobs was to screen for non-neutral language in on-air scripts).  That doesn't mean we weren't allowed to say these things.
> 
> One day one of our talent read a press release that had circumvented the screening system (me) verbatim, something about "don't get Bushwacked" inciting people to come to an anti-Bush rally.  I didn't hear it air but a listener called in complaining about it.  When I found out what happened I immediately wrote him a script to read on his next break, apologizing and disclaiming the press release he had just read.
> 
> We didn't _have to_ do that; it wasn't illegal.  But the station was not political in its programming and didn't wish to be.  That was a management decision, strictly.  FCC had zero to do with it.
Click to expand...


This just doesn't sound better to me. So, the FCC did not censor anyone ... they got you to censor yourselves to avoid "the hassle." How is that a good thing. Sounds like y'all were cowed into reporting within acceptable parameters as defined by a government agency. It matters not to me that no more than 3 Commissioners are from the same party. There is no real difference between the parties once they take office. It more than bothers me that the FCC can be and is stacked.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you just love seeing _your tax dollars at work_???
Click to expand...


Know what I love even more?  Receipts.  As in some documentation that the company was paid.

Breaking news: an idea doesn't become a fact by the mere placing of the words "and the fact is" before it.  The actual fact we do know  is that this study has not been executed, or even started.


----------



## HenryBHough

Liberals are known to love taxing others.

This is not news.


----------



## Dante

HenryBHough said:


> Liberals are known to love taxing others.
> 
> This is not news.



that great liberal Ronald Reagan wanted to tax unemployment benefits


----------



## HenryBHough

Are unemployment benefits NOT income?


----------



## Pogo

This is in no way a thread about taxes.

"I'll Hough... and I'll pough... and I'll blow your thread down!"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dante said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> facts win every time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is not the problem, stupid people are
Click to expand...


Who do you think runs the government?


----------



## Dante

HenryBHough said:


> Are unemployment benefits NOT income?



_idjit_


1. Disability Insurance Payments 

2. Employer-Provided Insurance

3. Gift Giving of Up-to $13,000; Gift Receipt of Any Amount

4. Life Insurance Payouts

5. Sale of Principal Residence

6. Up to $3,000 of Income Offset by Capital Losses

7. Income Earned in Nine States

8. Corporate Income Earned In Five States

9. Inheritance

10. Municipal Bond Interest


----------



## Dante

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is not the problem, stupid people are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you think runs the government?
Click to expand...


Underpaid bureaucrats?


----------



## Pogo

Dante said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is not the problem, stupid people are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think runs the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Underpaid bureaucrats?
Click to expand...


Overpaid lobbyists.  And the DC Revolving Door.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> I'm sure they did, it's how dictators work.
> 
> And if you see that going on here, outside your own comic book, I have to wonder if you can spell the names of the medications you're on.  If that were the case Lush Rimjob would not exist.  How's his career working out?



You know, the one with the comic book mentality is you.

Under Dubya we saw an FCC that cracked down on sex and swearing on TV and radio - here in Los Angeles they are STILL censoring Pink Floyd from singing "bullshit" in the song "Money."

The FCC is very much a political group. Clinton used them to harass opposition media, and Obama is expanding that to new extremes. The placement of an open Stalinist like Tom Wheeler is a chilling event to the freedom of speech in it's own right. The choice of a man who has openly advocated state control of the content of broadcasts is a pretty clear signal of the administrations hostility toward a free press.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they did, it's how dictators work.
> 
> And if you see that going on here, outside your own comic book, I have to wonder if you can spell the names of the medications you're on.  If that were the case Lush Rimjob would not exist.  How's his career working out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the one with the comic book mentality is you.
> 
> Under Dubya we saw an FCC that cracked down on sex and swearing on TV and radio - here in Los Angeles they are STILL censoring Pink Floyd from singing "bullshit" in the song "Money."
> 
> The FCC is very much a political group. Clinton used them to harass opposition media, and Obama is expanding that to new extremes. The placement of an open Stalinist like Tom Wheeler is a chilling event to the freedom of speech in it's own right. The choice of a man who has openly advocated state control of the content of broadcasts is a pretty clear signal of the administrations hostility toward a free press.
Click to expand...


Wheeler's an example of that DC Revolving Door I just mentioned.  A tradition that makes me want to mentally puke.  But not for the reasons in your comic book.

I'm not aware of any Dubya crackdown on sex and swearing.  Again, a POTUS appoints Commissioners and a Chairman; he doesn't run the jernt.  And trust me, if a station is bleeping 'bullshit' out of _Money_ they're doing so by voluntary choice.  That's playing to (perceived) public opinion rather than law.

And Bull Clinton -- the guy who signed away the public airwaves with Telcom 96, "used them to harass opposition"??  Laughable.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Wheeler's an example of that DC Revolving Door I just mentioned.  A tradition that makes me want to mentally puke.  But not for the reasons in your comic book.



The fact that the FCC leadership is a "revolving door" is evidence in it's own right of the political nature of the FCC. 



> I'm not aware of any Dubya crackdown on sex and swearing.



Really?
Super Bowl?s ?Nipplegate? Fiasco 10 Years Later: The Pop Diva, the Boob, and the Outrage - The Daily Beast



> Again, a POTUS appoints Commissioners and a Chairman; he doesn't run the jernt.  And trust me, if a station is bleeping 'bullshit' out of _Money_ they're doing so by voluntary choice.  That's playing to (perceived) public opinion rather than law.



Those who fail to promote the agenda of the administration are asked to tender resignation, to be replaced by those more pliable.

To imagine otherwise is beyond naive. 

As for the FCC crackdown, seriously?

FCC Anti-Profanity Policy Overturned - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com



> And Bull Clinton -- the guy who signed away the public airwaves with Telcom 96, "used them to harass opposition"??  Laughable.



Partisan blinders?

You missed the whole "hush Rush" campaign during the 90's - sure you did.....


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wheeler's an example of that DC Revolving Door I just mentioned.  A tradition that makes me want to mentally puke.  But not for the reasons in your comic book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the FCC leadership is a "revolving door" is evidence in it's own right of the political nature of the FCC.
Click to expand...


The "Revolving Door" (I have to explain this?) refers to the network that appoints foxes to guard government chicken houses.  Like Tim Geithner.  Like Hank Paulsen.  Like Michael Taylor.  And this guy.  And the aforementioned infamous Michael Powell. It's not specific to the FCC at all.  They represent the very businesses that would stand to benefit from having an insider in that agency (and in Powell's case, nepotism).  On our planet we call that "conflict of interest".



Uncensored2008 said:


> I'm not aware of any Dubya crackdown on sex and swearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> Super Bowl?s ?Nipplegate? Fiasco 10 Years Later: The Pop Diva, the Boob, and the Outrage - The Daily Beast
Click to expand...


And Bush did that, huh?  Funny that his name doesn't appear anywhere in the article.

Our puritanical hypocrisy surely amuses the world, but you can't blame the POTUS for that.



Uncensored2008 said:


> Again, a POTUS appoints Commissioners and a Chairman; he doesn't run the jernt.  And trust me, if a station is bleeping 'bullshit' out of _Money_ they're doing so by voluntary choice.  That's playing to (perceived) public opinion rather than law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who fail to promote the agenda of the administration are asked to tender resignation, to be replaced by those more pliable.
> 
> To imagine otherwise is beyond naive.
Click to expand...


Ah, "imagination".  Yeah that does explain a lot.



Uncensored2008 said:


> As for the FCC crackdown, seriously?
> 
> FCC Anti-Profanity Policy Overturned - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com



That's not a "crackdown" -- more the opposite.  It's a shot across the bow of the hypocrisy noted just above.  And way past due.

Btw where the article says "empowering the FCC to police the airwaves for objectionable content in general", that ain't how it works.  FCC doesn't "police the airwaves for objectionable content".  It responds to audience complaints.  No complaints = no action.

I don't believe this got any complaints...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efcY6xhI4Is"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efcY6xhI4Is[/ame]



Uncensored2008 said:


> And Bull Clinton -- the guy who signed away the public airwaves with Telcom 96, "used them to harass opposition"??  Laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partisan blinders?
> 
> You missed the whole "hush Rush" campaign during the 90's - sure you did.....
Click to expand...


::click:: ?? ::click:: ...   Goodness gracious me, my links have stopped working.  Oh pshaw.

Oh wait... "imagination".  I forgot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> The "Revolving Door" (I have to explain this?) refers to the network that appoints foxes to guard government chicken houses.  Like Tim Geithner.  Like Hank Paulsen.  Like Michael Taylor.  And this guy.  And the aforementioned infamous Michael Powell. It's not specific to the FCC at all.  They represent the very businesses that would stand to benefit from having an insider in that agency (and in Powell's case, nepotism).  On our planet we call that "conflict of interest".



No shit?

So what you're saying is that when the democrats are in charge, a particular group of bureaucrats who promote the agenda of the left find themselves in top positions, but when Republicans hold office that group is ushered out the door in favor of a more moderate group. While out, the first group works on party projects awaiting the next democrat?

Well dayum.. 



> And Bush did that, huh?  Funny that his name doesn't appear anywhere in the article.



The Bush FCC engaged in a major crackdown. The Clinton FCC opened the floodgates, especially for shock jocks.  A tit here and an F-bomb there drove Bush to crack down.

You know all this, despite your game playing.



> Our puritanical hypocrisy surely amuses the world, but you can't blame the POTUS for that.
> 
> Ah, "imagination".  Yeah that does explain a lot.



Yawn...



> That's not a "crackdown" -- more the opposite.  It's a shot across the bow of the hypocrisy noted just above.  And way past due.
> 
> Btw where the article says "empowering the FCC to police the airwaves for objectionable content in general", that ain't how it works.  FCC doesn't "police the airwaves for objectionable content".  It responds to audience complaints.  No complaints - no action.



Are you nuts, the FCC was fining everyone.

Bono said "Fuck" on the grammy awards and Fox paid out the ass.

I don't believe this got any complaints...




> ::click:: ?? ::click:: ...   Goodness gracious me, my links have stopped working.  Oh pshaw.
> 
> Oh wait... "imagination".  I forgot.



Yawn.....


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Revolving Door" (I have to explain this?) refers to the network that appoints foxes to guard government chicken houses.  Like Tim Geithner.  Like Hank Paulsen.  Like Michael Taylor.  And this guy.  And the aforementioned infamous Michael Powell. It's not specific to the FCC at all.  They represent the very businesses that would stand to benefit from having an insider in that agency (and in Powell's case, nepotism).  On our planet we call that "conflict of interest".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?
> 
> So what you're saying is that when the democrats are in charge, a particular group of bureaucrats who promote the agenda of the left find themselves in top positions, but when Republicans hold office that group is ushered out the door in favor of a more moderate group. While out, the first group works on party projects awaiting the next democrat?
> 
> Well dayum..
Click to expand...


ahhh... not quite.  What I'm really saying is that those who pretend two political parties don't work the Door exactly the same way must have been served some of the special mushrooms.  Bring this up in your remedial reading class.  Oughta be fun.



Uncensored2008 said:


> And Bush did that, huh?  Funny that his name doesn't appear anywhere in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush FCC engaged in a major crackdown. The Clinton FCC opened the floodgates, especially for shock jocks.  A tit here and an F-bomb there drove Bush to crack down.
> 
> You know all this, despite your game playing.
Click to expand...


What I know is that neither is directed by the POTUS.  There is no "Bush FCC" or "Clinton FCC".  They have influence in setting up the hierarchy, but after that they work on their own.



Uncensored2008 said:


> Yawn...



I know, I know, comic books are more interesting that facts.



Uncensored2008 said:


> That's not a "crackdown" -- more the opposite.  It's a shot across the bow of the hypocrisy noted just above.  And way past due.
> 
> Btw where the article says "empowering the FCC to police the airwaves for objectionable content in general", that ain't how it works.  FCC doesn't "police the airwaves for objectionable content".  It responds to audience complaints.  No complaints - no action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you nuts, the FCC was fining everyone.
> 
> Bono said "Fuck" on the grammy awards and Fox paid out the ass.
Click to expand...


None of which contradicts what I just posted.



Uncensored2008 said:


> I don't believe this got any complaints...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ::click:: ?? ::click:: ...   Goodness gracious me, my links have stopped working.  Oh pshaw.
> 
> Oh wait... "imagination".  I forgot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.....
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> ahhh... not quite.  What I'm really saying is that those who pretend two political parties don't work the Door exactly the same way must have been served some of the special mushrooms.  Bring this up in your remedial reading class.  Oughta be fun.



That's why it's a revolving door, each party does it when they are in power.



> What I know is that neither is directed by the POTUS.  There is no "Bush FCC" or "Clinton FCC".  They have influence in setting up the hierarchy, but after that they work on their own.



ROFL

Utter crap, and you know it.  



> I know, I know, comic books are more interesting that facts.



I wouldn't know, I don't even watch MSNBC


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahhh... not quite.  What I'm really saying is that those who pretend two political parties don't work the Door exactly the same way must have been served some of the special mushrooms.  Bring this up in your remedial reading class.  Oughta be fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why it's a revolving door, each party does it when they are in power.
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should have just said that.  Now look how far you have to walk back.  Got any mushrooms left?

Actually the Revolving Door doesn't refer to parties changing; it refers to private sector coming in to run their own interests in the Cabinet, then oozing out the same door to be a lobbyist.



Uncensored2008 said:


> What I know is that neither is directed by the POTUS.  There is no "Bush FCC" or "Clinton FCC".  They have influence in setting up the hierarchy, but after that they work on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Utter crap, and you know it.
Click to expand...


Nope.  What I do know is that I know far more about FCC than you.  Been dealing with them since the Johnson Administration.



Uncensored2008 said:


> I know, I know, comic books are more interesting that facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't know, I don't even watch MSNBC
Click to expand...


Neither do I but fortunately we have readily available something even crazier. 
Your posts.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Politics and the FCC*​
*Posted: 11/30/2010* 







Earlier this year, the Federal Communication Commission received a letter from 30 liberal organizations urging the agency to monitor "hate speech" on talk radio and cable news networks. Notice that there is no mention of any major networks. This letter was addressed to Mark Lloyd, Compliance Czar at the FCC. *Please notice that this is the same Mark Lloyd who is reportedly a self-professed communist/socialist and a huge admirer of Hugo Chavez. The same Hugo Chavez that has shut down all but one privately run television network and nearly every privately owned newspaper in Venezuela.*

...

Now this letter gets really interesting. The groups also argue that the Internet has made it more difficult for the public to separate "the facts from bigotry masquerading as news." According to the coalition, the Internet "gives the illusion sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalist employed now than ever before."

...

The weirdly strange thing about this letter is the fact that it was directed at Mark Lloyd, who shortly after he was named to his job at the FCC, was quoted as saying "there are simply too many conservative talk shows on the radio." He has been working diligently, out of the spotlight, to change that.


This past week, racial blowhard Al Sharpton was telling audiences around the country that the FCC should take Rush Limbaugh off the air because of perceived offenses toward racial minorities and other groups. Sharpton should have an office in the West Wing. He takes his orders from the Oval Office.

...

Politics and the FCC - Vallejo Times Herald 

That's what they thought back then, imagine what they're thinking now...


----------



## Pogo

For the 7,826,891st time, Jizzhat --- the FCC has no jurisdiction over airwaves content.  Never did, never will.

You miss a lot with these late-night thread bombs that don't bother to take the time to actually read the thread.  You know, put the work in like everybody else has.

Lazy fuck.

And btw Mark Lloyd is not employed at FCC, and there is no such thing as a "compliance czar".  Not a surprise since your writer here gives no sources for his claims or his quotes.


----------



## HenryBHough

Once upon a time America had and lived according to a quaint old document called "The Constitution".

But that was then and now is now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> For the 7,826,891st time, Jizzhat --- the FCC has no jurisdiction over airwaves content.  Never did, never will.
> 
> You miss a lot with these late-night thread bombs that don't bother to take the time to actually read the thread.  You know, put the work in like everybody else has.
> 
> Lazy fuck.
> 
> And btw Mark Lloyd is not employed at FCC, and there is no such thing as a "compliance czar".  Not a surprise since your writer here gives no sources for his claims or his quotes.



Yet they were going to conduct a survey asking about the content of airwaves, and you keep telling me that is their fucking job.


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> For the 7,826,891st time, Jizzhat --- the FCC has no jurisdiction over airwaves content.  Never did, never will.
> 
> You miss a lot with these late-night thread bombs that don't bother to take the time to actually read the thread.  You know, put the work in like everybody else has.
> 
> Lazy fuck.
> 
> And btw Mark Lloyd is not employed at FCC, and there is no such thing as a "compliance czar".  Not a surprise since your writer here gives no sources for his claims or his quotes.



Don't get wee weed up yet, there's more to come, btw I know all about Lloyed tell us something we don't know ya cockbite...


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 7,826,891st time, Jizzhat --- the FCC has no jurisdiction over airwaves content.  Never did, never will.
> 
> You miss a lot with these late-night thread bombs that don't bother to take the time to actually read the thread.  You know, put the work in like everybody else has.
> 
> Lazy fuck.
> 
> And btw Mark Lloyd is not employed at FCC, and there is no such thing as a "compliance czar".  Not a surprise since your writer here gives no sources for his claims or his quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they were going to conduct a survey asking about the content of airwaves, and you keep telling me that is their fucking job.
Click to expand...


There is no "survey asking about the content of airwaves".  That's called "listening to the radio", an activity that is remarkably easy.   I could give you lessons.


----------



## blackhawk

I'm really surprised people have to ask what is wrong with letting the government expand its power no matter how small you feel the expansion is.


----------



## Pogo

blackhawk said:


> I'm really surprised people have to ask what is wrong with letting the government expand its power no matter how small you feel the expansion is.



And I'm really surprised people buy that story on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really surprised people have to ask what is wrong with letting the government expand its power no matter how small you feel the expansion is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm really surprised people buy that story on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Slugo, why do you post shit that you know isn't true?

{The Federal Communications Commission has suspended plans for a survey of television and radio stations after concerns were raised inside and outside the commission about questions in the survey regarding editorial practices in newsrooms.

FCC suspends study that sought information on newsroom operations - latimes.com
}


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really surprised people have to ask what is wrong with letting the government expand its power no matter how small you feel the expansion is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm really surprised people buy that story on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slugo, why do you post shit that you know isn't true?
> 
> {The Federal Communications Commission has suspended plans for a survey of television and radio stations after concerns were raised inside and outside the commission about questions in the survey regarding editorial practices in newsrooms.
> 
> FCC suspends study that sought information on newsroom operations - latimes.com
> }
Click to expand...


I have an unfair advantage; I know what words mean.  And from that I know _survey_ is not the same thing as _power_.  

As I said -- no evidence whatsoever.


----------



## blackhawk

Pogo said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really surprised people have to ask what is wrong with letting the government expand its power no matter how small you feel the expansion is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm really surprised people buy that story on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Tell you what you show me why this idea was needed or necessary and I will reconsider my position.


----------



## peach174

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm really surprised people buy that story on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slugo, why do you post shit that you know isn't true?
> 
> {The Federal Communications Commission has suspended plans for a survey of television and radio stations after concerns were raised inside and outside the commission about questions in the survey regarding editorial practices in newsrooms.
> 
> FCC suspends study that sought information on newsroom operations - latimes.com
> }
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have an unfair advantage; I know what words mean.  And from that I know _survey_ is not the same thing as _power_.
> 
> As I said -- no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...



These 2 Guy's said it the best and they were absolutely right !

Those who look to the action of this [federal] government for specific aid to the citizen to relieve embarrassments arising from losses by revulsions in commerce and credit lose sight of the ends for which it was created and the powers with which it is clothed. It was established to give security to us all in our lawful and honorable pursuits, under the lasting safeguard of repub*lican institutions. It was not intended to confer special favors on individuals or on any classes of them, to create systems of agriculture, manufactures, or trade, or to engage in them either separately or in connection with individual citizens or organized associations. If its operations were to be directed for the benefit of any one class, equivalent favors must in justice be extended to the rest, and the attempt to bestow such favors with an equal hand, or even to select those who should most deserve them, would never be successful.

Martin Van Buren, 1837

Should the time ever arrive when the state governments shall look to the Federal Treasury for the means of supporting them*selves and maintaining their systems of education and internal policy, the character of both governments will be greatly de*teriorated.

JAMES BUCHANAN, 1859


----------



## HenryBHough

Pogo said:


> As I said -- no evidence whatsoever.



Except for that which you thoughtfully provide ensuring us that Marxists have not abandoned their goal in the face of what they think of as "temporary" defeats.  We can have no freedom (from thought) until we have government control of what is to be said before it has the opportunity to actually be said.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> I have an unfair advantage; I know what words mean.  And from that I know _survey_ is not the same thing as _power_.
> 
> As I said -- no evidence whatsoever.



You have an unfair advantage of seeing words dance around in colors and varying shapes...

Actually, it's not an advantage, it's simply you huffing the EasyOff again.

This thread, regards the proposal by the FCC to survey the CONTENT of broadcasts. If you knew what words meant, you would have grasped that long ago, but alas that EasyOff huffing fucked with your perception...

The FCC floated a trial balloon. The agency knew they had no power to go forward, but needed to test the public reaction, would anyone notice? Would the public cry outrage, or could they quietly subvert freedom of the press.

Since there was resistance, they will slink back into their hole, and float another trial balloon in a couple of years.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have an unfair advantage; I know what words mean.  And from that I know _survey_ is not the same thing as _power_.
> 
> As I said -- no evidence whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have an unfair advantage of seeing words dance around in colors and varying shapes...
> 
> Actually, it's not an advantage, it's simply you huffing the EasyOff again.
> 
> This thread, regards the proposal by the FCC to survey the CONTENT of broadcasts. If you knew what words meant, you would have grasped that long ago, but alas that EasyOff huffing fucked with your perception...
> 
> The FCC floated a trial balloon. The agency knew they had no power to go forward, but needed to test the public reaction, would anyone notice? Would the public cry outrage, or could they quietly subvert freedom of the press.
> 
> Since there was resistance, they will slink back into their hole, and float another trial balloon in a couple of years.
Click to expand...


That's absurd.  Now you're sounding like Wanton Windbag, and that's never a good sign.

Number one, who needs a "survey" to determine the content of broadcasts?  Know what I'm doing right now?  Listening to a radio station.  I don't need a survey to figure out what that content is.   And if I miss something, it's all on a web page.

Number two, there is nothing in FCC's mission, structure or licensing procedures that depends on, or enables control of, content anyway.  It's simply not something they do.  Nor should they, obviously.

And this of course makes no sense whatsoever:


> The FCC floated a trial balloon. The agency knew they had no power to go forward, but needed to test the public reaction, would anyone notice?




What that study appeared to be about was news gathering systems.  And again I'd refer you to post 115 for one example of why that might be a concern; posts 232 and 234 for a few more, and post 71 where I linked the actual study proposal itself, which I had to go ferret out since nobody else, not even the OP, bothered to lift a finger to link to what the hell they were talking about, preferring to run with the ball of speculation, rumors, flamingly false blogs and innuendo and out the other based on nothing.

In the last link, feel free to go find me where FCC gets suddenly empowered with any kind of content control at all.  I put that challenge out for Wanton Windbag and he bailed, so have at it.   Or go to fcc.gov and find me where it has any such power.  This bullshit thread is going on three hundred posts of bullshit based on nothing.

Except for my posts calling out the bullshit of course 

Talk is cheap.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Let's see some pudding.


----------



## HenryBHough

Woooosssshhhhhhh!

It is not that The FCC has power over content.  

It's that The regime's FCC WANTS to assume that power.

And, in the fullness of time, will.

Just not quite yet.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Woooosssshhhhhhh!
> 
> It is not that The FCC has power over content.



Thank you.  That ought to quiet down the yammering parrots.



HenryBHough said:


> It's that The regime's FCC WANTS to assume that power.
> 
> And, in the fullness of time, will.
> 
> Just not quite yet.



It "wants to" eh  

Leaving aside the impossibility of an agency of that size even being able to smell such an undertaking, how do you suggest it would or could assume such power?

This oughta be good...


----------



## HenryBHough

Pogo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woooosssshhhhhhh!
> 
> It is not that The FCC has power over content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  That ought to quiet down the yammering parrots.
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's that The regime's FCC WANTS to assume that power.
> 
> And, in the fullness of time, will.
> 
> Just not quite yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It "wants to" eh
> 
> Leaving aside the impossibility of an agency of that size even being able to smell such an undertaking, how do you suggest it would or could assume such power?
> 
> This oughta be good...
Click to expand...


Where's your patience Comrade Pogo?

Have you entirely forgotten that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  That the first step has faltered represents naught but a challenge.


----------



## Pogo

::: Whooooooossssshhh:::

It's a little early in the year but... SWING and a miss.

Exactly.


----------



## HenryBHough

Pogo said:


> ::: Whooooooossssshhh:::
> 
> It's a little early in the year but... SWING and a miss.
> 
> Exactly.



I little early in the year, yes.  I'm confident your party brothers will try for another bite at the apple of government control of broadcast content along about Halloween.  Then it might be mistaken for something else. 

But probably not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 7,826,891st time, Jizzhat --- the FCC has no jurisdiction over airwaves content.  Never did, never will.
> 
> You miss a lot with these late-night thread bombs that don't bother to take the time to actually read the thread.  You know, put the work in like everybody else has.
> 
> Lazy fuck.
> 
> And btw Mark Lloyd is not employed at FCC, and there is no such thing as a "compliance czar".  Not a surprise since your writer here gives no sources for his claims or his quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they were going to conduct a survey asking about the content of airwaves, and you keep telling me that is their fucking job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "survey asking about the content of airwaves".  That's called "listening to the radio", an activity that is remarkably easy.   I could give you lessons.
Click to expand...


What?????

Here is the link to the actual survey proposal. PDF

If you can actually read, and actually bother to look at the link, you will see that under point I of the outline they go into detail about the Content Analysis of Media Content. They were going to examine the content of broadcast news, newspapers, radio news, and even the internet.

Even you aren't stupid enough to argue that a survey about the content of broadcast, radio, internet, and print news is not a survey about the content of the airwaves. Or are you still operating on the idea that,since this was reported by Fox, it is bullshit?

By the way, my link is directly from the FCC itself. Good luck claiming that is a right wing site.
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> That's absurd.  Now you're sounding like Wanton Windbag, and that's never a good sign.



Could be worse, I could sound like Franco... 



> Number one, who needs a "survey" to determine the content of broadcasts?  Know what I'm doing right now?  Listening to a radio station.  I don't need a survey to figure out what that content is.   And if I miss something, it's all on a web page.



This is government, document first, THEN regulate.



> Number two, there is nothing in FCC's mission, structure or licensing procedures that depends on, or enables control of, content anyway.  It's simply not something they do.  Nor should they, obviously.




{First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCCs enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it againthus it technically would not be considered repealed. ... Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. } - President Obama advisor John Podesta

FCC "Survey" Straight From Podesta's Fairness Doctrine Playbook - Conn Carroll

You were saying?



> And this of course makes no sense whatsoever:



Maybe Truthmatters rather than Franco, then?




> What that study appeared to be about was news gathering systems.  And again I'd refer you to post 115 for one example of why that might be a concern; posts 232 and 234 for a few more, and post 71 where I linked the actual study proposal itself, which I had to go ferret out since nobody else, not even the OP, bothered to lift a finger to link to what the hell they were talking about, preferring to run with the ball of speculation, rumors, flamingly false blogs and innuendo and out the other based on nothing.
> 
> In the last link, feel free to go find me where FCC gets suddenly empowered with any kind of content control at all.  I put that challenge out for Wanton Windbag and he bailed, so have at it.   Or go to fcc.gov and find me where it has any such power.  This bullshit thread is going on three hundred posts of bullshit based on nothing.
> 
> Except for my posts calling out the bullshit of course
> 
> Talk is cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see some pudding.



The FCC has engaged in content control over much of it's existence. Reagan put an end to the Fairness Doctrine, and democrats have been fighting to bring it back ever since.

This study was to document, not to control.

This is government, document first, then control.


----------



## peach174

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  Now you're sounding like Wanton Windbag, and that's never a good sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be worse, I could sound like Franco...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, who needs a "survey" to determine the content of broadcasts?  Know what I'm doing right now?  Listening to a radio station.  I don't need a survey to figure out what that content is.   And if I miss something, it's all on a web page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is government, document first, THEN regulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCCs enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it againthus it technically would not be considered repealed. ... Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. } - President Obama advisor John Podesta
> 
> FCC "Survey" Straight From Podesta's Fairness Doctrine Playbook - Conn Carroll
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this of course makes no sense whatsoever:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Truthmatters rather than Franco, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What that study appeared to be about was news gathering systems.  And again I'd refer you to post 115 for one example of why that might be a concern; posts 232 and 234 for a few more, and post 71 where I linked the actual study proposal itself, which I had to go ferret out since nobody else, not even the OP, bothered to lift a finger to link to what the hell they were talking about, preferring to run with the ball of speculation, rumors, flamingly false blogs and innuendo and out the other based on nothing.
> 
> In the last link, feel free to go find me where FCC gets suddenly empowered with any kind of content control at all.  I put that challenge out for Wanton Windbag and he bailed, so have at it.   Or go to fcc.gov and find me where it has any such power.  This bullshit thread is going on three hundred posts of bullshit based on nothing.
> 
> Except for my posts calling out the bullshit of course
> 
> Talk is cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see some pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FCC has engaged in content control over much of it's existence. Reagan put an end to the Fairness Doctrine, and democrats have been fighting to bring it back ever since.
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> This is government, document first, then control.
Click to expand...



Yep!
Get all of the information and then start making the laws.
They have no business in making any regulations for the media.
The left have been so pissed off that they don't dominate or control the media any longer, so they have been trying to make their case like they always do for everything in fairness.
We can't have any opposing views out there - no siree, we have to find a legal way to shut up the Conservatives and Libertarians.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  Now you're sounding like Wanton Windbag, and that's never a good sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be worse, I could sound like Franco...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, who needs a "survey" to determine the content of broadcasts?  Know what I'm doing right now?  Listening to a radio station.  I don't need a survey to figure out what that content is.   And if I miss something, it's all on a web page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is government, document first, THEN regulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC&#8217;s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again&#8212;thus it technically would not be considered repealed. ... Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. } - President Obama advisor John Podesta
> 
> FCC "Survey" Straight From Podesta's Fairness Doctrine Playbook - Conn Carroll
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this of course makes no sense whatsoever:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Truthmatters rather than Franco, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What that study appeared to be about was news gathering systems.  And again I'd refer you to post 115 for one example of why that might be a concern; posts 232 and 234 for a few more, and post 71 where I linked the actual study proposal itself, which I had to go ferret out since nobody else, not even the OP, bothered to lift a finger to link to what the hell they were talking about, preferring to run with the ball of speculation, rumors, flamingly false blogs and innuendo and out the other based on nothing.
> 
> In the last link, feel free to go find me where FCC gets suddenly empowered with any kind of content control at all.  I put that challenge out for Wanton Windbag and he bailed, so have at it.   Or go to fcc.gov and find me where it has any such power.  This bullshit thread is going on three hundred posts of bullshit based on nothing.
> 
> Except for my posts calling out the bullshit of course
> 
> Talk is cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see some pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FCC has engaged in content control over much of it's existence. Reagan put an end to the Fairness Doctrine, and democrats have been fighting to bring it back ever since.
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> This is government, document first, then control.
Click to expand...


SWIIIIING andamiss.  Sorry Pothead, the Fairness Doctrine has never had anything to do with regulating content.  And we did this waaay back here as well as other threads.  I worked in broadcasting both with and without the FD including overseeing what went on the air.  There were no such limitations.  Matter of fact when the FD stopped getting enforced it made absolutely zero difference in day to day operations.  Bottom line: no, the FCC has never engaged in controlling content in its existence.  That would in fact be unconstitutional.

If I recall my challenge, which is about ten years old now among this and other sites, was for anyone to find me one case -- even one -- where the FD ever shut down or fined a station because of the content it aired.  I'm still pitching a shutout on that.

You were saying?



> This study was to document, not to control.



Then the point that it's to control, fails.  Ain't rocket surgery.


Sooooo.... no pudding for me.  Damn.


----------



## Pogo

peach174 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  Now you're sounding like Wanton Windbag, and that's never a good sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be worse, I could sound like Franco...
> 
> 
> 
> This is government, document first, THEN regulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCCs enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it againthus it technically would not be considered repealed. ... Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. } - President Obama advisor John Podesta
> 
> FCC "Survey" Straight From Podesta's Fairness Doctrine Playbook - Conn Carroll
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Truthmatters rather than Franco, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What that study appeared to be about was news gathering systems.  And again I'd refer you to post 115 for one example of why that might be a concern; posts 232 and 234 for a few more, and post 71 where I linked the actual study proposal itself, which I had to go ferret out since nobody else, not even the OP, bothered to lift a finger to link to what the hell they were talking about, preferring to run with the ball of speculation, rumors, flamingly false blogs and innuendo and out the other based on nothing.
> 
> In the last link, feel free to go find me where FCC gets suddenly empowered with any kind of content control at all.  I put that challenge out for Wanton Windbag and he bailed, so have at it.   Or go to fcc.gov and find me where it has any such power.  This bullshit thread is going on three hundred posts of bullshit based on nothing.
> 
> Except for my posts calling out the bullshit of course
> 
> Talk is cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see some pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FCC has engaged in content control over much of it's existence. Reagan put an end to the Fairness Doctrine, and democrats have been fighting to bring it back ever since.
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> This is government, document first, then control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!
> Get all of the information and then start making the laws.
> *They have no business in making any regulations for the media.*
> The left have been so pissed off that they don't dominate or control the media any longer, so they have been trying to make their case like they always do for everything in fairness.
> We can't have any opposing views out there - no siree, we have to find a legal way to shut up the Conservatives and Libertarians.
Click to expand...


"No busineess"?  Uh Peach -- making regulations for the medi*um* (of the electromagnetic spectrum) is what this agency was established for back in the 1920s ... when anyone with a transmitter could just fire it up and create chaos.  FCC regulates the technical, not the content inside it.  And it's ALWAYS been that way.

Best to know what one's talking about before one posts.  But of course having an OP that refers to absolutely nothing doesn't help.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  Now you're sounding like Wanton Windbag, and that's never a good sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be worse, I could sound like Franco...
> 
> 
> 
> This is government, document first, THEN regulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCCs enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it againthus it technically would not be considered repealed. ... Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. } - President Obama advisor John Podesta
> 
> FCC "Survey" Straight From Podesta's Fairness Doctrine Playbook - Conn Carroll
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Truthmatters rather than Franco, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has engaged in content control over much of it's existence. Reagan put an end to the Fairness Doctrine, and democrats have been fighting to bring it back ever since.
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> This is government, document first, then control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SWIIIIING andamiss.  Sorry Pothead, the Fairness Doctrine has never had anything to do with regulating content.  And we did this waaay back here as well as other threads.
> 
> If I recall my challenge, which is about ten years old now among this and other sites, was for anyone to find me one case -- even one -- where the FD ever shut down or fined a station because of the content it aired.  I'm still pitching a shutout on that.
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the point that it's to control, fails.  Ain't rocket surgery.
Click to expand...


Still harping on lies?

Like I told you earlier, the fairness doctrine had nothing to do with licensing, it had to do with content. You know about content, don't you? That stuff you insist the FCC doesn't want to regulate?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be worse, I could sound like Franco...
> 
> 
> 
> This is government, document first, THEN regulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCCs enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it againthus it technically would not be considered repealed. ... Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. } - President Obama advisor John Podesta
> 
> FCC "Survey" Straight From Podesta's Fairness Doctrine Playbook - Conn Carroll
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Truthmatters rather than Franco, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has engaged in content control over much of it's existence. Reagan put an end to the Fairness Doctrine, and democrats have been fighting to bring it back ever since.
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> This is government, document first, then control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!
> Get all of the information and then start making the laws.
> *They have no business in making any regulations for the media.*
> The left have been so pissed off that they don't dominate or control the media any longer, so they have been trying to make their case like they always do for everything in fairness.
> We can't have any opposing views out there - no siree, we have to find a legal way to shut up the Conservatives and Libertarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "No busineess"?  Uh Peach -- making regulations for the medi*um* (of the electromagnetic spectrum) is what this agency was established for back in the 1920s ... when anyone with a transmitter could just fire it up and create chaos.  FCC regulates the technical, not the content inside it.  And it's ALWAYS been that way.
> 
> Best to know what one's talking about before one posts.  But of course having an OP that refers to absolutely nothing doesn't help.
Click to expand...


Except, of course, it hasn't always been that way, which is why you keep lying about the fairness doctrine.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they were going to conduct a survey asking about the content of airwaves, and you keep telling me that is their fucking job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "survey asking about the content of airwaves".  That's called "listening to the radio", an activity that is remarkably easy.   I could give you lessons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?????
> 
> Here is the link to the actual survey proposal. PDF
> 
> If you can actually read, and actually bother to look at the link, you will see that under point I of the outline they go into detail about the Content Analysis of Media Content. They were going to examine the content of broadcast news, newspapers, radio news, and even the internet.
> 
> Even you aren't stupid enough to argue that a survey about the content of broadcast, radio, internet, and print news is not a survey about the content of the airwaves. Or are you still operating on the idea that,since this was reported by Fox, it is bullshit?
> 
> By the way, my link is directly from the FCC itself. Good luck claiming that is a right wing site.
> http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf
Click to expand...


You just linked the exact same pdf I linked days ago and over 200 posts back, and we already did this -- again it's from Social Solutions International, the research company.  You're recall that I invited you to go to that link and find me any part of it that enables or even suggests content control on the part of FCC.  You'll recall that you responded with crickets.  And you'll recall that this is the second time I've reminded you about those same crickets, yet you yammer on with the same thing over and over.

Here's a rerun of post 71 where I not only linked that study proposal but also posted its objectives.  Roll tape...



Pogo said:


> This "issue" (if that's what it is) was apparently generated by this editorial in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.  The writer of the editorial is a Republican FCC Commissioner appointed by O'bama.  Basically it's a study of how information is processed.
> 
> Yes, the government is doing a study.   When has that ever happened...
> 
> Rather than biased editorials, half-wits fanning flames of mythologies and OPs that give no basis for themselves whatsoever, let's go right to the heart of the matter.  Here's the actual proposal from the research company designed to execute this study.  The reader will note it's a year old already.
> 
> Excerpt:
> >>* Overall	Project	Goals	and	Objectives	*
> 
> We understand that the purpose of this Study of Critical Information Needs (CINs) is to provide
> a comprehensive analysis of access/barriers to CINs in diverse American communities.
> The objectives of the study are to:
> &#8226; collect data to inform:
> o the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC;
> o the media that makes up media ecologies (i.e., what media is actually included in that ecology; ownership of that market; what specific type of content dominates those media ecologies; what is the flow of information within the ecology, etc);
> o the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies (i.e., how do different layers of the ecology interact to provide for CINs; how do individuals of diverse neighborhoods/communities differ in terms of access to CINs);
> &#8226; validate data collection tools/templates and protocols;
> &#8226; demonstrate high internal validity and reliability of measured constructs
> 
> *Study	Goals	and	Objectives	*
> 
> The objectives of the study are to help FCC answer the following questions:
> &#8226; How does this study inform the acquisition and/or barriers to CINs in American communities?
> &#8226; What barriers to entry exist in the FCC regulated markets and to what extent do those barriers to entry have a negative impact?
> &#8226; Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of internal validity? Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of reliability across diverse target markets?  <<
> 
> Sorry but that's the boring reality.  As you were with the fantasies...




Now then... a study is a study.  It is by definition _passive_.  You and your ilk of hair-on-fire wags are making great leaps and bounds inferring *"what will follow"* as a result of the study.  You have a probability fallacy: "I worry that FCC will use this study to control content, therefore FCC will use this study to control content".  Does not follow.  You _still_ have no basis.  Much like the OP opened a topic here with no link to anything anywhere.

I can sit here and "study" how this website works.  That doesn't in itself mean that I'm doing so in order to hack into it and revise your posts.  Sheeeeeessh.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!
> Get all of the information and then start making the laws.
> *They have no business in making any regulations for the media.*
> The left have been so pissed off that they don't dominate or control the media any longer, so they have been trying to make their case like they always do for everything in fairness.
> We can't have any opposing views out there - no siree, we have to find a legal way to shut up the Conservatives and Libertarians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "No busineess"?  Uh Peach -- making regulations for the medi*um* (of the electromagnetic spectrum) is what this agency was established for back in the 1920s ... when anyone with a transmitter could just fire it up and create chaos.  FCC regulates the technical, not the content inside it.  And it's ALWAYS been that way.
> 
> Best to know what one's talking about before one posts.  But of course having an OP that refers to absolutely nothing doesn't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, of course, it hasn't always been that way, which is why you keep lying about the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...


And how many years do *you* have in broadcasting?

Prove me wrong.  Show me something besides empty juvenile gainsaying.
I'm still hungry for pudding.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> SWIIIIING andamiss.  Sorry Pothead, the Fairness Doctrine has never had anything to do with regulating content.  And we did this waaay back here as well as other threads.  I worked in broadcasting both with and without the FD including overseeing what went on the air.  There were no such limitations.  Matter of fact when the FD stopped getting enforced it made absolutely zero difference in day to day operations.  Bottom line: no, the FCC has never engaged in controlling content in its existence.  That would in fact be unconstitutional.



ROFL

TM level for sure...



> If I recall my challenge, which is about ten years old now among this and other sites, was for anyone to find me one case -- even one -- where the FD ever shut down or fined a station because of the content it aired.  I'm still pitching a shutout on that.
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the point that it's to control, fails.  Ain't rocket surgery.
> 
> 
> Sooooo.... no pudding for me.  Damn.
Click to expand...


Hmm, find pre-internet actions? Let me see what I can do.

I remember KABC in Los Angeles getting fined under the Fairness Doctrine - actually for lack of conservative content. But documenting this could be a challenge.


----------



## Pogo

>>  The Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters by way of this Research Design, any resulting study, or through any other means.  The development of the Research Design was intended to aid the Commission in meeting its *obligations under Section 257 of the Communications Act*.  Section 257 *directs the Commission to identify and eliminate "market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services."* The statutory provision expressly links our obligation to identify market barriers with the responsibility to "promote the policies and purposes of this chapter favoring diversity of media voices." Finally, Section 257 *requires the Commission to review and report* to Congress on "any regulations prescribed to eliminate barriers within its jurisdiction ... that can be prescribed consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity." <<

- Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman, excerpted from a letter (here in full) to Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2/14 (emphasis added)

Far from being "none of its business", the project is part of what the FCC is required by law to do.  And to correct our own term, this isn't even a formal study; it's what they call a "research design", which is a precursor to a formal study.


But never mind all that, here's the quick summary --- "Newsroom police!  Booga Booga!!!"


----------



## HenryBHough

Nice cover story, comrade!

Fanciful, it is true, but cute.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> SWIIIIING andamiss.  Sorry Pothead, the Fairness Doctrine has never had anything to do with regulating content.  And we did this waaay back here as well as other threads.  I worked in broadcasting both with and without the FD including overseeing what went on the air.  There were no such limitations.  Matter of fact when the FD stopped getting enforced it made absolutely zero difference in day to day operations.  Bottom line: no, the FCC has never engaged in controlling content in its existence.  That would in fact be unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> TM level for sure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I recall my challenge, which is about ten years old now among this and other sites, was for anyone to find me one case -- even one -- where the FD ever shut down or fined a station because of the content it aired.  I'm still pitching a shutout on that.
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the point that it's to control, fails.  Ain't rocket surgery.
> 
> 
> Sooooo.... no pudding for me.  Damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, find pre-internet actions? Let me see what I can do.
> 
> I remember KABC in Los Angeles getting fined under the Fairness Doctrine - actually for lack of conservative content. But documenting this could be a challenge.
Click to expand...


Hey, everything that doesn't exist "could be a challenge".  I'm preeeeety sure the Internets do contain archives that go back before Al Gore invented it, so that's no excuse.

The FD didn't work that way anyway.  Nobody monitored or tallied up "conservative content" or "liberal content" -- as if there could possibly be a way to do that.  What the FD did is if I owned KABC and went on its airwaves to slander you, or even just to pick apart the flaws in your posts, then you would have the right to respond on those same airwaves.  For a real life example, and I'm repeating myself, Joe McCarthy used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" critique of him in 1954.  CBS gave McCarthy an entire program to make his response.

In other words it's like the nature of this message board: when I write this post, you get to respond; I don't get a monologue.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Nice cover story, comrade!
> 
> Fanciful, it is true, but cute.



Actually it's a letter.  Quoted verbatim.


----------



## HenryBHough

OK, link-lovers, read and weep.....

http://epublications.marquette.edu/...2F#search="KABC fairness doctrine punishment"

One of those links you may have to cut & paste if you can figure out how to do that.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be worse, I could sound like Franco...
> 
> 
> 
> This is government, document first, THEN regulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC&#8217;s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again&#8212;thus it technically would not be considered repealed. ... Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. } - President Obama advisor John Podesta
> 
> FCC "Survey" Straight From Podesta's Fairness Doctrine Playbook - Conn Carroll
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Truthmatters rather than Franco, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FCC has engaged in content control over much of it's existence. Reagan put an end to the Fairness Doctrine, and democrats have been fighting to bring it back ever since.
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> This is government, document first, then control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SWIIIIING andamiss.  Sorry Pothead, the Fairness Doctrine has never had anything to do with regulating content.  And we did this waaay back here as well as other threads.
> 
> If I recall my challenge, which is about ten years old now among this and other sites, was for anyone to find me one case -- even one -- where the FD ever shut down or fined a station because of the content it aired.  I'm still pitching a shutout on that.
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This study was to document, not to control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the point that it's to control, fails.  Ain't rocket surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still harping on lies?
> 
> Like I told you earlier, the fairness doctrine had nothing to do with licensing, it had to do with content. You know about content, don't you? That stuff you insist the FCC doesn't want to regulate?
Click to expand...


I missed this post earlier.  I have never, here or anywhere else, maintained or believed that the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with licensing.  I know better.  I _had to_ know better in order to train and supervise people in broadcasting, and to protect the licenses of my employers.  Once again you're making shit up.  If that were the case, you could quote me.  And you can't.

And btw it's "_As_ I told you", not "Like I told you".

The FD has never regulated content.  It only required that content to allow an answer.  Neither the original content nor the response content was in any way regulated, screened, approved, disapproved, edited, coerced, monitored, or gone over by a teacher with a red crayon on the part of the FCC.  All the agency cared about was that if QuantumWindbag climbs into the sandbox and declares "Pogo's a big stupid!", then Pogo gets to climb into the same sandbox and say "am not!".  And that's because in its time, there were only a few sandboxes and you can't hog one all to yourself.

All of which is off the topic and only of mild tangential historical interest, since this research design has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.


----------



## HenryBHough

I feel for those students.


----------



## Pogo

Let me know if you find any.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "survey asking about the content of airwaves".  That's called "listening to the radio", an activity that is remarkably easy.   I could give you lessons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?????
> 
> Here is the link to the actual survey proposal. PDF
> 
> If you can actually read, and actually bother to look at the link, you will see that under point I of the outline they go into detail about the Content Analysis of Media Content. They were going to examine the content of broadcast news, newspapers, radio news, and even the internet.
> 
> Even you aren't stupid enough to argue that a survey about the content of broadcast, radio, internet, and print news is not a survey about the content of the airwaves. Or are you still operating on the idea that,since this was reported by Fox, it is bullshit?
> 
> By the way, my link is directly from the FCC itself. Good luck claiming that is a right wing site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just linked the exact same pdf I linked days ago and over 200 posts back, and we already did this -- again it's from Social Solutions International, the research company.  You're recall that I invited you to go to that link and find me any part of it that enables or even suggests content control on the part of FCC.  You'll recall that you responded with crickets.  And you'll recall that this is the second time I've reminded you about those same crickets, yet you yammer on with the same thing over and over.
Click to expand...


We keep going through this because you keep blathering about how the sky is purple. They are going to survey content, and you say they aren't. You are wrong, and repeating a post where you didn't address the fact that they are looking at content will not prove that they you are right.

If you want to try again address the key word in my post, content. If you simply want to pretend that the fact that you are not talking about content proves the FCC isn't delving into an area that is entirely outside its jurisdiction don't expect to convince anyone that you have a working brain.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "No busineess"?  Uh Peach -- making regulations for the medi*um* (of the electromagnetic spectrum) is what this agency was established for back in the 1920s ... when anyone with a transmitter could just fire it up and create chaos.  FCC regulates the technical, not the content inside it.  And it's ALWAYS been that way.
> 
> Best to know what one's talking about before one posts.  But of course having an OP that refers to absolutely nothing doesn't help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, it hasn't always been that way, which is why you keep lying about the fairness doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many years do *you* have in broadcasting?
> 
> Prove me wrong.  Show me something besides empty juvenile gainsaying.
> I'm still hungry for pudding.
Click to expand...


What was the fairness doctrine about then, oh he who is never wrong because he never said what he said.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, it hasn't always been that way, which is why you keep lying about the fairness doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how many years do *you* have in broadcasting?
> 
> Prove me wrong.  Show me something besides empty juvenile gainsaying.
> I'm still hungry for pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the fairness doctrine about then, oh he who is never wrong because he never said what he said.
Click to expand...


P: "It's always been that way".
Q: "Has not! You're lying!"
P: "OK, prove me wrong. Show an example."
(pregnant pause)
Q: "well ... uh... what was it about then?"

(this, after I've already made about 352 posts on what it was about, including right here on this page)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> SWIIIIING andamiss.  Sorry Pothead, the Fairness Doctrine has never had anything to do with regulating content.  And we did this waaay back here as well as other threads.  I worked in broadcasting both with and without the FD including overseeing what went on the air.  There were no such limitations.  Matter of fact when the FD stopped getting enforced it made absolutely zero difference in day to day operations.  Bottom line: no, the FCC has never engaged in controlling content in its existence.  That would in fact be unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> TM level for sure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I recall my challenge, which is about ten years old now among this and other sites, was for anyone to find me one case -- even one -- where the FD ever shut down or fined a station because of the content it aired.  I'm still pitching a shutout on that.
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> Then the point that it's to control, fails.  Ain't rocket surgery.
> 
> 
> Sooooo.... no pudding for me.  Damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, find pre-internet actions? Let me see what I can do.
> 
> I remember KABC in Los Angeles getting fined under the Fairness Doctrine - actually for lack of conservative content. But documenting this could be a challenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, everything that doesn't exist "could be a challenge".  I'm preeeeety sure the Internets do contain archives that go back before Al Gore invented it, so that's no excuse.
> 
> The FD didn't work that way anyway.  Nobody monitored or tallied up "conservative content" or "liberal content" -- as if there could possibly be a way to do that.  What the FD did is if I owned KABC and went on its airwaves to slander you, or even just to pick apart the flaws in your posts, then you would have the right to respond on those same airwaves.  For a real life example, and I'm repeating myself, Joe McCarthy used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" critique of him in 1954.  CBS gave McCarthy an entire program to make his response.
> 
> In other words it's like the nature of this message board: when I write this post, you get to respond; I don't get a monologue.
Click to expand...


Could that be because the fairness doctrine wasn't about making sure that a station actually presented both conservative and liberal viewpoints? Since you were just pretending you work n broadcasting, you would actually know that the fairness doctrine required stations to provide coverage of "controversial content" and to provide people a chance to reply to whatever topic they covered.

What Is The Fairness Doctrine? : FCC History and Policies, Fairness Doctrine

Since you are a brain dead idiot I am sure you will argue this isn't about content, even though it clearly is, so feel free to make a fool out of yourself.

By the way, if you read that link I provided you will see that another regulation exists that affects content, the equal time rule. That is the one that tells them that they have to provide equal time to every politician running for office.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> SWIIIIING andamiss.  Sorry Pothead, the Fairness Doctrine has never had anything to do with regulating content.  And we did this waaay back here as well as other threads.
> 
> If I recall my challenge, which is about ten years old now among this and other sites, was for anyone to find me one case -- even one -- where the FD ever shut down or fined a station because of the content it aired.  I'm still pitching a shutout on that.
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Then the point that it's to control, fails.  Ain't rocket surgery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still harping on lies?
> 
> Like I told you earlier, the fairness doctrine had nothing to do with licensing, it had to do with content. You know about content, don't you? That stuff you insist the FCC doesn't want to regulate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed this post earlier.  I have never, here or anywhere else, maintained or believed that the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with licensing.  I know better.  I _had to_ know better in order to train and supervise people in broadcasting, and to protect the licenses of my employers.  Once again you're making shit up.  If that were the case, you could quote me.  And you can't.
> 
> And btw it's "_As_ I told you", not "Like I told you".
> 
> The FD has never regulated content.  It only required that content to allow an answer.  Neither the original content nor the response content was in any way regulated, screened, approved, disapproved, edited, coerced, monitored, or gone over by a teacher with a red crayon on the part of the FCC.  All the agency cared about was that if QuantumWindbag climbs into the sandbox and declares "Pogo's a big stupid!", then Pogo gets to climb into the same sandbox and say "am not!".  And that's because in its time, there were only a few sandboxes and you can't hog one all to yourself.
> 
> All of which is off the topic and only of mild tangential historical interest, since this research design has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
Click to expand...


Yet you keep issuing a fucking challenge to people to prove that it happened. Does that mean you are using a straw man argument, because you are the only fucking idiot on this thread I have even seen raise the issue.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how many years do *you* have in broadcasting?
> 
> Prove me wrong.  Show me something besides empty juvenile gainsaying.
> I'm still hungry for pudding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the fairness doctrine about then, oh he who is never wrong because he never said what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P: "It's always been that way".
> Q: "Has not! You're lying!"
> P: "OK, prove me wrong. Show an example."
> (pregnant pause)
> Q: "well ... uh... what was it about then?"
> 
> (this, after I've already made about 352 posts on what it was about, including right here on this page)
Click to expand...


Except that I actually provided a link that shows you don't know what you are talking about, so you can now go back and pretend you never said it.


----------



## Tresha91203

You have already said stations quit presenting content the way they previously did. They categorized people differently, quit some content completely, and apologized for legal content promising not to say that again ... all to avoid the hassle of the FCC and FD.  I fail to see how the FCC and FD were so benign.  Maybe they didn't officially regulate content, but content was changed drastically as a result of the FCC. Regulate, intimidate, same result.


----------



## dblack

If media aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear ...


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> TM level for sure...
> 
> Hmm, find pre-internet actions? Let me see what I can do.
> 
> I remember KABC in Los Angeles getting fined under the Fairness Doctrine - actually for lack of conservative content. But documenting this could be a challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, everything that doesn't exist "could be a challenge".  I'm preeeeety sure the Internets do contain archives that go back before Al Gore invented it, so that's no excuse.
> 
> The FD didn't work that way anyway.  Nobody monitored or tallied up "conservative content" or "liberal content" -- as if there could possibly be a way to do that.  What the FD did is if I owned KABC and went on its airwaves to slander you, or even just to pick apart the flaws in your posts, then you would have the right to respond on those same airwaves.  For a real life example, and I'm repeating myself, Joe McCarthy used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" critique of him in 1954.  CBS gave McCarthy an entire program to make his response.
> 
> In other words it's like the nature of this message board: when I write this post, you get to respond; I don't get a monologue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could that be because the fairness doctrine wasn't about making sure that a station actually presented both conservative and liberal viewpoints? Since you were just pretending you work n broadcasting, you would actually know that the fairness doctrine required stations to provide coverage of "controversial content" and to provide people a chance to reply to whatever topic they covered.
> 
> What Is The Fairness Doctrine? : FCC History and Policies, Fairness Doctrine
> 
> Since you are a brain dead idiot I am sure you will argue this isn't about content, even though it clearly is, so feel free to make a fool out of yourself.
> 
> By the way, if you read that link I provided you will see that another regulation exists that affects content, the equal time rule. That is the one that tells them that they have to provide equal time to every politician running for office.
Click to expand...


1. Like the FD, Equal Time (which carries myriad exceptions) does not control content.  It just says who gets invited.  Perhaps you're too stupid to understand the concept that allowing some party to speak is not controlling what they can or can't say.

2. Every station, since it's licensed to use the public airwaves, is required to provide some kind of community-interest content.  Neither the nature nor the volume of that content is specified, it's left intentionally vague.  Come license renewal time a station's application narrative will include every time they aired a city council meeting at 4 am when no one would be listening and every PSA they pepper in between the music.  That's why they do it.  It didn't require that content to be controversial.  That's bullshit.  So when you ask "Could that be because the fairness doctrine wasn't about making sure that a station actually presented both conservative and liberal viewpoints?", exactly -- that's what I just said.  

3. it's revealing that you keep going to non-broadcast, non-informed sites to try to make points.  I've seen this About.com page before; it's riddled with errors (example: "Communications Act of 1937" was actually 1934).

4. I have worked in broadcasting for roughly 25 years, including those license renewals, and held multiple FCC licenses since the Johnson Administration, so you can go fuck yourself.

5. Try reading this thread sober some day.


----------



## HenryBHough

OK, 25 years is a tad beyond hobbyist status - so long as all of those years were full time, not just fill-in between selling insurance or used cars.  If those 25 years count backward from today then they all fell during the period after the Fairness Doctrine had gone the way of the spark gap transmitter.  

Still, anyone who actually did air work would never go all potty-mouth anywhere in public.  It tends to become habitual and often results in sudden termination.  Perhaps sales?  Janitorial?  Traffic?

An interesting side effect of FCC content meddling lead to a really nasty conundrum for broadcasters.  Political time had to be sold at the lowest available rate to any candidate and any candidate doing their own ads could say anything they wanted, even the most vile filth, and the broadcaster couldn't filter it in any way or change a single word.  Conflict with obscenity rules!  Led to some interesting court cases.

True, though, that The FCC did not monitor for that stuff.  They relied only upon dealing with listener complaints.  At one time that was reliable but later in the game it became clear that various special-agenda groups were mobilizing to monitor and (when it became reasonably easy) record every word in hopes of stirring the pot at license renewal time.  Some of them front groups for an entity intent on challenging a renewal and grabbing a license for free.

What made some of the Fairness Doctrine seem fair was that radio and especially TV were "scarce" since there were relatively few licenses and building a facility was expensive.  In addition, of course, to using "the public's air"....the use of which later came to be heavily taxed in the form of license fees.  Remember, there were exceptions for "bona fide" news broadcasts the definition of which was subject to a lot of discussion.  Investigative reporting was taboo because it could be called "commentary" and trash the whole newscast as far as being "bona fide" was concerned.

SOME of the things that brought down The Fairness Doctrine included the constitutional argument that, in order to be fair, it had to be applied to all media.  Radio.  TV.  Magazines. Newspapers.  Anything that used the public anything.  Roads.  Airplanes in flight.  Especially U.S. Mail.  Plainly unconstitutional and once that argument was made the party was over.  To make the cheese more binding, The FCC granted licenses willy-nilly, going from hundreds of AM stations to thousands.  Then FM took off and again licenses fell like snow upon the land.  Scarcity?  Not hardly.  To a lesser degree UHF did the same when it became workable (more channels available to allocate).

Key here is that currently The FCC acts only in response to:

Technical violations: frequency, power, directional pattern problems, failure to change power/go directional at appropriate times (AM).  These may be brought to attention by public complaints or the very few inspections The FCC ever does. Various subsets according to service - FM, TV, etc.

Paper violations.  Inadequate (or missing) public inspection files; posting licenses in all the right places.  Giving proper notice of pending renewals.

Complaints concerning obscenity.  Even these have been attenuated in light of recent court decisions.

Key here is that content is hands-off for FCC inspectors visiting a facility.  They can monitor stations for technical compliance but not for content.

What's being proposed (OK, "was" but we know it'll be back when the heat's off) is contracting out monitoring for content and a plan to enforce somebody's idea of what's fair and balanced.  Naturally someone with a political agenda though none would openly admit it.  

And that's wrong.

_Basis of these opinions?  Broadcast since 1959.  Announcing.  News.  Engineering, AM/FM/VHF TV including chief engineer on radio side.  Program management.  Sales in broadcast equipment, domestic and international.  Instructor for various SMPTE and SBE seminars.  Now retired and enjoying see what's happening to the industry....being very glad to be out of it._


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> OK, 25 years is a tad beyond hobbyist status - so long as all of those years were full time, not just fill-in between selling insurance or used cars.  If those 25 years count backward from today then they all fell during the period after the Fairness Doctrine had gone the way of the spark gap transmitter.
> 
> Still, anyone who actually did air work would never go all potty-mouth anywhere in public.  It tends to become habitual and often results in sudden termination.  Perhaps sales?  Janitorial?  Traffic?
> 
> An interesting side effect of FCC content meddling lead to a really nasty conundrum for broadcasters.  Political time had to be sold at the lowest available rate to any candidate and any candidate doing their own ads could say anything they wanted, even the most vile filth, and the broadcaster couldn't filter it in any way or change a single word.  Conflict with obscenity rules!  Led to some interesting court cases.
> 
> True, though, that The FCC did not monitor for that stuff.  They relied only upon dealing with listener complaints.  At one time that was reliable but later in the game it became clear that various special-agenda groups were mobilizing to monitor and (when it became reasonably easy) record every word in hopes of stirring the pot at license renewal time.  Some of them front groups for an entity intent on challenging a renewal and grabbing a license for free.
> 
> What made some of the Fairness Doctrine seem fair was that radio and especially TV were "scarce" since there were relatively few licenses and building a facility was expensive.  In addition, of course, to using "the public's air"....the use of which later came to be heavily taxed in the form of license fees.  Remember, there were exceptions for "bona fide" news broadcasts the definition of which was subject to a lot of discussion.  Investigative reporting was taboo because it could be called "commentary" and trash the whole newscast as far as being "bona fide" was concerned.
> 
> SOME of the things that brought down The Fairness Doctrine included the constitutional argument that, in order to be fair, it had to be applied to all media.  Radio.  TV.  Magazines. Newspapers.  Anything that used the public anything.  Roads.  Airplanes in flight.  Especially U.S. Mail.  Plainly unconstitutional and once that argument was made the party was over.  To make the cheese more binding, The FCC granted licenses willy-nilly, going from hundreds of AM stations to thousands.  Then FM took off and again licenses fell like snow upon the land.  Scarcity?  Not hardly.  To a lesser degree UHF did the same when it became workable (more channels available to allocate).
> 
> Key here is that currently The FCC acts only in response to:
> 
> Technical violations: frequency, power, directional pattern problems, failure to change power/go directional at appropriate times (AM).  These may be brought to attention by public complaints or the very few inspections The FCC ever does. Various subsets according to service - FM, TV, etc.
> 
> Paper violations.  Inadequate (or missing) public inspection files; posting licenses in all the right places.  Giving proper notice of pending renewals.
> 
> Complaints concerning obscenity.  Even these have been attenuated in light of recent court decisions.
> 
> Key here is that content is hands-off for FCC inspectors visiting a facility.  They can monitor stations for technical compliance but not for content.
> 
> What's being proposed (OK, "was" but we know it'll be back when the heat's off) is contracting out monitoring for content and a plan to enforce somebody's idea of what's fair and balanced.  Naturally someone with a political agenda though none would openly admit it.
> 
> And that's wrong.
> 
> _Basis of these opinions?  Broadcast since 1959.  Announcing.  News.  Engineering, AM/FM/VHF TV including chief engineer on radio side.  Program management.  Sales in broadcast equipment, domestic and international.  Instructor for various SMPTE and SBE seminars.  Now retired and enjoying see what's happening to the industry....being very glad to be out of it._



Henry, are you addressing me?  I can't tell since you don't use quotes but if you are, take a look at how that troll yaps after me with "brain dead idiot" and all that other shit.  That's all he ever does, so if I talk back to him that way it's because he's earned it.  It's got nothing in the world to do with my on-air style.

"Sales- janitorial - traffic"?    Well I've done some traffic, lots and lots of production, anchored live events including national, produced live remotes, lots of on-air shifts, spots, engineering, voiceovers, program directing, development directing, and lots and lots of mundane paperwork, including license renewals and a CPB application.  Sorry, never been a janitor and never did sales.  Sales isn't radio anyway.  And I got my first ham license in 1966.

And no, those (broadcast) years straddle both sides of the FD, as I said earlier.  You don't count backwards from today because I'm not in it today.  And as I mentioned, changes in FD application made zero difference in anything I did or saw in my career.  Zero.

I still disagree with the premise of comparing broadcast with newspapers using the public roads, etc.  The use of public roads, telephone lines, etc, is not *finite* in the way that broadcast space is.  If I start a newspaper, it doesn't prevent you from starting a newspaper in the same place.  That makes them apples and oranges.  We both know the FD never did apply to other media outside broadcasting, exactly for that reason.  I've heard that argument before (it's in that paper that Windbag linked earlier too) but it just doesn't wash.

Most of what you've written in the middle seems accurate (where was this Henry before?) until your conclusion at the end, which from strictly a logic standpoint is the same old probability fallacy that this thread started with, i.e. "If X is done, Y will happen".  A conclusion in endless search of a basis.  As noted earlier what the FCC is going for with this study is part of what they're _required_ to do by Congress.  The fact that a few demagogues want to sell newspapers by jumping to baseless conclusions need not concern us.


----------



## American_Jihad

*UW journalism center defends involvement in inappropriate FCC study*

By M.D. Kittle  /   February 25, 2014 



OBAMAS LOBBYIST: FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is a former lobbyist for big cable and wireless companies. His commission has been on the hot seat of late for a proposed Critical Information Needs study that critics say is just more government treading on First Amendment rights.

...

Even for a Democrat-controlled FCC serving in a Democrat administration that has been downright prickly about opposition to its agenda (See: Internal Revenue Service and AP phone records monitoring), the study screams of government intrusion.

Rieder rates the study as a misguided plan to stick its unwelcome nose into newsrooms of America and explore how journalists are doing their jobs. Thats a particularly troubling prospect for broadcast news outlets, which must go through the FCC licensure process to exist.

How anyone even came up with this idea, let alone how it was put into motion, is hard to fathom, Rieder wrote in a piece published Monday. Not to go all (tea party) on you, but those questions are none of the governments business. The last thing we need is journalism cops flooding into newsrooms to check up on how the sausage is being made. Thats particularly true when the journalism cops are dispatched by the outfit that grants licenses to television and radio stations.

*Fortunately, the FCC, under heavy fire  particularly in the conservative media and on Capitol Hill  for this boneheaded, intrusive initiative, is now in full retreat mode, he added.*

...

UW journalism center defends involvement in 'inappropriate' FCC study « Watchdog.org


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, everything that doesn't exist "could be a challenge".  I'm preeeeety sure the Internets do contain archives that go back before Al Gore invented it, so that's no excuse.
> 
> The FD didn't work that way anyway.  Nobody monitored or tallied up "conservative content" or "liberal content" -- as if there could possibly be a way to do that.  What the FD did is if I owned KABC and went on its airwaves to slander you, or even just to pick apart the flaws in your posts, then you would have the right to respond on those same airwaves.  For a real life example, and I'm repeating myself, Joe McCarthy used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" critique of him in 1954.  CBS gave McCarthy an entire program to make his response.
> 
> In other words it's like the nature of this message board: when I write this post, you get to respond; I don't get a monologue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could that be because the fairness doctrine wasn't about making sure that a station actually presented both conservative and liberal viewpoints? Since you were just pretending you work n broadcasting, you would actually know that the fairness doctrine required stations to provide coverage of "controversial content" and to provide people a chance to reply to whatever topic they covered.
> 
> What Is The Fairness Doctrine? : FCC History and Policies, Fairness Doctrine
> 
> Since you are a brain dead idiot I am sure you will argue this isn't about content, even though it clearly is, so feel free to make a fool out of yourself.
> 
> By the way, if you read that link I provided you will see that another regulation exists that affects content, the equal time rule. That is the one that tells them that they have to provide equal time to every politician running for office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Like the FD, Equal Time (which carries myriad exceptions) does not control content.  It just says who gets invited.  Perhaps you're too stupid to understand the concept that allowing some party to speak is not controlling what they can or can't say.
> 
> 2. Every station, since it's licensed to use the public airwaves, is required to provide some kind of community-interest content.  Neither the nature nor the volume of that content is specified, it's left intentionally vague.  Come license renewal time a station's application narrative will include every time they aired a city council meeting at 4 am when no one would be listening and every PSA they pepper in between the music.  That's why they do it.  It didn't require that content to be controversial.  That's bullshit.  So when you ask "Could that be because the fairness doctrine wasn't about making sure that a station actually presented both conservative and liberal viewpoints?", exactly -- that's what I just said.
> 
> 3. it's revealing that you keep going to non-broadcast, non-informed sites to try to make points.  I've seen this About.com page before; it's riddled with errors (example: "Communications Act of 1937" was actually 1934).
> 
> 4. I have worked in broadcasting for roughly 25 years, including those license renewals, and held multiple FCC licenses since the Johnson Administration, so you can go fuck yourself.
> 
> 5. Try reading this thread sober some day.
Click to expand...




Once again, the Fairness Doctrine required stations to cover controversial topics, and provide a forum for rebuttals. That, like it or not, is content.
The fact that they do not specify the content does not mean that they do not regulate content. On the other hand, I am sure you also believe that the fact that the government requires people to buy insurance doesn't mean they are taking over health care.
It is stupid that you think that the only sites that are qualified to anything are the ones you personally approve of.
I don't give a fuck what job you held, or for how long, you are still stupid.
Why? Did I miss something you didn't say?


----------



## Pogo

1. No, it didn't.



Quantum Windbag said:


> The fact that they do not specify the content does not mean that they do not regulate content.



Yeah, actually it does.  Idiot.


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> *UW journalism center defends involvement in inappropriate FCC study*
> 
> By M.D. Kittle  /   February 25, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMAS LOBBYIST: FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is a former lobbyist for big cable and wireless companies. His commission has been on the hot seat of late for a proposed Critical Information Needs study that critics say is just more government treading on First Amendment rights.
> 
> ...
> 
> Even for a Democrat-controlled FCC serving in a Democrat administration that has been downright prickly about opposition to its agenda (See: Internal Revenue Service and AP phone records monitoring), the study screams of government intrusion.
> 
> Rieder rates the study as a misguided plan to stick its unwelcome nose into newsrooms of America and explore how journalists are doing their jobs. Thats a particularly troubling prospect for broadcast news outlets, which must go through the FCC licensure process to exist.
> 
> How anyone even came up with this idea, let alone how it was put into motion, is hard to fathom, Rieder wrote in a piece published Monday. Not to go all (tea party) on you, but those questions are none of the governments business. The last thing we need is journalism cops flooding into newsrooms to check up on how the sausage is being made. Thats particularly true when the journalism cops are dispatched by the outfit that grants licenses to television and radio stations.
> 
> *Fortunately, the FCC, under heavy fire  particularly in the conservative media and on Capitol Hill  for this boneheaded, intrusive initiative, is now in full retreat mode, he added.*
> 
> ...
> 
> UW journalism center defends involvement in 'inappropriate' FCC study « Watchdog.org



Blogosphere goes Danth's Law?

Check that letter from Wheeler I linked a while back, Jizzhat.  It's from two weeks ago and FCC was already acknowledging and addressing problems with the Social Solutions proposal then.  Before all this fake kerfuffle.  It's in the letter.  Your hair-on-fire blogwags are playing Shoot the Wounded.

Oh wait, that would require you actually reading a thread.  What was I thinking...


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the fairness doctrine about then, oh he who is never wrong because he never said what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P: "It's always been that way".
> Q: "Has not! You're lying!"
> P: "OK, prove me wrong. Show an example."
> (pregnant pause)
> Q: "well ... uh... what was it about then?"
> 
> (this, after I've already made about 352 posts on what it was about, including right here on this page)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that I actually provided a link that shows you don't know what you are talking about, so you can now go back and pretend you never said it.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  You provided nothing.  I challenged you to come up with something I already know doesn't exist, but you're too much of a jackass to admit you fucked up.  You've never done that even once, have you?



Quantum Windbag said:


> Yet you keep issuing a fucking challenge to people to prove that it happened. Does that mean you are using a straw man argument, because you are the only fucking idiot on this thread I have even seen raise the issue.



A challenge (or question) cannot be a strawman, dolt.  A strawman requires an assertion.  When I challenge you to prove something you assert, I do so because I already know you can't because you're wrong.  Your failure to find such an example should demonstrate that even to you.  But you'll never admit it.


----------



## American_Jihad

*FCC grasping for relevancy with net neutrality rules*​
By Josh Peterson  /   February 24, 2014






In the same week a Federal Communications Commission plan to monitor newsrooms took the spotlight, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced the agency would also once again seek to impose so-called net neutrality rules on Internet service providers.

Leading an agency created during President Franklin D. Roosevelts administration to oversee the nations wireline and radio communications, Wheelers announcement reveals a bureaucratic machine grasping for relevance in the Internet age.

Policy advocates on the right and left cried foul in January when a federal appeals court struck down two out of three of the agencys net neutrality rules. The rules prevented ISPs from blocking or slowing down content and network traffic.

Progressives argue that without the rules, ISPs pose a threat to free speech and would unfairly discriminate against content providers.

Free market advocates have fought hard for years against the push to regulate the Internet, defending its explosive success as a product of a dynamic marketplace flourishing under deregulation and consumer choice.

The court did, however, recognize the agencys authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to promote broadband deployment and competition  an avenue by which the agency is now using to justify a rewrite of its rules.

Wheeler, in his announcement Wednesday, also kept open the possibility of reclassifying how the FCC categorizes Internet service providers, which would bring the companies under a stricter regulatory regime akin to the days of the mid-20th century.

...

The White House also recently affirmed its support of Wheeler, an Obama loyalist; President Obama campaigned on net neutrality in 2008.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a Republican, likened the agencys renewed attempt to write net neutrality rules to the movie Groundhog Day, where the main character is forced to repeatedly relive the same day.

FCC grasping for relevancy with net neutrality rules « Watchdog.org


----------



## hazlnut

tinydancer said:


> PRAVDA here we come!




It was only a matter of time before the moronic comparison was made.

Well done Tiny.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> >>  The Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech ofjournalists or broadcasters by way of this Research Design, any resulting study, or through any other means.  The development of the Research Design was intended to aid the Commission in meeting its *obligations under Section 257 of the Communications Act*.  Section 257 *directs the Commission to identify and eliminate "market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services."* The statutory provision expressly links our obligation to identify market barriers with the responsibility to "promote the policies and purposes of this chapter favoring diversity of media voices." Finally, Section 257 *requires the Commission to review and report* to Congress on "any regulations prescribed to eliminate barriers within its jurisdiction ... that can be prescribed consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity." <<
> 
> - Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman, excerpted from a letter (here in full) to Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2/14 (emphasis added)
> 
> Far from being "none of its business", the project is part of what the FCC is required by law to do.  And to correct our own term, this isn't even a formal study; it's what they call a "research design", which is a precursor to a formal study.
> 
> 
> But never mind all that, here's the quick summary --- Newsroom police!  Booga Booga!



If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it.

If you like your doctor, you can keep him.

Yeah, we can take the promises of democrats to the bank.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Hey, everything that doesn't exist "could be a challenge".  I'm preeeeety sure the Internets do contain archives that go back before Al Gore invented it, so that's no excuse.



The reason I remember KABC getting fined is that they put Bruce Herschensohn on to rebut the far left 



> The FD didn't work that way anyway.  Nobody monitored or tallied up "conservative content" or "liberal content" -- as if there could possibly be a way to do that.  What the FD did is if I owned KABC and went on its airwaves to slander you, or even just to pick apart the flaws in your posts, then you would have the right to respond on those same airwaves.



And if you didn't give me airtime, and I filed a complaint, then the FCC fined you and monitored you for complience.

I realize you want to whitewash this.



> For a real life example, and I'm repeating myself, Joe McCarthy used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" critique of him in 1954.  CBS gave McCarthy an entire program to make his response.



My god, an entire half-hour to respond to years of slander by Edward R. Goebbels? How magnanimous. 



> In other words it's like the nature of this message board: when I write this post, you get to respond; I don't get a monologue.



{The Supreme Court proved willing to uphold the doctrine, eking out space for it alongside the First Amendment. In 1969's Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on. But when Florida tried to hold newspapers to a similar standard in 1974's Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, the Supreme Court was less receptive. Justices agreed that newspapers  which don't require licenses or airwaves to operate  face theoretically unlimited competition, making the protection of the Fairness Doctrine unneeded.

Read more: A Brief History Of the Fairness Doctrine - TIME A Brief History Of the Fairness Doctrine - TIME
}

Try again....


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> {The Supreme Court proved willing to uphold the doctrine, eking out space for it alongside the First Amendment. In 1969's Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on. But when Florida tried to hold newspapers to a similar standard in 1974's Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, the Supreme Court was less receptive. Justices agreed that newspapers &#8212; which don't require licenses or airwaves to operate &#8212; face theoretically unlimited competition, making the protection of the Fairness Doctrine unneeded.
> 
> Read more: A Brief History Of the Fairness Doctrine - TIME A Brief History Of the Fairness Doctrine - TIME}



pppffft.  Your comparison is absolute bullshit.  I've been stressing thoughout the thread (_read_ it) that the FD *has never had anything to do with print media*.  It was never part of the design, never part of the basis, and  NO print media has ever been under any purview of the FCC, ever.  Any lawyer who would try to make that case against a newspaper is gaming the system.    And the reasoning in your link that it doesn't apply  (finite airspace) is _exactly what I've been saying_ throughout.  DUH!?





Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, everything that doesn't exist "could be a challenge".  I'm preeeeety sure the Internets do contain archives that go back before Al Gore invented it, so that's no excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I remember KABC getting fined is that they put Bruce Herschensohn on to rebut the far left
Click to expand...


I don't know from Herschensohns but that would be a programming decision -- where's the _*fine*_? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








Uncensored2008 said:


> The FD didn't work that way anyway.  Nobody monitored or tallied up "conservative content" or "liberal content" -- as if there could possibly be a way to do that.  What the FD did is if I owned KABC and went on its airwaves to slander you, or even just to pick apart the flaws in your posts, then you would have the right to respond on those same airwaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you didn't give me airtime, and I filed a complaint, then the FCC fined you and monitored you for complience.
Click to expand...


Again, both Henry and I have noted this, the FCC doesn't "monitor for compliance".  It responds to complaints.  The initiative is on the public, not the agency.  But the first half is correct; I would have to give you airtime.  Just as I have to let you respond to these posts.

Should I be able to just delete your posts instead of answering them?
See those buttons that say "quote" and "post reply"?  That's the operational equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine.  Should the site remove them?




Uncensored2008 said:


> For a real life example, and I'm repeating myself, Joe McCarthy used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" critique of him in 1954.  CBS gave McCarthy an entire program to make his response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My god, an entire half-hour to respond to years of slander by Edward R. Goebbels? How magnanimous.
Click to expand...


So in the line above you whine that an aggrieved party should not get time to respond; now you're arguing he doesn't get enough.... ?
Well that's about the fastest 180 I've seen all day.  Pass the Dramamine. 



FWIW McCarthy got exactly the same time that Murrow had for his exposé.  If you have "years of slander" or "years" of anything, let's see evidence.  Toss it in with that elusive KABC fine and save on shipping.

Hey here's a question. ---

Could someone explain to me why conservatives hate the idea of a Fairness Doctrine if the media is as liberal as they say it is?  Wouldn't a balancing factor work to your ideological _advantage_?



Seriously, you guys are all over the reasoning map.  It's like being a passenger in car stuck in a traffic circle.

(/offtopic)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> 1. No, it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that they do not specify the content does not mean that they do not regulate content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, actually it does.  Idiot.
Click to expand...


This is from the guy that sends a neg rep demanding that I learn how to debate.

Tell me something, Oh Great Master of Nothing, how is requiring a station to cover controversial topics, even if they don't want to, not about content? Why does the Supreme Court disagree with you?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that they do not specify the content does not mean that they do not regulate content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, actually it does.  Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from the guy that sends a neg rep demanding that I learn how to debate.
> 
> Tell me something, Oh Great Master of Nothing, how is requiring a station to cover controversial topics, even if they don't want to, not about content? Why does the Supreme Court disagree with you?
Click to expand...


That refers to your relentless crutch of ad hominem.  If you ever figure your way out of that crutch you might be ready for your first debate.

And again, for at least the third time, stations were not "required to cover controversial topics".  How the fuck would you measure that?  Again, you get what you pay for in terms of sources.  About.com is like Wiki-wannabe without a proofreader.

Depending on what defines "controversial" (what defines "obscenity"?), the radio where I worked during the active Fairness Doctrine either never covered controversial topics, OR we _did_ cover them literally every day and never found ourselves forced to bring in a rebuttal.  But then again we never went on the air and slandered anybody.

(/still offtopic)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *UW journalism center defends involvement in inappropriate FCC study*
> 
> By M.D. Kittle  /   February 25, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMAS LOBBYIST: FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is a former lobbyist for big cable and wireless companies. His commission has been on the hot seat of late for a proposed Critical Information Needs study that critics say is just more government treading on First Amendment rights.
> 
> ...
> 
> Even for a Democrat-controlled FCC serving in a Democrat administration that has been downright prickly about opposition to its agenda (See: Internal Revenue Service and AP phone records monitoring), the study screams of government intrusion.
> 
> Rieder rates the study as a misguided plan to stick its unwelcome nose into newsrooms of America and explore how journalists are doing their jobs. Thats a particularly troubling prospect for broadcast news outlets, which must go through the FCC licensure process to exist.
> 
> How anyone even came up with this idea, let alone how it was put into motion, is hard to fathom, Rieder wrote in a piece published Monday. Not to go all (tea party) on you, but those questions are none of the governments business. The last thing we need is journalism cops flooding into newsrooms to check up on how the sausage is being made. Thats particularly true when the journalism cops are dispatched by the outfit that grants licenses to television and radio stations.
> 
> *Fortunately, the FCC, under heavy fire  particularly in the conservative media and on Capitol Hill  for this boneheaded, intrusive initiative, is now in full retreat mode, he added.*
> 
> ...
> 
> UW journalism center defends involvement in 'inappropriate' FCC study « Watchdog.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blogosphere goes Danth's Law?
> 
> Check that letter from Wheeler I linked a while back, Jizzhat.  It's from two weeks ago and FCC was already acknowledging and addressing problems with the Social Solutions proposal then.  Before all this fake kerfuffle.  It's in the letter.  Your hair-on-fire blogwags are playing Shoot the Wounded.
> 
> Oh wait, that would require you actually reading a thread.  What was I thinking...
Click to expand...


Only an idiot would be reassured by a jackbooted thug telling him that he has no intention of bashing his head open.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> P: "It's always been that way".
> Q: "Has not! You're lying!"
> P: "OK, prove me wrong. Show an example."
> (pregnant pause)
> Q: "well ... uh... what was it about then?"
> 
> (this, after I've already made about 352 posts on what it was about, including right here on this page)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that I actually provided a link that shows you don't know what you are talking about, so you can now go back and pretend you never said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  You provided nothing.  I challenged you to come up with something I already know doesn't exist, but you're too much of a jackass to admit you fucked up.  You've never done that even once, have you?
Click to expand...


Excuse me, asswipe. Tell me something, if you have actually been in broadcasting for 25 years, why am I the one that actually explained what the Fairness Doctrine was all about? All you did was scream about how it doesn't do what it actually does, and then run around screaming about it not ever causing a station to lose its license. Since I never said it did, and in fact pointed out that it wasn't part of the renewal process, you didn't challenge me to anything, even if you now claim you knew it doesn't exist.



Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you keep issuing a fucking challenge to people to prove that it happened. Does that mean you are using a straw man argument, because you are the only fucking idiot on this thread I have even seen raise the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A challenge (or question) cannot be a strawman, dolt.  A strawman requires an assertion.  When I challenge you to prove something you assert, I do so because I already know you can't because you're wrong.  Your failure to find such an example should demonstrate that even to you.  But you'll never admit it.
Click to expand...


A challenge cannot be a straw man? Why the fuck not? Wouldn't issuing a challenge to find something you just claimed you knew does not exist be a set up for attacking anyone that responded to that challenge by destroying whatever argument they use? OR did you think you were the only person that knows how to debate?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> {The Supreme Court proved willing to uphold the doctrine, eking out space for it alongside the First Amendment. In 1969's Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on. But when Florida tried to hold newspapers to a similar standard in 1974's Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, the Supreme Court was less receptive. Justices agreed that newspapers  which don't require licenses or airwaves to operate  face theoretically unlimited competition, making the protection of the Fairness Doctrine unneeded.
> 
> Read more: A Brief History Of the Fairness Doctrine - TIME A Brief History Of the Fairness Doctrine - TIME}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pppffft.  Your comparison is absolute bullshit.  I've been stressing thoughout the thread (_read_ it) that the FD *has never had anything to do with print media*.  It was never part of the design, never part of the basis, and  NO print media has ever been under any purview of the FCC, ever.
Click to expand...


Yet you keep telling everyone that, because you have worked in broadcasting for an imaginary 25 years, you know for a fact that when the FCC was conducting a survey on the content of print media, and actually going to ask why print media made the editorial decisions it did, it was all part of the FCC's job, and that anyone who questions you on that point is an idiot.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *UW journalism center defends involvement in inappropriate FCC study*
> 
> By M.D. Kittle  /   February 25, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMAS LOBBYIST: FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is a former lobbyist for big cable and wireless companies. His commission has been on the hot seat of late for a proposed Critical Information Needs study that critics say is just more government treading on First Amendment rights.
> 
> ...
> 
> Even for a Democrat-controlled FCC serving in a Democrat administration that has been downright prickly about opposition to its agenda (See: Internal Revenue Service and AP phone records monitoring), the study screams of government intrusion.
> 
> Rieder rates the study as a misguided plan to stick its unwelcome nose into newsrooms of America and explore how journalists are doing their jobs. Thats a particularly troubling prospect for broadcast news outlets, which must go through the FCC licensure process to exist.
> 
> How anyone even came up with this idea, let alone how it was put into motion, is hard to fathom, Rieder wrote in a piece published Monday. Not to go all (tea party) on you, but those questions are none of the governments business. The last thing we need is journalism cops flooding into newsrooms to check up on how the sausage is being made. Thats particularly true when the journalism cops are dispatched by the outfit that grants licenses to television and radio stations.
> 
> *Fortunately, the FCC, under heavy fire  particularly in the conservative media and on Capitol Hill  for this boneheaded, intrusive initiative, is now in full retreat mode, he added.*
> 
> ...
> 
> UW journalism center defends involvement in 'inappropriate' FCC study « Watchdog.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blogosphere goes Danth's Law?
> 
> Check that letter from Wheeler I linked a while back, Jizzhat.  It's from two weeks ago and FCC was already acknowledging and addressing problems with the Social Solutions proposal then.  Before all this fake kerfuffle.  It's in the letter.  Your hair-on-fire blogwags are playing Shoot the Wounded.
> 
> Oh wait, that would require you actually reading a thread.  What was I thinking...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot would be reassured by a jackbooted thug telling him that he has no intention of bashing his head open.
Click to expand...


Uh......
Yeah OK.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, actually it does.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from the guy that sends a neg rep demanding that I learn how to debate.
> 
> Tell me something, Oh Great Master of Nothing, how is requiring a station to cover controversial topics, even if they don't want to, not about content? Why does the Supreme Court disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That refers to your relentless crutch of ad hominem.  If you ever figure your way out of that crutch you might be ready for your first debate.
> 
> And again, for at least the third time, stations were not "required to cover controversial topics".  How the fuck would you measure that?  Again, you get what you pay for in terms of sources.  About.com is like Wiki-wannabe without a proofreader.
> 
> Depending on what defines "controversial" (what defines "obscenity"?), the radio where I worked during the active Fairness Doctrine either never covered controversial topics, OR we _did_ cover them literally every day and never found ourselves forced to bring in a rebuttal.  But then again we never went on the air and slandered anybody.
> 
> (/still offtopic)
Click to expand...


Funny how the self declared expert on the Fairness Doctrine has proven himself completely incapable of actually defining it. 

So, tell us, of master of nothing, what was the Fairness Doctrine all about if it wasn't about everything every person who posted a link that defined it says it is. Do you, perhaps, have a link to Walter Cronkite discussing on CBS Evening News? After all, it if doesn't come from a broadcaster, they can't read.


----------



## Pogo

Your relentless ad hominem bullshit is tedious, banal and extremely dull.  And I recognize that your purpose in mass board spamming is to bury my posts.  I had hope you might learn how to debate but fuck it, you're going on Ignore where you should have been a long time ago.  I'll entertain the conscious here who post for the purpose of making actual points rather than for no higher purpose than setting some USMB record for contrarian posts about nothing.

Aloha.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> pppffft.  Your comparison is absolute bullshit.  I've been stressing thoughout the thread (_read_ it) that the FD *has never had anything to do with print media*.



Don't strain yourself moving those goal posts.

The FCC only has jurisdiction over broadcasts on the public airwaves - based on the flimsy claim that broadcast frequencies belong to the state, who grants privilege to those who play by the rules that the state puts forth.



> It was never part of the design, never part of the basis, and  NO print media has ever been under any purview of the FCC, ever.  Any lawyer who would try to make that case against a newspaper is gaming the system.    And the reasoning in your link that it doesn't apply  (finite airspace) is _exactly what I've been saying_ throughout.  DUH!?



And?




> I don't know from Herschensohns but that would be a programming decision -- where's the _*fine*_?



It was pretty big news, at the time. I don't see it on the web, but that isn't a surprise.




> Again, both Henry and I have noted this, the FCC doesn't "monitor for compliance".  It responds to complaints.  The initiative is on the public, not the agency.  But the first half is correct; I would have to give you airtime.  Just as I have to let you respond to these posts.



Irrelevant.

Just like the mods don't monitor every post here, and act when someone hits that "report" key, the FCC acts when a complaint is filed. 



> Should I be able to just delete your posts instead of answering them?
> See those buttons that say "quote" and "post reply"?  That's the operational equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine.  Should the site remove them?



Should you be able to sober up before posting?



> So in the line above you whine that an aggrieved party should not get time to respond; now you're arguing he doesn't get enough.... ?
> Well that's about the fastest 180 I've seen all day.  Pass the Dramamine.
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW McCarthy got exactly the same time that Murrow had for his exposé.  If you have "years of slander" or "years" of anything, let's see evidence.  Toss it in with that elusive KABC fine and save on shipping.
> 
> Hey here's a question. ---
> 
> Could someone explain to me why conservatives hate the idea of a Fairness Doctrine if the media is as liberal as they say it is?  Wouldn't a balancing factor work to your ideological _advantage_?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you guys are all over the reasoning map.  It's like being a passenger in car stuck in a traffic circle.
> 
> (/offtopic)



Not my point, as you know.

Giving a half hour response is hardly "equal time" when Murrow dedicate all the resources of the network to destroying the man.

It was an absurd gesture with no impact.  CBS will mold the news to their own purpose, they always have, and that purpose has always been the promotion of the democratic party. Just as Rush Limbaugh molds his show to promote the Republicans.


----------



## HenryBHough

Inescapable:

The Fairness Doctrine is dead.
It should have never existed.
It was not applied to print media because even the most vicious recognized the constitutional issue.
The left wants to bring it back to silence the right
The current Democrat/RINO FCC got suckered into building a wedge to get the ball rolling
They got their wedge wedged up where the sun fails to shine
Their acolytes are bitter and vengeful

Conclusion:

This WILL be back.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Your relentless ad hominem bullshit is tedious, banal and extremely dull.  And I recognize that your purpose in mass board spamming is to bury my posts.  I had hope you might learn how to debate but fuck it, you're going on Ignore where you should have been a long time ago.  I'll entertain the conscious here who post for the purpose of making actual points rather than for no higher purpose than setting some USMB record for contrarian posts about nothing.
> 
> Aloha.



Can't answer the question oh he of the less than infinite wisdom?


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> pppffft.  Your comparison is absolute bullshit.  I've been stressing thoughout the thread (_read_ it) that the FD *has never had anything to do with print media*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't strain yourself moving those goal posts.
> 
> The FCC only has jurisdiction over broadcasts on the public airwaves - based on the flimsy claim that broadcast frequencies belong to *the state*, who grants privilege to those who play by the rules that the state puts forth.
Click to expand...


Wrong again Pothead.  You're not reading.  The airwaves belong to *the public*.  And the FCC is our arm, via Congress, to allocate them.  Who else is gonna do it?  You and me from our barcaloungers?

And the other part you didn't read -- the only reason the FD was even considered was that broadcast uses a finite resource; there are only X number of spots on the dial.  That's not true of print media unless you run out of trees.  Therefore it's never been a valid comparison.  It would have been bullshit in 1949 and it's still bullshit now.  Just as the laws of radio propagation haven't changed since 1927 when we started regulating who gets to broadcast on them.  So your point continues to fail.  It's what happens when you build one on a house of cards.



Uncensored2008 said:


> It was never part of the design, never part of the basis, and  NO print media has ever been under any purview of the FCC, ever.  Any lawyer who would try to make that case against a newspaper is gaming the system.    And the reasoning in your link that it doesn't apply  (finite airspace) is _exactly what I've been saying_ throughout.  DUH!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


And your point fails because it's based on fantasy.  What part of "you're making up your own basis" don't you get? 







Uncensored2008 said:


> It was pretty big news, at the time. I don't see it on the web, but that isn't a surprise.



See above.  When you make it up in your own head, you're not gonna find it outside.  Reality doesn't work that way.




Uncensored2008 said:


> Irrelevant.



Relevant, since you just posted, and I quote:


> And if you didn't give me airtime, and I filed a complaint, then the FCC fined you and *monitored you for complience* [sic].





Uncensored2008 said:


> Just like the mods don't monitor every post here, and act when someone hits that "report" key, the FCC acts when a complaint is filed.



Exactly, a fine analogy.  And the same point you just said was "irrelevant".  Yet another 180.  Did I see you in the Olympics with skates on?  Because you're doing the fastest spinning on a single point that I've ever seen.  







Uncensored2008 said:


> Should I be able to just delete your posts instead of answering them?
> See those buttons that say "quote" and "post reply"?  That's the operational equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine.  Should the site remove them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should you be able to sober up before posting?
Click to expand...


Translation: "Waah, I lost the point".   Next...



Uncensored2008 said:


> So in the line above you whine that an aggrieved party should not get time to respond; now you're arguing he doesn't get enough.... ?
> Well that's about the fastest 180 I've seen all day.  Pass the Dramamine.
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW McCarthy got exactly the same time that Murrow had for his exposé.  If you have "years of slander" or "years" of anything, let's see evidence.  Toss it in with that elusive KABC fine and save on shipping.
> 
> Hey here's a question. ---
> 
> Could someone explain to me why conservatives hate the idea of a Fairness Doctrine if the media is as liberal as they say it is?  Wouldn't a balancing factor work to your ideological _advantage_?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you guys are all over the reasoning map.  It's like being a passenger in car stuck in a traffic circle.
> 
> (/offtopic)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my point, as you know.
> 
> Giving a half hour response is hardly "equal time" when Murrow dedicate all the resources of the network to destroying the man.
> 
> It was an absurd gesture with no impact.  CBS will mold the news to their own purpose, they always have, and that purpose has always been the promotion of the democratic party. Just as Rush Limbaugh molds his show to promote the Republicans.
Click to expand...


What Murrow used was McCarthy's own statements and actions so those would be McCarthy's resources.  And when McCarthy went on the air with his rebuttal, he too was using the resources of the network, let alone his own resources of the Senate.  And as a point of history, Murrow was to a degree shooting the wounded by that point, as McCarthy had already disgraced himself in public opinion.  It wasn't exactly a turning point.  But my challenge to you was to justify your, again I quote:



> *years* of slander by Edward R. Goebbels



-- and once again you came up with crickets.  Because you made that up too.

And ironic reference to a reporter that made his name and won his awards reporting from the European war theater on the siege against Naziism as "Edward R. Goebbels". 

(or didn't you know that?)




Get a hold of yourself.  Y'all flailing around like this gonna leave me with nobody to play with except Henry.  And I'm not sure how tightly his coils are wound.

(/still yet again offtopic)


----------



## HenryBHough

This horse is dead.
The only reason to continue flogging it might be necrophilia.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> Inescapable:
> 
> The Fairness Doctrine is dead.
> It should have never existed.
> It was not applied to print media *because even the most vicious recognized the constitutional issue*. -*-- link?*
> The left wants to bring it back to silence the right  -*-- link?*
> The current Democrat/RINO FCC got suckered into building a wedge to get the ball rolling *--- basis?*
> They got their wedge wedged up where the sun fails to shine
> Their acolytes are bitter and vengeful
> 
> Conclusion:
> 
> This WILL be back.



This just in: newspapers and print media were around WAY before broadcasting.  Nobody ever suggested "there is a finite amount of paper stock and therefore we have to allocate who gets paper".  Never happened.  The FD was envisioned specifically because the radio and TV dial specifically WAS so limited.

Hold on, this just in.... I'm just being told that "as a broadcaster you already know all this".  I guess the memory is the second thing to go.  But again, feel free to prove me wrong. 

Let's just revisit this one though:


> The left wants to bring it back to silence the right



Again I put it to you: *if we have such a "liberal media" ............. why would you be against having the ability to respond?*

Can't have it both ways Henry.  Either the media is "liberal" and needs a balance, or the media is not "liberal" and doesn't.  Which is it?

Now back to Millihenry for reply, because we have a fairness doctrine here called the reply button.  Take it.


(/offtopic)


----------



## American_Jihad

*Why is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?*​
By 
Matthew Clark
Filed in:
FREE SPEECH
4:44 PM
Feb. 18, 2014

The Obama Administrations Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.

Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:

_Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program._

The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of critical information that it believes local newscasters should cover.

...

Government Monitors in Newsrooms? | Free Speech, American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ


----------



## Pogo

Jizzhat finds yet another thread to use as his personal poubelle for shit he finds on the internets that have already been debunked in the thread...


----------



## mudwhistle

Yeah, besides, they pulled the plug on it anyway.


----------



## HenryBHough

For now.


----------



## S.J.

The left already has the media in it's pocket.  Putting feds in mainstream media newsrooms is a charade.  This is merely a roundabout way of defanging Fox News.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> The left already has the media in it's pocket.  Putting feds in mainstream media newsrooms is a charade.  This is merely a roundabout way of defanging Fox News.



Yeah, it all started with "racist" audience demographics.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mudwhistle said:


> Yeah, besides, they pulled the plug on it anyway.



The Pogo line is: "IT NEVER HAPPENED, and besides, they stopped..."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Jizzhat finds yet another thread to use as his personal poubelle for shit he finds on the internets that have already been debunked in the thread...



How can you tell when Pogo lost a debate?

He starts a debate.


----------



## Pogo

What a nice collection of circumlocutionary bullshit to find ways to dance around having to say "OK, we were wrong"


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> What a nice collection of circumlocutionary bullshit to find ways to dance around having to say "OK, we were wrong"



And you have the documentation that proves it. Guess we could cherry-pick which rules we want to adhere to...... Like Obama and Eric Holder.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> What a nice collection of circumlocutionary bullshit to find ways to dance around having to say "OK, we were wrong"



You got a new word of the year calendar? About time.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a nice collection of circumlocutionary bullshit to find ways to dance around having to say "OK, we were wrong"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have the documentation that proves it. Guess we could cherry-pick which rules we want to adhere to...... Like Obama and Eric Holder.
Click to expand...


The "documentation" is the last several posts.  That's what I refer to.

As far as cherrypicking rules, well, seeing as how FCC's doing what it's required to do here, I guess they should have cherrypicked this one off the "to do" list...


----------



## HenryBHough

This turkey will fly again.


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> This turkey will fly again.



QED Spock ....

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSQLd4sWcO0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSQLd4sWcO0[/ame]


----------



## American_Jihad

*FCC throws in the towel, but public has right to know why*

James P. Tuthill
Published 5:05 pm, Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Federal Communications Commission said last week that it would not appeal a court decision issued in January overturning the FCC's net neutrality rules, Verizon vs. Federal Communications Commission.

Those rules prohibited discrimination and blocking by Internet service providers that provide high speed connections to the Internet.

Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC and an Obama appointee, said that the FCC supports an open Internet and *will develop new rules to replace those thrown out by the court*. But for practical purposes, *he threw in the towel*. And the just-announced deal between Comcast and Netflix for preferential delivery shows how quickly the industry will move to capitalize on its now-unrestrained power.

...

FCC throws in the towel, but public has right to know why - SFGate





Not to worry PooGoo, more to come...


----------



## kucing

Thanks for information


----------

