Just Abolish The FCC

[Pogo]

I zee nuzzing nuzzing nuzzing. If vact, I zid not get out of bed zis morning.

The real story behind the FCC?s study of newsrooms

>> To conservative media from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh, this was an attempt to reintroduce the now-lapsed Fairness Doctrine and for President Obama to take control of America&#8217;s newsrooms. Other former journalists and media critics apparently agreed. Still others took a more nuanced view &#8211; that this may not have been a government plot, but that it would be a waste of money, because either we already know what these needs are, or, there aren&#8217;t any, or if there are, we can&#8217;t know what they are. In the end, the underlying theme was: we already know the answers. Americans either have no needs or none that the market is not meeting or can&#8217;t meet. Don&#8217;t do research. Don&#8217;t ask these questions. <<

Sound familiar? This was two years ago, the review that set up the research design.

>> The FCC called for the literature review because in a rapidly changing information environment it wanted (and was mandated to) understand whether Americans have critical information needs, if so what are they, and how would policymakers and the public know whether they are being met.
... Our report was presented and peer-reviewed by scholars at the FCC in July 2012. The full review and bibliography was published on the FCC web site for anyone to see. <<

As we noted back here...

>> 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." <<

back to current article:
>> When the National Association of Broadcasters came out in opposition to the proposed pilot test, they focused on the voluntary questions of newsroom decision-makers. Republican members of the House of Representatives used much of the same language as the NAB in writing to the FCC, and much of this was repeated by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai (a Republican appointed by President Obama) in his editorial in the Wall Street Journal. <<

The presence of the NAB tells me a lot. I happen to have worked with a lot of industry and professional trade associations and the NAB is without question the most vile despicable dishonest group I've ever seen. Basically their purpose is to find ways to milk cash cows using the airwaves the people give them for free. Anything that smacks of the public interest is going to be the Devil Himself to these greedheads. That's a red flag right there. And for a blogger or talking head or FCC commissioner to parrot their line tells me a lot about where the interests of those doing the parroting lie.

>> Why does this matter? Because more and more of the basic institutional needs of Americans depend on local information markets. For example, local school systems are rapidly expanding school choice and charter schools. When newspapers had robust education beats, they might regularly (or at least annually) report on the quality of specific local schools, providing parents at least some chance to receive good information about where to send their children. But as education reporting declines, there is no evidence that the Internet is taking its place. For several years, one of the highest-achieving charter schools in Washington, D.C., had trouble meeting its enrollment quotas, suggesting that a robust information market in the capital does not exist.

Of course, this is an anecdote, and that&#8217;s precisely the point. There is much about community information needs that we just don&#8217;t know. And the only way to know more is through high quality research. That&#8217;s exactly what the FCC is trying to do before making critical decisions on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership that could further reduce the production of local community information, or allowing the expansion of national cable concentration and greater control of local broadband markets that, for most Americans, are poorly performing, overpriced duopolies. To fail to even ask the questions would be an abnegation of its responsibility to the public interest. <<

But never mind all that - here's the Cliff's Notes:

"Newsroom police!! Booga Booga!!"​

The message above brought to you by the NAB and its plutocratic ilk, who will be happy to crow "booga booga" at anything that threatens its unfettered hegemony on monopoly of the media.

Once again folks, it boils down to this: stop watching and listening to puppets like Pai and Limblob and look upward to follow who's pulling the puppet strings. You want to find the villain manipulating the news? There it is -- the NAB, the six multinational corporations that control 90% of the media, and their minions, including within the FCC. Wake the fuck up. You have nothing to lose but your puppet strings.


And don't forget to tune in tonight in the wee hours when American_Jizzhat will be spilling another toxic dump of those minions' mumblings for those still entertained by the puppet show without bothering to read or ponder any of this.

 

[HenryBHough]

Easy to see why radio careers might abruptly end.

 

[FA_Q2]

Uhhh..... actually you addressed nothing. The standing question since the OP originated it is: if you abolish the FCC, what steps in to take its place? As you already know -- your existing posts demonstrate that you do understand this -- you can't just open that limited space to chaos. You'd end up with a similar organization doing the same thing FCC does now, and all you'd be doing is calling it a new name. So what's the point?

I'm not going to play your sidetrack semantics game. "Still waiting"? Little Jimmy's mother says no he can't have a chocolate bar right now. That has the same function as a law. Does that make it a "law"? Only Congress makes national laws, period. Call it by the wrong name all you like if that's what floats your boat.

Bullshit. You have been playing semantics games this entire time Pogo because your argument is completely missing. This seems to be your default whenever you have an argument that clearly has no backing - to pick a word and start debating its meaning rather than the actual facts.

Fine, whatever. It is clear that you are going to refuse to acknowledge any points made to you and continue to demand that words mean something else without bringing any substance to the table. I made a VERY clear distinction between what the FCC is and what it should be and yet you demand that I am describing an entity that is exactly the same. That is an outright lie. You demand that the regulations are different than law but cannot establish why, how or any functional difference between the two. That is because you cant and therefore have to default to systematical asshattery.

There was a point at which you used to try and argue that actual points with logic. I don't know when you decided to abandon that tactic but I have to say your current bullshit is getting tiring fast. I wont bother with you anymore in this thread - you refuse to bring an actual argument to the table that is worth debating.

 

[Pogo]

Uhhh..... actually you addressed nothing. The standing question since the OP originated it is: if you abolish the FCC, what steps in to take its place? As you already know -- your existing posts demonstrate that you do understand this -- you can't just open that limited space to chaos. You'd end up with a similar organization doing the same thing FCC does now, and all you'd be doing is calling it a new name. So what's the point?

I'm not going to play your sidetrack semantics game. "Still waiting"? Little Jimmy's mother says no he can't have a chocolate bar right now. That has the same function as a law. Does that make it a "law"? Only Congress makes national laws, period. Call it by the wrong name all you like if that's what floats your boat.

Bullshit. You have been playing semantics games this entire time Pogo because your argument is completely missing. This seems to be your default whenever you have an argument that clearly has no backing - to pick a word and start debating its meaning rather than the actual facts.

Fine, whatever. It is clear that you are going to refuse to acknowledge any points made to you and continue to demand that words mean something else without bringing any substance to the table. I made a VERY clear distinction between what the FCC is and what it should be and yet you demand that I am describing an entity that is exactly the same. That is an outright lie. You demand that the regulations are different than law but cannot establish why, how or any functional difference between the two. That is because you cant and therefore have to default to systematical asshattery.

There was a point at which you used to try and argue that actual points with logic. I don't know when you decided to abandon that tactic but I have to say your current bullshit is getting tiring fast. I wont bother with you anymore in this thread - you refuse to bring an actual argument to the table that is worth debating.

Look son -- you're the clown who wants to sidetrack all of this into a mindless cacophony of what a regulation is to avoid addressing the question of what you replace the FCC with if you do away with it. That IS the point of this thread, like it or lump it.

And here you are doing it again. And I already told you I'm not playing your games with the incessant parade of "yeah but"s. Address the issue or cut the noise down. Thank you.