What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Quantum Windbag]

-- 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.

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?

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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?

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

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]

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?

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??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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??

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.

 

[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]

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.

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.

 

[TooTall]

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

Sort of a hive mind, so to speak!

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[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]

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.

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.

And ‘threat’ to freedom of the press: debunked.

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

And ‘threat’ to freedom of the press: debunked.

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

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]

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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.