What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Mojo2]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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]

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?

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]

"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.

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?

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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]

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?

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.

 

[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]

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?

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.

 

[HenryBHough]

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

Really.

So long as it doesn't happen.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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".

 

[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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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