What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

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]

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]

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?

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]

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".

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.

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]

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.

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.

I obviously misspoke.

Apparently, you think you can think.

 

[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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

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.

OMFG! call the con pc police!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

-- 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

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

 

[HenryBHough]

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]

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.

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]

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???

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.