What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[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.

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.

 

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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
}

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]

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.

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

 

[peach174]

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
}

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Woooosssshhhhhhh!

It is not that The FCC has power over content.

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

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]

Woooosssshhhhhhh!

It is not that The FCC has power over content.

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

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...

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]

::: 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]

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.

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.
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

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]

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.




{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.

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]

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.




{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.

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]

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.

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.

"No busineess"? Uh Peach -- making regulations for the medium (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.