What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Quantum Windbag]

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{First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed.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Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again—thus it technically would not be considered repealed.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?




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.

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.

Still harping on lies?

Like I told you earlier, the fairness doctrine had nothing to do with licensing, it had to do with content. You know about content, don't you? That stuff you insist the FCC doesn't want to regulate?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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{First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed.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?




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.

Except, of course, it hasn't always been that way, which is why you keep lying about the fairness doctrine.

 

[Pogo]

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

You just linked the exact same pdf I linked days ago and over 200 posts back, and we already did this -- again it's from Social Solutions International, the research company. You're recall that I invited you to go to that link and find me any part of it that enables or even suggests content control on the part of FCC. You'll recall that you responded with crickets. And you'll recall that this is the second time I've reminded you about those same crickets, yet you yammer on with the same thing over and over.

Here's a rerun of post 71 where I not only linked that study proposal but also posted its objectives. Roll tape...

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?
&#8226; 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...

Now then... a study is a study. It is by definition passive. You and your ilk of hair-on-fire wags are making great leaps and bounds inferring "what will follow" as a result of the study. You have a probability fallacy: "I worry that FCC will use this study to control content, therefore FCC will use this study to control content". Does not follow. You still have no basis. Much like the OP opened a topic here with no link to anything anywhere.

I can sit here and "study" how this website works. That doesn't in itself mean that I'm doing so in order to hack into it and revise your posts. Sheeeeeessh.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Except, of course, it hasn't always been that way, which is why you keep lying about the fairness doctrine.

And how many years do you have in broadcasting?

Prove me wrong. Show me something besides empty juvenile gainsaying.
I'm still hungry for pudding.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

ROFL

TM level for sure...

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.

Hmm, find pre-internet actions? Let me see what I can do.

I remember KABC in Los Angeles getting fined under the Fairness Doctrine - actually for lack of conservative content. But documenting this could be a challenge.

 

[Pogo]

>> The Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters by way of this Research Design, any resulting study, or through any other means. 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." <<

- Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman, excerpted from a letter (here in full) to Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2/14 (emphasis added)

Far from being "none of its business", the project is part of what the FCC is required by law to do. And to correct our own term, this isn't even a formal study; it's what they call a "research design", which is a precursor to a formal study.


But never mind all that, here's the quick summary --- "Newsroom police! Booga Booga!!!"

 

[HenryBHough]

Nice cover story, comrade!

Fanciful, it is true, but cute.

 

[Pogo]

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.

ROFL

TM level for sure...

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.

Hmm, find pre-internet actions? Let me see what I can do.

I remember KABC in Los Angeles getting fined under the Fairness Doctrine - actually for lack of conservative content. But documenting this could be a challenge.

Hey, everything that doesn't exist "could be a challenge". I'm preeeeety sure the Internets do contain archives that go back before Al Gore invented it, so that's no excuse.

The FD didn't work that way anyway. Nobody monitored or tallied up "conservative content" or "liberal content" -- as if there could possibly be a way to do that. What the FD did is if I owned KABC and went on its airwaves to slander you, or even just to pick apart the flaws in your posts, then you would have the right to respond on those same airwaves. For a real life example, and I'm repeating myself, Joe McCarthy used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" critique of him in 1954. CBS gave McCarthy an entire program to make his response.

In other words it's like the nature of this message board: when I write this post, you get to respond; I don't get a monologue.

 

[Pogo]

Nice cover story, comrade!

Fanciful, it is true, but cute.

Actually it's a letter. Quoted verbatim.

 

[HenryBHough]

OK, link-lovers, read and weep.....

http://epublications.marquette.edu/...2F#search="KABC fairness doctrine punishment"

One of those links you may have to cut & paste if you can figure out how to do that.

 

[Pogo]

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&#8217;s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again&#8212;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?




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.

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.

Still harping on lies?

Like I told you earlier, the fairness doctrine had nothing to do with licensing, it had to do with content. You know about content, don't you? That stuff you insist the FCC doesn't want to regulate?

I missed this post earlier. I have never, here or anywhere else, maintained or believed that the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with licensing. I know better. I had to know better in order to train and supervise people in broadcasting, and to protect the licenses of my employers. Once again you're making shit up. If that were the case, you could quote me. And you can't.

And btw it's "As I told you", not "Like I told you".

The FD has never regulated content. It only required that content to allow an answer. Neither the original content nor the response content was in any way regulated, screened, approved, disapproved, edited, coerced, monitored, or gone over by a teacher with a red crayon on the part of the FCC. All the agency cared about was that if QuantumWindbag climbs into the sandbox and declares "Pogo's a big stupid!", then Pogo gets to climb into the same sandbox and say "am not!". And that's because in its time, there were only a few sandboxes and you can't hog one all to yourself.

All of which is off the topic and only of mild tangential historical interest, since this research design has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[HenryBHough]

I feel for those students.

 

[Pogo]

Let me know if you find any.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You just linked the exact same pdf I linked days ago and over 200 posts back, and we already did this -- again it's from Social Solutions International, the research company. You're recall that I invited you to go to that link and find me any part of it that enables or even suggests content control on the part of FCC. You'll recall that you responded with crickets. And you'll recall that this is the second time I've reminded you about those same crickets, yet you yammer on with the same thing over and over.

We keep going through this because you keep blathering about how the sky is purple. They are going to survey content, and you say they aren't. You are wrong, and repeating a post where you didn't address the fact that they are looking at content will not prove that they you are right.

If you want to try again address the key word in my post, content. If you simply want to pretend that the fact that you are not talking about content proves the FCC isn't delving into an area that is entirely outside its jurisdiction don't expect to convince anyone that you have a working brain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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.

Except, of course, it hasn't always been that way, which is why you keep lying about the fairness doctrine.

And how many years do you have in broadcasting?

Prove me wrong. Show me something besides empty juvenile gainsaying.
I'm still hungry for pudding.

What was the fairness doctrine about then, oh he who is never wrong because he never said what he said.

 

[Pogo]

Except, of course, it hasn't always been that way, which is why you keep lying about the fairness doctrine.

And how many years do you have in broadcasting?

Prove me wrong. Show me something besides empty juvenile gainsaying.
I'm still hungry for pudding.

What was the fairness doctrine about then, oh he who is never wrong because he never said what he said.

P: "It's always been that way".
Q: "Has not! You're lying!"
P: "OK, prove me wrong. Show an example."
(pregnant pause)
Q: "well ... uh... what was it about then?"

(this, after I've already made about 352 posts on what it was about, including right here on this page)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

ROFL

TM level for sure...

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?



Then the point that it's to control, fails. Ain't rocket surgery.


Sooooo.... no pudding for me. Damn.

Hmm, find pre-internet actions? Let me see what I can do.

I remember KABC in Los Angeles getting fined under the Fairness Doctrine - actually for lack of conservative content. But documenting this could be a challenge.

Hey, everything that doesn't exist "could be a challenge". I'm preeeeety sure the Internets do contain archives that go back before Al Gore invented it, so that's no excuse.

The FD didn't work that way anyway. Nobody monitored or tallied up "conservative content" or "liberal content" -- as if there could possibly be a way to do that. What the FD did is if I owned KABC and went on its airwaves to slander you, or even just to pick apart the flaws in your posts, then you would have the right to respond on those same airwaves. For a real life example, and I'm repeating myself, Joe McCarthy used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" critique of him in 1954. CBS gave McCarthy an entire program to make his response.

In other words it's like the nature of this message board: when I write this post, you get to respond; I don't get a monologue.

Could that be because the fairness doctrine wasn't about making sure that a station actually presented both conservative and liberal viewpoints? Since you were just pretending you work n broadcasting, you would actually know that the fairness doctrine required stations to provide coverage of "controversial content" and to provide people a chance to reply to whatever topic they covered.

What Is The Fairness Doctrine? : FCC History and Policies, Fairness Doctrine

Since you are a brain dead idiot I am sure you will argue this isn't about content, even though it clearly is, so feel free to make a fool out of yourself.

By the way, if you read that link I provided you will see that another regulation exists that affects content, the equal time rule. That is the one that tells them that they have to provide equal time to every politician running for office.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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?

Then the point that it's to control, fails. Ain't rocket surgery.

Still harping on lies?

Like I told you earlier, the fairness doctrine had nothing to do with licensing, it had to do with content. You know about content, don't you? That stuff you insist the FCC doesn't want to regulate?

I missed this post earlier. I have never, here or anywhere else, maintained or believed that the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with licensing. I know better. I had to know better in order to train and supervise people in broadcasting, and to protect the licenses of my employers. Once again you're making shit up. If that were the case, you could quote me. And you can't.

And btw it's "As I told you", not "Like I told you".

The FD has never regulated content. It only required that content to allow an answer. Neither the original content nor the response content was in any way regulated, screened, approved, disapproved, edited, coerced, monitored, or gone over by a teacher with a red crayon on the part of the FCC. All the agency cared about was that if QuantumWindbag climbs into the sandbox and declares "Pogo's a big stupid!", then Pogo gets to climb into the same sandbox and say "am not!". And that's because in its time, there were only a few sandboxes and you can't hog one all to yourself.

All of which is off the topic and only of mild tangential historical interest, since this research design has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

Yet you keep issuing a fucking challenge to people to prove that it happened. Does that mean you are using a straw man argument, because you are the only fucking idiot on this thread I have even seen raise the issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And how many years do you have in broadcasting?

Prove me wrong. Show me something besides empty juvenile gainsaying.
I'm still hungry for pudding.

What was the fairness doctrine about then, oh he who is never wrong because he never said what he said.

P: "It's always been that way".
Q: "Has not! You're lying!"
P: "OK, prove me wrong. Show an example."
(pregnant pause)
Q: "well ... uh... what was it about then?"

(this, after I've already made about 352 posts on what it was about, including right here on this page)

Except that I actually provided a link that shows you don't know what you are talking about, so you can now go back and pretend you never said it.

 

[Tresha91203]

You have already said stations quit presenting content the way they previously did. They categorized people differently, quit some content completely, and apologized for legal content promising not to say that again ... all to avoid the hassle of the FCC and FD. I fail to see how the FCC and FD were so benign. Maybe they didn't officially regulate content, but content was changed drastically as a result of the FCC. Regulate, intimidate, same result.