What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[whitehall]

It wasn't long ago that the left was outraged when left wing media broke the story that Bush's homeland security monitored selected overseas calls without a warrant. It was a legitimate concern but the left leaning media turned it into a major issue. Now that we have a radical left wing administration it seems that anything goes including wholesale evesdropping by intelligence networks, snooping by the IRS and the freaking FCC monitoring viewer preferences. The radical left will justify any assault on the Constitution as long as it is done by a fascist administration.

 

[The T]

It wasn't long ago that the left was outraged when left wing media broke the story that Bush's homeland security monitored selected overseas calls without a warrant. It was a legitimate concern but the left leaning media turned it into a major issue. Now that we have a radical left wing administration it seems that anything goes including wholesale evesdropping by intelligence networks, snooping by the IRS and the freaking FCC monitoring viewer preferences. The radical left will justify any assault on the Constitution as long as it is done by a fascist administration.

And the left makes it difficult as to which of their faces to address, doesn't it? Their ultimate goal is control, but feign outrage if there is the slightest hint that the other side might be doing it...they lead double lives and wouldn't surprise me if they do see two faces in the mirror every morning when they get up.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is obama mad because Al Jazzerra isn't getting the audience they wanted?

 

[The T]

Anyone Remember the Fairness Doctrine?

RUSH: You still don't believe me about this newsrooms monitor business? Let me give you two words: Fairness Doctrine. Have you ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine? Before I leave here today, I am going to convince you that this would end up being totally supported by America's journalists. If it is aimed at getting rid of talk radio, you think they'll support it? Remember, the monitors are gonna be in TV and radio newsrooms, radio stations.

You know that the Regime, you know the Democrats have wanted to reenact the Fairness Doctrine ever since Reagan got rid of it in 1987, and you know that they have purposely misconstrued what it even is. They have purposely tried to convince people the Fairness Doctrine is "equal time," and it isn't. But you know they would love to revive it. They've tried to. It's been shot down two or three times. The FCC finally gave it up. Now we're back to monitors in the newsroom.

To do what?

Read more of the opinion at the link on top...and here are two more related links:

• FOXNews: Why The FCC Should Keep Its Nose Out Of TV Newsrooms - Howard Kurtz
• AdWeek: FCC Backs Off Study of Newsroom Editorial Practices. GOP Said Study Violated Freedom Of The Press

 

[The T]

Is obama mad because Al Jazzerra isn't getting the audience they wanted?

NO he's angry because his numbers are slipping and it's largely due to Talk radio and other enterprises outside Media that supports him.

Remember when he ran the first time he admonished Americans for listening to Rush, Sean Hannity, FOX News (Remember the Superbowl Interview with O'Reilly where he got on his case about Fox NEWS "your TV Station")?

This is just putting it into practice and hoping no one will notice...

Think he will be even more pissed that WE DO notice and take extreme exception to trodding on the First Amendment?

 

[Unkotare]

Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Correct.

It would also help to understand what constitutes a violation of freedom of the press.

And the FCC's news monitoring isn’t it.

Prior restraint concerns the government’s desire to not allow certain information to be disseminated via the news media, where news organizations that do so are subject to potential punitive measures.

In order for prior restraint to be justified, the government must have a compelling and documented interest, such as not broadcasting sensitive military information that could endanger soldiers’ lives.

In the case of the FCC's news monitoring, there is no information the government is seeking to disallow news organizations from broadcasting, and no news origination is subject to any potential punitive measure.

Absent these two fundamental elements, therefore, it’s nonsense to claim that freedom of the press is being ‘violated,’ and those who do so merely exhibit their ignorance, or are partisan demagogues attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists.

 

[Rozman]

What's next fines if news organizations are critical of our supreme leader...

 

[Rozman]

This is very scary stuff...

 

[Pogo]

Good grief! How could anyone find this acceptable or justify this action taken by the FCC.

PRAVDA here we come!

Good grief -- how could you take this cockamamie OP seriously? No link, no article, no quote no nothing, just a hallucinatory and pointless ramble based on absolutely nothing. Zero.

Jesus christ on a bicycle, some of y'all will swallow anything.

For the record, FCC has never, and does not now, regulate anything based on what a broadcast outlet's content is. That idea is complete bullshit. FCC wants a broadcast outlet to show how it serves its community. HOW it does that is entirely up to that broadcaster. There is no litmus test, there are no guidelines or requirements. And that's why the OP's not linked. Because it's made up. Nor does anything described have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the 1980s) which had nothing to do with news stories.

This thread is going straight to TBB.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, not everything. For example, in an urban area with a high % of latinos, it would not surprise me if they were getting info they consider important via radio. That might fly in the face of assumptions about clear channel.

IN my urban area, I think they'd find that the 33% or so whites receive info largely though tv, and that has implications of whether they feel adequately informed.

If the information is used to make it easier for new outlets to enter communication markets, govt is actually doing it's job under Thatcherism. If the information is used to remove some providers from a market, because govt deems them to need replacing, then its very dangerous

For example, it is none of the FCC business what stories get reported. Any news outlet that isn't delivering the news that people want will lose ratings, and money, they don't need the FCC asking them why they make decisions when the answer is obvious to anyone with a brain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The FCC has neither the mandate nor the authority to poll the viewing habits of citizens. Leave it to the left to bring up a race issue where there is clearly no such thing involved.

That's untrue. The fcc's charge is

"make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."

This controversy is actually illuminating in that it POSSIBLY pits two different views of govts role.

Thatcherism: the only legit reason for govt is to facilitate private entities getting into and out of markets. This view believes private markets will best serve people who desire a good or commodity

"the bad liberal:" govt must act to make sure every citizen is served an appropriate amount of information. This view distrusts people acting in their own self-interest.

What the FCC has done so far could fit into either view. I think it bears close scrutiny, however.

Which explains why they are surveying newspapers how?

 

[mudwhistle]

I think it's important for the government to tell everyone officially what they want us to know......instead of doing it behind closed doors like they're doing now.

This eliminates all of the subterfuge.

 

[Pogo]

Anyone Remember the Fairness Doctrine?

RUSH: You still don't believe me about this newsrooms monitor business? Let me give you two words: Fairness Doctrine. Have you ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine? Before I leave here today, I am going to convince you that this would end up being totally supported by America's journalists. If it is aimed at getting rid of talk radio, you think they'll support it? Remember, the monitors are gonna be in TV and radio newsrooms, radio stations.

You know that the Regime, you know the Democrats have wanted to reenact the Fairness Doctrine ever since Reagan got rid of it in 1987, and you know that they have purposely misconstrued what it even is. They have purposely tried to convince people the Fairness Doctrine is "equal time," and it isn't. But you know they would love to revive it. They've tried to. It's been shot down two or three times. The FCC finally gave it up. Now we're back to monitors in the newsroom.

To do what?

Read more of the opinion at the link on top...and here are two more related links:

• FOXNews: Why The FCC Should Keep Its Nose Out Of TV Newsrooms - Howard Kurtz
• AdWeek: FCC Backs Off Study of Newsroom Editorial Practices. GOP Said Study Violated Freedom Of The Press

Bullshit sources produce bullshit.

Nothing described in the hallucinatory OP has any relationship to the Fairness Doctrine. What the FD did in its day was say that if I have a radio station and I go on the air and declare that "The T eats babies", then The T gets, if he wants, equal time to respond. It's the same doctrine Joe McCarthy invoked to respond to Edward R. Murrow's exposé on him (and he got an entire show to do that). It has never had anything to do with news reporting.

And I know what I'm talking about; I worked in broadcasting for 25 years both during and after the FD was in effect; I worked on radio station license applications and everyday operations to keep the stations legal. I know what the fucking rules are, trust me.

Fox Noise. Please.

 

[hjmick]

If an FCC commissioner thinks it's a bad idea...

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

 

[Pogo]

Obama Administration?s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition | TheBlaze.com

Another bullshit source/bullshit story.

The FCC (which the article admits in its first sentence as the subject, contradicting its own headline) is not the "Obama Administration". The FCC is governed by five commissioners, appointed on staggered terms and limited by political party. It's a separate entity, not part of this or any administration.

Gullible's Travels...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Correct.

It would also help to understand what constitutes a violation of freedom of the press.

And the FCC's news monitoring isn’t it.

Why the fuck not?

Prior restraint concerns the government’s desire to not allow certain information to be disseminated via the news media, where news organizations that do so are subject to potential punitive measures.

In order for prior restraint to be justified, the government must have a compelling and documented interest, such as not broadcasting sensitive military information that could endanger soldiers’ lives.

News flash, prior restraint is never justified. If it was, the government would have won the Pentagon Paper debate and we wouldn't know anything about the secrets Snowden stole.

But you have never let actual facts influence your analysis of the law before, why start now?

In the case of the FCC's news monitoring, there is no information the government is seeking to disallow news organizations from broadcasting, and no news origination is subject to any potential punitive measure.

Why the fuck do the want it then? If you can't answer that, you can't defend it.

In fact, you probably couldn't defend it even if you could since you think the government can actually use prior restraint to prevent people from publishing things.

Absent these two fundamental elements, therefore, it’s nonsense to claim that freedom of the press is being ‘violated,’ and those who do so merely exhibit their ignorance, or are partisan demagogues attempting to contrive a controversy where none exists.

No it isn't. If it actually worked that way it would be legal for the government to enter your house and search for drugs as long as they didn't arrest you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good grief! How could anyone find this acceptable or justify this action taken by the FCC.

PRAVDA here we come!

Good grief -- how could you take this cockamamie OP seriously? No link, no article, no quote no nothing, just a hallucinatory and pointless ramble based on absolutely nothing. Zero.

Jesus christ on a bicycle, some of y'all will swallow anything.

For the record, FCC has never, and does not now, regulate anything based on what a broadcast outlet's content is. That idea is complete bullshit. FCC wants a broadcast outlet to show how it serves its community. HOW it does that is entirely up to that broadcaster. There is no litmus test, there are no guidelines or requirements. And that's why the OP's not linked. Because it's made up. Nor does anything described have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the 1980s) which had nothing to do with news stories.

This thread is going straight to TBB.

Because, unlike you, most people don't get their news from this forum?

 

[HenryBHough]

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.

 

[Pogo]

Its really none of the FCC's business knowing what demographics, questions, or news topics being discussed. Its as simple as that.

Right. It's more of the same from Big Government, and dare I say an affront to the First Amendment?

And also? Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's an end-run attempt to get rid of Talk Radio and ANY media the Government doesn't like.

Once again, that's absolute bullshit. Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded. Pop quiz: in its four decades, how many actions -- license denials or fines -- were imposed by the FCC on broadcast stations because of content under the FD?



Answer:




Zero.