What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[WelfareQueen]

Welcome to the police state that is now America. Bush started the shit....Obama has made it 10x worse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 Talk radio was around long before the FD was rescinded.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.

Can you point to the part of the fairness doctrine that gave the FCC the authority to impose fines or deny licenses for violations?

Didn't think so.

It didn't exist. Licensing and such will be in CFR Title 47. The Fairness Doctrine was specifically about operations while using that license. It's got nothing to do with licensing.

And you don't get a license "denied"; you get a renewal denied. In the case of irresponsible operation, violations, or failure to make your case that you deserve one.

In other words, your post was based on bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know what the fuck that means but I do know when you start a thread you gotta base it on something besides the magic mushrooms you had for lunch.

Yet you never do.

I don't start many threads but feel free to point out an example.








Didn't think so. And this isn't my thread.
Nice try at deflection, but the fact remains, you don't start a thread with some rambling incoherency you think you heard somewhere and can't link.

But feel free to make the case for that too.

Just one?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/329216-the-reason-for-the-season.html

The fact remains, this thread was a response to another thread, and is intended as a defense of the FCC, yet you attacked it because you were scared that someone might have a legitimate argument against the government taking control of something.

 

[Pogo]

Can you point to the part of the fairness doctrine that gave the FCC the authority to impose fines or deny licenses for violations?

Didn't think so.

It didn't exist. Licensing and such will be in CFR Title 47. The Fairness Doctrine was specifically about operations while using that license. It's got nothing to do with licensing.

And you don't get a license "denied"; you get a renewal denied. In the case of irresponsible operation, violations, or failure to make your case that you deserve one.

In other words, your post was based on bullshit.

Go forth and multiply. The challenge was, and is, and will remain, find me one case of any broadcast outlet having its content censored or controlled via the FD. I didn't maintain that the FD itself mandates fines or license renewals. Because that's not where those regulations live.

Take some English lessons someday.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It didn't exist. Licensing and such will be in CFR Title 47. The Fairness Doctrine was specifically about operations while using that license. It's got nothing to do with licensing.

And you don't get a license "denied"; you get a renewal denied. In the case of irresponsible operation, violations, or failure to make your case that you deserve one.

In other words, your post was based on bullshit.

Go forth and multiply. The challenge was, and is, and will remain, find me one case of any broadcast outlet having its content censored or controlled via the FD. I didn't maintain that the FD itself mandates fines or license renewals. Because that's not where those regulations live.

Take some English lessons someday.

That was not my challenge to you, mine to you was to point out how that was even possible under the fairness doctrine.

 

[Pogo]

In other words, your post was based on bullshit.

Go forth and multiply. The challenge was, and is, and will remain, find me one case of any broadcast outlet having its content censored or controlled via the FD. I didn't maintain that the FD itself mandates fines or license renewals. Because that's not where those regulations live.

Take some English lessons someday.

That was not my challenge to you, mine to you was to point out how that was even possible under the fairness doctrine.

Exactly. It's a challenge that can't be answered, which is why it never has been. And I brought it up here in response to the bullshit in post 18 and post 24 that misrepresents what the doctrine was. And I've brought it in the past for the same purpose -- some wag starts spewing about big scary Fairness Doctrine monster with all sorts of bullshit. Usually led by Sean Hannity or Lush Rimjob with their own baseless fearmongering crapola.

I challenge them to back up the bullshit, and there IS no answer. That's the whole point. Once again, it's having a damn basis for what you're talking about versus just rambling with no source.

 

[hazlnut]

It was resently announced that the FCC would be doing investigations into the content (and reasons behind it) of news outlets.

First Amendment breach anyone?
(Anyone else scared as all #}//)

If you're doing mostly editorial and propaganda, you shouldn't have "News" in your name.

 

[Wasthatneeded]

If you're doing mostly editorial and propaganda, you shouldn't have "News" in your name.

Would 'Press' work better?

As I understand it, they aren't allowed to mess with neighborhood tabloids, much less widely read/watched press releases.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was resently announced that the FCC would be doing investigations into the content (and reasons behind it) of news outlets.

First Amendment breach anyone?
(Anyone else scared as all #}//)

What’s ‘frightening’ is the extent of your ignorance and stupidity, and anyone else who believes this constitutes a First Amendment ‘violation.’

 

[Wasthatneeded]

Well, what constitutes a violation for you?

And, if it would not bother you, please avoid being offensive. Truth be told, I have yet to see an intellectual conversation take place among name-calling.

 

[Pogo]

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...

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama Administration&#8217;s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition

Feb. 19, 2014 5:30pm Fred Lucas

A plan by the Federal Communications Commission to study how news organizations select stories has prompted about 10,000 people to sign a petition demanding: &#8220;no government monitors in newsrooms.&#8221;

That&#8217;s according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which announced the petition Wednesday and said it reached that number within the first two hours.

...

But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, said he worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.

&#8220;This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,&#8221; Sekulow said in a statement. &#8220;We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.&#8221;

The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, not over cable news or print publications. Networks, local stations and most radio stations would be subject to evaluation.

&#8220;Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists,&#8221; Sekulow said. &#8220;It&#8217;s clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics &#8211; at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.&#8221;

...

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

 

[Pogo]

Obama Administration&#8217;s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition

Feb. 19, 2014 5:30pm Fred Lucas

A plan by the Federal Communications Commission to study how news organizations select stories has prompted about 10,000 people to sign a petition demanding: &#8220;no government monitors in newsrooms.&#8221;

That&#8217;s according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which announced the petition Wednesday and said it reached that number within the first two hours.

...

But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, said he worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.

&#8220;This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,&#8221; Sekulow said in a statement. &#8220;We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.&#8221;

The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, not over cable news or print publications. Networks, local stations and most radio stations would be subject to evaluation.

&#8220;Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists,&#8221; Sekulow said. &#8220;It&#8217;s clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics &#8211; at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.&#8221;

...

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

Late to da party yet again, Jizzhat; we shot this down earlier. Same self-contradicting article; the FCC is not the Administration. Two different things.

This is a study. That's all it is. In fact the post just before yours laid all that out, with a link directly to the study itself. Yet here you come trotting in with Blaze Bullshit that's already been shot down. That's why it's a good idea to read the thread before you post something that's already been answered.

Well you have a unique sense of timing, gotta give you that.

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama Administration’s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition

Feb. 19, 2014 5:30pm Fred Lucas

A plan by the Federal Communications Commission to study how news organizations select stories has prompted about 10,000 people to sign a petition demanding: “no government monitors in newsrooms.”

That’s according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which announced the petition Wednesday and said it reached that number within the first two hours.

...

But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, said he worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.

“This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,” Sekulow said in a statement. “We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.”

The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, not over cable news or print publications. Networks, local stations and most radio stations would be subject to evaluation.

“Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists,” Sekulow said. “It’s clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics – at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”

...

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

Late to da party yet again, Jizzhat; we shot this down earlier. Same self-contradicting article; the FCC is not the Administration. Two different things.

This is a study. That's all it is. In fact the post just before yours laid all that out, with a link directly to the study itself. Yet here you come trotting in with Blaze Bullshit that's already been shot down. That's why it's a good idea to read the thread before you post something that's already been answered.

Well you have a unique sense of timing, gotta give you that.

T/S, file a grivance and cut the salunsky spin it's not working...

 

[Pogo]

Yet you never do.

I don't start many threads but feel free to point out an example.








Didn't think so. And this isn't my thread.
Nice try at deflection, but the fact remains, you don't start a thread with some rambling incoherency you think you heard somewhere and can't link.

But feel free to make the case for that too.

Just one?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/329216-the-reason-for-the-season.html

The fact remains, this thread was a response to another thread, and is intended as a defense of the FCC, yet you attacked it because you were scared that someone might have a legitimate argument against the government taking control of something.

Do you actually practice at being an imbecile, or does it come naturally?

That thread isn't a news story at all. Plus, it's got two videos in the OP as background.

Obviously you were wrong. Again.

And how in the blue fuck is this thread a "response to another thread"? Where is it?
No stupid, the fact remains, you don't just start a thread with some nebulous ramblings that aren't linked to anything. That is pure bullshit.

Which kind of explains why you're here. Nice to see ya. Safe trip home now.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

we have come along way baby

progress

Forward!

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

no he is mad because there are voices

that does not agree with his agenda

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

the targeting of the opposition continues

 

[jon_berzerk]

Welcome to the police state that is now America. Bush started the shit....Obama has made it 10x worse.

Progress!

 

[The T]

Obama Administration’s Plan to Study Newsrooms Is Drawing Plenty of Public Opposition

Feb. 19, 2014 5:30pm Fred Lucas

A plan by the Federal Communications Commission to study how news organizations select stories has prompted about 10,000 people to sign a petition demanding: “no government monitors in newsrooms.”

That’s according to the American Center for Law and Justice, which announced the petition Wednesday and said it reached that number within the first two hours.

...

But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, said he worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.

“This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,” Sekulow said in a statement. “We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.”

The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, not over cable news or print publications. Networks, local stations and most radio stations would be subject to evaluation.

“Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists,” Sekulow said. “It’s clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics – at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”

...

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

Living the dreams of his Commie parents.