What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Unkotare]

If the goalpost is freedom of the press i'm not the one moving them.

That's a crucial if, innit?

The if is getting smaller by the hour.

What's next? Nationalized thermostats?

Well, he did mention something in his first campaign...

 

[nodoginnafight]

n 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.
__________________

OK, then what action is going to be taken based on the findings of this study?

Is there any legitimate role for government to play?

I say there is not - so why waste time and taxpayer money on the study?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You do seem to imagine a strange correlation between pajamas and RE-20s, not to mention an obsession with boys in pajamas that's more than a little weird....

But you know as well as I do that FCC has nothing to do with broadcast content and never did.

So then, this is Obama's "change we can believe in?"

Hey, managed news worked for Venezuela, why not here?


{Now breaking, the Obama war on first amendment rights has won a glorious victory, party members celebrate.}

 

[Uncensored2008]

OK, then what action is going to be taken based on the findings of this study?

Outlaw Fox News Channel and prohibit the broadcasting of Rush Limbaugh - to start with.

Is there any legitimate role for government to play?

Asking such questions could have serious consequences.

I say there is not - so why waste time and taxpayer money on the study?

State control of information is a tried and true program for rulers. Obama views this as vital.

 

[Pogo]

You do seem to imagine a strange correlation between pajamas and RE-20s, not to mention an obsession with boys in pajamas that's more than a little weird....

But you know as well as I do that FCC has nothing to do with broadcast content and never did.

So then, this is Obama's "change we can believe in?"

Hey, managed news worked for Venezuela, why not here?


{Now breaking, the Obama war on first amendment rights has won a glorious victory, party members celebrate.}

I pointed this out waaaay back Pothead -- the FCC is a separate entity from the Administration. ANY administration. It's kept independent and nonpartisan by having commissioners appointed on staggered terms, and they can't be dominantly from one political party.

Nice try at a false equivalence, but I'd expect no less from a poster who sees every adversary as Pol Pot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I pointed this out waaaay back Pothead -- the FCC is a separate entity from the Administration. ANY administration. It's kept independent and nonpartisan by having commissioners appointed on staggered terms, and they can't be dominantly from one political party.

Kinda like the IRS then?

Nice try at a false equivalence, but I'd expect no less from a poster who sees every adversary as Pol Pot.

If y'all didn't act so much like the Khmer Rouge, you might avoid that comparison.

Say, did the state control the media under the Khmer Rouge...

Well I'll be, I think they did.....

 

[natstew]

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.

The Constitution trumps the FCC's charge.

 

[TooTall]

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.

The FCC Commisioner disagrees with you.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY

I welcome today’s announcement that the FCC has suspended its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN study. This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong.

The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices.

This is an important victory for the First Amendment. And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives notinfringe on our constitutional freedoms.

 

[Pogo]

I pointed this out waaaay back Pothead -- the FCC is a separate entity from the Administration. ANY administration. It's kept independent and nonpartisan by having commissioners appointed on staggered terms, and they can't be dominantly from one political party.

Kinda like the IRS then?

Nice try at a false equivalence, but I'd expect no less from a poster who sees every adversary as Pol Pot.

If y'all didn't act so much like the Khmer Rouge, you might avoid that comparison.

Say, did the state control the media under the Khmer Rouge...

Well I'll be, I think they did.....

I'm sure they did, it's how dictators work.

And if you see that going on here, outside your own comic book, I have to wonder if you can spell the names of the medications you're on. If that were the case Lush Rimjob would not exist. How's his career working out?

 

[Pogo]

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.

The FCC Commisioner disagrees with you.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY

I welcome today’s announcement that the FCC has suspended its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN study. This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong.

The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices.

This is an important victory for the First Amendment. And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives notinfringe on our constitutional freedoms.

That's not "the FCC Commissioner" -- it's one of the five Commissioners. And again, he's a Republican. Appointed by O'bama. And writing in a Murdoch newspaper.

For shit's sake people, look at the context.

 

[HenryBHough]

Amusing, in a sad sorta way, when liberals fulminate over the success of an entertainer in a field where they, themselves, always fail.

 

[Pogo]

Amusing, in a sad sorta way, when liberals fulminate over the success of an entertainer in a field where they, themselves, always fail.

Then why are you pajama freaks always yammering about Bill Maher?

 

[mudwhistle]

You do seem to imagine a strange correlation between pajamas and RE-20s, not to mention an obsession with boys in pajamas that's more than a little weird....

But you know as well as I do that FCC has nothing to do with broadcast content and never did.

So then, this is Obama's "change we can believe in?"

Hey, managed news worked for Venezuela, why not here?


{Now breaking, the Obama war on first amendment rights has won a glorious victory, party members celebrate.}

I pointed this out waaaay back Pothead -- the FCC is a separate entity from the Administration. ANY administration. It's kept independent and nonpartisan by having commissioners appointed on staggered terms, and they can't be dominantly from one political party.

Nice try at a false equivalence, but I'd expect no less from a poster who sees every adversary as Pol Pot.

Yeah, no way Obama could bribe them or scare them into starting this attempt to silence a free press. No way.

It's just a few rogue agents in Cincinnati.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The FCC Commisioner disagrees with you.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY

I welcome today’s announcement that the FCC has suspended its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN study. This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong.

The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices.

This is an important victory for the First Amendment. And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives notinfringe on our constitutional freedoms.

That's not "the FCC Commissioner" -- it's one of the five Commissioners. And again, he's a Republican. Appointed by O'bama. And writing in a Murdoch newspaper.

For shit's sake people, look at the context.

Why would Obama appoint a Republican?

He wouldn't, unless he needed another scapegoat.

 

[RandallFlagg]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/21/fcc-announces-it-will-back-off-plan-to-monitor-newsrooms/




The Federal Communications Commission said Friday that it will hold off on its study of American newsrooms after lawmakers complained it was too intrusive.

Some of the study’s proposed questions for reporters and news directors “may not have been appropriate,” FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said in a prepared statement.

“Last summer, the proposed study was put out for public comment and one pilot to test the study design in a single marketplace – Columbia, S.C. – was planned,” she explained.

“However, in the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate. Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required,” it continued. “Last week, Chairman Wheeler informed lawmakers that that Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters and would be modifying the draft study. Yesterday, the Chairman directed that those questions be removed entirely.”

The FCC said Friday that the proposed pilot study in South Carolina will be put on hold until further notice or until the agency can finalize a “new study design.”

“To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study,” the statement said.

Gilson stressed that future studies will not call for interviews with “media owners, news directors or reporters.”

“The pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final. Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters,” Gilson said.


She added: “Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false.”

The FCC is supposed to examine barriers to entry for smaller businesses in the media industry. The proposed study was reportedly meant to help the FCC understand the broader picture.

“By law, the FCC must report to Congress every three years on the barriers that may prevent entrepreneurs and small business from competing in the media marketplace, and pursue policies to eliminate those barriers. To fulfill that obligation in a meaningful way, the FCC’s Office of Communications Business Opportunities consulted with academic researchers in 2012 and selected a contractor to design a study which would inform the FCC’s report to Congress.

“The FCC looks forward to fulfilling its obligation to Congress to report on barriers to entry into the communications marketplace, and is currently revising its proposed study to achieve that goal,” it added.

 

[HenryBHough]

Weasel words.

The scheme will be back as soon as the furor dies down.

 

[SillyWabbit]

It may or may not be related, but I heard a brief snippet on the radio about a California court's decision that, essentially, monitoring everyone's communication without their knowledge doesn't violate their rights because they don't know it's happening.

Brain hurts...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

EXPLAIN to us why YOU'RE here son.

Believe me Goober, if I'm your "son", not only have we grossly violated the laws of linear time, but I'm going to need a length of rope and a chair.

What laws of linear time? Is that like your belief that everything you don't know is bullshit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Exactly?

Newsflash, oh he who never says what he said, you were the one that said that it could be used that way, and then claimed that the fact that they didn't is proof that it worked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?
• 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...

Actually, idiot, they aren't doing a study because multiple people,. on both sides of the aisle, pointed out that they don't even have the authority to ask the questions.

But, please, keep pretending you are suddenly smart enough to actually understand the issues, it amuses me.