What is wrong with the FCC's news monitoring

[Pogo]

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.

All five FCC Commisioners presently serving were appointed by Obama. At least three of them are Democrats, including the Chairman. I suggest that it may be independent, but no way is it non-partisan.

Nothing is completely nonpartisan (witness what a commissioner can do such as Mark Fowler (Reagan appointee) or the aforementioned sleazebag Michael Powell). But that's the way the structure is set up, for that purpose. Commissioner O'Reilly is also a Republican.

Not every Commissioner necessarily has a political party since it's not a political job. Chairman Wheeler, I'm not sure his party is known or if he even has one (link?) but mostly he's a businessman. That in itself is cause for concern more than what his political party is (again, as if we even have two parties). And all of them have to be confirmed by the Senate.

Anyway no more than three can be from the same political party. Them's the rules.

 

[TooTall]

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.

I printed the FCC Commisioner, not "the FCC Commisioner." You would have a point if I had printed the Charman of the FCC, but I didn't. Perhaps you need to look at context.

On edit: You are the one posting that the FCC Commisioner that made the announcent was a Republican and he did it on a Murdoch station. Then you proceed to attempt to make a case that the Commision is non-partisan. Think about it!

 

[HenryBHough]

The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content. Yes, surely not constitutional.
Remember that? The Constitution? You DO! Then prepare to be re-educated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content. Yes, surely not constitutional.
Remember that? The Constitution? You DO! Then prepare to be re-educated.

really? you have credible links to this?


thought not

 

[Pogo]

The FCC Commisioner disagrees with you.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY

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.

I printed the FCC Commisioner, not "the FCC Commisioner." You would have a point if I had printed the Charman of the FCC, but I didn't. Perhaps you need to look at context.

It said "The FCC Commissioner" on my screen. Still does too.

 

[HenryBHough]

The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content. Yes, surely not constitutional.
Remember that? The Constitution? You DO! Then prepare to be re-educated.

really? you have credible links to this?


thought not

In fact I do:

Constitution of the United States - Official

Though I do encourage you to read it I also urge you not to print it out and carry it with you when doing foolish things like trying to board an airliner.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content. Yes, surely not constitutional.
Remember that? The Constitution? You DO! Then prepare to be re-educated.

really? you have credible links to this?


thought not

In fact I do:

Constitution of the United States - Official

Though I do encourage you to read it I also urge you not to print it out and carry it with you when doing foolish things like trying to board an airliner.

can't find

"a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content" in the US Constitution (American English version)

 

[HenryBHough]

really? you have credible links to this?


thought not

In fact I do:

Constitution of the United States - Official

Though I do encourage you to read it I also urge you not to print it out and carry it with you when doing foolish things like trying to board an airliner.

can't find

"a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content" in the US Constitution (American English version)

Start reading the thread from the top instead of jumping in toward the end. Read for comprehension not just sounding out each word.

 

[TooTall]

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.

I printed the FCC Commisioner, not "the FCC Commisioner." You would have a point if I had printed the Charman of the FCC, but I didn't. Perhaps you need to look at context.

It said "The FCC Commissioner" on my screen. Still does too.

He IS one of the FCC Commisioners. It is normal to capitalize the first word in a sentence or a title if that is your problem. The second statement in my post was "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI." Your cute little ploy bolding the didn't fool anyone. It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In fact I do:

Constitution of the United States - Official

Though I do encourage you to read it I also urge you not to print it out and carry it with you when doing foolish things like trying to board an airliner.

can't find

"a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content" in the US Constitution (American English version)

Start reading the thread from the top instead of jumping in toward the end. Read for comprehension not just sounding out each word.

"The truly sickening part of all this is that a few self-proclaimed journalists are on board with setting the table for total government control of content. Yes, surely not constitutional."

your pathetic opinion(s) is duly noted


why leave out the few who are buying up all the major media?

 

[HenryBHough]

It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.

Sort of a hive mind, so to speak!

 

[Pogo]

I printed the FCC Commisioner, not "the FCC Commisioner." You would have a point if I had printed the Charman of the FCC, but I didn't. Perhaps you need to look at context.

It said "The FCC Commissioner" on my screen. Still does too.

He IS one of the FCC Commisioners. It is normal to capitalize the first word in a sentence or a title if that is your problem. The second statement in my post was "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI." Your cute little ploy bolding the didn't fool anyone. It is normal procedure for one of the Commisioners to speak for the Commission.

Uh -- no, it isn't. That's the Chairman's job.

I singled out "The FCC Commissioner" because the definite article indicates you thought there was only one commissioner. If you knew he was one of five you would have said "an FCC Commissioner" or this FCC Commissioner". And "STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI" doesn't change that in any way.

You thought Pai was the one and only FCC Commissioner. So I corrected you. You're welcome.

Some people -- give 'em a million bucks and they'll complain about the color of the money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone despises the msm yet they fear any look into it because of ideological gamesmanship?

Big media wins one again!!!

Damn, I am consistent about not letting the government fuck with people, I should be shot.

The government looking into businesses it grants licenses to in the name of the people need to be fucked and fucked with

A tactic that I have gone on record as opposing.

But, please, keep trying to use things I have already condemned to prove that I am the hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Choices? Try and get a 'public' license to use the people's airwaves


When the choices of major media are limited there is no choice without regulation insuring so.

Things have not improved over the years unless you believe blogs and radio have as large an audience as msm

Utterly pointless response there is plenty of choice out there your just looking to argue for the sake of arguing I'm sure someone will want to spend Friday doing that with you I pass have a nice night.

Plenty of choice in the licensed media? Not when fewer and fewer people own more and more of major media

The only thing the government gives a license to are the airwaves.

Unless, of course, they get net neutrality running the way some people want.

 

[HenryBHough]

The DNC talking points mill has ground long and hard today but doesn't seem to gaining a whole lot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FCC Announces It Will Back Off Plan to Monitor Newsrooms | TheBlaze.com




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.

-- And that contractor was Social Solutions International, whose proposal I linked last night in Post 71. They came up with these questions -- not the FCC.

... Anything else?

And the FCC didn't read them before they put them out for public comment?

The reason they came up with that particular study is that they got a contract asking them for ways to delve into that type of thing, and you are defending the idea that the FCC should regulate things it clearly has no business regulating.

​

I am putting this in white just to make a point. I can see it now. You are going to claim you never said that, and try to point out that all you did was talk about this in an abstract way because you are so fucking stupid you never think about anything.

Changed it to red because the point was made.

Idiots will be idiots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FCC Announces It Will Back Off Plan to Monitor Newsrooms | TheBlaze.com




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.

-- And that contractor was Social Solutions International, whose proposal I linked last night in Post 71. They came up with these questions -- not the FCC.

... Anything else?

facts win every time

And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.

 

[Pogo]

FCC Announces It Will Back Off Plan to Monitor Newsrooms | TheBlaze.com




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.

-- And that contractor was Social Solutions International, whose proposal I linked last night in Post 71. They came up with these questions -- not the FCC.

... Anything else?

And the FCC didn't read them before they put them out for public comment?

The reason they came up with that particular study is that they got a contract asking them for ways to delve into that type of thing, and you are defending the idea that the FCC should regulate things it clearly has no business regulating.

​

I am putting this in white just to make a point. I can see it now. You are going to claim you never said that, and try to point out that all you did was talk about this in an abstract way because you are so fucking stupid you never think about anything.

Idiots will be idiots.

Where did I say jack squat about what FCC would "regulate" under this?

Oops, that's another one you can't answer. I'm such a meanie.

So -- fifty cuckoos.
found another bottle, didja?

 

[Pogo]

-- And that contractor was Social Solutions International, whose proposal I linked last night in Post 71. They came up with these questions -- not the FCC.

... Anything else?

facts win every time

And the fact is that the FCC asked them to develop this survey, approved it, paid them, and put it out for comment.

How do you know they've been paid? Link?

So you'd have them do what -- not put it out for comment?

 

[HenryBHough]

People who demand links are simply too lazy to do their own research. That's why they do so well in the news departments of MSNBC & CNN. That's also why they find themselves confronted with the need to apologize as often as they are - something they rarely find the fortitude to do.

But when they do they're so cute!