FCC Assault On News Media

[delldude]

Wonder what side of the political spectrum this is aimed at?
 

 
The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
 
This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.
 
Should all stations follow MSNBC's example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency's collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber's bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn't matter more than anyone else's merely because I happen to work at the FCC.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

 

 

[delldude]

 
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs." Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.
 
The study identified eight "critical needs": information about emergencies and risks; health and welfare; education; transportation; economic opportunities; the environment; civic information; and political information.
It's not difficult to see those topics quickly becoming vehicles for political intimidation. In fact, it's difficult to imagine that they wouldn't. For example, might the FCC standards that journalists must meet on the environment look something like the Obama administration's environmental agenda? Might standards on economic opportunity resemble the president's inequality agenda? The same could hold true for the categories of health and welfare and "civic information" -- and pretty much everything else.
"An enterprising regulator could run wild with a lot of these topics," says Pai. "The implicit message to the newsroom is they need to start covering these eight categories in a certain way or otherwise the FCC will go after them."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-obama-initiative-tramples-first-amendment-protections/article/2544363

 

[xUT]

So what's new?
Merikan Reporters where denied access to the Kuwaiti war, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war.
Only 'state approved' media was allowed to be shown.
The media coverage of the Vietnam war scared the chit out of the Gooberment.
DemoRats support it, RepuliRats support it.
 
Laws on 'freedom of speech' is being chipped away every day and the mindless following support it as long as it fit's their agenda.
Anyway, people are more concerned with Justin Bieber and American Idol to worry about it.
 
B) xUT

 

[Kev3188]

With as much access to media/reporting platforms as the average citizen has, isn't this genie already out of the bottle?

 

[delldude]

Looking like an attempt to influnce what you really need to hear........officially.

 

[Kev3188]

Everybody knows what's best for you...

 

[delldude]

Everybody knows what's best for you...

 
Naw.....government knows best.....

 

[Ms Tree]

With as much access to media/reporting platforms as the average citizen has, isn't this genie already out of the bottle?

.

I was thinking the same thing. The world is a click away. Net work news is only a tiny piece of the news arena.

 

[delldude]

FCC must think otherwise.............
 
Camels nose under the tent?

 

[delldude]

.

I was thinking the same thing. The world is a click away. Net work news is only a tiny piece of the news arena.

 
Denying access is also just one click away.

 

[Kev3188]

That was kind of my whole point. If anyone tries to shut down one platform, people will not only shift to another, but also waste no time "reporting" the attempted closure of the first. I would have to think that the FCC would have to shut down radio, television, access to the internet, and cell phone networks to even attempt anything meaningful...

 

[delldude]

I think in a case like you mention, it would be in the blink of an eye, so to speak.First down would be personal/social media. So no where to go except ' official speak '.
FCC is already back pedaling. This smells like a basis for some unconstitutional federal regulations in the future. Want your license?? Follow the reg's.
Tell me the first amendment hasn't already been licensed.

 

[southwind]

Just another approach to run an end - around towards their ultimate goal....The "Un - fairness doctrine.
Not only will we tell you what we want you to hear, we'll also tell you what's best concerning your health and enforce it with our gestapo......err The IRS!

 

[Dog Wonder]

Did you hear that on a federally licensed radio station?

 

[delldude]

Did you hear that on a federally licensed radio station?

 
Unlicensed liberal talk radio.....