FCC Wants to Police the News

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021314-690050-fcc-newsroom-plan-all-about-controlling-the-free-press.htm

First Amendment: The FCC has cooked up a plan to place "researchers" in U.S. newsrooms, supposedly to learn all about how editorial decisions are made. Any questions as to why the U.S. is falling in the free press rankings?

As if illegal seizures of Associated Press phone records and the shadowy tailing of the mother of a Fox News reporter weren't menacing enough, the Obama administration is going out of its way to institute a new intrusive surveillance of the press, as if the press wasn't supine enough.

Ajit Pai, a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission, warned this week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that a plan to dispatch researchers into radio, television and even newspaper newsrooms called the "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs" is still going forward, despite the grave danger it presented to the First Amendment.

Pai warned that under the rationale of increasing minority representation in newsrooms, the FCC, which has the power to issue or not issue broadcasting licenses, would dispatch its "researchers" to newsrooms across America to seek their "voluntary" compliance about how news stories are decided, as well as "wade into office politics" looking for angry reporters whose story ideas were rejected as evidence of a shutout of minority views.

Pai questioned if such a study could really be voluntary, given FCC's conflict of interest (and, he might have added, the Obama record of going after political opponents).

The origin of the idea is a recrudescence of the Fairness Doctrine, inoperative since 1987 or so, to provide equal time to leftist points of view in broadcasting and other media that otherwise wouldn't have a willing audience in a free market.

It's an idea so fraught with potential for abuse it ought to have news agencies screaming bloody murder. The very idea of Obama hipsters showing up in newsrooms, asking questions and judging if newspapers (over which they have no jurisdiction), radio and TV are sufficiently diverse is nothing short of thought control.

But the reaction from the National Association of Broadcasters was mealy-mouthed. The FCC "should reconsider" "qualitative" sections of its study, it wrote.

The FCC now says it will be "closely reviewing the proposed research design to determine if an alternative approach is merited," as a result of Pai's warning. Adweek actually reported that as a "retreat."

It's because of this don't-rock-the-boat attitude that Reporters Without Borders said the U.S. had "one of the most significant declines" in press freedom in the world last year, dropping 13 places to a wretched 46th in its newly released global ranking. If the FCC has its way, it can drop even further

doesn't surprise me.

all the threats to reporters who don't say nice things about the gov

and

he's buying them off to work for him.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/13/15-journalists-have-joined-obama-administration

This from your article>>> would dispatch its "researchers" to newsrooms across America to seek their "voluntary" compliance about how news stories are decided,

we have tyranny!

March 22, 1917

"I have been very much surprised to find several of the public prints stating that the administration had abandoned the position which it so distinctly took,and still holds,that authority to exercise censorship over the Press to the extent that that censorship is embodied in the recent action of the House of Representatives is absolutely necessary to the public safety. It,of course,has not been abandoned,because the reasons still exist why such authority is necessary for the protection of the nation.

I have every confidence that the great majority of the newspapers of the country will observe a patriotic reticence about everything whose publication could be of injury,but in every country there are some persons in a position to do mischief in this field who can not be relied upon and whose interests or desires will lead to actions on their part highly dangerous to the nation in the midst of a war. I want to say again that it seems to me imperative that powers of this sort should be granted."

Woodrow Wilson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship

Voluntary censorship by the American press began before the country's entry into the war after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. After the European war began in 1939, journalists began withholding information about Canadian troop movements. [1]:21 The First War Powers Act, approved on December 18, 1941, contained broad grants of Executive authority for the prosecution of the war, including a provision for censorship.

The next day President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Office of Censorship and conferred on its director the power to censor international communications in "his absolute discretion." The order also set up a Censorship Policy Board to advise the director with respect to policy and the coordination and integration of censorship activities, and authorized the director to establish a Censorship Operating Board that would arrange for the use by other Government agencies of information acquired through the interception of communications. To effect a closer correlation of censorship activities, representatives of Great Britain, Canada, and the United States signed an agreement providing for the complete exchange of information among all concerned parties and the creation of a central clearinghouse of information within the headquarters of the Office of Censorship.

speaking of ww2, jump to 2012



For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But onJuly 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as agreen light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.

The law, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, was passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The repeal of the propaganda ban went into effect this month. The country has already gotten a taste of the U.S. propaganda efforts by the Pentagon

Utter and complete hogwash. I do not even know why I bother when ignorance is so utterly comprehensive. First, the public airways have been regulated and public hearings have been part of the process of how and who can maintain a license and privilege to those airways owned by all of us since the 1920s.

Second, you and many others paint with these broad brushes of government conspiracy to take freedom from Americans and you are clueless. I have had the privilege of getting to know Charlotte Reid who was a congresswoman(first to wear pants in congress by a female) and a traditional moderate Republican. I was friends with her daughter and son in law and was a guest in what I consider to be a top five American golf course at Crystal Downs Michigan where they had a summer home on the lake next to the Betsy lighthouse. She served as FCC commissioner and worked for fair regulation of the public airways. In her later years I shared dinner with her at an event where we discussed the challenges of modern technology and the public airways. This simplistic paradigm of big evil government taking the freedom of Americans away and all associated with government working for the same are like children believing dracula can fly into their window at night. There is a healthy bipartisan tension which has protected our public airways and if you think censoring Stern is overreaching I might agree on the qualitative and fact based analysis, but this moronic mantra of governmental overreaching assumes that the American people and their representative are evil people. Charlotte was one of the most remarkable people I have the privilege of knowing who did an outstanding job at the FCC as people do today protecting the people's airways.

2seaoat wrote:Utter and complete hogwash.  I do not even know why I bother when ignorance is so utterly comprehensive.   First, the public airways have been regulated and public hearings have been part of the process of how and who can maintain a license and privilege to those airways owned by all of us since the 1920s.

Second, you and many others paint with these broad brushes of government conspiracy to take freedom from Americans and you are clueless.  I have had the privilege of getting to know Charlotte Reid who was a congresswoman(first to wear pants in congress by a female) and a traditional moderate Republican.  I was friends with her daughter and son in law and was a guest in  what I consider to be a top five American golf course at Crystal Downs Michigan where they had a summer home on the lake next to the Betsy lighthouse.  She served as FCC commissioner and worked for fair regulation of the public airways.  In her later years I shared dinner with her at an event where we discussed the challenges of modern technology and the public airways.  This simplistic paradigm of big evil government taking the freedom of Americans away and all associated with government working for the same are like children believing dracula can fly into their window at night.   There is a healthy bipartisan tension which has protected our public airways and if you think censoring Stern is overreaching I might agree on the qualitative and fact based analysis, but this moronic mantra of governmental overreaching assumes that the American people and their representative are evil people.   Charlotte was one of the most remarkable people I have the privilege of knowing who did an outstanding job at the FCC as people do today protecting the people's airways.

Yes comrade. The airways, papers, and any other media, should have political officers to ensure quality and correctness in what they report and give opinions about.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcCqsaUrw0c

 

"This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,” said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. “The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”

"This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,” said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. “The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”


Was the actions by the FCC against Howard Stern blatant censorship? Did the courts deny the jurisdiction of congress to pass laws to regulate our airways.

The fairness doctrine established in 1947 and upheld generally by the Supreme Court in 1969 was clear that policies on limited spectrum of public airways allowed such regulation, and even though the FCC has voluntarily removed those requirement as the public has been given more news options beyond the public airways the Supreme Court's precedent remains and it is certainly within the scope of the FCC to regulate the airways and assure balance. Any simple study which determines the basis of how news is gathered and whether those who hold federal licenses are being truthful, fair , and serving the communities where a license is held most certainly will survive legal challenge and just the opposite of your assumption insures that our airwaves will not be taken over the foreign nation who has the deepest pockets. Certainly the expansion of technology beyond the public airways will by the Supreme Court's own reasoning limit the restrictions by government. This however does not mean the elimination of the same.

2seaoat wrote:

Was the actions by the FCC against Howard Stern blatant censorship?  Did the courts deny the jurisdiction of congress to pass laws to regulate our airways.

The fairness doctrine established in 1947 and upheld generally by the Supreme Court in 1969 was clear that policies on limited spectrum of public airways allowed such regulation, and even though the FCC has voluntarily removed those requirement as the public has been given more news options beyond the public airways the Supreme Court's precedent remains and it is certainly within the scope of the FCC to regulate the airways and assure balance.  Any simple study which determines the basis of how news is gathered and whether those who hold federal licenses are being truthful, fair , and serving the communities where a license is held most certainly will survive legal challenge and just the opposite of your assumption insures that our airwaves will not be taken over the foreign nation who has the deepest pockets.   Certainly the expansion of technology beyond the public airways will by the Supreme Court's own reasoning limit the restrictions by government.   This however does not mean the elimination of the same.

Yes comrade. The government is always fair and balanced when it deals with the public and the current administration is the most open and transparent one that's ever existed in US history.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWqKPWO5T4o

 

After reading this thread, I found Ajit Pai's piece in the WSJ...




By
Ajit Pai
Feb. 10, 2014 7:26 p.m. ET

News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

But everyone should agree on this: 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.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

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.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

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?

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

PkrBum wrote: a plan to dispatch researchers into radio, television and even newspaper newsrooms

Something's very peculiar about that. The FCC has no jurisdiction over anything except the broadcast airwaves.
Not only does it have no jurisdiction over the print media, it doesn't even have any jurisdiction over television media which is not broadcast.
Cable TV News providers are not broadcasting over the public airwaves.

2seaoat wrote:"This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration,” said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. “The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”


Was the actions by the FCC against Howard Stern blatant censorship?  Did the courts deny the jurisdiction of congress to pass laws to regulate our airways.

The fairness doctrine established in 1947 and upheld generally by the Supreme Court in 1969 was clear that policies on limited spectrum of public airways allowed such regulation, and even though the FCC has voluntarily removed those requirement as the public has been given more news options beyond the public airways the Supreme Court's precedent remains and it is certainly within the scope of the FCC to regulate the airways and assure balance.  Any simple study which determines the basis of how news is gathered and whether those who hold federal licenses are being truthful, fair , and serving the communities where a license is held most certainly will survive legal challenge and just the opposite of your assumption insures that our airwaves will not be taken over the foreign nation who has the deepest pockets.   Certainly the expansion of technology beyond the public airways will by the Supreme Court's own reasoning limit the restrictions by government.   This however does not mean the elimination of the same.

NOTHING, whatsoever surprising about 2seaoat supporting censorship of our news and journalists. Congress should act and pass a law withholding a single dollar to be used by the FCC for such a study.

If a college want to study the news, that would be a unique experience for them and they may learn something.

This is outrageous and the FCC is making a trivial effort act backpedaling their position.

I'm sorry. But this topic only deals with some part of something that used to mean something or other.

Sorry that I put it in this section... if the dear leader would plz move it to the hall of shame I would be grateful.

NOTHING, whatsoever surprising about 2seaoat supporting censorship of our news and journalists. Congress should act and pass a law withholding a single dollar to be used by the FCC for such a study.

Ok Mr. Markle......let us have a discussion. If I want to get my ratings up in a local market which is over the public airways, I decide to run the porn movie Debbie does Dallas. In Pks world of absolutes the FCC has no business censoring and interfering with the freedom of expression of that station.

Do you agree.

Now, if a foreign national buys newspapers and broadcast stations across America, and the state of Israel provides capital to this venture through a multilayered scheme of ownership which hides their control of the foreign national, are you saying that the FCC has no control to do studies to find out where the decisions are being made on broadcasting NEWS in a local community which pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in 1969 has limited access to alternative broadcast media in the form of cable and low cost broadband. Now if instead of Israel it is china who has bought and controls that news channel, or Russia who narrows the content of the news to the need to cut defense spending. My question to you is are you against the FCC gathering data as to how these stories get to broadcast? Is your solution that the highest bidder in the world can control limited broadcast markets and that the people have no need to gather information about the same?

This discussion is idiotic because nobody will argue against censorship of broadcast pornagraphy at the 6pm local news, and to argue censorship when proposals are only to gather information is like asking NORAD to shut off their radars because they many see a missle coming into this country and the airways should be free to the highest bidder or the one with the biggest missile. Simply idiotic and defies 85 years of common sense regulation of our public airways.

We just need another sedition act comrade... you and boards should start the initiative. For the common good... right?

2seaoat wrote:NOTHING, whatsoever surprising about 2seaoat supporting censorship of our news and journalists. Congress should act and pass a law withholding a single dollar to be used by the FCC for such a study.

Ok Mr. Markle......let us have a discussion.  If I want to get my ratings up in a local market which is over the public airways, I decide to run the porn movie Debbie does Dallas.  In Pks world of absolutes the FCC has no business censoring and interfering with the freedom of expression of that station.

Do you agree.

Now, if a foreign national buys newspapers and broadcast stations across America, and the state of Israel provides capital to this venture through a multilayered scheme of ownership which hides their control of the foreign national, are you saying that the FCC has no control to do studies to find out where the decisions are being made on broadcasting NEWS in a local community which pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in 1969 has limited access to alternative broadcast media in the form of cable and low cost broadband.   Now if instead of Israel it is china who has bought and controls that news channel, or Russia who narrows the content of the news to the need to cut defense spending.   My question to you is are you against the FCC gathering data as to how these stories get to broadcast?  Is your solution that the highest bidder in the world can control limited broadcast markets and that the people have no need to gather information about the same?

This discussion is idiotic because nobody will argue against censorship of broadcast pornagraphy at the 6pm local news, and to argue censorship when proposals are only to gather information is like asking NORAD to shut off their radars because they many see a missle coming into this country and the airways should be free to the highest bidder or the one with the biggest missile.   Simply idiotic and defies 85 years of common sense regulation of our public airways.

The government has NO PLACE in our newsrooms or censoring the news. As President Barack Hussein Obama would say...PERIOD.

PLEASE explain to us what the item below says.


U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Anyone (regardless of what your political brainwashing is) who doesn't recognize the potential danger with this is a fool.

This time it just happens to be democrat politicians who can't live with media criticism and they've rallied the true believers like seaoat to their cause.

But it could just as easily be republicans in the same role and they would rally the true believers like markle to that cause.

Anyone who isn't concerned about the commercial media being controlled by a handful of corporations is also a fool.
However, that is becoming less of a concern over time because all that power being in the hands of those corporations will probably become less significant over time. Hopefully the internet will be able to provide some balance to that. But we'll have to wait and see to be certain.

Anyone (regardless of what your political brainwashing is) who doesn't recognize the potential danger with this is a fool.

Bob did you feel that danger for fifty years as the FCC did exactly the monitoring you now want to assign to the President? Sorry the danger to the American people is not having knowledge as to who is controlling our public airways and how stories are getting broadcast. If Stern wants to say FU on his satellite radio show which does not use the public airways, it is ok, but when he would have sexual references on his show General Powell's son went after STern who was the symbol of a progressives and Powell happened to be a Republican. The Party affiliation has nothing to do with the historic function of the FCC which REGULATES the public airways. Sorry Bob the FCC regulates the public airways. The Supreme Court in 1969 did agree with you that there was a danger.....but as usual they were saying just the opposite of what you and Mr. Markle are saying. They were saying that where the public has a limited spectrum of public airways it is essential to protect those public airways from abuses of a select few.

Now the internet has allowed free and open competition with the public airways and the dangers of limited spectrum is not as a compelling argument as it was in 1969, but I want to know where any censorship has been proposed in this study of how stories get to the public airways? Again your argument is like saying war is bad, and that if we turn off the NORAD radar and do not see an enemy missile, we have solved the problem. The FCC and the fairness doctrine which was born from post world war II fear of indoctrinal propaganda manipulating the population where there are limited access to alternative spectrum is and will continue to be a good thing, and a study is not censorship, nor is proper regulation. This is not a political choice of Republican or Democrat, rather as the Supreme Court has affirmed proper regulation of a public and limited asset.

Seaoat,

There is now no line between what is entertainment and what was once deemed a "news department" in radio/tv. It has all evolved into one entity.

And you've just proved that by making no distinction between Howard Stern and "news".