Ajit Pai: FCC Wades into Newsrooms

[Winehole23]

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."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

[boutons_deux]

"traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. "

not OUR crisis, but the CRISIS of Fat Bastard, WSJ's favorite candidate.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you all love the totalitarianism Obama is trying to accomplish?

Obama's proposed new flag:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/ObamaFlag_zps67d7e638.png

[z0sa]

That's incredible. Multiple constitutional constraints being thrown to the wayside on this one.

[ElNono]

I actually don't see the problem since it's apparently a study that doesn't "force" stations to do anything specific. The Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) was actually much more severe.

I'm more concerned with the upswing in politicization of the FCC, tbh...

[Wild Cobra]

I actually don't see the problem since it's apparently a study that doesn't "force" stations to do anything specific. The Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) was actually much more severe.

I'm more concerned with the upswing in politicization of the FCC, tbh...
That's why I created that flag for the Obama administration. I just hope the next administration throws it away.

I think they assume if they move to the Fairness Doctrine slow enough, people won't notice.

[ElNono]

That's why I created that flag for the Obama administration. I just hope the next administration throws it away.

I think they assume if they move to the Fairness Doctrine slow enough, people won't notice.

well, you went full godwin, per par...

IIRC, the Fairness Doctrine itself withstood constitutional challenges in the SCOTUS... apparently the reason it went away is that it wasn't effective, not illegal...

[Wild Cobra]

well, you went full godwin, per par...

IIRC, the Fairness Doctrine itself withstood constitutional challenges in the SCOTUS... apparently the reason it went away is that it wasn't effective, not illegal...
Maybe the liberals realized they would have to show conservative content?

[ChumpDumper]

lol wc

[ElNono]

Maybe the liberals realized they would have to show conservative content?

The rule stopped being enforced during the Reagan administration... apparently democrats were ok with the rule...

[Wild Cobra]

The rule stopped being enforced during the Reagan administration... apparently democrats were ok with the rule...
Well, that was not quite the same as the "fairness doctrine" the democrats tried to craft in these later years. There were also a limited number of stations compared to modern times, so the what was considered necessary isn't any longer because of the choices available.

[ElNono]

Well, that was not quite the same as the "fairness doctrine" the democrats tried to craft in these later years.

which ones? link?

I've heard some democrats supportive of the old Fairness doctrine being reinstated (Pelosi and Durbin come to mind), but IIRC, the prez himself said he opposes reinstating it.

I'm personally not a fan of the old rule in this day and age. Plenty of sources for people like you that just want to circlejerk over the same old political discourse.

[Wild Cobra]

This was years ago, I don't remember enough of the details. Back then however, it applied to television, when we had only three nation wide. NBC, CBS, and ABC. The liberals wanted to bring it back because talk radio became dominated by conservatives. we have so many more radio stations today, than back then as well, and even satellite and internet. In the past, it was because we had limited choices to tune into. That problem does not exist today.

[ElNono]

BTW, the Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land since 1949 to roughly 1984 (which includes 3 Republican administrations)... as I said, I'm not supportive of it in this day and age, and it's a rule that I think was correctly phased out.

But America didn't turn into Nazi Germany either during that time. Apparently having a Kenyan Muslim Nagger as president does raises the risk :rolleyes

[ElNono]

This was years ago, I don't remember enough of the details.

Of course.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course.
Do you?

Do you remember the differences without looking it up, between what was actually law into the 80's vs. what was proposed in the last decade?

[ElNono]

Do you?

It's your claim.

[ElNono]

I asked you for a link... I didn't tell you not to look it up... if you don't want to look it up, that's fine, just say so instead of making stuff up.

[Wild Cobra]

I asked you for a link... I didn't tell you not to look it up... if you don't want to look it up, that's fine, just say so instead of making stuff up.
What do you think I made up?

[ElNono]

Well, that was not quite the same as the "fairness doctrine" the democrats tried to craft in these later years.

[ElNono]

Make up your mind too, please... was it "in these later years" or "years ago"? It completely changes what you're trying to posit.

[Winehole23]

I actually don't see the problem since it's apparently a study that doesn't "force" stations to do anything specific.Apparently the FCC did see a problem; it suspended the CIN study and plans to eliminate inappropriate questions.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/setting-record-straight-about-draft-study

[Winehole23]

more: http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/22/the-studies-are-absolutely-critical-for
http://washingtonexaminer.com/what-was-the-fcc-newsroom-survey-really-about/article/2544467?custom_click=rss

[ElNono]

Apparently the FCC did see a problem; it suspended the CIN study and plans to eliminate inappropriate questions.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/setting-record-straight-about-draft-study

This is the kind of stuff that goes at the core of the concern I mentioned earlier: the politicization of the FCC. Now you have commissioners writing OPeds with political undertones instead of working within the commission, and the commission having to compromise their studies to be PC...

But I guess it's a natural extension of putting crappy, politically-laden leadership in the FCC, something both parties have a hand on.

[Winehole23]

hard to see how regulation could ever be value neutral or without political implications. regulators are appointed by politicians and the work they do is intractably political: licensing, rule-making and enforcement.

nor do I see anything intrinsically dishonorable about regulators writing op-eds if they think the public is being poorly served by the boards on which they sit.

[boutons_deux]

Corporations OWN the newsrooms, they exist by selling ads to other corporations that dictate what news will/won't be reported, esp investigative journalism that won't be done, but right-wingers like it that way.

[EVAY]

This is the kind of stuff that goes at the core of the concern I mentioned earlier: the politicization of the FCC. Now you have commissioners writing OPeds with political undertones instead of working within the commission, and the commission having to compromise their studies to be PC...

But I guess it's a natural extension of putting crappy, politically-laden leadership in the FCC, something both parties have a hand on.

I used to have a job that included educating members of the FCC staff about certain content. They have ALWAYS been political, imo. They have all sorts of rules about not being able to accept lunches, etc. from corporation staffs, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that the Commissioners are appointed by the administration in power at the time, that the commissioners hire their staffs that reflect their own beliefs, and that the staffs bring whatever those biases are to whatever they are deciding at the time.

[ElNono]

hard to see how regulation could ever be value neutral or without political implications. regulators are appointed by politicians and the work they do is intractably political: licensing, rule-making and enforcement.

I'm not saying it should be apolitical entirely, but when politics grow enough to get in the way of "licensing, rule-making and enforcement", then you get a dysfunctional unit. Perhaps 'partisan' is a better description instead of 'political'?


nor do I see anything intrinsically dishonorable about regulators writing op-eds if they think the public is being poorly served by the boards on which they sit.

They're free to express whatever they think in whatever medium they find suitable, but personally, it strikes me as sour grapes. I'm not sold the public is well-served by op'eds either. This isn't a whistleblower case, as far as I can tell.

[Spurminator]

Do you all love the totalitarianism Obama is trying to accomplish?

Obama's proposed new flag:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/ObamaFlag_zps67d7e638.png


:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
I'm glad you like it. I made it as a joke.

[boutons_deux]

Apparently, this absolutely insane frontal assault on everything we hold dear in the god-damned universe was little more than a survey trying to ferret out how to best help disadvantaged, poor citizens (especially those for whom English may not be a first language) get the information they need. FCC Mignon Clyburn, who previously owned an African-American newspaper in South Carolina, has long held minority media ownership as a core policy focus.

It's a fairly routine and entirely voluntary field survey designed to gather data. Nothing more. There's not really any actual policy even attached to it. There was certainly nothing included that could drive any sane or reasonable individual to the conclusion that newsrooms would soon be under the iron fist of a new FCC-crafted information-control and propaganda gestapo. Many of the complaints against the "Critical Information Needs' (CIN) survey seemed focused specifically on how volatile and provocative the questions asked were, though I can't find any questions (page 25, pdf) that are even remotely controversial (perhaps I missed them or I'm not squinting my eyes or tilting me head just right).

What you wouldn't be able to do with the slightest bit of factual support is suggest this was an FCC attempt to stifle free speech and newsroom freedom.

But people did, and the hysteria forced the FCC to issue a statement (pdf) saying that the survey was on hold until they could tone down the not-actually-inflammatory-at-all questions. The FCC noted that the survey was part of their Congressional requirement under section 257 of the Communications Act to study barriers to entry for small business owners and entrepreneurs (with an obvious focus on minority business owners). To try and placate the rioting, reading-challenged hordes, the FCC notes that any revamped study won't ask media owners or reporters what they think:

"To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study. 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. Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America's newsrooms is false."

So in the end, the big "victory" is that a study trying to analyze minority media needs gets gutted and will be less useful. Hooray!

Make no mistake, the furor really wasn't about the study itself, it was part of a long-standing concerted effort to gut any dwindling regulatory oversight the FCC has over the broadcast or broadband industries by demonizing the agency.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/15412926337/internet-goes-crazy-over-ordinary-fcc-survey-claims-agency-wants-draconian-control-over-newsrooms.shtml

WSJ publishing an inflammatory letter from an FCC Repug trying to gut an FCC activity (Repugs: govt IS the PROBLEM)? shocking!

[ElNono]

FCC dumps controversial media study

The Federal Communications Commission is pulling the plug on a controversial survey of TV newsroom activities that sparked a firestorm of criticism from Republicans.

“The FCC will not move forward with the Critical Information Needs study,” an FCC spokesman said Friday. “The Commission will reassess the best way to fulfill its obligation to Congress to identify barriers to entry into the communications marketplace faced by entrepreneurs and other small businesses.”

...

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler earlier agreed to take out the newsroom questions and rework the study. But now the agency is scrapping it entirely.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/federal-communications-commission-controversial-media-study-104103.html

[boutons_deux]

"a firestorm of criticism from Republicans."

... because they know they and their corporate backers own and operate CONSERVATIVE MEDIA CONSPIRACY.