Reply With Quote
"traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. "
not OUR crisis, but the CRISIS of Fat Bas , WSJ's favorite candidate.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...66903828260732News 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."
"traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. "
not OUR crisis, but the CRISIS of Fat Bas , WSJ's favorite candidate.
Do you all love the totalitarianism Obama is trying to accomplish?
Obama's proposed new flag:
That's incredible. Multiple cons utional constraints being thrown to the wayside on this one.
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 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.
well, you went full godwin, per par...
IIRC, the Fairness Doctrine itself withstood cons utional 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?
lol wc
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
It's your claim.
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?
Make up your mind too, please... was it "in these later years" or "years ago"? It completely changes what you're trying to posit.
Apparently the FCC did see a problem; it suspended the CIN study and plans to eliminate inappropriate questions.
http://www.fcc.gov/do ent/setting-...ut-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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
