FCC to "monitor" news stations - wow!

[kent]

As I understand, the government is now "rethinking" this approach as the result of some push back.  The real question is, how did it ever come up for consideration in the first place?  Who thought this was a great idea?  This entire concept is more than a little troublesome whether it actually comes to pass or not.  If a person can't see why, I'd strongly suggest reviewing history......

In part from: beforeitsnews.com/politics/2014/02/breaking-news-obama-orders-fcc-to-monitor-news-rooms-2599026.html

The Obama administration wants to place monitors and investigators in television, radio, and newspaper newsrooms in order to figure out the “critical information needs” of the community. First of all, the FCC does not even have the authority to regulate newspapers or cable news… It simply doesn’t. Secondly, even where the FCC does have regulatory power, no government actor can EVER monitor news rooms in order to influence the editorial process. That is so clearly unconstitutional that it shouldn’t even be up for debate!

I know most people NEVER watch FOX News so, because of that, this is (in part) what was posted on their site for your info.

www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-kelly-file/transcript/2014/02/20/fcc-proposes-initiative-study-how-journalists-operate

MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Developing tonight, angry reaction is building from a variety of groups over what is said to be a new plan from the Obama administration to monitor America's newsrooms. And not in a way that you monitor it from home on the couch, a much more invasive way. And Shannon Bream reports from Washington -- Shannon.

From:  pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/02/20/fcc-looking-to-insert-government-officers-to-monitor-newsrooms/

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.”

[mollyanna58]

Well, now, that's a chilling idea.

[grits]

It isn't a surprise. It is another way to control the masses.

[Deleted]

What if the newsrooms don't cooperate?

Then what? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kent.

djAdvocate, billisonboard: Your talents are needed. Reassure us all that this is a harmless, well-intentioned study and Americans have absolutely nothing to worry about. Let us bask in the lambent glow of your indifference.

[billisonboard]

Feb 20, 2014 20:36:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kent.

djAdvocate, billisonboard: Your talents are needed. Reassure us all that this is a harmless, well-intentioned study and Americans have absolutely nothing to worry about. Let us bask in the lambent glow of your indifference.

The study looks interesting but I think it better done by academia instead of THE FCC.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 20, 2014 20:46:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 20, 2014 20:36:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kent.

djAdvocate, billisonboard: Your talents are needed. Reassure us all that this is a harmless, well-intentioned study and Americans have absolutely nothing to worry about. Let us bask in the lambent glow of your indifference.

The study looks interesting but I think it better done by academia instead of THE FCC.

Do you have any idea how much "requesting permission" nonsense those academic eggheads have to go through? Three quarters of the news stations would shoot down their requests due to privacy concerns alone.

Nosir, what the situation requires is a federal regulatory agency placing federal people into newsrooms to make sure the right kind of news is being reported for the right reasons. Surely you understand that?

[kent]

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kent.

You're welcome Virgil.

The study looks interesting but I think it better done by academia instead of THE FCC.

OMG!  This approach (academia) has to be a joke!  Research history.....

Nosir, what the situation requires is a federal regulatory agency placing federal people into newsrooms to make sure the right kind of news is being reported for the right reasons.

Spot on Virgil but it appears "some" people actually don't "get" it. 

[Deleted]

Soon you will need only one newspaper. It's a good thing.   It will save you money.

[Malarky]

Feb 20, 2014 21:29:26 GMT -5 kent said:

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kent.

You're welcome Virgil.

The study looks interesting but I think it better done by academia instead of THE FCC.

OMG!  This approach (academia) has to be a joke!  Research history.....

Nosir, what the situation requires is a federal regulatory agency placing federal people into newsrooms to make sure the right kind of news is being reported for the right reasons.

Spot on Virgil but it appears "some" people actually don't "get" it. 

Scary as fuck!!  Bye bye first amendment.  How anyone can be OK with this is beyond me. 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 17:48:25 GMT -5 kent said:

As I understand, the government is now "rethinking" this approach as the result of some push back.  The real question is, how did it ever come up for consideration in the first place?  Who thought this was a great idea?  This entire concept is more than a little troublesome whether it actually comes to pass or not.  If a person can't see why, I'd strongly suggest reviewing history......

In part from: beforeitsnews.com/politics/2014/02/breaking-news-obama-orders-fcc-to-monitor-news-rooms-2599026.html

The Obama administration wants to place monitors and investigators in television, radio, and newspaper newsrooms in order to figure out the “critical information needs” of the community. First of all, the FCC does not even have the authority to regulate newspapers or cable news… It simply doesn’t. Secondly, even where the FCC does have regulatory power, no government actor can EVER monitor news rooms in order to influence the editorial process. That is so clearly unconstitutional that it shouldn’t even be up for debate! 

where did you see anything about "regulating"?

I know most people NEVER watch FOX News so, because of that, this is (in part) what was posted on their site for your info.

www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-kelly-file/transcript/2014/02/20/fcc-proposes-initiative-study-how-journalists-operate

i watch FOX more often than any other cable news.

MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Developing tonight, angry reaction is building from a variety of groups over what is said to be a new plan from the Obama administration to monitor America's newsrooms. And not in a way that you monitor it from home on the couch, a much more invasive way. And Shannon Bream reports from Washington -- Shannon.

From:  pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/02/20/fcc-looking-to-insert-government-officers-to-monitor-newsrooms/

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.”

sounds like interesting information.  sounds like it might settle the issue of bias once and for all.  but i guess we are not going to find out, now, because a bunch of people that would rather not be monitored won't be.

by the way, the FCC absolutely has the right to monitor for content.  for example: try saying the word "f*&k" on prime time news.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 20:10:37 GMT -5 grits said:

It isn't a surprise. It is another way to control the masses.

the media already does that well enough all on it's own.  it needs no help from the FCC whatsoever.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 20:36:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kent.

djAdvocate, billisonboard: Your talents are needed. Reassure us all that this is a harmless, well-intentioned study and Americans have absolutely nothing to worry about. Let us bask in the lambent glow of your indifference.

why would i do that?  it is far more entertaining watching you and others freak out about it.

i hear they were going to use the information to implant devices in our brains, comrade.  FOILED!!! 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 21:29:26 GMT -5 kent said:

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kent.

You're welcome Virgil.

The study looks interesting but I think it better done by academia instead of THE FCC.

OMG!  This approach (academia) has to be a joke!  Research history.....

Nosir, what the situation requires is a federal regulatory agency placing federal people into newsrooms to make sure the right kind of news is being reported for the right reasons.

Spot on Virgil but it appears "some" people actually don't "get" it. 

i see.  so anyone that doesn't freak out about this is ignorant?  it must be great to be able to dismiss others so readily.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 19:58:06 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

Well, now, that's a chilling idea.

check your thermostat.

[grits]

Feb 20, 2014 22:15:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 20, 2014 20:10:37 GMT -5 grits said:

It isn't a surprise. It is another way to control the masses.

the media already does that well enough all on it's own.  it needs no help from the FCC whatsoever.

They've been doing it for decades.

However, I do believe it would be another way for the government to control people, and continue with its ever tightening grip on the citizens of the nation. 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 22:24:39 GMT -5 grits said:

Feb 20, 2014 22:15:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the media already does that well enough all on it's own.  it needs no help from the FCC whatsoever.

They've been doing it for decades.

However, I do believe it would be another way for the government to control people, and continue with its ever tightening grip on the citizens of the nation. 

if you are anything like me, the NSA worries you way more than the FCC.

PS- thanks for not calling me ignorant, a "tool of the state" or some other such nonsense.  i appreciate that.

[grits]

I don't like either one. The fact that the government is buying enormous amounts of ammunition, and has been for several years is bothering me. The fact that the Social Security Administration is buying large quantities of ammo is really disturbing. Yes, Obama promised he'd fight to repeal The Patriot Act. He hasn't done it. He's let them make it even more invasive. Bunch of crooked republicans, and democrats.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 20, 2014 22:16:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 20, 2014 20:36:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Kent.

djAdvocate, billisonboard: Your talents are needed. Reassure us all that this is a harmless, well-intentioned study and Americans have absolutely nothing to worry about. Let us bask in the lambent glow of your indifference.

why would i do that?  it is far more entertaining watching you and others freak out about it.

i hear they were going to use the information to implant devices in our brains, comrade.  FOILED!!! 

Why don't you tell us all what you expect the information to be used for. Enlighten us, comrade. Help woo us back to sleep.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 22:49:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 20, 2014 22:16:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

why would i do that?  it is far more entertaining watching you and others freak out about it.

i hear they were going to use the information to implant devices in our brains, comrade.  FOILED!!! 

Why don't you tell us all what you expect the information to be used for. Enlighten us, comrade. Help woo us back to sleep.

i think it might be more entertaining to hear what you think they would be used for.  but honestly?- i don't think that we need to guess about it at all.  the information is in the public domain.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 22:40:05 GMT -5 grits said:

I don't like either one.

that is your privelage.  but i find the FCC far more transparent.

The fact that the government is buying enormous amounts of ammunition, and has been for several years is bothering me.

www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp

The fact that the Social Security Administration is buying large quantities of ammo is really disturbing. Yes, Obama promised he'd fight to repeal The Patriot Act. He hasn't done it. He's let them make it even more invasive. Bunch of crooked republicans, and democrats.

oh, that bothers me a great deal.  it bothers me more that he has not only not repealed it- he has strenghtened it.

[grits]

It should bother a lot of people but most are asleep at the wheel.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 20, 2014 22:53:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 20, 2014 22:49:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Why don't you tell us all what you expect the information to be used for. Enlighten us, comrade. Help woo us back to sleep.

i think it might be more entertaining to hear what you think they would be used for.  but honestly?- i don't think that we need to guess about it at all.  the information is in the public domain.

I expect it to be used in any of several respects: i) to discredit and/or demonize any news stations whose newscasts fail to (sufficiently) report news topics deemed "critical" by governmental or para-governmental interests, ii) to discredit and/or demonize any news stations whose newscasts report news topics deemed "subversive" by governmental or para-governmental interests, iii) to find out the names/ranks of specific individuals most responsible for pushing the perceived over- and under-reporting from i and ii, iv) to determine the quickest and most lighthanded way to legislate, regulate, or otherwise coerce news stations to "remedy" the perceived over- and under-reporting.

I see this as a very logical next step to the issue that Paul brought up a few months ago.

Now, you were about to tell us what you expect the information to be used for.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 23:18:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 20, 2014 22:53:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think it might be more entertaining to hear what you think they would be used for.  but honestly?- i don't think that we need to guess about it at all.  the information is in the public domain.

I expect it to be used in any of several respects: i) to discredit and/or demonize any news stations whose newscasts fail to (sufficiently) report news topics deemed "critical" by governmental or para-governmental interests, ii) to discredit and/or demonize any news stations whose newscasts report news topics deemed "subversive" by governmental or para-governmental interests, iii) to find out the names/ranks of specific individuals most responsible for pushing the perceived over- and under-reporting from i and ii, iv) to determine the quickest and most lighthanded way to legislate, regulate, or otherwise coerce news stations to "remedy" the perceived over- and under-reporting.

I see this as a very logical next step to the issue that Paul brought up a few months ago.

Now, you were about to tell us what you expect the information to be used for.

i have no reason to doubt what pjmedia, who could hardly be expected to be a strong advocate of the FCC, quoted above. 

very interesting perspective, Virgil.  do you have similar feelings about the CBC?

[Virgil Showlion]

do you have similar feelings about the CBC?

The CBC is our national news station. Our equivalent of the FCC would be the CRTC. And if they moved beyond monitoring Canadian broadcasts for minimum content standards to placing CRTC agents in the middle of Canadian newsrooms, yes I would have similar feelings about it.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 20, 2014 23:36:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

do you have similar feelings about the CBC?

The CBC is our national news station. Our equivalent of the FCC would be the CRTC. And if they moved beyond monitoring Canadian broadcasts for minimum content standards to placing CRTC agents in the middle of Canadian newsrooms, yes I would have similar feelings about it.

let me point out a few facts about the citizens of the US that may serve to illustrate why i am not terribly worried about the implications in the way that you are, and to put that lack of concern in a better light with you and others than it has right now.

first of all, most people in the US (like, 80%, i think) value the idea of local news broadcast by local stations.  and it is not just because they want to hear the gossip about johnny's mom on the news rather than from johnny's mom.    it is because they RIGHTLY see local news as something that affects them more than regional or national news.  and because of that, it is more "informationally rich" than other news- it is of higher local value.  then there is local news that really matters- like whether your water is getting poisoned, or whether your local beat cop is just as likely to beat the crap out of you as give you ticket, or whether the creek at the bottom of your hill is flooding.  the problem is, of course, that local news is fairly expensive on a per unit time basis.  simply regurgitating stories about Angelina Jolie from the national press is way more economical- as is using PR flack from corporations (at last count, it was over 40% of what passes for "news").

here is a question for you: do you think that the public airwaves should be used for what the public wants, or not?

[b2r]

[Virgil Showlion]

here is a question for you: do you think that the public airwaves should be used for what the public wants, or not?

How about I tell you after you answer my question in Reply #19. I've already answered two of yours. Fair is fair.

[grits]

I do not think that the public is always aware of what is best for it. If it did, we wouldn't have the patriot act in the first place.

[marvholly]

I tend to be pretty liberal. However, the whole concept as outlined in the OP is downright scary. Not that I see/hear that much difference in the news as presented on CBS, NBC, ABC or WGN radio. I do catch some news on PBS a several times/week & they seem to do a bit more depth/discussion (generally balanced).