FCC to "monitor" news stations - wow!

[Lizard King]

thefederalist.com/2014/02/17/the-new-contras-understanding-the-lefts-grip-on-media/

This seems tangentially relevant.

[Lizard King]

grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/

As does this.

[zibazinski]

Feb 20, 2014 20:14:41 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

What if the newsrooms don't cooperate?

Then what? 

The FCC can pull your license.

[zibazinski]

We are number 46 in rankings of having a free press. That is sad in itself. 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 9:48:52 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Feb 20, 2014 20:14:41 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

What if the newsrooms don't cooperate?

Then what? 

The FCC can pull your license.

totally untrue.  the FCC can only pull your license for rule violations.  the research in question has nothing to do with any FCC rule that i am aware of.

edit: in fact, i don't believe the research in question was going to even issue recommendations to broadcasters.  correct me if i am wrong.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 9:51:24 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

We are number 46 in rankings of having a free press. That is sad in itself. 

it is.  do you know WHY that is true?  i doubt it.  but prove me wrong.

hint: it has nothing to do with the FCC.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 7:01:54 GMT -5 marvholly said:

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).

why are you scared about research into how news is made?  just curious.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 0:12:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.

i did, in post 24.  your turn.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 0:23:41 GMT -5 grits said:

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.

don't take this the wrong way, but the PATRIOT Act has little or nothing to do with what the public wanted.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 21, 2014 12:46:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 7:01:54 GMT -5 marvholly said:

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).

why are you scared about research into how news is made?  just curious.

Because everybody from the U.S. House of Representatives to FCC commissioners are in agreement that the FCC has absolutely no business conducting this kind of intrusive "research", and because anybody who lives on this side of the puppies n' rainbows highway knows exactly what the research is going to be used for.

Since you've ignored my question "What do you expect the information to be used for?" three times now, can we officially assume you have no answer?

i did, in post 24. your turn.

The PJ media article is as critical of the "research" as everyone else. It deplores the idea. There isn't so much as a shred of support for it.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 13:01:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 12:46:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

why are you scared about research into how news is made?  just curious.

Because everybody from the U.S. House of Representatives to FCC commissioners are in agreement that the FCC has absolutely no business conducting this kind of intrusive "research",

there you go again, with your absolutes.  you want me to produce a member of one of those bodies that supports the research, or do you want to abandon the point first?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 13:01:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 12:46:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i did, in post 24. your turn.

The PJ media article is as critical of the "research" as everyone else. It deplores the idea. There isn't so much as a shred of support for it.

yes, i know.  that is why i figured you would have no issue with me using their quotations that they obtained from the FCC as to the purpose of the research.  their conclusions are all wet of course, but their citations are accurate.  i see no reason to doubt them.

[Deleted]

There is no defense for this. To even attempt to is just silliness.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 21, 2014 13:17:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 13:01:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Because everybody from the U.S. House of Representatives to FCC commissioners are in agreement that the FCC has absolutely no business conducting this kind of intrusive "research",

there you go again, with your absolutes.  you want me to produce a member of one of those bodies that supports the research, or do you want to abandon the point first?

If that member can provide a clear explanation of the value of the research and its intended use, produce away.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 21, 2014 13:21:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 13:01:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The PJ media article is as critical of the "research" as everyone else. It deplores the idea. There isn't so much as a shred of support for it.

yes, i know.  that is why i figured you would have no issue with me using their quotations that they obtained from the FCC as to the purpose of the research.  their conclusions are all wet of course, but their citations are accurate.  i see no reason to doubt them.

"to ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CIN’s and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations", is just a bowdlerized research description.

Why is the FCC--a regulatory agency without any research mandate whatsoever--sticking agents into newsrooms to ascertain "station priorities", "perceived station bias", "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations"? Of what possible value is this research? Just for kicks and giggles?

[Lizard King]

Some more comment in the Federalist, spinning off from the article I linked in #31

thefederalist.com/2014/02/20/can-the-right-displace-the-establishment-media/

This talks about something I feel is very important - that the debate between left and right is massively skewed by the uncritical acceptance by the masses of a presentation of what actually are leftist tropes from what purport to be centrist sources. The fact that we now routinely decry self-evidently leftist bastions such as MSNBC to an extent masks the pervasive and enduring biases of the 'old media.' When I say that Republicans accept leftist frames, it's in the context of the population as a whole accepting these as orthodox facts rather than subjective and questionable value judgements.

thefederalist.com/2014/02/20/can-the-right-displace-the-established-media-it-already-has/

And this talks about how right-wing media sources have achieved successes by challenging the comfortable consensus in the establishment media - and by maintaining a watchful eye on their own side, as conspicuously doesn't happen on the left.

[kent]

Because everybody from the U.S. House of Representatives to FCC commissioners are in agreement that the FCC has absolutely no business conducting this kind of intrusive "research", and because anybody who lives on this side of the puppies n' rainbows highway knows exactly what the research is going to be used for.

perceived station bias,

The word "perceived" just doesn't ring a bell with for some folks.

Mini history lesson - As Nikita Khrushchev proclaimed on November 18, 1956:

The actual verbal context was: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in" ("Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас закопаем"). In his subsequent public speech Khrushchev declared: "[...] We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can".[4] Later, on August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you,"[5] a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism",

Nothing has really changed since then - this entire situation should be viewed as a warning that there really is a movement afoot to destroy this country and everything it stands for.  Once America becomes the Union of Socialist State Republics (look familiar?) the "movement" will have little trouble with the balance of the world.  If this latest deal doesn't bother people then we really are on slippery slope - how sad.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 13:21:28 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

There is no defense for this. To even attempt to is just silliness.

that is a very candid confession.  i commend you for making it.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 13:22:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 13:17:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there you go again, with your absolutes.  you want me to produce a member of one of those bodies that supports the research, or do you want to abandon the point first?

If that member can provide a clear explanation of the value of the research and its intended use, produce away.

www.theverge.com/2014/2/21/5433088/tom-wheeler-refutes-republican-fears-about-new-fairness-doctrine

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 13:32:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 13:21:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes, i know.  that is why i figured you would have no issue with me using their quotations that they obtained from the FCC as to the purpose of the research.  their conclusions are all wet of course, but their citations are accurate.  i see no reason to doubt them.

"to ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CIN’s and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations", is just a bowdlerized research description.

what do you mean by that?  you don't think it is accurate?  if so, why did pjmedia quote it?

Why is the FCC--a regulatory agency without any research mandate whatsoever--sticking agents into newsrooms to ascertain "station priorities", "perceived station bias", "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations"? Of what possible value is this research? Just for kicks and giggles?

i have already given you ample reason to conclude why when i asked you whether the public should have any say in what is broadcast.  you (or someone else) sidestepped the question by assuming that the people don't want anything useful informationally (which is absolutely false).

[djAdvocate]

confession time: i am fascinated by media issues, and how news is "made", so this study would be of great interest to my media nerdyness.  but that is a PERSONAL perspective.  i am neither defending the study nor attacking it, as i have not read it yet (though i plan to).

[Lizard King]

That the letter candidly references a revival of the Fairness Doctrine indicates that the fears are not wholly unsubstantiated by the historical record.

Wheeler cites section 257 of the Communications Act, which requires the FCC to identify and eliminate market entry barriers for entrepreneurs, while favoring diversity in media voices, as authorizing the CIN study.

The CIN study is examining the critical information needs of the American public, particularly disadvantaged populations therein. It does this by surveying the American public and asking them what their critical information needs are, but supplements this by surveying media outlets at the same time and monitoring what they're telling the American public, what they aren't telling the American public, and what editorial policy dicates which pile a given news story ends up in.

Suppose the study goes ahead. Suppose it finds that Americans aren't being adequately informed about gender politics with a Caribbean emphasis. Suppose it finds that television networks are systematically suppressing stories of that sort in favor of gender politics with an Inuit emphasis. In no way does this represent a market barrier for an enterprising Caribbean gender politics and media expert from exploiting a niche; beyond that deliberately absurd eventuality, no other use for this data could be consistent with the requirements of section 257. And the notion that entities which commoditize news for profit would systematically neglect or marginalize some aspect of reportage that could be identified in a weeklong survey is separately ridiculous: what could be divined in that time period is the ideological leaning of the editorial staff, something in which the executive branch of government has a pertinent but unconstitutional interest.

The stated ends are not apparently supported by the sought-after means. That is what arouses suspicion.

ETA: Here's Wheeler's letter to the Republicans expressing concern at the FCC's intrusion into editorial offices:

energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/letters/20140214FCCresponse.pdf

And here is the research design document for the CIN study:

transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2014 15:30:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 13:21:28 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

There is no defense for this. To even attempt to is just silliness.

that is a very candid confession.  i commend you for making it.

Not a confession of any sort so your post as usual, as clear as mud to me.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 15:54:26 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

That the letter candidly references a revival of the Fairness Doctrine indicates that the fears are not wholly unsubstantiated by the historical record.

i have no problem with the FD, for the record.  i think anyone that actually understands what it does has little problem with it.

Wheeler cites section 257 of the Communications Act, which requires the FCC to identify and eliminate market entry barriers for entrepreneurs, while favoring diversity in media voices, as authorizing the CIN study.

precisely.  existing law.  nothing new, right?  god forbid that we should actually enforce existing law.

The CIN study is examining the critical information needs of the American public, particularly disadvantaged populations therein. It does this by surveying the American public and asking them what their critical information needs are, but supplements this by surveying media outlets at the same time and monitoring what they're telling the American public, what they aren't telling the American public, and what editorial policy dicates which pile a given news story ends up in.

um, no.  there is nothing in the study or the guidelines that would allow for that.  sorry, but that is horsepucky.

Suppose the study goes ahead. Suppose it finds that Americans aren't being adequately informed about gender politics with a Caribbean emphasis. Suppose it finds that television networks are systematically suppressing stories of that sort in favor of gender politics with an Inuit emphasis. In no way does this represent a market barrier for an enterprising Caribbean gender politics and media expert from exploiting a niche; beyond that deliberately absurd eventuality, no other use for this data could be consistent with the requirements of section 257. And the notion that entities which commoditize news for profit would systematically neglect or marginalize some aspect of reportage that could be identified in a weeklong survey is separately ridiculous: what could be divined in that time period is the ideological leaning of the editorial staff, something in which the executive branch of government has a pertinent but unconstitutional interest.

there is a lot of wild ass-pulling here that reflects a misunderstanding of the diversity statutes.  i am going to decline to entertain the argument, if you don't mind, as it bears little if any resemblance to any actual situation.  i will however, add this:

the airwaves are a public resource, owned by the public- not by private interests.  it is up to the public to determine what they are used for, ultimately.  i we want 24/7 musak, then it is our right to demand that, no matter what the cost to broadcasters.

The stated ends are not apparently supported by the sought-after means. That is what arouses suspicion.

dude, let's be frank.  ANY study would do that, alright?  even the most harmless one imaginable.  that is why my immediate reaction to this thread is not one of hysteria for the "indefensible".

ETA: Here's Wheeler's letter to the Republicans expressing concern at the FCC's intrusion into editorial offices:

something weird is happing with formatting, here, lizard king.  i am going to post this and see what happens.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:11:15 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Feb 21, 2014 15:30:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is a very candid confession.  i commend you for making it.

Not a confession of any sort so your post as usual, as clear as mud to me.

sarcasm is hard to read.  sorry about that.

my point was this: the study probably can be defended.  simply claiming it can't is no way to argue.

[djAdvocate]

jim- i downloaded both of those documents for later reading.  thx.

[Deleted]

Have not seen much of a defense yet, doubt it.

Thanks for clarifying though.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 21, 2014 15:36:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 13:22:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If that member can provide a clear explanation of the value of the research and its intended use, produce away.

www.theverge.com/2014/2/21/5433088/tom-wheeler-refutes-republican-fears-about-new-fairness-doctrine

Ah, you found one, did you?

To wit:

The study's goal "would be similar to those of past reports," says Wheeler, "seeking to identify whether potential market barriers exist and, if so, whether those barriers affect diversity of media voices."

...which neither requires nor benefits from the proposed research. Nice try, Mr. Wheeler.


However, the article includes a reassuring update:

Update: In a statement, an FCC spokesperson says Wheeler has agreed that the questionnaire "overstepped the bounds of what is required." As mentioned before, the agency will modify the draft, but it's also taking the larger step of delaying the pilot study until a new version is agreed upon. And the final version will strip out any of the questions to journalists or newsroom managers. "To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, SC pilot study," says the statement. "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."

Best news I've heard all week. And stay the heck out.

[Lizard King]

um, no. there is nothing in the study or the guidelines that would allow for that. sorry, but that is horsepucky.

There is something in the study. That's why I provided a link to the study, so that the skeptical might peruse the source for themselves.

I'll accept that you found nothing in the study to reverse your opinion of it as a harmless and high-minded attempt to get more voices out there (because we all know in the Internet Age that the limits on the number of broadcasters are far tighter than they were in the mid-80s  - this btw is how I denote sarcasm). That doesn't mean there is nothing in it. It just means that you won't find your missing car keys under a lamppost, even if there is more light there.

[Lizard King]

Feb 21, 2014 16:18:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

jim- i downloaded both of those documents for later reading.  thx.

I'm particularly looking at Appendix A. The following questions clearly have nothing to do with investigating editorial policy:

Station Owners, Managers or HR
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• Who is your target audience?
• How do you define critical information that the community needs?

Also:

Corporate, General Managers, News Directors, Editors, etc
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• Who else in your market provides news?
• Who are your main competitors?
• How much news does your station (stations) air every day?
• Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source?
• Do you employ news people?
• How many reporters and editors do you employ?
• Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic “beats”? If so how many and what
are the beats?
• Who decides which stories are covered?
• How much influence do reporters and anchors have in deciding which stories to cover?

Also:

On-Air Staff (Reporters, Anchors)
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• How much news does your station air every day?
• Who decides which stories are covered?
• How much influence do you have in deciding which stories to cover?
• Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information
for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?
o If so, can you give an example?
o What was the reason given for the decision?
o Why do you disagree?

All of which serves only the purpose of evaluating the editorial process of the entity in question from a perspective of deciding what they're selling as news, what they're suppressing, and how they make the determination in either case. Which is none of the FCCs business.

As with Obama's valiant attempt to redefine 'commerce' as 'lack of commerce,' the FCC cannot plausibly claim jurisdiction over content that isn't aired. They don't, for example, ask how many times reporters swear off-air: that's none of their concern.

Even asking these questions has a chilling effect, considering the source dishes out broadcast licenses.