FCC to "monitor" news stations - wow!

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:19:29 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

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 said the guidelines, not the study.  i have already clearly stated that i have not read the study.

I'll accept that you found nothing in the study to reverse your opinion of it as a harmless

then you have accepted your own mythology, as i have clearly stated that i have not formed an opinion on it, yet.  the ONLY thing i stated is that i am disinclined to shoot from the hip.  if you have a problem with that, i would be very surprised.  however, that surprise will in no way affect my behavior now or in the future.

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.

your suggestion that i have actually taken a position here is more absent than my keys, sir.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:23:25 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

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:

i will read the whole thing- cover to cover.  this is actually one of my favourite issues.  i know way more about it than polling. 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:19:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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

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

Ah, you found one, did you?

To wit:

to wit nothing.  you asked for someone from the FCC board that supported the study.  i gave you the chair.

it is a shame, but i sense this will not stop you from talking in absolutes.

[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 said the guidelines, not the study. i have already clearly stated that i have not read the study.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:19:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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

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

stay out of what, exactly?

[Lizard King]

The necessity for the FCC to monitor editorial policy at any one news outlet is inversely proportional to the number of competitors warring with it for a market share of advertising revenues.

You know at least as well as anybody here that the news business is, at bottom, a competition for ad dollars.

There is no way that that environment correlates a greater pure number of broadcasters with a narrower spectrum of news philosophies.

[Lizard King]

I just had a vision of myself and dj entering into a professional nitpicking partnership. He'd handle everything general, I'd do the specific stuff.

"No nit left unpicked, since 2013"

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 21, 2014 16:27:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 16:19:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Ah, you found one, did you?

To wit:

to wit nothing.  you asked for someone from the FCC board that supported the study.  i gave you the chair.

it is a shame, but i sense this will not stop you from talking in absolutes.

I asked you to describe the value of the newsroom inquiry and what good it could be used for.

You posted a link to an article wherein the FCC chair provides a rationale (that I quoted) that in no way requires the inquiry. And not one paragraph later, the same article has Mr. Wheeler dolefully agreeing the inquiry "overstepped the bounds of what is required" and assuring the public that it will be stripped from the study.

Hence thank you. I'm quite satisfied with how this all turned out.

stay out of what, exactly?

Stay out of auditing news from inside the newsroom. The government has no business whatsoever monitoring how news outlets collect, filter, and vet news.

Keep an eye on the broadcasted product to ensure it meets minimum content standards, but otherwise stay. out.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:28:26 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

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 said the guidelines, not the study. i have already clearly stated that i have not read the study.

by "that" i was talking about enforcement.  sorry, that was confusing.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:32:23 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

I just had a vision of myself and dj entering into a professional nitpicking partnership. He'd handle everything general, I'd do the specific stuff.

"No nit left unpicked, since 2013"

yeah, like YOU are one to talk!

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:42:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 16:27:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

to wit nothing.  you asked for someone from the FCC board that supported the study.  i gave you the chair.

it is a shame, but i sense this will not stop you from talking in absolutes.

I asked you to describe the value of the newsroom inquiry and what good it could be used for.

You posted a link to an article wherein the FCC chair provides a rationale (that I quoted) that in no way requires the inquiry.

um- no.  you asked for proof that someone in the FCC OR congress was supportive of the study, and i provided that. 

the "what it could be used for" was already answered.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:42:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 16:27:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

stay out of what, exactly?

Stay out of auditing news from inside the newsroom. The government has no business whatsoever monitoring how news outlets collect, filter, and vet news.

that is an interesting assertion.  what if it were shown that the news media were not actually reporting news?  what if it were shown that 100% of what was being broadcast was being supplied by corporations as PR flack?  would you consider that discovery important, or immaterial?  would you consider it of public interest?  if so, why should it NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC?

Keep an eye on the broadcasted product to ensure it meets minimum content standards, but otherwise stay. out.

that is a funny reply, in that i feel pretty confident that the study was made to ensure what you just said was within the scope of the FCC.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 21, 2014 17:11:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2014 16:42:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I asked you to describe the value of the newsroom inquiry and what good it could be used for.

You posted a link to an article wherein the FCC chair provides a rationale (that I quoted) that in no way requires the inquiry.

um- no.  you asked for proof that someone in the FCC OR congress was supportive of the study, and i provided that.

My memory must be going. You'll have to point out to me where exactly I asked for that.

But otherwise: issue resolved. As I said, the update was the best news I've heard all week. Except maybe for our hockey teams kicking butt.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 16:42:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 16:27:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Hence thank you. I'm quite satisfied with how this all turned out.

me too, as luck would have it.  except you never thanked me for it, nor did you retract your absolute statement.  but i am learning to lower my expectations with you, in line with how little you apparently think of me. 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 17:16:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 17:11:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um- no.  you asked for proof that someone in the FCC OR congress was supportive of the study, and i provided that.

My memory must be going. You'll have to point out to me where exactly I asked for that.

you never ask.  you just assert stuff, and i have to point out that it is rubbish.  here is the assertion:

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.

that is not true.  Wheeler has very clearly stated that this is within the scope of the FCC's work.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 17:16:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2014 17:11:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um- no.  you asked for proof that someone in the FCC OR congress was supportive of the study, and i provided that.

My memory must be going. You'll have to point out to me where exactly I asked for that.

But otherwise: issue resolved. As I said, the update was the best news I've heard all week. Except maybe for our hockey teams kicking butt.

this was already known from post1 or so.  you could have gotten back to your game a lot earlier.

[Virgil Showlion]

Wheeler has very clearly stated that this is within the scope of the FCC's work.

...at least until he very clearly admitted that it wasn't and it would be axed from the study.

what if it were shown that 100% of what was being broadcast was being supplied by corporations as PR flack? would you consider that discovery important, or immaterial?

I would consider it beyond a government's right to determine.

If I knew you were an agent paid by a pro-Democratic organization to influence conversations on this message board, that discovery would indeed be important and material to how I viewed your contributions. Even so, I thankfully do not have the right to track down your IP, send an agent into your study, and monitor your procedures for collecting and vetting your posts.

You are constitutionally shielded from government intrusion. The press is constitutionally shielded from government intrusion. As the House Republicans so eloquently put it, the freedom and independence of the press is a "bedrock constitutional principle". Those principles clearly outweigh what little benefit might be derived from intrusive study.

My props to Mr. Pai for recognizing that from the first, and to Mr. Wheeler for coming to his senses.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 17:37:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Wheeler has very clearly stated that this is within the scope of the FCC's work.

...at least until he very clearly admitted that it wasn't and it would be axed from the study.

that is not what he said.  he said it "overstepped the bounds of what is REQUIRED".  this is actually the opposite of what you are claiming he said.  he was saying the scope of the monitoring was unnecessary to the STUDY, not that it was an intrusion.

he will find another way to monitor, i am sure. 

you really like making stuff up, huh? 

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 17:37:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Wheeler has very clearly stated that this is within the scope of the FCC's work.

...at least until he very clearly admitted that it wasn't and it would be axed from the study.

what if it were shown that 100% of what was being broadcast was being supplied by corporations as PR flack? would you consider that discovery important, or immaterial?

I would consider it beyond a government's right to determine.

i see.  so, it is not within the scope of the government to determine if a fascist NGO took over the airwaves, and was broadcasting utter rubbish to only their benefit?

good to know.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 17:37:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If I knew you were an agent paid by a pro-Democratic organization to influence conversations on this message board, that discovery would indeed be important and material to how I viewed your contributions. Even so, I thankfully do not have the right to track down your IP, send an agent into your study, and monitor your procedures for collecting and vetting your posts.

i would happily volunteer that information, so there is no need to trouble yourself with that.

You are constitutionally shielded from government intrusion.

true.  but i am not shielded from intrusion by proboards.  that is just so vastly superior, doncha know?

The press is constitutionally shielded from government intrusion.

irrelevant.  monitoring is not a violation of the constitution.  you already said so.  neither is regulating content.  sorry, but it just isn't.  this has been tried over and over and over again, all the way to the SCOTUS.

As the House Republicans so eloquently put it, the freedom and independence of the press is a "bedrock constitutional principle". Those principles clearly outweigh what little benefit might be derived from intrusive study.

the GOP is making the same mistake you are, conflating monitoring with censorship.  this is the equivalent of equating a microscope with blindness.

My props to Mr. Pai for recognizing that from the first, and to Mr. Wheeler for coming to his senses.

Mr. Pai is delusional, imo.  the best thing to do would have been to ignore him.

[Virgil Showlion]

good to know.

And now you know it.

A pleasant weekend to you.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 17:55:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

good to know.

And now you know it.

A pleasant weekend to you.

and to you, as well.  shabbat shalom.

[zibazinski]

Looks like they had to back off a little bit. But they'll be back with another "story."

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2014 18:53:10 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Looks like they had to back off a little bit. But they'll be back with another "story."

'zactly.

[grits]

Feb 21, 2014 12:48:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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.

They used anger and fear among the masses to fuel their arguments for it. It never has been in the best interest of the public. It was in the interest of corrupt government. They can suppress our freedoms at will.

I do seriously believe that we must strongly oppose the governments intervention in the broadcasting of news. The government will see to it that the masses are only fed what they want them to hear. Rather like the official Chinese government stations, and the Soviet Union news propaganda machine.

Also, I strongly oppose the government having the power to kill the internet in so-called national security interest. It is something that Senator Lieberman proposed a few years back.

Silencing the transmission of the news can enable a dictatorship to come into being before the public even knows what has happened to it.

I do believe that people foolishly think it can never happen in the USA. I think it is highly likely it will happen if the public doesn't wake up, and force change.

[pappyjohn99]

Remember the movie "The Hunt for Red October" ? The first move they made was to slam the "Political Officer's" head into the the floor. I think this is the approprote responce to this idea. Make it a bad idea for the first guy so no other guys think this will be okay.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 22, 2014 17:50:09 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Remember the movie "The Hunt for Red October" ? The first move they made was to slam the "Political Officer's" head into the the floor. I think this is the approprote responce to this idea. Make it a bad idea for the first guy so no other guys think this will be okay.

whose head are you suggesting should be slammed to the floor, and why?

[pappyjohn99]

I contend that an FCC investigator is a first step toward what could only be called a "Politcal Officer". The idea that any administation inserts someone to judge how the news is determinded or distributed is contrary to the Constitution and damn offensive. Anyone that would accept a job like that is one step away from "Jackboots" and IMO should have his head slammed, and be held up as warning to the next guy that might think this is OK.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 22, 2014 18:55:28 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

I contend that an FCC investigator is a first step toward what could only be called a "Politcal Officer". The idea that any administation inserts someone to judge how the news is determinded or distributed is contrary to the Constitution and damn offensive. Anyone that would accept a job like that is one step away from "Jackboots" and IMO should have his head slammed, and be held up as warning to the next guy that might think this is OK.

"nobody" would have been a good answer, since no inspectors were ever appointed.

[pappyjohn99]

And they should never be. If they are, they should be fearful every single moment of every single day.

"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Thomas Jefferson