Posted on 02/22/2014 9:15:36 AM PST by John Semmens
The Federal Communications Commission plan to send “researchers” into newsrooms in order to observe how stories are selected and reported has sparked fears of government intimidation and censorship. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said “the mere presence of agents of the government may exert a subtle pressure to slant reporting in a way that deters critical coverage of Administration policies.”
Ajit Pai, one of the FCC's Commissioners, voiced his concern that “this claimed 'information gathering effort' to ascertain the 'philosophy' behind how those in the news media do their jobs could stifle dissent. It strikes me as beyond the scope of the Commission's legitimate authority.”
Representative Fred Upton (R-Mich), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce argued that “The FCC was created to ensure that broadcast media is competitive and is not monopolized by any one business entity or point of view. Sending personnel from the FCC into newsrooms to ask about their 'philosophy' and demanding to know who chooses which stories to report isn't a necessary or appropriate method for carrying out the agency's legally authorized responsibilities. It has the heavy-handed appearance of a tactic aimed at influencing how the news is reported.”
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler characterized these apprehensions as “the typical overreactions of those who are out-of-step with President Obama's agenda for transforming this country. Our goal at this stage of the process is to obtain information on who is doing what. Media outlets that are doing a good job of covering essential information and meeting the needs of under-served populations can avoid duplicating the fate of Jay Leno whose excessive and inappropriate mockery of the President necessitated his involuntary exit from his cherished gig as host of the Tonight Show.”
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn defended the initiative saying that “we must emphatically insist that we leave no American behind when it comes to receiving the news that the Administration has determined is essential for them to hear. Finding out who is adequately doing this job and who is not must be the first step in any plan to reform how information is transmitted by media outlets entrusted with this public responsibility.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/150881-2014-02-21-semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-february-23-2014.htm
ping
Similar critics were warning of Obamacare 3 years ago, and we find out many of them were right.
The Administration has a history of poor credibility. Why should we believe them on this issue?
I caught this early, because even though it’s true they wouldn’t say it.
Yeah we didn’t act enough against his other intrusions and look where it got us.
Yeah right... we are over reacting...so disgusting.
Good one John.
“the typical overreactions of those who are out-of-step with President Obama’s agenda for transforming this country.”
Thug.
Her a sick man.
My mommy use to decide what I hear and saw...
I smell an eventual attempt to once again shut down talk radio with the equal time crap that the commies want to use to shut down conservative radio. That is the ONLY area where the conservative voice can be heard. TV is gone. The Internet and radio are our only avenues to getting the truth in and out. The Fairness Doctrine garbage is their avenue to shut it all down.
Yer a sick man.
My mommy use to decide what I heard and saw...
(fixed)
Your Mammy Barack will take over now!
Another great one, John. Thanks.
But the problem is, I think, that the Big Brother news monitors have already infiltrated the positions of power in the newsrooms over the past century.
Driving to and from work and running errands during my lunch break, [yes, I work - not on board with the whole Fundamental Transformation yet, I’m sad to say] I listen to conservative talk radio [only because, uh, I think it’s my patriotic duty to know what those domestic terrorists are up to, you see].
What’s on the news and other breaks during these conservative shows, you ask? I’ll do you the favor of skipping my well-honed rant on the pathetically Great Society PSAs insulting my sensibilities during program breaks, and just mention the trajectory of the actual “news” these days, be it ABC or Fox or whomever.
Almost every single lead story starts off with “The Administation . . . “ or “President Obama . . . “.
Lately, news about Ukraine dominates as the headline, but it goes like this: “President Obama has issued a statement today condemning the violence in KIev, and . . . .”
Alternatively, “The Administration has declared a state of emergency in several states along the Eastern seaboard due to the severe and prolonged winter weather.” This sort of “news” is then frequently embellished - for the sake of transparency, I suppose - to include vital info about number of inches of snowfall in (center of the universe) Washington, DC.
Or, perhaps [my favorite three-step news maneuver], “At a press conference today, White House spokesman Jay Carney announced that President Obama is in meetings with key figures in the Administration to side-step Congressional gridlock regarding the proliferation of carbon pollution and the use of environmentally devastating fossil fuels.” Now that really IS news - if they hadn’t told me, I never would have guessed!
For variety, they may throw in the latest spectacular car accident somewhere, or lottery winner, or Olympic drama, or celebrity scandal or some such at the end . . . . “And that’s the news.”
Sig Heil!
Commission plan to send “researchers” into newsrooms in order to observe how stories are selected and reported.
The new KGB goes electric.
WAAAY outside their purview/jurisdiction... The original plan of the survey would also have taken the FCC out of its traditional purview of regulating supposedly scarce airwaves. Because the CIN sought to discover “underserved” consumers in a variety of “media ecologies,” the survey would have included not only broadcast media but newspapers, blogs, and online news.
” The government simply has no interest in or legitimate need to know how news stories are selected, vetted, written or reported - or how they are not. It is an unconstitutional and improper use of taxpayer money. “
90% of everything the FCC already does is an anathema to the 1st amendment...
Big Brother is watching.
>Apparently that's part of the semi-satire, but it is understated.
The new rule is: "Ask not what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your government. Or else. Capisce?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.