Posted on 12/04/2010 11:43:36 AM PST by jazusamo
Keeping with President Obama’s big government ambitions, the Federal Communications Commission has announced a plan to control the internet and a proposal to sustain “traditional media” by requiring broadcasters to reflect ethnic diversity and a commitment to public affairs programming to keep their license.
Both agendas were revealed this week by two separate FCC commissioners, Michael Copps and Julius Genachowski, who was crowned agency chairman by Obama. The FCC’s five commissioners are political appointees assigned by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms. Their job is to regulate interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.
Now the agency wants to control cyberspace with yet-to-be-disclosed rules that will “preserve the freedom and openness of the internet.” Genachowski announced that a draft of the secret rules is complete, but the proposed regulations are being kept from the public until commissioners vote on them later this month. In fact, a newspaper report reveals that Genachowski’s draft document is stamped “non-public, for internal use only” to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved.
Also this week, Copps threatened free speech and enterprise with an outrageous proposal that’s clearly aimed at conservative stations viewed as a threat to the administration’s liberal agenda. To “help media help democracy” the FCC should conduct a “public value test” of every commercial broadcaster before renewing their license and the process should occur every four years instead of the current eight, according to the plan (pdf).
If a station doesn’t pass the public value test it goes on probation for a year and eventually loses its broadcasting rights if it doesn’t demonstrate “measurable progress” to serve the public interest. The so-called public value test features seven parts, including how well stations reflect ethnic diversity, a meaningful commitment to news and public affairs programming and political advertising disclosure.
Who will listen to them anyway? too many great alternatives like Rush, Hannity, Beck...liberal radio shows never draw an audience
But...Rush has Dr Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell fill in for him...and I bet he stays on the air.
Heavy handed viewpoint regulation... it’s difficult to see how this could pass muster with First Amendment jurisprudence as we know it.
Yeah, we demand a WET (and for FAIRNESS a RET and a YET) to go along with BET! I mean it’s just not fair to ignore all those Palefaces, Injuns and Orientals.
Orwell predicted this could happen, but he thought it would be here earlier than it finally arrived.
It was America that pushed the schedule back, and the American public that wouldn’t allow it. But as the statists managed to get more an more of the American public addicted to the government teat, and brought in more and more illegal aliens who see nothing wrong with the idea of the government running everything in their lives (since that’s the way it is where they come from), the statists are getting back on schedule.
Hopefully, the new congress will defund the fcc and other fascistic (term correctly used) government agencies that are destroying America.
Mark
But if you're Black, Hispanic, a woman, or any other of the oppressed minority class, you MUST be a hardcore leftist, so your views aren't being represented on talk radio.
Mark
The so-called public value test features seven parts, including how well stations reflect ethnic diversity, a meaningful commitment to news
Sounds wonderful provided that journalism is objective. However, any organization which takes its own objectivity for granted, or belongs to a mutual admiration society (such as the Associated Press) which claims that all its members are objective, is patently not objective about itself. Journalists boast of their "objective" criteria for news but those rules - "If it bleeds, it leads," "'Man Bites Dog' rather than 'Dog Bites Man'," "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper," etc - are patently intended to to interest the public and do not promote the public interest.and public affairs programmingThere is no way to prove that "news" and political opinion can be separated.
and political advertising disclosure.Since the distinction between news and political opinion is not an actual difference, the distinction between political advertising and news does not represent an actual difference either.
Absolutely! It's well worth repeating.
As always, well stated, cIc!
We were going to spend some time in Southern Texas, but because the many Spanish radio stations and the lack of Talk Radio in McAllen/Edinburg area, we decided to spend time in Biloxi/Gulfport, MS area.
Obviously, this isn’t about diversity, it’s about CONTROL. Control should be Obama’s middle name. The free market doesn’t do what Obama’s ilk want? The solution’s easy: start dictating what is appropriately diverse. Oppressive governments throughout history have known the importance of controlling the message. They always couch it in terms of protecting the people when their real goal is suppressing opposition.
Another bite out of our freedom courtesy of The Obama Regime.
That's exactly what Zer0's all about, he has a rude awakening coming.
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.