Posted on 02/21/2014 8:03:41 AM PST by kristinn
The head of the Federal Communications Commission is trying to douse Republican accusations that his agency is trying to covertly police the editorial decisions of TV news.
In a letter to senior House Republicans released Thursday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency "has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters."
Republicans have picked at an FCC study introduced last spring on "critical information needs" that is intended to examine barriers of entry into the news media industry for small businesses. The study's inquiry included questions such as: "What is the news philosophy of the station?" and "Who decides which stories are covered?"
The FCC is required by law to conduct such research studies, but the commission's critics say this one was an initial foray into an effort to regulate newsrooms' editorial decisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
No intention, until they decide they don’t want a story out or that the Pres_ent isn’t portraying in a good light.
No stay out of our newsrooms
“Nice newsroom & studios you got here, citizen. Be a shame if anything bad happened to them. Just remember who grants your license to broadcast.”
Oh sure - does anyone expect they were going to say anything different?
The MSM just found out what the sting of change is all about yet they will suck up even more to avoid the or else factor.
The FCC is required by law...
Besides, the Federal government is required by Federal law to do this (How convenient)
Game of Lies marches on.
We don’t need no steeenkin’ First Amendment!
"Picked at"? That's at least the third different spin I've heard on that issue. Yesterday it was to examine barriers against minority participation. Then we have this gem:
The study's inquiry included questions such as: "What is the news philosophy of the station?" and "Who decides which stories are covered?"
So what we have here is a representative from the regulating agency of the federal government asking those questions and it somehow ISN'T an attempt to exert political influence? And nobody in the media cares enough to say anything?
Stick a fork in the news media. They're done.
. . . the left realizes that any effort to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine . . . could be challenged as a violation of the First Amendment . . . [instead they will try] exploiting . . . [FCC] localism regulations [that stations] must "serve the interests" of the communities in their respective listening areas . . . [and interest is defined solely] in terms of "diversity . . . .here
I remember all the decades of the Fairness Doctrine. I remember when one hour a week of Buckley's Firing Line on PBS was all the fairness conservative opinion needed.
If the left ever gets away with doing that again it's time to -- like the hundreds of thousands of citizens past -- defend free speech against oppressors with blood.. our free speech, their blood.
The thing is the type of “data” they claim to be seeking should be evident by the output of these news organizations. Read, watch, or listen to the stuff...it tells anybody what they want to know about ‘prioritization philosophies”!
We're Going to Police Their Newsroom(The Blaze,Fox,etc)
Rep. Clyburn Likens American Media To Nazi Propagandists (from 8-22-13)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/318089-clyburn-likens-extreme-right-wing-media-to-nazi-propagandists
Clyburn Speaks on Media Ownership at Senate Confirmation Hearing
http://politic365.com/2012/12/06/fcc-commissioner-mignon-clyburn-speaks-on-media-ownership-at-senate-confirmation-hearing/
(This is Clyburn’s daughter...an FCC Obamz Czar)
Why would the government want to “police” its commie sponsors?
The FCC is required by law to conduct such research studies...
Really? Since when has it been required by law to ask broadcasters about "What is the news philosophy" and "Who decides which stories get covered?" I've never heard of this law.
Most “reporters” are very proud to be propagandists for the current administration.
Answered in this thread, restated/reformulated here:
With my conspiracy-theory hat firmly in-place; here's a reason why:
Because government is getting ready to do something so overboard, so heavy-handed that even the news-casters might feel pangs of conscience.
What if they're getting ready for a false-flag "terrorist"-event: "rebels", gun-clingers, radical islam, government agents playing a role, people goaded into action, it hardly matters. Probably in some decent-sized (but not huge city).
They move in, snap down controls on communications and travel, "for security". Then go through the area, hunting "insurgents" (which give reason for them to institute a "controlled weapons zone" [one where only government agents have weapons]) and any resistance/attrition gives them excuse to increase security &mdsah; they wouldn't have to go house-to-house and confiscate guns, just a guy here and there (a few from differing locations every so often). Then, when someone makes a threatening/surprising move and sparks a firefight it's evidence that they're on the "insurgents"'s trail. — they could also cut power, forcing people to go to a security arena if they want food (and that'll be a secure place, where mere civilians won't be allowed weapons).
From the outside, they'll portray it as a necessary response to deep-seated terrorist cells, probably claiming the restricted travel is to keep deep-cover sleeper-cell agents contained. Once that city has been "normalized", they can move on to another.
They have the NSA's meta-data scooper and analysis-engines going — it would be stupid to think that they have not already built a network-map of people who would be prominent leaders in a domestic uprising. They would want to crush those few people first, employing a rapid-dominance strategy before their enemies realized that they were engaged.
Imagine, also, that they do this in conjunction with an amnesty bill passed in secret… this would piss off a lot of people, perhaps enough to do something about it
, but the majority of Americans would have no idea: the government could then use these actions [those in response to this secret-amnesty] to try to push the narrative that it's terrorists. ("See, we told you that patriots and returning vets were potential terrorists!")
[/conspiracy-theory]
The government likes to make the victims of its lawlessness into "the bad-guy" to justify its use of force (see Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX).
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
— William Pitt
Is it time yet, Claire...?
A positively Clintonian word-parsing. Not you, them.
Great catch.
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.