Homeland Security to compile database of journalists and ‘media influencers’

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 04/07/2018 | Sun-Times Staff

[TaxPayer2000]

The Department of Homeland Security wants to track the comings and goings of journalists, bloggers and other “media influencers” through a database.

The DHS’s “Media Monitoring” plan, which was first reported by FedBizOpps.gov, would give the contracting company “24/7 access to a password protected, media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.” in order to “identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event.”

The database would be designed to monitor the public activities of media members and influencers by “location, beat and influencers,” the document says.

The chosen contractor should be able to “present contact details and any other information that could be relevant including publications this influencer writes for, and an overview of the previous coverage published by the influencer.”

Also, the contractor would have access to a password protected, mobile app that provides an “overview of search results in terms of online articles and social media conversations,” in several different languages such as Arabic, Chinese and Russian.

The request comes amid concerns regarding accuracy in media and the potential for U.S. elections and policy to be influenced via “fake news.”

The plan calls for the ability to track 290,000 news sources including online, print, broadcast and social media. Also, it would have the ability to track media coverage in over 100 languages, along with the “ability to create unlimited data tracking, statistical breakdown, and graphical analyses on ad-hoc basis.”

DHS spokesman Tyler Q. Houlton tweeted on Friday that the practice of monitoring the press is considered “standard.”

Responses from would be contractors are due April 13.

[papertyger]

...but I would hope there is a better way.

...

No solution is going to be perfect, but I prefer solutions in which private citizens get to decide, rather than the government.

Any way you look at it, there MUST be a fundamental change in the media's "heads I win, tails you lose" Constitutional status.

They are so fond of pointing out the Founders never envisioned the types of weapons we have today when they wrote the Second Amendment. Well, the Founders never envisioned a "Press Cartel" that can literally gaslight vast swaths of private citizens who aren't consumed with documenting the objective validity of what they are told by the modern Press, either.

Please note the kind of solutions you "hope for" are even more punitive and/or restrictive than what's being proposed, and would further require a new authority be given to some as of yet unnamed third party arbiter...so what's the difference?

And it's not like most private citizens have the training in critical thinking and documentary analysis to "catch" what the media does when it "spins" the news, so how are THEY supposed to make those determinations?

[neverevergiveup]

And it's not like most private citizens have the training in critical thinking and documentary analysis to "catch" what the media does when it "spins" the news, so how are THEY supposed to make those determinations?

Again, I understand and don't disagree with your points, but there are caveats to everything. Actually, it has been largely private citizens, including quite a few FReepers who have held the media's feet to the fire, time and time again. To be honest, I don't think there are that many 'critical thinkers' in government, so not sure how any approach that relies on the knowledge (let alone integrity) of government is going to work. Critical thinking, or for that matter reasonable thinking, are not prerequisites to success achieving public office. For the most part, being a self-centered willing to say anything narcissist appears to be a sufficient talent set. Your point about the founders not anticipating the power of modern media and communications is very true and insightful, and if they had maybe we would have had four branches of government, including one that addressed propaganda.

[momincombatboots]

Um.. truthfully we have lost more gun rights under this prez and I am not a fan of media tracking.
We still have no Wall, but a great plan to shed the blood of American troops on the border while spending oodles of cash to do so. Yeah, dead soldiers are much better than a wall.

[papertyger]

i do understand we are fundamentally on the same page. My grievance is that while you understand the problem, I believe good people like you will stand in the way of the solution for fear of some nebulous possibility of how government COULD misuse its power (always a possibility) when clearly nothing BUT govenment can effectively address a problem that HAS become a reality.

I also understand that FReepers have been on the forefront of "catching" what the media does. However, we almost never get any TRACTION. The media is perfectly content to ignore our criticisms, because we don't have their ability to FORCE a narrative into the public conversation the way they do. We can't badger them with questions about dead issues the way they can. We can't publicly shame them with inuendo the way they can. etc...

Finally, on the matter of govenment's capacity to exercise critical faculties I have one example that should definitively confute your intimation: read some OSHA regulations.

While OSHA regulations are a legitimate topic for debate, they have proven themselves ABSOLUTE GENIUSES at figuring how to write their regulations in such a way as to preclude cagey businesses from weaseling their way out of obeying those regulations.

I have no fear of government qua government; I fear government that perpetuates itself beyond the mandate to which we have consented.

[i_robot73]

>
Um.. truthfully we have lost more gun rights under this prez and I am not a fan of media tracking.
We still have no Wall, but a great plan to shed the blood of American troops on the border while spending oodles of cash to do so. Yeah, dead soldiers are much better than a wall.
>

At least the troops are a true\lawful govt activity (protecting our border(s)). I will give benefit of the doubt until I see what push-comes-2-shove time.

Unfort., IMO, he’s got VERY few, if any, true Constitutionalists in his ‘circle’...

[i_robot73]

>
So, the government wants to be the final determinant of ‘true’ news and ‘fake’ news, and in particular any news related to itself? Wow. What could go wrong?
>

Wasn’t there a story about GWB (or was it Zero) signing off on govt propaganda??

So, not only will they be determining ‘fake’ vs. ‘news’; they’ll be the ‘source’ for whichever fork they decide to take??

[trebb]

Yep - monitoring the real enemies and purveyors of anti-American propaganda is a real lousy idea.....;-}

Wait - let me think on that.....as we all should.

[Travis McGee]

Depends on who is (mis)using the information, and why.