Government Interference In The Media?

"Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

I know we have discussed whether or not there is a liberal bias in the media, but I don't want the government interfering in any of it because it would infringe on freedom of the press. We don't need a "Fairness Doctrine" or any thing of that sort--amazingly, both Republicans and Democrats have held the White House (and Congress) without government interference. The "public service" of radio and television stations should be to provide emergency information and PSAs for organizations, not to serve up the news the way the government deems fit.

This is not a right or left, Republican or Democrat issue...this is deeper than that. Once I am in your newsroom asking questions, I can begin to drive you in a certain direction. I want neither Barack Obama or George Bush running newsrooms. I can handle the apparent bias by changing channels; I don't need the government to control them.

Reporters Without Borders maintains a World Press Freedom Index:

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

The USA ranks a pathetic 46th. (Top 3 are Finland, Netherlands and Norway.)

But don't worry, it's ok because terrorism.

Would make no difference. America doesn't have media anymore.

Liberties of United States citizens have been compromised and remain under attack since 9/11. I realize some changes were needed. The federal government is tasked with assessing threats and implementing measures to ensure the safety of the country. But, IMO, the pendulum has swung too far. The cited Reporters Without Borders web page also identifies the recent intense efforts to uncover government leaks as a reason the US dropped 13 places in the most recent index. The feds are going after reporters sources, even in cases where the whistleblowers divulged information clearly in the public's interest. Yes, freedom of the press is under attack.

I don't agree with the opinion that America doesn't have media anymore. True, the mainstream media has become an entertainment venue. There is so much crap being pushed out it's hard to find good journalism, but it is still out there. I find the BBC broadcasts far more informative than any major US news source.

Though it appears that this idea has been put aside for now, here is good reason to keep politics out of the control of media:

"And the campaign of Rep. Gary Peters is also going after television stations airing ads in which her story is featured, threatening their licenses."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/michigan-democrat-rep.-gary-peters-threatens-tv-station-licenses-over-obamacare-ad/article/2544430

There was a negative ad against Obamacare.

"The ad by Americans for Prosperity features Boonstra talking about how her insurance was canceled under Obamacare and saying that Peters' decision to vote for the law "jeopardized my health."

There is some question of whether or not she could find comparable (same coverages, same total costs, etc.--in other words. the health insurance she liked and wanted to keep) but she disputes the contention that the policies found by fact checkers are proven to cost the same:

"the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" blog gave the ad "two Pinocchios" (as compared to four for President Obama's claim that people could keep their insurance under the law)."

This demonstrates why the media is valuable, even in the current flawed state, and government intervention is a bad thing. It also points out where the media missed something huge (intentional or unintentional) that is best left for discussion in the Obamacare thread (they should have fact-checked the President more about his promises).

The media can help sort out the truth. A heavy-handed government pulling licenses for perceived transgressions will lead us to their truth...not where we want to go.

With either party.

With either Liberalism or Conservatism.

The fact that a threat was made to the license by a campaign should lead to the removal of the staff members making such a threat. If the candidate opposes the ad, that is fine. If he wants the license threatened, I hope the Democrats have better sense than to elect him.

I'd say the exact same thing if he was a Republican.

Quote: RonC

"Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring."

I'm not sure why this comes as any kind of surprise. The Obama war on FNC is only a small part of it. Look at McCain-Feingold. Look at the time Nancy Pelosi said Look at Nancy Pelosi on Free Speech. Push for Obamacare in the NFL and even sitcoms.

As some of us said this the past 5 or even more years we were called "racists" or "tea-baggers." Well let me say to one and all that they will not stop at this trial-balloon. It will go on some other way. Perhaps just "measuring" stories that air, not in the newsroom. Perhaps something else.

Quote: AZDuffman

I'm not sure why this comes as any kind of surprise. The Obama war on FNC is only a small part of it. Look at McCain-Feingold. Look at the time Nancy Pelosi said Look at Nancy Pelosi on Free Speech. Push for Obamacare in the NFL and even sitcoms.

As some of us said this the past 5 or even more years we were called "racists" or "tea-baggers." Well let me say to one and all that they will not stop at this trial-balloon. It will go on some other way. Perhaps just "measuring" stories that air, not in the newsroom. Perhaps something else.

I understand, but we need to keep bringing it up so that those who aren't against freedom of speech (for everyone) help keep those who are from winning.

Those idiots who call tea party supporters "racists" have the right to say that; it actually helps prove they aren't all that smart.

Quote: RonC

I understand, but we need to keep bringing it up so that those who aren't against freedom of speech (for everyone) help keep those who are from winning.

Sadly it will always be a losing battle in this country. An Achilles Heel of Americans is we usually want to be "fair" to everyone. So the FCC decides to monitor news, a portion of the USA will say, "well, it is for a good cause to make things 'fair.'" Run an "attack ad" against a candidate you do not like near an election? Not fair, lets ban it.

Heck, they didn't name it the "Fairness Doctrine" for no reason.

I believe there is a portion of the population who would not care if the news intro said "BPEMR" in the name of "fairness." Lots of sheep out there.

Quote:

Those idiots who call tea party supporters "racists" have the right to say that; it actually helps prove they aren't all that smart.

+1. If all they can say is that I am a racist then I must be doing something right.