Freedom of the Press......

[Duck Rodgers]

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

News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

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 don't know what good petitions are, but here's one that seems to be picking up steam if you are against this type of nonsense :

https://aclj.org/free-speech-2/no-government-monitors-in-newsrooms

 

[One Brow]

I don't know what good petitions are, but here's one that seems to be picking up steam if you are against this type of nonsense :

Do you have any evidence this is coercion instead of investigation?

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Do you have any evidence this is coercion instead of investigation?

I think presence alone is chilling enough for me and many others. If you need to wait 10 years for some NSA agent to go rouge and tell everyone that the NSA is spying on everybody, that's your choice to think within those parameters. But people have been saying that forever. I'm of the mindset that it's probably better to nip it in the bud before it ever happens. You want a free press? Defend it at the first sign of encroachment.

I think the real question is, what possibly could be freedom enhancing about an FCC investigation? They are obviously looking for new ways to assert control. And considering we already rank terribly low on lists like this:

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

I think it's safe to say, we don't need any more of that.

 

[One Brow]

I think presence alone is chilling enough for me and many others. If you need to wait 10 years for some NSA agent to go rouge and tell everyone that the NSA is spying on everybody, that's your choice to think within those parameters.

I've been reading about NSA spying since the Patriot Act was passed. This has little or nothing to do with the FCC.

You want a free press? Defend it at the first sign of encroachment.

I agree, which is why I asked you for a sign of encroachment.

I think the real question is, what possibly could be freedom enhancing about an FCC investigation? They are obviously looking for new ways to assert control.

The mainstream media is already in bed with the government, and has been since Reagan. This investigation won't alter that for better or worse.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

And wisdom prevails for the moment:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/fcc-backs-off-newsroom-survey-plan/

The Federal Communications Commission announced Friday that it was putting on hold a controversial study of American newsrooms, after complaints from Republican lawmakers and media groups that the project was too intrusive.

FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed with critics that some of the study's proposed questions for reporters and news directors "overstepped the bounds of what is required."

The agency announced that a proposed pilot study in South Carolina will now be shelved, at least until a "new study design" is finalized. But the agency made clear that this and any future studies will not involve interviews with "media owners, news directors or reporters."

But of course, they'll try again in a little while until the people accept it. Just like always. Because government knows best.

 

[VINYLONE]

The mainstream media is already in bed with the government, and has been since Reagan.

I'm always intrigued when I hear this term. OB, what do you consider the mainstream media?

 

[Hantlers]

I'm always intrigued when I hear this term. OB, what do you consider the mainstream media?

Prepare for another paragraph of generics. He doesn't like specifics, because then it shows that outside of his main field of study, he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

 

[Stoked]

A sign of encroachment is the FCC wanting observers in the newsroom. Hell no. It's bad enough already. If that is allowed then freedom of the press is on death row. There is, to me, no legitimate argument for this needing to be done. None.

 

[LogGrad98]

Do you have any evidence this is coercion instead of investigation?

Often one is equated with the other. It depends on what is being investigated and in what manner. If the FBI were investigating you for criminal activity involved with driving your car, and they parked a van outside and followed you everywhere you went, it is reasonable to presume that you might feel pressured to modify your driving practices as a result of the ongoing "investigation".

 

[One Brow]

I'm always intrigued when I hear this term. OB, what do you consider the mainstream media?

I meant the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) and their subsidiaries, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. Many of them value access, and tone down their coverage to get it.

 

[One Brow]

Prepare for another paragraph of generics. He doesn't like specifics, because then it shows that outside of his main field of study, he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.

How much do I think I know?

 

[One Brow]

Often one is equated with the other. It depends on what is being investigated and in what manner. If the FBI were investigating you for criminal activity involved with driving your car, and they parked a van outside and followed you everywhere you went, it is reasonable to presume that you might feel pressured to modify your driving practices as a result of the ongoing "investigation".

This would be true if I were not already in the pocket of the FBI as an informant.

 

[babe]

Do you have any evidence this is coercion instead of investigation?

I'm sure you could come up with a lot of concerns if you actually cared about freedom of the press. . . . oh, say, like if the cops were "investigating" organizations that operate internet dominance cells with liberal agendas. . . . .

I find this kind of retort from you beyond the pale of tolerance. When you ask this kind of question on this subject, it fails at the intellectual honesty level and just makes you look. . . . . well. . . . . despicable.

 

[One Brow]

I find this kind of retort from you beyond the pale of tolerance.

Based on this post and your neg rep, you seem to think that I feel we have a truly independent press in this country. I don't think that, at all. Because our press are driven by ratings, they need to get big names in interviews. They can't do that unless, to a degree, they tow the government line. Most of the press is already firmly in the government's pocket. There's a reason Snowden didn't want to go to the New Your Times or Washington Post with his revelations.

Until you can have a conversation with me, instead of some fictional caricature of me, I don't give a decayed fig for your opinion of my comments.

 

[PearlWatson]

Seeing as babe is the most tolerant of beings something must be wrong...or One Brow drives everyone to the edge.

 

[VINYLONE]

I meant the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) and their subsidiaries, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. Many of them value access, and tone down their coverage to get it.

Ahhh, ok. That makes much more sense.