From the Daily Caller (hat tip to Bunkerville):
FCC to police news media, question reporters in wide-ranging content surveyCan scrutiny of the blogosphere be far behind?
The Federal Communications Commission is planning a broad probe of political speech across media platforms, an unprecedented move that raises serious First Amendment concerns.
The FCC’s proposed “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which is set to begin a field test in a single market with an eye toward a comprehensive study in 2014, would collect a remarkably wide range of information on demographics, point of view, news topic selection, management style and other factors in news organizations both in and out of the FCC’s traditional purview.
The airwaves regulator would also subject news producers in all media to invasive questioning about their work and content.
[...]
Among the questions federal contractors will be asking of private media companies:
For media owners:
“What is the news philosophy of the station?”
For editors, producers and managers:
“Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?” (Followup questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was spiked.)
[...]
“In this study, the FCC will delve into the editorial discretion of newspapers, web sites and radio and TV stations,” Hudson Institute Fellow Robert McDowell, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, told The Daily Caller. “This starts sticking the government’s nose into what has traditionally been privileged and protected ground. Regardless of one’s political stripes, one should be concerned.”
4 comments:
That is the FCC running cover for what the NSA already has gathered
Some thoughts:
1) It would be easy enough to get information on demographics, news topic selection, and point of view from Google analytics.
2) the questions for management and reporters are invasive personal questions, and are likely aimed at righting wrongs perceived by our government elites. If that is not the purpose of them, then there is no purpose.
3) Epa's comment is interesting, and perceptive, and I do think this study could work as a cover at the same time as it could function as something even more sinster; a preamble to government requirements about types of news stories which will be selected, and a ratings system which would display the government rating of a news sources releative reliability (think Pinocchios from the Washington Post)
4) this study could form the basis for how to decide whether a news source is, indeed, a news source, according to government standards (i.e. bye bye "bloggers").
We already have Duck Durbin in the senate and Schumer trying to define WHAT a reporter is in order to compel bloggers and other 'undesirables' (who are excluded from the definition) to reveal sources.
Obama would like to be rid of bloggers, IMO.
Post a Comment