Author Topic: White House to sniff out newsrooms: ‘Troubling and dangerous development’  (Read 151 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 242,714

White House to sniff out newsrooms: ‘Troubling and dangerous development’

By Cheryl K. Chumley


The Washington Times

Thursday, February 20, 2014

The Obama administration is pushing forward with a Federal Communications Commission project that would send the nose of government researchers in newsrooms across the country — and First Amendment advocates want to know why.

The touted purpose of the plan is to "identify and understand the critical information needs of the American public, with special emphasis on vulnerable-disadvantaged populations," the FCC said, Fox News reported.

But at least one FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai, wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal that suggested the notion was more aimed at giving government entities the ability to "grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run."

Mr. Pai continued: "Everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories."

First Amendment and government watchdog organizations were quick to agree.

"The FCC seems unable to keep its hands off the news media for any extended period of time," said Jeffrey Eisenach, a visiting scholar with The American Enterprise Institute, to Fox News. "It's the same generic concern of needing a news nanny to make sure we're all well informed."

Among the questions to be studied: How news organizations select stories, and frequency with which broadcast outlets report on "critical information needs," Fox News reported.

The surveys will be voluntary — but Mr. Pai said the definition of voluntary can be rather subjective.

"Participation is voluntary — in theory," he wrote, in his op-ed to the Wall Street Journal. "[But] the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license."

The project is reportedly due to kick off this spring in Columbia, S.C.

"This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama administration," said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, in Fox News. "The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech."

Support the USO
#NeverHillary  Not#NeverTrump

Offline Gazoo

  • Inactive Members
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,968
The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom
Why is the agency studying 'perceived station bias' and asking about coverage choices?

Feb. 10, 2014 7:26 p.m. ET

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.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

Should all stations follow MSNBC's example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency's collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber's bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn't matter more than anyone else's merely because I happen to work at the FCC.

Mr. Pai is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 12:13:55 PM by Gazoo »
"The Tea Party has a right to feel cheated.

When does the Republican Party, put in the majority by the Tea Party, plan to honor its commitment to halt the growth of the Federal monolith and bring the budget back into balance"?

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo