"FCC Commissioner Warns of Agency’s Plan to Monitor Newsrooms" study ?

Leifer

Senior Member.
This looks like a headline/rumor/story/study, that found it's way into news because of a possible over-intrusion of gov't into America's newsrooms.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fcc-commissioner-warns-of-agency’s-plan-to-monitor-newsrooms/
The WSJ opinion editorial (op ed) by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

There are many sites claiming something similar.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/fcc-chief-addresses-controversy-over-proposed-study-in-u-s-newsrooms/
and "cough, cough"...The Blaze:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ok&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

Here is (was) the FCC "C.I.N." (critical information needs) study....
FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf

But now, the study has been suspended.....

The NY Daily News explains how and why the FCC study was hotly contested...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fcc-longer-media-gathers-news-article-1.1699676
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The study is kind of an extension of things like the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) or anti-discrimination laws - what the Right would call the "nanny state" and the Left would call something like "social equality programs". The study is:

So the idea seems to be to try to ensure that everyone gets a fair slice of relevant info in TV news. Of course the Right don't like the interference with the free markets, and nobody likes the hinting at restrictions on freedom of speech, or even imposition of government propaganda objectives.

It all seems largely academic, and and has got to this stage because of lack of clarity in the study proposal, and the media taking advantage of an easy target.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I agree.....parts of the requested study could seem invasive because of it's wording, and possible content monitoring within the media before publishing the content.
On the outside, it looks like parental FCC monitoring.....but it would have been only a critique (the study's results).

In some ways, a published critique could be seen as an implied need (or forced) to change programming (recommended by the FCC), if the critique spelled-out inconsistencies of media reporting, or if a favoritism led to certain "media market" goals.
It reminds me of the new deal with Comcast, where minority programming was recently given a new push...
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/12/244558834/comcast-deal-puts-new-minority-run-channels-in-play

In 1973 (the infancy of cable), a similar proposal of ensuring content diversity was put forth....
Cable Television and the Promise.pdf


So it's many-sided.......
....The FCC recommends or requires diverse content (good thing)
.....and the FCC is steering content, or putting rules on free speech (bad thing)
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top