Conservatives have long felt the sting of the liberal media. They are a snake to be handled at your peril.
Evidently that’s not good enough for the Progressive agenda. The Obama administration wants more. They want total propaganda control. How else can you explain this report from The Wall St. Journal?
“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.”
Wait a minute. Not everyone does agree with that anymore. Ask a young person and you might be surprised at what he or she thinks. We’ve been taking it for granted that Americans share the Republican view of freedom. Sadly, they do not.
Writer Ajit Pai continues:
“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.”
Thrust or bludgeon? The purpose is intimidation. Note that it’s starting in a very red state, South Carolina. Don’t you love the official sounding titles they give to reports? It all sounds so benevolent.
“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.'”
Underserved? Does anyone think the public lacks news outlets? Outlets that are free? Underserved translates into minorities and minorities means Democrats and that means votes.
He continues, “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 mind boggling. Ten years ago it was unimaginable. The media would have kicked up a maelstrom had GWB even thought of such a thing. Of course, he didn’t and wouldn’t. Obama is a different story.
He wants to set in stone progressive thinking. The FCC is his chisel and he will whittle away any kind of obstacle that gets in his way. The explanation will be what it has been with him – racism. Others who don’t think like he does are racists. That is the most unforgivable of crimes nowadays.
Can’t do it legally you think? This is the man who said the other day that “the good thing about being president is I get to do what I want.”