The FCC tabled plans to "study" how the media covers news or in the words of the FCC, the "Critical Information Needs" of America. The idea might be dead but it should not ever be forgotten. Here are some highlights of the 78-page study:
*Media that makes up media ecologies. This innocuous phrase includes what type of media, who owns the media, what type of content dominates the media, etc.
*The FCC will study all media. Newspapers, weeklies, Broadcast news, Talk radio, , and websites. Proposal flat-out states the FCC will perform a "content analysis" of these media outlets. Yup, the Feds are going to analyze what type of news the media covers. No pressure there. None at all. (p.3)
*FCC will conduct interrogations, oops, I meant "in-depth" interviews of media providers. The FCC will place "particular emphasis on ownership characteristics, employment data, demographics on decision makers, and barriers to entry". Brings back to mind Huey P. Long's scheme to license newspapers.
*The FCC is coming to a neighborhood near you. They aren't going to stop with interrogating the media as they are also going to conduct "in-depth neighborhood interviews" with "individuals in diverse neighborhoods." Community-organizing against the media? (p.4)
*Internet. "We will generate a list of websites (called seeds) to be crawled for each category of CIN, to include TV station websites, university websites, local school system websites, blogs, local radio station websites, and state/local government websites." .... Got a blog? Media website? The gummint bots going to be a'crawlin'.
"After each crawl, a set of reports are automatically generated to run analysis on the content that was collected." We know who you are, what you do, and what you write.
*"Qualitative analysis". Can't collect data and not know what you are studying (Double negatives and second person use. I know.) Have to analyze the data to justify that fat gummint contract. The FCC proposes an "exploration (is that what they call it?) of three levels of employment: Corporate management, local management, and lower level employees (reporters, etc.). This exploration needs to determine who is actually concerned with CINS (notice how reporting the news is labeled "critical information needs". Got to love the bureaucratic way of glossing over everything." In other words, the FCC wants to dissect the media organizations and determine how they work.
*Diversity of the workforce. Nothing gives the government the right to stick its nose into a private business as much as the diversity interest. The study proposes using two methods to "study" the demographics of a media provider's workforce: Find a snitch (oops, meant to write locate "someone in the station who will provide demographic information" or make "a formal request for the demographic information" to HR or corporate headquarters."
*More interviews. Can't analyze without interrogating the media some more. The FCC wants to execute (how appropriate) "in-depth interviews with" management and support staff. We suggest a maximum of 56 media provider sites be surveyed." Why? The FCC tells you why:
The purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations
*Understanding the community ecology. Now the gloves come off to reveal the brass knuckles. "This research is subject to two very important constraints. The first is that the CINs identified represent concrete needs of diverse communities." Now we are getting somewhere. The government is going to determine what the journalism needs for these communities are? What's next? A study on how to serve those needs? Regulating media companies to achieve government, oops, I meant diversity goals? Who is the final arbiter of a community's so-called information needs? The government? Apparently so because.....
*How a community receives news is now a government interest:
But because neighborhoods in America remain significantly stratified by race and ethnicity, as well as income, the meso-layer of community and neighborhood also matters. For example, while some CINs may be met via the open Internet, or provided at the macro-level, this information may not flow through channels of communication at the neighborhood level.
*Markets. "Six markets will be included in the planned study: 2 large, 2 medium, and 2 small markets. Market sizes were defined using the Nielsen TV Designated Market Area (DMA)6 Estimates and Ranks. Markets 1-62 are defined as large (any market with over 500,000 TV homes); market 63-150 as medium (markets with 150,000-500,000 TV homes); markets 151-210 as small (markets with less than 150,000 TV homes). (p.20)
*Criteria. "The primary criteria used to select markets will be size and racial/ethnic diversity (including the availability of news in multiple languages). Given the multi-national, racial and ethnic composition of the United States, it is important that markets selected are representative of our increasing diversity. Further, given the focus of the study and FCC’s particular interest in access to CINs by minority and underserved populations." (p.20)
*Data is kept for seven years. The project assumes a timeline of one year.
*See Appendix A (p.25) for the suggested questions. Very interesting.
This study justifies what I've always said: The Second Amendment protects the rest of the bill of rights. This is nothing short of a naked government attempt to control the press. This study is worth a government shutdown. Congress should take whatever action is required to stop this study from ever taking place. The only thing more shameful about this episode is the lack of resistance from most of the media. Wimps most of them are. What was it a commie said about selling capitalists the rope with which they will hang themselves? Apparently that saying also applies to our media as well.
2 comments:
If you have nothing to hide, comrade, you have nothing to worry about.
I remember when the news was " who, what ,where and when" instead of finding two extremists to create a conflict where none need exist or slanting the news.
Journalism was a profession and an effort was made to be objective.
If there were facts on both sides they were reported. Now we get people interviewed who literally are making stuff up or venting an uninformed opinion.
Do humans have biases? Sure, but journalists did their best just to report facts now they can and do air their biases other than on an opinion page.
Smart was more important than whether or not the camera loved you.
Now, news is " entertainment" and too many people watch and read only those outlets which reinforce their preconceived notions.
We can choose our propaganda but getting the facts and forming our own, INDEPENDENT opinion is difficult.
We do have group think. We do have group conformity.
How does everyone miss that Orwell et al were arguing fact based, rational thought which is dependent on knowing what reality IS instead of creating a false reality?
Post a Comment