phreddy wrote:

Now the FCC wants journalists to "prioritize" their news coverage.  Apparently, Obama and company are going through the entire Bill of Rights to see which ones they can curtail or control.  This is serious shit.

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."

The President appoints, he cannot direct:
The agency is directed by five commissioners who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The president also selects one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners can be of the same political party at any given time and none can have a financial interest in any commission-related business. All commissioners, including the chairman, have five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term.

Just imagine what the FCC will be like if the Tea Party ever takes office.

Enough of Government already !!!!!

If I were young, I would seriously consider emigrating. I no longer encourage young relatives overseas who hold dual citizenship to move to the US. This isn’t the country I remember from my youth; we’re turning into a nightmare nation combining the worst features of the Soviet Union and Nazi-era Germany.

I read the story twice and I still don't know what the f@#& Wheeler is thinking.  I guess he is omniscient thinks his role is to guide the masses.  On the other hand, the author of the article reveals his bias by the second sentence, so I would give him Official Opprobrium Demerits.

The FCC evidently just pulled the plug on its CIN study:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/setting-rec … raft-study

This is a pretty interesting article from a media pundit's perspective:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/why-did-the- … e-outcry’/

And we can be relieved the study has cost only $500,000 so far:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc … ia/283993/

Last edited by lechero (2014-02-21 15:40:45)

Tall Paul wrote:

So, Phreddy, how many times has your favorite news network gone to court to legally defend their right to spread lies? A little investigation might be a good thing.

You just made my point Paul.  That's exactly what would happen.  Let's stifle the free speech of those who disagree with us.  If you and Baywolfe think this results in a "sane" world, I suggest you two move to Russia, China or some banana republic where they don't have that pesky constitution to stand between the rulers and their subjects.

phreddy wrote:

Tall Paul wrote:

So, Phreddy, how many times has your favorite news network gone to court to legally defend their right to spread lies? A little investigation might be a good thing.

You just made my point Paul.  That's exactly what would happen.  Let's stifle the free speech of those who disagree with us.  If you and Baywolfe think this results in a "sane" world, I suggest you two move to Russia, China or some banana republic where they don't have that pesky constitution to stand between the rulers and their subjects.

Meh, bitching about it on a wacked out little website, that nobody but us cares about, is accomplishing nothing.

Go rail against the "man" and see where it really gets you.

Last edited by Baywolfe (2014-02-24 17:59:50)