[Login / Register]

Menu

Forums

error

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	Should the Government be in the Newsroom Deciding what Stories to report and how 2/21/2014 1:21:55 PM
	Should the Government be in the Newsroom Deciding what Stories to report and how they should be presented? NO FLUKING WAY!!! FCC in the Newsroom: A Look at What they Want February 20, 2014 By Elizabeth Scalia 1 Comment Now that one-or-two members of the mainstream press are bothering to notice the FCC preparing to question their editorial processes, Ed Morrissey is helping us all get a better take on what it will look like, with this analysis at Hot Air: It’s difficult to determine any other reason for the FCC to take an interest in editorial decisions unless it wants to intervene in that process. It’s not all that outrageous to believe that the only reason a federal agency wants to conduct a study of an area over which it has no authority or jurisdiction is to craft an argument to get that authority and jurisdiction, especially if it can claim a crisis exists. And the only reason why the government would want to control editorial choice is to make sure it benefits government. The study design is available online, by the way, and it’s impressive for the depth in which the FCC intends to probe editorial choice. The purpose of the study, according to its authors, is “to identify and understand the critical information needs (CINs) of the American public (with special emphasis on vulnerable/disadvantaged populations).” This assumes that the American public can’t identify their own “CINs” and find ways to service them in a historically-diverse and dynamic media environment, of course, which is flatly laughable. The study would involve interviews at all kinds of outlets — newspapers and Internet included, even though they are outside of FCC jurisdiction — in order to determine whether the FCC sees a CIN crisis. What are the purposes of the interviews with media owners, editors, reporters, and others? 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. The FCC will judge media outlets individually and in groups based on their own perception of critical “CINs” rather than allow consumers to figure that out for themselves. One of these is “employment information”. . . Read the whole thing, which includes examples of what sorts of questions the FCC will be asking the press, and some of Ed’s won questions about the questions. Ed notes that Warner Todd Huston wrote about this issue last November. We all missed it. Meanwhile Andrew Klavan is not surprised, given the media’s mental #bowdown, and wonders if therapy is needed: American journalism’s worshipful prostration before Barack Obama has always been emotionally embarrassing and politically dangerous, but recently it has begun to seem psychologically deranged as well. We might have cringed when, say, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleney used a White House Press Conference to ask the president what “enchanted” him about being in office. We might feel real concern when editors who became hysterical over W’s wholly legal firing of U.S. Attorneys can’t even move themselves to indignation over Obama’s wholesale politicization of the entire Justice Department. But when the media continue to dance the We’re-Not-Worthy Dance around an administration that seeks to neuter them as an institution, one begins to feel one was too quick to discard some of the weirder theories of Sigmund Freud. Ah, well. Perhaps, as Katrina notes, we all simply need to change our definitions, and adapt. Image courtesy of shutterstock.com http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/02/20/fcc-in-the-newsroom-a-look-at-what-they-want/
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+1

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: Should the Government be in the Newsroom Deciding what Stories to report and how 2/21/2014 1:26:16 PM
	Apparently Public Service TV is not working out for the folks at the Media Policy Institute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3JiDbii9AI&list=PLNoVefpaPtVPaW3Ibj3QXXi-UyGn7Xb09&feature=share Quote: Should the Government be in the Newsroom Deciding what Stories to report and how they should be presented? NO FLUKING WAY!!! FCC in the Newsroom: A Look at What they Want February 20, 2014 By Elizabeth Scalia 1 Comment Now that one-or-two members of the mainstream press are bothering to notice the FCC preparing to question their editorial processes, Ed Morrissey is helping us all get a better take on what it will look like, with this analysis at Hot Air: It’s difficult to determine any other reason for the FCC to take an interest in editorial decisions unless it wants to intervene in that process. It’s not all that outrageous to believe that the only reason a federal agency wants to conduct a study of an area over which it has no authority or jurisdiction is to craft an argument to get that authority and jurisdiction, especially if it can claim a crisis exists. And the only reason why the government would want to control editorial choice is to make sure it benefits government. The study design is available online, by the way, and it’s impressive for the depth in which the FCC intends to probe editorial choice. The purpose of the study, according to its authors, is “to identify and understand the critical information needs (CINs) of the American public (with special emphasis on vulnerable/disadvantaged populations).” This assumes that the American public can’t identify their own “CINs” and find ways to service them in a historically-diverse and dynamic media environment, of course, which is flatly laughable. The study would involve interviews at all kinds of outlets — newspapers and Internet included, even though they are outside of FCC jurisdiction — in order to determine whether the FCC sees a CIN crisis. What are the purposes of the interviews with media owners, editors, reporters, and others? 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. The FCC will judge media outlets individually and in groups based on their own perception of critical “CINs” rather than allow consumers to figure that out for themselves. One of these is “employment information”. . . Read the whole thing, which includes examples of what sorts of questions the FCC will be asking the press, and some of Ed’s won questions about the questions. Ed notes that Warner Todd Huston wrote about this issue last November. We all missed it. Meanwhile Andrew Klavan is not surprised, given the media’s mental #bowdown, and wonders if therapy is needed: American journalism’s worshipful prostration before Barack Obama has always been emotionally embarrassing and politically dangerous, but recently it has begun to seem psychologically deranged as well. We might have cringed when, say, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleney used a White House Press Conference to ask the president what “enchanted” him about being in office. We might feel real concern when editors who became hysterical over W’s wholly legal firing of U.S. Attorneys can’t even move themselves to indignation over Obama’s wholesale politicization of the entire Justice Department. But when the media continue to dance the We’re-Not-Worthy Dance around an administration that seeks to neuter them as an institution, one begins to feel one was too quick to discard some of the weirder theories of Sigmund Freud. Ah, well. Perhaps, as Katrina notes, we all simply need to change our definitions, and adapt. Image courtesy of shutterstock.com http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/02/20/fcc-in-the-newsroom-a-look-at-what-they-want/
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: Should the Government be in the Newsroom Deciding what Stories to report and how 2/21/2014 1:33:28 PM
	Does the FCC have the right to invade newsrooms? Published on Feb 20, 2014 Why the agency's plan may be unconstitutional Quote: Should the Government be in the Newsroom Deciding what Stories to report and how they should be presented? NO FLUKING WAY!!! FCC in the Newsroom: A Look at What they Want February 20, 2014 By Elizabeth Scalia 1 Comment Now that one-or-two members of the mainstream press are bothering to notice the FCC preparing to question their editorial processes, Ed Morrissey is helping us all get a better take on what it will look like, with this analysis at Hot Air: It’s difficult to determine any other reason for the FCC to take an interest in editorial decisions unless it wants to intervene in that process. It’s not all that outrageous to believe that the only reason a federal agency wants to conduct a study of an area over which it has no authority or jurisdiction is to craft an argument to get that authority and jurisdiction, especially if it can claim a crisis exists. And the only reason why the government would want to control editorial choice is to make sure it benefits government. The study design is available online, by the way, and it’s impressive for the depth in which the FCC intends to probe editorial choice. The purpose of the study, according to its authors, is “to identify and understand the critical information needs (CINs) of the American public (with special emphasis on vulnerable/disadvantaged populations).” This assumes that the American public can’t identify their own “CINs” and find ways to service them in a historically-diverse and dynamic media environment, of course, which is flatly laughable. The study would involve interviews at all kinds of outlets — newspapers and Internet included, even though they are outside of FCC jurisdiction — in order to determine whether the FCC sees a CIN crisis. What are the purposes of the interviews with media owners, editors, reporters, and others? 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. The FCC will judge media outlets individually and in groups based on their own perception of critical “CINs” rather than allow consumers to figure that out for themselves. One of these is “employment information”. . . Read the whole thing, which includes examples of what sorts of questions the FCC will be asking the press, and some of Ed’s won questions about the questions. Ed notes that Warner Todd Huston wrote about this issue last November. We all missed it. Meanwhile Andrew Klavan is not surprised, given the media’s mental #bowdown, and wonders if therapy is needed: American journalism’s worshipful prostration before Barack Obama has always been emotionally embarrassing and politically dangerous, but recently it has begun to seem psychologically deranged as well. We might have cringed when, say, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleney used a White House Press Conference to ask the president what “enchanted” him about being in office. We might feel real concern when editors who became hysterical over W’s wholly legal firing of U.S. Attorneys can’t even move themselves to indignation over Obama’s wholesale politicization of the entire Justice Department. But when the media continue to dance the We’re-Not-Worthy Dance around an administration that seeks to neuter them as an institution, one begins to feel one was too quick to discard some of the weirder theories of Sigmund Freud. Ah, well. Perhaps, as Katrina notes, we all simply need to change our definitions, and adapt. Image courtesy of shutterstock.com http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/02/20/fcc-in-the-newsroom-a-look-at-what-they-want/
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: Should the Government be in the Newsroom Deciding what Stories to report and how 2/21/2014 6:56:17 PM
	Here is why it shouldn't be in our newsrooms. We would never hear about the following stuff. Oh wait, we are not being told about this type of stuff now. They are already there in the MSM aren't they? Terrorist Cell in Texas: Declassified FBI Documents Reveal Jamaat ul-Fuqra Enclave Near Sweeney, TX Posted on February 21, 2014 by Dean Garrison Source: BattlefieldAmerica Jamaat ul-Fuqra is a terrorist organization that is known to be firmly entrenched in theUnited States. It has never been listed as a “terrorist group” despite the FBI’s admissionthat the group is linked to at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three firebombings, one attempted firebombing, two explosive bombings, and one attempted bombing. Here is some background information on Jamaat ul-Fuqra from Wikipedia: Jamaat ul-Fuqra (alternatively Jamaat al-Fuqra) (Arabic: جماعة الفقراء, “Community of the Impoverished”) is a paramilitary organization of mostly African-American Muslims based in Pakistan and the United States. Some of the approximately 3000 members have planned various acts of violence, often directed at rival factions.[1] Two Al-Fuqra members were convicted of conspiring to murder Rashad Khalifa in 1990,[2][3] and others are alleged to have assassinated Ahmadiyya leader Mozaffar Ahmad in 1983.[4][5] The group itself is not listed as a terror group by the US or the EU, but was listed as a terrorist organization in the 1999 Patterns of GlobalTerrorism report by the U.S. State Department.[6] It operates two front groups: Muslims of the Americas and Quranic Open University.[7] They also have been known to operate in Canada,[8] and the Caribbean.[9] … Although various members have been suspected of assassinations and other acts of terror perpetrated in the 1980s and later,[12] and some members having been charged with conspiracy to commit first degreemurder and other crimes,[13] al-Fuqra itself is not listed as a terror group by the US or the EU (it was listed as a terrorist organization in the 1999 Patterns of Global Terrorism report by the U.S. State Department.) [6] News reports have attempted to connect “shoe bomber” Richard Reid and “Washington sniper” John Allen Muhammad to al-Fuqra, but the connections were not definitive. There are also allegations that Clement Rodney Hampton-El, one of the plotters who planned to blow up various New York City bridges and tunnels, was a member of Al Fuqra.[14] The group has been banned in Pakistan.[15] Jamaat Al Fuqra was also involved in the planned bombing of a Hindu temple in Toronto, Canada in 1991.[16] The Clarion Project is an independent organization that focuses on Islamic issues in America. Recently the organization obtained and published some declassified FBI documents which expose a Texas cell of Jamaat ul-Fuqra. Clarion Project reports: Terror Enclave: “Mahmoudberg, Texas” The MOA compound in Texas, described by the FBI as an “enclave” and “communal living site,” is in Brazoria county along County Road 3 near Sweeny. It was discovered by the FBI due to a tip from an informant inNew York. The MOA referred to its Texas commune as “Mahmoudberg” in online instructions for a parade in New York in 2010. A posting on an Islamic message board in 2005 advertised a speaking engagement in Houston by someone from Mahmoudberg. According to the reports, the commune is seven to 10 acres large, is in an “extremely wooded area” and two or three trailer homes moved there in December 2001. However, ACT members visited the area as part of Clarion’s investigation and interviewed one nearby local who confidently said it is closer to 25 acres in size and spoke of a presence dating back to the late 1980s. “The area is so rural it is quite common for residents to shoot firearms fortarget practice or hunting on private property without interference from law enforcement,” one FBI report states. MOA is an abbreviation for “Muslims of the Americas” or “Muslims of America” which, according to Clarion, has a network of 22 “villages” around the U.S., with Islamberg as its main headquarters in New York. The Clarion Project obtained secret MOA footage showing female members receiving paramilitary training at Islamberg. It was featured on the Kelly File on FOX News Channel in October. A second MOA tape released by Clarion shows its spokesman declaring the U.S. to be a Muslim-majority country. According to WND, there may be more than 22 of these “villages” throughout the country: A radical jihadist group responsible for nearly 50 attacks on American soil is operating 35 terrorist training camps across the nation, but the U.S.government refuses to include the organization on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorists. Jamaat ul-Fuqra, known in the U.S. as “Muslims of America,” has purchased or leased hundreds of acres of property – from New York toCalifornia – in which the leader, Sheikh Mubarak Gilani, boasts of conducting “the most advanced training courses in Islamic militarywarfare.” How do you feel about your government knowing about the location and existence of these cells and continuing to let them operate? This all points back to the immigration debate in this country. As I reported back in June,securing our southern border is one of the biggest steps we can take to halt the influx of terrorists. Many of them enter through Arizona. Here is a short report from 2010 that talks about the problem: http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/02/21/terrorist-cell-texas-declassified-fbi-document-reveals-jamaat-ul-fuqra-enclave-near-sweeney-tx/ Here is a link to the declassified FBI document, courtesy of the Clarion Project: FBI-Jamaat-ul-Fuqra-1
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

Jim 5804 11253 Holiday	RE: Should the Government be in the Newsroom Deciding what Stories to report and how 2/21/2014 9:59:45 PM
	Newsroom Study Sent Back For Tweaking After Trial Balloon Launch February 21, 2014 By Sara Noble Ajit Pai, FCC Commissioner The newsroom survey planned by the FCC and leaked by one of its own commissioners, is on hold until they come up with a new “study design”. It will be tweaked and no reporters, editors or owners will be interviewed. They still plan to survey, however. It is not clear as to why they are including print media which is clearly not in their purview. The newsroom study is a serious threat to the First Amendment. The government has no place in the newsroom though we know they already are in the newsroom to some degree. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said that the news media wouldn’t mind having monitors in the newsroom and he wouldn’t be surprised if journalism schools were behind it. Turns out, he was right. “If it turns out here that a dean or an entire j-school is behind this idea, it won’t surprise me a bit,” said Limbaugh on his show Friday. “And guess what? There are two, ladies and gentlemen. The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to do a study defining what information is ‘critical’ for citizens to have.” “The scholars decided that ‘critical information’ is information that people need to ‘live safe and healthy lives’ and to ‘have full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities’ …” The FCC was quick to tell GOP lawmakers that it has “no intention” of interfering in the editorial decision-making of broadcast stations and newspapers. In a letter released Thursday, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler confirmed that the agency is working on revisions to the Critical Information Needs Study, which as part of its conclusions called for researchers to enter newsrooms and inquire about how editorial decisions were made. “The commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters by way of this research design, any resulting study, or through any other means,” Wheeler wrote. On Friday, The Federal Communications Commission announced it was putting on hold a controversial study of American newsrooms, after complaints from Republican lawmakers and media groups that the project was too intrusive. Before you become too overjoyed, it’s on hold, not canceled. The FCC put this out as a trial balloon, they will tweak it, and bring it back. Commissioner Ajit Pai is the one who leaked it. Hello! He works for them. He said he was concerned about the First Amendment. Maybe yes, maybe no. The FCC said it is shelved, for now, until a “new study design” is finalized. The agency said that this and any future studies will not involve interviews with “media owners, news directors or reporters.” What they didn’t say was also interesting. Will they still look into media ownership as something that has to comply with their idea of social justice? In other words, will they decide who gets to own stations and how many they get to own? Will the study be used to demonize and go to war with some media outlets? Some are saying the FCC wants the Fairness Doctrine back. Of course it does. Others say, they are after conservative talk radio. Of course they are. It’s much more than that though, they are after all opposing opinions. Maybe that’s the wrong way to put it. The truth is they think they have all the right opinions and they want Americans to get those opinion. They want them inculcated into the very fabric of our society. It would complete the fundamental transformation. This isn’t a plot. The left thinks alike and they are well-positioned to push their agenda on the rest of us. It’s as simple as that. The FCC study includes print media over which they have no legal jurisdiction. The FCC has just expanded its powers by doing this, little is being said about it, and that’s where much of this story lies. Yes, they went to war with Fox but they also spied on the AP, a left-wing news service. One day, these left-wing news people are going to find they’re next up in the crosshairs but it will be too late. http://www.independentsentinel.com/newsroom-study-sent-back-for-tweaking-after-trial-balloon-launch/
	May Wisdom and the knowledge you gained go with you, Jim Allen III Skype: JAllen3D Everything You Need For Online Success
	+0

My Links

Like us on Facebook!