There is a new plan to "monitor" the news rooms of America. The goal is to make sure the "right" stories are being covered. You probably won't hear much about this on the liberal press but if Bush had come up with the idea (actually a plan), there would be hell to pay.

Begin Quote: From the Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

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.

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.

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."

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 not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

Should all stations follow MSNBC's example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency's collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber's bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn't matter more than anyone else's merely because I happen to work at the FCC.

Mr. Pai is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
Email

End Quote:

OK I heard Katie couric talk about how the government only allows certain items of interest and if you don't play ball you will never be able to get your news out . and yes it is filtered they are trying to do it with You tube but they haven't been able to do it yet , when u go to intetpals and talk with people in the Russian ukranie area u should see video that they post that the main stream media doesn't ,just saying

Seems like the "free press" isn't so free any more.

White House: No more information about drone killings will be released to public

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Thursday that the Obama administration will not be releasing any more information about the controversial use of drones to kill American citizens.

Carney’s remarks, via the White House’s transcript of the off-camera press gaggle:

“This is not an open-ended process. This is a specific and unique accommodation in this circumstance. The fact is, when it comes to public disclosure, we have been — not with the kind of attention that’s been given it this week — but we have been publicly discussing these matters at the highest levels of government for the very reason that I’ve given, which is the President understands that these are core issues about how we conduct ourselves in war, how the President of the United States — any President — balances his constitutional obligation to protect America and American citizens, and his obligation to do so in a manner that is lawful under the Constitution and reflects our values."

In other words...... we're shutting this sucker down!

If it's not gov't propaganda, it's not news where DC and this WH are concerned!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/07/white-house-no-more-information-about-drone-killings-will-be-released-to-public/#ixzz2tpLMUomj

Faux News is as bias and deceitful as the liberal press, we're just approaching elections.

If the Repulsicons take power in the senate and the WH nothing will change except which networks are complaining and which ones slamming the propaganda!

Faux Noise is out number by the liberal networks, and their ratings have improved because people are outraged with present conditions and policies. Faux is playing into it big time for profit, not out of any concern for an informed public!

Remember the Bush years?

My quote was from the Wall Street Journal, not Fox. I found almost the same thing on Prison Planet. The guy who brought it to the public's attention was the FCC guy Obama appointed.

This story is big news and it will be interesting to see how the liberal press, who protects Obama 99% of the time, handles it.

The US Constitution is being eroded.

This sounds like they want a bunch of Baghdad Bobs reporting their news.

Not too long ago, the White House stopped the press from attending some of their previously open meetings and now only allow photos issued from the White House photographer.

I wasn't referring to your post with my comment. Sorry if it seemed so.

I was just commenting about our "scripted news" sources in general and how it's all about profit and shares, not news, anymore.

Even Motherjones came out with a piece on it .... notice who the author was......

Is Congress Really Authorizing US Propaganda at Home?

Late last Friday, Buzzfeed reporter and Rolling Stone contributor Michael Hastings broke what looked like a big scoop: Congress was quietly planning to lift a 64-year-old law preventing the US government from using propaganda on its own citizenry. Before the House passed its defense budget bill Friday afternoon, Hastings reported, a bipartisan group of congressmen tacked on an amendment that would "essentially neutralize" a set of time-tested guidelines "that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government's misinformation campaigns."

Progressive thinkers balked at the news: Mideast expert Juan Cole decried the amendment as "the creeping fascism of American politics" by our representatives, who apparently have never read a book on Germany in the 1930s-1940s or on the Soviet Union in the Stalin period." On civil libertarian Jonathan Turley's site, guest blogger Elaine Magliaro asked: "How about some propaganda for the people paid for by the people being propagandized?"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/congress-propaganda

but but but......the Obama administration can't find the funding to buy the FCC television so they can monitor what the basic "news" reporting practices of TV stations is and what bias stations have in their reporting. The only alternative is to send monitors into news stations which will probably be cheaper and help reduce the deficit.(they'll have to spin this)

Don't worry.....all they are doing is study to find out if we, the people, are getting the type of information that is critical and beneficial.

But it's the information that is critical and beneficial to promoting the administration ideology, not to inform us.

It's FOX news that caused this.....if they used the same programing guidelines that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS used this wouldn't be necessary.

Sure it's Faux's fault.....Obozo said so!

I am sure Bush had something to do with it!

Big News!

The Obama administration announced that they were NOT going to execute this plan after all.

Apparently, there was a lot of push back.

Yep, Bush and Faux foiled his plans yet again!

Damned Tea Party and their BS beliefs in a 200 year old piece of parchment preaching "people rights under the 1st amendment" BS too.

That darned Constitution got in the way again!

I do believe that Obama wants to be a dictator when he grows up.

The man is only as smart or efficient as his teleprompter and speech writers.

He's a great reader and orator..... nobody ever took that away from him. Too bad he doesn't understand or defend the Constitution he claims to be a scholar on...... things would be much different if he actually did.... and had a spine to stand up for it.

But there are only 6, yes 6, corporations that own most of main stream media.

Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read

And still that isn't enough.

The constitution is but a piece of paper. It is the will of the people that is eroded.

It is also the meaning of the Constitution that is being eroded.

I kinda wonder if it wasn't actually the Democrats who pushed back on Obama this time for going too far.

reporting? the news "reporters" are puppets, just trained parrots telling us what the government tells them to report...