FCC
In what may be one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission is about to commence a research effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would place government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.
According to the FCC, the effort is designed to address three core questions:
“1. How do Americans meet critical information needs?
2. How does the media ecosystem operate to address critical information needs?
3. What barriers exist in providing content and services to address critical information needs?”
_________________________________________________________
According to the FCC summary:
“The goal of the review specifically was to summarize research on the diversity of views available to local communities, on the diversity of sources in local markets, the definition of a range of critical information needs of the American public, how they are acquired as well as the barriers to acquisition. Having considered multiple frames of reference that take into account current conditions and trends, we identify existing knowledge and gaps in information. This research points to the importance of considering multiple dimensions and interactions within and across local communication ecologies rather than focusing on single platforms or categories of owners. The converging media environment together with demographic trends and evolving variations in communities of interests and culture among the American public require a more complex understanding of these dynamics as well as of the populations affected by them, in order to effectively identify and eliminate barriers to market entry and promote diversity…
“Available data and research indicate that: 1) There is an identifiable set of basic information needs that individuals need met to navigate everyday life, and that communities need to have met in order to thrive. While fundamental in nature, these needs are not static but rather subject to redefinition by changing technologies, economic status and demographic shifts. 2) Low-income and some minority and marginalized communities within metropolitan and rural areas and areas that are “lower-information” areas are likely to be systematically disadvantaged in both personal and community opportunities when information needs lag or go unmet.
3) Information goods are public goods; the failure to provide them is, in part, a market failure. But carefully crafted public policy can address gaps in information goods provision.”
__________________________________________________________
The breadth of what’s covered is a comprehensive list of what the public sees, hears, reads, or surfs. It includes television and radio broadcast content, articles printed in daily and weekly newspapers, and even what’s placed on line on the internet. In addition, a so-called “qualitative analysis of media providers” would be included.
Many observers are deeply concerned about the concept of a government agency making value judgments about news reporting, particularly in cases where those news items may be critical of the very government that is engaged in such oversight.
Worried First Amendment advocates and journalists who have expressed opposition to President Obama’s policies see this as an attempt to use the Federal Communications Commission to intimidate broadcasters and news writers in much the same way his Administration has been accused of using the Internal Revenue Service to attack opposing political groups such as the Tea Party.
Work on the concept began in 2012. The Annenberg School of Communication, which according to a study by the conservative-orientedBreitbart news agency is operated by the “same entity that employed both Barack Obama and domestic terrorist William Ayers in Chicago in the late 1990s and early 2000s,” carried out the initial research.
The Social Solutions International Corporation was then retained by the FCC to organize a study and a final report, which was issued in April 2013.
Social Solutions International defines itself as “a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of positive change for underserved populations. Our work touches those in our community and in countries worldwide. We are a mission-driven organization that believes that superior science can improve the world.”
Among the items the Social Solutions Corporations is reviewing:
- the access (or potential barriers) to critical information needs as identified by the FCC;
- the types of media that are broadcasting or writing about news; and
- interaction of the media with so-called diverse communities.
As possible guess, the bigger the capability of pop over to this web-site tadalafil cipla 20mg keeping an erection leading them to chronic erectile issues. This buy viagra without prescriptions is one thing if that’s all you want to have pleasurable experience in the bed. Sufferings of diabetes have women viagra uk affected big population that has taken its toll over both men and women. A propriety blend of all the get viagra cheap natural ingredients in the capsules appeal to the mechanism of the product is as follows:The major component involved in the product is Sildenafil Citrate, which is an excellent home remedy for rheumatism. 1-2 teaspoonful of juice should be taken before meals. * Celery is another effective home remedy for rheumatism.
This spring, field testing of the concept will begin.
This effort is so unusual that that even some within the Federal Communications Commission are crying foul. In a recent Wall Street Journal guest article by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai that is credited with bringing widespread attention to the issue, Commissioner Pai expressed his concern that this was an attempt to pressure media organizations into providing overage according to the whims of the government.
The FCC claims that the effort is to insure that listeners, viewers or readers get information bureaucrats consider crucial. The effort is billed as being “voluntary,” but the implication is clear: those refusing to comply could be in jeopardy of not having their broadcasting licenses renewed, or be subjected, in the case of print or internet organizations, to other harassing actions.
The FCC also claims that it wants to “eliminate barriers” for others, including small and minority businesses, to enter into the news field. Commissioner Pai notes that 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?
There are significant questions about what the FCC is attempting to do. There are no barriers, or even much cost, to placing your views on the internet. What possible excuse could Washington have to attempt to intervene in this process?
Opponents say the entire concept is overtly unconstitutional. In the past, there were programs, such as the Fairness Doctrine, which mandated broadcast outlets to give equal time to opposing sides. That idea, they maintain, died a well-deserved death. The CIN concept is markedly different from the Fairness Doctrine, which did pass Supreme Court review.
For the first time, it opens the door to allowing the federal government to directly intervene in the news process, and to establish a basis to affect news content on television, radio, in newspapers, magazines, and, remarkably, even on the internet.
There appears to be ample reason for First Amendment advocates to be deeply concerned.
LETTER FROM THE HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP TO FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER ON THE
CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS PROGRAM
December 10, 2013
Proposed field study shows “startling disregard” for freedom of the press – “It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this”
WASHINGTON, DC – House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders, along with every Republican member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, [on December 10] wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler urging him to suspend the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to conduct a field study that could lead to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Members cited similar concerns with respect to the original Fairness Doctrine and committee leaders urged then FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to remove the statute from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2011. The doctrine was eliminated in August 2011.
“Given the widespread calls for the commission to respect the First Amendment and stay out of the editorial decisions of reporters and broadcasters, we were shocked to see that the FCC is putting itself back in the business of attempting to control the political speech of journalists. It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this most recent attempt to engage the FCC as the ‘news police,'” wrote the members. “The commission has no business probing the news media’s editorial judgment and expertise, nor does it have any business in prescribing a set diet of ‘critical information.’ These goals are plainly inappropriate and are at bottom an incursion by the government into the constitutionally protected operations of the professional news media.”
The members concluded, “The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the beacon of freedom that makes the United States unique among the world’s nations. We urge you to take immediate steps to suspend this effort and find ways that are consistent with the Communications Act and the Constitution to serve the commission’s statutory responsibilities.”
The letter was signed by the following members:
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI)
Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX)
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR)
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH)
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
Rep. Billy Long (R-MO)
Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)