Fox's Krauthammer Very Upset FCC Wants To Study Their Propaganda Channel

[applegrove]

Fox's Krauthammer Very Upset FCC Wants To Study Their Propaganda Channel

By Heather at Crooks and Liars

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/02/foxs-krauthammer-very-upset-fcc-wants?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"SNIP.....................................



The Republicans are horribly upset about an FCC study -- which the agency is required by law to conduct -- that is "intended to examine barriers of entry into the news media industry for small businesses." So naturally they're screaming bloody murder, carping that... gasp!!!... it could lead to the return of the Fairness Doctrine. And of course the pundits at Fox like Charles Krauthammer are up in arms as well.

From Fox's blog: ‘This Is An Outrage Disguised As a Study’: Krauthammer Blasts FCC’s Proposed Media Monitoring Study:


A ‘Special Report’ panel today discussed a proposed FCC study, which would send government monitors into newsrooms across the country. The study was brought to the public’s attention by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who published an op-ed about it in the Wall Street Journal.

“As if the IRS and the EPA and the NLRB haven’t done enough damage, the FCC now has to trample on what rights are remaining,” Charles Krauthammer said. “This is an outrage disguised as a study.”





....................................SNIP"

[Skip Intro]

1. It's more than just faux, and it doesn't sound good.

In fact, it begins soon, in my home state capital of Columbia, SC, from what I've read.

I don't want the federal government in any newsroom, "monitoring" content.

I hope no one else here does either.

[applegrove]

2. I'm dying to see faux exposed as a Roger Ailes behind a curtain. Don't you think

media concentration and propaganda is a problem? I mean if those 7 ceos are micromanaging all content across all media in the USA I want to know.

[Skip Intro]

3. I don't want the government deciding news content. Period.

Everyone knows what fox is. And honestly, msnbc is the mirror image. CNN is a joke to everyone.

But the government "evaluating" content, pushing their nose into the newsroom editorial decisions?

Fuck that, pardon my language.

Bigger picture than fox. Much bigger picture. Freedom of the Press big.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Scary that people can't see this because... well... Fox! n/t

[aggiesal]

28. 3 liberal hosts on MSNBC . . .

along with RW Morning Joe does not mirror 24/7 Fox noise machine.

And when a Florida judge rules that Fox has the right to lie over
[font color=red]our airways[/font] using the FCC license that we granted them, I believe
the FCC has the authority to monitor whether these news outlets
are serving the public good.

[Keefer]

60. Ummm, Fox

is a cable channel. They do not use "our airways." MSNBC and CNN are the same way, cable operations.

[aggiesal]

73. And of course . . .

none of the Fox news stories ever make it to the Fox broadcast channels.

[Keefer]

77. MSNBC stories

make it to NBC too, don't they? All I'm saying is that having government involved in a constitutionally-protected free press is a bad idea.

[aggiesal]

81. So let's not have any regulations or oversite whatsoever!!! n/t

[Keefer]

84. Would you like

the government telling ABC, CBS, or NBC what stories to do and which to ignore? I wouldn't.

[GoneFishin]

112. I don't want corporatist billionaires telling them which to ignore either, but they do.

Don't hold your breath waiting for MSNBC to do any hard-hitting exposes on any industry GE is into deep, which includes some of the big ones.

We already know from Cenk Uygur that they will put pressure on any hosts who get too uppity.

[seattledo]

107. I can get Fox w/ my antenna

[azureblue]

30. Oh BS

perhaps you should review what is what like before the fairness in broadcasting law was repealed. And perhaps you should take a little time to learn to differentiate between news based on fact (see Canada) and propaganda based on lies and half truths, reported as "fair and balanced" news. There once was a time when the news and news reporters took it upon themselves to report the full truth of a story, and took time to dig in depth and research before reporting- Cronkite, E. R Morrow, etc. Men of integrity. Fox can't even shine their shoes -Fox is a propaganda outlet for the GOP, and nothing more. Fox cares nothing about the truth, and never did. Personally I would like to see the FCC yank the license of any news station that willfully broadcasts a lie as factual news.

[Cayenne]

91. Ministry of truth.

Who owns the truth. The first amendment was not predicated on facts or truth.

[Kingofalldems]

50. MSNBC is not the mirror image of Fox.

[chillfactor]

105. agreed.....

If anything MSNBC is the OPPOSITE of FAUX

[meanit]

61. "Government deciding news content"

is part of the propaganda bullshit peddled by the right, IMO.

The misinformation that is peddled by the right wing owned news organizations is a huge reason why the country is in the state it is now. Just about anybody under the age of 80 is part of the television age, and right wing control of the media has helped to turn a lot of people into slobbering idiots with a civic mentality of infants.

I'd rather have a cop policing media fairness than the criminals doing it.

[Skip Intro]

95. That's a misquote, for one thing.

I said government "evaluating" news content. And man, if they are going to be "studying" editorial decisions, then they're pretty clearly evaluating news content.

[meanit]

97. I misquoted nothing

The title of post #3 by you says: "I don't want the government deciding news content. Period."
Your words, not mine.



But besides that, go ahead and let the FCC do their study. Cable news is not under the FCC so what are they worried about?

I would be worried if it were a Republican administration doing this study because the Republicans have a long and horrendous track record of shutting down opposing opinions, deliberately putting out false information as news, ruining journalists professionally or getting them fired, shutting journalists out from access if they don't "play ball" and many, many other abuses of government power.
The Democrats on the other hand, not so much.

I am also sick and tired of this act of falling all over ourselves to make sure that we don't appear to bruise the rights of these right wing owned "news organizations', who in the meantime, are openly broadcasting suggestions that their minions use violence against progressives and liberals, along with their usual job of trying to destroy the rest of everybody else's rights that they don't happen to like.

The media needs to be open to all sides equally and the nonsense needs to stop.

[Skip Intro]

98. Yikes, you are correct. Thought you were quoting body of post. My mistake.

But this is the same federal government that announced (?!) it was monitoring Associated Press phone lines.

This is the same federal government that is likely recording what I'm typing right now. The same one that can turn on my cell phone and use it to spy on me, record what I say. Go read some of Willy T's threads on the NSA.

The same federal government that now wants to ask editorial staff and reporters' to explain why they report what they report?

No thank you. Fuck that. If you can't see the danger there nothing I can say will make you see it. It is glaring.

[L0oniX]

70. ...because having billionaires decide news content is better.

[putitinD]

6. I'm dying to see equal time given for an opposing viewpoint, like it used to be

[applegrove]

7. It would be nice if there was more of that for sure.

[freshwest]

13. Billionaires have decided the content of commercial news, the government has not. Unless one truly

Last edited Fri Feb 21, 2014, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

believes what Beck says about the Obama administration.



Yup, that picture is straight from Glennbeckistan. The RWNJs have yelled about the FCC, telling people freedom of the press is an endangered species because that terrible black man and ACORN.

The US was more democratic and better informed under the Fairness Doctrine. I support anything the FCC can do to bring it back in any possible form and balance the media.

The article is about giving more voices, not censoring or controlling the news. The corporate media has done that very well. Some agree with Beck and Jones about the evil intent of the government, have said that Obama and the Muslins are going to be after them any day now.

Since 2007 they've peddled this. It's no wonder that a few will take the bait.

[The Roux Comes First]

29. Spot On

The mega-media owners have, like so many large business enterprises in the era beginning with that deplorable actor-president, been given way too much latitude. Fox is little more than a propaganda operation. The WSJ is in recent days merely a dirty rag. I recently listened to Pete Hamill's "News is a Verb," written a while back (1998?) and highly recommended, and was shocked to be reminded that even that paper used to actually have some scruples, perhaps the inkling of a conscience, and a mandate involving a broad audience. Not these days.

Call me a rube, but my first take was that this might be the first step in questioning whether Fox even qualifies as a "news" organization and deserving of whatever benefits that might entail.

I find it odd, to put it politely, that there are so many here eager to jump in and automatically link this to some horrific program of government censorship. Shouldn't you be spending your time at Politico or Sludge?

[dchill]

52. Well, anything Glenn Beck is for, I'm against...

Conversely, anything Glenn Beck is against, I'm for. I feel that this is a sign of my intelligence, as well as a sign of Beck's deliberate ignorance. Agreement with Glenn Beck signals the failure of what is basically an IQ test.

I also believe that FCC=Government=We the people - and is therefore a good thing as opposed to any corporate-sponsored Soylent Green news hegemony.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. I'm dying to see the media go back to being the watchdog....

Reagan made so many false statements that fact checking him took longer than his press conferences.

The news media took a lot of flack over picking on the old man so they took the lazy way out and invited on Democrats to counter him.

The PROBLEM with that is it opened to door to the NONSENSE we have now of smash mouth politics and "the truth is somewhere in between" / "both sides do it" false equivalency crap demonstrated by the likes of CNN. The truth is the truth and the news used to tell us the truth even though it hurts sometimes.

[amandabeech]

4. I'm with you.

I can't stand faux, but I also don't want the feds, rep or dem or purple people eaters party, in any newsroom monitoring content.

Talk about chilling free speech. Sheesh.

[Skip Intro]

5. Exactly. It is chilling. n/t

[HangOnKids]

11. Chilling for those that love Fox

I'm sure that isn't you.....

[Cali_Democrat]

17. LOL...

[amandabeech]

18. Free speech includes the freedom for idiot pukes

to make fools of themselves in the media.

Free speech belongs to everyone, not just Dems.

You might want to check out the First Amendment to the Constitution when you have some spare time.

You might notice that the protections on freedom from government interference in speech do not mention political party or political philosophy.

Would you really want the Bushies in the newsrooms monitoring content?

[PowerToThePeople]

38. the bushies did that to pbs.

[okaawhatever]

41. You absolutely pulled the "monitoring content" claim out of thin air. They aren't there to

monitor content. They're doing a study on barriers to entry in the market. Stop believing what you hear on Fox news. They aren't worried about the government monitoring their content, they're worried about competitors being added and cutting into their profits.

[spin]

32. Sooner or later there is a good chance that a Republican will sit in the White House. ...

"Tricky Dick" Nixon would have loved to view the results of NSA surveillance on everybody and everything and to have had someone sitting in all news rooms to intimidate the editors into not revealing information about the Watergate break-in.

[dchill]

54. Free speech and lies are one thing,

News is another.

[Skittles]

9. LOL

and.....you don't want Christie to be prez either

[Rex]

15. It is always so strange they are prefectly willing to let the 1% do anything they want

but when they hear the govt is getting involved...the end of society. Funny watching them echo Foxnews!

[Skittles]

43. I can't see through them, Rex!

I need these!

[Rex]

76. Better watch out!

Someone will alert on you for looking at us all nekked...you are brave btw.

[iemitsu]

14. The government is already in every news room in the nation,

in the guise of the CIA.
They probably don't actually write the news but those who do are aware of their presence.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. It's scary people think this is OK because... Fox! Shortsighted in the extreme.

Makes me think of the Hunt for Red October scene where the "Political Officer" asks Sean Connery if he can announce the ship's orders to the crew.

Would we hand over EVERY FUCKING NEWSROOM IN THE COUNTRY to the federal government because we hate Fox News? Seriously? What does that say about how we feel about the First Amendment if we answered a resounding "YES!" to that question?

[meanit]

62. So does that mean

were we all under the brow of government "political officers" when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect years ago?

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. The Fairness Doctrine only concerned broadcast airwaves.

I don't want a government hand in the news just because we dislike Fox.

[meanit]

66. I don't think anyone wants an entity dictating news content

but this isn't about content. It's about one-sided opinions passed off as fact, shutting down opposing opinions, propagana, outright lies and fabrications being fed to a public that mostly still thinks "you can't say it on tv if it isn't true".

FOX is by far the most aggregious offender, but all news networks should have a common standard of truthfullness and fairness that is enforced.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. In other words: Content. n/t

[meanit]

72. To be more clear, the study the FCC is doing is just a study.

But the media as a whole, yes contents containing propaganda needs to go. I trust enforcable standards vs. right wing corperate propagandists.

[MO_Moderate]

88. The question is

do you trust "enforceable standards" vs. "left wing" propagandists?

[meanit]

92. I don't want propaganda, right or left wing.

Just a fair, equal forum and some accountability in the media.

[oldhippie]

79. Sure we do ....

... as long as we control it. Otherwise, not so much.

[meanit]

83. Nobody messed with the Fairness Doctrine

until the GOP did. It shouldn't have been touched by anybody.

We also control nothing in the corporate conservative media now. There really is no "otherwise, not so much".

[Enrique]

27. what begins soon?

the article linked in the OP had nothing about monitoring content.

[Ikonoklast]

31. The FCC doesn't say anything about monitoring content. That's Fox's spin on the matter.

You took them at their word without reading the link.


Read what the FCC is actually trying to accomplish before swooning over poor Fox News being so put upon by teh eebil gubbamint.

From the link:

In a statement, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said, “The Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasts by way of this research design, any resulting study, or through any other means. The research design is a precursor to any formal study. If used in any way, its goal would be similar to those of past reports seeking to identify whether potential market barriers exist and, if so, whether those barriers affect diversity of media voices.”

Yeah, that sounds like they're going to censor the news.

[liberalmike27]

34. I think this is ludicrous,

This idea the government is "providing content," is yet another bogus example of just plain false propaganda.

The idea is that very rich people own networks, thus they completely control the content. No poor or middle class person can get their opinion on television, if they don't want you to.

All the "Fairness Doctrine" does is take this simple fact into account. It simply states that if we're going to allow you to broadcast in America (technically just the airwaves, a lawyer told me, not cable, but I think cable too should be included) then you are required to air all views. You can't set up a station like FOX, that constantly berates the Democrats, never saying one single thing, that only brings Democrats on to make fun of them.

You might say MSNBC is the Democrats version, but in truth, MSNBC comes a little closer to being fair. It has Republicans on mostly in the morning, into the middle of the day when it's more news, into the night, where they have socially liberal hosts on television. Even they will bring on Republicans who can at least speak on their issues. But even MSNBC is pretty conservative, as they don't even discuss certain issues, like just wars, or how much we spend on the military, or its costs to the deficits, and debt. It speaks very little about globalization, and the massive unemployment its causing, and how it is yet another source of debt.

So without forcing the hand of the moneyed owners and highly paid CEO's of these stations to at least try to achieve some equity, and show both Rush Limbaugh's and Michael Moores in relatively equal quantity, you get exactly what we have now. You get 98% of all talk political radio being right-wing, you get obfuscated issues, you get the so-called-liberal station showing prison shows all weekend, when working people are home, when FOX plows on through, insulting Democrats, taking names, and brainwashing people.

They might want to add a simple truth clause.

Hell, the simple fact so many understand the "Fairness Doctrine" as the government spoon-feeding the media, exactly what they want it to say, is proof enough of the need for these things--and the fact so many brainlessly, it seems, resist it, repeating the very brainwashing that led to its repeal in 1987, right about when all this crazy two-sided society began happening (coincidence? I think not!), actually seems again, proof enough that we need it. We need someone out there defending the liberal idea, of actually having guests on all news shows, and talk shows of roughly equal quality.

Certainly they had a little editorial license--hell Rupert Murdoch actually calls Greta Van Susteren a liberal, for instance. But at least no one would be able to constantly watch a one-sided, racists channel, like FOX.

[okaawhatever]

39. It doesn't have anything to do with content. It is a study to determine what the barriers to entry

are in the business. In other words, what obstacles a start-up news channel would face and if those barriers are so great or costly that they prevents new businesses from forming.

I think we all pretty much know that there are barriers to entry in the market. The study is to define what they are and how costly they are so the government can begin a grant program to help create new media outlets.

[tabasco]

48. OOOOOOOOOOH! The big bad scary "fedrul gubmint!"

Maybe you should be more concerned about mega media corporations controlling the news.

[RandiFan1290]

49. "upset about an FCC study -- which the agency is required by law to conduct"

What is the problem, Skippy?

[meanit]

57. The media is a disaster.

Having some sort of fairness and truth in reporting is not going to come from the right wing propaganda coaches that have infested virtually every newsroom in the country.

[Skittles]

8. ew, I just saw his face on a book cover at Half Priced Books

I KNOW it will give me nightmares

[hrmjustin]

12. .

[Boomerproud]

10. Anything that gives that creep a sleepless night is fine by me.

The FCC better watch their step however or there will be 50 congressional hearings by the Pubbies claiming victimhood.

[Jenoch]

16. I don't quite u derstand whT this study has to

do with Fox News. This is a study about entry into the news media by small business. I have news for you, there are many small market radio stations for sale, just come up with a few hundred thousand dollars.

[okaawhatever]

40. The radio stations aren't television. I don't know if there was a call to identify barriers in the

radio business or not. When 90% of the media outlets are owned by 6 companies the FCC needs to investigate why new media outlets aren't forming. The only way to help those start-ups form is to identify what it costs to bring them to market and what barriers they face.

[Jenoch]

46. If it's concentration of ownership of radio and TV

stations, then I have the answer to why it happened. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 loosened up the ownership restrictions. Prior to that, a company, corporation, or person could only own 25AM, 25FM, and 25TV stations in the entire U.S. After that, they could own up to 7am, 7FM, and 3TV stations in the same market with no limits otherwise.

[brooklynite]

19. They can't and they shouldn't

Fox News is a cable channel, not under FCC jurisdiction, and as idiotic and hostile as their programming is, the First Amendment permits it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

25. that's the same way they get away with a host of other abuses....

Misusing the Constitution and laws to deliberately twist the core meaning.

Of course fox is cable, and the law only regulates "public" airwaves. What a fucking abuse of the word "public"....
And they've gotten away with WORD GAMES for decades now , twisting the intent of laws to their malicious advantages.

And now they're gonna be under the microscope. Yaaaaay!!!!!

[liberalmike27]

35. Cable News (or those posturing to be such)

Should also be required to air all opinions.

And I think getting on air and lying constantly, stretching the truth, and treating political opponents as enemies, or suggesting abortion doctors be killed, is pretty close to that "you can't yell fire in a theater," exemption, for freedom of speech.

Lying on air, misrepresenting the truth, is just as bad as the theater, or perhaps worse.

Rich people own all of the media. If no requirement is made for them to air the issues and concerns of the poor, the middle class, and let's face it, these days REAL HUMANS over corporations, then they are NOT going to do it.

[brooklynite]

47. Thank god you don't get to decide this...

First, if you think that what Fox News is doing is dangerous, or that "lying us into war" is a chargeable offense, I invite you you revisit "Yellow Journalism" and the origins of the Spanish American War.

Second, if we get to apply standards of "truth" to the media, we'd be extending the same rights to the Republicans when they're in charge.

I'll take an unfettered First Amendment if you don't mind.

[meanit]

65. Unfettered First Amendment

for those who control the programming, have the money and own the network. Totally one-sided to the highest bidder with an agenda and whoever pulls the strings. Then the rest of us get to watch the whole slanted BS show.

Yeah, real fair, real free, real First Amendment.

[brooklynite]

71. But now you've changed the ground rules...

It's no longer that they lie, it's that they have the resources to get their message out, and the people you agree with don't.

First, I disagree with that assessment. We have MSNBC, AJ, BBC World News, The New York Times, The Nation, websites, etc. Fox News is successful because people who agree with them gravitate to that coverage.

Second, I see no way the Government can have a roll in expanding accessibility to the people who's opinions you like.

[meanit]

74. I've changed no ground rules

The persistent problem is the propaganda and the lies being passed off as "news". And also the fact that the ones who are spewing the propaganda and lies have now bought up controlling portions of the media. The people with the most money should not get to decide what is true and false.

Having MSNBC, AJ and the rest makes no difference. Those networks should be held to standards as much as FOX or anyone else who wants to be called a news network. This is not a pissing match or a horse race and the winner gets to decide what the news is. It's about keeping the citizenry informed with accurate and honest information so they can make informed decisions at the ballot box and elsewhere.

Corporate, for profit "news" entities are not going to do what's right and give us the facts, good or bad. They are going to put out whatever shit makes them money or furthers their political agenda if they have one.

If I want opinions, I'll go to the newspaper opinion page or some talk shows.

If I want tabloid bullshit as news, I'll check the supermarket checkouts.

But the news on the airwaves should have logical, fair standards as that affects us all.

[meanit]

63. Things change.

Probably 90% of the country get it's tv from cable now.
The days of rabbit ears on the old b&w Philco are gone.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. oh YES!!!! YES!!!! GO, FCC, GO!

Wow! Finally finally FINALLY!

Yes, I'm shouting.... I sure wasn't holding my breath, but I've seriously been wanting something done to expose fux spews, friend to the authoritarian conservstive, blustering, incurious, primitive-brained demographic.

It's actually happening? It's starting finally? Ohhhhhhhhh yaaaaaaaaaaay!


P.S. i dont consider deceitful indoctrination brainwashing propaganda that endangers the country (meaning, it's a threat to we individuals who make up the country) to be subject to free speech laws. "Private Ownersip", my ass. They have a transfusion needle full of poison stuck in a vein of every repuke around, and they want to own govt. i.e. own us.

This is an exemption by and for the power elites who own the network. And a political party.

[okaawhatever]

42. Sadly, no this study isn't to call them out for their unwavering support of dishonesty. It's simply

a study to determine the "barriers to entry" in the marketplace. You may know the term, but if you don't it's a term used in economics to describe what one has to go through to create a new business in a given field. When the barriers to entry are too high you find that few or no new businesses are created and the existing ones exhibit monopolistic type behavior.

I think we all know the barriers to entry are too high in television media right now. For goodness sake, 90% owned by 6 companies, not hard to compute. The study will determine what it costs to start up a new media source and hopefully congress will offer grants or tax incentives to create new media outlets or news sources. We desperately need it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

96. oh. well that's not as exciting as I thought. .

But it's something.

Thanks for explaining!

[Lucky Luciano]

22. I think fox should be able to spew what they spew as free speech.

That said, there are truth in advertising laws already on the books and they should not be able to refer to themselves as a "news" channel.

Just like some whipped "creme" is spelled incorrectly when it is not real "cream."

They can call themselves Fox Noos or something.

[kristopher]

24. Don't you know that it's time to besmirch the FCC

FCC Says It Will Rewrite Net Neutrality Rules
http://election.democraticunderground.com/1014732126

[Cha]

26. Absolutely, the 24/7 Propaganda channel would Lie

about the "required" study.. that's what they do.

mahalo applegrove~ Of course their propaganda puppet strings are in a twist.. flailing about like some kind of demented Pinocchios!

[meanit]

67. Lol, good point.

Like we all should take advice on the subject from a paid liar for the biggest lying propaganda network on the airwaves.

[Kablooie]

33. I don't understand what they would study inside a news room.

They have no control over the way things are run or editorial content unless it's pornographic.
What could they learn?
I don't get it.

[okaawhatever]

44. The study is to define the "barriers to entry" for a new tv channel. Barriers to entry are the

obstacles an individual must overcome to create a business in a given field. This would include, licensing, hiring, availability of trained people to hire, the cost of buying all the equipment, financing, permits, whatever it takes to get a new media outlet off the ground. The best way to study that is to study existing stations and go from there. It's a typical process for a study of this type. How else can you identify what is needed to compete with current stations and what it would cost to start one if you don't know what the other stations have?

[area51]

36. If Faux opinion channel is fair and balanced as they claim

what are they so fscking worried about?

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Charles Butthammer?

Ah, he's always fun.

[Enthusiast]

51. Well, I'm Very Upset With Fox's Krauthammer For Being Such a Dick!

[dchill]

53. The phrase "Fox's Krauthammer" triggers my gag reflex.

After swallowing hard, however, I was able to enjoy this thread.

[Scuba]

55. Why would the FCC think there's a problem?

[SummerSnow]

56. Gasp!!! Its an attack by the liburul medeeah.lol

[badtoworse]

58. Krauthammer has this one right. The government does not belong in the newsroom - period.

The potential for abuse and censorship would span the political spectrum. This is a precedent that no one should want or tolerate.

[Keefer]

59. The FCC

doesn't have any authority over cable channels OR newspapers. Even if I thought this was a good idea, (I don't,) they have no right to put "monitors" in a cable news channel or a newspaper newsroom.

[B2G]

68. Here's what I don't get

From what I understand of this, the FCC has defined 8 different areas of 'critical information needs' and then asks the media outlets questions regarding their news philosophy, decisions to air stories, suggested coverage that was rejected, etc.


What does any of that have to do with "examining barriers of entry into the news media industry for small businesses." , which is the purported purpose of the study?

[meanit]

75. It may be

because media consolidation has shut out smaller organizations from getting into the game so to speak.
Sort of like what Wal-Mart does to local "mom & pop" stores.

[B2G]

80. But what does that have to do with

the content of what they air and their decision to air certain stories.

I am very suspicious of this whole study. Will look for a link to the actual text from the FCC.

[meanit]

82. Apparently it has nothing to do with content

but Krauthammer and FOX are saying that it does.

[B2G]

85. It actually does

The very name of the study implies that and they identified 8 key content areas they'll be reviewing.

[pinboy3niner]

86. The news/editorial questions have now been dropped

Proposed FCC study of news organizations sparks outcry
By Paul Farhi, Published: February 20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/proposed-fcc-study-of-news-organizations-sparks-conservative-outcry/2014/02/20/117401d8-9a71-11e3-80ac-63a8ba7f7942_story.html

[Rex]

78. Fuck Charles, he just doesn't want them looking in too close

they might see all the maggots and worms crawling underneath the surface.

[GoneFishin]

87. If I was a pompous lying ass whose credibility could be shot to hell by a junior high school

debate team, I would be afraid of having my protective Fox Noise bubble burst.

[Throd]

89. I'm appalled that anyone would even remotely support this shit.

Substitute Krauthammer's name with that of your favorite pundit, add a Republican government, and see if it still carries the same appeal.

[meanit]

93. Of course it wouldn't have the same appeal with Republicans in charge.

But the Democrats don't have the appalling record that the Republicans have concerning Constitutional rights, abuse of power, etc.,etc.

[Skip Intro]

94. I just got back online and I am shocked at many posts here.

Blind puppets marching off a cliff, smiling and saluting and focused on the rainbow.

[bettyellen]

99. puppets can't march! and also this is not about content at all, LOL.

[Skip Intro]

100. It isn't about content? What is it about then, bettyellen? n/t

[bettyellen]

104. "to examine barriers of entry into the news media industry for small businesses"

[Skip Intro]

106. How can editorial decisions create barriers to entry? Please, explain.

[Skip Intro]

111. and silence...n/t

[Rex]

103. We get to see some true colors!

LOL indeed!

[Rex]

102. Fail...there is no left wing version of Foxnews.

Boy all of you that are scared that the govt is going to look over Foxnews are really showing your true colors...

[tritsofme]

109. That we support the First Amendment in all circumstances? Not only when it is convenient to our own

political ends.

Yes, those are my true colors.

And I am not ashamed.

[Skip Intro]

110. "Look over Fox news" - Is this limited to fox?

Care to offer something of substance?

[GoneFishin]

90. I totally support this. I won't listen to anyone who lies to me anyway. As long the factual

basis of the reporting is the criteria under examination, I think this is essential to a democracy. Allowing billionaires to pay "news" outlets to act as shill front groups for them is dangerous to democracy as we have seen.

[gopiscrap]

101. Fuck him, he's a pos!

[tritsofme]

108. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Press freedom and the First Amendment are sacrosanct, government minders in the pressroom are unacceptable under any circumstances.

Trying to tie this back to the Obama Administration is ridiculous. It was an independent agency forgetting it's purpose.

[GoneFishin]

113. I believe the "government minders" are there already. And they have been for decades.

Many tough questions go unasked of our government by "journalists" regardless of which party is in power.

[fishwax]

114. This study (even before it was revised) wouldn't have looked at Fox News anyway

It was designed to study broadcast news (and other forms of local news), not cable news outlets.