::::UPDATE BREAKING:::: The FCC is “throwing in the towel on its plans, but…only sort of.
The Federal Communications Commission has pulled the plug on its plan to conduct an intrusive probe of newsrooms as part of a “Critical Information Needs” survey of local media markets.
However, a revised version of the survey could raise new concerns: that it will trade its now-kiboshed news questions for a demographic survey that might justify new race-based media ownership rulemaking.
read it all. :::END UPDATE:::
So, apparently, this is how America works now:
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s “critical information needs.” Those “needs” will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government’s standards could face an uncertain future. It’s hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.
The initiative, known around the agency as “the CIN Study” (pronounced “sin”), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. “This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced. . .”
Well, when a president is able to amend his signal legislative achievement again and again by whim-and-decree, why would it surprise anyone that, increasingly in America, things are “just announced”, with nary an objection by our “mediating intelligences” in the press.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, indeed.
Props, therefore, to former Clinton Administration advisor Lanny Davis, who dares to speak out — or at least, to tweet out — his objections to the very illiberal, really quite scandalous intention of the Obama Administration to intrude upon our newsrooms:
Yet, with the exception of Davis, (and Howard Kurtz) there thus far appear to be no objections from our Democrat-leaning major news outlets. They apparently won’t mind having political officers monitoring them.
Is good citizenship and responsible journalism, comrade.
Last week I noted that, the Republicans on Capital Hill have spoken up, but no one else. You’d think Mrs. Clinton (a pal of Davis’ and a woman who loves to be thought of as an “advocate”) would be advocating for the press’ first amendment freedoms — for their right to their own editorial judgement and opinions.
But for heaven’s sake, if the press isn’t even advocating for themselves, why should she?
Clintonista friends and family within the media have already more than demonstrated that they are happy to take transcription from her (as they did after Benghazi), that they will refrain from asking challenging questions (as they did after Benghazi) and that they will willingly characterize her stereotypically female yelling and sobbing (before a congressional committee) as a model of feminist strength and fortitude. They are already going back to the storage shed to haul out the phrase “anti-Clinton” with which to label anything remotely critical of Hillary that cannot simply be called “sexist.” The Anti-Clintites are coming, again!
So, yes, this is how America works now. But still, good on Lanny Davis, for minding about it, even if it’s only on Twitter.
I wonder what Tim Russert would say? Or Michael Kelly?