No need to worry. Nothing to see here. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732
Boy, that's for sure. The FCC is doing a... a... a SURVEY! Take cover! This reminds me that every 10 years the government intrusively asks me how many toilets are in my house. Who knows what they could be doing with that information. I'm scared everytime I sit down. At any time I might be attacked by a sewer drone. Luckily I have 4, so I use them in random order to keep the gummint guessing. barfo
Why is the regulatory government agency interviewing people in the newsroom? Nevermind. I see the two who have responded to this thread. Both of yours positions on big government are known to me. No need to argue. I'm anti-governmental intrusion as it pertains to the 1st Amendment, and you two goosestep along with Big Brother, so long as it's your team doing the intruding. I find there even being an FCC to be ironic, considering the First Amendment, but social conservatives and liberals tend to want to control the message. They're on the same side, and they don't even know it.
I realize you don't give a shit about the constitution, but there is this 1st amendment thing that really gets in the govt.'s way of this sort of intimidation.
Yes, that sounds super duper dangerous all right. They are going to put the findings in a report to congress! No doubt Congress eagerly awaits this report and will immediately assign a low level staffer to file the report in a cabinet somewhere! It's the end of the 1st amendment as we know it! Seriously, this is the best conspiracy theory for today? Sloooow news day I guess. Maybe the FCC better investigate that too. barfo
Why would they need to report any findings to Congress? To see how news agencies exercise their First Amendment rights? Why should the FCC care, or why should Congress care? What is a "critical need," and why is the FCC defining 8 subjective "critical news needs" for news services? Slow news day, I guess. No bridge closures, but I wouldn't know that if I turned on MSNBC tonight.
"Emergency" "Stimulus" Bill sounds super duper. It wasn't emergency or stimulus. What barriers to entry are there for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry? You can rent WWW space for $5/month and post whatever you want. Even something flattering or critical of Obama.
Ok serious thoughts on the FCC doing this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-new-rules-on-open-internet.html?_r=0
For me, I read the first two sentences of the article and couldn't get past that. I got the feeling the rest of the article was not going to be very objective: 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 author of the original piece if one of the 5 FCC commissioners. Oh well, maybe Rachel Maddow will offer a more inside opinion.
Looks like the media rightfully stood up to these invasive questions. I have to laugh at the big government types who defended this action. Talk about lemmings... http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0221/DOC-325722A1.pdf
Whoever he/she is, clearly they have an agenda and a strong anti-liberal/pro-conservative view. Just hard for me to continue reading when they start the article with "MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time" But hey, maybe I'm missing some great insightful stuff from an informed and non-bias writer.
MSNBC is in full blown "get Christie" mode for weeks. They talk constantly about the bridge shutdown. The article wasn't favorable to Fox, though. They're the only media outlet that is focused on Obama scandals. The outlier. So both networks are biased, according to their opponents. Why on earth would we want elected democrats deciding what Fox can air, or elected republicans deciding what MSNBC can air? They both report, We the People decide.
So you agree that MSNBC believes that traffic is the crisis of our time? Writer didn't say that Fox is focused on Obama scandals. He said that Fox News, cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. So he starts outright away with one network thinks traffic is the crisis of our time and the other network covered Benghazi more heavily than other networks. And you think that is being equally negative to both networks?
Yes. MSNBC is shock jock style journalism. Wait, it isn't journalism at all. It is a bunch of talking heads spouting opinion. Not one actual news person, anchor, or reporter. It is wall to wall slam Christie. If that's not as if it's the crisis of our time, what is? Fwiw, the unrest in Ukraine seems to be more of a news story than either of the others mentioned, no?
OK. It shows that people can read things and come out with 2 different opinions. I respect that you think this writer is being fair and equally harsh to both networks. I respectfully disagree and believe the writer took a shot at MSNBC and a backhanded compliment to Fox to start the article off. Didn't read the rest of article because I thought it would be written in the same style (trying to sound like he is fair to both sides). But whatever, don't think I missed much as it sounds like it is about some survey and I'm not one who thinks gov't is over reaching into our lives to start with.
