FCC--Making Sure the News is News

Another come-and-go story from last week:  FCC in Newsrooms. (Link is for reference to the story, not a special perspective)

The gist of the controversy was that the FCC was going to send investigators into newsrooms in order to make sure that media outlets are serving the public's "critical information needs."

The press, as one would expect, howled at the idea and the program was dropped like it was on fire.

In our polarized climate and with an administration that believes its most important work is in "messaging," I find the idea disgusting. For one, it's not like the MSM aren't craven boot-lickers when it comes to the progressive agenda--what more could they ask for? For another, the leftist take-over of institutions is always so sideways and sneaky--officious, urgent and disingenuous--that I have the same response that one has towards cowardice. At least come out and seize what you want and put your cards on the table.

But the FCC, at least when it comes to broadcasters, is well within its rights. The understanding is that the FCC retains the rights to broadcast frequencies and licenses them as long as the programmers are fulfilling the public's need for information.

But, as was mentioned here, those kinds of regulations were built upon WASP culture. The men running America considered themselves disinterested, able to separate their own views from the rule of law and the Bill-of-Rights principles that guided the nation. To do otherwise would be unseemly.

That's not to say that media manipulation didn't happen. But today's attitude is not that it's dishonorable to manipulate the public's understanding--it's necessary. Take a look at what the FCC considered "critical information:"

The study identified eight "critical needs": information about emergencies and risks; health and welfare; education; transportation; economic opportunities; the environment; civic information; and political information.

It's not difficult to see those topics quickly becoming vehicles for political intimidation. In fact, it's difficult to imagine that they wouldn't. For example, might the FCC standards that journalists must meet on the environment look something like the Obama administration's environmental agenda? Might standards on economic opportunity resemble the president's inequality agenda? The same could hold true for the categories of health and welfare and "civic information" -- and pretty much everything else.

--- 

"The purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the process by which stories are selected," the Social Solutions report said, adding that news organizations would be evaluated for "station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

There's always an "on the other hand"--here's mine:  Opposition to these kinds of incursions into an already corrupt and subservient industry only serves to make their later attempts more slippery. The FCC can't dictate when walking in the front door, so they'll try the back. It might be better to work some jujutsu and let them roll right over the news media.

Their bread and butter is manipulating our perception of reality and, given their druthers, they'd concoct a fantasy-land so unfamiliar that it would have the effect of a hundred million televisions being unplugged at once.