FCC to regulate news and print


mobilehaathi

macrumors G3
Aug 19, 2008
9,347
6,216
The Anthropocene
I'd be interested in reading the source for the statement highlighted above.

Thanks...
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

With regards to the link in the OP, it is incredibly poorly cited. The only link to a non-inquisitr in that article is a WSJ article on Net Neutrality...

Edit: Actually there are two non-inquisitr links that are essentially clones of the same story...
 
Last edited:

Shrink

macrumors G3
Feb 26, 2011
8,914
1,596
New England, USA
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

With regards to the link in the OP, it is incredibly poorly cited. The only link to a non-inquisitr in that article is a WSJ article on Net Neutrality...
Thanks for the link.:D

OPs link struck me as more than a bit iffy...but since I have no familiarity with the site I withheld judgement.


I did find this in the site's "About" section. Fortunately they are not troubled by false modesty...

About

About The Inquisitr

The Inquisitr offers a constantly updated mix of the latest stories to hit the web, covering a diverse spectrum of topic areas including technology, news, sport, entertainment and offbeat stories.
We are a click away from everything that is going on in the world here and now.
We are different because unlike most papers on the net we are a team of young and very talented writers.
We aim to bring you the hottest trends and the latest stories as they happen.
Over 1 Million people now like us on Facebook.

If you’re interested in advertising on The Inquisitr, details are available here. For any other queries please email editor@inquisitr.com
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,484
30,722
The Far Horizon
Thanks for the link.:D

OPs link struck me as more than a bit iffy...but since I have no familiarity with the site I withheld judgement.


I did find this in the site's "About" section. Fortunately they are not troubled by false modesty...
As far as I know, there are at least two organisations which classify and then rank states under a number of headings, and aggregate the total, releasing the results annually.

One is Transparency International. I have known a number of people who have worked for this organisation and they are invariably excellent, and meticulous about the sources they use from which they derive their conclusions. One of the things they rank is press freedom, but their key interest lies in the field of examining corruption.

The other is the UN. Each year, they release the UN-HDI (UN - Human Development Index.) Again, this ranks every state in the world under several different headings (treatment of women, access to and quality of education, health, housing, freedom of the press, and so on).

Both sources are very reliable and are very highly regarded by those who cite & use them.
 

mobilehaathi

macrumors G3
Aug 19, 2008
9,347
6,216
The Anthropocene
As far as I know, there are at least two organisations which classify and then rank states under a number of headings, and aggregate the total, releasing the results annually.

One is Transparency International. I have known a number of people who have worked for this organisation and they are invariably excellent, and meticulous about the sources they use from which they derive their conclusions. One of the things they rank is press freedom, but their key interest lies in the field of examining corruption.

The other is the UN. Each year, they release the UN-HDI (UN - Human Development Index.) Again, this ranks every state in the world under several different headings (treatment of women, access to and quality of education, health, housing, freedom of the press, and so on).

Both sources are very reliable and are very highly regarded by those who cite & use them.
Any thoughts on RSF?
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,484
30,722
The Far Horizon
I'd be interested in reading the source for the statement highlighted above.

Thanks...
The statistics given by various sources when ranking the US in this category differ in the precise rank assigned. However, what is of interest, is that by First World standards, the US scores surprisingly poorly under a variety of headings, and this pattern (rather than the precise place) is reflected in every report which I have read.

Any thoughts on RSF?
They are very good, and are highly regarded and much rated in the field.

While I would use them for research, as officialdom tend to find it harder to dispute - or refute - a source such as TI or UNHDI, I'd use the latter when engaging with such individuals if these topics arose.

With media themselves, RSF are a deeply respected source.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
Oopsie: I posted this in another thread at what seemed to be an apropos point before I saw this thread.

From Zero Hedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-20/obama-administration-embeds-government-researchers-monitor-media-organizations

"Incredibly, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is set to roll out something called the Critical Information Needs study, which will embed government “researchers” into media organizations around the nation to make sure they are doing their job properly.

No this isn’t “conspiracy theory.” It is so real, and represents such a threat to the First Amendment, that a current FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai, recently wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, warning Americans of this scheme."

Link to Op-Ed: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
Oopsie: I posted this in another thread at what seemed to be an apropos point before I saw this thread.

From Zero Hedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-20/obama-administration-embeds-government-researchers-monitor-media-organizations

"Incredibly, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is set to roll out something called the Critical Information Needs study, which will embed government “researchers” into media organizations around the nation to make sure they are doing their job properly.

No this isn’t “conspiracy theory.” It is so real, and represents such a threat to the First Amendment, that a current FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai, recently wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, warning Americans of this scheme."

Link to Op-Ed: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732
Although I am not saying this project is a good idea, I understand it. The people getting exercised about it don't. Once upon a time, "The Public Airwaves", that is, that part of the RF spectrum devoted to public radio and TV, were actually considered public property, not corporate property. As such, use of said "airwaves" (RF spectrum) had to follow certain guidelines that did not necessarily apply to newspapers. Hence, the "The Fairness Doctrine". That the FCC is actually trying to do its job is bona fide news, because increasingly the RF spectrum is seen as corporate property.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
Sorry, but it is not the government's business to override the belief of anybody who voices an opinion on radio or TV. Once an airwave is leased and permitted, its content--absent lying--is not a government concern.

This "monitoring" makes us the equivalent of Venezuela, China or the USSR--maybe not right now, but eventually. Think camel's nose and tent.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
The WSJ article, although it starts out in a rather alarmist way, does get to some useful history:

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.
I agree with the author that the Fairness Doctrine was unworkable. I do think the public does have some say in what is on the broadcast spectrum.

Regarding the press freedom indices: I've seen these indices from time to time; there is a Wikipedia article that shows the history of the Reporters Without Borders score for each country, and, as it happens, the Transparency International site also points to Reporters Without Borders:

http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/world_press_freedom_day_2012

http://en.rsf.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

I don't see a UN HDI press freedom index or site independent of the above Press Freedom Index.
 

mudslag

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2010
139
9,938
Sorry, but it is not the government's business to override the belief of anybody who voices an opinion on radio or TV. Once an airwave is leased and permitted, its content--absent lying--is not a government concern.

This "monitoring" makes us the equivalent of Venezuela, China or the USSR--maybe not right now, but eventually. Think camel's nose and tent.


Nothing in the "OP-Ed" states the gov has any plans to override anything, let alone opinion pieces. These articles all started from one opinion piece, the op-ed wsj, and ran with it as if it was pure fact.
 

Wild-Bill

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2007
2,538
604
bleep
It's like they all get together, throw as much illegal ***** at the wall as they can come up with to see what sticks.