Main Page - Latest News

online casino

FCC Commissioner says Obama regime to begin policing local media in Columbia, SC for [racial] bias


FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai is blowing the whistle on a new program by the Obama regime to censor local media. The program is being launched in Columbia, SC as a test city.

Obama is sending the FCC into newsrooms in Columbia, South Carolina this spring. They are tasked with deciding if “underserved populations” are receiving the “critical information” they need. The term “underserved” can be applied to anyone, but in this context, it means black people. 

The Columbia, SC metropolitan area is about 33% black. What “critical information” does Obama think these black residents are failing to receive?

The purpose of the program, at best, is to purposely create a chilling effect on the first amendment. At worst, Obama’s goons will simply give stations lists of things to say and broadcast. The FCC has the power to shut down a media outlet by refusing to renew their broadcast license.

This is a blatant attempt to squash the first amendment of the US constitution and transform local media outlets into propaganda broadcasting centers for the Federal government. This is textbook totalitarianism.

Columbia, SC is being used as a trial market. If this is not opposed by Americans, this program with be expanded nationwide.

From Wall Street Journal…

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 American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?” Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

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.