There was a day when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had an honorable and necessary position. To safeguard the broadcast airwaves by allocating the broadcast spectrum, licensing stations and operators, certifying equipment to insure compliance with broadcast standards and conducting inspections to insure that the broadcast system was not being compromised by out-of-band or bootleg transmissions. They were the stewards of the public airwaves.
The new attack on conservative talk radio …
I can understand market-related studies in reference to licensing issues in a community and the allocation of frequency spectrum, but I do not understand why the FCC would need to embark on a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs, research study that would gather information about newsroom activities. To my way of thinking about the original mission of the FCC, this marks a dangerous deviation from their core mission into a political arena and a clear and present danger to free speech.
Research Design for the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs?
This research can be used to identify and understand the critical information needs(CINs) of the American public (with special emphasis on vulnerable/disadvantaged populations). <Source: FCC>
The research description is neutral and devoid of any real information, but uses the “code words” of progressive socialist democrats, “vulnerable/disadvantaged populations” to indicate a political agenda at work. Since there are few people who do not have access to a multiplicity of information sources on a number of devices, one cannot imagine how there can be a “vulnerable/disadvantaged population.” Even if you were to consider the worst case scenario, an illegal alien who speaks little or no English, the language of America, there are a large number of stations in urban and suburban areas that cater to non-English speaking people and cultural programming. Since this is a First Amendment issue, why the FCC would need to interfere in a commercial or public broadcast operation – especially in the area of news content and reporting is extremely problematical.
Red flag warning: It appears that the study was designed by an activist company with an agenda …
<Source: SSI Web Site>
The progressive socialist democrats use code words like diversity and social responsibility to justify unconstitutional interference with governmental programs, especially those involving affirmative action, bright line tests for diversity, and the concept of statistical disparate impact that turns the law upside down to make companies guilty until they are proven innocent.
About the study – CIN (Critical Infrastructure Needs) IS SIN … (SPECIAL INTEREST NATTERING)
Overall Project Goals and Objectives
We understand that the purpose of this Study of Critical Information Needs (CINs) is to provide a comprehensive analysis of access/barriers to CINs in diverse American communities.
The objectives of the study are to:
- collect data to inform:
o the access (or potential barriers) to CINs as identified by the FCC;
o the media that makes up media ecologies (i.e., what media is actually included in that ecology; ownership of that market; what specific type of content dominates those media ecologies; what is the flow of information within the ecology, etc);
o the use of and interaction between media that makes media ecologies (i.e., how do different layers of the ecology interact to provide for CINs; how do individuals of diverse neighborhoods/communities differ in terms of access to CINs);
- validate data collection tools/templates and protocols;
- demonstrate high internal validity and reliability of measured constructs
<Source: FCC/SSI Study Document>
For those who cannot parse governmental gibberish and gobbledygook, let me point out that the wording of this study’s intent appears to be similar to other efforts to shut down nationally syndicated broadcasters by claiming that they did not serve the “local needs of the community,” did not provide diversity of viewpoints that were fair and balances, and were not presented by those with different worldviews – code words that suggested that liberals needed to be given equal time to conservatives if one wanted to keep their publicly-issued broadcast licence.
Study Goals and Objectives
The objectives of the study are to help FCC answer the following questions:
- How does this study inform the acquisition and/or barriers to CINs in American communities?
- What barriers to entry exist in the FCC regulated markets and to what extent do those barriers to entry have a negative impact?
- Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of internal validity? Do the tools/templates demonstrate a high degree of reliability across diverse target markets?
<Source: FCC/SSI Study Document>
Thinking back to the efforts of John Podesta’s (now a senior advisor to President Obama) progressive socialist democrat group, Center for American Progress, and their attempt to curtail conservative talk radio.
Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share.3 Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.
As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:
- Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.
- Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
- A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.
This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:
- Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
- Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
- Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
The number of locally-owned, minority-owned, and female-owned stations was constrained—and the very different programming decisions these owners make were less visible in the market.
In short, the removal of ownership limits created artificial economies of scale for syndicated programming (dominated by conservative talk). Because of the size of corporate radio holdings, this business model was profitable even if localism declined and local tastes and needs were not suitably matched.
This was all about progressive socialist democrats trying to curtail conservative talk radio which was the primary source of “unbiased” information on the unconstitutional and sometimes illegal activities of the progressive socialist democrats. All under the guise of the restoring the abandoned (1987) Fairness Doctrine to insure that the leftists could dominate the radio channels.
Who is running Obama’s show? It looks like John Podesta is re-purposing his Center for American Progress attack on conservative talk radio …
The progressive socialist democrat, John Podesta, who served on the Obama-Biden transition team. has always been an advisor to the Obama White House. Now, he is formally embedded in the White House as a Special Councilor to Barack Obama.
In addition to his White House duties, Podesta is the U.S. representative to the UN High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. A radical agenda of the international socialists who would see the United Nations exert international legal control over a sovereign United States of America.
Bottom line …
This is a progressive socialist democrat attack on conservative talk radio using a hyper-politicized Federal Communications Commission. Another reason why we must purge progressive socialist democrats from the House and the Senate to restore the checks and balances that keep the Executive Branch of our government from turning into an imperial presidency.