We will control what you see. We will control what you hear. We will control you.

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that the Obama administration has been planning to take control of the press since four months after he was inaugurated.



Journalism 'Reinvention' Smacks of Government Control, Critics Say

By Joshua Rhett Miller

Published June 02, 2010 | FOXNews.com

A list of potential policy recommendations to reinvent the field of journalism that has been compiled by the Federal Trade Commission is a "dangerous" overreach of power and a waste of taxpayer funds, critics of the project told FoxNews.com.

FTC officials began a project in May 2009 to consider the challenges the journalism industry faces in the digital age. The federal agency recently released a discussion draft titled "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism," a 47-page document that outlines a major government push to rescue the country's flailing media platforms -- specifically newspapers, which have seen advertising revenues drop roughly 45 percent since 2000.

Among the numerous proposals mentioned in the document are:

-- the creation of a "journalism" division of AmeriCorps, the federal program that places 75,000 people with local and national nonprofit groups annually;

-- tax credits to news organizations for every journalist employed;

-- establishing citizenship news vouchers, which "would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization" of their choice;

-- increased funding for public radio and television;

-- providing grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism;

-- increased postal subsidies for newspapers and periodicals;

-- a 5 percent tax on consumer electronics, which would generate roughly $4 billion annually, to pay for increased public funding.

But some critics are voicing concerns about the draft document, saying that if the government has any influence over the Fourth Estate, it could lead to a dizzying web of conflicting interests and the eradication of independent journalism.

"I find it dangerous for government to have a role in speech because the government gives and the government taketh away," Jeff Jarvis, an associate professor at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism, told FoxNews.com.

"Most of the ideas examined in this are politically untenable," Jarvis said. "The problem with this is that the FTC is trying to set an agenda here, that some sort of government intervention is necessary. It's a power grab by the FTC and it's also an example of one old power structure circling its wagons around another."

But the FTC stressed that the draft is just that -- a draft -- and it said it does not represent conclusions or recommendations by the agency. Officials cited excerpts from the document as their response to criticism:

"Rather, through this document, we seek to prompt discussion of whether to recommend policy changes to support the ongoing 'reinvention' of journalism, and, if so, which specific proposals appear most useful, feasible, platform-neutral, resistant to bias, and unlikely to cause unintended consequences in addressing emerging gaps in news coverage," the report reads.

The list of proposals is "no doubt incomplete," the report continues, and members of the public are encouraged to submit additional proposals.

"We anticipate that different participants in the roundtables at which this document will be discussed will criticize some or all proposals, improve others, and add ideas of their own," the report reads. "The purpose of this document is precisely to encourage such additional analyses and brainstorming."

But Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media, a Washington-based media watchdog group, questioned the "legal and constitutional justification" for the FTC's involvement in the news industry, noting that the agency's website indicates its mission is to protect the American consumer.

"It seems to me America's consumers are making their choices," he said. "I don't know why the FTC should interfere with that. [The report] seems to lament the decline of old liberal newspapers. But they're in decline because consumers are finding their news and information elsewhere."

Kincaid also questioned the time, money and effort devoted to the FTC project.

"If there was evidence that consumers were somehow being shortchanged, that'd be one thing," he said. "But consumers have more choices than ever before."

Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture for the Media Research Center, a Washington-based media watchdog group, put his take on the proposals more succinctly.

"The mere fact that they're holding these hearings is the beginning of the problem," Gainor said. "They should have no hand in the future of journalism."

Jarvis, who attended the FTC's December roundtable and will attend the final session on June 15 in Washington, said Capitol Hill should stay out of the news business -- period.

He said he found the potential policy recommendations "disturbing," since they used the perspective of newspapers to show the issues facing journalism as a whole. He noted that the word "blog" appears only once within the 47-page report. (It appears several times in the report's footnotes.)

He said all of the proposals seek to "support the old power structure of the dying model of newspapers" rather than searching for new growth opportunities.

"No one is going to support a tax to support old newspapers," he said. "They're talking about the future of journalism, but they only talk about the past of journalism. They equate journalism with newspapers strictly."

"It's too soon to give up on the market, which is what the FTC is doing," he added. "Everything you see in that document is an attempt to stifle new competition by sustaining the incumbents."

He said he expects "more wasting of tax dollars" at the FTC's next meeting in two weeks.

"I don't even understand why they're doing this," he said. "This document is an anti-competitive and even unconstitutional world view."
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Hey, WTF? Freedom of Speech is great in limited amounts & when the right person is journalizing....

A Michigan state senator is sending ripples through the journalism world by suggesting that reporters — just like plumbers or accountants — should be licensed. The idea, which has been introduced as a bill in the Legislature, seeks to address the often-blurry line between “traditional media” and “new media.”

Story
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Lemme see if I have this straight. The GVT is trying to bolster the news media by giving them money to hire more reporters, train better reporters, make the media less expensive to the common man, and help people get employed by news outlets - and this is a way of suppressing the press??

How exactly?
 

Mirlyn

Well-Known Member
On one hand I would be taking a huge grain of salt with every gov-funded news organization's story. There's freedom of the press, and then there is cutting the checks of the press.

On the other, I really like most of the shows on PBS and NPR, which already get a good chunk of funding via local, state, and federal money through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Not really sure where to go on that.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
Lemme see if I have this straight. The GVT is trying to bolster the news media by giving them money to hire more reporters, train better reporters, make the media less expensive to the common man, and help people get employed by news outlets - and this is a way of suppressing the press??

How exactly?
Imagine how you might react if was the oil companies who wanted to make the media "better".

The conflict of interest exist at every possible junction, the media needs to remain free from government influence. Its just dumb to think otherwise.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it

If the 'oil companies' had the ability to come round arrest me
and throw my ass in prison then I'd be against it.

But since they can't since they can’t tax or print their own funds
I'd say let em use their money to influence the press.

The government isn't supposed too do this, well not unless
you are in the Soviet Union.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
PERFECT UNITY

"The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering
a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons
a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same
thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing,
persecuting three hundred million people all with the same face."
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Imagine how you might react if was the oil companies who wanted to make the media "better".

The conflict of interest exist at every possible junction, the media needs to remain free from government influence. Its just dumb to think otherwise.

You're mistaking support with control/influence. BP is putting money into an Otter Conservation site. They don't control the otters, nor the membership of the conservation group, nor their methods.

If the gvt was buying shares in newspapers, radio and television stations and retaining voting rights, then you'd have something.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
Yeah, government doesn't work that way. They love control, "diversity" and appeasement.

The government needs to stay away from the whole freedom of thought and expression thing.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
You're mistaking support with control/influence. BP is putting money into an Otter Conservation site. They don't control the otters, nor the membership of the conservation group, nor their methods.

If the gvt was buying shares in newspapers, radio and television stations and retaining voting rights, then you'd have something.

Come on now Bish, it is just like how you would not trust a study if it was not independent. Same thing.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Lemme see if I have this straight. The GVT is trying to bolster the news media by giving them money to hire more reporters, train better reporters, make the media less expensive to the common man, and help people get employed by news outlets - and this is a way of suppressing the press??

How exactly?

You confuse suppression and control. They will suppress that which they do not wish you to hear or see and control what they do want you to hear and see. They will make up the rest.

Did you learn nothing from WWII Germany?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
No love lost on the part of the press over this proposal.

SOURCE

EDITORIAL: FTC floats Drudge tax
Journalism can reinvent itself without government 'help'

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

6:30 p.m., Friday, June 4, 2010

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to "reinvent" journalism, and that's a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC's policy staff fears this new reality.

"There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism," the report states. With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue.

The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, "Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses."

In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place.

The report also discusses the possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations. The money for those benefits would come from a suite of new taxes. A 5 percent tax on consumer electronic devices such as iPads, Kindles and laptops that let consumers read the news could be used to encourage people to keep reading the dead-tree version of the news. Other taxes might be levied on the radio and television spectrum, advertising and cell phones.

The conflict of interest in having the government pay or contribute to a newsman's salary could not be more obvious. Reporters and columnists would have little incentive to offer critical analyses of tax increases that might mean a boost in the pocketbook. Once Congress has the power to fund the news, it can at any time attach "strings" designed to promote certain viewpoints - in the name of fairness, of course. Each year at budget time, the Fourth Estate would scramble to be worthy in the eyes of Capitol Hill for increased support. It is hardly a surprise that the heavily subsidized National Public Radio frequently presents issues in a way favorable to Washington's tax-and-spend agenda.

Self-respecting journalists must reject this tempting government bribe as the FTC brings its proposals to a round-table discussion scheduled for June 15. When it comes to the media, consumers lose most when government suppresses innovation in the name of "saving" old business models.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
You confuse suppression and control. They will suppress that which they do not wish you to hear or see and control what they do want you to hear and see. They will make up the rest.

Did you learn nothing from WWII Germany?

Sure...that'd work really well in the internet age. As if a billion people wouldn't immediately open up their blog and cry foul the moment tried to tell the news what they may or may not print.

Welcome to the age of the open flow of information. You can forget about 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 type scaremongering. Too late.

I guess that y'all will have to come up with another analogy, eh
 
Top