Wait. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
Why is the federal government studying the plan of putting monitors in media newsrooms?
The Obama Administration's Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.
Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in "pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories."
Wait. Elite media have been covering the president very favorably, for a very long time. With no pressure.
As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:
"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.
This sounds so surreal.
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."
In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program.
Wait. Wait. There's everything wrong with this picture. Bias?! Who can remember when there wasn't media bias? But bias is in the eyes of the beholder, and for the past half dozen years at least, it certainly favored Barack Obama. So what's the administration seeing now that makes them leery enough to go where no administration has gone before? Talk about 'red lines', the executive branch of government does not cross over into the free press to exert its power.
I don't usually or ever cite Wikipedia as a source, but it helps here. Why is the free media called the Fourth Estate?
"Fourth Estate" most commonly refers to the news media; especially print journalism or "the press". Thomas Carlyle attributed the origin of the term to Edmund Burke, who used it in a parliamentary debate in 1787 on the opening up of press reporting of the House of Commons of Great Britain…
In current use the term is applied to the press, with the earliest use in this sense described by Thomas Carlyle in his book On Heroes and Hero Worship: "Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all."
Not so in this modern era. They long ago lost their credibility with the people, as public opinion polls continue to show. However, the media always retained their power and a certain influence that went with it to tell the people what's happening in the world, in their country, and in their government, however they see fit to print or report the news. If wielded with responsibility and accountability, that power could and should be the people's check on the government they elected.
Now the government is thinking of acting like this is a totalitarian state, a dictatorship.
The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of "critical information" "that it believes local newscasters should cover."
That's right, the Obama Administration has developed a formula of what it believes the free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across America to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make editorial decisions.
This poses a monumental danger to constitutionally protected free speech and freedom of the press.
Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, "our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
The federal government has absolutely no business determining what stories should and should not be run, what is critical for the American public and what is not, whether it perceives a bias, and whose interests are and are not being served by the free press.
It's an unconscionable assault on our free society.
Media pundit Howard Kurtz asks 'What is the FCC thinking?'
The Fairness Doctrine, which once required TV and radio stations to offer equal time for opposing points of view, is no more, and good riddance (since it discouraged stations from taking a stand on much of anything). The Obama administration swears it's not coming back.
How, then, to explain this incursion into the substance of journalism, which seems utterly at odds with the notion of a free and unfettered press?
An attempt at an answer in a moment. But by the way, Kurtz adds:
The government has no business meddling in how journalism is practiced. And if George W. Bush's FCC had tried this, it would be a front-page story.
That is getting to be a tired tag line, true as it is.
So, how to explain this?
"What are they thinking?" Mr. Kurtz, it's pretty obvious; they're thinking no one in the mainstream press has asked them a difficult or challenging question in 7 years, so why would they start now.
They're thinking an obsequious press that couldn't be bothered to sustain outrage over intrusions into its own phone and internet records won't have a problem with the government parking itself into the newsroom.
They're thinking that if the mainstream press could forgive them for considering espionage charges against a member of the press - for doing what reporters are supposed to do - and then re-commence their habitual boot-licking, there is no real risk of media folk suddenly calling out a "red line", or even being able to identify one.
They're figuring that with this president, the mainstream media has no idea what "a bridge too far" might mean. Nor, "abuse of power"; nor "cover-up"; nor "mendacity", "incompetence", "ineptitude" or "constitutional illiteracy."
They know that half the people in the newsroom are either married to (or social buddies with) influential members of this government, and that everyone is all comfy and nicely settled in for the revolution.
They know that the press willfully surrendered its own freedoms some time ago, in the interests of ideology, and so they really won't mind a little editorial supervision from the masters:
…we no longer need wonder why the mainstream media seems unconcerned about possible attacks on our first amendment rights to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof. They have already cheerfully, willfully surrendered the freedom of the press to the altar of the preferred narrative. People willing to dissolve their own freedoms so cheaply have no interest in anyone else's freedom, either.
They know that if they like their newsroom, they can keep their newsroom, once it has been correctly updated. A Mad Man might sell the scheme as Prexy-Clean. Journalism "new and improved with powerful cleansing agents!"
I hope that helps, Mr. Kurtz.
And that's as close as it gets to the truth of the matter, and truth matters more greatly than the media have collectively or in man cases individually considered in quite some time. This is what happens when you throw in with the powers that be, and those powers know they have you in their grip.
Like Elizabeth Scalia, I haven't wanted to touch a political story lately, for quite a while. I try to find and focus on stories of human dignity and rights, faith and reason and justice in the balance. Not everything is political, but politics have invaded everything.
And now the federal government is considering going into media newsrooms.
So Scalia's closing words here stand for both of us:
I didn't want to write about this today. The truth is, I don't even want to write about politics, anymore, because it's all distraction and illusion and theater. I'd be happy to write about prayer and scripture, and nothing else, for the rest of my life, and maybe that's what I'll be doing, soon enough. But I am passionate about journalism, passionate about the need for a free press, and so I had to write, today. Without a curious press interested in protecting its own freedoms, there is no there, there. We might as well just put down the mics and turn out the lights, because it's over.
Amen, sister. It's not over, we're still at our keyboards and mics, and our passion for a free and unfettered press will keep us busier than we want to be for a long time.