Figured this would be interesting for you all; found this somewhere and I'm just sort of forwarding it, but anyway....
Quote
>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.
>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."
>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. 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."
http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/why-is-obama-administration-putting-government-monitors-in-newsrooms
Protip: To read the firewalled story in the WSJ, type 'The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom' into Google, then click on the first link that comes up. Presumably this is because the Wall Street Journal welcomes random hits on its web site, but thinks that charging you at the ass will make you stay. Anyway. Enjoy your daily dose of Chocolate Nixon's shenanigans.
If this is legit, I'm pretty speechless...
Before I read this, what is your source of this quote?
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 21, 2014, 02:47:25 AM
Before I read this, what is your source of this quote?
Link is in his post.
Their other stories involve prayer and abortion.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 21, 2014, 02:48:22 AM
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 21, 2014, 02:47:25 AM
Before I read this, what is your source of this quote?
Link is in his post.
Their other stories involve prayer and abortion.
I was wondering more about the quote itself, but apparently I don't have to worry about it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 21, 2014, 02:48:22 AM
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 21, 2014, 02:47:25 AM
Before I read this, what is your source of this quote?
Link is in his post.
Their other stories involve prayer and abortion.
ah, the included link is definitely from a pretty derped-up site. The WSJ article is legit, though:
>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732
Sorry, I pulled the OP quote off of some chan's news board without pruning it too much...groggy as fuck right now, but yeah. Follow the advice in the "protip"...it looks like most of the information originates from Wall street journal.
Quote from: von on February 21, 2014, 02:52:39 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 21, 2014, 02:48:22 AM
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 21, 2014, 02:47:25 AM
Before I read this, what is your source of this quote?
Link is in his post.
Their other stories involve prayer and abortion.
ah, the included link is definitely from a pretty derped-up site. The WSJ article is legit, though:
>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732
Sorry, I pulled the OP quote off of some chan's news board without pruning it too much...groggy as fuck right now, but yeah. Follow the advice in the "protip"...it looks like most of the information originates from Wall street journal.
Not exactly a paragon of unbiased information.
Also, might help you to always include the source of your quote. I didn't even see the protip because, like I mentioned, I didn't bother reading the quote.
WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch organ.
Not saying it's not legit, but at the moment it has about as much credibility as a Rush Limbaugh rant.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 21, 2014, 03:05:14 AM
WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch organ.
Not saying it's not legit, but at the moment it has about as much credibility as a Rush Limbaugh rant.
Pretty much this. You don't want to see how abysmal the calculation for the percentage of a day that a broken clock is right, you start getting into quantum mechanics kind of numbers.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 21, 2014, 03:05:14 AM
WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch organ.
Not saying it's not legit, but at the moment it has about as much credibility as a Rush Limbaugh rant.
Yeah, and I'm thinking that your critique of that point holds water too...
like I said, I saw this as my first "checking the news today" thing right after waking up, so I kinda knee jerked on it...
anyway, ALL sources I can find that use similar language to the WSJ article are either Murdoch-owned (fox, wsj), independant sites that would appear to have a vested interest in shaming the current administration, or russia today...and they would be critical of america just to be critical, so yeah.
I'll keep my eyes on this, but you may be right about shit being iffy...
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 21, 2014, 03:15:17 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 21, 2014, 03:05:14 AM
WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch organ.
Not saying it's not legit, but at the moment it has about as much credibility as a Rush Limbaugh rant.
Pretty much this. You don't want to see how abysmal the calculation for the percentage of a day that a broken clock is right, you start getting into quantum mechanics kind of numbers.
1.2478148e-46% ?
Quote from: rong on February 21, 2014, 04:17:28 AM
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 21, 2014, 03:15:17 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 21, 2014, 03:05:14 AM
WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch organ.
Not saying it's not legit, but at the moment it has about as much credibility as a Rush Limbaugh rant.
Pretty much this. You don't want to see how abysmal the calculation for the percentage of a day that a broken clock is right, you start getting into quantum mechanics kind of numbers.
1.2478148e-46% ?
I got 2.314814815E-5
2 divided by 24, divided by 60, divided by 60.
I figured the calculation was right twice in a 24 hour period, one sixtieth of that for minutes and one sixtieth of that for seconds. I may have set it up wrong.
I went by planck time
24 hrs = 1.602801935e+45 Planck time
2/1.602801935e+45=1.2478148e-45
1.2478148e-45*100%=1.2478148e-45%
Looks like I goofed the first time.
Particpation is voluntary. The FCC is required by its statute to study how media companies operate. There was no mention of the FCC having control over any process, only studying how companies who chose to take part selected their news and by what processes.
Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2014, 09:59:26 AM
Particpation is voluntary. The FCC is required by its statute to study how media companies operate. There was no mention of the FCC having control over any process, only studying how companies who chose to take part selected their news and by what processes.
Awesome, thanks cain.
Not to sound beggy or anything, but do you have a source for this claim such that I can convince others that they're paranoid?
If citing an accurate source could change a paranoid's mind, there would be no paranoids.
Can't remember the link, but the head of the FCC, in response to Republican complaints about the plan, said it was a voluntary scheme.
Besides, putting political media officers in major corporate news agencies would be redundant.
They already exist, and are called "reporters". I mean, seriously, the idea that the US media is not spinelessly devoted to stenography of Official Proclamations is blatant ideological cant of the most self-flattering kind. Most media types would rather have a comfortable, non-confrontational interview and cup of tea with the Powers That Be than fight them.
Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2014, 02:55:22 PM
Besides, putting political media officers in major corporate news agencies would be redundant.
They already exist, and are called "reporters". I mean, seriously, the idea that the US media is not spinelessly devoted to stenography of Official Proclamations is blatant ideological cant of the most self-flattering kind. Most media types would rather have a comfortable, non-confrontational interview and cup of tea with the Powers That Be than fight them.
Just how many fucking internets have you won now, Cain? Here: have another one...
Yup. See the "New Stories Which Highlight..." thread...
I would like to point out that this is exactly what the Smiler did in Transmetropolitan.
That comic is a scarily accurate prophecy.
We've had a state run media for at least almost a year. http://rt.com/usa/obama-president-order-communications-770/
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:25:18 PM
We've had a state run media for at least almost a year. http://rt.com/usa/obama-president-order-communications-770/
Actually you've had a state run media for over a decade now.
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 02:53:09 PM
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:25:18 PM
We've had a state run media for at least almost a year. http://rt.com/usa/obama-president-order-communications-770/
Actually you've had a state run media for over a decade now.
The "at least" in my text insinuating that this is how long it has been done openly in front of our faces, and thus it must have been done longer behind our backs.
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:54:19 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 02:53:09 PM
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:25:18 PM
We've had a state run media for at least almost a year. http://rt.com/usa/obama-president-order-communications-770/
Actually you've had a state run media for over a decade now.
The "at least" in my text insinuating that this is how long it has been done openly in front of our faces, and thus it must have been done longer behind our backs.
Hrm, no it's been done pretty openly for about a decade as well.
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:54:19 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 02:53:09 PM
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 02:25:18 PM
We've had a state run media for at least almost a year. http://rt.com/usa/obama-president-order-communications-770/
Actually you've had a state run media for over a decade now.
The "at least" in my text insinuating that this is how long it has been done openly in front of our faces, and thus it must have been done longer behind our backs.
Hrm, no it's been done pretty openly for about a decade as well.
Please quote other laws or executive orders regarding media control.
Presidential orders with this authority have existed since 1984, and was updated by Bush Jr.
And, upon reading, what it says is during a national emergency, the government can seize control of the internet and other telecommunication structures to prioritise their own traffic.
So it's not proof of state controlled media at all.
Who defines "national emergency"?
The Boston marathon bombers, was that "national emergency"?
If a Doritos factory's output decreases, is that a "national emergency"?
At what point does a "crisis" warrant takeover of telecommunication to "prioritize their own traffic"?
Speaking of which, what kind of "traffic"? Military "traffic"? Diplomatic "traffic"? Propaganda?
Also, if you could please quote the presidential orders, instead of expecting me to take your word at face value, I'd be grateful.
I read the article you posted. I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension.
And I'm well aware of how the US abuses national emergencies. Certainly more aware than you are.
Quote from: Cain on March 04, 2014, 03:10:16 PM
I read the article you posted. I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension.
And I'm well aware of how the US abuses national emergencies. Certainly more aware than you are.
Gonna quote any of those presidential orders for me? They are not mentioned in that article, if that was your insinuation.
Executive Order 11049 and Executive Order 12472. You can look them up yourself if you're that desperate.
I mean, if you're familiar with US emergency protocol, you certainly should be aware of both of those.
Thank you.
The last renewal of the official state of emergency was in 2009, America hasn't left the state of emergency since it entered it in 2001.
What i Would like to know
is what it took to Repair E
after i posted Я here 6:42 Maybe
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 03:52:51 PM
The last renewal of the official state of emergency was in 2009, America hasn't left the state of emergency since it entered it in 2001.
Quote from: hirley0 on March 05, 2014, 01:41:29 PM
What i Would like to know
is what it took to Repair E
after i posted Я here 6:42 Maybe
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2014, 03:52:51 PM
The last renewal of the official state of emergency was in 2009, America hasn't left the state of emergency since it entered it in 2001.
Repair which, hirley? Do you mean the bar and grill?
Quote from: popeurmom on March 04, 2014, 03:30:23 PM
Thank you.
I do Not KnoW see SA
hirley0, Igor (+ 1 Hidden) and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
yeah: EG&B whatever is happening ..
is pure sT Mystery to Me.
More MIA Tuesday?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=34391.30;last_msg=1328919 ?/?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33053.75.html
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32601.45.html
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31803.30.html
OK = http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34391.30.html
MayB 'Cause == http://en.mercopress.com/2014/03/10/all-south-american-leaders-attending-bachelet-s-inauguration-on-tuesday
today?
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/03/11/cristina-fernandez-invited-to-visit-europe-and-establish-a-closer-dialogue
i seeee no way she could be in Chilli & Paris at the same time?
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/03/11/argentina-with-no-serious-economic-problems-just-complexities-and-challenges