Keep the FCC out of our newsrooms

Published 11:16 pm Saturday, February 22, 2014

Whistleblowers continue to plague the Obama administration by bringing out facts the administration would rather remain hidden. The most recent example is Ajit Pai, a commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission, who blew the whistle on an FCC plan to put monitors in newsrooms.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, Pai explained the FCC’s “study.”

“Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country,” Pai wrote. “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.'”

On the surface, this seems to be the logical extension of President Barack Obama’s frustration with Fox News (and pretty much every other news agency) that covers what he terms “phony scandals.”

Pai shows how the “study” could be used to steer news agencies away from truths inconvenient to the administration.

“First, the agency selected eight categories of ‘critical information’ such as the ‘environment’ and ‘economic opportunities,’ that it believes local newscasters should cover,” Pai explained. “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.”

Let’s stop right there. Finley Peter Dunne, a Chicago newsman, best summed up the correct “news philosophy” thus: “To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” And isn’t that really the problem here — that the Obama administration was too comfortable with the kid-gloves treatment it received from the media during its first term?

But as Pai noted, the FCC doesn’t stop with what stories are considered news.

“The FCC also wants to wade into office politics,” he added. “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.”

How is this any of the Obama administration’s business?

The administration, of course, says its goal is “diversity.”

“The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry,” Pai wrote. “This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?”

The fact is, the free market is the best way to ensure diversity of thought and coverage. The FCC has no business in newsrooms.