B-Man Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Ajit Pai was nominated to the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama and on May 7, 2012 was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the United States Senate. The son of immigrants from India, Commissioner Pai grew up in Parsons, Kansas. He now lives in Arlington, Virginia, with his wife, Janine, son, Alexander and daughter, Annabelle. Commissioner Pai received a B.A. with honors from Harvard University in 1994 and a J.D. from the University of Chicago in 1997, where he was an editor of the University of Chicago Law Review and won the Thomas J. Mulroy Prize. Pai also has served in all three branches of the federal government. After moving to Washington, DC in 1998, his first post was with the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division as an Honors Program trial attorney on the Telecommunications Task Force. He later returned to the Department of Justice to serve as Senior Counsel in the Office of Legal Policy. Pai has worked on Capitol Hill as well, first as Deputy Chief Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Darn Extremist............go back to India ! LOL . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Bet Barry regrets that nom. But I'm sure Ajit has a nice audit coming in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 He is one of the Republican commissioners. Sounds like he wants to be another GOP hero. The FCC is going to study how the new is made and a partisan comes out screaming bloody murder? Color me surprised He was also born in Buffalo That's a good little statist. You can't control everything until you control the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 A proposed FCC study that would send government researchers and monitors into newsrooms to learn why organizations select to cover the stories that they do does not sit well with Charles Krauthammer. He said the government’s stated “critical information need” for such a examination reminds him of something that would take place in Moscow and Kiev. “As if the IRS, and the EPA, and NLRB haven’t done enough damage, the FCC now has to trample on what rights are remaining,” he said on Thursday’s Special Report. Krauthammer dismissed the agency’s claim that it wants to see whether the current media landscape is diversified enough as the reason for the study. “There are more [voices] in media in today than any in the history of mankind, including cave drawings,” he said. Before it goes any further, Krauthammer called on the House of Representatives to immediately pass a bill denying any federal funding to the study. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzUPE2uv3SY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Why is it when I hear about stuff like this that my first thought is that Eric Holder probably came up with the idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Darn Extremist............go back to India ! LOL . Obama had to nominate a Republican, and surprise surprise, he is acting like a partisan Republican A proposed FCC study that would send government researchers and monitors into newsrooms to learn why organizations select to cover the stories that they do does not sit well with Charles Krauthammer. He said the government’s stated “critical information need” for such a examination reminds him of something that would take place in Moscow and Kiev. “As if the IRS, and the EPA, and NLRB haven’t done enough damage, the FCC now has to trample on what rights are remaining,” he said on Thursday’s Special Report. Krauthammer dismissed the agency’s claim that it wants to see whether the current media landscape is diversified enough as the reason for the study. “There to the study. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzUPE2uv3SY Tool! That's a good little statist. You can't control everything until you control the news. That's me! I'm for big government, just like Bush was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Obama had to nominate a Republican, and surprise surprise, he is acting like a partisan Republican Tool! That's me! I'm for big government, just like Bush was... Link? Gotcha again. What am I 52/52? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) That's me! I'm for big government, just like Bush was... Good little statist. Mention Bush every chance you get. Someone give the statist a littlle treat for being the obedient little knob-gobbling B word he was born to be. Edited February 21, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Link? Gotcha again. What am I 52/52? The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.[2][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Commissioners Good little statist. Mention Bush every chance you get. Someone give the statist a littlle treat for being the obedient little knob-gobbling B word he was born to be. I thought you tea party morons argued that RINOs were statists like me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.[2][4] http://en.wikipedia....n#Commissioners If only he could do away with opposition. How happy would that make a little knob-gobbling statist like yourself? Imagine a single world order. No Republicans. No term limits. No media. Just sweet, sweet statism. And all the knobs a knob-gobbler like you can choke down daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Good little statist. Mention Bush every chance you get. Someone give the statist a littlle treat for being the obedient little knob-gobbling B word he was born to be. Was there ever a day here where there were liberals who at least made you have to stop and think before you crushed them? After the rollout of Obamacare and the foreign policy accomplishments we've had all I've seen are the dems janitors here, trying to clean up the mess. Edited February 21, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 That's not true. Any time the media is attacked, I saw plenty of articles/commentary from both sides. Yes, the media tends to rally themselves around even a perceived attack on any of them. Even NBC screamed bloody murder when the Obama administration tried to keep FoxSnooze out of the press pool. http://hraunfoss.fcc...A-13-1214A1.pdf Better document: http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf Looks like typical FoxSnooze exaggeration...but this is a poorly designed study with significant biases and gaps built in to it, and could certainly be a foundation for abuse by any administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Echoes of the IRS in the FCC Snooping Scandal by David French The IRS targeting scandal is of course multi-faceted, but one of its key elements was the use of comprehensive IRS questionnaires to determine everything from tea-party donor and member lists to the actions and activities of family members and even identifying “persons or entities with which you maintain a close relationship.” In other words, the Obama administration IRS was abusing its regulatory authority to essentially discern the inner workings of an entire political and cultural movement. {snip} And what will these FCC monitors ask when they do get access? Here’s the list of questions to station owners, managers, or HR: • What is the news philosophy of the station? • Who is your target audience? • How do you define critical information that the community needs? • How do you ensure the community gets this critical information? • How much does community input influence news coverage decisions? • What are the demographics of the news management staff (HR)? • What are the demographics of the on air staff (HR)? • What are the demographics of the news production staff (HR)? And here’s the list of questions to on-air staff: • What is the news philosophy of the station? • How much news does your station air every day? • Who decides which stories are covered? • How much influence do you have in deciding which stories to cover? • Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management? o If so, can you give an example? o What was the reason given for the decision? o Why do you disagree? Since when is a station’s “philosophy” or its inter-office disputes any of the federal government’s business? For that matter, how is the federal government qualified to determine what a citizen “needs” to know. Are citizens not qualified to make that determination themselves? The Obama governing philosophy combines the regulatory state with an intolerance of dissent. Taken together, this means an extreme level of government intrusion into private activity. In what universe do we want our government asking this ? Next they'll be asking about the content of our prayers.......................oh wait... . . Edited February 21, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Better document: http://transition.fc...n_6_markets.pdf Looks like typical FoxSnooze exaggeration...but this is a poorly designed study with significant biases and gaps built in to it, and could certainly be a foundation for abuse by any administration. I don't see how a study analyzing "access/barriers to CINs in diverse American communities" needs to delve into the content that's delivered over the CINs. I think that's where the concern should be, and knowing what I know about these things, the editors haven't picked up on that connection., Give them a few minutes for the right synapses to fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Yes, the media tends to rally themselves around even a perceived attack on any of them. Even NBC screamed bloody murder when the Obama administration tried to keep FoxSnooze out of the press pool. Better document: http://transition.fc...n_6_markets.pdf Looks like typical FoxSnooze exaggeration...but this is a poorly designed study with significant biases and gaps built in to it, and could certainly be a foundation for abuse by any administration. Are you suggesting a man who randomly changes a federal law simply by speaking at a podium might somehow abuse this directive? No way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) http://newsbusters.o...igate-newsrooms Despite the disturbing news on Wednesday that the Federal Communications Commission had developed a controversial plan to investigate television and radio newsrooms across the country, the broadcast networks of NBC, ABC, and CBS completely ignored the potential threat to press freedom. In a February 10 Op/Ed for the Wall Street Journal, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai warned: "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." While the Big Three networks avoided the government overreach, Fox News Special Report anchor Bret Baier informed viewers on Wednesday: "Now for a chilling story no matter what you're politics. The federal government wants to know how and why the news media select which stories they cover." In the report that followed, correspondent Shannon Bream described how the FCC planned to "Send investigators into television and radio stations to ask questions like, 'What is the news philosophy of the station?' 'Who Decides which stories are covered?'" Read more: http://newsbusters.o...s#ixzz2tywfWSQr Edited February 21, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 They're (pretending) to back down, from the FCC study (that only a few conservatives were spinning about) After a few days of public outrage over its study on editorial choice in newsrooms, the FCC will “amend” the research project — but still plans to conduct it. FCC chair Tom Wheeler will remove the questions in the study relating to news philosophy and editorial judgment, the commission announced, which leaves the question of what exactly the FCC will end up studying: Faced with an outcry, the Federal Communications Commission’s chairman said Thursday that he would amend the effort — intended to assess whether the news media were meeting the public’s “critical information needs” — by removing questions that critics had deemed invasive. … FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responded to the growing furor Thursday by ordering the removal of questions about news philosophy and editorial judgment. Last week, in a letter about the study to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House committee that oversees the FCC, Wheeler said that the commission had “no intention of regulating political or other speech.” If you read the study, though, it’s difficult to see what value it has. The entire point was “to identify and understand the critical information needs (CINs) of the American public (with special emphasis onvulnerable/disadvantaged populations).” That goes directly to news philosophy and editorial judgment, and without those questions, the study itself is pointless. That leads me to believe that the study will only remove the questions that explicitly mention those terms, and let the FCC just make assumptions based on the rest of the data. (questions again listed at the link) The problem with this FCC study wasn’t just one or two questions. It’s that the FCC has no business involving itself in editorial judgment and news choices in the first place — especially at newspapers and Internet outlets. It’s an arrogation of jurisdiction, which would surely be followed by an arrogation of authority and power to address whatever “crises” in news reporting the study produces. http://hotair.com/ar...ial-bias-study/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 If you read the study, though, it’s difficult to see what value it has. The entire point was “to identify and understand the critical information needs (CINs) of the American public (with special emphasis onvulnerable/disadvantaged populations).” That goes directly to news philosophy and editorial judgment, and without those questions, the study itself is pointless. That leads me to believe that the study will only remove the questions that explicitly mention those terms, and let the FCC just make assumptions based on the rest of the data. (questions again listed at the link) I didn't go through the whole study, and I doubt that many who are screaming about it also have. But the summary of the overall goals and objectives of the study are reasonable and are within the FCC purview, and a good effort to try to understand what kind of information access people have and how they consume it, because it goes to the heart of how FCC should be regulating things now, as opposed to regulating things as if it's 1930. But to go from that mission to analyzing the content itself is unwarranted. Do your own analysis and don't just parrot what you read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Sounds more and more like Atlas Shrugged every day. Incredible leftist aggression. It's too bad you don't understand the definition of irony, if you did, you'd know why this post is so hilarious. I didn't go through the whole study, and I doubt that many who are screaming about it also have. But the summary of the overall goals and objectives of the study are reasonable and are within the FCC purview, and a good effort to try to understand what kind of information access people have and how they consume it, because it goes to the heart of how FCC should be regulating things now, as opposed to regulating things as if it's 1930. But to go from that mission to analyzing the content itself is unwarranted. Do your own analysis and don't just parrot what you read. Thank you for continuing to bring reason to every thread you participate in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Wow. Just wow Democrats? Chime in. Liberals?. Chime in. The Patriot Act was bad. But NSA and such is OK. Is this OK or bad? Since most on here have assumed (or accused) me of being a liberal through the years, I'll chime in. GG already provided an excellent post answering as to why this issue isn't the end of the world as it was argued in the WSJ piece -- and how they missed the real issue of import -- so let's start with that. But I've always been a big-picture guy, to my detriment sometimes, and from that perspective the FCC or government is no more of a threat to the press than what we have right now. Right now six companies control 90% of the US media*. The WSJ and Fox News are the same company. Despite the fact that we're living in an age where we have more and more access to information through technology, the content creators and media companies are now controlled by fewer and fewer. That's a problem. As much of a problem to me as the FCC or big-brother government entity taking over it all. It's the same ending, just a different villain. Reference: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 At least Obama was honest when he said he wanted to fundamentally transform America..... You don't often make me laugh, but when you do I have to give you credit. Well done. Hugo Chavez would be so proud. This also made me laugh, but not as much as Dante's eager (and I think sincere?) response... And look what has happened/happening to his country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts