Imagine you’re a TV or radio news broadcaster, humming along happily, doing what you can to help further the agenda you know to be the One True Path to peace, love and everything good . You cover what you’re supposed to: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate ; Wendy Davis’ “principled stand” for “women’s health issues” i.e. late term abortions; Dancing with the Stars; Justin Bieber; and anything vile that a Republican or – GASP – Tea Partier has ever done, said or thought. And you’ve dutifully ignored, or made light of, all those stories that might put the president or his agenda in a less-than-glowing light: pretty much everything to do with Obamacare; the IRS intimidation; the actual damage this president’s economic policies have done to everybody but especially those groups they pretended to support – the middle class, young people and minorities; the President’s increasing abuse of power (in fact the New York Times even goads the executive branch into increasing their reach); the Kermit Gosnell trial; and of course, Benghazi, just to name the first few that come to mind.
So you’re doing your job. Everyone’s happy. You proselytize the party line in your conviction that you know best, and are doing your part to bring about “hope and change” and all that vapid utopian gobbledygook that you haven’t given a moment’s thought to. But hey, it makes you feel good, so you do it. You’re misinforming your readers and viewers in such a way as to have them know what you want them to, and nothing that might fuzz up their little minds and get them to sit up and realize they’ve been hoodwinked, at best.
So you have to wonder: how do these happy little foot-soldiers feel when the FCC decides to “study” how they make their news coverage decisions? From the Wall Street Journal:
With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the [FCC] 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.”
How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. 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.
The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. 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.
Wow. That has to hurt! The administration somehow doesn’t TRUST you? So many questions! And what if you don’t give the right answer, despite your best efforts?
John Nolte of Breitbart points out in his article “Lapdog That Didn’t Bark that“what is scary is a mainstream media that would be apoplectic if a Republican administration did the same while being content to roll over when Obama threatens their freedom.”
Well, this is true. To today’s media, whatever comes down from on high is by definition a good thing and to be protected. In addition there has to be, as I said, a sense of shock at not being trusted. But finally, on some level this has to be chilling: how, after all these years of being the lapdog do you marshal the will, let alone the strength to stand up to this, or at the very least, to report on the outrageousness of this violation that might very well have as its purpose the shutting down of any outlet that is in any way unsatisfactory, including by simply refusing to be part of this “voluntary research.”
How do you shift mentally from being a willing propaganda tool to being specifically intimidated by the very administration you’ve done everything to “protect and serve??
Nolte is angry at them for not reporting on this. I ask: have they finally realized that not even they are immune to the power-grabs and intimidation tactics they have aided and abetted by their silence? If so, what do they plan to do about it?
First they came for the Republicans, and the media said nothing.
Then they came for the Tea Party, and the media said nothing.
Then they came for Christians. Crickets
And now… they’re coming for the media themselves.
Horrifying. We’d feel a bit more sympathetic if only so much of this weren’t their fault.
As it is, though, even if the media themselves won’t stand up to this, we will.
How ironic: Rage Against the Media standing up for the very media against whom we rage.
A free, independent, objective press. We’ll fight for it, even if they don’t.