February 21, 2014

The State will define your “information rights” [Darleen Click] UPDATED

On the heels of the rather stunning decision of the FCC to send government agents into newsrooms across the country to “study” “perceived station bias”, supporters of this unConstitutional move have discovered a new “right” …

Shorter Mark Hannah: Trust us!

*******************************************

UPDATE:

David French provides a handy English translation of the FCC snooping study.

Posted by Darleen @ 1:40pm
20 comments | Trackback

Tags: , ,

Comments (20)

  1. Who gets to define “bias”? And what gives them the right to decide that their choices are “right” while others are “biased”?

    Oh, right…

  2. No, not “information rights”: Critical Information Needs

    They are looking out for us!

  3. Isn’t this line of so-called reasoning regarding any attempt to assert for one and all what is “necessary information” very much of a piece with the civil rights questions back in the ’60s regarding what opinions a purveyor of a so-called ‘public-accommodation’ must subscribe to with regard to the outlays he or she might make in fact under coercion from the state (in possible contradiction to, even elimination of, said opinion or belief)? That the holding of belief or opinion is necessarily a question for the state to resolve as it sees fit (for Social Justice!), and in so doing, thereby to encroach upon what we used to term the private in society?

    That is, the argument for the state goes, if we, the state, are to eliminate so-called ‘discrimination’ (and with that impoverished term, all injustice in order to achieve a more perfect union), we the state must therefore control — and enforce control over — opinion and belief and with that control [ultimately] eliminate the private sphere altogether (which may happen to be at bottom, on occasion, unjust or mistaken), in favor of the public sphere, which presumes to itself a perfect knowledge of right, or at least such knowledge as cannot be safely opposed in dissent (for we, the state, have a monopoly on force — and what is to prevent our use of it?).

    But a liberal state presumes both a private sphere and a public sphere, for without a private sphere, there is and can be no liberality — otherwise known as freedom.

  4. You have the right know what the government tells you. It’s for your own protection. Lest you accidently see the God-Emperor’s skinny black ass.

  5. heh, nr. I just saw that and put it up in the update.

    FCC: “MEDIA MARKET CENSUS . . . Newspaper Content: Utilizing a one constructed week sample of daily newspaper content, as well as weekly newspaper content, we will perform a content analysis of CINs and how they are presented within that content (n=maximum of 252 newspaper issues).”

    English: What? We don’t regulate newspapers? That’s outside the scope of our statutory authority? We disagree. Newspapers are “communications,” so stop talking to us about limits.

  6. eCurmudgeon’s link to the silly ‘Academic Justice’ article in The Harvard Crimson will touch on the issues embedded here as well.

  7. Rush was all over this today, and played a clip of Lanny “Who the Hell Names Their Kid Lanny” Davis:

    “LANNY: L-l-look, I’m really having a hard time, uh, other than saying whoever, uh, is saying that this is happening… The FCC, someone at the FCC has to say this is not true. Because if it’s true, then President Obama ought to be firing everybody he can over there who thought about this idea.” (Link)

    Just like the Soviet apparatchiks, who when it was their turn to be purged, said “Tell Stalin! If only Stalin knew what was going on, he would put a stop to it!”

  8. After the agents-monitors have done their survey they will find the need to do the surveys on a continuing basis. The media may even suggest it as there will be a competition to be the best apple polisher. And besides minders make the job so much more secure. Otherwise it can be so treacherous keeping up with the talking point of the hour.

  9. And here I thought that editorial decisions were a market differentiator. Otherwise, why have more than one news show, one newspaper, etc.?

    So the Founders asserted that we had a god-given right to free speech without interference from the government. Now the Left says that we instead have a government-managed right to receive information. A right to be a slave of the state, no “creator” needed. Such a deal!

  10. Here’s the only answer that should be given the inquisitorsmonitors:

    “Bugger* off.”

    *Others may find alternative four-letter Anglo-Saxon terms to be more efficacious.

  11. Will our government-managed right to receive information include mandatory televisions in every home that are controlled by the government?

    Magic 8-ball says, you betcha. Just give it time.

  12. Oh, bloody hell. HTML fail.

    More like this (I hope):
    “inquisitorsmonitors”

  13. Nope. No strikethrough on PW?

  14. No strikethrough on PW?

  15. Trespassers W, I find strike-through works here so long as I spell out ‘strike’ inside the brackets.

  16. Monitors? Inquisitors? How ’bout we just call them Political Officers and be done with it…

  17. Re: The FCC questionnaire – Gee, what could be so bad about a questionnaire?

    Lois Lerner, the IRS’s director of tax-exempt organizations who is overseeing the investigation, says many schools are rethinking how and what they report to the government. Receiving a thick questionnaire from the IRS, she says, is a “behavior changer.”

    Imagine that, they’ve used this tactic before!

Leave a Reply