Thread: New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections

New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections

BY BYRON YORK |
FEBRUARY 20, 2014 AT 5:48 PM

If the FCC goes forward, it's not clear what will happen to news organizations that fall short of...The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs." Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.

The initiative, known around the agency as "the CIN Study" (pronounced "sin"), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. "This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced," says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC's five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). "I've never had any input into the process," adds Pai, who brought the story to the public's attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

Advocates promote the project with Obama-esque rhetoric. "This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens," said FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn in 2012. Clyburn, daughter of powerful House Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, was appointed to the FCC by President Obama and served as acting chair for part of last year. The FCC, Clyburn said, "must emphatically insist that we leave no American behind when it comes to meeting the needs of those in varied and vibrant communities of our nation -- be they native born, immigrant, disabled, non-English speaking, low-income, or other." (The FCC decided to test the program with a trial run in Ms. Clyburn's home state, South Carolina.)

The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to do a study defining what information is "critical" for citizens to have. The scholars decided that "critical information" is information that people need to "live safe and healthy lives" and to "have full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities," among other things.

The study identified eight "critical needs": information about emergencies and risks; health and welfare; education; transportation; economic opportunities; the environment; civic information; and political information.

It's not difficult to see those topics quickly becoming vehicles for political intimidation. In fact, it's difficult to imagine that they wouldn't. For example, might the FCC standards that journalists must meet on the environment look something like the Obama administration's environmental agenda? Might standards on economic opportunity resemble the president's inequality agenda? The same could hold true for the categories of health and welfare and "civic information" -- and pretty much everything else.

"An enterprising regulator could run wild with a lot of these topics," says Pai. "The implicit message to the newsroom is they need to start covering these eight categories in a certain way or otherwise the FCC will go after them."

The FCC awarded a contract for the study to a Maryland-based company called Social Solutions International. In April 2013, Social Solutions presented a proposal outlining a process by which contractors hired by the FCC would interview news editors, reporters, executives and other journalists.

"The purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the process by which stories are selected," theSocial Solutions report said, adding that news organizations would be evaluated for "station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

There are a lot of scary words for journalists in that paragraph. And not just for broadcasters; the FCC also proposes to regulate newspapers, which it has no authority to do. (Its mission statement says the FCC "regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable…")
Questioning about the CIN Study began last December, when the four top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked the FCC to justify the project. "The Commission has no business probing the news media's editorial judgment and expertise," the GOP lawmakers wrote, "nor does it have any business in prescribing a set diet of 'critical information.'"

If the FCC goes forward, it's not clear what will happen to news organizations that fall short of the new government standards. Perhaps they will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance with the administration's journalistic agenda. What is sure is that it will be a gross violation of constitutional rights.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-obama-initiative-tramples-first-amendment-protections/article/2544363
\
After checking out Social Solutions site, I am beginning to see where all the propaganda that is being spread in the Air Force is coming from. JMO

http://www.alipac.us/f9/unreal-democ...x-news-297956/

FlyoverCulture.com

BAM!! Charles Krauthammer, commenting on tonight's Bret Baier panel, sums up the FCC proposal to monitor newsrooms.

#FlyoverQuotable #BretBaier #CharlesKrauthammer

Fox News

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai went "On The Record" tonight to discuss the FCC’s proposed study, which would send government monitors into newsrooms.

“As I looked into the study design, I got a little more concerned about what this implicated for our First Amendment values,” he told Greta Van Susteren.

FCC Commissioner: ‘Government Has No Place in the Newsroom’



BY FOX NEWS INSIDER //FEB 20 2014 // 8:07PM
AS SEEN ON ON THE RECORD WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai went “On The Record” tonight to discuss the FCC’s proposed study, which would send researchers into newsrooms to figure out why news organizations cover certain stories.

Video at the Page Link:

The FCC also identified eight key topics that the government believes should be covered in the news.

---

Gov't Monitors in Newsrooms? FCC to Look Into Media Decision-Making

---

Pai recently published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that brought attention to the study. “As I looked into the study design, I got a little more concerned about what this implicated for our First Amendment values,” he told Greta Van Susteren.
Pai said that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has instructed the contractor who will be doing the study to remove questions relating to news philosophy and editorial judgment.

---

'If FCC Shows Up Here, Throw Them Out!': Judge Nap Takes on 'Radical' Media Monitoring Plan

---

“I think that’s a positive step, but of course the devil’s in the details when it comes to the actual study as implemented,” Pai said.
According to Pai, the study was designed and adopted by previous leadership. He said the FCC is technically relying on a statute that requires it to report to Congress every three years about possible barriers that entrepreneurs and small businesses face when trying to break into the communications industry. Newspapers would be included in the study, yet Pai said the FCC has no authority over print publications.
“The study hasn’t yet started, and that’s why I think it’s critical for us to make sure at the outset that either we stop the study or, if it’s going forward, we make sure it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s constitutional freedoms,” Pai said. He told Van Susteren that news outlets “don’t need the government over their shoulders telling them they’re doing something wrong.”
Pai said he is hopeful that the FCC "will come to embrace the basic principle that, again, the government has no place in the newsroom.”

Watch his full interview above.

POSTED IN: // FCC // Newsroom study // Ajit Pai

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/02/20...sroom%E2%80%99

Journalists Won't Put Up with Regime Monitors in Newsrooms? Don't Be So Sure...

February 20, 2014

Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to start today with this story that the Regime is going to put monitors in American news organization newsrooms. I had a fascinating discussion with two or three people here asking what they thought of it, and without fail, without exception, everybody I asked about this said without the slightest hesitation or doubt that the media will rise up in righteous indignation and opposition and will not put up with this. The media, the New York Times, NBC News, CBS, Washington Post, you name it, they will not tolerate it. They will draw a red line like Obama drew in Syria and is drawing again in Ukraine. They will not allow Regime monitors in there.
Now, here's the story, and there is a report out there now that the FCC has backed off on this. I haven't got much detail on that. It's actually an FCC directory. I've got some audio sound bites. I'm not gonna play them because it would take me away from the point I want to make. But there are people that are asking other experts when they've done segments on this, "Does Obama know about this? Who's doing this?" These are conservative media people, "Does Obama know about it?" Do you think the FCC is doing this on their own? All of this extreme outrageous stuff, like when known communists end up being hired in the Regime. "Does Obama know? How'd they sneak that guy by?"
What do you mean, does Obama know? These people are doing things that they know he wants done. He puts like-minded fellow travelers in there. The idea that all of these extremists are having to sneak things by Obama to get 'em done? This is my point. We're five years into the Regime and there are still learned people on our side who cannot believe that Obama personally would either do something like this or tolerate something like this. Another thing, will journalism schools across the fruited plain stand up in righteous opposition to this?
Here are the details if this is the first you are hearing of this. "The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly --" I'm reading from RedState.com, Matthew Clark. It's the best summary of the details. The Regime "is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media. Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous ... this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner."

So the first thought that somebody has, "Oh, come on, they wouldn't do this. Who are you kidding? What conspiracy kook has put this forward?" And Mr. Clark, "No, no, no, no. This comes from an FCC commissioner himself." The commissioner is Ajit Pai, and this commissioner "reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in 'pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.'" And the commissioner spoke to the Wall Street Journal and said this.
"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.'"
That's from the commissioner, the FCC, explaining why the Regime wants monitors in radio and TV newsrooms. To make sure that they're not biased or to catalog the bias, to make sure that they are serving the minority populations and to determine how they decide what and what not to report. Now, sit tight. Hang on. "The FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over."

When the First Amendment was written there was no radio and TV, obviously. So it was newspapers, pamphlets, it was the printed word. There's literally no federal regulation of newspapers. And the only reason there is in broadcasting is because of this notion that the airwaves are public and the government issues licenses to broadcasters granting them permission to use those airwaves. But still, in the news division of those broadcast outlets, the First Amendment applies. But it doesn't apply to cable because cable's not over the air. The FCC has no authority over what's on cable, even though they try to assert it, but it's not over the air. So there is no public interest there.
Same thing with newspapers. Newspapers are totally off-limits, and yet the commissioner the FCC says they are "now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program. The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of 'critical information' that 'it believes local newscasters should cover.'
"That's right, the [Regime] has developed a formula of what it believes the free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across America to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make editorial decisions. ... Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press."
Not really. That's second, a very close second. But you want to know the truth? Every major repressive Regime of the modern era has begun with universal health care. That's the first thing Hitler did. That's partly how you get the media on your side. Is it championing issues all of them support. Then you go get total control over them. But health care is the first thing, because that is direct control, total control over everybody in your country.
So it's health care they go after first, repressive regimes. It's not the media. And just as it is elsewhere around the world, it's health care here, and now they're going for the media. Now, imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories the same way MSNBC or Al Jazeera does. Now, before... (interruption) Now, wait a second. (interruption) Just hang on. I know what you're doing out there. Believe me, I have empathy.
I know exactly how you're reacting, what you're thinking, and what you're shouting at the radio. I'll get to all that in just a second. But some of you think that there's no way. "The media's gonna rise up in indignation, righteous opposition. They're not gonna put up with this." I want to give you an alternative way of looking at this -- and if you think that something like this isn't possible, I want to explain and illustrate for you and give you an example of where it is happening.


Not in the media, however.

Well, not technically in the media, but I can give you a flat-out current, right-now example of the Department of Justice putting a monitor inside a company and demanding that this guy have access to every executive, to talk to them any time he wants and to make judgments and report back to a judge on what he sees going on in this company every day. It's happening at Apple, Inc. I know some of you think this, "Rush, this is never gonna happen." I know what the reaction is.
Of course, this will not be complete 'til I tell you what I think. Now, Snerdley's in there saying, "There's no way. There's literally no way the press gonna put up with this." Before you think that, before you automatically reflexively think that the press isn't gonna put up with this, I want to give you an alternative way of looking at this, and I want to ask you a question. Is there anything that the Regime has done or is doing, to anybody, that has the media upset?
And there is. One small, little thing.
The Regime is restricting access. The media's upset that they don't have access. It's just minor, tiny, irrelevant stuff. But that's it. They're not upset at anything the Regime's doing. They're not upset at what they were doing Tea Party, IRS, nothing. They don't find one thing the Regime is doing worthy of reporting on. They certainly do not suspect the Regime. They are not at all concerned with the power the Regime is amassing, not as they would be if this were a Republican Regime.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, folks, this FCC story where they want to put monitors in American newsrooms is not actually new. This story has been kicking around the Internet since it was first proposed almost a year ago. It was proposed in May of 2003. But it wasn't until one of the commissions in the FCC, Ajit Pai, wrote the op-ed for the Wall Street Journal 10 days ago, and it was only yesterday that that op-ed was noticed, even though it was 10 days ago.
Because a commissioner has actually now written an op-ed warning of what the government wants to do, everybody is highly attuned to it. Now, at first the ostensible purpose of the study, putting monitors in newsrooms, was theoretically to help the FCC "figure out how to lower entry barriers for minorities in broadcasting." That's what they said. They want to put monitors in there, find out what stories are being chosen and why they're being chosen, and what stories aren't being chosen.

Somehow, this was going to lead to the acquisition of more data helping the government figure out how to get more minorities owning broadcast outlets. However, the question and the whole proposition showed that it was much more intrusive than that. That was just a cover. Actually, the avowed purpose was, "Well, yeah, we want to investigate minority ownership and see what we can do about it." That's a way to get everybody to lay down. Who's gonna oppose that?
"Oh, is that all you want to do? Oh, okay! So the Regime wants to see to it they do everything they can to get more minorities...? Oh, fine. No problem." That's how it's designed. It's designed to just shut everybody up and deflect everybody's attention. Now, after the op-ed that Mr. Pai wrote in the Wall Street Journal, Adweek (of all places) posted an article claiming that the FCC has suspended it. The story now is from Adweek, of all places. (interruption)
Well, no, I got nothing against Adweek, but, I mean, of all the news outlets? There wasn't one that covered it? Here's my point: Not one major media newsroom, news division stood up and said a thing about this. This op-ed's been out there for 10 days and nobody said anything. Anyway, Adweek says that it has been suspended, they've stopped it, they're not gonna go forward. But that's the only place saying so.
I haven't seen any confirmation of it, just Adweek. But I would say it's like everything else that this Regime does. If they've actually suspended this study -- and the study, again, is the placing of government monitors in newsrooms to observe what's going on. If it actually has been suspended, it's just temporary. They're going to do this. They've tipped their hand. They want to do this. They are going to do it.
It's clear the Regime thought they could get away with doing this this time. Hugo Chavez used to do things like this all the time. Now, here's the question. Let's just go hypothetically here. Let's say that Adweek did not discover the study has been suspended. Let's say it's gonna go forward. At some point, they're gonna try it. Will major American media organizations stand up and righteously, indignantly oppose this?

I can make the case that I don't think they would. Most people think instinctively, reflexively, the media not gonna put up with it something like that. "No way! You're gonna have a government monitor in my newsroom? You're gonna be quote/unquote 'monitoring' the stories I choose to cover and the stories I don't want to cover, and you are gonna be cataloging what you think is my bias? No way, pal!" But I can see where, given the current circumstances that exist today, they wouldn't oppose it.
In fact, I could make the case to you that they would welcome it. I explained this to Snerdley today. He could not believe me. He did not believe that I was being serious. "You're joking," he said. No. I can make the case where journalism schools would not oppose it but instead will support it -- and I'll bet I could make the case to you, given current circumstances. I think the media might look at it as an opportunity to get even closer to Obama. I think some might look at it as a way of impressing Obama.
Remember, Obama's the king.
They all serve the guy.
They're all on the same team.
These aren't really journalists; they're just Democrats assigned there.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'm gonna go a step further, and I'm gonna tell you that I think -- well, let me pull back a little bit. I wouldn't be surprised if journalism professors at University of Missouri journalism school, Columbia school of journalism, hot to trot Kennedy School, Harvard, wherever you find a journalism school, I wouldn't be surprised if it was professors who gave the government this idea. Folks, if you don't think that that's entirely possible, you are not paying attention to what's going on.

There is no journalism anymore. There is an agenda that is put forward each day, the soap opera, whatever you want to call it. The purpose of the media in New York and Washington is to advance the Democrat Party agenda. In the pop culture media, in the sports media, in the so-called news media, there isn't any news. All I'm telling you is that I can see -- and I'm not gonna go out on a limb and predict it, but we'll just see -- I'm just gonna tell you that I, for one, would not be surprised if there is no anger or real outrage. You might have some innocent guy stand up and express mock outrage at this, but I won't be surprised if there isn't any substantive push-back to this. It's the outcome that matters. Journalism flew the coop a long time ago. There isn't any of that going on here.
Now, there are people who think they're journalists, and hearing me say this think, "Limbaugh's off his rocker again," not understanding the context in which I'm offering these comments. That's why I don't worry you. You're all here every day, you understand, you're able to put my comments in context and you know exactly what I mean. There isn't any journalism going on. There isn't anybody standing on a corner telling us what happened that we didn't see. Everything is flavored in terms of how does it affect Obama, how does it affect the elections, how is it gonna affect the Democrats? Everything in the media is oriented toward advancing the agenda of the Democrat Party, the American left, Barack Obama, or whatever.
I'm just telling you that I'm not gonna be surprised at all -- now, remember, Adweek says they've suspended this. They're not gonna go forward with it since it's been discovered. They're not gonna move forward with it now. They're gonna delay it. It was all a ruse based on trying to figure out some things about how to enhance minority ownership of media properties. That's what they said this was about and that's how they were able to get it in under the radar. Then the commissioner wrote the op-ed 10 days ago in the Wall Street Journal. It's finally surfaced and people have seen it, and there is some reaction on the right.
There isn't any reaction to this where you would think there would be. It is conservatives standing up to defend the media. They're not standing up in righteous outrage or indignation over what would happen to them.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
We're gonna start in Philadelphia with Richard. Welcome, sir. Great to have you on the program. Hi.
CALLER: Hi. Good afternoon, Rush. I just want to preface this by quoting Edmund Burke, who said, "For evil to triumph, good men must do nothing." Therefore, this is fully gonna be supported by the clowns at MSNBC. Because if you put a government Ministry of Truth monitor in their newsroom, you're not gonna be able to tell the difference between them and the guys who work at MSNBC. So what do they care? It's just gonna become another compadre in their newsroom, as opposed to Fox or more conservative-minded media. When they have a monitor in there, it's gonna stand out like a sore thumb, and you're gonna have their boot on their neck. These are the good people who are gonna do nothing and let freedom die.
RUSH: Okay. So you would say that Fox would object but MSNBC wouldn't?
CALLER: Well, I think Fox would object more than MSNBC would. Everything is gonna be relative. I mean, they're also establishment-type people, but the more conservative people that have some differences with this Regime are gonna potentially fight it, while the MSNBC and NBC and ABC crew, what do they care whether there's a monitor? They're all the same people.

RUSH: Let me ask you a question, very simply: Has Congress stood up in righteous indignation over Obama usurping their power?
CALLER: Of course not.
RUSH: They haven't. Is anybody? Have doctors, hospitals, anybody stood up and expressed anger and outrage over Obama, who knows nothing about taking over the entire health care industry?
CALLER: Well, I am a physician. I'm living through it. I'm at the end of my career, and I'm thankful that I am.
RUSH: Right. Some people are not standing up in righteous opposition.
CALLER: No.
RUSH: They're trying to figure ways out of it.
CALLER: Well, I mean, the people who are standing up come to be cowed by the vitriol that comes back at them.
RUSH: Right. Exactly right.
CALLER: So, therefore, there are no good people to stand up against this evil.
RUSH: No.
CALLER: Therefore, evil will triumph. That's what I think.
RUSH: I think there are plenty of good people. I think there's just abject fear.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: I think there's total fear of standing up to anything this Regime is doing. You know, why would the media stand up and oppose Obama trying to take over their operation when nobody else is? Congress isn't. Nobody else is standing up in righteous opposition to it. Anyway, we'll explore this further, folks, 'cause I can paint you a picture that you might conclude, yeah, I've got a point.
END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...n_t_be_so_sure

Related Links

• RedState: Why Is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?
• FOXNews: Why The FCC Should Keep Its Nose Out Of TV Newsrooms - Howard Kurtz
• Wall Street Journal: The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom
• AdWeek: FCC Backs Off Study of Newsroom Editorial Practices. GOP Said Study Violated Freedom Of The Press

HERE'S BACK STORY ON FCC'S NEWSROOM-POLICING AGENDA

Former Obama 'diversity czar,' Hugo Chavez fan has published plan

Published: 5 hours ago
AARON KLEIN

While some have been speculating about the intent of an extensive Federal Communications Commission survey of U.S. newsrooms, entirely unreported is that the agency’s former “diversity czar” spelled out how collecting such data can be used to regulate the news media.

Last May, the FCC contracted an outside firm to conduct a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” which will collect information from private newsroom employees on demographics, editorial view, selection of news topics, management style and more.

The FCC says the study will cover “the process by which stories are selected” and the frequency with which stations report on “critical information needs.” The agency will determine if there is any “perceived station bias” or “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”
The survey is so troubling that one of the FCC’s own commissioners, Ajit Pai, warned against it in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece earlier this week.

“The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories,” Pai wrote.

Pai contended that while newsroom participation in the survey may officially be voluntary, broadcasters will find it difficult to decline since “they would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.”

The intent of the study can perhaps be divined by the writings of Mark Lloyd, who served as FCC’s associate general counsel and chief diversity officer from 2009-2012.

Lloyd was also a senior fellow at the heavily influential Center for American Progress, or CAP, and served as a consultant to George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

CAP’s founder, John Podesta, was recently appointed as White House counselor.

Lloyd co-authored a 2007 CAP study titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”

The 40-page report, reviewed in full by WND, recommended radio station “ownership diversity,” citing data claiming stations “owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.”

Lloyd wrote that all radio stations should be required to “provide information on how the station serves the public interest in a variety of areas.”

The CAP report specifically called on the FCC to mandate all radio broadcast licensees “to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.”

Lloyd and co-authors lamented the FCC “renews broadcast licensees with a postcard renewal, and while it once promised random audits of stations it has never conducted a single audit.”

In a follow up to the CAP report, Lloyd penned a 2007 article at CAP’s website titled “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.”

In the piece, Lloyd claimed that Citadel Broadcasting, then the owner of major U.S. radio stations, “refuses” to air the progressive Ed Shultz radio show. Lloyd offered no evidence that Citadel made the decision based on politics rather than Shultz’s low ratings.

Lloyd called for new “ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary.”

“And we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rule,” he said.

“Localism” is a reference to the FCC rule that requires radio and TV stations to serve the local community’s interests, one of which, according to the Obama administration, is “diversity of programming.”

In 2009, FoxNews.com reported Lloyd called for “equal opportunity employment practices,” “local engagement” and “license challenges” to rectify what he perceived as an imbalance in talk radio and news coverage.

Lloyd is a follower of socialist guru Saul Alinsky, and has advocated having “white people” step down from positions of power to allow “more people of color, gays” and “other people” to take those positions.

He discussed imposing a 100 percent tax on broadcast outlets to fund alternative viewpoints.

He previously lauded Hugo Chavez at a June 2008 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, saying the late Venezuelan socialist dictator had led “really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/heres-back-story-on-fccs-newsroom-policing-agenda/#R7paZh1FZ8It3iZS.99

Meet Ajit Pai

Commissioner who blew the whistle on the FCC policing the newsroom has more work to do

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

BY: Elizabeth Harrington
March 25, 2014 5:00 am

Ajit Pai wanted to blow the whistle on his agency’s plans to police the newsroom, but he was sleep deprived. The 41-year-old Republican FCC Commissioner had a baby daughter in October, leading to many sleepless nights.

Pai had become fully aware of the “Critical Information Needs” (CIN) study last December, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter expressing their concerns.

The FCC was moving quickly with the study. The agency had spent $500,000planning a study that would have involved grilling editors in 280 newsrooms over how they decide which stories to run.
Increasingly alarmed, Pai decided his best option would be to write an editorial to draw attention to the study. If word got out, the public would do the rest.

“I didn’t have a conversation with the chairman or the other commissioners,” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “Under the agency’s rules we don’t have a chance to vote or otherwise publicly have input on either the contracts or designing studies like this. So that’s why I thought the op-ed would be a better way to draw public attention to this issue.”

Pai’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal was published on Feb. 10. Two weeks later the study was dead. The article had taken a life of its own, drawing outcry across the political spectrum from Fox News to the Atlantic.

“One of the things that all of us prize, whether we come from a particular political persuasion, is the fact that freedom of the press is just that, that the government does not decide for the American people what information is critical and what is not,” Pai said. “The notion that a contractor tasked by the government identifying critical information needs and then studying how independent, private news organizations meet those needs, that’s a notion I think has a lot of resonance with anyone in this country.”

“And I think that’s what you saw.”
***
Pai is often modest about his achievements. From the outset of our interview, he credits his parents for inculcating in him the values of hard work, education, and family.

It seems his life has always revolved around regulation. Born the son of Indian immigrants in Buffalo, N.Y., his family moved to Canada when he was four months old. His parents left Toronto after completing their medical residencies, fearing the regulatory environment would hamper their career aspirations.

“One of the reasons why they wanted to come back to the United States is because they saw that the Canadian marketplace for doctors was highly regulated,” Pai said. “[There was] much less opportunity for them to be doctors, and entrepreneurial.”

“One of the things they loved about Kansas was that it was a small town where they could raise kids in a good environment, and also it was a market that allowed them to apply their talents to the maximum,” he said. “And so they didn’t have to be government employees, they could be more entrepreneurial.”

Pai did not know he had the “political bug” until he was at Harvard, where he graduated with a B.A. with honors in 1994.

At Parsons Senior High, his small public school in Kansas, Pai never had the chance to study the great scholars of economics, history, and political philosophy. Once in Cambridge, he found those subjects to be squarely in his “wheelhouse.”

“I started gravitating to more of the humanities courses,” he said. “I ended up majoring in something called ‘Social Studies,’ which is something very few Indian parents want to hear their kids majoring in, but for me it was just intellectually fascinating.”

His interest drew him to pursue law, something his doctor parents took some time to warm up to.

“I started off thinking, as a lot of Indian-American kids did back then, that I was going to be a doctor, because my parents were doctors,” he said. “I can still remember when I told them I was going to law school instead of medical school.”

“They were a little bit worried, because in their minds lawyers were either criminal defense lawyers or medical malpractice plaintiffs attorneys,” Pai said. “There was nothing else.”

“So they weren’t sure what that meant, but once I actually got to law school and started working they came to appreciate the choice.”
***
Pai’s worldview that a market is best when it is free from costly government rules and intervention was cemented from an unlikely source: President Barack Obama’s former regulatory czar Cass Sunstein.

“It’s kind of counterintuitive because he obviously takes one view of regulation,” said Pai, who studied under Sunstein at the University of Chicago Law School. “I’m sure you’re familiar with his work on ‘nudging,’ the government’s role of nudging people towards certain behaviors. What I loved about him though, aside from the fact that he was a great lecturer, he really forced you to honestly confront the dilemma of regulation, which is that it’s an imperfect tool to solving problems.”

While Sunstein and Pai disagree when it comes to regulation, he taught Pai the importance of cost-benefit-analysis.

“The first step is to ascertain what the nature of the problem is,” Pai, who grew up a Democrat, said. “He came to it with an appreciation of the fact that the government sometimes can’t figure out what exactly the problem is.”

“There’s always a cost to regulation and cost-benefit analysis was something that he stressed a lot,” he said. “He was intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the line had to be drawn.”

“I can’t think of a more important principle in regulation,” Pai added.

“The government shouldn’t be doing something unless it’s going to produce more benefits than costs.”

David Currie, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, and Martin Feldstein, an economics professor at Harvard, were also instrumental in Pai’s road to the right. Though both are liberal, they ingrained in Pai a respect for the constitution and the laws of supply and demand.

“People are liberal or conservative, but if they share the same understanding about how economics works, they can at least agree on a basic set of core principles,” he said.

“I slowly but surely started gravitating over to the Republican side.”
***
Following law school, Pai clerked for Martin L.C. Feldman, a federal judge in New Orleans, who pushed him to apply for the anti-trust division in the Justice Department. He later went to work as an associate general counsel for Verizon, but couldn’t shake the allure of politics.

He served as Deputy Chief Counsel for two subcommittees on the Senate Judiciary Committee, before moving to the FCC in 2007. Four years later, Pai was named as the Republican commissioner, after being handpicked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.).

“As much as I wish I could say that my career had a lot of careful planning behind it, I tended to just follow the opportunities,” Pai said. “I was lucky enough to have at every stage an interesting opportunity to serve in a public service position, and I took it at just about every juncture. When this came along, of course, I leapt at the chance.”
***

Pai is as adamant about keeping the Internet free as he is about keeping government out of the newsroom. Up next for the commissioner are several issues involving Internet regulation, including the FCC’s response to a D.C. circuit court striking down the Obama administration’s Net Neutrality rule in January.

“Management of the Internet is, arguably, one of the most important questions of the 21st century,” Pai said. “Thus far, my own view is that it’s thrived precisely because government has taken a more hands-off role. If the government decides to take a more hands-on role, that’s something for everybody—but especially conservatives—to take a look at.”

Pai doesn’t have a grand strategy for the rest of his term, which ends in 2016. He operates under an “open door” philosophy at the FCC, and said some of his best ideas come from average Americans writing in about their concerns.

“A lot of people think that FCC commissioners are inaccessible, sit way up high on the ivory tower and issue their pronouncements, that’s not the way I operate,” he said. “I’ve really had a chance to hear from and meet with a lot of people from across the country, and that’s part of the job.”

Since blowing the whistle on the FCC’s newsroom study, he has received an outpouring of support.

“Folks from Alaska to Florida, from Maine to California have written in, and those are the communications that I really cherish,” he said. “It’s kind of good to know, because when you’re sitting here doing this job a lot of times you think, ‘Okay, it’s only folks within the beltway who are going to pay attention to this, or executives in the communications industry.’ It’s good to know that what we do here matters to Americans across the country.”

Pai is not without his detractors, and being the first commissioner on Twitter has made it easy for his critics to express their disapproval.

“I knew going in that this was something that would touch a nerve among people, whether for good or bad,” he said. “On the bad side, of course, I’ve gotten my share of nasty email, and I’m on Twitter, so a lot of folks have not been hesitant about making clear their view that I’m … off my rocker,” he said, with a laugh.

“I welcome the criticism,” Pai said. “I’m certainly not perfect.”

Being a minority can make some of the criticism especially brutal. Just last week Lauren Wilson, the policy counsel for Free Press, a fierce opponent of Pai’s, issued a tweet that said, “Commissioner Pai has a newfound concern for [people of color]. Dear Commissioner: YOU CAN’T SIT WITH US.”

The tweet came in response to Pai’s opposition to the FCC’s attempt to restrict joint sales agreements (JSAs), which are predominately used by minorities and allow local TV stations to sell advertising to other stations.

Wilson later deleted the tweet, and apologized, saying the expression is a “pop culture euphemism that has become popular on Twitter.”
Pai brushed it off.

“It’s just another day at the office.”

http://freebeacon.com/meet-ajit-pai/