FCC Plan For Newsroom Monitors Sparks Constitutional Concern As FCC Plans to Issue New 'Net Neutrality' Rules… Wake Up America

Video: Is Government Going To Control What News You See & Hear - Obama Admin Attack On First Amendment

Is Government Going To Control What News You See & Hear?  The Obama Administration is attacking our First Amendment - Special Report  -->  Wake The Hell Up America…  And as a reminder, the Second Amendment is there to protect First Amendment

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

Greta Van Susteren is outraged on the February 19th when this fame to light and discuss with a panel: Byron York, Karen Tumulty (WaPo) & AB Stoddard

Byron York mentions an article on Feb 10, by a Republican FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai: on The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom at WSJ.com and another attempt at Net Neutrality.

She asks the question: Who thought this was a good idea?

Video: Obama's News Police - WH Pushes FCC To Install Newsroom Spies - Attack On First Amendment

Video: News Police Exposed - Obama Admin Pushes FCC To Install Newsroom Spies - On The Record

Video: Renee Ellmers: Plan to put monitors in newsrooms is latest attempt by Obama Admin to trample

Former Fox host Glenn Beck warned that this would be coming back in 2009!  Obama’s former FCC Czar admired Hugo Chavez & Wanted To Emulate Venezuela’s Control of Speech & Communication~

FCC Plans to Issue New 'Net Neutrality' Rules

Cables and routers at a Comcast distribution center where the Comcast regional video, high speed data and voice are piped out to customers on Feb. 13, 2014 in Miramar, Fla. Getty Images

WSJ:  WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission said Wednesday it would again issue rules to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or slowing down access to content providers that don't pay a toll to reach consumers.

However, analysts said the rules could open the door for broadband providers to cut deals with content companies like Netflix Inc. NFLX -1.97% or Google Inc. GOOG -0.71% to give their products some kind of advantage, either though speed or prominent placement.

The FCC's announcement means it doesn't plan to reclassify broadband as a public utility at present, as Democrats and public-interest groups had urged. Doing so would give the FCC much greater authority to set rules for broadband providers.

Supporters say treating all Internet traffic equally, a concept known as net neutrality, is crucial to keeping the Internet open and allowing smaller companies to compete with the biggest content providers. But the courts have ruled against the FCC's previous attempts to enforce net neutrality on companies like Comcast Corp. CMCSA -3.66% and Verizon Communications Inc. VZ +1.20% that provide Internet connections to households and businesses.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out FCC rules barring providers from blocking or slowing down websites, but it acknowledged the FCC has some authority to regulate broadband-company practices under a section of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that gives it broad authority to encourage U.S. broadband service.

The FCC said Wednesday it won't appeal the D.C. Circuit's ruling. Instead, it plans to take advantage of Section 706, of the law to propose new rules in the late spring or early summer, after soliciting public comment.

"The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the Internet remains open and fair," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a statement. "The Internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth and opportunity the world has ever known."

The court said in January that the FCC could impose a "no blocking" rule if it found a different legal justification. Mr. Wheeler's statement indicates the FCC will do just that, by establishing a minimum standard for how broadband companies treat content. The rules would likely outline expectations and unacceptable practices for broadband providers, and provide for case-by-case enforcement when websites complain of unfair discrimination.

Analysts said the new rules could pave the way for deals between Internet providers and content companies to carry their content to consumers at higher speeds. Paul Gallant, a telecom policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities, said his reading of the commission's principles is that the agency is more likely to focus on policing anti-competitive conduct than on discouraging the content deals.

"I think the FCC will be inclined to permit voluntary paid prioritization deals," he said.

Even with that caveat, Republicans are opposed to the new proposed rules. "I am deeply concerned by the announcement that the FCC will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet," FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said. "The Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the Web," House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) and Rep. Greg Walden (R., Ore.) said in a statement.

Any rules would have to be approved by a vote of the five-member commission, which includes three Democrats and two Republicans.

Net neutrality supporters, however, were disappointed with the FCC's decision not to reclassify broadband Internet as a public utility, which they had argued was the only way to make the rules stand up in court.

Andy Schwartzman, a telecom lawyer and adviser to the anti-media consolidation group Free Press, said not reclassifying broadband "would be repeating the biggest mistake" made during prior efforts by former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Broadband providers have argued that reclassification would be disastrous for the industry because it would subject them to regulations designed for the landline phone system. "We think reclassification would probably be the ultimate death of the broadband market," Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said in an interview last week. "We think it would dry up private investment and destroy all the gains made in the broadband market in the U.S."

Cohen's comments were made in the context of his company's bid to acquire Time Warner Cable Inc. TWC -2.75% Comcast has already agreed to abide by the FCC's net neutrality rules, even though they were struck down in court, as part of its acquisition of NBC-Universal in 2011. Comcast has also agreed to extend the agreement to Time Warner Cable Inc. subscribers if that acquisition is approved.

Mr. Wheeler has left the reclassification option open for now, which could serve as a deterrent for broadband providers seeking to challenge the rules in court again.

A Verizon spokesman said the company said it wouldn't appeal last month's court ruling, and that it is too early to determine whether it would challenge the FCC's latest rules.

As part of the process, the FCC will also examine ways to encourage competition in the broadband market. That could include removing legal restrictions that prevent cities and towns from building their own broadband or Wi-Fi networks. 

The Rewards Of ‘Cooperation’ With The NSA – Verizon Given Huge Federal Contract

FCC Plan For Newsroom Monitors Sparks Constitutional Concern - Wake Up America - America's Newsroom

Sekulow explains this very well - FCC gives license to broadcasters, but the FCC is also doing this for newspapers which do not come under the authority of the FCC.

Video (Martha McCallum with Jordan Sekulow): FCC Plan For Newsroom Monitors Sparks Constitutional Concern - Wake Up America - America's Newsroom

Audio: RUSH: Media Wouldn’t Oppose Regime Monitors In Newsrooms

RUSH/EIB: 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. Read more HERE

Video: FCC Proposes Initiative To Study How Journalists Operate - Attack On First Amendment?  

Video: WaPo Reporter: Plan to put monitors in newsrooms is like ATF walking into a gunshop

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s head is exploding -!!! Chilling!  The Judge explains where it came from: the White House instructions to FCC.  Freedom of the press is guaranteed in first amendment.  This is a radical new era of tyranny in the White House says the judge.  Currently it is voluntary but Judge Nap says that would eventually change. Allowing this another camel’s nose under the tent situation.  You and every journalist should be outraged!!

Video: Media Grilling - Does FCC Study Violate Freedom Of The Press? - Judge Andrew Napolitano F&F

Technorati Tags: FCC,Net-Neutrality,Big Brother Tactics,Rush Limbaugh,Beck,Verizon,UnConstitutional,Freedom of Speech,Fox,WaPo,Freedom of the Press,Bill of Rights,Constitution,ATF,Alert,Sekulow,Stealing Elections,Wake-Up,1984,Stand-Up,Judge Napolitano,Elections Have Consequences

FCC takes calls to pull Fox's broadcast licenses 'very seriously'

By Brendan Sasso - 05/09/12 05:25 PM ET  -  The Hillicon

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski testified Wednesday that his agency takes calls to cancel Fox's broadcast licenses "very seriously."

Groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), have urged the FCC to pull Fox's licenses because of evidence that its parent company News Corp. hacked people's phones in the United Kingdom to get stories.

During a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) pressed Genachowski on whether he plans to do anything about the allegations.

Genachowski said it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on a specific case, but that the commission is "certainly aware of the serious issues that have been raised in the U.K."

He noted that the law requires that the FCC only grant broadcast licenses to people of "good character."

"If any issues arise, the commission has an obligation, we would take it very seriously, to look at the record, look at the facts and apply the law," Genachowski said.

A British parliamentary committee ruled earlier this month that News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch is "not fit" to run an international media company because of the phone hacking scandal.

News Corp. owns 27 Fox stations in the United States.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, wrote to the British committee probing the scandal earlier this month, requesting that it provide any evidence of whether News Corp. violated any U.S. laws.

**If you want some kind of alternative news to the MSM big 3 time to call, fax or write in, in favor of Fox News and perhaps some of the one-sided slanted coverage, especially on NBC and ABC.**

Technorati Tags: MSM,Mainstream Media,FOX,Fox News,media,communication diversity czar,ABC,NBC,CBS,News Corp. watch the other hand,stand-up America

Obama Assembling De Facto Propaganda Ministry

By Steve Peacock – WND

The U.S. State Department is planning to “buy” media broadcasts, as the Obama administration assembles a de facto propaganda machine, according to documents that reveal the president’s plans moving closer to the 2012 election.

According to information WND located via routine database research, State’s Bureau of Public Affairs is soliciting the help of “global news coverage service providers” to create and disseminate department “news.”

The selected contractor will provide “full-time, 24/7 service,” the Statement of Work for the plan said.

“The department seeks a service provider for full, turn-key news-style global television coverage of ad hoc open press events featuring the Secretary of State and other officials across the United States and throughout the world,” according to the SOW, “and to send this content back to the department’s Washington headquarters…”

Upon receiving these privately packaged productions, the department, in turn, “will distribute this video content to media organizations through an array of traditional and new media platforms.”

Indeed, just as the department is awaiting contractor bids on the project, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s representative at the World Press Freedom Day in Tunisia heaped accolades upon UNESCO for hosting the annual event.

Read about how the U.S. mission at the United Nations works with reporters, and find out what the White House does with some of those raising questions.

In a “tweet” from Tunisia, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Esther Brimmer said, “I applaud the tireless, continuing work of #UNESCO in promoting the ideals of free and open media.”

Brimmer delivered remarks on behalf of the Obama administration during the opening ceremony, along with presenting a video speech from Clinton.

Referring to the Arab Spring demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa, Clinton said, according to a prepared statement, “Voice by voice, text by text, Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and many others have dared to say what they believe and stand up for their own rights.

“Many others have dared to report on what they see happening, even when their lives were at risk.”

The State Department plan is twofold: to hire a single contractor to provide television news crew services on the one hand, and to provide transmission/streaming services as a corollary service.

“The television news crew category is both one and two-person crews, and includes one and multi-camera productions,” the SOW pointed out. “The transmission category includes both traditional fiber, terrestrial and satellite-based as well as file-based and Internet delivery platforms.”

The use of such government- as well as industry-funded broadcasts, known as “video news releases,” or VNRs, has increasingly come under fire in the past decade.

VNRs “are segments designed to be indistinguishable from independently produced news reports that are distributed and promoted to television newsrooms,” according to Source Watch, a Center for Media and Democracy project that chronicles the intersecting of public relations and public policy.

The General Accountability Office – the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress – in 2005 declared that several federal entities, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, may have violated the law by disseminating VNRs as fact-based news reports.

Subsequent to the GAO’s findings, the “Stop Government Propaganda Act” was introduced to rein in and punish such activities; it died, however, after being introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Proponents of VNR distribution claim that use of the video products is wholly legitimate. The Public Relations Society of America is that a VNR simply is “the video equivalent of a press release.”

The organization does advocate that industry members abide by certain parameters to ensure the integrity of VNR usage:

1. Organizations that produce VNRs should clearly identify the VNR as such and fully disclose who produced and paid for it at the time the VNR is provided to TV stations.
2. PRSA recommends that organizations that prepare VNRs should not use the word “reporting” if the narrator is not a reporter.
3. Use of VNRs or footage provided by sources other than the station or network should be identified as to source by the media outlet when it is aired.

Despite congressional refusal to crack down on VNRs, the Federal Communications Commission issued a reminder to licensees of their sponsor-identification requirements under the Communications Act or 1934. Rather than holding liable the creators of the reports, the commission has placed the burden of disclosure on who ultimately airs the VNR.

“These rules are grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them with the programming offered over broadcast stations and cable systems,” the FCC said.

When such VNRs are aired, “licensees and operators generally must clearly disclose to members of their audiences the nature, source and sponsorship of the material that they are viewing.”

Although the FCC continues to enforce these rules, the penalties arguably have been light.

Last year, for instance, it issued a forfeiture order to Fox Television Stations, Inc. when station affiliate KMSP-TV of Minneapolis used – but failed to identify – a General Motors-provided VNR during a news broadcast.

The FCC fined Fox $4,000 for failing to disclose GM sponsorship of the report.

Among other VNR-related enforcement actions, in 2007 it imposed a $4,000 fine on Comcast Corp. for also violating the sponsorship disclosure rules. Comcast’s CN8 news affiliate in that case had aired a VNR produced on behalf of Nelson’s Rescue Sleep.

The FCC soon after separately slapped a $16,000 forfeiture against Comcast for airing two VNRs from General Mills and Allstate, respectively.

The State Department through May 21 is reviewing contractor proposals in response to the new solicitation. It did not disclose the estimated cost of the endeavor, for which it will award a year contract with four one-year options.

FCC Official Comes Under Fire for Past Statements

WASHINGTON -- New Federal Communications Commission chief Julius Genachowski says he wants to promote diversity in media ownership, but his recent decision to hire Mark Lloyd, a civil-rights attorney critical of corporate-owned media, to help with that effort has riled some talk-radio hosts who fear the agency is planning to go after them.

The criticism comes as another Obama administration appointee, environmental jobs adviser Van Jones, resigned over the weekend following an outcry over things he said before joining the government.

Jumpkari/YouTube - Mark Lloyd at a 2008 conference.

Mr. Lloyd was named in July to the new FCC post of chief diversity officer as part of what agency Chairman Julius Genachowski called an effort to "expand opportunities for women, minorities and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace."

FCC chief of staff Edward Lazarus said Mr. Lloyd is currently working, for example, on how to increase broadband adoption in minority communities and by small businesses. Through an FCC spokeswoman, Mr. Lloyd declined to comment.

But Mr. Lloyd in the past has criticized corporate ownership of media outlets, saying it has led to conservative dominance of talk radio, among other things. He has called for a broader range of voices in the media and advocated taxing station owners to subsidize public broadcasters and local media.

"If we as a nation...fully funded a broadcaster like the British citizens fund BBC, we might have an impact on what they cover and have more power to demand that they cover everything," Mr. Lloyd said at a 2008 media conference.

In 2007, while a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, Mr. Lloyd co-authored a report that proposed ways the FCC could change the balance of conservatives to progressives on talk radio by imposing new rules on the radio industry, such as more frequent license renewals and a national radio-ownership cap.

Mr. Lloyd has no authority to set policy at the FCC, and his appointment has drawn little reaction so far from companies. Nevertheless, his past statements have fueled an outcry among conservative commentators and lawmakers concerned that Mr. Lloyd's hiring signals the FCC will change rules to make it easier for interest groups unhappy with a local station's programming to threaten its license.

The administration "is trying to stifle dissenting voices," said radio host Rush Limbaugh, discussing Mr. Lloyd with Fox News host Glenn Beck last month. (Fox News is owned by News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal.)

"He doesn't like corporate ownership of media," said Seton Motley, communications director of the Media Research Center, a conservative interest group that has been critical of Mr. Lloyd. "He wants to use the vast power of the FCC to hammerlock the radio industry."

Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley in a letter last month to Mr. Genachowski said that "given the appointment of Mr. Lloyd," he was concerned that the FCC chairman was moving away from pledges not to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, a policy abandoned in 1987 that required licensed broadcasters to give equal time to differing political views.

Mr. Lloyd has said there is no reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but his critics fear a similar policy under a different name. Mr. Genachowski told Mr. Grassley that he does "not support policies intended to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine through a back door or otherwise," and Mr. Lazarus said that Mr. Lloyd's work at the FCC "has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine or the content of radio or television broadcasting."

The uproar over Mr. Lloyd's appointment foreshadows what could be a messy fight next year when the FCC launches a broad review of media-ownership rules.

Broadcasters helped derail the FCC's attempt last year to impose new requirements on stations to make sure they are serving local communities' needs, and they are prepared to fight any effort to impose new fees on stations.

Companies "support a strong public broadcasting system. However, we would oppose efforts to fund that system through fees on free and local broadcast stations now emerging from one of the more challenging advertising recessions in history," said National Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton.

Some contend the concerns about Mr. Lloyd are overblown.

"His writings, while tending to be liberal, aren't anything anyone regarded as radical or outside the mainstream," said David Honig, executive director of the nonpartisan group Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. "He's a midlevel staff member at the FCC. It doesn't come with a big corner office. He certainly doesn't set policy."

By: Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A4

Should the President Get Emergency Control of the Internet? H_ll No!!

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights; you can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can e-mail Declan atdeclan@cbsnews.com.

------------

FCC 'Diversity' Chief Asked Liberals to Fight Limbaugh

A top Federal Communications Commission official believes that “progressives” should challenge conservative media moguls like Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch.

FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd made that argument in a 2007 report he penned for the liberal Center for American Progress, CNS News reports.

The article was titled “Media Maneuvers: Why the Rush to Waive Cross-Ownership Bans?” It discusses the FCC’s decision to allow Chicago real estate kingpin Sam Zell to buy the Chicago Tribune.

Lloyd argues that liberals should follow the tactics that President Franklin Roosevelt used to fight concentration of the media in conservative hands, such as then Tribune publisher Col. Robert McCormick.

Lloyd maintains that Zell could mirror McCormick, by joining other conservative media heavies, including Limbaugh and Murdoch, to work against liberals.

“The vast majority of Zell’s political contributions go to support conservative candidates and causes,” Lloyd wrote, as cited by CNS. “Is Zell a modern Col. McCormick waiting in the wings to join forces with Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh?”

Lloyd claimed that the conservative media moguls were in league with the Supreme Court to battle liberals in the government.

“A pro-big business Supreme Court aligned with Murdoch, Limbaugh, and Zell and ready to battle a progressive in the White House begins to sound a lot like the early years of the FDR administration,” Lloyd wrote.

“Will progressives sound like FDR and commit to creating a media policy that actually serves democracy and promotes diverse and antagonistic sources of news?”

Of course it’s difficult to argue that the media is under threat from conservatives when so many newspapers support Democrats on their editorial pages.

And it’s hardly accurate to call Murdoch a doctrinaire conservative. He is famous for allying himself with politicians of all stripes, including Hillary Clinton, to further his business interests.

By: Dan Weil

© 2009 Newsmax - Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:34 PM

Posted: Daily Thought Pad – Cross-Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources:

• Radicals in the Obama Administration. Radicals are Advisors! - Video
• FCC Diversity Officer (Czar) Plans to Shut Down Free Speech ? - Video
• Drop Everything and Get On the Phone to Your Congress Person - “NO” on Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity Bill
• Meet Obama’s FCC Chief Diversity Officer (Distribution of Wealth Czar) – He Admires Hugo Chavez & Wants to Emulate Venezuela’s Communication Structure