FCC Whistleblower Pai: News Bias Study ‘Suspended,’ Not ‘Canceled’

Drew MacKenzie, Newsmax, February 24, 2014

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who blew the whistle on the federal agency’s plan to study purported bias in the news, says the survey has been “suspended,” not canceled as the FCC has said.

The Federal Communications Commission declared last week that it had shelved a controversial survey on how newsrooms cover various news stories, which was derided by critics as a threat to the First Amendment right of press freedom.

But in explaining the decision, FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said that “the pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final,” suggesting the program could be brought back at a later date.

“It’s suspended, and the way I like to think about it is [how] you would think about a baseball game being suspended,” Pai told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV. “It’s not being canceled, it could come back,” he said Monday.

“The good thing is that the FCC has said that any study along these lines will not involve government researchers going into newsrooms and asking questions about a perceived station bias or how they decide to cover certain stories, not others, whether they’re covering the critical information needs that people need to know.

“But nonetheless, we need to remain vigilant to make sure that any future study doesn’t intrude on that core constitutional freedom of the press. The devil’s going to be in the details, and if they decide to go ahead with this study, you can rest assured that I’ll be watching to make sure that nothing like this is attempted again.”



Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • thomas edward

    FCC Whistleblower Pai: News Bias Study ‘Suspended,’ Not ‘Canceled’
    exactly – they’ll be back…

  • dd121

    Pricking the lion with a pin to see if it turns and bites. They’ll be back.

    • Spartacus

      Then turn and bite .

  • They never give up.

    And I don’t even buy this notion that it’s “suspended.” They’ll just keep on doing it but not let on like they’re doing it.

    • Yes, lying is a duty in Alinski’s Rules for Radicals, a book Hillary Clinton took to heart.

    • Lewis33

      And the media gatekeepers will welcome it with open arms…a few of the employees may raise a fuss, but the owners of big media won’t.

      • Epiminondas

        The owners of big media are the ones behind this.

    • sbuffalonative

      Yes, they’ll implement the program but as with all ‘progressive’ liberal solutions, it will black fire.

      It will become increasingly obvious and ridiculous to more people that the government/media is censoring crime reports.

      Wait until they start reporting a rapist is on the loose but don’t provide a description.

      • itdoesnotmatter

        Wait until they start reporting a rapist is on the loose but don’t provide a description.

        That exact thing happened a couple years ago in Oakland.
        A fourteen year old “teenager” who broad daylight raped 3-4 women in Oakland, robbed the Rockridge CVS Drugstore, was on the loose. The media released a “be on the lookout for” bulletin as the usual generic, “robbery and 4 rapes by Oakland teenager” today.
        The lack of physical description elicited outrage and some amusingly sarcastic responses from the S.F. Chronicle and local TV viewers, finally forcing a description.
        His mama was quick to take to the airwaves with the usual, “mah baby wune do nuffins lak dat, he be a gude boy.”
        He was eventually taken into custody. I do not know the outcome.

  • Not content with controlling the NYTimes, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and ABC, the Marxist oligarchy now turns its attention to the rest of the media, which it mostly controls too. This “plan” is really a power trip perpetrated by power mad psychopaths–the Obammunists in all their Czar loving glory.

    • Epiminondas

      I assure you the media moguls are behind this, not Obama. This fits right in with their agenda and it enables them to squash conservative competition. Once this is accomplished in broadcast and cable media, they will move to the internet.

  • Lewis33

    To Joe the local news station manager, “We notice your spending a lot of time talking about those shootings in the ghetto every week…are you sure that’s really news? How about a nice global warming piece, eh Joe?”

  • humura

    One excuse for the intrusion into the newsrooms was to determine and push the “critical information needs.” Here is my argument on how to fend off the Left in its push to restrict freedom. From my blog: There are reports that the US Federal Communication Commission may send monitors to news reporters, to the human resources divisions, and to the managers of radio and tv stations to inquire about how they determine and report news stories. They are seeking to insure that all stations report the “critical information needs,” as determined by the federal government. Basically, they are seeking to censor American news. They want it to reflect the values of the Obama Administration, global warming, Obamacare, white privilege, Black over representation in prisons, etc. Many conservatives view this not as news, but as propaganda and lies. What global warming? White privileged? To be robbed, beaten, and possibly killed by roving Black racist gangs? Obamacare!
    Actually, the government has outlets in media where it might insure its version of “critical information needs.” In the 1950s there was a halt in granting tv licenses to new stations, which meant that the largest city in the South at the time, New Orleans, had only one television station. I think Pittsburgh was also quite restricted. The freeze was imposed by the FCC to insure that there would be room for educational television stations. And once room was made for them, the freeze melted, and many new stations were allowed to telecast. Today, the education television stations in each major city and the Public Broadcasting System can provide the “critical information needs” that the Feds deem are neglected by private tv stations. There is no need for FCC reps to visit and intimidate the private media. No need, except to propel the Obama Democrats to victory by preventing any opposition from being heard.
    Obama complains about Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. I assume Obama’s FCC commissars will be visiting the radio stations that broadcast Rush. But again, there is National Public Radio, with its left-wing news casts. The Obama Administration’s notion of “critical information needs” is readily available on NPR. The problem for Obama and the Democrats: many more people listen to Rush than to NPR. So they seek to muzzle Rush, to destroy free speech, and allow only the left-wing views on the media.
    Obama has used the tax authority of the Federal Government to punish those who disagree with him. He has used the Department of Justice to openly discriminate against whites in favor of Blacks. He has used the environmental laws as a club to over-regulate and curtail capitalism (except those capitalists who contribute to the Democratic Party). He has sought to restrict the Americans’ right to own weapons. And now Obama attacks freedom of speech and the press. Americans critically need information about how we are losing our freedoms!
    Under President Obama, America is sliding toward tyranny.

  • JohnEngelman

    Press bias is inevitable. A person’s values will always influence the way that person perceives of a given event. My main concern is that when a reporter makes an assertion that assertion is factual.

    I would also like for more attention to be given to black social pathology.

    • Press bias is inevitable for the reason that you say. The problem is that the bias in our mainstream media, and most of the controlled opposition media is that it’s not the newsreader’s personal biases that color the news as much as that they’re all reading from the same script. The political spin on the news is consistent between all the major networks and syndicated papers, though the tone changes depending on the intended audience.

      While lies of fact, like CNN faking footage, or talking about babies being thrown out of the ground out of incubators are bad, so too are lies of omission, especially in the news. The Innocence of Muslims video didn’t cause the Benghazi event, but the media parroted that it did. That short trailer was made by Stanley Inc, a Clinton Global Initiative company, but the media failed to include that.

      They pass around babies-out-of-incubators stories and stuff about Viagra-fueled rape gangs, all to fan up public support for military actions abroad for the interest of that country we’re told we have a “special” relationship with. All so we can fling our sons into a desert half a world away from their homeland. They say, “Go, USA!” or something to that effect for every foreign war but they don’t tell you that we’re there not because it’s what’s best for America but because it’s what’s best for that other nation we have that “special” relationship with, or so we are told.

      The selection of what stories do get covered as well as the decisions not to run various other stories both really do shape the political climate. These decisions are centrally controlled, it’s not like the networks just happen to say the same thing over and over again because they’re all so accurate and spot-on.

    • I could accept the MSM writers being biased if only they weren’t so stupid about it. If I ever read the phrase “all of a sudden” in what purports to be a real article again, I’m going to scream. I used to read the MSM online, and I wrote terrifically nasty comments about what certain writers did to get hired. I was gratuitously insulting. Eventually I became bored even with that.

      I just don’t read it anymore.

      • JohnEngelman

        A number of years ago I read an article in The New York Times that said that most liberals and most conservatives want their opinions to be confirmed, and actively resist exposure to opposing viewpoints. It said that liberals do not want to be told bad things about Negroes and homosexuals.

        Because I enjoy political arguments, I like to study other points of view. A long time ago I realized that if my only exposure to an opinion was rebuttals of that opinion I would be at a real advantage if I went up against someone who really thought that way. Therefore I had to study opposing viewpoints on their home territory.

        Occasionally studying other viewpoints has changed mine. When I was a child and teenager I believed that blacks were unoffensive victims of irrational color prejudice. I thought immigrants were also. Since then I have realized that most blacks really are inferior, that many are dangerous, and that a high rate of immigration has economic, environmentally, and social costs.

    • SoCal Patriot

      …”I would also like for more attention to be given to black social pathology”

      Don’t forget Mexican social pathology, as well.

      • JohnEngelman

        Hispanics have higher rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites, but lower rates than blacks. Where I live Hispanics are an improvement over the blacks, who have changed a once nice place to live into one of the most dangerous cities in the United States.

  • WR_the_realist

    Obama’s FCC will not be happy until every network is a clone of MSNBC.