{"id":2643,"date":"2014-03-18T16:45:02","date_gmt":"2014-03-18T16:45:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=2643"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:44","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:44","slug":"not-all-that-critical-information-needs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/not-all-that-critical-information-needs\/","title":{"rendered":"Not-all-that-Critical Information Needs?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last month, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai took to the editorial pages<\/a> in the Wall Street Journal to voice his objections to a controversial proposed FCC study, titled \u201cMulti-Market Study of Critical Information Needs<\/a>,\u201d or \u201cCIN\u201d for short. The study\u2019s stated purpose was to collect information about the \u201ccritical information needs\u201d of Americans, access and barriers to entry to those critical information needs, the media \u201cecology,\u201d and media fulfillment of (or lack thereof) critical information needs.\u00a0 While the proffered objectives appear innocuous enough, Mr. Pai\u2019s editorial incited negative backlash against the study after revealing a controversial and invasive proposed methodology that he contends involves improper scrutiny of media groups\u2019 selection of stories. A mere eighteen days after Mr. Pai\u2019s editorial was published, the FCC announced<\/a> that it had suspended the study.<\/p>\n

The FCC abruptly pulls the plug on a proposed newsroom study after Commissioner\u2019s editorial sparks backlash.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mr. Pai took issue<\/a> with the study\u2019s intrusive proposed methodology that would have gone well beyond merely investigating the nation\u2019s critical information needs and resulted in the government \u201cpressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.\u201d The controversial approach, Pai states, would have included, among other things, interviewing media personnel about their story selection process, their organization\u2019s \u201c\u2018news philosophy,\u2019 and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information<\/a>.\u201d Additional proposed questions would have sought more information about why certain stories were rejected and the reasoning behind the organization\u2019s selection of stories. That questioning, while technically voluntary, may not seem coercive, but in reality \u201cmay be hard for the broadcasters to ignore<\/a>,\u201d given that \u201cthey would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.\u201d Mr. Pai, and the wave of supporters that his editorial garnered, maintain that the study would have resulted in improper government intervention in media coverage that would threaten to infringe on the freedom of press. Moreover, his editorial draws attention to the suspect relation between the study\u2019s methods and goals.
\nProponents of the study argued its value as a legitimate and useful<\/a> means to carry out the FCC\u2019s statutory mandate<\/a> \u201cto identify and eliminate, through regulatory action, market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications and information services<\/a>.\u201d Promoting the study in 2012, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn went so far as to tout<\/a> it\u2019s \u201cpromise of enabling [all citizens] to live safer and healthier lives by highlighting any challenges and exploring a host of opportunities for full access to educational, employment, information and business opportunities in addition to empowering them in their civic involvement.\u201d
\nWith all this professed promise, why then the sudden reversal?
\nThe Commission mandate and the goal of improving public information undoubtedly have their merits, but once Mr. Pai\u2019s editorial shed greater light on the subject, apparently quite a few people, including FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, a former proponent of the study, agreed that the FCC\u2019s proposal overstepped its bounds and bore little relation to its stated goals. Within three weeks, Chairman Wheeler attempted<\/a> to justify the study as part of the Commission\u2019s statutory duties, before eventually issuing a statement<\/a> expressing his \u201cagree[ment] that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required,\u201d and then ultimately cancelling the study entirely<\/a>. Perhaps the study was not so critical after all. While many will disagree about the merits of the CIN study, the story offers a lesson of caution on imprudent government intervention and waste<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last month, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai took to the editorial pages in the Wall Street Journal to voice his objections to a controversial proposed FCC study, titled \u201cMulti-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,\u201d or \u201cCIN\u201d for short. The study\u2019s stated purpose was to collect information about the \u201ccritical information needs\u201d of Americans, access and barriers …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2643"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2643"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2643\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7488,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2643\/revisions\/7488"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}