FCC Probe Signals Democratic Attack Machine

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
43
Location
KS
FCC Probe Signals Democratic Attack Machine

A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics once they capture Washington.

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

The FCC investigation raises the question of whether a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House next year will investigate -- and perhaps criminalize -- all sorts of actions taken by the Bush administration. Obama is leading in all presidential polls, while Democrats are set to greatly increase their hold on the House and Senate.

The FCC letters came at the behest of two House Democrats, who say the analysts parroted on air the private briefings they received at the Pentagon. This may have broken the law, the lawmakers said.

The probe is sending chills through the ranks of military commentators, some of them decorated war heroes who share their expertise with millions of lay viewers. They see it as one in a series of moves the Left is making to intimidate and shut up its critics.

"We are seeing the dawn of a new era of the current Democratic leadership trying to muzzle free speech and the First Amendment," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a Fox News analyst, told HUMAN EVENTS. "It may be the most invasive intrusion that we have seen in our history. There will be more of these tactics to follow."

Said retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, one of Fox's first defense analysts, "It's an affront to freedom of speech. As retired officers, we're private citizens and can say anything we want under the First Amendment. The whole thing was to explain to the American people what was going on in war and analyzing it."

Democrats have more in store to try to muzzle conservatives. They talk of reactivating the so-called Fairness Doctrine in which federal government bureaucrats monitor radio and TV programs and rule on their fairness. Conservatives say the real goal is to kill right-leaning talk radio.

Talk radio is the one medium conservatives can turn to for their point of view amid a sea of liberal dogma from the New York Times, Washington Post, Public Broadcasting, the TV networks and Hollywood. If the government forces Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to present liberal points of view, ratings will slip and the shows might be taken off the air.

"They're going to implement the Fairness Doctrine to basically do away with Right-wing radio," Vallely said. "In their minds, balance means Left wing. It's Socialists trying to infringe on our First Amendment rights."

Begun in 1949 as an FCC policy and then a regulation, the agency abolished the doctrine during the Ronald Reagan administration as an infringement on free speech. Democrats passed a bill to reinstate the policy as law, but Reagan vetoed it. There would be no Reagan to veto the next bill Democrats are likely to enact should Obama win the election.

In the analysts case, the FCC is looking at the practice of the Pentagon providing exclusive briefings on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to retired military officers, who would then use the information on the air.

In the Oct. 2 letters to 19 analysts and various TV networks, the FCC cited a New York Times article which accused the analysts of receiving the Pentagon information in exchange for positive commentary on the air. The letters, signed by Hillary S. DeNigro, chief of the agency's investigations and hearings division, said such an arrangement might violate the Communications Act of 1934.

The FCC sent the letters after receiving a complaint from Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, (D-Conn.) and Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich.). Dingell has a history of using committee staff to browbeat and investigate Republican administrations.

"In their complaint, Representatives DeLauro and Dingell express concern that the analysts and [TV stations] may have failed to disclose this exchange of consideration to the stations, as required by section 507 of the Communications Act of 1934," said the FCC letter. "They also suggest that the stations may have aired your commentary without making appropriate sponsorship identification announcements at the time such material was aired, as required" by the act.

Some analysts also work for defense contractors who produce weapons systems used in the war. There were suggestions in the Times article that analysts pitched those systems during TV appearances.

McInerney, a hawk on the Iraq war, said the information the Pentagon supplied him and other commentators was the same as provided to the news media.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ended the private analysts briefings. Besides the FCC probe, the Pentagon inspector general is reviewing the program, which was started by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the September 1, 2001 attacks.

The DeLauro-Dingell letter to the FCC says, in part, "Our chief concern is that as a result of the analysts' participation in this DoD program, which included the DoD's paying for their commercial airfare on DoD-sponsored trips to Iraq, the analysts and the networks that hired them could have run afoul of certain laws or regulations."

The FCC is giving the 19 analysts 30 days to respond to the charges. [HUMAN EVENTS Editor Jed Babbin was a member of the group of military analysts who met frequently with senior Pentagon officials and participated in the program. He did not receive a letter from the FCC.]
 
fair access

In the Oct. 2 letters to 19 analysts and various TV networks, the FCC cited a New York Times article which accused the analysts of receiving the Pentagon information in exchange for positive commentary on the air. The letters, signed by Hillary S. DeNigro, chief of the agency's investigations and hearings division, said such an arrangement might violate the Communications Act of 1934.

I hadn't seen this before - but isn't the FCC asking for equal access to the pentagon for all reporters? It looks like what was happening was that the pentagon was giving 'private' press access to military analysts that they knew would be sympathetic the pentagon's viewpoint. Thereby manipulating the media.

McInerney, a hawk on the Iraq war, said the information the Pentagon supplied him and other commentators was the same as provided to the news media.

But, why not let everyone sit in on these private little excursions to Iraq - since it is a government agency - free access should be allowed - if you allow a Fox reporter this type of access, you should allow a CBS reporter the same exact access.

"Our chief concern is that as a result of the analysts' participation in this DoD program, which included the DoD's paying for their commercial airfare on DoD-sponsored trips to Iraq, the analysts and the networks that hired them could have run afoul of certain laws or regulations."

i think the FCC is worried that maybe some 'favors' were granted by the pentagon to 'certain' reporters that the pentagon believed were going to write stories that positively reflect the pentagon's views.

I think the crux of the investigation is looking at the pentagon's access policies to the media... If the pentagon's favored reporters end up just parroting the pentagon's viewpoints, and the pentagon has paid to fly those 'parroting' reporters, then it sort of looks like they are 'in bed' together. Not that they necessarily are, but it appears that we are being spoon fed the pentagon's viewpoints this way.

Just let other reporters on the plane - that is the answer. Since it is a government paid thing - fair access should be allowed.

It doesn't look like the FCC really cares about what they were saying (although the result of this type of manipulation by the pentagon - no negative reporting - is the underlying concern) - but that we weren't being allowed to see the 'opposite' viewpoint.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
isn't the FCC asking for equal access to the pentagon for all reporters? It looks like what was happening was that the pentagon was giving 'private' press access to military analysts that they knew would be sympathetic the pentagon's viewpoint. Thereby manipulating the media.

The next quote you cited counters that claim.
McInerney, a hawk on the Iraq war, said the information the Pentagon supplied him and other commentators was the same as provided to the news media.
So we have conflicting info. Considering the history of Dingell, "a history of using committee staff to browbeat and investigate Republican administrations" it is very probable that this is basically an intimidation tactic. The timing is interesting.

But, why not let everyone sit in on these private little excursions to Iraq - since it is a government agency - free access should be allowed - if you allow a Fox reporter this type of access, you should allow a CBS reporter the same exact access.

Where is the evidence that they are not doing that, when they can (prioritizing security concerns first, of course)?

i think the FCC is worried that maybe some 'favors' were granted by the pentagon to 'certain' reporters that the pentagon believed were going to write stories that positively reflect the pentagon's views.

Outside of an accusation or two, what evidence is there of this? It seems like a red herring thrown out there to (at the very least) intimidate and shut up reports that may influence the election. Remember that the the MSM does expect a Bin Laden tape any day now...

I think the crux of the investigation is looking at the pentagon's access policies to the media... If the pentagon's favored reporters end up just parroting the pentagon's viewpoints, and the pentagon has paid to fly those 'parroting' reporters, then it sort of looks like they are 'in bed' together. Not that they necessarily are, but it appears that we are being spoon fed the pentagon's viewpoints this way.

Again, what evidence is there the the pentagon is favoring anything? This seems like speculation based on a accusation that a few dem congressmen tried to hype.

It doesn't look like the FCC really cares about what they were saying (although the result of this type of manipulation by the pentagon - no negative reporting - is the underlying concern) - but that we weren't being allowed to see the 'opposite' viewpoint.

The FCC doesn't seem to concerned when NPR spouts a left wing point of view (NPR being publically funded, in part).

Besides, the FCC shouldn't be at all concerned in any way, with a "fair" point of view being presented. The government has absolutely no place in determinig what a "fair and balanced point of view" is, when it comes to any media.
 
Isn't the FCC asking for equal access to the pentagon for all reporters? It looks like what was happening was that the pentagon was giving 'private' press access to military analysts that they knew would be sympathetic the pentagon's viewpoint. Thereby manipulating the media.

The next quote you cited counters that claim.
McInerney, a hawk on the Iraq war, said the information the Pentagon supplied him and other commentators was the same as provided to the news media.

Actually it affirms that the analysts were being presented the information at a different time than the news media - why? Why not just allow everyone in on the same meeting? This is the government - certain 'rules' apply here.

Outside of an accusation or two, what evidence is there of this? It seems like a red herring thrown out there to (at the very least) intimidate and shut up reports that may influence the election. Remember that the the MSM does expect a Bin Laden tape any day now...

What does the Bin Laden thing have to do with this? I don't know what all the evidence is - but there is something - that is why you have agencies, to look into stuff like this. Yes, of course the timing is interesting - this is election time - all sorts of manipulation is occurring... ;)

Again, what evidence is there the the pentagon is favoring anything? This seems like speculation based on a accusation that a few dem congressmen tried to hype.

But, there is evidence that the pentagon is talking outside of school... that isn't allowed in this case. It 'looks' like the pentagon is favoring a certain group of reporters - so, that does need to be looked into...

The FCC doesn't seem to concerned when NPR spouts a left wing point of view (NPR being publically funded, in part).

No, what the FCC would be worried about is if only NPR was allowed to sit in on pentagon news conferences, and that the pentagon only paid NPR reporters' airfares to fly to Iraq, when they didn't pay other reporters' airfare. And that the Pentagon was giving NPR all that special treatment because they believed that NPR would put a very positive spin on the Pentagon's viewpoint. That is what this is about, not left or right - but equal and fair access.

Besides, the FCC shouldn't be at all concerned in any way, with a "fair" point of view being presented. The government has absolutely no place in determinig what a "fair and balanced point of view" is, when it comes to any media.

No, once again - the FCC is looking into access, and the fact that perhaps services (airfare) was given to only a certain group of reporters. The idea is if the pentagon pays for your trip to Iraq and talks to your group exclusively, is it because they believe that your group will write things that more positively reflect their viewpoint? It seems like that could be the case.

They shouldn't be looking into the fair and balanced point of view of an individual reporter. They are looking into the fact that perhaps the people aren't being allowed a fair and balanced point of view when the pentagon plays 'favoritism'. The pentagon has opened itself up to this before with Rumsfeld... you would have thought they had learned their lesson.

What needs to happen is that all reporters are allowed this type of access and either all or none of the reporters' air fare is picked up by the pentagon.

It is about freedom of the press, it is about freedom of all the press to have equal access to the pentagon.
 

Members online

Back
Top