Outlawing Writing or Reporting on Anything Other Than Government “Facts”


Click to go to our Home Page









On Thu, 6/10/10, James King <kjv_sop@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: James King <kjv_sop@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues] And So It Begins: An Interesting New Law ... (part 2)
To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 9:02 PM


Dear Forum,


Last week (on June 2), I informed you of a U.S. Senator who is introducing a Bill into Congress which if passed into Law would require ALL journalists to be licensed.


For those American's thinking that james is just a paranoid conspiracy theorist, they couldn’t be more mistaken!


Just this past week the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released what they call a "staff discussion draft" of "potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism" wherein they called for a doctrine of "proprietary facts" that would outlaw anyone writing or reporting on anything that happens unless they use the "facts" provided to them by the government.


Please notice the BLUE and RED highlighted portions above.


The Blue portion is in reference to a June 3, 2010 article in the NY Post. That article appears below in its entirety.


The Red portion is in reference to this article: http://www.buzzmach ine.com/2010/ 05/29/ftc- protects- journalisms- past/


I would encourage those interested to read the NY Post article below first, before reading the Buzzmachine article (link immediately above).




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


Here is the NY Post article:


http://www.nypost. com/p/news/ opinion/opedcolu mnists/how_ not_to_save_ news_2g7IgzaZNuw uZU80CVcQ7M


How not to save news

Bad gov't ideas for journalism


Last Updated: 5:06 AM, June 3, 2010

Posted: 12:51 AM, June 3, 2010


The Federal Trade Commission says it wants to save journalism. I'm not sure who asked it to.


In a just-released "staff discussion draft" of "potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism," the agency only circles its wagons around old newspapers and their fading business models.


If the FTC wants to reinvent journalism, perhaps it should align with news' disruptors. But there's none of that in this report. The word blog is used but once in 35 pages of text--and then only in a parenthetical mention of soccer blogs. Discussion of investing in technology comes on the last page in a suggestion about tools for "improved electronic note-taking. "


I testified before these untechnocrats and told them about my research at CUNY's Graduate School of Journalism into the emerging ecosystem of news. We found profitable hyperlocal bloggers selling $200,000 in ads per year. And we built new, less expensive business models for news (at newsinnovation. com). But that's not mentioned, either.


Instead, the FTC staff declares defeat in the search for business models so it may explore many government interventions, including:


* Expanding copyright law and restricting the doctrine of fair comment to benefit legacy publishers.


* Granting antitrust exemptions to allow publishers to collude on pricing to consumers and to business partners.


* Giving news organizations tax exemptions.


* Subsidizing news organizations by increasing government funding to public broadcasting; establishing an AmeriCorps to pay reporters; giving news companies tax credits for employing journalists; creating a national fund for local news, and giving the press an increased postal subsidy.


To its credit, the FTC does ask how to pay for all this. So the staffers speculated about what I'll dub the iPad tax -- a 5 percent surcharge on consumer electronics to raise $4 billion for news. They also consider a tax on broadcast spectrum and even on advertising.


Most dangerous of all, the FTC considers a doctrine of "proprietary facts," as if anyone should gain the right to restrict the flow of information just as the information is opening it up. Copyright law protects the presentation of news but no one owns facts -- and if anyone did, you could be forbidden from sharing them. How does that serve free speech?


The FTC's one suggestion I can salute is more government transparency -- making agencies release information in standard formats, enabling us all to become watchdogs. But that's about responsible government, not saving journalism.


The good news in all this is that the FTC's bureaucrats try hard to recommend little. They just discuss. And much of what the agency staff ponders are political impossibilities. If there was grumbling about bailing out General Motors, imagine the hailstorm about raising taxes to save newspapers.


The report quotes my testimony to the FTC, where I said I'm "optimistic to a fault about the future of news and journalism." That's because the barrier to entry into the media business has never been lower -- and that means news can grow.


The government should favor neither incumbents nor newcomers, but rather create a level playing field by helping every American get open, high-speed access to the Internet. That is the gateway to the real future of news and media.


I believe that future is entrepreneurial, not institutional. The industry's institutions have had 15 years since the start of the commercial Web and we've seen how far they can come. What we need now are innovators -- like my entrepreneurial journalism students -- to invent new forms, structures, efficiencies and business models for news.


But those entrepreneurs don't need government help. They need to be left alone with the assurance they won't be interfered with by the FTC -- or the FCC, which has its own hearings and reports on the future of journalism.


"Get off our lawn," I testified to both agencies in Washington. That didn't make it into the report.


Jeff Jarvis, author of "What Would Google Do?", teaches at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.

--- On Thu, 6/3/10, James King <kjv_sop@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: James King <kjv_sop@yahoo. com>
Subject: [AdventistHotIssues ] And So It Begins: An Interesting New Law ...
To: AdventistHotIssues@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 11:36 AM


And So It Begins: Michigan Considering a Law To License Journalists

A Michigan lawmaker wants journalists to be licensed.


As reported this past Friday (May 28) on FoxNews:


"Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers, ...


... Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets--traditiona l, online and citizen generated--and an even greater amount misinformation. "


See: http://www.foxnews. com/us/2010/ 05/28/michigan- considers- law-license- journalists/


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


According to the bill, folks wanting to be considered as reporters would have to provide proof of:

-- "Good moral character" and demonstrate they have industry "ethics standards acceptable to the board."


-- Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.


-- Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.


-- Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.


-- Three or more writing samples.

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


Other than the rediculous absurdity of points 3 and 4, ie: -- Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information. -- Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.


I will say that the "good moral character" clause certainly eliminates most of the usual suspects!


That being said, interested parties are already lining up against the bill:

Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized with disgruntles politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They say that adding members of the so-called fourth estate to the list of government regulated occupations would likely be found unconstitutional.


"It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly," said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert, the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.


FoxNews - ibid

I cannot help but offering the question: How about requiring that all sitting legislators (& etc...) pass a similiar test? And also a test on the constitution? And maybe an IQ test, too ... ---- Now THAT'S a bill I could get behind!


Nonetheless, concerning the primary topic here, (ie: journalists to be licensed), it should be worthy of factual note that the current Administration & Congress in DC are certainly having "Issues" against certain Journalists, and it has been well documented that they have already gone to extreme lengths to silence some of those Reporters.


... and it would be well to remember that each and every individual on this Forum is in fact, technically, a Reporter/Journalist!




Because everytime any one of us posts any "News" related article, we are in fact: Reporting. And, anytime any one of us offer the slightest bit of commentary whatsoever, we are in fact: Journalists.


That's definitely something serious to think about!




The current Bill may not become Law, (and rightly so!), but nonetheless, I would be willing to wager that a very similar Bill/Law will indeed soon come about. ... After all, it is indeed a FACT that the current "Government" is willing to silence the voices of the common folk!


... Better keep your eyes and ears open on this one folks!


... May God help us all ....



 ----- Original Message -----

From: George Jordache

To: AdventistHotIssues@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:40 PM

Subject: Re: [AdventistHotIssues] And So It Begins: An Interesting New Law ... (part 2)


Thank you very much brother James. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a logical step on the way to a global orwellian state! I was born and raised in a state which used to have a total controll on media. I know what such a law means  for a freedom loving people. Unfortunately, most of the today people bridle at God's Law because it legislates against sin. They prefer an order that permits sin and forbids freedom. They see God's Law as tyranny because it is a control on sin whereas they prefer controls on freedom and a license to sin. Former Judge Harold J. Tothwax has called an "affection for formalism...that stabs at the heart of our most precious moral values." This "affection for formalism" is  the mark of our Laodicean time. The Laodicean people of our time removed the God's Law while allowing the state to defines morality. And the state redefine[s] good and evil according to the will and lusts of people...God's Law is personal, His judgments are personal. In our time the state's laws are impersonal according to the state of the alienation of their subjects...If our society allowed the state to define morality as the representative of God on earth, or worse as a State-God, then, the facts provided by government are the only facts justified as "truth"! The people are compelled to rethink the role of the state according to God's Word and not according to Hegel!