With my jaw dropped and eyes glued, this past week I’ve watched as the people have taken to the streets in the Ukraine and Venezuela. Especially escalating in Kiev, there is an obvious passion within the people; their angst is directed at their government. I wonder what could stir the citizens so much to be that frustrated, that defiant, and that willing to boldly confront the established civic order. What’s stirring within the people? What’s stirring that they’re so angry with their government — angry at those who are supposed to have the citizens’ best interests in mind?
It’s more than a singular issue or particular passion. It’s more than one desire or demand. Synonymous with such large scale revolts is the belief that government no longer has the citizens’ collective best interests in mind.
I wonder… could that happen here?
Even with the enactment of the most controversial, American policies — ie. Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, or whatever is one’s current, most convenient terminology — like it or not, my sense is that the law was crafted by those who believe it has the citizens’ best interests in mind. Whether the law actually does care well for our citizens is another question; however, because of the perceived purpose, a revolution due to the law’s enactment seems a less legitimate reason to rise up against those who enacted the law.
Interestingly, no less, last week there was a circumstance that caused this current events observer to deliberately pause, questioning whose interest our government had in mind… questioning whether their focus was best for you and me…
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — the agency of the federal government which regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, etc. — was moving ahead with its taxpayer funded “Critical Information Needs” study (CIN). First revealed last October, according to the FCC, its purpose was to uncover information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.” The study would have sent FCC regulators into newsrooms across the country, asking questions such as the following:
(To media owners) “What is the news philosophy of the station?”
(To editors, producers and managers) “Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic ‘beats’? If so how many and what are the beats? Who decides which stories are covered?”
(To reporters) “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?” (Follow-up questions ask the reporter to speculate on why a particular story was cut.)
Upon confrontation of the growing controversy — and asked why tabulating speculative, perceived bias was necessary for our federal government for regulatory purposes — FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler agreed that survey questions “overstepped the bounds of what is required.” The extent of the questions raised serious First Amendment concerns. Why was the government looking into this? Why were they spending taxpayer dollars? And what would they do with the information? Better yet: whose best interests did they have in mind?
After a current FCC commissioner shared a concerned op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last week — an editorial in which he labeled the CIN study as a first step down a “dangerous path” — the FCC suspended the onset of the study, scheduled for spring.
Good thing. I was beginning to wonder about revolt.
Respectfully,
AR