The American left’s commitment to the free marketplace of ideas is a fraud. Due to outrage voiced by conservative media outlets, the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) attempt to put government “researchers” into the nation’s newsrooms to carry out its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs“ has been shelved – for now.

Under the guise of examining, as the FCC puts it, "the barriers that may prevent entrepreneurs and small business from competing in the media marketplace” the so-called “Cin Study” is nothing less than a bald-faced attempt to intimidate those who refuse to abide by the FFC’s determination of a community’s “critical needs.” Eight of those needs were identified by the study. They include information about emergencies and risks; health and welfare; education; transportation; economic opportunities; the environment, civic information; and political information.

Here are the questions the FCC monitors would have asked station owners, managers or Human Resource staff:

– What is the news philosophy of the station?
– Who is your target audience?
– How do you define critical information that the community needs?
– How do you ensure the community gets this critical information?
– How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?
– What are the demographics of the news management staff (HR)?
– What are the demographics of the on air staff (HR)?
– What are the demographics of the news production staff (HR)?

Here are the questions that would be been asked of on-air workers:

– What is the news philosophy of the station?
– How much news does your station air every day?
– Who decides which stories are covered?
– How much influence do you have in deciding which stories to cover?
– Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?
– If so, can you give an example?
– What was the reason given for the decision?
– Why do you disagree?

Aside from the fact that these are absurdly intrusive questions for which the federal government would have wanted answers, several of them, along with the aforementioned needs, are highly subjective. For example, the Obama administration considers climate change “settled science” that only the equivalent of “flat-earther’s” deny. Would a broadcast entity whose on-air personalities offered an opposing opinion to such environmental needs incur the wrath of the FCC? Would employees who refused to make the government privy to private conversations between management and staff be targeted?

And how in the world is a news station’s philosophy any of the government’s business, assuming it could be quantified at all?

Yet the story gets worse. Ajit Pai, one of the FCC’s five commissioners, made it clear to the Washington Examiner that he was not part of the decision to embark on this adventure. "This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced,“ he revealed. "I’ve never had any input into the process.” One is left to wonder whether the reality that Pai is one of two Republican commissioners might have been a factor in his being left out of the loop. In a Feb. 10 Wall Street Journal article, Pai made it clear he believes “government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories,” even as he notes the FCC “does not agree.” He also revealed that a field test was scheduled to begin this spring in Columbia, S.C.

No doubt it was pure coincidence that South Carolina is the home state of FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who was appointed to the post by President Obama. She is the daughter of Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), who has been the Assistant Democratic Leader in the House since 2011. In 2012, Mignon Clyburn determined that the FCC “must emphatically insist that we leave no American behind when it comes to meeting the needs of those in varied and vibrant communities of our nation – be they native born, immigrant, disabled, non-English speaking, low-income, or other.” Translation: government bean-counters and quota-mongers, not the free market, should determine community standards.

The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to determine the exact nature of those needs. That would be the same University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the same University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy who have received $1.8 million since 2000 from progressive billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

And that would be the same George Soros who has poured more than $52 million into media organizations from 2000-2010. That reality might go a long way towards explaining the so-called mainstream media’s non-reaction to the idea of government keeping tabs on their every move. When the story broke last Wednesday, Fox News’ Bret Baier informed viewers they were about to hear “a chilling story no matter what you’re politics. The federal government wants to know how and why the news media select which stories they cover." NBC, ABC, and CBS?

Not a word.

Sadly, such journalistic malpractice is becoming more common. Reporters Without Borders’ annual Freedom Index reveals that the home country of the Constitution’s First Amendment has dropped to 46th in the world, regarding freedom of information. America is down from 20th in 2009, when Obama was first elected. "Both the U.S. and U.K. authorities seem obsessed with hunting down whistleblowers instead of adopting legislation to rein in abusive surveillance practices that negate privacy, a democratic value cherished in both countries,” the report said.

David Cuillier, president of the Society of Professional Journalists believes, the problem will get worse, in large part because the public no longer trusts the media. Thus, he concludes, Americans have no problem with the government intimidating reporters, hiding information, or threatening journalists with jail time for doing their job. "If the people didn’t like that, then the government wouldn’t do it,“ he contended. "They will do as much as they can get away with. If the public lets them do it, or cheers them on, then they’ll do everything they can to control their message.”   Cuillier is kidding himself. The mainstream media has more than earned the public’s contempt all by itself, and while some semi-delusional Americans might welcome a government crackdown, the bet here is an overwhelming majority of Americans are far more interested in seeing the press function exactly as it was intended to function, namely as a watchdog of the government.

Does anyone seriously believe that’s the case? The same media that managed to find a 45 year old story about Mitt Romney cutting a classmate’s hair – intimating that it was part of an anti-gay agenda to boot – has never managed to dig up a single transcript from Obama’s college or law school career. Their calculated disinterest in major administration scandals, including the IRS’s targeting of conservatives, the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal that earned Attorney General Eric Holder a contempt citation from  Congress, and Benghazi – even as the victims piled up in the first case, and the corpses piled up in the last two – is the stuff of legend. New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson labeled this administration the “most secretive White House” she’s ever covered, but it was her paper who covered for Obama when it mattered, claiming the president “misspoke,” rather than flat out lied, about Americans being able to keep their healthcare.

And where is the sustained media outrage over the Justice Department's monitoring of Associated Press reporters, and their targeting Fox's James Rosen and his parents? Those incidents were nothing less than a precursor to this far more brazen attempt to intimidate a free press. Unfortunately, the media’s ongoing indifference towards those efforts and this one makes an utter mockery of the word watchdog.

Nonetheless, there was enough conservative outrage that the FCC cancelled its plans – for now. In a released statement, they conceded some of the aforementioned questions “may not have been appropriate,” and that "Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required.“

That would be the same FCC chairman Tom Wheeler who remains determined to overstep other bounds and pursue "net neutrality,” which is nothing less than an attempt by federal government to regulate internet content. Wheeler intends to move ahead with a series of regulations in that regard, despite the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to do so.

Such thuggery is standard operating procedure for this administration. It is akin to Eric Holder continuing to file lawsuits against states who wish to enact photo-ID laws for voting, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 2008 that an Indiana voter ID law was constitutional, and essentially reaffirmed that decision last year when the found portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act restricting voter ID laws unconstitutional.

Wheeler, like Holder and Obama, sees laws restricting the scope of government as nothing more than temporary impediments to implementing his agenda. That is why the FCC’s statement notes it is “revising its proposed study,” rather than killing it altogether.

In the meantime, much like the IRS scandal, the Obama administration’s message of intimidation will undoubtedly achieve some measure of success. Americans will never know how many conservatives will now forego forming tax-exempt organizations due to fear of unwarranted scrutiny – or audits – undertaken by an out-of-control IRS. They will never know how many news stories will be “re-conditioned” – or killed – to remain in the Obama administration’s good graces.

What Americans do know is that they will remain besieged by a locust-like plague of Obama administration bureaucrats chipping away at our liberty, day in, day out. Bureaucrats with an unprecedented level of arrogance and contempt for the law. And they know a substantial number of their fellow Americans will cheer these jackboots every step of the way, even as they remain completely oblivious to the reality that the instruments of oppression, once entrenched, can be aimed at any target.

This ham-fisted attempt to undermine one of the nation’s most cherished freedoms should have elicited an outpouring of national rage. Every American, regardless of political affiliation, should have been infuriated. That they weren’t, and aren’t, speaks volumes. For freedom-loving Americans, it’s later than we think. Much later.

© Copyright 2014 The Patriot Post