FCC Chair Wants Networks to Pledge Loyalty for America's Big Bday
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
Time to re-read this: https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/The-Toxoplasma-Of-Rag...
It would be pretty foolish to just... ignore the subtext.
I suppose in this case, an angered "momzilla" can get you fired, freeze your bank account, etc.
Ratings of news networks with Trump-mandated censors are already in free-fall. This pledge will provide additional public signal to help viewers know which channel to switch to.
It's amazing to me that censors still don't understand the Streisand Effect. I guess we should just take the small wins at this point.
> That is why I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration. As an example, this could include:
> • Running PSAs, short segments, or full specials specifically promoting civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history.
> • Including segments during regular news programming that highlight local sites that are significant to American and regional history, such as National Park Service sites.
> • Starting each broadcast day with the “Star Spangled Banner” or Pledge of Allegiance.
> • Airing music by America’s greatest composers, such as John Philip Sousa, Aaron Copland, Duke Ellington, or George Gershwin.
> • Providing daily “Today in American History” announcements highlighting significant events that took place on that day in history.
> • Partnering with community organizations and other groups that are already working hard to bring America’s stories of unity, perseverance, and triumph to light
With the exception of the one with the Pledge of Allegiance, those bullet items are things I would be completely unsurprised to find on a local PBS station. They would actually be pretty good things to include in a country's 250th birthday celebration.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.
They didn't care about ideals any more than modern administrations. They were well connected opportunists who saw a chance to create a world that worked more for them: rich white guys.
They obviously did, just like recent past presidential administrations both D and R did - by at the very least paying lip service to them. There was real value in that, and we took it for granted. The current regime is just as (if not more) performative, but they're signalling vices rather than virtues. Following that example makes for a worse society, regardless of how much we actually live up to the virtues in practice.
Jefferson, 1789: I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in any thing else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
Also Jefferson, 1792: (founds political party to oppose the Federalists)
Machiavelli, ca. 1513: for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.
- The national anthem / pledge of allegiance (explicitly suggested by the text)
- Civics-related stuff -- information about voting, how laws are passed, the branches of govt, the separation of powers, etc.
- Arts that are "truly" American -- Blues, Jazz, Rock n Roll, etc. I know there will be disagreement about what counts as "American", but it's clear that there are some art forms that wouldn't exist without America's unique mixture of cultures.
- Things about America's history -- speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures, the musical Hamilton, the emancipation proclamation, the text from the statue of liberty, discussion of Japanese internment camps, the history of Hawaii/Peurto Rico/Alaska/Any relevant state, etc
I think those would all be positive. I'm sure there will also be some less inclusive parts that will endorsed by some broadcasters (I think discussion of that is good, but not endorsement). Carr's message is not asking for that, it's just encouraging an increased focus on America.
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
is fine. The problem is the rest of the sentence:
"...and I am the government, and I order you to broadcast my message, and also you can't say these other things I dislike, or I will revoke your ability to operate at all."
It's disappointing to see this point missed: this isn't a random person sharing their opinion, it is both government-mandated speech and literal censorship.
> Chairman Brendan Carr issued the following statement: ... "I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration."
If you don't have that context, none of my post will have made sense to you, which it appears is what happened.
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
The omission of that critical context might be why none of my post made sense to you: you would be unable to realize that the 'invitation to participate' we're discussing involves a degree of coercion, based on those threats. If you threaten somebody to give you their money 3 times, and then a 4th time you 'invite them to participate in giving you their money', that is 4 threats total, not 3.
Of course, anything in the world can be justified if you omit enough context, even government-compelled speech and government censorship. Just omit the context of the 3 times you threatened your mugging victim to comply, and all you have left is a polite invitation to share money. Totally okay, right?
As for your personal politics, you can have whatever ones you want. I'm focusing on the issue here, not you personally. Hope I didn't say anything that came across as too personal.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
...
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Indeed, feel free to flag this submission, and not comment in it, if you feel it is too political for HN. HN thrives because of a multitude of views, of which you are a part.
In the meantime, feel free to respond to the substance of my comments rather than complaining because I added critical context to an already-existing submission/discussion.
Is there a source for this? I'd be little surprised if they encouraged airing MLK's speeches, but the linked document doesn't mention MLK, or encourage airing historical speeches of any kind.
> “That is why I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration. As an example, this could include:
> • Running PSAs, short segments, or full specials specifically promoting _civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history_.
> • Including segments during regular news programming that highlight local sites that are significant to American and regional history, such as National Park Service sites.
> • Starting each broadcast day with the “Star Spangled Banner” or Pledge of Allegiance.
> • Airing music by America’s greatest composers, such as John Philip Sousa, Aaron Copland, Duke Ellington, or George Gershwin.
> • Providing daily “Today in American History” announcements highlighting significant events that took place on that day in history.
> • Partnering with community organizations and other groups that are already working hard to bring America’s stories of unity, perseverance, and triumph to light.
MLK's speeches are certainly included in civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history.
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
Sure, if you ignore context.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418890A1.pdf
I’ll start by saying that it pains me to have to defend anything out of Carr’s mouth, but “loyalty” isn’t anywhere in that doc. Carr calls for a pledge to air PSAs and what have you, not loyalty. And when he complains of civic illiteracy, is he wrong? Ironically, how do we think we got into this mess of the current administration? Is Carr wrong in calling for the airing of things like School House Rock? Is it so bad to start the broadcast day with the national anthem? (Trick question, because when I was a kid some 50 years ago, I remember the broadcast day ending with the national anthem. Was never up early enough to find out what they did at the start of the day.)
The way Gizmodo words it, you’d think Carr is requiring that all broadcasters air blatant government propaganda. And maybe the FCC document is just a dog whistle, I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. But the original document takes about five minutes to read, and I strongly suggest you read it and judge for yourself, rather than get all riled up from TFA’s editorializing.
They're obviously not a unifying force looking to make people love America again by making it better; I would liken them to a North Korean PR team.
I can't help but remember one example of my youth to my son's youth a few decades later. When I was in school, the position on fights is if you have the ability to intercede to stop it, you have a responsibility to do so... by the time my son was in school it was, "don't get involved, get a teacher or call the police."
It's just such a stark contrast to me that it's hard to fathom where things are now a couple decades further still from when I was a young kid in later elementary school and Jr. High. Without a shared society and cohesion, we're largely doomed as a society. I realize that some people actually want this, but I really don't.
I want our nation and our people to be successful.
Just saying.
Your comment about citizenship and tolerance makes sense, but that's also under direct attack by the Trump administration. They literally just forcefully coerced the scouts into dropping the exact things you are advocating for from their program.
There's no real path towards tolerating that and also having a tolerant society. This is the main weakness of liberal democracies, and it's being exploited to tear our institutions down.
As an example, public funding for PBS... when all you need to is watch the PBS coverage of the SoTU address to see a perfect example in that it was indeed a partisan organization that shouldn't be getting public funding... even if I don't agree with a lot of Republican positions.
They've also been attacking most private universities and all of the privately held media and computing platforms.
As a libertarian, I don't see how you can argue that no private entities should be allowed to have freedom of speech.
Also, I wasn't talking about public funding. I was talking about the federal government illegally soliciting bribes and intimidating private organizations into implementing illegal government policies on their behalf.
The Boy Scouts were not an apolitical fun-fair, which became pretty glaringly obvious when the Army recruiters came by to meet with middle-schoolers. If you didn't enlist, you probably didn't stick around to earn your Eagle scout.
In fact, those same issues apply to your school scenario! (For the sake of argument, let's wave-away other factors like larger school-sizes, general nostalgia, easier access to deadly weapons, etc.)
Consider: Why are kids being instructed to run off and get a teacher?
It's not because eagle-eyed Mrs. Frizzle is trusted to take in the battlefield at a glance, unsheathing the old yardstick by the whiteboard, this tan-colored Excalibur falling upon the necks of the wicked in defense of the just. Well, at least not where I went to school.
It's actually the opposite, school authorities [1] are summoned because they are not trusted! They are not trusted to carefully investigate and rule fairly when it comes to the former-bystander "doing the right thing." Or, for that matter, trusted to prevent retribution and escalation.
_________
[0] Or at any rate, they weirdly place those principles beneath other stuff like "gay people can't partner up" or *checks notes* "the largest deportation operation in US history".
[1] Teachers, staff, but also indirectly the parents of those involved.
Even ignoring the context (Trump censoring things, limiting private institutions speech, murdering people because their state's governor said mean things, etc, etc), the text of the page you link to clearly says broadcasters will need to air pro-Trump programming.
If you take context into account by looking at how the administration has redefined many of the words they use in the document (I guess you'd call that a "dog whistle"), then it's even more clear this is the Trump's attempt to force the news media to air a coordinated propaganda campaign during a pivotal election year.
> Even ignoring the context (Trump censoring things, limiting private institutions speech, murdering people because their state's governor said mean things, etc, etc), the text of the page you link to clearly says broadcasters will need to air pro-Trump programming
Where does it say that? The part you quoted is using "Trump Administration today" as an interval endpoint, not a specifier of content.
If we want to be really pedantic, we can figure out what they accomplished up to and including the day of the sentence. I guess this means the networks need to run propaganda films supporting the bombing of that girls school that killed > 160 kids?
- The national anthem / pledge of allegiance (explicitly suggested by the text)
- Civics-related stuff -- information about voting, how laws are passed, the branches of govt, the separation of powers, etc.
- Arts that are "truly" American -- Blues, Jazz, Rock n Roll, etc. I know there will be disagreement about what counts as "American", but I think it's clear that there are some art forms that wouldn't exist without America's unique mixture of cultures.
- Things about America's history -- speeches from George Washington/Lincoln/MLK/Other significant figures, the musical Hamilton, the emancipation proclamation, the text from the statue of liberty, discussion of Japanese internment camps, the history of Hawaii/Peurto Rico/Alaska/Any relevant state, etc
I'm sure there will also be some less inclusive bits of history that are endorsed by some broadcasters. But Carr's message is not asking for that, it's just encouraging an increased focus on America. America is a melting pot, and has a great history of including downtrodden people, as well as a long history of injustice. A focus on America _doesn't_ mean we endorse the injustice. If anything, I think the injustice should be discussed, because they make the big shifts even _more_ palpable. There are people alive today that went to segregated schools. That's insane, and personally I do think that knowledge changes my behavior. I'd be very happy to be reminded about those things by public radio.
There is one line that I felt was a bit concerning, but I think it really depends on your reading of the text (emphasis mine):
> The Pledge America Campaign [encourages broadcasters to air] ... _pro-America_ content"