Upon venturing to the FCC’s new Future of Media site you will be of course welcomed to the future.  It seems lately that the FCC has been welcoming us all to the “future” in a lot of areas.  Which generally means that FCC fingers and venturing into areas we are not used to seeing them.

The FCC describes its new Future of Media venture as a,

…project [that] will review the state of the traditional sources of news and journalism, and new models for providing information to consumers and communities (e.g., information about disaster procedures, schools, crime, and public health matters, etc). The goal: to help ensure that all Americans have access to vibrant, diverse sources of news and information that will enable them to enrich their families, communities and democracy.

There are a few things that I picked up from this paragraph, and if I’m reaching, then feel free to chasten me in the comments.  For one thing the paragraph paints a pretty picture of the FCC just monitoring to make sure all U.S. communities have the ability to receive communications information on emergency situations.  The examples given are all emergency situations.  But then it states that we need “diverse” sources.  What does that mean?  Do I need individuals of varying political ideologies providing me with information on a fire in my neighborhood?  No, of course not.  So the implication here seems to be more than meets the eye.  Research into the Future of Media seems to read sort of like “The Fairness Doctrine” renamed.

I also picked up on this,

The media landscape is changing rapidly. On the one hand, there are many innovative new sources for news and information. On the other hand, citizens may find significant gaps, including in the availability of some kinds of local news and information.

In other words blogs are great, but not news sources, and all citizens have a right to a news source.  That seems to be the implication.  Americans have a right to news and information media, and the FCC is going to review the country to determine if this is happening.  But news sources are not utilities, news is not a right, information is not a right.  To receive news and information is a privilege that we have as Americans.  We additionally have the privilege and freedom to seek out new types of news and information if the ones immediately available to us do not seem to be adequate.  Additionally, the government should not have the power to force a message onto a citizen.  To do so enters into the area of being suspect of propaganda.

To hammer this line of thinking home, the FCC asks its readers to provide it with information on:

1. What government policies could improve the news and information media?
2. How should media companies change their approaches to delivering news and information?

This indicates the FCC is considering taking action on forcing content regulation or forcing the presentation of a balanced message.  But this has already been shot down by the Supreme Court in 1974 in the case of The Miami Herald Co. v. Tornillo in which a Florida state law required newspapers to print responses to articles printed critical of political candidates.  This ruling expresses that the First Amendment enforces freedom but not responsibility, and new organizations cannot be forced to print what they do not wish to print.

The Future of Media effort by the FCC is best described as being a project in its infancy, so beyond the curiosities and potential concerns listed here, it is hard to predict with any certainty what direction the FCC will be moving in going forward with this project.  You can be assured though that DS will have a watchful eye on the process as it moves forward.