What Else Can We Blame On Facebook? How About Helping The Mob?

Whistleblower Reacts To FCC Clearing The FCC On Supressing Study For Politican Reasons

from the must've-been-some-investigation dept

Fri, Oct 26th 2007 3:13am — Mike Masnick

About a year ago, Senator Barbara Boxer surprised FCC chair Kevin Martin by asking him why a study on the impact of local TV ownership on the news wasn't published. A whistleblower claimed that the FCC had actually ordered the report destroyed because it didn't agree with the political statements those in charge of the FCC were making. Of course, after being confronted about this, Martin agreed to have the FCC's Inspector General (someone who works directly for him) investigate the claim. A few weeks ago, the report came back from the FCC clearing itself of any wrongdoing. Shocking, right? You let the folks accused of being partisan hacks let their own direct reports investigate whether or not they're partisan hacks -- and they come back saying no, of course they're not partisan hacks. Matthew Lasar writes in to let us know that he interviewed Adam Candeub, the original whistleblower. Candeub had been an attorney at the FCC in their media bureau (which produced the report), but has since left the FCC and is a law professor. He refused to take part in the FCC's investigation, knowing that it wasn't going to fairly portray the situation. Despite staffers telling the Inspector General that they felt they had been told to lie if they wanted the report to see the light of day, the IG still didn't find the FCC at fault. Candeub doesn't sound too surprised, and notes that the whole thing was political -- and it's ridiculous to believe that the FCC didn't suppress the report for political reasons. He also notes that academic researchers are now retracing the steps that were done by the original FCC researchers, suggesting they were doing things correctly -- unlike what the FCC implies. I realize it's all politics at some level -- but shouldn't an organization like the FCC be most focused on what's best for communications policy, not on furthering a party line?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fcc, local news, politics, suppressed reports

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Killer_Tofu (profile), 26 Oct 2007 @ 5:43am

The Govnt To Any Degree
What? More government corruption. Tell me it isn't so! I am so shocked. /sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
L.A. King, 26 Oct 2007 @ 6:42am

What government SHOULD be......
Sure, the FCC SHOULD be concerned with whats best for communication policy......but it is a GOVERNMENT agency, which makes automatically makes it POLITICAL. And that right there is the fallacy of government, and why it should be LIMITED as a necessary evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barrenwaste, 26 Oct 2007 @ 6:44am

Does anybody truly believe that the FCC is about furthering communication? Come on, the organization was set up to censor communication and has a position titled Inspector General. If that isn't one of the steps to tyranny I don't know what is. Next stop, block wardens and the gestappo...wait, we have those already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing sells, 26 Oct 2007 @ 7:17am

Like a conspiracy theory. Especially on Capitol Hill. If you start using the terms "axed," "shredded," and "cover-up" enough, even if there is no truth to it, eventually it will become newspaper (and blogosphere) gospel. Note that if Martin was pulling the strings on the investigation, it would have been very easy for him to vilify, once again, Micheal Powell for this alleged misdeed. Without help from people like Adam Candeub, what was the investigator supposed to do? Just assume the conspiracy theory is correct, as you and Boxer do? This is a very easy story to write, and a very easy line of thinking to follow. Of course Candeub is going to claim there is a cover up. His professional reputation is on the line. But, absent vague speculation like the type you perpetrate here, there is almost no evidence of a conspiracy. Studies are written at the FCC all the time that never see the light of day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew, 26 Oct 2007 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  And since you're trying to obfuscate the whole issue, it is clear that you are an agent of Martin's!
  
  Frankly, you merely offer up smoke in front of smoke. I'm not sure how one can villify a previous administration for paperwork done on your watch, but even so it's much cleaner to simply wash one's hands of the ordeal and hope it goes away. If the report shows that local affiliates will be damaged by policies, then things need to be done. Since that may be a pain in the ass, no matter how good for those affected, some would rather dodge labor rather than get what needs to be done take care of.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hulser, 26 Oct 2007 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re:
  >But, absent vague speculation like the type you perpetrate
  >here, there is almost no evidence of a conspiracy. Studies
  >are written at the FCC all the time that never see the
  >light of day.
  So, let me get this straight. First you say there's almost no evidence of a conspiracty. And then, in the very next sentence, you make a statement that would lead any rational reader to think that there was a conspiracy. The FCC pays for studies and then "all of the time" does not publish the results? If the FCC is the independent organization it's supposed to be, what possible reason could there be for this behavior?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2007 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re:
  Note that if Martin was pulling the strings on the investigation, it would have been very easy for him to vilify, once again, Micheal Powell for this alleged misdeed.
  What misdeed, my little tool? The FCC has declared that no misdeed took place!
  
  Without help from people like Adam Candeub, what was the investigator supposed to do?
  Oh, I don't know, maybe investigate?
  
  Studies are written at the FCC all the time that never see the light of day.
  That sounds like you're saying corruption is OK because it goes on all the time there. I don't think you're really helping their case very much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
You got me!, 26 Oct 2007 @ 8:45am

I am an agent of Martin's. We're everywhere, watching your every move. You should turn off your television. I can see you right now.

I have no idea what the last two sentences of your post mean. Have you read the report that "was ordered to be destroyed?" Or are you merely speculating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2007 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  I am an agent of Martin's.
  
  I hate to think of how many of my tax dollars are probably in your pocket.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max Powers at http://ConsumerFight.com, 26 Oct 2007 @ 12:25pm

Nothing New
Same thing, different agency. Don't you believe everything a report states even though it was created by it's own branch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]