3 ms·

Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM". So I don't see why the bashing of the

Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM". So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in the first paragraph. It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.

px 16y ago
Not trying to be contentious here. I'm just not sure that the FTC has staked out a clear position on this issue, yet. They seem to be inviting scrutiny. For example on page 5, the FTC asks the question, "Is a “wait-and-see” approach preferable at this time, when experimentation to find new revenue sources is ongoing and the likely effects of some proposals may be difficult to gauge?"
hristov 16y ago
The Washington Times are being totally dishonest because this not a FTC proposal, it is not a draft proposal either, it is just a summary of issues that are to be discussed in future meetings with the press and various roundtable discussions etc. "It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized." No that is not obvious. Try reading the document. On the contrary, it is obvious that at this stage they are just throwing ideas at the wall. There is absolutely no indication that the FTC has endorsed any of these ideas or that they even came from FTC personnell (the document actually suggests that many of the ideas came from external sources). If you do not like any of those ideas please comment on them (the document provides a link for that). But if you are going to hold the FTC responsible for everything that gets mentioned in one of their discussions with the public as if it is their plan and idea, the FTC and the government will just stop having discussions with the public.

px 16y ago

Not trying to be contentious here. I'm just not sure that the FTC has staked out a clear position on this issue, yet. They seem to be inviting scrutiny. For example on page 5, the FTC asks the question, "Is a “wait-and-see” approach preferable at this time, when experimentation to find new revenue sources is ongoing and the likely effects of some proposals may be difficult to gauge?"

hristov 16y ago

The Washington Times are being totally dishonest because this not a FTC proposal, it is not a draft proposal either, it is just a summary of issues that are to be discussed in future meetings with the press and various roundtable discussions etc. "It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized." No that is not obvious. Try reading the document. On the contrary, it is obvious that at this stage they are just throwing ideas at the wall. There is absolutely no indication that the FTC has endorsed any of these ideas or that they even came from FTC personnell (the document actually suggests that many of the ideas came from external sources). If you do not like any of those ideas please comment on them (the document provides a link for that). But if you are going to hold the FTC responsible for everything that gets mentioned in one of their discussions with the public as if it is their plan and idea, the FTC and the government will just stop having discussions with the public.