The stories will be rated as "positive," "neutral" or "negative."
I'm no fan of the news media. I personally think most all are biased and are a useful tool in helping to advance the agenda for the most secular progressive president in the history of our country.
But this, along side all the other revelations about government manipulation, domestic surveillance and the collecting of data on regular American citizens, is a bit much.
Are you comfortable with this? Or is it just me?
Why is the FBI "rating" media coverage of itself? At taxpayer expense.
And what are they going to do with the information they collect on writers and publishers?
Today is Primary Election Day in Washington State.
If you have not yet done so, be sure to mark your ballot today and submit it by 8 PM at a drop box or if you mail it in, be sure it is postmarked today.
The Washington Post reports, "The agency won't say why officials need the information or what they plan to do with it."
"In fact," the Times says, "FBI officials won't even reveal how they will go about assigning the grades which were laid out in the contract solicitation."
The contract tells the potential bidders to "use their own judgement" in scoring news coverage as part of their new "daily news briefing" service the agency is seeking as part of this new contractual agreement---which will last for about 5 years.
How does rating news stories and articles about the FBI link up with the agency's main mission of enforcing federal laws?
This is not a new tack for the Obama Administration to hire PR firms to help guide their response to crises situations.
In 2011, Associated Press reported that this administration had paid a PR firm $18,000 to asses the "tone" of news stories about Obama's response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2009, the Obama Administration hired people to grade journalists' work before they were allowed to be embedded with troops.
No one knew for sure what the motives were in that exercise either------- was our government looking for competence or bias? Or simply reporters who were trustworthy?
Stars and Stripes, the military news service, reported that there was major push back from the military on the administration's selection process and ultimately began using the contractor's profile in deciding whether to grant permission for any reporter to "embed."
The Pentagon scraped the program.
You will remember that last month, the Washington Post reported that the NSA is primarily collecting information on ordinary citizens like you and me.
In fact, the Post reported, "Nearly half of the surveillance files, a striking high proportion, contained names, e-mail addresses or other details that the NSA marked as belonging to US citizens or residents."
While the NSA had protected some of the information, some of it was not protected at all.
Last week the CIA admitted to spying on US Senate members. CIA Chief John Brennan has apologized to the Senate, but the matter is still under review as to what the proper response should be.
Most of us understand the importance of surveillance and spies and all that in the process of protecting ourselves from those who wish to kill us, but it becomes very difficult when trust is lost.
But where will it all stop?
Cedric Leighton, former NSA deputy director, told Fox News, "As I grew up through this system, it was very clear that certain things were not to be collected, among them data from US persons, unless you have a warrant."
We voted for "change" and we got it. "Change" has come to America.
Some have suggested that this may be an honest attempt on the part of the FBI to do a PR makeover.
Jonah Goldberg said yesterday if they really are trying to get positive PR, "This was a really dumb way to do it."
The issue, at its core, is trust.
Trust is more important than "change" or so-called "progress."
I'm talking about "trust" today on the radio.
Join me live from anywhere in the world at 9 AM PDT or rebroadcast at 7:30 PM PDT. Here's how.
Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.