SIVACRACY.NET

I enjoy your postings Prof. Losh and I don't feel qualified to reply to them most of the time. This time you raised my hackles, then you got me really confused. I can't figure out if it's something deliberate on your part or I am just stupid.

You started off mentioning primary news sources and then switched to the Federal News Service which, to me, is not a primary source. Then you tantalized me about how FNS has "a lock on certain government documents" which, it turns out, are transcripts they produce themselves on their own dime with their own staff. I don't think that constitutes a "government document", at least not like the Congressional Record or the House and Senate Journals.

Then you scare me with their Copyright warning which is the same warning that NFL Football and the motion picture industry use and everyone ignores. It strikes me as an impotent assertion in the case of FNS. How much crappier an infringement suit could you have than one over a transcript of a public event? How many other people are in the room at these briefings and press conferences?

It turns out Cheryl Reagan is a "fundamentalist Christian" with her own agenda. She even seems a little crazy or unhinged. Owners and managers of businesses, even media organizations, are lawfully allowed to be fundamentalist christians and unhinged. The bankruptcy woes are a red herring; I have never met a successful entrepeneur who didn't leave a wake of failed businesses and bad financial dealings behind hem. Then there's Cheryl Reagan's and Cortes Randall's crimes and misdemeanors, which, hey, if they did something wrong then prosecute them.

FNS is a business and I just don't see what the problem is. Is it that crazy, bible bashing swindlers shouldn't be allowed to sell transcripts? Is is that they over-assert their copyrights like other media companies? Is it that the other media companies are too lazy to start their own transcript businesses and would rather lean on these loons?

The lack of competition is about the only thing that bothers me. But you can't blame FNS for being the only competitor in its field. Anybody, any news organization can stand in those rooms and produce a transcript afterwards. Why blame FNS because no one else is willing to?

Well, transcripts of congressional hearings or briefings by military officials count as primary sources, according to historians and librarians, because they record what witnesses to historical events say either at the time of the event or looking back to the past using their recollections as eyewitnesses. You are right that the Congressional Record and Senate Journals are also primary sources, which are usually considered to be more authoritative, although I know from visiting the Readex plant where they are being digitized in Chester, Vermont that even these "official" records have many mistakes and inconsistencies.

You'd be right also that having this single company record historical events in Congress or other branches of government wouldn't be a problem, if it was just one viewpoint among many, but the problem is that many government agencies have contracted exclusively with FNS, so they don't do their own transcriptions any more and thus provide their own actual records of their activities to the public. Some agencies, like the Department of Defense or the Department of Justice, have been known to post FNS transcripts complete with forbidding copyright notices on their official websites and never post public domain versions of their official statements or ceremonial activities as would be expected. Usually material on government websites is considered to be part of the public record and open to scholars and citizens for fair use, but the legalese of FNS muddies the waters.

So, as someone who writes about public rhetoric, when I want to analyze the exact words that a general or a government attorney or some other public official used at a particular historical moment, often the only official record I have to work with is an FNS transcript, unless there is video taken of the event, which there usually isn't. Often congressional committees take weeks, months, or even longer (in the case of the Intelligence Committee) to post their public transcripts, and if there is something particularly embarrassing that happened -- such as the mistakes made in the hearing about "Terrorist Use of the Internet" that were eventually covered by NPR and ABC but were first noticed by university faculty who study digital culture -- spokespeople are even more reluctant to respond to freedom of information requests.

The problem is that with news stories time matters, and if FNS has a monopoly on coverage and an adequate turnaround time, which I'll agree is a good thing, government agencies feel little motivation to provide information in a timely manner or sometimes provide it at all.

It's a fair objection that bringing up Christianity or unscrupulous financial practices isn't relevant, although many have argued that influence peddling may explain the continuing dominance of FNS, so I'll stick to my main case that public records should be provided by public agencies promptly to citizens and scholars without copyright threat. Video streaming costs a pittance, so I'd be happy to provide my own transcripts from a feed. Just give me a choice and allow the competition that we both value.

P.S. Thank you, Jardinero, for being such a consistent reader and commenter on this blog. I'm glad that you jumped into the fray, and I hope that I don't seem to diminish your contributions by disagreeing with you on the particulars.

Thank you. I enjoy the debate.

is there a legitimate reason that our govt can't produce this kind of documentatiion as fast and accurate as a for profit company? there must be some time involved in both cases so it seems that those closest to the source would have the time advantage. is our govt in the habit of hiring slackers? or is this another case of the public getting cheated in the guise of privatisation? if one reads the copyright claims at the end of the transcripts it states who is NOT the owner of the CONTENT and who is. this leads to the conclusion that we are being swindled not by lazy concerns, rather by overly cozy deals with companies that have powerful and active friends in OUR govt. as one that has been involved in business for over 35 years, it has always been a chalange to keep lucrative ideas from disseminating without some sort of protection. this can take forms that are legal, illegal or a little of both. it has very little to with the personal traits of the workers. reading the illegal agreements that the court struck down shows the intent to restrict competition. if there is no real competition, why would these be needed or even thought of?