So why are people so concerned about the Obama administration's evaluation of whether the news media is properly picking the right stories to cover?

One would think that the Obama administration's study of whether the news media is covering the right news stories and doing so properly would pose obvious problems.  Of course, the FCC says that "Any suggestion the Commission intends to regulate the speech of news media is false," but what else is the point of the study?  In any case, there was another event this week that should make clear the dangers of getting the government involved with this type of monitoring of news content.

Take this threat just this week by a US Congressman against a television station.  From the Daily Caller:

Last week, The Washington Post began grumbling about an Americans for Prosperity (AFP) ad featuring Julie Boonstra, a woman with leukemia who was thrown into expensive uncertainty by Obamacare, with Greg Sargent lamenting the tragedy of its effectiveness and Glenn Kessler asking for more proof. (BEDFORD: The Post is pretty worried about the people Obamacare hurts)  

Then Rep. Gary Peters, who is the running for the U.S. Senate in Michigan, went all-in Friday, having his lawyers send a letter to a Michigan television station citing the Post in demanding that AFP provide more evidence that Obamacare is as terrible as it really is. Mr. Peters’ lawyers wrote that “Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations” — and by extension, Ms. Boonstra — don’t have a “right to command use of broadcast facilities.” They clinched with a threat that airing the ad could “be cause for the loss of a station’s license.”  

Big guns, Mr. Peters. Big guns. . . .