11initcd ~tatcs ~cnatc 
The Honorable Tom Wheeler 
Chairman 
Federal Communications Commission 
445 12th Street, SW 
Washington, DC 20554 
Dear Chairman Wheeler: 
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 
December 20, 2013 
We write to express our opposition to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) continued 
defense of the Multi-Market Study of Critical Lnformation Needs (CIN Study). This proposed 2014 
field test includes a qualitative media analysis that is inconsistent with the First Amendment, and 
could lead to the FCC exerting undue federal government influence over our private news journalism 
industry. Americans cherish the First Amendment and they expect their government to protect free 
speech, not restrain it. 
In a House hearing this month, it was confirmed that a consulting group, Social Solutions 
International (SSI), had been working with the FCC on plans to survey news organizations and their 
employees. At that hearing you asserted these efforts were not an attempt to "influence the 
media." However, we remain concerned that the proposed CIN Study sets a bad precedent for 
government involvement and research into general news practices and decision-making. 
Former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has argued this proposal wrongly inserts the 
government into areas of editorial discretion. Some of the questions proposed within the CIN Study 
appear irrelevant and run counter to the Commission 's mandate to serve our constituents. 
Additionally, it is unclear why the scope of the proposed CIN Study has been limited to Columbia, 
South Carolina. The original proposal would have included multiple markets, diverse in size and 
geographic location, and the FCC's rationale for focusing its questioning exclusively on Columbia 
news organizations has not been explained. 
We hope you would agree that no agency of the federal government should interfere or play referee 
with Americans' Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech. For these reasons, we urge you to 
work with your colleagues at the Commission to ensure the Fairness Doctrine that was fully repealed 
in 20 I l does not come back under a new guise. 
The Commission's role is not to question private journalistic standards and practices. Instead of 
spending scarce federal dollars on an endeavor that has been referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine 
2.0," the Commission should instead focus its efforts on addressing the American people's top 
priority- facilitating access to advanced communications services within the confines of its statutory 
authority. Thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter. 
Sincerely, 
Deb Fischer TimS~& 
United States Senator United States Senator 
1260