Diversity "Czar" to Silence Dissenting Voices in Media

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting
Thursday, August 13, 2009
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) - Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.

Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press.

Lloyd’s hope is to dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.

The CPB is a non-profit entity that was created by Congress and that currently receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies each year. In fiscal 2009, it is receiving an appropriation of $400 million.

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote in his book.

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”

Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities.

“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.

“In addition, educational programs for children and adults, and diverse, independent personal and cultural expression should be encouraged,” he wrote.

Dennis Wharton, Executive Vice President of Media Relations at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) told CNSNews.com that his organization, which represents radio and television broadcasters, supports public broadcasting, but that that support should come from the public in general not broadcasters alone.

“NAB supports federal funding for public broadcasting,” said Wharton. “However, we would oppose efforts to fund public broadcasting through fees assessed against free and local broadcasters who are experiencing the worst advertising recession in 50 years.”

Lloyd wrote Prologue to a Farce while a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. In that capacity, he co-authored the 2007 report The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, which concluded that 91% of talk radio programming is conservative and 9% is “progressive.”

The report argued that large corporate broadcasting networks had driven liberals off the radio, and that diversity of ownership would increase diversity of broadcasting voices.
 
As anticipated, the administration has found a way to silence talk radio and dissent without having to reapply the old fairness doctrine.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?p=482898#post482898

...foxpaws, I believe this thread will be a continuation of that older one.
And, it's safe to assume, I'm going to ask- do you oppose Lloyd's view?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone have an opinion on this.
This is profoundly important.

Foxpaws, you said you'd oppose a fairness doctrine.
I don't think I ever successfully got you to tell us if you'd oppose any legislation designed to limit free speech.
now'd be a good time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58515

FCC Official Says He’s Not Carrying Out ‘Secret Plot Funded by George Soros to Get Rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck’
Monday, December 14, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Mark Lloyd, the chief diversity officer and associate counsel at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), says he is not carrying out a “secret plot funded by George Soros” aimed at getting rid of conservative talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Lloyd, the keynote speaker at a Monday forum sponsored by the Media Access Project (MAP), also said that there was a “right-wing smear campaign” against him.

"I am not a Czar appointed by President Obama," said Lloyd. "I am not at the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine through the front door or the back door, or to carry out a secret plot funded by George Soros to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative talk show host. I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power. I am not a supporter of Hugo Chavez. The right wing smear campaign has been, in a word, incredible, generating hate mail and death threats. It is the price we pay for freedom of speech. And I do support free speech."

Soros is a billionaire liberal philanthropist and Chavez is the socialist leader of Venezuela. The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC regulation introduced in 1949 that said that if a broadcaster discussed an issue of public controversy on the air it needed to present opposing points of view on the issue. The rule effectively stifled vigorous debate of public policy on the airwaves. The FCC stopped implementing the rule in 1987.

Lloyd said the “right-wing smear campaign" against him involved outlets ranging from blogs to church groups.

“Andy Schwartzman [president and CEO of MAP] was the first to warn me about an obscure, right-wing blog that was distorting my views about the First Amendment,” Lloyd said. “The blog continued and spread different exaggerations and distortions.”

“Those were picked up by radio and cable and then YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia,” said Lloyd, and “then by so-called news services and newspapers, the National Rifle Association and other association news letters, e-mail blasts from church groups and then on to certain public officials.”

Lloyd dedicated more than five minutes of an approximately 20 minute address to his conflict with "right-wing" media. He also highlighted what he believes is wrong with the “new media.”

“The right-wing smear campaign is a perfect example of our complex, interrelated media environment,” said Lloyd. “Anyone who suggests that old media--whether newspapers or radio or cable--no longer matters, has not fully experienced the impact of old media. Anyone who suggests that Facebook and YouTube are the answers to the problems of old media has not been confronted by a smear campaign using these social media tools. Old media has almost always found a way to use and adapt to new media, and new media has almost always been influenced by the old media."


This photo provided by Rush Limbaugh shows Limbaugh in his Palm Beach, Fla. radio studio, the last week of Sept., 2009. (AP Photo/Photo courtesy of Rush Limbaugh)
Lloyd claimed that many accounts of his comments about regulation of the media were "simplistic distortions" but said "those distortions have been effective"--seemingly pointing to Rush Limbaugh as Lloyd immediately said: "Does anyone doubt that Rush Limbaugh influences members of Congress?"

"My recent experience does not suggest we have entered some golden age of media," said Lloyd. "While I do not really consider myself a public figure, I have not been hiding in the shadows. My FCC and congressional testimony is on line. My short and long essays are on various websites. I have works published in distinguished academic journals on line. There are nice reviews and excerpts of my book on line. I understand how people can disagree with me. Having learned a few things over the years, sometimes I have disagreed with myself. But most of what I have seen are warped and simplistic distortions of what I’ve said or written.

"But those distortions have been effective. Does anyone doubt that Rush Limbaugh influences members of Congress?" said Lloyd. "Does anyone doubt that members of Congress have an impact on the FCC?"

Lloyd went on to say that Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and the “right-wing haters” were never his focus, that he has always been interested in the health of American democracy and how communications plays a role in that democracy.

"The point is not about me. The point is that simply being on line, or even writing a book that explains what and how you think, is not enough," said Lloyd. "People have always relied on others to help them sort through the massive amount of information out there. This is why media is so important. This is why the development of the modern profession of journalism was so important.

The other point is--to separate old media from new media is to not understand the interrelationship between media. To elevate and place hope in new media and determine that old media is not relevant is to misunderstand our complex media environment.

"Any careful reader of my writing will know that my focus, my long-standing interest, is not Limbaugh, Beck or Dobbs, it is not the right wing haters," said Lloyd. "My focus has long been the health of the American republic and what I see as the central role of communications policy in that republic."

In his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, Lloyd wrote that in his “struggle” against commercial broadcasters he took “inspiration and guidance” from the radical author Saul Alinksy, who dedicated his 1971 Rules for Radicals to “the first radical known to man … Lucifer.”

“We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent, the commercial broadcasters, which fiercely guarded its ability to determine legislation and regulation with an enormous amount of money and great public relations skills and resources,” Lloyd wrote in the book. “We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork. From these sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”

Lloyd also wrote that the government should establish robust public broadcasting outlets, funded with fees from commercial broadcasters that were equal to or greater than the levels by which those commercial broadcasters operated.

“Federal and regional [public] broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial [broadcast] operations are funded,” wrote Lloyd. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations.”

Lloyd also said he believed freedom of speech had become “an exaggeration” that had been “warped to protect global corporations.”

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” wrote Lloyd. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech serve as a distraction from the critical examination of communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd.
 

Members online

Back
Top