So I was listening to the radio today, and heard some guy going on about the new ‘Diversity Czar’ for the FCC - a man by the name of Mark Lloyd. Apparently, he’s some enemy of free speech who wants to crush right-wing radio and do all sort of nefarious stuff. He’s a radical of the Saul Alinksy stripe, willing to do whatever it takes to gain power, he loves Hugo Chavez, yada yada.
So I get home, and Google him, and find some hyperventilating article that mentions Glenn Beck. I cannot stand Glenn Beck. I can’t get through more than 15 minutes of his show because he irritates me so much. So I was ready to discount this stuff as nonsense.
But then I decided to see if I could find some actual source material - actual stuff written by Lloyd rather than ‘interpreted’ by bloviating hystericals like Beck. I couldn’t find much. His book is available on Amazon, so I read the introduction. And it sounded a little worrying. Lots of talk about how free speech was overrated, how corporate interests had taken over speech, how government was needed to ensure ‘diversity’ of speech, etc.
Then I found this article written by Lloyd and published at American Progress. Allow me to quote:
“Their Proposal” is this report, co-authored by Lloyd. It is very specifically an attack on ‘right wing talk radio’.
This is the plan outlined in the report:
In other words:
shut down the networks that broadcast Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk radio.
Fine radio stations which carry syndicated talk radio shows.
Funnel the money collected with fines to liberal counter-programming.
This is no different than the common way in which authoritarian regimes shut down critical media - impose punitive ‘license fees’ on everyone, then give government grant money to those stations willing to toe the party line. Everyone else gets pushed out of the market. Similarly, I believe it was Chile which imposed a heavy tax on newsprint, then offered print subsidies to newspapers that didn’t step out of line.
Lloyd doesn’t want to reimpose the ‘fairness doctrine’ - because he doesn’t think it will be effective enough in shutting down talk radio. If you read the detailed report, here’s what he actually recommends:
I find this pretty damned chilling. He wants to essentially fine people if they don’t meet the government’s standards for the content of their speech. In other places, he says that the stations should be required to submit comments from the local people to the FCC, and that their license will be contingent on meeting the approval of the people.
You can see how this works: Put licenses of the stations at risk if the ‘local people’ complain. Enter your handy community organizer, who will make sure there are lots of complaints levied at conservative radio. This will have a chilling effect.
And for Obama to choose this man to be a ‘diversity czar’ is a pretty clear indication that he wants him to implement exactly these kinds of plans at the FCC.
Sam, I would be bothered by the idea if it were in fact what you paraphrase it as. But it’s nothing of the sort. In fact, it specifically provides that a station can continue to carry programming not supported by its service area populace provided that it pays into a fund to support public programming which presumably will carry programming they support.
Much like the national forests being leased out to wood-products corporate interests, the airwaves are in fact the common property of the general public, licensed out to broadcasters on payment of a license fee and compliance with applicable regulations on programming. This is not merely “no naked breasts during prime time” and similar crap; prior to recent vitiating of the rules it meant that they need to carry programming that services the community. Our local channel, carrying on a tradition started by none other than Jesse Helms, carries programming exploring the political machinations of state government, and does it commendably objectively – not as a five-minute segment in the news, but as a half-hour weekly feature. It does a once-a-year special on hurricanes, their historical impact and how to prepare for them. The local station in my old home town, located halfway between a major recreational-fishing area and a prime hunting area, used to carry a weekly show for outdoorsmen focusing on hunting and fishing. These were sponsored and had a fair audience share – but they were also designed to service the local community in ways that CBS, ABC, or Fox programming or infomercials could not.
License renewals should not be pro forma – the license holder has in his custody one-fifth of the local public’s share of the airwaves, and he is accountable to them for what he shows. If what they want is Hannity and Survivor, that’s what they should get – but if what they want is something quite different, he has no prerogative to force-feed them his own preferences in politics. Clear Channel and Murdoch will put out whatever sells ads, and never mind if it’s what the public wants, given a choice.
Frankly, the tone of the OP sounds more like paranoia than the analytical conservatism I’ve come to expect from you, Sam. That’s personal, and a bit of a slam for GD, but I mean it to express disappointment, not insult. Diversity means just that – viewpoints liberal and conservative, statist and libertarian, young and rebellious or old and stodgy, black, white, Latino, the whole gamut of what makes up America. You’re hearing it as a catch-phrase like Fox’s “fair and balanced” when what they mean is the farthest thing from what they say. And, surprise, sometimes people don’t use Newspeak but actually say exactly what they mean.
Sam, you’re completely misreading this. We used to have these kinds of caps, & it has nothing to do with shutting down dissent (nor, in fact, does it stop radio networks) & everything to do with more competition in local markets.
Reading what he says & reading what you say is like reading a recipe for borscht in a cookbook & then hearing a panicky schizophrenic claiming it’s a recipe for mustard gas & being taught in all the schools. No correlation.
There might be an interesting debate about consolidation of airwaves ownership and the idea of using the airwaves as a public trust somewhere in all of this, but your summery of the guys report is so ridiculously far from what the report actually says, that their isn’t really any point in trying to have a rational discussion about the underlying issue. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the phrase “in other words” abused so much.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the Fairness Doctrine, by the way. These broadcasters are squatting on publicly owned airwaves for free. The FCC has every right to provide equal public access for political views. It’s not a first amendment issue since it only affects airwaves that are owned by the public (meaning it does NOT affect cable, satellite or other pay options), and since it does STOP any speech, but only provides equal access.
That’s a side issue, of course, but Sam’s characterization is so off the wall paranoid and wrong that it’s not really worth addressing.
ISTM that what is being recommended is analogous to an anti-trust action. Local market media can’t be dominated by say, some zillionaire conservative maniac media mogul. It doesn’t come close to muzzling any particular perspective. But I don’t think you’re some kind of idiot Sam. If this ever actually goes out of bounds, your zeal will be applicable. That said, can you take a serious joke:
Know who else enjoyed total control of the mass media? Hitler!
I suspect this is a subject on which our personal biases are going to play a big part in the interpretation of this. You read this as if there is no ill intent behind the words - you take it literally at face value. But when I read it, I catch the guy’s snide asides about ‘dittoheads’, and his repeated talk about ‘license challenges’ and ‘community engagement’, and I see something a little more directed than a simply licensee fee plan to help fund NPR.
Also, you’re all basically acting like the only part of this is the fee. But his plan clearly calls out for breaking up any large radio network - something that seems aimed straight at ClearChannel. And this isn’t just a licensee fee - he says they should simply not be allowed to exist. And he says license challenges will be undertaken if stations do not meet their local community’s desires for fairness and diversity.
He doesn’t say anything about fairness and diversity, he talks about the public’s needs.
From your own quoted sources:
Nothing there about fairness or diversity, just that the station is meeting the public’s needs. If some local public only wants right-wing Christian golf shows with reggae music, and the station owner isn’t providing them, then that will be considered when his license is up for renewal. Or if they want to hear more from pro-choice bowlers discussing yacht ownership. Or whatever the local public wants/needs. Nothing about fairness, or diversity, only that the station operate on behalf of the public interest, as reflected by documented public comments about the station’s programming.
Like many others, you had me in the OP until you got to “in other words”.
Here’s what I don’t get: this proposal pushes ultimate approval responsibility down to a local level, yet Sam Stone is somehow agin’ it?
I’d say that “local community’s desires for fairness and diversity” does not necessarily mean “anti-Rush Limbaugh” (or “right-wing talk radio” or whatever). In fact, even if that’s his actual intent, I’d bet that in some/many local markets, it would be the opposite…and backfire.
It’s already down to the local approval level. That’s what ratings are for. Most attempts at left wing talk shows fail because nobody wants to listen to them. The local panel that decides who goes on the air is represented by the listening audience.
Right you are. So, take that as fact and apply it to the following (abbreviated) quote from the OP:
Due to the bolded If in the above, I left off the bit about directing the “spectrurn use” fees to the CPB. So, what I gather is that by mandate, the FCC provides a way for the general local listening public to [dis]approve of a station’s programming (in addition to, or in conjuction with, advertising dollars).
If you’d like, bitch about needless, bloated beauracracy (radio’s equivalent to SarbOx). I get that. Or FCC expansion and mission-creep. Or wasted time, effort, and funding. Hell, bitch that 3 year licenses are entirely too short. Or too long. Whatever.
But I don’t see the free speech angle. And again, even if such a thing was there in intent, I’m not seeing how it wouldn’t end up doing the opposite of what’s being claimed in some/many markets.
because of these 2 sentences:
*** Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.
Demand that the radio broadcast licensee announce when its license is about to expire and demonstrate how the public can participate in the process to determine whether the license should be extended. In addition, the FCC should be required to maintain a website to conduct on-line discussions and facilitate interaction with the public about licensee conduct.**
Nothing is spelled out in this which makes it the interpretation of the FCC.
I can’t get the PDF of the full report to open - does this guy define what he means by “serving the public interest” and who decides what this is?
The other thing that springs to mind is why he believes that it’s bad to have a national owner of too much of a medium, and then requiring stations to fund a national owner of some of their competitors.
Apart from that, this is the tacit admission that liberal media cannot hope to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and need regulation to prevent the people from listening to non-government subsidized outlets.
That would be my only question. It’s unclear to me how “serving the public interest” would be defined, and how subjective a definition it would be, and who is empowered to make the determination.
