# The New FCC "Diversity Czar" - An Enemy of Free Speech **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2009, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606 "2009-09-02T04:17:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/41 "2009-09-02T15:44:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. Ratings do not compel asnyone to do a blessed thing – if someone so chooses, they can continue to program Glenn Beck to, say, Key West or Berkeley. We are talking about accountability to the public by licensees of the public arirwaves they are the ultimate owners of. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/42 "2009-09-02T15:44:59Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This is also a guy who has said glowing things about Hugo Chavez’s ‘incredible democratic revolution’, including saying nice things about the way Chavez has handled the ‘corporate media’ in his country. N.B.: Chavez refused to renew the broadcast license of [RCTV](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Caracas_Television) after **(five years** after) RCTV **publicly supported the attempted coup d’etat** of 2002. They’re still broadcasting on cable. They got off light. If a radio station in the U.S. supported a failed attempt to overthrow the government, every executive in it would be doing time for treason. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/43 "2009-09-02T15:52:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I watched the video anyway. Unsurprisingly, those few lines are carefully excised from any surrounding context, so it’s hard to know what point Lloyd was actually trying to make, but the quoted words, _per se_, appear to be just an objective description of what happened without any personal statement of support for Chavez. I think the objection is first, to his calling it a “democratic revolution”, and secondly, in bringing up that we assisted his attempted ouster. The statements taken together imply both that Chavez’s coming to power was a good thing, and also that the US Government was wrong to try to get him out of power, and a lot of conservatives would disagree with both those assertions. And as to your “real freeper issue with Mark Llloyd”, I really don’t think the issue with Mark Lloyd is that he’s black. A lot of people are black. A lot of FCC employees are black. And that’s frankly pretty insulting. It’s more that he’s been a critic for 10 years of the FCC deregulation policies the Republicans put in in the 80s, and now he’s in a position where he can reverse a lot of those policies. If you think the deregulation was a good thing, then you’re going to have a problem with Mark Lloyd. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/44 "2009-09-02T15:54:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I think the objection is first, to his calling it a “democratic revolution”, and secondly, in bringing up that we assisted his attempted ouster. Both those things are true. > [@](#): > > The statements taken together imply both that Chavez’s coming to power was a good thing Where do you get this? > [@](#): > > and also that the US Government was wrong to try to get him out of power Or this? (We WERE wrong, but Lloyd doesn’t SAY that.) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/45 "2009-09-02T15:57:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And, just for the record, [the Fairness Doctrine, when we had it, passed constitutional muster with the SCOTUS,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Decisions_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court) just so everyone’s clear on **that.** It did, but it probably would be overturned today, and I think that if it hadn’t been repealed or if Reagan hadn’t vetoed the 1987 Fairness Doctrine bill, the court probably would have overturned it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/46 "2009-09-02T16:01:27Z")
On what grounds would it be overturned? Where in the US Constitution do you find a right for broadcasters to use public airwaves for free? Where do you find a right for corporations to monopolize them for only one kind of (highly self-serving) political speech? Whose speech was being abridged by the Fairness Doctrine? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/47 "2009-09-02T16:05:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > On what grounds would it be overturned? On the grounds that 6 of 9 justices now sitting were appointed by Republicans? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/48 "2009-09-02T16:18:17Z")
Forty year old Supreme Court precedent on Fairness Doctrine notwithstanding (both free speech jurisprudence and conditional privilege jurisprudence has come a long way since then), I think that assessment of licensing fees based on content of radio broadcasts raises some free speech concerns. It is true that broadcasters are being given the privilege to use the public airwaves, and that such privileges can generally be conditioned by the government. But in the free speech context, even conditions on privileges generally need to be content neutral. You can imagine a scenario in which the government only lets Republicans drive on federal interstate, or in which only corporations who donate to Democrats are allowed to advertise on public buses or live in public housing. Clearly, the power to condition licensing and access to public privileges is not unlimited. So what limits might there be? As above, the government clearly cannot facially discriminate on the basis of political opinion when granting access to government privileges. It follows, probably, that it cannot do so by discriminatory impact either, if the purpose is the same. For example, if the government knew that female-owned radio stations were more likely to broadcast Democratic opinions, it could not favor female-owned radio stations for that purpose. This question obviously falls into something of a gray area in which there might be discriminatory effects which may or may not be the intended purpose of the policy. Tilting the scales to create more diverse ownership of broadcasting may be a legitimate end on its own, even if it has a politically discriminatory impact. But when the person doing it references studies showing that this demographic diversity leads to an ideological balance he prefers, that’s not a good sign. Labeling the regulation of licensing as local control doesn’t really change the analysis, it just makes it one step removed. The question would then become on what basis the local regulators decide who gets licenses and at what cost. If that basis is something like political balance, I think there is a real constitutional problem. This is not something I would get too worked up over until a specific plan is proposed through rulemaking. But it also isn’t hysterical to be concerned (though I have no doubt that if these accusations had been made on a similar basis about something Bush did, some of the people in this thread would call the accusations hysterical). ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/49 "2009-09-02T16:21:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Mark Lloyd.](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Lloyd) Holy Crap! That guy?? He makes Hitler seem like Gandhi!! ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/50 "2009-09-02T16:23:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Where do you get this? Calling it a democratic revolution is implying it’s a good thing. “Democracy” is one of those positive buzz words. Somebody who supports Chavez is going to call his coming to power, “a democratic revolution”, somebody who opposes him, is going to call it, “Chavez’s takeover” or something like that. > [@](#): > > Or this? (We WERE wrong, but Lloyd doesn’t SAY that.) Again, supporting democracy=good. Trying to overthrow democracy=bad. Somebody who thinks the coup was a good thing, wouldn’t say “The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media” aided by us, tried to oust him, and so after that, he decided to pay closer attention to the media. He’s set up a narrative here, where you have two sides…the people, and Chavez, representing them, on the one side, and on the other, “the property owners”, and “the folks who control the media” on the other. And when you set up a narrative like that, “the people” are always the good guys, and “the property owners” are the bad guys who are oppressing the people. It’s the same reason that in the Robin Hood stories, Robin Hood is the good guy and the Sheriff of Nottingham is the bad guy. And that’s the narrative that people who Chavez have set up. Now, you could set up another narrative that reverses the whole situation. You could say that what happened is that a demagogue came to power and started transforming Venezuela into a dictatorship, and that people concerned about the country’s move to dictatorship, including the media, with the help of the US, tried to overthrow him, and so, in response, Chavez censored the media. That tells the same story…Chavez gets elected, there’s a coup attempt the media participates in, it fails, and Chavez puts more control on the media, but it’s an entirely different narrative. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/51 "2009-09-02T16:37:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Whose speech was being abridged by the Fairness Doctrine? The press in general was being abridged by the Fairness Doctrine, because journalists were shying away from reporting on controversial issues so as to avoid having to worry that the FCC wouldn’t find the coverage of the issue balanced. It was also being used by the administration against its enemies. Bill Ruder, who was an Assistant Secretary of Commerce during the Johnson during the Johnson administration later confessed: > [@](#): > > Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue. Later, after Nixon was elected, his staff brought Fairness Doctrine challenges against broadcasters who questioned the war in Vietnam. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/52 "2009-09-02T16:52:23Z")
So what exactly are these ‘public needs’ that are currently left wanting by current FCC policy? Is it food? Clothing? Shelter? Health Care? Weather? Traffic Reports? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/53 "2009-09-02T16:52:37Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Calling it a democratic revolution is implying it’s a good thing. “Democracy” is one of those positive buzz words. Somebody who supports Chavez is going to call his coming to power, “a democratic revolution”, somebody who opposes him, is going to call it, “Chavez’s takeover” or something like that. It’s calling it what it was. Chavez came to power through the Democratic process. If you listen to Lloyd, he was clarifying what he meant by "revolution. He said, “In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a _democratic_ revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.” He started to say revolution, and then clarified that he was not talking about a literal, _violent_ revolution (there wasn’t one. Chavez was elected fair and square), but a figurative revolution in sense of what was called the “Republican Revolution” in 1994 led by Newt Gingrich. What’s not accurate about Lloyd’s words? > [@](#): > > Again, supporting democracy=good. Trying to overthrow democracy=bad You disagree? > [@](#): > > Somebody who thinks the coup was a good thing, wouldn’t say “The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media” aided by us, tried to oust him, and so after that, he decided to pay closer attention to the media Why wouldn’t they? It’s objectively what happened. > [@](#): > > He’s set up a narrative here, where you have two sides…the people, and Chavez, representing them, on the one side, and on the other, “the property owners”, and “the folks who control the media” on the other. What part of that is not factually accurate? > [@](#): > > That tells the same story…Chavez gets elected, there’s a coup attempt the media participates in, it fails, and Chavez puts more control on the media, but it’s an entirely different narrative. Lloyd didn’t put any spin on it at all. He just described what objectively happened. Incidentally, you don’t actually think we were RIGHT to support the coup, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/54 "2009-09-02T16:54:59Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The press in general was being abridged by the Fairness Doctrine, because journalists were shying away from reporting on controversial issues so as to avoid having to worry that the FCC wouldn’t find the coverage of the issue balanced. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/55 "2009-09-02T16:57:31Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > So what exactly are these ‘public needs’ that are currently left wanting by current FCC policy? Is it food? Clothing? Shelter? Health Care? Weather? Traffic Reports? The phrase is “public interest,” not “public needs.” What’s in the public interest is for the public to decide, not Clear Channel. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/56 "2009-09-02T17:05:51Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Again, supporting democracy=good. Trying to overthrow democracy=bad. Somebody who thinks the coup was a good thing, wouldn’t say “The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media” aided by us, tried to oust him, and so after that, he decided to pay closer attention to the media. > > He’s set up a narrative here, where you have two sides…the people, and Chavez, representing them, on the one side, and on the other, “the property owners”, and “the folks who control the media” on the other. > > And when you set up a narrative like that, “the people” are always the good guys, and “the property owners” are the bad guys who are oppressing the people. It’s the same reason that in the Robin Hood stories, Robin Hood is the good guy and the Sheriff of Nottingham is the bad guy. And that’s the narrative that people who Chavez have set up. > > Now, you could set up another narrative that reverses the whole situation. Indeed you could – but not with as much honesty, or even plausibility. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/57 "2009-09-02T17:09:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > On what grounds would it be overturned? There are so many different media in so many different hands that it was deemed no longer necessary. A big oops if you ask me, but that was the gist of the argument. > [@](#): > > Whose speech was being abridged by the Fairness Doctrine? No one’s, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/58 "2009-09-02T17:13:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite? This [article](http://mason.gmu.edu/~thazlett/pubs/Fairness%20Doctrine.pdf)by Thomas Hazlett and David Sosa from the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies (warning, in PDF) suggests that the chilling effect was real. Also check the The General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees (102 F.C.C.2d 145) (“The Fairness Report”), which I can’t find online, which was the FCC decision repealing the doctrine, and found that it no longer served the public interest and was likely unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/59 "2009-09-02T17:19:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The phrase is “public interest,” not “public needs.” Mark Lloyd used the word ‘needs’, but fine, what public interests aren’t currently being served? And why aren’t ratings a good measure of what the public would like for content mix? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606/60 "2009-09-02T17:26:50Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Mark Lloyd used the word ‘needs’, but fine, what public interests aren’t currently being served? That’s for the public to decide. > [@](#): > > And why aren’t ratings a good measure of what the public would like for content mix? Ratings only represent a small sampling of the public as a whole, plus it’s a stupid measure of public interest anyway. Hardcore porn on network TV would draw large ratings, but that doesn’t mean it would serve the public interest or represent public desires. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-fcc-diversity-czar-an-enemy-of-free-speech/508606.md?page=4)