The New FCC "Diversity Czar" - An Enemy of Free Speech

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

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.

When I get home from work, we can talk about Italy.

[Sam_Stone]

@Bricker

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.

I’d say the answers to those questions are key.

From the PDF:

Quantitative analysis of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations in the country suggests that stations owned by racial or ethnic minorities are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows and more likely to air progressive hosts or shows. In addition, stations controlled by owners who run just a single station were statistically less likely to air conservative talk and more likely to air progressive hosts or shows.

The analysis also reveals that markets that air both conservative and progressive programming are statistically more likely to have female- and minority-owned stations in the market, and are significantly less concentrated than the markets that air only one type of programming (See Appendix D).

Although we do not have the exact explanation for this finding, we believe that minority and female owners, who tend to be more local, are more responsive to the needs of their local communities and are therefore less likely to air the conservative hosts because this type of programming is so far out of step with their local audiences. Additionally, minority-owned stations are more likely to be found in areas with high minority populations—areas that also report high percentages of progressives and liberals.

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

It seems pretty clear to me. The whole intent of this push for ‘diversity’ is to put radio stations in the hands of the kinds of people who will put ‘progressive’ programming on the air. There seems to be an assumption that ‘meeting the needs of the local community’ will only be met by airing ‘progressive’ content. The author states categorically above that conservative programming is 'far out of step with local audiences (it makes you wonder who’s listening, then…).

So after the bust-up of the networks and the return to local control, if a station still dares to air conservative programming, then it will be found to not meet the needs of the local community - especially if a few protests are arranged and a write-in campaign or two is delivered to the FCC. Then that station will be fined (excuse me - ‘levied a broadcast license fee’), and the money shoveled to its ‘progressive’ competitors.

I find it hard to conclude that this is anything but legislation specifically designed to attack a certain form of political speech.

Here’s a quote from Lloyd’s book, published in 2006:

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

The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.

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.

@Mark Lloyd

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.

The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

Lloyd sees the media as a pernicious, anti-progressive force, and sees nothing wrong with abridging freedom of speech if it means ‘taking back’ control of the media for the ‘people’, and then using it to promote progressive causes.

[Shodan]

Thanks for the quote, Sam. Does rather clear up his intent.

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.

No kidding.

Regards,
Shodan

[Captain_Amazing]

@Bricker

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.

I’d say the answers to those questions are key.

Here’s an overview on the way that the public interest has generally been interpreted by Congress and the FCC:

The Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting

And three years seems way too short a license term, especially if the FCC is making renewals more strenuous. It sounds like this guy wants to go back to the way things were before the deregulation orders of the 80s. That would be a mistake, in my opinion.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam_Stone

Lloyd sees the media as a pernicious, anti-progressive force . . .

No, he sees concentrated corporate control of the media as a pernicious, anti-progressive force, which it is.

[Camus]

@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.

Ummm, cite? After a quick Yahoo and Google search, all I’ve come up with is a bunch of conservative/freeper websites attributing sourceless quotes to this effect without stating where they’re from or at least pointing to an objective/trustworthy source.

[Frylock]

Sam,

I’m not being obtuse here. I genuinely want to know–though I know this is the kind of request that sometimes evinces eye rolls.

What I want to ask is, could you explain in some detail what exactly you think is supposed to be wrong with what Lloyd says here:

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

The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.

I honestly can’t find anything in that quote that I would expect any US citizen should find objectionable.

Do you think some of those sentences are false? Which ones? If that’s not the problem, then what is?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Camus

Ummm, cite? After a quick Yahoo and Google search, all I’ve come up with is a bunch of conservative/freeper websites attributing sourceless quotes to this effect without stating where they’re from or at least pointing to an objective/trustworthy source.

Here’s a video of him making the comments:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/28/video-fcc-diversity-czar-chavezs-venezuela-incredible-democratic-revol

According to the related story, the comments come from the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Can one of the righties please show me exactly what kind of speech would be abridged by requiring broadcasters to serve a public interest in exchange for being able to suck off the public tit?

[Polycarp]

@Bricker

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.

I’d say the answers to those questions are key.

FWIW. I believe this has been part of FCC regulations since before I was born, that the definition and who decides (6he commission) are in there.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Captain_Amazing

Here’s a video of him making the comments:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/28/video-fcc-diversity-czar-chavezs-venezuela-incredible-democratic-revol

According to the related story, the comments come from the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform.

Without clicking to watch the video, I can see that the right wing site you linked used the elided quotation “incredible…democratic revolution,” which already does not bode well for the way the righties are chracterizing it.

I’ll watch the video now, but I suspoect it will not live up to the hype.

[Lightnin]

@Squink

I’m tired of the right’s pre-emptive hyperventilating.
Let us know if anything disturbing ever actually starts to happen though.

This.

The Right has been exaggerating every possible bad outcome from every decision the Left makes… and so far, nothing bad has actually, you know, happened. You’ve worn us out- we now dismiss everything you say. You could say that the sky is blue, at this point, and my immediate response would be, “Probably not.”

Ever heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Without clicking to watch the video, I can see that the right wing site you linked used the elided quotation “incredible…democratic revolution,” which already does not bode well for the way the righties are chracterizing it.

You don’t need to watch the video…it’s transcribed. Here’s a copy of the transcription for those people who don’t want to go to the website:

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.

The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Captain_Amazing

You don’t need to watch the video…it’s transcribed. Here’s a copy of the transcription for those people who don’t want to go to the website:

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.

Of course, after having watched the video, I can now see what the REAL freeper issue is with Mark Lloyd.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

And just for the record, there is no Constitutional right for broadcasters to use public airwaves for free. Just so everyone’s clear on that.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Captain_Amazing

Here’s an overview on the way that the public interest has generally been interpreted by Congress and the FCC:

The Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting

This is really informative, but a bit long. Thank you for it.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Sam_Stone

It seems pretty clear to me. The whole intent of this push for ‘diversity’ is to put radio stations in the hands of the kinds of people who will put ‘progressive’ programming on the air. There seems to be an assumption that ‘meeting the needs of the local community’ will only be met by airing ‘progressive’ content. The author states categorically above that conservative programming is 'far out of step with local audiences (it makes you wonder who’s listening, then…).

Hmmmm. I didn’t see that he said anything categorically. Let’s read what he said again.

Although we do not have the exact explanation for this finding, we believe that minority and female owners, who tend to be more local, are more responsive to the needs of their local communities and are therefore less likely to air the conservative hosts because this type of programming is so far out of step with their local audiences.

Nope, nothing categorical there. Just an explanation of the possible reasoning that might be behind some of the findings of the report. Seems like you completely misread this to support your own biases.

So after the bust-up of the networks and the return to local control, if a station still dares to air conservative programming, then it will be found to not meet the needs of the local community - especially if a few protests are arranged and a write-in campaign or two is delivered to the FCC. Then that station will be fined (excuse me - ‘levied a broadcast license fee’), and the money shoveled to its ‘progressive’ competitors.

Nope. I think you’re still trying to support your own bias.

@Sam Stone

I find it hard to conclude that this is anything but legislation specifically designed to attack a certain form of political speech.

Well, it’s not surprising that you conclude this, since you have concluded it already by misreading what was written.

Your quote from his book is also misleading. What is the focus he is talking about? Seems like you cherry-picked a quote that just had the phrase “freedom of speech” in it, without giving us the whole passage.

@Sam Stone

Lloyd sees the media as a pernicious, anti-progressive force, and sees nothing wrong with abridging freedom of speech if it means ‘taking back’ control of the media for the ‘people’, and then using it to promote progressive causes.

Again, just seems like you are arguing to confirm your own bias.

[tagos]

The enemy of free speech is the mono-culture of media conglomerates.

One owner, one single media outlet/radio station etc. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this debate. It’s the freedom of the big, rich and powerful to shout the loudest.

[BrainGlutton]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

And just for the record, there is no Constitutional right for broadcasters to use public airwaves for free. Just so everyone’s clear on that.

And, just for the record, the Fairness Doctrine, when we had it, passed constitutional muster with the SCOTUS, just so everyone’s clear on that.

[Camus]

@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 mostly agree. His quotes certainly don’t support:

@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.

Since in the video, at least, Lloyd doesn’t say anything nice about the way Chavez has closed down private and opposition media, though his statements are vague. One of Lloyd’s primary concerns seems to be something akin to trustbusting private broadcasters so that four or five corporations don’t control all of the mass media in the country.