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

[BrainGlutton]

@Jophiel

Is ‘Diversity Czar’ an administration term for this guy or something made up by his detractors? The term is used repeatedly between the OP and thread title. Personally, I’m getting tired of the term and suspect it’s being used by the Right as a scare-mongering tactic to imply that some random guy will have absolute control over some sphere of government.

I know Glenn Beck keeps saying these “czars” differ from ordinary executive-branch officials in that they are exempt from Congressional oversight . . . but I have never yet seen a credible cite for that.

The term “czar” has been applied to various kinds of U.S. officials, not all of them executive-branch, since the 1940s.

[RTFirefly]

@Magiver

And they’re all filled up with the same programs? I think not.

This doesn’t support your claim that:

there are plenty of frequencies available for those who wish to put on their own programs.

I wish to put on my own programs in the Washngton, D.C. market. Find me those frequencies.

[BrainGlutton]

What is the frequency, Magiver?

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Magiver

Again, there are plenty of frequencies available for those who wish to put on their own programs. If there were real public interest issues then same rules would apply to broadcast TV. Since it’s not, it is nothing but a blatant attempt to silence the right.

Is this true? Are there all sorts of open frequencies available all over the US that no one is currently using? Can you provide a cite for that?

[Sam_Stone]

I’m confused by the supposed burning need to reform radio. The limited airwaves argument is weaker today than it has ever been, because there are a huge number of alternate media, and the majority of the population has access to it. Community issues are being handled very well now by local web sites, blogs, and direct communication through the internet. Radio programming has competition from internet radio, satellite radio, HD radio, podcasts, etc. People in local communities who wish to communicate with each other have plenty of ways to do so.

Tell you what: Take the same quotes from the guy, and let’s play a game. First, let’s assume that he’s a Christian fundamentalist Bush employee and this is 2005. Now everywhere you see “progressive programming”, substitute “Creationist programming” Wherever you see mention of right-wing radio, substitute “Secular radio”. Add in disparaging remarks by this appointee about ‘people who think we come from monkeys’. Include his report’s conclusion that local people, women, and minorities tend to air more creationist programs, and the big networks air secular evolutionist programming.

If stations continue to air programs on evolution, they may have to pay a license fee, with the money going to support creationist radio.

Now tell me that his plan to break up networks and give local people, women, and minorities more radio ownership is not aimed at shutting down evolutionists - all he’s doing is making sure the local communities have their voices heard, you know? Nothing political here. Move along.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Sam_Stone

I’m confused by the supposed burning need to reform radio. The limited airwaves argument is weaker today than it has ever been, because there are a huge number of alternate media, and the majority of the population has access to it. Community issues are being handled very well now by local web sites, blogs, and direct communication through the internet. Radio programming has competition from internet radio, satellite radio, HD radio, podcasts, etc. People in local communities who wish to communicate with each other have plenty of ways to do so.

And none of those other things are public commodities, the way that radio airwaves are.

[VarlosZ]

I think Richard Parker’s post is intelligent, reserved, and even-handed. I also think it’s unfortunate that no one here wants to engage said post, or even acknowledge that this issue falls into a grey area constitutionally and ethically.

[cosmosdan]

@Sam_Stone

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.

Is it that they should not be allowed to exist or that there should be limits on how much they can own and that local communities get to have other options that private companies help support?

[cosmosdan]

@Magiver

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.

And this is bad because? It has to be somebodies interpretation right? It says the public of a local market gets to participate. We would expect views expressed in that participation to be reflected in the FCCs interpretation.

[cosmosdan]

@Shodan

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.

Regards,
Shodan

Well except for all that liberal spin and the way they attacked poor Sarah and basically joined the Obama campaign. Except for that.

[Jophiel]

@BrainGlutton

The term “czar” has been applied to various kinds of U.S. officials, not all of them executive-branch, since the 1940s.

Heh… According to Wikipedia, only one mention of the term “Czar” from a journalist is enough to get a federal position onto the list. I have a feeling that Wikipedia is going to have a looonnnggg list by the time Obama is out of office given the knee-jerk use of the term as a fear tactic.

@Sam_Stone

Tell you what: Take the same quotes from the guy, and let’s play a game. First, let’s assume that he’s a Christian fundamentalist Bush employee and this is 2005.

I always hated the “You know if it was reversed, you would feel the opposite!” ‘argument’. What a meaningless debate line. I suppose the only response it deserves is “No, I wouldn’t”. So… no, I wouldn’t.

[cosmosdan]

@Sam_Stone

From the PDF:
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 if a station was locally owned they might choose not to air Beck or Limbaugh. That’s the complaint?

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.

This is a leap without evidence. Maybe we’d get more shows that offer intelligent fact based discussion on the issues with both conservatives and liberals. Maybe we’d actually educate and inform the public more.

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

Like political hate speech? Like dishonest alarmist rabble rousers?

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

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.

I’ve watched that video clip several times. It was a discussion about how media is used to effect social change. I’m not seeing that he agrees politically with Chavez on everything but is commenting on how Chavez became aware about the importance of the media.

A question; Do you see any threat to the public interest in relaxing FCC rules and allowing giant cooperations with their own political partners and ideology to own more and more of our media? Here’s the FCC commissioner speaking at the conference where Lloyd made those comments.

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.

I think he sees too much of the media controlled by one group as detrimental to the public interest. Is that incorrect? I think his comments about free speech means that the concept is being abused. In light of some of the crap going down at town hall meetings and the recent shooting death of a doctor could we equate right wing shows like Beck, Limbaugh and perhaps others to yelling fire in a crowded theater? Freedom of speech isn’t absolute. I’d like to see shows like Beck and Limbaugh fade in popularity because more decent alternatives were available. To do that we need more local input and control. Perhaps what Lloyd envisions is offering alternatives and giving the public the chance to tell Beck and Limbaugh to STFU.

[Shodan]

@cosmosdan

Well except for all that liberal spin and the way they attacked poor Sarah and basically joined the Obama campaign. Except for that.

This czar says including that.

That’s the point. This guy sees that “progressive” radio is losing market share, because all the new “progressive” stuff has to compete with the MSM, who are already competing for the liberal audience. Limbaugh and the other conservative talk radio hosts found a large, unserved market. “Progressive” radio can’t compete, which is why this czar guy wants to force them to subsidize NPR.

To this czar guy, progressive opinion = diversity = in the public interest. Anything else = intoleranthatespeechBushliedaboutIraqRepublicansareevilblahblahblah.

Regards,
Shodan

[cosmosdan]

@Richard_Parker

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).

Thanks for this post. IMO as long as personal agendas and bias exist we can’t expect a perfect balance but rather a shifting one that needs to be examined and tweaked. I’d like to see shows like Beck and Limbaugh die a natural death or at least lose a big part of their audience share rather than manipulated off the air. I’d like to see more options available and more diverse ownership which IMO would also encourage creativity and hopefully serve local community interests.

I was in about 12 years ago when we had the ice storm of the century. I remember all the local radio stations jettisoned their programing to become a source of help by connecting those in need with those able to help and keeping the public informed. It was a beautiful thing.

As you say, who knows exactly what influence Lloyd’s personal preference will have. Opponents are free to cite specific policies proposed or put in place.

[cosmosdan]

@Shodan

This czar says including that.

That’s the point. This guy sees that “progressive” radio is losing market share, because all the new “progressive” stuff has to compete with the MSM, who are already competing for the liberal audience. Limbaugh and the other conservative talk radio hosts found a large, unserved market. “Progressive” radio can’t compete, which is why this czar guy wants to force them to subsidize NPR.

To this czar guy, progressive opinion = diversity = in the public interest. Anything else = intoleranthatespeechBushliedaboutIraqRepublicansareevilblahblahblah.

Regards,
Shodan

I was pointing to the contradiction of the two lines of thought. Progressives can’t compete and yet there’s obviously a huge lefty bias in the media that supported Obama’s campaign.

I can see how his words can be taken that way but I’d want to hear more from him on specific goals. I think setting limits on how much media huge cooperations can own is a good thing for society.

[BrainGlutton]

@cosmosdan

I was pointing to the contradiction of the two lines of thought. Progressives can’t compete and yet there’s obviously a huge lefty bias in the media that supported Obama’s campaign.

That’s nothing compared to the outlandish imputation of a liberal, even “socialist,” bias to America’s media outlets, which are owned by a handful of giant corporations.

[Shodan]

@BrainGlutton

That’s nothing compared to the outlandish imputation of a liberal, even “socialist,” bias to America’s media outlets, which are owned by a handful of giant corporations.

This czar believes that NPR is progressive, and therefore wants it to be subsidized. Take this up with him.

Regards,
Shodan

[magellan01]

@cosmosdan

And this is bad because? It has to be somebodies interpretation right? It says the public of a local market gets to participate. We would expect views expressed in that participation to be reflected in the FCCs interpretation.

But they already do participate. They choose to either listen or not. They’re voting on what they find helpful or enjoyable on the air every time they turn the dial. What could be fairer than that?

[Sinaijon]

@Snowboarder_Bo

And none of those other things are public commodities, the way that radio airwaves are.

Not true. Any wireless communication, from cell phones, CB radios, TV (digital or analog), radio (digital or analog), satellites, WIFI, or GPS is basically operating under the same principal, getting exclusive access to particular frequency range in a particular area. In the case of satellites, the area is very targeted, but it is still a particular frequency over public air space.

Singling out radio, of all things, is kind of ridiculous in that sense.

[Kearsen]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

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.

Don’t you think if the demand was there for alternative broadcasting, people would spend their own money to get it out to the people? Why would the government have to fund an “alternative” view?

Take me for example, I love talk radio (specifically sports talk radio). I love the Texas Longhorns (bring on the tea-sip comments) If people want to talk about the Oklahoma football program (and the demand is there), someone will fund a station and collect money from advertisers.

Personally, I wouldn’t want a government funded station devoted to the Oklahoma Sooners simply because some bureaucrat graduated from their and wanted equal air time.

Similarly with political stations, if the demand is there, let them garner their own funding to get the word out. Surely there is no reason to devote equal air time to an opposing view ‘simply because’
Third party candidates don’t get invited to speaking engagements when you have a 2 party debate, why not? They don’t garner enough support and this is as it should be.

When the people want something bad enough, they will go out and get it.