Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: New FCC 'Chief Diversity Officer' Co-Wrote

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 04:23 PM

    New FCC 'Chief Diversity Officer'

    New FCC 'Chief Diversity Officer' Co-Wrote Liberal Group's 'Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio'

    UPDATE: Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin read this piece in nearly its entirety last night. His on-air stylings can be found here.

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new "Chief Diversity Officer," communications attorney Mark Lloyd.

    But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."

    Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created "problem."

    * Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
    * Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
    * Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

    These last two get perilously close to the use of "localism" to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations, about which we have been warning for quite some time.

    .................................................. ...............................................

    In a follow-up essay to the CAP report entitled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine," Lloyd specifically instructs liberal activists to do the latter - use the "localism" requirement to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. The FCC would then assess these stations fines, with the money going to (very liberal) public broadcasting.

    Or worse - the FCC would rescind these stations' broadcast licenses. In other words, shut them up by shutting them down. Thus, as Lloyd says, no need for the mis-named "Fairness" Doctrine.

    From Lloyd's piece:
    To be fair, even some progressives are confused about the Fairness Doctrine. A recent news story reported that the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC for short, has asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine—even as the same article reports on a speech to LULAC by ABC News correspondent John Quinones, who spoke of his work bringing to audiences a hard-earned perspective to the long-running immigration debate.

    Quinones told the LULAC audience that he got his start because a San Antonio community organization threatened that if the stations didn't hire more Latinos, the group would go to the FCC and challenge their licenses. "Thank God for them," Quinones said. "I wouldn't be here."

    Equal opportunity employment policies. Local engagement. License challenges. Nothing in there about the Fairness Doctrine.
    "Community organizations" (run one would think by community organizers) threatening the licenses of stations with whom they do not agree politically.

    Or making them pay hefty fines, which would be added to the public monies already being given to liberal public broadcasting.

    The other part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads (i.e. Rush Limbaugh fans, meant here by Lloyd to more broadly refer to fans of all conservative talk) upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.

    New FCC 'Chief Diversity Officer' Co-Wrote Liberal Group's 'Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio' |
    The Obama administration has just fired a shot across the bow of the first amendment by appointing this Marxist scumbag, this is the same guy who supports the overthrow of private media companies in Venezuela by the Chavez junta.

    Why does Obama want to silence the opposition? What's next? Calling for a Chavizista style domestic security force or the nationalization of major industries? Oh wait too late.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-31-09 at 06:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Libertarian - Left

    Re: New FCC 'Chief Diversity Officer' Co-Wrote

    This is why I said the only the the FCC should be doing is enforcing property rights, i.e. policing against piracy. Nothing else. People wanted to use it to remove naughty words or censor TV or what have you, and this is what you get. Government loves to grow and usurp power. Restrict it to its minimum and keep it there.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts