RSS Feed MenuAccording to Jillian Bandes, localism (read: government-forced diversity) and progressive radio proponent Mark Lloyd has been named to the position of Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission. Bandes and Seton Motley of the Media Research Center, while uncertain of what Lloyd might do in the position, have no good news for those who support the free market in radio. In 2007 he wrote “We call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary. And we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules” in addition to other anti-free speech rhetoric.
This is of great concern to many around this country- fortunately, freedom-loving private citizens are not alone. Mike Pence (R-IN) has been taking on localism and the Fairness Doctrine over the last few years- some, including myself, thought he was overreacting to the doctrine and not paying enough attention to the localism part, but either way Pence has been a tireless supporter of the right to free speech. He gave a very good speech about the Broadcaster Freedom Amendment he sponsored about a month ago (and in 2007), and in it he described the negative effect the Fairness Doctrine had on talk radio on all sides of the political spectrum. As a former radio man himself, Pence understands freedom of speech and how it should be allowed, even if you disagree with what is said.
Last fall, I conducted a partial case study on proposed FCC localism regulations and their probable effect on small, local markets (which they are supposed to help). In interviewing a number of media people in the Littleton, New Hampshire area, I found only one supporter of any kind of regulations -a well-established author and former newspaper reporter in Littleton – but no other local media owners in favor of the regulations. The cost of business, the owners felt, would be prohibitive and encourage further conglomeration strangleholds, which the regulations were also alleged to prevent (according to the regulation supporters). Again, freedom of speech is too important to be left to government intervention.
In recent years, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has shut down free radio stations- this month alone, he shut down 12 of the 34 stations told to go off the air. Chavez, of course, has said he is “democratizing” radio- a number of civil rights groups, however, disagree, including several in the United States. Ironically, our media hammers Chavez – but praises and supports government regulation in this country because it doesn’t like talk radio. I wonder what would happen if localism regulations and radio conglomeration rules were applied to newspapers, magazines, television news and Hollywood, where liberals dominate, and not just to conservative talk radio, where the much-ridiculed Rush Limbaugh is king.
oldgal // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Since you only alluded to proposed regulations in a negative manner and did not lay out what the proposed regulations are (as stated), or substantiate your allegations, I find this post of no value.
balconesfault // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Well, not only large media corporations have an interest in avoiding localization regulations … even smaller local companies do, because any such regulations might reduce their market value if they ever want to sell to a larger media corporation in the future. So it’s no shock that they would make claims that localization would kill their profits. It may not actually kill profits, but it could certainly threaten their worth.
At the same time, it will most certainly stimulate employment. Local media outlets have been sluffing off local talent and taking on national broadcasts that come with their own advertising package. These also come with a secondary benefit of being able to reduce or eliminate much of their local marketing staff.
sinz54 // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Somebody needs to point out to Mr. Lloyd that localism does NOT equate to “more left-wing programming.”
Here in Boston (which is a heavily Democratic town), WRKO-AM’s talk shows have always focused on local issues. But many of their talk-show hosts do so from a conservative point of view. Howie Carr, in particular, was a kind of “Bostonian Rush Limbaugh” in his constant skewering of liberal Democrats from the Bay State. (He would call Senator Kennedy “Fat Boy.”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howie_carr
And then there was intellectual David Brudnoy of WBZ-AM, who always reported on local Boston arts like Blue Man Group–while skewering Hillary as “Bill’s ghastly wife.”
So stations like WRKO and WBZ are going to make Mr. Lloyd have to put up or shut up: Does he really mean “cover your local communities”? Or does he really mean “Provide more left-wing commentary”?
liv&win // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:11 pm
sinz54, why does someone need to point that out…”he described the negative effect the Fairness Doctrine had on talk radio on all sides of the political spectrum.” I didn’t find ANY reference to “more left-wing programming” in this article. In fact, freedom of speech which was the focus of the article.
When will you libs get it…you can’t regulate human behavior or choice without creating myriad unintended consequences. Freedom is chaotic and frustrating in the most wonderful ways.
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Sigh! (to use a barkerism). This is a prime example of how things get twisted around and people get spun up. Dustin, any idea what the role of the CDO in FCC is? Isn’t it just like all the Chief, (Acquisition, Human Capital, Information, Financial) Officers in each and avery agency? Most of these CxO jobs are statutory (mandated by Congress). The Chief Diversity Officer does not seem to be and I do not know if the Administration plans other CDOs in other agencies. However, the purpose of all the CxO is related to the functioning of the agency. That is, they are internally focused not externally. Do you have the memo that created this position which might shed light on the duties and responsibilities? If so, please provide the url so we can read it.
Loyd is an Assocate General Counsel and his primary job is not as CDO. It is true that he appears to be of the liberal persuasion but generally his only claim to fame is a book and paper he wrote. Some of his writings concerned political talk radio and public broadcasting. Your post appears to old news that has previous been posted at Fairness Doctrine, Nutroots, Race relations, and Rush Limbaugh sites. Obama a liberal appointing a liberal is not actually news nor cause for alarm regardless of what the liberal wrote at some point.
The average tenure of political appointees is less than 30 months. Think about it less than 3 years! Faced with the massive beauracracy of a typical agency and entrenched career feds many political appointees stand no chance and at best will see only incremental changes before they are out the door. We have nothing to fear but the fear we create ourselves.