Comments on: New FCC Officer’s Proposed Regs Would Stifle Free Speech

By: midcon

midcon — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:34:22 +0000

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.

By: liv&win

liv&win — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:11:17 +0000

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.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:12:27 +0000

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”?

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:56:46 +0000

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.

By: oldgal

oldgal — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:19:10 +0000

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.