> 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.

> Story Continues Below Ad ↓

> "Localism" is a nebulous FCC regulatory requirement that radio
> stations must meet to get and keep their broadcast licenses.  How it
> is defined and enforced is wide open to the interpretation of whomever
> is doing the enforcing.  It can mean something benign like airing
> local public service announcements, or it can be used as a weapon by
> activists to punish, harangue and ultimately shut down stations they
> don't like.

> 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.

> Lloyd's instructions to Leftist activists are clear: use the FCC to
> pummel conservative talk radio.  With fines, or entirely out of
> existence.

> And now Lloyd works for the FCC.

> 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.

> Story Continues Below Ad ↓

> "Localism" is a nebulous FCC regulatory requirement that radio
> stations must meet to get and keep their broadcast licenses.  How it
> is defined and enforced is wide open to the interpretation of whomever
> is doing the enforcing.  It can mean something benign like airing
> local public service announcements, or it can be used as a weapon by
> activists to punish, harangue and ultimately shut down stations they
> don't like.

> 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.

> Lloyd's instructions to Leftist activists are clear: use the FCC to
> pummel conservative talk radio.  With fines, or entirely out of
> existence.

> And now Lloyd works for the FCC.

> We have all been very nice and tolerant of these anti-American folks
> for so long now, telling ourselves that crazies are not in positions
> of power, the people would never go for this shiit, etc. etc.

> Now that they have gained power, we all have every excuse we ever need
> to speak up, tell it like it is and boot their asssses out.  I say
> full steam ahead Obamma, keep pouring it on.  Remember Pharoah???
> Same deal.

> On Aug 14, 3:54 pm, Media Jobs for Media Executives

> <tvst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.

> > Story Continues Below Ad ↓

> > "Localism" is a nebulous FCC regulatory requirement that radio
> > stations must meet to get and keep their broadcast licenses.  How it
> > is defined and enforced is wide open to the interpretation of whomever
> > is doing the enforcing.  It can mean something benign like airing
> > local public service announcements, or it can be used as a weapon by
> > activists to punish, harangue and ultimately shut down stations they
> > don't like.

> > 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.

> > Lloyd's instructions to Leftist activists are clear: use the FCC to
> > pummel conservative talk radio.  With fines, or entirely out of
> > existence.

> > And now Lloyd works for the FCC.

> On Aug 14, 4:04 pm, Casper <CasperB...@aol.com> wrote:

> > You know, Media, I am starting to think of these types of developments
> > as Good News.

> > We have all been very nice and tolerant of these anti-American folks
> > for so long now, telling ourselves that crazies are not in positions
> > of power, the people would never go for this shiit, etc. etc.

> > Now that they have gained power, we all have every excuse we ever need
> > to speak up, tell it like it is and boot their asssses out.  I say
> > full steam ahead Obamma, keep pouring it on.  Remember Pharoah???
> > Same deal.

> > On Aug 14, 3:54 pm, Media Jobs for Media Executives

> > <tvst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.

> > > Story Continues Below Ad ↓

> > > "Localism" is a nebulous FCC regulatory requirement that radio
> > > stations must meet to get and keep their broadcast licenses.  How it
> > > is defined and enforced is wide open to the interpretation of whomever
> > > is doing the enforcing.  It can mean something benign like airing
> > > local public service announcements, or it can be used as a weapon by
> > > activists to punish, harangue and ultimately shut down stations they
> > > don't like.

> > > 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.

> > > Lloyd's instructions to Leftist activists are clear: use the FCC to
> > > pummel conservative talk radio.  With fines, or entirely out of
> > > existence.

> > > And now Lloyd works for the FCC.

> 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.

> Story Continues Below Ad ↓

> "Localism" is a nebulous FCC regulatory requirement that radio
> stations must meet to get and keep their broadcast licenses.  How it
> is defined and enforced is wide open to the interpretation of whomever
> is doing the enforcing.  It can mean something benign like airing
> local public service announcements, or it can be used as a weapon by
> activists to punish, harangue and ultimately shut down stations they
> don't like.

> 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.

> Lloyd's instructions to Leftist activists are clear: use the FCC to
> pummel conservative talk radio.  With fines, or entirely out of
> existence.

> And now Lloyd works for the FCC.

> http://www.benton.org/node/4245