Posted on 08/18/2009 3:18:42 AM PDT by Man50D
In a letter sent last week to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Sen. Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) said he is concerned that the FCC new "diversity" director, Mark Lloyd, may seek to regulate talk radio through the "back door."
Grassley, who expressed his concerns in a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Friday, said he was concerned that the new diversity chief would implement a back-door return of the much-maligned “Fairness Doctrine,” which had mandated that broadcasters devote equal airtime to both sides of controversial issues, a move which would spell the end of opinionated talk radio.
“Taken together, these statements represent a view that the FCC needs to expand its regulatory arm further into the commercial radio market,” Grassley wrote. “I am concerned that despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means.”
Grassley said that he “strongly disagreed” that government needed to regulate radio any further, saying that greater government involvement would not provide for a greater diversity of views on the airwaves.
“Simply put, I strongly disagree with Mr. Lloyd,” said Grassley. “I do not believe that more regulation, more taxes or fines, or increased government intervention in the commercial radio market will serve the public interest or further the goals of diversifying the marketplace.”
Grassley’s concerns arise from an paper Lloyd co-authored for the liberal Center for American Progress entitled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”
In this paper, Lloyd and his fellow co-authors laid out what they say are the “structural problems” of the nation’s radio regulatory system that they believed explain the success of conservative talk radio. The authors believed these problems should remedied by increased government involvement.
“Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system,” the report said, “particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management.”
Lloyd and his co-authors rejected the idea that the Fairness Doctrine alone could solve these problems, arguing that the Doctrine must be part of a more sweeping regulatory effort aimed at curbing the influence of today’s political talkers.
“[T]he Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure fair discussion of important issues,” the report stated.
“The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders [about whether a station’s license should be renewed],” it added.
The report recommended that the government implement ownership caps, limit license terms, allow local interest groups to lobby against a broadcaster, and fine those station owners who “fail” to meet these requirements, with the funds going to support their public broadcasting competitors.
“[A]ny effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs,” the authors wrote.
“We suggest three ways to accomplish this: Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations,” the report read. “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.”
Lloyd explained these requirements in a companion piece he wrote for CAP’s Web site entitled, “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.” There, Lloyd summed up his approach to regulating talk radio.
“Equal opportunity employment policies. Local engagement. License challenges,” he wrote. Explaining the fees broadcasters might face, he wrote that “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 [new] license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.”
During his Senate confirmation hearings, Genachowski rejected the idea that the FCC should be policing political speech.
“I don’t think the FCC should be involved in censorship of content based on political speech or opinion,” he told the Senate Commerce Committee.
Grassley told CNSNews.com that he wants Genachowski to keep his word and refrain from implementing Lloyd’s ideas.
“I took the new Chairman at his word when he told me prior to his Senate confirmation that he wouldn’t support any effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” the senator said. “Mr. Lloyd’s writings imply that the FCC can use power it already has to implement the goals of the Fairness Doctrine without actually reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.”
“These writings and the appointment of Mr. Lloyd to Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC could contradict the assurance I got from Chairman Genachowski,” said Grassley. “I expect Chairman Genachowski to keep his word and affirmatively state on the record that he’ll oppose the Fairness Doctrine, or any other regulatory efforts that could achieve the goals of the Fairness Doctrine.”
Calls to the FCC for comment were not returned before this story went to press.
you’re=your
Lawyers are responsible for the entire mess of America (retreat from the War on Terror,
retreat from space, retreat from Democracy, retreat from the greatest health system ever known,
retreat from safety of America, retreat from logic, retreat from the US Constitution.
Lawyers designed the "health" program (the'pyramid of food') that led to American obesity.
Lawyers work to make Americans sick, weak, defeated, and vulnerable.
Lawyers make sure no one will never see the Pres_ _ent's BC.
Lawyers make certain white voters will henceforth be physically beaten in all further US elections.
Yes, lawyers are here to give Islam the complete destruction of America, its law, its freedom, and its people.
“Top Senate Republican Fears FCC’s ‘Diversity’ Chief May Use ‘Back Door’ to Regulate Talk Radio”
Don’t fear him. Attack the commies in the executive. And educate your constituents that bureaucrats writing law is both illegal and unconstitutional. Only the elected congress can write law. Period. I’m getting real tired of the “stupid” party.
Sen Grassley has been one of the most honest and open representatives that I’ve seen on the ‘news’ concerning HCare.
He appeared to listen and be in agreement with personal freedom.
I hope that he won’t have to take on too much if our rights are also intruded upon concerning our publicly owned airwaves.
(and I DONT mean PBS - let Big Bird pay his own way)
What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean??
a good start
Whats the difference between running over a rattlesnake and a lawyer?
you don’t back up to make sure you killed the snake.
Grasssley has been nothing but a stinking RINO that never did find a farm bill (i.e. hjandout) that was tooooooooo large. Oh .. and then after evrything is done and over he does his little RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION act.
“I took the new Chairman at his word when he told me prior to his Senate confirmation that he wouldn’t support any effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” the senator said. “Mr. Lloyd’s writings imply that the FCC can use power it already has to implement the goals of the Fairness Doctrine without actually reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.”
Will thiese Bozos ever learn??? Essence of another wonderful Senator RINO ...Trent Lott.
Get rid of them, now.
How in the hell is something called the diversity anything in government not blatently unconstitutional?
Argh. To be benevolent dictator for a day so I could dismantle the whole thing.
Where is the ACLU to defend First Amendment rights?
Oh, wait. They only defend the right to ridicule and spew obscenities and hatred against Christians, Western Civilization, and White People.
In the ACLU’s world, the rights of anybody to disagree with the Leftist juggernaut are not covered by the First Amendment.
I understand that the point is about free speech, and out of having a rather wide libertarian stripe, I think the FCC should just be abolished in order to guarantee it.
I listen to Glenn, Rush, and others over the internet anyway. Let the Libs have the outdated stuff if they really want it. That will just guarantee that the days of talk over the air waves are certainly numbered. Conservatives will have moved to the net and radio will be obsolete because its been proven that the market doesn’t support liberal spew. I just love capitalism at its best.
One more vote on the Supreme Court and the Dems can do anything they want to Talk Radio. They don’t have that vote yet but it seems inevitable that they will one day. When Kennedy (the current swing vote) or Thomas or Scalia retire we are looking to be in a world of hurt if the Republicans don’t control the Senate and the Presidency. And we are a long way from that right now.
“Multiple Structural Problems”????? Yea, like there aren’t any “Progressive” radio hosts anyone wants to listen to and if you want “Liberal/Marxist” you can listen to Pacifica and get the Chavez version of reality. What a crock.
The BACK DOOR is the busiest door in this Totalitatian administration . Who needs congress , who needs public opinion ,,,,, certianly not the bamster .
I would imagine (hope) that Rush, Glenn, Sean, et al have an internet (or other) strategy should the radio airwaves be restricted. Killing talk radio would only kill radio stations. How many soft rock, salsa, etc. outlets can you have?
These a*shats will use any door, window, or toilet bowl entry to get rid of talk radio. No need for questions. To quote Nancy Reagan, “Just saY ‘NO!’”.
This clown may just be the tipping point.
Let him try.
Someone could create a browser add-on for talk radio
Obama and company would just make a second revolution possible in other words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.