barry is "backdooring" Talk Radio...

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
I know Diva post on this topic a bit ago, but it is heating up now.....Rush will be on TV with Glenn Beck tonight at 5:00 pm to talk about this....

Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC 'Diversity' Chief Calls for ‘Confrontational Movement’ to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
By Matt Cover
CNSNews.com - Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC 'Diversity' Chief Calls for ?Confrontational Movement? to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications


(CNSNews.com) – Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.

Lloyd expressed his regulatory call to arms in his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” (University of Illinois Press).

In the book, Lloyd also said that public broadcasting should be funded through new license fees charged to the nation’s private radio and television broadcasters, and that new regulatory fees should be used to fund eight new regional FCC offices.

These offices would be responsible for monitoring political advertising and commentary, children’s educational programs, number of commercials, and content ratings of the programs.

Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.

“Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” Lloyd wrote. “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats’ refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”

Lloyd claimed that neither technology nor liberal reforms have been able to overcome the damage caused when government fails to give everyone an equal voice.

Throughout history, Lloyd said, “[t]he most powerful communications tool was deliberately placed in the hands of one faction in our republic: commercial industry.”

“Neither Progressive era reforms nor new communications technologies have been able to correct the problems resulting from government abdication of a responsibility to advance the equal capability of citizen discourse,” Lloyd added.

“Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality,” he wrote.

Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.

“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”




FCC seal
Lessons for Radicals

Lloyd relies heavily on the left-wing radical Saul Alinsky in explaining his strategy.

Alinsky (1909-1972) was a community organizer and activist from Chicago and the author of the book, Rules for Radicals, which opens with an acknowledgment "to the very first radical ... Lucifer." As for political tactics, Alinsky said, “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. This means revolution."

With Alinsky as the political guide, Lloyd outlines nine “lessons” that people can draw on when trying to combat international businesses.

1. “Organizing people must be a priority. In order to counter effectively the power of major corporations we understood that we had to be able to demonstrate the support of hundreds of thousands of people. As Alinksy wrote: ‘Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together.’”

2. “Understand where people stand on your issue. Once we were clear that we needed to drum up the support of people, we needed to understand what people knew about our issues. As Alinksy wrote, ‘if people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, then they do not think about it.’”

3. “Connect with groups that have already organized the community. Our means of reaching local communities was through existing national organizations. We reached out to groups that had large constituencies and articulated our message by identifying how our goals fit their core interests.”

4. “The strategy must have an inside and an outside game. For media reform, this means we needed to embrace the necessity of operating both in and outside Washington [D.C.].”

5. “Don’t wait for events to unfold on their own. Pressure, pressure, pressure. If we wanted events to work in a direction that would benefit us, we knew we needed to push. We needed to apply pressure and to direct that pressure not at the government, but through the government at our true opposition – the broadcasters. Alinsky again: ‘The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.’”

6. “Communications is a priority. Again drawing from Alinksy, we understood that ‘one can lack any of the qualities of an organizer – with one exception – and still be effective. That exception is the art of communication.’ It is not just a matter of getting media to cover your campaign. That is, undoubtedly, a part of it, but it is also about getting the sort of attention you want, so the public and your opposition see you and your issues the way you want to be seen.”

7. “Research is key. We took not only message and public opinion research seriously, we took seriously our obligation to research the activity of our opposition. Our research entailed not only public opinion polling, but academic papers presenting economic and social analysis, legal research…and grassroots research involving the inspections of dozens of televisions station’s public files.”

8. “Establish a broad base of funding and never stop raising money. Alinksy is right that people are a source of power, but without adequate funds organizing people effectively cannot be accomplished.”

9. “Find allies in power. If civil rights leaders such as King had the Kennedys and Johnson, and the anti-Bork campaign had Ted Kennedy, our main ally was [FCC Chairman] Bill Kennard.”

The solution

To combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, Lloyd calls for a “confrontational movement” to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in.

“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”

To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an oppenent, the commercial broadcasters ...."

"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance."

Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details:

1. “End the federal subsidy of commercial media, particularly cable and broadcast television. Broadcasters should pay for the great privileges of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned [radio or television] spectrum.”

2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.

“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. … Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.

3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.

“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”

4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”

5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”

6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”

For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Far more was done during the Bush administration to keep free speech from the airwaves, causing huge growth in other outlets such as satellite radio, podcasts, etc. By the way, on this deal, they want to harness all commentative broadcasting. Everyone, not just the right wing psycho babblers...
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
oh yea, they want to control content all the way across the spectrum, forcing local content over national and limiting ownership..and GIVING minorities loans to buy radio stations that the fcc takes over.......

As force the bush deal, i can agree to an extent, but not to a arge degree, the biggest issue with the fcc then was the merger of the satelite radio companies...xm sirus, and the stepping on regular radio....in no way did they try to control content or limit what was heard.....and those 2 things are exactly waht barry wants to do.....
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Letzrock,
I have to tell you that yo are partially right but it wasn't just Bush but also Clinton with his permitting of the rules changes that allowed multiple station ownership by single entities. This does go back to Reagan but it was Clinton where real BIG growth happen in the media sector.

To correct this, there should be an effort to break up the monopoly among broadcast outlets and the elimination of PBS and CPB. The large companies control content of news stories (GE ring a bell?), they control content of shows and PBS/CPB bring nothing but baised reporting to the american public without any return to us in quality. PBS/CPB had its purpose when there were three networks and independent stations but with cable and sat, there is no need for it anymore.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Letzrock,
I have to tell you that yo are partially right but it wasn't just Bush but also Clinton with his permitting of the rules changes that allowed multiple station ownership by single entities. This does go back to Reagan but it was Clinton where real BIG growth happen in the media sector.

To correct this, there should be an effort to break up the monopoly among broadcast outlets and the elimination of PBS and CPB. The large companies control content of news stories (GE ring a bell?), they control content of shows and PBS/CPB bring nothing but baised reporting to the american public without any return to us in quality. PBS/CPB had its purpose when there were three networks and independent stations but with cable and sat, there is no need for it anymore.

10/4 there good buddy.....Monopolies in broadcasting really took off under Clinton, though the ball got rolling before that. I disagree on your PBS assessment though. It still provides an outlet for specific programming that could never turn a profit on free air or pay TV.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
10/4 there good buddy.....Monopolies in broadcasting really took off under Clinton, though the ball got rolling before that.

Yea Reagan did a lot but Carter started to deregulate the FCC in '80. I don't like what we have today, it is a mess and it is not all ratings driven as in the past. The feds allow too much control and latitude with multiple station ownership but slam smaller station owners.

I disagree on your PBS assessment though. It still provides an outlet for specific programming that could never turn a profit on free air or pay TV.

Well the problem is that is all good and well but to become something of a useful show for all, it has to be more than a .023% aggrigate share in prime-time in a major market with two PBS channels. Most of what PBS is doing can be and should be done somewhere else, with exceptions of Ken Burns who had two good shows that would have been great for commerical broadcasting but I know the story so PBS was a good place.

More or less the people who have shows like Sesame Street and the spin offs could pretty much take that franchise to say Nickelodeon or some other high viewer outlet and made a very good go of it. Bill Moyer and a few others, there is no reason why they should be subsidized and have multimillion dollar contracts with tax money.

but nevertheless it really comes down to the same issue, Art and who says it is art. PBS allows people to be creative to a small audeince and this is like the NEA, giving people access that only allow them to reach a very small segment of the population where there is already access to things equal to what the people are offering but more controlled.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
I have had the opportunity today to investigate some of what is being proposed by this administration for the FCC. Some of you doomsdayers might want to read this assessment that is based on facts, not some ridiculous spin. The gist of the whole thing is Equal Time. Is that such a bad thing? Giving the opposition a chance to rebutt content with their own content so that the listener or viewer can make up their own mind?
Oh, wait a minute, I forgot who I'm talking to...


Return of the (Un)Fairness Doctrine: The Media Ownership Reform Act - TechKnowledge Newsletter
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
I have had the opportunity today to investigate some of what is being proposed by this administration for the FCC. Some of you doomsdayers might want to read this assessment that is based on facts, not some ridiculous spin. The gist of the whole thing is Equal Time. Is that such a bad thing? Giving the opposition a chance to rebutt content with their own content so that the listener or viewer can make up their own mind?
Oh, wait a minute, I forgot who I'm talking to...


Return of the (Un)Fairness Doctrine: The Media Ownership Reform Act - TechKnowledge Newsletter

Is it really equal time, or the message? If we want "equal", then a few might be disappointed.
Why? The left/liberals have NBC, ABC, and CBS. The right/conservatives have FOX. So are you saying the right needs two more large networks to be "equal" with the left?
Of course, for a fair and balanced message to the public.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Is it really equal time, or the message? If we want "equal", then a few might be disappointed.
Why? The left/liberals have NBC, ABC, and CBS. The right/conservatives have FOX. So are you saying the right needs two more large networks to be "equal" with the left?
Of course, for a fair and balanced message to the public.

I'm not really saying anything. I think that they think they can get the truth out to more people by having both sides presented to all audiences...
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
I'm not really saying anything. I think that they think they can get the truth out to more people by having both sides presented to all audiences...

Possibly. But that was tested with Air America attempting to go after Rush Limbaugh. Didn't work. Money will flow to where the audience is. Having a channel whether tv or radio to broadcast another point a view aleady exists. The left or liberals just don't like the results they are getting so they are trying to restrict the message that they can't overcome. Reseach of communism will show that same tactic under another name.
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
Possibly. But that was tested with Air America attempting to go after Rush Limbaugh. Didn't work. Money will flow to where the audience is. Having a channel whether tv or radio to broadcast another point a view already exists. The left or liberals just don't like the results they are getting so they are trying to restrict the message that they can't overcome. Reseach of communism will show that same tactic under another name.

i don't mean to make a mooch post but this is exactly how i see it the left has failed commercially ,who would have called that one,and so to squelch possible opposing views they filibuster the airways claiming to do it in fairness

It's getting to the point that any word the socialist left uses what they really mean is the antonym
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
davekc wrote:

Possibly. But that was tested with Air America attempting to go after Rush Limbaugh. Didn't work. Money will flow to where the audience is. Having a channel whether tv or radio to broadcast another point a view aleady exists. The left or liberals just don't like the results they are getting so they are trying to restrict the message that they can't overcome. Reseach of communism will show that same tactic under another name.

Exactly...

There are a few left leaning show, Alan Colmes comes to mind as he left Hannity and colmes to go out on his own...i couldn't sell his show , he had to buy his own air time on satelite to get on the air...while he has since picked up sponsor dollars.. he is still offsetting the lack of dollars to pay for airtime.....sporsor money goes where the listeners are, its that simple..

Randi rhoades is part of Clear channel, you don't get much more left then her....yea there are more conservative talk on the radio, but that is simply market conditions at work, the people listen to them, they have proven they don't to the liberal stuff. Air America went BK once and still can't draw the sponsor dollars they need...

If this paaes, you watch how big the loss of national shows becomes..and the left leaning will be 1st, because tey don't have the listeners...then when the companies are forced to change formats to equsl time...and "localization" you will see fcc taking licnces and selling them to minorities with funds loaded to them by the gov.....

This is about shutting down the conservative noise and what barrys plan for all industries....sharing the wealth equally, after stealing it from those that have and makng sure those that don't have get some....this issue as more then a few socialist ideals behind it......
 

pelicn

Veteran Expediter
Possibly. But that was tested with Air America attempting to go after Rush Limbaugh. Didn't work. Money will flow to where the audience is. Having a channel whether tv or radio to broadcast another point a view aleady exists. The left or liberals just don't like the results they are getting so they are trying to restrict the message that they can't overcome. Reseach of communism will show that same tactic under another name.

Thank you Dave!
We do NOT need more government control on ANY issue.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Far more was done during the Bush administration to keep free speech from the airwaves, causing huge growth in other outlets such as satellite radio, podcasts, etc. By the way, on this deal, they want to harness all commentative broadcasting. Everyone, not just the right wing psycho babblers...

Yeah right.:rolleyes: Harness the left wing talk? Hardly. They want to expand PBR. I guess they think those stations are "balanced" too.;)
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I think everyone is forgetting one important factor that is involved with this and any equal time.

As pointed out, ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC are all on the left with Fox in the middle. OK that's all good and well but they are news outlets, not talk shows. Because they are official journalistic outlets, even though they do operate on opinion, they are exempt under any and all proposed regulations.

These regulations are targeted one specific segment of the entertainment world, to ensure they are controlled. It is not cut and dry where you can research it to make a determination of the limitations but rather like other things, it is a door opener where they can make their own rules and judge the station and show based on their interpretations.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
I think everyone is forgetting one important factor that is involved with this and any equal time.

As pointed out, ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC are all on the left with Fox in the middle. OK that's all good and well but they are news outlets, not talk shows. Because they are official journalistic outlets, even though they do operate on opinion, they are exempt under any and all proposed regulations.

These regulations are targeted one specific segment of the entertainment world, to ensure they are controlled. It is not cut and dry where you can research it to make a determination of the limitations but rather like other things, it is a door opener where they can make their own rules and judge the station and show based on their interpretations.

This is a very good point. News outlets are news outlets and entertainment is entertainment. The problem is there is whole generation of people coming up, ( and another whole segment of the population that has been here) who get what they believe is "news" from places like Hannity or Rush, or on the other side, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. These people are walking around only knowing one slant. Is that any better than trying to create Equal Time? Years ago there were many news outlets, more than 30. Today there are I think something like 4 or 5. That is more dangerous IMHO than any attempt to balance what information gets out there...
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
This is a very good point. News outlets are news outlets and entertainment is entertainment. The problem is there is whole generation of people coming up, ( and another whole segment of the population that has been here) who get what they believe is "news" from places like Hannity or Rush, or on the other side, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. These people are walking around only knowing one slant. Is that any better than trying to create Equal Time? Years ago there were many news outlets, more than 30. Today there are I think something like 4 or 5. That is more dangerous IMHO than any attempt to balance what information gets out there...

Amen to that!!!
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
The problem is there is whole generation of people coming up, ( and another whole segment of the population that has been here) who get what they believe is "news" from places like Hannity or Rush, or on the other side, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.

So true and so scary. How anyone can dispute that is beyond me, but I'm sure someone here will.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
This is a very good point. News outlets are news outlets and entertainment is entertainment. The problem is there is whole generation of people coming up, ( and another whole segment of the population that has been here) who get what they believe is "news" from places like Hannity or Rush, or on the other side, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. These people are walking around only knowing one slant.

I agree but this has been an ongoing problem since Radio became a mainstream source of the news. If you remember the name of Walter Winchell, you will remember that he wasn't a journalist, he became a de facto journalist due to his fame and format of his program. He was in a very realistic way an entertainer and news analyst but beyond that nothing like Murrow, Shirer or even Ed Sullivan for that matter. But Whinchell was like others, even Jack Benny and Bob Hope, or better yet Fred Allen.

We can take this a step further and consider SNL and all of the other psuedo news shows to be nothing more than eqaul entertainment as is Rush, Hannity, Beck, Rhodes and so on. There is a strong attitude among the viewers of these shows that this is really news and any fairness or eqaul time regulations have to apply to these shows too if it does apply to Rush, Hannity, Beck, Rhodes and so on.

See it matter that people learn the difference, and I was brought up to know what is entertainment and what isn't.

Is that any better than trying to create Equal Time? Years ago there were many news outlets, more than 30. Today there are I think something like 4 or 5. That is more dangerous IMHO than any attempt to balance what information gets out there...

I think it is the opposite, there are far more news outlets now then there was. Most of the news organizations outside of local papers in say 1980 was no more than a dozen at best and things were slow. News had time to be cultivated, the errors were less and the need to be informed on trivial matters were not nearly as important as they are today.
 
Top