Time for Beck's Bad-Asses to Back Off of Mark Lloyd

We interrupt our normal discussions of broadband policy, mapping, copyright law, intellectual property and our other topics of interest for a special public service announcement:

Are you Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, one of the Facebookers who joined the Demand the TERMINATION of Communist Czars in our White House: Mark Lloyd campaign. Are you one of the #firemarklloyd Twitter brigade? If so, this message is for you. Your attacks on Mark Lloyd are groundless, i.e. at variance with actual facts. They are stupid. They are embarrassing. Knock it off. Thank you.

We understand the language may be a bit crude and direct, but in order to communicate properly, one must use the language the targets of the message understand and are familiar with.

Think of any number of cowboy movies (The Magnificent Seven) or even motorcycle gang movies, (The Wild One with Marlon Brando but without Brando's attempt at redemption) in which the ignorant, low-rent, know-nothing thugs bad guys ride into town and randomly wreak havoc on a generally peaceful populace for no good reason other than that they can. That's what's happening here.

Who are the leaders of this bad-ass pack? Beck and Savage are riding the lead bikes, with a horde of Twits behind them who are carrying out Beck's instructions to "FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN" (his capitals) on, among others, Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, the professor nominated to be the new head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy at the Office of Management and Budget, and Carol Browner, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency now working at the White House on climate change.

Some background is in order. Mark Lloyd is a distinguished member of the telecommunications community. He is a former journalist who turned to law and scholarly pursuits, casting a particularly skeptical eye on media concentration and its effects. He has been affiliated with any number of worthy organizations, most recently with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Center for American Progress.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on July 29 that Lloyd had been named associate general counsel and chief diversity officer. As a rule, it's not that big a deal to become an associate general counsel in an independent regulatory agency. It's a nice job with some potentially interesting work, but all things being equal, hardly the equivalent of, say, a presidential chief-of-staff, or even of an FCC commissioner. The FCC release said Lloyd, and others, "will collaborate on the policies and legal framework necessary to expand opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace." In other words, Lloyd and others will make sure that broadband policy, for example, leads to improvements for everyone - from rural areas and urban areas alike.

Under Beck's attack, however, Lloyd joined the elite ranks as a government "czar" who will lead the attack against the radio industry generally, and conservative radio specifically. My goodness. Lloyd would be the most powerful associate general counsel of the FCC in history if Beck were right. Alas, he is not, but that didn't stop Beck from claiming, "Radio is under attack" on his Aug. 14 program.

One of Lloyd's chief weapons, Beck said, was that Lloyd has advocated that private broadcasters would have to "pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs." Conservative radio, in particular, would have to pay a "crippling $250 million fine." That money would be used to fund "public broadcasters who are competitors of private broadcasters," Beck said, elaborating Lloyd would "force broadcasters to fund public broadcasters dollar for dollar" equal to the stations' "gross operating budget" each year in order to get a license. His guest for that segment, Sean Motley of the Media Research Center, agreed with Beck that radio couldn't survive under such circumstances, calling Lloyd "the enforcer" of evil concepts like "localism."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but none of this is in any way connected to reality. Lloyd is an advisory attorney who holds no decision-making authority. He is no czar, any more than any of the other "czars" targeted by Beck's Bad Boys are "czars." He has no enforcement responsibilities. His job is to look over policies to make sure that all parts of the country, urban, rural, or wherever, benefit from all FCC policies. If that's evil, make the most of it.

The canard about emptying out the treasuries of radio stations was spread by an Aug. 13 story from the Cybercast News Service (CNS), an affiliate of the Media Research Center, which employed Beck's "expert" guest, Sean Motley. The headline for the story in question story read: "FCC's Chief Diversity Officer Wants Private Broadcasters to Pay a Sum Equal to Their Total Operating Costs to Fund Public Broadcasting."

The story, by reporter Matt Cover, started with this:

Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press.

How can we say this politely? No, Messrs. Cover and Beck and the rest. Lloyd never proposed any such thing. Ever. Anywhere. At any time, and certainly not in that book. Was that simple enough for you?

Here's what Lloyd proposed. In a 2007 paper, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," Lloyd and six co-authors (none of whom has ascended to czar-ness) brought out the decades-old concept of having commercial radio support public radio if commercial radio didn't want to uphold its public interest responsibilities. The $250 million figure Beck mentioned came from that report, which estimated that such a fee would produce between $100 million and $250 million, of what would happen if commercial stations had to pay between 1 percent and 5 percent of their revenues into a fund to support public radio, which would then "support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."

Is $250 million a large number? Not small, but let's look at what it would buy. For one thing, Glenn Beck is on target to make $18 million a year, which includes a piece of his $50 million, five-year deal for his radio show alone. According to SNL Kagan, local TV and radio stations are expected to bill about $34 billion in sales this year.

Note the emphasis on local programming. Beck and his other radio cohorts are syndicated by big companies, like Beck's Premiere Networks, a Clear Channel subsidiary. They aren't local, so they might not like the idea that they could be replaced by home-grown talent.

Beck was only one of those piling on. Michael Savage called Lloyd "a piece of garbage," and said diversity was "a key word for KGB," the former Soviet Union's secret police, in a show broadcast the same day as Beck's. A few days before Beck's show, Fox News put up a story about Lloyd's supposed campaign against conservative radio stations. Even though Lloyd himself wrote an article titled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine," the same Motley who came on Beck's show said that Lloyd had a secret plan to bring back the Fairness Doctrine anyway.

Fox complained, "While he said he was not interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, he called for 'equal opportunity employment practices,' 'local engagement' and 'license challenges' to rectify the that perceived imbalance" in talk radio. The report Lloyd and others wrote found that 91 percent of talk radio was conservative. Granted, concepts such as "fairness" and "equality" and "localism" are anathema to conservatives. (On the other hand, if radio were 91% progressive, it's hard to believe Beck wouldn't be screaming about the lack of "fairness.") But they aren't anathema to progressives (or, as Savage called progressives, "communists"), who believe in the bedrock of local broadcasting, equality in opportunity and fairness. Note: "play fair" was the second item on the list, "All I Really Wanted To Know I Learned in Kindergarten," by Robert Fulghum. I guess Savage, Beck and the rest missed class that day.

As much as we want to defend Mark Lloyd, the larger picture is that he's simply a larger pawn in a bigger, mismatched game. Beck and his posse are pros at attack politics. This Administration, sadly, is not. Here's the account of the FCC's response to Fox's inquiry (and we give them credit for asking for it): "In a statement, the commission said: 'The FCC agenda does not include reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine or in any way censoring speech based on political views and opinions. ... The FCC's interest in promoting diversity goes back to core principles underlying the First Amendment. Our nation benefits from a vibrant marketplace of ideas representing different points of view. [Lloyd] will help ensure that the communications field is competitive and generates widespread opportunities."

Considering the ferocity of the attacks, that's not much. But at least, so far, Lloyd still has his job. That's more than can be said for Van Jones, the green-jobs adviser who was Beck's first victim, and Yosi Sargant , a communications officer for the National Endowment for the Arts who got tossed overboard when the right wing came after him.

The Administration can't solely depend on outsiders like Think Progress and documentarian Sue Wilson to defend Lloyd. They have to learn that human sacrifice is a no-no. When they defend someone, they should do it with vigor and intensity and in person, while realizing that the attacker calling for scalps is someone who famously called President Obama "a racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred of white people" and as a result has now lost close to 60 advertisers for his show on Fox (even if those companies still advertise elsewhere on Fox.)

Mark Lloyd is a target and a pawn in a larger game. We can only hope he doesn't become a victim as well.

Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky

Comments

[PhiloSophia555]

this article is in poor taste. be more professional. no one wants to read an article from someone who's throwing a literary tantrum. acting worse than the people you are supposed to be lecturing teaches nothing. it just makes you look bad.

[Geosota]

Art - I enjoy your blog but am not with you on Mark Lloyd. Have you seen the vid where he praises Hugo Chavez's media policy?? You must know that the Chavez policy is to shut down any newspaper, radio or television station he does not like. This is not diversity. You may not like Glenn Beck. He is a bit hard to watch, but I do because I value diversity in my info-feed. He was the guy who put up the vid of Lloyd saying he seeks to impose a Chavez-like suppression of journalism. How about if it decided that you should not be allowed?

[imfedup]

Link, please?

[quadman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYJRtKHthk

[anniecanuck]

Way to follow the money!
It almost always tells the truth.
I used to watch Beck for entertainment.
I simply couldn't believe he was allowed on the air--sort of like Ernest Ainsley (sp?), one of the earlier "you are healed" preachers. I hear the old Soviet Union used to allow these televangelists on Russian TV because they fed their political goals. But they didn't seem to be a general threat to the more reasonable media conversation at the time, if I'm remembering well.
What happened? Was this all part of Reagan's deregulation policy??

[epcraig]

Talk to Rupert Murdoch, that is who pays for Beck, after all.
Boycott Fox, not just Beck.

[swlewis57]

I have worked in broadcast television on news floor crews and as a master control operator since 1981 in mid-sized markets. There isn't really much "local" left in local broadcast stations.

Over the years,many local television and, especially, radio stations have been bought out by big media companies. For example, here in OKC, you will find 5 or 6 radio stations in one building owned by the same company. When this consolidation happens several things take place.

First, sales staffs, office personel, and technical staff are moved from their stand-alone studios to a building with the other stations. In TV, only 2 stations can be in the same building. So there is an immediate loss of local tax revenues from the separate buildings, and available commercial space is increased with the problem that the sites often have to have a major rehab.

Second, jobs are slashed in those consolidated stations because sales staffs can sell for all the stations. Office staff and upper management jobs are reduced. The technical jobs are gone as well because one operator can monitor and set up multiple stations.

Last, and most important, local news is slowly becoming non existant. In radio, that is especially true. National news services often replace local news departments because they are cheaper.

What this comes down to is the slow death of local coverage of events, news, and weather with the news and opinion becoming narrower and narrower in its political range.

[JBoy]

You just described economic efficiency. Nothing wrong with smart business decisions.

I've listened to talk radio pretty consistently for over 20 years, and in my market their appears to be more local programming than in the past.

[eddiefi]

Here is something for serious thought. Do Hannity, Coulter, Oreilly, etc etc really believe in all the garbage they say or have they just found a money making market that is making them wealthy beyond dreams and they just try to be as controversial as they can to keep that market going. I mean these people can't really believe all of this can they?

[chazmanr]

I am not sure that they believe every lie they spew, but they knew that there lies are catnip for their audiences. They tell their listeners what will keep them listening. The people who listen to them are not the brightest bulbs in the box and/or have no capacity for the intellectual curiousity to fact check. These are people who don't trust the government. So anyone who gives them a reason to not trust the government must be telling them the truth.

"Here's a scary thought. Think about how dumb the average person you meet in a day is and then realise that 50% are even dumber."
-George Carlin

[imfedup]

Thanks. Great Carlin line.

[JBoy]

Of course they believe what they're talking about because they're passionate about it.

...and they have many valid points.

[henrypapillon]

I could be arrested if I said what i think about Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and a few others on FOX NEWS.

[chaztmac]

The sad irony is that these seditionists will hide behind the 1st amendment as though they are practitioners of responsible journalism.

[RalphQ]

On the subject of how Mr. Lloyd proposed public broadcasting be funded by private broadcasters, Mr. Brodsky says:

"Lloyd never proposed any such thing. Ever. Anywhere. At any time, and certainly not in that book. Was that simple enough for you?"

It's simple enough; it's just that, with all due respect, it's not true enough. Here is just such a thing from "that book," Lloyd's _Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America_, page 278:

"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. This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters."

And a paragraph later:

"Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served."

Admittedly the ratio of public to private stations would have to approach 1:1 for such fees to equal operating costs, but the claim is close enough for government work, especially with those "clear preferences" for public stations possibly funded at levels "above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded."

[chazmanr]

If this is what was really said by Lloyd, then Beck would appear to be close to the truth. But he is not being truthful as to why he opposes it. He would then be opposing it, because he will be hit directly in the wallet. If the fee is based on operating costs, salaries would certainly by a large percentage of his station's operating costs. How do businesses reduce operating costs? By cutting their labor costs. Would Glenn Beck have the same impact with an Indian or Chinese accent?

[chazmanr]

I left out a critical part of my above point (that should be inferred regardless-but this is for those incapable of logical thought-trolls). Radio station owners would clearly want to reduce the fees that they would have to pay. In order to accomplish that end, they would try to reduce their operating costs to reduce their fees. To reduce operating costs, they will cut labor costs first because it is easy.

[Cyndy Keith]

How can you actually believe that any of this happened because of Glenn Beck? He is just a pathetic loser who is trying to climb up in the world, by stirring sht. The more you stir, the worse the smell. These people (Van Jones, Sargant) are doing what is best to keep a clean government, even though they hadn't done anything wrong. They are true patriots. Glenn Beck and the like had no real part in this, he is simply claiming credit for an achievement that doesn't belong to him.

[JScott]

So,......where are the equivalent out to get Beck Savage et al....I mean really all their crap is already out there I guess the best they could do is let everyone know their private home addresses..

[OdaNobunaga]

The difference is that Beck, Savage, et. al. have no shame, whereas the decent people that Beck is out to get, do.