Sep 23 Mark Lloyd's Tall Tales

In her Washington Times article, Amanda Carpenter highlights FCC Diversity czar Mark Lloyd's provocative statement about Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's rise to power. Here's what Lloyd is quoted as saying:

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled, worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government, worked to oust him," Mr. Lloyd said. "But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country."

Lloyd must know this is trouble because he issued this statement through the FCC:

"The point I was trying to make was that there was dramatic social change in places like Rwanda and Venezuela and that media played an important part in that. I am not a Chavez supporter. I do not support any political leader other than the president of the United States. I do believe all Americans would benefit from more opportunities to participate in media and that the answer to ugly speech is not censorship, but more speech."

That's a perfectly nice-sounding statement. It also has nothing in common with other things he's said, especially this:

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. 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.

"The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

Forgive me for playing the cynic but that last clip doesn't sound like a fierce advocate of the First Amendment. It's insulting that Mr. Lloyd would expect us to believe the official statement when his pro-censorship quote is captured on a YouTube video.

You can't say that "the answer to ugly speech is not censorship, but more speech" in one statement, then say that the First Amendment "is all too often an exaggeration" another time, then expect to maintain any credibility whatsoever because cnesorship has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

For Mr. Lloyd's edification, the First Amendment is the cornerstone of our Constitution; it isn't an exaggeration in any sense of the word. Those of us who live in flyover country cling to our First Amendment rights as tightly as we cling to our guns and our religion.

John Halpin, a senior fellow at the center who was the lead author on the study he wrote with Mr. Lloyd, said in a statement to the Washington Times, "Part of the FCC mandate is to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media. ...

"When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative, despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows in key cities, the market has clearly failed to meet audience demand. Our goal has always been clear: We want more free speech and diversity of views in the media, not less."

It isn't the FCC's responsibility to level what it perceives as an unlevel playing field. In my opinion, the reason why there's such an imbalance is because conservative talk show hosts produce a better product than do liberal talk show hosts. It appears as though that's what most of America thinks, too.

The moral of that story is simple: MARKETS WORK!!!

To accept the diversity argument, you'd have to accept as fact that it's more important that liberals' First Amendment rights are protected than it is to protect conservatives' First Amendment rights. I'd love hearing the FCC argue that before the Supreme Court. Good luck getting that past the Roberts Court.

Mr. Lloyd's opposing statements signifies that he isn't a man of integrity. They indicate that he'll say anything to anyone to keep controversy away from his doorstep.

That isn't the type of man that I want protecting my First Amendment rights. In fact, Mr. Lloyd's statement tells me that he should resign ASAP.

Comments welcome at LFR.