Ownership report

[Tom Taggart]

If you've been following this, you will already know that the ownership report is now due by December 15.

What you may not realize is the depth of information required by the FCC.

All directors and officers of corporations holding a broadcast license must now obtain an "FRN" (requiring submission of SS# to the FCC)
In addition, anyone with more than 5% interest in the company must also obtain an FRN. An FRN is required for all these individuals in order to file the ownership report.

Stations owned by individuals must now file a new ownership report, of course, they already have their individual FRN as the station owner. Partnerships have a separate FRN, each owner of the partnership must now obtain an FRN to file with the report.

I'll leave to others to guess why the Commission wants all this information. You might want to Google "Mark Lloyd."

Non-coms don't have to file yet, the Commission hasn't figured out what they want yet.

[contracteng]

Her is a hint. Mark Lloyd, who is now the FCC’s “chief diversity officer

[Hoosier Daddy]

Mark Lloyd ... Googled:

FACT CHECK: The Right-Wing Smear Campaign Against Mark Lloyd


Since the FCC appointed Mark Lloyd as the agency’s Chief Diversity Officer/Associate General Counsel on July 29, conservatives have made him their new target in the ongoing campaign to baselessly warn about the reemergence of the Fairness Doctrine.

The most absurd attacks have come from pundits like right-wing radio host Michael Savage, who has called Lloyd a “neo-Nazi” and “piece of garbage” intent on closing down “conservatives in the media.” He said that Lloyd’s title — Chief Diversity Officer — is “code word for the KGB.” For the record, Lloyd has a distinguished career on communications policy issues. Most recently he was a vice president at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He taught communications policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, served as general counsel to the Benton Foundation, worked as a communications attorney at a major D.C. law firm, and has nearly 20 years of experience in journalism.

The right wing’s main problem with Lloyd is a CAP/Free Press report he co-authored in 2007 called “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” The report’s authors explicitly state that they do not think the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated, and Lloyd has since said that he has “no plans or interest” to resurrect the law. Nevertheless, conservatives are insisting that that goal is really Lloyd’s secret plan.

Unfortunately, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has agreed to do the far right’s bidding. Last week, he wrote a letter to the FCC objecting to Lloyd’s appointment:

Simply put, I strongly disagree with Mr. Lloyd. 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. 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.

These claims by Grassley and the right wing are misguided and based on a fundamental misreading — that may be either accidental or deliberate — of the report. A look at some of these myths:

– MYTH #1: Conservative voices will be kicked off the air. The report actually argues that telling radio broadcasters what to put on the air is inappropriate. What the report advocates for are policies that promote local programming, so what’s on the air is responsive to those communities and their advertisers, as opposed to national syndicators and large station group business models. Right now, the regulatory structure pushes out locally-owned, minority-owned, and female-owned stations. Grassley’s fear of “diversifying the marketplace” will not necessarily create more progressive talk radio; it may even get more conservative. It all depends on the on the location and interests of the community.

– MYTH #2: Lloyd wants to impose more taxes and fines on broadcasters. Grassley’s conception of taxes and fines is convoluted and out of context. The report argues that if broadcast stations don’t want to do local programming, they can pay a fine and get out of doing it. That money would go to the local public radio station for local programming.

– MYTH #3: Progressives secretly want a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Even Grassley admits that Lloyd never advocates a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Why? As Lloyd has explained, the Fairness Doctrine “never by itself fostered coverage of important issues in a way that spoke to the diversity of interests in local communities across our country. In the late 1960’s, the supposed golden age of the Fairness Doctrine, the Kerner Commission reported the failure of mainstream media to report on minority communities.”

Approximately 91 percent of weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and just nine percent is progressive. However, “43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate.” Much of this imbalance was created in the wave of consolidation after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which “removed the national limit on the number of radio stations that one could own.” What progressives like Lloyd are advocating is not more liberalism, but more localism.

and

Biography

Mark Lloyd has joined the Federal Communications Commission in the newly created post of Associate General Counsel/Chief Diversity Officer.

Previously, he served as Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, where he provided strategic guidance for the organization's media and telecommunications work. Prior to joining LCCR, he was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress focusing on communications policy issues, including universal service, advanced telecommunications deployment, media concentration and diversity.

From the fall of 2002 until the summer of 2004, Mr. Lloyd was a Martin Luther King, Jr. visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught communications policy and wrote and conducted research on the relationship between communications policy and strong democratic communities. He also served as the executive director of the Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan project he co-founded in 1997 to bring civil rights principles and advocacy to the communications policy debate.

Previously, Mr. Lloyd worked as general counsel to the Benton Foundation, and as a communications attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson in Washington, D.C. representing both commercial and non-commercial companies. He also has nearly 20 years of experience as a print and broadcast journalist, including work as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN, and is the recipient of several awards including an Emmy and a Cine Golden Eagle. He has served on the boards of directors of dozens of national and local organizations, including the Independent Television Service, OMB Watch, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. He has also served as a consultant to the Clinton White House, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Institute and the Smithsonian Institution. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and his law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center.

Wow. What an animal.

How come youse guys have no problem with a retired logging company executive running the Department of the Interior, or a lobbyist for oil drilling in charge of the EPA, or a bunch of NAB prototypes and cell phone gurus running the FCC?

This is a non-story.

[Lester]

I have a problem with any and ALL "diversity directors".

[tvchick]

Some people just have problems with diversity. Period.

[AmpedNow]

– MYTH #1: Conservative voices will be kicked off the air. The report actually argues that telling radio broadcasters what to put on the air is inappropriate. What the report advocates for are policies that promote local programming, so what’s on the air is responsive to those communities and their advertisers, as opposed to national syndicators and large station group business models. Right now, the regulatory structure pushes out locally-owned, minority-owned, and female-owned stations. Grassley’s fear of “diversifying the marketplace” will not necessarily create more progressive talk radio; it may even get more conservative. It all depends on the on the location and interests of the community.

This is classic "talking out of both sides of your mouth".

I've asked this before: What is the difference between radio syndication and TV network syndication? Is there not a local demand for popular network TV shows? Newscasts are about the only locally-based programming TV stations produce, or are even expected to produce. What's so different about radio?

"Minorities" are usually well-represented by the free market. All you have to do is look at markets like L.A. and Houston, where Hispanics are, or are near the majority of the population. Half of the radio stations have some type of spanish language formats. Same with markets with large black populations with urban formats, and so on. The government has no business getting involved in this...

Yet, in a market like L.A. with 100 signals, there's still only one Rush affiliate. But I guess one is still too many, in these instances.

MYTH #2: Lloyd wants to impose more taxes and fines on broadcasters. Grassley’s conception of taxes and fines is convoluted and out of context. The report argues that if broadcast stations don’t want to do local programming, they can pay a fine and get out of doing it. That money would go to the local public radio station for local programming.

I don't even want to get started on this... Pure Robin Hood socialism.

I guess all the "local" programming that NPR offers isn't that big a deal.

Progressives secretly want a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Even Grassley admits that Lloyd never advocates a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Why? As Lloyd has explained, the Fairness Doctrine “never by itself fostered coverage of important issues in a way that spoke to the diversity of interests in local communities across our country. In the late 1960’s, the supposed golden age of the Fairness Doctrine, the Kerner Commission reported the failure of mainstream media to report on minority communities.”

They don't need a "Fairness Doctrine" to accomplish their end game. See Myth #2.

Approximately 91 percent of weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and just nine percent is progressive. However, “43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate.”

WHY THE HELL ARE THEY LISTENING IF THEY DON"T LIKE IT??? Are people that stupid that they have to be told that their views are not being properly represented?

If I don't like what I hear, I turn the dial.

Holy crap...

Much of this imbalance was created in the wave of consolidation after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which “removed the national limit on the number of radio stations that one could own.” What progressives like Lloyd are advocating is not more liberalism, but more localism.

My view is that if there is a local demand for syndicated shows like Rush, then the local affiliate is still fulfilling a local "need". Just like the the FOX affiliate who shows AI, 24, and national sports programing. I don't see the difference...

There's nothing wrong with local programming, but if the end result is every station sounding like NPR, even part of the time, then I don't see how this will not be the final nail in radio's coffin.

[EZ103.3FM]

WHY THE HELL ARE THEY LISTENING IF THEY DON"T LIKE IT???

I consider myself a liberal. I listen to sports talk a lot of the day on XM radio (ESPN, Rivals Radio, Mad Dog, etc.). When they're talking about something I don't care about (like the NBA, the Yankees, NASCAR) I'll flip around and see what Beck, Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, etc. are talking about. It's usually worth a laugh. When it gets to 'you've got to be kidding' or more like 'what are you smoking?' I go back to sports...

[Cameron]

The FRN's:

Bolster databases that query a, "shell-of-a-shell-of-a-shell" and help enforce ownership-limits.

Aid the "red-flag" rule so a felon or tax-evader gets a little scrutiny before they are awarded a license to serve the public-interest.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Some people just have problems with diversity. Period.

Yes, they do.

[Hoosier Daddy]

The FRN's:
Bolster databases that query a "shell-of-a-shell-of-a-shell" and help enforce ownership-limits.
Aid the "red-flag" rule so a felon or tax-evader gets a little scrutiny before they are awarded a license to serve the public-interest.

Interesting. I like Mark Lloyd and what he's doing even more.

[Tom Taggart]

"Myth No 1...Right now, the regulatory structure pushes out locally-owned, minority-owned, and female-owned stations.

Nonsense. Nothing prevents me --when I am ready to sell, from selling to anyone who has the $$$ to meet my price.
On the flip side, it is not the regulatory structure but the lack of financing that would prevent local, minority or female buyers from picking up a station. Oh, and the lack of stations for sale--but that's a mess created during the Clinton administration (1996 telco act) and by subsequent FCC commissioners who couldn't define a market properly.

Of course, what the Mark Lloyds of the world want is a system where they hand out licenses to their friends in return for the appropriate cash donation. Carefully vetted friends, who represent each "under-served" group, and who can be relied upon to air only the approved line from the Ministry of Truth.

"Myth No. 2: The report argues that if broadcast stations don’t want to do local programming, they can pay a fine and get out of doing it. That money would go to the local public radio station for local programming."

Local programming depends on having someone (those evil capitalists called "advertisers") willing to pay for that local programming. If you want to have less of something, tax it. So, let me get this straight, if advertisers won't pay for local programming I would still have to run something local or pay a fine --to support a network NPR simulcast on twenty different channels?

Myth #3: Since 91% of talk radio is conservative and 9% is liberal, there is supposedly an "imbalance." "Much of this imbalance was created in the wave of consolidation after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which 'removed the national limit on the number of radio stations that one could own.' What progressives [new buzzword for communist idiot] like Lloyd are advocating is not more liberalism, but more localism."

And Air America was soooo popular that it went into bankruptcy not once but twice. If I--a local owner, suddenly acquired the local Clear Channel talk station I would immediately ditch the Beck, Hannity and Rush for..Rachel Madcow?? Yea, right.

What left-wing idiots like Lloyd object to is anyone who disagrees with their point of view. No, what the "progessives" want is to control the airwaves to the exclusion of all viewpoints contrary to their own.

FRN's to identify felons or tax evaders? How about to keep track of people who's views do not coincide with those of the people in power?

[Hoosier Daddy]

Careful, Tom ... your Right Wing is showing.

[Lester]

I have zero problem with diversity... I have a massive problem with it being force-fed... and out of control.

And be careful Tom, thought out responses with "real world" examples have no place in discussions with folks who have their opinions provided to them by Pelosi.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I have zero problem with diversity... I have a massive problem with it being force-fed... and out of control. And be careful Tom, thought out responses with "real world" examples have no place in discussions with folks who have their opinions provided to them by Pelosi.

Everything has worked so well with Wall Street's run amuck Capitalism making the decisions for radio, huh?

The more I read about this subject, the more it seems like a necessary mechanism to stop the shell games about who actually owns a radio station, and not a mechanism to control the programming. As far as a return to localism, the FCC has been harping on that issue for some time now. The Commission gave it lip service in 1997-2000 when Low Power FM was on the drawing board ... er, the NAB's shooting gallery. I like having the FCC return to being an enforcement agency rather than an enabler for the Mays family bank account.

When you can identify someone who "has their opinions provided to them by Pelosi", let me know. In the meantime, I'll be delighted to point out all those people who have their opinions provided to them by Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

Checkmate.

[Jet Black]

Checkmate.

Only in your mind, Comrade. Free Americans never quit.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I'm not quitting, I'm just getting started ...

[Lester]

Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

Go for it... I listen to none of them.

And the Telecom act that made the Mays crew what they are today was signed by....

[Hoosier Daddy]

Go for it... I listen to none of them.

Yeah. Whatever.

And the Telecom act that made the Mays crew what they are today was signed by....

.. President William Jefferson Clinton, trying to play nice with Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" neo-con corporate criminals. A huge mistake on Clinton's part, and a mistake that has utterly destroyed radio. There you go.

[Lester]

Oooookay....

[genlock]

Clinton could have vetoed the bill.
No guarantee congress would have over-ridden the veto.
Clinton could have vetoed the bill.
But Clinton did no do so.

Clinton signed NAFTA also.
Hillary thought it was a good idea then.
Later, not so much.