The cost of diversity

What if the media had to buy its right to free speech? If the media was stifled or even silenced, the perspectives of the news given to us would change drastically.

This is an important concept to consider during a time when the Obama Administration is putting freedom of speech into question under the appointed Chief Diversity Advisor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Mark Lloyd. A former communications attorney, Lloyd is seeking to reinstate what some on the right call a version of the Fairness Doctrine that was abolished in 1987 under the Reagan Administration.

Lloyd himself spoke out against the Fairness Doctrine in his article written for the Center for American Progress, entitled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine." Lloyd writes: "In our report, we call for ownership of rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary. And we call for more localism by putting more teeth into the licensing rules. But we do not call for a return of the Fairness Doctrine."

The "licensing rules" will be proposed under the guise of "diversity" and "localism." The most disturbing aspect of the licensing rules is the fact that the FCC has the power to make its own rules and to decide what regulations are fair without having the changes approved by Congress. The licensing rules seek to regulate privately owned radio stations that do not adhere to diversity guidelines. If the privately owned radio stations do not meet the diversity guidelines, Lloyd wants to impose fines on the stations.

"Instead of trying to make broadcasters play by the rules we should just make them pay a reasonable fee to support public broadcasting," Lloyd said.

Public broadcasting already receives tax dollars. Lloyd's statement implies that stations will essentially be purchasing their freedom of speech.

Lloyd justifies the increase in fees in a speech before Congress that aired on C-Span in 2005 Lloyd states: "our peculiar American system of communication says that whoever has the most money will be the loudest voice in the public debate."

It seems as if Lloyd wants to make the government the "loudest voice in the public debate" by taking money from media corporations to more heavily fund "public" (or government run) media outlets.

As we examine the rest of his article, there can be found some troubling rhetoric where Lloyd states: "We want to create more ownership opportunities and more speech focused on local interests. We want either clear rules that promote these First Amendment values or a reasonable payment to the public for the use of its property."

This means that private media companies would be forced to pay the government for the use of government "property," the airwaves. The government would then be free to channel these funds into public broadcasting. The fines imposed on the privately owned stations would transfer wealth from corporate broadcasters, to the government, and ultimately then onto government owned media sources.

Some may think this to be fair; others may see this to be a threat to liberty, free speech, and a free press. The Inkwell leaves that for you to decide.