I wonder how much of the new regulation mentioned would include Washington pressuring (censoring?) local stations not to air shows critical of the Administration and Administration-friendly companies (ie, campaign contributors)? Or is that being cynical?
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.
Lloyd’s hope is to dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.
The CPB is a non-profit entity that was created by Congress and that currently receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies each year. In fiscal 2009, it is receiving an appropriation of $400 million.
“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote in his book.
“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,” Lloyd wrote. “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.”
Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities.
“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.
On a vaguely unrelated topic, I’m thinking that a tad less than $18 million was used to create the FCC website.
#139 Give it up. I already answered you. It’s far to late to pretend to be a rugged individualist in America. You don’t like the answer, fine. Keep pretending.
#141, No, the question was answered.
Any husband will do what they can to save ANY family member. That does not make them selfish.
You answer the first one but you didn’t answer WHY? That is what you need to answer.
#142, Give it up. I already answered you.
No, you didn’t.
I didn’t think either one of you would have the balls to see this through.
#143, Loser,
I didn’t think either one of you would have the balls to see this through.
That is because neither of us is stupid enough. Your question is something no sane person would deny. Your problem is you don’t like the answer.
It must be a really lonely life being so unloved. Maybe if you were less selfish you could find someone to love you that you didn’t have to pay to go home afterwards.
#144, WHY would you let 10 other women die in place of your wife?
#145, Effen Loser,
Why would you ask such an inane question?
#146, Quit avoiding the question and you’ll find out.
WHY would you let 10 other women die in place of your wife?
As you admitted, the question is a hypothetical so by extension, any answer would also be hypothetical. Thus how you plan on using a hypothetical answer to fill your question remains unfulfilled.
In other words, quit the bullshit.
#148, Quit avoiding the question.
WHY would you let 10 other women die in place of your wife?
Why would you think I am allowing 10 women to die? I’m not unplugging any respirators. I’m not disconnecting any IV drips. I’m not switching out their medicines for placebos. I’m not interfering with their treatment at all.
Why did you allow my father to die?
Hey, did you quit eating shit sandwiches after becoming gluten intolerant?
#150, You are still avoiding the very simple question.
Why would you allow 10 women you don’t know die to save your wife?
I answered several times already. Now, why did you allow my father to die?
#152, You have not answered. You have tried to turn this into a discussion on healthcare. This is not a discussion on healthcare.
It is a discussion about selfishness.
Why would you allow 10 women you don’t know die to save your wife? Why is your wife more important than those other 10 women? What are you going to tell those husbands when their wives die but yours lives?