Mark Lloyd may become another ousted czar of the Obama administration. Lloyd is the Chief “Diversity” Officer of the Federal Communications Commission in charge of destroying Christian and conservative talk radio, and replacing it with liberal programming. Aside from that, much like the president and his allies, Lloyd has expressed rather disturbing views.

From a 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice: “…unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.” So Lloyd will decide who will step down so others can have “power,” and presumably change some kind of ‘problem’ that white folks put in place. Supposedly liberal/socialist talk radio would then be more successful with minorities running the show. But the problem is liberal radio fails because of content (lack of listeners) and the fact that people can already get those perspectives from virtually every major television and newspaper in the country. They don’t fail because of who owns or runs the station.

He also said: “There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am.”

Clearly a white person could never have expressed similar views and retained any kind of position of authority within the government.

Furthermore, Lloyd praised the Venezuelan dictator during a June 2008 conference on media reform:

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….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. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Notice Lloyd’s Marxist perspective on property rights. He seems appalled that people in the Bush administration would give tacit approval of Chavez’s ousting. So opposing a Communist power grab is a bad thing in Lloyd’s mind. There was no “democratic revolution” - the votes were rigged for Chavez in much the same way as what happened in Iran.

But Lloyd also said that Chavez would take the media seriously. What could he have meant by that, and how does that relate to America? According to an article over at NewsBusters:

NGOs Warn of Restrictions in Pending Venezuela Law

Associated Press - May 7, 2009

Prominent Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations warned Thursday that a bill being drafted by lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez could be used to financially strangle groups that criticize the government.

Chavez clamps down on broadcast media

Irish Examiner - Friday, July 10, 2009

President Hugo Chavez’s government is imposing tough new regulations on Venezuela’s cable television while revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations.

Report: Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez aggressively seizing control of media

Miami Herald - August 14, 2009

An unclassified report lists examples of Venezuelan government efforts to crack down on or seize control of media outlets to stifle criticism.

How’s that for a chronology of authoritarian censorship?

Now read and listen to what the Diversity Czar has to say on the subject of America’s media, and you will see some frightening parallels. Lloyd has already called for the gross operating budget for every private radio station each year to be the fee/tax they pay for their broadcast license.

Lloyd’s views on free speech: “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. [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

So Lloyd believes that freedom of speech or the press is a distraction from “other communication policies,” even though those protections were put into place long before there were any such notions as “communication policies.” How can free speech be “warped” to aid global corporations or “block rules that would promote democratic governance?” How does Lloyd “promote democratic governance” by shutting down opposing views, and destroying free-market forces?

He strongly believes in censorship and admitted as much: “What we’re really saying is that the Fairness Doctrine’s not enough. And that having a sort of over-arching rule that says broadcasters ought to be “fair” or ought to provide issues important to communities and that they ought to do it in a fair and balanced way is simply enough. Unless you put some teeth into that and put some hard, structural rules in place that are going to result in fairness.” So the Orwellian “Fairness Docrine” does not go far enough in Lloyd’s view. And who will be the judge of what is a “fair” result? Lloyd does not say, but probably the same person that praises communist dictators and silences all opposition.