Mark Lloyd: The FCC's New 'Chief Diversity Officer'

Usually when we hear the word "diversity" we think of racial diversity. In the case of the FCC, diversity also refers to a diversity of political views. With that in mind, they have appointed Mark Lloyd to the position of 'Chief Diversity Officer'. At first glance, this sounds like a good thing. The problem comes back to one issue, "Who decides what diversity looks like and how is it enforced?"
I took a little time to read "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" which addresses the preponderance of conservative programs. Mark Lloyd is among the seven authors of this report, which clearly takes issue with superior airtime that conservative commentators receive. The report gives three suggested "policy solutions" to even out the imbalance.

• Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations
• Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing
• Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting

The first point is not a huge problem for me. the rise of huge conglomerate radio stations has made it difficult for smaller, local stations to compete. Reasonable caps would allow more local radio stations to hopefully find a place in the market.
The problem with trying to enforce local accountability is in the question of what will be enforced. If for some reason the FCC hears more complaints about liberal commentators, will they ignore those in favor of the minority complaints about conservatives? The fact that the goal of this point is to increase progressive political talk radio shows that there are some predetermined objectives here. Under this point the report states that radio stations must "regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest". Again the question comes back to "Who decides what is the 'public interest'?" Not to sound overly paranoid, but all of it takes on faint overtones of 'Big Brother'.
The final point indicates that any radio station only airing one viewpoint will be fined up to $250 million, which will then be given to National Public Radio. The wording seems to include radio stations airing only liberal viewpoints as well as those airing only conservative views, but the implication of the report itself is that specifically conservative radio stations will be targeted.
Aside from the issues raised by the report itself I was a bit surprised to see Dr. Laura on the list of 'Conservative' hosts (Appendix B). While I would agree she is probably identifiable as conservative, the primary purpose of her show is not politics . This indicates that any show that discusses politics, even if the primary focus of the show is not politics, is still considered 'political talk radio'.
I also noted that the report does not take into account the numerous talk shows that can be found on what are mostly music stations. Shows such as Howard Stern, and Love Line with Dr. Drew are certainly shows that could be easily placed in the 'Progressive' category, but were not even considered.
The combination of including conservative shows that are not primarily political while excluding more liberal ones in the same category pads the results. I do not doubt that political talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives, but in viewing how the report arrived at it's conclusions you can see that it is certainly not entirely representative.
The biggest problem I have with trying to force radio stations to air opposing viewpoints is that you can find an opposing viewpoint to almost any issue. For example, most of us generally agree that race relations should be improved through understanding, there is a minority that proposes a return to segregation. Who decides if that view deserves equal air time alongside the those who encourage reconciliation? That is an extreme example, but the question remains, who decides what views are valid and which are not? The whole issue is entirely too subjective for anyone to accurately judge.