This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This page is so POV as to be laughable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.192.74 ( talk)
Mark Lloyd is a media analyst, and he has been fighting for a responsible media for much of his life. I believe there isn't enough attention about his work in promoting a responsible media, and his comments on media bias have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 ( talk) 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This article focuses too much on potential controversies, without really analyzing them. It does not feel POV neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaygets ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It is VERY significant that Lloyd a) admires Hugo Chavez and his revolution b) believes that there was a rebellion against a "media dominated by property owners". Deleting this information is not keeping with a neutral point of view where both views for and against this guy should not be deleted just because they don't fit a particular point of view (such as there's nothing alarming about this guy and Beck is just a !@#%) This is ESPECIALLY significant when you bring in the CONTEXT which is that Venezuela is in the process of shutting down all media not favorable to the government (much as Wikipedian often shut down=delete any edits not favorable to their point of view) and calling for a law to declare it a crime to publish anything not favorable to the government. That such a man has been appointed to determine what content should be censored, and that such a man has stated that he does not believe in completely free press really bugs a lot of people. Just because such information might cause some people to dislike Mr. Lloyd is not reason to keep it out of WP. The action of WP to purge the WP space of anything politically unfavorable to certain people would seem to be the harbinger of the Glenn Beck's charge (which should be in this article) that Lloyd may favor similar censorship of the internet, so that anybody who tries to dig up dirt on any of Obama's Czars would and could be quickly buried. Bachcell ( talk) 23:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The short video of his actual quote is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYJRtKHthk
and a long video of the forum at which he made the quote is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ffAP5ixhg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 ( talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. How is it not significant that an appointee to the FCC ADMIRES HUGO CHAVEZ'S TAKEOVER OF THE MEDIA? (He also wrote a book that suggests that government should control the media). The Hugo Chavez detail must be included. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.61.216.94 (
talk) 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree - the article should definitely quote his comments on Hugo Chavez. The Washington Times just published this article on that topic. Grundle2600 ( talk) 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Definition of the word "incredible" from Oxford English Dictionary
1. Not credible: that cannot be believed; beyond belief. b. In weakened sense: Such as it is difficult to believe in the possibility of, or to realize; said esp. of a quantity, quality, number, etc., of a degree beyond what one would a priori have conceived as possible; inconceivable, exceedingly great.
Reliefappearance ( talk) 15:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3808/captureng.jpg Reliefappearance ( talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Here you go no more excuses, time for a controversy section: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/jay_ambrose/Where-Chaplin-exposed-tyranny-Stone-applauds-despotic-Chavez-57922992.html "Mark Lloyd, the diversity chief of the Federal Communications Commission, said in videotaped, Internet-available remarks that Chavez was leading a great democratic revolution and implied he was doing great things to deal with Venezuelan media.
Coming from someone who has written about how the federal government has to get tougher on radio stations, the assessment by Lloyd is pretty scary. Chavez’s government is aiming to close as many as 100 politically pesky radio stations and is also moving legally against Globovision, an uncooperative TV network. "
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/diversity-czar-takes-heat-over-remarks/?feat=home_top5_shared "described Hugo Chavez's rise to power in Venezuela "an incredible revolution." 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
WHY IS THERE STILL NO DISPUTED NEUTRALITY TAG ON THIS PAGE?-- 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Where in the wikipedia rules does it allow deletion of a carefully footnoted section with facts reflecting another point of view?? This is precisely the sort of internet censorship that Glenn Beck is afraid Chavez-inspired Lloyd might impose on the internet. Where is the rule that if it is not covered by the New York Times it cannot appear in WP??? Bachcell ( talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we have some votes here as to whether the controversy surrounding this man should be continuously purged? How many people think that any reference to Hugo Chavez, or shutting down radio stations can or should be deleted? How does this square with WP deletion rules, which are very, very specific about what kinds of information can be deleted? Does WP support the obvious scrubbing of any information on this man beyond what comes from the Obama adminstration???
Bachcell (
talk) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This article must have a controversy section to be non-laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 03:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is a joke. Apparently if someone is a democrat the rule are different and you can't put anything bad about the person on wikipedia (e.g. Van Jones, Mark Lloyd...) BRANDON: here is the coverage [2]
Why don't you just use the video itself of Lloyd talking about Hugo Chavez's "incredible revolution ... democratic revolution"?
[3] (It starts about 50 seconds in.)
[4]
Cass Sunstein's article quotes from his own writings and offers his views on legal philosophy, the First Amendment, animal rights, and taxation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 ( talk) 04:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop deleting my contributions. Here are two "secondary" and "reliable" sources. Both mention controversy. Therefore, a controversy section is warranted or at least a mention of the Hugo Chavez statement.
71.61.216.94 ( talk) 15:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I would advise that you be careful lumping Glenn Beck as a conservative. The man is a self-proclaimed libertarian. He does not adamantly support the Republican party or many current "conservative" ideals.-- Krakaet ( talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay - add a section about his Hugo Chavez statement with the quote since it is mentioned in several articles including the two I cited. Even if it isn't under a controversy section it has to be included, but it can't because this page has been hijacked. 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
This article looks just like the FCC stub.
Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mr. Lloyd was most recently the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/ Education Fund, where he oversaw media and telecom initiatives. Mr. Lloyd was also an adjunct professor of public policy at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, and from 2002-2004 a visiting scholar at MIT where he conducted research and taught communications policy. Previously Mr. Lloyd has been a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation, and an attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson. Before becoming a communications lawyer, Mr. Lloyd had a distinguished career as a broadcast journalist, including work at NBC and CNN.
google or bing "Mark Lloyd" and you'll get tons of controversy over Hugo Chavez, incredible revolution, fairness doctrine, but this article will be scrubbed of any controversy as it stands now unless its' from the New York Times, which hasn't covered the issue, or Van Jones for that matter. Bachcell ( talk) 23:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/08/08greenwire-embattled-van-jones-quits-but-czar-debates-rage-9373.html?scp=3&sq=mark%20lloyd&st=cse Embattled Van Jones Quits, but 'Czar' Debates Rage On By MICHAEL BURNHAM of Greenwire Published: September 9, 2009 In a Twitter posting late last week, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck urged his viewers to "find everything you can on Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd and Carol Browner."
MBisanz (talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "Mark Lloyd": Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([edit=sysop] (expires 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC))))
What is this? It's violation of BLP to mention that there are zillions of web hits complaining that Mark Lloyld scares the living daylights out of anyone terrified that Lloyd who admires Hugo Chavez (fact) may want to emulate shutting down the media (documented by many pundits, including Glenn Beck, 3rd largest radio, 1st largest cable TV show)????? Who think Glenn Beck is not a notable opinion?? Bachcell ( talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What are the violations you are referring to? The "unreliable source" is junk if the underlying facts are true, then what is unreliable about the source? Does anybody challenge whether the video on YouTube is a fake? Whether there is a controversy over his appointment? Nothing in the material removed is false, unreliable, or smears any living person beyond what's been written and broadcast by notable sources. This is a crime. Hugo Chavez would be proud of you, and this is what will happen to the press once "consensus" has the power to edit out the alternative press like it can the WP. Bachcell ( talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You've got to be kidding me. No edit on this article? I suppose concerned American citizens who want the truth exposed about this unvetted Czar will have to put it here on the discussion page. Is that a violation? I DON'T FUCKING CARE!!!! I am SICK AND TIRED of radical leftist tyranny!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!
In 2006, Mark Lloyd wrote: Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America (History of Communication). The University of Illinois Press summarizes Lloyd's writing regarding how the media in America should be "re-created" as follows:
*"Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, Lloyd demonstrates that despite the persistent hope that a new technology (from the telegraph to the Internet) will rise to serve the needs of the republic, none has solved the fundamental problems created by corporate domination. After examining failed alternatives to the strong publicly owned communications model, such as antitrust regulation, the public trustee rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and the underfunded public broadcasting service, Lloyd argues that we must re-create a modern version of the Founder’s communications environment, and offers concrete strategies aimed at empowering citizens." [1] http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/68hgg5er9780252031045.html
"Publicly owned communications model" - Translation - Government Controlled Media - ABOLISHMENT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT!
STOP WIKIPEDIA CENSORSHIP NOW!!!! ObserverNY ( talk) 13:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
References
As we draw closer to its execution, we work to ensure that we too do not suffer a Venezuelan fate.
— Seton Motley Director of Communications for the Media Research Center
Can we cite the opinion of a notable person, who uses Glenn Beck as a primary source for the quotes regarding Lloyds' obvious admiration of Chavez, and his quoting of news stories of clamping down on radio stations and media "crimes"?? If he's been on the #1 cable televions show, is it not notable because it is on a conservative TV network? Where on WP does it state that no material from any conservative media source may be ever be used as an RS, even for quotes/video/audio from the subjects own book, ineterviews, or speeches? Doesn't this scare anybody? Isn't this Chavez-ian policy exactly the sort of thing that's keeping any mention of controversy off this page???
FCC 'Diversity' Czar, Mark Lloyd, on Socialist Chavez's Venezuela: 'Incredible...Democratic Revolution' By Seton Motley (Bio | Archive) Originaly posted August 28, 2009 - 11:21 ET From www.newsbuster.org (If the facts or opinions are reliable, how can it not be an RS?) Editor's Note: Audio for the video at right is available here.
.... As we have repeatedly stated, Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation.
this also good for inclusion, is this not an RS for this fact? ... Lloyd was also at one time, prior to attending law school, an Emmy Award-winning journalist and producer for among other outlets NBC and CNN.)
this is certainly an opinion that is relevant and RS for opinion of a notable person Lloyd is in fact a Saul Alinsky disciple. In his 2006 book entitled Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, he calls for an all-out "confrontational movement" against private media. He wants leftist activists - through incessant political pressure - and the government - through the creation of a totally untenable operating environment of fees, fines and regulations - to work together to force the commercial broadcasters out, to be replaced by public broadcasters.
Can't this passage be quoted? "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."
Can't we include Lloyds use of the word democratic? Note Lloyd's use of the word "democratic" to describe the "governance" he seeks to promote. It's the same word he uses to describe the work Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela.
Can't this be used to cite the incredible democratic revolution quote? ...June 10, 2008 National Conference for Media Reform (NCMR) in Minneapolis, Minnesota discovered by the intrepid people of the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program, who used it in conjunction with their graciously having me on their airwaves on Wednesday. If Glenn Beck was the first to broadcast this bit, isn't that worth noting? Especially if he's the next Czar to be taken down? (Oh excuse me, it's not notable until after Katie Couric annouces the resignation...)
There is NO legal way to document this quote without violating BLP? Who want to put money on when this quote will be allowed to in the article more than 5 minutes? It's all over the internet, broadcast on FOX, which has more viewers than most other news cable networks, and nobody disputes that it was fabricated, but it can't be reliably source? God grief. "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. The property owners and the folks who then controlled (read: OWNED) the media rebelled" in 2002 against Chavez's "incredible...democratic revolution." You bet they did - they were watching Chavez seize their property and nationalize their industries.
Seton provides analysis which is certainly not synthesis if we can quote his opinion ..Lloyd then expresses disdain for the fact that there were some senior officials in the Bush Administration who gave a wink and a nod to the attempted ouster. How dare we in any way intervene to prevent Chavez's full-on Communist takeover?...(Chavez) came back with another revolution (in 2006), and then began to take very seriously the media in his country."
Well let's see; what does Lloyd mean by this? How exactly did Chavez "beg(i)n to take very seriously the media in his country" when he "came back with another revolution?"
Then Seton does precisely what was deleted here, links Venezuala to a policy of shutting down dissent
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.
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.
This is a great Motley quote How's that for a chronology of authoritarian censorship?
....Ridiculously exorbitant fees and fines on broadcasters
...."seiz(ing) control of media outlets to stifle criticism."
Motley interprets the quote: ... censorious evolution - from fines, to license rescissions to outright seizures - took place in just over three months. This is Lloyd's definition of Chavez "tak(ing) very seriously the media in his country," as a part of leading an "incredible..democratic revolution."
....Hammer on dissenting media... hmmm, didn't we just have a comment that nothing sourced from conservative or christian talk radio will be allowed or suffer the consequence of losing your licence / blocked???
akin to the "Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations" sounding the alarm about the governmental hammer about to fall on dissenting media - in our case conservative and Christian talk radio.
Does there have to be an article on media censorship in Venezuela before it can be linked from Mark Lloyd?? Bachcell ( talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked it up, and guess what it says? Wow, I would never guess that from this article...NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. But how prominent must an opposing view be, to merit inclusion in an article? Suppose the article is topic of great scientific importance, and a published author disagrees with the scientific mainstream. Should his ideas and arguments be excluded merely because they oppose the mainstream? Would it violate policy to include them, even if they are held only by a minority of experts?
How do I put an NPOV tag issue on the article? Or is one permissible? It's pretty clear that a viewpoint on the #1 cable television show isn't being mentioned here. I put up a tag saying that significant controverseys were being left out, and even footnoted it... and of course it was reverted. Bachcell ( talk) 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Compared to the mainstream media ABC CBS NBC CNN, Glenn Beck is certainly a reliable source, its the only one of them that IS reliable. The msm is completely worthless for either Van Jones or Mark Lloyd. Wasn't it in 1984 when "truth" was a lie, and "lies" were truth? The ONLY guy on my 100s of TV channels who knows what the heck he's talking about is unreliable? Bachcell ( talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So what's the procedure for appealling the block on this page?? Bachcell ( talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Who is the admin that locked down the page? How can we find this out? I also note that there is no lock graphic and seemingly no explanation. Maybe I have missed it? Reliefappearance ( talk) 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to walk away, but here what another admin thought of the situation. I don't have the time to try to contribute anything that's just going to be erased with a zillion WP:RULES.
I pulled out this section so that more could be documented on Lloyd's philosiphy of localism, but it's been nominated for deletion by brandon, and another user erased the footnotes, again evidently claiming conservatives opinions on TownHall, the largest conservative website and magazine, are not WP:RS. I think any attempt to document localism, or Lloyds statements about Hugo Chavez are likely to be scrubbed whereever they appear, unless he gets fired because of Glenn Beck's investigations. Bachcell ( talk) 16:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structural_Imbalance_of_Political_Talk_Radio
Here's why it's still being blocked:
Mark Lloyd Why is Mark Lloyd still blocked?? How can it be unblocked??? Bachcell (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I need more context here, is Mark Lloyd a user or an article? MBisanz talk 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Mark Lloyd the user's been directed here from Requests for unprotection. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks. Given the constant edit warring on the article since its creation, I think it is justified in leaving the protection in place for the full period. MBisanz talk 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
All who favor KEEP or REMOVE block vote here:
Can someone please recap the controversy here and why this page is protected for us newcomers? All I see is a lot of hot air on both sides. -- kizzle ( talk) 23:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
All that stuff that got deleted can be dumped into here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Mark_Lloyd
They won't miss it here Bachcell ( talk) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If WP wants to be as irrelevant as the NY Times and ABC News, so be it. Bachcell ( talk) 23:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Publications
anyone want to add more to the cite?
Reliefappearance ( talk) 15:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
here is the text of the cited source
Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer
Mr. Lloyd was most recently the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/ Education Fund, where he oversaw media and telecom initiatives. Mr. Lloyd was also an adjunct professor of public policy at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, and from 2002-2004 a visiting scholar at MIT where he conducted research and taught communications policy. Previously Mr. Lloyd has been a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation, and an attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson. Before becoming a communications lawyer, Mr. Lloyd had a distinguished career as a broadcast journalist, including work at NBC and CNN.
Missing from the article:
senior fellow at the Center for American Progress General Counsel of the Benton Foundation attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson broadcast journalist for NBC and CNN
proposed changes:
change affiliate to adjunct?
change MIT to Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)?
remove citation needed for position at MIT
add senior fellow for liberal think tank, Center for American Progress (should we note it is "liberal"??)
add senior fellow for the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation
change first sentence to Mark Lloyd is an American attorney ?
add broadcast journalist for NBC and CNN
propose new section / heading based on his tenure in the White House position? Reliefappearance ( talk) 04:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
proposed addition of Grassley quote comment from The Hill?
[13]
The dust-up comes as controversy swirls around another FCC hire. Mark Lloyd, the newly appointed chief diversity officer, used to be a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and, while there, wrote a paper on ways the FCC could encourage more voices on talk radio by imposing new regulations on the industry.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), as well as some conservative radio personalities, raised concerns that Lloyd’s hiring indicated that the agency would change rules pertaining to local stations’ licenses and could bring back the Fairness Doctrine, an abandoned policy that required stations to give equal time to differing political views.
Yes, this should be added. Here is a reliable secondary source: http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=22511 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
We need biographical information on this gentleman. I will see what I can come up with from verifiable sources and present it here for consideration. Also, would this online article from the Washington Post be worthy of consideration for a "controversy" section? [14] It mentions Glenn Beck and accusations of "false and misleading claims" about Lloyd's work". It would be positive if we can work towards creating something that will get this article unlocked. ObserverNY ( talk) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Please feel free to extract more from this document and compose a mock-up paragraph for consideration. ObserverNY ( talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Why do you want to add a list of quotes about DTV transition? He was not even working for the White House at that time. The PDF, these statements are not inherently controversial. Maybe to you they are or to Glenn Beck, but they are not generally. If you want to include the PDF you could mention that he appeared as a witness in front of the US House Committee on blah blah subcommittee on blah blah and provide a link to the PDF. Then you have to wonder, why is it notable that he did this as Vice Pres. of Strategic Initiatives Leadership blah blah. You can't just add a section and cherry pick quotes from a PDF to include. You need to provide context. Also, you specifically said we need a "controversy" section. Please re-read your own comments. The WAPO thing is under a section of Washingtonpost.com called opinions, columns, blogs and then under section called Obama 44, then Cast of Characters. It is not hard news. So be careful how and what you cite regarding that blog, or try to find where that writer got his/her information, maybe another article on Washington Post? You could make a case it is an RS but you'd have to explain why that specific writer is an RS. Also, is the link to the blog post going to stay alive? My conclusion is it probably will. And obviously it should go under a section on his tenure working for the FCC. And the audio file, you also can't just cherry pick quotes. You can say he gave the lecture, put the reference in the article and wait and see what you can get from RS on it. It is not your job to editorialize/quote/deduce anything from the audio tape, the PDF, or the book. Reliefappearance ( talk) 13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That was a long edit, in conclusion I think reliable sources have illustrated that Mark Lloyd is being attacked by conservatives, with Glenn Beck in the lead and in much the same vein as the attack machine against Van Jones. Those facts are necessary for this article. Let's worry about specific quotes/controversial statements later, for it seems that RS are saying Mark Lloyd is a natural target due to some past statements which average Americans may think are fringe, thus causing a possible problem for President Obama. Again, how we say all of this is up for debate, I'm just trying to frame what is going on from RS that I've read. Reliefappearance ( talk) 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why the hell is this page locked down? Why is nothing being done to remove those responsible for selectively censoring articles? This is rather outrageous considering this man's influence and his horrifically racist comments. Koalorka ( talk) 03:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This article should have
Template:Pp-dispute on top. Thank you.
Reliefappearance (
talk) 17:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Anything I'm missing? The Washington Post article is a blog and the SF Examiner article is an opinion piece. Brandon ( talk) 23:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article only a stub. This is a pretty short article for someone who's said that the Fairness Doctrine is not enough, and that is discussed almost every week on Glenn Beck. Jzxpertguitarist ( talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
These need to be included. They are certainly relevant; as he has been appointed to a position within the FCC, views on interpretations of the First Amendment are important. There is no "undue weight" since there is no mention of these views anywhere on this Wiki page. Here is a valid source that quotes his book: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/diversity-czar-takes-heat-over-remarks/?feat=article_top10_read I made the change but it was reverted twice without explanation. When I changed it back the third time, I got warned by an admin about being in an "edit war." Since the person who kept deleting the addition GAVE NO REASONING, these were not valid deletions and I should not have been warned - the deleter should have been. Can someone correct this? -- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions the controversy surrounding that statement. How is quoting someone's words verbatim "warp[ing] what he said." It should be placed on this page for people to interpret. If your interpretation is so obvious, then you should not be worried and people will see that he was worried about people "crying free speech." OR if you have a valid source that says that was what he meant, you can add that. You're interpretation of what he meant is irrelevant to the wiki page and this discussion page - feel free to create a blog somewhere about it though. :) But I have a feeling you don't have a source that says that since you didn't mention it. So how bout we include the valid source that we do have...-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
PS - I added the POV tag since there is a dispute. The dispute is including something that has a valid source or not including it because the valid source does not mesh with Sxeptomaniac's personal interpretation of the quote.-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I specifically included the "blind references to freedom of speech or the press" in the quote when I used it. How is that distorting it? So is your complaint now "undue weight".... including one sentence about a topic that is mentioned in many places is now "undue weight"... you don't want this quote because you don't agree with it... that is not a reason to keep it off the page for undue weight-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Where in the wikipedia rules does it say you have to edit more than one article to have your work not reverted? Here is my proposition so everyone can see:
Simple and straight forward. I'd be willing to trim it down a bit. Or I'm sure you want to add something that says it is only conservatives or bloggers that are saying this. But I think the intro that is already on the "Conservative Criticism" section is plenty to get across the idea that it is the right who is criticizing him (probably too much but thats a separate issue).-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to have a discussion about it, like we are now - and I agree with you that the section as a whole needs reworked. But in regards to the quote What if the word "some" was used instead of other? Or just leave out the quote if you think its too long. Maybe something like this possibly:
Would you be against that?-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone deleted the quote from 2005 because it wasn't a RS. I replaced the cite with a reliable source.-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 17:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to add the sentence written above if there are no objections. It has been trimmed down plenty and should be perceived as "undue weight." It also contains no weasel words.
I also propose to eliminate Conservative from the title. This makes it seem as though ONLY conservatives are questioning Lloyd's views. As this article indicates http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mcdowell_fcc_lloyd_/2009/10/15/272980.html even officials within the FCC are troubled by his views. Also many other wikipages about conservatives that have a controversy section don't say "Liberal Criticism." -- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the word "Criticism" must remain in the title of the section. I think it is obvious that his views on Freedom of Speech have been brought to light because of his appointment to the FCC. No one would care what his views about free speech were otherwise. I think the "conservative" criticism phrasing is bias. Many other conservative figures with wikipedia pages that have criticism are not labeled "Liberal Criticism"... -- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
An easy way to solve this might be to just change the title to "Controversies." Sxepto, the lead in sentence should suffice to get across the idea that the thrust of these controversies or criticisms are coming from "conservative media personalities such as Glenn Beck." I don't think it is necessary to have it in both the section title and the lead in. -- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently Wikipedia has Mark Lloyd as saying 'In 2005, Mark Lloyd stated at a conference that white people, good though they may be, must "step down so" "more people of color, gays" and "other people" "can have power."'. To me, that look like selective quoting, so perhaps a full quote and the context would make it clearer to the reader? - 93.97.122.93 ( talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to cite to SSRC? SSRC profiles can be edited by users like wikipedia. This would be the equivalent of a wikipedia page citing to another wikipedia page as a RS. I propose that all information cited to SSRC should be removed. Thoughts?-- 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 14:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What revert any information on the broadcasting study that sheds light on Lloyd's view on broadcasting diversity? Why revert any mention of the actual content of statements broadcast or in print that are the subject of commentary in the RS?? NPOV means that all notable controversies are presented, not that one that do not fit one POV are removed. The sections removed present verifiable, cited, widely published information from at least two sides that does not violate BLP. Bachcell ( talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Though controversy shouldn't consume the bulk of the article, I think the revised section is somewhat awkwardly written and neglects the substance of the criticisms. It can be rewritten for greater clarity, and to include the quotes that have actually generated the controversy. It is just false to say conservative bloggers are basing their criticisms on "a single line from his book"--but if it were true, shouldn't that line be quoted too? The section can be kept short, while not excluding the content of criticisms. I propose the following text.
Lloyd has been targeted by conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck, with the aim of forcing him to resign, as happened with former White House adviser Van Jones. Beck broadcast a video of Lloyd's comments at a 2008 conference on media reform, in which he described the rise of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as "really an incredible revolution." Conservatives view this as an expression of support for Chavez, though Lloyd has stated that he does not support him. Conservative bloggers have also attacked Lloyd's commitment to free speech, based largely on quotes from his book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, in which he writes that the First Amendment should be placed "in context with other communications policies," and on his 2007 article Forget The Fairness Doctrine, discussing "clear proposals...to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk." Over 50 non-partisan public interest groups have defended Lloyd, calling conservative claims "false and misleading."
This is only about 30 words longer than the present version, but I believe it does much more to inform readers about the controversy. Since the controversy section of this article is so controversial, however, I'll leave my rewrite here for a day or two before implementing it. It's always easier to see bias against your own point of view, so I hope some liberals can improve on my text! But the current version is just not accurate or informative. 173.21.159.52 ( talk) 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I placed the POV tag on this page because the phrasing of the controversy section seems quite biased to me. First, this is not an article about Glenn Beck, as you can see there is already a page about Beck perhaps this info would be better suited on his page. Although it is true, Beck was one of the first to show the Hugo Chavez video, he was not the only. And as the sources indicate, the story was picked up on by several major media outlets. Furthermore, the article is phrased as though conservatives and "right wingers" are the only ones who were critical of his appointment to the FCC. I'm working on a proposed revision and will post here for comments as soon as I come up with something that I think everyone can agree to. Thanks. Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The POV tag on the article has been up for quite a while. Right now, I'm not seeing any issues, particularly since the article is nearly a stub at this point. If someone disagrees, they can re-add it and explain their issues with the article here on the talk page. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This page is so POV as to be laughable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.192.74 ( talk)
Mark Lloyd is a media analyst, and he has been fighting for a responsible media for much of his life. I believe there isn't enough attention about his work in promoting a responsible media, and his comments on media bias have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 ( talk) 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This article focuses too much on potential controversies, without really analyzing them. It does not feel POV neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaygets ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It is VERY significant that Lloyd a) admires Hugo Chavez and his revolution b) believes that there was a rebellion against a "media dominated by property owners". Deleting this information is not keeping with a neutral point of view where both views for and against this guy should not be deleted just because they don't fit a particular point of view (such as there's nothing alarming about this guy and Beck is just a !@#%) This is ESPECIALLY significant when you bring in the CONTEXT which is that Venezuela is in the process of shutting down all media not favorable to the government (much as Wikipedian often shut down=delete any edits not favorable to their point of view) and calling for a law to declare it a crime to publish anything not favorable to the government. That such a man has been appointed to determine what content should be censored, and that such a man has stated that he does not believe in completely free press really bugs a lot of people. Just because such information might cause some people to dislike Mr. Lloyd is not reason to keep it out of WP. The action of WP to purge the WP space of anything politically unfavorable to certain people would seem to be the harbinger of the Glenn Beck's charge (which should be in this article) that Lloyd may favor similar censorship of the internet, so that anybody who tries to dig up dirt on any of Obama's Czars would and could be quickly buried. Bachcell ( talk) 23:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The short video of his actual quote is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYJRtKHthk
and a long video of the forum at which he made the quote is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ffAP5ixhg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 ( talk) 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. How is it not significant that an appointee to the FCC ADMIRES HUGO CHAVEZ'S TAKEOVER OF THE MEDIA? (He also wrote a book that suggests that government should control the media). The Hugo Chavez detail must be included. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.61.216.94 (
talk) 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree - the article should definitely quote his comments on Hugo Chavez. The Washington Times just published this article on that topic. Grundle2600 ( talk) 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Definition of the word "incredible" from Oxford English Dictionary
1. Not credible: that cannot be believed; beyond belief. b. In weakened sense: Such as it is difficult to believe in the possibility of, or to realize; said esp. of a quantity, quality, number, etc., of a degree beyond what one would a priori have conceived as possible; inconceivable, exceedingly great.
Reliefappearance ( talk) 15:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3808/captureng.jpg Reliefappearance ( talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Here you go no more excuses, time for a controversy section: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/jay_ambrose/Where-Chaplin-exposed-tyranny-Stone-applauds-despotic-Chavez-57922992.html "Mark Lloyd, the diversity chief of the Federal Communications Commission, said in videotaped, Internet-available remarks that Chavez was leading a great democratic revolution and implied he was doing great things to deal with Venezuelan media.
Coming from someone who has written about how the federal government has to get tougher on radio stations, the assessment by Lloyd is pretty scary. Chavez’s government is aiming to close as many as 100 politically pesky radio stations and is also moving legally against Globovision, an uncooperative TV network. "
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/diversity-czar-takes-heat-over-remarks/?feat=home_top5_shared "described Hugo Chavez's rise to power in Venezuela "an incredible revolution." 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
WHY IS THERE STILL NO DISPUTED NEUTRALITY TAG ON THIS PAGE?-- 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Where in the wikipedia rules does it allow deletion of a carefully footnoted section with facts reflecting another point of view?? This is precisely the sort of internet censorship that Glenn Beck is afraid Chavez-inspired Lloyd might impose on the internet. Where is the rule that if it is not covered by the New York Times it cannot appear in WP??? Bachcell ( talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we have some votes here as to whether the controversy surrounding this man should be continuously purged? How many people think that any reference to Hugo Chavez, or shutting down radio stations can or should be deleted? How does this square with WP deletion rules, which are very, very specific about what kinds of information can be deleted? Does WP support the obvious scrubbing of any information on this man beyond what comes from the Obama adminstration???
Bachcell (
talk) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This article must have a controversy section to be non-laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 03:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is a joke. Apparently if someone is a democrat the rule are different and you can't put anything bad about the person on wikipedia (e.g. Van Jones, Mark Lloyd...) BRANDON: here is the coverage [2]
Why don't you just use the video itself of Lloyd talking about Hugo Chavez's "incredible revolution ... democratic revolution"?
[3] (It starts about 50 seconds in.)
[4]
Cass Sunstein's article quotes from his own writings and offers his views on legal philosophy, the First Amendment, animal rights, and taxation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 ( talk) 04:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Stop deleting my contributions. Here are two "secondary" and "reliable" sources. Both mention controversy. Therefore, a controversy section is warranted or at least a mention of the Hugo Chavez statement.
71.61.216.94 ( talk) 15:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I would advise that you be careful lumping Glenn Beck as a conservative. The man is a self-proclaimed libertarian. He does not adamantly support the Republican party or many current "conservative" ideals.-- Krakaet ( talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay - add a section about his Hugo Chavez statement with the quote since it is mentioned in several articles including the two I cited. Even if it isn't under a controversy section it has to be included, but it can't because this page has been hijacked. 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
This article looks just like the FCC stub.
Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mr. Lloyd was most recently the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/ Education Fund, where he oversaw media and telecom initiatives. Mr. Lloyd was also an adjunct professor of public policy at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, and from 2002-2004 a visiting scholar at MIT where he conducted research and taught communications policy. Previously Mr. Lloyd has been a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation, and an attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson. Before becoming a communications lawyer, Mr. Lloyd had a distinguished career as a broadcast journalist, including work at NBC and CNN.
google or bing "Mark Lloyd" and you'll get tons of controversy over Hugo Chavez, incredible revolution, fairness doctrine, but this article will be scrubbed of any controversy as it stands now unless its' from the New York Times, which hasn't covered the issue, or Van Jones for that matter. Bachcell ( talk) 23:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/08/08greenwire-embattled-van-jones-quits-but-czar-debates-rage-9373.html?scp=3&sq=mark%20lloyd&st=cse Embattled Van Jones Quits, but 'Czar' Debates Rage On By MICHAEL BURNHAM of Greenwire Published: September 9, 2009 In a Twitter posting late last week, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck urged his viewers to "find everything you can on Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd and Carol Browner."
MBisanz (talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "Mark Lloyd": Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([edit=sysop] (expires 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC))))
What is this? It's violation of BLP to mention that there are zillions of web hits complaining that Mark Lloyld scares the living daylights out of anyone terrified that Lloyd who admires Hugo Chavez (fact) may want to emulate shutting down the media (documented by many pundits, including Glenn Beck, 3rd largest radio, 1st largest cable TV show)????? Who think Glenn Beck is not a notable opinion?? Bachcell ( talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What are the violations you are referring to? The "unreliable source" is junk if the underlying facts are true, then what is unreliable about the source? Does anybody challenge whether the video on YouTube is a fake? Whether there is a controversy over his appointment? Nothing in the material removed is false, unreliable, or smears any living person beyond what's been written and broadcast by notable sources. This is a crime. Hugo Chavez would be proud of you, and this is what will happen to the press once "consensus" has the power to edit out the alternative press like it can the WP. Bachcell ( talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You've got to be kidding me. No edit on this article? I suppose concerned American citizens who want the truth exposed about this unvetted Czar will have to put it here on the discussion page. Is that a violation? I DON'T FUCKING CARE!!!! I am SICK AND TIRED of radical leftist tyranny!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!
In 2006, Mark Lloyd wrote: Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America (History of Communication). The University of Illinois Press summarizes Lloyd's writing regarding how the media in America should be "re-created" as follows:
*"Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, Lloyd demonstrates that despite the persistent hope that a new technology (from the telegraph to the Internet) will rise to serve the needs of the republic, none has solved the fundamental problems created by corporate domination. After examining failed alternatives to the strong publicly owned communications model, such as antitrust regulation, the public trustee rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and the underfunded public broadcasting service, Lloyd argues that we must re-create a modern version of the Founder’s communications environment, and offers concrete strategies aimed at empowering citizens." [1] http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/68hgg5er9780252031045.html
"Publicly owned communications model" - Translation - Government Controlled Media - ABOLISHMENT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT!
STOP WIKIPEDIA CENSORSHIP NOW!!!! ObserverNY ( talk) 13:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
References
As we draw closer to its execution, we work to ensure that we too do not suffer a Venezuelan fate.
— Seton Motley Director of Communications for the Media Research Center
Can we cite the opinion of a notable person, who uses Glenn Beck as a primary source for the quotes regarding Lloyds' obvious admiration of Chavez, and his quoting of news stories of clamping down on radio stations and media "crimes"?? If he's been on the #1 cable televions show, is it not notable because it is on a conservative TV network? Where on WP does it state that no material from any conservative media source may be ever be used as an RS, even for quotes/video/audio from the subjects own book, ineterviews, or speeches? Doesn't this scare anybody? Isn't this Chavez-ian policy exactly the sort of thing that's keeping any mention of controversy off this page???
FCC 'Diversity' Czar, Mark Lloyd, on Socialist Chavez's Venezuela: 'Incredible...Democratic Revolution' By Seton Motley (Bio | Archive) Originaly posted August 28, 2009 - 11:21 ET From www.newsbuster.org (If the facts or opinions are reliable, how can it not be an RS?) Editor's Note: Audio for the video at right is available here.
.... As we have repeatedly stated, Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation.
this also good for inclusion, is this not an RS for this fact? ... Lloyd was also at one time, prior to attending law school, an Emmy Award-winning journalist and producer for among other outlets NBC and CNN.)
this is certainly an opinion that is relevant and RS for opinion of a notable person Lloyd is in fact a Saul Alinsky disciple. In his 2006 book entitled Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, he calls for an all-out "confrontational movement" against private media. He wants leftist activists - through incessant political pressure - and the government - through the creation of a totally untenable operating environment of fees, fines and regulations - to work together to force the commercial broadcasters out, to be replaced by public broadcasters.
Can't this passage be quoted? "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."
Can't we include Lloyds use of the word democratic? Note Lloyd's use of the word "democratic" to describe the "governance" he seeks to promote. It's the same word he uses to describe the work Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela.
Can't this be used to cite the incredible democratic revolution quote? ...June 10, 2008 National Conference for Media Reform (NCMR) in Minneapolis, Minnesota discovered by the intrepid people of the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program, who used it in conjunction with their graciously having me on their airwaves on Wednesday. If Glenn Beck was the first to broadcast this bit, isn't that worth noting? Especially if he's the next Czar to be taken down? (Oh excuse me, it's not notable until after Katie Couric annouces the resignation...)
There is NO legal way to document this quote without violating BLP? Who want to put money on when this quote will be allowed to in the article more than 5 minutes? It's all over the internet, broadcast on FOX, which has more viewers than most other news cable networks, and nobody disputes that it was fabricated, but it can't be reliably source? God grief. "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. The property owners and the folks who then controlled (read: OWNED) the media rebelled" in 2002 against Chavez's "incredible...democratic revolution." You bet they did - they were watching Chavez seize their property and nationalize their industries.
Seton provides analysis which is certainly not synthesis if we can quote his opinion ..Lloyd then expresses disdain for the fact that there were some senior officials in the Bush Administration who gave a wink and a nod to the attempted ouster. How dare we in any way intervene to prevent Chavez's full-on Communist takeover?...(Chavez) came back with another revolution (in 2006), and then began to take very seriously the media in his country."
Well let's see; what does Lloyd mean by this? How exactly did Chavez "beg(i)n to take very seriously the media in his country" when he "came back with another revolution?"
Then Seton does precisely what was deleted here, links Venezuala to a policy of shutting down dissent
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.
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.
This is a great Motley quote How's that for a chronology of authoritarian censorship?
....Ridiculously exorbitant fees and fines on broadcasters
...."seiz(ing) control of media outlets to stifle criticism."
Motley interprets the quote: ... censorious evolution - from fines, to license rescissions to outright seizures - took place in just over three months. This is Lloyd's definition of Chavez "tak(ing) very seriously the media in his country," as a part of leading an "incredible..democratic revolution."
....Hammer on dissenting media... hmmm, didn't we just have a comment that nothing sourced from conservative or christian talk radio will be allowed or suffer the consequence of losing your licence / blocked???
akin to the "Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations" sounding the alarm about the governmental hammer about to fall on dissenting media - in our case conservative and Christian talk radio.
Does there have to be an article on media censorship in Venezuela before it can be linked from Mark Lloyd?? Bachcell ( talk) 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked it up, and guess what it says? Wow, I would never guess that from this article...NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. But how prominent must an opposing view be, to merit inclusion in an article? Suppose the article is topic of great scientific importance, and a published author disagrees with the scientific mainstream. Should his ideas and arguments be excluded merely because they oppose the mainstream? Would it violate policy to include them, even if they are held only by a minority of experts?
How do I put an NPOV tag issue on the article? Or is one permissible? It's pretty clear that a viewpoint on the #1 cable television show isn't being mentioned here. I put up a tag saying that significant controverseys were being left out, and even footnoted it... and of course it was reverted. Bachcell ( talk) 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Compared to the mainstream media ABC CBS NBC CNN, Glenn Beck is certainly a reliable source, its the only one of them that IS reliable. The msm is completely worthless for either Van Jones or Mark Lloyd. Wasn't it in 1984 when "truth" was a lie, and "lies" were truth? The ONLY guy on my 100s of TV channels who knows what the heck he's talking about is unreliable? Bachcell ( talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So what's the procedure for appealling the block on this page?? Bachcell ( talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Who is the admin that locked down the page? How can we find this out? I also note that there is no lock graphic and seemingly no explanation. Maybe I have missed it? Reliefappearance ( talk) 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to walk away, but here what another admin thought of the situation. I don't have the time to try to contribute anything that's just going to be erased with a zillion WP:RULES.
I pulled out this section so that more could be documented on Lloyd's philosiphy of localism, but it's been nominated for deletion by brandon, and another user erased the footnotes, again evidently claiming conservatives opinions on TownHall, the largest conservative website and magazine, are not WP:RS. I think any attempt to document localism, or Lloyds statements about Hugo Chavez are likely to be scrubbed whereever they appear, unless he gets fired because of Glenn Beck's investigations. Bachcell ( talk) 16:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structural_Imbalance_of_Political_Talk_Radio
Here's why it's still being blocked:
Mark Lloyd Why is Mark Lloyd still blocked?? How can it be unblocked??? Bachcell (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I need more context here, is Mark Lloyd a user or an article? MBisanz talk 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Mark Lloyd the user's been directed here from Requests for unprotection. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks. Given the constant edit warring on the article since its creation, I think it is justified in leaving the protection in place for the full period. MBisanz talk 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
All who favor KEEP or REMOVE block vote here:
Can someone please recap the controversy here and why this page is protected for us newcomers? All I see is a lot of hot air on both sides. -- kizzle ( talk) 23:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
All that stuff that got deleted can be dumped into here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Mark_Lloyd
They won't miss it here Bachcell ( talk) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If WP wants to be as irrelevant as the NY Times and ABC News, so be it. Bachcell ( talk) 23:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Publications
anyone want to add more to the cite?
Reliefappearance ( talk) 15:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
here is the text of the cited source
Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer
Mr. Lloyd was most recently the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/ Education Fund, where he oversaw media and telecom initiatives. Mr. Lloyd was also an adjunct professor of public policy at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, and from 2002-2004 a visiting scholar at MIT where he conducted research and taught communications policy. Previously Mr. Lloyd has been a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation, and an attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson. Before becoming a communications lawyer, Mr. Lloyd had a distinguished career as a broadcast journalist, including work at NBC and CNN.
Missing from the article:
senior fellow at the Center for American Progress General Counsel of the Benton Foundation attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson broadcast journalist for NBC and CNN
proposed changes:
change affiliate to adjunct?
change MIT to Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)?
remove citation needed for position at MIT
add senior fellow for liberal think tank, Center for American Progress (should we note it is "liberal"??)
add senior fellow for the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation
change first sentence to Mark Lloyd is an American attorney ?
add broadcast journalist for NBC and CNN
propose new section / heading based on his tenure in the White House position? Reliefappearance ( talk) 04:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
proposed addition of Grassley quote comment from The Hill?
[13]
The dust-up comes as controversy swirls around another FCC hire. Mark Lloyd, the newly appointed chief diversity officer, used to be a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and, while there, wrote a paper on ways the FCC could encourage more voices on talk radio by imposing new regulations on the industry.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), as well as some conservative radio personalities, raised concerns that Lloyd’s hiring indicated that the agency would change rules pertaining to local stations’ licenses and could bring back the Fairness Doctrine, an abandoned policy that required stations to give equal time to differing political views.
Yes, this should be added. Here is a reliable secondary source: http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=22511 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
We need biographical information on this gentleman. I will see what I can come up with from verifiable sources and present it here for consideration. Also, would this online article from the Washington Post be worthy of consideration for a "controversy" section? [14] It mentions Glenn Beck and accusations of "false and misleading claims" about Lloyd's work". It would be positive if we can work towards creating something that will get this article unlocked. ObserverNY ( talk) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Please feel free to extract more from this document and compose a mock-up paragraph for consideration. ObserverNY ( talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Why do you want to add a list of quotes about DTV transition? He was not even working for the White House at that time. The PDF, these statements are not inherently controversial. Maybe to you they are or to Glenn Beck, but they are not generally. If you want to include the PDF you could mention that he appeared as a witness in front of the US House Committee on blah blah subcommittee on blah blah and provide a link to the PDF. Then you have to wonder, why is it notable that he did this as Vice Pres. of Strategic Initiatives Leadership blah blah. You can't just add a section and cherry pick quotes from a PDF to include. You need to provide context. Also, you specifically said we need a "controversy" section. Please re-read your own comments. The WAPO thing is under a section of Washingtonpost.com called opinions, columns, blogs and then under section called Obama 44, then Cast of Characters. It is not hard news. So be careful how and what you cite regarding that blog, or try to find where that writer got his/her information, maybe another article on Washington Post? You could make a case it is an RS but you'd have to explain why that specific writer is an RS. Also, is the link to the blog post going to stay alive? My conclusion is it probably will. And obviously it should go under a section on his tenure working for the FCC. And the audio file, you also can't just cherry pick quotes. You can say he gave the lecture, put the reference in the article and wait and see what you can get from RS on it. It is not your job to editorialize/quote/deduce anything from the audio tape, the PDF, or the book. Reliefappearance ( talk) 13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That was a long edit, in conclusion I think reliable sources have illustrated that Mark Lloyd is being attacked by conservatives, with Glenn Beck in the lead and in much the same vein as the attack machine against Van Jones. Those facts are necessary for this article. Let's worry about specific quotes/controversial statements later, for it seems that RS are saying Mark Lloyd is a natural target due to some past statements which average Americans may think are fringe, thus causing a possible problem for President Obama. Again, how we say all of this is up for debate, I'm just trying to frame what is going on from RS that I've read. Reliefappearance ( talk) 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why the hell is this page locked down? Why is nothing being done to remove those responsible for selectively censoring articles? This is rather outrageous considering this man's influence and his horrifically racist comments. Koalorka ( talk) 03:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This article should have
Template:Pp-dispute on top. Thank you.
Reliefappearance (
talk) 17:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Anything I'm missing? The Washington Post article is a blog and the SF Examiner article is an opinion piece. Brandon ( talk) 23:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article only a stub. This is a pretty short article for someone who's said that the Fairness Doctrine is not enough, and that is discussed almost every week on Glenn Beck. Jzxpertguitarist ( talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
These need to be included. They are certainly relevant; as he has been appointed to a position within the FCC, views on interpretations of the First Amendment are important. There is no "undue weight" since there is no mention of these views anywhere on this Wiki page. Here is a valid source that quotes his book: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/diversity-czar-takes-heat-over-remarks/?feat=article_top10_read I made the change but it was reverted twice without explanation. When I changed it back the third time, I got warned by an admin about being in an "edit war." Since the person who kept deleting the addition GAVE NO REASONING, these were not valid deletions and I should not have been warned - the deleter should have been. Can someone correct this? -- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions the controversy surrounding that statement. How is quoting someone's words verbatim "warp[ing] what he said." It should be placed on this page for people to interpret. If your interpretation is so obvious, then you should not be worried and people will see that he was worried about people "crying free speech." OR if you have a valid source that says that was what he meant, you can add that. You're interpretation of what he meant is irrelevant to the wiki page and this discussion page - feel free to create a blog somewhere about it though. :) But I have a feeling you don't have a source that says that since you didn't mention it. So how bout we include the valid source that we do have...-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
PS - I added the POV tag since there is a dispute. The dispute is including something that has a valid source or not including it because the valid source does not mesh with Sxeptomaniac's personal interpretation of the quote.-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I specifically included the "blind references to freedom of speech or the press" in the quote when I used it. How is that distorting it? So is your complaint now "undue weight".... including one sentence about a topic that is mentioned in many places is now "undue weight"... you don't want this quote because you don't agree with it... that is not a reason to keep it off the page for undue weight-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Where in the wikipedia rules does it say you have to edit more than one article to have your work not reverted? Here is my proposition so everyone can see:
Simple and straight forward. I'd be willing to trim it down a bit. Or I'm sure you want to add something that says it is only conservatives or bloggers that are saying this. But I think the intro that is already on the "Conservative Criticism" section is plenty to get across the idea that it is the right who is criticizing him (probably too much but thats a separate issue).-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to have a discussion about it, like we are now - and I agree with you that the section as a whole needs reworked. But in regards to the quote What if the word "some" was used instead of other? Or just leave out the quote if you think its too long. Maybe something like this possibly:
Would you be against that?-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone deleted the quote from 2005 because it wasn't a RS. I replaced the cite with a reliable source.-- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 17:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to add the sentence written above if there are no objections. It has been trimmed down plenty and should be perceived as "undue weight." It also contains no weasel words.
I also propose to eliminate Conservative from the title. This makes it seem as though ONLY conservatives are questioning Lloyd's views. As this article indicates http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mcdowell_fcc_lloyd_/2009/10/15/272980.html even officials within the FCC are troubled by his views. Also many other wikipages about conservatives that have a controversy section don't say "Liberal Criticism." -- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the word "Criticism" must remain in the title of the section. I think it is obvious that his views on Freedom of Speech have been brought to light because of his appointment to the FCC. No one would care what his views about free speech were otherwise. I think the "conservative" criticism phrasing is bias. Many other conservative figures with wikipedia pages that have criticism are not labeled "Liberal Criticism"... -- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
An easy way to solve this might be to just change the title to "Controversies." Sxepto, the lead in sentence should suffice to get across the idea that the thrust of these controversies or criticisms are coming from "conservative media personalities such as Glenn Beck." I don't think it is necessary to have it in both the section title and the lead in. -- Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently Wikipedia has Mark Lloyd as saying 'In 2005, Mark Lloyd stated at a conference that white people, good though they may be, must "step down so" "more people of color, gays" and "other people" "can have power."'. To me, that look like selective quoting, so perhaps a full quote and the context would make it clearer to the reader? - 93.97.122.93 ( talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to cite to SSRC? SSRC profiles can be edited by users like wikipedia. This would be the equivalent of a wikipedia page citing to another wikipedia page as a RS. I propose that all information cited to SSRC should be removed. Thoughts?-- 71.61.216.94 ( talk) 14:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What revert any information on the broadcasting study that sheds light on Lloyd's view on broadcasting diversity? Why revert any mention of the actual content of statements broadcast or in print that are the subject of commentary in the RS?? NPOV means that all notable controversies are presented, not that one that do not fit one POV are removed. The sections removed present verifiable, cited, widely published information from at least two sides that does not violate BLP. Bachcell ( talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Though controversy shouldn't consume the bulk of the article, I think the revised section is somewhat awkwardly written and neglects the substance of the criticisms. It can be rewritten for greater clarity, and to include the quotes that have actually generated the controversy. It is just false to say conservative bloggers are basing their criticisms on "a single line from his book"--but if it were true, shouldn't that line be quoted too? The section can be kept short, while not excluding the content of criticisms. I propose the following text.
Lloyd has been targeted by conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck, with the aim of forcing him to resign, as happened with former White House adviser Van Jones. Beck broadcast a video of Lloyd's comments at a 2008 conference on media reform, in which he described the rise of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as "really an incredible revolution." Conservatives view this as an expression of support for Chavez, though Lloyd has stated that he does not support him. Conservative bloggers have also attacked Lloyd's commitment to free speech, based largely on quotes from his book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, in which he writes that the First Amendment should be placed "in context with other communications policies," and on his 2007 article Forget The Fairness Doctrine, discussing "clear proposals...to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk." Over 50 non-partisan public interest groups have defended Lloyd, calling conservative claims "false and misleading."
This is only about 30 words longer than the present version, but I believe it does much more to inform readers about the controversy. Since the controversy section of this article is so controversial, however, I'll leave my rewrite here for a day or two before implementing it. It's always easier to see bias against your own point of view, so I hope some liberals can improve on my text! But the current version is just not accurate or informative. 173.21.159.52 ( talk) 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I placed the POV tag on this page because the phrasing of the controversy section seems quite biased to me. First, this is not an article about Glenn Beck, as you can see there is already a page about Beck perhaps this info would be better suited on his page. Although it is true, Beck was one of the first to show the Hugo Chavez video, he was not the only. And as the sources indicate, the story was picked up on by several major media outlets. Furthermore, the article is phrased as though conservatives and "right wingers" are the only ones who were critical of his appointment to the FCC. I'm working on a proposed revision and will post here for comments as soon as I come up with something that I think everyone can agree to. Thanks. Neutraltruthseeker ( talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The POV tag on the article has been up for quite a while. Right now, I'm not seeing any issues, particularly since the article is nearly a stub at this point. If someone disagrees, they can re-add it and explain their issues with the article here on the talk page. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mark Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)