"

 Proposed revision of the controversy section 

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  "