 Proposed revision of the controversy section Though controversy shouldnt 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 bookbut if it were true shouldnt that line be quoted too The section can be kept short while not excluding the content of criticisms I propose the following textLloyd 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 JonesBeck broadcast a video of Lloyds 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 Lloyds 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 proposalsto address the gap between conservative and progressive talk Over 50 nonpartisan public interest groups have defended Lloyd calling conservative claims false and misleadingThis 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 Ill leave my rewrite here for a day or two before implementing it Its 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 informative1732115952  

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
 Proposed revision of the controversy section Though controversy shouldnt 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 bookbut if it were true shouldnt that line be quoted too The section can be kept short while not excluding the content of criticisms I propose the following textLloyd 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 JonesBeck broadcast a video of Lloyds 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 Lloyds 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 proposalsto address the gap between conservative and progressive talk Over 50 nonpartisan public interest groups have defended Lloyd calling conservative claims false and misleadingThis 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 Ill leave my rewrite here for a day or two before implementing it Its 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 informative1732115952  

