More on Media Consolidation 274
A few more links on the important FCC decision coming up in a few weeks (see our previous story for more). Common Cause has a good set of background information and advocacy. The Washington Post has a story about the decision, focusing on how independent television stations will be squeezed even harder. This article about ClearChannel is a useful primer about the future of mass media.
A Corporate Endeavor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Corporate Endeavor (Score:5, Insightful)
Cross-marketing. Who ever heard of that? You're forgetting that mass media boiled down to one simple thing: get the most people to listen to most ads that you possibly can. Best of all, slip in ads disguised as "programming." Heck, MTV (when they played music) was the best advertisement ever conceived for record companies. All a video ever has been is an ad for the album. the play "ad" ads in between for more traditional marketing. Probably get paid for both (Clear Channel charges "promotional fees to add a song.")
So "Art" (with a capital A) never entered into it, ever. But the mass in mass media is the message.
Clear Channel is simply practicing lowest common denominator programming in order to get the most "butts in the seats." In other words, they'd rather have more folks half-interested in mediocre music that doesn't offend anyone than fewer folks who are truly passionate about what they're hearing. Why? Easy. Capitalism. The more folks listening to their ads, the more they charge. The more they charge, the more they profit.
Re:A Corporate Endeavor (Score:2, Informative)
Still, it was better then now, when they show is watered down 'reality TV' and poorly made videos of some guy sitting in pig feces....I mean...'comedy'
I'll take the music over the tripe they show now any day. (Still, that doesn't mean I DO, MTV has always been garbage)
Re:A Corporate Endeavor (Score:5, Insightful)
These media conglomarates also come with a political point of view. In a very real sense they will determine who your next president or senator will be. It's hard enough to win an election while debating and fighting against another party. These media conglomarates throw a monkey wrench into the equation by constantly slanting news and commentary to favor their favored candidates.
Now only are these corporations a threat to consumers but they are a threat to democracy itself.
toles take (Score:5, Funny)
New Theme (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New Theme (Score:5, Funny)
Plus, then we could collect proper royalties from every school and sporting event in the nation.
Article Text, Washington Post (Score:4, Informative)
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 14, 2003; Page E01
If broadcast networks such as ABC and Fox are prevented from buying more local television stations, viewers may soon have to watch NFL games on cable or satellite, meaning football fans who depend on free, over-the-air television would be out of luck.
Or if they are allowed to buy more stations, they would use their increased muscle to force network programming onto independently owned affiliate stations, even when they would rather show local programs or preempt network programs that may offend community standards.
Either and both arguments may be true. Local television station autonomy is at the heart of one of the media ownership rules set to be changed soon by the Federal Communications Commission. It was also Topic A yesterday at a Senate hearing chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) but starring Viacom Inc. President Mel Karmazin.
"Costs are going up, audience is going down, competition is increasing," Karmazin told the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Viacom owns CBS, 35 television stations and cable channels such as MTV and Nickelodeon. "The only way to help is to relax the ownership rules," allowing networks to buy more stations and increase revenue, he said.
On June 2, the FCC is scheduled to vote -- and likely pass -- several rules that will make it easier for media giants to buy more newspapers and radio and television stations. Several lawmakers and public interest groups oppose relaxing the rules. The FCC "is putting us on a glide path for big media conglomerates to gobble up independent stations," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said yesterday.
(Yesterday afternoon, Democratic FCC commissioners Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein asked Michael K. Powell, the agency's Republican chairman, to postpone the vote, a request typically honored under FCC tradition. Usually, such votes are rescheduled for the commission's next open meeting, about one month later. Powell said he will respond promptly. Republican commissioners Kathleen Q. Abernathy and Kevin J. Martin want the vote to proceed as scheduled.)
Perhaps the most controversial of the six major media ownership rules teed up for review is the "35-percent cap" on station ownership. Networks are not allowed to own a number of stations that combine to reach more than 35 percent of the national audience. Thanks to waivers and shifting market shares, all of the major networks hover around the 35 percent figure, with some actually above the limit, anticipating its lifting.
The FCC's media bureau has recommended raising that number to about 45 percent. Powell is sympathetic to Karmazin. The chairman has said that broadcast television needs regulatory help to continue providing free public-interest programming. ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox are steadily losing audience to cable channels. For the first time last year, the aggregate cable audience surpassed that of the combined networks. About 85 percent of viewers have cable or satellite service.
Further, cable channels have two revenue streams -- advertising and subscription -- where broadcast has one. The smallest major network, however, still has an audience larger than the biggest cable channel, meaning networks can charge advertisers more for commercials.
The rising cost of programming, especially rights fees that networks pay sports leagues to broadcast games, means that networks lose money by putting their shows on broadcast stations instead of cable, the networks say. "Sports content will be the first to go to cable," Karmazin warned, noting that CBS paid $6 billion to broadcast the NCAA men's basketball tournament for 11 years. "Then other [programming] will follow."
The surest way to save free television, the networks argue, is to let them to buy more stations, which routinely log profit margins of 20 percent to 50 percent.
Not everyone agrees. Last week, Rep. Richard Burr
Re:Article Text, Washington Post (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see what happens when the next round of sports contracts come up
Boo Hoo (Score:3, Interesting)
So what. Maybe they should think about not paying people $5 million per year to play a
happening in the uk too (Score:3, Interesting)
Relaxation of media ownership is something that is happening over here in the UK at the moment and many are worried that Murdoch in particular could expand into terrestrial television. Our network television is now owned by two companies who are planning to merge once the Communications Bill is passed.
johnBe like Jayson Blair and make up your own news at the Not True Times [wildjelly.com]
Re:happening in the uk too (Score:2, Informative)
Radio is dead... (Score:4, Informative)
There are alternatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm wrong, given that there's no pay-to-listen alternative to MuchMusic (Ca
Re:There are alternatives (Score:2)
given that there's no pay-to-listen alternative to MuchMusic (Canadian MTV) up here
This is without a doubt, false. First, there is a free alternative (MuchMoreMusic), although, being owned by the same company, it may or may not be what you're looking for.
But on the new Digital Specialty Channels, (which cost extra) there are at least 5 different music channels: MTV Canada, MTV Canada 2, MuchLoud, MuchVibe, and EdgeTV. The ones without a 'Much' in their name are not owned by CHUM, and all offer different
NPR (Score:2)
Re:NPR (Score:2)
Re:Radio is dead... (Score:2)
Re:Radio is dead... (Score:2)
I've tried to boycott Clearchannel, I really have (Score:5, Interesting)
I wanted to boycott them for taking off my morning show, and using the trained monkeys that borderline politicaly correct (the previous guys would never be mistaken for anywhere near politicaly correct) from New Orleans to broadcast to the entire Gulf Coast. Sounds like cost savings to me, but it really ruined the mornings for me.
So I swallowed my pride and listened anyways. Before Clear Channel bought everything I stopped listening to one of our local stations because I couldn't stand hearing "Did somebody say McDonalds" 13 times in a 30 second period. Now nearly half the commercials ClearChannel plays assume I can't get my dick up and I need to hear the phone number of the fixer 12 times because I can't dial a damned phone. I assure you neaither is a concern in my case. The quality of radio sure took a dive when they came in.
How...? (Score:2)
The ratings are determined by a system that ignores most of the radio-listening population, and only exists so that advertisers will think that they're getting their money's worth. The advertiser, the only person in the world who cares if you're listening, has no way of knowing if you do so.
Just thinking, that's all..
How ratings are determined: (Score:5, Informative)
Having a bumper sticker/T-Shirt with the name of your favorite radio station is one way to make the station look valuable. If people who are prospective advertisers to a radio station happen accross people displaying a radion stations logo during their daily routine it shows that station as a good place to spend their advertising dollars because the person who's wearing that shirt and many more will hear their ad.
Calling in to be the 13th or whatever caller. If you help in making every line to the radio station busy in record time it proves you were listening to the radio. Giving away $1,000 is a good way to get people to listen for the word go, and right before the word go is given is an excelent time to play an ad.
Music is just a good way to get people to stick around long enough to listen to the ads and controlling what the target audiance is. The rest is to make money.
Re:How ratings are determined: (Score:2)
Re:How...? (Score:3, Interesting)
The company you are looking for is called Arbitron [arbitron.com]. Most of the ratings information is compiled during 'books' which are roughly equivalent to 'sweeps' for television. Most of the information is compiled from written diaries where a listener is expected to write down each 15 minutes of radio they listen to. Last I heard (couple of years ago) th
Re:I've tried to boycott Clearchannel, I really ha (Score:2)
But I like hard rock. (Score:2)
Re:But I like hard rock. (Score:2)
Re:I've tried to boycott Clearchannel, I really ha (Score:2)
Re:I've tried to boycott Clearchannel, I really ha (Score:2)
It's "Walton and Johnson," [klol.com] and while they might not be PC, they most certainly ARE CC [clearchannel.com] (type "Houston" in the search box) their lame-ass script won't return the URL of the search result).
Clear Channel owns 8 stations in Houston, every one of which is either the market leader in it's format or the ONLY example of it's format in the city.
Bill Board (Score:4, Interesting)
More UK sightings.. (Score:2)
Another article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another article (Score:3, Insightful)
ok, aside from the monopoly that they seem to be achiving, they are a business, and that's a business's job. To make money.
Guipo
Re:Another article (Score:2, Insightful)
TV: pick a show (say friends, simpsons), Play repeatedly. 33% Advertising.
Radio: rent ten slots to RIAA. Play repeatedly. 33% Advertising.
This is the mentality that gets Jonathon Edwards on the "Sci-Fi
Re:Another article (Score:2)
Re:Another article (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets see, one mutates people, and the other is toxic sludge.
I think you need to have your head examined.
Why is everyone telling me that latley!
but seriously your comparing apples and oranges. We're talking TV and radio. Where people go not to think. Like any business, they want to make a profit. OK, monopolies are bad, you heard it here first. But if the music
Re:Another article (Score:2)
Prove it.
Think yourselves lucky... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think yourselves lucky... (Score:2)
Shit!
Re:Think yourselves lucky... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Think yourselves lucky... (Score:2)
Re:Think yourselves lucky... (Score:2)
Meanwhile, HMS Ark Royal shut off the Beeb [guardian.co.uk] as a result of the pro-Iraq bias in its coverage.
Closer to home, Fox News trounced CNN and MSNBC in the ratings. People are going to get their news from sources they trust, and people's faith in CNN to provide (dare I say it) fair and balanced coverage of the news is fading.
Re:Think yourselves lucky... (Score:2)
Just because it's worse somewhere else dosen't mean I'm gonna feel lucky about the way it is, that's exactly what they want you to think while they slip away your rights from under your nose, the rights that my ancestors have fought and died for.
Oh look, in X country, this and that happens! Look at how lucky we are!
That is a crock of shit! It has nothing to do with luck, alot of people have fought for it.
It's about media control (Score:5, Insightful)
This plan is another step in narrowing and refining the information that the public sees. With top political officers havving ties to large corporations, it's hard to tell the lines in which corporate money, goverment money are drawn.
Be afraid.
Re:It's about media control (Score:2, Troll)
Or else the reporters could simply work for big leftist newspapers. That way, they can just invent stories. They might get caught, but if their skin is the right color it'll just be brushed aside.
Re:It's about media control (Score:2, Troll)
"In bedded" reporters... Exactly.
Those "big leftist newspapers" are more independent than the rest of the state-run media in this country.
Re:It's about media control (Score:2, Flamebait)
Instead they only showed happy iraquis who were waving american flags. Of course the american public was too stupid to ask where the iraqis got those american flags in the first place.
Homogeneity is a real problem in U.S. media (Score:5, Insightful)
Dissolve Clearchannel (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I have two stations I listen to... A local college station, and NPR. And I don't even like NPR, but angry lesbians amuse me more than the same top-10 pop songs played over and over.
Clearchannel, as an "experiment" in media conglomeration, should end. Revoke its corporate charter, dissolve it, return control and ownership to each individual station. And more importantly, we need to IMMEDIATELY stop further Borg-like activity on the part of media megacorps.
I want decent independant radio back.
Re:Dissolve Clearchannel (Score:3, Insightful)
And what right do YOU have to say that a corporate entity (or any other entity for that matter) should be destroyed simply because you don't like it. If they break the law, then fine, go after them then. But since when, in a free society, are people allowed to destroy someone's livelihood simply because they don't agree with it?
Re:Dissolve Clearchannel (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we liked the radio more when it was illegal for one company to own all of the stations, perhaps?
Re:Dissolve Clearchannel (Score:2)
Through the use of these laws, a person's (or corporation's) livelyhood may be destroyed.
Since the use of the radio spectrum is governed by laws it would be a simple and legal matter to change the laws to make entities such as Clear Channel illegal.
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Can it be because the programming they offer flat out sucks?
Can it be that people aren't as stupid as they've assumed since the 50s?
That they dont want to see another sitcom about a family with a precocious little kid that runs the house, or 5 20-something hipsters drinking coffee and making dumb wisecracks?
Can it be that they've reached the puking threshhold with this reality TV crap? That people dont care which of the 40 masked guys that some whore chooses?
Can it be that the old standbys of Leno and Letterman kissing hollywood ass is frankly BORING?
I mean there's a reason I'd rather watch some longwinded documentary about the treasures of King Razamatooten from the 3rd dynasty; as dry and uninteresting as it is, it's better than anything NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and the DUBBYA-BEE have to offer.
Perhaps just getting "known star" to do a sitcom for 2 million an episode doesn't guarantee ratings anymore.
Mod parent up? =P (there's actually text here) (Score:2)
Well said.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Broadcast network demographics show they reach the oldest audienc
I should care more than I do, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
News is an important issue, and I get my news from multiple unrelated companies, ideally from different countries. As for entertainment on commercial TV and radio, there ain't none!!!
"Costs are going up, audience is going down, competition is increasing"
Competition increasing is a good thing, and the proposed bills seem to be destroying that aspect. As for the high costs/low audience problem, do you think that spending ONE MILLION DOLLARS PER LEAD CAST MEMBER PER EPISODE on a show as tired and utterly rehashed-to-death as "Friends" might have something to do with that?
Maybe if the media companies started paying their stars less money per weekly episode than most people gross in a decade their costs would go down. Maybe if they spent a TINY amount of money on writers with creative and new ideas, their audience would go up.
But no, it's easier to make money through legislation and monopolies than to actually do your job.
Do Something (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Do Something (Score:2)
No doubt. Keep in mind that picking up the phone is a much more effective way to communicate to your elected representatives. Congrespeople get hundreds to thousands of emails and electronic petitions on a wide variety of subjects. Picking up the phone requires a little more effort. Less people do it so they give more weight to the people that bother. Wr
Credit where due. (Score:2)
This story about conglomeration brought to you by Slashdot.org [slashdot.org], sibling to the Open Source Developers Network [osdn.org]. Proud members of the VA Software [vasoftware.com] family of companies.
A way to fight back? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds to me like the stations could fight back by blocking network programming, getting three strikes, and then they're free!! All you would need to do is get all of them to agree to it and it might work. See, I see this as an advan
Re:A way to fight back? (Score:3, Interesting)
and it is as networks like UPN are screaming for stations to carry them. If the station owners had any balls at all they would stop the network strong-arm tactics my having a mass drop of the fox network.
I find that I watch Fox less and less.... except for the Simpsons they dont have anything I want to watch on prime time. UPN on the otherhand does
Petition to the FCC (Score:5, Informative)
And you wonder why radio sucks so much these days (Score:5, Funny)
On a different topic but related to Corporate consolidation, I think we should just do away with our current government and let the country be run by mega coporations. You see the way it would work is whoever paid the most money gets the most power and favor with government. So if you wanted to expand your company so that it owned every media outlet in a particular area you could just dump money until your able to do what you want. You'd be able to set up monopolies in whatever industry you wanted, be it Cable, Telecom, or hell even the software industry if you wanted. The "President" and "Vice President" really wouldn't be politicians, they would businessmen with strong ties to big corporations and they would give favor to their former companies once they got in power. You konw sort of like a bonus for "making it to the top".
I know my ideas are little crazy, but maybe its worth a shot.
Some of the changes might help local media though (Score:3, Insightful)
wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
and now you guys all have your free-market radio stations where you - yes, i mean YOU! - can make choices about which radio station will be #1! yes-siree-bob, all those companies are entirely dependant on your happiness with their programming decisions.
isn't it just GREAT!
Re:wait... (Score:2)
Now, I am aware that governmental regulation in this case is the nece
Re:wait... (Score:2)
Following the same logic, we conclude that competition between McDonald's & Burger King improves culinary standards.
Re:wait... (Score:2, Interesting)
One story was about Burger King focusing more on quality to better compete against McD.
The second story I saw was about McD's changing the trans-fat content of their meals rather significantly. This, in part, was positioned to better compete with BK/Subway.
McD's and BK serve a very large market, just like clearchannel. But, we all know there are alternatives. I suggest that the lack of alternatives
Re:wait... (Score:2)
They are doing that because they are the next target for the Health Department after tobacco companies : Obesity Reported to Cost U.S. $93B a Year [yahoo.com]. Regulation is forcing them to do the right thing, not the market.
I can't comment on BK, I don't know the details.
My point is that while the free markets do provide some efficiencies in some areas, efficiency & cost cutting is not necessarily desirable in all areas. TV & Radio
Re:wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems at first glance to be a hard issue for libertarians: "you're damned if you do, damned if you don't." On one hand, I want freedom and want to tell the government to shove it and get out of the way, and on the other hand, I want a free market. Many of the virtues of capitalism require a free market, but when you don't have competition, capitalism becomes less attractive. And media consolidation is also a special case, in that it not only threatens competition in the media market, but can (
Re:wait... (Score:2)
Good post, I completly agree. You either do it or you don't there is no middle ground between a free market and a socialist market, but if u do accept a middle ground, you're not free, nor are you socialist, you are BOTH!
So basically, no argument from any side of the issue can actually make a difference, because both systems are colliding.
The problem is, the way the system has gotten now, with the bad economy, and the governement depending on big business to keep them out of the red and at the same
Re:wait... (Score:2)
No Suprise (Score:4, Insightful)
It worries me that it is getting harder and harder for small artists, musicians, television writers etc to get on the first rung due to the lack of competition. And this stifling of culture will be something that once done will be increasingly hard to undo... where are we going...?
I just wish that people cared about new culture and cutting edge performance and writing but it seems they are content to buy re-issued, committee-written comedy, music, drama and film.
Adorno was precient in his forecasts...
BBC news 24 last night (Score:2)
Media combinations I'd like to see (Score:5, Funny)
2. ABC and WB: The dead eating the dead. Is that cannibalism or Night of the Living Dead or neither?
3. New York Times and E!: Oh, the possibilities: "Jayson Blair Investigative Reports: Anna Nicole Smith -- What's real and what's fake?"; "E! Hollywood True Story: All the President's Men -- the Post was really just making up Deep Throat...we should know!"; and "Talk Soup for the Lazy Reporter"
4. CNN and Playboy: All T&A, all the time. Show your tits, Judy Woodruff!
GF.
DJ-less radio (Score:3, Interesting)
Before holidays, we would prerecord our shifts on reel-to-reel tape, and the engineer would simply swap reels every 3 hours.
It occured to me that if we had every song in our cd library as an mp3 in a database, we could automate the entire process. We could have the software rotate through the songs to fill the air-time exactly, we could load all the ad spots and PAs in a separate table, and not even have to be in the room.
I wonder if anyone is doing this now. If not, I'm sure it will.
Re:DJ-less radio (Score:2)
Re:DJ-less radio (Score:2)
WVBR!?! Get with it! WOGG is MUCH higher fidelity station !!!
Open up all the channels (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, this will cause interference on Grandma's old Philco. So?
What would be cool (Score:3, Interesting)
a history lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
Old adage still true... (Score:3, Insightful)
===
Mass media takes in money for its goods and services. That makes it the supplier.
Advertising agencies, marketing departments, and other corporations pay money to the mass media for its goods and services. That makes it the customer.
Where does that leave you, gentle TV watcher or radio listener or newspaper reader? You are the product.
===
I am even insulted that cable TV, satellite TV, et al propose to take *my* money and yet run commercials and programming that *I* don't get to dictate. Essentially, I am paying them for the privelege of selling me (as the product) to others. Gah!
The best "other industry relationship" to compare the relationship of the TV/radio station and the viewer/listener to? Uh, that would be "prostitute and pimp." The mass media is the pimp. YOU are the prostitute. Does anyone wonder now why we're constantly getting bent over and screwed in ways we don't even want?
Come to think of it, replace "mass media" with "government" and replace "advertising agencies and marketing departments" with "well-funded lobbyists" and you pretty much have the only other use of the pimp/prostitute analogy you need.
--AC101
Options dwindle, but some remain (Score:4, Interesting)
San Fransisco and LA have KPFA and perhaps one or two other radio outlets that are operated similarly to the way KBOO is. But nationwide our options for true community controlled media has become very very limited.
There are several reasons why corporate control of our airwaves remains an issue that is important to understand:
It amazes me how little the citizens of this country care about being controlled or manipulated. Perhaps it has come down to the power that can be purchased by a few people who have large sums of money and big desires that remain unfulfilled.
If you are a terror to many, then beware of many. --Ausonius
Proof that media consolidation is bad (Score:3, Interesting)
They were not succesfull in making money. Radio revenues went way down after their takeovers.
They were not succesfull in making interesting radio. My favourite hard rock station has become quite awfull after the takeover. Now i prefer playing any crappy CD over and over again instead of listening to radio.
They were not succesful in allowing different political views, informing the public, etc. Many controversial DJs were just fired. Of course Limbaugh reins supreme.
So, yes clearchannel proves consolidation is just bad news.
SOme people may say that the internet makes it ok... but consider this - many people do not have internet (about 50% of the us, i believe) and also the internet cannot fully replace TV as it could not fully replace my fave hard rock radio station. They are just different media.
turning the tide (Score:3, Interesting)
so they embraced the issue. it's a lot harder to ignore the group of people on the steps of the fcc whining 'FREE AND INDEPENDENT MEDIA' if those people are anti-war citizens from all across the country with money, clout, and celebrity spokesmen (michael moore).
the smallish team media democracy activists has ballooned into a huge group of peace and justice activists, hackers, consumer rights activists, kids, parents, people of all stripes. now groups like moveon.org [moveon.org] are planning national call-in days. now code pink [codepink4peace.org] is pink-slipping fcc chairman michael powell alongside his much-more-famous father, colin powell.
so we have the people. what do we do? what's our power?
1) call your senator. like, now. right now. the senate, after the second commerce committee hearing on this issue, is rattling some sabers [washingtonpost.com] and could definitely use some encouragement that this issue isn't just one for the lobbyists.
2) comment to the fcc. you can do so here [prometheusradio.org] and the comments you make will also go to the senate commerce committee, and to the president.
3) tell someone who isn't tech savvy about this. you're reading slashdot. you have a choice about where you get your media. most people don't. newspaper, radio, and television matter more than we can say in most parts of this country. just ask the good people of minot [moveon.org].
and visit us at prometheus. we're here all the time. and we will be until june 2nd and after.
hannah sassaman
prometheusradioproject [prometheusradio.org]
Donald Love (Score:2)
Now if I could only find him... he owes me money from my last job...
"cable-ize broadcast" (Score:4, Interesting)
Digital Television provides 19.4 Mbps of data per channel. This could either be a single high-definition stream, or a multiplex set of standard-definition streams (or even a mixture of both).
So you could have 4 times as many digital video streams on the air as you have analog video channels today, if they all do a 4 way multiplex (they call it "multicast", but that confuses us IT folks) at SD bitrates equivalent to those of SD digital cable.
It remains to be seen what might be made of those multiplexed digital television channels.
PBS, for example, provides a pre-multiplexed DTV feed to public television stations broadcasting a digital channel, including a children's feed, and an adult learning feed, and many are running with this 4 channel "multicast" during non-prime hours.
So it might be that broadcast DTV becomes more "cable-ized" through the addition of multiplexed channels.
ClearChannel has put people in physical danger (Score:5, Interesting)
They have a license to use the public's airwaves for the public good. They are in gross violation of that license. Someone needs to organize a campaign to protest the re-newal of a stations liscense, they need to be re-newed every 8 years
Criticising Clear Channel is short sighted (Score:2, Interesting)
But they are a monopoly you say? Or at least someone gobbling up a limited resource? True. But why is the resource (in this case, air waves) so limited? Its the FCCs fault.
FM radio was a huge technological improvement over AM radio. The AM band occupies 540-1700 KHz and FM is only 88-
Fascinating effect on the generation gap (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a place for safe, predictable radio. But it can be filled just as easily with a CD changer. The thing that is driving this right now is that advertisers are willing to pay well to air their ads to a specific market niche all across the country. When those listeners wander away out of boredom, either the programming will change or the company will go bankrupt.
Oh give it a rest. (Score:2, Interesting)
If Micheal and his flock don't like what they hear on the ra
Re:Oh give it a rest. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are much fewer people listening to clear channel stations, than used to be when the stations were owned by smaller companies.
Considering how radio is to a large extent an captive audience medium (ppl listen to radio when they are in their cars and dpnt have any good cds) that is a pretty significant sign that Clearchannel sucks.
Sending us back a century (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like an old-school claim, but this really does set us back a century. We'll take a look at it: Huge media giant buys up a bunch of smaller television stations, and doubles commercial time. Instead of watching a television show, we will be watching a string of commercials with small breaks in between.
This isn't so bad, however. This will push the mass of people that don't want to read for entertainment onto the internet. I spend more time on-line than in front of television. Those that get fed up with the mass abusage of the internet will give up, go to IRC or start reading books for entertainment.
Reading is awesome. I think that everyone's time is better spent reading a book instead of watching a television. Reading affects your articulation skills, enhances spelling ability, and grows your vocabulary. People will eventually get smarter over time, and will be more interesting to speak with.
All of this because some huge media company decided to give ads instead of content. I already gave up on listening to the radio.
Krugman piece on FCC horse trading... (oops) (Score:4, Interesting)
This article in the NY times is one of the best things I've seen on the subject, so I had to pass it along.
It's true that it is very hard to find an alternative viewpoint in the media in this country, and surprising when the press is so profit-driven. This is the best explanation of this problem that I've seen so far, and suggests that it is this very profit motive that causes large media companies in the US to take the side of the party in power.
Very interesting and important.
(previous submission accidental)
Clear Channel is a NASTY company! (Score:3, Informative)
This decision has been long been made.. (Score:5, Informative)
Little by little our rights are being taken away from us. Just look at all of the recent laws implemented, DMCA, copyrights, PATRIOT act etc.
We need to act now, before the decision has been rendered. Once it has, there is very little chance of getting it changed. What's at stake is the very nature of democracy in this country. There is no way to rectify this if a bad decision is made. How do we rectify this in 10 years from now, once Clear Channel has bought up the few remaining independent stations? Do we really expect that at that point, a healthy debate about breaking up Clear Channel will be allowed by Clear Channel?
Clear Channel says it needs to be allowed to buy the remaining independent stations in order to become profitable. If they haven't become profitable at this size, what makes us believe that will become profitable when they have taken over the rest? Lets face it folks, these guys are lying to us saying that they are not profitable. They are quite profitable now, and what's really driving this is pure greed at the expense of this country's core values. They are destroying this country at the expense of a few bucks. Enough is enough.
Re:left wing Liberal Media pigs (Score:3, Interesting)
At least that's what I seem to get from reading at +1 or -1.
It seems hip to call yourself liberal, but then go home and secretly watch Fox News.
The vast majority of Americans (sorry foreigners) have very mixed political views, and fewer and fewer can strongly identify with one of the two major parties.
Re:left wing Liberal Media pigs (Score:2)
Me? I'll come right out and admit where I am. I am a Big R Republican. I was a little l libertarian, and was actually about to make the leap into big L Libertarian party politics. Then, I decided that Big R is closer to "l" than Big D. A vote for a big "L" was a vote for a big "D". Just as a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. I decided, I have to choose a side.
You won't find me trying to spin things.
Re:left wing Liberal Media pigs (Score:2)
Libertarians say, do as you please, as long as it doesn't harm another person.
Well, to me certainly, a child 7 1/2 months along in the womb is a person.
So, there's no conflict with my pro-life views there.
Yeesh (Score:2)
Why do you think there's no variety in music radio? Consolidation! Hello!? Could it be that the same company owns most of the radio stations? Could this be why all the music sounds the same? Try listening to a college radio station sometime, and not a make-believe college station that isn't run by the students (we have a few of these in Maryland, and it's really annoying; that is NOT "college radio").
Newspapers are still more comfortable to read than Web sites, and the iLoo notwithstanding, there are