CLEAR CHANNEL WILL NOT PLAY NEW SPRINGSTEEN

[Lee Flier]

I'm fully aware of how much it costs to set up a broadcast network. However the FCC used to have regulations in place to restrict the number of stations any one entity could own, in order to prevent monopolies. That's the problem I have with CC - they control too much. Public airwaves should not be a monopoly. That has little to do with the content itself and everything to do with lack of diversity in content.

 

I do have a problem with their moronic content decisions. I'm not much of a Springsteen fan but it seems the height of stupidity not to play a record that is selling as well as it is, not to mention playing his old material but not his new stuff. That just seems like basic marketing stupidity. But that's secondary (to me) to the monopoly issue.

[BlueStrat]

Clear Channel was able to buy up all those stations because the previous owners couldn't or didn't want to make them work. It isn't any more complicated than that. No one was forced to sell to them. The fact is, they have found a formula for profitability that works. Sucks, but there it is. Yeah, you can break up the monopolies, and then you get the inconsistency and the inefficiency of service that happened when Bell Telephone was broken up. You can't force diversity for the sake of diversity in the private sector. It has to be profitable or it becomes just another unfunded mandate. And personally, I'm not a fan of government, the most inefficient and wasteful enterprise on the planet, telling business how to conduct itself, as long as no laws are being broken. In a free market, a competitor to CC will rise if it's able to offer a better service and provide more benefits.

 

The best thing the public can do is turn the radio off. If advertisers see no profit with CC, it will go away.

[Lee Flier]

 

Clear Channel was able to buy up all those stations because the previous owners couldn't or didn't want to make them work.

 

 

Funny, they were working before the FCC relaxed their regulations against monopolies (in the mid 90's).

 

 

Yeah, you can break up the monopolies, and then you get the inconsistency and the inefficiency of service that happened when Bell Telephone was broken up.

 

 

Funny, nobody was complaining about "inconsistency and inefficiency" on the radio before the mid 90's, when there were FCC rules preventing monopolies on the airwaves. In fact radio was much better at that point, because individual local program directors and even (gasp) DJ's were usually allowed to make at least some decisions as to what to play.

 

 

You can't force diversity for the sake of diversity in the private sector.

 

 

You can if it's private companies who are using a public asset - the airwaves. And again, radio was doing just fine before Clear Channel's incessant lobbying for the FCC to change its rules for them.

[spokenward]

Back when deregulation was originally touted it was put forward as way to increase programming diversity. Seriously.

 

I don't think that anybody is making that claim with a straight face today. Now we settle for a reductionist "well, they pay taxes."

 

As did the companies that they acquired - with more employees, who also paid taxes. It's true that radio stations have always had assholes in corner offices, but they were different assholes with a limited power to wreck programming.

 

Clear Channel sucks on so many levels. In major markets they feed at the public trough through their programming of public venues (underwritten by public funds- Live Nation was spun off at the end of 2005 but it shares directors - CC is itself being acquired by two private capital firms. One of which is Mitt Romney's former home Bain Capital - which also is acquiring GC which... ), they lock out other promoters and narrow promotion and airplay. Their billboards even trespass on the public right of way.

 

So, the question remains - why would they send a programming memo about Springsteen? 500k units is a lot these days for a new album.

 

Hey, CC has a self-serving response on their website:

 

 

MYTH: Clear Channel Radio directed its stations not to play music from Bruce Springsteen

[Anderton]

There would be no complaints if the music you liked was being "Clear-Channeled" to the top.

 

 

My complaint is not at all about what music does or does not get played in terms of content. I don't have "Magic" and will likely not buy it because I'm not a big Springsteen fan. What I object to is discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, ethnic origin, etc. And that seems to be what's going on here.

 

By not playing music that's "too old," I see no difference between that and not playing music made by, say, Brazilians or black people. Now, I understand that there are stations that play music of a certain genre because that's their schtick: I can't see a Christian station, for example, playing "worship Satan, dude!" heavy metal. But that's different from the Christian station saying they won't play music from artists over a certain age, or of a particular race.

[Anderton]

Okay...I read what CC said in their press release, and went back and re-read the report from Fox News.

 

First, Fox News is a media company that I presume is therefore in competition with Clear Channel, and doesn't have a reputation for, shall we say, totally objective reporting. Looking at the article, I see...

 

"In fact, sources tell me that Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from 'Magic.'"

 

That's real different from "I have a memo here from Clear Channel management..."

 

"Why? One theory, says a longtime rock insider, 'is that the audience knows those songs. Of course, they'll never know these songs if no one plays them.'"

 

Another unattributed source, with a "theory."

 

"The No. 1 album is not being played on any radio stations, according to Radio & Records, which monitors such things."

 

Is that a more authoritative source that stats from the company itself about airplay? ASCAP supposedly monitors these things too, but a writing partner on a CD who's on BMI got a lot more royalties than I did for the same CD over the same period of time...

 

"Bruce insiders are hopeful that with a push from Sony..."

 

More unattributed sources...he could at least have said "Bruce's management" or "Bruce's artist liaison" or something more specific.

 

"Clear Channel seems to have sent a clear message to other radio outlets that at age 58, Springsteen simply is too old to be played on rock stations."

 

SEEMS. No proof, no smoking gun, no memo, no taped conversation.

 

I dunno. In a credibility war between Fox and Clear Channel, I think credibility as a concept is what loses!

[philbo]

Nice bit of homework, there, Craig.

 

You really have to read between the lines on any information from any corporate media - - it seems that truth becomes more and more obscure and concealed behind double-speak as time passes.

 

This is why every news-only channel (Fox, CNN, ad nauseum) is blocked on my satelite TV - - there is so little actual journalism happening today that it is a complete waste of electricity to even tune in. It is all spin, or unsubstantiated repeats of stories other organizations have cooked up as 'press releases' - - with pretty much no semantic content.

[spokenward]

I thought the single source was shaky too. But CC's non-denial supported by a dubious metric makes me think that it is rock solid. The "Madonna statement" probably arrived on their website when Live Nation was announcing a Madonna package.

Fox and CC are in business together on Fox Sports Radio so they have a working arrangement at some level and aren't necessarily enemies to the death.

[BlueStrat]

Here's a pretty interesting site from a journalistic angle about radio and it's ownership. It's 3 years old, but it's still got some good info and makes some good points.

 

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_radio_ownership.asp?cat=5&media=8

[Jotown]

My complaint is not at all about what music does or does not get played in terms of content. I don't have "Magic" and will likely not buy it because I'm not a big Springsteen fan. What I object to is discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, ethnic origin, etc. And that seems to be what's going on here. By not playing music that's "too old," I see no difference between that and not playing music made by, say, Brazilians or black people. Now, I understand that there are stations that play music of a certain genre because that's their schtick: I can't see a Christian station, for example, playing "worship Satan, dude!" heavy metal. But that's different from the Christian station saying they won't play music from artists over a certain age, or of a particular race.

 

[regular guy]

Several posts have pointed out the obvious; it was the easing of the restriction on how many stations per market could be owned by a single entity which is really the culprit. From a programming standpoint, my own opinion is that commercial rock radio has sucked since the late 70s/ early 80s, which was long before the debate about clear channel began to surface. Clear channel's ability to gain a foothold in so many markets is the result of homogenization, rather than the cause of it. I remember back when FM Djs as a matter of course programmed all (or most) of their own playlists. It was not uncommon to have somebody put on a 22 minute opus by some prog-rock band and just let 'er rip. Or play all of side 3 from Electric Ladyland, for that matter. FM rock radio now resembles (to me, at least) the state of AM radio in the late 50s/ early 60s. It is sad, but I think that satellite and internet radio are where the originality and innovation are going to be found from now on. Of course, there are still the college stations... I wonder how long it will be before College Boards of Directors begin to push for privatization in order to reduce their costs?

[Prog]

Me and "other evil corporation types?"

Okay, I was talking to you.

Like I said, if things were going your way under the same circumstances you wouldn't be complaining. "The ends justify the means". Sound familiar?

But, since the end isn't what you want, you complain.

[Jotown]

Okay, I was talking to you. Like I said, if things were going your way under the same circumstances you wouldn't be complaining. "The ends justify the means". Sound familiar? But, since the end isn't what you want, you complain.

And what end would that be?

There is no point in having a serious discussion with someone who can't be taken seriously.

The deregulation of the media is damaging this country in ways that are much more serious than music. Allowing corporate entities to own thousands of stations is the biggest threat to freedom of speech in this great land.

I have not suggested "the way I want things to go" only pointed out (as have others) that corporations being allowed to monopolize the media has led to one of the worst seasons of abuse of our constitution and our freedom of speech.

You can keep repeating your non-point all you want but it doesnt change the fact that you are missing the point entirely.:poke:

[BlueStrat]

 

that corporations being allowed to monopolize the media has led to one of the worst seasons of abuse of our constitution and our freedom of speech.

 

 

Whoa, there.

 

I agree with you in principle, but what is happening is neither a violation of free speech nor of the constitution. You don't do your argument any favors by resorting to such uninformed hyperbole.

 

FWIW, clear channel owns the largest single share of the market, but there are over 25 corporate 'shareholders' using the radio airwaves, not counting independent stations. Clear channel is far from being a monopoly. It may own the largest share of some individual small markets, but then again so may Safeway or Exxon. CC doesn't even own 11% of the entire market, much less most of it, which hardly constitutes a monopoly, is hardly an infringement of free speech, and is hardly unconstitutional.

 

When AM stations change hands and make programming changes, and do away with Limbaugh and Hannity, is it an infringement of their 'free speech' rights, or is it a private enterprise deciding what they want to run or not run?

[Jotown]

When AM stations change hands and make programming changes, and do away with Limbaugh and Hannity, is it an infringement of their 'free speech' rights, or is it a private enterprise deciding what they want to run or not run?

I will excuse your calling me "uninformed" and my notion "hyperbole" (it is good form to excuse ignorance). The point is very simple. Before the deregulation of the media - which began under Clintons watch - the number of TV and radio stations that could be owned by one entity was limited; and for good reason.

Having a variety of sources and voices helps insure that the truth (news) gets out to the people so that they can be informed enough to make good decisions about the politicians they put and keep in office.

The consolidation of the media does indeed limit the voices you hear and the stories that get reported; also the music you get to listen to.

The consolidation of the media is on track to indeed limit free speech by censoring and controlling whose voice gets to be heard. It is already happening. While Clear Channel may not be a monopoly in the technical sense yet; they are certainly guilty of censorship and of silencing voices that go against their corporate interests.

It is just like in the movie "Network". When the news becomes business instead of service, and when the distribution channel for news is in the hands of a few corporate entities, free speech is challenged and so is the constitution.

An intelligent person has to wonder why stories that should be big and get reported get ignored. One doesn't have to think to hard to see why and how this is able to happen. Clear Channel is a big part of this problem and it will only get worse unless the media outlets get RE-regulated.

[Zygs Malone]

Deregulation, in almost every industry it's taken place in has led to three, or four big players controlling the industry.

[Prog]

There is no point in having a serious discussion with someone who can't be taken seriously.

Ahh, the personal insults start.

Good luck.

[Prog]

And what end would that be?

Your "end" would be that if the dominant opinion was in line with yours, you wouldn't be complaining.

[Lee Flier]

 

When AM stations change hands and make programming changes, and do away with Limbaugh and Hannity, is it an infringement of their 'free speech' rights, or is it a private enterprise deciding what they want to run or not run?

 

 

It depends. Every station cetainly has, and should have, the right to decide what it does and doesn't want to air. It's when a few people make that decision on behalf of hundreds of stations, and few competing points of view get to be heard, that it becomes a problem.

[Jotown]

Okay, I was talking to you. But, since the end isn't what you want, you complain.

The personal insults started with you. I will reiterate that it is hard to take someone seriously who doesn't even respond to the question at hand; just their knee jerk opinion and attacks.

Now be an adult and own what you said. If you then want to have a serious discussion about this issue I am all ears.

I noticed that you chose to not respond in any way to Craig

[Prog]

[Jotown]

It depends. Every station cetainly has, and should have, the right to decide what it does and doesn't want to air. It's when a few people make that decision on behalf of hundreds of stations, and few competing points of view get to be heard, that it becomes a problem.

 

+1

[Jotown]

For those who don't know; Bruce has been a very outspoken critic of the Bush administration and the Iraq occupation. That a corporation would stop his message from getting out even before the public gets to vote on the relevance or validity of his music and message says it all.

This from his current Rollling Stone interview.

As he explains when we sit down to talk backstage at Convention Hall, Magic uses the boardwalk sounds of the past to put across the feeling of the present: "the uneasiness of these very uneasy times." Often when he speaks, Springsteen laughs midsentence, as if he's embarrassed to be taking himself this seriously. But not when he talks about the course the country has taken under George W. Bush or the war in Iraq. Then the laughter stops.

To read more of the interview go here

[Prog]

Bruce has been a very outspoken critic of the Bush administration and the Iraq occupation.

Now it's a partisan issue. Clear Channel has nothing to do with Iraq, but now it does.

I'll create your sentence for you: "Clear Channel won't play Springsteen because of his anti war/Bush/conservative views and they are lapdogs of the Bush administration and should be regulated until they do as I want, even thought I don't work there or own stock in the non-government, privately-held company."

Am I close?

[wingfijm]

is a rip-off of Jenny (867-5309)?