I've been getting all of these articles and such about Clear Channel (purported to be the worst thing that has happened to communications since AOL/Time Warner) orchestrating pro-war demonstrations cross-country. Here are the highlights from the NYTimes article I recieved:
"The [Dixie Chicks] CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the United States have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in Texas that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves."
Okay, so that's kind of bad, but nothing shocking. People who are offended often resort to symbolic destructions of free speech using their own free speech -- who cares if it's a radio station, right? The point is that a lot of people got a offended and a radio station organized. Pacifica does that -- so it's not out of bounds, necessarily.
"The company says the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely" ... "Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music" ... "Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way?" ... "there are also good reasons for Clear Channel - which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership - to curry favor with the governing party." ... "It is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television."
see the full article here
So wait, now . . . this is definitely not okay. It was one thing when they were exercising their free speech in a fashion that was, well, perhaps more inflamatory than influential -- but this is simply perverse; who in their fucking right mind organises a war protest to increase shareholder value? What kind of fucking nonsense is that? A major COMMUNICATIONS corporation worried about shareholder value should probably not be allowed to organize anything other than a shareholder meeting or a contest.
Whatever the case may be, this may have very little to do with what is right for America, and very much what is right for Clear Channel. The have an business interest in supporting any somewhat contentious government policy, so long as it molifies the opposition to their needs -- tit for tat, in other words.
"The [Dixie Chicks] CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the United States have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in Texas that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves."
Okay, so that's kind of bad, but nothing shocking. People who are offended often resort to symbolic destructions of free speech using their own free speech -- who cares if it's a radio station, right? The point is that a lot of people got a offended and a radio station organized. Pacifica does that -- so it's not out of bounds, necessarily.
"The company says the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely" ... "Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music" ... "Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way?" ... "there are also good reasons for Clear Channel - which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership - to curry favor with the governing party." ... "It is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television."
see the full article here
So wait, now . . . this is definitely not okay. It was one thing when they were exercising their free speech in a fashion that was, well, perhaps more inflamatory than influential -- but this is simply perverse; who in their fucking right mind organises a war protest to increase shareholder value? What kind of fucking nonsense is that? A major COMMUNICATIONS corporation worried about shareholder value should probably not be allowed to organize anything other than a shareholder meeting or a contest.
Whatever the case may be, this may have very little to do with what is right for America, and very much what is right for Clear Channel. The have an business interest in supporting any somewhat contentious government policy, so long as it molifies the opposition to their needs -- tit for tat, in other words.
posted by Laurence at 11:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home