Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Media Television Your Rights Online

More on Media Consolidation 274

Posted by michael from the and-then-there-was-one dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on Media Consolidation More

More on Media Consolidation

Comments Filter:

  • A Corporate Endeavor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scoria ( 264473 ) * <{slashmail} {at} {initialized.org}> on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:26AM (#5954996) Homepage
    From any perspective, Clear Channel is an entirely commercial endeavor. Whenever the corporation isn't promoting "sponsors," Clear Channel attempts to promote labels sponsored by the RIAA. Modern radio is a commercial medium, not an exhibition of artistry. "Corporate America" regards you as a "consumer," not a "customer."

    • Re:A Corporate Endeavor (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:46AM (#5955202) Homepage
      Whenever the corporation isn't promoting "sponsors," Clear Channel attempts to promote labels sponsored by the RIAA.

      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.

      • Heck, MTV (when they played music) was the best advertisement ever conceived for record companies.

        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)

      by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:04PM (#5955349)
      It's much worse then that.

      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)

    by TamMan2000 ( 578899 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:28AM (#5955024) Journal
    good cartoon [yahoo.com] on the topic

  • New Theme (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:28AM (#5955025) Homepage Journal
    Anyone else think whenever 'ClearChannel' is mentioned the Imperial March should play in the background?

  • Article Text, Washington Post (Score:4, Informative)

    by Damek ( 515688 ) <adam&damek,org> on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:28AM (#5955026) Homepage
    Media Fight Focuses on Local TV Stations

    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
    • One can only hope that this point doesn't hinge on the "rising cost of programming, especially... sports." The networks locked themselves into long-term deals for events like the NCAA's just before the advertising market went into a downturn. This is more about the media companies making some really bad deals than anything else, and now they're looking to the government to bail them out from a regulatory standpoint.

      It will be interesting to see what happens when the next round of sports contracts come up

    • Boo Hoo (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )
      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."

      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)

    by freedommatters ( 664657 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:33AM (#5955061)

    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.

    john
    Be like Jayson Blair and make up your own news at the Not True Times [wildjelly.com]

  • Radio is dead... (Score:4, Informative)

    by gpinzone ( 531794 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:33AM (#5955063) Homepage Journal
    Every major station in New York has either a top 40 format or rock format. And both formats consist of about 10 songs played over and over. If it wasn't for talk radio, I'd have nothing to listen to on the drive to work.
    • Alternatives exist; thanks to the spread of independent music over the Internet (much of it free), you can make excellent compilations to listen to in the car on a very small budget. There's even radio alternatives, like satellite radio. Of course, no one really wants to pay for radio, but then again, perhaps that's why Clear Channel decided to destroy the stuff you get for free: to force the discerning music listener to pay.

      Maybe I'm wrong, given that there's no pay-to-listen alternative to MuchMusic (Ca

      • 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)

      by Schezar ( 249629 )
      That's why I thank the gods for NPR. My CD player has been broken for a few weeks, and I'll die before I'll listen to Top 40.
    • Myself, I listen to any station from 87 to 92 FM. That's the non-commercial band (for now) and while you probably won't find great music there, at least you won't have any commercials. I can stand endless repetition of the same songs on the drive to work, but what makes me change the channel is twenty minutes of commercials and DJ talk every hour. These non-commercial stations frequently play sucky music (college radio) or liberal drivel (NPR), but at least I don't have the god-damned commercials.

  • I've tried to boycott Clearchannel, I really have (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:34AM (#5955079) Homepage Journal
    but they have bought every radio station station in the Houston area that didn't suck, and even a few that did. So I drive cross country, I find another radio station. I listen to it, sounds kinda cool, then you hear "Thank you for listend to KXYZ, the ONLY station that doesn't suck, a Clear Channel Communications station." So they admit that all their other stations suck?

    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 could a radio boycott actually work? It doesn't cost them anything for you to listen, and they have no way of knowing of you're listening or not.

      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)

        by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:50AM (#5955247) Homepage Journal
        They can't count how many radios are tuned in, you're absolutely right. The boycott would work by making them look less appealing to advertisers.

        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.
    • Can you say 91.7 KTRU [ktru.org] (Rice University), 90.1 KPFT [kpft.org] (Pacifica), or 88.7 KUHF [kuhf.org] (NPR, classical)? All good noncommercial Houston radio.
      • I don't like pop, classical is great, but not all the time when I have a case of road rage I want to blair the OffSpring, Mötley Crüe or something, not Mozart. FEED THE RAGE, starving it just makes your rage hungry, their's nothing worse than rage on an empty stomache.

  • Bill Board (Score:4, Interesting)

    by awol ( 98751 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:35AM (#5955082) Journal
    Saw my first ClearChannel signed billboard near my home in London :-(. Begun this advertising war has.
    • I might be over-dramatising it a little, but it is like I blinked, then when I opened my eyes they are *everywhere*. I've been travelling around the UK recenetly and everywhere I go there have been ClearChannel billboards - and with the new communications bill [communicat...ill.gov.uk] on it's way I am somewhat concerned about where they are going next...

  • Another article (Score:5, Informative)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:36AM (#5955094) Homepage
    This article [washingtonpost.com] is also about Clear Channel. It's a great summation of why they are the way they are, and why that's a bad thing. Some choice quotes:

    Every issue we discuss, every decision we make, comes down to a simple test: Will it increase ratings or revenue? If it doesn't, let's move on."
    -- Bennett Zier, Clear Channel Radio Regional Vice-President

    • Re:Another article (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Guipo ( 591513 )
      why is it a bad thing for a company to make profit by any legal means?

      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

      • I don't think there is anything wrong with making a profit. The problems come when they are already making a competative profit, and every decision is "how do we make more profit". Then old faithfuls that are profitable get tossed as they aren't making the most profit, and bingo, you get the situation now -

        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
      • It's not a bad thing morally. It's a bad thing for anyone who listens to radio.
    • Wait, I live there!

      Shit!
    • I'm not sure what your link to google is supposed to mean, but I think it is about the fact the British government owns the BBC. Normally I would agree with you, but because everyone in the world knows that BCC is owned by the government, it gets a lot more scrutiny and criticism. The result? Much better reporting which is much less slanted then things like FoxNews.This is why many Americans turned to the BBC during the war to get better coverage. Many people wrongly assume that foxnews is not related to th
      • I was actually meaning Silvio Berlusconi, who personally owns the top three TV channels in Italy, but yes, the BBC is something that we have to be careful with. It often seems to have a Labour government bias, but that's just because journalists tend towards the left, as that is the natural home for free speech beliefs. This tendency (and that's all it is) is often overridden by the proprietor's political leanings, though, so don't read too much into that last point.

      • This is why many Americans turned to the BBC during the war to get better coverage.

        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.

        In fact Rupert Murdock is a friend of GWB and will not let his news network report negatively on the B


    • 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)

    by scrow ( 620374 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:39AM (#5955129)
    Over the past few decades or so the U.S. Government has learned many lessons about media coverage and international dealings. The whole dynamic has changed radically from the times of journalism in say Vietnam vs the "inbedded" reporters of this recent action. General Franks and Colin Powell, whos son is pushing he deal, "Cut their teeth" commanding forces in vietnam and they relaize that tight media control is the answer to help the people accept the actions of the government.

    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.
    • Wait...putting reporters in combat units where they can show pictures of dead Iraqis and document U.S. atrocities is a BAD thing?

      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.

      • Did you see any dead Iraqis or U.S. atrocities on any of the news outlets that had reporters in combat units?

        "In bedded" reporters... Exactly.

        Those "big leftist newspapers" are more independent than the rest of the state-run media in this country.
      • The reporters were not allowed to show anything that might make the US military look bad.

        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)

    by HidingMyName ( 669183 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:41AM (#5955148)
    All sources of news and culture have their biases. Unfortunately, consolidation means that diversity decreases over time. This is why we don't hear about major international events, and most of our news sources look the same. Thus, even if we have "freedom of the press", the de facto freedom is constrained by commercial interests. The recording industry is getting so cozy with the radio stations that there is little variation in content there as well. I hope that we can fix this, however the economy of scale which drives this process may be very hard to overcome.

  • Dissolve Clearchannel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:42AM (#5955150) Journal
    Clearchannel has singlehandedly destroyed radio in the US. Five years ago, I had quite a nice variety of stations to pick from, with all twelve of my presets going to something that, depending on my mood, I would enjoy.

    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.
    • "Clearchannel, as an "experiment" in media conglomeration, should end. Revoke its corporate charter, dissolve it, return control and ownership to each individual station."

      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)

        by pHDNgell ( 410691 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:25PM (#5955536)
        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?

        Because we liked the radio more when it was illegal for one company to own all of the stations, perhaps?
      • There is a document that you need to read called the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, direct your attention to article one. That's the part establishing the legislature and empowering it to make laws.

        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)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:42AM (#5955153) Journal
    Why are they losing audiences to cable channels?

    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.
    • I hate people who post "MOD PARENT UP," but, for the first time, I -really- wish I had mod points right at this moment.

      Well said.
    • Broadcast is losing to the cable channels because they do a better job at providing "individualized" content to smaller niches, which pulls viewers off broadcast. Most people wouldn't watch "Discovery Channel," but I would. Top rated Discovery shows pull 2-4 million households. Add enough (10 or so) little cable networks pulling 2-4 million at a time and your 100-200 million former broadcast numbers start to go down by about 20-40 million.

      Broadcast network demographics show they reach the oldest audienc

  • I should care more than I do, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:42AM (#5955154) Journal
    ...the media companies are working hard at making themselves irrelevant.

    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)

    by CrookedFinger ( 261255 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:43AM (#5955159) Homepage
    MoveOn has a page [moveon.org] where you can send a letter to your members of Congress and add your name to a petition to stop the June 2nd decision.

    • MoveOn has a page [moveon.org] where you can send a letter to your members of Congress and add your name to a petition to stop the June 2nd decision.

      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


  • 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.

  • However, Goodmon said, if he wants to preempt Fox programming to carry, say, a basketball game between two local college teams, he gets one "strike" from the network. Two more strikes -- preemptions not based on community standards -- and he could lose his Fox affiliation.

    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)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      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 advantage.

      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)

    by evenprime ( 324363 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:47AM (#5955206) Homepage Journal
    as I have pointed out in the past [slashdot.org] There's a petition to the FCC [futureofmusic.org] about this issue that is worth reading. It has been signed by many prominent musicians, and they are looking for as many listeners as possible to listen.

  • And you wonder why radio sucks so much these days (Score:5, Funny)

    by bogie ( 31020 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:49AM (#5955229) Journal
    "Lowry Mays is the Big Daddy of radio. The founder and CEO of Clear Channel, Mays oversees 1,233 radio stations with some 100 million listeners across all 50 states, and runs a company with $8 billion in revenues and a $23 billion market cap. But ask Mays about what he does for a living and you won't hear much about musicians or how to bring up ratings or who's the best DJ. Those things don't interest him much. Truth is, Mays isn't that passionate about what goes out over the airwaves. As long as his broadcasts sell ads, he's happy. "If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company," says Mays, 67. "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products.""

    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)

    by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:50AM (#5955244) Homepage Journal
    As discussed on NPR yesterday, one of the rules prohibits the same company from owning a TV station and a newspaper in the same area. This is supposed to keep a single entity from dominating the media in an area, but it may actually be hurting local media, because they can't grow, since they aren't interested in other areas and are prohibited from expanding locally. If the main source of media consolidation is nation-wide media outlets rather than local outlets in multiple formats, this hurts the consumer's choice. And really, how many people get their news by watching TV and reading a paper, as opposed to watching multiple TV channels or reading multiple papers?

  • wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) * on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:51AM (#5955254) Homepage
    where are all the libertarians crying out in joy? isn't this great - capitalism in action! more and more of those pesky government regulations being whisked out of the way!

    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!
    • That's simple. Even with the deregulation, the government is still mandating the number of available radio frequencies in a particular area, as well as the strength of signals. As a result, due to this governmental regulation, the market is not really free; the only thing that changes is a shift in ownership. As a self-proclaimed libertarian, I would be much more happy with an open market, with almost no or very low barriers to entry.

      Now, I am aware that governmental regulation in this case is the nece


    • Following the same logic, we conclude that competition between McDonald's & Burger King improves culinary standards.

      • Re:wait... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by moehoward ( 668736 )
        Um. It is. Why, just in the past week, I can site two examples that at least partially refute your sarcasm.

        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
        • >McD's changing the trans-fat content of their meals rather significantly
          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)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 ) *
      Heh.

      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 (


      • 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
    • This is the same thing that happened during the California power crisis: the government deregulated half the industry, while leaving the other half strictly controlled. Good upstanding socialists pronounced it a free market failure, when it was never a free market to begin with. In this case, the FCC controls entry to the radio market, so the deregulation of ownership controls doesn't represent a free market situation.

  • No Suprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by locarecords.com ( 601843 ) <davidNO@SPAMlocarecords.com> on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @11:55AM (#5955282) Homepage Journal
    What with all the media corporation merging, and merging more we are within spitting distance of a few truly huge global media companies that have the reach and power that is truly terrifying.

    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...

  • I was watching this channel last night and in the business talk section there was the CEO of Sinclair (who own lots of local cable stations) saying how terrible it is that theyre not alowed to own more things than theyre currently alowed, his justification was that there are so many more channels now... bah just another company like clear channel trying to crush all competition. (Final thaught-Maybe that should have been like M$ - no beacuse MS has already done so :-( )

  • Media combinations I'd like to see (Score:5, Funny)

    by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:00PM (#5955320) Homepage Journal
    1. PBS and FOX: This would be something like a collision of matter and anti-matter. New shows: "Firing Line meets Celebrity Boxing"; "When Barney Attacks!"; and "Bill Moyers investigates Monica's Thong"

    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)

    by CowboyRobot ( 671517 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:10PM (#5955393) Homepage
    Back when I was a DJ at WVBR (briefly) I spent most of my time calculating which songs to play in order to fill the 20-minute space between weather and station identification, and between news and the ad break. Given that I had exactly 20 minutes, if I started with a 5:13, a 3:17, and a 4:39, I then had to find a song or two to fill the remaining 7 or so minutes.

    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.

  • Open up all the channels (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:14PM (#5955424) Homepage
    If the FCC is going to allow media consolidation, it should open up more channels. TV channel assignments have rules to protect crappy TV tuners from adjacent channel interference and harmonic interference. These reflect 1950s electronics technology. All those rules should be repealed. In major markets, every VHF and UHF channel should be active if someone wants to transmit on it. Broadcasters have been fighting this for years; they hate real competition. But it's time.

    Yes, this will cause interference on Grandma's old Philco. So?

  • What would be cool (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eaddict ( 148006 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:19PM (#5955476)
    would be a coverage map of US of each of the companies. Numbers mean little, it is coverage that matters. Anyone know of anything like it? Wanna create it?

  • a history lesson (Score:3, Insightful)

    by havaloc ( 50551 ) * on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:25PM (#5955538) Homepage
    Please, do not worry about all this Clearchannel nonsense. As time goes on, people will tire of this type of programming. This happened with television in the 60s and 70s, and broadcast has all but died, due to competition from pay TV. When the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) just did the same old programming and copy off each other, they lost marketshare and created an opening for alternatives. The same thing will happen again. The free market system works, it just takes time.

  • Old adage still true... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:26PM (#5955550)
    The old adage is still true...
    ===
    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)

    by SmilingMonk ( 583609 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:33PM (#5955629) Homepage
    Here in Portland, OR we have KBOO [www.kboo.fm]. It is entirely community funded, staffed, and operated. It is amazing how different the news, content, and programming is from corporate controlled media.

    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:

    • FM/AM tuners remain a widely accepted standard for reception. Those in our society who are not wired, as many on /. are, use whatever technology is cheap and widely available. This makes radio listening somewhat different than newspaper reading.
    • Local news and information can easily be sanitized or completely ignored by companies like ClearChannel (particularly true when they don't generate content locally)
    • All bandwidth used to be a public resource. Protecting this used to be the charter of the FCC. Airwaves were to be used for the public interest and not as a simple money generator for a handful of people or companies

    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)

    by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:33PM (#5955637)
    Just look at clearchannel. They own almost every radio station in the US now and they have been a failure in all respects.

    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)

    by shoji ( 168463 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:34PM (#5955643) Homepage
    welcome to the grassroots fight of your life, if you're a media democracy activist. we've been working on this for a year, trying to build a coalition of peace and justice groups against the issue. during the war in iraq, many national peace activists would turn on the nightly news and say, 'what the hell? where are the bodies? why are retired generals and embedded reporters giving me my news?'

    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]

  • One way or another, we all work for Donald Love anyway. What difference does it make if he owns a few more radio/tv stations?

    Now if I could only find him... he owes me money from my last job...

  • "cable-ize broadcast" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:47PM (#5955775) Journal
    As you may know, one of the advantages of cable is that it has so many channels that there is the opportunity for niche markets.

    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)

    by asmithmd1 ( 239950 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:54PM (#5955843) Homepage Journal
    Last thursday I was driving home around the Washington, DC beltway when NPR interrupted their broadcast mid-sentence with a tornado warning. A warning is issued when a tornado has been spotted and, if you are in the area, you need to take cover now. I flipped over to one of the clearchannel stations, DC101, just to see how fast they reacted. You guessed it, they never did.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    First of all, let me make myself clear (no pun intended). Clear Channel sucks. They produce a lousy product, and are profitable only because they are so lowest common denominator that they don't have much costs at all.

    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)

    by dsplat ( 73054 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @01:09PM (#5956011)
    By putting the safe and tested material on the radio, they are driving people seeking new music to other distribution channels. This is only going to bring on the day that record labels and radio are completely irrelevant to music that much sooner. I stopped listening to mainstream radio a decade ago. Today, I get my music live or off of an alternative station.

    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.
  • For every Slashbot complaining that ClearChannel wrecked 'their' radio station, there is about, oh a couple million (or so) people tuning in to those stations (of their own free will) and patronizing the advertisers. To remedy this horrible situation, the Slashbots propose - wait for it - more government regulation! After all - the poor, huddled masses out there can't possibly be expected to make their own decisions on what to listen to, can they?

    If Micheal and his flock don't like what they hear on the ra

    • Most of the points of the parent post have been rebuked, but i want say this in addition.

      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)

    by Slime-dogg ( 120473 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:14PM (#5956573) Journal

    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)

    by rMortyH ( 40227 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @03:54PM (#5957494)
    [nytimes.com]
    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)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @04:38PM (#5957925)
    I used to work for them as an Engineer. I resigned (with over a months notice to them and for a huge raise), then a year later after being laid off, tried to return. You can't...pure and simple. There's a blacklist, and because I resigned, I'm on it. What's even more amazing is that they actually TOLD me about it when I called to find out what was going on (I suspected something was amiss). Clear Channel controls almost half the engineering jobs in Radio, and now the FCC wants to reward them for being nasty by allowing them to control half the jobs in Television? Somethings very wrong here.......

  • This decision has been long been made.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by msoftsucks ( 604691 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @05:28PM (#5958504)
    The FCC has already decided that it will allow companies to own much more than they can now. The FCC director stated that this oh so important decision does not need any debate. He tried to shut down the debate by refusing to fund town meetings around the country debating this and informing the general public. He has definitely been bought by the likes of Clear Channel. This will further erode democracy in this country, and if you now hate DMCA and its ilk, wait until the next pass. Laws like DMCA and PATRIOT 2 get passed because there is a lack of healthy debate. It has been shown time and time again that Clear Channel refuses to report on such items. If you don't believe me, when was this particular debate even mentioned on any of Clear Channel's stations? The only time that I saw this reported was on a PBS program called "NOW with Bill Moyers". This was an excellent program that tried to look at the issue from all sides. You can find an in-depth discussion at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bigmedia.html [pbs.org]
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close