Clear Channel Censoring Content

[SMM]

Well, here we go again. Corporate media is trying to prevent the American public from learning the truth about domestic and international affairs. The latest victim is Bruce Springsteen's (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/30/clear-channel-is-attempting-to-silence-bruce-springsteen/) latest release, Magic. There are few things which I view as un-American than this.

[ucfgrad93]

Doesn't Clear Channel have the right to determine what is played on its radio stations?

Air America doesn't have any conservatives on it, but I don't hear anyone calling censorship about that.

[mkrishnan]

This seems to be a quickly strung together series of diatribes and fear-mongering. First they say that he's being suppressed because he's "progressive." Then because he's too old. Do they actually produce evidence of either?

Don't get me wrong... I disagree with ucfgrad93. I feel major sources of information such as syndicated television, broadcast radio, and newspapers are "quasi-public" and citizens do have a vested interest in their openness. There're plenty of historical examples supporting the notion that Americans take this view broadly. I'm not at all sure that means that my poor ears should be subjected to Bruce Springsteen's whining, though.

P.S. Call me back when Springsteen sells as many albums as Kanye.

P.P.S. If this same logic applies to keeping Britney Spears off the air, it might even be called a public service. :D

[Swarmlord]

Bruce Springsteen? Didn't he have some hits like 30 years ago? So, once someone has a hit album all they have to do is show up in a studio, record something and then expect every media outlet to help promote it? I think that Bruce is just having trouble accepting that his time has come and gone.

[SMM]

Bruce Springsteen? Didn't he have some hits like 30 years ago? So, once someone has a hit album all they have to do is show up in a studio, record something and then expect every media outlet to help promote it? I think that Bruce is just having trouble accepting that his time has come and gone.

It (the music) should stand/fail on its own merits, not because of a 'front office' decision.

[Swarmlord]

It (the music) should stand/fail on its own merits, not because of a 'front office' decision.

Sorry, but not every song or group gets air time just because it's good. It's entertainment and every "front office" can decide what it's going to air to run the business. If it's a good decision then everyone wins, if not then they lose potential revenue.

If Bruce's music is so good, then he can sell it directly off his website and cut all the radio stations out of the loop. More power to him.

[SMM]

Doesn't Clear Channel have the right to determine what is played on its radio stations?

Air America doesn't have any conservatives on it, but I don't hear anyone calling censorship about that.

Clearly, they have the right. Just like I have the right to take exception to it. Air America is news/talk from a liberal perspective. You would not expect to find right-wing propaganda there. Clear channel is music. It is quite usual to have a message, or theme in a rock song. I bet you could find numerous songs played there, with an anti-war theme. Heck, that made up 25% of 60's/70's music.

No, this is corporate America showing support for the authoritative right-wing agenda. You, of course, can look at it any way you wish.

[PlaceofDis]

its clear channel. isn't this to be expected from them by now?

[leekohler]

Stop listening to Clear Channel. That's your answer.

[SMM]

Sorry, but not every song or group gets air time just because it's good. It's entertainment and every "front office" can decide what it's going to air to run the business. If it's a good decision then everyone wins, if not then they lose potential revenue.

If Bruce's music is so good, then he can sell it directly off his website and cut all the radio stations out of the loop. More power to him.

Personally, I would not go out of my way to listen to BS - not to my taste, understand. But, he still has a large following. I do not think for a minute the 'front office' decision is based on market, ROI, etc. I think it is purely a political decision. That makes your point rather moot. Of course, you can a position that this is an economic decision, which brings us to impasse.

[Swarmlord]

Personally, I would not go out of my way to listen to BS - not to my taste, understand. But, he still has a large following. I do not think for a minute the 'front office' decision is based on market, ROI, etc. I think it is purely a political decision. That makes your point rather moot. Of course, you can a position that this is an economic decision, which brings us to impasse.

Given that a lot of posters here believe that businesses are pure money ho's, I doubt very much that a company in the business of making money from broadcasting music is going to pass on someone like Springsteen for political reasons.

If your reasoning was sound, what is the list of hard conservative music groups that supposedly dominate the airwaves? I've never heard of any and I'd like to be enlightened.

[SMM]

Stop listening to Clear Channel. That's your answer.

Actually, Lee, I do not listen to them. I really do not know anything about them. I was under the impression they are an ISP, like Comcast. I was going to check them out later today (just to satisfy my curiosity).

[saltyzoo]

Why do people think free speech means other people have to listen - or broadcast what you say? If everyone had that kind of free speech life would truly suck.

Free speech is writing a sign and putting it in your yard. Free speech is NOT painting your message on your neighbors mercedes (unless he agrees to it).

Clear channel owns the equipment and the license to broadcast. They have the right to determine what they do with that equipment and license as long as it is within the law.

If you want to exercise your free speech by broadcasting messages on the radio that you agree with - start your own radio station.

It is not censorship to decide what you broadcast on your own equipment and license, unless you are a government agency. It's a business decision, not censorship.

Now, if the government told clear channel that it was not allowed to allow Bruce to be on their radio station - THAT would be censorship.

PS> I really wish you wouldn't have let me post in this forum. I can see by reading the past threads that it's only going to make me miserable.

[leekohler]

Actually, Lee, I do not listen to them. I really do not know anything about them. I was under the impression they are an ISP, like Comcast. I was going to check them out later today (just to satisfy my curiosity).

Nope- they're not an ISP that I can find, just a crap media company.

[Queso]

Now, if the government told clear channel that it was not allowed to allow Bruce to be on their radio station - THAT would be censorship.
And you know for a fact that didn't happen?

[saltyzoo]

And you know for a fact that didn't happen?

LOL Oh my.

[Queso]

LOL Oh my.
Why the laugh? I'm not suggesting it happened, just pointing out how uninformed we might all be.

[saltyzoo]

Why the laugh? I'm not suggesting it happened, just pointing out how uninformed we might all be.

I only see three possible ways to react to that statement. Panic, paranoia, or humor. I choose humor.

[PlaceofDis]

I only see three possible ways to react to that statement. Panic, paranoia, or humor. I choose humor.

so you see no reality in that it might actually be true?

again not saying that it is, but there is a possibility.

[saltyzoo]

so you see no reality in that it might actually be true?

again not saying that it is, but there is a possibility.

I think it's so remotely unlikely that to consider it a realistic possibility without even a shred of evidence is more than a little paranoid - and frankly, laughable.

[Queso]

I only see three possible ways to react to that statement. Panic, paranoia, or humor. I choose humor.
Laugh away then, but if you always expect the links between business and politicians to only be used for the good of the general population I'm afraid you'll end up being disappointed.
I think it's so remotely unlikely that to consider it a realistic possibility without even a shred of evidence is more than a little paranoid - and frankly, laughable.
Well, maybe I'm overly cynical, but having gone out for two years with a lobbyist I have a bit of an inkling into just what sort of stuff does go down. Therefore I don't consider the suggestion impossible just because it's unlikely.

[Ugg]

I only see three possible ways to react to that statement. Panic, paranoia, or humor. I choose humor.

Perhaps panic is the word you meant to use. Anytime a radio station refuses to play a best selling album, their only justification for doing so must be political.

It could also be a sign as faux news has suggested, of inherent ageism at cloudy channel. Despite the fact that the largest growing demographic group is the over 50s, they've evidently choosing not to play music by older performers.

cc's only real source of revenue these days is from concerts. They know the market for fake radio is disappearing so I wonder why they're turning it into a political minefield?

In the end, who listens to radio anyway?

[saltyzoo]

Do you guys have any idea how big a corporation Clear channel is? The number of people that would have to be involved to pull such a thing off?

Sorry. It's laughable. In fact, it's a little silly to think they'd risk something like that to not air such a meaningless piece. Clear Channel runs a guy on my local AM station for 3 hours every Saturday that's practically a socialist. I think they'd get rid of him first.

:eek:

[saltyzoo]

Perhaps panic is the word you meant to use. Anytime a radio station refuses to play a best selling album, their only justification for doing so must be political.

I didn't say it wasn't political. They are allowed to be political. It's their business, they can run it any way they want. Like someone already said, nobody cries censorship regarding Air America. Heck, if the prez asked the CEO of clear channel personally to not run it and he didn't, that's STILL not censorship. If the government FORCED him not to run it against his will. Then it's censorship.

Nice twisting of reality though.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I fail to see how this is any different than Wal-Mart only selling "clean" versions of certain CDs in their stores. If Clear Channel was an agent of the government, public library, or a smiliar venture then there would be a case, but as they're not, nothing to see here.

[Swarmlord]

Do you guys have any idea how big a corporation Clear channel is? The number of people that would have to be involved to pull such a thing off?

Sorry. It's laughable. In fact, it's a little silly to think they'd risk something like that to not air such a meaningless piece. Clear Channel runs a guy on my local AM station for 3 hours every Saturday that's practically a socialist. I think they'd get rid of him first.

:eek:

About as many as it would take to pull off an inside job on 9/11. The pool of people that fall for these types of conspiracy theories are thankfully very small though.

[Queso]

About as many as it would take to pull off an inside job on 9/11. The pool of people that fall for these types of conspiracy theories are thankfully very small though.
This suggestion is nothing like a 9/11 conspiracy, which is indeed ridiculous because hundreds would have to be involved. For this to happen, all it would take is an intermediary between someone who wants it done and someone in the position to do it, so they don't have to meet in person. Everyone else can be fed some made up nonsense, such as "this artist is too old for our demographic".

Interestingly enough, the line Fox News has anchored to the story ;)

[hulugu]

Bruce Springsteen? Didn't he have some hits like 30 years ago? So, once someone has a hit album all they have to do is show up in a studio, record something and then expect every media outlet to help promote it? I think that Bruce is just having trouble accepting that his time has come and gone.

Weird. According to Billboard Bruce Springsteen's Magic is No. 1 (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts.jsp).

Of course, it's easier to make a flippant shoot-from-the-hip comment that actually wonder why Clear Channel isn't playing the album.

Forget the political scenarios, maybe CC is back to the old payola scam. There's more to this story than Bruce Springsteen is a has-been.

Do you guys have any idea how big a corporation Clear channel is? The number of people that would have to be involved to pull such a thing off?

I didn't realize that Clear Channel was such a democratic company, does everyone vote or do they take a census? The reality is the company big-wigs can make a decision, such as not to play Magic, and the hoi polloi won't know about the decision or its reasons.

I'm not willing to take the leap that Clear Channel isn't playing Magic because of political reasons, but I'd like to hear why a popular album isn't being played on radio. There's something interesting happening here.

[Swarmlord]

Weird. According to Billboard Bruce Springsteen's Magic is No. 1 (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts.jsp).

Of course, it's easier to make a flippant shoot-from-the-hip comment that actually wonder why Clear Channel isn't playing the album.

Forget the political scenarios, maybe CC is back to the old payola scam. There's more to this story than Bruce Springsteen is a has-been.



I didn't realize that Clear Channel was such a democratic company, does everyone vote or do they take a census? The reality is the company big-wigs can make a decision, such as not to play Magic, and the hoi polloi won't know about the decision or its reasons.

I'm not willing to take the leap that Clear Channel isn't playing Magic because of political reasons, but I'd like to hear why a popular album isn't being played on radio. There's something interesting happening here.


Clear Channel couldn't blacklist anyone much less Springsteen without a dozen "anonymous" sources blabbing to every media outlet in existence. Face it, it didn't happen. If Bruce's album is so damned good, then he should be laughing all the way to the bank and even happier that Clear Channel won't share in a dime from it.

[saltyzoo]

Since you guys like repeating yourselves... I'll do the same :D

It's not censorship to use politics to help you make business decisions. So clear channel made a decision you don't agree with. No argument there. But, it's not censorship and therefore there can't be a conspiracy.

[freeny]

Actually, Lee, I do not listen to them. I really do not know anything about them. I was under the impression they are an ISP, like Comcast. I was going to check them out later today (just to satisfy my curiosity).
Clear Channel owns about 30% of all radio stations in the US. This is from a 2004 statistic so they most likely own even more by now.
Odds are you are listening to a Clear Channel station and dont even know it.

[hulugu]

Clear Channel couldn't blacklist anyone much less Springsteen without a dozen "anonymous" sources blabbing to every media outlet in existence. Face it, it didn't happen. If Bruce's album is so damned good, then he should be laughing all the way to the bank and even happier that Clear Channel won't share in a dime from it.

Who said 'blacklist?' I certainly didn't, in fact, I don't think there's a conspiracy at all. However, how long did the payola scam run before anyone in the public know about it? How many other corporate conspiracies have operated without it becoming public knowledge? I can think of more than a few.

The fact is, the Clear Channel big-wigs could be refusing to play Magic because of political reasons, but would send a different excuse, such as demographics, down the pipe to the general staff and theoretical sources.

Now, I find it interesting that Clear Channel isn't playing the album, I'm not ready to call conspiracy, but your reasoning is specious. So, put your cap gun back in the holster. ;)

[ucfgrad93]

And you know for a fact that didn't happen?

The burden of proof is on you. Where is your evidence that the government told Clear Channel to not play The Boss?

[Queso]

The burden of proof is on you. Where is your evidence that the government told Clear Channel to not play The Boss?
Go back through my posts and show me where I said it actually happened, in which case the burden of proof would most definitely be on me. However, all I'm saying is it's not completely impossible, which is most certainly true.

[saltyzoo]

The burden of paranoia is on you.

fixed. :p

[SMM]

The burden of proof is on you. Where is your evidence that the government told Clear Channel to not play The Boss?

This administration has been found guilty of doing virtually the same thing in the past. I do not have a 'smoking gun' piece of evidence. But, when it looks like it, sounds like it and smells like it, well ....... let's go someplace else for lunch. Remember, these are the very same people who had Donahue's ticket punched. His show was cancelled, and there is no question about the reason. A leaked memo between the WH and MSCNBC, fell into the hands of the NYT. The WH said, "Donahue presents a difficult image when we are preparing for war. The simple fact of the matter is that the WH has been controlling the media for years.

[leekohler]

This administration has been found guilty of doing virtually the same thing in the past. I do not have a 'smoking gun' piece of evidence. But, when it looks like it, sounds like it and smells like it, well ....... let's go someplace else for lunch. Remember, these are the very same people who had Donahue's ticket punched. His show was cancelled, and there is no question about the reason. A leaked memo between the WH and MSCNBC, fell into the hands of the NYT. The WH said, "Donahue presents a difficult image when we are preparing for war. The simple fact of the matter is that the WH has been controlling the media for years.

That's true. I don't know if this is the case with Springsteen, but I could be wrong. Now that you bring up the Donahue thing, it gets even more interesting. The WH shouldn't be affecting programming at all. Isn't that supposed to be illegal?

[saltyzoo]

What?

How is not playing a Bruce Springsteen piece suddenly the WH controlling the media?

You guys are beyond the bend.

Yeah, every press conference since the beginning of the country has been illegal. Geez, you guys really do have blind hatred for Bush, don't you?

OMG it's time for a revolt. George Bush will not let us hear what Whitney Houston sings on her latest album!!! Democracy is over!!!!!

It would be funny if I didn't think you were serious.

[leekohler]

What?

How is not playing a Bruce Springsteen piece suddenly the WH controlling the media?

You guys are beyond the bend.

Yeah, every press conference since the beginning of the country has been illegal. Geez, you guys really do have blind hatred for Bush, don't you?

OMG it's time for a revolt. George Bush will not let us hear what Whitney Houston sings on her latest album!!! Democracy is over!!!!!

It would be funny if I didn't think you were serious.

Did you read our posts? Or did you simply decide it would be more fun to have a knee-jerk reaction? I already stated I didn't think that the Springsteen thing was the same as the Donahue case. But the Donahue case illustrates that the WH has interfered in the media before. There isn't anything wrong with pointing that out. Do you think George Bush has the right to shut you up and put you out of a job because he doesn't like what you have to say?

Go back and read SMM's post again- slowly this time.

[saltyzoo]

Oh please. That's like saying Mit used the term "intern" coincidentally. You said it to make the comparison.

[leekohler]

Oh please. That's like saying Mit used the term "intern" coincidentally. You said it to make the comparison.

Obviously I got the answer to both questions from my last post.

[beatzfreak]

What?

How is not playing a Bruce Springsteen piece suddenly the WH controlling the media?

You guys are beyond the bend.

Yeah, every press conference since the beginning of the country has been illegal. Geez, you guys really do have blind hatred for Bush, don't you?

OMG it's time for a revolt. George Bush will not let us hear what Whitney Houston sings on her latest album!!! Democracy is over!!!!!

It would be funny if I didn't think you were serious.

The WH doesn't need to control Clear Channel. One of the founders, Lowry Mays, is a Texas crony of and major fund raiser for both Bush SR and JR.

Mays son in law is right wing congressman Michael McCaul (TX). Mays funded his campaign and has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

[SMM]

What?

How is not playing a Bruce Springsteen piece suddenly the WH controlling the media?

You guys are beyond the bend.

Yeah, every press conference since the beginning of the country has been illegal. Geez, you guys really do have blind hatred for Bush, don't you?

OMG it's time for a revolt. George Bush will not let us hear what Whitney Houston sings on her latest album!!! Democracy is over!!!!!

It would be funny if I didn't think you were serious.

We generally have a higher level of discussion on this forum. It usually begins with making an actual point, and backing it up with something more than accusing us of being "... beyond the bend ...". Also, your attempt at sarcasm would suggest you refrain from writing your own material.

We have some very lively discussions here. They sometimes become pointed and move 'off-topic'. Newbies should get 'the lay of the land' before before assuming to understand other members depth of knowledge on the complex political issues discussed here.

[obeygiant]

We generally have a higher level of discussion on this forum.

Lets not start talking crazy now. :)

[Thomas Veil]

Clear Channel couldn't blacklist anyone much less Springsteen without a dozen "anonymous" sources blabbing to every media outlet in existence. Face it, it didn't happen.Yeah, clandestine stuff like that doesn't happen...except when it does. Sometimes, as in the case of the fake FEMA press conference, we find out almost immediately. Sometimes, as in the case of Jeff Gannon, we don't find out until quite a bit later.

If Bruce's album is so damned good....Thank God he's #1 on the Billboard chart. Now a guy like Bruce, whose time has come and gone, won't be limited to peddling his music off his website. ;)

Given that a lot of posters here believe that businesses are pure money ho's, I doubt very much that a company in the business of making money from broadcasting music is going to pass on someone like Springsteen for political reasons.Are you forgetting the Reagan TV biopic that CBS took a small bath on a few years back, just because a few conservative pundits were pissed that it wasn't sufficiently adoring of its subject? Or how about The Book of Daniel TV series that NBC dumped unceremoniously when some of those same conservative poobahs got all het up about how "ungodly" it was?

Do you guys have any idea how big a corporation Clear channel is? The number of people that would have to be involved to pull such a thing off?I don't know. Why don't we ask the Dixie Chicks?

I'm not saying The Boss is being censored, but when a company like Clear Channel exhibits a change in behavior, in this repressive atmosphere...to so blithely dismiss the possibility is just...I don't know. It's beyond naiveté and headed into living-on-another-planet territory.

[MacNut]

Wasn't Clear Channel the company that dropped Howard Stern because they got scared of the FCC and lost millions in ad revenues. The point is that they are not so bright when it comes to fiscal decisions.

[emmawu]

Does anyone listen to commercial radio anymore? I download music legally and listen to it on my iPod. I'm so tired of "radio personalities".

[hulugu]

Does anyone listen to commercial radio anymore? I download music legally and listen to it on my iPod. I'm so tired of "radio personalities".

Well, it's very interesting that Magic isn't being played by all the radio stations that Clear Channel owns and yet the album is selling well enough to be No. 1 on Billboard's chart.

[MacNut]

Well, it's very interesting that Magic isn't being played by all the radio stations that Clear Channel owns and yet the album is selling well enough to be No. 1 on Billboard's chart.Doesn't really mean much, fans will buy anything. Look at Britney Spears, her music sucks yet people buy that too.
Im sure Bruce could make an album of dead air and it would still sell. He doesn't need radio help anymore.

[solvs]

Look at Britney Spears, her music sucks yet people buy that too.
Actually, her music isn't selling very well. Neither is JLo's. Bruce's is. Same with the Dixie Chicks. They've also played music by artists older than Bruce. So neither reason makes any sense.

Look technically, this isn't exactly censorship. It stinks, and it's stupid, but the gov is probably not involved. Though they have done similar things in the past (seriously, if you're not aware of these things, you are sorely misinformed), so it's not entirely out of reach. Just don't think it was necessary. As already mentioned, the people who run it are conservative. They can decide what to put on their stations, sure, but yeah, that doesn't mean we have to like it. Fox does this too, we've seen the memos, and while not illegal, it is definitely unethical, and a detriment to their readers. And unlike Air America, also as mentioned, they own 30% of the airwaves, mostly thanks to the lobbying done to the same people Bruce is criticizing. This is what happens when you let companies own a large share of the media, they can abuse their power. Which they are. It's an obvious attempt to stifle him. Which is backfiring.

I wouldn't like it if Air America or George Soros was doing it if they owned such a large share of the media, and I doubt you would either.

[hulugu]

Doesn't really mean much, fans will buy anything. Look at Britney Spears, her music sucks yet people buy that too.
Im sure Bruce could make an album of dead air and it would still sell. He doesn't need radio help anymore.

That's doesn't seem like a fair assessment. While Britney Spear's many hit songs were backed by massive promotions, including lots of radio play, MTV videos on TRL, etc. Springsteen's album is doing well in spite of the lack of radio play.

Dismissing this situation as the effect of a rabid fan base is a snap judgement.

[saltyzoo]

I wouldn't like it if Air America or George Soros was doing it if they owned such a large share of the media, and I doubt you would either.

I don't like it, but it's not censorship.

[SMM]

I don't like it, but it's not censorship.


From Wikipedia:

Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.

Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the material and limits access to it.

Political censorship occurs when governments are holding back secret information from their citizens. The logic is to prevent the free expression needed to revolt. Democracies do not officially approve of political censorship but often endorse it privately. Any dissent against the government is thought to be a “weakness” for the enemy to exploit.[citation needed] Campaign tactics are also often kept secret: see the Watergate scandal.


I think it would be short-sighted to dismiss Clear Channel's banning of BS, because they do not approve of his political message, as not being censorship. Corporate media and the recent authoritative administrations, have demonstrated a willingness to censor, embellish, distort, propagandize and misinform the American public, whenever it works in their favor (which is nearly always).

You can deny it if you wish to. You can even try to fool yourself. However, that does not change the facts.

[saltyzoo]

Clear Channel isn't preventing you from hearing this "information". They just aren't broadcasting it on their privately owned equipment. This is not censorship.

They haven't played my cd once yet. That's not censorship, it's smart business. :p

[Swarmlord]

Clear Channel isn't preventing you from hearing this "information". They just aren't broadcasting it on their privately owned equipment. This is not censorship.

They haven't played my cd once yet. That's not censorship, it's smart business. :p

They haven't played mine either! I think we have the makings of a conspiracy here. Who knew and when did they know it?:cool:

[ucfgrad93]

They haven't played mine either! I think we have the makings of a conspiracy here. Who knew and when did they know it?:cool:

They haven't played mine either! Get my lawyer on the phone, class action lawsuit here we come! :D

[saltyzoo]

They haven't played mine either! I think we have the makings of a conspiracy here. Who knew and when did they know it?:cool:

They haven't played mine either! Get my lawyer on the phone, class action lawsuit here we come! :D


Darn straight!


While we're at it, they aren't playing the ads for my business either. No, I haven't paid for ads, but restricting access to this important information to the public is a travesty and obviously censorship.

The fact that Disney isn't playing Playboy channel programming is obviously censorship too, lets get Disney...

Etc, etc, etc.

It's a dumb argument guys.

[yellow]

Clear Channel seems like imperialist radio to me.

[saltyzoo]

Clear Channel seems like imperialist radio to me.

If you want to complain that one company taking over all the radio stations stinks, I'll join you on that one. But it's not censorship. ;)

[leekohler]

If you want to complain that one company taking over all the radio stations stinks, I'll join you on that one. But it's not censorship. ;)

However, if one company takes over all the radio stations, that is a monopoly and is illegal. ;)

[LethalWolfe]

Corporate media and the recent authoritative administrations, have demonstrated a willingness to censor, embellish, distort, propagandize and misinform the American public, whenever it works in their favor (which is nearly always).
This sort of thing has been happening since way before the current administration and media moguls came into being.


If you want to complain that one company taking over all the radio stations stinks, I'll join you on that one. But it's not censorship. ;)
Agreed.

However, if one company takes over all the radio stations, that is a monopoly and is illegal. ;)
Unless they change the laws again like they did back in the '90s.


Lethal

[yellow]

If you want to complain that one company taking over all the radio stations stinks, I'll join you on that one. But it's not censorship. ;)

Imperialism: Belief in the desirability of acquiring colonies and dependencies or extending a country's influence though means such as trade, diplomacy, military conquest.

I wasn't commenting on censorship.

[saltyzoo]

Immerialism: Belief in the desirability of acquiring colonies and dependencies or extending a country's influence though means such as trade, diplomacy, military conquest.

I wasn't commenting on censorship.

I know, that's why I winked.

[mactastic]

We've all long known that CC is a "rabid, far-right" company. But hey, it's their right to not play BS or anyone else they feel like not playing. Don't like CC? Don't patronize their radio stations. Hard to do, I know; what with them owning a good chunk of the airwaves. But worth it nonetheless. I still remember a time when radio was a local affair...

[solvs]

I don't like it, but it's not censorship.
I know, that's what I said.

They haven't played my cd once yet. That's not censorship, it's smart business. :p
They haven't played mine either!
They haven't played mine either!
None of you are hit musicians, who just released a number 1 selling album that they refuse to play because they disagree with it's political message. :rolleyes:

[saltyzoo]

I know, that's what I said.




None of you are hit musicians, who just released a number 1 selling album that they refuse to play because they disagree with it's political message. :rolleyes:

They don't play our stuff because they don't agree it worthy of playtime. What metrics they use to determine this are up to them. Maybe they don't like my politics. Who knows?

[solvs]

They don't play our stuff because they don't agree it worthy of playtime. What metrics they use to determine this are up to them. Maybe they don't like my politics. Who knows?
But it's why we have a problem with it. No one is saying they can't do it. They can. It's just that the reasons given are BS, so they're being called on it. He's a famous musician, who's sold millions of albums in his many years performing, and this album is a hit. They don't seem to like the message (a message a very large majority of the population agrees with BTW), so despite the percentage of people who would obviously like to hear it, they don't even want to give people the chance to.

You may or may not deserve playtime, but again, you aren't a famous musician with a top selling album. It isn't smart business. It's putting their own political ideals ahead of what's best for the company, merely making them look bad to the majority and giving free publicity to the person, and therefor message, they were trying to hush. And giving further proof that media should not be monopolized.

[saltyzoo]

But it's why we have a problem with it. No one is saying they can't do it. They can. It's just that the reasons given are BS, so they're being called on it. He's a famous musician, who's sold millions of albums in his many years performing, and this album is a hit. They don't seem to like the message (a message a very large majority of the population agrees with BTW), so despite the percentage of people who would obviously like to hear it, they don't even want to give people the chance to.

You may or may not deserve playtime, but again, you aren't a famous musician with a top selling album. It isn't smart business. It's putting their own political ideals ahead of what's best for the company, merely making them look bad to the majority and giving free publicity to the person, and therefor message, they were trying to hush. And giving further proof that media should not be monopolized.

In America businesses have the right to make bad business decisions. Perhaps this decision will lead to a reduction in their monopoly.

PS> It's not censorship. I'm just sayin'. ;)

[hulugu]

Clear Channel isn't preventing you from hearing this "information". They just aren't broadcasting it on their privately owned equipment. This is not censorship.

They haven't played my cd once yet. That's not censorship, it's smart business. :p

Yes, but Clear Channel is engaging in political games while using my airwaves and licenses I (through representation via the FCC) grant them. Their use of these licenses to direct their own political objectives is anathema to those licenses and the use of the radio spectrum.
Corporations do not own the airwaves, yet.

[saltyzoo]

Yes, but Clear Channel is engaging in political games while using my airwaves and licenses I (through representation via the FCC) grant them. Their use of these licenses to direct their own political objectives is anathema to those licenses and the use of the radio spectrum.
Corporations do not own the airwaves, yet.

I guess they'd better pull the plug on Air America then. I certainly don't approve of my tax dollars going to putting that crap on the airwaves.

What a goofy argument.

It's not censorship.

[hulugu]

I guess they'd better pull the plug on Air America then. I certainly don't approve of my tax dollars going to putting that crap on the airwaves.

What a goofy argument.

It's not censorship.

Yes, we get it "it's not censorship." :rolleyes:
If you'd bother to read the other posts, including mine, you'd notice that the we agree with you. :eek:
However, I merely pointing out that Clear Channel's ability to make money exists through the largesse of the American citizen. This is not a "goofy" argument, this is how the system was set up.

It's not censorship, but it is asinine.

[solvs]

In America businesses have the right to make bad business decisions.
And we have the right to complain about it.

Perhaps this decision will lead to a reduction in their monopoly.
If they are a monopoly in some areas, then actually this wouldn't be legal because they would be abusing their power. I'm not saying they are, just saying it's a stupid decision. It's just not a good idea either way.

PS> It's not censorship. I'm just sayin'. ;)
Numerous people, myself included, have already said that. This isn't a Freedom of Speech issue, because the gov (probably) isn't involved. Not even technically censorship, especially now that they're saying they didn't exactly give the order. Just that some stations don't want to play it, like with the Dixie Chicks. So this is all moot anyway. (http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1167&p=hidden)

Though Clear Channel still has to put up with the class action lawsuit against them by Bruce and other artists due to other issues. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/425504/clear_channel_faces_class_action_lawsuits.html)

[saltyzoo]

Yes, we get it "it's not censorship." :rolleyes:
If you'd bother to read the other posts, including mine, you'd notice that the we agree with you. :eek:
However, I merely pointing out that Clear Channel's ability to make money exists through the largesse of the American citizen. This is not a "goofy" argument, this is how the system was set up.

It's not censorship, but it is asinine.

Well, everyone's ability to make money exists through the "largess" of the American citizen. That's what makes it a goofy argument.

And we have the right to complain about it.
True. But if you got this worked up about every stupid thing a company did you'd be in the hospital.


Though Clear Channel still has to put up with the class action lawsuit against them by Bruce and other artists due to other issues. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/425504/clear_channel_faces_class_action_lawsuits.html)

That's how our system works.

PS> It's not censorship. I'm just sayin'. ;)

BTW, the above is what us people with a sense of humor call a "joke".

[LethalWolfe]

If they are a monopoly in some areas, then actually this wouldn't be legal because they would be abusing their power. I'm not saying they are, just saying it's a stupid decision. It's just not a good idea either way.

AFAIK, an illegal monopoly is one that unfairly uses its status against it's competitors. I don't think choosing to not play a big name artist would qualify. Staying hypothetical, if CC used its hypothetical monopoly power to leverage an exclusive deal w/big name artists so only CC owned stations could play those artists new albums that could be an illegal abuse of power.


Lethal

[hulugu]

Well, everyone's ability to make money exists through the "largess" of the American citizen. That's what makes it a goofy argument....

Now you're just taking my point to absurdity.

I'm just reflecting on the point that while one can babble on about free-market structures, the inherent physical limits of the spectrum requires a constricted market and thus the granted monopoly of the FCC. This makes for a rather different marketplace than say Wal-mart, who survives on consumers, but doesn't require a specific license to exist in the same way that Clear Channel does.

BTW, the above is what us people with a sense of humor call a "joke".

Doesn't a joke have to be funny? ;)

[saltyzoo]

Now you're just taking my point to absurdity. We can argue which of us took it there. ;)

I'm just reflecting on the point that while one can babble on about free-market structures, the inherent physical limits of the spectrum requires a constricted market and thus the granted monopoly of the FCC. This makes for a rather different marketplace than say Wal-mart, who survives on consumers, but doesn't require a specific license to exist in the same way that Clear Channel does.

That statement isn't goofy at all. You should have posted it in the first place. :p

Doesn't a joke have to be funny? ;)

:D I think it's the intent the statement is made that is the deciding factor.

[solvs]

True. But if you got this worked up about every stupid thing a company did you'd be in the hospital.
A couple of posts in an internet forum is hardly all worked up. We don't like it. We stated as much. I don't see what the problem is. If you disagree, just say so and make your case.

BTW, the above is what us people with a sense of humor call a "joke".
If you have to explain it to your audience, it probably isn't very funny.

AFAIK, an illegal monopoly is one that unfairly uses its status against it's competitors.
Wouldn't it still count though if they were trying to blackball an artist as well? I mean, they don't have any obligation to play anything, but if they were using their power to tell their monopoly of affiliates they couldn't do something they'd want to otherwise and threaten other businesses they worked with, that could get them into trouble. Again, not saying that's what's happening, but they have crossed into some sticky territory here and in the past in other cases.

I think it's the intent the statement is made that is the deciding factor.
Intent is only part of it, execution is also important.

[LethalWolfe]

Wouldn't it still count though if they were trying to blackball an artist as well?
Not really. The music is basically a product for radio stations and CC is choosing not to carry this specific product on its owned and operated stations.

Kinda like it's okay for Apple, the MP3 market leader by far, to choose to not sell iRiver brand MP3 players in their B&M stores, but if Apple contacted other retailers and said, "Hey, stop selling iRiver band MP3 players or we'll cut your iPod shipments by 70%" then that would most likely be seen as an unfair business practice given Apple's place as the MP3 market leader. The analogy is a little off since Apple is both the iPod maker and the B&M seller (where as CC didn't make the music they just help distribute it) but it's close enough for government work. :D


Lethal