[Media-watch] Clear Channel <fwd>

[Julian Petley]

--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:29:27 +0100
From: Emmanuelle Rivi=?ISO-8859-1?B?6A==?=re <er at rezo.net>
Subject: Clear Channel
Sender: Emmanuelle Rivi=?ISO-8859-1?B?6A==?=re <er at rezo.net>
To: "julian.petley" <julian.petley at brunel.ac.uk>
Cc: Barry White <freepress at cpbf.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: Emmanuelle Rivi=?ISO-8859-1?B?6A==?=re <er at rezo.net>
Message-ID: <BAAF35D7.5F29%er at rezo.net>


I think you will be interested in that piece of news..
Regards,
Emmanuelle
-- 
Emmanuelle Rivière
English>French translator & journalist
<er at rezo.net>
-------------------------------------

Most of
the pro-war rallies here in the US have been organized by and sponsored
by media giant Clear Channel Entertainment (CCE), under the name of
"Rally for America."

Clear Channel owns over 1,200 radio stations and 37 television stations,
with investments in 240 radio stations globally, and Clear Channel
Entertainment (aka SFX, one of their more well-known subsidiaries) owns
and operates over 200 venues nationwide. They are in 248 of the top 250
US radio markets, controlling 60% of all rock programming. With
103,000,000 listeners in the U.S. and 1,000,000,000 globally (1/6 of the
world population), this powerful company has grown unchecked, using
their monopoly to control the nearly entire music industry.

Clear Channel's intent is clear: supporting the administration can only
help reduce government threats against CCE expansion. It helps, that
Secretary of State Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell, is the head of
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency that regulates
the US airwaves.

Here are a couple of interesting articles illuminating this problem...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
New York Times
March 25, 2003
Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN

 
By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people
as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the
most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie
Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to
watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's,
tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century
European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair
Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out,
is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry -
with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a
radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of
the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been
organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth
based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and
increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name
Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But
this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory
articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious - and
widely hated - for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business
practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies
and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music.
But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a
political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It
could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part
of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel - which
became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership - to curry
favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some
heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the
airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there
are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that
made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal
Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would
allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into
television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced
Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed
to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management
has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is
Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When
Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University
of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear
Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks,
Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of
companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr.
Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a
multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a
good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a
new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New
Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have
melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy,
business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now
oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized
that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for
businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to
reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians - by, for example,
organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective
watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly
blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more
likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you
know there's a war on?


---------------------------------------------------------
Media giant's rally sponsorship raises questions

By Tim Jones
Chicago Tribune national correspondent

March 19, 2003

Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President Bush's
strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread linking most of
them is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's largest owner of
radio stations.

In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic
circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San
Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by
up to 20,000 people. The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the
more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies.

The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique
among major media companies, which have confined their activities in the
war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San
Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and
the District of Columbia.

While labor unions and special interest groups have organized and hosted
rallies for decades, the involvement of a big publicly regulated
broadcasting company breaks new ground in public demonstrations.

"I think this is pretty extraordinary," said former Federal
Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson, who teaches law at the
University of Virginia. "I can't say that this violates any of a
broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing
of the news."

A spokeswoman for Clear Channel said the rallies, called "Rally for
America," are the idea of Glenn Beck, a Philadelphia talk show host
whose program is syndicated by Premier Radio Networks, a Clear Channel
subsidiary.

'Just patriotic rallies'

A weekend rally in Atlanta drew an estimated 20,000 people, with some
carrying signs reading "God Bless the USA" and other signs condemning
France and the group Dixie Chicks, one of whose members recently
criticized President Bush.

"They're not intended to be pro-military. It's more of a thank you to
the troops. They're just patriotic rallies," said Clear Channel
spokeswoman Lisa Dollinger.

Rallies sponsored by Clear Channel radio stations are scheduled for this
weekend in Sacramento, Charleston, S.C., and Richmond, Va. Although
Clear Channel promoted two of the recent rallies on its corporate Web
site, Dollinger said there is no corporate directive that stations
organize rallies.

"Any rallies that our stations have been a part of have been of their
own initiative and in response to the expressed desires of their
listeners and communities," Dollinger said.

Clear Channel is by far the largest owner of radio stations in the
nation. The company owned only 43 in 1995, but when Congress removed
many of the ownership limits in 1996, Clear Channel was quickly on the
highway to radio dominance. The company owns and operates 1,233 radio
stations (including six in Chicago) and claims 100 million listeners.
Clear Channel generated about 20 percent of the radio industry's $16
billion in 2001 revenues.

Size sparks criticism

The media giant's size also has generated criticism. Some recording
artists have charged that Clear Channel's dominance in radio and concert
promotions is hurting the recording industry. Congress is investigating
the effects of radio consolidation. And the FCC is considering ownership
rule changes, among them changes that could allow Clear Channel to
expand its reach.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has introduced a bill that could halt
further deregulation in the radio industry and limit each company's
audience share and percent of advertising dollars. These measures could
limit Clear Channel's meteoric growth and hinder its future
profitability.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of
Minnesota, said the company's support of the Bush administration's
policy toward Iraq makes it "hard to escape the concern that this may in
part be motivated by issues that Clear Channel has before the FCC and
Congress."

Dollinger denied there is a connection between the rallies and the
company's pending regulatory matters.

Rick Morris, an associate professor of communications at Northwestern
University, said these actions by Clear Channel stations are a logical
extension of changes in the radio industry over the last 20 years,
including the blurring of lines between journalism and entertainment.

>From a business perspective, Morris said, the rallies are a natural fit
for many stations, especially talk-radio stations where hosts usually
espouse politically conservative views.

"Nobody should be surprised by this," Morris said.

In 1987 the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, which required
broadcasters to cover controversial issues in their community and to do
so by offering balancing views. With that obligation gone, Morris said,
"radio can behave more like newspapers, with opinion pages and
editorials."

"They've just begun stretching their legs, being more politically
active," Morris said.
Copyright C 2003, Chicago Tribune
----------------------

see also, http://www.takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html


--- End Forwarded Message ---


Julian Petley
Brunel University, UK
hsstjjp at brunel.ac.uk