Slashdot Mirror
Sen. Feingold Reintroduces Radio Competition Bill
jonerik writes "Billboard is reporting that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has reintroduced his Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which is aimed at limiting the concentration of radio stations and concert promoters in the hands of a few large companies, such as Clear Channel. In addition, the bill would close loopholes in payola laws which currently permit 'pay-for-play' deals between record companies and radio stations 'unless an appropriate sponsorship identification announcement is made.' The bill's introduction comes as the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation prepares to hold a hearing Thursday on the problems of radio consolidation, and the committee's chairman, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is expected to sign on soon as the bill's co-sponsor."
So I guess I'm not surprised to see him take the lead on something like this. I also won't be surprised to see the bill totally tank after all sorts of unrelated legislation and water-downs are tacked on by his fellow employees.
I really do think this Feingold guy is pretty decent. He, as I recall, was the one guy who stood up and voted against the horrific Patriot Act, which for those who are unaware, was about taking away some of our everyday freedoms, etc. Nobody in the senate seemed to give a rats ass but there he was on C-SPAN basically saying "are you guys crazy? This isn't right!" Now look at him taking yet another potentialy unpopular (to moneyd interests like Clearchannel, anyway) stand for what's right.
I'm proud to say he's from my home, Wisconsin.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Finally a reason to be proud of a) being A Wisconsinite and b) having voted for Feingold.
I hope that this movement goes through, everything around here (Milwaukee) seems to be Clearchannel. The radio, atleast 3-4 stations, 2 of the TV, and a large majority of the billboards and the such are all clearchannel.
Go Feingold Go
I'm a little tea pot.
So I'm reading all of this, and I get to the last past and see the quote at the bottom of the screen that /. has so graciciously given us. 'Twas from Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 by Pink Floyd:
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
I'll tell ya what, Clearchannel is nothing but bullshit ads and everything else controlling the population. I remember after 9/11, they had a list of songs they wanted their stations to 'opt out' of or something like that. Songs that even mentioned the word jet in the lyrics were thrown out. Pathetic. Nothing works better than denial. Plus, all their stations only play what they're being paid to, causing most people to buy from the same places over and over; effing mindless automatons. But hey, whatever; I listen to Beefheart and Zappa, and that's the way I likes it.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
I just wanted to send out props to KBFR, Boulder Free Radio at 95.3 evenings and weekends... when the feds don't work. :)
Take a listen next time you're in Colorado, or try out the stream at KBFR.org.
All random shit. All the time.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick of how all radio stations sound the same because there are only a few companies controlling them. When I moved from central OH to KS, I could have swarn that the local radio stations were the same in both places, just with different call letters. All the hosts even sound exactly the same. The contests the stations do are identicle. You can't tell the difference, because they are controlled by the same companies, and made for mass market (not local tastes). At least with TV it's obvious who controlls things(NBC, CBS, Disn^H^H^H^HABC, etc). But with radio they almost never make it easy to find out who they belong with. Your best bet is to guess by where they get their top of the hour news ("Now this from our ABC affiliate...")
It's really nice to see legislation that will most likely make a difference like this have a good chance. All I can say is I hope another bill comes down soon: one to prevent the Disney-ABC type thing. How only 3 or 4 companies own the major networks, most cable network, the movie studios, and everything else. I don't know about the rest of you, but the national morning news shows are some of the most thinly veiled infomercials for movies and TV shows that I've ever seen.
I know I'll be telling my Senators to vote for this, I hope you all do the same.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
XM is going under - investment is futile.
I sometimes think that the attention span of the average radio listener must be on a half life of a year or so. Eventually we'll get to the point where the radio will literally play the same rotation of songs, restarting at the top of the hour. We're already at the point where the rotations repeats every 4 or 5 hours on some stations (with the more popular songs peppered in a few extra times for good measure). It drives us nuts, but it must be making money, and for it to be making money, people must be buying into it.
This is another one of those fights where we're going to lose because we don't understand our enemy. Clearchannel is not the enemy. Congresspeople are not the enemy. OUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY who don't understand what's happening are the enemy! The majority of consumers probably don't know who clearchannel is. We must EDUCATE them so they know that each time they put in a dollar vote to the latest pop sensation, they're helping to kill free market capitalism and create free market socialism.
Get out there and tell EVERYONE you can at every opportunity that we need to stop supporting the big record companies. Introduce them to indies and older music! A lot of kids who listen to modern rock (translation: the reconstituted garbage of yesterday) probably never heard of bands like Lynard Skynard or Pink Floyd. They'd probably like it if they did though. The wider a selection of music you introduce to these people-sheep the more choices they'll realize they have. The whole effect will snowball, and they'll start experimenting with new things. This can only lead to good things... personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep if I'm responsible for the owners of Clearchannel having to move out into the street.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
What confuses me, though, is the catch-22 you end up with. First, you bring up the name of someone who managed to be associated with "individualism" (whether or not that association is merited is debatable but besides the point).But then you reverse and stress the importance of towing the Beloved Party's line.So is it important for Democrats to take initiative, or tow the party line? Who decides what "we" do in the "struggle" against "them?"
On the other hand, we have "them." You know, those...You need them to show individual initiative...... and decide to tow somebody else's line.You want a particular Democrat to show "initiative", all other Democrats to obediently follow (ie. not show any initiative of their own), and for all Republicans to show "initiative" by obediently following a different party mouthpiece than the one they normally follow. According to your model, all politics does and should rely on a bunch of sheep in Congress chanting "(Democrats|Republicans) good! (Republicans|Democrats) bad!" Where in this model you apparently promote does the whole "representing the voters" thing come into play?
You can name a handful of senators that have grabbed national headlines one way or the other. Out of curiousity, can you name your two senators? Better yet, have you ever written them? Or are you simply assuming that Democrats don't need to be told to do (what you consider to be) the right thing and Republicans are a lost cause anyway?
I am increasingly growing fond of McCain.
Of late he's introduced some risky legislation (think of his recent proposals on carbon dioxide emissions) that has set him apart from his party but make him stand out for his clear-thinking and integrity.
I want this guy for President in 2004.
Radio station have the right to free speech, not the obligation to play music without compensation.
Not exactly -- not while they are using my airwaves.
In America, the airwaves are owned not by radio stations but by the American people. *If* the act of accepting money to play particular songs is bad for the people, than the people have the right -- as owners of the airwaves -- to change the rules that the radio stations have to play by.
When the people own the medium (television, radio), than the people have the right to determine how that medium is used.
For a good time, check out Free Air Time to find out about a similar regarding the television frequency range.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
In the end, if you're not happy with what you hear on the radio, change the channel! Or just turn it off!
If they are not serving the public interest, you don't turn off the radio, you turn off the transmitter. They do not have any fundamental right to the radio frequencies they are transmitting on.
Don't forget that Russ Feingold is the same Senator who introduced a bill to halt research on data-mining technology by the Dept. of Homeland Security until Congress can investigate it.
I'm proud to have voted for him.
Story here.
A couple of years ago, I was in a band with commercial promise. We found a group of investors, comprised of money men, attorneys and others with industry contacts, to back us financially. We understood from the beginning that playing in a garage until discovered only worked in "That Thing You Do". We understood that incessant touring with no radio play only works for a very minimal amount of bands. We understood that marketing and promotion were more important than the songs themselves (at least in the are of financial success).
We took their money and our purposely catchy "written for radio" songs to the Hit Factory in Miami (an uber-studio, with clients like Creed, Michael Jackson, Lenny Kravitz, etc) and recorded alternative rock Radio Hits (tm) with the best producer we could afford. We came out with a CD that sounded so good, I'm still glad to have myname associated with it.
Since we were not signed to a label, we had no "in" with the local "independent promoter", who "owned" the rock radio market in our area. Clear Channel is the monopoly in our market, and will play the songs that the "Indie" pays them to promote, at a price that is unfair to non-megacorps. The "Locals Only" show was on only on Sunday nights at midnight (how typical). There was no way for us to get on the radio.
Then, we had the brilliant idea of buying Advertising time (as in commercials) on the station and playing our songs. One of the investors on our team had an "in" with the marketing company that booked most of the time for ads on the 3 rock stations in the market. We recieved very favorable rates per thirty seconds, and it actually would turn out cheaper than paying the "indie", if we had access to him.
Long story short, after 6 days of strong ad-time and experiencing a jump in concert atttendance and merch sales, our ads were pulled (while still having 8 days left on the current ad contract). It turns out that the Indie was receiving complaints from a higher-up and threatened to drop that particular station from his list (which would make the station lose access to the latest hits. Remember that hits=ears=money). We were outraged. We couldn't even bypass the payola system in place, even though we were still paying to get heard on the radio.
The moral of this story is that Russ Feingold and anyone else with the balls to stand against corporate radio money needs all the support he can get. Even when you have the backing to do it yourself, you're still not a Label-Slave(tm). You are not to be considered for airplay.
Governments are not necessary.
yes, they call it finance reform, but, as I say, "If I call myself the king of england does it make it so?". Well, no, thier idea of "finance" is purchasing time on the media to talk and ban everyone from doing so. This has the affect of giving all the sources of information to the news media, who of course are bastions of integrity and never allow any bias to show through and as such, it is unconstitutional.
The general consensus at the time was the bill was unconstitutional and would be struck down, but they would either be viewed as doing something but not really changing anything or if they voted against it said to be pandering to special interest (more than several congressmen said this explcitly).
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
I've heard the United States referred to as the "Great Experiment". I believe the experiment has been successful, but the test of time has shown some weaknesses in our Constitution and in democracy in general. We need to patch a few serious exploits...
Our rights do not come from the Constitution. Our Constitution is an acknowledgement by the government of certain rights which we posess simply by virtue of being human. Among those rights is the right of self-government. We would not be outside our rights to abolish the existing Constitution and reaffirm our belief in democracy with a new one. I think the Founding Fathers would quite approve.
But of course, there are not enough honest politicians in Washington to entrust our government with that task today!
Vague bias on the part of news reporters has little (if anything) to do with what the main issue is. The main issue is the ability of lobbying groups to spend money to support their chosen candidates well above and beyond what is allowed by current federal law. The organizations that would be harmed by such legislation are the ones that operate as little more than money laundering operations for people attempting to buy their own candidates.
When I ran for Congress last year, one of the lobbying groups that mailed me an "opinion survey" (a "survey" where they ram their opinions down my throat) was the National Right to Life Committee, Inc. Among the fanfare one would expect in a mailing from a group with a name like that were questions like these:Essentially, they want to maintain the right to publish all but the most blatent forms political advertising without, for example, being as restricted as the candidates and parties themselves are, all the while acting as a money laundering racket (note they don't want to admit who their sources are).
Something else I found amusing is how they claim that they are a "nonprofit corporation" and not a PAC (a PAC essentially a buffer that corporations and unions can donate money to, as they are specifically barred from donating to a candidate directly). I asked them how they can possibly have the abbreviation "Inc." in their name yet still not be a PAC. (No, I didn't get a response.)
Further on:Note the recurring "money laundering" theme here. They want to spend more on campaigning than the candidates themselves are allowed to spend, while still being able to maintain some sort of contact with the candidate in question.
And the last little tidbit:Once again, they want their soft money and their ability to spend it in practically any fashion their lawyers think they can get away with. And once again, it reeks of money laundering.
NRLC and the organizations like it aren't interested in "free speech," they're interested in free money. They want the ability to launch smear campaigns without even having to declare that they were the ones that paid for it in the first place.
Remember "Daisy" commercial that aired close to the 2000 elections? The one where the producer refused to disclose who paid for it (leaving everybody accusing everybody else)? That's exactly the kind of advertising this corporation wants to continue using. Saying NRLC and their ilk want to defend free speech is like saying Enron executives wanted to defend free markets: They both want all the benefits while absolving themselves of any responsibilities.
At any rate, I personally find it rather two-faced (and humorous) the way this corporation exists in order to try to overturn a Supreme Court decision and yet has no problem with hiding behind the Supreme Court when it suits them.