Slashdot Mirror
More on Media Consolidation
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.
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."
Do you like German cars?
at the disgraced Not True Times. Another example of how the PC crowd is destroying themselves through diversity and affirmative action
Maybe I'm wrong, given that there's no pay-to-listen alternative to MuchMusic (Canadian MTV) up here, and they still insist on showing the same Avril Lavigne and Nelly videos on a loop for 24 hours a day.
Think yourselves lucky your president doesn't own most of your commercial media.
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.
I just type my sig in the reply form...
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.
...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.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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
Theonlyuse of monkeys is to testthings onthem.Some peoplemay say"Hey That'scruel!"and myresponse is"I don't like monkeys
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?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
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...
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
Yes, this will cause interference on Grandma's old Philco. So?
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?
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
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.
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
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 -
... which crashed as an industry, crippling what was a blue chip, diversified group. Someone saw telecoms as "most" lucrative, and discarded the rest. And that's what's happening to the Media. And when the five/ten "most lucrative" shows become boring, they are going to crash and burn. Wait a minute, they are - that's why they need to a bigger share - to cut costs, to improve profit lines.
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" channel - it's *more* profitable than actual sci-fi. But TNN seems to make money showing star trek endlessly?
So what is wrong from a business perspective - nothing on the short term. But here's an example - Marconi - sold off all its non-core subsidiaries to "concentrate" on telecoms
Lets see, one mutates people, and the other is toxic sludge.
I think you need to have your head examined.
Why is everyone telling me that latley!
but seriously your comparing apples and oranges. We're talking TV and radio. Where people go not to think. Like any business, they want to make a profit. OK, monopolies are bad, you heard it here first. But if the music industry makes oodles of money playing posers who are acting punk, and TV is making money showing when good babies go bad, well thats their proggative. If people dont like it, then they wont respond.
Is it bad that they are buying all the radio stations. Maybe. I mean, lack of compitition sucks, and leads to no innovation, which is the true problem.
Guipo
Theonlyuse of monkeys is to testthings onthem.Some peoplemay say"Hey That'scruel!"and myresponse is"I don't like monkeys
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 (and will) bias peoples' information and thereby leverage other markets too.
So no matter what I do, I'll be wrong, right? No. The conflict is an illusion.
One thing that people must never forget (and sometimes I do) is that the whole situation rests upon socialist premises. The FCC creates monopolies on spectrum for the common good. Local governments have franchise agreements with cable companies for the common good. And so on. When we discuss details of how FCC should regulate, from the very beginning it is based upon the assumption that libertarians' values are either wrong or do not apply. Within this context, using a libertarian argument is an error.
If, on the other hand, we choose freedom to be a more important value than free markets, then relaxing FCC's rules is not the answer. Abolishing the FCC is the only philosophically-consistent way to tread down that path. And void agreements that give cable companies their monopolies, while you're at it. Then not only will you have freedom, but you just might get free market capitalism too.
But even Big Media isn't calling for that. The truth is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep the socialist constructs that gives government the power to grant monopolies, but want to ignore the purpose of those socialist constructs, which is to serve the common good. This is really just someone trying to get something for nothing, in defiance of both the socialists' and the capitalists' visions. Everybody loses except the select few.
Either regulate with clear purpose and accept that government interference is necessary for that, or don't regulate. Half-assed measures are a sign of corruption.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
As a (former) employee of Clear Channel, I can tell you that DJ-less radio is already in full effect.
CC uses Prophet Systems' automation software to automate basically all of their stations. As a DJ, I could go in and voicetrack (pre-record all of my little between-song blurbs) a 6 hour shift in just under 30 minutes. DJs don't get to pick the songs and that guy you just heard on the phone requesting Metallica was probably recorded sometime back in January, and you'll hear him every time they play Metallica from now until November.
Oh, and how many of your favorite DJs do you think actually live in your city? Unless you're living in one of the top 10 markets, chances are half the voices you hear between songs are piped in from Vegas, Florida, or Cleveland.
Pretty soon, there will be 4 DJs left in all of commercial radio, and from what I've seen, most folks won't care.
I think you're kind of missing the point.
...or better yet, start their own
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?
Doesn't matter if they can. Clear Channel is effectivly taking the choice away from them. The only choice they have is to listen to Clear Channel or listen to nothing. Not much of a choice in my opinion.
If Micheal and his flock don't like what they hear on the radio, they can choose another channel...
No they can't. Because all the channels are the same because they're all owned by Clear Channel (or so the argument goes, I'm not from the US and thus can't really comment on the content of US radio stations).
again, no they can't. As I understand it the FCC which is a government institution auctions off monopolies on radio frequencies. So unless I can outbid clear channel I can't just start my own station. The argument to be made here is that if the government is going to restrict who can boradcast on a frequency then perhaps they have an obligation to also restrict the number of frequencies any one entity can hold, in the interests of, you know, free speech and the like.
I'm not saying these arguments are neccssarily correct, I'm just saying that the issues is more complex than you're trying to make it.
I guess the view is that where there is competition, this is fine, and just the natural order of things. But they have entered into an agreement (by taking on the commitment of having the broadcast license) with the government to provide a service. The question is - are they providing it. They blatantly admit that they are focussed more on what revenue it provides, rather than the product they provide, so the question is
"Is the absolute minimum that they provide in the way of actual content, sufficient to meet their obligations to provide a public service?"
It's a deregulation thing. The government has a responsibility (demanded by the people, not mandated by the constitution) to ensure that a particular service is delivered. It allows the market to provide it, to ensure efficiency. It can't however, allow it to collapse (see california power). So, as the people clamouring for better service, we do have the right to say that the media companies, who enjoy the monopoly we granted them, will behave differently from a free market company.
The reason I get my news and entertainment from the Internet is because TV and radio are now inferior goods.
Free television is for people who cannot afford pay tv, and thus they get an inferior product. Cable is much better, but it is 'standard' and if you're anything like the rest of America, you're always wondering why you have 100 channels and nothing interesting to you.
Radio is the same situation as free tv, except that they still have the captive car audience. Expect satellite radio to push clearchannel to increased suckiness as they try to corner the bottom of the market.
Theres a reason mp3s are the desired medium of music. Radio is 90% shit, cds are 90% shit and overpriced, and mp3s are 100% controllable free and illegal. Hell, I watch the news stories I want now on my computer because I can't stand CNNs chatting or Foxs incessant republicanism.
Once the market is mainstream, you sacrifice quality for consistency and mass production. You can get quality if you pay the cost and since the demand for quality is always higher (than demand for anything+quality), it will always be more expensive.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested