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.

Comments

A Corporate Endeavor

[Scoria]

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

[ausoleil]

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.

Re:A Corporate Endeavor

[Malcontent]

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.

Re:A Corporate Endeavor

[AlexMax2742]

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)

toles take

[TamMan2000]

good cartoon on the topic

New Theme

[Joe the Lesser]

Anyone else think whenever 'ClearChannel' is mentioned the Imperial March should play in the background?

Re:New Theme

[Schezar]

The way things are going, we should just give in and make it the national anthem.

Plus, then we could collect proper royalties from every school and sporting event in the nation.

Article Text, Washington Post

[Damek]

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

happening in the uk too

[freedommatters]

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

Re:happening in the uk too

[freedommatters]

i'm not quite sure what you are asking but this article in the guardian explains the situation.

Radio is dead...

[gpinzone]

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.

I've tried to boycott Clearchannel, I really have

[pecosdave]

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.

Bill Board

[awol]

Saw my first ClearChannel signed billboard near my home in London :-(. Begun this advertising war has.

Another article

[DNS-and-BIND]

This article 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

[Guipo]

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

Re:Another article

[royalblue_tom]

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" 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 ... 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.

Re:Another article

[Guipo]

your equating toxic waste to television and raido ( hey, good correlation). But the danger of those 2 things are completly incompatable.

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

Re:Another article

[royalblue_tom]

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.

There are alternatives

[Bendy Chief]

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 (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...

[PhilHibbs]

Think yourselves lucky your president doesn't own most of your commercial media.

Re:Think yourselves lucky...

[Nessak]

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 the government and therefor reports more honestly. Yet as we can all see, this is not the case at all. In fact Rupert Murdock is a friend of GWB and will not let his news network report negatively on the Bush admin. (He has been quoted as saying this.) It would not be possible for the BBC to say the same thing because of all the public outcry.

Note, I'm not saying the BBC is great or unbiased. It would be better if the BBC was scrutinized without being owned by the government. But the BBC is still a much better place for news then the three major cable network of the US, which are not owned by the FEDs.

It's about media control

[scrow]

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.

Homogeneity is a real problem in U.S. media

[HidingMyName]

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

[pla]

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.

Re:Dissolve Clearchannel

[TrollBridge]

"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

[pHDNgell]

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?

Hmm

[stratjakt]

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 should care more than I do, but...

[swordgeek]

...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.

Re:left wing Liberal Media pigs

[moehoward]

I suggest that most slashdot types are libertarian in their political thought. Not Libertarian(tm), but libertarian in thought.

At least that's what I seem to get from reading at +1 or -1.

It seems hip to call yourself liberal, but then go home and secretly watch Fox News.

The vast majority of Americans (sorry foreigners) have very mixed political views, and fewer and fewer can strongly identify with one of the two major parties.

Do Something

[CrookedFinger]

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

Re:Do Something

[at_kernel_99]

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. Writing an actual letter (gasp!) is even more effective - so few people bother these days that it really stands out when they're trying to figure out what their constituents want. And yes, if enough people do bother to call or write they do begin to give a damn about what their constituents want.

A couple letter / phone tips: keep it short and sweet. Stick to one issue per communication. Tell them your name & where you live (living in their district adds weight to your opinion). If you voted for them, tell them.

A way to fight back?

[Otis2222222]

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 advantage.

Re:A way to fight back?

[Lumpy]

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 have some things coming along.. and there are alot of good shows in syndication that any station can pick up.

It depends on your station if you are the one low power fox station in a market of 5 then you can be hosed.... if you are one of 3 in a market, changing will not drop your viewership.

Petition to the FCC

[evenprime]

as I have pointed out in the past There's a petition to the FCC 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

[bogie]

"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.

How ratings are determined:

[pecosdave]

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.

wait...

[kevin lyda]

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!

Re:wait...

[moehoward]

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 is not a symptom of clearchannel "taking over", but rather a survival of the fittest among the alternatives.

Re:wait...

[Sloppy]

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 (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.

No Suprise

[locarecords.com]

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...

BBC news 24 last night

[Loosewire]

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

[guacamolefoo]

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

[CowboyRobot]

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

[Animats]

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

[eaddict]

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

[havaloc]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[SmilingMonk]

Here in Portland, OR we have KBOO. 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

[Edmund Blackadder]

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

[shoji]

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 are planning national call-in days. now code pink 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 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 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.

and visit us at prometheus. we're here all the time. and we will be until june 2nd and after.

hannah sassaman
prometheusradioproject

Boo Hoo

[Waffle Iron]

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 kid's game or $1 million per episode to act in a sitcom. Get to the root of the "rising cost of programming" problem rather than begging the government to let them consolidate programming into even more homogenized crap than it already is.

This is how it's supposed to work. If overpaid actors, sports players and coke-sniffing media executives are making the industry unprofitable, then companies go out of business, supply of overpaid job openings dwindle, and costs fall back into line. We don't need to put all of a scarce public resource in control of a single private party just to prop up a bad business model.

"cable-ize broadcast"

[TheSync]

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

[asmithmd1]

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

[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 88-108 MHz. The technological leaps that have happened over the years that made wireless ethernet, mobile phones (which occupy comparitively razor thin slivers in the spectrum when compared with radio) and other technology has the potential to allow thousands of radio stations sharing the same area. If the FCC would get off its ass and get the new band allocated, Clear Channel could set up all the top-40 stations that it wished and there would be plenty of room for public radio, non-profit independant broadcasters and any joe that would normally set up a pirate radio station.

One should not attack entities consuming scarce resources when it is possible to attack scarcity itself.

Fascinating effect on the generation gap

[dsplat]

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.

Oh give it a rest.

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

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 radio, they can choose another channel, or better yet, start their own. If what they say is true and there indeed is a large group of dissatisfied radio listeners out there, they will tune in and the station will be economically viable. If not, they can chip in to cover the operating costs and play whatever they want.

Like that'll happen. It's a lot easier to keep posting petulant bleatings on Slashdot than to put your money where your mouth is.

Re:Oh give it a rest.

[Edmund Blackadder]

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.

It isn't just "media"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not in the business and I really don't know what I am talking about (I know very little about business, marketing, music, media) so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that media almost equals "entertainment." Even the news these days (except for maybe your local news) is in essence a form of entertainment. Sure we need to be aware of what is happening in the world but if it isn't selling ads or it doesn't have enough viewers, the format will be adjusted to gain market share. Almost nightly you can switch from NBC, ABC, and CBS and see almost exactly the same stories at almost exactly the same moment because that is how the formula works.

On radio, you can listen to too many sound alike songs on too many sound alike stations, because that is how the formula works - and the formula is what is proven to get the most listeners and make the most profit from ad sales.

I'd sure like more local programming on both TV and radio. I'd like to see less polished matterial too. I'd love to hear local music on local radio stations, knowing that the band I hear on the radio today, I can go to the bar tonight and hear. I'd love to see local talent on a local TV station produced by local people that know their local audience.

But it ain't gonna happen. ad time is bought and sold by middlemen. They won't pay the rates that they will pay for a network show. Not even when you break it down to price per person. Why? Mediocrity rules I think. If they miss the target but can show the formula said this should have worked, they still have a job and a fat paycheck. If they took a risk and blew it, they would be out of work.

Pitchmen also bring the music to the stations and pretty much tell the stations what to play. It is coupled to everything from advertising dollars to upcomming concerts to who knows what else? A program director who does not play ball quickly finds out that the station loses revenue if he won't play the game. So, he plays the game.

Little guys deserve a chance but somehow, I figure it ain't gonna happen.

Sending us back a century

[Slime-dogg]

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.

Re:How...?

[Wah]

While i'm not exactly sure how they figure it out, i did once get a phone call that asked which stations i listened to, and if i liked certain clips from songs.

The company you are looking for is called Arbitron. Most of the ratings information is compiled during 'books' which are roughly equivalent to 'sweeps' for television. Most of the information is compiled from written diaries where a listener is expected to write down each 15 minutes of radio they listen to. Last I heard (couple of years ago) they were working with a technology called 'People Meters' (IIRC), which would automate the process a bit more.

BTW, I learned this while working the databases of a company that attempted to exploit Arbitron's selection criteria (we roughly reverse engineered it) and marketing directly to the people most likely to have a diary. Ya know, as a simple reminder of what to write in the diaries.

It was a fairly successful business, right up until Clear Channel bought most of our clients and used their own marketing company to do what we did, leading to about a 30% reduction in staff at my employer. Two years after I was laid off the company I worked for crumbled and was sold.

Krugman piece on FCC horse trading... (oops)

[rMortyH]

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!

[Newer Guy]

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..

[msoftsucks]

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
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.

The Internet

[bagsc]

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.