Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar

In times when Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios and broadcasts them over radio stations around the country, it's worth asking the question: when does it cross the line into deception?

Comments

No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story...

[LostCluster]

WBZ Boston is owned by Infinity Radio, WTTK Boston is owned by Greater Media... it's not just ClearChannel, everybody's doing it.

Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story...

[flewp]

Read this research paper I wrote (I wrote it back in senior year of HS for an advanced writing class). You might find that it brings up some interesting points. It is geared to the legalization of marijuana as opposed to other drugs, but I think you could apply most of the points to drugs in general and why the drug war is a wasted effort.

Drugs have been used in civilization since people first inhabited the lands. Peoples throughout the history of civilization have thrived and advanced, all the while using such drugs as marijuana, peyote, psychedelic mushrooms and DMT. This is contrary to the popular belief that all drugs are destructive in nature. Drugs were often integral parts of society. Often, members of native tribes, such as those found in the Southwestern United States and indigenous natives of South America used what are now illegal drugs for many things from diagnosing illness to going on a spiritual journey. The most popular drug of today's society is marijuana. Marijuana, a drug that cannot be classified in any one particular category such as hallucinogenic, stimulant, or depressant, creates an euphoric feeling in the user, often associated with increased appetite, and slurred thought processes and slower reactions. Marijuana has however, been classified as an evil and destructive drug and a dark part of society. Despite the myths that surround it, marijuana is a very safe and in many ways, helpful drug. Marijuana should be legalized in the United States for all purposes for those who are eighteen years old and older.

Legalization of marijuana could reduce street crime. Marijuana may lead to harder drugs, which would increase street crime. However, legalized marijuana could reduce harder drug use as a legal substitute. Marijuana could potentially become a filter for harder drugs, as in Holland, where marijuana was decriminalized in 1976, the rate of cocaine and heroine use is much lower than in the United States (David Zeese, as cited in Medical). Before 1914, when most now illicit drugs were still legal, very little crime existed related to drug use (Torr, 94). Organized crime, black markets, and violence have all erupted as a result of drugs becoming criminalized (94). If marijuana were to become legal, it would reduce the use of hard drugs, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of drug related crime. In the 1920's and 1930's, alcohol was prohibited in the United States. Prohibition brought with it violence, corruption, and organized crime that is still with us today (96). Legalization would reduce drug-related violence, as drug pushers would be put out of their jobs, and thus there would be no need to fight for territory to sell their drugs. As stated by the Libertarian Party:
Whenever there is a great demand for a product and government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand. The price of the product rises dramatically and the opportunity for huge profits is obvious. The criminal gangs love the situation, making millions. They kill other drug dealers, along with innocent people caught in the crossfire, to protect their territory. They corrupt police and courts. Pushers sell adulterated dope and experimental drugs, causing injury and death. And because drugs are illegal, their victims have no recourse (Libertarian).

Also, anyone with a drug record, even for marijuana, may not be able to get a decent job as a result of drug-free workplaces. People may even be denied affordable housing, due to drug-free housing (97). This prevents people from rehabilitating themselves, which could lead them to turn to crime.

Police would be free to investigate other, more serious problems if marijuana were legalized. Instead of trying to find someone smoking marijuana in even controlled, safe environments, the police could be out looking for those who commit more serious crimes such as robbery, rape, and even murder. Freeing up the police's time would be just as effective as adding more police, but at a cheaper cost. Many people are incarcerate

Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story...

[Threni]

Alcohol? Tobacco? They're legal, and cause quite a few deaths every year. Whereas cannabis, lsd, cocaine etc are much less harmful. Most of the harm caused by drugs is due to their illegality (impossibility of enforcing quality standards, badly `cut` drugs, turf wars (with consequent deaths in cross-fires, mistaken identity), lifes wasted in prison, etc etc. Drugs are expensive because they are illegal - they'd be a fraction of their current cost if this were not the case.

Sure, some bad things happen to some people who take drugs, but they're generally the same idiots who become alcoholics or gamblers, and would have happened whether drugs were legal or not, so basically you get those problems in addition to the extra problems caused by their illegality.

I can see you've not really thought about any of this. Once again, you've proven that its the people who can't see that making drugs illegal is a bad thing who have a problem with reality.

Clear Channel music isn't centralized

[kitzilla]

Local Clear Channel stations make their own music decisions. We all share our local research, but the company NEVER dictates which songs we play. Period.

Those who say differently are lying, guessing, or wishing.

Other companies have their own policies. But that's how we do it at CC.

Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized

[LostCluster]

Clear Channel never put out a "Banned Songs List" from corperate. What sparked that rumor was the fact that local PDs started contributing song names on a "Songs that it would be a bad idea to play right now..." thread that formed on their intranet message boards. That thread circulated as PDs were rushing to reprogram their computers to avoid playing songs that would either be too depressing or had gained a second meaning because of 9/11. A parellel list of songs that were better to play also got spread arround, and some instant-hits such as a remix of Enya's Only Time with news quotes inserted got created and spread as a result.

There wasn't any order from corperate as much as there was an online groupthink session among the people who had all been tasked with the same responsiblity.

The "ban" on playing the Dixie Chicks was requested by their own fans. See, they lost a lot of fans when their lead singer made a dumb comment in Europe that got reported stateside. Requests and album sales plumeted immedately, and as a result of those drops, they started falling off of radio playlists. You can't be on a Top 40 station if there are 40 songs more popular than you...

Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized

[kitzilla]

You are referring to an informal, non-binding, and rather oddball list circulated by a few CC programmers shortly after 9-11. It had no weight at all, was not issued by the company, and was rather ignored by virtually all CC PDs (including me).

In any case, al lot of folks sort of lost their minds after 9-11. I don't fault the PDs who made up the list. They were really trying their best no to rub salt into listeners' wounds.

As for the Dixie Chicks, Clear Channel NEVER banned them as a company. Many stations pulled their records after getting hundreds or thousands of listener complains. My stations chose to keep playing them, but we've backed off in recent months. The music research comes back looking horrible. But that's the decision of our listeners, not Clear Channel.

I can think of at least one radio company which *did* officially ban the Chicks: Cumulus Media. Go picket THEM.

try looking the definition a lie up

[painehope]

"I don't think it's being disingenuous," he said. "I'm not lying to anybody."

The definition of a lie . Merriam-Webster has a more detailed definition, but no direct links.

So yes, jackass, you are lying to your listeners. That's all it boils down to.

Of course, some people ( of which I am one ) would argue that almost all media has been lying to us for quite some time.

Re:An Excellent Example

[LostCluster]

When was the last time Dan Rather traveled to be in a hurricane? He used to do that years ago, but now, he sits at his nice calm anchordesk in NYC, and introduces some kid who's actually in the storm area.

Re:An Excellent Example

[alphaseven]

So what if Dan Rather, instead of travelling to the middle of a hurricane to report live, just used a blue screen and a wind machine, and had someone off screen throw a tree branch or two at him? Is that ok too?

Cokie Roberts tried something similar (putting on a coat and reporting in front of a blue sceen of Capitol Hill) years ago and got reprimanded for it. I think she may have made a remark about the weather there too. If she got reprimanded I think the radio reporter should too.

And funny you should mention Dan Rather, he got in a controversy too for reporting in front of a digitaly altered Times Sqaure, link.

As a side-note...

[ziggy_zero]

Sage Francis and the Non-Prophets are going on a Fuck Clear Channel tour this year, so if you want to stick it to the man and listen to some damn good music at the same time, I highly suggest you hit it up.

Re:mod parent up, please.

[mingot]

The best part of this is how much money goes back to the tabacco farmers to subsidize them for the money they're losing from the people quitting smoking based on the publicity of the lawsuits negatively affecting cig sales.

Basically, the money goes in a big circle with lawyers peeling off most of it as it goes around.

Re:An Excellent Example

[LostCluster]

Cokie Roberts tried something similar (putting on a coat and reporting in front of a blue sceen of Capitol Hill) years ago and got reprimanded for it. I think she may have made a remark about the weather there too. If she got reprimanded I think the radio reporter should too.
The difference here is that Cokie didn't tell the bosses what she was doing in advance, Gary's remote setup was promised to him as a perk in his contract. He agreed to anchor from Florida a few weeks a year instead of insisting on having those weeks completely off.

And funny you should mention Dan Rather, he got in a controversy too for reporting in front of a digitaly altered Times Sqaure, link.
That wasn't Dan's decision, that was the network. The situation was the New Year's celebrations between 1999 and 2000, and Dan's anchor position overlooked times square, but had the famous Jumbotron in plain view. The CBS bosses didn't like that... because NBC controls the programming on that screen, and there's a nice big NBC logo on top of that screen. The network was afraid that NBC would have the opportunity to flash whatever message they wanted on that screen during CBS live programming, and they were going to run the risk of accidently promoting NBC programs. Therefore, the digital alteration created an animated CBS News sign that covered up the Jumbotron...