Sen. Feingold Reintroduces Radio Competition Bill 371
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."
But, gosh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But, gosh... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:But, gosh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But, gosh... (Score:2)
How about (Score:2, Interesting)
40 hrs+ a week of hate radio is a bit extreme.
Any chance of getting Clear Channel/Scaife/Faux to let America hear a different slant?
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
Why use the goverment to quiet those with whom you do not agree?
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
yes, EXACTLY! as an example, here in st. louis, there used to be two "alternative" radio stations about 6 years ago. one of them, the obvious sellout, would do the whole 5 song playlist (a few of them clearly NOT EVEN CLOSE TO ALTERNATIVE) and split it up with 40 minutes of commercials per hour. the other one was more of an "underground" station that did more of what it wanted. their playlist was huge and had lots of great music and few commercials. then one dark day a group (i think it was a mormon group out of utah...i think the same one that bought walgreens so they could stop it from selling alcohol) bought out the popular station to shut it down! all of the sudden the lesser station was the only one in town of its kind. can you guess what happened? you got it, that station has since become the sellout, bringing me such alternative hits as emminem's song from 5-mile, "because i got high", avril's new one and many more. and YES they claim to be alternative. "st. louis' new rock alternative" to be exact. as soon as they were able to pull in the big advertizers from the other station, they went straight to the money, forsaking their great station's integrity...its sad really
Re:How about (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what Clear Channel has done. They've taken control of most of the more popular radio stations. Only people with enough money to hold them off or a small enough market share that they're not worth it can stay independant. Of course, someone with enough money would be hard pressed to turn down a price that only makes sense to a monopolist. As Clear Channel controls more of the market, they'll alswo find it more worthwhile to go after smaller, and smaller stations.
Once a company has gotten a stranglehold on a market, FCC rules make it very hard for a competetor to start up. At that point the monoply holder has an effective stranglehold on radio speech in that market, with the government quieting any nascent dissent.
Hate radio? (Score:2, Interesting)
HEAD radio... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:HEAD radio... (Score:5, Funny)
I like Senator Feingold. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Can't say I agree. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't say I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree, to be certain, but understand that I'm not going to try to change your mind. I recognize this as one of the fundamental differences people have in politics and I still don't believe there's one right way to do things.
My perspective is that the Constitution, as with the rest of law, is not immutable, and that utmost respect must be given to both the wishes of the founders as well as to the world we're trying to live in today and the wishes of the people living in the country. The Constitution was a good start, but we've amended it in the past to fit better the ideals of the nation while stripping away parts that did not (examples of both aren't hard to think of).
Campaign finance reform, in my opinion, is more about restoring the speech of the people than it is about silencing them. The majority are heard on very little anymore because money speaks louder than words, and while this has made pretty good business sense it's made attention to non-profit-bearing issues pretty minimal over the last fifty years, not to mention creating (or continuing in some peoples' opinion) a government that largely favors the moneyed. Sen. Feingold sticks out not because he is a maverick but because the system itself has forgotten its duty to serve citizens instead of stockholders and CEOs.
Wish I had some mod points. (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:Can't say I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't.
Really.
People.
Re:Can't say I agree. (Score:2)
They're groups of people (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything a corporation does is done by people. And everything they say is said by people, who have the right to free speech. So I don't understand how the people/corporation distiction would change anything.
Re:They're groups of people (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at it this way.
In the constitution it uses the phrase "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Now I don't know about you but I was not created by lawyers. Humans have certain rights because they have a divine creator. Corporations have rights that are given to them by the lawyers who created them and the lawyers that made their creation possible. Again pretty simple no?
Finally. I am a mortal and I have a soul. A corporation is immortal and soul-less. If you look at the history of humans you will see many legends and religious texts about soul-less immortal beings. For example in revelations there is a soul-less immortal being with seven heads and ten horns. Perhaps they were talking about a corporation with seven headquarters and ten divisions.
Re:They're groups of people (Score:4, Insightful)
As a generally libertarian thinker, I've recently been tossing around the notion that there have been two great government interventions since the time of Adam Smith, and that these are at the root of most modern discontent with free markets.
In listening to the left, you always hear anger directed at "Corporations", as if a corporation were something you could be angry at. But corporations are NOT people. They do not have souls, they cannot feel guilt, they cannot feel pain or love. Corporations existed at the time of Adam Smith, but they were scarce compared to today, when even a housewife with a part-time business is likely to incorporate in order to compete without risking her family's home.
The other huge government intervention into free markets has been intellectual property laws. While they existed in the 18th century, they were of little consequence compared to today. As copying technologies have advanced, so have the benefits of holding copyrights. And this has in turn has left us in the uncomfortable position whereby our IP laws are meaningless unless we impose them on other countries.
My thinking recently received some validation from the Alpha Libertarian himself, Frederich Hayek. In "Individualism and Economic Order" (published 1948, written earlier) Hayek devotes a chapter to some of areas where so-called "Free" enterprise is promoted, but where it is not truly free. And sure enough, a large part of the chapter is devoted to intellectual property laws and to the rights accorded to corporations.
To sumamrize Hayek's conclcusions, he basically agrees with the idea of protecting a songwriter or author's work, but that the direct extension of the laws of physical property is inappropriate and probably destructive. That may be "duh" material today, but sixty years ago it was prescient.
Likewise with corporations, he argues that direct extension of the rights of a human to a group of humans is bound to create distortions of freedom, and laments that it has created a situation whereby the size of a corporation becomes an advatantage far beyond what is dictated by economics of scale.
Reading that chapter was one of those "Bingo!" moments for me. It doesn't really provide a practical course of action to correct the situation (if we simply repealed the offending laws, economic chaos would ensue), yet it explains everything. I had noticed that most leftish people don't really dislike free commerce as much as you'd think based on the positions they take. Many of the more reasonable lefties at their heart enjoy commerce, they love the idea of "cottage industries" for example. Many, regardless of their politics, are personally just as independent-minded as many conservatives are.
If nothing else, Hayek's observations present a clear distinction between Free Markets and Capitalism; Hayek compellingly argues that what is often sold as "free" enterprise is really just supply-side Socialism.
Which brings us back to the subject of the article... folks, don't believe for a second that Feingold and McCain are doing you any favors. Once the structure of an industry is dictated by the political process, then the political process inevitably becomes corrupted to favor the existing players. The law may tough on the day it's passed, but in implementation, it will soon become a beaureaucratic playground where the big players have a huge advantage. They may oppose it up front, but you can be certain that they'll benefit in the end.
If politicians really want to help, the should roll back the regulations that created the situation they're trying to fix. But that course is rarely politically viable, for numerous structural reasons. Instead, as PJ O"Rourke notes, "Politicians spend much of their time as skunks going around with aerosol cans of room freshener."
Re:Can't say I agree. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can't say I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably the part where money is considered speech. Note we're talking about campaign finance reform legislation.
Re:Can't say I agree. (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re:Can't say I agree. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [cbsnews.com] 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.
Money is not speech. (Score:2, Informative)
Limiting political contributions is not a radical idea. There are already laws on the books against this, dating back to 1907. McCain-Feingold simply closes some of new loopholes.
Re:I like Senator Feingold. (Score:2)
huh? Sorry for the attack...don't take it too hard (Score:2)
"...a straightforward and honest answer"
Rather than a straightforward and dishonest answer, or a cryptic, yet honest answer? How about just 'truthful'.
"...creative elusiveness that has become the hallmark of modern politics."
Sure, like a lack of morals in politicians just started appearing this generation. Or does 'modern' mean since Ceasar's last reign?
Stop using your (AC) Boy Scout manual as a style guide and maybe you can come up with a point...maybe.
oh, since you put it that way (Score:2)
I would rather see a dark moldy lump that concealed an original thought and interesting idea, as opposed to a trite comment wrapped in crisp paper and flowing ribbon. I'm sure you would too...at least I hope with glee steeped in non-angst that you as a clear thinking and unredoubtful person of untarnished demeanor will see the warmth of my pending delight and respond in kind, not with blatant fervor, but with charity of thought, glamour of kindness and alacrity of understanding that only bipeds and Popes can bring forth without miscue of character. Please do not fail or misconstrue my request for depth and humor as a disregard for clarity and a display of hubris, for I know that you have the ultimate capacity and sterling wit that such a non-flanged retort is not only possible, but probable beyond doubt and shapeless desire. Please, privy my ears and eyes and respond forthwith. I wait, with baited and pregnant breath for the joy I know and trust will grace these hallowed and sacred pages.
Feingold steps up to the plate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Feingold steps up to the plate... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
McCain a Republican? ;-) (Score:2)
Who said McCain was a Republican?
Yes, he had the party's nomination. But he tends to bolt the party on votes - to the point that people expected him to switch parties if the Senate came out a tie or near-tie in the last election.
Conservatives have a term for politicians: RINO - for Republican In Name Only. McCain is the current poster-child for the breed.
I'm glad they are on top of this important work (Score:3, Funny)
ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:5, Informative)
The same Top 40 songs are heard day in and day out in every city. Nothing changes. Only artists with big media contracts (Sony, Columbia, etc.) can afford to buy air time.
I often wonder why there's been little innovation on the radio. Bands like Radiohead come along, but I've probably only heard one song of theirs on the radio, and that was once or twice even.
Let the little guys get some airtime. Fight this consolidation. I urge you to contact your representatives in government.
*nix.org -- Just when you thought unbiased opinion pieces and news articles no longer existed... [starnix.org]
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:2, Interesting)
ClearChannel is perhaps an example of a company that has successfully implemented the priciples of business that you'll learn in any decent college business course. I majored in a business degree at college, and among others, Porter's 5 Forces model [quickmba.com] was a big part of the instruction in several of my classes. While I won't explain it all here (the website does a better job than me anyway), it seems to me that ClearChannel has succeeded in raising barriers to entry and keeping its "supplier power" high. But this doesn't mean that there is no "buyer's power" in ClearChannel's business world--we, as listeners, constitute the "buyers" in the radio industry and if we decide that we're no longer happy with ClearChannel stations, we can still turn them off and go elsewhere.
From the article's outline of the bill:
"Anti-competitive manner"? Oh, yes, heaven forbid that we allow radio stations to select what to play of their own free will (including taking payments to play certain songs). Must give all the local musicians a fair chance, no matter how much the general populace likes them, is that the eventual idea? Our government is anti-business, because it leans socialist and will eventually turn outright communist. Any head sticking up above the rest must be chopped off. (Yes, I read the article and I know this isn't explicitly stated. I'm looking at the implications from the top of the slippery slope, so to speak.) The really amazing thing is that our government manages to be anti-business while pretending to forbid "anti-competitive" acts. In other words, be competitive, but don't excel. Makes me think of a corral full of rabid dachsunds, nipping at each other's heels and yipping their at the top of their lungs.
In the end, if you're not happy with what you hear on the radio, change the channel! Or just turn it off! If the public agrees with you and does the same, the radio stations will get the message when their advertising slots become worthless.
I find it striking that
TMF
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:5, Insightful)
And to answer that, lemme quote what was said in an above post:
Corporations.
Aren't.
Really.
People.
They have no rights. They can't claim that we're "stepping on their Constitutional rights" because they don't have any. Otherwise, corporations could sue the government for trying to enforce monopoly laws. We limit corporations from becoming monopolies (or rather abusing as a monopoly), because they have no rights as a corporation. A corporation is merely a entity to hold money. THAT'S! IT! No rights. Not a person. No rights. Therefore, we have EVERY right to limit the way they do business.
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:2)
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably more like 8 times out of 10, but only because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [fcc.gov] limits a corporation to owning 8 stations in a given major regional market (as ClearChannel does in Washington, DC).
A good friend of mine works for ClearChannel* who, of course, owns nearly every decent venue here in Philadelphia. As far as I'm concerned, the only good things to come out of her employment there are free tickets to any shows I wish. feh.
--fletch
*Yeah, I know, but it's not entirely her fault. She went to work for local promotions house Electric Factory Concerts, who's since been bought by SFX, who's since been bought by ClearChannel.
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:2)
Just a note about Radiohead, they were becoming quite the pop-radio darlings for about 3 albums before they said "fuck everyone" with Kid A. Radiohead is actually one of the most popular bands out there (try getting concert tickets when they come to America,) but their newer songs don't play well on the radio. My theory is that they made enough money with OK Computer (4 million copies, Pablo Honey and The Bends were million sellers too) that they just did whatever they wanted. So basically, they did a bunch of radio-frendly stuff (Pablo Honey was a straight-up radio rock album) then some weird stuff.
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:2)
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:2)
Got that right. From the day after Thanksgiving all the way to Christmas, many CC stations began playing an ALL CHRISTMAS MUSIC FORMAT this past year. If you think Britney Spears is obnoxious, try three different renditions of Jingle Bells in a 90 minute period.
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ClearChannel ruined radio (Score:2)
Radio's problems... (Score:5, Informative)
Over the years, radio evolved from a news/information medium to an almost purely entertainment medium, which also played a part in the process of allowing consolidation. We don't hear editorial information on radio much anymore (news/talk hosts the exception). So the danger of one view being espoused by a "group" of stations in a community is supposedly reduced or eliminated.
I don't think this will do much for the quality of programming - because stations will still pick up the same few satellite-delivered formats.
Personally, I'd rather see stations required to produce X number of hours of locally originated programming each week. I don't much care if they play the same music - just do it with local "talent"
Re:Radio's problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that you are receiving a single view being espoused across a group of stations in a community, except in this case the "view" is not necessarily a verbal editorial but a specific set of music by a select few artists, with little or no deviation. Although music is perceived as entertainment, the particular music programming chosen represents a view that the radio/media company is deliberately projecting. Now it is projecting it across MANY stations in the same market, ensuring their "view" is the only one heard...
Re:Radio's problems... (Score:2)
With the local DJ, he would just be told by the higher ups what he should be playing because that's what makes money.
Go Russ! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm proud to say he's from my home, Wisconsin.
Re:Go Russ! (Score:2)
Be sure to go out and vote for him when he comes up for reelection....The only senator with the balls to stand up for what's right.
Don't forget Russ has another bill to stop TIA! (Score:2)
Re:Go Russ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, without government regulations, corruption is *ALL* that exists.
Good to See The Law Catching Up (Score:5, Informative)
Payola is one of the factors that made record companies the giants that they are today.
This is old news anyway. Read this article [mises.org] written in 1956.
STF
Re:Good to See The Law Catching Up (Score:2)
Re:Good to See The Law Catching Up (Score:2)
Wow. A good deed(tm). (Score:5, Insightful)
I get so depressed, reading about DMCA suits & SLAPPs, reading about corporate (*cough* Coble) whores. You get to thinking that the government is just trying to screw us all.
And yet, there are good guys. There are champions of the common man.
I feel pretty good.
Re:Wow. A good deed(tm). (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd say it's more like every now and again, some individual comes through despite the best efforts of the rest of the government--but never for long.
I hope this bill passes. It would be great to be able to listen to the radio and hear music I enjoy, rather than the commercialized crap they play now. I haven't listened to the radio since my favorite classical station switched to a talk format about 5 or 6 years ago.
At the same time, I doubt this bill will pass. Feingold is in the minority in Congress in his ability to ignore the payoffs offered him by big media conglomerates. The political system is corrupt, and will remain so.
Oh well. If only we lived in a free country...
I knew.. (Score:2, Funny)
tune it out (Score:5, Informative)
in the car, i've got a subscription to XM, which is diverse enough that no matter what format I want to listen to, its available. true, its 101 stations run by one corporation, but truly the best part about it is the fact that since its subscription based, most channels aren't advertising-revenue driven, so there's no incentive to play the latest hit single four times an hour.
i don't know, if XM goes to hell, back to CDs for me.
Russ Feingold kicks ass! (Score:5, Insightful)
All you nerds in Wisconsin better vote for this guy when he comes up for reelection. A good Senator is a rare thing indeed.
Re:Russ Feingold kicks ass! (Score:4, Funny)
I offered to buy him a beer but he laughed and said it would look like I was trying to buy him out... haha..
yeah i got nothin'
Re:Russ Feingold kicks ass! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Russ Feingold kicks ass! (Score:2)
"A bill to impose a moratorium on the implementation of datamining under the Total Information Awareness program of the Department of Defense and any similar program of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes."
It has three co-sponsors in the Senate: Jon Corzine [D-NJ], Bill Nelson [D-FL], and Ron Wyden [D-OR].
But it isn't just Democrats that are creeped out by the Total Information Awareness initiative. Even some Republicans like Phyllis Schafly and Bob Barr are beginning to express concerns about it.
Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I hate ClearChannel just as much as anyone; I'm just wondering about the individual stations in the event that this passes...
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Much as it may suck, that's a consequence of capitalism. Companies don't have an inherent right to exist if they can't make a profit. Besides, I think what we'd end up seeing is the replacement of national conglomerates with regional ones. **Shrugs** It wouldn't be significantly different from what we have now, really, except that more people would have a shot at the cookie jar.
Finally.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Full Text of Bill (Score:5, Informative)
Note that this is not the first time that he has done something [senate.gov] like this [senate.gov] before.
Appropriate Quote... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
NO ADVERTISING (Score:2)
Maybe satellite radio is the way to go - but much of that still has advertising anyway.
what's wrong with pay-for-play? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what's wrong with pay-for-play? (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill doesn't ask them to play music without compensation if they don't want to. It asks them to be honest with us, the listeners, when they do so, to encourage them to choose to play music that's good, rather than music that's being promoted in expensive ways.
What happened to freedom in this country.
As far as I can tell, companies like CCC bought it.
Rhetorical questions like that are not an effective way to convince people. Keep in mind that since not everyone agrees with you, the answer someone else gives to such a question may be different from what you expected. For instance:
Why does the govt. feel they need to regulate everything?
You're expecting an answer along the lines of "Because we're control freaks, because we want to institute a totalitarian regime, muahahaha!" But the fact is that for many people, the answer is "Because we do have to regulate everything." The way to convince people--or better yet, mutually arrive at a truth that may be different from anyone's initial views--is to ask, without sarcasm, why we would be better off this way.
In case you care, my answer to that question is that the government should regulate cases such as this because it benefits the consumer, whose rights should always outweigh the rights of corporations. This is because, simply, people are people, and real, whereas corporations are simply groups of people. Situations that benefit corporations benefit the individuals who are members of those corporations, whereas situations that benefit individuals in general benefit all the same people, and many more.
Now somebody will respond saying that I've oversimplified this, and my preemptive response to that is that to do this subject justice would be to write volumes on it. I think what I've said above captures the essence of the liberal view.
We own the medium, we make the rules! (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [freeairtime.org] to find out about a similar regarding the television frequency range.
Re:what's wrong with pay-for-play? (Score:2)
Three words: "Truth in advertising." Saying that the songs you are being paid to play are "today's greatest hits" is misleading at best. It implies that the songs are being played based solely on their popularity.
"Why does the govt. feel they need to regulate everything?"
Why do you believe that "freedom of speech" means "freedom from responsibility?"
"Radio station have the right to free speech,"
FCC what?
"not the obligation to play music without compensation."
"Playing music for compensation" and "telling customers that no compensation took place" are two entirely different issues.
Plug (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a listen next time you're in Colorado, or try out the stream at KBFR.org [kbfr.org].
All random shit. All the time.
Not Big On The Man, But Love The Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not Big On The Man, But Love The Idea (Score:2)
Yeah, it's interesting how media ownership reform is one of the few issues that manages to appeal to people of all (or no) political stripes. The current system of concentrated, cross-medium consolidation is obviously not working for the vast majority of the people.
Fight Back (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Cool - someone to vote for (Score:4, Informative)
For those of you in Southwest Virginia (where I used to hail from), there is someone equally worthy to vote for, though he's a representative rather than a senator. Support Rick Boucher as well. He's introduced the recent act to limit the DMCA.
slashdot voting bloc (Score:2, Interesting)
the 1st being rep. boucher, who's working to extend fair use rights.
http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/1381471
nice to see that the slashdot voting bloc is gaining momentum.
anybody else want to get in on the ground floor?
Senator John McCain (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Senator John McCain (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree completely. While lesser men were defending the skies of Texas (except when AWOL, that is), McCain spent years chained up in a tiny rat infested cell being starved, dehydrated, poked at with sticks, and having bamboo shoots shoved under his fingernails. He knows what it means to suffer. That's the kind of guy who should be in the White House.
The real motive? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if the real motive isn't a return to the Fairness Doctrine of a decade or two ago, requiring radio stations to give equal time to a variety of viewpoints? Democrats have tried and tried again to get their own talk show going, and it fell flat on it's face every time. But, if they can do it through legislation, I bet they would.
I hope this is not the case, but with Feinstein, one of the most liberal in Congress, behind this, I'm all but positive this is a huge part of this whole thing.
Re:The real motive? (Score:2, Insightful)
"The media is biased against liberals!"
You cant legislate the 'media', because what they're talking about is entertainment (which is what Limbaugh, Hannity et al are). Back in the 60s the nightly news was very conservative, so the liberal views were the 'counterculture' that people flocked to.
Now liberal is the mainstream, and the conservative views are the 'counterculture' that makes stars.
It's ebb and flow, and cant be controlled.
And I doubt any of this has anything to do with this bill. I think it's actually feasible that some in high places actually do have the public good in mind, and realize it is not best served by a payola-driven industry owned by one corporation.
Re:The real motive? (Score:3, Informative)
I just had a quick look over the bill (you can find the text here: http://feingold.senate.gov/rcbill.pdf) and while there were some passages that seem to back up your suspicions, I could not see any specific measures that would actually have the result or reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
Here is the bit that looks most suspicious:
(7) There is a substantial public interest in promoting the values embraced by the first amendment to the Constitution, and the public interest, convenience, and necessity, by increasing the presence of independently-owned and locally-produced content on radio.
(8) There is a substantial public interest in promoting the value embraced by the first amendment to the Constitution by strengthening the diversity of voices provided through media such as radio.
However, this stuff appears in the sections that identify the aims of the bill, not in the sections that actually amend existing laws. Some of the new measures in the Bill do require that the FCC revisit old regulations and formulate new ones. The specific identification of a "diversity of voices" with the "public interest" might be an attempt to push the FCC towards reviving the Fairness Doctrine in these new regulations.
Re:The real motive? (Score:2)
Oh well. Twas a good troll while it lasted. Also, a return to the fairness doctrine would be political suicide for the democrats or republicans. The media companies contribute millions to their campaigns. Finally, the supreme court quite strongly worded their decision against it, no possible change could be made to make it constitutional - much like the CDA.
Acronym? (Score:3, Funny)
Is it just me (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me (Score:3, Interesting)
Total Information Awareness (Score:5, Interesting)
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. [jsonline.com]
Payola only works for the big guys (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Payola only works for the big guys (Score:3, Insightful)
And if that's not a poster-child illustration of what's wrong with having large concentration of ownership/influence/control under a single entity, I don't know what is. These guys had something to get out there, and they couldn't pay -- at market values for airtime -- to get it on the air, because it upset those who had an interest in the status quo.
What makes anyone think it couldn't be the same for political speech?
What about Internet Radio? (Score:4, Insightful)
I need to check this out further, but a read over the press release shows no mention of Internet Radio.
I certainly support the bill * can I get an amen? * and I suppose you have to pick your battles, but doesn't Internet radio need a little fairness also?
I would like to see parity between Internet broadcasters and FM broadcasters regarding what is required of them by the RIAA. The RIAA doesn't want independent Internet radio stations to succeed and is imposing stifling reporting requirements (i.e. song, title, time played, listener's IP address, listener's blood type etc.) and exorbitant copyright compensation fees. As it stands now, independent Internet radio stations are dying.
I believe that radio will eventually be "broadcast" almost exclusively over IP networks with the wireless component being handled by ubiquitous, low-power, ultra-wide band radio in the city and satellite radio in the country. I think an explosion of music could happen if the RIAA would just get out of the way. Instead, they seek to hinder this explosion because it is not something they understand or feel that they can control.
I urge you to consider that "small and independent" radio is increasingly going to be an Internet phenomenon and we future station owners need your help.
Thank You
Hello, I'm Donald Love (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.lovemedia.tv/ [lovemedia.tv]
CheapChannelRadio (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A blow to individual freedom (Score:2)
This is a nice try, and it almost succeeds at making a valid point, but as someone who knows how to get a reaction I have to say that you are only babbling this way to get attention.
Sure, the "liberals" hide behind very skecthy notions of what "market forces" are, and they may even have "Stalinist" tendencies when it comes to certain things. But the real Stalinism lies not in the promotion of less concentrated ownership but rather it comes from the natural tendency of corporations to homogenize and unify public thought and entertainment.
I'd be the first to agree that the FCC and other government bodies were a bad idea, and should never have been involved in the early days of radio. They history behind those organizations boils down (essentially) to the Fed wanting to impose some "order" on the "chaos" that the early radio frequencies were (proponents of the notion that "the internet can't be regulated" would do well to check into the history of radio, especially in urban areas, prior to the institution of federal controls).
Now, it's easy to say "If consumers prefer the content provided by less concentrated ownership, then large conglomerates will naturally fail due to competition. If the inverse is true, conglomerates will succeed, but only because this is the choice made by individual listeners" and get the response you want, because it's obvious that concentration is happening. Therefore, your argument would hold that it *must be a good thing.* What this fails to take into account is the large numbers of people who have, in the past ten years, decided that radio sucks. And there are plenty of them.
There are plenty of ill side effects of concentration of media ownership that I could go into, but I won't. I've already wasted plenty of time I could've spent drinking beer to reply to this already. Selah.
Re:A blow to individual freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
As for your argument that this is a war against freedom, you need to understand that radio has always been regulated, from the content available to who owns can broadcast on what frequency. To say that what exists now is based on market forces, but that laws passed to change how it is are anti-market is totally wrong. Maybe it would be nice to just blow it all up and start over and see where "free market" takes us, but it sure as hell isn't going to happen.
Oh, and how in the world is a "free market" the purest form of democracy in existence? Voting with your wallet means people with larger wallets...get more votes. Not democracy my friend. Not at all. Anyway, in a democracy, the power comes from the people, not the corporations. I think you're thinking of a different political system.
Just one small point (Score:2)
Let the individuals who invest their money in corporations decide for themselves, and *FUCK* the CEOs!
"Free market" in Radio (Score:2)
Re:A blow to individual freedom (Score:4, Informative)
The laws we have in place now, and what is being proposed here, are designed to put a 'cap' on power and wealth so that the little guy does not get taken advantage of.