MM, I agree with you in principle and think consumer choice is one of the most powerful tools of American's, but the problem occurs when there isn't true competition. With the way media outlets are consolidated (radio, network TV, cable, satelite, ect.) IMO it is reasonable for the public to review their practices and possibly intervene (via the government) if such private enterprises fundamentally limit consumers choices or exploit them through monopolies and near monolopies.
According to Snopes, this list is not a complete hoax but is misleading. A single program director for a CCC station compiled a list of songs that might be considered offensive or in poor taste. It did not come out of the corporate office nor is it a list of banned songs. It is just an advisory abour certain songs sent one by one person that some might find objectionable. For more info see: http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/radio.htm
They may not own 85% but around here they sure seem to. geeze...101, 96.5, 94.5, 104 and probably a few others I don't know about. Those listed are the only stations thet you can hear any kind of rock on. If this were true it would severly limit their already limited songlist. btw...Suicide Solution is from Ozzy not Black Sabbath and when was the last time you heard "Sweating Bullets" or even "Suicide Solution" on the radio anyway??
Desert Scar -- but there is no fundamental right to have this music being played on radio waves across the country?? The government has not stopped your ability to go out and purchase these CD's and listen to them all you want. Until the courts decide that Clear Channel is a state actor (acting as or in the shoes of the government) there is no free speech issue whatsoever. Your freedoms have not been denied. This is like saying your freedom to eat McRibs has been denied when McDonald's stops selling them. However imperfect that analogy may be, it's a decision by a private actor (Clear Channel) to not play certain songs. This just in: THEY ALREADY CHOOSE NOT TO PLAY SOME SONGS!!! But that doesn't mean your freedoms are inhibited because of that. Their freedom to choose whatever way they want to run their business trumps your desire to hear the song on their particular radio stations. Sorry. by the way...KRBE is NOT owned by Clear Channel...they're owned by Sesquehana.
MM, I would agree with your point that this isn't about "censorship" per see. This debate really is about consumer choice and the role of government in near monopolies. If Clear Channel acts in predatory ways increase market share and then decreases consumer options or price gauges once it has knocked out competition, I am fine with the government stepping in. (I really don't know enough about them to talk about them specifically). Basically, when private companies control a media outlet, I have no problem with government stepping in to ensure consumer choices. If Murdock owned all network stations but had a personal grudge against the Rockets and decided to ban their games, you can bet their would be widespread support around here for the government to step in. A somewhat ludicrous example, but when choices are limited (natural monopolies or otherwise) the government is the only institution to check them and most people are for doing so. Sorry, consumer choice does trump private company freedooms <i> when there isn't competition. </i>
Huh? Even in that example there's no reason for the govt to intervene. What, you have a right to watch Rockets games? So what if Murdock owned all the stations but didn't air ANY NBA games. Would you still still want the govt to step in, MAKE Murdock air Rockets games? In the above example just punish Murdock by making him lose ad revenue from all Houston area viewers if they feel that stongly about it. Sheesh, sometimes I think you govt intervention people smoke a bit too much ganja...
Dylan, maybe my Rockets/Murdock case wasn't a good one. But I don't suppose you would want the government to step in if Enron controlled all the natural gas supply in the US and charged what they want to heat your house (you could even go a little further if we say they paid off developers to only put in gas heaters)??? Or what if either Murdock or Turner owned all TV stations and only picked conservative or liberal commenters?? You don't think that would limit the marketplace of ideas and would be an important reason for government to step in. You blindly trust the marketplace folks need to study the history of the railroads, Standard Oil, etc. If media outlets are monopolized, by all means do I want the government involved, it is better than no voice at all. The free market is a wonderful thing, <i> if the market is indeed free and competitive. </i> This is basic Eco 301B.
In the Enron case I think there would be a place for regulation but that situation is extreme. I guarentee you if the above happened some developer would start building houses that didn't incorporate natural gas because there would be a HUGE market for such houses. There would be competition, reducing the need for regulation. In the Murdock situation, no way do I think the political leaning of media should be regulated. If somehow Murdock managed to own all print media, all radio frequencies (as if one could own frequences), own all transmitters, own all of our mouths, well then maybe yes there should be regulation. You act as if television is the only media market when that's simply not true.
You call the Enron situation extreme, and indeed the situation I presented was. But I stand by my view that if a private corporation has enough marketshare to severely limit consumer choices I am all for the government being involved. Obviously we have different lines in the sand as what warrants government intervention in the private industry, I have no problem with that. I'd say if Clear Channel controls in upwards of high 90's% of the US stations they are worthy of at least regulation scrutiny (not saying action, I really don't know enough about the company or industry). If any one media outlet (TV, radio, internet. etc.) has a handful of players that limit consumer choice, to me their is a place for government oversight and potentially action. Again, if you see it differently in this case we can agree to disagree. However portraying government involvement in the private industry as extreme or uncommon or out of "left field" (whether to protect consumers choices or the environment or worker health, or whatever else) I just didn't think was a reasonable characterization of how any real world marketplace and any real world democractic government actual interact with each other. The pure capitalist view is almost as blind and failed through history as communisism is.
Yeah, we can civilly agree to disagree but this is something I honestly don't understand. Why do you view radio/TV/print/etc as different markets? Do you consider cable vs network different markets? News magazines vs newspapers? In all of these cases there are alternatives out there. There is still a choice for consumers. Even if every radio station in the world was owned by CCC, if they all sucked they still wounldn't stay in business! People would find other ways of listening to music. Tapes, CD's, streaming audio, etc...
I agree there doesn't seem much reason to ever have to regulate print media. Printing is relatively cheap and the distribution channels are so wide, that is why even in China they can't stop the flow of print materials they would like to. Just thinking along hear, I guess I good litmus test of whether government regulation in a free democracy might be warranted for a media outlet is the degree governments in non-free nations can actually control them (China does control TV, radio and tries to control the internet--how successful of the latter I have no idea). If a non-democratic government can control these outlets, in a free democracy we should be on the look out for non-competitive outlets where private companies exert similar control. I really don't know about the radio industry, but the way Clear Channel has been gobbling them makes me think the infrastructure for high power stations might be expensive. I do believe low power stations are pretty cheap, then again there not are infinite radio frequency bandwidth that stations can use. If Clear Channel has the rights to most the commercial bandwidth, I definitely want government scrutiny of their practices. I think the TV industry is a good case for regulation, and in fact our government does quite a lot. In most markets to get beyond network stations you have to go with cable (1 local carrier), (digital?) satellite (2 carriers) or analog (big dish?) satellite. In some rural places satellite is <i> the only option. </i> It is also my understanding that analog (?) satellite soon (say within the next 10 years) will effectively have no use, and one of the 2 digital (?) satellite carriers is trying to buy the other one. For specific to your point: As TV is a major forum for news (I think over 95% of us first saw last weeks atrocities via TV for instance) and perhaps THE major forum for America's entertainment (maybe sad, but probably true), yes I want the government involved to help ensure we have as many viable choices as possible. I don't like that I only have 4 or so viable choices now, and perhaps soon only 2 (local cable or a combined satellite carrier). There are obviously are limits to which multiple cable companies can compete within a single market, and it seems the satellite overhead (or maybe satellite access, I don't know the barriers to having more companies?) is cost prohibitive in terms of provide multiple alternatives. Again, for whatever reason, it seems competition is limited (soon perhaps only 2 options), restricting the impact of consumer choice on private company operations, leaving government the primary vehicle to protect the people's interest.
I just heard it played on Surf 107 in wilmington during a request block. The DJ said afterwards something like: "Probably not the best song to be playing right now, i dont want to stir up any racial hatred."
I'm going to agree with Desert Scar on this one. Media is simply too powerful of a force to allow a near-monopoly to dictate what's being played under certain conditions. While I agree that in this case, the imposition of such a list would be merely foolish instead of dangerous, I can imagine other circumstances. The true value of freedom of speech isn't simply the ability to say what one wants in the street without being shot by a repressive regime, but rather the facilitating of open, honest public debate. Media monopolies are dangerous insofar as they have the power to prevent this.
I saw on snopes that this was all a rumor. I havn't read the entire thread.This may have been mentioned.
