Clear Channel Lobbies for Media Ownership Rules Change (here we go again)

[NashVegas]

Despite the certainty of another high-profile battle with opponents of media consolidation, Clear Channel Communications Inc. has quietly floated a plan that would allow the radio giant and other station owners to boost their holdings in the largest U.S. markets.

Clear Channel is considering filing a formal petition with the Federal Communications Commission seeking to raise the caps limiting how many stations one company can own in the largest individual U.S. markets, according to sources close to the company.

....

Radio industry sources say Clear Channel is seeking approval from the FCC to own 10 stations in markets with 60 radio stations and 12 radio outlets in the largest U.S. markets that have 75 radio stations or more.

...

Radio officials contend that today's limits are out of date because so many new competitors to traditional radio have emerged since the FCC last reviewed its rules three years ago. Satellite radio, iPods and Internet radio are all new places individuals can receive news, "talk radio," information and music that did not previously exist, they argue.


http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1154682263147

[Sivafae]

1. Because the radio is JUST for entertainment

And public safety is not an issue at all. While this may be true most of the time, it is in times of emergency that we need to be able to communicate. This is why the radio should remain local and public phones should be plentiful.

[NashVegas]

7. Public Safety Is a Bad Argument .. Here's Why

In times of emergency, it's best to have 1 message being distributed about, to reduce confusion. With more stations under single management, there's more ability to control the message.

Which is why Washington LOVES consolidation.

[depakid]

9. Minot, North Dakota

A freight train barreling through Minot, North Dakota, on a frigid night in 2002 went off the tracks, causing freight cars to scatter along the rails like a loose pack of cards. Five tank cars carrying anhydrous ammonia ruptured, filling the area with a poisonous gas cloud. But a public warning over radio wasn't broadcast for nearly ninety minutes. One person died, and more than 300 were injured in the incident.

Little more than two blocks away from the derailment, Jennifer Johnson heard the crash, then watched the ammonia cloud roll toward her house. She searched in vain for information on what had happened. "The phone line was out, so I couldn't call 911," she told the Bismarck Tribune. "The only thing on the radio was music--no one was telling us what happened or what to do." She dialed through every station in town, but after an hour without hearing an announcement, she gave up and turned the radio off. "We didn't know what the chemical would do to us," she says.

What happened in Minot reflects a nationwide problem: Media consolidation has left many radio stations nearly empty at night. At the time of the accident, Clear Channel owned six of Minot's eight stations, including the designated emergency announcement station, but only one person was there during the accident and did not respond to local authorities' calls because phone lines were jammed by residents calling in. The authorities tried activating the radio's Emergency Alert System to notify the public about what to do, which can be done without station personnel, but the EAS failed. Authorities had to pull out a phonebook and call local Clear Channel employees at their homes to tell them to broadcast an emergency message.

The stations were understaffed because of voice-tracking, a technology that allows the airing of preprogrammed play-lists, eliminating the need for someone to be in the DJ booth. Relatively unknown in the early 1990s, voice-tracking became widely used after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 lifted restrictions on the number of stations one company may own. Voice-tracking enabled Clear Channel to cut employees across the country; as much as 70 percent of its programming is now voice-tracked, according to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. Other companies had to follow suit to compete. Numerous complaints about problems produced by voice-tracking, which include more than safety issues, have been filed with the Federal Communications Commission...."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050523/magnuson

Related policy story: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/17.html

[LTR]

13. I remember that story

And I think it's still appalling to this day.

Operating a radio station (or cluster) without anyone having access to EAS (formerly EBS) activation is illegal. Many hospitals, retirement homes, businesses, government offices and radio stations in other markets rely on this 'chain of command' of the EAS.

What happens is that a primary station will activate a signal, that goes out to the aforementioned organizations as well as radio stations in surrounding markets. If necessary, those stations will also send out an EAS code. The EAS code is activated in case of severe weather (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.), nuclear or terrorist attacks, etc.) Many people rely on this service. I've worked in radio and have had to deal with receiving and sending out EAS signals. This is very important stuff.

CC should be ashamed of what happened in Minot. And I hope the FCC decides to break up these little fiefdoms created by CC, Viacom, Cumulus, etc. Unfortunately, the only thing the FCC seems to fine station owners for nowadays is bad language.

[NashVegas]

15. That's An Argument Against Automation - Indie Stations Voice-Track, Too

And, FYI, that was a product of the 1990s giveaways: In exchange for dropping the law that made it mandatory to have a live person on site 24/7, radio adopted the EAS system and dropped EBS.

The difference: EAS allows remote takeover of radio airways by the National Weather Service and other entities. Amber alerts are among the things a radio station can elect to automatically broadcast. Let that sink in for a minute, okay? EAS allows direct government take-over of air broadcast signals.

Voice-tracking has been done since the 1970s, computer delivery just took it to new heights.

Anyway, from the story itself it can be ascertained that there was a live person at one station who was unreachabe. Other non-CCs could have been affected in a similar fashion.

[pooja]

2. and then they control what is played, and who plays it

it is just another conspiracy to take over America. MSM has already taken over airwaves, if radio is taken away, we will have limpballs and coultergiest and bubble gum britney 24/7. the Numbing of America.

[w4rma]

3. I strongly oppose giving any more power to Clear Channel. (nt)

[otohara]

4. Whiners

What's scary is right-wing tilted FCC will buy into their shit and might possibly agree to their petition.

[liberal N proud]

5. so many new competitors?

What they mean to say is they want to stop the competition.

[Anakin Skywalker]

18. I Thought the Rightwingnuts

love competition, man?! Free market and all that good sh*t? Rightwingnuts need to make up their friggin' mind, man!

[ovidsen]

6. Monopolizing a limited resource

From the beginning, the federal government (FCC) has limited radio and TV station ownership because the broadcast spectrum is not infinite. Anybody can start a newspaper anywhere, but there are only so many channels/frequencies available. Concentrating these stations in the hands of a few big players, the FCC concluded, would not be in the public interest.

It still isn't.

If Clear Channel is so threatened by the Internet/iPod revolution, I suggest they invest in that, rather than seeking to corner the market on the only free source of instant information that's available to every American with a $5 radio.

Furthermore, if over the air radio and TV are so "20th Century", then why is Clear Channel so interested in cornering that market? Hmmmmm?

Tell 'em to go f--- themselves.

(edit: the usual keyboard operator errors)

[zbdent]

8. Oh, Repukes are all for media ownership

unless you're a liberal billionaire ... named Soros ... then they are against a billionaire owning even one media outlet ...

[JPZenger]

10. Overpaid for their stations

At least we can feel good that Clear Channel does not have very good businesspeople in charge. I think they graduated from the George W. Bush School of Texas Bidness. They greatly overpaid for the TV and radio stations that they bought in a binge in the 1990s. Their properties are now worth much less than they paid for them - not to mention the competition from podcasts and satellite radio.

(Clear Channel does own a piece of XM Radio, which may explain why XM carried Combs for the first year on XM's Air America channel instead of regular Air America programming. Fortunately, that squirrel is gone from the channel, in favor of Mike Malloy. My local Clear Channel radio stations now have their news provided by Fox/Faux News.)

[LTR]

12. A few clarifications

I'm not defending CC (I wouldn't think of it!), but I just wanted to step in and get some of the facts straight.

First, I'm not sure if CC still holds a stake in XM. I've heard varying stories, but I do know that they hold no controlling interest in XM.

Second, the Colmes thing, I believe, was a contractual obligation. That's all been taken care of. And CC doesn't really put Colmes on many of their progressive talk stations, often preferring either Malloy or Lionel - both good choices, IMO.

And the FOX news updates are a production of Clear Channel, via their syndication arm Premiere. FOX doesn't really run that operation. Seems that CC wanted their own news network affiliation for their stations, to go up against ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. So CC, who already partner with FOX Sports for their radio network, developed a FOX News radio network, in order to create their own news network without having to deal with companies like ABC, which demands carriage of 157 year-old commentator Paul Harvey. In situations where CC owns multiple talk stations, one usually takes FOX, and the others affiliate with the established news nets (a good example of this is the Cincinnati market).

[Ilsa]

11. I'm not sure I see any reason to own a radio any more if they

get away with this. Well, my PBS station is one reason.

I figure we're going to have to go with satellite radio anyway.

[Overseas]

14. Rule change to REDUCE the number of stations they can own

and require them to support more public broadcasting.

[CatholicEdHead]

16. They killed their own market

by using a cookie cutter station programming method. The music selection is so narrow and bland and ultra-repetitive that it is not worth listening to anymore.

[Anakin Skywalker]

19. You Are Right.

I hate the radio stations in my city (It's in a very pro-Bush state). All they ever play are jingoistic stuff by Tobey Keith and his merry band of rednecks.

[davepc]

17. 1996 Telecommunications Act all over again.

It was a mistake then, and its a mistake now. One of the worst blunders of the Clinton presidency.

Votes of Members of Congress:
Telecommunications Act of 1996

Voting Against Passage

US Senate -
* Russell Feingold (D, WI)
* Patrick Leahy (D, VT)
* Paul Wellstone (D, MN)
* Paul Simon (D, IL)
* John McCain (R, AZ)

Not Voting

US Senate - 3
* Christopher Dodd (D, CI)
* Phil Gramm (R, TX)
* John D.Rockefeller (D, WV)