Klarinet Archive - Posting 000844.txt from 2003/06

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Political postings - ON topic?
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:52:02 -0400

At 06:02 PM 6/24/2003 -0400, Jeremy A Schiffer wrote:
>No. You seriously misunderestimate the level of domestic spying that 9/11
>ushered into our lives. The Village Voice has had several articles
>detailing the level of spying - on citizens - that is now happening within
>our country. One frightening example was the interrogation of people
>arrested at a non-violent anti-war rally in NYC; they were asked about
>their memberships in clubs and organization, what policital party they're
>a member of, etc. It's like a replay of Hoover's FBI infiltrating civil
>rights and religious groups.

Of course, if you make yourself conspicuous, you will be seen.

> > If listeners left their stations to listen to the boycotted
> > performers on OTHER, non-boycotting stations instead, costing them market
> > share, they would abandon their "no-play edict" in a heartbeat! Corporate
> > broadcasters are ruled by finances, not politics.
>
>If you don't have any other options, as most markets don't, what do you do
>then?

The last radio I looked at still had a "off" switch.

> > >When you acknowledge the fact that these media giants pay millions of
> > >dollars to political parties and election candidates, it is naive to
> > >assume there will be no quid pro quo (and yes, Clear Channel gives
> > >boatloads of money to politicians, especially to the party currently in
> > >power).
> >
> > Precisely! They are not political. They will cultivate WHOEVER has the
> > power to affect their bottom line.
>
>
>Ugh. In my attempt to be non-partisan, I muddied the point. Clear Channel
>gives money primarily to the Republican party, not the rhetorical "party
>in power." They also sponsored many (as in, essentially every one) of the
>"support our troops" rallies that were set up to drown out the anti-war
>voices before the battles in Iraq started. Not political? Then why do they
>attempt to silence opposition to the current political regime? Maybe
>because the CEO is a close personal friend of a Mr. GW Bush?

I stand by my statement. They are in it for the MONEY, and NOT any
political interest. And I question their ability to "silence opposition to
the current political regime." Perhaps they can stridently promote some
view or another on their OWN stations, but that is not in any way the same
thing. And if that viewpoint does not jibe with that of the audience, they
will lose market share, etc. Maybe what annoys you the most is that you do
not agree with their views and obviously a large segment of the radio
public does.

>You may even recall an incident last year in Minot, North Dakota, when a
>train derailed, releasing toxic chemicals (ammonium compounds) into the
>air. When the police tried to contact the local radio stations, all six
>owned by Clear Channel, they found that all were being run remotely, with
>no one in the studio, so they had no way of alerting the public by
>activating the Emergency Broadcast System. This isn't hypothetical, or
>paranoid. One person died and 300 were injured in this one incident,
>partly because it took several hours to locate the 1 employee (for all six
>stations) who actually lives in North Dakota.

Yes, I heard about that, and agree with you that it is a problem. I do not
mean to defend Clear Channel and the like, but I do not believe their
growth to be the harbinger of the apocalypse as some apparently do. I
think radio SHOULD be more local, but if it is not self-supporting, what
else can you do? Just like live music has been overtaken by recorded music
in many venues (weak attempt to veer back on topic). And now we have
SATELLITE radio, which is by definition non-local!

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/