The Steel Guitar Forum

The guys that made it impossible to hear real country music on the radio now want everything.

http://www.mediadiversity.org/

here is the NRA's take on the subject:

http://www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=2655&1=View

Here is another take on the subject:

SHOWDOWN AT THE FCC
Jeffrey Chester and Don Hazen, AlterNet
Despite wide protests and the Clear Channel debacle, the FCC is about to award the nation's biggest media conglomerates a new give-away that will further concentrate media ownership in fewer hands. The impact on the American media landscape could be disastrous. This overview describes what's at stake and offers an introduction to the following articles.

www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15796

The Christian right is against this ruling also. They will lose all local influence on
decency issues in programing.

As a matter of fact out of the 10's of thousands of public comments sent to the FCC about the ruling there were only 15 pro comments.

Now is the time to get to work on this issue.

Bob

Here is another take:

WHY WORRY ABOUT WHO OWNS THE MEDIA?

by Eli Pariser

It's like something out of a nightmare, but it really happened: At 1:30 on a cold January night, a train containing hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic ammonia derails in Minot, North Dakota. Town officials try to sound the emergency alert system, but it isn't working. Desperate to warn townspeople about the poisonous white cloud bearing down on them, the officials call their local radio stations. But no one answers any of the phones for an hour and a half. According to the New York Times, three hundred people are hospitalized, some are partially blinded, and pets and livestock are killed.

Where were Minot's DJs on January 18th, 2002? Where was the late night station crew? As it turns out, six of the seven local radio stations had recently been purchased by Clear Channel Communications, a radio giant with over 1,200 stations nationwide. Economies of scale dictated that most of the local staff be cut: Minot stations ran more or less on auto pilot, the programming largely dictated from further up the Clear Channel food chain. No one answered the phone because hardly anyone worked at the stations any more; the songs played in Minot were the same as those played on Clear Channel stations across the Midwest.

Companies like Clear Channel argue that economies of scale allow them to cut costs while continuing to provide quality programming. But they do so at the expense of local coverage. It's not just about emergency warnings: media mergers are decreasing coverage of local political races, local small businesses, and local events. There are only a third as many owners of newspapers and TV stations as there were in the 1970s (about 600 now; over 1,500 then). It's harder and harder for Americans to find out what's going on in their own back yards.

On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering relaxing or getting rid of rules to allow much more media concentration. While the actual rule changes are under wraps, they could allow enormous changes in the American media environment. For example, one company could be allowed to own ABC, CBS, and NBC. Almost certainly, media companies will be allowed to own newspapers and TV stations in the same town. We could be entering a new era of media megaliths.

Do you want one or two big companies acting as gatekeepers and controlling your access to news and entertainment? Most of us don't. And the airwaves explicitly belong to us -- the American people. We allow media companies to use them in exchange for their assurance that they're serving the public interest, and it's the FCC's job to make sure that's so. For the future of American journalism, and for the preservation of a diverse and local media, we have the hold the FCC to its mission. Otherwise, Minot's nightmare may become our national reality.

I am not afraid. Why? because AM and FM radio are on their way out, as is network television. That is, if you and I want them to be. Digital satellite radio and digital, user-defined television content already exist. They allow the public to see and hear what it wants, when it wants. I just listened to an episode of the old radio show, "The Shadow" for free. (Live 365.com) Then I tuned into steel guitar radio for an hour or so until I could take no more, then surfed over to yahoo news to see what was happening in the world. Just to get different perspectives, I checked out both a local news station and CNN.com. All while at work.

If the media becomes even more one-faced and subjective than it is now, the FCC will have had nothing to do with it.

I guess it comes down to this: Do you believe that people are mindless sheep who simply digest all the information they're fed, or are we thinking, reflective creatures who cast suspicion and demand clarity and honesty.

If the former is true, then no amount of regulation or lack thereof will save us from despair. But if the latter is true, we never have to fear the veil of big media, because we'll starve them into irrelevence.

"Free market" doesn't just apply to groceries and sporting goods.

It doesn't require clairvoyance to see where this is headed. A recent example is Fox's coverage of the war and the current exposing of Saving Private Lynch: Take 2 by columnist Robert Scheer. Radio and network tv may be on the way out for the inquisitive few, but it's unlikely the majority will follow and that's what the boys on top are betting on. Perhaps we should give them more tax cuts.

Fox just bought Direct Tv and cable is working VERY hard to gain control of internet access and content. Check out the congressional battles involving content fees being levied against web broadcasters.
The guys behind the web legislation are the same guys that are behind the current media legislation.

Bob

By putting so much faith in a beurocracy to decide what will or will not occur on the media front, we undermine not only our American right to choose, but also the integrity and sustainability of the very media companies we seem so afraid of. You can't justify regulation by assuming that we would be worse off without it. As long as we believe that those green bills in our back pockets have meaning and value, then they will also represent ballots; deciding where we cast them is how we shape our media environment. When the FCC says 'NO' to a logical business move, they are saying 'NO' to the entire concept of freedom of press. Mass media has done a fine job of becoming shallow, hollow and rotten under the rule of the FCC. If anything, we should give the FCC the boot.

Tony, do you actually see an advantage to having a few media companies, do you really buy clear channel's line that these changes will provide customers with better quality programming. Do you like whats on the radio? Do you think we see any fair reporting on the nightly news? Its all a sham designed to make them cash. And the fact is, we are sheep, by virtue of the fact that we are all busy hard working people who's main focus is paying the bills, not finding media sources, you eat fast food? go to the movies, every now and then when you do, don't you feel taken? we are all cattle to a certain extent, and this measure will just make things worse by making all the coverage more the same, all for money and mostly because the current administration has no touch with reality and they are still paying back the big price tag of buying the last election.

If I had worked my entire life to become a network executive, then and only then would I be in a position to answer the question of whether or not my business's growth was detrimental to society. I simply do not believe that such questions are a matter for third parties. They are between consumers and corporations, who have a reciprocal relationship (a mutualism, if you will). Government can serve no purpose but to confuse and politicize matters. You can speak of desolate outcomes all day; it doesn't change the fact that media, especially news, has become 'agendized' and sterile since the FCC has controlled the airwaves. I believe it's because government establishes a certain "status quo" effect. That is, the FCC makes it clear what is expected from a successful station, and that niche is simply filled. It squashes diversity and leads to exactly the type of impotent programming that so many of us wince at.

I'm not a sheep. Furthermore, I can ignore all the sheep fodder if it looks like wolf crap to me. The last thing I need is a farmer telling me which crap I can and can't have.

Interesting take Tony, I see what your saying and I think there is something to the libertarian way of thinking. This is an interesting topic with many points of view. I think we can all agree the the state of media today is disatrous, but what caused that I cannot say with any authority, but it does seem intuative to me that the fact that the media that is presented to us is very homogenious and the ownership of the outlets has converged as this has happened, I see a connection there but I agree does not PROVE causality. As far as the sheep reference I just meant that we as american work so much that not everyone has the time to find less accesible sources for news and entertainment, and the agreement with media services to use the airwaves and more importantly the digital spectrum is that they are to serve the public good and this is certainly not the case, and how could it be, I think that whole idea is a little childish, business are designed to make money, if providing quality services betters that business then great, but often the bottom line is more attractive if major corners are cut and the product is only acceptable, and we will still buy it because its there and we don't have much choice. I know this is a bit sinnacle but I am quite depressed at the state of things in this country and the world and this is just one more complex multilayered issue that most people(including myself) can't have much of an educated opinion about.

Well, I for one think this should be fought. The idea that the general public has no place questioning the goals and problems associated with big business seems to me to be without intellectual merit. Media companies are controlled by the government which should be controlled by us--that is everyone. If we want to curb the growth of business, then we should be able to. There is nothing natural about business structures, nor should people assume that simply being in business gives you the right to do what you will--be it a semiconductor company pumping PCBs into the Hudson or a media company polluting the airwaves with a bunch of pap while preventing others from offering alternatives. According to the laissez faire logic being promoted anyone should be able to set up small radio stations so we could hear what we want. The problem lies in the fact that big business and government will step in to prevent that at every turn according to rules that they form when it suits their own voracious needs. As far as I can see, the growth of big business is no longer helping anyone in this country but big business and its lackies, and perhaps it is about time to cut them down a notch or two.

Read this.

Here is your "free market":

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16032

Guys, We all know what crap is on the radio but it is going to get way worse if the profit motive of major corporations is the only motivation for everything in media. Clear Channel is in trouble right now and if we can give there good buddies at the FCC a decent fight we have a chance at this one. I know this on a personal level because I have family working very high up in the FCC.

Tony,
Its great that you have such strong dogmatic convictions but personally I'm sick of the garbage that mass culture produces. This consolidation of media might be a great business model but the "Eat $hit because 10 billion flies can't be wrong" type of entertainment, news and art just isn't working for me.

Bob

<SMALL>As far as I can see, the growth of big business is no longer helping anyone in this country but big business and its lackies, and perhaps it is about time to cut them down a notch or two.</SMALL>

Unless you can motivate the masses out of their comfortable numbness, it's unlikely that that will happen.

In the end, the progamming only reflects what the majority of the people want to watch, or hear. Vis a vis survivor and the like.

If you're tastes don't match the lowest common denominator, you get to take a hike.

It's about profits and not much else. The vault is filled with great shows and good intentions. The dumb down program started in the 50's has succeeded, in spades.

The shows are considered "filler" and their only function is to keep you sitting there for the next commercial. Remember the old cliche, "it's show business, not show art...."

quote:
____________________________________________
"Unless you can motivate the masses out of their comfortable numbness, it's unlikely that that will happen."
____________________________________________

Unfortunately, I do believe you are correct.
People apparently don't want to question much.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Del Rangel on 01 June 2003 at 06:34 AM.]</p></FONT>

Did you happen to notice that we just fought a war with no blood or dead bodies to disturb our somnambulism. I could go on and on about our astonishing complacency.

Well, I checked out the "proposed commercial" by MediaDiversityOrg. If that is any evidence of <u>their</u> capabilities, we're already screwed. Talk about putting you to sleep! Sheesh, I've heard more interesting laxitive commercials.

<SMALL>Companies like Clear Channel argue that economies of scale allow them to cut costs while continuing to provide quality programming.</SMALL>

Would anyone but a politician buy that line of bullcrap? What "quality programming"? The only quality radio programming I hear is on the little indie stations (that the Megas haven't sucked up yet), and occasionally on PBS. The reason they have unmanned stations is that they are friggin' greedy! After all, why pay half-a-dozen DJ's 50k a year when the manager could make an extra 50k, and the owmers could reap an extra 250k a year by just eliminating them, and automating the station?!?!

<SMALL>Do you believe that people are mindless sheep who simply digest all the information they're fed...</SMALL>

By and large...<font size=6>Yes!</font>

The "vast majority" are (almost) mindless.

(How do you think we got <u>into</u> this mess to start with???)

Many forumites are NOT getting airplay and therefor getting known and promoting the PSG...
because of this mass homogination of the music business.

Add to that the money spent to lobby the polititions to turn a blind eye to power and market grabs by the big conglomerates,
also is coupled with the desire to please those polititions sensibilities / or constituancies perceived sensibilities.

I don't care about Dixie Chicks and their political mis-steps. I prefer to let the music speak for itself.
And "Home" is a great album IMHO (no rants please)

But I do care that a big media conglomerate with ties to polititians is putting the screws to their radio play,
to please the people that will turn the blind eye to their power grab.

And at the same time decide in all their, ever increasing, markets what we can listen to...
based on marketing projections and format to market theories.. AND political correctness!

Not the quality of the actual music. It is just a product...
same as the people who create it are just worker bees. Play the game or you don't get heard.

The FCC was there to ensure diversity for the public benifit.
And it has been under attack big time the last 20 -30 years.

As soon as a maverick format starts to show success,
it was bought up, milked dry,
and replaced by mangers looking for better revenue and market share... narrowing the focus to just the most marketable parts of this format.
bye bye diversity and niche musical markets.

C'est juste le merde de toro!
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 01 June 2003 at 02:52 PM.]</p></FONT>

Friday the phones didn't work at the FCC because of the volume of calls from the public against this ruling. The FCC is not allowing the congress have any input on the regulations. They are not even letting anybody (not senators, congressmen, nobody)read the legislation until they are done. The NRA, AFL-CIO, Christian Right, and just about any liberal organization is way against this ruling. The only people that are for it are the ones that stand to make a very quick and very big buck.

It does help to contact your congressmen about this. Senators on both sides of the aisle are getting ready to try to do something about it. Powell(FCC chairman) lost his last big power grab when he tried to hand over the telecommunications industry to a couple buddies. He might lose this one if we make enough noise.

On the corruption issue those lux trips to New Orleans for FCC execs is nothing compared to what they are promised by major media if they do what they are told. When FCC execs that are on the payroll go the "private sector" they get absurd amounts of cash to become media consultants or lobbyists. These are jobs that they never need to go to. Maybe a rubber chicken dinner and a photo op now and then. If you think these greedy scumbags give a flying fart about quality programing or the free market you are dreaming. They just stand up there and lie plain as day. That is what media conglomerates pay them to do.

These guys make it easy to contact your congresmen if you want to :

http://www.mediareform.net/

Interesting thing about this stuff is that one of the main reasons anybody is noticing this at all is because of work musicians have been doing. Clearchannel really pissed off musicians. Same way that Gaylord pissed off country music fans. A bunch of pissed off people stopped WSM from going sports after all.

In the New York Times:

In a 3-2 vote that went along party lines, the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission today relaxed decades-old rules restricting media ownership.

Among other things, the ruling, which had been widely expected, allows companies to buy more television stations and own a newspaper and a broadcast outlet in the same city.
Advertisement

The new rules, which were promoted by the F.C.C. chairman, Michael K. Powell, were opposed by many Democrats, consumer groups and even some media moguls, like Ted Turner and Barry Diller.....

It turns out that much of the republican side of congress is upset about the ruling also.
Trent Lott came out in opposition today.

Bob

So, see.
Censorship has many faces.

All Hitler had were mighty cannons. If he had
better "radio", he would, probably, have accomplished what he did, with less energy
expenced.

Who cares??? No Body!

Only us here on the Forum.

Don't SUV commercials just make you puke, or
want to puke????

Raaoouulll....

That's right Bob H.

Especially jowlman William Bennett and the fervored religious rightwing.

They're all pretty nervous that their anal
ideal of what America should be, and how all
Americans should behave (cough), and how their message may be jeopardized, will now be threatened by this unconstitutional legislation.

Funny, huh??? The left and right on the same side of the tracks. I just love it.

Ok, b0b, I know you're about to get mad,
and cut me off.
Sorry....had to get it out.

Mr Chips<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by CHIP FOSSA on 02 June 2003 at 08:18 PM.]</p></FONT>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>All Hitler had were mighty cannons. If he had
better "radio", he would, probably, have accomplished what he did, with less energy
expenced.</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler had radio and he didn't need cannons to get started. The conditions for the rise of the National Socialists, Nazis, were already in place because of the burden of the war reparations imposed on Germany after the First World War.

This is an exerpt from an article by David Ronfeldt:

".... Fascism is a total system of existence that willingly engages a broad spectrum, even a majority, of elites and masses. At its core, fascism has a deeply mythic allure; it proposes a quest to overcome dystopian times and achieve a utopian rebirth of a nation's supposed greatness. Thus fascism rules the mind as well as the body — and both mind and body come to idolize it.

In this quest, fascism is fiercely anti-liberal because it values order far more than freedom and brooks no boundaries between public and private, or state and society. Yet fascism is also anti-conservative; it aims to transform the status quo on behalf of all, not preserve it for the sake of a few.

And although fascism is normally secular in its ends and means, it has a messianic quality, for it promises national redemption and progress to break through to an exquisite new millennium. Indeed, fascism vows to create not only a new order but also a new man — one who has a radiant sense of identity and purpose, the better to ensure that the rebirth endures....

Where and why does fascism take hold? It cannot happen anywhere; some tendencies, perhaps, but not fascism as a system. First, it requires a modernizing nation that has a serious state, a significant private business sector and a complex civil society.

The ultranationalism so characteristic of fascism resembles an extreme tribalism, but societies that turn fascist are too advanced to be considered tribal. Moreover, though studies of totalitarianism typically view communism and fascism as quite similar, they have a key difference that often gets overlooked: the role of a private sector and a market system, however weak. Communism must be rid of them, but fascism aims to strengthen them, albeit in a suborned way.

Second, fascism requires that this modernizing society be suffering from deep disturbances and grievances. There should be a widespread sense of disaster, alarm and disarray stemming, say, from a lost war, a severe economic depression, pervasive corruption scandals or humiliating foreign interference. It's a point that applies to the making of terrorists as well as fascists: Whatever the political, economic or social details, people feel that they and their nation are facing an "absolute disaster."

Under these conditions, longing can arise for national rebirth, not to mention a great charismatic leader to show the way. People at large are so fed up, furious, divided and fearful about the condition of their nation that, if fascism's exponents manage to seize office through election or force, it is not that hard to make people succumb to fascism's promises to reunite them, overcome obstacles and organize a strong system. A leadership cult and grandiose assertions of national solidarity, sovereignty and independence spread fascism's mythic appeal as its media, intelligence and coercive apparatuses expand to ensure compliance."

Something to think about.

Good post Chas
in the last French prezidential election the National Front party came in second.
it was a protest vote and goes to confirm what you have mentioned above.
the Nazis had a very efficient radio program which i'm sure contributed to the use of public radio worldwide.
the Germans had an Xpression back then:
"the Truth has one leg shorter than the other" an allusion to Goebbels who was the Propaganda minister.
not to forget the Telefunken PA systems used at the Nuremberg rallies who also paved the way to modern day PA use.
One does'nt need gas chambers to perpetrate a Genocide anymore.
Kultural, Social, and Economic Genocide works even better.


------------------
Steel what?