Clear Channel: the Media Mammoth that Stole the Airwaves



By Jeff Perlstein

Special to CorpWatch

November 14, 2002



Related Articles

What You Can Do About Clear Channel!

Can you name a Texas-based multinational company that is facing a Department of Justice investigation, lawsuits for inappropriate business practices, a flurry of criticism in the mainstream press, and a bill in congress to curb its impact on the industry?

Did you say Enron? Try again.

This 800 lb. Texas gorilla has spent $30 billion since 1996 to become the world's largest radio broadcaster, concert promoter, and billboard advertising firm. It's a major player in American television and Spanish-language broadcasting.

Clear Channel Communications of San Antonio may not be a household name yet, but in less than six years it has rocketed to a place alongside NBC and Gannett as one of the largest media companies in the United States. The mega-company has gained a reputation for its ugly hardball tactics. Clear Channel has played a leading role in destroying media diversity in the United States. And yes, it is the same media company that allegedly "blacklisted" certain songs following September 11, including Cat Stevens' Peace Train and John Lennon's Imagine.

"It's not just how big and powerful they are but how they do business, the arm twisting," Mike Jacobs, former independent label owner and manager of Blink 182, told Eric Boehlert who has been covering Clear Channel's shady business practices for Salon.com.

Media Mobster

Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, Clear Channel now owns approximately 1225 radio stations in 300 cities and dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets. Its closest competitors -- CBS and ABC, media giants in their own right -- own only one-fifth as many stations.

Accusations abound that Clear Channel illegally uses its dominance in radio to help secure control of the nation's live entertainment business. Several cities, including Denver and Cincinnati, have charged radio station managers with threatening to withdraw certain music from rotation if the artists do not perform at a Clear Channel venue. This tactic, known as "negative synergy," has allegedly been used to pressure record companies into buying radio-advertising spots in cities where they want to book concert venues.

With this anti-competitive tactic of leveraging airplay against concert performances, Clear Channel has firmly solidified its hold in both areas. As a result, Clear Channel now owns, operates, or exclusively books the vast majority of amphitheaters, arenas, and clubs in the country. It also controls the most powerful promoters, who last year sold 27 million concert tickets. That is 23 million more than the closest competitor.

While this may be good for Clear Channel owners and investors, a lot more is at stake here than the buying and selling of stocks.

"Profit maximization has never been the sole point of U.S. communications policy," writes Douglas Gomery in a March 2002 white paper for the Economic Policy Institute.

"Under the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize 'the public interest'...and to encourage a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy."

Far from fostering a diversity of voices, Clear Channel's monopolistic practices are accelerating the homogenization of our airwaves. The company syndicates both Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura to hundreds of stations nationwide, shuts out independent artists who can't afford to go through high-priced middlemen, and is responsible for taking the practice of voice tracking to new heights (or depths, depending on your perspective).

Voice tracking is the practice of creating brief, computer-assisted voice segments that attempt to fool the listener into thinking that a program is locally produced, when in fact the same content is being broadcast to upwards of 75 stations nationwide from a central site. So you have one overworked 'radio personality' recording the phrases, "Hello Topeka!" "Hi Springfield!" "How you feeling Oakland?" all day long.

This consolidation is clearly counter to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) mandate to encourage media diversity. Now, however, the long-standing concerns of media activists are being echoed by the mainstream press, the courts regulatory agencies, and even by members of Congress.

Mega-Monopoly

Clear Channel is currently facing antitrust lawsuits from plaintiffs around the country, ranging from an Illinois concert goer concerned with soaring ticket prices to the nation's largest Latino-owned radio company.

Alleging monopolistic behavior, however, is not the same as convincing a judge to move towards a trial. But last summer a small Denver-area concert promoter, called Nobody in Particular Presents, sued the media behemoth for antitrust violations, claiming that it "has used its size and clout to coerce artists... to use Clear Channel to promote their concerts or else risk losing airplay." The judge agreed to hear the case, and ruled that the evidence is "sufficient to make a case of monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act."

As a result, the halo of silence surrounding the company's anti-competitive practices may finally be shattered. Plaintiff's lawyers will be able to compel music industry insiders to testify regarding the often-repeated, off-the-record allegations that Clear Channel's radio stations have illegally rewarded or punished artists based on their dealings with the company's concert division.

"The political terrain is really shifting," says Robert McChesney, author and professor of communications at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. "There's an opportunity for discussion about radio that would have been unthinkable six months or a year ago," he told Randy Dotinga in Wirednews.com.

Irregular Regulators

Despite a clear history of promoting consolidation, the Department of Justice and the FCC, the federal regulatory agencies charged with safeguarding the public interest in business and media respectively, are finally showing a spark of interest in holding Clear Channel accountable. While the Justice Department is spearheading its own "top secret" investigation of Clear Channel, the FCC has been mostly dragging its heels, with three notable exceptions:

*

After receiving numerous complaints from across the country, the FCC has announced it is investigating the claims by an advertiser in Chillicothe, Ohio, that Clear Channel is circumventing existing ownership limits by operating stations through shell companies in a practice known as "parking" or "warehousing" stations. Clear Channel has sold off stations to alleged front companies, which allow Clear Channel to continue operating the properties while also providing an easy way to buy back the stations, should the FCC slacken ownership limits in the future.

*

In Charlottesville, Virginia, the FCC has preliminarily denied a station transfer to Clear Channel and has scheduled a formal hearing to examine the situation. Big deal? Yes, because the FCC has not taken such an action since 1969 -- which, more than anything else, speaks to the FCC's lack of policy enforcement over the last thirty years and is one of the reasons why we have arrived at the current situation.

*

In Monterey, California the FCC has held up another Clear Channel transfer request at the urging of Congressman Sam Farr (D-Calif.).



Congress Catches on to "Shady Practices"

Fortunately, Farr is not alone in expressing concern over Clear Channel's shady business practices. He is joined by a handful of other vocal members of Congress, including Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has proposed a bill to deal with the issue. Known for his work on campaign finance reform, Feingold launched the Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act last June, saying: "We need to repair the damage that has been done through this anti-competitive behavior..."

Without naming names, the Act takes direct aim at some of Clear Channel's business practices, such as the warehousing of stations for future purchase, "negative synergy" with concert promotions, and pay-to-play schemes between station owners and record companies. Consumer groups, minority-owned radio companies, labor unions, and independent artists have all thrown their support behind the Feingold bill.

And not a moment too soon. The growing momentum to hold Clear Channel accountable for its excesses comes as the FCC -- chaired by Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell -- announced that it will review the last remaining protections on media diversity.

If Powell's FCC follows his previous positions, this ruling could sweep away the very last remaining protections related to media ownership. Powell has publicly stated that he has "no idea what is meant by the public interest" and prefers to let the market resolve such thorny questions.

FCC's Proposed Rules on Ownership

On September 12 the FCC announced a proposed Rulemaking on Ownership. Dubbed the Omnibus Ownership Ruling by consumer advocates, it could be the final nail in the coffin of media diversity and the public interest. Under Powell's direction, and with a huge push from mega-media's deep-pocketed lobbyists, the Omnibus Ruling lumps together a number of disparate proposals bound by the same core principle of eliminating the last public interest protections in media ownership.

Proposals include a call to end the ban on newspaper-TV cross-ownership in the same city, eliminate the rule limiting companies to eight radio stations in one listening area, and end the limit on national television broadcast ownership of 35% of the potential national audience.

The Omnibus Ruling has newspaper moguls salivating at the possibility of amplifying reach through radio and TV without seriously investing in increased or better reporting -- they will broadcast their print stories. Radio giants are poised to swallow up the last remaining independent stations and smaller holdings. Cable companies and the networks are eager to merge so they can further downsize staff, increase audience, and maximize their already huge profits.

The Campaign

Clear Channel epitomizes the disasterous consequences of hyper-consolidation that resulted from the 1996 Telecom Act; a disasterthat activists say would further accelerate if the FCC implements the Omnibus ruling. They also see the Ruling as an opportunity to spot light the need for democratizing the media.

The current rumblings in Washington, D.C. regarding Clear Channel are the direct result of many years of citizen agitation and organizing from the grassroots that continue to grow.

Unionists and their allies have rallied in Seattle, Cleveland, and other cities. Community coalitions that hold Clear Channel accountable for the negative effects of over consolidation have emerged in Detroit and San Francisco. Letter writing campaigns have urged elected officials to reign in the company and make policy changes to protect the public interest.

Several websites and hundreds of listserves have been providing information about Clear Channel's excesses and communities' resistance -- most notably clearchannelsucks.org and stopclearchannel.com

What's been sorely lacking is strategic coordination of these efforts to amplify their impact and link up with broader media-policy initiatives. A dynamic national coalition launched just such a campaign at the recent Reclaim the Media Conference, in Seattle during the weekend of September 12-15, 2002. Nationally recognized organizations such as FAIR, the Democratic Media Legal Project, Media Alliance, and Prometheus Radio Project began mapping out steps to mobilize public pressure around Clear Channel, the Feingold bill, the Omnibus Ruling, and beyond.

To get involved with the national campaign to defeat the Omnibus Ownership Ruling and reign in the corporate media giants such as Clear Channel, please visit media-alliance.org. For more ideas see What You Can do About Clear Channel.

Jeff Perlstein is the executive director of Media Alliance. An version of this article orginally appeared in Media File, the Alliance's newsletter.



URL: http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=4808

CorpWatch

PO Box 29344

San Francisco, CA 94129 USA

Tel: 415-561-6568 Fax: 415-561-6493

URL: http://www.corpwatch.org

Email: corpwatch@corpwatch.org

Please Boycott all Clear Channel Stations.

Please Boycott all Clear Channel Produced Concerts.

Boycott Coast To Coast A.M. Without Art Bell

Clear Channel is outstanding! They have really great news and commentary. They've improved every radio channel they've acquired, especially those with a talk format.

If you want to clamp down on errant news media I'd suggest Pacifica Raido in the USA and The Guardian in England. These two purveyors of radical left wing nonsense are guilty of bullshit to the n'th degree.

...that you have holdings in Clear Channel Communications? ROFL!

If there is one thing Clear Channel is not it is diverse.

It produces propaganda and foments hate.

I used to listen to a lot of their programs and have become increasingly disgusted as it is clear that they are in the business of forwarding disinformation.

They lied repeatedly in the run up to the Iraqi Conquest.

They staged phony "spontaneous" Pro-War Rallies.

They encouraged violence against those who dissented.

They do not serve the public interest and that is one of the qualifications to hold a Radio License.

They are criminals and should be forced to divest.

-> If there is one thing Clear Channel is not it is diverse.

Would diverse be good? If so, why?

-> It produces propaganda and foments hate.

I think you're talking about Pacifica Radio with that comment.

-> I used to listen to a lot of their programs and have become increasingly disgusted as it is clear that they are in the business of forwarding disinformation.

I think you're talking about Pacifica Radio with that comment.

-> They lied repeatedly in the run up to the Iraqi Conquest.

I think you're talking about Pacifica Radio with that comment.

-> They staged phony "spontaneous" Pro-War Rallies.

There wasn't anything 'phony' about that. They were simply responding to the public. 70%+ of Americans fully supported the war and our great President.

-> They encouraged violence against those who dissented.

I don't think that's true. They wanted the police to arrest anyone lawbreakers. That's all.

-> They do not serve the public interest and that is one of the qualifications to hold a Radio License.

I think you're talking about Pacifica Radio with that comment.

-> They are criminals and should be forced to divest.

Now you've gone over the edge. I can't even state that you're talking about Pacifica Radio with that comment.

Dio, you got all huffy when people refused to buy Dixie Chicks CDs.

Now, you're calling for a boycott of Clear Channel?

Make up your mind, Slappy.

With the exception of listener sponsored programs and

some public access stations, the airwaves are nothing BUT

garbage. The commercials and regular content is tepid at best and disgusting normally.

Three years ago I killed my TV. It felt great to put a round

through it.

Yea but sheepdog your forgetting all those wonderfull court shows, ya know the one where the white trash Jerry Springer types got to settle their petty arguments, or what about davegirls favorite, the dating shows. Boy I'm really glad that the Fcc is allowing more consolidating of the airwaves, now maybe all the news will be like K-Cal and show sexy swimsuits and get rid of those boring headlines.

What we need is more car chases.

I think radio is really great too. Look at all the diversity, you have right wing and extreme right wing. We don't need to hear any democrats on the radio. I like the way Sean Hannity brings on one republican after another and

says how great they are and how stupid and evil democrats are. Today he was in flordida with that wonderfull congress woman Kathleene Harris and the honerable Geb Bush. Wow what honesty and integrety and he even said he though Bush would be president.

Hey I know lets set Fresca up with System Faliure on the Fifth wheel . Oh I can see it now the anarchist and the Nazi! the sparks would Fly!

...achieved excessive Market Power and has become a threat to the Public Interest. With 1200+ Stations they are larger than the next 3 Competitors combined.

When I say diversity BA I mean a variety of Broadcasters under diverse ownership each competing in the Marketplace. Not one Monopolist with unfettered control - which while Clear Channel has not managed a complete monopoly they control what occurs in the top 25 markets and more. You can read the article - they are using their market power to strong arm people into doing business with them "or else". This is not a healthy business activity - for the consumer.

To Davie: "A foolish regard for consistency is the Hobgoblin of small minds." I fergit' who originally said it. However as should be clear from my earlier remarks it is not inconsistent. It is really 2 different cases.

1. Clear Channel used it's massive market control to punish the Dixie Chicks for exercising free speech. Others followed suit because of that mammoth megaphone - and timidity.

2. I am one person requesting that others take a moral stand and not support an organization which operates contrary to their, and the Countries, best interests.

The number of stations isn't a factor in the amount of disinformation distributed. Pacifica has far fewer stations than Clear Channel but puts out much more bogus disinformation.

I find most of the information coming via Clear Channel to be valid and correct. I never find that to be true with Pacifica. The latter simply spews out left wing radical anti-American propaganda.

'To Davie: "A foolish regard for consistency is the Hobgoblin of small minds."'

Nice way of saying you can change your mind whenever you want, and I'm an idiot for pointing it out. I don't think so.

Whether a boycott is pushed by one person or a corporation, it's either right ot it's wrong.

By your logic, it's okay for one person to commit murder, but not for a large group.

"Hey I know lets set Fresca up with System Faliure on the Fifth wheel . Oh I can see it now the anarchist and the Nazi! the sparks would Fly! "



....but I'm not an anarchist.

Good one Fresca! Somehow, I just don't think that's what he meant!!!

Dave: I was not calling you a fool. If I wanted to do that I would do it directly - you may have notice that shyness in expressing an opinion is not one of my faults. However, I do reserve the right to nuance my opinions, and I do see a difference between the 2 cases. One is a large organization attempting to punish, financially (which didn't work - hee, hee), a person or group for expressing an opinion. And it was really a rather mild one at that - she just said she was embarassed to be from the same State as Bush. The reply was totally out of proportion - kind of like using a Shot Gun to eliminate Flies. In the case of a personal boycott I am opposed to Clear Channel's Market Power and the misuse thereof. It is only peripherally about their shameless propagandaizing - which did piss me off. So, if I am inconsistent so be it. I don't like them because I regard the homogeneity they represent and push as an anathema to free expression. As well the do not appear to be very nice people.

To BA: One Station does not an empire make. I don't listen to Pacifica and since it is bad for your Blood Pressure why don't you do likewise?

Out of time.

...has a right to broadcast whatever it wishes. If its policies go against its listeners' wishes, Clear Channel and its advertisers lose. That's free enterprise in action. Capitalism, baby. Had CC stopped playing the DCs and its listeners wanted to hear them, the listeners would have let CC know about it, and modified its policy, or not, and lived with the consequences.

No one's freedom of expression was infringed upon. The DCs let the world know how they felt, and their lame "apology" merely reinforced that sentiment. While CC may have stopped playing them, the oh-so-trendy left picked up the slack, listening to a form of music that 24 hours before the infamous comment they wouldn't be caught dead listening to.

The point is, if you're a public figure, you certainly have the same freedom of expression as everyone else. However, the consequences of your words have a far wider range than the average guy's. To say those consequences are "punishment" and "and infringement of rights" is ludicrous.

Dio, you can call for all the boycotts you want. I have no problem with that; you're certainly well within your rights to do so, and more power to you, if you truly believe in your cause. But I resent the implication that CC listeners were led into their eschewal (if that's a word) of the DCs by CC corporate policy. The people who stopped buying DC CDs did so because they disagreed with Mains' statement...not because they were led by the nose to do it. And if that hit the DCs in the pocketbook, so be it...it's called "accountability", and no one is immune from that...even entertainers.

clear channel vs. mcdonalds

clear channels lack of diversity, ie: smaller size&scope and ownership not bounded by a headoffice

This is familiar to mcdonalds(their clones aint much better either, burgerking, wendys...) and the LACK of diversity in their menu.

clear channels sanitized, middleof the road agenda is akin to mcdonalds. Would mcdonalds promote the dixiechicks or michaelmoore? as a mealcombo?

And so clearchannel won't either; it would jeopardize their lame, sucky, bullshit middleroad trajectory.

the power on kids is inherent in the media, or at least a modicum of power, and so diversity,imo, is a must. The more the better. Compared to mcdonalds? same thing

homogeneity is good, to a point. But the pt. seems to be passed, imo

They broadcast what sells.

If crazy talk ever becomes all the rage, they'll be giving Amy Goodman morning drive time.

Pretty bad argument girl.....

Back when our Forefathers were being jailed for giving thier own political views, and having to write under "pseudonames" ( like we do here) to protect thier identity from future repression....

The "Free" Press was guaranteed in the 1st amendment, to limit the goverments control of "individual" thought.

They wanted a society that was allowed to question the government.

Unfortunatly, today, with Television, radio, and newspapers...we have another problem.

As the above post stated.

This corporate "Media" is designed to sell products thru advertising.

What is advertising? What do commercials do?

It is designed to influence your point of view.

If they are so concerned with making money, then they might form a "bias".

The corporate media is not designed to provide readers an "objective" viewpoint exposing both sides of the argument with clear, concise points.

It is designed to SELL products that are owned by either a subsidiary of the same company, or some other product.

The press was designed to promote independent thought, (hense, Independent media).

The problem (and the context) is when you have corporate media promoting a certain "way of thinking" (contributing to GW) or taking a stand on one side of the governmnet, it leads to corruption of thought.

If the CEO and the owner of the media outlet has complete editorial control (ie reupert murdock),

or another subsidiary of the corporation sells weapons to the military, we might have a problem with "objectivity".

GE is the largest weapons contractor and also owns Hughes aircraft (defence contractor) and also owns NBC and MSNBC

If a Media company is run by people with contacts to the govenmental agencies that wish to promote a specific anti- or pro- (fill in the blank) ways of thinking, we might have a problem with "objectivity".

Or if another corporation wishes to give only religious "fundementalist" viewpoints, we might have a problem with objectivity.

All a real American wishes, is that they are able to see the whole argument, not just a slanted view.

The more options of thought we have, the better solution we have to come up with.

Good news from the FCC.

It's full speed ahead for Clear Channel!

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?guid=%7B07D79EF9-C542-4880-AC8D-209D54F23B6F%7D&siteid=myyahoo&dist=myyahoo

Let's hope they buy Pacifica Radio

What I have gleened from the right-wing sychophants above:

1) It is only OK to listen and watch what everybody else does; if not you are a weirdo.

2) The less diversity we have the better, so everybody walk around in GAP and Old Navy clothes.

3) If something is popular and sells a lot of product, it MUST be a good thing for society.

4) People who question things are stupid!

5) Nixon was a great president.

6) Corporate shills and lackeys know what is best for local communities and always look out for their best interest.

7) Monopolies are good for business.

8) Monopolies are good for people.

9) Having less information means you're better informed!

10) The gov't always knows best!

...you bailed out halfway thru. Let me finish your thought for you. As always, your welcome.

What I have gleened from the right-wing sychophants above:

1) It is only OK to listen and watch what everybody else does; if not you are a weirdo.

True, except that it IS okay to listen and watch what most others do.

2) The less diversity we have the better, so everybody walk around in GAP and Old Navy clothes.

Wrong. Diversity is good. But it in and of itself is nothing.

3) If something is popular and sells a lot of product, it MUST be a good thing for society.

Wrong. But it is, most assuredly, what they want and have chosen.

4) People who question things are stupid!

Wrong. People who continue to question after not getting the answer they want but nonetheless, getting the truth are stupid

5) Nixon was a great president.

No he wasn't. He was the fool who gave us affirmative action.

6) Corporate shills and lackeys know what is best for local communities and always look out for their best interest.

No. No they don't. But they are also not obsessed with only destroying communities for a profit.

7) Monopolies are good for business.

No they are not. Just look at how shitty Macs are.

8) Monopolies are good for people.

see #7

9) Having less information means you're better informed!

Wrong, But having more disinformation is not helpful.

10) The gov't always knows best!

Obviously wrong. But they are hardly always wrong.

People don't listen to particular radio stations because of who owns them. They listen because they like what they hear. Good luck at boycotting that.

Terry Hughes, who was fired from WEMU-FM in Ypsilanti, Mich., over his views on the war, is back on the air. The Detroit News reports that his "Bone Conduction Music Show" is back on the air on WQKL-FM in Ann Arbor. "The new show will run from 7-11 Sunday nights, starting Sunday," reports the paper's Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

Hughes, incidentally, is pro-war. The station that canned him is a National Public Radio affiliate, while the station that's picking him up is owned by Clear Channel Communications.



http://www.detnews.com/2003/entertainment/0305/30/c01-178421.htm

We are now asking all Clear Channel-owned stations to donate to our Eric Robert Rudolph defense fund. This fellow KOBE member and patriot was arrested early Saturday morning in Murphy, North Carolina.

www.kobehq.com

blah blah blah

We are now asking all Clear Channel-owned stations to donate to our Eric Robert Rudolph defense fund. This fellow KOBE member and patriot was arrested early Saturday morning in Murphy, North Carolina.

http://www.kobehq.com

or let me be me so let me see.

they tried to shut me down on MTV,

but it feels so empty without me.

May I drink your menstrual blood?

Fuck you all and the horses you rode in on!

May I drink your menstrual blood?

You are one SICK puppy.

You are one SICK puppy.

You are one SICK puppy.