undefinedI just want to say that Clear Channel, 2/26/04, has choked off Howard Stern. While I’m hardly a fan of his, I respect his 1st Amendments rights. The speech police are in full force, next, the thought police, book police, yada, yada, yada. My 2 cents!
Point 1: Like many others, you are confused as to what the First Amendment actually guarantees:
(emphasis added). Clear Channel Communications, Inc., as a private corporation, is perfectly within its rights to decline to broadcast Stern’s show. As a broadcaster, it must license the right to broadcast on certain frequencies from the U.S. Government (broadcast frequencies have been ruled to be public resources). This license subjects Clear Channel to certain regulations. None of these regulations require Clear Channel to broadcast anyone who wants to. Quite the opposite, in fact, these regulations are more related to prohibited subject matter such as obscene, lewd, or offensive material. Clear Channel is deciding as a business decision that the risk of fines for violating these regulations is greater than the advertising revenue generated by broadcasting Stern’s show. The First Amendment is not violated by such a decision.
Point 2: I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this post, but I suspect a mod will be along shortly to move this. Which will be perfectly within their rights and, again, will not be violative of the First Amendment.
The liberals have it Mondays-Wednesdays-Fridays, the Jews have it Tuesdays-Thursdays-Saturdays. They switch off Sundays.
Let me be the first to welcom you to the Boards, sgboone! Us old-timers try to put a link to the article being referred to, just so we know what you’re talking about. In this case Cecil’s column is Who owns the major U.S. media outlets?
We’re also inclined to limit ourselves to matters actually touched upon in the column (excuse my snarkiness).
Anyway, I’m surprised Cecil didn’t set straight a misconception in the question; viz., that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting owns television or radio stations. CPB doesn’t own diddly. Public broadcasting stations are owned by a number of non-profit organizations, typically universities or community groups (with some reputation for occasionally being less than cooperative - I speak from experience in public radio).
The concentration of media ownership was amply demonstrated on September 11, 2001, when any cable channel with a connection to a network news operation (and most had one) punched up their parent company’s news feed in place of their own programming.
I’ve heard that a corperation can not own a televison/radio station and a newspaper, within the same market. I was told, by my high school government teacher, that the Washington Post Company owns the paper, the Post, but owns TV stations in Jacksonville, Florida. Is this true? Cecil states that the Tribue company owns WGN and the Tribune. Exactly what is the law? Has it been changed, and if so, when?
I was a little confused by Cecil’s article… i’ve heard so many people complain about the evils of Clear Channel, and it was even mentioned in the question. But, unless I missed it, the article didn’t touch on it. I was hoping to get some realitvely unbiased info on the corporation, but was a little diappointed when there was none.
So what is clearchannel? Is it really such an evil company?
You mentioned that the newspapers are not as widely read as they used to be. That’s because the internet has captured the young imagination of the 20 year olds and under. Thank you for keeping your column going on the internet. It’s the only way I can read it. Now, how many sources of news do we have on the internet? LOTS! We can get news from anywhere in the world! You can see not only what appears in the Los Angeles Times but in Sydney, Austrailia, and Cape Town, South Africa, and New Delhi, India. I’m sure the Big Corps haven’t taken over these far flung sources of news.
And I can get the beeb on my satellite radio.
But the decline of newspapers doesn’t date from the rise of the Internet. It far FAR predates that.
Wrongo Bongo. Rupert Murdoch is an Australian (even if he did take out US citizenship to comply with local laws) who has his fingers in many media pies. Media concentration is a worldwide epidemic. For instance, in Vancouver BC, the same company owns: 2 out of 3 ‘independent’ weekly newsrags, 2 TV stations (including the number one station, which has 4 to 5 times the audience of the number two station), and BOTH of the daily newspapers in the city. Yeah, media concentration is only a problem in the US :rolleyes:
Oh, and SS? I recommend you take your views to the Pit before you get banned, because they aren’t actually backed up by any facts! Unless you’re suggesting that the majority of shareholders are jewish, in which case you still don’t have any facts to stand on.
For anyone feeling a sudden time-distortion, I have banned a poster named Shivananda, and consigned his racist statements to hell. I also deleted the comments made in response to them, since they pretty much quoted him in full.
You are now returned to the regular trouser-leg of time.
Cross-ownership was banned many years ago. Existing situations were “grandfathered” in (presumably this is the case with the Trib/WGN), but would fall under the rule if the companies ever changed ownership.
There was a recent effort to change or chuck the cross-ownership rules, but I haven’t paid much attention to the issue and don’t know what happened (I quit the broadcasting biz in 1999 and, interestingly, have not had the slightest inclination to look back). Looks like they passed a rule change, but I don’t know if it still stands. Here are some links to articles I found doing a quick search:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/News_Releases/2001/nrmm0109.html
Searching FCC and “cross-ownership” will turn up a ton of stuff. I’ll have to leave it there since work is crazy this morning (I started this an hour ago).
‘Who owns the Media?’ could be considered a trick question. At the least, the question needs clarification.
When it comes to Broadcast radio & television, not cable not satellite, the owners are… all of us (in the U.S. anyway).
The public owns the airwaves. The FCC grants licenses to broadcast to individuals and corporations as a public trustee of these airwaves.
While the FCC has tried to stay clear of regulating content in the past, current public debate is bringing content and ownership issues up front and center.
By the way, if you don’t like the way your local radio or TV station is operating as a trustee of your publicly held airwaves, you can go to the station and look in their public file (broadcasters are required to keep a file for public access), and determine when the station’s license is up for renewal. At license renewal time, you may challenge their right to hold that license. It’s not easy to do as it boils down to legal challenges between well-paid lawyers, but it can be, and has been done.
Interesting column. Concentration of ownership in such a few corporate owners concerns me, and while I recognize Cecil’s valid points here’s something he didn’t consider. While media ownership isn’t quite a concentrated as the question proposed, what about the commonality of interest of all the major media owners?
That is, what about the fact that virtually all the media ownership is concentrated in large multi-national corporations. While these corporations may have competing interest in some areas, in many areas their interests are identical. There are many issues that Fox, Disney, Time Warner, Clear Channel, Viacom and all the rest of the major media owners share an interest in ignoring.