Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning NY Times

<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?ex=1049600440&ei=1&en
=244362afcbb4827e>

* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN

By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly
as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly
been vehement. One of the most striking took place after
Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized
President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch
a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks
CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with
20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent
of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer,
it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in
the radio industry - with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of
Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie
Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations
around the country have, however, been organized by stations
owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based
in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and
increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under
the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual
stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who
has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon,
the company is notorious - and widely hated - for its
iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on
its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze
recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing
blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears
to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that
deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this
way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal
conviction on the part of management. But there are also
good reasons for Clear Channel - which became a giant
only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership -
to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear
Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations
that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour
with its concert division, and there are even some politicians
who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's
growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications
Commission is considering further deregulation that would
allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused.
Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear
Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because
the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush.
The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name
may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was
governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of
Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and
Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board.
Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's
endowment under the management of companies with strong
Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks
purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush
a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear,
but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in
the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan
Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration
"government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On
almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule:
"Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for
which they once worked." We should have realized that this is
a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for
businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect
businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians
- by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective
watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety
quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers
are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions.
Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

thanks david. everything's coming together now.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?
ex=1049600440&ei=1&en
> =244362afcbb4827e>
>
> * David Beardsley
> * microtonal guitar
> * http://biink.com/db
>
>
> Channels of Influence
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
> By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly
> as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly
> been vehement. One of the most striking took place after
> Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized
> President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch
> a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks
> CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with
> 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent
> of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.
>
> Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer,
> it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in
> the radio industry - with close links to the Bush administration.
>
> The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of
> Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie
> Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations
> around the country have, however, been organized by stations
> owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based
> in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and
> increasingly dominates the airwaves.
>
> The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under
> the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual
> stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who
> has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon,
> the company is notorious - and widely hated - for its
> iron-fisted centralized control.
>
> Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on
> its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze
> recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing
> blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears
> to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that
> deeply divides the nation.
>
> Why would a media company insert itself into politics this
> way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal
> conviction on the part of management. But there are also
> good reasons for Clear Channel - which became a giant
> only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act
> of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership -
> to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear
> Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations
> that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour
> with its concert division, and there are even some politicians
> who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's
> growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications
> Commission is considering further deregulation that would
> allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into
television.
>
> Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused.
> Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear
> Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because
> the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush.
> The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name
> may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was
> governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of
> Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and
> Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board.
> Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's
> endowment under the management of companies with strong
> Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks
> purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush
> a multimillionaire.
>
> There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear,
> but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in
> the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan
> Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration
> "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On
> almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule:
> "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for
> which they once worked." We should have realized that this is
> a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for
> businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect
> businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians
> - by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?
>
> What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective
> watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety
> quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers
> are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions.
> Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> I saw that also saw that today,
> but that story came out a few weeks ago.

Maybe I misread it; I thought the companies competing for the bids had been announced previously, and this news was who had been awarded contracts:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm

The article in the New Yorker on Richard Perle, that caused Perle to accuse the author of "journalistic terrorism", sheds light on more business, as noted in The Nation ("Perle, Interrupted"):

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030407&s=alterman

I happened to be watching PBS late last night as they excerpted all their coverage leading up to the first Gulf War to the present, and it is a compelling document of the Bush, Inc. plan for the commercialization of politics and the agenda of force above all. Chilling.

Jon

NY Times - Channels of Influence

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>