more on clear channel

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Clear Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

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?

Chicago Tribune, March 19, 2003

Media giant's rally sponsorship raises questions
By Tim Jones

Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President Bush's
strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread linking most of
them is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's largest owner of
radio stations.
In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic
circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San
Anto-nio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by

up to 20,000 people. The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the
more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies.
The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique
among major media companies,which have confined their activities in the
war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San

Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1200 stations in 50 states and
the District of Columbia.
While labor unions and special interest groups have organized and hosted

rallies for decades, the involvement of a big publicly regulat-ed
broadcasting company breaks new ground in public demonstra-tions. "I
think this is pretty extraordinary," said former Federal Communications
Commissioner Glen Robinson, who teaches law at
the University of Virginia. "I can't say that this violates any of a
broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing
of the news."
A spokeswoman for Clear Channel said the rallies, called "Rally for
America," are the idea of Glenn Beck, a Philadelphia talk show host
whose program is syndicated by Premier Radio Networks, a Clear Channel
subsidiary.
'Just patriotic rallies'
A weekend rally in Atlanta drew an estimated 20,000 people, with some
carrying signs reading "God Bless the USA" and other signs condemning
France and the group Dixie Chicks, one of whose members recently
criticized President Bush. "They're not intended to be pro-military.
It's more of a thank you to the troops. They're just patriotic rallies"
said Clear Channel spokeswoman Lisa Dollinger.
Rallies sponsored by Clear Channel radio stations are scheduled for this

weekend in Sacramento, Charleston, SC, and Richmond, Va. Although Clear
Channel promoted two of the recent rallies on its corporate Web site,
Dollinger said there is no corporate directive that stations organize
rallies. "Any rallies that our stations have been a part of have been of

their own initiative and in response to the expressed desires of their
listeners and communities," Dollinger said.
Clear Channel is by far the largest owner of radio stations in the
nation. The company owned only 43 in 1995, but when Congress removed
many of the ownership limits in 1996, Clear Channel was quickly on the
highway to radio dominance. The company owns and operates 1233 radio
stations (including 6 in Chicago) and claims 100 million listeners.
Clear Channel generated about 20% of the radio industry's $16 billion in

2001 revenues.
Size sparks criticism
The media giant's size also has generated criticism. Some recording
artists have charged that Clear Channel's dominance in radio and concert

promotions is hurting the recording industry. Congress is investigating
the effects of radio consolidation. And the FCC is considering ownership

rule changes, among them changes that could allow Clear Channel to
expand its reach.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has introduced a bill that could halt
further deregulation in the radio industry and limit each company's
audience share and percent of advertising dollars. These measures could
limit Clear Channel's meteoric growth and hinder its future
profitability.
Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of
Minnesota, said the company's support of the Bush administra-tion's
policy toward Iraq makes it "hard to escape the concern that this may in

part be motivated by issues that Clear Channel has before the FCC and
Congress."
Dollinger denied there is a connection between the rallies and the
company's pending regulatory matters.
Rick Morris, an associate professor of communications at North-western
University, said these actions by Clear Channel stations are a logical
extension of changes in the radio industry over the last 20 years,
including the blurring of lines between journalism and enter-tainment.
From a business perspective, Morris said, the rallies are a natural
fit
for many stations, especially talk-radio stations where hosts usually
espouse politically conservative views. "Nobody should be surprised by
this," Morris said.
In 1987 the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, which required
broadcasters to cover controversial issues in their community and to do
so by offering balancing views. With that obligation gone, Morris said,
"radio can behave more like newspapers, with opinion pages and
editorials."
"They've just begun stretching their legs, being more politically
active," Morris said.
-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST