Free Speech takes a backseat in the Clear Channel Age

[BaliBabyDoc]

The American Conservative (extensive excerpts but give TAC a peak . . . they need the traffic . . . true conservatives are on the endangered species list)

?Imagine these startling headlines with the nation at war in the Pacific six months after Dec. 7, 1941: ?No Signs of Japanese Involvement in Pearl Harbor Attack! Faulty Intelligence Cited; Wolfowitz: Mistakes Were Made.?

Or how about an equally disconcerting World War II headline from the European theater: ?German Army Not Found in France, Poland, Admits President; Rumsfeld: ?Oops!?, Powell Silent; ?Bring ?Em On,? Says Defiant FDR.?

It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident. The Secretary of State should not need to convince a skeptical world with satellite photos of a couple of Toyota pickups and a dumpster. And faced with a legitimate casus belli, it should not be hard to muster an actual constitutional declaration of war. Now in the absence of a meaningful Iraqi role in the 9/11 attack and the mysterious disappearance of those fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction, there might be some psychic satisfaction to be had in saying, ?I told you so!? But it sure isn?t doing my career as a talk-show host any good.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why only a couple of months after my company picked up the option on my contract for another year in the fifth-largest city in the United States, did it suddenly decide to relegate me to radio Outer Darkness? The answer lies hidden in the oil-and-water incompatibility of these two seemingly disconnected phrases: ?Criticizing Bush? and ?Clear Channel.?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can assure you then that my criticism of Bush has been on the basis of long-held conservative principles. It begins with respect for the wisdom of the Founders and the Constitution?s division of power and delegation of authority, and extends to an adherence to the principles of governmental restraint and fiscal prudence. It proved to be a message that was more than a little inconvenient for my employer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticism of Bush and his ever-shifting pretext for a first-strike war (what exactly was it we were pre-empting anyway?) has proved so serious a violation of Clear Channel?s cultural taboo that only a good contract has kept me from being fired outright. Roxanne Cordonier, a radio personality at Clear Channel?s WMYI 102.5 in Greenville, S.C., didn?t have it as good. Cordonier, who worked under the name Roxanne Walker, was the South Carolina Broadcasters Association?s 2002 Radio Personality of the Year. That apparently wasn?t enough for Clear Channel. Her lawsuit against the company alleges that she was belittled on the air and reprimanded by her station for opposing the invasion of Iraq. Then she was fired.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt the constant vilification I received and my heterodoxy on the war cost me audience during the interlude. It was certainly enough to get pictures of me morphing into those of the French president posted on the Free Republic Web site during the ?freedom fries? silliness. A banner there read, ?Boycott Charles Chirac Goyette at KFYI radio Phoenix, AZ! Protest against the Charles Goyette Show from 4-7pm at KFYI for his leftist subervsive [sic] Bush-bashing rants. Turn off KFYI radio for the Charles Goyette Show! No liberal scum talk shows on KFYI!? Radio does provoke people, doesn?t it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel made it clear??With you, I feel like I?m managing the Dixie Chicks,? said my program director?that they would have liked to fire me anyway. While a well-drafted contract made that difficult, it did not prevent them from tucking me away outside prime time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the survivors at my station: one host who wanted to nuke Afghanistan (he bills himself as ?your voice of reason and moderation?) and another who upon learning that 23-year-old Mideast peace activist Rachel Corrie had been run over by an Israeli bulldozer shouted, ?Back up and run over her again!? As he doesn?t quite get some of the important distinctions in these debates, such as that Iranians should not be called Arabs, we would hope that he?s not taken too seriously. Likewise my replacements in the afternoon drive slot, brought in for glamorizing the war and billed as ?The Comedy Channel meets Talk Radio.? If you remember the ?Saturday Night Live? skit ?Superfans? with Mike Myers and Chris Farley??Who?s stronger, God or da Bulls?? ?Da Bulls!??then you get the idea. Only instead of ?da Bulls,? it?s three hours every afternoon of ?da Bush!? Expect to hear more insightful topics like ?So Who?s Tougher: Michael Jordan or Donald Rumsfeld??

Charles Goyette was named ?Best Talk Show Host of 2003? by the Phoenix New Times

 

[Bowfinger]

Another hole in the myth of the "liberal" media. The Bush administration was quite helpful to Clear Channel, IIRC.

 

[Martin]

That's unbelievable.

 

[digitalsm]

Uhhh Clear Channel is a private company. So umm they can do whatever the heck they want. Their DJs dont have freedom of speech on their stations. Nor does any news anchor on TV.

And I can list a lot of Clear Channel hosts/djs that have critized bush and the Iraq war. These are select few cases, and Im sure this guy isnt giving the full story.

 

[SuperTool]

Boycott Clear Channel.
If only rightwingers boycott it, then they'll only listen to them.
http://www.clearchannel.com/rad_search.php
Presets for FM94.9 and AM910 have will be removed from my radio.

 

[SuperTool]

From CC website:
KNEW-AM
Format : Business News
Metro :
San Francisco, CA More

Apparently they have a loose definiton of Business News.

From KNEW website:
6 AM - 10 AM: Armstrong & Getty -- Live and local real radio with wit, intelligence and humor.
10 AM - 12 Noon: Bill O'Reilly -- The Radio Factor
12 Noon - 3 PM: Glenn Beck -- Hang on!
3 PM - 4 PM: Michael Savage-- Pre-Show Warm Up
4 PM - 7 PM: Michael Savage -- The Savage Nation
7PM - 10PM: Phil Hendrie -- Radio Theatre With Political Humor
10PM - 1AM: Lars Larson -- Addictive Talk Radio

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Uhhh Clear Channel is a private company. So umm they can do whatever the heck they want. Their DJs dont have freedom of speech on their stations. Nor does any news anchor on TV.

And I can list a lot of Clear Channel hosts/djs that have critized bush and the Iraq war. These are select few cases, and Im sure this guy isnt giving the full story.

That's right, no such thing as free speech. What's the matter with those people thinking that there is such thing as free speech?

Private Company controlled by the Private Bush Administration, Heil Clear Channel, Heil Bush

 

[Corn]

Phoenix New Times

*snicker*

 

[chess9]

You've given me more reasons not to listen to any Clear Channel product, but, as I've posted before, they had their Shock Jocks telling people to run over bicyclists, throw cans at them, give them the finger etc. That alone put them on my **** list. I've been hit 6 times and still walk funny thanks to Florida drivers.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From CC website:
KNEW-AM
Format : Business News
Metro :
San Francisco, CA More

Apparently they have a loose definiton of Business News.

From KNEW website:
6 AM - 10 AM: Armstrong & Getty -- Live and local real radio with wit, intelligence and humor.
10 AM - 12 Noon: Bill O'Reilly -- The Radio Factor
12 Noon - 3 PM: Glenn Beck -- Hang on!
3 PM - 4 PM: Michael Savage-- Pre-Show Warm Up
4 PM - 7 PM: Michael Savage -- The Savage Nation
7PM - 10PM: Phil Hendrie -- Radio Theatre With Political Humor
10PM - 1AM: Lars Larson -- Addictive Talk Radio

Nice There was a hole in my talk radio listening - I hope KNEW streams. I can't stand Dr.Laura and she's played from 6-9pm here. I listen to NPR from 2pm till 9pm. Now I can cut some of that out of my schedule

CkG

 

[alchemize]

BBD, Bowfinger, Dave, Marty, Supertool:

where was the outrage?

 

[SViscusi]

What's a true shame about this is that they seem to forget that they're using our airwaves. Once, just once, I would love to see the FCC put the publics needs ahead of corporations.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
BBD, Bowfinger, Dave, Marty, Supertool:

where was the outrage?

Hmmm. Perhaps it might have something to do with that being France and this being the United States? Just a thought.

Plus, did you read my comment? I don't think I expressed outrage. I merely pointed out that this story pokes yet another hole in the myth of the liberal media. More often than not, it isn't.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SViscusi
What's a true shame about this is that they seem to forget that they're using our airwaves. Once, just once, I would love to see the FCC put the publics needs ahead of corporations.

Amen, hallelujah!

Sadly, it will never happen under this administration or any of the corporate-centric administrations that preceeded it -- including Clinton's.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
BBD, Bowfinger, Dave, Marty, Supertool:

where was the outrage?

Hmmm. Perhaps it might have something to do with that being France and this being the United States? Just a thought.

Plus, did you read my comment? I don't think I expressed outrage. I merely pointed out that this story pokes yet another hole in the myth of the liberal media. More often than not, it isn't.

So you only care about "free speech" in the US? Isn't it an inalienable right? Or does it only matter what the topic of the free speech is...? Of course not, I would never consider you to be partisan

The Clinton administration was even more helpful to Clear Channel, IIRC
^edit don't answer this as I see you did already ^

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SViscusi
What's a true shame about this is that they seem to forget that they're using our airwaves. Once, just once, I would love to see the FCC put the publics needs ahead of corporations.

Amen, hallelujah!

Sadly, it will never happen under this administration or any of the corporate-centric administrations that preceeded it -- including Clinton's.

So should we remove all playing of music from the airwaves (otherwise how do we know that free speech of music is being represented)? Or should it be accessible to anyone who wants to set up an antenna? Just curious how the "public's" need would be addressed by you.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Uhhh Clear Channel is a private company. So umm they can do whatever the heck they want. Their DJs dont have freedom of speech on their stations. Nor does any news anchor on TV.

And I can list a lot of Clear Channel hosts/djs that have critized bush and the Iraq war. These are select few cases, and Im sure this guy isnt giving the full story.

That's right, no such thing as free speech. What's the matter with those people thinking that there is such thing as free speech?

Private Company controlled by the Private Bush Administration, Heil Clear Channel, Heil Bush

You are a fvcking moron. "nuff said.

 

[alchemize]

Now digital, while many of us wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Dave, you would be better served to direct a more appropriate response.

For example, "Dave would you care to examine the pertinent laws regarding free speech and corporations, or would you rather just invoke Goodwin's law like a fvcking moron?"

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SViscusi
What's a true shame about this is that they seem to forget that they're using our airwaves. Once, just once, I would love to see the FCC put the publics needs ahead of corporations.

Amen, hallelujah!

Sadly, it will never happen under this administration or any of the corporate-centric administrations that preceeded it -- including Clinton's.

So should we remove all playing of music from the airwaves (otherwise how do we know that free speech of music is being represented)? Or should it be accessible to anyone who wants to set up an antenna? Just curious how the "public's" need would be addressed by you.

I think limiting the amount of air a single company could control is a good start. As witnessed after upping the limits in the mid 90's, we've ended up with vanilla radio. The fewer the amount of owners there are, the fewer the amount of different ideas your going to get which in the long run, it hurts us, it hurts our culture, and it hurts our future. There will never be another Beatles or Elvis Pressley or Johnny Cash because there's nobody who wants to play them and risk the wrath of the establishment, our future is filled with Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, and Toby Keith. God help us all.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
[ ... ]Of course not, I would never consider you to be partisan

For what it's worth, I'm less partisan than you might believe. I've mentioned before that my first choice in 2000 was McCain. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership wanted Bush; the rest is history.

My great distaste for Bush-lite is based on my perceptions of what he's done and what he stands for. It's not his party affiliation.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Now digital, while many of us wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Dave, you would be better served to direct a more appropriate response.

For example, "Dave would you care to examine the pertinent laws regarding free speech and corporations, or would you rather just invoke Goodwin's law like a fvcking moron?"

Goodwin was wrong and had no clue what he was talking about.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SViscusi
What's a true shame about this is that they seem to forget that they're using our airwaves. Once, just once, I would love to see the FCC put the publics needs ahead of corporations.

Amen, hallelujah!

Sadly, it will never happen under this administration or any of the corporate-centric administrations that preceeded it -- including Clinton's.

So should we remove all playing of music from the airwaves (otherwise how do we know that free speech of music is being represented)? Or should it be accessible to anyone who wants to set up an antenna? Just curious how the "public's" need would be addressed by you.

I'd start by agreeing with SViscusi's comments about control of the media. Once again, in my opinion, bigger is not better after a point. I think too much broadcaster ownership has been consolidated under too few media giants.

I also think giving spectrum to broadcasters is a mistake. Like so many natural resources, we are giving select businesses extremely valuable resources for token prices at most. They should have to pay for this limited spectrum, both financially and by devoting a significant share of their broadcast to serving the public interest. Yes, there is some of this now, but it has become diluted over the years and is now mostly a token contribution.

To offer one example, I think I'd like to see a ban on paid political advertising on broadcast media. Instead, each broadcaster would have to dedicate a significant chunk of time to televising politcal advertisements and events like debates. I would eliminate sound-bite ads entirely, requiring instead ads and shows with depth and substance. My goal would be to force politicians to rely more on printed media which is less susceptible to big money overload and disproportionately influencing the inattentive.

Note that this is just a concept, not a full-fledged plan. There are all sorts of loopholes and pitfalls that would have to be carefully addressed. It could easily lead to yet another incompetent government bureaucracy. Nonetheless, I think the damage of TV political advertising as (ab)used today justifies the risk of sweeping changes. YMMV.