<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8008-2003May2?language' target='_blank'> http://www.washingtonpost.com</a>My my,just another example.Maybe conservative groups need to learn how to lay down in the streets and block traffic like the left.Oh wait that wouldnt work.Protesters on the right know better than to break the law for the right of free speech.

Newspapers, in general, do a terrible job covering themselves.

One example: We've heard very little about the FCC as it considers lifting all ownership restrictions on electronic media.

The reason: Big corporations own most of the big media in this country, and they are poised to go on a buying binge to scarf up even more of it, creating duopolies, monopolies and the like.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:One example: We've heard very little about the FCC as it considers lifting all ownership restrictions on electronic media.

Maybe because it's unconstitutional to deny someone the right to own something? We have anti-trust laws that protect the competition. If someone doesn't want your product, I.e. Mike Malloy, Peter Werbe, etc., then you aren't going to sell. You then want to blame the owners, I.e. Clear Channel, when you should be blaming the citizens. ...but how could you blame the citizens because they don't want to hear your bull****? This is America, a Capitalist Country and Representative Republic, not a Socialist, Majority Rule Democracy.

As far as Conservatives rallying and protesting, well, we just don't do that. We are individualists that believe in the merit of the individual, you guys are collectivists. You know what that is, right? Here's a lesson, Socialists and Communists and hell, Nazi's for that matter, were and are collectivists. You put 100 people in a bunch and split their income up equally, someone's going to be pissed because they will find out they're working harder. He will then leave...unless it's mandated by a strong-arm government.....in which you idiots are trying to create.

Keep your eyes on NYC and NY. They are about to pass an additional 7.5% tax on anyone making over 100K. That's state. They STILL have fed. I need to open up a moving business in NY.

Quote:Maybe because it's unconstitutional to deny someone the right to own something? We have anti-trust laws that protect the competition.

We, the public, own the airwaves. We -- through our elected representatives and their appointees on the FCC -- merely license use of the airwaves to the private sector for use as media.

Ownership, then, is not the issue, except to the extent that it involves licenses that we the people grant under the conditions that we are free to set.

Quote:If someone doesn't want your product, I.e. Mike Malloy, Peter Werbe, etc., then you aren't going to sell. You then want to blame the owners, I.e. Clear Channel, when you should be blaming the citizens. ...but how could you blame the citizens because they don't want to hear your bull****?

This isn't a right/left issue. The issue is diversity.

If ownership limits fall, here is a scenario that that *will* happen in many communities:

The corporation that owns local daily newspaper in your hometown will buy one or two of the local television stations in your town as well as several radio stations.

What would happen then? Well, since the corporation's primary obligation is to its shareholders, it would begin cutting costs. Instead of having two or three people at the local city school board meeting, the corporation might only have one, then "share" that "content" among all its media in that market.

And it would be extremely difficult for any other entity to knock this media goliath out of the box in this market. It will have locked up most of the market.

The issue is not only diversity of opinion. It's whether certain subjects will get covered at all, and whether the public would ever learn facts about its community that would come to light in a more aggressive news atmopshere.

We've already seen this effect in communities as two or more newspapers are gradually folded into a single, more profitable monopoly. That process is nearly complete, and readers are the poorer for it. Our local newspaper had regional bureaus spread all over the place a decade ago when this was still a two-newspaper town. Those bureaus are gone -- but the local bottom line, already profitable, has improved. During the late 1990s, our local newspaper earned roughly 35 cents pretax profit on every dollar it grossed, which is only a bit above the corporation average.

We are in the next stage as corporations gradually put together networks of radio stations. In general, they can only buy up about half of a market. The result, as we've seen, is piss poor radio. News, which is expensive, has dwindled in favor of talk, which is literally cheap. Play lists has become more insipid. These trends are, at least in part, the result of big corporate ownership.

And electronic media, incidentally, were already more profitable than newspapers (and newspapers are profitable!).

The next stage -- the stage now being considered by the FCC -- would be to lift almost all remaining limits.

How far can it go? Consider Minot, N.D., which, through a quirk in the existing regulations, is a Chear Channel monopoly:

"There's no way a radio station can be actively and locally run by one-tenth of a human being," said Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the School of Journalism at the University of California. Instead, (Clear Channel) reportedly uses pre-taped DJs and remote-controlled computers to create the illusion of local programming.

Bagdikian said the dangers of such consolidation are exemplified by a January 2002 train accident that caused a cloud of toxic anhydrous ammonia fertilizer to threaten the town of Minot, North Dakota.

All six of Minot's commercial radio stations are owned by Clear Channel, and police were unable to reach a human being at the emergency broadcast station to issue a warning to the town. The New York Times reported on March 31 that 300 people were hospitalized and one died as a result.

The complete story:

<a href='http://www.artsandmedia.net/cgi-bin/dc/newsdesk/2003/04/30_FCC_hearing' target='_blank'>http://www.artsandmedia.net/cgi-bin/dc/new.../30_FCC_hearing</a>

Quote:Keep your eyes on NYC and NY. They are about to pass an additional 7.5% tax on anyone making over 100K. That's state. They STILL have fed. I need to open up a moving business in NY.

I live here and I'm well aware of the increase.

But you misstate and exaggerate it. The state increase is this:

1. 0.25 point sales tax hike.
2. 0.65 point income tax increase on income over $100,000 for single people, $125,000 for single parents and $150,000 for married couples. This will take this bracket from 6.85 percent to 7.5 percent
3. An additional. 0.7 point increase in income over $500,000, which will take this bracket from 6.85 percent to 7.7 percent.

I'm not happy about the sales tax hike, but it was a bargain between the GOP-controlled Senate and Democratic-controlled Assembly. Republicans insisted on the sales tax hike in exchange for the income tax hike on the better off.

The alternative, incidentally, is bigger property tax hikes by local school districts -- and our property tax rates in New York are very high.

The proposed income tax hike, in contrast, is fairly popular:

<a href='http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x5759.xml' target='_blank'>http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x5759.xml</a>

A possible reason: Our income tax is almost completely flat. Under existing law (pushed by Gov. Pataki) New York's top, 6.85 percent rate kicks in at $20,000.

Flat taxes suck. Those who can afford to pay more should pay a little more. I think many New Yorkers intuitively believe this.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 6 2003, 08:55 AM-->

RochesterFalcon Wrote:We, the public, own the airwaves. We -- through our elected representatives and their appointees on the FCC -- merely license use of the airwaves to the private sector for use as media.

Ownership, then, is not the issue, except to the extent that it involves licenses that we the people grant under the conditions that we are free to set.
.

Question. Has anyone ever denied someone the right to own a radio station? Yes, we own the airwaves. You can get out all day long and preach to your hearts content. However, the equipment used to broadcast is owned by someone else. Are you suggesting we get the government to step in and mandate what is on the airwaves? Sounds a little too much like "State-Run" media to me. Besides, you guys already have PBS and NPR. ....liberal as hell and please don't tell me they aren't. They are also tax-payer funded, unlike Clear Channel. If people actually wanted to listen to hatred spewed by the Left, IE America would be the powerhouse.....not Clear Channel. It's capitalism. The Consumer dictates the health of a company. To make the government step in is unconstitutional. What WOULDN'T be unconstitutional is trying to do something about NPR and PBS.

>>Since I work in the radio broadcasting field I have some input into this discussion...


Question. Has anyone ever denied someone the right to own a radio station?

>>When most of the stations are owned by one of 2 major corporations in your area and as a startup radio station you cannot get the advertisers to buy time on your station because you are not part of one of the 2 major corporations then in a way, Yes you are being denied the right to operate your station in a fair manner...



Yes, we own the airwaves. You can get out all day long and preach to your hearts content. However, the equipment used to broadcast is owned by someone else. Are you suggesting we get the government to step in and mandate what is on the airwaves?

>>Not at all...I suggest we limit the amount of radio & TV stations one corporation can own in one market...that way everyone has a fair chance to be a part of the broadcasting industry...


Sounds a little too much like "State-Run" media to me.

>>Having Clear Channel control most of the radio stations and their content in your market sounds like an unfair advantage and worse to me....But if you want to hear the same artists & songs over and over again with no diversity because all of the radio stations in your market are owned by one corporation then whatever floats your boat sailor....but I prefer radio stations like the one I DJ for part time (<a href='http://www.wbzb.com' target='_blank'>WBZB</a>)....we offer 24 hours a day of local to NC music...artists that would never get a fair shake on any of the larger corporate owned radio stations....



Besides, you guys already have PBS and NPR. ....liberal as hell and please don't tell me they aren't. They are also tax-payer funded, unlike Clear Channel. If people actually wanted to listen to hatred spewed by the Left, IE America would be the powerhouse.....not Clear Channel. It's capitalism. The Consumer dictates the health of a company. To make the government step in is unconstitutional. What WOULDN'T be unconstitutional is trying to do something about NPR and PBS.

>>I won't even get into the left or the right issue of this cause it really does not matter....both republicans & democrats sell their souls to the highest bidder...whoever will donate money to keep their sorry butts in office the longest...and Clear Channel is a big contributer to both the left and the right...that is how they monopolize the radio industry...can you tell I think both parties are corrupt??



<!--EDIT|NCTrafficMan|May 6 2003, 11:28 AM-->

Thanks for the link NCTM.Is their a listen live stream? Ive got two of three players. My personal thoughts on mandateing the airwaves.Bad idea.Im a little surprised that you stated your problems with both pollitical parties calling them corrupt but yet are willing to give the same two parties more control over the verry industry you work in Seems to me most of us dont mind having the same songs cramed down our throught all day.That being said perhaps the corperate machine knows what theyre doing.If we expect this to change we need to stop listening and let the market work like it was intended.THANK GOD FOR THE AM DIAL!

Quote:Question. Has anyone ever denied someone the right to own a radio station?

This question barely makes sense.

The answer, I guess, is yes. It happens all the time. The FCC rejects all kinds of applications for bandwidth. Bandwidth is finite, at least that portion devoted to radio.

Some day, the FCC may further widen the radio spectrum when television stations finally go digital. The space between 76 MHz and 88 MHz, for example, would be clear once television channels five and six migrate to digital only signals.

But that's years away. Television stations are taking their sweet time setting up digital transmitters, and missing FCC deadlines in the process. This move to digital was supposed to be done by 2006, but that isn't going to happen. People keep buying up analog receivers. The FCC isn't about to force television stations to clear out of our their old allotments any time soon.

Quote:However, the equipment used to broadcast is owned by someone else.

If buying equipment were the only issue, anyone could broadcast. But anyone can't. One doesn't just need equipment. One also needs a license. Licenses are finite because bandwidth is finite. Thus, to get a license, one in most cases must buy another broadcaster out.

Quote:Are you suggesting we get the government to step in and mandate what is on the airwaves? Sounds a little too much like "State-Run" media to me.

The FCC has been regulating use of the airwaves since the beginning. I believe it was right after World War II that the FCC promulgated the Fairness Doctrine. It required broadcasters to cover issues of public contoversy and offer time to both sides of the controversy.

(The first part of the doctrine was why one used to see a lot of television public affairs programs on Sunday mornings way before normal people woke up in the morning).

The fairness doctrine was lifted in 1987 -- and that's why the world now has men like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.

Quote:Besides, you guys already have PBS and NPR. ....liberal as hell and please don't tell me they aren't.

These outfits only seem liberal to you because they have the nerve to quote liberals now and again. They are attempting to play it straight.

Quote:If people actually wanted to listen to hatred spewed by the Left,

Hatred? You are nuts.

Quote:IE America would be the powerhouse

What is IE America?

Quote:It's capitalism. The Consumer dictates the health of a company.

In an oligopoly, consumers have less influence over the market than they otherwise would in a purely competitive atmosphere. This is the situation now. Big corporations have carved up most radio markets. Utica, N.Y., for instance, has two corporate players that own all but two of the radio stations, and this is not uncommon. They have such power in that market that they can refuse to accept advertising with anyone who also advertises with one of the independents. (I'm not accusing them of that; but I know of cases where this has happened in the newspaper industry).

Oligopolies are what we have now in radio. The question before the FCC is whether to allow big corporations to create pure cross-media monopolies.

In such situations, of course, consumers will have almost no influence at all. A corporation could serve up liberal news, conservative news, shoddy news whatever, in print, on the radio and on television. It wouldn't matter. The consumer could take it or leave it, and it wouldn't have other choices.

Quote:To make the government step in is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure what constitution you are referring to, but I doubt it's the American constitution.

In fact, the issue is whether the government should step further *out* than it already is.

With antitrust enforcement as emaciated as it is -- I mean, Microsoft even walked -- I'm satisfied to leave regulations as they are.

Much better to prevent corporations from creating local monopolies than to have to step in and break them up later after the damage is done. (e.g., the NBC/ABC split back in the days of radio).



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 6 2003, 07:58 PM-->

Fact of the freaking matter is, if most people wanted to listen to the liberal HATRED spewed by Peter Werbe and Mike Malloy, they'd still be on the air in Augusta, Ga. They are being taken off the air everywhere because their ratings are so low and that doesn't sell advertising. No one is forced to listen to Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Boortz. They do it because they choose to listen to them, ....by the millions. This sells advertising. It's capitalism pure and simple. Supply and Demand. You are just pissed because liberals don't generally have anything to say that is in demand. You want to take from the rich and give to the poor that does nothing but instill dependancy, servitude, and a lack of the will to succeed. We, as Americans, are the most generous people on Earth and it has already been proven that conservative's are a helluva lot more generous than liberals. Al Gore gave freaking < $200 dollars one year. The same year, I gave a grand plus donated time at the Homeless Shelter on Thanksgiving and gave many, many items to the Goodwill. You want people taken care of? Leave it up to charity. That way, no one can ***** because they choose to do so. I would have no problem giving more if I weren't taxed out of my ****** to pay for social programs. "I" can do more good than the government because for every damn dollar you send to Washington, about 80 Cents somehow gets lost.

Democrats are opposed to this because this would kill their voter roles. How do they get votes? Well, for people with attitudes like yours, you promise something, I.e. money, etc. Small problem, it's not the government's to give. They have to get it somewhere, I.e. MY damn kitchen table. You don't see this with Conservatives. You see people that want the least government they can have, actually, they are also starting that BS so i am a Libertarian now. We should have regulation of interstate commerce and a strong defense. THAT'S the Constitution. If I want to give to charity to help the homeless, that should be MY choice, not the governments. As of right now, if I don't pay my taxes, they can take my home. .....while they want my taxes for the homeless etc. Now, YOU want to talk about irony?



<!--EDIT|RebelKev|May 6 2003, 09:51 PM-->

Quote:Fact of the freaking matter is, if most people wanted to listen to the liberal HATRED spewed by Peter Werbe and Mike Malloy, they'd still be on the air in Augusta, Ga.

I don't know who these people are.

You are willfully avoiding my point. Not once in this thread have I objected to the idiots Clear Channel puts on the air. I merely object to Clear Channel bootstrapping its oligopolies into pure monopolies. That's what the FCC is prepared to let them do.

And Clear Channel is but one example of a company prepared to do this. Gannett Co. Inc., Knight-Ridder, Cumulus and a ton of other companies are about to do the same thing -- create ever more powerful media congolmerations that limit consumer choices.

Why do I object? Monopolies have a great deal of immunity free market forces. For example, a company could come in, buy the all the radio stations in your market with decent signals, and take Rush off the air. Free market, free speech... yet you as a consumer would have no radio alternatives.

By the way, you should pay your taxes. It's the law.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 6 2003, 09:56 PM-->

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:Fact of the freaking matter is, if most people wanted to listen to the liberal HATRED spewed by Peter Werbe and Mike Malloy, they'd still be on the air in Augusta, Ga.

I don't know who these people are.

You are willfully avoiding my point. Not once in this thread have I objected to the idiots Clear Channel puts on the air. I merely object to Clear Channel bootstrapping its oligopolies into pure monopolies. That's what the FCC is prepared to let them do.

And Clear Channel is but one example of a company prepared to do this. Gannett Co. Inc., Knight-Ridder, Cumulus and a ton of other companies are about to do the same thing -- create ever more powerful media congolmerations that limit consumer choices.

Why do I object? Monopolies have a great deal of immunity free market forces. For example, a company could come in, buy the all the radio stations in your market with decent signals, and take Rush off the air. Free market, free speech... yet you as a consumer would have no radio alternatives.

By the way, you should pay your taxes. It's the law.

I disagree RF.Someone could buy up all the radio stations with a good signal as you said but its the 20 million listeners a week that keeps Rush on the air.Without fan support their would be no Rush.Im not the biggest fan of Rushbo but i do have a great deal of respect for what the man has done for talk radio.In my opinion he single handedly saved the AM dial.

And a big corporation could take Rush away if the FCC eliminates media ownership limits.

Sure he has an audience. Big deal.

Hell, if I owned all the stations in a market, I'd take him away. I hate that lying son-of-a-*****. Whine. Moan. Complain. I'd tell you to get bent and turn your radio off if you don't like it.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 6 2003, 10:34 PM-->

RochesterFalcon Wrote:And a big corporation could take Rush away if the FCC eliminates media ownership limits.

Sure he has an audience. Big deal.

Hell, if I owned all the stations in a market, I'd take him away. I hate that lying son-of-a-*****. Whine. Moan. Complain. I'd tell you to get bent and turn your radio off if you don't like it.

Come on now RF.Dont hold youre feelings back about Elrushbo.So does that mean you dont like him?Here at the local talk show station if Rush is off the air for even a little while for any reason you would think the end of the world was upon us.I dont agree with everything he says but his not that bad.Like i said hate him or love him you have to respect what hes done in talk radio.Agree?

RochesterFalcon Wrote:And a big corporation could take Rush away if the FCC eliminates media ownership limits.

Sure he has an audience. Big deal.

Hell, if I owned all the stations in a market, I'd take him away. I hate that lying son-of-a-*****. Whine. Moan. Complain. I'd tell you to get bent and turn your radio off if you don't like it.

You are proving my point. If you take him away, the person the people WANT to listen to, your ratings will go down, you will lose advertising, and you will wind up financing your company with your profits. You will soon be bankrupt. The only thing you could do is hire someone that the people want. Its fact that people don't want to listen to liberals. Just look at the ratings for NPR and PBS.

Also, how is Clear Channel a monopoly? You stated, "Gannett Co. Inc., Knight-Ridder, Cumulus and a ton of other companies are about to do the same thing" and I'll add two more, Beasley Broadcasting and Cox Communications. You are aware of what a monopoly is.....aren't you?

Quote:You are proving my point. If you take him away, the person the people WANT to listen to, your ratings will go down, you will lose advertising, and you will wind up financing your company with your profits. You will soon be bankrupt. The only thing you could do is hire someone that the people want.

You fail to grasp how profitable the media are and how impervious media monopolies can be to consumer demand.

Newspapers are very profitable -- and broadcasters are even more profitable.

Gannett Co. Inc. made 29 percent operating profit on all its newspapers. Think of it as an average, with half of its newspapers making more than that and half making less.

Now, I'll grant that Gannett tends to set the pace. In fact, its consistent high profits have gotten Wall Street's attention to the point where other major newspaper companies such as Knight-Ridder have essentially been bullied into cutting staffs, shutting down bureaus and the like in order to keep up. (Gannett has never been into such things as big staffs and extensive bureaus. And it doesn't need to be. Since it's the only game in almost all of its cities, readers accept less because they have little choice.)

My point, though, is that it is very difficult to lose money in newspapers as long as you own the local monopoly.

It's even more difficult to lose money in broadcasting -- where Gannett turned a 48 percent operating profit last year.

Owning a FCC-license for a network television station is, essentially, a license to print money -- and that's today, in the relatively competitive oligopolic atmosphere that now exists. Newspapers are now restricted from owning elevision stations in the same markets and broadcast companies are restricted from buying up too much of a market (more than roughly half, it appears).

End those rules, and companies will buy up whole media markets, or most of markets.

And, I'm telling you, that if I owned a whole media market, I could (and would) deep six Rush Limbaugh. And I could do so with with relative inpunity. My company would easily turn a profit anyway.

That would be difficult to do now. At least now, there is likely another big corporation across the street eager to snatch Limbaugh.

Quote:Its fact that people don't want to listen to liberals. Just look at the ratings for NPR and PBS.

This is so beside the point.

Quote:Also, how is Clear Channel a monopoly? You stated, "Gannett Co. Inc., Knight-Ridder, Cumulus and a ton of other companies are about to do the same thing" and I'll add two more, Beasley Broadcasting and Cox Communications. You are aware of what a monopoly is.....aren't you?

I never said Clear Channel is a monopoly except in Minot, N.D. In that market, it already is.

In most of the markets it operates, Clear Channel represents an oligopoly, the word I've stuck with.

A definition: "A market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors."

That's accurate.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:And, I'm telling you, that if I owned a whole media market, I could (and would) deep six Rush Limbaugh. And I could do so with with relative inpunity. My company would easily turn a profit anyway.

That would be difficult to do now. At least now, there is likely another big corporation across the street eager to snatch Limbaugh.
.

Methinks you would have Rush Limbaugh imprisoned for speaking his mind and essentially stifle his free speech. You seem pissed that someone in this great country would actually have the freedom to "Snatch" him up after you "Deep Sixed" him. You also apparently don't realize the popularity that follows Rush, Hannity, Boortz, etc. That's freedom, being able to listen to who you want to listen to.

Quite Frankly, Rush, etc. are very popular with the people. The people have spoken. Get over it.

Essentially, you are arguing for ceding media companies the market power to deep six Limbaugh if they wish -- but arguing they wouldn't.

I am arguing against ceding media companies such power -- and stating that if I had the power, I would deep six him.

It's a long, long way to go from there to a violation of Limbaugh's First Amendment freedoms.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:Essentially, you are arguing for ceding media companies the market power to deep six Limbaugh if they wish -- but arguing they wouldn't.

I am arguing against ceding media companies such power -- and stating that if I had the power, I would deep six him.

It's a long, long way to go from there to a violation of Limbaugh's First Amendment freedoms.

Not arguing wouldn't,He argues they couldn't. :bang:

Rush is where he is because the people wanted him. PERIOD! To deny that fact denies our right to choice. WE put him there. He isn't forced down ANYONE's throat plain and simple.

RebelKev Wrote:Rush is where he is because the people wanted him. PERIOD! To deny that fact denies our right to choice. WE put him there. He isn't forced down ANYONE's throat plain and simple.

Let the big media companies try and take Rushbo and Savage and the likes off the air and lets see how well that works.My guess,NOT TO GOOD! :laugh: