Fish in a barrel...

Ok, you might think it's a little to easy to take shots at Clear Channel these days. After all, everyone else already has, including several members of congress. In fact, as a company, you've probably heard it all when you finally decide to send your CEO out to a conference to inform people that you are not, in fact, "evil". Seriously, we solemnly swear we are not evil. Well, once you've reached that stage there's not really anywhere to go but up.

I'm not going to restate the case against Clear Channel. You can check clearchannelsucks.org or anywhere else for that matter. They can tell you all the statistics on what percentage of the radio market Clear Channel owns, or what subsidiary businesses they also own, or how they're just waiting for a chance to infiltrate the TV market as well with their Gestapo tactics.

What I'd like to do instead is focus on the bigger issue. Clear Channel is the popular target, but what about Disney, or Viacom, or the other large media conglomerates? We pay a little attention to them too, but shouldn't they be up on the rack just like Clear Channel?

So what's really so bad about Clear Channel owing a huge number of radio stations, a large number of concert venues, a slew of billboards, and wanting to own local newspapers and TV stations as well? It has to do with diversity, and the free exchange of ideas. Certainly, the radio business is that, a business, and Clear Channel has every right to try and maximize their profit potential. We have, however, always recognized the problem with monopolies. Once you have one they are very difficult to break up, and you can hardly rely on a corporation to act in the best interests of the populace. The possibility of losing customers, or revenue is often the only check the general public can employ. When you take this away we become ineffectual, and lose our ability to protest a company's actions. To be fair, Clear Channel is not a Monopoly, and are kept from becoming one by the remaining FCC regulations. However, it is unwise to ignore the amazing influence they have already secured. They have the power to regulate which artists will be heard by the public, which artists will receive publicity, and even, with their purchasing of venues, which artists can perform in your town. It would be a bad career move to get on Clear Channel's bad side.

This bring me to what, I think, is most dangerous about them. It's no big secret that Clear Channel leans pretty heavily to the political right. I'd hate to think that Clear Channel would use it's marketplace clout to advance this agenda, but I wouldn't put it past them. I don't really think corporations should have a political leaning, but that's a lost cause. At the least I would like to know that field is open enough that voices from all sides would have access to an audience. I fear that in today's media this is not the case. There is little room left for outsiders, dissidents, and non-commercial fare. There was a time, within my memory, when radio was a local phenomenon, and there was a local color and personality to the stations, but as the companies grow larger and more centralized, and grow more and more interested in market research their product becomes homoginized, bland, and less and less interesting.

Where's the room for your local scene when Clear Channel comes in? What happened to the local DJ who could take requests and turn you on to something new? It's a sad state of affairs, and I don't think there's any chance of ever getting that back. As I recall it was Billy Joel who wrote, "So I learned to dance with a hand in my pants, I rub my neck and I write 'em a check, and they go their merry way," and that was before deregulation. Imagine it now.

When you think about it, most of the movies you see, TV shows you watch, and Music you listen to are under the control of a few people who would fit around a poker table. That's an awful lot of influence on our lives, and I guarantee that the music they're listening to isn't particularly good. Still, we play into their hands. We go and see their movies. We watch their TV programs. We listen to the music they want us to. Is it because they now have the power to research what we really want and cater to that, or are we just too lazy to find the alternative. I suspect it's the latter. There is a lot of good music still out there, a lot of good foreign and independent films, and some local stations we should patronize before they're gone.

Here in Albuquerque Clear Channel owns at least nine stations including, ironically, Radio Free Santa Fe. They also own the Journal Pavilion, out most popular concert venue. I drive by their local office nearly every day. I drive by their billboards all over town. The one thing I don't do is listen to their programming. You can do what you like, of course. Forcing people to believe a particular idea is exactly what I'm warning against. It's your choice, but if we're not careful and don't start supporting the alternatives we may as well just well just go buy the t-shirt and get it over with now.

All in all, it makes you wonder who the fish in the barrel are. Us or Them.

Currently listening to: Pulp Fiction Soundtrack
Currently reading: Richard Butz - How to Carve Wood
Last Netflix movie: The Missing