Clear Channel (was Re: rock club question)

[Mick]

Howard Stern was pulled for more than Bush bashing. The fines he amassed CC 
and loss of sponsors was the number one reason. Yes, they are a right-wing 
company, but Stern, by contract, could have sued if they just yanked him for 
Bush bashing. His comments about Bush might have added to the final straw, 
but it was not the end all, be all for the release of his show from CC 
stations.

The Dixie Chicks, I know nothing about. Would be cool to know more about 
that.

What is Manny's vested interest here? They do not compete with him. They do 
not stop his shows. They do not limit what shows he does. They do not tell 
him what bands to book or not to book as it might be. If I am wrong tell me 
how.

--Mick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian J. Parker" <beep at telerama.com>


> The minimal research of plugging '"Clear Channel" republican' into Google
> isn't too tough, if one wishes to explore links between the media giant
> and the Republican party.  Some of their controversial decisions that
> indicate a likely right-wing bias are well-known: pulling Howard Stern's
> show after he criticized Bush, removing the Dixie Chicks and other
> peacenik artists from their playlists.  But there's more, if you have
> time.
>
> Not that one could blame them or be surprised: generally, Republicans want
> to remove restrictions on businesses, including monopoly laws that inhibit
> the growth of giant media conglomerates like Clear Channel.  Democrats
> tend to be more regulatory.
>
> Political inclinations aside, it's easy to argue that Clear Channel hurts
> consumer choice.  It takes little research to realize their vast reach;
> they own multiple radio stations in most cities and leverage that monopoly
> to control which concerts appear.  As a result, less musical choice is
> available to the consumer, and they don't need to compete to provide
> higher quality or lower prices.  Manny has a vested interest, of course,
> but he's right on.
>
> Mick, your argument that there are better companies to boycott is fairly
> facile (though I suspect you know that and just like winding Manny up).
> To take an example: I could probably afford to give $1000 to help feed
> starving children.  But I'm selfish and spend $900 on myself, then give
> $100 to an animal shelter.  Should I just have spent that $100 on myself
> since I didn't give every possible cent to the best possible charity?  Or
> is it better to do a little than nothing at all?  I'd argue the latter any
> day.
>
>
> Brian
>
> P.S. - Google 'Rupert Murdoch' while you're at it, and boycott Fox.
> Stream Air America radio.  Write your congressman.  Vote.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pgh-goth-list mailing list
> pgh-goth-list at listless.org
> http://www.listless.org/mailman/listinfo/pgh-goth-list
>