Sweet. Clear Channel sends memo to stations, which are not to play any tracks from the new Bruce Springsteen album, though it’s the No. 1 album in the country.
Gee, this couldn’t have anything to do with Springsteen’s speaking out against the administration, could it?
I take solace, however, in the fact that Clear Channel’s realm, commercial radio, is dying. Hopefully Clear Channel shall die along with it; and here’s to a protracted, painful death.
23 comments
Tags: Wingers
| Artie See 10/30/07 10:09 PM | And they wonder why the legacy media is dying a slow and painful death... |
| cyberscribbler 10/31/07 8:15 AM | QUOTE Clear Channel sends memo to stations, which are not to play any tracks from the new Bruce Springsteen album, though it’s the No. 1 album in the country. But, but supply/demand is supposed to determine what get's played on the radio. Yea right |
| hahaha 10/31/07 8:45 AM | Will that not fit in to the supply/demand concept? If the listeners want to hear the songs and clear channel won't play them what do you think people will do? Switch to a station that plays them. Down goes clear channel's ratings along with it's advertising dollars. Supply and demand. |
| cyberscribbler 10/31/07 8:57 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Oct 31 2007, 08:45 AM) [snapback]333095[/snapback] clear channel won't play them But if the FCC mandated that they played certain songs, it would be market interference. It's only a true market if both sides are participating unfettered. |
| UncommonSense 10/31/07 9:07 AM | The anti-Springsteen accusation comes from, by all appearance, someone with their own anti-amdinistration sentiment. Perhaps they are seeing what they want to see. Second, if Clear Channel doesn't want to play any particular artist, so be it. There channel, there stations, they can play what entertainment they want. Unless they are financially harming the artists (and if the sales are as reported by the stories cited, they aren't) there is no story here. Just another rant angainst the big, bad "wingers", as launched by the chief "complainer"...  I imagine there are stations / dj's that don't play Toby Keith either. And, for the record, I think GWMoron is a lousy president. I think my posts back that up, so don't talk about carrying the chief DWE's water. |
| gsmart 10/31/07 9:19 AM | QUOTE(UncommonSense @ Oct 31 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]333103[/snapback] Second, if Clear Channel doesn't want to play any particular artist, so be it. There channel, there stations, they can play what entertainment they want. Unless they are financially harming the artists (and if the sales are as reported by the stories cited, they aren't) there is no story here. Absolutely. And even if they were "harming" the artist, it's still their stations, and they can do what they want. But it's eminently worthwhile for the public to know that this corporation is making its playlist decisions on a political basis. If I owned a radio station/company that competed against Clear Channel, that'd be the basis of my advertising: Clear Channel doesn't want you to hear the new Springsteen, so we're playing it all day long. Because Clear Channel apparently believes, at this juncture, that attempting to curry favor with the current administration and a movement that is in its last throes is going to pay dividends down the road. It's not dawned upon them that the price they pay could be greater than the one Springsteen pays. But I think it will... |
| Shawn 10/31/07 9:37 AM | QUOTE(hahaha @ Oct 31 2007, 08:45 AM) [snapback]333095[/snapback] Will that not fit in to the supply/demand concept? If the listeners want to hear the songs and clear channel won't play them what do you think people will do? Switch to a station that plays them. Down goes clear channel's ratings along with it's advertising dollars. Supply and demand. This is exactly why regular radio is going to get its A$$ kicked by sattelite radio, and why the NAB is shaking in in its boots at the prospect of the XM/Sirius Merger. Later...Shawn |
| palmer 10/31/07 9:47 AM | QUOTE But it's eminently worthwhile for the public to know that this corporation is making its playlist decisions on a political basis. Is there concrete evidence of this? It really does not matter much to me as I listen to satellite radio and have probably listened to terristrial radio maybe two hours in the past three years. My newest car came with satellite radio included. The FM/AM radio presets have never been touched. Just sayin'. |
| cyberscribbler 10/31/07 9:49 AM | I'll be requesting Bruce's Magic be played on the River, since it's our local home to real rock-n-roll variety. Otherwise there's a little truth in advertising issue they need to own up to. Also Clear Channel is involved in a class action lawsuit QUOTE a United States District Court judge gave the green light to a class-action lawsuit claiming Clear Channel Communications Inc. -- the nation's largest media and entertainment company -- used its market dominance to illegally inflate ticket prices to live rock concerts across the country. When XM/Sirius starts behaving like Comcast, think of watershed moments like these. http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clear_Channel QUOTE The Clear Channel's activities go beyond radio. In March 2003, its affiliate stations throughout the United States organized pro-war rallies, under the name of Rally for America, to coincide with the Bush administration's launch of war with Iraq. "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," reported Paul Krugman in the New York Times. Although Clear Channel denied sponsoring the rallies, "they were promoted repeatedly by the company's widely syndicated radio personality, Glenn Beck."[5] |
| Daisy Lee Myers 10/31/07 10:16 AM | CLEAR CHANNEL is going private in December(unless the FCC doesn't approve). CC doesn't have to answer to any whinny-a$$ shareholders or anyone else..... including Bruce Springsteen! Clear Channel Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications DAISY PS- FOLLOW THE MONEY NOT THE POLITICS OF ANY COMPANY! FIDELITY WAS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER OF CLEAR CHANNEL(BEFORE GOING PRIVATE). they ain't RE"PUBIC"AN to me! |
| Shawn 10/31/07 11:01 AM | QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Oct 31 2007, 09:49 AM) [snapback]333122[/snapback] When XM/Sirius starts behaving like Comcast, think of watershed moments like these. If Comcast is allowed to behave like Comcast, why shouldn't xm/sirius. If the merger happens, and I don't like the resulting product/price, I am free to cancel my subscription. I will have no problem living my life without satellite radio, or regular radio for that matter. At least I'd still have a choice. If XM and Sirius compete each other into banckruptcy, what good does it do me? Later...Shawn |
| cyberscribbler 10/31/07 11:35 AM | QUOTE(Shawn @ Oct 31 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]333151[/snapback] ...I will have no problem living my life without... Those are usually the only choices in a gilded age.Later...Shawn Introduce a must have product, once it becomes the only game in town, who's there to offer a viable alternative to nothing? |
| Shawn 10/31/07 1:58 PM | QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Oct 31 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]333159[/snapback] Those are usually the only choices in a gilded age. Introduce a must have product, once it becomes the only game in town, who's there to offer a viable alternative to nothing? Hmm, I'm not sure I see the point. However, I could understand the uproar if somehow xm/sirius or the government were preventing another sattelite company from getting into the game. However, that isn't the case. If two companies want to merge to remain viable I don't understand the problem with that. If they get full of themselves, and the market exists, others will step in to offer an alternative. Kind of like Dish is doing to Comcast. I really don't see how the government can prevent this. If worse comes to worse, XM could always declare bankruptcy, disolve, and sell off its assets to Sirius. Later...Shawn |
| grieker 10/31/07 2:00 PM | QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Oct 31 2007, 08:15 AM) [snapback]333087[/snapback] But, but supply/demand is supposed to determine what get's played on the radio. Yea right No, the owner gets to determine what gets played on the radio. Supply and demand determines how long the owner is in business. The Chicksy Dicks have also been "banned" from quite a few outlets as well. This has been going on for decades. |
| cyberscribbler 10/31/07 2:16 PM | QUOTE(Shawn @ Oct 31 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]333214[/snapback] If two companies want to merge to remain viable I don't understand the problem As long as it's show the merger will help them remain competetive. It's when it's done to dominate the market and stifle competition is where it becomes troublesome.Later...Shawn QUOTE(grieker @ Oct 31 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]333217[/snapback] The Chicksy Dicks have also been "banned" from quite a few outlets as well. Which turned out to be a quite a boom for them.Censorship is only OK when it's silencing the other guy's opinion. |
| Shawn 10/31/07 3:42 PM | QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Oct 31 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]333220[/snapback] As long as it's show the merger will help them remain competetive. It's when it's done to dominate the market and stifle competition is where it becomes troublesome. Which turned out to be a quite a boom for them. Censorship is only OK when it's silencing the other guy's opinion. In this case, I don't see how the merger would stifle competition. In fact, the very fact that the NAB is fighting so hard to stop the merger shows that this merger is going to actually increase competetion such that satellite will be competing with regular radio. I agree with your point about censorship. This "controversy" is probably the best thing that could have happened to Bruce. I didn't even know he had a new album out until I saw this thread. Secondly, the mere fact that Clear Channel doesn't want me to hear the record has encouraged me to pick up a copy. Later...Shawn |
| grieker 10/31/07 3:47 PM | QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Oct 31 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]333220[/snapback] As long as it's show the merger will help them remain competetive. It's when it's done to dominate the market and stifle competition is where it becomes troublesome. Which turned out to be a quite a boom for them. Censorship is only OK when it's silencing the other guy's opinion. Boom, I'd check their revenues over the past 4 years before making that statement. |
| Lysol54 10/31/07 3:57 PM | QUOTE(grieker @ Oct 31 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]333217[/snapback] The Chicksy Dicks have also been "banned" from quite a few outlets as well. LOL you come up with that name all by yourself?? They are probally banned in a few places in TX and thats it. But we all know people from TX are alittle slow to begin with so...... |
| bigstew 10/31/07 6:03 PM | They own it. Let them do as they wish. And as far as censorship, only government censorship is a violation of our constitution. |
| palmer 10/31/07 7:20 PM | QUOTE I agree with your point about censorship. This "controversy" is probably the best thing that could have happened to Bruce. I didn't even know he had a new album out until I saw this thread. Secondly, the mere fact that Clear Channel doesn't want me to hear the record has encouraged me to pick up a copy. Agree with Shawn on this. I did not know he even had an album out. Like the old saying goes, "any publicity is good publicity". I like the Dixie Chicks music. I have a couple of their albums (CD's). I think that individually they are three stupid chicks. But, I don't care about their political ideology or thoughts on really anything. They are musicians to me and I appreciate their music. Nothing more. Same goes for all celebrities. There celebrity status by no means makes them an authority on much of anything, especially politics. Why would I listen or even give a crap what they have to say. When they run their mouths I only hear Charlie Brown's teacher. |
| hahaha 10/31/07 8:30 PM | Fortunately you have 1/2 a brain. There is an entire segment of our society that will do whatever the celebs tell them. |
| grieker 11/1/07 7:28 AM | QUOTE(Lysol54 @ Oct 31 2007, 03:57 PM) [snapback]333243[/snapback] LOL you come up with that name all by yourself?? They are probally banned in a few places in TX and thats it. But we all know people from TX are alittle slow to begin with so...... Must go the same for the people of Atlanta? Yep, won't here them there. |
| cyberscribbler 11/1/07 8:54 AM | The new Bruce song that is getting airplay adds some insight into the controversy Radio Nowhere This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there? I was spinnin' 'round a dead dial Just another lost number in a file Dancin' down a dark hole Just searchin' for a world with some soul |
