[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Legal Payola?
- Subject: Re: Legal Payola?
- From: Bill Piacentini <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 16:23:55 -0500
>>Paying for airplay is legal as long as the station announces it; and that's
>>just what KUFO did. It used a produced announcement before the track
>>identifying it as a new song "brought to you by Flip/Interscope."
>>Aren't the 90's so politically correct?
At 10:43 AM 3/18/98 EST, Shawn Mamros wrote:
>I can't imagine what "political correctness" (a term so overused by now
>as to be completely meaningless) has to do with it.
>How is paying for a song to air (as long as it's announced) any different
>from a commercial for any other product? After all, commercial radio
>(and a lot of non-commercial radio too) is a business...
I was referring to the striving for correctness in everything that's done
and said so that no one is the least offended by the action, even one as
blatant as this is. In this particular case, without the "brought to you
by...", the station's legal consultant would have advised the station it was
leaving itself open for a lawsuit or at least some offended listeners. After
all, without the announcement("brought to you by...") some listeners might
have thought that the DJ/MD actually liked the song enough to play it. LOL
I believe in an even playing field. If radio stations that play music
suddenly allowed the Record Labels to dictate programming (and I call it
programming and not a commercial) it's a sad state of affairs. The record in
question stands alone on its merit (or lack of). Remember, other stations
will play the same record without being paid. That is not MY definition of a
It's difficult to find a good analogy in any other medium.