Re: Corperate radio/Clear Channel

[dan.strassberg@att.net]

OK, let's ask a slightly different question. Can you 
cite any example of an activity that the US government 
had regulated, then decided to deregulate, and then 
successfully reregulated? If at least one such exists, 
maybe there's a precedent for reregulating broadcasting.

But realistically, what are the chances? Broadcasting is 
important to politicians because it figures heavily in 
getting out political messages during campaigns. 
Therefore, politicians have always served broadcasters' 
interests as opposed to the interests of the general 
public. I'm referring here to the interests of the 
larger broadcast groups, not to those of the dying breed 
of mom-and-pop stations.

The big groups won't let the politicians forget what 
they want. These groups will spend BIG money to ensure 
the election of politicians who favor their interests.

Even if the public (outside of the munuscule number of 
radio geeks, such as ourselves) cared fervently about 
broadcasting, which (except maybe for the monthly cable 
bill) it patently doesn't, all of the concern of 280 
million Americans wouldn't mean as much to our elected 
officials as the concern of one man--Lowry Mays. When it 
comes to elections, he puts his money where his mouth is 
and he gets what he wants.

> Unless you're referring to the mess created by docket 80-90, the
> government didn't make the current mess -- indeed, the current mess
> was created precisely as a reaction to the government stepping aside
> and refusing to regulate what had been tightly regulated for 64 years.