Re: Corperate radio/Clear Channel

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Wed, 09 May 2001 21:51:36 +0000 dan.strassberg@att.net writes:
> 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.
>
Just to look at one aspect of Pols and broadcasters.  IIRC stations MUST
accept advertising from candidates for Federal office, but that is not
the case in other races, look at how WBZ refused to accept political ads
from candidates for Boston City Council in the last election.  At the
time management said they were adequately covering the council races
through news stories, however it was then and is now very rare  to hear a
Boston political story that impacts only Boston neighborhoods (like a
local station would do)  Even when former BZer Jacquie Goddard was the
mayor's press secretary she had to practically beg for coverage of events
not only from BZ but from everyone else in town as well.

df
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.