Re: WBUR takes on Clear Channel

["Dan Billings" <billings@suscom-maine.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "TC Cheever" <tc@chaostheory.com>
To: "BRI" <bri@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: WBUR takes on Clear Channel


 > What's wrong with it could be any of the following:
>
> 1) There have been larger accusations that Clear Channel has created,
> sponsored and/or promoted pro-Iraq involvement rallies, leading to the
> question of whether they're then manufacturing the news that they then
> cover.

Media outlets sponsor all sorts of events that they also cover, from
concerts to art shows to parades.

> 2) As a broadcast entity, they are-- unlike a printed publication--
> regulated by the FCC. So that further leads to the question of whether
> the overt pro-war stance reflects a genuine editorial policy, or is an
> opportunistic attempt to curry favor with the current administration so
> that the action is remember if/when ownership rules are revisited.
>
> There is a relevant news article on the Chicago Tribune website:
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0303190157mar19.story

That would be a pretty risky strategy.  The party in power could change next
year.

I think Clear Channel is motivated by one thing: money!  The polls show most
Americans are now behind the war.  It's rally around the flag time and Clear
Channel is playing to that trend.

There were plenty of Rock stations in the late 1960s/early 1970s that played
to the anti-war crowd because that was much of their audience.  Clear
Channel is playing to their audience today.

The idea that a company would spend billions of dollars buying radio
stations and then leave fundamental decisions to low level managers at the
local level is ridiculous.  Clear Channel has a fiduciary obligation to
their shareholders.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine