Sunday, July 11, 2004
Left out
I've never liked Clear Channel. First, they bought up hundreds of radio stations across the country, saturating markets with pre-programmed drivel. They utterly ruined radio in my hometown of Houston, for example; I just don't try to listen anymore there.
Then, I went to a concert they sponsored about 4 years ago. Ever since, they've sent me spam, and I couldn't get them to stop.
In one part of Florida, their radio market saturation went beyong the legal limit for a single station, so they just set up "separate" stations operated from their own facilities.
Then they gave hundreds of thousands to Bush, organized pro-Iraq war rallies, and censored the Dixie Chicks.
But what really burns me up is this blatant effort to censor a mild, reasonable anti-war message. They may be breaching a contract; they are certainly censoring one side of a large public debate. When a single corporation owns a large share of the nation's media markets, seeks to expand that share by lobbying for regulatory changes, and frequently takes sides by censoring one perspective and promoting another, not just in editorials but paid advertisements, we have a big problem. The freedom to speak and the freedom of press are fundamental to the wellbeing of Amercian democracy, and laissez-faire will not always get us either liberty.
Disney wanted to keep F9/11 out of theaters, where it has turned out to be a hit. Millions of Americans apparently want to see things the media downplays as "unpatriotic" or "fringe". They want the unvarnished truth about Bush, and they want a real debate about major public issues. Not the non-debate the media held over the war in 2002, when they trotted out the right and center-right hawks to admit the inevitability of war. For the mainstream media, commentators come in two flavors: right and middle. Left is just left out.
Today, the right has Rush Limbaugh broadcasting hate and deceit on Armed Forces Radio. The left has the Freeway blogger. And why not? If he wanted to pay for billboards, perhaps he'd find that the billboard owners were afraid of ruffling the wrong feathers.
Then, I went to a concert they sponsored about 4 years ago. Ever since, they've sent me spam, and I couldn't get them to stop.
In one part of Florida, their radio market saturation went beyong the legal limit for a single station, so they just set up "separate" stations operated from their own facilities.
Then they gave hundreds of thousands to Bush, organized pro-Iraq war rallies, and censored the Dixie Chicks.
But what really burns me up is this blatant effort to censor a mild, reasonable anti-war message. They may be breaching a contract; they are certainly censoring one side of a large public debate. When a single corporation owns a large share of the nation's media markets, seeks to expand that share by lobbying for regulatory changes, and frequently takes sides by censoring one perspective and promoting another, not just in editorials but paid advertisements, we have a big problem. The freedom to speak and the freedom of press are fundamental to the wellbeing of Amercian democracy, and laissez-faire will not always get us either liberty.
Disney wanted to keep F9/11 out of theaters, where it has turned out to be a hit. Millions of Americans apparently want to see things the media downplays as "unpatriotic" or "fringe". They want the unvarnished truth about Bush, and they want a real debate about major public issues. Not the non-debate the media held over the war in 2002, when they trotted out the right and center-right hawks to admit the inevitability of war. For the mainstream media, commentators come in two flavors: right and middle. Left is just left out.
Today, the right has Rush Limbaugh broadcasting hate and deceit on Armed Forces Radio. The left has the Freeway blogger. And why not? If he wanted to pay for billboards, perhaps he'd find that the billboard owners were afraid of ruffling the wrong feathers.
