Boxer just said Clear Channel banning the Chicks was like Nazis

[plurality]

burning books! (Full title wouldn't fit in line)

Calling the Fascists out on media consolidation! Boxer rocks!

[rock]

1. Duh

Of course, what more can you expect from the BFEE? They're Nazis, if nothing.

[joeybee12]

2. Where did she say this?

On the Senate floor???

[plurality]

4. in Commerce commitee discuss FCC issues

media consolidation, etc. Right now they're grilling Clear Chanel about banning the chicks.

[wtmusic]

15. Also a serious conflict of interest because

the commerce department put major pressure on the FCC to push the rule changes through.

[stopthegop]

3. sorry...that's just plain silly

there's a world of difference between the state (Nazis) destroying/preventing speech vs. a private entertainment company choosing not to convey speech...not a valid comparison

[plurality]

5. not when

a Clear Channel station sponsored a rally where a bulldozer came and crushed a pile of Dixie Chicks CDs, that's quite a fitting analogy I'd say.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. No

If they did it to the property of OTHERS, yes. But if they did it to property they own, it's a marketing ploy.

[plurality]

8. so destroying piles of CDs

bears no similarity to burning piles of books to you huh? What if Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc, etc decided they weren't going to sell liberal books any more and had burning parties for them (Barnes and Borders owns these books mind you), would that fly in your mind?

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. If they pay for them

Then they can do what they want with them. Sure it would be sick, but that's their business. And, if they stop selling liberal books, I'd open a bookstore in a heartbeat and make a fortune.

[plurality]

13. is there a single progressive thought in your head?

Tell me, what views of yours could be considered progressive, because I'm at a loss and I'd seriously like to know.

[Terwilliger]

27. no

look at his nickname

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Not a single one

Many instead. (You might take note of my avatar and personal hero.) Also many middle of the road thoughts and some conservative ones.

Personally, I hate book burning. I don't even throw away books if I don't like them. I always trade them in or donate them. However, if Barnes & Noble chooses NOT to sell certain books, it's their business decision, not mine. They are not the state.

[plurality]

43. where do you draw the line between public interest and private companies?

Because there has to be some restriction on what businesses are free to do? Or do you think companies should be free to not hire or do business with minoritiesas an excercise of there freedom to run their business the way they want?

And I'll remind you that the Nazi book burnings were not state induced. They were the result of a people swept up in hysteria that voluntarily burned their own books either out of zeal or fear out of not joining the masses. Clear Channel's actions and incitements are very remniscent of those events and should be repudiated and not condoned.

[TheUnionDemocrat]

53. Libera, Conservative, Middle of the Road...

...It doesn't matter, he's right.

Boxer was a fool for making such a far reaching comparison. Privately owned companies can chose to play (Or crush) any CD they like and it has NOTHING to do with Nazism or "Book Burning". Such foolish comments do NOTHING but lessen REAL examples of REAL problems.

I'm curious, would you demand Christian stations play Black Sabbath??

[plurality]

56. this has nothing to do with market prefernces or their niche

The Dixie Chicks were and are popular artists that Clear Channel had no problem playing until they opened their mouthes, in a situation that had nothing to do with Clear Channel. Tell me something, if your boss reads what you post on DU from home and doesn't like it, should he be free to fire you, even though it had nothing to do with your job?

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. If

If I post it from my job on work time or using work materials. Or if it materially impacts my job. Otherwise no.

[plurality]

79. well that's about the same thing Clear Channel did

The Dixie Chicks said something on their own time, hell they weren't even in the country. And Clear Channel essentially fired them for it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Not at all

What the Dixie Chicks did impacted their status as celebrities. When a radio station plays performers, it takes on their baggage as well. The same happens with tons of stars. If they do something dumb or unpopular, it impacts their fan support and stations drop them. THAT is what happened here. CC made a business decision not to be affiliated with the Chicks. Such is life.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. I disagree. Boxer is getting at the REAL source of the REAL problem

Bile replacing discourse thanks to the likes of Clear Channel which has BOUGHT the right to own so many stations by stealing the airwaves from the public through bribery.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. Wow strict construction logic in action!

Except the symbolism of STEAMROLLING CD's is akin to burning books. When one company owns so many outlets at the "pleasure of the state" when they have contributed scads of dough to the state to pleasure them please distinguish the symbolism for me. The MO has changed, the message is clear!

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Pleasure of the state

Sorry, but the airwaves might be that in theory but not in practice. In practice, you can do pretty much whatever you want on your station as long as it's not too sexual in nature.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. Sorry but the airwaves exist in the public interest.

Is nazi symbolism in the public interest? BTW, there are far more restrictions than that and there are many things one must do. Ever read FCC regs? Ever obtained an FCC license?

[TheUnionDemocrat]

55. Do you remember "Disco Demolition"?

They blew-up a HUGE stack of Disco records in center field of Komiski Park in Chicago.

Was the "Anti-Disco Nazism"??

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. There is a difference between humor and political symbolism

I have concerns for people who cannot distinguish. The Disco event was humor. It was also during a time when there was LOTS of competition for the airwaves...their view was not presented as the prevailing view expressed on the airwaves so consumers had the ability to boycott them by not listening to their station. Now if a consumer listens to radio in a major market, they merely end up changing from one Clear Channel station to another.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

46. Clear Channel is chartered by the government

It bribes/contributes to politicians, the government protects its market and spectrum, and the FCC is basically an inside lobbyist for ClearChannel.

No, ClearChannel is not "the government" but it is pertty damned close to a government agency, as all the major national companies are, especially the media."

ClearChannel is NOT just a group of people who are conservative and don't like the Dixie Chicks. I hope everyone can see the difference between a private group doing something like burning books or crushing CDs, and a major media corporation, supporting the Republicans, banning dissenting voices from the airwaves.

[plurality]

9. and let's not forget

that the decision restricted the right to convey speech on public airways! Radio stations don't own airwaves the public does, the government leases the airwaves to them, so in essence they are acting as a pseudo-government entity in this regard.

[wtmusic]

14. The problem goes back to

the immense power that small groups can wield these days over the populace. Muddle is right that CC has the right to do whatever they want to with their CD's.

When a company owns 1200 radio stations nationwide, however, the effect is that free speech has been restricted.

And now TV. The FCC f*cked up.

[plurality]

17. there's a limit for private companies actions

where do you draw the line? Muddle seems to be saying it's ok for huge corporations to restrict speech that they more or less control due to their huge influence because it is, after all, their company and they can do what they want with it. Using that logic, then it should also be ok for those, or any company for that matter, to fire all blacks and have an all white work force, because it's their company and they can run it how they want. So once again, how far do we let these companies go? They already more or less rule our country, so are we going to let them get away with stuff that would cause us to revolt if our government did it?

[wtmusic]

21. We should never have let CC get that far

and it's going to be hard as hell to put the genie back in the bottle. I heard FCC commission member Michael Copps speak in May re: rule changes and he was aghast.

In an "open" society where many different viewpoints are free to flourish it's not a problem.

[Michael Daniels]

16. Using your argument, MSNBC's decision to fire Savage restricted his rights

Sorry, but it's the same thing. Someone got punished for saying something that the company that broadcasts their "views" found offensive.

Was Savage more offensive in his comments? Without a doubt.

But CC stations have a responsibility to maximize the profits for their owners and if playing the Dixie Chicks was going to lose them listeners and by consequence advertisers it was within their right to discontinue playing the music.

If MSNBC thought that Savages remarks would have increased their viewers to you think they would have axed him? Not a chance.

[plurality]

20. nope because his speech was made while acting on the job

MSNBC has a right to control what he says in his role as TV (and I use this term VERY loosely) journalist. A similar analogy to the Dixie Chicks would be if you got fired from your job for what you post on DU at home.

[Quahog]

48. Yeah, this is the big issue here

The whole reason that the FCC ruling stinks so badly is that we are dealing with a limited quantity of a public asset. There's theoretically no limit to the number of bookstores that could be built to counter a liberal book ban by B&N (although, obviously, there are limits dictated by supply and demand, retail space availability, etc). But radio stations are finite in number. That's why there are rules in the first place about the number that can be held by a single legal entity.

If the biggest holder of this public trust makes a very visible statement in favor of censorship of dissent, then yes, I think that the parallel to Nazi book burning, while not precise, is at the very least apt.

[RichM]

10. Sorry, the comparison is quite valid, because the "private company,"

plus a handful of its confreres, actually has BECOME the state, in this country. Like all its brethren, Clear Channel did this to protect the political party that granted it massive deregulation favors.

What's more, they didn't merely "choose not to convey speech." They organized a bulldozer event to physically destroy Dixie Chicks' CD's, & blacklisted their music.

[Dhalgren]

64. When the Nazis had their book burnings

it wasn't federal officers who came into town and burned books. It was groups of private citizens, swept up in the Nazi hysteria who burned the books. It isn't a question of "who owns the items being burned or bulldozed, the question is who has the right to destroy opposing viewpoints.

[Iris]

18. the intent was the same

to shut them up and create an atmosphere where dissent was snuffed out.

[Jack Rabbit]

47. No, there is no effective difference

There is no effective difference when the concentration of media ownership is at the level where it is taday. What most people see and hear is decided by a handful of rich and powerful people. The recent FCC ruling further relaxing the rules of ownership will only exacerbate this problem.

Democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal;
• Each citizen has an equal oppornity to participate in and influence civic affars;
• A set of guaranteed civil liberties is in place to assure that will be full, free and open discsourse on civic affairs.

The purpose of a free and independent press is to facilitate the discourse by disseminating a wide range of ideas, opinion and information. Corporate-sponsored media, left to itself, will foster only propaganda that serves the needs of the wealthy elite that own the media outlets. With fewer owners in play and fewer obligations to broadcast opposing points of view, this problem has reached a crisis.

The recent war against Iraq was made possible in part because the media failed to inform the public of what citizens in a democractic society need to know to make an informed decision. One public opinion survey after another have shown that Americans believe at alarming levels that Saddam was responsible for the September 11 attacks and that he supported al-Qaida. Neither perception is true. Yet talking heads did little or nothing to challenge this perception.

Corporate censorship is as anti-democratic as government censorship. By allowing for the concentration of media ownership in fewer and more homogenous hands with no obligation to broadcast facts and opinion that run counter to their private interests, we have reached a state where we must now question whether America in 2003 is still a democracy. The wealthy elite have a greater influence on civic affairs by their ownership of the media and their decisions about what the public will see and hear.

The fictitious Charles Foster Kane said, "I'm something of an expert on what the public will think." Indeed, we are in a situation where all but an insignificant piece of the media is owned by clones of Kane, arrogating for themselves the power to tell the public what to think.

[northernsoul]

66. but Clear Channel operates on the publilc airwaves

which means the public has a compelling interest in how they use "our" property.

[realFedUp]

7. but the fireworks over the Rose Bowl, paid for by CC were

spectacular...maybe the Dixie Chicks could pay for
next year's though as delicious irony.

[plurality]

12. yeah and all those choice freeper rallies

sponsored and promoted by Clear Channel stations, that wasn't an example of promoting their political speech while restricting others.

[stopthegop]

22. there's a difference between restricting speech

and choosing not to help convey...do you agree? otherwise DU is 'restricting speech' by kicking people off of here...

If CC or Barnes and Noble owns CDs or books or whatever, it's private property that can be disposed of however they see fit...

if you throw away a book you don't like are you restricting the author's speech?

[plurality]

24. it is restricting speech

when said company owns 6 of 9 radio stations in a market, and especially when at the same time of restricting speech they are promoting speech pointing in the opposite direction.

[stopthegop]

25. no it's not...

they didn't stop the Chicks from playing their music or talking, they just didn't help

[plurality]

26. but they prevented people from hearing them

and let's not forget, their restriction of speech wasn't limited to the chicks, at the same time anti-war groups were trying to buy ads on radio stations and clear channel refused to sell them time, because, 'they don't do advocay ads.' Yet they can sponsor pro-war rallies. Nice

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20030328175202.asp

The anti-war message is also difficult to hear on radio, where more and more stations are owned by huge corporations like Clear Channel Communications.

[stopthegop]

28. no...last time...

they 'prevented' no one from hearing the music...they just declined to help them hear...if you see no difference we'll have to agree to disagree...have a good day

[plurality]

30. what about refusing antiwar ads while promoting pro-war rallies?

You think all's fine and dandy with that as well?

[stopthegop]

32. I wouldn't...but it's their radio station...

it's called freedom...it's messy

on edit: should ieamerica be forced to air ads for Focus on the Family?

[plurality]

45. this isn't about a radio station

this is about a company that controls a majority of the radio stations in the country, in some instances 6 of 9 stations in a market.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. How about forcing

DU to run ads for Faux News? It's the same thing.

[plurality]

44. as I recall DU was forced to have a popup

for Bush's Health care initiative so that doesn't really work. And DU also doesn't control 60% of the internet while Clear Channel controls 60% of the radio stations in America.

[stopthegop]

65. forced to have a popup how?

by what gov't entity?

[plurality]

69. but the company that owns the webspace

that should be 'by'

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. No it isn't. DU does NOT need an FCC license to operate

DU does NOT have to follow any FCC rules and is akin to a phone conversation rather than a BROADCAST.

[stopthegop]

31. also

are you saying the stations should be forced to play Chicks music?

[plurality]

35. no I'm not

but that decision should be based on whether people want to listen to them or not, not what they say. Yes, people called some Clear Channel stations and said we don't want to hear the Chicks, in those instances the individual stations could stop playing them, thus leaving areas where the people didn't care, free to listen to them. Instead Clear Channel made a corporate decision that affected the entire country.

Also, as I said before, where should the limit be, corporations controll all mass media in our country, so the can effectivly squash any speech on a national level that they don't like. Should they be free to do this if they want, because it's their company? What if there was a presidential candidate that all the media companies didn't like, should they be free to boycott any and all coverage of that candidate from the airwaves, even if it's a major candidate?

[stopthegop]

39. given the choice between

the private company deciding what to air, and the gov't requiring them to air certain things (consider the current administration) ...I will come down on the private company deciding every time

[Michael Daniels]

49. They prevented people from hearing them? Please.....

I love listening to Nick Cave and Richard Thompson but I'd be willing to bet that outside of college markets no radio station plays Nick Cave and outside of public radio very few stations play Richard Thompson.

Does that mean Richard and Nick's right to free speech was intruded upon by the radio stations?

I'm sorry but no commercial entitiy is obligated to expose any specific entertainer (singer, actor, poet, author) to the mass public.

Now, I'm not for what Clear Channel did, or rather, I would have preferred that they asked their listeners whether they still wanted to hear the Dixie Chicks vs. arbitrarily shutting them down altogether.

However, there are other avenues in which the Dixie Chicks have the opportunity to get their music out such as concerts, videos, library rentals of CD's, internet downloading, etc. and therefore the whole suppression of speech argument is still flawed.

[plurality]

50. they suppressed their speech

by hitting them economically for their polical views. Essentially saying, 'Watch what you say, or you won't get paid.' Who would speak out again if they saw that doing so would cause them to lose their livelyhood?

[stopthegop]

61. sorta like boycotting advertisers on Rush Limbaugh? n/t

.

[plurality]

63. Limbaugh is paid for his opinions

The Dixie Chicks are paid for their music, their opinion on politics has nothing to do with it, and shouldn't be used by their 'employer'.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Wrong

THEY made their politics an issue. They are entertainers just like LimpBalls. It's the same thing. You just don't like it because the shoe is on the other foot.

[plurality]

80. but it wasn't done in a way that has anything to do

with their relationship to Clear Channel. Clear Channel has to sign a contract to play their music on the air, and Clear Channel broke that contract by discontinuing to play their songs because of something said in a completely unconnected area. Should Clear Channel also be able to quit playing their music if the Dixie Chicks came out and said they were gay if Clear Channel didn't like it?

[Michael Daniels]

83. Since when do radio stations sign contracts to play music?

Outside of "play to pay" agreements which are pretty close to payola and are done between the record label representatives and radio stations when do radio stations sign contracts to play music?

If CC and the Dixie Chicks' label had a "play to pay" situation then I would see your point but outside of that kind of agreement their stations wouldn't be obligated to play anything they chose not to play.

There are time periods where stations have to record what they play but that's strictly for royalty purposes to ASCAP and BMI and not out of an obligation to the artist.

And, if CC wants to ban the DC's for supporting gay rights or being gay (theoretically) then once again that is their right. If memory serves, a lot of country stations dropped K.D. Lang when she came out against beef and just plain old came out.

[plurality]

87. so if CC can theoretically not play DC for being gay

then do you also think they can fire a DJ if he comes out as being gay?

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. Contract?

Clear Channel doesn't sign them to a contract. It plays their music, they get paid royalties as a result. No contracts. And, when you are a celeb, EVERYTHING is connected. If you cheat on your spouse, it hurts your stardom. Look at Roberto Alomar. He was still a star player after he spit on that ump, but it hurt his career. The same goes for Sosa. The murder trial of Raven Ray Lewis also hurt his status at the time.

As to the last question, yes it should. I wouldn't agree and I would be all for boycotting them if they did, but it's THEIR choice.

[plurality]

88. they sign a contract with the label to play their music

you have to have express permission to publicly play their music, express permission is given in the form of a contract.

to our hypothetical- so if CC can refuse to play the DCs for being gay do you think they should be able to fire a DJ if he came out as gay?

[nolabels]

78. More like legal corporate extortion pays for limburger cheese

I would never listen to that trash, I once left a job because the whole place was loaded with them "Ditto Heads" (or whatever they call them now).

Btw Got a much better job in the process, anybody for some lemonade?

[Iris]

29. wouldn't depend

on whether or not the company also had a stake in the publishing company who held the rights to the author's book?

I mean, I see your point if the author could still publish the book and sell it elsewhere.

This whole thread makes me realize how uncomfortable I am with the idea of unfettered capitalism. It's not better than an intrustive government, in my opinion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. So if a religious school burns books about evolution that's fine?

After all they are a private company not a public school.

[stopthegop]

41. yes it is...

fine in the sense there's no free speech issue involved..maybe air pollution

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Fine for them

They break no laws as long as they burn their own books. It's moronic, but since when is that against the law?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. Thank you. Your posts stand as a testament against private religious

schools being subsidized by federal funds.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. You are missing the point, stopthegap

Senator Boxer is not addressing the issue of whether or not Clear Channel had a right to refuse to play the Dixie Chicks. The issue is whether the new FCC rules announced last month should be rolled back. The new rules will allow for a greater concentration of media ownership. In the opinion of many, your humble servant included, media ownership is already too concentrated.

Clear Channel can ban the Dixie Chicks if they like. Fox News can broadcast White House press releases as the Gospel truth if they like. The problem is that the media is in fewer hands and each pair is too much like the next.

The problem is what happens when every radio and television station in the country is owned by five or six multinational corporations, and they all refuse to play records by artists who express a difference of opinion with the political policy that the media owners favor and when they all favor pretty much the same set of policies. The problem is what happens when they all broadcast White House press releases without also broadcasting facts or opinion that would cast doubt on the President’s pronouncements.

The problem is that is the situation that we are approaching.

See also post no. 47.

[stopthegop]

62. OK...that's a valid point...

but comparing people to the Nazis is (usually) sloppy, irresponsible and cheap...shows lack of thought...

[Jack Rabbit]

68. I agree with you on Nazi comparisons

Such comparisons are usually irresponsible and a cheap way of invoking an emotional response. However, while Senator Boxer may be guilty of hyperbole, the comparison has some limited validity in this case.

It has validity because a small group is assuming the power to determine what information the public can consume. The difference is the one group, the Nazis, did this through the power of the state while the other is a group of corporate owners whose interests converge. Another difference is that in classical fascism, including Hitler's Germany, the state organized the corporation to serve its purposes; in the modern version, which is called post-fascism or yuppe fascism, the corporation controls the state by financing political campaigns and determining how much (if any) air time is given to candidates, their views and to the varying views on the civic issues.

In either case, it runs contrary to democratic principles (again, see post 47). Democratic principles requires that public discourse on civic affairs be free and open. Consequently, the upholding of democratic principles requires in turn that dissenting views are widely disseminated. Both the Nazis and today's corporate elitists would like to stifle dissent in order to pursue an agenda without opposition.

[robbedvoter]

19. Here's FDR take on it:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a
point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is
Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private
power." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

The distinction between public and private within the GOP is merely an illusion: with lobbyists moving back and forth between cabinet and profit and Clearchanner&comp staying so close to Karl's message, an argument for First Amendment/censorship can be made - even if, on the face of it, Clear channel is private.
We are being governed by Carlyle and Halliburton, for their benefit.

[thebeaglehaslanded]

23. Incisive post, robbedvoter. You've hit the problem right between the eyes.

America has lost the distinction between government for the people and corporations for profits. The people are losing on all fronts.

[Loonman]

37. It was

Clear Channel are a bunch of damn Nazis.

[T Wolf]

54. the back and forth argument here

reminds me of something I heard a number of years ago.

The difference between racial prejudice and racism is in its application...

Racial prejudice is a viewpoint and while (in some peoples' minds) deplorable, it is a personal value and viewpoint and thus not (or should not be) subject to control or sanction by another.

Racism, on the other hand, is the application of a policy of racial prejudice by the powerful upon the powerless (or at least, those less powerful) and is rightly sanctionable (?) by government. In other words, you cannot be told how to think but you can be told how to (or not to) act.

A second part of this is that the less powerful can be racially prejudiced but cannot implement that prejudice into actions.

[SuffragetteSal]

67. Plurality

BTW: I have enjoyed immensely your two posts today. Keep up the good work!

[plurality]

81. thanks

they're not always frequent but I do try and make them interesting :)

[southernfried]

70. someone please give me a link showing that this was a CC directive

I have an email from their VP of investor relations saying that they do not get into programming at their stations, that they leave that to the stations.

[Jack Rabbit]

71. Dixie Chicks axed by Clear Channel (Jacksonville Business Journal)

From the Business Journal (Jacksonville, Florida)
Dated March 17, 2003

Dixie Chicks axed by Clear Channel
By Michael Fitzgerald

Country music's No. 1 act, The Dixie Chicks, have been pulled from radio playlists thanks to a remark singer Natalie Maines made in London last week.
"Just so you know," Texas native Maines said on stage, "we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." Maines added she felt George W. Bush's foreign policy is alienating the rest of the world.
Her remark unleashed a nationwide backlash. The group's records have been pulled by dozens of country-music stations across the country, including two Clear Channel-owned stations in Jacksonville, WQIK 99.1-FM and WROO 107.3-FM.
"Out of respect for our troops, our city and our listeners, have taken the Dixie Chicks off our playlists," said Gail Austin, Clear Channel's director of programming for the two Jacksonville stations.

Read more.

[southernfried]

72. like I thought, its not a Clear Channel directive

maybe we ought to be fair about this for a change.

[Jack Rabbit]

76. Another view from Paul Krugman

Originally run in The New York Times
Dated March 25

Channels of influence
By Paul Krugman

By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.
Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration.
The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.
The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Read more.

[plurality]

82. I listened to their director

In his testimony to the Senate Commerce Commitee on C-SPAN today. I heard him say that the decision to pull the Chicks was made at the Corporate level. That was under oath. I don't have a link because I heard it on the radio, but I'm sure a transcript can be found, I hope.

[shanti]

74. clear channel has its fingers in LOTS of pies

here in sacramento, i saw a BILLBOARD sponsored by clear channel!

[bring_em_home_bush]

86. creepy billboard

Before the war, Clear Channel bought a billboard in a conspicuous downtown location that featured a little blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan girl child waving a flag and captioned with the word "Unity."

:::Shudder::: And they ruined my favorite radio station, the fuckers.

[QERTY]

77. Did the Nazis Squelch Dissent?

Yes.

Does Clear Channel?

Yes.

If Clear Channel sees fit to throw pro-war rallies and ban outspoken artists, they should be free to do so. But when they've bribed our leaders to enable their aquisition of a majority of the radio airwaves, they've become a propagandist for the (mis)Administration. There need to be limits to consolidation. That is what Boxer is fighting for.

[AlinPA]

89. It was undersatnding that the White House directed that

Clear Channel stop playing Dixie Chicks. Seems plausible.