clear channel cuts hundreds

[alocispepraluger102]

i'm thinking that universal wifi and inexpensive portable wifi (radios) will offer most of us about 15,000 worldwide station choices.

there should be at least one or two out of 15,000 stations weird enough to have live weirdos playing and discussing real jazz, whatever that is.

[Leeway]

i'm thinking that universal wifi and inexpensive portable wifi (radios) will offer most of us about 15,000 worldwide station choices.

there should be at least one or two out of 15,000 stations weird enough to have live weirdos playing and discussing real jazz, whatever that is.

Aloc, it would be nice to think so, but recent history shows that the technology will be co-opted, access will be controlled, cost structures will be implemented, programming will be homogenized (for greater efficiency and profit) by such giants as Comcast, Viacom, and even dumb ass outfits like Clear Channel (especially if the GOP-ers get in, and reward their propagandists). Look at cable: 200+ channels of crap.

[medjuck]

Yeah, how dare they try to run the business in the interests of the shareholders? What kind of corporation does that?

Oh that's right - all of them do. And should.

With 20 billion dollars in debt, are they supposed to not look for ways to cut costs?

So is there anything legal you think companies shouldn't do as long as it makes money for shareholders?

Read your question again and the answer is obvious. So why don't we turn it back to you and say 'what legal things companies can do in the interests of shareholders should they be prevented from doing?"

Oops, there it is, as clear as day. Declaring something legal to be "illegal" because the left doesn't like it. There you have it, liberal thought in all its freedom-hating and free-market hating glory.

You miss the point. I wasn't suggesting anything be made illegal, I was trying to find out if you would disapprove of as long as it made money for the shareholders. I added "legally" because I presumed that you would mnot think they should do anything illegal.

[thedwork]

But I get it - you believe there is a level of income that is "obscene" and must be regulated.

I don't live my life hating the successful.

right when i joined this board 1-2 years ago, Dan was immediately, completely, and unnecessarily rude to me. so i made it my policy after that to not directly quote or engage him. and i've done well with that. but i have to make an exception here because what he's written is too perfect to pass up. his quote above is maybe the best crystallization i've seen on any forum of the totally amoral attitude, combined with the willfully manipulative bad logic and language, that conservative corporatists love to regurgitate. they/he thinks the attitude represented by his little money worshipping aphorism above is witty and somehow profound. it's not. it's the selfish, and self-righteous, LIE that the grossly wealthy try to spin to make it seem like it's OK that a very few have nearly everything while the masses struggle w/ comparatively next to nothing. it's gross and everyone knows it. it shows a level of contempt for working people i've not yet witnessed on this, or any other, board. i guess it's just a barometer showing how bad things have gotten that this type of disgusting attitude is now so brazenly out in the open.

"I don't live my life hating the successful." let's take a good look at that sentence.

problem #1: "successful." i don't even have to leave this thread to make my point of how this shit gets so grotesquely blown out so fast. who's the example in this thread as someone "liberals would live their lives hating because they became successful?" Rush Limbaugh. He's making $400 million from CC? on top of his likely other multiple millions? anyone who merely calls this 'successful' is intentionally understating. INTENTIONALLY UNDERSTATING. it is a gigantic sum of concentrated wealth by any standard and everyone knows it. so he's not just 'successful.' compared to most of the world's population, let alone in our country, someone here in the states making $100,000 is very successful. a child can do the simple math of comparing $400+ million to $100,000 to see they're not at all comparable. so whether or not you want to admit it, calling someone who makes $400 million simply 'successful' is a gross, willful manipulation of language and is a LIE. Rush Limbaugh isn't just 'successful.' Rush Limbaugh is insanely, grossly wealthy. and, yes, this goes for anyone else who makes that kind of money - left, right, woman, man, whatever kind of label you wanna slap on a person. if they make that kinda money, it's their moral obligation to help out people who have next to nothing. and everyone knows.

problem #2: "hating the successful." when you're lacking a good moral argument, just name-call the person you disagree w/ a "hater." that'll get 'em. nobody likes a 'hater.' that'll throw up a nice wall in the conversation. except that a person w/ a better functioning mind can see that it's possible/more productive to hate the concentration of money/power without hating the person. "hating the successful" is a bullshit phrase. people who realize that the alarming and exaggerated gap between the rich and the poor is ruining the world don't hate people. that's a LIE. we hate the system that promotes the ever-widening of this amoral gap. it is UNSUSTAINABLE.

problem #3: "I don't live my life..." oh, OK. so you're saying that people who think things should be more equitable than the way they are right now spend all the time of their lives "hating the successful." news flash: that's a dirty LIE. people who are struggling and believe that things should be fundamentally changed generally don't have time to waste hatin' on the successful. they're working 2-3 jobs to make ends met. they're working their asses off trying to make this world a better place for EVERYONE. they're exhausted from spending all their physical and emotional energy on getting through the day. "living their lives hating the successful..." gimme a fucking break.

and maybe the biggest problem w/ these LIES is that many folks who are emotionally susceptible to media messages due to having it so rough and being just plain tired, are often the ones who end up lapping the message up and defending those who they should, by all rights, be railing against. it's a fucked up world y'all...

Edited October 31, 2011 by thedwork

[BruceH]

The old media laws that didn't allow any one person or corporation to own more than a handful of stations should never have been repealed, that's what it comes down to.

[Chicago Expat]

Their focus seems to be on the non-localization of radio programming. That is, IMO, a detriment to communities.

I know it makes dial-hopping on road trips big and small a lot less fun than it used to be. It's pretty much to the "why bother" point now, although very occasionally you'll go through some samll town that still has their own music programming...you can tell it right away too, by the song selection itself and/or the sequencing. But those finds are few and far between these days. Pity. Dial-hopping while driving used to be fun.

I hadn't really thought about that for some time. Back when I drove all kinds of road trips, I'd always skip the interstate, stick to hiways and backroads... the sheer joy of listening to local radio programming as I drove through some small town, that's something I'll always treasure. I've heard bluegrass bands I'll never be able to put name to, Sunday sermons that I never would've listened to at home and found quaint all the heated talk of sin and apocalypse, news reports on local municipal laws and fishing weather, and the occasional gem of blues or jazz. A tiny pastiche of life in towns I'd never live in.

Not concisely relevant to the matter at hand, but damn your post sent me off on a nostalgic road trip.

Cheers.

[Jim Alfredson]

The old media laws that didn't allow any one person or corporation to own more than a handful of stations should never have been repealed, that's what it comes down to.

Yep, and we can blame Clinton for that one with the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Just goes to show that not everything is black and white (ie all conservatives bad, all liberals good and vice versa). It was / is a horrible decision that allows the conglomeration of media into a few hands and once you control the media you can control the message. The only counterpoint is the rise of the internet, which nobody foresaw (well, Kurzweil did, but he wasn't taken seriously) but that's under attack now, too.

And though I don't necessarily agree with thedwork's entire post, it is true that the anger is not aimed at the person who amasses obscene wealth, it's at the system that allows it to happen, a system that was put into place by those with the wealth, to benefit those with the wealth, and maintain the status quo. And that crosses the imaginary party line. And yes, the system is fundamentally unsustainable, just like the fallacy of continually escalating home prices when average wages have stagnated since 1980 was fundamentally unsustainable (something I recognized almost 10 years ago, when I was in my early 20s). If you are even remotely familiar with history, the pitfalls of such a system should be obvious as well as the dire consequences of not dealing with it.

Let them eat McDonalds.

[alocispepraluger102]

The old media laws that didn't allow any one person or corporation to own more than a handful of stations should never have been repealed, that's what it comes down to.

Yep, and we can blame Clinton for that one with the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Just goes to show that not everything is black and white (ie all conservatives bad, all liberals good and vice versa). It was / is a horrible decision that allows the conglomeration of media into a few hands and once you control the media you can control the message. The only counterpoint is the rise of the internet, which nobody foresaw (well, Kurzweil did, but he wasn't taken seriously) but that's under attack now, too.

And though I don't necessarily agree with thedwork's entire post, it is true that the anger is not aimed at the person who amasses obscene wealth, it's at the system that allows it to happen, a system that was put into place by those with the wealth, to benefit those with the wealth, and maintain the status quo. And that crosses the imaginary party line. And yes, the system is fundamentally unsustainable, just like the fallacy of continually escalating home prices when average wages have stagnated since 1980 was fundamentally unsustainable (something I recognized almost 10 years ago, when I was in my early 20s). If you are even remotely familiar with history, the pitfalls of such a system should be obvious as well as the dire consequences of not dealing with it.

Let them eat McDonalds.

i often don't agree with your thoughts, jim, but this post nailed it brilliantly.