On 21 Aug 2003 14:32:45 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

"People are flocking from radio in droves," says Michael Bracy, director of
government relations at the lobby group the Future of Music Coalition.

Will someone post some research that supports this? What makes Mr.
Bracy an expert on the status of radio?

It would seem to me that, if they're "flocking from radio in droves,"
it should be in his best interest. Now they'll have to buy the product
either on CD or MP3. The rest will either not listen or steal it.

I think it would be more appropriate to say new generations aren't
being attracted to radio because of the vast number of alternatives.

"So many people have become disenfranchised that they simply don't listen
anymore. Smaller local artists are being freezed out by centralised
programming.

Smaller groups have been squeezed out of the business in all of the 43
years I've been in it. That's long before Clear Channel owned much
more than a station in San Antonio. Some college stations had local
talent programming but very few commercial stations ever did it. They
played the hits. And ... did you know that all the hit artists were
local at one time? It didn't seem to hurt them.

It's very damaging to the culture.

You mean I'm culture-starved because I can't hear the latest
manufactured boy band?

There is a climate of fear
surrounding Clear Channel. People will say in private, 'They did this or
they did that,' but they won't speak out because they have to do business
with them.

As long as they say it in private, no improvement will come. Of
course, they'd better have proof that will stand up in court. Do it
the good ol' American way. Sue them. I've heard local promoters
complain that Clear Channel pays more. I can't fault the artist for
going where the money is. Let's see Mr. Bracy get all the big artists
together to boycott Clear Channel. If no one will perform for them,
the problem is solved. Then the only problem left is how to harvest
the green cheese on the moon.

The bad publicity has made Clear Channel a political pariah. While other
parts of the media industry are enjoying the relaxation of ownership laws,
in radio, they were tightened up last week, despite the company hiring
well-connected Washington lobbyists and appointing a former US congressman
to the board."

Radio ownership rules were tightened? I was under the impression that
TV was returned to 35%. There have been many instances where Clear
Channel was prevented from buying because of the rules. This isn't
new.

"According to the US ratings service Arbitron, Americans are spending 10%
less time listening to radio per annum. Radio listenership in the US is at a
27-year low."

I seriously doubt the increase in population over 27 years and the
explosion of alternative sources of music were included. 27 years ago
I didn't have a minidisc player, a CD player, an MP3 player, a DVD
portable, or even low quality Internet streaming competing for
attention.

"It's creative death, it's standardisation - McDonaldisation. Creativity
requires diversity.

Mr. Bracy needs to look at the dirt in his own house. Where does all
this sameness come from? Instead of blaming radio he should look at
the quality of the stuff oozing from the record companies, big and
small.

If you introduce free markets without regulation, you
are prescribing monopoly. The only upside to all of this is that it gets so
bad that things start to develop underground on the internet or satellite
radio. That's what happened with the Floyd."

Satellite radio isn't going to lead the way in local artists. They
aren't local. Satellite radio should be Mr. Bracy's vision of Hell.

"Mr Dyke [Director General of the BBC] directed much of his ammunition
against the global media giant Clear Channel, which owns 1,225 radio
stations in the US, many of which took a staunchly pro-war line.
"We are genuinely shocked when we discover that the largest radio group in
the United States was using its airwaves to organise pro-war rallies," said
Mr Dyke, who is also the BBC's editor-in-chief. "We are even more shocked to
discover that the same group wants to become a big radio player in the UK."

Mr. Dyke is in the dark. Individual stations made those decisions, not
the company. I realize it's not in his best interest to accept that,
but it's true. If it were a company directive there would have been
1225 rallies - one for each station even in markets with multiple
stations. They still compete.

Of course, the BBC has no interest in American audiences. I would be
"genuinely shocked" to discover that the BBC wanted to exploit
Americans when they don't even speak our language. Who ever heard of a
bonnet on a car? My home has a john, not a loo.

and there's been a load more stories about Clear Channel in the UK press. I
realise that being American that you don't take any interest in non-American
issues, but, shock-horror, we do actually look at issues beyond our shores,
and especially when Mr Mays might buy a UK radio group in the not too
distant future.

I think the UK said something similar when Rupert Murdoch launched Sky
TV and the sky fell again when he bought British newspapers.

If we don't look beyond our shores we should be able to stop all those
humanitarian aid programs that cost us so much. I'm sorry we have such
little interest in the goings on with the Royal Family. I guess Mr.
Dyke doesn't read the New York Times. It appears to me that the first
section of the paper is heavily International. The evening news and
PBS' newscasts seem to cover a lot of "foreign" news.

Mr. Dyke also doesn't seem to realize that covering 50 states is
probably more difficult than covering 50 countries. After all, those
of us in the 50 states have more in common than his 50 countries. We
all speak a similar language. After a while, even war isn't news when
it's been going on for decades, or centuries. Maybe he's feeling bad
because the UK used to own most of those countries.

Let's get the Middle East fixed before he complains about how uncaring
we Americans are. Maybe we're just too damned tired of watching those
"across the pond" fight each other endlessly.They've been taking over
each other's countries for centuries and dressing their men in
ridiculous looking costumes. Isn't there something more productive
they could be doing?

Rich