Brett Pulley, 18 October
Forbes

Lowry Mays built clear channel into the Evil Empire of radio and
entertainment. Now his son has to make nice.

L. Lowry Mays is a Texan's Texan, rock-ribbed, 6 foot 2 and larger than
life. He started out as an investment banker; in 1972, when a client he was
advising backed out of a deal to buy an FM radio station in San Antonio,
Tex., Mays partnered with a pal and did the deal himself, paying $125,000.
In the three decades since, he has built one of the largest and most
powerful media companies in the nation, Clear Channel, a much-maligned giant
that, in the view of its enemies, is just too damned big for anyone else's
good.

Its tentacles stretch into myriad reaches of media and pop culture. Clear
Channel owns 1,202 radio stations in 49 states, more than any other company;
each week it reaches 100 million listeners, one-third more than its closest
rival(Viacom). It also owns 36 TV stations and the world's biggest
outdoor-advertising company, with 770,000 billboards, 150,000 of them in the
U.S. that can be seen by 56% of the country's adults in a day. It controls
105 live-entertainment venues, hosting 32,000 performances each year and
drawing 70 million people. In the first half of this year Clear Channel sold
nearly 10 million concert tickets, more than three times the gate of any
competitor. Many of those gigs were booked by the largest concert promotions
firm in the U.S., a Clear Channel unit.

"They are the poster child for the evils of media consolidation," says
Jonathan Rintels, who heads the Center for Creative Voices in Media in
Washington,D.C. Adds Jay Rosenthal, counsel for the Recording Artists'
Coalition, which lobbies against the company: "Clear Channel owns so many
radio stations and concert venues that artists are constantly fearful of
it." Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the popular populist, filed a bill that
would force Clear Channel to break apart some of its businesses.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1018/106_print.html

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the popular populist, filed a bill that
would force Clear Channel to break apart some of its businesses.

The Senator ought to look up the meaning of "bill of attainder"...and then
withdraw his bill as unconstitutional.

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the popular populist, filed a bill that
would force Clear Channel to break apart some of its businesses.

The Senator ought to look up the meaning of "bill of attainder"...and then
withdraw his bill as unconstitutional.

Broadcasting does not fall under those provisions. In truth, were the U-S Congress
to decide to nationalise broadcasting, there's nothing that licensees could do. This
is how the FCC succeeded in splitting TV-radio-newspaper combos in the 70s. And it
wouldn't be difficult to craft legislation that identifies a class in which Clear
Channel is the only member. This was done recently in the other direction, when
citizenship requirements to own a U-S broadcast license was changed, but oddly enough
only Rupert Murdoch met the description of the class in the legislation.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

Broadcasting does not fall under those provisions.

Excuse me? Where in the Constitution does it say that broadcasting is exempt
from the basic law of the land?????

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...
Broadcasting does not fall under those provisions.

Excuse me? Where in the Constitution does it say that broadcasting is exempt
from the basic law of the land?????

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC, is constitutional. I don't have
time to go into case law with you, but consider that the First Amendment provides
absolute and unfettered freedom of expression, whereas the FCC is empowered to
determine who, when and where such speech will occur. Further, while the FCC
self-limits the degree of interference it imposes on the subject matter aired in the
interest of promoting a diversity of voices, it still has the Fairness Doctrine in
place, although much gutted today, which requires that a station espousing an opinion
or advocating an outcome or political candidate offer equal and equivalent time to
opposing views or spokesmen. Finally, the FCC has rules defining and limiting
indecency. The First Amendment makes no such distinctions in any of this.

Numerous Supreme Court cases have considered these issues over the years, and have
repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of the Communications Act of 1934.
Therefore, given the contradictions between the First Amendment and the restrictions
imposed by and the powers granted the FCC, it can be concluded that broadcasters have
limited free-speech rights, far less than a newspaper or other printed matter, and
certainly far less than the freedoms granted individuals. Broadcasting is thus not
fully protected by the First Amendment, and given the opinions of the relevant cases
before the Supreme Court, such abridgements in freedom of speech are constitutional.
All the rest is derived from this one fact.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-