It was my understanding that radio stations were required by law to have someone at the station available at all times to help convert the station into an Emergency Broadcast Network, if required.
I remember being trained how to work this funny machine when I was a DJ at WIDR radio in Kalamazo, MI in 1986. Surely, these regulations have not been de-regulated!
The Trouble With Corporate Radio: The Day the Protest Music Died
By Brent Staples for the NY Times

Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, had a potential disaster in his district when a freight train carrying anhydrous ammonia derailed, releasing a deadly cloud over the city of Minot. When the emergency alert system failed, the police called the town radio stations, six of which are owned by the corporate giant Clear Channel. According to news accounts, no one answered the phone at the stations for more than an hour and a half. Three hundred people were hospitalized, some partially blinded by the ammonia. Pets and livestock were killed.

Continue reading →

While Clear Channel Defends Itself To Washington (NY Times), the San Francisco Bay Guardian provides a first hand account of one of its radio station takeovers (KMEL, San Francisco):
Urban radio rage
When Clear Channel bought KMEL, it destroyed the so-called people’s station. Now the people want it back.
By Jeff Chang.

If the changes that began in 1996 began to turn off some longtime KMEL listeners, the Oct. 1, 2001, firing of radio personality and hip-hop activist David “Davey D” Cook

U.S. Opens Criminal AOL Probe
— Justice Dept. to Focus On Unusual Accounting
by Alec Klein and Dan Eggen.
Also of interest is the cooperation of the SEC and the Justice Department on these investigations.

The two federal agencies have worked concurrently
in the past, in part because their investigatory powers
are different. The SEC brings civil cases only, a process
that can be quicker in bringing enforcement actions and
punishments than a criminal case. The Justice Department
can bring both civil and criminal cases, but the
department’s ability to prosecute criminally — and use
grand-jury subpoenas to compel testimony — augments
what the SEC does, lawyers say.
The Justice Department also has access to vast
investigative resources, including those of the FBI.
The SEC also has subpoena power, but it requires
the specific authorization of its commissioners.

Continue reading →

By Paul Davidson for USA Today:
FCC to review media ownership caps later

The FCC is also reviewing prohibitions on ownership of a newspaper and TV station in the same market and limits on local radio concentration. Analysts expect the rules to be relaxed. Consumer advocates say that would fuel more media consolidation, elbow out local broadcasters and reduce diversity.

Continue reading →

I found a gold mine of articles by Eric Boehlert for Salon about Clear Channel’s Radio Monopoly:

Radio’s big bully.

Highlights include: background on how Clear Channel and how it managed to quietly take over radio (the company owns nearly 1,200 radio stations and effectively controls the rock radio market and also owns SFX Entertainment, the nation’s dominant concert-venue owner and touring promoter), the corporation’s evolution under the aegis of Randy Michaels, the “new payola” (the complex arrangements under which the world’s major record companies pay for virtually every rock song broadcast on commercial radio) and links to the Clear Channel Web site so you can locate the affiliates nearest you (there are probably a ton of them right in your town!).

Clear Channel is being accused of promoting an artist it was only supposed to be tracking in an effort to reward trial users of its new PD Perceptual Service.

This story makes it seem like the “little guy” got a break this time around for a change. Weird.

The title is especially ironic — everyone knows that Clear Channel sells hit singles. The point is that they actually gave away some airplay without charging (allegedly in an attempt to promote another of their other services) — and now the company is being interrogated for it.

Could it be possible that Clear Channel reps might have happened to mention that Eagle-eye Cherry was one of the few acts that was trying out its new PD Perceptual Service, and that, when it came time for the Music Director to pick a token no-name act to add to the playlist, Eagle-eye Cherry came to mind? Could Eagle-eye Cherry just be a nice guy that everyone likes to promote, perhaps? Or is Eagle-eye Cherry so bad that his getting so much airplay immediately calls the ethics of the entire Clear Channel organization into question?

See the Salon story by Eric Boehlert:
Is Clear Channel selling hit singles?.

Fast Company Contributing Editor Seth Godin has written a Memo to Media Monopolists that might actually help save them from themselves if they can pay attention long enough to follow its thoughtful and simple advice. He’s just trying to help you out, man. Check out:
Memo to: Media Monopolists.

Why can’t Nike charge $500 for sneakers? Because there are easy substitutes. In almost every industry, consumers have countless choices. And unless a product is truly unique, they can take their money elsewhere.

The media business has always been different. At its heart, the media business is actually about the prospect of being a monopolist — and about getting paid a lot more than your products cost to make. A few years ago, if a couch potato ( God love ’em ) wanted to watch TV, there were only three channels he could choose from. If a moviegoer wanted to see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, there was only the William Goldman version, and she had to buy a ticket to see it.

The point is this: The media business was built on scarcity. Scarcity of spectrum. Scarcity of hits. Scarcity caused by copyright and limited shelf space. Consumers hate scarcity. But you and I know that monopolists love scarcity. When consumers have fewer choices, a monopoly thrives.

Scarcity made it easy to get fat and happy. But almost overnight, the scarcity on which you built your media monopolies started to disappear. All of a sudden, there are about a billion channels available on the Web. There’s a movie theater in any home with a DVD player. Amazon.com has infinite shelf space, so retail market power is now a myth. It’s hard to charge take-it-or-leave-it prices when the consumer can just leave it…

…Here’s the problem: You monopolists appear to believe that you have a right to business as usual. You believe that if the rules of the marketplace change, it’s not fair. You believe that you somehow deserve the private planes, the great parties, and the obscene profits. You also seem to think that if your monopoly were to go away, so would all of the good ideas.

The truth is, the supply is in terrific shape, thanks. In fact, there’s never been more to choose from. The only thing that would go away would be your profits. Ouch…

…Senator Fritz Hollings, warrior on your behalf, feels your pain. He views the technology companies and their customers as not much more than thieves. Apple makes money from the iPod — on the backs of the artists who aren’t getting compensated every time we listen. Steve Jobs must be torn. On one hand, he makes iPods. On the other, he makes Monsters, Inc.

Think about that for a second. Steve Jobs has two jobs, and one of them could bankrupt the other ( if your rhetoric is to be believed ). He’s not dumb. He gets it…

…One last thing: I’m not saying that I want the markets to be the way they are. I’m not saying that pirating is right. But I am saying that it exists and that it’s going to become more widespread. So here are your basic choices: You can whine, lobby, sue, and then cripple your product so that it can’t be copied. Or, maybe, just maybe, you can stop thinking like a monopolist long enough to find new business models, new markets, and new strategic plans.

You’re not going out of business tomorrow. The structures that you have built and perfected are going to stick around for a long time. But it’s not going to get better, more profitable, or more fun. It’s only going to get worse.

Bill Gates has a backup plan, guys. What’s yours?

I’ve been trying to find the words to express exactly why I feel that media consolidation is such a bad thing.

Then I found this elegant Businessweek Online commentary by Catherine Yang, Tom Lowry and Ronald Gover that explains it pretty well:
Commentary: Media Mergers: The Danger Remains
Despite 100 channels and the Web, softer ownership rules will put the major outlets in Big Media’s hands .

Meanwhile, media consolidation is well under way, even without massive deregulation: In 2001, 311 deals valued at $113 billion were announced, the highest amount for any industry. Scale is the name of the game. Already, the big three networks are aligned with conglomerates led by
Disney, Viacom, and General Electric.

The AOL Time Warner (AOL ) merger only raised the stakes for bigness. If the FCC’s rules evaporate altogether, “we would be trading some greater profitability…in return for undercutting the very pillars of separate media ownership that our democracy is built on,” says Gene Kimmelman, co-director of Consumers Union.

It’s up to regulators to decide whether more consolidation will hurt the range of viewpoints available to the public. But they need to tread carefully. Once gone, an independent press and media won’t be easily recreated.

The public at large would prefer to have a large number of diverse stations over huge conglomerates that play the same crap over and over again.

The survey, conducted by the Future of Music Coalition, is part of a larger research study on the effects of radio consolidation on musicians and the public that is being conducted in partnership with the Media Access Project and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Consolidation of radio station ownership is not popular. Eight of ten favor congressional action to protect or expand the number of independently owned local stations
By a better than ten to one ratio – 76 percent to 7 percent – radio listeners believe that DJs should be given more air time for songs they think will be of interest to their audiences rather than be required to mostly play songs of artists backed by recording companies.

If it can be substantiated that radio stations are paid to give air time preference to the music artists supported by record companies, the public approves by a 68 to 24 percent ratio for Congress to consider passing laws to ensure that all artists have a more reasonable chance of having their songs heard.

Half of the respondents – 52 percent – say radio would be more appealing to them if it offered more new music, less repetition and more music of local bands and artists.

By a ratio of six to one, radio listeners prefer a long, rather than a short, playlist that provides them a greater variety of songs and less repetition during the week
Seventy-five percent would like to see low power FM stations (LPFM) expanded in their communities, especially if they offer (a) the music of local bands and artists, (b) talk shows on issues of local interest, and on local issues and (c) health, science or fitness programming. Additionally, 74 percent favor legislation to expand the number of LPFM stations in the United States.

The public opinion research firm Behavior Research Center conducted the survey from May 13-20, 2002 via 500 in-depth telephone interviews on a random sample of adults throughout the United States.