MovieChat Forums > Before the Music Dies (2006) Discussion > OH NOOO!!! Clear channel is a business ...

OH NOOO!!! Clear channel is a business that's trying to make a profit?

posted 16 years ago by trompos
13 replies | jump to latest

Clear channel was "allowed" to buy more than 6 stations? I thought this was America. I mean I was more appalled that there was a LAW that didn't allow a company or individual to buy property if they were able to. THAT is the absence of liberty where government doesn't allow you to own the means of media. So these socialistic musicians hate that these stations play music that is liked by the masses. And this is a huge problem because? Because some bohemian can't get his big break in this image driven business? I hate manufactured music too, but not enough to destroy liberty, to have government take control of things just so that everyone is happy about their music choices. These are businesses, OF COURSE they want profits. There's nothing wrong with that.

A lot of these "real" musicians sucked. Like that guy they tried to make a sob story of with his wife and kid. He SUCKED he was a bluesy white guy, sure he could play the guitar, but his voice sucked. NEXT! Perhaps no one wants to listen to your crap, and instea dof blaming the industry for your lack of success, how about getting a real job?

And what was Erica Badu doing there? She represents good music? Since when?

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

[–] elvisneedsboats 16 years ago

Just curious - why are you perfectly comfortable with a single corporation take "control of things" but freak out if the government puts any limits on span of control? As an individual, you have no power over giant corporations who decide what gets played on publicly owned radio waves. But as a voter you at least can occasionally make your voice heard.

Prior to the change in the law, there was a limit to the number of stations a single corporation could own. This ensured diversity of the airwaves and more opportunity for more voices to be heard. There was no limitation on which stations were most successful, which stations could charge the most for ads, etc. This was not a limit to capitalism, simply a way to keep the public airwaves open to more people. It most definitely wasn't a form of socialism. Do you think that Conservative Talk Radio would have been able to flourish during a Democratic administration if the government was limiting the radio?

[–] trompos 16 years ago

I weild a HUGE amount of power over corperations. It's called buying power. One vote makes not real difference, and one consumer makes no difference but collectivly we will be heard. Voter fraud and coruption can always sneak its way into the democratic system but where I spend my dollar always has the desired affect.

I simply don't like limits on markets, sure one company owning all the airwaves is bad, but stopping them is worse.

Conservative radio IS being attacked by government. It's not just an attack on on capitalism, but on free speech. It's saying you can't speak because your microphone is too big.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

[–] elvisneedsboats 16 years ago

How is conservative radio being attacked by the government? The government which, by the way, they helped to get elected.

[–] trompos 16 years ago

How about Dick Durbin, John Kerry and other liberal legislators looking to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine which impeded free speech?

And since when is the presidency "the government"? Last I checked it's more than just who's in the oval office. It's the congress (which we conservatives including those on the radio NEVER put in office. How about the courts with activist judges who legislate form the bench, how about the governmental infrastructure, ie the bureaucracy in place? Government is much much more than the commander in chief.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

[–] uvl 16 years ago

trompos, your posts make it crystal clear that your view of the world is an antithesis of art. Corporations that run free will generally run roughshod over everyone and everything. It seems that you'd do just fine sitting at the top, counting your shekels, and pissing on your customers.

[–] trompos 16 years ago

Funny how history proves you wrong. A society that is economically free is free in every sense. When we fought the cold war the USSR controlled the economy, corporations were non-existent and art was also non-existent. Art was stifled. ANY ART that wasn't allowed by the government, which did not celebrate the government. Our art flourished. Our music, our films, our literature because we were free to speak. Private money from those "evil"corporations were what allowed these artists to work. What is art without a person with money to commission the artist? Renaissance Europe's art flourished when the merchant class was economically free and commissioned artists. Your assertions are wrong.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trompos 16 years ago

Many have tried to make this argument about our art. Saying it was crude, or low brow. I disagree. Our music was, and still is appreciated around the world. Music that is and was purely American (Jazz, rock, blues, etc.) has revolutionized music everywhere. Our films maybe lower brow but they are still greatly admired, and we do have very great films that are very highly artistic (The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, the list goes on) as well and our classical arts (paintings, sculptures, etc.) has had great ambassadors from Pollock, to Warhol. Our literature has also been amazing, Salinger, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Twain, Poe. American arts has been allowed to develop, good or bad by a free society.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

[–] Tchock 16 years ago

well clear channel destroyed radio as an art form

www.myspace.com/elitebanda

[–] jasonristevski 10 years ago

You seem to believe in the theory that the freer the market the freer the people, which I do not believe in, the market needs some control, for example in a totally free market monopolies can take place and we need restrictions to prevent those(some western countries do), yeh in the USSR it was bad but what about other socialist countries for example Yugoslavia where pieces of art were created during socialist rule. Let's look at other examples of a free market, slavery and child labour are some good examples, a free market is really a lawless market. Also the USSR was just a free market where a monoply had taken place, of course that monopoly was the government(also known as state capitalism)

----------------------------
This is the darkest timeline

[–] acousticlove_82 13 years ago

I smell hypocrisy! And I love when I can quote it, too. So you are 100% in favor of a free market where one corporation has the ability to buy up any smaller, existing companies and stifle other voices? Yet in your argument against the USSR, you note that we were better because we were free to speak. Make no mistake that when one corporation rules all (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MEDIA), only one voice gets heard.

Try to keep up, ok?

What should we do? Call Marcus! Guys, who's Marcus? I don't know...I don't know...

[–] acousticlove_82 13 years ago

Last time I checked, Limbaugh, Palin, O'Reilly, and Beck were powerhouses in their respective areas. Gov't is doing diddly to attack anyone, especially conservatives. If you buy into that, you're clearly drinking the "conservatives are victims" kool-aid. Which major news network consistently is the most trusted/most watched? Faux News. Don't even get me started on their brand of B.S. they peddle, but they're clearly not hurting.

What should we do? Call Marcus! Guys, who's Marcus? I don't know...I don't know...

[–] fede_4488 7 years ago

Capitalism sucks. Example: Clear Channel 😁