Same Old Song on the Radio
Posted May 6th, 2009 by Megan Tady
Ever since the country’s largest radio broadcasters were forced to stop their payola – or “pay-for-play” – practices and include more independent music in their playlists, the radio dials have been flooded with… the same old songs. Wait, what?
Maybe you didn’t need a study to tell you that non-mainstream music still isn’t making it on the air, but at least now we’ve got the data to back it up. The Future of Music Coalition recently released a report that found the nation’s biggest radio broadcasters have not been playing local and independent music, despite a government decree to do so.
In April 2007, Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom agreed to collectively air 4,200 hours of local, regional, unsigned and independent artists after the FCC caught them accepting illegal gifts in exchange for promoting music from major record labels.
We should have seen a surge of new artists on the airwaves, but what we got was simply more of the same. The FMC report says there were only incremental changes in airplay from 2005 – 2008, with major labels scoring 78 to 82 percent of airtime.
What we’re dealing with here isn’t just radio stations’ rejection of a few artists, but a more systemic problem. When the majority of radio stations in the United States are owned by just a handful of corporations, we will continue to see the same cookie-cutter programming from New York City to Bozeman, Mont., whether or not that programming reflects community tastes.
We need to keep fighting to make commercial radio accountable to the people, but we can also do one better – get radio stations into the hands of the people.
Right now, we’re pushing Congress to support the Local Community Radio Act, a bill that would deliver more Low Power FM radio stations to communities across the country.
Tell your representatives and senators to take action by co-sponsoring the Local Community Radio Act today.
I’m a little confused. As far as I can gather, from looking at the constitutional outline for free speech and therefore “The Press”, government is not supposed to get involved. (?) Then I read that “http://www.freepress.net/node/56765″ is pushing to get a bill passed that will allow smaller radio broadcasters to enter the market? So, I gather there is legislation that is keeping them out? The more I look, the more I read, it seems to me that we, as the public, would be better served to push for more more “undoing” than to suggest that government “do something” – more.
Overall I see government “doing” to much. It also seems that anything they “do” has more to do with representing their own interests than anybody out here. Isn’t it against the law for a agency like the FCC to even exist? Isn’t that what the Ist Amendment was written for? To ensure this – (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=900) – Our Constitution, through the First Amendment, forbids government interference with the press; it entrusts regulation of the press to the marketplace and allows the people to determine their own interest. As Thomas Jefferson explained, in the area of information exchange, it is “better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate…And hitherto the public has performed that office with wonderful correctness.”
What am I missing? I think that what “The Public” is missing is that whenever it is offered a “special government benefit” it should decline. This is because there are always strings attached. It allows for more government control. More centralized power. It would be easier to decline if we all realized that the government has nothing, of it’s own, to make these offers with. Everything it offers it gets from us. So actually when Shirley is offered a subsidy or a special consideration it is always paid for by Toni. What is really happening is government is seeking permission to pass legislation. In this it will increase it’s control over the public. Basically it will gain a greater ability to define rights and liberties. We should not only start saying no – to everything offered -, we should attempt to dismantle everything that has been done. Then – start over.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:55 am