[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[infowar.de] Re: Media Giant's "Rally for America" Sponsorship
Infowar.de, http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath/liste.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hier ist noch einer, diesmal sogar in der New York Times.
Noch mehr Stress für die PR-Abteilung im Weissen Haus, als hätten die
nicht schon genug zu tun...
RB
NYT, March 25, 2003
Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN
By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people
as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the
most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie
Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to
watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's,
tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century
European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair
Lewis said, it can't happen here.
Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out,
is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry -
with close links to the Bush administration.
The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a
radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of
the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been
organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth
based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and
increasingly dominates the airwaves.
The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name
Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But
this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory
articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious - and
widely hated - for its iron-fisted centralized control.
Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business
practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies
and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music.
But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a
political dispute that deeply divides the nation.
Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It
could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part
of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel - which
became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership - to curry
favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some
heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the
airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there
are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that
made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal
Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would
allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into
television.
Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced
Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed
to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management
has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is
Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When
Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University
of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear
Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks,
Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of
companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr.
Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a
multimillionaire.
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a
good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a
new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New
Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have
melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy,
business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now
oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized
that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for
businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to
reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians - by, for example,
organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?
What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective
watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly
blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more
likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you
know there's a war on?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liste verlassen:
Mail an infowar -
de-request -!
- infopeace -
de mit "unsubscribe" im Text.