Clear Channel tacitly supporting pro-war rallies.

Media-military-Gov't loop complete. Begin TOTAL CONTROL SOCIETY.

Published on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 by the Chicago Tribune

Media Giant's Rally Sponsorship Raises Questions
by Tim Jones

Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President Bush's
strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread linking most of them
is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's largest owner of radio
stations.
In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles,
Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati
and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. The
events have served as a loud rebuttal to the more numerous but generally
smaller anti-war rallies.
The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among
major media companies, which have confined their activities in the war
debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San
Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and the
District of Columbia.
While labor unions and special interest groups have organized and hosted
rallies for decades, the involvement of a big publicly regulated
broadcasting company breaks new ground in public demonstrations.
"I think this is pretty extraordinary," said former Federal Communications
Commissioner Glen Robinson, who teaches law at the University of Virginia.
"I can't say that this violates any of a broadcaster's obligations, but it
sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news."
A spokeswoman for Clear Channel said the rallies, called "Rally for
America," are the idea of Glenn Beck, a Philadelphia talk show host whose
program is syndicated by Premier Radio Networks, a Clear Channel subsidiary.

`Just patriotic rallies'
A weekend rally in Atlanta drew an estimated 20,000 people, with some
carrying signs reading "God Bless the USA" and other signs condemning France
and the group Dixie Chicks, one of whose members recently criticized
President Bush.
"They're not intended to be pro-military. It's more of a thank you to the
troops. They're just patriotic rallies," said Clear Channel spokeswoman Lisa
Dollinger.
Rallies sponsored by Clear Channel radio stations are scheduled for this
weekend in Sacramento, Charleston, S.C., and Richmond, Va. Although Clear
Channel promoted two of the recent rallies on its corporate Web site,
Dollinger said there is no corporate directive that stations organize
rallies.
"Any rallies that our stations have been a part of have been of their own
initiative and in response to the expressed desires of their listeners and
communities," Dollinger said.
Clear Channel is by far the largest owner of radio stations in the nation.
The company owned only 43 in 1995, but when Congress removed many of the
ownership limits in 1996, Clear Channel was quickly on the highway to radio
dominance. The company owns and operates 1,233 radio stations (including six
in Chicago) and claims 100 million listeners. Clear Channel generated about
20 percent of the radio industry's $16 billion in 2001 revenues.
Size sparks criticism
The media giant's size also has generated criticism. Some recording artists
have charged that Clear Channel's dominance in radio and concert promotions
is hurting the recording industry. Congress is investigating the effects of
radio consolidation. And the FCC is considering ownership rule changes,
among them changes that could allow Clear Channel to expand its reach.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has introduced a bill that could halt further
deregulation in the radio industry and limit each company's audience share
and percent of advertising dollars. These measures could limit Clear
Channel's meteoric growth and hinder its future profitability.
Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of
Minnesota, said the company's support of the Bush administration's policy
toward Iraq makes it "hard to escape the concern that this may in part be
motivated by issues that Clear Channel has before the FCC and Congress."
Dollinger denied there is a connection between the rallies and the company's
pending regulatory matters.
Rick Morris, an associate professor of communications at Northwestern
University, said these actions by Clear Channel stations are a logical
extension of changes in the radio industry over the last 20 years, including
the blurring of lines between journalism and entertainment.
From a business perspective, Morris said, the rallies are a natural fit for
many stations, especially talk-radio stations where hosts usually espouse
politically conservative views.
"Nobody should be surprised by this," Morris said.
In 1987 the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters
to cover controversial issues in their community and to do so by offering
balancing views. With that obligation gone, Morris said, "radio can behave
more like newspapers, with opinion pages and editorials."
"They've just begun stretching their legs, being more politically active,"
Morris said.

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.

Then Krugman goes on to talk about how "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?"

the CBC (canadian broadcasting corporation) has been publically funding the anti-war rallies...I personally think that this is more insidious as the CBC is funded by taxpayers dollars

anyone know which Chicago stations these are? This partly explains why Chicago (privately-owned) radio sucks balls.

where the hell did you hear that?

That's weird I never though of Clear Channel as neutral in any way. They're a private company, they have an axe to grind.

Last night, TV belonged to another Times editorial page heavy hitta - Thomas Friedman interviewed on CNN, then had a show on the Discovery Channel where he traveled around the Mideast and Europe, talking to people about the post-9/11 Muslim world. (Nodding earnestly behind his heavy moustache.)

Looks like he was also on Freshhhh Air this week, talking about the tax cut - his bread and buttah.

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1174641

The whole idea came to radio talk show host Glenn Beck by a caller who was complaining about the anti-war rallies and that there were no pro-American rallies going on, and this gave Beck an idea to start up some rallies. He organized the first two (I've forgotten where they were held) and then the station managers for the various radio stations around the country that syndicate his program called him up on the rest.

You guys are totally being fed major spin by ultra-left wingers who can't stand the fact that there are regular Americans out there who don't hate their country and that the actions of the regular people can have so much of an effect on the country. NPR's coverage of the war in Iraq is more loathing of the troops than anything anyone at CNN has ever said, and that's saying something. Also, Glenn Beck himself has complained about how much the reporters who are desperately trying to angle the stories about the "Rallies for America" into a "corporate control" conspiracy so they can see the efforts of everyday Americans who are actually appreciative of this country burn to the ground.

It angers me that lies like the ones you've stated are being gobbled up, especially since it seeks to discredit the efforts of people such as the 16-year-old girl who almost single-handedly set up a "Rally for America" in her community and who was harrassed by a reporter with an agenda.

You want to talk about balance and illicit funding? What about all those anti-war rallies? Many of them are funded by Communist organizations that provide the protestors with ready-made signs that say all manner of nasty things about Bush and Blair but don't say a single thing about the evil deeds of Saddam Hussein. In fact, at an anti-war rally in London, when a woman who fled Iraq in '91 to live in England wanted to talk to the crowd about the horrors she suffered under the Hussein regime, she wasn't allowed to do that. She was pushed away. Why was she? Why couldn't she talk about something that had all the relevance in the world to the issue these people were supposedly protesting?

And Rallies for America = Rallies to Support the Policies of George Bush = Rallies to Support George Bush's War on Iraq. It's pretty silly to claim otherwise.

Yeah, because anyone who would dare to suggest that they had a right given them by the founding fathers of this country to vocally oppose the current administration's policies obviously hates America.

As far as this "constitution" thingy that keeps coming up, Osama Hussein must have had a hand in it. Or the Taliban. Err, or Commies--those dirty red bastards are sneaky like that.