[wordup] Clear channel organizing pro-war rallies?

[Adam Shand]

"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?"

heh.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN

y 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?