Lexus, there was no Roman democracy for the last several hundred years of the empire. Human nature is not democratic. We look for strong leaders to tell us what to do. Americans are willing to give up their freedoms because they don't understand what democracy is. The Patriot act was wrong, yet out of fear we acceded. That was the terrorists greatest victory.
Originally posted by Eddie FamousThe licenses to operate on those frequencies are in fact owned by the corporations, paid to the government for their licenses.
Last I checked, I don't have to renew ownership of the things that I "own" every eight years - nor am I required to keep a public file documenting how I use the things that I "own". But whatever....
Originally posted by Eddie FamousThe government has wisely decided to let the marketplace mostly determine what formats run on those stations (short of vulgarity).
Until recently, the government has largely bent to the whims of the NAB and allowed massive corporate consolidation which has all but blown up in the commercial stations faces. Both local and national on-air ad revenues are in decline (between 15% and 30%, depending on who you believe). Almost every analyst I've read or talked with feels the commercial radio market is in serious trouble, and, if they don't start refocusing on localism, we're going to start seeing a lot of stations in the commercial band failing. Worse yet, this was entirely predictable, but, like the newspapers, the commercial broadcasters have no desire to change with the times.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention that it's the same Telcom Act that deregulated the broadcast market that also was supposed to allow for innovation in broadband - which took the United States from 1st in broadband penetration to somewhere between 15th to 25th (depending on the report). That's the innovation of the deregulated market for you. (Thank you, Bill Clinton.)
Originally posted by Eddie FamousNo, and no one who actually works for a local NPR station would call it a success, either. Some of the NPRs run more commercials ("sponsor mentions") than some of the corporate owned satellite stations.
If our attorneys are right, you're going to start seeing a lot of more fines involving underwriting for non-commercial stations in the near future, which, as I understand it, is a fairly new phenomenon. I think this is a good thing, BTW.
Originally posted by Eddie FamousSo the government should force you to listen to something you have proven time and time again that you do not want to listen to. How is this good?
Commercial stations aren't giving people what they want, either. Beyond that, I have no idea as to what "proof" you are referring.
No one - me especially - is advocating for government controlled content. But the idea that corporate radio is somehow "better" than the non-commercial broadcasters because of some "marketplace" is ludicrous. The commercial broadcasters have, until very recently, had the market almost entirely at their whims, and have proven that they lack innovation in format. On the contrary, they've done nothing but homogenized the formats almost to the extent that you can drive across the country without hearing anything unique.
The one "innovation" I've seen , INDY 103.1 in L.A., was a commercialization of the college format - which doesn't translate well to a commercial structure and, hence, is no more.
(edited by Leroy on 4.4.09 1308)
We all have ways of coping. I use sex and awesomeness.
I don't know if this would reach any undecided Massachusetts voters, or swing any it reached, but in the interest of full disclosure: Mitt Romney cut my fiancee off in traffic. And not even in Boston, where that sort of thing is allowed.