Patriotism or Politics?

Written by Eric Olsen
Published March 20, 2003

Clear Channel has been sponsoring "patriotic" rallies in various cities: is this simply an expression of concern for our troops or is there a political motivation? The fact that this is even an issue again demonstrates that the consolidation of media power into a very few hands is dangerous and improper:

    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.

    ...."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.

    ...."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.

    ....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. [Chicago Tribune]

Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and publisher of Blogcritics.org, which, quite frankly, rules - as do his wife and four children.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Patriotism or Politics?
Published: March 20, 2003
Type:
Section: Politics
Filed Under: Culture: Media
Writer: Eric Olsen
Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
Eric Olsen's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Eric Olsen
Culture: Media
All Politics Articles
Eric Olsen's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — March 20, 2003 @ 10:44AM — san [URL]

One of the reasons I don't support the Bush invasion is BECAUSE I'm concerned about our troops. One thing to die in defense of freedom with no other options, another thing entirely to die in an unethical war when this administration shrugged off diplomacy in favor of firepower.

#2 — March 20, 2003 @ 10:47AM — Eric Olsen

"Shrugged off diplomacy"? They went way out of their way to work with the UN, the Security Council made it clear tha force was not an option. The only making inspections - an element of the "diplomacy" - work is the presence of 250,000 troops on Iraq's borders. What was let for "diplomacy" to accomplish?

#3 — March 20, 2003 @ 14:04PM — san [URL]

Bush was invading Iraq every since he made that infamous axis of evil speech. He was just a matter of when.

#4 — March 21, 2003 @ 02:58AM — Steve Rhodes [URL]


From an article in salon mostly focusing on the protests:

Her sense of a country wanting to shut people up was confirmed last night at an Ani DiFranco concert in New Jersey. The concert took place at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center, a venue owned by radio and concert behemoth Clear Channel. The company barred political groups from setting up tables at the concert and, according to progressive radio host Amy Goodman, who introduced DiFranco, company officials threatened to cut the microphones if there was any political speech onstage. The show was delayed as DiFranco fought with Clear Channel.

#5 — March 21, 2003 @ 17:56PM — bflaska [URL]

This appears to me to be the crux of the article:

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."

I think Kirtley has summarized the situation accurately.

The media giant merely wants to maintain a position of influence with the party in power, which could change the current rules of media ownership. This is a dangerous situation, whether you're willing to believe it or not.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/3953)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments