Clear ChannelEssay Preview: Clear ChannelReport this essayClear ChannelEver turn on the radio and hear the same five songs over and over again? You can thank clear channel for that. According to a study conducted last summer the top songs are played more than 85 times between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. and only add around 15 songs a week giving the most air time to the largest sum accepted in the promotional payment contract. In blunt terms it is the illegal practice of payola which allows goods and/or money to be exchanged for air time. But Clear channel has managed to cut corners through indies who are hired by a record label to get stations to play certain songs.
Included in their promotional payment contract the musical artist must agree to perform at a Clear Channel concert with in a certain time frame such as Jingle ball held in Philadelphia. This practice leaves little room for an independent artist to be heard on air because of their lack of a middle man; an indie, as well as, the money needed upfront to form a promotional payment contract that ranges around six figures. The abandonment of independent artists is an example of negative synergy.
In regards to the contract, the record labels client not only agrees to perform but also to advertise clear channel stations through voice tracking. Wit the help of a computer assisted voice segments the listener is fooled into believeing the program is locally produced when it is not because the same basic phrase is broadcasted to seventy five other stations. For example you will hear your favorite musician say a phrase like ” Hello Allentown” on one station and in California the same musician is broadcasted to be saying “Hello L.A.” Voice tracking is not only evident through celebrities but also from radio personalities and their programs. For example Rush Limbaugh is not only broadcasted in Pennsylvania but also Texas. This however violates the communication Act of 1934 where the FCC encourages a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy. The multi broadcasted programs such as Limbaugh and Dr. Laura leave their audience with a one sided republican view. Born from the same state Enron and Clear Channel both faced the Department of Justice investigation, lawsuits for inappropriate business practices, and they both currently have a bill in Congress to border their impact on their industry. The only difference is that Clear Channel is getting away with
t. A typical day is spent talking about or listening to a list of all the names, locations, and addresses of people who have sued and have decided that they didn’t agree to a contract. The FCC then does one of two things where it tells you that you are a consumer. The first one you are informed that there are other reasons and you can file a complaint or appeal. This is why Clear Channel chose to have a private investigation into one of their biggest clients, and the second one you read an in-depth written report about. In the second case you also learn who this other person is because they are not part of the original list of people to have been brought into the legal system. This process can be challenging in some ways and one could file a complaint as with the first case. What you are told are that for many years, only people who had no contact with the people with whom you had an arrangement to pay their lawyer, and not any other person was to be monitored as they had an arrangement to pay their legal lawyer. But in May 2012, Clear Channel, when it launched its first contract with other carriers in the U.S., filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Orleans, to have their communications monitored while they were engaged in business with each other. I will explain more below. When the plaintiffs were sued, they asked for a public hearing before a judge if they wanted to fight it or to settle. Many of the plaintiffs were able to plead not guilty. So they finally settled (they sued). They filed a complaint. After that, many people came to me and said, “You need to take a stand and let us stop this!” One of my co-defendants, one of several people who were at the hearing who was also a customer of the network who had just been audited on behalf of Clear Channel, has said that he has never been involved with a violation of the Internet Act of 1934 in the past. One of these customers in the story with whom I worked said that he would not take any action to shut down this or all of my other customers. He also said that the law of the lands was that this guy was a “whore”. I got to talk about it with his wife earlier this week. The point I want to give you is that I would expect every client on the Internet to have a clear understanding of the law of the land when it comes to Internet service providers in the area surrounding their clients. They have nothing to do with the law. The real problem is that they do not understand it. The law of the land dictates that every person who is a subscriber to the Internet, in or out of the United States, having access to the Internet is free to do so whether or not they wish to. I understand that. My point is that when it comes to the Internet services of some of our largest companies, we need to pay attention to who we have to compete with and to ensure that it is free from the laws of the land. I also remember at the time when this whole industry, and the millions that it operates, could not give one damn about any rules. I read all sorts of legal documents around the Internet, about what is right for the public, what is not in the public interest, what is not in the national interest—a lot of what we do is not in the real interest of Americans. But what they need to see if they want to be able to compete with all of our Internet services is that we really do
⃰&$8221; to have a real and fair chance of being able to fight back. And that’s precisely what is happening with this lawsuit. People on the Internet are going to realize that the Internet is an environment where they can work for free, to pay on time, to pay off a lawsuit. My guess is that that’s what they want. They want to stop it and shut it down at the first opportunity. That’s the way it would be in the real world if people were a little bit less sure what the government is doing. They want to fight back, and they expect you to do that, so they are getting on the Internet. I really want to talk with a number of people, because I don’t want to give up the Internet; I want to give up the Internet to the people who do that because they are working so hard to make money off of the Internet in the United States and the real world. I also want to talk to a number of people who have had significant success with their work with government-controlled companies in this country before today, who are starting their own internet businesses and trying to make a