backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Mar 10 at 9:08 AM

A settlement agreement reached between XM Radio and Clear Channel results in four stations with commercials

If you bought into XM Radio for uninterrupted music and talk radio wherever you go, you may be a bit disappointed by this news. Four of its stations provided by Clear Channel will now have commercials thanks to a settlement agreement reached by the two companies:

In addition, commercial advertisements will resume on music programming currently provided to us by Clear Channel. Certain of these changes implement a settlement agreement and are in accordance with the preliminary decision of the arbitration panel for a dispute we had with Clear Channel relating to our respective rights and obligations under agreements entered into in connection with Clear Channel’s 1998 investment in us.

With XM Radio offering over 160 channels, I don't think that four stations with commercials will bother too many people – but you never know.




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Surprised?
By IsDanReally on 3/8/2006 1:08:10 PM , Rating: 5
Clear Channel being affiliated with XM is the main reason I never even considered them over Sirius. Not to mention that at the time, more channels than not had commericals, and they charged extra for internet listening.

When I see people with XM, it just makes me sad for them.




RE: Surprised?
By creathir on 3/8/06, Rating: -1
RE: Surprised?
By TwistyKat on 3/8/2006 1:40:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What is wrong with Clear Channel?


Media empires are bad for democracy.


RE: Surprised?
By brystmar on 3/8/2006 2:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
> Media empires are bad for democracy.

i think you mean capitalism, not democracy. if CC started spewing forth lies & propaganda they'd be held immediately accountable.


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 2:38:06 PM , Rating: 3
> "if CC started spewing forth lies & propaganda they'd be held immediately accountable"

Not necessarily...PBS has been getting away with it for years :p


RE: Surprised?
By TwistyKat on 3/8/2006 4:03:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
i think you mean capitalism, not democracy. if CC started spewing forth lies & propaganda they'd be held immediately accountable.


No, democracy is correct. When you have a small amount of large media companies with vested interests controlling the spin to the voters, you elect liars like Bush & Cheney.


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 4:11:49 PM , Rating: 3
> "When you have a small amount of large media companies with vested interests controlling the spin to the voters..."

You mean like the NYT, Wash Post, LA Times, and the Public Broadcasting Corporation?


RE: Surprised?
By razorpit on 3/8/2006 4:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot Hollywood!


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 5:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "You forgot Hollywood!"

Yep...and quite an oversight on my part. Of course, no one ever claims about all the thinly-veiled propaganda we see in so many movies these days.


RE: Surprised?
By razorpit on 3/8/2006 4:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and just think, they don't even tell half of the lies that Clinton and Gore did. Screw "small amount of large media companies with vested interests controlling the spin to the voters". Good grief, get a life...

Sorry Bub but we are free to listen and believe whatever we want. If you don't like what you are hearing then listen to something else or better yet start your own station.


RE: Surprised?
By TwistyKat on 3/8/2006 4:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah and just think, they don't even tell half of the lies that Clinton and Gore did.


Lies about BJs? Geeze, I think you might need to sit and ponder what kind of lies are bad and what kind of lies are criminal.

Take the blinders off there, fella.


RE: Surprised?
By razorpit on 3/8/2006 5:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Oh boy lets see where do I start....

Death of Vince Foster.
Whitewater.
Selling nuclear weapons tech to China.
Selling the west coast ports to China.
Middle class tax cuts.
The questionable pardons at the end of his presidency.

Sorry I don't have the time to list everything but these are some of the bigger ones I can think of off the top of my head and yes BJ's are at the very bottom of the list. Do a google for Clinton scandals and you'll have fun reading and learning. You might want to turn off NPR though so you'll be able to concentrate.

Where I come from those are bad lies.


RE: Surprised?
By TwistyKat on 3/8/2006 6:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh boy lets see where do I start....


With dubious red herrings, obviously.

But you won't get me to defend Clinton (you brought him up, don't forget). My problem is the way the news media has consolidated into the hands of a vested few who all have interests in protecting their empires.

It's bad for democracy. It's bad for America.


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 9:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "My problem is the way the news media has consolidated into the hands of a vested few"

The news media was consolidated long before ClearChannel rose to power. Did that concern you? Or did your "fears for democracy" arise only when opinions differing from yours began being aired?


RE: Surprised?
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 10:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
It was consolidated before ClearChannel? BWAHAHAHA holy crap Batman what have you been smoking. You know how I know it wasn't consolidated? Because the government had rules against it and set in place the effort to make sure someone couldn't do what ClearChannel is doing now. Do you just pull shiat out of your ass in hopes that it sticks?


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 10:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "It was consolidated before ClearChannel? "

In regards to "controlling the spin" the average person sees-- yes. Long before ClearChannel. A de facto consolidation if not de jure.

When 89% of the journalists and news editors in the nation belong to the same party, and spin the same opinion in the exact same manner-- thats a far more insidious and dangerous consolidation than ClearChannel's 9% market share.


> "BWAHAHAHA holy crap Batman...Do you just pull shiat out of your ass in hopes that it sticks?"

Puerile responses such as this speak for themselves.


RE: Surprised?
By TwistyKat on 3/9/2006 7:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The news media was consolidated long before ClearChannel rose to power. Did that concern you? Or did your "fears for democracy" arise only when opinions differing from yours began being aired?


So you believe that, when the President of the United States makes up a grand fabrication about WMD and the mainstream media begins pounding the war drums for him instead of questioning his evidence and motivations, as they are supposed to do no matter who is in power, you believe that is a good thing?


RE: Surprised?
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 10:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
I got one better do a google search for both Bush 1 and 2 scandals. Hell he started the whole sell secrets to the Chinese, his former partner sold weapons to terrorists left and right, etc etc etc. What does this mean? It means that both sides of the isles are very dirty and don't care about joe six pack and if you honestly sit there and think they do then you are either smoking crack or drunk.


RE: Surprised?
By bighairycamel on 3/8/2006 4:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you are obviously a republican. How do I know? Every time someone bad mouths the president, republicans are always there to remind you of everyone elses mistakes while trying to either ignore or justify their own. By everyone else I mean just democrats.

Sorry Bub but we are free to listen and believe whatever we want. If you don't like what you are hearing then listen to something else or better yet start your own station.

Wow, just wow. Do you even think before you type? To hold an objective viewpoint means you need to have formed an opinion. To form an opinion, you need to have listened to both sides of an argument. Telling someone to quit listening because they dont like it is ignorant. But go figure, someone who is devoted to a particular party will quit listening to stuff they don't want to hear... that's why Bush is still in office. You're statement helped to prove that point very nicely.


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 5:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "To form an opinion, you need to have listened to both sides of an argument"

This quite obviously isn't even close to the truth. You might want to step back and think about what you're posting.


RE: Surprised?
By razorpit on 3/8/2006 5:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, most of us are just sick and tired of the crying and more crying over Bush. Get over it. He's the president and will be for another few years. I don't like everything he does but I don't bring it up everytime I post something on the internet.


RE: Surprised?
By danidentity on 3/8/2006 1:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
Are you joking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communi...

Read the 'Controversy' section.


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 1:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "Read the 'Controversy' section"

Much ado about nothing.


RE: Surprised?
By TomZ on 3/8/2006 1:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Do some googling. Clear Channel is evil.


RE: Surprised?
By Homerboy on 3/8/2006 1:52:48 PM , Rating: 3
nothing wrong with CC? They ARE whats wrong with commercial radio PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

pay to play baby!

most people are lemmings and CC is the carrot in front of them. They tell you what you will like, plain and simple and get paid by the record companies to do so.


RE: Surprised?
By e4te on 3/8/2006 2:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention they own almost every concert venue. Trying to book a show at a non-Clear channel venue is becoming near impossible.


RE: Surprised?
By dmcanally on 3/8/06, Rating: 0
RE: Surprised?
By hyperbolicparody on 3/8/2006 9:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
CC is horrible. I live in Philly, where they, I kid you not and am DEAD serious, have set about buying EVERY radio station (and by every I mean EVERY) and change it's format to "hip-hop and R&B" or country. We now have 5, FIVE, 5 Rap stations serving our market (98.9, 100.3, 102.1 (albiet with some occasional pop), 103.9 and a few others which mix Rap with more "Hip Hop" flavor). Add in 3 country stations and the 2 gospel stations...it's god damn annoying. They say they're marketing to a demographic, but that demographic doesn't FIT with the actual DEMOGRAPHIC of the region!

NOW, I actually listen to a good ammount of rap, but I don't need EVERY station to play Rap. On top of that, they own way more channels than they're supposed to. What they do is have some channels in Philly, some in this one little part of the burbs, some in Camden, NJ (which is right across the river, it is for the most part Philadelphia Jr.) some in Deleware (right on the border), etc. etc. They are an evil, evil company that devours indy (as in affiliation NOT as in music genre) stations (both 103.9 and 100.3 were purchased and gutted, and BOTH times they fired the same exact DJs and on-air talent) and turns them into junk.

EVERY upstart or new station that develops a following gets bought.

If you think they aren't evil wait until they start butchering your favorite stations. CC IS bad for democracy. Wait till you live next to one of their DJs, and listen to the things that corporate policy prevents them from saying.

I mean, the NY Times, CNN, Fox etc. may be slanted, but they're upfront about it. CC is at the point where I'm suprised their staff manage to keep all their stuff from sliding out of the building. The WORST part is it's not even a political/religious/ideological slant, cause THOSE I can respect/admire/ignore.....it's their corporate power grab.

Unfourtunantly when it comes time for re-election, the FCC is in the WAY back of everyone's minds.


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 9:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "I mean, the NY Times, CNN, Fox etc. may be slanted, but they're upfront about it"

Lol, what planet are you from?


RE: Surprised?
By IsDanReally on 3/8/2006 2:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is it you hate about Clear Channel so much?

Too much advertising, syncronizing advertising on all stations, and them owning the majority of the stations. I don't really hate them, because I have a choice, a choice to not support them.


RE: Surprised?
By Samus on 3/8/2006 3:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
Any company who owns 1600 billboards, 137 radio stations, a cable tv network, a mainstream tv network, a newspaper and a publication company should be consider a monopoly. The worst part is all of these arms of clearchannel are used to advertise the same right-wing propaganda Rupert Murdoch (the biggest neo-Nazi next to Karl Rove) is well known for.

Hell, he just bought MySpace so he can put up adds that'll brainwash your children. Next he'll buy Disney and a Tobacco company and go back to Cigarette advertising roots:

"Buzz lightyear smokes Winston Lights, you (Smoke) know your not (Smoke) cool until you smoke what Buzz smokes. (Smoke)"

(Simpsons parody)


RE: Surprised?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 3:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "The worst part is all of these arms of clearchannel are used to advertise the same right-wing propaganda..."

And we see exposed your largest objection to ClearChannel....you simply don't like their politics.

> "...Rupert Murdoch (the biggest neo-Nazi next to Karl Rove)"

And with nonsense like this, you lose what little credibility you had. Begone, troll!


RE: Surprised?
By Lifted on 3/8/2006 8:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense? It's not like he hides it. Time to get your head out of the sand, take a look around, and see what the rest of the world has known for years.


Sirius FTW
By Tupolev22m on 3/8/2006 4:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
This kind of crap is why I subscribe to Sirius and not XM.... I've never had a problem with them and I don't have to put up with the politics or commercials on all my local Clear Channel owned stations. They seriously are a monopoly and this is mostly bad because the average person doesn't know he is part of a right wing agenda since they don't advertise they are part of a media propaganda army. BTW to the people that accused people who tell the truth as trolling, maybe you should consider the facts of the situation or not let your politics influence your accusations.




RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 4:41:08 PM , Rating: 3
...As if the NY Times ever admits its political bias? Or NBC? PBS? Or the LA Times...infamous for their smear campaigns designed to influence California elections?

I don't see anything in ClearChannel that isn't common industry-wide practice.


RE: Sirius FTW
By Operandi on 3/8/2006 8:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about bias, political or otherwise. It's about one media company controlling an entire medium, radio. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out why this is a bad idea.

Clear Channel should burn in hell.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 9:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's not about bias, political or otherwise. It's about one media company controlling an entire medium, radio."

Man, where do you people get such nonsense? Clearchannel owns 1200 radio stations. That is NINE PERCENT of all stations in the US.

Since when is 9% a monopoly?


RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 10:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my God get a clue everyone. They own more than just radio stations, how dumb can you be? Do you ever read and investigate things? Clear channel owns- newspapers, billboards, venues, etc in certain towns, they control it all. The reason Clear Channel is so shady and a puppet for this white house is because they play unfair and create monopolies in towns that they setup shop. Hell just talk to any major recording tour manager and listen to them discuss how hard it is to book shows if you are on Clear Channel's bad side.

Also read some of the interviews with senoir management who have since left Clear Channel, it will scare you into just how much power they hold. Anybody who goes "nah not a big deal" are kidding themselves and need to invest in some new glasses and start reading.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 10:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "Oh my God get a clue everyone"

Good advice, why not follow it yourself? Nine percent of radio stations is not a monopoly...and their market share of the nation's newspapers and billboards is even smaller than that. So tell me again how they "own it all...when they own far less than even a majority...?

> "talk to any major recording tour manager and listen to them discuss how hard it is to book shows..."

Some rock group can't book a gig somewhere...yep, that certainly sounds like a major threat to democracy and free speech there.

> "Also read some of the interviews with senoir management who have since left Clear Channel"

News flash for you kid. Pretty much ANY senior management that gets forced out has something bad to say about those who did the forcing.


RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 10:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
BAHAHAHA oh my god is that what are using as your defense? Calling me a kid is a nice touch and a good laugh. Have you ever worked around this company or in a market as them? As someone who has for a good long time let me tell you they are very dangerous. Do you even understand how the entertainment business works or do you just listen to what Rush spits out everyday. Are you drinking to much of the kool-aid?


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 10:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your post, while amusing, doesn't hide the fact you failed to answer a single one of my points. ClearChannel is not a monopoly; they own a very small percentage of the national market. I'm still waiting for you to explain why you believe they "own it all". Want to take a stab at that, or continue laughing like a sheep?

> "As someone who has for a good long time let me tell you they are very dangerous."

You keep saying that, but failing to explain the great threat to freedom and democracy. A rock band having trouble booking a gig doesn't qualify, sorry.

> "or do you just listen to what Rush spits out everyday."

If you mean Rush Limbaugh, I once heard a show of his about five years ago. Does that qualify?


RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 10:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
When the hell did I ever say they are a monopoly? You pulled that out of your ass saying I some how am saying that I think they are a monopoly. I never said that you just keep making it up time after time.

They own a very large portion of the market when you think about it. From venues, billboards, advertising, etc etc etc but you seem to forget all of those. When you combine all of that market power into certain areas you are squashing freedom of speech. For example they axed the Dixie Chicks from their stations due to their stance on the war, that is using their market force to get a reaction and move people to do certain things.(granted it backfired since the Dixie chicks sold out most of their shows and cd sales went through the roof.)

Let me sum it up for you again since I know your learning disability is showing. I DO NOT believe they own a monopoly but i do think that their extensive market control in areas is extremely dangerous and should be looked at. It is a threat to freedom and democracy because if a company ends up buying most of a towns stations, venues, print, etc they forceably control viewpoints and dissent. How about you go read "Why societies need dissent" by Cass Sunstein and in abotu a month get back to me.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 10:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "When the hell did I ever say they are a monopoly? You pulled that out of your ass saying I some how am saying that I think they are a monopoly. I never said that... "

Lol, do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? Look two posts up, you'll see yourself saying: "Clear channel... they control it all ...they play unfair and create monopolies in towns "

> "They own a very large portion of the market when you think about it."

9% is not a large portion of the market. They own even less of the billboard and newspaper markets. Venues...I don't know their share there. If you're the expert you claim on this, why not actually quote a fact for a change?

> "It is a threat to freedom and democracy because if a company ends up buying most of a towns stations, venues, print, etc they forceably control viewpoints and dissent."

Forcibly (not "forceably") controlling the viewpoints we see is something the mainstream media has been doing for decades.

As for your censorship red herring, only government has the power to censor. A private company can exercise their own freedom to not assist you in broadcasting your opinion....but thats not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. A fact that the major news media has been exploiting for as long as I can remember.



RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 11:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
the question is Masher do you read closely? I said they create monopolies in towns. Did I say they have created a NATIONAL monopoly? Really please point to where I said that. Should we go throug the ABC's now so you can better understand? Can you think outside the box and really understand the content you are talking about?

quote:
Forcibly (not "forceably") controlling the viewpoints we see is something the mainstream media has been doing for decades.


Actually not to this level, remember when the government had laws against companies owning so many stations in an area and what not? They were actually looking out for other viewpoints and once that was thrown out the buying spree began. I agree that mainstream media has been at it since the dawn of the first ad but this is on a whole new level and if you can't realize that then there is no hope and I am gonna stop arguing. (excuse my spelling mistake I have various tabs in various forums going on and I just wrote that bit as fast as I could.)

Here is a great breakdown of the company
http://www.investor.reuters.com/business/BusCompan...
I suggest reading it very closely and see all the ties that ClearChannel has to shutting down viewpoints and turning certain towns into monopolies.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 11:19:47 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously, do you have to act like such a child? You posted they create monopolies, then you claimed you never said it. Now you're tossing in some disclaimer about "national" monopolies to cover your ass.

Whatever. You win, you didn't say it. Let's move on.

> "Here is a great breakdown of the company "

I found one salient fact in there. CC owns or operates a grand total of 75 domestic venues. So it doesn't seem they're anywhere near a monopoly there either.

> "remember when the government had laws against companies owning so many stations in an area ...They were actually looking out for other viewpoints..."

When all the media outlets are all expressing the exact same viewpoint, it hardly matters who owns them, now does it?

In any case, you are still missing the most important point. Terrestial broadcasts are no longer a monopoly, period. The market has changed. You have cable, satellite, the Internet...all accessible in these markets. The concept of a "local market" doesn't really exist any more.




RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 11:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, do you have to act like such a child? You posted they create monopolies, then you claimed you never said it. Now you're tossing in some disclaimer about "national" monopolies to cover your ass.


Cover my ass? That's rich. Act like a child? If I'm a child and bringing this much schooling then you look more a fool than I do.

quote:
I found one salient fact in there. CC owns or operates a grand total of 75 domestic venues. So it doesn't seem they're anywhere near a monopoly there either.


Holy crap your reading is horrible. Did you even care to look into what venues they are? Maybe size matters, I know your women tells you it doesn't but in this case it does. Also you keep pulling up that monopoly word over and over like it's your big red button that you are able to push anytime someone hands their ass to you. The single fact that you can't break down the points I gave you and digest the single fact that their marketing force is unparalleled in today's world is AMAZING!

quote:
When all the media outlets are all expressing the exact same viewpoint, it hardly matters who owns them, now does it?


You ever care to dig deeper on that assumption and figure out why it seems that the same viewpoints are being put out in the media? The single fact that you complained and made that point contradicts everything you have argued to this point.

quote:
In any case, you are still missing the most important point. Terrestial broadcasts are no longer a monopoly, period. The market has changed. You have cable, satellite, the Internet...all accessible in these markets. The concept of a "local market" doesn't really exist any more.


Another funny assumption, because you know every ma and pa has the ability to log onto the internet, cable, sat, etc. Sorry bub but radio and regular air broadcast TV is still pretty big in the US. Just because you and your friends have internet, cable, blackberries, sat, etc doesn't mean that everyone is pulling the same abilities. I also like how you pulled out "local market" and proved once again due to media buyouts that a forced opinion and a preset idea is being fed back to those people. You once again basically proved my point and you didn't even know it.

It's been fun but I gotta run.(by the way I actually agree with some of your earlier points I just wanted to see how far I could bait and pull you along. Didn't go as far as I thought you would but you sure did put up a nice little fight. Try not to be such a big prick next time.)


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/9/2006 9:17:28 AM , Rating: 3
> "you can't break down the points I gave you and digest the single fact that their marketing force is unparalleled in today's world..."

This is truly getting ludicrous. Unparalled? Ever hear of a little company called Time Warner? They are over FIVE TIMES larger than ClearChannel...and they control a far larger share of the US media market. I go months or years without even hearing a ClearChannel station...but Time Warner stations, movies, and cable broadcasts are inescapable. And lets not forget their tiny little subsidiary known as AOL. Walk into any doctors office in the country and you'll see a hundred Time Warner magazines...including the propaganga rags "US News" and "Time Magazine", both putting far more of a censored slant on the news than anything ClearChannel ever dreamed up.

ClearChannel "unparalleled" in media clout? What nonsense. You just lost what little credibility you had left. In the media world, they're not even in the top three. I gave you one, let's see if you can come up with the other two.


RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/10/2006 2:52:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is truly getting ludicrous. Unparalled? Ever hear of a little company called Time Warner? They are over FIVE TIMES larger than ClearChannel...and they control a far larger share of the US media market. I go months or years without even hearing a ClearChannel station...but Time Warner stations, movies, and cable broadcasts are inescapable. And lets not forget their tiny little subsidiary known as AOL. Walk into any doctors office in the country and you'll see a hundred Time Warner magazines...including the propaganga rags "US News" and "Time Magazine", both putting far more of a censored slant on the news than anything ClearChannel ever dreamed up.

ClearChannel "unparalleled" in media clout? What nonsense. You just lost what little credibility you had left. In the media world, they're not even in the top three. I gave you one, let's see if you can come up with the other two.


Dude you crack me up. I tell you I am playing you for a sucker and that you proved my points, some of them I don't even agree with right, then go on another rant about a totally different market. I think you are sir are the one lacking credibility especially when someone openly says they are playing your moronic self.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2006 9:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "I tell you I am playing you for a sucker and that you proved my points, some of them I don't even agree with right"

Lol, I rarely see a troll admit to his bad behaviour so openly. You come here, post several ludicrous claims, then when they're disproven, you cry out, "neener neener, I didn't really mean it, I was just kidding."

Begone, foul troll! Go back to pulling the wings off flies, or whatever you normally do with your spare time.


RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 10:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
oh by the way it owns OVER 1200 stations and currently are growing. Also in such places as minneapolis they own 80% of the billboards.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 11:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "oh by the way it owns OVER 1200 stations..."

Do you read threads before posting to them? I posted that fact already...with the additional fact that it comprises only 9% of all stations in the US.


RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/8/2006 11:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
Do you not grasp how big 9% is out of the pool of stations? That is a massive amount of power.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 11:23:53 PM , Rating: 3
And 97% of all news you read anywhere in the US comes from just two sources-- AP and Reuters. Two companies that both espouse the same identical slant and political opinions.

And you're worried about a measly 9% of all radio stations? Don't make me laugh. Its fricken RADIO for crissakes. I don't even know anyone who even listens to radio anymore, except for a few bubblegum-chewing teenagers.


RE: Sirius FTW
By Operandi on 3/9/2006 12:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is radio; I think that’s been established already.

You state 9% market share but the fact of the matter is Clear Channel has near complete control of the air waves and related markets. Nobody disputes this aside from Clear Channel. Radio shouldn't have to be in the sad state that is, but it is and the reason is Clear Channel.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/9/2006 9:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
No, the fact of the matter is ClearChannel controls onl 9% of all radio stations. Since you seem unable to do the math, I'll assist. That means 91% of the airwaves-- the vast majority-- are NOT controlled by them.

Furthermore (and this is a crucial point) radio "airwaves" are an ever-shrinking piece of the media market. Between TV, cable, satellite, Internet, and all the other broadcast options now available, ClearChannel controls a tiny fraction of one percent of the total media market.

The fact are plain. If ClearChannel espoused the traditional liberal mindset present in the remaining 99.2% of the media, there would be no controversy here. I'm a long way from a conservative, but I find the hypocritical objections to ClearChannel to be quite ludicrous.


RE: Sirius FTW
By AMaench7 on 3/10/2006 4:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
you also aren't putting two and two together. Sure it's only 9% but look at where that percent is. By that I mean try and tie together largest metro areas, their stake both in billboards, venues, etc and you will see that they might seem small to you but they reach a ton of people. You just seem to be shouting but really aren't doing any research to the bigger issues. It's why you push things like monopoly and this idea of a liberal media conspiracy.


RE: Sirius FTW
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2006 9:08:52 AM , Rating: 3
2 = 2 = the four largest media empires in the nation. None of which include ClearChannel. Each of them reaching far more people, on a far more inescapable basis, than does ClearChannel. Why aren't you concerned about those companies eh?

But then, we already know the answer, don't we?


First Crack in the Dam
By thilde on 3/8/2006 1:07:08 PM , Rating: 4
Start with these 4 stations. Add a couple more. Add a few more and soon we will be back to the mind numbing drivel that we now experience with traditional radio.




RE: First Crack in the Dam
By TwistyKat on 3/8/2006 1:37:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Add a few more and soon we will be back to the mind numbing drivel that we now experience with traditional radio.


Mainstream radio, actually. There's plenty of great programming in public and non-profit radio, sans commercials and drivel.

Two of my favs from the Boston area:

www.wers.org
www.wicn.org



RE: First Crack in the Dam
By Homerboy on 3/8/2006 1:50:57 PM , Rating: 4
www.wmse.org in Milwaukee!


Tactic to make XM unappealing
By Doormat on 3/8/2006 2:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
CC doesnt seem to like that XM took their licensed content and decided to play it without commercials. This is just a tactic to make XM unappealing - if XM got to play more stations w/o commercials people would stop listening to the CC terestrial radio stations and listen more to XM.




RE: Tactic to make XM unappealing
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 2:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "This is just a tactic to make XM unappealing "

Where do people get this garbage? The motivation for this tactic is clear-- by forcing XM to play their commercials, their advertising time becomes MORE valuable. Hence they can sell it for more money.

This has nothing to do with repressing XM...its just a means to increase profits.


RE: Tactic to make XM unappealing
By Samus on 3/8/2006 3:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
Now why would Clearchannel want to make XM unappealing? They own 50% of it!

They just want to brainwash people. There's no escape!~


RE: Tactic to make XM unappealing
By hans007 on 3/8/2006 3:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
i've loved XM before this, but I'm just hoping its some ofthe channels i dont listen too. sadly it'll probably be the hits stations or something.


I am not sure if xm or sirius is better, but well my car came with XM for free integrated into the car with 50% off the first year...so I didn't really have to choose . I really dont want to ever have some external accesory thing with a cigarette plug. oh well, just hoping its not the stations i listen to.


Not seeing the whole picture I think...
By SpaceRanger on 3/8/2006 2:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With XM Radio offering over 160 channels, I don't think that four stations with commercials will bother too many people – but you never know.


It's not the fact that it's JUST 4 channels of 160.. It is setting the precedent. 4 now, 20 in 1 year.. 40 in 2 years... The snowball just started rolling down the hill..




RE: Not seeing the whole picture I think...
By hans007 on 3/8/2006 3:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
oh well apparently it is just KISS. they have a KIIS fm in los angeles too, i believe clearchannel owned.

i ocasionnaly flip through it but it is the usual teeny bopper crpa for the most part. the FM version is just really annoyuing with all its promos and ads , so the xm one is almost bearable for a song or 2 when they are playing one that is half decent.

as it is, kiisfm is basicaly geared towards the myspace crowd as it is, its all one teenage mosh pit of crap.


yes myspace is crap , there i said it, most of the pages look like garbate and it looks pretty amatuer. i dont care if its the largest social network it is for kiisfm types.


By wmansfield on 3/8/2006 3:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't like it then DON'T LISTEN TO IT... The average person runs around with their head planted in their anus not knowing that the world around them isn't a bubbly fun little merry-go-round. There are plenty of people out there that want to stomp you into the ground and squeeze every penny they can out of you.. People sit around here and gripe about companies, then send them money month after month... examples being Netflix, ClearChannel, AT&T, Exxon


typo
By matthewfoley on 3/8/2006 1:02:24 PM , Rating: 1
four commercials with channels? hmmm




By Exodus220 on 3/8/2006 4:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
I really think that they should just get a couple of channels and dedicate them to commercials, then people could just listen to commercials if they want to instead of forcing them on people.


Cable TV
By etriky on 3/8/2006 1:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Figures. After all, cable TV is a service I pay for but am still continually hounded by commercials. Why should XM be different? Bother.




Already have commercials
By creathir on 3/8/2006 1:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
In case you've never listened to XM,
only the music stations have no "commercials" (though they still have spots for stuff on other stations)

Commercials are all over everything else. 4 channels means jack to me...
- Creathir




hahaha...
By somasaint on 3/8/2006 4:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
its hard to hear anything over the rumble-rumble
of a small block..

you pay for distractions and gripe when distracted
from those distractions..

be your own station..

solution: twist-turn-flip the knob..

*game: blouses




Free?
By Googer on 3/9/2006 12:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
Why pay? If they are going to allow advertising on sattelite radio then there should not be a monthly fee, it should be free.




none
By slash196 on 3/9/2006 9:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
So what exactly is the point of a subscriber service with commercials?




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki