Clear Channel Clearly Cills Competition

I know, I know. Kills.

When I interviewed Cal Rifkin, CEO of Breakthru Radio, a couple of months ago, I was primarily concerned with how his internet station had made money. I assumed that it had something to do with ads on their website, but that was exactly the problem: they couldn’t have only stayed afloat from the ads on their website. I must admit, the sponsors were big names like Apple and Continental who were paying for banner space, but that couldn’t have been it for them. They were quite successful, and weren’t broadcasting from the basement of someone’s parents’ house. What was the reason? Well, it turned out that they had been getting those companies to additionally sponsor their shows. For example, a company like Apple would pay to have the DJ say “This show is sponsored by Apple,” etc, etc. And it worked, then, considering who knows what will happen with these danged laws that are set to destroy internet radio.

But the (sometimes) soulless Clear Channel is going to try to do the same thing as a test on 92.5, otherwise known as KZPS, in Dallas, Texas. Instead of having commercials for 16 minutes for every hour of programming (sheesh, it’s really sad that that’s the norm), they’re going to have certain companies sponsor the shows, in the same way that Breakthru had companies sponsor theirs. Their lucky advertisers, Southwest Airlines, Coors, AT&T and Guitar Center, will each be weaved into the show for about two minutes, giving them all the plugs they need to get their money’s worth. This decision comes as a response to the fact that internet radio is growing exponentially (for now), iPod use is rampant, and XM and Sirius are finding a niche in the marketplace. They don’t actually have any commercials on their shows, or at least not in the same way that terrestrial radio does, and Clear Channel is trying to compete with the changing landscape of the industry.

So what does this say about the industry? Listeners are clearly not interested in sitting through advertisements anymore (as if they used to love them). People don’t necessarily have to, either, as they can change the dial as soon as an annoying jingle comes on. Or, as Clear Channel is reacting to it, the radio industry is changing so that they don’t have to have advertisers anymore. Some people figured out that the masses would pay for radio, and that’s all the revenue they’ve needed. Although, considering the lackluster success of satellite radio providers, it hasn’t really been that beneficial yet. But if terrestrial radio doesn’t see a need for change and stays the way that it is, then more and more people will flock to the satellite providers.

But this is a clear indicator that terrestrial radio is taking notes. Clear Channel owns an enormous slice of the terrestrial radio pie, and if this business model succeeds, then terrestrial radio will have more of a benefit over their competitors; they may even be able to completely X ‘em out (little satellite radio joke, please try to bear with me). And this is exactly the type of formatting that listeners want, right? People don’t like having to switch their radio every four or five songs just because it’s time for a commercial break. In fact, I don’t think I know anyone that actually listens to them. If I were forced to sit through them and analyze them, I would pull out my hair after ten minutes. It’s simply too pointless to listen to ads when all you want to hear is music.

The unfortunate aspect of this whole ordeal is the fact that advertisers are going to have to dish out some serious dough to make this all happen. Sure, they get to sponsor an hour of radio time – a dream for any company who wants publicity – but it’s going to come at a much higher cost. Radio stations would be able to jack up the prices as they see fit, and if this all goes according to plan, it may become the norm for companies that don’t hop on this type of bandwagon to be committing advertising suicide. Radio stations would surely take advantage of this, especially ones who are all about the profit (i.e. Clear Channel), and the whole initial purpose – which, I take it, is to compete with other radio formats – would be pointless as advertisers jump ship. They could easily run to internet radio stations and advertise for much cheaper, and as audiences for satellite and internet radio stations are ever-so-rapidly increasing, this may be more lucrative for investors in the long run.

But there may not even be a long run. This type of advertising comes at a time when internet radio is posed to die a slow and painful death. With most internet radio stations stamped out, the remaining net stations would most likely increase their advertising costs as a result of the heavy increase in fines. Advertisers would probably refrain from running to internet stations as they will be seen as risky investments, and the only other options would be satellite and terrestrial radio. So for Clear Channel, this would be a blessing. Advertisers may be forced to advertise on their stations in this way, and may have to cough up a lot of money to do so. Satellite radio may even crumble as a result of this (even though they’re already crumbling now), and terrestrial radio may be the last man standing.

Then again, there’s the option that advertisers will look at overall investment in radio technology as a risky investment. With all sorts of media hoopla about how radio is dying out and how other formats are suffering as well, advertisers may just stick to basic forms of advertising like on television and in magazines and completely ignore radio. This would have to happen after contracts run out, of course, but companies may not be so inclined to renew those legal bindings. I can’t blame them, either. Radio is a dying format altogether, and with this type of move that Clear Channel is making, it is becoming more and more clear that stations are starting to cash in on what they should have done years ago.

Call me pessimistic or call me a realist. This is a clear example of how the radio industry is suffering. This being my last post for this blog and all, I figure I would use this news story as a jump-off point to talk about the industry as a whole. Radio has recently taken some serious hits and people are just getting tired of the industry’s games. The public is still hesitant to pay for radio, internet radio is going to be killed, and terrestrial radio – well, it plainly sucks. I don’t even find myself listening to the radio anymore. I know that there are millions of people who listen to the radio on their way to work, but even they will figure out alternate forms of entertaining themselves along their boring drives to work everyday. iPods are all the rage, and people are going to be gravitating towards them as time goes by. Surely one could argue that people still look to mainstream formats to get the scoop on what’s popular in music, but even that is wearing thin. People don’t have the same trust that they used to in regards to radio, and the industry is suffering because of it.

Where do I see the industry going? I can’t imagine that a format as troubled as this will be able to succeed in the future. No one even pays attention to the radio industry (except for the Imus statements, but that had nothing really to do with radio itself) and the news that is written up about it. Do people really care about it anymore? I don’t think I know one person that listens to it. Then again, I’m in college and we’re a whole different type of music consumer. But really, it’s sad to have written about the radio industry for the past couple of months and seen it only get reported on when something bad happens. And that’s pretty often. Everything is met with skepticism, and nothing ever looks promising. Does that mean that I’m right in my assertions? Who knows. But all I can say, good luck to the radio industry, and thanks for reading. I’m out.

Imusgate Pt. 4: Some Final Thoughts

I swear that this is the last of the Imusgate posts. Maybe. But in all honesty, I believe that it is somewhat ridiculous that there has been nothing else reported on since this whole Imusgate thing began. I have my ways of scouring the ‘net to find stories on radio stations, copyright infractions, etc., but I believe that with this news story, everything has officially come to a standstill. And that’s very sad. No one seems to be giving much thought to the fact that the entire internet radio industry is about to be crushed by legislation that was denied appeal. I already reported about this, and it’s pointless to keep posting about it, since it’s going to inevitably come and no one can stop it. Imus, however, has the media in a frenzy. They have been reporting on him from every single angle that they can, dragging in issues with hip-hop, racism, sexism in society, and a plethora of other issues and entities. This new development has to be the last one, right? I sure hope so. But let’s just see what I’m ranting all about.

Ever since Imus was pulled from the radio, listeners were unable to hear the show because of two facts: Imus wasn’t broadcasting any new ones, and stations weren’t playing old ones. Sounds simple enough. But then I was proved wrong on the latter. KCAA-AM, a small broadcaster in Riverside, California, had been broadcasting the show to their listeners for years. When Imus was taken off of the air, they decided that instead of following in suit like the rest of those corporate sucklings, they were going to play old archived shows and throw in some call-ins and letters about the current situation that Imus is in. CBS caught wind of this and decided to sue the pants off of the station, alleging that the station is violating copyright protection laws. The suit involves a temporary restraining order (?) and $150,000 fines for every violation that occurred. KCAA insisted that they were only trying to “educate the public,” as their attorney put it. But as a result of this, KCAA agreed to air the tapes until April 27, when they would destroy all of the previous recordings.

So what does this exactly mean in the scope of Imusgate? I have to say that the part about wanting to “educate the public” is far from what they initially intended to do. Clearly, the radio station attempted to capitalize on the controversy and get more listeners, which, as a result, would allow them to boost the amount of money that they can charge advertisers. While I was aware from the start that the media would exploit this story in every possible way, I must admit that I’m truly saddened by the fact that radio stations would attempt to profit from the situation. Hiding behind the excuse of wanting to “educate the public” is a legal tactic, and is obviously not what the station intended to do at all. As a result, they have to deal with fines galore, which they undoubtedly should as a result of their immorality.

But while this is basically an isolated incident, this says a lot about the overall state of terrestrial radio and their inability to get listeners to stay tuned in. Do stations really have to revert to exploiting the biggest thing to hit radio in years in order to keep people listening? Can’t they find ways to boost profit by any other means? Apparently not. Stations are finding that the less edgy and controversial their programming is, the fewer listeners are going to tune in to hear what’s playing. As a result, people are caring less and less about terrestrial radio and depending more on other mediums for entertainment. Does this specific incident point to the fact that radio stations are becoming sleazier for more profit and listeners? Not exactly, considering the fact that payola has been a constant in the industry for years. This signifies the lengths that radio stations will go to inflate their profits, which should definitely be faced with the type of fines that are currently pending.

So in conclusion to this (relatively) shorter post than others, I must say that things have really been drawn out in this whole Imusgate affair. The man apologized and recognized that he was wrong. Everyone’s dropped their opinion on the matter. Hip-hop has suffered some serious blows for this man’s behavior. Isn’t it enough that peoples’ careers were destroyed? The debates about racism and sexism shouldn’t end, obviously, but it’s time to stop dragging Imus’ name into them. Radio stations should be focusing on improving their content rather than exploiting controversies. All of these are just a few suggestions to make the world a better place and some observations about how out-of-hand this has all become. So for the next post, which will be the last of this blog, don’t expect me to talk about Imus. I’m sick of him. Gosh.

Imusgate Part 3: Hip-Hop As A Scapegoat

Thanks, Marsh. Someone Agrees.

This has all gone too far and gotten way out of hand. Imus made his over-hyped “nappy-headed ho’s” comment, and the media proceeded with a snowstorm of coverage. Imus was kicked off of the air after advertisers pulled out funding, met with the Rutgers basketball team who forgave him, and went into hiding to avoid all of this negative media coverage. He knows what he did was wrong and has apologized already, yet the media keeps milking the story until there will be nothing left to cover. But despite the media making him look like he was the first person on the radio to make a racist comment, the main aspect of the situation that angered me was not the fact that he made the comment to begin with. I already knew Imus was a moron, and I did not listen to his show because of my previous experiences of listening to him with disgust. I knew something would come along and knock him out, and it came in the form of a racist comment. I think racism is disgusting, but aside from that, this situation has been used to target one of my true and innocent loves: hip-hop.

The latest development in Imusgate is that program director Helen Little of WWPR-FM, otherwise known as Power 105.1 FM (one of two hip-hop stations in New York City), talked to the NY Daily News about their station’s reaction to this behavior. She announced that her station is going to be removing any songs from their programming that have misogynistic and degrading lyrics in them. I will allow her quotes to do the work: “The station won’t sound that different, because we weren’t playing a lot of that anyway”; “What we are doing is holding labels and artists accountable”; “Let’s not get it twisted… What Imus said has nothing to do with hip-hop”; “We are not saying you can’t make the music. [We just] won’t play it.” Why should rappers have to change their lyrics just because Imus is an idiot? Why should they be punished? That’s just reallocating the blame, and it’s completely unfair.

Now take a deep breath. If this angers you as much as it does to me, then we’re on the same page. For something like Imus’ racist remark to cause this type of response is absolutely ludicrous. Hip-hop culture has come under intense scrutiny in the wake of this fiasco, with Rev. Al Sharpton lambasting rappers for talking about “ho’s” and degrading females in their songs. Sharpton is accusing rappers of making this type of talk repeatable by people like Imus, and blames them for simply talking about what they know and incorporating aspects of their culture into their music. Rappers aren’t specifically targeting women and degrading them in their music; it’s just part of the culture. That’s no excuse for them saying it, but when a rapper like Jay-Z says the word “ho” or “bitch” in his rhymes, he’s not intentionally putting down women. These words are merely the tools of a culture with which to make music. Since that is how hip-hop culture evolved, and if millions of people love it and live for it regardless, then hip-hop is just like any other culture: it will negatively affect a minority of those involved, and the rest will take it as it is. Hip-hop culture has always been under fire for its existence, but it only gets this type of attention when a white radio host makes a joke in poor taste.

I’ll get back to the issue of hip-hop in the crosshairs another time, but let’s first look at what would happen if Power 105 practiced what it preached. Now, I’m merely guessing that half of its programming would disappear. Basing this projection on the top-10 most played songs and combing their site, I am absolutely correct in that assertion. This is because almost half of the songs are by men, and the other half are by women. Now, if a woman says something like “ho” or “bitch,” then clearly it’s ok. But as for the men? Well, the only ones that will still make the cut will be wussy R&B singers like Robin Thicke and Ne-Yo. So say goodbye to Diddy, Mims, R. Kelly, and Chris Brown. All of them are treating women like objects in their songs and videos, and Power 105 will simply not have any of it (only unless the artists go back into the studio and record the songs so that they praise women).

Am I being unrealistic in my projections, or is Power 105 being ridiculously P.C. about this whole event? They do not need to change their programming because of a bad comment made by a bad radio personality. Power is one of the two radio stations in the New York area that plays hip-hop, and for one of them to scale back their programming on account of a totally tangential incident is way too political and selfish. Are they purposely attempting to isolate their listeners by abstaining from playing the top hits? How do they plan on accomplishing this censorship? To base your station around hip-hop and cut out some of its most prominent artists is hypocritical. You cannot call yourself a hip-hop radio station unless you play what artists should be played, even if there is payola involved. By chopping out some of their most successful artists, their station is basically doing something that will further isolate listeners from terrestrial radio stations. After all, no one wants to just hear Mary J. Blige and Robin Thicke all the time. Sometimes, yes, but always, no. Radio needs musical personalities, and those shining stars usually take the form of the Mims’s and R. Kelly’s. It’s their edginess that rakes us in. But if the station wants to be run by hypocrites, then let them dig their own graves.

But I’m not going to just let that end there… What do you take me for? Next comes the discussion of what to do about the old school rap hits. What about those old school artists? Say goodbye to any record by the Notorious B.I.G. Don’t get your hopes up that an old Jay-Z track will ever make it on the radio. Remember “Big Pimpin’?” Jay will be pimpin’ no more. And au revoir Tupac, while we’re at it. Do you see what I’m getting at here? This type of action is whitewashing over hip-hop’s history for the sake of a watered-down and boring future. And this is all because Imus said “nappy-headed ho’s,” right? Wow. The media has a very, very, very powerful effect on today’s society, and it’s terribly unfortunate that hip-hop had to be the one to take the brunt.

The overall lesson in this situation is that Imus should not have been such a racist. We all know that. But hip-hop is not what caused Imus to make that remark. The term “ho” has been around since the 1960’s, according to my roommate’s slang dictionary. The New York Times even used the word back then. And just to connect the dots for all of you, hip-hop wasn’t around during that time. It wasn’t even in its baby stages. So if you’re going to blame hip-hop for inspiring Imus to use the term “nappy-headed ho’s,” then you really should be blaming the people that invented the word in the first place. After all, it was those people who made the word available for hip-hop artists to use it in their songs. So cheers, blame-game. Hip-hop has yet again taken the heat for a comment that had nothing to do with hip-hop. Now, New York City has to be subjected to “So Sick” by Ne-Yo for eternity. Thanks a lot, Imus.

Google-icious

Google Knows That I Go To School Somehwere Near There.

I remember the good ol’ days when search engines were all the rage, just getting their feet off of the ground. I used to use Altavista (that was my favorite, for some unexplainable reason), Yahoo, even Ask Jeeves (I know, I know, I was young and naïve) every once in a while. But something happened in my adolescence in regards to my internet searches, something that crept up on me without my conscious recognition: I started to use Google for all of my internet searches. It was a gradual transition, and I left all of my internet-scouring friends, specifically Jeeves, behind. Google offered something that was much more than an Internet search engine; it was a lifestyle. I could just hop on to Google, type in something like my brother’s band’s name, and would know that all of the returned searches would be wonderful and diverse. The links were plentiful and spot-on. Google gave it all to me and accordingly won my heart, as well as gained the knowledge of what I searched for (but we’ll just keep that between Google and me).

But then everyone began to trust Google, and the California-based company started to make some money as advertisers flocked to them. Google became a multi-billion dollar corporation in just a few years, all because people like me were having the search engine look all over the internet for any topic. Then, Google began to spread into areas other than its remarkable search engine, snatching up popular blog site Blogger, mapping out the world with Google Maps, and staving out a whole lot of other internet go-to sites, making almost all of its money on advertising. So it’s with my pleasure to bring to you a discussion (rant?) on their latest joint venture into the world of radio, and my thoughts on it. Ready? Let’s do it.

Just for a little background information, last Friday, Google acquired Double-Click in a $3.1 billion deal. That’s a lot of dough for a company you’ve probably never heard of, but it’s a big deal, considering that companies like Microsoft and AT&T were vying for it. I hadn’t heard of it either, but apparently, the deal was meant to “combine DoubleClick's expertise in ad management technology for media buyers and sellers with Google's advertising platform and publisher monetization services” (thanks, LeClaire). In other words, Google wanted the best help in managing online advertisements, so they purchased a company that would help them do it. But as of today, Google will be venturing into offline ads in its freshly-announced agreement with Clear Channel. In the agreement, Google will basically act as a mediator in getting companies’ advertisements onto one of Clear Channel’s 675 radio stations (they have 1,200, just for the record). Google plans to specifically focus on companies that only advertise on the internet, and get those ads on one of CC’s stations in a 30-second slot.

The deal was struck as a “multiyear” agreement, whatever that means, and was settled for an undisclosed amount of money. Google will account for 5% of all of the ads on Clear Channel stations, and will even get the coveted morning time slots for which some companies would cut off limbs. This will all be done through Google Audio Ads, which will be an easy-to-use online interface where typically online advertisers will get these special slots. Google Audio Ads is based on the technology that the company purchased last year from dMarc Broadcasting for $1 billion. Basically, Google will get a cut of the deals that are made between advertisers and Clear Channel. From my understanding, they will act as radio real estate brokers, selling time slots that are “put on the market” by Clear Channel. The ads will be placed on stations that fit into their target demographic and location, making everyone in the situation a winner.

Maybe I’m just biased for Google to succeed, and am completely blind to the fact that Google is an evil corporation (I know those of you who believe that are putting on your “rant” hats). But I’m team Google in this regard, for the fact that Clear Channel needed this type of deal to save their company from dying. If you didn’t know, Clear Channel was feared to be losing a ton of money, and was trying to get rid of its stations by individually selling them off. With this deal in place, they can have more advertising come from new companies that had not been previously able to advertise on their stations. Clear Channel may be an evil corporation, for the fact that it has such a high stake in the radio industry, but it’s a business that provides free entertainment to the masses, and you can’t argue with that. Sure, the radio industry may be different without Clear Channel, but if they weren’t around, then another company would be in its place, doing much more evil deeds.

Also, Google could make way for less ad time on the radio. Since the ads will be 30-seconds long, there may be less time taken to play the same amount of ads. Sure, they could easily pull a fast one and fill up the same amount of commercial time with more short ads, but that may seem unlikely. That’s one of the reasons that Clear Channel was failing in the first place: people were getting tired of having to listen to tons and tons of commercials, flipping the channels whenever they came on. As a result, advertisers were pulling their ads from the stations, as they were a waste of money, and Clear Channel was suffering on the profit front. By reaching a previously unreachable demographic in terms of companies on the internet who did not advertise on terrestrial radio, Clear Channel may get more money and manage to keep themselves afloat.

The only people that may be against this deal are the people who believe that there is enough advertising on the radio already, and are P.O.’d that stations that seem to play more ads than music will have even more ads. I am definitely against this factor, but if it’s going to help terrestrial radio stay afloat in a changing industry, then I’m all for it. I’m not one who likes to see dramatic changes, and I surely don’t want to be forced into purchasing an internet radio receiver or a satellite radio subscription (I pray that day never comes), so if having terrestrial available whenever I feel like listening to it, I don’t mind putting up with more advertisements. That’s what the tuning dial is meant for, right? Once they start popping up on your favorite station, it’s time to go channel surfing.

So will this deal have a negative effect on the industry? Probably not. In fact, it will help it. Terrestrial radio has significantly gone down in terms of excellence over the past 20 years, as the quality of music has gotten worse, payola has increased, independent artists are increasingly ignored, among many other negative factors. But plenty of people still listen to the radio, especially the younger generation that is stuck with a music video-less MTV and the working class that doesn’t have iPods or CD players, simply relying on their free radio for entertainment. If shorter ads are put on the radio by Google, there may be more money coming in for the failing Clear Channel, more profit for Google for being the middleman, more income for the advertiser for putting their ad on a station through Google, and possibly a less significant amount of time where ads are being played on stations. Does everyone win? Most likely not. But at least Google may help breathe life into a dying form of entertainment, and you can’t hate them for that.

Imusgate Pt. 2

*Shudder*

I suppose it is in poor taste to blog about the same issue twice in a row, but the entire world of radio is focused on Imusgate, and I must roll with the punches. So to do some catch-up, Imus was suspended from his show for two weeks, apologized for his remarks on Al Sharpton’s radio show, and shifted into a mode of self-deprecation by saying that his statements went “way too far.” Whether or not you agree that statements like “nappy-headed hos” are offensive, Imus has come under fire in a big way, regardless of his comedic intentions. Unanswerable questions have been brought up: Is Imus a racist? Wasn’t he just acting in jest? Is everyone taking this a bit too seriously? These questions are the foundation for the media blitz that is Imusgate, and where there are racist accusations to be made, the media is sure to follow.

But enough of re-cap and semantics. It’s time to discuss the specifics of the punishment. Imus was suspended for two full weeks, meaning that the station will lose a significant amount of listeners during that time. As a result, sponsors are going to waste money on ads that won’t reach the public’s ear-holes. When I called for FCC punishment in the previous post, I meant to say that Imus should get fined, not suspended. By suspending him and mucking up relations with the show’s sponsors, the station is basically hurting themselves by putting advertisement/station relations on the rocks. And the ads have already been pulled by unnamed companies, causing the station and show to fiscally suffer for the next couple of weeks.

A couple of weeks may not seem like a lot of time in the grand scheme of radio, but it will surely have a heavy impact. What makes advertisers so willing to put their ads back on the morning show? They probably won’t, for the fact that Imus may blurt out another racist comment and put another nail in his career coffin. Advertisers have to be absolutely positive that there is an audience listening that will potentially purchase their product, and if people are switching their stations and abandoning the show like a bunch of lemmings, then no one will want to sponsor the show at all. As this downward spiral occurs, Imus will gradually be fazed out as he becomes the kiss of death for anyone who touches the show. (Update: MSNBC dropped the simulcast of his show. Bonus points for predicting the future?)

Am I just being overly pessimistic? I suppose, considering that morning show hosts like Star and Bucwild on Hot97 were fired for disrespectful segments and were then moved to a competitor station where they were equally successful. The same thing may happen to Imus, for all I know, but what I do know is that he is stooped in hot water. And if that means that the station has to be punished as a side-effect from his suspension, then I hold them equally responsible. This move was clearly meant to maintain some sort of good image in the eyes of America, and while Imus is off meeting with the Rutgers basketball team and chilling with Al Sharpton, the station is at fault for putting him there. They may not have had any other choice, but at the end of the day, they’re only hurting themselves on top of bruising their trash-talking host.

Imusgate

Imus vs. America

When you tune into Don Imus’ “Imus in the Morning,” his morning talk show on WFAN, you basically accept the fact that he’s going to be a horrid P.C. disaster. So when a countless number of commuters flipped their dials to his morning show last Wednesday, they basically knew what they were in for. Imus is prone to controversy, as his history has been rich in it. Booze, cocaine, radio suspensions… you name it, he’s probably been there. He has been often accused of racism, sexism, homophobia and a whole other lot of isms, and there is accuracy in all of those brandings. And people love him because of all of those faults. Imus always has a lot to say, and whatever comes to mind is what comes out of his mouth. That’s what defines a true radio personality: someone who can make a statement that both entertains one person and offends another.

But listeners got an earful last Wednesday when Imus crossed the politically correct boundary. When talking on a conference call about the Rutgers female basketball team and their loss to Tennessee by 13 points, Imus made some disparaging remarks about them, calling them “rough girls” because they had “tattoos,” and continued by calling them “hardcore ho’s” and “nappy-headed ho’s.” The man on the other end of the phone referred to it as relative to the Spike Lee film Do the Right Thing, calling it a game played by the “jigaboos versus the wanabees.” Well, they eased themselves off of the subject, and continued as if nothing had happened (watch and listen here).

The media and listeners were not so unforgiving. A plethora of letters was sent to the station requesting his dismissal from radio, and dozens of articles were published about his racist remarks. The head coach of the Rutgers team, C. Vivian Stringer, issued the following statement: “To serve as a joke of Mr. Imus in such an insensitive manner creates a wedge and makes light of the efforts of these classy individuals, both as women and as women of color. It is unfortunate Mr. Imus sought to tarnish Rutgers' spirit and success.” The NCAA president, Myles Brand, and the Rutgers University president, Richard L. McCormick, issued the following joint statement: “The NCAA and Rutgers University are offended by the insults on MSNBC's Don Imus program toward the 10 young women on the Rutgers basketball team. It is unconscionable that anyone would use the airways to utter such disregard for the dignity of human beings who have accomplished much and deserve great credit.”

Imus decided to blanket the fire by issuing an apology, which stated that he regrets his choice of words and apologized to the ladies for his disrespectful remarks. MSNBC, his parent organization, also issued an apology on his behalf. But people still are not having it. Al Sharpton is all over media outlets, condemning Imus for his statements and demanding his dismissal. Letters are still flooding the inbox of the station demanding Imus’ removal as a disc jockey. People are really upset over this whole debacle, all because of a thirty second segment on the show where Imus made some ridiculous comments in true on-air personality form: shocking some and entertaining others. That’s what he was supposed to do, right? Isn’t that what makes a great disc jockey?

In this case, no one seemed entertained. Or, at least, some were entertained but don’t want to stick up for Imus because they don’t want to get pulled into the situation. I’m not one to condone racist remarks, because it signifies ignorance and overall stupidity, but this brings in the matter of both the FCC and their legitimacy. Like all of my other posts, I tend to criticize the FCC for laying low when it comes to serious matters and going after stations when not-so-serious issues occur. But this is a prime example, and they must be recognized as they happen.

The FCC is meant to control content on radio for the sake of America. By censoring stations and issuing fines, the FCC maintains a certain level of morality that is meant to be the set example for America and its citizens. After all, censorship is meant for the good of everyone. By setting a moral standard, society can have governed ethical rules to follow, thereby protecting the integrity of everyone and making our society a better entity. When someone makes racist remarks on the radio that are glaringly offensive, something should be done about it. Why bother censoring curses and letting racism slide when racism is equally as bad, possibly worse?

Of course, it all boils down to politics. Like detailed in the film Private Parts, which is an adaptation of Howard Stern’s autobiography, people tune in to Imus for the same reasons that they tune in to Stern: they want to hear what he is going to say next. When listeners tune in to Imus, they want to be offended, surprised or entertained, most likely a combination of all three. And he has an enormous listening audience. Why would the FCC want to crush a personality that has such a large audience that help keep terrestrial radio afloat? They wouldn’t, and they don’t. This is a clear-cut example of when action should be taken. Imus is great and all, and he would not have gotten so far if it were not for his shock value, but even big stars are vulnerable. Imus should be vulnerable as well.

But he isn’t. The FCC is going to let the situation slide for the benefit of terrestrial radio. Should they let it slide? You could argue that the statements were not so offensive and that people should care about much worse things in the world, but that would not be with the majority. Most people agree that this was completely inappropriate, and it was, and action should be taken. But like how the FCC will fine a college radio station for letting a curse word slip on the air, they would surely refrain from fining a station when the situation is not so blatantly offensive. Does this system of governance work well for America? Judging by how the FCC lets racism like this slide without punishment, it’s no wonder that Americans are still filled with hate. Without the proper regulation, some might think that hatred is acceptable, and will never learn otherwise. It all boils down to whether we should blame Imus or blame the FCC for promoting intolerance. And if I presented the facts correctly enough, then you should all know who’s really at fault right now.

God Shed His Grace On Thee

Forcing Censored Content.

It’s appropriate to do some follow-up in the case of specific radio news. Remember a while back, when Jennifer Strange died from water intoxication, after she participated in a contest on the radio station KDND-FM? The story is described in this post (or you can scroll down), but just to give you a refresher, Strange participated in a contest in which the grand prize was a Nintendo Wii. The contest, appropriately titled “Hold Your Wee for a Wii,” required that contestants drink an 8-ounce bottle of water every 15 minutes, and then switch to a 16-ounce bottle every ten minutes, without vomiting or urinating. Strange held out for a long time, trying to win the Wii for her three children by drinking two gallons, but eventually settled on Justin Timberlake tickets when she realized that she could not continue. When she got home, she died from water intoxication on her bathroom floor, only to be found by her mother several hours later.

So there are developments in the story. The district attorney of Sacremento, California, is not filing any criminal charges in the suit that was filed by her widower and children on January 25, shortly after her death. The Sacremento County DA, Jan Scully, stated that there would be no charges due to the fact that Strange had been aware of the dangers in participating in the contest and that she had shown no apparent signs of danger. This holds up, if you’ve listened to the audio clip of the show. Strange only complained of being lightheaded, which doesn’t really foreshadow what actually happened. But on top of that, the eight employees were informed about a case in a fraternity hazing where a boy died from over-consumption of water, giving them fair warning about the dangers of excessive water binging. They still held the contest, and Strange really wanted that Wii. Can you blame her? She wanted to give the most unattainable piece of technology to her kids, and was willing to put herself through hell to do it. That’s what I call a real mother.

But the after effects are so much worse. Strange died. The entire morning staff were immediately fired. The kids were left without a mother. This was some serious stuff. But where was the FCC in all of this? It’s sad to have to relate this tragedy back to radio, but it’s really an opportune time to address the FCC’s agenda. Why wouldn’t they fine the station? The family sent the FCC a letter that asked them to revoke the station’s license. Yea, that’s really harsh, but that’s what constitutes responsibility. They should be punished. But alas, the FCC refrained from doing anything. Absolutely no fine has been issued, and no action has been taken against the station to make them pay (literally and metaphorically) for what they had done. Why wouldn’t the FCC do something? Let’s probe what they have always and recently done to exercise their power.

The FCC has always been a stickler for swears on the radio. Someone apparently has to do it, and since America is so unnecessarily filled with censorship, the FCC has taken on that role. Reviled for their rigidities, the FCC issues massive (we’re talking hundreds of thousands of dollars) fines for a little swear. An example of their iron-grip control over television came when Janet Jackson was exposed during her Superbowl performance in 2004. I remember watching it and thinking “Meh, not that big a deal,” but then came the bad press. And the FCC. The government organization ended up fining CBS $225,000 for the incident. That’s nothing for CBS, but in the real world, the FCC had fined what some people would not be able to make in two lifetimes. I call it unnecessarily harsh. And more recently, the FCC has been exercising their control over internet radio, raising payments that have to be made in order for the stations to operate with morality for their played artists. Even if that means making most stations go out of business. But as long as everyone is being treated properly, then it doesn’t matter.

So why are they suddenly holding back when it seems that this is the perfect opportunity to exercise their fining capabilities? Strange’s death doesn’t need to be avenged, but action should be taken to make sure that something like this never happens again. And the FCC is the only one who can do it. My speculation on the situation is that they don’t want to put an FM station out of business that gives them tons of money each year (the station is quite popular in its broadcasting range). The more people that listen, the more money they dish to the organization, and since the FCC basically exists to extract fines (ok, and maybe keep social morals and ethics intact), they wouldn’t want to hurt a station that forks over cash each month.

This is all unfair. As I come to the end of this post, you have to wonder: is it moral for the FCC to refrain from fining when it should occur, and fine when it really shouldn’t? This type of backwards business is a cramp in America’s side. The FCC is just a gray government organization, and without giving reasons for their actions, they’re only going to get more people that hate them. No wonder other countries don’t respect us; our government is way too political to make our citizens upstanding. Everything is done behind closed doors, and not enough is done to impose a proper sense of morality to the people of our country. Ugh.

Strange’s family plans on filing civil action lawsuits against the radio station’s parent company, Entercom, who they felt was responsible from the start. Their family deserves to get money over any government organization, even though money doesn’t equal happiness. It supports the idea that people should be treated with respect when they are wronged, especially when an innocent death could have been avoided. If our country was based more on that principle, rather than making our pockets fatter, then a heightened sense of morality would spread to more people and our country might gain some respect. But until an organization like the FCC realizes that they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, we’re basically stuck living in a land where people can dangle steaks on a fishing pole in front of a starving dog and watch them struggle to get it, all for the sake of entertainment.

With My Mind On My Money, and My Money On This Receiver

Together At Last

Wow, the future is here. First we got terrestrial radio, even though that was ages and ages ago. So we were spoiled from the start. But then came a flurry of additional options in no specific order: satellite radio, internet radio, FM/AM delivered to our cell phones and Walkmans, among a plethora of other options. I suppose that society has been too fortunate with all of these technological innovations, but that’s how society runs. We deserve it, after all, to get all of the benefits of cutting edge media that is developed. We worked hard for it. No thank you’s needed, right? Leave it up to the big dogs (scientists) to figure things out for us.

Well, let me be the first to say, thank you. There, I feel like I’ve finally earned my Sirius stripes. Now, I can begin to discuss the newest technological innovation to come our way in the world of radio. We all knew it was coming, and it’s finally going to arrive come April: internet in a car. AutoNet, a company that is teaming up with Avis rental cars, plans to put a Wi-Fi receiver in every rental car that Avis has. The receiver plugs conveniently into your cigarette lighter (sorry to all you smokers out there) and is about the size of a book. It broadcasts a signal throughout your car, in addition to a little beyond it, allowing you to check your e-mail, download that hot MP3 you just heard on your favorite FM station, and even watch a streaming music video, all while driving your car (safety isn’t the issue here, folks). But while this will do wonders for all, it is going to significantly affect how people listen to the radio. Let’s investigate.

AutoNet prides itself on the fact that it can swing from high-speed internet streams to low-speed ones without having to buffer or stutter. And that does wonders for the average internet radio listener; I can’t tell you how many times I’ve shouted at my computer screen for buffering right when whatever I’m watching/listening to is about to get good. The whole point of the product is to make the internet available to you on-the-go, and it could forever change the world of radio for the fact that internet radio can only be listened to on the computer. This will cut out the stationary computer and allow internet radio to be received almost anywhere. And since the company prides its product on its ability to broadcast outside of the car to a certain range, that means you’ll be able to pull over to the grassy meadow on your road trip across the American terrain and stream the latest Fergie album, all while taking in the beauty of the wheat fields. Basically, technology and nature will finally (and peacefully) coexist.

But I’m not planning on buying it anytime soon. Sure, it’s a great deal for people who are renting their cars from Avis, but that’s only for businessmen and people visiting other states or cities for a short period of time. To activate the service in the Avis rental, you have to pay $10.95 a day to make your car a Wi-Fi hotspot. Doesn’t sound like too much if you’re going to be driving all day and would like to be able to check your e-mail at all times. But I’ve never even rented a car. Granted, I’m not old enough (25 years old is a ways away) to rent one, but if I were 25, I would probably never do it. I don’t have a reason. And like me, many people don’t rent cars unless they have to, which is seldom to rare on the frequency scale.

If you want this in your car permanently, though, you have to fork over a smidgen more. $399 just to buy the receiver, then $49.95 per month for unlimited data (shaving off a dollar and five cents makes it seem cheaper, but don’t let it fool you; it’s $400 and $50). That’s a lot. The internet in my apartment didn’t even cost that much. And our monthly plan is $20 cheaper. So what’s the benefit? Well, you get the internet in your car. Ok, that is kind of cool. But as it relates to the blog, I have to talk about internet radio. This will make internet radio so much easier to get, and will make it much more of a commodity. Internet radio stations will have a reason to charge listeners, rather than give it away for free. This equals $$ for them, which is great, considering some don’t even make a dime. But there are downsides, as there always are.

The receiver claims to be able to swing from high- to low-speed internet without breaking the stream. But you have to consider the fact that not everywhere is a hot-spot for Wi-Fi. In fact, there are very few places that have streaming Wi-Fi. And even in those places, they don’t have every single piece of land covered; the stream goes in and out, and you have to be in the right place. So if I’m listening to Breakthru Radio in my car while driving through a town that has Wi-Fi capabilities everywhere, I’ll most likely enjoy it for the span of time it takes to cross the city. But once I’m out, so is the signal. Get my drift? You wouldn’t be able to get it all. So there’s flaw #1.

#2 is a bit on the speculative side. Since internet radio stations are currently under fire from Congress (see post below), the stations may not even be able to stick around much longer. Congress will be able to prove that it’s unfair for them to give music away for free when their artists should be getting royalty payments. Just another reason to put the stations under. Plus, everyone will soon want to put out a station. Competition will ensue, people will give up, and internet radio will probably be dominated by a select few (who will most likely end up getting purchased by Google… they own it all). With these obstacles in place, internet radio will become a sure target. And these receivers will only stand in the way of their freedom.

If this does succeed, though, and internet radio becomes a hit in the car, it could significantly impact the radio industry. Terrestrial radio listeners are mostly endemic to cars, since drivers have nothing else to listen to while they drive. Now they can have so many more options, and won’t have to succumb to satellite radio’s pressuring. And it’s a fair deal. Just like society deserves more choices in technology, people deserve more choices in what they listen to. And if AutoNet manages to grab, say, a million customers who want internet in their cars, then they might be onto something, and if internet radio benefits, then I say let’s make it popular. After all, I could be blogging from my car by the end of this month. So keep checking in… I’ll let you know how it’s going on my trip from New York to California, and I’ll be sure to sign each blog entry with the addition of the station I’m tuned into. Sounds good? See you on the highway, both information super and other kind.