Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe

["Jeremy A Erwin" <jerwin(at)gmu.edu>]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2001, at 02:23 PM, Jeme A Brelin wrote:

>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Jeremy A Erwin wrote:
>> Essentially, there are two solutions to the problem [of deregulating a 
>> fictitious government radio monopoly]--
>> 1) pass a law demanding equal time
>> 2) allow competition in the radio market.
>>
>> The first solution is a bit heavy handed, but nonetheless,...

>> 2) The second solution, deregulation, is fraught with peril...
>
> Um, deregulation is NOT the way to bring competition to the radio 
> market.
>
> Markets tend toward oligopoly and oligopoly loathes competition.  If you
> want to ensure competition, you have to enact strict market regulations.

Yeah, I know, Powell and friends have decimated most of the antitrust 
rules governing ownership of radio and tv stations. However, I was 
trying to think of a hypothetical situation in which "quota legislation" 
wouldn't be so far fetched...

A lot of people have posited that corporate censorship is not censorship 
at all. I disagree-- censorship aims to remove a piece of speech from 
society. Generally, only a state has power extensive enough to  
accomplish this. (recall the definition of the state as "that entity 
which possesses a _monopoly_ on the legitimate use of violence within a 
specific area.")

If Clear Channel has enough market penetration to ensure that a piece of 
music gets no airplay within a geographic area, it is censorship. The 
fact that CC is not a elected government makes little difference.

In a normal market economy, if people don't like the products or 
policies of a company, they can choose to patronize another. Similarly, 
in a functioning democracy, if people don't like the policies of a 
government, they can choose to elect another.

Clear channel is using deregulation to replace government regulation of 
the airwaves with CC regulation of the airwaves-- and that offends me.

Jeremy