Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Clear Channel is a Subsidiary of Bush, Inc

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Killarney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 07:51 AM
Original message
Clear Channel is a Subsidiary of Bush, Inc
This was from last year. Obviously what they did to Stern after he critized Bush only adds to the proof.
"Rally for America," the supposedly politically neutral, homegrown events that started sprouting up in cities across the nation earlier this year, drew thousands of flag-waving, Dixie-Chick-hating folks who favor President Bush's war with Iraq.

The rallies also drew their fair share of criticism. Though sponsored by local radio stations, those stations share a common owner: the Texas-based Clear Channel Worldwide, Inc., a media giant with a nationwide network of 1,240 radio stations - and a clear line to Bush.


It's no coincidence that Clear Channel executives Tom Hicks and L. Lowry Mays have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaign coffers. Or that Clear Channel gave $119,370 in "soft money" to Republicans in 2001-2002, this on top of the $82,850 it gave in 2000. (Democrats, meanwhile, got $25,000 in soft money in that same three-year period.) Or that Clear Channel stations have been known to pull radio ads criticizing Republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. They are in
my top five most evil companies. I loathe them for their turning radio into America's version of Pravda and destroying the diversity of music with McRadio. I also hate them for their torture and killing of innocent creatures on the air for the sake of insane and heinous "entertainment". They completely SUCK and deserve to be boycotted. I hope our next Democratic President has the state of our media in mind and a plan to do something about it. If not we will have to put the pressure on, most of the shit that has gone on the last few years would NEVER have happened if we had an independent media in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
devinsgram Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. If I know it's a clear channel station, I turn it off.
We have a local TV station that is a CBS affiliate station owned by that company. I watch only the soaps that are on and some prime time shows at night. When commercials come on I switch to something else till the shows return. As far as their local shows go, news and such, they never get watched. As soon as I foung out who owned them, that was it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. And yet...
Edited on Fri Feb-27-04 08:23 AM by deseo
... there seem to be a boatload of folks here who actually believe Howard Stern is being suspended for being "vulgar". Bwwwahahahahaha! He's been vulgar for 20 freaking years! That is why he has an audience. I don't like everything he has to say, I don't like everything anybody has to say.

.... the rest deleted. Why bother :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
neebob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. There's a "news" story on iWon this morning
in which Clear Channel president John Hogan says he's ashamed of Bubba the Love Sponge. I don't know who or what that is, but gosh, isn't that about the most hypocritical statement ever? If he's so ashamed, why was this Bubba character ever on the air? Then we have Bob & Tom (who I'm only assuming are on Clear Channel stations) and other popular morning shows all over the country that are packed with content I find offensive - not to mention stupid. I don't listen because I can't stand the constant forced laughter and sexual innuendo. I find it hard to believe anyone likes Bob & Tom and their ilk, but a lot of people obviously do. So I exercise my right to change the channel and have been doing so for years.

And that's my point: This "shameful" stuff has been on for years, and now here's this man who's undoubtedly become obscenely rich off of it, suddenly saying he's ashamed of it. Ugh! Which is worse? The answer is pretty obvious to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. They have no shame.
That love sponge POS tortured and killed a pig on the air for laughs. cc's sudden concern for "decency" has NOTHING to do with standards but everything to do with the knocking of their "beloved leader" on the air. Expect NO extreme right shill to be suspended no matter how offensive their spew is. God I hate them! Did I mention how much I loathe them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
neebob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. No way!
Are you sure this pig was actually tortured and killed? I wondered what you were talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. You can read all about it
here. I warn, its not for the squeamish and it haunted my thoughts for days. I wish I never read it. cc obviously thinks stunts like this are OK and have everything to do with my hatred of the company, as if their McRadio wasn't bad enough and now blatant rightwing censorship. Sorry it took me so long to respond, been very busy. /

They also enjoy other examples of animal cruelty such as the killing of a cow on the air and they get their sick little jollies feeding rabbits to snakes as part of their "decent" broadcasts.

If this pisses you off, sign the petition. Even though they've since fired the POS for speaking out against our "beloved leader", it will still send a message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
neebob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Wow, that's unbelievable
I'm stunned to learn that stunt was allowed to take place, much less that anyone came to watch, much less that there were three other cases. So now I'm wondering, if Bubba got fired like a year ago, why do I still hear about him? Did he get a job at another station?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. He wasn't fired after that stunt
and was allowed to stay on the air until last week, what he did that day did NOT bother cc in the least. I understand he was making statements against "our glorious leader" recently and that is apparently the ONLY line one is not allowed to cross with clear channels. I am seeking proof of this currently, but the exact reason seems to be hard to find. Censorship or not, I'm NOT sorry to see this POS gone and hope its the last any of us have to suffer him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
adriennel Donating Member (776 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-04 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. we're OK, they're NOT!
I agree that Stern's been doing his type of show for years and the only significant content change in his show that I am currently aware of is that Stern came out against Bush. Awfully suspicious timing, hmmm?? forget Janet's boob, which some have claimed is the reason for the "crackdown" on Stern...what the hell does that have to do with indecency in Stern's show that's been going on for years?

interviewing porn stars and poking fun at people who are different=OK for Howard Stern Show.

political commentary that happens to go against the current Administration?= NOT OK for Howard Stern Show.

so much hypocrisy, I think I am going to be sick
(that and I now agree with Howard Stern) :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ArtieBoy Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. But what you're missing is
that Bubba the Love Sponge wasn't just suspended, as Stern was, he was out-and-out fired, and he did NOT say anything bad about Bush. So I don't think any of this has to do with what Stern said about Bush as much as it does Hogan wanting to look squeaky-clean and family-oriented for his Congressional appearance. Sorry to step on the Bush conspiracy fun with this one, but it's how it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That may be true as
I haven't been able to find it although I swore I read it somewhere around here. Nonetheless, I'm NOT sorry to see the sick little sponge gone. It should have happened long ago, but I AM suspicious of the motives of cc. I doubt they've suddenly become "moral and decent" and I don't trust them to police and censor the airwaves, their track record is HORRIBLE. Weren't they greatly responsible for the treatment of the Dixie Chicks when they dared voice opposition to our regime and their illegal "war"? The timing of Stern's suspension/firing is extremely in question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ArtieBoy Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I gotta clear that up, too
It was NOT Clear Channel who banned the Dixie Chicks from their airwaves. This is a widespread misconception. It was Cumulus. Cumulus is the THIRD largest owner of stations, behind CC and Infinity and headquartered here in Atlanta. Cumulus specializes in small and mid-size market stations. That order came from one of the Dickey brothers who are all vice presidents of Cumulus and also have a smaller, family-owned concern called Dickey Broadcasting and a print outlet called, I think, Dickey Publishing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Not true.
March 18, 2003
Dixie Chicks axed by Clear Channel
Michael Fitzgerald
Country music's No. 1 act, The Dixie Chicks, have been pulled from radio playlists thanks to a remark singer Natalie Maines made in London last week.

"Just so you know," Texas native Maines said on stage, "we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." Maines added she felt George W. Bush's foreign policy is alienating the rest of the world.

Her remark unleashed a nationwide backlash. The group's records have been pulled by dozens of country-music stations across the country, including two Clear Channel-owned stations in Jacksonville, WQIK 99.1-FM and WROO 107.3-FM.

"Out of respect for our troops, our city and our listeners, have taken the Dixie Chicks off our playlists," said Gail Austin, Clear Channel's director of programming for the two Jacksonville stations.

That's a big leap in logic, said media expert Dennis Stouse, a Jacksonville University professor and chairman of the school's department of communications. "It doesn't have anything to do with our troops or our city."

Punishing Maines for speaking her mind does not fit into the American idea of democracy, he said. "We should accept the fact that there are viewpoints we don't agree with." Celebrities have as much right to make political commentary as do television pundits, he added.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ArtieBoy Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. That's two stations
That's two stations in the chain making an independent decision. With Cumulus I'm talking an actual company-wide ban demanded from a vice president, a top-down ban. Here in the ATL Kicks 105.7 also banned them, and they're owned by ABC/Disney. Does that mean ABC/Disney banned the Chicks company-wide? No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I have no doubt
cumulus is just as evil as cc. This is all just proof positive this media consolidation is bad bad bad. I was VERY disappointed to hear that Kerry was defending them, I guess he doesn't really get it at all. One would think he would have an understanding of whats going on here, especially since its he walking around with the VRWC bullseye on his back. What gives?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aphasetome Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Bubba,s army
Bubba came down on bush hard.At least an hour out of his show was against Bush.Bubba even sent his army to the Daytona 500 to ring Bush in,all of the boo,s Bush got in part was due to Bubba.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I knew I had heard
similar stories yet I can't prove them with internet stories. I'll keep looking later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. Clearchannel pulls Stern on day they have to lie to congress
No coincidence folks. To hear clearchannel talk of shock regarding Howard Sterns content is total bullshit. Did they mail back the ad checks they got from Howard. I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
14. Wasn't it Clear Channel
laughing it up about running bike riders off of the road a while back?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. More about the cc agenda.
The New York Times The New York Times Opinion March 25, 2003
Channels of Influence

By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious and widely hated for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
captain_change Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
22. Lets not forget Tom Hicks other connections
Tom Hicks brought idiot boys baseball team at an inflated price, conveniently after Hick's investment management firm was giving the advisory contract for the multi-billion dollar Univ of Texas endowment portfolio (which was previously internally managed).

I just love the Rethugs, they do it in the open. While Clinton had to suffer though 8 year 70 million dollar investigation to determine that as Governor he did nothing to help "Lose" $40,000 on a $250,000 land deal (Whitewater). Bush used his influence as the son the VP to condemn land to build his ballpark, used his influence as Governor to outsource the U of T investment contract to a crony who then brought the Baseball team turning his $600K investment to $14 million. Ironically the $600 K was the profits from insider trading at Harken Energy

Move along, nothing to see here, lets accuse Clinton of something!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Beloved Citizen Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
23. Our Leader George W. Bush Proclaims Howard Stern Hate Week!
Our Leader the Most Excellent George W. Bush Announces Howard Stern Hate Week!

All previous Hate Week Directives are now Class 2. Dittomonkeys (DMs) and Neo-Con Stormtroopers Of Death (NCSOD) are now instructed to focus all Hate Work on Howard Stern.

Slime points to be explored:

1) Stern is a Jew. And as anyone who has seen Mel "Mad NewsMax" Gibson's masterpiece, "The Passion," should know by now, the Jews killed Jesus. Hating Stern is not just America's work, it is God's work as well.

2) Stern discusses sex in a way that makes people who have long since given up the practice feeling very inadequate and uncomfortable. A category that includes most Republicans, including Our Leader himself.

3) Stern does not attack Democrats, and has at times actually expressed interest in the likes of extremely dangerous individuals such as Howard Dean and John Kerry.

4) He has specifically blamed George W. Bush for his Hate Week. Stern should not be expected to criticize Our Leader. All talk radio personalities are required to love George W. Bush. And if President Bush (Our Leader) should decide to make an individual radio personality a Hate Week Focus Target (HWFT), that person should have the patriotism and loyalty to America to accept his shame with gratitude, humility, and heartfelt pleas for forgiveness.

5) Stern's Corporation for the districts affected (Clear Channel) has condemned his works. And when a Corporation passes judgement, it is our duty to help implement that decision. Additionally, Clear Channel is a Loyal Bush Corporation (LBC - w/ 4 Stars!) and has supported Our Leader with vast sums of cash and on-air hosannas of praise. Rally to this brave Corporation! Hate Stern! Hate him! Hate him bad!

Previous Hate Week directives (Now Class 2 only):

- No Marriages For Gays Hate Week.
- Doctored Jane Fonda Photos Hate Week.
- Kerry Had An Affair Hate Week.
- Vietnam Veterans/Max Cleland Hate Week.
- The Unemployed Are Bumms, Shipping Their Jobs Oversees Is Good For America Hate Week.

Any questions on these instructions please don your foil hats and ankle coverings and await further transmissions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-01-04 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
24. While we're still
on the subject of cc, lets discuss the company's extremist agenda and motives. It puts my position in perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 22nd 2017, 04:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC