Brindle Media

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Saturday’s assassination attempt of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords which claimed six lives has some pointing an accusing finger at radio and cable TV hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, claiming they had a role in the incident by provoking an unstable person. But INSIDE RADIO reports that the talkers are pushing back, calling it an unfair attack on conservative hosts.



What do you think?

Update: 1/12/11

To alert people to this blog, I posted links on Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin. My experience is that my postings on Twitter never receive responses and are rarely retweeted but I view using it as a connection device to be a learning experience. On both Linkedin and Facebook, I don’t know if people actually link to this site to read the entire blog but they usually post their responses on those sites.

Not surprisingly, the responses tended to fall along party lines. Those folks whose politics tend toward the “progressive/liberal” camp seem to believe that the rhetoric heard on talk radio and cable TV in some way influenced the Tuscon tragedy. Those whose politics are more “conservative” seem to believe that liberals are trying to use the tragedy to impose restrictions on their First Amendment rights of free speech. Unfortunately, South Caroline Representative, James Clyburn (a Democrat) is fanning that particular flame by championing a return of the Fairness Doctrine. I’ve written previously about how anachronistic, outdated and absurd that notion is considering 21st Century communications technology.

In any case, the debate on this topic has certainly been lively. Although I have concerns about what sometimes seems like the irresponsible use of inflammatory rhetoric to manipulate audience reaction and ratings, my sense is that it wasn’t much of a factor in the case of the shootings in Arizona. I was especially impressed with these reactions from columnist David Brooks and The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

href=’http://www.thedailyshow.com’>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c Arizona Shootings Reaction www.thedailyshow.com

Polls show that 60% of Americans don’t believe that political rhetoric caused Jared Loughner’s assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords. Nevertheless, it seems to me that those who dismiss the impact of inflammatory rhetoric are making a mistake. Research shows that humans, even those of us who relieve that we are reasonable and rational, react emotionally and then rationalize to reinforce their beliefs.

In times of economic instability like we’ve been experiencing for the past decade in the United States, fear, insecurity and distrust become more prevalent as what Seth Godin likes to call our lizard brain takes control. Couple with that the ability that we have with the internet, various cable TV and social media to filter the information we receive. Now, we can choose to avoid all that inconvenient information which doesn’t reinforce our beliefs.

I can recall watching coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaign when a woman in John McCain’s audience started ranting about how Obama was evil and wanted to destroy America. The woman looked like an average grandmother but she was regurgitating this rhetoric and McCain looked stunned and embarrassed. He felt it necessary to reassure her that Barack Obama was a good person and an honorable man, not something that this woman or his supporters wanted to hear.

Another woman waiting in line to enter a McCain/Palin rally told an interviewer that Obama was a socialist who wanted to destroy the country and that he wasn’t an American citizen. She was very matter-of-fact as if these were proven facts rather than unsubstantiated rumors spread through the internet.

Albany Times Union editor, Rex Smith makes some cogent observations in this recent editorial:
http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Words-the-first-step-to-civility-959442.php

Those of us who’ve worked professionally in media know how easy it is to manipulate an audience. It can be a source of childish delight to watch your audience jump through hoops at your whim but it’s also important to take responsibility for your actions and for the results of those actions whether or not they are intended.

Words have consequences.

If you use a smartphone and especially if you’re an iPhone, iPad or Mac user, pay attention. I know, the folks at The Apple Store told you that you really don’t need anti-virus protection because Apple products are virus-proof. But that could soon change. Like squirrels trying to access the food in your bird feeder, hackers are apparently obsessed with cracking the Apple codes.

PC Magazine reports:

McAfee on Tuesday (12/28/10) released its list of threat predictions for 2011 and it highlighted things like URL shorteners, location-based services, Apple products, and Internet TV. McAfee on Tuesday released its list of threat predictions for 2011 and it highlighted things like URL shorteners, location-based services, Apple products, and Internet TV.
What else made McAfee’s threat list?

• Hacktivism: McAfee predicted a rise in the number of politically motivated cyber attacks. “More groups will repeat the WikiLeaks example,” McAfee said, though strategy will become more sophisticated and leverage social networks.

• Friendly Fire: McAfee predicted a rise in the use of malicious content disguised as e-mail from sources you know. “Signed” malware that imitates legitimate files will become more prevalent, and “friendly fire,” in which threats appear to come from your friends but in fact are viruses such as Koobface or VBMania, will continue to grow as an attack of choice by cybercriminals, McAfee said. This could go hand-in-hand with social network attacks, which could eventually overtake e-mail attacks.

• Botnets: McAfee Labs predicts that the recent merger of Zeus with SpyEye will produce more sophisticated bots due to improvements in bypassing security mechanisms and law enforcement monitoring. Additionally, McAfee Labs expects to see a significant botnet activity in the adoption of data-gathering and data-removal functionality, rather than the common use of sending spam.

You can read the entire PC Magazine article here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374784,00.asp

At a recent Catholic wedding I attended, the priest spoke to the bride and groom about the difference between a contract and a covenant. He talked about how the union they were undertaking was not a contractual arrangement like a business deal but a sacred promise to each other and, by extension, to God.

This was the first time I can recall hearing this issue addressed during a wedding ceremony. It seemed apt and it got me thinking.

My generation, the Baby Boomers, grew up in the aftermath of World War II. It was the age of nuclear proliferation, a time of major scientific discoveries which helped provide answers to many of our questions about the universe and which (like the birth control pill) provided us with more control over our destinies. We witnessed the coming of age of the feminist movement and experienced the “Summer of Love” along with the era of disillusion and anti-heroism following the Vietnam War which led to the Gordon Gecko “Greed Is Good” 80s.

We went from a generation of idealists to a generation of cynics to a generation of pragmatists. No wonder we started thinking of marriage more like a business agreement and a matter of mutual convenience. Of course, the inevitable result was the burgeoning divorce rate among Boomers which must have created psychological concerns about commitments for our children.

When Googled the question “What is the difference between a contract and a covenant?”, one of the results was this: “The difference is in the attitude of contract versus the attitude of covenant. In contract both parties are hoping to limit liability or maximize profit or otherwise make things better for the self. The contract is then a way of ensuring that things go just as planned and, if necessary, to force the other party to promised action….A covenant relationship is one in which certain terms are set, yes, but the parties make the cause of the other their own cause. In other words, when I make a covenant, the goals and desires of the person with whom I am covenanting become my own.” Sounds about right.

So, have the children of Baby Boomers learned a valuable lesson about marriage and long-term relationships from our mistakes? Or is this just wishful thinking?

Your thoughts?

With their tendency towards neutrality, I guess it’s not too surprising that Dutch citizens are reluctant to interfere in other people’s fights. This is presenting a problem for the Dutch government because public employees are frequently being confronted by aggression or actual violence. To encourage people to help public workers when they’re being violently confronted, the government has created an augmented reality billboard, placed above a busy intersection in Amsterdam. The billboard shows a real-time view of the street below but superimposes a green screen-filmed street fight into the otherwise empty curb space. As passersby stop to stare at themselves on the billboard, they are confronted with a tense altercation occurring right in front of them. Check it out:

Mashable reports: “The Dutch government hopes the ad will provoke a feeling of shame by showing citizens what they look like when they ignore such situations. It’s an ambitious and complex emotional experiment that injects AR into daily life. It’s also inspiring intense interest from Amsterdam pedestrians.” Your thoughts?

Just so you’ll know, I’m not employed by a radio station nor an individual or company which owns radio stations, I am not related to anyone who works in radio, and I’m not a shareholder in any company which owns radio stations. Although many years of my career were spent in radio, I am not a water bearer for any company which owns music-oriented broadcast radio stations.

That said, I find AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka’s remarks at a recent musicFIRST Coalition press conference on Capitol Hill pretty offensive.
Trumka said: “The reckless greed that drives Wall Street is the same as the unconscionable greed that drives the handful of conglomerate corporate radio executives that control 75 percent of our nation’s radio stations. If you care about music, if you care about the right of Americans to get paid for their work, if you care about doing what is right, be a part of the good fight for our performing brothers and sisters.”

“The unconscionable greed that drive the handful of conglomerate corporate radio executives that control 75% of our nation’s radio stations”? Nice rhetoric, Mr.Trumpka but what about the unconscionable greed that drives the handful of foreign-based record companies that abuse their relationships with their artists?

Lets review some facts. There are a little over 11,000 commercially licensed radio stations in America. Around 20%, of those facilities are owned by companies which control 100 or more stations. Clear Channel’s controls 11% and the remaining 9% is split up among 7 or 8 other companies. In other words, 80% of American broadcast stations aren’t owned by companies which Rich Trumka and musicFIRST could describe as “conglomerate corporate radio”.

Chairman of the House Labor and Education Committee, George Miller (D-CA) said: “The important thing to remember is this: Passage of the Performance Rights Act will stop corporate radio from continuing to exploit the labor of working Americans – Americans who spend decades passionately honing their craft to produce works that resonate with our inner angels.”

Chairman Miller appears unaware that these radio stations which he accuses of exploiting musicians are actually investing millions of dollars in air time to promote the careers of musicians and providing FREE commercials by exposing those artists’ music to the audiences that these stations have invested millions of their marketing dollars to aggregate.

At this point, some reader will ask: “But don’t those radio stations limit the number of artists and songs that they play and isn’t that unfair?”

The stations limit the number of artists and songs that they play based on what their listeners want to hear. Research has shown that most radio listeners prefer a limited number of songs on a station’s playlist. The particular songs may change over time but the aggregate number of songs remains relatively constant. It’s even been noted that iPod and Pandora users eventually limit their playlists after their initial enthusiasm for discovery wanes.

Although I’m no longer involved with the radio industry, I did spend many years programming stations and being “worked” by record industry representatives to increase exposure on those songs which were most important to their labels. Increased exposure meant and still means increased revenues for the foreign-owned record companies who are, to quote Chairman Miller, “continuing to exploit the labor of working Americans.”

In his blog today, Jerry Del Colliano offers his solution to the radio/RIAA Performance Rights Act standoff:

“1.Agree upon a very, very small fee for radio stations and guarantee the rate for the next seven years. Of course, you’ll never get the seven years but start low and give an increase — a small one — at one or two points along the way.

2. Local, independent operators (mom and pops), the real heart of local radio, should be totally exempt from any fees. I believe this can be negotiated in. Local operators are helping their communities and local and regional economies, they deserve a break. This is the strongest argument for local radio — where local radio actually exists — and this is the workaround.

3. Radio groups operating under 30 total stations should get an additional break no matter what market they are in because 30 stations constitutes a small group by today’s consolidated radio numbers. The number 30 can be 40, or 50 — it’s negotiable.

4. Large consolidators like Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulus and others should pay the highest fee — but even that should be comparably low. Remember, the music industry just wants to get rid of the performance exemption so it can raise these percentages as soon as possible. Their compromise might have to be accepting pennies on the dollar for the first seven years.

5. This is a must and only a fool would knowingly agree to pay additional music royalty taxes for terrestrial radio without it. Radio stations would be exempt from paying these charges for their podcasting or online streaming of programming that is separate and apart from their terrestrial radio signal. The future is mobile Internet and as a result, this is the concession that radio operators need to get a leg up on the new frontier. The radio industry can argue, okay — you get some music royalties for terrestrial radio under certain circumstances but you give us music in this new space for free while we take the next seven years to build the podcasting and mobile and streaming businesses. It will be worth even more to you when we use our know-how to build these platforms and you can get a royalty on them as well later.”

You can read Jerry’s full blog at http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/2010/04/radio-royalty-solution.html

Tom Taylor writes in his daily column for Radio-Info.com under the headline

“The fight over FCC regulation of the Internet hits Capitol Hill – and partisan politics”
The Dems generally see a role for the Commission to regulate broadband providers in the name of consumer protection. The Republicans – at least several Senators who spoke up at Wednesday’s Senate hearing – don’t think the FCC has the authority. This goes back to last week’s D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals “Comcast” decision, which said the FCC couldn’t force the Philly-based media giant to treat all customers equally. (That’s also going to be called the “Bit Torrent” decision, because Comcast said it needed to choke down some traffic to extreme users of the file-sharing service.) The New York Times says Chairman Julius Genachowski now faces a strategic decision. He could choose to “re-classify Internet services as a utility similar to telephone service, to overcome the court decision.” Until the Bush Administration, the FCC did claim regulatory powers, under the theory that Internet services were akin to telephone service. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, basically told Genachowski this week “don’t do it”, because (in her words) “the legitimacy of the agency would be seriously compromised.” Why’s this important to radio? A lot of “radio” in the future is going to be consumed over the Internet. The question of who gets to set the rules about Internet traffic matters to radio – a lot.

Personally and professionally, I have mixed emotions about a regulated Internet. The idealist part of me wants the Internet to remain an eternally wild and open frontier for exploration and creativity. However, the skeptical adult businessman in me believes that sooner or later some cynical corporate entities will engineer the Internet version of a land grab and create barriers which can endanger the freedom of expression which it now offers. In an ideal world, business leaders would strive to create win-win situations but too often we’ve seen them turn corrupt and greedy with a sense of entitlement and a disdain for the customers they serve. Under that scenario, a watchdog like the FCC makes sense.

Your thoughts?

Your can read Tom Taylor’s columns at http://tinyurl.com/TomTaylor

If you’re looking for quality of life, new career opportunities and a place that’s stepping up to the challenge of change in the 21st century, consider New York State’s Tech Valley Region.

Saratoga is equidistant from Boston, New York City and Montreal. Winters aren’t too hard, summers aren’t too hot. If you like outdoor activities, you’ll like it here.

Learn more at www.saratogaedc.com

This week, the RIAA sent 5 people to the National Association of Broadcaters’ headquarters in Washington DC with a blow-up pig to protest NAB’s stance against the Performance Rights Act. NAB responded by sending them a sausage pizza.

Dennis Wharton, the NAB’s Executive VP says:”It’s no surprise that RIAA is now employing silly frat-boy stunts, given its well-documented practice of suing college kids to rescue a bankrupt business model. It also seems appropriate for RIAA to use an inflatable pig as its mascot, since its foreign-owned members would be the biggest beneficiaries of performance tax pork. RIAA is losing this issue on Capitol Hill and in the court of public opinion, and today’s demonstration represents a new low in a campaign of utter desperation.”

About the sausage pizza, Wharton noted, “We’re suggesting they provide this food to the scores of exploited musicians who have had to sue their record label to recoup allegedly unpaid album royalties.”

As music industry veteran Steve Meyer notes in his DISC & DigitalAudioTechnology (Music & Digital Audio/Video News):
“All the artists who have earned a whole lot of money from selling a whole lot of records from a whole lot of radio play should think twice before they try and get what they wish for. Because if the Performance Tax is ever passed, a whole lot of newer artists won’t have the same ability to make a whole lot of money from record sales because they will most likely not receive the same whole lot of airplay. But that’s my opinion.”

“Back to the RIAA and their lame brained stunt. Labels fund the RIAA, and they should demand the costs of the stunt be deducted from the salaries of all those in the association who thought it was a good idea to draw attention to a matter so far removed from the public’s consciousness. It accomplished nothing and it allowed the NAB to retaliate with words the public is more likely to side with.”

(Read Steve’s weekly newsletters at www.freewebs.com/stevemeyer )

I like the sausage pizza move and Wharton’s responses but, unfortunately, visuals tend to trump the written and spoken word with we humans so I think that radio broadcasters need to respond with their own creative and iconic visual to represent the greedy labels and those ungrateful artists who dismiss FREE promotion and advocacy of their work as having no value.

Any suggestions?

Note to MusicFIRST: In a survey of its readers the broadcast trade, INSIDE RADIO asked if the Performance Rights Act were passed would they consider switching their music-formated radio stations to talk, sports or news programming. More than half (52%) said yes. A third of those responding said that their decision would be based on the size of the royalty payments.

musicFIRST is at it again.

Yesterday, Dionne Warwick was in Washington trying to persuade Congress to pass the Performance Rights Act. According to Dionne, “This is a critical issue for not only those of us who have made music our careers, but for those who are trying to make a name for themselves in the business. Performers from every genre of music should be fairly compensated for their art. Thus far, radio is the only medium that fails to provide artists with fair compensation for the use of their music and we feel it is time for radio companies to join Satellite, Internet, and Cable music distributors in giving musical artists what they have worked so hard to earn.”

I’m sorry, Dionne but could we review your tax records for the past 45 years? I would suspect that a lot of money has flowed into your personal account primarily because of the FREE exposure and promotion you received from radio stations playing your songs in high rotations and on-air personalities reinforcing your brand by praising your talent. I’m sure that your contract with your record labels was designed more in their best interest than yours but that’s not radio’s fault. What all that FREE exposure on radio did for you, however, was increase audience awareness of your talent, increase your TV exposure, increase demand for your live performances and increase the fees you could demand for those performances. Seems to me that you profited nicely from all that FREE exposure.

And before someone posts the same lame comment about radio gets free use of our airwaves and we the people own the airwaves, it would be useful to remember that radio stations are granted short-term licenses to access those airwaves with the promise to operate in the public “interest, convenience and necessity”. Then, companies must invest millions of dollars in order to build their facilities, purchase the equipment, pay the electric bills (which can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year), pay the personnel (on-air staff, engineers, support staff, sales people, management), pay a large
percentage of gross advertising revenues to music rights companies (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC) and pay local, state and federal taxes. If times are good and the station does a good job of serving its listeners, it can earn a nice profit. If times are tight, it can lose money even if it’s doing a good job of serving its audience. So, saying that radio gets “free” use of our airwaves is a bit misleading.

It amazes me that the artists who support musicFIRST’s efforts don’t understand that if the RIAA gets its way and forces radio to start paying for the right to play songs then fewer stations will choose to continue playing music and those stations that do continue to play music will become more selective about what they play. If a station is paying for songs, its budget will dictate that it choose the most cost-effective tunes which will be obvious hits by artists with established track records. Consequently, playlists will become even tighter. I’m not sure that’s the goal that the musicians supporting musicFIRST are trying to accomplish.