FOLLOW-UP -- Spitzer to FCC: "WTF?"

April 8, 2006 -- Last week, I complained about the FCC's alleged plan to settle the payola charges against four corporate radio monoliths (Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Entercom, and Citadel) arising from a payola investigation initiated by New York's Attorney General, Elliott Spitzer. My complaint -- the FCC is going to let these guys off the hook for decades of behavior with settlements of a million dollars each or "slightly higher," according to people who are "close to the matter," whatever the hell that means.

It seems Spitzer has a similar complaint. According to the LA Times, he sued Entercom (the smallest of the four) last month after Entercom refused to accept the settlement agreement he offered, which included a fine of $20 million. The FCC wants to let them off for $1-$3 million.

While Spitzer has spent about a year and a half on his investigation, the FCC has done nothing. They haven't even looked at all of Spitzer's evidence and they're ready to give the broadcasters all a free pass, when they should be yanking licenses.

At heart, payola is a betrayal of the public trust and responsibility that supposedly comes with a broadcasting license. It is a federal offense, but when I called the FCC a couple of years ago, the word "payola" was "not in their database" of things you could register a complaint about. To put it bluntly, if Spitzer hadn't come along, the FCC would never have looked into this on their own. Sadly, if the FCC cuts a deal, this undercuts anything Spitzer had going.

As much as I hate the record companies, they've been paying fines in the $5-$10 million range. But they weren't the ones that betrayed the public trust. The last time anyone took payola seriously (46 years ago) it wasn't actually a violation of law. The people who accepted the payments, the DJs, were the object of closest scrutiny -- Alan Freed, Dick Clark, Murray the K and a few others.

The anti-payola law was a result of this and was designed to punish those accepting the bribes, since remedies were already available for "commercial bribery" against those offering them. It is a misdemeanor, according to the History of Rock website, with a $10,000 fine and the possibility of a year in prison. Theoretically, and especially at the time it was written, that would seem to be an appropriate charge against an individual (a DJ) for accepting a bribe. Once.

But that was during the days of personal responsibility. Very few of today's DJs have any input into what is played, so it doesn't even make sense to bribe them unless you're pretty stupid. With the corporate overlords, the public trust is sacrificed nationally for profit, all at once. Forget diversity and localism, someone got a big chunk of change to shove the latest song down everyone's throats. The artists are paying for it, whether they want to or not. Of course, those that are paying get airplay, whether they deserve it or not, so it's hard to feel too damn sorry for them.

As amusing as the possibility of jail time for Clear Channel execs is, the hitch is that the FCC is part of the government and hey, CC did make a list of unpatriotic songs not to play, they punished artists for having unpatriotic opinions and, well, maybe Our Great Leader owes them one, but he'll have to check which list they're on before a final decision is reached.

I would expect they'll give this the same thoughtful, honest analysis and consideration of the public trust that they would give to, oh, I don't know... maybe an investigation about outing a CIA agent for revenge.

--George Ziemann
http://azoz.com

As always George you are right on track with the payola problem and we both know the only way to solve it is to start Yanking Licenses!!!!! If you truly want to help artists then Kill Payola. After all they have to pay for it!!!! But then only the cream will rise to the top !!!

LA Times article interviews programmers and they actually claim that they are even more tight on playlists now!!

Why?

Anything creative or unique---or even fugly---(think: Janis Joplin, Hendrix, Dylan, Arthur Lee & Love)---would cast suspicion on the programmer who actually liked a song!

Read up:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-playlist8apr08,1,2614938.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews

"But Spitzer's crusade may be having the opposite effect. Many programmers say that fear of regulatory scrutiny has scared them into airing fewer new songs. Instead, many stations are sticking to older, more tried-and-true tunes that seem less likely to prompt speculation that money changed hands."

What a load of double-think bullsh*t.

One programmer who wished to remain anonymous said:

"Let some other station take the risk," he told the group. "I don't want some investigator asking to see my e-mails because I took a chance on a song I liked."

----------

I think these secretive programmers are all guilty as hell. Statements like that sure make it sound that way.

"While Spitzer has spent about a year and a half on his investigation, the FCC has done nothing. They haven't even looked at all of Spitzer's evidence and they're ready to give the broadcasters all a free pass, when they should be yanking licenses."

Our government ladies and gentlemen! What act of supreme stupidity will they do next?

"But Spitzer's crusade may be having the opposite effect. Many programmers say that fear of regulatory scrutiny has scared them into airing fewer new songs..."

As if these extremely innovative and gifted "programmers" could add a song without the big money cue. Radio such as CC is not about music, it's about money. Everyone knows that.

Go Spitzer - Hail and Kill.

"Our government ladies and gentlemen! What act of supreme stupidity will they do next?"

Allow the RIAA to sue 12-year-old girls, dead grandmas, and disabled mothers. Oh yeah, that's right, the RIAA IS ALREADY doing that, aren't they?

yea...thats y i said next...lol...

allowing drm maybe?