Radio... What Would Life Be Without It?

As a radio scholar, it's pretty exciting when a lot of radio-related stories come down in the span of a week. Of course, the medium doesn't make the same waves it used to, so when a variety of different news items arise involving different aspects of the radio industry, I don't hesitate to get my commentary out there.

There was a lot of hubbub last week on the 2nd Circuit's decision to toss the FCC's "fleeting expletives" policy. In case you didn't see it, the judges said the FCC was being "arbitrary" about what constitutes indecency and what doesn't. In other words, the FCC decides what gets fined not based on content, but based on how many uptight prudes at the American Family Association complain. And of course they LOVE to fine radio stations even though most of the noteworthy incidents (including the ones that spawned this case) happen on television. Anyway, the 2nd Circuit rightly saw that this was (pardon the fleeting expletive) bullshit. Of course, the FCC will promptly appeal this to the Supreme Court of the United States, which I predicted last year when the SCOTUS originally punted this case back to the appellate level on technical grounds.

Ultimately, the SCOTUS will decide whether or not FCC v. Pacifica still holds up today or needs to be modified based on a station's conscious decision not to have a delay running at all times. Of course, delays sometimes don't work (take it from one who knows), but that's not the FCC's problem. Naturally, the American Family Association had kittens when the 2nd Circuit ruling went down, because they fear the television assaulting their innocent children because they the parents are apparently paralyzed from being able to change the station or turn the TV OFF. And with this decision will be established policy that all TV and radio stations will have to follow in the future to avoid the 6-figure fines that Congress approved after the Janet Jackson incident (which, by the way, is also being appealed through the federal courts right now... the SCOTUS might just choose to take both cases at the same time and rule concurrently).

There's a lot on the line here, not just in terms of how stations police themselves and their on-air content in the future, but also financially for stations and networks that have recently had to deal with some fleeting expletives. The FCC had to stop enforcing their indecency policy because of this case; after all, no sense in handing down a fine that the Supreme Court may deem unconstitutional. But if the SCOTUS tells the 2nd Circuit where they can stick their ruling and upholds the FCC's fines, the floodgates will open and there's gonna be a lot of dollars being ponied up by America's broadcasters. Every Philadelphia TV station that aired Chase Utley's "World F---ing Champions" remark in '08 will get sacked with stiff fines. NBC stands to get smacked not once, but twice for the "c-word" being dropped on the Today Show recently, one of those expletives being said by a 13-year old girl. In her case, thank goodness that rule change holding the utterer liable for the fine never went through, because where is a 13-year old girl going to come up with $300,000 to pay for the 4-letter bomb she dropped on national television? In the meantime, a lot of people got to make a lot of jokes about bad language being allowed on the air, and few things are better for a quick cheap laugh than a nice bleeped-out swear word.

And speaking of the FCC... they are currently reviewing the limits on how many radio stations can be owned by a company. Most people you talk to would likely tell you that the limits should be stiffened because radio has clearly suffered under the reign of bloated corporate owners that overleveraged themselves to the point of bankruptcy. However, Clear Channel does not agree. The nation's largest radio owner actually wrote a letter to the FCC saying ownership limits should be RELAXED. They think they should be allowed to own MORE stations. Their rationale? A new round of mergers would make Wall Street happy and get investors back into radio stocks. Thus proving that CC and the private equity firm that owns them care about one thing and one thing only... making WALL STREET happy. Not their listeners, not their employees, and certainly not all their ex-employees who have been laid off over the years because they were nothing more than lines on a balance sheet.

They claim that since XM and Sirius were allowed to merge into a satellite monopoly in order to compete not with other satellite companies but with other forms of media, Clear Channel should be allowed to amass a near-monopoly in terrestrial radio for the same reason. What they obviously fail to recognize is that XM/Sirius and all the new media have hurt radio's market share in recent years mostly because OF THE CRAPPY RADIO THAT COMPANIES LIKE CLEAR CHANNEL PUT OUT! What makes them think that further destruction of the things that work for the radio medium will help them compete?!? Hopefully, the FCC will see these people for the greedy morons that they are and lay the smackdown on them, forcing them to divest holdings and get some REAL owners back in the game, owners who care about the communities that they serve and who care about the content being brought to the public.

Of course you don't have to be owned by a huge conglomerate to screw up your radio station. As I was driving up I-81 last weekend, I flipped around the dial as I normally do, hoping for a good song or two at a time from one station or another. I do listen to CDs when I travel, but I like to listen to the radio as often as possible. However, one particular radio station made it impossible for me to do that. I flip to a certain Binghamton rock station, and they are going into a commercial break. I surf down the dial, pick up a decent song, listen to that, then back to the rock station. Still in commercials... going on 4 minutes now. Finally, after 5 minutes of commercials, the DJ comes on and announces, "And now we go into Shuffle Mode!"

Ya know, "Shuffle Mode"! Like an iPod! Cuz we know you all like to listen to iPods and we have to compete with iPods, so we'll try to make you think that we can do all the things your iPod can do! Of course, there were two major problems with this statement. First (and most obvious), you just got done playing FIVE MINUTES OF COMMERCIALS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but iPods don't play commercials. When I punch up a station on my Blackberry as I also like to do when I'm on the road, I might get one advertisement before the station starts playing (and of course any local ads the station chooses to stream but those are still minimal, plus the station is better so you don't mind as much). And secondly, the station that just put itself into "Shuffle Mode" proceeded to play the SAME Whitesnake song I can hear on ANY OTHER CLASSIC ROCK STATION ANYWHERE. Thus reminding me that most iPod users have more than just the obligatory one or two biggest hits from the rock bands they like. They probably have a much more diverse and deep collection of music in that MP3 player than the consultant-controlled rock station with its 300-song library of obvious hits.

Therefore, the lesson here is: DO NOT TRY TO COMPARE YOUR STATION WITH AN IPOD!!! Particularly if you are adept at giving listeners reason after reason to turn off your station and listen exclusively to their iPods. Whomever thought this was actually a good idea should be beaten senseless with a Denon CD Cart Player. Preferably the DN-951FA model.

Lastly, word got out yesterday that Glenn Beck may be going blind. He announced that he has a form of macular dystrophy and his doctors have said there's a possibility he could lose his vision. I don't wish that on anyone. I have a friend who has slowly lost her sight in recent years, and I cannot even imagine how difficult that must be to go through. As such, it completely disgusts me that ANYONE, much less a sizable number of "anyones" would find this to be a reason to rejoice. But there it is, in comments sections, in Twitter postings, people saying that it's "good" that Beck might lose his vision, or that it's "karma", or worse still, that he's faking his medical issues to draw attention to his political views. It's easy to spout off crap like this online when you don't have to tell anyone who you are, but it's times like this that we are reminded that for some in this country, it's TOO easy, and that's just repulsive. You can disagree with a man's politics all you want, but cheering medical maladies makes you a despicable human being. I could call you far worse things... but the FCC is rumored to be seeking jurisdiction over the Internet, so I don't want to subject myself to a possible future indecency fine...