Clear Channel Behind Pro-War Demos

March 25, 2003 6:09 PM

Most of the recent pro-war demonstrations around the United States have been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, the nation's largest owner of radio stations. The company's top management has a history with George W. Bush, and Secretary of State Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell, is the head of the FCC.
posted by tranquileye (30 comments total)

Is a "pro-war" demonstration wrong? Are the "anti-war" protests free of professional protesters?
I assure you that I've not been contacted, lest paid, for my views.

This is a notable thing, but hardly a reflection of people expressing their view (if you feel it is, then dispense opinions on protests, opinions, and blogs and diaries in general).
posted by effer27 at 6:26 PM on March 25, 2003

Wow. Amazing post. I'm just beginning to understand the depth of corruption in our government. Thanks for bringing Clear Channel into the picture for me.
posted by UrbanFigaro at 6:32 PM on March 25, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell, is the head of the FCC.

While this kind of seeming nepotism throughout the executive branch is depressing, what exactly does the FCC have to do with ClearChannel's pro-war stance?
posted by daveadams at 6:37 PM on March 25, 2003

Hey look, Clear Channel has some job openings!
posted by anathema at 6:42 PM on March 25, 2003

daveadams: FCC deregulation has already allowed Clear Channel to grow 30-fold since 1996. Clear Channel would very definitely benefit from the further deregulation of the airwaves now being considered by Powell. So cozying up to the administration seems like a pretty sensible (if depressing) tactic to me.
posted by bigschmoove at 6:51 PM on March 25, 2003

"Hey look, Clear Channel has some job openings!"

And Amazon has a lot of copies of Bob Woodward's latest book!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:51 PM on March 25, 2003

Clear Channel would very definitely benefit from the further deregulation of the airwaves now being considered by Powell.

And the question is: What does nepotism, the implied charge against Powell, have to do with that? Would it make it okay if it were a different ideologically-driven deregulator who wasn't related to another Bush appointee?

I think it weakens the post, and more importantly, the argument and the fact, to tie it to the potential nepotism of Michael Powell's appointment. As you say, this deregulation has been ongoing since 1996. What does it matter if MP is related to CP?
posted by claxton6 at 6:55 PM on March 25, 2003

So they organized some pro-military rallies and International A.N.S.W.E.R. organized some anti-war rallies. Big deal.
posted by gyc at 6:56 PM on March 25, 2003

claxton6: Sponsorship of pro-adminstration rallies in exchange for pro-Clear Channel regulation seems like a fairly straightforward exchange to me. Nepotism may help but isn't the core issue as I see it. I don't suppose it's central that Clear Channel attempted to conceal its funding of these rallies either (that's more a marketing problem). I find it discouraging, but that's my problem I guess.
posted by bigschmoove at 7:02 PM on March 25, 2003

Sponsorship of pro-adminstration rallies in exchange for pro-Clear Channel regulation seems like a fairly straightforward exchange to me.

But is that what's happening? I mean, I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as that. That's not to say that's not their goal, just that it's less quid-pro-quo.

I don't suppose it's central that Clear Channel attempted to conceal its funding of these rallies either (that's more a marketing problem). I find it discouraging, but that's my problem I guess.

I agree that it's a big problem. My quibble is just that tying it to Michael Powell is a red-herring, and makes it easy to dismiss as leftie Shrub-hate.

Myself, I'm kind of going around and around on this. I want to say it's phony grass-roots work sponsored by a corporation as a way to get around direct political contributions. But then, is that different from, say, union sponsorship of rallies?
posted by claxton6 at 7:09 PM on March 25, 2003

Not to defend CC (far from it) but according to today's NPR story (can't find link yet) only "six or seven" of CC's 1200 stations sponsored rallies. While there has been absolutely no corporate edict to stage pro-war rallies ("otherwise every station would have done it") they described an atmosphere where sponsoring an anti-war rally would "raise eyebrows" at corporate hq.

Again, these guys suck (ferchrissake, "Imagine" is inappropriate???) but this is a bit a pinkish herring.
posted by victors at 7:10 PM on March 25, 2003

I assume Michael Powell's relation to Colin Powell has been mentioned simply to accentuate the significant personal relationships that have already been documented between the administration and Clear Channel.

I can't claim that quid-pro-quo is the only reason for funding these rallies, but it does seem like a very reasonable interpretation. The administration benefits from Clear Channel's activities, as they have in the past from FCC action and certainly would in the future if Powell follows through on his current plans.

Aside from the obvious difference that union-funded rallies are usually for the purpose of funding rallies rather than "quid-pro-quo" lobbying efforts, there's the niglet that CC reports on these rallies via its news shows.
posted by bigschmoove at 7:24 PM on March 25, 2003

er, by "as they have" I meant "as Clear Channel have"
posted by bigschmoove at 7:25 PM on March 25, 2003

what gyc said, except in fact ANSWER's backing is actually the bolshevikesque Worker's World Party.
posted by reality at 7:35 PM on March 25, 2003

Pants. Down.
(Around. Ankles.)

But people sitting around watching CNN and sitcoms and thinking about getting up for work tomorrow don't care. Did we take Baghdad yet? Will gas prices go down afterwards? Ho hum. Off to bed.
posted by Shane at 7:40 PM on March 25, 2003

what gyc said, except in fact ANSWER's backing is actually the bolshevikesque Worker's World Party.

Out of curiosity, how much money do you think the WWP has to blow on this sort of thing? As compared with how much Clear Channel has? And I'll even do you the favor of asking where WWP's money comes from.

but it does seem like a very reasonable interpretation.

Before calling it quid-pro-quo, I'd want to see something more overt and intentional from both sides. But maybe I'm misunderstanding QPQ.

Victors: If you can find that NPR link, I'd love to see it. If this is something much more small scale than Krugman made it sound, I'd like to know for sure.
posted by claxton6 at 7:40 PM on March 25, 2003

claxton6 - I found this definition at a shady source which bills itself as the "Lectric Law Library" (?!):

"QUID PRO QUO - Lat. 'what for what' or 'something for something.' The concept of getting something of value in return for giving something of value. For a contract to be binding, it usually must involve the exchange of something of value. " - I don't believe that Quid Pro Quo arrangements require "overtness", and the "intentionality" of the Bush Adm./Clear Channel (alleged) Quid Pro Qou is very much up for debate ---- "Coincidence!", say supporters. "Blatant!", say bush opponents.

What I found most interesting about the Krugman piece was this history: " 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."

Meanwhile, I don't know if this is related to the Clear Channel effort or not, but here is a website which connects pro-war protestors by arranging meetups in their local areas. "People who support war with Iraq to meetup in hundreds of cities worldwide"
posted by troutfishing at 8:37 PM on March 25, 2003

I think we need to have a little history lesson here. Deregulation of radio ownership occurred before Bush became president....during the tenure of Bill Clinton. Was he part of this big conspiracy too?
posted by Durwood at 9:06 PM on March 25, 2003

Durwood - what big conspiracy? I thought the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" tendency (reciprocal altruism) was a universally acknowledged (probably instinctual) human behavior.

Meanwhile...Didn't Deregulation start during the first Reagan Administration?
posted by troutfishing at 9:21 PM on March 25, 2003

Deregulation seemed like a good idea. Turns out it was a horrible, horrible idea. Sort of like deregulation of electricity providers in California. Anybody with a pulse can look at the state of media in the U.S. and see that Clinton screwed up. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton would fix the mistake, I speculate.

ObClearChannelSucks link.
posted by waldo at 9:40 PM on March 25, 2003

Sorry, this *is* a big deal.

Regardless of which brokedick splinter-Trotskyite faction originally proposed the current round of antiwar rallies, there's no doubt that they've cut a pretty wide cross-section through America. My mom and my sister, for example, attended one in Washington last week - neither a bombthrower, I'm afraid.

There's your *genuine* grass-roots activism. OTOH, organized and sponsored pogroms throughout history have cast themselves as "spontaneous expressions of popular sentiment," or some other such grotesque formulation, despite their top-down financing, outfitting and orchestration. Here's what it looked like in Gujarat, India, for example; I won't even bother mentioning the many, many mid-century European examples.

This is the context in which I understand Clear Channel's "rallies."
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:47 PM on March 25, 2003

Weak.

You'll need to show someone profiting or bribeing and Bush isn't that stupid. It's a free country Tom Hicks and ClearChannel and the supporters have a right to organize and gather in public places.
posted by stbalbach at 10:29 PM on March 25, 2003

stbalbach, nobody's arguing that CCE doesn't have a right to organize people to gather in public places. Just that Clear Channel are bastards.
posted by waldo at 10:37 PM on March 25, 2003

St. Balbach - re: "You'll need to show someone profiting or bribeing and Bush isn't that stupid." - So, You endorse the "Quid Pro Quo" theory then?
posted by troutfishing at 11:47 PM on March 25, 2003

So when the socialists organize "peace" rallies (pardon the self-link) its not relevant... but if ClearChannel organizes a rally then obviously the whole war is a sham?

Riiight.

Of course its possible someone is making some $$$ under the table. And of course there is corruption. And of course we should investigate it... I have no illusion that Bush et-al are choir boys.

But it is a BIG stretch from someone making a little cash to an entire war being a sham...

Unless your M. Moore or own a tinfoil hat.
posted by soulhuntre at 1:25 AM on March 26, 2003

Uhh...I don't think people are arguing that the war is a sham. I think the argument is, rather, that a hegemonic media empire's sub rosa manipulation of a situation it has an economic stake in should be exposed.

I believe some of us are also troubled by the historical resonances. You know, 1938 and like that.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:31 AM on March 26, 2003

I seem to remember an under-reported scandal involving the republican party, protesters payed and flown in from the mid-west, and a certain Florida vote-tallying center. I don't at all put it past Clear Channel or the ruling powers to resort to under-the-table tecniques to create an image of support for their war. We know that such support exists, of course - we see it here all the time - but the lack of a public face gives one the impression that the supporters don't care as much as the anti-war crowd. Let's remember that this is a psy-ops war - the administration's return on their alteration of the laws need not neccesarily be monetary if they have better things to gain.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:54 PM on March 26, 2003

All modern wars are PSYOP wars. And I'm tempted to remove "modern."
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:41 PM on March 26, 2003

"Antiwar activists debate: Should they take over the streets or work to defeat Bush in 2004?" I vote for the latter, but these guys never listen to me.
posted by homunculus at 8:43 PM on March 26, 2003

The right-wingers have beaten the dead ANSWER horse so much that it borders on sado-necrophilia. But the thing with ANSWER is that their participation is neither substantial in the big picture, nor are the American socialists the dictator-loving bunch that Limbaugh et al. have portrayed them as (amazing as it may be, even in a group of socialists you have a diversity of opinions). But hey, if you can bash protestors and evil commies at the same time ...

In contrast, it is doubtful whether there would be any significant pro-war rallies at all without top-down support and coordination. The anti-war position clearly is more emotionally persuasive (which says nothing about whether it is correct).
posted by Eloquence at 11:11 PM on March 26, 2003