FYI

[KHAN]

[img]http://www.theunholytrinity.org/cracks_smileys/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif[/img] [url=http://www.clearchannelsucks.org/]We\'re not the only ones who feel this way.[/url] [img]http://www.theunholytrinity.org/cracks_smileys/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif[/img]

[Wewus432]

I think if companies focused on doing quality work instead of trying to take over the world everyone including them would be better off. I don't understand how Clear Channel is not in violation of monopoly or trust laws.

[gtrmac]

They are probably avoiding antitrust violations because they don't own the product. For instance I believe CBS was found in violation of antitrust laws when they owned Columbia Records and CBS Broadcasting. This gave them the means to promote their own product via the media in an unfair monopolistic way. Personally I think it is up to individuals to demand variety and quality in broadcasting. As long as people keep consuming the junk food that they are being fed, lowest common denominator broadcasters will continue to thrive. I stopped watching TV long before I left America and hadn't listened to the radio for years before that. If other people choose to have their brain anesthetised by the junk on TV and radio, well that's their problem. I try to instill taste in my kids too and I hope that they grow up to be people that don't watch and listen to whatever is being offered. Bottom line is that if no one listens it will go away.

[Henchman]

[quote]Originally posted by gtrmac: They are probably avoiding antitrust violations because they don't own the product. [/quote]But if they don't own or sell a product how would they make money? They do own a product. Airtime. Theys sell that product. Once airtime is used, it is forever gone. All used up. And they are promoting concerts. If that's not a product, then how can they sell tickets. They pay sales tax on those seats. So they are selling a product. If it's an artist being played on their station, that is selling airtime because of people being drawen to that staion becasue of that artist, then that to me is a clear case of anti-trust violation. Also, the reverse is true. If they are promoting artists played on their staions, then one could say that the only shows prommoted are those of acts on their statuion. Again, anti-trust violation. It seems pretty CLEAR to me. (Pun intended.)

[Franknputer]

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. And fall they will...so if you hear creaking & it gets real dark, get the f*ck out of the way... :wave:

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]Originally posted by Franknputer: [b]The bigger they are, the harder they fall. And fall they will...so if you hear creaking & it gets real dark, get the f*ck out of the way... :wave: [/b][/quote]Yeah what he said :D

[Chip McDonald]

Anti-trust laws? What anti-trust laws? They only apply if you're a singular person who has made his money based on selling a product. Maybe if you're initials are "BG" maybe. Certainly they don't apply to the retail music industry, bicycle industry, obviously not Clear Channel (who I noticed now just blatantly has a little blip on all the stations in my area "another fine Clear Channel station") (thankfully, now that another non-monopoly has put me out of a place to do business where I had to hear the radio, I don't have to hear their crap anymore. WHY DOES ANYONE CHOOSE TO LISTEN TO PROGRAMMED RADIO???????). Whatever.

[Rog]

The bastards are coming over here now. I'll keep you fellas posted on what happens.