Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:24:07 -0500
From: Diane Teramana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TELMEMS 2003 - FEATURE OF FASCISM
To: "TELMEMS \"A\" LIST" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
Madam President,
This appeared in today's NYTimes, and was sent to me by a friend. I thought
I'd forward it to you.
Marc Kehoe
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN
By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as
antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most
striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks,
criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a
33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other
paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed
eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.
Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is
that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry � with
close links to the Bush administration.
The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio
chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the
pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by
stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San
Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the
airwaves.
The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for
America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely:
according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear
Channel in Salon, the company is notorious � and widely hated � for its
iron-fisted centralized control.
Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business
practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and
artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now
the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political
dispute that deeply divides the nation.
Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of
course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management.
But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel � which became a giant only
in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many
restrictions on media ownership � to curry favor with the ruling party. On
one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over
allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't
tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want
to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the
other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further
deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further,
particularly into television.
Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced
Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to
be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a
history with George W. Bush. 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.
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good
guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new
American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the
Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' "
On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores
of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once
worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if
politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why
shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those
politicians � by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their
behalf?
What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs.
In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a
huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after
journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?
Doing research? Search the archive for more than 500,000 articles:
Home | Back to Opinion | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
__________________________________________
Dr. John M. Bennett
Curator, Avant Writing Collection
Rare Books & Manuscripts Library
The Ohio State University Libraries
1858 Neil Av Mall
Columbus, OH 43210 USA
(614) 292-3029
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________
