Behind the scene games of the music industry…

“Fighting pay-for-play” by Eric Boehlert

Ever wonder who decides what songs play on the radio during your drive home from work? Some may think that it is the DJs who plug-in their favorite songs, or the manager of the station who lists possible song options. Maybe it’s you, the audience, who calls the radio station requesting the new Taylor Swift song. Well it’s not the DJs or even their bosses, and it most definitely isn’t directly you; the people who decide what songs get airtime on radio stations are ‘indies’. Indies are the middlemen that companies employ; they are the ones holding the music industry in hostage.

How ‘indies’ work: The indies, who are usually men, form agreements with the general managers or the corporate owners of the radio station; they are hired for “promotional support”. However, what they actually do is stake a claim on a station and send out notices to record companies informing them that the companies will be charged (on average $1,000) every time that radio station adds a new song to the list that they will be playing; if the record companies do not pay the indies, then the songs that those record companies released will not be played on the stations.

This type of system is called Payola in the American music industry, but some may call it bribery. Payola is the illegal practice of payment or other incentives by record companies for the broadcasting of recordings on the radio. However, the way that both radio stations and indies make it legal and prevent from legal action against themselves is that they make a deal with the indies under “promotional support”. Also, under US law, a radio station can play a song in exchange for money if they disclose on the broadcast that it is sponsored airtime; but many record companies don’t like the stigma attached to having the audience know that they had to buy the station for playing a specific song.

The reason why the system of Payola and the work of indies is being argued about is the fact that many people think that radio stations are losing their original purpose; radio stations are not about music anymore, it’s all about profit like every other business today. The companies that have the big bucks, they are the ones whose music gets played. Another reason why the behind the scene ‘games’ of the music industry are being pushed to front-page news is because of the impending partnership of “industry heavyweight” Clear Channel Communications and the firm Tri State Promotions and Marketing, which is essentially an ‘indie’. CCC owns 1,200 radio stations and such a partnership would furthermore increase the power of the indie and thus the radio station that is receiving kickbacks from those indies. Such an agreement between CCC and Tri State would severely hurt the music industry/ the record companies, because Tri State could further increase the money they demand for the adding of a song on a station’s playlist.

(image from: http://creativebits.org/files/ipod_heart.jpg)

Know WHO your audience is…

Fifteen words; fifteen words was all that it took for the Dixie Chicks to go from being one of the most popular bands in the world, to becoming hated by their once loyal fans. Some say that all publicity is good publicity, but for the Dixie Chicks, the media and the publicity that they stirred up nearly ended their careers. “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” When Natalie Maines uttered those words at a London nightclub, it wasn’t really a big deal. During the war many celebrities spoke up in protest. Those words were heard by a few hundred Dixie Chicks fans in London, England, a place that was probably filled with more people agreeing with Maines than disagreeing. But it was the American national media that made that statement newsworthy. They not only took those words and broadcasted it for all to hear, but they also allowed those critics of the statement to be heard loudest. That is the power of the media, to make a situation an EVENT and to make that event buzz-worthy.

But it wasn’t what Maines said that struck a chord with the nation, Maines wasn’t the first or the last person to criticize the War or President Bush, it was who Maines said those words to; country music fans aka Dixie Chick fans. It’s one thing when a punk-rock band disses the President of the country because most of their fans probably shared those same beliefs; but it’s a far different thing when a country group breaks out of what is expected of them and speaks of views that are most likely polar opposites of their fans’ views. It’s a fact that country is filled with stars and fans that are conservative republicans; republicans who not only voted for Bush but who are also very patriotic. Maines has a right to speak her mind, as an American citizen she is given the right of free speech. However, as an entertainer in the public eye, she should have been more conscious of who the band’s audience is; its one think to speak one’s mind and stand up for a cause, but sometimes thoughts and opinions are better kept to oneself if it only brings negativity and more fighting.

Who’s the public anyways?

Have we reached the end of the public space? In his essay regarding the public space, Don Mitchell proposes this question; throughout the paper he also questions how a public space should be utilized and who exactly the public is. Mitchell wrote about the tug-of-war that has been going on for years regarding the People’s Park in California; the debate centered on whether the park belonged to the public or the university. Whether the Park was a place for the public without intervention from the university or government or if it was an ordered and controlled place for the public.

In my town there were only two places that kids could go to where they could just sit or play around or simply just be kids; one was the local mall and the other were the woods that ran throughout the town. If they went to the local Friendly’s they were expected to buy food or leave, if they went into any of the shops, the owners keep a close eye on them fearing that one or all might steal. The mall was a heaven for the teenagers; after each school day a sea of them would flow to the mall and simply do nothing. It wasn’t about buying clothes or watching a movie, they used it as their only place to just be with their friends, away from school. But three years ago, the shop owners petitioned and won for a new law to be passed; no one under the age of 18 could be in the mall without a guardian. And once again the kids were left with nowhere to go. It was a public mall, for the public; however, the local government decided that the public of the mall were only those above the age of 18. The mall became a representation of space, planned and controlled.

Key terms =

The public

Representational space vs. representations of space

Difference between open space and public space

Main Concepts =

Two different ideological positions; public space as a place of unmediated political interaction, and public space as a place of order, controlled recreation and spectacle.

Public space occupies an important ideological position in democratic society= we need it.

Media is a public sphere, however, it cannot be the only public sphere, a materialized one is needed- because a fully electronic public space further more renders some of the public (homeless) voiceless.

Is any media unbiased, untarnished media anymore?

Is there such a thing as unbiased, non-influenced journalism? News broadcasters have one job, deliver the news of the day to the people regarding the country, the state and their local town; however, few people truly expect these reporters not to have an opinion. They are humans just like every one of us, of course they are going to have an opinion, we just expect them to hidden those thoughts while on camera. The funny thing about our society, we are far more attracted to those who don’t hide their opinions, those who state what’s on their minds to the world each night. Do you know the name of the reporter who just announced that the Senate passed the largest spending bill in our country’s history? Probably not, but I’m sure you know the name of the news anchor who will state their opinion of this bill later tonight. Some of the biggest celebrities today are news anchors who take the news and turn it into entertainment; Bill O’Reilly, Wolf Blitzer or Cooper Anderson. Are these anchors good or bad for our society? Do they make news entertaining, or do they also make news relevant again?

In his essay, Media and democracy- the third way, James Curran talks about the role of media as “watchdogs” of the government and argues that a free market media is needed to make sure that news is not only accurate, but also that people don’t have restrictions on what they can report, whether it’s good or bad for the government. Curran also discusses private versus public media, and how news programs have been ‘regulated’ by what they can and cannot say because of the people who pay their bills.

Listing of Key Words:
FREE MARKET = A free market is a market that is liberated of government regulations and intervention as well as being free of fraud, although this doesn’t disregard the essence of the legal system.
WATCHDOG = A watchdog is one who serves as a protector or defender against loss or illegal practices.
PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE MEDIA = Broadcasters and journalists are not told what they can and cannot say or write in a free media environment. Private media is still expected to represent professional standards of journalism as well as reporting accurate facts that are separated from comment.

Three Main Concepts:
- The role of the “watchdog” and how it overrides in importance of all other functions of the media; “once the media becomes subject to state regulation, they may lose their bite as watchdogs.”
- Media is a place where people can be informed, a place for debate as well as a place to ask questions. The best way to reach this place is through the free-market; where the freedom of the market allows for anyone to publish an opinion which “makes for good judgment and wise government.”
- Media has drifted away from being about delivering the news; it has become about entertainment due to the goal of most media outlets, which is to make a profit.

(image from: http://www.thenewsisbroken.com/images/weblogo01.gif)

If only we could go back to the simple days of town meetings...

In a broad sense, self-government refers to the control of one’s own affairs. In Free speech and its relation to self-government, Alexander Meiklejohn discusses the relationship between freedom of speech and self-government; he also draws a connection between self-government and democracy, arguing that self-government is the basis of democracy. Self-governing allows for each man and woman to control his or her world; to decide what path to travel, to be responsible for his or her own self. Each person has the right to do as he or she wants, as long as they follow the rules and laws outlined by the Constitution. As long as they respect the property and rights of others, they may self-govern themselves to their hearts desire.

“No idea which we have is more sane, more matter-of-fact, more immediately sensible, than that of self-government.” – Meiklejohn

What exactly does self-governing entail? The United States is often referred to as an experiment in self-government because the citizens of the country have the right to take part in the politics that govern and “control” each of our lives. We are self-governed if we regularly vote for the people who represent us; but how many of us do that? About half the country votes in the Presidential elections and even less than that vote for local governors and representatives, so are we truly self-governed? Does the concept relate to only those who take an active role in politics on every level or the country as a whole because of the fact that we are “democratic”? And are we even able to self-govern ourselves with the restrictions that are placed upon us? Meiklejohn begins his writing discussing two freedoms that are given to each citizen of the country, the freedom of property and the freedom of speech. He writes that our freedom of property is restricted and regulated by property taxes and so on; but we also have restrictions on our freedom of speech. Although by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we are in concept able to say whatever we want, it doesn’t hold up in the real world. We simply cannot say whatever we want, especially if it is untrue, but even the truth sometimes can’t be said simply out of fear.

“The difficulties of the paradox of freedom as applied to speech may perhaps be lessened if we now examine the procedures of the traditional American town meeting. This institution is commonly, and rightly, regarded as a model by which free political procedures may be measured. It is self-government in its simplest, most obvious form.” -Meiklejohn

The basic, most simple form of Democracy, Meiklejohn argues is town meetings. Everyone can attend their local town meeting, have their voice and opinion heard, and in essence be self-governed.

Rethinking “Rethinking the Public Sphere”…

When people write, and especially when people write about criticism about other people’s writing, I generally assume that they have a clear argument in mind and intend to discuss their issues with the original work to the audience; maybe my assumption isn’t true for every author. After rereading Nancy Fraser’s piece, Rethinking the Public Sphere, for what seems like the hundredth time, I am still left wondering if she ever actually had a real argument in mind when she placed pen to paper or if she uses this piece as way to spill out every little debate about Jurgen Habermas essay on the ‘Public Sphere’.

I think the main problem I had with the reading the first time through was also something that I encountered in Habermas piece as well; what exactly is the “bourgeois concept” and do the authors believe that the public sphere goes along with it or does it defy it? In the reading, Fraser states that the concept was “a counterweight to absolutist states.” This, however, did help to clear up my confusion. When researching, I found out that “bourgeois” meant:

- A person belonging to the middle class.
- A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
- In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.

Just knowing what this one word meant (although I’m sure most of you already did) cleared up much of my confusion, except one; Does Habermas include this middle class in the public sphere, or does Fraser agree that he should have?

There is one aspect of Fraser’s essay that I think I understand; I believe that she argues that Habermas believed that there is but ONE public sphere, while she believes that there are many spheres that compete against one another. I agree with her on this point, and I see her argument here because it just seems like common sense that there could never be just one public sphere, just one place where all different people come together to reach common interests, concerns and opinions. This is simply impossible in our world, there are far too many people with far too many personal interests for everyone to be considered ‘one’.

I think I may understand some of the arguments that Fraser is making, but I don’t think that the structure and wording of her piece helps her cause. There are also far too many different arguments and points that she makes that just lead to confusion; I think if she stuck to one central dispute, we could more easily follow her thinking.

(image from: http://publicsphere.worldbank.org/files/image/sphere.jpeg)

Do High School Cliques Ever Go Away?

We’re not in high school anymore, but are we still surrounded by high school cliques? In The Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas writes about public spheres and how people join together to form a ‘public’. Habermas discusses how the public sphere is “… a domain of our social life in which such things as public opinion can be formed.” Hmmm, it may just be me, but I can say the same about cliques.

A clique is an exclusive group of people who share interest, views, and purposes of behavior. Specifically, a normative clique is often the “primary source of social intersection for the members of the clique, which can affect the values and beliefs of an individual” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/). We’ve been surrounded by cliques since the day we entered elementary school, but never more so than high school. No matter what city you went to high school in, no matter what decade you spent your high school years in, you where surrounded by cliques; you were part of a clique. There were the cheerleaders and jocks, the ‘Goth’ kids in the corner and the chess club members in the back. High school consists of a social class order, with the popular jocks as the elite and the loners at the bottom; and within all these cliques exist another order of power. Sitting atop the group was a leader; one looked up to for advice and knowledge, one who had the power to influence the opinions of those below them. The same, I argue, exists in a public sphere.

A public sphere is an area of social life where people can get together and freely discuss societal problems; there is one public for EACH public sphere. A public sphere can be the group of people that watch a specific news program, the group of people that discuss Grey’s Anatomy on a message board, and yes, even a high school clique. The public of each of these public spheres are influenced and manipulated by the ‘elite’ in their sphere, one whose voices and opinions are louder than the rest.

There are numerous ‘spheres’ that I take part in everyday, but the one media sphere that influences me more than the rest is a blog that I visit at least ten times a day for updates; perezhilton.com. The creator of the blog is the ‘leader’ of this public sphere, one whose opinions influence every reader to his website. But who is the public of this ‘PerezHilton sphere’? The blog receives millions of hits every day, but no group dominates the sphere more so than teenagers, specifically teenage girls. And PerezHilton knows this, that’s why he blogs about famous male actors/models and has ads for popular teenage clothing stores. These are just some ways that just one of the many public spheres in my life influence and manipulate me; what are the ways that manipulate you?

(image from: http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/breakfastclub01.jpg)