The Sunday Times - Comment

May 01, 2005
Andrew Sullivan

One by one America's media giants are beginning to teeter. Newspapers are
haemorrhaging readers. The networks are reeling from cable television.
Network news is staggering towards extinction, as its anchors retire or
discredit themselves. Institutions such as The New York Times have been
damaged by scandal and bias. The news weeklies are just as likely to run
cover stories on health or money than the hard stories of the day.

Now the last powerful, free-at-use medium that America has left is also on
the ropes.

I'm talking about radio. In a country where millions spend countless hours
in cars or trucks, radio has always been powerful. It has powered America's
vibrant music industry; it helped pioneer the conservative politics of the
past two decades; publicly funded radio is extremely dear to the blue-state
liberals, who trust it as Radio 4 is prized by middle England.

But just as blogs and cable news decimated newspapers and network
television, so radio is now in the grip of the next, big, decentralising,
narrow-casting revolution.

The reason? Satellite radio - digital-quality programming beamed to
receivers from outer space. For a small subscription fee - about £7 a
month - Americans can now receive more than 100 stations of limitless,
commercial-free radio for any taste.

You buy a tiny receiver, plug it into your car or home stereo, and get news,
music, sports, talk in a dizzying variety, bypassing the entire broadcasting
network that covered America for the better part of a century.

The growth of satellite radio is faster than any new medium in history. From
zero in 2001, the total subscriber list is projected to reach 8m by the end
of this year. In the first three months of 2005, XM satellite radio, the
biggest of the handful of new companies, added 540,000 new subscribers. Its
revenue grew 140% over the previous year. Remember, listeners are paying for
something that is essentially already available for free.

Last week, in a sign of the maturity of the new medium, America's domestic
goddess Martha Stewart signed on for a 24-hour Martha channel.

The legendary "shock jock" radio host, Howard Stern, recently announced his
intention to kiss regular radio goodbye in favour of a five-year $500m
(£261m) contract to go to Sirius, the second-ranking satellite service.

Why is this happening? Consolidation in the regular radio market has led to
huge companies squeezing more ad revenue and commercial time out of existing
formats. And who wants to listen to endless, screechy radio ads on the
motorway? But satellite radio is commercial-free. It's also free of
censorship in an increasingly puritanical America.
Stern, for example, was regularly fined for indecency by the newly
aggressive Republican-led Federal Communications Commission. Radio stars
Opie and Anthony - known for outrageous stunts such as recording sex in
churches - couldn't keep paying the government fines their smut brought on
them.

Satellite radio gets around political censorship and disciplining. Because
it's not on general airwaves, subscribers get what they want, and public
decency is preserved.

Satellite radio more accurately caters to contemporary culture. Radio has
always been an intimate medium. Broadcasting in an increasingly diverse and
fractured culture means reaching a lowest common denominator that renders
programmes bland or too commercial or simply too eclectic for increasingly
picky listeners. The spectrum of satellite radio expands the choices to a
dizzying degree.

You can now have talk radio channels for conservatives, liberals, Hispanics,
gays, or new agers. You can have Vatican-approved Catholic radio or WISDOM
radio, with Deepak Chopra sending karma to your car.

Interested in English football? On Sirius, you could have listened in Los
Angeles or Chicago to the Bolton v Chelsea match or Southampton v Norwich.
The entire baseball season is available, along with basketball and American
football.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...592845,00.html

"Mike Terry" wrote:

The spectrum of satellite radio expands the choices to a
dizzying degree. You can now have talk radio channels for conservatives, liberals, Hispanics,
gays, or new agers. You can have Vatican-approved Catholic radio or WISDOM
radio, with Deepak Chopra sending karma to your car.

The writer seems to think there is some sort of openness to satellite
radio; not that it is all under the control of two corporations. Yet, he
contends that "consolidation in the radio industry" is what's wrong with
terrestrial radio.

He "seems to think." In other words, he didn't say it. You made it up.
What Sullivan *did* say about commercial radio is that it is commercial-laden,
censored, lowest-common-denominator, and that satellite radio offers its
subscribers more varied listening options. And I don't hear you denying it.

Satellite radio's customer is the subscriber, while commercial radio's
customer is the advertiser. Satellite radio competes with the internet and hard
media as an entertainment and information source. Terrestrial commercial radio
competes with billboards as a purchase-influencing spin-for-hire medium.

Even with just one source for broadband, I can use Time Warner to criticize
Time Warner, but I can't use terrestrial radio to criticize terrestrial radio.
So anybody who fixates on a medium's ownership entities rather than the choices
it offers will be frustrated by the facts in evidence. Sullivan didn't do this;
he is a prominent libertarian-conservative. You did, and attempted to put the
words in his mouth.

Jerome

"Kimba W. Lion" wrote in message
...
"Mike Terry" wrote:

The spectrum of satellite radio expands the choices to a
dizzying degree. You can now have talk radio channels for conservatives,
liberals, Hispanics,
gays, or new agers. You can have Vatican-approved Catholic radio or WISDOM
radio, with Deepak Chopra sending karma to your car.

The writer seems to think there is some sort of openness to satellite
radio; not that it is all under the control of two corporations. Yet, he
contends that "consolidation in the radio industry" is what's wrong with
terrestrial radio.

"Cooperstown.Net" wrote:

So anybody who fixates on a medium's ownership entities rather than the choices
it offers will be frustrated by the facts in evidence. Sullivan didn't do this;
he is a prominent libertarian-conservative. You did, and attempted to put the
words in his mouth.

Actually, I was trying to look beyond his proselytizing. I used his own
phrase as a reference point.

If you think ownership doesn't matter, well... dream on, silly dreamer.

"Stern, for example, was regularly fined for indecency by the newly
aggressive Republican-led Federal Communications Commission"

Stern was not fined, but his employer WAS fined, but in past
administrations, the radio biz regarded the fines as a cost of doing
business.

This is not unlike a guy who likes to drive his Lamborghini on the highway
at 100 mph or through residential neighborhoods at 50. He does not view
the tickets as societal sanctions but part of the cost of owning the car.
Ditto his DUIs if he has a habit of imbibing.

". Radio stars Opie and Anthony - known for outrageous stunts such as
recording sex in churches - couldn't keep paying the government fines their
smut brought on
them."

The O&A church stunt probably was going to end up with license action, and
not nominal (to the broadcaster) fines. Which is why they were immediately
kicked out of their gigs. The president of the beer company that
sponsored the stunt also found his company in a horrendous public relations
situation.

Satellite radio is grand. It frees the publicly owned airwaves from this
stuff. Everyone has recognized that there is still a market for this
trash radio. So, they can go out there and charge for it, and if someone
pays for it, OK with me. Just don't make me PAY for it.

"Kimba W. Lion" wrote in message
Actually, I was trying to look beyond his proselytizing. I used his own
phrase as a reference point.

If you think ownership doesn't matter, well... dream on, silly dreamer.

Thanks for the "if", Kim. I didn't say this and don't believe it.
Ownership matters. But business model matters more, including the ability to
design and subsidize proprietary receivers. The delivery system matters more
because it permits the aggregation of niche tastes. The absence of content
regulation, particularly television-style coerced, non-marketplace, nabcaster
carriage is hugely important. This enables satellite radio to build a secular,
pro-liberty constituency that in time will let it win the battle against
terrestrial for full First Amendment rights.

But ownership is in there somewhere. Regs chose duopoly rather than
monopoly for satellite radio, and chose well.

Never forget that satellite radio is *hometown* radio. It brings the best
of the culture, seven jazz channels for example, to every community in America.
Including the "flyover" communities whose limited commercial potential makes
them irrelevant to terrestrial media elites.

Jerome

Cooperstown.Net wrote:

Never forget that satellite radio is *hometown* radio. It brings the best
of the culture, seven jazz channels for example, to every community in America.
Including the "flyover" communities whose limited commercial potential makes
them irrelevant to terrestrial media elites.

You have a very odd definition of hometown.

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.

At any rate, "beamed down from a bird in orbit thousands of miles above Earth"
doesn't qualify as hometown radio as far as I'm concerned.

And you forget who owns the satellite companies... "terrestrial media elites."
At least here in the US. (OK, that's true of XM for sure... not sure about
Sirius's corporate pedigree, but the people in charge are from large
communications companies...)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

In article ,
Steve Sobol wrote:
I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.

Correction: Clear Channel no longer owns an attributable stake in XM.
They never owned as much as 25% in any case. (XM's headquarters are
in Washington, BTW.) The biggest owner of XM is Rupert Murdoch's
DIRECTV Group.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
| generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...
Cooperstown.Net wrote:

Never forget that satellite radio is *hometown* radio. It brings the
best
of the culture, seven jazz channels for example, to every community in
America.
Including the "flyover" communities whose limited commercial potential
makes
them irrelevant to terrestrial media elites.

You have a very odd definition of hometown.

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate
headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.

At any rate, "beamed down from a bird in orbit thousands of miles above
Earth"
doesn't qualify as hometown radio as far as I'm concerned.

And you forget who owns the satellite companies... "terrestrial media
elites."
At least here in the US. (OK, that's true of XM for sure... not sure about
Sirius's corporate pedigree, but the people in charge are from large
communications companies...)

Steve,

Clear now has less than 1% of XM; they never were more than 5% to 6% before
the dilution of equity due to the constant issuance of more stock to pay for
the huge losses. No other media company has any position in XM... the
biggest players are car manufacturers and mutual funds.

Correction... should have said "radio company" and not "media company."

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"Steve Sobol" wrote in message
...
Cooperstown.Net wrote:

Never forget that satellite radio is *hometown* radio. It brings
the
best
of the culture, seven jazz channels for example, to every community in
America.
Including the "flyover" communities whose limited commercial potential
makes
them irrelevant to terrestrial media elites.

You have a very odd definition of hometown.

I suppose if you're listening to XM and are from San Antonio, Texas, it's
"hometown" radio because that's where Clear Channel's corporate
headquarters
are. :P Or if you're in NYC and listening to Sirius.

At any rate, "beamed down from a bird in orbit thousands of miles above
Earth"
doesn't qualify as hometown radio as far as I'm concerned.

And you forget who owns the satellite companies... "terrestrial media
elites."
At least here in the US. (OK, that's true of XM for sure... not sure
about
Sirius's corporate pedigree, but the people in charge are from large
communications companies...)

Steve,

Clear now has less than 1% of XM; they never were more than 5% to 6%
before
the dilution of equity due to the constant issuance of more stock to pay
for
the huge losses. No other media company has any position in XM... the
biggest players are car manufacturers and mutual funds.