What consolidation restrictions might do on radio consolidation and what it already has: NPR

If you are a country artist who dares to have a political opinion in the cautious world of Nashville, you are certain to hear a familiar refrain. "Be careful," you will be warned. "You do not want to have Dixie Chicked."

Almost two decades later, it means that talking about one's political convictions is a surefire way to exclude your songs from the radio, as was the case with the Dixie Chicks when they opposed George W. Bush. English stage commentary in 2003. But what is often left out in the mythology of the Dixie Chicks, is that their "cancellation" was not caused by the independent mind of the programmers Americans who rebelled from their own free will – it was a direct product of consolidation, with many megaphones being held by the same hand, and the power that confers.

When the 1996 Telecommunications Act came into force, it relaxed the regulation on the number of stations that a single company could own and allow for the purchase of multiple stations in the same market, depending on the number of stations. the size of this market. Clear Channel (now known as much softer and harmonious from iHeartMedia) benefited from the new rules, able to quickly jump from 40 stations to 1,240 in 2002, then dictating them from top to bottom that the chicks were removed of the rotation.

Although discussions on the impact of the consolidation of the radio and the Telecommunications Act have faded since, a new proposal on local ownership could forever change the face of AM / FM radio and give a whole new generation of current and future broadcasters of all kinds "Dixie Chick" a song or a wave artist, for whatever reason they choose.

Under the impetus of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the proposal – evoked at the FCC's five-year assessment of media ownership laws, called "Quadrennial Review" – could make the concept of "local radio" almost extinct, according to several groups there.

The NAB proposal calls for loosening the current rules on the number of radio stations that a company can own at a given location, thus allowing major broadcasters like iHeart and Cumulus, the first and third largest radio companies in the US United, or even smaller regional broadcasters, swallow almost all stations in their state – or sometimes all. NAB's proposal would allow the purchase of up to 10 FM stations, without a cap on AM stations, in any market in the top 75 (as measured by Nielsen), with no ownership limitation for markets located in out of the top 75. a single entity may own up to eight in a large market and between five and seven in smaller markets. If a particular entity wants to buy each of the remaining AM and FM stations in a market outside the top 75 (there are 194), nothing will prevent them if the proposal is approved.

The argument of NAB is that, in the era of streaming, radio needs an aggressive approach to stay alive. But artist-centric advocacy groups such as Future of Music and musicFirst argue that loosening these rules could actually be the last blast of radio – or at least local. the radio as we know it (more and more). And as the members appointed by President Trump to the FCC are largely in favor of deregulation, this proposal is becoming a reality with what could be a long and arduous process: with the close of the comment period, the FCC will now order a decision, but "parties who do not like the FCC's decision may file a petition for review or court action challenging the FCC in court," said Yosef Getachew of the Common Cause monitoring group. And many are already mobilizing for this legal fight.

At the time of the Dixie Chicks' exile, the artists were frank when it came to educating their fans about the dangers, according to them, of media consolidation. In 2003, Tom Morello, Billy Bragg and Steve Earle launched the Tell Us the Truth Tour, which has 13 cities, with the aim of doing so. "What is happening is that Clear Channel is a big Frankenstein monster that is engulfing," Bragg said at one of the concerts, according to media reports. New York Times. Morello said to the Boston Globe that there is "a very small number of guards and that this can be very destabilizing for a democracy". And, although organizations such as Future of Music warn that this new proposal could carry an even harder blow with more "gobbling," the speech has generally been lost in the sphere of the public interest. After all, there is very little bandwidth.

"It's hard to exaggerate what disaster [the Telecommunications Act] for the radio industry, "says writer Eric Boehlert, who largely covered the consolidation of radio in the early 2000s Living room.

At a hearing of the FCC's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on FCC Liability and Supervision, held in May, Representative Frank Pallone, son of New Jersey, referred to the NAB proposal in its opening statement: "Over the past two years, the FCC has too often put the focus on the general public, putting the interests of big business first … (he has reduced the media ownership rules to allow larger companies to media to expand even further, controlling more and more news and entertainment reaching the Americans. "

This control could lead to an even greater lack of content diversity, which is already evident in many segments of the radio, from rock to country, where women are increasingly squeezed out. According to a study by Dr. Jada E. Watson, in consultation with WOMAN Nashville, women are already a tiny part of in-country dissemination: Representation of genres on national radio: study of reports published from 2000 to 2018 quantified the disparity at 11.3%. Sure Billboard & # 39;In the current Alternative Songs chart, there would be few female artists without the resurgence of teenage sensation Billie Eilish and the movie "Trampoline" from SHAED, the first number one female-dominated band in 16 years – who are rather aberration than the norm. And there is no single woman in the current top 20 of Display panelThe table of rock songs, either.

If these property laws are further relaxed, says Kevin Erickson of Future of Music, you will end up with "fewer and fewer remaining protections for diversity". Due to the proposed regulations, the markets located outside the top 75, such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, Springfield, Missouri, Madison Wis. And El Paso, Texas, could belong to a single entity. And while larger conglomerates like iHeart, Cumulus and Westwood are most often motivated by this discussion, it's the medium and small sized programmers who worry about Trevor Francis's musicFirst (iHeart, somewhat surprisingly , contests the deregulation proposal), because of "mini-iHearts across the country", as he says. This could happen when regional broadcasters purchase as many stations as possible in a given market where the property is unrestricted. A regional broadcaster could, for example, buy all the state's markets and have total control over what every inhabitant located outside of a big city means through his car radio.

And as the stations swallow other stations, it means more net financial risk for the owners – and therefore less risk for what they play, in the interest of reaching as wide an audience as possible.

"The best thing to do when you have more stations is to be as seamless as possible," says Boehlert. "And when you have debts [as iHeart media does, having filed for bankruptcy last year]you can not take any chances. So, even if a station goes down, it can say, "It's not our fault, because we were as homogeneous as possible." "

What is the lowest risk for dissemination? More often than not, anyone is white or male. In a reply filed on May 31, musicFirst and other coalitions investigated the sale of several Citadel country stations (at the time the third largest radio station owner of the country) to Cumulus in 2011 – and noticed that songs performed by women were reduced by 34.7% after the sale. "The female artists (and therefore the female perspectives) of these stations were already underrepresented before the sale and are even more underrepresented since then," reads the commentary.

The impact of the high concentration of media is also reflected on our local television channels. Back in March, the sports site Deadspin discovered something worrisome among local presenters across America: they all recited the same story about misinformation, with conservative lines about how the current journalistic landscape is "dangerous for democracy". It turned out that the story was a package of content from Sinclair Broadcast Group, which sent the script to nearly 200 local television stations that it owns (a result of the rapid growth made possible by the Law on telecommunications) to promote a conservative agenda. . For the average viewer, it simply sounded like a message from the people they trusted most – the people who live in their community, bringing them the latest traffic reports and the weather. Similarly, with respect to radio, most listeners have no reason to question the programming choices of anything that is pumped through the car's speakers. It's hard to determine if these decisions are made from an office in New York or just down the street.

"This will result in less and less local content, and less and less accessibility," Erickson said. "Fewer decisions made locally and more consolidated playlists."

The relaxation of these limits could have more serious consequences for artists who choose to speak openly about political and social issues. Then again, just look at the Dixie Chicks to remind them of the power of a unified programming decision. And while it's in the realm of television, CBS's Moonves would have effectively stymied Janet Jackson's career after her controversial Super Bowl debut.

But most of the time, this censorship is not as obvious as that of the trio of countries.

"The popular understanding of the practice of censorship implies that artists are radically stranded to express their views," says Erickson. "Censorship usually occurs in a more subtle and insidious way, with songs and artists never aired on the radio, a corollary is that artists whose career path depends on the radio's guardian have a strong incentive to self-censoring, creating work that does not rock the boat or expresses views only obliquely. "In other words, the art that manages to pass the radio controllers has already been neutralized or made" sure, "otherwise it would not have been broadcast.

"As things get closer, more and more consolidated, such an approach can accelerate our tendency to avoid risks." The opportunities for live streaming are becoming fewer and fewer and are increasingly limited to tasks adapted to these restricted formats, "says Erickson.

What you hear on the radio right now, it's already a consolidation product, with top-down mandates that dictate what program managers from stations across the country play. An iHeart station, for example, has a significant portion of its playlists controlled by programs such as the initiative for new artists "On the Verge". So, if you grant a local iHeart, you will hear these artists – not chosen by your local station, but by broadcasts in cities far away from the states. These are often referred to as consolidated playlists or centralized scheduling, and they are commonplace.

For iHeart, an initiative like On the Verge requires stations to play the designated song for a set number of rounds over a six-week period. This is also often linked to events related to iHeart in a particular market. These centralized programming initiatives do not simply meet the expectations of audiences at the local level; they also serve the opposite, inflating the pieces of an artist following predefined campaigns.

"The radio would like to be known for playing what people want to hear most, but it's not necessarily the case and it's certainly not a complete picture," the rights group said. WOMAN Nashville, who consulted the Watson study. "A substantial amount of what goes through our speakers is less a reflection of what the listeners love than mutually beneficial contracts that were passed behind closed doors."

There are often other "mutually beneficial offers" that determine the number of times that an artist can be played on a given market – swapping an artist's time on a station for plays, or even performances. tickets for sporting events, gifts or any other offer on the outskirts of payola (again, Boehlert recorded this in 2001 for Living room). This is largely due to the composition of the taste creators themselves: mainly white and mostly male, from the level of management. But it's often also more intentional, according to Boehlert.

"If you control the number" X "of playlists by country, you do not add artists to your playlist for heart reasons," Boehlert said. "These playlists are just an asset to buy and sell, and if a company owns all the stations, it's much more conducive to shady practices and a paid game."

It is also, as Boehlert says, a "disaster" for the artists themselves. Although there are many ways for artists to make a living without the support of the radio, a lack of airtime is directly related to their ability to take advantage of these other means or even to reach the local fan base that could buy tickets for a concert. A program director in New York or Chicago will never be as airy as what moves in the Tulsa roots scene or hip-hop in Houston, and it will be increasingly difficult for artists to create this local buzz without local bio radio. support.

"Before, you could go to the local station, drop off your new single and get your community heard," says Erickson.

Artists are already financially stifled with AM / FM radio – they do not receive royalties when a song is played (this is something Future of Music and musicFirst are actively working to change, despite many years successful lobbying of NAB the other direction), the benefits of dissemination are therefore much more indirect. It contributes to the creation of audiences and the promotion of shows, as well as the visibility required for online booking in festivals, sponsorships and other ways to generate income.

The NAB argued that the financial health of the radio was at stake if this proposal did not pass and if the industry refused to "modernize". However, even though struggles align with most facets of the music industry to catch up with the ongoing climate, the role of radio remains crucial, especially for low-income people who have neither access nor income. Reliable Wi-Fi or in rural areas, where radio is a major source of entertainment and information. And while NAB is lobbying, the list of groups opposed to change continues to grow: Free Press, the National Association of Black-owned Broadcasters, the Council for Multicultural Media, Telecom and the Internet , the National Coalition of Hispanic Media, the Conference on Leadership in the Civil Domain. and human rights, as well as many broadcasters. Likely to be challenged in court permanently on the way to FCC's approval, the proposal could even be one of the issues discussed in the rest of the 2020 presidential election.

"We hope in the long run that if we make media diversity a major topic of discussion, a future administration can take it into account," said Joshua Shepperd, assistant professor of media and communication at the Catholic University of America. "We must not give up the most used medium."

A Senate Subcommittee on Commerce hearing is scheduled for June 12, but no specific date will be set for the FCC's review of the case. Organizations like Future of Music, musicFirst and other music advocacy groups are left in the lurch and suggest that radio is going through the streaming climate is not about consolidating, but finding new possibilities to appeal to a rapidly evolving music consumer who wants more customization, localization, diversity and personalization – no less. And, one day, more than Dixie Chicks.

"Consolidation is not the solution," Francis says. "Innovation is."