"Despite their numbers [24% of the U.S. population] ,
          Cultural Creatives tend to believe that few people
          share their values.
          This is partly because their views are rarely
          represented in the mainstream media,
          which is mostly owned and operated according to
          the Modern world view.  Little of what they read
          gives them any evidence of their huge numbers."

        "It's not too far off to say that Moderns see the
         world through the same filters as Time magazine."

        " ... history of advertising -- from the simple handmaiden task selling
        already-manufactured goods to its present role of creating industries
        and redesigning a world's folkways to meet the needs of commerce."

        That is a philosophical problem for you, you understand; not for me.
        I am a pragmatist, and a pragmatist, moreover,
        on the payroll of Fowler Schocken [Advertising Agency]"

AMMO: What to say when someone says "What's the problem?"
Introduction ... basic problem is in the "culture war", the old guard are busily closing off the channels of communication ...
Actual Arguments in the debate ... (aka "the dirt")
 

The bottom line is that in a democracy, you have a right to matter to those who's decisions affect your ability to become who you want to be.
It does not matter whether those decisions are your neighbors, an elected official, a bureaucrat or an officer of a private corporation.
 

"The Media is the Lifeblood of a Free Society"

Media, and especially radio (because it is so accessible to so many people) serves as that vital feedback link between those who make policy and those who suffer from policy. When that link becomes tainted by overly concentrated control, it is tinted by that ownership's agenda. The policymaking then gets further and further out of touch with reality as the decisionmakers are divorced from the consequences of their decisions. This is what happened to the King of England that lead to the American Revolution.

Democracy is run by those who show up.
If your story, your values and your needs are not heard, not acknowledged by those in power, you are going to get stomped!
 

"Freedom of speech does not exist in the abstract. On the contrary, the right to speak can  flourish only if it is allowed to operate in an effective forum -- whether it be a public park  or a radio frequency. For in the absence of an effective means of communications, the right to  speak would ring hollow indeed. And, in recognition of these principles, we have consistently  held that the First Amendment embodies, not only the abstract right to be free from censorship,  but also the right of the individual to utilize an appropriate and effective medium for  the expression of his views."

The basic problem is that radio programming matters. Those who $pend million$ on commercial$ would not wa$te their money if they did not have re$earch $howing that you are influenced by what you hear on the radio!
So why do the owners of radio so often claim that they are not responsible for the influence on behavior alleged to their programming, that their programming is inert, has no effect on society?
They make this two-faced claim because they want to make money without being responsible for the consequences of their decisions.

Big Business bought Big Brother via the campaign financing disaster of the late 20th century.
Due to the preposterous prices of a run for elected office, the circle of people who run for office or have influence on those who run for office has continually narrowed to the 2% of America that controls over 40% of America's assets.
Furthermore, with "public-private-partnerships" and such, this 2% of America leverages public decisions in their favor. Regulatory bodies commonly regulate more in the interests of those they regulate than the public interest. The FCC is normally no different.
Even worse, media is encouraged to do a bad job covering election campaigns: The worse coverage a candidate gets, the more the candidate is encouraged to purchase ads to make up for the bad coverage!
 

• a) Why does most media leave me feeling like a "Stranger In A Strange Land" and/or ...
• b) why are there any unserved people at all? Why has not the market system reached out to these people? Why are 13,000 people going to the considerable trouble of asking the FCC for a frequency to start their own radio stations?

In the February 1997 American Demographics article "The Emerging Culture",  Paul H. Ray argues that one of the reasons that media in general and especially radio ignores so many Americans is that those who make the programming decisions are ignorant or downright antagonistic of our desires and needs.

Do you find yourself both "liberal" and "conservative ... or reject the binary choices as worthless?

This research has found three major groupings of values in America, the two that are commonly thought of as "liberal" and "conservative" ... and a third emerging culture referred to as "Cultural Creatives" that combines aspects of both.

"Cultural Creatives" are generally well educated, well paid and hungry for news and culture ... yet have very few radio or TV programs designed for them  ... because the Cultural Creatives are not making the decisions and are not acknowledged as a market to be served.
 

Click on chart to see it full-sized. Click here for the full story.

"Despite their numbers [24% of U.S.] , Cultural Creatives tend to believe that few people share their values. This is partly because their views are rarely represented in the mainstream media,  which is mostly owned and operated according to the Modern world view.  Little of what they read gives them any evidence of their huge numbers."  "It's not too far off to say that Moderns see the world through the same filters as Time magazine."

"A major change has been growing in American culture. It is a comprehensive shift in values, world views, and ways of life. It appeals to nearly one-fourth of American adults, or 44 million persons.
People who follow this new path are on the leading edge of several kinds of cultural change. They are interested in new kinds of products and services, and they often respond to advertising and marketing in unexpected ways.

This emerging group has been labeled Cultural Creatives by American LIVES of San Francisco. In numerous surveys and focus groups, we have seen that Americans live in three different worlds of meaning and valuing. Each world creates distinctive contexts for a wide array of consumer purchases, political convictions, and civic behavior. And within each world are class divisions that create different subgroups that share the same broader views.

The first world view is Traditionalism. It is the belief system for about 29 percent of Americans (56 million adults) who might also be called Heartlanders. In America, traditionalism often takes the form of country folks rebelling against big-city slickers. Heartlanders believe in a nostalgic image of small towns and strong churches that defines the Good Old American Ways. That image may owe as much to John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart movies as to any historical reality, but for them it is a powerful reminder of how things ought to be.

The second world view is Modernism. It holds sway over about 47 percent of Americans, or 88 million adults. Modernism emerged 450 years ago as the governing world view of the urban merchant classes and other creators of the modern economy. It defines modern politicians, military leaders, scientists, and intellectuals. Modernists place high value on personal success, consumerism, materialism, and technological rationality. It's not too far off to say that Moderns see the world through the same filters as Time magazine.

The third and newest world view goes beyond Modernism. Its current adherents are the Cultural Creatives, who claim 24 percent of U.S. adults (44 million). Trans-Modernism began with esoteric spiritual movements such as 19th-century American Transcendentalism. It gained strength as Western intellectuals discovered the diversity and coherence of other religions and philosophies. It caught fire in the 1960s, as millions of young people joined "movements" for human potential, civil rights, peace, jobs, social justice, ecology, and equal rights for women.

Conservative commentators often believe that each of the social movements listed above exists in isolation and is important only to a few. But from women's issues to environmentalism, the emblematic values of the 1960s are being embraced by more and more Americans. Few in the media recognize it, but these ideas are coalescing into a new and coherent world view. When Cultural Creatives look at Modernism, they see an antique system that is noisily shaking itself to pieces."

The majority of radio programming decisions are carried out by Modernist oriented stockholder corporate beancounters, or by the Heartlanders that populate the Christian Coalition etc. etc. The Modernists and Heartlanders are either uninterested in serving the Cultural Creative market, or outright hostile.
Patrick Buchanan was often referring to Cultural Creatives when he said that America was "in a cultural war."

Ironically, much of Buchanan's distaste for NAFTA and GATT's corporate takeover of the world's resources finds a sympathetic audience in Cultural Creatives. Either way, there is little programming to cover the convergence of these cultures.

• In spite of a more diverse US population, the electronic media ownership and programming has become continually less representative since the 1996 Telecommunications Act that was a keystone to the Republican "Contract With America."

 
• For example; many African-Americans have lactose intolerance, but where are the stories about cow milk not being good for you (a human)? The stories that would counter the milk mustache commercials are censored! Since most media owners are white, they lack the personal experience and motivation to reveal news about such a profitable advertiser, the diary industry.

 
• FCC  Commissioner Gloria Tristani has noted that, "less than 3% of radio stations are minority-owned, and that number is dropping. On the more desirable FM band, black-owned stations dropped 26% and Hispanic-owned stations dropped 9% between 1995 and 1997. Those numbers mean that existing minority broadcasters are selling out and they're not being replaced."

 
• Larry Irving at the U.S. Department of Commerce noted, "The loss of minority owners is particularly alarming because of its ramifications for programming. The decline in minority ownership means a decline in diverse voices and viewpoints. Such diversity is essential to a rich culture and a vibrant democracy. When I was in Memphis, for example, I was told that the Black-owned radio station called upon listeners to go to the polls, which helped get an African-American mayor elected. That radio station is now majority-owned and no longer makes such appeals."

 
• And those minority owned and/or programmed radio stations left from the rush to consolidation are suffering from advertising blacklisting that reduces their average revenues by 63%  thus pushing minority owned or stations programming for minorities to sell even more stations to majoritarian owners/programmers. Blacks are not the only minority culture suffering, many whites without a huge voting stock portfolio and a cozy relationship with management have also been pushed out.

 
• The June  3rd. 1999 PR Newswire reports that "BIA Companies estimates radio station revenues at $13.8 billion for 1998, up 12.6% from $12.3 billion for 1997. ... At the end of 1998, the number of unique radio station owners had dropped from 5,222 controlling 10,246 stations, to 4,241 controlling 10,636 commercial stations. Consolidation has led to more efficient revenue generation and cost cutting measures, thus increasing cash flow margins to the 35%-45% range for public groups. BIA estimates that more than half, or about 54%, of the estimated $13.8 billion of radio advertising dollars generated in 1998 were attributed to the 25 largest radio owners. The top three billers alone (Chancellor Media/Capstar, CBS Radio/Infinity Broadcasting and Clear Channel/Jacor Communications combined) accounted for almost 35% of total industry revenues."

 
• Public Radio has been no refuge as of late. Public confidence is being undermined by increased reliance on large sugar daddies like Pfizer Inc. etc. that are beginning to have a visible effect of self-censorship and whitewashing stock market dangers for children and ignoring the interests of the majority of Americans that do not have significant stock holdings.

 
• Subtle lies result, such as:
• "Anyone can become rich, all you need to do is 'play by the rules.'" Whose rules, written for who? Two-thirds of the members of the Fortune 400 inherited it.
• "Everyone" is invested in stocks these days! Well, one third anyway. And they are the one third that "count"! When are you going to jump on?
• If the price of gas, college education or cereal goes up ... its called inflation.

If the price of a mortgage or rent goes up, that increase is called a "Real Estate 'Boom'" Boom for whom? Who gains if everyone's house goes up 30%? If your house went from $100,000 to $130,000 ... and so did your neighbors and then you sell yours and try to buy your neighbors, you have earned NO net gain but you do pay more in property taxes and more in capitol gains taxes. The only one's who profit are the people who restore slums and those who own lots of property they don't live in.
 
• Public PBS radio stations have pioneered double standards in allowing corporate backed stories on issues of interest to them, but rejecting a documentary called "Out at Work" funded by the Unions.  PBS stations are in violation of the founding reasons for the taxpayer funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, "to create forums for voices that would otherwise be unheard."

 
• Public TV stations are now starting to go out of their way to censor democratic debate between candidates on the ballot; They now are only allowing what they feel are "viable" candidates debate each other on the air they have been given voter supported (FCC) protected use of.

 
• And unfortunately the for-profit media is encouraged to gut democracy as well. The worse job they do covering political campaigns, the more advertising the candidates have to buy to get their ideas out to the voters. This costs so much that the auction of the candidate's soul begins immediately and never ends

 
• The Free Press must be free of any undue concentrated control ... from Government but also from overly concentrated private power as well. The Free Press is designed to serve as that feedback loop between those who create policy and those who suffer from policy. Since the radio/TV stations use of the public resource (the airwaves) is protected at taxpayer expense (the FCC) ... unrepresentative media that misrepresents subcultures and interest groups or simply edits them out of existence ... is literally taxation without representation!
  
  
A stable society is an inclusive and just society.
• As a result, Americans are losing confidence in public life.

Voting participation rates keep dropping . As this proceeds, it becomes harder to form a consensus of opinion of what constitutes the American Dream ... soon people do not have respect for authority, only fear. When the pain of ignorant exploitative policies is more than what the authorities provide ... scofflawlessness develops and grows into total contempt and then anarchy.

• Market is incapable of serving some markets. Example:
• WPBR 1340AM had a very popular liberal talk show host, Elliott Maartens.
• WPBR had conservative talk show hosts, but they were not as popular.
• Not because there were not conservatives in Florida, but because there were already several other conservative radio stations that had better signals.
• There was only ONE other station with a devout self-labelled liberal (Jack Cole), and that was later in the day.
• Maartens, however, was not fiscally viable; we could not get advertisers to purchase airtime on his show with enough volume to convince management to replace him with another liberal when he left.
• This is why moderate to liberal views are almost always heard on donation-stations and rarely on commercial stations; those who have enough money to buy advertising often will not support a "liberal" talk show!
• But when a community radio station goes straight to its listeners for donations, the listeners become the primary constituents for the station's management ... cutting out the middlemen as topic and ideology filters (pied pipers).

 

 

• The "Almighty Market" is aggressively underserving certain markets (like Techno music). EX:
• Late 1998 bust of Miami Techno stations demonstrates problem:
• 13 out of 15 of the FCC's largest single bust of "pirate" radio stations in Miami Fl. ... were playing Techno music.
• The NAB stations could have put the Techno stations out of business by simply ... playing Techno music! The large full-power "blowtorch" stations have a superior sound and reach ... if they had simply served that market, the "pirates" would not have had community support.
• Rather than compete, the NAB stations preferred to use the taxpayer's resources to stop the competition and enforce a less diverse selection.
• Also odd how it was the NAB calling the FCC claiming that these pirate radio operators were going to interefere with aircraft and cause wrecks and not the Federal Aviation Administration!!

There are many proven cases of high-powered legal radio stations causing problems, yet the FAA is not calling for the end of commercial FM broadcasting.
• Radio is more than just a business ... it is a vital part of a vibrant democracy.
• Advertising "Blacklisting" is destroying the economic viability of radio owned by or programmed for minority Americans. The NTIA study showed that "The dictates that no time be bought on Urban [black] or Spanish stations and the lower rates paid to these stations when buys were made, reduced their revenues by an average of 63 percent."

Another study quoted a NY Times article, "'Your listeners don't buy our cars,'' a Chicago radio executive recalled being
told by an official of a luxury-car maker who had just rebuffed an advertising sales pitch. 'They steal them.'''
• Now that there are no real restrictions to corporate concentrated ownership of multiple radio stations "we all are the other guy" [that you used to switch to]!!

Argument: Public Radio is here to serve anyone not served by commercial or religious radio.

• If only that were so! (See links in narrative above).
• Public Radio pushing out minority third-party candidates from their debates.
• Public Radio double standards (will air shows sponsored by large corporations, but not by a Union).
• Public Radio stations violating the founding documents of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (goal, diversity, not duplication of commercially viable classical music services).

[Click here for a table showing commercial viability of existing commercial classical radio stations]
• Public Radio sponsoring near-worship of Wall Street culture with little in the way of warning of its downsides.
• Kiddie Games
• Marketplace
• Reading the Dow Jones Average instead of Consumer Price Index on the radio.

Most serious investors do not buy or sell based on one day's rise or fall in a stock. They research the company, then buy and hold, perhaps rolling the dividend over into more stock from the same company. Since the stock report serves no real purpose for investors, this suggests that it is a subtle way to suggest that the fortunes of the Fortune 500 are more important than your fortunes, the "Doug Jones Average" (what it costs to live).

Argument: If you don't like it, turn off the radio, get on the Internet.

• Radio station's use of the public resources, the airwaves, is protected at taxpayer expense (The Federal Communication Commission, the Federal Marshalls).
• Internet is not real competition ... yet.
• Not portable
• Not reliable
• Not available to all as is radio.
• And if you like waiting for the RealAudio player to "buffer", you'll love the coming digital radio farce called "IBOC". Click here for the full horror!

Argument: The media is already too beholden to special interests, they should be objective.

• "Objectivity" as a standard for media is a Public Relations move from the early 20th century and is a myth.

In the 19th century, newspapers were more like magazines are now.
The "Penny Press" and the lack of any real competitive alternate technology for news delivery meant that newspapers were openly and honestly partisan and opinionated.
After radio became a competitor, newspapers began dying off.
The ones that were left realized that they needed to create the appearance of being something for everyone and alienate no-one, and so the idea of an "objective" press was invented as a sales ploy.
• America is NOT a "melting pot", rather America is a "Brunswick Stew" where all the components retain their individual identity and characteristic culture, values, interests and stories.
• Taxation without Representation:
• Broadcasters use taxpayer funded agencies (FCC)

to protect their use of the public resource (the airwaves).
• If they misrepresent or completely

delete entire cultures, news and views of Americans that pay taxes ...
• Then an unrepresentative radio dial is

LITERALLY TAXATION  WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
• You have the right to matter to those whose vote affects your life. If your story is not heard by those who vote, whether your fellow citizens, or the board of directors or bureaucrats or legislators, then your needs are likely ignored.