[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:IHeartMedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cowicide (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 9 December 2012 (→New round of mass firings: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Censorship

Like others, i listen some of the Clear channel radio stations at Internet, im outside of U.S. and clear channel keeps trying to make us imposible to listen online,Clear Channel has banned all IP outside U.S.A.

i listen since year 2001 one radio station called KIIS-FM the last cuple of years, i was forced to use some of my tech knowledge to avoid the restrictions, and this way, i still listen the radio stream, making my way through every new form of restriction they implement time to time.

cause of clear channel changing again and again the implementation of restriction, yesterday i wasnt able of listen, but i dont care, because i will find the way to avoid the block. but when i listen i hear they breoadcast telling they are broadcasting world wide... sure... if they say soo...

the banned countrys arent some, the banned countrys are all but U.S.

so its no about license restrictions... its about to censorship. for us outside U.S. i was traveling to some Europe countrys, some Asian countrys and some Latin America countrys, they block all but U.S. as they say at the message that apears when you click "LISTEN LIVE" link at kiisfm website and redirect to this link http://www.kiisfm.com/cc-common/access/request.php i not trying to access some strange or special content, i just want to listen the same as they On-Air FM broadcast live.

internet isnt a "world wide web", its just an "world wide censorship web"

Mjgilbert (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.173.182 (talk) [reply]

Most streaming licenses explicitly forbid transmission out of the country. Knowingly allowing non-US citizens access to some streams would result in significantly higher licensing costs and penalties. In other words, it is not the broadcaster, it is the licensor who makes that decision. Compare with streaming video providers such as Hulu and you will see the same problem. Freshgroundcoffee (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cofounder?

On a biography of his [[1]], Billy Joe "Red" McCombs is said to be a "co-founder (with Lowry Mays) of Clear Channel Communications." Shouldn't this page be updated, accordingly?

Patent Law

However, some media critics, as well as smaller business rivals, believe that Clear Channel is using the patent law incorrectly to drive competitors out of business or force them to pay licensing fees for the process

I'm not sure what this means. That's what patents are all about: allowing the owner to prevent others from practicing the patented material, or to collect licensing fees. In what way are they alleged to be "using the patent law incorrectly" (the link didn't help)? Josh Cherry 22:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to paraphrase the thrust of these paragraphs:
But Richardson, Texas-based Immediatek Inc. (BB:ITEK), the parent of DiscLive Inc, which also records live concert CDs, said Clear Channel's patent did not give it exclusive rights to the business of creating recordings of live performances.
"Our attorneys have provided Clear Channel's attorneys with this information and more to detail why their patent is not relevant to the DiscLive system and requested that they provide us with specific details if they disagree," said Zach Bair, chief executive of Immediatek in a statement this week.
The idea, I think, is that their claim to patent of a certain part of the burning-to-CD-immediately process is either a) common use of publicly available technology and something that shouldn't be patentable (like certain other software patent disputes), or b), that the patent in question doesn't prevent the use of the idea in its entirety, and thus ClearChannel does not have the right to force others to suspend business. Since it's not clear from this article exactly WHAT technology they're claiming a patent on, it's hard to say for sure whether competitors really do have to go through the licensing process (and obviously the courts will eventually decide that).
Please feel free to alter the text to make it more clear; I'm going to try to find a few more sources on this. Thanks for the comment! Catherine | talk 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work on this page. I hope somebody can link "voice-tracking" and do a page just on it. I never knew the name for it before. It has taken over a number of our local stations, even ones that are not owned by CC. I am a radio announcer with 20 years' experience and I cannot get a job on a local station thanks to this canned baloney out of Los Angeles. --Bluejay Young 05:19, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Just did that. I've set up enough automation systems. I know how it works. Give it a few days. The basics are there, but I have graphics to get done.--Xj14y 22:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Human Rights?

What on earth does human rights campaign have to do with ClearChannel? It sounds like a violation of "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business" -Mydotnet 19:14, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-clear22.html

Steve Jones

Since the corporate structure of Clear Channel is pretty dizzying, I'm not sure if this belongs anywhere in the article, but my understanding is that the L.A. radio station that hosts Steve Jones's radio show has all its advertising contracted by CC. I guess CC doesn't "own" the station, but it's pretty interesting. --Chinasaur 04:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fake Pirate Radio Campaign

What appeared to be a pirate station named "Radio Free Ohio" interfering with some Clear Channel stations turned out to be a marketing campaign: woxy.com, Stay Free Magazine, MTV, NY Times (reg. required), telepolis (German)84.144.61.249 11:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is or was?

"ClearChannel *was* a media company?" Why is the first sentence in the past tense? --Nephtes 21:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music promoted by clear channel?

I don't know about the "Music promoted by Clear Channel or subsidiaries" section. There is probably a negative connotation associated with being listed there and I don't see it defined as to what constitutes "promotion" in this context. If promo tickets were offered to a band's concert on a CC station, is that enough to get a band on the "you suck because CC promotes you" list?

Clear Channel Entertainment spun off

It is now "Live Nation" (http://www.livenation.com official website]), I don't know how to incorporate this into the article but I'm looking for someone who has been refining this one to look into it, I would like some guidance on fixing the Monster Jam and USHRA articles (and related) to match the change.

==

I can confirm that Monster Jam and USHRA were included in the spin-off. I submitted a Live Nation entry with the relevent Clear Channel Entertainment sections copied into the entry. Outside of these copy operations, the majority of my knowledge came from the SEC documents associated with the spinoff[2]

  • From that document it appears to me that instead of Live Nation it should be listed as CCE Spinco. They're going by the name of Live Nation, but official name looks to be different. I also believe that CC probably owns a large stake in the spinoff, but we'd need to look the reports to determine that. Wikibofh(talk) 14:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To respond:
  • Live Nation announcement: "As of December 21, 2005, the newly independent company will be known as Live Nation." [3]
  • In case the "newly independent" phrase doesn't convince you that it is a 100% spin-off, the SEC documents make clear that Clear Channel retains no ownership - note that "Company" = CCE SpinCo = Live Nation: "NOTE M — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS On April 29, 2005, Clear Channel Communications announced a plan to strategically realign the Clear Channel Communication businesses. The plan includes a 100% spin-off of the Company. Following the spin-off, the Company will be a separate, publicly-traded company in which Clear Channel Communications will not retain any ownership interest." [4]
      • Sorry, I'm an eternal sceptic. After reading the document more I see that CCE Spinco was a temporary name. Especially in light of CCE Holdco #2 and CCE Holdco #3.  :) As for ownership, I see what you're saying. I think their first annual report/10k will be interesting.  :) Wikibofh(talk) 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


        • Ok. I'm the author of the anonymous comments above. Since this is getting a lot of back and forth, I created a username.. Let me know if I'm doing anything wrong formatting-wise, etc. Ok. Some key things:

1) While Live Nation is independent, there is overlap in terms of board of directors + some agreements entered into before the spin-off. Specifically:

'"After the distribution, Clear Channel Communications will not own any shares of our common stock and we will not own any shares of Clear Channel Communications common stock. Three of our directors will also be directors of Clear Channel Communications, and our chairman will continue to serve as chief financial officer of Clear Channel Communications. In addition, in connection with the distribution, we and Clear Channel Communications are entering into a number of agreements that will govern our spin-off from Clear Channel Communications and our future relationship. We cannot assure you that these agreements will be on terms as favorable to us as agreements with other third parties."


2) Despite #1, Control of the company by the directors/insiders is *limited* as they collectively own less than 6.1% of the company: "All directors and executive officers as a group (13 persons) (9) 4,129,565 6.1 %"


Net: Live Nation is an independent company with separate assets; overlap in ownership and directorships, but not controlling overlap in the longer term.

My proposal: 1) Remove obvious Live Nation items on Clear Channel and move to Live Nation as I've already done. 2) Note the overlap of directorships and ownership on the individual officer descriptions - specifically L. Lowry Mays (Director of Live Nation), Mark P. Mays (Vice Chairman of Live Nation), Randall T. Mays (Chairman of Live Nation) 3) Put a brief section on the relationship between CCU and LYV - probably a combination of the text from the SEC statements copied into #1 and #2 above.

I hope that all makes sense.

What does this mean?

"Other controversies have included changing many syndicated shows, most notably Rush Limbaugh, from syndication to "network" status, by flipping from well-known stronger news-talk stations to much weaker stations which are owned by Clear Channel, thereby making the show a "network" show instead of being syndicated."

I have read this 6 times and still have no idea what it means. Can someone please rewrite it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will second this confusion. PunkOn 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it mean

That Rush Limbaugh wants to distance himself from a "mainstream media corporation" like ClearChannel because Rush Limbaugh needs a target like the "Mainstream Media" he claims is liberal and biased and run by fascists and communists and is destroying values in America by promoting their unGodly bile? (who with wisdom would dispute this charge?) Rush Limbaugh personally has "gifts on loan from God" to do his Radio show. It would be uncouth and tacky to suggest God needs a "Mainstream media" bohemeth like Clearchannel Radio as a medium to deliver his word, and plan.

Excellence in Broadcasting (E.I.B Network) - Now that is far more POSITIVE and trustworthy sounding!

Isaiah 40:8


[Feb 25th, 2006]

Removal of Sports section from "Famous people managed by Clear Channel or subsidiaries"

I removed the followingSports: David Beckham, Michael Jordan, Andre Agassi, Brandi Chastain, Pedro Martínez, Prince Naseem Hamed, Jason Giambi, Gary Lineker, Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemens, Greg Norman, Nomar Garciaparra, Jerry Rice, Kobe Bryant, Warrick Dunn, Al Michaels, Trent Green, Dick Vermeil, Gail Devers, Michael Owen, Nasser Hussain, Michael Atherton, and Alan Shearer. because the management of Sports was sold as detailed in the following press releases from spin-off Live Nation:[5][6]Jvandyke 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the CBS Radio Reference?

ARTICLE SAYS: Official response to controversy Clear Channel officially denies most of these allegations. An article titled Know the Facts on its corporate website addresses many of these concerns. It also mentions a radio company owned by Viacom, a company known to own interests in weapons as well.[citation needed]

THE SITE SAYS: The corporate offices of Clear Channel Communications were not directly involved. Other radio groups with stations who sponsored Rallies for America include: Infinity Broadcasting (owned by Viacom), Cox Radio, Federated Media and Susquehanna Media.

What does weapons and why does it mention this in the article? This is an unimportant fact and should be removed, right? Or am I wrong?

Yes, it's a "beat around the bush" way of the ABC relation (If John is Norwegian, and Frank is Norwegian, and Frank likes hot dogs, then John likes hot dogs) or something to that effect. Basically, if Clear Channel is on the same list (or of the same "nationality", using the above example if you will) as Viacom, and Viacom is interested in weapons, then clearly Clear Channel must be interested in weapons. Again, not an outright accusation, but a presentation of the facts so as to skew the article in one manner. If it has not been removed, it should be. And that should serve as a template for what should be removed, any kind of "similarity" comments or accusations that make assertations based on "common grounds". Zchris87v 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality?

Is it just me, or does this article read like a rationalization against all critisms of a corporation? It feels like some PR guys are working their magic here. Call it baseless accusations if you want, but as a British person who'd never heard of this company, I just wanted to see why people like Conor Oberst were shunning them. Instead I seem to have stumbled upon a suspiciously fair-handed explanation of how they've done nothing wrong ever, despite what people have said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.216.62 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Agreed. This page is another victim of an overzealous PR firm representing a media-savvy company wishing to combat any criticism of its behaviour. I'm an Australian who simply wanted to research Clear Channel due to its involvement in the Australian Radio Network, and all I found was what the above-signed person found. Is Wikipedia owned by Clear Channel? One would be forgiven to think so by reading this page. Wampusaust 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded -- or thirded, I suppose -- I will add the NPOV tag in the absence of any response to these comments. Earendilmm 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fairly balanced to me, with a few exceptions in some of the individual "Controversy" subsections. Please provide more specific examples of how you think the article fails to reflect a neutral point of view. Generalized distaste is really not sufficient. (And I agree that the article is poorly-written in more ways than one.) 121a0012 05:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Clear Channel IS the largest U.S. radio owner. The statement is factual and in no way represents POV or vandalism.

http://radio.about.com/od/clearchannelradioinc/Clear_Channel_Radio_Inc.htm "Clear Channel Radio, Inc. is the largest Radio company in the United States. With over 1200 stations..."

Quote from Clear Channel Communications "Clear Channel owns over 1,100 full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations, ten satellite radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and more than 30 television stations in the United States, among other media outlets in other countries."

The information that WFLA, one of CC's major talk stations, has no daily local talk shows, is not NPOV, as evidenced by the station's schedule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFLA_%28AM%29 This is accurate information.


This is not a Clear Channel p.r. piece. If that information seems negative to CC's people, well thta's the cost of owning most of radio. They can deal with it. Don1962 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Don1962[reply]

I reverted your edits and I am +far+ from a fan of CC. Yes, a couple of legitimate facts may have been reverted in the midst of your insane number of POV additions. You can re-add them if you calm down and better try to separate clearly citeable facts from commentary and opinion. Referencing external resources should occur in nearly all cases... this is an encyclopedic work. Eli lilly 03:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is this an anti-Clear Channel p.r. piece. Even stipulating your claim about WFLA, that does not necessarily make it relevant to this article. There are nearly 2,000 talk stations in the U.S.; even if all CCU stations were talkers, it would barely account for half of them. What fraction do you suppose "have daily local talk shows"? Hint: it's higher for the large groups like CBS, CCU, Citadel, Entercom, etc., than it is for the little guys. And who's to say one model is better? In any case, you (and most of this article) are making generalizations from a single example, and that way leads to bias. (If I were going to make claims about "CC's major talk stations", I'd be talking about WLW, WOAI, KOA, and KFI, not WFLA.) By the way, Clear Channel does not even come close to "owning most" of the more than 12,000 licensed broadcast facilities in the U.S. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms which can be leveled at CCU, yet this article gets bogged down in irrelevant silliness at almost every turn. 121a0012 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This statement right here...
In the past decade, Clear Channel has become notorious for overplaying hit songs on its country music and top 40 stations, though industry detection websites like Mediabase247 have found no clear proof supporting this claim. The company has been criticized for the multiple commercial breaks on its stations, and in response, it began its "Less Is More" campaign in November 2004. Now, Clear Channel radio stations have the one of the lowest commercial per minute total in the business.
Okay, to me it sounds like there is some defense in whether or not Clear Channel overplays songs. Though it is a well-known fact, ask anyone (I heard Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats" twice in half an hour, as well as three times a day for the past year), it doesn't seem like there should have to be "evidence" supporting whether or not a station became "notorious" for something. As for the "Less Is More" section (Now, Clear Channel radio stations have one of the lowest commercial per minute total in the busness) sounds like it should be followed with "Go ahead, leave your radio on this station - and be glad you're listening to Clear Channel". I mean at least say "Due to this campaign, Clear Channel's rate of commercials per minute has been reduced, to a level [...]" or something to that effect. As for the Iraq War part, it pretty much circles around the conclusion that Clear Channel organized a "pro-war" demonstration, and that they believe that supporting the war is "patriotic". Also, this completely lacks the mention of Glenn Beck organizing the campaign, which would probably help out explaining why it seemed so right wing. Obviously, I'm not supporting or helping Clear Channel here (I don't care one way or the other), but I'm seeing through the garbage and trying to make this thing an encyclopedia - what it should be. Zchris87v 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a reliable third-party source that even defines "overplaying"? It's obvious that the Clear Channel country station in your market plays some songs more frequently than you prefer, but it would be POV-pushing to put that in the article as a statement of fact. In the heyday of AM top-40, many stations played the top songs once every two hours! The relevant question should be: do Clear Channel stations have tighter playlists (i.e., more repetition) than stations with the same formatics owned by other companies? Does WKSC repeat songs more frequently than WBBM-FM? This is a question which can be answered by objective evidence; surely there must be something in the popular press or the industry trades about it. Similarly, there has been a lot of coverage of "Less is More" in the trades, not only when it was first announced, but also more recent analyses of how successful it has (or has not) been. (I believe I have recently read an analysis of this comparing time-spent-listening before and after, but I'm not sure who published it, and I don't recall whether it looked at other group owners in addition to CC.) 121a0012 01:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV pushing or not, the article states that they were "criticized" for this behavior, suggesting the opinion of fans of the stations. Requesting a playlist of the songs from at least three clear channel and three non-clear channel stations and comparing the similarities (repetition, etc.) between those may come to show that some songs were "played more than once per hour, what many consider to be overplaying" or something to that effect (and then, of course, find a reference where people have stated they heard the same song too many times in an hour). Zchris87v 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked some of my friends at school what stations they like and some have said KUBE, because Kiss overplays everything. I have heard a couple of songs on that station myself 4 times a day. I have not noticed this with our classic hits station KJR, or any of the other stations. Oh and BTW, KUBE and Kiss are both owned by CC.

All positive for some reason

while i dont buy into the conspiracy theorys i enjoy reading about them (they are hilarius) and thats what brings me to a number of articals there should at least be a minor hint at the insane people even a one sentence "some say" with a reference to a crazy web site would satisfy

Clear Channel Radio CEO article

I would suggest merging the short article John Hogan (executive) into Clear_Channel_Communications#Radio. The notability of Mr. Hogan is based solely on his current CEO role and therefore can be addressed under "People notable only for one event". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness

This article is extremely friendly to Clear-Channel towards the beginning, i propose that there be equal amount of good and bad, so users don't have to scroll down to the very bottom to get all of the facts, I would therefore say that this article is in violation of the fairness policy or whatever it is called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Personalopinion4me (talk • contribs)

You seem to be referring to our policy on neutral point of view. If there is something that you feel is problematic, please point it out specifically and it will be corrected. I would ask you to cease the childish vandalism upon the release of your block. Thanks. Kuru talk 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sale of CCU to Private Equity Firms

This section is pretty far out of date, a lot has happened since December, especially in the last week. I'm surprised there haven't been any deal junkies coming through to update it. Mjgilbert (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mitt Romney?

Listening to the news the other day (during the Republican convention) somebody mentioned that Mitt Romney now has a financial interest in Clear Channel (while he was blasting the Liberal Media establishment in his speech). Is that true?

---

Yes, Mitt Romney's Bain Capital bought out Clear Channel, where right-wing talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck dominate the airwaves to spread unswerving loyalty towards the Republican party.

Don't expect this to appear in the article though. Wikipedia is specifically designed to mislead and deprive the public of information, NOT to inform.

--69.125.144.110 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention is now made of Clear Channels preference for Conservative talk over Liberal talk and their continuing efforts to replace Liberal talk with Sports talk. No mention is made as to the future of Conservative talk show hosts. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

The lead is supposed to identify and describe the subject of the article. "Recent events" (like recent management changes and the name of the CEO search firm) are not appropriate in the lead paragraph. Please fix - thanks.69.37.43.137 (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New round of mass firings

The job creators destroyers under Bain Capital strike again. So much for creating jobs. http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/2012/12/06/kbpis-uncle-nasty-fired-clear-channel/11943/

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IHeartMedia&oldid=527121713"