digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Clear Channel is attempting to silence Bruce Springsteen

crooksandliars.com — Alas, there ’s a hitch: Radio will not play “Magic.” In fact, sources tell me that Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from “Magic.” But it’s OK to play old Springsteen tracks such as “Dancing in the Dark,” “Born to Run” and “Born in the USA.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jthomp3120, on 11/01/2007, -8/+39is it censorship or just a case of clear channel sucking in their music selection
    • kurttrail, on 11/01/2007, -11/+25Considering that Clear Channel is the Fox of Radio, what do you think?
      • Firehed, on 11/01/2007, -7/+5I'll go with sucking. What are you going to do when your local radio station doesn't play your favorite song all the time... claim censorship? There's limited time in the day for them to play, and they're a company that gets to decide what is done with their service. It's no different than me not allowing spam comments to be posted on my blog - I'm in control. You can call me a censor for not allowing someone to post on my blog, but at the end of the day it's my blog, and you know that you don't want that material there anyways. This isn't even like that - it's more like me not blogging about Hillary Clinton and then getting complaints that I'm censoring her campaign. I don't cover politics and especially not politicians that I hate, but I'm not stopping you from going somewhere else to read about it. Of the same idea, Clearchannel isn't stopping you from listening to the track on some other source, just their own.
        • kurttrail, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Sucking? When they'll play anything Bruce has done in the past that doesn't have a political message?

          Why don't you hang out with the 24% morons?
    • bingobongony, on 11/01/2007, -6/+11It is a case of a CLASSIC ROCK station being told to stick to CLASSIC ROCK, and not songs that were released this month.
      • brianary, on 11/01/2007, -2/+9So why did Clear Channel even need to say it? Why single out this album?
        • TheSabre, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Where did they single out this album? All blogs point to Fox News, and Fox News says it. So does that mean the memo says it? Have you read the actual memo?
          • brianary, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Have you? Why did Fox News single it out (other than just being randomly evil, of course)?
    • themarq, on 11/01/2007, -6/+11I know it's nitpicking but this is not a case of censorship, anymore than a country and western station isn't "censoring" by not playing AC/DC or Celine Dion (actually no one should play Celine Dion, but that's a different rant). A radio station can chose to play or not play whatever they want, that's a a free market.
      Censorship would be the gov't telling radio stations not to play The Dixie Chicks because their music is anti-American (for example).

      So in answer to your question, this is just a case of clear channel sucking.
      • brianary, on 11/01/2007, -2/+7So why did Clear Channel even need to say it? Why single out this album?
      • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Government doesn't need to censor, if their shills will do it for them in exchange for benefits.

    • trisomy21, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2I think more people should be exposed to what FM 94.9 in San Diego is doing. They are legitimately all about the music and not driven by any corporate mandates. Bruce Springsteen's album is actually recommended for this month, along with VHS or Beta, Sea Wolf, and Black Francis (Frank Black from the Pixies). Their website is a great resource for music, reviews, shows, and other events.

      If you're interested you can listen here: http://www.fm949sd.com/listen/index.cfm
    • SteveDeGroof, on 11/01/2007, -2/+5People still listen to clearchannel?
      • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I don't. I haven't had an FM radio for about 8 years now.
      • repete, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1People still listen to radio?
    • fixedcoma, on 11/02/2007, -3/+4Actually Bruce springstein is anti -war, i believe that is the reason just like how they wanted to oust the dixie chicks for their opinions ! Too bad the whole world isn't anti-war! Such a role model our country makes on other countries so why not sell weapons to every country out there, oh wait we, russia and china already did! I think you know who the pro war countries really are now!
    • tyho, on 11/03/2007, -5/+7I see no definitive proof to believe this story. Just crooksandliars.com manipulating their audience as usual. Why do so many of these type of stories make it to the front page?
      • bjornski, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3Because other people can see the writing on the wall that you so gladly ignore.

        Just go back to playing your Xbox.
  • SoyJames, on 11/04/2007, -4/+65Might be a case of the new album not being OWNED by the RIAA. No RIAA membership = No Radio Airplay = PAYOLA.
    • atdigg, on 11/01/2007, -2/+18I think RIAA gets money even for songs of artists that are not enrolled in RIAA... which to me sounds like extortion.
      • norman619, on 11/01/2007, -7/+2How?
        • anononon, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4They're mobsters.
        • centran, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4They can get money through various organizations that have a blanket coverage for live performances and online radio play.
          These various organizations soundexchange bmi ascap sesac
          can charge people for ANY music played live or through online radio(over air radio is different)
          So lets say you are a band and play original work by you. They can sue the bar for not paying a license to play your original work. This of course can be overturned with a signed letter from the original artist saying it is OK but still that is messed up!
        • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3This little agency called "SoundExchange".

          They are in place to collect royalties on all music. Even if you're an indie artist that DEMANDS that no royalties be collected on your music. They WILL collect them, and then say "you can have them if/when you contact us to get them".

          SoundExchange DOES engage in extortion.

          And they pay the lawmakers FAR more money than you do.

          Guess who's going to get their way.
      • mabhatter, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1wrong ASCAPP gets royalties... the RIAA gets nothing for air play.
        • centran, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1and who do you think ASCAPP is backed by and pays money too?
          also don't forget about soundexchange, bmi, and sesac for the full coverage(ie. anal raping) of all Live music and online radio play!
    • metalgodz, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2More like theft of services...
    • metalgodz, on 11/02/2007, -0/+9Nope, it's RIAA...
      Go to http://riaaradar.com, search by artist, and type in Springsteen. It's the first result.
      • SoyJames, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2There goes that theory. Must be censorship. Or poor taste. I heard some of his new stuff and it was actually pretty good.
    • fixedcoma, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2No it's this:http://www.truthnews.us/?p=141
      just check it out, please and you'll understand!, i promise!
  • sensoukami, on 11/06/2007, -31/+16last I checked "censorship" only applies to the government. Business can play or not play, sell or not sell whatever the ***** they want....
    • atdigg, on 11/01/2007, -3/+38"Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist." -- anybody who withholds or remove information practices censorship. Some forms are legal some other are illegal, even if it's legal it might be morally repulsive.
      • killakan, on 11/01/2007, -2/+0Yeah, just like theory is unproven science.
      • Defuser, on 11/06/2007, -6/+4How can so many people be so utterly ignorant? Look dumbass, freedom of speech does NOT mean that other people have to provide you with a forum. Much like MoveOn.org doesn't have to give Bill O'Reilly a weekly cover story, radio stations don't have to play music that doesn't fit their goals or formats. In this case, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out the difference between a station playing Springsteen's hits, and NOT playing his crappy new stuff that nobody wants to hear. What morons like you apparently believe is that certain people are "owed" media coverage. That's simply not true. Let me tell you what "censorship" ACTUALLY is: Censorship is when you and nitwits like you compulsively Digg Down every opinion that doesn't match your own.
        • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Yeah, go Ron Paul!
        • bigmike7, on 11/06/2007, -2/+2That forum you talk about is owned by the American public. So why does CC get so many forums in every major market? Because the government has watered down our media ownership rules to the point where they are meaningless. We own the airwaves. We have an interest in insuring no one entity gets a monoploy since the free flow of information is critical to the functioning of a democracy. So yes, when one entity can decide that people all over the nation don't get to hear a song, and that same entity is the beneficiary of government favor, that is censorship.

          You get Dugg down because you don't think very hard. Try thinking things out first, then write, and then see if people don't find more value in your comments.
    • Dragular, on 11/01/2007, -1/+25The FCC has, over the years, handed Clear Channel a vast monopoly over the airwaves... I would say that this at least counts as an indirect example of government censorship.
      • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5I'd say that it is a good example of why radio consolidation is a bad idea. If Clear Channel had real competition they wouldn't be able to do stuff like this.

        They bought some concert venues a while back. I wonder if Bruce Springsteen will be banned from those as well.
        • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1What do you want to do? Regulate them?

          Ron Paul wouldn't like that.
    • archistudent, on 11/06/2007, -4/+9With apologies: last you checked, you were wrong.
    • ncc74656m, on 11/01/2007, -2/+5Actually, this is censorship because they have benefitted from this administrations relaxations of the laws governing radio and have allowed Clear Channel to purchase so much airspace. So yes, they are doing their buddies a favor.
    • p0s3r, on 11/01/2007, -8/+2ZOMG IF ONLY THE PUBLIC COULD BRUCE'S MESSAGE IT WOULD END THE IRAQ WAR! HOW DARE CLEARCHANNEL CENSOR THIS IMPORTANT AND GROUNDBREAKING SONG! IT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD IF ONLY THEY WOULD PLAY IT ON THEIR CLASSIC MUSIC STATION!
  • indiscriminate, on 11/01/2007, -8/+4someone needs to
  • FISHLEGBOOTS, on 11/01/2007, -20/+14"Born in the U.S.S.R., I was born........"
    • norman619, on 11/01/2007, -9/+3Welcome to the USA comrade. You wouldn't by chance have a bottle of Vodka on you?
    • killakan, on 11/01/2007, -4/+3A private company does not want to play a song by a private artist. Not much more American than that.

      What would be like the U.S.S.R would be forcing Clear Channel to play the song.
      • Urusai, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4I'd buy the "private company" argument more if 1) the airwaves were private, which they aren't, and 2) the corporations didn't own the government, which makes their actions a public policy issue by default.
        • briantodd, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Airwaves are not private. However, these radio stations broadcasting on public airwaves being told not to play Springsteens new material ARE privately owned. Therefore if a private company doesn't want something played by the stations it owns, those stations aren't going to play it. Where's the problem?

          If you want to hear his new stuff, go buy the album. Or if you prefer, find a station that IS playing his newer material.
    • repete, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0In Soviet Russia, The USA is born in you (My first ISR. Normally I resist).
    • JigoroKano, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Have you ever actually listened to "Born in the U.S.A."?
  • spootmonkey, on 11/01/2007, -27/+22Yes, this isn't censorship. A private company can play and not play whatever it wants. If you don't like it then don't listen and support the company. Thats how the market works.
    • ncc74656m, on 11/01/2007, -4/+29The problem is that the market isn't working. What's happening is that Clear Channel is being allowed to monopolize the airwaves by this government, and therefore, they are doing them a favor by not playing this stuff.
      • bingobongony, on 11/01/2007, -9/+4They don't have a monopoly, dumb ass. Having a lot is not a monopoly.

        Being allowed to? Yup...that is how the government SHOIULD work. The government has no business telling companies what they can or can't do in situations like this.
        • akula696969, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3"being allowed to monopolize the airwaves"

          Read some before you open your trap and show how much you didn't.....
        • halligan00, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2It actually is a monopoly, it's just not a monopoly of ALL airwaves. No one else can use the airways Clearchannel has rights to. No one else can create new channels, either. It's a government-enforced monopoly, just like Comcast and other utilities have.
      • Firehed, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2What? There's never been more places where you could go to find music than today. Go listen on Pandora. Go buy it from Amazon or iTunes. Go to your local CD store. Go to one of the countless torrent websites. I've never listened to Clearchannel, so what they play doesn't affect me at all.

        You have a seriously flawed argument with that one.
        • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6I am not sure that you have never listened to Clear Channel, unless you have never listened to commercial radio. I am also not convinced that you have never looked at a Clear Channel billboard or been to a Clear Channel venue. Most people do business with Clear Channel whether they want to or not.

          Many places no longer have local CD stores. Big box stores have driven many out of business.
          • SanTe, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1"Many places no longer have local CD stores. Big box stores have driven many out of business."

            Interestingly, the opposite seems to have happened in Seattle in recent years. CD Wherehouse? Bankruptcy. Tower Records? Bankruptcy. Sam Goody? Rebranded as FYE and is largely ignored, still trying to push its $20 CDs and low selection; tourists wander into it by accident.

            Easy Street Records? Bought the store next to them and expanded into it, then bought the building that Tower Records evaporated from and opened a bigger second store there that is thriving. Sonic Boom? Expanded from one to three locations. Everyday Music? Okay, it's becoming kind of a chain, but it is doing well.

            The pattern seems to be: have a large, diverse selection, great prices, and music geeks that know there ***** staff your store, and you'll do fine. The indie record stores here are always busy.
        • briantodd, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1While I agree that nearly everyone has probably listened to a Clear Channel owned station without realizing it or seen a concert in a venue they own, you ought to check out Amazon.com, iTunes, Pandora, eMusic, or use one of the "big box" stores. There is a plethora of marketplaces to purchase music, whether it's a mom and pop record store or not.
      • killakan, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1I guess you are against Ron Paul and his libertarian policies.
        • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6Why yes, I do think that Clear Channel is a very good example of why libertarian ideals are great in theory but not in practice.
          • halligan00, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1The fault of mainstream Libertarian ideals is that they've missed the boat on nature & natural wealth. The ideals work great with produced goods, like food, or cars, or electronics. They work poorly with non-produced goods like airwaves, information, clean air, oil reserves, or the land portion of real estate. Note broadcast consolidation, pollution, soaring crude prices, and the real estate bubble.
    • nightsweat, on 11/01/2007, -2/+16OK, let them use the private airwaves. I want the public ones back.
    • CraigJ, on 11/09/2007, -3/+5You are confusing censorship with 1st amendment infringement. While related, they are not the same thing.
    • happycat, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0In Economic textbook theory this is how the market works, but the market has regulations, laws, and not to mention lobbyists that throw money around to get laws and regulations changed in their employers favor. The market is far from being a free one,
    • mabhatter, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1and here I thought that radio stations played what was popular and people were listening to. Vanessa Carlton also has a new album but my local station only plays old stuff... wonder if it's the same reason.. Somebody's not paying for payola and their artist won't get play.

      I remember Daniel Powder talking about how is song "Bad Day" was everywhere and at the top of the charts, but his PR firm spent all his royalties on pay-per-pay and giving the track away.. he got almost nothing for his hit song.
    • EbilPhish, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." -Wikipedia

      Why does it being a private company suddenly make it not censorship?, the article informs people that it is happening so they can choose not to listen to it.
  • weebit, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3SEE! the RIAA can't blame it all on the public! This proves it!
  • Yukos, on 11/01/2007, -30/+10Bruce Springsteen hasn't been relavent since 1989, so who really cares?
    • ncc74656m, on 11/01/2007, -5/+13Actually, he's more relevant than you are, judging by your current DIgg count.
      • Yukos, on 11/01/2007, -6/+2well, I don't care what he says and you are reading what I say - so I am more relevant. Why don't you stop being negative and go listen to dancing in the dark or something
        • ncc74656m, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Yes. Because that's a nice innocent song that doesn't question what you believe. Cry for me, really.
    • palmer, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1That opinion carries so much weight coming from someone who can't spell "relevant."
  • 3-6-0, on 11/01/2007, -14/+9brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccccccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeee!
    • ncc74656m, on 11/01/2007, -2/+5Clearly the neocons digging you down have never been to a Bruce concert. But I guess they're still mad because Bruce actually told poor 'ol Reagan what the REAL meaning of Born in the USA was. Had to go and knock down a poor old delusional man who was only trying to destroy the economy and the working man.
      • Firehed, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3Neocons? It's just a stupid comment, not some hater conspiracy.
  • RyeBrye, on 11/01/2007, -3/+22"Clear Channel has sent out a memo saying:
    Alas, there’s a hitch: Radio will not play “Magic.” In fact, sources tell me that Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from “Magic.” But it’s OK to play old Springsteen tracks such as “Dancing in the Dark,” “Born to Run” and “Born in the USA.”

    Either this blog author can't write for *****, or Clear Play has a strange habit of quoting rumors about itself in its own memos.
  • nate5182, on 11/01/2007, -4/+4Why do people try to make everything political?
    • dvdrtrgn, on 10/31/2007, -2/+4That's like asking, "Why does the earth try to make everything environmental?"
      • mathmanjeffy, on 11/01/2007, -5/+3No... no it's not. You fail at analogies.
      • Bamborzled, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1The Earth is directly tied to the environment, but people are not directly tied to politics.
        • bjornski, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2Like it or not, every decision you make has it's roots based in politics somehow.

          If you're smart enough to realize it or not.
    • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2We don't have to try to make something political when a media conglomerate nationally bans a political album, contrary to their legally binding statements to the FCC.
  • Midvicious, on 11/13/2007, -6/+7==The lyrics they're trying to ridiculously silence...==

    I got a coin in your palm
    I can make it disappear
    I got a card up my sleeve
    Name it and I'll pull it out your ear
    I got a rabbit in the hat
    If you wanna come and see
    This is what will be
    This is what will be

    I got shackles on my wrists
    Soon I'll slip and I'll be gone
    Chain me in a box in the river
    And rising in the sun
    Trust none of what you hear
    And less of what you see
    This is what will be (This is what will be)
    This is what will be

    [Instrumental]

    (I'll cut you in half)

    I got a shiny saw blade (a shiny saw blade)
    All I need's a volunteer
    I'll cut you in half
    While you're smilin' ear to ear
    And the freedom that you sought
    Driftin' like a ghost amongst the trees
    This is what will be
    This is what will be (This is what will be)

    Now there's a fire down below
    But it's coming up here
    So leave everything you know
    Carry only what you fear
    On the road the sun is sinkin' low
    Bodies hanging in the trees
    This is what will be (This is what will be)
    This is what will be
    • meamog, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3They aren't playing the entire album "Magic", not just the song "Magic".
      • dracken, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2More accurately this is the kind of lyrics they are trying to censor. From his song "Long walk home" from his album Magic
        My father said "Son, we're lucky in this town,
        It's a beautiful place to be born.
        It just wraps its arms around you,
        Nobody crowds you and nobody goes it alone"
        "Your flag flyin' over the courthouse
        Means certain things are set in stone.
        Who we are, what we'll do and what we won't"
        It's gonna be a long walk home
        Hey pretty darling, don't wait up for me
        Gonna be a long walk home
    • ncc74656m, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Not sure if you realize, but Bruce has explicitly stated that this song is about the current situation in the country. It's about manufacturing the truth, believing what "we" say, not what you see.
    • fixedcoma, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Thank you for the lirics cause it wasn't the best recording , had a lot of low tones muffling words!
    • obliviousfool, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Sounds good to me. I think I might have to buy this CD.
  • nsummy, on 11/01/2007, -9/+13How is this censorship? "Magic" is not classic rock. It's new. Sure he has older songs, which are obviously still being played by Clear Channel classic rock stations.
    • bingobongony, on 11/02/2007, -7/+2Funny that you are getting buried for stating hte obvious.
      • dvdrtrgn, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6Funny? Feigning ignorance is funny. BTW, have you ever listened to a classic rock station? 30-50% new *****.
    • mrurc, on 11/02/2007, -0/+4Clear Channel owns a ton of stations and most of them are not classic rock. Radio is supposed to play the music that people in the area want to hear. National corporate dictations of albums that will not be played is contrary to the mission of playing what the people who listen want to hear. This is a very popular album and as such, people who listen to that style of music want to hear it played. So why would Clear Channel refuse to play an album that people in the area want to hear? To keep the albums from a getting exposure, which limits sales of the albums.

      The songs that they are allowing were popular in a time before Clear Channel became as powerful as it is. They need to play the old albums or the listeners will ask why. The listeners can not ask why a station is not playing an album that they don't know exists.

      I used to run a public radio station that was formatted by a former Clear Channel music director and I know how their formatting system works. According to their formulas, a single from this album should be in the most frequently rotated group and play on stations for that format every 45 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the style of music.

      The proper course of action is for people to loudly boycott all Clear Channel stations. Send letters to the station that contain no curse words or personal attacks and they will have to be retained for legal reasons. If the FCC investigates, they need retained listener complaints.
      • TheSabre, on 11/02/2007, -2/+1"So why would Clear Channel refuse to play an album that people in the area want to hear?"

        Where do you get that idea? It clearly says that their classic rock stations won't play Magic. No one said that their new release stations won't. In fact, no one even showed the actual memo text.
    • brianary, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2So why did Clear Channel even need to say it? Why single out this album?
    • UrinalPooper, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Clear Channel normally shills the new albums from musky old bands. Since this album isn't an RIAA album, they're not shilling it.
  • kiwiboyus, on 11/01/2007, -4/+23Clear Channel is *****, I know first hand. Companies like them have killed what Radio used to be.
    • pinchduck, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1If you haven't already, give Satellite Radio a try. Either Sirius or XM, they are both excellent. They have literally ushered in a new "Golden Age" of radio.
    • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1As I've said before, it's why I haven't owned an FM radio in about 8 years.
  • TheLoneHoot, on 11/01/2007, -4/+14Look what they tried to do to the Dixie Chicks
    • killakan, on 11/01/2007, -8/+7The Dixie Chicks did it to themselves. They insulted their core audience and it's beliefs.

      Clear Channel had nothing to do with what happened to them.
    • MicrosoftBob, on 11/01/2007, -4/+5And it made them look like the assholes/idiots that they are.

      Grammy for Album of the Year, anyone?
      • geekee, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2"Grammy for Album of the Year, anyone?"

        What a joke. They got the Grammy for the same reason their fans burned their records, politics.
        • MJG2007, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3But they still ended up selling 2.2 MILLION copies of their latest album as of July in the United States.

    • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Exactly. They tried to do this before and in that case, they stated that while it is corporate policy to not play the album, music directors have the authority to play what they think is desired by the local audience, and if that means Dixie Chicks, they play Dixie Chicks. In practice, this is not what happens. They will use the same argument here, but since the album is enormously popular, this being a guideline would mean that the songs are getting airplay on the stations. This being a rule would be implied if stations do not play songs from an enormously popular album that the parent company doesn't approve of.
      • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Local? FM radio hasn't been tailored to a local audience for almost a decade.

        It's all programmed out of New York offices, and their affiliates do not deviate from that sponsored, subsidized, corporate driven format.

        Local radio? You might have your morning shock-jock in your area, but as for the actual playlist and artists being supported? It'd done at the central office, and it's the same homogenized ***** on every station owned by these corporations.

        And libertines like Ron Paul would deregulate it even further.
  • ZenMojo, on 11/01/2007, -4/+12Censorship is censorship. Now, sometimes someone is fully within their legal rights to censor something, but that doesn't make them any less a bunch of douchebags.
    • bingobongony, on 11/01/2007, -6/+4Except it is not censorship AT ALL for a classic rock station to be told not to play brand new songs.
      • meamog, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7You know, I agree with you, but consider this: in St Louis, the premier classic rock station is KSHE 95. They play everything from Nickelback (shudder) to The Doors. Granted, they're owned by Emmis Communications, but you get the idea - there are alot of "classic rock" stations that play a variety of rock music. The new Springsteen record would sound great between some old Floyd and Zep anyhow.
        • killakan, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1Nickelback is not classic rock, ergo KSHE is not a classic rock station.
        • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Killakan, since you obviously don't know anything about musical formats, don't comment. "Classic rock" actually means rock that sounds like rock from a certain era, not rock from a certain era. There are top ten classic rock charts and charts only track new music. So there must be stations that play top ten classic rock new music. You probably listen to Adult Contemporary anyway.
      • brianary, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1So why did Clear Channel even need to say it? Why single out this album?
    • killakan, on 11/01/2007, -5/+3Except it is not censorship when a private company decides not to play a song.

      They are under no obligation to play the song any more than Air America is under an obligation to play shows by Rush Limbaugh.

      Or is it your claim that Air America is censoring Limbaugh?
      • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Air America is one station. Clear Channel is hundreds, maybe thousands. Your comparison is moronic.
      • bigmike7, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0It's censorship when that same media conglomerate has been able to use its influence to water down our media ownership rules against the interest of the public. It's censorship because they are OUR airwaves and the government is deciding who gets to control what we listen to in all markets. Since the government has allowed CC to approach a near monopoly, that is censorship, in coordination with the government. Try broadcasting from your own FM transmitter, and you'll get the picture.
  • HoboHookah, on 11/01/2007, -2/+6Anyone know of a boycott going on for Clear Channel? I sign whatever. Regardless of Bruce, that company sucks and the world would be better off with out them.
    • mathmanjeffy, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1"I sign whatever."

      That's how we got into this mess in the first place.
  • rento, on 11/01/2007, -13/+8Fact: That song sucks. Move on.
  • thevelvetsun, on 11/01/2007, -3/+6Don't censor The Boss!
  • Radscott, on 11/01/2007, -3/+6Yeah, Clear Channel is ignoring it as are most other companies. When was the last time you heard a new Bruce Springsteen song on the radio?
    • bubba9999, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6Last time he had a new album out. But then again, I don't listen to ClearChannel stations.
    • FreydNot, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1When was the last time your even turned on a radio?
    • foofightrs777, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3On Sirius I hear Springsteen all the time.
    • palmer, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1When was the last time you heard ANYTHING new from anyone who's been around for more than five years?

      The '90s.
  • usercc, on 11/01/2007, -19/+6Bruce Springsteen is a good songwriter and musician, not great. But, as far as national security is concerned, he is a moron just like Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin and a great number of digg users.
    Thank God for Clear Channel. It is a patriotic company. Put morons and America-haters where they belong, on Derriere America.
    • dvdrtrgn, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Your ***** doesn't stink, right? Why do you hate freedom??
    • ibookfast, on 11/02/2007, -1/+5the ironic thing is that the neo-cons are destroying America, while those liberals (at least by American standards) are trying to reverse that trend. neo-cons are NOT conservative, they are pseudo-fascists.
  • Auerbeck, on 11/01/2007, -16/+9Dear radio stations:
    We don’t like Springsteen’s crappy new stuff. Just play his old good stuff.

    Sincerely,
    Your owner.

    OH THE HORRER! Someone call Crooks and Liars!
    • Alphab, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4Did you listen to this last album?
      It's definitly the best I've hear since a LONG time from anybody! If anything, it's closer to the "old good stuff" than he has been for decades...
    • palmer, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2So you just revealed to the world that you can't even spell "horror".

      Nice move, genius.
      • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1And he's not smart enough to switch stations either.

        So because HE doesn't like it, NOBODY should be able to hear it.
  • Richandler, on 11/01/2007, -9/+3My newspaper said Bruce's concert sucked.
    • dvdrtrgn, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Woah! Nice reading there, Tex.
      • bjornski, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2Maybe he just means that the single concert reviewer, who obviously doesn't share Springsteens political views, and prefers the trendy stuff like Hanna Montana, didn't like the concert.

        Though it is an interestingly way to bring NEWSPAPER consolidation into the story also. And how one company can own TV, radio AND newspaper stations. And if we can deregulate them a bit more, there's nothing stopping one company from owning all of them in many areas.

  • vwvan, on 11/01/2007, -5/+10Ok. Time for Clear Channel to feel the Digg Effect. I canceled my 500 channels of infomercial money-wasting trash. How do I send money directly to Bruce Springsteen? Where can I buy this song, right now? Just a sec: OK. Found it on iTunes. It's downloading while I finish this message. Instant justice. Deal with it. Next problem please.
    • fixedcoma, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Good job lad, keep fighting and down back down to the money sucking scum!
    • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Did you PAY for it on iTunes?

      If you did, you're supporting the very people you claim to be rallying against.
  • killakan, on 11/01/2007, -12/+5What an appropriate named site. If ClearChannel does not want to play the song, that is their choice. It is not censorship. It is no more censorship than Air America not playing songs by country artists who are for Bush and the war, or not having Limbaugh or O'Rilley shows on.

    This is a lame story feeding the outrage machine.
    • dvdrtrgn, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1Is it? Isn't it? Really? Killa for president!
    • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4No, actually, it is quite different from Air America not playing songs by country artists that support Bush. The difference is that Air America is a single station, making a content decision based on the desires of people who listen to the station. If Clear Channel bans an album for all stations, it over rules the local content analysts who are supposed to be play things according to the desires of their local listeners, just like Air America does, and which, according to Clear Channel, are always given free reign to determine content appropriate to their audience.

      Clear Channel brings up this local music directors have free reign whenever something like this comes up, in order to fend of any action by the FCC.
  • zeejay, on 11/01/2007, -2/+20Consolidation of media is a bad, bad thing. It's dangerous. Too much power in far too few hands. New anti-trust laws need to be enacted. But if legislation does ever come up for a vote, most people will never know, because radio and TV won't tell them about it.
    • LLLSecretChimp, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2You're right. The only solution for censorship like this is for the government to tell broadcasters how to run things. When everything's regulated properly, there won't be any censorship.
    • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2The FCC had anti-trust regulations which they recently eliminated on the request of companies like Clear Channel who are consolidating media. (By recently, I mean in the last 20 years.) This is not a legal issue that can be handled by Congress; it is under the jurisdiction of the FCC, which is currently under the control of the big business executive branch. Congress can recommend that the FCC enact anti-consolidation regulations but the FCC is not required to listen to Congressional recommendations. This is why in my explanation of how to do a radio boycott below, I recommend complaining to the FCC about the actions of this media consolidation conglomerate.
      • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul thinks we should get rid of the FCC, and let the mergers happen.

  • agsinger, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2People who are true fans of music don't listen to the radio anyway. Nothing on the radio has been worthwhile to listen to in years. It's something of a joke among people with any taste in music.
    • ChefGroovy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1bad taste is a still a taste. And they play jazz and all that pretentious crap on the radio too
  • justinp, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3Well, I'll give you that Clear Channel is a monopolistic pile of suck that throws the same tired advertising at their listeners across all of their stations...

    ...but I just can't begin to care about them not playing a new Springsteen song. Or any song. Seriously, if you want to hear anything beyond the Pop 20 you need to get it from somewhere else anyway. It's been that way for many years.
    • palmer, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2There isn't even a legitimate top 20 or top 100 anymore. Charts are meaningless, because everybody has to cling to ONE particular flavor of variation of a regional specialization of an offshoot of a genre. And if it doesn't fit THAT EXACT profile, they damn well won't listen to it.
  • xandifenn, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Forget Clear Channel, play them from the net:
    http://www.seeqpod.com/music/?plid=7d712e435c
  • F0RMLESSNESS, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4Radio sucks, Clear Channel sucks, Republicans suck too. Besides who the hell even listens to the radio anymore?
  • ravens32681, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_%22songs_with ...

    Most of these songs not only were released before 9/11 but they also have nothing to do with 9/11 or war in general and are actually protest songs such as "Get Together" by the Youngbloods. Clear Channel are a bunch of pussies. Music is about anything and everything. Any idiot can interpret almost any song to mean what they want. I am sick of idiots using 9/11 to take away our rights. 9/11 was disturbing and it should never happen again, but you cannot keep claiming that things should not be allowed because it could be insensitive to certain people, especially when those things are far off from what these ***** think the meaning of them are. "You dropped a Bomb On Me" by the Gap Band. Good job idiots, you take 6 words from a song and completely change its meaning. If you listen to the song it's just a metaphor for a relationship problem between a guy and his girl. What the ***** does it have to do with planes crashing into the World Trade Center, besides just the title. Clear Channel Communications: Get over yourselves. You have no right to decide what people need to be protected from. Go ***** yourselves! "Imagine" by John Lennon? If he knew this song was on this list he would think everyone is on LSD. That is how stupid Clear Channel is.
    • undergrace, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1One I noticed was not on this list is "Bleed American" by Jimmy Eat World. The song title was changed to "Salt, Sweat, Sugar" and the album name became self-titled. I don't know if Clear Channel or the record label forced the change or if it was voluntary, so that might be the reason why it wasn't included... either way, if someone "bleeds America" that normally means they are very patriotic... but I'm sure a lot of people freaked out thinking it meant "Americans should bleed". There is far too much pressure on the music industry to be politically correct!
  • killakan, on 11/01/2007, -5/+3Wow, I have my very own bury stalker.
    • Defuser, on 11/01/2007, -6/+2Scary, isn't it? I have one too. It's both sad and pathetic that there are people out there that are that obsessional, with so little else in their lives, that they have both the time and the inclination to sit crouched over their PC in hopes of seeing someone else post. Here's a Digg, just to piss off your stalker.
      • AladinSane, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4And here's a Digg Up to both of you, to piss off Defuser's stalker, who apparently arrived mere moments after he posted. Do people have no control whatsoever over how big of douchebags they allow themselves to be?
      • killakan, on 11/01/2007, -4/+3Every one of my posts were buried as soon as they hit the page.

        I almost think someone wrote a bot to bury me.
        • Defuser, on 11/01/2007, -4/+3I doubt it, since they'd have to figure out a way around the Capture code. The sad but probably true fact of the matter is that some psycho has you on his watch list, and then sits there all day, his tiny fists clenched in impotent fury, waiting for you to post so he can Digg you Down. There are some really scary people online.
        • bjornski, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1They do that to me too, Killakan.

        • bigmike7, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0No wonder you get buried. You come up with illogical *****.

          One person cannot bury you. Lots of people, with no connection to one another, are burying you. You are the common factor here. Just learn to accept that most people find little of substance in your ideas.
      • bigmike7, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0I looked at your posts just to help you out a little. Try this:

        Try NOT calling everyone douchebag, idiot, numbskull, ***** in every one of your posts. Try it for one day and see what happens.
    • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3No, you are just make ill-informed, nonsensical posts, something that will get you dugg down without a "bury stalker."

      Perhaps if you didn't additionally insult the digg readers, you would get buried less.
  • MicrosoftBob, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Crap, I just subscribed to XM and it looks like CC is an investor.

    Well, at least I got the promo code for 3 months free with no activation fee.
  • maybeinoregon, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3The difference between Clear Channel and Bruce Springsteen - Bruce gets it - hence the song magic.
    • Defuser, on 11/08/2007, -8/+2What is it he gets, exactly? My guess is that you haven't even heard the song, you just assume that since a bunch of nitwits on Digg have their panties in a bunch over it, you need to jump on the bandwagon. I'll bet any given amount of money that 99% of the people posting in this thread haven't purposely listened to a Springsteen song in their ENTIRE LIVES, and certainly didn't realize that he had a new album out. You just saw a stupid headline on Digg, and thought "Boy, I'd better get in line to agree, because that's what all the cool kids are doing!"
      • mrurc, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Perhaps I should become your "bury stalker" in order to report you for every personal attack disguised as an argument. Any reasonable person would assume that someone else would only make a statement like "he gets it and this song shows that he gets it" having actually listened to the song. So why are you bashing those people when you are not saying ANYTHING that implies that you have actually listened to the song?

        In other words, get your panties out of a bunch, you person who has only looked at a digg title and had to go against the bandwagon merely for the sake of going against the bandwagon. Occasionally, the bandwagon has a point.
        • maybeinoregon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Thats funny - bury stalker - people like defuser don't bother me - they are just noise in the background - and yes, I have listened to Bruce for decades, and attended a couple of concerts way back when - much of his music has had political messages - songs like Badlands, The Promise Land, and the No Nukes album - really good stuff - I am glad he is finding a new following - the timing is right.
  • Elderon, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6Thats just retarded. This is my opinion but Personally I think clear water should just focus on making sure their stations run and have equipment and possibly broker anything with artists. They should not have a say in what individual stations air. I feel that should be left to the discretion of the manager or whoever is in charge of each station. every stations viewer area is different. blanket orders on what songs to or not to play is wrong imo
  • badfishmedia, on 11/01/2007, -4/+3Not everything is a controversy. Maybe there are more people who thinks this album sucks compared to those who like it. Ever consider that possibility?
    • ChefGroovy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1IF every song is like the one FTA, then it probably does suck. If my local clear channel CLASSIC radio station started playing that crap I'd send them a letter myself. Aren't there college stations on the low end of the dial designed for this garbage, or maybe an ipod commercial or a sundance/ifc movie soundtrack.
  • freezeout, on 11/02/2007, -2/+4just like Ronald Reagan, ClearChannel is endorsing “Born in the USA” without actually listening to the lyrics
  • KnightMareInc, on 11/02/2007, -1/+6I hate Clear Channel after their election escapades
  • mrurc, on 11/02/2007, -3/+14OK, I used to work in radio, so I am going to tell you how to do a radio boycott. Send letters to the local radio stations owned by Clear Channel and to Clear Channel headquarters that express your disdain for this action. Make sure that the letters do not contain curse words, offensive speech of any kind, personal attacks, threats, and other things that make you sound crazy. If you use these tactics, the radio station is allowed to discard your letter. Also, be sure to mail a physical letter; stations are not required to retain email complaints unless new regulations have been passed. Include your legal name and mailing address. If you fail to do any of these things, the station and the company is allowed to discard the letter; if you do not, they are required to retain the letter in case there is an FCC investigation. Also complain to the FCC about Clear Channel attempting to silence legal speech through their monopoly power. Also mail the attorney general of NY. Couldn't hurt. :)

    Retain a copy of the letter. Your letter is a public document and must be shown to people who request to see their complaint letters. This way you can verify that your letter has been retained. Failure to retain should be reported to the FCC immediately, and include a copy of the letter to prove that you followed the rules. Include the mailing date of your letter and the date on which you asked to see your letter, in order to prove that you waited a reasonable amount of time.

    Make sure that you letter states the following information:
    1) "I listen to your station, [call letters of station] in [location of station]."
    (NOTE: If you do not know the call letters of the station, you need to find out or you have no basis for mailing clear channel if you do not know that the station is a Clear Channel station. The station is required to state the call letters and location of station once per hour, so if you don't know, just listen for an hour. It is common to announce this within the time period 5 minutes before and 5 minutes after the top of the hour.)

    2) I really like the latest Bruce Springsteen album, entitled Magic, and am surprised that the station is not playing any of the singles from that album. I have listened for [long time period] to this station, which plays music similar to the music on this album, and I expected that since this album is number [current number] for this musical genre that it would be played on your station. After all, with such high sales, it is clear that people who listen to your station would like to hear music from this album.
    (NOTE: if you listen to this station at work or in your carpool or other places where you have a captive audience, you should mention that. If you play it around other people, and you boycott their stations, they will lose the station exposure that you give them for free. While it might be illegal to broadcast publicly, it is a common and accepted practice, so if they tried to prosecute you, you could simply tape the station's ads that have listeners stating that they listen at work. That would prove selective enforcement. Stations love to play quotes from excited listeners who just won a prize who state that they listen at work.)

    3) Since I was confused about this, I became suspicious, and I went online to discover allegations that your corporate headquarters is overruling local music directors and requiring that no Clear Channel stations play this album. Not only do I find this horribly offensive, I find it extremely odd, since it good for the popularity of radio stations to play music that people want to hear. It really leads me to wonder what the purpose would be of the parent company to overrule local music directors, in opposition to previous statements that local music directors always have control of the format and songs for that format in that market. The only reasonable explanation that I can think of is that you hold political opposition to the music on the album or to the artists political views. These views are also shared by the majority of the public or they would not be purchasing the album despite lack of airplay.

    4) Since I find this offensive and troublesome, I will not be listening to your stations until there has been a public statement from your company that this album has not been banned by Clear Channel and I see reports that the album is being played on Clear Channel stations, including my local favorite, [insert call letters], in similar play rotations as other top albums in this genre. In order to facilitate this, I have looked up the ownership of all stations in my area that I might listen to and know to not listen to any of them. I have plenty of other options that would love my business. I will also complain to and boycott companies that advertise on your billboards and boycott any additional businesses that I determine do business with Clear Channel.
    (NOTE: if you listen at work, please restate that at this point.)
    • TheSabre, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3Yes. And also send a letter to Viacom because Nickelodeon doesn't air episodes of Seinfeld. And while you're at it, send a letter to Maytag because they don't come to your house and fix Mitsubishis. Let's not forget writing a letter to Dell because they don't sell Hewlett Packard computers on their website.

      Clear Channel has the freedom to air whatever it wants on its stations. You have the freedom to listen to any stations you want that are not owned by Clear Channel or to start your own radio station if one is not available that pleases you.
      • mrurc, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Clear Channel repeatedly states that it is their policy that local music directors have control over the content. They state this in order to fend off FCC regulations and complaints about issues just like this. When they make policies like this at a national level it contradicts these statements. These corporate decisions not only affect hundreds, possibly thousands of stations, they also override the ability of music directors to determine which songs the individual stations' listeners want to hear.

        Besides, you analogy still fails because you are still talking about single single station content decisions, which is what Clear Channel is overruling.
        • TheSabre, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Okay, perhaps my analogy would be better if I said to write a letter to Viacom because Nickelodeon, MTV, MTV2, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, Spike, TV Land, Logo, Noggin, and CMT don't show Seinfeld reruns.

          Fox News says that the memo directs its classic rock stations not to play the album. It says nothing about their other stations that play newer music. Nor does it have the actual text of the memo - how can we be sure that the memo specifically singles out Magic, and only Magic? Until we can read the memo, it's speculation.

          It's funny how when Fox News says one thing, people attack its credibility. Then when they say something like this, everyone takes their word as scripture.
          • MicrosoftBob, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Nickelodeon: I just want reruns of You Can't Do That On Television.
    • geekee, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Don't be another political pawn. Complain if you like Springsteen, not because of politics. Politics makes for crappy art anyway.
      • mrurc, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Oh, gee, I'm sorry. Did I forget to mention that your letter shouldn't lie? My mistake.
  • skinturtle, on 11/01/2007, -4/+3Haha..looks like a lot of Clear Channel execs. read DIGG. Look at the dorks posting like crazy on here defending it.

    DIGG throws the spotlight on these moneybag corps, and the readership is so large it scares the dollars right out of the mainstream media. It's getting harder and harder for them to cover stuff up.

    Lovin' it!
  • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3The (ruled illegal) PAYOLA system was replaced by CLEAR CHANNEL, a company that now acts as a middle man for BOTH the advertising and playlist interests of their owners - the five media conglomerates. Modern commercial radio is owned completely by these mega-corporations, which is why those stations only play pap crap that they themselves shovel out to the public as if it was "music".

    The NEW radio is P2P. Download it all. Buy what you like DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTISTS not from the store or even from iTunes (the artists don't see any of that money either) or buy their merchandise and concert tickets (even if you can't attend).

    Support the ARTISTS who create and perform the music and you'll help kill the distribution dinosaurs faster. And since they FUND the RIAA, if you kill them, you'll kill their bastard progeny.
  • geekee, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3Maybe they just think his new music sucks. It probably does because his old music sucked, but probably to an even greater degree. I'm no fan of clear channel, so I don't care. But I'll defend their right to play whatever they want, for whatever reason.
    • mrurc, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1That is, as I have stated repeatedly, a decision for LOCAL content managers, according not only to Clear Channel's legally bound statements to the FCC but also in accordance with common sense.
  • fixedcoma, on 11/02/2007, -2/+2here's why, they are turning patriots into anti patriot's:
    http://www.truthnews.us/?p=141
  • minox, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Sometimes I walk around wearing one of those little hats AIDS patients wear and play Streets of Philadelphia on my radio.
  • minox, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3How is Clear Channel trying to silence Bruce Springsteen? What are they forcing him to put out awful music?
  • dkern, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1The lyrics are poignant and potent. Also the peeps listen to Bruce. Luckily Mr. Springsteen will likely release his song on the net for free and send a clear channel message to Clear Channel that their policies are not very clear. In other words ***** Clear Channel and their corporate *****! Bruce doesn't take ***** from anyone- ever- which is why he is a legend- he inspires the peeps to think for themselves- He may even sings songs to us all in Gitmo!
  • Mothrog, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4Buried for being ***** retarded. Oh no! A private company won't play a damn song! The world's going to end! Get a ***** life and learn to bitch about ***** that actually matters.
  • withears, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Satellite radio doesn't have this problem.
  • factory81, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Attempting to silence? Clear Channel picks and chooses any and every song they play on any radio station. They play what they are paid to play. Clear Channel is the ***** form of radio ever.
  • dracken, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Some of the brilliant lyrics: About torture

    My father said "Son, we're lucky in this town,
    It's a beautiful place to be born.
    It just wraps its arms around you,
    Nobody crowds you and nobody goes it alone"

    "Your flag flyin' over the courthouse
    Means certain things are set in stone.
    Who we are, what we'll do and what we won't"

    It's gonna be a long walk home
    Hey pretty darling, don't wait up for me
    Gonna be a long walk home

    About illegal wiretapping and surveillance

    You can't sleep at night
    You can't dream your dream
    Your fingerprints on file
    Left clumsily at the scene

    Your own worst enemy has come to town
    Your own worst enemy has come to town

    Yesterday the people were at ease
    Baby you slept in peace
    You closed your eyes and saw her
    You knew who you were
    ..............
    Your own worst enemy has come
    Everything is falling down
    Your own worst enemy has come to town
    Your flag it flew so high
    Now Its drifted into the sky .
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.