That’s right, cell phone makers will be forced by congress to put radios in their phones. Stupid? You bet.

I say bring it on.

The problem today with radio isn’t that there aren’t enough radios. The problem is the programming. You can swing a dead iriver mp3 player without hitting a radio. They are everywhere, to the point that you can’t escape them. The technology isn’t the problem. No one wants to listen to the radio because there is so little worth listening to.

And thank you, radio industry, for demanding FM radio chips. All you will do is devalue the AM stations you already own. Which you are already doing by some of your other moves (http://www.podcastunite.com/2010/07/clear-channel-wants-more-stations/). And when AM stations are being sold for a dime a dozen, I have some ideas of where you can find fresh programming.

Here’s the kicker. It wasn’t an on air listener that complained about the episode or show, but rather someone on hold in a phone system. From the Jackson Free Press:

In a second post on the Rachel Maddow Show blog, Laura Conaway reported that MPB pulled the program after a complaint about host Terry Gross’ July 7 interview with comedian Louis C.K.

“Mississippi Public Broadcasting shares a campus with offices for the state’s colleges and universities, and we have learned that some of those offices play public radio for callers who are on hold,” Conaway wrote. “Recently, a caller got put on hold during Fresh Air and heard Terry Gross ask comedian Louis C.K. if he always has sex with his shirt on. The caller complained, the station’s zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate conduct kicked in, and away went Terry Gross and ‘Fresh Air’ for Mississippi.”

So we are clear, one person complained about what they heard on hold at the university, and MPB pulled the show down across the network? Remember what was said about Clear Channel wanting more stations? What will destroy radio faster, Clear Channel, or one person who is offended? If you aim the weapon at the right target (in this case, NPR stations and their lack of wanting to offend), you can do quite a bit of damage.

Having a “zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate conduct” is a nice idea, but in practice, it’s a utopian ideal that homogenizes the tastes of everyone. We are not that kind of society. We shouldn’t be that kind of society. I’m sure that wherever that policy came from was from the best of intentions (or fear of litigation), but it obviously doesn’t work. Frankly, sometimes people have to be offended a little. It can be a healthy thing to have your ideals challenged.

What does MPB have to say about it? From Sun-Herald.com:

“Mississippi Public Broadcasting strives to deliver educational, informative and meaningful content to its listeners,” MPB Executive Director Judith Lewis said in a statement. “After careful consideration and review, we have determined that ‘Fresh Air’ does not meet this goal over time. Too often ‘Fresh Air’s’ interviews include gratuitous discussions on issues of an explicit sexual nature.

“We believe that most of these discussions do not contribute to or meaningfully enhance serious-minded public discourse on sexual issues.

“Our listeners who wish to hear ‘Fresh Air’ may find it online.”

This I fully support. If Mississippi Public Broadcasting wants to drive it’s listeners away from it’s radio signal, and towards podcasting, I am happy to reap the benefits.

Going online for content also empowers the listeners to have their own ‘inappropriate content’ meter, allowing them to judge what they should and should not listen to. You can choose what to put on your show, and they can choose to listen to it or not.

Public radio joins the ranks of commercial radio by shooting itself in the foot.

Clear Channel Communications files its comments in the FCC’s 2010 quadrennial review of ownership rules, and the company is proposing a two-tiered set of ownership limits that would allow a single owner to have 10 stations in a market with between 55 and 64 stations, and up to 12 stations in markets with 65 stations or more.

Right now, a company can own up to eight stations in a given market, with five of those being of a ‘like service’ (AM or FM). Keep in mind that Clear Channel has sold off some of it’s stations as radio listenership has declined. So why would they want to be able to own more stations?

Keep in mind, companies can own an unlimited number of stations, but they can’t own more than eight in a market. What Clear Channel wants in to own more stations in the more profitable (ie: bigger) markets. CC must believe that what it really wants is more control in markets it already has a major stake in. The obvious path to success is to own more stations and force out competition.

Let’s say Clear Channel got it’s way, and was able to own more stations in a market. How would that break down for AM and FM stations? From the Radio Business Report website:

Additionally, it wants the AM-FM subcaps done away with. Currently, a single owner is limited to five stations in any one service in the largest markets.

If you own eight stations in a market, three of them have to be AM stations. If Clear Channel’s system were implemented, they (or any media group) would be able to own 10 – 12 FM stations in larger radio markets. Basically, the value of an AM radio station would fall to that of a small condo, and that’s at current prices. AM radio, with it’s quality issues, is only valuable for it’s reach, and it’s ability to sell products (it’s getting harder and harder to tell the commercials from the content, but that’s a rant for another day). FM is where the money is, with cheap music programming (it costs internet radio stations much much more to broadcast music than terrestrial stations). AM radio would be dead.

It’s a huge move by CC, to push for more ownership, and less regulation of (the people’s) airwaves. So why now? And why so drastic a proposal? It’s clearly within CC’s rights to file comments with the FCC (as is also your rights, if you don’t mind jumping through the FCC’s hoops). But in the self interest of making more money, CC answers these questions as well. From FMQB:

In the filing, CC states, “Today, terrestrial radio stations compete not only with their local peers but also with the growing panoply of regulated and unregulated competitors at the local, regional, and global levels. These competitors use new technologies and services to deliver music, entertainment, and news in formats and on platforms that today’s audiences demand. Many of these outlets did not exist in 1996, and several were in nascent stages in 2006; today, satellite radio and internet-based services are robust competitors to terrestrial radio stations.”

The broadcaster argues that “Unlike terrestrial radio broadcasters, none of these powerful competitors are limited in the number of outlets or program streams they can provide. Coupled with sharply increasing competition from other terrestrial broadcasters and new audio platforms, the radio industry has experienced significant financial setbacks since 2006. Beginning with the financial meltdown of 2007, the number of bankruptcy filings and lender workouts among terrestrial radio companies, along with other broadcast and print media, has ballooned.”

When in doubt, blame the internet.

Yes, there is a lot more competition, and competition is good. At least, for innovation and quality, competition is supposed to be a good thing. For sitting back and doing the same thing you always have – similar programming, less local and personal interest, consolidation to earn short term money – competition is a bad thing.

From reading those few comments, we can assume that Clear Channel isn’t interested in getting into those same competitive outlets that you or I have chosen to get into. Basically, the internet is killing radio, and radio can’t defend itself. Which is entirely ridiculous, as radio stations and radio companies have the same access to the internet as we do. They have better tools for podcasting than we do as well, but are choosing not to use them. Rather than take the bull by the horns and dive straight in to these competing fields (which would be easy for radio to do), they want more stations. That’s it. That’s their solution to their financial problems.

Keep in mind that after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that opened up radio station ownership to it’s current levels, Clear Channel (and many other large radio conglomerates) have consolidated stations, used less DJs by using voicetracking, shortened music playlists, bullied musical acts into near monopolistic touring deals, and reduced the number of jobs in radio. But if you read the filing (102 pages long), the real problem is the internet and satellite radio.

Clear Channel is just doing what it (and other radio ownership groups) does best. It wants to leverage it’s main asset that other entities don’t have – it’s broadcast tower and radio license – to put it in a position of profit and prosperity. And considering the current business landscape of radio, who can blame them? Radio is in serious trouble, and isn’t forward thinking enough to survive much longer in the media world that has been created around it. Certainly not using the old practices it’s grown accustomed to.

As a podcaster, and as a person who doesn’t listen to commercial radio, I wholeheartedly ask the FCC to give Clear Channel everything it wants. That’s right, I want Clear Channel and other radio ownership groups to own more stations in larger markets, and keep doing the exact same things they have been doing for years – stifling creativity, reducing the choices available to the public, and putting the interests of the station (shareholders, owners) over that of the listeners. I want more radio listeners to feel like their favorite station has completely forgotten them. I hope for more expensive cars being driven by the sales staff than the on air staff. I hope things keep going the same direction they have been for years.

The more and more dull and consolidated radio becomes, the less interest the listening public will have, and the listening public will look for something else that works for them. And podcasters can be there to scoop up those displaced listeners. The more radio continues on it’s path of self-destruction, the more podcasters can benefit. The listening audience isn’t any less hungry for quality audio content that speaks to them, it’s only more disappointed in what the radio companies are giving them. It’s why radio listenership is down, but NPR listenership is up.

And when the AM stations are practically being given away, podcasters could step in and take over the airwaves. Fresh content, produced by people who care, sent out to people who will be desperate for it. Sure, that part is a pipe dream. But could you imagine?

Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR (as they like to be called now, not National Public Radio), had this to say about radio stations at the D8: All Things Digital conference recently:

Radio towers are going away within 10 years, and Internet radio will take its place. This is a huge change and we should embrace it. Mobile will play a big part.

It keeps looking like radio wants to make that a self fulfilling prophecy.

You can see for yourself, and read the comments filed by Clear Channel (all 102 pages of them) here.