ONCE UPON A TIME there was a "new industry" called radio. At the time it started there were not many radio sets available because few Americans could afford these big tube-based wooden cabinets with speakers and wires. It took electric power, which would cost the average family quit a few pennies if it were used all day long and into the night. Times were tough back then, but the industry slowly grew, as the "listeners" grew along with the number of stations, advertisers, and performers who were scrambling to get their entertainment form of singing, playing music, performing plays and poetry, or simple spoken word "on the air" at one of the radio stations. Networks quickly sprang up and there were nationally broadcast shows. Sponsors were quick to sign up for these shows whether local or national just to get their products in front of the growing public. Although times were still lean and the technology was still relatively new, by the 1930s there were many radio stations --- and radio sets were everywhere. Some of the electronic component manufacturers began building radio sets that fit into a car console and allowed travelers to listen to radio stations far and wide as they drove across the countryside to see family or friends or just take a vacation --- another relatively new idea.
As the years went along, radio stations developed more, programs were more focused, FM was added, shortwave radio and amatuer radio gained some interest, television came on the scene and became an increasing competitor, and the overall industry --- once simply "radio broacasting" became known as "broadcasting", with radio and television being separate.
The American dream was more complex than ever, as was the industry of broadcasting by the time "rock and roll" radio personalities came along in the 1950s. Radio stations were bought/sold and traded by owners who were increasingly looking for a better deal for themselves. But most radio station managers remained forward-looking and hopeful that they could lead their station or stations (sometimes there was one AM and one FM owned in the same market by an owner) to be a competitive money-maker --- or, at least, survive financially.
With the 1980s and a down economic picture, some radio station owners complained that they were no longer able to be competitive against TV and cable broadcasting. Computers came along and by the mid-1980s had started to take a piece of the pie away from some who were interested in newer technologies. Radio was still a strong piece of the every day American pie. Listenership was not challenged all that much because there were "portable" radios with transistors, "personal" radios like the Walkman, and automobiles and vans and trucks all had AM/FM tuners --- even the Over-The-Road trucker and the local delivery vans had radios. But there were some radio station owners who thought that the best years still were ahead and made promises to keep enhancing what they had. So they lobbied for some deregulation with the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D. C., and asked that they be allowed to start buying up competitors. Somewhat surprisingly, after a few years of the debate, the FCC eventually allowed corporate owners --- ones with enough money to do so --- to own 2 FM and 2 AM stations within the same LARGE market, expanding the overall limits of ownership so that some of the "big" companies would grow. Among those early adopters of the 2 and 2 limits were CBS, Westinghouse, and ABC. They were big already, but under the new rules that kept increasing the "national limit" for stations owned, they were increasingly given the ability to purchase competitive stations in markets where they already were powerful.
By the time the 1990s were fully engaged, ENDING the national limits seemed to be the target of these and many other broadcasting companies. The national limits increased from 12 to 18 to 20 in a few years, under the guidance of the FCC and Congress with rules they continued to develop allowing more deregulation.
By 1996, the FCC and the U. S. Congress were giving the green light for companies who had reached the upper limits of the "national limit" to begin participating in further buyouts.
Radio, in part, was seeing some decline because of other new technologies. Cable broadcasting had increased its overall audience by expanding what was offered to subscribers: CNN, Weather Channel, HBO --- were all just a part of cable offerings as HGTV, USA, FoxNewsChannel, FoodNetwork, ESPN2, ESPN3, Fox Sports, and many others popped up and took another chunk of time away from regular broadcast TV and radio. And the computer age was in full force by the mid to late 1990s, with the internet, cellphones, and videogames all competing for everyone's time, money, and energy.
So --- radio ownership got what it wanted. Maybe I should say "shareholders" of radio companies got what they wanted. In the board room, owners were under increasing pressure to be one of the companies that would buy out the neighboring competition. CBS and Westinghouse "merged" into a bigger company. Clear Channel bought whomever was selling, including some companies who were reporting losses or were bigger than they were but had some financial problems because of the competitive nature of the entertainment and advertising dollar.
Smaller broadcasting operators found out that their stations were worth more on the market and put them up for sale --- not really caring that they were already making money against competitors who were cheapening what was being served to the public and losing money to the stations who had full on-air staffs and were seen in the public eye at "live remotes". So, by the time some of the "good" broadcasters started selling off their assets, the lesser broadcasters had already started adopting policies of "voice tracking" or "satellite service" --- both which only increased the erosion of listenership to that station or stations and only helped the bottom line of the owner. What did that mean? Job losses. There were people who were employed full-time at radio stations in small, medium, large, and major markets who lost jobs to new technology and newly adopted ways of making the bottom line "more competitive" with disregard to the listeners or the professionals who brought those listeners to the stations. These new technologies included the computer-assisted satellite, the computer itself playing the majority of music and commercials throughout the broadcast day, and stations which used computers as its SOLE way of broadcasting to the listeners. Job losses increased as the technology improved, but moreover the job losses increased as owners of stations decided that the bottom line of "savings" was far more important than having listeners 24 hours a day. Overnight listeners found out that there were no live bodies in many American radio stations --- if they bothered to ask at all. Employees of these stations who were eliminating positions scrambled to find jobs --- only to find that the owners of most radio stations were not going to be hiring. And what made it worse was the fact that the ownership "national limit" was dropped altogether. Full deregulation of the national limit meant that there were legal conglomerates who were and are allowed to broadcast using a public license as a tool to have only a few employees for an entire market. Where a group of stations --- let's just say "6" radio stations may once have housed 72 full-time employees doing on-air work, 11 would be sufficient for Clear Channel in 2010. This does NOT take into consideration the number of employees who worked part-time or off-air. That number would be reduced by a considerable amount in proportion to the overall count of stations in the market. Voicetracking was a substitute --- and if you don't know how to be voicetracked in two or more markets, you could not work for Clear Channel as a personality. Oh --- and if you wanted a salary that matched what someone made in 1995, you may as well forget it. Salary levels for those fulltime employees were more like that of 1990 --- and there's the no-compete clauses you are forced to sign, the right-to-work rules that were in place in numerous states which allowed the employer to terminate you "at will" for anything they wanted to do --- including cost-cutting. In this economic climate, others followed suit, causing permanent layoffs to literally tens of thousands of people who had been in an industry that EVERYONE USES. Even naysayers didn't think radio ownership would stoop to such a low-life level. But those naysayers thought deregulation of radio broadcasting would run its course much sooner.
Have you read enough of this to understand that Clear Channel is one of many conglomerates who operates their stations NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC --- BUT ONLY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SHAREHOLDERS??? This is contradictory to what the radio station was supposed to be --- and was --- from the 1920s to the 1990s.
Not only am I not the first person to point this out --- but there are so many columnists who have worked in broadcasting or as professors who have pointed these facts out as the facts they are that I could decide to do a web search and cull from their work. I have taken one piece of information which cites FCC rules and regulations --- a piece from the book "Radio --- the forgotten medium" published in 1995 --- and incorporated my own language and not quotations from the book. Yet, I give them a credit due because they cited certain rules that the FCC had enacted, and I knew those to be accurate as of the publishing of that book.
So, what does this mean in the scheme of things in 2011? It points out major flaws in corporate ownership --- conglomerate ownership --- as well as Congressional allowance of conglomerates; FCC commissioners not fully challenging the congressional laws and that lessened the commissioners' authority to continue enacting rules that kept ownership limits at a reasonable level; a judicial system that was given too much power to cause regulations to be dropped in the interest of ownership over the public interest; and a public which does not speak out against such injustices.
It's 2011 and the thing that must be done is TEARING DOWN THE IRON CURTAIN OF CONGLOMERATE OWNERSHIP in radio broadcasting.
++++++++++++++++++
I dare say the "iron curtain of conglomerate ownership" goes well beyond just broadcasting. Corporate America benefits too much from American workers who won't sit up and make sure the shareholders suffer the same kinds of losses that the workers have suffered.
When was the last time you heard about the "average Joe or Jane" getting the chance to be the star of the evening network newscast because he or she was put on the spot by their congressional representative or senator, and followed by the television cameras and radio station microphones as they told of how their industry was decimated by deregulation and greedy ownership? It doesn't happen often enough, does it?
++++++++++++++++++
Clear Channel shareholders are going to find out the hard way soon. CBS/VIACOM shareholders are going to find out the hard way soon. Cumulus and Citadel shareholders will find out the hard way soon.
Radio company stock shares for the "GREAT CONGLOMERATES" are about plummet.
The "great sell-off" of radio was thought to be in the 1990s. But the "greatest sell-off" of radio stations is about to commence in 2011. Radio stocks are going to fall below $0.01 in record numbers --- and huge conglomerates like Viacom are going to take a hit that makes their stocks worth about 65% of what they were just a couple of years ago. And they can't do a thing about it --- because they caused it, they earned it, and their going to learn that they screwed up the system by thinking they were immune.
Banks once thought they were immune to the great falls of the stock prices. That industry is plagued by a sell-off and a slower than expected economy --- it will take decades for some banks to recover from their own stupidity. And that's how business MUST BE in order to be fair and equitable --- some will just have to "hold" long enough to come back to where they were before they screwed up.
Radio is about to have this major sell-off because they did some of the same things that banks wanted them to do --- "buy, buy, buy" and drop the employment levels/jobs to an unsustainable rate. Stations cannot operate with no employees --- as much as Clear Channel and Cumulus want workers to believe they can --- because once they sell them off, others will have to employ people just to get listeners and advertisers back. This means --- the price of a radio station will come down even more than it has in the past five years --- conglomerate American radio station owners are about to take a DIVE into the red. Not a dive they haven't already had once or twice since they bought up others in the deregulatory period since 1996, but a dive that they would love to argue shouldn't happen --- BUT WILL happen in 2011.
++++++++++++++++
Clear Channel employees --- I'm not trying to scare you out of your jobs. You're lucky to have jobs when 60 to 70 percent of your former co-workers no longer have jobs, yes. But you're subject to finding out that the corporate conglomerate for whom you are working is even more destined to fail than their boards and upper managers want to believe. Clear Channel is about to falter. Cumulus is poised to fail along with Citadel. CBS/Westwood One/Viacom --- losses of gigantic proportion are heading to your corporate HQ in NYC, too. The shares of each of your stocks is about to plummet.
++++++++++++++++
What will happen in the coming months after many of the major broadcasting entities fail? Banks will be suffering even more. The stock market will adjust downward. And the economy will be poised for a return to glory.
HUH? The economy will rebound after all that?
Let me explain this line of thinking --- it is a theory that you can track back to the 1920s. As radio goes, so goes the economy.
Once broadcasting conglomerates have been decimated, the Congress and the FCC and the judges will see that "national limits" to radio station ownership were always there as a protection, not as a fight against the rich and wealthy. Soon after the fall, real broadcasters will once again be allowed to make the radio stations work in a positive manner. Jobs will return to radio, and listeners will hear the difference. The rest of the economy will follow, and the picture may not be a Currier & Ives plate, a Saturday Evening Post picture from Norman Rockwell, or even that of the "dot com boom" years --- but it will be more structured and level out.
In radio, where the no-compete clause has been in effect for a long time, there will be a new clause. And it will seem like Santa brought it to the world, soon.
Yes, Virginia, there is a rebound clause. The positive news is: it's about to be invoked.
03 January 2011
09 December 2010
What's In A Name
The tail end of 2010 looks much the same as the end of 2009 and 2008. In some cases it's no different, while for others it's much bleaker. If someone tells me they are in better financial shape it's only because of a couple of factors --- none of which is the economy --- including the way they have learned to save while still having their job. It would be short of a miracle for someone to have found a better-paying job and saved money but it would be notable because that person is well above the average for Americans in 2010.
Here's what I see:
Although it's not new, there is story after story about charitible organizations needing more funding and donations from the public because of an increased need from others. Yes --- in December 2010, the Salvation Army, American Red Cross, ecumenical and religious organizations across the spectrum are all asking for increased donations because in almost every case they detect a much greater demand for their services this year than in the past two years.
So --- this means what? The recession is not ending.
Despite a stock market which has had modest growth, the economy is still a mess. And no matter what the people in the Bush and Obama administrations want to say, no matter how the market gurus spin things, this is not just a recession.
This is a DEEP ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
What is bad about this is how obvious it is to the average person. Those who had terrific jobs just 5 to 10 years ago are finding that not only are "terrific" jobs difficult to find, "average" jobs are hard to locate. People who used to earn $50 to $60-thousand dollars are lucky to have those jobs, while many others who had similar earnings at their job are struggling to make half of that in the past year or two following layoffs.
The average person knows how bad their neighbor is struggling. Ebay selling is a way of life for some of these people. They used to have decent hourly wages in manufacturing. That's been several years for many of them --- when they were in their 20s and 30s. Now you'll see many men and women in their 40s and 50s struggling to find a job and becoming dependent on new service-oriented businesses. Manufacturing has all been a bunch of sellouts, largely to China and Mexico. India is feasting on American job outsourcing. In some cases there have been reports of Americans attempting to emigrate to India for jobs that used to be located in all 50 of the United States of America. This is not good for a time when the governmental and stock market/financial leaders are attempting to claim that things are improving.
What's in a name? Well, for the leaders ignoring the reality of how poor the economic condition has been in 2010, it's not much. They'll continue to call it a recession until the day the stock market bottoms out. THEN they'll be forced into saying the truth about the depression in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
What's in a name? GOOD NEWS. Sure, there will be good news. But first there will be pain on Wall Street, on the Nikkei, across the world's markets. MAJOR pain. It appears to be closer than ever --- perhaps in January or early February the market will take such a hit that even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will feel the short-term effects more than they dreamed --- I don't know this for sure, but call it a hunch that if the stock market takes the drastic fall that appears to be on the horizon that even the richest and wealthiest Americans will be selling things off.
What's in a name? CEO, CFO, COO, Chairman of the Board. These are the folks who have been waiting for the other shoe to drop, but believing that it would never fall. When the men with the golden parachutes are hit as hard as the aforementioned "average" person in the U.S. and beyond, we will all see them scrambling to tell us their version of the GOOD NEWS. Personally, I am not going to buy their words. Thus far, this year and last and the year before, their words are no more worth reading and digesting than in a forced letter of resignation to someone who used to be a lower-level manager in their corporate structure. Those letters of resignation were forced upon so many American white-collar workers over the past decade that the CEO, CFO, COO and Chairmen of the boards all should cower in the corner in shame for what they have done to the overall economy.
Blame goes to the highest of the high in business. What's in a name is this: the mighty shall fall and the meek shall inherit the earth. And although I paraphrase from different places in the Bible, certainly Holy scripture may help to save some of those big shots who pay attention to the sacred words of God. But some of those big shots think they're bigger than God and will find out at the end of this depression that what's in a name is dependent upon how one reacts to the times. IF you're a bigshot --- I hope you reacted with favor to the call of the many of the Lord's commandments as well as with favor to the lowest-paid employees in your company --- I hope you didn't force a layoff or resignation into their lives.
What's in a name. Someone higher than you can and will enforce some might into your life even if you're the Chairman of the board.
++++++++++
This is a depression. An economic depression which has caused --- depression in so many people.
My guess, not my prediction, is that things will be very bad in January and February 2011 for everyone. But shortly after the huge stock market crash, things will turn around into a much happier climate. This new climate isn't something I can put my finger on right now --- just a hunch. In addition to prayers you may say for those who are dealing with the worst of times right now, please remember to give to charity if you have the means to do so. If you have the money --- even a few dollars --- please donate to some charity and make things better for others. It is a critical time in our nation's history for the charity organizations to be able to serve food, clothing, and shelter to hundreds of thousands more people who are struggling in 2010 compared to how it was in 2007.
And I once thought 2007 was bad. What's in a name. There's one name I would like to avoid being labeled: ignorant.
Here's what I see:
Although it's not new, there is story after story about charitible organizations needing more funding and donations from the public because of an increased need from others. Yes --- in December 2010, the Salvation Army, American Red Cross, ecumenical and religious organizations across the spectrum are all asking for increased donations because in almost every case they detect a much greater demand for their services this year than in the past two years.
So --- this means what? The recession is not ending.
Despite a stock market which has had modest growth, the economy is still a mess. And no matter what the people in the Bush and Obama administrations want to say, no matter how the market gurus spin things, this is not just a recession.
This is a DEEP ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
What is bad about this is how obvious it is to the average person. Those who had terrific jobs just 5 to 10 years ago are finding that not only are "terrific" jobs difficult to find, "average" jobs are hard to locate. People who used to earn $50 to $60-thousand dollars are lucky to have those jobs, while many others who had similar earnings at their job are struggling to make half of that in the past year or two following layoffs.
The average person knows how bad their neighbor is struggling. Ebay selling is a way of life for some of these people. They used to have decent hourly wages in manufacturing. That's been several years for many of them --- when they were in their 20s and 30s. Now you'll see many men and women in their 40s and 50s struggling to find a job and becoming dependent on new service-oriented businesses. Manufacturing has all been a bunch of sellouts, largely to China and Mexico. India is feasting on American job outsourcing. In some cases there have been reports of Americans attempting to emigrate to India for jobs that used to be located in all 50 of the United States of America. This is not good for a time when the governmental and stock market/financial leaders are attempting to claim that things are improving.
What's in a name? Well, for the leaders ignoring the reality of how poor the economic condition has been in 2010, it's not much. They'll continue to call it a recession until the day the stock market bottoms out. THEN they'll be forced into saying the truth about the depression in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
What's in a name? GOOD NEWS. Sure, there will be good news. But first there will be pain on Wall Street, on the Nikkei, across the world's markets. MAJOR pain. It appears to be closer than ever --- perhaps in January or early February the market will take such a hit that even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will feel the short-term effects more than they dreamed --- I don't know this for sure, but call it a hunch that if the stock market takes the drastic fall that appears to be on the horizon that even the richest and wealthiest Americans will be selling things off.
What's in a name? CEO, CFO, COO, Chairman of the Board. These are the folks who have been waiting for the other shoe to drop, but believing that it would never fall. When the men with the golden parachutes are hit as hard as the aforementioned "average" person in the U.S. and beyond, we will all see them scrambling to tell us their version of the GOOD NEWS. Personally, I am not going to buy their words. Thus far, this year and last and the year before, their words are no more worth reading and digesting than in a forced letter of resignation to someone who used to be a lower-level manager in their corporate structure. Those letters of resignation were forced upon so many American white-collar workers over the past decade that the CEO, CFO, COO and Chairmen of the boards all should cower in the corner in shame for what they have done to the overall economy.
Blame goes to the highest of the high in business. What's in a name is this: the mighty shall fall and the meek shall inherit the earth. And although I paraphrase from different places in the Bible, certainly Holy scripture may help to save some of those big shots who pay attention to the sacred words of God. But some of those big shots think they're bigger than God and will find out at the end of this depression that what's in a name is dependent upon how one reacts to the times. IF you're a bigshot --- I hope you reacted with favor to the call of the many of the Lord's commandments as well as with favor to the lowest-paid employees in your company --- I hope you didn't force a layoff or resignation into their lives.
What's in a name. Someone higher than you can and will enforce some might into your life even if you're the Chairman of the board.
++++++++++
This is a depression. An economic depression which has caused --- depression in so many people.
My guess, not my prediction, is that things will be very bad in January and February 2011 for everyone. But shortly after the huge stock market crash, things will turn around into a much happier climate. This new climate isn't something I can put my finger on right now --- just a hunch. In addition to prayers you may say for those who are dealing with the worst of times right now, please remember to give to charity if you have the means to do so. If you have the money --- even a few dollars --- please donate to some charity and make things better for others. It is a critical time in our nation's history for the charity organizations to be able to serve food, clothing, and shelter to hundreds of thousands more people who are struggling in 2010 compared to how it was in 2007.
And I once thought 2007 was bad. What's in a name. There's one name I would like to avoid being labeled: ignorant.
21 September 2010
It's the Stupid Economy: Job Discrimination Rules
You've heard the jokes over and over regarding an old political comment which went, very simply, "It's the economy, stupid." And it has been quite obvious that the economic condition has been poor for the past four years. Despite what you may read on today's USA TODAY about the recession having been over in June of 2009, there's not reason to believe that for most Americans. Come on and be honest about it, don't be stupid about it - the economic condition has not become dramatically better, no matter how many figures get thrown at the news media. Hey, I'm a member of the news media and I really don't think I can believe that the positive numbers are outweighing the negative numbers because I still have been getting the same feedback that I've seen for the past four years: jobs which can improve your life's standing are not there for the majority of Americans.
There is evidence on Yahoo! today - a story from the New York Times. Here's a link to this story here. It discusses something which I have posted about in the past: that Americans over 35 are increasingly not allowed to compete for the jobs allegedly available. Job discrimination is not only happening, but it is happening for an extended period of time.
Not telling the truth is simply the way "around" violations of trust, violations of rules and ethics, violations of understanding. What do you think of these violations? Apparently you either completely agree or you find fault with my findings because you're the boss who lies or the Human Resources person who MUST lie in order to keep your own job these days.
What happened to "The Golden Rule" when it comes to business and honesty?
Is it now a "new business-only Golden Rule" which completely dominates the world of business and economics?
Do unto others as you are going to be done unto by others when you are doing your job in business.
Read that again. Does this sound like the way corporations do business on a regular business? IF it is NOT, then I encourage you to tell me which corporation does not or companies do not follow this new "recipe" for business dealings. Overall for this particular writing, the way business is conducted with other business isn't necessarily the target of my critical thinking, but more the way these companies handle one-on-one dealings with potential employees. This is not to say that B2B is staying out of these bad situations. We occasionally read the stories about certain businesses becoming the targets of investigations or allegations of potential wrongdoing within a business transaction. These include some notorious gaffes such as that of Arthur Anderson's mismanagement, numerous banks which took it on the chin for making two-sided deals in which they caused their own downfall, and manufacturing companies which sold-out their businesses to others who were larger only to find themselves the target of an investigation into the "new owners" when they were only a subsidiary of that group for months. It can cut both ways in B2B - good or bad. But in one-on-one employment situations, where is the "control" that is supposed to be exercised by the "good" companies in good faith with potential hired hands?
Reviewing the New York Times article which appeared on Yahoo!, it shows a woman who has a good work history but cannot find a job with similar earnings largely because she is older than Generation X. Frankly, if I am reading this right (and I am no legal expert), this particular case could be one in which the woman could potentially file as part of a class-action suit against someone to which she applied for work IF there were dozens or hundreds of others in her age range who applied for open positions and did not get them because of their age and income history. IF those jobs went to someone who is just out of college or university and holds a similar degree but is 30 years her junior there is age discrimination. Unfortunately, she's not necessarily going to be looking for an attorney to file such a suit because she does not want to be labeled a troublemaker. And --- here's the interesting part to esquires around the country --- I am not a proponent of filing lawsuits as a general rule. I believe in forgiveness. Moreover, most of us believe in not attempting to make another wrong. The vernacular has been "two wrongs don't make a right" for good reason. We don't necessarily gain anything out of bringing down another. BUT, if it's obvious that such a thing will be best-served for the overall good of the public which is being unwillingly the target of unethical business practices, then I think filing suits is clearly the way to refocus the target to the party which is being unethical time and again.
This economy sucks. And if you missed this key piece to that article, I'd like to point it out now:
Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older. Nearly half of them have been unemployed six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. The unemployment rate in the group — 7.3 percent — is at a record, more than double what it was at the beginning of the latest recession.
This doesn't sound good in its tenor and tone. This not only signals what I was saying months ago about job discrimination against Generation X, but it comes to show one thing that I did not want to believe was happening then:
Age discrimination has extended its ugly range WELL PAST Gen-X to those who rightfully can file suits against those who have been practicing such discrimination. It's criminal, folks, not petty or nitpicky.
If the rules against age discrimination aren't being utilized against the companies and corporations that have been so doing for the 50 or older crowd --- what do you think that means for those between 35 and 50?
There is evidence on Yahoo! today - a story from the New York Times. Here's a link to this story here. It discusses something which I have posted about in the past: that Americans over 35 are increasingly not allowed to compete for the jobs allegedly available. Job discrimination is not only happening, but it is happening for an extended period of time.
Not telling the truth is simply the way "around" violations of trust, violations of rules and ethics, violations of understanding. What do you think of these violations? Apparently you either completely agree or you find fault with my findings because you're the boss who lies or the Human Resources person who MUST lie in order to keep your own job these days.
What happened to "The Golden Rule" when it comes to business and honesty?
Is it now a "new business-only Golden Rule" which completely dominates the world of business and economics?
Do unto others as you are going to be done unto by others when you are doing your job in business.
Read that again. Does this sound like the way corporations do business on a regular business? IF it is NOT, then I encourage you to tell me which corporation does not or companies do not follow this new "recipe" for business dealings. Overall for this particular writing, the way business is conducted with other business isn't necessarily the target of my critical thinking, but more the way these companies handle one-on-one dealings with potential employees. This is not to say that B2B is staying out of these bad situations. We occasionally read the stories about certain businesses becoming the targets of investigations or allegations of potential wrongdoing within a business transaction. These include some notorious gaffes such as that of Arthur Anderson's mismanagement, numerous banks which took it on the chin for making two-sided deals in which they caused their own downfall, and manufacturing companies which sold-out their businesses to others who were larger only to find themselves the target of an investigation into the "new owners" when they were only a subsidiary of that group for months. It can cut both ways in B2B - good or bad. But in one-on-one employment situations, where is the "control" that is supposed to be exercised by the "good" companies in good faith with potential hired hands?
Reviewing the New York Times article which appeared on Yahoo!, it shows a woman who has a good work history but cannot find a job with similar earnings largely because she is older than Generation X. Frankly, if I am reading this right (and I am no legal expert), this particular case could be one in which the woman could potentially file as part of a class-action suit against someone to which she applied for work IF there were dozens or hundreds of others in her age range who applied for open positions and did not get them because of their age and income history. IF those jobs went to someone who is just out of college or university and holds a similar degree but is 30 years her junior there is age discrimination. Unfortunately, she's not necessarily going to be looking for an attorney to file such a suit because she does not want to be labeled a troublemaker. And --- here's the interesting part to esquires around the country --- I am not a proponent of filing lawsuits as a general rule. I believe in forgiveness. Moreover, most of us believe in not attempting to make another wrong. The vernacular has been "two wrongs don't make a right" for good reason. We don't necessarily gain anything out of bringing down another. BUT, if it's obvious that such a thing will be best-served for the overall good of the public which is being unwillingly the target of unethical business practices, then I think filing suits is clearly the way to refocus the target to the party which is being unethical time and again.
This economy sucks. And if you missed this key piece to that article, I'd like to point it out now:
Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older. Nearly half of them have been unemployed six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. The unemployment rate in the group — 7.3 percent — is at a record, more than double what it was at the beginning of the latest recession.
This doesn't sound good in its tenor and tone. This not only signals what I was saying months ago about job discrimination against Generation X, but it comes to show one thing that I did not want to believe was happening then:
Age discrimination has extended its ugly range WELL PAST Gen-X to those who rightfully can file suits against those who have been practicing such discrimination. It's criminal, folks, not petty or nitpicky.
If the rules against age discrimination aren't being utilized against the companies and corporations that have been so doing for the 50 or older crowd --- what do you think that means for those between 35 and 50?
31 August 2010
Banking On Failure
The upcoming period of time is for those "opportunists" who will play upon the fears of so many. These predators bank on these fears - literally. They are bankers.
What they don't see is that in 2010 and 2011, they are not going to be able to sustain what has traditionally been "the ways of the banking industry" because they will be most in jeopardy of failure to recover from the big stock market crash that they do not see taking shape. Nikkei has been feeling the itch to trade lower, and now the other markets are starting to respond accordingly. And the banks --- well, they think everything is just groovy, man. They won't be able to react once the fall starts, which will be prior to autumn for point of reference.
What can the average American do to avoid the failures that are coming? I'll be frank: I don't really know an answer to completely avoiding the financial problems that the corporate world is going to suffer and what their roles will be on individuals wealth or lackthereof, but there are some things that we hear many times over that is common sense and should be considered.
First: make sure you don't have all your assets in the stock markets. That could cause your own failure.
Second: don't put all your money into one bank. Diversify WHERE you have your money saved or in checking accounts.
Credit unions are looking better and better all the time to me, and I need to take my own advice in making sure I place money in several accounts. It may be that credit unions are (more-or-less) regulated to stay smaller than conglomerate banks. That way they're less likely to have a big failure the way we saw just a couple of years ago with mid-sized and larger banks or 25 years ago with the Savings and Loan problems. Oddly, I think most people don't view credit unions as being safer than traditional banks if for no other reason than the banks all know how to play the fear game on the public and added an element of advertising to make banks SEEM LIKE (through the repeated advertising or editorials which make claims they cannot truly back up) "the safest place for your money" --- which we will soon see is not always the case.
But, what else? I've said it before --- not all of those people who were alive during the "Great Depression" were wrong in putting money away in cookie jars, bread boxes and in their mattresses. But I suppose for the sake of keeping the paper money protected, perhaps investing some money in a fireproof safe would be smart. Just make sure you know the combination.
Not that it's certain --- but I think we can bank on some bigger financial institutions begging both the U. S. Government and the Federal Reserve for some help in the next few weeks. But it's all but certain we can bank on those institutions which were deemed "too big to fail" having bigger problems than they did mere months ago. A few failures for those giants can trigger an avalanche of problems for some --- but NOT ALL --- Americans, as long as some of us prepare properly for the demise of the rich and wealthy folks who don't plan ahead for some of the biggest failures in the past 75 years.
What they don't see is that in 2010 and 2011, they are not going to be able to sustain what has traditionally been "the ways of the banking industry" because they will be most in jeopardy of failure to recover from the big stock market crash that they do not see taking shape. Nikkei has been feeling the itch to trade lower, and now the other markets are starting to respond accordingly. And the banks --- well, they think everything is just groovy, man. They won't be able to react once the fall starts, which will be prior to autumn for point of reference.
What can the average American do to avoid the failures that are coming? I'll be frank: I don't really know an answer to completely avoiding the financial problems that the corporate world is going to suffer and what their roles will be on individuals wealth or lackthereof, but there are some things that we hear many times over that is common sense and should be considered.
First: make sure you don't have all your assets in the stock markets. That could cause your own failure.
Second: don't put all your money into one bank. Diversify WHERE you have your money saved or in checking accounts.
Credit unions are looking better and better all the time to me, and I need to take my own advice in making sure I place money in several accounts. It may be that credit unions are (more-or-less) regulated to stay smaller than conglomerate banks. That way they're less likely to have a big failure the way we saw just a couple of years ago with mid-sized and larger banks or 25 years ago with the Savings and Loan problems. Oddly, I think most people don't view credit unions as being safer than traditional banks if for no other reason than the banks all know how to play the fear game on the public and added an element of advertising to make banks SEEM LIKE (through the repeated advertising or editorials which make claims they cannot truly back up) "the safest place for your money" --- which we will soon see is not always the case.
But, what else? I've said it before --- not all of those people who were alive during the "Great Depression" were wrong in putting money away in cookie jars, bread boxes and in their mattresses. But I suppose for the sake of keeping the paper money protected, perhaps investing some money in a fireproof safe would be smart. Just make sure you know the combination.
Not that it's certain --- but I think we can bank on some bigger financial institutions begging both the U. S. Government and the Federal Reserve for some help in the next few weeks. But it's all but certain we can bank on those institutions which were deemed "too big to fail" having bigger problems than they did mere months ago. A few failures for those giants can trigger an avalanche of problems for some --- but NOT ALL --- Americans, as long as some of us prepare properly for the demise of the rich and wealthy folks who don't plan ahead for some of the biggest failures in the past 75 years.
01 August 2010
Big Bad Americans
So, I am a reporter.
I am always listening and asking questions to the everyday person, as well as hearing the "spin" of American businesspersons. Nowhere on the face of the earth has the 21st Century been more pushed by the decline in "industrial manufacturing" and the disarray of how things work for the greater good than in the heartland of America, the Mississippi River Valley.
Illinois coal mines are among the safest in the nation - or so we have been told for a number of years. But one reason that may be so is that those whom we look to "look out for us" - the environmentalists and even our U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - is always telling us how bad the environment because of the mining of the "dirty" coal produced in Illinois. Thus, American and foreign manufacturers have either stopped buying Illinois coal altogether or have only bought it when it cannot get the "clean coal" mined in other places.
This leads me to a stop and rant point. No, not against the environmentalists. Against the CEOs of American manufacturing, as well as the presidents of the largest manufacturing unions.
These days it seems we do not need American manufacturing companies to be American-owned or American-operated. We especially do not need manufacturing factories on American soil. Seriously: do you see factories on American soil actually producing goods which are bought and sold in the USA? Yes, but rarely. I dare say that Congress screwed us royally. Our presidents have screwed us royally. We may as well be in 1772 America. Our money only goes out of the country to the manufacturing factories (no, it's not truly redundant to say manufacturing factories because some factories in the US don't manufacture a thing, just are used as warehouses with the name factory labeled upon it so the parent company can claim they still have manufacturing - albeit in a diminished capacity and computerized so only a handful of workers actually work there - in that facility) and only comes back to the top executives of the company and the shareholders, but not to the American economy because they have been granted tax shelters for the existing "factories" which don't do anything but sit idle and have occasional shipments of the goods manufactured in Mexico, China, Bangladesh, Honduras, and sometimes African countries, shipped out to our stores.
We are truly the home of the Big Bad Americans. The regular person on the street isn't the Big Bad in the scheme of world society, but it is true that we have these people in America. They are our CEOs, Congressional representatives and senators, our cabinet members, and our past and present members of the capitol all the way up to the White House.
I am not talking treasonous things --- I am being very succinct in saying that they are all playing a MAJOR ROLE in why the economic condition is the way it is today. They won't take the blame or push toward the goals which REALLY MADE AMERICA GREAT. We had the hostile takeover syndrome, the monopolies which became goliaths of the business world, and we've seen the debacles of industry --- of manufacturing --- all within the past 35 years. This is DIRECTLY as a result of legislation allowing our borders to be 'free' of trade practices which helped our economy. Now, we are "free" of those practices alright. Other countries' business negotiators and those in the board rooms of our American companies are in true cahoots to put our jobs inside the borders of our neighboring countries and our global rivals --- so that other countries have the jobs, do the work, and the American Big Bads have the money. Yes, the golden parachutes aren't there for the CEO of some Chinese manufacturer until he is motivated by the money coming from American industry and can somehow make a contract which will allow him or her to become the manager of some plant in China and have a giant pot of gold being deposited into a bank outside of China so that after 10 to 15 years he/she can leave and be politically asylumed where they can pick up their parachutes.
C'mon. Don't be naive. You cannot tell me this isn't happening. I know there are people who cannot tell you it's happening without them losing their careers in the U.S. of A. They are the third-tier and fourth-tier managers in companies that have done business in China and Mexico over the past 25 years.
I will say that if you have paid ANY attention to the news the past six months in St. Louis, you've already seen the CEO of one of these companies blatently tell us that he is not hiring in the U.S. because he can save tons of money by hiring in China and Mexico.
A gold star for the first person to email me with his name and his company located within the I-270 loop. He exists. Email me to buzzmusicmedia@gmail.com and you may be the person I cite as "someone who pays attention to detail" in an upcoming blog --- I'll give you the "in writing" gold star that our teachers used to give us because we spelled all of our vocabulary words correctly in 2nd grade.
Anyway --- although that CEO is only doing what the board of directors and shareholders wants him to do, it's a travesty that he is the person making those decisions and selling-out America EVERY DAY. I could ask for a job there --- and I'd perhaps be the best PR person he's had in ages, probably, because he and his predecessor always hire people who never return phone calls to anyone for any reason (why should I cite a single instance when I know it was returned over a 20 year period when I can only name a person at the St. Louis Business Journal who may have occasionally heard from the PR person during that time) --- and I'd probably get "no thanks, we don't hire in America" from his Human Resources Department.
But to the point of Big Bad Americans. If you're in another country - China, Mexico, Honduras, etc., and you're sure of a deal you are about to make with an American company which will bring jobs to your region, be it a city or town, you're not calling the person who is negotiating with you a "big, bad American" because you are about to have jobs for others. But I can say that if they don't have a "union" in place there --- they will see $2.18/per hour jobs and not truly benefit. And after ten years of sub-standard wages, pollution of their atmosphere, and possibly even "wage concessions" --- they'll be looking at the "Big Bad American" way of doing business as the manufacturer pulls out of that city/town/region and puts jobs in another country, leaving their economy as devastated or worse than our economy here in the midwest.
This isn't some doomsayers prediction.
Quoting Mr. T, "this is reality, fools!"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't belong to a political party. To do so would allow me to be self-labeled a fool.
I am always listening and asking questions to the everyday person, as well as hearing the "spin" of American businesspersons. Nowhere on the face of the earth has the 21st Century been more pushed by the decline in "industrial manufacturing" and the disarray of how things work for the greater good than in the heartland of America, the Mississippi River Valley.
Illinois coal mines are among the safest in the nation - or so we have been told for a number of years. But one reason that may be so is that those whom we look to "look out for us" - the environmentalists and even our U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - is always telling us how bad the environment because of the mining of the "dirty" coal produced in Illinois. Thus, American and foreign manufacturers have either stopped buying Illinois coal altogether or have only bought it when it cannot get the "clean coal" mined in other places.
This leads me to a stop and rant point. No, not against the environmentalists. Against the CEOs of American manufacturing, as well as the presidents of the largest manufacturing unions.
These days it seems we do not need American manufacturing companies to be American-owned or American-operated. We especially do not need manufacturing factories on American soil. Seriously: do you see factories on American soil actually producing goods which are bought and sold in the USA? Yes, but rarely. I dare say that Congress screwed us royally. Our presidents have screwed us royally. We may as well be in 1772 America. Our money only goes out of the country to the manufacturing factories (no, it's not truly redundant to say manufacturing factories because some factories in the US don't manufacture a thing, just are used as warehouses with the name factory labeled upon it so the parent company can claim they still have manufacturing - albeit in a diminished capacity and computerized so only a handful of workers actually work there - in that facility) and only comes back to the top executives of the company and the shareholders, but not to the American economy because they have been granted tax shelters for the existing "factories" which don't do anything but sit idle and have occasional shipments of the goods manufactured in Mexico, China, Bangladesh, Honduras, and sometimes African countries, shipped out to our stores.
We are truly the home of the Big Bad Americans. The regular person on the street isn't the Big Bad in the scheme of world society, but it is true that we have these people in America. They are our CEOs, Congressional representatives and senators, our cabinet members, and our past and present members of the capitol all the way up to the White House.
I am not talking treasonous things --- I am being very succinct in saying that they are all playing a MAJOR ROLE in why the economic condition is the way it is today. They won't take the blame or push toward the goals which REALLY MADE AMERICA GREAT. We had the hostile takeover syndrome, the monopolies which became goliaths of the business world, and we've seen the debacles of industry --- of manufacturing --- all within the past 35 years. This is DIRECTLY as a result of legislation allowing our borders to be 'free' of trade practices which helped our economy. Now, we are "free" of those practices alright. Other countries' business negotiators and those in the board rooms of our American companies are in true cahoots to put our jobs inside the borders of our neighboring countries and our global rivals --- so that other countries have the jobs, do the work, and the American Big Bads have the money. Yes, the golden parachutes aren't there for the CEO of some Chinese manufacturer until he is motivated by the money coming from American industry and can somehow make a contract which will allow him or her to become the manager of some plant in China and have a giant pot of gold being deposited into a bank outside of China so that after 10 to 15 years he/she can leave and be politically asylumed where they can pick up their parachutes.
C'mon. Don't be naive. You cannot tell me this isn't happening. I know there are people who cannot tell you it's happening without them losing their careers in the U.S. of A. They are the third-tier and fourth-tier managers in companies that have done business in China and Mexico over the past 25 years.
I will say that if you have paid ANY attention to the news the past six months in St. Louis, you've already seen the CEO of one of these companies blatently tell us that he is not hiring in the U.S. because he can save tons of money by hiring in China and Mexico.
A gold star for the first person to email me with his name and his company located within the I-270 loop. He exists. Email me to buzzmusicmedia@gmail.com and you may be the person I cite as "someone who pays attention to detail" in an upcoming blog --- I'll give you the "in writing" gold star that our teachers used to give us because we spelled all of our vocabulary words correctly in 2nd grade.
Anyway --- although that CEO is only doing what the board of directors and shareholders wants him to do, it's a travesty that he is the person making those decisions and selling-out America EVERY DAY. I could ask for a job there --- and I'd perhaps be the best PR person he's had in ages, probably, because he and his predecessor always hire people who never return phone calls to anyone for any reason (why should I cite a single instance when I know it was returned over a 20 year period when I can only name a person at the St. Louis Business Journal who may have occasionally heard from the PR person during that time) --- and I'd probably get "no thanks, we don't hire in America" from his Human Resources Department.
But to the point of Big Bad Americans. If you're in another country - China, Mexico, Honduras, etc., and you're sure of a deal you are about to make with an American company which will bring jobs to your region, be it a city or town, you're not calling the person who is negotiating with you a "big, bad American" because you are about to have jobs for others. But I can say that if they don't have a "union" in place there --- they will see $2.18/per hour jobs and not truly benefit. And after ten years of sub-standard wages, pollution of their atmosphere, and possibly even "wage concessions" --- they'll be looking at the "Big Bad American" way of doing business as the manufacturer pulls out of that city/town/region and puts jobs in another country, leaving their economy as devastated or worse than our economy here in the midwest.
This isn't some doomsayers prediction.
Quoting Mr. T, "this is reality, fools!"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't belong to a political party. To do so would allow me to be self-labeled a fool.
04 May 2010
Legal Age Discrimination
A few months ago I wrote about this topic - more or less - when I wrote about Generation X being irrelevant. It seems that not much has changed, except maybe it has become increasingly clear to some in my age range that being "not old enough to qualify for age discrimination" seems not so strange. And here's how it is perceived by those who are at the tail end of the Baby Boomer generation: people who haven't experienced life like the Vietnam War do not truly understand discrimination; people who didn't grow up with civil rights protests do not truly understand discrimination.
That is just Baby Boomers whining, in my view. It deems the person or persons saying those things as being "the old fogie" --- which is ironic, considering that they were protesting things that "old fogies" were doing prior to the 1960s and 1970s.
I'm not trying to be discriminatory to someone older than I, because I am socially aware of the importance of multiple-generational society. No, in fact, I am pointing out that sometimes it is the older person who is directly discriminating against a younger person simply over an age issue. It's not CALLED an age issue, per se, by the older person --- but it is what it is, something with which they have decided to pick on as "not right". Oddly --- that's what this is about, picking on something I have decided is "not right" --- so, how do I come to justify what I say?
Here's the food for thought, starting with the previous blog about "irrevelant" Gen-X'ers. Even though it may appear the economy is starting to trend toward a rebound from the depression (or for those of you who still wish to say it was only a recession...the recession), we have seen downsizing and outsourcing continue at a steady pace. Unemployment numbers have remained fairly high in Generation X people for much of this time BUT those have dropped a bit due in part to something that gets largely ignored. We run out of unemployment "benefits" and become a statistic which does not exist to the "real world" --- the underpaid. Sure, there have been some statistics about the underemployed --- I am one of these --- but it is the underpaid person who has years, if not decades, of experience in one field and has been forced to take a position with a lesser pay grade or work multiple jobs as a part-time employee in an attempt to make the money she or he was previously making in the "better economic conditions" of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.
The underpaid: it sounds like a whining complaint until you ask around if it's common. Unfortunately it is common. 40-somethings are probably first (I can't cite stats, just have a hunch at this point), followed by 50-somethings and then 30-somethings. See, the reason the 60-somethings don't end up in this category much or most of the time is that they CAN file a lawsuit on age discrimination and have it heard in court easier than someone who is 42. Even those who are in their late-40s have a better chance of getting an attorney to represent them in an age-based lawsuit than someone in their early 40s. If this holds to be true --- and I suspect that plenty of people who are even at the tail of the Boomer generation would find this happens to them --- then this "underpaid" category is not simply an opinion with some people, but an undiagnosed problem within the U.S. economy.
But this leads back to the age discrimination situation for Generation-X. We may be able to find an attorney who wants to represent us in such a trial, but that attorney had better find some evidence of the discriminatory practices. I assure you that it's not an easily tracked situation at this point in time --- probably because the companies who are practicing this don't want such statistics entered at all into their databases IF they have a database with age-related information about their hiring/firing practices under the age of 50. Gen-X'ers, ages 45 and down to Gen-Y, would love it IF those statistics were made available because we could prove what appears to be a factor already: Gen-X suffers from age-related, but LEGAL, discrimination. And that's just a shame.
That is just Baby Boomers whining, in my view. It deems the person or persons saying those things as being "the old fogie" --- which is ironic, considering that they were protesting things that "old fogies" were doing prior to the 1960s and 1970s.
I'm not trying to be discriminatory to someone older than I, because I am socially aware of the importance of multiple-generational society. No, in fact, I am pointing out that sometimes it is the older person who is directly discriminating against a younger person simply over an age issue. It's not CALLED an age issue, per se, by the older person --- but it is what it is, something with which they have decided to pick on as "not right". Oddly --- that's what this is about, picking on something I have decided is "not right" --- so, how do I come to justify what I say?
Here's the food for thought, starting with the previous blog about "irrevelant" Gen-X'ers. Even though it may appear the economy is starting to trend toward a rebound from the depression (or for those of you who still wish to say it was only a recession...the recession), we have seen downsizing and outsourcing continue at a steady pace. Unemployment numbers have remained fairly high in Generation X people for much of this time BUT those have dropped a bit due in part to something that gets largely ignored. We run out of unemployment "benefits" and become a statistic which does not exist to the "real world" --- the underpaid. Sure, there have been some statistics about the underemployed --- I am one of these --- but it is the underpaid person who has years, if not decades, of experience in one field and has been forced to take a position with a lesser pay grade or work multiple jobs as a part-time employee in an attempt to make the money she or he was previously making in the "better economic conditions" of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.
The underpaid: it sounds like a whining complaint until you ask around if it's common. Unfortunately it is common. 40-somethings are probably first (I can't cite stats, just have a hunch at this point), followed by 50-somethings and then 30-somethings. See, the reason the 60-somethings don't end up in this category much or most of the time is that they CAN file a lawsuit on age discrimination and have it heard in court easier than someone who is 42. Even those who are in their late-40s have a better chance of getting an attorney to represent them in an age-based lawsuit than someone in their early 40s. If this holds to be true --- and I suspect that plenty of people who are even at the tail of the Boomer generation would find this happens to them --- then this "underpaid" category is not simply an opinion with some people, but an undiagnosed problem within the U.S. economy.
But this leads back to the age discrimination situation for Generation-X. We may be able to find an attorney who wants to represent us in such a trial, but that attorney had better find some evidence of the discriminatory practices. I assure you that it's not an easily tracked situation at this point in time --- probably because the companies who are practicing this don't want such statistics entered at all into their databases IF they have a database with age-related information about their hiring/firing practices under the age of 50. Gen-X'ers, ages 45 and down to Gen-Y, would love it IF those statistics were made available because we could prove what appears to be a factor already: Gen-X suffers from age-related, but LEGAL, discrimination. And that's just a shame.
14 January 2010
Radio: The Community Asset
For nearly 26 years, a big part of my own little world has been called radio, or broadcasting, or radio broadcasting. It's what I do for a living, in a sense, because it's what has been the source of my income the majority of the time. I am a broadcaster, dependent upon the great "community asset" that is among all of us who have grown up with AM or FM radio. It's a community asset because the public airwaves are just that --- for the public to consume. And, if I have been taught correctly by the many teachers I have had, these airwaves are more-or-less "our" airwaves. We in the United States have the Federal Communications Commission allegedly looking out for our best interests, and, while the frequencies are owned by individuals and companies and corporate entities, the airwaves belong to we the people. Those statements can be debated, but it is how the airwaves are kept "in check" for the citizens --- the FCC keeps watch over our airwaves as best it can.
As I tossed and turned in bed early this morning, my mind kept coming back to this phrase "Radio: The Community Asset" and made me realize that today I had to start off my day writing this column.
The Community Asset. What does it do for us? A radio station can keep us informed about local news, weather and topics of interest. Radio can play our favorite songs by our favorite artists, from classical music to rock 'n' roll, jazz, R & B, blues, bluegrass, opera, country, folk, alternative/post-modern, hip-hop, rap, smooth jazz/new age...it's an endless plethora of things, right? But what does it do for me lately?
Ahhh. What does the community asset mean to us? For many, it's a link between our banal existence and the excitement of others' who have lives. Ouch...that hurt to write...partially because it's a phrase which I have heard people use because they think they're boring individuals. Whereas we can assure the person who said that they are far from boring, it is true that radio makes life exciting and interesting to many. That's why radio listeners are sometimes called fanatics or fans --- because they are genuinely participating in the shows they enjoy --- the stations to which they are listening for hours without end --- to the point of wearing the t-shirts and polo shirts they have either won through a contest or purchased from our "radio store" in person or online, placing bumper stickers on their vehicles and notebooks, even showing up by the thousands to win a talent contest. Yes --- the community asset means much more than a bunch of commercials on one station and off to another station where the brand new college DJ is rambling so fast and without enunciation that you're thinking he or she has a five-month college-only career. Yes, radio is the community asset which requires not much from the average person/listener other than --- to own a radio and to listen. But, again --- what does it mean to us?
A radio station --- let me bring up a prime example of one in St. Louis in Classic 99 --- can be the fabric which knits a large segment of the population together. This will to point to specifics and generalities both here, so bear with me. In the case of Classic 99 (or KFUO-FM for now*), the station has been on the air for 61 years, much of that time playing classical and liturgical music as part of the KFUO radio stations in Clayton. Since it has been playing this music for such a long period of time, it's nearly impossible for the community in whole to think of St. Louis without such a station. But it could happen soon. The owners of the radio station, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, have placed the station on the sales block. The prospective new owners will immediately change the format from Classical music to Contemporary Christian Music, thus ending an era of 61 or 62 (depending upon the date the change may take place) years of a piece of the community. That's a hefty statement --- but it is a TRUE statement. Classic 99 has been a mainstay for musicians from all backgrounds, who perform dozens of styles of music, NOT JUST CLASSICAL music. Dare I say it, but without this important piece of the St. Louis community, we are just another large city without a cultural icon to which we can ALL relate and enjoy.
Sure --- I don't listen to it all of the time. I am not a fan of every style of music played on Classic 99. But I know it's always been there in my lifetime, and I have appreciated what it has given my community --- enjoyment, relaxation, excitement, personality. It's been a background station for some --- it seems that one cannot go into a dress shop or tailored men's clothier around St. Louis and not hear Classic 99 on the speaker --- and it's a constant companion to others who listen at home on their clock radios and stereos, or while driving in traffic and wanting to unwind with something more melodic and soothing than Phil Collins, Nelly, U2 or Taylor Swift.
(Hey, I'm not picking on these artists --- I listen to them, too...as the occasion warrants.)
But here we sit at the precipice of losing our community asset known as Classic 99. Sure, there are plenty of Contemporary Christian Music fans. And I am a Christian who enjoys that music format, as well. But the community asset known as Classic 99 is something which also plays (I dare to say) Christian music. Bach has been linked to many non-believers who found interest in the tunes, the background of the symphonies he wrote, and found numerous the reasons for their soul being drawn to the music Bach and others say was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. Many of these people eventually became Christian believers --- and although that's talking about the Christian community more specifically than the region, it is part of why Classic 99 is a community asset. It plays for all, from all backgrounds, races, religions, creeds --- the station has been there for us in lean economic times and good. It's an asset which benefits our community through the outreach to the non-profit groups who have spent money on advertising their events, and it's been a companion at all hours of the day and night. To twistedly paraphrase some Mark Twain writings...boy, will we miss Classic 99 if and when it's gone.
Our community asset --- radio --- will continue. But our specific community asset --- Classic 99 --- may go away. However, there are developments (thus far off the well-worn public path) which could mean a new community asset playing Classical Music within the next few months.
Are you a fan? Are you simply a listener? If you hope that a community asset such as Classic 99 (which it has been to this point) is coming to a radio near you, then you're going to want to check in now and then to find out what is developing. I promise nothing yet except to find out more. But I must say there are some very intelligent, kind, and well-blessed people who are planning that our community has an asset on the airwaves beyond whatever may happen to Classic 99.
I hope, soon, to bring you the exciting news which makes a bold statement: our community asset, the airwaves, has something long-term coming to your radio (and internet streaming, and smartphones, and, and, and, and...). It really could become another classic asset to the St. Louis region.
I suppose it's time for me to get up and turn on my radio. After all, those radio airwaves belong to me, so I probably should listen to my community asset.
==================
Footnote: *the pending deal selling 99.1/KFUO-FM Clayton MO has been challenged by comments filed by individual citizens and by petitions to deny the license transfer. The FCC usually green-lights a license transfer, but there is a chance that they would place this station sale on hold pending any investigation brought about by the filed petitions before the agency. Also, if a lawsuit is filed to block the sale, the FCC usually allows the judicial system to rule before granting final approval of a sale. As of January 13, 2010, the sale was still in a transitional time period and no lawsuits had been made public.
As I tossed and turned in bed early this morning, my mind kept coming back to this phrase "Radio: The Community Asset" and made me realize that today I had to start off my day writing this column.
The Community Asset. What does it do for us? A radio station can keep us informed about local news, weather and topics of interest. Radio can play our favorite songs by our favorite artists, from classical music to rock 'n' roll, jazz, R & B, blues, bluegrass, opera, country, folk, alternative/post-modern, hip-hop, rap, smooth jazz/new age...it's an endless plethora of things, right? But what does it do for me lately?
Ahhh. What does the community asset mean to us? For many, it's a link between our banal existence and the excitement of others' who have lives. Ouch...that hurt to write...partially because it's a phrase which I have heard people use because they think they're boring individuals. Whereas we can assure the person who said that they are far from boring, it is true that radio makes life exciting and interesting to many. That's why radio listeners are sometimes called fanatics or fans --- because they are genuinely participating in the shows they enjoy --- the stations to which they are listening for hours without end --- to the point of wearing the t-shirts and polo shirts they have either won through a contest or purchased from our "radio store" in person or online, placing bumper stickers on their vehicles and notebooks, even showing up by the thousands to win a talent contest. Yes --- the community asset means much more than a bunch of commercials on one station and off to another station where the brand new college DJ is rambling so fast and without enunciation that you're thinking he or she has a five-month college-only career. Yes, radio is the community asset which requires not much from the average person/listener other than --- to own a radio and to listen. But, again --- what does it mean to us?
A radio station --- let me bring up a prime example of one in St. Louis in Classic 99 --- can be the fabric which knits a large segment of the population together. This will to point to specifics and generalities both here, so bear with me. In the case of Classic 99 (or KFUO-FM for now*), the station has been on the air for 61 years, much of that time playing classical and liturgical music as part of the KFUO radio stations in Clayton. Since it has been playing this music for such a long period of time, it's nearly impossible for the community in whole to think of St. Louis without such a station. But it could happen soon. The owners of the radio station, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, have placed the station on the sales block. The prospective new owners will immediately change the format from Classical music to Contemporary Christian Music, thus ending an era of 61 or 62 (depending upon the date the change may take place) years of a piece of the community. That's a hefty statement --- but it is a TRUE statement. Classic 99 has been a mainstay for musicians from all backgrounds, who perform dozens of styles of music, NOT JUST CLASSICAL music. Dare I say it, but without this important piece of the St. Louis community, we are just another large city without a cultural icon to which we can ALL relate and enjoy.
Sure --- I don't listen to it all of the time. I am not a fan of every style of music played on Classic 99. But I know it's always been there in my lifetime, and I have appreciated what it has given my community --- enjoyment, relaxation, excitement, personality. It's been a background station for some --- it seems that one cannot go into a dress shop or tailored men's clothier around St. Louis and not hear Classic 99 on the speaker --- and it's a constant companion to others who listen at home on their clock radios and stereos, or while driving in traffic and wanting to unwind with something more melodic and soothing than Phil Collins, Nelly, U2 or Taylor Swift.
(Hey, I'm not picking on these artists --- I listen to them, too...as the occasion warrants.)
But here we sit at the precipice of losing our community asset known as Classic 99. Sure, there are plenty of Contemporary Christian Music fans. And I am a Christian who enjoys that music format, as well. But the community asset known as Classic 99 is something which also plays (I dare to say) Christian music. Bach has been linked to many non-believers who found interest in the tunes, the background of the symphonies he wrote, and found numerous the reasons for their soul being drawn to the music Bach and others say was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. Many of these people eventually became Christian believers --- and although that's talking about the Christian community more specifically than the region, it is part of why Classic 99 is a community asset. It plays for all, from all backgrounds, races, religions, creeds --- the station has been there for us in lean economic times and good. It's an asset which benefits our community through the outreach to the non-profit groups who have spent money on advertising their events, and it's been a companion at all hours of the day and night. To twistedly paraphrase some Mark Twain writings...boy, will we miss Classic 99 if and when it's gone.
Our community asset --- radio --- will continue. But our specific community asset --- Classic 99 --- may go away. However, there are developments (thus far off the well-worn public path) which could mean a new community asset playing Classical Music within the next few months.
Are you a fan? Are you simply a listener? If you hope that a community asset such as Classic 99 (which it has been to this point) is coming to a radio near you, then you're going to want to check in now and then to find out what is developing. I promise nothing yet except to find out more. But I must say there are some very intelligent, kind, and well-blessed people who are planning that our community has an asset on the airwaves beyond whatever may happen to Classic 99.
I hope, soon, to bring you the exciting news which makes a bold statement: our community asset, the airwaves, has something long-term coming to your radio (and internet streaming, and smartphones, and, and, and, and...). It really could become another classic asset to the St. Louis region.
I suppose it's time for me to get up and turn on my radio. After all, those radio airwaves belong to me, so I probably should listen to my community asset.
==================
Footnote: *the pending deal selling 99.1/KFUO-FM Clayton MO has been challenged by comments filed by individual citizens and by petitions to deny the license transfer. The FCC usually green-lights a license transfer, but there is a chance that they would place this station sale on hold pending any investigation brought about by the filed petitions before the agency. Also, if a lawsuit is filed to block the sale, the FCC usually allows the judicial system to rule before granting final approval of a sale. As of January 13, 2010, the sale was still in a transitional time period and no lawsuits had been made public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
