Tucson Citizen Payola

Monday, November 28, 2005
REVERE: Don’t think that radio payola is dead
C.T. REVERE
Metro Columnist
ADVERTISEMENT





The next time you’re listening to the latest radio hits on your favorite commercial station, ask yourself how those performers got there – and why other, equally talented musicians don’t.
The word “payola” conjures up images of an era of sock hops and ducktail haircuts.
But the old practice of paying deejays for radio play still thrives in multimillion-dollar corporate fashion.
What used to consist of slipping a C-note into the sleeve of a 45-rpm record on its way to the local radio station now involves high-priced middlemen working a sort of shell game between radio conglomerates and major record labels.
Now, efforts are under way from New York City and Washington, D.C., to southern Arizona to end a practice that lets a select few make huge profits from the public airways while radio listeners and a heck of a lot of really talented musicians pretty much get squat.
“Are they really entertaining us, or is this just a business transaction between the radio station and the recording company?” asks state Rep. Jonathan Paton, a Tucson Republican. “Are we receiving content that is simply manufactured to look popular? That’s what I want to know.”
Paton is planning to hold town hall meetings in the coming months to explore the issue, with an eye on introducing legislation to prevent abuse of Arizona airwaves.
“I want to have a hearing in which we get to hear from the feds, we get to hear from the radio stations and we get to hear from the musicians. If there’s no issue there, there’s no issue. But I want to put some sunshine on it.”
Tenacious New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer already has provided plenty of evidence that there’s an issue here, enough so that he was able to reach a $10 million settlement with Sony BMG Music, which records hundreds of major artists including Aretha Franklin, the Dixie Chicks and Beyonce Knowles.
This month, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced the Radio and Concert Disclosure and Competition Act of 2005, a bill intended to address a problem that Congress helped create by opening the door for huge corporations to gobble up the majority of radio stations across the nation.
In the process of creating the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was intended to promote competition in the telecommunications industry for the sake of the public good, our elected ones let radio station owners into the room.
By lifting the limits on how many stations a company can own in a given market and nationwide, Congress created a small group of very large radio corporations that have succeeded in setting up a profitable system of checks and balances that adds up to payola.
It’s an indirect approach in which “independent promoters” sign exclusive contracts with radio stations, then accept payment from recording companies that want their artists to get air time.
“The only way to get on the air is if you hire this promoter,” said Michael Bracy, a founding member of The Future of Music Coalition, a Washington-based group lobbying for change in the industry. “As ownership of radio has come more and more into these national corporations, we’ve lost the local flavor. It’s basically a world where few songs get through the pipeline to get played.”
To make things even cozier for those on the inside, the major radio stations also own the concert venues.
Cross-ownership allows the radio stations to use the airwaves to promote their own concerts, further locking out the bands that don’t fit their corporate mold.
“Is it just a paid advertisement, or was it a song that was on the radio because people want to hear it?” Paton wondered.
Joey Burns said his Tucson-based band, Calexico, has found its niche playing in smaller venues in the U.S. and across Europe, but he’d welcome a chance to expand their fan base.
“We’d love to get played on some of those stations,” Burns said. “It’s upsetting because the individuality of radio and regionalism gets left out because of what’s happening nationally.”
Public radio – KXCI Community Radio in Tucson – provides the opportunity to hear a broad array of music that can’t be found on the commercial stations.
But being shut out of commercial radio severely limits the ability of independent artists and promoters to make a living, not to mention alienating music fans who want something other than the 50 or 60 songs on most playlists.
Radio stations are private property, but the airwaves they use are not. They are owned by the American people, and those who use them with the blessing of the Federal Communications Commission have an obligation that extends beyond their own bank accounts.
Through the efforts of people such as Spitzer, Feingold and Paton, perhaps we’ll be able to tune in commercial radio someday soon and hear what we want to hear instead of what greedy corporate executives want to feed us.
C.T. Revere can be reached at 573-4594 and ctrevere@tucsoncitizen.com. Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson AZ 85726-6767. His columns run Mondays and Thursdays.
STORY TOOLS

NY TIMES WARNER MUSIC PAYOLA SETTLEMENT

2nd Music Settlement by Spitzer
By JEFF LEEDS

Published: November 23, 2005

A second major record company has reached a settlement with the New
York
attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, to resolve accusations that it made
payoffs to persuade radio programmers to play certain songs, the
attorney general said yesterday.

The $5 million settlement with the Warner Music Group, the nation's
third-biggest record company, was the latest in Mr. Spitzer's widening
investigation, which has exposed payments to radio programmers in
exchange for playing music and routine manipulation of playlist
information.

In July, Sony BMG Music Entertainment reached an agreement with Mr.
Spitzer. The two record companies that have not settled - the Universal
Music Group, a unit of Vivendi Universal, and the EMI Group - remain
under investigation, as do many big radio chains, according to people
involved in the inquiry.

Warner acknowledged yesterday that certain employees had pursued radio
promotion practices that were "wrong or improper," and apologized. In a
separate statement, the company added that "we consider this to have
been a valuable process."

"From our perspective, radio cannot be too consumer-driven. The music
that people hear on the radio always should represent the highest
quality the industry has to offer."

Mr. Spitzer said that Warner executives had obtained play time for
songs
through "deceptive and illegal" practices, including making payoffs in
the form of personal electronics and tickets to the Grammy Awards, the
World Series and the Super Bowl.

Warner executives also tried to land their artists on playlists by
paying for a station's daily operations, Mr. Spitzer said. He cited
examples of the record company's covering the cost of painting a
station
logo on a promotional vehicle, the production of a station "jingle,"
and
the costs of hiring a voiceover talent.

Warner, which counts acts like Green Day and Twista on its artist
roster, also provided an array of "promotional" items for use in
listener contests and giveaways, a practice company executives
described
as "an industry standard."

Indeed, Mr. Spitzer's investigation has shown that it is common for
record executives to link the amount of promotional support provided to
a station to the amount of play time. In February 2004, when Z-100, the
New York pop music powerhouse, requested the record company pay for a
listener trip to Los Angeles or Glasgow as the grand prize in a
contest,
a Warner executive wrote to another: "With the record in power, I feel
we should do one of these for them. Can we approve this?"

Clear Channel Communications, the parent of Z-100 and several other
stations cited by Mr. Spitzer, said in a statement: "We take this issue
very seriously and have zero tolerance for pay for play. Any employees
who violate this policy will be dealt with accordingly. We investigate
any allegation of improper conduct by our employees. This is no
exception."

The company, the nation's biggest radio broadcaster, fired two
programming executives last month after a review by the attorney
general's investigation.

Under the agreement announced yesterday, Warner will pay $5 million, to
be distributed to nonprofit organizations that finance music education
and appreciation. The company will also pay $50,000 to cover the costs
of the inquiry.

Warner also agreed to an array of changes that mirror those set out in
a
deal Mr. Spitzer reached with Sony BMG, which agreed to pay $10
million.
Warner, like Sony BMG, also agreed to end its use of certain
independent
promoters, middlemen who are paid by the company to press programmers
to
add songs. And the company agreed to limits on the efforts its
executives can undertake to market its artists.

Mr. Spitzer said in an interview: "In this case, as in others, the
acceptance and tolerance of paying for airtime is what has surprised
us.
It was routine."

He also criticized the Federal Communications Commission, which he said
had displayed a "disappointing" lack of action in dealing with the
radio
broadcasters under its jurisdiction since the New York inquiry became
public. The agency announced shortly after Mr. Spitzer's first
settlement that it would start its own inquiry.

Despite e-mail messages and other evidence that appear to point to
widespread violations of the federal law, Mr. Spitzer said broadcasters
did not seem worried about the prospect that the F.C.C. could impose
its
toughest penalty, revoking a station's license.

"Because the notion of license revocation is so clearly discounted,
nobody is terribly concerned about the consequences of the F.C.C.'s
involvement," Mr. Spitzer said. "That's too bad, because what's at
stake
here is the airwaves. Why the F.C.C. is not responding is a little
mysterious to me."

One F.C.C. commissioner, Jonathan S. Adelstein, also pressed for deeper
involvement, saying the agency "needs to act on this evidence and
conclude as soon as possible" its own inquiry. Mr. Adelstein said the
practices Mr. Spitzer illuminated appeared to reflect "the most
widespread and systematic abuse of F.C.C. rules in the history of
American broadcasting."

An F.C.C. spokesman declined to comment on the status of the
investigation, but said "three months is not a long period for
investigations."

Matthew Sweeney contributed reporting for this article.

NY DAILY NEWS MURDER INC TRIAL

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Hip-hop's 'pact with the devil' By JOHN MARZULLIDAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Monday, November 14th, 2005

You can call this rap "Get Rich or Go to Jail Tryin'."
Hip-hop moguls Irving (Irv Gotti) Lorenzo and Christopher (Chris Gotti) Lorenzo head to trial tomorrow in Brooklyn - in a case sure to be a high-security spectacle with possible appearances by stars like Jay-Z, Ashanti and Ja Rule, and testimony about the shooting of 50 Cent.
The Lorenzo brothers scored mega-platinum success with a record label daringly called Murder Inc., hyping themselves as gangsters in the rap underworld and adopting the Gotti name.
Now the record executives find themselves in the fight of their lives as federal prosecutors vow to peel back the Kevlar curtain on the Lorenzo legend and show how they made a deal with a devil - using a drug baron's money to start their empire.
If they're convicted of laundering crack-cocaine cash for Queens drug kingpin Kenneth (Supreme) McGriff, the Lorenzos face up to 20 years in prison and the forfeiture of millions.
Their high-powered lawyers say it's a bad rap.
"We did not get money from McGriff, period," said Gerald Shargel, who represents Christopher Lorenzo.
Irving, 34, and Christopher, 38, who are free on $1 million bail, come from humble origins in southern Queens, where their parents sheltered them from "any element that could lead them to gang or drug activity," according to court papers.
That was no easy task because the gritty neighborhood was dominated by dreaded crack barons Lorenzo (Fat Cat) Nichols, Howard (Pappy) Mason and McGriff's bloodthirsty crew, called the Supreme Team.
They declined pretrial interviews, but the brothers blast the feds in a new book, "Queens Reigns Supreme."
"This is the government, right?" Irving ranted. "They killed JFK. ... I'm saying that to give you a parallel that they can pretty much do whatever they want."
"If they wanna trump something up because we helped a friend in a legal fashion, so be it," Christopher told author Ethan Brown.
Although neither brother is charged with a crime of violence or ordering McGriff to hurt anyone, prosecutors argue both's hands are plenty dirty.
"Before Irving Lorenzo became powerful and rich, Supreme was looking out for him," Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Haran said in court last week.
"That's what [McGriff] brings to the table," Haran said. "[If] Irv and Chris have a enemy, Supreme will get the job done."
In a hip-hop world racked by the slayings of Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls and Jam Master Jay, McGriff's muscle - and money - was key to the Lorenzos' success, prosecutors said.
The government alleges that Murder Inc. was founded with McGriff's cash in 1999.
Witnesses will also testify that between 1994 and 2000, drug money was delivered to Irving and Christopher, prosecutors revealed.
In exchange for laundering McGriff's cash, Murder Inc. artists and execs were given protection from would-be robbers and extortionists, they alleged.
Prosecutors want to show how the Lorenzos were surrounded by criminals. Among the tidbits they hope the jury will hear: Irving's bodyguard was hired out of prison after a 20-year stint for murder; Christopher's driver was a drug dealer allegedly involved in two homicides.
Haran also pushed Judge Edward Korman to permit evidence showing the Lorenzos were intimately aware of McGriff's violent activities - including his alleged involvement in the 2000 shooting of 50 Cent.
"I love the s--- out of you," Irving allegedly messaged McGriff after learning of the gunplay - which prosecutors believe was sparked by a 50 Cent song, "Ghetto Koran," written about McGriff.
But the defense says the feds are trying to bootstrap evidence against McGriff - who is being tried separately on murder and drug charges - onto the Lorenzos, whose courtroom supporters are expected to include pal Jay-Z and Murder Inc. artists Ashanti and Ja Rule.
"They want this trial to be about violence having nothing to do with Irv and Chris," said Irving's lawyer, Gerald Lefcourt.
Shargel acknowledges McGriff bestowed "street credibility" on Murder Inc. because "to be associated with McGriff is a means of protection."
Still, he insists there was nothing illegal in the relationship.
Christopher Lorenzo told the feds McGriff was a longtime friend who was showered with "favors" - like a corporate credit card and a soundtrack for his straight-to-video flick "Crime Partners" - for helping Murder Inc. scout new talent.
The key figures
KENNETH McGRIFF, 46, alias Supreme: Notorious drug kingpin, leader of the feared Supreme Team in South Jamaica. Served eight years in prison and resumed his criminal activities after his 1997 release, authorities say, allegedly aligning himself with the Lorenzos to launder cash. Suspected of orchestrating the attempted murder of rapper 50 Cent in 2000 as payback for an insult in a song. Under indictment on charges of racketeering, three murders and drug trafficking.
**
CHRISTOPHER LORENZO, 38, alias Chris Gotti: Helped little brother Irving with his music career in the city's biggest nightclubs. In 1993, Chris and sister Christine lent Irving $5,000 to produce his first single, "It's Real," by MC Geronimo. Father of two who lives in Queens, he oversees operations at the rap label as vice president. He is charged with money laundering and conspiracy.
**
IRVING LORENZO, 34, alias Irv Gotti: Started deejaying at 16, selling mix tapes out of a local barbershop. Hired as an A&R agent - artists' rep - at Television Tune Records in 1994 and jumped to Island Def Jam two years later, bringing along future stars Jay-Z, DMX and Ashanti. In 1999, founded the Murder Inc. record label, now known as The Inc. A father of three, he lives in Westchester County. He is charged with laundering drug money, conspiracy and skirting federal reporting requirements on financial transactions.
Big stakes for star prosecutor
The Murder Inc. trial pits Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, who is looking for a big win after some recent setbacks, against two of the city's best-known criminal lawyers, Gerald Shargel and Gerald Lefcourt.
The two Gerrys are princes of the defense bar.
Shargel's courtroom skills are mesmerizing, and he's defended such high-profile clients as the late mob boss John Gotti and electrician Danny Pelosi, convicted of killing millionaire Ted Ammon.
Lefcourt once headed the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and he's represented everyone from the Black Panthers to hotel mogul Harry Helmsley to the Sex Pistols' Sid Vicious.
Mauskopf's prosecution of music impresarios Irving and Christopher Lorenzo is among several high-profile cases on her radar.
Two cases - the trial of city officials and crew members in the Staten Island ferry crash, and the reputed Mafia cops who allegedly leaked secrets to the mob - are in trouble.
The feds, who also endured a disastrous defeat in the seven-week trial of allegedly mobbed-up union officials, are hoping to bounce back with a victory in the Murder Inc. case.
There's been at least one bump: A prosecutor on the case since the inception of the probe four years ago resigned on the eve of the trial for personal reasons.
Mauskopf's team is now being led by a couple of battle-hardened drug prosecutors - Carol Pokorny and Sean Haran.

Washington Post FCC lack of Attack

Delays, Low Fines Weaken FCC Attack on IndecencyBy Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 10, 2005;

On the morning of June 3, 1996, Howard Stern hosted an explicit discussion between adult-film star Jenna Jameson and her father on a nationally syndicated radio show, broadcast to more than 10 million listeners.It didn't take long for the conversation to go from tasteless to downright vulgar.The Federal Communications Commission, under Democratic Chairman Reed E. Hundt, took one year to determine that the radio routine violated the agency's indecency regulations. But nearly four years and two FCC chairmen later, in February 2001, the $6,000 fine was rescinded "due to passage of time," FCC records note.The FCC's actions were hardly an aberration. A Washington Post analysis of all 92 known proposed indecency fines shows that the agency's record of policing the airwaves has been undermined by plodding investigations, insufficient fine amounts and inconsistent follow-up.The agency's role as broadcast nanny has come under greater scrutiny in recent months as consumers and lawmakers grow concerned about the increasingly coarse content of radio and television -- last year, the FCC received more than 1 million complaints about programs. Broadcasters say the FCC's content guidelines are too tough and arbitrarily applied while some lawmakers, viewers and interest groups blame the agency for being too lax.The issue has even split FCC officials serving on the same commission, hindering the process.Some chairmen made it a priority to collect fines; others let the penalties languish until the agency's five-year statute of limitations voided them. None of the chairmen was quick about it. The record shows that an average of 16 months passes from the broadcast date of an incident to the issuance of an indecency ruling. One case took 56 months to resolve.The FCC is preparing to release a wave of backlogged decisions in the next few weeks after nearly a year of silence, and agency officials promise that the process will speed up."I am concerned by the length of time it historically has taken for the commission to act on a complaint," said Kevin J. Martin, a Republican who became chairman in March. "Since I became chairman, we have been working to develop a process to reduce that time frame."The process can drag on because of the time it takes to secure tapes and transcripts from broadcasters and the lengthy legal wrangling that can ensue. But slow-footed investigations have not been the agency's only problem.The size of the fines appears to have had little lasting deterrent value for giant media conglomerates that collect hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. For instance, just one year before the Stern broadcast with the Jamesons, Stern's boss -- Infinity Broadcasting Corp. -- paid $1.7 million to settle multiple indecency rulings against the shock jock.Part of the problem, the agency says, is that fines are too low -- a maximum of $32,500. If broadcasters refuse to pay, the cases are turned over for enforcement to the Department of Justice, which has little incentive to pursue such small fines, members of Congress have said. Of four proposed fines turned over to the department, it collected two and refused to pursue two.Moreover, the FCC typically has allowed broadcasters to pay fines without admitting a violation of indecency rules. Thus, when a broadcaster's license comes up for renewal, it contains no record of indecency violations that could be used to block renewal.In more recent cases, the FCC has compelled some broadcasters to admit wrongdoing. But those acknowledgments are accompanied by language in the consent decrees that states the admissions cannot be used against the broadcasters in any way, say broadcasters familiar with the deals.Even with these shortcomings, Republican Michael K. Powell, who resigned as FCC chairman in March, argued that the agency under his leadership had an impact on indecency. He cited the decision by many broadcasters to impose "no tolerance" rules on on-air talent. The key, Powell said, is raising the political heat on broadcasters and threatening them with the prospect of higher fines."No Washington office head wants to bring their CEO before a congressional panel and be grilled for a full day" on indecency, Powell said.The FCC has struggled to balance First Amendment rights with laws that forbid over-the-air radio or television broadcasting between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. of "patently offensive" material of a sexual or excretory nature. The courts have not helped much, as the guiding 1978 indecency statute is increasingly irrelevant in an era of 200 unpoliced cable and satellite channels that do not fall under the law.Some groups say the government should no longer monitor the nation's airwaves because technology -- such as the V-chip and cable and satellite blocking systems -- allows parents to determine what their children watch."We're hoping that regulators, lawmakers and the American public come to the same conclusion we have, that the system is broken," said James Dyke, executive director of Television Watch, a coalition that includes most major television networks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, some politically conservative organizations and First Amendment academics."The first step is realizing that the system is outdated and can easily be hijacked by a very few, if not one individual," he said.Dyke's reference is to the Parents Television Council, which flooded the FCC with complaints last year. Like the broadcasters, the PTC would prefer the government stay out of regulating content. "But because there is a law and the law seems to be very openly disregarded by the networks so frequently, our only recourse is to go to the congressionally mandated watchdog -- the FCC," said Tim Winter, a former NBC executive who is now the PTC's executive director.The PTC supports clearer guidelines about what is and is not indecent, Winter said. The FCC has maintained such guidelines would amount to prior restraint of free speech -- a constitutional problem.What seemed shocking 12 years ago -- tastefully shadowed partial nudity on ABC's "NYPD Blue" -- seems quaint today compared with more recent shows that have drawn fines, such as a Fox television show that featured whipped-cream-covered strippers or an Infinity radio broadcast that included a couple purportedly having sex in New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral.Jeffrey H. Smulyan, chairman of Emmis Communications Corp., which owns more than 40 radio and television stations and has been hit with $42,000 in proposed fines over the past four years, said the indecency standard is a moving line, one shifting in a more conservative direction."It makes it difficult to know what's acceptable in 21st-century America," Smulyan said. "From a broadcaster's standpoint, what was fine yesterday is now clearly indecent today. Unless there are some guidelines, it's impossible to police."Emmis is settling its indecency fines.Concerns over broadcast indecency crested in February 2003 when singer Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during a Super Bowl halftime show, leading lawmakers to call for higher fines and extend the FCC's authority to cable and satellite channels. In February, the House passed a bill that would raise the maximum fine to $500,000 and require a license-revocation hearing after a broadcaster's third offense. A similar bill waits in the Senate.The FCC has collected most of the fines it has imposed. But the long turnaround time has allowed some broadcasters to outwait the agency.An example: During an August 1987 morning show on Chicago rock powerhouse WLUP, deejays Steve Dahl and Garry Meier talked to a caller who offered a gay-themed song called "Kiddie Porn."More than two years passed before the FCC, under Republican Chairman Alfred E. Sikes, proposed a $6,000 indecency fine.The station's owner, Evergreen Media Corp., through its Washington law firm, Latham & Watkins, decided to appeal. "Our licenses were so valuable, we had to defend them," said James de Castro, president of Evergreen at the time.As part of its defense, Evergreen argued that community standards had relaxed in the two years since the broadcast, suggesting that if "Kiddie Porn" was indecent in 1987, it no longer was in 1989. The company appealed to the courts, with the Department of Justice prosecuting the FCC's case.It eventually landed in Chicago district court. As Latham lawyer Eric L. Bernthal recalled it, the judge said, " U.S. v. Evergreen . What is this, a drug case?""After I explained it was an indecency case, he basically looked over his glasses and said, 'You're kidding, right?' " By that time, the FCC had slapped Evergreen with an additional $33,750 in fines. Back in Washington, Bernthal persuaded the FCC to settle all the fines with no admission of guilt on Evergreen's behalf, to drop other complaints against the company that the FCC was investigating and to craft a set of decency guidelines for broadcasters, all in exchange for a $10,000 "voluntary contribution" to the U.S. Treasury.Post database editor Sarah Cohen contributed to this report.© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Payola links from FREEPRESS.net

http://www.freepress.net/payola/Center for American Progress put this up on their CampusProgress page for student activists yesterday.http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/585/crib-sheet-payolaAlso check out our map of stations implicated in Spitzer's Sony probe:http://freepress.net/payola/map.php

Are you bought or up for sale?

The civil rights movement possibly was the last rallying point for millions of Americans. Unfortunately that battled ended without winning the civil rights war. Economic empowerment received a band aid fix called the "American Dream".Segregation, education and constituational law were all fought for. Over forty years later we can all see that the playing field will never be balanced in this so called land of the free.Broadcast media does a great job of masking economic empowerment. Today's children see and hear more images showing money and bling not wealth. Television and Radio methodically tell us what our issues are. Hurricane Katrina is a prime example... We all were schocked by the pictures and now have rallied with enormous response.The shame is we have not rallied for the millions killed in Africa. Never rallied or became outraged like this because our children's schools are inferior. The owners, producers, program directors and print media hand feed us "our" issues. It is time to Katrina the media.My website colleague and most of all friend Lisa, shared a story on WLBT TV that resonates in my mind almost daily. During the civil rights movement WLBT in Jackson, Mississippi blatantly showed negative images of people of color during the movement. The NAACP challenged the FCC law and most of all challenged the system. The license was eventually revoked and new ownership installed the first Black GM of a television station in the late sixties.Almost forty years later there are thousands of employees thru out media. Some in positions of power but most bought while the other's are up for sale. Bamboozled into believing that a good living is economic empowerment.This past week I wrote a letter to management at WAOK radio in Atlanta. WAOK is owned by Infinity Radio whose parent company Viacom, owns BET and MTV. For the past six months WAOK has filled an evening airshift with "Community Talk" a daily show with various UNPAID host. WAOK has a Black GM and Program Director. WAOK is 24 hour talk. Understand my theory now on "being bought" or "up for sale" ?I caught hell for sending that email from Black folk. The management (bought) questioned my motives... The unpaid host (up for sale) bitched because they will be replaced with a PAID staffer. The "yes" master mentality is alive and well.Viacom the parent company has three top executives who each made 52 million in 2004. WAOK had six months of free "Community Talk". Can't get that economic empowerment unless you fight or ask for it.

NY DAILY NEWS SMACKFEST HOT97 Fined

BY AUSTIN FENNERDAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERHip-hop station Hot 97 was slapped with a $300,000 bill yesterday for a twisted contest called "Smackfest" - and admitted the brutish gimmick wasn't its "finest hour."The station aired two dozen bouts of the game, which featured mostly female contestants competing to see how hard they could barehand each other in the face.State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer went after the station with a civil suit, claiming the contest violated the laws on combative sports.Hot 97's parent company, Emmis Communications, agreed to pay $240,000, plus $60,000 to the anti-violence nonprofit group Safe Horizons, to settle the case."Despite the fact that the contestants voluntarily participated in what was supposed to be harmless entertainment, it was not our finest hour, and New York City deserves better," Emmis Radio President Rick Cummings said.Hot 97 launched Smackfest in April 2004, inviting listeners to take shots at each other for concert tickets and a grand prize of $5,000.The station streamed video of the battles on the Internet, showing women cocking their arms to take open-handed slaps at their opponent's face.Barred from blocking the smacks, participants had to stand up straight and brace themselves for a crescendo of stinging blows.Spitzer said he hopes the price Hot 97 paid for its stunt will send a message to other broadcasters who push the envelope for ratings."This agreement should be a wakeup call to all those in the entertainment industry who think outrageousness is a clever marketing strategy," he said.Hot 97 has courted controversy before. The station came under fire this year for a racially charged parody of tsunami victims.

BILLBOARD MONITOR "Hip Hop's Explicit Lyric's"

Hip Hop's Explicit Lyrics - Who's Responsible?Aug. 26, 2005By Ivory M. JonesYing Yang Twins. David Banner. Trillville. Pretty Ricky.The list reads like a who's who of acts topping the playlists of R&B/hip-hop stations across the country. These artists are also drawing heat for their sexually suggestive lyrics.Ying Yang Twins' "Wait (The Whisper Song)," Banner's "Play," Trillville's "Some Cut" and Pretty Ricky's "Grind With Me" all contain racy lyrics, and although the versions heard over the airwaves are often edited, critics say the songs still leave little to the imagination.Lisa Fager, co-founder of media watch group Industry Ears, compares radio edits to CliffsNotes guides, which offer shortened versions of books typically studied in schools."Sure, you get the abridged version, but does that change the meaning of the text? No. [Students] told me that they still know what the original book is about. I asked them about the edited versions of songs, and they said they already know what the real lyrics are, so they just sing the real words along to the edited versions," Fager says.This detail has not escaped R&B/hip-hop WEDR (99 Jamz) Miami's DJ Irie. "Some of the time, playing 'clean' radio edits isn't even enough, because the lyrics make it obvious enough that the song is about sex and violence," he says.Though labels are responsible for editing the material, the question of who monitors the final product is open-ended. Is it the station's duty to screen the songs before they hit the airwaves, or does that job fall on the labels that promote the songs? Or does the responsibility, ultimately, rest with listeners or their guardians?Jive Records national director of urban promotions Samantha Selolwane believes all these parties share responsibility."If an artist submits something to the label and it's overtly offensive, I think it's up to the label to monitor it. But the station does have a responsibility to the community. I think [the duty] falls on a number of people," she tells Billboard Radio Monitor.Patrick Lagreid, PD at rhythmic top 40 KMIH Mercer Island, Wash., a station owned by the local school district, echoes her sentiment."In theory," he says, "artists have responsibilities for what they put out there and labels have responsibilities for what they promote. But it's their right to put out what they want. Ultimately, I think it's the responsibility of the radio station. We have the ability to control what goes out over the airwaves."Fager thinks it goes beyond the PDs, however. Senior leadership at such broadcast giants as Emmis, Clear Channel and Radio One have the final say, she says. "Generally, it's not the program directors these days, though some of them have a little bit of power. It's about the broadcasters' accountability. I think that's where the audiences have gone awry—by thinking that the artists or the individual stations have some type of power."Industry Ears co-founder Paul Porter says he blames radio "for not having any guts. It's all corporate. It's all linked to the corporate structure these days."Porter, a former on-air personality, says his experience is proof that stations and local staff often take the fall for content despite their lack of control over it. While working at Emmis adult R&B WRKS (Kiss-FM) New York, he complained about a song that was airing on sister station WQHT. "Party and Bullshit" by rapper Rah Digga included the lyrics "beat that bitch with a bat."Porter says a 12-year-old student brought the song to his attention after she was teased by her peers."Her father had beaten her mother with a bat," he says. "When the students found out, they would taunt her with those lyrics. I was shocked and saddened because I had no answer for her."Porter says he took his concern to Emmis CEO Jeff Smulyan, and a memo was issued that detailed a new zero-tolerance policy for on-air profanity. However, Porter alleges that the memo also fingered him as a whistle-blower."Some of the DJs sided with me, but others were upset because all they had to play was music that contained explicit lyrics," he says.After leaving the station, Porter became an advocate for removing what he says is indecent content plaguing radio.Some good has come out of radio's current state, Fager says. She points to a group of Dorchester, Mass., teens who, weary of the lyrics on radio, founded a low-power station (Radio LOG 540 AM) that specializes in playing "positive music." Although it reaches a very small area, the station has generated international attention.While Fager believes that watchdog organizations like hers act as a voice for the public, WQHT assistant PD E-Bro warns people to pay attention to the intentions of such groups."It's case by case," he says. "Some organizations and organizers use young hip-hop stations and the 'edgy content' issue as a way to gain campaign support. If you notice, most of these issues really get flared around voting time. Also, note that news media outlets and talk show hosts use what's controversial and popular as a way to generate their own ratings under the guise of being responsible and taking a stance against the ills of our society."Indeed, many acknowledge that there is a thin line between monitoring inappropriate content and infringing on a station's or artist's freedom of speech."I understand where [media watchdogs] are coming from and don't have any objection," Lagreid says. "But at the same time, it's like they are trying to impede on a certain level of free speech. It's a fine line, and that's what's tough—that fine line seems to change without a lot of notice.""I don't feel that restricting an artist is healthy for their development," Selolwane says. "If an artist wants to have the freedom of expression, then they should be allowed to do that."DJ Irie adds, "In defense of the labels and the artists, they should be able to speak freely and record or release anything that the consenting public has an appetite for. Any adult that wants to hear that musical content should be able to access it. That's the beauty of free speech in a free country."Lagreid believes that there are adults who want to hear such content and that they are driving the multiple spins. On the flip side, however, he maintains that listeners can only request what is made available to them."People won't request what they don't know is out there," he says. "As programmers, we try to take the best educated guess on what we think people will like based on past performances and experiences. It's kind of a self-perpetuating thing. Songs like 'Wait' would have never made it if there hadn't already been songs out there with the same content. I've never had a listener call and say, 'I really like that song, [but] can you play something raunchier?' "In the end, E-Bro says, it is cyclical: "If the artists didn't make the product, then the consumer wouldn't look for it. If the label didn't promote it, the artists would change their direction. If everyone stopped playing it, the impressionable young consumer wouldn't have any outlet to get questionable content."Selolwane believes a simple balancing act by radio could improve the situation. "They have the power to pick what they play. If you're going to play 10 songs about ass, you should be playing 10 great songs to give that balance. I think when the balance is offset, that's when we have the cycle that we're in."E-Bro also points out that "parents can ultimately turn off what they don't like." And from DJ Irie's viewpoint, they can do even more."Parents need to educate their children about such music and make sure their kids are not naive to its existence. Nowadays, unless you can be with your kid 100% of the time, they will be subject to such music. Parents need to remove the shock value of such music and show their children how to make the right choice of what they listen to—and if they are going to listen to it, not to take it literally."Fager hopes a happy medium can be found. "Radio's supposed to be safe, but there are rules and regulations that are supposed to be enforced. Parents can only do so much . . . I'm not saying don't play the music, but put [it] on at times that are appropriate. People make porn, but they don't put it on NBC at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. So I don't understand why [the Ying Yang Twins lyric] 'Wait till you see my dick' gets played in the morning while kids are getting ready for school."-------Ivory M. JonesManaging Editor, R&B/Hip-Hop - Billboard Radio MonitorStaff Writer - Billboard Magazine770 Broadway, 6th FloorNew York, NY 10003(646) 654-4647 - direct line(646) 654-4681 - fax

NY TIMES McClusky Payola/ Jeff Leeds

The New York Times--------------------
November 3, 2005
Music Promoter to Abandon a Radio Policy He Developed
By JEFF LEEDS

Jeff McClusky, a music entrepreneur who emerged as an influential behind-the-scenes player in the 1990's by devising a technique to curry favor with radio programmers while sidestepping laws against bribery, said this week that he was dumping the business model he pioneered.The move by Mr. McClusky comes three months after the New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, stunned the music business with revelations that the nation's second-biggest music corporation, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, bribed radio station personnel and engaged in other improper promotion practices. In a settlement with Mr. Spitzer, Sony BMG agreed to a series of changes - including severing ties to certain independent promoters - and to pay $10 million.Federal law prohibits broadcasters from accepting cash or anything of value in exchange for play of a specific song unless the transaction is disclosed to listeners. But since the late 1980's, the major record companies have used a tactic honed by Mr. McClusky.In the structure he engineered, Mr. McClusky provided "budgets," or annual fees, to radio stations, which could use the money to pay for T-shirts, contests and other promotions - but which were not supposed to be tied to airplay of specific songs. He would then bill record companies for each song added to a station's playlist.Major radio corporations and record labels embraced the system for years. But Mr. McClusky said yesterday that amid radio industry consolidation, shrinking music sales, and most recently, the chilling effect of Mr. Spitzer's inquiry, it was time to switch gears.Mr. McClusky said he notified the 30 stations with which he has deals - down from about 175 five years ago - that he would not renew contracts that call for him to provide them with annual fees. But he said he hoped to persuade them that he and his staff remain a valuable source of information and advice about new music. He also plans to continue working for major record companies - by being paid a flat amount instead of fees tied to radio playlists.Mr. McClusky, who is based in Chicago, added that his most profitable business was providing consulting to clients like music publishers and merchandise companies, who are looking for undiscovered artists, as well as venture capital firms interested in the music industry.All of that reflects a profound change for Mr. McClusky, whose tactics were adopted by about dozen major rivals.Independent promoters began to lose their footing after Congress passed a 1996 telecommunications bill that led to rapid consolidation of the radio industry. Clear Channel Communications, now the nation's largest radio corporation, then went from about 40 stations to about 1,200, and with its new leverage, directed independent promoters to negotiate with executives at corporate headquarters, not with individual station programmers. To many label executives, the move appeared to diminish whatever influence the promoters had in pushing programmers to add songs. (Clear Channel ended its ties with the promoters in 2003).Moreover, as the industry watched its sales decline amid Internet piracy, label executives sharply reduced payments to the promoters, draining their revenue.Mr. Spitzer's investigation appeared to be the nail in the coffin. Mr. Spitzer described Mr. McClusky's business model as "an effort to dodge the payola laws" and a means to "perpetuate the fiction" that stations were not receiving money or gifts from record companies in exchange for airplay.As part of its settlement with Mr. Spitzer, Sony BMG enacted a series of restrictions - including an agreement not to reimburse independent promoters for any expense made for a station or programmer - that effectively destroyed the foundation of Mr. McClusky's system. The other three major record companies - Vivendi Universal, Warner Music Group and EMI Group - remain under investigation by Mr. Spitzer, but are expected to agree to similar limits.Mr. McClusky said the terms still appeared to allow him to work for the companies on retainer. "Whether or not I agree with it, it is what it is," he said, "and I choose to comply because I do not want to interrupt the excellent promotion relationship I've had with Sony BMG labels."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company