DOCSLIB.ORG

STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND: the CHANGING STATE of LOCAL TELEVISION THOMAS W. BAGGERMAN B.A., Kent State University, 1991 M.S., Robert

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND: the CHANGING STATE of LOCAL TELEVISION THOMAS W. BAGGERMAN B.A., Kent State University, 1991 M.S., Robert STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND: THE CHANGING STATE OF LOCAL TELEVISION by THOMAS W. BAGGERMAN B.A., Kent State University, 1991 M.S., Robert Morris University, 2001 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2006 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Thomas W. Baggerman It was defended on April 4, 2006 and approved by Robert Bellamy, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Journalism and Multimedia Arts Peter Simonson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Jonathan Sterne, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Art History and Communication Studies Dissertation Advisor: Carol A. Stabile, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Journalism & Mass Communication ii Copyright © by Thomas W. Baggerman 2006 iii STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND: THE CHANGING STATE OF LOCAL TELEVISION Thomas W. Baggerman, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2006 The centralized structure of ownership of the local television industry in the United States today has resulted from a combination of regulatory and market pressures. This dissertation analyzes the ways in which centralizing tendencies in ownership structure have been accompanied by the centralization of operations. As station groups add more stations and seek to operate the stations they already own in an ever more profitable manner, changed industrial practices are vitally important because they have direct effects upon the product of those stations, especially local television news. In analyzing such centralizing tendencies, the project focuses not only on centralization of ownership and operation, but on two further factors as well: changing interpretations of the “public interest” and the development of technologies for local television stations. Changing interpretations of the “public interest” provision of regulatory law permitted and encouraged station groups to grow larger, redefining the structure of the local television industry, even in the times of heaviest restriction. In terms of technological development, after a brief period of equipment designed simply to get product on the air, television equipment developers followed a consistent guiding principle of staff reduction and job simplification which aided this momentum iv towards centralization. The combination of changing ownership structures, shifts in understandings of “public interest,” and new technologies has resulted in new business models built around invoking economies of scale, including centralcasting and multi-channel operation. These new business models have dramatically altered the program product of local television stations, especially local news. News programming, which initially entered broadcasting in response to the regulatory mandate that broadcasters serve the public in return for free access to the public airwaves, has been transformed into a primary source of local station revenue. This commodified version of news programming is the logical result of practices begun in newspapers and continued in radio broadcasting. The news product of local stations is an area of vital concern in the present day media environment, as the quantity of news on the air increases without a corresponding increase in newsroom resources, jeopardizing the quality and veracity of those news programs. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................................ix PREFACE.. ..................................................................................................................................................................x INTRODUCTION: ECONOMICS, STRUCTURE, PRACTICE, AND PRODUCT............................................1 1.0 A BRIEF HISTORY OF OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND JOURNALISTIC PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES ..........................................................................................................................15 1.1 THE PREHISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PRINT NEWS, 1690-1936 .............................17 1.2 NEWS ON THE AIR: RADIO BROADCASTING, 1920-1952....................................................30 1.3 NEWS IN THE TELEVISION AGE, 1945-1980...........................................................................43 1.4 EXAMINING THE EXEMPLARS ................................................................................................51 1.4.1 Hearst-Argyle Television ......................................................................................................52 1.4.2 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ..............................................................................................54 1.4.3 Cox Television ......................................................................................................................55 2.0 BROADCAST OWNERSHIP, GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION, THE PURSUIT OF PROFIT, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST ............................................................................................................58 2.1 WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AND THE BATTLE FOR THE AIRWAVES: 1899-1909.............61 2.2 REGULATING WIRELESS, THE EMERGENCE OF BROADCASTING, AND CHAOS ON THE AIR: 1910-1926......................................................................................................................66 2.3 REGULATING BROADCASTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: 1927-1978...........................75 2.3.1 Decisive Regulation and Emerging Technology: 1927-1939................................................76 2.3.2 Localism, Ownership, Service, and the Public Interest: 1940-1959......................................86 2.3.3 The Last Bastion of Restrictive Regulation: 1960-1978........................................................99 2.4 1979-PRESENT: DEREGULATION, TELECOMMUNICATION, AND CONSOLIDATION.107 vi 3.0 THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE CENTRALIZATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING........................................................................................117 3.1 TECHNOLOGY, THE BROADCAST FACTORY, AND ECONOMIC GUIDING PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................................119 3.1.1 Social Constructivism and Economic Determinism ............................................................122 3.1.2 Discovering the Guiding Principles.....................................................................................126 3.2 TELEVISION BROADCASTING: RADIO WITH PICTURES .................................................130 3.2.1 Fitting In: From Radio to Television...................................................................................133 3.3 TELEVISION BROADCASTING, 1941-1988: CENTRALIZING TECHNOLOGIES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF TELEVISION NEWS .......................................................................136 3.3.1 Centralizing Technology #1: Electronic editing..................................................................141 3.3.2 Centralizing Technology #2: Smaller and simpler field cameras and recorders..................145 3.3.3 Centralizing Technology #3: Station Automation ...............................................................151 3.4 TELEVISION EQUIPMENT 1989-1996: STREAMLINING PROCESSES ..............................155 3.4.1 Digital & High Definition Television..................................................................................161 3.4.2 Transforming the news: computers + video = profit ...........................................................164 3.4.3 Automating the on-air operation..........................................................................................168 3.4.4 System Solutions with a smile.............................................................................................169 3.5 TELEVISION EQUIPMENT 1996-2006: CONVERGENCE, CENTRALIZATION, CONCENTRATION, AND CONSOLIDATION.........................................................................172 3.5.1 Multi-channel operations.....................................................................................................174 3.5.2 ParkerVision and Newsroom Automation...........................................................................179 3.5.3 Files instead of Footage.......................................................................................................182 3.6 TRACKING THE THREE ...........................................................................................................184 3.6.1 Cox Broadcasting ................................................................................................................184 3.6.2 Hearst-Argyle Television ....................................................................................................186 3.6.3 Sinclair Broadcasting, Inc....................................................................................................187 vii 4.0 THE ECONOMICS OF CENTRALIZATION AND THE CHANGED STRUCTURE OF LOCAL TELEVISION BROADCASTING.......................................................................................................190 4.1 THE ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT OF LOCAL TELEVISION OWNERSHIP ...............................................................................................................................191 4.2 SPIRALING INWARD: THE CENTRALIZING TREND ..........................................................194 4.2.1 Buying,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Entertainment & Syndication Fitch Group Hearst Health Hearst Television Magazines Newspapers Ventures Real Estate & O
    hearst properties WPBF-TV, West Palm Beach, FL SPAIN Friendswood Journal (TX) WYFF-TV, Greenville/Spartanburg, SC Hardin County News (TX) entertainment Hearst España, S.L. KOCO-TV, Oklahoma City, OK Herald Review (MI) & syndication WVTM-TV, Birmingham, AL Humble Observer (TX) WGAL-TV, Lancaster/Harrisburg, PA SWITZERLAND Jasper Newsboy (TX) CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS & SERVICES KOAT-TV, Albuquerque, NM Hearst Digital SA Kingwood Observer (TX) WXII-TV, Greensboro/High Point/ La Voz de Houston (TX) A+E Networks Winston-Salem, NC TAIWAN Lake Houston Observer (TX) (including A&E, HISTORY, Lifetime, LMN WCWG-TV, Greensboro/High Point/ Local First (NY) & FYI—50% owned by Hearst) Winston-Salem, NC Hearst Magazines Taiwan Local Values (NY) Canal Cosmopolitan Iberia, S.L. WLKY-TV, Louisville, KY Magnolia Potpourri (TX) Cosmopolitan Television WDSU-TV, New Orleans, LA UNITED KINGDOM Memorial Examiner (TX) Canada Company KCCI-TV, Des Moines, IA Handbag.com Limited Milford-Orange Bulletin (CT) (46% owned by Hearst) KETV, Omaha, NE Muleshoe Journal (TX) ESPN, Inc. Hearst UK Limited WMTW-TV, Portland/Auburn, ME The National Magazine Company Limited New Canaan Advertiser (CT) (20% owned by Hearst) WPXT-TV, Portland/Auburn, ME New Canaan News (CT) VICE Media WJCL-TV, Savannah, GA News Advocate (TX) HEARST MAGAZINES UK (A+E Networks is a 17.8% investor in VICE) WAPT-TV, Jackson, MS Northeast Herald (TX) VICELAND WPTZ-TV, Burlington, VT/Plattsburgh, NY Best Pasadena Citizen (TX) (A+E Networks is a 50.1% investor in VICELAND) WNNE-TV, Burlington, VT/Plattsburgh,
    [Show full text]
  • Media Ownership Chart
    In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly . In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation. In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly , shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. Who Controls the Media? Parent General Electric Time Warner The Walt Viacom News Company Disney Co. Corporation $100.5 billion $26.8 billion $18.9 billion 1998 revenues 1998 revenues $23 billion 1998 revenues $13 billion 1998 revenues 1998 revenues Background GE/NBC's ranks No.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: November 24, 2015 Tracking No
    As of: November 30, 2015 Received: November 24, 2015 Status: Posted PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: November 24, 2015 Tracking No. 1jz-8mfr-dxdj Comments Due: January 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web Docket: USCIS-2006-0068 Agency Information Collection Activities:Form I–9, Employment Eligibility Verification Comment On: USCIS-2006-0068-0246 Agency Information Collection Activities: Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection Document: USCIS-2006-0068-0251 Comment Submitted by Jim O'Neil Submitter Information Name: Jim O'Neil Address: 110 Cedar Works Row Richmond, VA, 23231 Email: [email protected] Phone: 4042772592 General Comment No doubt it is just me...but i cant find anything that actually speaks to the revision. A little clarity would be nice. file:///O|/Policy/2016%20I-9%20PRA/Reconciliation%20Reports%20-%20RCD/USCIS-2006-0068-0251.html[3/9/2016 2:21:01 PM] As of: November 30, 2015 Received: November 24, 2015 Status: Posted PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: November 24, 2015 Tracking No. 1jz-8mfw-z2py Comments Due: January 25, 2016 Submission Type: Web Docket: USCIS-2006-0068 Agency Information Collection Activities:Form I–9, Employment Eligibility Verification Comment On: USCIS-2006-0068-0246 Agency Information Collection Activities: Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection Document: USCIS-2006-0068-0252 Comment Submitted by Anonymous Submitter Information Name: Anonymous Anonymous Address: United States, Email: [email protected] General Comment I really like the new revised form because it clarified a lot of ambiguities that were still present in the last revision. One concern that I have been trying to get addressed almost since the 2013 version was released was the vagueness with the directions for the "Other Names Used" field, and the change to "Other Last Names Used" solved that.
    [Show full text]
  • Out of Local News: Implications for an Informed Public
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons School of Communication: Faculty Publications and Other Works Faculty Publications 9-2013 Taking the ‘Local’ out of Local News: Implications for an Informed Public Lee Hood Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/communication_facpubs Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Hood, L. "Taking the ‘Local’ out of Local News: Implications for an Informed Public." Journalism and Mass Communication 3(9), 2013. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Communication: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. © David Publishing, 2013. Journalism and Mass Communication, ISSN 2160-6579 September 2013, Vol. 3, No. 9, 549-562 D DAVID PUBLISHING Taking the “Local” out of Local News: Implications for an Informed Public Lee Hood Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, USA The meaning of “local” in TV news is not as straightforward as one might imagine. “Local” newscasts in several U.S. markets are outsourced to an independent company located hundreds of miles from the communities served. What are the implications of such a delivery system for coverage of local issues and the Jeffersonian ideal of an informed citizenry? This study employs a content analysis of outsourced and local newscasts, using a data set of more than 1,000 stories from more than 30 hours of newscasts to determine if differences exist on story topics and source types.
    [Show full text]
  • US V. Entercom Communications Corp. and CBS Corporation
    Case 1:17-cv-02268 Document 1 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4000 Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff, v. ENTERCOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP. 401 E. City Avenue Suite 809 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, and CBS CORPORATION 51 W. 52nd Street New York, NY 10019, Defendants. COMPLAINT The United States of America brings this civil action to enjoin the proposed acquisition of CBS Radio, Inc. by Entercom Communications Corporation, and to obtain other equitable relief. The acquisition likely would substantially lessen competition for the sale of radio advertising to advertisers targeting English-language listeners in the Boston, Sacramento, and San Francisco Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”), in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. The United States alleges as follows: Case 1:17-cv-02268 Document 1 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 10 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 2, 2017, between Entercom, CBS Radio, Inc. and CBS Corporation, Entercom agreed to acquire CBS Radio in a Reverse Morris Trust transaction valued at over $1.6 billion. CBS Radio is a subsidiary of CBS Corporation. 2. Entercom and CBS Radio own and operate broadcast radio stations in various locations throughout the United States, including multiple stations in Boston, Massachusetts, Sacramento, California, and San Francisco, California. Entercom and CBS Radio compete head- to-head for the business of local and national companies that seek to advertise on English- language broadcast radio stations in these three DMAs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Crisis of Contemporary Arab Television
    UC Santa Barbara Global Societies Journal Title The Crisis of Contemporary Arab Television: Has the Move towards Transnationalism and Privatization in Arab Television Affected Democratization and Social Development in the Arab World? Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/13s698mx Journal Global Societies Journal, 1(1) Author Elouardaoui, Ouidyane Publication Date 2013 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Crisis of Contemporary Arab Television | 100 The Crisis of Contemporary Arab Television: Has the Move towards Transnationalism and Privatization in Arab Television Affected Democratization and Social Development in the Arab World? By: Ouidyane Elouardaoui ABSTRACT Arab media has experienced a radical shift starting in the 1990s with the emergence of a wide range of private satellite TV channels. These new TV channels, such as MBC (Middle East Broadcasting Center) and Aljazeera have rapidly become the leading Arab channels in the realms of entertainment and news broadcasting. These transnational channels are believed by many scholars to have challenged the traditional approach of their government–owned counterparts. Alternatively, other scholars argue that despite the easy flow of capital and images in present Arab television, having access to trustworthy information still poses a challenge due to the governments’ grip on the production and distribution of visual media. This paper brings together these contrasting perspectives, arguing that despite the unifying role of satellite Arab TV channels, in which national challenges are cast as common regional worries, democratization and social development have suffered. One primary factor is the presence of relationships forged between television broadcasters with influential government figures nationally and regionally within the Arab world.
    [Show full text]
  • How Cable News Reshaped Local Government$
    How Cable News Reshaped Local GovernmentI Sergio Gallettay, Elliott Ashy yETH Zürich Abstract Partisan cable news broadcasts have a causal effect on the size and composition of bud- gets in U.S. localities. Utilizing channel positioning as an instrument for viewership, we show that exposure to the conservative Fox News Channel shrinks local government budgets, while liberal MSNBC enlarges them. Revenue changes are driven by shifts in property taxes, a key tool for local redistributive policy. Expenditure changes are driven by public hospital expenditures, an important discretionary public good provided by lo- cal governments. We also find evidence that Fox exposure increased privatization (while MSNBC decreased it). An analysis of mechanisms suggests that the results are driven by changes in voter preferences, but not by changes in partisan control of city governments. IWe are grateful to Stefano DellaVigna, Mirko Draca, Ruben Durante, Tore Ellingsen, Benny Geys, Massimo Morelli, Suresh Naidu, Giovanni Pica, Carlo Schwarz, Alex Stremitzer, and Alois Stutzer for helpful suggestions. We have also benefited from comments by participants at the "Causes and Consequences of Populism workshop" in Bocconi (Milan), "Workshop on Political Economy" at the IEB (Barcelona), "Swiss Workshop on Local Public Finance" (Lugano), "Petralia workshop" (Petralia), EEA-ESEM conference (Manchester) and seminars at the University of Lugano, ETH Zürich and IAE- CSIC (Barcelona). We are grateful to Christian Dippel for sharing his data on city elections and to Greg Martin for sharing data on Nielsen ratings. David Cai, Romina Jafarian, Selina Lorusso, and Matteo Pinna provided excellent research assistance. This version: September 2019 (First version: April 2019) ∗Corresponding author: Sergio Galletta.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION the Hearst Corporation Retirement Plan Contents
    SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION The Hearst Corporation Retirement Plan Contents THE HEARST CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN................................................................................1 LIFE EVENTS AND THE RETIREMENT PLAN...........................................................................................2 IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................................3 WHEN PARTICIPATION BEGINS ...............................................................................................................5 TRANSFERS.................................................................................................................................................6 CREDITED SERVICE AND VESTING SERVICE ........................................................................................6 IF YOU BECOME DISABLED...........................................................................................................................6 IF YOU TAKE AN APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE...........................................................................................7 IF YOU TAKE A MILITARY LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...............................................................................................7 WHEN YOU DO NOT EARN CREDITED SERVICE.............................................................................................7 SPECIAL VESTING........................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Avid DS Nitris Compositing and Effects Guide • 0130-05576-02A • February 2005
    Avid® DS Nitris™ Compositing and Effects Guide Version 7.6 ™ make manage move | media Avid ® Copyright and Disclaimer Product specifications are subject to change without notice and do not represent a commitment on the part of Avid Technology, Inc. The software described in this document is furnished under a license agreement. You can obtain a copy of that license by visiting Avid's Web site at www.avid.com. The terms of that license are also available in the product in the same directory as the software. The software may not be reverse assembled and may be used or copied only in accordance with the terms of the license agreement. It is against the law to copy the software on any medium except as specifically allowed in the license agreement. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, for any purpose without the express written permission of Avid Technology, Inc. Copyright © 2004 Avid Technology, Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. Printed in USA. The Avid DS Nitris application uses JScript and Visual Basic Scripting Edition from Microsoft Corporation. Attn. Government User(s). Restricted Rights Legend U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. This Software and its documentation are “commercial computer software” or “commercial computer software documentation.” In the event that such Software or documentation is acquired by or on behalf of a unit or agency of the U.S. Government, all rights with respect to this Software and documentation are subject to the terms of the License Agreement, pursuant to FAR §12.212(a) and/or DFARS §227.7202-1(a), as applicable.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-Level Sports Production and Streaming
    Mid-Level Sports Production and Streaming ........................................................................................................................................................... Mid-Level Sports Production and Streaming Mid-Level Sports Production and Streaming ........................................................................................................................................................... Table of Contents Getting Started......................................................................................................................... 1 Video Sources.......................................................................................................................... 2 Cameras....................................................................................................................... 2 Clip Store...................................................................................................................... 4 Signal Chain.............................................................................................................................. 5 Transmission................................................................................................................ 5 Cable Layout................................................................................................................ 5 Video Switching and Production.............................................................................................. 7 Animated transitions....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Weight MAGAZINES Deregulation and Time Inc
    APRIL 7, 2003 $3.95 VOL.13 NO. 14 THE NEWS MAGAZINE OF THE MEDIA Lifetime Fights to Stem Slide Net rolling out new original series and cross -media sales unit to get back to No. PAGE 4 -Orr -1111111111F-W KIDS TELEVISION Discovery Kids Adds Animation Tutenstein, Kenny the Shark join NBC Sat. hlorl,PAGE 5 NETWORK TV UPN Pins Sales ForSmackdowni WWE hopes to get a hold on new advertisers PAGE 5 Weight MAGAZINES Deregulation and Time Inc. Execs diversification-that's how E.W. Scripps CEO Shake Up People Ken Lowe wants to 3 las replaced as top editor grow his midsize changes continue PAGE 6 media company into one of the big boys 11 11 BY SANDY BROWN PAGE 24 D 491189931 2 IMIXFHOWJ ..**,.***********.*** 3 -DIGIT 07B MO1098340* JUN04 LAURA JONES WALDENBOOKS 42 MOUNT PLEASANT AVE WHARTON NJ 07885-2126 S0070 H1.11."11.1.1.11.1.1.1.h.d1.1.111.1.1.1.1.111 THORA BIRCHA LIFETIME ORIGINAL MOVIE EVENTKELLY LYNCH shenothing believedWhen to believetherein herself. was in, THE LIZr!es MURRAY STORY BASED ON81* A TRUEI3r STORY PREMIERES 9PM ET/PT TONIGHT Source:FORFROM Nilsen ORIGINAL MediaTHE Research,12/31/C1-12;2/02; #1 BASIC MOVIES. BasedCABLE on original movieNETWORK Lifetime premiere F .usehold average vs. all ban: cable retworks lied with TBS). -raum-um 4t ixowy.4.4 Market At Deadline Indicators NATIONAL TV: STRONG I EMMIS MULLS DEAL WITH NEWS CORP. parent company General Motors. News Corp. was out- With few major adver- Emmis Communications disclosed last Friday that it has bid last year by EchoStar Communications, but that deal tisers pulling spots been talking to News Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Jazz and Radio in the United States: Mediation, Genre, and Patronage
    Jazz and Radio in the United States: Mediation, Genre, and Patronage Aaron Joseph Johnson Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Aaron Joseph Johnson All rights reserved ABSTRACT Jazz and Radio in the United States: Mediation, Genre, and Patronage Aaron Joseph Johnson This dissertation is a study of jazz on American radio. The dissertation's meta-subjects are mediation, classification, and patronage in the presentation of music via distribution channels capable of reaching widespread audiences. The dissertation also addresses questions of race in the representation of jazz on radio. A central claim of the dissertation is that a given direction in jazz radio programming reflects the ideological, aesthetic, and political imperatives of a given broadcasting entity. I further argue that this ideological deployment of jazz can appear as conservative or progressive programming philosophies, and that these tendencies reflect discursive struggles over the identity of jazz. The first chapter, "Jazz on Noncommercial Radio," describes in some detail the current (circa 2013) taxonomy of American jazz radio. The remaining chapters are case studies of different aspects of jazz radio in the United States. Chapter 2, "Jazz is on the Left End of the Dial," presents considerable detail to the way the music is positioned on specific noncommercial stations. Chapter 3, "Duke Ellington and Radio," uses Ellington's multifaceted radio career (1925-1953) as radio bandleader, radio celebrity, and celebrity DJ to examine the medium's shifting relationship with jazz and black American creative ambition.
    [Show full text]