AMY GOODMAN: “No more Clear Channel! Stop the FCC media giveaway!” That’s the cry today as the deadline for the FCC vote on new media regulations draws near. While Secretary of State Colin Powell led the U.S. invasion against Iraq, his son, Michael Powell, is clearing the way for further consolidation of the media in the United States. Today, protest actions are planned in San Francisco, New York City, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, Pittsburgh, against the new rules, which would threaten independent voices in broadcast radio and television. And these protests are taking place outside of Clear Channel stations.

What is Clear Channel? Since the most recent FCC vote in 1996 to ease media ownership roles in the radio industry, Clear Channel has grown from a small-time operator of some 40 stations to the nation’s largest radio station owner, with more than 1,200 stations.

Eric Boehlert joins us now, senior writer at Salon.com, who has covered Clear Channel Communications extensively and its impact on the deregulation of media ownership rules. His most recent article is the sixth in a series on consolidation of media ownership. It’s called “Clear Channel’s Big Stinking Deregulation Mess.”

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Eric Boehlert.

ERIC BOEHLERT: Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, why don’t you start off by just telling us what Clear Channel is? How did this company get started?

ERIC BOEHLERT: Well, it was just a small family-owned broadcasting company out of San Antonio, Texas, about — I think the founder, Lowry Mays, bought his first station in 1972. Through the ’70s and ’80s, it was known as, you know, a moderate family-run station, mostly outside the major markets, mostly in the Midwest, mostly in the South. They had a reputation for being pretty tight with the pennies. There were known as “Cheap Channel” in the industry.

And then, on the eve of the Telecom Act in '96, they had grown to 30 or 40 stations. After the Telecom Act, which essentially lifted ownership limits — in the larger markets, you can have up to eight radio stations now — lots of companies went on buying sprees. And they just kept doing it the longest, and they did the biggest deals. And by 2001, they had become the largest and went over, I think, the thousand-station mark. And now they're at 1,200 radio stations, as you mentioned.

But that’s really only part of it, because what they also did is, essentially, in that five- or six-year window, they essentially purchased the American music touring business. They sell more tickets and own more venues and promote more concerts than anyone else in the world. So, what they did was essentially took control the radio business and took control of the concert business and, by — indirectly, almost took control the music industry. So it’s much more than a radio company. And actually, they’re the world’s largest billboard operator. They have over 700,000 billboards, and they have 30-plus radio stations. So, they’re enormous. I mean, they rank in the top 10 in terms of media revenue. But up until a year or so ago, very few people outside the radio business really paid much attention to them.

And the reason they’ve become so important is they have become sort of a blueprint for what happens in media consolidation. When the Telecom Act was proposed in '96, it originally wanted to lift ownership caps for everybody, for newspapers, for television and radio. In the end, the Clinton White House stripped out most of it and left in the radio provisions. So, what's happening now is the FCC is about to lift ownership caps. And people are saying, “Well, you know, we’ve seen what happened with radio. It’s not as if we don’t know what’s going to happen with newspapers and television. Let’s take a look at what happened with radio, and let’s see what worked well and what did not.” And very few people who don’t work for Clear Channel think consolidation in radio has done anything to improve radio or actually improve the music industry.

AMY GOODMAN: It was very interesting to watch a Senate Commerce Committee hearing where Michael Powell was basically raked over the coals from everyone from Trent Lott to Barbara Boxer.

ERIC BOEHLERT: Yeah, he’s really — there’s so much jockeying going on now with this pending June 2nd vote. There was — a majority of the Commerce Committee is now opposed to the rule change and specifically asked Powell to delay the vote a month. And, right, Trent Lott is now opposed to it. And I don’t think a year ago most people thought a majority of the Republican-controlled Commerce Committee would be opposed to it. And they had asked that the chairman, John McCain, bring Powell and the other commissioners up to the Hill to testify about the vote. But McCain, who is Powell’s sort of mentor, blocked that request and is basically trying to protect him. And it’s interesting in that the Republicans, many Republicans — several Republicans are against it. Most Democrats are against it. He doesn’t really have — Powell doesn’t really have any political momentum. The public comments are — it’s been an unprecedented outpouring of public feedback for an FCC pending rule change.

AMY GOODMAN: On the Clear Channel issue, Eric Boehlert of Salon.com, we have heard the story over and over that on a cold January morning 2002, in Minot, North Dakota, there was a terrible ammonia gas spill, and the authorities wanted to reach the population to warn them. They turned to the radio stations. All six were owned by Clear Channel. They couldn’t find a living soul in them. They were just broadcasting music at the time. It turned out 300 people went to the hospital. Clear Channel truly clear-channeling, just sending in signal from other states. Is this a true story? And what about the significance of this, not having local media?

ERIC BOEHLERT: Oh, yeah, it’s true. And I mean, in some — in defense somewhat of Clear Channel, I guess there was a glitch in the Emergency Broadcasting System and how the police normally contact local broadcasters. But so, that didn’t work, so the police had to call the station over the phone. And at the six stations — I think it was a weekend — there was one person working, which is very common for Clear Channel stations, to operate six stations with one person. And the person didn’t pick up the phone. And so, people were huddling in their houses turning on the radio, because the electricity was out — so, a lot of them had their battery-operated radio — and there’s nothing. I mean, there’s just piped-in music.

AMY GOODMAN: And Clear Channel’s connection to the Bush administration, the owners and the pro-war rallies that they’ve been calling around the country?

ERIC BOEHLERT: Yeah, that caught a lot of attention. Clear Channel and other stations, they were sponsoring — it was a Clear Channel syndicated talk show host, and they were sponsoring pro-war rallies. And they said — Clear Channel said, “Well, this has nothing to do with us. It wasn’t a edict from top down.” But, in effect, what the Clear Channel stations did was, I mean, at a time when antiwar rallies were making all the headlines, they provided a crucial role. I mean, they took care of the planning. They took care of the permits. They took care of planning sort of the entertainment for the rallies. They advertised them relentlessly on the air. And they got tens of thousands of people to come out and to show — and, obviously, that — this was February, March, when the White House was trying to rally support. And Lowry Mays is a founder, is a well-known Republican, overwhelming found — donated to the Republican Party. Clear Channel’s sort of official — sort of the key mark talent is Rush Limbaugh.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, on that note, Eric Boehlert, we have to go, but we do want to have you back on again, Eric Boehlert of Salon.com, senior writer, has been specializing in covering Clear Channel Communications. You’re listening to Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll go to a hearing in the last few days of journalistic organizations and dissident members of the FCC. Stay with us.