Talking about payola and all that nonsense, several more pieces in the US press this week asking why Eliot Spitzer should pick out the bribing of radio bosses by record labels as being so bad in a world where publicists and lobbyists are constantly bribing their way into media coverage and the likes.
Spitzer's payola mission, of course, isn't just targeting those who hand over hard cash for airtime, but also those who use the supply of premium competition prizes or expensive freebies for programming chiefs. That, some argue, is what everyone working in PR does. And why, they add, is bribing your way into airtime any different than buying racking in record shops or support slots on tours, or getting on the cover of magazines by offering big competition prizes - all of which are commonplace in the music and other sectors?
Anyway, here's what columnist Daniel Goss has to say about the matter in an article on the Slate.com website: "In the half-century since the original payola scandals, the music industry, the broader commercial culture, and consumer expectations have evolved to the point where the payola laws seem outmoded and backward-looking. Fifty years ago, the prospect of a big record company and a big radio station owner conspiring to fix what got played could have threatened an important component of the economy and actually stifled musical creativity. But not today. If no one likes the music, it won't last, and the stations themselves will suffer. As Mel Karmazin, the former head of Infinity Broadcasting and CBS used to note, every radio comes equipped with an on/off switch."
Interesting stuff - full article is at: http://www.slate.com/id/2123483/nav/tap1/