From The New York Times:
Even if the deal does not face resistance from the F.C.C., it is likely to encounter opposition elsewhere. The National Association of Broadcasters, a trade association for television and radio stations, is already speaking out against a merger.
“In coming weeks, policymakers will have to weigh whether an industry that makes Howard Stern its poster child should be rewarded with a monopoly platform for offensive programming,” the group said. “We’re hopeful that this anticonsumer proposal will be rejected.”
Where does a music fan who’s befuddled by the would-be phenomenon of satellite radio find a reason to care about the proposed merger of XM and Sirius? Is this merger not inevitable? Does it not reflect all that’s wrong with satellite radio in the first place: the tightly preselected formats and playlists, the final eradication of regional tastes, the take-it-or-leave-it stance of multimedia conglomerates…
And what’s with this article’s ultimate focus on Howard Stern and issues of morality? The New York Times piece begins with the lovely cheesecake shot we’ve copied here and ends with concerns about “a monopoly platform for offensive programming.” Is that the only monopoly the National Association for Broadcasters should be concerned about?
I’ve long had only one opinion about this whole matter: Enable me to have an Internet hookup in my car so that I can tune into the thousands of free college and indie stations that broadcast over the Web. I don’t need Howard Stern or Bob Dylan as my host. I don’t need some safe, segmented programming with an LCD display of the song and artist playing. I want to hear music with personality, including the personality of sometimes stumbling college DJs. Satellite radio can continue to kiss my grits!