FYI: Radio Station - Promotes Driving Into Cyclists As Fun

[XtalMan]

Engage in "witty banter" and advocate violence against radio personalities and Clear Channel execs, all in the name of "entertainment". Put up a private web page with their pictures and contact info, and send them each a link to it. Put up a disclaimer in small print that the page is intended to be "humorous" and there is no actual intent to harm radio personalities who advocate violence against cyclers. "Assure" them of this. If they complain, issue an insincere apology and feel free to make contact.

Maybe when the shoe is on the other foot, they will see the situation from a biker's viewpoint. Unfortunately, they would probably play this up to generate publicity and demonize cyclists, so never mind all this babbling!

[John E]

A small, persistent band of people CAN make a BIG difference. Given that five different CC stations have advocated assaulting bicyclists, I think we need to get the FCC on our side against CC's top management and their aspirations of world airwave domination. Make it hurt their primary pain receptors -- their wallets.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by MisterJ
these activities are disconcerting and generally not in the best interest of society at large

...and that's why there are laws.

What would happen if these bozo's wanted to run over people in wheelchairs? How about black people? Funny then?

The government has a responsibility to prevent these types of things.

Clear Channel'd be lucky to only have to pay out a suit. Jail time for advocating injury to others is more appropriate.

[jester69]

This whole thing reminds me of that lecture we all got in civics class about free speech, how one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater as it might hurt people.

This seems like the same situation, shouldn't there be some law agency to take these people to task?

take care,

Jester

[Chris L]

Originally posted by closetbiker
...and that's why there are laws.

What would happen if these bozo's wanted to run over people in wheelchairs? How about black people? Funny then?

The government has a responsibility to prevent these types of things.

Clear Channel'd be lucky to only have to pay out a suit. Jail time for advocating injury to others is more appropriate.

Lawsuits are all well and good, but is it really wise to put all our eggs in one basket? After all, we've seen a lot of other judgements in the past, mentioned both on this forum and on others, that go against cyclists for no rational reason. Personally, I'd be hitting their sponsors as well.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Chris L
we've seen a lot of other judgements in the past, mentioned both on this forum and on others, that go against cyclists for no rational reason.

Well, like I said, I'm no lawyer but I think it would be well worth the investment to involve a lawyer and get an opinion if it would be worth it to sue.

It seems to me not only are they breaking broadcast law, they're breaking some laws against society. Further, they've done it before and been warned not to do it again.

That said, I do get your point that some trials can be risky. I just would be very surprised how the corporation could not be held responsible, in some way, for the actions of it's employees inciting hatred and harm to others.

[lsits]

I did an internet search on clear channel and found a list of all of the affiliates in my area. I found one that I listen to on a semi-regular basis. I sent the following email:

Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 4:28 PM
To: Programming (listeners)
Subject: From a former listner



This is intended for Mr. Greg Ashlock,

Mr. Ashlock,

It has come to my attention that Clear Channel Communications, of which you are an affiliate, has recently been airing some very offensive material. I am refering to the stations in Houston, Cleveland, and most recently in Raleigh, North Carolina advocating violence against bicyclists. Listeners were urged to do whatever they could to get them out of the road. This included opening doors while moving and throwing things at the cyclists.

As a cyclist I find this sort of programming very disturbing. Bicycles are classified as vehicles in all 50 states and have an equal right to the road (with a few exceptions) as other vehicles.

In Cleveland and Houston there was an outcry from the cycling community. The station managers issued an appology. After the incident in Raleigh, it is apparent that there is a pattern. I have decided to stop listining to your station in protest. I have regularly listened to Bill Handel, John and Ken, Phil Hendrie, and occasionally Rush Limbaugh. No More. I will be listening to KABC from now on.

Thank you

James M. Sprague

I received the following reply:

Jim:

Thanks for the correspondence. It's too bad that the actions of others around the country have swayed you to abandon KFI.

I am not familiar with the specifics of the "cycling incidences", but I am certain that Clear Channel, as a company, would not support such behavior. I understand your stance, and hope to one day win you back to the station.

In the meantime, we'll make sure that no such nonsense makes it on the airwaves in Southern California.

*****
Greg Ashlock is listed as the program director for KFI-AM in Los Angeles. I'm not sure what position Robin Bertolucci holds at Clear Channel. She was copied on the reply.

Even though KFI has not participated in any anti-cycling propoganda, I'm trying to send a message to Clear Channel. I picked a station I listen to and am sticking to my guns. I think it helps that I listed the hosts that I listen to. Maybe someone at Clear Channel will start listening.

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by fujibike
Received this response today as I would expect many of you may have. I'll be writing their advertisers.

September 29, 2003



Thank you for your e-mail message regarding recent Bob and Madison morning show broadcasts on G105.



Our morning show includes a good deal of animated banter, between callers and on-air personalities, that can be both humorous and caustic. The intention is always to entertain our listeners. During a couple of shows this week, time was spent by callers and on-air personalities discussing driving and cyclists. During this discussion, comments were made which at the time we felt were humorous in nature. In retrospect we feel that the some of the comments were inappropriate, and for that we sincerely apologize.



Be assured that G105 does not advocate harm to cyclists. Again, thank you for your message and please feel free to write or phone me in the event I can be of service.



Best regards,



Ken Spitzer

Regional Vice President

G105-FM Radio

Phone: 919-878-1500

This i sMr Spitzers canned answer to anyone who writes him

[Cyclepath]

Contacting these fascists is good. I would also contact the police in their area & file charges against them. You don't need a lawyer to do that.

The charge is "threatening". You can't go on the "public" (ahem) airwaves & advocate murder, even as a "joke" (see what happens if you go out & "jokingly" advocate killing Bush & his entire cabinet. The FBI will not laugh).

[LarryJ]

This note was circulated by Steve Goodridge, who has been one of the cyclists negotiating with clear channel. I suggest folks read it, including the web link to the demands, and take the advice in the note.

===========================================================================

FYI, Mike Dayton sums up, more succinctly than I can, what is happening. More
details will follow when I have time. Our complete list of recommendations to
Clear Channel Communications can be read at:

http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/wdcg.htm

Station manager Ken Spitzer has offered to develop a radio PSA education
campaign regarding the rights of roadway cyclists per one of our
recommendations. He has not offered to meet our other recommendations. Deciding
where to go from here is our next challenge.

If I may ask, please spread the word that our cause would be served best by
avoiding "personalized" attacks against the radio station management, and that
emailing the station is probably no longer productive. I recommend that if
people have the energy to write the station, they write professional-looking
postal mail. We as a commnity are already as big and loud as we could possibly
want to be; we need to start sounding smart.

Your servant,
Steve Goodridge
Vice President, NCBC
Webmaster, North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Dayton
To: tarwheels-chat@tarwheels.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:03 PM
Subject: In Praise of our Fearless Leaders


I'd like to applaud the efforts of Bruce Rosar and Steven Goodridge in their
negotiation efforts with the WDCG station manager Ken Spitzer. They persuaded
Spitzer and his operations manager Chris Shebel to attend today's CAMPO Bike/PedStakeholders' meeting. Bruce and Steven avoided hot button debate or finger
pointing and focused instead on what needed to be done by Clear Channel in the
way of a public education campaign to improve motorist awareness of cyclists'
right to operate in the travel lanes and cyclists' awareness of safe and lawful
bicycle driving techniques. They also provided a list of specific
recommendations for Clear Channel to consider, including a possible national
public relations campaign to promote safer cycling. Cheers to both of them. It
appeared to be an effective approach and Mr. Spitzer seemed receptive to some of
the suggestions. Mike Dayton, Raleigh

[ngateguy]

I was sent this on an email list I am on here in the Puget sound area I think we shoul dcontinue to put on the pressure and as stated above be proffesional people will listen to you more than if you attack and call them names

http://newsobserver.com/front/story/2911503p-2677916c.html

[closetbiker]

Yesterday I said,

The best way to hit that pocket book would be to sue. Where is L.A.W. on this issue?

so I emailed L.A.W. and said,

it would seem to me Clear Channel radio is breaking the law with it's recent broadcasting of advice to harrass cyclists. It also seems to me a suit ruled in cyclists favour would put money into cyclists causes. Now if the League promotes National, State and Local Bicycle Advocacy with leadership at the national, state and local level, is it right not to address this issue? What can, and will, you do about this?

I've yet to hear back, but it's good to hear of Steve Goodridges' efforts.

It's also good to read in the link that "running down" cyclists is, in fact, breaking the law.

Specifically,

# that intentionally assaulting a bicyclist with motor vehicle can be a Class E felony (NCGS 14-32, Assault with a Deadly Weapon Inflicting Serious Injury)

# if a motorist followed the broadcast instructions while committing such an assault, the offense rises to a Class C felony

# if a cyclist were killed as a result of such assault, the charge would rise to manslaughter or murder

We need more info on inciting, or encouraging the public to do this via broadcasting to twist the screws on Clear Channel.

What we also need to know now, is what the consequences would be to Clear Channel if they refuse to comply with Steve Goodridges' requests.

[jfz]

I sent an e-mail to the radio station. I am also sending a copy of this to my kids in college, they use their bicycles for transportation as do many of their friends-losts more e-mails on the way!

[jester69]

Here is a Great article (http://www.mountainbike.com/bread/burbank/bbk_20030930-17632.shtml) with legal commentary by Bob Mionske on how best hit clear channel where it hurts, here is an excerpt:

Write the FCC as well and tell them that when the station renews its license that you expect the FCC to actually review the station's conduct, rather than fast-track the licensing renewal process like it usually does. That has teeth because the FCC requires broadcast programming to be of value to the community.

take care,

Jester

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by jester69
Here is a Great article (http://www.mountainbike.com/bread/burbank/bbk_20030930-17632.shtml) with legal commentary by Bob Mionske

---"Clear Channel opens itself up to civil and criminal prosecution in the event that a listener does actually harm a cyclist...in tort law you can get pretty creative in finding ways to get money, if the defendant were to say he was inspired to act (by a DJ's comments)... The First Amendment protects nearly all forms of speech except obscenity, and courts have traditionally been very loath to restrict speech ...a lawyer taking Clear Channel to court would have to prove..that people could be presumed to act on their (theDJ's) direction...I was unable to uncover even an FCC rule against broadcast outlets advocating violent acts...it will come to a personal liability injury case before a constitutional law case."---


Ah, here's the difference between Canadian and American law. I think we have a more restrictive free speech stance that comes down on inciting hate and hateful actions.

Maybe boycotts and emails to the FCC are better than a suit.

[ngateguy]

Originally posted by closetbiker
[

Ah, here's the difference between Canadian and American law. I think we have a more restrictive free speech stance that comes down on inciting hate and hateful actions.

Maybe boycotts and emails to the FCC are better than a suit. [/B]

You know you learn something new everyday I always thought that advocating violence against a paticular kind of people I.E. Race, Religion, ETC was not covered by freedom of speech.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by fujibike
Received this response today as I would expect many of you may have. I'll be writing their advertisers.

(Edited for illustrative purposes)

September 29, 2003



Thank you for your e-mail message regarding recent Fred and Barney morning show broadcasts on P103, the "happy station."

Our morning show includes a good deal of animated banter, between callers and on-air personalities, that can be both humorous and informative. The intention is always to entertain our listeners. After all, what could be more entertaining than watching a cyclist take a tumble?

During a couple of shows this week, and on many others stations nationwide, time was spent by callers and on-air personalities discussing how drivers could make cyclists get off the road. During this discussion, comments were made which at the time we felt were humorous in nature, especially the one about the gay cyclist in spandex landing under a truck. We know you must have loved that one!

In retrospect we feel that the some of the comments were innapropriate, since we could have done a much better job of antagonizing cyclists for personal gain than we did. Better luck next time!

Be assured that P103 does not advocate harm to cyclists. We only want to see to it that our ratings increase, since we have no other means of gaining listeners through airing intelligent programming.

Again, thank you for your message and please feel free to write or phone me in the event I can be of service knocking you guys into a ditch! (Just a little radio humor!)

Best regards,

blah, blah.

[gobybicycle.com]

for those who want a little catharsis, please check out the following link.

www.gobybicycle.com/clearchannel'snewlogo.htm (http://www.gobybicycle.com/clearchannel'snewlogo.htm)

clear communications has an abysmal track record of violations, however they are huge, and therefore can get away with these things unless there is grassroots effort to make it known that they are going to see unhappy days unless they stop.

the most common thing they will come back with, if sufficiently threatened, is that we are infringing on their rights to free speech. to counter this argument, one only has to say that had the germans stood up and cried bull**** when the propaganda machine started stirring up hatred of jews, homosexuals and gypsies, that whole nightmarish episode in history may have never happened. the problem, however, was that the germans were in despair because the economy was in the dumps (sound familiar?), so they needed some sort of scapegoat. don't let bicycling become the scapegoat. also, another argument to be made if clear channel starts harping is that all mass media (yes, including "public" radio and television) is owned and operated by privately owned corporations, which is a slap in the face to democracy. taking back the airwaves into the public realm would be a major accomplishment, but this would more than likely invole all out revolution.

if you look and see the ties between the auto and oil industries and clear channel, it becomes clear why it is acceptable to speak this way of bicyclists. this is no conspiracy, it is a concerted effort to assure profits. and is it just a coincidence that this happened in several cities almost simultaneously? no, this is a concerted effort to whip up hatred of those who aren't doing what they should be doing, that is, getting in cars and driving.

scott
www.gobybicycle.com

[trappermark]

While I don't for a moment want to dampen the strenght of our responses to these issues, let's go easy on wild conspiracy theories.

My father was a radio DJ for years, and he could tell you that the most likely scenario is simply that DJ's steal succesful material from one another like crazy. If they hear that a "bit" generated a lot of publicity in one market, they'll try it in there's. Very little of what you hear on "shock jock" radio is original.

[lsd87]

I'm going to send a few letters myself. I think the investor relations route could be helpful to get this crap off the air. Let them know you will spread the news anyway possible that investors will not tolarate this. Encourage people not to buy their stock (CCU) and to sell their shares. If they are held responsible for the injury or death of someone, it will cost plenty. If we could get a major news organization to run this story, investors will bail. This is a public corporation. Write the board of directors and executive staff. I agree that the same be done with their sponsors. Write major shareholders. The is alot of financial information at yahoo finance.

[closetbiker]

Ah, here's the difference between Canadian and American law. I think we have a more restrictive free speech stance that comes down on inciting hate and hateful actions.

And here is a brief part explaining the legislation ---

A hate or bias crime is a criminal offence motivated by hate, prejudice, or bias committed against a person or property...

Two Categories of Hate Crimes in the Criminal Code:

The hate and biased provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) can be separated into two categories. (1) Hate propaganda offences of advocating genocide or promoting hatred against an identifiable group (relevant CCC s. 318 and s. 319) and (2) other offences that warrant extended sentencing as motivated by hate includes (1) assault, (2) mischief and property damage, and (3) threats. (See section 718.2 regarding extended sentencing and motivated factors.)

Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General...

Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of: an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or, an offence punishable on summary conviction. Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty of: an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or an offence punishable on summary conviction. ----


I'm sure glad I'm a Canadian!

[roadbuzz]

F**k ClearChannel! Talk to their sponsors if you want to get results. Check out this link for a good example:

http://www.velonews.com/phorum3/read.php?f=2&i=19962&t=19962

[CarlJStoneham]

About time!

[georgesnatcher]

I got the exact same e mail back from Kroger as the one in roadbuzzes link. I guess Kroger gives as big a crap as Clear Channel does.

[CarlJStoneham]

Not really. Just means they're a big company. Form letters are the norm. The *content* is what's important and it sounds like K-roger took some action! YAY!

[ngateguy]

Here is an email I received this morning from the Roadbikerider.com NewsleterRoadBikeRider.com Newsletter
Issue No. 114 - 10/09/03: Justice Prevailing
ISSN 1536-4143

Published every Thursday by Ed Pavelka and Fred
Matheny
of RBR Publishing Company. E-mailed without charge or
obligation to roadies around the world.



1. News from Ed & Fred

The Clear Channel controversy is not clearing up for
that
irresponsible company.

Cleveland was bad. Houston was worse. And Raleigh
could be
Clear Channel's undoing. Let's hope.

We've told you how Clear Channel radio stations in
each city

incited drivers to force cyclists off the road, hit us
with open

doors, throw bottles at us or even run us over. The
outcry from

the cycling community and other outraged citizens has
been
tremendous.

And effective. The Raleigh station lost at least one
large
local advertiser, a Ford dealership. The offending
shock
jocks were taken off the air. Cyclists picketed, which
focused reporters on the station's transgression.

The LA Times published an article this week, "Mikes
vs. Bikes."

It put Clear Channel in the negative light it so
richly deserves.

Good Morning America contacted the League of American
Bicyclists, the country's primary cycling advocacy
organization. There's a chance that LAB communications
director Patrick McCormick will appear on the show.

It gets better.



The Federal Communications Commission has announced

a series of public hearings around the country. These
sessions

will help determine whether radio stations are serving
the public
interest, as required, and therefore deserve to have
their
license renewed.

That isn't in response to the current Clear Channel
controversy,

but it ensures that complaints about harm-cyclists
programming

will be heard by the right people.

The license of the offending station in Raleigh
expires on Dec. 1.

Cyclists there have done a great job mobilizing. You
can bet

they won't miss the chance to give the FCC a reason
why that

station should be off the air.

Here's an article about the FCC hearings:
www.newsobserver.com/business/story...p-2683810c.html

Here's a chronology of the episode at Clear Channel
station

G105 in Raleigh:
www.trianglemtb.com/pages/projects/g105.html
_________________________________________

Even if you're not in a town that's suffered Clear
Channel's
"hate crime" programming, you might want to express
your
feelings about that company to the FCC. Here, courtesy
of

RBR subscriber Anthony D., are the key e-mail
addresses:

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov

Anthony cautions: "Letters that contain inappropriate
language or threats will likely backfire, suggesting
to the
commissioners that cyclists are just fruitcakes who
deserve
no more consideration than the broadcasters who incite
motorists to attack them."

Amen.

[DanFromDetroit]

<sarcasm>
This really couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of folks.
</sarcasm>

I would like to be able to say that CCs poor record with regards to cycling prompted me to flip the ON/OFF switch on my radio to OFF, but the fact is I turned them off over a year ago. The local morning radio shows on CC stations devolved into such apalling and reprehensible poor taste that I wondered why folks would subject themselves to such dreck, and more amazing still advertisers pay good money to have their products associated with these hyenas.

My mornings are much more pleasant without them.

Dan

[CarlJStoneham]

My e-mail to the FCC. Feel free to use it:

To: mpowell@fcc.gov; kabernat@fcc.gov; mcopps@fcc.gov; kjmweb@fcc.gov; jadelste@fcc.gov

Dear Sirs and Madam
I just wanted to briefly express my concern over the potential renewal of Clear Channel's license in December. In the Cleveland, Houston, and Raleigh markets, Clear Channel radio shows have been responsible for advocating acts of violence against cyclists on the street. DJ's have shared and laughed about stories suggesting that motorists throw bottles at cyclists, attempt to run them off the road and/or drive motorcycles down bike paths and lanes (to mention only a sampling). It goes without saying that this is criminally negligent behavior and is not in the best interest of the cycling community or society at large. I would like to urge you to closely scrutinize the renewal of Clear Channel Communication's license this year. The incidents in the three aforementioned markets occurred at different times and show a trend by Clear Channel of inciting listeners to engage in acts which could seriously injure-- possibly kill-- cyclists.

Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail. If it's not too much trouble, I would appreciate a brief response to, or acknowledgement of, this e-mail.

Sincerely,
Carl J. Stoneham
Cyclist- Mabank, TX

[CarlJStoneham]

I also e-mailed CCC a copy of the letter.

Hee hee...

[jacob]

ok, somebody tell me what clear channels are in Atlanta or the Southeast so I can fabricate plans to eliminate their market base and infrastructure.


Jacob

[ngateguy]

http://clearchannel.com/rad_search.php