Pirate Radio
I saw most of Pirate Radio on an SAS flight back when I was in Europe, but it just opened in the U.S. (or here in DC at any rate) this weekend so I went to see the whole thing. Very fun movie, with a lot of great music.
It also comes, in virtue of the subject matter, with a strong libertarian, anti-statist message. And of course it’s quite true that a public agency getting involved in the arts is likely to tend toward propagation of the status quo rather than toward innovation. The German government does a lot of subsidizing of opera, and by most accounts (I’m not in a position to judge) they do a very good job of mounting good performances of the classic works. But boosting innovation, the way an illegal offshore radio broadcaster like the one depicted in the movie could, is not the forte of a state broadcaster.
That said, the film’s portrayal of the creative promise of commercial radio doesn’t seem to hold up all that well to the rather tawdry reality of today’s commercial FM radio stations. They’re not run by fussy bureaucrats who insist on classical music only, but you’d hardly say that they’re havens of good taste and pioneering aesthetic. In a sense, you might think of the fact that pirate radio stations operate in a legal gray area as integral to their success. The enterprise is commercial enough to cater to consumer demand for rock ‘n roll, but it’s enough of a dubious prospect to mostly attract real enthusiasts as proprietors and staff. Full-blown commercialization, combined with the limited supply of viable broadcast frequencies, pushes stations toward homogenization and a least common denominator mindset. That’s why in the U.S. innovative music programming came to be associated with college radio stations that, like the pirate stations from the movie, are driven by the interests of enthusiasts rather than an ethic of profit-maximization. At this point, of course, it’s all moot since terrestrial radio is basically yesterday’s news.
54 Responses to “Pirate Radio”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 14th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
That’s why in the U.S. innovative music programming came to be associated with college radio stations that, like the pirate stations from the movie, are driven by the interests of enthusiasts rather than an ethic of profit-maximization.
Yes! Drawn by a common interest, all those “college radio enthusaists” magically came together in the middle of an open field.–and then, with equal numinosity, broadcast equipment and studio space appeared ex nihilo, providing them with an outlet for their enthusiasm! It’s just like the Internet!
Now, some unbelievers might falsely claim that college radio stations were established by colleges, using public funds and tuition money, with the intent of training students for future paying jobs in broadcasting. To those heretics I say: anathema to you! St. Matthew of Yglesias hath to us given the revealed truth: information wants to be freeeee, forever and ever, amen.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
most of the college radio stations I know of were started by volunteers with really low power equipment. They often used the electrical wiring in the dorms to send out their signal. Sure, they all were given space on campus for a studio. I’m sure there are some that some were heavily subsidized. Seems like at Penn State the student radio station was taken over and turned into the typical NPR/classical music/jazz station. They finally seem to have recovered to the extent that I can sometimes pick up the signal from the student run station when I’m not on campus.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
A shame that the producers of the movie actually got the history completely backwards – it was unions who limited rock to 45 minutes, and the anti-commercial sentiments of a Labour government who shut down the pirates.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/10/new-post.html
November 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
RE: “It also comes, in virtue of the subject matter, with a strong libertarian, anti-statist message.”
True, but that’s a silly reason to give into libertarians. Libertarians have this concept of themselves that they are the only ones that like letting individuals act freely and that they’re the only ones that are suspicious of the government. It’s just not true. It’s part of no liberal (or conservative for that matter) creed to control what music can be played over the radio. It’s part of no liberal (or conservative for that matter) creed to restrict the arts, or to remove profit incentives, or to remove personal responsibility, or anything else.
There’s not a libertarian aesthetic in the movie – there is a liberty aesthetic. Liberals need to get a back bone and stop feeding into the libertarian narrative that a vigorous love of individual freedom and anti-statism implies or supports libertarianism. It doesn’t.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
When did MattY join the British Special Forces, and does this explain his new found BOLDNESS!? LOL!
November 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Haven’t seen the film, but wasn’t it the case at that time that there weren’t any other radio stations in the UK besides the BBC and its affiliates? Sounds like an argument for a robust public option combined with an innovative, competitive private market for supllmental coverage.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
The fact that they operated in a broadcast medium was integral to their success. When the medium is centrally controlled, and you need permission to get on it, anything subversive is fun.
There’s no such tension on the internet. Unsurprisingly, some of the biggest recent successes are not all that edgy.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
James, as Eric alludes, it doesn’t take much capital to start a radio station. It is bandwidth and regulatory approval that is dear.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
most of the college radio stations I know of were started by volunteers with really low power equipment. They often used the electrical wiring in the dorms to send out their signal.
My knowledge is not exhaustive, but during my four years in college radio, I never heard of any stations that started out this way. As far as I know, all college stations are university-created and -subsidized.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Side rant: Here in Boston, there are a lot more country stations than there used to be. And WBCN went off the air this year.
Now, I don’t have a problem with country music per se. However, I doubt that everyone in Boston suddenly likes country a lot more than the Dropkick Murphys. So I get to wondering: How much of it is due to a reduction of the radio-listening base to the talk-radio demographic?
November 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
When did MattY join the British Special Forces, and does this explain his new found BOLDNESS!? LOL!
I never thought I’d be defending Matt over an alleged typo, but SAS = Scandinavian Airlines System. Matt’s usage was thus completely correct, dipshit.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
it’s quite true that a public agency getting involved in the arts is likely to tend toward propagation of the status quo rather than toward innovation.
Oh, quite!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Mix
Also, James @1 wins the thread outright.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
James, as Eric alludes, it doesn’t take much capital to start a radio station. It is bandwidth and regulatory approval that is dear.
Yes–it doesn’t take much capital, but it’s not free, either. My point is that, contra Matt, college radio (incl. NPR, Pacifica etc.) was never self-organized and sustained completely by volunteers. There were always outside sources providing organization and funding.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
James Gary, lots of college have a radio station that is in no way connected to training their students for careers in broadcasting. Rather, the universities saw it as a useful community amenity that they could support and then realized that only a couple hours a day were necessary for broadcasting community information, leaving the rest of the time for the students to do whatever they wanted.
There are even some high schools that have radio stations: it doesn’t take a lot of power or that much capital. What is does take is authorization from the FCC, which used to be very flexible about handing out licenses to academic institutions. I assume that in earlier days of radio, lots of students or other community groups set up radio stations first and got licenses later.
Commercial radio is efficient because it can deliver large audiences at a very low per-unit cost. That means delivering the most standardized, generic product possible. Radio stations that appealed to niche audiences were worth more to a large corporation that could duplicate their programming that was carefully market-tested and could deliver large audiences to advertising. The small-market radio station owners were sitting on a gold mine because they owned the FCC license, and the FCC has become less and less willing over time to hand out low-power licenses (in part due to the influence of the corporate-radio megaliths), increasing the value of those licenses even further. So you have existing radio license holders who have a huge incentive to cash out, and a huge barrier to entry to get into the radio business unless you have massive amounts of capital– not for the equipment, but for the license.
That’s the real story of commercial radio: buying up smaller pirate-radio-like stations and engaging in some creative rent-seeking from the government to maintain their market position. Not exactly a libertarian paean to the “creative promise of commercial radio.”
November 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I know what he meant. It was a joke, albeit a lame one, related to an earlier post, and meant in good humor. So chill, dipshit!
November 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Tyro–you are completely correct with regard to the FCC license situation.
However, a lot–I would even say a majority–of the people I knew in college radio aimed to have careers in the broadcast or music industries. Whether or not providing intro-level experience to such people was part of a given station’s stated mission, I do not know.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Oh yes the great German redistribution system from the rich to the poor, subsice rich peoples entertainment, along with burning coal or and the rent of agriculture land owners.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
James Gary, I think the motivation for participating in college radio largely depends on the college. At the small liberal arts college I attended, students signed up because it was fun and they got to be on the radio and play the music they liked. I’m sure it’s a much more serious enterprise at larger universities with bigger audiences.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
When private, commercial enterprises are the agents of bland, homogenous mediocrity, libertarians can’t bring themselves to condemn it. If their “logic” is insufficiently creative to prove that a problem is somehow the government’s fault, the problem soesn’t exist.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
17. urgs says: subsice rich peoples entertainment. Assuming urgs meant “subsidize”, how is this any different from the subsidizing of “indie” music (”college rock,” once upon a time), which is absolutely the cultural preference of the educated and/or affluent young.
M.Y. says of commercial radio: you’d hardly say that they’re havens of good taste and pioneering aesthetic. Well, why not? I would say that they are, frankly, and it’s college/indie/alterna stations that are in a depressing doldrum. But these are aesthetic and cultural claims, and hence class-constituted claims, not policy claims.
If your argument for the “success” of small-time radio is the Postal Service, and the “failure” of commercial radio is Hurricane Chris, you really need to reevaluate…your entire life.
A better comparison to make would be later actual pirate radio operating in the UK during the rave/jungle boom in the 90s. These were terrestrial (installed on tower blocks), intensely competitive-hence-innovative, tribal, communitarian and criminally rebellious. Simon Reynolds has written about this extensively
November 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
The fact that the radio spectrum can be bought and sold means that whoever can use it at the least cost wins.
Least cost doesn’t involve any innovation in content, as a local San Francisco station found out as it was liquidated and replaced by… Tapes broadcast from Palm Springs.
How is removing all local content in the public interest?
November 14th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
When I saw the trailers, I wondered what had happened to the title: was The Boat That Rocked considered too subtle for American viewers?
it was unions who limited rock to 45 minutes
Though it’s a bit of a reach to say “unions” when you mean “the Musicians’ Union”. And while it was Tony Benn who opposed commercial radio — in a media climate that had never had commercial stations — it’s worth considering John Peel, who learned his trade in the USA, returned home to work on the Radio London boat, but was then hired by the BBC for the new Radio 1 and stayed with them until his death. (RIP)
It’s also worth remembering that the pols who regulated British radio and maintained the BBC monopoly remembered the cultural role of BBC radio broadcasting during the war; its association with national unity during a the darkest days of the Blitz underpinned the reluctance to open the airwaves to commercial outlets.
wasn’t it the case at that time that there weren’t any other radio stations in the UK besides the BBC and its affiliates?
There aren’t really affiliates in British radio. There are local stations now with distinct local content, but since the end of WW2 until the late 1960s, you had the Home Service, the Light Programme, and the Third Programme and that was it for domestic radio, although Radio Luxembourg was also available.
November 14th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“The German government does a lot of subsidizing of opera, and by most accounts (I’m not in a position to judge) they do a very good job of mounting good performances of the classic works. But boosting innovation, the way an illegal offshore radio broadcaster like the one depicted in the movie could, is not the forte of a state broadcaster.”
But German theatre is also heavily subsidized and they do the weirdest shit imaginable.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Yes, continental Europe’s subsidies do allow certain art forms a level of protection from obsolescence, but, as bob above mentions, they also potentially distort incentives away from “mounting good performances of the classic works”:
November 14th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
meh, tried to put in a link. google “heather mcdonald” and “opera”
November 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
You’re right, of course. The South Korean film industry is a less interesting example. A liberal subsidy to a given sector with a few basic requirements, and then let a thousand flowers bloom. There is, however, substantive difference between that and, say, the BBC.
The important difference is, I think, relative scarcity; you can always build more theaters, but there are real limits to something like broadcast spectrum. I think a hybrid between the two models is probably best. Here in the US we have something called Public Access. I know, from personal experience, that it’s mostly schlock but can also be really fun, weird, and/or interesting. Beyond that our allotment of the common spectrum is a truly pathetic example of political venality and corporate greed.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Theater, Opera whatever, the results of these subsidy eating monsters are all bad. All they do is make some (still luxury even with all the subsidies) entertainment for some exotic taste with a huge upper class bias. There is no market failure, no externality nothing no good reason whatsoever to throw taxes after them.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
“…no good reason whatsoever to throw taxes after them.”
I can think of two good reasons: employment and consumption. I would be interested to see the multiplier effect of artistic subsidies in terms of jobs created and GDP growth. It can’t be that much, but then again it’s not really that much money. Anyone got stats?
November 14th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Some friends in a Canadian band receive a government grant each year. Trust me, the music they play is not “for some exotic taste with a huge upper class bias”. The grant, while not providing a living, is enough for them to consistently tour and record without needing “day jobs”. I believe that there is an economic return for this…the band directly contributes to employment in clubs, recording studios, radio stations, cd and vinyl manufacturers, music publications and websites, etc. A tiny blip in the scheme of things but, still…
I wonder how much of this goes on in Canada and other countries? We tend to think of government subsidies as only going to “high culture”. No stats to back this up but I firmly believe that the arts, especially at a more street level, contribute to the economy in a very direct, local and healthy way.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“I can think of two good reasons: employment and consumption.”
Those subsidies are permanent. They are not some keynsian stimulus measure.
Public radio/tv or even financing bands to write new songs is an entire different issue. Radio/TV/ recordedmusic has almost no variable costs and is hard to exclude. Especially the news produce positive externalities. Irak probably would not have happend with a BBC type station in the US for example.
“I believe that there is an economic return for this…the band directly contributes to employment in clubs, recording studios, radio stations, cd and vinyl manufacturers, music publications and websites, etc. A tiny blip in the scheme of things but, still…”
One can get all the same or even higher multipliers without market distortions. And again, those programs are usually permanent, not short term keynsian makro managment.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
“Those subsidies are permanent. They are not some keynsian stimulus measure.”
So what? As long as they have multiplier effect higher than 1, I don’t really care. It not as though corporate “art” is somehow “better” than government “art”. And given that we’re talking about non-rival goods here I don’t see why we can’t have both.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Urgs doesn’t know what he/she is talking about. Because opera in Germany is heavily subsidized, it’s much MORE egalitarian than in the US/Canda. I’ve taken 5 trips to Germany/Austria for opera because they do the atonal/serialist 20th century stuff that I like and in all that time, I’ve never once paid anywhere close to what it costs me to sit in a comparable seat here in Los Angeles, San Francisco or the Met for the standard rep stuff I fill time with in Germany.
You see far more people under 40 and children at performances in Germany. They also take outreach to children very seriously, both in terms of making it cheap to come to the annual Hansel und Gretel, but also by commissioning new works for children (a win-win: new works to keep the kids rep fresh and it gives composers a chance to learn the craft without the pressure of a big “adult” premiere).
The German system is more efficient because, say, in Berlin, the Staatsoper houses the opera *and* the Berlin Staatskapelle (the symphony orchestra). Most opera houses below the first tier (Berlin, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Hamburg) also house the local theatre group, so in a lot of cases you have three companies sharing a space. In the US, of course, the opera company, the symphony orchestra and the theatre group all have separate spaces, a gross inefficiency.
Those subsidies are permanent
No they aren’t, subsidies come up for review all the time, what do you think the occasional labor unrest is about? The Deustche Oper Berlin lost the wonderful conductor/generalmusikdirector Christian Theilemann in part because the governement wants to whack one of the 3 major Berlin opera companies and they cut the subsidy to the DOB.
And to imply that subsidies remove the risk of failure, that’s sheer fantasy. It may allow German houses to program the weird stuff I like for 4 performances with the knowledge that they’re going to get 60% capacity houses –US companies wouldn’t even bother programming that stuff– but there’s still a reason that the Oper Bonn programs 14 performances in one season of La Boheme: they still have to put butts in seats.
Seriously, class warfare based around the opera is soooooo 1950’s.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Please note that my comments in the first paragraph above do NOT apply to things like the Salzburg Festival, which are outliers anyway.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:17 am
“what it costs me to sit in a comparable seat here in Los Angeles, San Francisco or the Met for the standard rep stuff I fill time with in Germany.”
But that is the entire point. Its still an aquired (or social presssured from Grammar school on) fringe taste mainly hold by the upper class. The ticket prices are lower thanks to subsidies, and some subset of society with a huge upper class bias gets a windfall profit. Sure, you see children, because they have to go. Their Grammar School sents them a couple of times, and also makes clear that its desirable behaviour to go on your own. Entrance is probably free for welfare receipants, but its still unlikely you will see many….
November 15th, 2009 at 12:22 am
urgs, in Europe, opera has always been a middle class art form.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:35 am
IF you think German opera is mostly middle of the road performances of classics, you are seriously misinformed. In frankfurt, at least, the local opera house runs a large proportion of ambitious premiers every season (they recently rolled out several hours of easy listening by Hans Werner Henze). When I was living in Saarbrucken, the local opera house put on Woyzeck, Lulu and Moses and Aaron all in one season. This would not (simply could not – the choir would not be available) happen anywhere in the US.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Shmoe,
The point of economic activity is not working (if we could have the goods and services we do without working ,we’d be better off and spend all our time on leisure while having the same standard of living) or GDP growth.
If the government subsidised digging holes in the ground and filling them up, you would see an increase in employment and GDP.
Higher GDP may indicate higher consumer satisfaction, but if it’s due to government distortions having nothing to do with externalities, it only shows there’s been government distortions. You could have much higher GDP if the State did more such interventions but economic activity would be less consumer satisfying. Even though we would have more money, it would be worth less as money’s worth is only the utility of the goods and services which can be bought with it.
Spending to employ people at a particular activity gives them less incentive to allocate their labor where it’s in greatest undistorted demand. Again, you could employ everyone in the world if you paid them to dig up and fill them up, have a 0% unemployment rate, but that 0% unemployment rate and high GDP would be for nothing.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Just piling on,
If you want more aggregate demand, you don’t need to enter into employment contracts with people, you can just give them direct cash transfers. That could have just as much of a multiplier effect.
Also, since most people want a job primarily for the income, giving them the income directly instead of employing them lets them have more leisure time and/or allocate their labor where there is undistorted demand for it.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:24 am
Not only do German opera companies do a lot more contemporary weird opera than American companies, they also have a habit of mounting innovative and weird (accent on the latter) productions of classic works. Actually setting the opera in the time and place of the libretto is almost unheard of. Instead you get Wagner set in warehouses of abandoned computer equipment, La traviata with AIDS instead of consumption and a 19th century Spanish inn transformed into a Wild West Las Vegas floor show and the like. In aesthetic terms the results are mixed, but they are not predictable or traditional.
You can make the case that subsidized art where making back the nut is not a concern has more license to be innovative and daring rather than free market art which can’t afford to take it’s eye off the bottom line and so tends to appeal to the LCD.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:44 am
AnotherFuckingLawStudent: Thank you, for your this deep insight into social and economic policy. Actually, in a world where all the food and energy are produced by a tiny portion of humanity, it is rather important to find everybody else something useful to do. Like, I don’t know…lawyers. I’m not saying lawyers are useless, merely that the legal profession is not intrinsic to the survival of human kind.
Long term subsidies are not a distortion unless you, for some reason, believe that collective decisions are, some how, less efficacious than individual decisions. Which would seem to be an ideological position, not a practical point of view on current and future policy.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:05 am
AnotherFuckingLawStudent @38: I have no objection to Friedman’s cash transfer idea, no can say he wasn’t a clever economist. But what’s wrong with getting some opera with your multiplier?
We are, again talking about a non-rival good: no piece of “art” can be truly, objectively judged to be “better” than another. Furthermore, I just don’t buy the “crowding out” theory of fiscal policy; not, at least, until the marginal rate of redistribution reaches a much higher level than currently exists in the developed world. When that happens…well, we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
[...] happened to creativity in radio?Close Forward this [...]
November 15th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Shmoe,
When people want the State to incentivise people into making goods whose marginal cost is above their marginal gain, what they’re doing is producing goods for the sake of employing people rather than employing people to produce goods. So, what I said about the point of economic activity may be obvious, but many people seem not to remember it.
“Long term subsidies are not a distortion unless you, for some reason, believe that collective decisions are, some how, less efficacious than individual decisions”
For private goods, they are less efficacious cf the economic calculation problem and price-signals. If they were just as efficacious, we would not have any problems managing economic activity using central planning. If you believe that collective decisions are just as efficacious for all goods production, then you should have no problems with 5 year plans à la Soviets, since thinking it would not be as efficacious is nothing but an ideological position.
” merely that the legal profession is not intrinsic to the survival of human kind.”
What is the relevance of this sentence? Is it an ad hominem?
“it is rather important to find everybody else something useful to do”
Why? If it’s for income reasons, direct transfers can make sure they have an adequate standard of living. If it’s for purpose-of-living reasons, they can find purpose in other ways.
Why should the State find something useful to do for people? If it’s a useful private good, there is no need for the State to do any finding. If it’s a useful common or public good, the State should only employ people only to the extent that the last good produced has a marginal cost equal to its marginal gain. Beyond that, the State subsidising an activity is not finding people something useful to do, it’s doing th equivalent of paying people to dig holes and fill them up.
Crowding out: You think that the people employed in subsidised activities would have been unemployed all through their lives or employed in the very same activities making the same number of goods had it not been for government subsidies? Because that’s what’s required for there not to be any crowding out.
I don’t understand why you say that because no piece of art can be judged better than another, it’s a non-rival good. I had never understood that to be part of a non-rival goods’ definition.
What is the marginal rate of redisribution? Google brought back only 1 result and it wasn’t relevant to crowding out.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
AnotherFuckingLawStudent:
As to what is, apparently, your main point on mixed v. laissez faire economies: I will not use this forum to rehash the arguments of the saltwater/freshwater debate. It seems that you believe Government should only make temporary interventions in the economy. I do not. With the Global Economy’s emergent complexity I think a certain amount of collective decision-making, at the margin, is useful and appropriate. It is obvious that we are different sides of that debate; minds more expert than our own are adjudicating these matters. That is to say I defer to Krugman, DeLong, et al; you, obviously, do not. Do you really think that either of us is going to convince the other?
Read the previous sentence; it is a convenient, object example tailored to it’s audience. I am trying to demonstrate that most peoples’ professions are not really essential to the continuing survival of human kind; I could care less about you or your particular chosen economic niche. In other words, it was not an attack on your, doubtless, unimpeachable character or your very fine, useful profession.
Here you may have a small point; I may have conflated what should be two separate issues. Because it is Sunday morning, and I’m feeling lazy, I will refer you to Moglen and Lessig’s writing about non-rival goods and the free market’s effect on them. As to the superiority/inferiority of art point, I’ll simply reiterate: Corporate “art” cannot really be said to be “better” than Government “art”.
I’m sorry to hear that the almighty Google is not backing me up today. So I’ll simplify things, try: GDP Growth + Marginal Tax Rate + 20th century.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Reading the comments on this site just makes me hate people.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I haven’t seen this movie, and I haven’t read the previous comments, but if I may… I’m a college student, a community radio DJ, and a former member of the executive board of WVKR, a community station affiliated with Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, NY. I’ve seen the inner workings of community radio. I’ve been inside and gotten to know Clear Channel’s Hudson Valley hub (out of which 14 stations broadcast).
The value of community broadcasting is not in ‘aesthetic innovation,’ if there is such a thing. WVKR, which is staffed primarily by people not affiliated with Vassar College, offers (a) a place for any music/talk not currently represented in commercial radio and (b) a metaphorical center for many local communities. Point (a) is important: consumers should have as much choice as possible, even when the market swings towards homogenization. But let’s forget the consumer angle for a minute. The most rewarding aspect is the community part, (b). Community radio gives a voice, however small, to local groups that are necessarily left out of the nationally-scaled commercial media. Low-power stations prioritize the local. This should be an end in and of itself, because there’s really nothing out there that values the local. (Some would counter the Internet has the ability to do so, which is true. Radio carries with it authority, though, in a way the Internet can never do. And if you don’t think that’s important, than you’ve probably never experienced the effects of good community radio.)
I don’t propose we foster pirate radio. I do think the FCC should lift its freeze on granting low-power (or even micropower) broadcasting licenses, though. This policy unnecessarily prohibits a generally harmless, productive activity. Maybe that’s libertarian of me? I don’t know, I don’t go for the whole ideology thing, it just seems sensible.
A note on funding: I’ve seen some pretty awful cultural things funded by governments. (I’m currently in England, I’m sure you can imagine.) Unlike some things, culture doesn’t need to be subsidized by the government, and in a lot of cases shouldn’t be. It’s gonna happen one way or another. If we’re talking non-profit radio: listener donations and grants from friendly rich people can (and do) get the job done.
An extra note on terrestrial radio: many people are tempted to believe that new technologies killed/will kill terrestrial radio. While terrestrial radio is technologically limited in a big way (when compared to the Internet), those who run commercial radio did just as much to kill the medium as did the iPod. Failure to understand changing consumer behaviors and not reacting at all is what did radio in. Radio stations assumed a homogenized listener base and rather than carving out niche markets, they sat around. Many community radio stations continue to grow while commercial radio is in the throes of death. Now I’m not saying the community model or free-form model is the answer to commercial radio’s problems. I don’t know if this model could ever even turn a profit. I’m just saying you can’t say commercial radio couldn’t have done anything about their plight.
And that’s my radio rant for the month.
-JM
November 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Just saw it last night. I didn’t catch the libertarian, anti-statist theme; rather, I saw it differently, a storyline involving a government that was simply way out of touch with the population chiefly represented by a self-righteous and socially elite bureaucrat imposing his rather repressive sense of “taste” on a more “democratic” experience of music.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Shmoe,
” It seems that you believe Government should only make temporary interventions in the economy. I do not.”
“Do you really think that either of us is going to convince the other?”
If you think that I am in favor of laissez-faire, then I can see how convincing each other would be difficult. At no point did I say anything like that. I even say “If it’s a useful common or public good, the State should only employ people to the extent that the last good produced has a marginal cost equal to its marginal gain.” which means the State should be involved in the production of some goods. And I’m in favor of laissez-faire?
“I think a certain amount of collective decision-making, at the margin, is useful and appropriate.”
How can you go from “That guy doesn’t want money spent for the sake of employing people and raising GDP” to “That guy is against a certain amount of collective decision-making, at the margin”?
A fair amount of collective decision-making is useful and appropriate. Collectivisation (for many public goods) or government rationing (for many common goods) can be the optimal way to manage some activities.
“I am trying to demonstrate that most peoples’ professions are not really essential to the continuing survival of human kind”
I don’t understand how showing that most professions are not essential to the survival of human kind is relevant. One can think that something is quite useful and worthwhile while not thinking that it’s essential to the survival of humankind.
My main point is not about mixed vs laissez-faire, it’s about the senselessness of spending (by the government or anyone else) to employ people. Hence my repeated use of the “pay people to dig holes and fill them up” reductio ad absurdum, which would succeed in creating jobs and raising GDP, the two arguments you gave in favor of government intervention.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Kiril,
Have I been uncivil or unpleasant? Was it directed at me? If there’s something annoying I’ve been doing, I’d like to know. Maybe my tone is indirect and expository, but that’s because I’m trying to avoid situations where people get called “dipshit” or are accused of being Randroids when that’s not warranted.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
AnotherFuckingLawStudent:
I seem to have implied that you were further to right, economically, than perhaps was warranted; sorry about that. I’ve been primed for glibertarian trolling.
Having read through the comments, I think I’m beginning to see the point of misunderstanding. So let’s cut through it. You seem to believe that I’m proposing some sort of Keynesian/WPA style program in perpetuity. That not quite right. I’m not advocating pounding sand, or other such make-work.
My initial comment, the one which you seemed to be responding to, was in response to the idea that because one dislikes opera, there is no imaginable reason for it be subsidized. At no point did I say that because subsidies can be economically beneficial that this was, in and of itself, a reason to subsidize. Those were just reasons I mentioned, because they first that came to mind. The primary reasons can be various and manifold, from market failure, to public trust issues, to established custom.
I think we still would disagree about market distortion vis-a-vis the public sector, and a number of other things. But that’s not really what I’m here to discuss. Anyway my weekend is almost gone so I’ll be off, it’s been fun.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
AnotherFuckingLawStudent:
No, I hadn’t even read down to where you posted at the time I made the comment.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Saw the movie in NY over the weekend. Unfortunately, very thin plot . . . but great music track.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:59 am
it’s all moot since terrestrial radio is basically yesterday’s news.
Well, nothing’s on the cusp of replacing it, either.
For the most part, the only time I hear music I didn’t select for myself is on the drive to and from work. It’s the perfect time for it – there’s not a whole lot else I can be doing with that time (that doesn’t make me a safety hazard, anyway).
During the rest of my day, fishing around for new music generally means either wearing headphones (which I dislike), or not doing something else I want to or have to be doing, or both.
As soon as my car radio can pick up streaming Internet radio stations without my having to pay cable-TV-style prices for the privilege, terrestrial radio will be yesterday’s news. Until then, not so much.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Yeah, great comments guys (though I expected to see the words “Clear Channel” WAY higher up), but why hasn’t anyone addressed the REAL issue with this film: how weird it is to see Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branagh in the same movie again?!
(These…..are for YOU!)