[78-L] Dick Clark gone

[Michael Biel]

From: Mike Daley <mikedaley at gmail.com>
> I'm no expert on the payola subject, but if we think of payola as
> conflict of interest with financial benefits, then Clark was just as
> guilty as Freed. The big difference is that publishing royalties and
> share dividends did not make for headlines like cash bribes.
> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/dick-clark-survives-the-payola-scandal


Well, YOU can think of payola as anything you please, but as far as the
law was concerned, payola was specifically paying a station or station
personnel for performance on a broadcast that was not announced on the
air or in the credits and noted on the station's program log.  It was
related to an FCC rule that requires disclosure of payments for
broadcast.  Mere conflict of interest, manipulation of publishing
royalties or share dividends does not trigger THIS regulation.  

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com  

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> From: mikedaley at gmail.com
>> One of his most impressive achievements was managing to come out of
>> the payola hearings smelling like a rose, while his counterpart Alan
>> Freed's career was destroyed.
>
> There was a BIG difference.  Clark didn't accept payola payments.  He
> did utilize his connections in the publishing business and record
> companies to include performers and records that would benefit these
> companies, but he didn't take money from the other companies.  Freed
> took money from everybody as well as pushed his way into publishers by
> demanding composer credit.  Clark wasn't squeeky clean -- he was forced
> to sell off his partial ownerships of publishers and record companies
> like Swan -- but he was not as corrupt as Freed, Peter Trip, and others.
>
> Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com