community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
WYEP's Mike Sauter Replies (sort of)
by Chris Holm
Sunday, Jun. 26, 2005 at 1:21 PM
chris@cardinalpoints.net (email address validated)
While waiting for Mike Sauter's response, a glimpse of the dialog we have had so far.
Well there has been a volley of responses since my last posting on IndyMedia with Mike Sauter.
I have tried to get to the point with him on these issues several times, and have given him plenty of time to respond, yet he hasn't, so I thought I'd post the conversations that we have had so far.
The first week of May, I alerted him via email to my “Reply....” Post http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/05/18344.php. He responded on the 27th....
“Chris--
You wrote:
"It's simply a coincidence that Pete Buck of REM stated that the AAA stations are playing artists that can't sing and eveyone knows they can't sing, but you claim you pick them based on 'artistic criteria.' So for the record, you have chosen the most artistic music you could? Are you really saying that. If you don't reply to anything else, please reply to that. Comming from someone who can only describe a band by how much they sound like another band, I'm probably going to find any answer of yours laughable. Perhaps you could tell me how towing the line commercially is artistic?"
For the record, (your honor) no, I am not saying WYEP has "chosen the most artistic music." I did not use the phrase "most artistic music," which is meaningless. Art is not a simple measurable continuum, like audio volume.
I said we evaluate music based on "artistic criteria." That is, we make aesthetic judgments about music as a filtering process. In other words, we "select recordings...based on the merits of the recordings" as the Future of Music Coaltion wishes we would (according to your quote of their statement). And I don't merely "claim" it, I proclaim it.
Meanwhile, your reference to Peter Buck is a fairly good example of the shaky assertions you claim to be the facts backing up your speculative smear campaign.
While Buck may or may not have said such a thing (you neither quote him nor provide a link or source), you use it to lead into a completely unrelated statement as if one part of the sentence contradicts the other. In fact, Buck was not discussing WYEP, nor was I discussing the singing talents of artists played on other radio stations (and though singing is one aesthetic criterion of recorded music, artists from Bob Dylan through Richard Buckner show that it's not the only one).
This is a rhetorical tactic applied throughout your earlier postings about WYEP. It's a rather Yellow Journalistic approach which might have made William Randolph Hearst, in his heyday, proud.
For example, you dangle facts about a station being investigated by New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer, then mention that WYEP plays some music in common with that station, and then suggest that WYEP must therefore be engaged in nefarious programming activities. You go out on a limb with two very questionable rhetorical tactics. You first assume that an investigation automatically defines guilt, and then breezily conclude that any musical connections, however tenuous, between WYEP and the now "guilty" other station puts a cloud over WYEP.
Or you link to a Rolling Stone article and then assert that the article is about "[independent promoter] Michele Clark and AAA radio stations similar to WYEP," again with only the barest thread of a connection (that Spitzer "investigated a tip" about a commercial station which plays some artists in common with WYEP).
Chris, perhaps you don't like the music that WYEP plays. Not everyone is going to be happy with any radio station trying to play very diverse music to listeners unserved by other radio stations. However, any notion of yours that WYEP has any connection to payola or any payola-like activities is false. It's either a complete misunderstanding or a willful misrepresentation of the facts.
I can state this unequivocally as someone who is known as a vocal critic and opponent to payola or payola-like activities in the music industry. Not only have I repeatedly spoken out in music industry forums against some of the very practices you decry, but I have encouraged (and even passed information along to) journalists you have cited yourself.
~~Mike Sauter
WYEP Music Director
P.S. -- You assert that I can "only describe a band by how much they sound like another band." How do you know this to be true? "Only" is a very broad-reaching adverb. If this is an example of your journalistic style, I guess I'm learning why others have turned you down for interviews.
_________________________________________________________
I replied on the 28th..........
"Mike,
Your responses I find very confusing as to their motivation and content.
Before replying, without being presumptuous or accusative, I will ask ,do you know you are commenting on a follow up to a story? The original story is here, and was listed on the story you originally posted to.
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/6612.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/8827.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/16339.php
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/16659.php
If you haven't read these, I consider we start over because you're either making comments based on an incomplete knowledge of questioning of WYEP's behavior, or are merely choosing to avoid the main point of the articles.
Said Point being one, bribery, that indie promotions are tagging on unreasonable charges to artists that are going to radio stations, said promoters, and the record companies, are charging the artists for this, many times putting them in debt to the record companies for something radio stations should be choosing based on merit.
Two, extortion, in so much that radio stations will exclude artists/lables that don't pay fees, or give swag, or free performance in exchange for airplay, or any other subtle yet followed system that favors one label, genre, or artist over another for any other reason other than that artists raw abilities.
So now that you are fully informed of the entire content of my writings the unanswered questions by your station that make this a critical journalistic piece are as follows:
1. Your station has been listed on Michele Clark's website at least twice on her stations page, and removed at least twice. Why is this?
(Michele Clark also being implicated in the WDST story http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6590977?pageid=rs.News&pageregion=double1&rnd=1101330144480&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040
and prior by the LA Times http://musicianreferral.com/Payola.html)
2. Your station, who you claim is against indie-promotions ("payola like practices"), has had as high as 63% of it's rotation devoted to what Michele Clark was currently promoting, and 89% of the artists who received more than one play per day were Michele Clark Artists. Why if your station is so against such a system would it be supporting it to such a great degree?
3. Spin Art told me it was being extorted by Michele Clark, and refused to pay her fees out of ethical reasons. When Richard Thompson signed over to Spin Art, a very popular artist in Pittsburgh with your listeners, his album Old Kit Bag was being played for nearly 3 weeks by other stations such as XPN before WYEP began to play it. When it finally did play the CD, it was found out that Spin Art had given in and finally paid in to Michele Clark and was listed on her artists page. Can you explain why this scenario happened at WYEP?
4. The CD's you make incentive money off of namely your CD of the week given in exchange for "listener support money" is that something that WYEP pays retail cash for? Are these CD's ever given freely by a record label, or intermediary either directly or indirectly, thus giving you a form of payola which would indirectly give you money in exchange for airplay, your incentive being the money you get from listeners in exchange for the CD, and the label, or promoter due to the fact that you would chose to air it over some small label who could only afford to send you a half dozen CD's or so for the studio and programming staff.
5. Has the station ever received free concert tickets from Clear Channel directly or indirectly, or allowed access to their venues free of charge or at a discount? This also would be an incentive to as a favor to play artists you wouldn't otherwise, or over look artists you might play in favor of offering touring support to Clear Channel's show. Obviously here, you make out with free goodies, they make out with more show promotion, and certain artists again get favored treatment while others get cut from airplay due to an incentive deal.
6. Free Member Appreciation shows, where does the funding come for the ticketing, venue usage, and artists pay, and do the artists play for reduced compensation in exchange for the promotion, also giving you a motivation for members to pay you for the privilege of attending free shows and choosing one artist over another based on indirect compensation.
In response, here's the Pete Buck quote, it was listed on http://www.triplearadio.com/ so I assumed it was something he told them, they listed no link or source of the quote, but I found it.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/7085407.htm
(sign in required or take my word for it the following is complete from the article)
___________________________________________________
R.E.M. Guitarist Upset About Air Time
Associated Press
NEW YORK - R.E.M. guitarist Peter Buck is a bit miffed that the group's newer music doesn't get much air time.
"We do really good work, and I hate to brag but our records are better than most people's records," Buck told reporters. "So sometimes it kind of hurts my feelings when I see a record that is obviously a piece of garbage, and everyone knows its garbage, and the guy can't sing, and then we put out a really good record and they don't put it on the radio because it doesn't fit the formats."
R.E.M. is releasing a greatest hits album Tuesday called "In Time: The Best of R.E.M. 1988-2003."
Buck said he still sees former drummer Bill Berry, but just as a friend, not as a musician.
"He's as far out of the music business as you can possibly get," Buck said. "If I was to suggest, 'Hey come play with us,' he'd run away and I'd probably never see him again."
At least Buck has made up with the folks at British Airways after he was found innocent of assault, being drunk on an aircraft and damaging British Airways crockery during the trip from Seattle to London in April 2001.
"In my mind it was a misunderstanding," he said. "I'm sure on BA I must be on some kind of list."
He said he has a good relationship with the carrier and continues to fly British Airways.
"I'm a valued customer. We've probably given them a half million dollars worth of business in the last couple years. We fly 30 people over to England first-class three or four times a year."
________________________________________________________
WDST you quote as "playing some of the same songs." Out of their top 100, I again coincidentally count around 68% matching artists to WYEP.
http://www.wdst.com/playlist.asp
Yes, WDST is something under investigation, but the quote "The question that the attorney general will have to decide is whether it's an extortion situation on the broadcast side or a bribery situation on the label side," says Michael Bracy of the Future of Music Coalition, a broadcasting watchdog group and think tank that has worked with the attorney general on the investigation. "From our standpoint, it's a little bit of both."
....is a very noteworthy follow up to the original story I posted nearly 3 years ago, and worthy of publishing in my opinion as it supports claims made years earlier.
Your quote,
"I said we evaluate music based on "artistic criteria." That is, we make aesthetic judgments about music as a filtering process. In other words, we "select recordings...based on the merits of the recordings" as the Future of Music Coalition wishes we would (according to your quote of their statement). And I don't merely "claim" it, I proclaim it."
Can you articulate the artistic criteria that would chose say Jason Mraz for airplay over Jeff Lang. Describe their abilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. and why your station has chosen to support one and not the other?
You said,
"I can state this unequivocally as someone who is known as a vocal critic and opponent to payola or payola-like activities in the music industry. Not only have I repeatedly spoken out in music industry forums against some of the very practices you decry, but I have encouraged (and even passed information along to) journalists you have cited yourself."
If that being the case, can you be a vocal opponent to it on your own station and educate the public to this great evil by telling them the artists that have or are participating in said evil and have received unfair radio play like Norah Jones, Ryan Adams, John Hammond, Elvis Costello, Bruce Cockburn, Sarah McLaughlin, The Pretenders, Johhny Mars, Patty Griffin, Jack Johnson, Loudon Wainwright III, The Soundtrack of Our Lives, Aimee Mann, Joseph Arthur, Los Lonely Boys, Josh Rouse, The Damnwells, Wilco, Allman Brothers Band, Sarah McLachlan, Jamie Cullum, Scott Miller & the Commonwealth, Tim Finn, Kathleen Edwards, Sheryl Crow, Peter Gabriel, or her current line up of Alana Davis, Ben Lee, Billy Miles, Jack Johnson Jason Mraz, John Hiatt, Luce, Mercy Creek, Ray Lamontagne, Shannon McNally?
Or at least explain why someone against this system is doing such a good job perpetuating it?
" You assert that I can "only describe a band by how much they sound like another band." How do you know this to be true? "Only" is a very broad-reaching adverb. If this is an example of your journalistic style, I guess I'm learning why others have turned you down for interviews."
I do sincerely apologize for the "adverb". I will reiterate as "your style of artist description can be best described as comparison to other artists due to the frequency of your comparisons."
To sum up your station has been shown by my articles to favor Michele Clark's artists, deny those she's been denying and an article about an investigation of another station playing not just some , but a high percentage of both Clark artists and your own is under investigation is called a corroborating story and doesn't claim to be otherwise.
Your comments on my journalism are therefor either ignorant or an attempt to save face although your station undeniably has supported to a high degree such a system.
Again, to reiterate both Manny and Myself, it doesn't matter if you received a dime, the end result is the same. You're following the same format, with a minority of exceptions.
>Chris--
__________________________________________________________
After this email, I heard nothing from him and I decided to follow up before posting what I had so far.
June 17th (3 weeks later)......
___________________________________________________________
I'm sure you're just very busy with the pledge drive and festival and all, but just wanted to make sure that was your reason for not responding, and not that you weren't in fact going to respond.
Let me know if you don't want me to quote your current email. If I don't hear from you in a couple of days, I'll assume we're dealing with another "no comment"
Also just a reminder of your statement with "NEVER" in bold, is a matter of public record.
"Your statement "First of all, let's get something straight. There has NEVER been any money paid to WYEP to play any music. No money, nor gifts, nor goods, nor services--nothing. We select music based solely on artistic criteria and feedback from our audience as to what they want to hear."
Chris
___________________________________________________
His reply several hours later.....
__________________________________________________
“Chris--
I haven't had time to respond to your last email. Frankly, I haven't
made it a high priority after reading the following:
>>Again, to reiterate both Manny and Myself, it doesn't matter
>>if you recieved a dime, the end result is the same. You're
>>following the same format, with a minority of exceptions.
Chris, in essence you stated, "And even if all my allegations are
untrue, you're still guilty as hell."
You started with a premise, and then sought out facts--however
tenuous--to support that premise. You bandy about words like "payola,"
and then declare "it doesn't matter if you ever received a
dime"--despite the fact that payola is ENTIRELY about being paid, quid
pro quo, to play a song or an album. You practice guilt by association
and distort quotes to force them into your preconceived biases, and then
make pretenses to lofty journalistic ideals.
Your opinions are your own, and I cherish the right of anyone to express
their ideas--even if they disagree with my own. However, I have a
problem with distortions, misrepresentations, and presentation of
opinions dressed up as fact. Most of your charges are precisely these.
For example, the Peter Buck quote. There's a fairly obvious difference
between what Buck actually stated and your characterization of his comments.
What Buck said:
>>"We do really good work, and I hate to brag but our records
>>are better than most people's records," Buck told reporters.
>>"So sometimes it kind of hurts my feelings when I see a record
>>that is obviously a piece of garbage, and everyone knows its
>>garbage, and the guy can't sing, and then we put out a really
>>good record and they don't put it on the radio because it
>>doesn't fit the formats."
Your description of what Buck said:
>>It's simply a coincidence that Pete Buck of REM stated that
>>the AAA stations are playing artists that can't sing and
>>eveyone knows they can't sing, but you claim you pick them
>>based on "artistic criteria".
Buck clearly said nothing about AAA stations. In fact, AAA radio
(especially non-commercial AAA radio) is the place where R.E.M. gets
most of their airplay these days with the band's new music, so his
reference that "they don't put it on the radio" suggests he's talking
about the mainstream radio formats that R.E.M. "doesn't fit."
Hopefully you can see that your usage of this quote is an attempt to
make the facts fit your pre-conceived premise. And this is not an
isolated example.
Feel free to dislike what we do at WYEP. But you should properly ascribe
this gulf between our viewpoints as an ideological or philosophical
difference. You constant attempts to weave an underhanded or illegal
motive to WYEP's programming is mistaken and misguided.
~~MS”
________________________________________________________________________
My immediate response....
______________________________________________________
“Mike,
"the unanswered questions by your station that make this a critical journalistic piece are as follows:"
Real simple, do you have a comment on these statements/questions or not?
1. Your station has been listed on Michele Clark's webpage and been taken down and put back up several times, indicating some kind of action going on there that relates to your station.
2. Your station has seen as high as 89% favor rating of her playlists.
3. A label that claimed to be being extorted by her's big name artist Richard Thomson wasn't being played while other AAA stations did, and then was played later after Spin Art appeared on Clark's webpage of promoted artists.
fit the formats."
4.The CD's you make incentive money off of namely your CD of the week given in exchange for "listener support money" is that something that WYEP pays retail cash for? Are these CD's ever given freely by a record label, or intermediary either directly or indirectly, thus giving you a form of payola which would indirectly give you money in exchange for airplay, your incentive being the money you get from listeners in exchange for the CD, and the label, or promoter due to the fact that you would chose to air it over some small label who could only afford to send you a half dozen CD's or so for the studio and programming staff.
5. Has the station ever recieved free concert tickets from Clear Channel directly or indirectly, or allowed access to their venues free of charge or at a discount? This also would be an incentive to as a favor to play artists you wouldn't otherwise, or over look artists you might play in favor of offering touring support to Clear Channel's show. Obviously here, you make out with free goodies, they make out with more show promotion, and certain artists again get favored treatment while others get cut from airplay due to an incentive deal.
6. Your free member shows, where does the money come from to pay for the venues, and artists, and does that in anyway mean the artists' play at reduced wages, or free entirely?
7. If your station is so against payola and payola like practices, why do you support these artists to such a degree or at all?
Last chance, Otherwise monday night I will cap up this story with your blatant refusal to answer these very incriminating facts.
Chris”
__________________________________________________
his response again that day....
__________________________________________________
“Chris--
"Blatant refusal"? You are such a card.
As I explained to you previously, I've been busy. I have not "refused"
to answer your questions.
If you feel like you have to "go to press" on Monday, go for it. I'll
post a response when I have the time.
~~MS”
__________________________________________________________________________
my response....
“In three replies to my writings you have danced around the issue and in the last one you claimed to not have time to reply yet wrote 31 lines of text around peripherals and are not addressing the contradictions to your statements of being against payola, yet supporting it to the teeth.
So you're saying you will answer these questions?”
_____________________________________________________________________-
So there you have the only responses from a presumed spokesman of Pittsburgh's WYEP that “gives voice to quality music and provocative ideas, fostering an increasingly more vibrant, artistic, diverse and caring community.”
He is right though, the station hasn't refused to comment on these points, they merely haven't for the past 2 ½ years. But as Mike said he would, so lets see.
In the meantime, an 80's top 40 Overkill cover by Men at Work's lead singer, has recently been introduced to WYEP's repertoire by “aesthetic judgments about music as a filtering process and selected based on the merits of the recording.”
Life must begin after top 40 as long as it's 20 years old and unplugged.
There it is!
by CamperMan
Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 at 7:34 PM
Ah-ha. There it is. Mr. Sauter did a great job putting into words what I felt when I read Chris Holms' rants. He really does twist things to his viewpoint. It isn't journalism. It really is the worst kind of mudslinging I've seen in a while. It really is like Fox News. Is it any wonder that Chris rants about any other journalist taking his "investigation" seriously (City Paper, Post Gazette, The Front). Maybe Chris comes off as off kilter and frothing at the mouth in person as he does in some of his writing. Mr. Sauter points it out very well but you cannot see it. And again I am not the big WYEP fan. But they are not crooked. You act like they are some powerful demigod controlling everything in Pittsburgh. It is kind of laughable. I work at a local paper and you really are putting so much out of whack with this whole thing. You are taking national issues about media and trying to paint them on this station. Everything is painted with conspiracy and evilness. It is really pretty amusing to me and my friends to read your stuff. ALL radio stations get free CDS and tickets (see your buddies at WRCT - MANNY?????) And artists do need to work outside the system and are doing it successfully (Podcasting, satellite radio, internet radio) I buy all my music through indie websites, artist sites or I-tunes. And radio will continue to change. WYEP might not be around forever as we all switch to satellite. By the way - you ask for money on your website radio station, Chris. Is that fundraising? Payola? You are one funny, angry dude! (Or should I say "you're a card?" since that made got you so hot.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)