Piece on pirate radio in Friday's Guardian

G

Gabba Flamenco Crossover

High Sierra Skullfuck
This was a full page article in the news section, page 3 or 5 I think - I'd link to it, but it's behind the Guardian's regestration service so it wont work.

I thought it was one of the lamest, sloppiest things i've ever read in a serious newspaper. Basically regurgitating the same 2 arguments that are always used against pirate radio, namely a) that they interfere with emergency services radio networks and b) that they are controlled by, and are a front for, organised crime.

As a layman with a fair knowledge of electronics I'm skeptical about the first argument. I cant access emergency services transmissions using a standard FM radio, so i dont see how pirate stations could block such transmissions by occupying their frequencies. There might be a sound technical basis on which to make such claims, but if there is then someone needs to attempt to explain it to the public. The fact that Ofcom & the DTI never do this makes me suspect that it's bollocks.

The second argument is borderline racist. I dont know if anyone involved in pirate radio has ever been convicted on serious gun- or drug- related charges because the article doesnt say... but if there were such convictions on record I think ofcom would probably make use of them in their propaganda war on pirate radio, so i suspect that they dont exist. So what this boils down to, in the absense of any supporting evidence, is to say that if black people are in business and operating outside of the conventions of the mainstream entertainment industry then they must be gangsters. Frankly I'm appalled that the guardian would relate this claptrap without any editorial comment & for the first time ever I've actually written in to complain. I bet I'm not the only one.

It seems counter-intuitive, to say the least, that serious criminals would (literally) broadcast their activities by setting up pirate radio stations. I also think if the police seriously believed that pirate radio was a nexus for organised crime they would lobby government for powers to deal with directly, rather than have the investigative work farmed out to ofcom & the DTI. Certainly, whoever in the met approved the publicity for operation trident doesnt seem to have a problem with paying money to pirates, because thier ads run regularly.

A lot of people on the board seem to have experience with pirates of one sort or another - did any of you read the article? If so what did you think?
 
Last edited:
G

Gabba Flamenco Crossover

High Sierra Skullfuck
I said borderline racist, & I was referring to passages like this:

Ofcom claims there is often a direct link between pirate radio and organised crime. Raids on studios have uncovered firearms and other weapons, while police report an increase in violent confrontations between rival broadcasters battling for possession of vacant slots on the FM dial. They also report an upsurge in the amount of transmission equipment stolen to order from local BBC and commercial stations.

Most people would read 'often' as 'more often than not', so this quote is giving the impression that the majority of pirate radio stations are controlled by criminal gangs. There's no facts in there at all: no examples of convictions, no statistics. It's just innuendo. Have you read the piece? The whole thing is like that. Then there's passages like:

DJs and artists argue that pirate stations, typically offering a steady diet of grime, rave, hip hop, R'n'B or reggae music, provide a breeding ground for new talent

...so the reader is now associating all these black, or black-derived, musical forms with organised crime and drug dealing, on the basis of absolutely nothing at all. The term 'breeding ground' is pretty dodgy too, and there's pictures of 2 black artists in there. Daniel Bedingfield & lady sovereign got their breaks on pirates too, why not use pictures of them?

And why do pirates have to be justified only as a generator of talent for major record labels, ie in the terms laid down by the mainstream media? No mention of the community function pirates perform which justify their existence in their own right.

i just though the whole piece sucked.
 
C

captain easychord

Guest
haven't read the piece but would like to check it out if anyone has access to the registered section...

i've noticed often when the mainstream press talk about 'urban' music in a positive light it's always the white representatives that get selected. e.g. time out's 100 most important people in london issue- lone grime reps were lady sovereign and dan stacey form 679 (who was called a 'grime godfather', obviously if you're gonna call anyone a grime godfather in london it's willy). the underground is always characterized as this anonymous primordial mass that's given shape by 'proper' labels.
 
M

mms

sometimes
captain easychord said:
haven't read the piece but would like to check it out if anyone has access to the registered section...

i've noticed often when the mainstream press talk about 'urban' music in a positive light it's always the white representatives that get selected. e.g. time out's 100 most important people in london issue- lone grime reps were lady sovereign and dan stacey form 679 (who was called a 'grime godfather', obviously if you're gonna call anyone a grime godfather in london it's willy). the underground is always characterized as this anonymous primordial mass that's given shape by 'proper' labels.
Click to expand...

when london newspapers etc talk about pirates and grime etc it's always enthusiastically negative, and makes ridiculous links between pirates, urban music and crime , when infact they should be making the opposite links.
its a kind of ritual undoing of any hard work that people outside the established censsus have to live with i think.
 
M

Mr H

Active member
i was having trouble with the link yesterday but think that was a problem with the site itself. try this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1711904,00.html

i didn't think it was particularly negative when i read it, just reiterating the usual ofcom claims although it does show a pretty lazy understanding of how pirate radio works and its links with club nights etc.

i thought this bit was pretty laughable:

Others argue that pirate stations take advantage of young DJs and MCs by charging them to appear. At Bounce FM a notice on the wall reminds DJs to pay their £10 an hour subs to "keep Bounce bouncing".

The payment of subs is how a station meets its running costs and the figure of £5000 per week in advertising seems a bit ridiculous. maybe someone with a bit more knowledge of the pirate scene can confirm this?
 
L

Logan Sama

BestThereIsAtWhatIDo
Rinse FM runs at a loss.

And there are no weapons or stolen equipment ANYWHERE around the station studio or broadcast site.

The people who run Rinse do so because they love music and want to have a platform to promote what they want to hear without having to pander to middle of the road tastes or musically restrictive broadcasting conditions.

There are many other stations which also exist for the same reason.

And that's not even getting onto the topic of the REAL community pirate radio stations who operate land line phone numbers and put on all number of workshops and youth initiatives in deprived areas.
 
B

Blackdown

nexKeysound
the primary problem with all these bullshit pieces about pirate radio is that on account of the nature of their business (ie it's illegal) management are essentially without a voice and stripped of any of the rights of libel protection or fair comment you'd expect.

if you said the head of EMAP sold drugs, that would be libel. why is it not libel to say it about the head of Bounce or On Top, simply because by broadcasting they've broken some other bylaw?

In an attempt to help them have some kind of small counter voice to these pieces, i interviewed Rinse management late last year
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
Whilst that article is way over the top, I'm wary of people who paint pirate radio as being an entirely beneficial thing with no downsides for anybody.

These examples will probably seem trivial to most people here, but on my estate OAPs often (that word again) get the living shit scared out of them by big blokes they have never seen before lugging stuff about and trying to get on the roof.

The argument about the emergency frequencies is also interesting. At weekends it is often nigh on impossible to listen to Radio 4 in my area because some pirate station has decided it's more important to do what it does instead. I've even had problems tuning in to Rodigan on Kiss of a Sunday evening for the same reason.

The problem with pirate radio (if there is one) is that by definition is it completley unregulated. I am sure there are loads of people involved with it who are working from the highest principles, for little reward. That doesn't mean everyone is.

I say this as someone who listens to pirates, and who recognises the immense influence they have had for the good on music in the UK and beyond...
 
R

Rambler

Awanturnik
Surely there's space in one of the mainstream papers for a properly-researched article on pirates that doesn't descend to the Guardian's level? It can't be that hard to pitch it to the Times/Telegraph/Indie - just say 'I've got a piece that contradicts something published by one of your rivals, do you want it'...
 
W

wonk_vitesse

radio eros
The article had nothing new to say. Which is odd since the day b4 OFCOM had just announced a few FM community stations in London along with resonance, sound & desi. Surely that was the 'radio story.' Prior to 2002 legal radio was in a desparate state and surely the pirates responded to the woefully poor licensing scheme in place.
 
A

ambrose

Well-known member
john, i dont think that the repsonses here to the grauniad piece are necessarily implying "priates = beneficial 100%", i think they are questioning the arguments and evidence that the article uses to paint a negative view of pirate radio.

i.e. a good piece on pirates would be one that explored both the positives and negatives of pirate radio, and was well-researched and argued (rather obviously). This piece is one sided and poorly researched/evidenced. It seems as though maybe you are assuming that enthusiasm for pirate radio expressed on by posters counts as blanket uncritical approval for the medium, which i dont think is that accurate.
 
S

stelfox

Beast of Burden
note to all would-be gangstaz: i strongly advise against trying to finance big-time drugs deals, international arms smuggling, human trafficking or any other deep-end criminality by running a pirate radio station. it will take you a very long time to earn your stake.
 
R

ripley

Well-known member
stelfox said:
note to all would-be gangstaz: i strongly advise against trying to finance big-time drugs deals, international arms smuggling, human trafficking or any other deep-end criminality by running a pirate radio station. it will take you a very long time to earn your stake.
Click to expand...

damn. on to the next business plan then.
 
MATT MAson

MATT MAson

BROADSIDE
qwerty south said:
wasn't plasticman recruited to radio one directly via pirate radio?
Click to expand...


Yes.

Other pirates recruited by Radio One include Tony Blackburn, Dave Lee Travis, Pete Tong, Tim Westwood, Grooverider... In fact Radio One only came into being because of 1960s pirates like Radio Caroline proving there was demand for popular music on British radio, the BBC hadn't made this connection before then.

This debate is so tired. If it wasn't for pirates, i.e people who break rules in the name of culture, we might not have FM radio at all, Hollywood (see Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig for more on this), and we definitely wouldn't have such a diverse range of dance/urban music in the UK. (**shamless plug** for more on the wider implications of pirate culture, see my book coming out in Jan '08 on S&S in the US, hold tight for the UK release date)

As for the interference thing, the Ministry of Defence took the station I used to play on, MAC FM in North London, off air for allegedly jamming their frequencies, (once they got involved that was it, it was way heavier than regular DTI hassle, which was always pretty amicable disconnecting of transmitters for the most part). Obviously the MoD wasn't blaring out secret Downing St memos on 92.7fm in the Tuffnell Park area, but radio frequncies work in these weird loops, so if you're broadcasting on 100FM, you also interefere with 50FM, and 200FM, 400FM etc. It's a little more complicated than that, but the basic premise is radio pirates interfere with frequncies other than the commercial ones. Personally I still think pirates do way more good than harm...
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
ambrose said:
john, i dont think that the repsonses here to the grauniad piece are necessarily implying "priates = beneficial 100%", i think they are questioning the arguments and evidence that the article uses to paint a negative view of pirate radio.

i.e. a good piece on pirates would be one that explored both the positives and negatives of pirate radio, and was well-researched and argued (rather obviously). This piece is one sided and poorly researched/evidenced. It seems as though maybe you are assuming that enthusiasm for pirate radio expressed on by posters counts as blanket uncritical approval for the medium, which i dont think is that accurate.
Click to expand...

Fair point Ambrose - tho to be fair I haven't seen that much discussion of the downside of pirates on here (except reception problems, lack of playlists etc!) so maybe that would be an interesting place for the thread to go, I dunno. Similarly I haven't ever seen a decent balanced piece in the press...
 
B

Blackdown

nexKeysound
Surely the existence of so many pirates suggest that mainstream FM radio is massively unrepresentative for huge parts of inner city society?

Magic FM, Heart FM, Capital FM... station after station of bland, narrow advertiser-focused, monocultural, unrepresentative broadcasting. Pirates are the real voice of the people!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top