I.
When I first started at my current job, the girl in the cubicle next to me always had the oldies station on. Over the next six months (i.e. until the girl transferred out), I got real familiar with the thirty or so songs that oldies stations play.
There are certain songs I never want to hear again: anything by Paul Simon, for instance, and "Kodakchrome" (sp?) in particular. I have a hard time believing Simon & Garfunkle were as big as is indicated by current oldies station playlists. You hear Paul Simon-related material more than you hear the Beatles, for instance. Does that jive with your understanding of pop culture history?
History is always inaccurate. It is colored by the tastes, expectations, and perceptions of the present to the extent that any historical event is given additional and alternate meanings by each successive generation, and further interpretations are afforded by the varied perspectives of individuals within those generations. Historical perspectives may be further influenced by the perceptions and experiences of various social groups, such as those defined by race, economic status, education, etc., or combinations thereof.
It is faulty, then, to assume that oldies stations will have much concern for historical accuracy. Their interests are profit-based, and so must play into a current mainstream interpretation of musical history. This is why the very definition of "oldies" music keeps changing ---it seems obvious on the one hand that the 1970s (and soon the 1980s) have become "oldies"; time passes and music, like the people who listen to it, becomes old. What is less noticed is that, as the '70s take over "oldies" radio, the 1960s and the '50s are pushed out.
The music of the 1950s did not stop being old. It should still be considered "oldies," right? Wrong: the people who grew up listening to that music are, through age and death, consistently decreasing in terms of their purchasing power and so oldies stations must accomodate for older people who can still be effectively marketed to. So "oldies" as a marketing term is not so loosely defined as "that which is old." It is a fluid term that refers more to the generalized listening habits of specific age and cultural segments of the population.
To follow up this last point, it is limited not just by time period but by the dominant tastes and perceptions of that age group. Young people mistakenly assume that rock n' roll was the only form of popular music back then. This is not accurate, it is just the style that is of greatest interest to the age group in question and therefore what will be most represented on mainstream outlets. There was a high representation of MOR music in the 1960s that is frequently forgotten, due to the fact that it tended to appeal to the older people of the time, when there was still an effort to market to older people in mainstream channels. The young people of that generation, today's "oldies" listeners, tend to perceive that music as corny or without substance, and so it is rarely referred to in mainstream nostalgic outlets.
We also note that racial minorities are under-represented, with African-American music being of primary significance. There are certain artists that are permitted to appear ---pre-Riot period Sly Stone, for instance --- but not to a level that is commensurate with African-American presence and influence in popular music history. Again, this is in keeping with the tastes and interests of the dominant cultural group of that generation.
This demonstrates the way that this generalized, radio-friendly representation of musical history can then become accepted history ---when the subsequent generations, through unfamiliarity with the subject, accept the marketed definition of "oldies" as an accurate representation of all old music. As long as access to information is controlled or limited, people's understanding and knowledge are similarly constrained.
II.
The previous discussion also brings attention to the way that audiences had become increasingly classified and categorized up through the 1990s. Radio outlets were known in the 1980s for being divided into "top 40," "oldies," "adult contemporary," or "urban," each representing a codeword for certain segments of the population. This categorization began to break down in the 1990s when, with the advent of the internet, individuals became increasingly in control of what and when they wanted to hear, thus defying the categories they were previously forced to choose from. This hasn't reached its full impact yet, since young people have a more instinctual awareness of new technologies, but the established recording and radio industries have seen the proverbial writing on the wall and are scrambling to deal with this issue, even as they have yet to successfully come to terms with it.
There are increased regulations on file-sharing, internet radio, etc., all in an effort to minimize hurt for the established recording industry. And while I support the idea of supporting your favorite artists, I do not necessarily support the recording industry as a whole. This is a structure that has historically taken advantage of artists ---this is why I support the internet and the opportunity it provides for artists to publicize and distribute themselves, maximizing their own profits and allowing direct interaction with the fans. I am writing about it in idealized terms, but surely you can see the potential for a system that beats the old one.
Whether or not the recording industry uses its wealthy connections to influence legislation and regulation is beside the point now. It is too late. Technology has rendered the old system obsolete, and to continue trying to preserve the old way of doing things is for the recording industry to continue to fail.
III.
I don't know that such changes can exist in isolation, i.e. without ultimately affecting other aspects of society. Doesn't information give us power, not just in what we buy, but in how we live and govern ourselves? Think, for instance, of how youtube clips have brought to light the racist remarks of congressmen, or how blogs have succeeded in countering faulty information provided by major news organizations.
There is an overarching trend in that technology has democratized information in ways never seen before, and in a way that cannot be controlled by any single power in what purports to be a democracy. Now think of this: Under the auspices of "homeland security," the government now spends an inordinate amount of time monitoring our phone and internet habits. Think of the way that certain members of the government want to make this completely legal, want to be able to watch the populace by means of the information we access. It is a struggle between the people and the government over the control of information. Truly, the phrase "homeland security" has some very sinister connotations.
To state the obvious, our current government seems very corrupt. Who feels our current government to be the servants of the people? The increasingly flagrant abuses of power suggest that national interests are being used to justify what pan out to be the self-interests of the very few.
Further, the individuals who are in position to combat these abuses frequently fail to do so with any real effort or effect, in turn suggesting that the problem is systemic. We desperately need correction, and it doesn't seem to be coming from within our current system. When the system is sufficiently corrupt, one must work outside the system in order to correct it; new systems must replace the old. Since technology is beginning to seriously alter the way we deal with the world through a more democratic control of information, it is reasonable to assume that, organically, a more wholly democratic system of government might eventually develop. It is also likely that those who benefit from the old order will continue to struggle against this change as it becomes more readily apparent.
I don't know if that will require a real, physical revolution...but it might. Think of the transition to the industrial age, and how this is marked by physical revolution in Europe and elsewhere. When change happens at too rapid a rate, society is stressed, but it can also be stressed when change happens too slowly. If change is not allowed to progress at a level equal to that of technology and social readiness, pressure might increase to a point of explosion.
Those who benefit from the current systems are not limited to those in government, but include those who need to continue selling oil, or health insurance. Technology begs us to progress beyond these industrial-age methods of finding energy and health care, but encounters resistance from the status quo of the powers-that-be.
As long as information is in the hands of the people, we have a chance.... 
