|
public airwaves?
are not these broadcasts owned by the corporations who then decide what to put on the air? Don't they depend on ad revenue to air programming? If they as a corporation decide that x is not meeting their standards, I'm not sure how that is a freedom of speech issue. People don't have a 'right' to be on the radio. People do have a right to stand on a street corner.
this looks like clearchannel (don't get me wrong, this is a big nasty corp. doing bad things to radio across the country) is trying to protect its business model by making sure it is in complience with the fcc regs. This will get it the most adverts, asd thusly the most money. That plus no FCC fines, looks like good business to me.
Now, the FCC is a complicated story. How they 'protect' us lil' ol' morons from 'indecency' is a debate we could have for a long time. I suspect that most would like the FCC to draw the line in line with their own values. I think the FCC is remarkable in its ability to defy the physics of the slippery slope... Not many would like to hear a channel dedicated to graphic sexual readings a few ticks away from their child's top 40 channel. Where is the line? Wouldn't it be nice if the government didn't have to define it? yes. But, the anything-for-a-buck companies don't care about your kids, and if they can sell the ad time, they'll put it on the air. The govt., which is supposedly (and quite highly regarded by some as being) for the people/by the people etc., takes on the responsibility of drawing the line. Not everyone will agree with where it is, but the motives seem better than those of the broadcast corps.
These inflamatory articles that confuse two issues are rather irritating sometimes. The FCC did not pull Howard Stern. Clearchannel did. Would we argue that the government should prevent clearchannel from pulling howard stern because he has freedom of speech? How invasive would that be? not very libertarian.
some people's knees must be awfully worn out with all that jerking.
k
|