More censorship on the way!....thanks to the FCC

[mikemover]

Howard Stern taken off the air in six cities.

WASHINGTON — On the eve of a House hearing on broadcast indecency, the nation's largest radio station chain suspended shock jock Howard Stern's show, saying it did not meet the company's newly revised programming standards.

Stern's suspension Wednesday by Clear Channel Radio (search) was the second time in two days that the company has acted against a disc jockey.

The company on Tuesday fired the DJ known as "Bubba the Love Sponge," whose show drew a record fine of $755,000 from the Federal Communications Commission (search). The program aired in four Florida cities and included graphic discussions about sex and drugs "designed to pander to, titillate and shock listeners," the FCC said.

Clear Channel's announcement did not say how many of its 1,200 stations carried the Stern show, which is distributed by Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting (search) and derives most of national audience from being carried by Infinity-owned stations. The Washington Post said the Stern show had been carried on six Clear Channel stations..........

_________
Complete article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112561,00.html
_________

These radio people are biting the hands--or mouths, more accurately--that feed them. They NEED to stand up to the FCC and their archaic, puritanical standards, instead of putting a muzzle on their most successful, advertising revenue-generating personalities!

Mike

[rickg]

the nation's largest radio station chain suspended shock jock Howard Stern's show, saying it did not meet the company's newly revised programming standards.



'bout time somebody gave that moron the boot!

[TimFreeh]

I guess for the fist time ever I disagree with Mike. The public airways are public property and there should be standards for what is acceptble behavior on the air and what is not acceptable behavior. IMHO Mr Stern operates over the line of what I would consider acceptable - and I'm glad the FCC is getting more involved in this issue.

If Mr Stern want to broadcast his trash over cable TV and or an XM channel thats OK with me but not over public airways.

Tim

[mikemover]

Originally posted by rickg
the nation's largest radio station chain suspended shock jock Howard Stern's show, saying it did not meet the company's newly revised programming standards.

'bout time somebody gave that moron the boot!

Originally posted by TimFreeh
I guess for the fist time ever I disagree with Mike. The public airways are public property and there should be standards for what is acceptble behavior on the air and what is not acceptable behavior. IMHO Mr Stern operates over the line of what I would consider acceptable - and I'm glad the FCC is getting more involved in this issue.

If Mr Stern want to broadcast his trash over cable TV and or an XM channel thats OK with me but not over public airways.

Like him or not, this is a freedom of speech issue, Rick.
_______________________

On the contrary, Tim! The public airwaves are EXACTLY where this kind of censorship should not be tolerated.

Private broadcasters do, and should, have a right to decide what they do or do not want to broadcast. However, such decisions should NOT be dictated to us by the government.

Why is freedom of speech while standing on the sidewalk in public any different than freedom of speech while standing behind a broadcast microphone? Either we have freedom of speech, or we don't.

Either way, if you don't like what's being said, you are quite free to not listen.

It's usually the knob on the right side of the radio....It's quite effective at preventing you from hearing things you don't want to hear....Use it. :p

Mike

no muzzle involved. simply a business decision.

company bleeds $3/4M fines due to employee violating existing standards.

employee disiplined.

end of story.

[mikemover]

Originally posted by ThrillBilly
no muzzle involved. simply a business decision.

company bleeds $3/4M fines due to employee violating existing standards.

employee disiplined.

end of story.

Ummm....I think you missed the part where I said that companies have the right to do exactly that.

HOWEVER, they would not be doing it if it weren't for the FCC's meddling, because these same radio personalities are helping the broadcast companies make MILLIONS.

Regardless, it is a poor business decision. Pulling a personality off the air because you got fined a couple hundred thou is a pretty stupid decision if that personality has made several million dollars for your station, and is still doing so. I would just pay the stupid fine occasionally and keep right on going.

Mike

[djugurba]

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

[mikemover]

Originally posted by djugurba

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.

Clearchannel would not have pulled Howard Stern if it were not for the FCC's meddling. He is a highly profitable product for them, and their profit vs. fines ratio is STILL quite high.

My issue is not with the private stations, it's with the FCC and their archaic, arbitrary standards...How are you missing this?

Anyone can change the station on their radio if they don't like what they're hearing. It's very simple.

What makes one person's right to "not hear" something take precedence over another persons's right to hear it? Why should the FCC be enforcing one at the expense of the other?

Mike

[rickg]

Technically speaking, I suppose your right.
But Stearn just isn't needed. I actually have stopped and watched his TV program a couple times, just to see what the heck was so big about him. What a worthless program.
But hey, if someone somewhere gets off on his dribble, well....

[GermanStar]

I have a question for you mikemover. Do you have children? I'm just curious. I have a young child (10yo daughter), and my feeling is that if something in a public venue is inappropriate for young children, than I have no use for it, and feel the world would be a better place without it. I would personally like to see fines and jail sentences for all the @$$holes out there sending out indecent email spam for example. If you don't have children, you may find that your values and point of view shift somewhat when or if you do choose to make little "movers".

[rickg]

Originally posted by w126
In regards to kids and the garbage aired on TV/radio. Change the channel!

Well, that's assuming you have complete control over what channel your kids watch. Kinda hard sometimes. I sometimes wish I had just eliminated TV altogether from my home when the kids were growing up.

[GermanStar]

Originally posted by w126

In regards to kids and the garbage aired on TV/radio. Change the channel!

If the world wasn't turning into such a $h##-hole, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with changing the channel.

[savas]

But Stearn just isn't needed

So you think the FCC should choose what is and isn't needed for us? Are we still living in the USA or are we turning into one of those countries that censors the media to no end? Who cares about the fact that it's Howard Stern, the question is who is next? Our very own forum has the pretty girls thread, is that "needed"?

[savas]

So you think the current FCC crackdown had no influence on Clear Channel? You don't think having to testify in front of congress made CC a little scared.

As far as I have read, the FCC has not fined HS for anything having to do with why clear channel suspended him. What specificaly are you referencing?

[DieselHead]

My issue is not with the private stations, it's with the FCC and their archaic, arbitrary standards...How are you missing this?

The parameters that guide the FCC's regulation of "indecency" were established by the Supreme Court in 1978 in FCC v. Pacifica when the Court sustained the commission's power to sanction a New York radio station for broadcasting George Carlin's monologue on "Filthy Words" in the middle of the afternoon. The interest in the "Pacifica" decision was to protect children and those who might be surfing the radio stations and inadvertantly finding themselves listening to what the justices described as "offensive" material.

Is the material presented by Howard Stern indecent? That's the question, and the definition of indecency is at the discretion of the FCC to define.

"Indecency" is defined by the court as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."

If should really come as no surprise that this FCC, headed by Michael Powell, is very Republican/Conservative and will thus attempt to enforce very strict community/moral standards through government enforcement. This is just another reason for Mike to start realizing that the Bush Administration is anything BUT conservative or libertarian. I think it's reasonably clear that the Republicans are exerting pressure in these ways to solidify their base/constituency, just like they are with supporting the Amendment proposal banning Gay marriage.

I agree with Mike that the FCC should ease off and let Clear Channel make their own content decisions (within reason) but you won't see that freedom while the Bush administration is in power. In fact, what Mike wants sounds downright liberal.