It seems Congress, the FCC and some very important broadcast industry executives have been pretty busy making the world a safer place to live of late. For the past month or so there has been a feeding frenzy of finger pointing, firings, suspensions, accusations and apologies. Many people in the radio industry, jocks, PDs, GMs etc. are waking up and starting to say "Hey, what?s going on? How far are they going to take this and when, if ever, is it going to be safe to broadcast a show with any edge or even mild adult content?"
To this, and I think I can speak for Opie when I say, welcome to our nightmare!
This has been our world for the past year and a half.
We?ve had a unique vantage point from which to watch this all unfold. Like watching a giant boulder barreling down on a town, we knew what was coming. The same boulder had already rolled right over us. We knew that our St. Pats broadcast offended many people?s beliefs and to be honest I didn?t feel too good about that part of it. We also knew that as far as the actual broadcast went we felt and still feel, along with many other professionals in the field, that it did not violate FCC indecency standards. But the FCC pushed ahead and fined Infinity hundreds of thousands of dollars because the idea behind it was so offensive. Not the language or descriptions or sounds of the event but the idea, the thought that was conjured up, of a couple having sex in a church so offended people?s morality that the FCC imposed a record setting fine for something that falls outside of their jurisdiction. Yeah, Opie and I saw this one coming quite a ways back. When other jocks would bad mouth us months after we were pulled off the air we?d sit back and say "Ok, keep talking. You think they?re stopping at us? Your turn in the barrel is right around the corner."
And it was.
The House Hearings on Broadcasting Decency Standards were on again Thursday with a new panel of TV and radio executives that included:
Mr. Alex Wallau; President of ABC Television Network,
Ms. Gail Berman; President of Entertainment Fox Broadcasting Company,
Mr. Alan Wurtzel; President Research and Media Development NBC,
Mr. Lowell "Bud" Paxson; Chairman and CEO Paxson Communications,
Mr. Harry J. Pappas; Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Pappas Telecasting Companies
Mr. John Hogan; President and Chief Executive Officer Clear Channel Communications.
This wasn?t a repeat of the Paul Tagliabue, Mel Karmazin disaster.
Who can forget a shell shocked Mel Karmazin being yelled at by a disgusted and crying Rep. Heather Wilson?
So how is the broadcast industry reacting to this latest round of hearings? With complete fear, knee jerk beheadings and a heavy dose of congressional ass kissing. This group of voluntary witnesses must have watched their game films and knew what the committee wanted to hear.
One by one the television execs laid there tributes at the feet of the committee.
Promises of tape delays so indecent material can be "dumped" out of the programs before they go out over the air. Promises of TV ratings that will remain on screen longer and air more often during programs. Promises to educate viewers in the availability and use of V-Chip technology. After the promises there were the reassertions that their networks have and will continue to broadcast quality entertainment that the whole family can enjoy and we have implemented a zero tolerance policy on indecency and we will fire anyone who even thinks about...
yeah, ok, we get it.
The committee seemed pleased. "Look, the companies are finally starting to self police themselves!" Everyone knows that this "self policing" panic wouldn?t be happening at all if they hadn?t scared the hell out of these people with threats of multi million dollar fines and license revocation for some undefined, subjective "indecency" violation.
Is it really self policing when there?s a gun to your head?
By caving in, the broadcast companies are giving the government the ability to say:
"Hey, these are company policies. It?s not a 1st amendment issue. They?re self policing".
"The reason you were fired wasn?t because you said something that was against FCC regulations. The company fired you because they finally see their moral obligation to the people!"
This buckling under by the broadcast companies takes the 1st amendment battle right out of the equation. If there was ever a chance to stop this slide into "all children?s programming, all day, all night" it would have been for the broadcasters to hold their ground and take each case of an FCC indecency violation to court backed up by the 1st amendment.
But now that people are being fired due to company policy and they?ve instated "zero tolerance" towards something as vague as indecency it lets the government off the hook for violating your rights. Meanwhile the commission was the one holding the gun to the broadcasters heads to make them institute these company policies.
For those that don?t know, the FCC has defined broadcast indecency 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."
Clear enough for you? If it is, put the bong down and get some sleep.
The TV exec?s little trinkets that were presented to the committee were just a warm up. The grand prize was presented by Clear Channel Pres. John Hogan.
Two freshly chopped bloody heads. Like a warrior offering up the enemies heads to his King, John Hogan gave the committee Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard Stern.
Quite a prize indeed! Mr. Hogan had done his homework.
While at the last hearing Mel could only offer up our stinking year and a half old corpses John Hogan had fresh kills. Howard Stern being one of them.
I don?t know anything about Bubba but I think we can all say we know who Howard Stern is and we know what his show is all about. I would imagine if you were the president of the largest radio broadcasting company in the country you would know who Howard Stern is and what his show is like. I may be going out on a limb here but I would even hazard to guess you might have caught some of his show during the quarter century or so that he?s been on the air. Anyone see where I?m going with this yet?
Mr. Hogan chose to take Howard off of his stations THE DAY BEFORE he was to testify before the indecency committee. Why? Mr. Hogan decided that Howard Stern was indecent. Was Howard indecent the day before yesterday? Or last week or last year?
I?d say Howard has been Howard for quite some time. I don?t think this had anything to do with his show being indecent or not. I know, I know, call me crazy!
Anyone not see right through this move? Yeah? Well the committee loved it.
While at the last hearing, New Mexico?s Rep. Heather Wilson showed she could be mean mommy to bad boy Mel, this time she showed that if you please her and are a good boy you will get nice mommy and she?ll love you. She really seems to enjoy talking down to people. Ms. Wilson had a little taste of power and celebrity and she is running with it. She gave praise to Mr. Hogan for helping to clean up the airwaves. They had been clean for a whole 24 hours or so. Job well done.
One word that was used a few hundred times during these hearings was "protection". Every member of the committee used the word. Protect the airwaves, protect the American people and of course protect the children.
Ah, ha! We?re being protected. If you?ve noticed, rights are never taken away or kept from people. You are just being "protected" from something else.
Let?s take this opportunity to look at our pal, the first amendment.
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Hey, short and sweet and it sure seems pretty straight forward. So you?ve got to ask "Why is Congress making laws that are abridging my freedom of speech?"
The answer they give is to protect the American people from a danger that is present from hearing certain words. We all know the old ?you can?t yell fire in a crowded theater? rule.
This is the example always given of how your freedom of speech is not an absolute.
You can?t use your freedom of speech to put others in harms way. Ok, I think we can all agree with that. But, if you are going to infringe on a constitutional right like freedom of speech based on the idea that the speech you are banning is dangerous, you better damn well show the people absolute proof that the speech in question is in fact dangerous. This has NEVER been done. There is no proof that any harm will come of anyone who hears a comedy show with sexual content. The amendment says Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech. NO LAW! Where is the confusion here?
If there is a danger that is so clear and so threatening to the American people that Congress feels the need to step on the 1st amendment and pretty much say "We?re changing this amendment, we will make laws that abridge your freedom of speech." Wouldn?t any rational thinking person believe that the danger would have to be so obvious and clear that there would be no argument about it? I mean, you?re directly contradicting a constitutional amendment here! My point is you best have a damn good reason to look at a constitutional amendment and say "No, we?re changing this." We have not been given any reason to believe this abridging of our freedom of speech is necessary. There just isn?t any evidence what so ever of any danger from sexually oriented conversation. Thanks for the offer but we really don?t need this protection. Please feel free to use my tax dollars for protection against things like 767 cockpits entering the workplace.
I guess what we need is a public out cry from the people who matter, the majority of the country. The people who are a little too involved with living their own lives and raising their own families to try and push their agenda on others. What about the millions of people who enjoyed listening to our show or Howard Stern.
Members of the Committee said many times ?The people have spoken and we have heard you.? They didn?t hear me or the millions of others that are not happy with the government deciding what I should and shouldn?t be hearing. They have heard the fringe and the interest groups full of people whose time would be better spent looking after their own lives and their own children and not making decisions about what is good and proper for YOUR families. We need a voice against this small group of "do gooders" before it?s too late and there?s no turning back.
- Anthony