Ha ha, boobies

[BVS]

I just want to make sure where we stand. Under your scenario, we throw open the airwaves to whatever people want to broadcast (hate, violence, sex, etc.) and our only option to objectionable material is to change the channel.

There still need to be audiences. Someone starting a KKK talk show probably isn't going to last very long(and a station wouldn't be very smart to air them), but yes they have the right and you have the right to change the channel.

There is hate all over the radiowaves I've heard it on Stern and I've heard it on Rush, I've heard it all over.

Whatever it is that offends or frightens people about this speech, why is it that you want it removed? Is it that you are so scared that you may be tempted? Are these people so weak in their morals and standards that they must get rid of all temptation? Is this what we're moving to a country where if we get rid of all temptation then we don't have to test our faith?

If you are that weak then you have other issues.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

Material which incites racial hatred, however, is inherently harmful. Its sole intention is to incite hatred and violence against a particular group of people, it has nothing to do with creativity, freedom of expression or entertainment, it exists purely to spread bigotry and lies.

Exactly-I don't feel there is any defense for just allowing the use of the n word or any racially derogatory term-at what point do people then use and hear it so often that they become numb to it? For me personally, the use of such terms is inexcusable and indefensible. Racism is one of the biggest evils that exists, and I just believe we should do anything and everything possible to control and eradicate it.

I'm not denying that there are politics involved in this, or that people should be given credit for the ability to use their own discretion..but I still believe that certain standards should exist. That's just my opinion that I can't be talked out of I agree somewhat w/ what you said Fizzing about the sexuality related material, but when does it become a slippery slope? What about Larry Flynt and the infamous woman in the meat grinder photo?

 

[BVS]

Exactly-I don't feel there is any defense for just allowing the use of the n word or any racially derogatory term-at what point do people then use and hear it so often that they become numb to it? For me personally, the use of such terms is inexcusable and indefensible. Racism is one of the biggest evils that exists, and I just believe we should do anything and everything possible to control and eradicate it.

What's interesting about this is that at the time Stern is being taken off the air there are rap songs on the top 40 that use the n-word more in a 3 minute airing than a whole 4 hour broadcast of Stern, there are songs thoughout all formats that speak about sex. I did a quick search of the Top 40 and this week you have a song by Eamon with the title F**k It, you have that Nickelback song that talks about "I like the pants around your feet", and "I like the white stains on your dress", and you have country songs that talk about getting drunk and sleeping with your best friends wife and these are all played on Clear Channel stations. So I have a hard time believing that they aren't targeting certain people.

And let me just say I'm not a huge Stern fan, my IQ is a little too high to find his humor funny longer than 5 minutes, but I defend his right to speak.

 

[nbcrusader]

Whatever it is that offends or frightens people about this speech, why is it that you want it removed? Is it that you are so scared that you may be tempted? Are these people so weak in their morals and standards that they must get rid of all temptation? Is this what we're moving to a country where if we get rid of all temptation then we don't have to test our faith?

If you are that weak then you have other issues.

Nice move, but painting people who object to offensive content as "weak" isn't going to work.

Let's flip the picture. Do you think general commercial broadcast of hate, violence, explicit sex makes for a better world? Think of your own "Root of All Evil" thead. The commercial media is not the root of the problem, but does the commercial media magnify the problem or limit it?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well, I don't consider myself to be "weak". I give myself more credit than that, and I tend to give others more credit as well. There are reasons why people have those beliefs that have nothing to do w/ "weakness".

And I would guess that Clear Channel is targeting Stern because that's easier and more profitable than taking most of the music they play off the air. I'm aware of what is in that music. I believe the CEO of Clear Channel was before Congress re this issue the same day the Stern thing happened, I could be wrong about that.

 

[BVS]

Nice move, but painting people who object to offensive content as "weak" isn't going to work.

Let's flip the picture. Do you think general commercial broadcast of hate, violence, explicit sex makes for a better world? Think of your own "Root of All Evil" thead. The commercial media is not the root of the problem, but does the commercial media magnify the problem or limit it?

No I'm not painting people who object the content as weak, I'm saying the people who want to eliminate this persons free speech are weak.

Does it make for a better world? No. But free speech does.

Well I think evil is inevitable. Does the commercial media have magnify or limit it? I think it does both.

 

[BVS]

And I would guess that Clear Channel is targeting Stern because that's easier and more profitable than taking most of the music they play off the air.

Well here's the ironic thing about this whole issue is that they will be loosing money. One Stern has some of the highest numbers, and two they are breach of contract so they'll still be paying Stern.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

That's interesting, but is that true compared to what they make off the music/advertising, etc? I'm not questioning what you posted, just curious

I know that Stern is a cash cow, that's for sure. He reaps the benefits in a big way too, but then again supposedly he lost 1/2 in his divorce

Another question-does each local station have a "button person" that edits the content on his show? That's what I thought

 

[BVS]

That's interesting, but is that true compared to what they make off the music/advertising, etc? I'm not questioning what you posted, just curious

Another question-does each local station have a "button person" that edits the content on his show? That's what I thought

I don't know, if they make that much more during music that can make a profit after their losses, I'm not sure.

Yes Stern has his own dump button, plus each station that he syndicates to has their own. So there are two times to catch anything the FCC finds offensive.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The original question was "who will set the standards?" Why should we accept your standard as opposed to the FCC? (I am not opposed to setting of a standard and do not disagree with part of your standard)

I think the idea of a "standard" implies that you're accepting one person's morality over another. Instead of having censors whose "standards" dictate what everyone else may watch and listen to, individuals should be free to choose what they want according to whatever "standard" they consider appropriate.

On the subject of material which incites hatred, I don't believe that advocating that being censored is an expression of my own "standards": I don't know about the US, but here in the UK it's illegal to distribute material intended to incite racial hatred. Given that, there's an obvious case for broadcasters refusing to air material likely to incite racial hatred, regardless of whether a preson finds it personally offensive or not.

Another form of "censorship" which hasn't been mentioned is the way in which the extremely centralised ownership of broadcasters, newspapers and publishing companies prevent artists who aren't viewed as "commercial" from ever having their work published. Maybe that's for another thread but it's something to think about in the context of this discussion.

 

[nbcrusader]

On the subject of material which incites hatred, I don't believe that advocating that being censored is an expression of my own "standards": I don't know about the US, but here in the UK it's illegal to distribute material intended to incite racial hatred. Given that, there's an obvious case for broadcasters refusing to air material likely to incite racial hatred, regardless of whether a preson finds it personally offensive or not.

Sounds like your government has already set a standard for you. If it is against the law, it would seem appropriate that broadcasters not violate that law. The law as you described would not work in the US as it is a form of prior constraint.

 

[najeena]

What's worse? The deed itself, or the endless re-hashing of it?

 

[BVS]

I was listening to a conservative talk show on my way home from work today and everyone was praising the fact that Stern got kicked off the air in so many areas, but the host was like you people don't get what if the next administration finds Rush talking about affirmative action or Hannity(sp?) talking about gay marriage hate speech, then the shows you agree with will be taken off the air. The FCC is a dinosaur and has no place judging content. The only people who should have a say about content are the advertisers and the listeners, that's it.

And today in an article the president of the FCC are looking into if they should monitor cable and satellite radio. These SOBs are full of themselves.

Did you hear that noise? That was the sound of our free speech flushing down the drain.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Thank you, BVS. Seriously, how far is this going to go? Is it going to just stop at TV and radio?

As for hate speech and all that sort, again I say, the only way we can get rid of all the discrimination in this world is to confront it head on. By letting the KKK sit there and say what they have to say, that will show people how ignorant they sound, and will make people not want to associate with such ignorance-those who agree with the KKK would have those feelings whether the KKK said anything or not.

I find hearing people say they don't support homosexuals having the right to marry to be rather mean and discriminatory, but I'm not about to stop them from expressing that opinion.

Angela

 

[Pearl]

The way technology is going, people would be able to program their own TVs. They'll get to choose which shows they want, what kind of news, entertainment, sports, etc. they want to see. I think this is called i-TV, and heard its becoming very popular in Europe, and would soon make its way to the US. By then, FCC standards may be obsolete because the government obviously cannot tell people what their personnal preferences should be. So there's a chance standards won't be necessary.

Although how those programs manage to get promoted for people to notice them would be the question. It might mean the FCC would have to reinvent itself and try to stop certain programs from becoming part of a list people would choose from. I mean, those shows won't be promoted and chosen all by themselves. Something would stand in the way, like a corporation.

Anyway, i-TVs - interactive TVs - are the thing of the future and I think it would be interesting to see what that would mean for FCC standards and censorship.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

That's an interesting point pearl

Dang, one of my goals was to see Gordon Clapp's butt before I die Oh well, at least I got to see Dennis Franz's

Derriere Scene Cut from 'Blue' Post-Janet

Janet Jackson's Super Bowl flash is still having a nipple in the pond effect. The latest possible casualty is Gordon Clapp's butt-baring scene in the March 23 episode of "NYPD Blue."
"It looks like a total eclipse," quips Clapp of the moon shot. "I was told the shot was gratuitous and that made me laugh because which of the butt shots in recent years wasn't gratuitous?"

Clapp says "NYPD Blue" creator/exec producer Steven Bochco - who chose to make no comment when contacted by this column -- made the final decision to excise the nude backside scenes, but he's still not clear why. "I think he just thought the whole scene would play better without something that was going to distract from it.

"I don't believe it had anything to do with the network and I don't know whether it's in response to what's going on right now," he says, referring to the post-Janet/Super Bowl backlash.

Despite the fact that he's been campaigning for years to exercise the nudity clause in his contract and follow behind, er, in the footsteps of David Caruso, Jimmy Smits and Dennis Franz, Clapp says he's not crushed by Bochco's decision.

"Actually, I think the story in the episode is so strong that the butt shot was secondary to the whole thing.

 

[nbcrusader]

Did you hear that noise? That was the sound of our free speech flushing down the drain.

It is interesting that we say this today, when we have far more free speech in media today than we ever have before.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

It is interesting that we say this today, when we have far more free speech in media today than we ever have before.

And we have people trying to take that free speech away.

 

[Bono's shades]

I thought the whole rating systems for TV programs (G, PG, PG-14, MA) and the V chip was supposed to take care of people's concerns when it comes to possibly objectionable TV programming. And even though I'm not a huge fan of the idea, I suppose the five-second delay thing they used for the Grammys this year might be the best way to handle the dilemma of live TV. I don't really see the need for this huge crackdown by the FCC when it comes to TV programming, or for TV producers to be scared to show things they showed before, but like Moonlit Angel said, it's an election year.

And as far as radio goes, I'm way more concerned by the Clear Channel monopoly than anything that happens on the Howard Stern Show.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I thought the whole rating systems for TV programs (G, PG, PG-14, MA) and the V chip was supposed to take care of people's concerns when it comes to possibly objectionable TV programming.

Yeah, no kidding (course, that can just add to kids wanting to see things some parents feel they shouldn't-most teenagers, when they see an MA rating for a show, are naturally going to want to see that show the minute their parents are gone).

Pearl...that is an interesting point. It'd definitely be something worth paying attention to, in order to see how it all pans out.

Originally posted by Bono's shades
And even though I'm not a huge fan of the idea, I suppose the five-second delay thing they used for the Grammys this year might be the best way to handle the dilemma of live TV. I don't really see the need for this huge crackdown by the FCC when it comes to TV programming, or for TV producers to be scared to show things they showed before, but like Moonlit Angel said, it's an election year.

Mmhm.

I'm just curious...what exactly are people so scared will happen if a person hears a swear word on TV or sees a body part for two seconds? And why in the world is it people only worry about the effects on kids? I mean, when an adult goes on a killing spree, nobody blames it on what they watched or listened to. But when a kid does it, the immediate blame goes to that stuff (not to the parents, of course, 'cause they've done such a fine job). What gives?

Originally posted by Bono's shades
And as far as radio goes, I'm way more concerned by the Clear Channel monopoly than anything that happens on the Howard Stern Show.

.

Angela

 

[BVS]

It is interesting that we say this today, when we have far more free speech in media today than we ever have before.

In this day and age where we are "bold" enough to go spread democracy throughout the world we shouldn't be losing it here on the homefront.

 

[nbcrusader]

Come on, we are not losing democracy at home. The commercial airwaves have always had limits on content. The limits have been pushed over time and society has reacted over time. Given society's short attention span, the limits will be pushed again and we will probably have a completely topless Superbowl halftime within a decade.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Ha ha boobies... Part 2...

The second half of Anthony Cummia's rant on the FCC

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

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I have a newfound respect for this Anthony guy. .

"There just isn?t any evidence what so ever of any danger from sexually oriented conversation."

Exactly! Why is it so wrong to talk about sexual or excretory things? Every single human being experiences all those things every single day-what exactly is so wrong about talking about them? What harm is going to come about from talking about this stuff? Will people be injured? Will people die? No, so...where's the problem? Nobody's forcing you to participate in said discussions.

People talk about that stuff all the time off the air with friends and family, but once it gets on TV and radio, it's suddenly wrong? That makes absolutely no sense.

The part with Howard Stern was particularly good, too. He was all of a sudden "indecent"? Please. I've heard much worse on his show.

And in regards to cleaning up things-it's like my dad said, if our family lived in Omaha, he'd be terrified to let my sister and I walk down the street at night because that city's so dangerous (and that danger can spread to nearby cities and towns). But as long as we get these swear words and sexual discussions off the airwaves, THEN the children will be safe!

He wrote a letter to that Heather Wilson in New Mexico talking about how stupid all this was. From what I hear, she wasn't even home with her son the night the Super Bowl incident aired. He's a fourth grade kid, and she left him home alone for an extended period of time. She was up in Colorado on a "fact-finding" mission. She wasn't even there taking care of her child, and she's sitting there expecting other people to do it? No, lady, you are the parent here, you are the one who is to raise your kid. Not the television set. She said her son found the incident "nasty"-yeah, most fourth graders still think girls have cooties, so they're obviously gonna find that kind of thing nasty. Either that, or if they don't find it nasty, they'll laugh about it with their friends, and...move on with their lives. Wow. Yeah. Real threat there.

Anywho...yeah, once again, very well put, Anthony. .

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

Kerry won't side with Stern against Clear Channel

NEW YORK -- John Kerry says if the managers of radio stations want to kick Howard Stern off the air, they're within their rights.

Campaigning in New York on Saturday, Kerry was asked to stand up for Stern's right to say what he wants. A questioner at a town hall meeting said Stern is the victim of repression by the Republican-led government.

But Kerry disagreed with that. He responded, "If you are working for somebody and they have a set of rules, that's the deal." He says that doesn't mean Stern can't go say what he wants somewhere else, if somebody else wants him to.

This week, Clear Channel Communications yanked Stern's program from its stations in six cities. It came as Congress and federal agencies crack down on programming considered indecent.

But Stern's program remains on the air on dozens of other stations, and it draws millions of listeners.

 

[BVS]

Kerry won't side with Stern against Clear Channel

He gave the legal answer, avoided the real issue. Year of election, everyone panders to the middle.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

He gave the legal answer, avoided the real issue. Year of election, everyone panders to the middle.

what he said