Will They Fine Oprah?

[BVS]

March 20, 2004 -- Howard Stern accused Oprah Winfrey of being a fellow potty-mouth yesterday, saying the afternoon TV queen has aired the same kind of kinky sexual material for which he was being pilloried.
"If they fine me for this, then they got to fine Oprah - the darling of the world," Stern told listeners after trying to play a shocking excerpt of an Oprah show on teen sex.

"And if they fine Oprah, all hell is gonna break loose."

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/21346.htm


I think this is interesting. Is the FCC being hypocritical if they don't go after Oprah? You can find transcripts of both conversations on HowardStern.com.

 

[martha]

Howard Stern is an asshole.

 

[BVS]

So does it make it OK to not fine Oprah because she's not? I'll be the first to admit Stern is not on the top of my list as entertainers, but I do think he's being targeted and I do think it has a lot to do with his comments about Bush.

 

[ABEL]

indeed he is an asshole

i've only seen his show a couple times on TV and am NOT impressed with him at all...it seems like all i've seen him talk about on his show is trying to look up women's skirts at their underwear (among other disgusting things he's talked about that i've wondered why he hasn't been censored more).

 

[Salome]

Stern is not on the top of my list as entertainers, but I do think he's being targeted

I agree

though comparing what he does to what Oprah does is a false comparison I guess since he does it for shock value only
(then again I'm quite sure for both of them the number 1 aim is to attract as many listeners = advertising money as possible)

 

[BVS]

I agree

though comparing what he does to what Oprah does is a false comparison I guess since he does it for shock value only
(then again I'm quite sure for both of them the number 1 aim is to attract as many listeners = advertising money as possible)

Well I think that's the interesting point of this whole thing. Many are claiming Oprah's program shouldn't be fined because it was there to be "educational", but the FCC has now thrown out any rules of context. They went back on their ruling of Bono and are now fining. At first they said he didn't use it in a sexual context so it was OK, but now they are saying the word itself no matter what context is finable. If Stern got fined for this Oprah should too. I don't think they will and it just proves my point that this system doesn't work and this dinosaur should be put to sleep.

 

[Salome]

well, following that line of thought they have no option but to also fine Oprah

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well I think that's the interesting point of this whole thing. Many are claiming Oprah's program shouldn't be fined because it was there to be "educational", but the FCC has now thrown out any rules of context. They went back on their ruling of Bono and are now fining. At first they said he didn't use it in a sexual context so it was OK, but now they are saying the word itself no matter what context is finable. If Stern got fined for this Oprah should too. I don't think they will and it just proves my point that this system doesn't work and this dinosaur should be put to sleep.

Agreed.

If the FCC's going to get serious about this stuff, it'd help if they were consistent about it.

Angela

 

[melon]

The FCC is a tool of any presidential administration. Get rid of Bush, and you'll get rid of the reactionary fanatics that are in the FCC. While they do have "terms," tradition holds that all commissioners resign following a change in president, and the president gets to choose a whole new batch of people.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

The FCC is a tool of any presidential administration. Get rid of Bush, and you'll get rid of the reactionary fanatics that are in the FCC.

Not true. Consider the fact that the increase in fines for objectionable material got bipartisian support. Even Kerry gave his approval when Stern was yanked off six stations. Getting rid of Bush won't change things for folks like Howard Stern.


Also, the FCC acts on complaints. Has there been a complaint filed against Oprah? Has Stern filed a complaint, or is he full of hot air?

 

[martha]

I think it's hilarious that Stern was so pro-Bush when things were going Howard's way, and now that his buddy Bush's administration is hitting him with fines, he's pro-Kerry now.




And honestly, I have no opnion on this whole fining thing. I just think Howard's an asshole.

 

[BVS]

Not true. Consider the fact that the increase in fines for objectionable material got bipartisian support. Even Kerry gave his approval when Stern was yanked off six stations. Getting rid of Bush won't change things for folks like Howard Stern.


Also, the FCC acts on complaints. Has there been a complaint filed against Oprah? Has Stern filed a complaint, or is he full of hot air?

Kerry did give his support he said they act within their rights. Clear Channel has the right to yank anyone they want. He gave the legal answer and chickened out on standing up for freedom of speech.

Does anyone have the voting results on this bill? I heard only one Republican voted against and he was quoted as saying they weren't high enough and very few Democrats voted for. But this could be completely wrong.


Yes there has been a complaint filed by Stern and many of his listeners. But anyone can file a complaint but do you think a complaint filed against Oprah will even be given a look over, no. That's why this system will never work. It comes down to the opinions of a few appointed people, and right now it's filled with some power hungry quacks who continually contradict themselves and over reach their bounds. There is no true definition of what is decent or not, but it lies in the hands of these few men and heavy fines. What if next administration finds Rush talking about gay marriage as indecent?

 

[Dreadsox]

Howard is right to point out inconsistencies. It is histerical that hispeople did not want him to AIR OPRAH clips for fear of fines.

And I agree...he has flip flopped on his candidates....but so have many people.

Finally he may be an asshole, but asshole or not, I think he is right on the money here.

 

[meegannie]

Does anyone have the voting results on this bill?

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll055.xml

I only wish this had been a bigger deal when I handled telecommunications issues, so I could've written letters about Bono.

 

[nbcrusader]

Looks pretty bipartisian to me....

 

[BVS]

I think it would be interesting to put this to the test someday. The FCC is one of the few places in our government without any checks and balances unless you take it to supreme court. But I wonder what would happen if enough people wrote in complaints saying they were offended by Bush's state of the union address? There is no true definition, all they need is a complaint, but I wonder how many it would really take for them to do anything, I'm assuming at a certain point they would have to at least act like they are looking into it. Hmmm

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

maybe i missed something... was bono fined? or was he just warned and told not to do it again? maybe i was sleeping when this decision came down... can someone refresh me again to what exactly the ruling was?

now i support howard stern's right to say whatever the hell he wants as long as it meets FCC guidelines. if he wants to talk about sex? fine... go right ahead. there are plenty of "codewords" that he can use where he doesn't have to say a single one of the so called seven dirty words and still get his point across just fine and dandy. then he still gets to do his show, he still gets to be as raunchy as he wants to be, the FCC can't do a damn thing about it, and we can put the decisions back into the hands of the listeners... who aren't children because children should be in school when Stern is on the air.

As for Oprah... please, Howard. Calm yourself buddy... if someone can't see the difference between slapping a lesbian in the ass with a dead fish... which he's done on the air, and, by the way, was perfectly legal by FCC guidelines... and an educational discussion on teen sex, then that person has problems. One of the three major networks, I think it was ABC, aired Schindler's List in it's entirety... with many many many "parental advisories" and other various warnings regarding content that may not be "suitable for children." should we lump them in with Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony and Mancow and all these other shock jocks? Of course not. Let's use some common sense here people.

 

[martha]

now i support howard stern's right to say whatever the hell he wants as long as it meets FCC guidelines. if he wants to talk about sex? fine... go right ahead. there are plenty of "codewords" that he can use where he doesn't have to say a single one of the so called seven dirty words and still get his point across just fine and dandy. then he still gets to do his show, he still gets to be as raunchy as he wants to be, the FCC can't do a damn thing about it, and we can put the decisions back into the hands of the listeners... who aren't children because children should be in school when Stern is on the air.

As for Oprah... please, Howard. Calm yourself buddy... if someone can't see the difference between slapping a lesbian in the ass with a dead fish... which he's done on the air, and, by the way, was perfectly legal by FCC guidelines... and an educational discussion on teen sex, then that person has problems. One of the three major networks, I think it was ABC, aired Schindler's List in it's entirety... with many many many "parental advisories" and other various warnings regarding content that may not be "suitable for children." should we lump them in with Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony and Mancow and all these other shock jocks? Of course not. Let's use some common sense here people.

This is a great post. It's funny, true, and well said.

 

[BVS]

maybe i missed something... was bono fined? or was he just warned and told not to do it again? maybe i was sleeping when this decision came down... can someone refresh me again to what exactly the ruling was?

now i support howard stern's right to say whatever the hell he wants as long as it meets FCC guidelines. if he wants to talk about sex? fine... go right ahead. there are plenty of "codewords" that he can use where he doesn't have to say a single one of the so called seven dirty words and still get his point across just fine and dandy. then he still gets to do his show, he still gets to be as raunchy as he wants to be, the FCC can't do a damn thing about it, and we can put the decisions back into the hands of the listeners... who aren't children because children should be in school when Stern is on the air.

As for Oprah... please, Howard. Calm yourself buddy... if someone can't see the difference between slapping a lesbian in the ass with a dead fish... which he's done on the air, and, by the way, was perfectly legal by FCC guidelines... and an educational discussion on teen sex, then that person has problems. One of the three major networks, I think it was ABC, aired Schindler's List in it's entirety... with many many many "parental advisories" and other various warnings regarding content that may not be "suitable for children." should we lump them in with Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony and Mancow and all these other shock jocks? Of course not. Let's use some common sense here people.

First issue, yes the FCC has gone back on their decision with Bono and are now "in the process" of issuing fines, but I don't know if it's him or the station or the Golden Globes who actually receives the fine.

Secondly your point is treading on the same water that the FCC is. The conversation Oprah had and the conversation Stern had were similar in the fact that they were both describing sexual terms that may not be common knowledge. In fact some may argue Oprah's was actually more graphic than Stern's because she actually described what a woman would do with a man's penis during one of these acts and Howard just used the term "going down". But the conversations were very similar, Stern got fined for his Oprah probably won't. Now you bring up his overall behaviour in your argument and that's irrelevant to these cases. Neither Stern or Oprah used any of the 7 words. But Stern is being targeted because of his past behaviour? This is not an issue of context, the FCC threw that out when they went back on Bono's F-bomb. So what if Stern slaps a lesbian on her ass with a fish? Not my idea of entertainment but some may enjoy it, they are all consenting adults, the fish is dead, and last but certainly not least...it's radio and until his E show a lot of this we didn't even really know he was doing.

I honestly am somewhat bothered by the fact that in the last couple of weeks I have had to stand up and defend this guy in here, at work, etc. because I'm not a huge fan, but I am a huge fan of freedom of speech and I see it leaving one word at a time.

Stern is absolutley right in his view that the FCC is being hypocritical with this stance.

I find it disturbing that more people haven't defended him. I find it disturbing that people who talk about freedom of speech or talk about defending a constitution yet when someone gets targeted like this and you don't agree with his views then you don't care or you secretly applaud.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well said, BonoVoxSupastar. .

Angela

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

First issue, yes the FCC has gone back on their decision with Bono and are now "in the process" of issuing fines, but I don't know if it's him or the station or the Golden Globes who actually receives the fine.

Once again... I ask you and many other people who seem to still be outraged by the FCC's "citing" of Bono to go back and read the actuall decision by the FCC... or rather, I'll post it for you.


"Given that today's decision clearly departs from past precedent in important ways, I could not support a fine retroactively against the parties," said FCC Chairman Michael Powell (news), who had asked his fellow commissioners to overturn the agency's enforcement bureau's finding.
"Prospectively, parties are on notice that they could now face significant penalties for similar violations," Powell said.

also... as to the difference between oprah and howard stern... it goes back to the supreme court case of the fcc vs. pacifica broadcasting. baisicly... the fcc can fine broadcasters for the use of indecent, shocking, gratuitous lanuage, unless the broadcaster can prove that the use of said language was proven to have some "political, scientific or other independent value of use of the word."

there-in lies the difference between oprah or a broadcast of schindler's list vs. howard stern, as stated by the supreme court... not to mention the court of common sense.

 

[BVS]

Once again... I ask you and many other people who seem to still be outraged by the FCC's "citing" of Bono to go back and read the actuall decision by the FCC... or rather, I'll post it for you.


"Given that today's decision clearly departs from past precedent in important ways, I could not support a fine retroactively against the parties," said FCC Chairman Michael Powell (news), who had asked his fellow commissioners to overturn the agency's enforcement bureau's finding.
"Prospectively, parties are on notice that they could now face significant penalties for similar violations," Powell said.

also... as to the difference between oprah and howard stern... it goes back to the supreme court case of the fcc vs. pacifica broadcasting. baisicly... the fcc can fine broadcasters for the use of indecent, shocking, gratuitous lanuage, unless the broadcaster can prove that the use of said language was proven to have some "political, scientific or other independent value of use of the word."

there-in lies the difference between oprah or a broadcast of schindler's list vs. howard stern, as stated by the supreme court... not to mention the court of common sense.

Ok yes you are right, the information I had was wrong, they went back and changed their decision and "sited" Bono, but did not fine. But it still doesn't exclude the fact that currently the FCC is trying to throw context out the window.

But I still don't agree with you on the whole Oprah and Stern thing. You are talking about a single word. Stern was not fined for use of any of the banned words, but fined for sexual content. The same content that Oprah used. Stern was explaing slang that the many have never heard of, Oprah did the same. The audience shouldn't matter, history doesn't matter, what should matter are the two conversations.

If you use the idea that historical context should matter than Oprah could get away with almost anything arguing the fact that this isn't normal behavior and she was only trying to get a point across.

So you're argument of the Supreme Court and "common sence" make absolutely no sence at all. By this logic it still comes down to the choice of those few appointed. The language in these two conversations were almost the same, the time slot at which it aired was the same, the only difference was the person's mouth at which it came out of...so we're allowing the FCC to make targets. This is what this logic comes down to and this is the reason I think this whole thing sucks...it's a commitee thats set up so that it can be twisted into anything it wants.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Quick question...

In this country we have regulations about what time of day certain programmes may be broadcast. Things like swearing, sexual content, violence, etc are only supposed to be broadcast after a certain time in the evening. So if a TV station wants to broadcast, say, a film with a significant amount of swearing, they're free to broadcast it in its entirety so long as it's broadcast later in the evening.

Do you have anything like this in the US? Or are the regulations just that stations can't broadcast certain words or pictures at any time of day? And also, to what extent do the regulations differ between the main TV channels and subscription-only channels?

Thanks to anyone who answers.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

certain words are forbidden no matter what time they are broadcast, but in general, more "risque" programing is aired later in the night... wether this is by law or by network choice, that i do not know


and bonovox...

"political, scientific or other independent value of use of the word"

if an independent source reviwed Oprah's show, it would show that it was for educational purposes. Stern is strictly for entertainment value, and therefore has no "political, scientific or other independent value of use." it's a simple rule and has been upheld by the supreme court.

i was not stating wether or not that rule is right, i'm just stating why the FCC would fine stern while not fining Oprah.

 

[BVS]

There are time limits...I can't remember the exact time block, I think from 10p.m. to 6a.m. they are more laxed(which still makes no sence to me, a child can turn on the TV during those hours).

As far as public channels vs. pay channels there are a few gray lines. MTV, Comedy Central, etc. even though are "pay" channels still can't air certain content. Movie channels have free reign. Their have been members of this commitee that have talked about how they need to expand their power into Cable, XM, and satellite broadcasting, so we'll see where that goes.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

There are time limits...I can't remember the exact time block, I think from 10p.m. to 6a.m. they are more laxed(which still makes no sence to me, a child can turn on the TV during those hours).

As far as public channels vs. pay channels there are a few gray lines. MTV, Comedy Central, etc. even though are "pay" channels still can't air certain content. Movie channels have free reign. Their have been members of this commitee that have talked about how they need to expand their power into Cable, XM, and satellite broadcasting, so we'll see where that goes.

comedy central and mtv's content guidelines are self enforced... they can chose to ignore them if they'd like, such as the "it hits the fan" episode of south park... where they used the word shit 162 times in a half hour episode... they even counted each use of the word on the bottom left hand corner of the screen... it was quite funny

 

[BVS]

certain words are forbidden no matter what time they are broadcast, but in general, more "risque" programing is aired later in the night... wether this is by law or by network choice, that i do not know


and bonovox...

"political, scientific or other independent value of use of the word"

if an independent source reviwed Oprah's show, it would show that it was for educational purposes. Stern is strictly for entertainment value, and therefore has no "political, scientific or other independent value of use." it's a simple rule and has been upheld by the supreme court.

i was not stating wether or not that rule is right, i'm just stating why the FCC would fine stern while not fining Oprah.

Yeah I understand. It's just a dangerous system. I don't find either one of them educational, political, scientific or even entertaing for that matter. And what this admin finds educational the next may find it as hate speech that needs to be censored. I just see it as a slippery slope.

 

[BVS]

comedy central and mtv's content guidelines are self enforced... they can chose to ignore them if they'd like, such as the "it hits the fan" episode of south park... where they used the word shit 162 times in a half hour episode... they even counted each use of the word on the bottom left hand corner of the screen... it was quite funny

I knew it wasn't the FCC who regulated them, I just didn't know if it was self monitored or if cable companies had censors or what.

 

[Mullen-Girl]

I remember the shite episode. LOL funny stuff.

I don't like Howard Stern but I don't think it's fair that they take him off the air because it's freedom of speech. If he's not using these 7 words then there's nothing wrong. Yeah his show may be a bunch of crap but it's his freedom to do that.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

what's even more stupid about the stern thing is that it wasn't the FCC that took him off the air in certain locations... it was infinity broadcasting (owned by cbs) who took him off. they got scared and did the rash thing... once things calm down, i'm sure stern will be back. ratings are ratings, and in the end will always speak louder than "morals" or whatever other reason was behind the pulling of stern in certain markets.

in my opinion, as long as he's not breaking fcc guidelines, pulling him is the cowardly way out by cbs.