Re: Re: only 3
 

Thanks for the link. It's interesting. I've never heard of "buzzmachine," but assuming that they are legitimate, it tends to back up one of my original statements that as few as one viewer can begin investigations in the FCC's Broadcast Bureau if it seems to have any validity.

Having been in or around broadcasting most of my life, I can tell you that the FCC can be a gigantic pain.

On the other hand, I still have seen chaos reign when no action is taken.

The opposite side of the Communications Act revisions is the allowance for the centralization of media ownership and the legal formation of outfits like Clear Channel. I liked it a whole lot better when there was more competition between station ownership.

Re: Re: Re: only 3
 

The website had this great blog posting quoted on there:

"But the real question is who should decide this question: five members of the FCC, or 300 million Americans with their remote controls? There’s something frankly unsettling about federal officials opining on whether they like this or that thing shown to Americans. (And, although Powell was careful to say he didn’t know whether FCC rules were violated, the chill in the air was nevertheless apparent.)

Advocates of regulation, of course, argue that only “inappropriate” content is at risk. “We just have to draw the line somewhere” is the refrain. Yet, that line is a fuzzy one — and tends inevitably to move in the direction of more and more government control. If there’s any doubt of that, just ask station managers who refused to air Private Ryan last week, out of fear of FCC disfavor. And it unlikely to end there.

No one should know this more than conservatives — who have spent years fighting politically-correct speech codes on college campuses and elsewhere. In the end, giving government power to define what is appropriate and acceptable may be as — or more — obnoxious to conservatives as to liberals.

Bottom line: Defining indecency is awfully difficult, and different people will draw the line on it in very different places. Given the diverging views of the 5-member FCC, laying down a clear, bright-line definition of indecency is probably impossible. Vague standards and vigorous enforcement--what we have now--will necessarily spur broadcasters to act overcautiously and pull the plug on worthwhile programming like "Private Ryan." For conservatives concerned about trash TV, the off-button may be a more attactive alternative."

Also see: http://www.heritage.org/press/dailyb...1E1C975A77531D

-Rudey

Re: Re: only 3
 

I saw that episode of Oprah. It was about teenagers and sex, and it was extremely graphic. She gave a warning that the show was for mature audiences only and that if there were children in the room, they shouldn't watch it. I think that the guest was a doctor who used and defined graphic terms like tossed salad which I had learned courtesy of Chris Rock on cable tv. I remember being shocked that this was on regular tv.

I don't listen to Howard Stern often anymore, but when I do I think he's funny. If he gets too raunchy, I do something radical like, oh I don't know, change the station. What a concept. He did say that Oprah is beloved so she isn't fined by the FCC. Her earlier mentioned show was probably the one of most graphic ever seen on tv.

Howard Stern said was that his show had been on over 60 radio stations a few years ago, but now he is 40-something stations. I didn't realize that he couldn't be heard everywhere. Now I understand why he is going to satellite radio. He also mentioned how "Saving Private Ryan" couldn't be shown on Veteran's Day because of the fear of FCC fines. These FCC fines are really shaping what can be seen on tv and heard on the radio.

Re: Re: Re: only 3
 

That isn't true, and is how urban legends are made.

The Movie was played on the ABC network -- I watched it. Several (actually reletively few) ABC affiliates chose not to carry it because of alleged fear of FCC action.

In truth, I think they were trying to make a point to the FCC. But maybe not.