Actually, you're exactly right. Broadcasting and Cable magazine is full of indecendy stories this week and how the FCC and Congress are coming down hard on both radio and tv.

My comments vis a vis Rush had nothing to do with indecenty, by the way. Some posters felt that the real reason for Stern's problems are because he spoke out against President Bush -- thus my point about Limbaugh.

The National Association of Broadcasters has formed a working group to deal with indecency. There was a quote in the story from Chairman Powell which basically said, Clean up your act, because you don't want to see what happens if we do it for you.

ETA I just read on Broadcast and Cable online that Clear Channel has fired two more "Shock Jocks." The abstract I saw (I don't subscribe to the online feature) did not give their names or any other details.

Here's the latest on the indecency story from today's Broadcast Engineering online:

News


Indecency gives way to spring break


"The U.S. Senate has delayed action on the broadcast indecency legislation at least until after its spring break. Majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had wanted the vote last week, but key Democrats objected to a rushed vote on the controversial legislation that would impose stiff fines for certain broadcast content.

The U.S. House of Representatives, already on a two-week break, approved the legislation earlier. The House bill would give the FCC the authority to fine broadcasters as much as $500,000 per violation and apply large penalties against those on-air personalities who willfully violate the rules.

The Senate, however, may be caught up in a legislative gridlock that some fear could extend until after the November elections.

Both Republicans and Democrats blame each other for causing the legislative snarl by refusing to allow votes on measures they don’t like, but that have broad support in both chambers. Others cite growing friction between President Bush and members of Congress of both parties for the inaction.

In the meantime, the FCC proposed $495,000 in indecency fines against Clear Channel Communications for radio broadcasts by Howard Stern, prompting the nation’s largest radio chain to drop the country’s best-known shock jock."


Does the size of these fines and potential fines help explain why the owners are making the moves they're making?

Again, nobody is arguing with you that these fines push someone to drop a program. The reason for the fines and who is being fined are the issues.

-Rudey

Sounds like those who oppose this new legislation have a week or two to get their letters into their Senators.

Dee

I understand. But the points the last couple of posts were meant to convey is that this is the beginning of what could well be a very long and bloody process, and that it isn't just Clear Channel and Stearn who are involved. They're just the tip of the iceberg.

What is interesting is that Mel Karmazan, the CEO of Viacom is one of the big movers and shakers about cleaning everything up, after appearing before Congress -- and Viacom owns CBS (Superbowl), MTV and Infinity Broadcasting -- Stern's present employer.

Isn't there a heavy movement in the industry towards conglomeration with rapid mergers and acquisitions? Who do you think controls the politics of that?

-Rudey

Actually, it was absolutely frenetic for a while and seems to have slowed down to some extent now.

The beginning, as was true with a lot of Federal deregulation began way back in the Regan Administration and continued (got worse?) from there. For a while there was an absolute feeding frenzy as big groups gobbled each other up.

The other thing that made it really crazy was that the rules against "brokering" radio stations were abolished. Formerly, when you bought a station you had to keep it for at least three years. When that went away, investers who not only knew nothing about broadcasting, but really could have cared less bought and sold stations just to make a quick buck. And, of course, part of the result was that a lot of locally owned facilities no longer had any local identity. So much for "Public interest, convenience and necessity."

As for politics, as I said, this happened over several administrations and Congresses, so I would be uncomfortable to point at anything except the deregulation steamroller.

What really controlled it was which groups had the deepest pockets (or maybe were smarter at leveraging their assets).

I have a friend from college who owned a medium market radio station for a while, but he, very much like most other small broadcasters, simply couldn't compete with the big companies.

Over the air broadcasting has never been as "political" as print or cable because of the history of Federal regulation. I've talked about that in a number of threads.

Undoubtedly radio's rules were relaxed in 1996 but in September of 2001, the FCC started to work to remove several rules that prevented cross ownership in the same market and limits on cable ownership.

On June 2, 2003 Powell wanted to change media ownership drastically. Here is a comment from a majority of the Senate Commerce Committee members expressing disappointment that such changes would occur "without any opportunity for the Congress or the public to review them beforehand."

Right now 10 companies dominate the nationwide radio market. Clear Channel and Viacom alone control 42% of listeners and 45% of industry revenues.

If you have "deep pockets" as you put it or the ability to do favor's for a politician, there is a good chance that politician will return the favor. In banking nobody really bribes each other anymore. But those consultants that are good friends with politicians sure are paid a lot for doing nothing - sometimes they just want to watch a Bears game with Michael Jordan...not even money for consultants.

-Rudey

Don't let these Stalinist pigs take our freedom. Sign this petition online and also use the page to send a quick message to your senator!!!

http://www.stopfcc.com/

-Rudey

I won't argue much against what you say, but you did leave out one fairly important point. A lot of politicians and/or political families own broadcast properties.

But it's still money (or the potential loss of it) that is driving this indecency thing.

If those fines are raised to a half million per incident, and someone says all seven dirty words (just kidding) in the same program. it adds up in a real hurry. And, as we used to say in GE/NBC, a billion here, a billion there -- pretty soon you're talking about some real money.

I signed it.

I think I'll just post this without comment:

COLUMBUS - Television viewers will not be able to watch Victoria's Secret supermodels strutting down a New York City runway in skimpy underwear this fall: The chain has dropped its show for this year.

The announcement on Saturday comes less than three months after Janet Jackson's breast-baring move at the Super Bowl and after federal regulators proposed fining Clear Channel Communications $495,000 last week for sexually explicit material on the Howard Stern show.

Ed Razek, chief creative officer for the Columbus-based chain with

$4 billion in annual sales, said the decision was more about looking at new ways to promote the brand, owned by Limited Brands.

The reasoning is "25 percent" based on the controversy generated by the Jackson gaffe, he said.

"We had to make the decision probably six to eight weeks ago when the heat was on the television networks," he said.

The hour-long show also has included orchestras, skits and singers, including Sting and Mary J. Blige last year.

National Organization for Women vice president Olga Vives praised the cancelation, saying the show makes women look only like sexual objects.

The same Limited Brands that did nothing to help find Dru Sjodin is now concerned about decency? I doubt it.. (I work for them and I'm very bitter about this.)

This is a company who has in-store signage promoting our pants by showing a model wearing a sweater and underwear.

Mini-Hijack...

Mrs. DeltAlum worked at Limited store #2 at Northland Shopping Center in 1970 and Les Wexler used to come in regularly. 14 or 15 millionaires were spaned out of the first two stores in Columbus -- but no, she wanted to be a teacher and quit.

I could have been retired and owned Clear Channel by now...

Remember when John Ashcroft started covering that statue up when he decided a naked breast was unfit for people to see? That was probably 75 percent of it.

-Rudey

I have a suggestion, and I am not trying to be faciscious (sp?) when I say this. How about all of those that are against these fines start writing letters to their individual congress and house representative expressing your views? This is one of the only ways you'll be heard and possibly make a difference. We still have the rights to write letters to whomever we choose, especially our government representatives. Let's use the rights that are given in the Constitution and defend our individual views and opinions by standing up for what we believe in. Only the American public can fight censorship in America because we have the right to public criticism of government officials. There is a law that defends that right.

That's all fine and everything. At this point, however, the congress has already given almost unfettered power to the FCC in terms or regulating what is "decent" on the airwaves. It's the FCC, not Congress who decides who to go after for indecency. The FCC also gets to decides guilt. Want to appeal the FCC's decision? Appeal it to the FCC.

At this point, the only way you'll get the legislative branch to take power away from the FCC is if the FCC does something which is incredibly unpopular. Unfortunately, there is a large percentage of Americans (possibly a majority) that think it's about time the FCC did something to regulate people like Stern, etc.

My concern is that by kicking fines up to what they are, Congress has put us onto a slippery slope in terms of the FCC regulating what's on our airwaves.

There are, fortunately, alternatives to public airwaves such as digital radio, cable TV, etc. I think folks like Stern will find a happy home on XM or Sirius -- and people will sign up just to hear him. That's what'll happen though. The FCC will not be forced to do something incredibly unpopular. Shows that may be risky will be unloaded by companies like ClearChannel and then picked up for a bargain price by digital providers that fall outside the scope of decency restrictions.

I think networks like Fox, WB, etc. are in a pretty scary place right now. The definition of indecency is too broad. Today, it's JJ showing herself to the world. Tommorow, the guy getting racked on America's Funniest Home Videos might draw a fine. For the rest of us, it's just getting harder and harder not to go over to a cable/digital radio provider.

It's not just about content but who controlls content.

Putting Stern on Satellite does what? How is that different from radio?? Basically it's taking something away from people who can't afford it.

Is indecency invading the American home?

Pornography alone is a $17 billion industry in this country and we as Americans are freely inviting that industry to come break bread with us.

HBO and Soap Operas are being targetted. This isn't just Howard Stern. Victoria Secret isn't doing their fashion show on TV. I wonder what will happen to shows like Jerry Springer...or let's look at a show like Maury Povich which profits off of the backs of children with every "My daughter is a teenage slut" show it does.

We want the power to choose. We want to choose want we listen to, who we watch. We want the power to choose not just different products but different companies.

Give us back America!

Sign the petition!

-Rudey

Just as a side note, since I watch one of the soaps in question...

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...p-148482c.html

John Conboy, the executive producer of Guiding Light, was recently fired. He has complained to the press that he was fired because of nekkid butt in a sex scene. The real truth is that he was fired because he sucked!! Fan sites had been complaining about him for months and the ratings were in the crapper. If anyone in any other job had the same level of performance, they'd have been gone months before he was actually fired. But instead Conboy is using the "indecency" hoopla to his advantage, rather than admitting that he is a royal @#$%up.

I'm putting this out there to say be careful who you put in the martyr position in matters like this. Sometimes a firing is just a firing. :)

Okay okay okay...I gotta butt my nose in here at this point. I will admit that I work for Clear Channel---they bought out the Jacor Station I worked for. I actually enjoy it. It is not Clear Channel that is censoring us DJ's and what we hear on the radio. It is the FCC!!! We recently had to take this training manual that tells us what kinds of things we can talk about on the radio. The hours between 8am and 10pm we have to watch what we say b/c there are little ears around. After that it's a come and go as you please kind of thing, with the exception of the string of curse words you hear on parental advisory cd's.

When something happens and some random dj makes some comment, curses, plays those songs, or talks about explicit sexual acts and what happens kind of thing, then the FCC fines Clear Channel and that station it was heard on. The dj then gets a HUGE reprimand from Clear Channel and if it happens again...buh bye Mr. DJ.

Granted Clear Channel could treat it's employees better...the health insurance sucks my ass! But, I enjoy working in radio and playing whatever I want with a few exceptions. When those assholes call about me playing the damn Dixie Chicks *I work at a country and a pop station--2* I tell them to go fly a kite! I do have to be nice on the phone or they won't listen to me! :rolleyes: :D

So please people...don't make it seem like it's just Clear Channel...it isn't! It is too bad that they don't donate near as much money to Kerry's campaign as to Bush's.....but then again. That's a political arguement I'm not feeling up to getting into!

this is the same man that started the War on Porn. He also lost to a dead guy. Though, in his defense, a dead guy also won an election in Indonesia. :D

John Ashcroft, is a Barber Shop Quartet Member, and a reborn Christian. My Father thought he was a Moron as Gov. of Mo.!

Now, he has power, and is still not so up ontop of it!:(

He is in charge of so many things, I am not sure if He can handle it!:rolleyes:

Well, just figure you Egomaniacts, Home Land, CIA, FBI. NSI, NSA, and on and on!

Hell, they each have their own adgenda, and no one will mess with them!

Sad, But True!:rolleyes:

I am sure I will be targeted now!:p

The super Computer with Starter Words to spot you as insurengents.:(

Aside from Bono saying bad bad words and nobody caring, how about the questionable material on Oprah?

Oprah & Howard Transcripts: Oral, Anal & Balloon Knots
Recently on the Howard Stern Radio Show, millions of listeners witnessed firsthand the hypocrisy of the FCC's fuzzy definition of indecency. It all started on Thursday when a repeat of the Oprah Winfrey Show aired with some pretty graphic descriptions of various sex acts (without a single bleep). Jimmy Kimmel pointed out the hypocrisy of the FCC witch hunt against Howard by playing the offending Oprah clip on his show, also without any bleeps. Here's where things get interesting and more than a little scary. Howard played the same exact clips that aired on the Oprah Winfrey Show (a show that airs at 9am in some markets!) and almost the entire clip was bleeped! Now what's the likelihood that the FCC will be fining Oprah Winfrey for indecency? You can't even make the argument that the Oprah show was doing an education segment. It was clearly played for laughs and shock. Something that apparently is off limits to Howard but perfectly acceptable for the Oprah Winfrey Show. Take a moment to read the transcript below as it originally aired and then feel free to register a complaint with the FCC at the address below. Just copy and paste the transcript and include it with your letter. To get yourself riled up even more, make sure you read the transcript from the Howard Stern Show that landed him his most recent fine.

The Oprah Winfrey Show Transcript

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Clip One

Oprah: Lets talk about that secret language Michelle.
Michelle: Yes
Oprah: I didn't know any of this
Michelle: I have yea, I have gotten a whole new vocabulary let me tell ya
Oprah: I did not know any of this
Michelle: Salad tossing, cucumbers, lettuce tomatoes ok
Oprah: ok so so what is a salad toss?
Michelle: ok a tossed salad is, get ready hold on to your underwear for this one, oral anal sex, So oral sex with the anus is what that would be.

Clip Two

Michelle: a rainbow party is an oral sex party it's a gathering where oral sex is performed and
rainbow comes from all of the girls put on lipstick and each one puts her mouth around
the penis of the gentleman or gentlemen who are there to receive favors and makes
a mark um in a different place on the penis hence the term rainbow



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Howard Stern Show Transcript Thursday, July 26, 2001
HS: Howard Stern
RQ: Robin Quivers
MV: Male Cast Member

HS: I said to Mark Wahlberg yesterday, had he ever gotten a blumpkin from a girl and everyone around here is acting like they don't know what it is.
RQ: You're the only nutcase who does.
MV: I said "blumpkin" on the "Norm Show" and the network censor, we told him we just made the word up. He goes, "that's definitely not a real word right?" We go, no,no,no. And I said it, I yelled out at a hooker in a cab.
HS: What do you say to her, "how about a blumpkin?"
MV: I go "honey, how much for a blumpkin?"
HS: Right.
MV: And uh the network censor never heard of it. And he goes if you just made it up it's fine but if it's a real thing we can't have it. So it's aired, it's been on ABC, it's like the dirtiest thing ever on television.
HS: Yeah, but nobody knows what it is. A blumpkin… I can explain it cleanly.
RQ: There's nothing clean about a blumpkin.
HS: Well, a blumpkin is receiving oral sex while you're sitting on a toilet bowl if you are a man. You're sitting on a toilet bowl and uh, while you're evacuating you receive your oral.
RQ: Ick.
HS: And uh, then, what did I say yesterday too you didn't understand? Balloon knot?
RQ: Yes, I don't know what that is. Somebody said to me "is that the funniest thing ever?" and I was like "what is that?"
HS: A balloon knot…
RQ: I didn't want to show my ignorance, I laughed too.
HS: A balloon knot… I'm gonna post these on a web site…
RQ: Yeah, we need a dictionary for this show.
HS: A balloon knot is when you bend over and I can see up right up your old…
RQ: Up the wazoo?
HS: Up the wazoo and uh, you know that's a balloon knot that you see. That's called a "balloon knot."
RQ: Really, I did not know that.
HS: Think about it, it looks like a balloon knot.
RQ: I don't know. Oh… you know what…
HS: Tie up a balloon.
RQ: I'm just thinking of a balloon knot…
MV: It all makes sense, Robin, come on. HS: And uh, what else did I say? "Nasty Sanchez," you didn't know what that was.
RQ: Oh, I don't even want to know half the time what these things are…
HS: That I'd have to post on the internet.
RQ: 'Cause there've been a number of terms used lately. Would you do… 'cause KC's always blurtin' them out.
HS: "Strawberry shortcake"
RQ: "Strawberry shortcake" I've never heard of. "Dirty Sanchez"
HS: "Nasty Sanchez."
RQ: What is the others KC?
MV: I heard a new one the other day. It was the "David Copperfield."
HS: That's right.
MV: Okay, do you want to explain it, since I... When you're goin' like a dog…
HS: Right.
MV: …and you're about to finish and instead you don't finish, you spit on her and then you turn around and when she turns her face around then you go… So it's kind of like an illusion…
HS: Right.
MV: to David Copperfield.
RQ: Sleight of hand.
HS: Misdirection.
MV: Classic misdirection.
HS: You trick her. There's a million of them, but uh, I'll post them on the web.
RQ: Yes, because people need to know. These aren't in the regular dictionary.

-Rudey

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4945807

Well paying off any fines shouldn't be a problem because Stern is number one and dominates markets like none other.

-Rudey
--Viva le Stern!

Do you guys think that this is just part of a natural cycle that we as Americans go through? It seems that throughout our history we waffle between extreme prudishness/conservatism and sexual openness/liberalism. Consider the 1890s and the "Gilded Age" only to be followed by the political, social, and economic reforms of the early 1900s (1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, anti-monopoly laws). Then we had the roaring 20s followed by the Great Depression. Then WWII was followed by the McCarthyist, "Father Knows Best" 50s. And so on. I'm sure that in a few years time we'll swing back to "indecency" and all these recent events will be laughable.

Discuss amongst yourselves...

No and this has nothing to do with the FCC or the Howard Stern show so do not hijack my thread!!! Get away!

-Rudey

Actually, it has plenty to do w/ Howard Stern and the FCC. In a few years anything he says/does will pretty much be ok by the FCC again.

No it doesn't.

-Rudey

You never know. When a governmental body starts oppressing people based on what the "majority" (whatever that is) wants, you can get the ball rolling and end up with some nasty unintended consequences.

I don't like that the feds get a say in what's "decent" at all. I say let the free market decide. If something is too racey, it'll have a helluva time getting advertising $.

Apparently, due to what advertisers are willing to spend on Stern, he still has a huge audience that listens whether they like him or not.

I see her point. I don't agree with the FCC part, but to the extent that morals change over the years, broadcasting follows those changes. The FCC changes a LOT slower.

This isn't a discussion about cycling of values in general (in fact that's something that rarely follows a natural cycle anyway). It's a discussion about something different. She is welcome to create a thread about that honey!

As for the FCC, which regulated speech without providing trials, it is something that needs to be reviewed because of the political and business interests that have come to control it so strongly.

-Rudey

I always thought that one definition of "decency" stemmed from a reflection of the community in which it (entertainment) was available. As an example, more police enforcement of laws against prostitution around neighborhoods than around certain, decaying areas of a city. If you look at the airways, the "community" that is exposed, (which is anybody who finds the channel) may be a more conservative audience that doesn't appreciate Stern's form of humor. :rolleyes:

Stern, some say, has huge numbers. Pit them against the total listening community and how huge are those numbers? I honestly do not know. As more and more people turn to and seek out "talk radio" as Arbitron Ratings suggests, what percentage does Stern appeal to?

I DO think that the moral climate of the country has reached a point where "content" matters very much. It's not new. Look back to Tipper Gore and her push for warnings on record labels. Not that it really changed anything in that venue...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4945807

Stern has no competition. You have to plug your radio in, move your hand to tune into his program, sit at the time of his program, and then (get this) listen. And by the way, the same thing with HBO and soap operas. If you feel your morality is being damaged by what I listen to...

As for standards, again look at my post from the Oprah show. There are no standards - just persecution.

-Rudey

Heard this morning that the "Baby Bells" are calling for another re-write of "the Communications Act."

While this has noting to do, per se, with the topic at hand, it would open the entire Act up for re-write and intpretation -- including indecency and control of cable. That could be a real mess.

Rudey- If you feel your morality is being damaged by what I listen to...
MY morality damaged? Now don't be silly. I would toss that question up for discussion if it were to include 3rd 4th and 5th graders (little boys in particular) however.

Personal opinion here and slightly off topic. If I could list just ONE thing (though there are several) that I find utterly disgusting about Mr. Stern, it would be the way be devalues women to the point where they are nothing more than a body-an object. Little boys WILL seek out this kind of crap (tune in) if they hear about it. Stuff like this spreads faster than a wild fire AND, they all want to know what "everybody" else knows. (..and actually listen)

Rudey, I'm really sorry you feel your rights have been abused.
I would bet ALL of us have had experiences that we felt were governmental abuse.(TAXES for example.) The best thing you can do is work to change it. If enough people agree with you...who knows?

So you're telling me American parents are incapable of talking with their children and discussing the simplest things that kids will take breaks in the middle of school (teachers willing to accept this and stand by with extra sets of headphones) and listen to Howard Stern? And I guess when kids are home from school and can watch Oprah talk about tossing a salad or can lay in bed at night when their parents are asleep and listen to sex radio, that's still OK because those "little boys" would not be seeking it out then.

I don't know why you think I'm not working to stop this ridiculousness. I vote. I talk about the issue with others. I pass the message to tons of people and figure that will all help. As for taxes, considering the fact that in my line of work, most compensation comes in the form of heavily taxes bonuses...well let's just say I feel much more violated than most of you could ever feel.

-Rudey

Rudey, I never said any of that-you took a comment and filled in the blanks.

And, I also said the best thing you can do IS try to change it.
Maybe you didn't recognize it as a sincere statement?

As far as Taxes go-I wouldn't count on it. It's kind of relative.

You didn't say it, but if you're saying that "little boys" can do that you are saying:

1) This is important because parents can't talk to their kids nor have they responsibility.
2) "Little Boys" will turn on their radios in school to listen to Stern
3) Teachers won't care that kids have radios in school and are listening to Howard Stern.

And then you have to be willing to overlook:
1) Children can listen to the radio late at night when they're home.
2) This isn't just about Howard Stern and includes among others, HBO and Soap Operas.
3) There are no standards so "little boys" can watch Oprah talk about tossing a salad

-Rudey

Rudey, did you see this on TSG?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0504044oprah1.html

If you look a couple posts ago you'll see the transcript from the Oprah show. The Fundamentalist Christian movement might be very well organized and led by stay-at-home wives/moms who have the freedom to write and call the FCC and legislators all day, but clearly we have the power too.

I definitely wrote in about that disgusting crud that Oprah Winfrey posted. I did not like the fact that my little sister could hear about stuff like that or see it and talk about it with her friends. It disgusted me.

-Rudey