Killing my free speech

[DeltAlum]

Stern suggested another motive for being pulled off the air. "They don't admit it in the press but they have admitted to me that they are doing this because they (Clear Channel executives) are being hauled in front of Congress," he told listeners on Thursday.

Folks, please go back to the first or second page of the thread and read the comments attributed to Stern. He knows why he was kicked off the air on Clear Channel -- and it isn't politics. It's BIG fines. They had their butts hauled before Congress recently, and promised to clean up their act.

By the way, the newest and probably most powerful member of the Clear Channel Exec. team, short of the CC President is a former Democratic Counsel (I think to the FCC, but could be wrong -- might be a Congressional committee. I really doubt that saying anything about President Bush either way has anything to do with this.

This is business, plain and simple. They don't want fines, and they don't want to lose licenses at their stations.

But that's simply my opinion as a professional broadcaster. Think whatever you want.

Is there a chance that anything controversial won't become a political argument for the next few months?

[Rudey]

So politics an't influence fines? Yes we understand he was getting fined. The REASONS why he is getting fined bother me. In fact the reasons why HE is getting fined (different than the prior sentence because of different stressing of words) bothers me more.

Again, while you were a broadcaster that's fine. We took your opinion. But you have difficulty adressing other issues to which you say you don't know. Those are the ones that interest me at the moment and I thank you for the input of he bad, he get fined.

And yes, I know that the Democrats did not stand up for him either. However, on a lot of issues the other party is forced into playing along for politics sake.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Stern suggested another motive for being pulled off the air. "They don't admit it in the press but they have admitted to me that they are doing this because they (Clear Channel executives) are being hauled in front of Congress," he told listeners on Thursday.

Folks, please go back to the first or second page of the thread and read the comments attributed to Stern. He knows why he was kicked off the air on Clear Channel -- and it isn't politics. It's BIG fines. They had their butts hauled before Congress recently, and promised to clean up their act.

By the way, the newest and probably most powerful member of the Clear Channel Exec. team, short of the President is a former Democratic Council (I think to the FCC, but could be wrong -- might be a Congressional committee. I really doubt that saying anything about President Bush either way has anything to do with this.

This is business, plain and simple. They don't want fines, and they don't want to lose licenses at their stations.

But that's simply my opinion as a professional broadcaster. Think whatever you want.

Is there a chance that anything controversial won't become a political argument for the next few months?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Again, while you were a broadcaster that's fine. We took your opinion. But you have difficulty adressing other issues to which you say you don't know. Those are the ones that interest me at the moment and I thank you for the input of he bad, he get fined.

Again, let's stay in context. There are a lot of things I don't know, but let's not confuse them with the things that I choose not to comment on because I am in no position to affect their outcome -- and, more importantly, don't care to be.

To the extent that the Congress chose to bring the indecency issue to the forefront after the Janet Jackson episode on the Superbowl telecast (when ratings research say that over 25% of children between 4 and 14 in the country were watching) could be called politics. It could also be called moral outrage on the behalf of a large segment of the US population -- particularly the parents of those children. That's what Congress is supposed to do -- what the "public" desires. Stern points out, and I think he is probably correct, that this was the beginning of trying to put some sort of handle on indecency on the airwaves.

But to say that Stern was taken off the air because he spoke against President Bush is ridiculous. Hey, Rush managed to survive the Clinton years after daily tirades -- and will survive the Kerry years should that come to pass.

[33girl]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
But to say that Stern was taken off the air because he spoke against President Bush is ridiculous.

He wasn't taken off the air. He was taken off Clear Channel. None of his Infinity stations have dropped him.

If Infinity had canned him also, I'd be rioting in the street. However, this is just grandstanding by CC to make them look good ("Hey, we're trying to protect the children! We hate indecency!") in the face of all the deservedly negative publicity they've received for the other shit they pull. This falls a mite flat when you listen to some of the songs still on their playlists.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
But to say that Stern was taken off the air because he spoke against President Bush is ridiculous. Hey, Rush managed to survive the Clinton years after daily tirades -- and will survive the Kerry years should that come to pass.

I think Stern will be fine. As long as he keeps his show "decent". The problem is, I have yet to see a definition of "decency" beyond the famous "I'll know it when I see it" definition. The bottom line is.. well... the bottom line. Stern will find another station to carry him in larger markets as long as he will make money for them. Apparently, many of his stations still believe that he's a pretty good investment.

Rush and other political folks are in another vote. Were the FCC to come down on them and accuse them of indecency it would be a whole different ballgame. The courts are generally protective of political speech, no matter how "indecent" it may be. I don't think any FCC commissioner would be ballsy enough to take on a political commentator in that fashion. I don't think this is a slippery slope at all in that respect.

Where it is dangerous is with entertainment type speech. Today, Howard Stern may be found to be too indecent for our public airwaves. Tommorow, it may be FOX or the WB network for some of their dating shows. Heck, we get one of those mennonites (or say, John Ashcroft) as the chair of the FCC, he or she might just start saying that television portrayals of women in anything but ankle-low skirts/dresses is indecent.

Here's a good example why I really don't like these executive branch groups like the FCC, EPA or ATF. They often write their own rules, they choose when and where to enforce them, then they get to be the judge, jury and executioner. Personally, I think such organizations go against the balance of power between the branches of our government.

[DeltAlum]

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.

[DeltAlum]

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?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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

[AGDee]

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

Dee

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
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

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
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?

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.

[Rudey]

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

Originally posted by DeltAlum
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.

[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

[DeltAlum]

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.