FCC Settles Censorship Claims with ClearChannel

The Importance of writes "Earlier this week Slashdot debated whether the FCC should be abolished. One of the reasons many think the FCC should go away is because of censorship. Well, yesterday, the FCC settled all existing censorship investigations with Clear Channel for $1.75M and a promise to be better in the future, such as by firing DJs for their first offense. Clear Channel also plead guilty to violating indecency standards, but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong. On the other hand, the FCC seems to have forgotten that they decided a couple of months ago to regulate profanity in addition to indecency. In other FCC news, they've posted the internet section of the FCC History Project."

Comments

Shakedown

[SIGALRM]

The Federal Communications Commission had already proposed almost $800,000 in fines against the radio giant ... but the settlement wipes the slate clean.

So the payoff wasn't for actual fines, it was for the threat of fines to come.

Sounds like a shake-down to me.

Re:Shakedown

[zoobaby]

That was no shakedown. It was ClearChannel BUYING OFF the FCC. The FCC had already proposed $800,000 in fines and there were more complaints that would have lead to even more fines, most likely totalling more than $1.7 million. ClearChannel now has a clean slate and can probably get away with a few fine-able offences.

Suspicion is all it takes

[Grrr]

From Powell's statement...

In addition, those accused of violating the Commission's rules will be suspended and if ultimately found to violate our rules, will be terminated.
!
... and Ernest Miller made a great catch, there:

"That's great. Accusations lead to suspension. And, one foul-up and you're fired. How many people could handle a situation where one accidental word that is commonly used could get you suspended and/or fired? That's something to be proud of."

Further down, same page, he also came up with the pithy "Apparently, self-censorship forced upon us by government is better than direct censorship."

Now, if only we could find out exactly what CC admitted to doing wrong, why, we'd all have a better chance of not committing the same horrible acts ourselves.

<grrr>

Re:How long before...

[WormholeFiend]

are there any children who listen to the radio anymore? (on purpose, as opposed to collaterally when having to ride in their parents' car, for example)

This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[Mz6]

As a fan of Howard Stern's show from years ago I now live in an area where I cannot hear his show anymore unless I watch it on TV. Anyways, I now live in an area where we have another great morning show team "Todd and Tyler". Since the shake down from Clear Channel and the FCC they have had to lighten most of their content up. They still have found creative ways to bring the subject across to the listener in other ways, but sometimes I just wish they could say it.

What I don't seem to get is why this is happening. I mean.. I know that some of it is not meant for kids, but PARENTS need to learn to turn those programs off in front of their kids. No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it.

We've gotta get over this.

[slusich]

These puritanical attitudes make us the laughing stock of the entire world. I can't see us being taken seriously until we stop acting like 12 year olds every time a breast pops out on TV, or some shock jock says something naughty.

More insulting

[sielwolf]

was the Clear Channel CEO saying that all content, including pay cable and satelite radio, should be held to the same standard as public broadcast. His rationale: for the kids.

*pfff* Sorry but there's a reason why there is "public" standards on "public" channels. This wasn't about any sort of moral or ethical standard. This guy was just pissy because all adults were voting with their $$$ and going off to adult-level content on HBO or XM radio that he, as bound by public broadcast, could never provide.

So his whole thing is to level the playing field by screwing everybody else. What a nimrod.

Re:The FCC?

[Rei]

I find it funny that of all companies, Clear Channel is fighting the FCC. This is the company that sent the memo telling its stations not to play anti-war songs after Sept. 11th, organized the pro-war rallies in the runup to the Iraq war, and whose owner, Tom Hicks, was involved in several of Bush's major scandals from his early life and is a big contributor.

Specifically, Hicks first heavily funded both of Bush's gubernatorial campaigns. Then, Bush appointed Hicks chair of UTIMCO, which manages UT's financial money. Bush also got regulations so that Hicks wouldn't have to disclose where he was putting the University's money. It was later revealed that he had put 525 million dollars into assets owned by himself and major GOP donors (Carlyle Group, Maverick Capital, Bass Brothers Enterprises, etc). In 1998, he made Bush a multimillionaire by buying the Texas Rangers for far more than it was estimated to be valued at (and which Bush had been given twice as many shares as he put money in). Hicks resigned under pressure in 1999, but has been a huge donor still.

I'm not surprised that they got a nice settlement from the FCC. Not surprised at all. I'm not even sure why the FCC bothered to start anything to begin with. 1.75 million dollars for a company the size of Clear Channel? Why didn't they just make them say "My Bad!" in public and call that enough?

Re:Hmm..

[gad_zuki!]

I'll take monopolists over theocratic moralists any day of the week.

At least I can appeal to people's better judgement by saying that ClearChannel is anti-free market, but try talking reason to the crazy religious people who think a nipple is evil.

Religion is simply not rational, its emotional. No offense, but thats a fact. If it was rational it could be proven and there would be no need for faith.

We really need to get remove censorship powers from the FCC and let the network censors take care of the job. I mean, we have TV ratings now and everything. The FCC's role of "moral policeman" is antiquated and not needed, and now its just being abused for what looks like purely political purposes.