Slashdot Mirror
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."
what about the fact that they own the entire market in some areas?
one of these days I'm gonna patent the technology that lets Jason Vorhees catch up to cars by moving at a slow walk.
I'm in favor of maintaining regulatory standards over programming. However, when is the FCC going to get its act together and clean up the technical mess on the medium-wave band?
Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
Kind of gives you insight into the bureaucratic mindset in general, especially as applied to subjective matters like decency....
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
I may be bias because I get my info from howard stern but I think the FCC is completely off base. If you listened to howard stern this morning, they had a very good example of a WMMS employee that committed a federal offence and the only person that had to pay in any way was the guy that directly committed the offence. WMMS's licenes should have been revoked or at least suspended by their own rules. Now with howard stern, the FCC does not even have a specific offence that he is being charged for yet Clear Channel is being fined for over a million dollars? It just doesnt make sense.
Whoever dies with the most toys wins.
Could someone explain to me why Howard Stern can say something, and it's "indecent", but if Oprah uses the same language, in the same setting, in the same way, it's magically *not* indecent?
...yeah, that's what I thought. Somehow the current administration seems to have forgotten about "equal protection under the law". Maybe it was that big Constitution-burning party they had right after stealing office.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Honestly I think the FCC has no idea what they are doing. Censor certain things, and not others. Go after profanity but not sexual theme speech. Allow violence and sex on TV but only at certain times and only certain things allowed.
Just trying to follow what they say and then do and not do is a headache all in itself. I believe the FCC needs a serious revision. A re-write from source if you will. Get rid of everything they have now and start over with a new rule book that is designed with current idealogy and forsight when dealing with newer techonologies.
It will be painful for them but better for us overall the sooner this happens. Furthermore it would be nice to read a concise brief on the regulations of what you can or cannot do in a medium.
Push harder towards Open Media/Content
Here in Dallas, we've lost our last Hard Rock station, Clear Channel's 97.1 The Eagle. They turned it into Sunny 97.1, playing a fully automated mix of 70s and 80s. My 13-year-old daughter and all her friends were devastated, but I told her it's really pretty simple.
It's George W's fault.
Clear Channel vice-head-honcho Tom Hicks made Dubya a rich man indeed when he bought the Texas Rangers from Bush's ownership group. That freed up Bush to run for Governor, and the rest, as they say, is history (though he was a decent governor, as they go). Short story: Hicks and Bush are buds.
Now, you have Janet Jackson's Right Breast suddenly stirring up the bible-thumpers (the ones that give us Christians a bad image). Fired up, they went after an easy target -- the shock jocks that Clear Channel and others put on the air to cover up the fact that their corporate music sucks.
Bush calls Hicks with a proposal: act like they're sorry, pay a little fine, shut down some jocks and stations, so that the bible thumpers will feel like they've won. Bush gets his base energized, and Hicks gets buddy Bush re-elected.
And for the icing on the cake, Clear Channel turns off the last rock station in conservative Dallas.
They'd been letting it rot in the ratings for years (details here), so they had an excuse. So maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight. But if they'd supported the music, KEGL would have *had* ratings... and top 15 in the Dallas market still isn't anything to sneeze at.
Bottom line: Republican politics killed Rock in Dallas. The Eagle joins Q102 and The Zoo in radio oblivion.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Sadly I missed the half-time show, but thank god for the replay action of the internet, since for some reason the evening news wouldn't show the un-edited version :-). Then again, censoring TV is pretty absurd considering all the insane things you can find on the internet. I can't wait until some dimbulb in Congress gets the idea that the FCC should try making the internet family friendly too.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
"No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it."
I do agree that it is the parents (of the child, not the post) decesion to decide what the kids can listen to but on the other hand I feel that I should not have to worry about some thing profane, sexual, or such be on public radio/tv. I don't have kids yet but I would like to be able to enjoy radio/tv with out having to screen it. But then we get in to the problem of who decides what is obscene and I don't want the government deciding this for me. I guess I'll just TIVO every thing and only play cds. But if you are suprised when Howard Stern says some thing offensive/obscene then you should stay away from the internet and email (they have prOn in email!). If you listen to him you know what your getting in to.
From howardstern.com:
"Howard attacked Clear Channel for paying the $1.7 million fine to the government over his show and other's. Howard wants to know why they are paying the government but not paying him and honoring his contract. He says that Clear Channel didn't even fight the fines, they just kowtow to the Bush Administration to stay on their good side. And last year, Clear Channel was defending that same show to the FCC. Only after Howard started bashing Bush did Clear Channel suspend him for those shows, before any fines even came down. It's really scary how a major company like Clear Channel just seemingly does whatever the government asks. And how come the FCC hasn't fined Oprah yet over the same things Howard got fined for? Howard said that Clear Channel is full of sickening cowards."
Four paragraphs from the bottom
Too bad the FCC can't do anything about Clearchannel DJs inciting violence against cyclists.
Considering how little steel Slashdot showed with the Scientology debacle, they have no right criticizing other regarding censorship.
Absolutely NOTHING!!! "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"
Yes, because its always in the best interest of our state to do what other states want us to. Is that really the main point of your arguement? That we should form policy under the threat of being laughed at?
Or it could be that 1.75 million is a drop in the bucket for CC (it is), and so they decided that not pissing off the FCC was worth it. After all, they pay up this time and the issue basically goes away (the FCC probably won't go after them for a long, long time). If they fight it, chances are the FCC is going to enforce the rule every chance they get (to collect more legal precedent for censorship, to flex the beaurocratic muscle, because idle lawyers are a dangerous thing...).
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Interesting. FCC is definitely cashing in on their new 'we control what you say' regulations. Impressive. Nobody's buying their 'think of the children' act anymore but it really doesn't matter anymore, does it? Control what everyone's aloud to say and hear and make a load of money off it? I want that job.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Not that I like Clear Channel any more than any other broadcaster, but I find it interesting that the other major broadcasters that also carry the Stern show were not fined.
Is Clear Channel being targeted?
Do Inifinity and Viacom have some hold over the FCC?
What's the story behind this?
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
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.
No one said it was evil. It just doesn't belong in a Super Bowl halftime show when everyone knows kids will be watching it. There are other channels where that type of content belongs..... *sarcasm*like on FX or SpikeTV or something *end sarcasm*.
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.
You mean like how some scientific and mathematical theories are so rational but they can't be proven and that's why they are called theories but we still believe they are right until they can be proven wrong? I know some people swear by evolution but, and stop me if I'm wrong, it's still just a theory.
You just consider any moral movement radical or fanatical when it doesn't agree with your own set of morals (if you even have any, I'd be surprised if you did or you wouldn't be making this an issue). Just because someone stands up for something they believe in which doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they are a fanatic or a radical or irrational. They don't ever call you those things when you fight for something that you believe in. For you it's just an easy way to bash religion.
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 network censors are failing at their job. The TV ratings give them a huge excuse to put anything on tv that they want so long as they warn viewers about what the content will contain. It gives them a cop out. Just like giving condoms to kids gives them an excuse to have sex. Instead of saying they shouldn't have sex we just tell them if they are going to do it make sure they are protected. That isn't how you lower teen pregnancy by condoning it but keeping them safe.
Giving the network censors free rein over what they include in their content and then letting them rate it themselves is like giving the fox the key to the hen house. And in case you haven't noticed, there are movies nowadays that are PG-13 that have the 'f' word in them. We didn't used to have that but the criteria for the ratings system for movies has been lowered and I imagine the TV ratings will also run into the same problem so pretty soon tv shows that are rated suitable for teenagers with no partial nudity will soon include partial nudity but be given the same rating because standards are lowered(by people like you saying everything is okay). At that point the ratings are useless and the networks can still keep putting in whatever content they want so long as they rate it.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I suppose you could look at it in that way, but it's kind of off. We, the People, "own" the airwaves. What is broadcast over those airwaves is regulated by a set of rules, which the FCC governs. For example, the 10-meter and 11-meter radio bands are governed by a set of laws that are completely different. The 10-meter band requires a license (HAM radio), while the 11-meter band (CB, or citizen's band) is open for public use. The power limits and such on the 10-meter band are different from those of the 11-meter band.
When you talk about "public" broadcasting (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.), their purpose is chartered differently than the HAM radio bands. In order to broadcast television via the airwaves, you have to have specific things in your charter, one of them being that you will serve the public's interest. The FCC is the group that enforces the rules and charters.
I have to wonder what your definition of "basic cable" is. If it is the major networks, then they are governed just like their "broadcast" equivelants. For example, CBS in my area is exactly the same if I use a VHF reciever or a cable box. If, however, you're talking about MTV, the situation is different. It's not possible to recieve MTV without some specialized equipment (cable box or dish), where it is possible to recieve the standard "broadcast" television without the equipment.
As a general rule, figure that anything that you pay for, and that you couldn't get without some sort of cable or sattellite coverter, is governed by the FCC more strictly. Cable is still regulated, but in a different matter. The standards, being a subscription service, are far more lenient as to what's allowable.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...