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.
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.
Sigs cause cancer.
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!
Surely the dark foes upon Janet Jackson's chest lurk in the shadows to catch us unawares. Where, pray tell, are the myrmidons of the FCC, who so bravely took on the task of defending us from this satanic spectacle of mammary menace?
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I don't know whether to boo or cheer, given that both the FCC and Clear Channel are BOTH EVIL.
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.
Shouldn't all the details of settlements be published by the FCC? There's not enough info here...
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
From Powell's statement...
... and Ernest Miller made a great catch, there:
In addition, those accused of violating the Commission's rules will be suspended and if ultimately found to violate our rules, will be terminated.
!
"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>
See, this is what happens when you get across the board influence of one political party in government and large private sector businesses. Clear Channel is basically rolling over to give the FCC a great legal precedent for censorship advocates.
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)
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.
...but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong...
;)
Um, that's cause it's indecent and therefore censored... duh!
Developers: We can use your help.
I agree with the FCC's ruling today that Clear Channel Communications has long ignored the standard in indecency. Hopefully the FCC ruling with give Clear Channel the strength to be indecent in the future.
(Or did the writer of the submission mean "decency standards"?)
|/usr/games/fortune
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.
Hmmm.
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.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWCould 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.
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.
What is music when you despise all sound?
For those needing a reminder of this event, here is an ASCII pic: (*)(/) You'll always get the straight skinny on /.
Step 1 - Create horridly strict yet notoriously undefined industry-wide regulations Step 2 - Sue like it's gonna bring in millions (oh, and it will) Step 3 - Gold-plated Ferrari
I know nothing
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.
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?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Even though I do not agree with FCC censorship it would be better if they were not a corrupt organization. Any attempts at 'censorship' and policing the airwaves are easily swayed with money. If ClearChannel really had commited the supposed crime of violating indecency rules then the FCC should've continued with charges rather than allowed themselves to be bought off.
One of these days the FCC will have to go once they've become so corrupted they'll first ask for a settlement before trying to fine them.
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"
We're in the 21st century, right? Why do we still need censorship by the government? Can we not trust the people who make these shows to show some self-restraint?
So what if Fox shows people screwing eachother on live TV over the public waves?.. It'll be for a short time before people get bored of seeing it and start looking for better shows... Eventually, when their ratings drop, the producers will realize that overdoing something will have adverse effects..
Banning/censoring something never worked before.. Why should it work now?
Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)
Either way, my next door neighbors are in big touble. I use their wi-fi to get all my pr0n, so technically they've publicly broadcasted things far worse than the Howard Stern show.
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
A bazillion pecune laws and selective enforcement are critical tools for a corrupt bueracracy. That's how China was ruled for centuries.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Exactly! If only Michael J. Copps, the FCC chairman who is fighting so hard against this "indecency", were replaced by a republican who supports first amendment rights.
I guess Copps got his training when he worked for "Fritz" Hollings (D-Disney).
Stupid sexy Flanders.
We went through the same shit the last time the conservatives had control of the government! But that didn't stop Two Live Crew from going on to be the enduring supergroup that they are today!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You can't let facts get in the way of a liberal G.W. haters rant!
The fact of the matter is it's all about control, and both parties want control. Democrats, and people with a liberal, socialistic agenda want the government to have more control. I'm not saying conservatives are free from guilt, but I have a big problem trying to pin this on the current administration and Bush in particular.
Surely they can find something about the current administration with more substance to whine about.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
One of the largest media companies in the US will not stand up for freedom of speech! What good is a media company that does not protect that freedom. Instead they bend over and hand over cash to secure their empire.
It sure seems like there is a lot of similarities between the fcc indecency crusade (at least someone interpretation) and DRM crusade.
People we need to vote in november and with our dollars.
"In out view, industry-developed guidlines should be as effective as Government-imposed regulations without running afoul of the First Amendment protections that we all respect," John Hogan CEO, Clear Channel Radio.
Well, isn't it nice that the monopoly and ourt government have found a viable soulution to that pasky First Amendment? I was so worried that our Constitution might interfere with censorship. God bless these clever, clever boys.
Looks good for your age..
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.
Someone with mod points needs to give them to MZ6's post. People need to stop blaming this mess on "Dubya", because its the Democrats' fault as much as the Republicans'... I'd like to remind people that the Decency Enforcement Act was passed by the House of Representatives by a margin of 391 to 22. So stop blaming Dubya for all of your problems, gripes, and issues, and start blaming those responsible - soccer moms from the hippie generation that can't take responsibility and expect the government to do it for them.
I'm not a huge Howard Stern fan, but in the name of free speech I'll defend him 'till the day I die. Take away my free speech and you take away my primary reason for living in a free country. I don't necessarily agree with Howard or even like what he says. I definately think there's better things that small children can be doing with their time. But what children listen to should be decided by their parents, not the government.
What I DO think is that censoring him and/or anyone should not be tolerated by a free public (or anyone for that matter). It's not the Howard Sterns we really care about, it's the idea that protecting free speech (not just popular speech) should be one of the foundations of our American society.
If the FCC needs a way to keep children from hearing adult content, there are better ways to accomplish that goal than censorship. Like the Vchip, for example. But this is slashdot - couldn't we be discussing other technical ways to prevent children from hearing adult content without having to censor that adult content? Hard problems call for ingenious solutions, and I can't think of a better forum for those types of ideas to be discussed.
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
Hey FCC... While i still can, this ones for you.
;)
Suck my mother fucking dick you faggot ass raping baby fucking nazi hypocrit little bush muff diving anti American frequency regulating asshole poking cunt strangling upper class criminals who shit on the consitution.
And here is a special one for you Powell... May you inherit your fathers ass cancer.
In all seriousness.. i'm just trying to make a point and that point is... maybe censorship is a good thing?
If you think so... Fuck off.
You've got to be kidding. Plenty of hosts on Clear Channel criticize Bush regularly. Removing the Dixie Chicks from playlists was done in response to listener demand, not some partisan decision from management.
You know, I keep hearing about this Dixie Chicks ban too, but from the two Clear Channel country stations (in two different cities) I've listened to, both have been playing the Dixie Chicks quite a bit over the past 18 months. And, from what I understand, Clear Channel HQ has access to all playlists and logs, so it's not like they don't know about it...
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...