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."

42 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. thats nice, but by Spanyrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:thats nice, but by rusty0101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unless they own over half of the "media" in the area, including TV, Cable, and local Print media, the FCC does not consider them to have a fraction to be concerned about.

      This is one of the reasons US West (before merger with Qwest) had to drop interest in some of the Cable companies they had purchased when they had partner ownership with both Time Warner, and Disney. As a result some of the markets they were in included all of the media outlets.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
  2. Shakedown by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Shakedown by slashd'oh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, in the Reuters article, not all of the Commissioners were in agreement about this, since it lumped all the claims together into one settlement:

      "FCC Commissioner Michael Copps voted against the settlement, arguing it failed to examine all the complaints against the company and the incidents could not be considered when deciding whether to renew the company's radio licenses."

    2. Re:Shakedown by zoobaby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Shakedown by Zareste · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!
  3. Clean up the Air on the Tech Side, Too by nyekulturniy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
  4. But what about the BOOB by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  5. Hmm.. by 7Ghent · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know whether to boo or cheer, given that both the FCC and Clear Channel are BOTH EVIL.

    1. Re:Hmm.. by The+Importance+of · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are both evil. The FCC for censorship, Clear Channel for being a monopolist and not fighting for the First Amendment.

    2. Re:Hmm.. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Hmm.. by AME · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

      Just because Natalie Maines says that she's being censored, it doesn't mean that she is. In her case, she said something that many didn't like and they decided not to listen to her anymore. That's not censorship.

      --
      "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
    4. Re:Hmm.. by glitch23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
  6. FedSpeak 101 by Giant+Ape+Skeleton · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's interesting that the FCC distinguishes between obscenity and mere profanity.

    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.
    1. Re:FedSpeak 101 by garcia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I have said before, I find it far more interesting that the FCC has anything to say about any of this anyway. Who the hell decided that because they "oversee" the frequencies that they get to decide for the rest of the country what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

      Sorry but it isn't up to government bodies to decide what's best for us. We're quite capable of doing that ourselves.

    2. Re:FedSpeak 101 by RealAlaskan · · Score: 3, Informative
      The two words have very different definitions, so it's not surprising to me that the FCC distinguishes between them. In fact (adding some words here to beat the lameness filter), I'd be surprised if they didn't.

      The FCC seems to concentrate on definitions 1 and 2 for obscene, and definition 1 for profane. I'm not sure that Janet Jackson's breast is obscene by definition 2 (``Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.''), so they must be relying on definition 1 there. Offensive I can believe.

      Definitions courtesy of Dictionary.reference.com

      obscene ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sn, b-) adj.

      1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.
      2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.
      3. Repulsive; disgusting: "The way he writes about the disease that killed her is simply obscene" (Michael Korda).
      4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous: "local merchants in nearby stores get hammered by stratospheric rents and obscene taxes" (Joe Queenan).

      profane ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fn, pr-) adj.

      1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
      2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
      3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
      4. Vulgar; coarse.

    3. Re:FedSpeak 101 by Jameth · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Sorry but it isn't up to government bodies to decide what's best for us. We're quite capable of doing that ourselves."

      No, I'm fairly certain people have shown that they're just as incapable of doing that as the government is.

    4. Re:FedSpeak 101 by jandrese · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You might want to read up on "The Tragedy of the Commons". Hint: The Radio spectrum is like a public park.

      I'm not particularly thrilled at how the FCC is also the decency police. I think they should stop at regulating how much power you're allowed to emit at various frequncies and other such related tasks. I don't even mind them testing people to insure they know how to not mess up the spectrum before they hand out licenses. Heck, I'm even mostly OK with them specifying that certain radio bands are not for commercial use. I just don't like them getting all messed up with trying to determine if something is "decent" or not. That should be decided by local authorities (perhaps even the broadcaster himself). If people have a problem they should talk to the broadcaster, not the FCC.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:FedSpeak 101 by monkeydo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You have a tragedy of the commons problem with content as well. The radio spectrum is a scarce public resource and one of the requirements for licensees is that they provide programing in the public interest and they abide by community standards.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  7. Settlements by mfh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Suspicion is all it takes by Grrr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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>

  9. Re:How long before... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

  10. Howard by BlindSpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  11. Um, because by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong...

    Um, that's cause it's indecent and therefore censored... duh! ;)

  12. Violating indecency standards by paulproteus · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  13. This kind of stuff just pisses me off by Mz6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off by detritus. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Or for parents who are too busy with themselves, get a set with the v-chip. What gets me is, IIRC, the cable channels aren't under the same FCC guidelines, which is why HBO can run movies uncensored, and why Comedy Central got away with the infamous "shit" episode, in which the writers manage to work the uncensored word "shit" into the episode 162 times (with a counter and all). For the most part, the cable networks are censoring their content voluntarially. I, for one, would hope that the viewer populace/ad revenues definitely would make it worth their time.

  14. We've gotta get over this. by slusich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. could anybody explain... by User+956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:could anybody explain... by nizo · · Score: 3, Funny

      You should have heard me screaming after I started to read that site you listed. I will never be able to walk by a lipstick counter again.

    2. Re:could anybody explain... by Rytr23 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe one of the FCC employees stated in print that they "could not fine Oprah, because she is so beloved, whereas Howard Stern is a lightning rod" or something very much to that effect. Kind of scary if you ask me...

      --
      So many injustices..so little time..
  16. Does the FCC understand the FCC by Da_Slayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  17. Kissing butt in Texas by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Kissing butt in Texas by Mz6 · · Score: 4, Informative
      You can blame Bush all you want.. but Kerry feels the same way about it. Pulled from Drudgereport.com (Jun 4)

      "In an interview set for broadcast Sunday on C-SPAN, presidential hopeful John Kerry says he supports the current FCC crackdown on television indecency, but comes out against the greater scrutiny of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime.

      "I think there is a distinction between public broadcast and the notions we've had historically about family time, family hour -- and what you buy privately and personally."

      "I am not in favor of government interference and censorship and restriction of what an individual privately can decide to do in their home, in their own space, so to speak," Kerry said, but he did seem to be OK with indecency regulation "where you have children involved, where you have a broader cross-section of the public, where there is sort of a sense of family time or hour."

      On media concentration:

      "I wasn't there for the vote, but I was 100% in favor of overturning this rule.

      "I think that too much media in the hands of one powerful entity or one individual is a mistake. I think it runs counter to the foundation of our country. I think it runs counter to the need for Americans to know what they are getting news and information from multiple sources that are not singularly controlled."

      On the Janet Jackson Super Bowl 'nipple' incident:

      "I thought that was in poor taste and wrong -- wrong venue, wrong timing, wrong place, wrong audience. So, there are some standards and pretty generally people should know what they are."

      Think what you will.

      --
      Hmmm.
  18. More insulting by sielwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  19. Uncensored, uncut... by cuzality · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those needing a reminder of this event, here is an ASCII pic: (*)(/) You'll always get the straight skinny on /.

    1. Re:Uncensored, uncut... by Obsequious · · Score: 5, Funny
      I dunno, man; that looks a bit too perky. What I saw looked more like this:
      | |(/)
      (.)
  20. Howard Stern by ogewo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  21. Cyclist? Too bad... by cornice · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Too bad the FCC can't do anything about Clearchannel DJs inciting violence against cyclists.

  22. Re:The FCC? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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..."
  23. Big Trouble by awhelan · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  24. MOD UP MZ6!! by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.