Slashdot Mirror
FCC's Powell vs. Howard Stern on KGO-AM
Lauren Weinstein writes "Greetings. Tuesday morning on KGO-AM radio in the San Francisco Bay area, host Ronn Owens was interviewing FCC Chairman Michael Powell when Howard Stern called in. The resulting exchange was certainly interesting. The audio clip is available via my blog.
How about a transcript? I can't very well listen to audio, especially not howard stern at the office... ;)
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
The funny part I heard on the radio this morning was Michael Powell denying his family connections had anything to do with his appointment. I would have more respect for him if he had combined his answer 'look at my resume' with an acknowledgement that all political appointments are just that -- political.
what the FUCK is *INDECENT* jr?
don't like something someone else says? one freedom (which by some odd mystery we still do have) is the freedom to not listen. change the channel
instead, we have militant christian fundamentalists in office, part of some very weird brotherhood, bent on christian domination of world gov'ts.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
What if the result of more people voting is exactly the opposite of what you want?
howard asked nothing major and powell answered everything reasonably. stern comes off as unthoughtful (surprise!) and powell comes off as a politician (surprise!).
as an aside, why doesn't stern organize mass complaint filings the way the evangelicals do? just sit down, watch oprah (brrrr) and pummel the FCC with letter on her "indecency". sit back and see what happens. then if the fcc takes no action on thousands of letters, he can genuinely talk about hypocricy.
Come on, seriously now, who HASN'T gotten at least one job from a friend/family member/spouse/etc. I understand that this is a bit bigger, but powell saying he got the job because of his resume and not his father is like Paris Hilton saying she's famous because she's pretty. There are a lot of unfamous prettier people and a lot of more qualified candidates for this position not named Powell.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
i'm Canadian and i'd prefer Bush in office over Kerry
I wouldn't be so quick... aslaska is really close to Canada, and there's oil in alaska... let Dubya get the idea in his brain that Canada holds vast oil reserves and before you know it, you're harboring terrorists and on the wrong end of a Tomahawk cruise missle.
Watch any NFL game and you'll hear pretty much every four-letter-word picked up by the field parabolic mics. It's politics. They're going to bust the people that will bring them the most political gain. If Oprah had been fined by the FCC, there'd be a revolt. Stern's a less popular figure.
You call it "anti-bush garbage", but where do you think all the infringement of the US's free speech (wrapped under the guise of "decency") is stemming from in your country?
I have news for you, since the US started regulating the public airwaves many many many decades ago the things Stern wants to say have never been allowed. Ever. It's not like a new vendetta against him. This is old hat.
The airwaves are public property. Their use is not a right of companies. The use of the public airwaves must be, by its very nature, of benefit or substantial value to the public.
Potty humor, vulgarity, and crudeness is of now public value. Likewise, about 75% of the other garbage on the airwaves is not of value.
Regardless of how popular Stern is, the public is not well-served by his language or on-air antics. His proper place is on a non-broadcast medium, where I will happily laugh at his fart jokes.
Everyone needs to remember that the purpose of the airwaves is to serve society and the public at large. Broadcasting something that 70-80% of the public at large finds patently offensive does not serve the public interest.
Please dont represent it as one.
I read the transcript. Regardless of whether you agree with him, Powell held his own with dignity and respect. Stern's used the "Big Lie" strategy: Repeat something enough, and it seems like truth. Fine for entertainment, appalling for matters of law. Top that with ad hominem attacks and stonewaling, and you get quite a performance.
I'm disgusted, and hope he loses big.
Tom Geller
Freedom of speech isn't an absolute freedom.
Fair enough. Your right has been terminated. You opinions are no longer community accepted and you are hereby denied the right to speak.
How does it feel to have the cannon pointed at you?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I find it amusing that they deny that Howard has been singled out by the FCC... meanwhile, he received over 50% of the fines that the FCC slapped on broadcasters over the past five years.
;-)
Now you tell me if that isn't showing that they are trying to use him as an example!
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
You're only half right. Middle-class, swing-voter soccer moms watch Oprah and hate Howard Stern. If they had fined Oprah, they would have pissed off the housewives, which means less votes for Georgie. If they fine Howard, they get a boost from the housewives.
It's arguable that Howard Stern is less popular than Oprah Winfrey, but among a portion of the populace who could very well decide the next president, Howard Stern is the antichrist and Oprah is the second coming.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
"What if the result of more people voting is exactly the opposite of what you want?"
Like if, say, the Iraqi people overwhelmingly voted for a Muslim theocracy....
The problem with some proponents of democracy is that they're the very same people who are first to add "conditions" to the results thereof. (Not talking about you, ratamacue, just bringing up a point.)
Same with freedom of speech. Those who would claim themselves to be conservatives kicking three women out of a rally for wearing "offensive" t-shirts. The offensive message? "Protect Our Civil Liberties". Great. How about requiring those "loyalty oaths" before attending Bush events? Sound a little Stalinist? Anyone seeing irony here?
I laugh again at those claiming the title "conservative" while throwing all that it means down the toilet, willingly and with a village idiot's smile.
Democracy and freedom - "You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean."
sod off.
Howard was as self controlled as ANYONE could get confronting someone that is specifically targeting them personally.
Powell IS unfairly doling out his "justice" and certianly is trying to make stern into an example.
As I said earlier, I am no Fan of Howard, but he has some very legitimate points.
Personally, Howard was very nice and acted well for a person finally getting to confront his tormenter.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Everyone needs to remember that the purpose of the airwaves is to serve society and the public at large. Broadcasting something that 70-80% of the public at large finds patently offensive does not serve the public interest.
That public would say the same thing about all those "Vote for Candidate X" ads running over the airwaves right now. If you listen to the people running these campaigns, it's not just a battle for the White House but a moral crusade against the forces of evil right now. Each side is so convinced that the other will bring chaos and ruin to our society that they get a good Two Minute Hate in every time the other party's ads come on. So to let the current administration decide what should or should not be broadcast over the public waves that, in your words, "...the public at large finds patently offensive" is a dangerous course of action.
Do I listen to Howard Stern? No.
Do a lot of people I know listen to him? Yes.
Should I be able to dictate to them what they should or should not listen to based on my personal opinion of him? No.
It's a classic case of "I may despise what you say, but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it". If we censor Stern (who is strongly anti-Bush, if that's a coinsidence I'll eat my shoe) today, who do we censor tomorrow? Jon Stewart? Any dissenting voice that the administration feels is a danger to the country? I live in NYC, I remember the peaceful protestors around the RNC this year, and how they were prevented from holding an organized event because of the politics of our city. It disgraced our city, and our way of life, and condoning such totalitarian behavior only makes things worse.
...how are radio people supposed to jnow[sic] what's indecent.
Like most things there is a clear right and a clear wrong with some gray area in between. In this case trying to argue that the Howard Stern show was in the grey area between decency/indecency requires a complete departure from common sense. The standards of decency are clearly defined. Entertainers that encroach the grey area do so knowingly feeling that the risk of a fine is worth the benefit of pushing the evelope.
The FCC is not trying to shut down indecent entertainers. They are trying to allocate the public resource of electro-magnetic spectrum to those services that provide some benefit to the public. There are plenty of non-public-resurce-consuming methods of distribution/broadcasting that these entertainers can choose.
Simple people talk of people, better people talk of events, great people talk of ideas.
Cheap shot? When someone sits in a position of moral judgement over others, everything is fair game. Judge not others lest you be judged, remember?
It is a undeniable that Powell got his position because of politcal favor. Powell doesn't actually deny that it played a role, just that it wasn't "the only basis." To deny it is silly. I suspect that Clinton owed Colin for not running against him in 1996 and there were probably many other reasons as well. But it is perfectly fair to point out that someone who sits in moral judgement of others is no priest himself and does sit in his position purely on his own merits.
That said, I don't think that it is fair to say that Powell is particularly unqualified, just that no one really is qualified and it is a shame on us that we can't figure out a better way to behave than to go around taking money from people who say things that we don't like.
When did americans forget what democracy was? I guess Bush has done a great job of helping us forget. This guy is a public offical and he's accountable to the public. We have the right to question his job and he has to answer to us..the public, his boss.
Selective enforcement of vague rules gives regulators too much power. The rules need to be clear enough that professionals in the field know where the limit is, and the limit should be the same for everyone. If the defacto rules change (as they did post-JanetBreast) there needs to be clear notification, and the new standards should not be enforced retroactively.
If it's true that Stern is suddenly being fined for 3 year old bits, that's wrong. If they were indecent 3 years ago, he should have been fined then, otherwise the FCC should concentrate on his current actions. On the other hand, if they wait before complaining, they've got 3 years worth of material to levy fines on before Stern can adapt.
And I don't see how most current music is of any more public value than Stern or Janet's breast
It wasn't publicly promoted as a face off between stern and powell, although that's what ended up happening. Owens said this morn on the Stern show that the Powell's handlers (he has handlers?) accused the show of setting it up, to which Owens replied that if you're a producer, how do you not put Stern's call through. It is a talk show and it certainly was entertainment to hear.
Broadcasting something that 70-80% of the public at large finds patently offensive does not serve the public interest
And banning something that 20-30% of the public doesn't have a problem with does?
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
I've always loved this quote.
If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG. ~Jack Nicholson
Sig? No, thanks. I don't smoke.
Sig? No, thanks. I don't smoke.
Is your mind now a detritus?
Thank you for censoring howard sterns speech for me. You're an idiot. The fucking fascist lies to you. He commits treason. And you want to censor the bad things people say to him.
YOU ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COUNTRY. You want to censor everyone who differs in opinion from you.
If you're voting strategically, then I hope you're a very very rich person. While you're sacrificing your morals and intelligence for money, at least you stand to possibly gain from more anti-american(citizen) actions by George W. Bush.
If you don't have at least ten million dollars in the bank, then you need to take your head out of your ass:
Saddam is not part of Al Queda.
Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11
Saddam does not have WMD's.
Saddam did not have WMD's.
Bush lied to you about WMD's in the same way that LBJ lied to the American people about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Bush betrayed the trust of the world, and the trust of the American people by attacking Iraq. We have no reason to be there, we had no reason to go there.
How you can support someone who on one hand will not support stem cell research because he apparently has moral issues, and yet at the same time will send my generation and my brothers generation to war without reason?
If you support George W. Bush for re-election, then you should also be making a call to your local recruiter for the armed service of your choice and join up.
Perhaps by looking at American television? We get our fair share of imported series. For example, CSI will start in an hour. Now granted, it's no "Battle Royale", but it still can be quite violent. I'm not saying most grotesk scenes wouldn't be edited, just saying that compared to the level of violence displayed, some partial nudity or swearing wouldn't be any worse. IMHO.
if they can't renew their existing licenses wouldn't they be "effectively out of business"?
...in saying no one has a right to a platform. Ironically, by being moderated a troll, mods are denying the poster a platform. Is it thier intention to declare Stern not be denied a platform but the poster who dislikes Stern should be?
The FCC should not have any power over the content of media broadcasts. Regulation of station location and power to make sure they don't interfere, first come, first serve license allocation, that should be the beginning and the end of their little feifdom.
As it is, the FCC is just the (very) sticky little fingers of a wildly out of hand government. Blatant promotion of superstition over reason, inspiring fear of the power structure using fines and jail and confiscation as tools, supporting business monopolies for content management, and exercising broad control over rank and file sexuality and speech - this is what the FCC does in the domain of audio and audiovisual broadcasts. They have usurped the role of the parent and blunder madly about the broadcast media space, restricting speech and content left and right.
We can't do anything about it, either. Well, short of lively revolt, we can't. In the USA, citizens can't create law, can't dispense of bad law, and can't vote on created law. Nor can citizens elect anyone who might be able to effect such changes. That's what we get for letting them foist off a republic on us.
Bend over, Mr. Stern. Just about the time you get on satellite broadcast, no doubt in my mind at all they'll be regulated by the FCC as well.
Why do I say that? Intuition, driven by this experience: Every time I hear the boneyard (XM channel 41) guys say "fuck", I cringe, knowing some religious wacko out there is writing a letter to Michael Powel and crew. You watch. I'm not much for predictions normally, but I think this one, you can take right to the bank.
Sirius is exactly like XM in this context - exactly. You have to realize that satellite isn't like cable. It is not locked to a physical location; it is broadcast through the air, and anyone can hear it emanating from a car, from a boombox in some kid's hand, out of a business's doors, etc. I should know. I own five of the darned things. I'm one of the people that the sound of satellite radio hangs around like a raucous, crazed aura. I bought my kids XM receivers, and told them it was the "sound of freedom." I also pointed out that it wasn't likely to be allowed to persist, that they should enjoy it while they could.
My advice to everyone is get satellite radio now, while it is still the wild west of broadcast media. It is tons more fun than terrestrial sources at this point in time; but I don't think it can continue this way. You can bet your last dollar that the controlling elements that run the system are planning to legislate XM and Sirius into line with the rest of the censored media. Then what you'll have is simply higher fidelity blandness. The gold rush is now. That's exactly why Howard Stern is making the transition. But just as he sees the gold, so does the government, and it is absolutely certain, 100% supported by US history, that they don't like free speech. At all.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Oh really?
I can't watch a football game on cbs with my kids in the room (5 & 3) because of the COMMERCIALS for CSI. Rotting corpses and the like. This will give them nightmares.
Boobies will give them happy dreams.
I am registered Libertarian, and as such, I am tempted to agree with you.
However, you are wrong. The airwaves are in the trustest sense of the word a public resource. We have regulation for many reasons, one of them being, frequency pollution. If not for ownership and stewardship of the airwaves, you would immediately have one, maybe two radio stations nationwide. Someone with tons of money would errect two or three massive 2-3 billion watt stations that would simply drown out every other form communication.
Government exisits in the truest libertarian tradition, I believe, to apply a modicum of regulation to those things ripe for abuse. Some things are made worthless by unfettered access, but are made vastly valuable by some restriction. The airwaves is one of those things.
I couldn't disagree more about selling the airwaves off permanently, the "owner" of the airwaves would automatically be a de facto monopoly in the US. No TV or radio broadcasts without the owners permission, including military and law enforcement communications, 100's if not 1000's of industries would close over night.
I think public ownership of radio frequencies is the only stance that comes close to being reasonable, with the possible exception of treating them the same way we treat visible light (and really what is the reason we treat light differenty?)
Insert pithy comment here.
Both (Clinton, Bush) of whom claim to be "close, personal friends" with Powell's father. Colin was seriously riding GW's cock around January, 2000, and THAT is the connection that Stern was citing -- GW's evil pee-pee connected to Colin's colon.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
You have to realize that satellite isn't like cable. It is not locked to a physical location; it is broadcast through the air
So is DirecTV. And they sure as hell show hardcore porn on there.
The regulating factor is, quite simply, if you pay for it, they can broadcast whatever you want. You pay for porn. You pay for Pay-Per-View. You pay for cable. You pay for XM.
Cable channels technically can broadcast whatever they want, because it's not technically a "broadcast" so much as it's a "transmission". This is why comedy central can get away with showing "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" in its uncut form, complete with Uncle Fucker et. al. If the food network wanted to have a show called "The Swearing Chef", they could, without the FCC getting into it. Viewers would no doubt write in and complain, which drives the process, but the FCC doesn't have regulatory jurisdiction over pay services.
Technically, the FCC can only regulate things that go over the literal airwaves, and is not encrypted, hence NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, FM radio, AM radio are all regulated. Basically, if you can get it with bunny ears, it's under the FCC's umbrella. Satelite gets around this by requiring specific pay-for-use hardware to decrypt.
~Wx
I am nto suggesting he be banned. I am suggesting that his show being broadcast on the public airwaves doesnt serve the public interest.
Same thing, different words. You dont feel that Stern, or people with similar opinions serve any public interest so they aren't allowed the use of the airwaves. If he's removed that is a defacto ban.
The airwaves used to be considered a public resource that ought to serve everyone.
By whom? The airwaves excepting those given to NPR and local college stations have been licensed to private companies for commercial gain. Those companies clearly know what people want to listen to.
Right now, if you are uninterested in potty jokes, sex, vulgarity, or the like you are not served by radio.
Really? Do you live in a place where NPR is not available? Does your city have no classical, jazz or country stations? Does your city have no sports talk, or political talk stations? How about the all news station? How about the local college station(s)? There are plenty of choices. The fact that you may not like some of them is the precide reason why there ARE choices.
The radio stations compete very heavily for the 18 to 35 year old white male audience. If you are not in that market segment , you are very likely not being served by the public airwaves.
Please see above. How many of that demo do you suppose listen to NPR, Rush Limbaugh, or the local classical or jazz stations?
Howard Stern, and most of all commerical radio, does not belong on the public airwaves.
On what basis? On the basis that it offends your personal sense of decency?
Would you approve of him doing a show in the middle of Yellowstone National Park, or on the grounds of the US Capitol building? Of course not. Those are national treasures. Likewise for the airwaves.
Hardly the same thing. The government did not make the decision to lease the capitol building out for commercial gain.
On private channel communications, whatever sells rules. On the public airwaves, society must benefit.
And having a show on the air that makes those of us who CHOOSE to listen laugh each morning IS a benefit to society as a whole.
If privacy had a tombstone it would read "We did it for your own good" . -- John Twelve Hawks
Then I can assume that you're for censoring all comercial music from the radio waves (since Britney Spears does not serve the public interests)? If so, wow...that's an interesting position.
Yes, I believe the public airwaves should be devoid of virtually all commerical programming, including music and talk radio.
That type of entertianment is perfectly valid, however, not on a government granted monopoly.
What if the airwaves used by satellite radio were deemed public? The point is that satellite and terrestrial radio are pretty much the same thing.
No, that's incorrect. The satelitte systems are digital, narrowband, nationwide/semi-global, and private. They are private one-to-one communciations. Much like an Internet connection.
Standard radio is broadcast. You have to shield electronic devices from picking up those signals. A 50-cent transistor can recieve the signal and reproduce it to a small transciever.
Besides, what is so offensive and dangerous about talking about human sexuality (specifically the humor of human sexuality) in a frank manner? What is the danger in talking about human bodily functions in a humorous way? I think it's funny, other people think it's funny -- so what's wrong with it?
It's not dangerous at all. It's perfectly benign. But the goal is not to be not dangerous. The goal is to beneficial to society. That's the purpose of government involvement in the airwaves - to promote the general welfare, to benefit the public. Commerical interests are just that - commerical.
Look at it like this. If the government sells the right to broadcast on a certain channel, that restricts the ability of others to do the same. I would like to broadcast a recording of my opinion on a frequency, but I can't because all the available spectrum has been purchased by commerical interests. That is a suppression of individuals ability to promulgate diverse, unrestricted, free speech.
Finally, 18-35 year olds are targeted because they make up a majority of the advertiser's market.
Wrong. They are targetted because single white 18-35 year olds have more disposable income than other group of people in the country. They are an easy target. It is vastly easier to convince an 18 yr old to spend $8 to see a movie than it is to convince a 45 yr old to spend $8 on a movie.
They also listen to more radio than anyone else.
That's untrue. They are amoung the least likely to listen to radio. The older you are, the more likely you are to listen to radio. For every rock station in the country there is an easy listening, big band, and classic rock station. (I tried to look up stats for you, but the ones I have access to via Arbitron are under lock and key for 24 months from date of publish!).
Are you opposed to commercial radio in general?
Only over the public airwaves.
If you don't like other American's decisions, why should your opinion be shoved down their throat?
It's quite the contrary! The opinion of a few are being shoved down the throat of the millions! Most people have spoken - which is why the radio market has shrunken just about every consecutive year since in the last 4 decades! An amazing feat consider the country has nearly doubled in population.
The fact remains that the will of a few - what a few want - is what is broadcast over public airwaves. What I want has nothing to do with what I am saying. Natural resources - like the limited EM spectrum - ought to be used to benefit all of American society, not just a slice of middle-to-upper-class profitable citizens.
Commerical radio distorts - amazingly - what is perceived to be the mainstream. Howard Stern is not appealing to the vast, vast, vast, majority of the country. Even in the markets he is on he is not always the #1 show on in the morning. Where he is #1 he is hovering in a 10-20% share of the market. That means that less than
I worked in a congressional office many years ago. Let me tell you that shit rolls downhill. Most politicians personally don't care what Stern says, or whether Janet bares her nipple.
;-)
But the old people call and complain. THOUSANDS OF THEM. And they vote. So the congressmen call the FCC.
If you want to fix things, we need some serious Logan's Run action.
Powell is pretty damn good. Did anyone see his appearance on TechTV's The Screen Savers last year? He talked up TiVo and Vonage. He's not some reactionary idiot defending outmoded business models. Last time I checked it looked as if he *IS* using quite a bit of capital against the telecom interests.
Be a little grateful you asshats.
-- "The reward of suffering is experience." - Aeschylus
Even though I'm on Stern's side here, the comparison you draw isn't really valid. FOX News Channel is cable TV, CBS is broadcast. Cable doesn't fall under the FCC's jurisdiction (they haven't usurped this power yet, though I imagine they'll try sooner than later). FOX News or MSNBC could run hardcore porn for half an hour, if they so chose, and not get a fine; they aren't using the public airwaves.
I really wish that some of the cable stations - and not just the premium channels like Showtime or HBO - would step up to the plate. When Jon Stewart says "fuck" on The Daily Show, there's no reason they should be bleeping it out. Someone who is not a) paying for cable and b) intentionally tuning into that program is not going to hear it. Most of the cable channels are adhering to safe-harbor-ish system when they don't have to.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
I seem to remember an interview or something with Matt Stone and Trey Parker in which they say that if South Park were not on basic cable, but on HBO or something, that it would not have been fun (for them) and most likely would not have been successful, because there would have been no challenge to push the limits of what was acceptable. No reaction of "I can't believe they're doing that on TV". Opie and Anthony said something similar in an interview on the Sean Hannity show regarding their move to XM Radio.
Howard Stern has been pushing the limits his entire career. That's what made him popular, and that's what made him famous. If he's on satellite radio, what limits will he be pushing exactly? What will be the point of his show? Personally, I think it's career suicide. Then again, I also don't find his show funny or interesting, so maybe I'm missing something.