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 if the result of more people voting is exactly the opposite of what you want?
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.
"
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.
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 ^_^
I've about stopped responding to slashdot due to people like you. Are you aware that it is many Christians who are arguing the same "not so bad since you don't have to listen" line that you're spouting? It's one I myself as a Christian agree with. As for these "militant Christians bent on world domination" I just don't see it.
The law says (and for some time has said) that the airwaves are public and as such should bend to the public will. The law provides for limits to what one can do on public airwaves in the same way that the law provides limits on what one can do in a public park. The law provides ways to raise or lower the limit and enforce it. If you do not agree with the law it provides means in which to change them. Going around spreading conspiracy theories about Christians because it's politically ok to bash them isn't one of them. Write a representative, spread awareness of the issue and make other people believe in it as strongly as you do, and change will trickle up the system. That's the way our republic works.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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