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.
I told people 6 months before his sattelite deal that he was going to jump when his contract expired and all his complaining was just an excuse for it. Now he's just keeping his name out there and his value up.
just go here
/ in dex.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/10/26/stern.fcc
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
Oprah didn't get fined for talking about tossed salads on her show, Bono didn't get fined for saying the horrible F word on live TV. But after janet's nasty boob popped out, they pulled a 3 year old tape of the stern show and deemed it indecent, then fined Viacom the biggest indecency fine in history. The point is, how are radio people supposed to jnow what's indecent, when they pull 3 year old stuff to fine you with? Michael Powell is the head of the FCC, and is responsible for this nonsense. I hope he's replaced very soon.
It is political, but I do believe him when he says his father never picked up the phone an lobbied for him.
From what I've heard, I dont' know why Howard Stern doesn't contest the charges and fines in court. He said he can't , but Powell said he was welcome to. I think Stern sucks if he's just unwilling, though.
I certainly hate censorship, but considering what's on Stern's show, I don't think the fines are outrageous. Stern moving to satellite radio is probably a win-win for everyone.
I think he did a good job of cutting Stern down to size actually.
The problem is that Stern is just a paid loudmouth, saying things to get a reaction. Since he does no actual research or background checking, EVERYTHING he says is just speculation. It could be true that Powell's appointment to the FCC is phony, but Stern has no evidence of it.
It could also could be true (though I doubt it) that Powell has a personal vendetta against Stern. Again, Stern doesn't even have a good conspiracy, just "free speech" and "I have the highest fines". Powell's response was simply, "Right or wrong, you broke the law".
It would appear (not shockingly) that Stern only agreed to this whole thing just to keep his name out there as being controversial. He has as little valuable to say now as he did 5 years ago.
The important issue for us is Content. What is legal? by copyright or by context (e.g., obscene, community standards, etc.).
The FCC has a lot of control over this in term of what is Obscene. Howard has a good point that some talk shows can do topics and not be fined but his show is.
In NYC women are not required to wear shirts; that is it's legal to show breasts in public. Thus Janet Jackson's nipple is legal to be seen here. Why is a nipple Obscene in the first place? IMHO telling women that a nipple is Obscene is about the same as telling them they have to keep their legs and face covered.
We say the USA is a free country but if you taken in to context the Comstock laws and now the Powell FCC Board some aspects of personal expression are very limited.
http://www.hawknest.com/
As much as I like Howard Stern's radio show, he's really hurting his own cause at this point.
Accusing Michael Powell of nepotism will get him air time on the Today show, but it hardly has the same impact of Jon Stewart taking on the Crossfire hosts on the actual ISSUES in media.
By the way, I strongly suspect that's what's happening here...Jon Stewart is getting a lot of positive attention appearing on other people's shows, 60 Minutes, Crossfire, so Howard Stern jumped on the bandwagon. There's a huge difference, though. Jon Stewart made valid, well thought out points, backing them up with facts, even quotes from his show, even though he certainly had an axe to grind.
Howard just called Michael Powell names. I'd expect that from Stuttering John.
One more year and Howard will be off the terrestrial radio and onto my Sirius - then the FCC can go after Oprah all it wants. Supposedly they truly are investigating her. Sure.
He should just stop this childish behavior for now and leave things alone, he's not helping his case at all.
Powell handles himself well: he can talk sense on the fly. I'd say he has a lot upstairs. Much of what the FCC has been doing is pretty wrong, but that's what politicians do, and we can't even give Powell all the blame, since he's not the only FCC commissioner.
Stern didn't make much sense, and didn't want to hear anything that didn't fit his conspiracy theories. He sounded spiteful and small. At least his ``good luck to Michael Powell'' sounded sincere. Maybe he realizes that without the notoriety the FCC has given him, he probably wouldn't be moving to satellite radio.
See what I've been reading.
Nothing Powell mentions here significantly differentiates him from hundreds of thousands of other lwayers. Some background in broadcasting would have been nice. This isn't a partisan shot, Powell saying pops had nothing to do with his getting this position is as beliveable as saying Hillary Clinton was the best qualified to oversee restructuring of the Federal medical system. Both are about as competent based on the results.
I'm a rather large Howard Stern fan myself, but I must agree with you. Howard is much more elequent than he showed with yesterday's confrontation, and he lost sight of the issues by simply jumping on the wrong ones when he had the chance to finally talk to him. It's dissapointing that what could have been an intelligent debate on the first amendment turned into a great big "YOU SUCK" from Howard. Michael Powell came off very well.
cleverly disguised as a responsible adult ||
Does anyone know what Stern if referring to at the end of the conversation? Stern,"Ask him about the billion dollars of computer equipment and he knows what they're talking about". Computers? Inside contract? Powell doesn't answer it and the idiot host doesn't bring it up again.
I dont' know why Howard Stern doesn't contest the charges and fines in court.
From what I've heard some radio stations have tried to do this, not necessarially over Howards particular case but for other fines the FCC has levied. When these sorts of things have gone to court in the past the FCC has used tactics that end up costing the radio stations a fortune and the possibility of them losing their licenses to get them to give up. One standard practice apparently used by the FCC is to put all license renewals on hold for whoever is involved. So if Infinity Broadcasting, for example, challenged a fine in court they could find all FCC reviews of the 100+ radio stations they own held up indefinitely. And since the FCC is a government body it doesn't cost them anything to drag these sorts of things through the courts as slowly as they can. It ends up costing the radio stations piles of money in lawyers, etc. So it's a no-win situation for the radio stations.
Stern has repeatedly challenged the FCC to face him in court over his fines without pulling these sorts of tactics. He's never gotten a response from the FCC.
The problem with "Right or wrong, you broke the law" is that they won't define what the law is. The fines levied against Clear Channel for what Stern said were for comments he made years before they levied the fines. They refuse to specifically define what is obscene or indecent couching it in undefinable ways based on context and community standards.
Never once has anyone on the FCC said what you can and cannot say on the radio. The only clear standard is the Supreme Court's 7 dirty words, and Howard has never said them on the air.
The timeline of the most recent fines demonstrates that it has nothing do to with indecency and everything to do with politics:
Even though on the surface it seemed like Clear Channel was the one being punished, this back door deal actually gave them much greater flexibility in the radio market then Viacom.
As an aside, Clear Channel is a major backer of President Bush.
While they say that they are just enforcing the law, what they are doing is protecting the interests of the President and his corporate allies.
No artist tolerates reality. -- Nietzsche
I don't know how most foreigners ended up with this misconception, but highly graphic violence is censored on broadcast TV too.
CBS broadcast of fabricated material as factual and as news is MUCH more serious than a little hootage video or Stern talking about hootage. You'll not find a living normal man who will disagree with, "mmmm hootage good, doh! lying CBS, I could have bought that pickup truck if they hadn't shown my wife those fake videos of it going up in flames"
Do not look into LASER with remaining eye!
"The law says (and for some time has said) that the airwaves are public and as such should bend to the public will."
Given Howard Sterns ratings, I believe there is a significant number of people whom his program does serve.
The problem is that some people want to take away something that is popular to many people, to either impose morality, "protect children", or because they are personally offended by it.
I don't understand why a minority of people should be able to censor something that is so popular. The airwaves are the limited resource they once were.
This is common for stations streaming content in the United States. The people who do the commercials (actors, musicians, etc...) sued because they weren't getting extra money when the commercials were streamed on the internet. The solution for many stations is to simply black out the commercials so they aren't heard at all.
One station that does a really good job with this is WGN Radio in Chicago. They actually play generic music and internet-specific promos to people listening online so they don't think the station is sending out dead air.
WGN's signal gets messed up in my apartment when I have the computer on, so this is how I listen when I'm online.
World's tallest building rises in the desert
I thought Powell was just as guilty of the Big Lie strategy than Stern. He repeatedly said that the fines were fair and had nothing to do with Stern's popularity. Then, afterwards, he admits that Stern is just a poster boy.
"The law says (and for some time has said) that the airwaves are public and as such should bend to the public will. "
But Michael Powell is not the public will. He's an appointed official who answers to no one.
So the public will in this case is *actually* the ratings. Whoever has the highest ratings BY DEFINITION represents the people's will.
So what was your argument again?
Oh yes:
"I don't like stern and I know a lot of other people who don't either. Therefore, its not a good use of the public airwaves".
Fascist.
I found that interesting. My theory is that she definitely won't be fined before the elections next week. Afterwards, we'll see, but a Bush apointee being held responsible for fining Oprah would have a HUGE impact on the female voters.
I listened to Howard Stern almost daily for the last 12 years. I wasn't the biggest fan of Stern's, I wasn't the longest running fan of Stern's, but I bought several of his videos, pay per view, both books, the soundtrack he put out, saw his movie in the theater and at home and even liked watching him on the E! network.
I haven't had anything to do with Stern for the last 6 months or so, though. He's just not funny anymore. I would say about 70% of his show is dedicated fully to politics - more specifically, hatred for Bush when for the first half of Bush's presidency all he could do was praise the job he was doing. Of the remaining 30%, it's constant political snipes among the dick jokes. Can't he just go back to 100% dick jokes? I mean, that's really what he's good at.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Actually, Stern started questioning the actions and motivations of the Bush administration after reading one of Al Franken's books, and was fined heavily for indecency about a week later.
Given that the fines were imposed for previously un-fined on-air behavior more than a year old (from his pro-Bush days), Stern's interpretation of the timing of this action was that the fines were a rebuke from the Bush administration for criticizing Bush, delivered via the FCC. The rebuke, if that's what it was, served to focus Stern's anti-Bush rhetoric and strengthen his resolve.
As it happens, the FCC made an even bigger mistake than you'd think, because it did more than reinforce the idea that the current administration was attempting to censor opposing political voices on the airwaves -- it also provided Stern with a clear 3-step process for profit that would makes the gnomes proud:
1. Attract significant publicity and encourage FCC hostility by pointing out the FCC's hypocracy of ignoring smutty behavior while Stern praises Bush, but punishing identical behavior the moment Stern criticizes Bush.
2. Convince satellite radio companies that you can use the resultant outrage to motivate a huge listening audience to invest in satellite radio receivers.
3. PROFIT!
Janet Jackson lets one wayward tit slip out accidentally on CBS: $750000 fine.
F oxOpps.html
Fox puts hard-core porn on the air:
http://homepage.mac.com/mjsmitho/FoxNewsPornSlip/
Nothing. Nada.
Must be nice to be connected.
The republicans freed the slaves but they had a change of heart later when it came time to give those slaves civil rights. The democrats lost the south for decades because they wanted to give blacks the same civil rights as whites. Sorry to have history intrude into your bubble there but...
evil is as evil does