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.

Comments

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

that was fast.

Howard Stern - King of Publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Howard Stern - King of Publicity

[nelsonal]

Stern was gone when Karmizan was replaced as COO at Viacom, the two had been longtime friends and allies for years, it was just a matter of timing and the right offer.

Your server is soo fucked.

[tacubo]

Who the hell would post and link to an audioclip on their server to slashdot.

Re:Your server is soo fucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man....free load testing. I can smell the burning wires over my morning coffee...

ugh

[Quasar1999]

How about a transcript? I can't very well listen to audio, especially not howard stern at the office... ;)

Re:ugh

[srain]

Stop censoring him!@#!!!@

Re:ugh

[pavon]

Same here. Can't find a transcript, but here is an article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Re:ugh

[Skuld-Chan]

Here you go > http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_10_26.htm l#008280

Re:ugh

[Rei]

Fact Check Time:

"2 of the 5 in the FCC board that rules for the fines are Democrats" and "in fact, I was nominated by Clinton"

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/

"The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business."

In short, Bush picked all of them (Powell was simply retained; the others were newly appointed - all but Adelstein in 2001, with Adelstein being in 2002), and he *had* to have at least 2 Democrats on there - so naturally, he picked Democrats with a strong interest in opposing regulation of media mergers and with strong opposition to "indecency". Clinton *had* to pick some Republicans, and hence, Powell.

"and was more than qualified"

Michael Powell has the least experience in telecommunications and media of all of the board members.

"When the Senate approved a bill allowing for increased fines to be levied it was voted for 99-1."

The bill was riding on a defense spending bill - voting against that would have been politically suicidal. So, it came down to what the Democrats could pull off in committee. They got the fines lowered from 500,000$ to 275,000$,
The amount fines were raised to (275,000$), and included a rider that rolled back a recent FCC media ruling (something Sununu fought tooth and nail to keep out).

"Stern - I'm an ATTN whore"

Ok, this one is true. :)

Re:ugh

[mattOzan]

Summaries here:
'Angry Howard Stern On Line 3'
Shock Jock Stern Crosses Swords with FCC's Powell

Re:ugh

[AvantLegion]

>> In short, Bush picked all of them (Powell was simply retained; the others were newly appointed - all but Adelstein in 2001, with Adelstein being in 2002), and he *had* to have at least 2 Democrats on there - so naturally, he picked Democrats with a strong interest in opposing regulation of media mergers and with strong opposition to "indecency". Clinton *had* to pick some Republicans, and hence, Powell.

So why does the equal-but-opposite situation count against the Republicans both times?

Re:ugh

[killjoe]

"The bill was riding on a defense spending bill - voting against that would have been politically suicidal."

This is something the "kerry is a flip flopper" crowd just does not seem to understand. SOmetimes you have to vote for something horrible in order to get something you need or want.

Re:ugh

[killjoe]

"Sorry, I don't buy this. We have representative (rather than direct) democracy exactly for this reason, so that generally unpopular decisions can be taken by the representatives convinced of the decisions' wisdom."

You don't have to buy it, that's the way things are done in washington. You really think republicans don't vote for bills they agree with it if the bill has an onorous rider? You think republicans don't compromise?

If so you are truly delusional.

"Either Kerry is, indeed, a flip-flopper changing his opinions honestly but too frequently for a grown up man, or he is a whore caring more about his electability than integrity."

False dichotomy. Look it up. It's a common logical fallacy.

Michael Powell

[Eudaemonic Pie]

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.

Re:Michael Powell

[Harbinjer]

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.

Re:Michael Powell

[Austerity Empowers]

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.

Re:Michael Powell

[HowlinMad]

He is allowed to challenge them in court, but here is the problem. Until the case is settled, or Viacom pays the fines, the paperwork to buy more stations, renew licenses, etc is halted. This effectively puts them out of business unless they pay the fine because they cannot afford to have that freeze while the court case is on going. Effectively, Stern cannot go to court.

Re:Michael Powell

[BoomerSooner]

If you actually read the related material you'd see he was appointed to a staff position by Clinton. Bush elevated him to the head position.

Re:Michael Powell

[SallyMac]

Exactly, which makes the whole system suspect, as well as damaging to the first amendment. If you can't, without completely ceasing your buisness operations, fight what you believe is an unjust claim, it's a useless system.

Re:Michael Powell

[TomServo]

You obviously do not listen to the show (your previous posts about "accidentally stumbling on it" earlier notwithstanding). He doesn't say "f*ck", in fact, he doesn't say any of the seven dirty words, bleeps out callers who do say it, and generally yells at them until they stop doing it.

He follows all the concrete obscenity rules to the letter. The incidents in question all revolve around situations where he said things that were deemed to be indecent by "community standards", nothing that was clearly delineated as indecent or not.

The incident that caused Clear Channel to pull out was over a guy who was on the show talking about something involving anal sex. Recently, Oprah had a guest on who talked about that subject at length, and it regularly is a topic of conversation on Loveline, hence Stern's claim of a double-standard, where he's fined but neither Oprah nor Loveline are.

Yes, the show does go for shock value. However, it also has intelligent conversations. It's also often quite funny. And he doesn't say "f*ck". When I want just straight intelligent conversation, I listen to NPR instead (which I often do). The cool thing is, I have a choice as to which I like to listen to on any given morning. If I feel like laughing, I'll listen to Stern, otherwise I'll listen to NPR.

In the end, though, you're busy accusing Stern of doing things he doesn't do in order to make your point, however you don't listen to his show. I don't bash Rush Limbaugh's show because I don't listen to it...I don't know what I'm talking about. You might consider doing the same.

Re:Michael Powell

[TomServo]

The problem is, it's questionable as to whether or not he did break the law. He didn't break any of the specific laws, like saying the seven dirty words, he broke those same laws that define whether something is "art or pornography". It supposedly violated community standards, and was therefore indecent, though somehow it is not indecent when Oprah does it. I think his Loveline argument is flawed as the show, at least here on the west coast, airs from 10pm to midnight, which is in safe harbor.

I think a much more valid argument in his favor is that "community standards" should be dictated by the market. If it's so wildly offensive and indecent to the vast majority of the people listening to it, his ratings will suck and his show will go off the air. Given that he still has pretty good ratings, I think it's reasonable to conclude that a large portion of the American public don't consider his show obscene.

Re:Michael Powell

[stienman]

If you can't, without completely ceasing your buisness operations, fight what you believe is an unjust claim, it's a useless system.

Yeah. We shouldn't shut down businesses conducting illegal activities until after they've failed their appeals several times.

Howard Stern is completely within his rights to challenge the rules and law - but he can't tell Viacom what to do, and Viacom has to keep revenue up.

What you are proposing is similar to allowing drug dealers to continue selling on the streets after conviction and fines until they've had a few appeals fail.

Once the ruling or conviction is made you can go ahead and contest it, but allowing the activity that caused the rulling to continue is worse.

This is what individual stays of judgement are for. On a case by case basis, a judge can allow continued operation until the appeal is completed.

Apparently Viacom did not see this as a viable option. It doesn't matter what Howard thinks - the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it.

-Adam

Re:Michael Powell

[SallyMac]

Yeah. We shouldn't shut down businesses conducting illegal activities until after they've failed their appeals several times.

Besides being unnessisarily sarcastic, you're missing the point and going off on a tangent that's based on incorrect information. There's no law against what he does - it's nothing ILLEGAL. It's 10 people saying, "We think this is wrong". If 10 people can effectively shut people off from speaking their mind at any given time, that's an imbalance, and again - a useless system.

Re:Michael Powell

[waynelorentz]

The government should not dictate what can be said over ANY MEDIUM

The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.

The court decided that the government can regulate content on broadcast (AM, FM, TV) airwaves because it is a finite piece of spectrum. Because it is a finite resource, the court says the government (via the FCC) can decide its best use and how it should serve the public.

The court has ruled that the government CANNOT regulate print content, because that medium is virtually limitless, and thus there is more room for everyone to express themselves freely.

Now, as to whether the government/FCC is doing a good job of regulating that portion of the spectrum is a different argument altogether. But just because you don't think the U.S. government should be allowed to regulate the airwaves doesn't mean it's true. It's your opinion. The court has another opinion. And since they enforce the laws, they win.

Don't like it? Change the system from within, or move to another country.

Re:Michael Powell

[PenguiN42]

Your analogies and reasoning are so off-base that I'm honestly not sure where to start.

Yeah. We shouldn't shut down businesses conducting illegal activities until after they've failed their appeals several times.

1) Allowing "indecency" on the air is not a criminal activity.
2) There's no "appeals" here. There wasn't even a court case to begin with. There was a panel deciding to levy a fine, with no chance for the company being fined to challenge it yet. Are you saying that every time any allegation is laid upon any business that the business should be shut down immediately before they even have a chance to defend themselves? Even with criminal cases, we have a little concept called "innocent until proven guilty," and in the cases where the activity is too dangerous to allow to be continued, that's why we have injunction orders, which can stay in effect throughout the appeals process.
3) The business wasn't legally being "shut down" as a consequence of its activity. There were sneaky regulations in place that would make it business suicide to challenge the fine or do anything other than immediately pay it.

Howard Stern is completely within his rights to challenge the rules and law - but he can't tell Viacom what to do, and Viacom has to keep revenue up.

Ok, fine, that's true.

What you are proposing is similar to allowing drug dealers to continue selling on the streets after conviction and fines until they've had a few appeals fail.
#1 above
#2 above
4) No, it's similar to forcing someone out of business unless they immediately plead "guilty" to a criminal drug charge.

Once the ruling or conviction is made you can go ahead and contest it, but allowing the activity that caused the rulling to continue is worse.
#2 above.
5) So you can contest unfair rulings against your business only *after* you're forced OUT of business? What's the point?
Let me emphasize a point made in #2 again -- in case the activity needs to be ceased, we have the power of INJUNCTIONS against the activity. The FCC didn't file any injunctions against viacom. Your argument falls apart.

This is what individual stays of judgement are for. On a case by case basis, a judge can allow continued operation until the appeal is completed.
#2 again.
#3 again. Let me emphasize this, as well. There was no place for a "stay of judgement" since there was no actual judgement against viacom that was stopping them from doing business. There were arbitrary FCC REGULATIONS that were stopping them from doing business until they payed the fines. You can't rule a stay of judgement against that.

Apparently Viacom did not see this as a viable option.

Because it was a NON EXISTENT OPTION. See above.

It doesn't matter what Howard thinks - the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it.

Well this is a separate issue. But you don't think that fines levelled against a show negatively impact the people who run and produce that show?

Re:Michael Powell

[secret_squirrel_99]

If you can't, without completely ceasing your buisness operations, fight what you believe is an unjust claim, it's a useless system. Yeah. We shouldn't shut down businesses conducting illegal activities until after they've failed their appeals several times.

This is hardly the same thing. There is no LAW involved here. This is an FCC rule. It can therefore not by definition be illegal. Furthermore these rules are without judicial oversight, and without due process

Howard Stern is completely within his rights to challenge the rules and law - but he can't tell Viacom what to do, and Viacom has to keep revenue up.

Viacom via its former president Mel Karmazin has repeatedly said that they feel they are in the right and desire the opportunity to challenge these fines in court

What you are proposing is similar to allowing drug dealers to continue selling on the streets after conviction and fines until they've had a few appeals fail..

An even more ridiculous analogy. In your case these drug dealers have been convicted. They've had the opportunity of due process, they've been before the courts and they've been convicted. Show me where any of these things happens in the case of fines imposed by the FCC..

Once the ruling or conviction is made you can go ahead and contest it, but allowing the activity that caused the rulling to continue is worse..

Oh but there goes that pesky constitution again. They (stern and infinity) are entitled to Due Process. If the FCC believes it can show that there is impending harm to the public they can file for injunctive relief. A judge (remember judicial review? ) can then make the determination whether or not a temporary injunction is warranted.

This is what individual stays of judgement are for. On a case by case basis, a judge can allow continued operation until the appeal is completed..

Again completely circumventing Due Process.

Apparently Viacom did not see this as a viable option. It doesn't matter what Howard thinks the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it..

Viacom has again said repeatedly that they have chosen to pay the fines, because once they have filed appeals, paperwork mysteriously vanishes, license application mysteriously become embroiled in additional redtape and their ability to operate going forward is crippled. One should have nothing to do with the other, but yet once they pay the fines and withdraw the suits, thing miraculously re-appear.

the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it..

This time. Sadly Congress has now passed legislation making individual broadcasters as well as their employers liable. They've also raised the individual fines to a maximum of $275,000. While a few individuals like Stern might be able to afford a fine like that, the average broadcaster would be ruined by such a fine. As a result their speech is tempered, probably further than it needs to be. This is the textbook definition of chlling-effect.

There goes yet another server

[theM_xl]

up in smoke... Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Today's lesson: Thou shall not post links to 2.8MB files on slashdot, unless they're bittorrent ones.

Mirror

[Evangelion]

here

Powell still can't answer the question

[Triumph The Insult C]

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.

Re:Powell still can't answer the question

[Alan Hicks]

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.

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.

Re:Powell still can't answer the question

[Inebrius]

"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.

Re:Mirror anyone?

[frankthechicken]

Try here and click on a link, though it's not the direct link the the Howard Stern segment. I think he comes in around the half hour mark.

Mirrordot has the blog...

[mattOzan]

but not the audio clip...

Re:Mirror

[OverlordQ]

And why not throw up the Coral as well.

Re:I'm not American

[ratamacue]

I can't vote Nov 2 because I'm not American... but the result will still affect me. You get out there and vote, dammit!

What if the result of more people voting is exactly the opposite of what you want?

stream from the source

[StevenHallman76]

it's also linked on GKO's front page:
kgoam810.com

They have streams for Windows Media Player or Real Player

yawn

[jseraf]

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.

Re:yawn

[astrokid]

I believe that he has done that and has also encouraged his listeners to do the same.

nothing came from it though, meaning the FCC took no action.

News about it

[gambit3]

just go here

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/10/26/stern.fcc/ in dex.html

Who do you fine?

[blackmonday]

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.

Re:Who do you fine?

[Enrico Pulatzo]

Actually, the FCC flip-flopped on the Bono incident. They originally deemed the context to be not indecent, then decided that any use of the f-word is vulgar. I don't recall (nor do I feel like searching for it) whether they decided to fine Bono.

Re:Who do you fine?

[bubbaprog]

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.

Re:Who do you fine?

[NardofDoom]

If Oprah had been fined by the FCC, there'd be a revolt. Stern's a less popular figure.

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.

Re:Who do you fine?

[Triumph The Insult C]

you may view the oprah and stern transcripts here and decide for yourself

Re:Who do you fine?

[One Louder]

Well, duh, that's because Bono, Oprah and Janet Jackson are all well-connected ultra-right-wing Republicans!

Right?

Re:Who do you fine?

[PenguiN42]

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.

Which side is he on, then, and why?

The standards of decency are clearly defined.

Oh? What are they, then? And if they're very clearly defined then you should be able to very clearly back up your response to my question as to which side Stern is on.

What about the Lesbians?

[syntap]

Did Howard forget to bring them up? What kind of Stern shows this ?!?!

Transcript of the call

[poot_rootbeer]

Transcript of the conversation can be found on Jeff Jarvis's Buzzmachine.

(Sorry Jeff)

It's not what you know....

[xThinkx]

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.

Content

[hhawk]

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.

Well ...

[the bluebrain]

"The audio clip is available via my blog."

That's a self-negating statement if I've seen heard one.

Re:Mirror

[otisaardvark]

Here's a tip but it's not well publicized (esp useful to people on dialup)

STEP 1: Open your favourite text editor (or operating system, as the case may be ;-)

STEP 2: Type in "http://brokenwindow.ca.nyud.net:8090/images/Stern _Call.mp3" without the spaces put in by /. and without the doublequotes.

STEP 3: Save it as "whatever.m3u". Open it in the media player of your choice, and it will be streamed instead of downloaded. Hurrah!

Re:Mirrors?

[wo1verin3]

Here are streaming (media player) links:

http://www.sftalk.com/stern1.m3u - Part 1
http://www.sftalk.com/stern2.m3u - Part 2
http://www.sftalk.com/stern3.m3u - Part 3

He's gotta stop this..

[B0bbi]

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.

Re:He's gotta stop this..

[Kurt Gray]

I found the Jon Stewart-Crossfire exchange to be less relevant since it boils down a comedic entertainer accusing political entertainers of providing entertainment instead of sober discourse. Stewart made a lot of good points but it's all a waste of his breath because food fight shows are the ratings giants of cable news.

Howard Stern's questioning of Michael Powell was mostly relevant. The FCC decency standards are not well defined and not consistently enforced and Stern, unlike most broadcasters, has been demanding some explanation of that process and whether certain fines have a political dimension behind them. Powell offered some good responses, pointing out that enforcement of decency is not just a Republican agenda but bipartisan.

After hearing the clip

[RealAlaskan]

After listening to Stern and Powell on the clip: Stern is a childish, stupid jerk. Powell is a slick politician.

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.

Re:After hearing the clip

[drinkypoo]

It's not whether you're paranoid, it's whether you're paranoid enough. It's pretty strong evidence of a conspiracy against certain types of media when, as Stern points out, he gets fined for behavior that others go free on. There are certain times when a fine is probably justified, like Janet's nipple on the fucking Superbowl - women are as rabid about superbowl parties as men are and there's always kids around, that was just stupid as well as unnecessary. But, fining Stern who is known to run off at the mouth is ridiculous, because as we all know, it is possible to change the channel.

To me, that's not paranoia, it's working with the available evidence.

With that said; Stern is a jerk. Still, it doesn't mean he's an idiot.

A censored mirror is not a mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Please dont represent it as one.

Baa Baa Booey!

[Zorilla]

I guess if you were expecting someone to call in saying, "Hello, Powell? Baa baa booey baa baa booey, Howard Stern's penis! Baa baa booey!" your expectations can only go up from there.

(Ob. Family Guy quote where Peter testifies against Clarence Thomas pending...someone else can post it)

transcript

[L. VeGas]

Stern: Ronn, hi.

Owens: Is this who I think it is?

Stern: Yeah, and I want to say hi to the commissioner and a friend of mine told me the commissioner said he was going to be on the show....

The commissioner has fined me millions of dollars for things I have said and consistently avoids me and avoids me and I wonder how long he will stay on the phone with me.

Owens: Go ahead and ask your questions.

Stern: Hi, Michael, how are you?

Powell: Hi, Howard, how are you?

Stern: Does it make you nervous to talk to me?

Powell: It does not....

Stern: All right, so well, I've got about ten zillion questions for you because you honestly are an enigma to me.

The first question being: How did you get your job? It is apparent to most of us in broadcasting that your father got you your job. And you kind of sit there:

You're the judge, you're the arbiter, you're the one who tells us what we can and can't say on the air and yet I really don't think you're qualified to be the head of the commission. Do you deny that your father got you this job?

Powell: Well, I would deny it exceedingly. You can look at my resume if you want, Howard. I'm not ashamed of it and I think it justifies my existence. I was chief of staff of the antitrust division, I'm an attorney, I was a clerk on the court of the United States I was a private attorney I have the same credentials that virtually anyone who sits in my position does and I think it's a little unfair that just because I happen to have a famous father and other public officials don't that you make the assumption that is the basis on which I sit in my position.

Owens: Caller already asked this question so move on....

Stern: So out of all the people that sit on the commission, you were moved to the head of the class. I don't buy your explanation but OK.

You know, the thing that amazes me about you is, you continually fine me but you're afraid to go to court with me and I'll explain myself if you give me a second:

Fine after fine came and we tried to go to court with you to find out about obscenity and what your line was and whether our show was indecent, which I don't think it is. And you do something really sneaky behind the scenes. You continue to block Viacom from buying new stations until we pay those fines.

You are afraid to go court. You are afraid to get a ruling time and time again.

When will you allow this to go to court and stop practicing your form of racketeering that you do by making stations pay up or you hold up their license renewal?

Powell: First of all, that's flatly false.

Stern: It's not false. It's true.

Powell: I'm afraid it is. There's no reason why Viacom or any other company who feels that they have been wrongly fined can't sue us in court. We have no basis whatsoever to prevent them from going to court.

Stern: You're lying. I've lived through your fines, Michael. And Mel Karmazin came to me one day and said, Howard, we're gonna have to pay up some sort of cockamame (sp?) bunch of fines that we don't we're wrong because we can't get our paperwork done. We are finding it increasingly difficult to boy radio stations. I know you're not telling the truth. And I question why you are selected to be one who is the FCC commissioner....

I'm going to Sirius satellite radio....

Owens: That's the question I was going to ask. Now he's going to go to satellite. One of the things that I read is that there are people who said cable TV, satellite radio, that ought to fall under the aegis of the FCC that content there...

Stern: Nobody's saying that... That's not going to happen. Michael knows that. This is the guise of the public airwaves. Michael's a Republican He knows that the marketplace....

Owens: By the way, weren't you appointed by Clinton?... No, no, no, no, he was appointed head of the FCC by George W. Bush.

Powell: Howard, the only thing I would ask is that if we're going to b

Re:transcript

[X_Bones]

why bother giving credit where it's due when there's karma-whoring to be done?

Smoke and bombast

[tgeller]

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.

Re:Smoke and bombast

[SallyMac]

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.

Re:Smoke and bombast

[Rallion]

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.

Re:Smoke and bombast

[kamapuaa]

Powell is a politician, and you're too impressed by his political manner. In terms of substance, Stern was just saying it the way it is, and didn't lie or obfuscate once, while Powell did so repeatedly. Claiming there's no reason for Viacom to protest the FCC ruling is ridiculous. Was he suggesting Viacom is just too lazy to get around to it?

Stern did seem childish and on attack, but that doesn't mean h isn't right.

Re:Howard starts with the cheap shot...

[antiMStroll]

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.

Re:Mirror anyone?

[jaredmauch]

mirror here. The full file is 2,068,115 bytes. It's over half done, and should be finished fairly quickly. I've mirrored other content in the past, so if anyone wants me to host stuff, let me know.. i've been fairly reliable :)

This Just in From Al Michaels

[Todd Fisher]

Lest anyone think that that link is a stable server. He mentioned something at the end ,in code, indicative of a certian useless internet fad. And a Boba-booey to you all!!!

Re:Community Standards

[geomon]

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?

Howard not being singled out?

[KatchooNJ]

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! ;-)

Re:Howard not being singled out?

[stratjakt]

Right after Howard goes off the air, Powell agrees that there are probably morning zoo shows in any given market that are worse.

I think Stern's real point is valid. If there are limits, they need to be clearly defined and uniformly applied. If it's OK for Oprah talk about tossed salads and rainbow parties, then it should be the same for Howard or anyone else. If Bono can say the F word, then so should anyone else.

Hell, I've heard plenty of nasty stuff on dial-in Teeny Loveline shows.

The fact is, the FCC arbitrarily decides case by case. Powell ducks answering on the Oprah thing by saying it's "still under review at the commission". She won't be fined. She's too popular.

His comment that they won't let him come to court is valid too. You cant renew a license or buy another station with unpaid fines. So to start a legal fight regarding a fine would essentially mean shutting down Viacom.

Re:Howard not being singled out?

[Poseidon88]

Powell ducks answering on the Oprah thing by saying it's "still under review at the commission". She won't be fined. She's too popular.

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.

Excuse you?

[wombatmobile]

why doesn't stern organize mass complaint filings

He did.

...sit back and see what happens.

He did.

then if the fcc takes no action on thousands of letters, he can genuinely talk about hypocricy

He did. That was the clip you were commenting on.

Freedom and Democracy Getting Slippery

[MooseByte]

"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."

Re:Freedom and Democracy Getting Slippery

[MooseByte]

"(to a true conservative who believes in less of a role for government in the lives of Americans)."

You have GOT to be kidding me! Under this "conservative" GOP leadership that controls the White House and BOTH houses of Congress, government hasn't been this deeply implanted into our lives in countless decades. The PATRIOT Act? Ashcroft tries to EXPAND the powers of the evil thing, with White House support. Yes Dems voted for it too. Some now want to scale it back. But the point is that the GOP should have been the FIRST in line shooting it down in the first place! Instead this Administration wanted to EXPAND it?

Government spending is at an all-time high. Amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage? What the hell does that have to do with keeping government out of the lives of Americans? Free trade? Bush imposed steel tariffs. Fiscal responsibility? Spending beyond our means like a drunken sailor. "Nation building" vs. conserving our forces? We're suddenly in the middle of the Mother of All Screw-Ups in nation building history.

Freedom of speech has been reduced to parody. Did you not follow the links I posted? 3 women kicked out of a Bush rally for wearing "Protect Our Civil Liberties" t-shirts?!? "Oaths of Loyalty"? We've seen it before. It was called East Germany and the Stasi. What is it with you people that just CANNOT see that? If you agree with it for some sick reason, fine. But don't pretend it bears any resemblance to a true conservative agenda of individual liberty and free thought.

The fact that self-labeled "conservatives" can sit back and support Bush is an affront to rational conservatism. If Clinton had EVER tried something as ludicrous as an "oath of loyalty" or kicking out people for wearing civil liberties t-shirts, the fair-weather conservatives would have been all over him. Bush does it and suddenly it's "patriotism".

Face it - the conservative movement is being played for fools, too blinded by the chants of "patriotism" and "freedom" to actually remember what it's SUPPOSED to mean. All the reasoning and independent thought of an aging golden retriever chasing a rolled-up sock while the owner reaches for his gun.

And by the time you finally wake up and realize what's going on, it will be too late....

Re:Why did Powell agree to do this interview?

[Lumpy]

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.

But who makes that distinction?

[Alzheimers]

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.

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[Reality Master 101]

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"

No. This is not about censorship. No one is saying Stern doesn't have a right to say what he wants to say. There is no right to a platform for someone's speech.

It's exactly as if some vagrant was shouting obscenities on a street corner. A policeman has the right to get rid of the vagrant, because he's a public nuisance.

Stern is a public nuisance on the airwaves.

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[rot26]

It's exactly as if some vagrant was shouting obscenities on a street corner. A policeman has the right to get rid of the vagrant, because he's a public nuisance.

I don't think that's a good analogy. It would be more like a bum standing on the street corner and whispering his rants into the ear of anyone who CHOSE to come close and ASK to hear it. Nobody is forced to listen to Howard Stern, not even by accident.

For the record, and not that it really matters, but I don't really like Howard Stern all that much, and I don't think most of what he does is funny, and I'm undecided on the issue of whether his schtick really belongs on the public airwaves or not. However, I *do* think his latest problems were politically motivated, and I think that Kommisar Powell has his lips glued to GWB's ass (at least when they're not glued to Clear Channel's collective ass.)

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[underCat]

That is a really bad analogy.

I can't avoid the public nuisance.
When is the last time you actually heard Howard Stern?
See... if you don't like him, don't tune in to him.

Now, if Howard started driving around in a van with a loudspeaker then I could understand shutting him up.

If it's filet mignon or rat poison, once you know what it is it is your problem whether or not you eat it.

sig? No, thanks. I don't smoke.

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[gp310ad]

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"

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[PostScience]

I always wondered why candidates ran negative advertisements. It might make us dislike the target, but it also makes us dislike the person who ran the ad. It seems like a waste of money, right?

Here's the answer. One thing negative ads are proven to do is to depress the turnout on both sides. People get fed up and don't vote, and that's exactly what one candidate wants you to do. Run a negative campaign in the area of the state where you are behind. Run a positive campaign where you are ahead. Win the turnout battle, win the election.

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[Auckerman]

"If we censor Stern (who is strongly anti-Bush, if that's a coincidence I'll eat my shoe)"

If memory serves correct, Stern was one of the post 9/11/04 converts to Bush (along with the likes Dennis Miller) and did a 180 after the fines started going out.

Stern is right though, his show is no more racey than Ophra's. What we see happening is a case where laws are being selectively enforced. It's okay to talk about very overt sexual subjects in the feel good context of womens liberation, but in the "dirty context" of sex is fun. It's all about framing.

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[Enry]

No, he did a 180 before the fines. He read Al Franken's book and he really despises this administration. He's typically pro-Republican - Whitman, Guliani, and Pataki all had good things said about them on his show and at least Whitman said she credited Stern with winning in NJ.

He backed Bush on Iraq, thinking they were an imminent threat to the US. Now that he sees they were not nor were they ever a threat, he's done what a lot of people did and started questioning the war. Not long after, he was dumped by Clear Channel stations and not long after that, fined by the FCC.

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[BadDream]

I think its funny that people will, in one breath, preach that god gave us free will and on the next, go on to convince us not to use it. I have never liked Stern's type of entertainment, or his shows in particular. But I 100% support his right to be there and say what he wants. The fullness of my dissent against his programming is that I don't listen.

Re:But who makes that distinction?

[DaveJay]

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!

LINK HERE!!!

[Kwelstr]

Ok, this is the link to the KGO radio archive, the Stern call comes up at about 30 minutes into it.

http://rope.kgoam810.com/archive/kgo09.ram

Stern Mirror

[Munden]

Here is another mirror http://www.mundenisgod.com/powell-stern.mp3

Re:Howard starts with the cheap shot...

[bigpat]

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.

The reason he doesn't take it to court....

[Iphtashu Fitz]

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.

Re:Right or wrong, you broke the law

[ignatzMouse]

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:

1. Stern talks about reading Al Franken's book Lies and the lying liars... and says that he things that he's anybody but Bush.
   
2. A week later, shortly before appearing before Congress, Clear Channel drops Stern from the airwaves for indecency over comments identical to what they defended him over in the past before the FCC
   
3. The FCC fines Clear Channel around half a million over comments Stern made years ago and gives the company a waver against any future fines over past comments by their radio talent. They do not fine Viacom for broadcasting the same content and thus do not give them the same waiver thus leaving them open to an unknown amount of fines for unspecified comments in the past.
   
4. Viacom greatly increases the amount of censorship over Sterns show due to the threats of FCC Fines.
   

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.

Re:Why did Powell agree to do this interview?

[masqraided]

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.

Re:Mirror

[pqdave]

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

Sounds of silence!

[Chmarr]

Am I the only one that has a 'interesting' problem with the archive file? At around 29:30, right after a station advertisement, it cuts to almost silence... just a touch of noise. At around 30:10 there's a brief moment of softly played guitar music, and then silence again.

Silence continues until about 32:00

Re:Sounds of silence!

[waynelorentz]

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.

Re:Mirror

[marsu_k]

Regardless of how popular Stern is, the public is not well-served by his language or on-air antics.

This has always been very amusing for me about the US: you can't swear on broadcast media, nor can you show any nudity (a nipple, god forbid!). But it's totally fine to show violence as much as you like. Personally I'd find a nipple (or the occasional "fuck/shit/etc") to be much less harmful to children than showing people get shot/stabbed/axed/etc in most graphical ways. But then again, I'm not from the US.

powell

[minus_273]

For those that want to make nepotism comments, keep in mind that Powell was appointed to the FCC by Clinton and not Bush

Re:powell

[uucp]

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.

As a regular listener of the Ronn Owens show

[joeflies]

Ronn usually does a show during the year where he has access to Washington big wigs. But Powell blew him off, and this interview with him was done as a make-up date.

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.

Re:Stern's agenda missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally would rather see naked women, then dead men on my TV

OK, naked women I can understand, but why the hell would you want to see dead men after you've seen the naked women?

Do you have some gay necro fetish you have to satisfy in order to finish off?

Mr. Griffin Goes To Washington -

[caveat]

Peter Griffin [testifying before a Senate commitee]: And that's when Clarence Thomas forced me into his chambers and showed me lewd pictures...

Judge: Mr. Griffin, we have indisputable evidence that not only have you never been in the same room as Clarence Thomas, you've never been in the same state. How do you respond to that?

Peter Griffin: Baba-booie baba-booie, Howard Stern's penis! Baba-booie, Baba-booie! Baba-boo..[several police officers wrestle him to the ground]

gotta love DVD subtitles, straight from the horse's mouth :D

Re:Mirror

[DjReagan]

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?

Re:Mirror

[sangreal66]

I don't know how most foreigners ended up with this misconception, but highly graphic violence is censored on broadcast TV too.

Re:Mirror

[underCat]

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.

Re:Mirror

[marsu_k]

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.

You're inconsistent

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

The Iraqis don't want a Muslim theocracy

[daveschroeder]

"...54 percent [of Iraqis] said a parliamentary democracy would be acceptable, 42 percent said they would accept a council of elders and 20 percent said they would accept an Islamic theocracy. One percent said a Taliban-style regime would be acceptable." [1]

"...73 percent of respondents said a new government should have freedom of religion..." [1]

Also:

"57 percent of [Iraqis] said life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent who said it was about the same." [2]

"When asked what Iraq needs in five years, people were more likely to say an Iraqi democracy, 42 percent, followed by "a single strong leader," 35 percent." [2]

[1] Source [cnn.com]

[2] Source [cnn.com] Oxford Research International National Survey of Iraq [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Out of business?

[undef24]

if they can't renew their existing licenses wouldn't they be "effectively out of business"?

parent is NOT a troll

[magarity]

...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?

Re:parent is NOT a troll

[secret_squirrel_99]

parent is NOT a troll..in saying no one has a right to a platform

No, he's simply wrong. Stern is entitled to his platform because he, or more precisely his employer Infiniti broadcasting paid handsomely for the rights to the platform.

I beliveve Stern forgot: Powell is a lobbyist

[Catbeller]

Stern probably doesn't know, or didn't have time to mention, that the biggest slam against Powell is this: His profession was lobbying for the giant communications conglomerates to eliminate Federal oversight of radio and TV station ownership. He is one of the many foxes put in charge of the regulatory henhouses by Bush's pro-business ideologues. He the LAST person that should be in charge of changing the ownership rules. It is a horrendous conflict of interest, and it shows in his work. And after his boss loses, he will once more go back to work as a lobbyist.

I was a fan of Stern's for 12 years

[bigtallmofo]

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.

Re: FCC Power

[fyngyrz]

The FCC should not have so much power over the media.

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.

Re:Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mirror

[danheskett]

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.

Re:Mirror

[narrowhouse]

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?)

Compare & contrast

[DSP_Geek]

Janet Jackson lets one wayward tit slip out accidentally on CBS: $750000 fine.

Fox puts hard-core porn on the air:
http://homepage.mac.com/mjsmitho/FoxNewsPornSlip/F oxOpps.html
Nothing. Nada.

Must be nice to be connected.

Re:Compare & contrast

[Motherfucking Shit]

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.

Re:Mirror

[killjoe]

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...

Re:Mirror

[cpeterso]

ah, I see Linux's usability has greatly improved!

Re: FCC Power

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Mirror

[secret_squirrel_99]

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.

Re:Mirror

[danheskett]

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

Don't Blame Powell. Blame Old People

[pjdoland]

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.

Torrent of the clip

[Jack Schitt]

I've taken the liberty of setting up a torrent of the clip. This is a version my friend found on the usenet and I'm not sure if it's the same one that was linked in the /. posting. This is a 24kbps MP3

Torrent

(Only one seed as of this posting, but I just put it up now...)

IMO, Howard's move to Sirius is a mistake (OT)

[ildon]

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.