FCC Settles Censorship Claims with ClearChannel 357
The Importance of writes "Earlier this week Slashdot debated whether the FCC should be abolished. One of the reasons many think the FCC should go away is because of censorship. Well, yesterday, the FCC settled all existing censorship investigations with Clear Channel for $1.75M and a promise to be better in the future, such as by firing DJs for their first offense. Clear Channel also plead guilty to violating indecency standards, but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong. On the other hand, the FCC seems to have forgotten that they
decided a couple of months ago to regulate profanity in addition to indecency. In other FCC news, they've posted the internet section of the FCC History Project."
thats nice, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:thats nice, but (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one of the reasons US West (before merger with Qwest) had to drop interest in some of the Cable companies they had purchased when they had partner ownership with both Time Warner, and Disney. As a result some of the markets they were in included all of the media outlets.
-Rusty
Shakedown (Score:5, Insightful)
So the payoff wasn't for actual fines, it was for the threat of fines to come.
Sounds like a shake-down to me.
Re:Shakedown (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in the Reuters article [reuters.com], not all of the Commissioners were in agreement about this, since it lumped all the claims together into one settlement:
"FCC Commissioner Michael Copps voted against the settlement, arguing it failed to examine all the complaints against the company and the incidents could not be considered when deciding whether to renew the company's radio licenses."
Re:Shakedown (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shakedown (Score:2)
Re:Shakedown (Score:3, Interesting)
Clean up the Air on the Tech Side, Too (Score:3, Interesting)
But what about the BOOB (Score:5, Funny)
Uncensored, uncut... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uncensored, uncut... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But what about the BOOB (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Informative)
Just because Natalie Maines says that she's being censored, it doesn't mean that she is. In her case, she said something that many didn't like and they decided not to listen to her anymore. That's not censorship.
What Dixie Chicks ban ?? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I keep hearing about this Dixie Chicks ban too, but from the two Clear Channel country stations (in two different cities) I've listened to, both have been playing the Dixie Chicks quite a bit over the past 18 months. And, from what I understand, Clear Channel HQ has access to all playlists
Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
At least I can appeal to people's better judgement by saying that ClearChannel is anti-free market, but try talking reason to the crazy religious people who think a nipple is evil.
Religion is simply not rational, its emotional. No offense, but thats a fact. If it was rational it could be proven and there would be no need for faith.
We really need to get remove censorship powers from the FCC and let the network censors take care of the job. I mean, we have TV ratings now and everything. The FCC's role of "moral policeman" is antiquated and not needed, and now its just being abused for what looks like purely political purposes.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
At least I can appeal to people's better judgement by saying that ClearChannel is anti-free market, but try talking reason to the crazy religious people who think a nipple is evil.
No one said it was evil. It just doesn't belong in a Super Bowl halftime show when everyone knows kids will be watching it. There are other channels where that type of content belongs..... *sarcasm*like on FX or SpikeTV or something *end sarcasm*.
Religion is simply not rational, its emotional. No offense, but thats a fact.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't wait to get GWB outta office and be done with these Christian Right Wing lunatics. They should all be
FedSpeak 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
Kind of gives you insight into the bureaucratic mindset in general, especially as applied to subjective matters like decency....
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry but it isn't up to government bodies to decide what's best for us. We're quite capable of doing that ourselves.
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:5, Funny)
No, I'm fairly certain people have shown that they're just as incapable of doing that as the government is.
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
We are supposed to cover "indecent" *ART* because it gives some conservative a hardon? We are supposed to hide "boobs" from children who used to suckle them for food? We are supposed to shelter ourselves from hearing four-letter words because they might make us sinners?
Come on.
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:2)
We hide all those things becase we, collectively, decided that they should be hidden.
The USA is a democracy, not an anarchy. If you want change, make "being able to see topless women on broadcast TV" the issues that decides your vote, and inform your congrisscritters about that.
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
It was at least once. The FCC didn't suddenly decided that it was going to regulate broadcast decency--Congress at one point or another said "yes, we want this regulated, and yes, you're going to do it."
OTOH, it might have been the courts--the extant decency laws could have been interpreted to apply to broadcast medium, and the federal courts told the FCC to do it.
Here's the funny part--we USED to be able to show breasts
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:2)
That would be the US Congress. You remember them? Your elected representatives....
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not particularly thrilled at how the FCC is also the decency police. I think they should stop at regulating how much power you're allowed to emit at various frequncies and other such related tasks. I don't even mind them testing people to insure they know how to not mess up the spectrum before they hand out licenses. Heck, I'm even mostly OK with them specifying that certain radio bands are not for commercial use. I just don't like them getting all messed up with trying to determine if something is "decent" or not. That should be decided by local authorities (perhaps even the broadcaster himself). If people have a problem they should talk to the broadcaster, not the FCC.
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:4, Informative)
The FCC seems to concentrate on definitions 1 and 2 for obscene, and definition 1 for profane. I'm not sure that Janet Jackson's breast is obscene by definition 2 (``Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.''), so they must be relying on definition 1 there. Offensive I can believe.
Definitions courtesy of Dictionary.reference.com [reference.com]
Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't they just leave choice-of-words to the people themselves? What's the whole thing about curse words? I've always seen them as mere exclamation marks. Oh well, I guess some people's hobby is limiting other people's freedoms.
Settlements (Score:4, Insightful)
Suspicion is all it takes (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, those accused of violating the Commission's rules will be suspended and if ultimately found to violate our rules, will be terminated.
!
"That's great. Accusations lead to suspension. And, one foul-up and you're fired. How many people could handle a situation where one accidental word that is commonly used could get you suspended and/or fired? That's something to be proud of."
Further down, same page, he also came up with the pithy "Apparently, self-censorship forced upon us by government is better than direct censorship."
Now, if only we could find out exactly what CC admitted to doing wrong, why, we'd all have a better chance of not committing the same horrible acts ourselves.
<grrr>
Re:Suspicion is all it takes (Score:2)
The vast majority of radio talent did it successfully for many decades. It's called self-discipline.
A great government / private sector partnership! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A great government / private sector partnership (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A great government / private sector partnership (Score:3, Informative)
I guess Copps got his training when he worked for "Fritz" Hollings (D-Disney).
Howard (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Howard (Score:2)
It is possible
Um, because (Score:5, Funny)
Um, that's cause it's indecent and therefore censored... duh!
Violating indecency standards (Score:5, Funny)
(Or did the writer of the submission mean "decency standards"?)
This kind of stuff just pisses me off (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't seem to get is why this is happening. I mean.. I know that some of it is not meant for kids, but PARENTS need to learn to turn those programs off in front of their kids. No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it.
Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off (Score:3, Interesting)
I do agree that it is the parents (of the child, not the post) decesion to decide what the kids can listen to but on the other hand I feel that I should not have to worry about some thing profane, sexual, or such be on public radio/tv. I don't have kids yet but I would like to be able to enjoy radio/tv with out having to screen it. But then we get in to the problem of who decides what is obscene and I don't want the government deciding this for me. I gues
Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off (Score:2)
Just a question: What if they put it on a billboard? Would it be a problem then?
Broadcasts are fully public, in every way the same as a billboard, there is no way to be certain when and where they are without significant personal effort. I have often run into shows I would rather not listen to while skimming radio stations, and was once even force to sit through almost a minute of country music because of a button being jammed.
Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off (Score:2)
Can Howard Stern's face be on a billboard? Sure. If he wanted to put an ad up for "Lord of the Anal Rings"...well -- I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'd understand if someone did.
I still think there's a technical solution to this though. Make people get radios with something similar to the V-chip. If you don't want mature broadcasts -- lock 'em out. Then, just enforce the rating system...same goes for TV.
Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off (Score:4, Insightful)
Or for parents who are too busy with themselves, get a set with the v-chip [fcc.gov]. What gets me is, IIRC, the cable channels aren't under the same FCC guidelines, which is why HBO can run movies uncensored, and why Comedy Central got away with the infamous "shit" episode, in which the writers manage to work the uncensored word "shit" into the episode 162 times (with a counter and all). For the most part, the cable networks are censoring their content voluntarially. I, for one, would hope that the viewer populace/ad revenues definitely would make it worth their time.
We've gotta get over this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We've gotta get over this. (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, the same type of draconian policy worked for the Taliban in Afghanistan, right?
Re:We've gotta get over this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We've gotta get over this. (Score:2)
No. The point is that we should stop enacting and enforcing moronic "decency" policies. And the right wing religous fundies in this country ought to stop acting like 11 year olds every time they see a boob.
Re:We've gotta get over this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that as long as the rest of [russianlondon.com] the [pravda.ru] world [uri.edu] is laughing at us, we're doing just fine.
Re:We've gotta get over this. (Score:2)
Re:We've gotta get over this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I have anything against football specifically, but jeezus, let's put some things in perspective. Chances are the kid saw a boob already since most people are breast fed at least once in their lives. I really don't get the big deal. Honestly, why is it ok to show a man's chest, but showing a woman's will corrupt our yo
could anybody explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:could anybody explain... (Score:2)
I can't stand Dr.Phil
Re:could anybody explain... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:could anybody explain... (Score:2)
I have to admit I would think of Howard Stern as being more obscene in general, I mean who would you invite over to dinner with grandma, Howard Stern or Oprah??? Then again, if you were expecting a big inheritence, maybe Howard Stern....
Re:could anybody explain... (Score:4, Funny)
Selective enforcement destroys the rule of law. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:could anybody explain... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:could anybody explain... (Score:2)
Does the FCC understand the FCC (Score:3, Interesting)
Just trying to follow what they say and then do and not do is a headache all in itself. I believe the FCC needs a serious revision. A re-write from source if you will. Get rid of everything they have now and start over with a new rule book that is designed with current idealogy and forsight when dealing with newer techonologies.
It will be painful for them but better for us overall the sooner this happens. Furthermore it would be nice to read a concise brief on the regulations of what you can or cannot do in a medium.
Kissing butt in Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
It's George W's fault.
Clear Channel vice-head-honcho Tom Hicks made Dubya a rich man indeed when he bought the Texas Rangers [takebackthemedia.com] from Bush's ownership group. That freed up Bush to run for Governor, and the rest, as they say, is history (though he was a decent governor, as they go). Short story: Hicks and Bush are buds.
Now, you have Janet Jackson's Right Breast [freewilliamsburg.com] suddenly stirring up the bible-thumpers (the ones that give us Christians a bad image). Fired up, they went after an easy target -- the shock jocks that Clear Channel and others put on the air to cover up the fact that their corporate music sucks.
Bush calls Hicks with a proposal: act like they're sorry, pay a little fine, shut down some jocks and stations, so that the bible thumpers will feel like they've won. Bush gets his base energized, and Hicks gets buddy Bush re-elected.
And for the icing on the cake, Clear Channel turns off the last rock station in conservative Dallas.
They'd been letting it rot in the ratings for years (details here [clearchannelsucks.org]), so they had an excuse. So maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight. But if they'd supported the music, KEGL would have *had* ratings... and top 15 in the Dallas market still isn't anything to sneeze at.
Bottom line: Republican politics killed Rock in Dallas. The Eagle joins Q102 [rascuals.com] and The Zoo [gimarc.com] in radio oblivion.
Re:Kissing butt in Texas (Score:3, Informative)
This all reminds me of Tipper Gore back in the 1980s.
You, sir, are wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
The fact of the matter is it's all about control, and both parties want control. Democrats, and people with a liberal, socialistic agenda want the government to have more control. I'm not saying conservatives are free from guilt, but I have a big problem trying to pin this on the current administration and Bush in particular.
Surely they can find something about the current administration with more substance to whine about.
Re:Kissing butt in Texas (Score:5, Informative)
Think what you will.
Re:Kissing butt in Texas (Score:2)
You are exactly right. As bad as Bush is, on most core issues, there's hardly a flicker of difference between the two halves of our one-party system. That's why I'm voting for the Green Party candidate (hopefully David Cobb [votecobb.org]).
Of course, YMMV.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kissing butt in Texas (Score:2)
No.. It doesn't make the matter OK and that's not what I was implying. I am just sick of hearing people blame it all on Bush and push off their vote for Kerry on just this issue alone in the upcoming election. Kerry seems to feel the same way Bush does on this very issue.
Re:Kissing butt in Texas (Score:2)
More insulting (Score:5, Insightful)
*pfff* Sorry but there's a reason why there is "public" standards on "public" channels. This wasn't about any sort of moral or ethical standard. This guy was just pissy because all adults were voting with their $$$ and going off to adult-level content on HBO or XM radio that he, as bound by public broadcast, could never provide.
So his whole thing is to level the playing field by screwing everybody else. What a nimrod.
Obligatory... (Score:2, Funny)
Howard Stern (Score:3, Interesting)
"Howard attacked Clear Channel for paying the $1.7 million fine to the government over his show and other's. Howard wants to know why they are paying the government but not paying him and honoring his contract. He says that Clear Channel didn't even fight the fines, they just kowtow to the Bush Administration to stay on their good side. And last year, Clear Channel was defending that same show to the FCC. Only after Howard started bashing Bush did Clear Channel suspend him for those shows, before any fines even came down. It's really scary how a major company like Clear Channel just seemingly does whatever the government asks. And how come the FCC hasn't fined Oprah yet over the same things Howard got fined for? Howard said that Clear Channel is full of sickening cowards."
Four paragraphs from the bottom [howardstern.com]
Cyclist? Too bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cyclist? Too bad... (Score:2)
Slashdot and black kettles. (Score:2, Interesting)
The FCC Should be Aboloished (Score:2, Insightful)
One of these days the FCC will have to go once they've become so corrupted they'll first ask for a settlement before trying to fine them.
FCC and CC? (Score:2)
Guess what happened to Oprah!!!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Government censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
So what if Fox shows people screwing eachother on live TV over the public waves?.. It'll be for a short time before people get bored of seeing it and start looking for better shows... Eventually, when their ratings drop, the producers will realize that overdoing something will have adverse effects..
Banning/censoring something never worked before.
Big Trouble (Score:4, Funny)
Firing DJ's for a first offense... (Score:2)
Good radio on good stations always pushes the line, its a fact of entertainment. I am sick of the best DJ's that are the most fun to listen too getting railroaded by stupid rules...
American PUBLIC...DUMBASSES...there is a knob on the radio if you don't like what you are listening to, turn it!
Re:Firing DJ's for a first offense... (Score:2)
A fact? I've listened to many years of radio programming that managed to be good or excellent without once needing to use crude language, risque jokes, or scatological humor.
In the old days, a "shock jock" wouldn't have lasted a week. The FCC would have shut down the station pending a serious talk with its management about whether there were any reasons why the FCC shouldn't pull the station's license.
Anyone? Anyone? (crickets chirping) (Score:2)
As Instapundit said:
In 1992 the FCC fined Infinity Broadcasting $600,000 after Stern discussed masturbating to a picture of Aunt Jemima. Is that better or worse than asking a Nigerian woman if she eats monkeys, or hosting a discussion of whether, when you have sex with a black woman, it smells like watermelons? I guess you can argue that point, but I'd be a lot more impressed with Stern's defenders if they'd quote these comments verbatim in the process of defending him. [instapundit.com]
What a disgrace! (Score:2, Insightful)
It sure seems like there is a lot of similarities between the fcc indecency crusade (at least someone interpretation) and DRM crusade.
People we need to vote in november and with our dollars.
We, the corporation... (Score:2, Insightful)
"In out view, industry-developed guidlines should be as effective as Government-imposed regulations without running afoul of the First Amendment protections that we all respect," John Hogan CEO, Clear Channel Radio.
Well, isn't it nice that the monopoly and ourt government have found a viable soulution to that pasky First Amendment? I was so worried that our Constitution might interfere with censorship. God bless these clever, clever boys.
We need to stop selling our airwaves to BIG BIZZ (Score:2)
Infinity and Viacom not fined, they carry Stern (Score:2, Interesting)
Is Clear Channel being targeted?
Do Inifinity and Viacom have some hold over the FCC?
What's the story behind this?
Re:Infinity and Viacom not fined, they carry Stern (Score:2)
Ah now i understand america (Score:2)
While i still can... (Score:3, Funny)
Suck my mother fucking dick you faggot ass raping baby fucking nazi hypocrit little bush muff diving anti American frequency regulating asshole poking cunt strangling upper class criminals who shit on the consitution.
And here is a special one for you Powell... May you inherit your fathers ass cancer.
In all seriousness.. i'm just trying to make a point and that point is... maybe censorship is a good thing?
If you think so... Fuck off.
Re:How long before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long before... (Score:2)
Re:The FCC? (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, Hicks first heavily funded both of Bush's gubernatorial campaigns. Then, Bush appointed Hicks chair of UTIMCO, which manages UT's financial money. Bush also got regulations so that Hicks wouldn't have to disclose where he was putting the University's money. It was later revealed that he had put 525 million dollars into assets owned by himself and major GOP donors (Carlyle Group, Maverick Capital, Bass Brothers Enterprises, etc). In 1998, he made Bush a multimillionaire by buying the Texas Rangers for far more than it was estimated to be valued at (and which Bush had been given twice as many shares as he put money in). Hicks resigned under pressure in 1999, but has been a huge donor still.
I'm not surprised that they got a nice settlement from the FCC. Not surprised at all. I'm not even sure why the FCC bothered to start anything to begin with. 1.75 million dollars for a company the size of Clear Channel? Why didn't they just make them say "My Bad!" in public and call that enough?
Re:The FCC? (Score:2)
Luke Skywalkker represent! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Clear Channel thinks the FCC is right (Score:2)
Re:Jack has hit the road... (Score:2)
Offtopic? Hardly. The FCC is the death of sensibility and personal responsibility. Clear Channel is the death of radio. The death of Ray Charles is the... well, it's the death of Ray Charles. They're all huge losses to the music world.
And sadly, one of the three can't be reversed.
Re:Ray Charles dead at 73 (Score:2)
I was going to post "Its supposed to be Stephen King you idiot! Or was it Larry King..."
But this looks legit, a quick google search turned up several articles, including one which actually doesn't require an infuriating online registration:
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14285,00.ht m l?tnews [eonline.com]
Yes, E online, that bastion of stone solid, accurate information...
Regardless, it appears the parent post is not a troll.
Re:Doesn't free speech apply here? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose you could look at it in that way, but it's kind of off. We, the People, "own" the airwaves. What is broadcast over those airwaves is regulated by a set of rules, which the FCC governs. For example, the 10-meter and 11-meter radio bands are governed by a set of laws that are completely different. The 10-meter band requires a license (HAM radio), while the 11-meter band (CB, or