Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

FCC Settles Censorship Claims with ClearChannel 357

Posted by CmdrTaco from the followup-to-this dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Settles Censorship Claims with ClearChannel More

FCC Settles Censorship Claims with ClearChannel

Comments Filter:

  • thats nice, but (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spanyrd ( 259509 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:47PM (#9391229) Homepage
    what about the fact that they own the entire market in some areas?

    • Re:thats nice, but (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:02PM (#9391416) Homepage Journal
      Unless they own over half of the "media" in the area, including TV, Cable, and local Print media, the FCC does not consider them to have a fraction to be concerned about.

      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)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:47PM (#9391230) Journal
    The Federal Communications Commission had already proposed almost $800,000 in fines against the radio giant ... but the settlement wipes the slate clean.

    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)

      by slashd'oh ( 234025 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:54PM (#9391312) Homepage

      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)

      by zoobaby ( 583075 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:56PM (#9391339)
      That was no shakedown. It was ClearChannel BUYING OFF the FCC. The FCC had already proposed $800,000 in fines and there were more complaints that would have lead to even more fines, most likely totalling more than $1.7 million. ClearChannel now has a clean slate and can probably get away with a few fine-able offences.
      • So there was going to be 1.7 million in fines, and Clear Channel payed 1.75 million. How is that "buying off"? I'd call it more of a plea bargin.

      • Re:Shakedown (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Zareste ( 761710 )
        Interesting. FCC is definitely cashing in on their new 'we control what you say' regulations. Impressive. Nobody's buying their 'think of the children' act anymore but it really doesn't matter anymore, does it? Control what everyone's aloud to say and hear and make a load of money off it? I want that job.

  • Clean up the Air on the Tech Side, Too (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nyekulturniy ( 413420 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:48PM (#9391234)
    I'm in favor of maintaining regulatory standards over programming. However, when is the FCC going to get its act together and clean up the technical mess on the medium-wave band?

  • But what about the BOOB (Score:5, Funny)

    by Perianwyr Stormcrow ( 157913 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:48PM (#9391238) Homepage
    Surely the dark foes upon Janet Jackson's chest lurk in the shadows to catch us unawares. Where, pray tell, are the myrmidons of the FCC, who so bravely took on the task of defending us from this satanic spectacle of mammary menace?

  • Hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by 7Ghent ( 115876 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:49PM (#9391249) Homepage
    I don't know whether to boo or cheer, given that both the FCC and Clear Channel are BOTH EVIL.

    • Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by The Importance of ( 529734 ) * on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:51PM (#9391275) Homepage
      They are both evil. The FCC for censorship, Clear Channel for being a monopolist and not fighting for the First Amendment.
      • And Clear Channel for censorship too. Sure, they've got plenty of juvenile-level "dirty" humor shock jocks -- but criticize Bush and you're off the air [nytimes.com].

        • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Informative)

          by AME ( 49105 )
          You've got to be kidding. Plenty of hosts on Clear Channel criticize Bush regularly. Removing the Dixie Chicks from playlists was done in response to listener demand, not some partisan decision from management.

          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.

          • You've got to be kidding. Plenty of hosts on Clear Channel criticize Bush regularly. Removing the Dixie Chicks from playlists was done in response to listener demand, not some partisan decision from management.

            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)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:08PM (#9391497)
      I'll take monopolists over theocratic moralists any day of the week.

      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)

        by glitch23 ( 557124 )

        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)

      by blackmonday ( 607916 )
      This doesn't hurt clear channel one little bit. They wanted this fine, to get anti-bush Howard Stern off the air. See, clear channel is chummy with GWB, and now they open the floodgates for fines on Viacom, Stern's main network. Clear Channel takes some pennies out, hands it to the FCC - The FCC completely doggystyles Viacom - Howard is gone, Clear Channel gets more listeners. What a nice world.

      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)

    by Giant Ape Skeleton ( 638834 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:50PM (#9391259) Homepage
    It's interesting that the FCC distinguishes between obscenity and mere profanity.

    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)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:57PM (#9391357)
      As I have said before [slashdot.org], I find it far more interesting that the FCC has anything to say about any of this anyway. Who the hell decided that because they "oversee" the frequencies that they get to decide for the rest of the country what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

      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)

        by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:08PM (#9391494)
        "Sorry but it isn't up to government bodies to decide what's best for us. We're quite capable of doing that ourselves."

        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)

          by garcia ( 6573 ) *
          This is INSIGHTFUL? In a country that is supposedly built on "freedoms"? We aren't allowed to control our own content?

          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.
          • No.

            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.
      • As I have said before [slashdot.org], I find it far more interesting that the FCC has anything to say about any of this anyway. Who the hell decided that because they "oversee" the frequencies that they get to decide for the rest of the country what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

        That would be the US Congress. You remember them? Your elected representatives....

      • Re:FedSpeak 101 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jandrese ( 485 ) * <kensama@vt.edu> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @04:09PM (#9392225) Homepage Journal
        You might want to read up on "The Tragedy of the Commons". Hint: The Radio spectrum is like a public park.

        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, Informative)

      by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:06PM (#9391471) Homepage Journal
      The two words have very different definitions, so it's not surprising to me that the FCC distinguishes between them. In fact (adding some words here to beat the lameness filter), I'd be surprised if they didn't.

      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]

      obscene ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sn, b-) adj.

      1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.
      2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.
      3. Repulsive; disgusting: "The way he writes about the disease that killed her is simply obscene" (Michael Korda).
      4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous: "local merchants in nearby stores get hammered by stratospheric rents and obscene taxes" (Joe Queenan).

      profane ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fn, pr-) adj.

      1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
      2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
      3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
      4. Vulgar; coarse.

    • Shit, I'm so fucking happy to not live in the fucking US. At least here we've got the fucking right to use fucking obscene words when we fucking feel like it. No shit.

      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)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:50PM (#9391265) Homepage Journal
    Shouldn't all the details of settlements be published by the FCC? There's not enough info here...

  • Suspicion is all it takes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grrr ( 16449 ) <cgrrr@grr[ ]et ['r.n' in gap]> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:52PM (#9391296) Homepage Journal
    From Powell's statement...

    In addition, those accused of violating the Commission's rules will be suspended and if ultimately found to violate our rules, will be terminated.
    !
    ... and Ernest Miller [corante.com] made a great catch, there:

    "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>
    • How many people could handle a situation where one accidental word that is commonly used could get you suspended and/or fired?

      The vast majority of radio talent did it successfully for many decades. It's called self-discipline.

  • See, this is what happens when you get across the board influence of one political party in government and large private sector businesses. Clear Channel is basically rolling over to give the FCC a great legal precedent for censorship advocates.
    • Or it could be that 1.75 million is a drop in the bucket for CC (it is), and so they decided that not pissing off the FCC was worth it. After all, they pay up this time and the issue basically goes away (the FCC probably won't go after them for a long, long time). If they fight it, chances are the FCC is going to enforce the rule every chance they get (to collect more legal precedent for censorship, to flex the beaurocratic muscle, because idle lawyers are a dangerous thing...).
    • Exactly! If only Michael J. Copps, the FCC chairman who is fighting so hard against this "indecency", were replaced by a republican who supports first amendment rights.

      I guess Copps got his training when he worked for "Fritz" Hollings (D-Disney).

  • Howard (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BlindSpy ( 772849 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:53PM (#9391308) Homepage Journal
    I may be bias because I get my info from howard stern but I think the FCC is completely off base. If you listened to howard stern this morning, they had a very good example of a WMMS employee that committed a federal offence and the only person that had to pay in any way was the guy that directly committed the offence. WMMS's licenes should have been revoked or at least suspended by their own rules. Now with howard stern, the FCC does not even have a specific offence that he is being charged for yet Clear Channel is being fined for over a million dollars? It just doesnt make sense.

  • Um, because (Score:5, Funny)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:54PM (#9391310) Homepage Journal
    ...but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong...

    Um, that's cause it's indecent and therefore censored... duh! ;)
  • I agree with the FCC's ruling today that Clear Channel Communications has long ignored the standard in indecency. Hopefully the FCC ruling with give Clear Channel the strength to be indecent in the future.

    (Or did the writer of the submission mean "decency standards"?)

  • This kind of stuff just pisses me off (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:54PM (#9391319) Journal
    As a fan of Howard Stern's show from years ago I now live in an area where I cannot hear his show anymore unless I watch it on TV. Anyways, I now live in an area where we have another great morning show team "Todd and Tyler". Since the shake down from Clear Channel and the FCC they have had to lighten most of their content up. They still have found creative ways to bring the subject across to the listener in other ways, but sometimes I just wish they could say it.

    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.

    • "No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it."

      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
    • "No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it."

      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.

      • Just a question: What if they put it on a billboard? Would it be a problem then?

        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)

      by detritus. ( 46421 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:27PM (#9391731)
      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.

      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)

    by slusich ( 684826 ) <slusich@gmRASPail.com minus berry> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:55PM (#9391328)
    These puritanical attitudes make us the laughing stock of the entire world. I can't see us being taken seriously until we stop acting like 12 year olds every time a breast pops out on TV, or some shock jock says something naughty.
    • These puritanical attitudes make us the laughing stock of the entire world.

      Hey, the same type of draconian policy worked for the Taliban in Afghanistan, right?

      ... right?
    • Yes, because its always in the best interest of our state to do what other states want us to. Is that really the main point of your arguement? That we should form policy under the threat of being laughed at?

      • That we should form policy under the threat of being laughed at?


        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.

    • These puritanical attitudes make us the laughing stock of the entire world.

      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.

  • could anybody explain... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:55PM (#9391331) Homepage
    Could someone explain to me why Howard Stern can say something, and it's "indecent", but if Oprah uses the same language, in the same setting, in the same way, it's magically *not* indecent? [howardstern.com]

    ...yeah, that's what I thought. Somehow the current administration seems to have forgotten about "equal protection under the law". Maybe it was that big Constitution-burning party they had right after stealing office.

  • Does the FCC understand the FCC (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Da_Slayer ( 37022 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:56PM (#9391336)
    Honestly I think the FCC has no idea what they are doing. Censor certain things, and not others. Go after profanity but not sexual theme speech. Allow violence and sex on TV but only at certain times and only certain things allowed.

    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)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:57PM (#9391354) Homepage Journal
    Here in Dallas, we've lost our last Hard Rock station, Clear Channel's 97.1 The Eagle [kegl.com]. They turned it into Sunny 97.1 [sunny971.com], playing a fully automated mix of 70s and 80s. My 13-year-old daughter and all her friends were devastated, but I told her it's really pretty simple.

    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)

      by deanj ( 519759 )
      Nice conspiracy theory, but the big flaw in all this is that the person in the FCC pushing all the indency stuff is Michael Copp, a democrat. He was part of the Ersnt Hollings' staff before going to the FCC.

      This all reminds me of Tipper Gore back in the 1980s.

      • You, sir, are wrong. (Score:3, Informative)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        You can't let facts get in the way of a liberal G.W. haters rant!

        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)

      by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:06PM (#9391475) Journal
      You can blame Bush all you want.. but Kerry feels the same way about it. Pulled from Drudgereport.com (Jun 4) [drudgereportarchives.com]

      "In an interview set for broadcast Sunday on C-SPAN, presidential hopeful John Kerry says he supports the current FCC crackdown on television indecency, but comes out against the greater scrutiny of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime.

      "I think there is a distinction between public broadcast and the notions we've had historically about family time, family hour -- and what you buy privately and personally."

      "I am not in favor of government interference and censorship and restriction of what an individual privately can decide to do in their home, in their own space, so to speak," Kerry said, but he did seem to be OK with indecency regulation "where you have children involved, where you have a broader cross-section of the public, where there is sort of a sense of family time or hour."

      On media concentration:

      "I wasn't there for the vote, but I was 100% in favor of overturning this rule.

      "I think that too much media in the hands of one powerful entity or one individual is a mistake. I think it runs counter to the foundation of our country. I think it runs counter to the need for Americans to know what they are getting news and information from multiple sources that are not singularly controlled."

      On the Janet Jackson Super Bowl 'nipple' incident:

      "I thought that was in poor taste and wrong -- wrong venue, wrong timing, wrong place, wrong audience. So, there are some standards and pretty generally people should know what they are."

      Think what you will.

      • You can blame Bush all you want.. but Kerry feels the same way about it.

        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)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @04:15PM (#9392281)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • So what you're saying is, politics killed the radio star?

  • More insulting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @02:57PM (#9391355) Homepage Journal
    was the Clear Channel CEO saying that all content, including pay cable and satelite radio, should be held to the same standard as public broadcast. His rationale: for the kids.

    *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)

    by Ikn ( 712788 ) *
    Step 1 - Create horridly strict yet notoriously undefined industry-wide regulations Step 2 - Sue like it's gonna bring in millions (oh, and it will) Step 3 - Gold-plated Ferrari

  • Howard Stern (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ogewo ( 652234 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:02PM (#9391418)
    From howardstern.com [howardstern.com]:

    "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)

    by cornice ( 9801 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:03PM (#9391431)
    Too bad the FCC can't do anything about Clearchannel DJs inciting violence against cyclists [velonews.com].

  • Slashdot and black kettles. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Considering how little steel Slashdot showed with the Scientology debacle, they have no right criticizing other regarding censorship.
  • Even though I do not agree with FCC censorship it would be better if they were not a corrupt organization. Any attempts at 'censorship' and policing the airwaves are easily swayed with money. If ClearChannel really had commited the supposed crime of violating indecency rules then the FCC should've continued with charges rather than allowed themselves to be bought off.
    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: F****ing Clear Channel
  • Absolutely NOTHING!!! "The Oprah Winfrey Show Transcript Thursday, March 18, 2004 Clip One Oprah: Lets talk about that secret language Michelle. Michelle: Yes Oprah: I didn't know any of this Michelle: I have yea, I have gotten a whole new vocabulary let me tell ya Oprah: I did not know any of this Michelle: Salad tossing, cucumbers, lettuce tomatoes ok Oprah: ok so so what is a salad toss? Michelle: ok a tossed salad is, get ready hold on to your underwear for this one, oral anal sex, So oral sex with

  • Government censorship (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kutsal ( 514445 )
    We're in the 21st century, right? Why do we still need censorship by the government? Can we not trust the people who make these shows to show some self-restraint?

    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)

    by awhelan ( 781773 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @03:09PM (#9391511) Homepage
    Either way, my next door neighbors are in big touble. I use their wi-fi to get all my pr0n, so technically they've publicly broadcasted things far worse than the Howard Stern show.
  • ...Yeah there's an answer...bring on plain vanilla radio...it will be all talk shows and ex-cheerleaders on the air in a year...

    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!
    • Good radio on good stations always pushes the line, its a fact of entertainment.

      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.

  • What a disgrace! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jbrasch ( 224642 )
    One of the largest media companies in the US will not stand up for freedom of speech! What good is a media company that does not protect that freedom. Instead they bend over and hand over cash to secure their empire.

    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.

  • Clear Channel's PR [clearchannel.com] regarding this.(.pdf) The best part:

    "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.

  • Corporate america owns 'our' airwaves. We need to stop this. We need to quit having FCC sell off our airwaves to the highest bidder and change paradigms. We need something like democracy for our airwaves akin to having a wireless internet. Government needs to build this network like they build the roads of our country. Then we can better utilize our airwaves with more efficiency ,choice and freedom.
  • Not that I like Clear Channel any more than any other broadcaster, but I find it interesting that the other major broadcasters that also carry the Stern show were not fined.

    Is Clear Channel being targeted?

    Do Inifinity and Viacom have some hold over the FCC?

    What's the story behind this?

  • I always thought "America land of the free" ment something about freedom of speech but now i understand, its about the freedom for anyone to freely trade no matter who they are or what agency, commission, organisation or government department they are from. America is about having the freedom to capitalise on your position of power, having the ability to take bribes and make deals. Its more than free speech its about having the right to buy free speech! Im not trolling ive seriously been given an insight in

  • While i still can... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:46PM (#9393037)
    Hey FCC... While i still can, this ones for you.

    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. ;)

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close