FCC's Powell vs. Howard Stern on KGO-AM 602
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.
well... (Score:5, Funny)
LINK HERE!!! (Score:5, Informative)
http://rope.kgoam810.com/archive/kgo09.ram [kgoam810.com]
Sounds of silence! (Score:3, Informative)
Silence continues until about 32:00
Re:Sounds of silence! (Score:3, Interesting)
One station that does a really good job with this is WGN Radio [wgnradio.com] in Chicago. They actually play generic music and internet-specific promos to people listening online so they don't th
Howard Stern - King of Publicity (Score:4, Interesting)
Your server is soo fucked. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: FCC Power (Score:5, Insightful)
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: FCC Power (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Mirrors? (Score:2)
Re:Mirrors? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sftalk.com/stern1.m3u - Part 1 [sftalk.com]
http://www.sftalk.com/stern2.m3u - Part 2 [sftalk.com]
http://www.sftalk.com/stern3.m3u - Part 3 [sftalk.com]
ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ugh (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ugh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ugh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ugh (Score:4, Informative)
'Angry Howard Stern On Line 3' [nypost.com]
Shock Jock Stern Crosses Swords with FCC's Powell [yahoo.com]
Re:ugh (Score:5, Informative)
"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 (Score:3, Insightful)
So why does the equal-but-opposite situation count against the Republicans both times?
Re:ugh (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Michael Powell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Michael Powell (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Michael Powell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Michael Powell (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The reason he doesn't take it to court.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Michael Powell (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Michael Powell (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Right or wrong, you broke the law (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Michael Powell (Score:3, Insightful)
I think
Re:Michael Powell (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not American (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe the FCC pulled it?
-- james
Re:I'm not American (Score:5, Insightful)
What if the result of more people voting is exactly the opposite of what you want?
Freedom and Democracy Getting Slippery (Score:4, Insightful)
"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. [bend.com] 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."
The Iraqis don't want a Muslim theocracy (Score:3, Informative)
"...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
Re:Freedom and Democracy Getting Slippery (Score:3)
"(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 hav
There goes yet another server (Score:3, Funny)
Mirror (Score:3, Informative)
here [brokenwindow.ca]
Re:Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
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/Ster
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:Mirror (Score:3, Funny)
ah, I see Linux's usability has greatly improved!
Mirrordot has the blog... (Score:3, Informative)
News about it (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/10/26/stern.fcc
Who do you fine? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who do you fine? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who do you fine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who do you fine? (Score:5, Funny)
Right?
Re:Who do you fine? (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Transcript of the call (Score:5, Informative)
(Sorry Jeff)
It's not what you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Content (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ... (Score:5, Funny)
That's a self-negating statement if I've seen heard one.
He's gotta stop this.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.. (Score:3)
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 be
After hearing the clip (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Baa Baa Booey! (Score:3, Funny)
(Ob. Family Guy quote where Peter testifies against Clarence Thomas pending...someone else can post it)
Mr. Griffin Goes To Washington - (Score:3, Funny)
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 f
transcript (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Smoke and bombast (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm disgusted, and hope he loses big.
Re:Smoke and bombast (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Smoke and bombast (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Smoke and bombast (Score:4, Insightful)
Stern did seem childish and on attack, but that doesn't mean h isn't right.
Howard not being singled out? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
powell (Score:3, Informative)
I beliveve Stern forgot: Powell is a lobbyist (Score:3)
Re:Mirror anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mirror anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
A censored mirror is not a mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
But who makes that distinction? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
parent is NOT a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But who makes that distinction? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:Mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mirror (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
And banning something that 20-30% of the public doesn't have a problem with does?
Re:Mirror (Score:3, Insightful)
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 b
Re:Mirror (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mirror (Score:3, Insightful)
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 r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Howard starts with the cheap shot... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Howard starts with the cheap shot... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Community Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Excuse you? (Score:5, Informative)
why doesn't stern organize mass complaint filings
He did [howardstern.com].
He did [thesmokinggun.com].
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.
Re:Powell still can't answer the question (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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. T
Re:Why did Powell agree to do this interview? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
As a regular listener of the Ronn Owens show (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Compare & contrast (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wish that some of the cable stations - and not just the premium channels like Showtime or HBO - would