 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
Wow!
CNN) -- The nation's largest radio chain has taken shock jock Howard Stern off its stations indefinitely for running afoul of new decency standards.
"We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations until we are assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting," said a statement from John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio.
Clear Channel operates 1,200 stations nationwide. It was unclear how many of its stations currently run Stern, who is syndicated across the country by another company, Infinity Broadcasting. The suspension applies only to Clear Channel stations.
Earlier in the day, Clear Channel, which has been under fire from the Federal Communications Commission over allegedly indecent content aired on its stations, announced a zero-tolerance policy that called for immediate suspension of its on-air personalities who cross the line.
Hogan said there would be "no appeals and no immediate steps" for DJs found in violation, and that on-air personalities employed by Clear Channel who were found to have violated FCC indecency rules would be fired.
The company said Stern's suspension from its stations came after a review of his Tuesday broadcast.
"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content, and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," Hogan said.
"It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African-Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency."
The statement did not outline what parts of Stern's show ran afoul of the policy or how long the suspension might last.
In January, the FCC announced it would fine Clear Channel $750,000 for allegedly indecent content aired by one of its DJs, Todd Clem, known as Bubba the Love Sponge. The company fired Clem on Tuesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/New...sion/index.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FS*
|
|
Just out of interest... does anyone here listen to him regularly?
Free speech aside, 5 minutes of the guy- on the very few occasions I've heard him- was 5 minutes too long. IMHO the guy is irritating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
-Jrabbit
|
 |
of the Electronic Egyptians
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
Coincidentally, I was in Tampa (source of Bubba the Love Sponge's show) earlier this week. It was huge news there. It was regarded that the timing was "no coincidence" in that Clear Channel's CEO was scheduled to testify before (Congress or the FCC) today.
The idea of "local standards" of decency defining what could go over the public airwaves is long-standing, and it puts broadcast syndicators of dodgy material (Stern, Bubba, et al.) at considerable financial risk due to fines.
Clear Channel is coming clean because they are at considerable risk for renewal of their broadcast licenses (i.e., licenses to print money). Ironically, if they were just a program producer/syndicator and not an actual broadcaster, the FCC couldn't touch them.
FYI, Clear Channel owns over 1,200 broadcast outlets in the U.S. They have a lot to lose, and thus have taken the intelligently conservative course of adopting a "community standards" policy.
Reuters story: http://www.iht.com/articles/131323.html
This is the inevitable result of deregulating the broadcast ownership laws. It used to be that a single entity couldn't own more than (this is all IIRC) 40 radio stations and 6 TV stations -- and no more than one each AM-FM-TV in a single market. Deregulation hits, and the rich go on a huge buying spree, leading to single-source programming and news in many markets (especially the smaller ones). Major program sources are few, and control most -- so if your band's new single is picked up, it's a huge win. And if your PR efforts make the news, or your topical "expert" is interviewed on the news, the results are a publicity/sales windfall.
This homogenization was the inevitable result of braodcast deregulation.
The flip side is just appearing -- With legit sources of programming controlled by only a handful of mega-braodcast holding companies (each of which is insanely profitable), the government now gains the ability to exert enormous control over programming, news coverage, and even advertising, by legislating and/or influencing a mere handful of greed-driven profit machines.
Only the separation of the FCC from the legislative and judiciary branches keeps this from being a totally blatant censorship situation. The FCC, again IIRC, has 9 comissioners, appointed on a rotating basis to 7-year terms. Thus, the FCC transcends the complete influence of a single administration. Their mission is allegedly to benefit the U.S. public through its administration of our valuable spectrum space. In fact, the past 10-15 years have seen a constant degradation in this area.
--Fat cat broadcasters granted the right to buy nearly unlimited media outlets.
--Spectrum space regularly re-defined and auctioned off to the highest bidders -- mostly provate companies.
--Rubber-stamp broadcast license renewal process adopted to speed administration process
--Greatly reduced broadcaster requirement/accountability to provide locally-based news and public affairs coverage.
Why do you think the government -- under both Democratic and Republican presidents -- has been consistently reducing their long-dear notion that the "liberal media" is biased in their coverage? Why do you think "fair and balanced" has become an ironic phrase?
It's because both parties realize that by controlling a handful of mega-corporations, they can approach the political nirvana of total media control.
DJs like Bubba and Howard will probably have increasing trouble getting network gigs without compromise. (Ultimately, they will likely become "outlaw" independent syndi operators.) The goverment will say that this is "local standards" in action, but it's not. It's corporate giants protecting their money machines under threat, nothing more.
Welcome to America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
 |
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
Well said Jrabbit!
One thing I might add fines levied by the FCC (yes, covering both Democratic and Republican Presidents in office) are issued against companies and on-air personalities on poorly defined rules. These fines are not issued through a court of law. There are no legal actions associated with these fines - they are simply issued against the "rules breakers". So, the appeals to these fines are not handled in a democratic method.
What should be in place is a clear set of rules. The FCC would regulate the industry based on these rules. If a violation occurs, the FCC issues a complaint, holds a hearing, etc. If the radio station/company/personality disagrees with the assessment, it should go to court.
To date, AFAIK, no FCC penalities or fines have ever gone though a court of law. No independent judgement + no proper appeals mechanism = no justice. This is not a moral argument, this is a legal/constitutional issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
-Jrabbit
|
|
of the Electronic Egyptians
Feb 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Well said Jrabbit!
One thing I might add fines levied by the FCC (yes, covering both Democratic and Republican Presidents in office) are issued against companies and on-air personalities on poorly defined rules. These fines are not issued through a court of law. There are no legal actions associated with these fines - they are simply issued against the "rules breakers". So, the appeals to these fines are not handled in a democratic method.
What should be in place is a clear set of rules. The FCC would regulate the industry based on these rules. |
Actually, the FCC has tried many times over the years to develop a clear set of rules. Every one of these attempts has been overturned by the courts, who have consistently held that decency standards are local by nature (e.g., different in Peoria and Beverly Hills).
Thus, the FCC is hamstrung. Thus, each broadcaster is be held to local community standards, which are pretty much defined by the broadcaster, until and unless there are too many complaints. In the case of Bubba TLS, there was organized local opposition (now happily victorious) who did not want their kids hearing the dross of bubba's output over their local public airwaves.
quote:
To date, AFAIK, no FCC penalities or fines have ever gone though a court of law. No independent judgement + no proper appeals mechanism = no justice. This is not a moral argument, this is a legal/constitutional issue. |
Over the years, I believe that a number of fines have been overturned on constitutional grounds -- but this was back when there were published FCC standards. The reason there are no recent court cases is the fact that FCC standards have all been struck down. The "local standards" provision is the only thing that has held up in courts, and thus we have no meaningful standards. Ironically, the closest thing we have to accepted standards of broadcast decency is the George Carlin "7 Words" comedy routine.
Ironically, the FCC is not set up to take independent action against offenders. Instead, there is a (little-publicized) complaint process. People may file a complaint with the FCC when they are offended by anything they see/hear on the air. Complaints are kept on file and (at the FCC's discretion), acted upon. (This is a nother point of contention -- since the FCC's ability to do anything is ultimately controlled by their budget, which is proposed by the president and passed by the congress. Don't like their actions? Reduce their funding!)
The real issue here is the continued ownership of broadcast licenses -- a free renewable resource under direct government control. The chilling affect of government threat is what's at work here, and the public is the victim.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2004 16:46
ACK!
|