FCC minions strike again (CCC and Howard Stern)
There is an article in the WSJ today about the recent fine the FCC placed on Clear Channel in response to indecency from Howard Stern. While this is old news, the fine is for $495k this time, the most ever, and for all the wrong reasons. The FCC claims to be interested in "cleaning up the airwaves for the election year," and in doing so they fined six radio stations for airing the Stern show, deemed inappropriate.
It disturbs me to no end to see the government try to strong-arm radio stations into dropping Howard Stern, who I must admit has a very entertaining show that appeals to a wide range of listeners. To her credit, the WSJ staff writer cast the actions of the FCC, and the FCC in general, in a very unflattering light.
It disturbs me to no end to see the government try to strong-arm radio stations into dropping Howard Stern, who I must admit has a very entertaining show that appeals to a wide range of listeners. To her credit, the WSJ staff writer cast the actions of the FCC, and the FCC in general, in a very unflattering light.
Comments
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
We do need to clean up the airwaves for election, lets start by getting rid of all the political mudslinging.
Why does an election somehow justify unprecedented censorship?
Howard Stern
Another nail in the coffin for Free Speech = Bad
Another nail in the coffin for Howard Stern = Good
Another nail in the coffin for Free Speech = Bad
posted by me
There is an article in the WSJ today about the recent fine the FCC placed on Clear Channel in response to indecency from Howard Stern. While this is old news, the fine is for $495k this time, the most ever, and for all the wrong reasons. The FCC claims to be interested in "cleaning up the airwaves for the election year," and in doing so they fined six radio stations for airing the Stern show, deemed inappropriate.
It disturbs me to no end to see the government try to strong-arm radio stations into dropping Howard Stern, who I must admit has a very entertaining show that appeals to a wide range of listeners. To her credit, the WSJ staff writer cast the actions of the FCC, and the FCC in general, in a very unflattering light.
I started the other thread, "FCC minions strike again," before I knew that Stern was getting kicked.
Originally posted by Jubelum
It's that pesky free market. CCC can decide if they want their FCC status in jeopardy. They are free to hire and fire whoever they want. Stern has a right to say what he wants, but he has no right to be heard or to have a job to do it. Screw him.
Pesky free market? Stern had an enormously popular radio show. IIRC, it was more popular than pretty much any other program in any kind of media. The market speaks for Stern.
The FCC is going beyond it's charter here, as usual, and is tampering with the free market based on a set of sensibilities that really have no bearing on anything. There are people who don't approve of Howard Stern, yes. But if I caught my nonexistent kid listening to a tele. . . well. . . radioevangelist, I would definitely have to sit down and have a chat with him. But nonetheless I cannot complain and have the FCC injunct a program with a fairly violent, morbid message because, for some reason, it's OK with the government to broadcast such things.
Before too many people gang up on me, I am not against televangelists. I think they have every right to broadcast, as does Howard Stern. Blocking information from the community is never beneficial, especially when the majority of the community seems to be fine with Stern. Worrying about a child listening to Stern is purely a matter regarding the abdication of responsibility on behalf of the parent.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Pesky free market? Stern had an enormously popular radio show. IIRC, it was more popular than pretty much any other program in any kind of media. The market speaks for Stern.
I was not referring to Stern being popular or not. I know he is. My point is that Clear Channel has the right to forego a popular radio show if they want to, for whatever reason. If they are willing to take the $$$ hit, that is their right. Based on events, it looks like it might have been cheaper to can him, rather than throw money down the fine well.
He has no "right" to be heard. As a people, we have decided that we have standards. Some think they are too tight, some think they are too loose. If we don't like our govt's decision, we can do something about it here.
(Hey, Howard, go call Al Franken and Air America. I hear they have some openings for explicit pie-holes. )
Case Closed. Good Riddance.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Why does an election somehow justify unprecedented censorship?
I have no clue. Particularly when it's election year and it's nothing but 'slag your opponent all day long'
Originally posted by BR
The point is there should be no fines. If you don't like what you hear, turn the radio off.
Actually, that also gives me the right to broadcast on their frequency. Hey, if it's PUBLIC airwaves let' s give this commons a tragedy.
I remember the last time I listened to the show, Robin's news report included a news story about a woman who used a car key to cut open a dead woman and steal her baby. Also, I read a recent transcript of the show---this whole Yucko the clown bit sounds fouler than Freddy Kruger's jag rag.
Public airwaves have public rules. Stern has used the threats and his fines to justify himself to his target audiance as a rebel. (As if drinking out of a urinal makes you a rebel.) You can only shock yourself senseless for so long. Stern's upgrade cycle just couldn't hold him---and CCC can see where the market is headed---they don't need Stern's product when turning his trick involes necrophelia or incest----but then I think he's already gone there.
Stern is just a product, and you guys shouldn't be confusing a cheap product with no future life cycle with "free speech". If this were the case here, we could distribute Swank Magazine in the public schools.
Originally posted by Jubelum
I was not referring to Stern being popular or not. I know he is. My point is that Clear Channel has the right to forego a popular radio show if they want to, for whatever reason.
If you think Clear Channel did this out of the goodness of their collective hearts, you've not been following the situation.
The funny thing is i think most people who despise Stern probably have very little exposure to his show. It is not as over the top as the conservative blowhards want to make it seem.
www.stopfcc.com
Originally posted by rageous
The funny thing is i think most people who despise Stern probably have very little exposure to his show. It is not as over the top as the conservative blowhards want to make it seem.
Very True!
Originally posted by rageous
If you think Clear Channel did this out of the goodness of their collective hearts, you've not been following the situation.
Goodness? No. Not wanting the risk/hassle? I think so.
They were about to appear before the senate, and served him up as a sacrificial lamb to appease the "outraged" committee. Nothing more.