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.
A cheap product with no future life cycle? Umm, #1 in the ratings. The people want to listen. The government is saying no. That's a conflict of interest. Clearchannel can do whatever the fvck they want with his show. That's not the government censoring him. That's a corporation making a business decision. It crosses the line when the government tells you what you can and cannot say on the radio.
Of course, Stern was fined for a graphic description of salad tossing but Oprah wasn't for an even more graphic description, and this during daytime TV when kids are just getting home. Gee, the FCC doesn't enforce their arbitrary rules evenly. Who would have guessed?
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.
When did "the people" ever decide to start the FCC? We live in a republic, not a democracy, but even so, it's a republic guided by ideals. And these ideals are being tread on. Until I see a measure to rescind FCC control that's determined by popular vote, I'll just accept that you are wrong. As for voting for an administration, I don't think that will have much bearing on the jurisdiction of the FCC.
The FCC is supposed to allocate bandwidth, not censor it. I don't think anyone has a problem with the allocation bit. It's a real issue when a government bureau interferes with the market. I think what has happened today may have been the most disgusting act of unconstitutionally-inspired behavior I have ever seen in the last few years (my cognascent lifetime).
Clear Channel ran Stern in only six markets (10% of the stations that carry Stern) and got a $495,000 fine. Infinity is the company that really distributes Stern's show. They must have soiled their pants when they saw the fine Clear Channel got.
Stern won't be silenced, though. He'll just end up on satellite radio. I hate the guy's show but there's no question he draws an audience. He'll still be around for a long time whining his way to the bank.
A cheap product with no future life cycle? Umm, #1 in the ratings. The people want to listen. The government is saying no. That's a conflict of interest. Clearchannel can do whatever the fvck they want with his show. That's not the government censoring him. That's a corporation making a business decision. It crosses the line when the government tells you what you can and cannot say on the radio.
Of course, Stern was fined for a graphic description of salad tossing but Oprah wasn't for an even more graphic description, and this during daytime TV when kids are just getting home. Gee, the FCC doesn't enforce their arbitrary rules evenly. Who would have guessed?
Hmmm maybe it does have a life cycle then, maybe I'm underestimating the moral corruption of his audience. We still have drugs addicts too---and I forgot the massive child pornography industry. Yep. Your right.
At any rate, the margial utlity for providing the Stern product is not what it was before the fines. If you want to use the public airwaves you need to follow the public rules that go with them. The FCC is of course singling the Stern product out, but then I don't think (I don't know---I killed my televsion) Oprah is up on stage taunting the FCC to fine her on a dialy basis and then using that for her product's market differentiation.
What bothers me is not that Clear Channel got fined (they're imminently deserving in a variety of ways IMO), but that the FCC is harping on them for this, and not the monopoly they hold over entertainment venues, ticketing and the like. Baffling.
Hmmm maybe it does have a life cycle then, maybe I'm underestimating the moral corruption of his audience. We still have drugs addicts too---and I forgot the massive child pornography industry. Yep. Your right.
Ugh. This is so typical it's almost stomach turning. Are you seriously equating listening to Howard Stern to drug abuse child pornography? If so you are woefully clueless.
It's just like the argument from the right against gay marriage: "what next? should we legalize incest? bestiality?"
Quote:
At any rate, the margial utlity for providing the Stern product is not what it was before the fines. If you want to use the public airwaves you need to follow the public rules that go with them. The FCC is of course singling the Stern product out, but then I don't think (I don't know---I killed my televsion) Oprah is up on stage taunting the FCC to fine her on a dialy basis and then using that for her product's market differentiation.
So the fact that Stern taunts the FCC to fine him means he's deserving of a fine? That's flawed logic. Again, it's pretty evident you don't even listen to Stern anyway because his broadcasts are far more timid than the FCC or his rabid detractors would ever like people to believe.
It's a conservative witch hunt, and Stern is a favorite whipping boy. Any attempt to cast some sort of moral light on it is merely willingly overlooking the obvious truth of the situation. This is nothing more than grandstanding to play up to the 6 people that were offended by Janet's Jackson's tit being shown on TV (OMG *GASP*).
When did "the people" ever decide to start the FCC? We live in a republic, not a democracy, but even so, it's a republic guided by ideals.
Quote:
"Democracy" versus "Republic"
The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of old Greece up to now has not been constant. According to most political scientists today (and most common English speakers), the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it be direct or representative.
There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of Aristotle or the American "Founding Fathers." Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle never used the words democracy or republic interchangeably. See Greek Philosophies on Republic According to this definition, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy is referred to as a "republic". This older terminology also has some popularity in U.S. Conservative and Libertarian debate.
Modern definitions of the term Republic, however, refer to any State with an elective Head of State serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to Parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered republics.)
What bothers me is not that Clear Channel got fined (they're imminently deserving in a variety of ways IMO), but that the FCC is harping on them for this, and not the monopoly they hold over entertainment venues, ticketing and the like. Baffling.
It's really not baffling though. They're playing up to some sort of "decency" movement.
If "the people" felt like lynching monopolies, they'd be all over it.
Valid point. I think the reason they're not all over it, is that people don't understand the connection between TicketMaster, venues and CCC. You'd think some industrious reporter for the Times or someone not owned by CCC would've run the story long ago (maybe when all the MS monopoly talk was big).
I wonder if the Tribune Company is owned by or has a vested interest in CCC.
I don't give a shit that clearchannel dropped him. It's within their rights. My problem is with the FCC, the government organization with no oversight that arbitrarily applies fines.
Are you seriously equating listening to Howard Stern to drug abuse child pornography?
Absolutely.
Quote:
It's a conservative witch hunt, and Stern is a favorite whipping boy.
Rules are rules. You have to follow them---making an example of out the loudmouth is effective crowd control.
Quote:
This is nothing more than grandstanding to play up to the 6 people that were offended by Janet's Jackson's tit being shown on TV (OMG *GASP*).
Jackson's publicity stunt did little more than to inform the more moral among us that the morally perverted in society are not content beating off to duped copies of Barnyard Follies in private---they intend to shove their filth in everyone's face.
Jackson's publicity stunt did little more than to inform the more moral among us that the morally perverted in society are not content beating off to duped copies of Barnyard Follies in private---they intend to shove their filth in everyone's face.
This is an ignorant and classless statement. I hope you enjoy your Barnyard Follies though, whatever they are.
Jackson's publicity stunt did little more than to inform the more moral among us that the morally perverted in society are not content beating off to duped copies of Barnyard Follies in private---they intend to shove their filth in everyone's face.
As opposed to having God shoved in mine. See, when I find a televangelist on TV, do I go berserk and start a campaign? No, I use my own brain, take responsibility for my own actions and responses, and *turn the channel*. Personally, I find televangelists to be utter scum, far far more offensive than I find Howard Stern. At least he isn't fraudulently bilking people out of their savings by scaring them to death with myths and fairy tales.
You deal with the things you're offended by, and I'll deal with the things I am, and we'll go on our own merry *very separate* ways like adults, 'k?
like the man or hate him, the fcc had no problem with it untill Janet Jackson showed her ageing and sagging tit complete with Justin to tug her leather, the whole sb halftime show was a badly produced attemp at a soft core BDSM likely to be found behinde the velvit curtin at the video shop, much like Howard stern has been doing for AT LEAST 5 yrs. on radio, and now the fcc thought police say he stepped over the line last April??? that leaves me with one question:
WHERE THE F*** WAS THE FCC LAST APRIL??????
If the FCCs logic is applyed to the rest of life, you could be cited and ticketed today for speeding last May.
for context: I am a republican who wouldnt listen to stern for $100,000 (ok...for that much, 1 hr ) but I also beleive in the 1st ammendment and the fact that before tits flew, he was not being targeted.
F*** the thought police
I know there are decency regulations but in this case, it is patently obvious that this is little more than a cheap little policical trick to harm "the evil" that as some would and have said resinates from clearchannel/infinaty/premeire.
The more moral among us? What is this morality you speak of?
Just because you've been taught the human body is a vile and disgusting thing that is not to be seen does not mean I have, nor does that make either one of us more or less "moral" than the other.
And please explain how listening to Howard Stern is the same moral equivalent to drug abuse and child pornography.
like the man or hate him, the fcc had no problem with it untill Janet Jackson showed her ageing and sagging tit
Gee, I thought it was a rather nice one.
I have little use for Howard Stern, but once again, unless you are a recent immigrant from, say, one of Jupiter's moons then you know what you are in for with his show. It ain't Terry Gross people.
And I still wonder at people who are soooo aghast at a momentary shot of Janet's boob yet think nothing about the Cialis commercial telling you to seek medical attention if your erection doesn't subside within four hours.
I think I'd rather try to explain to my 10 year old godchild Janet's booby than what an erection is, thanks ever so.
I pointed out telling ClearChannel because that's where the money is. CCC feels enough pressure and believe me the FCC will bugger off. (no matter who is president, that wasn't meant to be partisan)
What bothers me is not that Clear Channel got fined (they're imminently deserving in a variety of ways IMO), but that the FCC is harping on them for this, and not the monopoly they hold over entertainment venues, ticketing and the like. Baffling.
Actually, I read somewhere that Michael Copps may be using these fines against Stern as a way to strike back at Clear Channel's near monopoly position in the market. There really isn't that much he can do to directly challenge them. This is pretty much the only arrow he has in his quiver.
This isn't to say he doesn't also want to rein in Stern. He's just doing the two birds with one stone thing.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
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.
A cheap product with no future life cycle? Umm, #1 in the ratings. The people want to listen. The government is saying no. That's a conflict of interest. Clearchannel can do whatever the fvck they want with his show. That's not the government censoring him. That's a corporation making a business decision. It crosses the line when the government tells you what you can and cannot say on the radio.
Of course, Stern was fined for a graphic description of salad tossing but Oprah wasn't for an even more graphic description, and this during daytime TV when kids are just getting home. Gee, the FCC doesn't enforce their arbitrary rules evenly. Who would have guessed?
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.
When did "the people" ever decide to start the FCC? We live in a republic, not a democracy, but even so, it's a republic guided by ideals. And these ideals are being tread on. Until I see a measure to rescind FCC control that's determined by popular vote, I'll just accept that you are wrong. As for voting for an administration, I don't think that will have much bearing on the jurisdiction of the FCC.
The FCC is supposed to allocate bandwidth, not censor it. I don't think anyone has a problem with the allocation bit. It's a real issue when a government bureau interferes with the market. I think what has happened today may have been the most disgusting act of unconstitutionally-inspired behavior I have ever seen in the last few years (my cognascent lifetime).
Stern won't be silenced, though. He'll just end up on satellite radio. I hate the guy's show but there's no question he draws an audience. He'll still be around for a long time whining his way to the bank.
Originally posted by BR
A cheap product with no future life cycle? Umm, #1 in the ratings. The people want to listen. The government is saying no. That's a conflict of interest. Clearchannel can do whatever the fvck they want with his show. That's not the government censoring him. That's a corporation making a business decision. It crosses the line when the government tells you what you can and cannot say on the radio.
Of course, Stern was fined for a graphic description of salad tossing but Oprah wasn't for an even more graphic description, and this during daytime TV when kids are just getting home. Gee, the FCC doesn't enforce their arbitrary rules evenly. Who would have guessed?
Hmmm maybe it does have a life cycle then, maybe I'm underestimating the moral corruption of his audience. We still have drugs addicts too---and I forgot the massive child pornography industry. Yep. Your right.
At any rate, the margial utlity for providing the Stern product is not what it was before the fines. If you want to use the public airwaves you need to follow the public rules that go with them. The FCC is of course singling the Stern product out, but then I don't think (I don't know---I killed my televsion) Oprah is up on stage taunting the FCC to fine her on a dialy basis and then using that for her product's market differentiation.
Originally posted by dmz
Hmmm maybe it does have a life cycle then, maybe I'm underestimating the moral corruption of his audience. We still have drugs addicts too---and I forgot the massive child pornography industry. Yep. Your right.
Ugh. This is so typical it's almost stomach turning. Are you seriously equating listening to Howard Stern to drug abuse child pornography? If so you are woefully clueless.
It's just like the argument from the right against gay marriage: "what next? should we legalize incest? bestiality?"
At any rate, the margial utlity for providing the Stern product is not what it was before the fines. If you want to use the public airwaves you need to follow the public rules that go with them. The FCC is of course singling the Stern product out, but then I don't think (I don't know---I killed my televsion) Oprah is up on stage taunting the FCC to fine her on a dialy basis and then using that for her product's market differentiation.
So the fact that Stern taunts the FCC to fine him means he's deserving of a fine? That's flawed logic. Again, it's pretty evident you don't even listen to Stern anyway because his broadcasts are far more timid than the FCC or his rabid detractors would ever like people to believe.
It's a conservative witch hunt, and Stern is a favorite whipping boy. Any attempt to cast some sort of moral light on it is merely willingly overlooking the obvious truth of the situation. This is nothing more than grandstanding to play up to the 6 people that were offended by Janet's Jackson's tit being shown on TV (OMG *GASP*).
Originally posted by Splinemodel
When did "the people" ever decide to start the FCC? We live in a republic, not a democracy, but even so, it's a republic guided by ideals.
"Democracy" versus "Republic"
The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of old Greece up to now has not been constant. According to most political scientists today (and most common English speakers), the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it be direct or representative.
There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of Aristotle or the American "Founding Fathers." Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle never used the words democracy or republic interchangeably. See Greek Philosophies on Republic According to this definition, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy is referred to as a "republic". This older terminology also has some popularity in U.S. Conservative and Libertarian debate.
Modern definitions of the term Republic, however, refer to any State with an elective Head of State serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to Parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered republics.)
from wikipedia
Originally posted by Moogs
What bothers me is not that Clear Channel got fined (they're imminently deserving in a variety of ways IMO), but that the FCC is harping on them for this, and not the monopoly they hold over entertainment venues, ticketing and the like. Baffling.
It's really not baffling though. They're playing up to some sort of "decency" movement.
If "the people" felt like lynching monopolies, they'd be all over it.
Valid point. I think the reason they're not all over it, is that people don't understand the connection between TicketMaster, venues and CCC. You'd think some industrious reporter for the Times or someone not owned by CCC would've run the story long ago (maybe when all the MS monopoly talk was big).
I wonder if the Tribune Company is owned by or has a vested interest in CCC.
Originally posted by tmp
Well, here's an idea. If you're that annoyed by thier decision to drop Howard, let them know you aren't going to listen anymore.
I don't give a shit that clearchannel dropped him. It's within their rights. My problem is with the FCC, the government organization with no oversight that arbitrarily applies fines.
Originally posted by rageous
Are you seriously equating listening to Howard Stern to drug abuse child pornography?
Absolutely.
Quote:
It's a conservative witch hunt, and Stern is a favorite whipping boy.
Rules are rules. You have to follow them---making an example of out the loudmouth is effective crowd control.
Quote:
This is nothing more than grandstanding to play up to the 6 people that were offended by Janet's Jackson's tit being shown on TV (OMG *GASP*).
Jackson's publicity stunt did little more than to inform the more moral among us that the morally perverted in society are not content beating off to duped copies of Barnyard Follies in private---they intend to shove their filth in everyone's face.
Originally posted by dmz
Jackson's publicity stunt did little more than to inform the more moral among us that the morally perverted in society are not content beating off to duped copies of Barnyard Follies in private---they intend to shove their filth in everyone's face.
This is an ignorant and classless statement. I hope you enjoy your Barnyard Follies though, whatever they are.
Originally posted by dmz
Jackson's publicity stunt did little more than to inform the more moral among us that the morally perverted in society are not content beating off to duped copies of Barnyard Follies in private---they intend to shove their filth in everyone's face.
As opposed to having God shoved in mine. See, when I find a televangelist on TV, do I go berserk and start a campaign? No, I use my own brain, take responsibility for my own actions and responses, and *turn the channel*. Personally, I find televangelists to be utter scum, far far more offensive than I find Howard Stern. At least he isn't fraudulently bilking people out of their savings by scaring them to death with myths and fairy tales.
You deal with the things you're offended by, and I'll deal with the things I am, and we'll go on our own merry *very separate* ways like adults, 'k?
like the man or hate him, the fcc had no problem with it untill Janet Jackson showed her ageing and sagging tit complete with Justin to tug her leather, the whole sb halftime show was a badly produced attemp at a soft core BDSM likely to be found behinde the velvit curtin at the video shop, much like Howard stern has been doing for AT LEAST 5 yrs. on radio, and now the fcc thought police say he stepped over the line last April??? that leaves me with one question:
WHERE THE F*** WAS THE FCC LAST APRIL??????
If the FCCs logic is applyed to the rest of life, you could be cited and ticketed today for speeding last May.
for context: I am a republican who wouldnt listen to stern for $100,000 (ok...for that much, 1 hr
F*** the thought police
I know there are decency regulations but in this case, it is patently obvious that this is little more than a cheap little policical trick to harm "the evil" that as some would and have said resinates from clearchannel/infinaty/premeire.
Just because you've been taught the human body is a vile and disgusting thing that is not to be seen does not mean I have, nor does that make either one of us more or less "moral" than the other.
And please explain how listening to Howard Stern is the same moral equivalent to drug abuse and child pornography.
Originally posted by a_greer
The whole howard stern thing reaks of polotics.
like the man or hate him, the fcc had no problem with it untill Janet Jackson showed her ageing and sagging tit
Gee, I thought it was a rather nice one.
I have little use for Howard Stern, but once again, unless you are a recent immigrant from, say, one of Jupiter's moons then you know what you are in for with his show. It ain't Terry Gross people.
And I still wonder at people who are soooo aghast at a momentary shot of Janet's boob yet think nothing about the Cialis commercial telling you to seek medical attention if your erection doesn't subside within four hours.
I think I'd rather try to explain to my 10 year old godchild Janet's booby than what an erection is, thanks ever so.
I pointed out telling ClearChannel because that's where the money is. CCC feels enough pressure and believe me the FCC will bugger off. (no matter who is president, that wasn't meant to be partisan)
Originally posted by a_greer
The whole howard stern thing reaks of polotics.
like the man or hate him, the fcc had no problem with it untill Janet Jackson showed her ageing and sagging tit...
Not true. Stern's been racking up millions of dollars in fines for YEARS.
Originally posted by Moogs
What bothers me is not that Clear Channel got fined (they're imminently deserving in a variety of ways IMO), but that the FCC is harping on them for this, and not the monopoly they hold over entertainment venues, ticketing and the like. Baffling.
Actually, I read somewhere that Michael Copps may be using these fines against Stern as a way to strike back at Clear Channel's near monopoly position in the market. There really isn't that much he can do to directly challenge them. This is pretty much the only arrow he has in his quiver.
This isn't to say he doesn't also want to rein in Stern. He's just doing the two birds with one stone thing.