Fight Censorship: Complain to the FCC - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sixate · 03-24-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Surfer
There shouldn't be a double standard.
There should be restrictions and rules simply because most people don't want easily accessible smut for young children.
(Good parents or bad, it doesn't really matter)
It's called common decency.
The fact is that kids today are more prone to violent acts, shootings, crime etc.
The fact is that there are alot more parentless kids today that are being raised by T.V. and music.
They look up to these people as role models.

You think there is a relation or link between all the new violent crimes being committed by younger children today and who they view as role models ?

So you'd rather blame TV when it's really the fault of the parents who don't spend more than 10 minutes a day with their kids? Sorry, but that's stupid. Why not go to the root of the problem, which is bad... No. Terrible parenting? Doesn't that make sense? Parents should be kids role models, and if they aren't it's the parents fault.

In other words, in your own post you basically say there are a ton of lazy parents who let the media raise their kids for them because they're too lazy and fucking dumb to do it themselves. So if we censor Stern and a little sex talk, what exactly is being fixed? Absofuckinglutely nothing......

Quote:

Originally posted by Surfer
Surely, you would think that the moderators here would understand this since they are so prone to remove and censor anything negative.

And you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. I say negative stuff all the time, and what I say doesn't get removed. I see hundreds of people who IMHO live negative lifestyles, and brag about it. I don't remove that or ban anyone for it. I never have and never will. Negative things can be said here. What gets removed is when negative things are directed at another member. That's done to keep it civil around here. I don't think any of us want TFP to turn into a place where we all come and call each other names all day long..... There are rules here, and people must follow them, myself included. Also, we do have freedom of speech in America and some crazy ass fucks who run the government who think they should force their way of living onto me are trying to take away that right... Are you trying to say that doesn't bother you? It bothers me, and what bothers me even more is it's a bunch of crazy ass right wing christian conservatives who want to do it. These brainless idiots seem to forget that there's separation of church and state. And because of that, I may never vote for another Republican again.

Surfer · 03-24-2004, 01:15 PM

I don't feel repressed by rules or standards that restrict profanity and lewd conduct on unmonitored public T.V. / radio.
Thats my stance and I'm sticking to it.

Surfer · 03-24-2004, 01:17 PM

You can scream I'm blaming T.V. all you want but you fail to comprehend what I'm saying.
Go back and read it again.

It's called common decency.

Maybe you feel like it's ok for children of any age to have easy access to porn based tripe and perverted lewd acts but I happen to not.

You're a mod .....why do you people censor negativity ?

Because it's not benefitial to the society as a whole.

It's the same principle.
Only with public access, 5 year olds who are easily impressed or manipluated can view it.

I find that more disturbing than the F.C.C. trying to tone the negative unbenefitial crap down or restrict some content for young children.
Adult entertainment should be for adults.
It's about Goddamned time they did something in my opinion.

I'm done with this thread.

sixate · 03-24-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Surfer
You can scream I'm blaming T.V. all you want but you fail to comprehend what I'm saying.
Go back and read it again.

It's called common decency.

Maybe you feel like it's ok for children of any age to have easy access to porn based tripe and perverted lewd acts but I happen to not.

You're a mod .....why do you people censor negativity ?

Because it's not benefitial to the society as whole.

It's the same principle only 5 year olds who are easily impressed or manipluated can view it.

I find that more perverse and revolting than the F.C.C.

I'm done with this thread.

I understand you perfectly. Just because you're easily influenced by the media it doesn't mean that I am. I always had easy access to anything when I was a kid, and I'll stack my morals and how I live my life against anyone. The only bad thing I do is curse a lot. So what. I kinda answered what gets removed around here. Read my last post. 5 year olds wouldn't be so easily manipulated if their parents spent time with them and taught them the difference between right and wrong, but as you've already stated parents just throw their kids in front of a TV because they're to damn lazy and just don't give a fuck.

Lastly, do you realize that The Stern Show is on during school hours? Kinda hard for kids to listen to that, isn't it?

Surfer · 03-24-2004, 01:30 PM

right

and porn, lewd acts and stupid shock antics for public access so that all ages can view or listen to isn't directed at anyone

wanting standards for unmonitored public viewing to try and help our children through examples of good behavior and positive reinforcement on how to succeed is just stupid christian morals like thou shall not kill

it has nothing to do with common decency or common morals

let's show the young kiddies that it's cool,funny and hip to be a drug addicted thug or a star by using juvenile perverted cheap shock antics

lets just blame the parents and allow lewd perverted behavior to be easily accessed and viewed by children regardless of age

the hell with the kiddies if their parents can't follow them around every minute of their lives

it's just stupid christian morals

yep

I'm done

sixate · 03-24-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Surfer
I'm done

Good.

onetime2 · 03-25-2004, 05:08 AM

How many rating points do you think Stern's show will go up in the next book because of this dramatized fight against the FCC?

Maybe we should start a pool.

Astrocloud · 04-04-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Oprah's show investigated for indecency
By David Usborne in New York

03 April 2004

The crackdown on smut on America's airwaves has entered new and surprising territory following reports that less than open-minded federal regulators have turned their attention to an unexpected target - the perennially popular Oprah Winfrey Show.

On a rampage since Janet Jackson let a breast slip from her costume during the mid-game music show at the 1 February Super Bowl, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has acknowledged that it is looking into complaints that Winfrey may have crossed the decency line in at least one of her shows. Winfrey has Howard Stern, America's favourite radio shock-jock, to blame for her troubles. Stern has himself been the target of relentless pressure from Washington to tone down his broadcasts and recently struck back by suggesting to his listeners that Winfrey was surely a worse offender.

"If they fine me, they gotta fine Oprah - the darling of the world," Stern told his listeners two weeks ago. The DJ directed them to his website where he provided a transcript of a Winfrey broadcast about teenage sex and included instructions how they could file a complaint with the FCC. Sources at the FCC confirmed that the agency had received about 700 complaints about Winfrey. While most of them might have been spurred by Stern, apparently they have been enough to prompt a formal investigation.

So far, Stern has been able to cling on to his perch, offering a mix of music and sometimes immodest chit-chat every morning on the New York radio station K-Rock, owned by Infinity Broadcasting. Infinity has already been fined for some of what he has told his listeners. But another broadcasting chain, Clearchannel, dropped him from many of its stations last month.

If Stern is trying to make a monkey of the government, he scored points on Thursday. Fans were appalled when they tuned into K-Rock only to hear a recorded statement from its management saying that it had succumbed to government pressure and removed the DJ from the air indefinitely. For an hour, two other DJs played middle-brow music and told listeners they were offering "fun without the filth". The worst nightmare of Stern's devoted followers seemed to have come to pass. However, they had not checked the date on their calendars - 1 April. Stern re-emerged to tell them they had been fooled.

It was a stunt with a serious message, however, as the pressure from regulators on broadcasters gets more intense with every passing day. On Wednesday, the FCC separately announced that it was also zeroing in on America's crop of day-time soap operas to determine whether they also were getting a little too steamy.

FCC officials reminded reporters that television broadcasters are barred from showing programmes between 6am and 10pm that in any way display "sexual or excretory functions".

onodrim · 04-04-2004, 11:59 AM

When I first heard about the Howard Stern / Opera debate, I was all for Opera being fined to support Stern's point. But as I read this article, it only makes it all too clear that censorship has gotten way out of hand, and soon the only thing we'll be allowed to watch is children's shows. Yes, there should be some limitations on whats allowed on TV, but human beings are perfectly capable of deciding what is or is not appropriate for themselves and their family, without the FCC telling them so.

SecretMethod70 · 04-04-2004, 01:59 PM

Exactly. The whole point of wanting Oprah to be fined is that (theoretically at least) there would be a bit of a public outcry of your typical Oprah watcher who recognizes that she should not be banned. However, if the FCC is also going to be targeting soap operas, it seems to me that maybe they really could care less about whatever kind of public outcry there might be.

Cynthetiq · 04-04-2004, 02:02 PM

Onodrim please remember that the "censoring" stuff only applies to broadcast TV and radio. Anything that is subscriber based has different rules.

Thus Comedy Central can get away with saying Shit on South Park, XM can have Playboy Radio. So the tenents of Stern vs. Oprah is that it has to be even across the board for broadcasters.

Cable channels and pay radio do not apply.

tangledweb · 04-04-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
Because of this shit that's going on with the Stern show I will not be voting for Bush... As much as I hate to say it.... It looks like Kerry will be getting my vote.

I love how this thread went from Oprah and Stern obscenity charges to Bush controlling the FCC!

I like to thread-skip as much as the next guy but in an election year, you will not find ANY party looking to be elected who is going to stir this pot of shit. Why would Kerry act any differently on this than Bush has? Both want to be President in November.
Other than the fact that he is currently president, I don't know what Bush personally has done as far as being involved in any of the latest FCC stinks.

It just seemed like a big jump in logic to me.

Cynthetiq · 04-20-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Congloms to pols: Not a f***ing chance
Orgs urge FCC reversal on Bono decision

By Susan Crabtree
See list of petitioners
WASHINGTON -- The media are striking back. Viacom/CBS, News Corp./Fox and several Hollywood guilds are among those leading the first organized charge opposing the feds' anti-smut crusade.

The Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild of America, the Directors Guild and the Recording Industry Assn. of America also have joined to petition the Federal Communications Commission to reverse its most recent decision against U2 frontman Bono.

Under pressure from watchdog groups and the public, the commission in March overturned its earlier ruling that the singer's "fucking brilliant" exclamation during 2003's live Golden Globes telecast was not, in fact, indecent.

FCC topper Michael Powell pushed the agency to change its decision and made it clear it would set a new precedent, namely that any use of the f-word would be verboten in broadcasting.

The awards show aired on NBC, and the Peacock net weighed in Monday, seeking a partial review of the Bono decision. NBC chairman Bob Wright complained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that Washington has gone overboard in its indecency backlash and lumped the nets in with radio broadcasters whose shock jocks have led to the lion's share of FCC fines.

ABC was not expected to join the drive.

A few performers, including comedian Margaret Cho and magicians Penn & Teller, as well as the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists, have signed onto the petition. Actors, deejays and other talent are vigorously lobbying against a provision in a bill wending its way through Congress that could subject performers to $500,000 in fines for indecency on the air.

Petition also included an open threat to take the FCC to court if the agency opts not to overturn the Bono decision.

"It's up to the FCC," said Robert Corn-Revere, a prominent First Amendment attorney who filed the petition for the various parties. "They now have the opportunity to take a look at some of the legal arguments and get a sense of how their ruling is having an impact on broadcasting decisions."

At a recent media luncheon, former FCC topper Dick Wiley warned the agency about crossing swords with Corn-Revere, who has won several high-profile broadcasting cases before the Supreme Court and said he's confident of another victory if the current crackdown winds up there.

"The commission's aggressive crackdown on 'coarse' speech has sent shockwaves through the broadcast industry, and the lack of clear guidelines, coupled with threats of draconian administrative action, has forced licensees to censor speech that unquestionably is protected by the First Amendment," Corn-Revere wrote in the petition.

The document goes on to cite evidence that Washington's efforts to clean up the nation's airwaves is already having a chilling effect, as broadcasters scurry to avoid crossing the fuzzy indecency line.

NBC, for instance, decided to blur the image of an 80-year-old woman's bare breast in an episode of "ER," and public radio station KCRW in Los Angeles fired longtime host Sandra Tsing Loh when an engineer failed to bleep the f-word out of a segment of her show. Some radio stations have stopped airing live perfs by visiting artists and dropped classic rock songs such as the Who's "Who Are You" and Pink Floyd's "Money." Other songs, such as Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" and OutKast's "Roses," have been edited for air.

NBC has filed only a partial petition, because the Peacock agreed with the FCC's decision not to include a fine when it ruled Bono's use of "fucking" was indecent. But the net argued the agency's March decision contradicted years of precedent and created strict liability for certain offensive words "regardless of their fleeting nature or context."

The Parents Television Council kicked up a storm of protest when the FCC originally ruled Bono's dropping of the f-bomb was not indecent because it was "fleeting" and was used only as an adjective and not in a sexual way.

PTC spokeswoman Lara Mahaney said Monday she expected the petition, and that if the FCC decides to reverse its decision on the f-word again, the group would launch another appeal.

Mahaney suggested broadcasters who argue that the federal indecency standards are too vague should hire better lawyers. And, she acknowledged, it's not the law itself but the FCC that's at fault for failing to hold broadcasters accountable to any content standard for years.

"The FCC has made so few rulings in the past that nobody even cared -- nobody even took them seriously," she said.

Here are the companies, orgs and individuals petitioning the FCC regarding its most recent Bono decision:

American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
Beasley Broadcast Group
Citadel Broadcasting
The Creative Coalition
Directors Guild of America
Entercom Communications
The First Amendment Project
Fox Entertainment Group
Freedom to Read Foundation
Margaret Cho
Media Access Project
Minnesota Public Radio
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Federation of Community Broadcasters
Penn & Teller
People for the American Way Foundation
Radio One
Recording Artists’ Coalition
Recording Industry Assn. of America
Screen Actors Guild
Viacom
When in Doubt Prods.
Writers Guild of America

water_boy1999 · 04-20-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
To all the people who say fuck Stern... You just don't fucking get it. The government is trying to shut him up. They are trying to take away free speech. It's a bunch on far right conservative christians wanting to tell me, you, and everyone else America what we should watch, say, and do. Now, you may hate Stern, but if they silence him, what makes you think they can't silence you and anyone else? This is a free country. We do have the freedom to say whatever we want. Because of this shit that's going on with the Stern show I will not be voting for Bush... As much as I hate to say it.... It looks like Kerry will be getting my vote.

I listen to Stern every day, and the FCC totally targets him. There's things that he can't say, but I hear other "shock jocks" on local stations saying stuff that he can't. It's complete bullshit. Just because you hate Stern that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to do his show. For the FCC to take his show off of 6 markets,where he was #1 in all of them, is fucking horseshit. If people don't want to hear him then they don't have to put him on. Change the dial and ignore him. That's how to get rid of him, but the fact is there's millions of people who love him because he's just fucking funny. The government shouldn't be taking him off the air, and I would strongly suggest that anyone else who loves their free speech to support Stern, or it may be you or someone you like next. Is that what it's gonna take to make you realize what's going on. It really pisses me off that people just don't give a fuck about this at all.

I agree totally, except that the Government is not trying to take him off the air. They are trying to force him off the air by fining him huge amounts of money on every offense. I love listening to Stern, I freaking abhor Oprah, but regardless, I still want my freedom of speech upheld for everyone equally. If you don't like what you watch on TV, turn the fucking station. If you don't like what is on the radio, turn the dial. We, as Americans, have CHOICES of how we want to live our lives. When Government starts to dictate what they think is right for me, I get pissy!

I already wrote to the FCC and detailed how I find their witch hunt of Stern a complete farce when they let things like Oprah slide right on by.

Janet should have kept her tit indoors!

water_boy1999 · 04-20-2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tangledweb
I love how this thread went from Oprah and Stern obscenity charges to Bush controlling the FCC!

I like to thread-skip as much as the next guy but in an election year, you will not find ANY party looking to be elected who is going to stir this pot of shit. Why would Kerry act any differently on this than Bush has? Both want to be President in November.
Other than the fact that he is currently president, I don't know what Bush personally has done as far as being involved in any of the latest FCC stinks.

It just seemed like a big jump in logic to me.

Actually, it is a very closely knit argument and logic flow. Bush is trying to win the Christian majority vote with this new "Indecency Battle". You know, gain the VOTING support of all you Christians. To do so, he has commissioned the FCC to crack down on all of the indecency. Howard Stern is his numero Uno target. So, where is the jump in logic? It is as plain as day to me.

tangledweb · 04-20-2004, 07:30 PM

Directly from the FCC.gov website:

Summary
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress.

The FCC answers to congress. The president can appoint commissioners (if their existing 5 year terms are up) but only 3 can be from the same party.

The president can and does push his own agendas on lots of things, but implying that he has total control over FCC witch hunts is just stretching it a bit for me. Thinking that either party would change what is going on and risk their election chances stretches it a bit further. YMMV

Astrocloud · 04-26-2004, 05:05 PM

The president has, and always will direct policy of the Federal Branch of government.

The latest news: Stern will be censored Oprah will not:

Quote:

April 20, 2004

FCC's Powell to NAB: Don't ask us to tell

By Brooks Boliek
LAS VEGAS -- FCC chairman Michael Powell warned broadcasters to be careful what they wish for on Tuesday, telling the industry's trade group that they do not want the government to define exactly what words or actions are indecent.

Some industry leaders, most notably Viacom's Mel Karmazin, have pushed the commission to say exactly what is meant by indecent speech. They argue that the current definition is too fuzzy to tell them how far they can go before facing a stiff fine.

"You don't want the government to write red book of what the government says you can and cannot say," he told a packed crowd at the National Association of Broadcasters annual convention.

The FCC's current indecency definition, which has been vetted by the courts, is sufficient, he argued during a question-and-answer session with veteran ABC correspondent Sam Donaldson.

"The indecency provision is the same one that has been around for decades," he said. "I cannot tell someone here are the five things you cannot say."

The commission defines material as indecent if it "in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." While obscene speech has no constitutional protection, indecent speech does. The Supreme Court has said that adults have the right to indecent speech, but the government has a compelling interest to protect children from it.

Under that rubric the courts, Congress and the FCC decided that indecent speech can be broadcast between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. -- a time when children are a negligible part of the audience.

Indecency is a hot topic at this year's NAB show since Congress and the FCC cracked down on broadcast smut. The FCC has proposed a string of big fines for allegedly indecent behavior that was sparked by increasing coarse language and activities like the accidental baring of Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl.

While Powell contends that broadcasters do not want a government do-not-say list, the commission recently decided that uses of certain words were by themselves indecent. In that decision on Bono's use of a version of the word "fuck" on the Golden Globes Awards show, the commission decided that the use of a single expletives is both "indecent" and "profane" and could cause the station on which it aired to get fined, even if it was accidental or fleeting.

Most of the major networks and a host of free speech advocates and public interest groups filed a petition with the FCC on Monday asking them to reverse that decision.

Powell conceded that decisions on indecency cases made him "uncomfortable" but that he has a duty to enforce the law, and it's a law more and more people want to see upheld. The number of indecency cases has risen from 14,000 on 2002 to more than 500,000 in 2003. The stepped up enforcement is a "direct response to the concerns of the public."

Powell dismissed accusations that the FCC's actions are unevenly enforced, shock jock Howard Stern, whose show has been fined more than any other, has accused the FCC and the Republican administration of pursuing a vendetta. On his Web site he accuses the commission of going after him, but ignoring Oprah Winfrey, who received an award for her achievements in broadcasting on Monday.

"I don't agree with that," he told reporters after his Q&A. "The commission has said nothing about Oprah Winfrey. There are people complaining about it, but we'll see."

While Powell defended the commission's even-handedness, commission aides admitted that Oprah is probably untouchable. It's more difficult to fine a beloved figure like her, than to go after lightning rod like Stern.

During his session Powell said he had "a lot of respect for Howard Stern," but he told reporters later that Stern's contention that commission actions against him were politically motivated was bunk.

"If it's motivated by party politics, then both parties are guilty," he said. "There's been more push from the Democratic side than the Republican side, although they've pushed it too."

Democratic FCC commissioner Michael Copps has been the leading champion on the indecency front for years. If the Bono decision was intended to clarify the indecency regulations, it didn't help. While the commission's top mass media advisors at first told conventioneers that the "fuck" ruling was radioactive, they backed off when asked for specifics.

"They shouldn't be saying the F-word. They should be taking precautions. If it's a slip-up, I'm not sure that means it isn't a violation," said Catherine Bohigian, legal adviser to Commissioner Kevin Martin. "Do you really need to say the F-word before 10 o' clock?"

But when asked if airing "Schindler's List," "Saving Private Ryan," an interview with mobster John Gotti or the airing of a French documentary that followed New York City firefighters during 9/11, where the word "fuck" was used extensively, would merit a fine, they wavered.

"The answer is, we don't know. These are case specific," said Jon Cody, a legal adviser to Powell. "I just think in this climate you need to make some decisions."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1000491792

Astrocloud · 05-13-2004, 01:18 PM

Kerry’s Secret Weapon?

Hundreds of thousands of swing-state radio listeners may turn the unlikely Howard Stern into a presidential kingmaker

by Ross Douthat

.....

Though much has been made of the recent debut of Al Franken as a liberal talk-radio host, the most important political voice on talk radio this year may turn out to be not Franken but the usually apolitical "shock jock" Howard Stern.

Recent months have not been kind to Stern, who found himself a target of the backlash against indecency that followed the baring of Janet Jackson's nipple during the Super Bowl halftime show. In February the radio behemoth Clear Channel Communications dropped him from six of its affiliates for being "vulgar, offensive and insulting." The following month the FCC slapped him with a $27,500 fine for his on-air discussions of sexual techniques such as the "nasty Sanchez" and the "blumpkin" (don't ask). As Congress considers raising obscenity fines as high as $500,000, Stern is contemplating a move to satellite radio, where the FCC couldn't touch him.

The proudly boorish host has cast himself as the target of a Republican vendetta—sparked by his criticism of President Bush and spearheaded by Clear Channel (whose CEO is a Bush family friend). So Stern is fighting back, proclaiming "radio jihad" on Bush's re-election campaign and partly remaking his show—well known for its adolescent obsession with fart jokes, lesbians, and strippers—into a platform for anti-Republican invective. "Remember me in November when you're in the voting booth," Stern tells listeners. "I'm asking you to do me one favor. Vote against Bush. That's it."

The idea of Howard Stern as presidential kingmaker may seem absurd on its face. But Stern has successfully dabbled in politics before. In 1994 he launched a Libertarian Party candidacy for governor of New York, only to quit the race and endorse George Pataki, a Republican, over the incumbent, Mario Cuomo. Stern was polling at six percent before he dropped out, and several political observers believed that his endorsement helped Pataki pull off a narrow win. The previous year Stern had endorsed the Republican candidate Christine Todd Whitman for governor of New Jersey, on the condition that Whitman name a rest stop after him if elected. Sure enough, Whitman upset the Democratic incumbent, Jim Florio—and today the Howard Stern Rest Area graces Interstate 290 just east of Burlington City, New Jersey.

Both those races took place within Stern's home market. But with eight million weekly listeners, Stern also has a larger national audience than any radio host other than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Dr. Laura Schlessinger (the majority of whose listeners presumably tend to be Republican). Stern could sway many undecided voters, according to Michael Harrison, of Talkers magazine, a nonpartisan periodical that surveys radio listener demographics.

Harrison says that Stern has "a gigantic audience of thirty- to fortysomethings, people who have grown up with him, people who are teachers, accountants, lawyers." Several million of them "would say they lean conservative ... but are on the fence" in this race. And the host has tremendous credibility with his listeners. "He may be raunchy, edgy, dirty," Harrison says, "but he's compulsively honest, and his main target is hypocrisy." Also, it's not hard to imagine that Stern's relentless screeds against the President would compel some of the previously nonvoting members of his audience—people whom political campaigns usually ignore—to turn out for John Kerry.

In a closely divided country it may not take many votes to tilt the electoral playing field. Ohio, for instance, went for Bush by fewer than 200,000 votes in 2000, and is up for grabs this fall. Stern's broadcasts in Cincinnati and Columbus reach a total of 138,000 listeners a week, according to Arbitron, an independent firm that tracks radio audiences. Missouri and Pennsylvania are also swing states; his show reaches 139,000 in St. Louis and 358,000 in Philadelphia.

In Florida, the fiercest battleground in 2000, the Clear Channel purge cost Stern audiences in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando—which is fodder for Bush-Clear Channel conspiracy theorists. But even now Stern's show reaches 38,000 people a week in Fort Myers—seventy times Bush's Florida margin in 2000. In short, it's not inconceivable that Stern could swing a state or two into Kerry's column.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/06/douthat.htm

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 04:38 AM

The problem with the theory that Stern will really influence this election is that I suspect a good portion of his listeners don't even vote. The ones who are voters most likely will not take political advice from him and the ones who will do him the favor of voting against Bush will likely be in states like New York and California where Bush probably won't win anyway.

Stern is out for ratings and this "poor me the FCC doesn't like me" is what got him ratings to begin with. Now that his ratings are falling, he's pulling that trick out of his bag again. I suspect it has/will help his ratings but it won't influence the election.

Astrocloud · 05-14-2004, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2

Stern is out for ratings and this "poor me the FCC doesn't like me" is what got him ratings to begin with. Now that his ratings are falling, he's pulling that trick out of his bag again. I suspect it has/will help his ratings but it won't influence the election.

Interesting, so what you are saying is that Stern really isn't being censored at all and that it's all just a ratings ploy.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Interesting, so what you are saying is that Stern really isn't being censored at all and that it's all just a ratings ploy.

Obviously he's not being censored as he can still say whatever he wants.

I'm saying that I'm sure he feels "unfairly persecuted" but am also sure that he's using the situation to improve his ratings.

Astrocloud · 05-14-2004, 05:35 AM

It's called selective enforcement. If someone is Pro-Bush or just politically neutral -then the FCC does nothing. Even if the words used are in clear violation. That's why they won't go after the documentary where 9/11 firefighters say "fuck" and that's why Oprah will not be fined.

However when someone who is critical of the Bush regime goes into the "grey area" -then the book is thrown at them.

However, it seems politically unfathomable now -because Stern has been such a critic of the FCC. If they silence him now it will seem like they did it just to shut him up.

Cynthetiq · 05-14-2004, 05:44 AM

selective enforcement and/or selective censorship.

Those people who live in the FL state no longer can hear his opinions, thus he has effectively been censored from a Floridians point of view.

also, his base that are voters, did make a difference in two NorthEastern elections for NY Gov. Pataki, and for NJ Gov. Christie Todd Whitman.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
selective enforcement and/or selective censorship.

Those people who live in the FL state no longer can hear his opinions, thus he has effectively been censored from a Floridians point of view.

also, his base that are voters, did make a difference in two NorthEastern elections for NY Gov. Pataki, and for NJ Gov. Christie Todd Whitman.

Just because the people he endorsed won doesn't mean it was his endorsement that affected the outcome. Both of the candidates you name had pretty extensive support without Stern's endorsement.

There's nothing stopping another station from picking up Stern so it's not censorship. He is still free to say whatever he wants and he does so. There are countless ways he could get his show back on the air in the areas where he is no longer heard whether he chooses to do so or not is not the fault of the government or Clearchannel.

03-24-2004, 01:17 PM	#43 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	You can scream I'm blaming T.V. all you want but you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. Go back and read it again. It's called common decency. Maybe you feel like it's ok for children of any age to have easy access to porn based tripe and perverted lewd acts but I happen to not. You're a mod .....why do you people censor negativity ? Because it's not benefitial to the society as a whole. It's the same principle. Only with public access, 5 year olds who are easily impressed or manipluated can view it. I find that more disturbing than the F.C.C. trying to tone the negative unbenefitial crap down or restrict some content for young children. Adult entertainment should be for adults. It's about Goddamned time they did something in my opinion. I'm done with this thread. Last edited by Surfer; 03-24-2004 at 01:27 PM..

03-24-2004, 01:30 PM	#45 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	right and porn, lewd acts and stupid shock antics for public access so that all ages can view or listen to isn't directed at anyone wanting standards for unmonitored public viewing to try and help our children through examples of good behavior and positive reinforcement on how to succeed is just stupid christian morals like thou shall not kill it has nothing to do with common decency or common morals let's show the young kiddies that it's cool,funny and hip to be a drug addicted thug or a star by using juvenile perverted cheap shock antics lets just blame the parents and allow lewd perverted behavior to be easily accessed and viewed by children regardless of age the hell with the kiddies if their parents can't follow them around every minute of their lives it's just stupid christian morals yep I'm done Last edited by Surfer; 03-24-2004 at 02:00 PM..

03-25-2004, 05:08 AM	#47 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	How many rating points do you think Stern's show will go up in the next book because of this dramatized fight against the FCC? Maybe we should start a pool. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

04-04-2004, 11:59 AM	#49 (permalink)
onodrim Cosmically Curious Location: Chicago, IL	When I first heard about the Howard Stern / Opera debate, I was all for Opera being fined to support Stern's point. But as I read this article, it only makes it all too clear that censorship has gotten way out of hand, and soon the only thing we'll be allowed to watch is children's shows. Yes, there should be some limitations on whats allowed on TV, but human beings are perfectly capable of deciding what is or is not appropriate for themselves and their family, without the FCC telling them so. __________________ "The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides" -Carl Sagan

04-04-2004, 01:59 PM	#50 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Exactly. The whole point of wanting Oprah to be fined is that (theoretically at least) there would be a bit of a public outcry of your typical Oprah watcher who recognizes that she should not be banned. However, if the FCC is also going to be targeting soap operas, it seems to me that maybe they really could care less about whatever kind of public outcry there might be. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-24-2004, 01:15 PM	#42 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	I don't feel repressed by rules or standards that restrict profanity and lewd conduct on unmonitored public T.V. / radio. Thats my stance and I'm sticking to it.

04-04-2004, 02:02 PM	#51 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Onodrim please remember that the "censoring" stuff only applies to broadcast TV and radio. Anything that is subscriber based has different rules. Thus Comedy Central can get away with saying Shit on South Park, XM can have Playboy Radio. So the tenents of Stern vs. Oprah is that it has to be even across the board for broadcasters. Cable channels and pay radio do not apply. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-20-2004, 07:30 PM	#56 (permalink)
tangledweb slightly impaired Location: Down South	Directly from the FCC.gov website: Summary The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC answers to congress. The president can appoint commissioners (if their existing 5 year terms are up) but only 3 can be from the same party. The president can and does push his own agendas on lots of things, but implying that he has total control over FCC witch hunts is just stretching it a bit for me. Thinking that either party would change what is going on and risk their election chances stretches it a bit further. YMMV

05-13-2004, 01:18 PM	#58 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Kerry’s Secret Weapon? Hundreds of thousands of swing-state radio listeners may turn the unlikely Howard Stern into a presidential kingmaker by Ross Douthat ..... Though much has been made of the recent debut of Al Franken as a liberal talk-radio host, the most important political voice on talk radio this year may turn out to be not Franken but the usually apolitical "shock jock" Howard Stern. Recent months have not been kind to Stern, who found himself a target of the backlash against indecency that followed the baring of Janet Jackson's nipple during the Super Bowl halftime show. In February the radio behemoth Clear Channel Communications dropped him from six of its affiliates for being "vulgar, offensive and insulting." The following month the FCC slapped him with a $27,500 fine for his on-air discussions of sexual techniques such as the "nasty Sanchez" and the "blumpkin" (don't ask). As Congress considers raising obscenity fines as high as $500,000, Stern is contemplating a move to satellite radio, where the FCC couldn't touch him. The proudly boorish host has cast himself as the target of a Republican vendetta—sparked by his criticism of President Bush and spearheaded by Clear Channel (whose CEO is a Bush family friend). So Stern is fighting back, proclaiming "radio jihad" on Bush's re-election campaign and partly remaking his show—well known for its adolescent obsession with fart jokes, lesbians, and strippers—into a platform for anti-Republican invective. "Remember me in November when you're in the voting booth," Stern tells listeners. "I'm asking you to do me one favor. Vote against Bush. That's it." The idea of Howard Stern as presidential kingmaker may seem absurd on its face. But Stern has successfully dabbled in politics before. In 1994 he launched a Libertarian Party candidacy for governor of New York, only to quit the race and endorse George Pataki, a Republican, over the incumbent, Mario Cuomo. Stern was polling at six percent before he dropped out, and several political observers believed that his endorsement helped Pataki pull off a narrow win. The previous year Stern had endorsed the Republican candidate Christine Todd Whitman for governor of New Jersey, on the condition that Whitman name a rest stop after him if elected. Sure enough, Whitman upset the Democratic incumbent, Jim Florio—and today the Howard Stern Rest Area graces Interstate 290 just east of Burlington City, New Jersey. Both those races took place within Stern's home market. But with eight million weekly listeners, Stern also has a larger national audience than any radio host other than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Dr. Laura Schlessinger (the majority of whose listeners presumably tend to be Republican). Stern could sway many undecided voters, according to Michael Harrison, of Talkers magazine, a nonpartisan periodical that surveys radio listener demographics. Harrison says that Stern has "a gigantic audience of thirty- to fortysomethings, people who have grown up with him, people who are teachers, accountants, lawyers." Several million of them "would say they lean conservative ... but are on the fence" in this race. And the host has tremendous credibility with his listeners. "He may be raunchy, edgy, dirty," Harrison says, "but he's compulsively honest, and his main target is hypocrisy." Also, it's not hard to imagine that Stern's relentless screeds against the President would compel some of the previously nonvoting members of his audience—people whom political campaigns usually ignore—to turn out for John Kerry. In a closely divided country it may not take many votes to tilt the electoral playing field. Ohio, for instance, went for Bush by fewer than 200,000 votes in 2000, and is up for grabs this fall. Stern's broadcasts in Cincinnati and Columbus reach a total of 138,000 listeners a week, according to Arbitron, an independent firm that tracks radio audiences. Missouri and Pennsylvania are also swing states; his show reaches 139,000 in St. Louis and 358,000 in Philadelphia. In Florida, the fiercest battleground in 2000, the Clear Channel purge cost Stern audiences in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando—which is fodder for Bush-Clear Channel conspiracy theorists. But even now Stern's show reaches 38,000 people a week in Fort Myers—seventy times Bush's Florida margin in 2000. In short, it's not inconceivable that Stern could swing a state or two into Kerry's column. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/06/douthat.htm

05-14-2004, 04:38 AM	#59 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	The problem with the theory that Stern will really influence this election is that I suspect a good portion of his listeners don't even vote. The ones who are voters most likely will not take political advice from him and the ones who will do him the favor of voting against Bush will likely be in states like New York and California where Bush probably won't win anyway. Stern is out for ratings and this "poor me the FCC doesn't like me" is what got him ratings to begin with. Now that his ratings are falling, he's pulling that trick out of his bag again. I suspect it has/will help his ratings but it won't influence the election. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

05-14-2004, 05:35 AM	#62 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	It's called selective enforcement. If someone is Pro-Bush or just politically neutral -then the FCC does nothing. Even if the words used are in clear violation. That's why they won't go after the documentary where 9/11 firefighters say "fuck" and that's why Oprah will not be fined. However when someone who is critical of the Bush regime goes into the "grey area" -then the book is thrown at them. However, it seems politically unfathomable now -because Stern has been such a critic of the FCC. If they silence him now it will seem like they did it just to shut him up.

05-14-2004, 05:44 AM	#63 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	selective enforcement and/or selective censorship. Those people who live in the FL state no longer can hear his opinions, thus he has effectively been censored from a Floridians point of view. also, his base that are voters, did make a difference in two NorthEastern elections for NY Gov. Pataki, and for NJ Gov. Christie Todd Whitman. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!