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

SecretMethod70 · 03-21-2004, 02:28 AM

Alright, so we all dislike censorship. Howard Stern ATTEMPTED to point out a certain hypocrisy, but was foiled. So, I'm asking you - the free-thinking TFP citizen - to complain to the FCC to help prove a point

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/21346.htm

Quote:

STERN: OPRAH TALKS DIRTIER

March 20, 2004 -- Howard Stern accused Oprah Winfrey of being a fellow potty-mouth yesterday, saying the afternoon TV queen has aired the same kind of kinky sexual material for which he was being pilloried.
"If they fine me for this, then they got to fine Oprah - the darling of the world," Stern told listeners after trying to play a shocking excerpt of an Oprah show on teen sex.

"And if they fine Oprah, all hell is gonna break loose."

The shock jock pleaded on the air with his station's general manager to let him play a tape of Winfrey and her guests discussing an erotic activity known as "tossing the salad."

"This is Oprah Winfrey at 4 in the afternoon saying this - Oprah graphically discusses it," Stern told his K-Rock boss, Tom Chiusano.

On Thursday's Winfrey show, a writer for her magazine O explained in meticulous detail what she described as popular sexual pastimes for America's teenagers, including oral and anal sex practices.

The writer, Michelle Burford, also described in detail a variety of other slang sex terms.

"Don't bleep it," Stern pleaded with his producer. "This is what's going to expose the hypocrisy. This is our Battle of the Bulge."

"If they fine me, they have to fine her," he added. "Can you imagine the headline 'Oprah Winfrey fined for indecency?' "

Chiusano put Stern's rant on hold for 10 minutes and sought counsel from Infinity Broadcasting lawyers after Stern threatened to call Mel Karmazin, president of Infinity-parent Viacom.

The lawyers turned down his request, and Stern's wary producers kept the sexual references off the air.

"Under the standards as they now exist, our answer is, do we believe that that's indecent? No, we don't," Chiusano said. "Do we believe that they [the FCC] believe it is? Yes."

A spokeswoman for the FCC's Enforcement Bureau told The Post she hadn't seen any complaints about Oprah's show. Typically, the FCC doesn't act or comment on controversial broadcasts until a complaint is received.

FCC guidelines also weigh in factors such as context and material that "appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock."

A Winfrey spokesperson said her show was on production hiatus and that Oprah was unavailable for comment.

So, let's start complaining to the FCC about Oprah's indecency. They say they respond to complaints primarily so let's see. And if you saw this episode and have any more info to add, please fill us in so our complaints can be filled with as much fact as possible

analog · 03-21-2004, 02:35 AM

Here is the link to the website that has the official transcript from the show... Oprah tosses the salad

Please help by letting your voice be heard.

This is a ridiculous inconsistency in policy, regardless of "intention". These are not doctors, these are just 2 people talking about DIRTY things at 4pm in the afternoon.

Also, a WAV FILE excerpt from the show...

Here is what is necessary to make a complaint to the FCC, from their website...

Quote:

In making indecency determinations, context is key! The FCC staff must analyze what was actually said during the broadcast, the meaning of what was said, and the context in which it was stated. Accordingly, the FCC asks complainants to provide the following information:

*

Information regarding the details of what was actually said (or depicted) during the allegedly indecent or obscene broadcast. There is flexibility on how a complainant may provide this information. A complainant may submit a significant excerpt of the program describing what was actually said (or depicted) or a full or partial tape or transcript of the material.

In whatever form the complainant decides to provide the information, it must be sufficiently detailed so the FCC can determine the words and language actually used during the broadcast and the context of those words or language. Subject matter alone is not a determining factor of whether material is obscene or indecent. For example, stating only that the broadcast station "discussed sex" or had a "disgusting discussion of sex" during a program is not sufficient. The use of specific, isolated words does not itself determine whether material is indecent. For example, listing only isolated words spoken by a radio announcer without more detail is not enough information for the FCC’s staff to initiate an investigation. Also, general descriptions without a detailed explanation of what was actually stated (or depicted) are generally not sufficient.

*

The date and time of the broadcast. Under federal law, if the FCC assesses a monetary forfeiture against a broadcast station for violation of a rule, it must specify the date the violation occurred. Accordingly, it is important that complainants provide the date the material in question was broadcast. A broadcaster’s right to air indecent speech is protected between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Consequently, the FCC must know the time of day that the material was broadcast.

*

The call sign of the station involved. The FCC’s obscenity/indecency enforcement program is directed at individual broadcast station licensees and not individual radio announcers, the music industry, or specific music performers. Accordingly, the FCC’s staff must know the call sign of the station that aired the material. It is not enough, for example, to name the radio announcer who made the on-air statement.

Of necessity, any documentation you provide to the FCC about your complaint becomes part of the FCC’s records and may not be returned.

Complaints containing this information should be directed to:

Federal Communications Commission
Enforcement Bureau
Investigations and Hearings Division
445 12th St., SW, Room 3-B443
Washington, DC 20554

The telephone number, if you'd rather call it in, is toll-free, 1.888.225.5322

For those who want to mail it in, here is the complete transcript of the conversation...

Quote:

WINFREY: Yeah. So you say--let's talk about that secret language, Michelle.

Ms. BURFORD: Yes.

WINFREY: I didn't know any of this.

Ms. BURFORD: I have--yeah, I have--I've gotten a whole new vocabulary, let me tell you.

WINFREY: I did not know any of this. Does this--does this mean I am no longer hip?

REED: ...(Unintelligible).

Ms. BURFORD: Salad-tossing. I'm thinking cucumbers, lettuce, tomatoes. OK? I am definitely not hip.

WINFREY: OK--so--OK, so what is a salad toss?

Ms. BURFORD: OK, a tossed salad is--get ready; hold on to your underwear for this one--oral anal sex. So oral sex to the anus is what tossed salad is. Hi, Mom. OK. A rainbow party is an oral sex party. It's a gathering where oral sex is performed. And a--rainbow comes from--all of the girls put on lipstick and each one puts her mouth around the penis of the gentleman or gentlemen who are there to receive favors and makes a mark in a different place on the penis, hence, the term rainbow. So...

WINFREY: OK. And so what does pre--so what does pretty boy mean? A pretty boy.

Ms. BURFORD: Pretty boy is a sexually active boy, someone who's been fairly promiscuous. So it isn't maybe what you would have thought pretty boy meant in your time.

WINFREY: And dirty means what? Does dirty mean...

Ms. BURFORD: Dirty mean a diseased--means a diseased girl. And along with that the term that some teens are using to mean HIV is High Five, `high' and then the Roman numeral `V.' High Five. So if you got High-Fived by Jack, you got diseased by Jack. You got--you got HIV.

WINFREY: It means he gave you HIV.

Ms. BURFORD: He gave you HIV. Yeah.

WINFREY: So that means you shouldn't...

REED: Really?

WINFREY: ...go around saying to little kids anymore--I was talking to a little boy and I went `Give me high five.'

Ms. BURFORD: Yeah.

WINFREY: You shouldn't--you shouldn't do that anymore. Right.

Ms. BURFORD: And if suddenly your kids want to make salad all the time, you should be wondering. OK.

WINFREY: Yeah. OK. And boo--booty call is pretty common, right?

Ms. BURFORD: Yeah, that's--yeah, that's pretty pervasive. Yeah, that's an early morning or late-at-night call for sex that involves no real relationship. Maybe 2 AM, guy calls girl, and says, `Meet me at so and so location, we have sex, we leave, booty call. You all got that, right?

WINFREY: Y'all knew that one, right? OK.

Ms. BURFORD: And then there's the term hoovering, which is a term used for a girl having an abortion, the--the--yes, you get--you get the reference, the sucking of a Hoover vacuum. She's having herself vacuumed out, so to speak. So these were just a few of the terms that I, you know, heard teens referring to. I got a whole new vocabulary book. You know...

REED: So did I.

Ms. BURFORD: Really.

WINFREY: So what happened when they would say she got hoovered to you?

Ms. BURFORD: She got...

WINFREY: Well, if somebody--if you're talking to somebody in the beginning before you got so hip here...

Ms. BURFORD: Right. Yeah. Before I got hip.

WINFREY: ...yeah, what would you--what would you--if somebody said she got hoovered, you would just say, `What do you mean by that?'

Ms. BURFORD: I said--yeah, `What do you mean? What do you mean? What does hoovering mean?' And she'd tell me.

WINFREY: Are rainbow parties pretty common?

Ms. BURFORD: I think so. At least among the 50 girls that I talked to, this was--this was pervasive.

WINFREY: Yeah.

Ms. BURFORD: Yeah.

WINFREY: And--and what are the guys saying about all this?

Ms. BURFORD: Well, I didn't talk to guys, but certainly in the experiences that I've had in talking to the boys, they don't see sex--and this should be no surprise to any of us--in the same way that girls see it. They don't see it as a way to feel closer or to have the kind of intimacy that maybe a girl is looking for. They see it as a way to earn stripes or be cool with the other guys.

WINFREY: Yeah.

Ms. BURFORD: And let me tell you something. Girls are doing more giving than they are getting. They are giving the boys the oral sex. Absolutely. Some of the boys aren't even asking them for it and they are offering it.

Copyright 2003 HARPO PRODUCTIONS INC www.oprah.com
OCTOBER 02, 2003

Make sure you note the date of air in any correspondence.

Let's all take a stand for equal application of law!!

Holo · 03-21-2004, 06:57 AM

Sorry but I'm not gonna "rat" on Oprah to help Howard. You're using the same law to get someone you (I assume) don't like in trouble and morally vindicate someone you do. It would behoove us to try to get the law changed altogether rather than find other more popular ppl to point the finger at and get in trouble.

I for one kinda like the idea of Oprah being dirty...in fact it's more interesting than Howard being dirty since I expect it from him. Oprah does something that actually makes her (semi) interesting and we're gonna rake her over the coals for it to save some shock jock? If you win, all that is accomplished is Oprah watches her mouth a tiny bit more, Howard is still fined, and the law is still in place. In a way this hurts the cause by disallowing an influential person like Oprah to use this language and therefore having content like this become more mainstream. Oprah can achieve legitimacy of things currently deemed indecent or obscene more so than Howard, who is just someone we laugh at.

Demon Deacon · 03-21-2004, 07:32 AM

It seems to me that the only people complaining are the ones who believe that cursing like a sailor should be allowed publicly for people of all ages to hear.

No thanks.

I applaud the F.C.C.

onetime2 · 03-21-2004, 08:57 AM

The two shows differ substantially. The transcript provided seems to point to a more informative show from Oprah while Stern's is always from a titillation standpoint.

IMO, context plays a critical role in any determination of "indecency".

It's ironic how much Stern hates the FCC since it was their opposition to him which cemented his reputation as a "shock jock". It wouldn't surprise me in the least if his latest rantings against them are simply his way of boosting sagging ratings. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he has recently lost his number 1 ranking in his home viewing area to a Spanish language station.

Astrocloud · 03-21-2004, 09:26 AM

Sure I'll file a complaint against that No-Good-Nick Oprah Winfrey. It's quite clear from the context of her show that she was presenting sexually explicit material in an effort to boost ratings.

At 4:00 in the afternoon a child or a teenager could tune in. This is clearly worse than Janet's breast. A child might have seen their mother's breast before. It is highly unlikely that a child would have been exposed to Oral Anal stimulation before seeing it on Oprah Winfrey.

Please think of the Children

HeLLVieW96 · 03-21-2004, 10:14 AM

there are also a few online petitions going around to stop the FCC, also voting against Bush in the election will stop this unessary censoring, its horrible, i cant believe this is happing, our sychotic, govt that is over reacting to a superbowl halftime boob shot. let the parents do their jobs and take care of their kids themselves. its a long shot, but its their responsibilty.

World's King · 03-21-2004, 10:46 AM

I really hate to say this but I don't wanna help Howard Stern in any way. He should be off the air anyway. Not because he talks about sex or has naked girls in his studio but because he isn't funny. He's a retard looking for more fame.

Oprah can say and do whatever the fuck she wants.

Astrocloud · 03-21-2004, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Original King
I really hate to say this but I don't wanna help Howard Stern in any way. He should be off the air anyway. Not because he talks about sex or has naked girls in his studio but because he isn't funny. He's a retard looking for more fame.

Oprah can say and do whatever the fuck she wants.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but to my understanding of what you are saying is that because YOU don't find Howard Stern funny -that he should be taken off the air. Similarly because you have no opinion about Oprah that she shouldn't be taken off the air.

So basically, whatever you personally don't like -should be forcibly removed from public consumption?

arch13 · 03-21-2004, 12:05 PM

Howard always wants a reaction.
When I saw him making fun of retards on his show, that was the last straw for me.
Howard stren has not a single redeemable charcteristic about him that makes him usefull or interesting to have on the air. The FCC can keep fining away until NBC pulls the plug for good and he becomes a piriah.

Oprah is obnoxious in my opinion, but I can't deny that the transcript reads in such a way that seems to be attempting to educate the viewer in adolescent sexuality.
Educate is a word that Sterns show is not familiar with.

Sorry, but I can't help Stern here. I do however believe the laws need to be changed to better reflect our society (preferably without idiots like Stern, Savage, or Coutier allowed anywhere near a microphone)

H12 · 03-21-2004, 12:47 PM

I believe Oprah had good intentions, but the content was not appropriate, especially for the time-slot her show has. I'm not a big fan of Stern, but I'll back him up in this; Oprah shouldn't be able to get away with that on her time-slot, good intentions or not.

SecretMethod70 · 03-21-2004, 01:30 PM

Let it be clear that I could care less about Howard Stern and, while I don't care about Oprah either, I'm more indifferent to her than anything else.

Here's the thing though....Howard Stern wanted to play this clip from the Oprah show on his show, because he knew the FCC was watching him. He was stopped because all the higher-ups that he works for thought - and probably rightfully so - that he would have been fined for airing the clip from the Oprah show. His point was if they fine him, they have to fine her too.

The idea of getting Oprah fined is not to do something bad to her or anything like that, but to point out a certain hypocrisy in the FCC. Were Oprah's intentions educational - sure. Was it appropriate for a 4PM time slot so kids could learn how to do all these things? No.

Fact is, as much as Oprah would love to scare you into believing, I'm positive that these things are not as prevalent in adolescent culture. The person she was speaking to spoke to *50* kids. Hardly a large sample group. As someone who has many adolescent cousins that I speak to, I know for a fact that if I were to ask them what a rainbow party was they would have no idea. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it seems to me Oprah fails to account for the fact it's likely a regional phenomenon.

So, Oprah educates kids - whom there is nothing to say shouldn't be watching the Oprah show - all about how to throw sexually gratifying parties, about oral anal sex - which many probably had never even thought about, about new slang for HIV - as if adolescents all over were getting HIV as if it were the next pokemon, and so forth. And, for all of this potential exposure to kids, nothing from the FCC. When Howard Stern wants to air the clip from her show - on a show which it is understood, and I'm sure mentioned (although I don't listen to it so I'm not positive) that it is made for adults and that kids shouldn't be listening, he's stopped because it's almost certain the FCC would fine him. Thus, the hypocrisy.

So, it doesn't really matter if you like Oprah or not, or even if you think what was on her show was fine. The point is, the FCC is targeting people they don't like and looking over people they do. That is wrong.

analog · 03-21-2004, 01:43 PM

I also don't give a shit about Howard. I don't think I've ever listened to his show for more than 2 minutes without turning it off.

It's about equal application of law. If they're going to fine one person for one thing, they should do the same to another.

It was at 4pm in the afternoon. Fuck context- these are dirty words, and dirty descriptions, at 4pm.

With this logic, you'll tell me an expose on strip clubs, including nudity, would be ok for 4pm, because it's "informational", or showing a breast exam because it's "a clinical discussion".

This was not clinical, and not appropriate for 4pm in any event, regardless of what Howard says or does. They're just afraid of fining Oprah.

World's King · 03-21-2004, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
So basically, whatever you personally don't like -should be forcibly removed from public consumption?

I'm glad you understand.

hawkeye · 03-21-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by analog
I also don't give a shit about Howard. I don't think I've ever listened to his show for more than 2 minutes without turning it off.

It's about equal application of law. If they're going to fine one person for one thing, they should do the same to another.

It was at 4pm in the afternoon. Fuck context- these are dirty words, and dirty descriptions, at 4pm.

With this logic, you'll tell me an expose on strip clubs, including nudity, would be ok for 4pm, because it's "informational", or showing a breast exam because it's "a clinical discussion".

This was not clinical, and not appropriate for 4pm in any event, regardless of what Howard says or does. They're just afraid of fining Oprah.

I was going to say this, but, I'll just let you reread analog's post. kudos dude, you're dead on.

sixate · 03-21-2004, 04:24 PM

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.

ladyadmin · 03-21-2004, 04:55 PM

I'm for free speech and I don't think it's right what they are doing to Stern. If I don't like something he says I turn off the radio. Is that so difficult? It makes no sense that people complain about him so much if it's so fucking easy to just turn off the show and ignore him.

I believe that the Oprah Show is attempting to inform and educate todays society/teens/adults. On most occasions there will be a notice before any talk show that warns of explicit material and advises parental supervision. I'm not sure if this was done before this particular show? A warning or a particular time slot to speak of those topics would seem more rational then trying to get her in trouble or censor her like Stern. That's how I feel.

SecretMethod70 · 03-21-2004, 07:30 PM

I completely agree. However, right now I think most people look at it and see the FCC censoring Stern and think nothing of it. Stern is an easy target for the FCC because not many people will complain about him being censored. But if the FCC were to be consistant and then censored and fined Oprah, people would realize just how far-reaching and ludicrous the FCC is being. Without something to slap people around and wake them up to the rediculousness that is the FCC, no one will fight for a change.

MSD · 03-21-2004, 07:50 PM

I don't like Stern, but I support him because he's always targeted by everyone for having the balls to not sugarcoat everything. IF your delicate ears can't handle it, turn it off, don't tell me what I can and can't hear

onetime2 · 03-22-2004, 06:45 AM

Stern is a victim of his own success. He is targeted by the FCC because he has a long history of "offensive" stunts. Other shock jocks haven't yet been taken note of by the FCC and once they are they will also be fined.

I agree that the person talking on the Oprah show is probably full of it. I don't think the things she talked about are prevalent. But I also don't think the tone of Oprah's show was one of approval and encouragement.

Bill O'Rights · 03-22-2004, 07:44 AM

WOW!!!...WTF...I'm almost dead on in agreement with sixate.

Except for the listening to Stern part. I don't listen to him. I think he's an ass. However, if he leaves the airwaves, I want it to be because he can't get sponsers due to the fact that no one listens to him, not because someone in the government says so.

I am capable of deciding for myself what's in my own best intrests, not some bureaucrat.

ShaniFaye · 03-22-2004, 08:00 AM

My two cents.....While I dont care of either Stern or Winfrey, they should both have to adhere to the same rules.....

We have an ongoing battle here with the Regular Guys morning show on our atlanta rock station.....they are under suspension right now because of something that happened on the air friday.....

I read crap about NASCAR telling the drivers that they can no longer be free to say what they want on their radio communication between them and their crew chiefs, when those are not FCC regulated airwaves.

This is all getting ridiculous....

cait987 · 03-22-2004, 10:35 AM

Honestly, I really dont care about Howard Stern/Oprah, what I hate the most is the fact that in general the censorship is so out of control.

Literarly, any cuss word said no matter what time it is is censored because it violates someones ears or something. For example: I was watching the Matrix a few weeks ago on TNT and it was like 11 PM I beleive so all the kiddlies should be in bed, yet they still censor words like hell -> heck and shit -> shucks? I mean sure if your on the morning show when kids should be watching language may need to be censored but after 9 PM I beleive that the censors are just dumb.

(personal opinion)

FaderMonkey · 03-22-2004, 10:47 AM

I definitely agree that Stern and Winfrey should have to adhere to the same rules, but I can't bring myself to complaining about Oprah's show. Yeah, if Stern is going to be fined for that, so should Oprah, but as with what is done on Stern's show, I don't have a problem with what was said on Oprah's show. If I can complain to the FCC about not treating them the same, then I will do that.

illesturban · 03-22-2004, 10:53 AM

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.

YES!
One down, countless millions to go! hehehe

Demon Deacon · 03-22-2004, 12:25 PM

It's disgusting the way everyone claims you could just turn it off but they fail to remember how curious they were while growing up at a young age. They seem to forget peer pressure.
Natural curiosity and examples of how different people live and what they get away with are enticing.

There are enough bad examples of people succeeding through drugs,perversion, rock n roll,crime etc.
One only has to look at the glorification and idolization of ghetto thugs and drug abusers on M.T.V. for a good example.
Do you want your child to idolize Old Dirty Bastard or Marilyn Manson as a role model ?

It's time to start regulating what can be easily accessed by children.
Unless you all just don't care what the children of todays society are exposed to,if so, then why don't we also lower the age discrimination limits on tobacco ?

SO, the kiddies can smoke after viewing porn.

BoomTruck · 03-22-2004, 12:40 PM

Id reply to that with something having to do with parents actually *gasp* parenting, but one has to realize that a large percentage of said parents were raised by a TV.

sixate · 03-22-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Demon Deacon
It's disgusting the way everyone claims you could just turn it off but they fail to remember how curious they were while growing up at a young age. They seem to forget peer pressure.
Natural curiosity and examples of how different people live and what they get away with are enticing.

There are enough bad examples of people succeeding through drugs,perversion, rock n roll,crime etc.
One only has to look at the glorification and idolization of ghetto thugs and drug abusers on M.T.V. for a good example.
Do you want your child to idolize Old Dirty Bastard or Marilyn Manson as a role model ?

It's time to start regulating what can be easily accessed by children.
Unless you all just don't care what the children of todays society are exposed to,if so, then why don't we also lower the age discrimination limits on tobacco ?

SO, the kiddies can smoke after viewing porn.

Dude, I watched anything you can think of as a child. My parents let me, and I've never done drugs, been in arrested, or been in any other kind of trouble. There's something out there called the real world, and kids need to experience it. If parents just try to hide things from them it only makes it worse. And god forbid that parents teach their kids something. You know, the difference between right and wrong. All Stern does is make people laugh. Such an atrocity, isn't it?

If kids are mindless sheep it's because their parents are worthless, and spend no time with them. Oh, and uhm, aren't kids at school during the fucking Stern show anyway? Yeah, I thought so.

kutulu · 03-22-2004, 12:55 PM

People do use the "parenting" excuse, I do too, but the fact is that no matter how good of a parent you are you can't watch your kid 24-7. You shouldn't even if you could because then you just seem too controlling.

This is bullshit for Oprah to get away with something that Howard can't. I guess I'll complain to the FCC, even though its something that I really don't agree with. The law is the law. I may not agree with it, but they need one standard. Not one for Howard and one for Oprah.

This "context" bullshit pisses me off also. Whether or not the focus is to educate as opposed to titilate, it's the same content. Kind of like how on TV you can call someone a dick or tell someone to "suck it" but you can't say "suck my dick." It's splitting hairs.

For some reason though it brings me great pleasure to hear that they talked about tossing the salad on Oprah. That's some funny shit.

onetime2 · 03-22-2004, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
There's something out there called the real world, and kids need to experience it.

And they should experience the "real world" through tv and radio?

That's kind of funny.

Not trying to be critical or anything, but I laughed a bit when I read this post.

sixate · 03-22-2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kutulu
People do use the "parenting" excuse, I do too, but the fact is that no matter how good of a parent you are you can't watch your kid 24-7. You shouldn't even if you could because then you just seem too controlling.

I sorta agree, but the fact is many parents don't spend any time with their kids or teach them the difference between right and wrong. You mean to tell me that doesn't make a difference? And if you do teach them, you don't need to watch the 24-7. I never had a curfew when I was growing up. Trust was always important with my mom, and she made sure me and my sister knew it. I look at my friends and see how much trouble they have with their kids, and it's their own fucking fault. They put nothing into it. It's pathetic.

sixate · 03-22-2004, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
And they should experience the "real world" through tv and radio? That's kind of funny.

Not trying to be critical or anything, but I laughed a bit when I read this post.

All I meant is there's many things out there to see and hear, and if you hide it from kids it only makes it worse. Laugh all you want. I could give a fuck less.

onetime2 · 03-22-2004, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
All I meant is there's many things out there to see and hear, and if you hide it from kids it only makes it worse. Laugh all you want. I could give a fuck less.

Not laughing at you but laughing at the unintended irony of the statement that they are experiencing the real world through tv and radio.

Nevermind.

forecheck · 03-22-2004, 01:06 PM

sixate, you turned out ok. Except for the fact that you have to swear to make your point.

sixate · 03-22-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Not laughing at you but laughing at the unintended irony of the statement that they are experiencing the real world through tv and radio.

Nevermind.

Are you trying to say that the radio is a figment of my imagination? Media is very real.

onetime2 · 03-22-2004, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
Are you trying to say that the radio is a figment of my imagination? Media is very real.

It may be. Have you ever really seen radio waves? And isn't it kind of weird that you can suddenly think of a song, maybe even start singing it, then when you reach over and turn on the radio that song is playing and right at the point where you're singing? Coincidence or conspiracy?

FaderMonkey · 03-22-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
Dude, I watched anything you can think of as a child. My parents let me, and I've never done drugs, been in arrested, or been in any other kind of trouble. There's something out there called the real world, and kids need to experience it. If parents just try to hide things from them it only makes it worse. And god forbid that parents teach their kids something. You know, the difference between right and wrong. All Stern does is make people laugh. Such an atrocity, isn't it?

If kids are mindless sheep it's because their parents are worthless, and spend no time with them. Oh, and uhm, aren't kids at school during the fucking Stern show anyway? Yeah, I thought so.

I completely agree. I was also able to watch pretty much anything I wanted when I grew up and I think I've turned out fine. That's probably because even though I was watching so much shit, my parents brought me up in a way that I knew it was shit. I watched a ton of violent films and I've never been a violent person at all. No, a parent can't always be there to turn the radio or TV off, but still just being a parent works.

Surfer · 03-22-2004, 09:02 PM

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 ?

Surfer · 03-24-2004, 12:01 PM

ok

I'll answer my own question.
Yes, of course there is a relation. The root of the problem may be the lack of parental guidance but the end results are the same.
There is a reason for such a dramatic increase in crime by teens.
The reasons are obvious.
It's a lack of guidance and good discipline.
If you allow children public access to view and listen to programs without guidelines, restrictions or rules based on common decency/ principles then you are not setting a proper example of what's acceptable in society.

Chaos,lawlessness and people allowed to act in any lewd way they want for public viewing isn't acceptable behavior or a positive influence for kids. These actions should not be condoned. If you allow this to happen on public access for children of any age to view, you are condoning their actions. In other words you approve of it and it's considered normal or acceptable behavior by small children.

I could go on but really it's quite ridiculous.
I understand the importance of free speech and lack of censorship.
This can still be done politely with respect. You don't need having lewd acts on public T.V. or radio that can't be monitored for age.
Surely, you would think that the moderators here would understand this since they are so prone to remove and censor anything negative.

Most of the people complaining about this are total scumbags making a living off of acting like a derelict.

2kids1headache · 03-24-2004, 12:41 PM

We won't be free until the FCC stops trying to limit "indecent" broadcasting.

That's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.

03-21-2004, 06:57 AM	#3 (permalink)
Holo A Real American	Sorry but I'm not gonna "rat" on Oprah to help Howard. You're using the same law to get someone you (I assume) don't like in trouble and morally vindicate someone you do. It would behoove us to try to get the law changed altogether rather than find other more popular ppl to point the finger at and get in trouble. I for one kinda like the idea of Oprah being dirty...in fact it's more interesting than Howard being dirty since I expect it from him. Oprah does something that actually makes her (semi) interesting and we're gonna rake her over the coals for it to save some shock jock? If you win, all that is accomplished is Oprah watches her mouth a tiny bit more, Howard is still fined, and the law is still in place. In a way this hurts the cause by disallowing an influential person like Oprah to use this language and therefore having content like this become more mainstream. Oprah can achieve legitimacy of things currently deemed indecent or obscene more so than Howard, who is just someone we laugh at. __________________ I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

03-21-2004, 08:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	The two shows differ substantially. The transcript provided seems to point to a more informative show from Oprah while Stern's is always from a titillation standpoint. IMO, context plays a critical role in any determination of "indecency". It's ironic how much Stern hates the FCC since it was their opposition to him which cemented his reputation as a "shock jock". It wouldn't surprise me in the least if his latest rantings against them are simply his way of boosting sagging ratings. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he has recently lost his number 1 ranking in his home viewing area to a Spanish language station. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant. Last edited by onetime2; 03-21-2004 at 09:01 AM..

03-21-2004, 10:46 AM	#8 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	I really hate to say this but I don't wanna help Howard Stern in any way. He should be off the air anyway. Not because he talks about sex or has naked girls in his studio but because he isn't funny. He's a retard looking for more fame. Oprah can say and do whatever the fuck she wants. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

03-21-2004, 12:05 PM	#10 (permalink)
arch13 Loves my girl in thongs Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada	Howard always wants a reaction. When I saw him making fun of retards on his show, that was the last straw for me. Howard stren has not a single redeemable charcteristic about him that makes him usefull or interesting to have on the air. The FCC can keep fining away until NBC pulls the plug for good and he becomes a piriah. Oprah is obnoxious in my opinion, but I can't deny that the transcript reads in such a way that seems to be attempting to educate the viewer in adolescent sexuality. Educate is a word that Sterns show is not familiar with. Sorry, but I can't help Stern here. I do however believe the laws need to be changed to better reflect our society (preferably without idiots like Stern, Savage, or Coutier allowed anywhere near a microphone) __________________ Seen on an employer evaluation: "The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead" ____________________________ Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11. -Nanofever

03-21-2004, 12:47 PM	#11 (permalink)
H12 I'm not about getting creamed, I'm about winning! Location: K-Town, TN	I believe Oprah had good intentions, but the content was not appropriate, especially for the time-slot her show has. I'm not a big fan of Stern, but I'll back him up in this; Oprah shouldn't be able to get away with that on her time-slot, good intentions or not. __________________ "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle

03-21-2004, 07:32 AM	#4 (permalink)
Demon Deacon Loser	It seems to me that the only people complaining are the ones who believe that cursing like a sailor should be allowed publicly for people of all ages to hear. No thanks. I applaud the F.C.C.

03-21-2004, 09:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Sure I'll file a complaint against that No-Good-Nick Oprah Winfrey. It's quite clear from the context of her show that she was presenting sexually explicit material in an effort to boost ratings. At 4:00 in the afternoon a child or a teenager could tune in. This is clearly worse than Janet's breast. A child might have seen their mother's breast before. It is highly unlikely that a child would have been exposed to Oral Anal stimulation before seeing it on Oprah Winfrey. Please think of the Children

03-21-2004, 10:14 AM	#7 (permalink)
HeLLVieW96 Tilted Location: TucsoN , ARizonA	there are also a few online petitions going around to stop the FCC, also voting against Bush in the election will stop this unessary censoring, its horrible, i cant believe this is happing, our sychotic, govt that is over reacting to a superbowl halftime boob shot. let the parents do their jobs and take care of their kids themselves. its a long shot, but its their responsibilty.

03-21-2004, 01:30 PM	#12 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Let it be clear that I could care less about Howard Stern and, while I don't care about Oprah either, I'm more indifferent to her than anything else. Here's the thing though....Howard Stern wanted to play this clip from the Oprah show on his show, because he knew the FCC was watching him. He was stopped because all the higher-ups that he works for thought - and probably rightfully so - that he would have been fined for airing the clip from the Oprah show. His point was if they fine him, they have to fine her too. The idea of getting Oprah fined is not to do something bad to her or anything like that, but to point out a certain hypocrisy in the FCC. Were Oprah's intentions educational - sure. Was it appropriate for a 4PM time slot so kids could learn how to do all these things? No. Fact is, as much as Oprah would love to scare you into believing, I'm positive that these things are not as prevalent in adolescent culture. The person she was speaking to spoke to 50 kids. Hardly a large sample group. As someone who has many adolescent cousins that I speak to, I know for a fact that if I were to ask them what a rainbow party was they would have no idea. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it seems to me Oprah fails to account for the fact it's likely a regional phenomenon. So, Oprah educates kids - whom there is nothing to say shouldn't be watching the Oprah show - all about how to throw sexually gratifying parties, about oral anal sex - which many probably had never even thought about, about new slang for HIV - as if adolescents all over were getting HIV as if it were the next pokemon, and so forth. And, for all of this potential exposure to kids, nothing from the FCC. When Howard Stern wants to air the clip from her show - on a show which it is understood, and I'm sure mentioned (although I don't listen to it so I'm not positive) that it is made for adults and that kids shouldn't be listening, he's stopped because it's almost certain the FCC would fine him. Thus, the hypocrisy. So, it doesn't really matter if you like Oprah or not, or even if you think what was on her show was fine. The point is, the FCC is targeting people they don't like and looking over people they do. That is wrong. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-21-2004, 01:43 PM	#13 (permalink)
analog Banned	I also don't give a shit about Howard. I don't think I've ever listened to his show for more than 2 minutes without turning it off. It's about equal application of law. If they're going to fine one person for one thing, they should do the same to another. It was at 4pm in the afternoon. Fuck context- these are dirty words, and dirty descriptions, at 4pm. With this logic, you'll tell me an expose on strip clubs, including nudity, would be ok for 4pm, because it's "informational", or showing a breast exam because it's "a clinical discussion". This was not clinical, and not appropriate for 4pm in any event, regardless of what Howard says or does. They're just afraid of fining Oprah.

03-21-2004, 04:24 PM	#16 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	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.

03-21-2004, 04:55 PM	#17 (permalink)
ladyadmin Insane	I'm for free speech and I don't think it's right what they are doing to Stern. If I don't like something he says I turn off the radio. Is that so difficult? It makes no sense that people complain about him so much if it's so fucking easy to just turn off the show and ignore him. I believe that the Oprah Show is attempting to inform and educate todays society/teens/adults. On most occasions there will be a notice before any talk show that warns of explicit material and advises parental supervision. I'm not sure if this was done before this particular show? A warning or a particular time slot to speak of those topics would seem more rational then trying to get her in trouble or censor her like Stern. That's how I feel. __________________ The Programmers' Cheer Shift to the left, shift to the right! Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

03-21-2004, 07:30 PM	#18 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I completely agree. However, right now I think most people look at it and see the FCC censoring Stern and think nothing of it. Stern is an easy target for the FCC because not many people will complain about him being censored. But if the FCC were to be consistant and then censored and fined Oprah, people would realize just how far-reaching and ludicrous the FCC is being. Without something to slap people around and wake them up to the rediculousness that is the FCC, no one will fight for a change. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-21-2004, 07:50 PM	#19 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I don't like Stern, but I support him because he's always targeted by everyone for having the balls to not sugarcoat everything. IF your delicate ears can't handle it, turn it off, don't tell me what I can and can't hear

03-22-2004, 06:45 AM	#20 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Stern is a victim of his own success. He is targeted by the FCC because he has a long history of "offensive" stunts. Other shock jocks haven't yet been taken note of by the FCC and once they are they will also be fined. I agree that the person talking on the Oprah show is probably full of it. I don't think the things she talked about are prevalent. But I also don't think the tone of Oprah's show was one of approval and encouragement. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

03-22-2004, 07:44 AM	#21 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	WOW!!!...WTF...I'm almost dead on in agreement with sixate. Except for the listening to Stern part. I don't listen to him. I think he's an ass. However, if he leaves the airwaves, I want it to be because he can't get sponsers due to the fact that no one listens to him, not because someone in the government says so. I am capable of deciding for myself what's in my own best intrests, not some bureaucrat. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

03-22-2004, 08:00 AM	#22 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	My two cents.....While I dont care of either Stern or Winfrey, they should both have to adhere to the same rules..... We have an ongoing battle here with the Regular Guys morning show on our atlanta rock station.....they are under suspension right now because of something that happened on the air friday..... I read crap about NASCAR telling the drivers that they can no longer be free to say what they want on their radio communication between them and their crew chiefs, when those are not FCC regulated airwaves. This is all getting ridiculous.... __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-22-2004, 10:35 AM	#23 (permalink)
cait987 Insane	Honestly, I really dont care about Howard Stern/Oprah, what I hate the most is the fact that in general the censorship is so out of control. Literarly, any cuss word said no matter what time it is is censored because it violates someones ears or something. For example: I was watching the Matrix a few weeks ago on TNT and it was like 11 PM I beleive so all the kiddlies should be in bed, yet they still censor words like hell -> heck and shit -> shucks? I mean sure if your on the morning show when kids should be watching language may need to be censored but after 9 PM I beleive that the censors are just dumb. (personal opinion)

03-22-2004, 10:47 AM	#24 (permalink)
FaderMonkey Psycho Location: Orlando, FL	I definitely agree that Stern and Winfrey should have to adhere to the same rules, but I can't bring myself to complaining about Oprah's show. Yeah, if Stern is going to be fined for that, so should Oprah, but as with what is done on Stern's show, I don't have a problem with what was said on Oprah's show. If I can complain to the FCC about not treating them the same, then I will do that.

03-22-2004, 12:25 PM	#26 (permalink)
Demon Deacon Loser	It's disgusting the way everyone claims you could just turn it off but they fail to remember how curious they were while growing up at a young age. They seem to forget peer pressure. Natural curiosity and examples of how different people live and what they get away with are enticing. There are enough bad examples of people succeeding through drugs,perversion, rock n roll,crime etc. One only has to look at the glorification and idolization of ghetto thugs and drug abusers on M.T.V. for a good example. Do you want your child to idolize Old Dirty Bastard or Marilyn Manson as a role model ? It's time to start regulating what can be easily accessed by children. Unless you all just don't care what the children of todays society are exposed to,if so, then why don't we also lower the age discrimination limits on tobacco ? SO, the kiddies can smoke after viewing porn. Last edited by Demon Deacon; 03-22-2004 at 12:33 PM..

03-22-2004, 12:40 PM	#27 (permalink)
BoomTruck Insane Location: On a gravel road rough enought to knock fillings out of teeth.	Id reply to that with something having to do with parents actually gasp parenting, but one has to realize that a large percentage of said parents were raised by a TV. __________________ Judge me all you want, but keep the verdict to yourself.

03-22-2004, 12:55 PM	#29 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	People do use the "parenting" excuse, I do too, but the fact is that no matter how good of a parent you are you can't watch your kid 24-7. You shouldn't even if you could because then you just seem too controlling. This is bullshit for Oprah to get away with something that Howard can't. I guess I'll complain to the FCC, even though its something that I really don't agree with. The law is the law. I may not agree with it, but they need one standard. Not one for Howard and one for Oprah. This "context" bullshit pisses me off also. Whether or not the focus is to educate as opposed to titilate, it's the same content. Kind of like how on TV you can call someone a dick or tell someone to "suck it" but you can't say "suck my dick." It's splitting hairs. For some reason though it brings me great pleasure to hear that they talked about tossing the salad on Oprah. That's some funny shit.

03-22-2004, 01:06 PM	#34 (permalink)
forecheck Upright	sixate, you turned out ok. Except for the fact that you have to swear to make your point.

03-22-2004, 09:02 PM	#38 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	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 ?

03-24-2004, 12:01 PM	#39 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	ok I'll answer my own question. Yes, of course there is a relation. The root of the problem may be the lack of parental guidance but the end results are the same. There is a reason for such a dramatic increase in crime by teens. The reasons are obvious. It's a lack of guidance and good discipline. If you allow children public access to view and listen to programs without guidelines, restrictions or rules based on common decency/ principles then you are not setting a proper example of what's acceptable in society. Chaos,lawlessness and people allowed to act in any lewd way they want for public viewing isn't acceptable behavior or a positive influence for kids. These actions should not be condoned. If you allow this to happen on public access for children of any age to view, you are condoning their actions. In other words you approve of it and it's considered normal or acceptable behavior by small children. I could go on but really it's quite ridiculous. I understand the importance of free speech and lack of censorship. This can still be done politely with respect. You don't need having lewd acts on public T.V. or radio that can't be monitored for age. Surely, you would think that the moderators here would understand this since they are so prone to remove and censor anything negative. Most of the people complaining about this are total scumbags making a living off of acting like a derelict. Last edited by Surfer; 03-24-2004 at 12:04 PM..

03-24-2004, 12:41 PM	#40 (permalink)
2kids1headache Loser	We won't be free until the FCC stops trying to limit "indecent" broadcasting. That's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.