FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » McCarthy style abuse of first amendment protection or a business decision?

   
Author Topic: McCarthy style abuse of first amendment protection or a business decision?
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
Is this an infringement on Howard's freedom of speech, or is it a business decision unrelated to first amendment principals?

Howard Stern:
quote:
It is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the US
vs.

FCC:
quote:
Today's decision is a step forward towards imposing meaningful fines


[ April 09, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]

Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Clear Channel only did it because they knew the FCC was going to start handing out much heavier fines. So, I'm not sure if you could call it a business decision.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
Are the FCC fines appropriate? How much control should the government have on mediums of communication?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
I actually already had a thread on the FCC a few weeks back. My position is that the only reason for the FCC/state to monkey around in media is to function as a kind of traffic cop--make sure lanes remain free and people don't broadcast over one another.

Edit: So, my answer is no, the fines are not appropriate.

[ April 09, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
then again, why is this either/or? The FCC is set up to regulate transimissions and it has rules in place. Why does someone have the right ot violate them at will? why is it wrong for the FCC to punish someone who has agreed to it's rules?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
Why has Clear Channel been fined, but Stern's parent company, Infinity is only being looked into?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, the only reasons people agree to it is under duress, and you know what they say about contracts under duress.... [Smile]
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
zgator, that's a good question.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, I might be willing to go so far as to allow the government to force channels to rate themselves so that consumers could make educated decisions when choosing what stations to listen to.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
Let's face it, Stern had made a career of flouncing over the line when it came to what had long been established as allowable for free-reception radio. He'd revelled in it and had even made a big to do over any fines he received as a way to get more and more publicity.

And then, his rating started to slip. He wasn't able to get a real foothold in the South when they tried to bring him there and couldn't compete with other morning shows in that lucrative time slot. On the West Coast, he was regularly murdered in the ratings war.

In short, why should Clear Channel keep broadcasting him if: a) he regularly positioned himself for major fines (which were on the broadcasters more than himself); b) his ratings weren't too shiny and didn't look like they were getting better and c) it was costing more and more to pay for the services of himself and his entourage.

Bah, ask any radio on-air personality who takes pride in their work and they'll tell you Stern did more to destroy the professionalism in their work than anything in the last 70 years except for television.

Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
While I personally cannot stand Stern's show, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of his effect on radio. It seems like a *lot* of people attempted to immitate his show. I think it also says something that a radio personality had enough of a following to convince other people to make a movie about him and to create a tv show around his radio show.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
<picky aside>
One of the stations affected was in Orlando, not Cocoa Beach.

The show that replaced Stern was the station's midday show (it's a talk radio station). They were never on the level of Stern, but they have cleaned up their show considerably. A lot of their parody songs have disappeared for being too controversial. I don't think girls are coming in and getting naked anymore to win prizes.

Why exactly is a girl getting naked in a radio station supposed to entertain me?

Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
It was very much a matter of his breaking a new trail and having so many folks follow in his footsteps. Imitators, poseurs, whatever. And then as his ratings spiked, more and more followed and it started shifting things in the front offices of radio stations around the country.

Shock jocks were suddenly big money and the program directors and owners realized it. Out with the old, in with the new. A lot of long-time broadcasters were out on their keisters and all of a sudden, folks with radio broadcasting degrees start coming on who had been more influenced by their frat parties than the ideals that had been preached in broadcasting school.

Somewhere, along the way, radio got trivialized, both in the minds of the broadcasters and the listening public.

Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
(to zgator)Well, this goes back to it not being a business decision. The fact is, is that apparently a lot of people do find that entertaining and that doing so gave Stern and his immitators good ratings.

[ April 09, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ak
Member
Member # 90

 - posted      Profile for ak   Email ak         Edit/Delete Post 
The airwaves are a limited commodity. The FCC decides who to hand them out to, and there are always more people wanting to broadcast things than there is bandwidth to broadcast them in. Therefore some people will be turned away.

We have this little branch of the government that has rules set up that tell it how to mete out this scarce commodity, and the society as a whole decided we wanted to base the decision at least partly on merit.

Because we are a free society, and because we believe in freedom of speech, we don't tend to be quick to censor garbage. After all, one person's Big Mac is another one's cordon bleu. But when many concerns are competing for the same limited resources, it makes sense to have some discrimination based on quality.

I listened to him once or twice and I think his show is ugly and stupid. No problem, I just turned the dial. But I'm glad if people get fed up with that stuff and think they want something better on the air. I support that. I wouldn't mind if they started fining Jerry Springer too. It is sort of a shame that a free society means pandering to people's very lowest impulses, isn't it? When does it cross the line from healthy good free enterprise to being a drug pusher?

I really don't agree with trying to dictate pop culture. Freedom results in more diversity, and in more good stuff as well as "Who Wants to Sell their Body to Cannibals?" American pop culture is our most beloved export, worldwide.

But recognize that there will be competing forces in play. Making the most money will be competing with people's desire to make a really good product, to have pride in their work, and to be uplifted. And sometimes people's tastes will just be higher. The pendulum will swing back.

Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
I think Rush Limbaugh did far more to revitalize talk radio then Howard Stern.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
I think they both had a very powerful effect in different ways. [Smile]
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why has Clear Channel been fined, but Stern's parent company, Infinity is only being looked into?
Because it is the broadcaster, not the producer of the show that is liable for what is broadcast - this is in line with the scarce airwave theory described above. As far as why Infinity-owned stations aren't fined yet, I suppose no one complained about them. Each station needs to receive a particular complaint to be fined, I believe.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag, my question was about the Infinity-owned stations, not Infinity as the producer. I thought the FCC monitored shows and came up with fines and didn't wait for complaints, but I could be wrong.

I know Clear Channel took Stern off the air after the show in question, but I'm not sure whether they did it immediately or after they heard through the grapevine that fines were being discussed.

Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
As I said above, Clear Channel stations were the subject of specific complaints. It appears to be a new policy to go after other stations that did not receive complaints.

Clear Channel Fined $495,000, Dumps Stern

quote:
The FCC also announced that it has instructed its enforcement bureau to open an investigation of Infinity Broadcasting Corp. for the same show. Infinity broadcasts Stern on 35 stations, including local station WJFK (106.7 FM). This marks the first time the commission will investigate a broadcasting chain for a complaint that was originally made against another network's station.

"Today's decision is a step forward towards imposing meaningful fines," Commissioner Michael J. Copps said in a statement, which cited the new enforcement. "In addition, the Commission makes clear that its indecency enforcement will address not only the station that is the subject of the complaint, but also any other station that aired the same programming."


Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Blame Janet Jackson.

Or President Bush.

Janet flashes the Superbowl TV Audience, and people put pressure on the FCC to be more powerful.

The FCC gets new rules, bigger fines, more press.

But Janet isn't flashing anyone else.

And the administration needs to keep the TV's friendly so they get friendly coverage. Sicking the FCC on CBS doesn't seem to be a wise thing to do.

Yet there is this guy on Radio who is liberal, anti-Bush, anti-Christian, and has a dirty mouth.

That is where the FCC goes.

Now, if the remove Howard Stern from the airwaves, I don't see that as a major loss. However, if we let them do this too easilly, they may decide we don't care. Next may be Al Franken, then anyone who runs an Al-Jezeera feed.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder how long it will be before the state reads books to make sure they are family friendly, non-pornographic and wholesome and starts fining publishing companies to make sure they toe the effing morality line?

God, am I the only one that got the heebie jeebies from Dag's link?

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
just_me
Member
Member # 3302

 - posted      Profile for just_me           Edit/Delete Post 
Why are TV and radio exempt from freedom of speech? The Constitution protects my rights to go into the middle of a public park and shout the f-word, but if I do that on TV I get fined?? Huh?

It's a different story if a specific station/network decides they don't want that type of language (etc) and refuses to air programs because of it, but we have the FCC who gets to decide (based on whatever they decide is 'right') what can and can't be shown.

quote:
The airwaves are a limited commodity. The FCC decides who to hand them out to, and there are always more people wanting to broadcast things than there is bandwidth to broadcast them in. Therefore some people will be turned away. /QUOTE]

Yeah, the airwaves are limited, but the FCC makes them even more so. There's a lot more 'space' on the spectrum that the FCC doesn't allow to be used, artificially limiting it even more.

And yeah, some people will be turned away, but a lot of that is based more on the almighty dollar than on content.

[QUOTE]and the society as a whole decided we wanted to base the decision at least partly on merit.

I don't recall having that option. Did we all vote sometime and I missed it?

quote:
But when many concerns are competing for the same limited resources, it makes sense to have some discrimination based on quality.
Yeah, but who gets to decide what's quality and what's not. I mean I personally think Stern's show is trash, but I don't think he should be kicked off the air.

quote:
It is sort of a shame that a free society means pandering to people's very lowest impulses, isn't it?
See, to me it's one of the great things about a free society that everyone (even those with the 'lower' impulses) can be happy.

quote:
When does it cross the line from healthy good free enterprise to being a drug pusher?
That I don't know. But surely some trash talking isn't it.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not particularly fond of it, either. Apparantly, the new bill has bipartisan support.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see a problem with this. Public radio, as far as I'm concerned, should be like basic television. If you want to do shows with edgier stuff, or nudity, or rougher language, you get on a cable network. You can't even say it's a stifling of your expression, not when HBO wins more Emmys than anyone else these days.

The FCC isn't enforcing new laws, they're finally getting around to enforcing the policies they already had. Stern has been pushing the limits of those policies since he began and he delights in what he gets away with. Let him move to satellite radio instead, like Opie and Anthony did.

It could be said that the Cards practice censorship here because they don't permit cursing, attacks on other people, or obnoxious, troll-like behavior. You know what? I like it here. If you really want to see nudity online or go to a forum where everything you say will be immediately gang-trolled, there are any number of places you can do so.
I grant you the example isn't really comparable since this is a privately-run forum and not a public service, but maybe you see what I mean.

[ April 09, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
As an increasingly old lefty-type, I'm kinda bugged by the inappropriate use of "McCarthyism" alluded to in the thread title. McCarthy was even before my time, but I know the issues were very different.

Resorting, as I often do, to the dictionary:

quote:
Main Entry: Mc·Car·thy·ism
Pronunciation: m&-'kär-thE-"i-z&m also -'kär-tE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Joseph R. McCarthy
Date: 1950
: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges

OK - whether you agree with the current efforts to rein in shock jocks or not, this is really not analagous to the 1950s. People were blacklisted as a result of totally unfounded allegations about their political affiliations and personal lives. Lives were ruined.

This is about censorship - when it's OK to do it and in what situations. It's not even a new issue - all the TV networks have censors that review shows for content. It's just one of those things we don't usually pay attention to.

But it's not McCarthyism.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
Just an aside to Dan. Stern is hardly a liberal.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
Your point is well taken and a good reminder.

The McCarthyism in the thread title was derived from the article:
quote:
Howard Stern said the fine was part of a "McCarthy-type witch hunt"
Your point is well taken and a good reminder. These artists are NOT being accused of something they don't freely admit too.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, is anyone really surprised that Stern might be a little loose with his analogies? [Roll Eyes]

Doesn't mean I have to play. [Wink]

And, as I said, it's a separate issue in regard to the limits and appropriateness of censorship. It's an important issue - and those who end up being on the forefront of bringing the issue to a head are usually embarrassing to their defenders. Publishers coming to the defense of Larry Flynt when he was sued, for example.

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Chris,
the FCC is planning on cracking down on cable, too.

In any case,

quote:

Public radio, as far as I'm concerned, should be like basic television.

One of the core arguments amongst many people is what constitutes private vs. public, or whether there even is such a thing. You support giving cable or XM more free expression than so-called public channels. Why? None of the networks, beyond PBS to a pretty small degree, are sucking off of the taxpayer tit. They're all privately funded. If you say it's because kids can see them because they're free on television, this ignores the fact that the price of admission to see these shows is still one television, plus commercials. Cable just makes the viewer actually pay up front.

One of the core questions, as I see it, is who is responsible for policing what the viewer watches--the viewer herself or the state? If the viewer is capable of filtering out what they see so that they only have to see the type of entertainment they want to see--very easy to do with ratings, or just not buying a tv--then what purpose the state censorship?

Is television a 'right' that *must* be made accessible to everyone between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm? I don't think it is. To me, it's clearly a choice.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
Who cares about Howard Stern? He's such a dork. But that's probably because he's a pig, and I don't care whether or not he's on the air. I'm all for some sort of morality police. I don't care what you do, as long as I don't hear or see it.

I'm much more concerned about Antonin Scalia.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/09/scalia.tapes/

Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
"Is television a 'right' that *must* be made accessible to everyone between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm? I don't think it is. To me, it's clearly a choice."

Sure. But I submit to you that relaxing the standards on basic television will quickly result in shows racing to descend to the lowest common denominator as fast as their Neilsons will carry them. When standards get relaxed they get pushed and tested, and when they relax further they get pushed further. I have no interest in seeing basic television become even more of a nonstop sexfest than it already is.

Keep in mind that I support adult programming. For that matter I just spent a few days supporting pornography in the other thread. But I also like having an open area where people who are not comfortable with such programming won't have to close their eyes while they switch channels. It's polite, for one thing.

I'd even support time-related standards, where shows like Stern's got more leeway after 10 p.m. or something.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
"One of the core questions, as I see it, is who is responsible for policing what the viewer watches--the viewer herself or the state?"

Right on Storm!!!

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But when many concerns are competing for the same limited resources, it makes sense to have some discrimination based on quality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but who gets to decide what's quality and what's not.

The viewers get to decide what is quality. If the ratings are high enough for the show to continue, it continues. If they're not, it fails. In Stern's case, enough people listen to his show for it to continue. Thus, it should and without this government censorhip, it would.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
"The viewers get to decide what is quality."

And they do. And while that has indeed resulted in some excellent programming, it's also caused a proliferation of shows like Jerry Springer, "Fear Factor," "Who Wants to Be A Slut in Front of Millions of People" and other shows that provide public humiliation, gratuitous nudity, or explosive violence. Humanity as a group doesn't seem to have a very high quality threshold. And network executives have already shown that they're willing to dump a bright new show if it doesn't perform in the first couple of episodes when they can pump another T&A show into the same time slot.

It seems self-evident to me, and that may be why I'm having a problem articulating it. You could, if you wished, make it a practice to greet each person you see with a hearty "F--- you!" Some would be amused, some would be deeply offended, most would just grimace and avoid you. You can argue that it's your right to express yourself this way, no one has to come near you if they don't want to be offended, and you would be right. But to me it would smack of disrespect and childishness.
Now, if I went to your house and you said it it wouldn't faze me a bit - your house, your rules. I'd even respond. And if you were George Carlin, Robin Williams, or Chris Rock I would even pay to hear you say it in concert.

I don't think it's censorship to maintain an agreed-upon level of civility and dignity on a public level as long as everything else is readily available for those who want it. I think it's just good manners.

[ April 10, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrianM
Member
Member # 5918

 - posted      Profile for BrianM   Email BrianM         Edit/Delete Post 
I thought the company did this voluntarily? [Confused]
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Chris, I am so tired it's ridiculous. I"m not even going to attempt to articulate why I think the assaults that would take place on many people's sensibilities would be preferable for many different reasons to a vaste wasteland of nothing. Let me just remind you that with the v chip, and the use of ratings by the network, it is perfectly possible for families to see only what they want to see on network tv. Does this address your concerns inasmuch as network tv is concerned?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alexa
Member
Member # 6285

 - posted      Profile for Alexa           Edit/Delete Post 
I think we shoudl encourage people like Stern, Springer, and the Swan on public TV. It will give the public an opportunity to get sick of the trashy content and not support the sponsors.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2