Indecency, the FCC, and Howard Stern

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by mesquite tiger, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. mesquite tiger

    mesquite tiger Diabolical Genius

    Sep 16, 2003
    Likes Received:
    ok, not sure if Stern is played in New Orleans or Baton Rouge, but he is in many markets accross the nation. Since the Janet Jackson incident, he has come under intense scrutiny from the FCC, and last night was fined for content in a show from 2001.

    This morning on his show he was playing a clip from the Oprah show in which she and her guess were discussing "salad tossing" in detail. this was taped from the tv, so it aired nationally without being censored. HIs point was that if he is fined for discussing farts and breasts, why is Oprah not being fined for discussing "salad tossing"? He tried to play the clip in its entirety, but it was censored on air and cut.

    Many may not agree with Stern, but this FCC gastapo will affect EVERYTHING you/we listen to in the future if it is not curtailed. If you have any opinions or ideas on this, please chime in.

    You have the right to listen to what you want or watch what you want, and if you find it offensive, change the channel. Do not let the government dictate what is right or wrong for YOU/WE to watch or listen to.
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Oct 20, 2003
    Likes Received:
    seems to me like the industry self regulates well without government intervention. so many people were pissed at janet jackson's tit that sponsors and cbs are taking care of it without government help. media is not going to keep showing people what they do not want to see, because they get pissed and the sponsors get scared off. even if no fcc existed, i am sure there would be no more boobs at the superbowl, because of public and sponsor pressure. as long as people are easily offended wimps, they will make their voices heard and keep things in check.

    that being said, i also dont worry about the fcc gestapo regulating everything, because they are to some extent reflecting what people want, and also there are far too many forms of media for them to regulate what i hear/see now. if janet jackson wants to show me her tit, she will be able to find a way.
  3. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Oct 11, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Why is it that everytime something like this happens in America that we over react?

    I was one of the people that were pissed by the Janet Jackson incident, sports need
    to stay rated G so that Mesquite's children and My children can sit down and watch the superbowl without the fear of something like this happening.

    I like to watch sports "Live" because if you don't watch it "Live" you lose a little bit of
    the "edge" and realism.

    The way they sould've fixed this was fined the pi$$ out of Janet Jackson, Justin, CBS and Viacom.
    There is no reason why they can't have halftime shows only on a 10 second delay since they have to play commercials at the end of the half and before the beginning of the second half.
    Going after Howard Stern is just a rediculous over reaction, I don't listen to him but people should be able to listen to him or change the channel if they want.

    "Who decides what gets sensored on tv or radio"
    I think we all agree that some commercials now days are worse than anything you ever
    see on tv shows or radio so we still have a double standard.
    example: Coors and maxi pad commercials to start with....

    How many of us have been eating sometime when these commercials come on...
  4. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Sep 26, 2002
    Likes Received:
    My only question would be, why now? Simply because of the Janet Jackson incident, the FCC is going to start doing their job? Howard Stern has been at this for 20 years. If they wanted to put a leash on Howard Stern, they should have done so a looooonnnnnggggg time ago. Now it's too late; the genie is out of the bottle and Stern and Stern listeners have long been convinced that they can say anything they want on air and nobody cares or can do anything about it. Which is not true, of course, the airwaves are considered owned by the public and there are decency standards they have to follow in the public interest. But the FCC has been negligent in it's job for 20 years, and during this time, we have seen the horrible erosion of morality and decency during the "family hour" on network television, wacko reality tv, and lewd stunts by celebrities in a race to the bottom to see who can get raunchiest for ratings. To me, this is tantamount to trying to close the barn door long after the cows have gotten out.

    Another point I'd make; since Howard Stern has been on air with this schtick for 20 years, I'd be willing to bet that prospective listeners have had plenty of time to listen to him and judge whether or not they like him and his material. While Stern has incredible ratings (he's #1 in many markets) he appeals to a very limited demographic, some might even say a niche. Frankly, I would question the parenting fitness of any mother or father who would let a child under the age of 14 listen to Howard Stern. But that's just me. And like Mesquite said, usually he is on one station per market, and if you don't like him, you can change the channel.

    I'm all for the FCC enforcing the letter of the law and using it's big stick to force mass media to cater to the family again, but if they are going to do this, they had better start being consistent. Either we do this all the way, or it's just not worth the effort. Pulling Howard Stern off the air in six markets, quite frankly, won't make that big a difference in the culture war. But the FCC deploying it's attack dogs against the Big Four (Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS) and using a carrot-and-stick approach to encourage family-friendly programming and getting smut off the tube would be a more constructive approach. I think Stern is being unfairly singled out because he is an easy target. When Fox gets reigned in over "STD Island 3," then I'll sit up and take notice.

Share This Page