Howard Stern vs. the FCC

"Down with the FCC! They have ruined commercial broadcasting."

Howard Stern certainly knows how to attract a crowd.

Today in Manhattan, Stern distributed 500 free Sirius boom boxes and 20,000 certificates redeemable for free radios and subscriptions. Sirius, for those who don't know, is one of America's top providers of commercial-free satellite radio.

They jumped at the opportunity to nab the rights to a Howard Stern show on their airwaves for a cool five years at $500 million dollars after the self-proclaimed "King of Shock Jocks" became fed up with years of conflict with the Federal Communications Commission over the contents of his consistently racy radio show (he is currently employed by Infinity Broadcasting). His new show on Sirius -- slated to begin in early 2006 -- allows him to say and do whatever he wants. Satellite radio, you see, is free of the FCC restrictions that plague radio stations nationwide.

While satellite radio isn't free, I've heard it's considerably better than traditional broadcast radio, if only because of the lack of commercials and the sheer variety of music and talk radio to choose from. I wasn't aware that DJs had the liberty to do whatever they please, as Stern will have eventually, but it makes me wonder why this newer generation of broadcasting has fewer restrictions. If he can't, for example, hold a competition between two strippers involving bobbing for hot dogs in a toilet (no exaggeration, I've seen it on his E! television show before) on his current gig, how is satellite radio different?

Normally, I wouldn't agree with most of the things that Stern partakes in, but it's a welcome relief that someone is taking a stand against the FCC. What's your opinion on this whole thing?

I say the FCC is an not needed very often at all. Most of the time they don't do much of anything because the networks don't want to get a bad name for themselves. The fines until very recently were really small and not a problem at all. So the stations kept themselves in check.

Just look at cable television. No rules there but they act like there are rules. FCC is for the most part un-needed. I just know there is some situation of why they just might be need so I don't go saying "FCC is totally unneeded".

Like I said before. They don't do much to begin with anyways.

As a general rule I dislike censorship of all kinds beyond self-censorship, so I do believe it commendable that he is willing to stand up to it.

Much of Stern's appeal is being a rebel against what may seem to be bigger powers, but I wonder if some of his edge might be lost once he's free to do as he pleases.

I also agree with Ed.

Take care all.

And you think the FCC won't follow? Sure, they don't have jurisdiction NOW, but give it a few more terms under Republican rule :)

Stern has never appealed to me, however, the FCC is one of the worst monstrosities around. Like it has been stated early, it is not needed, but even if things were out of control, they still have no right to censor anything. I personally don't care if freedom of speech is turning innocent little children into nasty little sluts. I should be able to publicly say anything that I want at anyone and everyones expense (aside from putting people in physical danger. i.e. yelling "fire" in a theatre)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomgaze

And you think the FCC won't follow? Sure, they don't have jurisdiction NOW, but give it a few more terms under Republican rule :)

---

I think that for that, the FCC is fairly independant, because they have their own agendas (more on that below)

Currently, the FCC has authority to regulate what is broadcasted over public airwaves, because it was given the power to do so (by the Congress, I assume). Two points here: it's the public airwaves, which is why cable/sattelite TV/radio has much more room, since it's using other broadcast methods, private; and it's paid for by taxpayers, and as such people chose (long ago) to have a regulatory body enforce what they accepted as good practices.

However, as any body of power, it tends to want more now, and I'll quote an example here: FCC clarifies that they do, in fact, control everything [arstechnica.com]
In my opinion, the FCC would have pulled it just the same had the gov't changed, because it came out from the whole broadcast flag issue, which is actively pushed by big companies, and we all know that money has no smell. :p

We need more regulation and a better FCC, not the opposite. In the last 20 years Republicans have led the way in reducing regulations over broadcast media, and look what we have now. Twenty years ago a company like Clear Channel couldn't buy up two or three radio stations in a single market. As market share regulations have been scaled back to almost nothing, independent radio stations have dwindled. Television programming has foundered in much the same way. In years past, broadcast networks were required to buy a certain percent of their programming from other sources, but now they can produce almost all their content in house. The result is cheap, lousy reality tv, cookie cutter sitcoms, and not much else. When people talk about a golden age of television, they aren't just being nostalgic. Back when the FCC had more regulatory power and used it more wisely, television and radio actually were better.

As for censorship, it's more the threat of censorship if a certain level of decency is not maintained. The goal is not to silence dissent (which is much more easily accomplished now by large media conglomerates who own all methods of mass media and control waht he see and hear) but to have at least one level of filtering before the programs go to the public.

I knew there was a big reason the FCC was needed. Regulate the stations so you wouldn't end up with the state the stuff is in now where one company owns way too much.

Here in Chicago FOX owns 2 stations.

I'm aganist censorship of all kinds. If you don't want your kids, or you for that matter to see or hear something, change the channel or turn the dial.

It's that simple, but no one can parent their kids, or themselves anymore.

Sad.

raise some kids and then get back to us on that.

Page radio = you get what you want. I'm not going to censor the playboy channel because it's pay. So I don't care what satallite radio people do. As for FCC, what exactly do they censor? Howard Stern can't do a lot of stuff because you can't have rated X stuff on cable tv. I don't even think they really show rated R stuff - it's always made-for-tv censored, right?

So basically if you want rated R and over stuff you pay for it. I find nothing wrong with this. What's the big deal bout FCC?

Howard Stern could show porn on Cable if he wanted to. Its not regulated by the FCC because you PAY for cable TV. Its the actual channels performing self censorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

raise some kids and then get back to us on that.

---

I know that for most parents, especially single parents, its very hard to monitor your children all the time. personally I think by a child's teen years, what they see or hear on the tv/radio should be the least of a parent's worries. as for younger children, there are safe guards you can put on your tv, that can block certain content and channels.

imho, the less interaction of the government and our personal lives, the better. the problem in this country is that we make our political decisions based on religion and moral values, other than whats good for the people, the country and our freedom.

would you rather the government decide whats right for kids, and eventually for everyone, in this country to see and hear?

FCC has good intentions just noit the right ones

supporting decency is good for society but not at the cost of freedom of speech. its mindblowing that people in this country are willing lose some of their freedom and their children's freedom to make their live's easier by letting the government decide what you should see or hear. imho the concept of controling what is decent and indecent to protect children is very noble, but the problem is that decency is a very intangible thing. For example, what I might find in decent someone else may find to be decent. It's the difference of opinion that everyone has that makes the whole indecency thing fall apart. Unfortunately, the majority of people in this country would rather follow the Bible when it comes to running the country rather than the Constitution.

There are only two ways to stop what the FCC does on this issue, and that's an Act of Congress or a Supreme Court ruling that quashes the FCC's ability to fine broadcasters. Unfortunately the FCC is in the business of extortion as well. They make it so hard to for someone who fights their decision to do business, that they give up their day in court, and just pay the fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

I knew there was a big reason the FCC was needed. Regulate the stations so you wouldn't end up with the state the stuff is in now where one company owns way too much.

Here in Chicago FOX owns 2 stations.

---

Radio stations? Which two?