Still think it is the "religious right" and Bush picking on Howard Stern?

[Linflas]

From today's Washington Post:

FCC Commissioner's Mission: Cleaning Up Radio, Television

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A19


Michael J. Copps was always certain he was on to something. He just had to wait a little longer for the rest of Washington to catch up with him.



Since becoming one of five commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission nearly three years ago, Copps, 63, has crusaded against the raunchy radio talk and TV imagery known in FCC-speak as "broadcast indecency." Copps has been nudging the agency -- and its deregulatory-minded chairman, Michael K. Powell -- to crack down on radio and TV broadcasters who air the kind of talk that made Howard Stern famous. Broadcasters, he has declared repeatedly, "are in a race to the bottom."

Yet like the sheriffs of the movie westerns he used to enjoy as a kid growing up in Milwaukee in the 1950s, Copps found it was not always easy rounding up a posse. He was rebuffed within his agency when he advocated pursuing more indecency cases, and rebuffed again when he urged the FCC to make it easier for listeners and viewers to file complaints about objectionable material. He got nowhere when he suggested the commission take the draconian step of yanking the broadcast licenses of repeat offenders. And when Copps, along with a second Democratic commissioner, Jonathan S. Adelstein, proposed studying the links, if any, between on-air raunch and Powell's plans to allow big media companies to grow even bigger, they were shot down, 3 to 2, by the FCC's Republican majority.

Then came Breast-gate.

Prompted by outrage over Janet Jackson's revealing performance during the Super Bowl halftime show, the broadcast and political worlds now seem to be reordering themselves to conform to Copps's way of thinking:

? The House earlier this month passed legislation that would increase the fines for indecency from the current maximum of $27,500 to $500,000 and would authorize the FCC to revoke licenses for repeat offenders.

? A Senate committee approved legislation that authorizes the FCC to consider barring violent TV shows while children are watching. The bill would also suspend new media ownership rules while Congress studies the possible links between media size and indecency.

? Radio giant Clear Channel Communications, clearly spooked by the gathering storm, dropped the oft-fined Stern from six of its stations across the country last month. It also fired a shock jock known as Bubba the Love Sponge, who has been previously cited by the FCC.

With an academic's solemn air and a gentleman's spiffy wardrobe, Copps seems satisfied by this turn of events. But he is neither gloating nor satisfied.

"We're all talking the talk now," he said. "Everyone seems to be gung-ho to enforce. But I'm not convinced we're walking the walk until we start designating some of these more egregious cases for license revocation."

He added: "I'm not trying to establish a national nanny here, but we only have to send one case to [license] hearings and the message would go forth to broadcasters all over the U.S. that this is a new era. . . . Right now, [broadcasters] not only don't fear us, they don't respect us, either."

Copps is confident that his approach will clean up broadcasting's Wild West. But it is not really quite as simple as he tells it. It is not clear, for example, that taking away a station's license for indecency would survive a legal challenge on First Amendment grounds. Critics of the rules, which are designed to protect children from exposure to indecent material from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., say they are vague and inconsistently applied and in any case outmoded by vast changes in the media since the underlying law -- the Communications Act of 1934 -- was passed.

What is more, while the Supreme Court blessed the FCC's right to sanction indecent broadcasts in a 1978 opinion involving George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV" routine, no court has reviewed the many ways in which the FCC has applied its indecency test (language that is "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards" that describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs") over the past 26 years.

And broadcasters say the rules are unfair and inadequate because they fail to address programs carried on cable or satellite systems. "There are some things [on the air] that are difficult to defend, but we think those instances are extremely rare and that most people who know anything about TV would acknowledge that those things occur more often on cable and satellite," said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters.

To Copps the indecency issue is not just a question of good public policy; it is personal, too. He is the father of five children and grandfather of two.

"Like a lot of parents," he said, "I've often found myself in a position where I've had to explain what's on, or be embarrassed by it, or try to sing a little tune or whistle a song when something comes on the radio that you don't want to hear."

But you won't find Copps, a former history professor and longtime aide to Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), watching much TV or listening to the radio. His job and family obligations keep him too busy for that, he says, an odd admission for someone charged with determining "contemporary community standards" for the broadcast medium. For relaxation, he says, he tends to read works of history.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a veteran communications lawyer and FCC observer, calls Copps "a real thinker, a true intellectual." Schwartzman also praises Copps's political acumen, saying he "ran circles around Michael Powell" on the media ownership issue by linking it with the indecency issue. In doing so, he says, Copps forged a broad coalition of liberals and moderates opposed to greater media concentration and conservatives upset by growing media indecency.

Says Schwartzman, "He's been the most effective minority commissioner in the 30 years I've been doing this."

Bolding added by me.

FCC Commissioner's Mission: Cleaning Up Radio, Television

 

[CPA]

Also should note that current FCC head Powell is a Clinton appointee.

BTW, this probably belongs in P&N.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Still think it is the "religious right" and Bush picking on Howard Stern?

From what I read on this board... If a Bradford Pear breaks in a windstorm.... It is apparently GWB's influence.

 

[TheGameIs21]

DP... Have no idea how though...

 

[bozack]

This is what I have been saying forever, regulation of talk media is more a move by the liberals/democrats than ever by the conservative republicans....two known Democrats tipper gore and joe liberman have been on the forefront of trying to censure media for the past decade at least....people automatically assume that this was instigated by the religious right but in reality it is a ploy by the radical left to stifle conservative talk radio.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: bozack
This is what I have been saying forever, regulation of talk media is more a move by the liberals/democrats than ever by the conservative republicans....two known Democrats tipper gore and joe liberman have been on the forefront of trying to censure media for the past decade at least....people automatically assume that this was instigated by the religious right but in reality it is a ploy by the radical left to stifle conservative talk radio.

You really need to get your definitions in order. The statement "regulation of talk media is more a move by the liberals" is one of the most misconstrued things I've ever seen. It's like saying "expanding the budget on social programs is more a move by the fiscal conservatives". Liberalism by definition and practice is not about regulated speech, I'm sorry if you thought otherwise. Lieberman is much more a religious right minded individual than a liberal. Just look at his issues and the things he promotes/opposes. Democrats are not always liberals. Just like Republicans are not always conservative. Don't mix up the political parties with specific ideologies- it's not that simple.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: bozack
This is what I have been saying forever, regulation of talk media is more a move by the liberals/democrats than ever by the conservative republicans....two known Democrats tipper gore and joe liberman have been on the forefront of trying to censure media for the past decade at least....people automatically assume that this was instigated by the religious right but in reality it is a ploy by the radical left to stifle conservative talk radio.

You really need to get your definitions in order. The statement "regulation of talk media is more a move by the liberals" is one of the most misconstrued things I've ever seen. It's like saying "expanding the budget on social programs is more a move by the fiscal conservatives". Liberalism by definition and practice is not about regulated speech, I'm sorry if you thought otherwise. Lieberman is much more a religious right minded individual than a liberal. Just look at his issues and the things he promotes/opposes. Democrats are not always liberals. Just like Republicans are not always conservative. Don't mix up the political parties with specific ideologies- it's not that simple.

I would be willing to bet that "liberals" no matter what party affiliation are every bit as offended by Stern's use of ethnic labels, slurs, and stereotypes even though he uses them in a very satirical way as "conservatives" are by his sexual inuendos and antics. Just look at some of the speech codes on college campuses to get an idea of the liberal view of when it is proper to regulate free speech. The point of my post was to simply try and point out that this current climate with the FCC is not so simplistic as to be boiled down to blaming any one political party or ideology. My personal view is that the dividing line is most likely to be between married couples raising children vs married couples without children, teens, and single twenty-somethings. That is not to imply that even in those broad demographics there is anything approaching unity.

 

[PingSpike]

There's a lot of things I'm concerned about in the world today, which political party is trying harder to censor Howard Stern and Janet Jackson's boob is not one of them.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: lozina


You really need to get your definitions in order. The statement "regulation of talk media is more a move by the liberals" is one of the most misconstrued things I've ever seen. It's like saying "expanding the budget on social programs is more a move by the fiscal conservatives". Liberalism by definition and practice is not about regulated speech, I'm sorry if you thought otherwise. Lieberman is much more a religious right minded individual than a liberal. Just look at his issues and the things he promotes/opposes. Democrats are not always liberals. Just like Republicans are not always conservative. Don't mix up the political parties with specific ideologies- it's not that simple.

They do it to themselves so why shouldn't I propegate their own message? Liberman labels himself a democrat, and on many issues I would consider him as such, this is one example where he is more "reserved" but I would be inclined to question your notion that "liberalism" is not about regulated speech as many "liberal democrats" don't see opposed to such regulations wheras conservatives don't really care. I also feel this has little or nothing to do with religion, but rather what is considered crass and vulgar, two words which seem almost synonomous with Howard Stern.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: CPA
Also should note that current FCC head Powell is a Clinton appointee.

BTW, this probably belongs in P&N.

Ah yes, P&N, where any thread infering anything negative about liberalism goes to die. See ya on page 4 in a half hour.

:adios;

 

[Spencer278]

Copps forged a broad coalition of liberals and moderates opposed to greater media concentration and conservatives upset by growing media indecency.

So is the damn evidence against liberals is that they talked to conservatives?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: CPA
Also should note that current FCC head Powell is a Clinton appointee.

BTW, this probably belongs in P&N.

Ah yes, P&N, where any thread infering anything negative about liberalism goes to die. See ya on page 4 in a half hour.

:adios;

Hmmmm, let's see:

3-23-2004 Clear Channel "NeoCon" execs donate more to Bush

Clear Channel, rejecting Howard Stern's claims that he was canned for slamming President Bush, says its radio network does not have a political agenda.

But new political contribution data tell a different story about Clear Channel executives. They have given $42,200 to Bush, vs. $1,750 to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 race.

What's more, the executives and Clear Channel's political action committee gave 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. That's a bigger share than any other entertainment company, says the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: CPA
Also should note that current FCC head Powell is a Clinton appointee.

BTW, this probably belongs in P&N.

Ah yes, P&N, where any thread infering anything negative about liberalism goes to die. See ya on page 4 in a half hour.

:adios;

Hmmmm, let's see:

3-23-2004 Clear Channel "NeoCon" execs donate more to Bush

Clear Channel, rejecting Howard Stern's claims that he was canned for slamming President Bush, says its radio network does not have a political agenda.

But new political contribution data tell a different story about Clear Channel executives. They have given $42,200 to Bush, vs. $1,750 to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 race.

What's more, the executives and Clear Channel's political action committee gave 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. That's a bigger share than any other entertainment company, says the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

How does this relate to the topic?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: CPA
Also should note that current FCC head Powell is a Clinton appointee.

BTW, this probably belongs in P&N.

Ah yes, P&N, where any thread infering anything negative about liberalism goes to die. See ya on page 4 in a half hour.

:adios;

Hmmmm, let's see:

3-23-2004 Clear Channel "NeoCon" execs donate more to Bush

Clear Channel, rejecting Howard Stern's claims that he was canned for slamming President Bush, says its radio network does not have a political agenda.

But new political contribution data tell a different story about Clear Channel executives. They have given $42,200 to Bush, vs. $1,750 to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 race.

What's more, the executives and Clear Channel's political action committee gave 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. That's a bigger share than any other entertainment company, says the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

They also run Randi Rhodes who is a liberal talk show host that I understand to be quite critical Bush and Republicans. So far as I know she is still broadcasting on Clear Channel stations. If you have not heard of her yet you probably will since she has signed on to the new "Air America" liberal talk network starting up at the end of the month. If you really want to understand Clear Channel's decision then just think like a Clear Channel exec for a second and realize that in most markets your stations are getting slammed by Stern on competing Infinity stations. You have an upcoming session in front of a congressional committee that the head of your chief competitor garnered plenty of headlines with his statements of Infinity radios new effort to police themselves. You have the opportunity to make some political points of your own with the congressional committee and strike a symbolic blow against your competitors best known air personality and also get plenty of headlines to boot. I am sure it was an easy decision for Clear Channel to decide they could sacrifice the ratings on 6 stations since from their point of view the potential gain far outweighed the loss.

 

[LordJezo]

I thought Bush appointed Powel..

When did Clinton do it?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: LordJezo
I thought Bush appointed Powel..

When did Clinton do it?

The Clinton appointed him to the FCC in 1997 and Bush appointed him FCC chairman in 2001.

 

[pulse8]

The problem isn't who is picking on who.

The problem is that different people have different views of what is indecent.

How can you have a body of government that can throw out fines for something that happened A YEAR AGO stemming from a complaint in ONE MARKET? Yet they fine every market that the company airs that particular broadcast. Also, why wasn't Infinity broadcasting fined for the same complaint if that's the case? It's just another way for them to fund their "business" trips to Vegas. The FCC just has waaaaay too much power and the broadcasters has no way of defending themselves.

 

[XZeroII]

He got nowhere when he suggested the commission take the draconian step of yanking the broadcast licenses of repeat offenders.

I don't think I have EVER in my life heard someone call punishing repeat offenders draconian. How is taking away their licences draconian? They break the law 10 times about the same thing, their licence should be taken away.