Blogcritics: Comments on FCC Fines Raised in Congress

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:21:15 EST

Also, my friend pointed out on my personal site that only 3 fines were issued last year by the FCC. One of which was against WNEW in New York, which subsequently fired Opie and Anthony. So, maybe those FCC fines do accomplish their goals when they are actually used?

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:31:44 EST

I think that if you were to really look into this, you would see that a lot of the people who complain to the FCC are part of the same groups. Usually right-wing Christian and family groups who go on campaigns. They complain and all of a sudden the minority opinion is heard, when the majority opinion stays silent because they had nothing to complain about. It is a flawed system. I remember a couple years ago, Stern talked to a guy who wrote letters to the FCC for 50 cents a pop. He was paid by a group to send letters so that they could help shape and mold the system. I am not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I am pretty wary of a system that works on complaints without any further investigation. How else can you explain that Howard Stern is number one in most of his markets? Haven't the people spoken in that regard too? For every person that is fed up, I might argue that there more who either liked it or didn't care.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:01:25 EST

A large number of Americans were genuinely outraged by Janet, which remind them that they are also genuinely outraged by a number of other things they see and hear in the broadcast media; so, being already aroused, it was easy to extrapolate to the overall state of the broadcast media, which has felt out ofcontrol to a lot of people for some time. It was a classic straw breaking the camel's back, or tipping point incident. The sentiment was already there, it was just bubbling below the surface.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:49:20 EST

it's an election year....making the issue 'easy' to get behind. i expect there aren't a lot of pols who would consider it a losing issue. they're for 'decency', after all.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:41:49 EST

I understand that Eric, but tell me what was so pressing about this political statement? I can't believe this became a priority.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:34:03 EST

C, obviously, this is as much a political "statement" as it is an attempt to improve policy. That always has to be taken into account.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:24:01 EST

Wouldn't the first step toward seriousness involve using the actual fines that you have? Raising the penalty before knowing how the original ones work seems kind of silly to me.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:17:31 EST

the other problem with this is that they're 'serious' about this...but won't come right out and explicitly say what's "indecent". (and yep, the MT link is fixed)

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:15:06 EST

I'm way behind having basically lost yesterday so I'll be brief on this at the moment: the raise in fines simply says they are serious, as David mentions, I don't have a problem with that. I am somewhat concerned about the chill factor - not what is explicityly in the rules, but how the corporations who now control the media will react - like Clear Channel. FM low power is on its way back, I think we'll see positive movement on that one this year. Did we get MT linking problem resolved on this?

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:07:31 EST

public airwaves? only if you're a major corporation with lottsa money backing you up. i'd have more sympathy (jest a smidge) for this argument if they hadn't squished the low power FM thing a while back.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:52:33 EST

"The other thing that I don't often hear discussed is that Stern and others have been breaking the rules for years, and being called on it, but the fines were so low that the networks just paid the fines dutifuly and continued to rake in the advertising bucks. The FCC has been consistently pursuing complaints, but the low fines for infractions made their bite somewhat toothless." First of all, Stern was fined one time about 10 years ago. There have been no fines since then as far as I know. I looked into it and didn't see any. So, my claim stands that the fines wouldn't be toothless if they were levied consistently over the years. Also, you say he has been "breaking the rules for years." Without fines and precedents, there are no rules. Without taking "decency" cases to court we have no legal definitions.

Comment by David Flanagan

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:43:05 EST

Keep in mind that this is all because of a shielded nipple. If it were only so simple. People have been complaining about the steadily increasing volume of violent and sexual content on TV for at least the past two decades. Howard Stern, whose show I listen too on occasion, helped pioneer this for the radio and he is certainly feeling the pain of being pulled back after many long years of running amock on the public airwaves. I know that Stern and others like to tell us to "turn the channel" if we don't like what they offer, but what do you do when all the other channels are offering just about the same thing? The other thing that I don't often hear discussed is that Stern and others have been breaking the rules for years, and being called on it, but the fines were so low that the networks just paid the fines dutifuly and continued to rake in the advertising bucks. The FCC has been consistently pursuing complaints, but the low fines for infractions made their bite somewhat toothless. Now, however, the fines are real. Half a million dollars? You can bet the networks will pay attention to that! And in doing so, they will reign in their on-air talent themselves and more diligently follow the rules that have been in place for a very long time. So, in that sense, all the government is doing at this point is making existing rules much more effective by adding bite to the FCC's bark. Ultimately, the whole incident with Jackson was the final shocking straw that made people angry enough to ask for something to be done. I think most people understand that artists, by their very nature, MUST push the envelope, but they don't have to do it with sex necessarily and, if they really want to do it with sexual content, then they should go to the private airwaves to do it. HBO did exactly that with shows like "The Sopranos," and "Sex In The City," with huge success. Even Stern is talking about making that shift, which would likely be a huge boon for companies like XM Satellite Radio as Stern's fans sign up to keep listening to him. If thats what he decides to do then more power to him. Don & Mike, of The Don & Mike Show, are favorites of mine and if they do the same, they might actually make more money have far more creative freedom. Would I sign up for the service so that I could listen to them? I probably would. I think it will be interesting to see what happens here. Stern certainly has been a pioneer on the public airwaves, though, I don't like everything that he has brought to them. Perhaps its time for him to pioneer satellite radio as well. Who knows, one day Stern might be known for pushing this new service into the mainstream. If anyone can do it, Stern can. Thanks. David

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:08:55 EST

Unbeknownst to the world, Shark and I are THE SAME PERSON. Physically anyway. During the day, I am Craig the evil, hateful BlogCritic. During the night, I am Shark, the witty, vitriolic Diva Hater. Or, Movable Type had some sort of problem. When we posted our stories this morning. :-)

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:04:57 EST

hey, major weirdness going on the blogcritics main page....one of the links to shark's education story is pointing to craig's fcc story. another clearchannel conspiracy? ;-)