TopSatelliteRadio.com : Articles
Howard Stern
Go Back To Articles Page
Indecent Censoring
Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska is wrong for demanding that cable and satellite television programming be subjected to the same inconsistent indecency rules that now saddle broadcast TV. But Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) makes Stevens look like a hippie. At a national cable television industry meeting Monday, he argued for criminal prosecutions instead of fines for those who offend viewer sensibilities.
What's next? Some vote-hungry politician embracing the death penalty for offending programmers? It doesn't help that the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin J. Martin, ingratiated his way into the job by playing to social conservatives. His job is not that of censor in chief.
Martin tried to sound a conciliatory note at a cable industry confab in San Francisco on Tuesday, mainly by stating the obvious point that he has no jurisdiction to crack down on cable smut. But given his track record, there was something ominous about his exhortations that cable executives clean up their act. There was an implicit "or else."
Instead of addressing cable executives, Martin should be busy clarifying what constitutes indecency for broadcasters and end the confusion that is causing them to unnecessarily censor themselves to the detriment of viewers - as happened last year when some ABC affiliates refused to air the Steven Spielberg film "Saving Private Ryan" for fear that its profanity would trigger FCC fines.
Broadcasters complain that they are not competing on a level playing field because cable networks don't face the same regulatory scheme, which is justified by the fact that the airwaves are a scarce public resource. Some disparity is unavoidable, and the worst thing that could happen - at least until courts ruled the move unconstitutional - would be for Washington to try to impose the same restraints on cable that broadcasters face.
A better way to address the disparity now is by loosening the controls on broadcasters and making the rules clearer.
As for the cable industry, it could ease some of the political pressure on itself if it devised a programming ratings system that was consistent, coherent and believable.
The industry also must do a better job of promoting and explaining the existing technology that parents can use to keep their homes free from programming they find offensive. Most households get television programming (including broadcast fare) through cable or satellite services that already allow parents to keep their children from watching potentially offensive channels. Digital technology is giving parents the ability to block specific programs.
Finally, cable operators would be wise to allow consumers to purchase programming on an a la carte basis. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
from the LA Times
from fmqb.com
April 6, 2005
Howard Stern Begs Viacom To Fire Him
Calling it a "slam dunk" for Viacom, syndicated morning man Howard Stern was pleading today to be let out of his contract. "I am begging Viacom, openly, over these airwaves, to fire me," said Stern this morning as he discussed the comments made by U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) that those who flagrantly violate FCC indecency standards should be subject to criminal prosecution rather than a regulatory process.
"Infinity should get me out of here," said Stern. "They're holding me to the contract and I'm afraid to break the contract, because I don't want to ever do anything illegal or wrong. I'm very, very clear on that. I'm a pretty honest guy. I try to live by the laws, but it seems like I'm being set up."
Stern railed on politicians for considering legislation that would regulate pay services such as cable television and satellite radio. "For years they have tried to get me off radio and television," said Stern. "Sponsors haven't gone away. The audiences haven't gone away. I've got the number one goddamn radio show in the country and it's driving people nuts."
"All of a sudden this heat is on me," he continued. "And regulating satellite and cable, it has nothing to do with indecency. It has to do with Clear Channel somehow getting ahold of the politicians they back and saying 'You bastards, we're going to lose all our radio stations to satellite. You've got to do something.' That's what has to be looked into. I find this very disturbing that since I signed my deal with satellite, there's a lot of rich, powerful people in this country trying to figure out how they hold on to these dumb radio stations of theirs and how they are going to get people to listen to censored media."
Stern was also annoyed over a report in the Los Angeles Times that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is considering removing Howard Stern's E! show from the Comcast cable itinerary. "It is so ridiculous and frustrating," proclaimed Stern. "If E! pulls me off the air, I don't care."
"They can't figure out how to get rid of me, so they want to get rid of me by legislating me out of here," he said, adding later that he is "such a target of the government. And if anyone thinks I'm lying, one day I'll write the book."
"I am begging Infinity, Viacom to take me off the air," pleaded Stern. "If they care anything about me, let me go, please, today, serve notice on me. I want to leave. I swear to you, it serves my interests to stay here and do this show. Every day I do a good show, it reminds people to come to satellite radio. You are doing yourself an injustice by keeping me on the air. Let me go now. Let me leave. Let the audience forget about me."
from Yahoo! News
March 3, 2005
FCC's Powell Not for Cable Indecency Rules
WASHINGTON - Federal Communications Chairman Michael Powell said Thursday he does not support extending broadcast indecency guidelines to cable television and satellite TV and radio and said any efforts by Congress to do so would face legal scrutiny.
"I personally don't really support an extension," Powell said in an interview on Fox News Channel. "I think when the Congress takes a hard look at this, if they really study the constitutionality ... that it's difficult and unwise to extend it."
His remarks came several days after two congressional Republicans with influence over telecommunications issues indicated they would consider legislation to make cable and satellite stations adhere to indecency guidelines.
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, head of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said Tuesday he would push for such a measure in part because most viewers don't differentiate between traditional broadcasting and cable so they don't know when they might be exposed to objectionable programming.
The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, also said he would support legislation "if we can work out the constitutional questions."
A similar proposal was narrowly rejected by the Senate committee last year.
Federal law bars nonsatellite radio stations and broadcast television channels from airing certain references to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are most likely be tuning in.
The FCC has no power to regulate cable and satellite stations. Cable groups have cited a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that said Congress violated free-speech rights when it sought to protect children from sexually oriented cable channels.
The anti-smut law enacted in 1996 had required cable systems to restrict sex-oriented networks to overnight hours if they did not fully scramble their signals for nonsubscribers.
A cable indecency standard would face legal uncertainties in part because subscribers have chosen to pay for the service, Powell said. Over-the-air broadcast programming is free.
Powell, in another interview Thursday with CNBC, said cable and satellite subscribers in most cases can block out unwanted channels.
"While I support the indecency enforcement that we do have, at the end of the day, what we really should be doing is making sure that consumers have the tools they need to make the choices be theirs," he said.
Powell and the other four FCC commissioners have supported efforts to raise indecency penalties. The House last month overwhelmingly passed a bill to raise the maximum indecency fine from $32,500 to $500,000. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate but has not had a hearing.
*****
Go Back To Articles Page |
Satellite Radio
