|
|
| Steel Wheels |
For those of us in the U.S., isn't this some really scary crap going on? My government is dictating my entertainment?
What?
|
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Dude....where the hell have you been? You just catching onto this now?
There's been scary shit going on ever since I can remember. |
|
|
| LadyJane |
Yes SS..but it's getting to the point where we MUST take a stand.
According to Stern's "mole" the FCC is about to fine him retroactively for "violations" from 2000-present.
Stern predicts he will be off the air in less than a month. That may make some people happy. It scares the Hell out of me.
And all of this since Stern, who like it or not, has millions of VOTING listeners, stopped backing Bush and started backing Kerry. Coincedence?
Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you say..but I will go to my grave to defend your right to say it freely."??
This is not about your personal feelings re Howard Stern. It's about our freedom as American citizens.
Can you all just imagine what the "religious right" would do to RO? 
Think about it.
LJ.
[Edited by LadyJane] |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Can you all just imagine what the "religious right" would do to RO?
well...as its not a US site...bomb Mexico??
|
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>Can you all just imagine what the "religious right" would do to RO?
well...as its not a US site...bomb Mexico??
Don't rule it out!  |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Oh? Only just now do we need to stand up for our rights???
Wrong.
We needed to stand up for our rights ages ago. Remember Tipper Gore and the PMRC? Remember Frank Zappa, and of all people, John Denver imploring us for support 20 years ago? We caved in then, and let the ball get rolling. We let them win round 1. They got their labeling system, and that was the crack in the door that they needed.
Our government MUST NOT be allowed to legislate morality in any way, shape, or form. I mean, just WHO from the government gets to decide what is "moral" and what is "obscene" for me? I find Howard Stern's show to be quite entertaining. Yet, some dick with a stick up his ass gets to determine if I get to enjoy the show? FUCK THAT!!
Why can't people just CHANGE THE FUCKING CHANNEL? That is why God made remote controls and channel up and down buttons. If you don't like it, don't watch it. But just because you don't want to watch should NOT mean that I can't watch either. I mean, how 3rd grade is that? Don't like Eminem? Me either, so do like I do....don't buy it, and don't listen to it!! But we should all have the right to decide for ourselves if we want to hear it or not. Don't want your kids to listen to it? Then don't let them. Be a damn parent. But don't expect the damn FCC to do your parenting for you!! That is just a lazy cop out.
No LJ, we should have been doing something decades ago. It is our fault that we've let it go this far. I'm afraid that now it is a case of too little too late. Do not blame the religious right, or lazy assed parents that want someone else to do all the hard stuff. Blame ourselves for not stopping this in the bud way back when. |
|
|
| LadyJane |
I agree with everything you say SS with the exception that it is NOT TOO LATE!!
Uphill battle? Definitely.
Game over?? I don't think so!!
Hell...I would imagine if the FCC and or NFL finds out that the song "Start Me UP" contains the lyrics "You make a dead man come, it will no longer be played at football games!!
LJ. |
|
|
| telecaster |
One thing you all are forgetting: It is public airwaves owned by the public, not Stern, not Clear Channel, not Viacom.
This is why there is cable
No one person or company gets to decide what goes on the air
The FCC does
I just saw Elvis leaving the Grassy Knoll on his way to Area 54 in Roswell
|
|
|
| luridchief |
Unfortunately, the FCC are NOW talking about wanting to regulate cable and satellite programming, too! |
|
|
| LadyJane |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
I just saw Elvis leaving the Grassy Knoll on his way to Area 54 in Roswell
Surely he was wearing Janet Jackson's nipple ornament!!
Tele..I agree with you that the public airways are owned by the Public. What infuriates me is the audacity of the FCC to assume that all of the Public are card carrying members of the "moral majority".
LJ.
|
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
When Howard Stern is making fun of mentally ill people, do you think his penis enlarges in size? Does he get a "Woody" by doing that?
I think it does. |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
Wasn't it Zappa who said at the time of the Tipper Gore uproar that people should show the people in charge that they can V-O-T-E like a beast?  |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
Yes telcaster is right.
you people miss the point.
It's about "public" airwaves folks.
I used to find Stern to be entertaining as well...but
people do have a right to demand & receive so called "clean programming" as far as public media is concered.
I mean what the hell could they "change the channel" too
It's all the same "shock-jock show us yer boobs yuk-yuk crap" nowdays.
I respect peoples right to not want that type of programming so readily available to the public at large.
If ppl want to pay for that then so be it, thats fine, take it to cable or pay per view or whatever.
Honestly i think they're doing Stern a favor.
Everybody does the Howard Stern thing nowdays.
Stern himself isn't even relevant or funny anymore.
His schtick's old hat.
Porno stars & slobbering retards has gotten boring.
|
|
|
| Bloozehound |
Yea i always found that so ironic how the libs sucked up to Al Gore, whose own wife pulled one of the biggest, fascist, censorship cons this countries ever seen.
Talk about selective censorship and/or short attention spans.
Could u imagine if it had been Mrs. Bush who led the PMRC?
You'd never hear the end of it.
But then again I've heard Bush IS the new Hitler, so he probably hand a hand in it, pass it on(wink wink).
Besides Al Gore invented the internet.
He's a rightous dude!
|
|
|
| Mr. D |
The quality of Howard's show has nothing to do with this thing...it's the fact that Howard is being crucified (maybe i shouldn't use that word, with all the other stupid shit that's been goin on) for dropping his support on Bush and because he keeps discussing "The Fellowship", which is a bunch of political guys who live together in a house and pray together, and are also backed by private investors (seperation of church and state, huh). Howard hasn't had fines brought against him in 10 years, and here he is 2 weeks after he stops supporting Bush, on the verge of getting his show taken off the air. Howard says he'll go to satellite radio when he gets kicked off, but guess what.....the government wants to regulate satellite radio too! This has all gone too far and it has to just be stopped. They've regulated music, movies, television, and now radio. It's getting progressively worse as time goes on. Howard has many people that listen to him, even on political opinions. And that's why he won't have a show in a month or less. There's hundreds of local guys with radio shows that bash Bush on a regular basis, even more than Howard. But Howard's the one people listen to most, and that's why he's taking the fall for it. With the time Howard has left, he's asking viewers to remember him when they're in the voting booth this November, and to get Bush out of office. |
|
|
| M.O.W.A.T. |
Kind of reminds me of the last time I heard someone dictate what I could or could not listen to on the radio. I believe the guy's name was Goebbels.
[Edited by M.O.W.A.T.] |
|
|
| prism |
Why on Earth did Howard endorse Bush? For the tax-break-for-the-wealthy? Wasn't it obvious that if Bush was elected all Hell would break loose? Research into the Bush familiy's shady business deals with the Bin Laden family should have been made public years ago, not to mention Bush's close ties to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Bush recently by-passed congress to give millions of dollars to Pat Robertson's organization, which urges its millions of right wing viewers to vote for Bush and also to call their congressmen and the offending radio and TV stations which carry people like Stern. Will Don Imus be next? He's also endorsing Kerry. |
|
|
| prism |
To make this topic more Stones-relevant: Keith was a huge fan of Lenny Bruce. He even put a line from one of Lenny Bruce's books in a song: The pool's in but the patio ain't dry. Lenny was arrested for using the F word in his nightclub show. It is the 1950's all over again |
|
|
| JaggaRichards |
Publicity, publicity, publicity.
Stern has been talking about retiring for ages.
Now he can do it and go out a 'martyr'.
And sit home and count his money and laugh, laugh, laugh! |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>I mean what the hell could they "change the channel" too
It's all the same "shock-jock show us yer boobs yuk-yuk crap" nowdays.<
Oh bullshit. How about the Discovery Channel(or any of it's spin off channels)? Maybe the History Channel? PBS? The Travel Channel? The Disney Channel? MSNBC? CNN? FoxNews? TLC? The Family Channel? HallMark? TVLand?
Man, there is TONS of family/educational programming available. SCADS of it. In fact, most of the channels on my cable system are of a family variety. So skip over E!, MTV, Spike, and Comedy Central...how fuckin hard is that?
It doesn't matter if you like, or dislike Howard Stern, or his show. What matters is that a government agency has the stroke to control what shows we can and can't see. If they stomp Howard Stern...what is to stop them from stomping on Martha Stewart's show? She's now a convicted felon, right? So a show that features her has got to be offensive to someone...so off the air it goes! How about NASCAR racing! You might see a guy get killed in a wreck.....we can't have people seeing that! Off it goes! And what about CNN...they might show graphic war footage...shut them down!
It is a matter of setting precident. A very dangerous precident. Any knucklehead should be able to see that.
Yeah, vote. Right. Politicians are so good at keeping campaign promises. And the choices we have for candidates are just so awesome. I don't like John Kerry. I think he'll make a completely ineffectual President. But I gotta vote for him anyhow because ineffectual is better than dangerous, which describes how I feel about Bush Jr. I'm not voting FOR someone as much as voting AGAINST someone. And I hate it. Hell, I can't even vote third party because that is the same as voting for Bush Jr.! Yeah...get out and vote...that's a great slogan. Now if there were just some candidates worth voting for.
|
|
|
| Bloozehound |
Nice post on choice and censorship, but two words that you seem to want to omit or not discuss that are at the heart of this Stern case…
public airwaves
There are standards that apply to programs that air in this vicinity whether you like it or not.
Those channels u listed are television programs on cable, which is a pay service.
Those channels can air whatever they want and yes there is quite an abundance of programming to choose from.
When I replied to your “change the channel” comment I was referring to radio.
You know were u find “shock jocks”
They’re taking Sterns radio show off the air.
Public radio is the issue.
|
|
|
| nankerphelge |
That's right -- the regulation of decency standards for broadcasting is nothing new. Remember Carlin's seven dirty words!!
If anything, over the last couple of decades the standards have loosened. I think what we are seeing now is a bit of a public backlash caused mainly by Janet's right one and hyped a bit more because of the election year. While I don't disagree that the religious right and the FCC align with that public sentiment, that doesn't change the fact that much of the public is outraged by some of the crap that is out there.
I agree that there is a channel button and I can change my channel. But in my mind, that does not give broadcasters or programming people the right to do anything and everything on the air. That is not my notion of what free speech is all about. There is a public interest in keeping some degree of decency -- where that line is drawn should be debated and should be a political issue.
And is Howard Stern so short of material that the only way he can get audience is to have some midget porn star describe his genitals? He whines like his tongue was cut out! |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
I think what we are seeing now is a bit of a public backlash caused mainly by Janet's right one and hyped a bit more because of the election year. While I don't disagree that the religious right and the FCC align with that public sentiment, that doesn't change the fact that much of the public is outraged by some of the crap that is out there.
I agree that there is a channel button and I can change my channel. But in my mind, that does not give broadcasters or programming people the right to do anything and everything on the air. That is not my notion of what free speech is all about. There is a public interest in keeping some degree of decency -- where that line is drawn should be debated and should be a political issue.
Backlash, yes, indeed. I'll be careful here, because I'm not living in the USA myself. But here's my two cents.
I tend to agree with LJ and SS. Though true that Stern's show is often disgusting and offensive to the public or parts of it, it's highly suspicious that he's got a slap on the wrist just now. Clearchannel had no qualms up to now, and any outrage at the show was counted as shock-value publicity. Stern's show must have earned millions to CC! But oh, surprise, as soon as Howard Stern begins to turn his loudmouth against Bush and his cronies, CC remembers about public-owned airwaves and the protection of children or minorities. Dear, dear! And does it come as a surprise either that CC's boss is close to the FCC head honcho, and a warm supporter of the Bush administration? The same administration who intends to deregulate further private owned medias, which would in turn help Clearchannel to strengthen their already impressive monopoly...
It's the land of big business and government officials living in each other's wallet and of the right to talk freely as long as you don't tread on the toes of who's wielding power.
I hasten to stress out that I'm not blaming that state of things on the Americans! Things like that can and do happen in Europe too. Witness Silvio Berlusconi, right-wing prime minister of the Italian gov't, who's also the 60th richest man in world and owns directly or through various screens the majority of the Italian media... And we have here in France a guy who actually went to jail for a month because he merely screamed abuse to a member of our right-wing gov't during a demonstration.
I'm afraid there's lots of backlash in several countries today. Not surprisingly it's often tied with the so-called moral majority supporters and the megabusiness that these guys are so fond to own. It's all about control (of what the public does, say and think) and privilege (confiscation of richness and power in a few hands, always the same, with no or little control by the people).
It's gone pretty far and I don't know how we can fight it. Voting for those who have the less ties to that system may be just a beginning. But I have hope. There were similar situations, like in the '50s and early '70s in USA. Then the pendulum swung the other way...
[Edited by Monkey Woman] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Radio??
People actually listen to that??
There is no shock radio in Central PA. You can change the dial to wherever you like and there will be no Howard Stern or anything like him around here. At least, I don't think so...I haven't turned on a radio for years. Ever once and a while my wife will turn on a "new" country music station called "Froggy 98". They wish people a hoppy birthday, and have Kermit The Weather Hermit. The only thing shocking is the crap that they call country music. It shocks me at how bad it is. So since I haven't listened regularly to radio in something like 4 or 5 years, I can't really talk about the programming. Now that I think about it...there is another choice that you can make. Turn it off. Slap a CD in your Walkman, or in your car stereo. Load up your iPod. If you don't like what you are hearing, change the channel or turn it off. It's very simple. I don't need some schmuck in DC deciding who gets to listen to what....I am capable of making that decision myself...and so are all of you.
I was using Howard's TV show as an example because I don't get his radio show. The only Stern I get is his TV broadcast on E!.
Seriously...do people actually listen to the radio? If so, why??? I thought that God made CD players and iPods so we don't have to listen to radio anymore. We can listen to the music that we actually WANT to hear, whenever we want to hear it. And as far as radio as a news source....I thought that is what God made newspapers, 24 hour news networks, and the internet for.
Cable is a pay service....so how many people do not have either cable or dish? I literally do not know anyone who gets TV from an antennea mounted on top of their house. Do people really still do that?
Yet still, to my mind, none of that makes a bit of difference to the basic crux of the problem. Radio, TV, Cable, Dish...makes no difference. No government agency should be regulating MORALITY. That is something a government agency should have nothing to do with. To me, morality and obscenity are individual decisions to be made by each citizen...and the government has no right making that decision for me or anyone else. And if we give them precident to force a radio show off the air...then that opens the door for them to go after TV shows....and then cable....and then satellite.
Once the snowball starts rolling down the hill.....
|
|
|
| beer |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
Seriously...do people actually listen to the radio? If so, why???
i hate the radio with a passion. i hate the dj's, i hate the music. but, the only thing that gets me through the work day sometimes is Stern. believe me, if i could listen to my music collection at work, it wouldn't be so bad. yet i'm stuck with morning radio(Stern). i'm guessing alot of people are in the same boat. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Why is everyone so hung up on Stern? It doesn't matter if his material is funny or not. Howard Stern's show isn't the issue...the circumvention of 1st Amendment is the issue.
Public airwaves....yeah right. So what am I, and millions of people like me? Are we not members of the public? Do we not count? Do you only count now if you are a right wing religious zealot with a stick up his/her ass, or a lazy assed parent who doesn't feel like monitoring what their kids see or hear?
This is NOT an issue that the government should be involved in.
All this because of Janet Jackson's fake right tit? It's ridiculous. |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
Bush has had near 3 and half years to go after Stern, why just now?
This has nothing to do with free speech or Amendments.
Its about public airwaves.
FCC is only doing their job, do to the fact that the media can’t seem to control its celebs and lots of people in Americans are sick of the type of behaviour & programming being allowed on the public airwaves (radio & TV).
Super Bowl was the final straw, they got sick of turning a blind eye.
Rules is rules, standards are standards. Somethings belong some places and others don’t. Public airwaves are supposed to be clean no cussin, no titties  ect...
YES This is NOTHING BUT backlash after several incidents occurred on public airwaves on FAMILY ORIENTED programs.
What about this do u guys not understand?
If joe-blow-stick-up-his-ass doesn't want his kid watching or hearing this type of material then he damn well has just as much right object to it as u do to desire it.
You have to meet in the middle and thats what public airwaves are for. They provide a good place for clean programming aimed at middle america joe blow.
Several months ago Bono said “Fuck” at the Golden Globes Awards during an exceptance speech.
FCC could have fined NBC/GE for multiple millions of dollars(which they’re about to reversere) but they didn’t(go ahead & insert your Bush, Hitler, right wing, government contractor, bed conspiracy here lol).
Last month Super Bowl & Janet Jacksons breast = media frenzy for next 2 weeks.
FCC said they would have to fine CBS.
So next thing you know all the media giants Clear Channel, Infinity, & Viacom state they will clean up their programming with specific emphasis on radio since this is were majority of this “obscene” behavior occurs.
Stern then promptly goes on the air with some really profane segments to “test the water” or whatever after his employer warned him NOT TO DO ANYTHING in that nature.
If Stern wants to blame anybody he needs to start with himself and his buddies Janet, Justin & Bono.
They opened this can of worms on themselves.
You can only stretch the rubber band so far, until it snaps back in your face.
If he had played it cool for a few weeks, no one would have noticed when he got back into bobbing baloney out of Bababoees ass crack skits or whatever.
|
|
|
| Joey |
I fear that the United States will experience a rampant rise of " AntiSemitism " this year ..............................................and you ?!?!?!?!
What ?!?! Oh, of course :
" Stones Rule You Bastards ! "
J. |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
SS said:
>>I literally do not know anyone who gets TV from an antennea mounted on top of their house.<<
Oh yes you do except that my antenna is in the crawl space over the garage. No cable and no satellite TV here.
|
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Given what the NFL and CBS went through, it is more than just the right-wing zealots that are tired of what they are seeing and hearing.
Whether radio or television or cable or satellite -- there will always be a spectrum of people in the audience, and thus a spectrum of opinions as to what is acceptable content.
I understand the argument that "free speech" means that anyone should be able to say or do anything, that the individual has the ability to choose what he or she wants to see, and the government should not be involved. But given the public response to Janet Jackson and the Administration's embracing of that sentiment, there are still plenty of people beyond the George Bush Gang that do not subscribe to such a broad read of the First Amendment.
|
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]
