The W
Views: 99879604
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.10.07 0723
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Fine per person watching? Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1052 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (33 total)
wordlife
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 204/324
EXP: 378761
For next: 26014

Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3359 days
Last activity: 2643 days
#1 Posted on 5.3.04 0757.58
Reposted on: 5.3.11 0758.11
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20150

What a load of crap...thank god shit like this will not pass...also check out Michael Powell's website

http://www.fcc.gov/ commissioners/powell/ mkp_photo_gallery.html


It's great to know that a loser like this (that is using my tax money to meet celebrities) is trying to stand up "for what is decent"...yeah, way to take tax money that should be put into something more constructive like, hmm i dunno, a failing economy, a failing social security system
Promote this thread!
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1953/3029
EXP: 11255849
For next: 215596

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 10 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 5.3.04 0807.27
Reposted on: 5.3.11 0808.46
I don't know what you're talking about. Everyone knows that the two greatest problems facing Americans today are gay people getting married and Janet Jackson's right titty. Dirty, filthy titty.
Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 1012/1857
EXP: 5360565
For next: 71679

Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 516 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 5.3.04 1036.54
Reposted on: 5.3.11 1037.25
And horrible sounds on web sites. Shouldn't the FCC fight those, instead of embracing them?

Ow...
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 527/2703
EXP: 8922169
For next: 66650

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#4 Posted on 5.3.04 1037.08
Reposted on: 5.3.11 1037.38
    Originally posted by wordlife
    http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20150

    What a load of crap...thank god shit like this will not pass...also check out Michael Powell's website

    http://www.fcc.gov/ commissioners/powell/ mkp_photo_gallery.html


    It's great to know that a loser like this (that is using my tax money to meet celebrities) is trying to stand up "for what is decent"...yeah, way to take tax money that should be put into something more constructive like, hmm i dunno, a failing economy, a failing social security system


It's an election year and what a great way to accomplish nothing while standing up and making your right-wing Christian base happy.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 1975/2679
EXP: 9189787
For next: 127571

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3260 days
Last activity: 3260 days
#5 Posted on 5.3.04 1428.28
Reposted on: 5.3.11 1429.02
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    I don't know what you're talking about. Everyone knows that the two greatest problems facing Americans today are gay people getting married and Janet Jackson's right titty. Dirty, filthy titty.


They are! Those gays and titties are destroying the moral fibre of America! They're the root of all the evils of society and if only we could protect our children from all this indecency, all would be right with America! Our children won't grow up to be SINNERS like those Europeans and Australians!
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 311/2266
EXP: 7346727
For next: 122214

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#6 Posted on 5.3.04 1442.31
Reposted on: 5.3.11 1444.16
Michael Powell is probably the worst chair the FCC has seen in quite some time. In my view, his appointment alone in worth a second thought on re-electing Bush.

This is all payback for not allowing his deregulation to go through. And with Clear Channel "cooperating" by suspending Stern, I'll bet you'll see another stab at changing the owndership restrictions should Bush get re-elected.

And will somebody tell Zell Miller to stop calling himself a Democrat?

    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Those gays and titties are destroying the moral fibre of America


I love this sentence. You can't be gay, and you can't look at breasts? I think the next step is a law where you can only have missionary sex through a hole in a sheet.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 473/2159
EXP: 6337406
For next: 55393

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2290 days
Last activity: 2287 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 5.3.04 1456.05
Reposted on: 5.3.11 1456.07
(deleted by CRZ on 5.3.04 1449)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1037/1528
EXP: 4083711
For next: 107437

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2828 days
Last activity: 2670 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 5.3.04 1525.06
Reposted on: 5.3.11 1525.48
I wouldn't worry overmuch about this fine business. I think it's just a tool to ensure that we don't see any more of Janet Jackson's sagging breasts; and that, friends, is fine with me. Fact remains, as long as these airwaves are public, the government is (rightfully) going to regulate them.

What I like less is ClearChannel kicking Stern off the air. Sure, they have a right to do it, but they're certainly not doing so out of the profit motive. The guy's been there for years, basically doing the same schtick. I don't like him, personally, but I think if the government had found him shocking enough to kick him off the air, it would have been long before now.

In my own mind, it's just another example of power in the wrong hands. Any power you give to the government runs the risk of being exercised for political, and not especially rational, reasons. I would not bat an eye if Kerry got elected, and we saw Limbaugh, et. al suffering the same fate as Stern.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 312/2266
EXP: 7346727
For next: 122214

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#9 Posted on 5.3.04 1555.50
Reposted on: 5.3.11 1557.01
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    I wouldn't worry overmuch about this fine business. I think it's just a tool to ensure that we don't see any more of Janet Jackson's sagging breasts; and that, friends, is fine with me. Fact remains, as long as these airwaves are public, the government is (rightfully) going to regulate them.

    What I like less is ClearChannel kicking Stern off the air. Sure, they have a right to do it, but they're certainly not doing so out of the profit motive. The guy's been there for years, basically doing the same schtick. I don't like him, personally, but I think if the government had found him shocking enough to kick him off the air, it would have been long before now.

    In my own mind, it's just another example of power in the wrong hands. Any power you give to the government runs the risk of being exercised for political, and not especially rational, reasons. I would not bat an eye if Kerry got elected, and we saw Limbaugh, et. al suffering the same fate as Stern.


They are absolutely motived by profit - just not short term.

They got hit with the second largest fine in history this year (Bubba the Love Sponge, if you recall - and Stern hold the record for number back in the mid-90's). So they yank Stern off (who is, as a side note, very critical of Bush) because they know, if they play ball with the FCC now, they'll be greater gains when the ownership defregulation is re-introduce.

If Michael Powell is still allowed to chair the FCC after the election, you better believe that deregulation is going to proposed again - at least in some form.

And there is no evidence that Kerry's election would do conservative talk show hosts any harm... they are all on networks run by VERY Republican folks - Clear Channel being the Fox News of radio.

The myth of the liberal media...

    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson

    And by the way, he is NOT going to fall for the banana in the tailpipe


Why the Beverly Hills Cops reference?



(edited by Leroy on 5.3.04 1357)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 64/512
EXP: 727229
For next: 38980

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 222 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#10 Posted on 6.3.04 2106.36
Reposted on: 6.3.11 2106.44
It seems that while Bush named Powell the Chair of the FCC, it was Clinton who nominated Powell in the first place. Judging by the posts on this topic & the attempt to make this about Bush, you may all want to check where Powell came from in the first place, & recognize that this has less to do with the presidency & more to do with the pressure from Religious groups.

As far as Stern getting the ax & his being the current target of the FCC...
For him to complain that it's because he spoke out against Bush is a joke. (Imus has been VERY critical of Bush & you hear nothing about him) This is about Stern being the poster-boy for this type of radio & if the FCC wants to make a point (whether you agree with it or not), they will make the point by going after the biggest name.
If baseball wanted to make a point about steroid use, they would not use Randy Velardie's name, they would use Bonds or some other equally big name.

Stern is a target cause he's the biggest name on the block, period.

(edited by Von Maestro on 7.3.04 0805)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 531/2703
EXP: 8922169
For next: 66650

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#11 Posted on 8.3.04 0922.54
Reposted on: 8.3.11 0925.15
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    It seems that while Bush named Powell the Chair of the FCC, it was Clinton who nominated Powell in the first place. Judging by the posts on this topic & the attempt to make this about Bush, you may all want to check where Powell came from in the first place, & recognize that this has less to do with the presidency & more to do with the pressure from Religious groups.

    As far as Stern getting the ax & his being the current target of the FCC...
    For him to complain that it's because he spoke out against Bush is a joke. (Imus has been VERY critical of Bush & you hear nothing about him) This is about Stern being the poster-boy for this type of radio & if the FCC wants to make a point (whether you agree with it or not), they will make the point by going after the biggest name.
    If baseball wanted to make a point about steroid use, they would not use Randy Velardie's name, they would use Bonds or some other equally big name.

    Stern is a target cause he's the biggest name on the block, period.

    (edited by Von Maestro on 7.3.04 0805)


Two things stand out. First, I believe the Dem's were courting Powell the Elder since he hadn't selected a party. Second, There really isn't much of a difference when push comes to shove witht he two partiues as they are essentially in bed with the same people and read the same polls.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 503/641
EXP: 1104347
For next: 52779

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3699 days
Last activity: 3358 days
#12 Posted on 8.3.04 1028.49
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1029.00
"As far as Stern getting the ax & his being the current target of the FCC...
For him to complain that it's because he spoke out against Bush is a joke. (Imus has been VERY critical of Bush & you hear nothing about him) This is about Stern being the poster-boy for this type of radio & if the FCC wants to make a point (whether you agree with it or not), they will make the point by going after the biggest name.
If baseball wanted to make a point about steroid use, they would not use Randy Velardie's name, they would use Bonds or some other equally big name.

Stern is a target cause he's the biggest name on the block, period."

Well, in all fairness, IF you were going to ax a radio personality for being critical, THEN you want the biggest name on the block, not some scrub like Imus. So, if you want to go by the conspiracy theory, then Stern is a good target.

You ax Imus and all 6 people listening to him MIGHT go, "WTF?" then turn the station and never speak of him again.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 65/512
EXP: 727229
For next: 38980

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 222 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#13 Posted on 8.3.04 1102.55
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1107.23
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Well, in all fairness, IF you were going to ax a radio personality for being critical, THEN you want the biggest name on the block, not some scrub like Imus. So, if you want to go by the conspiracy theory, then Stern is a good target.

    You ax Imus and all 6 people listening to him MIGHT go, "WTF?" then turn the station and never speak of him again.


People don't listen to Stern for political commentary. It would make no sense to ax him for his new Bush stance. He is the poster-boy for the FCC's new crackdown on what they consider "indecency"...

Plus, while I'm not much of a listener, it's a bit silly to discount Imus as a force in radio. Stern may like to mock & dismiss him, but Imus does some very good business for Infinity Broadcasting. (his flagship station in NY is the #1 billing station in the country!)
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 504/641
EXP: 1104347
For next: 52779

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3699 days
Last activity: 3358 days
#14 Posted on 8.3.04 1129.48
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1131.23
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Well, in all fairness, IF you were going to ax a radio personality for being critical, THEN you want the biggest name on the block, not some scrub like Imus. So, if you want to go by the conspiracy theory, then Stern is a good target.

      You ax Imus and all 6 people listening to him MIGHT go, "WTF?" then turn the station and never speak of him again.


    People don't listen to Stern for political commentary. It would make no sense to ax him for his new Bush stance. He is the poster-boy for the FCC's new crackdown on what they consider "indecency"...

    Plus, while I'm not much of a listener, it's a bit silly to discount Imus as a force in radio. Stern may like to mock & dismiss him, but Imus does some very good business for Infinity Broadcasting. (his flagship station in NY is the #1 billing station in the country!)


Don't discount Stern's power over the masses so easily. Stern's show has made quite a dent in a couple of political arenas (even as far out as California). Granted, he doesn't make or break any election, but he can be a rather squeeky wheel (with a gigantic audience listening, one of the largest in radio, and with the highest percentage of the prime consumer demograph: Males 18-35)

But regardless, Stern is the biggest name, by far. His voice is heard by millions every day. And even if people don't listen to him FOR political commentary, if he offers it, many will eat it. And I know if I was Bush, I wouldn't like that one bit. Not saying it is a conspiracy by the Bush Admin, but Stern does have a valid point in the matter.
brick
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 262/535
EXP: 844735
For next: 39154

Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 537 days
Last activity: 533 days
#15 Posted on 8.3.04 1152.30
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1153.46
Stern gets allot of Credit for influencing the NY and NJ gubernatorial elections in recent years. He also, up until recently, supported many of the things Bush was doing. It has been Bush's recent social agenda that has turned Stern into a critic. And I can't say I disagree with him. Bush's stance on Stem Cell research and Gay marriage stink of the religious right.
Maniac
Linguica
Level: 19

Posts: 7/66
EXP: 33435
For next: 2342

Since: 27.2.04
From: New England

Since last post: 1144 days
Last activity: 174 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 8.3.04 1207.51
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1211.38
After seeing Andy Sipowicz @$$ a couple of years ago on NYPD Blue. I believe the Actors, Actresses and Director should be fined along with the Network. Then we can create more jobs. The insurance business alone will make billions selling insurance to protect these over priced sex sellers. Bush can claim he created hundreds of thousands of new jobs or Kerry can for that matter. New jobs at the network, The morals police, like Internal Affairs of the police department, you need someone watching the watchers. Lets burn some books while we're at it.

Okay, there is a time and a place for gratuitous sex and I'm all for it, but a star burst nipple ring on a multi-platinum record selling diva in the middle of a live half time show is not the networks fault.

No gray area here, it was beyond there control.

Retro fine them for Andy's butt and I'll be happy.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 4097/16294
EXP: 142568314
For next: 798593

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on 8.3.04 1214.41
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1214.43
    Originally posted by brick
    Stern gets allot of Credit for influencing the NY and NJ gubernatorial elections in recent years.
Just who is allotting him this Credit?

Anyway, I agree that (in this thread anyway, if not in general) the I-man's influence is being as shortchanged as Stern's is being overhyped. Imus may not have the raw numbers when it comes to audience, but he gets the interviews. As an added bonus, WFAN (wfan.com) is always good enough to stream the higher-profile ones if you don't happen to be awake when he conducts them - and since I can only catch him on MSNBC between 3 and 6 in the morning, that's often the case with me. :)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 66/512
EXP: 727229
For next: 38980

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 222 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#18 Posted on 8.3.04 1222.22
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1223.48
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Don't discount Stern's power over the masses so easily. Stern's show has made quite a dent in a couple of political arenas (even as far out as California). Granted, he doesn't make or break any election, but he can be a rather squeeky wheel (with a gigantic audience listening, one of the largest in radio, and with the highest percentage of the prime consumer demograph: Males 18-35)

    But regardless, Stern is the biggest name, by far. His voice is heard by millions every day. And even if people don't listen to him FOR political commentary, if he offers it, many will eat it. And I know if I was Bush, I wouldn't like that one bit. Not saying it is a conspiracy by the Bush Admin, but Stern does have a valid point in the matter.


Threep-
I think you're missing a large point in audience here. While Stern has a large audience in an area important to advertisers, he does not have one where it comes to likely voters. Imus on the other hand may have a smaller total audience, but his listenership is probably much higher in the likely voter demographic.
As CRZ alludes to below, there's a reason Imus gets a lot of political interviews. These guys wouldn't make themselves available if they didn't think there were votes to be had.

If this was about politics the FCC would be going after Imus long before they turned their sights on Stern. Since this is about "indecency", their sights are clearly set on the big dog in that arena, Stern.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 505/641
EXP: 1104347
For next: 52779

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3699 days
Last activity: 3358 days
#19 Posted on 8.3.04 1312.20
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1313.33
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    Threep-
    I think you're missing a large point in audience here. While Stern has a large audience in an area important to advertisers, he does not have one where it comes to likely voters. Imus on the other hand may have a smaller total audience, but his listenership is probably much higher in the likely voter demographic.
    As CRZ alludes to below, there's a reason Imus gets a lot of political interviews. These guys wouldn't make themselves available if they didn't think there were votes to be had.

    If this was about politics the FCC would be going after Imus long before they turned their sights on Stern. Since this is about "indecency", their sights are clearly set on the big dog in that arena, Stern.


I get that. I was just saying that Stern is a pretty big voice. Anything he says reaches a lot of ears. May not be the best ears (depending on what you're talking about) but I think it makes it up in sheer numbers of listeners.

Let's use some hypothetical numbers to illustrate my example:

Let's take Imus. Let's say he gets 4 million listeners. And 3.6 million of those are hard core voters. That's a good percentage. 90% demograph for voting purposes.

Then Stern. In comparison, let's say he gets 8.5 million listeners. but only has a 30% voter listener base. But that is still 2.5 million listeners that are voters.

2.5 million voters is still quite a bit of the vote. Imus is a big presence, but so is Stern. Stern has more exposure, and like you said is the biggest name on the block and is an easy target for "indency." Take ALL those factors, and Stern is the, hands down, easiest choice IF you're going to oust a personality whois against your political agenda.

All I'm saying is that Stern has a point (not the best, but still valid) and using Imus as a counter point really doesn't dismiss Stern's point. (being that you can't slap Imus with anything like "indency" as your excuse)

That's all.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 67/512
EXP: 727229
For next: 38980

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 222 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#20 Posted on 8.3.04 1329.26
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1331.55
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    I get that. I was just saying that Stern is a pretty big voice. Anything he says reaches a lot of ears. May not be the best ears (depending on what you're talking about) but I think it makes it up in sheer numbers of listeners.

    Let's use some hypothetical numbers to illustrate my example:

    Let's take Imus. Let's say he gets 4 million listeners. And 3.6 million of those are hard core voters. That's a good percentage. 90% demograph for voting purposes.

    Then Stern. In comparison, let's say he gets 8.5 million listeners. but only has a 30% voter listener base. But that is still 2.5 million listeners that are voters.

    2.5 million voters is still quite a bit of the vote. Imus is a big presence, but so is Stern. Stern has more exposure, and like you said is the biggest name on the block and is an easy target for "indency." Take ALL those factors, and Stern is the, hands down, easiest choice IF you're going to oust a personality whois against your political agenda.

    All I'm saying is that Stern has a point (not the best, but still valid) and using Imus as a counter point really doesn't dismiss Stern's point. (being that you can't slap Imus with anything like "indency" as your excuse)

    That's all.


How can you keep saying that Stern would be the target if you were trying to make this about politics?? Stern is about porn stars, strippers & his crew, NOT politics.
People do not listen to Stern for politics & information, & they are not going to formulate political opinions by something they hear on the Stern show.

A promo for the now canceled Opie & Anthony Show says everything about why we listen to these types of shows:
"Don't go to CNN for dick jokes & don't come to us for the news..."

This is happening because of Janet Jackson, period. Whether you agree with their opinions on what is indecent & what is not, the FCC is going after Stern for this reason & this reason alone...
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: California Legislators proposes 14-year old voting age
Next thread: Kerry & McCain?
Previous thread: Turns out Bush actually IS "a uniter."
(1052 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Fine per person watching?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.192 seconds.