The W
Views: 100258548
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.10.07 0125
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Fine per person watching? Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(1054 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (33 total)
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 489/2159
EXP: 6345143
For next: 47656

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2300 days
Last activity: 2297 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on 8.3.04 1337.44
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1339.51
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    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...


The nearly $2M in fines already paid says hello...
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 507/641
EXP: 1105509
For next: 51617

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3709 days
Last activity: 3368 days
#22 Posted on 8.3.04 1406.05
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1407.12
"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..."

And you KNOW this how? There is NO WAY you can know this for sure. You are making conculsionatory statements based on assumptions.

There are multiple, valid points on this. You are not the authority on what is right here.

And BTW, not that I ever gave a damn, but I never brought the decency factor into this. Personally I think it's just a convenient excuse (anytime it's used).
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 68/512
EXP: 728128
For next: 38081

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 232 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#23 Posted on 8.3.04 1555.53
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1556.16
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    "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..."

    And you KNOW this how? There is NO WAY you can know this for sure. You are making conculsionatory statements based on assumptions.

    There are multiple, valid points on this. You are not the authority on what is right here.

    And BTW, not that I ever gave a damn, but I never brought the decency factor into this. Personally I think it's just a convenient excuse (anytime it's used).


Threep-

This all came about when the heads of Infinity, Clear Channel, etc... were bought before congress following the Janet Jackson incident to discuss indecency.

Clear Channel suspended Stern the day before they appeared before the committee as a preemptive strike to show congress that they were already "doing something" about the "indecent material" on their stations.
This has nothing to do with Stern's stance on Bush & it has nothing to do with whether you or I think Stern is "indecent". The general public perceives Stern as such & he was Clear Channel's sacrificial lamb in this case.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 508/641
EXP: 1105509
For next: 51617

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3709 days
Last activity: 3368 days
#24 Posted on 8.3.04 1627.13
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1628.20
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      "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..."

      And you KNOW this how? There is NO WAY you can know this for sure. You are making conculsionatory statements based on assumptions.

      There are multiple, valid points on this. You are not the authority on what is right here.

      And BTW, not that I ever gave a damn, but I never brought the decency factor into this. Personally I think it's just a convenient excuse (anytime it's used).


    Threep-

    This all came about when the heads of Infinity, Clear Channel, etc... were bought before congress following the Janet Jackson incident to discuss indecency.

    Clear Channel suspended Stern the day before they appeared before the committee as a preemptive strike to show congress that they were already "doing something" about the "indecent material" on their stations.
    This has nothing to do with Stern's stance on Bush & it has nothing to do with whether you or I think Stern is "indecent". The general public perceives Stern as such & he was Clear Channel's sacrificial lamb in this case.


I am aware of that. In court that is called "circumstancial evidence." It just suggest one possibility.

At this point, there are several possibilities.

I just don't how more ways to say that there are many possible solutions to this particular situation. You nor I can say any ONE situation is true (being that neither one of us are in any position to KNOW what actually went down).

So let's stop pretending like any of us actually KNOW what the motives are.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 994/1136
EXP: 2618569
For next: 110245

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3756 days
Last activity: 3225 days
AIM:  
#25 Posted on 8.3.04 1832.46
Reposted on: 8.3.11 1832.54
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Just who is allotting him this Credit?


Well, Howard naturally! What reason would he have to overstate his influence?

Hasn't Stern been rumored to be ready to retire anyway? Unless some actual evidence has come to light in the last couple of days all I've heard was that Howard had heard from "sources" that the FCC was going to fine him into oblivion.

I wouldn't put it past Stern to want to stir up one last big shitstorm instead of just fading away into obscurity like he's been doing over the last few years.
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 146

Posts: 2857/6743
EXP: 37891473
For next: 621913

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#26 Posted on 9.3.04 0038.23
Reposted on: 9.3.11 0038.24
The bottom line is that this is all Janet Jackson and MTV's fault for wanting to be 'edgy' and to promote an album.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 538/2704
EXP: 8937912
For next: 50907

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#27 Posted on 9.3.04 0824.45
Reposted on: 9.3.11 0829.01
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    The bottom line is that this is all Janet Jackson and MTV's fault for wanting to be 'edgy' and to promote an album.


I would add that we as a society should share some blame. If titillation didn't sell, they wouldn't have ratings and it would stop on its own. If Stern's act hadn't generated ad sales this wouldn't be an issue.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 69/512
EXP: 728128
For next: 38081

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 232 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#28 Posted on 9.3.04 0956.59
Reposted on: 9.3.11 0957.52
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    I am aware of that. In court that is called "circumstancial evidence." It just suggest one possibility.

    At this point, there are several possibilities.

    I just don't how more ways to say that there are many possible solutions to this particular situation. You nor I can say any ONE situation is true (being that neither one of us are in any position to KNOW what actually went down).

    So let's stop pretending like any of us actually KNOW what the motives are.


Well, since the head of CC specifically said that he had fired Stern in an attempt to "clean up" CC's airwaves, I would say that there is a little more than "circumstancial evidence" pointing to the FCC's crusade against "indecent" material being the driving force behind CC's decision.
But, obviously what we are saying here is our opinions, & whatever I say is basically the facts as I may see them.

The real bottom line is something DrDirt referred to below. More than anything else, CC made a decision based on their bottom line. They see a potential dent in their pockets if they stay with Stern in the current climate & acted in what they think are their best financial interests. They may be wrong in the long run (& I think they will once the current dust settles at the FCC), but that was definitely a decision maker for them.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1685/2042
EXP: 6314957
For next: 77842

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3041 days
Last activity: 255 days
#29 Posted on 9.3.04 1059.25
Reposted on: 9.3.11 1059.25
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by Big Bad
      The bottom line is that this is all Janet Jackson and MTV's fault for wanting to be 'edgy' and to promote an album.


    I would add that we as a society should share some blame. If titillation didn't sell, they wouldn't have ratings and it would stop on its own. If Stern's act hadn't generated ad sales this wouldn't be an issue.


And why is that a problem?

Jackson's stunt was a surprise with no warning during what has traditionally been a bland, family-friendly event. Stern is a known quantity; anyone who wants to avoid his brand of vulgar humor can easily do so, while the halftime show viewers got blindsided.

The fact that society consumes large quantities of adult-themed products (nudity, violence, and vulgarity in varying combinations) is not in and of itself a problem. On the contrary, it suggests that a large chunk of society approves of and can handle such material, when marketed and labeled as such. Those who disapprove are free to look elsewhere, though when it really IS unexpectedly "thrust in their faces" ala Jackson/Timberlake, they have a legitimate beef.

But that incident alone does not justify cracking down on adult material that _is_ blatantly telegraphed in advance. If Patrick rips off Sandy Squirrel's top or Squidward drops an f-bomb in a Spongebob episode next week, should South Park be cracked down upon? Hardly, because they're intended for different types of audiences in vastly different time slots. To paraphrase Henry Rollins, Stern is like a New York mugger; if someone so obvious can catch you off guard, he _should_ have your wallet.

But the Zell Millers and Donald Wildmons tend to think in absolutes -- if they view something as being "indecent" or "wrong" or "unacceptable" _regardless of the context_, they want it gone on moral grounds, brushing aside the notion that their morality isn't universally shared.

Miller's "fine-per-listener" bill is hysterically funny in that light, in that such a fine would suggest that every listener felt damaged or injured by the broadcast. Likewise for his "Council of Decency" suggestion. All things considered, doesn't America have better things to do than worry about what their neighbors are listening to or watching?


(edited by vsp on 9.3.04 0907)
wordlife
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 206/324
EXP: 379198
For next: 25577

Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3369 days
Last activity: 2653 days
#30 Posted on 10.3.04 0729.09
Reposted on: 10.3.11 0737.57
    Originally posted by vsp
      Originally posted by DrDirt
        Originally posted by Big Bad
        The bottom line is that this is all Janet Jackson and MTV's fault for wanting to be 'edgy' and to promote an album.


      I would add that we as a society should share some blame. If titillation didn't sell, they wouldn't have ratings and it would stop on its own. If Stern's act hadn't generated ad sales this wouldn't be an issue.


    And why is that a problem?

    Jackson's stunt was a surprise with no warning during what has traditionally been a bland, family-friendly event. Stern is a known quantity; anyone who wants to avoid his brand of vulgar humor can easily do so, while the halftime show viewers got blindsided.

    The fact that society consumes large quantities of adult-themed products (nudity, violence, and vulgarity in varying combinations) is not in and of itself a problem. On the contrary, it suggests that a large chunk of society approves of and can handle such material, when marketed and labeled as such. Those who disapprove are free to look elsewhere, though when it really IS unexpectedly "thrust in their faces" ala Jackson/Timberlake, they have a legitimate beef.

    But that incident alone does not justify cracking down on adult material that _is_ blatantly telegraphed in advance. If Patrick rips off Sandy Squirrel's top or Squidward drops an f-bomb in a Spongebob episode next week, should South Park be cracked down upon? Hardly, because they're intended for different types of audiences in vastly different time slots. To paraphrase Henry Rollins, Stern is like a New York mugger; if someone so obvious can catch you off guard, he _should_ have your wallet.

    But the Zell Millers and Donald Wildmons tend to think in absolutes -- if they view something as being "indecent" or "wrong" or "unacceptable" _regardless of the context_, they want it gone on moral grounds, brushing aside the notion that their morality isn't universally shared.

    Miller's "fine-per-listener" bill is hysterically funny in that light, in that such a fine would suggest that every listener felt damaged or injured by the broadcast. Likewise for his "Council of Decency" suggestion. All things considered, doesn't America have better things to do than worry about what their neighbors are listening to or watching?


    (edited by vsp on 9.3.04 0907)


Well said...I heard Michael Chiklis (of the Shield) on the radio and I think he put this whole situation the best when they were talking about his show "People know what to expect when they watch the Shield or Stern, its a great show but it's not for everyone. If you don't like it, turn it off or find something that is more than your speed." He then went on to say that things like his show or porn shouldn't be banned just b/c they are, in his opinion immoral, he feels that people need to make their own decisions and move on.

He also argued that there needs to be some separation of church/state here and that the church needs to remember that there is something called the 1st amendment. Church/state issue could become big if Stern wants to make this a big deal (as most of the people going after him are bible thumpers or politicians getting huge $$ from religious PACs to my knowledge)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 546/2704
EXP: 8937912
For next: 50907

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#31 Posted on 10.3.04 0833.13
Reposted on: 10.3.11 0834.38
While there is truth is the previous two posts, the brush is a little too broad. You cannot make the assumption that this is simply the Christian right attacking and offended. It is possible to be a normal, not terribly Christian person and think the line has been crossed.

Personally, if people want to listen to and watch this stuff, okay. But we seem to forget that these are the public airwaves and IMO this entitles the public to some input.

IMO, the best thing with Janet's breast would have been to ignore her. She got the reaction she wanted but maybe a little too much reaction. The fact that after 20 years Stern is finally drawing the ire of his bosses is amusing and hypocritical.
wordlife
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 208/324
EXP: 379198
For next: 25577

Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3369 days
Last activity: 2653 days
#32 Posted on 10.3.04 1305.23
Reposted on: 10.3.11 1305.58
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    While there is truth is the previous two posts, the brush is a little too broad. You cannot make the assumption that this is simply the Christian right attacking and offended. It is possible to be a normal, not terribly Christian person and think the line has been crossed.

    Personally, if people want to listen to and watch this stuff, okay. But we seem to forget that these are the public airwaves and IMO this entitles the public to some input.

    IMO, the best thing with Janet's breast would have been to ignore her. She got the reaction she wanted but maybe a little too much reaction. The fact that after 20 years Stern is finally drawing the ire of his bosses is amusing and hypocritical.


The problem is that Dr. is that if you do the research the people attacking Stern and Co. are people that receive $$ from religious groups (Miller, GW for example). This is a conflict of interest and basically the church is buying their way into our government.

Also, Dr. "the public" seems to be a bunch of right wingers, religious PACs and religious groups. Realistically, what amount of people does this amount to? Maybe 20% to 30% of our public would be my guess.

While they are public airwaves, there is a 1st amendment as I stated in my last post. There are shows I think are wrong that are on TV (Friends shows people that are having children w/o being married, 7th Heaven (which the church loves) is so ridiculously unrealistic (the oldest boy, Barry was a 4.0 Pre-med major, who always had a g/f, worked 40+ hours a week and had time for his buddy) that I felt it trivialized college as some easy time, which has hurt many a college freshman who think they can breeze through then flunk out)...just b/c I feel that something is immoral/wrong, does it mean that it doesn't belong on TV? Of course not, that's why I have a channel clicker and I use it freely when I see something I don't like...people need to police themselves and not expect society to do it for them
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 549/2704
EXP: 8937912
For next: 50907

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#33 Posted on 10.3.04 1436.35
Reposted on: 10.3.11 1442.22
Wordlife, I really don't disagree. My point is that you can be offended and not be part of that group. This stuff doesn't particularly bother me because I choose not to participate. I can understand the concern some people have.

Stern is IMO basically a very smart bufoon and more power to him. I am concerned if they are out to destroy his ilk for political reasons. But whether you or I like it or not these groups have the right to do what they are doing and the people in the government are SUPPOSED to be responsible enouhg to separate out emotion from the law and reality.

For myself and my family, I don't worry because we monitor what my daughter does, watches, listens to and who she visits. Plus we are normally with her when she is not in school and have many family activities and the extras she is involved with, we are also.

Having raised her that way for 13+ years doesn't mean she wont stray but she understands as well as a teenager can. Do you know where she is exposed to things my wife and I feel are objectionable. School

(edited by DrDirt on 10.3.04 1437)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: California Legislators proposes 14-year old voting age
Next thread: Kerry & McCain?
Previous thread: Turns out Bush actually IS "a uniter."
(1054 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 0.19 seconds.