The W
Views: 139218800
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
14.12.18 2251
The W - Current Events & Politics - 99.8% of all FCC indecency complaints filed by the PTC
This thread has 17 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.46
Pages: 1 2 Next
(943 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (21 total)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
ICQ:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656

Can we please stop pandering to these people?



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 1139 days
Last activity: 14 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.67

Not when they get their people elected to run everything in Washington. They got their president, their house, their senate, and will soon have their supreme court. Face it Guru, we're the minority as we learned last month. My advice, stock up on porn now, and even if you don't watch it, there'll be lots of money to be made in black market sales in 2006 ;)



rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 5082 days
Last activity: 4960 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.16
Janet Jackson's chest received 540,000 complaints. 89.9 million people watched Jackson's chest. From those numbers, we see that 99.9939866369710467706013363028953% of the people who saw what happened did not say anything to the FCC. What liberals need is a group comprising an insignificant number of people to act like An Organization of Some Sort with a Significant Membership by sending form letters and emails and making phone calls to the FCC. Quick little notes, like "Stern's use of the words 'vagina' and 'pussy' gave me the perfect opportunity to explain appropriate sexual terms to my son" or "Janet Jackson's exposed breast did not turn my daughter into a whore." Maybe call it the Parents Who Can Handle Children Around a Television Council or something.

The "Saving Private Ryan" controversy was the first time something bit these moral groups in the ass, because that wasn't good press and it was easily connected with backlash from the Super Bowl fines. And the television industry is way too monied to get pushed around too much by anyone, so something is going to give on all this wailing and nashing of teeth. The PTC has built its head of steam, but so did Tipper Gore's PMRC and it wound up laughed to death. The PMRC got their little "Buy Me! Your Parents Will Freak the Fuck Out!" sticker on albums, but's that about it. L. Brent Bozell and the TV Police aren't making anyone the kind of money the 18 to 45-year old demographic does.



Lunatic Fringe
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1142 days
Last activity: 1142 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.03
A bit of rant - I hate the FCC with such a passion....

It's recognized - at least in radio circles - that the SuperBowl complaints were a well-organized campaign. Personally, I think there's a bit more going on here than just indecency standards.

Michael Powell's entire credibility rested on the the media deregulation attempt that failed miserably a couple of years ago. The whole debacle over the NFL (both the SuperBowl and the lockeroom-towel scene) is going to eventually lead to another deregulation movement - this time on the grounds that certain companies are "better" at keeping to these standards than others. And these indecency are supposed to have public support, so it deregulation might not be so opposed under these circumstances.

One of the new policies - in addition to the the outrageous increases in fines that could very well bankrupt any independently owned or non-commercial station - is a three strikes clause that basically revokes a stations broadcast license for repeat offenses. Radio stations are still relatively expensive, and broadcast bands and broadcast sites are both very limited.

The FCC could deem only a very few companies "fit" to take over these stations - namely, the companies who publicly supported the revisions to the FCC's indecency regulations.

Obviously, ClearChannel is the big gun in radio. And while the FCC did fine them, ClearChannel also reached a settlement with the FCC that erases all previous claims of indecency from their record - and every complaint filed prior to June 8, 2004 is dismissed outright.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29568-2004Jun9.html

So the largest owner of radio stations in the country just paid to get a clean slate with the FCC.

It all just stinks. And before you completely throw out the "conspiracy theory", there's this little thing:

FCC officials rack up $2.8 million travel tab with industries they regulate.

Note of irony: The spell checker wanted to replace the word FCC's with the word fuck. Awesome.

(edited by Leroy on 6.12.04 2353)

(edited by Leroy on 6.12.04 2356)

"On [Election Night], the voice of the people was heard. I promise not to repeat what they said out of respect for the mentally-retarded."

--Lewis Black
AWArulz
Scrapple








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.91
Only a small percentage of anyone is going to complain about anything. Look, The PTC or any other group doesn't influence me. But I have made a couple complaints of the last year to the FCC, as is my right.

I'm all for TV that doesn't travel through the air freely to my antenna having whatever their subscribers want to see. But any kid can receive what's on the broadcast stations and parents can't be there every second and those children need to be protected from slime.

The PTC is, obviously, a focused group. That's kind of what they do - watch TV and complain if they find it indecent. Not unlike this board in the wrestling forum. A few million watch the guys pretend to fight, but only a relative few come on here and remind us that HHH controls the glass ceiling.

Should we restrict the right of people to complain? Should we ignore complaints, just because a lot of them come from one person or group? Am I more influenced by HHHaters or the ringmistress?

I think if you guys who believe standards ought to be looser would write in, especially in a focused way, would get results. But it's easier to demonize the PTC than it is to use their same tactics to get your ideas over as effectively.



Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2783 days
Last activity: 1237 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Let's not get carried away folks. I have no love for the PTC. But they are not going to get everything they want....





It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-elite network.= Tavis Smiley on the diversity of the Bush Cabinet vis--vis NPR
King Of Crap
Goetta








Since: 17.9.03
From: Holley, New York

Since last post: 4990 days
Last activity: 4922 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.19
Here's a fun fact: The number of people who actually took the time to write a letter to the FCC and complain about the Married By America, which lead the FCC to fine FOX $1.2 million: 3.

Then 20 people merely copied one of the original complaints and sent it, so at most, 23 people were upset by the show.

(edited by King Of Crap on 7.12.04 0850)


You think WWE now is bad? Some of us had to live through 1993-1996!

The Losers Club, now featuring the return of WCW and ECW!
Roy.
Pepperoni








Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 3871 days
Last activity: 87 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.42
There's a fun back and forth debate between the PTC (mostly Bozell's lackeys, but Bozells in a recent colum) and Jeff Jarvis, former TV Guide Critic who now has his own website at http://www.buzzmachine.com. The PTC, as always, is http://www.parentstv.org.

Bozell's column is "Doing your TV Math" (parentstv.org) and Jarvis' response is on his blog (buzzmachine.com). Both are good reads, although I'd say that both men come off looking slightly insane (even though I love Jarvis).
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 415 days
Last activity: 317 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.11
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    The PTC is, obviously, a focused group. That's kind of what they do - watch TV and complain if they find it indecent.

    Should we restrict the right of people to complain? Should we ignore complaints, just because a lot of them come from one person or group?

    I think if you guys who believe standards ought to be looser would write in, especially in a focused way, would get results. But it's easier to demonize the PTC than it is to use their same tactics to get your ideas over as effectively.


AWA, I agree that anything available easily (i.e.) not cable needs tighter controls. However, I question the PTC. Do they really care or is it simply a way to get pub, flex their political muscle, and try to shove their morality down our throats? I am much more concerned by violence in movies and on TV with no context.

We should never restrict the right to complain but we should also be smart enough to delineate between an orchestrated campaign and true concern.

I don't think standards should be looser, however, I think they must be consistently applied and clear enough to make it obvious when a line is crossed.

I don't demonize the PTC, mostly because like most of their ilk on both the left and right, they are simply self-aggrandizing, self righteous snobs, particularly the leadership.

And finally, you are correct, parents can't be their all the time but they are still the key. I imagine your kids have a pretty good sense of what is and isn't acceptable and the consequences of ignoring the standards of your home.

(edited by DrDirt on 7.12.04 1152)


Perception is reality
fuelinjected
Banger








Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 4775 days
Last activity: 4775 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.78
    Originally posted by AWArulz

    I think if you guys who believe standards ought to be looser would write in, especially in a focused way, would get results. But it's easier to demonize the PTC than it is to use their same tactics to get your ideas over as effectively.


Why should you have to write in if you have no problem with what you saw?

The FCC chooses to take the complaints and think "Oh well the majority of the country must feel this way" instead of rightly thinking that "these are just a couple people from some small organizations."

The PTC was proven to be a joke when they had to pay up to Vince McMahon. They're not just some self-righteous people writing letters, they went above and beyond the law to try and take down the WWF.



"When did they pass a law that says the people who make my sandwich have to be wearing gloves? I'm not comfortable with this. I don't want glove residue all over my food; it's not sanitary. Who knows where these gloves have been?" - George Carlin
Roy.
Pepperoni








Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 3871 days
Last activity: 87 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.43
Technically (and I'm not a fan of the FCC), one complaint can set off an investigation. I think the problem that arises is that people like the PTC, and even the FCC, shout about how millions were outraged when the number is closer to a few dozen, if that. Pretty much every controverstial show out there is being attacked by the PTC or the AFA or some other group, and it's real easy to attach your name to one of their form letters. If only somebody would start a "I don't care about indecency" group. I'd attach my name to one of those form letters. I suppose you could simply email the commissioners.

I also think that the investigations aren't being fair or consistent, and that the rules have changed since boobiegate. They're doing things like going back into Howard Stern's archives and fining him for stuff years ago (he's now heavily editing his "Best Of" stuff from years ago for fear of being fined). How come it wasn't indecent in 1997, but it is now? There's also the Oprah double standard. I've talked about the "Family Guy" reruns before, and now cartoon asses aren't allowed on FOX for fear of fines.

I have a problem with the PTC not because of their views, which they're allowed to have, but because of their tactics and their "holier than thou" attitude towards TV. It's almost laughable that they're recommending those original shows on the PAX network as the best on TV. They blast a show like "Everwood" for warning about the dangers of STDs and pre-marital sex because they advocate condom use instead of only abstinance.
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1142 days
Last activity: 1142 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.31
It's really beyond inconsistent. The FCC has contradicted ITSELF on a number of occasions - most recently the KBOO-Sarah Jones incident.

FCC listens to rap again, drops KBOO indecency fine

And your're right, all it takes is one complaint, and the FCC has grounds for an investigation. The problem is after the SuperBowl, it can even be grounds for what a listener THOUGHT they heard.

Before all of this, you had to prove you heard what you heard - and if there was no recording available the complaint pretty much died. Now, they're saying that you can complain about something you THOUGHT you heard, and it's up to the station to prove you wrong.

And the rules are so vague, that it's pretty unclear as to what constitutes a violation. I know of some college stations who are talking about purging their entire music libraries of hip hop, because they don't want to take any chances. Yes, it's a completely irrational response - but that's the degree of fear these new standards have are causing some stations.

(edited by Leroy on 7.12.04 1336)

"On [Election Night], the voice of the people was heard. I promise not to repeat what they said out of respect for the mentally-retarded."

--Lewis Black
geemoney
Scrapple








Since: 26.1.03
From: Naples, FL

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.45
    Originally posted by Leroy
    And the rules are so vague, that it's pretty unclear as to what constitutes a violation. I know of some college stations who are talking about purging their entire music libraries of hip hop, because they don't want to take any stations. Yes, it's a completely irrational response - but that's the degree of fear these new standards have are causing some stations

Apparently, at our college radio station, the Dean of our school is scared shit-less of the FCC, as we've been told that we can't even use the word "crap" on the radio (whether using it in it's correct manner, or saying someone "played like crap.")



My in-depth LIVE RAW Review and More!: Experience It
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 5071 days
Last activity: 5071 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.41
The problem with the FCC is that even though it is supposed to stay nuetral in politics, ha, it will always side with the people who vote. Its hard to be upholding the standard of broadcasting when you tell a mother of two who can afford digital cable or DirecTV that she is wrong about what is on the air. It makes the FCC look like horrible people when they stand up for Howard Stern.

I think we should just scrap the whole FCC thing. They alone violate the first admendment rights of freedom of speech. If you don't want to see whats on TV, buy a DVD player and rent movies you want to see. Don't like the radio, get a car with a cd player, almost all the new models have them. It makes no sense to have an organization like the FCC around when we are supposed to be free speech. I guess its one of those relics from the 1950s. Its also a waiste of taxpayer dollars as well.



"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
ICQ:  
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.02
    Originally posted by A Fan
    The problem with the FCC is that even though it is supposed to stay nuetral in politics, ha, it will always side with the people who vote. Its hard to be upholding the standard of broadcasting when you tell a mother of two who can afford digital cable or DirecTV that she is wrong about what is on the air. It makes the FCC look like horrible people when they stand up for Howard Stern.

    I think we should just scrap the whole FCC thing. They alone violate the first admendment rights of freedom of speech. If you don't want to see whats on TV, buy a DVD player and rent movies you want to see. Don't like the radio, get a car with a cd player, almost all the new models have them. It makes no sense to have an organization like the FCC around when we are supposed to be free speech. I guess its one of those relics from the 1950s. Its also a waiste of taxpayer dollars as well.
I strongly encourage everyone reading this thread who may be tempted to respond to PLEASE not bother trying to correct any of the ignorant/incorrect statements of this post, as it's totally not worth any of our time.



CRZ
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 1993 days
Last activity: 1993 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.45
    Originally posted by spf

    Not when they get their people elected to run everything in Washington. They got their president, their house, their senate, and will soon have their supreme court. Face it Guru, we're the minority as we learned last month. My advice, stock up on porn now, and even if you don't watch it, there'll be lots of money to be made in black market sales in 2006 ;)






The funny thing about what would happen if they were to get their Supreme Court: If that Supreme Court were to take the strict constructionist viewpoint of the FCC should someone challenge it in a lawsuit, the proper ruling would be the Federal Communications Commission is unconstitutional. From a strict constructionist viewpoint, control of the airwaves is not promulgated within the Constitution at any point, and if any governmental control were to occur, it would have to be in the hands of the states per the 10th amendment.


(edited by redsoxnation on 7.12.04 2132)


The world needs another Warrior Manifesto.
AWArulz
Scrapple








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.91
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    The funny thing about what would happen if they were to get their Supreme Court: If that Supreme Court were to take the strict constructionist viewpoint of the FCC should someone challenge it in a lawsuit, the proper ruling would be the Federal Communications Commission is unconstitutional. From a strict constructionist viewpoint, control of the airwaves is not promulgated within the Constitution at any point, and if any governmental control were to occur, it would have to be in the hands of the states per the 10th amendment


A constructionist justice might rule that regulation of the airwaves is covered under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, and that the airwave need to be regulated and promoted according to the "useful arts", so then the congress could mandate an FCC to perform such duties.

They might also rule that an FCC is allowed to be mandated by the congress by Art 1, section 8, clause 3. This clause allows the congress to regulate interstate commerce. This seems a likely guide for broadcast television and redio since it is impossible to keep signals withing a given state and since a single broadcast concerns the several states, and since commerce is occuring, then it seems this article would provide for a regulation os said commerce, and the FCC.

So, I think an outright rejection of the FCC on Amendment 10 means is unlikely, although possible.



Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
MoeGates
Boudin blanc








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
They might also rule that an FCC is allowed to be mandated by the congress by Art 1, section 8, clause 3. This clause allows the congress to regulate interstate commerce.

"Strict Constructionist" basically means "against the commerce clause" which is what the liberal courts used to exert federal authority over everything. Almost every issue in America can be related to Interstate Commerce somehow. When the "judicial activist" courts wanted to make a change for whatever reason, they usually invoked this clause somehow as justification.

I find it the absolute height of irony that you're advocating using the commerce clause to advance a conservative activist agenda. Just goes to show you all the fancy theories and justifications for stuff are generally all just so much bullshit.



Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


AWArulz
Scrapple








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.91
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    I find it the absolute height of irony that you're advocating using the commerce clause to advance a conservative activist agenda. Just goes to show you all the fancy theories and justifications for stuff are generally all just so much bull****.


Number 1, I speak as a constitutionalist. I am not advocating OR not advocating FCC change. But TV and Radio are definitely Interstate, as opposed to, say, pornography shops. While the material ships interstate, the LOCAL (in-state) objections about the rightness/wrongness of porn should be dealt with at that level by the several states. The closest that issue could be a problem on an interstate level is, say, if a outdoor theatre showing porn was in one state and it could be observed from another. Even then, it seems to me that it would be a matter between the two states. That isn't the case with TV and radio, since the same signal is seen (and heard) in many if not all the states.

Number 2 - well, sorry, I don't have any fancy theories or justifications. I just read the constitution and typed in here what I thought a person reading it might think it meant. If that's what liberals use - well, then, on this issue, I am liberal.




Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
Hobbes
Cotechino








Since: 10.12.01
From: Kelowna

Since last post: 700 days
Last activity: 697 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.37
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I'm all for TV that doesn't travel through the air freely to my antenna having whatever their subscribers want to see. But any kid can receive what's on the broadcast stations and parents can't be there every second and those children need to be protected from slime.


First off, I think it's kind of sad that we seem to be heading in the direction where if you're an adult and want mature entertainment you are punished by having to pay extra for it. It seems that more and more adult entertainment has to retreat to pay cable or satellite radio and other things of that nature. And some crazy government people want to censor that even, the programming you choose to pay extra for to receive.

I believe you should be able to have things of an adult nature on for free, on public airways. I know everyone doesn't agree with me. I know more than ever kids are being bombarded by media of all sorts twenty four hours a day, but I think people are making the task of protecting children from "slime" seem more complicated than it really is. I'm probably going to go in the other direction and make this too simple but when I was a kid, if my family didn't want me to see/listen/read/do something, I generally did not get to. It was not some herculean task for my parents to hide a comic/video game/toy somewhere where I couldn't find it, couldn't reach it, couldn't unlock it or by god, sometimes they would just throw the offending material out. If I tried to view something like that at school the teachers would do the same thing, if I went to a friend's house, their parents would often do the same thing.

Obviously this wasn't perfect, sometimes I got to see something my parents wouldn't have wanted me to see, sometimes my parents/teachers/friend's parents were outwitted. But I believe it's not impossible or even super hard to filter what your child brings into your home, to use the channel locks on your TV and DVD player and to have your video accounts have ratings limits on what your child can rent under the family membership. If a kid absorbs some form of entertainment he shouldn't be doing, it's not the media's fault for being on before midnight, or for free, or anything else, it's the fault of the parents, teachers and other guardians for not doing their job.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.46
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: UN pnael reaffirms right to pre-emptive attack
Next thread: Greatest Canadian Named
Previous thread: Theoretically, we have a legal system.
(943 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
i would never buy a Harley unless i was given $1,000,000.00 american... then i'd just pocket the money and then turn around and sell the bike and buy some quality bikes like a Honda VTX1800 or ST1300ABS or a new 2004 VFR or any BMW bike...
- Zeruel, www.howtobuyamerican.com (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - 99.8% of all FCC indecency complaints filed by the PTCRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2018 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.081 seconds.