Posted on 06/08/2004 9:06:18 PM PDT by kcvl
Radio Giant In Record Indecency Settlement By Frank Ahrens Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A01 The Federal Communications Commission has reached a record-setting, nearly $2 million settlement with Clear Channel Communications Inc. that would clear the radio giant of all charges of indecency lodged against it, including on-air remarks made by shock jock Howard Stern, according to government and radio industry sources.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Perhaps most important, one source said, the deal would cover not only Clear Channel's outstanding fines but also dozens of listener complaints in the FCC's indecency pipeline that have not been ruled on. If those complaints were to result in fines, they could cost the radio company millions.
Why does Clear Channel bear the brunt of indecency charges against Stern? Doesn't CLear Channel account for all of 6 stations that carry Stern? Don't otehr stations bear culpability? This whole indecency issue has never made much sense to me.
Me either. I would just turn him off. I guess it is different if you have children.
I wonder who dropped the dime to the FCC to complain. Infinity owns the second largest number of stations behind Clear Channel.
Profanity is permitted on the air in these hours as is "indecency". Obscenity (something pornographic/pornophonic), however, is not. Each infraction counts separately.
There should be some standards. But all the stations should bear some responsibility, not just a handful. If I was clear channel, I'd drop Stern in a heartbeat. Why do I need the hassle?
Yet another federal agency that we're spending far too much money on. It's time to strip the FCC of its cultural monitoring powers, fire 95% of its staff, and repurpose it as a neutral arbiter of claims on spectrum space.
> ... strip the FCC of its cultural monitoring powers,
> fire 95% of its staff, and repurpose it as a neutral
> arbiter of claims on spectrum space.
In which eventuality, holders of AM, FM and TV broadcast
licenses will parcel out their spectrum to the highest
bidders (probably mobile datacomm), and that will be the
end of broadcasting as we know it.
Not that I have any real problem with that outcome, esp.
if it made wireless broadband available out here in the
sticks. Then we could just in-stream the content we
wanted.
"and that will be the end of broadcasting as we know it."
And that would be bad how? So we lose one more leftist mouth piece. Actually they would never let it go that far but it is somewhat of a nice thought.
Somehow, Rush would still find a way to be around.
"and that will be the end of broadcasting as we know it."
And that would be bad how? So we lose one more leftist mouth piece. Actually they would never let it go that far but it is somewhat of a nice thought.
Somehow, Rush would still find a way to be around.
Good! If that were to happen, most broadcasting would shift to the Internet as the number of homes and businesses with broadband access increases. Because Internet broadcasting eliminates the problem of restricted spectrum space, cost of entry to the radio/TV broadcast market will drop. TV stations will become as diverse and easy to start up as websites. Auctioning off on-air specrum to the highest bidder will give more reliable cell and data services - over which the new Internet-based broadcasting can also run. You will still be able to receive Rush in your car; all that will happen is a change in delivery technology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.