Bad Words on the Radio

[musicfan101]

I was listening to old episodes of the Tom Leykis Show and Loveline, and they said words in there that I'm sure are not repeatable on this site. I was wondering what the true reason behind all these changes in what you could say on the radio? Do you think the FCC should ease up on their restrictions in order to get people back to listening to the radio?

 

[TheBigA]

We've probably had the experience of being next to a car that is blasting loud rap music through open windows (even in sub-freezing or tropic temperatures), and hearing the language being used. None of it would be allowed on the radio. It would be an instrumental. Yet it's obvious from the Grammy Awards that a lot of young men (and some women) listen to this stuff constantly. I've interviewed a lot of the artists, and talked about the language, and they say (1) It's their personal expression. The language represents houw they feel. (2) Their fans relate to them because they speak the same language and share the same emttion. (3) Therefore, they would not consider changing their language in order to get radio airplay. It would hurt their credibility with their fans, and they would never do that for money or anything.

So radio loses out on an entire sub-culture of people who listen to this kind of music, with its audience of mid 20s men who, under normal circumstances, would listen to the radio. Lots of advertisers are trying to reach that audience with their products. The way to do it is pretty obvious, but it's against the law. It just seems to me if a guy can blast this stuff out of his car to everyone and doesn't get arrested, then it should be allowed on some radio stations at certain times of day.

 

[calguy]

I was listening to old episodes of the Tom Leykis Show and Loveline, and they said words in there that I'm sure are not repeatable on this site. I was wondering what the true reason behind all these changes in what you could say on the radio? Do you think the FCC should ease up on their restrictions in order to get people back to listening to the radio?

The ban on dirty words has been around forever, but over time people pushed the limit and with the FCC becoming weaker and weaker due to deregulation there was little enforcement. Enter the Bush White House who wanted the laws enforced, and enforce they did. Some would argue that with the coarsening of language everywhere in our society that it really doesn't matter anymore. But the funny thing is, a majority of people become more conservative when they start a family and they don't want to hear a lot of salty language on the radio when they're driving their kids around.

First off, Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendmentand can't be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet these standards. The material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest or depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Indecency is different from obscenity. It would be “language or material that, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action. So after 10:00 pm and until 6:00 am indecent material can air. Loveline is on at a time of night when it's okay to say certain indecent words. That's how they get away with what they say. As I recall Leykis was always bleeping callers and explaining what can and cannot be said. It's also I believe reasonable to think that certain shows, like those on a Hot Talk format would not be expected to be heard by kids as most adults wouldn't listen unless they didn't have their kids in the back seat... But hey, every family is different...

 

[justpassingthough]

"Community standards" in indecency cases is such a loose construct. Although, maybe that is why it has been around for nearly 80 years now.

As above posters have pointed out, regulation of indecency tightened under the Bush administration. One could argue that this was part of a larger regulation of speech, thought and idea that the country entered after 9/11, as a result of the first large scale terrorist attack on American soil. More than eight years after the attack, the waning influence of the fear we once lived under has inevitably subsided, and I expect the community standards for what is and what is not grouped under indecent and/or obscene to reflect the attitudes of the day.

 

[almaniac27]

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action. So after 10:00 pm and until 6:00 am indecent material can air. Loveline is on at a time of night when it's okay to say certain indecent words. That's how they get away with what they say. As I recall Leykis was always bleeping callers and explaining what can and cannot be said. It's also I believe reasonable to think that certain shows, like those on a Hot Talk format would not be expected to be heard by kids as most adults wouldn't listen unless they didn't have their kids in the back seat... But hey, every family is different...

I remember Howard Stern questioning why the FCC chose those hours, his thought was that kids would be more likely to listen to inappropriate content on the radio after 10pm, because they would secretly listen to the radio in their room. He also said the hours he was on, between 6 and 10am, kids would be less likely to hear because they would be under adult supervision on their way to school.

 

[TheBigA]

kids would be less likely to hear because they would be under adult supervision on their way to school.

There you have the problem. The kids aren't the problem. Kids are the excuse. It's the adults who are the problem. They put this stuff on, and blame the radio for what they or their kids heard.

A few years ago, Bill Moyers was on PBS, saying that media consolidation was bad because it caused people like Howard Stern to become popular. He then went on to tell a story of how he & his wife stumbled on Howard's show by accident, and how horrified they were that such a thing would be on the public airwaves. The amazing thing was that they listened and didn't change the station. THAT is the point.

Any preacher will tell you that they can't do much about people who sin, but they spend most of their time dealing with temptation. In the end, it's all about power, control, and forcing others to live their lives your way, instead of their own way.

 

[LKellerIII]

I'm not defending the FCC - I think they went way overboard during the last Bush Administration. However, I will say that they were provoked to take action in a few cases. I remember reading the story (along with transcripted excerpts) of a radio segment some east coast shock jocks did...I want to say Opie and Anthony, but don't remember for sure. It involved taking calls from male listeners who told stories about forcing women to perform "ATM"...and I don't mean get money out of a bank machine. I don't shock easily, but I found it pretty disgusting, not to mention extremely misogynistic.

At the time, some people cried double-standard and pointed to an Oprah show in which experts discussed acts of a similar nature. The bottom line was: the FCC was not interested in sanctioning Oprah because the discussion was in the context of a valid discussion about sexuality, while the O&A segment amounted to a very low form of salacious "comedy"...if you can even call it that.

Context is everything. I haven't heard Loveline in years, but the last I heard, it was a legitimate program with content that can help people. If the program requires using some words that would ordinarily be objectionable on the air, it's probably for a valid reason.

Besides, does anybody need to listen to a radio program to hear prurient content these days,considering you can Google your way to hardcore porn on the internet in about 30 seconds?

 

[almaniac27]

Besides, does anybody need to listen to a radio program to hear prurient content these days,considering you can Google your way to hardcore porn on the internet in about 30 seconds?

Because porn isn't funny. Actually, it can be very funny, but it's not meant to be.

 

[Dick Skinner]

(1) It's their personal expression. The language represents houw they feel. (2) Their fans relate to them because they speak the same language and share the same emttion. (3) Therefore, they would not consider changing their language in order to get radio airplay. It would hurt their credibility with their fans, and they would never do that for money or anything.

And that would be the credibility of being too insecure to express a thought without the use of profanity to an audience that suffers from the same weakness?

from Calguy
One could argue that this was part of a larger regulation of speech, thought and idea that the country entered after 9/11, as a result of the first large scale terrorist attack on American soil.

Yeah, that Oklahoma City thing was small scale.

 

[calguy]

(1) It's their personal expression. The language represents houw they feel. (2) Their fans relate to them because they speak the same language and share the same emttion. (3) Therefore, they would not consider changing their language in order to get radio airplay. It would hurt their credibility with their fans, and they would never do that for money or anything.

And that would be the credibility of being too insecure to express a thought without the use of profanity to an audience that suffers from the same weakness?

from Calguy
One could argue that this was part of a larger regulation of speech, thought and idea that the country entered after 9/11, as a result of the first large scale terrorist attack on American soil.

Yeah, that Oklahoma City thing was small scale.

No offense, but that wasn't a quote from my post...

May I add, that I agree with you about these "artists" and I use the word loosely, that may not want to change the language used in their songs, but they will if they want to get more airplay. But really it's a non issue as most stations will play a hit, they'll just bleep the offending words. I don't know if they're insecure or just not capable of expressing themselves with language that doesn't need to be censored.

 

[Dick Skinner]

Sorry about that, Calguy.

 

[calguy]

Sorry about that, Calguy.

It's cool, no problem. Thanks

 

[gerald]

Let's not forget that this didn't start with hot talk. Howzabout the Who on the album version of Who Are You dropping the f bomb at least once. I remember when that song came out, and my girlfriend had an FM radio in her car, and we would drive around flipping between the pop station and the AOR station because they would play the two different versions.

Or Steve Miller and Jet Airliner, where he drops the s bomb on the album version but there's a radio edit. The one that continues to trouble me, because it's on the radio a lot, is Dire Straits Money for Nothing (I Want my MTV). They use a very unpleasant slur for homosexuals several times in that song, which really should be bleeped.

 

[LKellerIII]

Let's not forget that this didn't start with hot talk. Howzabout the Who on the album version of Who Are You dropping the f bomb at least once. I remember when that song came out, and my girlfriend had an FM radio in her car, and we would drive around flipping between the pop station and the AOR station because they would play the two different versions.

Or Steve Miller and Jet Airliner, where he drops the s bomb on the album version but there's a radio edit. The one that continues to trouble me, because it's on the radio a lot, is Dire Straits Money for Nothing (I Want my MTV). They use a very unpleasant slur for homosexuals several times in that song, which really should be bleeped.

By 1969 or 70, "underground" DJs on album rock stations would drop the "F" bomb (and a few others of the big-seven swear words) fairly frequently, but it was always in conversation...the way most of us speak in normal conversation. I don't remember hearing swear words on KMET - possibly because the station was owned by Metromedia, but you would hear them often on KPPC. As far as I know, they never got in any trouble with the FCC. This may have been because FM radio was still flying under the radar for most listeners.

 

[TheBigA]

This may have been because FM radio was still flying under the radar for most listeners.

Maybe, but what it takes to get the interest of the FCC is for someone to write a complaint. If that happens, then it wakes up the FCC. Otherwise, they really don't know. It's not like they're listening to every station in the country. And folks who listened to KPPC (or was it KPCC) probably wouldn't complain about bad words.

 

[likeaboss]

That's right, the FCC doesn't monitor radio for content, they only respond to complaints. And the first fine ever handed out was to a non-commercial station (KPFK, I think) that played George Carlin's "Filthy Words" routine uncut. And the FCC has never put out a list of words that can't be said on the radio. In fact, the FCC ruled that Bono's use of the F word on the grammy's and the airing of "Saving Private Ryan" uncut on several ABC stations were not indecent, and not subject to fine (both decisions came down during the Bush administration, FYI). There is no guarantee, however, that even if the exact same grammy footage or film were to air again that the FCC wouldn't issue a fine (or even revoke a license).

 

[LKellerIII]

This may have been because FM radio was still flying under the radar for most listeners.

Maybe, but what it takes to get the interest of the FCC is for someone to write a complaint. If that happens, then it wakes up the FCC. Otherwise, they really don't know. It's not like they're listening to every station in the country. And folks who listened to KPPC (or was it KPCC) probably wouldn't complain about bad words.

Makes sense. That was my point - KPPC-FM's fairly small audience at that point was mostly hippies and college students. And it was KPPC.

KPPC = Pasadena Presbyterian Church (the original AM ran religious programming)

KPCC = Pasadena Community College

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Let's not forget that this didn't start with hot talk. Howzabout the Who on the album version of Who Are You dropping the f bomb at least once. I remember when that song came out, and my girlfriend had an FM radio in her car, and we would drive around flipping between the pop station and the AOR station because they would play the two different versions.

Or Steve Miller and Jet Airliner, where he drops the s bomb on the album version but there's a radio edit. The one that continues to trouble me, because it's on the radio a lot, is Dire Straits Money for Nothing (I Want my MTV). They use a very unpleasant slur for homosexuals several times in that song, which really should be bleeped.

"That little fagot with the earing and the make-up / That little fagot, he's a millionaire..."

Words are powerful.

Like many who post here, I've played Money For Nothing more than a few times. I first heard the song on the radio while driving to work. Our morning guy was playing it. "What the hell is this all about?" I thought. Upon arriving, I went into the control room and asked about the song and why we were playing it in morning drive. But upon listening to Money For Nothing a second time, we both understood the context of the song. Mark Knopfler was making an observation on a number of levels, society, commercialism, consumerism and the state of music. I suppose any (rap or heavy metal) artist can make the argument for "context" justifying the use of the word "mother@#$^%" and other profanity as "reflecting the language used by and in contemporary society." Anybody remember the MC5, "Up Against the Wall, Mother%$#@!?" The language is degrading and to some extent, destructive. But the language used by fans at an NFL (Buffalo Bills in my case) game can be just as graphic. Not like you can hit scan, kill the volume or put a CD in the deck in that kind of environment and protesting to the user usually brings even more of the same, if not a bloody lip or nose.

 

[almaniac27]

Let's not forget that this didn't start with hot talk. Howzabout the Who on the album version of Who Are You dropping the f bomb at least once. I remember when that song came out, and my girlfriend had an FM radio in her car, and we would drive around flipping between the pop station and the AOR station because they would play the two different versions.

Or Steve Miller and Jet Airliner, where he drops the s bomb on the album version but there's a radio edit. The one that continues to trouble me, because it's on the radio a lot, is Dire Straits Money for Nothing (I Want my MTV). They use a very unpleasant slur for homosexuals several times in that song, which really should be bleeped.

"That little fagot with the earing and the make-up / That little fagot, he's a millionaire..."

Words are powerful.

Like many who post here, I've played Money For Nothing more than a few times. I first heard the song on the radio while driving to work. Our morning guy was playing it. "What the hell is this all about?" I thought. Upon arriving, I went into the control room and asked about the song and why we were playing it in morning drive. But upon listening to Money For Nothing a second time, we both understood the context of the song. Mark Knopfler was making an observation on a number of levels, society, commercialism, consumerism and the state of music. I suppose any (rap or heavy metal) artist can make the argument for "context" justifying the use of the word "mother@#$^%" and other profanity as "reflecting the language used by and in contemporary society." Anybody remember the MC5, "Up Against the Wall, Mother%$#@!?" The language is degrading and to some extent, destructive. But the language used by fans at an NFL (Buffalo Bills in my case) game can be just as graphic. Not like you can hit scan, kill the volume or put a CD in the deck in that kind of environment and protesting to the user usually brings even more of the same, if not a bloody lip or nose.

I thought the MC5 said "Kick Out the Jams, Motherf***er!" Which is kind of cool. When it comes to bad words in general, I'm in favor of everything in moderation. Swear words can "enhance" a sentence very well, but when someone drops the f bomb every other word, to me it shows a lack of imagination and/or vocabulary.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Let's not forget that this didn't start with hot talk. Howzabout the Who on the album version of Who Are You dropping the f bomb at least once. I remember when that song came out, and my girlfriend had an FM radio in her car, and we would drive around flipping between the pop station and the AOR station because they would play the two different versions.

Or Steve Miller and Jet Airliner, where he drops the s bomb on the album version but there's a radio edit. The one that continues to trouble me, because it's on the radio a lot, is Dire Straits Money for Nothing (I Want my MTV). They use a very unpleasant slur for homosexuals several times in that song, which really should be bleeped.

"That little fagot with the earing and the make-up / That little fagot, he's a millionaire..."

Words are powerful.

Like many who post here, I've played Money For Nothing more than a few times. I first heard the song on the radio while driving to work. Our morning guy was playing it. "What the hell is this all about?" I thought. Upon arriving, I went into the control room and asked about the song and why we were playing it in morning drive. But upon listening to Money For Nothing a second time, we both understood the context of the song. Mark Knopfler was making an observation on a number of levels, society, commercialism, consumerism and the state of music. I suppose any (rap or heavy metal) artist can make the argument for "context" justifying the use of the word "mother@#$^%" and other profanity as "reflecting the language used by and in contemporary society." Anybody remember the MC5, "Up Against the Wall, Mother%$#@!?" The language is degrading and to some extent, destructive. But the language used by fans at an NFL (Buffalo Bills in my case) game can be just as graphic. Not like you can hit scan, kill the volume or put a CD in the deck in that kind of environment and protesting to the user usually brings even more of the same, if not a bloody lip or nose.

I thought the MC5 said "Kick Out the Jams, Motherf***er!" Which is kind of cool. When it comes to bad words in general, I'm in favor of everything in moderation. Swear words can "enhance" a sentence very well, but when someone drops the f bomb every other word, to me it shows a lack of imagination and/or vocabulary.

I think you're right on both counts. What the #@!% was I thinking? Maybe it was the Fuggs who sang "Up Against the Wall..."