• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

FCC IS RIGHT!!!

J

joshzz

First let me say that I am grateful for the FCC. If it wasn't for the help of so many people at the FCC I would have never been able to successfully build an FM station. It troubles me to no end when people blast the FCc for this and that .

You probably just heard the following:

"Fleeting indecency" may be ok says a federal appeals court."

The truth is, the big media groups have the capability of filtering all expletives from every reaching viewers &/or listeners. I strongly disagree with the court's decision and pray that the FCC will find a way to overcome this ruling. Should the broadcasters prevail, expect regular television to deteriorate to trash television.

FCC, please keep up the fight!
 
NAUGHTY WORDS! :eek:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! ::)

If you don't want naughty words on your station, fine. It's your station.

I don't mind hearing them. After all, they are just words.

The FCC should not regulate speech because it's un-Constitutional.
 
josh said:
The truth is, the big media groups have the capability of filtering all expletives from every reaching viewers &/or listeners.
Click to expand...

And the big media groups can afford delays, have armies of lawyers to do battle with the FCC and deep pockets to pay fines when something happens. It is the SMALL guys (like me) who cannot afford the "capability" of filter expletives or mounting a defense if something does slip out. So I say "Thank you US Court of Appeals" for one less thing I have to worry about if I do any phoners on my station.
 
Nostalgia said:
josh said:
The truth is, the big media groups have the capability of filtering all expletives from every reaching viewers &/or listeners.
Click to expand...

And the big media groups can afford delays, have armies of lawyers to do battle with the FCC and deep pockets to pay fines when something happens. It is the SMALL guys (like me) who cannot afford the "capability" of filter expletives or mounting a defense if something does slip out. So I say "Thank you US Court of Appeals" for one less thing I have to worry about if I do any phoners on my station.
Click to expand...

...or live sporting events where kids and/or parents start chanting inappropriate things....
 
josh said:
The truth is, the big media groups have the capability of filtering all expletives from every reaching viewers &/or listeners.
Click to expand...

That turns private media companies into censors, which is not the role they should play.

A rule is a rule. It applies to all media companies, or none of them. You can't just single out "big media" because they have the resources. The Constitution provides for equal protection and equal treatment under the law.

The truth is that the big media companies have tried, contrary to unproven opinion, to control expletives. No one wants to put their license at risk, no one wants to fight a 5 year court battle, and no one wants to incur the wrath of listeners who don't want expletives coming out of their radio or TV. This trial was about "fleeting expletives," which is those that can't be controlled. The court was correct. It is up to the FCC to come up with clear rules that licensees can follow. That's what this decision requires.
 
I can't cite the statistic at the moment but almost all of the complaints the FCC receive on obscenity are those with Jesus in their heart as to protect the children.

Several years ago I worked for a "Clear Channel wannabee company" that no longer exist. Following the Janet Jackson mammary gland incident on national television, the self serving VP of programming issued a memo discussing "Audio Terrorism". He informed us that there could be people at a live event that could utter a naughty word. The company was even prepared to purchase a delay unit for all 75 stations until it was realized the cost would take away end of year bonuses from the the company's over abundance of Vice Presidents.

I'm taking a wild guess that when Dr. Frank Conrad was live on KDKA announcing the Harding/Cox election results there was some yahoo nearby ready to utter "damn", so this is nothing new and people need to get over it.
 
I did research on the famous LBJ tapes recorded in the white house. His language was worse than a rap record. Same with Nixon. And he was a Quaker.
 
Big Media needs to set a proper example for small station owners to follow not be adversarial. I applaud the FCC's position and support their efforts!

Do you want small children to be exposed to filthy words? If Fox etc., prevail as winners, you can be certain that our kids minds will be contaminated with more inappropriate behavior.
 
josh said:
Big Media needs to set a proper example for small station owners to follow not be adversarial.
Click to expand...

What's right is right, regardless if it's adversarial. It was adversarial for the American colonists to rebel against the King. But they did.

This decision does not allow filty words. It instead requires the FCC to come up with more specific laws. The FCC law was vague and capricious. The court agreed. The next step is to fix the law. That is the proper course of action. That is how you set an example.
 
I will agree there needs to be a set of rules to follow that you know where your limits are set. If this means that Rap music can't say certain things so be it, if you have to try and watch sports fans when your broadcasting a game (been there before) or event, ok. I don't care what you arguee it beat the alternative of listening to a bunch trash. I hope the FCC does a good job and takes into consideration that a single word slip up or one caller, sports fan or what have you can happen and at a small radio station we can't afford the delay equiment we would like but that they do have our support.
 
Back when there as "scarcity of spectrum" I may have agreed that a regulatory body should have some sort of community standards guidelines. But when my grandchildren can turn on any television set at any time and find simulated sex, innuendos, and violence, or open their computer and be barraged with things you or I may find inappropriate, and in a world where children first learn their "dirty words" from their own parents at home, I find it disingenuous that one would object to the occasional accidental use of coarse language on the radio.

Some of us are such hypocrites.
 
There was a time when you could go to your Chevy dealer and chose from 2 or 3 models, 6 or 8i colors. Today our choices are mind-boggling.

There was a time those of use who could be classed a hypocrites tended to belong to only 1 or two different camps. The battle lines were clearly drawn. We all co-existed during the week with public civility.

All the goody two-shoes crowd gathered at church on Sunday, and the those to needed some freedom to express themselves without limits gathered at the pool room. Or the golf course.

But in this day and age when families try to watch the evening news while eating dinner find themselves faced to trying to explain the erectile dysfunction commercials to the 7 and 8 year olds at the table, we want the FCC to haul broadcasters in to flog them for letting some four letter word get on the air.

I was grinding across country and back last week for a funeral so I missed the event on live streaming, but at a national meeting of my own church group I understand there was a sermon where the speaker spoke about issues that "probably piss God off....."

I can see it now: "I'm sorry, rev, but the FCC rules prevent me from broadcasting your sermons."
 
YOU SAID, "I can see it now: "I'm sorry, rev, but the FCC rules prevent me from broadcasting your sermons."


A reverend should not talk like that. There is no rational reason for speaking like that.

Bottom line is, the FCC is right - This is a battle between right and wrong --- good and evil ---

FOX and its supporters of filth represent what is wrong in this world.
 
"Fox supports filth?" What on earth are you talking about? ???

Here's a funny, ironic story. In the 23-year history of WYSL we have had two instances of F bombs airing accidentally. One was from the old ABC TalkRadio Network, where a psychologist host missed the DUMP button when a caller baited her. The "F" aired on 117 stations. The other incident was a play-by-play announcer who simply slipped out of mental gear and let it fly.

In neither of these instances would it be appropriate for WYSL to be fined. Any station which airs live programming, sooner or later, is going to have a "nasty" on the air. While we don't want wholesale swearing and sexual stuff flying out of the dashboard routinely on the kids' way to school, neither should be obsess about a rare, nonrepeating mistake. The VPOTUS Joe Biden let an F-bomb fly lately. How much government hypocrisy should we tolerate?

The Circuit Court of Appeals decision was right. Now here's the funny irony: one of the federal judges deciding the FCC obscenity case is from the small town where WYSL is located - I went to high school with him. He used to call football games as a guest PBP announcer here! (And no, he
was NOT the announcer who said the "F" bomb! :D)
 
TheBigA said:
josh said:
FOX and its supporters of filth represent what is wrong in this world.
Click to expand...

Funny...Fox, the TV network of the religious right, supports filth. Tell that to Sean Hannity.
Click to expand...


An episode of The Simpsons pointed out how Fox (read: News Corp) works both sides of the morality fence. You have Fox News, they love America more than life itself with Glenny, Seanny, Billy, and the rest of the morality beacons keeping us safe from the liberal decadence. However, there is Fox the television network that airs many things that the morality beacons preach against. Then there is another element of News Corp, The Sun but more specifically Page 3. I'd post a link but don't want to suffer radio-info bannation because the site shows British females displaying their mammary glands and we have to think of the children. But I can't stop you from doing a web search for "Page 3" because that is what makes America great even though it is a British web page.
 
Hey, does this also mean that when my fingers spontaneously type out bad words on the Radio-Info boards that the mods will let it go and not put me in Time Out? Sorry, this is a serious topic. One that I am torn by because on the one hand freedom of speech while on the other some will take serious advantage just for the shock value. If the "words" are during a live interview (NASCAR driver being monitored as he smacks the wall) or from the on field noises of fans, I'm not real concerned but when pro's are just too lazy to artfully express themselves and resort to **** then that is a problem (but maybe one better addressed by management).
 
Stewy said:
Hey, does this also mean that when my fingers spontaneously type out bad words on the Radio-Info boards that the mods will let it go and not put me in Time Out? Sorry, this is a serious topic. One that I am torn by because on the one hand freedom of speech while on the other some will take serious advantage just for the shock value. If the "words" are during a live interview (NASCAR driver being monitored as he smacks the wall) or from the on field noises of fans, I'm not real concerned but when pro's are just too lazy to artfully express themselves and resort to **** then that is a problem (but maybe one better addressed by management).
Click to expand...

I just find it amazing a program like CSI/SUV/LMNOP can show graphic violence and no one says a word. But if someone utters one of the "seven dirty words" or show a body part, then it's "You're CORRUPTING our morality." But then again, in Europe they don't have a problem with language or nudity in media to a certain extent but have a problem with violence so go figure.

As I said above, almost all of the complaints on morality are from religious groups. Their actions usually make the questionable behavior popular because they deem it to be "dirty". But this issue only applies to linear forms of delivery. The internet is rule free and will continue to be a wide open space so the morality police can't control it as much as they try.
 
You fail to understand that the real issue is access. With the number of existing radios and TVs, there's no way to prevent access to objectionable material by minors.

If you walk into a drug store or Kwiki-Mart, you won't find Jugs staring your 8-year-old in the face. Magazines with content intended for adults are kept behind the counter, or at least behind display racks that prevent covers from showing their "stuff". Adults can buy them. Minors cannot.

Digital media, including the Internet, have controls that parents and or guardians can enable to control access to content - be it sexual or violent in nature. Whether they choose to do this is up to the parents. With broadcast radio and TV, there's no way to control access to content, so the content itself must meet "community standards", at least when minors are likely to be listening/watching.

The concept has been tested in court repeatedly, and the courts have upheld the laws written by Congress, even if they haven't always upheld the FCC's interpretation of that law.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom