Radio today

[JohnnyOhJohnny]

How can anyone listen to power 106 when the songs keep popping off and on because of the language. it drives me crazy. I would like opinions on this. wouldn't it be better to get satellite radio or buy CD'S? Radio is dead to me.

 

[calguy]

Oh God, not another radio hater!

 

[AM FM listener]

I do not think broadcast radio should air gratuitous profanity so I think they have no choice but to delete it in the songs they air. I am surprised that today's hits have so much profanity. I do believe profanity has its place in life, for example, when one is very angry or frustrated and no other words will do. However, I do not believe it needs to be a part of everyday language or entertainment, including music. If one feels that every other word of a song has to be a profanity because it is important to the song then I say buy the CD.

 

[WTFman]

How can anyone listen to power 106 when the songs keep popping off and on because of the language. it drives me crazy. I would like opinions on this. wouldn't it be better to get satellite radio or buy CD'S? Radio is dead to me.

It might prove to be a valuable investment for some enterprising parties to put together a satellite station that airs profanity exclusively. The seven things you can't say on radio All The Time. It could be packaged with Howard Stern and select other talents to appeal to the cognoscenti in today's entertainment business. I can see it working. Some rap "music" would be immediately accessible for programming while creative heads toiled away at all other combinations. By changing inflection, tone, harmony, cadence, rhythm, beat...it's as if those seven monkeys locked in a room with synthesizers might produce untold masterpieces putting Shakespeare in the Shade.
I hope this was the sort of response you were soliciting.

 

[TheBigA]

Wouldn't it be better to make music that wasn't filled with profanity in the first place? It was exciting when I was 12, but now that I'm a little older, those words don't mean that much any more. It certainly doesn't qualify as art to me. My grandmother would wash their mouthes out with soap. I'd bet at some point the government is going to make satellite and internet play by the same rules as OTA. Children are in the room regardless of the platform. Isn't it time these so-called musicians grew up?

I will tell you that in some formats, the labels make sure that the versions radio gets have been re-recorded with replacement lyrics. Why can't other genres do that? Not to much to ask for free airplay.

 

[LKellerIII]

Wouldn't it be better to make music that wasn't filled with profanity in the first place? It was exciting when I was 12, but now that I'm a little older, those words don't mean that much any more. It certainly doesn't qualify as art to me. My grandmother would wash their mouthes out with soap. I'd bet at some point the government is going to make satellite and internet play by the same rules as OTA. Children are in the room regardless of the platform. Isn't it time these so-called musicians grew up?

I don't disagree about the profanity, but it would take an act of Congress (literally) to bring satellite and internet under FCC regulations that apply to OTA radio and TV. In an age where anybody who claims to be over 18 can click on and watch extremely raunchy hardcore pornography, I can't see lawmakers getting their knickers in a twist over rap artists using the F word and disrespecting women. Responsible websites (like this one) establish standards and police themselves, but there is no law preventing even the most vile kinds of content. As objectionable as some of that content is, any regulation could lead down that "slippery slope" to the point that the government could regulate free speech they didn't approve of.

I guess the US Government could decide to censor the internet and satellite, but that would be unprecedented anywhere in the world outside of dictatorships (China, Burma, etc). I don't think its likely to happen here, and the constitutionality of such laws would be questionable, in any case.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't disagree about the profanity, but it would take an act of Congress (literally) to bring satellite and internet under FCC regulations that apply to OTA radio and TV.

And they're talking about it. The issue isn't censorship, it's decency. It's acting properly in public. It's a shame that kind of thing needs to be legislated, but maybe it does. I watched the Grammy awards and was shocked at Drake's performance. I met him last fall, and he's a nice young man who speaks very well. He spoke to a group of college students and never used any obsenities. But when he goes on stage, he changes and becomes someone else. That is behavior that is simply not proper in public. See what happens when you post a bunch of obsenties on this message board. The same thing should apply to music. But it doesn't.

 

[LKellerIII]

I don't disagree about the profanity, but it would take an act of Congress (literally) to bring satellite and internet under FCC regulations that apply to OTA radio and TV.

And they're talking about it. The issue isn't censorship, it's decency. It's acting properly in public. It's a shame that kind of thing needs to be legislated, but maybe it does. I watched the Grammy awards and was shocked at Drake's performance. I met him last fall, and he's a nice young man who speaks very well. He spoke to a group of college students and never used any obsenities. But when he goes on stage, he changes and becomes someone else. That is behavior that is simply not proper in public. See what happens when you post a bunch of obsenties on this message board. The same thing should apply to music. But it doesn't.

Big A,

On an emotional level, I don't disagree with you. Though I'm a liberal (politically speaking), I have great respect for George Will, who has written and talked about the "coarsening of America." What was once considering taboo when I grew up (the 1960s) is commonplace, even on network TV - in shows like CSI which push the envelope of explicit visuals that were not even seen in the most explicit theatrical horror movies when I was growing up.

I live in an urban neighborhood. All you have to do is pause on any major street corner for a few seconds, and you'll hear profanity and anti-social behavior from people walking by and interacting. Like it or not, it's very common-place now. You have to realize that media (radio and TV) reflect that reality. My children have grown up in this reality. So to try to protect them from "bad words" they hear and things they see is totally futile. They've seen naked and delirious homeless people passed out and stewing in their own bodily functions. All I can do as a parent is to try and explain it, and suggest to them the right and sensible path. Fortunately, they are moral people, and have always acted (so far) by sensible moral principles. Just because the society is somewhat morally corrupt, doesn't mean you have to act that way.

 

[michael hagerty]

I don't disagree about the profanity, but it would take an act of Congress (literally) to bring satellite and internet under FCC regulations that apply to OTA radio and TV.

And they're talking about it. The issue isn't censorship, it's decency. It's acting properly in public. It's a shame that kind of thing needs to be legislated, but maybe it does. I watched the Grammy awards and was shocked at Drake's performance. I met him last fall, and he's a nice young man who speaks very well. He spoke to a group of college students and never used any obsenities. But when he goes on stage, he changes and becomes someone else. That is behavior that is simply not proper in public. See what happens when you post a bunch of obsenties on this message board. The same thing should apply to music. But it doesn't.

Big A,

On an emotional level, I don't disagree with you. Though I'm a liberal (politically speaking), I have great respect for George Will, who has written and talked about the "coarsening of America." What was once considering taboo when I grew up (the 1960s) is commonplace, even on network TV - in shows like CSI which push the envelope of explicit visuals that were not even seen in the most explicit theatrical horror movies when I was growing up.

I live in an urban neighborhood. All you have to do is pause on any major street corner for a few seconds, and you'll hear profanity and anti-social behavior from people walking by and interacting. Like it or not, it's very common-place now. You have to realize that media (radio and TV) reflect that reality. My children have grown up in this reality. So to try to protect them from "bad words" they hear and things they see is totally futile. They've seen naked and delirious homeless people passed out and stewing in their own bodily functions. All I can do as a parent is to try and explain it, and suggest to them the right and sensible path. Fortunately, they are moral people, and have always acted (so far) by sensible moral principles. Just because the society is somewhat morally corrupt, doesn't mean you have to act that way.

Yeah, but.....

(And Llew, I like and respect you and hate it everytime I have to disagree with you)

We got to the good stuff because of society. Odds are all of us have ancestors that at some point back on the timeline (the dark ages in Europe, just before the Flood in the middle east, Summer '67 in Golden Gate Park) behaved like animals and it wasn't considered unusual.

We got better because society elevated its standards and we were under pressure to keep up.

It's the reverse now. And while your kids (no surprise, they have you for a dad) don't take it as license to behave that way, nor do mine (no surprise, they have my wife as a mom)...a HUGE number of people of all ages are sitting in the booth at McDonalds next to somebody else's kids saying every four, seven, ten and twelve-letter word that comes to mind...because nobody has made it unacceptable for them to do so.

They're probably a minority (still....maybe). But the majority isn't insisting on better behavior.

Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes said freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Nor should it give you the right to yell the other four-letter word beginning with "F" in a public place or over the public airwaves.

 

[nmoore6676]

How can anyone listen to power 106 when the songs keep popping off and on because of the language. it drives me crazy. I would like opinions on this. wouldn't it be better to get satellite radio or buy CD'S? Radio is dead to me.

The easy answer would be for artists not to make recordings laced with profanity, however there are instances in movies where the use of strong language is a part of what a character is about which could also apply to music. What irritates me is when movies are clumsily edited to eliminate words or phrases. I think that the public should ultimately decide what they want by tuning out that which they find offensive. So long as a particular station or channel is upfront about it and doesn't spring it on an unsuspecting listener maybe the censoring could be relaxed. I always thought that those who were upset about Howard Stern should have just turned him off. We all knew what he did so anyone who was shocked or offended by listening was just plain stupid.

Here in The Heartland many country stations butchered the Zack Brown song "Toes" to remove the word ass, I think that was ludicrous. However going back to Power 106 and other similar stations some of the wording in the "music" they play is too over the top as to the use of certain words which a majority of people find offensive. So if the artists would restrict somewhat the language maybe a case could be made to relax the standards and make it better for us all so we aren't annoyed by bleeps and clips.

As to protecting kids, parents should do their best to teach their children to behave and act responsibly. Because so much material is available from so many sources just sanitizing all broadcast media is like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose. So long as we all know that certain stations might have strong language then it should work. If everyone is upfront and honest and nothing is misrepresented there is no reason that it can not.

 

[RicoGregg]

(laced with sarcasm)

Where's Tipper Gore when you need her? ???

Oh yeah, Karina's virgin ears are all grown up now, and there's no danger of Prince Albert ever becoming President.

Of course, maybe it's occurred to them in private (God Forbid that a Gore would ever publicly admit a mistake!) that their lame attempts at music censorship (and that's what it was Gore Defenders, no matter what pretty labels you put on it) is part of why Albert never reached the presidency!

Of course, it's possible that southern trailer park royalty like the Gores wouldn't want to take on wealthy African American interests.

 

[ercjncpr]

Somehow this reminds me of (and does anyone here recall it now) the atrocious radio edit of the Rod Stewart hit "Tonight's The Night? circa 1976?

 

[LKellerIII]

I don't disagree about the profanity, but it would take an act of Congress (literally) to bring satellite and internet under FCC regulations that apply to OTA radio and TV.

And they're talking about it. The issue isn't censorship, it's decency. It's acting properly in public. It's a shame that kind of thing needs to be legislated, but maybe it does. I watched the Grammy awards and was shocked at Drake's performance. I met him last fall, and he's a nice young man who speaks very well. He spoke to a group of college students and never used any obsenities. But when he goes on stage, he changes and becomes someone else. That is behavior that is simply not proper in public. See what happens when you post a bunch of obsenties on this message board. The same thing should apply to music. But it doesn't.

Big A,

On an emotional level, I don't disagree with you. Though I'm a liberal (politically speaking), I have great respect for George Will, who has written and talked about the "coarsening of America." What was once considering taboo when I grew up (the 1960s) is commonplace, even on network TV - in shows like CSI which push the envelope of explicit visuals that were not even seen in the most explicit theatrical horror movies when I was growing up.

I live in an urban neighborhood. All you have to do is pause on any major street corner for a few seconds, and you'll hear profanity and anti-social behavior from people walking by and interacting. Like it or not, it's very common-place now. You have to realize that media (radio and TV) reflect that reality. My children have grown up in this reality. So to try to protect them from "bad words" they hear and things they see is totally futile. They've seen naked and delirious homeless people passed out and stewing in their own bodily functions. All I can do as a parent is to try and explain it, and suggest to them the right and sensible path. Fortunately, they are moral people, and have always acted (so far) by sensible moral principles. Just because the society is somewhat morally corrupt, doesn't mean you have to act that way.

Yeah, but.....

(And Llew, I like and respect you and hate it everytime I have to disagree with you)

We got to the good stuff because of society. Odds are all of us have ancestors that at some point back on the timeline (the dark ages in Europe, just before the Flood in the middle east, Summer '67 in Golden Gate Park) behaved like animals and it wasn't considered unusual.

We got better because society elevated its standards and we were under pressure to keep up.

It's the reverse now. And while your kids (no surprise, they have you for a dad) don't take it as license to behave that way, nor do mine (no surprise, they have my wife as a mom)...a HUGE number of people of all ages are sitting in the booth at McDonalds next to somebody else's kids saying every four, seven, ten and twelve-letter word that comes to mind...because nobody has made it unacceptable for them to do so.

They're probably a minority (still....maybe). But the majority isn't insisting on better behavior.

Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes said freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Nor should it give you the right to yell the other four-letter word beginning with "F" in a public place or over the public airwaves.

Michael - believe me, the respect is mutual, and I think it's OK when we disagree. Perhaps I should clarify - I don't think there's anything wrong with the FCC regulating profanity or explicit sex on the public airwaves - though I think it went a bit overboard in the George W. Bush era. And there's nothing wrong with teaching and modeling polite and moral behavior. It sounds like your wife has done that for your kids, and I'm confident that you have too.

The prospect of the government passing laws restricting speech, and regulating good taste and proper behavior on non-OTA media scares me. We don't live in China. When people recommend censorship, they use their own personal standards to apply to what should be censored. Big A may be offended by dirty rap lyrics. Well, I could say that's OK with me - it doesn't effect me personally - I rarely listen to rap music. But there are people out there like the late Jerry Falwell who wanted to censor Teletubbies because one of the "tubbies" carried a purse, which meant he was gay. So who gets to decide what's good taste or proper behavior? Representatives of the various religions? A government committee run by the party in power? And who draws the line to prevent them from regulating legitimate free speech?

I'm capable of regulating my own behavior, and I don't want the government telling me that I can't see an R rated movie on HBO because it contains profanity or sex.

As for public behavior, I don't know about Phoenix, but I live in a cash-strapped city that doesn't have nearly enough police to investigate or prevent major crimes. I don't really want them taking up their valuable time writing citations to people on the street who say the F word.

As much as society has changed since we were children, I find that most people are moral and decent.

We'd better get this topic back to radio, or we'll be taken outside.

 

[davideduardo]

The prospect of the government passing laws restricting speech, and regulating good taste and proper behavior on non-OTA media scares me. We don't live in China. When people recommend censorship, they use their own personal standards to apply to what should be censored. Big A may be offended by dirty rap lyrics. Well, I could say that's OK with me - it doesn't effect me personally - I rarely listen to rap music. But there are people out there like the late Jerry Falwell who wanted to censor Teletubbies because one of the "tubbies" carried a purse, which meant he was gay. So who gets to decide what's good taste or proper behavior? Representatives of the various religions? A government committee run by the party in power? And who draws the line to prevent them from regulating legitimate free speech?

Well said.

Attempts to legislate morality tend to fail or result in totalitarian govenments. Kim Jung Il may be the poster child for this kind of "I will tell you how to act" government action.

The airwaves are public property if not in absolute reality, then in the fact that anyone can access them. Some guidelines are appropriate. Self regulation is better.

It's interesting that broadcasting's self regulation, the NAB Code, pretty much died because it could be construed as a control of competition or colusion under newer governmment codes. The NAB Code was a great example of a highly observed code of behaviour and ethics yet I saw essentially no government action to save it.

 

[michael hagerty]

Let me clarify, since it appears things are being read into what I wrote that not only aren't there, but that I do not believe in.

I am against regulation of content on non-OTA media.

OTA is a spectrum owned by the people (supposedly) and regulated (again supposedly) by an agency funded with taxpayer dollars. It has a set of rules and regulations that, if properly enforced, would at least help solve the problem we are discussing here.

If listeners and viewers want content beyond the boundaries of those rules and regulations (but within the bounds of laws covering child pornography and other criminal behavior) , it should be available to them...at their cost. The government should not spend taxpayer dollars attempting to impose
standards on those non-OTA platforms chosen and paid for by their users.

As for what's happening on the street, Llew, I don't believe the police should get involved if someone says a word you can't (under the rules and regulations above) say OTA.

What I do believe is that we need to work toward a society with more civil speech and behavior...and what we allow to go over the people's airwaves, regulated by an agency we the people fund, has an impact on that.

The naked people stewing in their own filth on the streets of what was once America's most beautiful city and a capital of finance? If not the police, then some other agency needs to step in. There are public health and safety laws being broken. We enforce them, not by jailing those people, unless they have committed crimes and are competent to stand trial for them, but by providing adequate care and assistance...if not directly to the afflicted, then to charitable organizations that can help them and our society as it regards them regain health and dignity.

 

[JohnnyOhJohnny]

I think they should put other words in it's place or not play the song at all. I don't think listeners want to hear the song popping off and on. that is very irritating. I can't listen to it I tried.

 

[LKellerIII]

Let me clarify, since it appears things are being read into what I wrote that not only aren't there, but that I do not believe in.

I am against regulation of content on non-OTA media.

OTA is a spectrum owned by the people (supposedly) and regulated (again supposedly) by an agency funded with taxpayer dollars. It has a set of rules and regulations that, if properly enforced, would at least help solve the problem we are discussing here.

If listeners and viewers want content beyond the boundaries of those rules and regulations (but within the bounds of laws covering child pornography and other criminal behavior) , it should be available to them...at their cost. The government should not spend taxpayer dollars attempting to impose
standards on those non-OTA platforms chosen and paid for by their users.

As for what's happening on the street, Llew, I don't believe the police should get involved if someone says a word you can't (under the rules and regulations above) say OTA.

What I do believe is that we need to work toward a society with more civil speech and behavior...and what we allow to go over the people's airwaves, regulated by an agency we the people fund, has an impact on that.

The naked people stewing in their own filth on the streets of what was once America's most beautiful city and a capital of finance? If not the police, then some other agency needs to step in. There are public health and safety laws being broken. We enforce them, not by jailing those people, unless they have committed crimes and are competent to stand trial for them, but by providing adequate care and assistance...if not directly to the afflicted, then to charitable organizations that can help them and our society as it regards them regain health and dignity.

Well said, Michael. I think we agree more than we disagree. As for San Francisco, part of the problem in America's most liberal city is that everybody is tolerant, so too many citizens give homeless people money. The police generally leave them alone unless they're engaging in blatant criminal acts. Mayor Newsom is currently trying to get a "Sit/Lie" law through the Board of Supervisors. If passed, people would be prohibited from lying on the sidewalks for any length of time. Needless to say, the advocates for the homeless are screaming foul, and the lefty supervisors are fighting it.

Now back to radio...

 

[nmoore6676]

I think they should put other words in it's place or not play the song at all. I don't think listeners want to hear the song popping off and on. that is very irritating. I can't listen to it I tried.

A good idea, if the original artist makes a radio version, they used to. A bad idea when done like they did in the Country song I cited. They somehow put toes in both places, "toes in the water, toes in the sand", which would be an uncomfortable condition. However it is all better said above by Michael Hagerty. I won't waste space by pasting in here just scroll up.

The prospect of the government passing laws restricting speech, and regulating good taste and proper behavior on non-OTA media scares me. We don't live in China. When people recommend censorship, they use their own personal standards to apply to what should be censored. Big A may be offended by dirty rap lyrics. Well, I could say that's OK with me - it doesn't effect me personally - I rarely listen to rap music. But there are people out there like the late Jerry Falwell who wanted to censor Teletubbies because one of the "tubbies" carried a purse, which meant he was gay. So who gets to decide what's good taste or proper behavior? Representatives of the various religions? A government committee run by the party in power? And who draws the line to prevent them from regulating legitimate free speech?

Well said.

Attempts to legislate morality tend to fail or result in totalitarian govenments. Kim Jung Il may be the poster child for this kind of "I will tell you how to act" government action.

The airwaves are public property if not in absolute reality, then in the fact that anyone can access them. Some guidelines are appropriate. Self regulation is better.

It's interesting that broadcasting's self regulation, the NAB Code, pretty much died because it could be construed as a control of competition or colusion under newer governmment codes. The NAB Code was a great example of a highly observed code of behaviour and ethics yet I saw essentially no government action to save it.

I remember the NAB and the logo seal they used to display on the network and local ID cards. I think it started unraveling when a lot of independent UHF, for the most part, TV stations came on the air and couldn't abide with the limitation on commercial content (by minutes per hour) that the NAB mandated of members. If you weren't a network affiliate and on VHF you had to beg for advertisers so they packed in as many as they could. How I wished they still had those NAB limits in place as I was watching the final episodes of "24" last night.

 

[robnokshus06]

Bypassing the free speech aspect of this conversation I have to say that the thing about radio edits that has always bothered me is that they can take a song loaded with profanity (let's take Hollaback Girl by Gwen Stefani for example) and make a big hit out of it and then you buy the CD for your pre-teen daughter and the next thing you know, there's a river of "shit" flowing out of the speakers. Can you buy a "Radio edit" version of the CD at Best Buy? No, you cannot.

 

[michael hagerty]

Bypassing the free speech aspect of this conversation I have to say that the thing about radio edits that has always bothered me is that they can take a song loaded with profanity (let's take Hollaback Girl by Gwen Stefani for example) and make a big hit out of it and then you buy the CD for your pre-teen daughter and the next thing you know, there's a river of "shit" flowing out of the speakers. Can you buy a "Radio edit" version of the CD at Best Buy? No, you cannot.

Maybe not at Best Buy, but they are available elsewhere... I know my kids and their friends debate getting "the clean version" or "the unedited version" from iTunes.