Tom Taylor has an article about that today. Apparently a Chicago Blackhawks hockey player give an expletive-filled speech after they won the Stanley Cup. I guess no one cares about the families who attend these games. If it's OK for the public to hear these words in an arena, then the broadcasters shouldn't be held responsible.
-
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
FF to 2013 where much of the debate centers around music.
Cee Lo Greene's, "Forget You" is a lame cover of his real song; no cajones.
It really takes the feeling out when Charlie Daniels calls the devil a "son of a gun".
Besides, that FIVE letter word has nothing to do with procreative or excretory organs, functions, or products.
My real issue is that the people who don't like "content" don't listen to those stations anyway.
It is the nonlisteners who want to play program directors with the music they don't even like.
Cee Lo Greene's, "Forget You" is a lame cover of his real song; no cajones.
It really takes the feeling out when Charlie Daniels calls the devil a "son of a gun".
Besides, that FIVE letter word has nothing to do with procreative or excretory organs, functions, or products.
My real issue is that the people who don't like "content" don't listen to those stations anyway.
It is the nonlisteners who want to play program directors with the music they don't even like.
ai4i said:
"No cajones" means "no crates". Why would anyone be offended by a song about a large box?
M
Mario500
Guest
Here is a link to an article about a letter signed by representatives of 70 organizations urging senators to oppose the nomination of Thomas Wheeler to the position of chairman of the FCC "unless he agrees to lead a vigorous effort to enforce the federal decency law, 18 U. S. C. 1464, which prohibits indecency and profanity on broadcast TV and on radio."
I believe ai41 meant to post "no cojones" (slang for no courage, even though the word "cojones" means testicles in Spanish).
DavidEduardo said:
I believe ai41 meant to post "no cojones" (slang for no courage, even though the word "cojones" means testicles in Spanish).
M
Mario500
Guest
Mario500 said:
Mario, I agree with you. The concept of the "public airwaves" and "the limited broadcast spectrum" allowing the government, in the name of the "people", to control what we may watch in our own homes is completely bogus.
There is no "broadcast spectrum". It does not exist. There can be no radio or television over the air unless broadcasters carve out a property right by creating frequencies and maintaining transmitting rights. This is comprable to "homesteading" in the 19th century, which required a three step procedure: file an application, improve the land, and file for deed of title. Anyone who had never taken up arms against the U.S. government (including freed slaves) and was at least 21 years old or the head of a household, could file an application to claim a federal land grant. The occupant had to reside on the land for five years, and show evidence of having made improvements.
Broadcasters are actually creating something out of nothing, therefore the government should have only the function of protecting property rights, and administering them. They should not be in the business of telling broadcasters how to run their own creation.
Joe
This has always been an interesting and perplexing issue for me. In my mind the Government should not try to regulate the moral standards of the nation. That, in my mind is the responsibility of the citizens to determine. On the topic of gay marriage, I say the government has no horse in this race and has no business being involved but I suppose we have been taken over by legalese to the point the government feels it needs to get involved. I think moral issues rest solely on the individual, not the government. Thus, more of a free for all. The breaking point is when two parties are opposed (think she says no and he says yes).
The other side of my brain hears those who are trying to rear their children by their preferred code of standards feeling they need to call in the big dogs (government) to help them in the battle. They simply want a more family friendly environment on the over the air offerings. I understand this and respect this as well.
As you can see, I lean toward both sides and they are night and day. I am not the one with the solution but I am in radio.
I tend to find broadcasters that are responsible tend to err on the side of being as acceptable to the biggest group in their service area as possible. I find that the 'risk takers' on this tend to be in larger markets where there are more over the air choices. That seems to be pretty logical. In every event the stations coming closer to that proverbial blue line are doing so very gingerly. I realize the mentality too. If you can get away with a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, you try for 7. It's just the nature of the creative mind. We hear about some shows that eventually make the hurdle by jumping a couple of points too fast and end up going over the top, bringing the wrath of the listeners and community down on them. But, should the community not figure out what is okay, not the FCC?
I have a buddy of mine that listens to satellite radio. He uses words that cannot be uttered over the air and his choice for satellite radio listening include some choice words. He turns the satellite radio off when his children are around because he doesn't want his kids to hear it. As he puts it, brains have to develop and grow before getting to the point of handling all the perplexities of the adult mind and their brains need to be protected or kept innocent, not imploding with so much that their brains cannot rationalize and reason. I thought that was an interesting take.
So, what is a solution? No regulation and censor chips on over the air broadcasts so each household can make their decision? Would that lead to subdivisions and communities of like minded folks eventually? Maybe, maybe not. After all, we still have dry communities and dry counties where you cannot buy a beer in a convenience store. Do non-drinkers flock to such communities? I never looked into that. If you're buying a house is that a consideration? What I'm getting at is we already have tons of censorship all over and language usage is but one.
An interesting take limited broadcast spectrum. In essence it is true but I think of it much like land. You section a plot of land, selling lots. You have a limited number of lots. Typically there is a regulating agency that tells you what you can do and cannot do with the lot you buy.
Last, the USA is one of the few where radio is not in the hands of government. Sure there are pirates all over the world and many countries that were government only allow some very limited and localized broadcasting but taking in the international situation, we have it pretty good...not the best but certainly one of the best situations for those passionate about over the air broadcasting.
The other side of my brain hears those who are trying to rear their children by their preferred code of standards feeling they need to call in the big dogs (government) to help them in the battle. They simply want a more family friendly environment on the over the air offerings. I understand this and respect this as well.
As you can see, I lean toward both sides and they are night and day. I am not the one with the solution but I am in radio.
I tend to find broadcasters that are responsible tend to err on the side of being as acceptable to the biggest group in their service area as possible. I find that the 'risk takers' on this tend to be in larger markets where there are more over the air choices. That seems to be pretty logical. In every event the stations coming closer to that proverbial blue line are doing so very gingerly. I realize the mentality too. If you can get away with a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, you try for 7. It's just the nature of the creative mind. We hear about some shows that eventually make the hurdle by jumping a couple of points too fast and end up going over the top, bringing the wrath of the listeners and community down on them. But, should the community not figure out what is okay, not the FCC?
I have a buddy of mine that listens to satellite radio. He uses words that cannot be uttered over the air and his choice for satellite radio listening include some choice words. He turns the satellite radio off when his children are around because he doesn't want his kids to hear it. As he puts it, brains have to develop and grow before getting to the point of handling all the perplexities of the adult mind and their brains need to be protected or kept innocent, not imploding with so much that their brains cannot rationalize and reason. I thought that was an interesting take.
So, what is a solution? No regulation and censor chips on over the air broadcasts so each household can make their decision? Would that lead to subdivisions and communities of like minded folks eventually? Maybe, maybe not. After all, we still have dry communities and dry counties where you cannot buy a beer in a convenience store. Do non-drinkers flock to such communities? I never looked into that. If you're buying a house is that a consideration? What I'm getting at is we already have tons of censorship all over and language usage is but one.
An interesting take limited broadcast spectrum. In essence it is true but I think of it much like land. You section a plot of land, selling lots. You have a limited number of lots. Typically there is a regulating agency that tells you what you can do and cannot do with the lot you buy.
Last, the USA is one of the few where radio is not in the hands of government. Sure there are pirates all over the world and many countries that were government only allow some very limited and localized broadcasting but taking in the international situation, we have it pretty good...not the best but certainly one of the best situations for those passionate about over the air broadcasting.
bturner said:
The government does things like this because "we the people," or at least a portion of the population, motivates them to do it. Back in the 1920s, the government passed an amendment to the Constitution outlawing the sale of alcohol. What business was it of the government to do something like this? None at all. But a portion of the population convinced the Congress that it needed to be done, and it got done. Today, some of those same people are promoting this moral agenda, and it has nothing to do with the role of government. They're trying to turn this country into the same theocracy that we're fighting in the Middle East. It's a bad idea.
I agree with "JoeyBabe25," who said that the spectrum should be regarded as property, and my legal justification for this is the way the FCC is now selling other parts of the spectrum to the telecom industry. Those companies now have ownership rights to their portion of the spectrum. Broadcasters aren't that fortunate. They still have to operate like it's the 1920s when the government instituted prohibition. There are lots of laws that apply to OTA broadcasters that don't apply to any other forms of media. Meanwhile, the music industry is trying to force OTA radio to pay a royalty that currently only applies to digital media. My view is that as long as broadcasters have to follow different rules, we are exempt from any new rules or royalties instituted in the last ten years. They want broadcasters to pay a royalty? Then they should support broadcasters in eliminating all government restrictions on ownership, indecency, and other uses of the spectrum.
The idea of spectrum being property is accurate. Property rights should be the idea. It seems rather the opposite of what the FCC says blocks of frequencies are but then again this directive comes from Congress. If a frequency belongs to 'the people', in my mind this is much like a National Park. To sell spectrum to the highest bidder seems opposite to the stated agenda of the FCC. I'd love the idea of starting a commercial AM or FM but the current process makes that unlikely. Buying a distressed station would be about my only option. Having the wealth to enter the game is the issue.
Speaking of rules radio lives by, the regulations are way too much and many times hurtful to the industry. There are so many little things that are in the R&R that have no realistic purpose except as a revenue generator for the FCC.
In other posts I have mentioned the public affairs requirement and the Public File. I find public affairs typically buried at 6am Sunday morning and run by a part time person with little contact with the actual station operation. I've been in radio since 1978 and have yet to have someone wanting to see the Public File except the FCC.
The Indecency Policy is best left to the community but if truly the case, can the FCC actually judge that? I only need to look as far as Howard Stern to see he obviously was quite popular when his show was 'over the air' yet the FCC was seemingly after him. Had the 'community' not already spoken? Should the 'policy' not be across the board instead just for 'over the air'? I understand both sides of this dog fight but the point made in the previous post simply puts it as it is: the playing field is not level.
The same can be said of a non-commercial educational FM that is trying to monetize their website with Underwriters that want to say wording not allowed on a non-commercial station. It is sort of silly when you think about it. You cannot say it on the air but it is okay over the internet. And if you can work out the logistics, you can cover your on air breaks with actual commercials online if you choose. If the non-profit was publishing a newspaper they could have ads amid the text, no problem, just abide by the IRS Code for your classification.
I am not sure the indecency policy actually has an answer that can work. With two opposing schools of thought, both sides would in theory be 'equal'. About the only thing I could see if 'anything goes' over broadcast air waves is some system like the chip for cable where channels can be blocked. Even if this was a solution, that would not likely work...a wardrobe malfunction or fleeting comment would start it all over again. And would that mean the post here could be laced with 4 letter words? Should be up in arms about that?
As for the royalties, an owner I worked for suggested if they ever managed to require radio to pay, then radio should quit announcing songs titles and artists and promoting music, refusing record rep calls and no longer reporting to the trades. They should sell it as advertising (our rate card to announce song and title is $X.xx each). I contend radio is 'free marketing' for the music industry. If it is not, why is the rep calling you to add a song so it can hit the charts this week? If we're taking dollars from them explain why they are pushing you to play their label's songs?
Speaking of rules radio lives by, the regulations are way too much and many times hurtful to the industry. There are so many little things that are in the R&R that have no realistic purpose except as a revenue generator for the FCC.
In other posts I have mentioned the public affairs requirement and the Public File. I find public affairs typically buried at 6am Sunday morning and run by a part time person with little contact with the actual station operation. I've been in radio since 1978 and have yet to have someone wanting to see the Public File except the FCC.
The Indecency Policy is best left to the community but if truly the case, can the FCC actually judge that? I only need to look as far as Howard Stern to see he obviously was quite popular when his show was 'over the air' yet the FCC was seemingly after him. Had the 'community' not already spoken? Should the 'policy' not be across the board instead just for 'over the air'? I understand both sides of this dog fight but the point made in the previous post simply puts it as it is: the playing field is not level.
The same can be said of a non-commercial educational FM that is trying to monetize their website with Underwriters that want to say wording not allowed on a non-commercial station. It is sort of silly when you think about it. You cannot say it on the air but it is okay over the internet. And if you can work out the logistics, you can cover your on air breaks with actual commercials online if you choose. If the non-profit was publishing a newspaper they could have ads amid the text, no problem, just abide by the IRS Code for your classification.
I am not sure the indecency policy actually has an answer that can work. With two opposing schools of thought, both sides would in theory be 'equal'. About the only thing I could see if 'anything goes' over broadcast air waves is some system like the chip for cable where channels can be blocked. Even if this was a solution, that would not likely work...a wardrobe malfunction or fleeting comment would start it all over again. And would that mean the post here could be laced with 4 letter words? Should be up in arms about that?
As for the royalties, an owner I worked for suggested if they ever managed to require radio to pay, then radio should quit announcing songs titles and artists and promoting music, refusing record rep calls and no longer reporting to the trades. They should sell it as advertising (our rate card to announce song and title is $X.xx each). I contend radio is 'free marketing' for the music industry. If it is not, why is the rep calling you to add a song so it can hit the charts this week? If we're taking dollars from them explain why they are pushing you to play their label's songs?
bturner said:
You have to consider when the original radio laws were written, which is the 1920s. Had they been written now, they'd be different.
But your post gives me an idea: If the FCC wants to revive the AM band, perhaps that's the place to begin with frequency auctions. Auction AM stations to the highest bidder, and the new owner will have the same rights as telecom. That might get investment money interested in AM. Then those new owners could operate those stations without some of the restrictions placed on them by the FCC.
bturner said:
It's only "free marketing" on a small percentage of the radio stations. The rest of them don't have enough listeners to matter. If you try to sell your airtime to a record label, regardless of the price, you'll find out just how important your station is to their agenda. They'd rather have their royalty than free airplay on a bunch of stations with little or no audience in small markets.
The fact of matter is, that if porn could be shown on broadcast TV, to the masses, then that's what the masses would watch and emulate.
How long to do you think a society can survive against the forces that would seek to destroy it if that was allowed?
The US democracy --is-- based on the assumption of Judeo-Christian values. You erode that enough, and our system will change in ways that our Founders were trying to flee from.
But maybe I'm wrong.
But what if I'm not???
How long to do you think a society can survive against the forces that would seek to destroy it if that was allowed?
The US democracy --is-- based on the assumption of Judeo-Christian values. You erode that enough, and our system will change in ways that our Founders were trying to flee from.
But maybe I'm wrong.
But what if I'm not???
S
stevensonair
Guest
The interesting thing about that question is that many countries, European ones particularly, are less sensitive towards "indecency" as we might term it in the US, but more concerned with incendiary or slanderous speech.
This, for instance, and more can easily be said on any morning show or talk station in the US, but doesn't fly without notice in Canada, even in a major market.
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/a...rules-cfny-s-dean-blundell-show-violated-code
I'm far more disturbed by much of what can be broadcast on any paid programming, or even advertiser supported talk show, than any Janet Jackson incidents or Stern talking to strippers, but I'm not the one who gets to write those rules. And of course, any attempt to deal with the more violent or aggressive speech would quickly be classed as an attack on "free speech" or having "political" motivations, so I'm not sure what the answer is.
I do however wish more broadcasters particularly in "news/talk" had standards regarding broadcasters using facts and restraint. I respect those who voluntarily draw that line and encourage common sense and standards on the part of their reporters and hosts. Some of us prefer having a conversation to a personal attack.
This, for instance, and more can easily be said on any morning show or talk station in the US, but doesn't fly without notice in Canada, even in a major market.
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/a...rules-cfny-s-dean-blundell-show-violated-code
I'm far more disturbed by much of what can be broadcast on any paid programming, or even advertiser supported talk show, than any Janet Jackson incidents or Stern talking to strippers, but I'm not the one who gets to write those rules. And of course, any attempt to deal with the more violent or aggressive speech would quickly be classed as an attack on "free speech" or having "political" motivations, so I'm not sure what the answer is.
I do however wish more broadcasters particularly in "news/talk" had standards regarding broadcasters using facts and restraint. I respect those who voluntarily draw that line and encourage common sense and standards on the part of their reporters and hosts. Some of us prefer having a conversation to a personal attack.
stevensonair said:
Anytime you give any small splinter group the same power as the majority, they will use that power to force their morality on the masses. It's absolutely the wrong way to work in a free market economy. For decades, Southern Baptists were able to prevent state lotteries from being established. Only recently have they been out-voted.
- Status