Debate: Howard Stern vs. Michael Powell (FCC)

[gr8fuldaniel]

Hey I dont know how long this broadcast will be available:

810 AM Radio San Francisco Today FCC CHAIRMAN, MICHAEL POWELL AND HOWARD STERN ARGUE OVER INDECENCY ON THE RONN OWENS PROGRAM - LISTEN BELOW Ronn Owens interviewed in studio FCC Chairman, Michael Powell this morning, October 26, in the 9 a.m. hour. Powell's interview began at about 9:15 a.m. During the interview, about 20 minutes into it, Shock-Jock and FCC fined on-air personality, Howard Stern, called in to take on the Chairman, something he hadn't been able to do before. You can hear this hour until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, October 27.

Howard Stern calls in (Surprise?).
Who do you think has the better case?

(Note: The link for Windows Media Player didnt work for me, Use Real Player link)

Edit to correct date (I thought today was the 27th)

[Compugasm]

I'd like to comment, before I listen. I can't directly attribute his removal to the "left" or "right" because it's a wash argument between who is in who's pocket. To me, Howard being taken off the air was a signal.

In the grand scope, it signals the slow death of media as we know it. You can only merger into ever larger and larger companies for so long, until there comes time for a change. In radio, that change is satelite/internet radio. If I had the cash, I'd be buying those stocks while their cheap.

Not only will shows like howards move to that format, but others will be forced to because their "bandwidth" is simply phased out. Or the cost of traditional stations is too high for proper compliance with licences.

There also have been complaints about distortions in media reporting. The trend there will be to smaller news organizations. A few weeks ago, I mentioned a system where such an organization would be equiped simply with PDAs. No bulky cameras are required.

These things signal the slow death of regulatory agencies such as the FCC, RIAA, etc... Simply because there is no possible way to maintain control of all the ways people can transfer and share info. It will get worse for a few more years (lawsuits of file sharing and such) but ultimately it will colapse upon itself like communism did years ago.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Radio Waves are owned by we the people.

Why are all stations being grabbed up by Clear Channel?

Stern brings up a good point: Why can Oprah discuss anal sex but he cant?

Should obscenity be restricted to the 10 or 20 most obscene words and then just let people be people? I do. Otherwise you will have thought police chipping away at the 1st Amendment.

Another issue that should be dealt with is the tyranny of strong arming the Pirate Radio stations that are not violating bandwidth regulations.

Then you have Nipple Gate. I say free the boobie. Breasts are not obscene. Equal rights!

[gr8fuldaniel]

Oh yeah, I owned stock in Sirius and XM Radio back in 2001. About a year before it was available to consumers. Bummer, I had to sell in a hardship.

Face it...Stern left radio because his shtick was old..he's been doing lesbian porn stars or women wanting imlants for 20 yrs...it's old hat...and the only ones who listen to him for the most part are pre-pubescent boys or frat boys hoping to hear a woman's orgasm on air or watch his late night show in the hopes of seeing a woman's ass.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Radio Waves are owned by we the people.

I used to be on the radio, and I thought that too. But your mistaken.

ACause, the people you name are never in short supply.

[kharmajunkie]

AC, you obviously never really listened to the Stern show. Don't fall for the Echannell crap because the stripper crap is echannell eyecandy. And as a Republican, how can you rationalize supporting the FCC? Let me re-phrase that; how can you support the existence of the FCC in any form?

Kharma...I've listened to it..I have heard nothing redeemable bout the show...even his radio show has excerpts from his tv show, and his humor toward mentally retarted, gays, and other types of people I find so lacking in class.

I was a Republican, now an Independent..but where an R or an I...I support the FCC because there need to be brakes on behavior that is anti-social, pornographic, etc...I also support regulating the Internet....something has to be done to prevent radio or the internet from becoming sleaze.....Howard has nothing of interest to say on his programs..it's tired, old, classless and stereotypical behavior reminiscent of a child.

[Section 8]

So you propose stripping him of his first amendment rights through the use of a useless overfunded government agency? No matter how profane you consider it to be, it's still his right, unless of course he interfers with your rights, which he hasn't. I don't particularly like Howard Stern's program, nor do I listen to it, but I understand that he should be able to say what he damn well please.

Originally posted by Section 8, So you propose stripping him of his first amendment rights through the use of a useless overfunded government agency? No matter how profane you consider it to be, it's still his right, unless of course he interfers with your rights, which he hasn't. I don't particularly like Howard Stern's program, nor do I listen to it, but I understand that he should be able to say what he damn well please.

Really...well...fortunately society at large begs to differ..first amendment rights aren't sacred and inviolate and you know it..

[Section 8]

The problem is that it doesn't matter what society thinks. Apparently you still think that we live in a democracy. Stern's rights trump any sort of majority. And yes, First Amendment rights are the law.

Of course it matters what society thinks??...we aren't an anarchy..and I'm afraid his rights don't trump any sort of majority...the citizens of this country have passed laws regarding slander, libel, fraud, and hate crimes relative to the spoken word..no..You can't yell the proverbial "Fire" in a crowded theatre...or call 911 and make a crank call....

If Sterns showed any modicum of respect for the institution of radio...some gleam of intelligent thought....I might have argued for his case....but as it is....the youth of this nation could do without listening to stories bout breast implants, strippers, lesbian, pornstars...etc for something more substantial...Gods..at least I would hope so.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I dont want corporate controlled media defining "sacred", when the globalist agenda tells me God is Money and we must kill people who cant afford weapons to defend themselves. Mega Media corporations want to control public opinion which, way to often, means beating the drums of the war 'a la mode'. I will respect their ideals for us when they start blasting the old men who send our young men to die......for their profit.

[Section 8]

Incorrect, in a constitutionally limited republic, the law trumps the majority. However, the majority is provided with ample means in which to change the law, so it doesn't devolve into an oligarchy. Also, both your example endanger people, and thus violate their rights. Talking about anal sex doesn't.

Originally posted by Section 8, Incorrect, in a constitutionally limited republic, the law trumps the majority. However, the majority is provided with ample means in which to change the law, so it doesn't devolve into an oligarchy. Also, both your example endanger people, and thus violate their rights. Talking about anal sex doesn't.

ahmm..but the majority MADE the laws...did they not..the majority make laws for what is considered the good of the citizenry...

Practically speaking..I won't shed a tear over Stern leaving mainstream radio..let him talk bout porn and classless, tasteless drivel on satellite radio...he can speak his peace there..

i think the FCC is a bunch of pathetic pansies. incredible losers who degrade the quality and accuracy of my entertainment. if the industry is too stupid to provide service by content without sacrificing content, they are failing and should be eliminated rather than fail to serve.