 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stay Away From Our Airwaves! |
|
|
| Before I begin, let me preface everything by saying that I do work in the radio industry at a major station in Los Angeles and I have felt the effects of the tightening fist of the FCC first-hand.� Recently, in fact, it has seemed to me that the FCC is actually overstepping its boundaries, and the cancellation of the Howard Stern Show by six Clear Channel affiliates simply validates my belief.� Either way, I must stress that the views I am about to express are not in any way the views of the station I work for or the company that employs me, Viacom.� They are simply my own and should not be taken as anything more.� Please keep this in mind as you read this week's column. |
|
| As you probably know, I tend to agree with President George W. Bush on a number of things including foreign policy and the measures he has taken to defend this country, but recently the government has been behind something that I can in no way support.� It all started when Janet Jackson flashed her nipple armor at the Super Bowl, resulting in a renewed campaign by the Federal Communications Commission and the government to "clean up the airwaves."� Since then, several disc jockeys have been fired and/or suspended by the powers that be, and last Wednesday Howard Stern's radio show was taken off of six Clear Channel Radio affiliates because of supposedly indecent material that was broadcasted.� The fact of the matter is that Stern broadcasted absolutely nothing that can legally be considered indecent, so why was he yanked?� Why did Clear Channel Radio feel the need to deprive thousands of listeners their First Amendment rights, robbing them of the ability to tune in to Stern?s show?� The answers to these questions just might shock you. |
|
| "Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," said John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel, in a press release explaining why the company removed Stern from their affiliates.� Hogan continued, calling the event "vulgar, offensive, and insulting," and vowed Stern would remain off of the stations until he and the company is "assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting."� Hogan can say it any way he wants to, but when it comes right down to it, Stern committed no indecent act, and his show should have never been pulled.� Clear Channel, along with the FCC, was simply looking for an easy way to get rid of Stern. |
|
| I know most of you are probably wondering what was said to cause such extreme action, so here it is.� On Tuesday, Feb. 24, Stern interviewed Rick Solomon, Paris Hilton's partner in the infamous sex tape, when a caller, inquiring about who else Solomon had been with, asked, "Ever bang a famous nigger chick?� What do they smell like?� Watermelons?"� Granted, this may have offended some people, but last time I checked, uttering racial slurs and epithets were not against the law, and there was no rule by the FCC saying that they could not be broadcasted.� Certainly this pales in comparison to what Clear Channel talk show host "Bubba The Love Sponge" did to recently get fired.� After broadcasting a series of graphic discussions involving sex and drugs, Bubba?s show was completely cancelled, and the FCC proposed levying a fine of $775,000 against stations that broadcasted the material, which the FCC said was "designed to pander to, titillate and shock listeners." |
|
| When are the people of this country going to be allowed to decide what is acceptable to listen to?� Why should stations operate with the fear that a religious zealot or social miscreant will find something offensive, record it, and send it to the FCC, who could take away the station's license?� For those who do not know, there is a reason why radios and televisions have off switches - so that people can turn them off when they get tired of them or insulted by something they hear or see.� What a novel thought, when someone does not like what he or she is being subjected to, with the flip of a switch it will go away!� Why then, does the government feel a need to meddle in cultural affairs?� I still fully support President Bush for the stance he has taken with regard to terrorism and homeland security, and he may get my vote just because of that, but I cannot in any way defend the government in this.� The airwaves, after all, belong to the people, so shouldn't the people control them? |
|
|
|
Copyright Gerry Wachovsky, 2004, and Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Letters To The Editor Regarding This Article: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Economics Lesson |
|
(from March 9, 2004) |
|
|
Back |
|
|
|
|
|