F for First Amendment

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't think there has been that much of a backlash.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't work in the media. So I doubt you're qualified to say if its had much of an effect.

You see, I work in television and have for the last 10 years. I know first hand what the effects have been. I have worked over the years for various networks and have friends working for other channels. So I and my colleagues know firsthand the backlash and its effects.

And backlash is enormous. First off, CBS and MTV were fined charged enormous fines which is chilling in its own right. Furthermore, they are trying to increase severalfold the fines that the FCC can give up.

So if a company happens to catch an errent boob, crippling fines are laid that can destroy a company.

As you may recall, Saving Private Ryan couldn't be run uncut EVEN though it had been run that way the year before. Networks have been pulling programs out of rotation that they HAVE run in the past for fear of the fines.

Insurance rates for media companies have shot through the roof.

The worst part is that there are no defined rules for what is wrong. There are no guidelines so that a company does not know what could unleash multimillion fines. Essentially, companies who are risk averse are forced to pull back perhaps more then they need too but the financial risk is too high if they're wrong.

Too top it off, this gave steam to the people who now want to force the same regulation on Cable and Satellite (radio or television). They are proposing placing the same standards on ALL cable. So... are you an adult who likes R rated movies on HBO? If the proposed regulation goes through, then too bad. No mature television, no mature radio.

Like Stern or not, his move to satellite (which may or may not remain free from FCC control) is directly a result of the censorship his show now goes through DIRECTLY because of the Jackson incident.

Many of his provessional rivals have said they hate what he says, but are horrified that he can't say it.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The worst part is that there are no defined rules for what is wrong. There are no guidelines so that a company does not know what could unleash multimillion fines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, they'll know it when they hear/see it. Gotta love that guideline.

Also need to mention the personal fine of 500k per incident that they're trying to get through.

You can get fined 500k for saying penis on the radio, yet only fined 60k for dumping toxic waste in a lake or stream. Yeah, our priorities in this country are dead on, aren't they?

b

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still don't think there has been that much of a backlash.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't work in the media. So I doubt you're qualified to say if its had much of an effect.

You see, I work in television and have for the last 10 years. I know first hand what the effects have been. I have worked over the years for various networks and have friends working for other channels. So I and my colleagues know firsthand the backlash and its effects.

And backlash is enormous. First off, CBS and MTV were fined charged enormous fines which is chilling in its own right. Furthermore, they are trying to increase severalfold the fines that the FCC can give up.

So if a company happens to catch an errent boob, crippling fines are laid that can destroy a company.

As you may recall, Saving Private Ryan couldn't be run uncut EVEN though it had been run that way the year before. Networks have been pulling programs out of rotation that they HAVE run in the past for fear of the fines.

Insurance rates for media companies have shot through the roof.

The worst part is that there are no defined rules for what is wrong. There are no guidelines so that a company does not know what could unleash multimillion fines. Essentially, companies who are risk averse are forced to pull back perhaps more then they need too but the financial risk is too high if they're wrong.

Too top it off, this gave steam to the people who now want to force the same regulation on Cable and Satellite (radio or television). They are proposing placing the same standards on ALL cable. So... are you an adult who likes R rated movies on HBO? If the proposed regulation goes through, then too bad. No mature television, no mature radio.

Like Stern or not, his move to satellite (which may or may not remain free from FCC control) is directly a result of the censorship his show now goes through DIRECTLY because of the Jackson incident.

Many of his provessional rivals have said they hate what he says, but are horrified that he can't say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with censorship. I don't agree with over-regulation.

However, I think there is a reasonable expectance as to what should be shown over broadcast television.

I would be horrified if the government began to fully regulate ALL of cable TV.

I recognize the need for not only protecting children, but also "artistic" freedom. There is a balance, and if CBS/MTV hadn't pulled that stunt much of this would be a non issue now. It was the irresponsibility of them that caused this response to begin with. Or at least that's my take on the situation.

[tolbiny]

"Perhaps if they had been more responsible with the airwaves that belong to you and I, then they wouldn't have had to have been reigned in somewhat."

Uhhh- Espn's ratings went up after they relented and started showing the fight between the pistons and pacers earlier this year- the top shows on TV and radio are often the ones that use sex/cursing/shock value/violence the most. Seems to me that most people- the ones that "the airwaves belong to" perfer these types of entertainment.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Also need to mention the personal fine of 500k per incident that they're trying to get through.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its PER station PER incident.

So if your penis blurb happens broadcast in 10 markets, then the fine could be 5,000,000.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
"Perhaps if they had been more responsible with the airwaves that belong to you and I, then they wouldn't have had to have been reigned in somewhat."

Uhhh- Espn's ratings went up after they relented and started showing the fight between the pistons and pacers earlier this year- the top shows on TV and radio are often the ones that use sex/cursing/shock value/violence the most. Seems to me that most people- the ones that "the airwaves belong to" perfer these types of entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is also why that evil sex business is a multi billion dollar a year entity.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also need to mention the personal fine of 500k per incident that they're trying to get through.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its PER station PER incident.

So if your penis blurb happens broadcast in 10 markets, then the fine could be 5,000,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you're beloved...


The next 4 years are going to be very interesting.

b

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
"Perhaps if they had been more responsible with the airwaves that belong to you and I, then they wouldn't have had to have been reigned in somewhat."

Uhhh- Espn's ratings went up after they relented and started showing the fight between the pistons and pacers earlier this year- the top shows on TV and radio are often the ones that use sex/cursing/shock value/violence the most. Seems to me that most people- the ones that "the airwaves belong to" perfer these types of entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it wrong either.

I guess I am just old fashioned in some ways.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with censorship. I don't agree with over-regulation.


[/ QUOTE ]

But that is the effect of the backlash. If someone is interviewing someone live and he accidently say someone is 'the [censored]', and people get outraged, the network that carried the live broadcast can be fined millions of dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think there is a reasonable expectance as to what should be shown over broadcast television.



[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is the FCC outright refuses to say what is 'reasonable.' No one knows what that means. If you ask 5 random people what is 'reasonable', you are likely to get 5 different answers. Who's ever heard of fining someone from breaking a rule, but refusing to tell anyone what the rules are?

[ QUOTE ]
I would be horrified if the government began to fully regulate ALL of cable TV.


[/ QUOTE ]
Then you should write to your representative, because that is the proposal on the table.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a balance, and if CBS/MTV hadn't pulled that stunt much of this would be a non issue now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that CBS/MTV did not pull a stunt. I have several friends who worked on that production. He was at every run through. It was not planned. Even Janet Jackson admitted that she changed exactly what she was going to do immediately before the performance. I have worked closely with the standards department of MTVN and know they're quite stringent with what they will allow.

Furthermore, CBS is even more conservative then MTV. Believe me when I can tell you first hand, CBS would not screw with the Superbowl (a deal worth 10s of millions of dollars) by pulling a stunt.

I've worked on various award shows for different networks and if this was the kind of stunt MTV would pull, you would have seen this kind of thing on the Movie Awards or VH1 Honors years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
It was the irresponsibility of them that caused this response to begin with. Or at least that's my take on the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But your take is based on your whim. I work in the industry and have worked for these companies. I know directly from people who work on the production (who would have no qualms sharing the dirt with me) that it wasn't planned.

So... the entire backlash; increased censorship and regulation, was pretty much the effect of Janet's doing.

Seems pretty wrong to me.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is the FCC outright refuses to say what is 'reasonable.' No one knows what that means. If you ask 5 random people what is 'reasonable', you are likely to get 5 different answers. Who's ever heard of fining someone from breaking a rule, but refusing to tell anyone what the rules are?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. I agree that its a problem. Don't get me wrong, despite what you might believe, i am not evil. I don't like censorship, I love free speech, but I also love responsibility. I think there should be clear rules, and those rules should be as un-restrictive as possible.

[ QUOTE ]

Then you should write to your representative, because that is the proposal on the table.


[/ QUOTE ]

I will talk to him later this week, seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
Believe me when I can tell you first hand, CBS would not screw with the Superbowl (a deal worth 10s of millions of dollars) by pulling a stunt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that. But I am not convinced that MTV/CBS had nothing to do with it, sorry, but I don't trust Janet's word.

[ QUOTE ]
So... the entire backlash; increased censorship and regulation, was pretty much the effect of Janet's doing.

Seems pretty wrong to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, it's wrong. I don't like the over-regulation, and I don't like censorship. However, in some cases, and only to some degrees, they are occasionally needed.