I know that Stern pushed for his listeners to complain about Oprah Winfrey (?). Oprah got away with saying things about vaginas and sexual practices that Stern was fined for
This is exactly where the problem of non-enforcement has brought us. Because Oprah gets away with it, Stern thinks he can do it too. However, in reality Oprah was just not caught because none of the complainers were looking at her show, and had somebody complained the stations airing her show would have gotten fined.
The problem is that the FCC doesn't have the resources to watch every channel all the time, and the PTC doesn't either so they just target programs where they expect to find something...
the problem is that after stern brought the issue up, a LOT of people filed complaints about oprah, many orders of magnitude more than complained about stern. the fcc even admitted this!
and STILL oprah hasn't been fined. only stern has.
oprah is loved so she can break the rules however and whenever she likes, while stern is reviled and gets severely punished for the tiniest infraction.
Oprah contributes to the correct political campaigns (Repubs and Dems). Stern did not do this and therefore made a convenient target for the bible beaters. This, by the way, is the same reason Martha Stewart went to jail for what was barely stock fraud but Bill Gates got a slap on the wrist for monopolistic activities.
Howard Stern stays exactly within the narrow lane of behavior with which he has been assigned. Namely, he is to appeal to the 'rebel' demographic by himself being a 'rebel' against the very system which permits his survival. This reminds me of the skinny dork I knew in 8th grade who was talking about all the advantages of survival of the fittest and anarchy, and how mad he got when my very intelligent friend asked him if it had occurred to him that he would in all l
When I've heard Stern (which is rarely), I have heard things that I would agree meet the 3 criteria that the FCC uses.
Oprah fails to meet the third: in general, you can reasonably argue that there is a valid educational purpose in what she (or her guests in most cases) are discussing (e.g. the above quoted salad-tossing and rainbow party examples).
That's just my opinion, and I don't agree with banning things that match the 3 criterea anyway, but the FCC does seem to be following the rules that the law and
Knowing Stern, any mention of this topic is most likely done in a degrading, derogatory manner, with absolutely no intrinsic value other than to titilate/stimulate his brain-dead listeners
I see quite a difference between this aproach, and approaching the subject with a sense of intellectual or educational value. Perhaps it's not so much the "what" that matters here, so much as the "how".
What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1)
The problem is that the FCC doesn't have the resources to watch every channel all the time, and the PTC doesn't either so they just target programs where they expect to find something...
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Interesting)
and STILL oprah hasn't been fined. only stern has.
oprah is loved so she can break the rules however and whenever she likes, while stern is reviled and gets severely punished for the tiniest infraction.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:2)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:4, Interesting)
"Do you see Al Franken being fined?"
Not yet. But it will happen soon I am sure.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:2)
That would imply that he has listeners.
Al Franken (Score:2)
it's only a matter of time.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:2)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1)
Howard Stern stays exactly within the narrow lane of behavior with which he has been assigned. Namely, he is to appeal to the 'rebel' demographic by himself being a 'rebel' against the very system which permits his survival. This reminds me of the skinny dork I knew in 8th grade who was talking about all the advantages of survival of the fittest and anarchy, and how mad he got when my very intelligent friend asked him if it had occurred to him that he would in all l
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:2)
Oprah fails to meet the third: in general, you can reasonably argue that there is a valid educational purpose in what she (or her guests in most cases) are discussing (e.g. the above quoted salad-tossing and rainbow party examples).
That's just my opinion, and I don't agree with banning things that match the 3 criterea anyway, but the FCC does seem to be following the rules that the law and
Re:You can't see the difference? (Score:2)
Knowing Stern, any mention of this topic is most likely done in a degrading, derogatory manner, with absolutely no intrinsic value other than to titilate/stimulate his brain-dead listeners
I see quite a difference between this aproach, and approaching the subject with a sense of intellectual or educational value. Perhaps it's not so much the "what" that matters here, so much as the "how".