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
Context is everything. Now I don't know the contexts for those two incedents, but I can guess. Oprah was probably being discussed with a doctor about women's health issues or something like that. Stern was probably making dirty jokes instead of doing some kind of information piece like Oprah was (again, my conjecture, I don't know for sure). In that case that's perfectly fine. Now if they were both making leud jokes and one got fined and the other didn't, that would be unfair. But you just can't discuss some issues without using some of those works.
Reminds me of an episode of News Radio. Phil Hartman's character did an on air editorial about how another station shouldn't have run a show where they constantly and continuisly used words like "Penis" and how people shouldn't stand for that indecency, blah blah blah.
Later in the show he was forced to retract that on air because the show was talking to a doctor about Erectile Disfunction (or some such).
And I need the government to judge the "contexts" for my media consumption because...?
The legal system considers context all the time. Consider, if you touch a stranger's ass in the subway, if you did it for sexual gratification, it's a sex crime. If you did it accidentally, well, it's an accident. If you did it to remove a scorpion, you're a hero. Same act, different context.
Stern, et al have valid complaints (namely, being fined by the FCC) but his then demanding Oprah be finded is childish and his
Who gets to arbitrate what context makes things appropriate? The Oprah show was actually teenagers talking about sex and sexual terms. Here's the transcript: [howardstern.com]
The Oprah Winfrey Show Transcript
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Clip One
Oprah: Lets talk about that secret language Michelle.
Michelle: Yes
Oprah: I didn't know any of this
Michelle: I have yea, I have gotten a whole new vocabulary let me tell ya
Oprah: I did not know any of this
Michelle: Salad tossing, cucumbers, lettuce tomatoes ok
Oprah: ok so so what is a salad toss?
Michelle: ok a tossed salad is, get ready hold on to your underwear for this one, oral anal sex, So oral sex with the anus is what that would be.
Clip Two
Michelle: a rainbow party is an oral sex party it's a gathering where oral sex is performed and
rainbow comes from all of the girls put on lipstick and each one puts her mouth around
the penis of the gentleman or gentlemen who are there to receive favors and makes
a mark um in a different place on the penis hence the term rainbow
Who gets to arbitrate what context makes things appropriate?
Indeed. The tendency in any established beauracracy is towards "fixing" the "system", regardless of the parent system's necessity or effectiveness. So we think about how the FCC does and should handle things, rather than about doing away with governments altogether, which would make a lot more sense. Wouldn't both sides be happier settling the "moral values" issue with guns? I know I would. I'm inclined to say that only the individual has the ca
You can guess, but then you would be wrong. Oprah was talking about the rise of oral sex in American high schools and some of the terms the kids are using. Howard was talking about the rise of oral sex in American high schools and some of the terms the kids are using.
The only difference is Oprah was talking about it in a "this is so terrible, can you believe it" type of way, and Howard thought it was funny.
If only it was as pure as you make it out to be. As you can see by the transcript below it's not about context. The things they were talking about are just as titillating as what goes on on Sterns show. It's not about context, it's about viewership and perception.
It's OK for Oprah to talk about it because she's perceived as a caring, loving black woman who gives out free cars. Her viewership is mostly middle aged suburban white woman who think of her as some kind of saint. Titillating lesbianism among hot teenage girls? Oh no, not on Oprah! It's uh.. educational! These damn kids and their hot hot descriptions of rampant sex!
It's NOT ok for Stern to talk about it because he's perceived as a perverted white guy. His listeners are young men.. crass bastards.
I guess you can call all of that context, but it's a LOT more twisted kind of context than you're making it out to be.
I'm sick of this stupid crap about "indecency". The whole thing is just a fight about the so called "culture war". The christian right doesn't want anyone exposed to things they don't like because they believe it'll turn everyone evil. They cloak the whole thing in a "protect our children" wrapping because a lot of people seem to lose their brains at any mention of the world children.
Hell, I'm offended by most of reality TV and I think its rotting peoples brains and beliefs. I don't however think the solution is banning it from the airwaves. Unfortunately the moral crusaders of the Christian right think they're the only ones with a moral system, (or at least the only possible "correct" moral system) and wish to enforce it on everyone else.
The whole "different context" idea has nothing to do with the race of the TV personality, or the demographics of the audience. The difference in context is right there in the content of the two shows.
The difference between hot lesbian teenage oral sex on Oprah vs. Stern is simple: Oprah is discouraging that type of behavior and Stern is encouraging it. It is very different thing to bring teenagers on your show and tell them not to do such things (Oprah style) as opposed to bringing teenage girls on your s
Dont know how many of you have read the transcript to the show that howard stern got fined for but it the timeframe of the complaint the only thing that came anyplace close to indeasent was a session where Howard Stern was talking about a cream to clean the anal area
Your sig doesn't match your post.
Read the transcripts, it will take you less than 10 minutes, much less time than reading a book to become "intelligent" .
Not when it comes to enforcement, its not. Either you broke the law or not. And another whole problem with the completely arbitrary enforcement by the FCC is, nobody knows whats safe. Just look at all the tv stations that refused to air Saving Private Ryan because they might be fined by the FCC.
What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1, Insightful)
Reminds me of an episode of News Radio. Phil Hartman's character did an on air editorial about how another station shouldn't have run a show where they constantly and continuisly used words like "Penis" and how people shouldn't stand for that indecency, blah blah blah.
Later in the show he was forced to retract that on air because the show was talking to a doctor about Erectile Disfunction (or some such).
It all depends on the situation.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:2)
The legal system considers context all the time. Consider, if you touch a stranger's ass in the subway, if you did it for sexual gratification, it's a sex crime. If you did it accidentally, well, it's an accident. If you did it to remove a scorpion, you're a hero. Same act, different context.
Stern, et al have valid complaints (namely, being fined by the FCC) but his then demanding Oprah be finded is childish and his
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1)
If you check his website as well I believe the shows transcripts are still there for review.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Informative)
The Oprah Winfrey Show Transcript
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Clip One
Oprah: Lets talk about that secret language Michelle.
Michelle: Yes
Oprah: I didn't know any of this
Michelle: I have yea, I have gotten a whole new vocabulary let me tell ya
Oprah: I did not know any of this
Michelle: Salad tossing, cucumbers, lettuce tomatoes ok
Oprah: ok so so what is a salad toss?
Michelle: ok a tossed salad is, get ready hold on to your underwear for this one, oral anal sex, So oral sex with the anus is what that would be.
Clip Two
Michelle: a rainbow party is an oral sex party it's a gathering where oral sex is performed and rainbow comes from all of the girls put on lipstick and each one puts her mouth around the penis of the gentleman or gentlemen who are there to receive favors and makes a mark um in a different place on the penis hence the term rainbow
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:2)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1)
Indeed. The tendency in any established beauracracy is towards "fixing" the "system", regardless of the parent system's necessity or effectiveness. So we think about how the FCC does and should handle things, rather than about doing away with governments altogether, which would make a lot more sense. Wouldn't both sides be happier settling the "moral values" issue with guns? I know I would. I'm inclined to say that only the individual has the ca
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:2, Informative)
The only difference is Oprah was talking about it in a "this is so terrible, can you believe it" type of way, and Howard thought it was funny.
But, exact same context.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:5, Insightful)
Context is everything.
If only it was as pure as you make it out to be. As you can see by the transcript below it's not about context. The things they were talking about are just as titillating as what goes on on Sterns show. It's not about context, it's about viewership and perception.
It's OK for Oprah to talk about it because she's perceived as a caring, loving black woman who gives out free cars. Her viewership is mostly middle aged suburban white woman who think of her as some kind of saint. Titillating lesbianism among hot teenage girls? Oh no, not on Oprah! It's uh.. educational! These damn kids and their hot hot descriptions of rampant sex!
It's NOT ok for Stern to talk about it because he's perceived as a perverted white guy. His listeners are young men.. crass bastards.
I guess you can call all of that context, but it's a LOT more twisted kind of context than you're making it out to be.
I'm sick of this stupid crap about "indecency". The whole thing is just a fight about the so called "culture war". The christian right doesn't want anyone exposed to things they don't like because they believe it'll turn everyone evil. They cloak the whole thing in a "protect our children" wrapping because a lot of people seem to lose their brains at any mention of the world children.
Hell, I'm offended by most of reality TV and I think its rotting peoples brains and beliefs. I don't however think the solution is banning it from the airwaves. Unfortunately the moral crusaders of the Christian right think they're the only ones with a moral system, (or at least the only possible "correct" moral system) and wish to enforce it on everyone else.
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:2)
You don't understand. Indecency harms "human decency". That's why it must be stopped.
You're overcomplicating this (Score:2)
The difference between hot lesbian teenage oral sex on Oprah vs. Stern is simple: Oprah is discouraging that type of behavior and Stern is encouraging it. It is very different thing to bring teenagers on your show and tell them not to do such things (Oprah style) as opposed to bringing teenage girls on your s
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1)
Re:What about Howard Stern (Score:1)
context smontext (Score:1)
Not when it comes to enforcement, its not. Either you broke the law or not. And another whole problem with the completely arbitrary enforcement by the FCC is, nobody knows whats safe. Just look at all the tv stations that refused to air Saving Private Ryan because they might be fined by the FCC.