In Case You Missed It: Stephanie Miller's Live F-Bomb

Image from The Inquisitr

I've said in the past that Randi Rhodes is an acquired taste. Stephanie Miller is also. Since the two of them are friends, I suppose that stands to reason. Where with Randi, you have to grow accustomed to her voice, with Steph, you have to grow accustomed to her style.

If you're hearing The Stephanie Miller Show (or Talking Liberally on CurrentTV) from across the room, you'll hear a series of boinks, burrrps, farts and screeeeaaaams. It will annoy you. But, once you grow accustomed, all of those sound effects and sound cues will cause you to make those noises yourself, and possibly cause a li'l accident that requires cleanup. Stephanie, her voice guy Jim Ward, her producer Chris Lavoie, and their regular guests like Hal Sparks and John Fugelsang are not just very funny, they're very smart. And immature. And inappropriate. And back to funny and smart.

It's a mixture I enjoy and aspire to exhibit. I hope that comes across on my blog, and isn't a grand illusion on my part. Anyway, my sister got me hooked on the show, and elements of it have overrun my blog on occasion. I think I've even scared off Chris from ever responding to a tweet or email because my Linked-In keeps pestering him to add me.

Anyway, the other day, the Supreme Court smacked down some silly indecency rules from the FCC. And Steph just plum lost her shit. And isn't it funny that I can say shit here on the internets as much as I want to (shit! shit! shit!), and nothing happens? And I can put this clip of Stephanie saying fuck (fuck! fuck! fuck!), and the FCC doesn't give a shit! And yet, it is enough to inspire fear (and/or hatred) in producer Chris?

FCC Decision Limits Right-Wing Radio Expansion

You go, liberal radio chick! Image from Think Progress.

Well, this is interesting. But I've got to wonder. . .how could right-wing talk radio expand exactly? As it stands, they're everywhere, on multiple stations in the same market, it every city across the country. Is there a hunger for more right-wing talk? If there was ever a market that was saturated, this one is it.

[Excerpt]


FCC decision strikes critical blow to right-wing radio dominance

A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision issued Monday (PDF) will clear the runway for hundreds of new community radio stations that broadcast on low-power FM signals, bringing progressive, community voices to urban areas that have for decades only known what’s being broadcast by major corporations and America’s political right. . .

Read more at: RawStory

F Word Now Cool on TV?

It is often said that we're somewhat puritanical in the United States, and I think it's pretty much true. While television is no longer trying to push a Leave it to Beaver-type illusion of America, there are still things you just cannot say or do on tv. Which is kind of silly, when you consider that it is a rare US citizen who hasn't been exposed to profanity or nudity. . .and participated in large part.  So why can't a person react and speak in a realistic way on the teevee?  I get it in the early evening. I even understand it on broadcast television in most venues.  But in the evening, overnight, and especially on cable, I just don't get the uptight rules.

It's especially weird on expanded cable channels like Logo, when you hear "God" bleeped when put together with "damn." I mean what the f**k? Ok, what the fuck?  Now I'm not saying that Whoopi Goldberg should bring her standup vocabulary daily to The View, or that Lisa Lampanelli be given an unexpergated prime-time slot on Nickelodeon. But when it is organic to the situation, I think profanity and even some limited nudity should be just fine, within reason. I just wish George Carlin were alive to see it.

[Excerpt]

FCC Swear Word Censorship Policy Tossed By Federal Court

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a government policy that can lead to broadcasters being fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television, saying it is unconstitutionally vague and threatens speech "at the heart of the First Amendment. . ."

Read more at: Huffington Post

Janet Jackson's Boob Not Worth $.5 Million

Image from source, Reuters

We had friends over for the Super Bowl in 2004, and were having a beer and chili-fueled good time by the time halftime rolled around. We had recently gotten the HDTV installed on our 55-inch TV, and were marvelling at the picture when--gasp!--something happened.

I didn't know what it was at first, because I was exploring the acreage on the other side of the screen. But a couple of the guests saw what they thought was Janet Jackson's breast. They weren't sure. . .thought she might have had a pasty on. The total discussion of the matter might have lasted ninety seconds. By the end of third quarter, nobody in the room probably would have even remembered the event. . .were it not for the circus that ensued the next day.

Ultimately, CBS was fined around a half a million dollars by the FCC for indecency. For a half-second booby flash. Nobody who watched with me, in fact no one I've ever talked to about it, thought that made any sense. Fortunately, we were not alone.

[Excerpt]

Court overturns CBS fine over Janet Jackson flash

The U.S. government's campaign against television indecency was dealt a blow on Monday when a court overturned a $550,000 fine against CBS Corp television stations for airing a glimpse of pop singer Janet Jackson's breast during the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast. . .

Read more at: Reuters

The Fairness Doctrine: The Right-wing's Kryptonite

Image from source, LTR

Does anybody out there remember the "Fairness Doctrine?" It was an FCC regulation that required equal time to both right and left opinion on public airwaves. It seemed pretty fair, and there were ways around it for the very determined. But it disappeared during the Reagan administration. That--not coincidentally--is around the same time of the birth (and afterbirth) of right-wing talk radio. Wall-to-wall conservotalk became the norm on AM radio, with some hosts like Rush Limbaugh even competing against himself on multiple stations.

I'm not sure there is a very strong push to reinstate the doctrine, but the very notion makes people lie Sean Hannity very, very nervous. And anything that does that deserves more discussion!

[Excerpt]

Fairness, schmairness and panic in the streets

. . .So, what is this "Fairness Doctrine?" It was enacted in 1949, and mandated that various viewpoints be represented on the airwaves. Sounded okay in theory, but as time progressed, it became clear that you can't lead a horse to water and expect it to drink. In short, you can't force broadcasters to do quality radio. . .

Read more at: LTR - Liberal Talk Radio

Senate Votes on Roll-back of Media Ownership Rules

Photo from source, Yahoo! News

This is exactly the sort of thing I want to see happening over the next four years. Though I'm sure George W. Bush will whip out his (prior to 2006, very dusty) veto pen, it is refreshing to see the Senate doing the right thing.

[Excerpt]

Senate votes to roll back media ownership rule

The Senate Thursday night voted to nullify a Federal Communications Commission rule that allows media companies to own a newspaper and a television station in the same market.

The unusual "resolution of disapproval," sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and 26 other senators, was approved by a voice vote. The measures sponsors include both Democratic candidates for president, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois. . .

Read more at: Yahoo! News

ABC Fined for 2003 Episode of NYPD Blue

"Ohhhh! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?" --Helen Lovejoy, The Simpsons

We are a ridiculous, stupid country sometimes. First, that it would take five years for this to be decided. Second, that a single episode of NYPD Blue would cause a fuss when almost every episode featured partial nudity. And third, that this is even an issue in the first place! A woman's naked butt and the side of her boob are "indecent?" Why???

In this age of cable TV and high-speed internet, these "broadcast television" standards are patently ridiculous, archaic nonsense. Who are we protecting, and what are we protecting them from? Listen, you over-protective, spastic parents: I grew up in the 70s, when computers and cable TV were in their infancy. From the age of ten or so, on up, my friends and I managed to find pictures of naked people. Whether it was digging through Grandpa's closet to find a Playboy magazine, or sneaking a look at a nudie calendar at the auto shop, we found a way. Kids will do that. And shutting down terrestrial broadcasts as an outlet for "indecency" will not stop them.

And by the way, 95% of kids never watched NYPD Blue in the first place.

[Excerpt]

ABC Faces Indecency Fine For 2003 'NYPD Blue' Episode

The Federal Communications Commission yesterday proposed a $1.43 million indecency fine against ABC television stations for a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue," the second-largest proposed indecency fine against a television broadcaster ever.

The agency proposed a $27,500 fine against 52 ABC-owned and affiliate stations in the Central and Mountain time zones, which broadcast the episode before 10 p.m., when the FCC's authority to police the airwaves for indecency expires each day. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Hat tip to Rich, the soon-to-be ex-house-mate for the story. Happy trails, Rich!

FCC Votes to Allow Further Consolidation

After yesterday's wonderful news of Chris Dodd's successful scuttling (for now) of the FISA/Telecom Immunity measure, this news is more than a bit of a downer. I thought maybe, just maybe we were on a roll or something.

Allowing media giants to even further consolidate serves no public purpose. All it does is allow already rich companies to get richer and for fewer people to control media messages. Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, this sucks.

[Excerpt]

FCC agrees to new media ownership reform

The Federal Communications Commission, overturning a 32-year-old ban, voted Tuesday to allow broadcasters in the nation's 20 largest media markets to also own a newspaper.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin was joined by his two Republican colleagues in favor of the proposal, while the commission's two Democrats voted against it. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

-

Get Active: Tell the FCC "NO" to Media Consolidation

The FCC is once again attempting to loosen the rules to allow further media consolidation. Presently, a radio or television station owner is prohibited from owning a newspaper in the same metropolitan area. The FCC is set to change that.

I can see no benefit to the general public to further reduce the number of media voices heard and read in any given area. The media is already consolidated to the point where the vast majority of it is owned by five or six big corporations. Who is the FCC really working for here, the public, or big business?

You can make your voice heard by following the link in this excerpt. Please read the full story for more background. Get active!

[Excerpt]

Media Consolidation: A primer on making your opinion heard

. . .You can file a comment with the FCC online. Click on the circle next to "Media Ownership Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Docket 06-121," then click "Continue" at the bottom of the page. You can also send comments straight to each of the five commissioners – or the FCC as a whole – via email, phone, fax, or mail. If you choose one of those routes, make sure you mention that you're commenting on "Docket 06-121" - the bureaucracy's name for Martin's proposal. . .

Read it all at: Bill Moyers Journal

Puzzling FCC Consolidation Changes

Photo of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, from source, Raw Story

I remember social studies classes back in elementary and junior high schools, learning about the early 1900s. Much attention was paid to trust busting, regulation of industry, eliminating worker abuses, things like that. The picture painted for us, was of corporations gone wild, but reigned in just in time. While I was learning all of that, Jimmy Carter led the charge to break up AT&T into the "Baby Bells."

In short, this kid of the 70s learned that monopolies are bad, and that corporations had to be overseen with a watchful eye, because greed always leads to bad things. A kid from the 80s, 90s and 2000s might not see that at all. Virtually every corporate category has experienced virtually unfettered consolidation and mergers. Here in Las Vegas for example, almost all of the major resorts on the strip are owned by one of two companies, Harrah's Entertainment and MGM/Mirage.

Curiously, the Bush Administration, and the regulating agencies it heads seem to want to return to the corporate climate of over 100 years ago. Do they forget that it was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican icon, who was championed as a "Trust Buster?"

[Excerpt]

PBS' Moyers on planned media consolidation rule change: FCC/industry 'revolving door' moves to further give away your airwaves

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin was heavily criticized by members of the public, along with his colleagues, at the sixth and final public hearing, held on November 9, 2007, on his planned changes to rules on media consolidation.

Input from the public, leading up to the vote, is being accepted until December 11, 2007.
Attendees were heavily suspicious of the short notice given, five business days, as a tactic to prevent more of the public from learning about the hearings, as well as being able to attend and provide input in an already short time window before the commission's vote takes place. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Media Consolidation Plan Blocked

Media consolidation is, in my view, an enormously bad thing for America. Having just a few companies own the vast majority of the media causes a sameness to the news that is most disquieting. Think about it for a minute. If you turn on any of the cable news programs, from Hannity & Colmes, to Live with Dan Abrams, to The Situation Room, and you will see--for the most part--the same set of stories on any given day. Countdown with Keith Olbermann is alone in the wilderness, in reporting and commenting on news stories the others aren't touching. Kudos to Keith for carving out a niche.

But somehow, all the newspapers and news shows seem to agree on what is newsworthy, and very little else gets through. That, I believe, is because most of the media is controlled by 5 or 6 companies. And now the FCC is trying to loosen the rules to allow even more consolidation. Thankfully, a couple more Democratic Senators have found their cojones, and are trying to stop it.

[Excerpt]

US senators threaten to block media ownership plan

Two U.S. senators on Wednesday threatened to introduce bipartisan legislation that would block the U.S. Federal Communication Commission from acting quickly to ease rules governing media ownership.

Sens. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, and Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said they were studying possible legislation that would nullify an FCC decision expected on Dec. 18.

"I would expect those of us who feel strongly that this is the wrong approach will attempt to find a way to block an action that we think is inappropriate," Dorgan told reporters at a press conference.

Read the whole story at: Reuters.com

FCC Finally Cracks Down on "Fake News"

Photo from source, RawStory.com

I'm happy to see that we're finally seeing some action on this issue. Video News Releases (VNRs) are slickly produced videos that appear to be actual news. They are produced by corporations, political organizations, and yes the US Government. They are sent to news stations, and inserted into broadcasts, often without any sort of disclaimer that denotes their parentage.

The Bush Administration has been using VNRs (along with other propaganda methods) extensively. It's about time something was done about it. Now, if they'd only do something about FOX "News."

[Excerpt]

FCC fines Comcast for VNRs

Cable giant Comcast violated the law by broadcasting video news releases without identifying them as sponsored programming, the Federal Communications Commission announced today. The ruling came in response to a complaint from Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy, a media watchdog group focusing on VNRs. . .

Read more at: RawStory.com