Tuesday, June 05, 2007
FCC-'in A!
Oh $#!%! A federal appeals court tells government watchdogs to get over themselves!
This point tickled me to no end:
I have a line in my stand-up routine where I point to Bush's vulgarity and pair it with Cheney's shooting incident and ask the question: When did the Republican Party become sponsored by Hot 97?
This blog occasionally uses one or two of those famous "seven words" George Carlin couldn't use on television (though most can be said on broadcast TV these days) -- though usually more in the Comments section than in the main posts. However, no one would confuse this blog with, say, a gangsta rap song. I try to keep something of a mature standard. Still, I don't try to censor myself or my colleagues. There are times when a coarse word or phrase is appropriate -- sometimes as punchline, sometimes as a way to emphasized a point.
Thus, I thought that the Federal Communications Commission was becoming a bit too much of a blue nose censoring body in going after broadcast networks for "incidental" airing of naughty words, supposedly to protect the sainted ears of our tender youth (many of whom are buying those aforementioned rap songs).
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court determines if the FCC appeals.
|
This point tickled me to no end:
But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”
Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator
Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.
I have a line in my stand-up routine where I point to Bush's vulgarity and pair it with Cheney's shooting incident and ask the question: When did the Republican Party become sponsored by Hot 97?
This blog occasionally uses one or two of those famous "seven words" George Carlin couldn't use on television (though most can be said on broadcast TV these days) -- though usually more in the Comments section than in the main posts. However, no one would confuse this blog with, say, a gangsta rap song. I try to keep something of a mature standard. Still, I don't try to censor myself or my colleagues. There are times when a coarse word or phrase is appropriate -- sometimes as punchline, sometimes as a way to emphasized a point.
Thus, I thought that the Federal Communications Commission was becoming a bit too much of a blue nose censoring body in going after broadcast networks for "incidental" airing of naughty words, supposedly to protect the sainted ears of our tender youth (many of whom are buying those aforementioned rap songs).
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court determines if the FCC appeals.
Labels: Censorship, Dick Cheney, FCC, George W. Bush
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Rated XM? You Can't Be Sirius!
I agree 100 percent with Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters on the suspension of XM satellite radio shock-jocks "Opie And Anthony" over last week's homeless-guy-raping-Condoleezza Rice schtick:
Exactly.
By the way, it may be bit obvious to say this but, generally speaking rape is not really a topic for humor. A possible exception is a period piece if it is referred to in the context of "rape, plunder and pillage." Aside from the appalling content of their schtick, "O&A" also violated (so to speak) a cardinal rule of humor -- it should be funny.
|
...[C]onsumers control the market to a greater degree than they realize, whether indirectly by pressuring advertisers, or more directly, by threatening subscriber rates. People have limits for bad taste, and XM just found out where they exist. And while the subscribers who complained may not have been O&A listeners, they still pay XM a monthly fee -- and apparently
exist in large enough numbers to make a difference.
As La Monica points out, that was not the only pressure XM faced. They have inked a deal with rival Sirius to merge, which requires FCC approval, and Congress already has deep skepticism about the deal. Any controversy at this point hurts the merger, and especially one in which two
emotionally stunted hosts start fantasizing about raping the Secretary of State.
If Congress wanted an excuse to torpedo the merger, then O&A handed them the
hook they needed.
Suspension is the proper penalty, and CBS would have done better to apply that penalty to Imus as well. It imposes limits on their tolerance for bad taste and gives the show the opportunity to exist within those limits, and it keeps their audience happy in the long run. All publisher make
editorial decisions, and XM may have looser boundaries, but they still have to decide how best to keep their subscribers. It's the right decision, applied in the right manner, and it leaves the more permanent solution as a disincentive.
And this is not a free-speech issue. Opie and Anthony can start airing their show on the Internet tomorrow and become their own publishers in a heartbeat. They want a big salary, though, rather than relying on the uncertain income stream that would bring. If XM finds them offensive, or if they feel their subscriber base does, then they can dump the show whenever they want,
within their contractual obligations. It's a free-market issue, not a free-speech issue. Those who disagree with XM's decision are just as free to drop them as XM is to drop immature jerks from their lineup.
Exactly.
By the way, it may be bit obvious to say this but, generally speaking rape is not really a topic for humor. A possible exception is a period piece if it is referred to in the context of "rape, plunder and pillage." Aside from the appalling content of their schtick, "O&A" also violated (so to speak) a cardinal rule of humor -- it should be funny.
Labels: Censorship, Don Imus, Opie+Anthony
Thursday, April 12, 2007
It's Not So Hard Out Here for a Pimp
Madscribe quietly fuming:
Well, I don't know about RAG, but this is my absolute last word on the phony Imus affair (fingers crossed!). By way of blogosphere regurgitation, I recommend Jason Whitlock's column on the whole mess, which I came across on BookerRising (I still like Shay's site, even if she goes bonkers and Sharpton-like on the issue of Harold Ford, Jr., black men and interracial dating).
It's nice to know that I'm not the only black male in America that thinks this mess was much Hairdo about nothing, and see it for what it really was: a way for poverty pimp Al Sharpton to demonstrate his meager talent of racial huckstering, enabled by white journalists and media folk whose only concept of black leadership is limited to Sharpton and Jesse Jackson; as well as for talentless black journalists that have nothing better to write or research in terms of important (or UNCOVERED) black news and issues, go for the easy, meaningless water cooler talk of cable news networks. I haven't felt the need to renew my membership in the National Association of Black Journalists, and this whole stinking, anti-First Amendment episode (guess journalists of all backgrounds have forgotten what THAT is) isn't going to make me reach for my check book.
I guess now Sharpton will have to go back to attacking black filmmakers, and black journalists can continue to whine about diversity and jobs in a dying newspaper and advertising business that is shedding jobs regardless as to race, color, religion or sexual preference.
Update:
Okay, SECOND to last word (told you that I had to cross my fingers). Justine Nicholas at LewRockwell.com makes a pointed libertarian-economic case on why attempts to silence people like Imus will ultimately fail at improving race relations. An English professor at City University of New York, Ms. Nicholas also makes an interesting distinction between two common words in the lexicon of modern black thugs, which have been (unfortunately) much discussed in the past week.
Consider the articles of Nicolas and Whitlock to be the perfect bookends on a very stupid episode in the national dialogue.
Updated Update:
Imus Fights Back. I knew this was coming. Sharpton claims we need to "have a discussion on what is appropriate on the airwaves." I can't wait to see what an unchained Imus, coupled with Opie and Anthony, and a host of others who are starting to feel their Wheaties, will do to confront Herr Sharpton and his Hair-Raising Hordes.
Mother of All Updates:
"Well, Don, when I got fired it took me a whole roll of LifeSavers to get over it ... "
If it helps to cheer folks up, here's a classic slice of Al Sharpton at work. Looking back, all I could think was that the Good Reverend looks like Prince's bass player from the early 1980s after an airhose was shoved up his butt.
|
Well, I don't know about RAG, but this is my absolute last word on the phony Imus affair (fingers crossed!). By way of blogosphere regurgitation, I recommend Jason Whitlock's column on the whole mess, which I came across on BookerRising (I still like Shay's site, even if she goes bonkers and Sharpton-like on the issue of Harold Ford, Jr., black men and interracial dating).
It's nice to know that I'm not the only black male in America that thinks this mess was much Hairdo about nothing, and see it for what it really was: a way for poverty pimp Al Sharpton to demonstrate his meager talent of racial huckstering, enabled by white journalists and media folk whose only concept of black leadership is limited to Sharpton and Jesse Jackson; as well as for talentless black journalists that have nothing better to write or research in terms of important (or UNCOVERED) black news and issues, go for the easy, meaningless water cooler talk of cable news networks. I haven't felt the need to renew my membership in the National Association of Black Journalists, and this whole stinking, anti-First Amendment episode (guess journalists of all backgrounds have forgotten what THAT is) isn't going to make me reach for my check book.
I guess now Sharpton will have to go back to attacking black filmmakers, and black journalists can continue to whine about diversity and jobs in a dying newspaper and advertising business that is shedding jobs regardless as to race, color, religion or sexual preference.
Update:
Okay, SECOND to last word (told you that I had to cross my fingers). Justine Nicholas at LewRockwell.com makes a pointed libertarian-economic case on why attempts to silence people like Imus will ultimately fail at improving race relations. An English professor at City University of New York, Ms. Nicholas also makes an interesting distinction between two common words in the lexicon of modern black thugs, which have been (unfortunately) much discussed in the past week.
Consider the articles of Nicolas and Whitlock to be the perfect bookends on a very stupid episode in the national dialogue.
Updated Update:
Imus Fights Back. I knew this was coming. Sharpton claims we need to "have a discussion on what is appropriate on the airwaves." I can't wait to see what an unchained Imus, coupled with Opie and Anthony, and a host of others who are starting to feel their Wheaties, will do to confront Herr Sharpton and his Hair-Raising Hordes.
Mother of All Updates:
"Well, Don, when I got fired it took me a whole roll of LifeSavers to get over it ... "
If it helps to cheer folks up, here's a classic slice of Al Sharpton at work. Looking back, all I could think was that the Good Reverend looks like Prince's bass player from the early 1980s after an airhose was shoved up his butt.
Labels: Al Sharpton, Black Hypocrisy, Censorship, First Amendment
