Sure, Willy, that's the threshold question. And I agree -- further, what does it say about the standard if the show they are targeting is number one in all its markets? Wouldn't that convey that the community standard deems it not offensive, and in fact quite listenable?
But, the reason Stern thinks it's over for him is because of the fine increase, which would force Infinity to fire him if they're talking about tens to hundreds of millions of dollars (I believe each 'incident' is fined separately as it occurs on *each* station broadcasting Stern's show).
More on this....
March 7, 2004
BROADCASTERS ON THE SPOT
It's Prime Time for a Decency Campaign
By HUGO LINDGREN, The New York Times
FOR a glimpse of deviance in America, look no further than the enforcement section of the Federal Communications Commission's Web site. It is a police blotter of offensive jokes.
A few of the incidents might ring a bell. Who can forget the radio show during which a couple had sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral? Or what passed for humor on an Akron, Ohio, radio station in 2001. The joke involved a butcher knife and a baby, and that's not even the worst of it.
One lesson that can be gleaned from reading through the violations: In the past, you had to behave in a pretty raunchy manner to get the commission's attention. And even when you did that, the price was not too high. The St. Patrick's stunt drew a $375,500 fine for Infinity Broadcasting, the station's corporate parent. The Akron joke led to a fine of $7,000.
The question now is whether all that might be changing.
Since Janet Jackson's breast was bared at the Super Bowl, a flurry of fresh outrage has produced hearings and legislation on Capitol Hill, and much tough talk. Big broadcasters and cable companies have hunkered down. The radio giant Clear Channel made a pre-emptive strike last month at its own roster, firing Todd Clem, the expletive-happy host of the "Bubba the Love Sponge'' show, which was broadcast from Florida. He had been fined by the F.C.C. for, among other transgressions, lewd skits involving cartoon characters like Scooby-Doo.
Clear Channel also dropped Howard Stern from six cities, prompting Rush Limbaugh, of all people, to speak up on Mr. Stern's behalf (though he made sure to add he did not endorse the shock jock's content).
To those who have followed the ebb and flow of broadcast decency issues over the last few decades, much of this reaction comes across as cynical posturing and face-saving. Outrage over standards is an old theme, and any tour of the dials shows that nothing has stopped the extended genital jokes on 8 p.m. sitcoms or the ever-more explicit goings-on of reality television. It has been noted that this is an election year.
But there are some new variables. Almost overnight, everything the F.C.C. has, and has not, done has come under intense scrutiny. This has put pressure on the chairman, Michael K. Powell, an advocate of free markets who has been criticized (by the politically influential social conservatives, among others) as being fixated on clearing the path for media consolidation to the exclusion of his other responsibilities.
The commissioner's office maintains that he has been just as tough on indecency as his predecessors, and as an example of his seriousness, Mr. Powell recently rejected his enforcement's bureau's ruling that a spontaneous use of an expletive by Bono at last year's Golden Globe Awards, broadcast live by NBC, did not constitute a decency violation. A revised judgment is due shortly from the commission. A fine is unlikely but NBC's airing of Bono's utterance will be officially branded ''profane" and ''indecent," setting a legal precedent.
Congress, too, appears up in arms. One bill came flying from the office of Senator Zell Miller, Democrat of Georgia, proposing fines spiraling into the tens of millions of dollars. This initiative, however, was upstaged by a set of companion bills that are simultaneously going through the House and Senate. In their current iterations, they call for a more modest increase in penalties. It is likely that a version of them will wind up on the president's desk in the coming weeks.
Outside of Congress, a potentially broader political movement was asserting itself even before Ms. Jackson was partially disrobed. Those at the center of it include Michael J. Copps, an F.C.C. member who believes that consolidation in the media industry is linked to indecency.
The argument is this: If the people who control most of what's on the air live in Manhattan high-rises and Beverly Hills mansions, far away from their audiences, they are unlikely to feel much community pressure when objectionable content appears on their stations. This enables them to pursue 18- to 34-year-old viewers with programming pushing the boundaries of taste and to face no real consequences.
On the other hand, if the ownership of media properties was more diffuse, the argument goes, informal community standards would be more powerful and less indecency would be on the air.
What makes this argument potentially powerful is that liberals who fear media consolidation, represented by groups like Consumers Union, are finding themselves on the same side of the barricades as decency crusaders like the Parents Television Council.
In the short term, this pressure is forcing the F.C.C. into a more active role, and could lead to many more fines and a more serious debate about revoking the licenses of repeat offenders. The panel has never stripped a license from a broadcaster for indecency reasons.
Another change is a focus on cable television, which has remained largely outside the commission's purview. Tom DeLay, the House Republican leader, warned last week that cable operators might be forced to offer channels à la carte, enabling subscribers to choose, and pay for, only the ones they want. Cable operators, who offer channels in packages, hate this idea.
In terms of actual content, don't expect a sudden cleansing of television. The competition for young adult viewers, particularly men, is fierce because, relatively speaking, so few of them watch television and are thus very difficult for advertisers to reach. The programs that deliver their attention to advertisers tend to be the ones that push the boundaries the most.
For their part, the major networks feel they stay within their audiences' expectations, and they are also taking extra precautions, like instituting delays at certain live performances. In the cable world, producers are just hoping to keep off the F.C.C.'s radar. They are taking a harder look at content that could be considered gratuitous and could set off a rash of complaints, but they are generally loath to soften their programming in ways that might send young-adult viewers elsewhere. There is a prevailing sense among executives that if they keep their heads down, this too shall pass.
Which it might, because it always has before. In the mid-1990's, an aggrieved chorus of media watchdogs and family advocates vowed to halt the spread of the profane radio style of Howard Stern, who was then winning imitators and high ratings across the country.
Ten years later, Mr. Stern is apparently as dangerous as ever.
