PDA

View Full Version : Stop the FCC



Ravenlord
03-31-2004, 08:20 PM
www.StopFCC.Com

please sign the petition...radio and TV work simply...if you don't like it, change the channel or turn it off rather than demand that the goverment dictates what can go on air.

Unassisted
03-31-2004, 10:37 PM
Links to "This is the placeholder for domain ionclan.net. If you see this page after uploading site content you probably have not replaced the index.html file. "

If you don't like the FCC, you need to change the President who put the current crop of commissioners there. The majority were put there by this administration and they get their marching orders from the top.

Once you pay attention to this stuff for awhile, you see that the pendulum of TV controversy swings between "sex" and "violence." The Clinton FCCs were too busy looking for ways to make money from selling the public airwaves to worry about sexy content. They did give us the "V" chip, though. I'm guessing the AWOL site is worked up about the furor over indecency. This too shall pass. :)

KittyDuran
03-31-2004, 11:18 PM
Link worked just fine for me...

zombie-a-go-go
04-01-2004, 09:31 AM
Internet petitions are useless. Legislatiors pay not attention to them whatsoever, because it takes no effort on the part of the signee to add their name. Furthermore, it's not horribly difficult to fake a list.

If you want to effect some change, sit down and write a snail-mail letter to your representative. A hand-written letter with a signature at the bottom of it is worth ten thousand internet signatures.

macro
04-27-2004, 02:00 PM
Ravenlord, are you in favor of *no* controls being placed on what can and cannot be broadcast on radio and TV broadcast networks?

Ravenlord
04-27-2004, 05:08 PM
Ravenlord, are you in favor of *no* controls being placed on what can and cannot be broadcast on radio and TV broadcast networks?
yep (well, anything short of porn). i follow the Sensible Don plan...if you don't like it, change the channel.

macro
04-27-2004, 05:24 PM
yep (well, anything short of porn)...

How would you define "porn"? I guess where I'm headed with this is, if you're willing to draw a line, any line, on what is unacceptable, then how is that any different than those who would draw that line a lot more conservatively? Where does censorship begin and end?

Not trying to paint you into a corner, btw. :)

WVRed
04-27-2004, 05:42 PM
yep (well, anything short of porn). i follow the Sensible Don plan...if you don't like it, change the channel.

That would work if everybody were adults. However, the reason is because of the children.

I mean, how easy is it to get a radio and headphones and listen to Howard Stern or Bob and Tom in the morning? Just turn on the radio and set it to the frequency.

Do I think Stern should be taken off the air? Absolutely not, it violates what this country was based upon. However, I dont believe that it should be easily accessible to where little ears can listen.

The solution? Get all of the smut off AM and FM radio, as well as local TV(or put it on between midnight and 5 AM), and move it to XM, Sirius, cable, and DirecTv.

That way, you can choose to buy it if you believe you can moderate it. Block the channels you dont want your kids watching and listening to.

I am a Christian, but I am very disturbed at seeing some of the people who cry to the FCC everytime something goes wrong. If people were more concerned about the souls of the unsaved and the strayed who were listening or watching the garbage on mainstream and would focus on winning them to Christ, this wouldnt be an issue, and the likes of Howard Stern would be off the air due to lack of ratings.

919191
04-27-2004, 06:16 PM
The solution? Get all of the smut off AM and FM radio, as well as local TV(or put it on between midnight and 5 AM), and move it to XM, Sirius, cable, and DirecTv.




But there has to be a free outlet to this stuff! :mhcky21:

Rojo
04-30-2004, 03:59 PM
Bloomberg (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=us&sid=aqgo9j99xhd4)

Sinclair to Preempt `Nightline' on ABC Stations, Cites Politics
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. ordered its ABC affiliates to preempt tomorrow's broadcast of ``Nightline,'' which will air the names and photos of U.S. military personnel who have died in combat in Iraq, saying the move is politically motivated.

``Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq,'' the company said in a faxed statement. Sinclair, which owns 62 U.S. television stations, said ABC is disguising political statements as news content.

Nightline anchor Ted Koppel will read the names of the more than 500 members of the U.S. armed forces killed in Iraq as their photos air in pairs, the network has said. Their names, ranks, branches of service, hometowns and ages will be listed under the photos. The entire broadcast will be devoted to reading the names.

The 30-minute program airs at 11:35 p.m. New York time on ABC, a unit of the Walt Disney Co. It will include those certified as killed in action by the Pentagon between March 19, 2003, and the date of the broadcast. Because of the list's size, Nightline will only be able to devote seconds to each casualty, executive producer Leroy Sievers said Tuesday.

Sinclair owns stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, WB and UPN in 39 markets.

In an e-mailed statement, ABC said the broadcast ``is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country.''

Redsfaithful
05-01-2004, 02:57 PM
Sinclair's disgusting. Quite a few of their top execs have contributed the max to GW. Shocking, I know.

Where are the people questioning this company's patriotism? They won't allow ABC to honor the people who've given their lives in Iraq in the last twelve months so I think that's fair game.

Unassisted
05-01-2004, 04:58 PM
If Sinclair tried to pull that stunt in a city with a big military presence, like the one I live in, there'd be a huge local fuss about it. I wonder if Sinclair news departments are getting pressure to play down stories on local casualties?

Apparently, a couple of Sinclair competitors decided to take advantage of Sinclair's move.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000501439

At least one Fox television affiliate, WHNS in Greenville, South Carolina, was planning to take the broadcast feed in place of Sinclair-owned station WLOS in nearby Winston-Salem.

"I think the viewers are very smart and can make their own decisions once the program airs,'' WHNS news director Micah Johnson told Reuters.

Also taking the "Nightline'' feed was ABC Radio affiliate KTRS in St. Louis, Missouri, another market where Sinclair was preempting the program. Others were expected to follow suit, a network spokeswoman said.

Rojo
05-03-2004, 01:57 PM
the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq,'' the company said in a faxed statement.

Political agendas cut both ways.

smith288
05-03-2004, 02:03 PM
We have two locally owned Sinclair stations (one ABC, one Fox) and they announce the death of every Ohioan.

Sinclair is free to do this as they own the station. Geesh.

Sinclair isnt denying ABC's right to "honor the dead". Its just not allowing ABC to "Vietnamitize the Iraq war" on their airwaves. They can find another outlet which some have done.

Free speech doesnt mean the right to be heard.

Unassisted
05-03-2004, 02:15 PM
Sinclair is denying the families of the war dead in their markets the chance to see the picture and hear the name of their loved one on a national broadcast. If ABC were running this show every week, I think the politicization argument would hold more water.

smith288
05-03-2004, 02:36 PM
Where did I find "Right of war dead's family to see relative's name announced nationally" in the Bill of Rights?

I understand the pain that these families have but there is a point where a media group can decide what to air based on their own convictions. Thats what a free market is about. Some dont agree, that's fine.

I sense some are insinuating that Sinclair doesnt have the right not to air something on their stations.

Red Heeler
05-03-2004, 04:21 PM
Its just not allowing ABC to "Vietnamitize the Iraq war" on their airwaves.

Oh, the Iraq War is doing a fine job of Vietnamitizing itself.

I do agree with your point, though. Sinclair owns the stations. They can broadcast whatever the heck they do or don't want within legal limits.

Rojo
05-03-2004, 07:36 PM
He doesn't own the airwaves, he conditionally rents them from the Federal Government. The conditions are that he serves the community.

Apparently he'd rather serve Bush.

smith288
05-04-2004, 02:54 PM
He doesn't own the airwaves, he conditionally rents them from the Federal Government. The conditions are that he serves the community.

Apparently he'd rather serve Bush.
Fed Gov. doesnt "own the airwaves". They regulate it. There is nothing about Sinclairs move that is cowing to the gov, rather they are going with what they, as an organization feels is right. Right or wrong to anyone here, its within their right.

Who is this "he" you speak of? And the condition isnt to "serve the community". Thats socialism. PBS and NPR is supposed to serve the community, Sinclair is in it to make money like any other private venture. With this in mind, they can also decide what goes out of their stations. They can even deny showing the State of the Union if they want, but thats just not good for ratings.

smith288
05-04-2004, 02:59 PM
Oh, the Iraq War is doing a fine job of Vietnamitizing itself.

I do agree with your point, though. Sinclair owns the stations. They can broadcast whatever the heck they do or don't want within legal limits.
Yea, the similiarities are eery... John Kerry is still making an ass out of himself on national TV.... some things never change.

Unassisted
05-04-2004, 05:51 PM
Where did I find "Right of war dead's family to see relative's name announced nationally" in the Bill of Rights?I didn't say "right," I said "chance." It's an issue of ethics and morality, not an issue of law. Sinclair has the "right" to use the airwaves that the government has licensed them to use. Along with that license comes an obligation to use the airwaves in the public interest. Some of us think that the interests of at least one particular segment of the public (families of war dead) are being overlooked here - you and Sinclair do not. I get that. Those who disagree have the right to complain to the FCC and their local Sinclair station.

Rojo
05-04-2004, 09:21 PM
There is nothing about Sinclairs move that is cowing to the gov, rather they are going with what they, as an organization feels is right.

Because there was such an outcry by the families who hated to see their sons and daughters honored?

smith288
05-04-2004, 11:37 PM
Because there was such an outcry by the families who hated to see their sons and daughters honored?
Doesnt matter what the public perceives. I didnt know Sinclair has to take a poll before applying policy to their stations.

smith288
05-04-2004, 11:48 PM
Some of us think that the interests of at least one particular segment of the public (families of war dead) are being overlooked here - you and Sinclair do not. I get that. Those who disagree have the right to complain to the FCC and their local Sinclair station.

Ok, like I said, you are free to disagree with Sinclairs decision. However what one believes is a public service to those fallen in combat could also be viewed as harmful to the morale for those who are still in combat. When will Ted Koppel reel off every single accomplishment these great men did? Morale is important to these types of conflicts and to just paint their current situation as death death death, it will effect their ability to be successful and also our country as a whole to support their noble cause.

The lack of positive stories tells me one of two things; Nothing good is happening or nothng good is being reported. I can't believe for a second nothing good is happening.

Unassisted
01-21-2005, 10:53 AM
This should help.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/article_print/0,,SB110627220789332234-INjfYNilaJ4nZ2pZIKIcKWHm4,00.html


After Michael Powell
January*21,*2005;*Page*A8

The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission. You read it here first. The good news is that his exit affords the Bush Administration an opportunity to re-evaluate its stepchild treatment of telecom policy.

Given the media coverage, you might think Mr. Powell's tenure has been about little more than Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunctions and Howard Stern's potty mouth. In fact, Mr. Powell has spent the past four years focused on much more substantive matters regarding the government's role in overseeing a telecommunications sector that has never been more dynamic.

This is Mr. Powell's proper legacy, and if he failed to reach all of his goals, some of the blame rests with a White House that never fully grasped telecom's potential to drive economic growth. Between 1989 and 2001, labor productivity in telecom grew annually by an average of more than 3%, versus a 1.6% pace in the overall nonfarm economy. Information technology alone was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the rise in labor productivity in the late 1990s.

After the tech bubble burst and mild recession, however, billions of capital investment dollars retreated to the sidelines. Only during the final months of the Presidential campaign did Mr. Bush begin making noises about clearing away "the regulatory underbrush" that was holding back the venture capitalists and faster broadband deployment, among other things.

Mr. Powell's deregulatory instincts led him to make broadband development and deployment a priority. By declaring cable modem an "information service" in 2002, the FCC was able to block efforts to apply the entire telephone regulation boondoggle to new broadband technologies. Last November, the FCC accomplished a similar goal with respect to VOIP, which enables consumers to make phone calls over the Internet.

The White House ultimately abandoned Mr. Powell when he tried to update media ownership rules in response to a federal court decision that found the current regulations "arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law." The Administration agreed with the Chairman in principle but went soft after Democrats and liberal interest groups complained that revisions might allow Rupert Murdoch to own a couple more TV stations.

Mr. Powell's battle royale, however, surrounded his efforts to address the make-believe "competition" spawned by the 1996 Telecom Act, which forced the Baby Bells to unbundle their local phone networks and lease them to rivals at discount rates. The requirements, supported by AT&T and others that subsequently built business models around this subsidy, have depressed investment and limited consumer choice.

The FCC unbundling decision last month split the baby; it phases out some of these rules by 2006 but not all of them, so more litigation is a possibility. And the ruling itself came at least 18 months too late, thanks in part to opposition from Mr. Powell's fellow Republican Commissioner Kevin Martin.

This brings us to the matter of potential replacements for the Chairman at the five-member agency, and whether President Bush will squander an opportunity to start taking telecom more seriously. The White House decision last month to renominate Democratic Commissioner and Tom Daschle-protege Jonathan Adelstein was not a good start, to say the least, since he and fellow Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps are reliable opponents of genuine competition.

Mr. Martin is gunning for Chairmanship, but his decision in the unbundling fight to put personal ambition above good policy split the Commission and helped extend the telecom depression. The last thing Mr. Bush should want is to repeat the mistake of putting Republicans in a de facto minority position at the agency. The next Chairman not only needs Mr. Powell's instincts and vision but also a Commission that will follow his lead.

Other names mentioned for the post include Becky Klein, a former head of the Texas Public Utility Commission; Michael Gallagher of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration; and Janice Obuchowski, a telecom consultant who served in the Commerce Department under Mr. Bush's father. Someone like former Interstate Commerce Commission Chairman Darius Gaskins or former Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jim Miller also would be an excellent choice to keep the FCC on a deregulatory path.

Mr. Powell spent four years as an FCC Commissioner before taking over the agency in 2001. So it's easy to believe that after eight years he's ready for some new challenges, probably in the private sector. We hope the Administration hasn't taken him for granted and is up to the challenge of a worthy replacement.

GAC
01-21-2005, 10:01 PM
yep (well, anything short of porn). i follow the Sensible Don plan...if you don't like it, change the channel.

What about when something is sprung on you that you didn't expect, and shouldn't have to see? (ex- the Janet Jackson episode). How are you suppose to be prepared for that?

I agree that it's up to the individual (especially parents) to monitor what comes into their homes. We do. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be regulation and guidelines set by such organizations as the FCC.

I'm one who believes that if there weren't those guidelines then the networks would consistently be pushing that envelop further and further. I say that as one who is of the "older generation" and who has seen the language and conduct on television getting progressively worse. They refuse to "police", monitor themselves.

I liken it alot to what is going on on this side of the forum right now with the political/religious threads. If the people on here would "police" themselves then it would make the job of the moderators alot easier, and they wouldn't have to put the "squeeze" down and exercise their authority. But alas, we see the need for moderators. ;)

If the FCC is such a restricting and censorship organization then why is there so much allowed on TV now? And lets be honest.... there is alot on TV now (language, etc) that wasn't permissible years ago.

How does the Jerry Springer show survive? :lol:

LvJ
01-21-2005, 11:56 PM
I'm one who believes that if there weren't those guidelines then the networks would consistently be pushing that envelop further and further.
:fineprint

Totally agree.

GAC
01-22-2005, 10:59 AM
If you dare someone to "step across this line", then most likely they are gonna do it. ;)

Unassisted
01-22-2005, 12:36 PM
The broadcast networks envy the programming on HBO and Showtime, because it can be edgy in ways that their programming cannot. Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC, remarked a couple of years back that he would like to have a show like "The Sopranos" on his network. Obviously, there are viewers who want this, because the ratings for new episodes of "The Sopranos" sometimes exceed the ratings of the broadcast networks.

I'm not saying that HBO's shows belong on broadcast TV, just that that's the direction the networks want to go. This FCC has been aggressive about stopping them from going that way.

CbusRed
01-22-2005, 01:18 PM
Another reason sinclair sucks...

We cannot get Fox or ABC in HD here on Time Warner Cable, because Sinclair owns the only Fox and ABC stations in columbus.

The reason?

Sinclair refuses to allow TWC to broadcast their HD feed unless an additional cost is paid per user.

So essentially, we get no Buckeye games in HD, and no Fox NFL or baseball games either. It really sucks.