BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The Daily Stern: A complaint to the FCC

22 comments on The Daily Stern: A complaint to the FCC

The Daily Stern: A complaint to the FCC
: I sat down and wrote a letter to Michael Powell, head of the FCC, to see how easy it would be to use the FCC’s own words to argue that if they fine Howard Stern, they must fine Oprah Winfrey. Piece of cake. Not sure I’ll send it, though; I don’t really want to stoke the FCC’s stove with complaints. But you can send it if you want. Powell’s address is Michael.Powell@fcc.gov. The letter:

Mr. Michael Powell:

I write to file a complaint against the Oprah Winfrey Show that aired across the nation on Thursday, March 18, 2004 with explicit sexual and excretory references.

Let me make clear that I strongly oppose the FCC and government attempting to regulate speech; it is, I firmly believe, a violation of the First Amendment. I consequently strongly oppose the FCC’s imposition of fines against the Howard Stern Show on Thursday, March 18. On the same matter of principle, I also would oppose the imposition of fines against the Oprah Winfrey Show.

However, what was said on the Winfrey show — on the very same day that you imposed fines against Stern — is quite equivalent. If you fine Stern, it seems clear that you must fine Winfrey. If you do not fine Winfrey, then it seems equally clear that you must rescind the fines against Stern. The speech is virtually identical. The only difference is the speaker.

Please note these excerpts from the transcipt of the Winfrey show:

Winfrey promotes the segment in question with the specific references to the sexual and excretory language, clearly demonstrating that it was planned and not accidental:

WINFREY: If your child said they had their salad tossed or was going to a rainbow party, would you know what they meant? The secret language of teens when we come back…

In the segment in question, the guest speaking is Michelle Burford of Winfrey’s own magazine, O.

Ms. BURFORD: Salad-tossing. I’m thinking cucumbers, lettuce, tomatoes. OK? I am definitely not hip.

WINFREY: OK–so–OK, so what is a salad toss?

Ms. BURFORD: OK, a tossed salad is–get ready; hold on to your underwear for this one–oral anal sex. So oral sex to the anus is what tossed salad is. Hi, Mom. OK. A rainbow party is an oral sex party. It’s a gathering where oral sex is performed. And a–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 in a different place on the penis, hence, the term rainbow. So…

And later in the show, Winfrey returns to the subjects at issue.

Ms. BURFORD: And if suddenly your kids want to make salad all the time, you should be wondering. OK.

WINFREY: Yeah. OK. And boo–booty call is pretty common, right?

And again:

WINFREY: Are rainbow parties pretty common?

Ms. BURFORD: I think so. At least among the 50 girls that I talked to, this was–this was pervasive.

Now let us take this speech and put it to the tests to which you put the speech on the Stern Show. Quoting from your FCC ruling against Stern:

“The Commission defines indecent speech as language that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.

“Indecency findings involve at least two fundamental determinations. First, the material alleged to be indecent must fall within the subject matter scope of our indecency definition

22 responses to “The Daily Stern: A complaint to the FCC”

  1. Crid Avatar
    Crid

    Isn’t it possible that media audiences simply prefer the way Oprah discusses such things to the way Howard does? Do you think they’re wrong? Whose taste should rule?
    Remember, the vote in the House two weeks ago was
    391-22. Presuming congress to be a back of ninny cowards, it’s safe to assume that someone is REALLY TIRED of shock radio.
    How come nobody’s concerned about the feelings of little old ladies anymore?

  2. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    So why not send it, Jeff? You’re (finally) directing the anger against someone who has something to do with the issue (although I’d send it to Dingell and Coop and Fritz Hollings as well), and the argument is sound.
    It might even do some good.
    It’s certain to do a lot more good than railing against Bush; in the current situation, whatever you might think about the censorship issue, it sure looks like attacking Bush isn’t just shooting yourself in the foot, it’s potentially shooting yourself in the head.

  3. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    Isn’t it possible that media audiences simply prefer the way Oprah discusses such things to the way Howard does? Do you think they’re wrong? Whose taste should rule?
    On this, I think Jeff has a point: if the more or less description of the acts is what’s “indecent”, it’s just as indecent when Oprah says it. Otherwise, you reduce “indecent” to “I can find someone who objects” — and that kind of subjective definition is an invitation to using “indecency” for the kind of political manipulation that the First Amendment ought to prevent.

  4. tony Avatar
    tony

    stern is #1 in many cities across the usa.
    while it may be safe to assume, crid, that people are “REALLY TIRED of shock radio,” they’re far from tired of howard stern.
    whats shocking is to hear oprah talk about rainbow parties and tossed salads.
    anyone shocked at howard stern in 2004 has no business operating a radio.
    what most of them might be shocked at, however, is that he has not been fined in over 10 years, nor should he have. although his topics are often times blue (as many morning talk show hosts’s are) his show is legal.
    thank GOD oprah had her show on thursday.
    she will be fined, and if the fcc wants to truly send a message they will fine her in every market that her obsene show was aired.
    if they seriously want to send a message, and if they’re sincere about the children, and your old ladies, crid, they will impose the most severe fine in the history of this great land.
    and if they dont
    theyre dirty lying antisemetic right wing uncle tom salad tossing scaredy cats terrified that howard stern really can swing the vote of the president of the united states.

  5. Menlo Bob Avatar
    Menlo Bob

    Jeff, you need to get a life. Relentlessly obsessing over Howard Stern is downright juvenile. Snap out of it.

  6. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    “If your child said they had their salad tossed or was going to a rainbow party, would you know what they meant? The secret language of teens when we come back…”
    Context is important, says the FCC. They mentioned: “(3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock.”
    Could it not be argued that O was discussing this not to titillate or shock, but to educate? Couldn’t the quoted intro cover her. Not to say it does or doesn’t — just that it could.

  7. Crid Avatar
    Crid

    >> anyone shocked at howard stern in 2004 has no
    >> business operating a radio.
    Tony, we can’t just autocratically insist that people share our taste. First off, it’s immoral (or at least really, surpassingly rude). Second of all, it’s impossible. I mean 391-to-22 impossible.
    You tell me: Why HASN’T anyone responded to Oprah’s show with a demand that she be fined?
    It’s time for you to cop: Ophah’s a billionaire because she’s in better touch with people’s tastes. That ain’t the end of the world.
    With all the genuine suppression of ideas that happens in business, government and academe, it’s pathetically grandiose for Howard or his other fart joke practitioners to imagine that this is about higher political purposes. One of the world’s most successful frat boys has again convinced an inexplicably devoted audience that it’s All About Him. And we both know he stole his act from Dahl 20 years ago.

  8. Mustapha Avatar
    Mustapha

    Hey Jeff, how come conveniently you haven’t mentioned Richard Clarke at all? I like how you right-whingers conveniently overlook things which don’t fit into your war-mongering.
    No WMDs? Well, Saddam was a bad guy anyway…

  9. Crid Avatar
    Crid

    >> you reduce “indecent” to “I can find someone
    >> who objects” —
    Charlie, when the vote is 391-22, it’s not just “someone”

  10. George Avatar
    George

    F*** censorship.
    All of you people who excercise your right to free speech to advocate curbing free speech are hypocrites. This is not a political issue, this is a totalitarian issue.
    And to the guy who said that Jeff should move on to a more important topic, there is nothing more important in a democracy than the free expression of ideas. Either you never learned or conveniently forget the number of people throughout history who have died for the right to speak freely. Free speech was #1 in the constitution for a reason you know.

  11. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    You should send it, Jeff. Hell, they can ban Oprah’s show for all I care; I can’t stand the sanctimonious… woman. And next, they can go after those godawful trash-talk shows — Ricky Lake and Jenny Jones and what-have you. And then…. (Visions of television totally devoid of crap and trash danced through her head… Then she woke up. Oh well, it was a nice dream.)

  12. Ken Avatar
    Ken

    An acquaintance sent an e-mail to the FCC shortly after the affair Jackson. He expressed disagreement with the FCC’s position and statements regarding the event.
    He got back a e-mail form letter that said, “Thank you for supporting our position in this matter…”.

  13. shark Avatar
    shark

    F*** censorship
    Oh, the irony…

  14. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    Hey Jeff, how come conveniently you haven’t mentioned Richard Clarke at all? I like how you right-whingers conveniently overlook things which don’t fit into your war-mongering.
    Uh, because he figured out that after Clarke & the Clintons ignored al Qaeda for eight years, and kept quiet about this for three years, and waited until the middle of the campaign to publish, and did so with strong ties to the Kerry campaign, that his motivation is just a little questionable.
    Or, alternatively, because he figured out that Clarke’s complaint comes down to saying that Rumsfeld thought it was Iraq directly at fault for 9/11 and either changed his mind based on the intelligence or was overruled, since, after all, what actually happened is that we did hit Afghanistan and the Taliban — and, as such is vacuous and pointless.
    Or maybe he just isn’t a “real” liberal and thinks everything we’ve seen since the war proves that wanting to hit Iraq was a Good Thing.
    Putz.

  15. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    Charlie, when the vote is 391-22, it’s not just “someone”.
    Crid, I’m not going to make fun of you about this, no matter how richly the remark deserves derision, until you have a chance to think about how poorly you answered my point.
    Here’s a hint, just because I’m a good guy: we’re not talking about the effect of the law, we’re talking about the potential for selective prosecution.

  16. shark Avatar
    shark

    Hey Jeff, how come conveniently you haven’t mentioned Richard Clarke at all
    yeah, considering the great job this guy did under Clinton and all, he should really be considered an authority

  17. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    Are we talking about the same Oprah?
    The Oprah Winfrey who once complained that talk-show audiences are so jaded [by talk] that it would take a live sex broadcast to stimulate them. Please.
    Marty Klein, Ph.D. Fisking talkshows.
    http://www.sexed.org/arch/arch01.html
    “These talkshows are driving me crazy. They prey on people’s misery, exploiting both the guests and studio audience. The hosts patronize and psychologize, as they suggest that complex problems have simple solutions. The genre propagates conservative norms about sex, and obsolete stereotypes about intimacy and gender. Everyone involved pretends that this is a wholesome enterprise, entertaining as well as educational”.
    He also wrote this piece “Censorship and the fear of sexuality” http://www.sexed.org/arch/arch10.html
    “Censorship is aimed at material that is believed to be unspeakable, too private to be public. This betrays an erotic self-hatred which is not about real practical danger but about felt emotional danger. And that’s why First Amendment or other logical arguments inevitably fail in disputing the appropriateness of censorship. In terms of the private-ized/public-ized dichotomy, sex-negative people are right–without institutionalized restrictions, they are forced to psychologically participate in kinds of sexuality that they don’t like. The real question is, whose problem is that, and what should be considered acceptable solutions to it”.
    Marty Klein writes for Playboy. See, some people do read it for the articles. Anyone with January’s 2003 copy hanging around might want to have a look at this article “What Oprah & Dr. Phil Don’t Understand About Sex”. Or you can go here http://www.sexed.org/sexintel.html and click on the January or February article in his newsletter and he’ll email it to you. I send a lot of college kids to Dr. Marty’s site. Up to 18 it’s your parents fault beyound that it’s yours. It’s really frightening to read comments that say Oprah is educational. Oprah is about ratings just like Stern.

  18. OTB Avatar
    OTB

    “Not sure I’ll send it, though; I don’t really want to stoke the FCC’s stove with complaints. But you can send it if you want. ”
    Will the ferocious, mind-boggling courage of warbloggers ever cease?
    Stern has been hounded for 20 years by blue-state bobo feminists and their obedient daddytron husbands; they, more than anybody, are responsible for his long persecution. I realize you’re trying to turn this into “your” issue, Jeff (“wow! What would a mention on Stern do for my traffic!”), and it’s nice you finally “get it”, but this “gosh, should i really send this mash note?” equivocating is really too, too much.

  19. Crid Avatar
    Crid

    Aw Charlie, I turned your lights out and everybody knows it. Stern’s fanatics want to pretend that it’s this tiny little circle of daft old ladies playing bridge after church on Sunday who want to censor him. What’s worse, they want to pretend that the feelings such people have about what happens on THEIR airwaves are for some reason not relevant. This House vote says otherwise on both accounts.

  20. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    “Not sure I’ll send it, though; I don’t really want to stoke the FCC’s stove with complaints.”
    “According to the FCC, there have been 530,885 complaints so far in 2004…” and at the time that article was written, all but 57 of them related to Janet Jackson’s mammary release (sounds like letting loose a flock of birds, eh?). So I don’t think the FCC is exactly overwhelmed with reports of incidents, other than one.
    Secondly, you have proclaimed repeatedly in rather dramatic terms, this isn’t about Howard, it’s about “you and me,” and that it threatens everyone’s right to free speech.
    Yet you’re not willing to click send? You simply invite others to do so?
    As has been stated before, the FCC does not enforce independently, they rely on the public to register a complaint, which they then investigate. I know, I’ve read that someone else has taken it on themselves to file a formal Oprah complaint. But the more complaints they get about a specific incident, the more weight the event is given, as well as the necessity of a response.
    For example, when you get 530,828 complaints about one show (the Super Bowl halftime show), that’s an indication public standards have been broached. Meanwhile, you might have one formal complaint about an afternoon talk billionaire. Which one do you think will get the most priority at the FCC?
    So you can encourage others to go “vote,” and think your “vote” doesn’t count. But it does.

  21. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Letter sent.

  22. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    Aw Charlie, I turned your lights out and everybody knows it.
    OKay, I tried to be nice.
    No, Crid, that isn’t at all the point or even germane. First of all, there’s the Bandar-Log problem (you’ve read Kipling, haven’t you?) — “We all say it’s so, therefore it must be so!” The apocryphal story is that Tennessee (or Oklahoma, or Indiana, or Kansas) once tried to legislate that π should exactly equal 3, since that’s what it says in Second Chronicles 4. Had that passed, even with a unanimous vote, it still wouldn’t make π = 3.
    Second, the whole point of the Bill of Rights, from the first, was to establish limits on what the government could do; since it’s Jeff,s position that Clear Channel’s action against Stern is a First Amendment violation, it would follow that just because a bill passes 331-91, or even 435-0 (where’d the other dozen congressbeasts go?) it wouldn’t make it any more valid.
    But most importantly, since it demonstrates that you haven’t got even a hint of a clue of how to find a map to where you might learn about logical inference, the 331-91 vote was for a bill that increases the penalties for any broadcaster. and makes no reference to Stern at all. (The unconstitutionality of bills of attainder would probably be an issue as well.)
    Now, insert the appropriately sharp derision here — I’m too tired to do a proper job of it, and it’d be shooting fish in a barrel anyway.