Wednesday, September 21, 2005
"Hunkerin' Heebs" on WGST, the station of the Atlanta Braves
The other night, I was surfing the AM dial and wound up on WGST 640, a Clear Channel affiliate here in Atlanta, the quintessential city in the tolerant New South, right?Not if you happened to tune into the Kimmer show that evening. The discussion centered around the siting of a new Jewish day school (hereafter referred to as "The Jew school") and what nickname you, the listener, might adopt for the sports teams.
"How 'bout the Hunkerin' Heebs?" guffawed one host?
That brought down the house.
It went downhill from there. An astute listener called to sing a ditty about a former teacher who also happened to be a rabbi (hereafter referred to the man who wore a "beanie"). More laughs from the hosts...
I shut off the car radio, went home and e-mailed WGST, a Clear Channel legal counsel, the FCC and the regional office of the Anti-Defamation League in Atlanta. I really didn't expect a reply from WGST (aka The Station of the Atlanta Braves) and I didn't get one. Ditto for Clear Channel, although I got a predictable canned response from the attorney with an interesting twist.
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your concern. However, as a matter of corporate policy, we do not censor on-air personalities except to the extent that any such content is barred by statute or FCC regulation. That is, it must not be obscene, indecent or profane, as those terms are defined in law or construed by the courts. It is a very delicate line, as you can imagine, to respect the First Amendment right of media to express themselves freely, and at the same time avoid potentially offending any and all listeners.
We believe it is proper to let local managers decide what is appropriate to air, consistent with their fundamental right of free expression, and based on our managers’ individual knowledge and experience with regard to local tastes and values. At the end of the day, we believe listeners will decide whether any particular content is something they choose to listen to – and, if not, that decision (and its affect (sp) on ratings) will be the best regulator of what local managers will ultimately decide to air.
While I know this explanation may not be particularly comforting, given that you were offended by this particular broadcast, I hope that you can appreciate the higher value we put on free expression, combined with the sincere view that local markets will force a correction for any content that is deemed offensive to a substantial number of listeners. The best way for individuals to accomplish that correction is to express their concern to the local station manager when something airs that they believe is inappropriate.
Does this mean if most of the listening audience condones or is accepting of clearly offensive language, that if a local station manager gives tacit approval to ethnic slurs (obviously against any racial or religious group), that Clear Channel won't intervene? That's how the response reads. Clear Channel wants it both ways - they can effectively cede authority to local management and hide behind their policy, and respond only if the bottom line is at stake. My guess is that the legal counsel has a boilerplate response to queries from the public and that's what I got.
It's Through the Looking Glass material. If I argued that I would never hear this bigoted crap in Boston, NYC or Philly (and I wouldn't), then the Clear Channel attorney would argue that I had just made his point. Well, he'd say, then public outcry there would compel our managers to redirect the on-air topic.
The ADL, on the other hand, said that this kind of commentary has been on the increase in recent years. No surprise there, either, but I expected ignorance of this magnitude in smaller cities and rural areas.
Do you honestly think the jolly hosts on WGST would take aim at the larger, more powerful black community here? How about the burgeoning Hispanic segment?
Equal opportunity bashing is their mantra.
Is this a hate-crime? No. Does this reek of insensitivity? Yes. What bothers me is that a supposed bigtime metro station would air this stuff and stir up the ethnic pot? To what end?
"How 'bout the Hunkerin' Heebs?" guffawed one host?
That brought down the house.
It went downhill from there. An astute listener called to sing a ditty about a former teacher who also happened to be a rabbi (hereafter referred to the man who wore a "beanie"). More laughs from the hosts...
I shut off the car radio, went home and e-mailed WGST, a Clear Channel legal counsel, the FCC and the regional office of the Anti-Defamation League in Atlanta. I really didn't expect a reply from WGST (aka The Station of the Atlanta Braves) and I didn't get one. Ditto for Clear Channel, although I got a predictable canned response from the attorney with an interesting twist.
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your concern. However, as a matter of corporate policy, we do not censor on-air personalities except to the extent that any such content is barred by statute or FCC regulation. That is, it must not be obscene, indecent or profane, as those terms are defined in law or construed by the courts. It is a very delicate line, as you can imagine, to respect the First Amendment right of media to express themselves freely, and at the same time avoid potentially offending any and all listeners.
We believe it is proper to let local managers decide what is appropriate to air, consistent with their fundamental right of free expression, and based on our managers’ individual knowledge and experience with regard to local tastes and values. At the end of the day, we believe listeners will decide whether any particular content is something they choose to listen to – and, if not, that decision (and its affect (sp) on ratings) will be the best regulator of what local managers will ultimately decide to air.
While I know this explanation may not be particularly comforting, given that you were offended by this particular broadcast, I hope that you can appreciate the higher value we put on free expression, combined with the sincere view that local markets will force a correction for any content that is deemed offensive to a substantial number of listeners. The best way for individuals to accomplish that correction is to express their concern to the local station manager when something airs that they believe is inappropriate.
Does this mean if most of the listening audience condones or is accepting of clearly offensive language, that if a local station manager gives tacit approval to ethnic slurs (obviously against any racial or religious group), that Clear Channel won't intervene? That's how the response reads. Clear Channel wants it both ways - they can effectively cede authority to local management and hide behind their policy, and respond only if the bottom line is at stake. My guess is that the legal counsel has a boilerplate response to queries from the public and that's what I got.
It's Through the Looking Glass material. If I argued that I would never hear this bigoted crap in Boston, NYC or Philly (and I wouldn't), then the Clear Channel attorney would argue that I had just made his point. Well, he'd say, then public outcry there would compel our managers to redirect the on-air topic.
The ADL, on the other hand, said that this kind of commentary has been on the increase in recent years. No surprise there, either, but I expected ignorance of this magnitude in smaller cities and rural areas.
Do you honestly think the jolly hosts on WGST would take aim at the larger, more powerful black community here? How about the burgeoning Hispanic segment?
Equal opportunity bashing is their mantra.
Is this a hate-crime? No. Does this reek of insensitivity? Yes. What bothers me is that a supposed bigtime metro station would air this stuff and stir up the ethnic pot? To what end?
