Anybody hear about this prank?

[White92]

I found this on CNN.com. What do you guys think? Were the dj's in the wrong here? Should they be fined?

Two Miami radio hosts who duped Cuban President Fidel Castro with a prank call are soliciting pennies from their fans to pay a $4,000 fine proposed by U.S. regulators because of the on-air stunt.

Talk radio host Enrique Santos said the fine made no sense, so he and co-host Joe Ferrero plan to pay it with 400,000 cents, delivered in person to the Federal Communications Commission in Washington.

"We prank-called a head of state in a country that is considered hostile to the United States. He's a violator of human rights and they're fining us $4,000," Santos said on Tuesday. "We just find it absurd."

Santos and Ferrero host "El Vacilon de la Manana," or "The Morning Joker," show on Spanish-language radio station WXDJ-FM in Miami.

On June 17 they phoned Cuba's foreign relations ministry and pretended to be aides to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an admirer of Castro. They said Chavez needed to speak urgently to Castro because he had lost a suitcase full of sensitive documents during a recent trip both leaders made to Argentina.

The call was transferred through several government officials and when Castro came on the line, the pranksters used recorded snippets from a Chavez speech to make it seem the Venezuelan leader was calling -- phrases like "Fidel," and "How are you?"

After getting Castro to agree to hunt for the suitcase, they called him a killer and told him he was on a Miami radio show. Castro replied with a string of curses and hung up.

The call was broadcast five times over two days, to the delight of Miami's Castro-loathing Cuban exiles.

But the FCC ruled last week that the station violated a regulation requiring that participants in phone conversations be told in advance if the call is being broadcast.

"It was in fact the intention and result of WXDJ's actions to fool and surprise the recipients of the call," the FCC said.

The commission proposed a $4,000 fine against WXDJ and gave it 30 days to pay it or contest it. Santos said station managers had not decided which to do, but that he and Ferrero would hold an on-air penny drive outside a furniture store on Thursday to raise money for the fine.

"The listeners are just outraged," he said. "We're asking people to just go through their drawers and cars for any old pennies and drop them off."

The FCC said it acted because it received an informal complaint about the call, but did not say who complained.

 

[NSX-Racer]

I'm in radio business and we had cases like that in Germany too. That is a harsh violation of law here and ends usualy with the end of the job for the show host, the editors of the show and the station manager. No excuse.

 

[lemansnsx]

These two chuckleheads should lose their jobs. I'm tired of the airwaves being used for such irresponsible nonsense.

 

[Jonathan]

Their job is to entertain people. Assuming their audience was pleased with the result, they did their job.

If it's against the law to abuse telephone systems for prank calls, or to call dictators under false premises, then perhaps someone should seek penalties there. However, all of this recent nonsense about imposing fines for saying 'questionable' things over there air is ridiculous.

If you don't like what they say, turn the station. Our freedom has been heading the wrong direction of late.

 

[lemansnsx]

Their job is to entertain people. Assuming their audience was pleased with the result, they did their job.

Part of that job includes the responsibility of observing the regulations governing what they do. If the law says that they can't prank someone like this then the station needs to be fined and the two jokers punished.
Entertainment is fine - but not when it is at other people's expense - which is what happens when radio hosts believe that they are not bound by any rules. Not talking about Castro particularly - I could give a hoot whether he was bothered or offended - but generally speaking what they did was wrong.

 

[Jonathan]

Part of that job includes the responsibility of observing the regulations governing what they do. If the law says that they can't prank someone like this then the station needs to be fined and the two jokers punished.

The problem is, the law does not state this. The "regulations governing what they do" are vague at best, even in the statement above where the FCC cited a rule about menitoning that call would be broadcast, this is broken all the time.

If they prank call me, or you, and have a laugh, without any comments being made that are not "up to community standards" or "obscene" fines would be highly unlikely, even if you or I were not pleased with the call in the first place. The arbitrary enforcement is the problem, and the fact that it was Castro, made this an actionable item which is silly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like when I get a prank call either, nor do I want some shock jock in my yard with a bullhorn in the morning because their listeners might think it is funny, but the FCC is not the proper governing body to be enforcing these actions. If a law has been broken, that can be handled by law enforcement officers, it should be dealt with. If someone is just being unpleasant in the eyes or ears of others, it is not appropriate to hand down fines accordingly.

There needs to be a difference between actual laws and oblique moral/community standards.

 

[lemansnsx]

the FCC is not the proper governing body to be enforcing these actions. If a law has been broken, that can be handled by law enforcement officers, it should be dealt with.

If not the FCC then who? Local law enforcement? How many separate jurisdictions is that? Hundreds of thousands? Sorry, I think that it needs to remain at the Federal level. Too many bodies making law as it is - 50 different sets of motor vehicle regs being just one example that has always ticked me off.

 

[nkb]

The problem with the FCC enforcing broadcasting "laws" is that, when they exist, they are very vague. Case in point is the latest spate of fines being levied against broadcasters for "indecent" or "obscene" broadcasts. These terms are defined very, very vaguely, and are being selectively enforced.

For example, the Howard Stern show gets fined for using the word "nigger" (even though I believe it was a caller that said it), yet Oprah Winfrey talks at length about "tossing someone's salad", and is not fined (for those of you that don't know what tossing salad is, listen to Chris Rock sometime).

If there are set rules, and they are consistently enforced, that would be one thing. But, it appears that the FCC is picking and choosing its targets.

Never mind the fact that I think it's ridiculous that the government is censoring radio and TV, based on some vague "community standards" about indecency. As Jonathan mentioned, if you find something offensive, then don't watch or listen. Nobody is forcing you. If other people want to, so be it.

 

[nkb]

Part of that job includes the responsibility of observing the regulations governing what they do. If the law says that they can't prank someone like this then the station needs to be fined and the two jokers punished.
Entertainment is fine - but not when it is at other people's expense - which is what happens when radio hosts believe that they are not bound by any rules. Not talking about Castro particularly - I could give a hoot whether he was bothered or offended - but generally speaking what they did was wrong.

I believe the purpose of the law is to protect the privacy of citizens, because they have the right to refuse to be put on the air. I'm not sure how that would apply to Castro.
If they do it to someone who lives here, then they should be fined.

 

[lemansnsx]

The problem with the FCC enforcing broadcasting "laws" is that, when they exist, they are very vague.

That may very well be - I'm not making any claims to be fully conversant with the body of law here.

For example, the Howard Stern show gets fined

Howard Stern is about the only example where you can really say "if you find something offensive then don't watch or listen" when considering radio and television. At least with Howard you pretty much know what you are getting. I think he's an idiot and an immature jerk but I'll defend your right to listen to him all day long - as long as he stays within the bounds set by the FCC.

If there are set rules, and they are consistently enforced, that would be one thing. But, it appears that the FCC is picking and choosing its targets.

You may very well have a point there.

Never mind the fact that I think it's ridiculous that the government is censoring radio and TV, based on some vague "community standards" about indecency. As Jonathan mentioned, if you find something offensive, then don't watch or listen. Nobody is forcing you. If other people want to, so be it.

How else do you propose that the standards be set? I'm not saying that the system as it exists is perfect. Unfortunately no-one has come up with a better solution to my knowledge. Not watching something or listening to something because I find it offensive is not always possible nor should the onus always be on the viewer or listener. If there are 10 homes on my street 1 of whom chooses to play NWA outside at full blast should 9 other home owners have the burden of staying indoors being denied their right to quiet enjoyment (look it up) of their property? Who sets the standard - the homeowner who likes NWA or the 9 others who might prefer not to be subjected to lyrics like "F*** the police" and so on.
As far as radio and television is concerned in MY home and MY car shouldn't I have the right to know what is coming when I tune in a particular show? For example; shouldn't the afternoon drive time talk station be somewhat selective in what they broadcast during times when parents AND children may be listening? Shouldn't there be some common sense telling them that what may be appropriate at 11:00PM is different than what is appropriate at 2:00pm?
We could go on for hours on this subject but I'll end by saying that without community standards where are we? Reduced to the lowest common denominator, that's where. That's not how great societies are built and it is certainly not how they are maintained at the forefront of civilization.

 

[NSX-Stalker]

Well for those interested in reading about the FCC ruling against Clear Channel you can read all the juicy details here.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/freespeech/fcc-clearchannel.htm

NSX-Stalker

 

[nkb]

Howard Stern is about the only example where you can really say "if you find something offensive then don't watch or listen" when considering radio and television. At least with Howard you pretty much know what you are getting. I think he's an idiot and an immature jerk but I'll defend your right to listen to him all day long - as long as he stays within the bounds set by the FCC.

Howard Stern is far from an idiot, he is actually very intelligent. He is however immature, I'll agree with you on that.

He happens to be the highest profile personality, but he is far from being the only one where you know what you are getting. Adam Corolla from Loveline (a syndicated radio show) comes to mind, and numerous TV shows like NYPD Blue.

How else do you propose that the standards be set? I'm not saying that the system as it exists is perfect.

Not only is it not perfect, it is about as far from perfect as it can get. Nobody knows what the exact rules are, and what was acceptable last year, may no longer be today, WITHOUT any change in the rules.
In fact, Howard Stern was being fined for something that happened 3 years ago. Why was he not fined then? What changed?

Unfortunately no-one has come up with a better solution to my knowledge. Not watching something or listening to something because I find it offensive is not always possible nor should the onus always be on the viewer or listener.

I agree. Maybe the best way is to have a ratings system like the movie and TV industry have, except that each broadcaster picks what they want their rating to be, and they accept whatever the rules are for that rating. If you violate the rating you impose on yourself, you should get fined.

If there are 10 homes on my street 1 of whom chooses to play NWA outside at full blast should 9 other home owners have the burden of staying indoors being denied their right to quiet enjoyment (look it up) of their property? Who sets the standard - the homeowner who likes NWA or the 9 others who might prefer not to be subjected to lyrics like "F*** the police" and so on.

Very different scenario. Apart from being deprived of your choice of whether to listen to something, there is a noise ordinance that is being violated, I'm sure. This does not apply to listening to radio or watching TV, which is done in the privacy of your home or car. As soon as you affect other people, you no longer have the right to do whatever you want.

As far as radio and television is concerned in MY home and MY car shouldn't I have the right to know what is coming when I tune in a particular show? For example; shouldn't the afternoon drive time talk station be somewhat selective in what they broadcast during times when parents AND children may be listening? Shouldn't there be some common sense telling them that what may be appropriate at 11:00PM is different than what is appropriate at 2:00pm?

I agree that you should know what is being broadcast. My ratings system should take care of that, with warnings at the the beginning of each segment (maybe?). But, what is broadcast should be entirely up to each station, and the listeners that tune in. If people don't like it, they will tune out, and the ratings will go down. Most likely, the show will go off the air. If the ratings are high (as they are for Hoawrd Stern and the afternoon show in Dallas), then that means that there is a demand, and someone who doesn't like it shouldn't impose their will on others. Both of the shows that I'm talking about are very clear about not being appropriate for kids, so anyone who listens with their kids is to blame for not having done their homework.

We could go on for hours on this subject but I'll end by saying that without community standards where are we? Reduced to the lowest common denominator, that's where. That's not how great societies are built and it is certainly not how they are maintained at the forefront of civilization.

The beauty of a free society like ours is that all denominators are represented. If there was one radio show, and one TV show, then you would have an acceptable argument. But, as long as there is a choice, use it, and change the channel.

I can take the argument to the extreme, and ask you how you decide what is appropriate to be aired. Does majority rule? Or do we have to censor for every single person who might find something offensive? If that is the case, you will have dead air.

 

[Jonathan]

This type of discussion could certainly go on for eternity, but it's fun and as long as people respect each other's opinions, interesting as well.

If the FCC is going to continue to be the governing body, the 'law' needs to be defined. What if we had no speed limit signs, just a general law that said "You shouldn't go faster than people around you think you should go". Now, this would be pretty cool, until a cop pulls you over and writes you a ticket for breaking the speed limit, saying that he believed you were just going to fast, perhaps you were doing 80 on the freeway that day. The next week, the same cop pulls you over and gives you a speeding ticket for doing 50, because recently some elderly people moved into a nearby development and that now 50 is really faster than you should be going, so here is your ticket.

The way the FCC typically determines if someone should be fined is based on a complaint from a local listener/viewer. In this case it could very well be a situation were 9 people on your block love NWA, and the 10th guy is always complaining about it.

If radio shows, like TV shows would air disclaimers after returning from a break, starting a new program, etc., with "This may contain adult content blah blah blah", you would easily be able to take that opportunity to find something else to watch/listen to.

I listen to Howard Stern on occasion, and sometimes even I grow tired of some of the antics, at which point, I switch stations for awhile, then come back later.

A governing body without any real definition of legislation, is just a group of people impressing their own beliefs upon others. The policies should not vary by the people who happen to be sitting in the FCC office at any given time, but rather clear definitions of what is and what is not OK to say/do.

If 10 million people listen to something every day, and 20 people complain about it, which is the community standard?

 

[MiamieNeSeX]

The fact that they caught someone like Castro in a joke is great, the fact they are getting fined is incredible. We are talking about a cheat,a Liar, and a murderer...... If the governement of whatever country you are from would treat you and your people in the manner in which the people of Cuba are being treated I am sure a different tone would be had. It was a joke against a peice of crap dictator, lighten up. I am sure that they wouldnt pick anyone of us to do the same too.(no shock or entertainment value)


PS Lets get a collection going to have Crank Yankers taken off the air......


Armando

 

[ChrisK]

But the FCC ruled last week that the station violated a regulation requiring that participants in phone conversations be told in advance if the call is being broadcast.

If this is indeed the FCC rule than what's the problem? I'm not familiar with this part of the FCC rules in radio, but I do work in TV and we are always worried about violating FCC rules even if we do at times but just don't get caught. It is the one time we do get caught making a mistake that worries us. If I can get a $1000 fine for missing a transmisster reading within the 3 hour window why shouldn't these guys get a $4000 fine for violating a FCC "On Air" broadcasting rule?

Bottom line I think the FCC did it's job fairly and the station recognized what you all recognize as a great joke on a criminal leader and thus only a $4000 fine rather than the two DJ's loosing their job. Sometimes the fine is a small price to pay.

It doesn't appear as the prank call itself lead to the violation. It appears that according to the FCC, the thrid party must be told he will be broadcast over air. Obviously the station recorded this phone conversation as well if they reaired it a few times. What are the laws in Miami about recording phone calls? Did they break another law as well since they never told Castro he was being recorded? Just wondering. Some states only require one party to know the phone conversation is being recorded while some states both parties need to know.

I'm all for good TV or good radio, but if you break the rules you have to be prepared to face the consequences.

Bottom line, when you are opporating a trasmitter like we do in TV or the DJ's do in radio, we obtain an FCC permit or license which states we are qualified to opprate such equipement and that we know and will abide by the rules of the FCC. If we violate these rules we can be fined, or even loose our permits or license in which we can no longer do our jobs. We all signed the FCC paper work and I'm sure the DJ's in Miami signed their own forms as well.

PS. I think it is funny as hell that they got Castro and could care less about the guy. For the people in Miami it should be looked at as $4000 well spent.

 

[gheba_nsx]

I am not able to find the MP3 of the call... anyone?

 

[nkb]

I am not able to find the MP3 of the call... anyone?

I haven't looked for it, because I don't speak Spanish anyway

 

[gheba_nsx]

Mmmhhh good point!

No hablo español muy bien...

 

[nkb]

If the FCC is going to continue to be the governing body, the 'law' needs to be defined.

I agree with you 100%, that is my main beef with the recent fines. And, that was an excellent analogy to bring the point home to car enthusiasts

The way the FCC typically determines if someone should be fined is based on a complaint from a local listener/viewer.

This is exactly what happened in Florida, where one guy kept a log of what offended him on the Howard Stern show, and then reported on it to the FCC. Should one person have that much clout? Should one person's complaints dictate what millions of people get to listen to?

Like I said earlier, if individual complaints are enough to fine or suspend broadcasters, then we will soon have nothing on the airwaves.

Of course, the only reason this guy's voice was heard is that the current FCC happens to think the same way, otherwise he probably would have been ignored.
I'm sure if I complain about Rush Limbaugh being offensive (to me, he is), all I'll hear back will be the chirping of crickets. But, I wouldn't, because I know what radio station he is on, and I choose not to listen to him. Same reason I don't protest about the country music stations

 

[nkb]

Re: Re: Anybody hear about this prank?

If this is indeed the FCC rule than what's the problem?

I agree, technically the fine was warranted. I am no expert on the FCC regulations, but I believe that this is actually a rule that is not vague.

What I don't understand is why the radio station doesn't just pay the fine, and consider it extremely effective use of their money, because they couldn't buy this kind of publicity. Not to keep coming back to Stern, but his parent companies have paid millions in fines over the last 20 years, mainly because they knew it was great advertising, and they were making loads of money off him.

 

[ChrisK]

Re: Re: Re: Anybody hear about this prank?

I agree, technically the fine was warranted. I am no expert on the FCC regulations, but I believe that this is actually a rule that is not vague.

What I don't understand is why the radio station doesn't just pay the fine, and consider it extremely effective use of their money, because they couldn't buy this kind of publicity. Not to keep coming back to Stern, but his parent companies have paid millions in fines over the last 20 years, mainly because they knew it was great advertising, and they were making loads of money off him.

I think they are planning to pay the fine with the publics help. Actually, if they indeed obtain the $4000 in pennies I think that is a great public relations and promotion ploy. Just think about it, the whole participating community can feel like they played a part with the company into "Sticking it to the man". I'm not saying it is the right thing or wrong thing to do but it definately could bring in new loyal listeners.