Click on the banner to learn more...

Between a Rock and a hardcore place?

Rock radio listeners are not offended. And they want the government to leave their radio programming alone, according to a study by Jacobs Media and Edison Media Research. The people who object to allegedly indecent programming, the study says, are not the ones listening to it.

Fred Jacobs said, "Our new survey argues quite convincingly that while some of the material on the radio may be shocking,, it's what the audience wants. These Rock radio listeners are telling us in overwhelming numbers that they want to decide for themselves whether to listen to a radio program or not, and they believe that the marketplace, not the FCC or 'watchdog groups' should make the decision on what's available on the radio."

He continued, "The study implies that people being offended by edgy morning radio shows are not the people listening."

70% said the current scalp-hunt for morning shock jocks is an over-reaction to the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident.

55% of Rock listeners say they are never offended by their favorite shows (only 11% say they're offended more often than 'rarely'), and 74% said Howard Stern should be available to those who wish to tune in.

11% agreed and 78% disagreed with this statement: "The only way to keep offensive material away from children is to eliminate it from the radio airwaves.

Only 5% agreed and 75% with this statement: "If even a small group of listeners is offended by a radio show's content, the FCC should take action against it.

75% agree with this statement: "Small groups of people are having too much influence over whether radio programs should be fined or punished."

12% agreed with this statement: "The FCC should take programs that it considers indecent off the air."

87% felt protecting children from indecency was a parent's prerogative; while only 13% felt broadcasters should keep indecency off the airwaves.

RBR observation:

The results of this poll are no more surprising than finding out that a sizable majority of elephants likes peanuts. Of course Rock fans like their programming just the way it is. It's one of the reasons they tune in. They don't patronize Rock stations and shock jock programs as a form of self-flagellation.

Conversely, of course the opponents of shock jocks do not listen to them. The complaints we read (other than those from the habitual complaint filers) almost invariably involve an accidental listener who stumbled on the programming unwittingly. They were spinning the dial and stopped when they heard a song they liked, only to be shocked by a DJs edgy bit immediately thereafter. They lodge the complaint, but they do not go back and listen to the station again unless they decide to join the ranks of the semi-professional enforcers armed with tape recorders.

And you know what? It's beside the point who listens and who doesn't, at least among the adult population. The argument is about the easy access that children have to such programming. Indecency foes aren't saying that parents should shirk their role in rearing their own children, they're saying that the parents cannot be with the children 24/7. And programming that they regard as smut should not be accessible to children from 6:00 AM-10:00 PM.

The problem is balancing these parental concerns with the need to protect the First Amendment. That's the debate. That's where the murky gray area is. Jacobs/Edison have come up with some interesting stats, but they really do not do anything to shine any light into the murk.