Howard Stern suspended on all Clear Channel-owned stations

[tveric]

Clear Channel Radio has suspended the shock jock's program indefinitely for breaking new company rules of decency. Clear Channel is the nation's largest radio chain and today announced a new policy aimed at limiting on-air indecency.

Clear Channel's president said Stern's show today was vulgar, insulting and offensive.

Stern's spokesman wasn't available for comment.

Pressure has been mounting on the broadcast industry, even before singer Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during the live Super Bowl halftime broadcast.

Stern has a history of racking up fines. In 1995, Viacom paid $1.7 million for various violations by Stern. That's the largest cumulative fine to date.

Clear Channel says Stern won't be allowed back on the air until it feels assured the show will conform to broadcast standards.

[tveric]

Has the whole country gone crazy? Janet Jackson flashes a breast (and 82% of the country doesn't care - check the AP poll), and suddenly radio DJs are knocked off the air without having done anything illegal, without a hearing, a judge, a jury, anything.

This is scary, folks. And even if you're not a Howard Stern fan, think about this: the FCC isn't going to stop at strong-arming Clear Channel. It could be your favorite TV or radio show next.

[Rower_CPU]

So, how exactly was today's show any different than other days?

[tveric]

It wasn't, that's why it's clear that Clear Channel is just trying to cozy up to the FCC. They cited the reasons for the suspension as Tuesday's Rick Solomon interview, in which Howard asked Rick about sex with Paris Hilton and a racist caller used the n-word (which the staff of the show quickly decried, as they always do when someone uses a racist term on the air).

In other words, business as usual. That was the worst part of Tuesday's show, in terms of raciness, so they used that part as their lame excuse. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Stern fans in six cities are now denied the show due to the over-reaction and censorship practiced by Clear Channel.

[MoparShaha]

I was very upset when I read this. What is this country coming to? Thanks a lot Janet :rolleyes:. Why, oh why!

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by tveric
Has the whole country gone crazy? Janet Jackson flashes a breast (and 82% of the country doesn't care - check the AP poll), and suddenly radio DJs are knocked off the air without having done anything illegal, without a hearing, a judge, a jury, anything.

This is scary, folks. And even if you're not a Howard Stern fan, think about this: the FCC isn't going to stop at strong-arming Clear Channel. It could be your favorite TV or radio show next.


Holy over reaction Batman.

Stern isn't off the air. ClearChannel just stopped airing his syndicated show on stations they own. DJ's aren't getting canned left and right and why in the world do you think you need a judge and jury just to fire an employee? It's a job and if you breaks the rules you can get fired. The only reason Stern still has a job is because he draws big ratings which means big $$$ for the people he works for. Stern is by fair the most fined DJ ever. If he didn't generate so much money he would have been off the air long ago.

Anyway don't start hyperventilating yet. All this is a knee-jerk reaction to Janet's boobie. In 6 months everything will be back to "normal." Just like right after 9/11 media outlets were hypersenstive about content because they didn't want to appear to be insenitive<sp?>. 6 months later it was back to business as usual. And if you have to have a panic attack I'd worry more about ClearChannel than the FCC.


Lethal

[zimv20]

clear channel is the devil.

here's typical operating procedure at CC:

1. buy a large portion of the listenership (i.e. radio stations) in a market

2. fire the local talent and broadcast non-local programming, including news, from a centralized location

3. buy performance venues in the area

4. force bands to sign up for CC touring package, -- the only way to get into CC venues -- by threatening to not play their music

CC admits their sole purpose is to sell advertising. they (ab)used the relaxed radio ownership rules to generate near monopolies, reduced costs by centralizing (and sacrificing the quality of) programming, then jacked advertising rates (they own most of the billboards, too) 'cuz they're the only game in town.

don't forget that last year, under the "leadership" of chairman michael powell (colin's son) and w/ bush's blessing, the FCC voted to relax TV ownership rules in much the same way. this, despite a massive letter writing campaign, 98% coming out against the rule change.

[Makosuke]

This isn't a sign of US public overreaction (though there's plenty of that--at least in the limited scope of public discussion we see in the media--going on), this is, as zimv20 pointed out, a sign of how bad it is to have a company that owns half the broadcast radio stations in the country.

Basically, Stern got pulled from Clear Channel stations (again, it's not like he was fired) not because nobody is listening, nor because he did anything specifically wronger than usual (though I despise his show anyway), but because he's a potential financial liability, and CC's marketing dept. probably decided that "Clean sells today".

Usually, you'd have a station in an area with strict decency standards (bible belt, maybe) pulling his show, while areas that didn't care wouldn't. Sucks to live in an area prone to overreaction, but at least you generally get media in line with what the local population wants.

With one megaconglomerate, what they say goes EVERYWHERE. They don't like stern because airing his show ammounts to 5% less profit than another Beyonce song or the liability of fines looks bad on the balance sheet or the CEO doesn't like him or something, they pull him from every market in the country. Alternately, they don't feel like airing a news show that doesn't report favorably on them, nobody hears it, or they want to air racy lyrics that a lot of people in some areas find offensive, too bad. What they like, everybody gets.

Stern will still be on the air in areas that still have independant stations, but this sort of blanket decision by a country with so much control over what we hear is unnerving.

Too bad the FCC doesn't feel like doing anything but changing laws so CC can own even more than they already do.

[Awimoway]

I know I'll be flamed...

This is one of the few issues where I get off the liberal bus and ride the other way.

Hard as it may be to believe, different people have different values. Many people's values are not the same as yours. Surprising, I know. You can mock them, accuse them of being immature (although I don't think humor gets any more immature than Howard Stern's brand) or overly sensitive, but that won't make them any more like your values.

And a public commodity, like the airwaves, must conform to a certain minimum standard because... well, because the voting public says so. A majority of the ultimate powers that be (the voters) want limits on what can be shown and said on public airwaves in order to save them the time and effort of having to avoid it themselves and protect their children from it. It also saves them the irritation of being accidentally exposed to such things while flipping channels or scanning for a radio station.

But this is tyranny of the majority, you say. This is a violation of freedom of speech and right to assemble, you say. Well, I don't think so. You can still say whatever you want and show whatever you want. And as many people as want to watch/listen can do so (thus the right to assemble is not violated either). However it must be in private. It must be said and done among those who have implicitly consented to be exposed to these things by subscribing to cable TV or going to a comedy club or a strip bar where coarse language and sexually explicit content are understood to occur.

I applaud the FCC for taking its own rules seriously, and I applaud Clear Channel (dear God, tell me I'm not defending Clear Channel! :eek: ) for putting values ahead of profits and finally respecting FCC code.

[D*I*S_Frontman]

This is a free market economy. Let's not make veiled references to censorship (judge, jury, etc.). REAL censorship is when a government denies someone free speech. When a business entity shuts someone up who is potentially harming their reputation or jeopardizing their status with the FCC, that is "good management," not "censorship."

If enough people get upset with Clear Channel corporate actions, they can simply tune out. The advertizing begins to fade, and CC either a) caves to demands of the public or b) dies. Whether they have 1 or 10,000 stations, it makes no difference--they still are controlled ultimately by market forces. The commodity here is not food, power, or any other true necessity--it's jabbering talk radio. If CC screws things up, a competitor will devour them station by station.

Stern rode the edge for a good long time. This will probably HELP his career in the long run. Yuck.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by zimv20
clear channel is the devil.

This is soooo true, you wonder why there is never anything original on the radio...

I doubt Howard will be off the air for too long, he makes them way too much money, and all they care about is MONEY!

[rt_brained]

Originally posted by Awimoway
I applaud the FCC for taking its own rules seriously, and I applaud Clear Channel (dear God, tell me I'm not defending Clear Channel! :eek: ) for putting values ahead of profits and finally respecting FCC code.
Try to avoiding confusing opinion and fact.

Clear Channel is an extraordinarily powerful and agressive media/entertainment company (some say a monopoly). They've swallowed up radio stations all over the country and put countless stations' employees out of work in the process. Is that a values over profits tactic?

There are specific laws regarding the number of stations a particular company, like CC, can own in a given market. Attorneys for Clear Channel have participated in the successful lobbying of our current (pro big business) administraion to relax or rewrite these long-standing antitrust rules, allowing CC's further growth.

In light of the fact that CC's president is scheduled to testify in front of Congress today, his company's decision pull Stern from the airwaves after the "N-word" phone call yesterday is interesting timing to say the least. I suspect some of today's news soundbites will be conservative lawmakers praising him for putting "values above profits" and being "brave enough to stand alone against the tide of indecency among his peers."

I need to stop here, as my gag reflex is starting to kick in.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
So, how exactly was today's show any different than other days? Thank you, show us your tits,show us your butt and lets talk about if you are bisexual. Stern has no Taste,no class, and is a void. I wonder how anyone can watch or listen to the same crap everyday. Is this the only thing that is on his mind 24hrs a day?

[Thomas Veil]

I don't particularly like Stern either. And I will say that Clear Channel does have the right to air what it wants on its radio stations.

BUT...Clear Channel, which has always had a decidedly conservative bent, also owns something like half the radio stations in my town. The remaining stations are owned by a few other conglomerates. Where does that leave Stern if he wants to find another affiliate? With a very few options, that's where.

Which is PRECISELY the thing we've all been screaming about for several years now. The constant merging of media companies into a handful of goliaths gives them unprecedented power to control what you and I see and hear, and gives us FEWER choices.

But does the FCC pay attention to that? No, they're too worried about one bare breast that aired in prime time, or a few off-color words. Not that those things don't deserve attentiont too, but it is SO hypocritical for the FCC to gets its pants in a knot about "indecency" and ignore the megacorps that are affecting the industry economically.

That is soo like a Republican administration. They love money, but they're afraid of sex. :rolleyes:

[Thomas Veil]

Okay, wait a minute...I just read this on ABCNews's web site:
Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air material that refers to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children may be tuning in. The rules do not apply to cable and satellite channels and satellite radio.
They HAVE gone nuts. So if somebody on Fraser makes a joke about going to the bathroom, the FCC is gonna fine NBC? That's just crazy. :mad:

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by MoparShaha
I was very upset when I read this. What is this country coming to? Thanks a lot Janet :rolleyes:. Why, oh why!

I totally agree with you, what is next? South Park? I love South Park, we have to stop these puritans’ fascists and stop all this.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Awimoway

I applaud the FCC for taking its own rules seriously, and I applaud Clear Channel (dear God, tell me I'm not defending Clear Channel! :eek: ) for putting values ahead of profits and finally respecting FCC code.

i doubt this is simply CC adhering to decency codes. rather, i think Stern did something to piss off CC and they're punishing him.

as mentioned, Stern is popular and he sells advertising. aside from the occasional power trip, money is what CC really cares about.

[tveric]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Thank you, show us your tits,show us your butt and lets talk about if you are bisexual. Stern has no Taste,no class, and is a void. I wonder how anyone can watch or listen to the same crap everyday. Is this the only thing that is on his mind 24hrs a day?

You've missed the point. No one is saying that you have to listen to Stern. If you don't like him, fine, don't listen to him. But there's a lot of people that know his show is more than just strippers and sex (we actually listen rather than let our local pastor tell us what's on it) and that it's an intelligent, funny radio show.

But that's another thread. The point is, why should Stern's fans be denied listening to his show just because a few people want it censored? As long as he doesn't do anything illegal on the air (and he hasn't) we should have the freedom to hear his show, just as you always have the freedom to not listen. You can argue that the show has no class and no taste and prove it beyond any doubt if you want, but even if you did, that doesn't justify the FCC putting so much pressure on the stations that carry him that they start dropping the show out of fear. That's suppression.

We live in a supposedly free society. If no one listens to Stern, no stations will carry him. You don't need the government to censor shows with no taste - if a show has no redeeming qualities, and no one watches, the free market economy will take care of it. Which is the way it should be.

As for the guy who said Clear Channel is "finally putting values above profits", don't kid yourself. They're appearing before Congress this week and made this move as part of their strategic plan to ensure profits keep coming in forever. They will NEVER put profits in 2nd place, trust me. Anyway, why should your values be more important than mine and 20 million Stern listeners' values? Again, the free market will take care of any shows that the public doesn't like. It shouldn't be the FCC and Congress scaring stations into pulling shows. That's a little too much like book-burning for my taste.

[TEG]

1) I hate Howard Stern

2) I only like one Clear Channel Radio Station, and only listen once in a while.

3) The FCC is EVIL and has outlived its usefullness.

4) CC is a monopoly and must be broken up. No company should be able to control more than 15% of the Listening Audience.

TEG

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by Awimoway
I know I'll be flamed...

This is one of the few issues where I get off the liberal bus and ride the other way.

Hard as it may be to believe, different people have different values. Many people's values are not the same as yours. Surprising, I know. You can mock them, accuse them of being immature (although I don't think humor gets any more immature than Howard Stern's brand) or overly sensitive, but that won't make them any more like your values.

And a public commodity, like the airwaves, must conform to a certain minimum standard because... well, because the voting public says so. A majority of the ultimate powers that be (the voters) want limits on what can be shown and said on public airwaves in order to save them the time and effort of having to avoid it themselves and protect their children from it. It also saves them the irritation of being accidentally exposed to such things while flipping channels or scanning for a radio station.

But this is tyranny of the majority, you say. This is a violation of freedom of speech and right to assemble, you say. Well, I don't think so. You can still say whatever you want and show whatever you want. And as many people as want to watch/listen can do so (thus the right to assemble is not violated either). However it must be in private. It must be said and done among those who have implicitly consented to be exposed to these things by subscribing to cable TV or going to a comedy club or a strip bar where coarse language and sexually explicit content are understood to occur.

I applaud the FCC for taking its own rules seriously, and I applaud Clear Channel (dear God, tell me I'm not defending Clear Channel! :eek: ) for putting values ahead of profits and finally respecting FCC code.



No, I won’t flame, that’s what tolerance is all about. I don’t have to agree with your point of view, of even like it, but I must learn to deal with it, and respect it. But conservatives these days are taking things too far. I see the problem form a different angel. The media constantly broadcasts “Blame games” and the American public have become accustomed to them. (I will be sarcastic). For example, Bush is not guilty of using inaccurate intelligence to go to war, the CIA is guilty for providing such information. The consequences of inadequate International policy is not guilty of 911, the bad security in airports is. The lady who got burned while careless handling the Mc Donald’s cup of hot coffee is not guilty of burning her self, Mc Donald’s is guilty because they don’t label the cups. And the list can go on and on. They talk about decency, but decency is a moral quality that has to be inculcated and taught to children and individuals at early stages of their lives. Children will always be exposed to violence, sex, drugs, and alcohol; but they will never commit “indecent” acts if they have formed a strong personality with good moral foundations. Psychological research has proven that the Believe and moral foundations individuals possess are extremely hard to alter and change; hence, children rose with good morals and values will be unlikely to engage in any sort of indecent acts latter in their lives. Parents these days, however, blame the media, schools, society, and the entire environment instead of recognizing that it’s ultimately their responsibility first, second, and third, to teach good morals to their children. I have heard and seen such outrageous things going on in schools in this country “columbine” that it alarms me and troubles me deeply. Children having oral sex in school, drug usage and abuse, alcohol usage, children murdering children and professors; one just doest see this things happening anywhere else in the world. I can’t explain why while having the most conservative broadcast standards in the world, we still see our youth completely out of hand. Statistics show that more that 70% of out teens are sexually active by age 16. Breasts are censored as if they were something out of this world, but violence galore on TV and movies is ok. I agree that somethings shouldn’t be broadcasted, but if Howard Stern has so may fans and followers, I believe the problem is somewhere else, and stiffer FCC regulations won’t change things a bit.

[Thomas Veil]

Originally posted by TEG
The FCC is EVIL and has outlived its usefullness.
I would agree with the first part of this sentence but not the second. The FCC was formed to ensure that the public's airwaves are used in their best interest. This clearly is not happening, which is why I agree the FCC is evil.

I don't think the agency itself is useless. If it weren't there, the media would be even worse than they are now. But I do think Bush needs to boot out the lame-a**es he's got in there now and put in some people who take seriously the FCC's original mandate to see that the airwaves are used in the public interest.

[tveric]

Please write the FCC and your congressperson and senator, and let them know you're against censorship.

FCC contacts (http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html)

Your US represenative (http://www.house.gov/writerep/)

Your senator (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)

Hopefully the 1-second exposure of a boob won't lead to the complete stripping away of anything funny and edgy on TV and radio.

[LethalWolfe]

The FCC itself is not evil and is very needed. But the people currenting running the FCC do not have the public's best interests at heart. Stern getting dropped by CC has more to do w/a very vocal minority b*tching about Janet's nipple than it does w/the FCC trying to censor the airwaves. If the silent majority doesn't like how things are going they need to speak the hell up. Use the links tveric posted and let the government know where you stand. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, people.

Thomas Veil,
What you posted is nothing new. Those have been standards for sense '78. Would you like to know why those standards were put in place? Because 1 guy, who was listening to the radio w/his son, complained to the FCC about George Carlin's stand up routine now commonly refered to as "7 dirty words." 1 guy out of the entire listening audience led the charge. Who says 1 person can't make a difference?

Obviously the rules are not enforced to the letter. What is "okay" to say over the airwaves varies by location and changes rather frequently as society redefines what is acceptable and what is not. 50 years ago you couldn't show a man and a women sitting in the same bed (even if they were married). Watch reruns of "I Love Lucy" and you'll notice that Lucy and Ricky slept in seperate beds. Today seeing sex on TV is not uncommon (some would say too common) and you might even catch a naked butt cheeck or two. Just a few years ago saying "@ss" on TV was a huge no-no. Now it's not a big deal.

And, basically, between 10pm and 6am stations can air anything they want, short of obcenity<sp?>, but they don't because they don't want to piss off/alienate viewers. Over the air radio and TV broadcasts are typically way more conservitive than FCC standards.

Also, it was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that relaxed regulations and allowed these mega-conglomerates to form in the first place. Of course we also can't forget the DMCA (passed in 1998) that has robber consumers of many of their rights regarding media.

tveric,
We do live in a free society. And ClearChannel is free to carry whatever programing it wants. If people miss Stern enough in ClearChannel markets and raise a big enough stink CC will start airing the show again on their stations. Because, like you said, they are very profit driven. Government forcing CC to air Stern is as bad as Government forcing CC to drop Stern.


Lethal

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Thank you, show us your tits,show us your butt and lets talk about if you are bisexual. Stern has no Taste,no class, and is a void. I wonder how anyone can watch or listen to the same crap everyday. Is this the only thing that is on his mind 24hrs a day?

But the fact is...

HE DID THAT SAME ROUTINE thousands of times before.

CC has a new policy that they didn't give to the Stern Show and he gets canned... :rolleyes:


I don't like the show, I find no part of it funny or amusing, but what gives?


I'm gonna make a pirate radio station.

Just to protest this, I will hook it into my audio out port from my computer where i will have my iTunes music running, it will be up in a week.

FCC -- Bite me.

[tveric]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

tveric,
We do live in a free society. And ClearChannel is free to carry whatever programing it wants. If people miss Stern enough in ClearChannel markets and raise a big enough stink CC will start airing the show again on their stations. Because, like you said, they are very profit driven. Government forcing CC to air Stern is as bad as Government forcing CC to drop Stern.


Lethal

Actually, I agree with you. Government should not force anyone to air Stern. In fact, one could argue that government forcing a company to air a program is actually worse than forcing a company to drop a program. Regardless, there is little doubt that CC's decision to drop Stern was heavily government-influenced, and that government influence came as a direct result of Stern's recent criticism of conservatives in general and GWB in particular. A scary harbinger of things to come, indeed.

[Inspector Lee]

You've missed the point. No one is saying that you have to listen to Stern. If you don't like him, fine, don't listen to him. But there's a lot of people that know his show is more than just strippers and sex

This is true. I caught an hour long interview with Paul McCartney a while back which was fantastic. No T&A, no Beetlejuice, just a good interview.

And if anybody cares to see just how long Clear Channel's reach is, check out http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.asp

Check out all the other conglomerates while you are there, but pour yourself a stiff drink prior to.

[mactastic]

A TV station in LA showed a man being killed by police gunfire LIVE the other day and no one has started congressional hearings, there is no call to reign in the bloodthirsty ratings-hungry profit-driven news media. How come it's not ok to talk about anal sex and say the 'n' word on the air inadvertently, but it's ok to broadcast a for-real human death inadvertently? It's crazy how different our tolerances for sex versus violence are in this country.

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
So, how exactly was today's show any different than other days?

Because it's ClearChannel, owned and controlled by neo-con, fundamentalist, Bush-backing Nazi's. Don't you all read the news?

[Krizoitz]

Howard Stern has the right to express his opinions. I will defend his right to do so.

Clear Channel has the right to not broadcast his opinions on their network. I will defend their right to do so.

The FCC has the right to ensure a minimum level of decency on the public airwaves as long as avenues exist for those who want to exceed those levels (i.e. cable, video, internet, etc.)

We live in a society with different levels of moral values and as such we need to create a level that most people feel comfortable with. We also don't allow people to walk around naked and have sex in the streets.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by tveric
Actually, I agree with you. Government should not force anyone to air Stern. In fact, one could argue that government forcing a company to air a program is actually worse than forcing a company to drop a program. Regardless, there is little doubt that CC's decision to drop Stern was heavily government-influenced, and that government influence came as a direct result of Stern's recent criticism of conservatives in general and GWB in particular. A scary harbinger of things to come, indeed.

You have your theory, I have mine. ;) I think this more a knee-jerk reation to an over blown boobie incident than a conspiracy. Do you remember after 9/11 CC when released a list of songs not to play to all of its stations? CC seems to be a hyper-reactive company that runs for the conservative side of the harbor when the seas start to look choppy. Of course CC is also trying to kiss up to the feds because they don't want the new, less restrictive FCC regulations to get reveresed. $20 says Stern will back w/in 6 or 7 months.

mactastic,
The basic difference is news vs entertainment. News recieves much more protection than entertainment (which it should). And content on is much more controlable in entertainment than it is in news (especially live news).


Lethal

[AngryLawnGnome]

Originally posted by MrMacman
...I'm gonna make a pirate radio station...FCC -- Bite me.

Word to that Macman. Pirates rock, plus the FCC is just ridiculous. If you don't want to see certain things on tv, don't watch them (Janet incident not included, that was her fault), and if you don't want to be offended don't listen to Howard Stern. Leave it to the people who don't watch this stuff to try and get rid of it. The FCC is garbage.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by angrylawngnome
The FCC is garbage.

Oh yeah, it would be grand to live in a country where every radio station, TV station, cable company, newspaper, and magazine was owned by a single company. That would just be fantastic. It would also be fantastic to have all your electronic devices interfering with each other. That would just be swell. Speaking of interfernce it would also really cool if no one was a gatekeeper to the rf spectrum. I mean, heck, how often do people really use radios, TVs, cell phones, or satellite and land/wire based commications in their daily lives?:rolleyes:

Like any organization (public or private) the FCC has it's good points and its bad points but out right dismissing the need of the FCC is just stupid.

Like I said in my previous post if you don't like what's going on then speak up. Use the links tveric posted. Don't be part of the silent majority that allows the vocal minority to direct policy.


Lethal

[MacNut]

Radio was so much better when it was independent, now everything is watered down and there is no variety anymore. Thank god for the few remaining independents out there that refuse to stoop to a level of corporate ownership. Hell in CT the one and only independent rock station is and has been kicking the crap out of the corps for years now and its great to know that an independent can still survive in a sea of watered down computerized radio stations were the DJ is becoming a think of the past. CC has single handedly killed the radio market in Hartford by replacing all of the classic stations with crap.:mad:

[MacNut]

As for Howard Stern, I love his show and if you don't like it you can change the channel. CC has no right to decide for the listeners what they can and can't listen too. If radio and TV didn't become a babysitter so the parents can forget about there kids we wouldn't be in this mess now. Parents need to teach their kids right from wrong and not blame everyone else for why they have such screwed up kids. I know its easier to sit the kids in front of a TV than to actually talk to them. I understand that children need to be protected but adults should have the right to watch what they want to on tv too with out being told, sorry you cant watch that because my kid is to stupid to know right from wrong. And another thing, why is there no big uproar over daytime SoapOperas I mean they show people having sex in the middle of the day, WHAT GIVES!!!:confused:

[rt_brained]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Stern has no Taste,no class, and is a void. I wonder how anyone can watch or listen to the same crap everyday. Is this the only thing that is on his mind 24hrs a day?
I often wonder the same about Rush Limbaugh.

Stern gets the shaft for sexual indecency and Rush gets a pass for all his name calling and liberal hate-mongering.

Sex bad. Hate good.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I dont listen to or watch either of these extremist.

[PalmHarborTchr]

Clear Channel...the defender of family
values kept Limbaugh show going
even though he was under the influence
of OxyKoton and other dangerous
drugs while he was doing the show
was okay....hell, he was just doing
political pornography. It was even okay
when couriers were bringing him
envelopes of $9999 of cash during
his show in NYC...he needed the withdrawl for his drug buys...but
he was defending Bush so he was okay.
Limbaugh is exposed in the media
as a long term drug user and then
he goes into Arizona Rehab but
he's okay.
On the day before Stern says on his
radio show that he is finished supporting
Bush...its "time for regime change in D.C." He endorse Kerry and says he
will work to get him elected on the show.
THAT DAY CLEAR CHANNEL, DISCOVERS
STERN IS DOING A SEXUALLY ORIENTED
SHOW....AND FIRES HIM.....
If you think the Conservative Mgt. of
Clear Channel..........does not want Bush
elected aeveryway.......... I have a PowerBook 150 I can sell you for
what I paid for it.....$1500.

[tveric]

Originally posted by PalmHarborTchr
If you think the Conservative Mgt. of
Clear Channel..........does not want Bush
elected aeveryway.......... I have a PowerBook 150 I can sell you for
what I paid for it.....$1500.

Even worse, what's closer to the truth is that it's the other way around - the Bush administration wants to get re-elected so badly that they're willing to strong-arm large corporations into silencing a critic of the Bush administration. You can bet any amount of money that calls were made from high-up Republicans to higher-ups in Clear Channel spelling out exactly what they needed to do in order to stay in favor. When a billion-dollar corporation depends on the government to allow them to buy more stations, to de-regulate further, and to make it easier for them to do business, giving up Howard Stern in six cities in order to score points with the current administration is a no-brainer.

Of course, some would say that's a cowardly way for Clear Channel to go, and that free speech and not allowing the government to blackmail you should be more important than profits, but those people don't own billion-dollar corporations.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by MacNut
CC has no right to decide for the listeners what they can and can't listen too.

CC has every right to decide what programing it does and does not carry. Just like Apple has every right to decide what products it will and will not sell, and Playboy has every right to decide what articles it will and will not publish. If you don't like what CC is offering listen to other stations or don't listen to b'cast radio at all. Independent or not all the stations in my city suck@ss and the only time I listen to the radio is in the car when I've forgotten my CD player.

I do agree that huge corps and conglomerates are allowed to own way too many media outlets. I'm not as worried about entertinament value as I am about news value. 3 or 4 giant conglomerates scratching each others backs and controling all the news I watch, hear, and read is a very, very scary concept. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gets my vote as one of the worst acts of legislation in US history.


Lethal

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Oh yeah, it would be grand to live in a country where every radio station, TV station, cable company, newspaper, and magazine was owned by a single company.

Yep. Just ask Joseph Goebbels.

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman If enough people get upset with Clear Channel corporate actions, they can simply tune out.

I'm beginning to think V-Chips are the answer. Require them in EVERY TV by 2010, then ANYTHING can be broadcast. Get the government the hell out of my damn living room.
Oh, and fire Powell. Oh, and re-defeat Bush in '04.
Rant finished.

[PalmHarborTchr]

Bush Magic= elect him and watch your
rights disappear.
If we still have an election in November
and Herr Bush does not postpone it
because of the threat of terrorism,
vote him home to the ranch

[idoubleL]

and, for those who are not regular listeners of the show, some of the things stern has been critical of in the past week or so:

bush administration
fcc chairman michael powell
congresswoman Heather Wilson

if you think this was merely over the n-word and sex talk then you are mistaken.

[PalmHarborTchr]

Stern paid the price of being

critical of Powell and saying he moving

the support from Bush to Kerry.

Things are done in a sophisticated
way now. I hope you people did
not think the head of ClearChannel
was going to say to the press..........
Stern is backing Kerry so, we are
dropping him from all our stations.
He's not an idiot. He did it by
using the issue of bad taste etc.:rolleyes:

[wwworry]

The Bush administration wants to allow more consolodation in media markets.
Clear Channel wants more consolidation/control in media markets.
Stern started backing Kerry over Bush.
ClearChannel axes Stern.

Yes he may be back on the air in a little over 8 months, as soon as the election is over.

[numediaman]

I didn't bother reading this thread because I can't stand Howard Stern. But after listening to On The Media this week I got interested. I'm glad the last couple of posters addressed the possibility that Stern was taken off of CC stations for his anti-Bush stand.

Here is a link to the On The Media story:
http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts/transcripts_030504_proposal.html

[mactastic]

I'm glad the last couple of posters addressed the possibility that Stern was taken off of CC stations for his anti-Bush stand.


And probably the only time in Stern's entire life that he's ever taken an anti-bush stand. :D