Clear Channel Dumps Howard Stern After Proposed Fine

[LethalWolfe]

Except that our problem is that instead of CC dropping him due solely to low demand, it was instead precipitated by large government fines. If CC had dropped him, even without the fines, then that would be that.

As Krizoitz said, Stern has been getting fined for years. CC decided that Stern doesn't generate enough profit anymore to warrent dealing with the fines, the headaches, and the headlines. CC isn't dropping Stern because of low demand but because of high maintainence<sp?>.


Lethal

 

[mactastic]

If you have a right not to be offended by Howard Stern, do I have a right not to be offended by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, et al.? Should my poor child's ear have to be assaulted by their brand of political hate speech? I don't want to have to explain to my 7 year old child why her dad is 'unamerican' for his beliefs. I don't want to have to explain why the 'secular humanists' are ruining society. Why should I be forced to be put in this situation?

 

[applebum]

If you have a right not to be offended by Howard Stern, do I have a right not to be offended by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, et al.? Should my poor child's ear have to be assaulted by their brand of political hate speech? I don't want to have to explain to my 7 year old child why her dad is 'unamerican' for his beliefs. I don't want to have to explain why the 'secular humanists' are ruining society. Why should I be forced to be put in this situation?

I am glad you brought this up. I am guessing that everyone here that feels that HS should not be dropped just because he "offended" some people were also right in there complaining when Rush was forced to step down at ESPN because he also "offended" some people. After all, as I am hearing here, these little offenses build character, need to be discussed, and might as well be heard on the air since they may be heard on a street corner as well. I know everyone here is very consistent in their beliefs, regardless of who is having their 1st ammendment rights trounced upon.

 

[davecuse]

The main difference between Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh's situation is that Rush put down one of the best athletes in the NFL because of the color of his skin, and did so on a show that is family oriented. He was fired by the station without a cue from the FCC, and without being fined. ESPN know's their market, as Clear Channel knew exactly what they were getting into when they hired Stern.

Rush = fired by station

Stern = harassed by the government, who are violating his rights to freedom of speech, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If Clear Channel would have said to Stern a month after he started, sorry pal, you don't fit with out station very well... it would not have been a big deal, he would have been forgotten. But the fact is that they clearly want him as a part of the station, and his fans want him there. The only reason Stern is being fired is because the FCC is hunting him down, and for what? Doing his job.

Just my two pennies.

 

[Koodauw]

If you have a right not to be offended by Howard Stern, do I have a right not to be offended by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingrahm, et al.? Should my poor child's ear have to be assaulted by their brand of political hate speech? I don't want to have to explain to my 7 year old child why her dad is 'unamerican' for his beliefs. I don't want to have to explain why the 'secular humanists' are ruining society. Why should I be forced to be put in this situation?

While I don't know who Laure Ingrahm is, I do know that Rush Limbaugh and Sean hannity dicuss political topics. Many of these discussion lead to an "Exposition of ideas" Howard Stern talking about the size of someones package does not. Thus the FCC can fine him. ( I beleive this to be the correct reasoning) So, yes, it is perfectly legal for you to be put in that situation.

 

[Koodauw]

Stern = harassed by the government, who are violating his rights to freedom of speech, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Please do cite me one example of how his rights are being violated.

In you search feel free to read FCC v. Pacifica.

 

[applebum]

The main difference between Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh's situation is that Rush put down one of the best athletes in the NFL because of the color of his skin, and did so on a show that is family oriented. He was fired by the station without a cue from the FCC, and without being fined. ESPN know's their market, as Clear Channel knew exactly what they were getting into when they hired Stern.

Rush = fired by station

Stern = harassed by the government, who are violating his rights to freedom of speech, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If Clear Channel would have said to Stern a month after he started, sorry pal, you don't fit with out station very well... it would not have been a big deal, he would have been forgotten. But the fact is that they clearly want him as a part of the station, and his fans want him there. The only reason Stern is being fired is because the FCC is hunting him down, and for what? Doing his job.

Just my two pennies.

Actually, the point of this thread was that Stern was dumped/fired by his station (Clear Channel). Clear Channel made a business decision much like ESPN did. Stern new what was permissible and wasn't - he pushes the envelope. Should the FCC be more consistent - yes. I just wanted to point out that Rush has the same "rights" to offend that Howard does. They are very similar in that they have both made money by being controversial and saying things that antagonize/offend. I just feel it is important to be consistent when defending "rights".

 

[LethalWolfe]

The main difference between Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh's situation is that Rush put down one of the best athletes in the NFL because of the color of his skin, and did so on a show that is family oriented. He was fired by the station without a cue from the FCC, and without being fined. ESPN know's their market, as Clear Channel knew exactly what they were getting into when they hired Stern.

Rush = fired by station

Stern = harassed by the government, who are violating his rights to freedom of speech, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If Clear Channel would have said to Stern a month after he started, sorry pal, you don't fit with out station very well... it would not have been a big deal, he would have been forgotten. But the fact is that they clearly want him as a part of the station, and his fans want him there. The only reason Stern is being fired is because the FCC is hunting him down, and for what? Doing his job.

Just my two pennies.

Okay, there are some misconceptions going on here. Stern was never employed by ClearChannel. Stern is employeed by whatever radio station he is based at in NYC. All ClearChannel did was air Stern's syndicated show in the 6 markets they carried it in. AFAIK Infinity Broadcasting, CC's biggest rival, is still airing Stern on its stations.

Everyone coming in on Stern's defense makes it sound like the FCC just now started fining him. Stern has been getting fines for years, but he has been popular enough that companies paid those fines. All that did was fuel Stern's ego and make him think he was bullet proof. And he just found out he wasn't. CC dropped him because the amount of money he brings in is no longer out weighs the fines, the headlines, and the headaches. Why is that so difficult for people to understand? Like I said before, Stern didn't get dumped by CC because of low ratings but because of his high maintainence.

Again, I ask, why does CC *have* to carry Stern? CC can air, or not air, whatever they want. If you don't like what CC is, or is not, airing don't listen to their stations.


Lethal

 

[Koodauw]

I agree

 

[mactastic]

While I don't know who Laure Ingrahm is, I do know that Rush Limbaugh and Sean hannity dicuss political topics. Many of these discussion lead to an "Exposition of ideas" Howard Stern talking about the size of someones package does not. Thus the FCC can fine him. ( I beleive this to be the correct reasoning) So, yes, it is perfectly legal for you to be put in that situation.

I wonder how many times the words 'oral sex' have been uttered on the Rush Limbaugh show....

 

[applebum]

I wonder how many times the words 'oral sex' have been uttered on the Rush Limbaugh show....

Yes, but that is not really sex, so it doesn't count.

 

[Krizoitz]

Stern = harassed by the government, who are violating his rights to freedom of speech, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

First. Freedom of speech means he gets to have an opinion. It doesn't mean he gets to broadcast it over the airwaves. Following your logic then Clear Channel should host my show (non-existent at this point) where I can share my views. Because I don't have a radio show does that mean my views are being oppressed?

Second. As someone else has allready pointed out the supreme court has stated on more than one occasion that speech is not unlimited. To do so would be anarchist.

Third. There is a difference between the free exchange of ideas in order to promote discussion and what howard stern does. Personally I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, but the issues he discusses have actually substance behind them. Howard Stern, not an ounce.

 

[davecuse]

I'm no longer going to argue my point; I stand with what I said before. I do not have the time, nor do I really care enough to research specific points.

The bottom line is that I find the show entertaining, and I understand why the FCC feels they are justified to fine a station for airing the man. It just appears to me that in the aftermath of the Janet Jackson fiasco the FCC is embarrassed, and has upped the fines for content that they do not deem acceptable. I would just rather be given the opportunity to make that decision on my own. I am fully capable of making my own choices, and I feel that most other people are as well. So in closing, I just don't want to babied or told that I cannot hear something that I find humorous.

 

[Krizoitz]

I'm no longer going to argue my point; I stand with what I said before. I do not have the time, nor do I really care enough to research specific points.

The bottom line is that I find the show entertaining, and I understand why the FCC feels they are justified to fine a station for airing the man. It just appears to me that in the aftermath of the Janet Jackson fiasco the FCC is embarrassed, and has upped the fines for content that they do not deem acceptable. I would just rather be given the opportunity to make that decision on my own. I am fully capable of making my own choices, and I feel that most other people are as well. So in closing, I just don't want to babied or told that I cannot hear something that I find humorous.

No one is telling you you can't listen to it. Clear channel is just saying they don't want to broadcast it. They have that right just as much as you have to listen to what you want to. Its not about babying anyone, its about setting a minimum of standards that society can live by.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I'm no longer going to argue my point; I stand with what I said before. I do not have the time, nor do I really care enough to research specific points.

The bottom line is that I find the show entertaining, and I understand why the FCC feels they are justified to fine a station for airing the man. It just appears to me that in the aftermath of the Janet Jackson fiasco the FCC is embarrassed, and has upped the fines for content that they do not deem acceptable. I would just rather be given the opportunity to make that decision on my own. I am fully capable of making my own choices, and I feel that most other people are as well. So in closing, I just don't want to babied or told that I cannot hear something that I find humorous.

So, following your logic, every radio station, tv station, magazine, newspaper, and internet site must carry everything anyone wants to them to carry and the companies/people that own said radio stations, tv stations, magazines, newspapers, and internet sites should have no control over their content?

Do you not see that forcing a company to carry certain content is as bad as forbiding them from carrying certain content?


Lethal

 

[Krizoitz]

So, following your logic, every radio station, tv station, magazine, newspaper, and internet site must carry everything anyone wants to them to carry and the companies/people that own said radio stations, tv stations, magazines, newspapers, and internet sites should have no control over their content?

Do you not see that forcing a company to carry certain content is as bad as forbiding them from carrying certain content?


Lethal

Thank goodness, someone FINALLY gets it. Free speech does not equal free airtime, just that the government can't tell you you aren't allowed to give your opinoin at all.

 

[MacNut]

I think part of the problem is that we have double standards in that its ok for one person to say something but not another. If Howard Stern gets fined for something than fine everybody else. Dont use Stern as an example. If the FCC wants to fine the crap out of him thats fine, but be equal about it.

 

[MacNut]

As for ClearChannel dumping Stern, they have every right to do so but I think they could of easily paid that fine with no problem, they are the biggest radio corporation in the country, I think they could afford it. Plus Stern will get his money anyways because I believe CC broke contract with Stern and I bet he will want his money. So is CC really saving anything.

 

[Krizoitz]

I think part of the problem is that we have double standards in that its ok for one person to say something but not another. If Howard Stern gets fined for something than fine everybody else. Dont use Stern as an example. If the FCC wants to fine the crap out of him thats fine, but be equal about it.

Ok who else should they fine who is breaking the rules?

 

[MacNut]

Ok who else should they fine who is breaking the rules?

Ok did everyone forget about Janet Jackson, she started this whole mess with her halftime stunt, where was her huge fine, come on she flashed a breast. I didnt see Sterns penis at all. And im sure more people watched Janet than will ever listen to Stern on any givin day.

 

[LethalWolfe]

As for ClearChannel dumping Stern, they have every right to do so but I think they could of easily paid that fine with no problem, they are the biggest radio corporation in the country, I think they could afford it. Plus Stern will get his money anyways because I believe CC broke contract with Stern and I bet he will want his money. So is CC really saving anything.

Do you know how much the proposed fine is? $495,000 per station. ClearChannel owns six stations that aired Stern's show. That is nearly 3 million dollars in fines CC might have to shell out. I don't care how big your company is paying that much in fines is going to piss corporate off. On top of that 4 other CC stations are getting fined $715,000 each because of another shock jock (Bubba the love sponge). That's another 2.9 million dollars. And Congress is most likely going to raise the max penalty for each fineable offense from $27,500 to $500,000. If CC is shelling out nearly 6 million dollars in fines when each individual fine is max $27,500 imagine how much they would have to shell out in the future if each fine is $500,000! And, like people have said before, Stern has been fined in past and he'll get fined again in the future so it's not like this is a one time thing. And, on top of the fines, if a station gets fined 3 times it's broadcast license could be pulled.

There is also the public image that CC wants to project. Maybe that don't want to a company that airs "those kinds" of programs anymore. You aren't going to see FOX style shows on CBS and vice-versa. Disney is not going to start putting out porn and Vivid Video is not going to start making animated movies for the whole family.

And for everyone complaining about government regulation the FCC does not actively monitor broadcasts. It only investigates shows when it recieves complaints. All it took to set these standards over 20 years ago was a father driving w/his son in CA and heard Geroge Carlin's "7 dirty words" bit on the car radio. And people say one man can't make a difference.


Lethal

 

[MarkCollette]

As Krizoitz said, Stern has been getting fined for years. CC decided that Stern doesn't generate enough profit anymore to warrent dealing with the fines, the headaches, and the headlines. CC isn't dropping Stern because of low demand but because of high maintainence<sp?>.
Lethal

I'm not sure how you're disagreeing, since that's what I said too, but maybe I just did not communicate my point effectively.

I know that CC is dumping Stern for economic reasons, so I have no problem with that. As an aside, if they had dumped him for their own moral crusde, then I would not like that. But, it's not the case. So, please don't bother commenting on the aside.

What is the economic reason? Well, the dollar amount of an individual FCC fine jumped dramatically, like an order of magnitude. So, the FCC instigated this, by fining him much more than before, for an activity that is not much different than his previous activities, showing that they now have less tolerance.

Every post I've read, that's against Stern getting dumped, has said that it's this changing of tolerance by the FCC which they disagree with. We have speculated that it is because the Bush government is targetting him.

I have no idea why people keep arguing about whether or not Stern's freedom of speach is being trampled by CC, since CC has very little to do with this. The question is whether the FCC is trying to trample his freedom of speach.

I hope this eliminates the need for 75% of the posts in this thread, where people are arguing back and forth, redundantly.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I'm not sure how you're disagreeing, since that's what I said too, but maybe I just did not communicate my point effectively.

I know that CC is dumping Stern for economic reasons, so I have no problem with that. As an aside, if they had dumped him for their own moral crusde, then I would not like that. But, it's not the case. So, please don't bother commenting on the aside.

What is the economic reason? Well, the dollar amount of an individual FCC fine jumped dramatically, like an order of magnitude. So, the FCC instigated this, by fining him much more than before, for an activity that is not much different than his previous activities, showing that they now have less tolerance.

Every post I've read, that's against Stern getting dumped, has said that it's this changing of tolerance by the FCC which they disagree with. We have speculated that it is because the Bush government is targetting him.

I have no idea why people keep arguing about whether or not Stern's freedom of speach is being trampled by CC, since CC has very little to do with this. The question is whether the FCC is trying to trample his freedom of speach.

I hope this eliminates the need for 75% of the posts in this thread, where people are arguing back and forth, redundantly.

Sorry I misread your previous post.

I don't see how the FCC is trying to tample his freedom of speech. Like I said before the FCC reacts to complaints. The complaints probably come and go depending no the mood of the public at large. And post-boobie there have been a hail storm of complaints and, unfortunetly, knee-jerk reactions. In response the FCC has lobbied the max amount of fines against shock jocks like Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge that they can (even though Stern wants to play the martyr he has *not* been singled out by the FCC). Which is $27,500 per incident per station. Now, like I said in my previous post, this max penalty might get raised as high as $500,000.
There are guidelines outlining what is and is not protected speech and what is and is not "broadcast friendly" between 6am and 10pm. But these guidelines are subjective and are a reflection of what current "comminty standards" are.

I'm gonna shut up now 'cause I feel like I'm ranting.

Lethal

 

[MacNut]

All it took to set these standards over 20 years ago was a father driving w/his son in CA and heard Geroge Carlin's "7 dirty words" bit on the car radio. And people say one man can't make a difference.

I've probably heard all 7 dirty words said by my father while driving in the car.
I hope that guy is happy, now we can't see anything good on TV

 

[LethalWolfe]

I've probably heard all 7 dirty words said by my father while driving in the car.
I hope that guy is happy, now we can't see anything good on TV

If he's still alive I'm sure we could find his address and send him hate mail.


Lethal