[Orion27]

I thought there would be a more vigorous defense of Howard Stern in this forum.
Gee, free speech, the market place and Chairman Powell.... This forum is more left than I thought....

[chris v]

Michael Powell should marry Howard Stern at the San Francisco courthouse, and they can have gay babies for christ in their jail cell.

How's that for free speech?

Personally, I see this news as a VERY VERY BAD THING, ands I never thought in a million years I'd defend Howard Stern because he's such a deplorable ass, but the Clear Channel situation in America has really gotten out of hand.

Do we get the government we deserve? Or are we as citizens going to finally stand up as a group and actually do something besides post messages on a Mac-oriented message board?

CV

[wolfen]

anyone have a link for what's going on? I'm outta touch. Howard Stern was the main influence during my developmental years in New York. I now live in the Bible Belt and hear nothing about him.


wolfen

[chris v]

Link to CNN

Doesn't say specifically what he said on air to cause the "suspension."

I call for a Clear Channel boycott.

CV

[Orion27]

My point exactly. Political correctness on the left has given us a less vigorous
defence of free speech and probably more alarmingly for the " proletariat " a much less vigorous defence of the free market.

[Millennium]

I've been boycotting Clear Channel since 9/11, to be honest, for their wholly-inappropriate list of songs to ban. This news certainly isn't going to change my mind.

Oh, how I pine for the days before deregulation, at least when it comes to number of stations that a company can own. Because, really.

[Orion27]

Clear Channel should be able to choose or not choose want they want to play. Your point
about monopoly ownership is well taken.

[ghost_flash]

Can't stand Howard Stern since soon after his movie. I enjoyed the movie, but his show is just repetitive, and boring. If one doesn't like his show, turn the channel?

He said the "N" word. So what? Free Speech.

[mitchell_pgh]

This all stems from the Janet Jackson super-bowl fiasco.

A bunch of people were rightfully upset about that whole thing. Now the mob is going after the FCC, and in turn, the FCC is going after ALL broadcasters.

I'm on the fence about this whole thing.

On one hand, I am a little tired of turning on the radio to hear fart noises 24/7 and the constant "we didn't say the word, we didn't say the word!!" mentality.

On the other hand I want the radio to have a fair mix and be able to speak their mind.

I find it hilarious that most of the shows that have been forced to change their format are still entertaining.

[Orion27]

I just find it so laughable that there are those in this forum who so vigorously
defended the Janet Jackson fiasco are fleeing for cover on this one. The silence
is deafening.

[-Q-]

According to this article (registration required or use the MacNN log-in), he was on 6 friggin' stations. What's the big deal?

[wdlove]

I don't listen to Howard Stern. If nobody listened to him, he would be off the air completely in a heart beat.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Orion27:
I just find it so laughable that there are those in this forum who so vigorously
defended the Janet Jackson fiasco are fleeing for cover on this one. The silence
is deafening.

I'm one of the people that thought that she should have been fined a ton of money.

Totally inappropriate.

[bleuvixen]

The fact that he is still on the air should tell you that people DO listen to him, enough to create a multi-million dollar empire at that.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by bleuvixen:
The fact that he is still on the air should tell you that people DO listen to him, enough to create a multi-million dollar empire at that.

And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Making money.

What's sad, and pathetic, IMO, is that there are so many who find a developmentally disabled child amusing.

Having said that, he has the right to say what he says, and this is another example of a feel-good response by a government agency. Right now, the Janet Jackson fiasco is still fresh in a lot of people's minds, so the FCC is throwing out a bone to the hypocites. I wrote Michael Powell an e-mail, asking why it's okay to make a fuss over a quick shot of a boob, but it's also okay to show our children thousands of people being shot, mutilated, and placed in other indecent situations on TV, before the kids turn ten. I never got an answer. Surprise, surprise.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm one of the people that thought that she should have been fined a ton of money.

Totally inappropriate.

I agree with you.

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by -Q-:
According to this article (registration required or use the MacNN log-in), he was on 6 friggin' stations. What's the big deal?

Exactly. Stern is syndicated by Viacom-owned Infinity Broadcasting, which is Clear Channel's archenemy in the radio market. So Clear Channel booting Stern in the name of the greater good of society is more than a little disingenuous. This really has nothing to do with "decency"; it's about taking advantage of an issue to stick it to the competition.

[benb]

"It [The Howard Stern Radio Program] was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency.''

It took them this long to realize that? This sums up my feelings of most of all 'young radio' today.

[Orion27]

No, the real conflict is Clear Channel and the Left. Stern is antithetical to political correctness. Clear Channel is under assault by the Federal Government. The Left is in affect supporting the Federal Government's intimidation of Clear Channel by not defending
Stern. Coupled with campaign finance reform the assault on free speach and the free market by the left transparent here. Ergo, how mute this forum has become on this topic.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Orion27:
I thought there would be a more vigorous defense of Howard Stern in this forum.
Gee, free speech, the market place and Chairman Powell.... This forum is more left than I thought....

I'm intrigued there seems to be a perception that the "left" is against free speech. *shrugs*.

At any rate, I'm liberal and am against censorship and in support of free speech.
I find this whole thing ludicrous that we have a lying president who stonewalls investigations into 9/11 until after the election....yet we can get the ball rolling IMMEDIATELY to address Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction" and go from there to kneejerking into a censorship spiral.

Just because I personally don't find Howard Stern remotely amusing or valuable, he should be allowed to broadcast to those who do.

Now, having said that, I find Clear Channel MORE obscene because its allowed to be a monopoly than anything that comes out of Stern's mouth.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Orion27:
No, the real conflict is Clear Channel and the Left. Stern is antithetical to political correctness. Clear Channel is under assault by the Federal Government. The Left is in affect supporting the Federal Government's intimidation of Clear Channel by not defending
Stern. Coupled with campaign finance reform the assault on free speach and the free market by the left transparent here. Ergo, how mute this forum has become on this topic.

Hmmm....so, the right wing federal government does this, and you instead blame the left for not preventing them? That's interesting logic.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm intrigued there seems to be a perception that the "left" is against free speech. *shrugs*.

At any rate, I'm liberal and am against censorship and in support of free speech.
I find this whole thing ludicrous that we have a lying president who stonewalls investigations into 9/11 until after the election....yet we can get the ball rolling IMMEDIATELY to address Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction" and go from there to kneejerking into a censorship spiral.

Ooohh, look.... Shiny object...

CV

[Orion27]

"Now, having said that, I find Clear Channel MORE obscene because its allowed to be a monopoly than anything that comes out of Stern's mouth."

How has Clear Channel threatened you? What exactly do you fear?

[Orion27]

"Hmmm....so, the right wing federal government does this, and you instead blame the left for not preventing them? That's interesting logic."

I haven't seen a whole lot of right wing anything coming out of Washington lately!

[::maroma::]

Stern doesn't even want to be on the air anymore. He's been bitching about it for the past couple years, ever since his latest contract deal. He wanted to retire, but they convinced him to stay another 5 years. I bet he's relieved. And who cares anyway? His show has run it's course long ago. He knows it, his audience knows it, and Clear Channel knows it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Orion27:
"Now, having said that, I find Clear Channel MORE obscene because its allowed to be a monopoly than anything that comes out of Stern's mouth."

How has Clear Channel threatened you? What exactly do you fear?

I"m speaking metaphorically...or aphoristically, or rhetorically, or sarcastically.... one of those.

My point is that under the Bush administration, FCC restrictions that used to foster competition in a media market by preventing one company from gobbling up all the competitors, have been relaxed or done away with.

In many markets, like mine, Clear Channel owns the only three radio stations, and they all must tow the Corporate line together (and they are ALL crappy).....SOOOOOO....since you seem upset at what Clear Channel has done to Stern, you should realize that if they had not been allowed to engulf and devour competition, the competitors could have opted to buy Stern away from Clear Channel, and you would have still gotten your Howard fix.
However, by allowing a monopoly in media, the administration has made it that much easier for one company to control what you see or hear-- and that makes it easier for them to decide what you want to see is not what they will provide.

Free market...ever heard of it? that's not what we have now. I find that much more dangerous than listening to Howard Stern could ever be.

That actually is what is working against your freedom of speech, here, the monopolization of media outlets.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Orion27:
"Now, having said that, I find Clear Channel MORE obscene because its allowed to be a monopoly than anything that comes out of Stern's mouth."

How has Clear Channel threatened you? What exactly do you fear?

There is nothing to fear.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Orion27:
I haven't seen a whole lot of right wing anything coming out of Washington lately!

LOL! good point. ok, then, the "neocon-controlled federal government"...how's that?

[Orion27]

I none of my posts am I upset over Clear Channel's decision to cancel Stern. It's their radio station. Restrictions to do not foster competition, the market does. Oh, that's right, you want fair and balanced, not competiton. This should be strictly speaking, a business issue. I was taking the members of this forum to task for not defending Clear Channel against the intimidation by the Federal Government. Sterns unpolitically correct speech must be protected, even if you disagree with it.

[xenu]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm one of the people that thought that she should have been fined a ton of money.

Totally inappropriate.

LOL. I was a f#cking breast. Get over it.

You see more at the beach.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
There is nothing to fear.

Big Brother is Watching You

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Orion27:
I none of my posts am I upset over Clear Channel's decision to cancel Stern. It's their radio station. Restrictions to do not foster competition, the market does. Oh, that's right, you want fair and balanced, not competiton. This should be strictly speaking, a business issue. I was taking the members of this forum to task for not defending Clear Channel against the intimidation by the Federal Government. Sterns unpolitically correct speech must be protected, even if you disagree with it.

well, whatever. read my posts in this thread, then, I'm saying exactly that: that his speech should be protected, even though I personally disagree with it.

So now that you have a liberal stating what you said they would not state, we can move on.

[SOLIDAge]

stern didn't use the "N" word some guy who called up did
and he asked Stern if he'd every been with "a black chick" because he heard they "smell like watermellon"

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by SOLIDAge:
stern didn't use the "N" word some guy who called up did
and he asked Stern if he'd every been with "a black chick" because he heard they "smell like watermellon"

correct. too many people in this thread passing judgment without even listening to his show.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
correct. too many people in this thread passing judgment without even listening to his show.

I used to listen to his show all the time, and thought he was very good, but his television and radio show soon became repetitive and boring. He's not funny anymore than Steve Dahl was soon after his split with Gary Meyer on the LOOP years ago after Disco Demalition.

To answer your question, people in this forum often pass judgment before seeing any show. They simply rely on words expressed by their advocates in the media and then go off like a hair triggered shotgun just to make some noise, and to see what people say in reply to their uneducated blathering.

You've done it. Pot and Kettle together again.

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by Orion27:
I thought there would be a more vigorous defense of Howard Stern in this forum.
Gee, free speech, the market place and Chairman Powell.... This forum is more left than I thought....

I just seen this post but my support is for Howard and America...

For those who agree with this removal from the 6 stations I say to you "YOU STUPID CONSERVATIVE PIGS!!!!" You will not take away my freedom of speech like you did to Howard and you will not change the Constitution to serve you Christian Conservative beleifs. This is a total outrage and George Bush and his Nazi like behavior has just lost the election with this move and the proposed Amendment to change the Constitution to support his Christian Conservative agenda.

Howard did no harm Tuesday and EVERYONE here should be outraged. This will have a drastic affect on what we hear and see in the Media and could even spread to our beloved internet. This a bad start if they (FCC, Clear Channel) are trying to save us from the evil of the spoken word. To the FCC and Clear Channel I say a big F*CK YOU!!!!!!!

[-Q-]

There's not outrage for one simple reason: Howard Stern's free speech rights aren't being infringed.

Clear Channel is a private corporation, thereby well within their rights to choose to not broadcast his show. Stern's still on the air and still has a forum for his views. No controversy. Case closed.

The damage in this matter is that some corporation, thru their acquisition of radio stations, can impart their views on the people. So it's not Howard Stern's free speech rights that are at stake, but our freedom to choose. But this situation is more the fault of the FCC and their pathetic attempt at pandering to corporations. This is only a symptom of the greater problem.

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by -Q-:
There's not outrage for one simple reason: Howard Stern's free speech rights aren't being infringed.

If you listen to his show and to others it is clear Howard has a tighter stronghold on him by the FCC than any other personality. While others like Imus and Opie and Anthony are and were not fined or bleeped saying the 'T' word or the 'S' word which never got bleeped on both shows and the fact that the FCC imposes a 90 second delay not the standard 7 second delay on Howard is a clear case of speech infringement.

[typoon]

Originally posted by -Q-:
Stern's still on the air and still has a forum for his views. No controversy. Case closed.

Yes but for how long? It starts with this then it snowballs into something bigger.
Shouldn't they ave started censoring and fining companies when the word a$$ and other words started being heard on television. The language you hear on TV in many cases is WAY beyond what could be considered decent.

There are about 100 other stations on the air. If you DON'T like Stern CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!! If people didn't listen to his crap then he wouldn't be on the air.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by -Q-:
The damage in this matter is that some corporation, thru their acquisition of radio stations, can impart their views on the people. So it's not Howard Stern's free speech rights that are at stake, but our freedom to choose. But this situation is more the fault of the FCC and their pathetic attempt at pandering to corporations. This is only a symptom of the greater problem.

precisely. That was the point I was trying to make....though you did it more eloquently.

[Evan_11]

But isn't Howard Stern basically corporate? When he's not talking about boobies he's usually shelling for someone. He has huge ratings and I'm sure earns his affiliates lots of revenue. However doesn't this go against the corporate creed by cutting him off? Wouldn't it make more sense to just fine him?

I will agree that we're witnessing a witchhunt. But I'm not sure its a bad thing. Celebrity culture has had free reigns on shredding morality maybe its about time they get punished for it. Karma can be a bitch.

[Orion27]

-Q-
"The damage in this matter is that some corporation, thru their acquisition of radio stations, can impart their views on the people"

You mean CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Disney, Viacom, RCA, ......... right?

[-Q-]

Originally posted by Orion27:
-Q-
"The damage in this matter is that some corporation, thru their acquisition of radio stations, can impart their views on the people"

You mean CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Disney, Viacom, RCA, ......... right?

In this particular instance, I'm referring to Clear Channel and their 'collection' of 1200 radio stations in the U.S. But the instances you refer to would probably meet some definition of 'damage' perspective.

I know ESPN has sucked since they were bought by the mouse.

[ghost_flash]

Wait a minute. He allowed someone to call in and say the N word. The N word!~
What is wrong with you people? All of a sudden it's the big bad corporations doing their thing. Uhm. Sorry, I don't buy it. What has Stern done for anyone? Free boob jobs?

Pig Vommit is somewhere celebrating! I think it's rather ironical.

What has he done that is entertaining in the last 3 years? Anyone? Anything worth watching? or Listening too? SSDD. "Dreamcatchter" Great movie.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by chris v:

Do we get the government we deserve? Or are we as citizens going to finally stand up as a group and actually do something besides post messages on a Mac-oriented message board?
CV

Honestly? -- we post messages on a Mac-oriented message board and get the gov't we deserve because of it.

Originally posted by Orion27:

The Left is in affect supporting the Federal Government's intimidation of Clear Channel by not defending
Stern. Coupled with campaign finance reform the assault on free speach and the free market by the left transparent here. Ergo, how mute this forum has become on this topic.

Transparent ? That's a pretty odd take on all this, IMO. The "left" I identify with is precisely the people who will take Stern's side in this (ACLU, et al). Who do you consider representative of "the left" ??

[Orion27]

"Transparent ? That's a pretty odd take on all this, IMO. The "left" I identify with is precisely the people who will take Stern's side in this (ACLU, et al). Who do you consider representative of "the left" ?"

You have it backwards. It's Clear Channel not Stern the ACLU should be defending. But the
Left doesn't accept the principle of private enterprise and laissez faire. Are you arguing the ACLU impose Stern on Clear Channel?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Orion27:

You have it backwards. It's Clear Channel not Stern the ACLU should be defending. But the
Left doesn't accept the principle of private enterprise and laissez faire.

Your point makes no sense in light of what has actually happened. Clear Channel has exercised it private enterprise and laissez faire "rights" (ummm .. he's off the air, correct ??). No one stopped them from doing this. Who has stepped on their rights ?? Why would the ACLU take up the case of an entity who was able to exercise their rights unimpeded ??

Originally posted by Orion27:

Are you arguing the ACLU impose Stern on Clear Channel?

Of course not ... Clear Channel can carry or drop whomever they want. However, Clear Channel specifically cited Stern's content as the reason for his banning and that he could come back if he cleaned up his show. In other words, it wasn't a simple, laissez faire business decision on their part ... they're clearly (through their own admission) trying to get him to change the content of his speech to their liking. Why not simply drop him, say "it was a business decision" and leave it at that ?

[Orion27]

Which finally brings me to the point. The intimidation of Clear Channel by the the federal government. Who was testifying before congress today? Who was just fined $ 750, 000 by the FCC because some jerk off DJ in Florida " crossed the line " Clear Channel is trying to protect it's butt before congress and the FCC. Why is radio being singled out here? Clear Channel has already been under assault from the Left because of it's syndication of Rush Limbaugh and it's supposed " monopoly status" by dint of owning "1200" stations. Clear Channel doesn't even produce Howard Stern they just distribute it. It's the intimidation of
Howard Stern and Clear Channel which is the point. The point being made is what business is this of Congress or the FCC. Cable and Network television are much worse than the pase' Stern. The left will not come to the defense of Stern because of his politically incorrect speech. They will not come to the defense of Clear Channel because of the perceived "right wing" slant otf it's programming i,e. Rush Limbaugh. The left wants Clear Channel cut down to size because of the scope of it's market driven programming. Maybe we can get the Federal government to, as another poster here suggested, restrict Clear Channel to foster ( laugh ) competition. The point is what business is this of the Federal Government? I submit, none.

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by Orion27:
The point is what business is this of the Federal Government? I submit, none.

Well it seems Clear Chanel is trying to just throw itself out there as 'the good guy' since the Superbowl thing and Chairman Powell's call for a crack down on indecency. Clear Chanel just wants to get more advertisers on its side and by getting rid of 'the bad guys' they KNOWINGLY hired and were AWARE of whom they were hiring, they are removing Howard because of pressure from the FCC and for their own personal gain. Howard is the scapegoat. They have the right to do do whatever they want but Howard did not violate any law or FCC 'dirty word'. Howard will sue for breach of contract and win.

[-Q-]

Originally posted by Orion27:
The point is what business is this of the Federal Government?

Let me drop some knowledge on you:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions

From the FCC web site.

Because the radio waves are a finite resource, they have to be regulated. No regulation, radio ceases to exist. And no one or two entities should control such a powerful medium - that's why the FCC should regulate how many stations one particular individual, company or organization can own. This guarantees equal access to a finite resource.

And take your 'left' vs. 'right' bullsh!t to the political lounge.