http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid..._dc_5&printer=1

Howard Stern Dropped from Clear Channel Stations
By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Radio station giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. said on Wednesday it was dumping nationally syndicated shock jock Howard Stern from its stations under a new "zero tolerance" policy toward indecency.

In dropping Stern from its six radio outlets that carry his show, Clear Channel cited his interview on Tuesday with Rick Salomon, the man who was filmed having sex with hotel heiress and TV reality star Paris Hilton in a video widely distributed on Internet porn sites.

According to a transcript of the show released by San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel, Stern asked Salomon if he engaged in anal sex and referred to the size of his penis. Using a racist term, a caller to the show asked Solomon if he had ever had sex with any famous black women.

The action against Stern came a day after Clear Channel fired Florida radio personality "Bubba the Love Sponge," after federal regulators accused him of airing sexually graphic material on Tampa's WXTB-FM and three other Florida stations.

Stern's New York-based show is syndicated by Infinity Broadcasting, a unit of Viacom Inc., which also owns television networks CBS and MTV. Infinity operates 185 radio stations nationwide.

A spokesman for Infinity was not immediately available for comment and a Viacom spokesman declined comment. Neither Stern's agent nor producers of his show were immediately available for comment.

Viacom president Mel Karmazin reportedly has imposed a crackdown on sexually explicit material on Infinity stations, declaring in a recent company-wide conference call: "This company won't be a poster child for indecency."

..............

*This company won't be a poster child for indecency.*

Way to take the moral high ground Mel, you subservient bitch.

H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 will raise the _per offense_ fine by the FCC from $27,000 to $275,000. The act will also give the FCC the power to revoke the offending broadcaster’s license. I’m sure Viacom could absorb 27K on Stern as a cost of doing business, but 275K? Stern’s raking cash for Viacom, but 275k may even be too rich for Karmazin’s blood. I’m sure the threat of losing the right to broadcast out of KROC has crossed his mind as well…So, is protecting our precious minds from *indecency* motivating him? Please. I heard today that Clear Channel is rewriting all of it’s contracts with talent so that they (the talent) will assume all financial responsibility for fines levied by the FCC.

These organizations need to grow some balls. I would think, no, I expect a media conglomerate like Viacom/CBS to champion free speech and protect the first amendment instead of satiating puritan interests. Things are getting ridiculous under the current administration.

He should do a show on XM Radio and broadcast it on HBO/Showtime instead of E! censored shows.

he was talking about this today on the radio i guess. i thought they were joking. oh well... i doubt that he is worried about finding a job or not :) and i doubt that he is going to change what and who he is... especially for "The Man"

What was it specificly he say or do?

hahaha... is Serge using your account?

hahaha... is Serge using your account?[/b][/quote]


Ambient...

Won't be a poster child for indecency??
Since when has Stern NOT been a poster child for indecency?
They're just now realizing this guy is the most foul-mouthed piece of trash on the airwaves?
Come ON.

However, if people don't want to hear it, they shouldn't listen. They all have the power to change the channel - like I've been doing for as long as Stern has been on the air.
Don't bitch for someone else to protect your precious ears from this low-life scum's words... protect yourself. Use the "OFF" button.

Stern's not the worst Carrie -- Tom Leykis is. Stern's a guy with a crass sense of humor who doesn't take himself all that seriously. He's got brains and just chooses to poke a stick at people for various reasons, especially women.

Leykis is just a little boy crying out for attention and still jealous because all the cute chicks in high school ignored his short overweight ass in order to date all the good looking jocks.

Once you understand them, they really shouldn't matter to you either way.

I listen to both everyday and i think that Tom Leykis is VERY FAR from coming even remotely close to pushing the boundaries as much as Howard Stern does. Howard is the original shock jock. Lykis is just a sexist asshole.

I dont see anything wrong with firing them. BC Canada even made the stations carrying Tom Leykis (sp) drop him. The bottom line is that they find new ways to push the boundaries everyday.. whether people like it or not, it has to be expected that people are going to start pushing back at some point.

The other guys that got fired "Sponge and Bob" or whatever their show was called should not have been surprised to be fired either. I heard someone read the transcript of their show and it was definately pushing the limits.

There are plenty of "non-offensive" plain, bland radio programs...they're called Lite Radio
;-)

The FCC should be disbanded, let people decide for themselves what is offensive to them.

Anyone not seeing this as a further erosion of free speech is an idiot.

I like what your saying in concept, but the reality of it is this. And believe me when I say I hate to be the one to mention it BUT
You cannot allow 'free speech' to go unchecked. There are far to many things out there that can have negative repercussions. I will give just one example.
I am not a racist. I find the entire 'superiority' of any race to be so ridiculous that its amusing. I have formed my views over my entire life and base my opinions of people based almost exclusively on their behavior. However, I know that my kids are both impressionable and that I cannot monitor them 24/7 nor would I want to. I respect their privacy to a degree and they deserve the same right I enjoyed by making my own informed judgments. I would be very upset to find my 14 year old boy listening to a radio station that was say sponsored by the KKK. Esp if they played the type of music he is very much into (Heavy Metal from the 70s *hard rock* through the 90s) and they put a bunch of anti-Semitic or black bashed in between their songs. I know that this would influence them. If my kids end up to be racists (knock on wood) I would at least want them to come to that conclusion from their own life experiences and not that of a toothless red neck broadcasting out of his trailer.

I hope that makes sense.


spaz

Spaz

2 things

1. It is your responsibility, not the government's to monitor what your children listen to, etc. and sorry but parenting is a 24-7 job. Your being upset by your child listening to a KKK broadcast is in opposition to your statement of them making their own informed judgements.By definition to make an informed judgement one must hear both sides of an issue.

2. You can not interfere with anyones right to be an asshole

I disagree 100% about unchecked free speech. Because like every thing else the government takes it too far.

Censorship of words, leads to censorship of ideas, governmental control of thought is something I would rather live without.

It has been tried a few times in history, Hitler and Stalin come to mind.

I wrote a big long response for you OldJeff, deleted it and decided to keep this short and sweet.
Your welcome to disagree with me. I appreciate it. Shows a real dialog here and not a bunch of robots being friendly. Keeps this board interesting.
However, if you could offer me some advice about how I can take my parenting responsibilities as little more seriously. Most helpful would be simple instructions on how I can control or monitor what my children see, hear, experience while
at school
on the bus to/from school
at friends houses
out at the mall or movies
also for future reference
While they are in their cars with friends
while they are at work (Damn right they are getting jobs)
Yes, your parenting advice would be greatly appreciated since I am apparently not quite doing it right since I said
and I must have been wrong. Since your OldJeff can I safely assume you have lived more years then I and can pull from experience?
then please advise away


spaz

Jeff,

What planet do you live on?

Free speech goes up and down but mostly we have MORE "free speech" than we used to. Much more. For instance, there are all kinds of things that you used to not be able to show and say on television but now you can. A generation ago, they wouldn't show Elvis below the hips on TV. Now we have Britney And Madonna kissing on television.

Who's getting inside your head, man?

lets remove the one person from the broadcasting industry who has brought in more sponsor revenue then anyone else. that's a smart thing to do. he leaves radio (granted the revenue has dropped off the last four years but that more an economy problem then a "stern personality" problem), then what are these stations going to do about ad revenue?

gotta love it when people bite the hand that feeds them.

The six Clear Channel stations involved are in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Fla., Rochester, N.Y., San Diego, Pittsburgh and Louisville, Ky.

Anyone wanna bet on how long it takes before they get a rival station to pick the show up?

Atlanta's a big market and AFAIK, no station carries Stern.

"The thing I just don't like about Clear Channel being forced to suspend me, it makes it seem like I did something wrong on Tuesday," Stern said on his morning show. "They are being forced to say that I did something wrong. ... A caller called in and used the 'n' word, and I hung up on him. ... I'm so tired of this"

Jeff,

What planet do you live on?

Free speech goes up and down but mostly we have MORE "free speech" than we used to. Much more. For instance, there are all kinds of things that you used to not be able to show and say on television but now you can. A generation ago, they wouldn't show Elvis below the hips on TV. Now we have Britney And Madonna kissing on television.

Who's getting inside your head, man?[/b][/quote]
Well Colin the hearing today will make sure
no more kissing
no more penis talk
no more racial slurs (a CALLER used the slur)
Colin your favorite station MTV is supposedly only showing 'controversial' videos after 10 pm. I think Britney's new video is one, cuz she kisses like 3 guys.
And I heard the Incubus video, because they show Hitler in it
oh lordy lordy, images of Hitler on TV

yup this radio ruins our kids
makes them go and shoot each other and touch each other

bring on the decency standard cuz if my child hears stern talking to Rick Solomon

http://images.southparkstudios.com/m...507/img_38.gif

meni, very sad day, indeed....
the country DOES regressing to the right more than I can stomach

Jeff,

What planet do you live on?

Free speech goes up and down but mostly we have MORE "free speech" than we used to. Much more. For instance, there are all kinds of things that you used to not be able to show and say on television but now you can. A generation ago, they wouldn't show Elvis below the hips on TV. Now we have Britney And Madonna kissing on television.

Who's getting inside your head, man?[/b][/quote]
I have to disagree

I agree, they show more sex on TV

But there is still too much you can't say

Don't speak out about the war in Iraq, you are unpatriotic. Use the "N" word, lose your job (not in the Stern thing, but it has happened), Make a fairly accurate representation about how the crucifixion as portrayed in the Bible and you are anti semetic.

So you say the government should monitor what your children see and hear ?

So you say the government should monitor what your children see and hear ?[/b][/quote]
what did you think the FCC has been doing for the last century?

You're saying that there is still too much you can't say which is completely different from saying it is getting worse (erosion).

There are many statements heard in the media every day that someone says are unpatriotic. Are you saying the reaction to them is worse than one could have expected during, say, World War II? I think that is not the case.

These same arguments have been playing out in the press ever since there was a press. Is it right or wrong to speak out against World War II? Is it right or wrong to use a racial slur on television? Is it right or wrong for Blockbuster to carry the movie the "Last Temptation of Christ"?

Today we argue over rap lyrics. In the 50s we argued over rock lyrics.

Clearly television and radio have become more licentious over the years, not less.

Would you instruct your child not to say "Fuck" or "Shit" in public?

Serge, I thought you were so right that you were wrong
lets Drink Vodka

Would you instruct your child not to say "Fuck" or "Shit" in public?[/b][/quote]
me personally?
its a fuckin word I am a MORON,
lets get over LANGUAGE

heard on stern, a friend of his working at the republican party asked him to guess what issue got the most letters
not the war
not umemployment
Bono saying SHIT at the grammys
are you fuckin kidding me?
its the fuckin christian right worried about Bono saying shit on tv
and not worried about the jobs

Would you instruct your child not to say "Fuck" or "Shit" in public?[/b][/quote]
Exactly my point Colin, I would instruct my child, not the Government.

Turn over the coin we are discussing and in place of Fuck on TV, insert Porn on the internet.

No one will ever convince me that saying fuck on TV is any worse or better than hardcore anal sex availible for any 12 year old with an internet connection.

It is hypocritical to support censoring of one and not the other.

me personally?
its a fuckin word I am a MORON,
lets get over LANGUAGE

heard on stern, a friend of his working at the republican party asked him to guess what issue got the most letters
not the war
not umemployment
Bono saying SHIT at the grammys
are you fuckin kidding me?
its the fuckin christian right worried about Bono saying shit on tv
and not worried about the jobs[/b][/quote]
Quit blaming the christian right for everything you don't like or agree with.
Parents and grandparents did that complaining.

War - it's bloody and brutal and parents *can* control how much their children see/hear about it and in what context.

Unemployment - generally this isn't a subject you talk about with young kids but even if you do, it's not offensive.

Bono saying shit at the grammys - this is something the parents could not control. The grammys are supposed to be censored for language, so parents feel that it's all right for their kids to watch it. Over the past two dozen years or so no one has ever freely cussed on that show and had it broadcast over the airwaves. Suddenly, there it was... and parents are having to deal with one of their kid's pop idols using that type of language.

No, you would NOT teach your child that it's okay to say fuck or shit in public, and this issue with Bono dealt directly with that.

Exactly my point Colin, I would instruct my child, not the Government.

Turn over the coin we are discussing and in place of Fuck on TV, insert Porn on the internet.

No one will ever convince me that saying fuck on TV is any worse or better than hardcore anal sex availible for any 12 year old with an internet connection.

It is hypocritical to support censoring of one and not the other.[/b][/quote]
Why would you tell your child not to say those words? I mean, who gives a shit, right?

The far right is pushing the American voter too far right now. I hear a lot of middle of the road voters leaning Kerry. That's now. We'll see about then.

i think that everyone would agree that "saying fuck on TV is not any worse or better than hardcore anal sex available for any 12 year old with an internet connection" - but no one agrees that a 12 year old should be looking at hardcore anal sex either.

typically, those same people who complain about "censorship" offline will then complain about restricting a 12 year olds access to hardcore anal sex on the internet using similar logic.

people act like censorship is something new everytime to the rules are enforced... and forget that we live in a society where the people make the rules.

The far right is pushing the American voter too far right now. I hear a lot of middle of the road voters leaning Kerry. That's now. We'll see about then.[/b][/quote]
Democrat 04!

i would not vote for Bush.

Democrat 04!

i would not vote for Bush.[/b][/quote]
There ya go.

Will be an interesting election as always.

Many factors still up in the air.

So you say the government should monitor what your children see and hear ?[/b][/quote]
Thats a pretty interesting twist on what I stated.
The obviously easy answer is "No."
But I shall qualify that for you. I do think that the Government plays a key role in monitoring and maintaining what comes across the airways and through cables. A key and important role. Do I think that this is abused? Why yes I do and thank you for asking. However, just because a system can be abused does not make the system, or the idea behind it wrong. I do think that there are things that anyone under the age of 18 should not, in a perfect world, be exposed to. Hardcore anal sex on the internet being one of those things. I monitor my kids activities on the net for just that reason. I am not however naive enough to think that IF they really want to see that type of content that I will be able to prevent them from doing so. I can do my best, but I was a pretty rowdy kid growing up and I assure you that I thwarted 90% of my moms attempts to keep me from bad influences. But if those influences hadn't been available to me as a kid, there would be no need to keep me from it. Now I have used, just today as a matter of fact, the extreme POV to illustrate a point on this board, and you could in turn do the same thing here.
"If they ban racists remarks, then they could ban your right to say the President is as intelligent as a wet snot tissue."
But in my opinion, and lets not forget that until either you or I are elected to the legislative branch of the Govt, thats all these are are worthless opinions, the govt should be involved in some sort of monitoring of what goes out over the airwaves.
Example
Saddam H tortured and kill a lot of people. In some mighty horrible ways. He sons liked to film these wonderful occurrences. But I do not want to see them, I do not want my kids to see them. I have watched a lot of shows that detailed what he did, and my oldest son watched with me. I felt it was important that he know what happened. But I did not desire that either of us be barraged with graphic images of said torture. Do you see my point here OldJeff?
My kids have watched shows with me concerning both the KKK and skinheads, its important that they know these groups exist, but they do not need to hear an hour long raving from a grand poobah or something to get the idea.
You cant get away with screaming fire in a movie house, and there are some things that you cant get away with in the media (tv, radio and yes, even our hallowed internet)


spaz

I understand the idea behind "parents are having to deal with one of their kid's pop idols using that type of language" ... but it's completely a parents perspective.

Ask KIDS if they think their pop idols use "dirty words." What they will tell you is, "Well, DUH!" and look at you as if you are stupid.

I can imagine that a lot of kids heard some variation of "I can't believe that fucking cocksucker said that on goddamn net-work television" coming out of mommy, daddy, or a grandparent's mouth.

Carrie is right ... there are a whole lot more people with their panties in a knot over "obscenity" on television than just the Christian right.

BTW ... about Stern. I listened to him once for about ten minutes. Never have found the man funny, amusing, or remotely interesting.

Yeah I am not sure what is going on. I hope its not some political power grab by the right. Stern is no angel, but compaired to modern society he is pretty much a mirror.

PD you are going to flip out - Even Rush Limbaugh is concerned, saying its a danger to Free Speech.

http://drudgereport.com/flash6rl.htm

Actually, it doesn't suprise me in the least that Rush would take up Stern's "cause."

They have the same job - selling soap.

Actually, it doesn't suprise me in the least that Rush would take up Stern's "cause."

They have the same job - selling soap.[/b][/quote]


It does not surprise me eitehr.

Last I checked Stern seemed to be a Libertarian - he almost single handedly got the death penalty back in NY!

I do not think Stern has any special talent, but he was in right place at right time.....

Wow... Rush & Stern on the same side? Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? lol

:rolleyes:

Wow... Rush & Stern on the same side? Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? lol

:rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
I think Rush sees this as the beginning of a domino effect that could also cause problems with his own show (not that he has the same type of show as Stern) Remember, he's had his own problems with the media with the whole black quarterback controversy....

sometimes we're only allies because we have a common enemy



Last edited by SykkBoy at Feb 26 2004, 02:11 PM

I agree
Leykis is nothing but a Stern wannabe

I don't think the real problem is Stern so much as what he spawned...he spawned a bunch of uninspired boring ripoffs...while he was shocking, he was also funny....some of his immitators just went for the shock and forgot about the funny part of the equation...

Do you think alcohol commercials will ever be banned from TV? Until 1971 there were smoking commercials.

I agree
Leykis is nothing but a Stern wannabe

I don't think the real problem is Stern so much as what he spawned...he spawned a bunch of uninspired boring ripoffs...while he was shocking, he was also funny....some of his immitators just went for the shock and forgot about the funny part of the equation...[/b][/quote]
in addition to your statement (which i completely agree with), he is HONEST. how many other people have been able to pull info from guests the way he has.

barbara walters, diane sawyer, larry king......they all stick to guidelines and for the most part, won't dare cross the line no matter how much the public wants to know if the person being interviewed is like them.

i would much rather hear drew carey talk about his molestation then watching jen and ben in the kitchen making artery clogging food. booooriiing!

I have been looking around, apparently ClearChannel is just not carrying Stern - they have a right to do this if they choose. The gov't is not censoring him yet. This is something that comes before censorship....

Definately something worth tracking....

True
while I'll defend Clear Channel's right to carry whatever programming they wish, there is a problem in how many radio stations and other venues they own.

I really think the only reason ClearChannel is acting like a bunch of fucking Pollyannas is because of the ownership laws (everyone seems to have conventiently forgotten about that) and some changes they want in those laws.

I listened to Rush today and didn't hear him saying anything close to this being a risk to free speech.
What he *was* repeating over and over is that this isn't censorship; Stern is an employee of Clear Channel and as such they can tell him to tone it down or fire him or even tell him to wear a tutu if he wants to keep his job.

He can still say whatever he likes... CC has just said that he's not going to say it on *their* airwaves while he's representing them.
No one is stopping Stern from climbing onto a soap box in the middle of Times Square and explaining in graphic detail how a naked woman is deepthroating a sausage and how hard it's making his dick and how he wants to fuck her up the ass. He can still do that if he wants (just don't ask me to listen to it, lol).

True
while I'll defend Clear Channel's right to carry whatever programming they wish, there is a problem in how many radio stations and other venues they own.

I really think the only reason ClearChannel is acting like a bunch of fucking Pollyannas is because of the ownership laws (everyone seems to have conventiently forgotten about that) and some changes they want in those laws.[/b][/quote]
Bingo!!