Howard Stern suspended from Clear Channel stations

Forbes ^ | 2-25-04

[Indy Pendance]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shock jock Howard Stern's show was yanked Wednesday from Clear Channel Communications Inc. radio stations after an incident on his show Tuesday, the first casualty of its zero tolerance policy on indecency.

"It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency," Clear Channel Radio Chief Executive John Hogan said in a statement.

"We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations until we are assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting," he said.

Clear Channel has about 1,200 stations in the United States though it was not immediately clear how many aired his show.

Stern's show is syndicated by a unit of Viacom Inc.

[babbabooeyToYall]

Ah, I see. And it's within the proper scope of government to define who is a "pus bag" and remove them from the air?

[babbabooeyToYall]

We don't really need 14 year old, snickering, boys locker room humor (unless you're a 14 year old - mentally).

And it's within the orbit of the government to ensure this?

[sinkspur]

And it's within the proper scope of government to define who is a "pus bag" and remove them from the air?

Your beef is with the CEO of Clear Channel.

Don't worry, though. I have a feeling that, after all the brouhaha surrounding boobgate dies down, and some cosmetic changes are made, the pus bag will be back, because he's a money maker. And his demented followers will, once again, go back to playing with themselves.

[goodnesswins]

WE are the GOVERNMENT.....and how many of us have sent letters to FCC about decency? We're sick of the Sterns of the US polluting our country....do it behind closed/private doors.....this is NOT about free speech....it's about decency.

[Elle Bee]

The following are Viacom owned companies. A conservative parent's worst nightmare.

Remember Simon & Schuster who paid Hillary $8 million for her book & CBS did that lovely hatchet job on President Reagan with Mr. Streisand.

It all makes sense.

.

[goodnesswins]

I just heard he was only suspended for a few days.

[MeekOneGOP]

Disagree. If stations can be hounded for Howard, what happens when Gavin Newsom goes after Rush for opposing gay marriage?

How can you equate a legitimate moral issue [Gay marriage] to racial slurs ? ...

From the text in #443:

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.

Now, I don't know what the 'racist term' was the caller used, but the 'N' word is really not appropriate.

If Rush used the 'N' word on his show [or any racial offensive slur], do you think he'd get a pass on it ?? I think not, and rightfully so.

One can discuss Gay marriage without getting slimy about it and wallowing in the mud.

[olde north church]

of course though the "right wing" gets blamed and taking the country back statement.

[bc2]

are you in Rochester?

I'm in the city proper.

I have an Upstate Ping List of sorts. Let me know if you would like to be added, so you can be notified of any interesting "upstate" articles here on FR.

Best regards,

[hchutch]

First, it was the caller.

Second, Newsom will probably call it "hate speech" and someone will probably make the official complaint to the FCC. Depending on who is appointed, it may or may not be upheld.

[familyofman]

"And it's within the orbit of the government to ensure this?"

No, not the government. But the last I saw Clear Channel is not part of the government and they are well within their rights to delete any offensive whacko they want.

I never mentioned government censorship. You may want to try reading for comprehension next time.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Good.

I accidentally tuned into the local station that carries his show 3 years ago. The subject matter, anal sex, was not one I particularly cared to hear about. Sounds like nothing's changed in the intervening years.

[babbabooeyToYall]

I am surprised at how many refuse to see how both the Congress and the FCC are behind this. This is a bit of a stretch to make this comparison, I know, but did Moammar Qadaffi scrap his nuclear program because of a change of heart or because the US rattled him? If you were president of a company, would you scrap one of your best selling product lines? No. But would you scrap it when the government keelhauls you on national television, threatens you, and then threatens your affiliates? The boot doesn't need to be on your back to make you cower.

It's funny to see throughout this thread how the voices of decency and conservatism result to ad hominum attacks and infantile name calling, while at the same time bemoaning adolescent behavior more suited to the locker room.

[nina0113]

If you are correct and it's governmental pressure causing Clear Channel to do this, do you think Congress & the FCC are on CC because they actually give a damn about decency themselves, or because they've been flooded with calls/letters/emails from people who DO?

I think Clear Channel realized for themselves that community standards of decency are a lot higher than they'd thought, and they're getting back in line. One of their people said their network is not going to be the "poster boy for indecency" - I hope they hold to that attitude.

[goodnesswins]

This is how WE THE PEOPLE affect the FCC.....

Parents Television Council E-Alert February 25th, 2004

Dear PTC Member:

I am happy to communicate some dramatic news related to our fight for commonsense broadcast decency standards:

Media behemoth Clear Channel Communications [NYSE: CCU] has announced that they are suspending the broadcast of Howard Stern's radio show from its stations for the indefinite future.

Yesterday Clear Channel asked their affiliate radio stations and subsidiaries to follow new "zero tolerance" rules that would establish self-regulated broadcast decency guidelines. (Click here for Article)


Later that same day, Clear Channel had a chance to prove their commitment to this new zero tolerance policy. Stern's Tuesday morning broadcast contained a flood of graphically sexual, vulgar and racist remarks. (Click here for transcript. Warning: material is offensive!)

"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," said John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio. "It was vulgar, offensive, and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency." (Click here for full Article)

Clear Channel's announcement came shortly after the PTC filed a formal Broadcast Indecency Complaint with the Federal Communications Commission.

We applaud Clear Channel for taking such swift action, and we now call on the Infinity radio station group (owned by media conglomerate Viacom) to follow the lead of Clear Channel.

This is indeed a tremendous victory. But make no mistake: This newfound sense of responsibility on the part of Clear Channel NEVER would have come about without your activism and steadfast support. Because of your continued efforts to push this issue onto the national stage - by filing FCC indecency complaints, by contacting your Congressional representatives, by sending broadcasters and advertisers messages of your outrage and concern – positive change is happening on all fronts.

Sincerely,




Tim Winter

[finnman69]

I SUPPORT HOWARD, he is the greatest thing since EAST-ST.LOUIS dancers I can’t believe that Clear Channel Comm wants to LOOSE, and they WILL LOOSE HUGE, ratings. OnlyMyTruth Since Feb 26, 2004

let's not go over the top now....

[CalifornianConservative]

Stern is a dirty old man... in a hippie wig.

As for freedom of speech, I'm backing the 1915 Supreme Court who ruled against the movie industry in freedom of speech protection. They said that there was a "great potential for evil" in motion pictures.

The court ruled that because it was impossible for average citizens to respond or rebut things on the big screen because of cost and time constraints -- as you could immediately write in to a newspaper, for example -- and because the film business was "a business, pure and simple" -- that film did NOT come under First Amendment protection.

The ruling, stimulated by the race riots over D.W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION, allowed for individual states to censor films as they saw fit.

This is why the film business panicked, and, together all the studios HIRED their Production Code Office executives, starting with Republican and first degree Mason, Will Hays, lately of the scandal ridden Coolidge administration. (Tea Pot Dome scandal).

The Production Code standards actually ruled for fifty years until another Supreme Court ruling began with the idea that film was "art" -- at the urging of Leftists in the entertainment industry at that time. Our modern day sense that film and radio automatically deserve first amendment protection when, we the people supposedly "own the airwaves" and when to respond to content requires millions and millions and millions of dollars, is actually skewed.

This is why Stern and film and tv executives are confused about the business that they are in. They are in a commercial business, making money while trying to hide behind the idea that what they are doing is "art".

Good for Powell and clear channel. I, for one, look back at the Golden Age of entertainment, when writers and actors had to stay clean and the double entrendre meant something. The moral standards imposed on writers and directors and actors in film and tv and radio by the Production Code actually made for BETTER ENTERTAINMENT.

Again, as someone already said, Stern is just a creepy dirty old man.

Take away the hippie wig, cut his hair and stop with the black hair dye and you've got a classic dirty old man in a trench coat. Yuck.

[goodnesswins]

"Our modern day sense that film and radio automatically deserve first amendment protection when, we the people supposedly "own the airwaves" and when to respond to content requires millions and millions and millions of dollars, is actually skewed."

Not to mention that the First Amendment pertains to POLITICAL speech....not everyday "entertainment." Censure of dirty old men using the airwaves to spew their crap is, IMHO, appropriate.

[maestro]

Howard Stern suspended from Clear Channel stations

This really,....'good news'...!!

Now,......nominal christianity ( the nominal 'evangelicals') need to dump Mel Gibson!