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.

[dead]

The thing that would get Rush yanked isn't his political speech, but comments on culture. He's simply more likely to cross the line there before political speech gets outlawed.

I'm just dumbstruck that that wouldn't bother you in the least. I guess Rush better shut his big fat trap about cultural issues before the government rightly shuts him down.

For the children.

[Arkinsaw]

This is disgraceful and should be fought by all Conservatives.

Why should a conservative fight a private business decision like this? Are you saying that Clear Channel has no right to make its business more family oriented if it wants? You want some sort of law to force em? Just who do you want conservatives to fight, Clear Channel?

[NYCVirago]

Thanks for the information. I'm glad he didn't have a divorce with any rancor. But I still do think he has lost a lot of his appeal with getting divorced and with adopting the whole celebrity lifestyle. He used to mock celebrities for going to trendy places to be seen; now he's the one doing that. Part of his appeal to me was that he may be rich and famous, but he was still a regular guy. He's not that way anymore.

One thing I find pretty ironic about him being thrown off Clear Channel stations is that Stern was quoted as saying he thought Janet Jackson's "performance" during the Super Bowl was desperate and sad!

[GeronL]

do you think that sort of programming would be allowed by the public?

The public should have no say over free speech! so there.

---

Maybe you are interested in a big brother approach to government; at this point I am assuming that you believe in liberty, but I could be wrong

I don't think government should even own land not used for Constitutional government uses. I'd even privatize most, if not all, roads.

I do think there needs to be some decency standards for broadcasting. Right now the public has little immpact on what gets shoved down their throats.

There was a CONDOM ad on Nickelodean around here last week, there was a small article in the paper.

[Indie]

show is funny and entertaining, and if people can't get past that, they shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us.

...channels cannot air material containing references to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children may be tuning in./// even if by accident. You can just be flipping through the channels and hear it.

SO, THAT is why they are "ruining it." And thank goodness they are. It's not censorship. It is common sense. Note the TIME FRAME.

[dead]

Well stated!

Now that you are on the record stating that the government didn't force Clear Channel to fire Stern, but you're glad that the government did, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you cheer Dianna's statement believe that there's nothing wrong with the government shutting down Rush Limbaugh for talking about cultural issues.

Seriously, I don't mean to sound condesending, but you really need to think about what powers you want to take away from the people and hand over to the government.

You can't just say, "I want the government to take away the things I find offensive" without realizing that there are millions of people in this nation who find your political views about guns and abortion and religion just as offensive as you find Howard Stern.

It is not the government's role to keep you, or anybody else, unoffended.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

This was clearly due to pressure by the FCC.

Who do you think put the pressure on the FCC?

Maybe the million letters they got in the mail the week after the Super Bowl had something to do with it.

[Robert_Paulson2]

you must have missed the threatened show trial aka; hearings in congress, and the increasing of fines for future incidents being upped from 27 g's to 275 g's per occurance... and similar events. Clearly recognized and discussed across the industry as a "shot across the bow" ballyhooed and cheered by so-cons.

This action will be refocussed to target websites, and conservative talk shows or even those who simply disagree with a current administration, perhaps as "hate speech". Because the next time, it probably won't be "our team" in charge... though we will take the hits. And it will be related to calling gay marriages illegal, or the nea a terrorist group, or stating that Islam is NOT peace.. or whatever we believe and say publicly that offends somebody else, on any level.

Rush will be on the list.
so will whoever challenges the powers that be.

Criticizing gay marriage will qualify, and the FCC will enforce it with jackbooted glee. So-cons will cry foul, but too late, for what is it but sauce for the goose... and pass them the basting brush.

There is a law of unintended consequences that makes all socialistic edicts evil, even if they benefit that which is right in the short term. The same exact power used to enforce what the majority (today) rightly believes is right or wrong, will one day be used to enforce what the majority or minority believes at the expense of what is actually morally right... or crush the rights of the minority.

and at times we are all, the minority.

this action, promulgated by those who desire more censorship of the public discourse for moral or political reasons, will come back and bite us in the butt... and it will be far worse than some whack like howard losing six or seven stations.

Freerepublic narrowly missed being labelled by a government agency a hate site (san francisco? recently) had this been the clintong adminstraiton in power, it is likely Clintong would have backed that listing all the way to the first court that backed his evil agenda.

Freedom of speech is either for everybody, or nobody.
The one who regulates SPEECH rules the nation.

[goodnesswins]

"censorship" is about POLITICAL SPEECH....not CRAP. Common decency standards do exist for some of us.....g'nite.

[babbabooeyToYall]

[Stew Padasso]

"Most of us grow out of that kind of thing."

Yeah, into prude little ninnies with a complex the size of Texas.

[Middle Aged White Male]

Surely you jest. "horrific?" Saddam and his sons were "horrific" in what they did. Private industry solved this problem, and you call it "horrific." I don't believe the "feds were breathing down their necks" story. Common decency standards can prevail without the government HAVING to DO ANYTHING....sheesh.

I am sorry, but I don't think that the adjective horrific need be reduced to only things elevated to the level of mass genocide. Call me old fashioned, but to see the fundamental right inherent in all people being trampled on by the government is something that makes me sick to the point of being horrific. If I truly believed that Stern was taken off by his station on their own volition, I would have no concern. No one has the right to be broadcast. However, this mess stinks. Can you honestly say that you don't feel that the recent cancellation and fines exceeding 700 thousand dollars to Bubba the Love Sponge had anything to do with this decision? I wish I had the optimism to think so, but I don't.

[dead]

Who do you think put the pressure on the FCC? Maybe the million letters they got in the mail the week after the Super Bowl had something to do with it.

Yes, there are millions of people in this nation who want to cede their rights to the government, whether those rights involve speech, guns, or privacy.

Those people are wrong and need to be fought every step of the way.

If those people who wrote to the FCC about Janet Jackson's boob weren't complete statist morons, they would have realized that they could have raised their objections with the advertisers who put on the show, thereby registering their outrage and bettering the situation without so carelessly offering up their own freedom to do something about it.

[Destro]

Stern was PRO BUSH. So much so that Al Franken attacked him in his book along with Ann Coulter. It is funny that Clear Channel - banner of the Dixie Chicks and linked to Bush - would drop Stern as soon as he went anti-Bush - and Stern went anti-Bush because of the censorship issue. Stern was pro Iraq war and praised Bush nonstop on the war on terror.

[Dianna]

I'm just dumbstruck that that wouldn't bother you in the least. I guess Rush better shut his big fat trap about cultural issues before the government rightly shuts him down.

:::sigh::: Please show me where I said this was ok. If Rush wants to start talking graphically about sex on his program, then he should be bleeped (by his channel so as to avoid a fine). There will be times that as a news story (Lewinsky, anyone) that a full airing of the issue might lead to sexual content. It's a fine line, I admit. But as news I think it should be allowed. THAT will become a court issue.

I admit to being torn on this issue. In a perfect world people wouldn't want garbage all over. They do. So, do I simply have to accept garbage? Not as long as I have a say in this government "of the people, by the people, for the people".

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Be louder than me and my influence will fade away. That is how our system works. If 60% of the people thought cold blooded murder was ok, you think it wouldn't become legal?

[Destro]

or did Ashcroft call them up and tell them to fire him?

Stern was PRO BUSH. So much so that Al Franken attacked him in his book along with Ann Coulter. It is funny that Clear Channel - banner of the Dixie Chicks and linked to Bush - would drop Stern as soon as he went anti-Bush - and Stern went anti-Bush because of the censorship issue. Stern was pro Iraq war and praised Bush nonstop on the war on terror.

[Middle Aged White Male]

The public should not have control over free speech, you are right. But they can choose to boycott the stations. We have seen people here freep clear channel over the Dixie chicks and we know it can be done over other issues as well.

The public has the ultimate veto over what they see or don't see- don't buy a television. The public chooses to accept the crap that is on the air and doesn't do anything. It isn't the government's place to say what can or cannot be said. It is the consumer's (because we are ultimately talking about a product) job to say yes or no to what is being offered. Refuse to watch their trashy shows and they will dry up and die.

[Dianna]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you cheer Dianna's statement believe that there's nothing wrong with the government shutting down Rush Limbaugh for talking about cultural issues.

I never said that.

[RWR8189]

How many children are wondering around FM radio in the morning on weekdays?

[Destro]

Al DID NOT RUN against Clinton. Get your facts straight.