Skip to comments.
Howard Stern suspended from Clear Channel stations
Forbes ^
| 2-25-04
Posted on 02/25/2004 4:37:39 PM PST by 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.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abigwhinefest; achillwind; cbs; clearchannel; fcc; hairstyleforradio; howardstern; libertinecrybabies; michaelpowell; mtv; seebs; viacom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 541-551 next last
To: cyborg
You know, it ain't Einsteinian political science, but it's insightful in its own way, and it makes me laugh on my drive to work.
It really really really pisses me off that other people can't just listen to something else and leave me alone.
Statist freaks, every bit as annoying as the liberals who want to confiscate my guns and force me into state run health care.
I wish I could afford my own island in the tropics, where I would be free of dickheads on the left and the right who want to run my life.
381
posted on
02/25/2004 10:04:41 PM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: dead
If you happen to be in the small minority that doesnt agree with anything the multitude of stations are offering, you are free to throw your radio out the window and buy a book or get a hobby. Government enforced content is the hallmark of a facist state, not a free state. And I want to live in a free state. Government enforced content of private property is the hallmark of a facist state. Unlimited behavior in a public space is the hallmark of a libertarian state.
Reasonable controls of public space is the hallmark of a Constitutional state.
If you happen to be in the small minority that doesnt agree with pornography being broadcast on public airwaves, you are free to throw your radio out the window and buy a book or get a hobby.
To: dead
If you happen to be in the small minority that doesnt agree with anything the multitude of stations are offering, you are free to throw your radio out the window and buy a book or get a hobby. My contention is that I am not a minority. We have been changing the channels and avoiding Howard Stern because Americans, in general, are a live and let live kind of people. A minority who like to roll around in pig slop have made it impossible for us to walk outside our doors without getting muddy.
So, we'll scream real loud and see if we can generate a discussion and find out who is really in the minority.
383
posted on
02/25/2004 10:05:29 PM PST
by
Dianna
To: dead
Then you don't want to live in America. America has had obscenity laws, since before it was a nation.
We have had " BLUE LAWS ", which are much, much, MUCH looser, now, than they have ever been.
BANNED IN BOSTON, is NOT just the named of some of band; rather, it was something that regularly occurred to movies, plays, and books. All states had such laws, and did/does the Federal Government.You may not like this, but even if you could manage to invent a time machine, you'd still have to put up with such laws, here, unless you went backwards more than 400 years.
To: Robert_Paulson2
I keep hearing people say "Rush"! Rush will be next!!! What a crap comparrison. They will never go after Rush for indecency...NEVER! I don't even listen to the guy anymore. It seems he started playing for the country club right about the time his drug addiction started back in 91-92. I used to listen to his every word until then. But there is no reason to pull him off the air...He is not indecent. When they start pulling Talk radio host's off the air just because of there political views then that is wrong...And it will be delt with by the public.
385
posted on
02/25/2004 10:06:13 PM PST
by
Revel
To: dead
Well I wish I could Trinidad would be a wonderful place to live, but the same statist DUmmies are beaming their dreck via satellite dish down there. And it shows. I may well opt for some dot on the South Pacific map.
386
posted on
02/25/2004 10:07:04 PM PST
by
cyborg
To: BookmanTheJanitor
I agree with you totally. His wife was the only thing that saved him, not even Robin who he uses shamelessly. He's a pig, plain and simple.
387
posted on
02/25/2004 10:07:24 PM PST
by
Hildy
To: dead
Unlimited behavior in a public space is the hallmark of a libertarian state.
Reasonable controls of public space is the hallmark of a Constitutional state.
If you happen to be in the small minority that WANTS pornography being broadcast on public airwaves, you are free to throw your radio out the window and buy a book or get a hobby.
To: hchutch
Howard has endorsed Republicans in the past. PJ-Comix, in fact, can tell how Howard helped Pataki WIN in `94. Yeah, but Howard's not the kingmaker he used to be (he couldn't get D'Amato re-elected, for one thing.) Howard actually has lower ratings, and less buzz, than he did ten years ago. I thought Private Parts the movie was going to vault him into the superstar category, but it didn't. And his CBS show against SNL was a flop. He still has only 40+ stations broadcasting his show, which is not many compared to other syndicated hosts. Like I said earlier in the thread, he's not even the top-rated show in NYC anymore.
To: Dianna
To be honest, I don't think you NEED a tv for your news. I get most of my info off of the internet which is by no means free from perversion. It isn't about that though. Is it going to kill me to avoid stern's station in search of quality programming? If enough people avoid it, the station will lose ratings and stern will be dumped.
I think the ultimate question is being somewhat side stepped in this discussion (or at least my ultimate question). TO answer you: I don't think that sexual content should be on at all times of the day, but I do think it should be ALLOWED at all times. If people are putting trash on at 9 in the morning and no one watches, it becomes a nonissue. It is like any industry- kill the demand and the supply will change.. I simply don't want the government acting as a watchdog in this or in any industry. People can take care of these problems without big brother.
To: Destro
I misread your tag and it's almost 1 am :) Fair enough. Good night!
To: LWalk18
So what are the standards? Where is the line- should anything that I, as a black woman, feel offended by be put off the air? I have listened to Stern's show a few times, found him offensive and not very funny, so I TURNED IT OFF. I don't believe in running to mommy government every time I see something I am offended by. You're actually protesting the wrong thing. If you're that concerned that some bureaucrat is going to be making decisions about what or what doesn't get put on the airwaves, you should be directing your energies against the FCC itself, not the decisions it renders after the fact based on the rules that govern it.
To: FreeReign; Dianna; nopardons
Howard Stern has abided by every clearly delineated statute that the FCC has ever dreamt up. Even he agreed that clearly-defined restrictions were reasonable, since too many parents are delinquent morons who don't control what their children listen to.
The problem is that now, to the cheering of big government statists like yourselves, the government has decided that they will force people off the air based on their arbitrary judgements (after the fact) as to what is and what isn't "acceptable."
In other words, the government owns the airwaves. And serfs like you will hear what the government wants you to hear. And you will love it. Love it.
I'm going to bed. Goodnight.
393
posted on
02/25/2004 10:13:45 PM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Middle Aged White Male
I get most of my info off of the internet which is by no means free from perversion. It isn't about that though. Is it going to kill me to avoid stern's station in search of quality programming? If enough people avoid it, the station will lose ratings and stern will be dumped. If 50% of the available listening public DON'T listen, is Stern off the air? Or is he kept on the air by a minority?
I can avoid Howard Stern, I can avoid Internet porn, mostly. The problem, like tv, is that it becomes all pervasive and difficult to avoid. Then I have to start withdrawing from the public square. People are doing that, so all the decisions are being made by people who LIKE crap, and more becomes available.
I think reasonable people can make rules for themselves. That is what government is. I think it is legitimate for people to say, "Porn is available, but not right next to the cash register."
394
posted on
02/25/2004 10:21:07 PM PST
by
Dianna
To: dead
...too many parents are delinquent morons who don't control what their children listen to. Some people are delinquent morons who believe that unlimited behavior such as pornography in a public space is their unalienable right. They are the ones with control problems as they need non-private property to fulfill their needs.
Fortunately, most aren't like that.
Disband the FCC and let Congress pass laws that regulate the public airwaves.
To: Hildy; Poohbah; veronica
The thing is, though, are there going to be clear standards, or is it going to go into a situation where all it takes is for someone to be offended, and a radio show is in trouble.
Let me ask, do you think for a moment that Gavin Newsom would NOT try to say that Rush Limbaugh and/or Sean Hannity's views on gay marriage or some other issue are in violation of the standards of decency San Francisco has? Look at his conduct in the gay marriage matter. He's defiant, even though it is obvious is he breaking a law passed by 60+% of the people of California.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's listeners compose a much smaller percentage. I think the Left will do it if they think they can succeed. Yeah, I am somewhat biased on this - I occasionally listen to Howard. I think he's a riot sometimes.
But I am also capable of changing the station or putting in a CD when I don't like his show that morning. The FCC is going overboard.
396
posted on
02/25/2004 10:22:24 PM PST
by
hchutch
("I never get involved with my own life. It's too much trouble." - Michael Garibaldi)
To: hchutch
Then why should the FCC be around at all?
397
posted on
02/25/2004 10:23:38 PM PST
by
Hildy
To: Indy Pendance
Best news I've heard all day. Good riddance.
398
posted on
02/25/2004 10:23:40 PM PST
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: dead
Howard Stern has abided by every clearly delineated statute that the FCC has ever dreamt up. Upthread there was a post citing a rule about sexual content between 6am and 10 am. Sounds like the rule was violated. Are you contending it was made up after Stern's comments were made?
399
posted on
02/25/2004 10:23:53 PM PST
by
Dianna
To: Dianna
See my Post 396. I'd like your comments.
400
posted on
02/25/2004 10:24:07 PM PST
by
hchutch
("I never get involved with my own life. It's too much trouble." - Michael Garibaldi)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 541-551 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson