To: feinswinesuksass
If it were ClearChannel taking Howard off on their own, I have no problem with it. That is a business decision....a darn bad one seeing as how he was their top money maker....but their decision. But, ClearChannel made that decision due to fear of government reprisal. Do you think that is a step in the right direction? Actually Rush is probably Clear Channel's biggest moneymaker, since they syndicate his program. Clear Channel on 6 stations paid Viacom to broadcast Howard.
Anyway, I don't see Howard going off the air as akin to shredding the Constitution or having the founding fathers turn in their graves.
As for CFR, I too think the poltical ad bans are awful, but they doesn't resonate with the American people who don't want to see those negative ads on TV and calling them idiots doesn't help your cause. And neither does holding up Howard as some Constitutional martyr.
65 posted on
03/06/2004 2:25:03 PM PST by
Dane
To: Dane
Never called him a martyr. I would defend anyone in this situation. The FCC has always had Stern as their target. Clear Channel paid Viacom for the program, but then they were able to sell advertising on those stations for very high amounts....because people want to listen to Stern. They like him. The people who don't like him want him off the air. Hell, why not just try not listening? The viewpoint seems to be that "if I don't like it, no one should be able to listen". I will never understand nor accept that as a valid point of view.
69 posted on
03/06/2004 2:48:13 PM PST by
Feiny
(Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson