1. It was his show, he had a time delay and let the word go through anyway. His problem now.

2. Who gives a rat's a$$ about Howard Stern anyway?? Or Rush. They are waaaay too full of thenselves.
Now, I like Imus most of the times, but the rest of those talk shows stink, IMO.

I find it remarkable that people whine and bitch and protest about Microsoft controlling an entire market when they actually make a product that the whole world uses and finds useful (like it or not, each of you encounters windows based apps more than 1,000 times a day).

But we leave companies like clear channel and infinity broadcasting alone. People complain about newspapers being bought up by media conglomerates, or television stations being owned by the same people. But we leave clear channel and infinity alone. How many stations do these guys actually own? Well here is the answer from their own stat sheet on cc.com

Clear Channel operates approximately 1,213 radio and 19 television stations in the United States and has equity interests in over 240 radio stations internationally. Clear Channel also operates approximately 770,000 outdoor advertising displays, including billboards, street furniture and transit panels across the world.

Amazing isn't it. One thousand two hundred and thirteen radio stations in the USA. Free speech? Competition? Fair markets?

Sounds to me like if you piss off the management of CC you can pretty much bury any hopes of being on half of America's stations ever again.

Infinity is far smaller. "Only" 180 stations. But all big ones. In my hometown, for example, they own 92.3, 101.1, 102.7, 660, 880, and 1010.

That seems fair? Irrelevant though. Stern will be back because he has a fan base that quite frankly doesn't care if the FCC finds him to be rude. They know he's rude and that's one reason they listen to him. They will continue to listen to him even if the FCC brands him the worst man on the planet.

Irrelevance must suck.

I do not listen to him as I don't listen to the radio at all. However, we are suppose to have free speach in this country. If you don't like what someone is saying then change the station. If you don't want people to restrict you then don't restrict them. Seems simple enough to me.

Originally posted by ljbako
the FCC needs to get their # straight - how is it not ok for a caller to call in and make a racial reference to black people but completely fine for Dave Chappell to either use the word 'n-word' himself or for him to have other white people use the word.

I think the big difference is that the Chappell show is run by a black man first (so use of that word is at this point socially acceptable). Second the Chappell show is on at night, not during the morning time. Also someone commented on the difference between subscriber based vs open airwaves which I think is another factor.

Look Howard had to know that the comment would bring attention. He has that 1.5 minute delay and chose (or someone in his group) not to use it. There is punishment for actions and I think they are appropriate. We have had free speech in this country for over two centuries except now all of the sudden this means you can be hateful and hurtful on the air? When did it become okay to use the word Nigger and Fag? It used to be something you NEVER said on TV but now we want to change social norms to make these hateful words part of everyday speech. You can take something too far, this is being taken too far. Common decency has got to get back into our society.

Howard Stern signed a contract with the FCC and Clear Channel when he got his show. He broke that contract when he aired the call.

Simple as that.

Originally posted by observer
Are companies, such as Clearchannel, in control of too much market share? Their decision to drop Stern effects many markets since they own, what, like 80% of all radio stations in the country. Is this concentration of media too much?

Din Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! It's a very ironic world we live in, and in America these days, the "text" is almost always useless compared to the "subtext".
Stern has been Stern, doing more outrageous stuff than this, for more than 10 years.
What we have is A Media Monolith in Clear Channel paying homage to their Right Wing base with a move that's only important in it's symbolism. On a business scale, it's a win-win for all parties involved: Stern is syndicated all over the countr - 6 outlets is a pimple, not an amputation of revenue. It benefits him: a very stale product has the revitalization, in the public's eye, of "fighting THE MAN". Clear Channel gets a bump by pulling in more of the "Sack-cloth-wearing-morality-sells" ad revenue.
It's all a prelude to the only "viable" platform issue the Bush team will be able to mount in 2004 - The unweaving of the Moral fiber of America. Homosexual marriage, vulgar DJ's and such. And we all know ( if you don't, I'll tell you ) how big a role Media giants like Clear Channel played in 2000.

P.S.

Observer - Are you more MorningStar Runner or Strong Bad?

I like the Howard Stern show. I do not think any thing he says is innapropriate. I think it is all ok to say. I liked it when they played anal ring toss.

I don't think the problem here is Clearwater's decision to fire Stern. They have the right to do whatever they feel is in the best interest of their company. If they determined that the comment which was made, was too offensive, and that Stern could have prevented it's being aired, then they had the right to punish him as they saw fit.

The problem with the situation is that the FCC was the one making the decision about what was too offensive, not Clearwater. They pulled him off the air to kiss the FCC's ass because they had to testify before them that same day about broadcast content.

Was the caller's statement terribly offensive and unjustifiable? Of course! That doesn't mean that the FCC was needed though! The listeners that were offended should have either called Clearwater directly to voice their objections or they should have turned the station and boycotted the show. Either course of action would have been effective and would have reflected the people's opinion on what they deemed unfit for the public airways. We don't need the FCC or any other government organization to tell us what we think is decent or indecent. We are the one's that should be making those decisions. If we held broadcasters accountable for the content and quality of their programs, by choosing not to watch/listen to those we dislike, they would have to improve their standards, like it or not. They are in the business to make money, and they need an audience to do that. Therefore, we are the ones who should be in control!

You are in control Jez, but that being in your own control does not come without government oversights (rules, regulations and guidelines), as applied to the topic of Howey.
The buck (money; dollars) may stem from "us" (you, me, it, they, etc.), but the buck stops where? Certainly not the bank? The buck stops with the government, again, as applied to the topic of Howey.


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by OXmanK
There are limitations to your free speech.

A limitation to anything 'free' is contradiction in terms. True freedom is being able to change the station.

Originally posted by Seekerof
You are in control Jez, but that being in your own control does not come without government oversights (rules, regulations and guidelines), as applied to the topic of Howey.
The buck (money; dollars) may stem from "us" (you, me, it, they, etc.), but the buck stops where? Certainly not the bank? The buck stops with the government, again, as applied to the topic of Howey.


regards
seekerof

The buck should stop with us! Why should we give the government power to regulate something that we should be regulating ourselves? Why should we call the FCC instead of the broadcasting company? It's like telling your boss about something a coworker said, so that you don't have to confront the problem yourself.

If enough people object to something a company broadcasts, then the company (if they want to stay in business) will change it. Why do we need the FCC to do that for us?

I watched part of the hearing before the Congressional committee yesterday morning. There was a Congresswoman (whose named, coincidently, was McCarthy) who raised the issue of censorship of the t.v. news. She was concerned about the news that comes on in the evening, around 5 and 6 pm. She actually stated that she thought the content of newscasts ought to be regulated so that kids wouldn't have to be witnesses to the pain and suffering that is portrayed.

Now I agree that the news isn't always appropriate for young children, but it is up to parents to decide how much reality they want to expose them to. It should not be censored by the government for any reason, and certainly not to "protect" us from the bad things that go on in the world around us.

That is the most fundamental reason behind the freedom of speech even existing. The news is already manipulated to reflect the wishes of the elite. If they soften the rough edges of truth and reality any further, it's going to be just another episode of "Friends". First they ban what some consider profane, then they edge into controlling what is shown on the news, then what?

I don't want to seem like an alarmist, but when McCarthy brought up regulating the news, it freaked me out. I would rather error on the side of allowing too much freedom of speech than not protecting it enough!