It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Howard's Response To The FCC's Actions:

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:21 PM
"This is not a surprise. This is a follow up to the McCarthy type "witch hunt" of the administration and the activities of this group of presidential appointees in the FCC, led by "Colin Powell Jr." and his band of players. They and others (a senator from Kansas City to a congresswoman from New Mexico) are expressing and imposing their opinions and rights to tell us all who and what we may listen to and watch and how we should think about our lives. So this is not a surprise. It is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the U.S. It's hard to reconcile this with the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". I'm sure what's next is the removal of "dirty pictures" like the 20th century German exhibit in a New York City Museum and the erotic literature in our libraries; they too will fall into their category of "evil" as well.

Howard Stern, April 8th 2004

Help protect everyone's freedom of speech!

Take action and tell the FCC, George W Bush and your represenatives how you feel about losing your freedom's!!!

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:29 PM
Stern also said "They are as smart as Nazis." (I'm paraphrasing)

I don't always like what Stern says, but free speech must be defended at all costs.

Who defines decency? It is not the Goverment's job to sanitize the media for the people. I am a big boy, I can switch the channel on the radio or TV, or even better, I can just turn the damn thing off.

And the "it's for the children" argument, it is up to the parents to monitor what their kids watch and talk to them, not the Goverment.

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:50 PM
Between Infinity and Clear Channel,
Seems unemployment has been increased by one more Howey....the man who became known as the "pornographer of the free airwaves of radio"?
As indicated by the release of the article above and Howey's comments being in it, seems that his Constitutional rights are still being maintained and his 'voice' is still being heard?
Wake up Howey, you got dumped, canned, roasted, and fired not by political choices (maybe some political pressure) and ramifications, but mainly by business choices and ramifications.

Remember Howey, you will always have and maintain the right to your vulgarisms, just not on the national airwaves.

Good riddance!


but free speech must be defended at all costs

Freedom of speech does not guarentee the right to spout obscenties and vulgarisms. It was and is intended to guarentee and protect the right to political expression without fear of government retaliation or penalty. You see, freedom of speech does come with restrictions and controls as applied to Howey and the PUBLIC airwaves. Again, this was not a political situation, it was all business. There is no Constitutional guarentee for obscenty and vulgar....IMHO, Howey reaped what he sowed.


[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Seekerof]

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:58 PM

but free speech must be defended at all costs

Freedom of speech does not guarentee the right to spout obscenties and vulgarisms. It was and is intended to guarentee and protect the right to political expression without fear of government retaliation or penalty. You see, freedom of speech does come with restrictions and controls as applied to Howey and the PUBLIC airwaves. Again, this was not a political situation, it was all business. There is no Constitutional guarentee for obscenty and vulgar....IMHO, Howey reaped what he sowed.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Seekerof]

Well, who defines vulgarity? It is not the Goverment's job to sanitize the airwaves or to decide what we can listen to.

Clearchannel and the FCC are a bunch oy hypocrites. Stern has been the same for years. If he is so vulgar, then why didn't they pull him off 15 years ago?

It is also interesting to note that most of this pressure from the FCC started to happen not long after Stern(a long time right winger) turned on the current administration and told his listeners not to vote Republican in November. Seems Stern's foul mouth was fine when he was praising Bush and the War in between his fart jokes....

As said before, if you don't like something, turn the channel.

I have been offended by both Limbaugh and Stern in the past, but I will never question either's right to free speech.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Facefirst]

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:01 PM
Is Clear Channel and and Infinity privately owned?


posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:13 PM
Both companies are publicy traded on the stock market.

I don't like the hypocrites at the FCC who think it is fine that we get to watch people die(Waco, Saddam's sons) but freak out over sexuality or when Stern makes fart jokes.

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:20 PM

posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 03:10 AM
Fearchannel does have the right as a private company to hire and fire as they see fit....but

To fire the #1 rated dj in the land, for years old acts that werent even questioned until recently shows there was SOME kind of preassure on Fearchannel to do this, otherwise why would they have given up their #1 cash cow? This also shows a double standard by those in charge @ Fearchannel.....its ok to make and take $$ from the stern show as long as we're not getting flack for it.

Fearchannel and other media companies are TERRIFIED of being sued....they are seen as a large wealthy target for lawsuits, and will always take the safest rout available....after all making $$ is the name of their game.

I feel as a broadcaster for + 10 yrs, that the media companies OFTEN cave in to both GREED and COWARDICE.....

Back in the day, when your secratary buzzed into your office to tell you mike wallace from 60 min was in the lobby, YOU CRAPPED YOUR PANTS!!! WHY? because the producers of that show threw the ratings book out the window, They didnt care what the ratings said, they were concerned with being real investigative journalists. They did powerful stories that exposed lots of crap, and people FEARED they're pen being as mighty as the sword.
AND THAT SHOW BECAME FAMOUS for being accurate and revealing...even tho the ratings didnt hold it up.

Big media companies are always looking at numbers....ratings numbers and revenue numbers.
but #'s arent what communications is really about, its how it gets paid for.

They've sold out their credibillity as journalists and entertainers when they cave in to fear of being fined/sued for their programming.

Rather than promote a diverse line-up of programming, they try harder and harder to "be like their competion"
I.E. cookie cutter news....because no one wants to be left out of the $$ train.

The feds definatly preassured broadcasters with fines, and the pending indecency act now in congress/senate...
Tow the line or we'll fine you or withhold your license to broadcast.

I agree that the stern show can be crude and rude, but so can the KKK's message, and i still say they both have the right to have that view expressed..ESPECIALLY on PUBLIC airwaves....

If you as a private broadcaster, want to NOT air programming like his AND you own the means of dissemination, then you have the total right to determine what is/is not acceptable to broadcast on your outlet....

BUT if you are on the PUBLIC airwaves, then you as a business have given up your rights to determine this for yourself as a business....You hold the PUBLICS TRUST that you will be open to ALL viewpionts, even those that you do not approve of...

Oh just go to cable if you want that freedom of programming choice, or get satalite radio..then you can tune in to whatever you want and the public wont have to deal with your questionable program...
HMMM, SOUNDS LIKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR THE WEALTHY ONLY!!! You can only enjoy the right to access this program IF YOU PAY FOR IT!!!

again back to the $$$...did you know Fearchannel owns a 1/3 stake in xm radio stock? If Fearchannel wants to throw away aprox +10 mill stern listeners they can...but what business sence is that? They must have another way to suplant that $$ eh? perhaps if they con us into driving stern to xm, WE'll all just PAY for what we used to get for free.?

What about community standards?
Hmm lets see, if your the #1 dj in your market (or multiple markets), then the listeners have already made a conscious decision to TUNE INTO YOU. If your #1, then that would seem to be an acurate standard to judge if the community approves or not...(They base the $$ they charge for commercials on the ratings value of a show, so why not use this to gauge public sentimant?)

You do know about the Fearchannel banned playlist dont you?

The indecency guidlines from the FCC are SUBJECTIVE at best....And Stern is right when he states that they (the feds) wont let this issue go before a court to determine its decency...THE FCC IS NOT PART OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH!!

I personally will try to BOYCOTT with my $$ and other means, ANY CLEARCHANNEL outlet, billboard promoted product, concert venue...ect until they as a company start to behaive with their clients (consumers not ad buyers) best interests instead of thinking only about the $$$.

posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 03:40 AM
Well, I must say, although I do think Stern goes well over the line at times, he should be allowed to air his show on any NON public radio station. If it is being paid for by taxes, its should be off the air. IMHO, it came down to the fact that they had gotten more complaints then stern was worth.

posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Is Clear Channel and and Infinity privately owned?

Clear Channel Radio is one of many companies owned by Clear Channel Communications. The following is from their Radio Fact Sheet

• Operates approximately 1,200 radio stations reaching more than 100 million listeners
every week across all 50 states.
• Serve approximately 300 U.S. markets, including 89 of the top 100 markets.
• Reaches 54% of all people ages 18-49 in the U.S. on daily basis.
• Programming decisions are based on local research into the needs of communities,
broadcasting in approximately 50 listening formats across the U.S.
• Represents approximately 9% of all radio stations (including non-profit).
• Premiere Radio Networks syndicates more than 70 radio programs to over 7,800
stations reaching 180 million listeners a week.
• Premiere syndicates popular programs including Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura
Schlessinger, Rick Dees, Casey Kasem, Jim Rome and Carson Daly. Premiere is
based in Sherman Oaks, California, with eleven offices nationwide.
• The Katz Media Group is the largest media representation firm in the U.S.
representing more than 2600 radio stations and 400 television stations.
• Katz Media consists of the Katz Radio Group, Clear Channel Radio Sales, and the
Katz Television Group and is headquartered in New York City with 21 regional
offices nationwide.

The company did not fire Stern, or anyone else, because the content in their shows were offensive to the general public. In fact, the founder of Clear Channel used to be a "shock jock" himself, when he was still a radio personality
Clear Channel has been censoring and eliminating anything that may hurt their "investments" in the Republican party, for several years. For instance, after Sept. 11, to the amusement/horror of music critics and radio industry professionals, Clear Channel issued a list of 150 songs to its member stations that it deemed too sensitive to play in the wake of the terrorist attacks. The list included an odd mix of songs: the more understandable choices featured flight references ("Bennie and the Jets," "Ticket to Ride"); others were associated with New York ("On Broadway"); and, most surprisingly, many were related to peace ("Bridge Over Troubled Water," "Imagine"). The list also included all songs by the political rock group Rage Against the Machine.

"Oh, they were just being sensitive to the people whose loved ones died in the attack." some will say. Well, the facts speak for themselves, and they're saying that Clear Channel did it to protect it's position and investments. Between 2001-2002, alone, Clear Channel gave $209,620 in soft money donationsto the Republican National Commitee.

The relationship between Bush and Hicks (vice-chairman)extends all the way back to when Bush bought into the Rangers ball team. They have each other to thank for the growth of their personal fortunes.
Bush ties to Clear Channel

There are close ties between the company and President Bush. The Vice Chair of the company is Tom Hicks, a member of the Bush Pioneer club for elite (and generous) donors. The relationship between Bush and Hicks goes back even further, however. The two were embroiled in scandal when Hicks, as University of Texas Regent, was responsible for granting endowment management contracts of the newly created (under legislation signed by Bush) UT Investment Management Co. (UTIMCO). The contracts were given to firms politically connected to both Hicks and Bush, including the Carlyle Group - a firm which has the first President Bush on the payroll and had the second one on the payroll until just weeks before receiving this lucrative business. The board of UTIMCO also included the Chair of Clear Channel, L. Lowry Mays. In addition, Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers from George Bush, making him a wealthy man through a deal that was partially sweetened by a shiny new taxpayer financed stadium, which included valuable land obtained at below market rates through the use of eminent domain.

One other thing I wanted to mention, and you may or may not regard as important, is that Donald Rumsfield holds stock in Clear Channel. Out of the 574 different investments in his portfolio, Clear Channel Communications is found at #153, with stocks worth up to $150,000.

edited for Update: Well, this just proves they didn't have ANY ulterior motives for firing Stern,
since they would NEVER do something just to kiss Bush's ass!

September 16, 2003 – The Advertising Council announced today that Clear Channel Communications (NYSE: CCU) has committed to donate $120 million in advertising time and space for
the Ad Council’s public service advertising (PSA) campaigns in the upcoming year, marking the largest upfront commitment from a media company in the organization’s 60-year history. This commitment represents a 100% increase from Clear Channel’s current contribution of $60 million to Ad Council PSAs
this year.
Since its founding in 1942, the Ad Council has been the largest producer of PSAs in the country, with its more than 45 current PSA campaigns addressing significant social issues ranging from AIDS Awareness to Energy Efficiency to Homeland Security.

[Edited on 13-4-2004 by jezebel]

top topics


log in