BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...

Subject: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 10:34 PM

Hey, not like I like Howard Stern but when ClearChannel, which owns 60% of radio and will one day own it all, fires yer butt you had better satrt looking fir another line of work 'cause you is history...

Like I said, I don't like Howard Stern. He's a rude man but there should be room for rude men on radio jus' so I can change the station. We're gonna end up with Melba-Milk-Toast-Media before this is over and we're gonna wish we hadn't given into MickeyMouse and ClearChannel...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 11:54 PM

So Howard gets a job doin' a cable TV program on a premium channel like HBO where he can talk as nasty as he wants to. The current hoopla is all about broadcast TV and radio (and maybe basic cable), not premium cable channels.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:04 AM

I have been asking people to turn HS off when I am around for years [since the 80's]. That is all the censorship I can be bothered to do. I figure if anyone can listen to Flush Lamebrain and watch so called reality TV, they can watch whatever they want as long as it does not impinge on my ears.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 10:54 AM

Yeah, he sucks. But the point is that conglomerating radio control means reduced competitive tension and less need to care about the public listrening and more to care about the political feedbags.

This is a genuine risk, not just because of comp[romised entertainment but because it can and has brought about a nation under political control through media control.

One big error in the free enterprise and free press system is to allow one free enterprise to own all the "free" press.

A

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Blackcatter
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 11:06 AM

You may think he sucks (as do I) but I've got three points:

1) He is at least partially playing a character on his shows - the "real" person isn't totally like the idiot on the show. The show is ENTERTAINMENT which means that you can't assume reality. Rush and Frankin and etc are all entertainment as well - they are not news programs - certainly they may share news (as Stern shares information about movie releases, etc.) but the shows are their to entertain.

2) Stern is still very popular, He's probably still the 4th most listened to national radio show. This is important to remember because it means Clear Channnel has fired someone for reasons OTHER than money. Anytime a media outlet does that, it is time to worry about censorship.

3) 90% of American Media is controlled by 6 companies. And those 6 companies often work together - they share stcok interests in each others TV & radio stations & networks, movie production companies, cable providers, newspapers, magazines and major websites. They are also "in bed" with the government. All this means that nearly everything we see or hear is at least partially controlled by the government.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 12:54 PM

Boycott corporate media.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:00 PM

Don Cherry (the Canadian hockey commentator) is sort of like that too. He's an over-the-top entertainer who says outrageous things because it's his role to do that.

Well, look on the bright side. Now that Howard Stern has been kicked off radio, he can take up a refreshing new career like running a daycare center...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:03 PM

Naw, LH. Don Cherry does it because he's Don Cherry.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Kim C
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:05 PM

Stern is a Contrary Man. He serves the purpose of showing us How Not To Be. We need those people.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: kendall
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:11 PM

No man ever needs to be a failure. He can always serve as a bad example.

Godd riddance I say

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:13 PM

I'd say I kind of agree with that, Kim.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:21 PM

First, this is old news, isn't it? I recall this story being at least a few weeks, if not months, old.

We need to also be aware that the CC decision to drop Stern (which was done in the wake of the JJ Superbowl titties "scandal") only had an impact on a couple of stations in the Clear Channel network that carried Stern. Most of the CC network didn't carry the show.

But the most important reason why it matters is the same reason why Bill Maher getting fired for his statement after 9/11, that said the 9/11 hijackers weren't cowards, matters. I think Howard Stern is a jerk, and I think Bill Maher is a reactionary jerk, but I don't want them censored, because it sets the precedent of censoring programs, people, certain opinions, worldviews, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:32 PM

I think we are missing the point.   Clear Channel has dropped Stern because of the FCC. Faced with huge fines from the FCC, they had little choice. You can make a case for CC being in bed with the goverment, but CC is not controlling the game plan.

Stern may have had good ratings, but that does not always translate to large advertising rates.   Many advertisers were leary about running spots on his shows.

Let's face it, the FCC is intimidating broadcasters.   This reminds me of the 1950's were broadcasters were intimidated by advertisers into not allowing suspected communists from working.

We rarely learn from our past mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:35 PM

The fines the FCC is considering levying isn't the reason why CC dropped Stern. They could well afford to pay the fines daily, if they have enough revenues generated by advertisers, promotions, sponsors, etc to justify it.

To suggst that Stern isn't able to pull in the premium rates in ludicrous. It is the only thing that has kept him on the air this long. He brings in the money.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:37 PM

so...Howard had TV show which was just his radio show televised...I guess THAT piece of crap is off too, until some cable channel picks it up. It was startling to be flipping thru channels late at night and see Howard trying to get a couple of blonde girls to undress and kiss each other---or several retarded guys from the fringes of society to make fools of themselves for his audience.

Howard was like watching feeding time at the asylum, catered by Hustler and supervised by Jerry Springer!

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:43 PM

I believe the problem here is in thinking that because Stern is the king of tastelessness, and his show pornographic, that we don't have to worry about CC policing everything said and played on their network on behalf of the FCC.

But remember, it was CC who created a blacklist of musicians who had opposed the Iraq war, most particularly the Dixie Chicks, and banished their music from the CC network.

Pretty damn chilling.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:11 PM

Maybe, just maybe, some of the advertisers who had been supporting Howard Stern's "work" were forced by the recent controversies to LISTEN to it a few times. And maybe they discovered it was vacant useless garbage. And maybe they pulled their dollars out. And THAT is why Clear Channel did something. And you know what, that's actually the way it's supposed to work.

Everybody's free to be a pornographic jerk, but the marketplace doesn't have to support it.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

Guest 1:35, it is not ludicrious, it is the way the business works. Listen to his show and tell me how many national sponsors are advertising?   

Clear Channel, nor any corporation, can afford to pay those kind of fines and be responsible to their stockholders.

I hate to drift, but there was another "error" posted by an anonymous guest at 1:43. I hate to defend Clear Channel, because they are a corporate evil that has ruined radio in this country, but that "list" that was mentioned is nothing more than an urban myth.   A list of "suggested" songs was put together by a few program directors and passed around. In the days following 9/11 there were songs that people thought might not be appropriate following the tragedy. There was no banishment, in fact several Clear Channel stations were playing songs on that list within days. It is common practice for broadcasters to THINK about their actions. While the list appears pretty stupid, I think you have to put yourself in their shoes and think about the time.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 03:32 PM

Guest patticlink

But the market does support it. Stern is one of the top rated everywhere. Not many women relate to him at all, but most or many guys do like tits and ass jokes and commentary. I really don't listen to him much at all anymore, but there was a time when it was so fresh and new that it was hilariously so politically incorrect. Advertisers who sell products to 18-49 year old males have quite an audience with him.

I say judgement of tastelessness is an indiviual thing. Where to draw the line is way too vague. I do not feel that I need to be protected by the FCC. If I don't like it, I just won't listen. If enough don't listen, it will go away. But if enough do, it should be there as a choice.

Remember Lenny Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 03:37 PM

Stern's show is carried almost exclusively by stations outside the CC network, and if he wasn't getting the ratings and pulling in the bucks, he wouldn't be on the air.

Ron, you are making an illogical and fallacious arguments, along the lines the Fox News channel made last year, when they claimed their ratings were higher than CNN's during the Iraq invasion.

With few exceptions, stories about the media business report a single number for ratings (often expressed two different ways--as "points" or "share"). This number is often presented as if it were the result of a popularity contest or a democratic vote. But it is actually the average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen Media Research's monitoring of thousands of households.

The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute. Heavy viewers--those who tune in to a station and linger there--have a greater impact, as they can be counted multiple times as they watch throughout the day.

When an outlet reports that CNN is trailing Fox, they are almost invariably using this average tally, which Fox has been winning for the past two years. For the year 2003, Nielsen's average daily ratings show Fox beating CNN 1.02 million viewers to 665,000.

But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer.

How can CNN have more total viewers when Fox has such a commanding lead in average viewers? Conventional industry wisdom is that CNN viewers tune in briefly to catch up on news and headlines, while Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers.

But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer.

How can CNN have more total viewers when Fox has such a commanding lead in average viewers? Conventional industry wisdom is that CNN viewers tune in briefly to catch up on news and headlines, while Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers.

But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer.

The figures are gathered to provide advertisers with complex data about viewer habits. It pays to remember that neither cable news stations nor Nielsen Media Research are primarily in the business of serving the public interest--both are in the business of delivering audiences to advertisers.

The bottom line is the bottom line: from their capitalistic perspective, the channel that gets more ad revenue is winning the real ratings war. Extrapolate that across a network, and then across the entire conglomeratethat owns the networks' earnings, and you can see why FCC indecency fines can be written off as operating expenses, losses, or almost any damn thing they want to in their creative accounting depts. by the corporados, who simply are making all this up as they go along.

The stations and the networks are only one slice of the media conglomerate's earnings pie. So long as Stern pulls in the ratings and the bucks, he'll be on the air.

As to the Dixie Chicks and Clear Channel, here is the beginning of an article written about it by Paul Krugman of the NY Times. I can post the entire article if people can't get through to the link anymore.

---------------------------------------------------
The Truth About The Dixie Chicks Ban
Oligarchy:


1. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
2. Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons.


Channels of Influence
By Paul Krugman for the NY Times.


Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 03:46 PM

Sorry for the replication of a couple of my paragraphs above. The network that admitted banning the Dixie Chicks was Cumulus. The network that organized the rallies against them was Clear Channel. They were all colluding, as we learned in the Congressional hearings last summer, a report of one of the more lively exchanges follows:

---------------------------------------------

In congressional hearings held July 8, Simon Renshaw-an executive of Los Angeles-based management company the Firm, whose clients include Dixie Chicks-led the charge against Cumulus and the radio business.
.
Renshaw revealed that his office had had death threats during the ban and said he had uncovered evidence that the effort was "orchestrated" in part by " right-wing political" groups.

" What happened to my clients is perhaps the most compelling evidence that radio ownership consolidation has a direct negative impact on diversity of programming and political discourse over the public airwaves," he charged.

Executives in the corporate offices of Cumulus decided to take the group off the air following a well-publicized remark Maines made that the band was "ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas."

" It's an incredible, incredible act," said John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, at the volatile oversight hearing.

Lewis W. Dickey Jr., chairman/CEO of Atlanta-based Cumulus-which owns about 275 stations-took all of the heat regarding the Chicks episode.

The station lifted the ban in May, but not before disciplining DJs at two stations for defying the edict.

McCain repeatedly grilled Dickey: "Did you not order those stations to take the Dixie Chicks off the air?"

Dickey finally said yes.

McCain then asked: "Would you do that to me?"

Dickey replied, "No."

" Then why do it to a group of entertainers?" McCain asked.

Dickey replied that the ban was a "business decision. Our stations turned to us for guidance. There was a groundswell, a hue and cry from listeners."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., countered: "I keep hearing you say 'a hue and cry.' Well, that happens all the time in this country. There's a hue and cry every time I speak out about women's choice. That's what happens when you have a diversity of views, discourse. A hue and cry is a beautiful sound. It's the sound of freedom."

Dickey acknowledged that his local station managers "fell in line" with the corporate decision.

" I don't think you know what you've done," Boxer told Dickey. "You've motivated us to look closely at consolidation. When you said earlier that your local staff 'fell in line,' that was a dead giveaway."

McCain said he was not concerned about free-speech violations at local stations that had initiated their own boycotts. "But this came from corporate headquarters. That's a strong argument that First Amendment erosion is in progress."

Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., said, "Radio programmers should not be in the business of political censorship. They should be in the business of promoting political discourse."

A Ban On Bruce

Renshaw testified that during the episode, he received an e-mail from a Clear Channel PD whom he had never met that he found disturbing.

He said that Jay Michaels, the PD at Clear Channel country station WTXT Tuscaloosa, Ala., sent him an e-mail relating to Bruce Springsteen's statement of support for the Chicks on his Web site.

According to Renshaw, Michaels wrote: "Maybe Bruce didn't read what [Maines]said. Let him say it and watch what happens."

A Clear Channel spokesman later told Billboard that Michael's e-mail was "misinterpreted, only speculation and certainly did not mean that our stations would be involved in any action toward Springsteen."

Renshaw said that despite criticism from other quarters that Clear Channel bullies artists, he has good relations with company and station staff and he felt the company acted responsibly during the imbroglio.

However, he said that because of Clear Channel's dominance in the marketplace, there is always a tendency for artists and managers to go along with the company's suggestions for interviews and appearances-"a you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours" mentality.

The hearing was the second called by McCain to examine consolidation in the radio industry. The first focused on Clear Channel, the nation's largest radio broadcaster.

" We're going to keep going on this," McCain tells Billboard. "Look, I'm a proud deregulator. But the fact is, this is an aspect of media concentration that should give everyone pause. It's very disturbing."

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 03:48 PM

Sorry, I didn't make the blue clicky to Krugman's op ed piece either. Aaaiiiieee!!! Trying to do too much cutting and pasting too fast here!

Here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:08 PM

Guest, first - my apologies. I thought you were referring to the supposed "banned" list on 9/11. I did not realize that you meant the Dixie Chick story.

Ast your comment that I was making "an illogical and fallacious arguments, no I am not. I've worked in television and radio for nearly 25 years and I understand ratings. (By the way, radio uses Arbitron ratings and television uses Nielsen, but they work in very similar ways.)

I agree that Stern has enormously high ratings, but that does NOT translate into huge ad dollars. Ad rates are based on the audience a show delivers, but also the rates differ depending on the company that is being sold to. Coca-Cola will buy spots at a higher rate than the rate offered Joe's Window Cleaners. Stern advertises products that are not always "A" list items. I'm not saying that he doesn't earn tons of money for his parent company, but it is not as astronomical as you would think.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:26 PM

We've always had censorship in the US. That's hardly anything new. And a lot of what's been censored up to now is, in my opinion, of much greater consequence to the world than the clowning of a professional asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:42 PM

If you can call Howard Stern a professional asshole because you don't like what he does on the radio, than I should be able to call those Sunday morning radio preachers asking you for your money and your spiritual following, liars and con men, couldn't I?

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Strick
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:44 PM

"I'm not saying that he doesn't earn tons of money for his parent company, but it is not as astronomical as you would think."

And given he was only on 6 stations with Clear Channel, it would take a heck of a long time to make up the kinds of fines the FCC is talking about. Which other major radio network has him on 30 stations and is looking at a $2.2 Million fine over the latest incident?

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 04:50 PM

If you can call Howard Stern a professional asshole because you don't like what he does on the radio, than I should be able to call those Sunday morning radio preachers asking you for your money and your spiritual following, liars and con men, couldn't I?

It sounds like you think I'm a Christian and could give a shit what you say about what they do. Where on earth did you get that idea?

Howard Stern considers himself a professional asshole. But to answer your question, those Sunday morning radio preachers aren't just liars and con men, they're also professional charlatans. And many of them are assholes.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:28 PM

I'm not certain, so don't quote me, but I think it is Infinity that carries Stern.

Ron, I used the example of Fox/CNN as an example of a commonly made fallacious argument, which I believe you often attempt to use. You aren't the only person on the planet or at Mudcat with a knowledge of corporate media, so pardon me if I take your "I've worked in tv and radio for 25 years" with a grain of salt, especially when you seem to be talking out of your ass about it.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:38 PM

No Carol C. I was not accusing you of being Christian.

It's like I said, where do you draw the line?

If people don't like tits and ass humor they just don't have to listen.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 05:53 PM

I don't listen. But not because of Howard Stern. I don't listen to corporate media because I don't like censorship of any sort, and censorship is all you'll ever get from corporate media. Except for when I'm listening to classical music, and sometimes traditional folk music, which I listen to wherever I can find it (at this moment, it's the CBC online), I only listen to alternative media sources that do not censor.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:05 PM

P.S. If you don't like censorship, don't listen to Clear Channel.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Strick
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:21 PM

"P.S. If you don't like censorship, don't listen to Clear Channel."

Half right, Carol. Don't listen to Clear Channel. It's getting harder to find a station that's fresh and original, I know, but anything's better than corporate radio.

Funny thing is that this thread comes on the heals of one in which some people would seem capable of gladly censoring (or near enough) a Bob Dylan ad for lady's foundations. Just noticing the juxtaposition of the two, that's all. We censor a lot of things, snuff films or child porn, for example. Howard just needs to find an outlet that's less public. Or quit pushing the envelope solely for the publicity value. Which ever.

I know Howard claims some Christians think he's the Anti-Christ, but, he's exaggerating his importance in the scheme of things. I find he's guilty of a much greater sin, at least in radio terms. Focused as he is on two or three topics that titilating his audience, he's simply boring. IMHO, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 06:55 PM

Guest 5:28, was there any reason for those comments, especially when you won't even use your name? You wonder why people call you "troll" and "coward"?? What did I do to you? If you think I'm wrong, tell me where, don't resort to tactics of name calling and insults. Cheap shots are usually the sign of someone who is pretty desparate. It is pretty easy to throw stones and then run. Is that how you have discussions? That is really sad.

Your example of CNN/FOX is correct, but it apples and oranges compared to the Stern ratings/advertising ratio. Networks will spin positive stories around these numbers, which can be misleading as you pointed out. Ratings DO determine ad rates, but it doesn't mean that the network can always sell out commercials at those rates. That is all I'm trying to say here.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: kendall
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 08:14 PM

There is a big difference between freedom and license. People like H.S don't seem to know that. We who were brought up in the times when most people respected others, or at least themeslves do know that.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 10:50 PM

Guest,

Tried to follow the link for Krugman's op ed piece, but can only get a "summary". Could you post the rest, as you offered?

Thanks,

YY

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 10:54 PM

I have listened to Stern a few times--twice or thrice. He's boring.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Blackcatter
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:55 AM

And the women on the show are all artificial, Give me Cokie Roberts anytime.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 10:41 AM

Not one post in the Bob Dylan Victoria's Secret ad thread has suggested the ad should be censored, so I don't any idea where that idea is coming from. Just because people voice dislike with something doesn't automatically mean they want it censored. Sheesh. What a leap of logic.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Strick
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 10:50 AM

"some people would seem capable of gladly censoring (or near enough)"

Brow beating someone into one view of political correctness is just the liberal form of "Mrs. Grundy-ism" and defacto censorship. Using peer pressure or shouting someone down (not in that thread but a common form of protest) are only different tactics to achieve the same -- result stopping certain people you don't agree with from saying what they want to.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 11:07 AM

Here you are Yorkshire Yankee.

The New York Times The New York Times Opinion March 25, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN

By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 11:19 AM

So Strick, if you agree that no one was shouting anyone down in the Dylan thread, and no one was suggesting the ad be censored, then why would you make the groundless statements you are making?

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Strick
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:40 PM

Read the statement, what it actually says, not what you want to make it so it's easier for you to argue against.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Strick
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:45 PM

Oh, and since it apparently isn't clear, it seems like you were trying to be Mrs. Grundy in this one.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:50 PM

I was looking at a book written by Howard Stern last night. Some pretty funny stuff in there! He's an interesting character, but I think he must not have gotten nearly enough attention when he was a kid or something like that...

Why else would he feel compelled to act out in such an extreme manner?

He interviews Bruce Willis, for example, and all he wants to ask him is, "HOW MANY TIMES A WEEK DO YOU F**K DEMI MOORE AND IN WHAT POSITIONS???" (his capitals, not mine)

How silly. After all, is that anyone's business, and why would Bruce Willis answer such a question? Sure, it may be what Howard Stern wants to know...but, really...what is the guy trying to prove?

I think he needs therapy.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:51 PM

Brow beating someone into one view of political correctness is just the liberal form of "Mrs. Grundy-ism" and defacto censorship. Using peer pressure or shouting someone down (not in that thread but a common form of protest) are only different tactics to achieve the same -- result stopping certain people you don't agree with from saying what they want to.

It looks like you're suggesting that only people you call "liberals" use these tactics, Strick.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:52 PM

"Why else would he feel compelled to act out in such an extreme manner?"

Money.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:56 PM

Well, yes, but there are so many ways of making money! So many more agreeable ways. Are you suggesting, Guest, that this is the only way of making money that Howard Stern is actually any good at? :-)

I mean, hell, one can make great money being a lawyer or a hit man too, or even a porn star, and it doesn't offend nearly as many people.

Therefore, I think his major impulse is that he WANTS to offend people, because he enjoys the attention.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Strick
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:57 PM

No, Carol, I didn't mean to. It's just that liberals are more inclined to base the tactic on political correctness or something similar from their base and bristle at the suggestion that they're promoting censorship. Conservatives more typically use patriotism or something similar from their base and are used to being accused of censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 12:59 PM

It all depends what pushes your buttons...

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Strick
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 01:01 PM

Or the buttons of the people you expect to agree with you. Same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 01:04 PM

Yup. I find it always helps to become keenly aware of not only the prejudices of your opponents...but also of yourself and your allies. The more one does this, the funnier the whole scenario gets. It enhances communication and helps to defuse hostility too.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 01:09 PM

Howard Stern made the choice to make his money doing what he is doing Little Hawk, so I'll go with his track record, rather than your fantasies.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 01:36 PM

You mean you'd rather be Howard Stern than me? If I may quote Ricky (from Trailer Park Boys), Guest...you're fucked. :-)

Do you really think money is that important?

I'll tell you how much money a person needs to be entirely happy? Enough. I've already got enough. And I'm not rich.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 01:45 PM

I don't think money is that important, Howard Stern does. And you have a really nasty habit of projecting your delusional fantasies on people you have disagreements with, which shows me you are insecure to an extreme.

Greed has absolutely nothing to do with human need. It has everything to do with uncontrolled and unchecked human desire.

You have no way of knowing what Howard Stern's motives are any better than I do. I'm just making a smarter educated guess than you are.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:03 PM

"Greed has absolutely nothing to do with human need. It has everything to do with uncontrolled and unchecked human desire."

Absolutely right, Guest! Bravo. That ought to be put on everybody's wall to remind them on a daily basis.

So, what do you think Howard Stern's basic motivations are? I am only superficially acquainted with Howard Stern at this point (not being much of a TV wather), so I'd be interested to know.

Oh, and who are you? Got a symbolic name you could use, just so I have some idea who I'm talking to?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:09 PM

LH: You are talkin' to the wind.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:17 PM

Yes, I am, but that doesn't worry me.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:18 PM

You deflected any discussion of the real issue here Little Hawk, in another one of your pathetic attempts to drag the discussion down to your level of celebrity fixation.

Try sticking to the topic. This discussion isn't about Howard Stern. It is about censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:30 PM

Well, I'll have to reread the whole thread with great care, Guest, and make amends for that serious oversight. I will do that later this afternoon, if I get the chance.

Censorship is certainly worth talking about at some length. I am not in favour of censoring Howard Stern, but if I was running a show that needed a host I wouldn't hire him, either. I imagine somebody else would, as long as he could pull in the ratings.

Oh, and who are you?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:33 PM

Little Hawk, learn to read the threads before you post. You look like a fucking idiot. We aren't engaged in a celebrity gossip thread, so maybe you should crawl back into that shallow hole of yours, and go back to reading your People magazine, and let us adults carry on our conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:35 PM

I'm still not hurt or offended. Keep trying. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 02:38 PM

No, eejits generally aren't hurt or offended when it is pointed out to them that they are eejits. But since you are impervious to insult, how about to entreaties to stop hijacking a political thread, to turn it into a celebrity fixation thread? Which is what you have done.

Which shows your lack of maturity and sophistication, not to mention manners.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: michaelr
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:21 PM

Bill Maher is a reactionary jerk?

No, that's Dennis Miller you're thinking of.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:45 PM

IMO, there michaer. Both Dennis Miller and Bill Maher are reactionary jerks. Both have made decisions to be opporunists, and make television careers out of right wing political demagoguery. In the case of Dennis Miller, he did a 180 politically from his Saturday Night Live days.

People (conveniently, perhaps) forget just how reactionary and conservative Bill Maher was on his show prior to 9/11. He ironically became the first poster child in the censorship and civil liberties wars in the post-9/11 world of US politics, is all. He was never a political progressive, or even a Democratic liberal. Just an opportunist who saw a chance to make some bucks by trying to do in television what Rush Limbaugh, et al did in radio.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:00 PM

Tell me more, Guest! This is almost as good as real therapy, and a whole lot cheaper. I have still to read the entire thread (have been doing Tai Chi and Qui Gong for the last 2 hours...), but I will TRY to do so within the next day or two. Busy, busy, busy! If I succeed, I will then be able to attain the higher level of understanding that you are so strenuously encouraging me toward, and won't that be great!

So just hang on for a bit...

I've gotta go out and do some music shortly, but I WILL try to get back fairly soon so as not to disappoint you...whoever you are.

And I still want to know just what it is that YOU think is the primary motivation driving Howard Stern to act the way he does? His name, after all, is in the title of this thread, and I think it's worth discussing. Since you clearly have a very deep understanding of these matters, please expound on it at some length.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 05:05 PM

Oh, and so we don't all lose our grasp of what this thread is REALLY about...here is the post that started it all off, written by Bobert:

Hey, not like I like Howard Stern but when ClearChannel, which owns 60% of radio and will one day own it all, fires yer butt you had better satrt looking fir another line of work 'cause you is history...

Like I said, I don't like Howard Stern. He's a rude man but there should be room for rude men on radio jus' so I can change the station. We're gonna end up with Melba-Milk-Toast-Media before this is over and we're gonna wish we hadn't given into MickeyMouse and ClearChannel...

Bobert

So....let's get back on track, shall we? (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: DougR
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:13 PM

Clear Channel had a right to drop Stern. It's their network. If you don't like listening to Clear Channel stations, don't do it. As to HS being rude on the air, I see no obligation for any station to make "room" for such an individual Bobert.

I suspect Ron is right. If Stern had a large enough audience bringing in enough revenue, he would probably still be broadcasting on Clear Channel.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 08:42 PM

Hey Guest.

You have no credibility and are just a nameless, souless poster with an obviously raging crimson-head boner for Little Hawk whose arguement has definately got some merit.

I've read the whole thread. I used to like Howard Stern but hardly listen to him any more. When I am in the mood for tit jokes, I know where he is on the dial. I'm glad he is there because once in a while it's a good thing to be in the mood for tit jokes. Dennis Miller and Bill Maher are sometimes interesting. I don't care if you think they are opportunists. People who are not opportunists in some way are usually broke.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: 42
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 10:14 PM

well, since nothing's happened for over an hour here, I'm presuming "guest" is whacking off anonymously somewhere else and Little Hawk has returned to trying to make sense of a weird world and Howard Stern is madly giggling in some accountant's office thinking of what his next gig will be.

whether the debate evolves into a discussion of T&A or censorship is up to us.

j

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 10:20 PM

FWIW, Bill Maher calls himself a "Libertarian".

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 10:21 PM

Heh! Heh! That sounds like a plausible summation, 42. I think either way there is much potential here for a lively thread. I had a chance to borrow a book written by Howard Stern today, and blew it. I forgot to take it with me when I left Raptor's place. Darn. It looked like a fairly entertaining account of a very odd character indeed.

In Stern's case I think tarring and feathering or maybe a pie in the face would be more appropriate than censorship, but I'm not sure yet, cos I haven't read the whole book. He may be an unsung genius and a hero of social liberation.

And I'm telling you, I can hardly WAIT till I do read it...

Well, I can wait a little while, I guess...

Maybe next month.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: 42
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 10:32 PM

gee Martin...you'd better watch out! joe clone just put the kibosh on another thread in which someone made a remark that mirrored your "obviously raging crimson-head boner" comment. Censorship has raises its ugly head even on the cat.

j

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 10:52 PM

I'd also heard Maher referred to as a vaudeville pundit, so just now I went Googling, and found the apparent reference. It is from a pre-9/11 Mother Jones interview with him, which starts out with:

"The host of "Politically Incorrect" serves up warmed-over, celebrity-enhanced pop politics to an uninformed audience. Just the way America likes it."

:)

Then, they refer to the show itself as:

"The popular 30-minute talk show, which follows "Nightline" weeknights on ABC, features a guest roster that sounds like the start of a bad joke ("So Chris Rock, Dr. Ruth, and Sammy Hagar walk into a bar..."). Maher is the anti-John McLaughlin, moderating as, say, Donna Shalala and Ted Nugent debate dreadfully familiar topics...kind of like celebrity intellectual Jell-O wrestling."

He revealed the following about himself in the interview:

"I can't even get the Wall Street Journal. I look at all that print, and it just looks too intimidating to me. I'm much more comfortable with USA Today."

And then, 9/11. Is it any wonder he made the bone-headed statement about the hijackers, that led to Ari's now infamous reminder that:

"...all Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 01:00 AM

Apparently, the purge marches on. Clear Channel fired two DJs from Atlanta this weekend also:

http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/136765-9538-062.html

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 01:48 PM

This article from the Battle Creek Enquirer (which I've never heard of, but it was linked to by Google News) is excellent, and says it all quite succinctly, IMO:

Free speech, politics and bottom line

Here is my favorite quote from the article:

"It seems ironic to us that while Powell endorses less government regulation of media ownership, he wants more regulation of media content. Why let free enterprise reign unrestricted while at the same time bringing down a hammer on free speech? We fear that such a philosophy will result in more consolidated ownership of media outlets and fewer voices being heard."

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 03:46 PM

Well, CC eventually will fire every DJ, with the exception of 2 or three, in the country. We'll have one big happy (not..) radio show that we're sposed to think is broadcast right down the road becuase we hear commercials for the local Pontiac dealer...

Yup that will be it for radio that plays music. And of course they'll be the usual Christian (not...) and right winged talk shows to compliment the one music station.

Heck, we're allready seeing how lack of competition is hurting the music industry. Like how many bands get played on the radio? Is it 4 or 5?

Think I'm kidding? CC allready has gobbled up 60% of the sations...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 04 - 04:19 PM

I had hardly noticed. I gave up listening to commercial radio a long time ago, due to the ads and the lack of variety and the generally crummy music. Commercial radio is a wasteland, and so is commercial TV...but here and there there are still things worth tuning in to, if you know when they're on.

Matter of fact, any medium that is controlled and dominated by mainstream commercial advertising is a wasteland.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Raptor
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 07:38 PM

Without free thinking DJs we are forced to listen to what the corperate assholes want to push down our throats!

This, I believe, caused the death of Rock and Roll!

I risk further alienating myself on this site but I like Howard Stern!

I find him to be funny and agree with his opinions on such people as Dr. Laura Slessenger and Rush Limbaugh!
He also caused the people who listen to him to think about issues such as who to vote for and not taking life too seriously!
Anyone to uptight to listen because they couldn't get past a few fart jokes might not get it but he had some good points to make to an audience that utherwise wouldn't nessarliy follow news or politics.

I was very upset when he was canned from the Toronto station Q107.

Clear Channel taking over the media and deciding what to FEED us is like Wall Mart buying out the mom and pop stores and proliferating the economy with cheeper "goods" made in some eastern country and this means the death of Good music and Quality "Goods"

Raptor

P.S. Guest don't reply to this. I find you to be the uneducated one and all the things you accused Little Hawk of!

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:16 PM

My exact sentiments, Raptor... Hey, I didn't like Howard Stern at all but firmly believe that America is less well off without him... If that makes any sense? It does to me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Cruiser
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:45 PM

Stern is too crude for me to be acceptable. However, I would listen to Stern before I would the Christian radio or TV programming that is becoming all too prevalent.

Government or corporate censorship of either is inappropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 10:17 PM

I've been reading Howard Stern's book, "Miss America". It's very funny, and he makes a lot of very good points (in between the usual sex stuff and so on). He's definitely a smart man, and also a bit twisted, but at least he's honest about it. I don't find him offensive, just raw. Matter of fact, I'm really getting to like Howard Stern.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: ClearChannel fires Howard Stern...
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 07:55 PM

Get the duct tape....

Bobert