This was due to the result of a new policy by Clear Channel, a company that owns about a third of all radio stations in thi country, under pressure from an FCC edict.
Now I'm all for the FCC to occasionally remind radio and TV (broadcast) that they ultimately run on the goodwill of the people of the USA (who ultimately "own" the airwaves), but I'd rather they used it to INCREASE the available POV, not restrict it.
And I don't even LIKE Howard Stern.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I doubt it will affect Stern much. Non-Clear Channel stations in those markets will pick him up very quickly, and will get ratings for it, too.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As the article notes, Howard Stern is syndicated mainly through another syndic.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I have a feeling he will continue to play on E as usual.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
True, but even so, with the FCC pressure, it will be interesting to see what Infinity does.
-Bok
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I'm not a big Stern Fan, but I have noticed a difference in the Bob and Tom show. They have obviously been contacted by the FCC because they are bleeping bits and songs that have been played for years without the censoring "bleeps" I can understand the concern but It makes me sad all the same, Bob and Tom are a great morning show that I fear may not be as good now. Stupid Janet Jackson and J. Timberlake. If I didn't hate them before, I sure do now!!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To be honest, if the FCC had really enforced their existing standards Stern would have been gone ten years ago. Only his ratings kept them off his back, and there's too much pressure on them now to let him slide anymore.
I think he should go the Opie and Anthony route and move to satellite radio. Like the premium cable channels, if he wants to broadcast adult-orientated material it should be where interested listeners can easily find it but public broadcast stations with FCC regs can block it.
Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
I don't know if the above linked article mentions this or not (I'm to lazy to check) but exactly 6 stations are affected by this. Not a big deal. Just media hype mostly, IMO
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:In January, the FCC announced it would fine Clear Channel $750,000 for allegedly indecent content aired by one of its DJs, Todd Clem, known as Bubba the Love Sponge. The company fired Clem on Tuesday.
Having just paid a hefty fine for indecency, I could see why their management might want to cut carrying Stern's show. And it's not like Stern was going to suffer much...it only effected 6 stations, out of hundreds (not owned by Clear) that carry Stern's show.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ah, intersting, and my mistake (I seem to make too many of those ). Still, something to monitor in the future.
-Bok
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I see a big problem with Stern being yanked from the air. Free Speech is threatened when the Federal Government forces a company to pull talent from the air. I've never heard Howard Stern, but I know he's on TV as well. If the Government will indirectly pull a person off the air for "indecency" when will it stop? When will the word itself be defined? If he's on TV as well, why hasn't he been taken off that? Isn't he just as indecent on TV, if not moreso? I think we are starting to deal with a government that has too much power. I also think I need to keep quiet because I'm a federal worker.
[ February 26, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
scott, not to worry, Stern isn't off the air. Though I wouldn't cry any tears if he was. He can be funny, but mostly he's just vile. IMO.
edited to add: And the gov't didn't tell Clear they needed to pull Stern's show. That was a management decision of a private company.
[ February 26, 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It could be argued that the Federal government didn't force anything. Stern's own actions forced the stations to pull his show.
Should any sort of entertainment be allowed, anywhere, at any time, as long as someone wants it? Is it censorship to want areas or blocks of time where certain levels of decency are maintained, as long as more "adult" material is available elsewhere? He hasn't been shut down, as has been said.
Keeping controversial or adult material in requested-only areas is hardly censorship. It hasn't stopped HBO lately, at least not judging by their Emmys. Or should Nickleodeon start playing "Oz" in the afternoons, right after Rug Rats? It's entertaining, after all.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
But it's the FCC, a branch of the Federal Government, that tagged him as indecent and fined him.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Nope, to my knowledge he's never been fined.
The stations carrying his show have, many times, and in 1992 the FCC fined Infinity Broadcasting $600,000 after Stern discussed masturbating to a picture of Aunt Jemima.
He can broadcast all he wants, whatever he wants, but it's the stations responsibility to keep him in line with FCC regulations that existed long before Stern and the FCC can fine them for not keeping him within those limits.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
So, if the FCC fines the company that he works for and the company in turn pulls him. Isn't the FCC indirectly responsible for his yanking?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
He is responsible for his yanking, and no one else. (And that is a particularly appropriate line, in this case)
The FCC regs on permissable language aren't new. Stern knows what he can get away with and what he can't, and he delights in pushing that envelope as far as he can. If he pushes it too far and gets fined, he brought it on himself.
Put it this way. If I keep driving faster and faster over the speed limit and finally get pulled over, is it the policeman's fault I have to pay the ticket? Or mine?
[ February 26, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: by Chris Bridges Keeping controversial or adult material in requested-only areas is hardly censorship. It hasn't stopped HBO lately, at least not judging by their Emmys.
Unfortunately, Congress and the FCC are now looking into censoring even THOSE channels.
read this Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Next stop, the world wide web. :/
On the positive side, it means more money for the Dems from the entertainment industry. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
HowardStern "...suggest his change in heart about his support for President Bush is the real reason for him being suspended by Clear Channel." And that his broadcast-demise will be because "the FCC just refuses to process licenses and stuff like that when they're challenged" in court over their fines&penalties.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). Still, something to monitor in the future.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)