March 08, 2004

A STERN WARNING

Years and years and years ago, I listened to Howard Stern on the radio. He was funny. Really funny.

And then, over a period of months, he shifted emphasis. The material became more raunchy, more of what would come to be called the "Shock Jock" mentality. It annoyed me. He seemed better than this type of material. As if doing real humor was too hard, and he was going for cheap gags about flatulence and breasts. Plus the major problem with shock humor is that you have to keep upping the ante, until it's all about the gross out rather than anything approaching wit.

So I started listening to other stuff.

It's now years later and Stern is saying that the show will probably be folding its tent altogether as the Clear Channel dumps it from major markets and the FCC issues bug bucks fines for indecency.

What I'd like to know is this:

When in the intervening twenty-plus years since I last listened to Howard Stern were station selection controls removed from radios?

Have they become overly complicated? Have people lost the ability to manipulate them? Is every radio in the world locked in to the stations carrying his show so that people have no choice but to listen?

I mean, I don't understand why this isn't a no-brainer. I don't think Howard Stern is funny. So I don't listen to him. What the hell kind of mentality are we living in where it's decided that Howard Stern isn't funny and he must be punished for it or driven off the air or both? This makes zero sense to me. Am I that much smarter, better, niftier than so many others that I just say, "I don't think that's funny, I'm not going to listen anymore?" and then do that? I'm unclear on why everyone can't do that, rather than decide on behalf of those people who *do* like Howard Stern that they shouldn't be allowed to hear it.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at March 8, 2004 03:29 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Paul Skowronski at March 8, 2004 03:59 AM

I thought Howard was funny when i started listening to him about ten years ago when he was REALLY huge... but then i grew up.

But this whole thing isn't about Howard being unfunny, it's the FCC giving in to a few select people who deem certain things offensive. What's next, the gov't regulating the content in comics?

Howard isn't willing to compromise himself... are people like Garth Ennis or Bendis willing to?

Posted by: Rich at March 8, 2004 04:23 AM

I mentioned this on under one of the other weblogs here several days ago and someone disagreed that there has been an increase in censorship recently. This sure seems like censorship to me. I am really scared of the direction our country is going. This is another step in the current adminstration's attempt to control the media and the people and I don't like it one bit. Over the last 2 or 3 years It seems as if every time I turn around, our freedoms have eroded just a little bit more.

This is obviously part of the crackdown because of the Superbowl incident, but its also interesting to note that Stern, who was very pro-Bush during the recent Iraq war, has recently begun to criticize Bush and his Administration's recent acts and decisions. Strange how one day Howard Stern is perfectly okay to listen to and then the next he is objectionable despite the fact that his programming content has largely remained the same for the past 20 years.

Posted by: Surges at March 8, 2004 04:23 AM

I agree that you can listen to something better. But the thing is, it's getting so hard to even FIND anything better. Here in Boston we at least have Howie Carr - who runs a rather crazy show, but doesn't fall into shock-jock style. He simply brings up subjects people want to listen about - and he creates a darn fine show out of it.

But I'd imagin that can't be said for all other communities. Janet Jackson's "Waredrobe Malfuction" was the last straw. Movie people always say "why don't you watch somethig else, if you don't like it." Sad fact is there is nothing else. At least nothing convient, unless you work hard to find it.

We don't want to enforce strict rules (like Genies' Belly Button) from the past, but we as fans and the public have to step up and say enough is enough! Stuff like Howard Stern can still be found - but for once it's gonna have to be the raunchy humor fans who are going to have to work to find something they like on the air.

Posted by: LogicLeap at March 8, 2004 04:36 AM

We're talking about two different lines here - the 'this isn't interesting/amusing enough so I won't listen to it' line and the 'this is SO offensive/nasty/whatever that NO ONE should be ALLOWED to listen to it' line...lots of stuff crosses line #1 for me, but I don't find much out there that I'd particularly care about others listening to (with the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh; he can go). In fact, unless there's some kind of infraction of some law or other, I don't think there should be restrictions like this - spew your message away, Howard. I'm all in favor of keeping him on the air...but I have no intention of listnening to him anytime soon.

Posted by: Jeff at March 8, 2004 04:59 AM

Well yes, people can learn to operate the controls on their radios (and televisions). They won't, but the opportunity is there.

However, doesn't Clear Channel also have a choice on what they air? I'm not defending Clear Channel in any way, but I really don't see the difference. There are other radio stations in the markets (that is if CC hasn't bought them all, which is another arguement totally) that would probably love the ratings boost they would get from carrying Howard Stern, especially now with the controversy.

Posted by: Mike at March 8, 2004 05:21 AM

Big difference between what happened with Janet Jackson in the SuperBowl half-time show and Howard Stern.

With the Wardrobe Malfunction Incident, that's not what people were watching the SuperBowl for.

I can't imagine there are people who listen to Howard Stern who don't know what to expect.

Posted by: Simon DelMonte at March 8, 2004 05:25 AM

Hmmm. Interesting webpage update.

I don't like seeing Howard Stern, as much as I dislike his shtick, be singled out for persecution. Nor do I like seeing Clear Channel playing the tune that the current administration tells them to.

That said, the anti-obscenity laws on the books are not new, just arbitrarily enforced. If the FCC had always treated Howard Stern this way, I might not be as perturbed. I really don't mind these laws being in existence, since we can't monitor our kids all the time. (I myself listened to Howard Stern in the early days when no one was around to stop me.) But for these laws to be essentially ignored for years, only to return because of the current political climate, that's unfair.

Oh, and it's good to know that I didn't imagine that Stern was funny once. I loved his stuff in high school.

Posted by: Katheryn at March 8, 2004 05:41 AM

**We're talking about two different lines here - the 'this isn't interesting/amusing enough so I won't listen to it' line and the 'this is SO offensive/nasty/whatever that NO ONE should be ALLOWED to listen to it' line**

The problem I have is *who* decides where the line is? I agree with another poster who said every time we turn around another of our rights seems to have eroded. It is difficult to legislate middle of the road morality. Certainly there are issues that can't be disputed: murder, rape, stealing..but then we reach the day to day measures of what should and shouldn't be presented as choice. I never found Stern funny so I never watched him or listened to him. But the actions of the FCC seem to be one more indication of government telling me what I should think, believe and do. That makes me extremely uncomfortable.

Posted by: Lance Eason at March 8, 2004 06:17 AM

I didn't read every response in the thread, so forgive me if I'm retracing somebody else's steps.
The problem here is that we're no longer permitted to make these kinds of decisions.
"He's funny, I want to listen to him" or "He's not funny, I don't want to listen to him"...........these are no longer our decisions to make. An increasingly small number of corporations own an increasingly large number of communication outlets, so that at best we have a dearth of variety in entertainment and information choices, and at worst we are actually being told what to think.

Posted by: jess at March 8, 2004 06:58 AM

First, how much is a Bug buck? Is their an exchange difference? Or does the FCC just have a bug up their ass?

Secondly, having worked in the radio business for a summer, I know that if a popular DJ gets fired/unsyndicated from from one affliate they are bound to appear somewhere else rather quickly. Back when I was about 10, I listened to the local disc jockey/shockjocks Don and Mike. They were kinda stupid then. Someone new, (I forget who) bought the station. They popped up somewhere else two months later. 13 years later they nationally syndicated and guess what, they're still pretty stupid.

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 8, 2004 07:01 AM

I don't know about everyone else, but I find the old version of the site was easier on the eyes. Please bring it back.

Posted by: Wesley Smith at March 8, 2004 08:32 AM

Couple of things:
1) Simon Delmonte had it correct above. The FCC rules aren't new. They're just enforced arbitrarily. Even the Shock Jocks around the nation have complained that the rules are worded too vaguely to be enforced.

2) Clear Channel dropping Stern from their stations is just part of a larger house-cleaning that really has little to do with censorship and more to do with Clear Channel covering their collective butt. Just a few days after the Superbowl (I'm not saying the two items were related, but they could be), Clear Channel was fined over $700,000 for actions by Bubba the Love Sponge. I'm not sure, but it may have been the largest fine imposed on a radio broadcaster.

Most people probably will probably think I'm naive when I say this, but I think it was an unfortunate coincidence that the Superbowl fiasco happened around the same time the FCC decided to finally start cracking down on the shock jocks and putting real definitions in place.

Posted by: DebbyS at March 8, 2004 08:34 AM

On a radio-related note, Phil Hendrie used to be very creative and very funny. I'd make every effort to hear him, tuning into KFI/Los Angeles at night though I live far away here in Albuquerque. Then he got syndicated... and feared the new, larger audience would not understand his act, so he began to explain it (which pretty much ruined the idea). Then he felt the need to get raunchier, which began to take the fun out of the show when he'd resort to unneeded bathroom/inappropriate sexual humor (especially during afternoon drivetime). Finally, with 9/11, he turned politically conservative, quite possibly originally because station owners and his bosses demanded it. Long time fans became alarmed as the quality of the show declined sharply. Sadly, it hasn't recovered, and I don't make an effort to seek the show out any more. :( Stern I've never listened to since he's not broadcast here during the daytime that I know of.

Posted by: Kevin T. Brown at March 8, 2004 08:35 AM

"What's next, the gov't regulating the content in comics?"

Been there, done that. It was called the Comics Code Authority.

Posted by: Jonathan at March 8, 2004 08:49 AM

Here in San Diego, Stern's show is/was carried on one of a largish number of radio stations, during the mornings. Another is occupied by a morning team that used to be funny, until they felt the need to "compete" with ol' Howie. Then they abandoned all subtlety, and descended to his level. Currently, I keep my car radio locked on a station that plays mostly music during my morning commute (good thing for me that I like classic rock!). At work, I mostly listen to CDs - no annoying shock-jocks there, wanting me to think a prolonged farting sound is the height of humor... At home, of course, since I have a three-year-old, it's mostly VeggieTales (and if I hear "His Cheeseburger" one more time, I think I'm going kosher!).

My point here (and I do have one) is that even with monsters like Clear Channel and Infinity taking over the radio markets, you still don't have to listen to Stern and his ilk. I'd be delighted if Clear Channel were taking Stern off the air because his ratings had followed his humor into the toilet. However, I am annoyed that they're doing it under the guise of "protecting the airwaves". People, we don't need protection from the likes of Stern. Maybe from Limbaugh and some of his disciples, who seem to want to stir up crowds to the border of violence to support their own cause du jour, but not bad comedians.

Posted by: Kathleen David at March 8, 2004 08:51 AM

As we have seen recently with the word "sucks" comic strips are being regulated by whatever the community standards are according to the local editors. The self regulation of comics is very arbitrary. Case in point, Fallen Angel has a mature label on it. If Ennis or Bendis or Alan Moore were writing it, it would NOT be there because of the writer's previous reputation. But since it's Peter David, it has to be naughty. The month that the label went on, I read through most of the DCU and found a number of comics much more risqué than what Peter was having the artist suggest in his art work and they still don’t have a mature label on them. Double standards suck. They suck for Howard Stern and they suck for Peter David.

Posted by: Warren S. Jones III at March 8, 2004 09:32 AM

I have to agree that the "SuperBowl Halftime Show" was the straw that broke the camel's back. However, taking this out on Howard Stern is just unfair. This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. If you don't like what is on the radio CHANGE THE CHANNEL. I guarantee that as soon as the ratings start to drop the sponsers will remove the $$$ and then the show will be cancelled. It is unfair that certain comics, TV and Radio shows are singled out when there are so many more important issues that should be addressed in the world. Everyone is talking about Janet's breast but no one is screaming about unemployement or homelessness etc.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 8, 2004 09:35 AM

"However, doesn't Clear Channel also have a choice on what they air?"

Sure they do, in my opinion.

The problem (as you allude to and others have mentioned) is that ClearChannel is rapidly becoming one of the only games in town. If ClearChannel owned one station and said "we don't want to air X", that'd be fine and dandy -- but when CC saying "we don't want to air X" translates into "therefore X cannot be heard by this segment of the population", at that point I think you're crossing a huge line.

Frankly, I've **never** found Stern funny -- but I'd prefer that my choice not to listen to him remain my choice and not someone else's.

(I also wonder, as a slight tangent, whether this may have been a misstep on CC's part. At least from the news articles I've read, Stern's really taken all the gloves off now that it's likely he's going to be fired anyway, and is coming down really hard on both CC and the administration. Given his ratings, that may not be good for either...)

TWL

Posted by: Londo at March 8, 2004 09:35 AM

"...it's decided that Howard Stern isn't funny and he must be punished for it or driven off the air or both"

No one is driving him off the air. His bosses merely decided that he no longer provided the product that they wished to sell. The gummnit or FCC didn't take him off the air, heck, they fined him more than TWICE as much back in 1995, and he seemed to survive for nine more years. In this case, I think that Stern is the one overreacting, not the other way around.

We read about this kind of thing all the time, especially in comics. Writers or artists who have provided the same level of quality and professionalism for decades all of a sudden can't find work. Clear Channel decided they wanted to move further from HBO and more towards Disney, so Stern no longer fit their profile.

If he's now entirely blackballed in the industry, then maybe you're right, and the broadcasters are colluding with the FCC against him. Is there any evidence of that?


Posted by: Den at March 8, 2004 09:40 AM

"Been there, done that. It was called the Comics Code Authority."

Actually, no. The CCA was a voluntary industry trade group that the comics industry created to censor themselves. Basically, in the 1950s, comics decided it was better to censor themselves than allow the government to censor them.

"Movie people always say "why don't you watch somethig else, if you don't like it." Sad fact is there is nothing else. At least nothing convient, unless you work hard to find it."

You'll have to show me the section in the Constitution that guarrantees everyone "convient" entertainment that meets their individual tastes. The bottom line is, if you think the radio stations play nothing but garbage, go buy a bunch of CDs and listen to them in your car. If you think TV is just a vast wasteland, don't own one. Movies are all garbage? (although I think it's funny that the same people who for years have decried Hollywood movies are now singing the praises of a movie which revolves around a man being systematicly, slowly and graphicly tortured to death) Don't go see them.

Here's a suggestion: There are these things called books. Crack one of those open for your entertainment.

People seem to be forgetting that entertainment is a business and, like any other, they produce whatever the market will buy. Of course, that's another thing that I find endlessly amusing: The same people who are quick to invoke the magic of the marketplace when it comes to prescription drugs or education, are usually the first to demand that government heavily regulate the entertainment industry.

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed at March 8, 2004 10:15 AM

As observed, there are two threads here. One is about media censorship in general, the other is specifically about Howard Stern. I'll stick with the second for now.

The curious part about those weeks when Stern was on vacation was listening to his early stuff. It was much funnier. Partly it was that Stern allowed others to contribute to the humor of the show. But Billy West and Jackie Martling went off to find greener pastures - West successfully, Martling not.

Stern ragging on interns and syncopants isn't the same as having creative collaborators. I don't pretend to know for sure, but it smells like Stern drove some very talented people away through jealousy.

Another thing about the early shows was that Stern and his likes and dislikes weren't the focus of the show. It was often outer-directed, most amusingly at the pomposity of celebrity culture and the way celebs expect to be treated. When the show became the soap opera of Stern and his life, the show got dull.

Stern, after all, is a disk jockey. He isn't learned. He has some sharp emotional skills; he truly can find a person's "secret weakness" and keep hitting them in that spot until they bleed. But a talent for sadism is not very endearing. And when the show became all about Howard, his real lack of knowledge about the world became glaring. He's supposedly a Superman fan, for crying out loud, and anyone on this board could beat his knowledge of the character!

Stern is now wailing that his radio career is "over," trying to engender sympathy. He thinks he can get an army of fans to get him back on in the markets where Clear Channel dumped him. (Including mine, Orlando.) It might have happened for the old Howard, but not the present-day Howard. I think his career is over, but Ashcroft-ism is only partially responsible; I believe Stern's been declining for a long time.

Posted by: Jerry at March 8, 2004 10:17 AM

Look -

There are a couple of things going on.

1. Clear Channel is making a CHOICE on the image the want to present for their company. They aren't being FORCED to drop Stern. Noone is MAKING them do it. So your whole "that's what knobs are for" mentality doesn't fly. As for the complaints that they've had him on for years, and are doing it now, so what? That's like saying a radio network decides to switch from easy listening to hard rock can't, because they've done easy listening in the past. Networks are allowed to make business decisions and image decisions.

2. Howard Stern's ratings are dropping. A lot. Like 15 percent in New York, 20% in LA, and more in other markets across the country. His star is fading. It's getting old. He's getting old. His listeners are getting old. And the fact of the matter is, what made him unique is now getting copied by every morning show wannabe across the country. This combined with Clear Channels desire to present a higher standard probably made it real easy to decide to drop him. And honestly, even after they decided to present a higher standard they gave Stern a chance, yet Stern had to push it for whatever reason (and don't give me that BS about "you can't control the audience - radios operate on a delay with a "cough" button for that kind of stuff).

You don't like Clear Channel dropping Stern? Change the channel, remember?

Jerry

Posted by: del at March 8, 2004 10:18 AM

I listen to Howard Stern occasionally, but like any other thinking person, I've learned how to use those nifty little buttons on my radio if I don't like what I'm hearing. I don't like the idea of indecency regulations because the definition is so subjective. I personally don't want everything in the media to be suitable for children to hear/see. I think it's time that individuals are held responsible, instead of placing the blame on creators and artists. Rather than going after some dj who talks about boobies and gas in the radio, why aren't we pressuring parents to do their jobs and "protect" their children?

Posted by: Jonathan at March 8, 2004 10:21 AM

"You don't like Clear Channel dropping Stern? Change the channel, remember?"

That's exactly what I do. The station I listen to in the car is with Infinity Broadcasting, but if, as was threatened, they decide to pick up Stern's show (which is syndicated, after all), I can switch immediately to a station "run" by Jefferson-Pilot (wisely, they seem to realize their strength is insurance, not radio-station daily operations), or any one of three independent stations. I don't listen to Stern because I'm exercising a choice. I don't like the fact that a paternalistic organization, fearing the big, bad FCC, wants to remove the factor of choice.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at March 8, 2004 10:53 AM

Forgive my brief hijacking of this comment thread to compliment Glenn (and Peter) on the redesign of the blog. Black or grey type on a white background is a lot easier on these old eyes! (Sorry StarWolf!)

I've never been a particular fan of Stern's, but I will give him a lot of points for internal consistency. And for the indelible image of "Grandpa" Al Lewis screaming into a microphone at one of his rallies, "Fuck the FCC! Fuck 'em, fuck 'em, fuck the FCC!"

"Clear Channel decided they wanted to move further from HBO and more towards Disney, so Stern no longer fit their profile." And Michael Savage does? Mr. "gays should get AIDS and die" is definitely not Disneyfied. Again, it comes back to what Kath was saying about double standards. Don't take (the coincidentally newly-anti-Bush) Stern off the air but keep (right-wing homophobe) Savage.


Posted by: Londo at March 8, 2004 11:00 AM

"Don't take (the coincidentally newly-anti-Bush) Stern off the air but keep (right-wing homophobe) Savage."

What do they have to do with each other? Because Mr. Stern is an equal opportunity insulter, he's okay? While the views espoused by Mr. Savage seem to be more morally bankrupt than Mr. Stern's, they don't, as far as I know, violate any rules or regulations about decency.

Posted by: George at March 8, 2004 11:31 AM

I listen to Howard Stern every day while at work (I find him funny, so sue me). Anyway, listening to the show in the past week has been very, very educational.

First off, while Clear Channel does have the right not to air his show on their stations, that is NOT what they prefer to do. The chairman of Clear Channel was in the senate saying how ashamed he was about airing Stern on his stations. Yet, Stern was on Clear Channel stations for over 10 years, and they never once complained about his content or the millions of dollars that he brought in for them. The Clear Channel people told him personally that they wanted him on, but they had to drop him because of the threat of fines. And what's the big deal about fines? Because the FCC is implementing a zero tolerance policy and if Congress has its way, the fines will be increased ten-fold. And there is no way to fight them (see below).

Second, the Supreme Court ruled on indecency in the 70's and the only things they ruled indecent was that the 7 dirty words were indecent. That was the entirety of their ruling. But now the FCC is arbitrarily deciding what is indecent. Can the stations fight them? No. The FCC have found a way to circumvent due process. When you a station is fined, they can appeal the fine through the judicial system. The FCC knows that their rulings will be found unconstitutional and knows their fines will be thrown out of court, so what do they do? Easy, the station's license paperwork seems to "get lost." Whenever the station needs any of its licenses renewed, or when the company wants to buy or sell a radio or TV station, the paperwork slows down to a crawl. In 1994, Stern was fined for indecency, and Viacom filed an appeal. As you know, appeals take months and sometimes years. During this time, Viacom's media licenses were not being renewed and they could not buy or sell any stations. Viacom finally made a "donation to the FCC to recognize black broadcasters" which just so happened to be the exact amount of the fine and all the paperwork started flowing again. The FCC is openly engaged in racketeering. If you fight them, they will make sure that you will go bankrupt before the appeals process is finished. This agency is extremely dangerous to democracy. And what's scarier is that they (president Bush) are in the pocket of the Religious Right.

Posted by: George at March 8, 2004 11:33 AM

Oops, I meant to say "...they (AND president Bush)..."

Posted by: Roger Tang at March 8, 2004 12:11 PM

"Because Mr. Stern is an equal opportunity insulter, he's okay? While the views espoused by Mr. Savage seem to be more morally bankrupt than Mr. Stern's, they don't, as far as I know, violate any rules or regulations about decency."

Well, they do seem to be more politically correct nowadays...

Posted by: Keith R.A. DeCandido at March 8, 2004 12:27 PM

Honestly, I think this has less to do with censorship and more to do with those declining ratings. Stern has been getting fined for years, but in the past, the stations were willing to eat those fines because Stern's ratings were through the roof. Well, they've been slowly working their way back under the roof, and that's going to have an effect. Stern's act -- which is old, and tired, and not as popular as it used to be -- may no longer be worth the expenditure.

Honestly, if it's a choice between a monetary reason and a moral reason, I'm willing to bet that 90% of the time, the monetary reason's closer to the truth. Moral outrage is tough to measure and changeable and flexible -- the bottom line, though, remains ever the bottom line.

One last thing: Stern saying his days are numbered is not the same thing as his days actually being numbered. He could just be pissing and moaning and rabble-rousing in order to get his fans to inundate Clear Channel with angry e-mails.

---KRAD

Posted by: Bladestar at March 8, 2004 12:31 PM

SOmeone earlier mentioned that the FCC doesn't control Cable or Satellite Radio, but they ARE actively trying to get control of regulating them as well.

All of you who both don't like Stern and support Clear Channel and think this is a great idea, I'm gonna have to laugh my ass off at YOU when teh Censorship-loving Nazis at the FCC turn their guns on what you like and enjoy.

While I don't believe the conspiracy stuff Howard's been saying the past few days, I do agree that Bush and his crew want to make the US a more religion-based country, sort of just like the Taliban-run Afghanistan.

I wonder who will ride in to rescue the US from the evil tyranical goverment (sort of like how we "rescued" Iraq from Saddam)...

Posted by: Jerry in Richmond, Va at March 8, 2004 12:44 PM

So many points, so little time.

To those who've said that no one is forcing Stern or others off the air:
Yes someone is. By stating that they plan to up fines to the levels of bankrupting people, the FCC isn't just acting to stop the odd infraction. They're pledging to try and put people out of business. They've also stated that they want to start going after the license of the companies or stations that carry product that they (the FCC) don't like. You can't figure out that a threat like that is "forcing someone" to do something?
You want to know what I found the most offensive about this? Too bad, I'm telling you anyhow. Clear Channels head guy telling us all that they're sorry to us, the listener, for putting this stuff on the air. I chose to listen to Bubba from time to time when I lived down in St. Pete. I chose to listen to Stern from time to time when I was on the road. So did so many other people that they were number one in most their markets. I found it insulting that they would try to cover their butts by telling us they harmed us by letting us choose to listen to something we liked or not to because we didn't and expected us and others to swallow that line. Please, grow a spine.
To the guys who said that this is nothing other then Clear Channel just deciding to change how it's seen by the public and what kind of image it has.... Please. If I walked up to a Country Western singer, put a gun to his head and told him to sing Motorhead; no one would be dumb enough to say he just wanted to change his image. The FCC is placing a gun to the head of broadcasters, stations, DJs and hosts in the form of business life threatening actions. Don't insult the rest of us by saying its just a matter of them wanting to change their image and nothing more then that.
For those who say it's all about standards. Got no problem with that. But I do when somebody elses standards being forced onto me. No one forces you to listen to one station or watch one show. No one makes you go to a certain club, pub or bar if that's not your thing. You have a choice to go else where and not be "offended" by the actions of the other places/things. Don't then turn around and tell me that I can't go there, see that or hear that because you don't like it. I live in the city that kicked Stern off the air weeks before he even got here. Didn't really like it but I was able to get the odd Stern fix when I felt like it when traveling or by using my booster to get better reception of stations way far away. My community wasn't big on Stern but I could find ways to listen. The FCC says that they are THE community and that THEY will see to it that no one listens.
And I find that it's funny that the biggest voices for this are the conservatives. Why? They want smaller gov't. But they want bigger gov't control here. They claim that they believe that capitolism is king and that the free market should decide what is or isn't successful. Unless they don't like it and want it destroyed. Then it's the gov'ts job to swoop in and save us from our own choices in that same free market. They preach that they want to see less gov't in our lives. So practice what you preach and leave my drive time listening alone.
Jerry

Posted by: Shortdawg at March 8, 2004 12:44 PM

I think Stern is one of the great modern satirists, up there with Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, about the closest our modern age has to a Mark Twain or Oscar Wilde. But the point is that even if you hate the guy, not everything needs to be dumbed down and sanitized for kids. Give adults some entertainment choices, for Christ's sake, before Europeans start laughing at us even harder!

Posted by: ben rosenberg at March 8, 2004 01:37 PM

It's simply because we are in a conservative upswing and Howard Stern is an easy target. I would also say that he's a lot older now and probably just doesn't want to be the poster child for the rightwings wrath... he's rich so WTF does he need to fight with anyone about. *shrug*

Posted by: Londo at March 8, 2004 02:44 PM

"To those who've said that no one is forcing Stern or others off the air: Yes someone is. By stating that they plan to up fines to the levels of bankrupting people, the FCC isn't just acting to stop the odd infraction. They're pledging to try and put people out of business."

This latest fine is less than half the one paid in 1995, so it's hard for me to agree that **this** one is meant to bankrupt him. And on top of that, to avoid future fines, he simply has to stay within the laws that govern the public airwaves. But, if the obligation to stay on the legal side of the law is too much for Mr. Stern, then I have little sympathy for him.

Posted by: Dave O'Connell at March 8, 2004 02:55 PM

I think Stern's just being a drama queen. We're talking about six stations dumping him here, not some sort of mass exodus.

And while I don't agree with the FCC fining Stern, the fact is they've been doing it since at least 1990 (for Howard's 1988 Christmas show.) This is not news.

-Dave O'Connell

Posted by: Bladestar at March 8, 2004 03:50 PM

The FCC isn't fining Stern himself, it fines the network/station. Plus, the FCC blocks renewal of licenses and mergers and totally hassles the company to death if they don't cave in. They make it impossible for the company to survive if they fight back and try to take it to court, that's why the older Stern fines never were contested in court...

Posted by: Jerry at March 8, 2004 04:07 PM

So? That's what they've always done. You can't be in the middle here. This is a valid slippery slope. Either there are some standards on what are broadcast, or their are none. If you agree there should be a limit on whats broadcast in the public airwaves, then we need to discuss where the line is drawn. But don't act indignant that someone is setting standards. And if you don't agree that there should be a limit, then we should be able to broadcast full porn at three in the afternoon on the network stations...

Jerry

Posted by: Bladestar at March 8, 2004 04:18 PM

If we lived in a truly "Capilistic" society like we trumpet to the rest of world as a lie, then there would be porn on network TV at 3 PM IF people were willing to watch it.

TV is expensive to make, they need their sponsors, and if the sponsors see that a show isn't being watched by enough potential customers, they'll stop advertising on it, and the money will dry up and the show will go away. THAT is capitalism...

Posted by: Dean Wilson at March 8, 2004 04:25 PM

Okay i admit i like Stern.dont always listen but he is usually good for a cheap ,crude laugh.However if he is being sick or not funny i dont listen.Its a concept i use a lot with books ,radio,movies and t.v.If i dont like it i dont bother with it.Several posts have mentioned the rules being applied arbitrarily.This is where i have the issue .Stern caller using the word nigger is bad .However there are any number of videos,movies and t.v shows where the word is used all the time and no one seems to care.
The concern i have is why are so many people willing to let the government censor what we view ,hear and read .????One day its a radio show the next day who knows .Bottomline change the station.Also in many cases the argument is "what about the children?".I have a better one "where are the parents???"Its not the governments job to raise your kids its yours.Okay enough ranting for now

Posted by: insideman at March 8, 2004 05:43 PM

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC!

Want some good natured "R" rated fun? If you like hip-hop culture, go to www.asksnoop.com, and type http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/ into the box there. You'll
see the Hip Hop translation of PAD's home page. P.S. Don't do this if you're offended by hip-hop language... But if you're not-- you can do it with any home page anywhere!

Posted by: Karen at March 8, 2004 06:43 PM

Lance Eason:
An increasingly small number of corporations own an increasingly large number of communication outlets, so that at best we have a dearth of variety in entertainment and information choices, and at worst we are actually being told what to think.

Hear hear! I'm tired of getting partial news that caters to fear from the huge corporations that now own all the media outlets. It's too easy for many folk to go along with what they read and hear in this market and instead of getting many opinions from a diverse market, we seem to only hear the views from the corporations.

Posted by: Rip Tanion at March 8, 2004 06:49 PM

I live in New York, and have been listening to Howie since the mid-80's. He is an originator, who has spawned inferior imitators all around the country, nay, around the world. He changed the face of broadcasting. Unfortunately, this has made him a target. Even when some no-talent, Stern-wanna-be like Bubba the Love Sponge gets in trouble, they go after Stern; because if it wasn't for him, these other clowns would still be spinning records and doing time checks. Thing is unlike these other clowns, Stern knew where the line was. He never says any of the seven dirty words on the air, and always bleeps anyone on his show who does.

It's sad that Janet Jackson popping out her saggy, National Geographic tit at the Superbowl Halftime show would start this censorship snowball rolling. First of all, how many people actually caught it live? Not me. I was watching the game at a bar in Manhattan. I had no desire to see these no-talent pop-stars, so I went out for a smoke during halftime. When I walked back in the bar for the second half, not one person there mentioned Janet's jug. I don't think anybody noticed, or was even paying attention. True, what she did was inappropriate for what's supposed to be a family event, but going after the rest of the broadcasting industry for her lack of judgment is ridiculous.

Everybody knows Stern is NOT family entertainment. I'm sure a lot of kids were watching the Superbowl, but few kids are listening to Howard. Stern is on at time of day when kids are under the greatest adult supervision. When his show comes on, most kids are with their parents, who are busy getting them ready for school. If kids are listening, it's because their parent are allowing them to. That's the parent's choice; it shouldn't be the government's. By the middle of the Stern's show, most kids are in school, and not even listening to the radio.

Unfortunately, Stern seems to think that Bush is the source of his problems. True, Bush could probably tell the FCC to lay off, if he wanted to, but this all started long before he got into office. The FCC fined Stern during the Clinton administration. And there's no evidence to suggest that if two-faced Kerry were to get elected, he'd call off the dogs, either. And it's not just the White House. There a lot of people in Congress trying to get him off the air, both Democrats and Republicans.

As for Clear Channel, yes they have the right to drop Stern, but they did so because they don't have the balls to stand up for what they broadcast, not because of poor ratings. Spineless Clear Channel folded like an accordion to government pressure. If I were a broadcaster, I would never work for them, because they show they have no loyalty to their employees.

The saddest part of it is that Stern can't even get his day court to fight this thing. Worse, one yenta in the Bible belt, with an agenda, can file a complaint with the FCC, and BOOM, your fined without due process.

Personally, I find MTV (which kids DO watch, often unsupervised) ten times more offensive than Stern's show. But I'm smart enough to know that I don't have to watch MTV. I can turn the channel, which I do. If I were a parent, I would just put that channel in parental lockout.

I know it's cliché, but if something offends you turn the station. If everything on TV or radio offends your delicate, old fashioned sensibilities, turn it off. Watch a DVD of Snow White, put on a Slim Whitman record, or just read the Bible. As for parents, they should be attentive to what their kids are watching or listening to. Sadly, their are parents out there who are just too damn lazy to monitor their children's media intake, and would rather have the government do the job for them.

Posted by: Lee Houston, Junior at March 8, 2004 07:02 PM

In regards to the Howard Stern situation, what I wonder about is, "How many of the people who enjoyed his act and supported Howard Stern on his way up are now amongst those trying to get rid of him?"

Posted by: Shortdawg at March 8, 2004 07:23 PM

Hey, Rip, I agree with everything you said except your assertion that the Super Bowl is so-called "family entertainment." I could never understand why a bunch of steroid-addicted, vulgarly-rich thugs pounding the #@#%!@* out of one another was considered appropriate entertainment for the kiddies while any allusion to healthy human sexuality whatsoever must be strictly off-limits. In the unlikely event I ever procreate, my brats are going to be exposed to Stern (presuming he's still around to be exposed to) long before they are ever exposed to professional sports, and I suspect that doing so will in no way turn them into sociopathic monsters.

Posted by: BARON at March 8, 2004 08:13 PM

its apity this is all the way down here but I know here in LA, on KLOS they run the Mark and Brian show. every friday they would have a segment called Sex University, where topics of sexuality ranging from prostitutes to STDs to any number of educational and recreational sex-topics were discussed for a half an hour with call ins and such. KLOS is owned by Viacom. and Sex U is no longer on the air because when Viacom wanted to limit the sexuality of its program, it didnt look at it on a case by case basis. taking into account the educational value of honest discussion of sexuality.

they looked at a programming sheet, saw "Sex", and now its done. this is absolutely bowing to government pressure, and it is absolutely a product of a company being indiscriminant in its movement away from sexualized programming.

Posted by: Michael Slark at March 8, 2004 08:45 PM

We seem to live in age where people don't say "If I don't like that I won't listen to it/won't buy it/etc." Instead, they say "If I don't like it NO ONE should listen to it/watch it/etc."

On another message board I frequent, posters are repeatedly calling for the cancellation of shows they don't like (never mind that others do) and the argument "then don't watch it," just doesn't penetrate.

Posted by: Brian C. Saunders at March 8, 2004 09:00 PM

I'm going to speak a little more to the general media trend of censorship. For one thing, it's disingenuous to state that only an overt act of the government can be termed censorship. That is just a wrong opinion to have in the climate the country currently has if you care about personal freedoms. When the head of Clear Channel whines about how bad he feels about the content they provide in front of Congress, is it likely he is telling the truth or telling Congress what they want to hear? Why does this question matter? Because Congress can go after the very small amount of corporations like Clear Channel and intimidate them into doing what they want them to. Why can they do this? Because a limited amount of broadcast frequencies during the early part of the 20th century demanded government intervention to allocate wavelengths to broadcasters. And because of that, the airwaves are "the public's," that is the government's. The corporations make a vast amount of money, but without government support, they won't continue to do so. So that they can continue to keep government support they have to knuckle under to unreasonable and censorious demands.

Why do we have so many fewer broadcasters? Because the Republican party and supporters in the Democratic Party have bent over backwards to encourage the consolidation of media markets, station ownership and the like. Media ownership is a big business. And only big businessmen can have a media outlet. No more mom and pop stations. What does this mean? It means fewer oppertunities for differing viewpoints to be aired ultimately.

It's not just about Howard Stern. Stern could have spoken out before now. He was a dominant media star at one point. Now he isn't and he's going to take a hit. Why does this matter? Because I'd rather have Stern's job which is more meaningful than a businessman's job. Stern communicated and generated ideas and humor. You may not have agreed with them, but in America if people want to listen, they should get to hear. A businessman? They make money for themselves and their stockholders. And their bottom line is just money, not how they make it. Ideals, ethics are easily and quickly tossed aside to make money. Stern, at least, is being judged openly if without chance for appeal. Clear Channel has been condemned to be a scapegoat before the fact and they will do anything to continue making money and that includes sacrificing their(and by extensions, everyone's) First Amendment rights. And that is just wrong.


Earlier I said Congress was making unreasonable and censorious demands. Congress is our representives, yet do they really represent any individual view? Of course not. They should be representing and defending the Consititution of the United States instead of what they do represent, powerful and vested interests and a distorted view of American society. Too many people fail to understand who and what they vote for. We are witnessing the consequences of errors that reach back over a century and as far back as two centuries. There are no easy answers, but the beginning of wisdom is to ask the questions.

Very few people are asking questions and many are being discouraged from doing so. Think on this if you do not care that Stern is being squeezed out of his job. Will his replacement be likely to ask questions or tell you the answers? Which do you prefer?

Brian

Posted by: Den at March 9, 2004 12:02 AM

Some said that this is all about having standards and again I'll ask why capitalism is just fine for educating kids (school choice), but not for our entertainment industry?

Second, what are the standards? I've listened to Stern's show on many occassions and he's steered clear of the seven words. Those are the only legal standards, but FCC applies new and shifting standards on a whim.

You know what got Viacom fined in 1994? Stern said "lesbians filled with lust." That may be offensive to some, but it doesn't mee the seven words test for obscenity. Now, CC is prodded to dump Stern because a caller said the N-word. A caller! It wasn't even him or someone connected to his show, just a caller. And still that word isn't obscene, just offensive.

Stern has on many occassions crossed over the line of good taste in my opinion, but if his show actually violated any obscenity laws, he'd have been forced off the air long ago. This is about a government bureaucracy that applies arbitrary standards that have no basis in law, but since they can shake you down by holding up your licensing renewal, they are free to extort money from businesses and pretend they're doing it to protect the children.

If another federal agency was extorting money from oil companies claiming that they were doing to protect kids from air pollution, you damn well better believe Bush would be all over them to get them to stop.

Posted by: poppaspank at March 9, 2004 01:44 AM

"Am I that much smarter, better, niftier than
everyone else..." asked PAD.
Based on my years of reading But I Digress in CBG,
I wouldn't want to rule out that possibility.

Posted by: Zeek at March 9, 2004 07:15 AM

I'm with you all on this one. Simply because while I think Stern is annoying too and IF I thought it was ok, would ban him. But my dilemma is if it's ok for someone to decide he's out then who's to say they won't decide something I DO like to listen to is out.

If we let them mess with his playground now, we've given the ok for people of his ilk to mess with the opposite side when it's no longer their time in power. Oh God, a world with Stern in charge of banning what HE deems offensive? I'm gonna be sick.

Posted by: Tim Byrd at March 9, 2004 07:58 AM

"It's sad that Janet Jackson popping out her saggy, National Geographic tit"

Wow. Misogyny, meanness, and probably racism, all in one pithy spew.

Posted by: Rob S. at March 9, 2004 09:02 AM

Is Howard being forced off the air? No, he can change the content of his show to stay on public airwaves (he's smart enough to do so and to do so very well) OR he can take his show to paid radio. So is he being censored? No, not at all.

The issue is not "turning the knob thingies" the issue is free and public airwaves. As a parent, I can encourage my children not to listen to garbage, but when they are by themselves, they can listen to things I don't want them to if garbage is available on free radio. If I don't buy the pay radio stations, then it isn't available for them to hear. It's really that simple. No one is shutting Stearn up. Same should go for free TV IMO.

Off topic a tad: How is a ratings on a comic censorship? I've never understood Frank's insistance that it is. It's a warning, plain and simple. Nothing worse than paying money for something and discovering it's stuff you don't like. It'd be kind of cool to have another rating system on writing quality, too, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Bladestar at March 9, 2004 10:06 AM

Sorry Rob S., but that is a HUGE LIE!

The airwaves are NOT "Free and public".

Free and public means people can CHOOSE what to listen to without people like you censoring them and expecting them to change their content!

So you're afraid your kids might hear something you don't agree with? WAH WAH WAH! Welcome to the 21st Century, your kids are going to see and a hear a lot you might not like or agree with, grow up and deal with it. Just before you couldn't control your urge to have kids doesn't mean the world has to be dumbed down to your kids level!

If parents like you would actually raise your kids instead of expecting the goverment to do it then you wouldn't be so terrified that something Howard Stern says might "hurt" them. Or did you rasise you kids to do/emulate everything they see/hear?

Congratulations, you're officially "Part of The Problem".

FREEDOM means people can see/hear what THEY choose to, NOT what some small minded religio-fascist says they can!

I see so clearly why so many other countries hate the U.S.A. so much! We scream democracy and freedom so much but our goverment refuse to practice what they preach. America NEVER was a democracy, it's a representative republic where once a representative is elected, the people lose all control over what happens... And "Freedom"? Forget it, it's a joke in this country...

America is supposed to be the "Greatest" country in the world, if so, then the world is a really sad, pathetic place...

Posted by: Den at March 9, 2004 10:14 AM

"The issue is not "turning the knob thingies" the issue is free and public airwaves. As a parent, I can encourage my children not to listen to garbage, but when they are by themselves, they can listen to things I don't want them to if garbage is available on free radio."

You know, back in the dark ages of the 70s, when I was a child, my parents didn't "encourage" me to do or not do anything. They **told** me what I could or could not do and if I got caught doing something they had forbidden, there would be hell to pay.

I know that's a foreign concept to parents today: The idea that they should be an enforcer instead of their kid's best pal, but that's the job you signed up for when you decided to stop using condoms.

Posted by: Zeek at March 9, 2004 10:22 AM

I've visited and lived in other countries. I've driven on their roads. Every time I drive on our nice highways and byways (of which I am happy to pay taxes for) I'm glad I was born here in US of A. The roads are just ONE reason. Yes the system ain't perfect, but it's a hang of alot better then what some other people in this world got.

You know what they say, "If you don't like it, vote, change it, or GET OUT".

Posted by: Rob S. at March 9, 2004 10:49 AM

"Sorry Rob S., but that is a HUGE LIE!

The airwaves are NOT "Free and public"."

Really? You're paying to listen to your radio? Would you like to send me a check for the air you breath at the same time you write your check to the radio people?

Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. As a parent, it is my job (and if you MUST know, the condom broke) and I like to think I do it well.

The point stands, though. Calling it censorship is the lie. Howard has other avenues for speech available to him. Clear Channel chose to let him go, as is their right. The government did not kick him off the air. Where is the censorship? At last glance, Howard had a couple best-selling books still available on the shelves, a movie still available at Blockbuster, a television show on cable... I'm not seeing the censorship.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 9, 2004 12:02 PM

It's censorship because Clear Channel didn't truly get rid of Stern for any reason other than government pressure.

Corporate censorship should also be banned by the first amendment, but the corporate world has bought and paid for our government so they can get away with it. If you seriously believe that Clear Channel got rid of huge money-maker Stern for any reason other than political, then I'm sorry, but that's a major blind spot.

FREE is more than just a cost thing, so your facietious argument there is rather silly. And the FCC is trying to get power over cable, satellite TV and satellite radio as well.

Can you start a radio station without the FCC's permission, even if no one else is using the frequency and your transmissions aren't interfering with anyone elses? NO! Not very free OR public there is it?

Bummer on the condom, that's why she should've had a diaphram and/or been on the pill...

Posted by: Hysan at March 9, 2004 12:25 PM

The irony here is how Stern took others to task for criticizing the Prez and the war in Iraq, when they were exercising THEIR right to freedom of speech.

Karma, says I.

Posted by: Rob S. at March 9, 2004 12:48 PM

Free to the consumer, Bladestar.

I'm not familiar with the reasons the FCC has for denying bandwidth, to be honest, so I can't comment there. Content-wise, they should stay out of paid-by-the-consumer anything.

What is corporate censorship? If it is what I think you're implying, then what? They should have to put out there anything anybody wants? ????

No matter Clear Channel's fears, the government did not do anything to make them take Stearn off the air. No laws were cast down, no government enforcers were dispatched. The responsibility for CC's decision is entirely theirs. IF they felt the government was going to make them do something they didn't want to, they have the right to stand up to it and not cave. To blame the government is just plane silly.

And actually, I thank God every day that the condom broke. :) I like my daughter. And my youngest who arrived despite the pill and my oldest who arrived despite scarring of the uterus. When God says it's time, buddy, it's time! :)

Posted by: Bladestar at March 9, 2004 01:18 PM

At least you're happy with results of the "accidents". But I don't believe in any god...

The fear of the fines, and theholding up of license renewals and new licesnes were used to scare Clear Channel, wake up and reasd the signs and read more than just the standard big-media owned newspaper and the network news.

Posted by: Rob S. at March 9, 2004 01:40 PM

And CC can stand up to fear and intimidation. They didn't. Their problem.

Posted by: Den at March 9, 2004 04:47 PM

Broken condom or not, my point still stands: It's not the government's job to decide what is and is not appropriate for your kids to watch. It's yours.

As for the airwaves being free: No they're not. No one can just start up a radio station and start broadcasting. You need a license from the FCC to do that. In fact, all of your DJs and other on air talent also need individual licenses as well. And these licenses need to be renewed every few years. That costs money and takes time to get. Not only that, but the FCC has the authority to put limits on the number of radio stations you can own in a given market.

The point is, the FCC has allegedly used it's licensing power to delay and harass stations into changing their content to conform, not to regulatory standards, but to nebulous and shifting standards. Stern said this morning he would love to go to court and get a ruling on whether or not his show is "indecent" but the FCC doesn't fight you in the court, they fight you be delaying new license applications and renewels until you cave in.

CC is one of the most aggressive companies in terms of acquiring radio stations. I have no doubt that the management of this company sees dumping Stern as a way to curry favor with the FCC in the hopes of greasing the wheels for their new acquisitions.

Posted by: Peter David at March 9, 2004 05:47 PM

"Broken condom or not, my point still stands"

I think we should have that put on a t-shirt.

PAD

Posted by: Karen at March 9, 2004 11:33 PM

I can't believe some of you want to completely control everything your kids are exposed to. My daughter will certainly be exposed to ALL this stuff at one time or another. I hope that she will come to me and we can discuss why something is not appropriate or offensive. In this day and age, if you think you can protect your kids until they leave your house, you are either naive, or your kids will be and get taken advantage of a lot. Howard Stern is not the problem. The direction our country is taking is the problem. I want to decide what I will watch or listen to and let my daughter watch or listen to. I do NOT want the government to lean on the broadcasters to inflict some sort of puritanical religious standard on my entertainment. And I want to be able to let my daughter grow up with the best information about what's out there, not like some monkey hiding her eyes, ears and mouth.

PS No offens Toby ;)

Posted by: Joe Krolik at March 10, 2004 12:25 AM

www.cjob.com (I think) is the URL where you folks can find Charles Adler every morning right here from Winnipeg. Charles had been heard often in NYC and sometimes does his show from there when he's in town. He often has many US guests. The talk is current affairs, sometimes of a local nature, but more often encompassing the wider world, and his Libertarian bent makes for lively and provocative content. Try it. The FCC can't censor *him*.

Posted by: Joe Krolik at March 10, 2004 12:29 AM

Oh yes, and let's not forget that to paraphrase the sage, "He who controls the media controls the population." or something like that.
Just gives the concept of freedom a whole new dimension, yup yup.

Posted by: Rob S. at March 10, 2004 08:44 AM

I'm not sure that public decency is puritanical. Nor is it wrong to control what a child under 10 is exposed to. Teach character before exposure, not the other way around.

I prefer self-censorship to government control. That should be enough. Like it or not, CC practiced self-censorship, yes, to save itself from government censorship, but they retain control that way. At present, they define for themselves what is publicly decent. I see no problem with them looking to that as well as to profits.

And, I doubt I'd buy that tee-shirt, but I'd laugh my head off if I saw it...

Posted by: Den at March 10, 2004 09:11 AM

"I'm not sure that public decency is puritanical."

Maybe or maybe not. The question, who decides what is "public decency?" You as a consumer or the same people who paid $750 for a hammer?

"Nor is it wrong to control what a child under 10 is exposed to."

It's not wrong, but my right as an adult to view or listen to the entertainment of my choice should not be limited to only things that are appropriate for your kid.

"Teach character before exposure, not the other way around."

Exactly true, but teaching character and controlling exposure are both you job, Mr. Broken Condom, not mine and not the government's.

T-shirts should be available soon.

Posted by: Rat at March 10, 2004 09:35 AM

Never have been a big fan of Stern's, although I think he's a BRILLIANT showman, up there with Hope and Barnum and all the others who escape me right now. Problem is, what started as pushing-the-envelope humor has spawned a whole bunch of mediocre-at-the-most-generous imitators. Now I've learned one thing. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but it makes your act OLD real fast. All the neoSterns out there just want to appeal to the LCD, get their names known, and be able to stand around later saying "Remember when we did x,y, and z?" Of course, no one does, because to be recognized, you can't be an imitator, you have to be an INNOVATOR. (sorry if I spelled that wrong) Now, the problem with being an innovator is that you will ALWAYS have people saying "You can't do that!" Y'know, like the people who knew better around Kitty Hawk until a 747 knocked their hats off. This isn't about censorship, it's not about controlling what the media puts out, it's about a few well-intentioned types saying "Hey, shouldn't we do SOMETHING?" and all the politicos vying to keep their jobs saying "Hey, people want us to do THIS!" and end up blowing something WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion to either distract people from the real problems that aren't getting solved or (and I REALLY hope this isn't it) to just respond with a bunch of buzzwords. 20 years from now, when it all starts up again, people are going to pull all these events out of their hats on both sides and distort them ALL over again. Or maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age.

Posted by: Toby at March 10, 2004 10:53 AM

None taken, Karen.

Monkeys

Posted by: Rob S at March 10, 2004 03:32 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never advocated government control, but self control.

I think the free (to consumer) airwaves should be fairly clean in nature. Self-policing is the key. If individuals won't do it, the corporations putting them on the air should. Creative people can make even G rated stuff entertaining.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 11, 2004 06:39 AM

WRONG ANSWER!! BZZZTT!

IT IS NOT THE REST OIF THE WORLD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO RAISE YOUR KIDS!!!

AND IF YOU'D RAISE THEM RIGHT IT WOULDN'T MATTER WHAT THEY SEE/HEAR, THEY'D UNDERSTAND HOW TO DEAL WITH IT!!

I am done with you.

Posted by: Rob S, at March 11, 2004 09:17 AM

Okay, so you don't want government control (I agree)

You don't want self-control.

You want to be out of control?

Dude, free speech comes part and parcel with responsibility. I don't expect you to say just what I want you to say, I expect you to consider the power of words, the affect of your speech, and adjust accordingly. The person who allows their only guide to be what makes them money is a loser. Pick an appropriate forum and do your thing. Would you take a whiz on the side of a busy road? I'd like to think you'd have the decency to do it where it belongs and not where it doesn't.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 11, 2004 09:24 AM

And what the HELL gives you the right to decide what someone can and can't say?

The radio has two special features, a way to turn it off, and a way to change the channel!

You have no right to tell others what they can and can't say!

All you have is the right to turn off YOUR radio or cahnge the station on YOUR radio!

You are totally clueless

I hope you kids have a better authority figure in their lives than you...

Posted by: Rob S. at March 11, 2004 12:12 PM

You are not reading a single thing I've written.

I DON'T want to control what you say. Where in the world do get that I do? I want YOU to control what you're saying. I want YOU to consider the affect of YOUR words and EACH INDIVIDUAL to consider the affects of THEIR words.

Man, I know I'm writing English. Get your head out of your own agenda and recognize a call to responsibility.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 11, 2004 02:16 PM

You have advocated government mandated censorship of the airwaves at every turn in the discussion.


I think its you that isn't reading a word you type...

Posted by: Bladestar at March 11, 2004 03:39 PM

Why should I contrrol what I'm saying for you?

WHY???

Because of your kids?

Grow up! You're kids are going to see alot that offends you! And there ain't SQUAT you can do about it!

If you are such a pathetic and ineffectual parent that your kids are going to go bad because they hear someone talk about sex (or even worse VIOLENCE!!!) on the radio, then it is YOU who are the failure and needs to control yourself and your sexual urges.

No one should be expected to censor themselves on behalf of YOUR children!

If you'd raise them properly you wouldn't be afraid of the real world that out there "corrupting" them. Hey get plenty of corruption at home it seems...

Posted by: Toby at March 11, 2004 03:42 PM

Just for the record, Bladestar, I just went back and reread Rob's posts and I didn't notice him advocating government mandated censorship every step of the way. What I got out of it was that he thinks we should all be aware of the fact that we don't live in a vacuum, there are other people and things in this world aside from our individual selves, and we should keep that in mind when we do things publicly. It doesn't mean neccessarily being Mr. PC all the time, or even being G rated everywhere you go, just be considerate of those around you, especially if you want them to be considerate of what you do/say/like/whatever.

People SHOULD be good parents to their children, and if there's something on tv/radio/in the movies they don't like, they SHOULD avoid it/change the channel and so forth. But people also SHOULD be considerate of others and think about more than themselves.

Monkeys.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 11, 2004 04:39 PM

But who wins?

By your logic NO ONE should EVER say anything!

There are over 3 billion people on the planet, everything you can do/say is going to offend SOMEONE, it's unavoidable.

If you find something offense, turn the channel and don't listen, but do not expect someone else to change what they say because you might be offended. It works both ways. Just because you may find Howard Stern offensive, then don't listen to him, but don't you dare try to censor him.

I find Rush Limbaugh an offensive turd, so guess what? I don't listen to his show! I don't try to get him thrown off the air, I ignore him.

People need to mind their own business and quit forcing their predjudices on others.

I advocate freedom, and I'll take freedom over PC limitiations any day.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 11, 2004 07:05 PM

No, Bladestar -- it's not that "NO ONE should EVER say anything."

It's that people should be mindful and accepting of the likely consequences of their words.

I don't have a problem acknowledging that some of my opinions may offend people -- but I in turn realize that many opinions are best expressed in certain times and places and not others.

The aspects of my humor that can get a little risque are things I tend not to bring into my classroom filled solely with high-school girls. It's a bit inappropriate.

My general political sensibilities are ones I'll defend anywhere -- but if I'm talking to someone who I know would be offended by certain turns of phrase, I'll phrase it in other ways.

It's called politeness.

If there's a point that absolutely needs making, I'll make it and not worry about causing offense -- as I believe some BBC head said once in response to a worried question, "There are some people we WANT to offend." But not causing **needful** offense is a social skill of great worth.

You might want to investigate it further.

TWL

Posted by: Bladestar at March 11, 2004 07:50 PM

Not my job to worry about your, or anyone else's feelings.

Go ahead and be dishonest with others in the name of "politeness".

Censorship was the topic, but somehow you've ignored that and tried to call it manners.

We started talking about Howard Stern and the unconstitutional attacks on the first amendment and the eveil that this country is under assault by, but you're more worried about "feelings" that the bigger issues.

Posted by: Jerry in Richmond, Va at March 11, 2004 09:53 PM

Reading the last few posts, I would have to go with Bladestar on this. There's lots of stuff out there that I find to be offensive or just plain stupid. My actions when I come across it on the dial or elsewhere? Change the channel or leave it and move on to something better. People have lots of choices if they want them. One of those choices should not be taking my choices away. And parents, while it's a tough job, still need to do the job of parenting their kids and not trying to parent the rest of us.

Posted by: Toby at March 11, 2004 10:19 PM

Well, I do agree with you on several things, Bladestar. I agree that no one has the right to tell anyone else what they can or can't watch/listen to and those who are offended by certain things should turn the dial. I also agree that this conversation has taken a turn from censorship to politeness in expressing one's views. But, here's the deal with the latter: You don't have to care if you offend someone or hurt their feelings, unless you want them to actually listen to what you have to say and take you seriously.

As far as censorship, there's a difference between someone stepping in and saying "you can't watch this, or you can't air this" and a broadcasting company/publisher saying "I'm not going to put my name behind this". It's not censorship for a company to decide they don't want to air certain things in their name. It is censorship if they try to stop it from being aired anywhere. There is a difference, and it's not all just censorship. In the Stern case, it would appear (but I don't have all the details, and I think what Stern/CC/FCC say should be taken with a grain of salt, because they each have biases and vested interests in painting the situation a certain way) that CC is bowing down to pressure from the FCC, which would sort of be indirect censorship, but still censorship.

Monkeys.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 11, 2004 11:51 PM

Bladestar, with all due respect ... you're a twit.

I am well aware that the original topic was Stern and censorship. If you look back, you'll see that my initial response to Peter's post (made well before you started strutting around in this thread, so you may have missed it) dealt with both of those topics and agreed with you that censorship is a lousy idea.

I am also aware, apparently unlike you, that **topics evolve over time**. I am also able to read Rob's posts and am thus aware that his topic is NOT currently censorship or Howard Stern, except apparently in whatever universe you're paying rent in.

I'm not proposing yanking anyone or anything. I'm agreeing with the idea that individuals should be aware of the effect their words can have, and should as a general rule try not to **needlessly** offend people.

If you're deliberately out to offend people, go ahead, more power to ya. I'm not proposing changing anything about your ability or your right to do so.

I'm just saying it's not the way I choose to live **my** life.

Let me repeat this in words of as few syllables as possible:

I am not advocating censorship in any form, including self-censorship.

I am advocating awareness of one's own words.


As for your claiming I'm simply being "dishonest in the name of politeness" ... feel free to ask any of my friends, family, or co-workers how often they find me dishonest. I'm willing to bet you'll get a really tiny percentage ... unless, of course, you take the same attack-dog tone with them you've been doing with everyone here, in which case you'll likely get a really large percentage of people sticking a two-by-four up your ass sideways.

How's that for honesty?

TWL

Posted by: Bladestar at March 12, 2004 06:48 AM

Goody gumdrops for you Timmy, but I don't care, I've never met you and never will.

We're talking about two different topics. Enjoy your own little world.

ANd calling me a twit, what did PAD say about personal attacks?

But don't worry, I won't whining to him complaining like your ilk does.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 12, 2004 08:47 AM

Just FYI: I don't recall "whining" to Peter complaining about anyone here, actually. I generally don't work behind other people's backs.

Glad to see you're recognizing that Rob's topic and what you're calling Rob's topic are two different beasts, though.

TWL

Posted by: Rob S. at March 12, 2004 08:52 AM

Toby and Tim,

Thank you. You get it.

Bladestar,

It's been... interesting.

Posted by: Jerry in Richmond, Va at March 12, 2004 01:25 PM

Toby, Tim and Rob,

You don't get it.

Your position is fine for day in and day out life. I do the same thing. I really watch my mouth around my friend's three year old. Although, mostly because I'm afraid of being killed by an enraged Scottswoman. But the prime topic here aint you and me or true choice.
Again, the FCC has stated that they want to up their fines and even go after the license of stations or companies if the FCC doesn't like what's being broadcast. But the FCC also won't give a full idea of what's offensive to them. They never have. They give out a list of general guidelines but it's one of those "know it when we see it" deals in many cases. Hell, a couple of the things that got Bubba in trouble in the last few years aren't even in the FCC guidelines.
What we have now is, to use the example I used before, the FCC putting a gun to the head of broadcasters and companies and "asking" them to rethink what they want to give the public. A public, by the by, that has made these guys number one in almost every market that they're in. This is not a bunch of companies just all of a sudden deciding that they want to change their public face for the heck of it.
If you say that I can broadcast something but you'll come after me with the full force of the Fed Gov't behind you to shut me down or destroy me; that's no different then saying that I'm not allowed to say or broadcast something to begin with. The end result is the same either way. Call it censorship or not but it's still the same thing.
Gotta go to work. Later.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 12, 2004 02:12 PM

See? Jerry gets it.

Well worded and expressed Jerry.

Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 12, 2004 04:17 PM

Jerry,

I agree with pretty much everything you say except that you claim it means we "don't get it."

I've been talking about day-to-day choices. I'm still talking about day-to-day choices.

I completely agree with you that when the consequences of words include the possibility of being shut down, the situation changes from awareness to coercion. I'm not supporting that at all, and I'm a bit taken aback that you think I am.

Frankly, the main reason I leaped in here is that I saw Rob getting chewed up and spit out by people who wouldn't recognize the concept of civility if it danced naked in front of them. Saying "people should be aware of how their words are perceived" is not remotely the same as saying "and thus some things shouldn't be said." As I've said many times before, it's causing **needless** offense that I think is short-sighted and worthy of criticism.

I'm not happy with the FCC or with ClearChannel in the slightest, and I think I've been reasonably clear on that point in the past. No offense, Jerry, but I think you're attributing opinions to me that I don't actually hold.

I think the outcry that the Dixie Chicks ran into last summer was absurd and inappropriate, I think the FCC going all aflutter about the Super Bowl is a distraction from eight zillion important issues facing the country, and I oppose the Stern firing. How exactly does that mean I "don't get it"?

Sheesh.

TWL

Posted by: Toby at March 12, 2004 08:19 PM

Jerry, I don't get why you think I don't get it.

Perhaps I was unclear before, but I "get" everything you said. My only additional point was about day to day individual life and that one shouldn't offend "just cuz". I'm not telling anyone they can't, I'm just saying that if you want others to listen and take you seriously (general you, not you you), you should hold back on the potentially offensive stuff unless it serves a point and can create an impact. Like the word fuck. If every other word out of your mouth is fuck, when you're describing something and you add emphasis by saying fuck, it has lost it's effectiveness. Again, not saying anyone shouldn't say it.

As far as censorship goes, I agree with you, especially about the FCC threatening broadcast companies the way they do.

Hopefully you get that I get it, but if you don't, well, oh well.

Monkeys.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 12, 2004 10:15 PM

It appears that Clear Channel Communications may be at it again.

A local radio station here in Denver, KBPI, had their morning radio show and the show's DJ's yanked from the air without warning yesterday afternoon.

The show was called The Locker Room, my wife and another coworker listened to it every morning, but these guys were nothing like Howard Stern.

Nobody knows for sure what's going on yet, but all their stuff has been taken off the KBPI website as well, so it does not appear as if the show (or the DJ's) is coming back.

Disturbing, to say the least.

Posted by: Bob DeGraff at March 13, 2004 12:11 PM

I listen to Stern for his perspective on a variety of issues from entertainment to politics. When the farting contests start I change the station (not because I'm offended, just bored). It's a shame I may be deprived of his perspective because the government is afraid that the average American is too stupid to change a radio station. And please don't give me the "protecting children" argument. I've got two kids of my own and 18 nieces and nephews and I've never once heard any of them talking about Howard Stern or any other DJ or talk radio host. The FCC is probably just trying to distract us from the fact that they can't do anything about policing the Internet (not that I'm trying to give them any ideas).

Posted by: Bruce Kline at March 13, 2004 07:31 PM

"Here's a suggestion: There are these things called books. Crack one of those open for your entertainment."
"When the show became the soap opera of Stern and his life, the show got dull."
Fogive me if somone else covered this and that I didn't read this postings responses until now but I think that some other issues are being missed here. I admit that I have been a loyal Stern listener for 20 years and that yes the show varries in it's level of entertainment but the above quotes miss some important things.
Read a book. Excellent idea except book have also suffered from censorship. Several books that we now consider recommended reading were "banned" when first published. One of Stern's books suffered from censorship in that some stores refused to carry it (again, it's the right of the establishment to do so). One father even sued a bookstore due to the books placement where children could see it, open it and view it's contents). So books have the potential to suffer as broadcasters are. They have before and could do so again.
Point 2. Howards recent diatribes are reminiscent on Lenny Bruce who was also hounded by the government for the type of material he presented in his nightclub act. A nightclub is a place where people over a specific age considered to be adulthood go to be entertained. The government decided that people who paid money to be entertained shouldn't have to hear his filth. Lenny saw the hypocracy in his persecution and his nightclub act became a reading of the transcripts of his court cases and tried to show the audience what was being done to him was wrong and why. That is what Howard is doing at this time. Funny or not, if he doesn't defend himself, no one else will. If he is thrown off the air newspapers will report the reason as his raunchy brand of entertainment. Howard is only doing what Lenny Bruce did. What anyone would do in trying to defend themselves.
Point 3. As Kathleen David said, Fallen Angel bears a mature readers label that would not be there for other writers who have established themselves for the type of material that they write. Howard was fined for the use of a word describing the male sexual organ. The FCC states that it was the use of the word that caused the fine to be issued. It is also said that Howard cannot say these things because of the time of day in which he broacasts. Children MAY hear what he is saying. Children are not in school until age 5 and even then may be home for holidays or absent from school due to illness where they can hear Oprah use the same words. It is supposedly alright for Oprah to do so because she has a medical person on her show and she's using the words to educate viewers. Websters does NOT have a Stern dictionay and an Oprah dictionary. The word still has the same definetion and looks the same as well as performs the exact same funtions no matter who says it. You still have to explain it when your child asks what that is no mater if they hear it from Howard, Oprah or a child on a playground. IF the FCC is going to level fines, it HAS to be accross the board or it is not fair. States regulate speed limits but you would be up in arms if your neighbor never got a ticket exceeding the speed limit by 20mph and you were constantly ticketed for being 2mph over the limit.
I also admit that I thought Gore was going to be more pro censorship than Bush seeing as how Tipper headed the PMRC (parents music resource center) which prompted record labeling. I'm sorry I was (aparently) wrong.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 13, 2004 10:18 PM

Books I can read pretty much whenever I want (except while driving or working) and I do. Howard's perfect for the long dirve to work, and when he gets boring or on a topic I couldn't care less about, I change the channel. Listening to the radio and reading are NOT and either/or. You can listen to radio and read too, not simultaneously, but your implication that if you listen to the radio you don't read is intensely ignorant.

Good point on the banned books. Even the classics like Huck Finn have been banned in some schools, and kids books like the Harry Potter series have been under attack since day 1...

As far as kids too young for school or out of school for whatever reason, where are their parents? If the parents feel their kids cannot handle hearing Howard/Bubba/, why are they letting their kids listen? Kids that young should never be unsupervised, "Latchkey" kids are no excuse/exception.

The only way Gore and Bush differed on censorship is the ideology behind it.

Gore supported censorship on a more "politically correct" grounds.

Bush is just like the Taliban and the Ayatollah, he believes his religion must be forced on everyone else.

Censorship on either reason is wrong, butit's still censorship, regardless of the philosophy behind it.


Posted by: Bladestar at March 13, 2004 10:19 PM

Books I can read pretty much whenever I want (except while driving or working) and I do. Howard's perfect for the long dirve to work, and when he gets boring or on a topic I couldn't care less about, I change the channel. Listening to the radio and reading are NOT and either/or. You can listen to radio and read too, not simultaneously, but your implication that if you listen to the radio you don't read is intensely ignorant.

Good point on the banned books. Even the classics like Huck Finn have been banned in some schools, and kids books like the Harry Potter series have been under attack since day 1...

As far as kids too young for school or out of school for whatever reason, where are their parents? If the parents feel their kids cannot handle hearing Howard/Bubba/, why are they letting their kids listen? Kids that young should never be unsupervised, "Latchkey" kids are no excuse/exception.

The only way Gore and Bush differed on censorship is the ideology behind it.

Gore supported censorship on a more "politically correct" grounds.

Bush is just like the Taliban and the Ayatollah, he believes his religion must be forced on everyone else.

Censorship on either reason is wrong, butit's still censorship, regardless of the philosophy behind it.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 13, 2004 10:21 PM

Sorry about the double-post.
Mozilla wasn't acknowledging the the sending...

Posted by: Chris at March 14, 2004 12:44 AM

Stern isn't being "driven off the air." Stations and distributors are perfectly free to dump any show they choose, for whatever reason. If Stern was making them enough money, they wouldn't dump him. And the FCC won't fine anyone who doesn't break the law on the air, unless I'm misunderstanding something. So unless Stern is for some reason unable to comply with the indecency laws, I don't see the issue.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 14, 2004 09:36 AM

And Chris, you aren't paying attention.

Stern has been trying for years to get the FCC to actually define some standards. And he's tried to get the fines into court, but the FCC won;t let the cases/fines get to court. They harass and penalize the stations license holders with threats and obstruction. THe FCC is an unelected body of scumbags and they don't allow for due process. Read more about the subject that just what is posted here....

Posted by: Patrick at March 14, 2004 10:15 AM

People in New York went through a similar scandal last year. I don't know how many people remember the Opie and Anthony show, but it was similar shock jock kind of stuff that Howard Stern does, but they had a variety of comedian friends that would come in and help them. To be honest the show was hit or miss. There were days where it was so funny, I had to go online to download the whole segment because i needed to hear the parts that didn't overlap with my drive home, and there were days where i put a CD on instead.
They did a stunt that the Catholic church disliked, and were forced off the air and basically blacklisted from getting jobs at any other station.
Voltaire once wrote "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your write to say it."
I feel similarly. Did I agree with that particular stunt? No. In fact I shut my radio off that day when I heard it, but I think that they should have been allowed to express themselves, and simply apologize to the church and go about their business.
It's like the age old question of the KKK rally. When the KKK comes to your town for a rally, you have 3 choices. 1) put on your robes and join them 2) oppress their right to freedom of speech and not give them the necessary permits or 3) let them rally and allow the people of your town the opportunity to express themselves as well with a counter-protest. The FCC is taking approach 2 whereas I interpret the constitution as clearly outlining approach 3.

Posted by: araquen at March 14, 2004 10:52 AM

Delurking for some insider scuttlebut:

They did a stunt that the Catholic church disliked, and were forced off the air and basically blacklisted from getting jobs at any other station.

Actually, a friend of mine who works in the industry told me that Howard Stern used his influence with Mel Karmizan to force them off the air because they aired some dirty laundry about one of Stern's daughters. Also, Infinity refused to let O&A out of their contract as a delaying tactic to prevent Clear Channel from picking them up and putting them on morning drive against Howard.

So O&A are really not symptomatic of the whole censorship thing.

However, this does not negate the seriousness of situation, since even my friend admits that the way the FCC indecency regulations work, not one radio station will know if they crossed the line until after they have been cited and fined. There are no preventative remedies that can be taken, outside of refusing to allow DJs to speak at all. And even then, it doesn't prevent the FCC to cite the music that is being played, or the ads that are being aired.

Where does it end?

Re-lurking

Posted by: Bladestar at March 14, 2004 01:12 PM

If memory serves O&A's little stunt was two listeners having sex somewhere in some church, I can't recall waht part of the church as it's been too long...

Posted by: Patrick at March 14, 2004 03:19 PM

the contest in question on O & A was called sex for Sam. couple got points for having sex in various public places and could get a "2 point conversion" if it was in the back 9 instead of the front 9. The team with the most points got a free tour of the Sam Adams brewery and an invite to the party O & A were having there. There were dozens of sites on the list and one was a church. One couple decided to have sex in the pews of St. Patrick's Cathedral and when they got caught said, "Oh, it's Ok for priests and boys, but not for a consenting couple?" the church freaked out, and as a result, O & A were forced off the air.

Posted by: Toby at March 14, 2004 05:28 PM

I used to listen to OandA when they were on here in Boston. They were always sort of annoying and juvenile, but when I was an annoying juvenile, I liked them. I think they got canned in Boston because as an April Fool's joke, they announced the mayor of Boston had died or something. That's more or less a rumor because I didn't hear the show. I did hear that the NY church sex stunt was supposedly a set up (i.e. the couple wasn't really having sex), which is amusing considering they spent a lot of time complaining about "fake" radio. But that's really neither here nor their when it comes to censorship, because it doesn't matter if they sucked or were annoying, censorship is censorship.

Monkeys.