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 hëll 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
• 
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
**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.
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.
First, how much is a Bug buck? Is their an exchange difference? Or does the FCC just have a bug up their ášš?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“What’s next, the gov’t regulating the content in comics?”
Been there, done that. It was called the Comics Code Authority.
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.
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 risqu
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
“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
“…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?
“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.
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.
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
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 bøøbìëš and gas in the radio, why aren’t we pressuring parents to do their jobs and “protect” their children?
“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.
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, “Fûçk the FCC! Fûçk ’em, fûçk ’em, fûçk 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.
“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.
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.
Oops, I meant to say “…they (AND president Bush)…”
“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…
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 pìššìņg and moaning and rabble-rousing in order to get his fans to inundate Clear Channel with angry e-mails.
—KRAD
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 ášš 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)…
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
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!
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*
“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.
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
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…
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 pørņ at three in the afternoon on the network stations…
Jerry
If we lived in a truly “Capilistic” society like we trumpet to the rest of world as a lie, then there would be pørņ 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…
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 ņìggër 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
COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC!
Want some good natured “R” rated fun? If you like hip-hop culture, go to http://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!
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.
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 clich
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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
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 dámņ well better believe Bush would be all over them to get them to stop.
“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.