That was a hard title to type without chuckling. I know many of you out there hate Howard Stern. I've heard all the reasons. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. To each his own.
I love Howard Stern. I always have. I read his book, saw his movie and listen to his show most mornings. He's perverted and vile, what's not to love?
On the eve of a House hearing on broadcast indecency, the nation's largest radio station chain suspended Howard Stern's show, saying it did not meet the company's newly revised programming standards. One of Stern's callers dropped the N-bomb. Stern hung up on the caller but he is being held accountable for the callers racist slur.
Chaunce Hayden, a celebrity journalist and past guest of the radio program said Clear Channel's actions against Stern are "quite frightening.""It is 100 percent a freedom of speech issue," he told Fox News on Thursday, acknowledging that the show sometimes does "go too far."
But he said, "that's what the show is. You don't have to watch the show. You can turn the dial...You have a choice...How can government take choice away from us?"
He won't put up with a lot of crap from his callers. When idiots he is familiar with call, he puts them on and gives us all a good listen to the ignorance. He will taunt them and eventually hang up.
This incident isn't the same thing as "Boobiegate".
Bottom line: Unless you live under a rock you know Stern is a shock jock. You know before you listen that he is a nasty bastard. If you don't like him you are free to turn the dial. I don't want to lose my ability to listen because you might be offended.
You have a choice, I'd like to be able to keep mine.
Well, you could always form a media company and hire him.
Seriously, this is not a free speech issue. As a talk show host, if I thought this was going to restrict my freedom of speech, I'd be freaking out. Yet I'm not. Why? Because I don't own my show. I'm an employee, and my company has a right to demand certain standards from me while I'm on the air.
Stern can still be as foul and filthy as he wants to be. But he won't be on a CC station. If CBSInfinityViacom decides that Stern needs to clean up his act, he can walk or he can abide by his company's decision. That's his freedom.
I agree with Cam. It's not censorship -- a company can require its employees to follow very strict (or not-so-strict) guidelines regarding what they say on company time, using company resources (the microphone, the studio, etc etc). And the company can change those rules at any time. Pressure from listeners, advertisers, potential customers, etc. (pro or con) is an important part of the free market at work. Censorship is when the government shuts you up (or down).
I'm with Rosemary that there's a big difference between Stern and the Super Bowl. I'm almost never offended by Stern since I hardly ever listen to him.
The Super Bowl halftime show is different. Nudity and dirty dancing shouldn't be included in the halftime show. The NFL would have gotten this message without congressional hearings, which are entirely about grandstanding.
Clear Channel doesn't own and/or manage HS's show. It picked it up and aired it on 6 of its stations. They decided that in the given climate, they did not want to be associated with HS. They dropped the show.
How is this censorship? Based on the definitions below (thanks www.dictionary.com), I am unable to see this as anything more than a corporation choosing to adopt values that would be acceptable by most stakeholders (owners, customers, employees, etc.).
cen·sor·ship (snsr-shp)
n.
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
2. The office or authority of a Roman censor.
3. Psychology. Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.
4. Counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy 5. Deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances
ClearChannel is punishing is listening audience and Stern because a racist comment was uttered by a caller to the show.
Not because of anything Stern, himself, actually did.
Lou,
Censorship is when the government shuts you up (or down).
You don't think that Clear Channel felt any pressure from what the FCC is doing around the country? And Congressional hearings on indecency?
The government is indirectly responsible for Stern's show getting cut. There is a cause and effect thing happening...
HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!! AND HAIL TO THE KING!!!!
I, too, admire Howard Stern. He is the Lenny Bruce of our day.
"Howard Stern Is Being violated!"
Well, better him than me:)
He's not exactly my bag, but it's shocking that CBSInfinityViacom won't let him do his thing. After all, if they didn't realize up front how he operates, that argues for a shocking ignorance of what they're paying for, doesn't it?
Besides, even if this is patched up, I can't see him staying for long; there might be a repeat performance.
holy cow, don't y'all get it? clear channel owns over 1100 stations across the nation. why are they allowed to buy that many? as far as i am informed, the CEO did the deed, not the shareholders, etc. the shareholders are making wads and wads of cash broadcasting the stern show and i doubt they all (the shareholders) were able to trumpet their concerns to the aforementioned CEO (no, i don't know his name yet and don't want to) and ask him to "suspend" stern.
censorship? i'm not sure. power in the wrong hands? yes, i am sure.
hail to the queen of all evil.
Actually I'd say that his show can be a nasty bastard.
I also think Stern has the whole thing completely ass-backwards. He is bitching and moaning all over the place about censorship, and the bleeping of his show. He rants and raves about Powell at the FCC and Bush in general, but forgets some really important points.
1. Powell was appointed by Clinton.
2. The bleeping and censorship (the latter isn't really censorship) is corporate policy, not something from the FCC.
3. It wasn't the FCC that exposed themselves at the Super Bowl halftime show.
Stern should be mad at his own bosses upto and including Mel Karmizan. Problem is when it comes to Karmizan, Stern is a total kiss ass. He wont blame his bosses for doing this to him in response to their own screw up (the halftime show). The other actors to blame here are Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson. They did the act that has got everybody in an uproar.
His whining, while amusing to listen too, is just insipid drivel from a multi-millionaire.
Regarding the halftime show I think what alot of people forget is that it was supposed to be a family show. With no warning there were lots of things that we'd see on Howard Stern's E!-show. Notice the differnce. We know we'll see that stuff on Howard Stern's E! show (and you can hear it on his radio show). You don't expect it during a halftime show at the Super Bowl.
So I think there is a valid issue there with that. It is a parents right to not have their child exposed to that stuff if they so choose. The problem is they were not given any warning and had the choice taken away from them (at least for the time it took them to change the chanel).
The Critical 'I' seems to have it figured out:
Stern's show is produced in partnership with Viacom, which owns Infinity Broadcasting, which is the second-largest radio network, behind--hello!--Clear Channel. I find it hard to believe that Clear Channel only now determined that a show like Howard Stern's could be construed as objectionable. The motivation lies elsewhere, beyond a corporate impulse to conform to decency standards. Clear Channel is orchestrating the current climate to put pressure on its chief rival, Viacom/Infinity. The Stern action is designed to give the appearance of "cracking down", when it's really an opportunistic power play.
Mixed opinion, as usual:
It's annoying.
It's not censorship.
It's really fucking damned annoying.
But the company has just as much right not to syndicate him as he has to speak on the stations owned by companies that still do.
They do have every right to do whatever they want to Stern's show. But it is funny how they feel this way now because Stern has made them a lot of money. Also, his show has been pretty much the same for quite some time as far as I know.
Blame the FCC, for having finally decided that there should be standards in broadcasting.
Clear Channel is merely covering its backside, and given that it knows it's slated to succeed Exxon, Microsoft and Big Tobacco as The Focus of Capitalist Evil in the World Today™, that's a perfectly rational decision.
I still treasure a screenshot I took of CNN.com back when Stern's movie had just come out. The headline link to the review looked like this:
Howard Stern's Private Parts Surprisingly Sensitive
Then again, I find the "well, if you find it offensive, you can always turn the dial" to be rather disingenuous. After all, if your point is to not hear a certain sort of language or topic, turning the dial is exactly analagous to shutting the barn door after the horses are all gone.
Now, I'm the first to say that people should grow thicker skins.
But "I'm only going to force you to violate your principles a little, and you have to take it or else it is censorship!!!" isn't exactly the right way to develop the argument.
The way I see it, The Passion of the Christ (or whatever Mel's movie is called) is having a bigger effect. The Superbowl was almost a month ago. The movie had huge advance ticket sales just 3 days ago.
And I think the lesson Clear Channel took away from that is that you don't have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to get an audience. There is a huge audience out there for more in-depth, challenging, thoughtful, and moral entertainment.
So they don't want to be the ones Howard Stern uses to reach his audience anymore. So what? If Howard Stern is what the people want, they'll get him. Other stations will pick him up if they feel they can increase their audience and thus increase advertising revenue. If Clear Channel was wrong, then they'll lose the people and be out of business and broken up and sold off.
These things tend to take care of themselves.
The thing which annoys me most about HS is his hypocrisy...willingness to dig up the dirt and air it on anyone, unwillingness to have the same done on him; this, though, is a matter of personality - at stake here is the issue: is this censorship?
Certainly - CC has censored Stern's show. Is it wrong? No; CC has a right to broadcast or not broadcast anyone it wants. Stern has no right to airtime owned by others. Censorship is not inherently wrong.
Here'sa question why is the fact that acaller used the N word so offensive. i mean why is the use of the word nigger more offensive than any insult and indeed why are racial insults generally viewed as the worst kind possible. Surely the goal of all insults is the same ie. to hurt peoples feelings.