After Being Yanked by Clear Channel, Howard Stern Predicts His Broadcast Demise

AP ^ | Mar. 6, 2004

[jpl]

Then make an honest living like working at Burger King.

Stern is actually a really bright guy, I think he could do a lot of good things with his life if he wanted to. Honestly, a 50 year old man with children should be a little embarrassed making a living off talking about penises, vaginas, and lesbians.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

"There's a cultural war going on. The religious right is winning. We're losing."

Let us pray...

[Feiny]

Between the pressure & fines from the FCC and the Supreme Court upholding McCain-Feingolds "campaign finance" bill....there is alot to worry about. The US Supreme Court upheld a law that bans political speech before an election. That is scary, not Howard Stern.

If it were ClearChannel taking Howard off on their own, I have no problem with it. That is a business decision....a darn bad one seeing as how he was their top money maker....but their decision. But, ClearChannel made that decision due to fear of government reprisal. Do you think that is a step in the right direction?

It is actions like this & attitudes like yours that make people vote democrat.

[Feiny]

"A quote from Voltaire. A person in history Howard never heard of, or could care less about."

Now who is being elitist? Ooohhh, I am so smart...I read Voltaire!

[Dane]

If it were ClearChannel taking Howard off on their own, I have no problem with it. That is a business decision....a darn bad one seeing as how he was their top money maker....but their decision. But, ClearChannel made that decision due to fear of government reprisal. Do you think that is a step in the right direction?

Actually Rush is probably Clear Channel's biggest moneymaker, since they syndicate his program. Clear Channel on 6 stations paid Viacom to broadcast Howard.

Anyway, I don't see Howard going off the air as akin to shredding the Constitution or having the founding fathers turn in their graves.

As for CFR, I too think the poltical ad bans are awful, but they doesn't resonate with the American people who don't want to see those negative ads on TV and calling them idiots doesn't help your cause. And neither does holding up Howard as some Constitutional martyr.

[Dane]

Now who is being elitist? Ooohhh, I am so smart...I read Voltaire!

Actually I was pointing out the irony of someone quoting Voltaire to defend Howard, when Howard, IMO, doesn't even know or care who Voltaire is.

[sharktrager]

But you and I have, and we should realize that unpopular speech must be protected, because there will be a time when what we say will be unpopular as well.

[Dane]

But you and I have, and we should realize that unpopular speech must be protected, because there will be a time when what we say will be unpopular as well

Howard's "speech" has nothing to do with politics or political causes.

Howard's "speech" is all about how fast he can get to the bottom of the gutter.

[Feiny]

Never called him a martyr. I would defend anyone in this situation. The FCC has always had Stern as their target. Clear Channel paid Viacom for the program, but then they were able to sell advertising on those stations for very high amounts....because people want to listen to Stern. They like him. The people who don't like him want him off the air. Hell, why not just try not listening? The viewpoint seems to be that "if I don't like it, no one should be able to listen". I will never understand nor accept that as a valid point of view.

[Dane]

Hell, why not just try not listening?

I have a couple of times on radio and TV. Found it boring, obnoxious, and lacking in any intelligent humor.

The viewpoint seems to be that "if I don't like it, no one should be able to listen". I will never understand nor accept that as a valid point of view.

Not at all. No one is stopping Howard from going on satellite radio. Every society has standards and with the Janet Jackson stunt, people got fed up, and the elected government is responding. Howard happens to be in the fallout and no one pushed Howard into the fallout, he ran there as fast as he could.

[Feiny]

I wrote try NOT listening.

He has every right to be on the radio if a company wants to emply him.

[WFTR]

Howard Stern may not be missed, but the situation is disturbing. People are responding to their outrage at Janet Jackson's Super Bowl antics by attacking everyone except Janet Jackson and MTV. We don't serve justice or solve any problems by harassing the "innocent" as a substitute for punishing the guilty. In this case, Stern is far from being truly innocent, but he wasn't really on most people's radar screen until the Super Bowl incident.

WFTR
Bill

[Voteamerica]

This does seem political to me also. But to the victor go the spoils and Stern should have known better. If the Dims win I'll expect they'll clean house on the airwaves also. The beauty of what is happening now is that it makes it that much harder for them to win. he he

[Dane]

He has every right to be on the radio if a company wants to emply him

And ClearChannel has the right to unemploy him.

[Trajan88]

Gig 'Em Lowry Mays!

Trajan88; TAMU Class of '88

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

Howard has nobody to blame but himself. His actions have long teetered (or crossed) the razor's edge. Part of Howard's popularity was his image as the bad guy, the man who would willingly cross the line in his bid to reign supreme in the radio world.

Howard was never fined for using his freedom of speech; Howard was fined for crossing the line. If Howard wishes to play, he's got to play by the rules. Stern has always taken great delight in pushing the boundaries as far as he could. The fact that there are repercussions for crossing that line shouldn't surprise him at this stage of his life.

Perhaps you're correct in your assertion that this will make people vote Democrat: that party has long championed the cause of violating laws and rules. Even so, allowing some to break the rules isn't a viable option in a free society.

Clear Channel is free to keep Howard on board; provided that they're also willing to pay the fines that will result when Howard steps over the line. This isn't about the government squashing free speech; it's about a business making a decision regarding a 'product' that simply refuses to abide by the law.

I listened to Howard Stern for years; I always found him to be witty but extremely childish. Finally I couldn't take it any longer and chose to switch the dial. I knew he was overboard but chose to ignore the obvious. Society has the power - nay, the responsibility - to regulate harmful behavior and/or actions.

Earlier in this thread, someone - maybe you - compared this supposed infringement of free speech to the conservative fight against Second Amendment infringement. The two aren't comparable at all. I know of no Second Amendment advocate that is willing to overlook abuses of our right to bear arms. Nobody is demanding that those choosing to use a gun in a crime, be set free to violate the law over and over.

Just as there are stipulations on the right to bear arms, there are Constitutional laws against the abuse of free speech. We have laws against slander, libel and the harmful effects of abusive speech. Society sets that fine line and Howard crossed it again and again.

I read an excellent article (perhaps on Freerepublic) on the subject of morality and freedom. The author correctly pointed out the fact that the framers of our Constitution didn't believe it possible to have freedom without morality - the two are inseparable by nature. We've all seen the effect of a morally unsound society; freedom diminishes as a result.

I'd not call Howard's supposed radio demise an impediment to freedom: instead I'd say the opposite is true. If Howard, and others, learn that their immoral actions can, and will, be held against them; society wins and freedom prevails.

Howard Stern's rights aren't being trampled, instead he has trampled on the rights of other Americans who expect, and are entitled to, a moral and a free society.

We're all free to voice our opinions, even in dissent. That freedom does not include the right to corrupt or undermine society at large.

[Feiny]

"And ClearChannel has the right to unemploy him."

I agree with you on that....as long as the decision is not based on coersion by the government. In this case, it is.

[VRWC_minion]

We're losing."

You didn't lose, you won. Its no okay for just about anything to be broadcast but even the sicko's have limits and you reached them.

[Feiny]

He crossed what line? Some arbitrary line set up by geezers at the FCC who fine Stern for things that get a pass on other stations? Sex shows masquerading as "help or therapy" like Love Line....those are on at 8-10 pm at night when most kids are alone in their rooms listening. Stern is on in the early morning when parents are there to supervise. Daytime talk shows discuss the most vile topics...that A-Ok with the FCC.

Who makes up these rules and draws the lines? If you agree that it is the people....then let the ratings decide. If people don't want the "trash"....then they won't listen. That is the free market....Not a few guys at the FCC deciding what is moral and right for my consumption.

[Dane]

I agree with you on that....as long as the decision is not based on coersion by the government. In this case, it is

Actually it has to do more with an electorate that had it's last straw, IMO, and the elected government is responding.