fyi: Rumor has it that Stern affiliates will get a 7 figure fine soon. That should bring his show close to death. Btw, I usually agree with you but I think there is a huge difference with public radio. I think it needs to be cleaner because almost any age kid can listen to it. You (not you personally but you generally) simply can't use the liberal argument that is used with television, i.e. "just turn it off or change the channel if you don't want your kids to see it."
I'm assuming everyone enjoyed the recent show (just a few days after Clear Channel made its announcement) where he had an unusual individual that got his kicks from women throwing up on him - which they did in the studio. Ahhhh, America at its finest...
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...291&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630 Was silencing Stern Bush league? Shock jock says his politics, not lewdness, got him in trouble Radio network has disciplined other White House critics ERIC BOEHLERT SPECIAL TO THE STAR From the moment last week when Clear Channel Communications suspended Howard Stern's syndicated morning show from its radio stations, denouncing it as "vulgar, offensive and insulting," speculation erupted that the move had more to do with Stern's politics than his raunchy shock-jock schtick. Stern's loyal listeners, Clear Channel foes and many Bush administration critics immediately reached the same conclusion: The notorious jock was yanked off the air because he had recently begun trashing Bush, and Bush-friendly Clear Channel used the guise of "indecency" to shut him up. That the content of Stern's crude show hadn't suddenly changed, but his stance on Bush had, gave the theory more heft. That, plus his being pulled off the air in key electoral swing states such as Florida and Pennsylvania. This week, Stern himself went on the warpath, weaving in among his familiar monologues about breasts and porn actresses accusations that Texas-based Clear Channel â whose Republican CEO, Lowry Mays, is extremely close to both George W. Bush and Bush's father â canned him because he deviated from the company's pro-Bush line. "I gotta tell you something," Stern told his listeners. "There's a lot of people saying that the second that I started saying, `I think we gotta get Bush out of the presidency,' that's when Clear Channel banged my ass outta here. Then I find out that Clear Channel is such a big contributor to President Bush, and in bed with the whole Bush administration, I'm going, `Maybe that's why I was thrown off: because I don't like the way the country is leaning too much to the religious right.' And then, bam! Let's get rid of Stern. I used to think, `Oh, I can't believe that.' But that's it! That's what's going on here! I know it! I know it!" Stern's since been relentless, detailing the close ties between Clear Channel executives and the Bush administration, and insisting that political speech, not indecency, got him in trouble. In a statement released to Salon, the media company insists that "Clear Channel Radio is not operated according to any political agenda or ideology." Its radio chief Joe Hogan said, "The decision to suspend Howard Stern from our radio stations is based on our regulatory obligation and commitment to airing material that conforms to the standards and sensibilities of the local communities we serve." Although by far the most powerful, Stern is not the first radio jock to charge Clear Channel with retaliation for anti-Bush comments. "I'm glad he's pissed off and I hope he raises hell every single day," says Roxanne Walker, who claims Clear Channel fired her last year because of her anti-war views. Walker is suing Clear Channel for violating a South Carolina state law that forbids employers from punishing employees who express politically unpopular beliefs in the workplace. "On our show we talked about politics and current events," she tells Salon. "There were two conservative partners and me, the liberal, and that was fine. But as it became clear we were going to war, and I kept charging the war was not justified, I was reprimanded by [Clear Channel] management that I needed to tone that down. Basically I was told to shut up." She says she was fired on April 7, 2003. Phoenix, Ariz., talk show host Charles Goyette says he was kicked off Clear Channel's KFYI because of his sharp criticism of the war on Iraq. Goyette says his years with Clear Channel had been among his best in broadcasting. "The trouble started during the long march to war," he says. While the rest of the station's talk lineup was in a pro-war "frenzy," Goyette was inviting former weapons inspector Scott Ritter on his show, and discussing complaints from the intelligence community that the analysis on Iraq was being cooked to support the White House's pro-war agenda. This didn't go over well with his bosses, Goyette says: "I was the Baby Ruth bar in the punch bowl." Goyette says he was soon having "toe-to-toe confrontations" with his managers about his opposition to the war. "One of my bosses said in a tone of exasperation, `I feel like I'm managing the Dixie Chicks,' " Goyette recalls. Goyette, who was demoted to the dead 7-10 p.m. slot, has written, "I was replaced on my primetime talk show by the Frick and Frack of Bushophiles, two giggling guys who think everything our tongue-tied president does is `Most excellent, dude!'" Whether Stern was suspended strictly because of his Bush-bashing is open to question. In the wake of Janet Jackson's nipplegate, U.S. broadcasters faced hostile congressional hearings about indecency on the airwaves and a new bill seeking to drastically increase the penalties for it. Indeed, the day before it dropped Stern, Clear Channel fired its top-rated Tampa, Fla., shock jock "Bubba the Love Sponge," who had been recently fined $755,000 (U.S.) for indecency. Several radio insiders interviewed by Salon are skeptical of Stern's inference about his suspension. "I don't think this had anything to do with helping Bush," says Robert Unmacht, former publisher of a radio trade publication. "It had to do with the one thing Clear Channel cares about, their bottom line. They're just bankers." Unmacht also points out that Stern appears in only six markets for Clear Channel, so dumping him was a relatively painless way to score moral points â and paint rival Infinity, which broadcasts most of Stern's shows, as pandering to indecency. "Howard thrives when he has an enemy, and this is a pretty good enemy," Unmacht says. He "will rail against whoever he thinks is hurting him." But if Clear Channel hoped that sacking Stern would earn the company Brownie points, the shock jock's rampage against its Bush connections has only given it another P.R. headache. Headaches are nothing new for Clear Channel. The company has ballooned into an industry monster and in the process faced numerous allegations about unfair business practices. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which ushered in sweeping radio consolidations, the company has grown from 40 to about 1,200 stations, or roughly 970 more than its closest competitor. Clear Channel also owns nearly three dozen TV stations, 770,000 billboards, and an unmatched hold over the concert industry. If Clear Channel did fire Stern at least partly to prop up Bush, the move may backfire. At least one radio pro suggests Stern's sudden turn against Bush could prove costly to the incumbent. "Howard Stern will be an influential force for the public and for other talk show hosts during the election," says Michael Harrison, the publisher of Talkers magazine. "Despite the shock jock thing, Stern has credibility. He's looked upon as an honest person." Salon.com
for those familiar with torrents, this file allows you to hear Stern's 3/5 radio show. about 36 min. into the .mp3 file he discusses his current situation (against the RELIGIOUS RIGHT). http://64.91.234.2/~suprnova//torrents/1329/HSS20040305.torrent
I'm all for capatalism, but 970 more than closest competitor is simply too many, especialy when they are in the "media" biz...
I used to listen to Howard 20 years ago when he was actually innovative. He ran out of material years ago however. Bottom line, he's not funny, he's not creative, he's not entertaining. He clings to a tired routine of bathroom jokes and adolescent fascination with body parts. He makes Beavis and Butthead look like Masterpiece Theater. Why doesn't Clear Channel have the right to decide what programming it sends out over its stations? I liked Playmakers, but I'm not accusing ESPN of being part of some foul conspiracy for cancelling it. Certainly it had more artistic merit than Stern. Clear Channel is in business to make money. It is family owned, so unlike an ESPN, the people making the decisions are eating their own cooking. If Stern remains so popular, they will suffer. Somehow I doubt that will be the case. There has been a lot of anguish over censorship, etc. Even Rush Limbaugh voiced concern over Stern being canned. His point, which is a valid one, is nothing is there to stop Hillary Clinton's FCC from declaring conservative talk radio "hate speech" or "indecent" and banning it. The other side of the argument is that the government has the right to control what goes out over the airways in the public interest. It doesn't take a genius to see that the government shouldn't allow raw sewage to be dumped into a public river. Ditto for the public airwaves. It's not like there is a shortage of indecent or pornographic material availble these days. Why not at least attempt to keep the public airwaves somewhat decent? Who is hurt by that?