Stern Gone?

[jetpunk2000]

First Opie and Anthony, now Howard. This country is getting WAY too sensitive to the wrong issues.

CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/index.html)

[Craptacular]

Hey, if they want to take that crap off their airwaves, more power to 'em.

[Easy Mac]

Clear Channel are wankers... thats why we hear the same shit over and over again... let the people make the stars, don't do it for them by playing Britney every 2 minutes.

[cthomer5000]

It's Viacom overreacting (again).

[Fritz]

XM is the answer

[cthomer5000]

XM is the answer


Opie and Anthony are supposedly heading to Sirius the day they are free of their current contract.

[sabotai]

If Clear Channel won't play Stern, someone else will.

[Fritz]

Satelite radio in one form or another will kill broadcast radio

[cthomer5000]

If Clear Channel won't play Stern, someone else will.

Trust me, he's still getting paid. Just like Opie and Anthony have been collected 3 mill annual paychecks since there show was cancelled.

The Stern thing just sounds like their temporarily taking a break in order to be certain they are not violating guidelines.

[CamEdwards]

Satelite radio in one form or another will kill broadcast radio

Heathen.

[mckerney]

Heathen.

Still waiting for a contract offer from them? :)

[CamEdwards]

This is kind of like Senator talking about Homeland Security stuff since I work for the company in question, but let me just clarify a few things.

1- Viacom isn't yanking Stern, Clear Channel is yanking Stern off the air from the stations they own that run the program.

2- IMO, this may turn out to be a good thing for local radio, since I'd guess at least some of those markets will return to local hosts in the morning. I'd love to see it anyway. I've never understood the syndicated morning drive thing anyway.

3- XM and Sirius have yet to see a penny of profit. In fact, XM is at about half the number of subscribers it needs to break even, and Sirius is so far behind XM it isn't even funny. I think Sirius is going to die, and XM will become somewhat of a niche market.

4- If you think corporate radio is going to be killed by satellite radio... I have bad news. One of the big investors in both XM and Sirius is none other than Clear Channel. :)

[pjstp20]

This is ridiculous, it's simple if you don't want to listen to Howard Stern turn the stupid station. You know what you're gonna get when you turn on the Stern show so you have no excuse. God, pretty soon radio is gonna be all conservative talk and no one will have any new ideas.

[Fritz]

someone is in denial

[CamEdwards]

someone is in denial

shut up! The horseless carriage is just a fad! You'll see! Blacksmith shops will be around forever!!!

[Suicane75]

It's a shame this is happening now and not in the early 90's when Stern would of fought this, as it is now It seems that he's probably content to ride off into the sunset. This fucking sucks beyond compare, more of Local Bobo and his crazy morning zoo wackos. The FCC should be lined up and shot. People can't deal with things they see or hear they know where the off button is.

[sabotai]

Well, around here Clear Channel doesn't own the station that Stern is played on, so I know I'll still get to listen to him.

[Suicane75]

Its only 5 hours so I guess you'll know soon enough but if you dont know wether or not your station is owned by clearchannel, heres a link to find out hxxp://www.clearchannel.com/rad_search.php

[JonInMiddleGA]

Its only 5 hours so I guess you'll know soon enough but if you dont know wether or not your station is owned by clearchannel, heres a link to find out hxxp://www.clearchannel.com/rad_search.php
I guess it's about 3 hours now, but I believe the six affected markets are Miami, Orlando, Rochester, Louisville, San Diego and Pittsburgh.

[CamEdwards]

It's a shame this is happening now and not in the early 90's when Stern would of fought this, as it is now It seems that he's probably content to ride off into the sunset. This fucking sucks beyond compare, more of Local Bobo and his crazy morning zoo wackos. The FCC should be lined up and shot. People can't deal with things they see or hear they know where the off button is.

It's always nice to see the voice of reason. :D

[cthomer5000]

It's a shame this is happening now and not in the early 90's when Stern would of fought this, as it is now It seems that he's probably content to ride off into the sunset. This fucking sucks beyond compare, more of Local Bobo and his crazy morning zoo wackos. The FCC should be lined up and shot. People can't deal with things they see or hear they know where the off button is.

Read the article. This isn't so much the FCC as Clear Channel being afraid of the FCC. Before anything does happen, they've pre-emptively pulled the show from their stations until they are satisfied he won't be racking up enormous fines.

[cthomer5000]

3- XM and Sirius have yet to see a penny of profit. In fact, XM is at about half the number of subscribers it needs to break even, and Sirius is so far behind XM it isn't even funny. I think Sirius is going to die, and XM will become somewhat of a niche market.

4- If you think corporate radio is going to be killed by satellite radio... I have bad news. One of the big investors in both XM and Sirius is none other than Clear Channel. :)

But, the subscriber base is growing for both of those, and it is possible that landing a couple marquee names could significantly boost sales. Personally, I think if the hardware were cheaper, you'd see far more subscribers to both services.

I think eventually that

satellite::AM/FM radio
cable::network TV

[CleBrownsfan]

Hey, if they want to take that crap off their airwaves, more power to 'em.

If you don't like Stern - don't listen!!!! Easy as that...

[JonInMiddleGA]

If you don't like Stern - don't listen!!!! Easy as that...
If you want to keep your FCC license -- don't violate the rules you agreed to abide by when you got it !!!! Easy as that ...

[Hands to the Face]

It should be noted that only six clear Channel Stations (all in Florida, I believe) carried Stern and constituted a small fraction of his listener base. The vast majority of his affiliates are Infinity/CBS stations and will continue to broadcast him, albeit with heavy built-in delays that allow individual stations to "dump" potentially questionable content.

[Taur]

I don't like this one damn bit. Why, because of how vague the article is. They are banning Howard more for who he is, than what he did. I kept reading expecting to find some refrence to a particular event or item, but no example of his behavier was ever given.

[Ben E Lou]

Ummmmm....if Clear Channel decided that they want to go a different direction, isn't it their business how they run their business???

[Honolulu_Blue]

Interesting how Stern gets cesnored NOW, just when he started to be critical of Bush. I don't care for Stern. I've listened to all of 20 minutes of his show in my life. That being said, this is a f*cking joke.
How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio
http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article3.html

Clear Channel gags an antiwar conservative.


By Charles Goyette

“Imagine these startling headlines with the nation at war in the Pacific six months after Dec. 7, 1941: “No Signs of Japanese Involvement in Pearl Harbor Attack! Faulty Intelligence Cited; Wolfowitz: Mistakes Were Made.”

Or how about an equally disconcerting World War II headline from the European theater: “German Army Not Found in France, Poland, Admits President; Rumsfeld: ‘Oops!’, Powell Silent; ‘Bring ’Em On,’ Says Defiant FDR.”

It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident. The Secretary of State should not need to convince a skeptical world with satellite photos of a couple of Toyota pickups and a dumpster. And faced with a legitimate casus belli, it should not be hard to muster an actual constitutional declaration of war. Now in the absence of a meaningful Iraqi role in the 9/11 attack and the mysterious disappearance of those fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction, there might be some psychic satisfaction to be had in saying, “I told you so!” But it sure isn’t doing my career as a talk-show host any good.

The criterion of self-evidence was only one of dozens of objections I raised before the elective war in Iraq on my afternoon drive-time talk show on KFYI in Phoenix. Many of the other arguments are familiar to readers of The American Conservative.

But the case for war was a shape-shifter, skillfully morphing into a new rationale as quickly as the old one failed to withstand scrutiny. For a year before the war, I scrambled to keep up with the latest incarnations of the neocon case. Most were pitifully transparent and readily exposed. (Besides the aluminum tubes and the trailers that had Bush saying, “Gotcha,” does anyone remember those death-dealing drones? Never have third-world, wind-up, rubber-band, balsa-wood airplanes instilled so much fear in so many people.) Still, my management didn’t like my being out of step with the president’s parade of national hysteria, and the war-fevered spectators didn’t care to be told they were suffering illusions. So after three years, 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!” I have been relegated to the later 7–10 p.m. slot, when most people, even in a congested commuting market like Phoenix, are already home watching TV.

Why did this happen? Why only a couple of months after my company picked up the option on my contract for another year in the fifth-largest city in the United States, did it suddenly decide to relegate me to radio Outer Darkness? The answer lies hidden in the oil-and-water incompatibility of these two seemingly disconnected phrases: “Criticizing Bush” and “Clear Channel.”

Criticizing Bush? Well then, must I be some sort of rug-chewing liberal? Not even close. As a boy, I stood on the grass in a small Arizona town square when Barry Goldwater officially began his 1964 presidential run. And I was there for the last official event of the Goldwater campaign. My job was to recruit and manage my fellow junior-high and high-school conservatives in a phone bank operation, calling supporters to fill up as many buses as possible to help pack the stadium—a show of strength for the nation’s television viewers. Of course that’s an insignificant role to play in a presidential campaign, but it was pretty heady stuff for a 14-year-old kid from Flagstaff.

I broke with Goldwater in 1976 over his decision to back Gerald Ford instead of Ronald Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination. Ford was a perfectly decent, if ordinary, Republican (who could have taught the big-spending W. Bush a thing or two about the use of the veto!). But I took my conservatism seriously. Reagan was clearly the champion of the conservative cause.

Perhaps I’m just anti-military? No. I am proud of my honorable service and of the Army Commendation Medal I was awarded. I also spent a good deal of time in the 1980s as a member of the Speakers Bureau of High Frontier, promoting Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, a defense policy unlike today’s in that it was actually designed to defend the American people.

I have been a Republican precinct committeeman; my county Republican Party elected me its “Man of the Year” in 1988; I have written speeches for conservative candidates and office holders; and I have been employed by statewide and national political organizations and campaigns, including the National Conservative Political Action Committee. Despite my disappointment in Goldwater for not supporting Reagan, I was there when a small band of the faithful—no more than four or five of us—gathered for a potluck dinner to support the creation of a brand-new public-policy think tank named after “Mr. Conservative.” The enterprise blossomed, and I was honored several months ago to serve as Master of Ceremonies for the Goldwater Institute’s 15th Anniversary Gala.

I can assure you then that my criticism of Bush has been on the basis of long-held conservative principles. It begins with respect for the wisdom of the Founders and the Constitution’s division of power and delegation of authority, and extends to an adherence to the principles of governmental restraint and fiscal prudence. It proved to be a message that was more than a little inconvenient for my employer.

Clear Channel Communications, the 800-pound gorilla of the radio business, owns an astonishing 1,200 stations in 50 states, including Newstalk 550 KFYI in Phoenix, where I do the afternoon program … or did until last summer. The principals of Clear Channel, a Texas-based company, have been substantial contributors to George W. Bush’s fortunes since before he became president. In fact, Texas billionaire Tom Hicks can be said to be the man who made Bush a millionaire when he purchased the future president’s baseball team, the Texas Rangers. Tom Hicks is now vice chairman of Clear Channel. Clear Channel stations were unusually visible during the war with what corporate flacks now call “pro-troop rallies.” In tone and substance, they were virtually indistinguishable from pro-Bush rallies. I’m sure the administration, which faced a host of regulatory issues affecting Clear Channel, was not displeased.

Criticism of Bush and his ever-shifting pretext for a first-strike war (what exactly was it we were pre-empting anyway?) has proved so serious a violation of Clear Channel’s cultural taboo that only a good contract has kept me from being fired outright. Roxanne Cordonier, a radio personality at Clear Channel’s WMYI 102.5 in Greenville, S.C., didn’t have it as good. Cordonier, who worked under the name Roxanne Walker, was the South Carolina Broadcasters Association’s 2002 Radio Personality of the Year. That apparently wasn’t enough for Clear Channel. Her lawsuit against the company alleges that she was belittled on the air and reprimanded by her station for opposing the invasion of Iraq. Then she was fired.

They couldn’t really fire me, at least without paying me a substantial sum of money, but I was certainly belittled on the air for opposing the war. The other KFYI talk-show hosts—so bloodthirsty that they made Bush apologists and superhawks Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity sound moderate—vilified me almost daily. As a former radio-station owner myself, it was a little hard to believe management would allow one of their key hosts to be trashed day in and day out on their own airwaves. After all, we sell radio time on the basis of its ability to influence people’s behavior. A wiser programming approach would have been to showcase me as an object of curiosity, with a challenge to listeners to see if they could discover where I had gone wrong or how I was missing the imminent threat Iraq posed to the American people. No doubt the constant vilification I received and my heterodoxy on the war cost me audience during the interlude. It was certainly enough to get pictures of me morphing into those of the French president posted on the Free Republic Web site during the “freedom fries” silliness. A banner there read, “Boycott Charles Chirac Goyette at KFYI radio Phoenix, AZ! Protest against the Charles Goyette Show from 4-7pm at KFYI for his leftist subervsive [sic] Bush-bashing rants. Turn off KFYI radio for the Charles Goyette Show! No liberal scum talk shows on KFYI!” Radio does provoke people, doesn’t it?

One Clear Channel executive had me take an unexpected day off for the sin of reporting the breaking news on March 27, 2003, that neocon hawk Richard Perle, of the Defense Policy Board, had relinquished his chairmanship under scrutiny of his business dealings and for blaspheming that Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense since Robert McNamara. So great were these transgressions that the radio gods themselves must have been aghast at my impiety. I explained in conference-room confrontations that both positions were completely respectable points of view. The comparison with McNamara had been made repeatedly in subsequent days in the mainstream media. I specifically cited “The McLaughlin Group” the following Friday and the New York Times the following Monday, and in describing the Perle resignation, I relied upon details from both Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker and from syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington. “Well, then,” they explained, the problem was “the emotionalism” of my remarks. Imagine that, emotionalism in talk radio? I reminded them that for years we had run promotions identifying KFYI as “the Place with More Passion,” where the Charles Goyette Show was positioned as “Fearless Talk Radio!”

Clear Channel made it clear—“With you, I feel like I’m managing the Dixie Chicks,” said my program director—that they would have liked to fire me anyway. While a well-drafted contract made that difficult, it did not prevent them from tucking me away outside prime time.

So I’m a talk-show war casualty. My contract expires in a few more months and—my iconoclasm being noted—it is not likely it will be renewed. Among the survivors at my station: one host who wanted to nuke Afghanistan (he bills himself as “your voice of reason and moderation”) and another who upon learning that 23-year-old Mideast peace activist Rachel Corrie had been run over by an Israeli bulldozer shouted, “Back up and run over her again!” As he doesn’t quite get some of the important distinctions in these debates, such as that Iranians should not be called Arabs, we would hope that he’s not taken too seriously. Likewise my replacements in the afternoon drive slot, brought in for glamorizing the war and billed as “The Comedy Channel meets Talk Radio.” If you remember the “Saturday Night Live” skit “Superfans” with Mike Myers and Chris Farley—“Who’s stronger, God or da Bulls?” “Da Bulls!”—then you get the idea. Only instead of “da Bulls,” it’s three hours every afternoon of “da Bush!” Expect to hear more insightful topics like “So Who’s Tougher: Michael Jordan or Donald Rumsfeld?”

I’ve seen how war fever infects a people. And I was in a no-win situation, with an audience pre-screened by virtue of 11 hours a day of screaming war frenzy—unlistenable for the uninfected—that surrounded my time slot. So I knew there would be a personal price for opposing the war, and I was prepared to pay it. But as a lover of the rough and tumble of public debate and the contest of ideas, I am disappointed at what is happening in my industry. At least at Clear Channel, there’s only one word for the belief that talk radio is still a fair and fearless search for the truth: “Un-Bull-ieveable!”

[CleBrownsfan]

If you want to keep your FCC license -- don't violate the rules you agreed to abide by when you got it !!!! Easy as that ...
The problem is that no one knows the "guidelines" to abide by...

Eh, it's only freedom of speach... I guess the government can take that away from us... Thanks Bush ;)

[Ben E Lou]

The problem is that no one knows the "guidelines" to abide by...

Eh, it's only freedom of speach... I guess the government can take that away from us... Thanks Bush ;)Again, unless I'm reading this very, very wrong, this wasn't a government decision. This was a decision by a private company. Big difference.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Again, unless I'm reading this very, very wrong, this wasn't a government decision. This was a decision by a private company. Big difference.

SD, see my post above. This decision was made by a "private company" that has some serious, serious ties to the Bush Administration. I think this company acts "privately" about as much as Haliburton.

[CleBrownsfan]

Ummmmm....if Clear Channel decided that they want to go a different direction, isn't it their business how they run their business???

I agree BUT the only reason why they are going that direction is because of the heat they're getting from the FCC.

[Ben E Lou]

SD, see my post above. This decision was made by a "private company" that has some serious, serious ties to the Bush Administration. I think this company acts "privately" about as much as Haliburton.So? Some people have influence. Some don't. That's the way life works in a free society.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Here's some more on it:

The Clear Channel company, an unprecedented media monopoly, has close
personal ties with the Bush family. The vice chairman of CC once
arranged a business deal that made George W. a millionaire.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html

They have in the past not hesitated to fire outspoken on-air critics of
President George W. Bush. Including anti-war conservatives.

http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article3.html

http://azplace.net/index.php?itemid=325

They have sponsored supposedly 'grassroots' pro-Bush and pro-war rallies:

http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=660

[Honolulu_Blue]

So? Some people have influence. Some don't. That's the way life works in a free society.

Free so long as you don't criticize Big Brother it seems...

[Ben E Lou]

Here's some more on it:

The Clear Channel company, an unprecedented media monopoly, has close
personal ties with the Bush family. The vice chairman of CC once
arranged a business deal that made George W. a millionaire.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html

They have in the past not hesitated to fire outspoken on-air critics of
President George W. Bush. Including anti-war conservatives.

http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article3.html

http://azplace.net/index.php?itemid=325

They have sponsored supposedly 'grassroots' pro-Bush and pro-war rallies:

http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=660
I say again, "So?". If a liberal-owned network wanted to fire an on-air personality for making a playing a DJ-remix of the Howard Dean scream, then that's their business, too.

[CamEdwards]

where's that :rolleyes graemlin when you need him?

[Honolulu_Blue]

where's that :rolleyes graemlin when you need him?

I believe someone used it in a post once criticizing Bush and it was banned from the web entirely by Clear Channel. ;)

[Subby]

I completely agree that Clear Channel is within their rights to remove Stern from the airwaves. I don't agree with their actions, but that is beside the point.

My concern is with the consolidation of the entertainemnt/media industry in general. As a casual observer I feel like deregulation has given us a bunch of media conglomerates at the expense of the average entertainment consumer.

I can't articulate this point real well, but companies like Fox, TimeWarner, Clear Channel, Viacom and Disney give me a general feeling of dread.

[wig]

Where was this outrage when I got laid off?

[HornedFrog Purple]

Where was this outrage when I got laid?

Somebody's crying somewhere. :D

[AgPete]

First Opie and Anthony, now Howard. This country is getting WAY too sensitive to the wrong issues.

CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/index.html)

I agree. The freaking moral police are in full swing now. Ever since Janet Jackson, everyone flips out about the little thing. Sheesh, you'd think no one had ever seen a nipple. I wish people could put as much effort into helping impoverished kids as they at protesting someone that curses or flashes on TV or the radio.

[CamEdwards]

I agree. The freaking moral police are in full swing now. Ever since Janet Jackson, everyone flips out about the little thing. Sheesh, you'd think no one had ever seen a nipple. I wish people could put as much effort into helping impoverished kids as they at protesting someone that curses or flashes on TV or the radio.

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Look around this country. How many food banks, homeless shelters, community action agencies, etc. have been operating for years? I would say far more people help impoverished kids than complained to the FCC. In fact, I'd guarantee it. There were 200,000 complaints to the FCC about the Janet Jackson incident. There are MILLIONS of people who donate to help impoverished children.

This is about one government deciding enough is enough on the public airwaves, one company agreeing, and six stations not airing Howard Stern this morning.

You want to talk about much ado about nothing... I'd say people claiming this is censorship or the end of free broadcasting as we know it are good examples of that phenomenon.

[Easy Mac]

I say again, "So?". If a liberal-owned network wanted to fire an on-air personality for making a playing a DJ-remix of the Howard Dean scream, then that's their business, too.
Actually its illegal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The problem is that no one knows the "guidelines" to abide by...

Eh, it's only freedom of speach... I guess the government can take that away from us... Thanks Bush ;)
Once again, I repeat -- there's no professional broadcaster in the world who can't look at 99% of the material that draws complaints & tell you which side of the line it falls on. I've been having that same basic conversation for weeks with people in the business all over the country, haven't found one yet that disagrees. These aren't gray area cases you're seeing, they're clear violations. And they're less than 1% of all the violations that occur, it's largely a matter of who has the bad luck to a) get caught red-handed & b) get reported & c) have both a & b happen at the same time.

The only difference between now & the past 10-20 years is that the rules are at least occasionally being enforced. The rules haven't changed, only the willingness to enforce them. And that's come about only (IMO) due to the demand from the public that they be enforced (which started before the SB, incidentally). The FCC was all but put on notice by Congress several months ago that they'd either start doing their job again or they'd be replaced by a combination of agencies that did it for them. Ain't much that motivates action like a little job insecurity.

And while I'm usually the last person you'll see defending Clear Channel for anything (90% of the time I simply refer to them as "The Evil Empire"), I sure don't think they deserve singling out for exercising a little CYA in a half-dozen markets. They're actually a little late to the party (an oversight that had to be corrected before their CEO testifies on Capitol Hill later today), with several other "mega-casters" already taking similar steps over the past two weeks. The Stern dilemma they faced was different from the vast majority of their stations (I mean, this is 6 stations out of some 1,200), where the air talent is either under contract directly to the CC station or under contract to CC (for syndicated shows). They basically have direct control of those, screw up & they can fire 'em (again, see job insecurity as motivation). With a contracted deal like Stern's, that's not an option they have, he works for Infinity.

What may be lost somewhere along the way is that, ultimately, every broadcast license holder bears the final responsibility for what is broadcast. Absent adequate ways to control the talent directly, removing them from your broadcast is the only real guarantee that something actionable won't be done "in your name". In other words, it's not Stern that pays the fine, it's CCE. And how stupid would any company be to continue a situation where someone else's employee could get them fined?
(And in this case, I'd say it isn't just "could" but rather "is likely to").

As many problems as CC has right now, I can't blame them one bit for exercising their right (& responsibility) to cover their own asses.

[rkmsuf]

You want to talk about much ado about nothing... I'd say people claiming this is censorship or the end of free broadcasting as we know it are good examples of that phenomenon.

But you start putting pieces together and add it up and it is a step in that direction...

[Samdari]

This is kind of like Senator talking about Homeland Security stuff since I work for the company in question, but let me just clarify a few things.

1- Viacom isn't yanking Stern, Clear Channel is yanking Stern off the air from the stations they own that run the program.

2- IMO, this may turn out to be a good thing for local radio, since I'd guess at least some of those markets will return to local hosts in the morning. I'd love to see it anyway. I've never understood the syndicated morning drive thing anyway.

3- XM and Sirius have yet to see a penny of profit. In fact, XM is at about half the number of subscribers it needs to break even, and Sirius is so far behind XM it isn't even funny. I think Sirius is going to die, and XM will become somewhat of a niche market.

4- If you think corporate radio is going to be killed by satellite radio... I have bad news. One of the big investors in both XM and Sirius is none other than Clear Channel. :)

I don't think satellite radio will kill local radio any more than cable tv killed local broadcast stations. I think people want a certain bit of local content in their programming. I am considering getting satellite radio for road trips, and for a certain 'dead spot' in local programming here, but most of the time would listen to the local stations.

As for the 'syndicated morning drive' thing, I happen to listen to a syndicated show in my morning drive time. There are largely two reasons. First, I think for the most part, they have bigger budgets, and can be better produced, hire the best talent, etc. Second, and most importantly, the local programming in my area stinks. I listen to sports radio mostly, but have listened to typical FM morning shows mixing music with hosts trying to be funny. I have enjoyed some of those in the past, but cannot stand any of the locals. So, the most entertaining option for me is Mike & Mike.

[wig]

But you start putting pieces together and add it up and it is a step in that direction...


SLIPPERY SLOPE SIGHTING!!!!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually its illegal.
Umm ... I wouldn't think so. The employee of a license holder does not have the right to do/say whatever they please via a license someone else holds.

Minus individual contracts that dictate otherwise, the license holder (aka employer) has the right to determine what is broadcast on their transmitter. If I want to fire you for saying "snow" instead of "frozen precipitation", you're gone. Play the wrong song at the wrong time, you're gone. Fail to perform in the ratings, you're gone. Decide I want to go in a different direction, say from talk to rock or from rock to urban, you're gone.

An on-air employee has zero right to say whatever they please on the air, no more than a Circuit City employee has the "right" to insist on wearing a Best Buy smock to work.

In theory, you'd be correct if the action/speech/whatever, was taken on the employee's own time.

But that's nothing I can't remove with a well-written "conduct detrimental", "morals", or similar contractual clause. I can't bind & gag you physically from saying/doing something on your own time, but if you do it publically & you're a recognized representative of my company, then your right to free speech doesn't extend to damaging my business without the option of recourse in the process.

[Ben E Lou]

Even it is illegal, I'd say it shouldn't be...but that is opening up a whole new can o' worms. ;)

[Easy Mac]

I don't think 1 person saying they're against the war is any more damaging than the other 4 people saying they're are for it during a show that has nothing to do with politics (i.e. a morining drive show). But I'm sure you would have no problem if a pro-war person was fired from their job.

[Honolulu_Blue]

For better or for worse, Howard Stern has been one of the most influential figures in American culture for the past 15 years. Each day, more people listen to his show than watch Leno, Letterman, Conan and Kimmel combined. A lot of shows, especially reality shows, had their roots, explicitly or implicily, on his show.

A former Libertarian candidate for governor of New York, Stern has had an influence in politics. He has been credited with helping the following politicians get elected/re-elected: Al d'Amato, George Pataki and Christy Todd Whitman. Whitman even fulfilled a campaign promise to Stern, naming a rest stop along the Jersey pike after Stern. He also helped the following politicians get defeated: Mario Cuomo and David Dinkins.

Stern has been a major hawk since 9/11. Were he President, the entire Middle East would have been a mushroom cloud on 9/12. He has been supportive of Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The day before Clear Channel took action, however, he announced he was now supporting ABB, anybody but Bush. He extensively praised Al Franken's book, despite the fact that on the first couple of pages, Franken takes a few shots at Stern himself. Stern has been critical of W's ties to the Radical Religious Right, especially about his policies on abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage. He has recently been critical of corruption in the Bush administration, from Halliburton to Cheney's playing golf with Scalia who is refusing to recuse himself form ruling on Cheney's cases. The recent FCC hearings regarding the Janet Jackson boob exposure tilted the scale. Stern has spoken highly of Kerry, and now says he'll support Kerry assuming he is the Dem nominee.

Maybe Stern's change of heart and Clear Channel's decision to FINALLY take action against him is coeincedence. Maybe not. It definitely makes one wonder...

[The Afoci]

HB, I highly doubt it had anything to do with Stern being anti-Bush. Clear Channel owns about every damn radio station in Fargo, and the most listen too one, an AM station, features a host, Ed Schultz who is a cornerstone on the new liberal talk radio. This guy is so anti-bush, he makes Rush look like a Clinton lover. Yet, he stays on the radio and is actually getting more air time. He has a ND/Minn show from 9-11 and the national one from 2-5 I think. I may be off on the hours some, but still.

Stern being took off the air probably has to do with the removal of Love Sponge yesterday, who does similiar stuff to Stern so they could prevent a lawsuit for him being canned while they still air Stern.

[CamEdwards]

CC also has the very popular Randi Rhodes, another liberal who broadcasts from West Palm Beach, FL.

I can tell you that with certainty that this had nothing to do with Stern's endorsement of ABB, because this policy wasn't developed yesterday. There's a certain lead time to changes in big companies, and this is a big change that didn't happen overnight.

I like the conspiracy theories, though. Keep 'em coming.

[pjstp20]

The argument shouldnt be so quickly dissmissed, just because two guys, who dont have 1/20th of the audience Stern has, kept there jobs disproves nothing. As Honolulu Blue stated he has been extremly influencial in New York so I wouldnt label this a cooky theory.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't think 1 person saying they're against the war is any more damaging than the other 4 people saying they're are for it during a show that has nothing to do with politics (i.e. a morining drive show). But I'm sure you would have no problem if a pro-war person was fired from their job.I wouldn't at all.

[wig]

Isn't the FCC cracking down on indecency?

If so, firing Stern could just be an attempt to avoid all the fines and headaches he'd cause them.

[rkmsuf]

Isn't the FCC cracking down on indecency?

If so, firing Stern could just be an attempt to avoid all the fines and headaches he'd cause them.

That's the real issue and I can't stand it.

[Ben E Lou]

That's the real issue and I can't stand it.You can't stand that a business makes a decision based on the financial implications?

[rkmsuf]

You can't stand that a business makes a decision based on the financial implications?

No the FCC part. I understand CC and Infinitys position...there's not much they can do about it...

[Ben E Lou]

No the FCC part. I understand CC and Infinitys position...there's not much they can do about it...Ahhh...I see.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Isn't the FCC cracking down on indecency?

If so, firing Stern could just be an attempt to avoid all the fines and headaches he'd cause them.

Could be... Then again, perhaps there's more to it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Could be... Then again, perhaps there's more to it.
Y'know, you could be right. This could all be a conspiracy concocted by The Illuminati (which includes JFK, Elvis, Howard Hughes, & Jimmy Hoffa btw). It's connected to the moon landing hoax, as well as the coverup of the colonization of by aliens.

How is connected ? Well, I could tell you but then I'd have to ... http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[pjstp20]

Maybe Clear Channel is killing two birds with one stone. They don't like Sterns content and the headaches that come with it nor do they like his political views. Combined together they make this decision even easier. Clear Channel is running one of the biggest monopolys in the buisness world. Is it that much of a stretch to say they don't want a liberal spreading his ideas to millions of people?

I'm not saying it's true but neither is it far fetched. To compare something like this to other wacko theories is short sighted.

[Honolulu_Blue]

So? Some people have influence. Some don't. That's the way life works in a free society.

I am still stunned by this. I cannot understand how it is perfectly acceptable in a "free society" for the leader of that society's government to use his/her influence in the business world to silence his/her critics. That is not actually the way it works in a free society. That's the way it works in a corrupt oligarchy.

Yes, some people have more influence than others. If they have that influence with a politician because he is beholden to them for shady financial dealings, and they use that influence deny the right of free speech to people whose political opinions differ from their own, that, my friends, is corruption.

Politics aside, I would be equally upset if some Deomcratic president used his influence to get Rush or O'Rielly or whoever banned from the airwaves. It is completely unacceptable.

[Fritz]

what about if the leader of a free society just had his headaches knocked off?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hmm ... maybe the other shoe just dropped.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204/26stern.html

Stern says "A caller called in and used the 'n' word, and I hung up on him. ... I'm so tired of this."

Anybody happen to know whether the remark made it to the air or not? In other words, did the Infinity employee with his finger on the "dump" button stop this before it was sent down the line to affiliates or did it slip through?

Meanwhile, while looking for an answer to that question, I notice that Stern himself appears to have used "the n-word" on Monday's show. That is, if the write-up at
http://www.marksfriggin.com/news04/2-23.htm is accurate. (my own hunch is that neither the caller nor Stern nor the "n-word" has anything to do with CCE's decision, but since Stern brought it up as the cause, I figure it's worth exploring).

[Wolfpack]

He may be influential in New York, but isn't that irrelevant since NYC would be anti-Bush anyway (as are most urban areas where Stern is likely to be heard)?

[Franklinnoble]

Bah. Shock jocks are a tired and juvenile act, and it's high time that western civilization grew up and got rid of them anyway.

[rkmsuf]

Bah. Shock jocks are a tired and juvenile act, and it's high time that western civilization grew up and got rid of them anyway.

Discounting your personal taste, the ratings, at least for Stern, say differently...

[Noop]

Poor Howard I will miss his TV show that came on E! I loved looking at blurred out naked chicks

[CamEdwards]

Discounting your personal taste, the ratings, at least for Stern, say differently...

yet another reason not to cater to the lowest common demoninator.

[rkmsuf]

yet another reason not to cater to the lowest common demoninator.

what exactly does that mean?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Discounting your personal taste, the ratings, at least for Stern, say differently...
I think that kinda depends upon how you want to figure it -- I don't believe Stern (or much of anybody else) is pulling a 50 share (i.e. half of all listeners) in too many markets, if any.

I'm not sure off-hand if you combined all "shock jocks" in a given market if you could get to 50 share either.

In other words, it'd be fair to say Stern was the most popular individual in a given demo & area, but that's different than being more popular than everything else.

(I think you know all that, but it seemed worth pointing out just in case someone playing along didn't make the connections)

[AgPete]

Take this link with a grain of salt because I got it from Drudge's site but according to this guy's site which provides a summary of each Stern show, he did something to offend Congresswoman Heather Wilson. She was one of the more vocal politicians after the Janet Jackson episode.

http://www.marksfriggin.com/news.htm#thu

"Howard said he didn't even know what to say this morning after he was taken off of six Clear Channel radio stations yesterday. He said he just found out about it last night and wasn't sure he should talk about it or not. He said he learned some stuff off the air and he won't be talking about any congresswoman today. He said that it's obvious that free speech isn't so free. He said he was going to try and be smart and try to get them back on the air on the Clear Channel stations by Monday but it's possible he'll be fired from those stations....

....Howard said that Mel Karmazin spoke to Clear Channel and told them they're in breach of contract but they apparently don't care. He said he really doesn't know what's going on and what he can talk about on the air. Robin said it was like they woke up in a different country with all of this stuff going on. Howard said he doesn't think he'll last a month on the air with all of this stuff. He said Cabbie was ready to go on a commando mission down to Washington DC.

KC came in and said that he came in and heard Scott the Engineer giving a speech about what's going on with censorship. Scott said that he's embarrassed to live in this country after this. Howard said that he has been silenced because he talked about a congresswoman (Heather Fucking Wilson) and it's censorship.

Howard was saying that he was going to say goodbye to everyone this morning just in case something else happens. Howard said that Clear Channel admitted to him that they did this, not because of anything he said, but because they are being dragged in front of congress. He said that they're being forced to say that Howard said something racist on Tuesday and that's why he's being kicked off the air on those stations. Howard said it was a caller who used the N-word that people are talking about. Howard said that he's really tired of this stuff....."

[wig]

It's not like Stern can't get a job somewhere else.

I don't see what the big deal is.

[rkmsuf]

I think that kinda depends upon how you want to figure it -- I don't believe Stern (or much of anybody else) is pulling a 50 share (i.e. half of all listeners) in too many markets, if any.

I'm not sure off-hand if you combined all "shock jocks" in a given market if you could get to 50 share either.

In other words, it'd be fair to say Stern was the most popular individual in a given demo & area, but that's different than being more popular than everything else.

(I think you know all that, but it seemed worth pointing out just in case someone playing along didn't make the connections)

How else do you want to figure it? If someone is the most popular than the arguement that shock jocks are old and tired is false. That was my only point.

[CamEdwards]

if Stern doesn't even know what censorship is, he shouldn't be on the air to begin with.

Oh, and rkmsuf, my comment meant that there's no mandate declaring we must have shock jocks on the air. As I get older and more conservative I wish more and more that the people who run these media corporations would quit appealing to the intellectual morons and instead focus on quality entertainment rather than achieving results through shock tactics.*










*except South Park. Don't f$%^ with South Park. :)

[CamEdwards]

How else do you want to figure it? If someone is the most popular than the arguement that shock jocks are old and tired is false. That was my only point.\

dola: in my city, the number one station plays Classic Rock, which is the very definition of old and tired. For God's sakes, Andy Rooney's still on 60 minutes... but that doesn't make him popular or even relevant.

[rkmsuf]

if Stern doesn't even know what censorship is, he shouldn't be on the air to begin with.

Oh, and rkmsuf, my comment meant that there's no mandate declaring we must have shock jocks on the air. As I get older and more conservative I wish more and more that the people who run these media corporations would quit appealing to the intellectual morons and instead focus on quality entertainment rather than achieving results through shock tactics.*










*except South Park. Don't f$%^ with South Park. :)

I don't know if you are kidding or not but to sit in judgement on the value of what someone finds entertaining is dubious. I think Picasso sucked but I'm not looking down my nose at those that enjoy it. You yourself may find it a bore but millions others don't. Maybe you feel like you are better than those people that like Stern and that's ok too...but I shudder to think what the world would be like if this type of thinking was applied to say movies, literature ect...

[rkmsuf]

\

dola: in my city, the number one station plays Classic Rock, which is the very definition of old and tired. For God's sakes, Andy Rooney's still on 60 minutes... but that doesn't make him popular or even relevant.

Well I'd argue that 60 Minutes' ratings aren't based on Andy Rooney...

[CamEdwards]

I don't know if you are kidding or not but to sit in judgement on the value of what someone finds entertaining is dubious. I think Picasso sucked but I'm not looking down my nose at those that enjoy it. You yourself may find it a bore but millions others don't. Maybe you feel like you are better than those people that like Stern and that's ok too...but I shudder to think what the world would be like if this type of thinking was applied to say movies, literature ect...

Guess we should cancel the Oscars this weekend.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If someone is the most popular than the arguement that shock jocks are old and tired is false. That was my only point.
And my point was that you can't neccessarily draw the "is false" assumption.

Using random numbers here, just pulled out of thin air for illustration --
If shocks jocks were pulling 35% of all listeners 5 years ago & are pulling 17% of all listeners now, then that indicates they're fading badly from previous levels; i.e. "old & tired".

That 17 share could easily beat any individual in a lot of places, but represents a much small share of the whole, pretty well reducing them to "on their way out" status.

And that was pretty much my only point.

[rkmsuf]

Guess we should cancel the Oscars this weekend.

I don't see how that makes any sense. If LOTR loses it doesn't get pulled from Blockbuster...

[rkmsuf]

And my point was that you can't neccessarily draw the "is false" assumption.

Using random numbers here, just pulled out of thin air for illustration --
If shocks jocks were pulling 35% of all listeners 5 years ago & are pulling 17% of all listeners now, then that indicates they're fading badly from previous levels; i.e. "old & tired".

That 17 share could easily beat any individual in a lot of places, but represents a much small share of the whole, pretty well reducing them to "on their way out" status.

And that was pretty much my only point.

gotcha; I have no idea what the real numbers are...

[CamEdwards]

I don't see how that makes any sense. If LOTR loses it doesn't get pulled from Blockbuster...

Sorry, let me frame the relevant quote.

I don't know if you are kidding or not but to sit in judgement on the value of what someone finds entertaining is dubious. I think Picasso sucked but I'm not looking down my nose at those that enjoy it.


We do it every day, in judgement of what others find entertaining, appropriate to wear, what they drive, how they smell, etc. And a private company has EVERY right to decide it's not going to promote or produce shows that rely on cheap shock gimmicks to provide its ratings. It's not censorship... its a free market.

[rkmsuf]

Sorry, let me frame the relevant quote.


We do it every day, in judgement of what others find entertaining, appropriate to wear, what they drive, how they smell, etc. And a private company has EVERY right to decide it's not going to promote or produce shows that rely on cheap shock gimmicks to provide its ratings. It's not censorship... its a free market.

That part I agree with and I guess I tie it back to how the whole thing is so phoney.

Suddenly after years and years CC et all decides to act based on pressure from Congress based on a disingenuous crusade. Suddenly "shock" is out and evil while only months ago people were content to rake in the profits. The media companies had no problem "pandering to the lowest denominator".

Legislating taste is not something I want done by the government. The Stern show has done the same schtick for years and be it not for the government pressure I doubt CC would have made the same decision.

[digamma]

Anyone know how many total stations Stern is carried on? Is losing these six markets really going to make a dent in his total broadcast area?

[JonInMiddleGA]

gotcha; I have no idea what the real numbers are...
Honestly, best I can tell, they vary widely from one place to another. Stern has flown high in some markets, failed miserably in others, been up & down in others. Pretty much the same as nearly every other syndicated radio show I can think of (I'd say "every" but I'm not sure if Tom Joyner has ever really flopped anywhere).

Out of curiosity, I checked several of the "do-not-buy" shows/stations on the list for our primary client. Overall, their ratings & share are down now-vs-18 months ago. In some cases it's a minor fluctation like anything else can have, but in at least one case (not Stern incidentally) it's pretty pronounced, losing 1/3 of its share in just 12 months, a trend that I hadn't really realized was quite so dramatic. And that's with an established duo in their home market (not what I'd call a good sign for the future of the show nationally).

FWIW, I believe this is largely a cyclical business, trends come & go all along the way. Drops for shock jocks might involve them directly, but could also involve other factors including (but damn sure not limited to):
-- decline of overall listenership by a given demographic
-- decline of format(s) where shock jocks are most common
-- improved "non-shock" competition across town

And the thing that I believe (okay, "hope" is more like it) will eventually drive a stake through the heart of shockradio -- a trend toward "just shut up & play the music already". That's not really impactful in many places yet, but I reserve the right to think wishfully http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Suicane75]

The problem is that the guidelines are unknown and the FCC are pretty much a seat of their pants governing body. If im sitting in Podunk Texas and here him say something I don't like I can send a transcript to the FCC and get somebody fined, if 100 broadcasters that day say the same thing and nobody complains then they get "away" with it. When the FCC fined Stern initialy Infinity tried to fight it, the only problem? The FCC told them that if they took it to court they would hold up the sale of stations Inifinity was trying to buy, in other words "shut up and take it". There are no guidelines for anything, they don't know what to bleep and not to bleep so they bleep anything they think the FCC might find offensive.

[rkmsuf]

I heard the word "balls" bleeped on a local Infinity owned station today...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anyone know how many total stations Stern is carried on? Is losing these six markets really going to make a dent in his total broadcast area?
Not sure how accurate this is (last updated Sept '03) but koam.com
lists 41 affiliates, so it's about 15% of all affiliates.

Of those, 5 of the 6 are among his 15 longest-running affiliates,

They represent roughly 10% of his total available audience (12+ pop. of markets airing), and about 15% of his total available audience outside NY/LA.

Don't have the ratings handy for the show in all the markets, so not sure how this affects his total actual audience.

[tucker342]

P.C. sucks:(

I wish we actually knew what Stern said that got him suspended(unless I'm missing something)

[JonInMiddleGA]

P.C. sucks:(

I wish we actually knew what Stern said that got him suspended(unless I'm missing something)
Actually, maybe I'm missing something specific myself, but I don't believe there was any one thing at all.

My own take on the Stern/CC thing is that it's a case of "he doesn't work for us so we have very little direct recourse & we aren't confident that Infinity has Howard under control at this point either, so we don't trust them to eliminate potentially actionable content".

Well, at least I believe that's what we're supposed to think.

I really figure this is mostly about CCE making a highly visible move to increase their profile on the issue of content control while taking a backhanded shot at Infinity's ability to control their own employees.
It also has pretty much ended conversation about the firing of Bubba in Tampa, which could be at least a minor factor in the whole decision.

Also IMO, the whole thing was more flash than substance on CC's part, and barring any unforeseen new developments, Stern will be back on the air in those markets within 1-2 weeks, complete with at least a short-term listener spike from the "I-wonder-what-Howard-will-say-about-all-this" crowd.

(see, I told you I wasn't a big fan of CC corporate http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif)

[rexallllsc]

We do it every day, in judgement of what others find entertaining, appropriate to wear, what they drive, how they smell, etc. And a private company has EVERY right to decide it's not going to promote or produce shows that rely on cheap shock gimmicks to provide its ratings. It's not censorship... its a free market.

CC was under contract.

[CamEdwards]

CC was under contract.

And do you know that his contract (at least fee-wise) isn't going to be honored?

[rexallllsc]

And do you know that his contract (at least fee-wise) isn't going to be honored?

Nope.

[Suicane75]

Sorry, let me frame the relevant quote.


We do it every day, in judgement of what others find entertaining, appropriate to wear, what they drive, how they smell, etc. And a private company has EVERY right to decide it's not going to promote or produce shows that rely on cheap shock gimmicks to provide its ratings. It's not censorship... its a free market.


The problem is not that they they're deciding anything based on content, they're deciding based on the fact that the goverment is strong arming them into doing what they want.

[Bubba Wheels]

Stern's whole act from the beginning was to push the envelope, see what he could get away with, be as shocking as possible in a very casual way and see what the reaction would be. He got away with it for so long he lulled himself into a false sense of security, so when the boom finally came done he's like '...what happened? What did I do?" He reminds me of my 8 yr old, used to getting so many warnings that they think all of a sudden endless warnings are an entitlement. Stern knew every step of the way that he was violating FCC regs and it was all just a joke to him. Too bad, so sad, let him broadcast over the internet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

T... the goverment is strong arming them into doing what they want.
You mean kinda the way most laws are enforced? i.e. you either follow the law or face the consequences? Gee, how awful of a government to do such a thinghttp://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[rexallllsc]

Stern's whole act from the beginning was to push the envelope, see what he could get away with, be as shocking as possible in a very casual way and see what the reaction would be. He got away with it for so long he lulled himself into a false sense of security, so when the boom finally came done he's like '...what happened? What did I do?" He reminds me of my 8 yr old, used to getting so many warnings that they think all of a sudden endless warnings are an entitlement. Stern knew every step of the way that he was violating FCC regs and it was all just a joke to him. Too bad, so sad, let him broadcast over the internet.

The problem is, no one really knows what the FCC regs are.

[Suicane75]

You mean kinda the way most laws are enforced? i.e. you either follow the law or face the consequences? Gee, how awful of a government to do such a thinghttp://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

That wasn't the argument I was making. Cam said that CC suspended Stern becuase they disagreed with his content, I was simply pointing out that that wasn't the reason. And by the way, I'm not even sure there is a law, it's a random enforcement of what they do or don't like to hear.

[ice4277]

I read an email today from management at Clear Channel Detroit talking about things not to say on the air. Many of the examples given were things that are generally common on the air nowadays. Personally I think the thing is one big PR move, we shall see.

By the way, I am a Cheap...er...Clear Channel employee as well.

[Bubba Wheels]

The thing not being said is that Stern was for all intents and purposes the leading Pioneer of 'shock jock' radio and has reaped alot of wealth from it. So if an example was to be made of someone way out of line, he being the 'front-runner' was the natural choice.

[pjstp20]

Im not sure how radio "law" is enforced but I think it's through community standars. Which means if theres too many people complaining about what your putting on the air then you get fined, so its all open for interpretation.

[vtbub]

The problem is not that they they're deciding anything based on content, they're deciding based on the fact that the goverment is strong arming them into doing what they want.

[long winded answer]

No. They are basing this on their bottom line. The current biggest threat to that is woozy advertisers who get spooked out over having their products associated with bad publicity, i.e. FCC probes.

CC had a tremendous debtload thanks to the fact they have purchased so many stations. I belive in most CC markets, they sell cluster ads. Buy x units and get them on all stations, from the dinky AM talk to the FM CHR's. Other ads sold are station spefic, and a third kind of ad buy are actual barter for program swaps. You want to run my canned music program, you air my 5 minutes of sponsers per hour and you can sell the other four.

You can blame the FCC all you want for CC being able to own too many stations, and you would be partly right. When people made the switch from AM to FM, the FCC granted too many licenses. The supply of stations exceeds the demand. Howard Stern's best numbers in New York are 2/3rds what then market leaders WOR and WABC got in the late 1970's. The talk and music giants commanded roughly one out of four listeners in New York City, 24/7/365 and could bill for it, they drew advertisers and made money.

Today, Stern gets about 6.5-7% of the total NYC market. A tremendous number in this day in age. He's made Infinity a shitload of money. And he's well compensated for his services. Now he's a victim of his own success. More on that in a bit.

Stations target advertisers by offering content that targets demos. When Mom and Pop's lil AM/FM full service/CHR stations numbers went from a 25 combined share to a 6, they had to drop their rates and started losing money. They had two choices, go bankrupt or sell. That's how CC/Infinity got so huge into radio, they went into debt trying to make money. They can charge decent dollars for their shows becaus a 4 share nationally or 5 million households gets more money than a 4 share in Fargo or 5000 households. Some genius realized that Males 12-34 were receptive to advertising and liked to laugh at tit jokes, voila Howard Stern.

Then that same genius realized that if you have tit jokes all day, they'll staywith you, because they aren't listening to the same 50 rock songs played over and over after Stern signs on, and voila they did. You then had a whole parade of shows offering off color jokes and the ante ws raised on how close to dark blue could you get without going over. Stern got away with this for years because the revenue he brought in EASILY outweighed any fines given out. Wanna descibe Pam Anderson fingering on the air in code? Fork over 27 grand, you can make that in two sixty second spots. But then, the stations carrying that grew and now for Paris Hilton blowing Joe Schmoe with Howard giving vague descriptions now cost you $250k or $500k simply because each fine is per station.

When the dolts at CBS/Infinity/Boston Brewing Company(Sam Adams Beer) okayed a contest that had an option of sex in a Catholic Church "scoring points" on the Opie and Anthony show, that crossed the line. If I owned a hardware store and bought time on the local Oldies station who also owned the O&A station, then I started to hear about it from groups, how dare I sponsor a program that's so filthy. Chances are, I yank my ads. The dolts fired Opie and Anthony, with pay, and waited for things to die down, i.e. my ads go back on.

Things do die down until, surprise surprise, CBS/Infinity/AOL sponsor the halftime show at this years Super Bowl, starring Janet Jackson's right breast, Nelly's dick, Kid Rock's armpits and flag, and Justin Timberlake's version of hide the sausage. Vulgar if on MTV? Perhaps. Fox News would have shown scarred for life stories for 3 days along with CNN and MSNBC. But on the Super Bowl? Completely tasteless. The whole show, (I liked Janet's boob). CBS had 200,000 complaint calls. 200,000 people were so pissed they got up off their couch and called New York to complain, let alone the people who flooded talk radio and the cable news channels with e-mail. Now you have a problem.

When faced with $200k per station per violation, CC and Infinity had no choice but to cut that off because the fines and the backlash cost more then the revenue generated by the cluster. If they thought that they could get away with liberal lesbians pleasing each other orally on the air, they'd do it in a heartbeat and advertisers would be knocking on the door to pay for it. Radio, however, is a business, a very weak one at that. Ratings are falling and they can't afford the loss of revenue. If they thought that playing Brittney Spears clones 24/7 would bring in more teenage girls and Revlon ads than Stern and Sam Adams, see ya Howie.

Are CC and CBS/Infinity blameless, hell no. You think I'm going to buy time on a station and be ad number 6 in a 20 ad cluster? Yeah, right, especially when I can spend a little more and get the same viewers by buying time on ESPN or Spike for local breaks.

It's all about the money.

[/end long winded answer]

[JonInMiddleGA]

[long winded answer]
[/end long winded answer]
I don't mind long-winded one bit when it's as good as post as you just made.

I belive in most CC markets, they sell cluster ads. Buy x units and get them on all stations, from the dinky AM talk to the FM CHR's. Other ads sold are station spefic, and a third kind of ad buy are actual barter for program swaps. You want to run my canned music program, you air my 5 minutes of sponsers per hour and you can sell the other four.
From my own experience over the past few years, with roughly two dozen markets that included CC, the "cluster" approach is used most often with short spots (:10s, :15s) and perhaps with jumbo-sized clients for :60s. Much more common are what you might call "semi-clusters", i.e. they'll try to package up 2-4 stations in a demo & get you for those instead of trying to forcefeed you all of the 5-8 stations they own in the market. But I've really had no problem narrowing to single stations where that was what made sense for the client. (Some of the problem here IMO is the amount of money being trusted to very inexperienced media buyers who haven't quite caught on to the fact that the paying customer is still usually right when push comes to shove. They don't know/have forgotten that & don't really push much when they get shoved by the sales reps)

As a side note, even I'm still surprised how often I get asked "what rate would it take for us to get 100% of the buy for CC?". No other ownership group I deal with is as focused on taking money away from the other stations/groups than CC. I've had discounts offered of more than 50%, which still kinda shocks me (and I've been around the block a couple of times).

Are CC and CBS/Infinity blameless, hell no. You think I'm going to buy time on a station and be ad number 6 in a 20 ad cluster? Yeah, right, especially when I can spend a little more and get the same viewers by buying time on ESPN or Spike for local breaks.
I wonder if you realize just how many advertisers fail to understand that fairly simply point? (At this point, I kinda have a suspicion that you know that pretty darned well actually). Working on a buy for a national cable network for this spring drove that point home for me in great detail. If you can set your ego aside long enough to look at the numbers (i.e. don't feel as though you just have to be in the program with the biggest name, just go with the biggest numbers) you'll end up with a lot more bang for the buck.

Fork over 27 grand, you can make that in two sixty second spots.
This might be the only quibble I've got with your whole post. While I think you were just illustrating a point, I think it's worthwhile to point out that even in NYC, I don't believe radio spot rates ever reached $13.5k/spot in a single market. You could cover the $27k pretty easily with a stopset or two, but not with a spot or two. Like I said, that's a small quibble & your point is still quite valid. (Again, as a sidebar, the highest single-market spot rate I've ever been quoted was some $4k/spot, but that wasn't in NYC. It was Minneapolis of all places).

All in all, a damned fine post, and one that really was a pleasure for me to read. Thanks.

Jon

[JonInMiddleGA]

The problem is, no one really knows what the FCC regs are.
Problem is, that's simply not true. Any broadcaster knows quite well either
a) what the rule is OR b)where to find out. Again, the content being discussed in the large majority of the high profile cases is not grey area stuff, it's things that anybody who knows which end of the microphone to speak into knows full well which side of the line it rests on.

from the FCC order involving Bubba the Love Sponge
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-17A1.html


Specifically, it is a violation of federal law to broadcast
obscene or indecent programming. Title 18 of the United
States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of
``any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of
radio communication.''8 In addition, consistent with a
subsequent statute and court case,9 Section 73.3999 of
the Commission's rules provides that radio and television
stations shall not broadcast indecent material during the
period 6 a.m. through 10 p.m."


Indecency findings involve at least two
fundamental determinations. First, the
material alleged to be indecent must fall
within the subject matter scope of our
indecency definition -- that is, the material
must describe or depict sexual or excretory
organs or activities. Second, the broadcast
must be patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards for the
broadcast medium.

In our assessment of whether broadcast material is patently
offensive, ``the full context in which the material appeared
is critically important.''22 Three principal factors are
significant to this contextual analysis: (1) the
explicitness or graphic nature of the description; (2)
whether the material dwells on or repeats at length
descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or activities;
and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to
titillate or shock.23 In examining these three factors, we
must weigh and balance them to determine whether the
broadcast material is patently offensive because ``[e]ach
indecency case presents its own particular mix of these, and
possibly, other factors.''24 In particular cases, the
weight of one or two of the factors may outweigh the others,
either rendering the broadcast material patently offensive
and consequently indecent,25 or, alternatively, removing the
broadcast material from the realm of indecency.

It's pretty darned black & white. And while some may claim that
the "contemporary community standards" phrasing is too vague, it's
defined more clearly by the three tests that are applied.

Bottom line -- any broadcaster who tries to claim ignorance has
no excuse and probably had no business broadcasting in the first place.
at all.
</pre>

[Craptacular]

If you don't like Stern - don't listen!!!! Easy as that...

I never said anything to the contrary. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough though. If they (Clear Channel) want to take that crap off their airwaves, more power to 'em.

[JonInMiddleGA]

from today's Capitol Hill testimony from CC CEO John Hogan (when questioned about why Stern was taken off the air now)

said subcommittee chairman Fred Upton. "I don't think what he said this week is much different from what he's been saying for years. Why didn't this happen earlier?" Hogan agreed that Stern's show hasn't become more shocking of late. "I don't think he's changed his tune; we have changed ours," Hogan said. "We're going in a different direction."

[Suicane75]

I find it incredibly vague, maybe i am an idiot, i've been accused of worse. Even if it is incredibly obvious to everyone involved, the sanctioning is random, the fines are levied when and If someone complains or if the FCC decides to focus on you, it's not an across the board regulation.

[vtbub]

The standards of indecency are community based. What may be ok in New York may not be in Dallas.

With such large clusters of stations under current ownership and the fact that a lot of shock jocks are syndicated across the country means there isn't a true litmus test.

They, the programmers, have known about this for a long time.