Stern Gone?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

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]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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

Ahhh...I see.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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 ...

[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]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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

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

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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

what exactly does that mean?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

\

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]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by tucker342

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 )

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

CC was under contract.

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

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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

Nope.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

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 thing