This is topic Howard Stern Banned -- Creativity is a dangerous thing... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002994

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 02-26-2004, 11:34 AM:
 
Yahoo News Link

Howard Stern Dropped from Clear Channel Stations

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Radio station giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. said on Wednesday it was dumping nationally syndicated shock jock Howard Stern from its stations under a new "zero tolerance" policy toward indecency.

In dropping Stern from its six radio outlets that carry his show, Clear Channel cited his interview on Tuesday with Rick Salomon, the man who was filmed having sex with hotel heiress and TV reality star Paris Hilton in a video widely distributed on Internet porn sites.

According to a transcript of the show released by San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel, Stern asked Salomon if he engaged in anal sex and referred to the size of his penis. Using a racist term, a caller to the show asked Solomon if he had ever had sex with any famous black women.

The action against Stern came a day after Clear Channel fired Florida radio personality "Bubba the Love Sponge," after federal regulators accused him of airing sexually graphic material on Tampa's WXTB-FM and three other Florida stations.

Stern's New York-based show is syndicated by Infinity Broadcasting, a unit of Viacom Inc., which also owns television networks CBS and MTV. Infinity operates 185 radio stations nationwide.

A spokesman for Infinity was not immediately available for comment and a Viacom spokesman declined comment. Neither Stern's agent nor producers of his show were immediately available for comment.

Viacom president Mel Karmazin reportedly has imposed a crackdown on sexually explicit material on Infinity stations, declaring in a recent company-wide conference call: "This company won't be a poster child for indecency."

But it was unclear what impact, if any, such an admonition would have on Stern, who has long defied federal regulators and spawned countless imitators with a ribald show featuring porn stars and strippers and bits like "Lesbian Dial-a-Date."

'ZERO TOLERANCE'

The action against the self-proclaimed "King of All Media" came after Clear Channel announced what Chief Operating Officer Mark Mays called a "zero tolerance" policy toward material deemed in violation of federal broadcast decency standards.

"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content, and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," Clear Channel Radio president John Hogan said in a statement.

"It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency."

The San Antonio-based company, the largest U.S. radio station operator with more than 1,200 outlets, said it will amend contracts with all on-air personalities to hold disc jockeys financially responsible for indecent comments on-air.

The Stern show was carried by Clear Channel stations in six markets -- Fort Lauderdale, Rochester, Orlando, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Louisville.

The policy changes are the latest taken by broadcasters to address decency concerns following the Feb. 1 CBS telecast of the Super Bowl half-time show, when pop diva Janet Jackson's right breast was exposed on live television.

Said Hogan: "If a DJ is found to be in violation of FCC (news - web sites) rules, there will be no appeals and no intermediate steps. If they break the law by broadcasting indecent material, they will not work for Clear Channel."

Hogan and other broadcast executives are slated to testify Thursday before Congress about broadcast standards.

Gordon Hodge, a media analyst with Thomas Weisel, said he doubted the move would have much financial impact on Clear Channel, given that it carried Stern's show in just six markets, and added "He's obviously a very popular personality. I can't image that Infinity would take him off the air."

He predicted that other stations in the six markets would pick up Stern's program. "It would be quite profitable (for a smaller company), he said.

Clear Channel's share price closed on Wednesday 52 cents higher on the New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites) AT $43.44.

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Jeremy Pelofsky in New York and Sue Zeidler in Los Angeles)

-------------

With Clear Channel out there "protecting" us from all of this evil on the airwaves, why do we even need a defense department?

This is exactly what happens when you let CLEARLY monopolistic companies (Viacom and Clear Channel) control the majority of what we see and hear. THEY get to decide what's in the "best interest" of "everyone". News flash: You can't please all of the people all the time. That's why local radio stations USED TO HAVE VARIETY before Clear Channel came along... NO ONE wants to hear the SAME, STANDARDIZED stuff... that's how you get lame policies like this.

I just saw a top Clear Channel executive on the news at a press conference saying he is "Embarrased to be associated" with a company that carried "bubba the love sponge" and that "As a parent of a nine year old girl, I want to make sure she and ALL of our listeners are protected from indecent material." How much clearer can it be that CLEAR CHANNEL TAILORS THEIR STATIONS FOR NINE YEAR OLD GIRLS!!! Maybe someone should drive over to his house and show him what it takes to REALLY harm children... Children are dumb. I say everyone stops procreating right now.

And for all the nay-sayers who claimed that the monopilization and consolidation of radio stations by a single entity wouldn't cause corporate censorship of entertainment or information, then here's your proof. I hope you're happy.

And if there's anything that a Zero Tolerance policy should be enacted for, it's for Zero Tolerance policies themselves. They go against the very justice system of the country, dictating a unilateral consequence for an action regardless of any exceptional conditions or extenuating circumstances that may arise.

=TMP=

- big link shortened

[ 02-26-2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Daryl C. W. O'Shea ]
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-26-2004, 11:45 AM:
 
So does that mean that all Clear Channel radio stations will no longer play AC/DC songs? Shoot to Thrill, You Shook Me All Night Long and many others feature sexually related material.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-26-2004, 12:01 PM:
 

quote:

---

That's why local radio stations USED TO HAVE VARIETY before Clear Channel came along..

---

Thats a load of bullshit. Can you say 'RKO General'?? Their stations played quite a variety of stuff in their playlists. They were considered a 'huge controlling, monopolistic corporation' (almost if not more so than ClearChannel is today) and were broken up in 1986 by the government.

The problem isn't that the 'corporations' are controlling the playlists, it is the [mainstream] music industry is putting out nothing but CRAP, and people are buying it, thus the stations are playing it.

I like Howard Stern. I LOVED his books (and Robin Quivers' book too), I loved the movie. His show, however, used to be side-splittingly funny, but it has lost its appeal with me, as all it is now is the same old schtick and his obsession with 'crossing the line' or 'how much of this can I get away with' attitude.

I see that Viacom is finally beginning to feel the sting of the Super Bowl backlash and is trying to rein in their more colorful characters...

I know there are a lot of people out there both in and out of radio that HATE ClearChannel with a passion, but as stated before it isn't really CC's fault here.

My .02

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-26-2004, 12:32 PM:
 
This'll be just the career boost Howard Stern needs. Maybe now he'll get that "Fartman" movie made.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 02-26-2004, 12:52 PM:
 
"Gangsta" rap is played on many Clear Channel stations here in SF. Are they gonna ban that as well? There'll be nothing left on the airwaves to listen to and everyone will get an XM Satelite Radio...
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-26-2004, 01:44 PM:
 
1. Clear Channel is not protecting us from indecent material. They are protecting themselves from hostile government officials that we, the public, elected to represent us. If large segments of the public did not care, the politicians would not care. If the politicians did not care, Clear Channel would not care.

2. Broadcast media stations in the country are not public forums beyond having to give equal time for political candidates. They are private businesses that have the right to control what they broadcast. This is not censorship. This is editorial control.

/Mitchell
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-26-2004, 02:36 PM:
 
I guess I have two things to say about it:

1) THIS is what the fallout from Janet Jackson showing her tit(s) on TV is going to be?

Stupid! Janet Jackson, Justin Timberfake and their producers should be liable for the fines and that should be the end of it. Period.

Now we have every company that wants to give themselves a PR boost coming out with yet ANOTHER "Zero Tolerance Policy" about something. Drugs... Violence in the Workplace... Sexual Harrassment... What next? It's all bullshit anyway! Nothing more than an attempt to whitewash their corporate image and protect themselves from some imaginary lawsuit. Nothing will ever come of it. Nothing ever does. It'll all blow over in a couple of years and everything will be back to normal.

2) Honestly, I'm getting tired of Howard Stern.

He's "over"... So "15 minutes ago"!
There's only so much "shock" to go around. After a while it's the same old thing. There's no such thing as "uping the ante" or "pushing the envelope" anymore. If he wanted to continue that old saw, what would he do next? Put live kittens into a meat grinder? It's POINTLESS and GROSS!

(The kitten thing is a gedanken experiment.)

There was a time when Howard's antics were funny in a "You can't say THAT on the radio!" kind of way. Nowadays, it's all been done before. It's just the same-old-same-old. I'm tired of it. Besides, Howard is annoying! He won't shut up and let his guests talk without trying to interject some rude comment like, "Have you ever boinked a black guy?" or "How big is his penis?"
A stripper is a stripper is a stripper. A naked lesbian is... well... naked... and she has sex with other women. BORING!

It's time for Howard to get the hell off the airwaves and give somebody ELSE a chance to come up with a new idea. OR, maybe he could produce. (Maybe not!)

Oh, yeah! One more thing. Get a haircut. That hairstyle went out with the 80's! (Unless you're a hardcore geek.)
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 02-26-2004, 04:46 PM:
 
If you are tuning into his show then you have a fair idea what you are going to here. If it offends you, listen to someone else.

On a side note, MTV have rescheduled their more offensive material from latenite to anywhere the hell they want, as requested by their watchers.
Again it was a "Storm in a C cup"
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-26-2004, 05:12 PM:
 
Clear Channel's decision has nothing to do with censorship. And it has nothing to do with marketing to 9 year old girls. It has everything to do with personal responsibility. And they have every right to decide what they will and will not be associated with.

That's my opinion of course. Feel free to disagree.
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 02-26-2004, 05:40 PM:
 
Zero tolerance translates to zero thinking. We need MORE thinking in this country, not less. Too many people in this country engage in mindless knee-jerk reactions.

FCC regs. are not all that cut and dry (on this subject).
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-26-2004, 06:00 PM:
 
The radio station ratings will drop. It has been known for years that if the station's ratings want to be high, all they have to do is switch to the talk format and put more assholes on the air.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-26-2004, 06:00 PM:
 
IMHO, "Corporate America" and the American public in general really don't have a clue on what truly qualifies as "morality."

It takes something besides bleeping out curse words and fuzzing out video of naked body parts to make something morally decent.

I'll tell you what offends me: dishonorable action. Violence, cruelty, selfishness, indifference, prejudice and uncontrolled greed are all actions I deem far worse than a four letter expletive. Yet our screwed up society seems to think a lot of those things are perfectly okay.

Any broadcast TV network taking ad money for penis hardening pills has no right to cry about incidents such as a singer showing her breast on their show. The network made the show off limits for kids with the first check they took for a Viagara ad.

I enjoyed listening to Howard Stern's radio show on K-Rock back in my New York college days. But the appeal wore off when the show just turned into a forum for strippers to shave their pubic areas near a microphone. It's my opinion his TV show on "E" is crap, and that cable channel on the whole is crap.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-26-2004, 06:18 PM:
 
Bobby mentioned:

quote:

---

I'll tell you what offends me: dishonorable action. Violence, cruelty, selfishness, indifference, prejudice and uncontrolled greed are all actions I deem far worse than a four letter expletive. Yet our screwed up society seems to think a lot of those things are perfectly okay.

---

Right on, Bobby.
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 02-26-2004, 06:27 PM:
 
As a Jew, I am deeply ashamed of CRAP Like "Stern" and "Rosanne", who "claim" to be representatives of the Jewish community!

America was a heaven for my grandparents, who escaped Eastern Europe. As a veteran, I am still DEEPLY ashamed of "Rosanne's" National Anthem fiasco!

If "Rosanne" reads this post, or if anyone knows her, I invite her to come look for me! I would cherish the opportunity to publicly KICK HER ASS!

"Stern" is usless crap who should not be on the air.

I also saw one of "Stern's" episodes where he was openly descrating Jewish religous symbols!

Although I do believe in our Bill Of Rights, and believe in free speech, there is still something called:

DECORUM!

"Stern" needs a good old fashioned ASSWHOPPIN! Give him a haircut, make him take a daily shower (not yearly) and WASH HIS MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP!
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 02-26-2004, 07:01 PM:
 

quote:

---

"Zero tolerance translates to zero thinking. We need MORE thinking in this country, not less. Too many people in this country engage in mindless knee-jerk reactions."

---

quote:

---

I still get a kick out of Robin's news segment, that's always fun.

---

quote:

---

airing sexually graphic material

---

quote:

---

how is that even possible on the radio?

---

quote:

---

"...do you like anal sex?" "...I'll bet she'd let us bukkake her." "...how often do you masterbate?" "...okay, you get this question wrong, and we get to feel your boobies."

---

that is sexually verbal, not graphic. please post a picture of what you mean.

carl
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-28-2004, 08:18 AM:
 
1) Doesn't the fact that Mr. Stern has millions (tens of millions?) of listeners indicate that a very large segment of the American public finds it perfectly acceptable that this sort of humor is available on the public airwaves?

2) Given the above, what justification can there be to censor him? That is not to say that a broadcaster, being a private entity, shouldn't be able to choose otherwise.

3) Why don't people who don't like the show simply change the station and not worry about what other people like to hear?

Me? I listen to NPR.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-28-2004, 08:31 AM:
 
The only "censorship" that I think might be appropriate in the case of TV/radio broadcasts would involve nonrenewal of the license of one or more stations by the FCC at the normal renewal time. Stations are required to operate "in the public interest" and if another would-be station operator could make the case that he would do a better job of operating in the public interest than an existing one, then the FCC would be perfectly right to revoke the license of the existing station and offer it to the second station. There would, of course, need to be an appeal process,etc.

This is only an issue because of limited bandwidth. As such, the airwaves become a public trust (like a national park or something) and need to be regulated so that they can be used best to serve the public interest. In the case of media that don't use limited public resources (newspapers, magazines, books, etc.), there is no justification for government censorship.

Of course this also requires review of _all_ of a station's programming, not just particular shows. Censorship of individual programs is just wrong and unnecessary. If people don't like the program, then then shouldn't watch/listen to it.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-28-2004, 07:33 PM:
 

quote:

---

that is sexually verbal, not graphic.

---

Graphic = explicit. (See definition 3.)

graph·ic
adj.

1.
a. Of or relating to written representation.
b. Of or relating to pictorial representation.

2. Of, relating to, or represented by or as if by a graph.

3.
a. Described in vivid detail.
b. Clearly outlined or set forth.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-29-2004, 02:43 AM:
 
i don't care. i still want the pictures.

(and i still think that's a sloppy use of language, on their part, not yours, tim.)

i agree with steve's sentiments on this issue (the real issue). all laws based on the notion of "public interest" are bs, in my opinion. maybe i'll get flak for that, but i find the concept untenable. we all have our own private ideas of what the public interest is. there is no "public" public interest. same goes for "community standards" and all that other doublespeak people use to try to justify abuses of power like censorship.

carl
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-29-2004, 04:15 AM:
 
Carl,

I would gladly post pictures of examples of anal sex, bukkake, and someone groping boobies to satisfy your desire for 'graphic' descriptions, but Brad would probably lynch me afterwards, followed closely by Rachel and Joe.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-29-2004, 08:57 AM:
 
But where would you obtain such pictures for which you hold the copyright?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 02-29-2004, 01:37 PM:
 

quote:

---

Maybe there should be a rule about unrelated subject titles to go with teaser titles since creativity and Howard Stern haven't belonged in the same sentence for a good long time.

---

Moderator Opinion = Censorship.

Actually, the "Creativity is a dangerous thing..." should be in quotes. Howard said that. Not in the article I posted, but in one of the other 50 ones I found on the subject.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-29-2004, 02:24 PM:
 
I think both the government and the media need to shut their hypocrisy-filled mouths.

The government allows pharmaceutical companies to load TV screens with perscription drug commercials, with much of it being the penis-hardening variety. Drug companies now spend more money in TV advertising than any other industry on the planet. Is there any wonder why perscription drug costs are high?

The broadcast networks many millions of dollars in ad revenue from airing those penis-hardening pill ads. They're on TV at all times of the day. And then when you turn on your local ClearChannel owned radio stations, you hear commercials from "Trojan Man."

So, IMHO, both the government and networks really have no right to complain about standards of decency on broadcasting when they have no standard of decency in what kinds of ads they allow to be aired.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-29-2004, 05:27 PM:
 

quote:

---

Moderator Opinion = Censorship

---