The daily Stern

The daily Stern
: Yes, I know you’re waiting for my daily report on Stern. This morning, he started to list people who have been taken off the radio by Clear Channel because of opposition to Bush. And he said that Viacom’s First Amendment attorneys have told him that the FCC is preparing a case againt Stern. A caller again raised the prospect of moving to satellite and Stern again acknowledged thinking about it — but then added this wrinkle: 30 percent of XM satellite radio, Stern said, is owned by, yup, Clear Channel. [see below]

: UPDATE: Salon has a good and balanced piece on Stern, Clear Channel, Bush, et al.

If Clear Channel did fire Stern at least partly to prop up Bush, the move may backfire — especially if Stern’s rage against Clear Channel feeds his newfound distaste for the president. Stern’s audience contains many independents and potential swing voters.

At least one radio pro suggests Stern’s sudden turn against Bush could prove costly to the administration during this election year. “Absolutely it should be of concern for the White House,” says Michael Harrison, the publisher of Talkers magazine, a nonpartisan trade magazine serving talk radio. “Howard Stern will be an influential force for the public and for other talk show hosts during the election. Despite the shock jock thing, Stern has credibility. He’s looked upon as an honest person.

“Clear Channel is a good target and Stern may be honestly upset with them. But over time he’ll realize Bush makes a better target, and Stern could be the leader of a new anti-Bush movement. Bush is very vulnerable at talk radio and Stern could reinvent himself as a new, improved Stern and take on more serious issues.”

: UPDATE: Commenters correct Stern’s percentage of XM ownership; not sure what the number is but it’s substantial (one commenter says 4 percent, one says double that; I’m nowhere where I can look up the percentage.)

  • http://instapundit.com Glenn Reynolds

    Well, this is why media concentration bothers me, if to a lesser degree than it bothers, say, Lessig. It’s not censorship when Clear Channel blocks you (er, if they do) but it’s not good for a diverse marketplace of ideas, either.

  • http://www.themediadrop.com tom

    Sirius it is, then.

  • syn

    Stern is still on the air.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Glenn: But if you are blocked because of government pressure, that is censorship.
    Clear Channel, again, said that Stern changed nothing; they changed in response to government pressure (i.e., being called on the carpet to Washington). Viacom has been responding similarly and if the FCC fines Stern and he is fired, that, too, will qualify as censorship and a government attempt to chill free speech.

  • onecent

    Whoa. So now Clear Channel is in cahoots with Bush to suppress the political opposition. Nice fit with the hackneyed Bush=Hitler paradigm. Has Howard got some hard facts to support his accusation that Bush is advancing a new McCarthy era and Clear Channel is his lackey? As far as the list goes there is no evidence, at this point, but Howard’s word on this. And we all know Howard wouldn’t be throwing stuff out hoping it sticks.

  • http://karchner.com/update Ross M Karchner

    I hate to be the type to solve all problems with a blog, but…
    Get Howard Stern and Nick Denton in a room together.

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com Oliver

    So Jeff, still pooh-poohing media consolidation?

  • http://elhide.com/solo Jay Solo

    Damn, Glenn beat me to it. I am not opposed to a degree of concentration; big companies aren’t automatically evil. However, it seems to have gotten a little out of hand.

  • shark

    I’m amazed at how a bright, rational person can hang so breathlessly over the every word of someone who’s agenda is totally self-serving and based in ignorance.
    He’s still on the air. His freedom of speech is not in jeopardy. His job may be in jeopardy, but if I said some of the things he says at MY job, it would be in jeopardy also.
    A little perepsctive please…

  • hen

    Jeff – i think i just saw that horse move a hoof – time to beat it some more.

  • nc

    Jeff
    You may disagree with what Clear Channel did, but as a private actor it has the right to control the content on its stations. As a private actor its actions in removing Stern are not a violation of the First Amendment. I have seen no evidence of government pressure on Clear Channel over Stern. I would agree that Clear Channel is probably trying to curry favor with Congress and the FCC, but that is a different issue entirely.

  • Sgt. Rock

    “Taken off the radio by Clear Channel because of opposition to Bush”???
    Does anybody really believe that this is actually what is going on? This is on a par with the claptrap we’ve been hearing in the past year about how our Civil Rights are being trampled by the Patriot Act.
    Is it no longer possible to have a reasonable discussion about issues? Is it mandatory that our current political discourse include conspiracy nonsense and hyperbole at every turn?

  • Richard Cook

    Jeff may have taken a few too many snorts of Democratic Underground.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    NC: The point is that no one should feel the need to curry favor with Congress or the FCC or the White House over speech, over who says what in public. The government should not be in a position of approving of, disapproving of, forbidding, discouraging, chilling, or otherwise affecting free speech. THAT, folks, is what the First Amendment is all about. It is NOT government’s role to interfere in speech. That is what this is about!

  • http://transplantedtexan.blogspot.com Austin Fusilier

    And what this is about.

  • Anonymous

    Just throwing gasoline on the fire:
    Howard Dean opposes media consolidation. Jeff, have you been listening to Stern at a local meetup?
    Mwuahahahah!!

  • hen

    well jeff then if gov which hands out FCC licenses and uses common norms of decency to watch dog public airwaves, is an impediment to “free speech”, why don’t you just come out of the closet and demand that there should be no over view whatsoever of what is transmitted into our homes every day? full on porn? let’s have it. racist, sexist diatribes 24/7? sounds good to me. God knows we can’t throttle the “free speech” of Stern et al, now can we?
    hey if Stern wants to get on a soapbox in Times Square and ask Black women what their privates smell like, that is fine….if he wants to do that on public airwaves, overviewed by public norms, tough.

  • http://www.ssg.blogspot.com SSG B

    Well, I peered through the FCC’s webpage and I just don’t see their declaration that they’re going to ban Howard Stern from ever speaking again. Googling the banning of Howard Stern seems to bring up tons of results from people calling for him to be banned, and an equal number saying he shouldn’t be banned. But still, nothing about any government agency saying he should be booted off the air for what he does and says.
    But Mr. Jarvis, here is something you should consider before trying to surrender the United States to the UN with a vote for John Kerry, just because you think Bush is trying to make you redo your car’s radio presets.
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040229/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_stern_3
    Money quote:
    (After being asked by an attendee at a Brooklyn “Town Hall” meeting to stand-up for Stern)
    “Kerry said he disagrees that Stern faces repression.
    ‘If you are working for somebody and they have a set of rules, that’s the deal,’ Kerry said. ‘And it doesn’t mean he can’t go out and say it somewhere if somebody else wants to have him say that.'”
    Maybe this means that John Kerry is in Clear Channel’s pocket? I’ll bet it’s a Skull&Bones connection.

  • onecent

    Clear Channel’s profits have been flat for the past year, with sluggish advertising revenues.
    http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/24/news/companies/clear_channel.reut/
    That’s long before the FCC made smutty Janet Jackson an issue after a huge public outcry, a factor not to be ignored. It’s perfectly reasonable, given their flat profits this past year, that CC’s cancelling Howard’s program in select areas is as much an economic decision.

  • AReader

    It’s amazing to see Salon, and other members of the elite class welcome Stern into the fold. Yet only a yeear or two ago these elites could barely contain their disgust at this man and his antics. Dismissed him as an ignorant, sickening fool.
    Of course, now that he hates Bush all of a sudden he gains “credibility” and importance? I love it.

  • John

    Actually, Clear Channel’s stake in XM is closer to 4 percent than 30 percent (Howard could have said they own a million billion zillion percent of XM just to really scare people, I suppose), and aside from the cash influx (GM and its Hughes subsidiary were the other major initial investors), the main thing it got out of the deal was access to CC’s ‘B’ list talkers, including some from stations in Los Angeles Cleveland, Cincinnati and elsewhere to fill out the talk channel lineups.
    XM dumped a lot of those shows in January to pick up more well-known shows, such as Savage, Laura Ingram and Ed Schultz, who was on the “Today” show on Tuesday being touted as the hot liberal talk show host who would challenge Limbaugh. Given that, I don’t see why Stern thinks XM would automatically shut him out, unless he just wants to get another gratuitous shot in at Clear Channel (Howard still has the Sirius option, but if rumors are to be believed, he’d be sharing the same channel with hated rivals Opie & Anthony. Considering Stern had Infinity boss Mel Karmazan order O&A not to even mention Howard’s name on the air during their fight four years ago, that would be an interesting pairing….)

  • KMK

    I think media consolidation has it benefits based on the premise that we the audience get what we want and pay for. I’ve been in this industry for 15 years. Network broadcast, cable broadcast, satellite broadcast and now satellite radio broadcast. I work for a content management company and we’ve grown with the industry. The jump from network to cable was an interesting one. Cable was never intended to be a metropolitan thing but it became one. The public benefited because cable improved reception and reach. That was a good thing. Satellite gave us a choice in reception as subscribers. Good however, comes with bad. Remember when TW knocked ABC off the air because ABC wouldn’t sign the programming deal with them. They wanted to get paid for their content. They didn’t want a fee based on individual programs but did want to get paid to air their bundled programming content. TW owns the wires, right. They pulled a major power play and yanked a major broadcaster off the air. You should know TW was paying TBS a fee to carry their content and ABC and CBS wanted the same deal. Why couldn’t the networks be part of the same deal?
    Consolidation can be good when you have broadcast companies that are barley hanging on and can’t afford to improve for their audience as long as they aren’t replaced with bland BS programming that doesn’t represent the community they broadcast to. We the audience need to go into it with our eyes open. I think we also need to remind the monopolies that the audience gives them the power to make these decisions.
    I think the industry as a whole has been given a pass for years under various administrations. What makes it different this time is the FCC called CC into a hearing and said dance and they did. That is dangerous to all of us regardless of our individual views of Howard Stern.

  • MQ

    When does Air America go on the air?
    Stern – AM
    Franken – Noon
    Garafalo – PM
    Atrios – Midnights
    Hmmmm…

  • Andy B

    I used to back Bush – especially on the war issue (and I still support it).
    But, this one issue has made me so upset that I can’t vote for Bush anymore. Why? Very simple, he put Michael Powell in charge of the FCC and is thus, responsible for the current FCC situation.
    Even w/o the clear channel issue, there is a bill going in that raises the fine for ONE indecent comment ten-fold, to a quarter million dollars.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/congress.decency.ap/

  • Trevor

    Jeff, I realize you’re getting a lot of comments about this, but I just wondered if you could point me to an article or link that includes Clear Channel’s statement that they got rid of Stern because of gov’t pressure. I looked through your old posts, and can’t find one.
    For what it’s worth, it seems to me that even if CC didn’t get any undue pressure from the FCC, they’re still going to try to use the FCC as a scapegoat. You seem to be assuming that CC was completely forthright in their reasoning for dropping Stern, but I’ve yet to see anything that makes me believe that this was true. I don’t have anything to prove that CC is trying to deflect blame for ditching Howard, and my only reasoning for not outrightly buying CC’s statement is that it makes more sense for CC to deflect attention away from themselves towards Bush (and at the same time, putting pressure on someone that’s affecting thier business,) than it does for Bush to take on the King of all Media simply to pander to the religious right.
    I just think that everyone in this debate is talking past each other, without a whole lot of facts, and armed only with innuendo. That’s not a way to approach a debate as serious as this is.

  • http://neoliberal.blogspot.com Alex Carnevale

    It looks like you were right about the implications of all this stuff. I am scared.

  • syn

    MQ’s comment said it all.
    Free speech for thee, but not for me!

  • Ebb Tide

    Free Speech = saying what you want without going to jail, even unpopular speech.
    Free Speech IS NOT getting paid to say whatever you want, whenever you want… that is called “making a living.”
    Howard Stern can go work for less money on a smaller station any time he wants to !!!!! No one is infringing his free speech, they are paying him to work WITHIN STANDARDS set by his employer.
    ::::talking past everyone, please drive through:::::

  • Dan Herzlich

    Ain’t America great?
    Here someone can start off as a railroad brakeman, jump into radio, cause controversy by making phoney phone calls to McDonalds and holding Eldridge Cleaver lookalike contests, do the shocking sex bits, and eventually be a political commentator interviewing senators and presidential candidates. Ecce Don Imus. (Rush Limbaugh is just as unremarkable.)
    Now, Stern again is copying Imus’ formula which is also what the a-list bloggers are doing. Be controversial, build a following and then credibility just falls into your lap.
    Oh, and then you maintain your relevance by claiming that THEY are all out to get YOU. The NY Times, the Government, Big Business, the religious right, because YOU are finally revealing truth that just so happens to require using obscenities and racial slurs.
    It’s horrible to think that social policy in this country is to be directed and determined by uncreative, uncommitted loud-mouths who yap about their self-interest in a blatant quest for fame using self-aggrandizement while simultaneously claiming to be the ultimate victim.
    It was funny to hear Stern talk about his movie idea portraying his crucifixion while his parents torment him about his current dilemma with the FCC. Why is society fascinated with damaged personalities? Why would any one identify with him much less admire him for his principles?
    We should be concerned about finding the energetic, passionate and creative voices who are working to make this a better country and avert our eyes from yet another trainwreck.
    DH – Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.

  • http://www.photodude.com/ Reid

    Clear Channel, again, said that Stern changed nothing…”
    In a way, you’re right. There’s nothing new here. Infinity had to pay a $1 million settlement to the FCC over Howard’s exploits … in 1992. Howard hasn’t changed a bit. A dozen years later, he is once again in trouble with the FCC, with his employer(s) potentially facing hefty fines.
    So, you’re right. There’s nothing new here at all. This isn’t a new era of chilled speech, this is a continuation of the schtick that’s gotten Howard (and his employers) knee deep in the FCC’s business his whole career.
    This is, of course, society’s fault. Or Bush’s. Or the guy who didn’t hit the bleep button. Not Howard’s.
    The government should not be in a position of approving of, disapproving of, forbidding, discouraging, chilling, or otherwise affecting free speech.
    Then you must find political support to abolish the FCC. They’ve been forbidding certain activities on the public airwaves since shortly after Marconi started emitting transmitter noise. Again, there’s nothing new here. If you wanted to broadcast explicit talk about female genitalia, or specific explicit sex acts with a hotel heiress, or the size of your Wing Wang, that would have gotten you in trouble in the ’50s, the ’60s, the ’70s, the 80s, and as Howard can attest, the 90s.
    What’s new is that we’re supposed to accept it on the public airwaves … now. Says you.

  • Wayne

    Jeff, You have lost perspective on the Stern/Clear Channel issue. Your conspiracy theory simply does not work, and you are smart enough to see that without a lot of explanation. Stern is still on the air in most markets and will likely be picked up in the markets he lost. Clear Channel made a business decision.
    Your blog is getting BORING!!! Do yourself a favor and mone on.

  • Theodopoulos Pherecydes

    Perhaps a little 13th century analysis will help us understand why folks are talking past one another.
    There are two modes of existence: that we are and what we are. In other words, I am…and I am Theodopoulos.
    Jeff is arguing as though Stern’s first mode of existence is under attack. I would argue it’s the second mode.

  • Leland

    Gee Andy B, I guess you won’t be voting for anybody this November, unless you think Green. True M Powell made FCC chair by Bush appointment, but he was put on the FCC board by Clinton in 1997. Prior to that, young Powell worked for Clinton in the Department of Justice. Its just that evil government corruption going on; kinda of makes you wish we all could have nepotism go our way. But in the end, it really puts us in a bind for figuring out who to vote for.
    I guess for some, it will come down to a single defining issue, and maybe outrage and censor over pornography and profanity just might be that line that shall not be crossed…
    Otherwise, I agree with Hen… I think that horse needs a little spank’n. Have at it Jeff, you have learned well from your Master.

  • Anonymous

    John brought up an important point – we should be fact-checking Stern, just as Tim Blair fact-checked the Chicago Tribune.
    The most recent information I could find was from October 2003, and indicated that Clear Channel owned 8.5% of XM.
    What’s the true number now? Is it 4%??

  • weimdog

    Stern and Jeff are being disingenuous at best by not decrying the fact that a Senator Kerry supports the position of Clear Channel and Powell.
    “Howard Stern does have the right to say whatever he wants anywhere, but he doesn’t necessarily have the right to say it on that station if the people who run the station don’t want him to,” Kerry said while campaigning in New York, where Stern’s show is broadcast.
    A questioner at the town hall meeting in Brooklyn asked Kerry to stand up for Stern’s right to say what he wants because the Republican-led government is repressing his right to free speech.
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040229/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_stern_3

  • nc

    Jeff:
    Thanks for taking the time to respond earlier. I guess we are simply going to disagree. There has been no First Amendment violation at all here. Clear Channel made a business decision, its motives in making that decision are irrelevant. Wanting to curry favor with politicians does not rise to the level of government inteference in speech. Again, as I mentioned earlier on another thread, I personally find Stern entertaining (most of the time–the stripper bits are getting a little old though). Our local station took Stern off the air because they could not pay his contractual fee–that decision, while depriving me of the privilege to listen to Stern, did not violate Stern’s First Amendment rights (however, given the shockingly low quality of broadcast radio, it did make me a fan of Books on Tape). For whatever reasons, Clear Channel made a business decision to remove Stern (it may have made a bad business decision, but again thats irrelevent). That decision may have been a breach of their contract with Howard Stern, but, as a lawyer, I am pretty confident, based on what I have heard so far, that it did not violate his First Amendment rights.
    I love your blog though.

  • http://hubris.typepad.com Hubris

    Sorry, didn’t mean to be anonymous earlier, this was me:
    John brought up an important point – we should be fact-checking Stern, just as Tim Blair fact-checked the Chicago Tribune.
    The most recent information I could find was from October 2003, and indicated that Clear Channel owned 8.5% of XM.
    What’s the true number now? Is it 4%??

  • shark

    What a load. Stern commands no “force” in this or any other election.
    – His audience is made up of people who I daresay are hawks on the terror war, no matter what else they are. THAT much is clear from listening to the show.I seriously doubt people who view that as a very important issue will let Stern’s self-serving whining deter them.
    -His “movie” was outgrossed by dreck like “You Got Served”
    I rest my case

  • weimdog

    In related news NPR fired a commentator, a bad one I might add, for using the F-bomb –
    “Sandra Tsing Loh’s commentaries on KCRW-FM (89.9) bear little resemblance to the overtly outrageous routines that led to Bubba the Love Sponge’s firing last week. But after she uttered a four-letter obscenity on the air Sunday, Loh joined the Florida shock jock in the ranks of radio personalities who have had their shows yanked off the air.”
    “The station’s General Manager Ruth Seymour called Loh on Monday to inform her that she had been fired, effective immediately. In a phone interview Wednesday, Seymour said the use of the curse word violated federal broadcast law and the station’s policy on language.”
    “Seymour also said Loh’s firing was a precautionary measure to show the station has distanced itself from Loh in case the FCC investigates the matter. Federal officials had not contacted KCRW as of Wednesday, Seymour said.”
    “The fact that Loh used the word during a taped segment

  • Trump

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    Jeff, can you please show me which part of this ammendment is being violated in the Stern case, or can you show me the law congress passed that prohibits Stern’s speech? Thanks…

  • http://me me

    http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=8728
    “In October 2001 when the United States was on the verge of launching its invasion of Afghanistan, Davey D broadcast an interview with Barbara Lee, the only member of the United States Congress to vote against the war.
    KMEL, which had recently been bought by Clear Channel, heard about the show and promptly fired him. Meanwhile company executives sent a memo round to its stations at about the same time warning them not to play any peace songs such as John Lennon’s “Imagine” or music by the band Rage Against the Machine.
    On the other hand, Clear Channel has not been opposed to all forms of political organizing. In 2003 the company paid for pro-war rallies around the country to support the invasion of Iraq as well as for a 33,000-pound tractor to smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CDs, tapes and other paraphernalia, at an event in Louisiana, because the band had the arrogance to protest against the war.”

  • Leland

    Me:
    Right… and are you trying to suggest that a corporation like Clear Channel shall not have free speech, but their employees can? Care to make that a policy for Unions as well?

  • http://me me

    It is alot more than 4%. CC was an early investor. They also contributed content. The “hidden” control through preferred stock, warrants, etc is unknown except to the insiders. XM ownership is something Mel would know.

  • Dexter Westbrook

    Mr. Stern should turn his wrath against some real suppression of free speech: the McCain-Feingold law.

  • onecent

    me:
    The only point that you have made is that Clear Channel behaves as a privately owned company. As a result it can create or prohibit any content it wants. It can fund any politcal rally it wants. It does not owe you any absolute neutrality in political content or behavior. It is not held to the same public standard of neutrality as the BBC(reason for the outrage), for example.

  • Catherine

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040229/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_stern_3
    Kerry says Stern issue not censorship.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
    All the dodo’s who say they have changed their mind, where do you go Nader? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Anonymous

    This is the 1999 press release. CC invested 75 million in XM. Hugh Panero is the Pres. & CEO Jeff. You should know him from the TW days.
    http://www.xmradio.com/newsroom/screen/press_release_1999_06_08.html
    I haven’t found a sec 16 yet. Section 16 filings reflect trading activity in a company’s stock by its directors, officers and 10% shareholders. We need a broker in the comments. I did find an offshore company listed too.

  • hen

    “dreck like ‘you got served'”??? yo that movie was PHAT bro. next thing you’ll be disrespecting other great movies like ‘gigli’.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    NC: The point is that no one should feel the need to curry favor with Congress or the FCC or the White House over speech, over who says what in public. The government should not be in a position of approving of, disapproving of, forbidding, discouraging, chilling, or otherwise affecting free speech. THAT, folks, is what the First Amendment is all about. It is NOT government’s role to interfere in speech. That is what this is about!

    Yeah, what you said, Jeff.
    God knows I have been critical enough of some parts of your position — specifically, the notion that Bush is somehow behind it — but this is right on target.

  • John

    In case anyone wants to look, here’s the Yahoo Finance page on XM’s largest investors.
    As I said in my first post, Clear Channel, along with GM and Hughes, were the three major finanical backers of the original XM start-up, but over the past two years, XM has increased the amount of stock available to the public, while Clear Channel sold a major chunk of it stock for a big chunk of change last June, which no doubt helped the company’s sagging bottom line a bit, since that sale netted CC $30 million above its intial investment.
    I really don’t expect Howard to be sitting around his den at nights charting Lowery Mays’ corporate stock holdings in order to verify his next day’s rant, but even if 4 percent or 8 percent ownership is still “substantial” Jeff, it’s a far, far cry from Stern’s insinuation of 30 percent, which is the different between being one of many large owners and being the largest minority owner. Howard’s staff at the very least needs to get the facts straight for him, so he doesn’t go on the air and rage under false pretences.
    Also, on the Opie & Anthony-Stern tiff I also mentioned in my post above, Imus had a field day lambasting Stern over his edict to Infinity honchos that corporate management ban O&A from even mentioning Howard’s name on their PM drive time radio show on WNEW. Other than it being one-step removed from a direct order — Stern had to get Karmazan to OK taking away Opie and Anthony’s freedom of speech — how is what Howard did to them any different than what Mays and Clear Channel did to him? And how does Howard justify his outrage with Clear Channel about them sliencing what he has to say when he did virually the same thing to two other DJ’s employed by the same company (yes, they were still on WNEW — at least until the St. Patrick’s fiasco — but they would have been yanked earlier than they were if they had violated Karmazan’s Howard-free edict).
    I don’t exempt Clear Channel from hypocracy here (see my post from a couple of days ago on their silence about Rush Limbaugh’s faux pas). But there’s no way in the world you can look at Stern’s hardball tactics against Opie and Anthony and not see a whole lot of hypocracy with his sudden emergence as the poster boy for the First Amendment. Karmazan made that decision for financial reasons — O&A were rising at the time, but were not in Stern’s league as far as brining in the syndication or billing $$$ for Infinity — and Clear Channel’s decision was based on the same bottom line mentality.

  • KMK

    John – If you look at the bottom of your link it has another link View Transactions for Insiders & Institutional Holders which brings you too
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ir?s=XMSR
    It says CC holds 8,329,877 shares and planned sale which means they filed a 144 form but have not sold it yet.
    “A Form 144 appears as a “Planned Sale” on the Yahoo! insider pages. Form 144 filings only include estimates for the sale proceeds, since, by their nature, they don’t entail an actual transaction. In the event that the Form 144 is acted upon, the filing is replaced with the actual transaction along with the realized proceeds from the sale.”
    The estimated proceeds of $105,206,346 is an estimate. They haven’t sold yet. If I’ve done the math right they own just over 5%. Not 30%, Right?

  • John

    KMK —
    That’s roughly the number I’ve been told — my original 4 percent might be a tad low, but the actually number as of now is nowhere close to double digits.
    To give Stern the benefit of the dobut, if you went back and used information that was 2-2 1/2 years old, the 30 percent share for Clear Channel would have been in line with reality, because of the financing arrangment, as outlined in this Foutune Small Business Magazine article. But CC’s stake has been steadily dropping since 2001, and while Howard may not care if he’s overestimated Lowery Mays’ financial holdings in the company by between 275 and 750 percent, it does affect the impact of his diatribe quite a bit.

  • Trump

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    Still waiting for someone to point out exactly where Stern’s first ammendment rights are being violated by the Clear Channel action. And if you think you can point that out to me, then my next question is how exactly does that differ from campus speech codes?

  • Andy Freeman

    Remind me – why does Jarvis’ 1st amendment protect Stern’s right to rant about boobies, but not my political speech?
    Is it the boobies or the fact that he’s media?

  • http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html?pagewanted=print&position= Hugh

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html?pagewanted=print&position=
    All this talk of freedom of speech.
    The article referenced above is the newest low in the Bush administration’s march to absurdity. They wish to limit the flow of information. A lot of attention has been given to the Iranian blogs’ democratic spirit by some very high profile blogs. It now appears that to enhance and dissenminate these writings without a license is now a crime. It is kinda tough to stand on the sidelines telling others to jump up on the ramparts. Let’s show ‘em the why and how in the home of those ideals. I offer my services to this struggle. Enough is enough.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    Um,

    The article referenced above is the newest low in the Bush administration’s march to absurdity. They wish to limit the flow of information.

    … you didn’t really read the article, did you? You can publish anything you want. You just apparently can’t edit it:

    “There is no obvious reason why a license is required to edit where no license is required to publish,” he said. “They can print anything as is. But they can’t correct typos?”

    Sadly, not even 3 years of a Republican administration can prevent Government functionaries from acting like idiots.

  • Mumblix Grumph

    This is NOT the end of free speech. Clear Channel looked around at their apartment and said. “Ya know what, this place really IS turning into a pig sty.” Then they did a little cleaning up around the place.
    Oh, and why do keep harping on about what a great interviewer Stern is? It doesn’t take a huge amount of talent to ask a stripper if she has implants or how big a football star’s penis is.
    I listened to Stern on my morning commute in Seattle for a few weeks…Here’s a basic rundown of every show:
    STERN: I’ve got a HAWT girlfriend! Oy vey!
    ARTIE(or interchangable crony): Howard, your girlfriend is HAWT!
    ROBIN: Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
    STERN: Let’s welcome our guest, porn star Connie Lingus.
    ARTIE: Connie, you are HAWT!
    ROBIN: Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
    STERN: You ARE HAWT! Take off your shirt.
    ROBIN: Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
    STERN: But you’re not as hot as my girlfriend. My girlfriend is HAWT!
    ARTIE: Howard, your girlfriend is HAWT!
    ROBIN: Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
    (Repeat ad nauseum)
    I had to stop listening because Stern’s studio of cronies got to be too damn annoying. I guess I missed the brilliant talent aspect of the show.
    Jeff, I’m afraid you’ve become star-struck fan-boy. I still find your opinions interesting, but this topic is wearing a little thin.

  • http://www.lickmagazine.com tony

    jeff,
    the comments that you’ve received over this topic have really opened my eyes.
    people who are obviously smart and yet insisting that the world is flat.
    i dont get “friends” but you dont hear me talking shit about it because i know how ridiculous id sound talking about it when it would be obvious that ive only seen a few episodes in their entirety.
    which is exactly why its embarrasing when people who clearly arent familiar with the show judge it and try to equate what happens in the show with wtf is happening with clear channel.
    1. the fcc is dying to fine howard, but can’t, because he just isnt obscene.
    2. howards girlfriend *is* hot.
    3. only idiots would believe that the only way to infringe on someones rights would be to pass a law against it.
    4. and only bigger idiots would think that kerry would support howard fucking stern when he’s leading bush in the polls.
    regardless, your comments prove that americas fucked, buddy.
    not because of the govn’t, big biz, or the repubs
    but because smart people rarely know when its the correct time to call bullshit
    nor how to.
    and its gonna take a lot more than sat. radio to fix that shit.

  • http://www.lickmagazine.com tony

    p.s. i admire your dedication to this serious topic despite/inspite of the disapproval rating of your readers

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    We’re trying to crush Jeff’s dissent!

  • http://me me

    It really doesn’t matter that the Bush clones on this thread are negative on Stern. It doesn’t matter what Kerry thinks either (although he benefits). They don’t listen to him. Tens of millions do and Stern is on a rampage against Bush. If you don’t think that this will matter in this election, then you are profoundly deluded.
    I also listened to the show and the 30% comment was an off-hand remark and not part of his main attack on Bush.
    Crying about Stern is about as effective as rants against Limbaugh. They won’t go away and they DO have influence.

  • John

    It is alot more than 4%. CC was an early investor. They also contributed content. The “hidden” control through preferred stock, warrants, etc is unknown except to the insiders. XM ownership is something Mel would know.
    me 3:44 p.m. 3/4/04
    It really doesn’t matter that the Bush clones on this thread are negative on Stern. It doesn’t matter what Kerry thinks either (although he benefits). They don’t listen to him. Tens of millions do and Stern is on a rampage against Bush. If you don’t think that this will matter in this election, then you are profoundly deluded.
    I also listened to the show and the 30% comment was an off-hand remark and not part of his main attack on Bush.
    me 7:16 a.m. 3/5/04
    Jeff’s mention of Stern’s comment about the 30 percent was meant to infer that Howard had shown the tentacles of Clear Channel were already reaching out to ensare satellite radio in his grip, the same way they’ve entrapped broadcast radio. The fact that he overestimated CC’s current stake in XM by several hundred percent in that context is not trival, and pulling an Emily Litella and saying “Oh…never mind” doesn’t cut in as an explanation.
    Anyway, if you don’t think that matters, do you think Howard’s censorship of Opie & Anthony in 2002 (via Mel Karmazan) weakens his case any in terms of complaining about Lowery Mays’ crew censoring him? To me, it seems like a case of Free speech for me, but not for thee when it’s Stern whose ox was being gored on PM drive time radio in New York…

  • Dave

    Tony: “…but you dont hear me talking shit about it because i know how ridiculous id sound talking about it …”
    That’s great! Now, can we get you to understand how ridiculous you READ when you WRITE with the compositional skills of an 8 year old?