BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Stern

50 comments on Stern

Stern
: Howard Stern said this morning that he is “a dead man walking” and that he will end up being pulled off the air.

Many readers here have made amply clear that they don’t like Stern. That’s fine: your choice. But that’s also irrelevant.

The issue isn’t Stern. The issue is government interference in, regulation of, and chill upon free speech.

There is no question that Stern is off Clear Channel and may be pulled off their air because of government pressure. Stern changed nothing. The government put pressure on.

That should scare every one of you.

And, no, I won’t shut up about this. It’s frightening. It’s important. It’s dangerous.

Previous posts here, here, here, here, here.

: UPDATE: I keep getting asked about Savage and Dr. Laura and so here’s what I just said in the comments:

The difference in the cases from the past is government pressure. Public pressure got rid of Savage and Dr. Laura; companies chose to drop them for business reasons.

Clear Channel admitted that Stern is doing NOTHING differently; instead, they dropped him a day before the head of the company was called to the woodshed in Washington and he offered up Stern as a peace offering to keep from being fined and regulated.

That move came from government pressure and it’s government pressure I abhor and fear.

I do believe in free speech and hate boycotts and think that if people actually want to listen to Savage and even Dr. Laura (she is obnoxious and offensive in the extreme) then that’s fine by me; I’ll change the channel. I don’t think people should try to STOP people from listening to what they want to hear; that is what free speech is all about, in the end. I’ve argued in years past against such tactics as advertiser pressure to stifle speech.

But I fear government pressure much more. That is dangerous — for who in government is to say what is and what is not acceptable and what recourse do the stifled have (if they so much as fine Stern, he’ll be knocked off without appeal)? That is unconstitutional.

So whether you like Stern or not — and clearly, many don’t and many do — you should pay careful heed to what the government is doing right now. It is chilling free speech. And that is always dangerous, whether it happens in Iran or in America.

50 responses to “Stern”

  1. hen Avatar
    hen

    So let’s see if i have this right: You believe that the first amend should apply to the relationships between employer and employees, and you believe that the second amend should be excised.
    Do yourself a favor: Get on a soapbox on 42 street, you know, near the “Black Hebrews” and spew whatever it is that little Howie got in trouble for and see if you get arrested. Then pull out a gun and just stand there and see what happens.
    Or better yet just attempt to get a CCW permit in NYC. Good luck. Hey did you know that Howie got one? I guess that puts him down a peg in your book?

  2. MQ Avatar
    MQ

    I’m with you, Jeff.
    This is dangerous.
    I only hope Stern realizes the power he (and his “people”) have this November.
    MQ

  3. shayne Avatar
    shayne

    jeff – keep posting on howard. i’m dying out here in atlanta. the only howard I get is on the E! channel, which does little to satisfy my howard needs. i hope he goes satellite.

  4. hen Avatar
    hen

    hey MQ – “his people” being midgets, crackheads, porn stars, strippers and lesbians? well i guess if Kerry works on that group he might get…nothing in return.

  5. billg Avatar
    billg

    If Stern wasn’t popular, if he was losing money for Clear Channel, would anti-censorship principles have compelled them to keep him on the air?
    I still think Clear Channel dropped Stern to curry political favor, not in response to overt pressure to censor him. Both motives are dangerous and sleazy, but only the latter is censorship. The former is business as usual for Clear Channel. (If the FCC or a few Senators wanted to go after Stern, why target only the six Clear Channel stations? Stern remains nearly ubiquitous.)

  6. syn Avatar
    syn

    When the majority of people are sick and tired of sexist bigots promoting themselves on free radio all in the name of gaining the almighty dollar, and the government listens to the voice of the people, I do not understand your fears.
    Hey, wasn’t Michael Savage fired for his remarks? MSNBC knew who Savage was when they hired him. Yet, Stern is still on the air with his tongue still intact able to continue his humiliation of humanity.
    What I fear are all the mayor’s who chose to ignore the law and the voice of the majority! This is the real danger, not some idiot whose sexist diatribe has finally come to an end.
    If Stern must reduce his show to the lowest common demoninator in order to entertain then perhaps it is time for him to leave and allow a fresh voice to emerge.
    However, it is highly unlikely that fresh voices are allowed to emerge since the entertainment industry is a monolithic monopolized monstrosity which has been killing free expression for decades.
    Case in point, Mel Gibson should not find a single backer in Hollywood to get his movie made, he had to fund the entire project on his own.
    So, if Stern wants to promote his diatribe, he has the freedom to buy time on cable or satellite and rant away all he wants.

  7. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    Clear Channel made a decision, whether that was through pressure from the FCC or from their sponsors; THEY made the decision.
    Glenn had a link about who was really behind the big decency push lately, and of course it’s bipartisan.
    http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014384.php

  8. JBW Avatar
    JBW

    Jeff, you’re barking up the wrong tree here.
    The scary thing, in all honesty, is that you apparently want PUBLIC airwaves with little or no standards at all. You may be content with New Yorkers, confident in their prejudices, polluting the air unchecked. Not me. I WANT the right to listen to Howard Stern if I so choose. But that type of mess should come into my satellite radio or digital television ONLY because I’ve made a choice to bring it in. The public airwaves should obviously be free of that shock jock trash.
    It’s remarkable to me that you can’t see this.
    Our technological advances allow for the diversity that is Howard Stern AND a zone of broadcast communications governed by standards that are rigidly enforced in such a way that will not allow any kid with an FM radio to listen to all manner of crude and unacceptable discussions. If you want your kid to listen to that mess, cool. You pay for it. But I don’t want young kids listening to that mess on the public airwaves. And I sure as hell don’t want you, with all of your urbane sophistication, deciding the issue for me.
    Standards count, Jeff. Always have, always should, always will. And thank God for that.

  9. Dar Avatar
    Dar

    First Amendment! First Amendment! First Amendment! Yada yada yada!
    Second Amendment? What’s that?

  10. Dan Herzlich Avatar
    Dan Herzlich

    Jeff: You’re not telling the whole story. Stern claims: Bush has ties with Clear Channel; the problem started when Stern started talking against Bush re: religious right and stem cell research; his program tapes are now being reviewed (possible fine?); others who have spoken against big business or religious leaders have been chastised by CC; Andrew Sullivan is another target because of his anti-Bush sentiment; he would vote for Kerry even though he doesn’t think Kerry will make that much difference; the interview with Rick Solomen was not offensive compared to what other shock jocks get away with; he is fully prepared and anticipates being fired.
    It’s important to remember that all this is self-serving from a man who makes a living being outrageous. He offers no proof of all his assertions. I don’t see how anyone can believe this guy. Remember, the more controversy he stirs up, the more he has to gain. Look how Gibson benefited. Stern is no martyr (but probably wishes he were a satyr).
    DH – one way to stop echo chambers is to demand proof of assertions

  11. Blogeline Avatar
    Blogeline

    @ syn:
    Very funny thing, but Howard brought Michael Savage up this morning as well. You know where he is now? Hosting a radio show with Clear Channel. So I guess Clear Channel is really trying to change, right?
    When Howard started to speak about the Bush administration’s hand in all this, I didn’t really want to believe it, and I guess I still don’t. It just sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. However, he pointed out some very interesting things this morning that make his accusations seem all the more understandable.
    He read an article by some woman from the U.S.News this morning. I am trying to find out who it was, but so far without luck. Thsi article pointed out some very intersting things concerning this whole FCC-gone-crazy issue.
    I personally think it is completly wrong, that anybody, especially the government can dictate to what I can and cannot listen to or watch.
    If we start here, what if I am really offended by any “wanna-be jesus” on TV who is trying to get money from gullible people who have nothing else to believe in?
    The point is, if you don’t like what you see or listen to, trun it off. Very easy.

  12. Leland Avatar
    Leland

    If not for commenters pointing out Jeff’s hypocrisy, I’m sure I wouldn’t even waste my time. It’s a shame that Jeff has no problem with censorship when he holds the reigns to stop abuse. In his realm, he gets the only vote that counts as to what is abusive and what is protected speech.
    Fortunately, more people get to vote on what is abusive and what is protected speech over public airways. Not in all cases, sometimes corporations that have paid for access of those airways have the only vote that counts as to what is abusive and what is protected speech.
    Neither Howard or Jeff have a leg to stand on calling this a 1st Amendment issue. The censor came from a company, and the censorship was far from a national act. Fortunately, both are free to make the crude assertions, and some are willing to believe them. Seems like the 1st Amendment is fairly safe.
    The fascination for me is to see what things people will spend their credibility to defend. I don’t believe Jeff is spending it to protect the constitution, he seems to be protecting an icon representing a far cheaper fare.

  13. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    “The issue isn’t Stern. The issue is government interference in, regulation of, and chill upon free speech.”
    The “free speech” in question here is scatalogical humor. Genital humor. The freedom to talk to a guy who likes to vomit on women for enjoyment, to ask another guy if he had anal sex with a hotel heiress, to buy breast implants for some poor unendowed lesbian, and issue fart noises at appropriate moments.
    That’s the free speech you want us to get all riled about, and the fact that 6 radio stations out of the thousands in this country no longer carry it.
    You make it sound like Patrick Henry is being silenced, or someone stuffed a sock in Thomas Jefferson’s mouth … but there is no political speech in question here. It’s the same thing Howard has gotten in trouble over for decades. It’s the same thing that caused Infinity to pay a $1 million settlement to the FCC because of Howard’s exploits, and it happened before Bush was even Governor of Texas.
    And we’re talking about a “public place,” the airwaves. Just as you prefer not to have cuss words spelled out on your site, because it is *your* “public place,” and you *know* there are people visiting for whom that language is inappropriate and offensive, you must also acknowledge that the public airwaves are subject to control of similar inappropriate and offensive language.
    Unless you want sh*t, p*ss, c*nt, c*ck, F*ck, m*therf*cker, and t*ts [Carlin’s 7 Words You Can’t Say on TV] to become everyday language on broadcast radio and TV. The fact you don’t want it to be everyday language *here* leads me to believe you don’t feel that way about the public airwaves, either.
    So, where’s the beef, Jeff? It’s not Bush, Stern hasn’t been jailed incommunicado, and you still hear him everyday (even if it is to whine that he’s a “dead man walkin’”).

  14. JP Avatar
    JP

    I have to say, Jeff, with yesterday’s abuse post (and the reaction it conveyed) you set yourself up for a much more negative response than you deserve.
    JP

  15. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    Blogeline – I think this is the article your talking about http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5422.shtml

  16. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    Jeff,
    Sorry if I missed something where you’ve already answered this question: Is your position that there should be absolutely no governmental restrictions on what can be said on broadcast TV/radio?
    You say that “Stern changed nothing.” As others have pointed out, Stern has been in trouble with the FCC in the past. I won’t argue about what Clear Channel’s motivations were; my understanding is that FCC rules aren’t new restrictions. People are just paying attention to them again after a long, fairly lax period.
    That being said, I don’t understand why you’re so angry and why you’re so afraid of a slippery slope, unless FCC restrictions have enraged you your entire life. And if that is the case, why blame the current administration for talking about rules that have existed approximately forever? Or am I confused since I was born in 1972? Did I miss a golden era of raunch and free speech in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s when everyone could say any word they wanted on broadcast radio?

  17. shark Avatar
    shark

    The issue isn’t Stern. The issue is government interference in, regulation of, and chill upon free speech
    What a load…..when they throw Stern in the gulag for his speech violations, give me a call. Until then, public airwaves and all that.

  18. shark Avatar
    shark

    By the way, the issue isn’t regulating Sterns speech….he can say whatever he wants! Of course, NOBODY has the right to say it in whatever forum they want. Where’s MY radio show? Don’t I have a right to one?
    No, Stern- like the rest of us- can exercise his freedom of speech as much as he wants. But he has to abide by the rules of his employers. If the government tries to pressure them, and they drop Stern, so be it. But Stern’s freedom is not infringed in any way.

  19. angryleft Avatar
    angryleft

    Jeff-
    I too am an avid Stern fan, but I think he’s taking this whole thing a bit far. This morning Stern read an article detailing the “relationship” between Clear Channel and Bush. But all that proves it that they know each other. There is nothing that proves, or even suggests, that Bush has any interest in Stern or whether he’s on those six Clear Channel stations. Clear Channel yanked Stern, in all likelihood, because either they didn’t like what he was saying or they got nervous about going before Congress. What does that have to do with Bush? Clear Channel is a private company and can run their business as they see fit. Did they make the right decision? Probably not. But the FCC didn’t tell them to pull Stern. Congress didn’t tell them to pull Stern. And Bush certainly did not tell them to pull Stern. Any thought to the contrary is pure conjecture and no more valid than Howard Dean and his 9/11 conspiracy theories.
    Bababooey to you all.

  20. hen Avatar
    hen

    ok i finally figured it out. stuttering john is leaving the show; jeff wants more then anything to be not just a “whack pack” member but part of Little Howie’s inner circle; thus jeff is flogging this horse to the point of incredulity all in hopes that howie hires jeff as the next stuttering (or perhaps non stuttering) brown noser.
    let us know how it goes jeff. will you keep your blog going if howie hires you?

  21. Bird Dog Avatar
    Bird Dog

    If Stern is marketable, someone else will pick him up. If a network thinks they’ll make more money with his diatribes on public airwaves net of the costs of fines and lawsuits, he’ll get hired. Some ‘censorship’.

  22. h0mi Avatar
    h0mi

    The issue isn’t Stern. The issue is government interference in, regulation of, and chill upon free speech.
    But it is about Stern. Your posts have mentioned Stern Stern Stern Stern Stern over and over again but little about Bubba the Love Sponge who was FIRED. Greaseman who was Fired a couple of years ago. Savage who was fired last year. Dr. Laura who’s tv show was cancelled a couple of years ago and was subject to the same protests that Howard’s show endured over the past decade or so (albeit from a different group.)

  23. Billy West Avatar
    Billy West

    Angryleft,
    I think the article demonstrates a little more than the fact that Clear Channel and Bush “know each other” There were significant financial dealings in terms of political contributions and the sale of the Texas Rangers. More, Clear Channel pulled songs like John Lennon’s Imagine from its stations after 9-11, banned the Dixie Chicks after they criticized Bush, and sponsered a bunch of pro-war rallies arounf the country. Former employees claim that they were prevented from airing anti-Bush, anti-war, or anti-corporate views on their news and talk shows. I think therefore that the hypothesis that Clear Channel dumped Stern for his anti-Bush comments is quite plausible.

  24. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Homi: The difference in the cases from the past is government pressure. Public pressure got rid of Savage and Dr. Laura; companies chose to drop them for business reasons. Clear Channel admitted that Stern is doing NOTHING differently; instead, they dropped him a day before the head of the company was called to the woodshed in Washington and he offered up Stern as a peace offering to keep from being fined and regulated. That move came from government pressure and it’s government pressure I abhor and fear. I do believe in free speech and hate boycotts and think that if people actually want to listen to Savage and even Dr. Laura (she is obnoxious and offensive in the extreme) then that’s fine by me; I’ll change the channel. I don’t think people should try to STOP people from listening to what they want to hear; that is what free speech is all about, in the end. I’ve argued in years past against such tactics as advertiser pressure to stifle speech. But I fear government pressure much more. That is dangerous — for who in government is to say what is and what is not acceptable and what recourse do the stifled have (if they so much as fine Stern, he’ll be knocked off without appeal)? That is unconstitutional. So whether you like Stern or not — and clearly, many don’t and many do — you should pay careful heed to what the government is doing right now. It is chilling free speech. And that is always dangerous, whether it happens in Iran or in America.

  25. shark Avatar
    shark

    The difference in the cases from the past is government pressure. Public pressure got rid of Savage and Dr. Laura; companies chose to drop them for business reasons
    Point of order: This govt pressure didn’t come out of thin air. It came from a firestorm of public pressure following the irresponsible halftime show.

  26. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    Many folks’ dislike for “govt pressure” is rather selective. The campaign finance laws threaten folks with criminal and civil prosecution for “saying the wrong thing”, yet we’re supposed to get mad at Bush because some DEM legislators are pushing the FCC to do something about Stern.
    The principle involved is “don’t tell media what to do”, not the First Amendment.

  27. Evan Avatar
    Evan

    Reid,
    It was a guy who likes women to vomit on HIM, not the other way around.
    Kind regards,
    Evan

  28. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    The campaign finance laws threaten folks with criminal and civil prosecution for “saying the wrong thing”, yet we’re supposed to get mad at Bush because some DEM legislators are pushing the FCC to do something about Stern.

    Yeah, what he said.
    Jeff, I’m one of those of the libertarian persuasion who don’t think the government should have any role in regulating content at all — just protect the property rights to bandwidth. (Which would mean auctioning bandwidth to broadcast as we do with cell phones.) So I’m naturally inclined to be on your side.
    But I’m honestly puzzled by this, because you both seem to have lost all sense of proportion and because you don’t seem to be … well, thinking about it clearly, I’m sorry to say.
    Here’s what appears to have happened: Clear Channel has pulled Stern’s show (owned by their biggest competitor) from six stations (out of how many?), because of government pressure (driven by a very bipartisan bunch of flatheads) which was the result of massive public outcry about “indecency”.
    It’s also damned likely that any big attempts at regulation will be found unconstitutional; remember that Stern has won these things before, in front of this very Supreme Court (which is pretty First-Amendment friendly if you think about it.)
    In the mean time, Viacom isn’t talking about pulling Stern, and he’s still got a couple of hundred outlets anyway and if he wants to work really blue, he can go off to digital radio, where you have to make a conscious decision and pay a fee to get the content.
    But Stern seems to be attacking Bush instead of Zell Miller, Dingell, and so on, and you are attacking everyone except Clear Channel.
    Are you sure you’ve got the right people in your sights here?

  29. Jeff Sharlet Avatar
    Jeff Sharlet

    Stern is a sacrificial lamb. I interviewed John Hogan, JC Watts (a member of CC’s board of directors) and a regional VP for a story about the company in Harper’s. All were emphatic that they let the “market” decide, that decency was something people could vote on with their radio dials. Now it appears they don’t even have the courage of this spineless conviction. But why should they? They are businessmen through and through, as they are fond of boasting; their move against Stern is simply an acknowledgement that in their view of the free market some consumers (the Christian right, at the moment) are more equal than others.

  30. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    Ooh, Lileks hits one:
    “That

  31. hen Avatar
    hen

    so when former Pres Clinton all but accused Rush of being responsible for the OKC bombing that was OK?

  32. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    Jeff is spot on, and the same fools keep making the same flawed points. Newflash: the only entity capable of true censorship is the government. The government cracked down on Clear Channel specifically, and the culture in general (thanks Janet), and Clear Channel —- IN RESPONSE —- yoinked Stern.
    Don’t you understand why we have the Bill of Rights? The most vulnerable to government attack are going to be those on the margins, those who people abhor or find disgusting.
    Duh duh duh.

  33. Dan Herzlich Avatar
    Dan Herzlich

    Jeff: Why was it that when Opie and Anthony were on, Stern forced Infinity to stipulate that they couldn’t mention him or his show at all on their program? Talk about repression.
    Why don’t you have Stern keynote at BloogerCon II (no respectable media type would even consider going there), then you and all the other a-listers can line up and give him oral.
    Maybe you would prefer that YOUR daughter go on his show and strip down for $500 and an iPod? Instead of going after the religious right, take a closer look at what you’re endorsing. Stern is just as surprised as anyone else that he can get away with what he does. He should be fined $5 million just for putting Daniel Carver and the KKK on the air. No single other media outlet could ever get away with something like that.
    Herzlich out.

  34. ca Avatar
    ca

    Hmmm, I guess to a certain extent I see a real comparison between free speech, and free trade. We expect government regulation of business to keep environmental issues to a minimum. Much as I’d love to think that businesses are responsible, I know that big money is a big temptation to foul our environment. In the same way, I’m not opposed to a certain amount of regulation on offensive speech. Much as I would love to believe that radio broadcasters are responsible, big money has obviously been a big temptation to foul the listening environment. Don’t like 3-mile Island? Don’t live there. Don’t like Howard Stern? Don’t listen. I think it’s sad that defense of free speech has moved from protecting controversial thoughts and ideas, especially of the political variety to defending a detailed description of sex.

  35. Kory Avatar
    Kory

    Let’s see:
    Savage yanked.
    Dr. Laura yanked.
    Limbaugh yanked from ESPN.
    Easterbrook yanked from ESPN.com
    All yanked because of relatively small public outrage over perceived sexist or racist speech.
    Now Stern is yanked from 6 channels following significant public outrage over indecency. And all of a sudden I am supposed to fear for the 1st amendment?
    Please. It’s the cry of a 12 year-old after he got his porno mag taken away by the teacher.

  36. syn Avatar
    syn

    Public pressure had nothing to do with Stern’s situation? Why is it that the governmental pressure argument applies only to certain groups and not others.
    As for Dr. Laura, it was a small group of activists led by the actress Susan Sarandon that was the reason companies chose to drop them for business reasons, not public pressure. Dr. Laura’s show was struck down before it even aired.
    The FCC had no way of stopping the activists from stifling Dr. Laura’s right to free speech, that would have been deemed governmental pressure.
    I do not like Dr. Laura’s view either but she had the right to conduct her show and the company had the right to hire her. This Stern thing has enlightened all of us to double standards affecting our right to free speech.
    Free speech for thee, but not for me?
    I believe public pressure had everything to do with Stern’s situation, a public pressure which has been boiling for as many years that Stern has been on the air.
    As for going after governmental pressure concerning our freedom of speech?
    Sorry to say but our universities and college campuses have already obstructed and diminished our right to free speech through it’s totalitarian policy of speech codes.
    Our institutes of higher learning are teaching our young what is politically correct to say or think and what is not.
    After all, it is politically correct to always blame the government for all our problems.

  37. HH Avatar
    HH

    “More, Clear Channel pulled songs like John Lennon’s Imagine from its stations after 9-11”
    Urban legend as covered by Snopes.com… there was no “pulling,” they merely listed songs some might find offensive in its wake but never pulled anything.

  38. Carson Fire Avatar
    Carson Fire

    I’m a fan of Howard Stern, too, but I think he does have a habit of self-aggrandizing himself. “Dead man walking” — ptui!
    I’m having a hard time seeing this so clearly as a right vs left censorship issue. I’ve seen just as many censorial leftists who would like to see Howard’s demise, for his past support of right-wing politicians, his treatment of women, and his treatment of race. The diff here seems to be that Howard now thinks the Bush administration has betrayed him. I haven’t seen any evidence that it has; it’s Clear Channel that’s betrayed him.
    And I don’t buy Jeff Jarvis’ differentiating the Michael Savage and Howard Stern situation. Both situations were clearly political, and both the ax-woman at MSNBC (in Savage’s case) and Clear Channel (in Howard’s) were glad to have “keeping the airwaves clean” as an excuse to do what they wanted to do, anyway.
    A more telling comparison would be to the Reagan TV movie, which was *clearly* deep-sixed by massive outcry by the public. According to the left, popular opposition to the Reagan movie was censorship; popular opposition to Dr Laura was not; a right-leaning company taking Howard Stern off the air in some markets is censorship; a left-leaning company taking Savage off the air is not.
    I agree that censorship is Bad; however, it is obvious that a company or communtiy have rights of their own that have to be balanced; while there is always work to be done to ensure free speech, this is not the end of freedom of speech as we know it.

  39. Leland Avatar
    Leland

    duh duh duh, Tim… The Super Bowl half-time was done by Viacom (owners of both MTV and CBS), not Clear Channel, and the government came down hard at the appropriate company (even if the government’s rational is considered inappropriate).
    For the Clear Channel conspiracy theorist… Lets say it is true:
    Bush didn’t like it; he calls up his San Antonio friends at Clear Channel; they say, “your the President, well send you a check for the campaign”; and then Clear Channel yanks the Dixie Chicks, Howard, et al.
    How is this government interference? If it is, doesn’t then Clear Channel have the right (as does Howard) to support or not support a Government with the speeches they care to broadcast? Hell, it’s their soap box, and Howard has another soap box with his parent company.
    This isn’t a free speech issue. Give it up.
    If you can prove that the FCC or Bush went after Viacom over the Stern incident, then maybe you have something other than a blind bias.

  40. HH Avatar
    HH

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2096493/

  41. HH Avatar
    HH

    Bush is not afraid of Howard friggin’ Stern, alright? The latest Arbitron numbers for Stern are bad, outside of New York. When Bush has powerhouses like Limbaugh and Hannity (mostly) on his side, he’s not gonna cower about what Stern might say.

  42. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    Leland, what are you talking about?
    What happened at the Super Bowl sent a seismic wave throughout the entire industry. The public freaked out, and more importantly, the FCC basically had kittens. Powell has long wanted to crack down on “indecency” and this gave him an opening. Why the hell do you think the hearings in Washington have been happening?
    The most vulnerable are the radio stations / networks. They are under FCC jurisdiction, and they have the most indecent content. The television network CBS does not have regular indecent programming by the FCC definition. As for MTV, it is not regulated because it is cable.
    Many of us are not saying that Bush himself ordered a crack-down, directly or indirectly. What is obvious to open-minded individuals is that Clear Channel, which until recently tolerated Howard Stern’s appalling, indecent, disgraceful, community-destroying smut, has all of a sudden had a change of heart. They FREELY acknowledge this.
    The question is, why? The threat of an FCC crackdown on a large, profitable, near-monopoly (Clear Channel), on the basis of indecency, hurting profits and threatening the company’s future.
    These threats from the government are direct meddling. Clear Channel has had a change of heart because it had to. Leland, it’s clear that you don’t want to see this, for whatever reason. What else can any of us say? =)

  43. JB Avatar
    JB

    Gee, Jeff.
    Has it occurred to you that Howard Stern is not exactly an impartial source of information on Howard Stern?
    Has it occurred to you that when he claims he is “a dead man walking” that he might be LYING?
    Has it occurred to you that Howard may be trying to fan the flames of his fan base by painting himself as more of a martyr? Perhaps because the hysteria over Clear Channel dropping Stern is starting to die down, and that doesn’t suit his purposes?
    Have you had any original thoughts at all on this subject, as opposed to simply parroting the party line as dictated by Stern?
    It occurs to me that you seem too trusting to listen to someone like Stern…

  44. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Well, gee, JB, maybe I should instead listen to somebody who doesn’t have the balls to put his name here or the imagination to make one up. Bite me.

  45. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    Wow Jeff, was that last comment really from you? The anger level seems a bit high considering the relatively mild (although sarcastic) tone of the comment from JB to which you were responding.
    P.S. I do link to my actual web page, but it doesn’t feature my name. Sorry.

  46. Dan Herzlich Avatar
    Dan Herzlich

    JB is right. It’s a political year and Stern wants to be a player. He’s been talking about quitting for years now. He says that Leno is gay and is attacking him. He’s the obsessive/compulsive poster boy with a touch of paranoia. He spends all his time watching porn videos, then finally decides to read a book, which is Franken’s, and now he gets the idea to capitalize on this for his own self-promotion.
    Jeff, why do you depend upon him as a reliable political commentator inbetween all the belching and other adolescent humor? I’m waiting for Franken to start on WLIB here in NYC.
    The airways are limited; they’re licensed contingent upon serving the public. Stern’s act is old and worn out. Time to give someone else a chance. And now people (including deus ex buzzmachina) are talking about making money from blogging. Gee, I wonder if they’re going to use the Stern (not the NYU school) business model of being gratuitously outrageous just to push people’s buttons and then lay back and say, “Hey, you’re all out to get me.”
    DH – boycotting the deafening echo of bloggercon II

  47. Charlie (Colorado) Avatar
    Charlie (Colorado)

    The government cracked down on Clear Channel specifically,….
    I’m sure the president of CBS would be surprised to hear that.
    C’mon, folks, at least get the basic facts right.

  48. Leland Avatar
    Leland

    Tim,
    Here is what I’m talking about in regards to you:
    Clear Channel had no connection to the Super Bowl halftime. That’s a fact. The companies involved were the NFL, Viacom, CBS, and MTV. Viacom and CBS do have affiliates (ok, fair enough, Clear Channel owns a few CBS stations, but find me were Powell fined those stations) that fall under the perview of the FCC. Furthermore, when MTV produces a performance that is broadcast by its sister company CBS via public airways, then that production is also under the perview of the FCC. That was my point, well that and the irony that you concluded your post with “duh duh duh”.
    So the “public freaked out” eh? I guess that would be unimportant to a monopoly in a free-market society, but then that’s not the situation being discussed here.

  49. Carson Fire Avatar
    Carson Fire

    Oh, yeah… where was this big “freaking out” I keep hearing about? Over the unimpressive Janet Jackson breast, I heard some annoyed parents complaining, but mostly I heard the rumble of a lot of people rolling their collective eyes over what was primarily a sad and pathetic grab for attention by a couple of lackluster pop “stars”. The only “freaking out” I’ve seen lately were people hyperventilating over The Passion of Christ.

  50. J Neuman Avatar
    J Neuman

    I really do love the rest of this blog, but this one issue is so difficult to get around. The reason (for me) has nothing to do with Stern or free speech, either one. It just seems to me — maybe I’m wrong, too — that what really happened on this is Jeff likes Stern and when Stern was dropped from six stations, he blew. Re-read that post — he is slinging blame everywhere but the real fire in the language isn’t from a love of free speech or determination to protect the land of the free or the constitution. He was just MAD: f this guy and that guy, Bush lost any CHANCE of my vote … fire and brimstone for all.
    OK, that happens and everyone who has come to this blog for long knows Jeff blows periodically. I have no problem with that — in many ways I find it refreshing, even when I don’t agree. But this time what keeps this from final resolution (I think) is the on-going revisionism. Instead of saying, “ok, I blew over Stern but there’s a real issue here, too,” that hasn’t happened. He keeps talking about how scary this is, how he’s worried about freedom of expression, how Glenn has his amendment and Jeff has his …. That’s all true but there’s this other part, too: what made the blow-up so violent was that it was STERN and Jeff likes Stern and he was mad that Stern got it in the neck and he sprung to protect him — Stern — not the constitution.
    So, there are bigger issues, no question: Stern, radio and satellites, Bush and the administration’s role, free speech, ClearChannel — all these things. But one more: it’s become like a family spat where it isn’t WHAT you said, it was the TONE, the WAY you said it. THAT’s what isn’t getting resolved and that’s what keeps things just a little off kilter, I think, because that part of it isn’t being admitted. It’s like a family spat: it isn’t what you said (which was true), it’s how you said it: you were MAD and it wasn’t just over the loss of free speech.
    That’s what I think is the itch here that isn’t getting scratched. But I realize I could be wrong, too, and this is just my own sense projected onto everything else.
    And even if I am right (that you were over-reacting), I’ve got to admire the ‘stay in the fight’ stance. Everyone should have such defenders as Stern has in you (and the Constitution, too, of course).