Howard Stern pulled off all ClearChannel affiliates.

[T_Bone]

"The nation's top morning-drive radio jock will not air on his CLEAR CHANNEL-owned affiliates Thursday morning. INFINITY's Howard Stern Show has been found in violation of CC's new 'indecency standards'. The action comes after CC executives reviewed comment made on Stern's Tuesday program, including an on-air caller's comments: 'Ever bang a famous nigger chick? What do they smell like? Watermelons?' Just as... CC's President/CEO John Hogan will appear as a witness at tomorrow morning's House Telecommunications Subcommittee hearing on broadcast decency... "

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040225/255963_1.html

What a jerk.

This happened right on
the day the FCC put forth
it's new decent guidelines.
Decency guidelines

[iamaboringperson]

Okay, my understanding is that this guy is a radio announcer(or "DJ" if you prefer), and there was a movie about him? (I think) And he likes to 'shock' people on air.

And he's pretty unconventional.

You'll have to fill me in on the rest (and correct me where I'm wrong)

[redrumloa]

@T-Bone

You beat me to it. I was trying to decide if i should post this to politics or here.

@iamaboringperson

Howard Stern is one of the biggest media figures here by far, his radio show is the largest syndicated show and has the biggest audience by far. He pretty much invented the term shock jock.


I'm not the biggest Stern fan in the world, but I find him humorous in small doses. He definately pushes the limit on a daily basis, hell that's how he got his fame was by shocking people. I'm not really surprised that he got yanked, but I am pretty upset at Clear Channel. CC is approaching a near monoply. For CC to start enforcing a heavy handed moral crusade, it is nothing less than censorship. I have sat back and watched CC grow for a while and kept quite, hoping this day never came. I don't cry for Stern, but I sure will miss my personal freedoms.

Boycott CC.

[whabang]

Cencorship BAD!
Stern is Hillarious! :-D

[cecilia]

satire is one of THE most important tools in a free society.

and howard did nothing this week that he hasn't been doing for over 20 years. I listen everyday. I know. the caller, of course, is a acting like a moron, but so what? don't we see people acting and saying dumb stuff all the time?

what this is really all about is the Bush regime thinking they can crawl into our beds and into our homes and tell us how to live and what to think.

this country is doomed if we let them. this is Macarthyism all over again.

ask yourself this: if the gov really has "proof" that what is said on the radio/tv/etc is "bad", why don't they let Viacom go to court???
ans: because the gov would lose. and they know it. so they bully companies by not letting them do business unless they "censor" people like howard.

just remember, if they can do it to a famous person like howard (who makes ALOT of money for his company), they can do it to you. and it's just a matter of time.


"When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." -- Thomas Jefferson

Tom understood that WE tell the political SERVANTS what to do - NOT the other way around!

[redrumloa]

ummm one coment

Clear Channel <> Bush

[cecilia]

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


"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility." - Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954

[FluffyMcDeath]

redrumloa wrote:
ummm one coment

Clear Channel <> Bush

That's right. Clear Channel is Tom Hicks and L. Lowry Mays who are not Bush, merely very good friends of Bush who were huge contributors to the Bush campaign.

How is Hicks connected to Bush?

quote:
So how does any of this relate to Bush? Let's go back to 1989. Bush has just invested $605,000 - money he borrowed - in a syndicate that bought the Texas Rangers. (He would later repay the loan with proceeds from the sale of Harken stock remember Harken?). Though Bush had a 1.8 percent share of the club, the terms of this deal with the Rangers specified that once his partners made back their investment, his share would jump to 11 percent.
 
The Rangers' stadium was on the small side, so the new owners decided a grand, new stadium was in order. A 13-acre parcel of land bought in Arlington, Tex., at below-market rates. "ush and his partners used Arlington's [municipal] powers to condemn the land for the stadium, and relied on taxpayers to repay the bonds sold to build the Ballpark - receiving what amounts to a direct $135-million subsidy," wrote Robert Bryce of the Austin Chronicle. (Indeed, a jury later found that the ballpark property's original owners were owed more than six times what they were paid.)
 
When the new stadium was completed in 1993, the value of the Rangers immediately increased by $26 million, to $132 million. In 1997, Financial World magazine named the ballpark the most profitable stadium in major league baseball.
 
But it wasn't worth $250 million. Yet in 1998, Tom Hicks, a friend of Bush's, bought the Rangers for this enormous amount, making Bush - who walked away with close to $15 million - a very, very rich man. But then, Hicks had done pretty well for himself in previous years, thanks in part to Bush.
 
When Bush became governor in 1995, Hicks, who was then head of the corporate raider firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, was confirmed as a University of Texas regent. Hicks hired lobbyists to garner support for a bill - which Bush approved - creating the UT Investment Management Company (UTIMCO), a nonprofit corporation dedicated to managing public university money. The best part: Bush also got rid of the requirements to disclose "all details concerning the investments made and the income realized" and to have "a well-recognized performance measurement service" review the investments. UTIMCO was, in essence, left to operate on its own.
 
Hicks became UTIMCO's first chair and started handing out contracts to private investment firms to manage some of the endowment. He was aided by none other than Clear Channel's chairman and CEO, L. Lowry Mays, who was also on the board (and still is).
 
According to the Houston Chronicle, by March 1999, UTIMCO handled more than $11 billion of University of Texas endowment money, along with the state's higher education trust, the Permanent University Fund. Close to $2 billion was handed to private investment management companies - hundreds of millions of which ended up in the hands of firms run by associates of Hicks and major Republican Party donors. One of them, the Carlyle Group, is well known for its financial relationships with President Bush and prominent members of the Reagan/Bush administrations.

(excerpted from

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/04/18_clear.html)

[Mike_Amiga]

@Whabang

Your not alone, I find him funny too. (man, what a classy refined sense of humour we both have.) 8-)

[FluffyMcDeath]

Just adding this link, because it seems to fit here.
I can't vouch for its factuality but here it is anyway:

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1559

[cecilia]

http://www.musicangle.com/shownews.php?id=38

[cecilia]

U.S. Threatens Action Against Online Gambling

the beginning of the attack on the internet

[the_leander]

cecilia wrote:
U.S. Threatens Action Against Online Gambling

the beginning of the attack on the internet

To attempt a "moral" attack on the internet would be akin to invading Russia - anyone who attempts it looses due to its vast size and sheer inhospitality towards invaders.

Another point is that to attempt it, even with the highest amount of national savings in the US's history, it would still bankrupt them before they made so much as a dent, and given the defecit of the US economy, to attempt it now would be a quick death for the economy as a whole.

[cecilia]

the_leander wrote:
To attempt a "moral" attack on the internet would be akin to invading Russia - anyone who attempts it looses due to its vast size and sheer inhospitality towards invaders.

Another point is that to attempt it, even with the highest amount of national savings in the US's history, it would still bankrupt them before they made so much as a dent, and given the defecit of the US economy, to attempt it now would be a quick death for the economy as a whole.

yeah, but YOU are rational.
the religious right are not. :pissed: