Interesting ... Howard Stern Sues Clear Channel
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > Interesting ... Howard Stern Sues Clear Channel
Posted on Jul 06, 2004 12:51 pm
TheGarys
Member Since: Jun 26, 2004
I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I was really angry when they took him off the air, but he breaks so many rules on an everyday basis.
What do you guys think?
*********
July 1, 2004
NEW YORK -- Viacom Inc.'s (VIA) radio unit, Infinity Broadcasting, and on-air personality Howard Stern have filed a breach-of-contract suit seeking more than $10 million in damages against Clear Channel Communications Inc. (CCU), the radio giant that dropped Mr. Stern's morning program from six of its stations in February, Thursday's Wall Street Journal reported.
Clear Channel, San Antonio, which dropped Mr. Stern's program a day before its president, John Hogan, testified before Congress about indecent programming, recently agreed to pay the Federal Communications Commission $1.75 million to settle indecency complaints, including $495,000 in fines related to Mr. Stern's show.
Mr. Stern said he is the subject of an FCC "witch hunt", and that Clear Channel breached its contract. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Clear Channel Executive Vice President Andy Levin said Mr. Stern's contract "explicitly requires his show comply with all FCC rules and regulations."
Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter Joe Flint contributed to this report.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
07-01-04 0056ET
www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/...701-000030-0056
[ Back to Top ]
Jul 06, 2004 01:06 pm I dunno, for me it's a tough call. On one hand I enjoy laughing at Howard Stern when it's actually intelligent humor (which stops as soon as a girl with big boobs gets on the show), but, at the same time, like you said, he is constantly pushing rules which I feel need to be in place, and personally, I think need to be stronger. What is on public airwaves during normal daytime hours has to be monitored for decency dua to children viewing/listening and things of that nature. My wife and I keep a close eye on what TV and radio our kids see and hear, but heck, even some commercials are out of line in my eyes. Victoria Secrets commercials are becoming software-core porn, horror movie commercial are getting very graphic even during these daytime hours.
SO for me, it's a rub, I want to listen to him because it entertains me but it should surely not be during the morning drive...late night is when those shows should be on.
guitwizzNothing doesnt give me gasMember
Since: May 25, 2004
Jul 06, 2004 01:21 pm Bottom Line, Howie knows the rules, hes not stupid. Hes just angry like a child that he has to answer to someone with authority.
Jul 06, 2004 01:29 pm Howie is doing the lawsuit for publicity, nothing more. He is no longer the "king of all media" like he once was, I think his reign is coming to an end.
guitwizzNothing doesnt give me gasMember
Since: May 25, 2004
Jul 06, 2004 01:43 pm Kinda like Michael Jackson?? King of pop??
Maybe they should do an album together....
Id buy it, especially if it had studio vid footage! HAHA
But, Michael has no boobs.........yet.....
Jul 06, 2004 01:46 pm Well, the rules are the rules. I dont necessarily agree with censorship in radio and television (where freedom of speech apparently doesnt apply) but if in his contract it says he has to comply to FCC regs, then he has to comply. I'm about sick of hearing about these whining, snivelling "stars" who think the rules should apply to eveyone BUT them. He should never have signed a contract with rules he intended to break in the first place....
However, I DO so enjoy Howard Stern.
Jul 06, 2004 01:56 pm Now, I do realize that none of can speak for the writers of the Bill of Rights, but, in my opinion, I highly doubt that "freedom of speech" was meant to include vulgarity and/or offensive and rude behavior such as Howard Stern is known for. While I find it humorous at time, that type of thing should not be covered under "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech should include the right for you to get up and say you disagree with the FCC or the gov't or any local authority without fear of being imprisoned or killed for it. It's a right to disagree, protest and debate in public forums without fear of punishment for alternate beliefs.
The fact that rude, vulgar, or slanderous speech such as Howard Sterns often is, the publication of tabloids and other yellow journalistic media is somehow supposed to be protected by this "freedom of speech" disgusts me.
rut row, I don't know if I like where this thread is heading...
TheTincanbugsloppy dice, drinks twiceMember
Since: Aug 05, 2003
Jul 06, 2004 02:11 pm "The fact that rude, vulgar, or slanderous speech such as Howard Sterns often is, the publication of tabloids and other yellow journalistic media is somehow supposed to be protected by this "freedom of speech" disgusts me."
Ditto.
Freedom of speech should not apply to outright lies. I personally am not offended by most vulgar or rude speech, but I feel that it should be regulated as well, if nothing else then so as not to immerse children in vulgar, profane ways of thinking about themselves and others.
I'm pretty liberal in my opinion of the powers of the 1st Amendment rights. But you can take those powers too far.
Howard made a conscious decision to violate the rules in order to reap a short-term gain - increased media exposure, leading to more listeners and more interest in his show. It was a calculated risk, and he lost - he was not able to continue to convince his bosses that he should be allowed to continue despite his rule-breaking. Those FCC rules are serious business... the fines can grow to incredible amounts, and the FCC can basically destroy a radio station or its individual radio personalities by pulling their licenses.
I never enjoyed HS or his show, but I don't have anything against him. I do feel that he should be subject to the same rules that I had to follow in my broadcasting days, however... It's a legal system, not a popularity contest.
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Jul 06, 2004 02:13 pm Quote:
But, Michael has no boobs.........yet.....
LOL !!! That was sooo funny, and sooo right-on !
Why not ? Bah !
Jul 06, 2004 02:14 pm Well db, I'm definately not here to start trouble with anybody. The only point I have to make about censorship in TV and Radio is that, if something offends you on radio or television, there are two knobs. One is "volume" and the other is "power". Nowhere else in the world can you so easily fix a problem. Yet nothing else is censored as much as Television and Radio. And yes, rude and slanderous speech are indeed protected by the Bill or Rights. Another term that can be used for those might be "Revolutionary". Of course, I do not think that Howard Stern's antics are not going to incite the next Revolutionary War. But if you dont like it......simply turn it off.
Jul 06, 2004 02:24 pm No, slander and libel are against the law. Of course, this topic is off of anything Howard Stern does, I would not put him in the "Slander" category, just the ignorant, offensive humor category...which makes me laugh sometimes. The Slander and libel goes more toward the tabloids which claim protection under the freedom of speech, of which they are sued and fined on a pretty regular basis. The sad thing is, if they make $10 million on their publication and are only fined $2 million in a lawsuit, they have still profited $8 million dollars, so they keep doing it anyway.
The "just turn it off" theory does not hold water. They are public airwaves, public domain, it's not me turning it off, it's young people who's parent are outside working in the yard, fixing cares and what-have-you that turn it on. That is where the problem lies.
For that matter, I think the local news should be censored. When Saddams sons were murdered I got the news from Yahoo! at work, I actually had to call my wife just to tell her to watch carefully because the local news could show the pictures of the bloodied corpses of those two scumbags on TV at frickin noon. Which in my mind is absolutely disgusting, shock-value drivin garbage.
I assume you are not looking to start trouble, neither am I, I am looking to keep my young girls from seeing or hearing this crap without me being aware. It's a hot topic and tends to get people all worked up.
I hate the word "censorship" but then, if the media held any values of decency, there wouldn't need to be any.
guitwizzNothing doesnt give me gasMember
Since: May 25, 2004
Jul 06, 2004 02:24 pm yes, but kids probably wont turn it off, and you can blame it on the parents to control it, but the ones that try real hard cant cover all the bases either... Id rather shoot the messenger in this case. My kids are more important to me, and to this country, than his ability to break the rules, bill of rights or not.
guitwizzNothing doesnt give me gasMember
Since: May 25, 2004
Jul 06, 2004 02:26 pm Yeap, media are pigs, they need to have the rules Howie has to follow!!!1
Jul 06, 2004 02:26 pm Quote:
My kids are more important to me, and to this country, than his ability to break the rules, bill of rights or not.
Can I get an Amen!
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jul 08, 2004 12:03 am If it didn't sell it wouldn't be there. People must want it or it would die on it's own. People will get what they want regardless of the morality police. Personaly I don't appreciate the little I have heard from Mr. Stern and I havn't listened to him since my brief introduction. I could care less about Mr. Stern or the broadcasting company he is sueing. I have no strong desire for anyone to be like me either or for that mater agree with me. Whatever the result it will not contribute greatly to my dying happy.
Jul 08, 2004 12:37 am public airwaves gotta be kept clean for the sake of kiddies. that's not censorship. there are appropriate outlets for anything you could want to consume. the super bowl incident was pretty clear-cut to me. i feel bad for any prudish adults who were personally offended by what happened that day, but i understand the objections about not wanting your kids to see it. the most watched sporting event in america is not the time to bare a breast. put it on cable. thats not censorship, just 'the appropriate venue.' public airwaves do need to be censored...if you're to have any hope of successfully guiding your kids toward a good foundation of morality.
personally, though, i'm not a fan of stern--but i dont think i've ever been greatly offended by him. then again i dont watch/listen to him much because i just dont find him that funny. but i'm not sure howard is even guilty of polluting the public airwaves. he seems to just display a generally cheuvanistic attitute (not that great for the kids but not that bad, really, if it doesnt get out of hand) and--i dunno--a fixation with what might be labeled toilet humor (but what kid doesnt engage in that?)
what is the specific material in question here? i think i believe him with his witch hunt thing. he certainly does. doesnt he basically follow fcc guidelines?
guitwizzNothing doesnt give me gasMember
Since: May 25, 2004
Jul 08, 2004 01:09 am Forty, I think you are trying to look at this fairly. Thats commendable. But you are contradicting yourself a bit. All while self admittingly not knowing much about the whole thing.
Not knowing much about the situation, knowing about how to bring up kids, kinda (but probably have none) , dont watch/listen to him much, cheauvanistic is ok for kids to a degree,kinda agree about the witch- hunt, What "specifically is in question here", potty humor ok "if it doesnt get out of hand".... what constitutes "out of hand" to you?? Do you have an actual stand on anything?
well, we have bosses that we have to try to stand by to make those decisions, and its called the "law". Not your choice, or mine, however much we may or may not disagree. We have a voting system about how to handle these matters...... Its pretty corrupt at at times I agree, but I always say, "Theres always China as a home if you get too offended". My Dad who passed away July 8, 2003 (yes, hard day for me tommorrow), used to say, " A wounded Lion has more class than a healthy pig".......(he was a 52 pilot that bombed in Korea and Vietnam, so he had the utmost right to say that)
If you were to try to explain that vague of a discription to your boss at your job, as far as what your duties are/were, you may get a big question mark from him too. Just trying to point out what I see in your views, in my honest opinion.....
Jul 08, 2004 03:08 am if you're looking for a statement of beliefs, or 'a stand' i think i was pretty clear:
"public airwaves gotta be kept clean for the sake of kiddies. that's not censorship. there are appropriate outlets for anything you could want to consume."
who would disagree? i'm not sure what you're saying here. as a society we've agreed to guidelines for the airwaves, because to us as a society, it makes sense. it is true that 'approriateness' is ultimately just a value judgment, but in the fcc's case it's a set of judgments that we go around thinking is pretty solid for our needs, given that we've never yet taken the time to overthrow the fcc. the fcc has walked a line in making its determinations--which is all they can do--trying to strike a balance. we've seen their regulations change over the years. still, people who disregard what's on the books have to be punished.
that's my main point. keeping in mind that i have no idea of the actual howard stern material that led to the allegations.
and here's a personal opinion, but i think common sense demands it: chauvanistic IS ok to a degree. it's one of the ways people are . but it's not even the right word. treating women as sexual items of beauty is more what i meant. superiority of the male sex is not necessariliy implied. society by and large seems to endorse this view of women. society encourages it. it's out there in the mental environment. sex sells. these women go on the show willingly. most sane people laugh at it, because this attitude too is approved through a common consent. a societal value-judgment. so i don't know that you can blame stern for his voiceover commentaries (using fcc approved descriptive labels) regarding blotted out naked women not even visible to a viewing audience, let alone a radio listener. if you're going to indict anyone over this mindset, start with americans first, then move to stern. he's just reflecting us. it exists already, all through the media and there's nothing overtly shocking about his play-by-play.
as far as the bosses go, if he's not violating fcc guidelines, then he's innocent. if he is, then he's not.
i haven't seen or heard the material in question, therefore i'm really not qualified to talk about this. all i know is that the few times i've seen stern, he seemed pretty harmless and i don't remember ever seeing anything that seemed--to me--to be crossing the line. saying 'turn around, let me see your breasts' does not strike me as obscene even for the public airwaves, and in fact, given the current regulations, it wouldn't be classed as obscene. this is the sort of thing you turn off if you don't want your kids to hear it. of course, i haven't applied any of stern's material to a rigorous standard of judgment, mainly because i don't carry around a guidebook full of fcc regulations. he's just a goofball fixated on breasts. i always found his show boring.
that last bit is just my personal opinion, and it has no bearing on the discussion.
i am sorry to hear about your dad.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jul 08, 2004 07:00 am Raising children is a great way to grow up. We give our children the best of what we know of life. Often we atempt to give them those things we refuse to give to ourselves. At some level most parents understand that children are capable of independant thought even if they have given up the gift for themselves.
Jul 08, 2004 02:03 pm there ya go!
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Jul 09, 2004 04:11 pm I think I agree with forty's basic point:
"public airwaves gotta be kept clean for the sake of kiddies. that's not censorship. there are appropriate outlets for anything you could want to consume."
It is not censorship. You still have the right to say whatever you wish, just not on airwaves owned by the public (and hence maintained/controlled by the FCC).
Now, the FCC's tolerance of what can and cannot be said, in my opinion, is pretty darn high. That leaves it to the individual people on the air to choose how crass or low class they want to be. I personally think that Stern is very low class, and on top of that, not entertaining. However, apparently, there are more people out there that appreciate his low class show than there are people willing to make a fuss over it. So, therefore it remains successful. That just puts more pressure on parents to monitor what their kids are watching/listening to if they want to prevent them being exposed to this sort of content.
With that being said, I have also been very offended in the past, to watch "News Shows" and see actual footage of people being assasinated. Both times were short clips flashed briefly in a collage of clips, but I saw a man beheaded and 3 people shot in a firing squad. I did not want to see that (and there was no warning), and definitely wouldn't want any kids to see that! Basically, just agreeing with dB that news should be looked at as a place where more oversight could be used (cuz obviously they don't police themselves real well).
And lastly (slightly off topic, but I'm ranting so let me go), I wholly believe in free speech. But, I also believe in facing consequences for your actions (including what you say). I get very upset when people say offensive things, because they can, and then expect that nothing is going to happen to them in return. Words are very powerful, and can incite lots of emotion. If you say something that offends, people will respond, often times with more than words. People need to realize this before they open up their fat mouths.
And I'm done.
guitwizzNothing doesnt give me gasMember
Since: May 25, 2004
Jul 10, 2004 02:56 am very well said Coolo!
