Posted: February 25, 2004
9:05 p.m. Eastern


Credit: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37308
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed "King of All Media," won't be heard by much of his audience now that Clear Channel Communications has deemed his show too indecent for broadcast.


Shock jock Howard Stern

The company made its decision after assessing the content of yesterday's Howard Stern Show.

"It was vulgar, offensive, and insulting, not just to women and African-Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency," said John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio. "We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations until we are assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting."

Clear Channel has some 1,200 radio stations in the U.S., and Stern's program has been aired by its stations in six markets – Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, Pittsburgh, Rochester, San Diego and Louisville.

The show itself is syndicated by a unit of Viacom, which also owns CBS Television. Both CBS and Viacom recently have come under fire after singer Janet Jackson bared her breast during the halftime show of this year's Super Bowl broadcast.

Earlier today, Clear Channel announced what it calls a "Responsible Broadcasting Initiative" to make sure the material aired by its radio stations conforms to the standards and sensibilities of the local communities they serve.

The company is instituting a zero-tolerance policy for indecent content which will include companywide training and automatic suspensions for anyone that the FCC alleges has violated indecency rules on the air.

"We will suspend the DJ in question, and perform a swift investigation," said Mark Mays, president and COO of Clear Channel Communications. "If we or the government ultimately determine the offending broadcast is indecent, the DJ will be terminated without delay."

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

The San Antonio-based company also says all of its contracts with on-air performers are being modified to ensure that DJs share financial responsibility if they utter indecent material on the air.

Just yesterday, Clear Channel ousted another shock jock from its airwaves.

Bubba the Love Sponge was squeezed from his position at a Tampa, Fla., station for allowing indecent material on the air.

Bubba, whose real name is Todd Clem, was the source of a proposed $755,000 fine against Clear Channel for more than two dozen claims of breaches of indecency laws over the last three years.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel is all about protecting us from indecency.
-TheSherminator

Dmusic?? you've gotta be kidding?

I hope not (about kidding), if Howard Stern would join the Boycott against these monopolys it would provide a massive backing to us not to mention it might actually get us into the media that we so desperately need.

call him

Another case of media hysteria disenfranchising yet another artist in the field. =(. I am a social conservative but i loved stern for his ability to have fun with what most people are stick in the muds about.

he will be missed.

"Earlier today, Clear Channel announced what it calls a "Responsible Broadcasting Initiative" to make sure the material aired by its radio stations conforms to the standards and sensibilities of the local communities they serve.
"
In other words.. spouts conservative propaganda like the vast majority of their radio shows. yes.. this serves our interests like a bullet to the head.

smaller radio will pick up the show and Clear Channel will lose money... im glad they did it!!!!

Whatever happened to the First Amendment? Oh, that's right, it got throwed out with the rest of the Constitution a few years back.

What exactly did Stern say to get thrown off the air? Probably something that a few years ago wouldn't have offended a tube worm, but seeing as we have to be PC to even wild animals these days it's no telling.

It's stupid to throw Stern off the air. It's not going to prevent the children of today from cussing and being obscene. If anything, they should throw parents out of the homes 'cause that's where they're getting it from. I have a neice who's 13 and she's got a mouth worse than a sailor's. And she's never listened to Howard Stern. She got it all from her momma. So don't be giving me this BS about Howard Stern corrupting the minds of our children.

And another thing, looks like we're heading towards the 21st century version of the McCarthy hearings. I can just hear it now "Have you now or have you ever uttered an obscene word in public?" Guess they'll need to blacklist about 300 million Americans if they do that, even theirselves.

What did Stern do?
He did what he always does... tries to shock you with indecency...

Me? I like the show. l really do hope that no laws are passed... I'm one of those people that couldn't give a rat's ass for Janet Jackson's tittie. I don't get who the hell is up in arms on the issue? It seems like it's only lawmakers and the corperations... Anybody heard of protests?

Oh my god, somebodys boobie was shown on TV... Let's completly eliminate free speach so it never happens again.

Oh my god, Howard Stern is not PC, lets kick his ass off the radio and lose one of our most popular shows!


morons...

but guys, Howard Stern might of hurt someone's feelings.


lol

I love it how my home town is considered a "market."

okay NiceGuy, I'm a retired Navy Seal, and I take offense at you saying your niece has a mouth worse than a sailor. Trust me, there's NOTHING worse than the mouth of a sailor when it comes to bad language and the ability to spout the most expletives in a single breath!
(hope you found the humor in that statement)
anyhow.. I never listened to stern, he's a bit over the top for me sometimes, but it's my choice, and my right to be able to change the station. It's the same old bullshit. When are companies and government going to learn that people CHOOSE to listen to shows like this, and they can CHOOSE to change the station. There's so many other morning shows out there, like Imus or even a lot of local programming.
oops.. I said a dirty word.. I shoulda said CH**SE huh?
ttmmm

NewsFlash: Howard Stern's show contains "indecency" =)

This is garbage. What I don't understand is why ClearChannel did it. He's so popular.

Howard Stern is produced by Infinity Broadcasting Corporation. I have no idea as to why Clear Channel was carrying him in the first place, when his show is being produced by their competitors.

Here is a good video clip about howard stern and the deceny police. I know the clip is from gasp......foxnews.com but its a good clip and it features Mancow if you like him. http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?7119&Hannity_and_Colmes&Decency%20Police&acc&wvx-300

Very good video clip.

Howard Stern has always been offensive. Thats what makes him Howard Stern. Shit they made a movie about it. This is nothing more than a plublicity stunt which is why I doubt he will sign on with anyone else. Eventualyl he will probably get back into clear channel more popular than ever before.

Clear Channel = Bunch of nazi conformist.

If you read the transcript on the site of the family people that want him fired, they have severely edited it. I mean SEVERELY. They don't add in the part where he cut off the caller and made a bad comment about him. He probably only let the call through to show that he cut him off after the racist comment, and to make a funny comment about the caller without being out of context.

That's what they're flipping out about. Not the sex talk... they only want you to think that.

Umm, everyone's home town is a market when it comes to broadcast radio or any form of regional sales.

What I "love" is how every time the phrase "King Of All Media" is mentioned, it's always preceded by the words, "self-proclaimed." How come Michael Jackson is never referred to as the "self-proclaimed King Of Pop"? How come Jerry Lewis isn't referred to as the "self-proclaimed King Of Comedy"?

Same goes for the words "shock jock," which almost always precede Stern's name at the beginning of articles such as this one. Some of the things Pumpkinhead Limbaugh says are pretty shocking, but do those words ever precede his name? No. He's "talk-show host Pumpkinhead Limbaugh," or "radio host Pumpkinhead Limbaugh," or "broadcaster Pumpkinhead Limbaugh." Even ManQueer was given the caption by Fox News "Radio Talk Show Host." But nine times outta ten, Stern's labelled, "shock jock." heh

Incidentally, doesn't "DJ" stand for disk-jockey"? Do any of these controversials spin records? Geez, I'm more shocked by the words chosen by the reporters than I am by the reported. Seems the media of which Stern is "king" likes to stigmatize the man. But he's an easy mark, as this latest incident shows and as undeath points out.

Which brings me to the main point. The Howard Stern Show is syndicated. This means it's up for grabs in each individual market to be carried by whichever broadcast company can secure it. It's the same principle that enables television reruns to be aired on whatever channel picks them up, regardless of who produced and aired the original show. The majority of markets that air the Stern Show do so on their O&O (owned & operated) stations. In other words, Infinity Broadcasting airs the show on mostly its own stations in various markets. In many markets, Infinity doesn't carry the show, so it is picked up by other broadcast companies.

Then there's the FCC. Imho, the FCC shouldn't even be getting involved in matters that should be free-enterprise issues between the stations/owners and the advertisers/listening public. Matter of fact, no radio company is required to pay the fines levied by the FCC without a hearing or trial, since the FCC's role is primarily to issue licenses, call letters, frequencies, and signal strength limits. Thing is, if the fines aren't paid, the commission can make it extremely difficult for the companies when it comes time for license renewal, setting up new stations, etc, so the companies tend to pay the extortion with a whimper and move on.

Point is, the issue here is money. When Infinity is fined by the FCC for Stern content, it usually just pays it because it's cheaper than taking the government agency to court. Additionally, Stern brings in exponentially more money for Infinity than any of these fines cost them. Clear Channel, however, with only six markets carrying the show, cannot affort to be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, so they are taking drastic action to be assured that they won't be. That's right, folks, the right to free speech costs money that some folks cannot afford.

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

I suppose we will never hear about 99% of all rap music again? One could only hope so........

lol, i like your last comment Ein-Tier................any bob and tom fans out there? well i guess they're gonna be clean from now on............then again i really don't care cause radio pretty much sucks but fuck clear channel.

*urinates on FCC's logo then shouts:*

ANAL RENTENTIVE CONSERVATIVE PRICKS!

Hey Stern, move to Tucson, KFMA would be honored to have you on their non-clear channel controlled station

1-800-44STERN

pyro it just not conservatives i am sure there are some liberal involved too.

This isn't a blow against Stern, its a plus like others are saying, more good/bad publicity for Stern makes him that much higher in the ratings

As far as Clear Channel goes..who needs em, right?

well realy none of the media companies out there other than fox are even close to being conservative, it's more like "ANAL RENTENTIVE ULTRA LIBRAL PRICKS!"

This is just the begining, if we let the socalists (err librals) have there way right now will look pretty damn good.

purfus,

"If you read the transcript on the site of the family people that want him fired, they have severely edited it. I mean SEVERELY. They don't add in the part where he cut off the caller and made a bad comment about him"

Shouldn't this be considered slanderous? To cut out Stern's reaction to the comment is to take the incident very much of out context.

Isn't that akin to me saying: They want Howard Stern [to be killed] for the remarks occuring on the air.

A light bulb just went off in my head (that happens sometimes):

The bigger issue Clear Channel makes of this, the more ammunition they have for the post-Janet's Tit era of editing "live" media.

mtekk,

Don't even tell me you're a Bush fan. Did you read my article? We need someone as liberal as we can get to make things better. Even if they're not REALLY liberal, just moderate, that would be fine. Bush is not the answer. This is what happens under this administration...

If Howard finds out about the transcript in its edited glory on that site, he could possibly take action. His delay, like I said, could have been bypassed just so he could make a comment about the caller (undoubtedly funny), and it wouldn't be out of context with the rest of the conversation.

That edited transcript doesn't bear any resemblance to the actual broadcast...

When I read the initial report yesturday on CNN about this, there was a quote from Stern saying that the caller made the slur, and then Howard immediatley hung up on him. Now all of a sudden today CNN has a differnet article, with the quote missing now.

Found original article: http://us.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/index.html

undeath,

Perhaps a mini-email campaign would help?
Send the edited transcript to his webmaster, or him if possible. Wherever people have contacts.



"This is just the begining, if we let the socalists (err librals) have there way right now will look pretty damn good."

"mtekk,

Don't even tell me you're a Bush fan."


Far leftists are just as stupid and full of absurd and harmful ideas are far rights. Just like every other single thing in life, the best stance is probably somewhere in the middle. It is for this precise reason that I will refuse to vote for John Kerry. He is to the United States what George Bush is to the United States. Poison.

Hmm, let corporations take over the country or socialize everything. Both sound pretty damn stupid to me. It is my opinion that electing an extreme liberal (like Kerry) isn't necessarily going to "counter" everything Bush did. It will, however, add on to the destruction of freedom & the constitution. After all, it is a liberal mindset that has let to the booting of Howard Stern off the air in the name of political correctness.

Sorry, that struck a chord with me. I don't believe in electing an idiot because he believes the extreme opposite of another idiot.

I like the far left better, but I said we need a moderate left politician in there.

Adding on to my "It will, however, add on to the destruction of freedom & the constitution" comment.

This is of course due to the fact that the agendas of both the reps and dems conflict with the intentions our forefathers made clear in the constitution.

example: Much of the conservative right is religious (this is what I hear at least. The far right is at least). The last Constitutional amendment took 200 years to pass. Now George W. Bush wants to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. I mean.. you're entitled to your opinion and everything. But to amend the freaking Constitution because you don't like gay people? My god.

Both agendas are terrible. Both parties need to transform. It's happened in the past (whigs, federalists, etc). It needs to happen again. It looks to be slowly happening to the dems. I don't see it happening to reps anytime soon. Not until we fix all of the laws in this country that create a power imbalance between the people & the government.

Down with Democrats.
Down with Republicans.

There's more ideas out there, as long as you don't limit your ideas to these two categories given to you by the two richest political parties in the country.

"I like the far left better, but I said we need a moderate left politician in there."

Well - I think I like the far left better too. But that's like deciding which arm I'd rather have broken, my right or my left.

I also believe that is time for
A: A president with an interest in the people.
B: A moderate left president.

Kucinich is Moderate Left. He proved his whole career that he's for the people and shuns corporate takeover of the small towns and the entire country. He wants out of the FREE trade agreements And Nader likes him. Nothing more to say, I guess... that's how I made my decision.

Let's form a "non-party" party.

The DNC and GOP both stink.

Shmoo

The mood in Washington is ugly. It's an election year. The full House and one-third of the Senate are up for reelection ... as is the president. These politicians want to get themselves on record for "protecting family values" and a making sure that your precious children never, ever get to see Janet Jackson's breast again as long as they draw breath. The FCC, obviously feeling heat from somewhere, levying three-quarters of a million dollar fines against radio stations for material that was broadcast two years ago. Jocks with number-one ratings in their markets are being offered up as sacrificial lambs to the DC censorship mood.
This situation reached its boiling point, of course, with that now-notorious Super Bowl halftime show. Yes, the show was tacky. But what in the hell did you expect when the entire production was turned over to MTV? Barry Manilow? So ... Nelly grabbed his crotch. We all have them. And Janet Jackson's right breast made it's TV debut ... seen two, you seen them all. That was on a Sunday. The first day of the week. By Saturday night of that same week Americans (and that includes children) had the opportunity to watch hundreds of murders, beatings, rapes and hints at gratuitous sex on television. The news, though, continued to be about Janet's jug.
This has to be said here. Americans are prudes. We are probably the only industrialized country in the world that goes into a national state of shock when a breast appears on broadcast television. Spend a bit of time in Europe. There you're as likely to see a breast on a television commercial as you are to see the word "sale." As a result European children grow up with a much more healthy view vis-à-vis the human body. Why, some Europeans might actually think that there is something more discomforting about seeing one person murder another on television than watching one person loved by another.
Back, though, to Washington. What we're seeing in those congressional hearings, and in the moods of our august legislators, is nothing short of a burgeoning censorship movement. Today it's breasts, vague descriptions of sexual situations, and the fearsome "F" word. Tomorrow?
Let me make my position clear here from the beginning. I'm against government censorship of the airwaves. The FCC should have only one role ... and that is to protect a broadcaster's property right in their broadcast frequency. Nothing more. The FCC should not be the national censorship arm of the Imperial Federal Government.
There is no doubt in my mind that if broadcasting had been around when Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the rest of our founding fathers (PC="Framers") wrote our Constitution, broadcasting would have been included in the First Amendment. The purpose of that little "freedom of the press" bit in our Constitution was to make sure that the government could exercise no control over the means of the dissemination of information in America. Information was to flow freely .. and that included information about the comings and goings and various shenanigans of politicians.
Today the vast majority of Americans get their daily dose of news and information from the broadcast media. In the mornings we listen to radio for news, weather and traffic. In the midday period Americans turn to talk radio to keep up. In the evenings we go to the television news programs. A minority of Americans read daily newspapers. A smaller number read news magazines. We are now, my friends, in a situation where the majority of Americans get their news and information about what is going on with their government from entities that are licensed by and subject to punishment at the hands of that very government. Nobody can truly believe that this is what our founding fathers had in mind.
Now don't even try to tell me that the government would never try to regulate the political and news content of the broadcast media. Michael Medved tried that stunt with me last night as we went chin-to-chin on MSNBC. Yes, my friends, the government will try to control the political content of broadcast media. The government has tried it. And the government succeeded. Have you heard of the Campaign Finance Reform Act? Did you know that our illustrious Supreme Court has just ruled that the government can, indeed, control what can and cannot be said about politicians on radio and TV stations in the final days of a political campaign? Not newspapers. Not news magazines. Oh no! They have First Amendment protections. Broadcasting? Different story.
Public Ownership of the Airwaves? Give me a break!
When broadcasting came into its own in this country politicians became eager to exercise control. They couldn't do a thing about what newspapers printed ... but they were determined not to make the same mistake with the new wonderful world of broadcast media. So ... they came up with this idiotic little fiction that "the public owns the airwaves." That became their excuse for government licensing and regulation.
A question: If the public owns the airwaves, why doesn't the public also own all the real estate? We get this song and dance about the public owning the airwaves because there are only a limited number of broadcast frequencies available, and they need to be allocated and controlled "in the public interest." Well, the last time I checked there was only a limited amount of real estate around. Why, then, aren't politicians preaching about the "public ownership of the land" and taking measures to make sure that all real estate is used "in the public interest?" Instead of owning the land upon which our homes sit, why aren't we leasing that land from some government entity called the FREC ... the Federal Real Estate Commission. Hey! Maybe that would be a good idea! Every five years or so we could submit an application to the FREC explaining how we're using our particular piece of real estate in the public interest. Neighbors and community activists could submit filings to the FREC stating that we are not, in fact, using our real estate in the public interest and demanding that the FREC revoke our licenses!
Wow! I really think I'm onto something here.
Let's say that we have an unmarried couple living in a house down the street. You're upset because you are teaching your children that a man and a woman should get married before they move in together and start to raise a family. You want that unmarried couple out of the neighborhood. So, the next time they apply to the FREC for a renewal of their license to occupy that particular piece of "publicly owned" real estate you file to have their license revoked. Gay couple down the street? Same thing.
Or let's say that there's a convenience store in town that actually sells (gasp!) copies of Playboy. You have it on good authority that someone can actually open the pages of one of those magazines and see parts of the female anatomy. You get a little group together and prepare to oppose their license renewal when it comes up next year.
Just yesterday you were walking down the street in your neighborhood and you heard sounds representative of domestic intranquility coming from that house on the corner. The words were unmistakable. "F___ you! I'll mow the f___ing yard when game is over." Why, you're not going to allow that language to be used in your neighborhood, are you? After all, your child could have been walking by that house and heard those words. You go to the FREC and ask for a heavy fine to be assessed against the neighborhood sports fan for his indecency.
But what about community standards?
Now there's a dangerous little term. Community standards. First ... you do realize that the very phrase has an anti-individualistic tone, don't you? Shouldn't we be talking here about "individual" standards? Individuals have moral standards. As long as a community is made of individuals with individual likes, dislikes, wants and needs you cannot truly say that there is one standard that fits and applies to the whole community.
There is, though, a way that people can express their individual standards in such a way that something approximating a "community standard" can be arrived at. The most common way is voting. Now there's more than one type of voting out there. Individuals can vote with ballots to chose a politician to serve the community. You might say that this politician is representing a "community standard" because he came away from the election with more individual votes than anyone else.
Individuals can also vote with dollars. In the free market every dollar is a vote. Each dollar spent is a vote cast for a particular product or merchant. The products or merchants with the most votes win. The products or merchants with few votes eventually fade away. Individuals, voting with dollars, eventually establish a "community standard" in products, services and merchants. Imagine the chaos if there was some sort of a government agency that was assigned the task of trying to figure out just what the "community standard" in flower shops or restaurants was. Would that government agency then try to force all flower shops and restaurants to adhere to that standard, or face fines? Maybe license revocation?
And as for broadcasting? There, again, individuals vote. There are two knobs on your radio. Cast your vote by turning either one. As individuals across the community cast their votes over a period of time, a community standard is established. Those who meet the standard survive. Those who don't fail. When you allow the individuals to create that standard through the exercise of their free choice with one of those two knobs ... freedom and the free market prevail. Politicians, though, want to establish that standard through highly-publicized hearings and government rules. Freedom plays no role.
Next up ... political free speech.
One last thing. Today it's sexually explicit material the politicians are getting all lathered-up about. What is it going to be tomorrow?
Think about this. What phrase do many leftist politicians use to describe the expression of conservative ideas and concepts. You've heard them. It's "hate speech." On many college campuses around the nation there are active movements to have the expression of conservative ideas branded as "hate speech" and banned on campus. Expressing opposition to that government-enforced program of systematic racial discrimination known as "affirmative action" is condemned as "racism." A whacko Hispanic activist in Atlanta is pushing the idea that using the phrase "illegal alien" is comparable to using the "N" word. How long before pressure is brought to bear on the FCC to have these elements included in the definition of "community standards" that the FCC tries to enforce through fines and license revocation?
I understand, my friends. There are many things that both you and I hear on radio shows and see on television shows that offend our sensibilities. Once, though, you start using the government as an agent of censorship it's hard to stop. One group wants sexually explicit material banned. Then another wants "hate speech" banned. With the demands of each group ...and those that follow ... the noose of government censorship on the our number one method of sharing information is tightened.
Let's recognize and accept our individual responsibility for what we watch and what we listen to, and let's tell our politicians to stop using the heavy hand of government regulation as a method of pandering for votes.
Neal Boortz

Holy shit man..........

SuitablyTwisted,

I completely agree.

And Americans are too stupid to tell the difference between something that's sugar coated and something that's actually good. "Community Standards sound necessary! Just say it again: Community Standards. How could we not need those?"

Anything bad for Clear Channel is good for us. I hope they lose market share in the markets they pulled him from.

As for the people who support Stern and less interference, do you also support the removal of censors on network TV?

I'm of no real opinion of him, honestly. Media types, Stern included, have many many faces and no real allegiances. He made A LOT of money for Clear Channel. They are the ones I want gone. I hope more dj's force their hand.

I support no censoring after 8PM. People should know there's no questionable content before then, and only on other channels after 8...

But I could push it to 9.

i'm for no censorship at all.

I think you actually have to have SOME censorship. Otherwise, you get bitching and moaning 24/7. If there's going to be basically no censorship, you'd have to ease into it and make it common in everyday life little by little.

undeath,

I agree with you again. I am against "no censorship" and not just because we'd have non-stop bitching & moaning.

There are things I will not want my child to see. If I put a filter on the computer, I am censoring on my own. I favor censoring on television until after 10, 11, or whenever for the same reason. That, and during wholesome family time we wouldn't need language, sex, etc.

For info: I'm unmarried (duh) & grew up watching more or less whatever I wanted. I am not prude, or trying to sanitize anything. I hold certain core values and that's the end of it. I am not religous. Doesn't mean I believe that "everything goes" should be a philosophy that describes TV censorship.

The best solutions are always somewhere in the middle =) (and don't include government regulation)

I understand wanting to censor stuff. I'm offended by Bill O'Reilly, and I wish I wouldn't have to see his face when flipping through channels.

I'm even afraid to play certain video games around my cousins. I would opt out of taking my PlayStation to my cousin's house when I would babysit and instead take a computer to leave there that I had built myself and had just a couple games on it.

There are certain things you can do, and only the ignorant complain that they let their kids listen to Howard Stern or watch TV late at night, and something offended them. I always say: What the hell? Why would you do this? They complain, yet they make stupid moves like that.

If there is no censorship whatsoever, responsibility for the child and what he/she sees still falls on the shoulders of the parents.

sherminator, thats where it should the responsibility should be, on the parents. by simply making a few things taboo, you only peak the curiosity on the subject. if you allow it (in moderation, of course) then the parents can explain what it is, and why its wrong. you dont get explanations via censorship. on howard stern, he only lost 5 out of the 75 stations he was on. lately the fcc has been pretty lenient on language and content in radio and tv, but after the way this year has gone so far (super bowl and mr. stern) they may be clonching their buttholes tight again. its good to push limits, but one step at a time.

i should say that howrd lost 5 of 75 so far

Hey Sherminator, since when did the Federal Government become parents? One of the main problems is that people have to grow up and take responsibility, I was never a fan of Howard Stern, but he has a right to say what he wants, and I have the right NOT to listen to him. Thats America, when we let people step in and control what we listen to and when we listen to it, that's Nazi Germany or Taliban Afganistan.

I really wonder where people get off talking about censorship on television and radio. If you take Howard Stern off the radio waves, what are people going to do? Go turn on Jerry Springer? At 11:00 am you have a choice in this country, listen to Howard Stern talk about porn stars on the radio, or flip on the television and watch some trailer loser beat up her brother because he slept with his sister who wanted to be a lesbian lover with her twin.

Everybody is raising a fuss with an exposed breast on Network television. Want to clean up Network television? Cancell EVERY soap opera, the story lines on those shows are nothing but betrayel and people screwing who they shouldn't. Cancell shows like My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancee, which show some loser pretty girl putting her family through a living hell for one million dollars, stop showing shows where people destroy each others lives for the almighty dollar, thats a lot more offensive that an exposed body part.

I mean really, if I had a choice for my kid to see either a naked woman in a natural state, or some bimbo ripping apart her family for her selfish financial reasons, I would go with the naked woman.

But you can't cancel those crappy shows, because it's obvious in America that's what everybody wants to see, all the big name advertisers are going to throw a fit and pull their commercials.

It's just like the porn industry, this country, and I know I'm American, but the truth is we are all so two faced. No one wants to admit they watch / like porn, but it's a BILLION dollar a year industry, I watch porn, I watch so much porn I feel like if I keep watching it I'm going to win something, but so many other people in America want to bash the industry, but keep their private collection.

This is so sad, sorry for the rampage.

--i made a long post. all hail sherm--

Ein-Tier,

Not sure if you were contesting what I said or agreeing. Nonetheless, I agree with you and everything you said.

I do not know when the government became parents, but I do not want them to be. I do support censorship to an extent - in the way I described earlier. I don't know exactly how it should be done, but government would be the only way to have it be universal on television in this country.

A dangerous notion, I am aware. This is where moderation comes in. Take this example: South Park the Movie uncensored, full of language, etc., has aired on Comedy Central numerous times. Only after midnight. Do I want to raise hell because the uncensored movie is not played, and would not be played, at 6pm? No. I'm glad it's not for the sake of decency.

The problem with government regulating censorship is that the government was founded by men with morals. This is declining today. So who can make the decision now? George Bush? Whatever he wants? Hell - NO. What if just 65% of elected officials had a conscience and an interest in the people? I would trust the FCC in that case. No bare breasts on TV before 10pm? Ok, that's fine. That's what they do on channels like Showtime anyway (roughly).

I don't care about Janet's breast in the "oh my god a boob" sense. I care because it is just the record companies using the people like the tools they are. But hey, that's the people's fault. I care because the Super Bowl is the #1 television event in the world. And every year, the dignity of this country is stripped away and we show the world what morons we really are. Why the hell is Beonce or whatever singing the anthem? Why not a professional singer who can sing it loudly and with dignity? Well, money. And if I ever hear a "shoo bob de bob" during the anthem again, I am going to fip. Just sing the song with the right notes. That's my problem with Janet.

I agree with you in that cancelling every soap opera, etc. would clean up television. I have held the belief for a long time that daily television is much much worse for a child's mind than porn is. I believe that porn, while it can cause problems, isn't usually taken for more than it's worth. Wow, people doing it. What about television? The themes of sex, aduldtry, betrayal, etc. etc. I reiterate that I could not care less about these shows personally. Because I don't want to watch it, so I turn it off. I feel the need to clear that up. However, it is those various themes that are contained within the "realistically" portrayed plots of soap operas, sitcoms (yes, sitcoms), etc. that dement children.

Pornography gives kids an inaccurate view of sex? Sure, sometimes. The rest of television distorts kids' views of their own lives. They see these relationships, these real problems being solved in superficial ways. It is hard to nail down what I am trying to say here. It would take research into psychology. But it's true.

Video games bad? No. Again, it is the realisticaly portrayed plots, poor values, and sleazy themes in television. I hold this belief firmly. Blowing the crud out of monsters in [name your favorite shooter] has not hurt me or anyone else. If someone kills their friend because they saw it in a game then there are three truths:

1. Idiot kid
2. Idiot parents
3. Unlocked guns

Case in point - TV bad. Games, porn, movies - Not so bad.

In a movie you are surrounded in an adventure of sorts. A chance to get away. See this 90 minute story. Become enveloped in it, and walk away thinking "wow."

Television has become ubiquitous. Control on news networks is not in the right hands. Every other show is about ratings (duh) - and it just so happens that non stop sex sells. Unfortunately, morals have become so relaxed that nobody cares. It's not like people didn't like sex and watch sex in the 60's. But themes were subtle. Somewhere between then and now we passed over what is right & reasonable.

There's law or rule to look to to see what should and should not be allowed on television. But I guarantee you that if 10 people from this site sat around a table and just listed rules and applied them, they would be good rules and they would be accepted. No frontal nudity on basic cable. No more than 4 seconds of bare breast between 10 and 3am. It can go on and on. The last example is in the spirit of the system that is used for rating movies. Sometimes two extra seconds makes the difference between PG-13 and R. Or R and NC-17. But nobody complains about movie ratings. Nor should they. They're fine and accurate and if I choose to see them, I may.


"all the big name advertisers are going to throw a fit and pull their commercials."

Sponsoring is the source of non-governmental censorship. If the RIAA sponsors CNN news, then CNN will not report negatively on the RIAA. Why? Because the RIAA won't give them anymore money.

So in conclusion: Everything is good in moderation. It's just that if a country loses it's culture/values/morals, then it becomes hard to make rules that govern decency. Because then they end up either ridiculous, or are created in the interested of something/someone else.

i think the networks should hold common deceny in mind with no censorship to be imposed upon them. of course that wouldn't happen, but i can have a perfect world can't i? lol

correction a few lines up: There is *no law or rule to look to to see what should & should not be allowed...

death123,

That would be ideal. The same kind of "common decency" ideal is why everyone likes "mom and pop" joints. They're still stores. They still sell to make a profit. But they're decent people who want happy customers. The idea of "being decent" isn't unique to Super Bowl halftime shows and Howard Stern.

and the networks are more concerned with ratings and money than happy customers anyway.

Their being concerned with money doesn't surprise anyone. If I owned a business I would be all about the profits too. It's just that they are concerned about the money to the extent of actually hurting people's lives. Not just within the company, but even customers. And that this quest for riches and power by corporations is left unregulated, untouched by the government.

Who cares about me? I'm just a college kid.

And I still say investigate the RIAA's non-profit status. Why won't the government do this?? Will they not reap the tax benefits?

clear channel have always been pussies . when wtc was attacked clear channel pulled 200 songs that even remotely alluded to it (ex 'free falling'from tom petty") i would expect no less from them.

Are they the ones that made Bush rename "Speed Kills"?

I'd have to agree with your description of Clear Channel, pagan.

Howard Stern is in bed big-time with Clear Channel.. 'nuff said..