from RadioandRecords.com
June 30, 2004
from fmqb.com
June 30, 2004
Stern's press conference was carried live on the new affiliates this morning, but his show will not begin airing on the stations until he returns from his Fourth of July vacation week on July 12.
FMQB first broke the news yesterday afternoon that Stern would be returning to the airwaves in southeast Florida on Infinity Modern Rock "Buzz103.1 FM" WPBZ/West Palm Beach. The Stern Show replaces Mark, Genny & Dahmer. Mark Summers of the show made the following post on The Buzz's web site before his exit yesterday: "We regret to inform you that the show that you have known, loved, and grown up with for the past 9 years was relieved of it's duties today. That's right we (Mark, Genny & Dahmer) were told today that as of Wednesday, June 30th 2004 we will no longer be allowed to broadcast our show. The only reason given at the time was that Howard Stern would be replacing us." Stern's former southeast Florida home was CC Classic Rock WBGG/Miami.
Infinity CHR "B937" WBZZ/Pittsburgh takes over as Stern's home in the Steel City, where he replaces the B937 Morning Show of Dave, Bubba, Shelley and Brian. The station will flip format to 93.7 K-Rock - The Rock of Pittsburgh, New & Classic Rock - to coincide with Stern's addition. Stern's former home of CC Modern Rock WXDX just announced yesterday that highly-rated afternoon driver Alan Cox will be filling the void left by Stern's departure four months ago.
Infinity Modern Rock "O-Rock" WOCL/Orlando lets Stern take over for The O Show with Tony. CC Hot Talk WTKS was Stern's former home.
Infinity Classic Hits "The Planet" KPLN/San Diego bumps Woody & Wilcox out of morning drive to make room for Stern after he was removed from CC Active Rock KIOZ.
Infinity Modern Rock "The Zone" WZNE replaces CC Active Rock WNVE as Stern's affiliate in Rochester. The Zone drops Ty out of morning drive to make room for Stern.
The new Infinity stations that will now be carrying The Howard Stern Show will be Business News KIKK-AM/Houston, Sports WQYK-AM/Tampa (soon to flip format and be known as The Buzz), Rhythmic CHR KQBT-FM/Austin and Spanish/Romantica KRNC-FM/Fresno.
Louisville remains Stern-free with no new station picking up for CC Active Rock WTFX.
Keep checking back for updates on this breaking story.
from CNN.com
June 30, 2004
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Radio host Howard Stern took aim at the Bush administration, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and media giant Clear Channel as he announced Wednesday that his program will soon be broadcast on nine new stations across the country.
In a news conference held during his morning show, Stern said some of those stations -- in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; San Diego, California; West Palm Beach, Florida; Rochester, New York; and Orlando, Florida -- will replace Clear Channel stations that once carried the Howard Stern program.
In February, Clear Channel pulled Stern from six of the stations it owns after the FCC fined the company $495,000 for Stern comments that were deemed indecent.
"When I was thrown off the six stations I was devastated. I really thought Clear Channel had 'thrown me under the bus,'" Stern said.
"I'm not taking it sitting down. ... I'm going to kick their asses. ... I'm thrilled to be back on in these markets."
The radio host said he had considered moving to satellite radio, where he would face less FCC scrutiny, but decided to remain with his current radio contract with Infinity Broadcasting, which syndicates the Stern show. That contract has another 18 months to go.
"I'm so frustrated by the amount of censorship that's going on," Stern said "The FCC is on such a witch hunt against me that they actually go back 2 (or) 3 years for reasons to fine me. ... The FCC is on a witch hunt."
Stern accused Clear Channel of taking him off the air not for reasons of obscenity but because he had spoken out against President Bush.
"Clear Channel is very tied to the Bush administration" Stern said. "Clear Channel for years has been defending me...I criticize Bush and then I'm fired...They acted out of politics."
Stern lashed out against Bush administration's policies on everything from the environment, to stem cell research and the war in Iraq.
He said he was encouraging his listeners, whom he described as swing voters, to cast their ballots for John Kerry.
"John Kerry will receive more votes because of this. ... My audience will vote in a bloc," Stern said.
"We're also in a lot of key states. ... If we can affect that state that's big news."
from BestTalkRadio.com
June 30, 2004
In a related move, Infinity Broadcasting Inc., the Viacom Inc. . unit that syndicates Stern's program, said it would carry the show in four new markets.
Clear Channel, facing complaints from federal regulators for indecent antics of disc jockeys, dropped Stern in February from stations in Florida, California, Pennsylvania, New York and Kentucky.
The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court by two licensers of the program, said that Clear Channel violated terms of the agreements to air the show in those markets. The complaint was filed by One Twelve Inc., which provides Stern's services, and Infinity Broadcasting East, the FCC licensee of WXRK, the New York radio station where the show is produced.
In the action that will add outlets for Stern, Infinity Broadcasting said the four new markets would include Tampa, Florida; Houston and Austin, Texas; and Fresno, California. That would put the show on 45 stations in all, 27 of which are owned by Infinity.
In the suit against Clear Channel, Infinity and One Twelve accuse the company of wrongfully failing to notify them the show was being dropped as required by the contracts. They also charge that they are owed license fees.
The terms are contained in six license agreements for the stations dated between May 2001 and September 2002.
"Howard Stern is the only one who has broken the law." Andy Levin, Clear Channel executive vice president and chief legal officer, said in a statement. "His contract explicitly requires his show comply with all FCC rules and regulations. On several occasions, it clearly did not. Clear Channel Radio had both a legal right and an obligation to stop broadcasting it."
In June, Clear Channel admitted to airing indecent material and agreed to pay a record $1.75 million penalty to settle all existing complaints.
The company also agreed to take steps to prevent further such incidents, including formalizing its "zero tolerance" policy and training employees.
from RadioAndRecords
June 25, 2004
from TheHill.com
June 15, 2004
Radio shock jock Howard Stern is predicting that he will help deliver the heavily sought-after swing voters to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry this November.
On air yesterday, Stern told The Hill: "I'm both pro-Kerry and anti-Bush. More anti-Bush. I encourage people on the air and personally [to vote for him]. Here's the deal, dude. It turns out the show has a lot of influence among swing voters, voters who are not Republican or Democrat, but intelligent enough to vote for the good candidate." Stern said he has never met Kerry but considers him a "good guy."
Stern's listeners support Kerry over President Bush by a 10-point margin, according to a poll released last week.
In recent months, Stern has repeatedly lambasted the Bush administration for its crackdown on "indecent material" and called on his listeners to vote the president out of office.
Stern himself is a swing voter. Besides a brief run for governor as a Libertarian, Stern used his position to back two Republican gubernatorial candidates in New York and New Jersey. Both George Pataki and Christie Todd Whitman beat Democratic incumbents. Whitman even promised to name a highway oasis after Stern, and put a plaque with his name in a bathroom along the New Jersey turnpike.
Stern's vast audience includes 17 percent of likely voters, and they back Kerry 53 to 43 percent over Bush according to the poll. In so-called "battleground" states, Kerry beats Bush by 59 to 37 percent. The New Democrat Network (NDN), a centrist Democratic fundraising organization, commissioned Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, a Democratic firm, to conduct the poll.
On his website, Stern says that he is more influential than conservative radio hosts Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh because he claims his listeners are undecided voters and Hannity and Limbaugh's listeners are Republicans.
Don Imus, a New York-based political talk show host, has said on his program that he also supports Kerry.
Nevertheless, the poll shows that voters whose main source of news is radio support Bush 52 to 46 percent, perhaps reflecting the dominance of conservative talk radio.
Scott Stanzel, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman, dismissed the poll's results. "It's a partisan Democratic poll from a partisan group that's just one of the shadowy soft-money groups assisting the Kerry campaign," he said.
Simon Rosenberg, the NDN's executive director, responded, "Every poll they don't like they trash."
Allison Dobson, a Kerry spokeswoman, said: "I think the bottom line is that George Bush has disappointed a lot of people and his policies are taking the country in the wrong direction."
The NDN poll also reports that Stern's likely voters are overwhelmingly male and 40 percent are Democrats, 26 percent are Republicans and 34 percent are independents. His listeners are more liberal and younger than the average voter – 40 percent are under 35 years old. They are more diverse and more driven by economic issues than other voters as well.
Stern is best known for testing the limits of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) decency standards; strippers and dirty jokes are staples of his morning drive-time radio program.
When pop star Janet Jackson experienced a "wardrobe malfunction" in which she exposed her breast on national television during this year's Super Bowl halftime show, lawmakers clamored to score political advantage by making indecency on television and radio an issue.
Executives from CBS and MTV's parent company, Viacom, were hauled before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In March, Congress passed legislation that raised fines for indecency over the public airwaves, and Clear Channel Communications, which aired Stern's show on six of its stations, banned the show in April. Last week, Clear Channel agreed to pay $1.7 million in fines to the FCC to settle charges of indecency.
Since then, Stern has been lampooning the FCC, the Bush administration and Clear Channel.
Stern continues to antagonize Clear Channel and the FCC. While on air yesterday, he promoted an anti-Bush book, "Banana Republicans," and complained that it is commonplace for Republicans to use intimidation tactics against their opponents.
In 1996, Stern hosted a debate between ex-Rep. Richard Zimmer (R-N.J.) and Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.).
from the NY Daily News
June 11th, 2004
Stern has been rallying listeners to vote for Kerry as he routinely rails on his show against President Bush and the Federal Communications Commission's indecency crackdown.
Now, a new poll says Stern - with an estimated weekly audience of 8.5 million - could be Kerry's key to getting crucial swing voters on his bandwagon.
The survey, for the New Democrat Network, found Stern's listeners include 17% of likely voters, with a quarter being swing voters sought by both parties.
"This means that 4% of likely voters this fall are swing voters who listen to Howard Stern, showing Stern's potential impact on the race," the group said in statement yesterday.
The poll shows that Stern's fans in general support Kerry, by a margin of 53% to 43%.
In the 18 battleground states - including Arizona, Ohio, Colorado, West Virginia and Florida - Stern listeners go for Kerry by a margin of 59% to 37%. A whopping 34% of his faithful are independents.
Stern launched a "jihad" to defeat Bush after the FCC began assessing massive fines against stations that carry the jock.
"I'm asking you to do me one favor: Vote against Bush," Stern said on a recent broadcast. "I call on all fans of the show to vote against Bush. We're going to deliver the White House to John Kerry."
Bill Hutchinson
By Steven Thomma, Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Forget Al Franken. Democrats have a new champion on talk radio that they hope will counter the likes of conservative icons Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. It's shock jock Howard Stern.
Known more for crude talk of sex and lewd acts than politics or public policy, Stern has launched an on-air crusade he calls a "jihad" to defeat President Bush. He blames Bush for a government crackdown on his use of obscenity on the air.
And he's having an impact, apparently boosting the prospects of Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., according to a new Democratic poll released Thursday. That was welcome news to Democrats who've long ached for a liberal voice on talk radio and have watched in frustration as former comic Franken has struggled with a new program that has limited airplay.
"Howard Stern is the most influential political talk-show host in America today," said Michael Harrison, the editor of Talkers magazine, which covers the talk-radio industry.
Stern is going after Bush with near-obsessive zeal, a notable development in a medium in which 20 of the top 27 talk-show hosts are conservatives, including the top-rated Limbaugh and Hannity.
Stern's Web site preaches the virtues of freedom of speech and includes or links to numerous articles, sometimes obscene ones, criticizing or ridiculing Bush. On the air, he spends more and more time urging his listeners to vote against Bush.
"I'm asking you to do me one favor: Vote against Bush," he said on one recent program. "I call on all fans of the show to vote against Bush," he said on another. "We're going to deliver the White House to John Kerry."
Stern has dabbled in New York-area politics before, endorsing Republican Christine Todd Whitman when she ran for governor of New Jersey in 1993 and Republican George Pataki when he ran for governor of New York in 1994. Both won, and a grateful Whitman named a highway rest stop after Stern, as he'd requested. But Stern's new commitment is national in scope.
His anti-Bush crusade stems from the Federal Communications Commission's efforts to combat indecency on the public airwaves. The FCC recently fined radio station owner Clear Channel Communications a record $1.75 million for airing some Stern comments that the FCC deemed offensive. Stern objects that the FCC is censoring his right to free speech. Clear Channel pulled him off its six stations that aired him, though he remains on the air on 36 other stations nationwide.
It's that audience that could make Stern's campaign so important.
He has an estimated 8.5 million listeners each week, third after the 14.5 million who listen to Limbaugh and the 12 million who listen to Hannity, according to Talkers magazine.
But Limbaugh and Hannity devote their programs almost entirely to politics and policy. Their audiences are already interested in politics, and decidedly conservative. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center, for example, found that 77 percent of Limbaugh's listeners were conservative, 16 percent were moderate and 7 percent were liberal.
Stern's listeners are less interested in politics and more likely to be undecided, and thus are better prospects to be persuaded one way or the other, Harrison said.
"The Hannity/Limbaugh audience already knows where it's going," he said. "The Stern audience is fertile ground."
Stern's listeners are older and more affluent than some might think, having aged with the 50-year-old star. "It's a myth that young people listen to Stern," Harrison said. "He's an old guy to them. Their world is far raunchier, far edgier than anything Howard Stern does. They live in the world of the Internet, of porn sites."
It's not just Stern's listeners who could be swayed to vote against Bush. When Clear Channel pulled the plug on Stern, it took him off the air in two cities in Florida, leaving untold numbers of irate fans in a state where the last presidential election was decided by 537 votes.
Nationwide, 17 percent of likely voters listen to Stern's radio show, according to the poll released Thursday by the New Democrat Network, a Washington-based group. They favor Kerry over Bush by 53 percent to 43 percent, and by 59 to 37 percent in 18 battleground states.
Of the likely voters who listen to Stern, 1 out of 4 is a swing voter who hasn't decided how to vote in November. That means that about 4 percent of the national swing vote up for grabs this fall listens to Stern, according to the poll.
"You're now seeing a guy who has phenomenal reach of swing voters and a huge percentage of people who are going to be critical voters in the election spending all of his day every day going after the president," said Simon Rosenberg, the president of the New Democrat Network.
"Rush Limbaugh has met his match."
from the NY Times
June 9, 2004
Clear Channel Communications, one of the nation's largest owners of radio stations, has reached an agreement with the Federal Communications Commission to pay more than $1.7 million in penalties to settle a series of indecency complaints, three people briefed on the negotiations said last night.
Barring a last-minute breakdown, the total fine that Clear Channel has agreed to pay - an estimated $1.75 million - would represent the largest ever negotiated between a broadcaster and the commission.
The largest penalty previously secured by the commission against a broadcaster involved Infinity Broadcasting, which agreed in 1995 to pay $1.7 million to the commission to settle complaints against Howard Stern.
Clear Channel's agreement with the F.C.C. also involves, in part, Mr. Stern's actions on the airwaves. The company is expected to admit that some of the material that it broadcast on its stations - including several segments of a Stern radio show during which anal sex was discussed - was indecent, according to one person close to the negotiations. That admission could prove a problem for Infinity, a unit of Viacom. The company has maintained that however offensive Mr. Stern's comments may be to some people, they do not meet the legal definition of indecent speech, and are thus protected by the First Amendment.
The agreement between Clear Channel and the commission would in effect settle any listener complaints made against its stations. Among the complaints are those concerning a 20-minute segment of the Stern show, much of it about anal sex, that Clear Channel broadcast last year on six of its stations; in April, the commission proposed fining the company $495,000 over that segment. (At the time, commission officials said that they had begun to examine whether it should penalize Infinity, which is Mr. Stern's employer and which broadcast the same segment on 18 of its stations.) The agreement also covers other listener complaints against Clear Channel, many of them yet to be made public by the commission. For Clear Channel - which suspended Mr. Stern's show on its stations in February and stopped carrying it permanently in April - the agreement represents an opportunity for political, as well as financial, finality on the issue, in an election year in which Janet Jackson's Super Bowl breast-baring has pushed such matters to the fore.
The proposed $1.75 million in fines would be on top of the $755,000 penalty that Clear Channel agreed to pay in March because of graphic and sexually explicit material broadcast in Florida on the "Bubba the Love Sponge" program, whose host, Todd Clem, has since been dismissed.
For the commission, and its chairman, Michael K. Powell, the agreement represents something of a trophy. Not only would the fines be the highest in F.C.C. history, but Clear Channel would admit that it had broadcast indecent material.
Clear Channel has also pledged not to go to court to challenge any of the complaints - including those that Clear Channel believes involved material that would not meet the legal definition of indecency.
A Clear Channel spokeswoman, Lisa Dollinger, did not respond to a message left last night seeking comment. A spokesman for Mr. Powell, David Fiske, declined to comment.
The agreement between Clear Channel and the commission, which could be announced as soon as this week, comes as the F.C.C. has been taking a more aggressive posture toward curbing sexual content and profanity on the nation's airwaves.
In March, the commission reversed an earlier ruling and found that NBC had violated decency standards by broadcasting a single vulgarity uttered by Bono, the lead singer of U2. That occurred while he was accepting an award during the Golden Globes ceremony in 2003.
Congress has also sought to be heard on the overall issue.
In March, the House of Representatives, by an overwhelming margin, passed a bill that would toughen the penalties for broadcasting material deemed to be indecent. A similar bill that includes a provision that would seek to rein in violence on television has been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee, though it has not yet been scheduled for discussion by the full Senate.
In the midst of the government's stepped-up interest in the decency issue, some producers and civil rights advocates have complained that the pendulum of what broadcasters consider appropriate has swung too far in the direction of self-censorship.
This year, for example, an Indianapolis radio station owned by Emmis Communications used its so-called "dump button" - an electronic delay device - to pre-empt the words "urinate," "damn" and "orgy" from being heard by listeners during its broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
from reuters.com
Jun 3, 2004
Viacom has already begun identifying which stations to sell under its Infinity umbrella, Redstone told investors at a conference organized by Sanford C. Bernstein in New York. He did not elaborate on how many stations would be sold.
"We probably will sell some of those stations to others, who are more avaricious about radio than we are," said Redstone, who reiterated a commitment to not sell Infinity.
The company's commitment to revamp its radio unit comes just two days after veteran radio executive Mel Karmazin abruptly resigned as Viacom president and chief operating officer after an uncomfortable tenure under Redstone.
Redstone said he expected that Infinity would show operating improvements through the year. "Radio is growing, but not as fast as we would like," he said. But it is "certainly not the business it was when Mel was king of that business."
New York-based Viacom, which owns the CBS television network, MTV and the Paramount movie studio, also plans to seek out potential cable channels to buy, but does not see any major deals in sight, Redstone said.
Redstone also said he planned to back controversial radio host, Howard Stern, who has lamented the loss of Karmazin, his biggest supporter.
"We'll give him the support," Redstone said. "I believe he will stay with us."
Separately, Redstone shot down speculation Viacom was looking to break into the video games business. He said Viacom once looked at leading game publisher, Electronic Arts Inc., but its current stock price made an acquisition too expensive.
Viacom's widely traded Class B shares closed the day up 38 cents to $37.18 on the New York Stock Exchange. Electronic Arts ended 79 cents higher at $51.36 on Nasdaq.
frpm Radio Ink
June 3, 2004
Karmazin, however, is urging Stern and Viacom to make peace with each other. "Howard is a very important profit contributor to Viacom," Karmazin reportedly told the Wall Street Journal. "Hopefully, Viacom will continue to support him, because he is clearly not broadcasting indecency."
"Howard made Mel rich, and Mel made Howard rich, and there is a loyalty there, and Mel has been a very staunch defender of Howard," Jon Mandel, co-chief executive of Grey Global Group Inc.'s MediaCom, told the Journal. "I hope Howard sticks around. It would be bad for the industry, it would be bad for radio and it would be bad for the fight against censorship if Howard decided to just throw a howling hissy fit."
from CBS.MarketWatch.com
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Mel Karmazin is one of radio's most optimistic advocates, but the recent struggles of the Infinity radio group hastened his departure from Viacom, according to Chairman Sumner Redstone.
In addition to Karmazin being "frustrated" by the company's stock price (VIA.B: news, chart, profile) (VIA: news, chart, profile), Redstone told analysts on a conference call Tuesday that the former president and chief operating officer was also dismayed by disappointing results at Infinity. See full story.
Infinity's profit from operations fell 3 percent in 2003 from the previous year, though things seemed to be looking up in the first quarter of this year, with operating income up 5 percent in the first quarter to $199.2 million.
Amid an advertising downturn that has plagued the industry for the better part of four years, Karmazin has offered no excuses for the radio group's performance.
It was this attitude that helped Karmazin build Infinity into a powerhouse that grew from six stations at the time of his arrival to nearly 200. But Karmazin's optimism leaves him with little tolerance for those who fall short of his expectations.
"One of the good things that Mel has always brought to the table is a positive view toward [advertising] rates," said Frank Boyle, a station broker and former chairman of Eastman Radio, the leading radio sales rep firm in the 1970s and '80s, who worked with Karmazin on many occasions over the past 30 years.
"When you're in a down market, the odds are you're going to lose business if you stick to your rate card. If you do not bring some flexibility to it, then your competitors are going to say, 'Why buy Mr. Arrogance? Buy us. Our rates are going to reflect more of what's going on in the economic world than Infinity's stations.'"
If Karmazin is displeased with a sales executive's performance, there's nowhere to hide, added Boyle, citing people who have worked for him. "You don't have a red phone like there is in the White House, but it's almost like that. And when someone says, 'Mel is on line four,' you may have to go to the laundry afterwards. Because he's a difficult taskmaster."
'Good environment'
In the first quarter of last year, when several other radio companies mentioned the negative impact of the U.S.-led war on Iraq on their ad sales, Karmazin could see no reason for Infinity's 2 percent decline in revenue compared with the first quarter of 2002. On a conference call with analysts at the time, he said the drop had occurred in "an extraordinarily good advertising environment."
John Fullam, Infinity's chief operating officer at the time, was fired in April 2003, and replaced by Joel Hollander, who had been chief executive at the radio network Westwood One. Hollander then reorganized the group's ad sales department.
Some analysts said those moves were fine, but that what Infinity is battling goes far beyond its own internal structure.
"I think management has done what they could do, but I think radio is becoming an increasingly tertiary medium," said Todd Mitchell, an analyst at Blaylock & Partners in New York. "It's basically losing share. One of the things you can look at is that radio consolidated within an inch of its life, and is probably fully penetrated by the types of advertisers that actually can use radio well."
Mitchell points to the Web, music downloading, cable television and satellite radio as some of the reasons audiences are pulling away from traditional radio.
Donna Halper, a Boston-based programming consultant and media historian, said radio isn't dying, but merely changing -- again. "I can show you clips from 1948, and they could've been written yesterday. People are always saying radio is dead," she elaborated. "They predicted that television was going to replace radio, then that the Internet was going to replace radio.
"What always happens is that the next new medium takes share from the media that are perceived as old, but ... somehow, radio has always found some place in people's lives," Halper added.
Halper indicated Karmazin deserves full credit for turning around CBS Radio after he merged Infinity with what was then CBS Corp. in early 1997. "Most people don't remember that as recently as a decade ago, CBS was pretty far behind in radio. It perhaps had a long and distinguished history, but in a lot of markets, CBS Radio was at the bottom of the barrel," she said. "And Mel gave that company credibility again."
Karmazin puts Infinity on the map
By 1970, the 27-year-old Karmazin had spent several years at an ad agency, and had spent the last three years selling radio spots for WCBS-AM in New York. He was ready to move to Metromedia's WNEW-AM and FM, where he would rise to general manager within five years.
Infinity Broadcasting, a small radio group founded by two former Metromedia executives, Michael Wiener and Gerald Carrus, lured Karmazin away in 1981, installing him as chief executive.
At Infinity, Karmazin, along with Farid Suleman, the longtime CFO of the company, "became a very effective team as ruthless cost-cutters, with a real focus on driving more revenue, making more sales calls," said Harry DeMott, a partner at Gothic Capital Management in New York. "And as deregulation began to roll, they continually bought more stuff, built more, ran it better and better, and built quite a company."
Infinity had climbed to 44 stations by 1996, when the Telecommunications Act knocked down decades-old rules that limited the number of stations one entity could own.
Karmazin approached CBS with the intention of buying its then-lagging radio group, but CBS chief Michael Jordan turned the tables, offering Infinity (which had gone public in 1992) $4.9 billion in stock for its stations. The merger was done, and Karmazin was named chairman and chief executive of CBS Radio in January 1997.
To the surprise of no one, Karmazin was in charge of CBS radio and television stations before that year was out, and made an immediate impact. He laid off many sales people at the TV stations and took the staff off salary, putting them on 100 percent commissions-based compensation.
The tactics were successful, resulting in improved revenue and profits at the TV stations, which had largely been in disarray.
"He was very successful at the CBS O&Os [owned and operated stations]," said DeMott. "Though unlike radio, where the programming is relatively similar from group to group with just tweaks here and there, CBS stations were ultimately helped by 'Survivor,' 'CSI' and some of the other hits they've had. But there was always a focus on fixing the CBS TV group, and that was in process before Viacom got their hands on it, and it just accelerated after that."
For all of Karmazin's bluster, he does have an instinctive understanding of how to reward solid performers, according to Halper.
She pointed out that it was Karmazin who hired Howard Stern after the shock jock was fired from WNBC in New York. And despite numerous fines and threats from the Federal Communications Commission, Karmazin has stood by Stern.
"Many people fear Mel, many people feel that you'd better not get on the wrong side of him," Halper said. "But Mel is also very loyal. Howard will tell you ... if you're doing your job, and making a profit, he'll leave you alone."
Boyle said he doubts that Karmazin will wind up taking over Walt Disney Co. (DIS: news, chart, profile), despite the hopes of the founder's disgruntled nephew, Roy Disney. Karmazin is more likely, he added, to "do what he has always done, and run his own store." See full story.
Viacom is a significant shareholder in MarketWatch.com, the publisher of this report.
David B. Wilkerson is a reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com in San Francisco.
from Reuters
June 1, 2004
Viacom was not immediately available to comment.
Karmazin headed CBS Corp. until Viacom bought the company in 2000 and named him president and chief operating officer of Viacom.
Karmazin has been much respected on Wall Street, but his tenure has been characterized by tension with the 80-year-old Redstone.
Karmazin is said to have clashed with Redstone over the years ranging from acquisition strategy, Karmazin's sale of stock in the past, and advertising sales strategy.
Viacom shares rose 6 percent in premarket trading to $39, up from a close of $36.89 on Friday on the New York Stock Exchange.
from the Viacom web site
Undated
MEL KARMAZIN
President and Chief Operating Officer, Viacom
Mel Karmazin became President and Chief Operating Officer of Viacom in May 2000, upon the merger of Viacom and CBS. He had served as President and Chief Executive Officer of CBS Corporation since January 1999.
Mr. Karmazin, who serves on the Viacom Board of Directors, is responsible for overseeing all of Viacom's operations. Viacom is one of the world's largest entertainment and media companies, and a leader in the production, promotion and distribution of entertainment, news, sports, music and comedy. The company's properties include CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, BET, Paramount Pictures, Viacom Outdoor, Infinity Broadcasting, UPN, Spike TV, TV Land, CMT: Country Music Television, Comedy Central, Showtime, Blockbuster and Simon & Schuster.
Mr. Karmazin had been President and Chief Operating Officer, CBS Corporation, from April 1998 to January 1999. He joined CBS in January 1997 as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, CBS Radio, through a merger of Westinghouse/CBS and Infinity Broadcasting, where he had served as President and Chief Executive Officer from 1981 until Infinity became a wholly owned subsidiary of Viacom in February 2001. He was named Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, CBS Station Group (Radio and Television), in May 1997.
Mr. Karmazin serves on the Board of Directors of Westwood One, Blockbuster and the New York Stock Exchange, and is Vice Chairman of the Museum of Television and Radio. He was inducted into the Broadcasting Hall of Fame, and has received the National Association of Broadcasters National Radio Award and the IRTS Gold Medal Award. He is a graduate of Pace University.
--snips--
from prnewswire.com
Mr. Freston is currently the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Viacom's MTV Networks unit, a position he has held since 1987. Mr. Moonves is currently Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CBS, a position he has held since 2003. He joined CBS in 1995 as President, CBS Entertainment.
In their new roles, Messrs. Freston and Moonves will jointly oversee all of the operations of Viacom, as directed by Mr. Redstone. The Company's corporate staff will report directly to Mr. Redstone. In addition to MTV Networks, Mr. Freston will be responsible for overseeing the operations of Showtime, BET, Paramount Parks, Simon & Schuster and the motion picture operations of Paramount Pictures. In addition to overseeing Viacom's broadcast television businesses, Mr. Moonves will be responsible for the operations of Paramount TV, Infinity Broadcasting and Viacom Outdoor.
The appointments are part of a corporate succession plan, which will provide for the orderly transition to the next generation of senior management for Viacom. In connection with this plan, Mr. Redstone has indicated that he will relinquish his role as Chief Executive Officer within three years. Prior to that date, Mr. Redstone will continue to work with the Board to identify his successor and to designate candidates for other senior positions in the corporation. The plan was developed with Mr. Redstone by the Board's Governance Committee, which is comprised of three independent directors, and has been unanimously approved by the Viacom Board.
Sumner M. Redstone, Viacom Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, stated: "Viacom is poised to move into a new era of growth led by an innovative team of executives, beginning with our new Presidents and Chief Operating Officers, Tom Freston and Les Moonves. I have worked closely with both Tom and Les for many years and there are no two finer executives in the media industry. Each has presided over phenomenal growth stories, Les in broadcast and Tom at the cable networks, and each has served as an integral member of Viacom's senior management team. Obviously, Tom and Les are the two leading candidates to be the next CEO of Viacom.
"I am very excited about working with Tom, Les and the other great executives at Viacom to bring Viacom to a new level of performance based on the creative excellence and innovation that has always been at the core of my vision for this Company. The financial discipline that you have come to expect from us will not change. We will continue to be fiscally prudent in managing our businesses, and we will continue to emphasize free cash flow growth."
Mr. Redstone continued, "We very much regret Mel's decision to resign and we wish him well. He has been instrumental in Viacom's operating success since our merger with CBS and he leaves with an extraordinary track record of accomplishment. We appreciate that he has agreed to stay on as a consultant for two months to help Tom and Les with the transition to their new posts."
David McLaughlin, Chairman of the Board's Governance Committee, said: "The Board's succession plan results from the Board's process to identify and elevate executives to senior managerial roles over the next several years and represents a natural progression for Viacom. The appointment of Tom and Les highlights Viacom's deep pool of talent, recognizes the Company's continuing commitment to core growth areas and reflects its strategic long-term focus on content creation. The Board is confident that, working with Sumner, we will identify and put in place the ideal senior management team for Viacom that will not only build on the Company's legacy of success, but will continue to provide for the long-term benefit of all shareholders."
Tom Freston stated: "I am excited about the opportunity to play a greater role at Viacom. After so many years at MTV and MTV Networks, Viacom is a Company that I love, and one that I know intimately. I have had the privilege to play a key role in MTV Networks' expansion and Viacom's operational and financial growth since the beginning, and I relish this new challenge. I am looking forward to working with Sumner, Les and all my talented colleagues at Viacom who I have collaborated with for many years. With our strong vision, our vibrant culture and our incredible brands, we will further strengthen Viacom's position as the premier media company."
Leslie Moonves stated: "It has been extremely gratifying to play a role in the CBS comeback over the past several years, working with a great team. I am excited to take on these new responsibilities at such an important moment in the evolution of Viacom, and I am thrilled that I will be working so closely with Sumner and Tom as we chart the future for this great Company. Viacom's assets and management are the best in the business and I know that working together we will take Viacom to new heights."
Mel Karmazin stated: "After more than 20 years with the Company, for personal and professional reasons, I have decided to leave Viacom and pursue other challenges. Viacom is performing exceptionally well with leadership positions in all of its businesses. The Company's very talented management team will ensure its continued success."
from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
May 24, 2004
One Floridian has silenced free speech for Pittsburghers.
He has determined that grown-ups are incapable of choosing what is best for the collective society. So he, and those in government sharing his agenda, will decide for you.
That is why Howard Stern was pulled from WXDX (105.9 FM).
Stern was taken off the "X" here and at the five other Clear Channel Communications radio stations that had carried his program. Thank a Miami lawyer who does not like the shock jock. And does not care how many listeners do.
His Federal Communications Commission complaint about indecency regarding Stern's April 9, 2003, show resulted in a $495,000 FCC fine for Clear Channel. Since it could not afford more fines, Stern was shut down. Even though millions of Stern listeners nationwide love him.
Free speech was muzzled by one man. Meet Jack Thompson.
"The typical Stern listener has an IQ below room temperature. We need more of me and fewer Sterns. If people do not like it, that is tough," he said.
When I called Thompson, I really wanted to dislike him because of his campaign to feed the First Amendment to a paper shredder.
But he happens to be a very knowledgeable sports fan who, like me, loved the old American Basketball Association, including the Pittsburgh teams.
So much for making this personal. Dang.
What Thompson heard on Stern's show admittedly was raunchy, yet he listened for 30 disgusting minutes. Everyone else who usually listens probably likes that type of entertainment. Even with millions of listeners, it only takes one complaint from one offended person to generate an FCC ruling that effectively prohibits everyone else from enjoying their programs.
How hot must a bonfire be to burn radio and TV sets?
"The fact that (Stern listeners) are not offended is troubling," Thompson said. "I would not expect them to be offended." Because after all, they do not matter.
The FCC has no complaint form for those with no complaints about the radio and TV shows they choose.
"That is the way the FCC works," said Marv Johnson, legislative council of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It does not matter how many other people are listening."
Blasphemy is the traditional definition of profanity, according to Johnson. However, the FCC also now has ruled that dropping the F-bomb is profane. "When the government is saying that this is blasphemous and that is not, it essentially has to pick a religion."
It is easy to blame Thompson and other sanctimonious silencers for effectively censoring speech. But they simply are following the rules that government wrote. And he is not stopping with Stern.
Since the FCC ruled Stern indecent, Thompson is trying to have the corporate officers that Stern works for be prosecuted criminally. Thompson cites a federal law stating that broadcasting indecent material is a criminal act punishable by up to two years of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
Folks, it is just getting started.
"(H)ere at the FCC we are continuing to press forward on a vast pile of complaints," according to FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, in an interview with trade publication Radio & Records.
Allow others to define your morals, and you get relentless crusaders such as Jack Thompson.
And his tenacity. Or as he put it: "So many pornographers, so little time."
from Nashville City Paper
May 24, 2004
It’s taken them quite a while, but the broadcasting industry has begun fighting back against the Federal Communications Commission’s overly broad indecency campaign. As usual, FCC head Michael Powell has pursued a personal agenda, greatly warping and altering the agency’s legitimate role as a media watchdog.
Since the infamous Janet Jackson breast-baring fiasco at the Super Bowl, Powell has railed nonstop against what he sees as a media obsession with sex and violence and the negative impact this has on youthful viewers and listeners. Unfortunately, his heavy-handed methods, in particular threatening stations with exorbitant fines and issuing public statements implying that the FCC might soon target soap operas and afternoon talk shows, reveal someone more interested in being a de facto censor than seriously addressing content and quality issues.
Now the conglomerate media seems to have gotten its spine back. Last month a 24-member group of broadcast organizations like Viacom, Fox and the Recording Industry Association of America and artists’ unions and free speech advocates filed a petition asking the commission to reconsider the ridiculous ruling that fined NBC for the one-time utterance of U2 lead singer Bono at the Golden Globes. Anyone watching Bono’s reaction realizes that it was an in-the-moment utterance, hardly an attempt to put vulgarity into prime time. The FCC initially didn’t fine NBC, but changed its decision under pressure from Powell and his commission cronies.
Robert Corn-Revere, the group’s counsel, explained the FCC’s strategy in the May 27 Rolling Stone saying that “The FCC announced a standard that would allow it to censor all kinds of things — anything considered blasphemous, coarse or vulgar. It puts the commission in the role of regulating taste.” A separate story in the same publication revealed how several rock radio stations are dropping or re-editing songs for fear of not meeting the new standard. These include Lou Reed’s “Walk On The Wild Side,” Steve Miller’s “Jet Air Liner” and even the Who’s “Who Are You.”
“It’s absurd,” Reed told Rolling Stone. “It’s like being censored by a squirrel. It’s done by people who are very pious and stupid.”
The FCC action is also making First Amendment martyrs and sympathetic figures out of such controversial jocks as Howard Stern, while simultaneously juicing its popularity and public impact. Stern may have been dropped by a handful of Clear Channel stations and fined $495,000 for on-air comments, but his program remains syndicated on 35 stations nationwide and is now enjoying banner ratings. Powell managed to get Stern sympathy from commentators on the left (Al Franken, Michael Feldman) and right (Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz), while turning Stern from an apolitical radio host concentrating on frat house humor and interviews with adult film stars into a Bush and FCC basher reaching 18 million people weekdays on air and another four million daily on his Web site.
Unquestionably, there’s plenty of bad taste and vulgarity on the nation’s radio and television airwaves. But the FCC bull-in-a-china shop strategy not only hasn’t helped matters, it’s quite possibly made them worse. By their selective prosecution (for example, ignoring the hideous conduct and offensive content on reality television) and misuse of fines as a weapon, Powell and the FCC have only garnered larger audiences for broadcasters they claim are indecent while helping ruin what left’s of good commercial rock radio. Hopefully, the folks at Viacom, the RIAA and everyone else in this new coalition will take this fight as far as necessary and get the FCC back in the business of regulating business transactions, not programming.
Ron Wynn is a staff writer at The City Paper.
from the Austin American-Statesman
May 23, 2004
In New York, Howard Stern asks a stripper to unveil her new implants so he can describe them to his listeners.
In Chicago, Mancow Muller discusses naughty sexual practices with a sidekick, Turd.
And in Los Angeles, Tom Leykis urges female listeners to flash motorists on the freeway, while he muses on his favorite types of "boobage."
Scandalous attacks on America's high moral character? Not really.
Punishable offenses that could generate millions of dollars in federal fines? Quite possibly.
The almost-anything-goes world of shock-jock radio has turned upside down since Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show, her armor-plated nipple-shield apparently rattling the foundations of the American radio industry.
Since that fleeting glimpse of Jackson's mostly obscured anatomy, the Federal Communications Commission has issued more than $1.5 million in fines to broadcast companies airing Stern, Muller and Bubba the Love Sponge (a k a Tom Clem), among others, for broadcasts that occurred long before Jackson's internationally televised, split-second striptease.
Moreover, with the U.S. House of Representatives recently passing a bill allowing fines of $500,000 for each instance of radio "indecency," with the White House voicing support and the U.S. Senate considering even more draconian measures, the climate for provocative speech on America's radio airwaves has changed dramatically and swiftly.
Yet for all the federal muscle-flexing and media hubbub, the broadcasts themselves hardly have changed at all. This month, Stern waxed poetic about public defecation in Las Vegas; a Muller sidekick riffed briefly on NBA star Kobe Bryant's rape charge; and, somehow, the world stayed on its axis.
Observers on both sides of the free-speech debate -- libertarians who believe the marketplace should decide what's broadcast and moralists who want to decree what everyone else gets to hear -- agree that the recent controversies hardly have made a dent on what we hear on the radio (unless you happen to live in one of the six, midsize markets from which Stern was dropped by Clear Channel Communications).
Both sides, however, fear what's coming.
"If the FCC succeeds in silencing Howard Stern, it could be radio's death knell," says Bruce DuMont, founder and president of the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago and host of "Beyond the Beltway," a nationally syndicated political talk show.
Counters Bill Johnson, president of the Michigan-based American Decency Organization, "The radio industry is circling its wagons, the momentum for change is slowing down.
"Our culture is headed downward."
The real issue at play here, however, is not whether American culture is blossoming or dying on the vine but, rather, whether the federal government should impose steep fines to try to influence inevitable shifts in public taste.
Do Americans, in other words, concur with FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who said in 2001, "I don't know that I want the government as my nanny"?
Or do they agree with Powell's abrupt turnabout, after rock star Bono uttered an expletive in a nonsexual exclamation during 2003's Golden Globes TV show?
"A clear line has been crossed, and the government has no choice but to act," Powell said in March, as the FCC decreed the Bono incident "indecent and profane," though without issuing a fine.
Buildup to fines
Powell's flip-flop unintentionally but eloquently expressed the quick change of environment that has taken place in our broadcast culture. After roughly two decades of minimal FCC action on radio indecency, the agency in the past several months seems to have grown muscles, levying individual fines as high as $755,000 against San Antonio-based Clear Channel Communications for radio skits in which Bubba the Love Sponge mocked Scooby-Doo, George Jetson and Alvin the Chipmunk in absurdly sexual terms.
Clear Channel fired Bubba and dropped Stern, the latter after the company received a $495,000 FCC fine for earlier Stern broadcasts, including a discussion of a certain sex act that was accompanied by prerecorded sounds of flatulence.
So why exactly did sophomoric broadcasts by Stern, Bubba and their colleagues -- clearly intended to jolt listeners the way a teenager mooning passersby from a speeding car might do -- suddenly become a federal case?
Beyond the obvious trigger of l'affaire Jackson, which only intensified an FCC fining binge that had begun a few months earlier, an argument can be made that some public resentment has been building as American broadcast media exploded beginning in the late 1970s.
The rapid proliferation of FM stations -- with the FCC creating spots on the dial for hundreds of new outlets in the 1980s -- arguably ushered in the age of the "shock jock." Typically a twentysomething white male who tried to stand out from the pack, early practitioners such as Steve Dahl in Chicago and Stern in various markets offered lusty discussions of sex, race, toilet habits, musical tastes and anything else that might attract and provoke an audience.
As early as July 1979, Dahl, a Chicago radio personality, incited his listeners to join him in a "Disco Demolition Night" at Comiskey Park before a baseball game. Dahl then presided over the ceremonial explosion of a crate of disco records. The event erupted into a riot. The playing field was mauled, 37 people were arrested and the upcoming White Sox game canceled, but Dahl emerged a national media star.
Before Stern hit the big time in New York, in the 1980s, he was refining his scatological, adolescent-based humor at radio stations from Detroit to Washington, D.C. His antics got him fired, hired, fined and, eventually, propelled him to the status of ringmaster of a syndicated, Manhattan-based show now heard on 35 stations nationwide and rebroadcast -- in part -- on cable's E! Entertainment Television network.
Though most Stern imitators failed to build an audience, a few who have followed in his wake -- such as Muller and Leykis -- similarly have carved a national following by offering gleefully rude, crude, lewd programs aimed at the free-spending, young-adult male audience that advertisers covet.
Fuzzy rules
But even before Jackson's semi-naked dance, conservative activists were trying to drum up support to get Stern and colleagues booted off the air, to little avail.
They found a receptive ear, however, in the Bush administration's FCC.
Earlier, "The FCC hadn't been doing its job, in my opinion," says David Edward Smith, who has been relentless in filing FCC complaints against Muller, prompting Muller to file a harassment suit against him in March. "And now they're finally starting to do their job."
Even if it were possible to define, to everyone's satisfaction, the meaning of indecency, constitutional scholars argue that the FCC has a limited legal basis for controlling speech.
"We have a very expansive constitutional protection of free speech, and even on the airwaves, the FCC's power is sharply limited," says Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago and a noted expert on First Amendment issues.
"Basically, what's going on here involves speech that is constitutionally protected. Not all of it, but there's a lot of room to say offensive things on the airwaves."
But no one, including the commissioners of the FCC, has concretely spelled out exactly which words, phrases and verbal images are indecent, outside of the "seven dirty words" proclaimed by comedian George Carlin but subsequently banned from the airwaves by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978.
With the FCC retroactively deeming some broadcasts indecent, then levying staggering fines against select infractions, broadcasters literally have no idea when they're crossing a line into forbidden territory, and when they're not.
"Basically, the FCC is saying: 'We're not going to tell you what's dirty, but if it is dirty, we're going to bash your skull in,' " says Muller, whose show has drawn $42,000 in FCC fines.
"We're easy targets. Label somebody a 'shock jock,' and who's going to stick up for them? Call it porn, and who's going to stick up for it?
"You'll notice the FCC is not attacking hip-hop stations where practically every song is X-rated."
A threat to leave
The selective enforcement of vaguely defined rules helps explain why Stern has vowed to quit his show if the House legislation becomes law. He has mused aloud about taking his bevy of strippers, porn stars and flatulence performers to the fledgling satellite radio industry, which, like cable TV, is heard only by subscribers and, so far, at least, operates outside FCC control.
But does America really want Stern and his ilk to flee the airwaves, leaving a government-controlled radio industry that caters exclusively to particular tastes?
"People keep saying, 'Stop forcing your morality on us,' " says Smith, the Muller critic who recently was hired as senior policy analyst at the Glen Ellyn-based Illinois Family Institute.
"I say, 'Stop forcing your immorality on us.' "
What effect the public debate on indecency is having on listenership is impossible to gauge, and not only because Arbitron -- the ratings service -- does not break down statistics for "shock jocks." But considering that Stern's numbers for the winter recently shot up in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago while Muller dropped from seventh to 17th in Chicago, individual audiences clearly are reacting differently.
Ultimately, it's probably too soon to know whether we're going through a brief cultural blip or entering a period of curtailment of expression.
"One hopes that this is a fleeting moment," says Gretchen Soderlund, an assistant professor in the University of Chicago's department of sociology.
The morality crusaders, however, despair that they're getting nowhere fast.
"I think it's very much an uphill battle," says Johnson of the American Decency Association.
"Are the airwaves any cleaner? I'd say it's still early to know, but, up to this point, I don't think so."
|
from philadelphiaweekly.com
Week of May 19 - 25, 2004
Old lady judges watch people in pairs Limited in sex, they dare To push fake morals, insult and stare While money doesn't talk, it swears Obscenity, who really cares Propaganda, all is phony. --Bob Dylan
It's another TGI Friday night at Brady's Irish Pub, a colorless suburban rock club tucked away in a Bensalem strip mall. The party animals have been let out of their cages. The beer taps kick into overdrive. A cover band blares yeoman versions of yellowing alt-metal hits from the '90s by Stone Temple Pilots and Metallica.
Brady's is the kind of place where a backward ball cap is still considered au courant. A 30ish bottle blond wiggles by saucily, precariously balanced on a pair of eff-me pumps, her prodigious bosom tightly ensconced in a canary-yellow wife-beater emblazoned with the words "YOU WISH." A mullet-headed man walks by, his meaty arms sprouting from a sleeveless T-shirt bearing the noble message "SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL HOOKERS."
It's here, of all places, that a small guerrilla action in the ongoing ground war over the First Amendment is being waged. Tom Cipriano--the fireplug-sized phony phone caller better known to Howard Stern listeners as Captain Janks--is hosting the indelicately titled Fuck the FCC Freedom Rally to drum up support for the embattled shock jock.
Howard's in trouble. As he reminds his listeners daily, his show, heard locally on WYSP (94.1 FM), is in imminent danger of being fined off the airwaves. And the good folks on hand tonight at Brady's Irish Pub are answering the call by standing up for the First Amendment while getting their drunk on.
On numerous occasions over the course of his rise and resulting reign as the self-appointed king of all media, Stern has incurred the wrath of the FCC. In the past, the fines levied against him have paled in comparison to the massive ad revenue his syndicated show generates--a mere speeding ticket on the way to winning the Indy 500.
But these are different times. In the wake of Janet Jackson's Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction," we find ourselves in the midst of a bare-knuckles crackdown on broadcast indecency, and some of the media's loudest megaphones are being muzzled.
Upping the fear factor, Congress is proposing massive increases in the fines that the FCC can levy against violators. What was once a slap on the wrist could soon become a career-ending can of whupass.
But the repercussions don't end there. In fact, waves of moral panic are rippling through the entire broadcast spectrum.
PBS, that bastion of sin and temptation, has started airing "expurgated" versions of Masterpiece Theater, and one Indianapolis radio station is now bleeping words like "urinate," "damn" and "orgy" from its broadcasts of the Rush Limbaugh show. No, that's not a typo: Rush Limbaugh.
Alas, the dreaded wolf of censorship that First Amendment alarmists have been crying about for years is finally at the door.
With his livelihood (an estimated $18 million a year)--not to mention his legacy--at stake and the FCC's heavy boot on his throat, Howard Stern is playing his ace-in-the-hole by mobilizing his massive listenership, estimated to be as high as 8 million people a week.
While his show remains a raucous testosterone festival--the horny on-air equivalent of Maxim magazine--he's begun devoting a part of each broadcast to railing against the Bush administration and what he perceives as its Orwellian crackdown.
The ordinarily apolitical Stern is now urging his millions of listeners to vote en masse for John Kerry and to demonstrate their support for the constitutional freedoms outlined by the nation's forefathers. Stern is even threatening to mobilize a Million Moron March on Washington.
Until now, Stern has largely avoided the stripper-less world of modern politics. On the few occasions when he did publicly throw his support behind a candidate, it was always a Republican, including Christie Whitman (who rewarded him by naming a rest stop after him on a New Jersey interstate) and New York governor George Pataki. Until recently, he was a vocal Bush supporter.
But when he came back from a vacation in February, Stern announced he'd had an epiphany. He'd read Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he said, and the scales fell from his eyes. He could no longer support Bush.
You may laugh, but Stern's impact on the outcome of the presidential race shouldn't be underestimated. As any political scientist will tell you, the electoral map is evenly divided between red and blue states, and the election will likely be decided by a few key battleground states: Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio and Florida.
The tipping point in those states is a surprisingly small number of votes. In the 2000 presidential race, Bush's margin of victory in Ohio was less than 200,000 votes. Stern's listenership in Cincinnati and Columbus is estimated to be 138,000.
Bush won Florida--and the whole enchilada--by fewer than 1,000 votes. Stern was on the air in Orlando and Fort Lauderdale until Clear Channel dropped him--coincidence?--but he's still on in Fort Myers, where he reaches 38,000 listeners.
In Missouri, where Bush beat Gore by just 78,786 votes, Stern's St. Louis broadcast reaches 139,000.
In Pennsylvania, Gore won by just more than 200,000 votes. In Philadelphia, 358,000 people listen to Howard Stern.
And that's, in part, why we've gathered here tonight at Brady's Irish Pub. The difference between this First Amendment rally and a typical $1-draught-and-all-the-wings-you-can-eat night is, on the surface, negligible.
But come November, the impact of this sort of beery grassroots organizing could have a profound impact at the ballot box. If all goes according to plan, the crowd here at Brady's will form the Bensalem delegation of the Howard Stern voting bloc--what Salon writer Eric Boehlert calls the "schwing voters."
Cipriano--who first made a name for himself by tormenting John DeBella on Stern's behalf and who today bluffs his way onto Fox, CNN or CBS News with Dan Rather by passing himself off as an emergency official or an eyewitness to some breaking news story before yelling some variation on Baba-booey!--takes over the microphone. "The only way to stop this is to vote Bush out!" he implores the crowd, before leading them in the obligatory chant of "Fuck the FCC!"
It all started with Bono spitting out the F-word at last spring's Golden Globe Awards broadcast, where U2 won for a song it wrote for Martin Scorcese's Gangs of New York. "Fuckin' brilliant!" he exclaimed on live television. It took the FCC almost a year to figure out whether that was obscene. Back in October they ruled that it wasn't.
That was the last straw for the family values mullahs of the Christian right. Armed with a massive bulk email capability to vent their righteous indignation, they complained en masse, carpet-bombing the FCC with thousands upon thousands of form-letter complaints.
As per congressional mandate, when somebody complains to the FCC about something they perceive as obscene or indecent, the regulatory agency is obligated to investigate. The dirty little secret of the FCC is that you can show bare breasts on network television or yell "fuck" on a crowded FM band, and really, nothing will happen--unless somebody files a complaint.
Congressmen got an earful too, and soon the culture warriors on the Hill were polishing their muskets. Hearings were held. Lawyers on all sides argued, heated questions were asked and moral outrage was entered into the record, along with outrage about the outrage. And then the Patriots and the Panthers got together for a little game called the Super Bowl, and during halftime out it sprang--boing--the tit that launched a thousand censors.
Howard Stern has long been in the FCC's crosshairs. Until now, barring a few warning shots, there was neither the political will nor the desire to pull the trigger and take him down.
"This decency crackdown has been rolling downhill since last fall," says Tom Taylor, editor of Inside Radio, a broadcast trade magazine. "The FCC ruling that Bono's use of the F-word was 'fleeting' and in its context not indecent threw gasoline on the fire."
In the last few years the hellfire of moral outrage over what the Christian right perceives as a pop culture fast becoming a sleazy red-light district has grown from a contained brush fire to a raging conflagration--and it's threatening to become an ideological holocaust.
In 2001 the FCC received 350 complaints about indecent content on the airwaves, says Suzanne Tetreault, chief of staff of the FCC's enforcement bureau. The following year there were 14,000 complaints. In 2003 that number ballooned to 240,000.
In the wake of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," the FCC received 500,000 complaints. "I attribute that increase to the fact that people have gotten more organized," says Tetreault, who chooses her words carefully. Her boss, FCC chairman Michael Powell (son of Colin), has publicly referred to these bulk email campaigns as "spamming."
For the record, Tetreault says she listened to Stern for the first time only two weeks ago on her way into work. She says she usually listens to "a dull station that plays contemporary but not edgy" music.
Tetreault was a little surprised by what she heard, not because it was indecent but because it was, well, so tame. "To be honest, I thought it was a little dull," she says. "I got bored and turned it off."
The reason broadcasters have begun policing themselves so aggressively, erring on the side of child-safe content, is that nobody's certain where the line is being drawn. On its website, the FCC outlines the three lines of content violation that broadcasters are forbidden to cross: obscenity, indecency and profanity.
>> Obscenity: Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:
1) An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material is prurient.
2) The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law.
3) The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
>> Indeceny: The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. But indecent programming may be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there's a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
>> Profanity: Profane material includes epithets that naturally tend to provoke violent resentment and language so grossly offensive to those who hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
Despite their legalistic attempts at clarity, these definitions rest on the quicksand foundation of ever-shifting social mores. In the vast interconnected global village of the digital age, who can say anymore what's "patently offensive" or who sets "community standards"? For that matter, who's an "average person" these days? John Ashcroft? Eminem?
"I think the FCC has made those definitions unconstitutionally vague," says WMGK DJ Andre Gardner, whose job it was to bleep out the naughty parts of Stern's show from 1998 to 2002. "My job was made more confusing and frustrating by the fact that the FCC didn't define what was indecent."
During his tenure at New York's K-Rock, the Stern show's home base, Gardner manned "the button," a series of digital delays that put Stern's every utterance in a 30-second holding pattern during which a decision could be made about what parts to bleep out before sending it out over the airwaves.
Gardner's role as potty-mouth hall monitor didn't endear him to Stern. "He and I had a fine relationship before I was on the button," says Gardner, recalling numerous shouting matches between himself, Stern and K-Rock station manager Tom Chiusano. "After that, I became the enemy, which I could understand, because I was cutting up his art. After every show I would have to sit down with Infinity's lawyer and catalog everything I had dumped."
On air, Stern often complained bitterly about Gardner being trigger-happy on the button, which resulted in some listeners taking matters into their own hands. "I used to get death threats," says Gardner, who's glad to be back creating broadcast content instead of muzzling it. "And it wasn't an isolated incident."
Like Stern, Gardner believes the outcome of the presidential election will determine Stern's radio fate. "It's all a matter of what happens in November and whether he can hold out that long."
The FCC has long had the power to punish broadcasters for content violations, but until recently the fines have been relatively toothless. Even when the fines added up to, say, $1.7 million, as they did for Stern in the mid-'90s, they were dwarfed by the ad revenue that was pouring in. When you consider that the Stern show brings in an estimated $100 million in annual ad revenue for Infinity Broadcasting (Stern's corporate owners), it's easy to see why occasional FCC fines were dismissed by shareholders as simply the cost of doing business.
That could all change with a new bill called the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004. Already passed in the House and now awaiting consideration by the Senate, it will, if enacted, sharpen the FCC's teeth into a pretty menacing set of fangs. The new Decency Enforcement Act would increase fines on transgressing broadcasters to $500,000 a violation, up to a maximum of $3 million. That's per incident.
Conceivably, given what's widely perceived as an at best ambiguous definition of decency, the FCC could comb through transcripts of the almost 4,000 shows Stern's broadcast over the last 15 years and find that he said something indecent on just about every one. Four thousand times even the low-end figure of $500,000 comes out to $2 billion. That's a lot of lettuce, even for a radio chain like Infinity and its megalithic corporate master, Viacom.
Furthermore, this new legislation would free up the FCC to pull the broadcast licenses of serial offenders. These days an FM license in a major market can cost more than $200 million. When exploited properly it's a license to print money, capable of earning its purchase price within a few years. Everything after that is gravy.
Though the publicity surrounding the FCC's actions has resulted in an increase in Stern's ratings in most markets, there's an ominous question mark hanging over his career on broadcast radio. At what point does the cost of doing business with him become unacceptable to the corporations that power his microphone?
In most instances, it is the FCC's enforcement bureau that investigates complaints and determines whether the content in question represents a violation.
For more high-profile cases--such as Stern's or Bono's--the FCC's commissioners make the call themselves. (To maintain bipartisan balance, there are always two Democrats and two Republicans, with the chair chosen by the incoming president.)
Before levying a fine, the FCC issues what's called "a notice of apparent liability" that notifies the offending party--usually the huge media conglomerates that control the majority of broadcast content you see or hear--that they are in violation. It also announces the dollar amount of the fine, or "forfeiture," as it's called, that will be brought against them. The violator is then given an opportunity to respond, defend the content in question and contest the size of the fine. The FCC considers this rebuttal and issues a second notice of liability that either holds firm on the initial fine levied, reduces the fine or drops the complaint altogether.
Those found in violation can appeal for relief from the courts, most likely on constitutional grounds, all the way up to the Supreme Court. Most industry watchers believe this is the route the Stern controversy will take. A ruling in Stern's favor could well prove to be a landmark decision on the scale of, say, Roe v. Wade.
"If this winds up at the Supreme Court," says Robert Corn-Revere, a prominent Washington attorney and First Amendment crusader who testified during the congressional hearings on broadcast decency in January, "and the court rules in favor of Stern, it could set a precedent that would negate the FCC's ability to enforce decency standards."
The scope of the FCC's crackdown on Howard Stern is, at this point, unknown. It's been strongly hinted that there are many other shoes yet to drop, but the FCC is playing its cards close to the vest. "We've gotten a lot of complaints that haven't been resolved, and how and when that will happen, I couldn't say," says the FCC's Tetreault.
So far this year the FCC has issued two notices of liability to Stern's proxies. The first notice went to Infinity Broadcasting and concerns a discussion about "blumpkins" and "balloon knots" that aired back in July 2001.
The notice quotes Stern: "Well, a blumpkin is receiving oral sex while you're sitting on a toilet bowl if you are a man. You're sitting on a toilet bowl and, uh, while you're evacuating you receive your oral." From there Stern goes on to define a balloon knot (use your imagination), a nasty sanchez, a strawberry shortcake and a David Copperfield (don't ask). For this, the FCC is fining Infinity $27,500.
Curiously, Tetreault says the FCC has no current plans to fine Oprah Winfrey for a recent broadcast of her show in which a guest graphically defined such sexual techniques as a "tossed salad" (anal rim jobs) and a "rainbow party" (a group of women, each wearing a different shade of lipstick, performing fellatio).
The second notice went to Clear Channel. Back in February Clear Channel dropped Stern from the six small-market company-owned stations that carried him. The long-expected notice was finally issued on April 8. The offending broadcast aired almost exactly a year before.
There were two segments that the FCC deemed indecent. The first was a discussion of the sex life of former Stern show cast member Stuttering John and his wife. The FCC notice quotes Stern as saying that Stuttering John's wife "loves anal." Later in the broadcast, the notice says, Stern expressed his revulsion at the thought of a naked, sweaty obese man engaging in cunnilingus.
Indecent? Apparently not in and of itself.
What pushed this discussion into the realm of indecency, says the FCC, was that it was "punctuated by the sound of someone passing gas or evacuating ... it is clear that the material was designed to shock and pander."
Stern was also cited for a discussion during the same broadcast with the inventor of a product called "Spincterine," designed to rid sexual partners of body odors that can make oral sex unpleasant. Stern explained to his listeners that Spincterine was invented to remedy "swamp ass."
Stern routinely tells his listeners that Clear Channel--whose chairman Lowry Mays is a close friend of the Bush family--dropped him because he started speaking out against the administration. And while there may be truth to that--Clear Channel has to date given $42,200 to Bush and only $1,750 to John Kerry--it's not the whole truth.
In the last eight years, the plurality of owners that control the media has thinned dramatically. At no time in the history of broadcasting have so few owned so much. It started with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which relaxed restrictions on media ownership and prompted massive consolidation. The results were dramatic.
Consider this: In 1996 the nation's two largest radio chains together owned 115 stations. Today Clear Channel alone owns more than 1,200 stations.
Last June the FCC announced rule changes that would further relax restrictions on media ownership, allowing broadcast megaliths like Clear Channel and Infinity to become even bigger. In response, a nationwide coalition of media diversity activists launched a grassroots campaign to raise public awareness about the dangers of media monopolies.
Two of the loudest voices in this grassroots campaign, the Prometheus Radio Project and Media Tank, are based in Philadelphia. Prometheus has been keeping a close eye on the actions of the FCC ever since it went head to head with the regulatory body over the issuing of low-power FM licenses.
In September the Prometheus Radio Project sued the FCC in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, claiming the proposed deregulation was nothing more than a huge corporate giveaway. As such, the group complained, the regulatory agency wasn't fulfilling its mandate to serve the public--which, it's worth remembering, owns the airwaves. To the surprise of all parties involved, the judges ruled in Prometheus' favor and granted a temporary stay against the deregulation while it heard the case.
"Basically, as with the decency complaints, the FCC has to, by law, respond to you when you complain about something," says Prometheus' Pete Tridish. "We sent in 2.4 million comments protesting the relaxation of ownership restrictions, which they never responded to. And the law basically says that if you submit comments to the FCC on some action they're taking and they don't respond, you can sue them. And so that's what we did."
Sometime in the next 60 days the Third Circuit will make its ruling on Prometheus' suit. One of several possible outcomes is that it will rule in favor of Prometheus and throw a monkey wrench into the FCC's plans to further deregulate the industry.
Many industry watchers see a direct connection between the thwarted deregulation and the current crackdown on decency, which is seen as a sop to the corporate-friendly Republican Party, a culture-war wedge issue they can campaign on in a fractious war-torn election year.
"It's generally agreed that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of transactions are being held up by this legal action," says Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Media Access Project, a public-interest group that lawyered Prometheus' suit against the FCC. Commissioner Powell is widely seen as having bungled the gold rush by letting a bunch of shaggy West Philly lefties bring this process to a screeching halt with a single simple legal maneuver.
This isn't the first time the Media Access Project has sued the FCC on behalf of the public interest. The media watchdog was born in the civil rights struggle of the '60s when it successfully sued a Jackson, Miss., TV station that refused to broadcast news footage of demonstrations--an eerie echo of Sinclair Broadcast Group's refusal to air a recent episode of Nightline in which Ted Koppel read the names and showed the faces of every American soldier killed in action in Iraq. The resulting landmark decision established the public's right to participate in FCC decision-making.
Schwartzman contends the current uproar over broadcast indecency is as much about money as it is about politics or morality. "Large companies which own scores of radio and TV stations manage their content from a centralized location, and as such they have no understanding of community standards," he says. "The community standards of Philadelphia are different than the community standards of, say, Keokuk, Iowa. And yet, when all the broadcast frequencies are owned by one or two giant corporations, both places get the same content. And that leads to these kinds of complaints."
FCC commissioner Michael Copps, the most outspoken opponent of deregulation among the commissioners, has gone on record saying the agency should examine the link between the rising tide of indecency and media consolidation. To date, there has been little political will within the FCC to answer the potentially troubling questions such an inquiry would raise.
Like many in the cresting wave of media and political elites who have stood up for Stern in the last few weeks--The New York Times, USA Today, Rudolph Giuliani, public radio's Ira Glass, sex columnist Dan Savage--Media Access Project's Schwartzman does it while holding his nose. "Stern is a wretched excess," he says. "He's tasteless and offensive but not necessarily impermissible. The FCC is approaching this with a sledgehammer. But I'm not really worried about Stern. He can afford to hire attorneys. I'm worried about the small community stations that air cutting-edge content and can't afford high-priced lawyers."
"To me this whole thing is a symptom of something much larger than policing whether or not somebody says 'fuck' on television," says Prometheus' Tridish. "I see it as a symptom of the bottom-line mentality that runs the media, that nothing matters other than making a profit. There's no incentive to educate the public or expose new artists.
"The only objective is to get you to sit there and watch or listen to advertisements. And the powers that be have figured out that the best way to keep you glued to your radio or television is to shock or titillate you--and that, to me, is what's obscene."
from the NY Times
May 9, 2004
ESSAY
Last night I dreamed about Howard Stern again. He was disappointed in me, and ordered me out of his car. In my dreams, I never live up to Howard's standards.
I'm the host of a show on public radio, and when my listeners tell me they don't care for Stern, I always think it reveals a regrettable narrowness of vision. Mostly, they're put off by the naked girls. But Stern has invented a way of being on the air that uses the medium better than nearly anyone. He's more honest, more emotionally present, more interesting, more wide-ranging in his opinions than any host on public radio. Also, he's a fantastic interviewer. He's truly funny. And his staff on the air is cheerfully inclusive of every kind of person: black, white, dwarf, stutterer, drunk and supposed gay. What public radio show has that kind of diversity?
Recently, in a show about testosterone, we stole the format Stern invented. On the air, our staff debated who among us probably has the most testosterone. Then we were tested. Then we opened the results on the air and tussled some more. That, in a nutshell, is the genius of Stern: you put all your regular characters into some situation; they argue; the situation takes a turn; they argue some more.
Sadly, lots of smart people shrug off the recent government crackdown on Howard Stern -- and on other "indecency" -- as if it were nastiness going on in some bad neighborhood of the broadcast dial, one that doesn't concern them, one that they'd never stoop to visit.
But the recent F.C.C. rulings make me Stern's brother as I've never been before. Here are just a few of the things we've broadcast on our show that now could conceivably result in fines of up to a half million dollars for the 484 public stations that run the program: assorted curse words, people saying "damn" and "goddamn" (a recent F.C.C. decision declared that "profane" and "blasphemous" speech would now come under scrutiny); various prison stories; and a very funny story by the writer David Sedaris that takes place in a bathroom and that violates all three F.C.C. criteria for "indecency." It's explicitly graphic in talking about "excretory organs or activities"; Sedaris repeats and dwells on the descriptions at length, and he absolutely means to pander and shock. That's what makes it funny.
In the past, the F.C.C. would have considered context, the possible literary value or news value of apparently offensive material. And the agency still gives lip service to context in its current decisions. But when the commissioners declared in March that an expletive modifying the word "brilliant" (uttered by Bono at the Golden Globe Awards) was worthy of punishment, it made a more radical change in the rules than most people realize. Now context doesn't always matter. If a word on our show could increase a child's vocabulary, if some members of the public find something "grossly offensive," the F.C.C. can issue fines.
Because the whole process is driven by audience complaints, enforcement is arbitrary by design. Political expediency also seems to play a role. Stern has pointed out how a recent "Oprah" featured virtually the same words he uses but drew no fine. He urged his listeners to file complaints, to test whether the F.C.C. will penalize only those it sees as vulnerable. Agency aides told The Hollywood Reporter that Oprah Winfrey was probably untouchable.
What's craziest about this new indecency witch hunt is that it's based on the premise that just one exposure to filthy words will damage a child. (I've yet to hear of a scientific study proving even that repeated exposure affects children.) Recently on my show, I asked one of the people who organizes write-in campaigns to the F.C.C., Brent Bozell, what harm it did anyone to see Janet Jackson's breast for a fleeting second, or to hear Stern use the phrase "anal sex," and he said it destroyed the "innocence of childhood." In our talk, Bozell used the phrase "anal sex" himself, presumably doing exactly as much harm to young people as Stern did on April 9, 2003.
That day, a brief conversation about the act on Stern's show drew $495,000 in fines. Bozell and I received no fines. No wonder Howard kicks me out of the car.
Ira Glass is the host of the public radio program "This American Life."
from the Miami Herald
April 30, 2004
The same company that kicked shock jock Howard Stern off its radio stations to stem "the rising tide of indecency" owns a billboard seen everyday by more than 100,000 South Florida road jockeys -- some of them shocked and puzzled by its message.
This is what the ad on the billboard says: FCUK FM.
The billboard, which advertises a new British-based Internet radio station run by clothing and accessories company French Connection United Kingdom, towers over Interstate 95 just north of State Road 836 in downtown Miami -- one of the region's busiest stretches of road.
"I believe in freedom of speech, but this is deplorable," said Tory Jacobs, president of the Brickell Homeowners Association. "It's in very bad taste."
The billboard belongs to Clear Channel Outdoor, a division of Clear Channel Communications, which this month dumped Stern from all six of its stations that carried him, including WBGG-FM Big 106 (105.9) in South Florida. Stern's show is still aired by dozens of stations owned by other companies.
Other Clear Channel billboards, including one on Florida's Turnpike in south Broward County and another on northbound I-95 just before the Northwest 79th Street exit, have ads that are headlined Schnitt Happens, a provocative blurb for talk-show host Todd Schnitt on WIOD-AM (610), which is owned by Clear Channel.
SOME COMPLAINTS
Some people see the ads as more signs of the coarsening of American culture, more evidence of barbarians at the gates.
Several drivers have complained to the Miami mayor's and city manager's offices, according to city officials. State transportation officials said that 106,000 vehicles pass the FCUK billboard during an average day.
"The alphabet is an amazing thing," said Jack Thompson, a Coral Gables attorney who often engages in battle against what he views as pornographic or otherwise offensive material. "This does not speak well of society.
"For Clear Channel, which is portraying itself as the good guys, the Carrie Nation of the decency movement, to be doing this is just hypocritical. They're out of their minds."
'DECENCY' ISSUE
In the recent past, Clear Channel executives have said that they are determined to enforce high standards involving what has become known as the "decency" issue.
In a February news release, the company said its radio stations must conform "to the standards and sensibilities of the local communities they serve."
"Clear Channel is serious about helping address the rising tide of indecency on the airwaves," Clear Channel President Mark Mays said in the corporate statement.
This week, executives of Clear Channel Outdoor did not respond to repeated phone calls seeking comment about the billboards.
Meanwhile, Thompson sent a letter Wednesday to Clear Channel, threatening to sue if the ad is not removed from the billboard within 10 days.
"Clear Channel has thus decided to benefit monetarily from a very public vowel movement," Thompson wrote in the letter. 'But as the Brits would say, Clear Channel is `too clever by half.' Clear Channel is still trafficking in indecency . . .."
French Connection, which has a store in Miami Beach, has been using the FCUK logo for about seven years -- amid persistent controversy. For years, company representatives said that any crassness associated with it was simply in the eye of the beholder.
PAST WORDPLAYS
Now, they tacitly concede that the logo carries certain connotations.
Ads placed by the company in the past have urged youthful consumers to "fcuk him" or "fcuk her" with gifts from French Connection.
When the company opened a particularly large store, it called it "the world's biggest fcuk."
"It's precisely what it is," said Amy Glickman, a French Connectionspokeswoman. "It's French Connection UK. It's a play on words. It's very irreverent. It's in your face, but it's very tongue in cheek."
As for the Internet radio station ( www.fcuk.com), she said it is designed to promote French Connection, introduce unknown British artists and serve as an antidote to bland conventional radio. Its motto: "None of the hits, none of the time."
"We're not out to offend anybody," Glickman said. "We're just out to have some fun with this."
 |
from The Nation
May 17, 2004 issue
Advertising Age says we are a nation not of red versus blue but of a "moral minority" versus an "edgy elite." And the moral minority is winning.
Let us recite the litany of America's new official religion: "This mad race to the bottom," in the pronouncement of one member of the Federal Communications Commission, began when Bono said "fucking brilliant" at the Golden Globes and when Janet Jackson's silver-studded globe invaded the family fun of the Super Bowl. Which begat politically panicked FCC chairman Michael Powell--Mr. Media Deregulation--suddenly embracing government regulation of content (read: censorship). Which begat a Congressional orgy of legislation to multiply broadcast indecency fines--from $27,500 to $275,000, then $500,000, then $3 million. Which begat Clear Channel's dropping Howard Stern from six stations. Which begat the FCC's fining Stern for the first time in six years. Which begat an NPR station's firing benign commentator Sandra Tsing Loh over an accidental F-word. Which begets well-chilled programmers' issuing dictums filled with newly forbidden words and slapping delays on shows of all sorts, taking the live out of life, the reality out of TV.
But this is bigger than just broadcast. This is a fight for the constitutional, political and cultural soul of the nation. And the man on the firing line is Howard Stern.
The FCC's "Parents' Place" on the web oh-so-helpfully explains the basics of obscenity, indecency and profanity to anyone who wants to summon its cultural cops. A primer:
§ Obscenity--which is not protected by the First Amendment--is sexual material that violates community standards, is patently offensive, appeals to prurient interest and, judged as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
§ Indecency--which, the Supreme Court has ruled, is protected by the First Amendment--is nonetheless fair game for FCC policing, thanks to the 1927 Radio Act and the 1978 Supreme Court ruling in the Pacifica case (a k a George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words). The FCC says indecency--"patently offensive sexual or excretory references"--cannot air in the "safe harbor" from 6 am to 10 pm, because children may hear. (Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin explains that indecency is OK at night because "you can't reduce adults to the level of speech fit for children.")
§ Profanity is defined by the FCC as "personally reviling epithets" or "language so grossly offensive" as to "provoke violent resentment." The first time the FCC ever found anything profane was in March, when it reversed itself and ruled against Bono's "fucking brilliant." Now the F-word in any context or syntax is officially profane. That is wholly new.
The FCC has enforced these rules unevenly, proposing $4.5 million in fines since 1990, $2.5 million of that against Stern (with reports of another $1.5 million coming), according to the Center for Public Integrity. Reading one recent FCC finding against Stern is a testament to inconsistency: Infinity Broadcasting complained that the FCC condemned its star's explanation of the sexual colloquialisms "blumpkin" and "David Copperfield" (don't ask) but did not punish others' references to "giving head" and "finger-banging your boyfriend." The FCC also didn't buy Infinity's argument that "the range of acceptable topics and words for broadcast discussion has changed dramatically, especially in light of widespread media coverage of sex scandals involving President Clinton and the Roman Catholic Church." (Heh.)
Religious conservatives of both parties and such video vigilantes as Brent Bozell's Parents Television Council had been criticizing the FCC for being too lax. But then came the tipping point they were waiting for: The Breast. The FCC suddenly started fining again. And in Congress, lawmakers not only proposed raising fines to prohibitive heights but added more: fining speakers as well as broadcasters (who, before, got a warning and a chance to repent before being fined), requiring license review after three offenses, creating a safe harbor from violence and delaying FCC moves allowing media consolidation.
I asked Robert Corn-Revere--the First Amendment attorney who recently got Lenny Bruce pardoned and who litigated against the Communications Decency Act--about the constitutionality of current regulations and new legislation. He replied: "What constitutionality?... The FCC has done its best to prolong the longevity of this doctrine by keeping it out of court."
In compelling testimony before Congress, Corn-Revere pleaded for a long-overdue constitutional review of indecency policy. He complained that the FCC's indecency (and now profanity) standards evade the tests that courts grant for obscenity: The FCC judges a work not as a whole but by just one word; it judges not by the standard of an "average person" but by that of a child; and it short-circuits due process (Stern complains that his company settled $1.71 million in fines in 1995 only because the FCC was using it to hold licenses hostage). Finally, Corn-Revere says, the enforcement is inconsistent. No one knows where the line is.
Ernest Miller, a fellow at Yale Law School's Information Society Project, also gets constitutional agita over the FCC's new reach into profanity. He argues on his Corante.com weblog that this opens the door to FCC regulation of hate speech--for what is a more grossly reviling epithet worthy of violent resentment than, say, the N-word? But then, what if that N-word is spoken by a hip-hop artist instead of a KKK member? Shouldn't the speech be separate from the speaker? Apparently not if you're Oprah Winfrey, whose show explained sexual colloquialisms just as bluntly as Stern did on the very day he was fined for it--though so far, she has not been fined. The problem with all this, says Corn-Revere, is that "you enable the government to tailor its penalties based on how much it likes or dislikes the speaker." Judging by the disproportionate fines--the vendetta--against Stern, that is exactly what has been happening.
A coalition of two dozen broadcasters, performers (including Margaret Cho) and First Amendment groups just petitioned the FCC to reconsider its Bono ruling. They argue that attacking profanity (a k a blasphemy) dances perilously near the line between church and state, that this "is fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment" and that it "already is exerting a substantial chilling effect on constitutionally-protected speech."
The legislation coming out of Congress goes even further and raises even more troubling constitutional issues. Senator Fritz Hollings would extend FCC authority to restrict violent programming. Corn-Revere says that every court "has held that trying to define and trying to regulate violence is unconstitutional." The problem with the new legislation, he says, is that "they allow but do not require the FCC to exempt news or sports. And they do not say whether it extends to animal violence or, I like to say, food-chain violence. So will Shark Week be too violent?" Yale's Balkin adds that "if protecting children from violence is a compelling state interest, why not racism or sexism or homophobia?"
Hollings's effort also extends enforcement to cable. In the Pacifica ruling twenty-six years ago, regulation of TV was justified in part because of its "uniquely pervasive" nature. Today no one channel or even medium is so pervasive (though firebrand Michael Copps, the most frightening FCC commissioner, also calls for extending regulation to cable and satellite because they too are now "so pervasive"). Corn-Revere says that won't hold up. "The court, whenever presented with the issue, has held that they're not going to extend broadcast-like regulation to other media, including cable."
But of course the real constitutional issue is the chill in the airwaves brought on by all these threats. TV producer Steven Bochco told a reporter that since The Breast, ABC censors have for the first time cut his NYPD Blue. "It's very chilling."
The industry as a whole is feeling the strong-arming of the law. The National Association of Broadcasters is considering reinstating its Code of Good Practices, which was dropped in the 1980s under pressure from the Reagan Administration out of--cue ironic smirk--constitutional concerns. In his address to the NAB in March (reminiscent of former FCC chairman Newton Minow's famous 1961 speech calling TV a "vast wasteland"), FCC chairman Powell urged them--under threat of gigantic fines--to adopt a voluntary code: "It would be in your interest to do so." But as Corn-Revere observes, "Voluntary doesn't mean voluntary."
Consider, too, that any citizen could be subject to fines under this legislation. "Imagine if a television crew had filmed an Abbie Hoffman speech," says Yale's Miller. "Would Hoffman be liable for intentionally using the term 'fuck' and knowing his speech would be broadcast?" Feeling chilly?
The assault on free speech isn't coming just from the FCC and Congress. The Federal Trade Commission just stepped up monitoring of media violence, "including complaints about the advertising, marketing, and sale of violent movies, electronic games (including video games), and music." And Attorney General John Ashcroft has launched a multimillion-dollar war on pornography. Says the Baltimore Sun: "Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains."
And then there's Stern. The looming threat of fines that could pile into millions--and be levied years after the acts--is enough to force him off the air and onto satellite, he vows. "No company can stand up to this kind of government pressure," he says. "I can't take the pressure that they're going to fine me personally every day." If Stern leaves the air, a voice that reaches 8.5 million fans a week will be, at best, reduced to an audience a fraction that size. And his politi- cal speech will have been forced off the airwaves--our airwaves--under government pressure. The punch line of this sad joke is that Howard Stern has become the liberal talk-show star the left has been dying to hear. Laurie Spivak at AlterNet says Stern has unleashed against Bush the long-sought-after WMDs--White Male Defectors. Salon's Eric Boehlert calls them "Howard Stern's schwing voters." MTV News says Stern could have a bigger impact on the election than Ralph Nader.
Stern returned from a vacation on February 23 carrying Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and ranting, "If you read this book, you will never vote for George W. Bush. I think this guy is a religious fanatic and a Jesus freak, and he is just hellbent on getting some sort of bizarro agenda through." The next day, Stern interviewed Rick Solomon, Paris Hilton's costar in an infamous porn video; sexual and racial talk ensued and that was all that was needed: Two days later, Stern was kicked off Clear Channel. He says that was because Clear Channel is run by Bushies. And he says that is why the FCC and Congress are after him as well. The conspiracy theory is weakened somewhat by the bipartisan nature of the rush to censorship, though there's no denying that this is a political story.
It's about FCC chairman Powell's efforts to win back political favor after he mucked up his media deregulation effort and attracted the wrath of the many who apparently hate big American media. Powell has flip-flopped on the First Amendment and media regulation. When he was an FCC commissioner, he said that "government has been engaged for too long in willful denial in order to subvert the Constitution so that it can impose its speech preferences on the public--exactly the sort of infringement of individual freedom the Constitution was masterfully designed to prevent." When he became chairman, he said, "I don't know that I want the government as my nanny." In 1999, he accepted the Media Institute's Freedom of Speech Award with a stirring defense of the First Amendment: "We should think twice before allowing the government the discretion to filter information to us as they see fit." But now, Powell is regulating something far more sacred than the business of media: its content, its speech, its freedom.
And he dismisses--or at least tries to wash his hands of--the chill, telling Congress recently: "I do not have the luxury of ignoring my duty to enforce the statute because owners might react with excessive conservatism."
And, of course, this is a political story about currying favor with religious conservatives. This is their big hurrah--to take back the country from godless media, to make TV safe for everyone. As fired NPR talker Tsing Loh said: "I've seen the future and it is John Tesh...music. Pre-recorded." What we're really seeing is the final nail in the coffin of the mass market and of one-size-fits-all media.
Advertising Age says that the new Puritanism will drive the young and desirable edgy elite to satellite and cable, raising the average age of TV's audience and tearing apart the mass audience. This will hasten a fundamental shift in the center of gravity of American media. Broadcast TV and radio will become (even more) boring, old, predictable and safe and will keep shrinking. Younger audiences--along with the advertising dollars and creative talent aimed at them--will migrate (no: stampede) to cable, satellite and the Internet and then to on-demand delivery over high-speed wireless. These alternate media won't become moral cesspools, for they've already sown their sexual oats: Look at how HBO started with tittering flashes of tit but now produces the leading edge of entertainment; look at the shrinking market-share of sleaze on the Internet. The audience will continue to fragment in slices of slices as even the Internet creates new markets (witness the blossoming of blogs). News and commentary will be delivered via every angle of the political prism. Media will internationalize as never before. Since there will be no more mass medium, advertising will become laser-targeted. The people formerly known as the audience will gain more choice, more involvement, more ownership of their media. The greatest cultural change agent of recent history turns out to be the remote control, which gave us command of our media and took it away from the national nannies. That's why they're in such a panic.
So they set the Wayback Machine for the 1950s, when TV was clean and most shows carried the seal of the Code of Good Practices, which the FCC wants broadcasters to reinstate in some form. The code decreed that "illicit sex relations are not treated as commendable." So much for prime time. It insisted that "attacks on religion and religious faiths are not allowed" and that clergy "under no circumstances are to be held up to ridicule." So much for TV movies about Jim Bakker and kiddie-diddling priests. "The presentation of cruelty, greed and selfishness as worthy motivations is to be avoided." Farewell reality TV. "Unfair exploitation of others for personal gain shall not be presented as praiseworthy." Donald Trump: You're fired!
But it's not just about sex and the religious right. It's also about political correctness and the left. We live in an age of offense. The cardinal sin today is to offend; the clearest badge of victimhood is to be offended. Sadly, I hear some refuse to defend Stern and his speech because "he offends." Well, the First Amendment is often defended on the backs of the offensive: Larry Flynt or the KKK. But I won't lump Stern in with them. For, judged in the whole, Stern is not offensive.
Let me tell you why I am such a Howard Stern fan. Until I reviewed his show for TV Guide, I had heard the same snippets, quotes and characterizations you had. I thought he was best taken in small doses. But after listening to him for a few weeks, I discovered that, to the contrary, he is best taken in large doses. For then you discover that Stern is charming, likable, decent, funny, a talented entertainer, a great interviewer, and--more than anything--honest.
Stern is an antidote to all the overpackaged, smiley, phony, condescending pap of personality in American media and entertainment. In an age of predictable news (shouldn't news be just the opposite?) and political correctness and numbing national rhetoric, Stern cuts through the crap and says what he thinks--and what many of us think. And that is incredibly refreshing. No, it's liberating.
Let's be honest: We don't all talk like Hallmark cards and human resources directors. When we sit in the bar with friends, we gossip about people we hate; we joke about sex. And on our couches, when we watch the news, we think thoughts we won't admit. Stern admits them. Is he sexist? By many definitions, sure. But unlike many a wolf in sensitive-man clothing, he's straightforward about it. Is he racist? No. He has racists on the show, and he ridicules them because idiots are entertaining. Admit it: When you watch reality shows, you love to make fun of the fools on them, and that's not necessarily something to be proud of--but making fun of racist bozos is. Stern gives us credit for knowing they're offensive; he doesn't have to explain that to us or protect us from it. The nannies and the PC police only insult our intelligence when they think they need to save us.
Stern shies away from no sacred cow. He is a positive force in American media. Just as weblogs tweak big media to keep them honest, Stern pushes the line to keep politicians and celebrities and his audience honest. So I like to listen to him. If you don't, fine. Listen to something else. I won't stop you. Just don't stop me.
And there's the real question: If the government is going to regulate speech, where's the line and who's going to draw it? Is it at the least-common-denominator that makes all media safe for 5-year-olds? Is it at the church door that makes all media safe for church ladies? Is it at my car door so I can still listen to Stern? Is the line going to be drawn just on broadcast or will it extend to cable and satellite--and the Internet? Will the censored be just shock jocks--or newsmakers or bloggers?
I couldn't say it better than Michael Powell--the old, freedom-loving Michael Powell--did in 1999 when he accepted the Freedom of Speech Award (which one assumes is now hanging in his bathroom): "I have gained a deep and profound respect for the wisdom of having an unwavering principle that stands at the summit of the Constitution, and holds: 'Government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'... Benevolent or not, we did not sign away to a Philosopher-King the responsibility to determine for us, like a caring parent, what messages we should and should not hear."
So to the barricades, edgy elite! This is not just about Howard Stern. It's not just about Bono or The Breast. It's about our First Amendment. It's about our freedom of speech. It's about us.
from the LA Times
April 28, 2004
A strange new sound has been crackling over the nation's radio airwaves, the same airwaves that have been dominated by Rush Limbaugh and other specialists in right-wing Sturm und Drang. Suddenly, in the thick of an election year, a left-leaning equivalent has emerged, riling a mass audience with scathing, eloquent attacks on the Bush administration.
The biggest surprise of all? The long-sought liberal talk radio hero isn't Air America's Al Franken, but that walking, talking wedge issue, Howard Stern.
Fittingly, the politicization of Stern began with a woman's bared breast. The Federal Communications Commission crackdown on broadcast indecency that followed Janet Jackson's Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" hit Stern hard. The FCC proposed fining broadcast giant Clear Channel Communications $495,000 for several of Stern's raunchy utterances; Clear Channel promptly dropped Stern from its six stations that had carried him.
Stern has been at odds with the FCC for years, but these latest proposed fines, and the looming threat of more, have driven Stern to a new level of apoplexy - and to broadcasting the most pugnacious anti-Bush vitriol anywhere in the mainstream media. In Stern's view, he is the victim of a witch hunt, singled out by an administration in the grip of fundamentalist Christian ideologues bent on morality regulation.
These days, Stern's broadcasts are divided between his usual schtick - interviews with strippers, off-color song parodies, jokes about celebrities - and rants against the president. Stern will never be mistaken for a policy wonk, but tune in to his show and you'll hear him cogently attacking administration positions on an impressive range of issues: stem-cell research, abortion rights, gay marriage, media consolidation, the handling of Iraq.
Meanwhile, Stern's revamped website howardstern.com looks more like Mother Jones magazine than Maxim: It features articles about the administration's trade violations in Myanmar and includes a link to the contributions page of the John Kerry for President site. Indeed, Stern has become an ardent Kerry advocate. "I call on all fans of the show to vote against Bush," he said on a recent broadcast. "We're going to deliver the White House to John Kerry."
Some might dismiss this as bluster, but Stern's words should send a shiver up Karl Rove's spine. Stern has a record of successful election-year activism; political observers in New York and New Jersey remember how his on-air endorsements delivered key votes to George Pataki and Christine Todd Whitman in past gubernatorial races.
What's more, although Stern's approximately 8.5 million listeners are often dismissed as overgrown frat boys, they might more accurately be called swing voters. They are overwhelmingly white and male, many are well educated and well off, and they vote. And millions of them listen to Stern's show in battleground states - Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Tennessee, Florida - where the election will be decided.
Like his audience, Stern has always been broadly misunderstood. Calling Stern a "shock jock" does him an injustice, lumping him in with his lesser imitators and with the gross-out inanities of reality TV. In fact, Stern is a provocateur and comic talent in the tradition of Lenny Bruce. Whether his subject is sex, scatology, show business or his own failures and insecurities, he has brought unprecedented frankness to the airwaves. The real "shock" - and appeal - of Stern's show is how, with wit and brutal honesty, it punctures the phoniness of so much media chatter.
That means he tackles subjects that no one else would touch. Where else but on Stern's show would you hear an avowed atheist mocking the Taliban-like religiosity of the president, whom Stern has nicknamed "Mr. Jesus"? (Welcome to the true "No Spin Zone.")
By all indications, Stern's message is getting through. Since the FCC crackdown, his ratings have been going up. For example, Arbitron says he's now No. 1 in Los Angeles in the 25-to-54 age group, a spot he last occupied in 1995. And among entertainer websites, his was rated second (behind Oprah's) in mid-April.
If Kerry wins a close election in November, he may well owe a debt to the man who calls himself King of All Media. And political analysts may find themselves enshrining another crucial voting bloc, alongside soccer moms and NASCAR dads: Howard Stern fans.
from the Washington Times
April 28, 2004
As John B. Thompson sees it, it took federal regulators far too long to determine that Howard Stern's on-air description of a sidekick's sex life wasn't fit for the morning airwaves.
Mr. Thompson dropped his 10-year-old son off at school on April 9, 2003, then flipped on the car radio to check up on his old nemesis, Mr. Stern. He heard the radio host lead a discussion of the sexual habits of sidekick John Melendez, who has since departed the show.
Mr. Thompson -- a Coral Gables, Fla., lawyer and activist who has spent the past 13 years battling "shock radio," violent video games and graphic rap music -- drove to his office and dashed off a complaint to the Federal Communications Commission about Mr. Stern's latest antics.
Almost one year to the day later, the FCC acted on the complaint, slapping radio giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. with a $495,000 fine for airing Mr. Stern's program on its Fort Lauderdale, Fla., station and five others.
"Why did it take an entire year to issue that fine?" Mr. Thompson asked.
Other activists -- and some industry executives and members of Congress -- believe the FCC, until recently, lacked the political will to enforce its decency rules.
Also, it can take months for complaints to work their way through the FCC's bureaucracy, observers say.
Most of the penalties the agency has proposed since the fall are for incidents that are more than a year old:
--On March 18, the FCC fined Infinity Broadcasting Corp. $27,500 for a July 26, 2001, broadcast in which Mr. Stern discussed deviant sexual acts.
--On March 12, the FCC fined Clear Channel $247,500 for a March 13, 2003, discussion about group sex on its "Elliot in the Morning" show.
--On Jan. 27, it fined Clear Channel $715,000 for 26 violations of decency rules by Florida disc jockey Todd Clem, who used the name "Bubba the Love Sponge" on the air. The segments -- including a discussion of sex between humans and cartoon characters -- aired in July, November and December 2001.
--On Oct. 2, the FCC fined Infinity Broadcasting Corp. $357,000 for broadcasting a Northern Virginia couple's purported sexual encounter inside New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral on Aug. 15, 2002. The stunt aired on Infinity's now-defunct "Opie & Anthony" show.
A study in March by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit government watchdog group, found that since 1990, the FCC averages 523 days between a broadcast and the proposal of a fine.
"We need to take the time necessary to be thorough and fair to all the parties involved, and the amount of time can vary based on the amount of facts available and the circumstances involved," said Richard Diamond, an FCC spokesman.
Under FCC rules, broadcasters cannot air material containing references to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are most likely to tune in. The rules apply only to over-the-air radio and television stations, not their cable and satellite counterparts.
The FCC received 240,350 complaints last year about potentially indecent material, up from 111 in 2000. The surge is largely attributed to groups such as the Parents Television Council, which have organized mass mailing of complaints to the FCC in recent years.
The FCC's enforcement bureau -- the division responsible for reviewing complaints -- has about 350 employees, up from about 290 in 1999.
The FCC asks people who wish to file a complaint to provide it with enough information to investigate the incident, such as a tape or a transcript.
After FCC officials review the materials, they decide whether the incident meets the threshold for indecency. If they deem it indecent, they propose a fine, which is officially called a "notice of apparent liability."
A broadcaster that receives a notice has 30 days to pay or appeal. If the broadcaster appeals, it must provide the FCC with an explanation of why it believes the material was not indecent.
The back-and-forth can take years. For example, the FCC has fined Infinity Broadcasting or corporate cousin CBS Radio seven times since 1997, but the New York companies have not paid a penalty since Infinity's $1.7 million settlement with the FCC in 1995.
Most of Infinity's fines are still on appeal. In one case, the FCC turned to the Justice Department to help it collect a $2,000 fine proposed in August 1998, but the department declined in May 2003 to take Infinity to court, saying too much time had passed.
Since 1990, the FCC has had to cancel at least $152,150 in fines because too much time had passed to collect the money, according to the Center for Public Integrity study.
The "Opie & Anthony" incident sparked outrage among FCC commissioners and lawmakers, but the government's crackdown on indecency didn't pick up steam until Feb. 1, when one of Janet Jackson's breasts was briefly exposed during the nationally televised Super Bowl halftime show, prompting more than 200,000 complaints to the FCC.
Before that incident, FCC Chairman Michael L. Powell focused on other matters, such as deregulating the media companies the agency oversees, said Howard M. Liberman, a communications lawyer and former FCC staff attorney.
"Until Janet Jackson's dress fell off, the policy within the commission was to bury these [complaints] as much as possible," Mr. Liberman said.
Mr. Thompson said a lack of "political will" at the FCC has had more to do with delaying fines than the agency's bureaucracy.
He said he hopes the FCC will continue to take indecency seriously and clear out its backlog.
"There are complaints that have been sitting there 10 years that have never been responded to. ... I've written hundreds of times," he said.
from the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel
April 18, 2004
Jack Thompson doesn't think much of Howard Stern.
"The most visible pornographer in America," Thompson said Friday.
Jack Thompson doesn't think much of Howard Stern's audience.
"I've gotten a number of death threats this week," Thompson said. "But you'd expect that considering the IQ of people who listen to Howard Stern. Apparently they fail to realize that I might have caller ID."
Thompson, a Coral Gables attorney, is the self-proclaimed and self-promoting crusader who wants to make America safe from whatever might offend his sensibilities and corrupt children's delicate minds.
His brand of Puritanical intolerance scares me much more than the sophomoric, scatological and sexually explicit things Stern used to say over South Florida's airwaves.
Yes, Stern's show could be crude, disgusting and offensive.
It could also be hilarious, biting and truthful.
I still haven't found a radio that didn't come with an on/off switch or a tuner, but that's not good enough for Thompson.
"He's mentally molesting minors," Thompson said. He said even if he turns Stern's show off and prohibits his children from listening, there's still the chance that his son will hear material from other kids who listen.
"What Howard Stern is doing is the equivalent of dumping toxic waste in a playground, and then other kids become harmed by the pollution," Thompson said.
Oh, the children. This is the point where I'd repeat George Carlin's line in response to clichéd concern for the children, except I don't want the FCC to start thinking about fining me. (Are newspapers still exempt?)
Thompson is one of two boobs who helped push Stern off South Florida's radio dial.
His complaint about an April 2003 Stern show, coupled with the overblown outcry that followed Janet Jackson's televised "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl halftime show, led to radio giant Clear Channel getting rid of Stern's show from six stations, including WBGG-FM (105.9).
Earlier this month the FCC fined Clear Channel $495,000 for the excerpt Thompson complained about, which good taste prevents me from detailing.
Let's just say it involved sexual activity and a new hygienic product.
Thompson is clearly proud of his role, and he relishes the day when the FCC will also fine the fear of God (or bankruptcy) into Stern's main corporate patron, Infinity Broadcasting. He also is delighted by the prospect of Congress delving into new areas of regulation, including cable and the Internet.
"If people are upset about where we're going it's not because of me, it's because of Howard Stern," Thompson said.
But isn't he at all concerned about government further intruding into people's homes and lives in the name of decency?
"Oh, it would be a horrible thing if America became a better place," Thompson said. "America got along just fine before Howard Stern and before South Park, and we'd be a lot better off without them, as far as I'm concerned."
Thompson has taken aim at violent video games and movies in the past, and after the recent middle-school murder in Miami-Dade County he was quick to focus on the accused killer's fixation with graphic depictions of violence.
But Michael Hernandez also wrote in his diaries about praying to God daily. How come religiosity isn't to blame?
"The Bible doesn't promote killing innocent people," Thompson said. "Grand Theft Auto does. Islam does."
Huh?
"Islam promotes the killing of innocent people," Thompson said. "The Quran requires the infidel, whether Jew or Christian, to be killed. ... That's a core essence of the religion. ... Muhammad was a pirate who killed infidels and who advocated the killing of infidels. Not a nice guy. Osama bin Laden is in keeping with his fine tradition."
Nice to know this is a guy to whom the FCC is listening when it comes to decency.
from the NY Post
April 16, 2004
April 16, 2004 -- The Federal Communications Commission is expected to fine Infinity Broadcasting roughly $1.5 million as early as next week for airing material from the Howard Stern radio show that the commission deems indecent, The Post has learned.
Viacom, Infinity's corporate parent, plans to dig in its heels and fight the fine, sources say. The move is in sharp contrast to radio giant Clear Channel, which recently buckled in the face of FCC pressure and booted Stern from its radio stations.
A spokesman for Infinity indicated the company has no plans to drop Stern but declined comment on how the company would react to a potential FCC fine.
Last week, the FCC fined Clear Channel $495,000 for airing indecent comments on an April 9, 2003, Stern show on six of its radio stations. The FCC has been investigating Infinity stations' airing of the same show, which, in typical Stern fashion, featured discussions of anal and oral sex.
Stern has blasted the government crackdown on indecency, calling it a "McCarthy-type witch hunt."
Viacom is expected to fight the fine on First Amendment grounds, as well as arguing that Stern's comments do not meet the legal definition of "indecent," sources say.
As the fight, which pits one of the nation's largest media companies against the FCC, plays out in the coming months, the larger indecency debate is likely to become an issue in the presidential campaign.
The FCC began its campaign against "indecency" on the airwaves in the wake of the uproar over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the halftime show of the Super Bowl in February.
Viacom President Mel Karmazin has publicly backed Stern in comments to Washington, D.C., lawmakers investigating indecency.
In 1995, Infinity agreed to a $1.7 million settlement for airing indecent comments on Stern's show.
Under current law, the FCC can levy fines of as much as $27,500 per violation. (The recent Clear Channel fine represented 18 violations stemming from various comments on Stern's show.) The House of Representatives has approved a bill that allows fines of as much as $500,000 per violation, however, and the Senate is also considering raising fines.
While many have speculated Stern may flee Infinity and move his show to satellite radio - and thus out of reach of the FCC - sources say for now that he is staying put and that Infinity is prepared to wage a long battle with the government in support of him.
Still, satellite radio would love to have Stern - both XM and Sirius have said they are interested in carrying the show. And Stern is said to have considered raising money from investors and starting his own pay-radio channel to broadcast his show.
Once Infinity receives the proposed fine from the FCC, it has 30 days to respond, at which time it can either pay the fine or go to court, where sources indicate the matter will likely be settled.
from the Chicago Sun-Times
April 16, 2004
Like millions of Americans, I listen to Howard Stern on the radio in the mornings. I think he is smart, quick and funny. Sometimes he is "offensive," but to be quite frank, I am not "offended," because what he says falls within the realm of words and subjects that, as an adult, I have long been familiar with even without the tutelage of Stern.
Unlike millions of Americans, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. One reason for that is that I am usually at the movies when he's on the air -- an alternative I urge on his listeners. Limbaugh does offend me when I monitor him, because he has cheapened political discourse in this country with his canned slogans and cheap shots. Once you call a feminist a "feminazi," what else is there to say about feminism?
Of course you may disagree with me and prefer Limbaugh. I may disagree with you and prefer Stern. That is our right as Americans. What offends me is that the right wing, secure in its own right to offend, now wants to punish Stern to the point where he may be forced off the air.
The big difference, of course, is that Stern's offenses usually have to do with sex and language, while Limbaugh's have to do with politics. Stern offends the puritan right, which doesn't seem to respect th American tradition of freedom of expression.
You don't have to listen to Stern. Exercising the same freedom, I am Limbaugh-free. And please don't tell me that Stern must be fined and driven off the radio because he uses the "public airwaves." If they are public, then his listeners are the public, and we want to listen to him on our airwaves. The public airwaves cannot be held hostage to a small segment that wants to decide what the rest of us can hear -- especially now that President Bush supports consolidating more and more media outlets into a few rich hands.
But what if a child should tune in? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe it is the responsibility of parents to control their children's media input. The entire nation cannot be held hostage so that everything on the radio is suitable for 9-year-olds. Nor do I know of any children who want to listen to Stern, anyway; they prefer music.
It is a belief of mine about the movies, that what makes them good or bad isn't what they're about, but how they're about them. The point is not the subject but the form and purpose of its expression. A listener to Stern will find that he expresses humanistic values, that he opposes hypocrisy, that he talks honestly about what a great many Americans do indeed think and say and do. A Limbaugh listener, on the other hand, might not have guessed from campaigns to throw the book at drug addicts that he was addicted to drugs and required an employee to buy them on the street.
But listen carefully. I support Limbaugh's right to be on the radio. I feel it is fully equal to Stern's. I find it strange that so many Americans describe themselves as patriotic when their values are anti-democratic and totalitarian. We are all familiar with Voltaire's great cry: "I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Ideas like his helped form the emerging American republic. Today, the Federal Communications Commission operates under an alternative slogan: "Since a minority that is very important to this administration disagrees with what you say, shut up."
from the NY Post
April 10, 2004
April 10, 2004 -- HOWARD Stern's lucrative syndication career is in for rough sledding because of the $500,000 fine that caused the nation's largest radio chain to fire the shock jock Thursday.
Of 17 Stern affiliates contacted by The Post - there are now 35 altogether - only four station managers expressed unabashed support. Another is on the fence, and 12 more avoided all comment - possibly a bad omen, considering that big fines may be headed their way, too.
"He has the highest-rated program on any station at any time in Atlantic City," said WJSE owner Al Parinello, a gung-ho supporter who says he'll "absolutely" renew Stern when his five-year deal expires this year.
"According to the FCC, I guess [the ratings] mean everybody here is indecent and, frankly, that appalls me," Parinello said.
"All these people can't be perverts."
The manager of the Hartford station where radio's baddest boy got his break as a DJ in the '70s wasted no words.
"We will have Howard Stern on as long as Infinity makes him available and that's all I care to say," WCCC's Boyd Arnold told The Post.
On the other hand, Charles Cohn from WLXO in Lexington, Ky., didn't seem so sure.
"We're just evaluating everything right now - we're looking at what all our options are," Cohn said.
"We're paying close attention to what's going on."
Many radio observers think the FCC isn't done using Stern as a piñata because language in its decision against the huge station-group Clear Channel left the door open to going after other stations that broadcast the shock jock's show.
Of Stern's 35 remaining affiliates [Ed. - the complete list is here] - he once had as many as 70 - 18 are owned by Infinity, the Viacom unit that owns New York's K-Rock (92.3 FM) and employs Stern.
"Howard's status has not changed on Infinity stations," said a company spokesperson.
Stern returns from vacation on Monday. His agent didn't return calls yesterday.
from All Acccess.com
April 9, 2004
Since yesterday's news that the FCC was fining CLEAR CHANNEL $495,000 for "individual utterances" -- which is an FCC first -- of indecent remarks on the HOWARD STERN SHOW about oral and anal sex, and the use of a fictional oral hygiene product called "Sphincterine" as well as the sounds of flatulence (passing gas) over six CLEAR CHANNEL stations many radio folks are commenting on the ALL ACCESS "NET TALK" message board that CLEAR CHANNEL is being singled out, and questioning why INFINITY hasn't been affected in this latest round of fines.
That could all be about to change. In TODAY's WALL STREET JOURNAL (subscription required to view), a story says:
"The FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, which confirmed the big fine THURSDAY, upped the ante, saying it now has trained its sights on the show's syndicator, VIACOM INC.'s INFINITY BROADCASTING CORP. INFINITY could be hit with up to $1.49 million in fines if the FCC finds it aired the same material on its 18 stations that carry the show.
"The FCC is sending a letter of inquiry to INFINITY to find out if it aired the same material as CLEAR CHANNEL in its STERN markets. It is getting more difficult to pinpoint where the exact material is played because local radio station officials often will bleep out things they find offensive and don't always keep records of what material was deleted."
The WSJ article goes on to say: "INFINITY previously has backed MR. STERN strongly. MEL KARMAZIN, VIACOM's president, recently sent a letter to a U.S. senator apologizing for a racial slur made by a caller to the show, but defended MR. STERN and denied his broadcasts were indecent. INFINITY hasn't paid a fine since a $1.7 million settlement with the FCC in 1995 involving several HOWARD STERN fines. So far, the FCC hasn't enlisted the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to take the company to court to collect. In addition, INFINITY has refused to pay a $357,000 fine levied by the FCC against it for the "OPIE & ANTHONY" show that featured a description of a couple having sex in ST. PATRICK'S CATHEDRAL in NEW YORK CITY.
CLEAR CHANNEL's moves put INFINITY in an awkward position. The more steps CLEAR CHANNEL takes to make sure it broadcasts no indecent content, the more pressure it puts on INFINITY to take similar steps."
And, it looks as if this new strategy of fining for each "utterance" is here to stay. [...]
from Radio & Records
April 9, 2004
from the Washington Post
April 9, 2004
Clear Channel Communications and shock jock Howard Stern felt the force of the Federal Communications Commission's new get-tough stance against on-air indecency yesterday, when the FCC for the first time issued a fine based on "individual utterances," which could cost the company $495,000 for a single Stern broadcast last April.
Clear Channel reacted quickly, permanently severing its ties with Stern, whose show already had been suspended from its stations for the past six weeks after another on-air incident the company deemed vulgar.
The FCC also announced that it has instructed its enforcement bureau to open an investigation of Infinity Broadcasting Corp. for the same show. Infinity broadcasts Stern on 35 stations, including local station WJFK (106.7 FM). This marks the first time the commission will investigate a broadcasting chain for a complaint that was originally made against another network's station.
"Today's decision is a step forward towards imposing meaningful fines," Commissioner Michael J. Copps said in a statement, which cited the new enforcement. "In addition, the Commission makes clear that its indecency enforcement will address not only the station that is the subject of the complaint, but also any other station that aired the same programming."
Last month, Clear Channel was fined $247,500 for indecency violations by Washington-based shock jock Elliot Segal, and in January the company was fined a record $775,000 for sexually explicit material aired on the "Bubba the Love Sponge" show. Bubba was fired by Clear Channel.
"Enforcement has clearly been stepped up and every broadcaster has to take notice," said Clear Channel Executive Vice President Andrew Levin, citing the increased fines. "Some commissioners and Congress have been talking about designating cases like this for license revocation hearings. So, this is really serious business. It's not some sort of moral issue. [Stern]'s not worth taking that risk. You lose a license, that's the death penalty for a broadcaster."
On his Web site, Stern lashed out at the decision, calling it a "follow-up to the McCarthy type 'witch hunt' " and suggested it was politically motivated. Stern, the most-fined shock jock in the business, cost Infinity more than $1 million in the 1990s for FCC violations.
Karen Mateo, director of communications for Infinity, declined to comment on the FCC's statement or pending investigation yesterday, but stated that Stern's "status has not changed" with Infinity.
The broadcast cited by the FCC yesterday aired April 9, 2003 -- six days after the FCC warned that it planned to start enforcing its right to fine stations for each individual utterance that violated its standards, as opposed to its traditional method of fining by program. The commission determined there were three violations during the show, which included specific references to oral sex. And although the initial complaint was lodged solely against Clear Channel affiliate WBGG in Fort Lauderdale, the FCC also fined Clear Channel for its broadcasts from affiliates in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Rochester, N.Y., Orlando and Louisville that carried the Stern show. For the broadcast network, that added up to 18 times the maximum penalty of $27,500 for a proposed fine of $495,000. Clear Channel has the right to appeal.
That pales in comparison, though, to what Infinity could face if the FCC decided to assess similar penalties against its 35 stations that air Stern's show. Using the same enforcement procedure, Infinity's proposed bill could be nearly $2.9 million.
Congress, meanwhile, has introduced legislation that would allow the FCC to raise the maximum fine for a single violation from $27,500 to $275,000.
"We can expect more of the same, I'm sure," Levin said. "If the bill in Congress passes, that would increase fines exponentially."
Howard's Response To The FCC's Actions:
"This is not a surprise. This is a follow up to the McCarthy type "witch hunt" of the administration and the activities of this group of presidential appointees in the FCC, led by "Colin Powell Jr." and his band of players. They and others (a senator from Kansas City to a congresswoman from New Mexico) are expressing and imposing their opinions and rights to tell us all who and what we may listen to and watch and how we should think about our lives. So this is not a surprise. It is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the U.S. It's hard to reconcile this with the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". I'm sure what's next is the removal of "dirty pictures" like the 20th century German exhibit in a New York City Museum and the erotic literature in our libraries; they too will fall into their category of "evil" as well.
Howard Stern, April 8th 2004
from howardstern.com
from the NY Post
April 9, 2004
April 9, 2004 -- Clear Channel fired Howard Stern from its stations yesterday - just minutes after the FCC socked the company with a massive, half-million-dollar fine.
"Mr. Stern's show has created a great liability for us and other broadcasters who air it," said John Hogan, president of the 1,200-station radio giant.
Hogan, who suspended Stern from six Clear Channel stations in February after a caller made racist and vulgar comments, abruptly ended that suspension yesterday.
"The FCC's latest action, combined with deafening silence from the Stern show on their future plans to comply with the law, leave us no choice but to abandon the program for good," Hogan said.
Stern, who's on vacation this week, posted a statement on his Web site reacting to the latest fine - by far the biggest single penalty in which he's been involved.
"This is not a surprise," the shock jock wrote on howardstern.com.
"This is a follow-up to the McCarthy type 'witch hunt' of the [Bush] administration and this group of presidential appointees in the FCC, led by 'Colin Powell Jr.' [FCC Chairman Michael Powell] and his band of players."
Stern called the fine a symbol of the "shocking" lapse of free speech in the "home of the brave."
The FCC yesterday nailed Clear Channel for a year-old Stern show that featured "repeated, graphic and explicit sexual descriptions" assisted by sound effects that the commission called "vulgar and lewd."
Stern's topics that April day included anal and oral sex, nether-region odors and a purported personal hygiene product known as "Sphincterine."
from the Associated Press
April 8, 2004
Federal regulators Thursday proposed $495,000 in indecency fines against Clear Channel Communications for broadcasts by shock jock Howard Stern.
The FCC cited the nation's largest radio chain for 18 alleged violations on April 9, 2003.
Clear Channel suspended Stern last month from its six stations that carry his program, which regularly features graphic sexual discussion and humor.
In a statement posted on his Web site, Stern said he was not surprised. He characterized the fine as furtherance of a "witch hunt" against him by the Bush administration.
"It is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the U.S.," he said. "It's hard to reconcile this with the 'land of the free' and the 'home of the brave."'
The FCC investigation was prompted by a listener in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who complained about a Stern program that included discussion of sex accompanied by flatulence sounds.
Federal law bars radio stations and over-the-air television channels from airing references to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children may be tuning in. The rules do not apply to cable and satellite channels or satellite radio.
The FCC imposed the maximum fine of $27,500 for each of 18 violations on six Clear Channel stations: WBGG in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; WTKS-FM in Cocoa Beach, Fla.; WTFX-FM in Louisville, Ky.; KIOZ in San Diego; WNVE in Honeoye Falls, N.Y.; and WSDS-FM in Pittsburgh.
The FCC fined each station for two specific incidents during a single program, the first time the commission has done so. Previously, the FCC levied fines for an entire program, no matter how many different indecent utterances occurred.
Commissioner Michael Copps, who usually dissents from indecency decisions because he says the penalties aren't strong enough, was part of a unanimous commission this time around.
"I have long advocated that the commission use all of the tools it has to tackle indecency on the public airwaves," he said. "Today's decision is a step forward towards imposing meaningful fines."
Last month, the FCC proposed fining Stern's employer, Infinity Broadcasting, $27,500 for a Stern show broadcast July 26, 2001, on WKRK-FM in Detroit. The FCC received a complaint from a Detroit listener about a show that featured discussions about sexual practices and techniques.
Infinity paid $1.7 million in 1995 to settle various violations by Stern. The Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group, said fines against Stern accounted for almost half of the $4 million in penalties proposed by the FCC since 1990.
Stern has charged on the air that he's being punished for his criticism of President Bush. Clear Channel's political action committee and its employees have given $265,800 to Republicans for the 2004 election, more than any other broadcaster, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.
"You've got to vote Bush out to send a message as a Howard Stern fan," Stern said during one recent broadcast.
"There's a cultural war going on. The religious right is winning. We're losing."
A conservative advocacy group, the Parents Television Council, applauded the FCC's decision.
"Stern is a repeat offender of the most commonsense decency standards and we welcome the news that the FCC is moving to combat these patently indecent shows," said L. Brent Bozell III, the group's president.
What Howard got fined for:
Taken from NAL
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
April 8, 2004
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: April 7, 2004
Released: April 8, 2004
EXCERPT:
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
ATTACHMENT A
Program Transcript
EB-03-IH-0159
Radio Station: WBGG-FM, Fort Lauderdale, Florida Date/Time Broadcast: April 9, 2003, between 7:25 and 7:45 a.m. Material Broadcast: The Howard Stern Show
Stern: ...John’s anal talk. John revealed that in his sex life with his wife they have anal every other time they do it., [Sound of flatulence or anal evacuation] which seems excessive. Some people wrote in. Here’s one: ...John must have some homosexual fantasies based on his need for [flatulence] anal. [flatulence] We all know it doesn’t feel nearly as good as straight sex.' I don’t know if a man or a woman wrote that. [flatulence] 'Jesus H. Christ, just the thought of that [flatulence] obese slob Artie on the bed all sweaty, hairy, and naked giving his girlfriend [flatulence] a, what do you call that, using his mouth in a really dirty place makes we want to friggin’ shoot myself. Imagining the scene with Bobbabooey was no better. [flatulence].' Robin: Oh, my God. Finally, 'if Stuttering John keeps up with his every other time [flatulence][at this point you can clearly hear that something is deleted or 'dumped' from Stern’s commentary by means of the broadcast delay capability] unless of course he’s so small that it isn’t much of a strain on her.' John: Hey, Howard, I was only kidding about that. Stern: No you weren’t. Why, your wife came down on you? John: Let’s just say it wasn’t a pleasant day in the Menendez household. Stern: Really, why? Is she embarrassed? John: Yes, she doesn’t, you know, want our sex life out [flatulence]. Stern: Oh please! So, what, no more anal? John: [flatulence] Let’s just say it’s every once in awhile [flatulence]. Stern: Aye, yi, yi. You were lying, then, yesterday. John: Yeah, I was lying [flatulence]. Stern: Okay. What? Another voice: You know what? The in-laws heard. That’s got to be tough. Stern: Was it the in-laws? John: No, no, she just happened to turn it on and goes 'What is this?' Stern: But I’ve heard from her [flatulence] that she loves anal. John: Yes, but that’s at the dinner table with us, not with the whole world listening [flatulence]. Another voice, imitating John’s mother-in-law: I saw you telling everyone that you give anal to my daughter. [flatulence] * * * Stern: So Bruce, I’m going to let you plug your product Sphincterine. Now I even said I’d let you do your jingle. Give them the Sphincterine jingle, first of all. Bruce: All right, this is a band called the Dead Beatles. [Musical jingle begins]: Sphincterine makes you tingle, feel so clean. Oh, Sphincterine. Cleans you sphincter and what’s between. Ho, hey! Stern: What did you pay for that? Bruce: Nothing, that’s my band the Dead Beatles. Stern: The Sphincterine product. How much money have you invested in this so far would you say? Bruce: Probably about twenty grand. Stern: And it’s ... Robin: How much have you made? Bruce: I probably have tripled that in just about six months, nine months. Robin: Really? Stern: You say you invented Sphincterine because a chick was giving you oral and you had a swamp ass? Bruce: Yeah, that’s basically it, Howard, yeah. I had a bad experience and my girl friend who’s in the green room right now was in a spontaneous mood and she caught me at a bad time and ... Stern: Is you girlfriend good looking? Bruce: Yeah, she’s cute. Stern: Yeah. So, oh, let me talk to her. I want to hear what swamp ass smells like. Bruce: I’m not sure she’s going to want to do this. Stern: What, describe swamp ass? Bruce: She can describe swamp ass, but I’m not so sure she wants to go on the air. Stern: So, when you develop a product, are you a chemist, that you would know how to do it? Bruce: Yes. Stern: What? Bruce: I’m a chemist. I develop products for a natural product company. And, uh, ... Stern: So you decided to branch out on your own. Bruce: Yeah. Stern: Oh, there’s your girlfriend. She is cute. Bruce: Thank you. Stern: So you were giving this animal oral, and you said 'Man you’ve got swamp ass'? Was that how it went down? Female Guest (Cat): Actually no, I went close for oral. Bruce: How close? Nine inches away, I think it was. Cat: Yeah. Stern: Yeah. And you just said ... Robin: You couldn’t get any closer. Stern: And you said, 'Oh, my God. You stink.' [recording of flatulence noise] What happened? Had you gone to the bathroom that day and not showered? Bruce: Yeah, it was like the end of the day, and Cat is a spontaneous woman and she just caught me with my pants down [flatulence noise]. Stern: Okay [flatulence noise] and you’re hot by the way. Cat: Thank you. Stern: Yeah. What are you doing with a guy with swamp ass? [flatulence] Bruce: Hey, it was a one shot deal. Stern: Honey, before I’d bang you I’d take a nice shower. Cat: You would? Stern: Yeah, I sure would Cat: Oh. That would be nice. Stern: Yeah. So ... Bruce: I go beyond that. Now I Sphincterine before I bang her. Stern: Talk about Sphincterine. So, you developed this product, and let’s say I go to the bathroom, and I don’t feel fresh. Bruce: You were talking recently about when you go to the bathroom, you use toilet paper with water on it. This product is really excellent for that particular situation you have. Stern: What is it, a spray bottle or a cream? Bruce: It’s a liquid, and it also comes in towelettes. So what you’ve got is something that you, the liquid, that you apply to toilet paper like water, as you once said on the air. Stern: I see. Bruce: You put it on, it’s all natural ingredients. Stern: Is it like a baby wipe? Bruce: It’s like a baby wipe, but those wipes are loaded with chemicals and bad ingredients. This is all natural, and it feels good. And you know, I’m going to let Cat talk about another purpose, uh, Cat. Stern: I don’t know if I want an infomercial. Bruce: No, Howard, this is cool. Stern: You know your dog was probably going to beat Artie anyway. Bruce: The bottom line is that Cat uses it on the front as well. Stern: Really? No problems using that? It doesn’t affect you in anyway? Cat: No. Actually, but it has a nice effect. It makes you tingle...
from CNN/Money
April 5, 2004
The trade publication Broadcasting & Cable said that the fine against the Viacom unit Infinity is expected to be handed down within a week.
It said the fine will be the first one involving Stern that will hit the broadcaster with a separate fine for each indecent "utterance" during a program. Previously, broadcasters were hit with a single fine no matter how many times a program crossed the line. But the commission put broadcasters on notice late last year that they would now face possible multiple fines on the same program.
Infinity has stood behind Stern in the past, paying a record $1.7 million fine from the FCC in 1995 for various comments he made on the air. The current maximum is $27,500 for each instance judged to be obscene, but that fine is levied against each station which airs the show. Congress is moving to raise the maximum fine to $500,000 for each instance. The bill raising the fine passed the house and awaits action in the Senate.
Clear Channel Communications, the nation's largest radio broadcaster, pulled Stern's radio show from its six stations that aired his syndicated program in February. But since the commission's enforcement actions generally trail a broadcast by months if not years, it is likely that the Clear Channel stations will face any new fines handed down on Stern's show.
Stern's show is still heard on 35 other stations. Stern himself will not be subject to the fines. The fines are assessed on broadcasters, not on-air personalities or performers who are found guilty of the fines.
Spokesmen for Stern and Infinity were not immediately available for comment on the Broadcasting and Cable report. A spokesman for the FCC said he could not comment on the report.
from the Boston Herald
March 19, 2004
Regulators slapped another potential fine on the company that distributes self-proclaimed "King of All Media" Howard Stern's radio show late yesterday and reversed its earlier stance on singer Bono's expletive uttered during an awards show broadcast by NBC-TV last year.
"Chairman Mao, I mean Chairman (Michael) Powell, gets to decide what's offensive to him and to fine me," said Stern, 50, in a reference to the Republican head of the Federal Communications Commission. Stern himself does not face a fine, but Infinity Broadcasting could be forced to pay $27,500 for Stern's latest alleged offense.
Bono's use of an expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards was initially deemed not actionable, sparking protests from conservative media groups and lawmakers. The FCC said yesterday it will change the rules that permit one-time uses of such words.
If it sticks, the latest fine generated by Stern would push the popular shock jock's total indecency penalties close to the $2 million mark - far more than any other performer's. A government watchdog group reported yesterday that Stern's show accounted for $1.96 million in indecency fines since 1990.
The FCC has sought $3.95 million in fines for indecency since 1990, a tally by The Center for Public Integrity found. Five radio shows were responsible for $3.44 million of that.
Stern's show and Infinity, a unit of Viacom, generated far more than any other entity.
Stern's show, heard locally on WBCN-FM 104.1, reaches about 18 million listeners nationwide. After settling five FCC actions related to indecency for $1.71 million in 1995, the "Howard Stern Show" had not been hit with a fine since 1998, the report found.
The Center for Public Integrity, which tracked 72 broadcast indecency actions, also found the FCC often failed to collect the penalties it levied.
"Finding out what has actually been paid was an absolutely maddening process," said John Dunbar, author of the center's study.
The FCC also sometimes waits too long to impose a fine, the report said. Researchers said they found five instances since 1990 where fines were canceled because the statute of limitations expired.
from the NY Post
March 19, 2004
The Federal Communications Commission proposed fining Infinity Broadcasting the maximum $27,500 for a Stern show broadcast on WKRK-FM in Detroit on July 26, 2001.
The fine was meted out because the FCC decided the nationally syndicated show, which included the Detroit station, included smutty talk about oral sex and "excretory organs" that the commission said was "vulgar and lewd."
The FCC also overruled its staff and said that Bono's expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards program was indecent and profane, but issued no fine.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell had asked his fellow commissioners to overturn the FCC enforcement bureau's finding.
The fines are the latest in a stepped-up campaign by the FCC to crack down on indecency. Critics have said the commission failed to aggressively enforce rules, leading to a coarsening of the airwaves.
Radio Station: WKRK-FM, Detroit, MI
Date/Time of Broadcast: July 26, 2001, 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.
Material Broadcast: The Howard Stern Show
HS: Howard Stern
RQ: Robin Quivers
MV: Male Cast Member
HS: I said to Mark Wahlberg yesterday, had he ever gotten a blumpkin from a girl and everyone around here is acting like they don't know what it is. RQ: You're the only nutcase who does. MV: I said 'blumpkin' on the 'Norm Show' and the network censor, we told him we just made the word up. He goes, 'that's definitely not a real word right?' We go, no,no,no. And I said it, I yelled out at a hooker in a cab. HS: What do you say to her, 'how about a blumpkin?' MV: I go 'honey, how much for a blumpkin?' HS: Right. MV: And uh the network censor never heard of it. And he goes if you just made it up it's fine but if it's a real thing we can't have it. So it's aired, it's been on ABC, it's like the dirtiest thing ever on television. HS: Yeah, but nobody knows what it is. A blumpkin... I can explain it cleanly. RQ: There's nothing clean about a blumpkin. HS: Well, a blumpkin is receiving oral sex while you're sitting on a toilet bowl if you are a man. You're sitting on a toilet bowl and uh, while you're evacuating you receive your oral. RQ: Ick. HS: And uh, then, what did I say yesterday too you didn't understand? Balloon knot? RQ: Yes, I don't know what that is. Somebody said to me 'is that the funniest thing ever?' and I was like 'what is that?' HS: A balloon knot... RQ: I didn't want to show my ignorance, I laughed too. HS: A balloon knot... I'm gonna post these on a web site... RQ: Yeah, we need a dictionary for this show. HS: A balloon knot is when you bend over and I can see up right up your old... RQ: Up the wazoo? HS: Up the wazoo and uh, you know that's a balloon knot that you see. That's called a 'balloon knot.' RQ: Really, I did not know that. HS: Think about it, it looks like a balloon knot. RQ: I don't know. Oh... you know what... HS: Tie up a balloon. RQ: I'm just thinking of a balloon knot... MV: It all makes sense, Robin, come on. HS: And uh, what else did I say? 'Nasty Sanchez,' you didn't know what that was. RQ: Oh, I don't even want to know half the time what these things are... HS: That I'd have to post on the internet. RQ: ‘Cause there've been a number of terms used lately. Would you do... ‘cause KC's always blurtin' them out. HS: 'Strawberry shortcake' RQ: 'Strawberry shortcake' I've never heard of. 'Dirty Sanchez' HS: 'Nasty Sanchez.' RQ: What is the others KC? MV: I heard a new one the other day. It was the 'David Copperfield.' HS/RQ: That's right. MV: Okay, do you want to explain it, since I... When you're goin' like a dog... HS: Right. MV: ...and you're about to finish and instead you don't finish, you spit on her and then you turn around and when she turns her face around then you go... So it's kind of like an illusion... HS: Right. MV: to David Copperfield. RQ: Sleight of hand. HS: Misdirection. MV: Classic misdirection. HS: You trick her. There's a million of them, but uh, I'll post them on the web. RQ: Yes, because people need to know. These aren't in the regular dictionary.
from Broadcasting & Cable
March 16, 2004 5:27:00 PM
Viacom President Mel Karmazin today defended Infinity's Feb. 24 broadcast of Howard Stern's show, saying it was not indecent.
He apologized to Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) for an offensive racist remark made by a caller to the show, but said that, too, "does not fall within the ambit of the indecency definition."
Clear Channel, by contrast, had very publicly yanked the same broadcast--which reportedly featured references to anal sex and use of the N-word--both because it feared the broadcast was indecent and because it said the material was inappropriate for its air. That move prompted Brownback to write Karmazin asking him to explain why Infinity had not taken the same steps. CBS hand-delivered the response to Brownback.
At the time of Clear Channels' move, company President John Hogan, on the eve of an appearance before Congress to talk about indecency, described the broadcast as vulgar, offensive and insulting.
For his part, Karmazin told Brownback that "our editors made the good faith judgment that the references which aired were not graphic, patently offensive descriptions of sexual activity."
Karmazin told Brownback that the company was taking "great precautions" to make sure indecent material did not make it to air. In fact, he said a delay was in place, and used, for the Feb. 24 broadcast. But Karmazin also said the FCC wasn't making it easy.
"Multiple course corrections by the FCC in the context of adjudicatory proceedings typically involving a single party and taking months, or even years, of deliberation underscore the difficult task facing broadcasters." Nonetheless, he said, "we are doing our best to comply with the vague, generic indecency standard and the FCC's often-conflicting rulings in this sensitive First Amendment Area."
Viacom and Stern got some support from the Senate last week, where several Democrats suggested the Stern show was being targeted not for indecency but for his criticism of the Bush administration. Clear Channel called that "ludicrous."
from TV Week.com
March 15, 2004
Tom Shales
One nipple pops out and the First Amendment gets shot full of holes. Imagine if there had been two nipples. Or if Justin Timberlake had whipped out his weenie. Ms. Jackson's exhibitionism wa s foolish and pitifully out of context, but there hasn't been a single recorded example of anyone being harmed by it-scarred for life, say, or stricken with hooterphobia.
The nipple would barely have caused a ripple if flashed during the MTV Video Awards, an annual exercise in tastelessness and boorish behavior. It popped out at the wrong time and place, that's all. It hardly justifies a new edition of the Spanish Inquisition.
Clearly the saddest and most infuriating irony of the whole mess is that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell is demagoguing this "issue" into a national frenzy, or at least a federal frenzy, about indecency in the media, thus distracting attention from his attempt to impose a radical relaxation of media ownership rules on the country. As wary observers have noted, one factor clearly responsible for the overabundance of smut in TV and radio is the concentration of media ownership in fewer and fewer sinfully wealthy hands-and the death of localism it is helping to bring about.
Powell's gall is as appalling as his knuckle-headed zealotry on behalf of our fattest fat cats. We've had dangerous and tiny-minded FCC chairmen before-Mark "The Toaster" Fowler's name pops to mind-but none who behaved with such cynical hypocrisy and bias. Colin Powell must be mortified at the efficiency with which his son has sullied the family name.
Why has the name "Viacom" been used so infrequently in condemnations of the Super Bowl fiasco? It was Viacom's MTV that perpetrated the unsavory halftime show and Viacom's CBS that televised it. But Viacom's Sumner Redstone knows well where to put his political donations and whom to cultivate in Washington. Instead of going after an enormous conglomerate, Congress and the FCC turn their sights on an individual like, say, Howard Stern, who with staggering illogic has been singled out as part of the overkill resulting from Ms. Jackson's indiscretion.
For 20 years, listeners to Mr. Stern's radio program have known precisely what to expect. Howard Stern may make an unappetizing poster child for First Amendment freedoms, but he's as entitled to them as anybody. On Friday, Stern turned over a large portion of his show to recordings of other voices, on talk shows and newscasts, expressing outrage at the latter-day witch hunt on which the federal government has embarked.
Of course no acceptable working definition of "indecency" exists, which complicates things. Who decides what is indecent? Maybe it will be left to the whims of Chairman Powell. The new $500,000 fine for individual acts of indecency would apparently apply not only to licensees but also to personalities, like Stern. And what about a panelist or guest on a talk show who utters a naughty-naughty? If George Will loses control (an impossibility, admittedly) and spews a longshoremanly blue streak some Sunday morning on ABC, will federal marshals arrive at his doorstep on Monday?
Perhaps it will work like parking tickets. You just pop half a million dollars into the handy postage-paid envelope and drop it into a mailbox. It will get to the FCC soon enough. Or maybe not soon enough-then what?
Whatever happened to letting "the marketplace" decide? All we've heard for years from FCC appointees-Powell included-and other political leaders of a particular persuasion is that the marketplace can police itself with no help from meddlers in Washington. That theory was gospel-until L'Affaire Nipple and until the FCC ran into unexpected opposition in its attempts to let Big Media get still bigger.
Howard Stern does just fine in the marketplace. Many people find him offensive and don't listen. The same can be said of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.
Was "Thou shalt not commit indecency" ever considered for inclusion in, perhaps, the Ten Commandments? Of course not, because nobody knew what indecency was then, just as nobody knows what it is now. It's whatever Michael Powell wants it to be, apparently. Oh, for the days when the FCC was a laughable bunch of do-nothings with crummy offices and little clout in the capital. Then again, oh, for the days when the commission was chaired by progressive, imaginative and politically unpredictable intellectuals like Newton Minow and Nicholas Johnson.
The Jackson incident deserved condemnation and a week at the national water cooler. Maybe 10 days. Then we should have moved on to other topics for discussion, preferably things that matter and substantively affect American lives and the quality thereof.
Remember Al Pacino in "And Justice for All"?-"I'm out of order? You're out of order! This whole court is out of order!" Somebody has to go up to Capitol Hill and start screaming, and what they can scream is, "I'm indecent? You're indecent! This whole [expletive deleted] Congress is indecent! Attica! Attica! Attica!"
Oh, wait. That was another Al Pacino movie. Anyway, what a chicken-hearted and lily-livered Congress has wrought is not merely indecent. It truly is obscene.
 Delonas/NY Post - February 27, 2004 |
NEW YORK -- Amid a widening and increasingly politicized campaign to clean up the nation's airwaves, regulators are proposing fines against many of the nation's major radio companies for carrying well-known "shock jocks," Federal Communications Commission officials told The Wall Street Journal.
About a dozen cases are being finalized, these officials said, and one target is Howard Stern, one of the nation's most popular and controversial radio hosts. The FCC is deciding on penalties against his employer, Viacom Inc.'s Infinity Broadcasting. Also facing further scrutiny are Emmis Communications Inc. and Clear Channel Communications Inc., the nation's largest radio owner, which last week took Mr. Stern's show off six of its radio stations and fired a controversial -- and oft-fined -- Tampa, Fla., radio host, Todd Clem, known as "Bubba the Love Sponge."
Bowing to public pressure, the agency also plans to reverse its earlier finding that singer Bono's use of a vulgarity on live television during the 2003 Golden Globes broadcast wasn't indecent, possibly as soon as next week, officials said. However, it won't impose what could have been a multimillion- dollar fine against General Electric Co.'s NBC network, which carried the event, or its affiliates.
The flurry of new cases is the latest sign of a sweeping federal crackdown on controversial content beamed over television and radio airwaves. Congress has held a spate of hearings in the last two months to decry what some legislators call a "race to the bottom" by broadcasters. While a move to act against questionable material had been under way before, it was ignited by this year's Super Bowl broadcast, in which entertainer Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during the halftime show to the embarrassment of broadcaster CBS, a Viacom unit, its affiliates and the FCC.
Feeding the push is an increasingly charged, and polarized, political atmosphere in which cultural issues such as obscenity and gay marriage have become hot topics as the general election campaign heats up. Lawmakers of both parties have been implicitly and in some cases openly threatening legislative action if regulators don't step up their enforcement of existing decency standards.
Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Anne Marie Squeo and Joe Flint contributed to this report.
from buzzflash.com
March 2, 2004
Thirty-six years ago, Walter Cronkite returned from a visit to Vietnam and set the nation straight. "We've been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds," he said. "For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate."
"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the country," President Johnson remarked.
Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past two years can see how fitting these remarks are today -- not only as they relate to this White House's determination to whitewash its blunders, but to the media's power to shape public opinion. And while Howard Stern is no Walter Cronkite, former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman recently explained the extent of Stern's clout. "Eleven years ago, Howard Stern endorsed me for Governor," she told Bill Maher. "I want to tell you, in the closest races that I had, that made a difference."
Listed by FOX last March as one of the "pro-Bush celebs [missing] out on the limelight," [Fox News] Stern has since rethought his position. On Feb. 26 (the day Stern's program was suspended in half a dozen Clear Channel markets), he not only said that the Bush administration doesn't know what it is doing in Iraq, but within a ten minute span pointed out that:
* Al Gore won the election.
* Bush did not fulfill his duty in the National Guard.
* George W. will never admit that Poppy Bush pulled stings to get
him into the Guard and keep him out of Vietnam.
* There are several questions about Bush's character.While callers to the show repeatedly expressed dismay that Stern was taken off the air in certain cities, one fan expressed the overall mood by saying that the new FCC/Clear Channel tactics are reminiscent of Nazi book burnings. Never mind that the canaries in the proverbial coal mine were chirping a similar tune last year, back when radio stations were organizing Dixie Chick CD demolitions, the distant rumbling of goose-stepping is now being heard by former Bush supporters, too. Dubbing Clear Channel "fear channel," Stern warned that the "fascist right-wing" is "getting so much power."
The following day, Stern was even more forceful. "Get rid of George W. Bush," he said, adding that Bush is "dangerous" and has a "religious agenda." By Monday, March 1, Stern was circumspect. "There's a real good argument to be made that I stopped backing Bush and that's when I got kicked off Clear Channel," he said.
After Stern was pulled from six cities, including Orlando, Miami and Pittsburgh (which, coincidentally, are important markets in important swing states), John Hogan, president of 1,200-station Clear Channel, appeared before members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and apologized for letting Stern say the things he's been saying for years. "I accept responsibility for our mistake, and my company will live with the consequences of its actions," Hogan said.
"I don't think what [Stern] said this week was different from things he's said before," Rep. Fred Upton said. "Why didn't you do this earlier? Has he actually changed his tune?"
"I don't think he's changed his tune, but we've changed ours. We're going in a different direction at Clear Channel Radio," Hogan responded. [The Hollywood Reporter]
While that's all fine and well, if quality programming really is a top priority, why did Clear Channel recently hire Michael Savage at Houston 's KPRC? Isn't Mr. Hogan aware that Savage was fired from MSNBC for referring to a caller as a "sodomite" who should "get AIDS and die"? And, if vulgarity truly is the issue, what was Clear Channel's complaint against disc jockey Charles Goyette?
In an article entitled "How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio: Clear Channel Gags an Antiwar Conservative," Goyette discussed why he believes he was removed from his prime-time spot at KFYI in Phoenix. "Why did this happen? Why only a couple of months after my company picked up the option on my contract for another year in the fifth-largest city in the United States, did it suddenly decide to relegate me to radio Outer Darkness?" he asked. "The answer lies hidden in the oil-and-water incompatibility of these two seemingly disconnected phrases: 'Criticizing Bush' and 'Clear Channel.'"
Saying that badmouthing Bush and his fairy tale war was enough to derail his career, Goyette explained a policy that, from his vantage point, seemed to be company wide. "Criticism of Bush and his ever-shifting pretext for a first-strike war (what exactly was it we were pre-empting anyway?) has proved so serious a violation of Clear Channel's cultural taboo that only a good contract has kept me from being fired outright," he wrote. Fellow Clear Channel D.J. Roxanne Cordonier (Roxanne Walker), however, wasn't so lucky. "Her lawsuit against the company alleges that she was belittled on the air and reprimanded by her station for opposing the invasion of Iraq. Then she was fired," Goyette explained.
By now, ties between the Texas-based Clear Channel and the President of the United States are legendary. Clear Channel's vice chairman Tom Hicks "made Bush a millionaire," while Clear Channel stations were a staple at "'pro-troop rallies,' which, by many accounts, "were virtually indistinguishable from pro-Bush rallies." [AmConMag.com]
So, was Stern taken off the air because of the shock waves emanating from Janet Jackson's breast? Or is there, as Stern and others suggest, more to this story?
Oddly enough, Rush Limbaugh's twisted defense of Stern provides a clue. Though Limbaugh was somewhat brave and honorable to speak out, the spin Limbaugh placed on the incident speaks volumes. This was Limbaugh's take, courtesy of Matt Drudge:
"Smut on TV gets praised. Smut on TV wins Emmys. On radio, there
seems to be different standards. I've never heard Howard Stern. But
when the federal government gets involved in this, I get a little
frightened. If we are going to sit by and let the federal
government get involved in this, if the government is going to
'censor' what they think is right and wrong... What happens if a
whole bunch of John Kerrys, or Terry McAuliffes start running this
country? And decide conservative views are leading to violence? I
am in the free speech business. It's one thing for a company to
determine if they are going to be party to it. It's another thing
for the government to do it." [DrudgeReport.com]John Kerry? Terry McAuliffe? Why not mention that the FCC is headed by Colin Powell's son, Michael? And what about Clear Channel's ample ties to Bush? This bit of spin ventures so deeply into the Land of Intellectual Dishonesty, it's easy to see why, given the value of propaganda, Limbaugh is said to have received a $35 million signing bonus when he signed his reported $250 million contract back in 2001.
And, given the evidence (particularly since Howard Stern himself is now openly asking if his censorship woes didn't begin with his criticism of Bush) one wonders if Stern's political change of heart didn't have something to do with Clear Channel's preemptive strike. "Maybe they did it as a favor to Bush?" Stern asked.
 |
These days, however, former Bush loyalist Howard Stern isn't the only one openly calling for Bush's ouster, as another of the President's most ardent (and at times, embarrassingly fawning) supporters is now seeing things more clearly. Though Andrew Sullivan has been described as falling "to his own knees before President Bush" [Salon.com]), last week, following Bush's call for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Andrew Sullivan.com was abuzz with a flurry of anti-Bush commentary from people who are also beginning to awaken to the dangers we face. How striking is this turn of events? Imagine Charlton Heston suddenly expressing a distaste for firearms.
Explaining his shift in perspective, Sullivan wrote: "It was because I believed in the Constitution of the United States that I felt no qualms in backing this president and in fighting rhetorical wars on his behalf - because that Constitution was under attack. . . So you can see, perhaps, why the bid to write anti-gay discrimination into this very Constitution provokes such a strong response from me - and so many other people, gay and straight, and their families. It robs us of something no one in this country should be robbed of - equality and inclusion in the founding document itself. When people tell me that, in weighing the political choices, the war on terror should trump the sanctity of the Constitution, my response is therefore a simple one. The sanctity of the Constitution is what we are fighting for. We're not fighting just to defend ourselves. We are fighting to defend a way of life: pluralism, freedom, equality under the law."
Sullivan received more than a thousand e-mails regarding "the president's shocking embrace of discrimination in the Constitution," and as one e-mailer explained, "I have voted for every Republican nominee since Nixon and without regrets. Until now. I wish I could take back my 2000 vote. But, in any case, I will work to get out the vote for Kerry or Edwards. I will not vote for a President who secures the basest elements of his base by dividing Americans. And you know what: he is going to lose. That gay marriage announcement was the desperate act of a desperate man."
An independent voter who was planning to vote for Bush wrote that the President's "disgraceful support for altering the nation's constitution, in order to enshrine bigotry, division and scorn is the last straw," while a Special Ops solider put it this way:
"And so it now begins. My more liberal friends told me a day like
this would come, and now I am forced to eat crow. Words cannot
express the hurt and anger I feel for the man's blatant
constitutional and moral attack on a segment of our population. And
for the still wobbly among us, make no mistake ... this is an
attack... I realized long ago I am (was) a Republican solely for
foreign affairs. But that's not good enough anymore. I've helped
feed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, I've slept in the mud and rain to
enforce peace treaties in eastern Europe, seated in 100 percent
humidity in southeast Asia, and I dodged too many bullets and
remote controlled bombs in and around Mosul to count. But I gladly
did this (and will do it again) to protect the rights and liberties
of ALL Americans, not just those of my family.
I voted for this man ... despite what my family said, despite how
many times I was smeared because I am African American and (was) a
Republican, despite his joy in being an anti-intellectual ... they
warned me, they warned me and I didn't listen ... and now I am
ashamed of myself. By all that I hold Holy it will never happen
again!"While the new anti-Bush attitude takes some getting used to, Sullivan's observation about the hidden agenda behind the Federal Marriage Amendment is especially jarring -- given that he's openly dismissed Bush-related concerns as "conspiracy theories" in the past. Citing an email from a Republican lawyer who explained why he hasn't "been sleeping well since Tuesday," Sullivan wrote that the proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage "is just the beginning of the religious right agenda."
"[With] one amendment the religious right could wipe out access to birth control, abortion, and even non-procreative sex (as Senator Santorum so eagerly wants to do)," the anonymous lawyer wrote. "This debate isn't only about federalism, it's about the reversal of two hundred years of liberal democracy that respects individuals." [AndrewSullivan.com] Or, as Sullivan put it, "Memo to straights: you're next."
Given how long Stern and Sullivan sang Bush's praises (and how frequently those who warned about threats to Americans' civil liberties were ridiculed) it's comforting to know that they, and others, finally see it, too. "I have to say, I feel like a spoiled brat [voting for Nader] last time," Bill Maher recently told Hardball's Chris Matthews. "It just showed me, people do not have the indulgence in most places in the world to vote for the lesser of two evils. . . They see evil, they got to get rid of it. Not that George Bush is evil incarnate, but he does have to be gotten rid of." [MSNBC.com]
Of course, now that polls show that Kerry/Edwards ticket would beat Bush/Cheney by a margin of 50 percent to 42 percent (and a growing number of Republicans and independents say that won't back Bush in 2004) perhaps our long national nightmare is finally coming to an end. Unless, of course, Bush really does "hit a trifecta" and Osama "October Surprise" bin Laden is caught and paraded around the Republican National Convention; more voter roll shenanigans and Diebold glitches deliver another GOP "victory;" and a second terrorist attack leads, as Gen. Tommy Franks warned, to the suspension of the Constitution.
Yes, at this point, it seems that for Bush to win the presidential election, something wicked this way will have to come. And though there are those who have predicted that the future holds more wars, more crackdowns, a return to the draft and another terrorist attack [BuzzFlash.com], the fact that America's lazy Stepford pundits are no longer asking, "Can anyone beat Bush?" is a promising sign.
"None of [the media] are alarmed as broadcasters that our rights are being taken away. It's weird what's going on," Stern mused on March 1.
Yep, Howard, we've been stuck in a seemingly never-ending episode of the Twilight Zone for quite some time now. But as more people awaken to the dangers lurking from within, perhaps there will be silver linings -- even in the darkest clouds.
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
 |
The FCC, in a move clearly influenced by the Bush administration’s recent move to (even farther) right of center has been ruthlessly cracking down on what the administration calls “indecency in media”. The change in heart started by a national flashing by Janet Jackson has resulted in the CEOs of both Viacom (parent of CBS, MTV) and Clear Channel having to answer for their content to Congress.
A familiar target for the FCC is legendary and nationally syndicated morning talk radio star, Howard Stern. In this new climate of “indecency” Stern has recently been scolded by his boss, Mel Karmazin, for recent off color comments relating to a supposed racial comment he made last week relating to both women and African Americans. Stern, whose side-kick is both black and a woman, often acts as a foil for his off-the-cuff comments even when in bad taste. As a result of Stern’s recent comments, Clear Channel, the largest owner of radio stations in America, also censured Stern by refusing to syndicate him for one day on all of their stations that normally broadcast his program. This action comes one day before Clear Channel’s CEO was headed to Capitol Hill to answer for their personalities shocking behavior including, but not limited to, Bubba The Love Sponge’s real life on-air execution of an actual pig. Bubba The Love Sponge, years after the slaying of a pig but only days before Clear Channel’s CEO John Hogan was to appear in front of Congress, was let go.
Politically, people in the middle of the spectrum tend to find Congress involvement in decency issues is unnecessary. The religious right voraciously disagrees and that seems to be the audience the current administration is courting in this election year. Democratic candidates are sure to make a big issue of what four more years of George W. Bush would be like in terms of loss of personal freedoms and freedom of speech with the current FCC and White House leadership. Indecency may quickly become a major topic in this year’s presidential election.
All of FCC chairman Michael Powell’s saber rattling has radio’s power base truly (and perhaps rightfully) scared. The FCC has implied that if radio (and even TV) doesn’t clean up its act right now, they may strip even the most mighty media companies of their broadcast licenses or at a minimum, impose more fines. Each infraction by a syndicated talent like Stern can mean cost $250,000 for each of his 40 stations adding up to a $10,000,000 FCC fine. A loss of a major market station license could mean billions of dollars in lost revenue and as much as $500,000,000 in losses for losing control of the radio station asset.
All of these FCC threats mean nothing to outspoken Howard Stern who now literally begs to be fired released from his contract on his show. He threatens that he will take his estimated 18,000,000 listeners to satellite radio and kiss Viacom goodbye. Stern’s importance is two fold for Viacom. He not only generates incredible revenue in syndication to clients like Clear Channel – he also serves as the main draw for Viacom’s vast network of male oriented, FM talk radio stations across the country. One would think they would do anything to save the “King of all Media” but that might not be the case.
Despite Stern’s power, it is not inconceivable to see him cut loose by Karmazin assuming Viacom started losing stations. In the event Stern was let go, the ramifications would be earth shattering. If Stern ended up on satellite radio he could change that media forever much like he defined the male demographic on terrestrial radio. Currently, satellite radio has about 1.3 million total subscribers with a little over 1,000,000 on XM and about 250,000 on competing Sirius. Even a tiny fraction of Stern’s 18,000,000 listeners could take a second place player like Sirius and turn them into the leader in satellite radio literally overnight. More importantly, with satellite radio’s subscription model each new listener equals profitability.
Perhaps the political climate will soon simmer down as a natural course of events? Maybe in a few months a new, more moderate American president could create a more harmonious environment in the entertainment business. One thing is for sure, the last guy John Hogan, Mel Karmazin, Michael Powell and especially George W. Bush want to tangle with is Howard Stern. While his content is (and has always been) a little off-color, his audience is wide reaching and highly powerful. He is the kind of catalyst who could inspire radical change whether it is on Pennsylvania Avenue or in the world of satellite radio.
frpm FMQB
On the evening after Clear Channel indefinitely suspended his show in six key markets, Howard Stern attended a dinner with Mel Karmazin where the Viacom COO and longtime Stern advocate voiced his support for Stern. Meanwhile, Infinity execs say the company will continue to air his show on the roughly 40 Stern affiliates they own and have no plans to follow Clear Channel's lead.
Yanking Stern would have a far greater financial impact on Infinity than on Clear Channel. One media analyst told CNNMoney that a Stern-less Infinity would lead analysts to cut earnings forecasts for Viacom. Another said the loss of Stern in just six markets could cost Clear Channel $12.4 million a year.
Despite radio getting its mouthed washed out with a big bar of government soap, Stern's Friday show was true to form --albeit with more editing by station censors. Stern segued directly from Clear Channel-bashing into an extended round of "Guess Who Banged Me," played strip poker-style, with "Busty Cops" pornstar Sam Phillips.
Stern said Karmazin told him he's received 4,000 emails about him, most from the conservative American Family Association. And WXRK GM Tom Chiusano said the uproar the government's hearing about indecent broadcast content is the result of a well organized vocal minority.
Assurances aside, Stern said, "I might be taken off all the stations soon." He closed his marathon Friday show with a promise to "reconvene on Monday, if there's still any stations that still want to carry us."
from FMQB
February 26, 2004
Stern said he was informed last night of the decision by "Fear Channel" and was initially told that the suspension was only for two days in San Diego, but later learned that all six Clear Channel affiliates dropped his show.
"It makes it seem like I did something wrong Tuesday," said Stern, who then added that he thought the only reason the suspension happened is because Clear Channel was getting "hauled in front of Congress." He also said he believes that presidential election year politics are the driving force behind the indecency crackdown.
"I told you it would come down to me," Stern said. "This regime has gotten absolutely bizarre between Ashcroft, Cheney, Bush, Powell and his son. This is the most unbelievable thing when people can be thrown off air without a trial. The fascist, right wing a-holes are taking over the country."
"[The FCC] has been after me since 1992 and they are having their way with me now," Stern said later, replying to a listener phone call. "It started when all these guys started cloning my show and then going berserk. Janet Jackson whipped out her boob and that's all they needed."
Stern sounded sentimental at times. "This show is a big family," he said. "We reach people all over the country and at least a tenth of our family is gone today."
from BUSINESS WIRE
February 25, 2004
06:44 PM US Eastern Timezone
"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," said John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio. "It was vulgar, offensive, and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency. 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," Hogan said.
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (NYSE:CCU), headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, is a global leader in the media and entertainment industry with radio and television stations, outdoor advertising displays, and live entertainment venues in 65 countries around the world.
See us on the web at www.clearchannel.com
Contact:
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., San Antonio
Lisa Dollinger, 210-822-2828
LisaDollinger@clearchannel.com
or
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Washington
Andrew Levin, 202-289-3230
AndyLevin@clearchannel.com
email Clear Channel CEO John Hogan
also: Clear Channel Imposes Strict New Standards For Broadcast Decency
from msnbc.com
NEW YORK - Shock jock Howard Stern’s show was yanked Wednesday from Clear Channel Communications Inc. radio stations after an incident on his show Tuesday, the first casualty of its zero tolerance policy on indecency.
“It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency,” Clear Channel Radio Chief Executive John Hogan said in a statement.
“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,” he said.
Clear Channel has about 1,200 stations in the United States. The Stern show was carried in six markets, including Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Florida; Rochester, New York; Louisville, Kentucky; San Diego; and Pittsburgh.
Stern’s show is syndicated by Infinity Broadcasting, a unit of Viacom Inc.
A spokesmen for Infinity was not immediately available for comment and a Viacom spokesman declined comment.
Neither Stern’s agent, nor producers for his New York-based radio program could be immediately reached for comment.
“We have a legal obligation to reject programming that’s inappropriate for the airwaves, irrespective of any contractual relationship,” said a Clear Channel spokesman.
from Yahoo.com
By JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The nation's largest radio station chain announced Wednesday it was suspending shock jock Howard Stern's radio show after issuing new rules to limit indecency and address criticism of what airs on TV and radio.
Clear Channel Radio said it suspended broadcast of Stern's show after assessing the content of his show Tuesday.
"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio, said in a news release. "It was vulgar, offensive, and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency."
Hogan said the show would not air on Clear Channel stations until officials are assured it will conform to acceptable broadcasting standards.
Attempts to reach Stern's spokesman for comment late Wednesday were unsuccessful.
Under pressure from regulators and lawmakers, some TV networks are delaying live broadcasts to delete offensive material and doing more to let parents know how they can block specific programs. The National Association of Broadcasters says it will hold a conference on indecency next month.
The rules issued by Clear Channel Communications came on the eve of the second congressional hearing this month on broadcast indecency. Hogan is scheduled to testify along with top officials from TV networks.
Congress is considering increasing the maximum fine for indecency from $27,500 to $275,000, a move that the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) endorsed even before the tumult over singer Janet Jackson's exposed breast during the nationally televised Super Bowl halftime show.
"In the history of broadcast indecency, there have been these moments where it makes headlines," said Jeremy Lipschultz, a professor of communication at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. "In the short term, broadcasters become much more careful. You're going to see people playing it safe. The long-term problem is the same one we've had, which is it's very difficult in the end to precisely define what is indecent or not."
Under FCC (news - web sites) rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air material containing references to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children may be tuning in. The rules do not apply to cable and satellite channels and satellite radio.
Responding to an FCC query, CBS, NBC and Fox said they would run advertisements promoting the V-chip — technology built into a TV set to prevent children from watching certain shows — air live programs on time delays and remind affiliate stations that they can reject network programs unsuitable for their communities. ABC had yet to respond.
Clear Channel's new policy includes companywide training about indecency, possible fines against DJs, and automatic suspensions for anyone accused by the FCC of violating indecency rules on the air, company officials said.
The initiative came one day after the company fired the DJ known as "Bubba the Love Sponge," whose show drew an FCC-record fine of $755,000. The program aired in four Florida cities and included graphic discussions about sex and drugs "designed to pander to, titillate and shock listeners," the FCC said.
"Clear Channel is serious about helping address the rising tide of indecency on the airwaves," said Mark Mays, president and chief operating officer. "As broadcast licensees, we are fully responsible for what our stations air, and we intend to make sure all our DJs and programmers understand what is and what is not appropriate."
Mel Karmazin, president of Viacom Inc., discussed indecency issues during a conference call last week with officials and station managers of the company's Infinity Broadcasting radio subsidiary. Infinity, which owns 120 stations, asked them to increase efforts to avoid indecent programming, such as using a seven-second delay on shows with live talk, spokesman Dana McClintock said.
Infinity, owned by Viacom, in 1995 paid the largest cumulative fine to date, $1.7 million, for various violations by Stern.
Associated Press writer Seth Sutel in New York contributed to this report.
__
On the Net:
Federal Communications Commission indecency page: http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html
Clear Channel Communications: http://www.clearchannel.com
from CBS Marketwatch
February 25, 2004 10:11:59 PM
LOS ANGELES, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Radio station giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. said on Wednesday it was dumping nationally syndicated shock jock Howard Stern from its stations under a new "zero tolerance" policy toward indecency.
In dropping Stern from its six radio outlets that carry his show, Clear Channel (CCU) cited his interview on Tuesday with Rick Salomon, the man who was filmed having sex with hotel heiress and TV reality star Paris Hilton in a video widely distributed on Internet porn sites.
According to a transcript of the show released by San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel, Stern asked Salomon if he engaged in anal sex and referred to the size of his penis. Using a racist term, a caller to the show asked Solomon if he had ever had sex with any famous black women.
The action against Stern came a day after Clear Channel fired Florida radio personality "Bubba the Love Sponge," after federal regulators accused him of airing sexually graphic material on Tampa's WXTB-FM and three other Florida stations.
Stern's New York-based show is syndicated by Infinity Broadcasting, a unit of Viacom Inc. (VIAB) , which also owns television networks CBS and MTV. Infinity operates 185 radio stations nationwide.
A spokesman for Infinity was not immediately available for comment and a Viacom spokesman declined comment. Neither Stern's agent nor producers of his show were immediately available for comment.
Viacom president Mel Karmazin reportedly has imposed a crackdown on sexually explicit material on Infinity stations, declaring in a recent company-wide conference call: "This company won't be a poster child for indecency."
But it was unclear what impact, if any, such an admonition would have on Stern, who has long defied federal regulators and spawned countless imitators with a ribald show featuring porn stars and strippers and bits like "Lesbian Dial-a-Date."
'ZERO TOLERANCE'
The action against the self-proclaimed "King of All Media" came after Clear Channel announced what Chief Operating Officer Mark Mays called a "zero tolerance" policy toward material deemed in violation of federal broadcast decency standards.
"Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content, and Howard Stern's show blew right through it," Clear Channel Radio president John Hogan said in a statement.
"It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency."
The San Antonio-based company, the largest U.S. radio station operator with more than 1,200 outlets, said it will amend contracts with all on-air personalities to hold disc jockeys financially responsible for indecent comments on-air.
The Stern show was carried by Clear Channel stations in six markets -- Fort Lauderdale, Rochester, Orlando, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Louisville.
The policy changes are the latest taken by broadcasters to address decency concerns following the Feb. 1 CBS telecast of the Super Bowl half-time show, when pop diva Janet Jackson's right breast was exposed on live television.
Said Hogan: "If a DJ is found to be in violation of FCC rules, there will be no appeals and no intermediate steps. If they break the law by broadcasting indecent material, they will not work for Clear Channel."
Hogan and other broadcast executives are slated to testify Thursday before Congress about broadcast standards.
Gordon Hodge, a media analyst with Thomas Weisel, said he doubted the move would have much financial impact on Clear Channel, given that it carried Stern's show in just six markets, and added "He's obviously a very popular personality. I can't image that Infinity would take him off the air."
He predicted that other stations in the six markets would pick up Stern's program. "It would be quite profitable (for a smaller company), he said.
Clear Channel's share price closed on Wednesday 52 cents higher on the New York Stock Exchange AT $43.44. (Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Jeremy Pelofsky in New York and Sue Zeidler in Los Angeles)
from fmqb.com
On his second day back from vacation, Howard Stern is sounding increasingly frustrated with the reality of the consequences from the FCC's indecency crackdown. "The business has changed," he decried this morning moments before unleashing on his favorite whipping boy, WXRK/New York GM Tom Chiasano, about the restrictions being placed on his show and the atmosphere that he is currently working in.
"I'm not who I am," Stern declared. "You are bleeping who I am. I've got Dead Air Dave bleeping me. I've got you hovering and yelling at people. You're lecturing my staff and making everyone nuts. I can't even do damage control with what you are up to. When you lecture people and walk around and create an environment where people are scared, I can't get creativity out of that. You're as bad as the FCC."
"You may not believe this, but I don't like this anymore than you do," Chiasano, who was in the studio to discuss a scheduled sitdown between Stern and Viacom COO Mel Karmazin about last week's Infinity indecency edict, said in his defense. Stern alleged the meeting was forced upon him at the behest of the K-Rock GM. The sitdown with Karmazin was presumably called off when Stern scheduled a meeting with Chiasano for later this week.
When The Howard Stern Show returned to live action yesterday (2/23) after a week of vacation, Stern admitted he had yet to hear firsthand from Karmazin about last week's indecency edict imposed upon Infinity radio stations. He went on to say it isn't fair that he could lose his job because the FCC thinks something is wrong with his show's content. The notion that under Karmazin's edict, PDs and GMs will be held accountable for their air talents' actions didn't sit well with Stern either, though he did joke that the prospect of getting Chiasano axed could be worth it.
Also, amidst all the talk about Stuttering John's surprise announcement that he's exiting for a gig on the Tonight Show, Stern also found out that his show is now on four separate delays for a total of 90 seconds.
from the NY Post
February 19, 2004 -- YES, it's true: "Stuttering John" Melendez, who ambushed celebrities for years on Howard Stern's radio show, will become the announcer for Jay Leno's "Tonight Show."
Melendez, who's replacing announcer Edd Hall in late March, will also participate in sketches as a "Tonight Show" correspondent.
Next week will be Melendez's last on K-Rock's "Howard Stern Show" after 15 years of sandbagging stars and athletes with outrageous questions.
"I won't be doing any ambush-celebrity interviews or bowel-movement interviews, which is something that Howard created," Melendez told The Post. "This will obviously be different. I won't be asking Raquel Welch about her sagging chest."
Melendez said he was first approached about joining the "Tonight Show" in March 2003, after his appearance on ABC's "I'm a Celebrity - Get Me Out of Here!" in which he was thoughtful and well-spoken. After being kicked off the show, he was invited onto the "Tonight Show," where his appearance went well.
"They wanted me to be a correspondent then, but I didn't really have an answer - I didn't know if it would be OK with Howard . . . and I turned it down," he said.
But after the show called again, Melendez sent a tape of his announcing. "They really liked it and had me come and record some announcements . . . and then it came down to negotiating a contract," he said.
Melendez said he called Stern last Sunday to break the news.
"It couldn't have gone better - he was so happy for me and was completely complimentary . . . we both got all choked up," he said. "We expressed our love for each other and he said, 'C'mon, let's celebrate,' and we went to Atlantic City.
"I spoke to him again [Tuesday] and he reiterated how happy he was for me - hopefully it will stay that way on Monday [when Stern returns to the air].
"I'm not just kissing Howard's butt - he really did a lot for me."
Melendez, who officially joins the show's staff March 1, will move his wife and two kids out to Los Angeles - and said he's been preparing for his new job.
"I've been going to a vocal coach, the same woman who taught Edd Hall and who teaches the guys who do the movie trailers," he said.
"I never knew how much goes into announcing - every word is analyzed."
from the New York Daily News
February 19th, 2004
Stuttering John Melendez is leaving the Howard Stern radio show to become the new announcer on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno."
He'll replace Ed Hall, who left the show to pursue acting.
"I'm leaving because the money is a lot better, and I always wanted to be in Los Angeles," Melendez said yesterday.
"I would eventually like to get a sitcom, to be in a sitcom, and acting has been real important to me."
For Melendez, whose real-life stuttering provided Stern with comedic material on a nearly daily basis, the late-night TV gig is the latest chapter in an unlikely rise to stardom.
Melendez has been part of Stern's morning antics for 15 years, after starting out as an unknown lackey. He's best known for firing ridiculous - often controversial and sexually suggestive - questions at such unsuspecting celebrities as Yogi Berra and Chevy Chase.
He's parlayed being the on-scene buffoon into a disk jockey gig at Stern's home station WXRK (92.3 FM), as well as a band and a stint on ABC's reality series "Help, I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here."
His role on the ABC series led to a guest appearance on "Tonight," leading to the new job.
Over the weekend, Melendez dropped the bomb about his leaving on Stern. The popular radio host was gracious, he said.
"I got choked up, he was very happy for me," Melendez said. "He said, 'Let's go celebrate.' We all went to Atlantic City."
For Leno, he adds a character with a built-in following to the show, rather than breaking in a new star.
Meanwhile, Stern has been off this week, so listeners have yet to hear his reaction, though Melendez promises that it should be "a great week of radio" when they return on Monday.
Likewise, Stern's frequent on-air rants about wanting to leave radio when his contract expires played into Melendez's decision.
"Howard's been saying he's leaving, and now it's a year and a half," Melendez said. "I have to think about what I'm going to do....I don't want to wait. It definitely had a lot to do with it. As soon as we got down to two years, I started to get nervous."
Melendez will lose the "Stuttering John" moniker for Leno's show, and he's been working with an announcing coach in preparation for hisstart next month.
He'll move his wife and two children there in July, and maybe expand the family.
"I've got two kids, hopefully I can talk my wife into a third," he said. "The Puerto Rican side in me wants 12. My wife's Jewish, she wants two. Three is the most I can hope for."
from VH1.com
July 22, 2003
You can quote them in an instant, reference them with just one name, and even dress up like them for Halloween. In this always-expanding pop culture of ours, there are plenty of stars, but precious few icons. On its latest edition of the acclaimed Greatest countdown series, VH1 burrows into the pop personas that have made the ultimate impact; names so familiar they're recognized and revered in the world's most far-flung spots.What makes an “Icon?” It’s not enough to just be famous or to have won a couple of awards. You have to pass one or more of the following criteria:
- Do they pass the one-name test?
- Can you dress up as them for Halloween?
- Did they blaze a trail in pop culture?
- Did they create a signature character in pop culture?
- Can you quote them, or their character, in 10 seconds or less?
- Did society imitate their sense of fashion? Hairstyle?
- Did “SNL” create a sketch satirizing them?
- Did someone write a song about them?
- Was or is there merchandising or paraphernalia that bears their image?
- Can they be connected to Kevin Bacon?
Congratulations to Howard for making #67 in VH1's list of the 200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons! To the right is their Robert Risko illustration of Howard from the show.
from The Locos 50 Daily Report
by Aaron Schatz
June 27, 2003
Top Radio Hosts 2003
June 26-30, 2003
Time for another annual look at one of our most popular lists, the top-searched radio hosts on the Internet. We've gone back and counted searches for radio hosts from April 27 to June 14, 2003 to determine which radio hosts are gaining popularity, and which are fading.
The biggest change this year concerns the man who was #3 on our list in both 2001 and 2002, Art Bell. Bell retired on January 1, 2003, and his show Coast to Coast AM was taken over by a host named George Noory. Although people still search plenty for Coast to Coast, and they are still searching plenty for Bell, we get very few searches for Noory by name. Nonetheless, where previously we had counted Coast to Coast searches for Bell, this year we're listing Coast to Coast searches, combined with the few Noory searches, separately.
With that in mind, here are the top 20 most popular radio hosts and radio programs, along with their rank on our list last year:
1) Howard Stern (1) 2) Tom Joyner (5) 3) Rush Limbaugh (4) 4) Coast To Coast AM with George Noory (-) 5) Neal Boortz (9) 6) Bill O'Reilly (12) 7) Clark Howard (13) 8) Art Bell (3) 9) Opie and Anthony (2) 10) Dr. Laura (7) 11) Paul Harvey (8) 12) Mancow (11) 13) Sean Hannity (-) 14) Larry King (15) 15) NPR's Car Talk with Click and Clack (20) 16) Don Imus (14) 17) Laura Ingraham (19) 18) Don And Mike (10) 19) Jim Rome (6) 20) Loveline with Dr. Drew and Adam Carolla (-)
We say it every year, and we'll say it again this year: Howard Stern is surely still the King of All Media. Last year, he was three times as popular as any other radio host. This year he's close to five times as popular as any other radio host.
This year's biggest riser is Tom Joyner, whose African-American-oriented morning show now appears on over 120 stations across the country. Joyner was #11 when we first did this list in 2001, #5 last year, and now he's the second-most popular host in the country behind Stern.
A second star this year is Neal Boortz, the nationally syndicated Libertarian host who also writes a popular blog on his show's website. In two years Boortz has gone from #14 to #9 and now #5.
Also heading upwards this year are right-wing TV hosts turned radio hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity -- you may remember that last year we picked Hannity as the rising talk star of 2002 -- as well as consumer advocate Clark Howard.
Just some hosts have been steadily moving up for two years, others have been steadily moving down. Don Imus has gone from #9 to #14 and now #16. Don and Mike have gone from #6 to #10 and now #18. Paul Harvey has gone from #5 to #8 to #11. Dr. Laura has gone from #4 to #7 to #10. And, in a bit of a surprise, we're getting a lot fewer searches these days for sports host Jim Rome, though he's still the top sports radio personality online.
And, of course, searches are down for the retired Art Bell and the off-the-air Opie and Anthony. In fact, it's kind of surprising how many searches we still get for those guys.
Unlike last year, no host really stands out as someone with rising popularity, someone to watch in the next twelve months who might make our list next year. The closest probably is Los Angeles-based Larry Elder, but the difference in his popularity compared to last year is small enough that it could just be random fluctuation in Lycos user search habits.
from Forbes.com
June 20, 2003
Howard makes the list of the Top 100 Celebrities at number 40! Congratulations!
On June 5, 2003, Howard was talking about his new interns and how they were all related to people he knew, some of them from when he was at Camp Wel-Met in the early 1970's.
from Camp Wel-Met
Undated
Wel-Met memory...waiting to get on the bus and my mother complaining that Wel-Met should have a departure point on Long Island if the camp wanted to have a future ...because most of the kids were from Long Island. Maybe she was right. Why didnt anyone cultivate future business? Who the hell ran that camp anyway? And why was my mother filling me up with worries that the camp would eventually be out of existence? Who cared? It was the greatest experience!
I was there from the time I was nine to my second year of college...camper all the way through western trip, kitchen boy...counselor in Unit five and then counselor on the Western trip with woody belkin and andrea gold. The entire time I was at camp I had no idea that a bunch of social workers were in charge and using me for some sort of college credit. I was blissfully oblivious to all adult supervision and lived each summer like I was on my own and fully in charge of my own destiny..
Lew Weinstein is still my friend and I met him when I was nine at wel-met and I called him right away to tell him about this website. Lew is a very sucessful eye surgeon and if you need lasik...look him up.
Being on the radio I occasionally would get a call from someone i knew from wel met but not as many people as you would think. Heard from Leslie Atchitoff, Rita Karasyk, Frank Karp, Eddie Karp, and I saw Karen Bernstein in the maternity ward when my third daughter was being born.
Anyway...I just want to apologize to any girl I had sex with back in the Wel Met days because Im sure it wasnt any good. Love this website and cannot help but think that if Pete Townshend spent his time here he wouldnt be under arrest.
Whenever the FCC begins to get me down I just think back to my days as a kitchen boy and how that beautiful old fart Mr. Comby would bonk me over the head and tell me to get inside and wash the dishes.
I think about the time I went into the woods and filled over a hundred garbage bags with golden rod , some worthless weed, and thinking I had found marijuana spent an entire week drying each leaf over a heater.
I think about the time a bunch of us kitchen boys decided to see what would happen if we flushed an M-80 quarter stick of dynamite down the toilet and I most especially think about a guy named Bob Leighton who slammed a glass door on my face as I chased him through that lodge that only staff could use.
One last thing...Jay Magazine is one of the guys I met at Wel-Met. Wonderful guy...big red afro hair and always smiling...died at the world trade center. I met him again several years ago on my radio show. Jay and I had some good times together at camp and he used to talk about going off to college to study hotel management. He realized his dreams and started a catering business...only to end up catering a breakfast at the wtc the morning of that horrible tragedy. I heard about all of this several months ago and even though we lost touch with each other I will always remember his smile.
Long live Wel-Met.
Name: Howard Stern
Email: na
City: NY
State: NY
Country: na
Pictures of Howard at Camp Wel-Met
May 24, 2003 -- HOWARD Stern sidekick Robin Quivers surprised listeners yesterday by announcing that her recent dramatic weight loss was the result of an intestinal condition she feared might kill her.
"I was dying," Quivers said, reluctant to talk about her illness until Stern pressed her for details. "I had a big problem. I was in really bad shape and really thought I was going to die."
Quivers said she suffered from what she called "inflammatory syndrome" but described symptoms that fit both Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Irritable Bowel Syndrome, the precise causes of which are unknown.
"I didn't eat, period," she said. "None of my system was working, so my body wasn't processing food at all - the food would just lie in my digestive tract.
"I was sick as a dog. I was even having heart palpitations," said Quivers, 50, who lost 60 pounds in the last few months. "I literally could not move - I was sluggish, full of water, and all my joints were aching."
Quivers initially declined to disclose the ingredients in the syrupy, yellow liquid staffers had seen her drinking.
After prodding from Stern, she said it was "a very alkaline, acid-base balance" liquid that included real maple syrup, lemon juice, cayenne pepper and water. [Ed. - I believe this is the diet Robin used: Stanley Burroughs Master Cleanser. As usual, be careful, see your doctor before starting any diet, and I won't be held responsible for any results, good or bad!]
Quivers, who said she also suffers from hyperthyroidism, said she can now eat some solid food - but no bread, dairy products, most fruits or raw vegetables - and averages about a meal a day.
"I feel great - probably better than I have my entire life," she said. "But I could easily go back to the sick room any second. I have to stay on a strict regimen."
More Howard biographical information is available here.
Return to the Bio page.
Return home.
This page © 1997-2004 by The Complete Howard Stern Links!