Stern: I'll Be Gone Soon (1 Viewer)

[Schweddy]

Newsmax

Shock jock Howard Stern said yesterday that he doesn't expect to last long at CBS Viacom under his new boss, Les Moonves, who'll be filling the void left by departing Viacom honcho Mel Karmazin.

"I can't leave right today but, believe me, I'll be gone in a month," Stern told a caller yesterday, in quotes picked up by the New York Post's John Mainelli.

Explaining why he wasn't leaving right away, he added, "I have a contract and if I walk out they'll sue [me]."

The top morning talker has been "viciously feuding for two years" with Moonves, noted Mainelli.

Stern had promised last week to walk off his show if Karmazin left, before invoking his contractual obligation not to bolt on Tuesday.

While I wholeheartedly believe in free speech; this man has passed the bar. His normal drivel is talking about explicit sex on a radio station at 7am weekday mornings. There is a time and a place for it. Hey I might even enjoy listening to him on occation. If the time of day where appropriate.

Yes there is a market for Stern. Force him to a better time and place. Give warning that he is about to become a dumbass again during the opening of every segment and that his statments may be inappropriate for children under the age of X. The better time is 11pm at night and the place would be cable only.

Not only is it against the FCC regulations for his actions (words, context, and time), it is against the spirit of what America is.

You can SAY anything you want. Be prepared to get your hand slapped when it is inappropriate.

Here is one man that will not loose any sleep when Stern is no longer on the radio.

 

[bdh]

even the most polluted brooks babble on.........

Regarding the public pubic Howard Stern- While I'm definitely no fan of crude vulgar yankees who spew endless drivel each and every morning, I'm also no fan of Government micro management of the airwaves. Granted, Stern should have had his lungs stomped out by jack-booted catholic nuns years ago for indecency. However, now the cats out of the bag and there are literally hundreds of crude, cheesy clones and imitators that now clutter the airwaves. To give Stern the boot now does nothing to curb the human excrement that saturates the morning airwaves (Dallas itself has several crummy Stern copycats). The only way to clean up the filth in morning commute shows is to exercise our rights and privileges as consumers and turn the dail or turn it off. The free market place should, can and will prevail in the end. Radio shows like most media formats require sponsors and advertisers. If they aren't reaching their people, they will pull their bucks and go elsewhere. People need to get on board and quit buying their junk and listening to this garbage. Perhaps the social tone and climate is changing and this type of drivel will become passe' as people patronize and support different markets. In the meantime, even idiots have the right to be heard by anyone who is willing to listen. Hopefully, the audience will get enlightened and go elsewhere for entertainment. That way poor Howard won't feel persecuted by those mean ol' conservatives and He'll just fade into obscurity on his own demerits like every other has been.

 

[CSA_TX]

from Vauge "it is against the spirit of what America is"
How is denying the first amendment rights of a radio DJ helping the spirit of America. If anything it is just one of the many travesties that are being done to the constitution. If you don't like it turn it off. You have the choice. I have to wonder why when there are so many other important issues facing our great nation the government feels the need to pursue a unimportant issue such as this.

 

[Schweddy]

from Vauge "it is against the spirit of what America is"
How is denying the first amendment rights of a radio DJ helping the spirit of America. If anything it is just one of the many travesties that are being done to the constitution. If you don't like it turn it off. You have a choice.

In my humble opinion., the spirit of America is freedom of RESPONSIBILITY. By allowing this type of ludicrous behavior WE are not taking responsibility to demand it and he is not being required to do it. This breaks both of our freedoms.

Unfortunately, laws are to determine morality. No longer can a religious source be a sole provider of how to live your life.

Our kids are being inundated with junk and barbarious ideas from 'the media'. Which is of course 'what sells'. Because of this lack of responsibility on our part we allow sexually explicit conversations during times when kids would most likely be listening. Before you say it's the parents responsibility - what about the bussed school kids that have a radio with them? What about kids that have watch radio's? Streaming from the net? Both parents have to work and need a babysitter?

You are 100% correct, I have a choice. Kids shouldn't be required to make that choice.

I have to wonder why when there are so many other important issues facing our great nation the government feels the need to pursue a unimportant issue such as this.

Ahh, but this issue is at the very core. The very heart of EVERY issue facing the US. Freedom of speech is wonderful, but there is a thing as too much freedom of speech to where you are allowed to say and do anything without being reprimanded. At the very extreme it could result in Anarchy years from now.

To give Stern the boot now does nothing to curb the human excrement that saturates the morning airwaves (Dallas itself has several crummy Stern copycats).

Lets look at the recent Janet Jackson debacle. While most folks that do not have a brain could care less if a nipple was expose - some of us realize that it is a slippery slope. Allowing her and Justin to 'express' themselves in this manner without consequence will only result in more unwanted behavior the next live event. This needs to be stopped.

What better time than the present to do something about it? One at a time.

 

[CSA_TX]

First off let me start by saying I know we will never agree on this topic. And I don't plan on trying to change your opinion or views. Communist have a right to exist. That is what makes this country so great. However In my opinion the oversite of the government into any type of media is unconstitutional. Where in the constitution does it say the government will filter what we will hear, say or think? The notion of government censorship sounds much more like the eastern block during the cold war than the USA. Is Howard Stern trash yes I think so but I have as much right to listen to him as you have to listen to Tony Snow or my favorite Michael Savage. And Howard has just as much of a right to say what he wants as does Tony Snow.
I think BDH hit the hammer on the nail head when he said "The only way to clean up the filth in morning commute shows is to exercise our rights and privileges as consumers and turn the dail or turn it off. "
My final thought is Government regulation that is unconstitutional will do nothing but further erode our freedom and cause our republic to fail.

 

[Schweddy]

First of all, you are correct Communists have a right to exist and are freely invited into this topic as well as all the others.

CSA_TX, Do you agree or disagree about that 7 words that cannot be said on TV?

If you AGREE with the FCC and they should not be said - we are in the same relative boat.

If you DISAGREE and all words should be allowed - we are on complete opposite sides of the track on this issue.

 

[CSA_TX]

In regards to the 7 words on TV I'm unsure of the unconstitutional directive that list those however I would assume they would be considered 4 letter or profane words. Well as someone who believes in the first amendment and the freedom of speech then I would have to say no I disagree that these words should be held off of TV.
As those who know me know I have quite an extensive vocabulary when if comes to the profane. As a matter of fact when i was 2 yrs old I was known to be running through the grocery store calling everybody I saw F#$%ers. However My dad took responsibility and taught me real quick that words are just words however there is a time and a place for everything.
So would I be appalled by TV using the 7 dreaded words, not really. They are just words. Perhaps if they were allowed on TV consumers would then take the advice of BDH and quit tunning in or pressure the networks and sponsors to pull the material instead of using unconsitutional limits on our freedoms.
You have to think about the $ and the impact it has on desicions that are made by broadcasters. Withhold the $ and they be changing their tune.
Come to think of it if these provisions were lifted perhaps the USA would be better off. Why you ask. Perhaps people would stop tunning in and would spend time with there family instead of infront of the idiot box. You never Know

 

[Mantrius]

The problem with saying that "Not only is it against the FCC regulations for his actions (words, context, and time), it is against the spirit of what America is." is that if we censor people based on the fact that we don't like what they say, then what is the point of free speech? The whole point behind the first ammendment is that ANYONE at ANYTIME can say what they'd like and express their views without fear of repurcussion from a STATE agency. If the general public doesn't like what he has to say, then they need to speak out with their hands and their wallets. In otherwords, if you don't like it change the channel. Stop giving them your advertising dollars by listening to what they have to say. That is the whole "spirit of what America is", it's the ability for people to make their own choices without fear of government repercussions. Once censorship by the state begins then it will never end, it will set a precedent that they can control what you hear, see, say, and do.

As far as slotting him to a more appropriate timeslot, yes, that should have been the case from the start of his show. However, I think that too many Americans are still too uptight about what effectively amounts to a sonic frequency being emitted from human vocal cords. The only way to change peoples outlook on what a word is, is to desensitize them to it. The same goes for the naked human form, here in America we blush or look the other way the minute we see a naked human body. Why do we do this? Because we've been conditioned to believe that the human form without any covering is intended to be sexual in nature. This also leads back to talking about sexually explicit topics. Why are we so worried about hearing about a perfectly natural function of the humanity, and why do we demonize it to the point that people think it's something "dirty"? We shouldn't, and again the only way to change peoples views on these matters is to desensitize them to the whole thing. Where was I going with this? Simple, shock jocks like Stern give our country the wakeup call it needs. Whether you or anyone else likes what he has to say is beside the point, he still has the right to talk about whatever he'd like.

As far as the FCC and their list of words that cannot be used on television, there is no constitutional precedent for that list. It's nothing more than a form of censorship. If anything they are going against the first amendment by keeping that list.

 

[Talon]

Hum.. I enjoy listening to Stern, and well.. He's on the air when I'm driving home. So it's my night, and other peoples day. I don't care what time he's on and what filth he's spewing. You can always turn it off. It's not like you are forced to listen to him. As for the kiddos, well parents should be parenting.

My two cents.

 

[gypsy0032]

CSA_TX, I find myself agreeing with most of what you have said.

 

[The Liberal Puke]

can't agree?

If we can't agree on what to say and when to say it, then let the government tell us...

 

[gypsy0032]

Re: can't agree?

If we can't agree on what to say and when to say it, then let the government tell us...

I really hope you're joking.

 

[CSA_TX]

The Liberal Puke wrote:
If we can't agree on what to say and when to say it, then let the government tell us...

Sounds Like Vauge and the Liberal_Puke have a lot in common.

 

[The Liberal Puke]

Yes we do, as a matter of fact we both agree with John Kerry on some issues. Right Vauge?

 

[LiberalFINGER]

Censorship: supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.

The difficulty with this topic is that both sides have a valid fear of a slippery slope. To allow artists to run rough-shod over the sensitivities of unsuspecting viewers is certainly objectionable. Standards must be maintained to allow viewers an opportunity to make an informed decision. Rating systems and the like are a wonderful tool.

If material has been given a specific rating (like in the case of the Superbowl) there is a responsibility to maintain the expectations set forth by the disclaimer.

Here is where we start sliding.

If the media (be it radio, lit., TV, etc. ) does not hold up their end of the bargain, the transmission of valuable entertainment, ideas, or information is hampered.

If the government steps in to mandate ethics in idea transmittal then how can we be sure that we are receiving the message that was intended? Furthermore, how for do we know the censorship will go when we are not personally involved in the censorship as a society?

I would suggest taking a look at books that have been banned by local and state governments as a measure of how far censorship can go and then make a decision as to whether or not wide-spread censorship is a valuable tool for attempting to raise our children with acceptable values.