Stern suspended!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Agathon
You gotta love the US!!!!

In the US people are free, everyone else live like slaves!!!!

In the US people have freedom of speech, everyone else suffers under draconian censorship!!!!

And you can have your own field howitzer or attack helicopter!!!

Scum. How dare they censor him.

I knew this post would crop up.

If Canadians support free speech Why does the Tom Leykis show get taken off the radio station in Vancouver? And don't tell me it is because of low ratings. He is the top rated talk show in nearly every market he is on.

It is because feminists in Vancouver protested and the station owners caved and took the show off the air.

[Dis]

I'm getting sick and tired of people slamming the U.S. on this.

If the U.S. is so "conservative" and oppressive, why can we air the Tom Leykis show and Canada can't?

face it, Canada is more conservative than the U.S.

yes I listen to the Tom Leykis show. His show is hilarious a lot of the time. It is so offensive, you gotta love it. I love it when the women call in. They are so enraged by the things Tom says, they can't even talk straight. .

[Dis]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner


Um, because there are only two companies in the radio business now. Clearchannel and Infiniti. Thank you market consolidation. You just have presented the government the gift it can't refuse...the ability to control a mass media medium via the twisting of only TWO arms.

Westwood One as well.

[Ted Striker]

Because the fact of the matter is, Diss, we are the freest country in the world and it's usually bitter Old Eurocoms looking to make the slam...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

"Show your boobs!"

"Let's talk about blojobs!"

Repeat for the next 10 years straight.

No wonder you find him boring, you already have to listen to that 24/7.

[bipolarbear]

You guys are all forgetting how biased everything is as it is. All of the corporate mass media compnaies are all owned by six major corporations. Viacom, AOL-TIME-Warner, I don't know the rest b/c its like 2:00 am, but ya think aboot that.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Dissident

If Canadians support free speech Why does the Tom Leykis show get taken off the radio station in Vancouver? And don't tell me it is because of low ratings. He is the top rated talk show in nearly every market he is on.

It is because feminists in Vancouver protested and the station owners caved and took the show off the air.

Actually, I don't have any problem with this. A community organized, filed a compliant and the local station made a business decision. I didn't hear "gov't involvement" in there anywhere.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
He calls up the National Airport desk of Air Florida and asks how much a one way ticket from DC National (Now Regan airport) to the 14th street bridege would be?

That's actually funny (in a dark humor way) ...

It is coming up on Martin Luther Kings Birthday..so he get on the air and makes a statement..."Martin Luther King Holiday?..we get a day off? We should shoot 6 more and get the whole week off!!"

Also funny (BTW Chris Rock did a similarly tasteless bit about MLK day).

Both Cases the FCC fined the station...

Why? Bad taste? Perhaps the FCC should fine the women of Long Island for still wearing spandex (if they show up on broadcast TV).

I am all for entertainment and yes Greaseman has some very funny monolgues..BUT...sometimes humor hurts and is inappropriate..PERIOD.

Humor is often a sharp-edged sword. Inappropriateness heightens the humor of an otherwise mediocre talent like Stern. There is a place for it. Its like Carlin said - making fart noises in church is doubly fun because it angers earthly authority and risks the wrath of God.

I do however understand BIG BUSINESS concepts of Sales & Profit versus content and responsibility.

Actually, I'm not sure that you do. Whose responsibility to whom? I grew up Richard Pryor (the albums and the comedy shows - not the lame ass movies). Censoring Howard Stern does not do me any favors. Moreover if the market supports this type of humor, then the people have spoken with their feet and their money and there is no need to "protect" the people from what they have chosen. Howard Stern is popular. Is it the responsibility of corporate America to deny to the people what they want?

[Shogun Gunner]

Or even worse, why does the government feel the need or "responsibility" to deny programming?

It's funny how personalities are criticized in their era for being TOO ANGRY or TOO DISGUSTING or TOO WHATEVER...then twenty years later everyone fawns all over the "geniuses" and talks about how ground breaking they are.

I don't think Stern is a genius, but a lot of people like him. I'm just highly offended that people, organizations and government would try to impose their will over another group. I can accept the individual or individuals organized together, but when they try to activiate the machinery of government, I have to draw the line there.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
You guys are all forgetting how biased everything is as it is. All of the corporate mass media compnaies are all owned by six major corporations. Viacom, AOL-TIME-Warner,

Yeah, it does suck. And that's why people need to quit being vacuous sheep and seek out independent media. There's ultimately a choice,no matter how much conglomeration there is, and people have the choice not to be spoonfed crap.

Stern's not funny, despite his popularity with the mouthbreathing set. And Clear channel will have to succumb to putting him back on at some point. Besides, what's a few million here and there in fines when you own a gazillion stations plus ticket distribution

[Ned]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
You guys are all forgetting how biased everything is as it is. All of the corporate mass media compnaies are all owned by six major corporations. Viacom, AOL-TIME-Warner, I don't know the rest b/c its like 2:00 am, but ya think aboot that.

Sava, remember my earlier post about socialists?

[Q Classic]

why are people attacking clearchannel naturally socialists?

i hate clearchannel. seriously. which is why i refuse to listen to any radio station that plays music that was made after, oh, say, 1900 or so.

as far as the other media companies, i hate them too. which is why i'm always happy when you see destructive innovation at the edges in the form of things like creative commons.

destructive innovation. that's not something you'll generally hear from a socialist.

[-Jrabbit]

Marketing evolves slowly, from the ground up.
Innovation disrupts quickly, from the top down.

Established market leaders' biggest legitimate fear is of groundbreaking innovation. That's their only reason to maintain advanced development depts. anymore.

Examples:
--Japan taking over from the Swiss when wristwatches went digital.
--Makers of phonographs and cartridges going belly-up when the CD was introduced.
--Mainframe makers in the face of the personal computer.
--Arcade game makers dying by the dozen when video games came online.
--Fax machines obviated the Telex, and are now being destroyed by email and text messaging.
--Rewriteable discs are nearly done destroying the floppy/zipdisc fiefdom.

Of course, there's no guarantee that a given innovation will be disruptive enough to change the status quo. NTSC is an inferior video format. Beta was way better than VHS. But the government can enact protective legislation, and pricing is often a barrier to radical technological change.

The problem with the deregulation of media ownership is that the megacorps are powerful enough to lay off risk by investing in those who would disrupt them. Easiest example? Microsoft's longstanding (pre-legal mess) policy to "buy any successful software startup that's doing something we're not."

ClearChannel will live. AOL/TW will continue to live.
Rock radio and TV prgramming will continue to suck.
The Internet will become progressively less diverse.

Welcome to Century 21... (sigh)

[Elok]

Uh, Sava? You're starting to sound like a liberal Rush Limbaugh. You even say "repugs" instead of "dumbocrats." Calm down.

As for Stern, the company has a right to censor what it pleases, and I won't miss his delightful style of penis-based humor. If you really miss him, you can just order some back-issues of Playboy on tape and Paypal him your cash.

I don't think this is the start of a slippery slope either. They're basically gentrifying the airwaves, not suppressing actual intelligent opinions that might be dangerous to people in power. And while it may be in response to government pressure, the government pressure comes from people-pressure. And people get their opinions from...mass media. So on second thought, blame whoever you want. It's probably partly true somehow.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Or even worse, why does the government feel the need or "responsibility" to deny programming?

It's funny how personalities are criticized in their era for being TOO ANGRY or TOO DISGUSTING or TOO WHATEVER...then twenty years later everyone fawns all over the "geniuses" and talks about how ground breaking they are.

I don't think Stern is a genius, but a lot of people like him. I'm just highly offended that people, organizations and government would try to impose their will over another group. I can accept the individual or individuals organized together, but when they try to activiate the machinery of government, I have to draw the line there.