Bruce B Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Story here Well, there seems top be considerable fallout(pardon the pun) from the Janet Jackson boob thing starting with Howard Stern. Yes, I know Howard can be vulgar and distasteful but he simply makes me laugh and I believe its just harmless fun. I dont believe he is doing anything worse than any of the morning talk shows on tv. Its real simple, if youre offended by what he's saying, turn off the radio! Mods: I apologize up front if this topic is too offbase for this website, or too political. I was just interested how other people felt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrillho Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Thankfully here in Philadelphia Howard comes through on an Infinity Broadcasting Channel and is still on!!!! Like you, I just find him amusing and funny. You really just can't take him so serious thats all!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camp Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Clearchannel is the devil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robot Monkey Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Yeah, what Thrillho said -- WYSP is owned by Infinity. Howard was pretty pissed about all this the last two days. One of their complaints is that the rules aren't even a little clear and the FCC won't provide any guidance. I can't say I'm a fan of Clear Channel or their practices, but I don't blame them. I think they are under a lot of pressure from certain parties. -j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 I have a mixed opinion of Howard. While I found his movie utterly hilarious, I find his show utterly dreadful. I don't consider it a loss. Then again I don't live in a market that is affected by it even though we are a Clear Channel station Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnemaEms Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Thank God Howard is on an Infinity Broadcast station in Chicago. My work day would just really stink without listening to Howard every morning. However, the bleeping is getting very annoying. I love how the FCC thinks kids are listening to the radio at 7 AM. Uhm....kids go to school during the morning dumb-asses. :roll: The FCC is one of the worst things about the good ol' US of A. They are the complete opposite of what Free Speech stands for. All I know is if Howard ever goes to Satellite radio, I will get into that technology solely for his show. -Dean- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrillho Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by RingWraith@Feb 26 2004, 09:09 AM I love how the FCC thinks kids are listening to the radio at 7 AM. Uhm....kids go to school during the morning dumb-asses. Exactly!!!!, Although I do remember back in high school (man that was more than 15 year ago yikes :shock: ) we used to persuade the bus driver to turn him on. Is it me or are bus drivers the most oblivious persons alive! Come to think of it we had kids on our bus who would put 2 live Crew in the tape deck on the bus too...lol, And I went to a Catholic school!!! gotta love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTello Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 This is just more annoying knee-jerk censorship. Assuming the influential conservative opportunists are kept at bay, I expect Clearchannel will reverse it's decision. Stern is a very popular show, and in the end, Clearchannel is in the business of making money. If they don't change, someone else will be willing to take the 'risk' with the Stern show. Btw, I like Stern at times and get bored with his show other times. Basically I'm of the 'turn the channel if you choose' opinion. I recently saw his movie again, and I liked it even more the second time around. It'sm funny how the movie is actually sort of charming. And heck, how bad can the guy be if his worse obsession is Lesbians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlot Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 There's just something special about a show where semi-naked woman get spanked with raw fish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrillho Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by JTello@Feb 26 2004, 09:26 AM This is just more annoying knee-jerk censorship. Assuming the influential conservative opportunists are kept at bay... lets not make this post politcal, I don't want to get axed , besides the FCC has been after him no matter what party has been in power!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robot Monkey Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by JTello@Feb 26 2004, 09:26 AM ... Clearchannel is in the business of making money. If they don't change, someone else will be willing to take the 'risk' with the Stern show. Yeah, but who? Infinity themselves are sufficiently intimidated to bleep the strangest stuff. Clear Channel apparently dropped the show. It seems likely that anyone doing this kind of show must do it for pennies (in order to find someone willing to pick it up) and be willing to pay huge FCC fines. Sounds like a chilling effect on speech to me. -j. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce B Posted February 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Prediction: Howards show will be taken off the air and be replaced with religous programming headed by a priest who is my morally corrupt than Howard ever thought of being. Hypocrits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLYING SE7EN Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 All I know is if Howard ever goes to Satellite radio, I will get into that technology solely for his show. Me too. Howard was on a local Charlotte station, but they had to pull him because the station was independently owned and couldn't get enough sponsors to afford to keep him. :evil: I miss the show, and I hope either a new station gives it another go or he does the satellite thing. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baiter Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by Bruce B@Feb 26 2004, 08:20 AMStory here Well, there seems top be considerable fallout(pardon the pun) from the Janet Jackson boob thing starting with Howard Stern. Is there any real link between the Janet Jackson problem and this? This seems to be a business decision, no? I didn't read where the FCC has had any involvement in the decision thus far? Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the fcc regulates satelite radio the same way they regulate OTA broadcasts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain rising Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by Baiter@Feb 26 2004, 08:55 AM Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the fcc regulates satelite radio the same way they regulate OTA broadcasts? I don't know for sure, but I don't think they do. Not saying they don't have some involvement (in allocating frequencies for local repeaters, etc), but there are definitely uncensored stations on XM where you don't get <bleeps>, be it in music or comedy acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce B Posted February 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by Baiter+Feb 26 2004, 09:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Baiter @ Feb 26 2004, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Bruce B@Feb 26 2004, 08:20 AMStory here Well, there seems top be considerable fallout(pardon the pun) from the Janet Jackson boob thing starting with Howard Stern. Is there any real link between the Janet Jackson problem and this? This seems to be a business decision, no? I didn't read where the FCC has had any involvement in the decision thus far? Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the fcc regulates satelite radio the same way they regulate OTA broadcasts?[/b] This article leads me to believe there is a link to the Janet Jackson incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelley Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by Kain rising+Feb 26 2004, 08:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kain rising @ Feb 26 2004, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Baiter@Feb 26 2004, 08:55 AM Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the fcc regulates satelite radio the same way they regulate OTA broadcasts? I don't know for sure, but I don't think they do. Not saying they don't have some involvement (in allocating frequencies for local repeaters, etc), but there are definitely uncensored stations on XM where you don't get <bleeps>, be it in music or comedy acts. [/b] Same with Sirius. And exile I think it would be better put to call Tulsa a Clear Channel Wasteland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrillho Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by Baiter@Feb 26 2004, 09:55 AM This seems to be a business decision, no? I didn't read where the FCC has had any involvement in the decision thus far? "Earlier in the day, Clear Channel, which has been under fire from the Federal Communications Commission over allegedly indecent content aired on its stations, announced a zero-tolerance policy that called for immediate suspension of its on-air personalities who cross the line. " Thats from the article Baiter. While the FCC isn't making the decision. Clear Channel is making their decision based on the FCC's hard line. And that line got harder to play with right after all the flack over Janet's tit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainl Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 (insert gag about the FCC banning another right tit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTello Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 This is just more annoying knee-jerk censorship. Assuming the influential conservative opportunists are kept at bay... lets not make this post politcal, I don't want to get axed , besides the FCC has been after him no matter what party has been in power!!! Yeah, sorry Thrillho, .... it's a tough line to straddle, between speaking opinions on the topic and yet trying not to make political judgements. I'll rescind the second statement as I see it's not really appropriate, but I can keep the first sentence, right! :green: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnemaEms Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 This is all fallout from the Janet boob incident. Within the past two days alone there are more bleeps in the show. It is insane. :evil: -Dean- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce B Posted February 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 I think what bothers me most is how we go after people arbitrarily with no rhyme nor reason. With the Janet Jackson fiasco, by exposing her boob, what ill effects might this have on our society. Is it going to make little kids expose themselves? I think not, but I'm no psychologist. Back to Howard, what is his show going to make people do? Do you think people listen to his show, get mesmorized, and then go commit some lewd act? If this is the case, where do we draw the line on television? If on the news we see war pictures, does this mean someone will then go out and commit a violent act? All Howard does is have fun with sexual innuendo, and as long as he's not promoting violence or any kiddie porn type of stuff, then everyones got to relax and laugh a little bit at our inhibitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baiter Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by iainl@Feb 26 2004, 10:54 AM(insert gag about the FCC banning another right tit). I'd actually agree with you if it wasn't for children. The reality that any kid can flip on his walkman and listen to Sterns show is unfortunate, if not disturbing. TV resolved this problem w/ the v-chip, maybe radio broadcasters should follow suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainl Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Actually, I'm kind of with you, Baiter - I don't like Stern at all, hence the cheap shot. I'm not wanting him banned outright necessarily, but putting him on a breakfast show seems irresponsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce B Posted February 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 The issue seems to surround Sterns graphic conversations about sex and the origin of his problems being the Janet Jackson incident and the effects on children. I have heard thousands of times(yes I know that on this site you need to back up your claims with facts, but my facts are what I've heard reported time and time again), that the countries that are free with nudity and sex have a much lower sexual crime rate. I've always believed that the more you try to keep certain things away from the kids, the more they will seek it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.