Howie Stern v. Bush & Co.

[TOKZTLI]

Stern lambastes Bush, FCC
'I criticize Bush and then I'm fired'
From George Lerner
CNN
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 Posted: 12:12 PM EDT (1612 GMT)


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. (CNNMoney: Stern's show adds stations)

"When I was thrown off the six stations I was devastated. I really thought Clear Channel had 'thrown me under the bus,'" Stern said. (Clear Channel yanks Stern from 6 stations)

"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. (Bush: Iraqi sovereignty defeat for resistance)

He said he was encouraging his listeners, whom he described as swing voters, to cast their ballots for John Kerry. (Edwards tops Kerry veep poll)

"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."

 

[m.w.merlino]

Makes sense to me, just like Fahrenheit 9/11 is trying to be censored...

 

[tadou]

Yet another vast right wing conspiracy.

Anyone seen my foil hat? I left it around here somewhere......

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

bush Administration -> Colin Powell -> Michael Powell -> FCC deregulation decision allowing Clear Channel to become the conglomerate it has...

No...no link whatsoever...

 

[tadou]

"Controlls were almost totally eliminated by the Telecommunications act of 1996. Now, thanks to this deregulation there are no national ownership limits, and one person or company can own as many as eight stations in one market, dependong on the size of the market" -- Intro to Mass Communication textbook


There are many things you can blame on Bush....this is not one of them. Our pal BILL CLINTON is responsible for the rapid rise of CLEAR CHANNEL and other deregulation with his signing of the 96 Telecom Act........What do you have to say now?

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Michael Powell's Communication Failure
The FCC chairman is an articulate and firm believer in deregulation. What he lacks is his father Colin's gift for negotiation and diplomacy


When Michael K. Powell took the helm of the Federal Communications Commission in 2001, he was unequivocal about his objectives. He would free the Bells -- Verizon (VZ ), SBC (SBC ), BellSouth (BLS ), and Qwest (Q ) -- from local competitors, liberate the media from ownership caps, and spare cable and telecom companies from having to open their lines to competitors that wanted to offer high-speed Internet service. Powell the Regulator had just one goal: to deregulate. Advertisement

Two-and-a-half years later, Powell has seen his dreams of deregulation dashed. In February, his vision for the local-phone carriers suffered a stinging political defeat when fellow Republican Commissioner Kevin J. Martin joined forces with two Democrats to support a competing plan. In May, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals grilled FCC attorneys in a case challenging the agency's decision to grant exclusive control over Internet access to cable giants. This month, committees in both houses of Congress moved to reverse the liberalization of the cap of national TV ownership.

No wonder rumors are swirling that Powell could resign as early as September. Such speculation is bolstered by the recent departure of Susan Eid, his former spokesperson, who has been replaced by an "interim" appointee. Sources say two other staff members have also been putting out feelers. The FCC has denied that Powell, who is on a two-week vacation, intends to resign.

SILENCE ISN'T GOLDEN. What happened? Powell, a former antitrust lawyer at the Justice Dept., may be a brilliant visionary, but he has turned out to be less of a diplomat and politician than his father, Secretary of State Colin Powell. On his three top issues, Chairman Powell devised strong arguments for deregulation, advancing logic within the Byzantine world of telecom policy. But he always seemed reluctant to make his case publicly, or even privately to his fellow commissioners, until it was too late.

"This job is a lot tougher than it looks," says Blair Levin, a telecom policy analyst at investment firm Legg Mason who served as FCC chief of staff from 1993 to 1997. "Balancing the different constituencies at the commission and the Congress, business, and the public interest is essential."

Take the media-ownership debacle. Though Powell had the support of the two Republican commissioners as well as business lobbyists, he never made a case for why relaxing rules on media mergers was in the public interest. This despite the fact that poll after poll showed that the majority of Americans are against media consolidation.

OVERWHELMING RESPONSE. Instead, Powell advanced a pragmatic, legal argument that might have sounded good to a judge but never would have flown with a jury. In his June 2 statement announcing new rules that, among other things, would boost the number of stations a network could own to equal 45% of the national TV audience from the current 35%, Powell stated that "keeping the rules exactly as they are...was not a viable option" because doing so wouldn't be sustained by the courts.

The result: A populist revolt backed by interest groups ranging from the National Organization for Women and good-government group Common Cause to the National Rifle Assn. and the pro-life Family Research Council. The FCC received more than a half-million e-mail responses to the ruling, causing the agency's servers to crash (see BW Online, 6/16/03, "Mad as Hell at the FCC"). Last week, the House Appropriations Committee didn't hesitate to adopt an amendment to freeze network ownership at the 35% level. And on July 15, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a joint resolution to overturn the FCC's order in its entirety.

Powell advocated sweeping deregulation that would have quickly eliminated rules that the Baby Bells claimed were allowing competitors to offer service over their network below cost. But on Feb. 20, the commission voted 3-2 to allow the states to decide if competition is well-rooted enough to permit deregulation. To date, state regulators have proved sympathetic to the Bells' competitors, such as AT&T (T ) (see BW Online, 3/10/03, "Telecom: What the FCC Has Wrought").

"TRIVIAL MISUSE." On the day of the vote, Powell spoke eloquently about the danger of handing that power to the states, arguing that it would create myriad sets of rules and undermine a cohesive national telecom policy. In a dissenting statement, Powell ridiculed the states' rights argument, calling it a "trivial misuse of a cherished constitutional precept.... States are given control over the rates set for unbundled elements," he continued, "but it is principally the obligation of the FCC to determine what those elements will be.... States can assist in that effort, but our responsibilities should not be released to them."

Why didn't Powell make this case in the months leading up to the decision? That's what Martin, the Republican commissioner whose policy ultimately prevailed, did three months earlier at a Washington (D.C.) telecom conference. More important, why didn't Powell present his position to Martin himself? Insiders say the two commissioners didn't exchange views until the week before the rulemaking and that the two have been estranged since.

Will Powell go? He's no Harvey Pitt, the former Securities & Exchange Commission chairman with two political left feet who was forced out last year. The White House might prefer to keep Powell right where he is, avoiding what could be a controversial confirmation hearing for the new chairman. And the Ninth Circuit could still rule this fall in Powell's favor on the contentious definition of broadband service, giving the chairman a much-needed victory and new confidence in his agenda.

However, the rampant rumors may have already taken their toll. Powell is young, smart, and ambitious. If he decides that he'll be unable to advance his vision, he may have little incentive to stick around. Today, Powell's focus may be less on how to free big business from regulation and more on whether to free himself from the role of communications regulator-in-chief

 

[jay deuce]

If you don't think Howard Stern has power to cause Bush MAJOR DAMAGE in the election, you are mistaken.

 

[tadou]

^^ Sure he does. He's a shock jock, not a messiah or even a leader. People listen because in the morning their choices are droning music, or someone talking about strippers and taking clothes off.

He's good off the cuff, i'll give him that; but as for a prepared speech, i have no doubt that he would lose most if not all of his zeal.

@W.D.
Whoever wrote that cleverly omitted the 96 telecom act which made nearly ALL of this deregulation possible; and to omit the 96 Act in any talk of modern telecom is gross negligence. The author is most likely purposely omitting that information so i must assume that they are a fanatic, or at the very least, framing the information. Once i see a more evened report, i might be able to take it seriously.

 

[SoContajuS]

^^ Sure he does. He's a shock jock, not a messiah or even a leader. People listen because in the morning their choices are droning music, or someone talking about strippers and taking clothes off.

He's good off the cuff, i'll give him that; but as for a prepared speech, I have no doubt that he would lose most if not all of his zeal.

What is that suppose to mean? Are you saying that people who like politics don't really like to listen to people talking about strippers and taking clothes off? Everyone I know ( including people who like listening to politics) like to listen to stuff like that. ESPECIALLY MEN!!!!

How could make a generalization on all of Howard Sterns listeners? Do you know how huge this guy is?

I'm going to have to agree with jay deuce on this one.

 

[TOKZTLI]

Yet another example of how deregulation (remember the California energy crisis last year?), while in theory sounds like an ideal solution, is bungled by bureacrats and zealous politicians. Clearly deep-pocket companies that can acquire major market shares are the winners at every instance.

Although I appreciate Stern for what he is, a crude entertainer, I will have to side with him on this one.

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Nothing was "cleverly omitted" tadou...lol. The author is omitting it because everyone knows about the Telecom act in 96. Look up anything on Michael powell and you will find major mention of his efforts to deregulate media in the US. By the time Powell came in as chairman of the FCC, most of the Telecom Act, save a few clauses and sections, was interpreted and implemented. Powell has done a further job, since his inauguaration, of deregulation and supporting Clear Channel, Murdoch, and other major media conglomerates in the US. Powell has supported nearly any and all deregulation, save one solitary act.

The funny thing is his major decision of deregulation of the Bells' and the expansion of radio ownership in 03 brought very vocal and very large opponents on both sides, including Larry Turner, the NRA, the CBN, and a few major pro-life associations.

 

[Mcleanhatch]

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.

i told you guys he was never being censored. all another station/company had to do was pick him up and he would be back on the air.

Stern accused Clear Channel of taking him off the air not for reasons of obscenity but because he had spoken out against President Bush.

if tht were the case Rush Limbaugh would have been shut down around 1993

"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."

they acted out of the bottom line they had recieved fines in excess of $1,000,000 before Sterns obsenities. they did what was in their best interest.

 

[Mcleanhatch]

Do you know how huge this guy is?

ya, he is so huge that in all his many years on the radio his audience is HALF the size of upstart Sean Hannity's Radio Show and only 1/3 the size of Rush' show.

as a matter of fact i think it is tied with Dr. Laura radio show

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Fox News was doing a report on the Courts blocking the internet porn law and they used a visual for an internet porn site. They blurred out the breasts but those idiots neglected to blur out the penis/vagina penetration. So that's right folks--hardcore porn on FOX News.

Fuckin hilarious.

You can download the video from Fox News HERE


Click HERE to file a complaint with the FCC!

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Yes Rush is a HUGE Bush basher. Hahahah.

 

[jay deuce]

ya, he is so huge that in all his many years on the radio his audience is HALF the size of upstart Sean Hannity's Radio Show and only 1/3 the size of Rush' show.

as a matter of fact i think it is tied with Dr. Laura radio show

Yeah right, if you believe that you are insane. What about all the people in the area where he has been taken off the air? Stern has a LARGE LARGE cult following if you don't believe it you have never listened to or watched the show.

 

[TOKZTLI]

That's true, I heard it from all kinds of people the day they took him off the San Diego airwaives, everyone was pissed off, you would have thought coffee was banned.

 

[Snubnoze]

ya, he is so huge that in all his many years on the radio his audience is HALF the size of upstart Sean Hannity's Radio Show and only 1/3 the size of Rush' show.

as a matter of fact i think it is tied with Dr. Laura radio show

ya, but take into account the age groups. Those sloths get to add on the older group that have no other contact with media besides those radio shows. Take them away and I'm sure they wouldn't be much bigger than stern...

 

[Mcleanhatch]

Yes Rush is a HUGE Bush basher. Hahahah.

come on WD you are fairly intelligent.

you know what i meant when i said, "if tht were the case Rush Limbaugh would have been shut down around 1993".

another words if the office of president is so powerful why didnt Clinton shut down Rush??????????

 

[Mcleanhatch]

Yeah right, if you believe that you are insane. What about all the people in the area where he has been taken off the air? Stern has a LARGE LARGE cult following if you don't believe it you have never listened to or watched the show.

well i guess my number were a bit off but still pretty accurate