On Kerry's Clear Channel comments... are DUers freaking insane?

[jpgray]

Clear Channel has a perfect right to take Howard Stern off the air if they want, so long as that right is outlined in the contract. As long as they operate within that contract, what the hell is the problem?

Were all you folks supporting Mike (Weiner) Savage when his show was under fire for inappropriate remarks? How about Rush Limbaugh on ESPN? I hope if I do a search on both, all you folks will be right there denouncing the two organizations for muzzling their 'free speech'. Is that what I will find?

I'm guessing no, because stations set standards for their employees to follow, and if those standards are broken, they have the perogative to fire that individual. I saw very little complaining here in both above instances--why is it that, do you think?

So put your tit-for-tat bullshit away and quit manufacturing false anger just to rip on a candidate you don't like. It's what makes GD2004 more aptly named Satan's Asshole 80% of the time. People decry it when it happens to their own candidate, but apparently they enjoy it so much they have to rush out and do it to someone else's at the first opportunity. :(

[wyldwolf]

1. summed up nicely, thank you.

[Sandpiper]

2. My only contention

From the very start has been that Clear Channel's primary motivations were political in nature, and that they just happened to decide that Howard needed to be suspended on the very same day when he said that it was time for Bush to go.

Nothing has made me change my mind in this regard. But feel free to go to bat for Clear Channel.

[jpgray]

4. Was it illegal for Clear Channel to take Howard Stern off some stations?

If not, then how was Kerry's statement wrong?

Clear Channel is an abominable example of media consolidation, and it's possible they removed Stern from some markets for political reasons. How does any of that affect their 'right' to fire him? It doesn't, because like any employee, he signs a contract and is held to it.

edit: put 'fire' in my haste. Sorry. ;-)

[wyldwolf]

6. Did Clear Channel fire Stern?

..or just remove his syndicated broadcast from some markets?

[jpgray]

7. Just removed him from some stations Edited the post. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

14. Could have been a breach of contract if the stations didn't approve...

Have you heard of any of the stations protesting?

Still, there could have been a termination clause in the contract.

Anyway it is examined, Kerry was 100% correct in what he said.

[Sandpiper]

9. Nope, not illegal

Just politically motivated.

[jpgray]

11. I won't argue that point--it's a good guess as to the motivation (nt)

[liberalhistorian]

18. EXACTLY!

Stern didn't say anything differently from his normal stuff, what they're after him for (the vulgar comments about Paris Hilton's video) is par for the course for him.

So I find it really, really hard to believe that his vulgarity was the reason he was removed from some markets, and not the fact that he finally opened his eyes and saw the Bushistas for who and what they really are, after supporting him for the past two years, since 9/11/

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

3. So, Clear Channel which owns over 1000 stations in the US

has the right to take someone off the air coincidentally when they start criticizing the bush administration and republicans, and coincidentally the day before there chairman goes before a house comittee.

This doesn't strike you as odd. Any comment Kerry makes should include a criticism of clear channel and its influence in the radio industry. If Kerry said they had the right, but than went on to say the media consolidation that Clear Channel represents is wrong, and he would disband clear channel, than I would agree. But as usual, he is taking the safe way out, just like Gore did when he ran in 2000. Stand up for the truth, Kerry!

Do they have the right to take him off: yes

Do they have the authority: No

[wyldwolf]

5. yes, it strikes me as odd, but they have the right AND the authority...

Stern does not own the equipment he broadcasts on - Clear Channel does. As owners, they have the right and authority.

[rooboy]

12. If they didn't have the right and the authority...

then they'd be breaking the law. Nobody's making a legal argument here. The question is one of selective decency.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

17. Actually, they don't

Infinity owns the equipment. The show is syndicated. Clear Channel has a contract and has bought the show in the 6 markets they took it off. Now they are in breach of contract, and will most likely get sued, unless they keep paying for the show, or the equivalent revenues that their taking him off the air midcontract accrue.

So, it doesn't bother you that one company can have that much influence over what people are able to hear?

[wyldwolf]

20. Actually they do and you assume a lot

So, it doesn't bother you that one company can have that much influence over what people are able to hear?

Completely irrelevant.

Yes, Infinity owns the equipment. The show is syndicated. Clear Channel has a contract and has bought the show in the 6 markets they took it off. But we have no idea if they are in breach of contract. Contract have termination clauses built in to be enacted for a variety of reasons.

Am I saying this is the case now? No, but we can't assume that they are in breach of contract until and unless we hear of legal challenges.

And how you tried to completely turn the discussion around with a hypothetical "breach of contract" charge and make it into a moral media influential one is ludicrous.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

27. I appreciate your warm and kind remarks

Thank you for calling my comments ludicrous. It shows how open you are to discussion. You said Clear Channel owned the equipment. I corrected you, and you become meanspirited. Surely you can argue at a higher level?

What I said, which I will stand by, that unless they continue to pay for the show, the will be in breach of contract. Are you telling me you think they have a contract they can break on one day notice without paying for the remainder of the term on the contract? The FCC hasn't filed any charges against the Stern show, so it has nothing to do with the FCC, just cowardly, monopolistic clear channel.

You can't terminate a contract without cause, I am not aware of any cause that would allow them to terminate without renumeration to Infinity. Perhaps you can tell me what it is?

[robcon]

29. I think you don't know contract law.

There are all sorts of clauses in many contracts for conditionds under which a contract can be voided. If Infinity's employee, Stern, violated one of them e.g. a 'morals clause,' Infinity has no recourse.

You're acting as if you knew the contract, IrishBloodHeart. I suspect a company like Clear Channel has lots of "out clauses."

[wyldwolf]

31. on the contrary...

Was Stern's show not pulled from Clear Channel Stations?

Who owns the stations, and the equipment in them? Clear Channel.

And, still, you are assuming that there was no termination clause in the contract.

Show us a news story reporting a breach of contract.
Show us the actual contract - you know so much about it.

Your entire argument is based on assumptions and appeal to emotion.

You can't terminate a contract without cause, I am not aware of any cause that would allow them to terminate without renumeration to Infinity.

And you know there was no cause how?

just cowardly, monopolistic clear channel.

Your feelings toward Clear Channel is irrelevant.

[JI7]

8. why was Savage Weiner's show pulled ?

do you remember what he did or said specifically that got his show pulled. i do remember people asking to write nbc to not have his show on. and matt drudge lost his show on fox news a few years ago for showing some pictures of abortions. i sure didn't complain these times and in fact was happy their show was pulled.

i don't deny howard stern's show being pulled had to do with clear channels self interest though since there was nothing different than usual happening.

[jpgray]

10. He made a bigoted remark to a homosexual caller (really a prankster) (nt)

[rooboy]

15. He told a caller that he hoped they got AIDS and died. n/t

[JI7]

13. John Kerry did say Stern has a right to say what he said

and that if other stations want to put him on they can. so just said that getting his show pulled was not a violation of freedom of speech since stern could still say what he wants even if not given a station to air it on.

[Florida_Geek]

16. CC only carried him on 8 stations

and he will still be on 40 other stations.

[deadliving]

19. It's very simple

Banning right wing speech is the way it should be. If a left sided opinion is attacked then it is wrong. We should be thankful that the left side of politics is upheld and the right wing is muted.

[RandomKoolzip]

22. Oh, totally.

You're expecting us to agree, correct?

Duh.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

23. Well then explain to us how Kerry fucked up?

Anxious to hear it.

[wyldwolf]

25. hello?

[Octafish]

24. Me too.

Like this DUer likes to say, "Got a link?"

[blondeatlast]

26. My sentiments exactly. nt

[shance]

28. The point is WHY Clear Channel conveniently did it now.

Clear Channel was cozy and comfy in the fact that Stern demoralized, humiliated, degraded, objectified, and dehumanized any individual, race or gender who essentially wasnt a white male, however, when he chose to openly criticize George W. Bush, it was only then that they chose to yank him.

You are right in one sense however. Clear Channel has the right under the Bush Administration to yank Stern and do anything the Bush Administration wants them to do.

You betcha.

[diamondsoul]

32. I'm wondering why there appears to be

an assumption the removal wasn't at the behest of listeners in the specific markets the show was pulled from??

Admittedly I haven't been following the story- I think Stern is sick and twisted which makes him perfect for the career he's embarked on, and I've listened to him on occasion over the years. Sometimes he's funny, other times he's just disgusting and despicable and the fact is there are a LOT of people out there who don't want his stuff on their air waves, period. They don't even want to accidentally scan into his show!

The stations are not going to air something that actually costs them listeners, so I can't help but wonder if this is what happened.

[Leilani]

30. I may be completely wrong

but I remember the history of events differently.

Stern got a call, & there was racist, sexual stuff said.

Clear Channel was testifying in Wash. where they were in the hot seat & made Stern a scapegoat & removed his show.

The following day, Stern went on his rant against Bush, saying we should all be afraid.