Kerry: Stations Have Right to Pull Stern

[wndycty]

Kerry: Stations Have Right to Pull Stern

By Associated Press
Published February 29, 2004, 8:53 AM CST

NEW YORK -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said radio stations are within their right to pull Howard Stern off the air if they object to the shock jock's racy show.

"Howard Stern does have the right to say whatever he wants anywhere, but he doesn't necessarily have the right to say it on that station if the people who run the station don't want him to," Kerry said while campaigning in New York, where Stern's show is broadcast.
-snip-

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/sns-ap-kerry-stern,1,937534.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[SaddenedDem]

1. So, tell me one more time....

Kerry is different than Bush how?

I can't wait to see the Kerry supporters defend this one. Asbestos suit on.....

[wndycty]

7. Slow down. . .

Kerry is right. The stations do have a right to pull Stern. What would you do if you worked for a station that carried Rush, wouldn't you want to the right to be able to pull him. I side with both Kerry on this from a legal stand point and Stern on a practical stand point. We may not like it, but a business is not obligated to to continue a show it does not agree with, however we more choices to protect free speech.

[truhavoc]

14. This is the same sort of thinking the right uses.

You might want to remove rush from the air, and you most likely could if it was an independent station. The problem is once you remove someone from the air according to his/her views it opens it to everyone to remove someone based on his/her views. This has the potentiality of turning into a true tyranny of the majority. I am not for censorship of any type, even if it is from a view I don't like. That is the beauty of our system, all sides have the right to get heard, regardless of how unpopular their views are. If you don't like what someone is saying TURN THE CHANNEL.

[wndycty]

20. And if Clear Channel does not like what Stern says they can drop him. . .

. . .the real problem is that Clear Channel owns too many stations and limits our choice. I am not going to criticize Clear Channel for dropping Stern THAT IS THEIR RIGHT! I will however criticize Clear Channel for singling out Stern while many of their other hosts broadcast material that many people consider offensive. The Stern firing was cosmetic and possibly political. Clear Channel is hypocritical but within its rights. The bigger problem is how media consolidation limits our choices.

[w4rma]

22. IMHO, the solution is break up big media into smaller outlets which

would then, hopefully, be owned by a whole bunch of different people with different viewpoints.

Of course, how does a candidate promote this and get elected when big media controls so much of our media? I don't know and I fully expect big media to turn on Kerry, like they did Dean, if he advocates breaking them up as Dean did.

[nolabels]

66. Wouldn't that be tyranny from a minority, say from about .001%

Overtly rich white dudes, that call the shots for most?

[truhavoc]

89. They are the ones making the decisions

But it is based on the christian right agenda that was given a boost by actions by those like Janet Jackson. The same christian morals are the majority view of the nation, being inforced in the face of those that speak out against those terms.

[sangha]

98. The media showed JJ's boob because it has a Xtian right agenda?

And the Xtian right is the majority view of the nation?

I just love the things I learn on DU.

93. this is a case where the "right" is right

"The problem is once you remove someone from the air according to his/her views it opens it to everyone to remove someone based on his/her views"

That's what freedom is about.

Kerry's saying they have the right to do this is what he should say. Why is it an issue one way or the other?

I don't give him any particular props for saying it. It's an easy safe thing to say. Common sense.

What in the hell is this country coming to though, where things like this need to be said and where some on the left (and I'm definitely on the left) think there is something wrong with a station taking someone off the air? There can be a totalitarianism of the "right" or the "left".

The problem is when a monopoly exists because then if someone gets taken off the air they have no voice. No monopoly, no problem.

something like that

[nolabels]

95. Howard is still on the air in some places

At least he was Friday. syndicated I believe. Most of the air waves your hearing it on are publicly owned, and rented out. The world is replete with out of work talk show hosts that considered not be towing the party line (too far the left).

These corporations don't have a monopoly yet but are working on it. What you have here with corporate media now is just group think enforced by investors and advertisers of corporate America, that make them work for every nickle

I'm sure most people know all about it, just thought I post it up in case there was somebody out that the sky was a different color than blue

[SaddenedDem]

41. No reason to slow down

Because John Kerry neglected to add anything about the man being pulled after YEARS of bullshit on the air AFTER he started calling Bush out.

So, what John Kerry is admitting to is simple - if someone goes on the air criticizing John Kerry, he will have him pulled off the air as well.

Additionally, what John Kerry lacks is ANY statement in opposition to media control by a few corporations.

I repeat, John Kerry sounds more like George Bush every day.

[paulk]

76. how completely absurd

LOL

[Sideways]

77. Absurd? LOL Doesn't Cut It Paulk...How is This Post Absurd?

Just thought you might want to back your assertion.

[paulk]

81. the statement

"So, what John Kerry is admitting to is simple - if someone goes on the air criticizing John Kerry, he will have him pulled off the air as well." - is laughably absurd. It doesn't even qualify as a logical fallacy. It's nothing but an unqualified smear.

The poster asserts that Kerry has never made any statements opposing media consolidation. Here's one, from just the first page of a simple google search:

"The Hollywood Reporter: What are your thoughts on media consolidation, and do you believe it has become a problem in the country?

John Kerry: I think it is a serious problem in the country, and I was against the FCC decision and efforts to narrow the ownership of media outlets in America. I think the consolidation of information is a dangerous trend in America because it has the ability to shape our Democracy and shape the flow of information. I believe you need real competition, and you need limitations on that ownership. I have always been in favor of the restraints on the cross-ownership. You know we opened up a little on the radio, and I thought that was appropriate. But look, there have been changes, legitimate changes in the marketplace that reflect real access to information and real access to competition. I am open-minded. I serve on the (Commerce) committee, I have actually voted on these issues, and my record is very clear about favoring real competition, being smart about transitions in the industry that you have to take into account. But I am not going to be hoodwinked into believing that we are in a place today where there is sufficient competition in some of these areas, where we should lift the rules and consolidate, and I am against it."

- - - - - - - -

Of course, what I'm really laughing about here are the lengths some posters will go to in their efforts to smear one of our candidates.

To say that Kerry is no better than Bush IS laughable, and is worthy of nothing but ridicule.

[sangha]

99. You are very patient

I couldn't believe it needed explaining.

[dusty64]

65. Problem is they

will NEVER pull rush or anyone else who speaks the partyline. They are using the airwaves for political and propaganda purposes.

[Young Socialist]

69. stern pretty

much towed the repug party line except he was pro-choice.

[Nazgul35]

70. what are you thinking wndycty....

to quote Sen. Kerry's response to Gov. Dean when he suggested that we should uphold the US Constitution...even for Bin Laden...

It really seems that Kerry selects his defeses of the US Constitution by putting his finger in the air after wetting it....

1) Come out against a fair trial for Bin Laden...
2) Be against Gay marriage but for civil Unions....
3) Be against Howard Stern....

Glad kids can't vote or he'd be against homework...

PS: Stern and Bubba the Love Spong wasn't fired for their bawdy content (in fact Stern wasn't fired)....both were let go after they started in on Bush...the day they let go of Stern, he spent the morning blasting Bush....

Personally, I do not endorse the pulling of Limpballs or anyone....I am enough of an adult that if I don't like something, I CHANGE THE FRICKEN CHANNEL!! I don't listen for hours being shocked at such behavior....that's why I missed the half time show surprise....

I bailed becuase the show sucked.....

[wyldwolf]

92. Those who find fault with Kerry on this misunderstand the 1st Amendment

You do not have freedom of speach outright. The first amendment only states that the congress cannot abridge free speach.

Private companies can on their time and on their property. That is just a fact.

Clear Channel owns the stations. They dictate the programming.

96. exactly

freedom of the press means freedom of the press to do whatever they want to do, air someone, not air someone.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[DaveSZ]

13. Here's how Kerry is different:

The long-simmering debate over abortion will come to the president's doorstep in April when abortion rights groups, enraged over the administration's aggressive defense of the so-called partial-birth law, are planning a huge march on Washington. And the future of the federal courts - especially the Supreme Court, given that the next president may be able to appoint two or three justices - is increasingly seen as another front in the culture war.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/weekinreview/29tone.html

I don't agree with everything about John Kerry and I'm closer to Kucinich, but Kerry has to run as if every state were Ohio and Missouri. Also he's voted more liberal than 96% of the Senate, and you guys treat him like he's GWB. He's even taken the step of saying he's against the death penalty, which could cost him votes in some key areas. Also he appoints the FCC chair which can help regulate those right-wing hacks that dominate talk radio.

I might vote Kucinich in the Texas primary, but certainly I will fight for Kerry in the general. Anyone who thinks we can win by running with a hardcore, uncompromising liberal position on all issues is shitting themselves.


Also the owners of the radio stations, whom Stern reports to as his bosses, have every right to dictate what they put on the air.

That's the fundamental question at hand.

[Renew Deal]

63. I was there. Kerry doesn't understand the issue.

He doesn't know what's going on. He thinks that the rules were there and he broke them. That's not the case.

[funky_bug]

85. Don't twist this

Stern was not pulled from the air by the government, he was pulled from CLEAR CHANNEL (only running his show on a total of six stations) because he allowed a caller to say horrific things which I will not spell out, but can easily be found through a Google search.

Clear Channel has the right to set it's own policies on the types of programming they allow on their stations. Many DJs and radio personalities, such as the Phillips Phile and Monsters have had long radio careers with little or NO FCC fines.

Kerry didn't pull Stern off the air, Bush didn't pull Stern off the air, and Janet Jackson's boob didn't pull Stern off the air. His boss did. If you have a problem with this, then take it to them. Censorship is defined as prohibiting politically based speech, not prohibiting a bigotted caller from statements that are offensive, vulgar and perverted.

[bowens43]

121. He's right.

What is there not to support. We do not have state owned radio. No station can be forced to carry anyone.

[truhavoc]

2. I wish there was an emoticon for

Running towards the right...

[Protagoras]

79. hmmm wonder if this will do

[truhavoc]

91. What is the the shortcut for it? Or did you copy it?

I think it will work perfectly though! Thanks.

[JI7]

3. and that's the problem

they DO have the right to pull stern or whatever. and that is a problem.

[w4rma]

16. Exactly. They do have the right, and that is the problem.

One company with the power to censor or play whomever they want on about half of American airwaves is a very bad thing.

Clear Channel should be broken up, just like Gov. Dean said should be done. But, if Kerry advocates breaking them up, will Clear Channel and the rest of big media turn on him?

[JI7]

21. of course

"But, if Kerry advocates breaking them up, will Clear Channel and the rest of big media turn on him?"

of course they will. i'm hoping after edwards or kerry gets in office to pressure them into changing this.

[DaveSZ]

23. Kerry is a smart dude:

He knows if he advocates breaking up Clear Channel before the election that the corporate media could turn on him.

I'm even afraid to post that fact here since there are probably people monitoring this site.

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. Kerry will never advocate any such thing.

He's funded by FAUX and is defending Clear Channel. I think it's obvious which side he's on when it comes to corporate media consolidation.

[w4rma]

49. This issue, honestly, scares the crap out of me.

A Pandora's Box was opened with various media deregulation bills through the 80s, 90s and also during Bush's term and I don't know how to put the monsters back into the box since, IMHO, big media will always favor a candidate, by a wide margin, who advocates more mergers and consolidation.

[Mairead]

71. "I don't know how to put the monsters back into the box"

And this is exactly why the claim is false that we can survive by electing someone who's fractionally less awful than the GOP puts up. Because the GOP makes BIG moves to the right...moves that cannot be undone by someone who's willing at most to make tiny moves to the left. Three steps to the right, one to the left gets us further and further to the right every round. Eventually we pass the 'tipping point' where peaceful change stops being possible because the psychopaths now control all the resources and all the power.

I'm completely convinced, for reasons that should be obvious from recent history, that we're at that tipping point now. Goddess help us.

[w4rma]

72. Don't forget about Congress and the federal courts.

The executive office can't get anything done without the other two branches.

[Mairead]

73. Oh believe me, I'm not! In a way, I wish I were.

Because they're in the hands of the fascists. Will we ever get them free again? I honestly--hand on my heart!--am afraid that it's too late and we're already kaput.

[depakid]

125. Congress and the federal courts are hamstrung-

and the beauty is that the far right did it to themselves trying to push The Reagan Administration's deregualtory agrenda. ALL it would take would be for the FCC to follow the appropriate administrative procedures and it could break up and re-regulate the media giants- provided that most of the Democratic Party went along with it.

If the FCC acts, say, to put the Fairness Doctrine back in place- it would require legislation with a Veto Proof majority to overturn that decision. Moreover, the standard of review that the federal courts are REQUIRED to give administrative decisions is so slight (substantial evidence) that as long as the agency has some facts to back up its decision, it will prevail.

Obviously there's a little more to it than that- the media oligarchs would fight tooth and nail to delay implementation of the new rules until after the 2008 election and Congress could potentially cut off the FCC's appropriations. (of course, they could have done that to Chairman Fowler in the 80's, too- but didn't, despite the fact that he was threatened and roundly despised by both sides).

Still, if Kerry really wanted to and if he has the guts- he could break them up- Dean knew that AND Dean knew how to do it, which is why he scared the hell out of them.

[mac56]

115. He's funded by FAUX (alias Fox)?

Any citations to back that up?

Frankly, that sounds insane.

[asthmaticeog]

4. WAY disingenuous.

So is he still in favor of big media consolidation, then? I hate to break it to him, but the problem here is that one guy is making that decision for numerous communities in which he doesn't live, and without consideration for what those communities want to hear, for the sake of silencing a political message - which is fundamentally antidemocratic. What's the name of your party again, Senator? Just checking.

I can't believe this assbag's winning...

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. Kerry supports Clear Channel

Wow, more good news from the "most liberal man on planet Earth" :eyes:

What a fucking corporate whore. And I'm not even a Stern fan.

[IndianaGreen]

19. I don't like Stern either, but it is clear with whom Kerry has sided with

Kerry has sided with Clear Channel, the same guys that sponsored all of those prowar "Support the Troops" rallies.

No wonder Kerry supported media concentration!

[JI7]

25. stern is part of the pro war crowd, cheered on bush

for years for killing the arabs and muslims.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Kerry cheered Bush when our troops entered Baghdad

When it comes to whoring for the powerbrokers that own this country, Kerry is no different from Bush.

The only difference between a Kerry Presidency and Bush's is the names of the corporations that will get the Iraq contracts.

[KittyWampus]

6. Reality Check People. Stations DO Have The Right To Pull Stern

and we have the right to boycott and protest...

AND START OUR OWN STATIONS THAT WON'T.

How many people who will object to this tried to get Rush Limbaugh off the air....

Hypocracy of the Left.

And yeah, I know Stern probably got tagged cause of his Bush spiel.

[wndycty]

9. Here here!

I support Stern, but one I respect a stations right to dump him. Also by Clear Channel dumping him it gives many people an opportunity to learn more about the situation and radio ownership issues, not to mention Clear Channel's political agenda is becoming exposed to the general public.

[JI7]

12. kerry should have been asked

about how much clear channel i owns and how it could and is affecting diversity of opinions and what kerry would do about it . but all the person did was ask just about howard stern's show being pulled. and kerry did say stern has a right to say what he wants, but stations can pull his show if they want, just as they did with savage and drudge. i sure didn't complain when savage was pulled.

[JI7]

10. that savage guy

didn't they pull his show ? i do think the stern thing was kind of political though. but it is true, they do have the right to pull the show. what i have more of a problem with though is when phil donohue's show was pulled, because it was based on having certain political views.

[AntiCoup2K4]

83. I never advocated Mush Limpdick being taken off the air.

I don't think he should have been a commentator on NFL games (or Dennis Miller either) because those are sporting events and should not be political. But I'm all in favor of those who are stupid enough to listen to that Oxycontin junkie windbag to be able to do so, just as long as I don't have to hear his shit. As I said, I'm not a Stern fan either, mainly because his show is completely New York - centric and should never have been nationally syndicated to begin with. I could care less about NYC at 6:00 in the morning when I'm stumbling to the coffee pot. (no offense to NY area DU'ers - Stern fans or not). But Stern has his audience and he's welcome to them. I heard a clip of his "offensive" speech on Meet The Press this morning (or was it ABC's This Week? ) and Howard was actually saying something sensible for a change - that the right wingers have far too much power in this country and it's only getting worse.

And Clear Channel - which is directly connected to Junior - can't allow that on the airwaves. Here's how the BCE - Clear Channel connection works....



Now why the Hell is John Kerry defending these assholes? :grr:

[Piperay]

120. I agree nt

[Caution]

8. Of course they have the right to pull stern

If I run a radio station and I hire someone and he is as offencisve as howard stern and I decide to fire him, the government better damn well keep their noses out of it. ClearChannel is being hypocritical when they keep limbaugh and hannity on the air but get rid of Stern but it most certainly is within their rights to fire an empolyee over that employee's behavior.

What this is really about is media consolidation in the hands of a small group of corporations. Stern being pulled by ClearChannel is a symptom of this problem, but it definitely within the rights fo ClearChannel to do it.

I don't see how in any way shape or form this is a move to the right by Kerry or that it is an indication of him being Bush-lite.

[wndycty]

11. True very true.

I was uncomfortable with what Kerry said, not because I disagree, but because I knew there would be those (including many on the DU) who don't understand that Clear Channel was acting within its rights. I would hope however that Kerry also does a much better job standing up for Stern's free speech rights as well. Afterall Stern is now in the Kerry camp.

[JI7]

29. stern being on our side is about stern only

howard stern cheered on bush for years for the war. his bashing of arabs and muslims and how we have to kill all of them is pretty disgusting. he only said he opposes bush after what happened to him with getting his show pulled in some markets. but did he defend phil donohue who got his show pulled for having different political views such as being pro peace ? no, stern bashed that side.

[wndycty]

44. He is an interesting and complicated person. . .

. . .he often makes jokes at the expense of gays, but he is outraged that Bush wants an amendment to ban gay marriage. He said he gave Bush a chance like he felt all Americans should, he supported the war, but he does not like the direction that the country is going. I suspect for those Americans who are not partisan, who are not particularly enlighted, his views are probably the norm.

[JI7]

50. yeah, stern is a social liberal

on things like abortion rights, gay rights etc, he is totally on the liberal side. he is pretty nasty when it comes to economic and foreign policy issues though. like saying those on welfare are completely at fault.

[wndycty]

57. Yup. . .

"like saying those on welfare are completely at fault." unfortunately like a lot of Americans.

[Hav]

17. duh, no shit

And as another poster noted, how many were outraged when Savage got fired ? Didn't they think the station had the right to do so back then?
The doublt standard is revealing when it's about attacking a Democrat who happens not to be the preferred candidate.

[bushwakker]

15. DU moderators have the right to delete any post

Station owners/operators have the right to not broadcast something for any reason they choose. Free enterprise.

[zulchzulu]

18. Reality check: Businesses can make business decisions

If a business doesn't like a product, they can stop using it or can cancel its services.

Imagine if a business couldn't do that?

[wndycty]

30. The question should not be about their right. . .

. . .to me their right is absolute. The bigger issue is their hypocrisy, possible political agenda and the need to stop media consolidation!

[zulchzulu]

42. So boycott Clear Channel

6 stations owned by Clear Channel decided to pull off the Stern show.

Should Kerry demand they put Stern back on?

[AVID]

32. I agree

Stern has a product for sale, CC didn't want it. There are many other stations that will want it, and have the right to buy it.

[DrFunkenstein]

24. Yeah, But What About Opie And Anthony?

Give me a break Kerry. You are Bush-lite with your fascist suggestion that radio stations can remove employees over offensive behavior.

Go back to the Thrid Reich where you belong.

[Hav]

26. rofl

I always knew Kerry was a Nazi.

(And for the crowd who would to reply now : Yes, yes he is indeed a Nazi! ...that was a joke)

[DaveSZ]

45. LOL

The last thing Kerry needs is fucking Stern's endorsement if he wants to win the Midwest.

Look how much Michael Moore helped Clark. :P

[NNN0LHI]

27. This is why I just can't vote for Kerry. So sad...

He knows damn well the boss can't fire an employee! What is Kerry trying to prove here? I told you before he is nuttin' but Boosh lite.

Don

[AVID]

39. i like your sarcasm

[PatrickS]

28. Kerry is such a career politician!

Stern is vile but frankly I'm siding with Stern on this issue. Democrats deserve Kerry

[Bombtrack]

31. Kerry you DUMB ASS. Howard just told his listeners to vote for you or JE

This is what happens you're a pathetic Imus ass-kiss.

[AVID]

37. thanks for that news

I always wait to see who Stern endorses before I vote

[Bombtrack]

46. Are you one of his 18 million loyal listeners?

answer that. Howards has and can affect elections. Especially when his listeners fear him being shut off the airwaves if they don't act

[AVID]

59. I only watch fo rthe T and A

[JI7]

43. well, now it's all over for kerry i'm sure

[AntiCoup2K4]

47. Kerry likes Imus for one reason

Bastard's even uglier than he is. Made Kerry look good even before the botox ;)

[Bombtrack]

58. Imus is a dicrepid untalanted racist

but the elite news media and Washington establishment kisses his ass. I don't like Giuliani or Pataki, but they have the balls to go on Howards show and they reap the benefits.

[slinkerwink]

87. it's back to the status quo again....

[brainshrub]

34. The problem isn't censorship, it's media consolidation.

If Kerry was a real progressive, he would talk about how he plans to stop corporate contol of the media. No one company should be able to determine what everyone listens to.

[DaveSZ]

52. Yeah

"The problem isn't censorship, it's media consolidation."
Posted by brainshrub
If Kerry was a real progressive, he would talk about how he plans to stop corporate contol of the media. No one company should be able to determine what everyone listens to.




That's real smart considering most people watch and read corporately controlled media, and he needs the media first to help him win.

[brainshrub]

64. Welcome to DU

:toast:

[Scott Lee]

106. Yes. The very thing that Dean got crucified for opposing.

Now let's watch Senator Horseface glom on to the position and be adored for it.

I love american politics, don't you?

[RetroLounge]

35. Ooh, can't wait to see all the Kerry Supporters Spin

this one.

John Kerry supports Clear Channel

John Kerry supports silencing those who offend

John Kerry runs to the right again

John Kerry can kiss my pale white Deaniac Ass

[zulchzulu]

48. Should Kerry force businesses to do what they don't want to do?

Say you have a business. Should Microsoft force you to use its products? If you decided to use Star Office, imagine a politician or government stooge telling you that you can't.

Get it?

[AVID]

51. You spin, I spin . . .

We all spin for Dean's win

[Hav]

55. Ooh,ooh

Thx for presenting the spin of the desperate anti-Kerry hate crowd.

[59millionmorons]

56. Point out what he said that was not accurate

John Kerry can kiss my pale white Deaniac Ass--now thats class.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. Actually Howard Stern supports Clear Channel

He's made enough dough to start his own media empire if he wanted to. He has contractual power for his show to go to other stations. If Howard Stern were on another conglomerate's station (and there are other conglomerates in spite of Clear Channel's number of stations) that would defund Clear Channel.

[Crachet2004]

36. John Kerry has to take the high road...

Howard Stern knows that. To beat the GOP, we must advance along both the high and the low roads, at the same time.

Get real people. Kerry is just as glad to have Howard on board as we all are...he just can't say it.

But I can! Welcome aboard Howard!!! Here's a map. See that road heading South? You go that way.

"Oh, you take the high road, and I'll take the low road..."

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. Kerry, always standing up for the rights of Corporations

What a Market Fundamentalist. Remember his radical right-wing interpretation of the Constitution that corporations can't be regulated? He said "we don't have the right, Constitutionally, to stop outsourcing."

I thought he was a liberal?

[bowens43]

122. How is this 'standing up for corporations'?

Are you saying that those who own the stations should have no say in what is broadcast? That's ridiculous.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

124. did you read the article, at all?

"Are you saying that those who own the stations should have no say in what is broadcast? That's ridiculous."

No, I didn't say that - you did.

[Donna Zen]

53. Has anyone asked Edwards this question?

n/t

[JI7]

61. not sure, kerry was asked at some rally/town hall

meeting type event during question and answers. kerry was right though. but the real question should have been about the media ownership in general and it's affects on diversity of opinions.

[Toby109]

54. You guys act like this is a first for Stern

This guy has been fired or suspended before many times over something he said on the air. Anyone remember Private Parts?

Stern blows with the wind.

[emcglynn]

60. I'm glad to see Senator Kerry taking a firm stand

on such a hard issue. Now what to watch on TV? Port-au-Prince burning or the fart contest? I did catch Chomsky around 4:00am on C-Span at UN event(Warning-Graphic analysis-may be unsuitable for neo-liberals). If you are looking for video to help put perspective on our current way of life-try "Hearts and Minds"-a Vietnam War era documentary. I think members of the Bush administration have seen it because they are using some the same lines. LBY's and JFK's speeches were particularly insightful. Funny, how two respected U.S. Democratic Liberal Senator's with positive domestic agenda's, one from the north, one from the south, ended up being so wrong about initial and continued support of a protracted war. But don't worry history never repeats itself(this many times?) "Peace with Honor" and "Bring Back the Draft" coming soon to a complacent democracy near you.

[Renew Deal]

62. I was there. Kerry doesn't understand the issue.

He thinks that the rules were set and then Stern broke them. That's not true.

[w4rma]

68. Rules within a corporation are arbitrary.

IMHO, the sooner folks realize this, the sooner folks will realize that a few big monster corporations is a very bad thing and this must be dealt with.

[slinkerwink]

88. is Kerry even aware of what happened with the Dixie Chicks

and that STern was pulled for bashing Bush?

[Scott Lee]

105. I think Botox might have offered them positions as interns....

or not. But I'm sure it ran through his botox adled mind.

[edzontar]

67. Kerry serves his media masters, panders to wingnut pukebrains

So what else is new?

He is a disgrace.

[mvd]

74. Technically, he's right, but..

I'm tired of us being so polite. If he doesn't want to push the envelope, it would be better to not say much IMO. How about a mention of Clear Channel at least and the disturbing state of radio? I didn't see the whole article - any mention of this from Kerry?

[Armstead]

75. Kerry is either pandering or he is a fool

if the media were democratically owned by many different companies, he might have a point.

In a truly democratic media envirtonment, radio stations would be responsive to their communities. Anmd there would be enough competitors to provide something for everyone.

But the fact that executives in Texas can dictate what is heard and not heard throughout the country is the problem.

Kerry faiuls to appreciate that as the crux of the issue. Janet jackson happened because of media consolidation too.

Kerry eitehr doesn;t "get it" or he is a pandering opportunist who is just as bad as the GOP on this issue.

[NNN0LHI]

80. "Janet jackson happened because of media consolidation" I am confused?

I am not trying to put words in your mouth but are you saying I seen Janet's bare tit because of media consolidation? I apologize if I am misreading your post? I probably am misreading it?

Don

[Armstead]

82. No you are reading oit correctly

The consolidation of media has also undermined their sense of social responsibility and accountability. There is a connection.

CBS once had a corporate culture. It was not necessarily perfect, but those who owned and ran the network knew they were were accountable and responsible for it. That was because of FCC standards and the owners also had some sense of standards. They had more at stake because CBS was their product.

But now CBS is just a tiny "unit" of a much bigger conglomerate Viacom. Thus the operation of CBS is less important than how it can add to the parent's bottom line. It also becomes more of a promotional tool for synergy. Thus CBS give4s its halftime show to MTV, which has a very different set of standards.

As a result, MTV does something that might be acceptable on the MTV Music Awards, nut totally inappropriate on the Super Bowl.

[zulchzulu]

84. Case study: Your business can't make any decisions because...

Let's say you bought a radio station. It used to be a Jesus channel. You want to do a devil-worshipping rock and roll sex radio format.

You are told by the government that you can't make a business decision and cancel the Pat Robertson segments that came with the radio station.

I guess that would be OK...

As mentioned in these posts, Stern had 6 Clear Channel stations out of about 170 stations cancel his show. Stern, by having his shows hosted by Clear Channel-oned stations in the past, has been supporting Clear Channel. Now those 6 stations pull out.

Last I heard, it's a free market. Anyone who criticizes Kerry for mentioning that businesses can operate in the free market is either a transparent Kerry-hater desperately groping for a RNC-loved story or someone who is too mentally-challenged to understand 4th grade economics.

[tobius]

86. OMG! clear channel used their mind control on Kerry! </sarcasm>

It's a shame that the sarcasm tag needs to be put on this statement, , but if I didn't there would unfortunately be people........... oh forget it.

[Scott Lee]

90. Kerry had large holding in a communications company, yes?

I think he has a deep admiration for Clear Channel and the communications Borg. But what else would you expect from a business-as-usual insider?

[wyldwolf]

94. You set up a conclusion based on your opinion?

?

[sangha]

101. Has he ever needed more than that?

.

[Scott Lee]

103. Is this "sangha" or "sangh0"?

How many versions of this nickname are afloat?

[wyldwolf]

110. Why are you avoiding the question?

Internal conflict?

[Scott Lee]

102. I asked a simple question - do you have an answer?

I mean, other than a knee-jerk defensive snark?

I'll wait.

[wyldwolf]

107. You asked a rhetorical question based on your opinion

I think he has a deep admiration for Clear Channel and the communications Borg.

Complete and absolute opinion

But what else would you expect from a business-as-usual insider?

You base your question on the complete and absolute opinion.

Nothing knee-jerk in my response.

[Scott Lee]

108. Why are you avoiding my question?

Internal conflicts?

[wyldwolf]

109. Why not ask a question that can be answered based on established fact?

..and not your opinion?

Confused over the difference?

[paulk]

97. so what's your solution , Scott?

In what way is Kerry wrong here?

Should the government regulate what shows Clear Channel can carry?

Should the government regulate what shows Radio Subversion can carry?

[Scott Lee]

104. My solution is for Senator Botox to talk about crucial issues

Rather than ClearlyChannelled's right to fire a radio loudmouth.

Do you think that's a good solution? Or, should we allow time for Botox to copy the positions of his competitors?

[paulk]

112. but that's the question he was asked

he answered it - by your own admission, correctly.

----

"Do you think that's a good solution? Or, should we allow time for Botox to copy the positions of his competitors?"

I take it you are upset that a candidate you supported lost out to Senator Kerry. Your question is based on such a subjective interpretation as to the reasons why your candidate failed that I'm afraid I can't answer it.

Why do you choose to constantly denigrate Senator Kerry by calling him "Botox"? What purpose does this serve?

[zulchzulu]

114. Denegrating Kerry as Senator Botox shows pure deflection

I love that feature that DU has where I don't have to see such garbage.

[zulchzulu]

113. Nice dodging of the original question

Again, should the government tell you what you should or shouldn't have on your web site?

That is exactly what you are implying by thinking that Kerry is wrong that a radio station wants to make a decision not to carry a product that they don't want to carry.

Who should stand in and force the radio station to keep Howard Stern on the station even if that business doesn't want it?

Answer that. Don't deflect.

[wyldwolf]

117. You're going to be waiting a loooong time for reply ...

[LTR]

129. The ultimate solution

And not a moment too soon. Bye!

All this nastiness toward Dems is a real turnoff. I'm glad this disruptor has finally gotten his piece of the rock.

[corporatewhore]

100. is he channeling lieberman?

[arewethereyet]

111. Kerry is right, whats the problem ?

the stations pay for the feed, they can cancel based on the particulars of the contract for any reason they want.

This is America.

Of course Stern is equally free to "entertain" in any way he wishes within the bounds of FCC regulation as well.

He's selling, the stations are buying. THey are not obligated to continue to buy if they don't wish to.

[atre]

116. To those of you defending this statement, allow me to explain something

Clear Channel may be acting within their "rights" to fire a DJ for offensive language, but the rights of network and radio broadcasters are more limited than ordinary businesses, the Supreme Court has held (Red Lion v. FCC, et al), because of bandwidth scarcity. The government can require "equal time" for different views as a condition of an FCC broadcasting license.

This statement tells me that Kerry is either unaware of the Red Lion- Fairness Doctrine or that he in no way is going to risk political capital by trying to revive it (even though the Court has held that it passes constitutional muster). While he has made some statements that show me he is far from a constitutional law scholar, I do believe that since he was a Senator during the hubub over the Fairness Doctrine, the latter must be true.

[earthsea wizard]

118. Without a Doubt, Kerry is Half Right

Clear Channel can chose to drop Howard Stern, or any other program from it's schedule.

End of that story.

But it's not the end of "THE" story, "THE" story being the story about whats wrong with the media in the United States.

Of course, the answer is media consolidation and conflict of interest.

When corporation X controls the news, and corporation X engages in illicit, unethical, or just distasteful activities, we will never hear the truth about such activities.

The way to deal with this issue is straight forward -

1) STRICTLY and severely enforse all laws, and close all loopholes regarding conflicts of interest violations in public service.

2) Regulate news media (of all forms).

When hit with the freedom of speech issue, explain that the media has long been viewed as an informal fourth branch of the Federal government, and is a watchdog force that is used as an important element of the balance of powers in this country.

As such, like all public services, it is in the best interest of the public to ensure that the media remains free from undue influence and control, just as we fight for our Judges, Congressional Representatives, and Presidents to remain free from the same.

Who, besides the puppet masters, can complain?

That--or something to that effect--is what John Kerry could have said, or could be saying. It would make his comments about Stern seem all the more honest and fair.

[gate of the sun]

119. certainly they have a right to pull stern

but has he no other opinion?

[regnaD kciN]

123. So, in other words, Stern is Kerry's own Sistah Souljah...

...where Kerry will try to gain points with "middle Amercia" by "standing up for decency" against "bad influences in society."

Well, it worked for Clinton. After the Sistah Souljah incident, Bill's stock shot straight up (no Monicagate jokes, please) and he went from being a no-chance Democratic nominee to taking the lead over Bush. It might work in Kerry's favor, too.

Of course, Clinton seemed to learn from that that, when in trouble, turn against your own supporters on the left to gain ground in the center. I hope that isn't a lesson Kerry learns (at least, any more than he has already...).

[paulk]

126. Stern's conversion to ABB is fairly recent

so I don't know that he can be called a supporter. Besides, I'm not sure there's ANY candidate who wants Mr. Stern standing by their side...

This whole issue seems blown out of proportion - Kerry answered the question he was asked. He chose not to talk about media consolidation or the FCC. Perhaps he didn't feel it was the right forum.

The right forum will come this November - after which he will throw Michael Powell out on his ass.

[nolabels]

127. A kick for Will over in GD

;-)

[paulk]

128. I must have missed it

got a link?