Howard Stern

[THE ENFORCER]

[QUOTE=bloodzombie]enforcer.. stop being blind... one, no dj brings in more money than howard, hands down. so to say elliott's ratings are too high is just nuts.

Howard Stern didnt get fired, why would it be nuts to say elliot wouldnt get fired for his ratings after all a radio stations is a BUSINESS!

the radio owners should be responsible for what goes out on their own airwaves, they have a thing called a delay, and they've got a guy whose job is just to sit on the dump button, so if someone says "shit" during their broadcast, he presses the button and the public doesn't hear it. it also fucks up the show where you lose about 7 seconds of dialog, so the show host doesn't like it to happen. This is a really important point for so many reasons, but mainly because the power to fine an individual for every station where he's broadcast gives the FCC the power to muzzle people. what broadcaster in his right mind would speak out against the government if the FCC could drop a 3 million dollar fine on them?

Problem solved with a regulatory framework, i dont think the owners have the delay button it was my understanding that the dj did!

You're right about them needing a framework, but they don't have one, and seriously, how can you have one? the english language is changing, things that were offensive 50 years ago are no longer offensive to most and new slang gets created all the time, how do you decide what's offensive? There's always room for interpretation. did you read the oprah artical? Howard tried to play a clip from Oprah's show and his producers and lawyers WOULDN'T LET HIM! but who's fining oprah? fucking nobody, that's who.

"the english language is changing, things that were offensive 50 years ago" are able to change it! accounting frameworks change all the time and adapt to new laws! "Who decides whats offensive" A:the public
QUOTE]

If television prgrams have ratings such as g,pg,m,ma,av,r and can only be played at certain times why cant radio programs have the same or a similar deal!

[THE ENFORCER]

Will Kerry pull troops from Iraq from a given time period?
The thing is i really only want Bush in because he has balls to fight terrorism and i have no idea what Kerry will do
What is Kerry's view on Israel and the middle east?

[Mattey]

Our President isn't fighting terrorism, From 9/12 on Iraq has been the target. Justification came second.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/po...ND-CLARKE.html


This is the second administration official to come forward and say this.

I forgot you have to register to read it, just type in Indianz as username and password.

[Awesome]

Hahaha, nice picture.

Americans have always been preaching but afraid to practice "freedom of speach". Hypocrites.

[Exceed]

Hahaha, nice picture.

Americans have always been preaching but afraid to practice "freedom of speach". Hypocrites.

I believe thousands of Americans practiced "freedom of speach" when they demonstrated against the Iraq war.

[THE ENFORCER]

Our President isn't fighting terrorism, From 9/12 on Iraq has been the target. Justification came second.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/po...ND-CLARKE.html


This is the second administration official to come forward and say this.

I forgot you have to register to read it, just type in Indianz as username and password.

We all know about Clarke and his book. But becareful with your wording, the 9/11 commission, this book etc... is arguing that why couldnt we have prevented this attack not have we done an attack on terrorism. The Bush administration has done alot after 9/11 in afghansitan granted alot has (probably more) has been done to Iraq as well. Also Clarke it has been argued that Clarke isnt objective in his book and is completely one sided against the Bush adminstration so his credibility is in question!

However i think that instead of paying so much attention to the past how about we pay more attention to the future! It comes down to relevance, relevant infomation is what can we do to stop terrorism in the future, what are we going to do in the middle east and for you Americans what type of spending is needed jump start the economy!
Any discussion of the past takes precious time away for making better informed decisions for the future!

Post any comments about this post, 48 or 47 to the new thread Look to the past or future please! Its explains why also.

[bloodzombie]

Howard Stern didnt get fired, why would it be nuts to say elliot wouldnt get fired for his ratings after all a radio stations is a BUSINESS! [/COLOR]
Problem solved with a regulatory framework, i dont think the owners have the delay button it was my understanding that the dj did!

You're right about them needing a framework, but they don't have one, and seriously, how can you have one? the english language is changing, things that were offensive 50 years ago are no longer offensive to most and new slang gets created all the time, how do you decide what's offensive? There's always room for interpretation. did you read the oprah artical? Howard tried to play a clip from Oprah's show and his producers and lawyers WOULDN'T LET HIM! but who's fining oprah? fucking nobody, that's who.

"the english language is changing, things that were offensive 50 years ago" are able to change it! accounting frameworks change all the time and adapt to new laws! "Who decides whats offensive" A:the public
QUOTE]
!

You're missing the entire point.. howard DID get fired before he ever received a fine, Clear channel dropped him from all of their stations. Elliott is still on clear channel even after he received a fine.

How does the public decide what's offensive? Have you ever written a letter to the FCC saying how you thought a show was not offensive in the least? of course not, who would? but religious freaks organize writing campaigns to complain about people like howard stern. they'll tell you "we got 200,000 letters of complaint, but they don't tell you that they all came from the same 5000 people. they'll actually pay poor retired people to write letters.

And you're wrong, the station pays a guy to work the dump button, and on a syndicated show, every single station that plays that show can dump it on their own, so if I heard a bad word on a show this morning, you might not have heard it on your station if your station was on the ball.

And you talk about tv ratings, it's not that simple, why can oprah talk about tossing salad on mid-day tv, and all the women giggle and titter, but nobody complains?

Also, ever since the janet jackson boob thing, howard tried to keep a low profile and keep the show extra clean, but then they went back and fined him for a show from 3 years ago.

[bloodzombie]

We all know about Clarke and his book. But becareful with your wording, the 9/11 commission, this book etc... is arguing that why couldnt we have prevented this attack not have we done an attack on terrorism. The Bush administration has done alot after 9/11 in afghansitan granted alot has (probably more) has been done to Iraq as well. Also Clarke it has been argued that Clarke isnt objective in his book and is completely one sided against the Bush adminstration so his credibility is in question!
.

Have you read the book? I haven't, so I'm not gonna tell you that you're wrong, but my understanding was that the book is largely about how we knew things that could've stopped 9/11 from happening.

Of course it's one-sided, this guy was in the white house for 30 years, he served under bush's father, and under clinton... he quit now because of what was going on in the white house and wrote a book to tell the country about it.

Voting for bush because you think he's the only guy that can deal with terrorism is stupid. He's just a dumb hillbilly. Any president would've gone to afghanistan after 9/11, it's not something special that bush did, and it's the ONLY thing he did right his whole time in office, and it's damn lucky for him that 9/11 happened, because it was his moment in the sun. He got to fly from his vacation home (he's taken far more vacation time than any president ever) to new york and stand with the real heroes, the firemen and the police force and talk about how we were gonna get those bad guys.

the whole focus of his campaign is on that one thing. "look at me, I'm the only one that can stop terrorism", and you buy it.

[bloodzombie]

And also...

Don't you think that maybe pissing off a whole lot of iraqis might make terrorism worse? Every reason that he had for going into there was a lie. there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no link between sadaam and al qaeda. He said that the iraqis would welcome us as their liberators, but it turns out we're not all that popular over there. Even with the lies, if the iraqi people welcomed us with open arms, I'd feel good about what we did over there, but they don't. it's not our business to be there. All we did was stir shit up and make a bunch more future terrorists.

Where was he when it was his turn to go to war? fucking awol. He's got a lot of balls now that he hides in camp david sending our guys into war, and then dressing up like a fighter pilot. what a fucking clown.

[Mattey]

We all know about Clarke and his book. But becareful with your wording, the 9/11 commission, this book etc... is arguing that why couldnt we have prevented this attack not have we done an attack on terrorism. The Bush administration has done alot after 9/11 in afghansitan granted alot has (probably more) has been done to Iraq as well.

The first part of the book is about how it could have been prevented, the second part is about what happened afterwards.


Donald Rumsfeld's reasoning for wanting to go after Iraq on 9/12 rather than Al Qaeda was because Iraq offered better targets. Let that sink in, and then tell me that this administration is really trying to fight terrorism and not furthering it's political agenda.

[bloodzombie]

But mattey! Didn't you see GW in his sailor suit?! He's a good guy, he MUST be!

[Mattey]

Only people that served (maybe served) in the cushiest post possible have the testicular fortitude to fight abstract nouns!

[THE ENFORCER]

You're missing the entire point.. howard DID get fired before he ever received a fine, Clear channel dropped him from all of their stations. Elliott is still on clear channel even after he received a fine.

How does the public decide what's offensive? Have you ever written a letter to the FCC saying how you thought a show was not offensive in the least? of course not, who would? but religious freaks organize writing campaigns to complain about people like howard stern. they'll tell you "we got 200,000 letters of complaint, but they don't tell you that they all came from the same 5000 people. they'll actually pay poor retired people to write letters.

And you're wrong, the station pays a guy to work the dump button, and on a syndicated show, every single station that plays that show can dump it on their own, so if I heard a bad word on a show this morning, you might not have heard it on your station if your station was on the ball.

And you talk about tv ratings, it's not that simple, why can oprah talk about tossing salad on mid-day tv, and all the women giggle and titter, but nobody complains?

Also, ever since the janet jackson boob thing, howard tried to keep a low profile and keep the show extra clean, but then they went back and fined him for a show from 3 years ago.

How am i missing the point if simply my facts are wrong?
However i dont know in your country but Oprah is during mid-day when all kids are in school! Also if nobody complains then it wasnt offensive!
Yea they cant fine him in the past, framework needs to be established.
The FCC should make one and if people dont like it they can protest for politicans to grab up easy votes (democratic way-thats what i meant before) or maybe have a committee elected by the public, in the long term people will decide anyway even if politicans choose FCC members so it doesnt really matter as long as a framework is established.

[THE ENFORCER]

The first part of the book is about how it could have been prevented, the second part is about what happened afterwards.


Donald Rumsfeld's reasoning for wanting to go after Iraq on 9/12 rather than Al Qaeda was because Iraq offered better targets. Let that sink in, and then tell me that this administration is really trying to fight terrorism and not furthering it's political agenda.

Read my post bout why invading Iraq helps overall

[THE ENFORCER]

Like i told you people Before reply to present or future not here. You will find all your respones on the topic in present or future thread!