Fight Censorship: Complain to the FCC
 

Alright, so we all dislike censorship. Howard Stern ATTEMPTED to point out a certain hypocrisy, but was foiled. So, I'm asking you - the free-thinking TFP citizen - to complain to the FCC to help prove a point :)

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/21346.htm

So, let's start complaining to the FCC about Oprah's indecency. They say they respond to complaints primarily so let's see. And if you saw this episode and have any more info to add, please fill us in so our complaints can be filled with as much fact as possible :)

Here is the link to the website that has the official transcript from the show... Oprah tosses the salad

Please help by letting your voice be heard.

This is a ridiculous inconsistency in policy, regardless of "intention". These are not doctors, these are just 2 people talking about DIRTY things at 4pm in the afternoon.

Also, a WAV FILE excerpt from the show...

Here is what is necessary to make a complaint to the FCC, from their website...

The telephone number, if you'd rather call it in, is toll-free, 1.888.225.5322

For those who want to mail it in, here is the complete transcript of the conversation...

Make sure you note the date of air in any correspondence.

Let's all take a stand for equal application of law!!

Sorry but I'm not gonna "rat" on Oprah to help Howard. You're using the same law to get someone you (I assume) don't like in trouble and morally vindicate someone you do. It would behoove us to try to get the law changed altogether rather than find other more popular ppl to point the finger at and get in trouble.

I for one kinda like the idea of Oprah being dirty...in fact it's more interesting than Howard being dirty since I expect it from him. Oprah does something that actually makes her (semi) interesting and we're gonna rake her over the coals for it to save some shock jock? If you win, all that is accomplished is Oprah watches her mouth a tiny bit more, Howard is still fined, and the law is still in place. In a way this hurts the cause by disallowing an influential person like Oprah to use this language and therefore having content like this become more mainstream. Oprah can achieve legitimacy of things currently deemed indecent or obscene more so than Howard, who is just someone we laugh at.

It seems to me that the only people complaining are the ones who believe that cursing like a sailor should be allowed publicly for people of all ages to hear.

No thanks.

I applaud the F.C.C.

The two shows differ substantially. The transcript provided seems to point to a more informative show from Oprah while Stern's is always from a titillation standpoint.

IMO, context plays a critical role in any determination of "indecency".

It's ironic how much Stern hates the FCC since it was their opposition to him which cemented his reputation as a "shock jock". It wouldn't surprise me in the least if his latest rantings against them are simply his way of boosting sagging ratings. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he has recently lost his number 1 ranking in his home viewing area to a Spanish language station.

Sure I'll file a complaint against that No-Good-Nick Oprah Winfrey. It's quite clear from the context of her show that she was presenting sexually explicit material in an effort to boost ratings.

At 4:00 in the afternoon a child or a teenager could tune in. This is clearly worse than Janet's breast. A child might have seen their mother's breast before. It is highly unlikely that a child would have been exposed to Oral Anal stimulation before seeing it on Oprah Winfrey.

Please think of the Children

there are also a few online petitions going around to stop the FCC, also voting against Bush in the election will stop this unessary censoring, its horrible, i cant believe this is happing, our sychotic, govt that is over reacting to a superbowl halftime boob shot. let the parents do their jobs and take care of their kids themselves. its a long shot, but its their responsibilty.

I really hate to say this but I don't wanna help Howard Stern in any way. He should be off the air anyway. Not because he talks about sex or has naked girls in his studio but because he isn't funny. He's a retard looking for more fame.

Oprah can say and do whatever the fuck she wants.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but to my understanding of what you are saying is that because YOU don't find Howard Stern funny -that he should be taken off the air. Similarly because you have no opinion about Oprah that she shouldn't be taken off the air.

So basically, whatever you personally don't like -should be forcibly removed from public consumption?

Howard always wants a reaction.
When I saw him making fun of retards on his show, that was the last straw for me.
Howard stren has not a single redeemable charcteristic about him that makes him usefull or interesting to have on the air. The FCC can keep fining away until NBC pulls the plug for good and he becomes a piriah.

Oprah is obnoxious in my opinion, but I can't deny that the transcript reads in such a way that seems to be attempting to educate the viewer in adolescent sexuality.
Educate is a word that Sterns show is not familiar with.

Sorry, but I can't help Stern here. I do however believe the laws need to be changed to better reflect our society (preferably without idiots like Stern, Savage, or Coutier allowed anywhere near a microphone)

I believe Oprah had good intentions, but the content was not appropriate, especially for the time-slot her show has. I'm not a big fan of Stern, but I'll back him up in this; Oprah shouldn't be able to get away with that on her time-slot, good intentions or not.

Let it be clear that I could care less about Howard Stern and, while I don't care about Oprah either, I'm more indifferent to her than anything else.

Here's the thing though....Howard Stern wanted to play this clip from the Oprah show on his show, because he knew the FCC was watching him. He was stopped because all the higher-ups that he works for thought - and probably rightfully so - that he would have been fined for airing the clip from the Oprah show. His point was if they fine him, they have to fine her too.

The idea of getting Oprah fined is not to do something bad to her or anything like that, but to point out a certain hypocrisy in the FCC. Were Oprah's intentions educational - sure. Was it appropriate for a 4PM time slot so kids could learn how to do all these things? No.

Fact is, as much as Oprah would love to scare you into believing, I'm positive that these things are not as prevalent in adolescent culture. The person she was speaking to spoke to *50* kids. Hardly a large sample group. As someone who has many adolescent cousins that I speak to, I know for a fact that if I were to ask them what a rainbow party was they would have no idea. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it seems to me Oprah fails to account for the fact it's likely a regional phenomenon.

So, Oprah educates kids - whom there is nothing to say shouldn't be watching the Oprah show - all about how to throw sexually gratifying parties, about oral anal sex - which many probably had never even thought about, about new slang for HIV - as if adolescents all over were getting HIV as if it were the next pokemon, and so forth. And, for all of this potential exposure to kids, nothing from the FCC. When Howard Stern wants to air the clip from her show - on a show which it is understood, and I'm sure mentioned (although I don't listen to it so I'm not positive) that it is made for adults and that kids shouldn't be listening, he's stopped because it's almost certain the FCC would fine him. Thus, the hypocrisy.

So, it doesn't really matter if you like Oprah or not, or even if you think what was on her show was fine. The point is, the FCC is targeting people they don't like and looking over people they do. That is wrong.

I also don't give a shit about Howard. I don't think I've ever listened to his show for more than 2 minutes without turning it off.

It's about equal application of law. If they're going to fine one person for one thing, they should do the same to another.

It was at 4pm in the afternoon. Fuck context- these are dirty words, and dirty descriptions, at 4pm.

With this logic, you'll tell me an expose on strip clubs, including nudity, would be ok for 4pm, because it's "informational", or showing a breast exam because it's "a clinical discussion".

This was not clinical, and not appropriate for 4pm in any event, regardless of what Howard says or does. They're just afraid of fining Oprah.

I'm glad you understand.

I was going to say this, but, I'll just let you reread analog's post. kudos dude, you're dead on.

To all the people who say fuck Stern... You just don't fucking get it. The government is trying to shut him up. They are trying to take away free speech. It's a bunch on far right conservative christians wanting to tell me, you, and everyone else America what we should watch, say, and do. Now, you may hate Stern, but if they silence him, what makes you think they can't silence you and anyone else? This is a free country. We do have the freedom to say whatever we want. Because of this shit that's going on with the Stern show I will not be voting for Bush... As much as I hate to say it.... It looks like Kerry will be getting my vote.

I listen to Stern every day, and the FCC totally targets him. There's things that he can't say, but I hear other "shock jocks" on local stations saying stuff that he can't. It's complete bullshit. Just because you hate Stern that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to do his show. For the FCC to take his show off of 6 markets,where he was #1 in all of them, is fucking horseshit. If people don't want to hear him then they don't have to put him on. Change the dial and ignore him. That's how to get rid of him, but the fact is there's millions of people who love him because he's just fucking funny. The government shouldn't be taking him off the air, and I would strongly suggest that anyone else who loves their free speech to support Stern, or it may be you or someone you like next. Is that what it's gonna take to make you realize what's going on. It really pisses me off that people just don't give a fuck about this at all.

I'm for free speech and I don't think it's right what they are doing to Stern. If I don't like something he says I turn off the radio. Is that so difficult? It makes no sense that people complain about him so much if it's so fucking easy to just turn off the show and ignore him.

I believe that the Oprah Show is attempting to inform and educate todays society/teens/adults. On most occasions there will be a notice before any talk show that warns of explicit material and advises parental supervision. I'm not sure if this was done before this particular show? A warning or a particular time slot to speak of those topics would seem more rational then trying to get her in trouble or censor her like Stern. That's how I feel.

I completely agree. However, right now I think most people look at it and see the FCC censoring Stern and think nothing of it. Stern is an easy target for the FCC because not many people will complain about him being censored. But if the FCC were to be consistant and then censored and fined Oprah, people would realize just how far-reaching and ludicrous the FCC is being. Without something to slap people around and wake them up to the rediculousness that is the FCC, no one will fight for a change.

I don't like Stern, but I support him because he's always targeted by everyone for having the balls to not sugarcoat everything. IF your delicate ears can't handle it, turn it off, don't tell me what I can and can't hear

Stern is a victim of his own success. He is targeted by the FCC because he has a long history of "offensive" stunts. Other shock jocks haven't yet been taken note of by the FCC and once they are they will also be fined.

I agree that the person talking on the Oprah show is probably full of it. I don't think the things she talked about are prevalent. But I also don't think the tone of Oprah's show was one of approval and encouragement.

WOW!!!...WTF...I'm almost dead on in agreement with sixate. :D

Except for the listening to Stern part. I don't listen to him. I think he's an ass. However, if he leaves the airwaves, I want it to be because he can't get sponsers due to the fact that no one listens to him, not because someone in the government says so.

I am capable of deciding for myself what's in my own best intrests, not some bureaucrat.

My two cents.....While I dont care of either Stern or Winfrey, they should both have to adhere to the same rules.....

We have an ongoing battle here with the Regular Guys morning show on our atlanta rock station.....they are under suspension right now because of something that happened on the air friday.....

I read crap about NASCAR telling the drivers that they can no longer be free to say what they want on their radio communication between them and their crew chiefs, when those are not FCC regulated airwaves.

This is all getting ridiculous....

Honestly, I really dont care about Howard Stern/Oprah, what I hate the most is the fact that in general the censorship is so out of control.

Literarly, any cuss word said no matter what time it is is censored because it violates someones ears or something. For example: I was watching the Matrix a few weeks ago on TNT and it was like 11 PM I beleive so all the kiddlies should be in bed, yet they still censor words like hell -> heck and shit -> shucks? I mean sure if your on the morning show when kids should be watching language may need to be censored but after 9 PM I beleive that the censors are just dumb.

(personal opinion)

I definitely agree that Stern and Winfrey should have to adhere to the same rules, but I can't bring myself to complaining about Oprah's show. Yeah, if Stern is going to be fined for that, so should Oprah, but as with what is done on Stern's show, I don't have a problem with what was said on Oprah's show. If I can complain to the FCC about not treating them the same, then I will do that.

YES!
One down, countless millions to go! hehehe :lol:

It's disgusting the way everyone claims you could just turn it off but they fail to remember how curious they were while growing up at a young age. They seem to forget peer pressure.
Natural curiosity and examples of how different people live and what they get away with are enticing.

There are enough bad examples of people succeeding through drugs,perversion, rock n roll,crime etc.
One only has to look at the glorification and idolization of ghetto thugs and drug abusers on M.T.V. for a good example.
Do you want your child to idolize Old Dirty Bastard or Marilyn Manson as a role model ?

It's time to start regulating what can be easily accessed by children.
Unless you all just don't care what the children of todays society are exposed to,if so, then why don't we also lower the age discrimination limits on tobacco ?

SO, the kiddies can smoke after viewing porn.

Id reply to that with something having to do with parents actually *gasp* parenting, but one has to realize that a large percentage of said parents were raised by a TV.

Dude, I watched anything you can think of as a child. My parents let me, and I've never done drugs, been in arrested, or been in any other kind of trouble. There's something out there called the real world, and kids need to experience it. If parents just try to hide things from them it only makes it worse. And god forbid that parents teach their kids something. You know, the difference between right and wrong. All Stern does is make people laugh. Such an atrocity, isn't it? http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/icon_rolleyes.gif

If kids are mindless sheep it's because their parents are worthless, and spend no time with them. Oh, and uhm, aren't kids at school during the fucking Stern show anyway? Yeah, I thought so.

People do use the "parenting" excuse, I do too, but the fact is that no matter how good of a parent you are you can't watch your kid 24-7. You shouldn't even if you could because then you just seem too controlling.

This is bullshit for Oprah to get away with something that Howard can't. I guess I'll complain to the FCC, even though its something that I really don't agree with. The law is the law. I may not agree with it, but they need one standard. Not one for Howard and one for Oprah.

This "context" bullshit pisses me off also. Whether or not the focus is to educate as opposed to titilate, it's the same content. Kind of like how on TV you can call someone a dick or tell someone to "suck it" but you can't say "suck my dick." It's splitting hairs.

For some reason though it brings me great pleasure to hear that they talked about tossing the salad on Oprah. That's some funny shit.

And they should experience the "real world" through tv and radio? :D That's kind of funny.

Not trying to be critical or anything, but I laughed a bit when I read this post.

I sorta agree, but the fact is many parents don't spend any time with their kids or teach them the difference between right and wrong. You mean to tell me that doesn't make a difference? And if you do teach them, you don't need to watch the 24-7. I never had a curfew when I was growing up. Trust was always important with my mom, and she made sure me and my sister knew it. I look at my friends and see how much trouble they have with their kids, and it's their own fucking fault. They put nothing into it. It's pathetic.

All I meant is there's many things out there to see and hear, and if you hide it from kids it only makes it worse. Laugh all you want. I could give a fuck less.

Not laughing at you but laughing at the unintended irony of the statement that they are experiencing the real world through tv and radio.

Nevermind.

sixate, you turned out ok. Except for the fact that you have to swear to make your point.

Are you trying to say that the radio is a figment of my imagination? Media is very real.

It may be. Have you ever really seen radio waves? And isn't it kind of weird that you can suddenly think of a song, maybe even start singing it, then when you reach over and turn on the radio that song is playing and right at the point where you're singing? Coincidence or conspiracy? ;)

I completely agree. I was also able to watch pretty much anything I wanted when I grew up and I think I've turned out fine. That's probably because even though I was watching so much shit, my parents brought me up in a way that I knew it was shit. I watched a ton of violent films and I've never been a violent person at all. No, a parent can't always be there to turn the radio or TV off, but still just being a parent works.

There shouldn't be a double standard.
There should be restrictions and rules simply because most people don't want easily accessible smut for young children.
(Good parents or bad, it doesn't really matter)
It's called common decency.
The fact is that kids today are more prone to violent acts, shootings, crime etc.
The fact is that there are alot more parentless kids today that are being raised by T.V. and music.
They look up to these people as role models.

You think there is a relation or link between all the new violent crimes being committed by younger children today and who they view as role models ?

ok

I'll answer my own question.
Yes, of course there is a relation. The root of the problem may be the lack of parental guidance but the end results are the same.
There is a reason for such a dramatic increase in crime by teens.
The reasons are obvious.
It's a lack of guidance and good discipline.
If you allow children public access to view and listen to programs without guidelines, restrictions or rules based on common decency/ principles then you are not setting a proper example of what's acceptable in society.

Chaos,lawlessness and people allowed to act in any lewd way they want for public viewing isn't acceptable behavior or a positive influence for kids. These actions should not be condoned. If you allow this to happen on public access for children of any age to view, you are condoning their actions. In other words you approve of it and it's considered normal or acceptable behavior by small children.

I could go on but really it's quite ridiculous.
I understand the importance of free speech and lack of censorship.
This can still be done politely with respect. You don't need having lewd acts on public T.V. or radio that can't be monitored for age.
Surely, you would think that the moderators here would understand this since they are so prone to remove and censor anything negative. :lol:

Most of the people complaining about this are total scumbags making a living off of acting like a derelict.

We won't be free until the FCC stops trying to limit "indecent" broadcasting.

That's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.

So you'd rather blame TV when it's really the fault of the parents who don't spend more than 10 minutes a day with their kids? Sorry, but that's stupid. Why not go to the root of the problem, which is bad... No. Terrible parenting? Doesn't that make sense? Parents should be kids role models, and if they aren't it's the parents fault.

In other words, in your own post you basically say there are a ton of lazy parents who let the media raise their kids for them because they're too lazy and fucking dumb to do it themselves. So if we censor Stern and a little sex talk, what exactly is being fixed? Absofuckinglutely nothing......

And you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. I say negative stuff all the time, and what I say doesn't get removed. I see hundreds of people who IMHO live negative lifestyles, and brag about it. I don't remove that or ban anyone for it. I never have and never will. Negative things can be said here. What gets removed is when negative things are directed at another member. That's done to keep it civil around here. I don't think any of us want TFP to turn into a place where we all come and call each other names all day long..... There are rules here, and people must follow them, myself included. Also, we do have freedom of speech in America and some crazy ass fucks who run the government who think they should force their way of living onto me are trying to take away that right... Are you trying to say that doesn't bother you? It bothers me, and what bothers me even more is it's a bunch of crazy ass right wing christian conservatives who want to do it. These brainless idiots seem to forget that there's separation of church and state. And because of that, I may never vote for another Republican again.

I don't feel repressed by rules or standards that restrict profanity and lewd conduct on unmonitored public T.V. / radio.
Thats my stance and I'm sticking to it.

You can scream I'm blaming T.V. all you want but you fail to comprehend what I'm saying.
Go back and read it again.

It's called common decency.

Maybe you feel like it's ok for children of any age to have easy access to porn based tripe and perverted lewd acts but I happen to not.

You're a mod .....why do you people censor negativity ?

Because it's not benefitial to the society as a whole.

It's the same principle.
Only with public access, 5 year olds who are easily impressed or manipluated can view it.

I find that more disturbing than the F.C.C. trying to tone the negative unbenefitial crap down or restrict some content for young children.
Adult entertainment should be for adults.
It's about Goddamned time they did something in my opinion.

I'm done with this thread.

I understand you perfectly. Just because you're easily influenced by the media it doesn't mean that I am. I always had easy access to anything when I was a kid, and I'll stack my morals and how I live my life against anyone. The only bad thing I do is curse a lot. So what. I kinda answered what gets removed around here. Read my last post. 5 year olds wouldn't be so easily manipulated if their parents spent time with them and taught them the difference between right and wrong, but as you've already stated parents just throw their kids in front of a TV because they're to damn lazy and just don't give a fuck.

Lastly, do you realize that The Stern Show is on during school hours? Kinda hard for kids to listen to that, isn't it?

right

and porn, lewd acts and stupid shock antics for public access so that all ages can view or listen to isn't directed at anyone

wanting standards for unmonitored public viewing to try and help our children through examples of good behavior and positive reinforcement on how to succeed is just stupid christian morals like thou shall not kill

it has nothing to do with common decency or common morals

let's show the young kiddies that it's cool,funny and hip to be a drug addicted thug or a star by using juvenile perverted cheap shock antics

lets just blame the parents and allow lewd perverted behavior to be easily accessed and viewed by children regardless of age

the hell with the kiddies if their parents can't follow them around every minute of their lives

it's just stupid christian morals



yep

I'm done

Good.

How many rating points do you think Stern's show will go up in the next book because of this dramatized fight against the FCC?

Maybe we should start a pool.

When I first heard about the Howard Stern / Opera debate, I was all for Opera being fined to support Stern's point. But as I read this article, it only makes it all too clear that censorship has gotten way out of hand, and soon the only thing we'll be allowed to watch is children's shows. Yes, there should be some limitations on whats allowed on TV, but human beings are perfectly capable of deciding what is or is not appropriate for themselves and their family, without the FCC telling them so.

Exactly. The whole point of wanting Oprah to be fined is that (theoretically at least) there would be a bit of a public outcry of your typical Oprah watcher who recognizes that she should not be banned. However, if the FCC is also going to be targeting soap operas, it seems to me that maybe they really could care less about whatever kind of public outcry there might be.

Onodrim please remember that the "censoring" stuff only applies to broadcast TV and radio. Anything that is subscriber based has different rules.

Thus Comedy Central can get away with saying Shit on South Park, XM can have Playboy Radio. So the tenents of Stern vs. Oprah is that it has to be even across the board for broadcasters.

Cable channels and pay radio do not apply.

I love how this thread went from Oprah and Stern obscenity charges to Bush controlling the FCC!

I like to thread-skip as much as the next guy but in an election year, you will not find ANY party looking to be elected who is going to stir this pot of shit. Why would Kerry act any differently on this than Bush has? Both want to be President in November.
Other than the fact that he is currently president, I don't know what Bush personally has done as far as being involved in any of the latest FCC stinks.

It just seemed like a big jump in logic to me.:)

I agree totally, except that the Government is not trying to take him off the air. They are trying to force him off the air by fining him huge amounts of money on every offense. I love listening to Stern, I freaking abhor Oprah, but regardless, I still want my freedom of speech upheld for everyone equally. If you don't like what you watch on TV, turn the fucking station. If you don't like what is on the radio, turn the dial. We, as Americans, have CHOICES of how we want to live our lives. When Government starts to dictate what they think is right for me, I get pissy!

I already wrote to the FCC and detailed how I find their witch hunt of Stern a complete farce when they let things like Oprah slide right on by.

Janet should have kept her tit indoors!

Actually, it is a very closely knit argument and logic flow. Bush is trying to win the Christian majority vote with this new "Indecency Battle". You know, gain the VOTING support of all you Christians. To do so, he has commissioned the FCC to crack down on all of the indecency. Howard Stern is his numero Uno target. So, where is the jump in logic? It is as plain as day to me.

Directly from the FCC.gov website:

Summary
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress.

The FCC answers to congress. The president can appoint commissioners (if their existing 5 year terms are up) but only 3 can be from the same party.

The president can and does push his own agendas on lots of things, but implying that he has total control over FCC witch hunts is just stretching it a bit for me. Thinking that either party would change what is going on and risk their election chances stretches it a bit further. YMMV

The president has, and always will direct policy of the Federal Branch of government.


The latest news: Stern will be censored Oprah will not:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1000491792

Kerry’s Secret Weapon?

Hundreds of thousands of swing-state radio listeners may turn the unlikely Howard Stern into a presidential kingmaker

by Ross Douthat

.....

Though much has been made of the recent debut of Al Franken as a liberal talk-radio host, the most important political voice on talk radio this year may turn out to be not Franken but the usually apolitical "shock jock" Howard Stern.

Recent months have not been kind to Stern, who found himself a target of the backlash against indecency that followed the baring of Janet Jackson's nipple during the Super Bowl halftime show. In February the radio behemoth Clear Channel Communications dropped him from six of its affiliates for being "vulgar, offensive and insulting." The following month the FCC slapped him with a $27,500 fine for his on-air discussions of sexual techniques such as the "nasty Sanchez" and the "blumpkin" (don't ask). As Congress considers raising obscenity fines as high as $500,000, Stern is contemplating a move to satellite radio, where the FCC couldn't touch him.

The proudly boorish host has cast himself as the target of a Republican vendetta—sparked by his criticism of President Bush and spearheaded by Clear Channel (whose CEO is a Bush family friend). So Stern is fighting back, proclaiming "radio jihad" on Bush's re-election campaign and partly remaking his show—well known for its adolescent obsession with fart jokes, lesbians, and strippers—into a platform for anti-Republican invective. "Remember me in November when you're in the voting booth," Stern tells listeners. "I'm asking you to do me one favor. Vote against Bush. That's it."

The idea of Howard Stern as presidential kingmaker may seem absurd on its face. But Stern has successfully dabbled in politics before. In 1994 he launched a Libertarian Party candidacy for governor of New York, only to quit the race and endorse George Pataki, a Republican, over the incumbent, Mario Cuomo. Stern was polling at six percent before he dropped out, and several political observers believed that his endorsement helped Pataki pull off a narrow win. The previous year Stern had endorsed the Republican candidate Christine Todd Whitman for governor of New Jersey, on the condition that Whitman name a rest stop after him if elected. Sure enough, Whitman upset the Democratic incumbent, Jim Florio—and today the Howard Stern Rest Area graces Interstate 290 just east of Burlington City, New Jersey.

Both those races took place within Stern's home market. But with eight million weekly listeners, Stern also has a larger national audience than any radio host other than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Dr. Laura Schlessinger (the majority of whose listeners presumably tend to be Republican). Stern could sway many undecided voters, according to Michael Harrison, of Talkers magazine, a nonpartisan periodical that surveys radio listener demographics.

Harrison says that Stern has "a gigantic audience of thirty- to fortysomethings, people who have grown up with him, people who are teachers, accountants, lawyers." Several million of them "would say they lean conservative ... but are on the fence" in this race. And the host has tremendous credibility with his listeners. "He may be raunchy, edgy, dirty," Harrison says, "but he's compulsively honest, and his main target is hypocrisy." Also, it's not hard to imagine that Stern's relentless screeds against the President would compel some of the previously nonvoting members of his audience—people whom political campaigns usually ignore—to turn out for John Kerry.

In a closely divided country it may not take many votes to tilt the electoral playing field. Ohio, for instance, went for Bush by fewer than 200,000 votes in 2000, and is up for grabs this fall. Stern's broadcasts in Cincinnati and Columbus reach a total of 138,000 listeners a week, according to Arbitron, an independent firm that tracks radio audiences. Missouri and Pennsylvania are also swing states; his show reaches 139,000 in St. Louis and 358,000 in Philadelphia.

In Florida, the fiercest battleground in 2000, the Clear Channel purge cost Stern audiences in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando—which is fodder for Bush-Clear Channel conspiracy theorists. But even now Stern's show reaches 38,000 people a week in Fort Myers—seventy times Bush's Florida margin in 2000. In short, it's not inconceivable that Stern could swing a state or two into Kerry's column.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/06/douthat.htm

The problem with the theory that Stern will really influence this election is that I suspect a good portion of his listeners don't even vote. The ones who are voters most likely will not take political advice from him and the ones who will do him the favor of voting against Bush will likely be in states like New York and California where Bush probably won't win anyway.

Stern is out for ratings and this "poor me the FCC doesn't like me" is what got him ratings to begin with. Now that his ratings are falling, he's pulling that trick out of his bag again. I suspect it has/will help his ratings but it won't influence the election.

Interesting, so what you are saying is that Stern really isn't being censored at all and that it's all just a ratings ploy.

Obviously he's not being censored as he can still say whatever he wants.

I'm saying that I'm sure he feels "unfairly persecuted" but am also sure that he's using the situation to improve his ratings.

It's called selective enforcement. If someone is Pro-Bush or just politically neutral -then the FCC does nothing. Even if the words used are in clear violation. That's why they won't go after the documentary where 9/11 firefighters say "fuck" and that's why Oprah will not be fined.

However when someone who is critical of the Bush regime goes into the "grey area" -then the book is thrown at them.

However, it seems politically unfathomable now -because Stern has been such a critic of the FCC. If they silence him now it will seem like they did it just to shut him up.

selective enforcement and/or selective censorship.

Those people who live in the FL state no longer can hear his opinions, thus he has effectively been censored from a Floridians point of view.

also, his base that are voters, did make a difference in two NorthEastern elections for NY Gov. Pataki, and for NJ Gov. Christie Todd Whitman.

Just because the people he endorsed won doesn't mean it was his endorsement that affected the outcome. Both of the candidates you name had pretty extensive support without Stern's endorsement.

There's nothing stopping another station from picking up Stern so it's not censorship. He is still free to say whatever he wants and he does so. There are countless ways he could get his show back on the air in the areas where he is no longer heard whether he chooses to do so or not is not the fault of the government or Clearchannel.