-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter sears3820
- Start date
I don't really care about Stern either. I think the argument Stern is making is that as long as he publically endorsed Bush, Clear Channel let him do whatever he wanted. As soon as he stated on air that he could no longer back Bush, Clear Channel pulled the plug. I don't listen to Stern, so I can't say one way or the other, but it seems to be different from the Rush or Savage incidents. Rush was relatively new at ESPN. He wasn't dropped from his radio show.
Upvote
0
Nixon
Wears Scarlet-colored glasses
So what if Clear Channel pulled Stern becasue he opposed Bush? Clear Channel has freedom of speech too. If they don't like what one of their employees is doing, they do not have to air it. MSNBC fired Savage because they didn't like what he said to a caller. ESPN fired Rush because they didn't like what he said about the media. And if Stern is telling the truth, which I don't automatically think is the case, Clear Channel fired him because they didn't like what he said about Bush. Those are all the same reasons. The employer didn't like what their employee said.
Upvote
0
Nixon: "So what if Clear Channel pulled Stern becasue he opposed Bush? Clear Channel has freedom of speech too. If they don't like what one of their employees is doing, they do not have to air it. "
Terminating an employee because of his or her political belief is not "freedom of speech", especially when they previously allowed the exact same type of behavior when it supported Bush. Can't have it both ways. That's why many shows, TV and radio, have disclaimers at the beginning of, and sometimes during, shows stating that the views of those aired may not be those of the broadcasting company.
Terminating an employee because of his or her political belief is not "freedom of speech", especially when they previously allowed the exact same type of behavior when it supported Bush. Can't have it both ways. That's why many shows, TV and radio, have disclaimers at the beginning of, and sometimes during, shows stating that the views of those aired may not be those of the broadcasting company.
Upvote
0
My point is not whether Clear Channel has the right to do what they did, certainly they do. But just because somebody has the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Upvote
0
Nixon
Wears Scarlet-colored glasses
"Terminating an employee because of his or her political belief is not "freedom of speech", especially when they previously allowed the exact same type of behavior when it supported Bush. Can't have it both ways."
I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying that the company has the right to decide what will be put out on their watch. If WalMart doesn't like Playboy, they don't have to carry it. If Clear Channel doesn't like Howard Stern, they don't have to carry him. Howard Stern has no right to be on Clear Channel stations. Clear Channel has the right to choose who they will employ.
I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying that the company has the right to decide what will be put out on their watch. If WalMart doesn't like Playboy, they don't have to carry it. If Clear Channel doesn't like Howard Stern, they don't have to carry him. Howard Stern has no right to be on Clear Channel stations. Clear Channel has the right to choose who they will employ.
Upvote
0
Nixon: True, they do have the right to broadcast what they feel, but as Woody1968 said, it doesn't always make it the right thing to do.
The problem is that ClearChannel has been saying they yanked the show because of its "offensiveness". Well, the level of offensiveness hadn't changed one iota prior to the cancellation, except that it was now directed toward Bush, vice away from Bush. So, it's obvious that it really wasn't the "offensiveness" that they objected to and acted against.
The problem is that ClearChannel has been saying they yanked the show because of its "offensiveness". Well, the level of offensiveness hadn't changed one iota prior to the cancellation, except that it was now directed toward Bush, vice away from Bush. So, it's obvious that it really wasn't the "offensiveness" that they objected to and acted against.
Upvote
0
I also agree a privately owned company like Clear Channel has the 'right' to 'censor' their broadcasts for political (or any other) reasons. However, once you start doing that for one reason and claiming it is for another you have started down a slippery slope. It leads to questions about who owns Clear Channel, who makes political contributions to whom, who can do political favors for whom and how exactly one defines political censorship in a world where almost all of the airwaves are privately owned.
That said, I have seen no evidence presented by Mr. Stern to support his claim that this has anything to do with his views on Bush - a claim that is entirely in Stern's own interests. Of course, he knows his audience and evidence is not an issue.
That said, I have seen no evidence presented by Mr. Stern to support his claim that this has anything to do with his views on Bush - a claim that is entirely in Stern's own interests. Of course, he knows his audience and evidence is not an issue.
Upvote
0