Matty wrote:
>if clear channel wants to dump howard stern's show because it isn't making 
>enough money for them, or because they just don't like it, of course they 
>have that right.  the problem here is that howard stern is making plenty 
>of money for them, and they weren't complaining too loudly about anything 
>he said until the federal government made it explicitly clear that it was 
>interested in punishing stations whose content it found offensive, and 
>maybe even yanking their broadcasting licenses.  it was only then, under 
>that clear governmental threat, that clear channel axed stern.  that's why 
>this is 100 percent a free speech/first amendment issue.
>
>matty

I agree with you except on this point:  this governmental threat thing is 
an election year paper tiger, a bit of political kabuki to make the Bush 
administration look like protective leaders for crackin' down on them pervs 
and amorul librulls.  Clear Channel is such a huge benefactor/booster for 
the current administration, laying out the campaign contributions to ensure 
their growing monopoly of the airwaves, not to mention their corporate tax 
breaks.  The day before CC yanked Stern, Stern went off on an 
anti-Bush/constitutional amendment rant.  Yanking Stern is all about Bush's 
backers protecting their investment by stifling dissent.

Andrew

www.thetrolleyvox.com