When Howard Stern spoke out against the president (who owns stock in Clear Channell) he was censored, and left to go to satellite. Why don't the cons who don't want to be regulated go there, like the libs do?
2007-06-22 07:11:29 · 12 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
freakzilla, that all changed when Stern was yanked off the waves due to his views on Bush. He is not a shock jock, he is entertainment for libs. See how easy to debunk that argument with another OPINION?
2007-06-22 07:16:47 · update #1
so, it is a problem when reps have to deal with it, but not when the dems had to...and since fox news makes all of their money in advertising and they will all pull out when this goes into effect, won;t they just all go to satellite and pout their money over there? Stern's guys did...
2007-06-22 07:19:25 · update #2
funny, years and years of adult content, and nothing. Same day he speaks out against Bush, hs is yanked, in FLORIDA by CLEAR CHANNELL.
2007-06-22 07:24:00 · update #3
STERN WAS PULLED OFF THE RADIO. HE DID NOT DO IT HIMSELF. HE WAS CENSORED. I AM AGAINST CENSORSHIP, WHICH THIS WAS, AND WHICH THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS NOT. I AM NOT A LIBERAL.
2007-06-22 07:25:49 · update #4
lol, 'free' radio? So it doesn't matter if the sponsors pull out then? I just wish that some of you would stop trying to answer questions you can't answer.
2007-06-22 07:27:16 · update #5
Because they have a do as I say, not as I do mentality.
2007-06-22 07:14:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
So you are for censorship?
#1 who wants to pay for something they are getting free?
#2 Stern could have stayed and cleaned his act up some, instead he wanted to make people pay to hear his potty mouth. Good for him, he is expressing capitalism.
#3 Don't know of a conservative talk show host who has been censored by the government.
2007-06-22 14:23:24 · answer #2 · answered by mbush40 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Any censorship of Stern was due to the adult content of his show not speaking out against the administration.
2007-06-22 14:20:43 · answer #3 · answered by Brian 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because of the problems the two largets providers, Sirius and XM, have had lately. Not enough subscribers, you see.
I already have cable TV and high-speed internet, so I can access 24-hour-per-day music when I want to and get all the news, from local to international, from the services I already have. Adding satellite radio for the car would be a waste of money.
2007-06-22 14:16:11 · answer #4 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Oh, brother.... Stern's views, spoken or not, of the President were not the reason that he went to Satellite.
2007-06-22 14:29:29 · answer #5 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Michael Savage speaks out against the President and isn't censored.
2007-06-22 14:14:39 · answer #6 · answered by Abu#2 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I hear people speaking out against the president every single day on the radio.
He didn't leave just for that, he left because he was sick of dealing with the **** heads that run big radio.
2007-06-22 14:17:16 · answer #7 · answered by Mr.Robot 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No real problem. Just when I drive by airports.
I like satellite radio. I can always find something to listen to. And there aren't those constant annoying adds.
2007-06-22 14:15:12 · answer #8 · answered by Peace Maker 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't agree with forcing them to go to satellite radio.
I wouldn't be able to afford to spend my money on satellite radio to listen to who I wanted to, and many others are probably in the same situation as I am.
2007-06-22 14:16:38 · answer #9 · answered by Nickoo 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because they shouldn't be regualted in the first place , they aren't shock jocks like stern , they are providing entertainment for conservatives . I could of swore this was America and we have a free market
2007-06-22 14:15:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Why should I have to pay for anything that is paid for through advertising and already exists?
2007-06-22 14:19:14 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋