Air Howard Stern On Clear Channel Stations example essay topic

Like millions of Americans, I listen to Howard Stern on the radio in the mornings. I think he is smart, quick and funny. Sometimes he is 'offensive,' ' but to be quite frank, I am not 'offended,' ' because what he says falls within the realm of words and subjects that, as an adult, I have long been familiar with even without the tutelage of Stern. Unlike millions of Americans, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. One reason for that is that I am usually at the movies when he's on the air -- an alternative I urge on his listeners. Limbaugh does offend me when I monitor him, because he has cheapened political discourse in this country with his canned slogans and cheap shots.

Once you call a feminist a ',' ' what else is there to say about feminism? Of course you may disagree with me and prefer Limbaugh. I may disagree with you and prefer Stern. That is our right as Americans. What offends me is that the right wing, secure in its own right to offend, now wants to punish Stern to the point where he may be forced off the air. The big difference, of course, is that Stern's offenses usually have to do with sex and language, while Limbaugh's have to do with politics.

Stern offends the puritan right, which doesn't seem to respect the American tradition of freedom of expression. You don't have to listen to Stern. Exercising the same freedom, I am Limbaugh-free. And please don't tell me that Stern must be fined and driven off the radio because he uses the 'public airwaves. ' ' If they are public, then his listeners are the public, and we want to listen to him on our airwaves. The public airwaves cannot be held hostage to a small segment that wants to decide what the rest of us can hear -- especially now that President Bush supports consolidating more and more media outlets into a few rich hands.

But what if a child should tune in? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe it is the responsibility of parents to control their children's media input. The entire nation cannot be held hostage so that everything on the radio is suitable for 9-year-olds. Nor do I know of any children who want to listen to Stern, anyway; they prefer music. It is a belief of mine about the movies, that what makes them good or bad isn't what they " re about, but how they " re about them.

The point is not the subject but the form and purpose of its expression. A listener to Stern will find that he expresses humanistic values, that he opposes hypocrisy, that he talks honestly about what a great many Americans do indeed think and say and do. A Limbaugh listener, on the other hand, might not have guessed from campaigns to throw the book at drug addicts that he was addicted to drugs and required an employee to buy them on the street. But listen carefully.

I support Limbaugh's right to be on the radio. I feel it is fully equal to Stern's. I find it strange that so many Americans describe themselves as patriotic when their values are anti-democratic and totalitarian. We are all familiar with Voltaire's great cry: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. ' ' Ideas like his helped form the emerging American republic. Today, the Federal Communications Commission operates under an alternative slogan: 'Since a minority that is very important to this administration disagrees with what you say, shut up.

' ' Copyright (c) Chicago Sun-Times Inc. FCC ready to hit Stern again To Infinity and beyond; newspaper report says FCC will fine Viacom radio unit $1.5 M for Stern show. April 16, 2004: 10: 14 AM EDT NEW YORK (CNN / Money) - The FCC could announce a new $1.5 million fine involving radio personality Howard Stern as soon as next week, according to a published report. Howard Stern could end up costing his employer Infinity Broadcasting $1.5 million in FCC fines, according to a published report.

The New York Post reported the fine will be against Stern's employer, Infinity Broadcasting, a unit of Viacom (VIA: Research, Estimates). The regulatory agency, which has been pushing to crack down on what it deems obscene or indecent material on the air, already announced a $495,000 fine against the nation's largest radio broadcaster, Clear Channel Communications, which had aired Stern's program on six Clear Channel stations. Infinity airs Stern's show on 35 of its stations. Clear Channel, which suspended Stern's broadcasts before the FCC fine was announced, cancelled the show on its stations following the announcement.

But a spokesman for Infinity said then that it had no plans to cancel Stern's show. Infinity stuck with Stern when it was hit with a record $1.7 million fine by the FCC in 1995 for various comments made on the air. YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Viacom Clear Channel Communications Incorporated or CREATE YOUR OWN Manage alerts | What is this? Spokesmen for the FCC, Infinity and Stern were not immediately available for comment on the Post report. Viacom is due to release first-quarter financial results April 22. Future fines could go much higher if legislation that has passed the House of Representatives is approved by the Senate, as expected.

That legislation would raise the maximum fine to $500,000 from $27,500 per incident. FCC gaining too much power Volume 95 Number 62 Thursday, April 15, 2004 Printer friendly version Among the consequences of the now-infamous Janet Jackson flap at the Super Bowl is the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, passed overwhelming by Congress. The act aims to clean up the filth that has been clogging our airwaves in recent years by increasing the amount of money the Federal Communications Commission can fine stations from $27,500 to $500,000. The first target of the souped up FCC, as you probably know, is shock jock Howard Stern. I am not a fan of Howard Stern.

I never listened to his radio show, but I have seen him a few times on television. I found him to be annoying and disgusting. Porn stars and strippers may improve ratings, but they add nothing to the public discourse. From graphic discussions of sexual and bodily functions, most of his words and deeds are indefensible. Still, we would all do well to remember Voltaire's famous declaration, 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. ' Giving the FCC more power should raise alarm among all of us.

Many do not like Stern and would like to see him removed from the airwaves. That's fine. If you strongly feel this way, I have some suggestions for you. Organize boycotts. March in protest. Hit Stern and his sponsors where it hurts most, in the wallet.

Use methods similar to those utilized to stop the CBS hatchet job of The Reagan's last year. If that doesn't work, just change the channel! But do not use the power of government to silence him, or anyone else. It sets far too dangerous a precedent that might just come back to bite us all someday. If Howard Stern can be silenced, why not Rush Limbaugh? Or Jimmy Kimmel?

Or Haller in Hill? All these talk show hosts could be considered offensive by some. What about certain types of music, or certain news items? Are you really comfortable giving this much power to the government? Do you trust the government to look out for you? If so, you definitely need a history lesson.

I'm not going to exaggerate and claim that our current situation resembles the Third Reich or Stalinist Russia. But it does merit our attention, and our close scrutiny. Free speech is one of our most basic rights, and any infringement upon it should raise suspicion. Some may argue that freedom of speech does not guarantee a right to be heard. That is correct, but the clear intention behind the First Amendment is to protect speech from being suppressed by the government.

If punishing stations for airing something the government does not approve of isn't suppression, I don't know what is. The First Amendment does not mention the broadcast media because it did not exist at the time of our nation's founding. There is little doubt, however, that had there been radio and television at the time of the Constitutional Convention, they would have been protected by the Constitution, just as newspapers are. Students of history understand this. Criticism of the FCC is not new.

In 1964, Ayn Rand warned, 'When censorship of radio and television becomes fully accepted, as a fait accompli, it will not be long before all the other media - books, magazines, newspapers, lectures - follow suit, unobtrusively, unofficially, and by the same method: overtly, in the name of the 'public interest'; covertly, for fear of government reprisals. ' So we now see the FCC 'protecting us' following the Janet Jackson flap, and Clear Channel dropping Stern for fear of government reprisals. Rand's words were prophetic. Do we really need the government deciding what is decent and what isn't? Shouldn't that be up to us as individuals to decide?

I may not like Howard Stern, but he obviously has an audience. And the government is supposed to represent his audience just as much as it represents me. This is only one reason why we should always be dubious of anything the government does in the 'public interest' (a catchy phrase used to justify countless atrocities throughout history). I have no doubt that most of the Congressmen who voted for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act were well meaning. Unfortunately, the old adage about the road to hell being paved with good intentions is especially true when applied to the government.

Always jealously guard your freedom of speech, because once that right is gone, all others will follow. Consider that the next time you " re driving home from class listening to 100.3, 94.3, or 107.7. - John Brown is a senior in political science. He can be reached at, or visit web (c) Copyright The Daily Beacon From FCC to media, unnecessary static By Tom Keane Friday, April 16, 2004 If you listen to radio station WBC N on weekday mornings, you may be shocked by what you hear, but you shouldn't be surprised. You " re listening to the Howard Stern show, after all, and the man that fans dub the King of All Radio goes out of his way to goad, taunt and outrage both listeners and guests.

That makes Stern unlike, say, the half-time show of Super Bowl V, where millions of viewers looking for some G- (or perhaps PG-) rated entertainment genuinely were surprised when confronted by smutty singers, lewd dancers and one exposed breast. It's an important difference. No one (except Justin Timberlake) was viewing the show to see Janet Jackson's breast. But everyone who listens to Stern's show knows exactly what they " re in for. Nevertheless, the fury over Jackson's January wardrobe malfunction has become a launching pad for a new wave of worry over 'decency,' ' one aim of which, quite clearly, is to put Howard Stern out of business. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission fined Clear Channel Communications a hefty $495,000 because of an April 9 Stern show.

Clear Channel, fearing its broadcast licenses were at risk, dropped Stern from its lineup. For the moment, Stern's parent company, Infinity Broadcasting, is sticking with him. Yet Stern, with good reason, fears he " ll soon be off the air entirely. I've read the transcript of the show that earned Stern his most recent fine and there's no question it's outrageous, much like the other material Stern performs every day.

But it also clearly was not obscene. Obscenity is the prurient stuff that lacks 'serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. ' ' But no one, not even the FCC, claimed that Stern fit within that definition. Rather, he was 'indecent. ' ' And what's that? Who knows?

If 'in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking,' ' the old days may be with us again. Indeed, the Parents Television Council, which has been pushing the FCC to crack down on indecency, regrets the passing of the days 'when Rob and Laura Petrie on the Dick Van Dyke Show could not be seen sleeping in the same bed. ' ' But how is it that the sensibilities of a few should dictate what everyone else is allowed to hear or watch? How can any of this square with the First Amendment's command that the government 'shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech?' ' In the strange world of broadcasting, the rules are different. In the early days of radio - and later, television - the government essentially gave away broadcast licenses for free. There was a quid pro quo, however.

The government argued radio and TV licenses were public property temporarily held in private hands. As a result, Congress said the FCC should be able to regulate the content of the two media as it saw fit. The public property argument was a pretty thin reed on which to rest voiding the First Amendment, yet the Supreme Court in 1978 narrowly upheld it (in the Pacifica decision, which was about George Carlin's famous 'seven dirty words'). The court said broadcasting has 'the most limited First Amendment protection,' ' largely because broadcasts are 'uniquely pervasive. ' ' But while that may have been true a quarter century ago, it's far less the case today. For one, technology exists to filter out unwanted television shows (in fact, the real problem with the Super Bowl was that it was incorrectly rated).

More important has been the rise of non-broadcast television and radio (such as cable TV, Internet radio, satellite TV and satellite radio). As viewers and listeners, it really doesn't matter to us how we receive the signal. Yet as far as the FCC is concerned, the difference is huge. For the agency's decency rules only apply to traditional broadcast stations.

Everyone else is exempt. That's a silly distinction. HBO and Showtime are just as 'pervasive' as once were broadcast stations. It's also a distinction that has shown the real harm of the FCC's censorship: Cable and other non-broadcast media have become better than traditional broadcasting.

Why? Because non-broadcast media have had the freedom to experiment without interference from the government. Traditional broadcast stations have fought back, however, trying to become ever more edgy. This is what has led to the current crackdown. If the FCC is serious about its newfound passion for decency, broadcasters may be headed for a new era of insipidity. That, of course, will just strengthen the hand of the non-broadcast media.

Shut down Howard Stern? You " ll soon hear him on XM radio. Try to make Oprah into milquetoast? She " ll just move to cable. Sure, it's fine to make broadcasters warn about content.

But the best way to protect offended ears and eyes is just to turn the thing off. (Talk back to Tom Keane at.) Howard Stern Declares 'Cultural War " April 13, 2004 On his second day back from vacation after the FCC cited him in a $495,000 indecency fine against Clear Channel, Howard Stern declared that a 'cultural war' is raging in America and accused key figures in the Bush Administration of leading the battle. Fed up with being the main target in the war, Stern has suggested that Infinity should no longer edit his show, saying it gives credence to the FCC's indecency argument. ' I firmly believe this company should no longer censor this program,' said Stern.

'I think we should do exactly what we have been doing for ten years. Every time you hit the button, you are saying the FCC is right. Every time we hit the button, we are saying we " re doing something wrong. And I suggest to you there is nothing wrong about this show. We are in a war.

It's a cultural war. The Republican Party used to stand for -- and I supported this -- less government in your life, less intervention in your life, less control of your bedroom and your private life. They no longer stand for that. [Attorney General John] Ashcroft is out of control.

He's looking to invade your bedroom. He doesn't want you watching porno. He doesn't want you looking at statues. He doesn't want you watching HBO. He doesn't want you to hear this show. It's absolutely out of control.'s tern's allegations were in response to recent comments by the U.S. Attorney General that he intends to crack down on the porn industry, and not just hardcore porn, but soft core porn such as HBO's Real Sex and adult movies offered by cable companies and hotel chains.

Currently, an FBI field office in Washington, D.C. employs 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents with the intention of finding and filing anti-obscenity cases across the country, according to the Baltimore Sun. The paper also reports that the Justice Department intends to send 'ripples through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel. ' 'Eight-to-ten billion dollars a year is spent on porno in this country and John Ashcroft is saying 'It's invading my life,' 's tern said, continuing his attack on the Attorney General. 'It's not invading your life.

We " re inviting it in. We like it. Why can't we admit that we " re a country that likes outrageous humor. That likes to poke holes in society.

Who are these people that are taking that away from us? It's Bush. It's Ashcroft. It's Colin Powell, Jr. They " re winning. Fight them.

I am going off the air. I look forward to the day, because those guys will make me bigger than life. Pass that Senate bill as quickly as you can. Do it now. Get me off the air. I am ready to be bigger than I've ever been.

I'm ready to accept the responsibility. ' Escalating his war of words against Clear Channel, Stern said he received a letter from the company that stated 'they are no longer going to pay me, because now they fired me and I breached the contract. Which, clearly I didn't. They said I breached the contract because I failed to tell them how I was going to comply with FCC rules.'s tern says his contract states that stations are supposed to give him a courtesy call before taking his show off the air and alleged that call was never made by Clear Channel. 'They violated my contract,' he countered. 'They " ve been going in the press saying 'Howard Stern has violated, breached the contract.

' I want to see them prove that in court, that I breached the contract. They didn't even give me the courtesy of a call like it said in the contract. They just took me off the air and suspended me. Don [Buchwald] didn't get a call. Mel [Karmazin] didn't get a call. I didn't get a call.

I heard about it when it happened in the paper. ' 'One hand in that company doesn't know what the other is doing,' Stern continued. 'One guy is sending me checks and the other is sending me letters saying we " re not paying you... and by the way you can't go on any other [stations in those] markets. [The contract] clearly states 30 days after we don't have you on the air, you can go across the street and do whatever you want and we still have to pay you, even if you get another job in those markets.

That's what is says. They signed it.'s tern has now been off of Clear Channel's radio stations for 34 consecutive business days. Clear Channel had not responded to FM QB requests for comment on Stern's allegations by the time this story was posted. ' [Clear Channel] are trying in the worst way to make me look like some kind of criminal, but up until Janet Jackson showed those ugly boobs of hers, everything was fine,' added Stern, who has also said he is now on the offensive in preparing for a court case against Clear Channel -- 'I will crush them in court' -- asking his listeners to find out any dirt they can on Lowery Mays and his sons 'Willie' and 'Gomer,' even mentioning that he has heard from some of his musician friends about the company's alleged misdealing in the concert business. 'I've been talking to music artists who say they will never do business with Clear Channel, but these are guys with established careers already,' said Stern. 'The young guys coming up, like Staind or Train, you name them, have to deal with Clear Channel.

If you don't do business with Clear Channel, they take your music off the radio. It is a monopoly. The monopoly that they control, strong arming music artists, strong arming small musicians and the promoters who are trying to get their foot in the business -- it's all got to be looked at. It all has to be investigated. I beg of you, if you can avoid a concert that is sponsored by Clear Channel -- avoid it. Crush them!

They are the evil empire. ' Clear Channel has repeatedly stated that it doesn't use the threat of reduced airplay to force musicians to tour with its concert promotion division, or retaliate against competing concert promoters by failing to promote their shows on the air. Before he signed off for the day, Stern played a clip from last night's Late Night with David Letterman Show in which Letterman asked CBS Television COO / President Les Moonves 'Don't you think [Stern]'s being victimized? Don't you think he's the object of a witch hunt?' Moonves tried to stay away from the subject, suggesting he was in charge of television and not radio, but when Letterman pressed him, Moonves had a ready made reply: 'I think Howard Stern does a terrific job.

I think some of the treatment he has received has been unfair. ' 'Les is such a fake,' said Stern in response, who then had kind words for the late night talk show host. 'I want to thank Letterman for bringing up my name and bringing up this issue. ' FCC now engaged in fight it can't win EDITORIAL The Federal Communications Commission is picking a fight it simply can't win by hammering at radio shock jock Howard Stern.

The recent FCC fine of $495,000 for sexually explicit and racist comments made by Stern on the air is really just a drop in the bucket for the shaggy-headed radio personality and will do nothing more than raise the stakes in this punch-out. Since Janet Jackson's breast-baring performance during the Super Bowl halftime show, the controllers of our airwaves have become Puritanical, quickly trying to quash any type of titillating behavior or comments made on radio or television. Stern isn't the only media party guilty of what, admittedly, is often frat-house humor and rough language, but he is the target because by going after the best-known 'offender,' it is hoped the little guys will follow suit. Stern has made a living from off-color humor and, at times, sleazy behavior on the air. Now, however, he is being unfairly punished, much like comedian Lenny Bruce was, for exercising his First Amendment rights. The thing is, one of the charges -- the one over a racist remark -- sets a precedent.

Another heavyweight in the radio business, Rush Limbaugh, often laces his show with parodies that slip into racist territory. Will the FCC soon be nipping at his heels? Explicit sex talk is also a frequent part of many of the radio talk shows hosted by on-air shrinks who purport to solve all of your psychological problems during a three-minute conversation. Stern could have collapsed under the pressure of the FCC, but instead, realized that this is a battle worth fighting, turning the screws on the Bush administration with increasing criticism. It could be the reason for so much heat from the FCC. Remember the Nixon White House and its enemies list, which included former Beatle John Lennon, who the president tried desperately to have deported?

Nixon feared Lennon and 1960's activists were a threat and employed the FBI to harass the pop icon. While not on the level of Lennon, Stern is a liberal pop icon. His argument that these fines and attempts at censorship are politically motivated are grounded. What's confusing is that this can't be a result of the words Stern uses. We have seen tapes of the president describing a writer for the New York Times by using a crude anatomical reference. With his history as a hearty part ier, the president is probably no stranger to off-color humor, either.

That means the line could only have been drawn on the grounds of political advantage. Endorsing decency, even if it is a hypocritical stance, looks good and wins votes. It would be nice if Stern would clean up his sometimes vulgar humor, but as one of the most popular figures on the airwaves, it is clear that by today's definition of obscenity, he is not offensive to community standards at large. Contact Ed Kociela, senior writer, at 865-4522, or via e-mail at @ the spectrum. com. Email this story Originally published Saturday, April 10, 2004 Clear Channel yanks Stern from 6 stations Radio personality decries 'witch hunt " Tuesday, April 13, 2004 Posted: 4: 08 PM EDT (2008 GMT) Howard Stern WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Howard Stern was permanently booted Thursday from six stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, the nation's largest radio chain, after the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would impose a $495,000 fine on the company for indecent content aired on his show.

Stern, in a statement posted on his Web site, said he was not surprised by Clear Channel's decision to drop his program, and he accused the FCC of conducting a 'McCarthy-type witch hunt. ' 'It is pretty shocking that governmental interference into our rights and free speech takes place in the U.S. ,' Stern said. 'It's hard to reconcile this with the 'land of the free' and the 'home of the brave. ' 'The FCC Thursday proposed a $495,000 fine for Clear Channel, imposing the maximum fine of $27,500 for each of 18 violations of federal decency rules.

John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio, said Stern's show was dropped because it 'has created a great liability for us and other broadcasters who air it. ' 'The Congress and the FCC are even beginning to look at revoking station licenses. That's a risk we " re just not willing to take,' he said in a written statement. In February, Clear Channel -- shortly after adopting a 'zero-tolerance' policy for indecent content -- yanked the Stern show from its six stations that aired it, concerned the program's often sexually explicit and graphic content might run afoul of the FCC. Hogan said the company sought assurances from Stern's syndicator, Infinity Broadcasting, that steps would be taken to change his show to bring it into compliance with FCC rules, but received none. ' Unfortunately, the FCC's latest action, combined with deafening silence from the Stern show on their future plans to comply with the law, leave us no choice but to abandon the program for good,' he said.

The six Clear Channel stations are located in Fort Lauderdale and Cocoa Beach, Florida; Louisville, Kentucky; San Diego; Hone oye Falls, New York, which is near Rochester; and Pittsburgh. The company's decision will not affect broadcast of Stern's show on stations owned by other broadcasters. Stern's show is still broadcast on dozens of stations around the country, including 35 owned by Infinity Broadcasting. Infinity says it has no plans to drop the show.

The FCC and members of Congress have recently focused increased attention on the issue of broadcast indecency, fueled in part by a controversy during the Super Bowl when Janet Jackson's breast was briefly bared on CBS. Stern charged that those campaigning against broadcast indecency 'are expressing and imposing their opinions and rights to tell us all who and what we may listen to and watch, and how we should think about our lives. ' But FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adel stein said in a written statement that 'stepped-up actions like those we take today will convince broadcasters that they cannot ignore their responsibility to serve the public interest and to avoid the broadcast of indecent material over the public airwaves. ' Howard Stern's sch wing voters The raunchy jockey is mobilizing his army of listeners against Bush -- and they could make a difference in November. -By Eric Boehlert March 12, 2004 | Declaring a 'radio jihad' against President Bush, syndicated morning man Howard Stern and his burgeoning crusade to drive Republicans from the White House is shaping up as a colossal media headache for the GOP, and one they never saw coming.

The pioneering shock jock, 'the man who launched the ranch,' as the Los Angeles Times once put, has emerged almost overnight as the most influential Bush critic in all of American broadcasting, as he rails against the president hour after hour, day after day to a weekly audience of 8 million listeners. Never before has a Republican president come under such withering attack from a radio talk show host with the influence and national reach Stern has-Want to read the whole article? You have two options: Subscribe now, or watch a brief ad and get a free day pass. If you " re already a subscriber log in here.

Clear Channel Dumps Howard Stern; What About Infinity? By Susan JonesCNSNews. com Morning Editor February 26, 2004 (CNS News. com) - It took only a week for shock jock Howard Stern to break Infinity Radio's new 'zero tolerance' policy for indecent broadcasting, conservative critics said. On Tuesday, Feb. 24, Stern spent 'nearly one hour of his show discussing explicit sexual activities between Rick Solomon and Paris Hilton,' the American Family Association alleged. In a statement, AFA said it would ask its members to begin filing official indecency complaints against Infinity-owned stations if Viacom President Mel Karmazin doesn't immediately fire Howard Stern. Stern's show is syndicated by Infinity Broadcasting, which is owned by Viacom. Viacom also owns CBS and MTV.

Clear Channel Radio, meantime, announced it has suspended broadcasts of the Howard Stern show, 'consistent with its Responsible Broadcasting Initiative. ' Six Clear Channel-owned stations carried the show. Clear Channel said it acted after 'assessing the content' of Stern's Feb. 24 show. (Warning: transcript is offensive.) 'Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content and Howard Stern's show blew right through it,' said John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio in the press release issued Wednesday.

' It was vulgar, offensive, and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency. We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations until we are assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting,' Hogan said. (One day before pulling Stern's show, Clear Channel fired a 'Bubba the Love Sponge,' a Florida radio personality, whom federal regulators accused of airing sexually explicit material on several Florida stations.) Stern, calling Clear Channel 'fear channel,' warned on Thursday that the 'fascist right-wing' is 'getting so much power. ' The American Family Association, founded by Don Wildmon, says it 'represents and stands for traditional family values, focusing primarily on the influence of television and other media -- including pornography -- on our society. ' Viacom, as of Thursday morning, had not commented on Stern's Feb. 24 broadcast.

Last week, however, Viacom's Karmazin an order saying, 'Any station airing programming that has any sexual or excretory content needs to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that the programming in not even arguably indecent. ' Karmazin said anyone refusing to comply with the directive would be 'fired for cause. ' The American Family Association has now joined other conservatives in demanding that Karmazin follow through on his pledge by firing Howard Stern. ' If Karmazin is serious about cleaning up his company, firing Howard Stern is the only option, said AFA Chairman Don Wildmon.

'Howard Stern cannot be controlled by Karmazin or anyone else,' he added. Two weeks ago, members of a House Commerce subcommittee blasted Karmazin for Janet Jackson's breast-baring moment at the MTV-produced Super Bowl halftime show -- which aired on CBS. It was after his Capitol Hill grilling that Karmazin warned his Infinity radio executives to clean up their act -- or else. Clear Channel pulls Howard Stern show off radio LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Shock jock Howard Stern's show was yanked Wednesday from Clear Channel Communications Inc. radio stations after an incident on his show Tuesday, the first casualty of its zero tolerance policy on indecency.

' It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency,' Clear Channel Radio Chief Executive John Hogan said in a statement. ' We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations until we are assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting,' he said. Clear Channel has about 1,200 stations in the United States. The Stern show was carried in six markets, including Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Florida; Rochester, New York; Louisville, Kentucky; San Diego, and Pittsburgh. Stern's show is syndicated by Infinity Broadcasting, a unit of Viacom Inc. A spokesmen for Infinity was not immediately available for comment and a Viacom spokesman declined comment.

Neither Stern's agent, nor producers for his New York-based radio program could be immediately reached for comment. ' We have a legal obligation to reject programming that's inappropriate for the airwaves, irrespective of any contractual relationship,' a Clear Channel spokesman said.