We all have covered extensively the Imus episode. Kudos to nighttimer and company for hashing that all out. I've been intrigued by XM's suspension of Opie and Anthony for their comments about Condoleeza Rice and rape. For the audio version of the episode, PM me for the youtube link.

Questions for debate:

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?

2.)To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?

I seriously doubt it. A lot of people like to listen to this stuff, and I don't think they will stop listening. The reason why controversies like this come up is that a shock jock always has to walk a very thin line between pleasing a large part of the audience and offending a large part of the audience. Once in a while she crosses the line, and pays for the mistake.

2.)To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?

Well, the employers are to "blame" in the sense that the shock jock was hired by them to walk this thin line. The employers should know that sometimes they will miscalculate what the audience will tolerate. It's certainly absurd for the employers to act (like Claude Rains in Casablanca) as if they were "Shocked! Shocked!" that offensive things were said. When things boil over, it's only natural that the employers should seek to put the blame on the employees; but it would be nice if they were willing to take some of the responsibility.

If I were a shock jock, I would try to have an iron-clad "pay me even if you fire me" clause in my contract.

Damn, this sucks. I take back everything I said about the Imus deal now. Seriously take it back- it looks like the jaws of the PC wolf have actually closed down on true free speech. This kind of censorship, I don't know how the mechanism even worked with O and A, after all, XM is a pay radio service- poeple pay to subscribe to that- how in the world did this happen?

I guess I know now how alot of Germans probably felt the day the Nazi's took over, sayig "what the hell?"

This is really bad- humour, even he really edgy stuff, hell, ESPECIALLY the really edgy stoff, well, that is were real revolutionary issues are explored (sometimes, how many toilet jokes really explore the human condition? )

I think it is a very scary trend- this is MUCH different when there is simply not enough subscribers and it is killed for lack of interest- but this is very scary that this was an adult subscription radio station that is cancelled from outside pressure from non- subscribers.

Very, very troubling.

I seriously retract everything I said about Imus and his situation being unique- it is now time for every entertainer to speak out on this, right now, or there won't be any work!

Poor German. Tell me how this is censorship. Did you think the targeted speech in these complaints has to have a racial element to be un-PC?

To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments?
As far as I understand it, XM doesn't use public radio waves so there is an expected "R" rated element when you subscribe to XM, just like paying for cable TV. Maybe the sky is the limit for German PC censors and Hollywood is next.

QUOTE(nebraska29 @ May 16 2007, 09:22 PM)

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?

Not likely. Even after the minor chilling effects of the recent spate of frightened firings there is money to be made with this medium. Money trumps fear.

The annoying thing here is that the management of XM clearly did this to show that they aren't "out of control" and that the proposed merger with Sirius (and therefore the FCC (and by proxy the US Gov't's) most hated foe Howard Stern who made a career out of flaunting his wares in front of and in spite of them.)

While I don't think gang raping the Secretary of State is particularly funny this was done on a PAY service. The people who heard those comments made a very conscious effort to do so. While the US Gov't didn't levy this sanction they may have influenced it. More to the point though, the listeners of XM are now paying for something they aren't getting. That's not a good thing.

QUOTE(nebraska29 @ May 16 2007, 09:22 PM)

2.)To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?

Well this is why they got hired. While there's some (boring industry) back story into their hiring XM knew who they'd gotten in bed with. Now that's there's crumbs on the mattress it seems wrong to throw them out of bed seeing as how XM gave them crackers and knew they'd eat them in bed.

It would be difficult to imagine persons more vulgar than the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly or Don Imus. Perhaps that’s why they are so popular. They are only important for the attention we give them.

It is my take on the "slippery slope" nature of this argument- to me it is like "what's next, book burnings and lynchings?"

This is a type of censorship that seems to be coming up now, that is just as bad as goverment censorship, it is a vocal minority that gets a pay service kicked off the air?

I mean, when you have a money making show such as O and A, and the only poeple that listen to it CHOOSE to do so by opening thier wallets- yet, somehow, it is kicked off the air anyway- this seems real freaky "behind the scenes PC brownshirts" type stuff going on here.

There is a huge difference between pay per view and free broadcast airwaves.

I can see kicking off Imus after being warned about this no less than three times, and the fact that he is on broadcast airwaves- I would be fine if Imus had done his deal on XM as well, the FCC and the PC army have no business being all up in thier, well, business.

They can do audio loops of 70s porn for all I care- you pay for what you want- that is the way it is supposed to work.

I am just wondering how far it will go now.

I guess it is time for another anti-PC backlash?


P.S. - Nebraska- linky no worky!

Questions for debate:

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?

Perhaps if you are white, as are Imus, Opie and Anthony. Blacks can still say anything they want in the public venues. We live in a partially free country as far as the First Am is concerned.

2.)To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?

Same with Imus; Imus' atty contends Imus contract contemplates his edginess, and the Imus show is tape-delayed by several seconds and Imus' "ho" comments could have been bleeped if the networks involved so chose. Hmmmm.....

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?
Indeed, we may now be entering an epoch where one can no longer say inane things in public venues without fear of rebuttal or economic consequences. Our rights to shout crude sexual comments about public figures over the airwaves are truly under siege.

How I miss the bygone days of freedom, when a moron was legally protected from all derision.

You know back in 19...erm...

Well I seem to remember it being easier.

Oh good grief. Lynchings? If there were to be any lynching it would be against women, whom, according to this story, were the targets of the show.

I thought Tipper Gore getting all Jesus on your butt burning books/CDs deemed harmful to our youth many moons ago was idiotic, but she has a right to be an idiot. Your comparison is as accurate as "gay marriage leads to bestiality".


Then call it something other than censorship. Only the government can censor you. I don't support the FCC getting involved in satellite radio. It would be the same as the FCC setting standards for cable, but even then it would not be censorship since we don't have a First Amendment right to obscenity. It would really be an abuse of the commerce clause.


Don't you mean anti-feminism backlash? Uptight feminazis and anyone supporting this suspension are going to be on the lips of social luminaries such as Glenn Beck. Hurray for us.

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?
Maybe people are fed up. Maybe those services that choose to provide an outlet for immature, hateful bigotry are seeing that a lot more people are offended by it than choose to listen.

2.)To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?Of course they hired them to be jerks. Maybe there was some expectation of something remotely resembling actual humor to go along with the mean spirited crap, which certainly wasn't delivered on.

There's no censorship involved here at all. No government force is being exerted, the idiots are free to get a cardboard box and spew their hatred on the street corner with the rest of society's marginal cases. They just aren't guaranteed a national media outlet any more than you or I are.
If they weren't spewing racist, sexist and misogynist crap nobody would be proclaiming it censorship. How many of the people decrying these morons losing their job cheered when Bill Maher lost his?*

*Which by the way, was not censorship either, just to forestall the usual idiots who proclaim anyone who objects to bigotry a hypocrite. Maher lost his job because ABC exects felt he was a liability for the company. He was able to get work at HBO. Opie and Anthony are free to look for work elsewhere; if they manage to find something that doesn't involve flipping burgers their future employer may face the same deciision XM Radio did.

Oh brother...

I'm just going to simply bypass your comment except to add that if you really want to get yourself in a knot over things being said on the airwaves, you know the ones the Government can actually control, learn to speak Spanish. The things they are saying on those stations makes Howard Stern, et al, look like Boy Scouts.

Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?

It looks like the era has reached its peak and is now on its way out. This is probably due, in part, to the fact that outrageous discourse is no longer outrageous, therefore not as entertaining as it once may have been. I used to listen to Howard Stern; mainly for his interviews, which would be called "shocking" as his questions brought the celebrity down to the level of average human beings. But over the past several years the tide seems to be turning a little bit in the radio world. Maybe that is the way the pendulum swings.



To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?

Well, it would seem there are lines, even in "shock-jock land" that cannot be crossed. Once you cross that line, you may not be able to come back over. Look at Imus. Every business or corporation has its constituency to consider. True carte blanche or, "anything goes" could be the complete downfall of a company. The bottom line is basically what XM must consider. And I'm sure that is what drove their decision. So, no they should not be blamed.

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?

Oh, please let it be so!!! Realistically, I doubt it. The largely male, 18-25 demographic is a rich target for the off color “humor”, objectification of women, glorification of violence and the juvenile scatology offered by these idiots. As long as people are entertained by it, there will be some Imus, Opie or Nimrod eager to serve it up.

2.)To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?

Like others have said, XM is a paid service, and you get what you pay for. After all, XM hired them after the incident in which they enticed a couple to have sex in St. Patrick’s cathedral. They had to know what they were getting into.

Not even close – as with Imus they are paid to do exactly this because this is what the audience wants. Look at Howard Stern – nuff said.

Here is the deal- the LISTENERS didn't want it off the air- that is very, very important- Imus was on his way out, was on public broadcast radio (any 7 year old could tune it in by accident, with any old radio laying around) and had been warned on at least 2 occasions before. Howard Stern and OandA both went to a premium-subscriber-only channel, which is appropriate as "real sex" on HBO- it is a place were adults have to take money out of thier pockets and subscribe to it.

It is no different than being able to get a book off a book shelf, in a book store. Millions want to buy it- but the huge bookstore chain won't sell it because of some percieved "harm to society"- regardless of the fact that millions of adults of consenting age want to read it, and, in fact, had already paid for the book!

Humor is ALWAYS the cutting edge of social commentary, even at it's most vulgar- Jonathan Swift, Voltaire and Matt Groening. :'( -

the problem with folks like OandA, is that they behave in a way that many adults are screaming inside thier head- it is rude and obnoxious, and not for everyone's consumption.

But what we have here is something very much like a goverment backdoor censorship- "VE VILL MAKE IT HARD ON YOU IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW ZEE RULEZ, SEE, VE HAFF VAYS"- (insert Colonel Klink voice here )

Imus had grown stale, and he was on channels that were vunerable to sponsor boycotts- as is appropriate as far as I am concerned- that is business. But how do you pull advertising from an entertainment program that doesn't do biz that way>

How was XM radio pressured to make a decision that is actually detrimental to it's bottom line, that is no more "sinful" than a liquor store?

Larry Flynnt personifies the fight for freedom in this country- whether it is from right wing whack jobs that want to make porn illegal, to left wing whack jobs that claim that all sex is "rape"

Those poeple DESERVE to be derided, humiliated and generally mistreated for thier sticking thier nose into other's lives- NOT given more power.

I am very, very curious as to how a subscriber service with no advertising but plenty of subscribers get's pulled like this, what kind of pressures are being applied.

IT must take something like "we will use our power to shut you down if you don't pull them"- that IS goverment censorship, if that is the case.

In other words you're just making things up to support your prejudices? Clearly the government must have interfered or HBO never would have canceled Carnivale, right? It's a subscriber service, right? There's no advertising, and clearly there is no possible way the subscribers to the service could cancel their subscriptions, or threaten to cancel subscriptions.
Clearly it's just not possible that people were offended by comments about raping someone to death. Who could possibly take offense at that?

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?

2.)To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?

Back in the Imus days, I came within a whisker of writing that we’ll politically correct ourselves into the blandest, most vacuous, homogeneous society since the Dark Ages. It won’t happen at once, just one radio show at a time.

Does the ban of O and A on XM mean that HBO/Cinemax/Showtime are next? No cutting edge shows or movies? Why not, they’re both in pay-per view/listen markets. If those aren’t protected than what is?

There’s a solution to Don Imus, O and A, Howard Stern, rap music, and Rush Limbaugh, I stated it in the Imus thread: turn the channel.

I think you mistake something- I am saying here- carnivale- was it canceled for poor performance and customer complaints about that show pertaining to thier subscription yadda yadda?

In other words- did the subscribers to the OandA show- that is a very specific channel to select in your XM packages when you buy it- it is even more "customer selection" than HBO, I believe- perhaps you know otherwise? I have been getting notices that we are getting XM satellite up here- and they advertised the specific channel for- you guessed it- the Opie and Andy show.

I don' know- I thought the bit was pretty funny actually. Heard it on youtube- and it was a homeless dude that discussed it- NOT Opie and Andy

1.)Is the "shock jock" era over? Why or why not?

I doubt it.

2.)To what extent is XM to blame or not to blame for the comments? Do they not know ahead of time that being *shocking* is why they hired the duo in the first place?

XM first presented Opie and Anthony with a stern warning, puting out a statement Friday saying it "deplored" the comments and added that "on-air talent must take seriously the responsibility that creative freedom requires of them."



So, XM warned them, and they apologized, then continued to do the same thing, because, "their fans understand". Sounds to me like a learning experience (and perhaps an IQ test). Listen to your boss or suffer the consequences. XM is the boss. Their reasons* for finding the content unacceptable are irrelevant. CR, if you want to have such content on your show, start your own radio broadcast...then let your employees tell you how to run it if that is your choice.

*Merger concerns are likely the reason they don't wish to aggravate the public at this time. On that note, since XM is a publicly owned company it's obvious why the conduct of said show is important to more people than just the listener base.

The pop artist Andy Warhol once remarked that “[I]n the future everyone will have their fifteen minutes of fame.” (He later revised this to: “In fifteen minutes everybody will be famous.”) His remarks were prophetic, for with the rising popularity of radio and television talk shows and twenty-four hour news has come a new culture of celebrity; and now with the internet, everyone can be a pundit and the host of their own forum. Still, this only begs the question how long such fame can last. Putting aside the length of the average person’s attention span, when one considers the extent of human memory, it could not be much beyond the next diversion. Perhaps Andy Warhol was too optimistic in his original estimate.

Just wanted to clarify a few things:

First, O&A is no longer a premium subscription. Any XM listener has access. Admittedly the distinction is minimal since XM is already a subscription service but noteworthy nonetheless.

Second O&A do have advertisers, XM had to bite that bullet when the premium subscriptions didn't generate the revenue it needed.

Mrs P hit the nail on the head (as usual ), this is about the Sirius merger. Pre-Imus and pre-merger, I doubt this suspension would have happened.

Shock jocks will continue on, because it has an audience. They are simply learning that free speech, while still free, has consequences.

Ah-okay- this makes alot more sense to me now- I looked and looked for a reliable news source as to how this went down-

When I was presented with the survey at the MC equipment dealership- that was a SPECIFIC check off box you had to pay extra for, and it guarunteed no commercials, and "adult programing" as well.

Personally- everything they did on Rice was freakin' hilarious. Side splitting funny.

In fact, I got an e-mail with the whole pirated clips on it- and played it last night for my friends, male and female.

IT was funny to men and women alike- so much for the 18-24 male demograph- since there were none of those there

However- if it was because OandA HURT hier bottom line- well, too bad for OandA- that is totally acceptable reason to remove someone from the air, when it is a subscription service.

IT IS NOT acceptable to me- a "backdoor high tech censorship" when they are pressured just 'cause some church group says so-

and this, to me, is only true when it is a subscription service- normal radio or TV broadcasts understandably work by a different set of rules- if my daughter can tune it in, on any cheapie TV set or hand held radio, then it should have decency rules- but if it is a premium service where you have to whip out a credit card to hear it- well, the church lady and Andrea Dworkin can go pee up a rope- and stay outta my entertainment.

Interesting.

I'd be strongly opposed to any government interference, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of crude, tasteless, meanspirited crap. If the market for such idiocy is drying up, that's a good thing.

I am with you on this for the most part- but jokng about raping and beating elected officials- especially ones that have been doing just that to the American public- fair gam as far as I am concerned.

But I am cool with it AS LONG as it is not behind the scenes goverment pressure!

In fact, it has inspired me to do a whole bit on stage on my next open mike night.

OandA are going to sound like boyscouts after my next bit - and you know what? It will be funny- I will make sure o it-but I wll be exercising my hardest core stuff now. I am thinking a 15 minute sex filled diatribe against the entire administration will have poeple spittng rum and cokes through thier noses. The emotional stuff is usually the best stuff when I am writing!

IN the spirit of Lenny Bruce- the church lady and the extremist lefties can BOTH kiss my- well, you pick a place,

I wouldn't think the opinion that unfunny "jokes" about raping someone to death were tasteless would be considered an extreme position.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from responsibility, from being considered a jerk if you say something jerkish. The freedom to be a jerk is not the same as the necessity to be a jerk. And attacking the powerless* is not the act of a rebel, it's the act of an entitled prick.

*Which this was, the comments had nothing to do with Condi being the secretary of state and everything to do with her being female. The comments were disturbing and unfunny to anyone with a conscience, and yes I have heard them.

CruisingRam-I'm impressed by your openness and wilingness to change views in light of different circumstances that affect a given issue. All too often on we all to some degree, have proven to be inflexible, no matter how many hyper-links or evidence to the contrary. It is refreshing that someone *gasps* admits that their mind can and has changed in light of new events.

I never thought of this event in connection with the merger story before, I do think that has some credibility. Even with that *government interference* bit, I do see the main driving force in this incident, as well as in regard to the Imus incident, being the fear of companies who don't want a blowback of consumer anger or negative publicity. Talk about censorship or freedom of speech all you want, but these incidences highlight a different element of the "invisible hand of the economy" theory. CBS didn't want Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton leading a boycott of CBS and/or protesting outside their headquarters. Offending large segments of the minority population is not the way to gain subscriber dollars or to earn a stellar reputation. If anything, the execs should have manned up and stood by the constitution, but as pointed out, they also have economic considerations to look at. Same deal with XM. A lot of conservatives would have drilled XM to the ground over it. How many episodes do you think Bill O'Reilly could have milked out of it? How about considering how many websites and other groups would be formed to pressure XM and send cheesy but widespread chain-e-mails about this incident to millions of Americans warninga bout the evils of the "liberal" XM? This incident had the possibility of rivaling the whole Rather/CBS Bush election piece if administration fans wanted to take it to that level.

We might seriously need to ask how freedom of speech is strengthened or weakened in light of the dichotomy between freedom of speech in relation to a citizen's rights with government, and between the citizen and the rest of society in the private sector.

Thanks Nebraska-

Freedom is a tough thing to maintain I think sometimes, and we have to monitor ALL sources of power IMHO. Just because it isn't "goverment censorship", doesn't mean it isn't BAD. In this case- if it is the customers of the service- well, freedom says "I have a right to cancel a subscription to something I don't like, and if there is enough of us, that show will go away"- I am perfectly cool with that- that is the freedom to fail via capitalism.

BUT- if the corporation cancells them via back door threats to thier company or bottom line- when, in no way, is a minor provided easy access to adult material- you have big brother again.

It is a pity so many can only see in black or white, and can't understand there are grey areas here.

Imus got fired after repeated warnings to "KNOCK THAT CRAP OFF"- it was a decision borne of regular administrative/consumer outcry.

I am okay with that.

OandA, from what I INITIALLY understood- had been threatened by the FCC against XM- THAT would be goverment censorship IMHO.

I also watched Mancow and O'Rielly bloviate on the topic, and if anything, they made points for getting OandA back on the air by thier very hypocrisy and self-righteousness- here you have O'Rielly, a REAL LIFE sexual predator, complaining about a homeless man's comments on Rice? C'mon, at least OandA didn't ACTUALLY rape anyone! Unlike the pervo O'Rielly, who stalks his women on the side



Comedy often ain't pretty folks, and on top of that, not everyone gets the joke- but as long as adult content stays with adults- the church lady needs to stay out my biz.

Does anyone know if this was REALLY a subscriber or economic factor instead of behind the scenes goverment pressure? I have only seen a couple statements to that fact- WELL after the fact, which usually means "damage control" vs "we meant to do that"


I am not quite sure any "boycott" of XM by conservatives OR liberals would have really made a difference- considering folks paid for those subscriptions, KNOWING the content of OandA for years- XM banked on OandA, and the understanding of 'nothing is sacred" nature of the OandA show, and other schlock jocks.