Connect with us
BNM Summit Sessions

BNM Writers

How Howard Stern Cashed In On Objectionable Content

Everybody wanted to know exactly what Stern had said to incur FCC fines. We couldn’t rebroadcast those bits and didn’t want to discuss them.

Andy Bloom

Published

on

Since Florida Governor Ron DeSantis threw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination, the mainstream media has discovered there is a human worse than Donald Trump, which is saying something considering that Trump has been called or compared to Hitler in The New York Times, The Washington Post, by CNN’s Dana Bash, on MSNBC by Rachel Maddow, by Democrats including Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY),  on The View, Saturday Night Live, by a former head of the Anti-Defamation League, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, and many others, including Howard Stern.

The left and their partners in the mainstream media have a long list of grievances against DeSantis, none more disingenuous than the claim that he is banning books.

In reality, Florida has given parents control of their children’s education by allowing them a say regarding age-inappropriate materials in public school libraries.

Several organizations keep track of books that are being challenged and “banned.” Topping every organization’s list is “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe. The book’s Amazon description includes: “bonding with friends over erotic gay fanfiction.” The author is also an illustrator and illustrated the book. Although I have not read it, I understand the illustrations are sexually explicit.

The book gets challenged and pulled from public school libraries for graphic sexual content. The left maintains conservatives want to ban the book because of an anti-LGTBQ+ crusade. The objections wouldn’t be different if the depictions were of heterosexual sex. It isn’t age-appropriate and therefore shouldn’t be in a school library.

I wondered if I could find “Gender Queer” at a big-name brick-and-mortar bookstore throughout Florida. I checked more than a dozen Barnes & Noble bookstores. Many had the hardcover and paperback in stock and ready for pick up in two business hours or less.

There are no banned books in Florida. Adults can buy any title they want and read it where they choose.

Some restrictions on content (such as keeping sexually explicit content out of public school libraries) are legitimate. Other objections might come from outside the community impacted by the decision or by small minorities or religious groups. Radio people understand these situations.

It reminds me of a tale of three wise men named Howard Stern, Mel Karmazin (Infinity Broadcasting President), and Don Buchwald (Stern’s agent).

In November 1986, three months after we began simulcasting The Howard Stern Show on WYSP, Philadelphia (where I was program director), the FCC started investigating three indecency complaints.

Two of them were from Reverend Donald Wildmon of Tupelo, Mississippi. Wildmon was the director of the “National Federation for Decency.” The third was from Mary Keeley, the mother of a 15-year-old girl. “Morality in Media,” an organization similar to Wildmon’s, instructed her on how to file an FCC complaint.

The FCC gave WYSP’s parent company, Infinity, 30 days to respond. Karmazin answered with a vigorous defense in December 1986. He “urged the Commission to conclude its inquiry without further action.”

In April 1987, the FCC rejected Infinity’s defense and concluded that Stern had aired indecent material, even though he did not utter any of the famous “Seven Dirty Words” previously understood to comprise the standard. Because he dwelled on sexual or excretory matters, not just fleeting references, the FCC found the material “patently offensive.” The FCC was also concerned because “there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience.”

Because the Commission clarified its standards, it limited its action to warning Infinity and other broadcast licensees that future cases would be actionable by fines or license penalties.

The FCC’s ruling confused broadcasters. What could you say and what couldn’t you say on the radio? What made something indecent?

Steve Lerman was the principal regulatory counsel to Infinity. I had several meetings with Lerman and can only imagine how many sessions the Stern crew had with him trying to understand where the FCC had drawn the line.

Steve is a great guy, and the smartest lawyer I’ve ever met, but his personality has never been described as dynamic. If you’ve seen “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” you know what he sounds like. Recall the scene with Bueller’s teacher, played by Ben Stein: “Bueller, Bueller, Bueller? Anyone?” That’s Steve Lerman.

Lerman told us to imagine him reading a transcript of what Stern said before the Supreme Court as they sat in their robes stone-faced. “That should give you a pretty good idea of whether it’s indecent,” he taught us.

In 1988, Stern added his third station, WJFK, Washington. Otherwise, life seemed to go on as normal. Then came the annual Christmas Party Show in 1988, resulting in more complaints to the FCC.

In the Fall of 1989, the FCC asked Infinity to explain the complaints about the Christmas Party show. The FCC rejected Infinity’s argument that the material was no more offensive than daytime television programs and, therefore, not indecent. The Commission slapped each of the three stations with a $2,000 fine and Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), which could result in license forfeiture.

That day was the first time I was asked to appear on Nightline. Of course, I didn’t accept. The program director at WYSP didn’t speak for Howard Stern or Infinity on FCC matters. Nightline showed press conference footage from earlier that day. I recall seeing Stern visibly shaken.

Infinity (later CBS Radio) fought legal battles over indecency with the FCC for several years.

In the meantime, the three wise men displayed their brilliance.

Everybody wanted to know exactly what Stern had said to incur FCC fines. We couldn’t rebroadcast those bits and didn’t want to discuss them. The combination of Howard, Mel, and Don recognized people were curious, and nothing is more desirable than something banned. That was the genesis of “Crucified by the FCC.”

“Crucified by the FCC” was a box set released in CD or cassette formats, plus a 12-page booklet about the show’s history and battles with the FCC. It was released in early 1991 and included material from the Christmas Party show that brought the FCC fines.

Sold directly through an 800 number and promoted heavily by the stations during Stern’s show and throughout the day. Howard did promotional appearances, including this appearance with David Letterman:

No sales records were released, but we were told it sold several hundred thousand copies.

Prohibiting books from school libraries today may present an opportunity for a financial bonanza for authors and artists.

My friend Joe thinks it could be the DeSantis literary program. Ban Romeo and Juliet due to underage sex, and teens will flock to Shakespeare.

If I were selling books today, I would borrow from the three wise men.

If I had a brick-and-mortar bookstore, I would cordon off an area like video stores did for adult movie titles. I’d make a sign that read “BANNED BOOKS” or “Banned by the Governor.” Online I’d make a “Banned Books” button prominent.

Since nobody is really banning books in America, I’d use the lessons three wise men taught me about controversy and use the objections to some titles to sell books that otherwise few people would be interested in reading.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BNM Writers

The Latest Example of How to Not Produce a Debate

If there is a blueprint on how not to put on a debate, it was Wednesday evening.

Published

on

A photo of the Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy in the 2nd debate
(Photo: Sachin José)

As if it couldn’t get any worse, it did. For the first time since it’s been my job to watch a Presidential debate for a living, I turned one off. After 82 minutes (9:22 p.m. CST, not that I was watching the clock or anything), I had enough. I couldn’t subject myself to the torture that became the second GOP Presidential debate on Wednesday night from the Reagan Library.

If there is a blueprint on how not to put on a debate, it was Wednesday evening, and there are multiple reasons why, beyond the usual bemoaning of “the candidates won’t stop talking over each other.”

Overproduced

The debate was overproduced. In the opening there were videos of Reagan (nice and well done, don’t get me wrong), each anchor had various lines they were reading between each other, which felt forced and unnatural, and as a result, it took over three minutes from the opening of a debate to a candidate finally speaking.

I understand TV isn’t radio, but in a PPM world, imagine taking three minutes to get to your content, when people are tuned in at that moment to consume the content you’ve been hyping up and promising for weeks. Time is a zero-sum game. Every minute a candidate is not speaking, because a moderator is, or a pre-produced piece is playing, can’t be gotten back.

Give people what they came for. A 15-second welcome, a 60-second introduction of the candidates, if that, and dive into the questions is a 90-second process. Keep these things moving and give the viewers what they came for. And that’s the candidates.

No Direction

The debate lacked direction and clarity. Anchors spent far too much time asking long-winded questions with ridiculous and unnecessary details. As a viewer, it came across like the anchors were trying to impress us, rather than asking a question, getting out of the way, and letting the candidates — you know, the people running for President — try to impress us. They’re the ones who I want to be impressed by because they’re the ones we’re being asked to vote for.

Also, the topic direction had little flow and was disjointed. On certain topics, only one to three candidates would get to answer questions on the issue. I’ve laid out the case for keeping the flow of a debate and moving it along, but only giving half the stage the chance to answer questions on the most pressing issues in the country is a disservice to the voter who is there to here what everyone had to say.

At one point in the debate, Chris Christie was asked about a looming government shutdown, which was followed by a childcare cost question to Tim Scott and then it was an immigration/dreamers question back to Chris Christie. And that was in a five to seven minute span. Huh?

Rather than finding the six to seven big topics and diving into them with each candidate, while letting the candidates then organically and respectfully spar, it was like watching an ADD-riddled teen try and bounce between topics with no clarity or purpose.

And Yes, the Candidates

Of course, there were plenty of these moments that typically derail debates, notably primary debates, where multiple people are talking over each other and no one is willing to give in to be the first one to shut up. Then, the debate begins to inevitably sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher and suddenly the obnoxious noise even makes your dog look at you and wonder what in the hell you’re watching.

There were too many candidates on stage and then the moderators also ended up losing control, like what happened last go around.

But as I wrote last month, this debate format is a broken system. But for some reason, we keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. 

Ronald Reagan was rolling over in his grave watching that debacle last night. It’s too bad he’s not still here to try and help fix it. 

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

3 Ideas to Turn CNN Max Into a Streaming News Juggernaut

The last thing CNN needs to do is to have CNN Max hiding in plain sight.

Jessie Karangu

Published

on

A photo of the CNN Max logo

It is so easy to find a gamut of stories and opinion pieces within the past year or two criticizing many different aspects of CNN and the way it operates. Many of those evaluations have been absolutely fair. 

Now though, it is time to give CNN credit where it is due.

This week marked the launch of CNN Max and it has been as seamless as a fresh glazed donut coming straight out of the oven. The stream’s video quality is crisp. Commercials are inserted properly. Most of the exclusive programming feels exactly like something you would see on linear CNN.

But the most fascinating thing Warner Bros. Discovery has been able to pull off is the ability to stream most of the same programming that airs on domestic CNN via Max. It is a stroke of business genius and puts the company and network ahead of its counterparts when it comes to offering a quality streaming alternative. As has been mentioned in the past, the network has been able to bypass MVPDs and stream their primetime anchors without permission from cable operators because CNN Max is mostly a direct simulcast of CNN International which airs U.S. programming live overnight while Europeans are in bed. 

Despite the successful launch, there are still some tweaks that could improve the product exponentially. One major benefit would be to have replays of programs that viewers may have missed from earlier in the day. Each show on serves a specific purpose and although similar coverage of news is told throughout the day, each anchor has a unique way of stringing the narrative together. Viewers deserve to get the chance to see how a story develops throughout different parts of the day and see specific segments in its entirety that may not get clipped for social media.

Viewers also need a chance to fully sample CNN Max’s exclusive programming and at the moment, if you don’t watch it live you’ve missed it forever.

Speaking of clips, it’s important for highlights of the day to be available quickly within the Max ecosystem. On CNN Max’s first day, Kasie Hunt scored an exclusive interview with Sen. Joe Manchin that made headlines.

Unfortunately, the only way a viewer could see it if they missed it live was if they scoured the network’s website for it or waited for a clip that the social media team would eventually put out. Part of being a modern-day news organization requires accessibility to be at its best at any given time of the day.

If viewers have a difficult time finding out the major highlights of what’s been on air, it may be harder to convince them to try a new product.

Viewers also deserve the opportunity to subscribe to alerts. News breaks on a consistent basis and unless you’re scrolling through your social media feed all day 24/7, it is almost impossible to follow everything that’s happening. Max needs to provide an option for specific types of alerts dealing with breaking news or major storylines that have developed live on air on CNN Max with the option to tune in now or to see clips or full episodes that deal with a specific headline. Alerts will increase engagement and maintain a relationship with the consumer they may not be able to get at another major entertainment app that streams similar programming as Max.

Promotion within the app is also important. While Max did an awesome job of showcasing the various shows that are live at any point during the day, it used the same graphics of the same hosts with the same descriptions every day. Viewers who read promos on entertainment apps are used to seeing different plot lines and convincing pictures showcased once a week whenever a new episode of their favorite show is ready for viewing. Max needs to treat news stories in the same fashion.

As stories break throughout the day, Max needs to promote their live programming with information blurbs containing new developments and questions that viewers might get answered by tuning in. Show previews could also promote featured guests. Using the same stale graphic of a host, show name, and generic show description will eventually become stale and annoying for viewers. Viewers will unfortunately train their minds to ignore the static messaging.

Warner Bros. Discovery also needs to take advantage of CNN Max’s predecessor. CNN Plus was able to maintain a decent amount of followers on social media – at least 35,000 on Twitter. Turn that page into a promotion spot for CNN Max that aggregates clips, promos, and previews of what viewers can expect on Max or what they may have missed.

As the brand develops a presence on social media, it will also develop name recognition among future cord-cutters who are deciding between Max and other services. The last thing CNN needs to do is to have CNN Max hiding in plain sight. CNN Max can be additive to cable ratings if people have an understanding of where and how to access it. 

CNN Max is creating a direct relationship between the consumer and CNN. It’s a relationship that has always had a middleman. Unfortunately for the cable industry, the middleman is slowly dissipating away.

With this newfound bond, the network should take advantage of the digital real estate it has access to and create real interaction with viewers. Optional polls, factoids, written descriptions of stories on screen, or even biographies of the guests on air at any given time could provide viewers with an extra reason to stay tuned in. It keeps viewers occupied and helps elongate the amount of time viewers spend on the stream and the app as a whole. 

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

Barrett Blogs

Re-Watch The 2023 BNM Summit, On Demand Tickets Are Now Available

“If you weren’t able to make it to Nashville for the 2023 BNM Summit, I invite you to purchase an on-demand ticket to watch the show. The cost is just $49.99.”

Jason Barrett

Published

on

When one of our Summits ends, it’s over for the attendees and speakers. The work is far from done though for yours truly. After packing up a SUV and driving home, the immediate focus turns to posting photos, gathering video of the sessions, sending out final invoices, making sure all ads on our websites and newsletters promoting the conference are updated, adding watermarks to the video footage to support our sponsor, editing clips for social, and then building a web page for folks to be able to go re-watch the show.

It’s a mountain of work and I dive head first into it because I want to make sure that anyone who attends one of our shows has an opportunity to catch a session they may have missed or go back and re-watch a speaker to make sure they have the right information before passing it along to help an individual or entire staff.

When you buy a ticket to one of our shows, I try to provide maximum value. You get an action packed two-day event featuring difference makers in various roles across the industry, access to multiple parties including free drinks, and a FREE on demand ticket to re-watch the show. The ticket price itself is also kept lower than many other events because I’d rather see folks in the room benefitting than worrying about whether or not we crushed our revenue goals. I don’t create these conferences to keep myself busy, boost my ego or get rich. I run them to try and improve the media business. It isn’t easy especially given how reluctant many radio folks are to get out of their buildings and routines to learn something new but someone has to try.

There’s an old Benjamin Franklin quote that I’ve loved and adopted over the years, which says “an investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” That’s what our conferences are about. We discuss opportunities and challenges and have open and candid conversations with smart people, share information, and provide examples that have hit and/or missed because the goal is to make improvements, and you can’t do that without deeper inspection.

With that said, if you weren’t able to make it to Nashville for the 2023 BNM Summit, I invite you to purchase an on demand ticket to watch the show. The cost is $49.99. Just click HERE to sign up. Once you press the Subscribe button down below, it will take you to the next page to enter your information to gain access. Those who attended the Summit have already received instructions on how to watch the show for FREE.

We will return with a 2024 conference in either Chicago, Dallas, New York City or Washington DC. Given that next year is an election year and we’ve got one of these shows under our belts now, I’m sure the next event will be even bigger, and better. If you’d like to vote on where the 2024 BNM Summit should take place, log on to BNMSummit.com. You should see the poll question just below our main section.

Thanks again for supporting the show. Until next time, may your revenue and ratings continue to rise.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Advertisement

BNM Writers

Copyright © 2023 Barrett Media.

Barrett News Media