Stern & C.C.

Bill O'Neill
Fri Feb 27 10:31:22 EST 2004

> How come the reporters at Bloomberg can do this when they mention
> something that tangentially involves their employer (so and so is a
> partner in Bloomberg LP, parent company of WBBR - or
> something to that
> effect).
> --
> Sven Weil
> New York City

Yes, they do that well.

I heard Rush open his show the other day on the Stern issue.  He described his
show as involved with or syndicated by CC.  He never came right out and said
"Premier, a wholly owned subsidiary of Clear Channel...." Not sure why not since
he was taking a stand in opposition.  Later, Rush redefined by saying he did not
consider this "censorship" by the government, but a "business decision" by a
corporation.  Drudge had posted Rush's early remarks that leaned govt
censorship.  There is a difference.  My concern is the pressure govt is putting
on CC and the odd timing of their decision to yank Stern.  It's a weak attempt
at capitulation.  If Stern goes dark in those markets, and Viacom doesn't retool
stations to fit Stern in AM drive, then it is a matter of time that Viacom O&Os
will be pressured to follow suit.  I'm no fan of Stern and his sensibilities but
I defend his right to fill a market niche.  Clearly, Stern has grown up over the
years.  His clones remind us that the Peter Principle is alive and well in this
business and have mismatched the ammo in their weaponry.

Bill O'Neill

More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list