That is the error. They are 1 of the actual sources of
the climate of censorship.

Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector
makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment
rights.

When the government controls a company and tells is what to do in order to get
rewarded with more station licenses or get punished with not getting those
licenses renewed, then it is censorship.

Don't be fooled into thinking that a company that was making a lot of money
with Stern would decide on their own to drop him and lose money.

The fact that Clear Channel is crying and complaining to the government now
that they are doubly screwed now that Infinity is putting Stern back in those
markets and hurting the profits of Clear Channel stations all the more, should
wake you up to what is really going on here.

Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they
cannot use a particular slogan.

Or telling Clear Channel they can not have any on air talent saying anything
negative about Bush.

"David Eduardo" wrote in
:

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in
Except that they have the lowest P/E ratio of the group.
A P/E ratio is an indicator of optimism about future
prospects for a company. The higher the ratio, the more
investors expect them to do well.

A low PE ratio is the best.

Not this again. Look, this is not an investment how-to
course. If you are thinking about investing, everything
else equal, a low PE ratio is best. Correct. It means
that the stock is priced relatively low compared to its
earnings.

So why would Clear Channel have the lowest relative value?

Your definition is wrong. P/E is a measure of past
performance, not of attitude.

Of both, because stocks are bought and sold both on
past performance and perceptions their future success.
If the stock prices contains attitude, then the P/E
contains attitude.

In comparison, republitards are all attitude, no performance.
But you can always buy one.

simply that dumping Howard had a negative impact on
profitability.

None whatsoever.The billings on 6 stations in morning drive
are not even a grain of sand on a beach to CCU.

That is probably true, unless morning drive shows drive
ratings for the station at other times and the stations are
in large markets. They sure seem to be crying a lot about
Stern coming back in those markets for a company that should
not care. If not for the billings, why the tears at his
return?

Add to that a boycott of Clear Channel stations,
products, and advertisers, and you have a more wide spread
impact than just the 6 markets.

There is no such boycott.

I think the word you used was "wrong":
http://www.savehoward.org
http://www.petitiononline.com/lovepigs/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/fs030904/
http://calacanis.weblogsinc.com/entry/1400731296339485/


-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
pMY2Oslh51qk4kDtP/bqkMAXhbTDwx6FJ7A8CaKK5q3brOKNziTeo8KKXWBpIC37
FmrnTlZ6dvhZP28BhpLNHye6lt1y8AUGJ/yNSteZphh0jYa+0z1uF169CjBmGmdO
0qdhPDLIaeGMZTcrnB7WJbOxoe1X4mOSxED1GhtiOCZs0868ZM d+47zx7SG6tiGS
z/Gk/tQb9+begxXwQUcUNUp17jwBEwqGKEgBR+eqwgRFB8wjS12q0ie 2935ul20E
7KVChzE8yzA=
=pcXm
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

"Paul Jensen" wrote in message
...

"Deceitful Deceivers" wrote in message
...

Censorship is done by the government. When a company in the private sector
makes decisions on what or what not to play, it's called first amendment
rights.

Censorship would be the government telling a cable news channel that they
cannot use a particular slogan.

Well, no....the issue here is whether any entity can use a deceptive slogan in order
to appear to be what they are not. Just as a timeshare company can't use the slogan
"where the real estate is free" (unless it IS, of course, but what would be the point
of that?) the FTC is being called on to refute Fox's claim that they are "Fair and
Balanced", when they are, by the consensus of professionals qualified to make such
judgements, not. Regulation is not censorship, as there are, despite what your take
on the Constitution might be, limits to "free speech". There are numerous Supreme
court cases which bear this out...of course, this one, if it gets that far, will
probably have to go that far to be determined one way or the other.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There must always be the appearance of lawfulness....especially when the law's being
broken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-