Slashdot Mirror
XM Satellite Radio Backlash
mrchubbs writes "Sponsors and subscribers to XM Radio are protesting the decision by XM management to suspend the Opie and Anthony show for comments made on an uncensored channel. Subscribers are canceling subscriptions — some estimate that between 20,000 and 40,000 have cancelled. Some are even smashing their radios in protest. Sponsors are pulling ads. Also, there is some evidence of XM not honoring cancellation requests, forcing multiple calls to finally get accounts canceled." Of course this dispute isn't a free-speech issue. "Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government; XM is free to do as it wishes with the content it broadcasts, within the law.
And, as The Dixie Chicks found out, the public is free to respond as they see fit.
That's why I performed the ultimate protest and never signed up with them in the first place.
I'm glad this situation validates my accidental act of protest.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Problems with XM? Surely you can't be Sirius. ;-)
Login: abuse@slashdot.org
Password: slashdot
Enjoy!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And things are happening just exactly as they should! It's a free enterprise system and people are voting with their dollars exactly as they should. I'm really happy to see the enormous backlash even if I am a little surprised by it.
Cable TV was supposed to deliver the kind of raw material that the public craves. It wasn't able to sustain it. Satelite radio is supposed to deliver the kind of raw material that the public craves. It has been delivering but the moment someone decides "too far" then they are removing the key value that the public craves.
They should either reverse their decision immediately (for the sake of stock holders!) or go out of business. They no longer offer on their hype and promise... now they are just another radio source and as such, has nothing to offer over terrestrial radio.
(I felt the same way when Dell outsourced its support to other nations... Dell said "everyone's doing it" and I replied, "but that's the advantage Dell had over all the others...their last unique value and now it's gone!")
It's called "Vote with your feet". Perhaps if the people at XM would do what these people have asked, namely, admit their mistake, and put O&A back on the air, then things would be different. As it stands, this is unlikely, and thus, XM's survivability is also unlikely.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
Calling the channel "Uncensored" is a marketing ploy. Every workplace -- especially radio stations -- have limitations. XM logically figured that an impromptu bit of business in which the US Secretery of State is raped crossed those limitations, particularly since XM's uber-management is in the process of calling in every US government favor it has to grease the skids for a clearly lucrative merger with their lone competitor, Sirius.
It fascinates me that this is framed as a "Free Speech" issue. The airwaves that XM uses aren't of the public variety, it has nothing to do with constitutional amendments.
You know, for a generation raised on digital music, you sure all get caught in the same groove, sounding like broken records, a lot.
in a very roundabout way. The reason XM suspended the show is mainly out of financial self interest; they were afraid that if it seemed like they condoned this type of behavior they would be sued, and they are probably right. The fact that they can be sued over something this banal is the fault of the government. The government can get away with making people afraid to say what they want(no matter how dumb it may be) without directly abridging someone's first amendment rights by awarding huge law suits to whomever feels offended enough to sue. It's still government censorship, but with a better disguise.
Monstar L
It's hardly a censorship issue. XM, as a private company can hire ad fire whoever they like
I hear this argument a lot - That doesn't make it any more accurate.
It very much still counts as censorship - Just not the "protected" kind that the government can't do.
Yes, Sirius has the legal power to get rid of any of their employees, within the terms of their employees' contracts and various antidiscrimination laws. But that doesn't make it right, and we need to stop putting up with crap like this, much less justifying it with "as a private company...".
This happened to me... XM is definitely messing with people's accounts. I canceled my service about a year ago, but a few months after canceling they started charging my card again. I can't think of a worse way to treat a customer. If someone charges your card out of the blue just because they have your account info, they are committing credit card fraud.
It's totally time that we, the people, are empowered to tell them, those other people (who don't count as much as we), what they can and can't do with their property.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Its not, so why is it under the free-speech topic?
Sounds like bad business practice to me. Offer a service people want and pay for, then yank the rug out from under them when they get what they want. And, if they are refusing to cancel subscriptions, sounds like a class action lawsuit. Putting them out of business would make a good point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We are endowed with natural rights as an intrinsic property of our human nature. The constitution may or may not *recognize* these rights, and it may or may not recognize them in the full scope to which they intrinsically apply - however, a political prisoner in China has the *same rights* as you are I, although his government may not recognize them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
If those who own the printing presses censor what the rest of us write, we do not have freedom of the press.
If those who own the medium of communication censor what we say, we do not have freedom of speech.
In the market context, freedom of the press is dependent on the existence of a large group of publishers, so that if one publisher refuses to carry what you wish to publish uncensored, you can find another that will. Essentially, this requires a true market (an effectively infinite number of players, low barriers to entry, etc.)
Radio broadcasting is not a market.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Who the hell was advertising on XM? All I hear is ads for gotomypc.com and for other XM shows.
Uncensored only means it's uncensored by the FCC over the F word and topless titty (which, admittedly, isn't a big problem on the radio). But anybody who you sign a contract with is gonna maintain some editorial control over what you do, and if you suddenly started spouting Nazi propaganda, they wouldn't want to be associated with you. Now, we're currently undergoing one of those public hysterias over shock radio, so everybody is hypersensistive, and it's an overreaction in one sense. But....
Mostly what's going on is that shock radio has jumped the shark. It's going out of style, and this is what it looks like. Imus caught some heat, and it turned out he had some listeners but no loyal fans to defend him. Stern went to Sirius and a fraction of his audience followed. It's not that the radio stations are becoming more censorious, it's just that the shows are now disposable, they don't make enough money anymore to make it worth the hassle.
Funny, I listen to almost nothing but talk radio. The new music channels only spoonfeed you crap that the RIAA companies pay lots of money to promote the hell out of, and the classic rock stations (my previous favorites) only play stuff I already have on CDs and can play myself on my iPod.
Talk radio is the only thing left on the radio that's new and fresh and, depending on which show, halfway decent. I never thought I would fit this profile, but the station I actually listen to the most? NPR, definitely. I'm not a fan of classical music, but their news and talk shows are fantastic. I'm a Morning Edition/All Things Considered/Marketplace addict now.
I have to admit, I hate so-called "shock jocks." I've never listened to Opie and Anthony (I don't have XM), and I can't stand the likes of Michael Savage, Howard Stern, and those types. In my mind, they're all the same. Being stupid for the sole sake of being stupid. It's not funny, it's not enraging, it's overdone so much that it's not even shocking any more.
Oh yeah, and at home, I stream some Internet stations that play independent artists, if that counts.
Your definition of "Free Speech" doesn't really matter in this situation.
The real issue is that there are people who actually pay money for, and listen to this program. They want what they want, and right now XM isn't giving it to them.
-- lol pwned
Who exactly approves the corporate charter?
The government approves the corporate charter.
All parts of government are bound by the Bill of Rights.
A corporate charter is a part of government allowing a group of people to be seen as "one".
Therefore, corporations should be bound by the same restrictions that government is.
Another line of thinking is that corporations were allowed to be made for the public good (which is not true, but a popular viewpoint). In this case, is it 'public good' to allow them to trample over citizens' rights?
You have freedom of speech if they can't lock you up for saying what you say. But freedom of speech does not include a right to be published. And there's a corresponding freedom not to listen to you, and certainly a corresponding freedom to refuse to publish your garbage.
You want to be published? Buy and run your own printing press or radio station.
Social democratic management of the means of speech? Your mouth is your own, and pens and paper are really, really cheap. Beyond that, it's not about speech, it's about publishing, and that's a different story.
I piss off bigots.
It's totally time that we, the people, are empowered to tell them, those other people (who don't count as much as we), what they can and can't do with their property.
I consider myself rather cynical, but even I wouldn't call employees "property".
More importantly, though, "those other people" don't exist as people! Call me crazy, but I strongly believe that real live humans should have far, far more rights than fictional legal entities.
Why, you might ask?
Simple - You can't imprison a corporation (and only rarely do we imprison the leaders thereof; lookup "hydra" on Wiki for an idea of the effectiveness of that). You can't kill a corporation (well, you can, but in 230 years of abuse by our corporate masters, the government has only used it a very, very small number of times, and never for actual "crimes" such as Bhopal - No, they've used it in reponse to manipulations of another legal fiction, the economy). You can't meaningfully impose any punishment on a corporation, beyond fines (which with very, very few exceptions amount to nothing more than a nuissance, "just the cost of doing business").
So, that leaves us with entities with the rights of real live humans, with absolutely no morals, a single-minded obsession with profit, and no reason to fear serious punishment.
So yeah, I damned well do think we should have the right to tell these legal fictions what they can and can't do with "their" property - Starting with not allowing them to own property in the first place.
True free speech can only prosper when both the right to speak and the right to be heard is available to all equally.
... the problem is having the ability to speak and be heard, and the fact of the matter is that broadcasts from the major media and content producers no longer provide even a semblance of that. Which is why, in practice, nations that may otherwise have fewer legal protections on public speech can be freer, in that regard, than the U.S. is today. It's just like the DMCA: sure, we have fair use "rights" but if we're unable to exercise them because of technological restrictions then we don't effectively have them. We have free speech rights, and the right to be heard ... but only a few of us are granted the privilege to exercise them using traditional media.
... well, there's a whole lot of that available on the Web for free, and you don't have to live with the limited perspective granted by our domestic talking heads. I tend to go to Canadian and British news sites a lot, among others: I may (or may not) agree with what they have to say, but it's a different point of view and I like that. Makes you think.
We have both of those rights in the United States. That's not the problem
That also explains why so many people in power have a real problem with the Internet, on so many different levels. The Internet is a worldwide end-run around what those who own big media, and big government, want their customers/citizens to see and hear. The Internet gave that ability to billions of people in a few short years, and power brokers worldwide are still having trouble coming to grips with that. The Internet also serves as a collective memory: politicians hate that because once they say something it's available and accessible forever. People that publish nude pictures of themselves have the same problem.
So far as I'm concerned, broadcast radio (AM, FM, XM, Sirius, whatever) can take a hike. They've had nothing to offer me since the seventies. Talk radio? News?! Bah. Music? What music? If I want music I'll jack in my MP3 player, if I want news
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So, you have an opinion that these guys shouldn't have had a suspension? I'm curious, is it that:
1) What they said wasn't grossly racist and offensive?
or
2) What they said was grossly racist and offensive, but once they are hired they can't possibly be fired or have any disciplinary action.
or
3) They are supposed to be grossly racist and offensive, so any complaints about it should be ignored.
As another blog has posted, I have verified. XM is not canceling accounts when you call. Merely just putting a hold on them. My cancellation date when I called back was May 26th, when I asked for it immediately. May 25th is a shareholder's meeting. Coincidence?
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
because they already said what they said on the air. What this is would be punishment for making racist or bigoted remarks like Don Imus did and got busted for and so many others.
This is a new trend, if a DJ or announcer or talk show host on the radio says something racist or bigoted they will get punished for it now.
Free Speech does not give you the right to violate station policy, nor does it give you the right to avoid social norms or insult groups of people with. It is about time that people are held accountable for what they say, instead of getting away with murder.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
No, "free speech" refers to our inalienable right to speak freely, limited only by restrictions on harm it does to others.
The Constitution does not constrain only the government. This kind of thinking comes from the basic fallacy that "the Constitution gives us certain rights". No: we have certain rights, and we people create the government to protect those rights as described in the Constitution.
For example, you cannot keep slaves on your private plantation. There are many other Constitutional controls that obviously do not stop at your property line.
There is, however, the right to control one's own private property, primarily by controlling access to it by other people. And there is the middle ground, private property to which access is granted to the public, even by degrees (eg. from a parking lot to a shopping mall to a diner to a private club to an invite-only house party).
And then there's the in-fact results of the exact circumstances of private owners prohibiting certain rightful actions. If only one club prohibits speech, and there are plenty of other venues, then that club is not suppressing the rights. But if every venue for speech is private, and prohibits speech (or every golf course prohibits Germans), then that prohibition is suppressing the rights, and the government has business removing the infringement on the rights.
Satellite radio is an exclusive (literally - it excludes nonsubscribers) club, but it's offered to the public. And, especially since the Sirius/XM merger, it's a very limited venue. There's some worthwhile debate of whether alternate media offer alternate venues, like Internet and broadcast radio. Today they do, since satellite radio is a small audience that is also reachable with audio telecasts. But they might have a majority audience, or perhaps one demographic segment of its audience is large and otherwise not reachable. A future lawsuit might have to decide on the actual situation.
Opie and Anthony have a contract, in which it surely states what speech can get them thrown off the air. Subscribers have contracts which surely state what content can be removed suddenly and without warning. Those terms are enforceable, without violating the Constitution. Not because there is free speech as unlimited as in a public park - and certainly not because the government has no jurisdiction in the encrypted satellite band.
But because of how our actual rights are protected by the actual situation, in its real details. When our rights are at stake, the Constitution is there to protect them. But not when someone's just waving the Constitution because they didn't get the entertainment they can get elsewhere.
--
make install -not war
In this day and age, though, "more channels of mainstream content" isn't enough. The public grew tired of that with cable TV in the 80's and 90's. Satellite radio will have to adopt either time-shifting (in the manner of PVRs) or collaboration (in the manner of YouTube and Digg).
Right now, I'm having to accomplish time-shifting of talk radio via a thumb drive and an FM-broadcasting MP3 player. I'd rather have the convenience of an in-dash Tivo-style device that did it for me. No, it's not something that couldn't be copied by terrestial and Internet radio, but satellite radio could be first.
Building on that, my other suggestion was for user-created content. "Podcasting" was always kind of a misnomer since downloading and listening were discrete steps. Again, a Tivo-style satellite radio would simplify this, and combined with user-created content uploaded to the Internet (rated and ranked similar to Digg), satellite radio could usher in peer-to-peer broadcasting.
However, Big Media, Big Government, and Big Corporations would not like it and would try to see that it wouldn't happen.
I consider myself rather cynical, but even I wouldn't call employees "property".
Neither would I. However, XM owns a bunch of microphones, and they get to decide in which direction they want to point them. The microphones are their property.
There are two kinds of censorship:
1) The kind done by governmental bodies, which has the force of law, and is often constrained itself by "free speech" guarantees. That's de jure censorship.
2) The kind done by private entities, which can be legally circumvented, but which can go beyond what the government is allowed to do. That's de facto censorship.
Each of these is a Bad Thing. If the government is non-democratic, de jure censorship is inherently destructive to the betterment of society, and infringes on the rights of the individual, because there's no way to effectively challenge it. If the private entity is a monopoly or has insufficient competition*, or if it is highly influential (e.g. religious bodies), de facto censorship can be just as bad, for the same reason. So saying "that's not censorship; it's not the government" is missing the point, and offering rather cold comfort to anyone who has had their work suppressed or their reading/entertainment options limited by self-appointed censors.
*Whether that applies is this case is certainly subject to debate, and I don't have a strong opinion on that point; I'm talking about the general principle.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Free speech is the right do say what you believe without fear of (pretty broadly) being stripped of your freedom because of it (meaning incarceration, death...)
If you guys are going to argue that anybody who owns a medium should have no control over its editorial line, you are seriously wrong, IMO.
Granted, you cannot expect to be able to speak up without *any* form of consequence, but that's a private citizen issue. The only thing the first amendment assures you is that the government will not prevent you from speaking (and should protect your life from the results of such speech I guess).
As some pointed out here, the issue here is what XM promised to deliver and if it held up to it. If not, then paying customers are gonna leave them and that's the end of it.
Opie and Anthony were hired because of that kind of stunts, and XM knew what to expect from them.
Nobody here has any idea of what limitations XM gave to them and if they went over them. If there is a breach of contract or whatever issue of that kind, let them deal with that in court.
But please do not start saying that a news-paper/TV station/radio should publish anything without control over their own publication, because it's not true.
That's not a nick, that's my NAME.
3) They are supposed to be grossly racist and offensive, so any complaints about it should be ignored.
Bingo. XM hired these guys to do pretty much exactly what they did. XM's commercials even bragged about how they their various celebrity shock-jocks could get away with saying anything, unlike their broadcast-radio counterparts.
Incidentally, I felt the same way about the Imus scandal, though in that case at least the use of publically broadcast radio made FCC intervention a possibility - XM doesn't even have that thin of an excuse.
I think it's time we got off this childish and meaningless deliniation between huge centralized corporate power and governments.
Back in the days of our forefathers the king was also in control of business through either direct control of resources or indirect control over charters and taxes. Now corporations have multinational presence, and force governments to "compete" for the boosts to gdp they offer with bought legislation.
Many corporations have more assets than developing word nations, and bill gates could easily fund an army to seize half of africa if he wished, but corporate weasels learn well from the past and are now content to manipulate the puppet strings and cry "private property" whenever groups call a spade a spade.
When clearchannel controls more than half the radio market they carry as much or more power than government, and need to be held responsible for censorship.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Smashing radios as a protest? Isn't that like slashing the seats at a drive-in movie?
You are not qualified to say what is and isn't "right" about what can be said on TV and radio.
You might be grossly offended by a rape joke, I might simply not find it amusing, someone else might chuckle.
We all have different moral standards.
As another example, what about insulting someone's religion? I couldn't give a shit if a broadcaster goes on a rampage against Christianity, but the Archbishop of Canterbury would clearly disagree with me.
Stop allowing others to censor what you don't like, just don't watch it.
</liberal rant>
That it's embarrassing to be from Texas?
-George Carlin
You can't take the sky from me...
---Uhhh, XM owns the broadcasting equipment and the frequency that it's carried over (in the US). Opie's right to free speech ends at XMs right to choose who uses their property.
XM does not own the frequency. It is on lease from the FCC for a limited time, pending renewal.
Also, I failed remember about what monopolies on communications networks meant: Because they do have a monopoly, they should be required by law to carry X program if paid for. If we trust them to temporally control a chunk of spectrum, they had better make it worth it to us citizens by allowing content they dont like.
Why isnt a clause like "Will promote the public welfare by obeying the Bill of Rights" in all FCC contracts? It is in our ham manual.
---By that same analogy, should I have the right to spraypaint 'BUSH SUCKS' on all the billboards I can? I mean, it's obviously political speech, something well within normally constitutionally protected bounds.
Bad analogy unless one company owns all billboards. And Billboards arent a chunk of our RF spectrum the last I checked.
---Even if you get offended over this, pick and choose your battles. He didn't even get canned for something he said off the air. XM disagreed with what he did on their airtime, and they had every right to can him. You miss his show? Cancel your subscription.
Thats the rub: I've never heard of this guy, nor have I any inclination to listen to him, nor have I listened to XM/Sirius. I liken this situation to that of a Phone operator (AT&T or like) disconnecting a business because they didnt like what that business does (you name it: pornography, alcohol stores, sex toy shops, phone spammers).
We have here a company who runs "uncensored" channels, buys temporary permission from the FCC, and maintains a corporate charter while revoking free speech (but what I understand, quite disrespectable). That, I see, is the problem.
Even the KKK was able to petition, with the help of the ACLU, to peacefully march in Skokie. Even that trash of a group should be able to have a say in public streets or airwaves.. It would serve to show how disgusting they are, but they still deserve that freedom. What do you think the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" means? (attributed to Voltaire, but possibly not his work).
I love this story, on so many levels. This is the first of its kind that I've seen. You always read about and expect stories like the Don Imus firing, (who, by the way, is suing CBS. Good luck to him.) or how someone is fined hundreds of thousands of US$ for saying the F-word, or "massive uproar" over split-second bairly-visible nip slips. But here we have the anti-censorship crowd doing exactly what the paranoid networks feared would come from the other side. I hope this is the start of a new revolution.
When did we get to the point where everything has to revolve around the opinions of a few overzealous religious-right middle-aged stay-at-home mothers who lived their whole lives inside a bubble and have too much time on their hands? [I have a sister who's just like that] For one, I don't think these people are going to change brands of toothpaste because their favorite brand sponsors a show that drops S-bombs and F-bombs on a regular basis. I also don't think these people will be buying any high-end cars or other luxury products, so those sponsors are safe. No sane person would boycott any sort of medication or medical treatment over this. The only potential advertisers affected might be those selling lower-end cars, SUVs(mainly), and perhaps any product that requires some amount of forethought. I'm sure there's a few obsessive individuals who will write down the names of every product that sponsors an offensive show and avoid them, but these are considerably rare.
Keeping this from becoming too off-topic, what Opie and Anthony fans can do is this: Take a brief look at the advertisers who pulled out in opposition of censorship. If they sell anything big that you plan on purchasing, remember to tell the salesperson (or probably better, write the company a letter with a photocopy of your receipt) that you went with them because they supported Opie and Anthony. (or free speech, but at least mention Opie and Anthony) I already plan to do the same because a (different) radio show that I love came under fire awhile back, and their main sponsor stood up for them. So my next mattress is coming from that sponsor. This is turning the tables on what networks and sponsors expect from consumers, and in doing so we may change their views on censorship.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
I actually saw the movie, then went online and got some more information from the other point of view.. only to find there wasn't really any.
I think way too many people reacted to that whole thing, as well as to the movie, as being about 'freedom of speech'. Even Natalie herself did, to an extent, at one point (after which she calls Bush a "Dumb Fuck", for those who have seen the movie and needed the pointer). However, throughout the movie there was never once a strong "this is freedom of speech! why are people trampling on our freedom of speech!?" mantra. ( Aside from the old man stating that free speech is fine, but not on foreign soil and not in public. )
To me, it wasn't about freedom of speech. *obviously* you can say just about whatever you want, just don't get upset if somebody else makes a 'freedom of speech' statement back - and that includes no longer buying your product, or even going public with their opinion. ( Death threats are in a completely different league. )
I got a much stronger sense that the movie was about "this is what happens when a select group of powerful people focus their sheeple". From the political movement involved to the radio station 'federation' bosses right down to the woman who once loved the Dixie Chick's music (note: their music), then considered their music to be "trash" because of a personal (political or not, I say it was - even if it was meant in fun) statement from one of the band members.
Imagine if a similarly strong group of people existed in the software world. Perhaps they would convince 'blacks' that Open Source is "trash" because of ESR's past statements, even if currently perhaps only a few are offended by what he said, and fewer still may not touch anything to do with ESR.
So why do these things usually blow over (what of the huge public outcry against SONY's 'rootkit'?), and some times blow up (Dixie Chicks, Imus, etc.)?
As stated in the movie by one of the other band members (not a fan - don't recall the name, the other blonde anyway), the situation was just too perfect for those with an interest to let it blow over.
Even though I'm not a fan, I do admire their attitude, resolve -and- sense of when to just 'give up'. That's the other thing I think the movie demonstrated.. that sometimes, if the other side isn't going to budge, it may be better to just give up, and move on - even if the other side can't or won't. They moved on, with continued success.
---
Regardless of whether you're a fan or not, I do recommend watching this movie - it has some other bits of background information, and plenty of humor (the shot of Rick Rubin's dog is hilarious - brilliant editing! In fact, google for "Rick Rubin's dog" - currently only three hits, and all about this movie. )
So what did they actually say? Here's the transscript I've been able to dig up. Charlie is some character called "homeless charlie".
I've never listened to Opie and Anthony, nor do I subscribe to sat radio, but I have to say it's a lot less offensive than I imagined from the little "raping Condi Rice, Laura Bush, and the Queen" summary I've read. It's really not any worse talk than you'd hear a few guys in a bar saying.
I guess I have to agree with the comment that the suspension was really more about trying to appease any government contacts that Sirius/XM has to grease the wheels on the (IMO really bad for the public) merger between the two.
AccountKiller
On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.
In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.
You can't take the sky from me...
Bingo, and this is the reason that Howard Stern will never be treated similarly on Sirius. Where Opie & Anthony's impact on subscriber numbers can be measured in the thousands, Howard Stern was and is a key factor in the satellite radio decision of millions. Heck, Sirius gave Stern a bonus of $80 million less than a year into his contract because of the huge jump in subscriber numbers they feel they got from his show.
I suspect that the situation was similar with Imus. Nothing he said about the Rutgers women's basketball team was any more offensive than thousands of comments made by him and his cronies in the past. It was just that a) this time there was a public backlash and b) he doesn't bring in the listeners that he once did. If his employers still considered him vital to their business he would have gotten his suspension and then been right back on the air.
None of that, though, is to say that XM acted properly in this situation. While I don't care about Opie & Anthony (their previous controversies turned me off, I wasn't a morning talk listener and I've since become a Stern listener), XM at the very least implied by hiring them and tolerating them up until now that the show was to be uncensored. If you're going to make that claim, then I think you have to back it up, even if they're taking shots at management (maybe even especially then) - at least until the contracts are up when you can just let them go. I feel similarly about the Imus firing in that his employers knew what they were getting into every time they gave him a new contract.
You can't take the sky from me...
Sure, he was born in Conneticut, but his family moved to Texas when he was two. He probably doesn't even have any memories of living in Conneticut as a child. Texas was where he grew up; Texas was what shaped him.
Besides, from his way to speech to his hobbies to his attitude on life, the man screams rich Texan stereotype almost as badly as Ross Perot. There's not a lick of Conneticut in him. Now his father's definitely got that New England elite touch to him, but Dubya is as dipped in Texas as you can get.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").