Dean Blundell Show "cancelled"

[PMC]

Both of those Values (ethics and integrity) - as applied to performers, satirists and other entertainers - are subjective and, very much, on a sliding scale.

Good talent has intelligence. Insulting people to promote racism/bigotry, only displays arrogance. I would expect garbage like that from Stern, because it is a part of american culture... Don Rickles etc. Need I point out that America doesn't always have the best in ideas or talent. They may believe that they have, but the real world says otherwise.

If a station is desparate for ratings, is it necessary to scoop from the garbage can ?

[pave]

I agree with PMC that the highest ideals are hardly ever represented in commercial radio.
But, I do insist these are subjective judgments.
I mean, if, say, the Christians controlled everything in broadcasting - we'd be bored 'till we died... and went to Hell anyway.

[PMC]

I agree with PMC that the highest ideals are hardly ever represented in commercial radio.
But, I do insist these are subjective judgments.
I mean, if, say, the Christians controlled everything in broadcasting - we'd be bored 'till we died... and went to Hell anyway.

As a proud full time agnostic and part time atheist, your argument of `Hell' is subjective

There is ample proof that good talent can draw and keep an audience without jumping into the sheep dip... Jungle Jay Nelson at CHUM did so for years... Jack Webster...there are many others, some of whom continue to read here. Barbara Frum did the CBC's `As It Happens' for years and pulled big numbers because of her talent... again, there are many others, all of whom get my respect for the ethics and integrity.

[jon]

Any references to Howard Stern need to be taken in the context of some of his reasoning for moving to satellite radio: he did not fit into the straight jacket that he felt U.S. and Canadian radio stations would/were forcing him into.

What may appear to be prudish standards that run Radio are based upon, in part, parents who don't want to have to explain things to 8 year olds that are best left until they are a lot older. And similar issues. Though not a universal parent opinion, it is certainly not restricted to those with strong religious beliefs.

Television supposedly solved this problem with parental control chips. Radio doesn't have any. As for Internet-based alternatives, the software tools are there but recent research indicates they are less frequently used by parents these days.

[PMC]

Any references to Howard Stern need to be taken in the context of some of his reasoning for moving to satellite radio: he did not fit into the straight jacket that he felt U.S. and Canadian radio stations would/were forcing him into..

And it is great that he has that option. He seems to make the best of it.

What may appear to be prudish standards that run Radio are based upon, in part, parents who don't want to have to explain things to 8 year olds that are best left until they are a lot older. And similar issues. Though not a universal parent opinion, it is certainly not restricted to those with strong religious beliefs.

Television supposedly solved this problem with parental control chips. Radio doesn't have any. As for Internet-based alternatives, the software tools are there but recent research indicates they are less frequently used by parents these days.

You raise several issues... parenting and responsibility. I also ask the question on why there was ever a need for a television `control' chip.

Social issues are not solved with widgets. Logic says, discussion, and insight, gets results.

As for internet control, if government imposes their society rules of enforcement(dictatorship), in cyberspace, it will be the end, for its use, as a functional tool. If a hundred thousand customers a day cancel their internet connection, the dictators soon learn, corporate bankruptcy wasn't their intention.

[jon]

I also ask the question on why there was ever a need for a television `control' chip.

In the 1990s, it was actually quite a creative way to resolve the widening chasm in the U.S. between what the television networks (cable and OTA) wanted to air versus what a sizable number of parents wanted their kids NOT to see.

The nice thing was that it gave individual parents control. Which could change over time as their kids grew up. Paralleling the rating system for movies which was already in place for decades and had helped, along with published movie reviews, parents decide what movies their kids could see in the theatre.

A decade earlier, CITV-TV in Edmonton aired a version of Beverly Hills Cop where Eddie Murphy had to revoice all his lines to eliminate all but the least offensive swearing. If you don't believe me, I'll dig up the VHS tape from the basement.

[pave]

Blundell's program should not have been cancelled. Punishment - certainly.

What this points to, is, of course, a discussion on who makes and upholds the standards for any form of communication.

Commercial radio and network television may or may not be run by frustrated Sundee Skool teachers who couldn't hold the interest of their little, gullible and credulous parishioners.

Purveyors of Cable TV are out to bend the rules and test the waters - continuously.

The intenet is the Wild, Wild West where anything goes and we can all go frag ourselves if we gotta problem with that.

Is the future of radio as an online medium? If so, there will be multiple examples of nice-nice. There will also be more sources of "downright nasty".

Commercial radio does itself no favours by defaulting to the Milquetoast Mode - and doing it poorly.

[jon]

My point still remains the same: OTA Radio does not have an equivalent of TV's V-Chip, Cable Box Parental Control options, Theatre's Film Classification/entrance restrictions, and Internet software like NetNanny. This is a Parenting issue, not a religious issue. Only a minority of parents today wants their kids to grow up without shielding them from some things, especially in the early years.

[former tv guy]

Only a minority of parents today wants their kids to grow up without shielding them from some things, especially in the early years.

You're starting to sound like a politician from south of the border ... "The American people want...." without citing any facts to back it up.

[jon]

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Obviously not. I'll see what I can find.

And I promise to find something better than "Majority of Canadian parents interviewed think it is a bad idea to placed loaded revolvers in the crib with their child."

[former tv guy]

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Obviously not. I'll see what I can find.

And I promise to find something better than "Majority of Canadian parents interviewed think it is a bad idea to placed loaded revolvers in the crib with their child."

That would be good, because like most of this thread it has nothing to do with the posted topic.
BTW, I have no problem with the plug being pulled on the show.
There are broadcast regulations and these clowns tried the 'do it now and beg forgiveness later' route, and got busted.

[jon]

From "Canada's Children In A Wired World: The Parents' View" (MediaSmarts):

Four in ten parents say they provide a “great deal of supervision”
over the amount of television their child watches.
Another 44 per cent say they provide “some supervision”
in this area. A total of 14 per cent say they provide “not much
supervision” (nine per cent), or “none at all” (five per
cent). Parents with a child aged six to 12 and those with
more children are more likely to say they provide a great
deal of supervision in this area.

As for relevance, I thought pave and others were merely trying to explore why the CRTC broadcast regulations exist that Dean has broken.