Hugh Panero, CEO of XM, on losing Howard Stern to Sirius Radio

We just got back from the XM press conference at CES and we got to ask him two questions—we made them zingers of course:

Question one: "What impact do you think Howard Stern going to Sirius is going to have on your business, and how close did you come to signing him?"

Video one here, and as you can see from his expression he was really excited about answering this one).

Question two: "Dr. Laura over the past couple of years said that gay people are biological errors. You talked before about decisive programming (i.e. Stern), I wonder what XM's position on hate speech was and if you condone it. And why would you associate yourself with her after you said you wouldn't associate with Howard Stern because of controversial issues. Are you going to lose subscribers, and do you feel gay people are biological errors?"

Video two here

[Justin @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

here are the correct links:

www.weblogsinc.com/common/videos/ces/cesxmonstern.wmv

www.weblogsinc.com/common/videos/ces/cesxmondrlaura.wmv

[Jon @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Just wondering... not sure who asked these questions, but if XM banished Dr. Laura from XM for a comment she made, would that be ok? I'm curious how you think free speech SHOULD work...

[Sean Bonner @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

any chance of getting those clips in a more Mac friendly format?

[Asher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Re: Jon's post: there are (and should be) limits to free speech. 'Dr.' Laura's comments create a hostile environment to gays conducive to economic and social discrimination, as well as physical violence. Given how many people listen to her, and take her every word as gospel, there should be some limit on what she can tout as 'fact'.

[Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

So what was the point of heckling the guy like that? Granted, there are legions of people who don't agree with Stern or Dr. Laura. They can change the channel, or opt not to pay for XM service.

If this guy was the FCC chair, I can see harassing him like this.

[Jon @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

To Asher: Ok, fair enough... Of course, I don't agree with what she said, but how should free speech work in a case like this? Should she be banned for those comments? Who decides who gets banned? Should Howard Stern also be banned for his many gay/lesbian/misogynistic comments? (I also love Howard, btw).

[Free Speech Advocate @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Wow. Way to make an ass out of yourself. Nice job Engadget.

[SeanTC @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

I wasn't aware it was an issue of free speech, or has XM suddenly become a Congressionally chartered institution?

Anyway, I thought it was a good question. XM deem Stern's Republican-bashing controversial and worthy of banishment, yet they carry the show of a gay-basher and talk in soothing tones about the inclusion of "many voices." It won't change the corporate bullshit, but sometimes it's nice to make them spin their decisions on the spot.

[nathan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

i just lost a lot of respect for engadget.

and i have little for dr laura

[o0o0o @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

It's called exposing hypocrisy and I believe they did a fine job of it.

[juliuss @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

The point wasn't that Dr. Laura shouldn't be allowed to say what she thinks. The issue is that they backed away from Stern because he is controversial amongst conservatives but not Schlessinger (who is not a medical doctor, btw) who is controversial amongst liberals.

As for "heckling" this guy, he's powerful and in control of a major media operation; it's important the public holds people like this accountable for the decisions they make. If he can't handle a simple question about the content he carries, he shouldn't be in the position he is. (A good CEO would take that question as an opportunity to talk about the importance of having a variety of views available in the marketplace.)

It would be just as legitimate to ask him an uncomfortable question about Stern's content, or just as appropriate as it is for you to question Engadget's content like you just did, foo and redbar.

[Jon (a different Jon) @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

If you want to alienate half your readership, by all means insert your political opinions into random postings. From a bottom line perspective you might want to avoid calling your readers bigots!

[Jake @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Weak. This is emblematic of how far downhill engadget has gone. Engadget used to be about reporting on interesting new gadgets; now it's about trying to make news and re-printing as many press releases as possible. We'd all prefer to get our social commentary from somewhere besides engadget.

You guys use to be cool.

[Adam Rice @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

The problem isn't that Dr Laura is on the air. The problem is that this guy stands there and defends keeping her on the air in the interest of representing many different voices--which is fine--but dismisses Stern as polarizing and alienating.

Or maybe that's just sour grapes.

[Kurt @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Wow. I'm really disappointed in Engadget for stooping to such a level. Please stick to what people come to you for (hint: it ain't politics or morals)

[Asher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

I think it's cool that Engadget asked these thought-provoking questions, regardless of one's political views. I for one, am interested in the intersection of technology, politics, morals and values, etc. If you're not, go back to playing with your Nintendo DS and leave the more interesting conversations to the grown-ups.

[Joe @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

I agree with Kurt and others. I come to engadget for news on new and upcoming technology, not politics.

[Aaron @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Look, I consider myself to be a liberally-minded person, but even I think the KKK question is a bit out of line. XM Radio is a paid service. By paying for the service, you're paying for the right to listen to the programs they offer. If you don't like the service because they carry or don't carry Dr. Laura, then cancel. You could do the same if they offered KKK programming or any thing else YOU find objectionable. The active word though, is "You".

The one thing that people are also paying for that they would rather ignore than use, is choice. You have the choice to turn it up or turn it off. My god people, use it.

[Hilton @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Great questions!

[samdb @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

i commend engadget for taking the risk to ask serious and important questions. to those who say boo engadget for addressing these issues, i say it is apathy like yours that has become so symptomatic of our culture. Juliuss is right on for pointing out Mr. Panero's position as one of the principle influences on a major media market, and thus should be available to addressing these issues.

I support free speach adamently, but these are questions that need to be addressed - where is the line? if "dr" laura is afforded the platform to be prejudiced, why not the KKK? where do the boundaries of 1st ammendment rights, social decency, and hate speech meet? are they mutually exclusive, etc.?

In a time where it has never been easier to communicate with vast numbers of people, it is paramount that these issues be addressed in a public forum, bravo engadget.

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Ditto to Joe, Kurt et al. I'll apply my own political and ideological views to technology related news I find interesting.

[eliot h @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

hmmm... on the one hand, i think it's a fair point, engadget - this isn't a political site, or a free speech site, so maybe this topic would be best handled somewhere else...

having said that, these are valid questions, and sometimes asking them when someone is off their guard can be revealing. for example, i thought his response to the stern question pretty much revealed that stern wanted too much money, not that he was polarizing. that does kind of negate the implication of your second question, the answer to which is probably "we don't care what she says, people listen to her, and it doesn't cost us much".

and while broadcasting the kkk probably won't happen, people whose ideas match theirs will likely show up on xm or sirius, because they are already out there on broadcast radio.

i am torn on this issue for this reason - although the ideas in the question re: dr. laura are distasteful to many of us, woudl we rather force her off the air? the result of that, i fear, would the hiding of such ideas, which, in being forced underground, create an air of legitimacy - they stop us because they don't want you to know the truth.

in my mind, we should be using the "fire!" test. if someone says to kill people, in any sense, that is probably, like someone yelling "fire!" in a theater, nt somethign that should be allowed. but in the case of dr. laura, if the evidence is that homosexuality is genetic, there are going to be those who question whether or not it is beneficial, and who will come to the conclusion it isn't, and is therefore a disease. i don't agree with them, but, like issues of abortion, it is something that needs discussion, and telling someone they can't say it is not going to allow for that discussion.

and it isn't the same as telling people to kill or harm gay people. people who want to kill gay people will try and do it anyway, whether you cold prove homosexuality is a choice or genetic, a disease or part of the natural order. it is their own insecurity which causes them to hate in that way.

but the bottom line is, is engadget the forum for this, and are you jeopardizing the information we look for by asking such questions? the answer i think is probably yes,but it is, after all, your site, so maybe now it is the site of gadgets and free speech. so be it.

[SeanTC @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Yes, children. Please tell Engadget how much respect you've lost for them. The Corporation(tm) is very pleased by your actions. We are very saddened by this recent trend in liberal reporters questioning our decisions. The very nerve of the "bloggers" behind this site daring to accuse us of making political decisions regarding what we allow you to hear is just outrageous!

Also, there's some mean, mean man on another site who wants you to believe that technology and innovation is being stifled by restrictive Digital Rights Management crafted in backroom Congressional deals. Please ignore him. We only asked for that legislation because we want to make sure that you only see and hear things that will soothe you, and not cause you to think about the big, bad world outside your front door.

Remember, The Corporation(tm) loves you.

[Ted Tschopp @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Many people like Howard because he is entertaining. Many people like Laura because she is entertaining. Some resonate with Laura and Howard programs, while others find them to be offensive. In the same manner, I find questions like this offensive. I don't come here to be entertained or to be preached at about certain ideological position. I come here to improve my knowledge of products and technologies which are available to me as a consumer of electronic and technological products.

Too all this I say; Shame on you for blowing your chance to ask the CEO of a major company doing innovative work in a growing industry a substantive question. I'm sure if given the chance to voice their opinion, 99% of the readers here at this site could care less about Howard vs. Laura and the CEO of XM's opinion on the matter. And I'm also certain they are embarrassed for you because you seem so proud of the fact that you asked such questions.

The other thing which irks me about a question like this is this. It�s hard enough for PR people to see websites like ours as legitimate news outlets. With this action, you have made it harder for yourself and the rest of us. This is a step back for all of us.

[DigitalEl @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

All you haters are just like the morons who fly budget airlines, then scream "I'll never fly you again!" when they're late or cancel your flight. You'll be back.

All you neo-con Dr. Laura/big biz apologists will be back here tomorrow. Say you don't want your politics here all you want, but you'll keep reading. In the meantime, good luck finding that conservative tech site. Hey, maybe y'all red-state haters should start one?

I thought not.

[Nancy @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

DigitalEl,

Your ability to call people names is truly a sign of your intellectual superiority. Please keep up the good work. It�s comforting to know that your movement is backed by such rigorous and scholarly thought.

[Nancy @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

SeanTC

Wonderful answer. Your intellect astounds me.

[Jake @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

So, wouldn't you be psyched if an engadget writer had a chance to ask the XM CEO about the MyFi, or video services, or TimeTrax or about any of other new gadgets that they've released or will be releasing soon? Ya, that'd be so cool, I bet an engadget writer would really ask a question about something that all us gadget hounds want to know more of.

So next time, remember your readership; if you want to ask leading politically-charged questions, don't do it as a represnetative of engadget.

[SeanTC @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Gosh, Nancy. Thought you were leaving. Only a troll would say they were leaving, then stand around and shriek when the door gets slammed on their ass. On your way now, buhbye.

[Philip Bertz @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Nancy...

I'm glad Engadget lost you as a reader. Your pseudo-intellectual propaganda is uninteresting and unoriginal, and I, for one, will be perfectly happy never to read another comment from you again.

Good luck to you.

[Nancy @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

SeanTC, I said I'd not be a daily reader anymore, and that will be the case. I will, however, follow this thread long enough to see if the editors of this site are smart enough to retract the story and vow to stick to technology. If those editors are anything like you, I guess the answer is no.

[koan @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

y'know... um... it's odd saying it... but nancy's kinda got a point...

...hate speech and all that aside... and if you look at it outside of what is politically acceptable/what will hurt people's feelings... if you look at it solely from a darwinist perspective... then, yeah... homosexuality is something of a biological error... from a biological reductionist standpoint, our purpose is to reproduce the most viable offspring we can... if you only have same sex sexual relations, then you've got no way of reproducing... do the math, folks...

...that said... i don't know the exact spirit in which dr laura said the comment in question... but i can guess... and i don't agree with the tone i'm supposing she used...

...now... before any of you start your flaming... i'm actually quite liberal... so save your "neo-con" this and your "gay-basher" that... it's not applicable...

...and, while the original question was kinda fun as far as exposing the hypocrisy, the kkk part was completely out of line and just came off sounding childish and idiotic...

...ah well...
-kev

[yawn @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

People are complaining as if someone snuck into their house and stole money from you. As if Engadget does not have the right to post any story they want regardless of anything the viewers think. Personally I get a kick out of all the posts of how Engadget has failed the readers in some way, or how their questions have created an idiological stance that is personally threatening to them.
The best so far seem to be the posts with the my personal opinion is correct so change yours veiled in intellectual prose wrapped in passive aggressive jabs. It cracks me up.

[Dennis @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

I don't think the questions were that bad. Maybe not 100% geared at the actual technology, but kinda interesting to me. I feel the "KKK" question was kinda out of sarcasm more than anything. I don't listen to XM (I have Sirius here @ home with DishNetwork). I will still be a reader.

For all the haters or the people who lost respect, that's too bad. People have their good days with their bad; I don't understand why the outburst of, "oh, you lost a reader" or whatever. If your mate or child said something you didn't agree with, that's it, you give up? Is that all it takes for your insecurities to come shining through? Obviously didn't loose Nancy..? She's still hanging around like a /. reader. (Yes, I read /. too)

Rock the HELL on eNgadget. I will be here for a long time.

[SeanTC @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Oh, Nancy. There you go again! You're just wrong, but I'll keep you in my thoughts, okay?

[Alex @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

I really hope all these people who freaked about a legitimate question (minus the last bit) do go to some conservative tech website where they are coddled and told reassuring things like Iraq is going really really well and Social Security will be there for our children...

The CEO should have responded truthfully and said it was an issue of money for entertainment value. Free speech does not count on pay services; subscribers pay for content. If they don't like the content they don't pay. He probably just made an error in judging the value of Howard Stern's content and only time will tell how big of an error that was or was not.

[Dennis @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Now that I think about it, how is this not geared at techies? Didn't we all read everywhere about Howard Stern being signed to Sirius? And eveybody talked about free speech and the such on pay radio services? So, in a way, this is of concern to eNreaders; just like it was a few months ago when the Sirius/Stern deal was signed. Hell, just deal with it.

[pj @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Well done Engagdet,
Well said SeanTC,
'nuff said......pj

[Asher @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Hi Nancy:

So-called biological error speaking here...your cavalier attitude towards other human beings different than you saddens me greatly.

I should also point out that you are clearly out of your depths here. It would be wrong to classify a trait that occurs in a minority of a species as a 'biological error' (not a scientific term, mind you). This would suggest that left-handedness, being too short or too tall, being near-sighted or far-sighted, etc. are all biological errors, too. Forced to adopt this definition, everyone is a biological error in some way or another.

What you are further ignoring, is that human intelligence and creativity will always trump 'biological errors'. If it didn't, people like Stephen Hawking, Ray Charles, and other 'flawed' human beings would go extinct, and we'd be left with a population of tall, blond, people. (Maybe that's what you want.)

Two more thoughts:

1. The reproductive organs of most gay people work just fine--I guess that argument about reproduction doesn't hold water does, it?

2. I've noticed that most virulently (and irrationally) homophobic people like yourself end up having a troubled gay child or sibling. (Punishment from the 'creator'?) Prepare for a bumpy ride...

[Nancy @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

SeanTC,

You can shout all day long that I'm wrong, but you have zero evidence to proove otherwise. Keep shouting, though. It's comforting to know that ignorant noise is the strongest thing you have.

Philip,

The truth is often "uninteresting and unoriginal" to those who aren't smart enough to see it. I'd be interested in whatever facts you can drudge up to proove me wrong.

[SPug @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

It's both funny and sad that everyone is so up in arms over this. The site is called "Engadget" not "Entitled." The sight isn't ours. We don't own it. The people who decide what to publish on it can do what ever they want. If they chose to be political, so be it. If they never took a point of view I would have stopped reading a long time ago. I don't always agree with a site's point of view, but if it doesn't have one, I'll just yawn and click onto another page.

So not that they need it, but I just want to add to the side that supports their decision to have a point of view and call out the people in charge on the BS.

Don't let the loud minority cause you pause. We need you more than you need us.

[SeanTC @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Nancy, you are truly irrepressible. Wrong, but wonderfully creative at being such. I'm a true fan! Keep following that rainbow, girl.

[nole @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

ok enough already. just get back to ces

[Nifty @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Nancy is a dude.

[Nancy @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Asher,

At last, some discussion to chew on. Unfortunately you just had to go calling me a homophobe, which threatens to render your answers just plain silly. I have plenty of gay friends, and I love them dearly. And they even, to an extent, agree with me on this fine point.

Minority traits aren't the issue here. Your just throwing out a straw-man. The issue is behavior that is not reproductive. From a strictly Darwinian viewpoint, that behaviour is a most certainly a glitch. I'd, of course, welcome a different worldview in the discussion. Theism? Sure, whatever floats your boat. But you do need a different way of looking at the world if you are going to come up with a conclusion that makes homosexulatiy anything other than a biological error. (Yes, I know, not a scientific "term.") If a person is really gay from birth--homosexulatity not being a choice--then something is biologically wrong. Unless you prefer the idea that being gay is a choice?

The reproductive organs of gay people may work fine, but whatever instinct they have to not use them correctly is most certainly a biological problem. Again, unless being gay is a choice...

[Joe @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

I also lost a lot of respect for endgadget. You sound like a bunch of liberal puss13s!

The question about the KKK was ridiculous.

The truth is probably that XM just couldn't afford Stern and was trying to save face by coming up with the excuse that he could offend listeners. In reality alot of their programming could offend people, but the trick is that you aren't forced to listen to it (actually you are paying to listen to it).

I will continue to read endgadget, just have a lot less respect for them.

[Flubber Flubber Flubber @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

If being a biological error means I'm not like Nancy, I embrace my broken genes.

[isaac @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Good question, the kkk part was a little off though, it's not exactly a free speech thing, it is a, "Does your network think homosexuals are biological mistakes". I think it is a good question. It is their corporate image, and right now it is XM thinks homosexuals are biological errors.

[Nancy @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

Chaos,

Hey, now, keep it civil. No gay bashing.

[CNE @ Dec 19th 2005 2:44AM]

I understand why one question followed the other, and why the reporter brought up Dr. Laura as the antithesis to Stern. The problem is that the reporter missed the real issue in his followup question by jumping into the hate speech issue.

When the CEO said that Stern was "polarizing" as though it was a reason to be happy Stern isn't on XM, then that opens up the Dr. Laura question. Isn't she "polarizing" as well with her anti-gay rhetoric? What makes her better than Stern, or acceptable to XM's audience? That was the question that the CEO tried to answer in his BS about differing viewpoints, and by namedropping Al Franken.

The problem is the "hate speech" usage in the question. As much as some people find Dr. Laura's comments classifible as hate speech, others may find Stern's brand of derogatory humor also as hate speech. The bottom line, though, is that the public jury is still out on whether either of them are guilty of hate speech. (If they were, neither would have an audience due to mass public outcry.)

The reporter was taking his personal view of Dr. Laura's commentary and affixing it with the "hate speech" label -- which may be true to him, but does not apply to all. The reporter's question turned into a personally-driven attack.

So the follow up question was a good idea that was muddled by the reporter's personal bias. I guess it happens all the time nowadays; mostly encouraged by news outlets all over. We can sit here all day and talk about the conservative & liberal slants of FoxNews, CNN, CBS, etc. Why wouldn't it happen on Engadget?

Was the question something to get all pissy about, or to get pissy with other commentators about? No, not in my opinion.