CBS vs. Howard Stern

Katrhyn updated us last week on the CBS lawsuit against Howard Stern, a story that we've been following during the semester. She told us that a settlement had been reached, but she didn't have any figures.

Well, today's Washington Post has some figures. One of them is $2,000,000. And it looks like Howard is coming out of this smelling like a rose (well, maybe).

In the settlement, Sirius agreed to pay CBS $2 million. In exchange, Stern gets control of the master tapes of the past 20 years of his shows on CBS, meaning the company cannot broadcast archived Stern shows without paying him.

So Stern's employer, Sirius, pays the money, and Stern gets control of his old shows. (Those might be converted into cash in some way). But we're not getting the full story. For one thing, this story is based on a leak.

However, CBS will receive more than $2 million, said a source with knowledge of the settlement who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.

Somebody on CBS's side, I'd guess. Apparently there may be more to the deal than we're being told:

Because Sirius is a public company, the $2 million payment will be reported on required Securities and Exchange Commission documents. But Stern is not a public company; therefore, he could make an additional payment to CBS without having to report it, thereby keeping it secret and maintaining his on-air bragging rights over the network.

So let's look at this from the leak angle. It's an out-of-court settlement, so the parties are not obligated to tell us anything. (But of course we want to know.)

One side (CBS Radio) releases a statement, which both sides have probably okayed. It tells us what we could have found out from public records (financial statements). In that release Howard comes looking like the big winner, ego intact.

But then another source, (anonymous -- probably also from the CBS side), hints that there are more payments to be made, most likely from Howard to CBS.

So we end up with a better picture of what actually happened. It's an anonymous source, so we have to question both motive and reliability. But it seems to make sense. And don't forget, Frank Ahrens, who wrote the piece, probably knows exactly what the terms are. He writing this in a way to give us the information without betraying certain facts.

Do this justify the use of the anonymous source?