XM Radio Executive Contact Info

If you would rather not talk to a liar in India when trying to cancel XM, here’s a number for you: 202-380-4393. It’s said to be their executive office number. You might be able to avoid ending up like this guy.

And here’s a bunch of email addresses for opinion-voicing-good-times-rolling!

Hugh Panero, Chief Executive Officer – hugh.panero@xmradio.com
Nate Davis, President and Chief Operating Officer – nate.davis@xmradio.com
Gary Parsons, Chairman of the Board – gary.parson@xmradio.com
Dara F. Altman, Executive Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs – dara.altman@xmradio.com
Steve Cook, Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing – steve.cook@xmradio.com
Joseph J. Euteneuer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer – joseph.euteneuer@xmradio.com
Vernon Irvin, Chief Marketing Officer – vernon.irvin@xmradio.com
Eric Logan, Executive Vice President, Programming – eric.logan@xmradio.com
Dan Murphy, Executive Vice President of Retail Aftermarket Distribution – dan.murphy@xmradio.com
Stell Patsiokas, Executive Vice President, Technology and Engineering – stell.patsiokas@xmradio.com
Joseph Titlebaum, General Counsel and Secretary – joseph.titlebaum@xmradio.com

Not a good idea to build a whole brand around unfettered, commercial-free, free-speech, and then censor your talent just to make nice in Washington so you can push through your controversial merger. — BEN POPKEN

[via UPOP]
PREVIOUSLY: State Of The Backlash thread


Edit Your Comment

  1. joeblevins says:

    On the show O&A would threaten to send certain types of pr0n to Eric Logan. I bet his email box is full of it now.

    I am not a pest, but a big enough fan of the show to be annoyed they aren’t on.

    And I am offended that they had to even consider saying ‘sorry for being dirty’.

    PC is poison.

  2. polarogak says:

    Opie and Anthony is not a very entertaining radio show.

  3. Moosehawk says:


    Even if that wasn’t just an opinion, it’s besides the point. XM promised free-speech radio. They’ve turned around and censored a show that has a decent-sized fan base.

    XM is going to be hurting for that move.

  4. royal72 says:

    nice one ben :) i would definitely not want to be working at xm corporate right now.

  5. Crazytree says:


  6. mattbrown says:
  7. mattbrown says:
  8. homerjay says:

    Wait, I thought the email address for general counsel for XM was legal@weddingdepot.com

  9. atonse says:

    While I am all against the idea of censorship, especially by a company that advertises uncensored services (I’m not happy about the censorship, and I’m an XM customer), that jerkoff in the youtube video you linked to had no basis to act the way he did on the phone.

    There is simply no reason to get that angry at an operator. That operator’s just doing his job and does not get paid enough to deal with douchebags like that idiot caller. If you aren’t satisfied, escalate, escalate, escalate. That’s it. Don’t take your anger out on someone who was unfortunate enough to take your call.

    If this is the kind of audience that Opie and Anthony attracts, I’m not surprised.

  10. BStu says:

    For goodness sake, they didn’t “censor” the show. Look, “free speech” was supposed to mean treating adults like grown-ups and not being afraid to talk about sex our use dirty words. Free speech has nothing to do with making jokes about sexually assaulting people. They weren’t suspended for swearing of even for bringing up sex. They were suspended for broadcasting a series violent rape fantasies.

    I’m horrified that so many people defend that with a dismissive “what’s the big deal”. I’m horrified that people are so supportive of this that they are enraged over XM giving the hosts a slap on the wrist. A month suspension. Wow, what a horror.

    Can’t we get that this is different? That there is a line that this crosses? No one would expect XM to support all “artistic expression”. Why are so many so quick to embrace violent sexual assault fantasies as acceptable. They weren’t even fired for it! There is a lot of room to offend, shock, and amuse before you get to graphic rape desires. That hardly should cramp anyone’s style.

  11. Falconfire says:

    @BStu: No they where not even suspended for that. They where suspended for being made to apologize FOR said fantasies, and took it out on their bosses.

    And truth be told, they where not even rape fantasies, and they certainly where not that funny. But they said stuff that would have been legal and OK to say on HBO, the O&As channel is for all intensive purposes the radio equivalent of HBO, or Showtime.

  12. bitplayer says:

    These guys were NOT suspended for saying bad things. They were suspended for talking back to their bosses on live radio. No job, even one that allows free speech, allows that. It was unprofessional. By the way I used to be a big fan of their show but I can’t listen to it now because they seem so lazy. It’s like they aren’t even trying. Also Jim Norton is not funny. It shows when they have guests sit in and do his job, they kill.

  13. mac-phisto says:

    hehe. every time i see that guy’s face i laugh. i’m gonna go watch that video again…

  14. Papercutninja says:

    I’m offended by the non-O&A supporters up there. Therefore i am going to write to Gawker, Inc. and have Ben and Meghann and the rest of Consumerist suspended for a month. Then all the commenters from Weblogs, Inc will come here and say that they’re glad that Consumerist is down right now and that it isnt’ about free speech.

    Hmm. That sounds a bit ridiculous, don’t it?

  15. @Papercutninja: What?

  16. macinjosh says:


    I find the show to be quite entertaining. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    @ joeblevins: It actually happened already, I think because they wouldn’t allow the B.o.C.-on-the-street bit.


  17. roche says:

    @BStu: These “series violent rape fantasies” they broadcast lasted about 30 seconds long and were said by a guest. A mentally ill homeless guest at that. You should have your facts in order before you start spouting off your condenscending drivel.

    I appreciate you telling me what I find acceptable. Somehow I have been unable to form my own opinions and I need all of the help I can get in determining what should and should not offend me. Thank god there are a ton of people out there like you otherwise I might chuckle at something that someone else finds offensive.

  18. Why are so many so quick to embrace violent sexual assault fantasies as acceptable.

    @BStu: Well, considering how often rape happens in this country…

  19. Foxtrot-Yankee says:


    They were suspended for broadcasting a series violent rape fantasies.

    Either you didn’t listen to what happened for yourself (the whole segment, not the short clip that was on Breitbart) or you are intellectually dishonest. “Broadcasting a series of rape fantasies” is a hysterical exaggeration meant to make it seem much worse than it actually was.

    It was actually a homeless guy (not a “character” as the media reported) ranting that he’d fark two public figures. He was trying to say something outrageous. It was pretty clear he that he wasn’t actually planning or fantasizing anything sexual with those women. The names were brought up because he seemed to have an opinion on everything else and they were asking him about current events. He just said the most vulgar thing he could think of at the time.

    It fell far short of “a series violent rape fantasies” so stop with the hysterics.

  20. pestie says:
  21. quantum-shaman says:

    Has anyone actually emailed these XM execs and received an answer?

  22. lizzybee says:

    What liar in India? All I heard in the clip was some poor CSR in a call center being relentlessly harassed by an asshat for absolutely no reason. It’s perfectly fine to be upset about something, and it’s fine to complain, but to go postal on some poor schmuck who happens to be unfortunate enough to pick up your call just for your stupid 15 seconds of fame on Youtube is disgusting! FYI, it’s perfectly normal for a CSR to ask for your set number when they’re looking up your account– it’s how they access your information.

    I’m an XM subscriber purely for the music, and could give a rat’s behind about a couple of moronic shock jocks. I’ve never listened to O&A, nor have I ever heard of them until the last couple of days, so I really don’t care much about their fate one way or another. But it’s perfectly within every listener’s rights to contact the execs and protest and/or cancel the account. I just hope you don’t kill my music in the process! If I had to go back to listening to our local Clear Channel-infested airwaves, I’d probably be forced to shoot myself…

  23. Joe Hass says:

    Where this has gone massively awry (at least in my eyes) are on three points:

    1) XM promotes Virus (the channel O&A air on) as uncensored and uninhibited, where anything goes. You can’t say anything goes, then suddenly decided that this or that (especially yourselves) is off limits. That kinda blows away your reputation.

    2) To clarify this again: the timeline was that O&A had the conversation with the homeless man, were taken off the air for a couple days, came back on Monday with a pretty sharp commentary on how everyone in radio suddenly has to watch their back (with a shot or two towards XM management), and then came the 30-day suspension for “not taking it seriously.”

    Two questions: This means that, in the eyes of management, talking smack about them is 15 times worse than the original comment? And did management not think that O&A’s fans wouldn’t be furious at this?

    And for those who say that they deserve to be suspended for taking shots at their bosses: You’re absolutely right, but let’s call a spade a spade. If you have ever listened to Stern or almost any personality with the ‘shock jock’ label, you know they take shots at their bosses. It’s the price of doing business. They’re being paid to be edgy. If you’re hiring this kind of talent, and are “shocked” that they’re taking shots at you, the first thing that pops into my mind is Captain Renault being “shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on here,” while pocketing his winnings.

    3) XM seems to be taking the “closed eyes” approach on this: if we don’t acknowledge it, or talk about it, it’ll all blow over. The massive uproar on Wednesday should’ve tipped them off that this wouldn’t work. It’s worth noting that, in the original press release announcing the suspension, no one from XM was actually quoted: not Eric Logan, not Hugh Panero, not Gary Parsons. The longer they sit there hoping it all blows over, the worse it’s going to become.

    As for the non-cancelled cancellations: oh, dear heavens. This has morphed into a clusterf— that could, legitimately, bring the company down. The biggest challenge XM has had over the past three years has been to lower the cost to gain a subscription. As a technology we can safely call “mature,” the days of posting losses under the guise of “yeah, but we’re gaining subscribers” are over. In the last year, they’ve started missing their subscriber goals pretty consistently (though they’ve still gained subscribers; they haven’t had a quarter versus quarter subscriber loss as far as I can see) and keep losing money. The shareholders have watched as the stock price has gone from $36 in the latter part of 2005 to $11. It’s even given back the bounce it got on the XM/Sirius merger. And now you’re looking at what could only be called a fraudulent attempt to retain subscribers to keep the numbers up? At what point does the company’s bondholders call everything in?

    I posted this question in a thread on another message board, and I’ll repost it here: where, exactly, can XM go from here? I mean this in any possible definition of the question. From a marketing perspective, where do they go (we don’t have commercials? My MP3 player doesn’t either)? From a business perspective, where do they go (thousands of lost subscribers, and remember: they count each radio as a subscriber, so if you cancel four radios, that means four lost subscribers)? From an employment perspective (hiring on-air staff), where do they go (who would be willing to work for an employer who treats their on-air staff as peasants, more so than terrestrial radio)? From a reputation perspective, where do they go (it’s in pieces on the floor by anyone who’s followed this)? The bell can’t be unrung, obviously, but they’ve managed to put themselves in a corner that offers no easy way out, and no answers that don’t sound outrageously painful.

  24. The Walking Eye says:

    @BStu: No, free speech is all about allowing me to say whatever I want whenever I want. Free speech allows the KKK to say mean things about blacks and us to say mean things about the KKK, not just talk about sex and use dirty words.

  25. BStu says:

    Are the apologists aware that transcripts and clips of the exchange are easily available? A fantasy about holding someone down and fucking them to death while they look on in horror seems pretty well within my label of “violent rape fantasy”. And the hosts were participating in the fantasy, not merely listening passively. That the homeless man may have been mentally ill isn’t a defense of O&A, its the nail in the coffin. Every corporation should have some basic standards for the content they put out. You can’t hide that deplorable exchange from even the most basic standards. In the real world, the treatment O&A have gotten is insanely leniant. Hardly worthy of the persecution complex being displayed by their excusers.

  26. Foxtrot-Yankee says:


    I am aware that whatever transcript you read, it did not capture the context of the comments. Do you think your transcript can really capture the moment? It would be about as useful as reading the script to Animal House and not seeing the movie.

    These statements were not complex enough to described as a “violent rape fantasy” unless you are trying to exaggerate to make a point.

    Once again, these were off hand comments…nowhere near complex enough to be considered a “fantasy” (an imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need).

    It was a guy just trying to say the most vulgar thing he could because he was trying to get a laugh. It was a quick remark out of a series of quick remarks that people like you have taken out of context.

    Listen to the whole segment. Need a copy? I’ll find you one.

    Or, you can continue to be dishonest and mischaracterize what you obviously haven’t heard for yourself.

  27. Jim Treacher says:

    “Are the apologists aware that transcripts and clips of the exchange are easily available?”


    “That the homeless man may have been mentally ill isn’t a defense of O&A, its the nail in the coffin. Every corporation should have some basic standards for the content they put out.”

    XM has been promoting Ch. 202 as uncensored talk since Oct. ’04. The Homeless Charlie thing MET the basic standard. And it’s what their subscribers have been paying to hear. It’s not for lemon-sucking prudes who mistake their own personal tastes for policy.

    “In the real world, the treatment O&A have gotten is insanely leniant.”

    Why, how would you have punished them?

  28. Dormous says:

    “If you would rather not talk to a liar in India when trying to cancel XM…”

    Just FYI, XM’s customer service is located in Jamaica, not India. The one time I’ve had to call XM customer service, the Level 1 CSR that I got didn’t seem too interested in helping me. I clearly explained the situation to the CSR, and after she simply repeated the current problem to me, instead of comprehending what I was asking for, I immediately asked for a manager. After I got the manager he was very helpful and got the problem resolved.

    Sometimes, you just have to escalate!

  29. Saboth says:

    @atonse: I’m afraid you are a bit confused about free speech. It doesn’t encompass just what YOU think it should. It encompasses what I think it should, the guy next to me, etc. Unfortunately, we have a government currently that likes to mingle religion and “morals” with government, and as a result, we have an FCC trying to gain control over private media like music, cable, sat radio, etc. You might think childish things or abusive or hateful things are not covered by free speech laws, and the current government would agree with you. Most of us believe free speech encompasses everything.

    This isn’t really a free speech issue, but rather a company