Stern vs Limbaugh: Roger Ebert signs off
I agree with this commentary.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt-ebert16.html
Stern belongs on radio just as much as Rush
Like millions of Americans, I listen to Howard Stern on the radio in the mornings. I think he is smart, quick and funny. Sometimes he is ''offensive,'' but to be quite frank, I am not ''offended,'' because what he says falls within the realm of words and subjects that, as an adult, I have long been familiar with even without the tutelage of Stern.
Unlike millions of Americans, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. One reason for that is that I am usually at the movies when he's on the air -- an alternative I urge on his listeners. Limbaugh does offend me when I monitor him, because he has cheapened political discourse in this country with his canned slogans and cheap shots. Once you call a feminist a ''feminazi,'' what else is there to say about feminism?
Of course you may disagree with me and prefer Limbaugh. I may disagree with you and prefer Stern. That is our right as Americans. What offends me is that the right wing, secure in its own right to offend, now wants to punish Stern to the point where he may be forced off the air.
The big difference, of course, is that Stern's offenses usually have to do with sex and language, while Limbaugh's have to do with politics. Stern offends the puritan right, which doesn't seem to respect the American tradition of freedom of expression.
You don't have to listen to Stern. Exercising the same freedom, I am Limbaugh-free. And please don't tell me that Stern must be fined and driven off the radio because he uses the ''public airwaves.'' If they are public, then his listeners are the public, and we want to listen to him on our airwaves. The public airwaves cannot be held hostage to a small segment that wants to decide what the rest of us can hear -- especially now that President Bush supports consolidating more and more media outlets into a few rich hands.
But what if a child should tune in? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe it is the responsibility of parents to control their children's media input. The entire nation cannot be held hostage so that everything on the radio is suitable for 9-year-olds. Nor do I know of any children who want to listen to Stern, anyway; they prefer music.
It is a belief of mine about the movies, that what makes them good or bad isn't what they're about, but how they're about them. The point is not the subject but the form and purpose of its expression. A listener to Stern will find that he expresses humanistic values, that he opposes hypocrisy, that he talks honestly about what a great many Americans do indeed think and say and do. A Limbaugh listener, on the other hand, might not have guessed from campaigns to throw the book at drug addicts that he was addicted to drugs and required an employee to buy them on the street.
But listen carefully. I support Limbaugh's right to be on the radio. I feel it is fully equal to Stern's. I find it strange that so many Americans describe themselves as patriotic when their values are anti-democratic and totalitarian. We are all familiar with Voltaire's great cry: ''I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.'' Ideas like his helped form the emerging American republic. Today, the Federal Communications Commission operates under an alternative slogan: ''Since a minority that is very important to this administration disagrees with what you say, shut up.''
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
Just to fix the record. Hereis Rush''s actual take on the Stern situation.
But of course Ebert is much more interested in cliched assumptions than actually getting his facts straight.
The FCC is so screwed up. They are finning Stern for things he has been doing for decades that they haven''t charged him with before. It is stupid and a way to appease the CC right.
Have I mentioned how I would vote for Bush if he would toss those morons to the curb?
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
Erm, either my reading comprehension''s shot to f*ck, or there''s no need to fix any records. He''s just using Limbaugh as an example of someone *he* finds offensive and the puritan right likes.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
The silly premise of the article was that the wacky right wants to drive Stern off the air. That same wacky right, states this article, likes to listen to Rush. The implication is that Rush is among the people trying to silence Stern.
The fact is that it isn''t about the FCC, or the wacky right, or censorship; it is about getting fired (in this case, dropped from markets).
Part of Goarck''s point may be that since Ebert doesn''t bother to note that Rush defends Stern, he may also be wrong in his assumption that Rush''s listeners woudl defend Stern as well.
Ebert is creating a bogeyman that doesn''t exist. I haven''t seen a single article or politician who called for Stern off the air. So his attack on the ""puritan right"" seems to be an attack on a group he invented for the masturbatory purpose of imagining opposition so it can seem like he''s in an important debate.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Some things require reading between the lines, Ral. Just because something isn''t said straight out doesn''t mean that the inclinations are there.
The FCC is waging a war that does not need to be fought.
What war are you talking about? There are no surprises in the FCC''s rules. Any fines or sanctions being given were accepted by people choosing to trade fines for shock value in the hopes for ratings.
I''m sorry that your not being able to hear about lesbian sex while driving your kids to school makes you think there''s some kind of war being waged against you. try the magazine stand to get your fix next time.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I''m sorry to hear that you want your children to grow up in a country where discussing lesbian sex gets you fined.
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
What a peculiar thing to say! Are you saying that discussion of lesbian sex is vital for a child''s growth and must not be stifled?
I don''t agree with the actions of the FCC by any stretch. They seem to be over compensating for the Super Bowl gaffe. But didn''t they just increase the amount they were fining Stern? IIRC, they started fining for each transgression instead of just charging him a flat daily rate like before. They just twisted the thumb screws, but it sure is a disproportionate response, no? IMHO, the FCC shouldn''t even exist, and if broadcast media had existed in the 1700''s, then freedom of the press would have extended to Radio and Television, as well.
Psychotic Foreign Teenage Chicks are so hot. - Legion
I find it ironic anytime a healthy vaccinated person bitches about science...on the internet. - MaverickDago
What are you talking about? If you want to discuss lesbian sex you aren''t going to be fined, unless you do it in graphic detail over the public airwaves. The broadcast airwaves are a public trust. There is nothing wrong with applying decency standards to them.
The great irony in Ebert''s editorial is that the 1st Amendment was specifically designed to protect political speech, like Rush. It was never intended as a blanket protection for public obscenity.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I''ve never agreed with censorship. If you hate the show so much, you could turn the radio off or change the station. If you are worried about the poor children listening to it, they most likely won''t have a clue what the man is talking about or have heard it and far worse on the playground.
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
From children whose parents didn''t turn off Stern.
Exactly. Is lousy parenting now Stern''s fault?
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
Quite frankly, I shouldn''t have to. Stern has no right to talk about whatever he likes on the air, anymore than NBC has the right to broadcast porn.
The fact is that I am not offended by Stern any more than you are. But the public airwaves don''t just belong to you and me.
There are plenty of alternative media options where you can get whatever content you like including cable TV, satellite radio, and the internet.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I''d rather let the market decide.
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
So should the government get out of licensing frequencies? Should whoever has the most powerful transmitter win?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I''m not saying get rid of the FCC. I''m saying get rid of the censorship portion of the FCC.
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
So how do you decide who gets licenses?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
The FCC would still portion out the licenses. They just wouldn''t be allowed to censor speech. If people find the speech offensive, they can not listen to the program, and without listeners you don''t get any advertising - killing the program through market forces instead of the FCC leveling a $500k fine.
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
Wow. Just. Wow. Censorship is almost ALWAYS a bad thing. The public airwaves are public yes, but frankly the argument that you can change the station is perfectly valid!
You say you shouldn''t have to change the station? How about when I turn on the radio, hit seek, and a rap song comes on talking about drugs and bitches and hoes etc? Or pop music. I find that offensive. Should they be censored as well? After all, I can change the channel, but frankly I shouldn''t have to! No I''d rather have the government do it for me because I am a lazy ass. But you know what *I* do? I hit the next station. I don''t call up the government to try to get these things off the air. Why? Because I *DO* believe they have the right to express themselves. Does this mean clear channel has to allow it? Of course not! After all, they are not the government and can have whatever they want on their channels.
Of course you can come back and say, ""What if the FCC licenses all the channels out to companies that only allow decent material?"" That''s why the FCC should not give licenses out based on content. Let the market decide. If society decides that they don''t want Stern, he won''t be able to find a job anywhere. What I do NOT want is the government telling me what I can and cannot listen to. Take responsibility for your self and turn the freaking channel. Don''t want your kids to listen to it? Don''t let them. But keep your opinions out of my rights. If I want to listen to Stern that''s MY business and not yours.
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
They don''t. They just control what can and can''t be broadcast over the public airwaves. Buy a CD or get satellite radio and you can listen to whatever you want.
What imaginary right are you referring to?
Really? Radio frequency 98.5 MHz belongs to you and I don''t get to listen to it? The funny thing about these conversations is you complaining that someone else wants to restrict your preferences, while you have no problem restricting everyone else''s.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I''m part of the public, hence they are censoring what the public can listen to. YOU have the right to not listen. The governemnt does not have the right to make that choice for you. I consider that a basic freedom of speech issue.
Read the above.
No. It belongs to the public, and the public is (shoul be..) protected against GOVERNMENT censorship. It is NOT protected, however, from private censorship. I.e. if Clear Channel wishes to fire Stern, so be it. If another station chooses to pick him up then they have that right, the government doesn''t have the right to step in and say ""No, sorry Stern. Youc an never be on the air again because your indecent and we need to protect people from you.""
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
And the public has created a duly elected government to regulate the public trust which is the airwaves. What you are really saying is that you don''t like the majority, acting through their representatives, controlling the content of something they own.
Think of it like 4 people riding in a car, trying to decide what to listen to on the radio. Three people want to listen to Christian Rock. You want to listen to Howard Stern.
Sorry, my friend, you''ve been outvoted.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
The GOVERMENT has created a sub-sect to regulate the airwaves. The public has the United States Constitution which prohibits the goverment from imposing censorship on the public. The FCC is NOT a public elected body. They are appointed by the government. The majority have not changed the Constitutional laws. They have simply hijacked it, and I find that reprehensible. Oh, another thing, what makes you think you''re the majority? It seems to me that the concept of majority is usually seen as ""Whatever side I belong to."" I find that superioroty complex amusing. What it really is is ""I happen to belong to the group who believe in an elected person''s views that are influenced by lobbyist money instead of actually being a representative.""
As for your car analogy, the logic there is faulty because that wouldn''t be a democracy. The car owner would have final say, making it a dictatorship. Last time I checked America wasn''t a dictatorship, though some may wish it otherwise.
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
That anology does not hold up ral, and you know it. All the passengers *have* to listen to whatever gets picked. In real life, people can switch channels. Or turn the radio off.
Edit: Gah! Seconds late. I''m all redundant now. *sniff*
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
Here comes the ""They can get out of the car"" statement.
Which of course leads us to his real point/beliefs: elitism. You don''t like it, get out of the country. Congratulations! You''ve won a prize!
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.
What does you desire to listen to Howard Stern have to do with free speech rights?
There have been plenty of shows that I liked that got cancelled. Were my first amendment rights trampled? I think not.
And if anyone were imposing censorship, that might be a problem. There have been laws regarding public decency since before the founding of the nation. They didn''t disappear with the creation of the 1st Amendment, and on the contrary have been upheld by the courts again and again.
Your reading of the 1st Amendment to suggest that it is a license to say whatever you want whenever you like, is what is flawed here.
that''s a nitpick. The FCC operated under statutes passed by legislators who are elected. It exists, and its policies are controlled by laws written by legislators who are elected. Those legislators provide its funding and have oversight over its functions. Nothing the FCC does is without the implicit or explicit approval of the legislature, and also by the president - who was also elected. If the FCC is out of line, then vote for representatives and a president who will change its policies.
But to imply that decency standards are not representative of the will of the majority is untrue - unless you have some evidence otherwise?
What if all four people own the car equally, as with the airwaves? I guess you''re ok being outvoted then, since Democracy has won the day?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Pick whatever analogy you like - when a group all own something, they get to share control of it. And if the majority don''t like the way it is being run, they get to change the policy.
The whole thing is pretty silly. There are about 15 expletives that you can''t say on the radio. Other than that you can''t explicitly describe sex acts during hours when children might reasonably be listening. That''s about it.
No one who has been fined was incapable of following those pretty simple rules - they chose to break them in exchange for the hope of higher ratings. And the FCC hasn''t taken anyone off the air - that was the choice of the license holders who decided they would rather follow the rules than be fined.
Yeah, a real police state.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Yes, but did the goverment cancel them, or the network that hired/funded them do it? That''s the difference.
Unfortunately, if I slash my wrist with my lightsaber it cauterizes instantly. - PurEvil on emo Star Wars plots.