Comments on: Howard Stern: Kerry's Secret Weapon

Howard Stern: Kerry's Secret Weapon

clango — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:25:34 -0800

Howard Stern's anti-Bush rhetoric may be more influential than people think. With all the extra media attention that a half a million dollars worth of FCC fines can garner, it looks like Howard's rearing up against George. It's weird to see an article like this after how pro-war and pro-Bush the Stern show was after 9-11. (Free registration required, ctnow.com)

By: inksyndicate

inksyndicate — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:28:29 -0800

A while back, Scoobie Davis started a campaign to get Howard Stern interested in Reverend Moon, as an anti-Bush angle. I still think he would love it.

By: plemeljr

plemeljr — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:29:00 -0800

Use Bug Me Not to get passed stupid registration/blood test/dna sample/etc.

By: jaded

jaded — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:36:11 -0800

Has anyone else noticed how strangely similar to Michael Jackson Stern looks in the picture next to the story?

By: LeLiLo

LeLiLo — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:37:10 -0800

George W. has got hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around during the campaign. Maybe he should pay Howard's fines, to get him over to 'the dark side.'

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:40:26 -0800

Has anyone else noticed how strangely similar to ~~Michael Jackson~~ Ozzy Ozbourne Stern looks in the picture next to the story?

By: wsg

wsg — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:53:13 -0800

Anybody wanna share some login info?

By: bitdamaged

bitdamaged — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:58:42 -0800

Similar thread from March. Linked to this Salon piece.

By: zsazsa

zsazsa — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:59:15 -0800

wsg, things are looking up...

By: wsg

wsg — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:10:06 -0800

DOH! Thanks.

By: wsg

wsg — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:20:26 -0800

Stern has been known to wield considerable political clout in the past. From Salon: Stern has proven his political clout in the past. Known mostly for his libertarian take on politics, in 1992 he made news by endorsing Republican Christie Todd Whitman for governor of New Jersey, and she then won in an upset over Democrat Jim Florio. (She repaid the favor in 1995 by naming a New Jersey highway rest stop after the jock.) Stern has also backed Republican George Pataki for New York governor. "When Stern says he helped Pataki win," says Goyette, "I don't think anybody doubts that."

By: DWRoelands

DWRoelands — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:57:40 -0800

I'm a die-hard Stern fan, but his anti-Bush rantings are transparent and self-serving, no matter how much he talks about the First Amendment. Whenever one of his imitators was fined for indecency, Stern laughed and said "good! I hope more of them get fined!" When it happened to him, he changed his tune. Stern seems to ignore the fact that Bush didn't appoint Michael Powell to the FCC; Bill Clinton did. The obvious corollary to this is that if Kerry wins, that doesn't mean that Michael Powell loses his job or even backs off of Stern. Stern's entitled to say what he wants, and the FCC should stop pestering him. Conversely, Howard should stop disguising his obvious self-interest with the flag and the First Ammendment. Howard's not some sort of political thinker being persecuted for Speaking Truth To Power; he just wants to be able to say "tits" on the radio.

By: gwint

gwint — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:10:06 -0800

Just to clarify on Powell and the FCC: Clinton appointed him a member of the Commission, but Bush made him Chairman. </off topic>

By: wendell

wendell — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:27:29 -0800

At the moment, it appears that Howard's biggest concern is the resignation of his best friend at Viacom...

By: jon_kill

jon_kill — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:31:56 -0800

DWRoelands, making a difference between types of free speech seems a little foolish to me.

By: wsg

wsg — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:33:35 -0800

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:43:10 -0800

making a difference between types of free speech seems a little foolish to me. Classification is crucial to defining importance. One form of free speech is not equal to all others. For instance, Stern being allowed to say "tit" on the air is not of equal importance as citizens being able to demonstrate their political beliefs at Party Conventions or WTO meetings. On a side note, Stern has no conviction. His blatherings are the cause of continued misogyny and down-right idiotism.

By: Loudmax

Loudmax — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:45:06 -0800

All the hoopla about Howard Stern and Janet Jackson is just the government's election year pandering to the right-wingers to create the illusion that they are doing something about "indecency" on the airwaves. Don't discount the notion that it isn't just pandering. They really do get hot and bothered about "indecency" over public airwaves. Of course, what they consider indecent may be very different from what the Metafilter readership considers indecent.

By: wsg

wsg — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:56:43 -0800

What Michael Savage says borders on hate speech at times, not simple indecency.

By: badstone

badstone — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:15:40 -0800

borders?!

By: klaatu

klaatu — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:38:19 -0800

Meanwhile... Godwin!

By: Bonzai

Bonzai — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:58:24 -0800

BlueTrain - I understand your point, but you couldn't be more wrong. The problem with classification is who does the classifying. No one gets to judge which speech is important and which speech isn't. No one can be trusted enough to be the judge. It's too important.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:11:46 -0800

Bonzai, what's the solution to classification? Complete freedom of speech because no one can be trusted enough to be judge? That's not realistic. The system is flawed because we are flawed. But to simply discard that very system in favor of a non-existent alternative is worse.

By: bshort

bshort — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:55:51 -0800

BlueTrain - you're being overly obtuse. All speech is protected. If you slander someone then you can be taken to court. If you endanger someone's life (shouting fire) then you can be prosecuted. In the case of Stern, he can say what he wants, just not if it's over the radio in a way that the FCC specifically prohibits (obscenity). Classification doesn't enter the picture.

By: willnot

willnot — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:12:38 -0800

I haven't heard Stern in a couple of years, so I'm not sure how he's framing it, but I thought it went > I started bad mouthing Bush after reading Frankin's book > The big radio conglomerate that owns almost all media and that supports Bush didn't like that > They used FCC decency complaints as an excuse to remove (and in effect silence) me. So, it's not really a problem that Stern can't say "tit". It's that politically motivated speech is easily squelched in a world with so much media control.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:27:20 -0800

All speech is protected. If you slander someone then you can be taken to court. If you endanger someone's life (shouting fire) then you can be prosecuted. All speech is not protected, as you clearly showed with your example. And that's the point. As I said above: One form of free speech is not equal to all others. And what I was objecting to was the following: No one can be trusted enough to be the judge.

By: deanc

deanc — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:31:08 -0800

I don't think that Stern's political views were an issue in the decisions that went against him. In part, he's self-interested, and while I have no doubt that his pro-war feelings were genuine, saying anything else would have alienated his audience. Now he realizes that his career is being directly attacked by FCC policies. The FCC isn't targetting Stern because of his political positions but because they now want to show that they can exert direct control over the airwaves. In part, the radio conglomeration has allowed the FCC to have much more power to regulate the contents of radio. We can come up with any number of theories about why this is, from a desire to promote XM to simply realizing that they are a more powerful force if they can regulate a few large companies that own almost all the spectrum than if they're responsible for regulating thousands of companies that all have their own stations that need to be monitored. The problem is that Stern is, to a degree, an independent personality rather than an employee of any single media syndicate. His listeners, unlike Rush's, are real swing-voters. They could go either way, and I'm not saying they will instinctively follow Stern, but they will certainly not have a lot of sympathy for an administration that is trying to cut them off from their chosen form of FM entertainment.

By: stevis

stevis — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:39:56 -0800

Bush didn't appoint Michael Powell to the FCC; Bill Clinton did Just a bit of background: Michael K. Powell, Republican, a member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), was appointed by President Bush to serve as chairman of the commission in January, 2001. Son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Michael had been an FCC commissioner since 1997. Powell replaces William Kennard, a Democrat and the agency's first Black chairman. Powell's appointment did not require Senate confirmation. Prior to coming to the FCC, he served as the chief of staff of the Antitrust Division in the Department of Justice.

By: zoogleplex

zoogleplex — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:35:02 -0800

30 Million Listeners is one great big voting bloc. And in case you haven't noticed, Stern can whip most of 'em into a frenzy. I'm certain he's changing some people's votes and that it may indeed affect the national election. I just can't listen to him anymore, tho I used to be a big fan. He's just too bloody whiny for me and not funny anymore. I miss Billy West.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:51:41 -0800

For instance, Stern being allowed to say "tit" on the air is not of equal importance as citizens being able to demonstrate their political beliefs at Party Conventions or WTO meetings. That is not at all evident. Though I agree entirely with your assessment of Stern. However, the enemy of my enemy is my friend (for the moment).

By: Bag Man

Bag Man — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:01:03 -0800

Those making the point that not all speech is protected is a good point, and legally correct for some very good reasons. However, the way in which the Bush administration is going about "cleaning" the airwaves of the words like "tits" and Janet Jackson visuals is part of larger plan which needs to stopped. Basically, Bush is using Powell to implement his Christian dogma as party of his overall culture war. I don't want to see the US become a country were the Bible is the proper legal standard for judging the legality of speech; the fact is Bush and Powell want do just this. Fighting to say the word "tits" on the air and getting Bush are both noble causes. Frankly I don't listen to Stern (but I do watch his E! show from time-to-time). I also think that most of humor is juvenile, stupid and appeals to the lowest common denominator in me. I would however, go to barricades for his right to chide Bush and say "tits" on the air. I still cannot agree with the article; Stern's affect (if any) will be minimal.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:27:45 -0800

I don't think that Stern's political views were an issue in the decisions that went against him. - deanc I disagree. It had everything to do with the decision. Think about it. Stern is broadcast on lots of different companies radio stations. Only Clear Channel (best buds of BushCo) gets slapped for this, and then only after they went practically begging for the spanking. And that isn't politically motivated? Huh!! If it were about standards of decency then surely the pill popping, lying, SOB Rush would have been banned long ago as I can imagine no more indecent and hateful speech ever being broadcast on the radio.

By: scalz

scalz — Thu, 03 Jun 2004 08:54:05 -0800

Let's make things clear by putting everything in it's proper order: First Howard started bad mouthing Bush and Republicans. Next, Clear Channel removes him from 6 of their stations, claiming his indecency. Then, the FCC fines happened. IS this politically motivated? Clear Channel has donated millions to the Republicans and none of the obscenity charges came until after Howard's recent Bush bashings.

By: Bag Man

Bag Man — Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:22:24 -0800

What scalz said. Stern has had a potty mouth for a long time. Why the sanctions now? It's an election year and Bush needs to his band of Christians and other social conservatives (Bush' hardcore base) reved up to go to the polls to make sure the ACLU and Dems don't make their kids gay and kill God. Gee, it's pretty much a no brainer. More evidence: Bono said "Fuck" on the air ago and the FCC ruled in Bono's favor and otherwise no even cared. It's now election time and many are questioning bush's leadership. Like I said, it's a brainer.

By: Bag Man

Bag Man — Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:23:08 -0800

Like I said, it's a brainer. Sorry: it's a no brainer.

By: chaz

chaz — Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:33:21 -0800

i agree, bagman, but just as clarification, bono said 'fucking" (or rather "fookin") in the context of "this is fuckin' brilliant". the ruling at the time was that fucking as a non-sexual adjective was permissable. Now they have reversed themselves and issued I believe a nominal fine.