Thurssday, 13 May 2004
Silencing Stern - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER - "The Shock Jock in Winter," was an aptly titled article that came across my desk recently. Its subject was the supposed crossroads where shock jock superstar Howard Stern finds himself. The crude, rude, and crass radio star will claim right-wing Bush supporters are after him, that despite popular support and massive ratings, he's the victim of a right-wing conspiracy. It seems that after Janet Jackson's boob business at the Super Bowl ignited congressional inquiries, Stern finds himself the subject of much attention and speculation. It's curious considering Stern has been doing the same schtick for almost two decades now.
One month ago, Clear Channel, one of the big conglomerates that own radio stations across the United States, dumped the Stern show after it was hit with massive six-figure fines for supposedly crass programs that aired over a year ago. (Stern, like Don Imus, is owned by Infinity, which is part of the Viacom conglomerate, but in some markets, Clear Channel ran the Stern program.) The Federal Communications Commission, which levied the fines, is run by Michael Powell, the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The FCC, like the Janet Jackson debacle, is cracking down on lewd programs on television and radio, doubtless in an effort to enforce decency on the airwaves and satisfy, to paraphrase Denny Boyd, the higher purpose parent groups who find it necessary to protect the public trust. Even Stern's archrival Imus, has lambasted the FCC's highhanded actions against Stern, probably because the I-Man could be stung by the FCC's enforcement down the line. Imus argues that this is a tremendously frightening precedent, and that the FCC mustn't be the arbiter of taste in American culture.
If you got to The Smoking Gun website at http://www.thesmokinggun.com, you'll find a transcript of the portion of the Stern show that the FCC has taken offence. Having read it, one concludes that it is highly sophomoric and moronic; however, I didn't find it personally offensive. To some, what was said is conceivably in poor taste and disgusting, but radios have dials and if you don't like the cut of Stern's jibes then you're able to listen to something else, or merely shut your wireless off.
The FCC may have a point in wishing to protect virginal ears from such nonsense; however, Imus is right that it is scary that the FCC could encroach on the first amendment so. Of course, you cannot have full-on hard-core pornography on primetime television, but what is offensive about the FCC's enforcement is the fact that they fine programs, not against a set standard of conduct, but rather from an investigation following a complaint brought by a viewer or listener. I suppose that if the commission finds a prima facie case that the complaint warrants something lewd or inappropriate, then the FCC would go about fining the culprits. The power of interpretation that invariably rests with the commission is obviously dangerous.
I'm an Imus fan, so naturally it would be easy to disparage Howard Stern. However, and not just because what's on the Imus show could be construed as offensive too, it is certainly not healthy for a democratic society that its entertainments are so influenced, if not controlled by the government. One isn't paranoid enough to think that big brother is lurking in every portion of society, but look at television now and see how producers and performers are taking such inane precautions, like on award shows or the reaction against the climate as displayed by Courtney Love's remarkable behaviour on a recent David Letterman broadcast.
Now, Stern is cultivating a campaign against those forces that he feels is attacking his well-being and his persona. He's imploring his listeners, some 10-15 million across the United States, to vote against Republicans like Bush, whom he thinks is behind this witch-hunt. The option for Stern like his former Viacom colleagues, Opie and Anthony (who were canned after asking their listeners to engage in sex acts in public places), is to go and entertain their fans on satellite radio. Though audiences for satellite radio are fewer, that is a possibility if the climate finds that Stern is unemployable. (Viacom and its chair Mel Karmazin however have stood by Stern.) Stern shouldn't settle for satellite radio, because these aren't market forces dictating Stern's decline, but external forces who simply abhor what Stern says and what he stands for. It is curious that the FCC and these higher purpose people are cracking down on Howard Stern now and with much gusto, considering Stern has been doing the same schtick and spouting the same jive for nearly two decades. To target him, all of a sudden is insanity, and probably politically motivated considering that the Culture War is alive and well in an ever so polarised United States.
What is perhaps worrisome is that a fifty-year old father still engages in discussion of ass munching, penis size and vaginal scent. However, that is what Viacom airs, and that's what made them a whole lot of money throughout the years. Nonetheless, the beacon of free speech must continue to be lighted, regardless the inanity spouted by people like Howard Stern. In the end, just as the local New York City ratings have displayed, this attack has only emboldened Howard Stern.
***
To put a Canadian perspective on the Stern mess for a sec, great hay was made at the recent Juno Awards that aired on CTV. Alanis Morissette appeared on stage in one segment sporting a flesh-coloured suit that implied that she was nude, at which point she began listing off the curse words that supposedly could be said on Canadian, but not American television. Miss Morisette and the audience in the arena and at home naturally applauded the supposed freedoms that Canadians have over our American counterparts. That'd all be fine and dandy, until one remembers that Howard Stern's program, which is probably as offensive as the skit Miss Morisette did, has been banned numerous times over the last decade by arbiters of Canadian standards for being too risqué and all that jive. Alanis Morissette's grandstanding skit made the Drudge Report and the crawl of television's cable news outlets, but Canadians should not be proud considering the double standard by applauding that which Alanis Morissette did, yet gutlessly banning Howard Stern because he is just too much of a politically incorrect jerk. What a jagged little pill that Canadians swallow.
-30-
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .