Stern the new anti-Limbaugh?

J

John Reynolds

Ecce homo
Veteran
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/li.../could_sterns_anti_bush_rants_shock_the_vote/

Since the FCC crackdown on media "indecency" in the wake of Janet Jackson's Nipplegate incident, Stern has transformed his morning variety show into a rabidly anti-Bush talk forum. Every weekday, he has been devoting hours of his broadcast (locally on WBCN-FM, 104.1) to impassioned criticism of President Bush and support of Senator John Kerry. Railing tirelessly against the president, Stern has been attacking Bush's yoking together of church and state, the legitimacy of his National Guard service, his use of Sept. 11 imagery in his campaign ads, his stances regarding First Amendment rights, his handling of Iraq, and his stands on gay marriage and stem-cell research.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't see the connection between Ms. Nasty, the FCC, and the Bush administration.
 
In what sense?

Ms. Jackson (if you're nasty) got fined by the FCC, and Bush supposedly controls the FCC, to enact his fundie religion.

Of course, what it really boils down to is Stern had some pretty offensive shows that ended up getting fined by the FCC. So he's using his talk show to compaign for Kerry.

I'm more and more disgusted with how media is being used as a campaign tool, on all sides.

Stern (apparently) is getting around campaign finance by using his show as a campaign platform. Rush does the same thing.

Can't we just get entertainment and news, rather than agenda from these places?
 
Sure, to avoid the 'offensive' stuff he's getting fined for.

But that still leaves the question as to whether or not these pulpits should be used for campaigning.
 
RussSchultz said:
Sure, to avoid the 'offensive' stuff he's getting fined for.

But that still leaves the question as to whether or not these pulpits should be used for campaigning.
Click to expand...

To me it would be like campaigning on prohibition. I just don't see the FCC standards remaining intact. I honestly have a major problem with the ESRB, FCC and the like. I see their standards as relative and subjective lacking moral absolutes by which to make their determinations. I am curious to know whether Americans feel the FCC are manditory.
 
RussSchultz said:
Ms. Jackson (if you're nasty) got fined by the FCC, and Bush supposedly controls the FCC, to enact his fundie religion.
Click to expand...

Stern, appearently, has yet to come to the very true realization that Michael Powell (FCC chairmen, son of Colin Powell), who he bashes religiously, was nominated by Bill Clinton in '97. But since when have facts ment anything to Stern, it's far easier just to say that it's all because of underhanded dealings and family connections.
 
kyleb said:
i'd imagine that Stern realizes that, and also realize that it is irrelevent.
Click to expand...

How so? I've heard him on many a mornings critisize Bush for pushing his agenda and doing it threw Michael Powell, who got the position because of his relationship to the Secretary of State. I'd assume that the fact that he was nominated for the FCC by a democratic President kind of puts this idea that Bush is implimenting a vast, right-wing, conservative, bible led conspiracy to kill free-speech in a different light. Or, where am I wrong?
 
you are wrong in assuming that the fact he was nominated by Clinton has any relevence to the nature of what he is doing under Bush.
 
kyleb said:
you are wrong in assuming that the fact he was nominated by Clinton has any relevence to the nature of what he is doing under Bush.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd think one would be forced to assume that an Administration does the necessary "homework" on a person before they nominate them for office and would select a person in whom they trust to lead the Commission in a manner which is analogous to their beliefs.

Just as with Supreme Court Justices. So, would I be wrong to assume that when Clinton nominated Ruth Ginsburg, he nominated someone who he saw as a fit leader, able minded individual and somone of consistent and analogous beliefs?

Or do I assume that he nominated just anyone who is easiy manipulated by the current administration? Unlike your beliefs, I don't see this as a massive conspiracy or coup and turning of individuals to the Conservative position. Rather I see Stern as a pest who the FCC has been trying to gte rid of for years...
 
fair enough, and since you were so kind as to say you are sorry i figure i should take the time to explain my beliefs. i don't see this as any conspiracy, but rather simply that Michael Powell has found new lenience to enforce his ideals under the current administration. i am not a fan of Stern; but, i am a fan of freedom of speech and much more so that the Bush administration or Michael Powell have shown to be.
 
kyleb said:
fair enough, and since you were so kind as to say you are sorry i figure i should take the time to explain my beliefs. i don't see this as any conspiracy, but rather simply that Michael Powell has found new lenience to enforce his ideals under the current administration. i am not a fan of Stern; but, i am a fan of freedom of speech and much more so that the Bush administration or Michael Powell have shown to be.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, the FCC are bringing up stuff from 2001, case in point would be the Mancow show based in Chicago where they played an edited joke song about Bill Clinton. Bleeps and all, but he's still get fined for it. This admininstration has totally gutted a lot of constitutional rights (along with Patriot Acts I & II).
 
If you were Howard Stern, who spent his entire career trying to be "outspoken" and you got a boot from a station, would you:

A) Admit that your act got tired and let it go quietly.
OR
B) Try to blame a vast conspiracy while trying to make yourself into an unjustly prosecuted 1st Amendment martyr figure?
 
Geeforcer said:
If you were Howard Stern, who spent his entire career trying to be "outspoken" and you got a boot from a station, would you:

A) Admit that your act got tired and let it go quietly.
OR
B) Try to blame a vast conspiracy while trying to make yourself into an unjustly prosecuted 1st Amendment martyr figure?
Click to expand...

well for a ) to happen he would have to drop out of the number one spot. It never happened.
 
I like Howard Stern, on occassion (not for long). When he grills strippers it can be funny sometimes.

I also loathe the FCC censorship.

Having said that, it seems to me theres been a lot of actors/comedians/newstypes who are engaging in political discourse recently on talk shows.

Now would it really be so hard to ask for political commentators who are at least moderately educated in political science, and economy? The type that can be found on NPR or Cspan?

Everytime I see Mel Gibson, Sean Penn, Maher et al start crusading about such and such a cause, I feel the distinct need for sleep start to overwhelm me.

The dumbing down of politics in media, is really getting worse and worse (it started it seems to me in the mid to late eighties). The fundamental tenets of democracy are that the electorate must be knowledgable about what they vote for. But when all they get is crap, rhetoric, wrong facts, conspiracy theories, and simplistic models thrown at them day to day by the boob tube, one wonders where the country is headed.
 
Fred said:
The dumbing down of politics in media, is really getting worse and worse (it started it seems to me in the mid to late eighties). The fundamental tenets of democracy are that the electorate must be knowledgable about what they vote for. But when all they get is crap, rhetoric, wrong facts, conspiracy theories, and simplistic models thrown at them day to day by the boob tube, one wonders where the country is headed.
Click to expand...
When in our history has not the electorate been dumb? When you allow anyone to vote, youll have idiots making a big chunk of the people who go out and vote. ;) Nothing has changed since the founding of this country. Please remember that race bating was a political tool for a long time too.

later,
epic
 
kyleb said:
no need to wonder, it is clearly headed towards fascism.
Click to expand...
Hmm that interesting, I dont think we have been freer to do what we like since the dawn of govermnent. What I think confuses people is the distinction between your rights and your priviliges. ;)

later,
epic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top