The daily Stern: The Concert for Free Speech
: Stern started the show reporting that his sources inside the FCC say that "Chairman Moa, I mean Chairman Powell" is freaked that he has a line into the agency and is worried that by fining Stern now -- and gtting him fired -- he would "make me into a martyr" and possibly swing the election against Bush with Stern's audience. He said the agency is said to be preparing its fine against Stern and that they might hold off until right before the election. Stern went after Bush again.
Remember that it's not just Stern who has sources saying he's about to the fined; the Wall Street Journal has sources saying the same thing.
: He had been joking last week about holding a "Million Moron March" on Washington.
But now he's starting to talk about having a series of concerts. Imagine that: The Concert for Free Speech.
That could be big: Every group that hates Bush... and Tipper Gore... and every hiphop group that gets bleeped... plus the MoveOn anti-Patriot-Act constituency... [added] plus critics of the digital copyright act... plus, of course, Clear Channel haters....
It wouldn't be just an anti-Bush event since much of what they'd protest about started before Bush and the current action in Congress to increase fines for "indecency" comes from Republicans and Democrats. Still, it would show some power. It would begin the backlash to the backlash to the Janet Jackson boob. I'd like to see that.
: UPDATE: Doc Searls, a most reasonable man (unlike me), says this today about Howard Stern:
Getting just enough signal from Howard this morning to hear a bit of his show while I get ready to go downstairs for breakfast. He's saying he has sources inside the FCC ("about three of them"), and that the FCC is holding off fining his show (for "notices of apparent liability") until the opportune political moment for the Bush administration. Something like that.
Cards on the table: I trust what Howard says about what's going on more than anybody else out there. Why? Not just because he's honest (that's part of his rap, as well as his rep), but because he knows, better than anybody else in the business, both how it works and what he's talking about. How else could he play the whole off the industry like an instrument for the past 25 years, getting laughs through a show that runs (sometimes as long as an epic movie), every day?
Also, his sense of the prevailing political winds, especially as they blow through the broadcast regulatory regime, is extraordinarily acute. We've been watching those winds blow through other regimes — on trade, on the environment, and so on. And now we're about to see it blow through broadcasting. Whether you like or hate the man, listen to what he's saying about the politics around broadcasting today. The deeper subject is what you're not supposed to be hearing. And not just on the Stern show, either.
: Blogger Brian Keene tells you how to
spam the FCC in defense of Stern.
: Here's TomPaine.com on Stern:
Because Stern is lowbrow, people who care about freedom of speech haven’t been defending him in his recent trial with Clear Channel. That’s a shortsighted mistake. Because when the largest owner of radio stations in the country—a company that sponsored pro-war rallies and whose employees advocated the burning of Dixie Chicks CDs after the band criticized President Bush—suspends a radio show indefinitely, Americans ought to get angry. No matter what they think about Howard Stern....
But we are living in a time in which the exposure of a pop singer’s breast prompts Congressional hearings and government investigations. As Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer warned a few months back, Americans "need to watch what they say." Stern, a longstanding FCC critic who has recently voiced his distaste for the president, obviously wasn’t careful enough. First Janet Jackson, a black woman, has become the object of the right’s cultural demonization. (Not Justin Timberlake, the pretty white boy.) Now it’s Howard Stern, a Jew. Who’ll be next?
There’s a case to be made that Howard Stern is far more progressive and subversive than you'd think if you had only heard about his show rather than having listened to it. If you disagree, I’d be happy to have a debate over Stern’s politics. But one thing I guarantee you: We won’t be having that debate on any radio station owned by Clear Channel. And no matter how much you dislike Howard Stern, you ought to dislike that even more.
No, I don't think Janet Jackson's race or Howard Stern's ethnic heritage has anything to do with this.
But let's be clear about this: If the FCC fines Stern and if Viacom pulls him off the air as a result, a political critic will be silenced. No matter where you stand, that should scare you, for it could be somebody you like next. [via
Rob]
: I get email from Myles Weissleder at MeetUp.com suggesting that Stern use his MeetUps -- already scheduled -- to mobilize his troops. He can be the Howard Dean of free speech:
We think if Howard understood that at his disposal right now -- he can have his army of supporters engaged and mobilized in his defense (vs being passive, sitting at their radios) he can prove his influence like none other.
Did you know there's a Meetup set up for Stern supporters to "to mobilize in defense of Howard's right to Free Speech"? ...
Chalk one up for the First Amendment: The right to
assemble to boost Howard's right of free speech.
: UPDATE: In the comments, Dauder summed up the problem of this incident -- and this era -- when he asked another commenter, "Does Howard offend you? If so, do you want him off the air?"
Being "offended" may by the height of victimhood of the age but it must not become the standard by which we gauge who may and may not speak.
I am offended by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. But they have a right to speak, even on my/our/public airwaves. Some are offended by Coulter others by Moore or Franken, but I don't want them shut up, certainly not by government. Some are offended by The Sopranos or Queer Eye or even Friends but if they are, then they should change the channel.
Offensiveness is not a crime and it damned well better not be. I don't need anyone -- especially not government -- to tell me what is offensive or to protect me from it; I can handle both jobs just fine myself, thank you.
This is the age of offense and that offends me.
: COMMENT UPDATE: I'm busy and don't have a chance to read every word, but I am glad to see an earnest dialogue going on in the comments as people grapple with the issues (more than each other) in what is a complicated and important discussion. The first few days of Stern comments were, I'll admit, rough as many folks vented on all sides of this. I will also admit that I was wondering about the fate of comments here. But I'm glad to see that, all in all, this has settled down to a good forum on the matter. I know that I frustrate some commenters by not answering every comment and argument and counterpoint; I both don't have the time and sometimes don't have the inclination and, besides, I like watching everybody else have a chance to have their say. It may not exactly be the Oxford Debating Society but today, at last, it's at least getting closer to that than to a street brawl and for that, I'm glad.
: Previous Stern posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
