There's been so
much written about Stern in the past few weeks that I
feel belated to even write a passing comment let alone
an entire entry on the subject...but I keep
waiting for someone to hit the nail on the head and no
one has. Amazingly, although I love Stern - I disagree
with him on so many levels when it comes to this whole
situation. Driving me nuts. Three main things
I just have to tackle: Bandwagon Stern, Indecent
Stern, and Defeatist Stern.
First off: Mr.
Bandwagon concerning Bush. It absolutely floors me
that Stern at 50 years old, could sit there and be
hoodwinked by the propoganda machine that is american
politics and blindly support the war and bash the
French for their opposition yet when anything starts
to effect him directly he completely turns. Even going
against all earlier statements towards Bush and just
wildy throwing full support to Kerry. Self-serving is
one thing, and we all are to a point, but when you're
in his position speaking to 15 million people a day,
it holds a bit more responsibility. Period. It just
sucks to see someone flip allegiances so
drastically.
On a sidenote this
whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" thing is just
wearing thin. Not because it doesn't have merit, but
because we knew there weren't any before. The
inspectors made it quite clear they found nothing and
felt there was nothing yet the US went ahead. It's
also fairly obvious that the bigger countries that
backed us did it for their own financial gains for the
rebuilding contracts. So where's the suprise when we
don't find any? All these "actors" making the
"WMD" jokes NOW are just as opportunistic as the
countries that backed the war. It's all frustrating as
hell to me because both sides are sheep. Which is why
Stern's assessment that Kerry is a "Great guy" just
makes me throw my hands up again. I completely
understand him wanting Bush out, and the only guy to
do it is Kerry, but don't be so naive to think that
Kerry isn't of the same cloth. Again, why Stern at 50
years old can't understand the basic political system
is beyond me.
So fine, Stern is
self-serving and easily swayed to loyalty. That being
said there is the next issue at hand here of the
"self-censorship" that is now going on because of
this new wave of political correctness sweeping the
nation. The new "Indecency Act" passed in the House
and about to be voted on in the Senate actually is a
really big deal. It essentially makes it so vague that
in-house censors have to hit the "dump" button every
few minutes on some shows because they have
NO CLUE where the indecency law is. It got to the
point on Stern's show where the censor allowed some
"Fart noises" but had to cut away on others because of
the LENGTH OF THE FART.
I am
going to post this indecent, illegal fart
with full warning to all who click this
button: YOU MAY BE OFFENDED.
Heh. Anyway, this creates an atmosphere
where you can't really create because you
have no idea what's decent anymore.
Something that's truly been going on in
the network television world for decades
but you have to realize talk radio is a
different beast. Not only is it live, but
the majority of the time it is unscripted.
So is Stern
indecent for public airwaves in the morning? I'd have
to say he has pushed every single line as far as
humanly possible and the majority of the community
probably feels it belongs at night. Just like his E!
show is on at 10 PM...it stands to reason his talk
show at present is too much for kids in the morning.
Just because I'm not offended, or I think there
are more indecent things on the nightly news, doesn't
change that fact. The problem of course is how
you define it. And the vagueness within the new
Indecency Act is absolutely outrageous. If you're
gonna levy $3,000,000 fines it needs to be
CRYSTAL CLEAR. As it stands you have in-house
censors with itchy trigger fingers because there's NO
DEFINITION. Quick background on all this from a radio
perspective:
For years now,
because it's a commercial medium, the self-censorship
was understood by the creators and owners alike.
Without revenue, there is no show. But this is where
Stern changed everything. He became #1 doing the
tasteless bathroom humor he does, and although he lost
advertisers early on, today? No advertisers are
pissed. They're clamoring to get on his show. The FCC
had no real mandate to go after him because the
standards of the community obviously support his show.
Their hands were tied...
...then along came
the boob. And inconceiveably CBS received
TWO-HUNDRED THOUSAND letters. Not only is that more
than any single event in the history of radio and
television, to my knowledge there's never been more
than 10,000 angry letters for one event. So nearly a
1/4 million is MASSIVE. So massive that the
FCC got their "mandate" and it became a
greenlight for them to clean up EVERYTHING. And btw,
lest you all forget - I thought the boob was
completely inappropriate for the Superbowl and I
supported the fines levied against CBS. It's about
choice, and although it didn't offend me (except as an
artist as it was just stupid), everyone has the right
to expect to not see PLANNED nudity during the
Superbowl. The word "indecent" is too subjective as
the violence you find on the nightly news is just as
"indecent" if not moreso than a woman's breast, but
that's really beside the point. It was planned, it was
inappropriate and CBS got what it deserved for
not having the normal 7 second delay on their
telecast. Duh.
So 1,000 words
later, the thing that really irks me about Stern:
Defeatist Stern. He has said point blank for the past
2 weeks that when this bill gets passed in the Senate
he's quitting. He can't do his show anymore, he's
getting censored at every corner for stupid fart jokes
or talking about sex and he's done. The religious
right has won. The fines once this bill passes are
outrageously high, $500,000 per offense per station
with a $3,000,000 maximum per day. All this on what
someone else deems offensive. Pretty difficult ground
to work with. But this is what Stern doesn't get. He
has a responsibility as the target of this, to fight
it. No other broadcaster has the power to do it but
him. Period. If I were still in radio, I'd be
going through the same shit but have no way to
stand-up against the system. Howard? All he has to do
is fight the fine. Which amazingly - he's already
gotten! Friday morning he got fined for a conversation
he had THREE YEARS ago that involved
describing a sexual act. He was fined the then maximum
of $27,000. In defense on his show Friday he played a
clip from Oprah in which a woman described what
"tossing your salad" meant. Incredibly while
attempting to play the Oprah clip, he was censored
again. LOL. He couldn't even play a clip from Oprah
because his in-house censors deemed it too risky and
they can't afford the fines. Stern pleaeded with them
to let it go through because it's a clip of Oprah and
if they fine him, they have to fine her which would
end all this shit REALLY quick. Most likely no
one would get fined, but the censors still wouldn't
let it on. And for the first time today I heard a
tiny bit of fight in him. Like he knew he could beat
this...
...but he's still
quitting the moment that bill passes in the Senate. It
has of course occured to me that we're all naive to
believe him - he'll never voluntarily turn off his mic
to 15,000,000 people, but either way he's whined about
quitting over this for weeks so he'e either a quiter
or a liar. Heh. Pick one.
I guess I'm just
pissed because there's such an obvious stand to make
here and he won't put his ass on the line to do it. He
can change all of this. He could get this to the
Supreme Court where we could once and for all define
what the hell "indecent" means. Hell I'm
scrambling every day of my life to figure out what the
hell direction to "fight" in and he has it
HANDED to him on the biggest stage in the world
and he's just gonna lay down? That just says so much
about his character.
Then again, he may
be intending to fight this all along and just needs to
hear his listeners say "you're wonderful, you can do
it Howard" to feed his insecurities and push him to do
it. I've certainly been in his shoes in that vein.
Especially in radio. It's funny this has all made me
think of all the "indecent things" I've done on
my show. Take for example "Family Skills Competition".
In which we had two women have a "pissing for
distance" competition live on the air on the
street outside our studios. They both laid spread
eagle and tried to see who could get it to go the
furthest to win Phantom Menace tickets. If that's not
indecent, I don't know what the hell is. Of course in
my defense, it was 2 AM and none of this new
legislation effects 10PM - 6AM, for good reason
really. Kids "should" be asleep during those hours.
But as you all might remember as well, Joe and
I were going to do the new late show together at
like 7 PM starting in January 2000. One can only
imagine.
Now, in the middle
of all this I get an email from a longtime
supporter, saying that the Stern show is having
open-auditions to replace Stuttering John. "You have
to do it! You'd be perfect!" (sigh). I know for
publicity's sake it can't hurt, but what's the point
of putting energy into something, you DONT want? I
don't want to be back in radio, I certainly don't
want to be the idiot whipping boy who is forced to
give assanine and demeaning celebrity interviews, and
how could I work for someone I publically railed
for being a weasel? If Stern was fighting the FCC,
honest-to-GOD I would quit everything I was
doing and help him run his website, or produce
political parody songs, or something just to make sure
his side was heard. Although I believe there are
some lines that need to be drawn - the current bill is
just ludicrous. So I may produce some parody songs and
send them to the show with my resume IF and only IF he
decides to push this to the supreme court. That is
something I can get behind.
But I won't lower
myself to the level of Stuttering John or the other
band of idiots on that show (Artie and Robin not
included) in its current state. It's funny, he
actually brought up how much money John made as an
inticement. Don't you read this journal? Ever? The
second I choose to make money a goal, the dream is
over. It's like the
"hand-shaking"
incident in 2002. Had I known he was a psycho drunk
that would lead to the death of J-Dog, of course I
would've. But that situation is exactly the moments in
life that you have to take stands. People that
arrogant and disrespectful burn bridges throughout
their life and I was one of them. Only in LA is it
considered a sin to disregard ANYONE for fear
they may help you down the road. If I believed
that I wouldn't have written this entry.
Man, 2,000 words.
Guess who's a former talk show host?
