"BDK" wrote in message
...
In article telamon_spamshield-95D58A.20544514042004
@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, lid
says...
In article ,
"CentralNJBill" wrote:
Link didn't work but I might as well add my two cents. I don't
like most of
what Howard Stern does, but he has an opinion and adds to the
public
discourse. You may not agree with him, but squelching his
ability to voice
his opinion--an opinion that's apparently shared by a legion of
fans--diminishes all of us.
His ban by Clear Channel is just another reason why corporations
shouldn't
have the ability to own so many broadcast outlets.
He is a "shock jock." His show was never more than that so no
great loss.
I disagree, but it should be up to me/you if we ant to listen, not
the
FCC or the GOP. I personally find most of the preachers on tv/radio
more
revolting than anything on Howard or similar shows..
That's part of the fallacy in the whole pro-Stern argument on this.
It isn't a matter of choice for "you and me" because those
are -public- airwaves, and the public as a whole, through their
elected representatives, has a considerable say in what's appropriate
and what is not. In this culture, that mostly centers on
crude/graphic yakking about sex that's considered inappropriate for a
morning show.
Before this whole incident, Stern had been left alone to get away with
stuff that even -he- wouldn't have dreamed he could have 10-15 years
ago, and he's become accustomed, like a little kid, to doing whatever
he wants. So let's not make this out to be repression or a real First
Amendment issue. He's crying all the way to the bank.