On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:21:20 -0400, "CentralNJBill"
wrote:


"T. Early" wrote in message
...

"CentralNJBill" wrote in message
...
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.


Clear Channel's ownership of so many situations may in fact be a
problem for the industry, but I have no clue why you think Stern adds
to the "public discourse. " While Stern has hopped on the
Bush-bashing band wagon of late because he got his wrist slapped, his
show for the past several years has been based on sex and pretty
juvenile attempts to titillate his audience. Apparently, he finally
pushed the envelope too far by discussing preferences in anal sex and
"endowment" length. So if you want to listen to Stern, fine. But
let's not makes this an issue of Stern being punished for having
opinions that add to the public discourse, like he's doing anything
more than trying to boost ratings by being crude. The way he's trying
to wrap himself in the First Amendment is nauseating enough.


It wasn't that long ago that television broadcasters would only show Elvis
Presley from the waist up; the fact that he gyrated his hips while dancing
was considered crude and "a juvenile attempt to titillate his audience." We
look back at that example of censorship today and think it's the silliest
thing we've ever heard of.

I don't choose to listen to Howard Stern, but I shudder to think that there
are those who are deciding for us what we are and are not allowed to hear.
While Stern, for you, is a comfortable target, who is to say that others
more near and dear to your heart may be next? Often the first step on the
slippery slope toward autocratic rule is censorship--others usually
accomplished that by burning books, but maybe we need to look at what
cutting "shock jocks" means in the larger scheme of things?



I agree fully. As a parent though, I like to protect my children until
they are old enough to make decisions for themselves. I do the best I
can to censor what they see and hear as I see fit. Unfortunately, I
can't control what they see and hear 100 percent of the time. I don't
mind if they show garbabe like Howard Stern as long as it's kept to
hours that he is not easily seen or heard by my kids. This really
applies not so much to Stern but some of the newer daytime radio
shows. I can't remember the 2 guys that do one particular show. They
have a skit that is entitled "Drunk bitch Friday". One time they had a
hooker on the show. You could call in and ask her to do certain sexual
acts. You could then go to a website and watch her do these things.
This was on a Friday morning.

Tracy

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:21:20 -0400, "CentralNJBill"
wrote:


"T. Early" wrote in message
...

"CentralNJBill" wrote in message
...
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.


Clear Channel's ownership of so many situations may in fact be a
problem for the industry, but I have no clue why you think Stern adds
to the "public discourse. " While Stern has hopped on the
Bush-bashing band wagon of late because he got his wrist slapped, his
show for the past several years has been based on sex and pretty
juvenile attempts to titillate his audience. Apparently, he finally
pushed the envelope too far by discussing preferences in anal sex and
"endowment" length. So if you want to listen to Stern, fine. But
let's not makes this an issue of Stern being punished for having
opinions that add to the public discourse, like he's doing anything
more than trying to boost ratings by being crude. The way he's trying
to wrap himself in the First Amendment is nauseating enough.


It wasn't that long ago that television broadcasters would only show Elvis
Presley from the waist up; the fact that he gyrated his hips while dancing
was considered crude and "a juvenile attempt to titillate his audience." We
look back at that example of censorship today and think it's the silliest
thing we've ever heard of.

I don't choose to listen to Howard Stern, but I shudder to think that there
are those who are deciding for us what we are and are not allowed to hear.
While Stern, for you, is a comfortable target, who is to say that others
more near and dear to your heart may be next? Often the first step on the
slippery slope toward autocratic rule is censorship--others usually
accomplished that by burning books, but maybe we need to look at what
cutting "shock jocks" means in the larger scheme of things?



I agree fully. As a parent though, I like to protect my children until
they are old enough to make decisions for themselves. I do the best I
can to censor what they see and hear as I see fit. Unfortunately, I
can't control what they see and hear 100 percent of the time. I don't
mind if they show garbabe like Howard Stern as long as it's kept to
hours that he is not easily seen or heard by my kids. This really
applies not so much to Stern but some of the newer daytime radio
shows. I can't remember the 2 guys that do one particular show. They
have a skit that is entitled "Drunk bitch Friday". One time they had a
hooker on the show. You could call in and ask her to do certain sexual
acts. You could then go to a website and watch her do these things.
This was on a Friday morning.

Tracy


Yeah, on a weekday morning where for about 9 months of the year, they
would be under the direct control of their parents and teachers after
they get up, eat breakfast and go to school. The show ends about 10:30-
11:00 most days, 9/11 being an exception. Now during the summer, there
may be more of an opportunity to listen, but most kids wouldn't like it,
after all they have heard all the "indecent words" before, at school.
Where I first heard them.

Personally, I can do without two type of guests on Howard.

1. The group or singer who Howard sucks up to, like Sheryl Crow, or
James Taylor. Doesn't even matter if I like them as a performer, unless
they are funny, I don't listen to them..
2. The girls that come on and don't really do anything, and don't really
say anything either. Just lousy guests.

My favorite stuff on the show is the cast fighting with each other, and
Howard's parents or sister or some friend giving him crap about
something. Hardly indecent, usually not even really racy at all.

Anyone who thinks that Howard is all boobs and stuff either has never
listened (my guess), or ignores the other 3+ hours of the show and finds
one thing a half hour or so long to get their panties in a bunch over.

BDK

"BDK" wrote in message
...


My favorite stuff on the show is the cast fighting with each other,
and
Howard's parents or sister or some friend giving him crap about
something. Hardly indecent, usually not even really racy at all.

Anyone who thinks that Howard is all boobs and stuff either has
never
listened (my guess), or ignores the other 3+ hours of the show and
finds
one thing a half hour or so long to get their panties in a bunch
over.

BDK

I listened to the show pretty regularly--at least until he turned into
a whiner over this Clear Channel thing--and I agree with you that the
cast and family interactions are the best part of the show. But the
"boobs and stuff" -is- a regular and consistent part of the show, and
sometimes it occupies a lot more than a half hour. The other point
is that nobody--FCC, Clear Channel, etc.--came down on him for doing
the boobs and stuff for a long, long time and showed no intention of
doing so until he finally, apparently, stepped over the line into anal
sex and other stuff.

Again, the airwaves do not belong to Stern, and it's not really
relevant what the bulk of the show is about if he violates public
standards for even a portion of the show. If the argument is that
there should be no standards for content -at all,- then that's another
discussion. But as long as there are, some guy who's been able to
do -exactly- what he wants for years and make a bundle at it doesn't
get much sympathy from me just because he wants to talk about sex in
even more graphic detail and the big bad FCC won't let him.