Good riddance to Stern

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, February 27, 2004 | Joseph Farah

[JohnHuang2]

Good riddance to Stern

---

Posted: February 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Howard Stern is a filthy, profane, vulgar, obscene disgusting pig.

He shouldn't be on the radio. He should be in the zoo.

Three cheers for Clear Channel Communication's decision to pull his show off the air temporarily. It's late, after all these years of smut-peddling on the radio, but the decision should be applauded.

It's a smart move. It's the right thing to do. It's a good business decision. Anyone who believes in right and wrong ought to know that a slimebucket like Stern has no place on the public airwaves.

In good conscience, I can't even describe adequately what Stern said on his program that got him suspended. All I will say is it had to to with the "n" word, anal sex, the size of certain parts of the male anatomy, etc. You get the idea – the usual Howard Stern, over-the-top, shock-jock antics.

It might make short-term sense for a company to pollute the air and water rather than dispose of waste responsibly. But, in the long term, it makes more sense not to kill your customers.

In the same way, our popular culture is becoming a moral cesspool, polluted by the likes of Stern, Janet Jackson, Viacom, CBS and a thousand other irresponsible clowns and corporations that will do whatever they can get away with for shock value, ratings and short-term advantage. Long term, it makes sense to police oneself in matters of media decency, too. Moral toxicity can be as lethal to a society as air and water pollution – maybe more so.

Let me make something very clear: Howard Stern was pulled from Clear Channel stations and warned to clean up his act by one broadcasting company. He wasn't kicked off radio by the Federal Communications Commission.

This is a case where a company is exercising good judgment and corporate responsibility to make the right call. This is a story of a broadcaster policing itself. What's wrong with that?

This is not a censorship issue. It's responsible decision by a broadcaster about the programming it offers. Yes, the Federal Communications Commission is beginning to take seriously its mission of policing the airwaves. Yes, I take a backseat to no one when it comes to fear of government.

But the Stern controversy is not about government's heavy hand.

If it were up to me, we could run the entire federal government on 10 percent of what we spend today – and our country would be healthier, safer, freer.

The truth is we will be a lot closer to that goal when more individuals and companies in this country start making good, responsible, self-governing choices – as Clear Channel belatedly did with Howard Stern.

There are many reasons to worry about the government's role in broadcasting. There are attempts to bring back the fairness doctrine. I agree some politicians would like to use that kind of legislation shut down the free flow of information on talk radio.

But matters of decency and obscenity are not the same as political speech. We should never make that mistake. Those of us with children understand how difficult it is to protect them, to shelter them, to preserve their innocence in today's media environment.

Clear Channel made the right decision.

---

[Mr. Mojo]

Amazing, Dr. Laura isn't broadcast in NYC? If I'm not mistaken, she has the most listened to radio show in the nation .....or at least in the top 3.

[yankeedame]

I've heard this "no one is holding a gun to your head" stuff before.....

I am tired of having to limit my choices so people like you can live out your perversions or fantacies.....

for once, let it be YOU GUYS that have to change the channel.....
=============

Amen!!

We've gone so far in protecting the individual from society that we can no longer protect society from the individual.

[NYCVirago]

Amazing, Dr. Laura isn't broadcast in NYC? If I'm not mistaken, she has the most listened to radio show in the nation .....or at least in the top 3.

She sure is, but she's not aired here, not even on WABC anymore.

[Tamzee]

The pendulum is swinging to the right, let's hope it gets stuck there.

And a big bump to that :-)

[bond7]

For years I've been shocked every time I stumbled onto Stern's show, wondering how in the world we got to this point. So goodbye, Howard, you're OUT of Orlando.

I heard a debate on the subject today - forget which show. A knowledgeable person, (I believe he was an attorney), said this is absolutely not censorship because Stern can go onto cable or whatever - just not the free public airways. Sounds just about right.

[oceanperch]

BIG BUMP

[LibertarianInExile]

I agree that Clear Channel had the right to do this. What I disagree with was that everyone here seems to think that the airwaves are some public thing, that they shouldn't have been privatized a long time ago. The FCC, and the feds in general, hold power and properties that government shouldn't in a country where information is supposed to be free and the people are supposed to own property individually, not collectively, and not subject to government approval of those property rights every year. What happens when Hillary's FCC starts objecting to racism, sexism, and 'homophobia,' and threatens fines against Clear Channel for those? Will you all be dancing about Rush's removal? I bet.

So pardon me if I rain on your picnic by pointing out that what goes around, comes around. It's just a matter of time until the next swing of the headsman's axe to the left with the FCC deciding what's decent and what ain't, and next time the left gets in there, they'll be pissed at being out of power so long.

This was our chance to remove government intervention for good. Instead we make it easier for the Left to get involved. The Fairness Doctrine was peanuts compared to what will come next. Good move, Mr. Powell.

[Fighting Irish]

Good stuff, John...as usual.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

No one has lost a Constitutional right. A company has decided not to carry a show on 6 radio stations that it owned. Their choice.

Under pressure from the government.
No one "lost a Constitutional right" under the Stamp Act, either.

Unless, of course, you support government coercion.

[Robert_Paulson2]

correctomundo.

[Fledermaus]

It's Rush, then Hannity, then I think Dr. Laura. O'Reilly isn't too far behind.

[alnick]

You do realize that until recent years people who broadcast over the public airwaves were required to meet very strict decency standards, don't you? What's happening here is a correction of the slippery slope we've been on for the past 20 or so years.

[Fledermaus]

You say you understand it was Clear Channel's decision but then go into a romp about leftist taking over the FCC.

Make up your mind.

[Agnes Heep]

... and a thousand other irresponsible clowns and corporations that will do whatever they can get away with for shock value ....

We should be happy conservatives aren't into that kind of thing.

[OldFriend]

But but I did hear Sean Hannity say he listens to Stern and really likes the show.

Seems it's okay to bash the President but when it comes to toeing the line that Rush draws, well then........having your own opinion just doesn't count.

[Radioactive]

I would never say that no one should never be able to hear Stern or his ilk.

They will always be able to hear him if they want if they pay for it.......Stern on pay to hear like XM or Sirus is ok----just don't use the PUBLIC airwaves to push his brand of trash.

The free on air broadcasts are too easliy heard by children.

[kittymyrib]

This issue once again proves the ignorance our citizens have of the Constitution. The First Amendment protects the right of POLITICAL speech, or at least it did until the Supreme Court ruled that the Campaign Finance Reform law is constitutional. The First Amendment never gave everyone in the US the right to say every filthy thing on the public airwaves. Stations have licenses and they must meet the requirements to keep those licenses. Broadcasting is NOT a constitutional right. The companies who hold those licenses have every right to fire employees who do not comply with the license requirements. I saw the clip of Clear Channel's CEO testifying before Congress yesterday in which he said that as the company president and the father of a nine-year-old girl, he has the responsibility to monitor what goes out on Clear Channel stations. He is totally correct. If you disagree, don't listen to Clear Channel stations (Rush, Glenn Beck, Hannity etc). They won't miss you.

[sakic]

No one has lost a Constitutional right. A company has decided not to carry a show on 6 radio stations that it owned. Their choice.

It's not their choice. The FCC is fining them millions of dollars for broadcasting Stern and they are bowing to governmental pressure.

If Kerry wins, and a new FCC starts fining conservative broadcasters, I'll be curious to hear your feelings on the subject.

[LibertarianInExile]

And what will come next is a return to liberal control, eventually. Your decency standards will become theirs, and what they consider indecent you shrug at, while what you consider indecent they laugh.

If you'd only realize you sow what you reap, you'd be for loosening the FCC controls entirely and letting the 'public airwaves' be sold off as private property already. Or do you really believe that practically GIVING this airspace away to major corporations is in the public interest? Wouldn't it be nice if you had one favorite radio station, the same FM radio station, that you could listen to as you drove coast to coast? Wouldn't it be great if you could see webcasts of your favorite TV shows? You'll never have either one as long as the FCC is 'controlling transmission.'

If you really think that the FCC and 'decency standards' are a positive overall, why not have a similar vetting board for on newspapers, magazines, and books? How about DVDs and computer programs? Surely these media are equally important to the decency of our nation?

[Prince Charles]

Howard Stern is a filthy, profane, vulgar, obscene disgusting pig.

Bttt.