Did anyone hear Susan Sarandon's defense of Howard Stern today?

Heard on CBS Radio hourly news break | 2-27-2004 | self

[weegee]

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio show at 11am and heard a CBS news report of Susan Sarandon's take on Howard Stern being dropped/suspended from several Clear Channel radio stations.

She said that it was a "chill wind" and censorship. She also said that while she did not agree with Howard's radio program, that people could just turn it off.

It's a good thing I was not at a microphone at that moment, I sufferred a 20-second bout with Tourette's Syndrome calling Ms. Sarandon every name in the book.

For those who don't recall, she was pivotal in the movement to keep Dr. Laura's tv show off the air (because it "oppressed homosexuals"). Susan Sarandon was personally thanked on the main website ("Stop Dr. Laura", I believe).

I did not see her name in the headline of any of today's Howard Stern threads. I also did not see any quotes from her about Stern in the Google news server. I heard audio quotes from Ms. Sarandon and know her to be a lying liar by her words and deeds.

[weegee]

Since this is a vanity, I put it in "chat". Few people will see my message but at least it will be on the entertainment sidebars for a week or so (unless there are a lot more Passion articles posted to chat sidebars).

[AlbertWang]

You need to understand that Sue is smarter than the rest of us, so she will decide what we may or may not hear on the radio.

[grellis]

You just gotta believe that she's tickled about the recent spate of gay marriages. Now she can finally tie the knot with that shemale she's been shacking up with all these years!

[weegee]

Spawn of Satan?

[Dallas59]

She's just pissed cause she didn't get the starring role in Passion. "People" don't understand.

[Viking2002]

What that bug-eyed skank has to say is of no interest to me at all.

[Dutch Boy]

Is it censorship if the public forces the FCC to tighten up? The left can't stand it when the public rejects them. It's never them it's us.

[Viking2002]

I consider there to be a big difference between grassroots community standards and government censorship. It wasn't so much what Stern said, as it was the language he used to say it, and that's where the fight and rhetoric over the issue is getting ugly. It's the same way here - there are a thousand different ways of parsing a statement, using euphimisms, or using punctuation, in lieu of being flat-out crude or swearing like a dockside parrot. That's a standard that we all have in common, and can agree upon. Sure, people sometimes step over the line and say something offensive to others, but - and this is where common sense must take over - you have to differentiate between an honest misstep, and someone that is, by nature, a pig. Stern is a pig. He stopped being funny years ago, and all he has left in his empty little bag of tricks is to be offensive for the sake of 'shock value'. Someone like Doug 'The Greaseman' Tracht can be bawdy and risque on the air without making most people cringe (although his career took a torpedo for an off-color remark, too). It's all a matter of how you say it, and the perceived intent of it.

[tarmac]

I agree with you ... Howard Stern IS a pig. But Stern has always been a pig, and he was a pig when Clear Channel actively pursued the syndicated show. So what happened that they would bounce him now?

What happened is that Stern (a life-long Republican) returned from vacation in 180 mode, ripping on the Bush administration. Why? There is speculation that he was angered watching his boss and close personal friend Mel Karmizan, take a beating in the House hearing regarding the Super Bowl fiasco. So he turns on Bush and days later he's fired.

His firing, while not a direct form of government censorship, is almost certainly related to Clear Channel's sucking up to the FCC in pursuit of further deregulation gold. I'm sure that Howard the Pig would have been left to happily roll in the mud, had he stayed on the right side of the political fence.

[Viking2002]

Perhaps. Stern's ratings and syndication stats have been slipping, along with the essence of his content. There seems to be a whole war going on behind the scenes, and Stern is the Right's target du jour to counter what's happening to Rush. I don't condone what's happening to either, but neither will I equate what Stern does to what Rush does. To couch it all in '1st Amendment' rhetoric is to muddy the waters between community standards vs. free speech, which is exactly what the Left is attempting to do.

[tarmac]

I was unaware of any connection to Rush Limbaugh. I don't listen to him, or Howard Stern. But I did see this item yesterday:

"On Tuesday, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) wrote to Viacom president Mel Karmazin about Infinity's lack of action. "In light of Infinity's reported new indecency policy, and the supposed use of a substantial time delay, I do not understand how such a broadcast could be aired using an Infinity broadcast license," he wrote.

Stern said he expected Infinity to be forced to drop him by the threat of huge fines (Congress is considering raising fines for broadcast indecency to $500,000, up from the current maximum of $27,500) and possible loss of broadcast licenses."

I can't help to read that as a threat to censor, while the timing of the event is what leads me to wonder about the real reason for the action.