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.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 27, 2004

Quote of the Day by kevao

[Calpernia]

Evening John!

[Revel]

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

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

Sounds good to me.

[JohnHuang2]

Backatya, my friend :-)

[Dasaji]

This was certainly a business decision on Clear Channels part. I couldnt believe how many idiots came into my dealership today spouting First Amendment Violations over this.

After about the 3rd one, my pat answer became this: I dont care how good a salesman you are, if what you do is going to irk customers and jeopardize my state licensing, youre outta here...exactly the message Stern is getting.

[Indy Pendance]

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

[quantim]

It appears that in a free-market society the market has spoken.

Got to love it.

[DoughtyOne]

Amen! Thanks for posting another great article John.

[JohnHuang2]

Welcome, bud

[GeronL]

For those who have never heard the Stern Show before...

"Take off your shirt lady"..."Nice boobs, let them me feel them"... "Now french kiss her while I rub your boobs and [privates]"... "We have to get rid of Bush"... "Tomorrow we have 3 lesbians!"

There that about sums it up.

[sully777]

I haven't listened to Howard Stern for 19 years BY CHOICE. Others have listened to Stern for 19 years BY CHOICE. This is America not the Soviet Union or Saudi Arabia, right? No one is holding a gun to our heads.

One day, in the not too distant future, food will be taxed on health content, familial corporal punishment will be outlawed, and saying/thinking certain politically incorrect thoughts will be illegal, punishable by fine and/or jail term.

Gloating over the loss of freedoms and usurption of constitutional rights for your neighbor is a myopic ignorance of your own loss.

[Qwinn]

Um, so listening to Howard Stern is now a Constitutional Right?

Qwinn

[DoughtyOne]

Heh heh heh, why'd you clean it up before recounting what takes place on his show? LOL

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would watch his show more than a few times. It's the same degenerate routine every day, day after day.

How many times can you listen to some guy acting like a 14 year old begging one woman or another to take their clothes off. Then he actually has the gaul to rate these women, as if he's anything to look at.

I wouldn't want anyone that I cared about to appear on his show.

[sully777]

Never said that! I suggest you reread my post.

[GeronL]

I only heard about a half an hour of it once...

[GeronL]

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.

[djreece]

Bump for a return to responsibility

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Gloating over the loss of freedoms and usurption of constitutional rights for your neighbor is a myopic ignorance of your own loss.

Howard Stern has every right in the world -- every constitutional right in the world -- to interview lesbian hooker heroin addicts, while simultaneously declaring that George W. Bush is the Anti-Christ.

Howard Stern enjoys NO constitutional right, however, to demand that Clear Channel Communications provide him the air time and/or bandwidth to do so, on their dime.

No "rights" have been "lost," here; no "freedoms "usurped."

[Dec31,1999]

There's a difference between freedom and license.

BTW, thanks for posting the wires through these years. I appreciate it.

[GeronL]

You don't have to thank him, its the only excersize he gets.

JUST KIDDING! Everybody appreciates his hard slog through the rank liberal jungle.