Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ebert's pro-stern article
Suntimes ^ | 04/16/04 | Roger Ebert

Posted on 04/16/2004 5:18:24 AM PDT by Monty22

Like millions of Americans, I listen to Howard Stern on the radio in the mornings. I think he is smart, quick and funny. Sometimes he is ''offensive,'' but to be quite frank, I am not ''offended,'' because what he says falls within the realm of words and subjects that, as an adult, I have long been familiar with even without the tutelage of Stern.

Unlike millions of Americans, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. One reason for that is that I am usually at the movies when he's on the air -- an alternative I urge on his listeners. Limbaugh does offend me when I monitor him, because he has cheapened political discourse in this country with his canned slogans and cheap shots. Once you call a feminist a ''feminazi,'' what else is there to say about feminism?

Of course you may disagree with me and prefer Limbaugh. I may disagree with you and prefer Stern. That is our right as Americans. What offends me is that the right wing, secure in its own right to offend, now wants to punish Stern to the point where he may be forced off the air.

The big difference, of course, is that Stern's offenses usually have to do with sex and language, while Limbaugh's have to do with politics. Stern offends the puritan right, which doesn't seem to respect the American tradition of freedom of expression.

You don't have to listen to Stern. Exercising the same freedom, I am Limbaugh-free. And please don't tell me that Stern must be fined and driven off the radio because he uses the ''public airwaves.'' If they are public, then his listeners are the public, and we want to listen to him on our airwaves. The public airwaves cannot be held hostage to a small segment that wants to decide what the rest of us can hear -- especially now that President Bush supports consolidating more and more media outlets into a few rich hands.

But what if a child should tune in? Call me old-fashioned, but I believe it is the responsibility of parents to control their children's media input. The entire nation cannot be held hostage so that everything on the radio is suitable for 9-year-olds. Nor do I know of any children who want to listen to Stern, anyway; they prefer music.

It is a belief of mine about the movies, that what makes them good or bad isn't what they're about, but how they're about them. The point is not the subject but the form and purpose of its expression. A listener to Stern will find that he expresses humanistic values, that he opposes hypocrisy, that he talks honestly about what a great many Americans do indeed think and say and do. A Limbaugh listener, on the other hand, might not have guessed from campaigns to throw the book at drug addicts that he was addicted to drugs and required an employee to buy them on the street.

But listen carefully. I support Limbaugh's right to be on the radio. I feel it is fully equal to Stern's. I find it strange that so many Americans describe themselves as patriotic when their values are anti-democratic and totalitarian. We are all familiar with Voltaire's great cry: ''I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.'' Ideas like his helped form the emerging American republic. Today, the Federal Communications Commission operates under an alternative slogan: ''Since a minority that is very important to this administration disagrees with what you say, shut up.''


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: artielang; bababooey; barf; bush; bushhaters; censorship; ebert; elephantboy; ericnorris; fines; frednorris; garydellabate; garytheretard; hollywoodleft; howardstern; jackiemartling; jokeland; kcarmstrong; kingofallmedia; liberalhypocrisy; limbaugh; mamamonkey; mediabias; movies; pigvomit; quiversalife; robinopheliaquivers; robinquivers; rogerebert; rush; rushbashing; stern; talkradio; tatatoothey; waaaaaa; wendytheretard; wnbc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: tahiti
This concept that just because a private property owner makes their product or service available to all citizens, this some how makes it a "public" product

You got it wrong. The radio station does not pay a cent for its use of the bandwidth. The "public" is in a sense subsidizing these owners

If the bandwidth was privatized, one or two corporate entities could end up owning all of the frequency range (a finite thing) . This was deemed "not in the Public's interest" (a reasonable regulatory impulse, IMO).

Therefore , in the same way that Public untilities can not raise rates whenever they wish, radio station owners have to abide by rules dictating "decorum". Agree or not (and you can always vote the Executive Branch officeholders, who assign FCC board members, out), this is not "un Constitutional".

21 posted on 04/16/2004 7:23:15 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
If the bandwidth was privatized, one or two corporate entities could end up owning all of the frequency range (a finite thing).

So it is your opinion that all finite commodities should be doled out by government.

(A period, not a question mark. You have left yourself no wiggle room for any answer other than agreement that this is the logical corrolary to your statement.)

22 posted on 04/16/2004 7:40:54 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
all finite commodities should be doled out by government

I didnt say that ! (note the exclamation mark)

I am against vertical monopolies, cartels, price fixing ,mercantilism and anti-competitive trusts. If all radio stations were owned by one guy it could be argued that it was a bad thing, in the same way that if all oil production was owned by Rockefellow, etc.

I am not a proponent of "throwing people off the air". I am saying it is democratic (note the small d) and not unConstitutional (!) to regulate enitities that use public resources.

OTOH, I am against most gov't interventions (the TVA, Title IX college regulations, Disability Act, much EPA regulations and so on). Most of them are just partisan meddling and all about rigging the system to benefit "friends".

23 posted on 04/16/2004 7:53:25 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ExpatInLondon
YOU think think it's fine for the government to apply sectarian ideas about whaty is and isn't 'obscene'

It's more cultural than sectarian. Do you believe that nothing should be considered obscene?

24 posted on 04/16/2004 8:09:47 AM PDT by Tribune7 (Arlen Specter supports the International Crime Court having jurisdiction over US soldiers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hchutch

25 posted on 04/16/2004 8:22:08 AM PDT by E Rocc (One of the best things about being a conservative is you get to laugh at the liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc; Poohbah; PJ-Comix; BOBTHENAILER; Luis Gonzalez; PhiKapMom; section9; Dog; Howlin; ...
Y'know, it amazes me how many folks seem to be unable or unwilling to change the station, pop in a CD, or to turn the thing OFF.
26 posted on 04/16/2004 8:30:53 AM PDT by hchutch (Tommy Thompson's ephedra ban STINKS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
The problem is that Howard Stern is using public airwaves during the morning drive period, when minors can be exposed to it inadvertently.

A friend of mine had to explain oral sex to his eight-year-old daughter because the radio scanned to the Howard Stern show at a very inopportune moment--my friend was TRYING to get a traffic report.

27 posted on 04/16/2004 8:45:29 AM PDT by Poohbah (Darkdrake Lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
The whole issue here really doesn't have that much to do with Stern, he was simply the biggest target. I made the statement to my wife after the Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction"... the "entertainers" in this country are simply going to keep pushing the shock value envelope until the FCC makes an example out of someone. Guess what? Stern drew the short straw. After some people get the major slap-down, things will loosen up again. It's all part of the cycle. I'm all for freedom of speech, but there has to be a line somewhere that can't be crossed.
28 posted on 04/16/2004 8:47:06 AM PDT by cspackler (There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
A friend of mine had to explain oral sex to his eight-year-old daughter

Oh, come on. All the Lewinsky business notwithstanding, no one ever needs to explain oral sex to an eight year old. Anyone who can't adroitly change the subject matter has some some rough parenting ahead of themselves.

29 posted on 04/16/2004 8:48:39 AM PDT by Mr. Bird (Ain't the beer cold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Yeah, there is the argument about situations like your friend's. On the other hand, there is something to be said about not wanting the govenrment to encroach on things.

Somewhere a line has to be drawn. I just don't know quite where it ought to be.
30 posted on 04/16/2004 8:52:25 AM PDT by hchutch (Tommy Thompson's ephedra ban STINKS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
Oh, come on. All the Lewinsky business notwithstanding, no one ever needs to explain oral sex to an eight year old. Anyone who can't adroitly change the subject matter has some some rough parenting ahead of themselves.

And you're hoping to make it rougher for them, eh?

31 posted on 04/16/2004 8:53:52 AM PDT by Poohbah (Darkdrake Lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Sorry, I was trying to joke a little. I do not envy anyone with an inquisitive eight-year old daughter. If I'm ever blessed with one, I think my wife will have to take over until she's 21.
32 posted on 04/16/2004 9:03:13 AM PDT by Mr. Bird (Ain't the beer cold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr. Bird
Sorry, I was trying to joke a little. I do not envy anyone with an inquisitive eight-year old daughter.

I have an inquisitive six-year-old daughter.

If I'm ever blessed with one, I think my wife will have to take over until she's 21.

Standard non-adroit answer: "Go ask your mother." :o)

34 posted on 04/16/2004 9:13:46 AM PDT by Poohbah (Darkdrake Lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
Limbaugh does offend me when I monitor him, because he has cheapened political discourse in this country with his canned slogans and cheap shots.

Pot, kettle, black. This is from someone who called A Clockwork Orange and Dirty Harry facist, and compared the crown at an Andrew Dice Clay concert to a Hitler rally. Ebert should look back at his reviews over his entire see how he has cheapened them with his simplistic politics.

35 posted on 04/16/2004 9:27:00 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
A clever ploy on Stern's part, because it gets obsessive Bush haters like Ebert on his side.
36 posted on 04/16/2004 9:28:28 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
Roger Ebert, creator, in his days as a failed Hollywood scriptwriter, of the softporn character Sweet Li'l Alice, a guy who now goes to the movies for a living and thinks it a productive use of his time, listens daily to the won't-grow-up-don't-want-to-go-to-school Peter Pan of radio, Howard Stern, champion of perpetual adolescents everywhere.

Now there's a surprise.

37 posted on 04/16/2004 10:03:07 AM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
crown=crowd
38 posted on 04/16/2004 10:06:28 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
And oh yes, how can Ebert reconcile his complaints about Limbaugh "cheapening" the political discourse with his tireless championing of Michael Moore?
39 posted on 04/16/2004 10:07:37 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953488/posts
40 posted on 04/16/2004 10:13:54 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson