NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/mensa/8916

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.6 KB | 68 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!qualcom.qualcomm.com!walter!att-out!cbnewsh!cbnewse!gmark
From: [e-mail] (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Howard Stern
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:29:34 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 57

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lou Boncek) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) writes:
>>
>>
>> Don't know why I'm doing this.. Maybe in hopes of a change of scenery?
>> Anyway, the Howard Stern (sp?) issue appeared to merit a lot of time on
>> 'Nightline' and even a mention on David Brinkley. If anyone has sides to
>> take or analyses to present, lets hear from you? We really need a new thread.
>>
>> Check out the Wall Street Journal, Monday, December 21.
>Eastern Edition.  Section B1.  "Howard Stern's Sponsors Don't Touch That Dial".
>I think that regardless of what people think of Stern the shock jock, the bottom
>line is dollars.  His show brings in 11 million to WXRK, in ad sales and  for Stern
>to read a commercial the charge is $3,000.
>Infinity Broadcasting can absorb the $600,000 fine.  And the FCC just allowed
>Infinity to buy three more stations for $100 million!
>So...Is Stern the alternative to Political Correctness, just plain money smart,
>or an insult?

Actually, Stern recently was put on the local WLUP's morning slot, opposite
those other radio bad boys, Steve and Garry.  Although Stern shoots from the
hip with very little information to back it up, and all three do say things
that possibly shock the public's "average" mentality WRT their opinions,
it is interesting that much of what they say is exactly PC.  From what
I've heard, it's ironic that Rush Limbaugh, a "conservative", who years
ago would have embodied what was "correct" to say, is now saying things that
are far less PC than either of those three.

Steve and Garry come off as immature, (a similiarity to Stern, who uses his
sidekick to temper his tantrums), but a difference I've seen in the past
few weeks is that the former appear to have some kind of logic in the
opinions they espouse, whereas Stern, in the short time I've listened to
him, seems not to care if his opinion is off the wall, as though thinking,
"If they buy it, if I hit on it, I'm home free.  If not, I'll backpedal
or talk louder."

It may be that they all pander to the angry child in all of us that wants
to say "poo-poo" to give attention to our anxieties.

In any event, it is my opinion that the FCC has no business concerning
themselves with content.  I may be insulted or angered by what is said,
but I don't see the difference between freedom of speech in the park
and freedom of speech on the radio.  I guess the big problem perceived by
the "public" (those the FCC is supposedly representing in this case) is
the fact that children may be exposed to something objectionable.  In
the short time I've heard Stern, I've heard some things I disagree with,
but not something I consider damaging to children.  In point of fact,
I enjoy the opportunity to expose others to opinions I have an  excuse
to discuss and state why I disagree.  I'm hard-pressed, however, to find
any compelling evidence to prove that the powers that be are using the
"obscenity" and "children" issues as red herrings to silence someone that
makes statements of opinions that they are not motivated or capable of debating.
Just one more of the never-ending parade of excuses for mental laziness,
IMHO.

GMS