Let's take this back to the beginning for a moment. Because this discussion disturbs me just a little.
Like I said, having a stiff drink before they get involved.
As you yourself note:
I really think you're stating the situation inaccurately:
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, no matter how you cut it. That's the problem with celebrating the last refuge of scoundrels. In the end, yes, we do have to go in these circles every once in a while.
And it helps if we discuss the terms honestly. For instance:
This is inaccurate. The transcript you posted, for instance, contains the following:
The above section refers to behavior that qualifies as sexual assault.
Additionally, the transcript you provided begins with part of the specific issue in question. Stern is going straight after the seven deadlies. From the central words at issue is the consideration of how to get around them? In other words, it's like people are treating a "no trespassing zone" as if the rule is, "don't sneak through the gate." The idea being, then, that if you can pole vault over the fence or drop in from a helicopter, then you suddenly have the right to trespass.
Whether or not the no-trespassing zone is a legal establishment is at the heart of the issue, and that's what Stern is after. The FCC can easily draw a line at the fact that he's in the no-trespassing zone, and now everybody gets to go through the painful process of arguing it out.
However, it's a little more than fart jokes that we're discussing here. Stop downplaying Stern's provocateurism.
Hyperbole. Did you bring a shovel or do you have to eat your way out?
Really, that's ... dishonest. You can say that if Stern somehow loses. But right now it's a clear overstatement.
At this point we need to split this into a couple of different sections at least:
On Free Speech Itself
You know why Stern does it on the radio? Because he can't do it on television.
There is no phrase regarding well-regulated in the First Amendment.
Radio is a more important medium in other parts of the world than it is here. The radio-related issues we fight about in this country are vapid. But that alone doesn't lower the priority of Stern's case.
But perhaps you hadn't been paying attention to journalism. Between governmental "security" concerns and corporate profit concerns, there is little room left for real news. Watch closely; a large amount of headline news is written according to the press releases.
Print, television, and electronic journalism are constantly under attack. The information by which people in the community make the decisions that affect their own and each others' lives is constantly under siege.
Why does this warrant more attention? Because it pertains to more vital issues--that is, it pertains to issues that have direct bearing on our lives.
There's a big difference in the principles of free speech when it comes to "entertainment," "art," or "information." (At some level, it's all "information," but we're not that abstract yet.)
Take a look at two issues that can be had on all counts: Michael Moore and Howard Stern.
Howard Stern's show does contain news and commentary (e.g. "information"), just as Michael Moore's film does. Howard Stern's show is most definitely an artistic piece, as should be remembered of Mr. Moore's film. And both serve as entertainment.
But what is the controversy? Certainly they share an "information" aspect: both present the news and commentary in a manner the Bush administration apparently does not appreciate. The artistic controversy can be measured in a sense by the entertainment controversy, because in both cases the entertainment aspect is also in pursuit of profit. So how does one offend? Moore challenges the conventional wisdom with the effect of criticizing a president he's known to dislike. Stern aims squarely after the line between decency and obscenity and seeks to rape it. Now, superficially, I have no criticism of that method in and of itself. Sometimes this needs to be done, and who am I to set the ultimate criteria for when those times are?
But, when we invoke the idea of obscenity, we reach another issue that we need to clarify:
What you need to understand is that while the First Amendment says nothing about a well-regulated anything, there are certain limits on free speech which are drawn according to the interests of the people. These interests can be vaguely defined by the Constitution itself:
So perhaps you might wish to reconsider your response to the question of how Stern's discussion of blumpkins and other such stuff contribute to those Constitutional aspects by which we can consider the whole of the US Constitution and its Amendments.
The content and the "alluded" content have direct relevance when seeking the line between the decent and the obscene. The real question is whether the FCC can make a case that Stern's broadcasts fail the Roth standard:
And this is why I think Stern will prevail in the end. It's really difficult to make the legal argument that anything short of child pornography is utterly without redeeming social importance. Were it only fart jokes, I don't think the stiff drink would be needed. But how one treats an issue which falls within the realm of sexual assault while simultaneously seeking backdoors around rules which even I find worth challenging are the kinds of issues that just might ... you know, inasmuch as common sense is concerned ... invite some critical scrutiny.
Problems I'm Having With Your Response
At the outset, you're making excuses for Clear Channel:
• Shock jock Stern axed after fine (BBC)
• Infinity Challenges Howard Stern's Fine; His Ratings are up, so They Can Afford It (indymedia)
• Howard Stern's ratings up (CNN)
On the point regarding due process, how can you possibly say that? Clear Channel has undertaken the due process issue by firing hosts and begging for mercy. Infinity has undertaken the due process issue by making a stand.
Clear Channel's choice to drop Stern is suggestive of a different but similar problem. Companies like Clear Channel and Infinity are part of the problem with radio broadcasting in the first place.
So first off, I have a problem with any argument that makes Clear Channel a victim. If "poor, oppressed" Clear Channel gets its way, government censorship will be the least of your worries insofar as radio broadcasting is concerned. Clear Channel was happy to take the profits, but they're unwilling to shoulder the responsibility. Rather cowardly and hypocritical, as it is in no small part the ratings of the schlock movement that helped bring the radio conglomerates to power.
In the end, Infinity, one of the reviled conglomerates, is doing the only right thing it can; it has drawn a line and they're not going to move off it at this time. In the meantime, that might be a good thing. Because it's hard to make the case that he's being taken down when his ratings are up. (In fact, Infinity says the first quarter saw Stern's strongest ratings since fall 2000. See CNN link above.)
So add to your bucking for Clear Channel the idea that we might say fuck to due process, and also the idea that Stern's ratings are actually up because of this situation--I'm not sure what it is you're getting so frustrated about.
Which reminds me ....
Well ... there was the tone of your topic post. And the title. There's your disgust at the not-yet substantiated failure of the free-speech advocates to trip over themselves trying to get in Stern's way. And the arguments drawn out of thin air (fuck to the right of due process, &c.), the suggestion that I shut up, and also the occasional use of the word "fucking" in order to rhetorically reinforce the argument. These are all signs of irritation. There's also that exasperation when you decided to take it one step further and go fuck, yourself. (Er ....) There's the sarcasm of "your highness," a certain degree of hyperbole throughout your part of the topic, and also a tendency toward irrationality.
By the time you get around to tell me what I think and what I should be thinking, well, you've already asked the question about what gives me the notion that you're upset.
Which dovetails nicely:
'Tis in the eye of the beholder, so any lack of meaning is your own. Personally, I don't see what's so hard about it. Choosing to represent issues inaccurately in order to affect the outcome of the discussion and bring about false conclusions based on inappropriately recontextualized drivel seems to fall squarely within the realm of the dishonest. That it's becoming the popular mode for argumentation isn't my doing; I'm not nearly powerful enough to set trends in the national discourse or change the course of the broadcasting ratings game.
But trying to understate the content of Stern's show in order to overstate the perceived offense of the fine slapped against him? Such deliberate misrepresentation most certainly isn't honest.
I understand why "dishonest" might not have much meaning for you. But boy, you've got to carry that weight.
Like when you wrote, "Stupid statements like "do you sleep naked? I bet you look freaking hot in your sleep" are not relatively that demeaning or abusive of the right to free speech."
Well? What of it? I don't have much of a problem with those, and while I generally endorse Stern's right to say what he wants, your representation of the show also happens to leave out the sexual-assault aspect.
Is that just not an important consideration to you?
And how is it that you have to ask, "How so?" when I write that Stern is part of the machine? Stern is the point man for this movement in radio. He is the driving force, the standard-bearer. He generates as much as $100 million a year for Infinity. (See CPI) Infinity saw $3.75 billion in revenues in 2002 (see Hoover's).
And think of this: Infinity is, while a leading broadcaster in the U.S., small by comparison. Its 185 stations in 40 markets don't even match up with Clear Channel's 1,270 U.S. stations. Why is the smaller of the two the one making the stand? Ah, yes, because in addition to criticizing Bush, Stern apparently had words for some of Clear Channel's directors who have ties to Bush.
Do you think that we can blame the decline of radio on Britney Spears, Rush Limbaugh, and Disney? Howard Stern has a part to play in that, as well. Admittedly, the "decline of radio" is a tenuous argument, but the movement toward consolidation going on for the last eight or so years is leaving us with more and more racket-programming; it's the new payola.
And this is part of what Stern's show and the rush in his wake to the crude ratings game contributes to. Whether he wants it or not, the radio conglomerates owe Stern and his schlock buddies much thanks. The success of the schlock hosts has, in part, empowered the radio takeover.
The situation is a lot bigger than you're constructing it. I mean, when we have to quibble about the honesty or dishonesty of intentional misrepresentation, we're treading into the ridiculous.
Hey, you're the one making dicks an integral part of the discussion.
You know, I live in a society that generally views productive, utilitarian, and useful endeavors more positively than the banal, immature, and useless.
Too bad you looked right past the important part: Think of it as a matter of resource allocation.
Or, as Microsoft used to say, "Where do you want to go today?"
To Blumpkinville, chief! And step on it!
I mean, I'm willing to reject the positive/negative regard for utility and uselessness, but I'm well aware that I will meet a certain amount of resistance if I do. Cause/effect. Action/reaction.
I have established a standard of decency. It's called the Roth standard and it's the standard set by the US Supreme Court. It is the standard the FCC will have to demonstrate, and the standard that Infinity is betting against. It is also the standard that Clear Channel has chosen to run scared from.
Which gives rise to the opportunity to mention that one of the things that frustrates me in a discussion even more than baseless hyperbole (which can be part of a carefully-crafted politic) is when someone doesn't understand the basis of the issues upon which they base their complaint.
Due process? It's coming.
A standard of decency? There are many, but Roth is the best-known and quite apparently the relevant one.
You're right. People spending their mental efforts thinking about vital issues has no greater value than people spending their time talking about blumpkins.
Was it Robin Williams who observed that maybe Darwin was wrong?
It's a matter of resource allocation.
The individual heroin addicts will disappear and cease draining social resources more quickly, and overall they are less likely to breed in large numbers.
So much for your "free speech" argument.
Additionally, I find your lack of understanding as regards the significance of mass media in human social evolution rather quite disturbing given the arguments you're trying to make.
You were asking about standards. Radio communication elsewhere is more important to the daily lives of the individuals who hear it than it is in the United States. Part of this, of course, is television. And part of it is the internet. But in order to play to the largest audience you play to the lowest common denominator. You're almost always aiming lower when you chase ratings within a network-broadcast structure.
I do believe it. I don't see what's so hard to grasp. However, you're right that I don't expect most people to believe and accept this. It's too direct an expression of what they claim to want to actually pursue.
Profit margins are generally a poor justification for anything.
Of course, since you haven't really explained what's so hard about it, we can only wonder at the weakness of your grasp.
It died in the 1980's. Too romantic to survive the new budget priorities.
But you're also on the wrong idea; it's not about pissing people people off. The anti-hero is revered not for his virtue in reflection of human convention, but rather for his unwillingness to be virtuous in comparison to human convention. These people are necessary in any society to a degree, but I'm always hesitant to ask people to think back before the advent of Jim McMahon and Brian Bosworth. Even the social-virtue panic crowd didn't imagine the kind of acceleration that came shortly thereafter. Live and learn.
You'd be amazed at how many American standards we've ditched in the last twenty-five years. Standards just aren't good for the economy.
Perversity is rarely narrow but generally myopic. However, in Stern's case, such a pointed perversity must necessarily be narrow.
(chortle!)
Okay, look ... I admit that you're the first Stern fan I've ever heard invoke that part of the American dream.
On the other hand, how does a journey from an orphan to a national leader not reflect the American dream, except for the examples generally take place outside the US? But then again, such is the result of defining the terms that way. I mean, it sounds great. Even better than Clinton's poor-man-to-the-White-House-I-feel-your-pain mantra. Except that the general condition also allows for some of the most hideous folks in the history of humanity.
But ... live and learn. I didn't know that Stern's chief legacy was his rags-to-riches story. I suppose that's a good thing to know, though. Since the US has so few rags-to-riches stories to tell. Hopefully it won't become a trend that would allow for the mythologizing of a rags-to-riches template.
So much for your "free speech" argument.
I won't blame Howard Stern for the misdirection of your response.
There are limitations on free speech. Safety (e.g. general welfare) is the reason you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Decency, while a much more vague idea, is also something that exists for the general welfare. It is very difficult to establish the absolute lack of social redemption, but that's the FCC's problem. Infinity obviously thinks it's a pretty easy standard to defeat. Clear Channel is afraid of it.
Where is your anger at Clear Channel?
Why are you angry on Stern's behalf? Not only did he get what he wants--e.g. a showdown with the government--but his ratings are up, just as one might hope by such behavior.
Be happy for him. He's going to embarrass the US government again, he's going to make bank, and he's going to be even more firmly ensconced as a living legend in the minds of those whose idea of freedom is limited only by their own lack of ambition.
I just don't understand what the problem you're having is. Does it have to do with the war keeping this out of the daily headline rotation? Are people not rushing quickly and thickly enough to the circle-jerk homage to the deity of Howard Stern? What reaction short of people forfeiting their opinions or principles will satisfy you?
____________________
• BBC News. "Shock jock Stern axed after fine." April 9, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3613555.stm
• Boehlert, Eric. "Pay for Play." Salon.com. March 14, 2001. See http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html
• CNN.com. "Howard Stern's ratings up." April 28, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/27/media.stern.reut/
• Dunbar, John. "Indecency on the Air." Center for Public Integrity. April 9, 2004. See http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=239&sid=200
• Hoover's Online. "Infinity Broadcasting Co." See http://www.hoovers.com/infinity-broadcasting/--ID__58372--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
• indymedia. "Infinity Challenges Howard Stern's Fine; His Ratings are Up, so They Can Afford To." April 28, 2004. See http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1692648.php
• Roth v. United States - 354 U.S. 476. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=476
• Satzman, Darrell. "Clustered radio stations accelerate executive turnover." Los Angeles Business Journal. January 19, 2004. See http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_3_26/ai_112896967
• United States Constitution. See http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
thefountainhed said:
Like I said, having a stiff drink before they get involved.
As you yourself note:
Check the dates. Specifically, of the article in question and then of your topic post.
I really think you're stating the situation inaccurately:
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, no matter how you cut it. That's the problem with celebrating the last refuge of scoundrels. In the end, yes, we do have to go in these circles every once in a while.
And it helps if we discuss the terms honestly. For instance:
This is inaccurate. The transcript you posted, for instance, contains the following:
The above section refers to behavior that qualifies as sexual assault.
Additionally, the transcript you provided begins with part of the specific issue in question. Stern is going straight after the seven deadlies. From the central words at issue is the consideration of how to get around them? In other words, it's like people are treating a "no trespassing zone" as if the rule is, "don't sneak through the gate." The idea being, then, that if you can pole vault over the fence or drop in from a helicopter, then you suddenly have the right to trespass.
Whether or not the no-trespassing zone is a legal establishment is at the heart of the issue, and that's what Stern is after. The FCC can easily draw a line at the fact that he's in the no-trespassing zone, and now everybody gets to go through the painful process of arguing it out.
However, it's a little more than fart jokes that we're discussing here. Stop downplaying Stern's provocateurism.
Hyperbole. Did you bring a shovel or do you have to eat your way out?
Really, that's ... dishonest. You can say that if Stern somehow loses. But right now it's a clear overstatement.
At this point we need to split this into a couple of different sections at least:
On Free Speech Itself
You know why Stern does it on the radio? Because he can't do it on television.
There is no phrase regarding well-regulated in the First Amendment.
Radio is a more important medium in other parts of the world than it is here. The radio-related issues we fight about in this country are vapid. But that alone doesn't lower the priority of Stern's case.
But perhaps you hadn't been paying attention to journalism. Between governmental "security" concerns and corporate profit concerns, there is little room left for real news. Watch closely; a large amount of headline news is written according to the press releases.
Print, television, and electronic journalism are constantly under attack. The information by which people in the community make the decisions that affect their own and each others' lives is constantly under siege.
Why does this warrant more attention? Because it pertains to more vital issues--that is, it pertains to issues that have direct bearing on our lives.
There's a big difference in the principles of free speech when it comes to "entertainment," "art," or "information." (At some level, it's all "information," but we're not that abstract yet.)
Take a look at two issues that can be had on all counts: Michael Moore and Howard Stern.
Howard Stern's show does contain news and commentary (e.g. "information"), just as Michael Moore's film does. Howard Stern's show is most definitely an artistic piece, as should be remembered of Mr. Moore's film. And both serve as entertainment.
But what is the controversy? Certainly they share an "information" aspect: both present the news and commentary in a manner the Bush administration apparently does not appreciate. The artistic controversy can be measured in a sense by the entertainment controversy, because in both cases the entertainment aspect is also in pursuit of profit. So how does one offend? Moore challenges the conventional wisdom with the effect of criticizing a president he's known to dislike. Stern aims squarely after the line between decency and obscenity and seeks to rape it. Now, superficially, I have no criticism of that method in and of itself. Sometimes this needs to be done, and who am I to set the ultimate criteria for when those times are?
But, when we invoke the idea of obscenity, we reach another issue that we need to clarify:
What you need to understand is that while the First Amendment says nothing about a well-regulated anything, there are certain limits on free speech which are drawn according to the interests of the people. These interests can be vaguely defined by the Constitution itself:
So perhaps you might wish to reconsider your response to the question of how Stern's discussion of blumpkins and other such stuff contribute to those Constitutional aspects by which we can consider the whole of the US Constitution and its Amendments.
The content and the "alluded" content have direct relevance when seeking the line between the decent and the obscene. The real question is whether the FCC can make a case that Stern's broadcasts fail the Roth standard:
And this is why I think Stern will prevail in the end. It's really difficult to make the legal argument that anything short of child pornography is utterly without redeeming social importance. Were it only fart jokes, I don't think the stiff drink would be needed. But how one treats an issue which falls within the realm of sexual assault while simultaneously seeking backdoors around rules which even I find worth challenging are the kinds of issues that just might ... you know, inasmuch as common sense is concerned ... invite some critical scrutiny.
Problems I'm Having With Your Response
At the outset, you're making excuses for Clear Channel:
• Shock jock Stern axed after fine (BBC)
• Infinity Challenges Howard Stern's Fine; His Ratings are up, so They Can Afford It (indymedia)
• Howard Stern's ratings up (CNN)
To address some points you've raised in this context:
On the point regarding due process, how can you possibly say that? Clear Channel has undertaken the due process issue by firing hosts and begging for mercy. Infinity has undertaken the due process issue by making a stand.
Clear Channel's choice to drop Stern is suggestive of a different but similar problem. Companies like Clear Channel and Infinity are part of the problem with radio broadcasting in the first place.
So first off, I have a problem with any argument that makes Clear Channel a victim. If "poor, oppressed" Clear Channel gets its way, government censorship will be the least of your worries insofar as radio broadcasting is concerned. Clear Channel was happy to take the profits, but they're unwilling to shoulder the responsibility. Rather cowardly and hypocritical, as it is in no small part the ratings of the schlock movement that helped bring the radio conglomerates to power.
In the end, Infinity, one of the reviled conglomerates, is doing the only right thing it can; it has drawn a line and they're not going to move off it at this time. In the meantime, that might be a good thing. Because it's hard to make the case that he's being taken down when his ratings are up. (In fact, Infinity says the first quarter saw Stern's strongest ratings since fall 2000. See CNN link above.)
So add to your bucking for Clear Channel the idea that we might say fuck to due process, and also the idea that Stern's ratings are actually up because of this situation--I'm not sure what it is you're getting so frustrated about.
Which reminds me ....
Well ... there was the tone of your topic post. And the title. There's your disgust at the not-yet substantiated failure of the free-speech advocates to trip over themselves trying to get in Stern's way. And the arguments drawn out of thin air (fuck to the right of due process, &c.), the suggestion that I shut up, and also the occasional use of the word "fucking" in order to rhetorically reinforce the argument. These are all signs of irritation. There's also that exasperation when you decided to take it one step further and go fuck, yourself. (Er ....) There's the sarcasm of "your highness," a certain degree of hyperbole throughout your part of the topic, and also a tendency toward irrationality.
By the time you get around to tell me what I think and what I should be thinking, well, you've already asked the question about what gives me the notion that you're upset.
Which dovetails nicely:
'Tis in the eye of the beholder, so any lack of meaning is your own. Personally, I don't see what's so hard about it. Choosing to represent issues inaccurately in order to affect the outcome of the discussion and bring about false conclusions based on inappropriately recontextualized drivel seems to fall squarely within the realm of the dishonest. That it's becoming the popular mode for argumentation isn't my doing; I'm not nearly powerful enough to set trends in the national discourse or change the course of the broadcasting ratings game.
But trying to understate the content of Stern's show in order to overstate the perceived offense of the fine slapped against him? Such deliberate misrepresentation most certainly isn't honest.
I understand why "dishonest" might not have much meaning for you. But boy, you've got to carry that weight.
Like when you wrote, "Stupid statements like "do you sleep naked? I bet you look freaking hot in your sleep" are not relatively that demeaning or abusive of the right to free speech."
Well? What of it? I don't have much of a problem with those, and while I generally endorse Stern's right to say what he wants, your representation of the show also happens to leave out the sexual-assault aspect.
Is that just not an important consideration to you?
And how is it that you have to ask, "How so?" when I write that Stern is part of the machine? Stern is the point man for this movement in radio. He is the driving force, the standard-bearer. He generates as much as $100 million a year for Infinity. (See CPI) Infinity saw $3.75 billion in revenues in 2002 (see Hoover's).
And think of this: Infinity is, while a leading broadcaster in the U.S., small by comparison. Its 185 stations in 40 markets don't even match up with Clear Channel's 1,270 U.S. stations. Why is the smaller of the two the one making the stand? Ah, yes, because in addition to criticizing Bush, Stern apparently had words for some of Clear Channel's directors who have ties to Bush.
Do you think that we can blame the decline of radio on Britney Spears, Rush Limbaugh, and Disney? Howard Stern has a part to play in that, as well. Admittedly, the "decline of radio" is a tenuous argument, but the movement toward consolidation going on for the last eight or so years is leaving us with more and more racket-programming; it's the new payola.
And this is part of what Stern's show and the rush in his wake to the crude ratings game contributes to. Whether he wants it or not, the radio conglomerates owe Stern and his schlock buddies much thanks. The success of the schlock hosts has, in part, empowered the radio takeover.
The situation is a lot bigger than you're constructing it. I mean, when we have to quibble about the honesty or dishonesty of intentional misrepresentation, we're treading into the ridiculous.
Hey, you're the one making dicks an integral part of the discussion.
You know, I live in a society that generally views productive, utilitarian, and useful endeavors more positively than the banal, immature, and useless.
Too bad you looked right past the important part: Think of it as a matter of resource allocation.
Or, as Microsoft used to say, "Where do you want to go today?"
To Blumpkinville, chief! And step on it!
I mean, I'm willing to reject the positive/negative regard for utility and uselessness, but I'm well aware that I will meet a certain amount of resistance if I do. Cause/effect. Action/reaction.
I have established a standard of decency. It's called the Roth standard and it's the standard set by the US Supreme Court. It is the standard the FCC will have to demonstrate, and the standard that Infinity is betting against. It is also the standard that Clear Channel has chosen to run scared from.
Which gives rise to the opportunity to mention that one of the things that frustrates me in a discussion even more than baseless hyperbole (which can be part of a carefully-crafted politic) is when someone doesn't understand the basis of the issues upon which they base their complaint.
Due process? It's coming.
A standard of decency? There are many, but Roth is the best-known and quite apparently the relevant one.
You're right. People spending their mental efforts thinking about vital issues has no greater value than people spending their time talking about blumpkins.
Was it Robin Williams who observed that maybe Darwin was wrong?
It's a matter of resource allocation.
The individual heroin addicts will disappear and cease draining social resources more quickly, and overall they are less likely to breed in large numbers.
So much for your "free speech" argument.
Additionally, I find your lack of understanding as regards the significance of mass media in human social evolution rather quite disturbing given the arguments you're trying to make.
You were asking about standards. Radio communication elsewhere is more important to the daily lives of the individuals who hear it than it is in the United States. Part of this, of course, is television. And part of it is the internet. But in order to play to the largest audience you play to the lowest common denominator. You're almost always aiming lower when you chase ratings within a network-broadcast structure.
Well, that settles it. I mean, I can't imagine how I can possibly respond to an unsubstantiated declaration from someone whose demonstrative grasp of the issues pertaining to his own topic is apparently weak.
I do believe it. I don't see what's so hard to grasp. However, you're right that I don't expect most people to believe and accept this. It's too direct an expression of what they claim to want to actually pursue.
Profit margins are generally a poor justification for anything.
Of course, since you haven't really explained what's so hard about it, we can only wonder at the weakness of your grasp.
It died in the 1980's. Too romantic to survive the new budget priorities.
But you're also on the wrong idea; it's not about pissing people people off. The anti-hero is revered not for his virtue in reflection of human convention, but rather for his unwillingness to be virtuous in comparison to human convention. These people are necessary in any society to a degree, but I'm always hesitant to ask people to think back before the advent of Jim McMahon and Brian Bosworth. Even the social-virtue panic crowd didn't imagine the kind of acceleration that came shortly thereafter. Live and learn.
You'd be amazed at how many American standards we've ditched in the last twenty-five years. Standards just aren't good for the economy.
Perversity is rarely narrow but generally myopic. However, in Stern's case, such a pointed perversity must necessarily be narrow.
(chortle!)
Okay, look ... I admit that you're the first Stern fan I've ever heard invoke that part of the American dream.
On the other hand, how does a journey from an orphan to a national leader not reflect the American dream, except for the examples generally take place outside the US? But then again, such is the result of defining the terms that way. I mean, it sounds great. Even better than Clinton's poor-man-to-the-White-House-I-feel-your-pain mantra. Except that the general condition also allows for some of the most hideous folks in the history of humanity.
But ... live and learn. I didn't know that Stern's chief legacy was his rags-to-riches story. I suppose that's a good thing to know, though. Since the US has so few rags-to-riches stories to tell. Hopefully it won't become a trend that would allow for the mythologizing of a rags-to-riches template.
So much for your "free speech" argument.
I won't blame Howard Stern for the misdirection of your response.
There are limitations on free speech. Safety (e.g. general welfare) is the reason you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Decency, while a much more vague idea, is also something that exists for the general welfare. It is very difficult to establish the absolute lack of social redemption, but that's the FCC's problem. Infinity obviously thinks it's a pretty easy standard to defeat. Clear Channel is afraid of it.
Where is your anger at Clear Channel?
Why are you angry on Stern's behalf? Not only did he get what he wants--e.g. a showdown with the government--but his ratings are up, just as one might hope by such behavior.
Be happy for him. He's going to embarrass the US government again, he's going to make bank, and he's going to be even more firmly ensconced as a living legend in the minds of those whose idea of freedom is limited only by their own lack of ambition.
I just don't understand what the problem you're having is. Does it have to do with the war keeping this out of the daily headline rotation? Are people not rushing quickly and thickly enough to the circle-jerk homage to the deity of Howard Stern? What reaction short of people forfeiting their opinions or principles will satisfy you?
____________________
• BBC News. "Shock jock Stern axed after fine." April 9, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3613555.stm
• Boehlert, Eric. "Pay for Play." Salon.com. March 14, 2001. See http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html
• CNN.com. "Howard Stern's ratings up." April 28, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/27/media.stern.reut/
• Dunbar, John. "Indecency on the Air." Center for Public Integrity. April 9, 2004. See http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=239&sid=200
• Hoover's Online. "Infinity Broadcasting Co." See http://www.hoovers.com/infinity-broadcasting/--ID__58372--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
• indymedia. "Infinity Challenges Howard Stern's Fine; His Ratings are Up, so They Can Afford To." April 28, 2004. See http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1692648.php
• Roth v. United States - 354 U.S. 476. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=476
• Satzman, Darrell. "Clustered radio stations accelerate executive turnover." Los Angeles Business Journal. January 19, 2004. See http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_3_26/ai_112896967
• United States Constitution. See http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html