Ask Not for Whom the FCC Trolls…
- At April 14, 2004
- By Bob Howe
- In Blog Posts
6
Today in Salon, newspaper editor and sex columnist Dan Savage talks about the FCC’s war on Howard Stern, and on sexual content in the media. Savage asks Why isn’t everyone who cares about free speech rallying around the embattled radio personality?:
We should be concerned because what’s being done to Howard Stern is part of a concerted effort by religious and cultural conservatives to stamp out the sexual openness that has come to define mainstream culture over the last 20 years.
…AIDS forced Americans to start having open, honest conversations about sex and desire. It was an adult conversation about sex, and like all adult conversations about sex it involved a lot of humor. Dying is easy, as the AIDS epidemic made clear. Talking about sex is hard — and the sudden need to talk about sex in the wake of AIDS opened the door not just to condom commercials on television and safe-sex pamphlets in our mailboxes, but sexually explicit humor on “Friends,” “Sex and the City,” and Howard Stern’s radio show.
steelbrassnwood
It’s not about the sex…
I’m less worried about the war against sexual openness than the war on anyone who dares voice disagreement with the Bush administration. Stern(who’s hardly raising the level of discussion about sexuality) has been behaving like this for decades, but he was thrown off the air shortly after starting to openly criticize Bush. By ClearChannel, which had earlier led the charge against the Dixie Chicks for daring not to be cute dumb blondes singing fun songs.
Sure, I think the right has been hellbent on shutting down discussion of practical AIDS-prevention measures and so on, but I’m more worried about the funding attacks on international aid agencies than about what Howard Stern contributes to the conversation. I think he’s being targeted not because of his grossout content, but for trying to inject some actual substance into his show.
admin
Re: It’s not about the sex…
It is about the sex.
Everything you say about ClearChannel doing the Bush Administration’s dirty work, and about funding cuts to international family planning is absolutely true. What is also true is that frank talk about sex is anathema to the right wing. I don’t think you can parse ClearChannel’s motivations so neatly.
Whether or not you approve of the way Stern and the locker-room fraternity of shock jocks talk about sex is beside the point. They are being fired because they talk about sex, regardless of their politics. Atlanta’s “Regular Guys” just got the axe, too. They were the number two drive-time show in the highly competitive male 18 to 49 demographic. I would characterize their politics as High School Republicanism, much the same as new York’s “Scott and Todd in the Morning.”
The Bush administration can get away with this because Americans, even liberal Americans, have a vicious puritanical streak. We can talk about politics, art, popular culture, history, science–you name it–with humor, but we dismiss any discourse on sex and sexuality unless it’s presented with clinical frigidity. What rank hypocrisy.
kijjohnson
Where do I sign up to do something about how Howard Stern is being treated? I generally despise his show and his humor, but I respect his right o say what he wants to.
admin
Too Few Voices Raised for Free Speech
As far as I can tell, neither the American Civil Liberties Union nor People For the American Way have joined the fray against this current wave of FCC censorship. You could write to them (both sites have feedback forms) to express your concerns, and they might offer you additional resources.
The lesser-known National Coalition Against Censorship and People For the American Way have formally stated their opposition to new FCC decency rules.
You can also write to your senators and representatives. Their addresses and positions on variouis issues are listed at a great site: On The Issues.
steelbrassnwood
The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre
This kuro5hin post is right on target for this thread, contrasting it with the promotion of Gibson’s sadistic film:
Let us quantify the showing of Janet Jackson’s breast as compared to the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre:
Half a second of uninvited breast.
Versus:
Two hours of ultraviolent evisceration.
Got it?
The writer also proposes a sequel for Gibson to make:
admin
Re: The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre
I got a laugh out of this. It’s all very true, but not especially news. You and I have had this discussion about the right wing’s violence fetish before. The NRA would have a lot fewer members if they were more adept at getting laid.