MEDIA AND CULTURE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 192

How to End the Reign of Shock Jocks

Other than the desire to shock listeners -- and thereby create controversy, grow audiences and sell advertising -- the current spate of repulsive shock-jock gibberish all share something else: a salary from CBS.
May 16, 2007  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
What do recent radio references to "nappy-headed hos," raping Condi Rice, and "slimp flied lice" have in common?

Other than the desire to shock listeners -- and thereby create controversy, grow audiences and sell advertising -- the current spate of repulsive shock-jock gibberish all share something else: a salary from CBS.

Once peacock-proud of its self-styled "Tiffany" network -- so-called for its supposed devotion to quality -- the corporate heirs of William Paley traded public service for private profit long ago. But now no amount of filthy lucre can perfume away the stench wafting from the current trench of programming sewage being shoveled our way of late by such CBS on-air alleged "talent" as Opie & Anthony, JV and Elvis, and Don "I-Man" Imus.

It was CBS, of course, that offered Imus $40 million to render services of an "irreverent" and "controversial" nature -- and then fired him when he did the job too well. And it was CBS that hired JV and Elvis to crack wise on "The Dog House" before the "Imus effect" thankfully led to the cancellation of that program, after the hosts made a racist, sexist and homophobic on-air prank call ordering "slimp flied lice" from a Chinese restaurant.

And it was CBS that re-hired Opie and Anthony after dumping them five years ago for staging an on-air sex contest, complete with live coverage of a couple having sex in Saint Patrick's Cathedral. After outraged Catholics protested the desecration of their church, the duo looked for other employment -- and eventually found it, not only on XM satellite radio, where they staged their latest repellent stunt, but also on New York's WFNY-FM, where they are employed by -- wait, wait, don't tell me! -- CBS Radio.

Now that JV and Elvis are no longer in the house, having joined Imus on the unemployment line, and their Asian-mocking joking has left CBS execs with more community opprobrium, angry advertisers, and another gaping hole in their schedule, their fellow shock jocks Opie and Anthony should swiftly follow all three out the door. Maybe then their corporate overlords at CBS will finally learn that "making fun" of people because of their race, gender or sexual orientation really isn't funny, and that encouraging rape and violent assault is a criminal and not a comic act.

Unlike the CBS execs, the dopey duo -- whose real names are Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia -- at least had the sense to apologize last week after a guest on their XM satellite show advocated raping Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, First Lady Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth of Britain. Here's a sample of their shocking "humor," as the hosts laugh and fantasize about the horror for Rice as studio guest "Homeless Charlie" is "holdin' her down" and assaulting her:
Voice 1 (Charlie): I tell you what -- what that George Bush bitch, Rice? Condoleezza Rice?

Voice 2 (Host): Condoleezza Rice.

V1: I'd love to fuck that bitch, man. (Laughter) She needs to fuck a man. I'd fuck her.

V2: I can just imagine the horror on Condoleezza Rice's face when she realized what was going on. (laughter)

V3 (Host 2): You were all just holdin' her down and, you know, fuckin' her. (laughter)

V1: Punch her all in the fuckin' face, saying, "Shut up, bitch." (laughter)

V3: That's exactly what I meant. (laughter)
(To hear the exchange, go Breitbart.tv">here)

So given the Imus effect, given the JV and Elvis situation, and given the known history of Opie and Anthony ... what did CBS do and say about the 'raping Rice' bit on XM?

Nothing and no comment, beyond the following statement by CBS Radio spokeswoman Karen Mateo: "Fortunately, we have standards that did not and would not ever let something like this make our air." No -- nothing like this -- just lame jokes about Asians and gays and stupid slurs against young, accomplished black women ...

The reaction from XM satellite radio was similarly curt. Asked whether the company would discipline Opie and Anthony, XM spokesman Nathaniel Brown said only, "We deplore the comments made on Wednesday's 'Opie & Anthony Show.'" It wasn't until almost a week later that the company announced that it would suspend the two jocks and cease broadcast of the show for 30 days ... an apology of sorts that only came, a company press release stated, after comments made by the pair on a May 14 broadcast "put into question whether they appreciate the seriousness of the matter. The management of XM Radio decided to suspend Opie and Anthony to make clear that our on-air talent must take seriously the responsibility that creative freedom requires of them."

But unlike XM, Opie and Anthony at least issued an apology, wherein they maintained that they do "take very seriously the responsibility that comes with our creative freedom and regret any offense that this segment has caused" -- a statement that's a lot funnier than most of their puerile on-air bits and skits.

Of course, when stupid people say stupid things, only stupid people are surprised. And it would be stupid to blame dopey Opie and Anthony -- not to mention the idiotic likes of Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson, who have their own issues with bigotry and hate speech targeting race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity.

Moreover, targeting individuals does raise free speech and censorship concerns. Better to exercise our own free speech and purchasing power by telling and showing media companies and advertisers that encouragement of and complicity with such offensive remarks will hurt their bottom lines. CBS executives should know better, and if they don't get it yet, the best path to their collective corporate brain is clearly through their pocketbook.

At least some advertisers appear to get it. After deserting Imus, sponsors seem poised to do the same with Opie and Anthony -- and we should do our humble best to encourage them.

We can start by sending props out to representatives from both the New York State Lottery and to Trojan condoms for already announcing that they will no longer advertise on the CBS version of the "Opie & Anthony" show.

"The Trojan brand is committed to advancing the sexual health of those who choose to be sexually active," James Daniels, vice president of marketing for Trojan condoms, a division of the Church & Dwight Co., said in a statement. "The recent comments made on the Opie & Anthony show are inconsistent with that commitment." (A representative from the New York State Lottery said that it had already discontinued its ads on the show on May 4, after a comedian who is a regular guest could be heard asking, "Would it be possible, could you whistle 'Singin' in the Rain' while I rape a girl?")

Let's continue by pressing all the other advertisers on all Opie and Anthony programs to withdraw their support -- or face consumer boycotts of their products until they do so. Maybe then advertisers and broadcasters like CBS will finally get the message that racism, sexism, and homophobia isn't acceptable "entertainment."

And while we're at it, let's press the FCC to take a long, hard look at plans for XM Satellite radio to merge with its sole competitor, Sirius satellite radio. The only two satellite radio networks have been attempting to seal a deal under antitrust scrutiny, which may just have become a bit more difficult.

Before the Rice rape flap, the biggest potential roadblock for the merger was a 1997 Federal Communications Commission ruling that a single owner may not control the subscriber-only satellite radio business. But Sirius chief executive Mel Karmazin says the advance of new technologies offering so much music, news and talk has radically altered the competitive climate and the FCC should waive the rule. The merger, Karmazin argues, would actually benefit consumers by letting them access both companies' services at a lower price.

Karmazin is slated to become CEO of the merger between Sirius and XM if and when the two become one company. Guess what major broadcasting company he ran prior to taking over Sirius?
Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural blog.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: cbs, imus, shock jock


Comments are closed-

Where Have You Gone, Lenny Bruce?
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 16, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
August 3, 2006 marked the fortieth anniversay of the death of comedian Lenny Bruce. One can't help but ponder the irony that the material that was getting him thrown in jail in 1964 seems positively quaint when compared to the "humor" that is being broadcast every morning during drive time from the studios of scores of radio stations across the country. While the so-called "shock jocks" of today might idolize Lenny Bruce, the similarities, if any, end right there. Lenny was an artist and a poet. He never once told a dirty joke; seriously!

At least Don Imus, occassional crude humor aside, was capable of discussing the serious issues facing this country with a variety of guests. The rest of these Shock Jocks are posessed of absolutely no redeeming social value. That being the case, why do these people thrive? The possible answer to that question has to be the dumbing down of the American people in the last thirty years or so.

Think about it: In the first half of the twentieth century, this country had a virtual glut of humorists. - I'm not referring to comedians, I'm talking about humorists - people who took comedy seriously and put a lot of thought into it: Mark Twain, Robert Benchly, Dorothy Parker, Fred Allen, Alexander Woolcott, S.J. Perelman. There used to be the Algonquin Roundtable, where the giants of literary humor would meet nightly for drinks and discussion. In 1933, when told that the colorless Calvin Coolidge was dead, Parker, without missing a beat quipped, "My goodness, how can they tell"? These people were funny!

No question about it a rebirth of American humor is long overdue.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Seeking out offensive speech
Posted by: JohnWalker on May 16, 2007 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm appalled at the use of Lenny Bruce to use as an attempt of how one thing is funny and the other is not. His life was tortured because people were disgusted with what he said. Now you are taking a one minute clip from a 5 hour weekly show and basing your judgement on that? Opie and Anthony did not even say those things. Barred that, you sought out the clip which was from a paid platform safely away from you with parental restrictions. We all know that parental restrictions can literally be used for parents because we cannot speak like adults anymore. You have to take some responsibilty. You were warned beforehand and still clicked the clip and you are outraged? Think before you let you loose your emotional argument which is completely subjective and has many ramifcations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Seeking out offensive speech Posted by: Conservasaurus

Comments are closed-

An Outlet for Anger
Posted by: sofla100 on May 16, 2007 2:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These guys basically appeal to an undercurrent of anger and frustration in America life. They use to rant more against the "liberals," "immigrants, or "minorities," but when that got old and the American Empire Project (Iraq) went South, they started to eat their own. Should any of us really be all that surprised? The frustrated masses, driving to work in the morning, stuck in another 2 hour traffic jam, burning unaffordable gas, all to go to a suck ass job that pays hardly enough to make the bills. Then to go home after work, to a spouse and kids who basically hate them anyway. Oh well, flip on the TV, pop a beer and zone out. Such is the American way of life. The jocks at least are an outlet for all the anger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Outlet for Anger Posted by: notabilia
» RE: mizani Posted by: bob t
» RE: An Outlet for Anger Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: An Outlet for Anger Posted by: peterx

Comments are closed-

More media hypocrisy.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 16, 2007 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Visit Rory O'Connor's blog -- Media Is A Plural -- and you will find an article titled “The Price of Press Freedom” that states the following:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. And this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Yet in his AlterNet piece, O'Connor proposes that radio listeners pressure “all the other advertisers on all Opie and Anthony programs to withdraw their support -- or face consumer boycotts of their products until they do so.”

Have I missed something? Would not such action interfer with Opie and Anthony’s right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”?

O’Connor clearly believes what his blog title says -- "Media is a Plural." One media he approves which should not be interfered with and another media his disapproves which should be hounded off the air. There’s a name for that kind of two-face belief system. Hypocrisy.

Speaking of hypocrisy, for the truth about our two-faced president, visit King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More media hypocrisy. Posted by: dannrusso
» RE: More media hypocrisy. Posted by: DBachmozart
» You're missing the point Posted by: NthnBrazil

Comments are closed-

slimp flied lice?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 16, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The PC crowd is loving this wave they're riding. How far will they go?

Calling a take-out place and asking for "slimp flied lice" is funny. Why can't the shock jocks do more of this stuff than the gratuitous sleaze they usually crank out? Oh wait...They can't anymore.

All of these radio characters are a reflection of our culture in all its ugliness. Once we're done suppressing, sanitizing and purging them, what will we replace them with? Political correctness is not funny, unless you're making fun of it.

To be honest, I won't miss these guys at all, because I never listen to them. I tune-in to NPR, BBC, and Democracy Now, but not because they're funny.

Everyone with a sense of humor should be stocking your underground shelter with videos of "All in the Family", George Carlin, etc. before it's too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: slimp flied lice? Posted by: davewuxi
» RE: Kepstein7777 Posted by: bob t

Comments are closed-

RMP
Posted by: chronic on May 16, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This phase of political correct police trying to get every "shock jock" or other radio personalities fired from their jobs will pass. Advertisers will always buy their time on shows that have high ratings. These are actually the shows that are in question as of late. They need each other. As much as we need more people to listen to NPR and Air America, etc., this is not what the majority is interested in. It may be unfortunate, but it's true. The majority of people actually believe what they see and hear on the news is true. They also have more interest in Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears than our corrupt government and all those being killed in Iraq. When the advertisers are left without high rate air time to get their message on, they will tolerate anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

CBS NEEDS AN EXTREME MAKEOVER
Posted by: xbj on May 16, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sumner, I am NOT kidding. CALL or EMAIL ME; we MUST do LUNCH.

There IS money in class. And I know where.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Turnabout is fair play
Posted by: graylegend on May 16, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think those of us that feel the other way – that these firings and suspensions are craven capitulations to small noisy groups that can’t take a joke – should organize our own boycotts too. Any sponsor that threatens to pull their ads to force a personality off the air won’t get my business. Why should I support censorship by proxy?

I enjoy some of the shock jocks, like Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony. Their irreverence is refreshing in a world of canned news and bland entertainment. They tend to be equal-opportunity offenders, mostly going after self-important celebrities who really need to be taken down a peg. On occasion they gore one of my sacred oxen, and I change the station. Really, all this outrage is over the fact that *someone else* may be listening and chuckling when Imus makes a rude remark. When did we become a nation of uptight church ladies anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Turnabout is fair play Posted by: JohnWalker
» Church ladies Posted by: kepstein7777

Comments are closed-

bigtime
Posted by: pnut on May 16, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We, you are outraged about what the I=man and others say, you think they are bad to the bone, how about this? one of the greatest news people we have, he did the most stupid things I have ever seen, on the evening news-or any place, after all the murder of the good people in Iraq, after the good men and women we have lost in Iraq, this man had the like of brains to ask Mr. Tony B if he would attack Iraq again if he had it to do over again-and tony said with out thinking (how could he think any way?) yes I would do it again, and this news man (who is better than the I-man) let this man off with his answer. Now how could any man ask a stupid question like that? After the killing of good people and the terriost it created by attacking Iraq, the money it cost us good Americans, the hell the good people of Iraq have had to suffer, now the I-man ask said ho or what ever is one thing but to ask would you do it again is unbelievable and tony to say I would do it again is more unbelievable and this mighty news man let him off look he never said a word to tony. Now how stupid is this? What kind of low life person would attack Iraq again? Bigtime

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Slippery slope
Posted by: yogachick on May 16, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is hypocritical of people to be screaming about our freedoms being taken away one minute and endorsing silencing free speech the next. While I don't agree with what a homeless man said on Opie and Anthony's show last week, I do endorse the right for him and them to say whatever they want-free speech is absolute-there can be no exceptions. Once you start allowing for exceptions-we are really in trouble. This statement was said on XM Radio, which is a subscription service-those of us that like Opie and Anthony have to pay $12.95 a month and seek them out in order to hear them. If you don't like what they are saying-you can block their channel if you are a subscriber. You can also change to another channel-that is what they made the tuner button for. If you don't pay for it-you can't hear it at all. I think this country has gone mad-we have bigger issues to deal with here and we are focusing on this. Unbelievable

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Slippery slope Posted by: lamar

Comments are closed-

Are you saying that American culture has gotten rotten?
Posted by: Sojourner on May 16, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public decency has become antiquated? Americans enjoy being entertained by garbage? Distortions that once were confined to the fictive perversions of yellow journalism are now mainline?

And it's all OK because Americans need distractions from the mind-numbing reality we inhabit? Is that what you're saying, Bubby?

There is no bottom in a race to the bottom. Competition keeps up the momentum. So hold on. We have a long way to go yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Speaking of "Shock Jocks"...
Posted by: jimidee on May 16, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why not consider the godfather of shock, Jerry Falwell. With his message of divisiveness and condemnation, intolerance and radical political agenda, these other jock imposters of shock pale by comparison. Slimp flied lice...really! Nappy headed hos...is that the best ye' got?

I guess God finally got tired of his immoral minority message and withdrew his sponsorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Common Connection
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 16, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mel Karmazin- now running Sirius Satellite Radio. Most of what you lay at the feet of CBS came along when they bought his Infinity Radio operation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Don't like it, don't listen to it.
Posted by: lamar on May 16, 2007 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a boring, lame, monolithic world you want, O'Connor. Let me get this straight: not only do YOU not want to listen to shock jocks, but you believe that nobody should have the choice to do so. Do you know why shock jocks make a lot of money? Because a lot of Americans are classless assholes. But no worries!!! Rory O'Connor is going to clean the place up....

I have yet to hear a decent reply to "if you don't like it, don't listen to it." Turning this whole thing into a cultural zeitgeist is ridiculous. It smacks of "English only" initiatives, only here they would be "tasteful humor only" initiatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

For the lamenters, check out last night's Colbert Report
Posted by: haystack1317 on May 16, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After posting above about Stephen Colbert, I checked out some of last night's show and I urge you to do the same. In about 5 minutes, the sections on the McNulty resignation as Deputy Attorney General ("Ding Dong, the witch is dead!") and on a college student who complained to Fox News about having to watch An Incovenient Truth in class, Colbert delivers absolutely world-class satire. Both sections are hilarious and cutting.

If you go to www.comedycentral.com you'll see some icons on the left for different parts last night's show. If you click on them the motherload player will come up and then you can choose from the different sections. All are hilarious, of course, and the interview with the author of a new Einstein biography is a delight, but if you have only a few minutes to confirm that the Twain-like American humorist is not extinct, check out the McNulty and College sections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree, Colbert is awesome.... Posted by: mrcentrist

Comments are closed-

Another symptom of American infantileism
Posted by: sausage on May 16, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday, in a discussion on an unrelated topic, a commentor noted that "...more of us are acting like teenagers[.]" I am assuming, naturally, that by "us" the poster was referring to we Americans.

But as the Boomer generation moves into retirement it desparately clings to the facade of the "Youth Movement" of the Sixties. And, in some respects, not going gently into that long good night is good.

But American infantielism also has its downside, and the phenomena of the "shock jock" is one.

These radio clowns feed into the Boomers' desire to maintain a perpetual state of adolescent rebellion. Yet the shock jocks' targets of ire and ridicule, like that of the high school "jock" bullies, is not established power and the status quo but the weak, the outcast, the outsider, the powerless. Shock jocks' stock in trade is the mockery and disdain of foreigners, homosexuals, women and intellectuals.

What can be done? I have no answer. Their speech is protected by the First Amendment. The best solution may be to call up the local radio station and complain to the station manager about shock jocks. Or set up organizations, on the lines of these so-called "Christian-family" groups, to threaten product boycotts everytime one of these cases of arrested adolescent development make a stupid, bigoted statement on air.

The bottom line, shock jocks are not funny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What is it about "FREE" in free speech that people don't seem to grasp?
Posted by: MAD on May 16, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure if any of you have been following the Naomi Wolf vs. Alan Wolfe debate that has been raging over on the Guardian CiF, but judging by the material we're debating here on Alternet, it certainly appears that America is indeed on the road to fascism. A few excerpts from Ms. Wolf:

"I don't doubt that the press in America is working, but I am really scared about the fact that the free press is now a target of the Bush administration in exactly the way dictators classically target the press when they wish to close down an open society. I am worried that 'the media' has been listed on a US Army website as a security threat - dictators often target independent reporting as 'a threat to national security' - just as I am worried about the many examples of critical journalists who have been harassed by the Bush administration both here and, more violently, in Iraq."

"The press doesn't stop publishing, by the way, in a fascist escalation; it simply watches what it says. That too can be an incremental process, and the pace at which the free press polices itself depends on how journalists are targeted."

Ok - couple of points. Rape scenarios involving Condie and prank calls like the aforementioned are in extremely bad taste, but who the fuck are you (purveyors of refined taste that you are) to determine what is suitable for a wider audience and what is not? Are the offended who suffer the slings and arrows of "Shlimp Flied Lice" prank calls to be the sole arbiters of what gets censored and what doesn't? How about black females or the morbidly obese or homosexuals? Where does it stop? God knows that Alternet's readership would go straight in the tank if the anti-semitic remarks that so frequently grace this board were a measure of a site's worthiness.

When do we declare that the only right you have as a listener is the right to turn the dial or flip the switch. Jesus, this nanny state we're creating is the slow creep towards an all out Big Brother Apparatus. Come down here to Latin America where you can find the president of Brazil threatening lawsuits against press outlets who dare print negative comments about his performance. We're only a hop, skip and a jump from there now.

There will always be racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and any number of other intolerant, ignorant stances, but stifling free speech is not the answer. You act as if by cutting Imus or some other obnoxious shock jock, American rednecks, bigots, xenophobes, etc. are going to enter into some prolonged period of introspection and arrive at the conclusion that making fun of the Asian inability to properly pronounce our "R" was hateful and wrong. Perhaps isolating and belittling these morons by using the right to free speech is the solution. Cuts both ways ya know.

Moreover, all we're doing is hastening the exodus to satellite radio where all bets are really off. Howard Stern has found a raunchy home at Sirius to the tune of $100 million a year. Don Imus will probably be next along with a host of other immature romper room playmates. It won't be long before the Gubment steps in to heavily regulate satellite radio as well I'm sure.

A lot of people warned you about the Imus backlash and it looks like the chickens have come home to roost. All is good now because our media moguls are sifting through the supposed chaff (politically incorrect) of broadcast journalists, but eventually they're going to zap a progressive media idol like Colbert and then you'll be left mouth agape wondering how something like this could happen when in fact the precedent had already been set for quite some time. Hello 1984!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Free speech is a lie... Posted by: frosty86

Comments are closed-

Copacetic?
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 16, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so glad to see both AlterNet and O'Lielly are entirely on the same page with regard to this Opie & Anthony business...

If shocks jocks are, well, occasionally shocking, aren't they just doing their jobs? I know everyone is confused and everything is topsy-turvy these days, but shouldn't Opie & Anthony be getting bonuses and not fired?

The curious thing to which more attention should be paid is that only those who are first to say or express a particular phrase or line of thinking get their heads handed to them, not the endless train of those who then get shocked, I say SHOCKED, and go on to repeat the exact same Bad Stuff. If this isn't a double standard against originality, which we need more of not less of, I don't know what is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

When your argument sucks, construct a strawman and leave out some unfortunate facts
Posted by: NthnBrazil on May 16, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If O'Connor had bothered to research his piece a bit more, he would have known that Opie & Anthony never aired a live sex act. In fact, the "Sex for Sam 3" contest ('For Sam' because it was sponsored by Sam Adams beer, and # 3 because it had already run for 2 + years and was in its third run) urged couples to report where and when they would have sex in a public place so that a member of the show could be there and confirm via cell-phone. The couples were never on air during the acts. Full details at the Wikipedia entry, but telling the story accurately is inconvenient to O'Connor's argument.

One other interesting factoid left out by O'Connor is that the "outraged catholics" were none other than the Catholic League and the loathesome Bill Donohue. The very same Bill Donohue who has been (rightly) villified on this site for pressuring John Edwards' bloggers to resign, the Columbia U. Gook Joke nonsense , and the Chocolate Jesus protests I guess O'Connor didn't want to get any "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" vibes attached to his position. Unfortunately, when you attack free speech, you earn nasty bedfellows.

Why is this hit piece on a "progressive" website?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Start singing "I wish I was an Oscar Meyer weiner!"
Posted by: apeshow on May 16, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because our society is turning into a "Demolition Man" PC society where commercials rule the public airways. Oh wait, don't they already?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

rape is not funny
Posted by: anniedine on May 16, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's not ok to joke about rape

ever

anywhere

for any reason

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: rape is not funny Posted by: JohnWalker
» RE: rape is not funny Posted by: anotheropinion

Comments are closed-

get it through your thick heads
Posted by: anniedine on May 16, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's not ok to joke about rape

ever

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: get it through your thick heads Posted by: haystack1317
» RE: get it through your thick heads Posted by: anotheropinion
» In a sense, yes Posted by: brunowe
» RE: In a sense, yes Posted by: frosty86

Comments are closed-

Misplaced Outrage
Posted by: cpt_safety on May 16, 2007 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love it when ACLU-minded liberals who hold up Lenny Bruce as a cultural icon get all self righteous when someone makes a horrible joke. What's that about? There's a glut of media out there and some carry some great humorists. Read the New Yorker, watch Colbert, buy the latest George Carlin CD. You don't HAVE to subscribe to XM and sift through hours of Opie and Anthony until you're offended enough to write an article in AlterNet.

I would never condone the jokes these people said, but Imus, for example spent a week's worth of his show apologizing and displaying his regret for his stupidity. Imus only said stupid crap occasionally. Usually, he was plugging his wife's environmental products and conducting some of the best interviews in the business with some serious newsmakers. Who's left to do that now? O'Reilly? Please.

Last I knew, none of these shock jocks were ever on "Morning Edition." How did Rory O'Connor ever hear about these "Shock Jocks?"

They all (jocks) were stupid to allow the edge (that some sponsor was forced to notice) to be crossed, but the self righteous drivel is just as repulsive, especially when Fox News and Limbaugh, etc. regularly make misogynistic, racist, anti-gay and anti-immigrant comments in the guise of REAL NEWS. Let's not forget the newly late, great Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson? Where's the outrage from these same liberals?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misplaced Outrage Posted by: haystack1317
» I like your first paragraph... Posted by: kepstein7777

Comments are closed-

End the shock jock filth the same way as filth rappers...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 16, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...don't rely on the heavy hand of government.

Just don't imbibe, or as Nancy Regan said, "just say no" to having it in the house or in the car.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Feminism is to blame
Posted by: apeshow on May 16, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men are brought up to believe that only the rich and sports stars are real men. The rest are emasculated and told to shut up. Did you not expect a backlash?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

My entertainment is better than your entertainment
Posted by: lamar on May 16, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the looks of the comments thus far, I'd say the trial balloon on this issue has been shot down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Actually, I had planned on continuing to not listen to them
Posted by: brunowe on May 16, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The boycott strategy essentially allows to noisiest and most militant groups to define what gets issued over the airwaves. Like it or not, we share a country with enough people who actually want to listen to this stuff to keep it on the air. Get rid of the Imuses and Opie and Anthonys and they'll just find someone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

THIS IS WHY
Posted by: FBUSH on May 16, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why I cannot identify myself with the left. I am far from being a republican however I agree with many of their views. I think it's absurd for anyone to try to ban radio host, words, music, movies etc. If you dont like that show then DONT tune it in! What is so hard about that concept? Dont ever for even one moment think that you should pick and choose what I get to enjoy. I wont pick and choose for you. Neo Liberals are out of control. The neocons want world domination and the New Liberals want to be dominated. This is America leave my rights alone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: fork
» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: elfinito
» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: lamar
» GREAT COMMENT ( Posted by: elfinito
» THANKS! Posted by: lamar
» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: babs
» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: elfinito

Comments are closed-

yesthe artickle is saying what people should like..but not asking congress to!!!
Posted by: elfinito on May 16, 2007 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is cal those THAT AGREE...of course the article outlineas an argument with an attempt to persuade people to her belief...but thats fine...that's what opinion pieces are about.

The article is calling on the Laws and Congressional.FCC bans on shock-jocks, just on the people to stand-up. She thinks that teh market will speak....I think she is wrong, and all these articles are actually going to di is increase the ratings...because it proves that the shows are testing boundaries of our PC nation, and many people love it, and hate the PC thought police.

Her boycott methods, are actually more outside true capitalism, if its harassment by a few too overcome the actual market.

But attempting to convert to your views, to change the maket is a noble and true grass-roots method, necessary in Capitalism, that has been lost by America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

OMG! Are those two guys givin' us the finger? Pass the smelling salts.
Posted by: fork on May 16, 2007 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could've sworn that when I scanned Alternet this morning, those two guys in the accompanying picture on the homepage were extending their middle fingers.

But now it's all fuzzed out, so I can't tell what they're doing (rolls eyes).

Maybe I'm mistaken and the gesture was fuzzed out this morning. Anyone else remember?

Either way, is this for real? What is the purpose of the fuzzing out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

not just the shock jocks...
Posted by: bemf on May 16, 2007 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think those of us interested in battling the misogyny, racism, and homophobia that dominates the radio landscape need to remember that it's not just the well-known "shock jocks" that promote these attitudes, but the whole radio establishment. Here in Grand Rapids (Michigan) both a Regent Broadcasting affiliate and a Clear Channel affiliate have had DJs that advocate hyper-sexualized views of women and even violence towards them. While one recently got fired for advocating violence against women, it was over a year after an online media source documented an exstensive array of harmful comments.

The fired DJ was fired following public outcry, so I think there is some precedent showing that a one to two-week monitoring project followed by a call-in or letter writing campaign could get rid of some of these folks. Of course, it's essential to advance a critique that isn't about morality, but rather says simply that things like rape, homophobia, racism, etc are never acceptable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not just the shock jocks... Posted by: JohnWalker

Comments are closed-

CBS= complete bull shite
Posted by: andrewstromotich on May 16, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they also covered up abu ghraib (don't forget that), and they created many of the false stories about WMD's, and cow-towed to big tobacco and killed a story about their forknowledge of cancer causing agents in their product...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Also...
Posted by: bemf on May 16, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also wanted to point people towards this article which I found to be helpful on this issue:

"Imus is just a symptom of a bigger problem"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Arrrghhh...the horror!
Posted by: doctorsquared on May 16, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, let me get a hold of myself here, is the article actually suggesting that most 'Murkins are...are...inconsiderate morons? That most people aren't altruistic and politically correct? That satellite radio DJ's would...would...give us the FINGER? Oh, my medication...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Just Imagine
Posted by: l_m_n on May 16, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would our country be like if these so-called progressives spent as much time and effort getting mad and doing something about George Bush as they did Don Imus?

As others have said, shock jocks have a job: to be offensive. To get offended is the whole point. Don't like it? That's a shame. But that's what they were hired to do.

Now compare this to.. oh.. our Administration. They say and do much worse. And that's not in their job description. I'm annoyed that it took the PC police this long to get really angry about anything. Where were they when Habeas Corpus died in October? Where are they now during this ridiculous farce that is the Attorney hearings? Isn't that worth getting upset about?

Attacking Don Imus and Opie & Anthony is simply diverting our attention away from what is really important. And the right is willing to let us beat up these straw men so we won't beat up the ones in power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» exactly Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Just Imagine Posted by: babs

Comments are closed-

talk radio is a verbal pogrom
Posted by: wleming on May 16, 2007 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations lower intelligence and promote sadism, sexism, racism, and consumerist thinking.
Limbaugh, O'Reilly et. al. are racist, misogonist employees... as was Imus, making millions lowering human intelligence.
CBS, capitalist: bs... doesn't like intelligence... it hurts profits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: talk radio is a verbal pogrom Posted by: JohnWalker

Comments are closed-

What don't you understand about the First Amendment?
Posted by: Sludgemaster on May 16, 2007 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot formulate an objective standard for "decency." Not even the Supreme Court is capable of formulating one -- take a look at FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. 98 S. Ct. 3026, 438 U.S. 726, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073 (1978). As a rational or objective criterion, the Supreme Court's "community standards" rule is so subjective as to be meaningless. That is why we have the First Amendment --because it should be obvious that allowing the government i.e., the FCC, to dictate what is "decent" will necessarily result in censorship. Why is your definition of "decency" any better than Imus's? The marketplace has already established what people want to listen to. What you are suggesting will remedy your perceived "indecency" is already operating in the marketplace of ideas and you have been over ruled. As you are advocating censorship, your objection is actually directed at the Constitution, not the "shock jocks." Before you advocate allowing the government to legislate "decency" take a look at how well that has worked in other countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

CBS, owned by Westinghouse
Posted by: fanny666 on May 16, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Westinghouse is a pretty major defense contractor- Westinghouse actually built the US's first ever nuclear sub.

As far as shock jocks... who cares? This is certainly not the worst thing Westinghouse does, nor is it in the top 1000 most damaging aspects of our culture. Our obsession with righting the terrible injustice of people saying stupid and naughty things on the radio only makes our ignorance of other humans' suffering that much more obscene.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I'm no prude, but.....
Posted by: Voicedude on May 16, 2007 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....I think there 's a big difference between the ground-breaking exercises in 'free speech' that the likes of Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and Dick Gregory had with their struggles and today's 'there are no boundaries' lack of vision. Since today we have an 'anything goes' mentality, most often anything does. People eat bugs for a chance to win money, no-talent audition-ers embarrass themselves on national TV, young girls take off their tops for a t-shirt.

There's no boundary left to push in the envelope. All we can do now is notice just how far away from the envelope's original boundary we've gone. There's no such thing as 'class' any more. That's because there's no such thing as 'self-regulation' any more either! Just because you can break a door down, it doesn't mean you always should.

Seriously, I'm no prude. I guess I like a tasteless fart joke, dick joke, or sexual innuendo as much as anyone else, I guess. I can also handle a lot of violence and disturbing images. It's just that I'm not thirteen any more and these things take up less space in my life now. I also enjoy the finer things in life, too. It's just that our entertainment - music, movies, TV, radio, etc. - is rarely trying to be good much less tasteful, and that seems to only involve about five to ten percent of the total any more. Most electronic media panders to the lowest form of entertainment, and most of it - even the commercials now! - are crass, vulgar, insulting, fear inducing, tasteless, mind-numbing, and filled with Schadenfreude. And I like to take my crap in moderation, thank you.

Shock radio may have just finally worn out it's welcome. As a second generation radio man, what's happening on radio now is a FAR CRY from what it used to be, for many reasons - mostly not for the better. ONE of those reasons was 'Shock Jock Radio'. I, for one, won't miss it. Maybe 'reality TV' won't be far behind.

With this recent tone in radio, maybe now we can get back to being 'witty and clever' instead of bing merely shocking. Or better yet, maybe we can just shut up and play some more music...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm no prude, but..... Posted by: JohnWalker
» RE: I'm no prude, but..... Posted by: Voicedude
» RE: I'm no prude, but..... Posted by: JohnWalker
» RE: I'm no prude, but..... Posted by: Voicedude

Comments are closed-

Speech isn't free, freedom ain't free, Censorship sucks, Censor my f-- words
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on May 16, 2007 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speech isn't free, for example hate speech or yelling fire in a theater can get you before a judge.

The airwaves are regulated by the government and our laws, answerable to [corporations] the public by law. In theory, certain things can be prohibited.

Nothing can be prohibited. If you're Howard Stern, you can have sex on radio or TV and get away with it. It helps to make millions and have really good lawyers, when the ratings are hot, you are backed by Westinghouse, Time Warner and anybody else who might have done a few arms deals with Saddam back in the day. We're talking about several degrees of separation here.

Meanwhile, some idiot in the Washington Post says what I write sucks because it's under a psuedonym. F--- him. This is called scatological humor against those without any real concept of what something is about.

It's obvious that some things have gone too far and the victim is the public property of media, being used for the profit and power of the few. A lackadaisical attitude towards such and towards acquisition of ownership is exactly what keeps us on the same vicious cycle, which the author of the article unwittingly stuck themselves on by not thinking out of the old box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

puzzling...
Posted by: DeAnander on May 16, 2007 5:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all this ranting about how the hate radio shows should not be suppressed by the heavy hand of the State apparatus, must be protected from censorship, the Gummint mustn't be allowed to interfere w/"free speech" blah blah...

what on earth makes you people think the hate radio shows are not *part* of the State apparatus? who runs the Gummint? the same corporate elite that owns the media. haven't they been feeding you war-n-glory movies for the last N years to prime you to send your kids off to Iraq, or to go yourself if you are young enough? haven't they been spoonfeeding you racism so that you won't care too much how many "dangerous" brown people we kill to keep Halliburton's stock price high? and lots of tasty swaggering homophobia so you'll feel anxious and eager to Prove Your Manhood by signing up? don'cha think the gratuitous misogyny and hatespeech against women in the media has some connection to the political push for a ban on abortion and other rollbacks in women's rights? that the deliberate encouragement by whiteboy execs of gangsta rap w/its vicious stereotypes of Black men and women might just assist the Boss in driving racist wedges between different sectors of the downsized, jobless, confused working class?

people say, gee, Westinghouse and GE are doing "far worse things" as in war profiteering and weapons sales -- well their media arm is just the PR department for those very activities. it's not two different things they're doing, folks -- one harmless and one harmful -- it's one coordinated thing. the PR campaign and the product rollout. the anaesthetic and then the shot. the distracting patter and then the sleight of hand.

come on folks, the shock jocks are just the ideological shock troops of the State -- the rightwing, white-supremacist State, run by the revolving-door army of corporate honchos -- making damn sure you hate your neighbour and them Damn Furriners and Faggots and Uppity Wimmin more than you hate the Boss. hello... *you're being played*.

the shock jocks, like the fearmongering "thriller" and cop shows, are one big psyop. there's the heavy hand of the State for ya -- clever boys they are too, they can forcefeed ya with nationalist racist dickhead crapaganda -- at your expense using your airwaves -- and then get you to defend your "right" to lap it up obediently. criminy, how obvious do they have to be before the audience gets a clue?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

No one's calling for censorship here...
Posted by: Progressive Citizen on May 16, 2007 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been repeated ad nauseam but I'll say it again--people calling for a boycott aren't using the power of the state, or the power of any large institution, to silence anyone. People have a right to organize a boycott, to use their personal power as individuals, and as consumers, to send a message.

And if other people don't like it, they can protest that boycott in any forum possible. Even organize a counter-boycott, who knows? (I believe I've actually heard of this).

The irony today is that even with the power that individuals and groups have to use boycotts, THERE IS STILL CENSORSHIP. The 1978 Pacifica decision by the Supreme Court held that the FCC could censor the so-called "seven dirty words."

And yet, no one censors racial, gender, anti-gay and religious slurs!

Shows you where the censors' real priorities are--protecting the precious ears of their children from off-color comments while being free to feed them all the hate in the world.

That's one thing progressives should be proud of: even if we detest speech, no one here's calling on the FCC to censor the language we find offensive. And we shouldn't, just as the conservatives should rely on boycotts rather than the FCC in reducing foul language they dislike on the air. Although if there had to be censorship, hate speech should get the ax as opposed to the mere dirty words that bluenoses love to bleep. But that said, we should oppose censorship and we do.

That being said, it is wise for progressives to be judicious with the use of a boycott, to think about who they are targeting and for what reason, and not to blindly boycott every distasteful statement--though we're certainly far from that.

The question is: how major and how offensive is the statement in question, and is it consistent with progressive values to boycott the purveyors of that message?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Same difference Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Same difference Posted by: lamar

Comments are closed-

Freedom of Speech in Vietnam
Posted by: anotheropinion on May 16, 2007 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just returned from two years in Asia, teaching English part-time for a year in Hanoi, Vietnam. One of my classes was a group of teen-agers, and we were able to get into some fairly interesting discussions that might have been taboo in other age groups.

On the subject of free speech, I asked the class "Who believes in the right to speak freely?" I believe ten or eleven of the group of twelve held up their hands. Well over 90% of them claimed to believe in free speech.

I then asked "Should you have the right to say that George W. Bush is stupid?" to which all of the students enthusiastically replied "Yes! Of course!"

"How about Ho Chi Minh? Should I be able to say that he's an idiot?" I asked them. The tone of the class changed immediately. The students looked down at their desks almost as if in shame, nervously darting their eyes around the class to see how others were reacting. It appeared as if a few of them were waiting for Vietnamese Special Forces to bust through the windows and carry me away.

After a few moments and a bit of prodding from me, every single student shook their heads and said that I should not have the right to say that Ho Chi Minh is an idiot.

I promptly informed them that they do not believe in freedom of speech. For freedom of speech to work, even the most offensive, detestable nonsense must be protected. They all then came to the conclusion that they would not support free speech in Vietnam.

The same applies to the PC police in America. They don't believe in free speech. And too many clowns are jumping on the bandwagon, claiming to be victims.

Before we know it, Larry the Cable Guy will be considered cutting edge.

Wake up, "victims". You're shitting on our Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Channel button?
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on May 16, 2007 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there's this nifty new invention called the channel button. it, along with another revolutionary button called the "power button" are completely free of gov't control--well, sorta.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

As an afterthought..
Posted by: lwbaby on May 16, 2007 9:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author kept referring to homophobia yet none of the examples exhibited it. Nappy headed hos, slimp flied lice, rape. Nothing about sexual orientation in any of it so why the mention?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Funny?
Posted by: Adam Weishaupt on May 16, 2007 9:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll give you talented, but I don't think Opie and Anthony are that funny. I know it's personal taste, so it's irrelevant to the discussion; they are terribly successful. Netherworld of the id, hmmm? If it's a culture-wide problem like you suggest, then, I despair for a solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Funny? Posted by: notabilia

Comments are closed-

HOW TO STOP IT? GROW UP!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell on May 17, 2007 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that people who enjoy "shock jocks" whether on the right or left are simply folks who never matured enough to understand that rebellion against the "norms" of society that are nOT liked is NOT changed by virtoilic hate and lack of decency towards others. Ratings are high for these nihilists so where is the REAL problem?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Opie and Anthony, et al.
Posted by: Ranch_Davidian on May 17, 2007 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find shock jocks juvenille, crude, insulting and offensive. Landing on a station on which one of these half-wits is bloviating for more than a second makes my blood boil. I can't stand them, can't stand what they say, can't stand what they do and wish they'd all fall off the face of the earth as well as the broadcast waves. I'm serious-it would be hard for you to find someone who loathes these cretins more than I do.

But censorship is not the answer, nor is telling people what is acceptable entertainment and what isn't. I rail against fundamentalists Christians all the time for their attempts to transform the country and all its citizens into their narrow little ideas of how things should operate. These same fundamentalists do the very same things that the author proposes here, and I regularly roll my eyes in disgust at their actions. I understand the intentions here are noble - to reduce or eliminate the toxic stew emanating out of the mouths of these losers, but the interesting thing is, fundamentalists claim noble motives as well. Once one group get to decide for the rest of us what's good and appropriate, where will it stop? Maybe we'll like the result, but there's an equally good chance we won't. Why risk it by starting down that path?

So to Opie and Anthony and all their immature wanker brethren, spew your filth all you want. I don't have to fight you to win. Popular tastes change every decade or so. The culture will change and what seems so refreshing and irreverent about you today will seem about as fresh as a bag of potato chips left open for a week eventually. In the meantime, I'll just keep changing the channel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Your Moral Outrage speaks volumes
Posted by: wickedashtray on May 17, 2007 5:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hypocrisy here on this site and others is mind-blowing. before you jump on your pile of moral outrage think for a moment what will happen if this current hysteria over political correctness continues. Your favorite TV shows, music, websites etc will not be safe from these same special interest groups forcing this PC crap down your gullible little throats. Do you honestly think a climate of Fear of speaking ones thoughts, comedy or political beliefs is a good thing? At what point did we assume the right to not be offended?

At some point we need to accept the fact that being offended isn't illegal. If we don't, it will.... and on that day we'll really be "f**ked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Question for "same difference"...
Posted by: Progressive Citizen on May 17, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To people who say "same difference" with regards to state censorship and a boycott, why is organizing a boycott not just another form of free speech?

People organizing a boycott are peacefully persuading others not to participate in a certain activity--i.e. supporting media that they (and the others that join the boycott) find offensive.

No one is forcing people to participate in the boycott.

And to people who enjoy whatever speech is being boycotted, why can't they organize a counter-protest?

My two cents' worth: State censorship is mandatory force by a powerful institution. Boycotting comes from the actions of individual citizens who choose NOT to partake of a certain media if they find its content deeply offensive. No one can really stop people who want to boycott a certain message, short of state action. And wouldn't that state action against the boycott be censorship?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Question for "same difference"... Posted by: Progressive Citizen

Comments are closed-

Left Out A Few
Posted by: bob t on May 18, 2007 10:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer seems to have left out a few public airwaves radicals. Don't forget Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rupert O'Murdoch, Joe Scarborough, Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson. To name just a few more, of course there is Ann O'Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Phyllis O'Schlafly, Peggy O'Noonan, Tim O'Russert and some other extremists. All mouthy people completely gereft of any Humility.
I do like Mark Shields and EJ Dionne to name a few good ones. These days there only seem to be a few thinkers left. The Rest are all ideologues, rampant, vicious, vehement ideologues who contribute their support to the Bush Republican death machine for profit and world domination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reply
Posted by: Balans on May 20, 2007 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello!

Their irreverence is refreshing in a world of canned news and bland entertainment. They tend to be equal-opportunity offenders, mostly going after self-important celebrities who really need to be taken down a peg. On occasion they gore one of my sacred oxen, and I change the station.

Thanks, Smileys

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Shock Jocks
Posted by: marrieah on May 20, 2007 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amazing to me that a media giant like CBS or any other media outlet should have to feel it is necessary, under the guise of the 1st amendment practice of free speech, to permit such tasteless bantering on any show under it's banner.

The first thought that came to my mind is who now controls this company. Thoughts that comes to mind are those of immature kids (some who were over the age of consent) who didn't have anything else to do but shout out whatever came to their minds during the days of the Klan.

It seems that now since those groups are now underground, we have a new group to take it's place via the Shock Jocks.

What is it about us as a people and a nation that most in the world envy, yet we ourselves either don't know how or don't want to practice common decency.

Will we have to lose what we have in order to fully appreciate what this country is supposed to be about and practice.

What a pity. What a shame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

These guys are not the danger
Posted by: opeluboy on May 21, 2007 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, they're pigs. But so is their audience, or at least their audience is vicariously enjoying these jocks' piggishness.

These guys are comedians. Bad ones, sure, but comedians.

Others, like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity have their followings of mouth-breathing shitheads, but they are dwindling.

The real danger comes from people like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, two seemingly level-headed, well-spoken men. But therein lies the danger. Both these guys drape themselves in phony, smug religiosity, appealing directly to the Christian fundamentalist crowd, and then use almost all their energy to promote Zionism, hatred of Arabs and Islam and to encourage war.

Their revisionist history of the Middle East, especially of Palestine, has no equal. Both men endlessly repeat bullshit not even believed in Israel any longer, but it goes unchallenged. And because both Prager and Medved cloak themselves in this smarmy appreciation for Christianity (which, by the way, both utterly reject, duh), their benighted audience just buys anything they say.

I never listen to shock jocks, unless Mike Malloy is a shock jock, but millions do. Opie and Anthony may appeal to Americans' baser natures, their sexism and racism, but they are not trying to control foreign policy, initiate the slaughter of millions or keep the present carnage going.

Nothing would make Prager and Medved happier than a total war against the Arab/Muslim world. I consider that much more serious than anything mentioned in this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ressless
Posted by: ressless on May 22, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only reason shock jocks have jobs is that people listen to their shows -- no audience, no ads, no money -- that's capitalism in action, folks. Turn it off, change the channel, if you don't like it.
What I find offensive is that I can't even sit through reruns of Cheers without seeing those disgusting, pointless, anti-meth ads (paid for by us) where lies are presented as truth. (I'd rather be called a "ho" than a thief and a murderer.)
Or is hate-mongering acceptable when it's done by our government?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Where Have You Gone, Lenny Bruce?
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 16, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
August 3, 2006 marked the fortieth anniversay of the death of comedian Lenny Bruce. One can't help but ponder the irony that the material that was getting him thrown in jail in 1964 seems positively quaint when compared to the "humor" that is being broadcast every morning during drive time from the studios of scores of radio stations across the country. While the so-called "shock jocks" of today might idolize Lenny Bruce, the similarities, if any, end right there. Lenny was an artist and a poet. He never once told a dirty joke; seriously!

At least Don Imus, occassional crude humor aside, was capable of discussing the serious issues facing this country with a variety of guests. The rest of these Shock Jocks are posessed of absolutely no redeeming social value. That being the case, why do these people thrive? The possible answer to that question has to be the dumbing down of the American people in the last thirty years or so.

Think about it: In the first half of the twentieth century, this country had a virtual glut of humorists. - I'm not referring to comedians, I'm talking about humorists - people who took comedy seriously and put a lot of thought into it: Mark Twain, Robert Benchly, Dorothy Parker, Fred Allen, Alexander Woolcott, S.J. Perelman. There used to be the Algonquin Roundtable, where the giants of literary humor would meet nightly for drinks and discussion. In 1933, when told that the colorless Calvin Coolidge was dead, Parker, without missing a beat quipped, "My goodness, how can they tell"? These people were funny!

No question about it a rebirth of American humor is long overdue.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Seeking out offensive speech
Posted by: JohnWalker on May 16, 2007 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm appalled at the use of Lenny Bruce to use as an attempt of how one thing is funny and the other is not. His life was tortured because people were disgusted with what he said. Now you are taking a one minute clip from a 5 hour weekly show and basing your judgement on that? Opie and Anthony did not even say those things. Barred that, you sought out the clip which was from a paid platform safely away from you with parental restrictions. We all know that parental restrictions can literally be used for parents because we cannot speak like adults anymore. You have to take some responsibilty. You were warned beforehand and still clicked the clip and you are outraged? Think before you let you loose your emotional argument which is completely subjective and has many ramifcations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Seeking out offensive speech Posted by: Conservasaurus

Comments are closed-

An Outlet for Anger
Posted by: sofla100 on May 16, 2007 2:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These guys basically appeal to an undercurrent of anger and frustration in America life. They use to rant more against the "liberals," "immigrants, or "minorities," but when that got old and the American Empire Project (Iraq) went South, they started to eat their own. Should any of us really be all that surprised? The frustrated masses, driving to work in the morning, stuck in another 2 hour traffic jam, burning unaffordable gas, all to go to a suck ass job that pays hardly enough to make the bills. Then to go home after work, to a spouse and kids who basically hate them anyway. Oh well, flip on the TV, pop a beer and zone out. Such is the American way of life. The jocks at least are an outlet for all the anger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Outlet for Anger Posted by: notabilia
» RE: mizani Posted by: bob t
» RE: An Outlet for Anger Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: An Outlet for Anger Posted by: peterx

Comments are closed-

More media hypocrisy.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 16, 2007 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Visit Rory O'Connor's blog -- Media Is A Plural -- and you will find an article titled “The Price of Press Freedom” that states the following:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. And this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Yet in his AlterNet piece, O'Connor proposes that radio listeners pressure “all the other advertisers on all Opie and Anthony programs to withdraw their support -- or face consumer boycotts of their products until they do so.”

Have I missed something? Would not such action interfer with Opie and Anthony’s right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”?

O’Connor clearly believes what his blog title says -- "Media is a Plural." One media he approves which should not be interfered with and another media his disapproves which should be hounded off the air. There’s a name for that kind of two-face belief system. Hypocrisy.

Speaking of hypocrisy, for the truth about our two-faced president, visit King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More media hypocrisy. Posted by: dannrusso
» RE: More media hypocrisy. Posted by: DBachmozart
» You're missing the point Posted by: NthnBrazil

Comments are closed-

slimp flied lice?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 16, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The PC crowd is loving this wave they're riding. How far will they go?

Calling a take-out place and asking for "slimp flied lice" is funny. Why can't the shock jocks do more of this stuff than the gratuitous sleaze they usually crank out? Oh wait...They can't anymore.

All of these radio characters are a reflection of our culture in all its ugliness. Once we're done suppressing, sanitizing and purging them, what will we replace them with? Political correctness is not funny, unless you're making fun of it.

To be honest, I won't miss these guys at all, because I never listen to them. I tune-in to NPR, BBC, and Democracy Now, but not because they're funny.

Everyone with a sense of humor should be stocking your underground shelter with videos of "All in the Family", George Carlin, etc. before it's too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: slimp flied lice? Posted by: davewuxi
» RE: Kepstein7777 Posted by: bob t

Comments are closed-

RMP
Posted by: chronic on May 16, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This phase of political correct police trying to get every "shock jock" or other radio personalities fired from their jobs will pass. Advertisers will always buy their time on shows that have high ratings. These are actually the shows that are in question as of late. They need each other. As much as we need more people to listen to NPR and Air America, etc., this is not what the majority is interested in. It may be unfortunate, but it's true. The majority of people actually believe what they see and hear on the news is true. They also have more interest in Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears than our corrupt government and all those being killed in Iraq. When the advertisers are left without high rate air time to get their message on, they will tolerate anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

CBS NEEDS AN EXTREME MAKEOVER
Posted by: xbj on May 16, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sumner, I am NOT kidding. CALL or EMAIL ME; we MUST do LUNCH.

There IS money in class. And I know where.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Turnabout is fair play
Posted by: graylegend on May 16, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think those of us that feel the other way – that these firings and suspensions are craven capitulations to small noisy groups that can’t take a joke – should organize our own boycotts too. Any sponsor that threatens to pull their ads to force a personality off the air won’t get my business. Why should I support censorship by proxy?

I enjoy some of the shock jocks, like Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony. Their irreverence is refreshing in a world of canned news and bland entertainment. They tend to be equal-opportunity offenders, mostly going after self-important celebrities who really need to be taken down a peg. On occasion they gore one of my sacred oxen, and I change the station. Really, all this outrage is over the fact that *someone else* may be listening and chuckling when Imus makes a rude remark. When did we become a nation of uptight church ladies anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Turnabout is fair play Posted by: JohnWalker
» Church ladies Posted by: kepstein7777

Comments are closed-

bigtime
Posted by: pnut on May 16, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We, you are outraged about what the I=man and others say, you think they are bad to the bone, how about this? one of the greatest news people we have, he did the most stupid things I have ever seen, on the evening news-or any place, after all the murder of the good people in Iraq, after the good men and women we have lost in Iraq, this man had the like of brains to ask Mr. Tony B if he would attack Iraq again if he had it to do over again-and tony said with out thinking (how could he think any way?) yes I would do it again, and this news man (who is better than the I-man) let this man off with his answer. Now how could any man ask a stupid question like that? After the killing of good people and the terriost it created by attacking Iraq, the money it cost us good Americans, the hell the good people of Iraq have had to suffer, now the I-man ask said ho or what ever is one thing but to ask would you do it again is unbelievable and tony to say I would do it again is more unbelievable and this mighty news man let him off look he never said a word to tony. Now how stupid is this? What kind of low life person would attack Iraq again? Bigtime

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Slippery slope
Posted by: yogachick on May 16, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is hypocritical of people to be screaming about our freedoms being taken away one minute and endorsing silencing free speech the next. While I don't agree with what a homeless man said on Opie and Anthony's show last week, I do endorse the right for him and them to say whatever they want-free speech is absolute-there can be no exceptions. Once you start allowing for exceptions-we are really in trouble. This statement was said on XM Radio, which is a subscription service-those of us that like Opie and Anthony have to pay $12.95 a month and seek them out in order to hear them. If you don't like what they are saying-you can block their channel if you are a subscriber. You can also change to another channel-that is what they made the tuner button for. If you don't pay for it-you can't hear it at all. I think this country has gone mad-we have bigger issues to deal with here and we are focusing on this. Unbelievable

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Slippery slope Posted by: lamar

Comments are closed-

Are you saying that American culture has gotten rotten?
Posted by: Sojourner on May 16, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public decency has become antiquated? Americans enjoy being entertained by garbage? Distortions that once were confined to the fictive perversions of yellow journalism are now mainline?

And it's all OK because Americans need distractions from the mind-numbing reality we inhabit? Is that what you're saying, Bubby?

There is no bottom in a race to the bottom. Competition keeps up the momentum. So hold on. We have a long way to go yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Speaking of "Shock Jocks"...
Posted by: jimidee on May 16, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why not consider the godfather of shock, Jerry Falwell. With his message of divisiveness and condemnation, intolerance and radical political agenda, these other jock imposters of shock pale by comparison. Slimp flied lice...really! Nappy headed hos...is that the best ye' got?

I guess God finally got tired of his immoral minority message and withdrew his sponsorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Common Connection
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 16, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mel Karmazin- now running Sirius Satellite Radio. Most of what you lay at the feet of CBS came along when they bought his Infinity Radio operation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Don't like it, don't listen to it.
Posted by: lamar on May 16, 2007 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a boring, lame, monolithic world you want, O'Connor. Let me get this straight: not only do YOU not want to listen to shock jocks, but you believe that nobody should have the choice to do so. Do you know why shock jocks make a lot of money? Because a lot of Americans are classless assholes. But no worries!!! Rory O'Connor is going to clean the place up....

I have yet to hear a decent reply to "if you don't like it, don't listen to it." Turning this whole thing into a cultural zeitgeist is ridiculous. It smacks of "English only" initiatives, only here they would be "tasteful humor only" initiatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

For the lamenters, check out last night's Colbert Report
Posted by: haystack1317 on May 16, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After posting above about Stephen Colbert, I checked out some of last night's show and I urge you to do the same. In about 5 minutes, the sections on the McNulty resignation as Deputy Attorney General ("Ding Dong, the witch is dead!") and on a college student who complained to Fox News about having to watch An Incovenient Truth in class, Colbert delivers absolutely world-class satire. Both sections are hilarious and cutting.

If you go to www.comedycentral.com you'll see some icons on the left for different parts last night's show. If you click on them the motherload player will come up and then you can choose from the different sections. All are hilarious, of course, and the interview with the author of a new Einstein biography is a delight, but if you have only a few minutes to confirm that the Twain-like American humorist is not extinct, check out the McNulty and College sections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree, Colbert is awesome.... Posted by: mrcentrist

Comments are closed-

Another symptom of American infantileism
Posted by: sausage on May 16, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday, in a discussion on an unrelated topic, a commentor noted that "...more of us are acting like teenagers[.]" I am assuming, naturally, that by "us" the poster was referring to we Americans.

But as the Boomer generation moves into retirement it desparately clings to the facade of the "Youth Movement" of the Sixties. And, in some respects, not going gently into that long good night is good.

But American infantielism also has its downside, and the phenomena of the "shock jock" is one.

These radio clowns feed into the Boomers' desire to maintain a perpetual state of adolescent rebellion. Yet the shock jocks' targets of ire and ridicule, like that of the high school "jock" bullies, is not established power and the status quo but the weak, the outcast, the outsider, the powerless. Shock jocks' stock in trade is the mockery and disdain of foreigners, homosexuals, women and intellectuals.

What can be done? I have no answer. Their speech is protected by the First Amendment. The best solution may be to call up the local radio station and complain to the station manager about shock jocks. Or set up organizations, on the lines of these so-called "Christian-family" groups, to threaten product boycotts everytime one of these cases of arrested adolescent development make a stupid, bigoted statement on air.

The bottom line, shock jocks are not funny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What is it about "FREE" in free speech that people don't seem to grasp?
Posted by: MAD on May 16, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure if any of you have been following the Naomi Wolf vs. Alan Wolfe debate that has been raging over on the Guardian CiF, but judging by the material we're debating here on Alternet, it certainly appears that America is indeed on the road to fascism. A few excerpts from Ms. Wolf:

"I don't doubt that the press in America is working, but I am really scared about the fact that the free press is now a target of the Bush administration in exactly the way dictators classically target the press when they wish to close down an open society. I am worried that 'the media' has been listed on a US Army website as a security threat - dictators often target independent reporting as 'a threat to national security' - just as I am worried about the many examples of critical journalists who have been harassed by the Bush administration both here and, more violently, in Iraq."

"The press doesn't stop publishing, by the way, in a fascist escalation; it simply watches what it says. That too can be an incremental process, and the pace at which the free press polices itself depends on how journalists are targeted."

Ok - couple of points. Rape scenarios involving Condie and prank calls like the aforementioned are in extremely bad taste, but who the fuck are you (purveyors of refined taste that you are) to determine what is suitable for a wider audience and what is not? Are the offended who suffer the slings and arrows of "Shlimp Flied Lice" prank calls to be the sole arbiters of what gets censored and what doesn't? How about black females or the morbidly obese or homosexuals? Where does it stop? God knows that Alternet's readership would go straight in the tank if the anti-semitic remarks that so frequently grace this board were a measure of a site's worthiness.

When do we declare that the only right you have as a listener is the right to turn the dial or flip the switch. Jesus, this nanny state we're creating is the slow creep towards an all out Big Brother Apparatus. Come down here to Latin America where you can find the president of Brazil threatening lawsuits against press outlets who dare print negative comments about his performance. We're only a hop, skip and a jump from there now.

There will always be racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and any number of other intolerant, ignorant stances, but stifling free speech is not the answer. You act as if by cutting Imus or some other obnoxious shock jock, American rednecks, bigots, xenophobes, etc. are going to enter into some prolonged period of introspection and arrive at the conclusion that making fun of the Asian inability to properly pronounce our "R" was hateful and wrong. Perhaps isolating and belittling these morons by using the right to free speech is the solution. Cuts both ways ya know.

Moreover, all we're doing is hastening the exodus to satellite radio where all bets are really off. Howard Stern has found a raunchy home at Sirius to the tune of $100 million a year. Don Imus will probably be next along with a host of other immature romper room playmates. It won't be long before the Gubment steps in to heavily regulate satellite radio as well I'm sure.

A lot of people warned you about the Imus backlash and it looks like the chickens have come home to roost. All is good now because our media moguls are sifting through the supposed chaff (politically incorrect) of broadcast journalists, but eventually they're going to zap a progressive media idol like Colbert and then you'll be left mouth agape wondering how something like this could happen when in fact the precedent had already been set for quite some time. Hello 1984!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Free speech is a lie... Posted by: frosty86

Comments are closed-

Copacetic?
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 16, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so glad to see both AlterNet and O'Lielly are entirely on the same page with regard to this Opie & Anthony business...

If shocks jocks are, well, occasionally shocking, aren't they just doing their jobs? I know everyone is confused and everything is topsy-turvy these days, but shouldn't Opie & Anthony be getting bonuses and not fired?

The curious thing to which more attention should be paid is that only those who are first to say or express a particular phrase or line of thinking get their heads handed to them, not the endless train of those who then get shocked, I say SHOCKED, and go on to repeat the exact same Bad Stuff. If this isn't a double standard against originality, which we need more of not less of, I don't know what is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

When your argument sucks, construct a strawman and leave out some unfortunate facts
Posted by: NthnBrazil on May 16, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If O'Connor had bothered to research his piece a bit more, he would have known that Opie & Anthony never aired a live sex act. In fact, the "Sex for Sam 3" contest ('For Sam' because it was sponsored by Sam Adams beer, and # 3 because it had already run for 2 + years and was in its third run) urged couples to report where and when they would have sex in a public place so that a member of the show could be there and confirm via cell-phone. The couples were never on air during the acts. Full details at the Wikipedia entry, but telling the story accurately is inconvenient to O'Connor's argument.

One other interesting factoid left out by O'Connor is that the "outraged catholics" were none other than the Catholic League and the loathesome Bill Donohue. The very same Bill Donohue who has been (rightly) villified on this site for pressuring John Edwards' bloggers to resign, the Columbia U. Gook Joke nonsense , and the Chocolate Jesus protests I guess O'Connor didn't want to get any "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" vibes attached to his position. Unfortunately, when you attack free speech, you earn nasty bedfellows.

Why is this hit piece on a "progressive" website?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Start singing "I wish I was an Oscar Meyer weiner!"
Posted by: apeshow on May 16, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because our society is turning into a "Demolition Man" PC society where commercials rule the public airways. Oh wait, don't they already?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

rape is not funny
Posted by: anniedine on May 16, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's not ok to joke about rape

ever

anywhere

for any reason

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: rape is not funny Posted by: JohnWalker
» RE: rape is not funny Posted by: anotheropinion

Comments are closed-

get it through your thick heads
Posted by: anniedine on May 16, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's not ok to joke about rape

ever

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: get it through your thick heads Posted by: haystack1317
» RE: get it through your thick heads Posted by: anotheropinion
» In a sense, yes Posted by: brunowe
» RE: In a sense, yes Posted by: frosty86

Comments are closed-

Misplaced Outrage
Posted by: cpt_safety on May 16, 2007 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love it when ACLU-minded liberals who hold up Lenny Bruce as a cultural icon get all self righteous when someone makes a horrible joke. What's that about? There's a glut of media out there and some carry some great humorists. Read the New Yorker, watch Colbert, buy the latest George Carlin CD. You don't HAVE to subscribe to XM and sift through hours of Opie and Anthony until you're offended enough to write an article in AlterNet.

I would never condone the jokes these people said, but Imus, for example spent a week's worth of his show apologizing and displaying his regret for his stupidity. Imus only said stupid crap occasionally. Usually, he was plugging his wife's environmental products and conducting some of the best interviews in the business with some serious newsmakers. Who's left to do that now? O'Reilly? Please.

Last I knew, none of these shock jocks were ever on "Morning Edition." How did Rory O'Connor ever hear about these "Shock Jocks?"

They all (jocks) were stupid to allow the edge (that some sponsor was forced to notice) to be crossed, but the self righteous drivel is just as repulsive, especially when Fox News and Limbaugh, etc. regularly make misogynistic, racist, anti-gay and anti-immigrant comments in the guise of REAL NEWS. Let's not forget the newly late, great Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson? Where's the outrage from these same liberals?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misplaced Outrage Posted by: haystack1317
» I like your first paragraph... Posted by: kepstein7777

Comments are closed-

End the shock jock filth the same way as filth rappers...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 16, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...don't rely on the heavy hand of government.

Just don't imbibe, or as Nancy Regan said, "just say no" to having it in the house or in the car.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Feminism is to blame
Posted by: apeshow on May 16, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men are brought up to believe that only the rich and sports stars are real men. The rest are emasculated and told to shut up. Did you not expect a backlash?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

My entertainment is better than your entertainment
Posted by: lamar on May 16, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the looks of the comments thus far, I'd say the trial balloon on this issue has been shot down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Actually, I had planned on continuing to not listen to them
Posted by: brunowe on May 16, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The boycott strategy essentially allows to noisiest and most militant groups to define what gets issued over the airwaves. Like it or not, we share a country with enough people who actually want to listen to this stuff to keep it on the air. Get rid of the Imuses and Opie and Anthonys and they'll just find someone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

THIS IS WHY
Posted by: FBUSH on May 16, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why I cannot identify myself with the left. I am far from being a republican however I agree with many of their views. I think it's absurd for anyone to try to ban radio host, words, music, movies etc. If you dont like that show then DONT tune it in! What is so hard about that concept? Dont ever for even one moment think that you should pick and choose what I get to enjoy. I wont pick and choose for you. Neo Liberals are out of control. The neocons want world domination and the New Liberals want to be dominated. This is America leave my rights alone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: fork
» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: elfinito
» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: lamar
» GREAT COMMENT ( Posted by: elfinito
» THANKS! Posted by: lamar
» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: babs
» RE: THIS IS WHY Posted by: elfinito

Comments are closed-

yesthe artickle is saying what people should like..but not asking congress to!!!
Posted by: elfinito on May 16, 2007 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is cal those THAT AGREE...of course the article outlineas an argument with an attempt to persuade people to her belief...but thats fine...that's what opinion pieces are about.

The article is calling on the Laws and Congressional.FCC bans on shock-jocks, just on the people to stand-up. She thinks that teh market will speak....I think she is wrong, and all these articles are actually going to di is increase the ratings...because it proves that the shows are testing boundaries of our PC nation, and many people love it, and hate the PC thought police.

Her boycott methods, are actually more outside true capitalism, if its harassment by a few too overcome the actual market.

But attempting to convert to your views, to change the maket is a noble and true grass-roots method, necessary in Capitalism, that has been lost by America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

OMG! Are those two guys givin' us the finger? Pass the smelling salts.
Posted by: fork on May 16, 2007 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could've sworn that when I scanned Alternet this morning, those two guys in the accompanying picture on the homepage were extending their middle fingers.

But now it's all fuzzed out, so I can't tell what they're doing (rolls eyes).

Maybe I'm mistaken and the gesture was fuzzed out this morning. Anyone else remember?

Either way, is this for real? What is the purpose of the fuzzing out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

not just the shock jocks...
Posted by: bemf on May 16, 2007 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think those of us interested in battling the misogyny, racism, and homophobia that dominates the radio landscape need to remember that it's not just the well-known "shock jocks" that promote these attitudes, but the whole radio establishment. Here in Grand Rapids (Michigan) both a Regent Broadcasting affiliate and a Clear Channel affiliate have had DJs that advocate hyper-sexualized views of women and even violence towards them. While one recently got fired for advocating violence against women, it was over a year after an online media source documented an exstensive array of harmful comments.

The fired DJ was fired following public outcry, so I think there is some precedent showing that a one to two-week monitoring project followed by a call-in or letter writing campaign could get rid of some of these folks. Of course, it's essential to advance a critique that isn't about morality, but rather says simply that things like rape, homophobia, racism, etc are never acceptable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not just the shock jocks... Posted by: JohnWalker

Comments are closed-

CBS= complete bull shite
Posted by: andrewstromotich on May 16, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they also covered up abu ghraib (don't forget that), and they created many of the false stories about WMD's, and cow-towed to big tobacco and killed a story about their forknowledge of cancer causing agents in their product...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Also...
Posted by: bemf on May 16, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also wanted to point people towards this article which I found to be helpful on this issue:

"Imus is just a symptom of a bigger problem"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Arrrghhh...the horror!
Posted by: doctorsquared on May 16, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, let me get a hold of myself here, is the article actually suggesting that most 'Murkins are...are...inconsiderate morons? That most people aren't altruistic and politically correct? That satellite radio DJ's would...would...give us the FINGER? Oh, my medication...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Just Imagine
Posted by: l_m_n on May 16, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would our country be like if these so-called progressives spent as much time and effort getting mad and doing something about George Bush as they did Don Imus?

As others have said, shock jocks have a job: to be offensive. To get offended is the whole point. Don't like it? That's a shame. But that's what they were hired to do.

Now compare this to.. oh.. our Administration. They say and do much worse. And that's not in their job description. I'm annoyed that it took the PC police this long to get really angry about anything. Where were they when Habeas Corpus died in October? Where are they now during this ridiculous farce that is the Attorney hearings? Isn't that worth getting upset about?

Attacking Don Imus and Opie & Anthony is simply diverting our attention away from what is really important. And the right is willing to let us beat up these straw men so we won't beat up the ones in power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» exactly Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Just Imagine Posted by: babs

Comments are closed-

talk radio is a verbal pogrom
Posted by: wleming on May 16, 2007 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations lower intelligence and promote sadism, sexism, racism, and consumerist thinking.
Limbaugh, O'Reilly et. al. are racist, misogonist employees... as was Imus, making millions lowering human intelligence.
CBS, capitalist: bs... doesn't like intelligence... it hurts profits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: talk radio is a verbal pogrom Posted by: JohnWalker

Comments are closed-

What don't you understand about the First Amendment?
Posted by: Sludgemaster on May 16, 2007 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot formulate an objective standard for "decency." Not even the Supreme Court is capable of formulating one -- take a look at FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. 98 S. Ct. 3026, 438 U.S. 726, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073 (1978). As a rational or objective criterion, the Supreme Court's "community standards" rule is so subjective as to be meaningless. That is why we have the First Amendment --because it should be obvious that allowing the government i.e., the FCC, to dictate what is "decent" will necessarily result in censorship. Why is your definition of "decency" any better than Imus's? The marketplace has already established what people want to listen to. What you are suggesting will remedy your perceived "indecency" is already operating in the marketplace of ideas and you have been over ruled. As you are advocating censorship, your objection is actually directed at the Constitution, not the "shock jocks." Before you advocate allowing the government to legislate "decency" take a look at how well that has worked in other countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

CBS, owned by Westinghouse
Posted by: fanny666 on May 16, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Westinghouse is a pretty major defense contractor- Westinghouse actually built the US's first ever nuclear sub.

As far as shock jocks... who cares? This is certainly not the worst thing Westinghouse does, nor is it in the top 1000 most damaging aspects of our culture. Our obsession with righting the terrible injustice of people saying stupid and naughty things on the radio only makes our ignorance of other humans' suffering that much more obscene.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I'm no prude, but.....
Posted by: Voicedude on May 16, 2007 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....I think there 's a big difference between the ground-breaking exercises in 'free speech' that the likes of Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and Dick Gregory had with their struggles and today's 'there are no boundaries' lack of vision. Since today we have an 'anything goes' mentality, most often anything does. People eat bugs for a chance to win money, no-talent audition-ers embarrass themselves on national TV, young girls take off their tops for a t-shirt.

There's no boundary left to push in the envelope. All we can do now is notice just how far away from the envelope's original boundary we've gone. There's no such thing as 'class' any more. That's because there's no such thing as 'self-regulation' any more either! Just because you can break a door down, it doesn't mean you always should.

Seriously, I'm no prude. I guess I like a tasteless fart joke, dick joke, or sexual innuendo as much as anyone else, I guess. I can also handle a lot of violence and disturbing images. It's just that I'm not thirteen any more and these things take up less space in my life now. I also enjoy the finer things in life, too. It's just that our entertainment - music, movies, TV, radio, etc. - is rarely trying to be good much less tasteful, and that seems to only involve about five to ten percent of the total any more. Most electronic media panders to the lowest form of entertainment, and most of it - even the commercials now! - are crass, vulgar, insulting, fear inducing, tasteless, mind-numbing, and filled with Schadenfreude. And I like to take my crap in moderation, thank you.

Shock radio may have just finally worn out it's welcome. As a second generation radio man, what's happening on radio now is a FAR CRY from what it used to be, for many reasons - mostly not for the better. ONE of those reasons was 'Shock Jock Radio'. I, for one, won't miss it. Maybe 'reality TV' won't be far behind.

With this recent tone in radio, maybe now we can get back to being 'witty and clever' instead of bing merely shocking. Or better yet, maybe we can just shut up and play some more music...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm no prude, but..... Posted by: JohnWalker
» RE: I'm no prude, but..... Posted by: Voicedude
» RE: I'm no prude, but..... Posted by: JohnWalker
» RE: I'm no prude, but..... Posted by: Voicedude

Comments are closed-

Speech isn't free, freedom ain't free, Censorship sucks, Censor my f-- words
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on May 16, 2007 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speech isn't free, for example hate speech or yelling fire in a theater can get you before a judge.

The airwaves are regulated by the government and our laws, answerable to [corporations] the public by law. In theory, certain things can be prohibited.

Nothing can be prohibited. If you're Howard Stern, you can have sex on radio or TV and get away with it. It helps to make millions and have really good lawyers, when the ratings are hot, you are backed by Westinghouse, Time Warner and anybody else who might have done a few arms deals with Saddam back in the day. We're talking about several degrees of separation here.

Meanwhile, some idiot in the Washington Post says what I write sucks because it's under a psuedonym. F--- him. This is called scatological humor against those without any real concept of what something is about.

It's obvious that some things have gone too far and the victim is the public property of media, being used for the profit and power of the few. A lackadaisical attitude towards such and towards acquisition of ownership is exactly what keeps us on the same vicious cycle, which the author of the article unwittingly stuck themselves on by not thinking out of the old box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

puzzling...
Posted by: DeAnander on May 16, 2007 5:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all this ranting about how the hate radio shows should not be suppressed by the heavy hand of the State apparatus, must be protected from censorship, the Gummint mustn't be allowed to interfere w/"free speech" blah blah...

what on earth makes you people think the hate radio shows are not *part* of the State apparatus? who runs the Gummint? the same corporate elite that owns the media. haven't they been feeding you war-n-glory movies for the last N years to prime you to send your kids off to Iraq, or to go yourself if you are young enough? haven't they been spoonfeeding you racism so that you won't care too much how many "dangerous" brown people we kill to keep Halliburton's stock price high? and lots of tasty swaggering homophobia so you'll feel anxious and eager to Prove Your Manhood by signing up? don'cha think the gratuitous misogyny and hatespeech against women in the media has some connection to the political push for a ban on abortion and other rollbacks in women's rights? that the deliberate encouragement by whiteboy execs of gangsta rap w/its vicious stereotypes of Black men and women might just assist the Boss in driving racist wedges between different sectors of the downsized, jobless, confused working class?

people say, gee, Westinghouse and GE are doing "far worse things" as in war profiteering and weapons sales -- well their media arm is just the PR department for those very activities. it's not two different things they're doing, folks -- one harmless and one harmful -- it's one coordinated thing. the PR campaign and the product rollout. the anaesthetic and then the shot. the distracting patter and then the sleight of hand.

come on folks, the shock jocks are just the ideological shock troops of the State -- the rightwing, white-supremacist State, run by the revolving-door army of corporate honchos -- making damn sure you hate your neighbour and them Damn Furriners and Faggots and Uppity Wimmin more than you hate the Boss. hello... *you're being played*.

the shock jocks, like the fearmongering "thriller" and cop shows, are one big psyop. there's the heavy hand of the State for ya -- clever boys they are too, they can forcefeed ya with nationalist racist dickhead crapaganda -- at your expense using your airwaves -- and then get you to defend your "right" to lap it up obediently. criminy, how obvious do they have to be before the audience gets a clue?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

No one's calling for censorship here...
Posted by: Progressive Citizen on May 16, 2007 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been repeated ad nauseam but I'll say it again--people calling for a boycott aren't using the power of the state, or the power of any large institution, to silence anyone. People have a right to organize a boycott, to use their personal power as individuals, and as consumers, to send a message.

And if other people don't like it, they can protest that boycott in any forum possible. Even organize a counter-boycott, who knows? (I believe I've actually heard of this).

The irony today is that even with the power that individuals and groups have to use boycotts, THERE IS STILL CENSORSHIP. The 1978 Pacifica decision by the Supreme Court held that the FCC could censor the so-called "seven dirty words."

And yet, no one censors racial, gender, anti-gay and religious slurs!

Shows you where the censors' real priorities are--protecting the precious ears of their children from off-color comments while being free to feed them all the hate in the world.

That's one thing progressives should be proud of: even if we detest speech, no one here's calling on the FCC to censor the language we find offensive. And we shouldn't, just as the conservatives should rely on boycotts rather than the FCC in reducing foul language they dislike on the air. Although if there had to be censorship, hate speech should get the ax as opposed to the mere dirty words that bluenoses love to bleep. But that said, we should oppose censorship and we do.

That being said, it is wise for progressives to be judicious with the use of a boycott, to think about who they are targeting and for what reason, and not to blindly boycott every distasteful statement--though we're certainly far from that.

The question is: how major and how offensive is the statement in question, and is it consistent with progressive values to boycott the purveyors of that message?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Same difference Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Same difference Posted by: lamar

Comments are closed-

Freedom of Speech in Vietnam
Posted by: anotheropinion on May 16, 2007 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just returned from two years in Asia, teaching English part-time for a year in Hanoi, Vietnam. One of my classes was a group of teen-agers, and we were able to get into some fairly interesting discussions that might have been taboo in other age groups.

On the subject of free speech, I asked the class "Who believes in the right to speak freely?" I believe ten or eleven of the group of twelve held up their hands. Well over 90% of them claimed to believe in free speech.

I then asked "Should you have the right to say that George W. Bush is stupid?" to which all of the students enthusiastically replied "Yes! Of course!"

"How about Ho Chi Minh? Should I be able to say that he's an idiot?" I asked them. The tone of the class changed immediately. The students looked down at their desks almost as if in shame, nervously darting their eyes around the class to see how others were reacting. It appeared as if a few of them were waiting for Vietnamese Special Forces to bust through the windows and carry me away.

After a few moments and a bit of prodding from me, every single student shook their heads and said that I should not have the right to say that Ho Chi Minh is an idiot.

I promptly informed them that they do not believe in freedom of speech. For freedom of speech to work, even the most offensive, detestable nonsense must be protected. They all then came to the conclusion that they would not support free speech in Vietnam.

The same applies to the PC police in America. They don't believe in free speech. And too many clowns are jumping on the bandwagon, claiming to be victims.

Before we know it, Larry the Cable Guy will be considered cutting edge.

Wake up, "victims". You're shitting on our Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Channel button?
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on May 16, 2007 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there's this nifty new invention called the channel button. it, along with another revolutionary button called the "power button" are completely free of gov't control--well, sorta.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

As an afterthought..
Posted by: lwbaby on May 16, 2007 9:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author kept referring to homophobia yet none of the examples exhibited it. Nappy headed hos, slimp flied lice, rape. Nothing about sexual orientation in any of it so why the mention?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Funny?
Posted by: Adam Weishaupt on May 16, 2007 9:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll give you talented, but I don't think Opie and Anthony are that funny. I know it's personal taste, so it's irrelevant to the discussion; they are terribly successful. Netherworld of the id, hmmm? If it's a culture-wide problem like you suggest, then, I despair for a solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Funny? Posted by: notabilia

Comments are closed-

HOW TO STOP IT? GROW UP!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell on May 17, 2007 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that people who enjoy "shock jocks" whether on the right or left are simply folks who never matured enough to understand that rebellion against the "norms" of society that are nOT liked is NOT changed by virtoilic hate and lack of decency towards others. Ratings are high for these nihilists so where is the REAL problem?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Opie and Anthony, et al.
Posted by: Ranch_Davidian on May 17, 2007 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find shock jocks juvenille, crude, insulting and offensive. Landing on a station on which one of these half-wits is bloviating for more than a second makes my blood boil. I can't stand them, can't stand what they say, can't stand what they do and wish they'd all fall off the face of the earth as well as the broadcast waves. I'm serious-it would be hard for you to find someone who loathes these cretins more than I do.

But censorship is not the answer, nor is telling people what is acceptable entertainment and what isn't. I rail against fundamentalists Christians all the time for their attempts to transform the country and all its citizens into their narrow little ideas of how things should operate. These same fundamentalists do the very same things that the author proposes here, and I regularly roll my eyes in disgust at their actions. I understand the intentions here are noble - to reduce or eliminate the toxic stew emanating out of the mouths of these losers, but the interesting thing is, fundamentalists claim noble motives as well. Once one group get to decide for the rest of us what's good and appropriate, where will it stop? Maybe we'll like the result, but there's an equally good chance we won't. Why risk it by starting down that path?

So to Opie and Anthony and all their immature wanker brethren, spew your filth all you want. I don't have to fight you to win. Popular tastes change every decade or so. The culture will change and what seems so refreshing and irreverent about you today will seem about as fresh as a bag of potato chips left open for a week eventually. In the meantime, I'll just keep changing the channel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Your Moral Outrage speaks volumes
Posted by: wickedashtray on May 17, 2007 5:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hypocrisy here on this site and others is mind-blowing. before you jump on your pile of moral outrage think for a moment what will happen if this current hysteria over political correctness continues. Your favorite TV shows, music, websites etc will not be safe from these same special interest groups forcing this PC crap down your gullible little throats. Do you honestly think a climate of Fear of speaking ones thoughts, comedy or political beliefs is a good thing? At what point did we assume the right to not be offended?

At some point we need to accept the fact that being offended isn't illegal. If we don't, it will.... and on that day we'll really be "f**ked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Question for "same difference"...
Posted by: Progressive Citizen on May 17, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To people who say "same difference" with regards to state censorship and a boycott, why is organizing a boycott not just another form of free speech?

People organizing a boycott are peacefully persuading others not to participate in a certain activity--i.e. supporting media that they (and the others that join the boycott) find offensive.

No one is forcing people to participate in the boycott.

And to people who enjoy whatever speech is being boycotted, why can't they organize a counter-protest?

My two cents' worth: State censorship is mandatory force by a powerful institution. Boycotting comes from the actions of individual citizens who choose NOT to partake of a certain media if they find its content deeply offensive. No one can really stop people who want to boycott a certain message, short of state action. And wouldn't that state action against the boycott be censorship?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Question for "same difference"... Posted by: Progressive Citizen

Comments are closed-

Left Out A Few
Posted by: bob t on May 18, 2007 10:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer seems to have left out a few public airwaves radicals. Don't forget Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rupert O'Murdoch, Joe Scarborough, Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson. To name just a few more, of course there is Ann O'Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Phyllis O'Schlafly, Peggy O'Noonan, Tim O'Russert and some other extremists. All mouthy people completely gereft of any Humility.
I do like Mark Shields and EJ Dionne to name a few good ones. These days there only seem to be a few thinkers left. The Rest are all ideologues, rampant, vicious, vehement ideologues who contribute their support to the Bush Republican death machine for profit and world domination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Reply
Posted by: Balans on May 20, 2007 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello!

Their irreverence is refreshing in a world of canned news and bland entertainment. They tend to be equal-opportunity offenders, mostly going after self-important celebrities who really need to be taken down a peg. On occasion they gore one of my sacred oxen, and I change the station.

Thanks, Smileys

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Shock Jocks
Posted by: marrieah on May 20, 2007 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amazing to me that a media giant like CBS or any other media outlet should have to feel it is necessary, under the guise of the 1st amendment practice of free speech, to permit such tasteless bantering on any show under it's banner.

The first thought that came to my mind is who now controls this company. Thoughts that comes to mind are those of immature kids (some who were over the age of consent) who didn't have anything else to do but shout out whatever came to their minds during the days of the Klan.

It seems that now since those groups are now underground, we have a new group to take it's place via the Shock Jocks.

What is it about us as a people and a nation that most in the world envy, yet we ourselves either don't know how or don't want to practice common decency.

Will we have to lose what we have in order to fully appreciate what this country is supposed to be about and practice.

What a pity. What a shame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

These guys are not the danger
Posted by: opeluboy on May 21, 2007 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, they're pigs. But so is their audience, or at least their audience is vicariously enjoying these jocks' piggishness.

These guys are comedians. Bad ones, sure, but comedians.

Others, like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity have their followings of mouth-breathing shitheads, but they are dwindling.

The real danger comes from people like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, two seemingly level-headed, well-spoken men. But therein lies the danger. Both these guys drape themselves in phony, smug religiosity, appealing directly to the Christian fundamentalist crowd, and then use almost all their energy to promote Zionism, hatred of Arabs and Islam and to encourage war.

Their revisionist history of the Middle East, especially of Palestine, has no equal. Both men endlessly repeat bullshit not even believed in Israel any longer, but it goes unchallenged. And because both Prager and Medved cloak themselves in this smarmy appreciation for Christianity (which, by the way, both utterly reject, duh), their benighted audience just buys anything they say.

I never listen to shock jocks, unless Mike Malloy is a shock jock, but millions do. Opie and Anthony may appeal to Americans' baser natures, their sexism and racism, but they are not trying to control foreign policy, initiate the slaughter of millions or keep the present carnage going.

Nothing would make Prager and Medved happier than a total war against the Arab/Muslim world. I consider that much more serious than anything mentioned in this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ressless
Posted by: ressless on May 22, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only reason shock jocks have jobs is that people listen to their shows -- no audience, no ads, no money -- that's capitalism in action, folks. Turn it off, change the channel, if you don't like it.
What I find offensive is that I can't even sit through reruns of Cheers without seeing those disgusting, pointless, anti-meth ads (paid for by us) where lies are presented as truth. (I'd rather be called a "ho" than a thief and a murderer.)
Or is hate-mongering acceptable when it's done by our government?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS