Monday, April 05, 2004

The Stern Gang

By Mark Hand

Read full article...

Posted 04/05 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. As I said in a commentary attached to another PA piece, I do hope that PA readers --for all their talent, time and good intentions-- spend at least as many heartbeats on “organizing on the street level” (getting neighbors, colleagues, et. al. to do something that might impact...) as they do observing and criticizing Franken and Co.  With regard to Mark’s comments on Stern re cheerleading for Israel...I want to recommend Gabriel Ash, Raff Ellis and Jeffrey Blankfort of http://www.YellowTimes.org respecting background on the general topic.  It’s most welcome to have Mark point out what he does in the cogent article; most helpful.  But...what are we to do now?  Certainly, we must guard against spending too much time w those would-be clowns, too much time hitting on the eople of straw.  Best, Oxy

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/05  at  10:49 AM

  2. It’s obvious to me that you just don’t get it.  “It” being the Howard Stern Show as well as Howard’s recent hard-line stance on the current Administration.  If you had been a fan then you would know that moving over to Air America Radio would not do any good due to the recent rulings by the FCC and the Government (House of Representatives).  Unless of course you were being ironic, and it that case I admit that I don’t get it.

    I stumbled across your Blog by doing searches for Stern and the FCC and read your “words of wisdom” (my effort at sarcasm).  I have no idea where you are coming from (politically or ??), so I did your little poll for President (I like to do those whenever I see them on a website.  Not to simply cast my ballot, but as Litmus Test of the average person that visits a given site.  It gives me insight into the thought process or mindset of the rhetoric being spewed).  Well after doing that poll, I noticed that the results had Professor Noam Chomsky winning and Ralph Nadar in second (60% of the votes).  If just for a moment you would stop, take a breath and realize what another 4 years under Bush would do to us and our country!

    Publicity Stunt or not (and I feel strongly it’s not!), I am thankful everyday that Howard continues to rant and rave against Bush. 

    - Paul in Arizona

    Posted by Paul from  on  04/05  at  06:04 PM

  3. “T and A” that’s a sexist comment.

    Posted by Brandy from  on  04/05  at  07:42 PM

  4. Paul: Based on my understanding, the government could “censor” Howard Stern by levying tremendous fines against the stations that carry him and the company that syndicates him, forcing them to get rid of his show for fear of receiving another similar fine. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the FCC could issue a ruling banning Howard Stern from the airwaves and I don’t think any legislation is floating in Congress right now that has a provision calling for the banning of someone from the public airwaves for “indecency.” If Infinity drops him, Stern, of course, could move to another station willing to take a chance on him. It’ll probably never happen, but Air America could pick up his show if Infinity lets him go. I’ve listened to Howard Stern off and on since the early 1980s when he was the morning host here in Washington on DC-101 (remember the Air Florida stunt?). I find his shtick amusing at times but was really put off by his post-9/11 Arab bashing and jingoism. As for Press Action, I try to publish a wide variety of commentary. Many of the contributors to this website agree with you about Bush’s removal from the presidency being job one, while other contributors believe a John Kerry presidency could be almost as damaging, if not more so, than the current regime in power in Washington.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  04/05  at  07:45 PM

  5. Brandy,

    T and A is referring to the Stern show being sexist. Why can’t the author use that term? Nancy

    Posted by Librarian from  on  04/05  at  07:54 PM

  6. Brandy: Should I instead have used the term BandB to describe Stern’s fixation on women’s breasts and buttocks? I’m confused. If you get a chance, please enlighten me on the proper, non-sexist way to describe the Howard Stern show’s objectification of women, and I will then use your description in any future analysis of his show.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  04/05  at  08:03 PM

  7. NO, the definition of “TandA” is not Stern being sexist; it is what it is. And the author was not quoting Stern.

    Michael Savage calls children killed in school shootings: “Ghetto slime.” What if one were writing about Savage and were to say: “Savage is still covering the ghetto slime who are being killed in school shootings.”?

    Or what if you were to use the n word describing a racist using it? “The KKK bigot will still keep ranting about the n

    Posted by Brandy from  on  04/05  at  08:44 PM

  8. My two cents (anyone counting the vote?).  I think Mark’s use of “T and A” takes aim at the very sexism Brandy accuses him of, and is appropriate.  It is a terse way of exposing and disposing of the problem without wasting too much time on it.  Nothing personal Brandy, because I usually enjoy and agree with your comments.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/06  at  09:05 PM

  9. None taken, Tracy.

    Posted by Brandy from  on  04/06  at  09:54 PM

  10. Yes, I catch your drift, Brandy. Thanks for the elucidation on the potential sexism inherent in the use of the TandA term. As Tracy says, I used the expression in an attempt to concisely describe the core theme of Stern’s show. But in the process, I may have lent credibility to a term that dehumanizes and reduces women to the value of their body parts.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  04/06  at  10:23 PM

  11. Thanks Mark. Like I said, I do not think that you are a sexist, but we all know that Howard Stern is! Good piece.

    Posted by Brandy from  on  04/07  at  01:43 AM

  12. Brandy, Howard Stern is not a sexist he is a comedian and an entertainer, a sexist is a person who “Discriminates based on gender, especially discrimination against women”.  What facts do you have to back that statement up?  Have you heard, witnessed, read any news story or recorded document that confirms your blind belief that he is a sexist?  What you are doing is basing your opinion solely on what you have seen on a 30-minute TV show or heard on his radio program.  News Flash!  That is entertainment! That is comedy!  That is a persona!  Even given that information, where have you seen a true act of sexist behavior on the show?  When a Stripper or a Porn Star comes to the show and wants to display, act out, or talk about whatever comes to mind, how is that sexist?  This is a person who does this for a living, and who chose to be on the show.  No one is forcing anybody to do anything.

    Posted by Paul from  on  04/07  at  10:29 AM

  13. It doesn’t matter any longer that no one has forced anyone to go on Stern’s sexist, racist show.  His humor --as you call it-- has objectification of women as part of its foundation.  And...without dwelling only on that topic...please note that people may very well have died as a result of Stern’s irresponsible remarks about “foreigners.” He’s contributing to some of the worst elements and tendencies in this country, and making a buck in true capitalist fashion regardless of what he leaves in his wake.  It is not acceptable to excuse “his act” on the basis that this is America and everyone’s free to do what they want...under the Entertainment umbrella.  People who make jokes at others’ expense (mean-spirited in many cases w regard to Stern), people who write songs in support of our murderous troops abroad and those who take part in dramatic productions that compound ignorance w ignorance on several counts...are not “okay” because they’re working in the field of Entertainment.  To say that Stern must be allowed his thirty minutes in the Entertainment Sun each day or each week because this is “the land of the ree” is tantamount to taking the position that there was nothing wrong with the countless Cowboy and Indian flicks that indoctrinated Americans during their “formative years” or the countless cheerleading cinematic atrocities that not only praised our past abominations abroad, but without which they, in many cases, could not have been waged.  I won’t even go down the road that brought us support for lynching here at the “home of the brave” vis-a-vis Entertainment. Jack Trumpbour from Harvard has written a great book on parts of the above as has Ward Churchill, but, perhaps, you’d be more comfy watching a rerun of an early D.W. Griffith film, Paul.  Hoping you’ll come around, Richard The Ox.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/07  at  11:23 AM

  14. I was going to re Paul, but Richard beat me to it; could not have said it better myself.

    Posted by Brandy from  on  04/07  at  03:03 PM

  15. What Brandy said.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/07  at  08:54 PM

  16. Boy you people are seriously missing the point here...Instead of being worked up about what tasteless drivel Howard Stern may be currently spewing...take note the FCC today has in fact leveled the expected half million indecency fines against Clear Channel stations, who have in turn made their previous suspension of Mr. Stern permenant. Stern, mind you, has been been doing the same shtick for years and has been dropped at a very particularly moment in time: Stern being vocally critical of Bush (whether for right reasons or not) on what is a party-friendly radio corporation, and when the FCC has been newly reinvigortaed following the apearrance of the ‘evil’ breast during the Super Bowl. And while this might not strike of censorship in overt terms, it certainly treds dangerously close…

    And that’s not to say I don’t heartily agree that the media cheerleaders (Stern included) - whether it be overtly vile characters such as Limbaugh, Savage or the more more mainstrean uncritical voices such as Leno, Letterman - have played a large part in establishing this war as credible, or worse yet, a form of entetaiment. But appluading (or even being indifferent to) this obviously reactionary capitulation as some sort of progress is utterly disgusting…


    “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” - NC

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/08  at  07:10 PM

  17. BruceA: I agree. It’s truly disgusting what the FCC is doing to Stern through the proposed half a million dollar fine against Clear Channel and the clear threat against other popular radio/TV personalities who dare to mix anti-Bush programming with “indecent” fare. What’s also disturbing, but not suprising, is that the two “Democratic” members of the FCC - Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps - voted in favor of the fine against Stern/Clear Channel. Adelstein said: “I expect that stepped-up actions like those we take today will convince broadcasters that they cannot ignore their responsibility to serve the public interest and to avoid the broadcast of indecent material over the public airwaves.” Nice work, Democrats.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  04/08  at  07:37 PM

  18. One can condemn BOTH the FCC targeting of Stern AND Stern’s disgusting behavior towards women abd people of color. It does not have to be either/or.

    Posted by Brandy from  on  04/09  at  05:59 PM

  19. I want to step to David Letterman’s defense here.  I’m not going to belabor the point except to say he has been very critical, and in a very witty way, of Bushco.  Not constant enough, granted.  And he did do a 5-minute support the troops shtick a couple of months ago.  I usually only watch the first 20 minutes or so, and not always, but I haven’t e er seen him support the war effort or capitalize on it cheaply as entertainment.  Conversely, as rich as he is, he has had some very stinging comments about Bushco, money, campaign finance, fund raising and the like.  Letterman despises Bush, I promise you that.  I know, Richard, he’s not doing enough in contradistinction to Bushco.  Okay; but we can argue this point further once we get to it at all.

    Peace,

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/09  at  06:40 PM

  20. I really like what Brandy said most recently above; I wish that everyone would honor that attitude with words and actions.  I know that Tracy’s heart is definitely in the right place, BUT...perhaps it’s because he only watches the first twenty minutes as a rule...that he’s necessarily ruled out the ridiculous RAW support that Letterman provides for The Powers, including Bush.  Regardless of how he might feel about Bush personally, and periodic criticisms for the value of a given joke now and then at Bush’s expense notwithstanding, I can assure you that Letterman’s track record is every bit as bad as Leno’s.  That that would apply to any host of either show at any time is a given...as per my comments on High Culture and Mass Media in the recently posted “Jewish Suicide Bombers....” on this site.  Of course, it’s not worth documenting what I’m saying, not worth taking the time.  However, if anyone needs the evidence...and providing the documentation will make a difference in how they behave...I’ll consider watching the disgusting Cheerleader for American Genocide with a bit more attention instead of letting him drone on when we have him on...as White Noise.  My apologies for my bad late night habits --when I succumb-- vis-a-vis the environment.  Love you, Tracy...Your Richard The Ox.

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/09  at  07:39 PM

  21. I don’t think this point worth the effort arguing.  I agree holistically Letterman is a diversion from real, important matters.  I don’t want to say why, and I’m not even sure it’s true, but I usually watch the intro against my will for social and familial reasons.  Letterman does, however, almost always do a little video skit in that time of: Bush’s joke that’s not really a joke; Bush galvanizes America’s youth; Bush’s newest gaffe, that are usually satirical jabs at Bush.  I’m done on the matter, and don’t mind if my assertion here is answered.  I may be wrong.

    Jah j’all

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/10  at  04:13 PM

  22. I understand that Tracy is open on the subject, and is not arguing a point, but it is important to clarify what the problem is w Letterman.  Obviously, he has no problem w the safe crack.  He and Leno are “safecrackers,” so to speak, w zero payoff politically...except to reinforce the status quo when all is said and done. I’m not a fan of Amy Goodman’s, but...in her new book she has entries re Letterman that can serve, for now, as documentation of what I’m saying; I don’t care much for the book for a number of reasons.  Again, I have much more on Letterman upon request.
    Best, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/10  at  05:56 PM

  23. I’m not sure this point needs further belaboring really. I think, in the end, most of us (in this
    forum anyway) are aware that 99.5% of television programming (and that could be extended to most
    other forms of media as well) is at best a mind dulling diversion and at worst, actively engaged in upholding/celebrating the institutions/ viewpoints we are attempting to challenge. In its current state, mainstream TV (networkand cable included) will rarely desire, and certainly never be allowed to offer anything more than a surface jab. Even Bill Mahr’s ABC show ‘Politally Inncorrect’ (which was harldy radically subversive, but did produce the occasional provocative guest/discussion) was
    quickly axed when Mr. Mahr dared to ay to something to the effect that - “the 9/11 highjackers, whatever one might say othem, were hardly cowardly...and that the term is better reserved for people like us, lobbing cruise missles from 2000 miles away.”

    That’s not to deny the fact a fair bit of what’s on tv is actually very well crafted, well written, amusing and or esquisitely packaged (saying otherwise would be to ignore its allure) - it’s just that the rare times a ‘truth’ may for a fleeting moment reveal itself, it is almost always a small truth,
    usually at the expense of a larger one…

    That being said, I readily admit that I watch too much TV...probably much of it comparatively ‘worse’ than the stuff that has been mentioned on this thread. And I say that not in celebratory deffiance (ok a bit,) but rather in stark recognition of my own infallability. As Richard has suggested before,
    breaking our habits/routines is of vital importance...but these habits DO die hard, and not always completely (presuming we even want them to.) On a personal note, I vividly remember the point when I started REALLY reading websites like Pressaction, Counterpunch, Dissidentvoice, etc. It was at once both enlightening and utterlly devasting - the full weight of the truth, immediate and irrevercible, I found to be almost unbearable (although my ‘awakening’ can be considered an infinately less cruel fate than that of those who have had the truth slowly and inexorably revealed from the moment of
    birth - by actually living it.) But despite my desire, at times, to return to a state of more
    ‘blissful ignorance’ I’ve come to the conclusion (aside from the fact that it would be outright
    irresponsible and ammoral to do so) echoing the sentiments of Germaine Greer, that inner “conflict and confusion,” while hardly pleasant, can be “fruitful states of mind.”

    Rather than shaming each other into avoiding our particular poisons (which doesn’t work) - whether it be stupid pet tricks, The Sopranos, or even Brad Pitt movies (all affections Richard) if we are unable to completely surrender our ‘mainstream’ viewing habits (or even desire too,) the important thing is to not attempt to convince/delude ourselves that TV is anything other than it is (sometimes outright debilitative), and make a pointed effort to maintain a healthy critical distance.…

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/11  at  04:06 AM

    24. Next entry: A Reality Show With No End in Sight

    Previous entry: nader banner 60 high

    [ads]

    Support Press Action