|
March 11, 2004
For crying out wolf!
Yesterday, Jeff Jarvis reported the latest horror from the FCC: By a one-vote margin, the committee defeated an attempt to extend FCC censorship to cable and satellite.Jeff Jarvis is absolutely right, but unfortunately, the distaste many people have for Howard Stern prevents them from worrying about the implications of any of this. In today's news, the FCC is asking Congress to give it the power to regulate cable TV. Can the Internet be far behind? I'll put it to the Howard Stern haters this way: assume he's off the air and you're all happy. Do you really think the hard core activists who've been after Howard Stern all these years are going to just pack up and go home? I think they'll view it as a good first step. They have been trying to censor the Internet for many years now, and a victory over Howard Stern will only embolden them. That is why I call him the canary in the mine. But Howard is not as intrusive as a canary, because you don't have to hear him sing. You can turn off your radio! On the other hand there's at least one optimist, Reid Stott (link via Glenn Reynolds), who thinks this is mainly a matter of Howard Stern "crying wolf", that he's been kvetching for years, and will stay on the air. Let's hope he's right -- because, wolf-cryer or not*, I want Howard to remain on the air! While I am at it, I have to disagree with Mr. Stott that Jeff Jarvis' refusal to spell out the "F" word (and his deletion of expletive-laced comments) makes him guilty of the same censorship he condemns: “F Michael Powell. F the FCC. F Clear Channel.”Their morning radio? Who are "they", and who makes them or their sons tune in? What about their morning cable television? Their morning Internet? I see a logical problem in analogizing between a talk radio show and a blog. Jeff Jarvis has every right to use or not use the "F" word, and if he decides to allow comments, they become part of his blog, and if he doesn't use the "F" word (or the "N" word, or any other word), why, he is free to delete or edit the comments in any manner he pleases. No one is standing over him saying he must do either. Many times I have read Jeff's reminder to those who disagree with his comments policy -- "START YOUR OWN BLOG!" Self censorship is not censorship at all, because no one is making you do anything. (And, if you think about it, any time you say something or don't say something, you're engaged in "self censorship.") The only blogger analogy to Howard Stern which might make sense to me would be, say, a blogger told to censor something by means of a legal or government threat. (Like Robert Cox.) In fact, Jeff Jarvis and Howard Stern already do pretty much the same thing. If Jeff doesn't like a comment, or finds it offensive, he deletes it. (Many bloggers don't allow comments at all.) If, for whatever reason, Howard Stern does not like a caller, he doesn't put him on the air. If the caller says something that they don't want to go out, Stern's people have eight seconds (now I guess it's being upped to five minutes in some places) to "delete" it. Once it goes out over the air, the "damage" is considered done. And unlike something which goes out on the Internet, there is no way to un-say it. (Although even in the Internet, there are ways of retrieving things that were "un-said.") But no one -- yet -- has the right to censor Jeff Jarvis, or me. That's the crucial difference. I dislike censorship by others, whether corporations or governments. If my ISP decided it hated me and my blog, and refused to provide me with service, and there existed a list of "NO SERVICE ALLOWED" blogs, I would be effectively censored. They can't do it now, but I believe there are people who want them to be able to do it, and are seriously working on it. (Suppose Verizon and Comcast decided to prohibit certain blogs from being accessed as SonicWALL does?) The taking out of Howard Stern will embolden them, and as I've said before, harm the quality of my life. What is it about turning off the radio that people cannot seem to understand? There are numerous web sites which offend me. I can visit them and get all apoplectic, or I can decide not to visit them. Why should radio be any different? And what is "public" about the airwaves that isn't "public" about the Internet? One ray of hope: so far Howard Stern is not losing advertisers.
The long list of Howard Stern’s incidents of indecency proves mainly that he has been indecent for a long time. I have been a daily listener for ten years, but I have never seen anything resembling this -- being yanked off six stations simultaneously while his enemies yell for shutting him down completely. Your central argument is that it’s nothing new. Well, it’s new to me, and I don’t like it, because I want to listen to Howard Stern, and because I don’t think the drive for “cleaning up the airwaves” will stop with him.I was promptly put in my place by someone who said that There’s nothing worse than a self-proclaimed outlaw, a envelope-pushing risk taker, who cries like ten thousand babies when the perfectly logical consequences hit him in the ass every few years or so.To which I answer "I WANT HOWARD!" "WAAAAAAAHHHH!" That wasn't long enough..... "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!" Once more: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!" (There are some good comments there, and Mr. Stott has done an excellent job of sticking to his guns. I plan to stick to mine, too!) posted by Eric on 03.11.04 at 09:09 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It isn't censorship to control what goes on your own blog, to edit, delete, or ban comments or commenters, or not to have comments at all.
Speaking of which, I'm going to ask you a favor if i may: Could you please delete that "F-word" from that comment I wrote in that thread a little while back? Not the comments, just the _word_. I thought it was funny when I wrote it, in the context in which I wrote it, but I'm a little embarrassed by it now and I may have embarrassed you. Thank you.
Anyway, in my opinion, Howard Stern is a hero, but if it was Rush Limbaugh or even Pat Robertscum being driven off the air by the government, I would still defend him. Free speech is for everybody, even the most loathsome, or else it's not free.