It's about FCC chairman Powell's efforts to win back political favor after he mucked up his media deregulation effort and attracted the wrath of the many who apparently hate big American media. Powell has flip-flopped on the First Amendment and media regulation. When he was an FCC commissioner, he said that "government has been engaged for too long in willful denial in order to subvert the Constitution so that it can impose its speech preferences on the public--exactly the sort of infringement of individual freedom the Constitution was masterfully designed to prevent." When he became chairman, he said, "I don't know that I want the government as my nanny." In 1999, he accepted the Media Institute's Freedom of Speech Award with a stirring defense of the First Amendment: "We should think twice before allowing the government the discretion to filter information to us as they see fit." But now, Powell is regulating something far more sacred than the business of media: its content, its speech, its freedom. And he dismisses--or at least tries to wash his hands of--the chill, telling Congress recently: "I do not have the luxury of ignoring my duty to enforce the statute because owners might react with excessive conservatism."

And, of course, this is a political story about currying favor with religious conservatives. This is their big hurrah--to take back the country from godless media, to make TV safe for everyone. As fired NPR talker Tsing Loh said: "I've seen the future and it is John Tesh...music. Pre-recorded."

What we're really seeing is the final nail in the coffin of the mass market and of one-size-fits-all media.

Advertising Age says that the new Puritanism will drive the young and desirable edgy elite to satellite and cable, raising the average age of TV's audience and tearing apart the mass audience. This will hasten a fundamental shift in the center of gravity of American media. Broadcast TV and radio will become (even more) boring, old, predictable and safe and will keep shrinking. Younger audiences--along with the advertising dollars and creative talent aimed at them--will migrate (no: stampede) to cable, satellite and the Internet and then to on-demand delivery over high-speed wireless. These alternate media won't become moral cesspools, for they've already sown their sexual oats: Look at how HBO started with tittering flashes of tit but now produces the leading edge of entertainment; look at the shrinking market-share of sleaze on the Internet. The audience will continue to fragment in slices of slices as even the Internet creates new markets (witness the blossoming of blogs). News and commentary will be delivered via every angle of the political prism. Media will internationalize as never before. Since there will be no more mass medium, advertising will become laser-targeted. The people formerly known as the audience will gain more choice, more involvement, more ownership of their media. The greatest cultural change agent of recent history turns out to be the remote control, which gave us command of our media and took it away from the national nannies. That's why they're in such a panic.

So they set the Wayback Machine for the 1950s, when TV was clean and most shows carried the seal of the Code of Good Practices, which the FCC wants broadcasters to reinstate in some form. The code decreed that "illicit sex relations are not treated as commendable." So much for prime time. It insisted that "attacks on religion and religious faiths are not allowed" and that clergy "under no circumstances are to be held up to ridicule." So much for TV movies about Jim Bakker and kiddie-diddling priests. "The presentation of cruelty, greed and selfishness as worthy motivations is to be avoided." Farewell reality TV. "Unfair exploitation of others for personal gain shall not be presented as praiseworthy." Donald Trump: You're fired!

But it's not just about sex and the religious right. It's also about political correctness and the left. We live in an age of offense. The cardinal sin today is to offend; the clearest badge of victimhood is to be offended. Sadly, I hear some refuse to defend Stern and his speech because "he offends." Well, the First Amendment is often defended on the backs of the offensive: Larry Flynt or the KKK. But I won't lump Stern in with them. For, judged in the whole, Stern is not offensive.

Let me tell you why I am such a Howard Stern fan. Until I reviewed his show for TV Guide, I had heard the same snippets, quotes and characterizations you had. I thought he was best taken in small doses. But after listening to him for a few weeks, I discovered that, to the contrary, he is best taken in large doses. For then you discover that Stern is charming, likable, decent, funny, a talented entertainer, a great interviewer, and--more than anything--honest.

Stern is an antidote to all the overpackaged, smiley, phony, condescending pap of personality in American media and entertainment. In an age of predictable news (shouldn't news be just the opposite?) and political correctness and numbing national rhetoric, Stern cuts through the crap and says what he thinks--and what many of us think. And that is incredibly refreshing. No, it's liberating.

Let's be honest: We don't all talk like Hallmark cards and human resources directors. When we sit in the bar with friends, we gossip about people we hate; we joke about sex. And on our couches, when we watch the news, we think thoughts we won't admit. Stern admits them. Is he sexist? By many definitions, sure. But unlike many a wolf in sensitive-man clothing, he's straightforward about it. Is he racist? No. He has racists on the show, and he ridicules them because idiots are entertaining. Admit it: When you watch reality shows, you love to make fun of the fools on them, and that's not necessarily something to be proud of--but making fun of racist bozos is. Stern gives us credit for knowing they're offensive; he doesn't have to explain that to us or protect us from it. The nannies and the PC police only insult our intelligence when they think they need to save us.

Stern shies away from no sacred cow. He is a positive force in American media. Just as weblogs tweak big media to keep them honest, Stern pushes the line to keep politicians and celebrities and his audience honest. So I like to listen to him. If you don't, fine. Listen to something else. I won't stop you. Just don't stop me.

And there's the real question: If the government is going to regulate speech, where's the line and who's going to draw it? Is it at the least-common-denominator that makes all media safe for 5-year-olds? Is it at the church door that makes all media safe for church ladies? Is it at my car door so I can still listen to Stern? Is the line going to be drawn just on broadcast or will it extend to cable and satellite--and the Internet? Will the censored be just shock jocks--or newsmakers or bloggers?

I couldn't say it better than Michael Powell--the old, freedom-loving Michael Powell--did in 1999 when he accepted the Freedom of Speech Award (which one assumes is now hanging in his bathroom): "I have gained a deep and profound respect for the wisdom of having an unwavering principle that stands at the summit of the Constitution, and holds: 'Government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'... Benevolent or not, we did not sign away to a Philosopher-King the responsibility to determine for us, like a caring parent, what messages we should and should not hear."

So to the barricades, edgy elite! This is not just about Howard Stern. It's not just about Bono or The Breast. It's about our First Amendment. It's about our freedom of speech. It's about us.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.