Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
Again, while you were a broadcaster that's fine. We took your opinion. But you have difficulty adressing other issues to which you say you don't know. Those are the ones that interest me at the moment and I thank you for the input of he bad, he get fined.
|
Again, let's stay in context. There are a lot of things I don't know, but let's not confuse them with the things that I choose not to comment on because I am in no position to affect their outcome -- and, more importantly, don't care to be.
To the extent that the Congress chose to bring the indecency issue to the forefront after the Janet Jackson episode on the Superbowl telecast (when ratings research say that over 25% of children between 4 and 14 in the country were watching) could be called politics. It could also be called moral outrage on the behalf of a large segment of the US population -- particularly the parents of those children. That's what Congress is supposed to do -- what the "public" desires. Stern points out, and I think he is probably correct, that this was the beginning of trying to put some sort of handle on indecency on the airwaves.
But to say that Stern was taken off the air because he spoke against President Bush is ridiculous. Hey, Rush managed to survive the Clinton years after daily tirades -- and will survive the Kerry years should that come to pass.