Aside from the fact that radio sucks otherwise and is
about to gain an entre from the NRA, film critic Roger Ebert, of all people, gives a rousing explanation of what is at stake in a column dubbed
"Stern belongs on radio just as much as Rush:"
Unlike millions of Americans, I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. One reason for that is that I am usually at the movies when he's on the air -- an alternative I urge on his listeners. Limbaugh does offend me when I monitor him, because he has cheapened political discourse in this country with his canned slogans and cheap shots. Once you call a feminist a ''feminazi,'' what else is there to say about feminism?
Of course you may disagree with me and prefer Limbaugh. I may disagree with you and prefer Stern. That is our right as Americans. What offends me is that the right wing, secure in its own right to offend, now wants to punish Stern to the point where he may be forced off the air.
The big difference, of course, is that Stern's offenses usually have to do with sex and language, while Limbaugh's have to do with politics. Stern offends the puritan right, which doesn't seem to respect the American tradition of freedom of expression.
You don't have to listen to Stern. Exercising the same freedom, I am Limbaugh-free. And please don't tell me that Stern must be fined and driven off the radio because he uses the ''public airwaves.'' If they are public, then his listeners are the public, and we want to listen to him on our airwaves. The public airwaves cannot be held hostage to a small segment that wants to decide what the rest of us can hear -- especially now that President Bush supports consolidating more and more media outlets into a few rich hands.
Indeed, that last statement probably reveals the dichotomy, and difference of ideals at stake here, more than anything else. Back before the media congolmerates got the GOP leadership to shelve congressional reversals of the FCC's deregulation rulings in a secretive conference committee, the changes were fought by a diverse coalition of groups from the left and the right, with the former fearing a marginalization of dissenting voices and alternative programming, and the latter fearing the proliferation of more vulgarity and violence upon mass culture. That since then, liberals have been going about trying to adapt by competing in the marketplace of ratings and ideas (think Air America Radio) while our brethren on the right have reverted to trying to silence the clear favorites of the consumer (as Ebert says, you don't hear anyone screaming at the FCC to defang Limbaugh, who recently suggested that the Clintons might assasinate John Kerry if he wins) definitely says something about the relative value placed on free expression...