Politics > Politics-USA > Hey, FCC, if Howard's dangerous so are Sham Hannity, Anal Cyst and Li'l Weiner Savage.
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2004 09:08:30 AM |
| Object: |
Hey, FCC, if Howard's dangerous so are Sham Hannity, Anal Cyst and Li'l Weiner Savage. |
From The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/5/04:
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/8845252.htm
HOWARD'S CONSERVATIVE ALTER-EGOS
By LUKE THOMAS & SOM KHARAZMI
Howard Stern has been attacked for indecency and immorality, but our
airwaves are filled with voices far more destructive than Stern's.
If Stern is dangerous, surely Fox News pundit Sean Hannity is, too.
Author of two best-selling books, co-host of Fox News' "Hannity &
Colmes" and host of his own afternoon radio program, Hannity hits the
audience from all angles, including falsehoods and distortions.
One of Hannity's more compassionate moves was dubbing Abner Louima,
Haitian immigrant and victim of horrific NYPD brutality, "Lying
Louima."
Hannity informed his radio audience that Louima's severe injury was
the product not of police brutality but of a homosexual act.
To be fair, Hannity has a point:
If the parameters of a "homosexual act" include being tortured and
raped with an assortment of cleaning objects, then he's dead-on
accurate.
When not selflessly volunteering his time and effort at local HIV
clinics, radio host Michael Savage displayed unparalleled levels of
homophobia on his short-lived
MSNBC show "Savage Nation."
Savage was quickly fired in what a spokesman dubbed "an easy
decision."
Why?
Labeling an on-air caller a "sodomite" and then requesting that he
"get AIDS and die."
MSNBC wisely got rid of him, but his radio show is still pumped to
over 300 stations nationwide.
And on whose outlets is his questionable and even dangerous judgment
heard?
Clear Channel Broadcasting, the same network bullied by heavy FCC
fines into dropping Stern.
There's hypocrisy in action.
If only Savage had harmlessly joked about diseases or homosexuality -
like Stern - instead of delivering hysterical invective, the FCC might
have acted.
And who can forget Rush Limbaugh's drug confession?
We omit the word "prescription" since prescription drugs are drugs,
too.
After years of demanding tougher punishment for drug users, including
those who smoked marijuana, Limbaugh qualified his own behavior to his
listeners with tear-jerking stories of addiction and pain relief.
So, are we really to believe that Stern's innocuous morning banter is
on par with Hannity's lying, Rush's hypocrisy or Savage's savagery?
What sort of perverse moral lesson suggests that unrepentant lying in
the name of ideology is acceptable, but joking in the name of
entertainment is forbidden?
To Stern's credit, he never asked for this sort of publicity.
He is certainly no stranger to celebrity, having pulled a few stunts
over the years to garner attention and enhance his notoriety.
But it wasn't Stern who wanted to be dragged into this debate over
rights, freedom and government-sanctioned forms of entertainment.
The three horsemen of the conservative apocalypse, on the other hand,
are hounds of publicity who relish the opportunity to battle
government and stir up tabloid-type controversy.
Unfortunately, the inconvenient reality is that their administration
controls the government.
So at least until November, the FCC's blatant abuse of power is
operating well within the confines of "legitimate" government action.
______________________________________________________
Double standard? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Harry
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
