I have to weigh in on one thing in the news (note the great job I’m doing at ignoring news and putting blogging aside…where does that 12-step program meet, again?) – the KCRW/Loh contremps.
I’ve wanted to stay away from it for a variety of meatspace reasons, but got my face rubbed in it just the other day.
One of our commenters, Blackberry, posted a couple of comments which certainly read as pretty offensive, which ended in this thread:
We can even put a sign over the camps, right Blackberry? Something along the lines of “Arbeit Mact Frei”.
That’s been done to death though, I suppose.
Posted by: Porphyrogenitus on March 7, 2004 07:26 PM
No, it will be in English.
Posted by: Blackberry on March 7, 2004 11:58 PM
That made me pretty damn unhappy, and I felt that I needed to do something, so I added:
Blackberry, you’re feeling kind of troll-like to me here. And since by our policy, the post author determines who can comments on posts, I’m going to politely ask you to disassociate yourself from the explicit intent of your last comment – that setting up camps is something you want to do.
A.L.
Posted by: Armed Liberal on March 8, 2004 12:09 AM
So I offered Blackberry an opening to clarify his comments, both here and in email (turns out his email bounces), and he didn’t pick it up and he’s gone.
Which of course goes to the issue of free speech, which is much in the news both here in LA and on the East Coast. The big-league versions of this, with Howard Stern vs. Clear Channel and Sandra Tsing Loh vs KCRW.
First, I ought to note that I’m not unaware of the fact that I just reduced Blackberry’s audience’ that in essence, I challenged his freedom of speech. So I’m not one who believes in absolute freedom of speech. In this case, I see the comments here as important parts of a meaningful conversation, and while I will never yank someone for disagreeing with me, I will yank someone – on either side – who I think is damaging the conversation by driving people away or being gratuitously offensive.
I don’t hold much of a brief for Stern; I’ve heard him once or twice, and while I do like ‘lad’ humor (the UK magazine Superbike is my favorite motorcycle magazine), there’s some deep core of assholery in him that I just don’t find appealing. And I remain mystified why people who trade some shred of their self-respect for a chance to go and be mocked in front of an international audience. Kind of like the people who go on Jerry Springer to confess sleeping with their wives’ sisters…why, exactly, did this strike you as good idea?
And the general coarsening of media life makes me kinda sad. It’s not like I’m some fucking Emily Post (get it?), but there’s an erasing of the line between appropriate and inappropriate that makes me sad.
So on one hand, I’m not very interested in Stern, and I think it’s well within Clear Channel’s rights to carry who they see fit.
But last night, I’m reading Isaacson’s great biography of Ben Franklin, and I just got to the ‘Apology for Printers‘, and here’s a key quote (go read the whole thing, though):
That it is unreasonable to imagine Printers approve of every thing they print, and to censure them on any particular thing accordingly; since in the way of their Business they print such great variety of things opposite and contradictory. It is likewise as unreasonable what some assert, That Printers ought not to print any Thing but what they approve; since if all of that Business should make such a Resolution, and abide by it, an End would thereby be put to Free Writing, and the World would afterwards have nothing to read but what happen’d to be the Opinions of Printers.
I’ve bolded this because it represents a basic truth that we need to remember.
So unless Clear Channel (and Warner/AOL, and Disney/ABC) are willing to ‘print such a great variety of things,’ the only things we’ll hear and know are those which meet their opinions. And that’s not such a good idea. And to have the federal pecksniffs creating the “Broadcast Decency Act of 2004” begins to push too damn far; what is the bright line between socially indecent and politically indecent, I’ll open by asking.
Now it’s easy to rail at corporate repression, and paint careful connections between repressive politics and selective media, but before we talk about the mote in Clear Channel’s eye, let’s talk about the log in KCRW’s. For those of you outside of Southern California, KCRW is the leading NPR station in the region, and possibly in the country, in terms of audience and influence.
It has a button on the Mighty Odyssey dashboard, but I do click away from it usually pretty quickly; the overall air of sanctimony, combined with questionable facts presented as Revealed Gospel.
And, in total keeping with that sanctimony, one of their commentators, local writer (and Friend of Cathy Seipp), Sandra Tsing Loh said ‘fuck’ as a verb on one of her taped shows – and it was repeated – and suddenly she’s a nonperson. There’s nothing on the KCRW website acknowledging the controversy. Her past shows are gone from the archives. It’s like Big Brother’s hand waved, and suddenly she was Photoshopped out of the pictures.
I’m sure you know about it, but I’ll suggest Cathy Seipp’s post (which comes with the added perk of Ruth Seymour’s personal email as well as that of the trustees Ruth Seymour works for) as an overview, along with Matt Welch’s as good political screed on the issue.
Let me start by positioning myself. I’m the guy who doesn’t have a television set. I don’t listen to Rush or to Howard Stern, and when Kevin and Bean (the local corporate alt-rock shock jocks) have their sidekick Ralph give ‘Sex U’, I change the channel.
But I think I’m gonna start listening to all of them now.
Because what’s going on frightens me.
I don’t think that the men in black helicopters are leaving their Illuminati meetings and determining what media we get to listen to.
But I do think that we have a media elite – and Ruth Seymour, the executive director of KCRW-for-life is certainly as much a part of it as Michael Eisner – maybe more so, since her job is more secure.
And that media elite, rather than promoting open discussion, and accepting challenge, as Franklin anticipated, is, to echo Ruth Seymour, not only marginalizing those it finds unpleasant, but working to institutionalize them at the same time. Seipp has some quotes:
The next morning she got a call from programming director Ruth Seymour, who said that KCRW was dropping her show. “She said, ‘It’s unconscionable in these times for you to leave the station without making sure that was bleeped,’” Sandra recalled. “Then she said she’s sending a memo to the station, not using my name for some reason … I don’t understand that part … but saying that the engineer is on probation.”
“And then she said, ‘Sandra, I know this comes at a hard time. I don’t know what’s going on with you. But please, Sandra, get some help!’”
Sorry, Ruth, but the only one who needs help is the increasingly intolerant left.
Look, I swear in writing on this blog a lot, and I am somewhat of a pottymouth in person. But I do believe that what Loh did was wrong, and deserved criticism and possibly even sanction. But KCRW’s actions are just beyond the pale.
I’m old enough to remember when being progressive stood for openness and toleration. So is Ruth Seymour, so there’s just no damn excuse.
Sorry if my last comment there was outta line. I meant it as semi-humorous but yes, pointed to highlight what was involved in what Blackberry was talking about.
I guess I still have something to learn about care & feeding of trolls. Mia culpa.
Hey, I think you called it exactly right – no negative comment on your post at all, whatsoever, etc.
A.L.
Just tracked through some of the KCRW/Sandra Tsing Loh postings across the web. The thing that bothers me in that situation isn’t so much that KCRW fired Loh (that’s their perogative) but that they made 6 years of her work vanish. Denial of history is creepy. Big Brother-ish really is the only way to describe that behavior.
Along the same lines, but to a much lesser degree, it bothers me that you deleted Blackberry’s comments. While I’m sure you accurately summarized them, I want to see what the troll said. In the future when you feel the need to sanitize a thread, maybe you could annotate the offensive comments instead. I don’t know if that’s feasible, but it’s best to let fools hang themselves. Just a thought.
On a more positive note, I can’t remember who said it, but freedom of the press only applies to those who own a press. Ban the trolls; Blogspot is only a URL away, and they can go play in their own smelly sandboxes.
I don’t mean to ber obtuse, but I have read and re-read your post and I don’t understand exactly what your problem is with KCRW’s actions. I’m assuming it’s the general fear of chilling free speech that has come about as a result of Howard Stern paying the price for Justin and Janet’s wardrobe malfunction.
Before he went into syndication, Michael Savage also used the f word on air in the middle of dirve time on KSFO. He also disappeared from the air without comment by anyone. I have no idea what happened, but a week or so later he reappeared, chastened for the moment. He then made blueberry quality remarks and got the immediate hook from MSNBC and KSFO, though with much more publicity that time. I don’t recall outrage from first amendment lovers then.
Right now, Rush Limbaugh is the subject of what smells for all the world like a politically motivated witch hunt for picking up a medical drug habit just like the unprosecuted judge of the court bench that will judge him. No outrage.
Why is it that so many defenders of the first amendment only take umbrage when it is denied to those with whom they aqgree?
A.L.,
Do not despair. Broadcast television is headed for the cultural junkpile with radio not too far behind it. Radio will always have some part to play for basic communication, but broadcast tv is like some junkie on a very long bender(something bad is going to happen). The only new ideas that I have seen outside of cable shows have been ripped versions of BBC shows.
It is only logical that fresh ideas most often get communicated through fresh mediums(i.e. blogs). It also stands to reason that regulation always stays a few steps behind. I also believe that the new mediums will sustain open communication for a longer period, because they allow for more individual contact/content.
Now I predict that broadcast television will be supplanted in coming years by internet tv. As the cost for bandwidth drops, the choices available will increase geometrically(probably not exponentially). A side benefit from this will be the capability to gauge ahead of time what sort of content you might experience. There has to be some level of compromise between letting children be exposed to everything vs. censoring everything. That is why I believe there is a place for regulation. But where and how much is always open for debate. I just think that the point is moot when it is a sold out form of communication anyway.
So I am saying that we should not lament the passing of one form of communication, when its replacement is that much more desirable. But like most things, we need a little necessity to drive the innovation.
I know this is slightly off topic, but it bears thinking about. The value of blogging is that the people who blog, hold themselves to certain standards. And if they don’t, there are a thousand more blogs waiting to take their place.
Happy blogging,
Mike
“Sorry, Ruth, but the only one who needs help is the increasingly intolerant left.”
There are certainly things one can beat up on the “left” (did you mean “Left?”) for, but I don’t think this is one of them. Chances are Ruth was responding (very poorly, to put it mildly) to the current cultural climate. Who knew that people would be more offended by the exposure of Janet’s boob than the acted-out violence that brought us the exposure?
You talk about Clear Channel, the FCC, and Ruth. I won’t disagree about Ruth (although I have never met her so I can’t claim to know her politics), but when did Clear Channel and the FCC become part of the left?
Rather than making it political, isn’t this more of a cultural distinction?
I would also argue that this is a case demonstrating how not important “The Loh Life” is to KCRW. I recall listening to Jason Bentley’s show about a year and a half ago when he played a new version of a song by DJ Shadow around 7 p.m. on a weeknight. He had not previewed the song, and it contained some of the Seven Words. He apologized on-air the day after. I presume his significantly smaller punishment was due to the fact that his show raises big cash for the station. And that Friends, is office politics for you.
Actually, it’s because I expect more tolerance from KCRW than I do from Clear Channel.
As a ‘progressive’ force in the community, it ought to be standing up to the nonsense of the Decency Police in the interest of freedom and tolerance.
I’ve been meaning to blog about this reversal for a while; why it is that my conservative friends are so much more tolerant of gay-marriage promoting, progressive-taxing me than my liberal friends are of pro-Iraq-war, pro-gun me. When did liberalism become intolerant?
A.L.
When did liberalism become intolerant?
Quite a while ago. Igrew up in Cincinnati in the late 40’s and early 50’s. Cincy was then the home for Robert Taft (somewhere to the right of Barry Goldwater) and Gordon Sherer, one of the lights of the HUAC. There were only two local political parties – Republicans and Chaterites, although there was an anemic Democratic party for national elections. Despite this, my parents explained and understood (but did not agree with) the ACLU positions, etc.
When I went off to Harvard in 60, I was astounded by how intolerant all the leftists were of the right, when the opposite had not been the case where I grew up.
I don’t think this experience PROVES that the left is always more intolerant than the right, just that those who feel they are in the minority will often act that way.
I DO believe, however, that the left is historically deficient in the sense of humour department….
O
When did liberalism become intolerant?
I’d say the left became intolerant in 1917.
Full control of American liberalism passed to the left and the democrats in 1968.
Oscar –
” DO believe, however, that the left is historically deficient in the sense of humour department…”
I think it’s because the left has largely morphed into the party of the aggreived these days. Things can’t be funny if you’re a victim. You see the same thing in activist groups like PETA, NOW, etc… It’s a generalization, but the democratic party represents victim-type interests, and people who want to be sympathetic to victim-type interests – like saving endangered species, helping the poor, giving special treatment to groups who have been denied such advantages in the past. The republican party represents dominant interests – strong foreign policy, people who want to be able to defend themselves, helping businesses stay successful. When you’re dominant, it’s easier to laugh – which could also be why the republican party completely lost its sense of humor during the Clinton presidency.
I think A.L. finds us more tolerant of his opposing positions than his liberal friends are for a variety of reasons. For me, some of it is because I’ve read so many left-wing rants painting conservatives as the foulest, greediest, uncaring racists ever born. I generally think of myself as a conservative, so I strive not to give people a reason to point at me as an example. It is also, however, that as a conservative, I believe strongly in the Constitution, and the freedoms that it protects. I believe in freedom of speech, so it follows that I believe in A.L.’s right to say what he wants, and I value the opportunity to debate with him (when I’m not working 70 hour weeks). I try not to come to a debate with a closed mind, and my views have been changed over the years, largely as a result of persuasive argument. That, and I don’t think Joe would have invited people who tended to be rude to join Winds of Change.
Cheers!
Celeste
I’ll second the idea that technological advances are likely to take care of our free speech gatekeeper problem. T-1 quality lines are continuing their historical price drops and fairly soon we’re likely to cross into territory where it pays for a technically savvy person like me to set up his own WISP and split out a T-1 amongst the neighbors. The business quality lines simply do not get messed with in terms of port blocking, traffic shaping or other mischief. They’re dumb pipes and you pay through the nose for rock solid reliability and no censorship. But a T-1 isn’t thousands of dollars anymore, it’s hundreds. Split that out and you get DSL speeds for just a bit more than DSL prices.
People will be able to rent studios, do their shows and market direct to consumers via IP in cars, homes, wherever. That’s going to end the necessity of regulation because, strictly speaking, it won’t be broadcast.
AL,
Speech is where humans ‘show up’, ‘manifest’ and come into being. We learn, quite young, that there are special ‘power words’ which briefly shock the hearers around us, and get us attention when we shout them…
Shortly thereafter, most of us learn that speech comes with immutably embedded responsibilities: we are NOT allowed to shout “Fire!” in crowded theaters, NOT allowed to shout “Wolf!” when there ain’t none. We CAN, and a few of us DO, but we then spend rueful days, weeks or years dealing with the negative energy released in just a few seconds’ shouting…
I personally choose away from pottymouth, not because I cannot effectively curse in 4 languages, but because such pottymouth tends to dilute and destroy what I’m seeking to share, and it demeans who I’m striving to be.
In other words, I accept the reality of speech, and choose my speech carefully. Seems like (on-line, in-posts) you do, too! 🙂
A.L.:
I really enjoy the opportunity you’re producing here for dialogue, so don’t take this the wrong way. I’d like to get past the surface of this post and discuss those deeper concerns about where and when to draw the line. I could start, for instance, by pointing out that the great Marty Lipset once observed that printers are the elite of all blue collar workers, which was the main reasons why they evolved the only democratically led union (the ITU). So they apparently are a rather discerning lot, and they read the better part of what they print. (Well, they did until the industry collapsed as a result of what we’re doing at the moment.)
But I feel the need to communicate something of an even deeper nature that “where to draw the line.”
But not too sad to risk further dissolution of the family, separating child-rearing from marriage, which is the primary sociological factor driving the coarsening that saddens you, and me.
Which bring me to NPR, or more precisely one of those “video essays” that have become such a unique part of PBS’s “News Hour.” (I don’t think they call it MacNeil/Lehrer anymore, but haven’t paid attention.) And what I’m referring to is an essay by Richard Rodriguez offers some of his enlightened thoughts about gay marriage. How did put it, so succinctly? Oh yes: “the overall air of sanctimony, combined with questionable facts presented as Revealed Gospel.” You hit that nail on the head there. Gay marriage could bring America together into one big happy well-adjusted family, as Rodriquez presumes. But that’s apparently not what’s happening in Scandinavia and elsewhere, if early data means anything. And though the possibility is studiously ignored or distorted by “essayists” like Rodriguez, it could also indirectly create those conditions that not only coarsen the culture, but drive it right round the bend into outright social collapse.
Anyway, sorry for the diversion. Carry on.
Dear A. L.:
Perhaps you need to re-read the Franklin quote you featured. It says that it’s unreasonable to expect printers to approve everything they print or to suggest that they shouldn’t print anything they don’t approve of but there’s nothing in it to suggest that a printer must print things they don’t approve of.
And that’s what these non-censorship cases are about. This is not government censorship. This is how self-censorship works.
Now it would be reasonable to complain that ClearChannel and NPR receive licenses and financing, respectively, from the government and that this makes them beholden to the government. But once you’ve accepted that ClearChannel and NPR are creatures of the government it’s not reasonable to complain that these creatures of the government curry favor with their government patrons. That’s just prudent self-interest.
From the Public Choice perspective all state entities have an interest in charging monopoly rents whenever they can, and when that interest attaches to what is essentially an information service through patronage, without market constraints, it seems a pretty good argument for removing the service from the government teat as quickly as possible.
I didn’t comment on Blackberry’s comments in the original post, so let me do so here: I will cop to having said one or two silly things in the heat of argument on this board, but if I ever say anything as dumb as what Blackberry said, someone please trace back my email and shoot me.
Now that I’ve got that out of my system, I’m having a hard time working up a lot of outrage over Howard Stern. Clear Channel’s decision is a business decision. If I insult my boss’s wife and he fires me, that’s not interfering with my right to free speech. If, say, the FCC decided they didn’t like Stern and arrested him and threw him in jail, I could see some reason for being upset. NPR may be a government sponsored entity, but it has a pretty high degree of autonomy (otherwise how do you explain the survival of such a left-wing outlet in a government as conservative as W’s). Again, if some government agency had arrested Loh for saying “fuck” and threw her in jail, I could see being upset. And I do agree that Seymour profoundly overreacted. But she is in charge of the entity and has a right to make and enforce standards. A.L. and the people who run this blog have every right to bar people like blackberry or anyone else from commenting on it. I think banning people for disagreeing would be a bad idea. That’s one reason I come here, for good debates. If only one opinion were allowed, I wouldn’t come here. But no one has stopped Blackberry from spouting his offensive idiocy, only from doing so here. And if I were banned because of my culturally and philosophically conservative views, I could simply express them somewhere else. No one would be denied their right to free speech. OK, I’m done now.
Sierra Whisky Tango:
when that interest attaches to what is essentially an information service through patronage, without market constraints, it seems a pretty good argument for removing the service from the government teat as quickly as possible
My point exactly.
I am in my mid-40s and love Howard Stern. I started listening to him when he started in LA and have been a huge fan ever since. I bought his PPV specials, I bought his tapes, I even bought 5 copes of the Private Parts soundtrack, one with each cover art. I am deeply saddened by what is being done to him and the toll it has taken on him. His ratings prove that he has a massive audience of people who approve of his style and sense of humor. It kills me that he has been attacked for so long that it has started to affect his comedy. It is really hard to be funny when you don’t know if your livelihood will be destroyed today.
I wrote a strongly worded letter to Chairman Powell telling him that I hold him and the Bush administration responsible for this current attack. I noted that the attacks escalated under the Clinton administration and that Kerry has already said that he will not stand up for Stern’s rights as well.
Now, KCRW, the well-spring of all things Left, over-reacts and fires a long-standing employee under questionable circumstances. The Right may be guilty of being blue-nosed but the Left is guilty of being two-faced.
All true supporters of the First Amendment must rally behind people like Stern and Loh. Hell, we should even stand behind people like Michael Savage.