Clear Channel’s Problem Doesn’t Stop at Rush, John and Ken

john and ken

John and Ken

Listening to the radio these days is an engagement in naked decorum whereby the listener’s sensibilities are liable to be affronted and confronted. But sometimes we need our sensibilities confronted. There are certainly some things in American society that we need to talk about.

However sensitive certain topics may be, America can’t continue to run from itself. Whether it’s racism, sexism, narcissism or anti-intellectualism, one thing is clear: America has deep-seated issues that need to be resolved — issues that will not be resolved without open discussion. We all need our perspective challenged from time to time, and we grow intellectually from rational public discourse. Even ideological discourse, as disagreeable as it tends to be, tests one’s logic and reasoning about the ways of the world, and either validates, or invalidates, how we see, or should see, the world.

However, nobody listening to the radio should have their sensibilities affronted. Edgy or provocative, programming has its place…that place is pay television (cable) and pay radio, where those who desire to consume that type of content can do so. This is known as commercial free speech. The public airwaves should not be used to espouse offensive and indignant opinions that are an affront to the public’s sense of decency and intelligence. American society and its “shock culture,” has moved so far away from rational discourse — it’s not even funny anymore. In truth, it never has been. What’s funny about assaulting someone’s dignity or making humor of a public or private tragedy? What’s funny about that?

whitney houstonNothing. It’s irrational and indignant discourse at its worse.

Public airwaves are a public trust. They are not owned by government or conglomerates. They are regulated by the government (the FCC) and leased by companies whose responsibility, first and foremost, is to inform the public.

Entertaining the public is a residual benefit and advertisement represents a subsidy enhancement for the cost of privatizing the airwaves. With that said, nobody has the right to insult somebody, or assault the dignity of someone, living or dead – for the sake of entertainment.

Recent comments by syndicated radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Los Angeles KFI talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of The John and Ken Show, show what happens when commercial free speech incites unprotected free speech and public decency standards are violated.

Both talk shows are products of communications conglomerate, Clear Channel. Clear Channel has a problem, and it goes far beyond the rationales being given for John and Ken’s, and Rush’s, inappropriateness. Clear Channel pushes conservative talk radio around the country. In most instances, they don’t have a counter point of view to offset the rhetoric these ideologues espouse.

Its Los Angeles station, KFI, has to be the whitest station in their system, with not one black person on the air. This might be one of the reasons there is such a lack of respect – the lack of another cultural perspective. This is where color-blindness has taken us. We can’t talk about the sensitivities of race without fearing we’ll assault the sensibilities of those indicted in the process. Since KFI is in the business of affronting sensibilities, let’s afford theirs: KFI, where’s all the on-air black people at your station? I know, you couldn’t find any, right? Yeah, that’s what they all say.

Then, there’s the aspect of programming rudeness. There’s a very thin line between provocative and rude.

sandra fluke

Sandra Fluke

The John and Ken Show got in trouble first with loose and indignant comments about the death of pop culture star, Whitney Houston. Houston’s death was a shock to us all and many grieved, and still grieve for her because of her life experience and the hope that she’d make it back. The public, most of them anyway, wanted to see Whitney make it back, and many felt she was on her way back.

Whitney Houston was not a person to be ridiculed in life. She was respected. She was a pop icon who did some amazing things. She just went through some tough times, like everybody else, and really shouldn’t be remembered for the low points in her life. We all should be remembered for the sum accomplishments of our lives.

But the only thing that John and Ken could remember was that Houston had an addiction along the way, and they remembered Whitney Houston in the most vile and insulting terms they could…by calling her a “crack ho” on the air.

These clowns (excuse me, no disrespect to clowns) have absolutely no respect for the dead, for her family and for the millions of people who love her.

This is not John and Ken’s first time out on this ledge. They have, over the years, insulted the dignity of many in the African American community, assigning indignant “nicknames” to people. True, they do it to everybody – but when they do it to others, it’s about their politics; when they do it to black people, most of the time – it’s about their race and/or a separation from their dignity.

This time, they went too far. That little suspension they got was the proverbial “slap on the wrist.” You apologize, you come back. You met with the black community – let ’em call you a bunch of names, vent their indignation and then you go back to doing business as usual. And they will, if we let them.

Limbaugh’s situation is a bit different, but the same in principle.

Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern invented this game of “rude radio.” Talk radio has been around for years, but in the 1990s, it became a vehicle for ideological conversion. When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, new Speaker, Newt Gingrich, said at the time that the number one reason for the takeover was talk radio. He named Rush Limbaugh the “101st Senator” of the incoming Congress.

Stern was a “shock jock” that just insulted people’s dignity without reason. He was followed by Don Imus, who was fired after a “Nappy Headed Hos” comment on his talk show, about the Rutgers women’s basketball team, blew him up. People have to take responsibility for their mike. It’s not just about an apology anymore…it’s about changing a mindset.

anthony samadLimbaugh, on the other hand, has always had a political agenda and for the last 20 years has said some pretty outrageous and very insulting racial things. Even with his own drug addiction, he spun it as “an addict to painkillers.” His latest affront was an assault on the dignity of Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified before Congress on women’s right to access birth control contraceptives. Limbaugh called her “a slut” and “a prostitute” because he said she wanted the U.S. taxpayer to pay for her (to have) sex.

Women have come out of the woodwork on his @** on this one. This is not yo mama’s or grandma’s generation. Contraception is a fact of life for today’s women controlling what happens with their bodies and who are smart enough not to leave it up to men. Fluke could really sue Limbaugh for slander because she is not a prostitute – and false statements and defamation of character are not covered under protected free speech.

Limbaugh’s and the Republicans’ views on birth control are outdated. Limbaugh is the master of the public apology for intentional mistakes. For him to suggest he used the wrong words, in his three-minute diatribe, is insulting. What other word do you substitute for “slut?” “Ho,” maybe??? Well, John and Ken tried that already. But he called Fluke a prostitute, too. Didn’t sound any “nicer” than the John and Ken version. Calling women “hos” and “sluts” insults their dignity and personal integrity – in life and in death.

The radio is not the place for that kind of conversation. Rush, John and Ken are entertainers at the end of the day. Their conversations are not useful discourse. They are mindless babble about what they don’t like about the world that Clear Channel uses to fill air time and sell advertisement. They are expressing their opinions. They have the right to free speech – but not unprotected. And not on the radio, assaulting people’s dignity.

Anthony Samad

Listeners are consumers, connected to advertisers. Once advertisers start paying attention, that’s when Clear Channel pays attention. They fired Stern over his rude and righteous indignation. A couple more advertisers lost, and Rush is out the door, too. Bet that Clear Channel doesn’t love him that much. He’s on his hands and knees apologizing, so he knows he’s in trouble. But KFI thinks John and Ken are funny, and ain’t nothing funny about assaulting people’s dignity. Nothing funny at all – not in life or in death.

And that’s gonna’ be a problem for Clear Channel, who has lost its perspective about what talk radio is really supposed to be about – discourse. Not rude, indignant and worthless perspective. But now that they have our attention…we’ll see how serious talk radio is about decorum and diversity of perspective. Your play, Clear Channel/KFI.

Anthony Samad
Black Commentator 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. Tony Mac from Way Back says

    I a black man always in search of the truth. I truly believe people should be responsible for the things they do or say.  Your comments about “mindless babble” tells me you don’t listen to their shows or study the comments these radio hosts give.  If you were in the business of fact finding like a true journalist is suppose or use to do, you would discover that their shows are recorded with transcripts behind their comments.  Are you race chasing or being just a drone?  The comment about Whitney was obsurd and wrong but it had nothing to do with race.  It had to do with putting down drug addicts trying to recover from an hopeless dilemma that always ends up with jails. institutions, and death.  The punishment should have been send John and Ken to a 12 step program like Narcotics Anonymous or Cocaine Anonymous.  Drug addiction doesn’t care about race, creed, or color.  It’s only purpose is to destroy.  As far as Rush, how come you haven’t done any research or shared your research about Sandra Fluke.  That statement she made in front of Congress was insane.  Many women are upset about her statement.  Read that transcript.  Take a look at how she received a forum in front of congress.  She’s a 27 year old activist with a hidden agenda.  No way would I pay for her sexual activities.  Three year law student with a scholarship!  Three thousand dollars for contraceptives! Does she really speak for women?  Why don’t you chase after those who made real racist and demeaning comments.  Go after Soledad O’brien or Bill Maher.

  2. JoeWeinstein says

    Samad raises issues that go beyond smarty comments as to whether leftists or rightists do or don’t play fair in current radio examples. 

    He seems to be saying that public and other ‘free’ radio should not ‘affront’ anyone’s ‘sensibilities’ – but also that we do need radio which will sometimes ‘confront’ sensibilities. 

    I am left unclear as to whether for Samad these verbs ‘affront’ and ‘confront’  mean the same thing. 

    If they DO mean the same thing, then he seems to be saying that your need - as member of the public for open discussions on radio – can legitimately be met only by ‘paid’ radio, whether or not you can afford to pay.  And then why would we need any free radio at all, seeing as it is disbarred from meeting the one identifiable need for any radio at all? 

    If they DON’T mean the same thing, then what sort of censorship and politically correct guidance for public and other ‘free’ radio is Samad proposing so as to clarify its limits on speech? 

  3. says

    Thank you Mr. Samad ;

    As you can see , your plain spoken truths upset the tea bagger retards….

    This can only be a good thing , perhaps one day they’ll understand that lying and distorting the facts isn’t what adults do in discourse . -Nate

  4. in_awe says

    Thank you for clarifying the First Amendment rights for us. According to you, they only hold where YOU say they should hold. Got it. Very enlightened thinking. BTW We’re still waiting for the civility police on the left to take on the likes of Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr, etc. Tick. Tick. Tick.

    Shall we enumerate the characterizations of conservative women made and gleefully repeated and hailed on the left? They make anything said by John & Ken or Limbaugh sound like nursery rhymes. Just Google the names Malkin, Coulter, Palin, Star Jones, Condelezza Rice, etc and append to your search any of the most vile terms for a women and check out what you get from the left and its elite.

    Write an indignant article about that and then we can talk.

  5. says

    It’s funny how the Left hails themselves as champion of free speech.  Then you read an article like this.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Mr. Samad.  Free speech is not just for the Left.  In a way you can blame the person in the mirror for creating Rush Limbaugh.  The Left spoon fed us unbalanced news from their point of view for years without a care.  People figured it out and went elsewhere for their news.  Thus creating the Conservative leaning talk show.  You couldn’t handle people with opposing views, so you try to take their rights, and of those who listen to them, away.  Instead of trying to silence them, maybe you should try to understand them, and we who listen.  Why should the Right be the only one’s willing to compromise?  

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *