// irrelevant

If you keep up with this sort of thing, you know that “shock jock” (what a stupid term) Howard Stern recently made the switch from FCC-restricted FM radio over to satellite radio.

First off, I want to say I agree that freedom of speech is being greatly limited by the American government. It is not the FCC’s duty to regulate what goes over the airwaves, nor is it one they deserve. It is a power they have given themselves. Democracy in action, right? That’s what our founding fathers had in mind? A small, vocal minority controlling this nation?

Anyway, America’s complacence aside, why satellite radio? Let’s stop pretending he’s a champion of free speech. He gave up the fight when he left terrestrial radio. Interestingly enough, there’s talk about Sirius executives trying to set some boundaries for Stern. There is fear that congress will decide that government regulation of satellite radio is necessary. Personally, I think they just have it out for him.

Why didn’t Stern take his show to the Internet? Free speech is still relatively safe here (in America, at least, can’t say the same for all countries). He would have a wider audience. Maybe he didn’t like the idea of people pirating the show and getting his dose of free speech for (gasp) free. Maybe there were moral issues. Maybe it was the $700 million he received for signing to Sirius. Just maybe.

I did a search, looking for articles pertaining to the FCC trying to regulate satellite radio, but came upon various articles generally about the move to Sirius. Actually, they weren’t all that varied. Some were just factual articles, but many were people who were offended by Stern. I would liked to have seen some from the other side of the argument, but Stern fans are rarely articulate.

His words don’t offend me. They’re just words. His actions don’t offend me. What offends me is that the show is so horrendously bad. I like talk radio. I particularly like shows with discussions of social concerns. His show bores me to death.

I’m obviously not a fan, but I’ve listened to my fair share. I haven’t heard much in the way of constructive social criticisms. It’s usually just him saying how great a job he would do if he were in a position of power. Not actually any real ideas. They read the headlines from the news (yeah, the same ones you get from reading the morning paper or taking a couple minutes to browse around the Internet). All the guests are celebrities (it’s amazing anyone actually cares about these people). The co-hosts are horrible. They play “drops” in the show (little sound clips), which are either fart noises or sexual sounds, but they are all of poor quality. Other guests include porn stars (zero intelligence), or other young women who don’t mind being degraded for the chance to make a bit of money. I love the aesthetics of a physically beautiful woman, but what does that mean to me, listening to the radio?

When he was on FM radio, the amount of commercials was just ridiculous. I assume he made a good amount of money, but was it just not enough? Hold on, it gets better: on satellite radio, you know, the one you need to pay to listen to, there’s still advertisements.

He’s not a pioneer. He’s not a revolutionary. In the move to satellite, he’s no longer even a footnote in the history of free speech. It’s hard to take him seriously on the subject when he’s limited himself to the numb-skulls willing to pay $13 a month to listen to him.