![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
John Tierney plays off the Howard Stern story, anent his move to the less regulated satellite radio and pay-per-view TV, arguing that in libertarianism lies the new answers and policy direction that the Democrats need. Again, this is great, if everyone had a lot of discretionary money, but freedom for most is indeed just another word for having nothing left to lose.
We will also include another article discussing the Howard Stern move. It looks like they will be showing the kind of uncensored version of his E! shows that Monk has dreamed of, but it will be through a pay-access channel, which probably will not be available in San Antonio anyway, though Monk would not think of asking Pop to add another ten dollars a month to the TV bill.
___ ___ ___
If Democrats are serious in their search for new ideas, they could start with a visit to the stripper pole at Howard Stern's new studio.
Last year Stern spent his time railing at Republican troglodytes in Washington, but it didn't do him any good. What he considered a healthy exploration of human sexuality, they dismissed as smut deserving of hefty fines. What he considered an exercise of his First Amendment rights, the Federal Communications Commission described as "repeated flatulence sound effects."
But soon Stern will be free to broadcast as much flatulence as he wants. In January he takes his show to satellite radio and pay-per-view cable television, both beyond the F.C.C.'s censors. His new studio, as Jacques Steinberg reported in The Times, features a pole for strippers and a water-resistant corner for activities involving whipped cream. While Stern said he would put some limits on the new show - he promised there would not be weekly beheadings - he said he might use the microphones and cameras to broadcast live sex.
This may not be a great leap forward in Western civilization, but there's a useful strategy here for Democrats (one that mercifully doesn't involve whipped cream). Instead of denouncing Republicans, instead of fantasizing about vanquishing them, look for an escape hatch.
The Democrats who call themselves progressives are stuck in a mind-set over a century old. The original trust-busting Progressives thought the way to counteract the power of big business was with big government. Guided by the Machine Age belief in centralized institutions and scientific rationality, they wanted to protect the public interest with government agencies run by experts.
For Democrats, this strategy made political sense as long as they were running the agencies. But now that Republicans are making the appointments, Democrats are discovering the downside of rule by bureaucrats.
When you leave it to the government to decide controversial issues, like what constitutes decency on radio and television, you set off bitter public disputes that are won by the side with the most political clout. But when individuals make their own choices, there don't have to be angry losers.
Once Howard Stern is liberated from the public airwaves, people unamused by oral-sex jokes are in no danger of hearing them, while people who like him (or like watching strippers) can pay to tune in. If Democrats followed his example and stopped trying to win culture wars in which they're outnumbered, they could accomplish more by fighting less.
Consider the battles in public schools over whether to teach intelligent design theory, which history textbooks to use and whether to offer sex education or mandate the Pledge of Allegiance. The fights are inevitable because these school systems are products of the Progressive Era's fondness for large centralized bureaucracies.
No matter how smart or well-intentioned the school administrators are, they can never please everyone. No matter how much scientific evidence there is against intelligent design, a majority of parents tell pollsters that they want it taught alongside evolution, which just infuriates the sizable minority that sees it as thinly veiled creationism.
But suppose the tax dollars now going to public school systems went directly to students in the form of vouchers. The conservative parents passionately in favor of intelligent design could use vouchers to send their children to private schools of their liking. School boards would be under less pressure to please religious conservatives - but even if the boards gave in, the liberal parents could use the vouchers to send their children to private schools of their liking.
Liberals could also benefit by rethinking their fondness for concentrating power in Washington, another piece of baggage from the Progressive Era and the New Deal, when intellectuals saw federal bureaucrats and judges as enlightened defenders of the public interest against reactionary local governments and corporate monopolies. For today's liberals, though, the reactionary monopoly to worry about is the one run by Republicans in Washington.
Yes, the Republicans are having their troubles now, but it's unrealistic for Democrats to count on a return to their former dominance. They've got geography and demography against them: the disproportionate influence of red states in the Senate, the larger families and faster-growing populations in Republican strongholds.
Democrats would be better off devolving power to the blue states they control and the private sector that welcomes anyone's money. The market is not governed by majority rule. As Howard Stern has discovered, it can be a lot easier to win over millions of paying customers than three F.C.C. commissioners.
-- John Tierney, "What Democrats Can Learn From Howard Stern" for The NY Times
..........
When Howard Stern crosses over in January to satellite radio and his own pay-per-view cable channel, he will do so from a new Midtown Manhattan studio loaded with the kinds of accessories that one would expect to find if the Playboy Mansion were given an extreme makeover.
At the touch of a button, a rack will drop from the studio's two-story ceiling to reveal a selection of bikinis, for those guests who can be cajoled out of their street clothes.
A corner of the studio - which is located not at a gentleman's club but on the 36th floor of the McGraw-Hill Building at Rockefeller Center - has been outfitted with water-resistant walls and floors, for any gags that might involve whipped cream.
And just outside Mr. Stern's reach - as well as that of the Federal Communications Commission, which monitored him on commercial radio but no longer will - will be a stripper pole.
While Mr. Stern will also be taking plenty of gadgets with him from his syndicated terrestrial radio talk show - including the Tickle Chair, which is not to be confused with the Tickle Post - he will be leaving one noticeable piece of baggage behind: the increasingly tough restrictions imposed on him in recent years by his bosses (at Infinity Broadcasting) and the F.C.C.
Indeed, executives at Sirius Satellite Radio - which is paying Mr. Stern $100 million a year over five years to produce his own morning show and to program two radio channels - and In Demand Networks, which will package excerpts for pay-per-view, said they had placed no limits on what he could do.
Like a teenage boy suddenly set loose in a school patrolled by neither a principal nor teachers, Mr. Stern said in an interview on Tuesday that he had yet to rule anything out - including the use of his microphones and cameras to record a sex act in his brand-new 4,100-square-foot studio.
"I don't know where we're going to go with this thing," he said. "It's going to be kind of fun to figure that out with the audience. I'll ask them, 'Do we want to go there or not? Are we going to cross this line or that line?' "
Still, the possibility that Mr. Stern, 51, might go from R-rated fare - his current show features interviews with topless guests - to soft-core pornography could just be a tease. He has long been a master barker who can lure listeners under his tent for the sheer thrill of wondering how far he might go.
To that end, Mr. Stern simultaneously dampened such expectations, saying that while none of his new bosses had drawn any boundaries for his new show, he expected to do so.
"I have my own personal lines where I won't go," he said. "It's funny, the people hear 'satellite,' they hear 'on demand,' they think, 'Oh good, there's going to be a beheading every week.' That's not it at all.
"This wasn't about getting on the air and having the freedom to have sex with a woman, necessarily," he said of his move to satellite. Instead, he suggested, "To talk about human sexuality in a way that's adult, or maybe even really super childish, is my prerogative as a comedian."
Scott Greenstein, president of entertainment and sports for Sirius, said, "Howard has a history of knowing where the lines are, and we're confident he'll continue to retain that perspective at Sirius."
Mr. Greenstein added, however, "We want to make sure he gets to do the show he wants."
Which actually could pose a creative challenge for Mr. Stern. To many listeners, he was best when railing against Michael Powell - the former chairman of the F.C.C., which over the years has levied decency fines of more than $2 million on Infinity and the stations that carry his program - and his own squeamish bosses. Just this week, Mr. Stern was reprimanded on the air by Tom Chiusano, general manager of WXRK-FM, his home station, for going too far with a bit that involved the weighing of bodily waste.
Mr. Stern, who signs off WXRK in mid-December, promised an uncensored version on Sirius, which is not subject to FCC regulation.
Asked if he was worried that he might lose his edge without having a foil in a position of authority, Mr. Stern said he was not.
"If you know me, there's nothing that will make me completely happy," he said. "I will find the thorn on the rose every time."
"Come on," he continued. "I'm having this whole love affair with Sirius. Then the other day I started screaming on the air about some of the guys who work there, just because I was blowing off steam."
For Mr. Stern's fans - a national radio audience estimated at about 12 million - the transition toward opening their wallets to listen and watch him (as well as his sidekick, Robin Quivers) will be a gradual one.
Beginning Nov. 18, viewers in 20 million homes in nearly 300 markets (including New York and Los Angeles) will be able to buy access to a channel called Howard Stern on Demand. The introductory price will be $9.99 a month.
What they will see initially will not be from the Sirius show, but instead will be drawn from the 44,000 hours taped during the 11 years that Mr. Stern's program was repackaged for the E! cable channel. Mr. Stern said he retained the rights to that material, much of it originally shown with strategically placed pixilation, if it was ever shown on television at all.
That material will now be shown uncensored by In Demand, a venture of Comcast, Cox Communications and Time Warner.
Rob Jacobson, president and chief executive of In Demand, said the company would give Sirius three months to broadcast Mr. Stern's new shows exclusively. But beginning April 1, subscribers to the pay-per-view package will have access to those shows, as well as each new show, which will be available the day after Sirius listeners have heard it.
Beginning in January (the exact date has not been announced), Mr. Stern's two Sirius channels will be available to those willing to pay for a receiver (models start at $50) and a monthly fee of $12.95. The same flat fee provides access to dozens of other channels, including those featuring Martha Stewart and Eminem.
Sirius executives have been circumspect about the content of the two Stern channels. But the host, showing he had not lost his knack for tweaking his bosses, provided the most detailed description yet of his plans.
He said that one channel would showcase various free-form spinoffs of his morning show, featuring not only his regular cast (including Gary Dell'Abate, his longtime producer) but also prominent listeners with nicknames like High-Pitched Eric.
The other channel, he said, would be modeled on the "Good Guys" - the lineup of disc jockeys from WMCA, the legendary New York pop station of the late 1960's and 70's - though rather than being "good," Mr. Stern said, the hosts he would hire (some established, some new) would push the bounds of decency in a manner not unlike his.
There will, for example, be plenty of cursing.
"From the absurd basement humor, whatever you call it, locker-room humor, to just riffing about human experiences," he said. "I can't think of a better utopia for me."
"I thanked God today I made this deal a year ago," he said. "I really did. I would have quit radio for good if it hadn't been for this deal."
-- Jacques Steinberg for The NY Times
xXx
John Tierney plays off the Howard Stern story, anent his move to the less regulated satellite radio and pay-per-view TV, arguing that in libertarianism lies the new answers and policy direction that the Democrats need. Again, this is great, if everyone had a lot of discretionary money, but freedom for most is indeed just another word for having nothing left to lose.
We will also include another article discussing the Howard Stern move. It looks like they will be showing the kind of uncensored version of his E! shows that Monk has dreamed of, but it will be through a pay-access channel, which probably will not be available in San Antonio anyway, though Monk would not think of asking Pop to add another ten dollars a month to the TV bill.
___ ___ ___
If Democrats are serious in their search for new ideas, they could start with a visit to the stripper pole at Howard Stern's new studio.
Last year Stern spent his time railing at Republican troglodytes in Washington, but it didn't do him any good. What he considered a healthy exploration of human sexuality, they dismissed as smut deserving of hefty fines. What he considered an exercise of his First Amendment rights, the Federal Communications Commission described as "repeated flatulence sound effects."
But soon Stern will be free to broadcast as much flatulence as he wants. In January he takes his show to satellite radio and pay-per-view cable television, both beyond the F.C.C.'s censors. His new studio, as Jacques Steinberg reported in The Times, features a pole for strippers and a water-resistant corner for activities involving whipped cream. While Stern said he would put some limits on the new show - he promised there would not be weekly beheadings - he said he might use the microphones and cameras to broadcast live sex.
This may not be a great leap forward in Western civilization, but there's a useful strategy here for Democrats (one that mercifully doesn't involve whipped cream). Instead of denouncing Republicans, instead of fantasizing about vanquishing them, look for an escape hatch.
The Democrats who call themselves progressives are stuck in a mind-set over a century old. The original trust-busting Progressives thought the way to counteract the power of big business was with big government. Guided by the Machine Age belief in centralized institutions and scientific rationality, they wanted to protect the public interest with government agencies run by experts.
For Democrats, this strategy made political sense as long as they were running the agencies. But now that Republicans are making the appointments, Democrats are discovering the downside of rule by bureaucrats.
When you leave it to the government to decide controversial issues, like what constitutes decency on radio and television, you set off bitter public disputes that are won by the side with the most political clout. But when individuals make their own choices, there don't have to be angry losers.
Once Howard Stern is liberated from the public airwaves, people unamused by oral-sex jokes are in no danger of hearing them, while people who like him (or like watching strippers) can pay to tune in. If Democrats followed his example and stopped trying to win culture wars in which they're outnumbered, they could accomplish more by fighting less.
Consider the battles in public schools over whether to teach intelligent design theory, which history textbooks to use and whether to offer sex education or mandate the Pledge of Allegiance. The fights are inevitable because these school systems are products of the Progressive Era's fondness for large centralized bureaucracies.
No matter how smart or well-intentioned the school administrators are, they can never please everyone. No matter how much scientific evidence there is against intelligent design, a majority of parents tell pollsters that they want it taught alongside evolution, which just infuriates the sizable minority that sees it as thinly veiled creationism.
But suppose the tax dollars now going to public school systems went directly to students in the form of vouchers. The conservative parents passionately in favor of intelligent design could use vouchers to send their children to private schools of their liking. School boards would be under less pressure to please religious conservatives - but even if the boards gave in, the liberal parents could use the vouchers to send their children to private schools of their liking.
Liberals could also benefit by rethinking their fondness for concentrating power in Washington, another piece of baggage from the Progressive Era and the New Deal, when intellectuals saw federal bureaucrats and judges as enlightened defenders of the public interest against reactionary local governments and corporate monopolies. For today's liberals, though, the reactionary monopoly to worry about is the one run by Republicans in Washington.
Yes, the Republicans are having their troubles now, but it's unrealistic for Democrats to count on a return to their former dominance. They've got geography and demography against them: the disproportionate influence of red states in the Senate, the larger families and faster-growing populations in Republican strongholds.
Democrats would be better off devolving power to the blue states they control and the private sector that welcomes anyone's money. The market is not governed by majority rule. As Howard Stern has discovered, it can be a lot easier to win over millions of paying customers than three F.C.C. commissioners.
-- John Tierney, "What Democrats Can Learn From Howard Stern" for The NY Times
..........
When Howard Stern crosses over in January to satellite radio and his own pay-per-view cable channel, he will do so from a new Midtown Manhattan studio loaded with the kinds of accessories that one would expect to find if the Playboy Mansion were given an extreme makeover.
At the touch of a button, a rack will drop from the studio's two-story ceiling to reveal a selection of bikinis, for those guests who can be cajoled out of their street clothes.
A corner of the studio - which is located not at a gentleman's club but on the 36th floor of the McGraw-Hill Building at Rockefeller Center - has been outfitted with water-resistant walls and floors, for any gags that might involve whipped cream.
And just outside Mr. Stern's reach - as well as that of the Federal Communications Commission, which monitored him on commercial radio but no longer will - will be a stripper pole.
While Mr. Stern will also be taking plenty of gadgets with him from his syndicated terrestrial radio talk show - including the Tickle Chair, which is not to be confused with the Tickle Post - he will be leaving one noticeable piece of baggage behind: the increasingly tough restrictions imposed on him in recent years by his bosses (at Infinity Broadcasting) and the F.C.C.
Indeed, executives at Sirius Satellite Radio - which is paying Mr. Stern $100 million a year over five years to produce his own morning show and to program two radio channels - and In Demand Networks, which will package excerpts for pay-per-view, said they had placed no limits on what he could do.
Like a teenage boy suddenly set loose in a school patrolled by neither a principal nor teachers, Mr. Stern said in an interview on Tuesday that he had yet to rule anything out - including the use of his microphones and cameras to record a sex act in his brand-new 4,100-square-foot studio.
"I don't know where we're going to go with this thing," he said. "It's going to be kind of fun to figure that out with the audience. I'll ask them, 'Do we want to go there or not? Are we going to cross this line or that line?' "
Still, the possibility that Mr. Stern, 51, might go from R-rated fare - his current show features interviews with topless guests - to soft-core pornography could just be a tease. He has long been a master barker who can lure listeners under his tent for the sheer thrill of wondering how far he might go.
To that end, Mr. Stern simultaneously dampened such expectations, saying that while none of his new bosses had drawn any boundaries for his new show, he expected to do so.
"I have my own personal lines where I won't go," he said. "It's funny, the people hear 'satellite,' they hear 'on demand,' they think, 'Oh good, there's going to be a beheading every week.' That's not it at all.
"This wasn't about getting on the air and having the freedom to have sex with a woman, necessarily," he said of his move to satellite. Instead, he suggested, "To talk about human sexuality in a way that's adult, or maybe even really super childish, is my prerogative as a comedian."
Scott Greenstein, president of entertainment and sports for Sirius, said, "Howard has a history of knowing where the lines are, and we're confident he'll continue to retain that perspective at Sirius."
Mr. Greenstein added, however, "We want to make sure he gets to do the show he wants."
Which actually could pose a creative challenge for Mr. Stern. To many listeners, he was best when railing against Michael Powell - the former chairman of the F.C.C., which over the years has levied decency fines of more than $2 million on Infinity and the stations that carry his program - and his own squeamish bosses. Just this week, Mr. Stern was reprimanded on the air by Tom Chiusano, general manager of WXRK-FM, his home station, for going too far with a bit that involved the weighing of bodily waste.
Mr. Stern, who signs off WXRK in mid-December, promised an uncensored version on Sirius, which is not subject to FCC regulation.
Asked if he was worried that he might lose his edge without having a foil in a position of authority, Mr. Stern said he was not.
"If you know me, there's nothing that will make me completely happy," he said. "I will find the thorn on the rose every time."
"Come on," he continued. "I'm having this whole love affair with Sirius. Then the other day I started screaming on the air about some of the guys who work there, just because I was blowing off steam."
For Mr. Stern's fans - a national radio audience estimated at about 12 million - the transition toward opening their wallets to listen and watch him (as well as his sidekick, Robin Quivers) will be a gradual one.
Beginning Nov. 18, viewers in 20 million homes in nearly 300 markets (including New York and Los Angeles) will be able to buy access to a channel called Howard Stern on Demand. The introductory price will be $9.99 a month.
What they will see initially will not be from the Sirius show, but instead will be drawn from the 44,000 hours taped during the 11 years that Mr. Stern's program was repackaged for the E! cable channel. Mr. Stern said he retained the rights to that material, much of it originally shown with strategically placed pixilation, if it was ever shown on television at all.
That material will now be shown uncensored by In Demand, a venture of Comcast, Cox Communications and Time Warner.
Rob Jacobson, president and chief executive of In Demand, said the company would give Sirius three months to broadcast Mr. Stern's new shows exclusively. But beginning April 1, subscribers to the pay-per-view package will have access to those shows, as well as each new show, which will be available the day after Sirius listeners have heard it.
Beginning in January (the exact date has not been announced), Mr. Stern's two Sirius channels will be available to those willing to pay for a receiver (models start at $50) and a monthly fee of $12.95. The same flat fee provides access to dozens of other channels, including those featuring Martha Stewart and Eminem.
Sirius executives have been circumspect about the content of the two Stern channels. But the host, showing he had not lost his knack for tweaking his bosses, provided the most detailed description yet of his plans.
He said that one channel would showcase various free-form spinoffs of his morning show, featuring not only his regular cast (including Gary Dell'Abate, his longtime producer) but also prominent listeners with nicknames like High-Pitched Eric.
The other channel, he said, would be modeled on the "Good Guys" - the lineup of disc jockeys from WMCA, the legendary New York pop station of the late 1960's and 70's - though rather than being "good," Mr. Stern said, the hosts he would hire (some established, some new) would push the bounds of decency in a manner not unlike his.
There will, for example, be plenty of cursing.
"From the absurd basement humor, whatever you call it, locker-room humor, to just riffing about human experiences," he said. "I can't think of a better utopia for me."
"I thanked God today I made this deal a year ago," he said. "I really did. I would have quit radio for good if it hadn't been for this deal."
-- Jacques Steinberg for The NY Times
