Notes and reference materials

¶ … wearing a, a t-shirt with no bra, and I could tell you got real big jugs. Are those real?" And "You seem like a nice girl, I'll tell you that. You do not look like a porno star. [LAUGHTER] You just don't. You look like a...." are just two excerpts of what one may expect to hear on a Howard Stern show. The wildest manifestation of the freedom of speech, a different (sometimes aggressive) approach on things or a gruesome attack on social norms and conventions, a lot of swearing and megalomania which can harm society? The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will certainly argument the latter, but sympathetic listeners and even impartial ones may claim for the first two statements. In this paper, we will be having a close look at the conflict that arose between Howard Stern and the FCC, with notes on the implications of Stern's show and his behavior from a social and sociological perspective.

Howard Stern swears a lot on his show. He uses the f-word (in the Commission's own words, "the f-word is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language") and other vulgar expressions to make a point or carry on the conversation. What are the actual implications of this issue in this case?

We may expect that the Commission's actions are directed towards the protection of children, who are formatting as adults and in the middle of their education, and towards avoiding incidents where, at an age where any influence can be assimilated and integrated in the child's personality. If we look at the TV shows and movies, many have age warnings so as to limit the access of certain age categories from viewing them. The problem with a radio show is that there is no practical way you can implement such warnings. On the other hand, we may discuss the actual effectiveness of age warnings in television shows and movies as well: if a parent is not around at that specific moment, who will guarantee that the child will not be watching the movie anyhow.

So, a first objection FCC brings to the Howard Stern show is the excessive use of vulgar language. As a counterargument, how many times are we actually exposed to vulgar language in everyday life? How many times are children exposed to such language on the street, coming home from school, or at the cinema or even at school itself?

Even more so, many of these vulgar expressions have already entered the everyday vocabulary and have gained a certain degree of respectability. For example, "I swear to God," a somewhat blasphemous expression in other conditions, has already been assimilated as a language subterfuge to describe something we are completely certain of. Further examples of this type of expressions can certainly be further enumerated.

However, it is most certain that the FCC does not refer to these. As much as we may argument its use, the f-word is still not a clean and reasonable expression in the vocabulary. On the other hand, if we turn to Dr. Timothy Jay, a reputed sociology and professor of psychology at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, and his lecture "Cursing in America" at the University of New Hampshire, we may discover positive arguments for the use of curses and improper language.

In this sense, Dr. Jay states that "cursing allows us to express an aggressive idea to someone without physically touching them." We can all believe that and we have all experienced moments where an improper word is the perfect solution instead of simply breaking the opponent's jaw. Driving comes to mind in this sense...If we translate this explanation to the Howard Stern show, we may believe that the anger that Stern manifests towards certain aspects of the American society is melted into his show and ends as such.

But this is not necessarily the point we are trying to make here. The idea was that bad language on the show is a bad influence. I have already sustained an argument against this fact, asserting that the society and every aspect of life is filled with such words.

Additionally, as a justification of improper language use, Dr., Jay brings to our attention the fact that "people use obscenities to get people's attention or to change their behavior." This goes as an excellent complement to what I have previously mentioned: many swear words have actually entered the vocabulary and many are expressions are just involuntary, like Bono's f-word expression, unconscientiously outspoken at the 2004 Golden Globe TV show.

An important argument from Dr. Jay is in stating that "going after people like Howard Stern" was wrong because "advertisers are just as guilty as Stern." The Viagra example is excellent in this sense. A Viagra commercial discusses erections, long erections and short erections, things just as taboo if we think of them. On the other hand, if Howard Stern mentions erections, he should be banned. Where do we draw the line? It seems that banning in one part, while promoting in the other is just as ridiculous as removing any mention of erections from a Viagra commercial.

The entire issue of improper language in the Howard Stern show seems to be closely linked to the period of conservatory behavior that the American society seems to be manifesting under the Bush administrations. An excessive, perhaps, amount of taboo restrictions is what we are seeing in everyday life aspects, from homosexuality to abortions.

Another objection to Howard Stern refers to his impact and influence on the American culture and on its evolution. "Our culture is headed downward" and starting from this assertion, we may believe that Howard Stern is a person who forms opinions and, additionally, a person whose opinions are heard and assimilated. This may certainly be true and not only at the pre-puberty and adolescence level I have already mentioned. The truth is, whether we will accept it or not, is that many will not only like Hoard Stern's arrogant and megalomaniac style, but will also adopt it as their own.

Sustaining that our culture is headed downward and that Howard Stern is one of the influences on this trend also implies that Howard Stern's ideas are vulgar, immoral and have nothing to do with culture. Or this is somewhat difficult to actually prove, mainly because it is a subjective matter and it actually reflects the individual's perception on the issue.

Although this may seem a defense essay for Howard Stern and his show, it is not and, as such, it is best to turn to a third aspect, this time negative and with no argumentation against it: Howard Stern's attitude. His non-benevolent attitude, an attitude where "my idea is not only the best, but the only one existent," is not the best reflection of a democratic show.