There have been several articles lately on the increasing popularity of talk radio. I enjoy everything form the news and commentary of NPR, to sports talk radio, and even some of the more mindless shows there just to titillate or make me laugh.
But lately I have been bothered by some of the shows that rely on shock value to get ratings. A perfect example of this is Tom Likus. He is a nationally syndicated talk show host based out of Los Angeles. He claims that he is rated number 1 in national ratings.
Maybe its being a new dad but it bothers me that he is on the radio telling our daughters to flash their “racks” on Fridays. It bothers me that he is consistently saying women are less intelligent, lazy, gold-digging bitches that should be used, abused, and thrown away when you are done. One of his catch phases is, “I will teach you how to get more ‘tail’ for less money.”
I have always been a big fan of free speech. I have always been in favor of pushing the envelope…Go NYPD Blue, Go HBO, Go Hustler Magazine. But somehow listening to this guy spewing his poisonous anti-female rant over the radio waves pisses me off. Most people know his views are crap. But in his own cunning little way he may be convincing some men to treat women like crap, and convincing some women the only asset they have is their body and vagina. There are no rating controls on a radio.
And why are major corporations like Chevron, Nextel and others paying him to say this? I know he says what he says to get people worked up and pissed off and titillated and excited, but should these companies be paying him to tell female callers to the show to come down to the studio so he can “crack their ass!” I don’t think they should. Do they know they are paying for that message?
What is confusing to me is why I feel this way? I like to get worked up as much as the next guy. I like to hear other people get worked up. I laugh at the duped listeners that call the Phil Hendry show(Only some southern Californians will get that).
No, but there’s the tuner and the on/off switch. Use 'em.
The only proper defense against repugnant speech is better speech. That, and teaching your daughters not to listen to “the neanderthal bonehead on the radio – just because everyone is laughing at the idiot doesn’t mean he’s right.”
How do you propose “teaching” an adolescent teen (boy or girl) not to listen to the most popular show on the radio. Even I am a hypocrite, I will tune in just to hear what crap he’s spewing today.
If kids want to listen, and apparently they do, they will.
He and his callers and guests are clearly talking in an R-rated manner. Just because there is no visible skin and the say F’n instead of “fucking” doesn’t mean it is not vulger.
Movies require you to be 17? to get into an R-rated movie if there is a certain amount of nudity Those rating exist for a reason! But I would rather my kids see nudity than listen to him.
I think a better title for this thread would have been “Tom Leykis is an idiot”, but then I guess that’s not a debate. No, I’m not in favor of censorship. He should be free to spout his misogynist dogma, but I sure as hell don’t have to listen to it, and I can certainly complain about the guy. From the few times I have heard him, not only does he continually harp on the idea that all men just want to get laid, period, he makes a big deal out of his being an atheist as well. This galls me because there are already too many women who think all men are pigs, and there are already too many theists who think all atheists are immoral. As a non-religious man, I could really do without this jerkoff getting on the radio and confirming people’s stereotypes.
Free speech, my ass. Unlike with newspapers or websites, you can’t just set up your own radio transmitter and go into business for yourself. This is why the public airwaves are theoretically supposed to be used in the collective “public interest”, because we can’t all be on the air.
There’s a big reason why simply turning off the radio (or TV) can’t and won’t result in the public interest being served - by any reasonable definition that coincides with “public”, and not just my personal idea of what I’d like to hear. This is the reality that to advertisers (who pay for our TV and radio, and get what they pay for), all listeners (or viewers) most certainly aren’t equal. They’re looking for people with money to spend, who are easily separated from it by a sales pitch. As a nearly 50 year old guy whose spending habits are mostly set, and who has had time to build up a fair degree of cynicism about advertising claims, I’m pretty much worthless to them. But if I had a 15 year old son or daughter, they’d want to be pitching products at him or her more or less nonstop.
As a result, radio and TV programmers are mostly engaged in a fight for the teen and young adult audience. If having a massive tilt toward serving (by whatever definition) that age group satisfies “the public interest”, that doesn’t really match up well with who the public is.
Well, since that is pretty much the definition of what is vulgar or not, I would say you are wrong. “Fucking” is widely recognized by a large portion of society as a vulgar word; “Effing” is a euphemism which is not widely recognized as vulgar. Something is not vulgar in the eyes of the law just because you take offense at it. If that were true, we would have to ban words like “boinking”, “shagging” and “frigging” because they are intended to take the place of “fucking”. What it boils down to is there are some people who are offended by any public discussion of the sex act. The law should not cater to them.
He’s on radio, right?
Offended listeners can file a complaint with the FCC. The FCC will determine if the broadcaster went too far. If the decisions are not satisfactory, the listeners can lobby for George to name and the Senate to confirm more stringent commissioners, and for Congress to pass tighter laws and the FCC tighter regs on what can be broadcast.
However, whatever they do about Garbage Radio will still be subject to be reviewed by the Courts, following the Constitution and established precedent.
We do have limits on free speech: you can’t broadcast obscenity at all, and there are slander/libel and false advertisement laws. Or rather, when it is obscene or libelous or false, it legally stops being “free speech”.
Of course they do. They’re not just paying for the message, they’re paying for the audience who tunes in to hear that message.
You might be shocked to hear this, but it’s perfectly legal for a theater to let your underage kids into an R-rated movie. On the occasions when they decide to check ID for movies, they do it as a business decision, not to comply with any law.
Perhaps you should be complaining to the radio station.
You’re confusing free speech with moral censorship. They are 2 different issues. “I love Lucy” was replaced with Howard Stern and his “I love loose women”. You could repost a question on what people think is appropriate and what criteria they would use to arrive at that conclusion.
Would most people be shocked to find out that the ratings system for movies are merely suggestions? It is astounding to me that anyone thinks the government should be involved with any of it.
In an ideal world, everyone would have their say and then people could choose whether they want to listen to the mysogynist, the feminist or neither in the great melting pot of ideas. As it stands, only some people get to speak/write in public (mainly middle to upperclass, white and male). So yes I do believe in censorship when the public could be harmed, but unfortuately I can’t think of a process whereby it abused (like any legal system).
I think in most countries, movie ratings are backed up by law. The other day, I heard about a movie that was effectively banned in Australia because the film board refused to classify it.