From salon Howard Stern's schwing voters The raunchy jockey is mobilizing his army of listeners against Bush -- and they could make a difference in November. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Eric Boehlert March 12, 2004 _|_ Declaring a "radio jihad" against President Bush, syndicated morning man Howard Stern and his burgeoning crusade to drive Republicans from the White House are shaping up as a colossal media headache for the GOP, and one they never saw coming. The pioneering shock jock, "the man who launched the raunch," as the Los Angeles Times once put it, has emerged almost overnight as the most influential Bush critic in all of American broadcasting, as he rails against the president hour after hour, day after day to a weekly audience of 8 million listeners. Never before has a Republican president come under such withering attack from a radio talk-show host with the influence and national reach Stern has. "The potential impact is huge," says Charles Goyette, talk-show host at KFYI in Phoenix. "And it's not just with the 8 million people who tune it, it's that he breaks the spell. Everybody's been enchanted by Bush, that he's a great wartime leader and to criticize him is unpatriotic. Now Stern pounds him every day and it shatters that illusion that the man is invincible and he shouldn't be criticized." "He's got one of the biggest audiences in all of radio, and perhaps the most loyal," says Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, the nonpartisan monthly that covers radio's news/talk industry. "And that's why he's so dangerous for the White House." _ Today's Daypass sponsored by Schindler's List _ _ Stern had strongly backed Bush's war on Iraq, but in the past two weeks, he has derided the president as a "Jesus freak," a "maniac" and "an arrogant b*stard," while ranting against "the Christian right minority that has taken over the White House." Specifically, Stern has assailed Bush's use of 9/11 images in his campaign ads, questioned his National Guard service, condemned his decision to curb stem cell research and labeled him an enemy of civil liberties, abortion rights and gay rights. In other words, it's the kind of free campaign rhetoric the Democratic National Committee couldn't have imagined just one month ago. "Our research shows many, many people in the 30- to 40-year-old range who were Bush supporters are rethinking that position and turning away from Bush because of what Howard Stern has been saying," says Harrison. Coming in tandem with Wednesday's announcement that the much-talked-about liberal radio network Air America will debut at the end of the month, there's an indication that Republicans may finally get a taste of the commercial talk-radio wars, which for years have tilted almost uniformly to the right and teed off on progressive causes and politicians. "Overnight, Stern's probably increased by an important percentage the amount of talk-radio airtime that is not right-wing," notes Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communications. "His show does make a difference in terms of media ecology and what's out there. It's letting people know how they feel is an acceptable way to feel. What the media do is put out a version of what's normal. And if all that's out there is Rush Limbaugh and Dittoheads, then centrists and progressives see themselves as the minority. But if you can hear voices on the airwaves that sound like the voice in your own head, you begin to realize it's a polarized, 50/50 nation." Kaplan will host a nightly media affairs program on Air America. [Salon.com will contribute one story each day to Air America's programming.] Stern's sustained FM taunts come at a tough time for the White House, which has watched Bush's approval ratings fall to new lows. Even more disturbing for Republicans was the revelation in the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll that Bush's traditionally strong support among male voters is down significantly, and that Bush actually trails Kerry among those voters. "That's the demographic Howard Stern targets specifically," says Goyette. "If Bush's grip on men continues to soften, he could be in big trouble." Anecdotally, those daily phone calls from listeners -- mostly men -- who tell Stern they usually don't vote, but this year they're definitely going to vote against Bush (and it's usually against, Bush not for Sen. John Kerry) cannot be comforting to the Bush/Cheney '04 strategists. "Karl Rove and the White House would have to be brain-dead to not know they have a problem here," says Goyette. There are early signs that Bush supporters are indeed nervous about Stern's crusade. This week Limbaugh wrote a newspaper Op-Ed column dismissing Stern's claims against Bush as coming from "the left-wing fringe." (Stern returned fire, labeling Limbaugh a Bush "lackey.") Stern's torrent of Bush barbs came in the wake of Clear Channel Communications' move in late February to pull Stern off six of its stations, condemning his program as "vulgar, offensive and insulting." Following the controversial Super Bowl halftime show featuring Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, Clear Channel, like most major broadcasters, was under scrutiny over allegations it broadcast indecency. Clear Channel's radio chief was scheduled to testify before Congress where he was sure to face hostile questioning. On the eve of that congressional appearance, Clear Channel, which had never raised serious concerns about Stern's show before, suspended the program from its radio outlets. Clear Channel's move appeared to be more a symbol than a substantive effort to shut Stern down. The communications giant carried the shock jock only in six markets. Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting -- a Clear Channel competitor -- is Stern's syndicator and main radio vehicle. But Stern quickly complained on-air that the real reason Clear Channel yanked his show was that just days earlier he'd begun questioning the president and praising comedian/commentator Al Franken's anti-Bush book "Lies, And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Stern insisted it was political speech, not indecency, that got him in trouble with the San Antonio broadcasting giant, whose CEO, Lowry Mays, is close to the president and the Bush family. The jock still condemns Clear Channel and its Republican connections, but most of Stern's firepower today is directed squarely at Bush and his close association with the religious right, which Stern says is the driving force behind the FCC crackdown on indecency. Some in the broadcast business see Stern, perhaps best known for ushering into radio "Lesbian Dial-a-Date" contests, as a corporate clown whose political influence is not on par with the likes of Don Imus, the syndicated shock jock turned smart-aleck pundit. "Who cares what Howard Stern thinks about people running for public office?" says one longtime radio executive. "Imus is different, that's more of a thinking guy's show. With Howard, it's pure narcissism." Yet Stern has proven his political clout in the past. Known mostly for his libertarian take on politics, in 1992 he made news by endorsing Republican Christie Todd Whitman for governor of New Jersey, and she then won in an upset over Democrat Jim Florio. (She repaid the favor in 1995 by naming a New Jersey highway rest stop after the jock.) Stern has also backed Republican George Pataki for New York governor. "When Stern says he helped Pataki win," says Goyette, "I don't think anybody doubts that." That's because of the bond Stern has built with his fans. "He's got a passionately loyal audience, which includes many extremely affluent and white-collar listeners," notes Paul Colford, who wrote an authorized biography of Stern, "The King of All Media." "However he wants to play his most recent grievance, he's got a nucleus of tens of thousands of fanatics who are willing make the phone calls and send e-mails and show up at Times Square to protest, whatever the course of action may be." "They're addicted to this guy and that's an awesome power," says Harrison. "Stern has moral authority with these people, in part because he has not been beating the drum for a political agenda for all these years." It's that relative absence of political discussion on Stern's show in the past that might make the current anti-Bush barrage more influential. "The fact that his audience does not tune in to him to hear about politics means that he is not just preaching to a choir, in the way that most of the conservative talk-show hosts are doing," says David Barker, author of "Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion and American Political Behavior." It's an audience, he suggests, that might be more open to persuasion from a broadcaster like Stern. Approximately 8 million listeners tune in each week. And at any given moment during his four-hour program roughly 1.4 million people are tuned in. By way of comparison, that's more than the number of morning viewers at any given time watching Fox News, CNN and MSBNC -- combined. "There's no question," says Harrison, "Stern is the sleeping giant of liberal radio."
And .5 million was the cumulative difference in 2000. All hands on deck. This is like the US Government asking the Mafia for help during WWII.
What I think is so great is that the Democratic party has not asked for the help. They do not have to ally themselves with him. He's anti Bush, not pro Kerry. All the Dems need to do it sit back and count the votes. My prayers have been answered that Bush glueing his party to the religious right would come back to haunt him. Halleluyah...
I find that Time Magazine cover both appropriate and really depressing. Why the hell do we allow the lowest common denominators in our society to dominate the conversation? Is it really necessary to have a shouting match every time we want to discuss any issue?
no kidding...even play it out into sports radio and you see the same...or the TV news shows. the shows where they shout and make brash comments get more listeners/viewers...and with each one of those there is the concept that if jim rome/rush limbaugh/bill o'reilly says it, it must be right.
Yeah, let's have public discourse just return to Rush Limbaugh and some feckless guys begging "please, please can't we just all be polite and moderate?" Here's an interesting analysis of how Bush and gang can lie and be essentially allowed to do so by the mainstream media under the guise of "objective" journalism. It is from Eric Alterman. Can't cite it but...google him. The Bush gang lies or twists statistics or uses phoney science etc. in a press conference. Many of the reporters being well educated and well read, know that what the Bush spokesperson is saying is false and easily refutable. They aren't allowed to do so under the current system. So what do the reporters do. They go to another source and write the same of same ol "Bush said; they said" story. The public is left confused or thinks everyone is a liar so why listen. The Rush LImbaugh Show, O'Reilly, Fox etc. respond on message rebroadcasting the false statements as facts and repeating them over and over. They all stay on message in a gigantic "echo chamber". MSNBC, CNN, ABC etc report the same ol "Bush said; they said" story. The end result is the public believes a falsehood, essentially with the media's assistance. Alterman says that this type of thing didn't happen as much back when such organs as the NYT and the major networks controlled the news. According to Alterman what is needed is for the other point of view as a counterweight to the Bush-Limbaugh-O'Reilly spin machine. I used to watch the Sunday TV talk shows on the networks. However, it just got too painful watching the total ideologue, Geroge Will, making no pretenese at "objective" journalism supposedly being opposed by the hapless Sam Donaldson playing by the rules of old fashioned journalism. With similar thinking it does no good to have Rush and the tv and talk show hosts on raging while you have a moderate guy saying hey let's all be reasonable. Let's enjoy the Howard Stern counterweight to Rush before the conservatives in media take him off the air.
Totally agreed. One more reason that we (moderates and centrists) should have an ongoing conversation about the direction we want our country to go. If the centrists band together, we can have a HUGE impact on politics over the next decade. Additionally, if we are extremely conscious of having a conversation instead of a shouting match, I think we can also attract people who currently do not participate in the political process because of the us versus them, black versus white, right versus left attitude of the major parties.
Considering that Howard Stern backs Republicans ( former governors of New Jersey and New York, former mayor of New York)just as often as he backs Democrats, that cover of Time is pretty misleading. I'm not sure it'll make much difference since his show is kinda boring when he keeps talking about Bush suppressing his freedom of speech after about fifteen consecutive minutes, every day, then continues his spiel for another forty five minutes The idea of personal fines against folks who broadcast something indecent seems kinda weird, how do you make sure the individual pays it and not his employer?
Stern better be careful. He'll end up that this guy! Oh wait! He Did! --------------------------------------- State worker suspended for anti-Bush message By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CLEVELAND (AP) - A state maintenance worker was suspended after he displayed a sign with the word "traitor" on a snowplow while helping provide security for President Bush's motorcade, the Ohio Department of Transportation said. Michael Gerstenslager was asked to park a snowplow on an entrance ramp to block access to a highway that the president's motorcade used to go from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport into downtown Cleveland on Wednesday. A state trooper in the president's motorcade saw the sign and reported it to the state's transportation department, ODOT spokeswoman Lora Hummer said. Gerstenslager is suspended with pay while the department investigates, Hummer said. She said she couldn't identify the potential violations or penalties until the investigation is complete. Discipline can range from a verbal warning to dismissal. A disciplinary hearing will occur next week, Hummer said. Gerstenslager, who does not have a listed telephone number, could not be reached for comment. A message was left Friday for Peter Wray, a spokesman for the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, the union that represents Gerstenslager. http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/politics/story/1205915p-8195044c.html
You know andy, I don't know if I'd characterize you as a moderate or centrist probably left or at least center left. But that's not a reflection onn you, that's just a reflection on how far to the right the Republicans and talk radio, etc has managed to swing the left-right compass in this country. Look at Clinton, the republican leftist anti-christ. By any objective measure, Clinton was a centrist, he favored free trade, balanced budgets, he used the military not infrequently, he signed the welfare to work bill, etc etc etc. But the Republicans have made so that those things are just the beginning, and anybody who doesn't agree with all of their views lock stock and barrell is a 'leftist'. Anybody who doesn't want to dismantle social security is now a socialist. It's really sickening.
One of the things I agree with Alterman about is that over the course of the Clinton presidency, while Democrats moved towards centrist ideals, conservative Republicans took the opportunity to shift the playing field by turning that moderate leftism into the new 'radical' liberalism.
It won't be Stern that creates any kind of backlash so much as a fear of what the FCC is trying to accomplish. He's just bringing attention to it...which is not what I'd imagine they want.
Trust me, if I had been posting on this board during the Clinton presidency, you would see me as a centrist. I am just convinced that another Bush presidency could be devastating for our country.
Forget about LCM - the point of the cover is centered around influence; from a different angle. The angle TIME chooses to explore should not be your problem. Maybe you should attempt to read the article first before jumping the gun. Personally I am looking forward to my copy (if this is the cover of the upcoming issue).
Actually it is the cover from the April 1993 issue. When I read this thread it just jumped out from my memory banks. I remembed it because I was shown that issue of Time by my 5th grade teacher, my entire class was, and we were lectured on the evils of Howard Stern. I asked who "Rush Limbaugh" was and if he was evil, my teacher side-stepped the question.
Thanks for the information. Talking about your teacher - how did his/her opinion of both men shape your mind or opinion of them (Rush and Stern)?
You're assuming that those 8 million people either didn't vote in 2000 or voted for Bush. Who says they didn't vote for Gore the first time around. If that was the case, then this publicity stunt...er, uh, this 'endorsement' would have exactly zero effect this year. serious black, if you want to pin your hopes of getting the White House back on the Howard Stern vote, well...what ever helps you sleep at night.
I agree that most of these people are: A. not tuning in to hear Stern's rants against Bush B. are likely tuning him out when he goes into an anti-Bush diatribe. And as for this business that Stern is being "censored," Clear Channel owned six of the stations he was on and fired him because they were tired of his act. Bush didn't call Clear Channel and tell them to get him off their stations, as you little left-wing conspiracy nuts would like to think. Even if he could, he wouldn't do such a thing. As for the FCC regulating the airwaves, I personally believe that they should only regulate the licensing and bandwidths and let the content fall to the respective stations. If it is obscene, let market forces deal with it. If enough people are offended, there will be boycotts of advertisers and the show will go away. I don't want Gen. Powell's son trying to tell me what is and what isn't obscene.