It was a strange week to be living in America.
One of the things that most intrigues me is the study of contrasts. The light versus the dark, good versus evil, hope versus despair, the ying versus the yang. That contrast was played out this past week in the mainstream media with Howard Stern at one end of the morality spectrum and Mel Gibson at the other.
In the shock jock Stern's case, it all started with Janet Jackson's boob. When the aging pop diva had her calculated "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show, she set off an avalanche of finger-pointing that traveled all the way to Congress.
John Hogan, president of the Clear Channel radio network, spoke before members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and explained why his company suspended Stern's program from its stations and fired another radio personality -- Bubba the Love Sponge -- altogether.
"We were wrong to air that material," Hogan explained. "I accept responsibility for our mistake, and my company will live with the consequences of its actions."
Meanwhile, Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" opened to sold-out theaters across the nation on Ash Wednesday. As of this writing, the movie's gross was not available, but it seems certain to have set a new record for a mid-week release.
People who have seen the movie offer reviews that fall into one of two camps -- another contrast. Some find the depiction of Christ's unresisting endurance of the brutal beating inflicted upon him leading up to his crucifixion spiritually moving and, ultimately, empowering. Others find the same images repulsive and disturbing. One reviewer said that he had never witnessed such brutality in a cinematic forum and likened the movie to the vilest form of sadistic pornography.
People on opposite sides of the Howard Stern issue had similar debates this past week. Stern's supporters charged that Clear Channel should be vilified for pulling him from the airwaves. They argue that the segment of the show that caused all of the hoopla -- a discussion of Paris Hilton's bedroom behavior with her ex-boyfriend and a caller's usage of the n-word on the air -- was no different from bits that the show has featured for years, material that has made Stern the No. 1 radio host in the country. Stern's detractors -- including, it would seem, many members of Congress -- were quick to applaud Clear Channel's move to suspend the radio host. Many of them feel that censoring Stern is the first step in reclaiming a moral America.
You know the old saying that "money is the root of all evil"? Well, in this case it's at the root of what clouds both of these discussions. When everything is peeled away, the discussion of Mel Gibson's movie and Howard Stern's suspension is not a study of black versus white, but a still-life view of cold, hard green.
Clear Channel's Hogan called the "Bubba the Love Sponge" program "tasteless" and "vulgar" when he appeared before Congress. He went on to say that "we were wrong to air that material" and that Clear Channel's devotion to "localism" stops at obscenity.
My question is, when and why did he come to this realization? The truth is that Clear Channel had been carrying the Stern and Bubba programs for years. Their popularity went a long way in assisting Clear Channel's growth to the 1,200-station industry powerhouse that it is today. Hogan told lawmakers that he was "embarrassed" by Clear Channel's broadcast of the two shows. He further added that, "as a parent of a 9-year-old girl," he was ashamed of some of the content sent over the company's airwaves.
As I strained to listen closely to his testimony, I did not hear Hogan pledge to return even one penny of the billions of dollars in advertising Clear Channel has made over the years on the shows in question. Stern's program, in particular, fetches some of the highest advertising rates in the industry. Hogan's failure to address the fact that his 9-year-old daughter will live a life of prosperity due to the popularity of Stern's program with advertisers was most conspicuous in its absence.
I would have respected Hogan's testimony much more if he had pledged to reimburse Stern the multi-millions of dollars that Clear Channel has made off of his show or, better yet, had unveiled a plan to donate that huge sum of money to children's charities designed to help kids bereft of the privileges bestowed upon his daughter.
Instead, Hogan's message to Congress seemed to be, I'd like a pat on the back for the dog-and-pony show that I put on here today, but keep those hands well clear of my wallet.
The opening of "The Passion of the Christ" was also about the pursuit of money. Much has been made of Mel Gibson's financial commitment to the production and marketing of the film -- reportedly to the tune of $25 million from his own pocket.
Admirable at first glance, but a shrewdly calculated risk upon closer inspection. Gibson knew that the movie had a core audience of fundamentalist Christians and spent months pre-marketing the movie to church leaders around the globe.
Nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that the considerable profits that the movie will generate are earmarked for nowhere but Gibson's pocket.
One would think that, in presenting the world with a brutal account of Christ's final hours as a testimony to his devotion to all of mankind, Gibson would feel obligated to share the wealth with the world's poor. Evidently not.
Here's one last interesting contrast. The folks most vocal in their support of Clear Channel's decision to drop Stern are people who have no interest in listening to his program in the first place. The people who are the most vocal in their denouncement of Gibson's film are people who will never view it.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that censorship is never the right option for a nation operating as a free democracy.
If you have a 9-year-old daughter and are fearful that she'll be offended by Howard Stern's show, then change the channel or turn off the radio.
Conversely, if you are the parent of a 9-year-old daughter and fear that viewing the violence in "The Passion of the Christ" will cause her to have horrific nightmares, then pick out a G-rated movie instead. Better yet, why not let her read the screenplay from the movie? You know, that obscure book called the Bible.
Due to people wanting to give the government ever-increasing control over what we watch and hear, America is quickly becoming a study in stark contrasts. If you need further proof, go back and reread the fourth sentence of this column -- the one where I stated that Howard Stern and Mel Gibson are at opposite ends of the morality spectrum.
When you read that sentence for the first time, you immediately decided which one was the ying and which one was the yang. Odds are your neighbor on either side of you had it the other way around.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | March 2 2004 |