Howard Stern and Us

The front page of the January 10 edition of the Chicago Tribune contains an article by Howard Reich about Howard Stern’s first day of broadcasting on satellite radio. Reich is the arts critic for the Tribune. He chronicles Stern’s first show on Sirius Satellite Radio, broadcast from a studio at Rockefeller Studio in New York on Monday, January 9. Stern’s move to Sirius from Infinity Broadcasting has received extensive coverage in the media, especially for the $220 million deal, which he received. Because the Federal Communications Commission does not subject satellite radio to the same indecency regulations as land-based broadcasting, Stern is now free to push the envelope even further than he did in his previous broadcasting.

Reich begins his account of Stern’s show this way: “The words tumbled out in a torrent – vulgar descriptions of body parts, bodily functions and the kinkiest sexual practices. The speakers seemed to revel in the telling, reiterating the blue phrases like a mantra, then laughing uproariously at each repetition.” Reich proceeds to remark that “Stern and his gang” were “free to speak as if they were broadcasting from a frat house after the beer keg has been drained…” Well-known individuals like David Letterman and Martha Stewart were specific targets of the humor on Stern’s show. Reich poses some intriguing questions in his article. Among them is this query: “For if anyone on satellite radio can say anything, will audiences be amused by streams of profanity for long?” From an artistic point of view, Reich discusses the philosophy of humor and the question of whether Stern’s broadcasts will be perceived as humorous by his listeners.

Has Howard Stern become a kind of cultural icon in our society? Some will say that “icon” is much too strong a term for someone like Stern. But there is no doubt that his is a voice and a type of radio performance that is much desired by many Americans. Sirius satellite radio has apparently experienced a significant increase in subscribers in recent weeks. Reich reports that many Chicago-area stores were sold out of the equipment needed to receive Stern’s satellite signal. It is clear that Howard Stern has great appeal for millions of Americans and that he exerts a certain authority through his daily broadcasts.

What does all of this mean for our culture? What does it mean for Christians who are trying to live the Gospel in our culture? You may now be expecting me to engage in a barrage of unrelenting condemnations of Stern and his profanity-laced broadcasts. But, instead of blanket condemnation, perhaps the “Stern phenomenon” should move us to some deeper reflection on our society and on the ways we think about people. What is at stake here is not simply the issue of profanity and indecency. Underneath all of these issues is a more foundational one: the dignity of the human person. This is a theme that lies at the very heart of Catholic moral teaching and one that was addressed time and again by the late Pope John Paul II.

In cases like that of Stern, arguments about the constitutional limits of free speech will be vigorous and ongoing. And, from the legal perspective, these arguments are not unimportant. In terms of the moral compass of our culture, however, something deeper is at stake. If millions of people are attracted to graphic, bawdy descriptions of sexual activity and to lewd attacks on specific individuals, that means something more than simply a decline in moral purity or common decency. It indicates that respect for the dignity of the human person and reverence for the most sacred, intimate activities of human relations are being eroded. As much as Howard Stern might think otherwise, the “humor” and “satire” which he and his colleagues practice are directly related to the mindset that promotes capital punishment, sexism, marginalization of the poor, abortion on demand, racism, and militarism in international relations. All of these ways of thinking are grounded in a failure to recognize and to reverence the fundamental, God-given dignity of the human person. They fail to understand that, if we are to show genuine respect toward others, there are limits to the ways we can speak about and act toward them. These limits do not inhibit human freedom; rather, they make genuine human freedom possible.

Christian leaders in the United States will undoubtedly protest the audacious vulgarity of Howard Stern and those with whom he works. And they should. More important, however, is the invitation to every Christian to reflect on the call, rooted in the Scriptures and especially in the ministry of Jesus, to promote the personal dignity and well being of all people at every stage of life. It seems to me that this is what is really at stake in the case of Howard Stern and his gang.

Robin Ryan, CP