Debate continues about boundaries for inflammatory talk radio

By April Davis
Special to
The Freedom Forum Online

07.28.00

Printer-friendly page

Steve Rendall

Radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger asserts that homosexuality is "deviant" and a "biological error." Critics call for consumer and advertiser boycotts of her show, with some success.

In New York, WNEW's Opie and Anthony encourage women to bare their breasts on the street for the enjoyment of passing men.

Don Imus, on his talk show, refers to sports columnist Bill Rhoden as a "New York Times quota hire" and PBS anchor Gwen Ifill as a "cleaning lady."

Such is the context in a continuing debate about free speech on the airwaves.

On one side are those who note that the First Amendment protects what many call a steady stream of racist, sexist, anti-religious or downright mean comments on radio talk shows around the country.

On the other are those who try to counteract – some would say squelch – such speech through boycotts, incessant editorials and campaigns of indignant phone calls and letters.

Legally, there's no First Amendment violation of free-speech rights unless the government takes action against the speech. But the tug-of-war mirrors the public's ambivalence about free speech, as reflected in the First Amendment Center's latest State of the First Amendment survey.

The 2000 survey, released in June, shows public support for the expression of unpopular opinions, but also public antipathy toward potentially offensive comments about race and religion. Nearly 70% of respondents expressed strong support for the right of their fellow citizens – presumably including talk-show hosts – to express unpopular opinions, with another 26% mildly agreeing.

But 53% opposed allowing public comments that might be offensive to religious groups, and 67% disagreed with the right to make public comments that might offend racial groups.

Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter Janis Ian is among those who defend controversial performers (including, for example, shock jock Howard Stern), and who believe that full freedom to share opinions and thoughts is decidedly American.

"One of the points of being an American is that there is free speech," Ian said during a recent taping of "Speaking Freely," a First Amendment Center television show. "Without free speech, this country is no different from any dictatorship. Part of our responsibility is to make sure that Howard Stern, as despicable as you may find him, gets the opportunity to talk locker-room trash on the air. I don't like it, but I defend it."

But Steve Rendall, senior analyst at the liberal-leaning media-watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, says it's legitimate to campaign against offensive talk-show hosts, as FAIR does. On a recent panel discussion in New York on what FAIR calls "hate radio," Rendall stressed that FAIR is careful to avoid doing anything other than to counter free speech with more free speech.

"While we were publicizing (New York radio host) Bob Grant's bigotry, we were accused several times of trying to silence him, but in fact at no time did we ask WABC to fire him," Rendall said. "In fact, FAIR has never called for anybody's job."

"What we asked WABC to do," he said, "was publish its policy on on-air slurs. We also asked [station officials] to put somebody on the air (in another time slot) who had ... a history of working in the civil rights movement, who might be seen as a counterweight to the bigotry of Grant."

Grant was taken off the air, only to land at a rival station, WOR, a week later.

Still, FAIR considered the outcome a success. The victory, Rendall said, lay not in WABC's removing Grant from the air, but in its "reaffirming the values that FAIR has insisted on from the beginning: that racial slurs and calls for violence are not a healthy part of public discourse."

Joining Rendall on the FAIR panel, former New York magazine media columnist Philip Nobile outlined his efforts against syndicated talker Don Imus, who has drawn fire for his well-documented slurs against homosexuals, minorities and women.

Philip Nobile

Imus' defenders, and indeed Imus himself, say he is an equal-opportunity offender.

Nobile said he was trying to persuade Imus's regular media guests – including NBC's Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, ABC's Cokie Roberts, The New York Times' Frank Rich and CNN's Jeff Greenfield – to criticize Imus or boycott the show.

Another media watcher who was not on the panel, Ruth Bayard Smith, assistant professor of journalism at Montclair State University, also has concerns about "hate radio" – but she disagrees with Nobile's approach.

Smith, who is also working on a book, TALKTALKTALK: A History and Analysis of Talk Radio, told
The Freedom Forum Online:

"I can't presume to know what (writer) Anna Quindlen or Cokie Roberts is thinking before they go on [Imus's] show," she said. "But they are on regularly. They chat it up with him and they are pals. But I don't think by doing it they are endorsing that he's a racist.

"I find his program fascinating. On the one hand, he conducts really thoughtful, interesting interviews with people in politics or (with) journalists ... it's incredibly intelligent. And then in a second, they'll hang up, and he'll start talking about whomever he's talking about and say racist things or homophobic things or misogynist things."

Smith said she was much more worried about WNEW's Opie and Anthony, who take most of their shots at women and who, during their infamous "Whip 'Em Out Wednesdays," encourage women to bare their breasts on the street.

"That kind of shock radio I find incredibly disturbing," she said. "It's that kind of on-air fraternity party that leads to what happened in Central Park," she said, referring to the gang of men accused of sexually assaulting scores of women after last month's Puerto Rican Day Parade.

Smith said it was not her role to determine what goes on the air, but that by criticizing and writing about radio she hoped to provide helpful perspective. "My issue is to make people aware of what's out there, so they know what's part of popular culture," she said in an interview. "Because radio is so powerful, it's easy for it to become part of the popular culture."

In a recent New York Times op-ed article, she stressed, "Over the last several years, there has been no dearth of soul-searching and criticism of the ways in which popular culture has coarsened society. Radio is less often cited as a factor. But shock radio ... deserves plenty of blame."

Related

Shock jocks pulled off air as FCC considers sanctions against station
Opie and Anthony draw ire after radio show broadcasts alleged sexual encounter inside New York cathedral.  08.21.02

Some experts hopeful despite public's First Amendment views
Despite State of the First Amendment 2000 poll showing willingness to restrict basic freedoms, people embrace underlying concepts and can be educated, ACLU's Nadine Strossen says.  07.13.00

Public eases up on press a little
SAN FRANCISCO -- Americans support free speech in the abstract, but 'everybody is interested in taking a little slice out of the First Amendment when it comes to a particular kind of speech,' said Larry McGill, director of research, Media Studies Center, today at the Pacific Coast Center.  11.15.99