Schlock-Jock Headlines Drive Negative Activists’ Public Image
April 1, 2004

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

Schlock-jock Howard Stern has been doing it for years: saying and doing the outrageous to get public notice and ratings for his syndicated radio show. Stern recently stirred up a hornets’ nest by going too far. Now, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the company that owns several stations that air Stern’s program are trying to deal with the public outcry. Stern’s show has been dropped, at least temporarily, and fines are being discussed.

But even as general broadcast and print media discuss the repercussions of Stern’s latest foray into the realm of the outrageous, they give him more notoriety and inflate his market value.

Stern’s style is very similar to that of the extreme anti-gun and animal rights groups. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) and the Violence Policy Center are past masters of schlock public relations. Both groups are always issuing news releases about studies, which they are usually responsible for, that support their positions. But neither group ever seems to be embarrassed by its own publicity operatives.

In the same category, with maybe a slight edge in tackiness, is the international animal rights organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

PETA has some boilerplate media events it uses regularly, such as its “Chicken crossing the road” shtick which moves from city to city to target KFC (which doesn’t even promote itself as being either Kentucky, fried or chicken anymore). Another common boilerplate PETA gambit is the naked actress, model or juvenile supporter appearing in or near retail stores to protest furs.

Among some of the more notorious recent PETA publicity stunts is the “Holocaust on your plate” exhibit in March at the Stuttgart, Germany, Schlossplatz; “Satan” making an appearance at a meat industry conference, and the naming of a 21-year-old San Jose, CA-born Zachary Hooker as “Sexiest vegetarian alive.”

But for bad taste that rivals only Stern, PETA has come up with the billboard reproduced here, which should offend, particularly among many in Christian religious groups. This is scheduled to debut during the height of the Easter holiday season.

Rivaling these negative-activist schlock-jocks of PR was the recent barrage leveled by the Brady Campaign against Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho).

Craig’s position on firearms rights has been no secret throughout his political career, first in the House of Representatives and later in the US Senate. And it has been no secret that Craig has been a member of the National Rifle Association board of directors for many years, or that he has been a featured speaker at the annual Gun Rights Policy Conferences hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

If anyone on Capitol Hill was surprised that Craig would sponsor pro-gun legislation or lead the debate in support of bills like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as he did in late February and early March, they didn’t mention it.

Of course, no one was surprised either when the Brady Campaign and its pet anti-Second Amendment, anti-self-defense toadies who serve in the Senate did everything they could to promote the anti-gun legislative agenda and kill Craig’s bill which they hated most.

Which is why it appeared to be nothing more than still more schlock-shock PR when the Brady Campaign filed a complaint against Craig with the Senate Ethics Committee, citing an alleged conflict between his role as author and floor manager of what the antis called “the gunmakers’-immunity bill” and his board position with the NRA.

“Senator Craig has impermissibly acted in his capacity as a senator to further the interests, including the financial interests, of an organization for which he serves as a member of the board of directors,” the Brady Campaign wrote in its letter to the Ethics Committee.

The Brady Campaign’s complaint claimed that Craig is “serving two masters.”

Always eager to do the bidding of the Brady Campaign, the anti-gun New York Times launched an attack on Craig, stating that his bill “showed disdain for crime victims and public safety. Beyond that, his shameless attempt to create a special exemption from legal liability for gun interests closely aligned with the NRA, and potentially the NRA itself, amounts to an apparent conflict of interest warranting scrutiny by the Senate Ethics Committee.”

According to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, Craig’s office said the NRA would not be granted legal immunity under the gun bill. “This bill does not cover the NRA. The immunity granted in this bill would not cover the NRA,” said Dan Whiting, Craig’s press secretary. “It was never our intention.”

Whiting said the bill would protect trade groups, such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The NRA, Whiting added, would be defined as a civil-rights group under the bill.

Whiting said Craig’s staff would do “whatever we need to do to clarify” the distinction between the two groups.

However, other newspapers, always eager to parrot the distortions of the Brady Campaign, took up the same theme.

Sylvia Smith in The Journal-Gazette wrote:

“Last week a member of the National Rifle Association board traipsed onto the Senate floor, commandeered a microphone and spent hours directing the debate on and eventual defeat of a bill the NRA vehemently opposed.

“Shocking?

“Yep. But not as astounding as the Senate’s reaction: Not a single senator took the NRA advocate by the elbow and ushered him off the floor. In fact, not one of them piped up with even a mild question about this brazen behavior.

“The NRA board member, you see, is also a member of the Senate.

“Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig has served on the board of the NRA for more than 20 years. The voters of his state know that and, apparently, have no objections. Since he joined the leadership of the NRA, Craig was elected three times to a House seat and three times to a Senate seat.

“But if the folks of Idaho don’t mind, the Senate ought to. . . .” she continued.

The Brady Bunch went further than attacking Craig; they went after all of the members of Congress currently serving on the NRA board.

In a Mar. 9 press release, the antis said, “The Brady Campaign united with the ‘Million’ Mom March this morning delivered a letter to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, arguing that House members Don Young and Barbara Cubin used their legislative powers to further the financial interests of the National Rifle Association, which they serve as members of the Board.”

According to the Brady letter requesting an inquiry by the Committee, “the conflict of interest arises from the active support by (Reps.) Young (A-AK) and Cubin (R-WY) of HR-1036,” the House version of the arms trade litigation reform which passed in 2003.

I suspect that all of this huffing and puffing by the Brady Campaign to blown down the houses of the NRA and its board members in Congress will amount to nothing more than further schlock publicity. I suppose the Brady Bunch and PETA are at least a distraction from Howard Stern.