Howard Stern a gonner?

[Damascus]

Always kinda bothered when a show gets taken off the air because people "don't want to hear that flith"

but for some reason people listen to it. If everyone thought he was horrible and awful, why is he on the air? Who's listening to him? Oh right, a lot of people.

Maybe you all could just change the station eh? Or is that too much a thing for you guys?

 

[dantose]

I don't like stern (though I used to in my younger days) but I don't believe in limiting the first amedment in any but the most extreme cases (i.e. inciting a riot). I'd love for people to realize he hasn't said anything new in a few years and just stop listening to him though.

 

[memememe173]

unless it's something where you are unable to avoid being exposed to it...JJ's boob or Bono's **** for example...I think it shouldn't be censored

 

[Hippie Holocost]

Well I think most people agree with me on this so details aren't probably going to be important on this part, Howard Stern isn't fun to listen to.


So on to free speach.

To the conspiracy theorists:

When I keep hearing about the FCC and Stern supporting Kerry, I'm constantly reminded of Soccoms Razor; Do not multiply unecessary variables into an equation (I think I said that right). Or to put it more simply, the simplest answer is most likely the correct one.

Howard Stern broke FCC guidelines, and I'm sure that it came to no surprise to him that he was fined for what he said. I garuntee you Stern was fully aware of what he was saying and that it was possible that he would get slapped on the wrist for it. So, knowing full and well what might happen, Stern broke the rules.

Now more of a focus on the importance of free speach...

I think we all know what free speach was created for. It was created so that the people would have a voice that could change and affect the government. Tossing salads have little to do with that. Crude humor, though should be considered free speach in some circumstances, is not the reason our fore-fathers went to war.


Also about Clear Channel:

If I'm correct Clear Channel is a privately owned buisness so if they took Stern off their stations then there shouldn't be a problem there. It is their protected right to do so.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

I actually kinda like Howerd Stern, or at least I did last time I listened to him about two years ago.

He's got a right to talk about tossing salads. Clear Channel has a right not to employ him. No arguments from me.

I think other networks have the right to pick him back up though. Maybe he can go work with Oprah.

 

[Damascus]

Now more of a focus on the importance of free speach...

I think we all know what free speach was created for. It was created so that the people would have a voice that could change and affect the government. Tossing salads have little to do with that. Crude humor, though should be considered free speach in some circumstances, is not the reason our fore-fathers went to war.

Really now? So now it's only really free speech if it's something our founding fathers wanted? How exactly is it a freedom then?

 

[Hippie Holocost]

Really now? So now it's only really free speech if it's something our founding fathers wanted? How exactly is it a freedom then?

Heres my point...








Heres you.

I was reffering to the reason free speach was created. It wasn't made to protect *deleted* and fart jokes, but our ability to maintain a democratic society. While I'm not saying down with Howard Stern's head, I am saying that he knowingly broke rules already put in place and there should be a punishment for that. If you don't like the FCC fine, write a letter to your congressman, but don't expect the FCC to be lax on its rules that were created and approved by YOUR elected officials.

 

[Underseer]

Heres my point...








Heres you.

I was reffering to the reason free speach was created. It wasn't made to protect *deleted* and fart jokes, but our ability to maintain a democratic society. While I'm not saying down with Howard Stern's head, I am saying that he knowingly broke rules already put in place and there should be a punishment for that. If you don't like the FCC fine, write a letter to your congressman, but don't expect the FCC to be lax on its rules that were created and approved by YOUR elected officials.

That's all well and good, except timing puts a lie to that. It's not like Howard Stern just suddenly became an offensive puswad (and that is my opinion of him) recently. He's been pulling his crap for years and for years nothing happened to him. What did happen recently was his reversal on his opinion of Bush.

It's like when conservatives claim that we invaded Iraq because Saddam gassed his own people. We know it's not a genuine argument because not one single conservative called for an invasion when he actually did it, only many years later when it became strategically desirable to neocons.

 

[Stevinator]

First off, you all confused the hell outta me...i think you mean misogynist. mysoginist is not anything I don't think. the "my" thing totally threw me for a loop. I had no idea what you meant there.

misogynists hate women for those who are interested.

I have heard of howard stern and I vaguely remembedr seeing him on tv or something late at night...long hair, big nose? I dunno, i don't listen to his show. However, idon't think the freedom of speech should be limited to anything except things like yelling fire to cause a panic. and i don't think yelling fire is illegal...I think causing a panic is illegal...so the speech is protected, but there's another law that you end up breaking after you say it...so oyu can still say fire in a theatre...just can't purposefully start a panic. so if oyu stood up and yelled fire and everyone looked at you funny and you sat down i don't think they'd do anything to you.

as much as what little i know about howard stern is unappealing, I frankly couldn't care less if he is on the air or not. I don't think the FCC has kicked hiim off the air though. I'm sure they've threatened it, but i beleive it was his employer who didn't want to deal with teh fines anymore. so as great as his ratings are, his mouth ended up getting him kicked off the air. The FCC would prolly rather have kept him around, they were getting all kinds of fines out of him. easy money.

I dislike the concept of the FCC, I'd rather just have something similar to the v-chip technollogy be an option in media such as the internet, tv and radio. if someone wants to filter such things out of their life...even if they are just flipping through the channels then they should have that optioin.

TV shows have ratings, so do movies and video games. I'm not sure if these ratings are government or self imposed...they should be self imposed, but I have a hunch they are not. the v-chip in concert of ratings should aleeviate any of those problems you are discussing. you don't have to be disgusted when you flip through the channels/stations.

it seems to me there's no reason for the FCC to have gotten involved at all...if there was no fcc then people would organize boycotts of the companies that weren't providing the types of entertainment people wanted...the market would decide whether howard stern stayed or left.

from what you all seem to say I guess he'd stay on the air, as long as the money he brought in was worth more to his bosses than the costs and hassles of his annoying people everyday.


oh and underseer...nice jab there...i have to give you props for the blatant poking you did there. it was classic. you should be on the air instead of franken...that was almost Rush-esque

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

That's all well and good, except timing puts a lie to that. It's not like Howard Stern just suddenly became an offensive puswad (and that is my opinion of him) recently. He's been pulling his crap for years and for years nothing happened to him.

Not to mention the other people who get away with talking about tossing salads or other various sexual acts. Oprah, the Man Show, those two guys that do that radio call-in show where teenagers call in to ask about sex, that old chick that shows people how to put condoms onto dildos, etc. Granted some are more or less educational and only humorous unintentionally, but there are just as many that aren't educational and aren't being fined or yanked off the air.

The problem with rules isn't that they're in place or enforced, but rather the consistency of their enforcement.

 

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I actually enjoy listening to him and do so almost every morning on the way to work. I has a twisted sense of humor as well, so keep that in mind.

The funny thing is, a large portion of Howard Sterns audience has always been his critics. They listen to him to find things to complain about, or to try to use his words against him. They don't hurt him, they give him better ratings and more money.

It is extremely easy to simply turn the other way. Turn the radio dial, if you don't like it, don't listen. Unfortunately people can't seem to do that. I for example HATE Ellen with every fiber in my being. She is untalented, unfunny, and owes her fame to the fact that she decided to capitolize on the fact that she is a lesbian. The solution? I don't listen to her or watch her show now. Problem solved. I still don't like her, but she doesn't need to lose her show in order for me to continue my daily routine.

 

[zodiac66]

HMM..how to start. I am not trying to be hypocritical here, so hear me out. I don't think he should be taken off the air. One hears the name Howard Stern and thinks boobies. That is his reputation and I would venture to guess most people know his reputation. That being said, one can turn the channel if they don't want to listen to it. Janet Jackson's difference is that she did her boobie thing on prime time TV during one of the most watched sports events of the year. The Superbowl doesn't have a reputation of being sexually crude. If someone thought her boobie was a baddie, they really didn't have the opportunity to change the channel. I think there is a difference in events here.

I hope that makes some type of sense. If a celebrity is known to be crass, one has the option of not watching or listening. When a celebrity does something out of the blue that is a different story.

 

[Hippie Holocost]

That's all well and good, except timing puts a lie to that. It's not like Howard Stern just suddenly became an offensive puswad (and that is my opinion of him) recently. He's been pulling his crap for years and for years nothing happened to him. What did happen recently was his reversal on his opinion of Bush.

It's like when conservatives claim that we invaded Iraq because Saddam gassed his own people. We know it's not a genuine argument because not one single conservative called for an invasion when he actually did it, only many years later when it became strategically desirable to neocons.

When you see timing I see coincidence. There is no proof that you can give me for your conspiracy theories. The fact is he did something wrong and was punished for it. Thats the only fact on the table right now.

You can go on for days about how Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC but you can never connect the dots with the crackdown. So until you have proof you are going to hold very little water in this thread.

 

[Hippie Holocost]

HMM..how to start. I am not trying to be hypocritical here, so hear me out. I don't think he should be taken off the air. One hears the name Howard Stern and thinks boobies. That is his reputation and I would venture to guess most people know his reputation. That being said, one can turn the channel if they don't want to listen to it. Janet Jackson's difference is that she did her boobie thing on prime time TV during one of the most watched sports events of the year. The Superbowl doesn't have a reputation of being sexually crude. If someone thought her boobie was a baddie, they really didn't have the opportunity to change the channel. I think there is a difference in events here.

I hope that makes some type of sense. If a celebrity is known to be crass, one has the option of not watching or listening. When a celebrity does something out of the blue that is a different story.

I don't think that anyone is saying Stern should be taken off the air completely, just that he needs to own up to what he said/did. Same thing with what Savage said on MSNBC or Rush on ESPN. They said crude and hurtful things on the air and theres a price to pay for that.

 

[zodiac66]

I don't think that anyone is saying Stern should be taken off the air completely, just that he needs to own up to what he said/did. Same thing with what Savage said on MSNBC or Rush on ESPN. They said crude and hurtful things on the air and theres a price to pay for that.

But, you kind of expect that. I don't have a problem with off-color or overtly opinionated ideas as long as they are expected. I don't want my kids listening to some of the stuff on the radio, but I expect it and I don't tune in when they are with me.

I suppose it would be wrong to allow some but not all to get away with some of the vulagities under the assumption that one is expected and one is not. I don't have an answer, but I do believe in choice. If something is vulgar, I want to know before I tune in.

 

[memememe173]

I don't think that anyone is saying Stern should be taken off the air completely, just that he needs to own up to what he said/did. Same thing with what Savage said on MSNBC or Rush on ESPN. They said crude and hurtful things on the air and theres a price to pay for that.

yes...but if a person can have advanced knowledge...for example don't watch the Playboy channel if you don't wanna see T&A...but does that mean PB should go off air or be regulated...No, it means people need to take responsibility for themselves occasionally...move him to a late timeslot, to shut up critics...but the second offensive (to some) programs are banned, every one should protest art galleries with nudes...or the posters at doctors with naked people...or exclude penis from the dictionary

 

[Underseer]

Actually, Randi Rhodes of Air America had an interesting take on the whole Howard Stern thing: this could be a great opportunity for him. If he wants to, he could singlehandedly transform satellite radio overnight.

With his millions of fans, he could become satellite radio's "killer app," the thing that causes many people to choose to buy into satellite radio. Tell me most of his fans wouldn't pay $10 a month to hear him every morning. Not only would this be a huge benefit to a whole new medium, but it could potentially give him access to a much larger audience. He would effectively be in every market in the nation, not just a few selected cities. Since satellite radio is a paid service, I don't think it would be regulated in the same way the free airwaves are, so his juvenille humor would be less of a liability.

 

[Deramhus]

blah blah blah, can't you people read posts before you post?

will some people that posted read my post plz read my posts. Geez, I'm amazed that the same **** still goes on in this forum.

You guys are not better than people that listen to Howard stern. I think he's funny. The way he covers the news and current affairs, albeit it's not what i'd quote in a debate is humorous. He puts an angle on radio humor that no other dj has ever done and you know what? It's nice to listen to something different.

About him being anti-bush, read some of the above posts. About him being fined for something read my post above (i.e. it was something he said a couple of years ago at midnight, while nothing happened to oprah who said the same thing a few months back).

 

[Freet]

will some people that posted read my post plz read my posts. Geez, I'm amazed that the same **** still goes on in this forum.

You guys are not better than people that listen to Howard stern. I think he's funny. The way he covers the news and current affairs, albeit it's not what i'd quote in a debate is humorous. He puts an angle on radio humor that no other dj has ever done and you know what? It's nice to listen to something different.

About him being anti-bush, read some of the above posts. About him being fined for something read my post above (i.e. it was something he said a couple of years ago at midnight, while nothing happened to oprah who said the same thing a few months back).

Deramus,
Ok, so you like Stern. I get it. But what's with the attitude?

You think his humor's a refreshing change and I think it's childish. We can just agree to disagree on this point. I don't see a reason for you to be coming down on us though.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

I really don't see how it even has anything to do with Howard Stern's personal attributes or whether or not any of us like him. I see it as just a matter of uniform policy enforcement, or lack thereof in this case. To recap my thoughts:

1) Stern has the right to be a childish a-hole.
2) Clear Channel has the right not to associate with him.
3) Anyone else has the right to associate or not associate with him as they see fit.
4) The rule he violated in this instance has been violated before, by himself and by others, with complete impunity.

I'm not buying into the conspiracy theory, but at the same time I think there does have to be some uniformity of rule enforcement, otherwise the rules may as well not even exist.