Stern Feels Bush-Whacked End Is Near

FMQB ^ | 3/03/04

[cjshapi]

Um, that wasn't exactly the kind of freak I was referring to.

[Wolfie]

...and to restore the Constitution, unless that gets in the way of our social pogrom.

[theDentist]

I seldom listen to Howard. Heard him for a while way back when, but after a while the "lesbians, lesbians, lesbians" thing gets old and tiring.

Anyway, do you know what he said that got him yanked? I read it, and it would anger he liberals as well as conservatives. Lemme give you some hints: It involves interracial sex with a woman, the words "taste like watermelon", and the "N" word.

[E Rocc]

I've heard Howard Stern, and he's a boring, mediocre talent (although oddly enough, I agree with his politics every now and then).

The only time Stern really goes against the GOP is when the GOP is pushing for censorship under the guise of "decency". The same thing happened in 1992, Stern supported Clinton (while continuing to back Republican Al D'Amato for Senate) only because of the whole "culture war" thing. He was effective then and effective now. This is political insanity, we need all the support we can get this year and Stern's support would help a lot.

There's a reason, beyond pure free speech matters, why Rush Limbaugh defended Stern.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

...and to restore the Constitution, unless that gets in the way of our social pogrom.

Like my old sig line said, "cultural conservatives" believe their version of "decency" is more important than liberty.

-Eric

[FrankR]

" Stern blames George Bush, the Bush administration, the FCC, Clear Channel, Mike Savage, Hollywood and John Kerry for his upcoming demise."

It's always somebody else's fault with these libs. They can never take responsibility for their own actions.

I'm not a celebrity, by a long shot, but over my years I have watched them come and go; if you're in that business, you've got to know that there will come a day when it all must come to an end. Even us working stiffs know that...that our careers will end sooner or later.

They (celebs) earn millions of dollars over their careers, but there are so many that squander it all, and when "cancellation" time comes they are broke, and bitter...and usually turn to doing personal appearances at shopping center openings and taking drugs.

Most of us everyday types just wish upon wishes for just one million dollars, just one time. Most of us figure at least we could pay off the house, send the kids to college, and our biggest life's expenses would be handled.

But not these celebrity jerks...they just blow it all, get cockier and cockier, until they tick off enough people to crash their popularity and career, or push the envelope of decency until everyone - including the authorities that be - get enough of it.

Having spent about 15 years of my early career in broadcasting, I am pleased that the FCC is finally stepping up to the plate to control decency of our air waves, after being flushed into the cesspool we call "the clinton years", at least someone is doing something to pull us back to center.

However, there is still that thing about station ownership; seems the FCC no longer cares how many stations you can own, which is rapidly setting up monopolies for companies like "Clear Channel".

There were once rules that said no one/company could own more than 7 radio stations; there was a purpose to this law, and that was to prevent any one person from monopolizing the news and broadcast material that we hear; to insure various points of view. The new rules see to have abandoned that theory, so - in theory - the communist party could buy up stations in all the major markets and beam their messages far and wide.

The FCC needs to rescend the ownership rule, and put limitations on it again. They are rapidly putting the "mom and pop" local radio stations out of business, and in 20 years all of the broadcasting we get will be from the MAJOR CORPORATIONS with an axe to grind. rant off

[Colorado Doug]

No! I'm! William! Shatner!

LOL. Well done!

[The_Outlaw_Josey_Wales]

>>Like my old sig line said, "cultural conservatives" believe their version of "decency" is more important than liberty.

Not necessarily. I consider myself to be a cultural conservative but the difference between me a lot of people is that I don't look to the government to resolve issues which are best handled in the free market. If a group of people believe that Stern's show shouldn't be on the radio, they should boycott his advertisers and put pressure on Clear Channel and the stations that carry him. But I object to the knee-jerk reaction of getting the government involved in such matters.

[The_Outlaw_Josey_Wales]

"I am pleased that the FCC is finally stepping up to the plate to control decency of our air waves, after being flushed into the cesspool we call "the clinton years", at least someone is doing something to pull us back to center."

Such logic is dangerous. What happens when a group of liberals start complaining that a conservative talk show host is "indecent" and uses the power of government to take them off the air? As I said in an earlier post, government is not the answer to this problem.

[Wolfie]

In fact, Rush was bleeped a couple of times this week. Clear Channel's new "zero tolerance" policy is apparently not in effect for him, however.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

This is political insanity, we need all the support we can get this year and Stern's support would help a lot.

I am not for censorship, but I also don't feel that pandering to a liberal like Stern is the way to go. (Sure he'll support the occasional RINO who kisses his butt now and then, but if you can't tell what Stern is deep down, you haven't been listening.)

Also, it's mildly funny to listen to Stern rail against Clear Channel for buying up and controlling too much of radio. Where was his outrage when his boss at Infinity, Mel Karmazin, was doing the same thing?

[longtermmemmory]

In between all the garbage he said in the article is the core of truth. One fine and he is finished. Follow the money.

The fines no longer justify the finacial risk.

Stern should just be creative around the standards. Me thinks he is just scandalmongering. He is trying to drum up interest by making any show his "potential last" show. Yawn.

[hchutch]

For some folks, ideological purity trumps winning.

I suspect that there are people who would rather lose an election than have Howard Stern's support.

[JackDanielsOldNo7]

They've been praying for this for 20 years."

I haven't. Course I did not know you were still on. Glad to see Howard realizes why his career is over because his show sucks.

[LucyJo]

I saw him on TV and was repulsed...really repulsed.He was a cross between a 13yr old just discovering the opposite sex and a dirty old man.Dirty old man was the lingering impression..Shudder.

It's sad that he was allowed to make a career using that type of profile, and truly pathetic that he feels his career is over because he will not be allowed to continue spewing debasements and vulgarities. He is right about one thing...there are too many others out there who are too much like him.

[Vision]

A whining shock jock is pathetic

[montag813]

He's like William Shatner - he should be falling to his knees thanking whatever God he worships that he made it as far as he did with what he had.

Oh, c'mon, Shatner is chock full of talent. He has much more than Star Trek in his history. A fine performance in "Judgment at Nuremberg" and other warly 1960's films, as well as one of the top 5 "Twilight Zone" episodes ever.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

I suspect that there are people who would rather lose an election than have Howard Stern's support.

If you think Bush was ever going to have Stern's support you're delusional. Stern had already turned and was regularly trashing Bush prior to this Clear Channel incident (as he did prior to 9/11.)

I'll admit that if Stern wasn't feeling pressure from the FCC he wouldn't be supporting Kerry quite as maniacally as he is now...but support Bush, never.

[Richard Kimball]

I thought you were Illbay.

[steve-b]

If it weren't for this FCC crackdown, I'm willing to bet a lot of Stern's listeners and maybe even Stern himself would have voted for Bush and the GOP. And some poeple think this is how elections are going to be won? It would almost be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

Yep. Stern's accusation may be true, or it may not -- but it will have legs, because 1)it's common knowledge that Stern's show was always like that, and 2)lots of people know somebody who's been hit with "gotcha" enforcement in retaliation for offending the political powers that be.