Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stern, O'Reilly and others are crossing the line from self-promotion to narcissism
Yahoo! News ^ | 3/16/04 | Reed Business Info./Variety.com

Posted on 03/17/2004 9:12:54 AM PST by NormsRevenge

Occasionally I write about myself in this space when knowing a little about my biases or background is helpful in understanding how I've reached a conclusion. But does anybody really want to hear all about how arduous the job is --- from a woman calling me a "prissy little queen" via email for daring to insult Clay Aiken, to network execs thinking I was overly harsh or unfair?

Didn't think so. Yet that's exactly what's happening in the media world, as talk personalities such as Howard Stern and Bill O'Reilly increasingly segue from host to vein-opener, making their particular platforms all about themselves.

Welcome to the IAM (as in "It's About Me") school of broadcasting, where self-promotion risks giving way to narcissism. What's more, lately even some esteemed columnists appear to have taken the introductory course.

Other graduates include Sean Hannity and John Stossel, the latter having joined the ranks of multimedia threat with the book "Give Me a Break," whose subtitle notes how the "20/20" co-anchor "Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media." Based on this foray into self-martyrdom and redemption, it could have as easily been labeled "The Passion of Stossel."

Stern, meanwhile, is using the bully pulpit of his radio show to pound away at the government's efforts to corral him --- an important topic, certainly, which nevertheless feels whiny. Last week, Stern allowed that he's "tired of talking about this crap," which is good news, since even some diehard fans are doubtless tired of hearing it --- or rather, how burdened their multimillionaire blue-collar hero suddenly is.

IN THAT RESPECT, O'Reilly has more in common with Stern than he might care to admit, having engaged in his own bleating about the "defamers" and "smear merchants" who criticize him, beginning with Al Franken. Back in January, the Fox News star put the question to his audience, asking on his Web site whether he should "respond to personal attacks." Such online polls are unscientific, but my guess is casual listeners would happily advise him to give it a rest.

Granted, it's hard to argue with success, and in each case the endless drum-beating for ancillary projects has paid off, yielding a series of bestsellers. Stern plugs his E! show, books and producing ventures via the radio, in the same way O'Reilly references his latest book roughly every seven seconds during his syndicated radio program.

Listeners don't seem to mind, but the breaking point must lie somewhere. For while tolerance of all the pitching and shilling is clearly high, how much personal griping and on-air therapy will those who tune in for lesbian dial-a-date, or to witness the pummeling of some hapless spokesperson, willingly endure?

Remember, too, that these are fabulously compensated guys playing the aggrieved party --- mostly, I'd say, because they truly believe it, though more cynical sorts might conclude that venting their woes serves a commercial purpose by intensifying their bond with loyal listeners.

This trend, by the way, isn't confined to those such as Stern, Hannity and O'Reilly who have hit the radio-TV-publishing trifecta. Even David Letterman, historically guarded about his private life, has explored how strange it's been for him to become a father at 56 --- a fertile source of humor that still betrays an unusual degree of introspection.

THEN THERE'S the New York Times' Frank Rich, who in his near-obsessive coverage of "The Passion of the Christ" has sounded almost giddy about director Mel Gibson (news)'s comment that he'd like the columnist's "intestines on a stick." Beyond proving that Gibson said something decidedly un-Christian, it's hard to grasp the point, unless Rich wants to remind everyone how much the star dislikes him to obscure how much his tirades did to promote the film thanks to the Times' agenda-setting power.

In Stern's defense, his life has always been a central element of the program, so lambasting the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites), Bush administration and Clear Channel isn't a huge stretch if that's what preoccupies him. Still, even for avid listeners the "All right already" threshold must be coming. Similarly, O'Reilly's inability to shrug off detractors exposes an unflattering glass jaw that belies how tough and talented he has been to prosper against significant odds.

The 1980s were christened the "Me decade," but if our pop culture is any indication, the talking-head '00s are providing a slightly warped rerun. Think of it as a party where the host takes your coat, extends a brief pleasantry, then says, "Thanks for coming. Now, can we get back to me?"


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: billoreilly; crossingtheline; howardstern; medecade; mememememe; narcissism; selfpromotion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 03/17/2004 9:12:55 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Who wrote this?
2 posted on 03/17/2004 9:19:41 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
It's not just Stern and O'Reilly!
3 posted on 03/17/2004 9:22:25 AM PST by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I've never really listened to Stern, so I cannot comment on him but I do agree with this analysis as concerns Bill O'Reilly. Over the years I've watched him devolve into little more than a caricature of his former self. It's like watching a parody - an SNL skit of "The Factor," which is why I hardly watch it anymore. He's become no less smug and self important than Al Franken - only without Franken's "humor."
4 posted on 03/17/2004 9:24:39 AM PST by NCPAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCPAC
I'm afraid that I have to agree that O'Reilly has gone from great to frequently pathetic. He thinks that he's the last word on most topics. He's rude to his guests if they don't agree with him (and I don't mean when they won't shut up and he turns off their mikes). He's really gotten tiresome.
5 posted on 03/17/2004 9:27:38 AM PST by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NCPAC
I think he is funnier the Franken.
6 posted on 03/17/2004 9:36:57 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Bury Kerry in 04! Down with Lenin Loving Lemmings....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
I agree with you. The only reason I turn him on is to see what his topics are. Most aren't worth watching. Does anyone else agree with me that he has a hangup about sexual topics? Seems like he has to have one of this nature on every show.
7 posted on 03/17/2004 9:44:02 AM PST by taxesareforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
He's rude to his guests if they don't agree with him (and I don't mean when they won't shut up and he turns off their mikes). He's really gotten tiresome.
Thank yew.


8 posted on 03/17/2004 9:51:01 AM PST by BobbyK (The Truth Is Out There.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Does anyone else agree with me that he has a hangup about sexual topics?

Big time! A man who sees nothing wrong with homosexual perverts raising children, complaints about Brittney Spears dancing like a slut. I hqad a garage sale a year back and had O'Reilly's book No spin Zone out for sale. A guy drove up and was looking around and picked up the book and started laughing. I asked him what was so funny and he said that he worked with O'Rielly when he was in Dallas at WFAA. He said that he was the most pompus conceited ass he has ever worked with in the industry. After watching him and his self grandizing P.T Barnum promotion of everything O'Rielly, from No Spit zone bibs for kids to no Spin suppositorys, I can only agree with him!

9 posted on 03/17/2004 9:58:12 AM PST by Bommer (John Kerry = War Criminal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
O'Reilly may be many of the things everyone states here but he still fights against:
1) obsenity,
2) hip hop rockers that promote killing and guys for children
3) indecency (Janet Jackson)
4) bad judges who let child killers out on technicalities
or do their job poorly
5) women who kill their baby rather than have a scar
6) biased reporting
7) France
8) Blix

He fights for:
1) the Boy Scouts
2) the Passion
3) decency
4) etc

I would think that those on this Web site would support O'Reilly rather than criticize him.

This appears to be similar to the French people who supported Saddam over President Bush.
10 posted on 03/17/2004 10:06:33 AM PST by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushisTheMan
"This appears to be similar to the French people who supported Saddam over President Bush."

Oh, puhleeze. That's a bit of a drama queen reaction.

11 posted on 03/17/2004 10:11:41 AM PST by MEGoody (Kerry - isn't that a girl's name? (Conan O'Brian))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Yes, it was intentionally stated to be dramatic...just like all the other stupid comments on this thread.
12 posted on 03/17/2004 10:21:34 AM PST by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Listeners don't seem to mind, but the breaking point must lie somewhere. For while tolerance of all the pitching and shilling is clearly high, how much personal griping and on-air therapy will those who tune in for lesbian dial-a-date, or to witness the pummeling of some hapless spokesperson, willingly endure?

Good column. I can't imagine that many Howard Stern fans are thrilled with Stern's current tirades.

13 posted on 03/17/2004 11:42:54 AM PST by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StarFan; Dutchy; Timesink; Gracey; Alamo-Girl; RottiBiz; bamabaseballmom; FoxGirl; Mr. Bob; ...
FoxFan ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

14 posted on 03/17/2004 11:44:28 AM PST by nutmeg (Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John F’in al-Qerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushisTheMan
I would think that those on this Web site would support O'Reilly rather than criticize him. This appears to be similar to the French people who supported Saddam over President Bush.

While O'Reilly occasionally still hits one out of the park, he is indeed afflicted with the "It's all about me" syndrome. I wish he would stick to sticking it to the people who deserve it, instead of making every issue all about him. He should have taken a page from Rush Limbaugh when it came to Al Franken -- don't get into a urinating contest with a skunk.

15 posted on 03/17/2004 11:46:23 AM PST by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
I Tivo O'R Factor and enjoy it, time compressing the 60 minutes down to about 20 minutes when I speed through the dull segments and commercials. I do the same with H&C, unless Henry Kissenger is on for 2 segments, in which case I watch longer.
16 posted on 03/17/2004 11:48:26 AM PST by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYCVirago
We need to remember that Bill-O's roots are NOT in journalism....he comes from "Inside Edition" and remains in tabloid mode.
17 posted on 03/17/2004 11:51:23 AM PST by ErnBatavia (Gay marriage is for suckers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
[ Stern, O'Reilly and others are crossing the line from self-promotion to narcissism ]

Well, the Supreme Court started IT.!...
and their not finished YET either..
The Supemes seem to want to FORCE God out, specifically the Judeo-Christian God the one that identifys perversion and condemns it as evil, other "Gods" are OK.. the ones inclusive of perverse acts and ideas, like Islam and others.. So does that generally make the Supreme Court perverse ?.. Absolutely.. it is, even with Scalia there.. as told by many of his statements stateing the court has become perverse, a voice blowing into the wind..

When the courts are "evil" what then of the law.?.. Confusion is the result.. Consider marriage of homo sexuals, confusion in the extreme. Confusion is what the homos want.. to make the law look like idiocy.. as they are doing.. When people don't trust the law anymore its stock plummets.. like now.. Anarchy is looming and the ACLU's main function has been and is throw money wrenchs into the legal system. Their good no doubt about it..

The Supemes started it and are aiding and abetting the current confusion.. Stern and O'Reilly are milking those actions as are others.. When God is deported in a country like ours... WHO takes his position and steals his authority legally.?.. Thats right, you got it, the top of the Judicial System, the justices and their minions.. For in our Constitution GOD grants us our rights not Justices, at least BEFORE God was expelled in this devine Coup D'Etat. Separating of Church and State to WHAT... Well, to a Judicial Legalarchy thats what.. Little wonder Congress has become merely bean counters and TV personalitiys and the Presidency has become merely someone to blame on TV and a devils advocate.. I propose there is a real evil present.. The Supreme Court of the United States and that a Coup D'Etat has ALREADY taken place.. and they are the director in a Divine comedy or trajedy depending on your views... ALL others are merely actors and extras.. I'll speak but not according to the script..

18 posted on 03/17/2004 12:37:45 PM PST by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Thanks for the ping!
19 posted on 03/17/2004 12:59:41 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
"When the courts are "evil" what then of the law.?.. Confusion is the result.. Consider marriage of homo sexuals..."

(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)
>> "Next."
>> "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
>> "Names?"
>> "Tim and Jim Jones."
>> "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
>> "Yes, we're brothers."
>> "Brothers? You can't get married."
>> "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
>> "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
>> "Incest? No, we're not gay."
>> "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
>> "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
>> "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
>> "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
>> "And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
>> "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
>> "Hi. We are here to get married."
>> "Names?"
>> "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
>> "Who wants to marry whom?"
>> "We all want to marry each other."
>> "But there are four of you!"
>> "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
>> "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
>> "So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
>> "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
>> "Since when are you standing on tradition?"
>> "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
>> "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
>> "All right, all right. Next."
>> "Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
>> "In what names?"
>> "David Deets."
>> "And the other man?"
>> "That's all. I want to marry myself."
>> "Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
>> "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
>> "That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
20 posted on 03/17/2004 1:02:11 PM PST by houeto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson