Stern Will Jump To Sirius In 2006 511
UnanimousCoward writes "Howard Stern announced it on his current radio show, and several feeds including this CNET article are reporting that Stern has signed a multi-million dollar multi-year contract with Sirius Satellite Radio starting in January, 2006. As I've watched technology grow from the time I was listening to Stern in the eighties, I can't wait to hook into a shockjock-timeshifted-podcast..."
YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a simple "Rights" section, although I don't know if this even qualifies for rights period....
Just news...
-thewldisntenuff
YRO? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see the FCC connection, but I doubt that was his main motivation when the words "multi-million dollar" are used.
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm thinking this is because you can't really articule a 'blur'
Yeah, but is he worth a billion bucks? (Score:5, Insightful)
who cares (Score:1, Insightful)
he is just mostly stupid...
sig - anony_mouse_cow_ard
Re:Why Not XM (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Not XM (Score:4, Insightful)
So what does XM have to offer now. (Score:4, Insightful)
However this is good news for sirius.
Re:Yeah, but is he worth a billion bucks? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well it's official... (Score:2, Insightful)
For all you reactionaries out there, no, i would never suggest strict censorship over stern, nor anyone else. Now getting him cancelled because it's a stupid show, that i'd be behind that all the way.
Mmmhmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
I expect you're the type who thinks that ANYTHING he doesn't like is stupid. And the millions who make Stern #1 in almost every market across the US, they must be stupid blue collar shitheads, right?
You know, it's idiotic shit like this that makes me nuts about America. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it offensive, doesn't mean it should be outlawed, and doesn't mean it's "stupid." You should be RALLYING for Stern to stay on the radio because it's YOUR RIGHTS as an American you're forfeiting otherwise.
I don't condone abortion, but I'm pro-choice.
I don't condone flag burning, but I certainly support the right to do it.
Catch my drift, Mr. Didactic?
Re:YRO? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:How I See It (Score:3, Insightful)
Please don't feed Howard's ego. He *IS* the one following suit. Opie and Anthony, who were kicked off the air 2 years ago, just came back and started their show up again as of 3 days ago, with XM radio (after their old contract expired). Stern did this because he's afraid because they're up in the morning now against him, and will have reach to all markets in the nation. Yes, he has a larger listenership than O&A did for their afternoon show at its peak, but they were growing rapidly, and now they are in the morning spot.
Anyway, I resent Howard Stern pretending that he's the big innovator here. I'm sure he's been thinking about this and discussing it for some time, but he is following on the heels of O&A, realizing that their move to satellite made a lot of sense and not wanting to compete in the morning shock jock market from a a hampered position with the FCC breathing down his neck.
Re:Yeah, but is he worth a billion bucks? (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok folks, what's wrong with this sentence?
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
We're talking about freedom of speech, not the freedom to prevent others from enjoying something that you happen to dislike.
Of course, if by "over there", you mean australia, china, or europe, then you all have your own little gov't censorship issues to deal with, don't you?
SOL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but is he worth a billion bucks? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the technical definition of a "killer app". One specific application of a system that is so valuable it justifies the purchase of an entire multi-function system.
That's why this is big news. Stern has a lot of fans who don't want to lose access to him on a daily basis. Sirius sales will surge during holiday season 2005.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I just find him too mean to be honest. It seems a lot of his humour comes from bullying people, like the mentally challenged, who can't really defend themselves. That's just my impression anyway. (Not that that means I think we should censor him or anything.)
Re:Mmmhmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you go back and read his post? He isn't saying anything about banning Stern, outlawing Stern, or sending the 82nd Airborne down on Stern's ass. All he is saying is that he doesn't want to listen to Stern.
What's idiotic is people like you ranting and raving about our diminishing freedom of choice every time someone makes a choice different from yours. You can be for the decriminalization of marijuana without being a pothead. Really!
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if you mean US thing - are you Brit with the toilet humor; Russian with the outlawed gay humor; Australia with thumb up the crock's butt humor, and yes I am generalizing as the as you did because I don't really know each culture's humor - Howard has just a different humor. Like it or not it's the way it is.
However, you're missing a more important decision. Howard has been severally fined from the FCC and decided to leave over the air broadcast - it huge, go look at Siruis [yahoo.com] stock - it went up 18% today. He is leaving what he thinks to be censorship from OTA broadcast in favor of freedom to do as he wishes on the show. We'll see how it pans out in 2005.
Re:Regulations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that in November you have a chance to try and change that.
Re:why i'll buy into Sirius. (Score:2, Insightful)
You've got to be kidding me. Every day he brings a female onto the program, has her strip down and then ooohs and ahhhs over her perfect body while everyone is sitting there wondering wtf she looks like BECAUSE HE IS ON THE RADIO. When he's not doing that he'll play some idiotically simple game with homeless people or retards, take calls from his ass-kissing audience, or spend an hour bitching about how Bush and the FCC are killing America. This is his shtick and it's fucking tired. Aside from the Bush-bashing (he was pro-Bush until the Janet Jackson affair, then he flip-flopped and became a Bush hater for some reason), this is how his program has operated for years.
Opie and Anthony on the other hand used to be a breath of fresh air and their interviews were entertaining. O&A is what Howard Stern USED to be before he went soft in the mid 1990's. I wish they were still on real radio though as I enjoyed listening to them during my afternoon commutes, but alas Sex for Sam killed them off. RIP O&A, and Fuck XM and Sirius.
This is....sad. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really sad for me to read this. Not the article - the comments.
Slashdot peeps generally tend to be well educated and be very possessive of their rights. American
But any self-respecting American with any love for the bill of rights and their own liberties SHOULD be in support of Howard Stern. He embodies the freedom we founded our country on - he takes it to an extreme, which makes a point: we exercise freedom to different degrees because we are the land of the free. Well, were, before this administration.
Anyway, the saddest part are the comments that say "I never listened to Stern and think he's the scum of the earth," which is roughly equavalent to the ignorance of saying "I don't know any black people, but I dislike them all."
Listen and make up your own mind. Don't be worthless simps who THINK they know what Stern is about. I've listened to Stern for years. He pushes the boundary of what can be said on radio, but in ANY dorm in my college you could've found worse language every single night. The show is harmless and it's enjoyed by millions. Be a responsible parent to your kids and we won't have to scrub the airwaves and forfeit our freedoms.
Re:Horses Butt (Score:3, Insightful)
My biggest issue with Howard Stern is that he is really very intelligent but still chooses to do his show they way he does. Perhaps, he is simply captializing on the the "When Animals Attack" crowd and doesn't consider his own show as entertainment. That really only requires stooping to the level of a common politician or used car salesman, if you think about it.
It's going to get old... FAST. (Score:3, Insightful)
His marriage is done, and for most of his listeners, sex isn't much of a mystery anymore. This was one item that a lot of both women and men admired him for - the fact that he didn't give in to temptation. That was the beginning of the end IMHO.
This gig on Sirius will probably start out dirty and 'controversial', and may even gain a few million listeners, but in the end it won't matter. It won't be censored - it won't be 'edgy' because without his fight against the station or the FCC, the REAL story behind Stern's success fades.
But go ahead, buy some Sirius stock...
Re:YRO? (Score:2, Insightful)
in short, this attracts attention since stern's got such a rep for bucking FCC regulations on free speech, and his presense in another realm will bring fcc (and other local obscenity-minded bastards) attention to the world of sat-radio.
I could care less (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Benny Hill ??
Re:Mmmhmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I think he just has taste.
And the millions who make Stern #1 in almost every market across the US, they must be stupid blue collar shitheads, right?
Do you seriously think that the vast majority of Stern listeners are part of the higher end of the scale in intelligence?
Maybe there is some craving among the professionals of the world for his brand of low-brow humor, but I doubt it.
I mean, really, Stern is pretty damn stupid for anyone who isn't sexually repressed.
Re:This is....sad. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my $0.02
Here's what's protecting you (Score:1, Insightful)
The porn industry is huge; it may dwarf Hollywood, in fact.
So if congress comes sniffing around to "protect the children", they'll be doing so without their corporate overlords blessing, which means nothing will happen.
Its a side effect of rampant capitalism, but I love my porn!
He's an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Turns out, being an ass is legal. I don't like his show, I won't listen to him, but he ABSOLUTELY has the right to do what he does.
Isn't it funny how many people (not the poster I'm responding to, tho) only want freedom of speech as long as they agree with it?
Oh Booo Hooo Hooo. (Score:3, Insightful)
"In 1992 the FCC fined Infinity Broadcasting $600,000 after Stern discussed masturbating to a picture of Aunt Jemima."
"Is that better or worse than asking a Nigerian woman if she eats monkeys, or hosting a discussion of whether, when you have sex with a black woman, it smells like watermelons? I guess you can argue that point, but I'd be a lot more impressed with Stern's defenders if they'd quote these comments verbatim in the process of defending him."
Perhaps someday, you will be able to reach deep, deep down and find your inner adult.
Until then, do you feel that a naked person smeared with excrement and buggering a dead muskrat in public counts as Art, and should be protected as Speech? How about if the Artist writes poems on the muskrat's genetalia with a soldering iron?
That's all speech, right, and deserves to be protected?
I mean, I'm sure the people who wrote the bill of rights and the constitution wanted to make sure that muskrat-buggering soldering-ironers were protected from narrow minded repression by the sheeple of the future.
/sarcasm
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an actual, according-to-Stern, movie. He gave himself a blow job in a book and Hollywood thought it would be great to turn it into a movie. Self-serving isn't the beginning of what Private Parts was.
I hear that Larry Flynt is free speech's biggest hero too, at least according to another Hollywood movie.
Re:This is....sad. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but is he worth a billion bucks? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The average morning radio show listener tunes in for 30 minutes. The average Howard Stern fan tunes in for 90 minutes!" "90 minutes?! Why?" "Most common answer, 'I want to hear what he'll say next.'" "But what about the people who hate Stern?" "The average Howard Stern hater listens for TWO HOURS!" "I can't believ this! Why?" Most common answer, 'I want to hear what he'll say next.'"
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole reason for people's interest in Howard is that he is always something other than how he presents himself. He comes off as a juvenile, but he is also a shrewd businessman. He comes off as a pervert, but he was married and had a family for over 20 years. He loves the low-brow humor, but also engages in serious political commentary. He provokes the worst from people, but also manages to keep a strong core audience. It's impossible to have a well-defined concept of him without contradiction, which is at the root of people's fascination with him.
People like to know who other people are, you like to be able to count on something from the people around you. Howard Stern's ability to change his persona is what makes him more than a crass boob joke, the joke is that he can be many different people and move so easily from one 'type' of person to the other.
M
Re:How I See It (Score:3, Insightful)
don't think maybe he actually started talks with XM and Sirius a couple months ago
Not really, because he's been talking about satellite radio for over a year now. It's possible, but he had interest in it for a while. This didn't come out of nowhere and surprised no long-time listeners of the show.
think the fact that he announced it three days after their show started airing, and about 2 months after the O&A announcement was made by XM, is a complete coincidence?
That's possible, but what's the advantage of waiting until 3 days AFTER the show has been going, when the fans have probably already bought XM? Stern also said this morning that Sirius had him keep a lid on it and this was the first day he could say anything about it, so I think that was more of a function of Sirius than Stern trying to up-end OnA. We'll never know for sure, but I really don't think Stern's primary concerns are OnA. If you listen to the show, you'd know that Howard's been complaining about FCC/Clearchannel for at least all of last year. Howard said he signed up for 5 years because his beef is with Clearchannel and he wants to bury them, those seem to be his main motives. He could've retired, I mean it's not as if he wasn't rich enough already.
You don't think that his announcement was timed, probably at the behest of Sirius, to take the steam out of the O&A launch 3 days ago?
Yeah, definitely possible and I'm sure Sirius was at least conscious that could happen, but that would be their motives, not necessarily Stern's.
If you don't see the connection here, I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you.
I'm not an idiot, you don't have to imply that I'm one for not agreeing with you. Again though, if you listened to the show, you'd know that Howard has been very passionate about being against Clearchannel, the FCC and the like; I mean at LEAST 20 minutes a day he's talking about it.
If OnA are Stern's target, he's done a DAMN good cover-up with it, having set the whole thing up for over a YEAR.
Stern has MANY more fans, anyhow, although OnA were doing well and picking up steam, they still weren't really in Stern's league. I don't think they were much competition. Stern is going after the airwaves controlled by what he views as the right-wing FCC. That's a mighty bigger fish.
Re:How I See It (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the problem with people around here. What's so hard about "Don't like it, change the bloody channel". And for all the won't-someone-please-think-of-the-children folks, enlighten your kids why you're changing the bloddy channel.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure CBS/Viacom would have liked to keep him, but the FCC is driving him out of the public airwaves and making it very difficult to keep him around.
Re:why i'll buy into Sirius. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that stuff's wicked funny.
then he flip-flopped and became a Bush hater for some reason
Yeah, that whole Michael Powell turning the FCC into witch hunting club for daddy's friends bit had nothing to do with that.
P.S. Two points for use of the most overused, and fucking tired, term of 2004.
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of the fying pan (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget whose camp the movie/tv media is firmly in.
Re:SOL (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason cable channels such as Comedy Central censor some parts of their broadcast is because advertisers and the general public demand it. Proctor and Gamble won't sponsor a show that has full frontal nudity during prime time due to public opinion, so such a show doesn't go on commercial TV.
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a question of this. What it IS a question of is this: If that same cop decided that he was going to randomly hand out tickets to people driving 75 in that same 35 mile-per-hour zone, then it would be more like what the FCC does. The FCC targets specific people (or sometimes random people) based on nothing more than a whim or pressure from constituents. For example: Howard Stern wasn't allowed to air a topic on teen sex, but Oprah Winfrey was [about.com], based solely on the fact that Stern's show is considered to be less decent. The fact that the subject matter was the same has no bearing on it. This is unfair treatment based on public opinion, and it is indeed the equivalent of a cop stopping one person going 75 in that 35 but not the one right next to him.
Laws that are unevenly enforced are not just laws and as such I feel we have a responsibility to challenge them. But that's just me.
Re:wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does Stern have to have any redeeming value? His ratings and long term success legitimize his existence.
Stern's a martyr, regardless of you understanding or accepting the factors that made him one. There now exists a precedent that states that only the rich or those willing to cough up the money have access to entertainment that doesn't need to be classified as acceptable for the 'public good' or having 'legitimate redeeming traits'. Don't you get that? Don't you understand the implications of that? People who can't afford freedom aren't allowed the benefits of freedom.
Money used to be the deciding factor of what got on TV and radio. The concern used to be that the public could be bought and sold based on who was willing to spend the most $$$. Evil corps only presenting one side, or agendas, etc etc etc.
The government is now doing the exact same thing, but the currency isn't money rather it's mindset catering to those with similar agendas. Imposition of mores by a government is a scary thing. Much scarier to the 'greater good' than any of the crap Stern pulls on his show.
Re:Out of the fying pan (Score:3, Insightful)
The Politicians' Camp. Just about all of them, on both "sides."