View Full Version : Howard Stern's daughter Emily in nude role
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:51 AM
....but left the show due to conflicting reports, but at daddy's insistence. I've heard and read different accounts as to why Howard forced her to quit. Some accounts say it was because of the nudity, period, others because he was afraid of her nude pics appearing online, others that his "enemies" would use it against him, etc. Either way, it's awesome to see Howard the phony squirming over something he's promoted and sold as entertainment all his life to a naive audience that made him rich.
How f'n ironic is it that this sleaze ball, who has no respect for other men's daughters, is crying now that it hit home? He even went on Larry King (of all people) to discuss this. Didn't Howard trash King and his show on a regular basis?
Nothing would delight me more in the near future than to see or hear Emily on another shock jock's show talking about how she's always wanted to perform lesbian acts, being badgered into describing her bj techniques and forced to show it with a banana, being forced to admit her love for anal, being enticed to remove her top and bottom while sitting bare-ass naked on the hosts' lap, and farting and puking on all fours while being spanked by the show's cast and audience members who won a "Spank Emily Stern till she pukes and farts" contest.
Think Howard would let out one of his "whooo whooo whooo" laughs if this happened? Remember this when you are lead to believe how "cool" and "daring" Howard is.
http://www.mcall.com/entertainment/nyc-etstern0104,0,967006.story
Stupid Flanders
01-07-06, 01:41 AM
Nothing would delight me more in the near future than to see or hear Emily on another shock jock's show talking about how she's always wanted to perform lesbian acts, being badgered into describing her bj techniques and forced to show it with a banana, being forced to admit her love for anal, being enticed to remove her top and bottom while sitting bare-ass naked on the hosts' lap, and farting and puking on all fours while being spanked by the show's cast and audience members who won a "Spank Emily Stern till she pukes and farts" contest.
you need to find something constructive
a hobby perhaps
yankeesAZ
01-07-06, 01:48 AM
....but left the show due to conflicting reports, but at daddy's insistence. I've heard and read different accounts as to why Howard forced her to quit. Some accounts say it was because of the nudity, period, others because he was afraid of her nude pics appearing online, others that his "enemies" would use it against him, etc. Either way, it's awesome to see Howard the phony squirming over something he's promoted and sold as entertainment all his life to a naive audience that made him rich.
How f'n ironic is it that this sleaze ball, who has no respect for other men's daughters, is crying now that it hit home? He even went on Larry King (of all people) to discuss this. Didn't Howard trash King and his show on a regular basis?
Nothing would delight me more in the near future than to see or hear Emily on another shock jock's show talking about how she's always wanted to perform lesbian acts, being badgered into describing her bj techniques and forced to show it with a banana, being forced to admit her love for anal, being enticed to remove her top and bottom while sitting bare-ass naked on the hosts' lap, and farting and puking on all fours while being spanked by the show's cast and audience members who won a "Spank Emily Stern till she pukes and farts" contest.
Think Howard would let out one of his "whooo whooo whooo" laughs if this happened? Remember this when you are lead to believe how "cool" and "daring" Howard is.
http://www.mcall.com/entertainment/nyc-etstern0104,0,967006.story
So when did Howard force all these people on his show to do those acts?
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 01:49 AM
you need to find something constructive
a hobby perhaps
Hit a nerve, or is this your hobby?
Stupid Flanders
01-07-06, 01:51 AM
Hit a nerve, or is this your hobby?
a nerve? no.
but if nothing would elight you more than someone's daughter being humiliated, perhaps you should look for something that would delight you more
#1PaFan
01-07-06, 01:59 AM
I couldn't care less about that.
I just want to see Trish wrestling with Baskums in a swimming pool filled with tapioca pudding. AND, I don't care who wins! They both get Me! :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 02:00 AM
a nerve? no.
but if nothing would elight you more than someone's daughter being humiliated, perhaps you should look for something that would delight you more
This, from you, the man who was calling Katie Holmes unborn child a bastard in an intentional malicious way then tried to worm your way out of it when others got on you, amongst various other tasteless remarks. Okayyyyy....
Stupid Flanders
01-07-06, 02:07 AM
This, from you, the man who was calling Katie Holmes unborn child a bastard in an intentional malicious way then tried to worm your way out of it when others got on you, amongst various other tasteless remarks. Okayyyyy....
um, ok
well this has been a great discussion here
i'm very glad you and 11 of your peers were able to guage intent
my whole point was that you maybe shouldn't call humiliating someone's daughter something that would be your life's dream
Stupid Flanders
01-07-06, 02:11 AM
PS nothing was malicious.
Perhaps someone should have gotten a dictionary for Christmas/Chaunukkah/Kwanzaa/Ramadan/NewYears
Hope I didn't offend anyone there
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 02:12 AM
So when did Howard force all these people on his show to do those acts?
Howard doesn't spend hours enticing, throwing money and prizes in girls faces, who are his daughter's age and younger?
My point is, if Howard is considered this carefree, sexually-liberal hero (as some perceive him to be) when he does these things then why should it bother him that his daughter went topless? You know why? Because he's a father and he should afford the same respect to other men's daughters if he can't take what he dishes out.
It's just another example of how this man's act has not only grown tired and stale but once again exposes him for the hypocrite that he is.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 02:22 AM
PS nothing was malicious.
Perhaps someone should have gotten a dictionary for Christmas/Chaunukkah/Kwanzaa/Ramadan/NewYears
Hope I didn't offend anyone there
No need for a dictionary. I know the definition of "bastard" and the difference between the literal meaning and "Haha! That ho is carrying that rat turd, Tom Cruises', bastard child!" as you meant it. You were playing to the audience because you mistakenly thought it was somehow hip or funny in this forum to trash Cruise and Holmes, not expecting the backlash you received. You didn't fool anyone and your comment was consistent with other similar crude, tasteless remarks you've made in the past (as I myself am guilty of every now and then).
So get over the self-righteousness, yeah?
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 02:28 AM
I couldn't care less about that.
I just want to see Trish wrestling with Baskums in a swimming pool filled with tapioca pudding. AND, I don't care who wins! They both get Me! :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:
Holy smokes! Welcome back!
Archer1979
01-07-06, 02:29 AM
If she looks anything like that bastard, it was probably a public service that she got covered up before she hit the stage.
That said. If she were covered in tapioca pudding, I'm quite sure George would still hit it. :gulp:
If anyone was offended by this post, please substitute the word "tapioca" for "butterscotch" and the word "hit" with the term "play backgammon with".
ritaylnil
01-07-06, 07:01 AM
I agree with you Dools, but, sadly, I think a majority of men are okay with sexualizing and exploiting other people's daughters, just not their own. The reason I say this is the popularity of Howard.
penguin4
01-07-06, 07:58 AM
I went to high school with a kid who dated her. He said that any time someone asked what her father did, she'd say "professional actor." I guess the truth was too embarrassing.:lol:
Casey37
01-07-06, 08:21 AM
I guess he's not really as amoral as I thought he was. Good for him.
ritaylnil
01-07-06, 09:09 AM
I guess he's not really as amoral as I thought he was. Good for him.
Yeah, just a raging hypocrite. Big improvement. :thatsodd:
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 09:20 AM
If she looks anything like that bastard, it was probably a public service that she got covered up before she hit the stage.
That said. If she were covered in tapioca pudding, I'm quite sure George would still hit it. :gulp:
If anyone was offended by this post, please substitute the word "tapioca" for "butterscotch" and the word "hit" with the term "play backgammon with".
Trust me, we are better off.
yankeesAZ
01-07-06, 09:28 AM
Howard doesn't spend hours enticing, throwing money and prizes in girls faces, who are his daughter's age and younger?
My point is, if Howard is considered this carefree, sexually-liberal hero (as some perceive him to be) when he does these things then why should it bother him that his daughter went topless? You know why? Because he's a father and he should afford the same respect to other men's daughters if he can't take what he dishes out.
It's just another example of how this man's act has not only grown tired and stale but once again exposes him for the hypocrite that he is.
Of course he throws money and prizes at them and many simply say they will "do anything" to get on his show to meet him or whatever guest he has on the show.
From what I read in the article, Emily has been doing the show since November, so its not like he pulled the plug simply because she was nude in the show, but got word that his haters were going to take pictures of her and post them on the web (which may have happened already).
Emily is old enough to make her own decisions and if she really wanted to do the show, Howard can't stop her.
This is just another Howard bashing thread. Have fun with it. It's always fun reading what the haters have to say.
yankeegeek
01-07-06, 09:39 AM
Yeah, just a raging hypocrite. Big improvement. :thatsodd:
Hell yea! Howard exposed his phony ways many years ago after his seperation from his wife! All those years of saying what his life would be like if he was single. All the women he would be with. What did he do?? Got right back into a relationship. Phony! Now it is OK to see other fathers daughters boobs, but it's an entre different story about your own.
Not suprised here
NelsonMuntz
01-07-06, 09:54 AM
Howard doesn't force other father's daughters to come on his show and get naked. He just provides a forum for those who want to do it. I don't find it shocking or hypocritical that he wants to protect his own daughter.
yankeesAZ
01-07-06, 10:06 AM
Howard doesn't force other father's daughters to come on his show and get naked. He just provides a forum for those who want to do it. I don't find it shocking or hypocritical that he wants to protect his own daughter.
No he's supposed to let his daughter's nude photos get posted on the web.
I guess sometimes things come back to bite us in the ass.
And George, can it be rice pudding? I don't like tapioca.
Yeah, just a raging hypocrite. Big improvement. :thatsodd:
I'm not a Howard Stern fan, but I don't think he's a hypocrite here. He's always been pretty clear that he's aware his show is inappropriate. When his kids were young, he didn't let them listen, and he's never pretended that the way he treats the people on his show is empowering as opposed to demeaning.
From the few times I've heard his show, it sounds like he's denigrating his guests and mocking their willingness to debase themselves for him and his audience. I thought that was largely the point of the show.
In the same way he would never let himself suffer the treatment he imposes on his guests, he would never let his daughter play that role either. He looks out for him and his own. Everybody else is free to debase themselves.
Howard Stern isn't a hypocrite. He's vulgar and boring, but I generally think he's fairly honest.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 11:44 AM
Howard doesn't force other father's daughters to come on his show and get naked. He just provides a forum for those who want to do it. I don't find it shocking or hypocritical that he wants to protect his own daughter.
If you throw "gifts" at the feeble-minded, that's not much different than forcing them. Let's just call them "calculatingly enticed by Howard" then.
His daughter was drawn by fame and money and went nude, and that's no different than some of the women who appear on Howard's show and do likewise. Only it's not as sexy and cutting edge when HIS daughter does it. Do I blame Stern? Absolutely not. But the next time he badgers a woman into exposing her private sex life on air, or offers an iPod to a 19 year old girl to remove her panties for him, he should think about his daughter.
Howard (thankfully?) isn't this cutting-edge/hip/sexually-liberal cool jock that some believe or wish him to be? I think that this should send a signal to some of his dopier fans who think that Howard is just being himself on the air. Howard is all about himself and his SHTICK is all about lining his pockets. As long as it doesn't hit home, that is. His daughter is a consenting adult and yet he was still troubled by this. Hypocritical, don’t you think?
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 11:49 AM
No he's supposed to let his daughter's nude photos get posted on the web.
The same web where he has a website and invites people to visit to see nude pictures of other father's daughters getting spanked, vomiting while nude on all fours, etc.? That web?
Archer1979
01-07-06, 11:55 AM
The same web where he has a website and invites people to visit to see nude pictures of other father's daughters getting spanked, vomiting while nude on all fours, etc.? That web?
:link: :link: :link:
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:01 PM
This is just another Howard bashing thread. Have fun with it. It's always fun reading what the haters have to say.
Wrong. Where did I say I hated Howard. Because I wish him the same angst he's probably given other parents? Do a search and you'll see for the most part I was/am a fan but think the show went downhill with the awful, forced, unfunny, repetitive Artie Lange.
What I am pointing out is that Stern is a hypocrite of great proportions. You know damn well if this happened to Imus's or Larry King (suddenly they became friends after this incident?) that Howard would be goofing on it ad infinitum. Howard likes to dish it out, and let's face it; he's made his money in large part exploiting and humiliating women - other father's daughters.
The bottom line is that I respect Howard on one hand for having these morals concerning his daughter, but on the other hand I hope he loses those fans that follow him just because they think he has no such morals. If this doesn't expose Howard as a phony (which any person with half a brain already knew) I don't know what will. Howard Stern is an entertainer, stooping to anything to become rich, not a lifestyle or religion folks.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:01 PM
:link: :link: :link:
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
You dirty old man you!
The same web where he has a website and invites people to visit to see nude pictures of other father's daughters getting spanked, vomiting while nude on all fours, etc.? That web?
if you know of such website, please let me in on it.. i go to howardstern.com all the time and there are absolutely no nude pictures on that website.. that is his official website.. maybe you have seen one run by his fans or something..
brosiusbuddy
01-07-06, 12:07 PM
....
How f'n ironic is it that this sleaze ball, who has no respect for other men's daughters, is crying now that it hit home? He even went on Larry King (of all people) to discuss this. Didn't Howard trash King and his show on a regular basis?
The difference is Howard acted like a protective father and put a stop to his daughter exposing herself. Where were all the fathers of the girls who volunteered to go on Howard and get naked?
He was only watching out for his daughter's best interests. Do you think he's really trying to protect a reputation? What difference would it make to his rep if his daughter acted naked? Its not like she was doing anything vulgar.
You obviously just hate Howard Stern.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:07 PM
if you know of such website, please let me in on it.. i go to howardstern.com all the time and there are absolutely no nude pictures on that website.. that is his official website.. maybe you have seen one run by his fans or something..
I'm sure you know that my examples weren't literal ones. But, Howard has never said, "If you want to see more go to my website, blah, blah, blah" after a woman went topless, etc.? If there were never any nude shots, then he was lying to his fans or whetting their appetite to promote his site. I never visited the site so I'm assuming he wouldn't lie or mislead his fans.
AMYanks
01-07-06, 12:07 PM
His daughter left the show herself. It doesn't say anything about Howard forcing her to leave.
I'm sure you know that my examples weren't literal ones. But, Howard has never said, "If you want to see more go to my website, blah, blah, blah" after a woman went topless, etc.? If there were never any nude shots, then he was lying to his fans or whetting their appetite to promote his site. I never visited the site so I'm assuming he wouldn't lie or mislead his fans.
that site is pg-13 at worst.. anything risky is blurred out..
brosiusbuddy
01-07-06, 12:13 PM
I'm sure you know that my examples weren't literal ones. But, Howard has never said, "If you want to see more go to my website, blah, blah, blah" after a woman went topless, etc.? If there were never any nude shots, then he was lying to his fans or whetting their appetite to promote his site. I never visited the site so I'm assuming he wouldn't lie or mislead his fans.
Howard doesn't ever refer people to go to any website of his own. He sometimes allows girls to plug their own site, but thats about it. He has no affiliation with running pornographic websites.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:18 PM
His daughter left the show herself. It doesn't say anything about Howard forcing her to leave.
Maybe not in this article, but like I said in my first post, I've heard that he did in fact pressure her to quit because he was afraid of what his "enemies" would do. I started this thread right after seeing an Inside Edition rerun that said Howard asked her to leave. This was after reading a similar story on the web (not sure where) that said the same. I also saw quick sound bite of him on Larry King, putting some kind of spin on it. I Now tell me that isn't a sign of desperation - Howard going on King! :lol:
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:20 PM
Howard doesn't ever refer people to go to any website of his own. He sometimes allows girls to plug their own site, but thats about it. He has no affiliation with running pornographic websites.
Are you serious!? Stern never invites people to his website? I must have heard him do this thousands of times. And when did I say he runs a pornographic site? Having blurred photos of some nude bimbo sucking on a banana for a free iPod isn't necessarily porn.
BTW, it's the same website where he conveniently closed down the forum because of too many negative things being written about him by visitors. Whatever happened to his championing of freedom of speech?
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:24 PM
that site is pg-13 at worst.. anything risky is blurred out..
Again, I haven't gone there, but Stern does give a different impression when he asks people to go on it. He doesn't say the photos will be blurred out. But I'm sure that it wouldn't make him any happier if Emily's tits where blurred out either on some other site.
Forget this. David Lee Roth is the man. I love his show. Well, that is because I am a classic Van Halen fan. Seriously give it a listen. It's not Stern but he does talk about some interesting topics on his show. Roth Radio is cool. Go Dave!!!!!!!!!
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:34 PM
I'm not a Howard Stern fan, but I don't think he's a hypocrite here. He's always been pretty clear that he's aware his show is inappropriate. When his kids were young, he didn't let them listen, and he's never pretended that the way he treats the people on his show is empowering as opposed to demeaning.
From the few times I've heard his show, it sounds like he's denigrating his guests and mocking their willingness to debase themselves for him and his audience. I thought that was largely the point of the show.
In the same way he would never let himself suffer the treatment he imposes on his guests, he would never let his daughter play that role either. He looks out for him and his own. Everybody else is free to debase themselves.
Howard Stern isn't a hypocrite. He's vulgar and boring, but I generally think he's fairly honest.
Excellent points, but I suspect that a good portion of his fan base follows him because they believe that this is Howard's lifestyle and that he is indeed "immoral." I'm also sure Howard is aware of this and uses it to his monetary advantage.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:36 PM
Forget this. David Lee Roth is the man. I love his show. Well, that is because I am a classic Van Halen fan. Seriously give it a listen. It's not Stern but he does talk about some interesting topics on his show. Roth Radio is cool. Go Dave!!!!!!!!!
Roth is one sick puppy and is entertaining no matter what venue I've see him in. I'm just wondering if his "craziness" gets tired when done on a continuous basis. I'll have to give a listen.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:38 PM
You obviously just hate Howard Stern.
Those are your unfounded assumptions based on the same generalizations you seem to dislike when I'm doing it to Stern.
http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.php?p=2995148&postcount=28
brosiusbuddy
01-07-06, 12:42 PM
Are you serious!? Stern never invites people to his website? I must have heard him do this thousands of times. And when did I say he runs a pornographic site? Having blurred photos of some nude bimbo sucking on a banana for a free iPod isn't necessarily porn.
BTW, it's the same website where he conveniently closed down the forum because of too many negative things being written about him by visitors. Whatever happened to his championing of freedom of speech?
Ok so you're making assumptions because of soundclips you heard and mystery I-net articles you've read, you're bashing a website that you just admitted you've never been on, and yet you still take the time to either listen in on the mornings or watch his show on E!?
You obviously hate the guy, yet you are still contributing to his ratings by listening in.
You seem to fall into a large category of people. There are those in his audience that love the guy, and then there are those who hate him but listen just to see what he'll do next. You can't help but tune in.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 12:49 PM
Ok so you're making assumptions because of soundclips you heard and mystery I-net articles you've read, you're bashing a website that you just admitted you've never been on, and yet you still take the time to either listen in on the mornings or watch his show on E!?
:lol: Do you skim or actually read posts? Where am I bashing a site that HE himself invites others to visit after some nude bimbo shat her panties (again don't take the example literally)? Because I chose not to go to the website doesn't mean it didn't happen or that he doesn't refer his audience to the site.
You obviously hate the guy, yet you are still contributing to his ratings by listening in.
Then it's safe to say you obviously hate me because you're in disagreement with me and thought you found flaws in some of the comments I've made? Come on brosius, get real. If I hated Stern and his show, I'd have no problem saying it. I do hate that he can dish it out but can't take it. I DO hate when he has a regular on his show -a retarded girl- and makes fun of her and asks her sexual questions. THat doesn't mean that I hate the show or him if I point it out, does it? Is it all or nothing with you Stern fanatics?
You seem to fall into a large category of people. There are those in his audience that love the guy, and then there are those who hate him but listen just to see what he'll do next. You can't help but tune in.
What category of people do you fall under? Those who make unfounded assumptions about people with little bits of information you've gathered and proceed to label them?
Why such passion for an entertainer? Seems a bit odd to me.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 01:19 PM
From thje show's publicist:
Show publicist Penny Landau said: "Here is Howard Stern afraid of people doing to his daughter what he does to other people's daughters.
From the show's own producer:
Tenenbom told The Post that Howard had begged Emily not to do the show, which debuted Nov. 15 and was set to run until the end of January.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180848,00.html
This article says Howard was fine with it (AFTER she left the show), but if you read between the lines, the reason she quit was all about Howard. It's obvious that he applied pressure and she had to cave in if only because of what it might do to her daddy.
It's quite obvious that no matter who made the choice, Howard was uncomfortable seeing his daughter do what he promotes other women her age and younger to do (and worse). Which is fine. But he should keep this in mind the next time he has a naive girl strip down naked and do tricks on all fours while he humiliates her, or asks a retarded girl how many knuckles she could take (true story)- that these girls have a father too.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 01:35 PM
:link: :link: :link:
if you know of such website, please let me in on it.. i go to howardstern.com all the time and there are absolutely no nude pictures on that website.. that is his official website.. maybe you have seen one run by his fans or something..
Howard doesn't ever refer people to go to any website of his own. He sometimes allows girls to plug their own site, but thats about it. He has no affiliation with running pornographic websites.
From Sterns site. All I typed in was "nude" once in, and got a slew of hits. I picked one and came up with this. No, it's not pornographic, yes it's blurred out, but it's exactly what he didn't want happening to his own daughter.
http://www.howardstern.com/rundown.php?d=1114498800
it's amazing how much Stern bashers know about him.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 01:39 PM
it's amazing how much Stern bashers know about him.
Who's a Stern-basher and who claims to know anything about him other than what's presented?
Maybe you can enlighten us with his life story?
hellonewman
01-07-06, 01:51 PM
OMG I can remember when Emily Stern was a baby ... :eek:
Who's a Stern-basher and who claims to know anything about him other than what's presented?
Maybe you can enlighten us with his life story?
I don't know his life story or really care about it.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 01:55 PM
OMG I can remember when Emily Stern was a baby ... :eek:
Yup. No more.
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 01:58 PM
O&A party rock!
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 02:03 PM
I don't know his life story or really care about it.
Then, that makes two of us.
RhodyYanksFan
01-07-06, 02:04 PM
Yup. No more.
:barf:
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 02:05 PM
:barf:
:lol:
brosiusbuddy
01-07-06, 02:15 PM
Then it's safe to say you obviously hate me
Why such passion for an entertainer? Seems a bit odd to me.
I dont hate you. Nothing in any post indicated that. I haven't bashed you. I haven't even mentioned your name. I simply stated my disagreement with you. I also didn't call you a sleazeball as you did to Stern, nor did I suggest that your daughter go on a tv show to be humiliated to the point of defecation. If in fact you do not hate him, you do however, as you already said, hate the content of his show. You hate that he objectifies women and you hate that he takes advantage of disabled persons. So I just wonder why you watch?
And by the way, I dont have such passion for him. I happen to enjoy the show whenever I caught it which happened to be every few weeks. Now that hes on satellite I dont get the chance to hear it. And being stuck inside with a cold on a Saturday I thought I'd engage in this entertaining debate.
I still believe my assumptions of you, however, are accurate.
Roth is one sick puppy and is entertaining no matter what venue I've see him in. I'm just wondering if his "craziness" gets tired when done on a continuous basis. I'll have to give a listen.
Nah Dools he actually is somewhat controlled and is very serious in his conversations and topics. I know what you mean though. He shows glimpses of his rock star days but is actually very interesting to listen to. Yesterday they were talking about Crystal Meth and said that is what ruined his career with VH. He said he never did it but hinted that Eddie was doing it and that is why he had to leave the band since it was hindering Eddie's creativity. http://files.filefront.com/DaveOn_VanHalenmp3/;4574090;;/fileinfo.html
Some of it I believe and some of what he said I am on the fence about. Have you ever read his book Crazy From The Heat? Very well written.
DiMaggio5CF
01-07-06, 02:29 PM
I do agree with Dooley here.
I used to listen to Stern a lot because friends of mine liked him, but I quckly got tired of his act. It's not just Stern, it's any of these so-called shock jocks.
I dislike anything that pushes the envelope. Do what you want to do. If you want to make porn, then make porn. Don't disguise it as a radio/television show. If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn. If I want to listen to the radio, I'll listen to the radio. And as there are plenty of both out there in the world, I don't feel a need to get both in one step.
And if you can do it to a girl, then don't be surprised when it happens to you. It is hypocritical to make your living off it and then balk when someone else tries to do the same.
YankyDave
01-07-06, 02:38 PM
If anyone doesn't see the hypocrisy DW is pointing out, then you need to take off your loyalty blinders. Stern is an afront to three digit IQ's. If he is so okay with having other guy's daughters do the stuff they do on his show, he should be happy to see his daughter do the same.
PinstripePride
01-07-06, 02:40 PM
Howard is a scumbag. I hope his daughter gets back out there and tells him to f*ck off.
JeffWeaverFan
01-07-06, 02:41 PM
It definitely is a tad bit hyocritical.
yankeesrule2000
01-07-06, 02:44 PM
Howard is the man!! Join the Revolution on January 9th 2006 on Sirius Satelite radio...Channel 100...6am ET time :D
yankeesrule2000
01-07-06, 02:51 PM
If you throw "gifts" at the feeble-minded, that's not much different than forcing them. Let's just call them "calculatingly enticed by Howard" then.
His daughter was drawn by fame and money and went nude, and that's no different than some of the women who appear on Howard's show and do likewise. Only it's not as sexy and cutting edge when HIS daughter does it. Do I blame Stern? Absolutely not. But the next time he badgers a woman into exposing her private sex life on air, or offers an iPod to a 19 year old girl to remove her panties for him, he should think about his daughter.
Howard (thankfully?) isn't this cutting-edge/hip/sexually-liberal cool jock that some believe or wish him to be? I think that this should send a signal to some of his dopier fans who think that Howard is just being himself on the air. Howard is all about himself and his SHTICK is all about lining his pockets. As long as it doesn't hit home, that is. His daughter is a consenting adult and yet he was still troubled by this. Hypocritical, don’t you think?
Howard doesn't force anyone to do anything, they come on his show willingly and if they want to take off their clothes, he doesnt stop them. He offers money and prizes, but that doesnt mean the girls have to take thier clothes off, thats thier choice. As far as everything else you have said what man wouldnt protect his daughter? It's different when its your own kid...
But like i said he doesn't force them to do anything, he just provides a forum for these women to act outrageous. So i don't see his as a hypocrite, i see him as a man doing his job, and a father protecting his daughter.
keithf1
01-07-06, 02:54 PM
Howard Stern is a freak.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 03:14 PM
Howard doesn't force anyone to do anything, they come on his show willingly and if they want to take off their clothes, he doesnt stop them. He offers money and prizes, but that doesnt mean the girls have to take thier clothes off, thats thier choice. As far as everything else you have said what man wouldnt protect his daughter? It's different when its your own kid...
But like i said he doesn't force them to do anything, he just provides a forum for these women to act outrageous. So i don't see his as a hypocrite, i see him as a man doing his job, and a father protecting his daughter.
I later changed "forced" to "calculatingly entices." Nobody forced his daughter to appear nude in the play, yet he was concerned about the ramifications to his career and more importantly (to most people) was concerned as a father. How would you describe it if a man took advantage of a retarded girl, as Howard does, to exploit her, talk sexually to her and coax her into answering his sexual questions, such as "How many knuckles can you fit up there?"
When you say, "As far as everything else you have said what man wouldnt protect his daughter? It's different when it's you're own kid" you aren't you agreeing with what I'm saying.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 03:16 PM
If anyone doesn't see the hypocrisy DW is pointing out, then you need to take off your loyalty blinders. Stern is an afront to three digit IQ's. If he is so okay with having other guy's daughters do the stuff they do on his show, he should be happy to see his daughter do the same.
Thanks, and I'm glad you see where I'm coming from.
yankeesAZ
01-07-06, 03:25 PM
Wrong. Where did I say I hated Howard. Because I wish him the same angst he's probably given other parents? Do a search and you'll see for the most part I was/am a fan but think the show went downhill with the awful, forced, unfunny, repetitive Artie Lange.
What I am pointing out is that Stern is a hypocrite of great proportions. You know damn well if this happened to Imus's or Larry King (suddenly they became friends after this incident?) that Howard would be goofing on it ad infinitum. Howard likes to dish it out, and let's face it; he's made his money in large part exploiting and humiliating women - other father's daughters.
The bottom line is that I respect Howard on one hand for having these morals concerning his daughter, but on the other hand I hope he loses those fans that follow him just because they think he has no such morals. If this doesn't expose Howard as a phony (which any person with half a brain already knew) I don't know what will. Howard Stern is an entertainer, stooping to anything to become rich, not a lifestyle or religion folks.
Howard has been on Larry King before and made fun of him before and after his appearances on there. As far as I know they are not friends, but Larry will take the ratings and put up with him anyway.
You're right Howard is an entertainer and not a religion. But like many celebrities, some treat him as religion. He just flat out entertains me though. His morals have nothing to do with it.
So if I had been to strip clubs, am I a hypocrite later in life for trying to encourage my daughter not to become a stripper?
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 03:25 PM
I dont hate you. Nothing in any post indicated that. I haven't bashed you. I haven't even mentioned your name. I simply stated my disagreement with you. I also didn't call you a sleazeball as you did to Stern, nor did I suggest that your daughter go on a tv show to be humiliated to the point of defecation. If in fact you do not hate him, you do however, as you already said, hate the content of his show. You hate that he objectifies women and you hate that he takes advantage of disabled persons. So I just wonder why you watch?
And by the way, I dont have such passion for him. I happen to enjoy the show whenever I caught it which happened to be every few weeks. Now that hes on satellite I dont get the chance to hear it. And being stuck inside with a cold on a Saturday I thought I'd engage in this entertaining debate.
I still believe my assumptions of you, however, are accurate.
brosius, I know you don't hate me bud. I was speaking in hypotheticals. And quite honestly it's his hypocrisy in this situation that I'm addressing and which doesn't sit right with me. In the process I remembered how he has a penchant for exploiting the weak and mentally handicapped as mentioned above. I didn't suggest his daughter do anything, but only said it would be quite amusing to hear his reaction if his daughter did the same things he coaxes his guests to do - like defecating on the floor. We know that won't happen, but I wonder how he'd feel if his daughter were weak enough to be convinced to perform such acts. I wonder if it would change his outlook. Probably not, because it's what made him rich.
I watch and listen because when Howard is discussing world issues, the news and politics, he can be brilliant and humorous. I like when he talks about his life, mother, father, growing up, etc. too When he has a lesbian guest on or some porn star I tune out. NOT because I'm a prude (which I assure you I'm not), but because it's generally boring, infantile, played out and no longer "shocking."
DiMaggio5CF
01-07-06, 05:32 PM
So if I had been to strip clubs, am I a hypocrite later in life for trying to encourage my daughter not to become a stripper?
That's not really a legit comparison. A better comparison would be saying if you own a strip club, it would be hypocritical to be upset if your daughter becomes a stripper.
Saying that it would be hypocritical for anyone who goes to strip clubs to not want that for their daughter would be a solid comparison if Dooly was claiming that anyone who watches Howard Stern would be a hypocrite for not wanting their daughter to do that. But that's not what he's saying.
Host=Owner
Viewer=Patron
If you want to debate whether or not it's equally bad to watch it, that's another area you could go. But as the debate stands right now, your analogy is a little off.
I'm glad Howard is now on Satellite Radio. Now people who don't like him won't need to be subjected to him. It's better that way.
Free Radio can now spiral downward to it's ultimate resting place. And now for a short commercial break.
ritaylnil
01-07-06, 08:37 PM
So if I had been to strip clubs, am I a hypocrite later in life for trying to encourage my daughter not to become a stripper?
Only it's not "later in life"! HS is still busy and benefitting from the exploitation business.
NelsonMuntz
01-07-06, 09:23 PM
I'm glad Howard is now on Satellite Radio. Now people who don't like him won't need to be subjected to him. It's better that way.
Free Radio can now spiral downward to it's ultimate resting place. And now for a short commercial break.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Great post.
hellonewman
01-07-06, 09:51 PM
Free Radio can now spiral downward to it's ultimate resting place. And now for a short commercial break.Don't worry, once satellite radio becomes the standard, they'll have commercials too.
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 09:57 PM
Don't worry, once satellite radio becomes the standard, they'll have commercials too.
Incorrect, why would satellite resort to a format that doesn't work?
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 09:58 PM
I'm glad Howard is now on Satellite Radio. Now people who don't like him won't need to be subjected to him. It's better that way.
Free Radio can now spiral downward to it's ultimate resting place. And now for a short commercial break.
Free FM. If you consider your time free, then I guess the endless commercials and the same 8 songs played each day is "free" then I guess it is.
DiMaggio5CF
01-07-06, 10:02 PM
Incorrect, why would satellite resort to a format that doesn't work?
Because they'll make more money that way and once FM radio is done, there won't be any competition for listeners to turn to instead?
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 10:08 PM
Because they'll make more money that way and once FM radio is done, there won't be any competition for listeners to turn to instead?
FM isn't going to go away, just like CBS and NBC and ABC didn't go away when cable made it. Satellite radio is now like cable TV was in the late 1970's.
hellonewman
01-07-06, 10:10 PM
Incorrect, why would satellite resort to a format that doesn't work?
Because they'll make more money that way and once FM radio is done, there won't be any competition for listeners to turn to instead?What he said.
hellonewman
01-07-06, 10:13 PM
FM isn't going to go away, just like CBS and NBC and ABC didn't go away when cable made it. Satellite radio is now like cable TV was in the late 1970's.Right, which means satellite will co-opt much of the programming now appearing on "free" radio. With commercials.
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 10:13 PM
What he said.
What I just said above. No need to worry, FM will be here for a long, long time.
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 10:15 PM
Right, which means satellite will co-opt much of the programming now appearing on "free" radio. With commercials.
Not on the music they won't. Then there will be no need for anyone to pay for satellite. Satellite will never "co-opt" what's on FM. That's not how it works. You will never get XM or Sirius and be able to turn on WFAN.
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 10:18 PM
And even if Satellite ever did "co-opt" the AM/FM stations (which it can't do), don't you think someone else will re-invent satellite radio without commercials? The one thing that separates satellite radio from cable is that you will never get your local radio stations on satellite radio like you get your local TV stations as part of your cable package. Satellite radio is limited in the amount of bandwidth it can transmit. It is impossible to "co-opt" FM/AM.
hellonewman
01-07-06, 11:11 PM
And even if Satellite ever did "co-opt" the AM/FM stations (which it can't do), don't you think someone else will re-invent satellite radio without commercials? The one thing that separates satellite radio from cable is that you will never get your local radio stations on satellite radio like you get your local TV stations as part of your cable package. Satellite radio is limited in the amount of bandwidth it can transmit. It is impossible to "co-opt" FM/AM.As to the technological limitations of satellite, thanks, didn't know that. But I guess what I'm not seeing is why, if the advent of cable TV as a technology did not spell the end of commercials on cable-only offerings, why at some point satellite-only programming would be precluded from having commercials? For example, you can't get A&E Network by putting up an antenna, but you're sure as hell going to see commercials on it.
You can say the public won't stand for it, but the fact is, if they want the programming and can't get it anywhere else, they will. You mean if Sirius one day gets Howard Stern to read an ad one day for Joe's Auto, the Sternies are going to stop listening? The commercial-free aspect is an enticement. Very likely, a temporary one.
You can say someone else will then go and re-invent satellite without commercials, but that hasn't happened on the cable TV side, and if the satellite radio industry ever becomes wealthy and powerful enough to restrict the market the way cable providers have, it won't.
Dooley Womack
01-07-06, 11:21 PM
Will Howard Stern On Demand carry his entire Sirius show or just snippets like his E! Show? Also will it be current and shown the same day or at least the next?
YankeePride1967
01-07-06, 11:23 PM
As to the technological limitations of satellite, thanks, didn't know that. But I guess what I'm not seeing is why, if the advent of cable TV as a technology did not spell the end of commercials on cable-only offerings, why at some point satellite-only programming would be precluded from having commercials? For example, you can't get A&E Network by putting up an antenna, but you're sure as hell going to see commercials on it.
You can say the public won't stand for it, but the fact is, if they want the programming and can't get it anywhere else, they will. You can say someone else will then go and re-invent satellite without commercials, but that hasn't happened on the cable TV side, and if the satellite radio industry ever becomes wealthy and powerful enough to restrict the market the way cable providers have, it won't.
The biggest difference is with TV, there were only about a half dozen or so channels (maybe a dozen in the heavily populated areas) and cable TV is regionalized, satellite radio is nationalized and there are hundreds if not thousands of radio stations out there. I do think more and more people will go to satellite because terrestrial radio will continue to be slow to learn why satellite radio is becoming popular. Due to the sheer number of radio stations out there, it is not possible for them to be absorbed by satellite radio and not everyone will be willing/able to shell out the $13 a month it costs to get it. With that in mind, satellite radio will not be able to duplicate what Cable TV has done.
As long as there is AM/FM out there, there is no way Satellite Radio can charge $13 a month AND put commercials on the music stations. No one would pay for it. If they ever do find a way to get those thousands of radio stations on satellite radio, then you would have a valid concern.
As far as commercials on stations like A&E, MTV, etc. While there are similarities between satellite radio and cable TV, there are many differences. On Satellite Radio, the fee you pay gets you the ENTIRE radio programming on XM or Sirius. Satellite radio is subscriber driven, whereby cable TV is ratings and advertizing dollar driven. On Cable TV, the amount you pay depends on which stations you choose. And some stations (like A&E), while on cable, derive their revenue from advertizing as most get little if anything to be on cable TV.
What is driving viewers to satellite is not only the commercials, it's the annoying DJs that speak right up until the words of a song begins, the schtick of regular radio and also the same songs each day.
hellonewman
01-08-06, 12:34 AM
The biggest difference is with TV, there were only about a half dozen or so channels (maybe a dozen in the heavily populated areas) and cable TV is regionalized, satellite radio is nationalized and there are hundreds if not thousands of radio stations out there.I'm a techno-ignoramus here, so help me out: Is satellite radio national by XM/Sirius' choice or is there no existing technology to customize programming to regional targets (i.e., offering a higher number of country/western channels in the Southeast)? If not, is there a chance such a technology could be developed?
As long as there is AM/FM out there, there is no way Satellite Radio can charge $13 a month AND put commercials on the music stations. No one would pay for it.Well, as you said, the shift to satellite is being driven not only by commercials but by quality-of-programming issues, so I would counter that if the new (satellite) programming proves superior enough to terrestrial programming, people at a certain level of disposable income would, in fact, tolerate commercials in order to have access to the superior programming — especially if the volume of advertising remained at somewhat more tolerable levels than what you experience now on terrestrial. (I mean, if XM ever produced a couple of Mike&Mad Dog types who REALLY KNEW baseball and were really on top of the latest developments, hell, I'd pay $10 a month just for that.)
Plus, ad revenue would likely, before long, enable the satellite providers to lower subscription rates considerably, thus bringing more people "under the tent" and leaving out the relatively low percentage of listeners who still couldn't afford the subscription charge — and the sad fact is, advertisers don't care about them anyway.
Remember too that as the technology takes off, we may well see more providers than just Sirius and XM, and although they will each offer full and disparate slates of programming, they all will have different levels of subscribership. That's a form of "ratings" in itself, as surely as the comparison between how many people are watching MTV versus A&E versus ESPN at a given time.
I guess I'm just not as confident as you are that the subscription-based model is immune to morphing into an ad-ratings model, particularly if the product is good.
:-2cents-:
Edit: According to this article some of XM's music stations already have commercials, so it looks like it's starting already. Probably not a coincidence that they're the larger (and less expensive) of the 2 providers.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/satcom_radio_industry_031112.html
NelsonMuntz
01-08-06, 01:13 AM
I'm a techno-ignoramus here, so help me out: Is satellite radio national by XM/Sirius' choice or is there no existing technology to customize programming to regional targets (i.e., offering a higher number of country/western channels in the Southeast)? If not, is there a chance such a technology could be developed?
Sirius already has six country stations running 24/7 nationwide. How much more country could you want ;)
Even if the technology to customize programming by region exists or could be developed, it's somewhat counterintuitive to the medium. The value proposition of satellite radio is more choice.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 07:49 AM
I'm a techno-ignoramus here, so help me out: Is satellite radio national by XM/Sirius' choice or is there no existing technology to customize programming to regional targets (i.e., offering a higher number of country/western channels in the Southeast)? If not, is there a chance such a technology could be developed?
Well, as you said, the shift to satellite is being driven not only by commercials but by quality-of-programming issues, so I would counter that if the new (satellite) programming proves superior enough to terrestrial programming, people at a certain level of disposable income would, in fact, tolerate commercials in order to have access to the superior programming — especially if the volume of advertising remained at somewhat more tolerable levels than what you experience now on terrestrial. (I mean, if XM ever produced a couple of Mike&Mad Dog types who REALLY KNEW baseball and were really on top of the latest developments, hell, I'd pay $10 a month just for that.)
Plus, ad revenue would likely, before long, enable the satellite providers to lower subscription rates considerably, thus bringing more people "under the tent" and leaving out the relatively low percentage of listeners who still couldn't afford the subscription charge — and the sad fact is, advertisers don't care about them anyway.
Remember too that as the technology takes off, we may well see more providers than just Sirius and XM, and although they will each offer full and disparate slates of programming, they all will have different levels of subscribership. That's a form of "ratings" in itself, as surely as the comparison between how many people are watching MTV versus A&E versus ESPN at a given time.
I guess I'm just not as confident as you are that the subscription-based model is immune to morphing into an ad-ratings model, particularly if the product is good.
:-2cents-:
Edit: According to this article some of XM's music stations already have commercials, so it looks like it's starting already. Probably not a coincidence that they're the larger (and less expensive) of the 2 providers.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/satcom_radio_industry_031112.html
The article is wrong, there are NO commercials on ANY of XM's music stations . And both XM and Sirius are equally priced, another inaccuracy in that article. There are commercials on channels like MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, ESPN, etc. as they are just playing the feed from the TV stations, but I have XM and there is not, nor will there ever be, commercials on the music stations. Again, how would XM or Sirius, even if they could regionalize, throw in hundreds of local radio stations in? You are confusing satellite radio with cable TV. There will always be AM/FM, no other way around it. Ad revenue is derived by ratings, there are no ratings on XM or Sirius, just subscribers! And also, why would XM or Satellite, who have a half dozen or more of just about any kind of music imagionable throw on their system another station not owned by XM or Sirius? It would make no sense. The biggest difference here is that in radio, Satellite and AM/FM are direct competitors like Burger King and McDonalds are, in TV, that isn't the case.
Note that as of 1/1/06, XM had just passed the 6 million subscriber market and Sirius was around 3.2-3.3 million subscribers. That is just over 9 million people with satellite radio. There are over 200 million that listen to AM/FM. I do expect the Satellite subscribers to grow, but there are too many AM/FM stations and too many people unwilling to pay to get satellite radio. Keep in mind one thing, radio is mostly for traveling, TV is for when you are at home. I do not expect satellite radio to ever be as big as cable TV for that reason.
Another reason why Satellite radio will never "co-opt" with regular radio. With cable TV, you can turn on A&E and see different programming than you will see on CBS or NBC. Why would XM/Sirius want to add a station playing the Beatles when they already have a station that plays the Beatles without commercials?
RhodyYanksFan
01-08-06, 08:59 AM
Howard is the man!! Join the Revolution on January 9th 2006 on Sirius Satelite radio...Channel 100...6am ET time :D
He was the man...in 1990. It's 2006. His time has come and gone. All he's done in the last 10 years is complain about the FCC and how the rules are keeping him from doing a great show. Meanwhile over that time, other shows have made names for themselves using the same rules. Howard cares about one thing...his paycheck and it'll show after a few months on Sirius.
He was the man...in 1990. It's 2006. His time has come and gone. All he's done in the last 10 years is complain about the FCC and how the rules are keeping him from doing a great show. Meanwhile over that time, other shows have made names for themselves using the same rules. Howard cares about one thing...his paycheck and it'll show after a few months on Sirius.
...and the coolest thing is that now you won't be forced to listen to him as you go up and down the FM dial looking for a radio station that isn't running commercials.
It's a win/win situation for everyone.
RhodyYanksFan
01-08-06, 10:13 AM
...and the coolest thing is that now you won't be forced to listen to him as you go up and down the FM dial looking for a radio station that isn't running commercials.
It's a win/win situation for everyone.
Commercials? What are they? I have XM, the better satellite radio service.
NYYBombshell
01-08-06, 10:15 AM
I don't get all the hate for commercials. They are perfect bathroom/snack breaks.
RhodyYanksFan
01-08-06, 10:25 AM
I don't get all the hate for commercials. They are perfect bathroom/snack breaks.
Not when you're driving.
Dooley Womack
01-08-06, 10:46 AM
They added a new program to the all-Howard programming. Here's Sirius' description.
2am-4am - Emily Tit-talk. Celebrities and fans get to discuss Emily's body extensively. They will also have an open discussion on what they'd like/wouldn't like to do with her in explicit terms. All bodily functions will be explored and encouraged. Expect the same humiliation to come Emily's way as Howard's known to dish with other young women and father's daughters. Each Friday Emily will appear live in her bra and panties and sit on guest's and audience member's laps while answering very personal sexual questions. There's no telling what Emily will do or remove next!
Hey, if we can laugh and enjoy it when it happens to other young women and father's daughters why not with Howard's?
They added a new program to the all-Howard programming. Here's Sirius' description.
2am-4am - Emily Tit-talk. Celebrities and fans get to discuss Emily's body extensively. They will also have an open discussion on what they'd like/wouldn't like to do with her in explicit terms. All bodily functions will be explored and encouraged. Expect the same humiliation to come Emily's way as Howard's known to dish with other young women and father's daughters. Each Friday Emily will appear live in her bra and panties and sit on guest's and audience member's laps while answering very personal sexual questions. There's no telling what Emily will do or remove next!
sounds like a great show to me.. :gulp:
NelsonMuntz
01-08-06, 11:01 AM
Howard is the man!! Join the Revolution on January 9th 2006 on Sirius Satelite radio...Channel 100...6am ET time :D
You got that right! I'm psyched for the show tomorrow.
NelsonMuntz
01-08-06, 11:16 AM
Commercials? What are they? I have XM, the better satellite radio service.
Better service? Based on what exactly?
YankyDave
01-08-06, 11:39 AM
Free FM. If you consider your time free, then I guess the endless commercials and the same 8 songs played each day is "free" then I guess it is.
You've obviously never listened to satellite radio. There's more repitition there because each channel is so specialized.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 11:57 AM
You've obviously never listened to satellite radio. There's more repitition there because each channel is so specialized.
You obviously don't know I am an XM Satellite subscriber and there is very little repetition, yes you may actually hear two Beatle songs on the 60's channel in a six hour period, but they will never be the same song. There is far less repetition on satellite radio, it's not even a debate. I have to listen to a boring adult contemporary station at work and every day they play the River of Dreams by Billy Joel, every freaking day.
DiMaggio5CF
01-08-06, 11:59 AM
... as you go up and down the FM dial looking for a radio station that isn't running commercials.
It's a win/win situation for everyone.
What's the point of this? Is the point that satelite radio is is better than FM? So it is. I won't debate that. Congratulations on having the money and the free time to get satelite radio.
But what does that have to do Howard Stern's hypocricy or lack thereof?
If being on a different network makes Stern more or less of a hypocrite, then I apologize for failing to see it. But if not, let's either drop the Satelite/FM talk or start a new thread on it, and instead discuss the topic at hand.
Satellite vs FM seems entirely pointless to me right now.
NelsonMuntz
01-08-06, 12:02 PM
You've obviously never listened to satellite radio. There's more repitition there because each channel is so specialized.
One of the reasons I'm so fond of satellite is because I was sick of hearing the same 10 horrible songs repeated every day on terrestrial radio. There is much more choice with satellite and the repetition is fairly minimal. Plus there are no commercials.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 12:03 PM
What's the point of this? Is the point that satelite radio is is better than FM? So it is. I won't debate that. Congratulations on having the money and the free time to get satelite radio.
But what does that have to do Howard Stern's hypocricy or lack thereof?
If being on a different network makes Stern more or less of a hypocrite, then I apologize for failing to see it. But if not, let's either drop the Satelite/FM talk or start a new thread on it, and instead discuss the topic at hand.
Satellite vs FM seems entirely pointless to me right now.
No, the point is, that for the Stern fans, they can CHOOSE to listen to him if they want to pay the $13. For the Stern haters, they can choose not to by not paying for it and they don't have to worry/obsess about Howard ever again. Yes, Stern is a hypocrite for doing what he does and not wanting his daughter to do a nude show. Stern is no longer on free radio and therefore anyone who doesn't want to listen, doesn't have to. (I can't believe as an Opie and Anthony fan I'd defending Stern!) As far as the satellite/FM talk, that really has nothing to do with his daughter, it just sort of took off in the middle of it.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 12:04 PM
One of the reasons I'm so fond of satellite is because I was sick of hearing the same 10 horrible songs repeated every day on terrestrial radio. There is much more choice with satellite and the repetition is fairly minimal. Plus there are no commercials.
Exactly. I've never heard the same song twice a day on any Satellite radio channel, can't say that on FM. And the annoying DJ's on FM have to talk until the vocals in the song begins too, I feel like smacking the idiots.
Dooley Womack
01-08-06, 12:17 PM
No, the point is, that for the Stern fans, they can CHOOSE to listen to him if they want to pay the $13. For the Stern haters, they can choose not to by not paying for it and they don't have to worry/obsess about Howard ever again. Yes, Stern is a hypocrite for doing what he does and not wanting his daughter to do a nude show. Stern is no longer on free radio and therefore anyone who doesn't want to listen, doesn't have to. (I can't believe as an Opie and Anthony fan I'd defending Stern!) As far as the satellite/FM talk, that really has nothing to do with his daughter, it just sort of took off in the middle of it.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if Stern haters didn't want to listen to him on free radio it was as simple as not tuning in.
As for the fringe lunatics who despise him, have nothing better to do, yet STILL listened to him daily, I'm sure some will still cough up the 13 bucks just to listen and complain because that's what makes them happy. The FCC was a threat to them as well, because if they banned or censored Howard they'd have nothing to complain about.
Dooley Womack
01-08-06, 12:23 PM
What's the point of this? Is the point that satelite radio is is better than FM? So it is. I won't debate that. Congratulations on having the money and the free time to get satelite radio.
But what does that have to do Howard Stern's hypocricy or lack thereof?
If being on a different network makes Stern more or less of a hypocrite, then I apologize for failing to see it. But if not, let's either drop the Satelite/FM talk or start a new thread on it, and instead discuss the topic at hand.
Satellite vs FM seems entirely pointless to me right now.
Good post, DiMag. Irrelevance doesn't disguise anything.
Dooley Womack
01-08-06, 12:27 PM
sounds like a great show to me.. :gulp:
:lol: You dirty dawg you. Actually it DOES sound like a hot idea. ;)
Dooley Womack
01-08-06, 12:34 PM
I have to listen to a boring adult contemporary station at work and every day they play the River of Dreams by Billy Joel, every freaking day.
This is for you, GR...................... Hit it!
♫♫In the middle of the night
(middle of the night)
I go walking in my sleep
(walkin' in my sleep) ♫♫
YankyDave
01-08-06, 12:47 PM
The people complaining about the commercials are forgetting that they ARE the commercials on sat. radio by paying for it. I have XM but I still think terrestrial radio has it's place.
NYYBombshell
01-08-06, 12:52 PM
Exactly. I've never heard the same song twice a day on any Satellite radio channel, can't say that on FM. And the annoying DJ's on FM have to talk until the vocals in the song begins too, I feel like smacking the idiots.
I happen to like DJs. There's a couple on 96Rock here in Atlanta that I get a kick out of.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 01:48 PM
This is for you, GR...................... Hit it!
♫♫In the middle of the night
(middle of the night)
I go walking in my sleep
(walkin' in my sleep) ♫♫
I actually am a big Billy fan, but someone should tell FM that it is okay to play other songs by Billy too.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 01:50 PM
The people complaining about the commercials are forgetting that they ARE the commercials on sat. radio by paying for it. I have XM but I still think terrestrial radio has it's place.
That is the argument I use when I hear "Free FM", it is not free, your time is a commodity and if there are commercials, there's the price, it depends on your preference. I don't think anyone is saying terrestrial radio is not needed or doesn't have it's place, it depends on what you choose.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 01:52 PM
I happen to like DJs. There's a couple on 96Rock here in Atlanta that I get a kick out of.
Well, tell them to stop training them to talk over the music and I won't mind them. And the schtick, the corny radio voice a lot of them have gets to me. I like DJs when they don't play music. I'm a big Opie and Anthony fan on XM for example. Also, the XM music stations have DJs, they just know when the music starts that is their queue to shut the hell up.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 01:55 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if Stern haters didn't want to listen to him on free radio it was as simple as not tuning in.
As for the fringe lunatics who despise him, have nothing better to do, yet STILL listened to him daily, I'm sure some will still cough up the 13 bucks just to listen and complain because that's what makes them happy. The FCC was a threat to them as well, because if they banned or censored Howard they'd have nothing to complain about.
Well Howard will thank those that hate him and plunk down the $13 and add to his coffers. I am a fan of Opie and Anthony, which is a different kind of show, but here is some lapover. Both belong on Satellite and away from the FCC nazis.
NYYBombshell
01-08-06, 01:56 PM
I actually am a big Billy fan, but someone should tell FM that it is okay to play other songs by Billy too.
You know, I can't remember the last time I heard that song on the radio. Actually, I can't remember the last time I heard Billy Joel on the radio.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 01:57 PM
You know, I can't remember the last time I heard that song on the radio. Actually, I can't remember the last time I heard Billy Joel on the radio.
If you listen to a modern rock (playing today's artists) you won't hear him. He's on classic rock and adult contemporary stations now.
SubwayFanatic
01-08-06, 01:58 PM
He was the man...in 1990. It's 2006. His time has come and gone. All he's done in the last 10 years is complain about the FCC and how the rules are keeping him from doing a great show. Meanwhile over that time, other shows have made names for themselves using the same rules. Howard cares about one thing...his paycheck and it'll show after a few months on Sirius.
You always say that you have not listened to Stern in years yet somehow you are an expert about his show. How do you know anything about his show if you don't listen? Or do you just believe everything Opie and Anthony tell you?
NYYBombshell
01-08-06, 01:58 PM
If you listen to a modern rock (playing today's artists) you won't hear him. He's on classic rock and adult contemporary stations now.
Those are the only real stations I listen to and I don't hear him. Maybe they're playing it when I'm not tuned in, but I honestly don't remember the last time I heard a song of his.
It's odd.
NelsonMuntz
01-08-06, 02:14 PM
Well, tell them to stop training them to talk over the music and I won't mind them. And the schtick, the corny radio voice a lot of them have gets to me. I like DJs when they don't play music. I'm a big Opie and Anthony fan on XM for example. Also, the XM music stations have DJs, they just know when the music starts that is their queue to shut the hell up.
Nothing annoys me more than pointless DJ prattle.
YankyDave
01-08-06, 02:33 PM
You know, I can't remember the last time I heard that song on the radio. Actually, I can't remember the last time I heard Billy Joel on the radio.
Visit New York. I think it is a secret state law that there be a Billy Joel song playing at all times. As a joke once I said that and then multiple times, scrolled the dial and found one of his songs. It was pretty funny.
Those are the only real stations I listen to and I don't hear him. Maybe they're playing it when I'm not tuned in, but I honestly don't remember the last time I heard a song of his.
It's odd.
It's definitely a New York radio station thing. They play his music a lot.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 03:47 PM
Nothing annoys me more than pointless DJ prattle.
And they think they are funny. Cornball humor and even more annoying is the "let's see if I can stop talking juuuuusssssssttttt as the vocals of the song begin" hilarious.
NelsonMuntz
01-08-06, 03:55 PM
And they think they are funny. Cornball humor and even more annoying is the "let's see if I can stop talking juuuuusssssssttttt as the vocals of the song begin" hilarious.
Jimmy Fallon actually does a really funny bit on cornball DJ's. He does this fake Morning Zoo character that is spot on.
RhodyYanksFan
01-08-06, 04:29 PM
Better service? Based on what exactly?
Based on my interests. I like baseball, I like O&A, I like Big Ten basketball, and I like satellite radio units that aren't the size of blenders.
NelsonMuntz
01-08-06, 06:34 PM
Based on my interests. I like baseball, I like O&A, I like Big Ten basketball, and I like satellite radio units that aren't the size of blenders.
I'll give you the reciever issue (hardware is definitely an area where XM seems to always be a few months ahead of Sirius) but otherwise by your own standards an NFL/NASCAR/Stern fan could easily argue that Sirius is the "better" service. BTW, Sirius has Big Ten football and it does broadcast games of certain Big Ten schools.
FWIW, I don't look at either service as being "better" than the other. I look at satellite as being better than terrestrial, and depending on your programming preference, one might be a better fit for you than the other.
Dooley Womack
01-08-06, 07:00 PM
Well Howard will thank those that hate him and plunk down the $13 and add to his coffers. I am a fan of Opie and Anthony, which is a different kind of show, but here is some lapover. Both belong on Satellite and away from the FCC nazis.
Speaking of O&A (as more of a Stern listener), I always thought they sucked, based on what Howard Stern said until I finally listened to them on my own, and they were VERY funny; MUCH better than I expected. Do they still have Frank Caliendo on their show doing impersonations? The guy was amazing. Even their Stern imitation was spot on and had me on the floor. No doubt Howard was jealous because they were REAL players. Stern gave the impression that they were more of a zoo radio type of performance. Bull.
Another HUGE, hypocritical turn-off with Howard was when he demanded, through Infinity (when they were both with that company), that O&E stop talking about him. Say what!?!? Stern, the champion of free speech, who spews on about censorship for 3/4 of his show, a person who razzes on everybody and their mothers, attempting to silence others? It was about that point that I realized that this so called "rebel" was nothing more than a fake. Over the years Stern's lost his edge, his show isn't what it used to be and a 55 year old man trying to sound "hip" is a little odd. I think his best shows were when he was strictly in NY and before he went national. Things started getting repetitive and old when he expanded his market (maybe the national audience is less sophisticated?) -"How big are your tits? whooo whooo!"; the constant parading of porn stars and lesbians, asking them the same, tired, old questions, etc.
When Howard is "on" he can be close to brilliant and humorous, those few times when he's NOT doing his boring lesbian/sexual shtick, and instead talks about life in general....or goofs on the B performers who use a charitable venue like Jerry Lewis' MD show for their own gain. Then he's amazingly funny.
IF I were to get satellite, I'd probably go with XM, to get the MLB package, and O & E will be a welcome addition, I think. I just might try Stern on VOD for a while, because it WILL be weird not being able to hear him and to see how his show is on satellite, out of curiosity as well. If it turns out to be him parading even more half-witted, giggling porn stars, begging them to sit on his lap, or having lesbians kiss one another (WOW! How shocking!) I'll just cancel.
YankeePride1967
01-08-06, 07:22 PM
Speaking of O&A (as more of a Stern listener), I always thought they sucked, based on what Howard Stern said until I finally listened to them on my own, and they were VERY funny; MUCH better than I expected. Do they still have Frank Caliendo on their show doing impersonations? The guy was amazing. Even their Stern imitation was spot on and had me on the floor. No doubt Howard was jealous because they were REAL players. Stern gave the impression that they were more of a zoo radio type of performance. Bull.
Another HUGE, hypocritical turn-off with Howard was when he demanded, through Infinity (when they were both with that company), that O&E stop talking about him. Say what!?!? Stern, the champion of free speech, who spews on about censorship for 3/4 of his show, a person who razzes on everybody and their mothers, attempting to silence others? It was about that point that I realized that this so called "rebel" was nothing more than a fake. Over the years Stern's lost his edge, his show isn't what it used to be and a 55 year old man trying to sound "hip" is a little odd. I think his best shows were when he was strictly in NY and before he went national. Things started getting repetitive and old when he expanded his market (maybe the national audience is less sophisticated?) -"How big are your tits? whooo whooo!"; the constant parading of porn stars and lesbians, asking them the same, tired, old questions, etc.
When Howard is "on" he can be close to brilliant and humorous, those few times when he's NOT doing his boring lesbian/sexual shtick, and instead talks about life in general....or goofs on the B performers using a venue like Jerry Lewis' MD show for their own gain. Then he's amazingly funny.
IF I were to get satellite, I'd probably go with XM, to get the MLB package, and O & E will be a welcome addition, I think. I just might try Stern on VOD for a while, because it WILL be weird not being able to hear him and to see how his show is on satellite, out of curiosity as well. If it turns out to be him parading even more half-witted, giggling porn stars, begging them to sit on his lap, or having lesbians kiss one another (WOW! How shocking!) I'll just cancel.
No, Frank doesn't call in, but they do have Jimmy Norton on there. But he's in the middle of taping a new HBO series "Lucky Louie" which will air in June, so he's in studio 2 weeks, away for 2 weeks. O&A do talk a lot about Stern telling Infinity to make O&A not talk about him, if true then that is being babyish. I don't listen to Stern, so I am not going to get on his show, I just like O&A. Listening to O&A you never know what they will be talking about (it's not always sexual, actually it's more non-sexual).
RhodyYanksFan
01-08-06, 07:41 PM
Speaking of O&A (as more of a Stern listener), I always thought they sucked, based on what Howard Stern said until I finally listened to them on my own, and they were VERY funny; MUCH better than I expected. Do they still have Frank Caliendo on their show doing impersonations? The guy was amazing. Even their Stern imitation was spot on and had me on the floor. No doubt Howard was jealous because they were REAL players. Stern gave the impression that they were more of a zoo radio type of performance. Bull.
That's a big selling point for O&A. While Howard has been complaining about the FCC and how he can't do what he wants on radio for the last 10 years, O&A have only had a show for 10 years. Over the same course of time Howard fell off and blamed the FCC and Opie & Anthony made (and ruined) their careers.
Another HUGE, hypocritical turn-off with Howard was when he demanded, through Infinity (when they were both with that company), that O&E stop talking about him. Say what!?!? Stern, the champion of free speech, who spews on about censorship for 3/4 of his show, a person who razzes on everybody and their mothers, attempting to silence others? It was about that point that I realized that this so called "rebel" was nothing more than a fake. Over the years Stern's lost his edge, his show isn't what it used to be and a 55 year old man trying to sound "hip" is a little odd. I think his best shows were when he was strictly in NY and before he went national. Things started getting repetitive and old when he expanded his market (maybe the national audience is less sophisticated?) -"How big are your tits? whooo whooo!"; the constant parading of porn stars and lesbians, asking them the same, tired, old questions, etc.
When Howard is "on" he can be close to brilliant and humorous, those few times when he's NOT doing his boring lesbian/sexual shtick, and instead talks about life in general....or goofs on the B performers who use a charitable venue like Jerry Lewis' MD show for their own gain. Then he's amazingly funny.
IF I were to get satellite, I'd probably go with XM, to get the MLB package, and O & E will be a welcome addition, I think. I just might try Stern on VOD for a while, because it WILL be weird not being able to hear him and to see how his show is on satellite, out of curiosity as well. If it turns out to be him parading even more half-witted, giggling porn stars, begging them to sit on his lap, or having lesbians kiss one another (WOW! How shocking!) I'll just cancel.
Howard made his name by bashing Imus and bucking the system, yet when O&A playfully made fun of him, he ran to the bosses at Infinity and made them issue a ''gag order'' which of course they did because Howard was so big at the time. It was very hypocritical of him and that's when I stopped liking him.
When Howie just talks about life and times (usually right at the start of the show) it is very funny, sadly the rest of the show is filled with him talking about lesbians and asking celebs if they like anal. Gets old very fast. The fact that Robin adds NOTHING to the show and has a voice like fingernails on a chalkboard doesn't help either.
Dooley Womack
01-08-06, 07:58 PM
That's a big selling point for O&A. While Howard has been complaining about the FCC and how he can't do what he wants on radio for the last 10 years, O&A have only had a show for 10 years. Over the same course of time Howard fell off and blamed the FCC and Opie & Anthony made (and ruined) their careers.
Howard made his name by bashing Imus and bucking the system, yet when O&A playfully made fun of him, he ran to the bosses at Infinity and made them issue a ''gag order'' which of course they did because Howard was so big at the time. It was very hypocritical of him and that's when I stopped liking him.
When Howie just talks about life and times (usually right at the start of the show) it is very funny, sadly the rest of the show is filled with him talking about lesbians and asking celebs if they like anal. Gets old very fast. The fact that Robin adds NOTHING to the show and has a voice like fingernails on a chalkboard doesn't help either.
These are my exact sentiments and experiences, though I could deal with Robin more than I can that unfunny moron, who adds NOTHING to the show, Artie Lange.
effdamets
01-09-06, 09:59 AM
That's not really a legit comparison. A better comparison would be saying if you own a strip club, it would be hypocritical to be upset if your daughter becomes a stripper.
Saying that it would be hypocritical for anyone who goes to strip clubs to not want that for their daughter would be a solid comparison if Dooly was claiming that anyone who watches Howard Stern would be a hypocrite for not wanting their daughter to do that. But that's not what he's saying.
Host=Owner
Viewer=Patron
If you want to debate whether or not it's equally bad to watch it, that's another area you could go. But as the debate stands right now, your analogy is a little off.
I don't know... That would be saying...
If I owned a bar, I'm OK with my kid becoming a drunk, or if I owned a restaurant, I'm OK with my child becoming obese.
I work in the I.T. industry (and own a small business in the same) and would never want my kids to do what I do. If I steer them to be doctors or accountants, does that make me a hypocrite?
CoyoteYankee
01-09-06, 03:03 PM
Oh please! Big deal. Almost all men are hypocrites when it comes to their daughters. At least 99% of men wouldn't want their daughters doing with boys what they did (or wanted to do) with girls. And all those girls were someone's daughter. Just because a guy watches porn doesn't mean he wants his daughter in porn. And just because a 16-year old boy has sex with a 16-year old girl doesn't mean that when that boy becomes a father then he will think it is okay for his daughter to have sex at 16. I don't see the horror against Stern here.
RhodyYanksFan
01-09-06, 03:09 PM
Oh please! Big deal. Almost all men are hypocrites when it comes to their daughters. At least 99% of men wouldn't want their daughters doing with boys what they did (or wanted to do) with girls. And all those girls were someone's daughter. Just because a guy watches porn doesn't mean he wants his daughter in porn. And just because a 16-year old boy has sex with a 16-year old girl doesn't mean that when that boy becomes a father then he will think it is okay for his daughter to have sex at 16. I don't see the horror against Stern here.
99% of men don't make their living by having girls take their clothes off and acting like sluts.
CoyoteYankee
01-09-06, 03:30 PM
99% of men don't make their living by having girls take their clothes off and acting like sluts.
So? What difference does it make what he does for a living? He's still a hypocrite when it comes to his daughter like most men. I don't understand your point.
So? What difference does it make what he does for a living? He's still a hypocrite when it comes to his daughter like most men. I don't understand your point.
i don't understand why it's so important to label him.. is there anyone out there that doesn't realize that he wouldn't want his daughters to do what he has other young women do?
some people don't like him.. he can't compare with the great O&A.. somehow it makes them feel better if he can be labeled as a hypocrite
yankeesrule2000
01-09-06, 08:26 PM
Opie and Anthony suck....they are just copycats of Howard..
RhodyYanksFan
01-09-06, 08:39 PM
Opie and Anthony suck....they are just copycats of Howard..
I hope you're being sarcastic.
yankeesrule2000
01-09-06, 08:41 PM
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Nope, thats my honest opinion :)
NDBoston
01-09-06, 08:43 PM
Opie and Anthony suck....they are just copycats of Howard..
Hoo Hoo Robin... I invented everything...Tell em Fred.
yankeesrule2000
01-09-06, 08:44 PM
Hoo Hoo Robin... I invented everything...Tell em Fred.
I didnt say he invented everything, all im saying is i personally think he is better.
NDBoston
01-09-06, 08:51 PM
I didnt say he invented everything, all im saying is i personally think he is better.
I didn't say you did. Howard did and it's a bit from O&A.
yankeesrule2000
01-09-06, 08:53 PM
Btw here is the link to Emily stern's video of her in this play..she isnt nude, she is in a bra and panties, and is screaming like an idiot
http://www.youtube.com/w/Emily-Stern?v=p3_qrMkkUKs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fswiftywriting%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2006%2F01%2Fswifty%2Dputs%2Dup%2Dmemoirs%2Dof%2Dgeisha%2Dand%2Ehtml
YankeePride1967
01-09-06, 09:03 PM
Whether someone prefers O&A or Stern, that's their personal opinion, but if O&A are copycats of Stern, they did a very bad job of copying as their shows are not alike.
Stop bashing Stern.
Stop bashing Opie and Anthony.
Choose your favorite & listen.
Unless you can afford $25.90 per month for both XM & Sirius you can only listen to one show.
For those who hate them all. You got your wish. They are off the FM dial.
YankeePride1967
01-09-06, 09:10 PM
Stop bashing Stern.
Stop bashing Opie and Anthony.
Choose your favorite & listen.
Unless you can afford $25.90 per month for both XM & Sirius you can only listen to one show.
For those who hate them all. You got your wish. They are off the FM dial.
Very well said.
yankeesAZ
01-09-06, 09:46 PM
Stop bashing Stern.
Stop bashing Opie and Anthony.
Choose your favorite & listen.
Unless you can afford $25.90 per month for both XM & Sirius you can only listen to one show.
For those who hate them all. You got your wish. They are off the FM dial.
I can agree on that.
CoyoteYankee
01-09-06, 10:22 PM
i don't understand why it's so important to label him.. is there anyone out there that doesn't realize that he wouldn't want his daughters to do what he has other young women do?
some people don't like him.. he can't compare with the great O&A.. somehow it makes them feel better if he can be labeled as a hypocrite
Call me crazy but I'm a fan of BOTH Stern and O&A. I haven't heard O&A since they left NY but their show used to have me in stitches on my way home from work. I don't see why the two have to be compared all the time.
effdamets
01-10-06, 07:23 AM
Call me crazy but I'm a fan of BOTH Stern and O&A. I haven't heard O&A since they left NY but their show used to have me in stitches on my way home from work. I don't see why the two have to be compared all the time.
I remember listening to O&A in the afternoons (an excellent show) and them always praising Howard, even admitting that they were doing the things that he did, mostly because they looked up to him and that it was great radio.
But let's face one fact. If it weren't for Howard, O&A would never have a show! Howard has opened many doors in the braodcasting industry!
Unless you can afford $25.90 per month for both XM & Sirius you can only listen to one show.
not entirely true.. i pay for sirius but get xm for no additional cost on directtv. to be honest, ron and fez is my favorite show on xm..
NelsonMuntz
01-10-06, 09:11 AM
Call me crazy but I'm a fan of BOTH Stern and O&A. I haven't heard O&A since they left NY but their show used to have me in stitches on my way home from work. I don't see why the two have to be compared all the time.
You could start a Howard thread on any message board on the Web and I guarantee within 15 minutes some O&A fan is going to start bashing Stern. It's an obsession that actually reminds me of Red Sox fans and their "Yankees Suck" mentality. Conversely, I don't think most Stern fans really give two craps about O&A until their fans start bashing Howard.
SubwayFanatic
01-10-06, 09:44 AM
You could start a Howard thread on any message board on the Web and I guarantee within 15 minutes some O&A fan is going to start bashing Stern. It's an obsession that actually reminds me of Red Sox fans and their "Yankees Suck" mentality. Conversely, I don't think most Stern fans really give two craps about O&A until their fans start bashing Howard.
You are absolutely right. I rarely ever see Stern fans bash O&A out of the blue -- but go check out sites over the Internet and you will see O&A fans come out of the woodwork to bash Stern.
I was even checking out some Stern book reviews on Amazon.com and you could quite obviously tell it was some O&A fans giving him bad reviews.
It's quite pathetic, actually.
CoyoteYankee
01-10-06, 12:12 PM
I remember listening to O&A in the afternoons (an excellent show) and them always praising Howard, even admitting that they were doing the things that he did, mostly because they looked up to him and that it was great radio.
But let's face one fact. If it weren't for Howard, O&A would never have a show! Howard has opened many doors in the braodcasting industry!
No doubt that Howard paved the way for O&A but that doesn't mean that they are copying him. It's kind of like artists who are influenced by The Beatles but that doesn't mean that they are just trying to emulate them. O&A still do their own thing and they are very, very good at it IMO.
You could start a Howard thread on any message board on the Web and I guarantee within 15 minutes some O&A fan is going to start bashing Stern. It's an obsession that actually reminds me of Red Sox fans and their "Yankees Suck" mentality. Conversely, I don't think most Stern fans really give two craps about O&A until their fans start bashing Howard.
i think you're right on with this... i rarely see a stern fan bashing O&A out of the blue..
NelsonMuntz
01-10-06, 12:45 PM
No doubt that Howard paved the way for O&A but that doesn't mean that they are copying him. It's kind of like artists who are influenced by The Beatles but that doesn't mean that they are just trying to emulate them. O&A still do their own thing and they are very, very good at it IMO.
Fair enough, but for once I would actually like to see an O&A fan give Howard credit for essentially enabling the genre of irreverent talk radio. And I guess you sort of just did that, so thank you :)
BronxByTheBay
01-10-06, 01:21 PM
No doubt that Howard paved the way for O&A but that doesn't mean that they are copying him. It's kind of like artists who are influenced by The Beatles but that doesn't mean that they are just trying to emulate them. O&A still do their own thing and they are very, very good at it IMO.
I will grant I haven't heard much - maybe two or three shows (back when they were on in NY), but virtually everything I heard from O&A, Howard Stern had done and done better a while ago. And I'm not even a Stern fanatic by any stretch of the imagination.
CoyoteYankee
01-10-06, 02:23 PM
I will grant I haven't heard much - maybe two or three shows (back when they were on in NY), but virtually everything I heard from O&A, Howard Stern had done and done better a while ago. And I'm not even a Stern fanatic by any stretch of the imagination.
I guess I just look at the shows as very different because of the different feel. Listening to O&A is like listening to a couple of your really funny buddies on the radio who you sit around with and laugh your ass off about stupid stuff. Listening to Howard is like listening to a funny guy where everything revolves around him and everyone else is a prop for him. I don't know if that makes any sense. Anyway, I think they are both funny but I just think that their styles are different.
hellonewman
01-10-06, 03:05 PM
Ad revenue is derived by ratings, there are no ratings on XM or Sirius, just subscribers!Ad rates/revenue can be based on subscribership levels as well.
YankeePride1967
01-10-06, 04:14 PM
Ad rates/revenue can be based on subscribership levels as well.
As long as there are AM/FM stations out there, which there always will be, there will be no advertizing on satellite radio music. Even if it were even remotely possible it could, all someone would have to do is come up with another satellite radio company with no ads and XM and Sirius would go right under. The odds of ads being on XM or Sirius music channels is about as likely as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays dynasty beginning in '06.
NelsonMuntz
01-10-06, 04:23 PM
As long as there are AM/FM stations out there, which there always will be, there will be no advertizing on satellite radio music. Even if it were even remotely possible it could, all someone would have to do is come up with another satellite radio company with no ads and XM and Sirius would go right under. The odds of ads being on XM or Sirius music channels is about as likely as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays dynasty beginning in '06.
For the consumer, the value proposition of satellite radio is essentially two-fold:
1) More choice/content
2) Commercial-free music
Consequently, if they started selling advertising space they would lose subscribers. The business model of both XM and Sirius is based on a subscriptions, not ad revenue. Ergo, it is not likely that we will hear commercials on either service anytime soon.
YankeePride1967
01-10-06, 04:34 PM
For the consumer, the value proposition of satellite radio is essentially two-fold:
1) More choice/content
2) Commercial-free music
Consequently, if they started selling advertising space they would lose subscribers. The business model of both XM and Sirius is based on a subscriptions, not ad revenue. Ergo, it is not likely that we will hear commercials on either service anytime soon.
Agreed on all counts.
Dooley Womack
01-11-06, 01:02 AM
.....
.....
Dooley I don't get your sig.
NYYBombshell
01-11-06, 01:32 AM
Dooley I don't get your sig.
I think JG is Jason Giambi and AP is Albert Pujols.
That's all I got.
Dooley Womack
01-11-06, 01:57 AM
I think JG is Jason Giambi and AP is Albert Pujols.
That's all I got.
Wrong. Well partly.
Dooley Womack
01-11-06, 01:58 AM
Dooley I don't get your sig.
Think future, think past. Think tandems. Think 1st basemen.
Think future, think past. Think tandems. Think 1st basemen.
TC>JG
TC & TL>JG & AP
I'll take a shot in the dark
Tony Clark > Jason Giambi
Tony Clark & Travis Lee > Jason Giambi & Andy Phillips
Dooley Womack
01-11-06, 02:04 AM
TC>JG
TC & TL>JG & AP
I'll take a shot in the dark
Tony Clark > Jason Giambi
Tony Clark & Travis Lee > Jason Giambi & Andy Phillips
We got a winner!
We got a winner!
WTF Dooley your crazy!
Dooley Womack
01-11-06, 02:10 AM
WTF Dooley your crazy!
TC > JG and TC & TL > JG & AP.
Better offensively AND of course, defensively. We downgraded since 2004.
TC > JG and TC & TL > JG & AP.
Better offensively AND of course, defensively. We downgraded since 2004.
Sigh, ok.
Dooley Womack
01-11-06, 02:14 AM
Sigh, ok.
Defensively you can't argue. No contest whatsoever. Offensively, take a look at the 2005 numbers. A good look. And in way less AB's than JG. Plus, TC is younger than JG. Cheaper too. Much cheaper.
Anyway, I wonder what Emily is up to.
Defensively you can't argue. No contest whatsoever. Offensively, take a look at the 2005 numbers. A good look. And in way less AB's than JG. Plus, TC is younger than JG. Cheaper too. Much cheaper.
Anyway, I wonder what Emily is up to.
Emily's prolly wondering wtf Dooley's been smoking. ;)
Dooley Womack
01-11-06, 02:30 AM
Emily's prolly wondering wtf Dooley's been smoking. ;)
OK sorry! I love his muscles, he's the greatest and I'll trash anyone who disagrees or puts the team ahead of him! Take that biatches! ;)
(Sorry, Emily, for going off-topic).
OK sorry! I love his muscles, he's the greatest and I'll trash anyone who disagrees or puts the team ahead of him! Take that biatches! ;)
(Sorry, Emily, for going off-topic).
:lol: Thank you for seeing it from my point of view.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0