Slashdot Mirror
Stern Will Jump To Sirius In 2006
UnanimousCoward writes "Howard Stern announced it on his current radio show, and several feeds including this CNET article are reporting that Stern has signed a multi-million dollar multi-year contract with Sirius Satellite Radio starting in January, 2006. As I've watched technology grow from the time I was listening to Stern in the eighties, I can't wait to hook into a shockjock-timeshifted-podcast..."
And this involves our rights online how? Even with the censorship of Clear Channel and the FCC.....
We need a simple "Rights" section, although I don't know if this even qualifies for rights period....
Just news...
-thewldisntenuff
My MythTV HowTo
and this is YRO... how?
I can see the FCC connection, but I doubt that was his main motivation when the words "multi-million dollar" are used.
Okay, here's the question: Can the FCC fine Sirus stations like they can regular ones? Since it's private, they can't, right?
Howard Stern's radio show drops 80% of his male audience ages 18-35.
I'm thinking this is because you can't really articule a 'blur'
fp
Bababoey! Bababoey! Howards Stern's Penis! Bababoey
On XM Radio and its founder. Very interesting discussion of how they are gonna kill the Clear Channel republican monopoly. I for one am almost about ready to go out and buy one even though I cant stand Stern...
...now we will have crap raining from space? Sounds like a solution to the space station junk problem.
This may be a good thing for Sirius, but it seems to have made the stock market go stupid. The price of Sirius stock -- already overpriced IMHO -- jumped a billion dollars on the news. Later it dropped to half a billion. but that's still nuts. The Motley Fool did an article on it. I don't care for Howard Stern, but even if you think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, what could he possibly say on the radio that would increase the value of the company by that much?
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
...earlier today the FCC put in an order to Raytheon for 100 ASAT suitable missiles.
does this mean that now he can say SHIT, and FUCK, and other such offensive words that us americans are too sensitive to hear? i hope he starts off his new show at sirius with the dirtiest joke ever told on any broadcast medium.
Swansong for Stern. I doubt as many of Stern listeners as predicted will plunk down their hard earned cash to listen to him. He is definetly #1 now, but that is sure to disappear once you have to pay to listen.
XM signed Opie and Anthony two months ago. Stern loathes competition, plus that put Sirius in more of a desperate position at the bargaining table.
I'm going to assume that it's because ClearChannel has stake in XM
There are a couple of issues that have to be considered now that Howard Stern will become a Sirius satellite-only show:
1. Will fans pony up the big bucks for a Sirius satellite radio receiver and pay the monthly fee just to hear Stern? Remember, unlike XM satellite radio, Sirius is still quite rare as pre-installed on new cars.
2. Will Stern be unfettered by censorship and take the show to extremely raunchy levels of sexual descriptions and use of raunchy language?
Despite Sirius getting NFL broadcasts, they're still way behind XM in terms of public recognition.
With the recent announcements of big name talk show hosts including stern going to sirius I'm becoming a little irritated with XM's love fest with the automobile industry. I cant get a Sirius module for my stereo so it's all intergrated and would be forced to buy a stand alone unit to plug into the aux jack..
However this is good news for sirius.
OK, that out of the way, here is how I see it. First of all, it's a very novel solution to this whole "FCC is censoring people" stuff (which I don't believe, but that's a matter of opinon). I never would have thought of that. I wonder if any other shock jocks follow suit. Makes sense though. XM has a Playboy channel (I have no idea what's on it), so obviously they aren't subject to those kinds of fines. I wonder how substantially his program will change now that he's free to say and do whatever he wants. And I wonder if Sirrius will have any kind of limits or leash on what he can do.
As for moving to Sirrus, they've got to love that. As the article says, their stock jumped 15%. While I've never listened to Stern, the fact that I know who he is without having to read an article or something like that says he's popular (or contravertial, but in this case both). I bet this will do some great things for Sirrus's membership (although it might drive a few away on idological grounds, but I doubt more than a handfull). I have to wonder if there was any kind of bidding war between Sirrus and XM (which my family has a subscription to). I would think having a radio celeb go sat-radio only would be something XM would have liked to be a part of. This should also lend an air of credibility to the idea of sat-radio, if a big star did this.
On a side note, YRO never seems to have anything to do with Online any more. Why not just rename it "Your Rights"? Just a thought. Don't bother commenting on this part.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
This might move me to buy a Sirius box.
The Stern show, despite all the acres of whining you'll see posted here in the next hour, is entertaining. It's genuinely entertaining, and it's on for 4-5 hours a day during what is usually a miserable commute for a couple hundred million people.
It's astonishing how many people will latch on to Tipper Gore's bleatings from a decade ago in order to think that they're somehow more moral than thou based on the radio they listen to.
So you don't listen to Howard Stern. Good for you, here's a cookie and a gold star for being able to stomach Morning Zoo radio or else Opie & Anthony style obscenity in lieu of titty chatter and New York kvetch-klatsches.
I'll see you in the store next year, buying a Sirius receiver once the FCC snuffs the last bit of original content from the already miserable airwaves.
A good reason not to subscribe to Sirius Satellite Radio........
...I'll be using XM then. Shock jocks like howard give free speech a bad name...
For all you reactionaries out there, no, i would never suggest strict censorship over stern, nor anyone else. Now getting him cancelled because it's a stupid show, that i'd be behind that all the way.
Stern Will Jump To Sirius In 2006
You know, even if he jumps to Alpha Centauri, not many of us would miss him.
Thta's your right as a consumer, go ahead and exercise it.
I expect you're the type who thinks that ANYTHING he doesn't like is stupid. And the millions who make Stern #1 in almost every market across the US, they must be stupid blue collar shitheads, right?
You know, it's idiotic shit like this that makes me nuts about America. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it offensive, doesn't mean it should be outlawed, and doesn't mean it's "stupid." You should be RALLYING for Stern to stay on the radio because it's YOUR RIGHTS as an American you're forfeiting otherwise.
I don't condone abortion, but I'm pro-choice.
I don't condone flag burning, but I certainly support the right to do it.
Catch my drift, Mr. Didactic?
No, hold on... You mean the satellite service.
Never mind...
There is still an XM ad on his webpage...
Okay, so we know your opinion. I don't find him funny either. A lot of other people do. What's the big deal? You might as well a start an argument on which is the better colour: blue or red.
Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
You should rent the movie Private Parts. It tells the story of Howard Stern's early career and how he came to be the oft-hated guy he is today. He wasn't always a shock-jock. And if you think the movie is nothing but swearing and boobs, you'd be completely wrong. It's an actual, according-to-Hoyle, legitimate movie, and it gives you an insight into HS that you will not get just by listening to his show. You still probably won't like his show, but at least you'll know why he does what he does.
1 54 686
Check it out:
http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:
What the fuck does this have to do with the parent comment? Whether or not you enjoy listening to Howard Stern should have no impact on whether his show should be censored or not.
We're talking about freedom of speech, not the freedom to prevent others from enjoying something that you happen to dislike.
Of course, if by "over there", you mean australia, china, or europe, then you all have your own little gov't censorship issues to deal with, don't you?
Stern is jumping to satellite because the FCC and its christian corporate masters hounded him off FM. So much for free speech - satellite is pay-only. And if you think pay-as-in-beer guarantees free speech, ask the cable channels the FCC is now illegally enforcing into their jurisdictional scope.
--
make install -not war
I just find him too mean to be honest. It seems a lot of his humour comes from bullying people, like the mentally challenged, who can't really defend themselves. That's just my impression anyway. (Not that that means I think we should censor him or anything.)
Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
Hold on a second.
I don't know if you mean US thing - are you Brit with the toilet humor; Russian with the outlawed gay humor; Australia with thumb up the crock's butt humor, and yes I am generalizing as the as you did because I don't really know each culture's humor - Howard has just a different humor. Like it or not it's the way it is.
However, you're missing a more important decision. Howard has been severally fined from the FCC and decided to leave over the air broadcast - it huge, go look at Siruis stock - it went up 18% today. He is leaving what he thinks to be censorship from OTA broadcast in favor of freedom to do as he wishes on the show. We'll see how it pans out in 2005.
Long live the King. Ever since I first started listening to Stern on AM NYC radio in the 1980s, his arrival has been followed quickly by the demise of the medium, usually drowned in a sea of rightwing mediocrity. AM, FM drivetime, cable talkshow simulcasts, even the movies have seemed to go even further downhill since _Private Parts_, and the book's publication was part of paper publishing's deathrattle. I like Stern, and though many people think he's the Death of All Media (tastewise), I think he exploits each medium he conquers in new, unforseen ways (except the book, which was just funny). But apparently his (mostly rightwing) opponents seem to think "if that fool can do it bad, I can do it good", and then overrun his new territory. So does this latest announcement certify satellite radio's 2007-8 expiration date?
--
make install -not war
Wanring: Rant ahead. Mod me down if you like, but it doesn't change the facts.
/.ers tend to protect their freedoms, witness the reaction to the PATRIOT Act.
It's really sad for me to read this. Not the article - the comments.
Slashdot peeps generally tend to be well educated and be very possessive of their rights. American
But any self-respecting American with any love for the bill of rights and their own liberties SHOULD be in support of Howard Stern. He embodies the freedom we founded our country on - he takes it to an extreme, which makes a point: we exercise freedom to different degrees because we are the land of the free. Well, were, before this administration.
Anyway, the saddest part are the comments that say "I never listened to Stern and think he's the scum of the earth," which is roughly equavalent to the ignorance of saying "I don't know any black people, but I dislike them all."
Listen and make up your own mind. Don't be worthless simps who THINK they know what Stern is about. I've listened to Stern for years. He pushes the boundary of what can be said on radio, but in ANY dorm in my college you could've found worse language every single night. The show is harmless and it's enjoyed by millions. Be a responsible parent to your kids and we won't have to scrub the airwaves and forfeit our freedoms.
My biggest issue with Howard Stern is that he is really very intelligent but still chooses to do his show they way he does. Perhaps, he is simply captializing on the the "When Animals Attack" crowd and doesn't consider his own show as entertainment. That really only requires stooping to the level of a common politician or used car salesman, if you think about it.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Look, what REALLY made Stern popular was the curious balance he had between being married and constantly tempted; between the FCC and finding funny and unique ways to get around the rules. What has happened now is that all of what made him a unique curiousity is going away. His indulgence is going to ruin him and cause him to lose an audience.
His marriage is done, and for most of his listeners, sex isn't much of a mystery anymore. This was one item that a lot of both women and men admired him for - the fact that he didn't give in to temptation. That was the beginning of the end IMHO.
This gig on Sirius will probably start out dirty and 'controversial', and may even gain a few million listeners, but in the end it won't matter. It won't be censored - it won't be 'edgy' because without his fight against the station or the FCC, the REAL story behind Stern's success fades.
But go ahead, buy some Sirius stock...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I could care less where stern goes. I don't like his garbage or anything he has to say. Yes, unlike some, I have listened to his show to make my own judgement on it's contents, unlike a lot of people who will complain about something, but never read/saw/heard the source. That being said, I could care less WHAT he says, but I care greatly that he has the RIGHT to say it. He is simply exercising his RIGHTS of freedom of speech. I am exercising my freedoms by turning him off. I don't understand why people think we have to be "protected" from acts such as stearn. The government thinks that the bulk of the populus is so stupid that they need to be coddled. Screw that. Once you make a law that ucerpts(sp) freedom of speech, you do the same thing that some have done with the 2nd amendment. Ok, ban certain words, then a few years later, ban a few more that are "just like" those that we banned earlier and so on. It CLEARLY states in the First amendment: "Congress shall make NO LAW........" how hard is that to understand? NO LAW, means NO LAW....period, end of arguement! Let Stearn or anyone like him do whatever he/she wants on the "commerical public" airways (within the bounds of the stations license), if there is a market, more power to him/her. If not, the show will wither and die. If he wants to move to satellite/subscription radio more power to him. His life, his rules...if the broadcaster doesn't like that, then he can find one who will allow his brand of humor. I won't object one little bit. I could care less. I don't like his "humor", but he's free to spew it.......I just turn off the radio or change the station. Doesn't bother me if he's on the radio...I won't be shocked, I don't need to be "protected". I just don't listen.
Maybe it's a USian thing, but over here most guys grow out of this sort of humour round about the time their balls drop, and most girls don't like it at all.
Benny Hill ??
I've heard him. In my opinion, he's purile, insulting, egotistical and in general, an ass.
Turns out, being an ass is legal. I don't like his show, I won't listen to him, but he ABSOLUTELY has the right to do what he does.
Isn't it funny how many people (not the poster I'm responding to, tho) only want freedom of speech as long as they agree with it?
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
"In 1992 the FCC fined Infinity Broadcasting $600,000 after Stern discussed masturbating to a picture of Aunt Jemima."
"Is that better or worse than asking a Nigerian woman if she eats monkeys, or hosting a discussion of whether, when you have sex with a black woman, it smells like watermelons? I guess you can argue that point, but I'd be a lot more impressed with Stern's defenders if they'd quote these comments verbatim in the process of defending him."
Perhaps someday, you will be able to reach deep, deep down and find your inner adult.
Until then, do you feel that a naked person smeared with excrement and buggering a dead muskrat in public counts as Art, and should be protected as Speech? How about if the Artist writes poems on the muskrat's genetalia with a soldering iron?
That's all speech, right, and deserves to be protected?
I mean, I'm sure the people who wrote the bill of rights and the constitution wanted to make sure that muskrat-buggering soldering-ironers were protected from narrow minded repression by the sheeple of the future.
/sarcasm
> It's an actual, according-to-Hoyle, legitimate movie, and it gives you an insight into HS that you will not get just by listening to his show.
It's an actual, according-to-Stern, movie. He gave himself a blow job in a book and Hollywood thought it would be great to turn it into a movie. Self-serving isn't the beginning of what Private Parts was.
I hear that Larry Flynt is free speech's biggest hero too, at least according to another Hollywood movie.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Stern sucks. Detroit's seen all these guys come and go and, so far as I recall, the only one that didn't completely suck was Steve Dahl. Steve liked to cause trouble and he managed to be funny without sounding like one of those retards I couldn't stand even back in Jr. High. Even after he left Detroit he was one of the first to do the syndication thing, beaming in from the LUP in Chicago. He and Buzz Kilman have it all over anything Stern has done (and done, and done, and done again) in the two decades since.
Took an american studies class back in college, we did a critical comparison of 'Miss America' to 'The Great Gatsby'. While I agree with you Howard is capable of only one joke, I don't think you've found it yet.
The whole reason for people's interest in Howard is that he is always something other than how he presents himself. He comes off as a juvenile, but he is also a shrewd businessman. He comes off as a pervert, but he was married and had a family for over 20 years. He loves the low-brow humor, but also engages in serious political commentary. He provokes the worst from people, but also manages to keep a strong core audience. It's impossible to have a well-defined concept of him without contradiction, which is at the root of people's fascination with him.
People like to know who other people are, you like to be able to count on something from the people around you. Howard Stern's ability to change his persona is what makes him more than a crass boob joke, the joke is that he can be many different people and move so easily from one 'type' of person to the other.
M
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
He will most likely do 6-10 in New York, and then have it just repeat 10-2 on the east coast which would be 7-11 on the west coast. This is what O&A is doing and it hits the morning drive in the biggest markets.
Well since he is moving to Sirrius, he will no longer be apart of the rating system since you pay to listen. The current system is setup for AM and FM broadcasts in their respective markets for their respective time slots.
Personally, I think that's the thing that makes him totally uninteresting--the fact that his entire radio persona is just schtick.
It's pointless listening to him because he'll say anything that will get him attention; doesn't matter whether it's true, false, what he honestly believes, something he vehemently disagrees with, or whatever. He's just empty speech filling airtime.
The amazing thing is that there are apparently millions of people who haven't worked it out yet.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
He didn't really quit either. He just opted to not renew his contract.
I'm sure CBS/Viacom would have liked to keep him, but the FCC is driving him out of the public airwaves and making it very difficult to keep him around.
Hey! The first rule of usenet is nobody talks about usenet.
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, specifically. BUT, as a Sirius subscriber I'm provided a username and password with which I can go to the Sirius website, launch a Sirius Player, and listen to Sirius via the internet.
There are a couple of caveats, though:
1) The player is, as far as I know, IE only. I know it does not work for me under Opera 7.11, nor Mozilla Firefox (I think ver. 0.8).
2) Not all channels are available online. When I've tried to listen to various music channels I've never had a problem, but Air America was unavailable the one time I looked for it, and one other channel I looked for once was also unavailable, but I don't recall which channel it was. It appears to me that the Sirius-originating, music channels are web-cast, but the 3rd parties aren't - NPR, CNN, ESPN, etc....
Hope this helps.
But here's the interesting thing... Now that he's announced that he won't be renewing, he'll essentially have the next 15 months to promote his Sirius gig, and encourage people to buy the hardware and subscriptions.
CBS/Viacom, and terrestrial radio in general, can't afford to give their competitor that kind of free ride.
Even though Stern has a contract, I don't think they'll keep him on the air. They'll have to pay him out (or he'll take them to court, and win, just like he's doing with Clear Channel over the 6 markets they kicked him out of), and they'll have to put a replacement show on, even though it'll hurt their ratings and advertising revenue.
Stern will not be on regular Radio for the entire period between now and his Satellite debut. (He hasn't publically predicted this, but if you look at how he's finally gotten his website together this year (He had no website up until this year) I'm sure he knows this to be true.)
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
With the Democrats in power, you might see more sex on TV but you'll not be able to record any of it.
Don't forget whose camp the movie/tv media is firmly in.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
[quote]Stern has zero redeeming value. Period. You would be very hard pressed to find anyone who could argue shit like making fun of midgets and discussing breast implants with the intellect of a ten year old has "socially redeming value" - and I'll include Larry fucking Flynt in that group.[/quote]
Why does Stern have to have any redeeming value? His ratings and long term success legitimize his existence.
Stern's a martyr, regardless of you understanding or accepting the factors that made him one. There now exists a precedent that states that only the rich or those willing to cough up the money have access to entertainment that doesn't need to be classified as acceptable for the 'public good' or having 'legitimate redeeming traits'. Don't you get that? Don't you understand the implications of that? People who can't afford freedom aren't allowed the benefits of freedom.
Money used to be the deciding factor of what got on TV and radio. The concern used to be that the public could be bought and sold based on who was willing to spend the most $$$. Evil corps only presenting one side, or agendas, etc etc etc.
The government is now doing the exact same thing, but the currency isn't money rather it's mindset catering to those with similar agendas. Imposition of mores by a government is a scary thing. Much scarier to the 'greater good' than any of the crap Stern pulls on his show.