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.
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...
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.
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.
Stern Will Jump To Sirius In 2006
You know, even if he jumps to Alpha Centauri, not many of us would miss him.
Currently they cannot regulate Sirius (or cable). This is actually due to a court decision (Playboy vs US Government).
However, republicans in congress have been saying that profanity/indecency should not be allowed just because it occurs on cable and that the FCC should have the power to regulate cable (this would also apply to satelite radio).
Since the republicans control congress, expect to see "child protection" legislation in the next year or so to give the FCC the power to regulate cable.
No, hold on... You mean the satellite service.
Never mind...
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
You know, it's idiotic shit like this that makes me nuts about America.
Why don't you go back and read his post? He isn't saying anything about banning Stern, outlawing Stern, or sending the 82nd Airborne down on Stern's ass. All he is saying is that he doesn't want to listen to Stern.
What's idiotic is people like you ranting and raving about our diminishing freedom of choice every time someone makes a choice different from yours. You can be for the decriminalization of marijuana without being a pothead. Really!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.
Since the republicans control congress, expect to see "child protection" legislation in the next year or so to give the FCC the power to regulate cable.
Remember that in November you have a chance to try and change that.
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
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.
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.
Actually, it's easier than that.
... DEFINE IT.
See, we live in a country that's under the Rule of Law. Most of us know what this means; simply put, the rules are written down, in plain english that cannot be misinterpreted (yeah, it's a stretch... but you get my point.)
Contrast that with a place under the Rule of Men. They can change what the law is, or what it means, at will.
And that's the problem with the FCC. They claim they'll punish indecency. Fair enough. Just one problem...
They haven't. And, they can't. Nowhere will you discover any legally binding document that clearly indicates what is and is not acceptable. And it glares in the face of "legitimate law" - it's illegal to murder someone, for example - no doubts as to what that means, right? Then, we'll also make it illegal to kill them with guns. In fact, we'll pass another law that makes it to kill them with guns, in a school. The merits of the examples notwithstanding, they illustrate that US Law is intended to be specific, using specific definitions. FCC "law" defining "indecent" is anything but that. In fact, it's nonexistent.
Do a little research on FCC's concept of "indecent". You'll discover that it basically starts with Mob Rule (actually, "Single Loudmouth Rule"), and it's final interpretation is based on nothing more than the whim of the FCC executive.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
When he's not doing that he'll play some idiotically simple game with homeless people or retards,
Yeah, that stuff's wicked funny.
then he flip-flopped and became a Bush hater for some reason
Yeah, that whole Michael Powell turning the FCC into witch hunting club for daddy's friends bit had nothing to do with that.
P.S. Two points for use of the most overused, and fucking tired, term of 2004.
Gabriel Ricard
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.