Rolling Stone: Stern puts the um in tedium (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Gatie]

I'm not saying they should not be doing it or that they are wrong. I'm saying that if they are really as good as everyone says they are, they would just ignore him; just like Howard trivializes them and just like the Sirius Forum never even mentions them.

Let's be brutally honest here (and return to the original point), the allegation that Howard now has to go to the FCC in order to enforce the laws against pirate radio stations (given that the FCC is the only agency available for this very purpose) when he has spent years railing against the same agency's policy of censorship is:

(a) Hypocritical - Being a hypocrite, i.e. professing beliefs and opinions that one does not actually hold

(b) Irony - Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

Howard does not claim to like the FCC now that they can help him (actually, he has not said anything about the situation, so it is all speculation). It has only been alleged that he has to now use the FCC (an agency he rightfully loathes) to help him (actually Sirius) get justice in a crime that was commited against him (them).

The truly honest answer is (b).

 

[WillG]

Well regardless of whatever we want to call it, I'm sure the FCC is going to be oh so eager to help him out (if the story is true)

 

[Jeff Gatie]

My personal opinion of anyone usually does not reflect on whether I feel they are talented or entertaining in what they do. I loathe Sean Penn's and Tim Robbins' politics, but I was the first in line to rave about their performances in Mystic River. They are great actors and as long as they do not cross a line, (my own personal line is breaking the law - Woody Allen, Roman Polanski - I appreciate their talent but personally I can't see anything they have made lately, YMMV) I evaluate them on their talent and/or performances. Howard is the same way. I basically find him to have some loathesome qaulities that far outweigh his admirable ones (loyalty, first amendment adherent, etc.), but the bottom line is he makes me laugh outloud and hysterically at least once a day. That is his job and he does it well. O&A never did that for me and all the cutting down of Howard or building up of O&A will never change the fact that Howard is a supreme talent when it comes to eliciting piss-your-pants laughter from me and O&A are imitation, boring, overreaching wannabes. They were that way in Worcester and I have not heard anything different since. The fact that this forum stated that more of the same old Howard Stern ranting was "The Funniest Radio I Have Ever Heard" does nothing to change that, IMHO.

Again, YMMV.

 

[WillG]

Well, it's all opinion I suppose. You will never hear me say that Howard Stern is untalented at what he does. Nowhere in these threads have I ever said "Howard Sucks" or anything like that. But, I do think the quality of his show has been on a decline. That does not mean that I do not find things to laugh about on his show (although I think my mileage has more to do with the people around him and not so much Stern himself and that is why I do not find the show as good anymore without Jackie and Billy West.) I think that O&A do enough that is different than Howard that it is unfair to call them clones or imitators. I don't think they "wannabe" Howard. They just want to do an entertaining show.

I can agree with you on Tim Robbins and Sean Penn though

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Now that we are discussing this in a rather more civil manner, let me tell you what I don't like. I've already given my comparison of the respect O&A had for their "idol" with the respect Howard had for his. Now let's compare the "Howard railed against Imus" with the latest "bits" by O&A. It is a fact that Howard threatened Imus with revealing what a dick he was by inviting Imus' daughter on the show. The daughter was quite willing to do it and according to her, he was a dick. Fine.

Now, O&A have a beef with Howard and they also involve his daughter. The difference is, Emily is an aspiring actress, but she most definitely is an innocent party who by all accounts loves her father and in no way agreed to be part of O&A's attack. They used the fact the girl was appearing in a play with nudity in it to accuse her of being a slut and a whore in order to attack Howard. Not only did they do this - which by all accounts is grossly unfair - but they ignored the fact that she stuck by her guns and quit the play when they tried to exploit her last name in the advertising; a very admirable thing to do and hardly slutty or whorish at all.

See the difference?
Need more?

One only needs to rememember Howard's reaction to the infamous St. Patrick's sexapade that cost O&A their job to see the difference between Stern and O&A. Howard said the difference between him and them is he would have found some kinky couple who liked having sex in churches, on altars, in convents, etc. and brought them in for an interview. O&A decided to ask some couple to go there and have sex and then to film/record it. One talent was observing a strange kink and relaying his observations to the world, the other talent(s) actively solicited persons to do something that is illegal, immoral to some and at the very least offensive to a good part of their audience.

As was said in "Spinal Tap" - "There is a thin line between clever and stupid."

Yes, there most certainly is.

 

[WillG]

It was a long time ago so I don't remember every detail, but O&A never told that couple to go to that church. Yes, it was a one of the possible locations for that contest. That may not have been right. The whole contest may not have been right. But I did not recall them saying "Go to St. Pat's to do this" it was up to the couples to decide where to go.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

This just may be the consummate BS excuse I've have ever heard. Can I put this in my dictionary next to the definition of "splitting hairs"? Come on already, even they admitted they did a stupid, stupid thing (and even you can admit that Howard was absolutely right in his analysis - his way would have been better).

 

[WillG]

What happened to being civil? Splitting Hairs or not, O&A never told them where to go. That's just how it is. In retrospect they have admitted that they screwed up, this is true. They have owned up to the incident. I never said it was not dumb either.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Come on, you were on pretty thin ice with that defense. And you never said it really was dumb either. However, at least we agree on something (which I think it is the fact that it was not not dumb, which is progress).

 

[WillG]

And day 2 begins


I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. She's a grown woman, she willingly agreed to perform in this awful play and because of that, she leaves herself open to criticism. If they made fun of a bad performance made by an A-List actress, would that be wrong as well, they're someone's daughter. And as I said, a lot of the news picked up on the story too. So it's not like O&A were the only ones exploiting her participation in that play.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Same incident. Howard had met Imus' daughter and she told him something about Imus. He threated to reveal it by having the daughter on. Imus called up and they had it out. They actually called the daughter and she agreed to come on. I mean, why the hell would Imus care about Howard revealing something about a daughter he basically abandoned years ago? It does not make sense that way.

 

[WillG]

I guess I might be remembering it differently, but hell, I'm not going to bet my life on it. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows.