Howard Stern blames Suspension on Janet Jackson boob

Discussion in 'Community' started by Gymnut, Feb 26, 2004.

  1. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #1
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    the problem is they have had rules in place for years they just never enforced them. Like plenty of good and bad laws on the books, some are ignored, some are not. With Janets poor fiasco they are now looking when they should have been looking along.
     
  3. tveric macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    #3
    Re: Howard Stern blames Suspension on Janet Jackson boob

    It would be helpful if you would clarify that Stern didn't actually blame Janet's boob. To quote the article:


    Radio shock-jock Howard Stern on Thursday blamed a conservative backlash prompted by the exposure of singer Janet Jackson's breast on television for the suspension of his show.


    The conservative backlash is certainly to blame. It also didn't help that Howard has been blasting GWB lately for wasting time with censorship, coming out against gay marriage, and not coming clean about his ducking the draft during Vietnam. If you think the government didn't strong-arm Clear Channel into suspending Stern's show, stop being naive. He has gotten politicians elected before and his reach is stronger than ever, and it's convenient to get him off the air in as many markets as possible.

    Also worth noting, Stern used to be a Bush supporter (most notably regarding the war on terror), but only over the last few days has been saying that he would definitely not vote Republican in this year's election. Is it coincidence that a gigantic corporation that is scared of Congress right now dumped him today? Don't be so naive.
     
  4. Gymnut thread starter macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #4
    To quote the article:

     
  5. Spock macrumors 68000

    Spock

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Vulcan
    #5
    All I can say is it's about time they turned His crap off.
     
  6. applemacdude macrumors 68040

    applemacdude

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Location:
    Over The Rainbow
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    Why can't you turn his crap off yourself? Who forces you to listen?
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    the thing is children dont need to hear this stuff or see it. there are lines and they are being crossed wether its at the superbowl or if its on the radio on the way to school.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    What are you doing driving your kids to school with Howard Stern on the radio?
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    ill spell it out for you since you dont grasp this, kids have radio's and tv's. you want to show and talk crap do it in those time slots the Fcc says not anytime you want to air this garbage. pseudoorbit if you need Stern though i dont know why anyone would, listen and watch his crap when the kids are in bed. Put the crap on at midnight, its that simple.
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    How do you let your kids listen to the radio on the way to school without you knowing about it?

    Why would you let your kid have a TV or radio if you didn't want them to have the freedom to select what they watched?

    This is nanny state bull****. And I'm a liberal.
     
  12. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #12
    You'd have to ask my father. :D :eek: :eek:

    Well, we used to get Howard Stern, until we moved. Then we were out of range from Portsmith's (N.H.) radio waves, which mirrored the Howard Stern Show in the morning. Of course, Portland isn't allowing the show on WCYY, so I've been without Howard Stern for about 8 months now.

    Yeah, his stuff went downhill once the focus of the opposite gender overdrove more opinionated topics, such as ironic news reports, or one's attempts to take over CBS. Once in a while, Howard had that comic relief, but even before we moved, the comic relief was a welcome reward.

    I guess what I want to say is: Chill out, guys. I mean, if someone's listening to Howard, does that give the person a bad recognition or "label" of negative responsibility? And would that matter, say, five years ago, when the focus of the show wasn't so much on the opposite gender? Just take a look at the other thread about Sports Illustrated. Who's at fault? For what? Should it be corrected? And, most importantly of all...is there a "reason" for giving the offender (or reader of the magazine, or whoever) a "label" for being irresponsible?

    You know, the Howard Stern Show attracts more hate opinions from its listeners than listeners of Limp Bizkit or Britany Spears, it seems. But I bet many people reading this thread know of friends/individuals that listen to either Limp Bizkit or Britany Spears. So does that make the listener irresponsible? Or in the issue that Dont Hurt Me brought up, are the parents irresponsible?

    It's time to reconsider some of these hate reactions, especially in terms of where to place the blame, and for what accusation.

    Personally, I think the show tends to bore me most of the time I listen to it, just because of the same topic discussion over and over.
     
  13. Spock macrumors 68000

    Spock

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Vulcan
    #13
    Thank You, I could not agree with You more.
     
  14. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #14
    That's a good point, I am just going to have to lock my kids in the basement!

    Oh wait, I don't have kids...thank the Lord!
     
  15. tveric macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    #15
    Hey genius, two questions for you:

    1) Can kids listen to the radio between 6am and 10am without you knowing about it?

    Answer: Not very likely, since you're getting them ready for school and/or driving them to school.

    2) Can kids listen to the radio after 10pm (FCC hours for "safe" material are 6am-10pm) without you knowing about?

    Answer: Since you yourself stated they HAVE radios (and probably headphones) I'd say they could listen to Loveline and shows like that at 10pm very easily. Shows that have FAR more sexual content in 1 hour than Stern has in 4. And if you don't believe that, you obviously don't listen. Which is your right, of course. Just don't spout off about a topic that you know little about without expecting to be ridiculed.

    The point is, you haven't spelled out anything except your own ignorance and your desire to have the government babysit your kids at the expense of adults who enjoy listening to Howard Stern. That's bad enough - what's worse is you don't even realize that the FCC safe hours aren't protecting any kids from sexual content on the radio. Get a grip, raise your own kids, and toss out your radios and TVs if you want to. That's your right, just as it's mine to hear Howard in the morning.
     
  16. uhlawboi80 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    houston
    #16
    for the love of GOD. this is America...everyone remember that? hes free to talk about what he wants. If you dont like it turn it off. if everyone turns it off then he will be taken off the air. If he stays on the air then pther people like him so you dont get to say because YOU think hes offensive he should be shut down. Go stage a coup in some communist country if you like and then you can force your views on the people there.

    That being said, this backlash is getting RIDICULOUS, to see janets damn boob you have to pause and zoom in. Dont want your kids to see it? DONT replay it and DONT zoom in. i highly doubt many people got any kind of look at it during the actual halftime show.

    This is being blow out of proportion by people who have been pushing for obnoxiously tighter regulations for a long time. Im sorry, but my parents controlled what i watched to a degree they found acceptable. If you dont want your kid watching something then parent and dont let your kid watch it. Can't be watching your kid 24x7? then make your lazy kid do something besides sit their ever fattening a$$es in front of a TV and you wont have to worry about it.

    boy i wish the OLD republicans were around...not forcing their conservative views on others like now, but just telling everyone to not whine and let people be.
     
  17. Gymnut thread starter macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #17
    Yes that's very nice quoting the article but if you had even bothered to read the title of the article it does in fact say "Stern blames suspension on Janet Jackson's breast".

    Now should he have been yanked off the air over that one segment? In my opinion, no, at the very least fined and or warned.

    It seems to me that since the Janet Jackson fiasco on the grand stage of the Super Bowl likely was the straw that broke the camel's back. Now I'm sure Stern was probably also pulled off the air because of his past history of trouble with regulators and the recent scrutinizing eye by parent company Viacom as a result of the Super Bowl fiasco, coupled with this latest err on his show, only gave the powers that be enough ammunition to silence him.

    Uhmm yeah, I'm pretty sure Howard exlaimed: "Damn that areola!"
     
  18. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #18
    Just a question: Would you let your kids listen to what they wanted on the radio, and watch what they wanted on TV? What age do you think it'd be appropriate for them to choose what to watch?
     
  19. mgargan1 macrumors 65816

    mgargan1

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    #19
    look, I gotta take the liberal approach here... not only is this affecting Howard Stern, but a lot of the clearchannel stations... and I love some of their shows; however, I like them cause they talk about sex. That's just what makes me laugh, stuff like that. "What's one man's garbage, is another man's treasure," if you don't want your children or you don't wanna listen to it yourself, there is no law stating that you can't change the radio station to something that you think might be more appropriate for a youngster... and even then, some of those shows that they were telling to clean up, they only talk about sex every once in a while, and I'll bet you a lot of their jokes probably go over the head of a lot of kids, they only pick it up if people make a big deal out of it.

    I have every right to listen, to whatever I want, just like you do. You just don't have to listen to it. It's kinda like smoking, I have every right to smoke (i don't), and you have the right not to breathe it in, so what do I do? I don't smoke indoors... and what's not true in this analogy, is that radio waves don't give people cancer, cause their wave lengths are too big...

    and G4scott... yes, i would let my child (again, which i don't have, but i do have a 7 and 10 year old brother) watch "pretty much" what they wanted to, and I would let them listen what "pretty much" what they wanted to... obvious exception would be porn... I wouldn't let them, but they're going to do it anyway... just remember when you were a kid, sneaking into the tv room to watch the "dirty" channel... (hmm, or was that just me)... but things like that, kids are going to do what they want anyway, why not control it, and teach these kids what these jokes mean, so they wont be ignorant about these matters...
     
  20. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #20
    age: 12
    time: 6 am till 11 pm every show on tv-radio

    for younger kids i would say 6 am - 8 pm without restriction and after 8..it depends if the child has to go to school next day and if the show/movie is good

    BTW: as a european, i find it very confusing why you americans go completly crazy because of _one_ boob..... if americans wouldn't have gone completly insane because of this i would have thought that it is part of the show... :rolleyes: and after the 'reaction' i had a very good laugh ...USA with the biggest porn industry of the world, goes mad about one boob in tv...:confused:
    a shoe company has a tv- ad runing here, with 2 girls kissing each, with one of them having a bare breast...this ad is showed even in the afternoon
     
  21. Crikey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Spencer's Butte, Oregon
    #21
    I think it's precisely *because* of America's Puritan roots and tradition of repressive sexual mores that this country has the world's biggest porn industry. If people had healthy sex (and emotional) lives, they wouldn't be interested in porn. Nor would the baring of a breast on television provoke so much apoplexy.

    Half the country wants us to squeeze back into a Victorian corset (maybe more than half, during a Republican administration), and the other half overreacts against that.

    Sigh.


    Crikey
     
  22. rueyeet macrumors 65816

    rueyeet

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    MD
    #22
    Sure they would....but the porn probably wouldn't be so extreme, and people would take the whole thing a lot more casually.

    But I agree with you, in essence--I've said before that the American attitude towards sex resembles the attitude towards food of someone with an eating disorder: a never-ending cycle of deprivation and over-indulgence, binge and starve, reward and punish.
     
  23. FelixDerKater macrumors 68000

    FelixDerKater

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    #23
    Get him off the air and keep him off. Now if we could get rid of half of the stuff on MTV, we'd be doing a lot better too.
     
  24. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #24
    I think we have a lot of young Adults here who aint getting it it if you know what i mean;) so they crave Stern,Sex and indecent secularism. Im not saying limit free speech, im saying if you want to listen and watch trash then have it on when the Fcc says so. this isnt anything new its just that the fcc has not enforced its owns rules and the liberal courts are wanting the society to go down the tubes while feeding this crap to our children. enough is enough and if stations cant show just a little taste then the govt will do it for them. Instead of spending so much time with Stern go find a girlfriend to spend some time with.:D
     
  25. pinto32 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    PA
    #25
    What exactly should we do with our girlfriends? Seeing as how sex is "icky" and "immoral" I am kinda confused. Please help?

    **(begin scarcasm)**
    ..Damn liberal courts....first they give minorities civil rights, now they are trying to shove this "freedom of speech" crap down our throats!!!! Damn Clinton and his moderate views and moderate court appointees!!!!
    **(end scarcasm)**

    Honestly though, this is not about personal views and tastes: this is about whether or not our democracy and constitution is going to survive in the long run. If government and corporate censorship are allowed to control our media outlets, then we will end up living in Orwell's world after all.

    As for all of the uber-conservatives who are rejoicing about Clear Channel dropping Howard, have you noticed that your supreme commander and sole source of "knowledge" Rush Limbaugh has come out in defense of Howard Stern??

    Thankyou for listening, comrades of Oceania (including those of you on Airstrip One)!
     

Share This Page