Jump to content

Talk:Howard Stern

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.227.175.50 (talk) at 20:14, 23 February 2014 (→Beer Can Size). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not intended to shock, just honest opinions: his have sex with a porn star contest??

While Howard Stern is frank about issues he discusses, one might question his claim that his goal is not to try to shock people.

Take for example the stunt where he arranged for several male listeners to compete for an opportunity to have sex with a pornstar who frequents his show. Hard to imagine that as a means for expressing honest opinion, much easier to understand that as a shock stunt.

Nothing against what he does -- sometimes its funny, but he should be honest about his intent, or else he's just like Fox News pretending to be fair and balanced when they're nothing of the sort. He does a lot of opinion. But he does a lot just to shock people. Why not just cop to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.118.161 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its rather than it's

Hello, I notice several instances of "it's" where "its" should be used. It's = it is and does not connote possession. A very common error. Can somebody correct these? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.129.212 (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's as a possessive is very old English; modern preference is its possessive and it's as a contraction of it is as standard usage. Still, folks who read old authors pick up archaic usages and repeat them. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Career in other media

No mention of his PPV specials/tapes. Negligee and Underpants Party, U.S. Open Sores, Butt Bongo Fiesta and New Year's Rotten Eve.Satanico (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They will be mentioned here as the article begins to develop, but there is a separate article for the PPV specials. Hopefully we can get this to a Good Article!(92.10.2.131 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Looking for the name of his sidekick at DC101

I think it was like Moondog or something like that. Not Robin Givens, but a different name, male. Had the impression that guy did not go with him to NYC and syndication.

The only sidekicks he had in DC were Robin Quivers and Fred Norris who was nicknamed "Earth Dog". MrBlondNYC (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well how come they stopped calling him Earthdog? And how come you never heard him after Howard left DC? 52.129.8.51 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fred has been on the show every single day to this day. You can click on his name, you know? "Earth Dog" was the radio nickname he gave himself. But because of his quirky personality they started calling him "Fred the Martian" and "Frightening Fred". MrBlondNYC (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys mean Earth Dog Brent, who was with Howard and Robin at DC-101 for a short while, until Fred replaced him and became "Earth Dog Fred." Fred was given the name, and did not work on WCCC as Earth Dog.(92.3.45.71 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Don't forget there was also the Think Tank at Washington, with Steve Chaconas, who left the show in early 1986 due to commuting schedules. This was when Jackie began working full time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.2.131 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic?

"In the 1990s show Animaniacs episode Morning Malaise, Yakko, Wakko, and Dot enter the studio of "Howie Tern," a clear parody of Howard Stern." If it's a clear parody, wouldn't that make it unneccesary to say "a clear parody." If it's clear (which I agree it is), then the name CLEARLY speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.1.68 (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if everything that is clearly something makes it unnecessary to say so why would the term even exist? in fact, why say anything for that matter. 24.144.8.92 (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture.

That picture is not Howard Stern.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.75.130 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone else verify if File:HowardSternJuly09.jpg is or is not Stern? I looked at recent images of him and it looks like similar face shape, it just looks like he is without makeup/hair products. I'm not a fan and don't keep up with him, so if anyone can verify it or not, that would be great. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a new picture has been uploaded (well, from 2000). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It takes someone who is a fan to know what someone looks like? it wasnt him, it didnt look anything like him. thanks for correcting it. 24.144.8.92 (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of all the media?

Bit of a weird claim. If for instance, I don't know, Matt LeBlanc decided to call himself the greatest and most witty actor ever would that deserve such a prominant place in his Wikipedia page. Except perhaps Matt LeBlanc is actually famous worldwide, ask someone in India, Japan, South Africa, Norway, UK and if they are the right age they'd of heard of him. This guy is a virtual no-body in the UK, i'd never heard of him. Seems a weird claim that's all! Cls14 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"King of All Media" is not a claim. It is what Stern began to describe himself in the early 1990s following his success across the media. It is a play on words with the association of Michael Jackson and "The King of Pop", although Jackson himself didn't call himself that.(92.10.2.131 (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Who is Matt Leblanc? Anyway USA newspapers and lots of other sources refer him as that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt LeBlanc played Joey in Friends. Bad example, if you ask me!

Sirius

This article states that in 2004, he signed a 5 year contract with Sirius. So is his contract now over or has he extended it? Is he retired? 24.188.207.20 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contract expires on 31 December, 2010. According to Mel Karmazin's recent interview on Charlie Rose, contract discussions have not begun yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LowSelfEstidle (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His contract did not begin until 01 January, 2006. He did not go on the air until 09 January 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.80.4 (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, that explains a lot! 24.188.207.20 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he did mock selena's death

previously the article mentioned that howard stern only criticized selena's music, not mocking her death itself. but he did mock her death by playing gunshots over her music. it's sourced —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozenkeeeeeps (talk • contribs) 07:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Howard Stern a foot fetishist?

Cause that's what they're saying here.  70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and not notable for Howard's biography article. (LowSelfEstidle (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
But it is for the other article?72.53.95.61 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images for the article

What suitable images should be included (and are allowed) in the article? Any suggestions? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Parts

Besides, Good Morning Vietnam, in the taste of good broadcasting, Private Parts seems to be the most value for viewing dollars. Is bias ok? Also, taking a bow? Puns are fun, yet sex education should be poetic. Thanks, to Mr. Stern, for all the heart felt air time. Seminole film school *)75.202.25.202 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selena commment

"They have no depth." Stern's comments outraged and infuriated the Hispanic community across Texas. Stern received a huge backlash when he further mocked Selena's murder itself, by playing gunshots over her music.[97][98]"

This is incorrect as I was a listener at the time and as every listener knows Fred plays the sound effects, and Howard usually has no control over them. Sometimes he requests a certain sound effect, but when he does you can usually hear him request it, which he did not on that occasion. I know the sources say otherwise, but they're incorrect. Quadzilla99 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for using the Discussion page! Yes this section needs some work, I will do it soon, unless someone does so otherwise. Indeed Fred did play the sound effect. (LowSelfEstidle (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
It does need work but its way better than it was in the past. Whoever added all the references did a great job. Quadzilla99 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be me. Hopefully the article will reach GA status soon. I'm not the best at clear, consise writing but I could do with a few folks to help make it GA. Could you help? (LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

It should also be noted that it is often claimed that he apologized for this. He has never apologized. He made a statement in spanish that was not an apology. -K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.32.63 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references section

I do not think we need this back in the article. No references and it could end up being a long, unreferenced list. (LowSelfEstidle (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Those kind of sections are usually dumping grounds for trivia anyway. Quadzilla99 (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Parts

The monumental film debut of radio co-host, H. Stern, has been inspirational the world over. How can there be another disc jockey quite as honest and relate actual ethics to as wide an audience as Stern. Bow. Guinness book of World Records should have records of H. Stern's works. Is it possible to print facts on Wikipedia, even if they are not directly related to articles? Poseidon75.204.105.82 (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actor-politician?

In the categories bit at the end, it includes "American Actor-Politicians"... I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.50.21 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but was probably in light of his six-month campaign for Governor of New York in 1994? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

Howard printed an early CV in Private Parts which I think we can use to add some nice details. For instance, it might be nice to mention that his major at BU was in Broadcasting and Film, and that he taught students basic electronics in preparation for their own FCC exams from Jan - May 1976. Also, I could provide some clarification on why a first class FCC license is better than the third class, which was the minimum requirement for disc jockeys to be on the air. Let me know what you think if any of this is worth adding/other suggestions. Cheers. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural effect

The section I added this morning was reverted, wholesale and w/o explanation. This is not the way to get along with WP editors. The kind way to edit where you have an objection is to make your objections known and suggest changes be initiated. Persons feeling proprietary ownership of individual articles may wish to step back for better perspective.Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the above section on cultural references. AaronY (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AaronY, and Thank you for offering what a less conscientious editor failed at- a kindness. However it should be quite clear with a dictionary that a discussion of "effect" is hardly equatable to any collection- or discussion- of "references"! What I have begun is a WP:Verifiable report on the demonstrably unique- i.e. WP:Notable effects of an established career.
Your reference "above" does make one fact-based [& evergreen] argument: that certain sections "often become lists.."- which is in context more a warning than anything. So-Did you even get a chance to see what I wrote? I have certainly not begun any "list"! I have presented my attempt at a comprehensive outline of what serious thinkers and data have said on-topic. And I will promise not to make a list; though of course references to such archives off-site are par.
I would like to add however, that, IMO, the article at present does evidence some effects of a perhaps over-cautious, conservative fear of ridicule and the "guilt by association" often noted by Stern himself within his listeners. And this deletion does tend to confirm my assessment of conservative trepidations here. Nevertheless, I'm just about the facts. After a career of 30-some years, those facts do add up to something more than the "Terrorist Threat Level" portrayed around Stern- the SOS heard in what are in effect the competing media- and their religions of American politics. So unless and until I get more substantial criticisms, I do intend to continue working on this section as intended- that is, unless this is a fan article controlled by close personal interests. But again, I do wish to thank you wholeheartedly for your kindness, and I do remain open to continued constructive contribution;-) Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 03:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Howard 100.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Howard 100.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8

So, on August 7th, lots of media reported that Stern is linked to a pirated Super 8.[1][2][3] Maybe not noteworthy enough by itself to mention in the article, but it there are any follow-up articles about further developments regarding this, it might be interesting enough to add something about it to the article? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard's act in America's Got Got Talent

Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.193.195 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Although claiming to be a fan of America's Got Talent for a big reason for joining the reality based show, the true reason is that Howard was hoping to reinvent himself primarily appealing to the mainstream public. After being told by his inner circle that anything he touches would not be only successful but hugely successful, The former king of all media was hoping the AGT gig would lead to new offers in TV , movies and commercial endorsements. Unfortunatly, although a interesting interviewer (when he's not over psychoanalyzing a guest or talking about a guest's private parts), Howard Stern's talent is very limited and not much above par compared to millions of others celebrity seeking attention whores. As such, the ratings of AGT, after Howard Stern's hiring have steadily declined, and he primarily failed in bringing in the 18-54 demographic, a primary reason for which he was hired. His goal of re-inventing himself as a public friendly figure has failed miserably as he alienated millions of former fans and failed to generate the new media opportunities that was his original goal. This has made his former fans and Howard himself extremely bitter. I imagine in 20 years his bitterness will likely result in the failure of his superficial marriage and in the total isolation and loneliness for himself ala Howard Hughes.

"Shock jock" image

It's really not discussed much at all in the article, other than the sentence in the lede and maybe one or two lines in the article proper. There should really be an "Image" section in the article, because Howard Stern is really well known for being crass, rude, ect. There's tons of news articles that have been written about it. Such as:

"Why rude and crude still sells" - Bangor Daily News
"Rude, crude Howard Stern won't behave" - Chicago Sun-Times
"Howard Stern: Master of the Crude, Rude, Outrageous" - The Virginia-Pilot

And that's just a taste there. SilverserenC 08:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

In 2012, he became a judge on the television talent show America's Got Talent, replacing Piers Morgan. Ratings for season 7 plummeted as a result.[2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.77.147 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

usable picture?

Can someone check if this is a wash? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems legit to me, filed under CC-by-2.0.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant?

In May 2013, Stern bought a beachfront home in Palm Beach, Florida, for $52 million. The home contains 12.5 bathrooms and five bedrooms with over 19,000 square feet of living space.[132][159] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.174.61 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FCC Fines - Use of "Allegedly"

Is it really OK to add the word allegedly  to the sentence From 1990 to 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has fined owners of radio stations that carried The Howard Stern Show a total of $2.5 million for allegedly indecent programming ? I'm not so sure.

Allegedly  seems to imply a lack of verifiable fact, doesn't it? We may personally feel that the fines were undeserving and that the FCC is wrong. The FCC, however, didn't fine Stern for being allegedly indecent;Didn't The FCC fined Stern because it judged him to be indecent according to the law (their standards), right? For this reason, I do not think the allegedly should be used here. Maybe ending the sentence with ... for programming it deemed to be indecent. would be a better way to hint that not everyone agrees with the FCC's definition of indecency. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, agree with this change. Famartin (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Famartin. Sorry, I'm not sure which change you're referring to. Are you in favor of using the word allegedly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better way of wording it. How about just "...for content it considered to be indecent."? Thank you for the suggestion! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input LowSelfEstidle. Your're version is fine with me. The lead for FCC fines of The Howard Stern Show might be where "allegedly indecent" came from. I think your version would be an improvement there too. Would you like to edit it? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Can Size

Lately Howard has shown an obsession with Beer Can sizes....Don't know what that means but has sub-Freudian contexts...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Howard_Stern&oldid=596814342"