Shock Jock Howard Sterns radio audience reached 4 million listeners recently on his new home at Sirius Satellite Radio. Stern was not pleased, in fact he thinks it should be 5 times that many. What did he do to try and convince his former listeners to jump on to the paid radio bandwagon? He lashed out at them.
“It’s insulting to me that everyone hasn’t come with me. I take it personally,” he says.
“I want to say to my audience … `You haven’t come with me yet? How dare you? We’re up to wild, crazy stuff, the show has never sounded better. You cheap bastard!’”
Yeah, cause thats the way to get your listeners back you arrogant moron.
UPDATE BY BRENDAN: The original EW interview reveals that the Associated Press is basically making stuff up here. The AP conveniently omitted the word “[Laughs]” from the quote in question, and characterized Stern’s comment as “lashing out,” ignoring the fact that he was obviously joking. First the eclipse, now this. The AP is on a roll!
|
Categories: The Media & Blogs, TV, Movies & Entertainment
|
March 31st, 2006 at 11:16:58 pm
Do you think perhaps he was playing around, having a laugh, engaging in self-satire — satirizing his own famed arrogance — rather than seriously “lashing out,” as the New York Post so New York Post-ishly put it?
Certainly, without knowing his tone of voice in the EW interview, it’s hard to be sure. Whoever wrote up the interview (the EW writer) has the ability to spin it however they want.
April 1st, 2006 at 12:49:01 am
Here’s the last page of the interview, in which the quote in question occurs. The Post left out a rather important bit:
As I suspected from the get-go, given how wildly implausible the idea of Stern attacking his audience seemed, it was a joke… and the New York Post is making something out of absolutely nothing. Terrible journalism on their part (it’s hard to believe it isn’t intentionally wrong, in fact), but not the first time and won’t be the last. As a Fox News critic, this shouldn’t surprise you: the Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, after all. Anyway, the moral of the story is, if it seems wildly implausible, it’s probably not true, and also, don’t trust the New York Post without independent verification. :)
April 1st, 2006 at 12:51:58 am
Hey, wait a minute, that’s an AP article!! Wow, so it’s not Murdoch’s fault. The AP is on a roll…
April 1st, 2006 at 1:11:22 am
I’m still not convinced he wasn’t at least partially serious, what kind of laugh was it? Given Sterns ego it wouldn’t surprise me if he was insulting his audience, i mean he insults people ALL THE TIME.
April 1st, 2006 at 1:20:33 am
“What kind of laugh was it?” I don’t know, isn’t the default setting that when people laugh, that means they’re not being serious? Certainly other things are possible, but the assumption, absent evidence to the contrary, ought to be that “[laughs]” means he was kidding around … especially given that the EW writer — who was there, and thus knows better than you, me or the AP writer “what kind of laugh” it was — felt it was important enough to mention the laugh in the article. I guarantee you Stern did plenty of other things during the interview that weren’t put in brackets, like “[coughs],” “[farts],” “[clears his throat],” etc. One would presume that the “laugh” must have been IMPORTANT or else they wouldn’t have put it in the article.
Anyway, considering that the AP didn’t even hint at the fact that he was laughing at all, that article is completely irresponsible journalism regardless of what you think about Stern or what you suspect about the nature of his laugh. To say that he’s “angry” and “lashing out” when the only evidence of his emotional state at the time of the comment (that little bracketed statement) suggsts he was probably kidding around, is completely ridiculous and the AP should be ashamed of publishing such garbage.
April 1st, 2006 at 1:26:26 am
Incidentally, David, this (”I’m still not convinced he wasn’t at least partially serious, what kind of laugh was it? Given Sterns ego it wouldn’t surprise me if he was insulting his audience, i mean he insults people ALL THE TIME.”) is a great example of you NOT giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and considering them quite possibly guilty even when there isn’t adequate evidence to support that belief, because you have a bias against that person. I don’t blame you for believing the AP article initially, but continuing to take it seriously even once its fatal flaw has been pointed out, when you have absolutely nothing in the way of additional evidence to fall back on? C’mon. The fact that “it wouldn’t surprise you” is NOT adequate reason for continuing to believe it (or for implying that it’s quite possibly true, i.e. “still not convinced”). That is the very definition of bias or prejudice: believing that something is true, even if the evidence does not objectively support it, because “it wouldn’t surprise you” due to your preconceived notions.
April 1st, 2006 at 1:38:24 am
P.S. To be clear: Is it possible that Stern was being serious? Yes. Do we have any reason, at this time, to believe that? No.
Your argument — that we should believe it because Howard Stern is a jerk and therefore it’s likely that he would do something jerky — is not based on rational analysis. I mean, by that logic, I could make up something off the top of my head that would be a jerky thing for someone to do, and assert that Howard Stern did it, and you could just as easily say, “well, that wouldn’t surprise me… he is a jerk, after all!” You have no more evidence to suggest that he was being serious in that quote than I would have to support my made-up allegation in that situation. Therefore, by default, the assumption must be that he’s innocent (i.e., that he was just kidding), because that is the conclusion that all currently available evidence points to. Now, if some other evidence surfaces that makes it a more open question, THEN you can legitimately apply your bias and say, “you know what, past observation suggests he’s a jerk, so I tend to believe the evidence that suggests he was being serious, instead of believing the evidence that suggests he was joking.” That’s a legitimate weighing of the evidence, if you will. But when there IS NO EVIDENCE to suggest he was being serious, it makes you look profoundly silly to keep thinking out loud about how you wouldn’t be surprised if he was.
And yes, I realize it’s silly to talk about something so insignificant in terms of “evidence” and “guilt” vs. “innocence,” but I’m just trying to be clear with my terminology and logic, I don’t mean to imply that you’ve accused Howard Stern of a felony or something. :)
April 1st, 2006 at 2:41:17 am
There is a difference between what you are proposing and what I’m saying. But yes, if you made up something jerky that someone might have done and said Howard Stern did it and it was fitting with his character and previous actions it makes absolute sense that I might say, “it wouldn’t surprise me if he did it”. Frankly its absurd that you think that isn’t a valid position to take. Does that mean he DID do it? No, just that I am inclined to believe he did. Presumption of innocence is for the courts, in real life we are free to judge people by things like patterns of behavior.
For example, if someone guestposted something highly critical of President Bush and didn’t leave their name, are you saying its unreasonable if Andrew were to say, “It wouldn’t surprise me if David posted this”. Of course you wouldn’t. It is in fact absolutely reasonable. If you then said, well maybe but i don’t think the style is his, Andrew might still choose to disagree with you and he’d still be within the realm of reason.
Likewise my initial reaction to this article is that it was accurate. Why? Because it fit his pattern of behavior. Yes your additional information may make it less likely that my original interpretation was correct, I never said that was untrue. What I said was that I didn’t think it was sufficient to change my mind because of his previous actions and the remaining ambiguity of the comment.
Is it reasonable for you to disagree and interpret it differently? Absolutely. Is it reasonable based on this little information for you to say I am so wrong about this? I don’t think that is reasonable at all.
Am I presuming him guilty? I suppose, but again, we aren’t in court here, people make those exact type of presumptions every day, you HAVE to. You think the laugh is a fatal flaw, I think it sheds some small doubt. Its all based on our perception of Howard Stern in this case, and people in general.
Soemtimes assumptions are meritless, sometimes they aren’t. In this case I disagree with you about whether or not there is merit in my assumption, but either way I don’t have a bias for or against him. I’m no fan but I have no reason to actively dislike him, i have nothing invested in this one way or the other, other than I think he is likely to have said it in seriousness because he DOES have a big ego and he DOES say things LIKE that all the time.
April 1st, 2006 at 3:32:40 am
Look, I still think you’re completely wrong, but this is such a stupid thing to argue about, I’m not going to continue with it. I don’t want to end up having a screaming flame war about whether Howard Stern was kidding or not. :)
Well, except for this one point: it’s absurd for you to claim you don’t have a bias against Stern. Clearly, by definition, you do. That doesn’t mean the bias isn’t well-founded or that it’s wrong. But you are actively prejudging him on the basis of a preconceived notion. That’s what a bias is.
Other than that, I stand by what I already said and reluctantly accept that there’s no way you’re going to agree with me, notwithstanding that I’m completely right ;) hehe
April 1st, 2006 at 3:35:25 am
P.S. Will you at least agree with me that AP practiced shoddy journalism by not even mentioning that he laughed when he said it? Assuming, that is, that the AP reporter doesn’t have additional information beyond the text of the interview? Given what you’ve conceded above, that this is a matter of interpretation and it’s reasonable for us to have different opinions about the significance of the laugh, wouldn’t you agree that it’s unjustifiable to leave out that piece of information, thus denying readers the opportunity to engage in the interpretive debate that we’ve been having?
April 1st, 2006 at 10:54:32 am
Anyone who has ever been a fan of Howard Stern’s knows this is part of his act. He does the big ego thing and provokes people to get his listenership up. For people who “get it,” like Brendan, it is a big inside joke. For people like David, who don’t get it, it is a reason to act insulted. Whatever.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:20:30 am
who cares? stern sucks, the ap sucks. listen to Opie and Anthony on XM radio.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:26:22 am
Opie and Anthony? Sure. Nothing’s funnier than having sex in a Church. Dumbasses.
April 1st, 2006 at 12:32:38 pm
O&A had sex in a church? wait no, that was the couple being led around by their comedian escort durring the sex for sam’s 3 competition. AND it was the comedian escort that came up with the idea. ALSO, it was NEVER aired. why? cause even O&A drew the line on that one. didn’t matter to the public though. I actually wish it was aired though, THAT’s great radio.
April 1st, 2006 at 12:33:15 pm
sure beats fart jokes and whining about your ex-wife and your small penis, but hey some guys did that.
April 1st, 2006 at 12:33:48 pm
dig not did
April 1st, 2006 at 1:58:15 pm
David said: “Presumption of innocence is for the courts, in real life we are free to judge people by things like patterns of behavior.”
I agree David. Your pattern of behavior has led me to ignore everything you say because you have a pattern of saying stupid things. This is the most obvious case of sarcasm I have ever seen. If you can’t see the sarcasm in Howard’s statement then you’ve obviously lost your sense of humor.
April 1st, 2006 at 2:37:09 pm
inability to see sarcasm in the printed word does not mean one has lost their sense of humor. all it means is: literal reader. ~ this correction made possible by the lets stop insulting each other for just a freaking minute like a bunch of caddy school girls and at least try to keep this grounded committee. or the L.S.I.E.O.J.F.M.L.B.C.S.L.T.K.T.G.C
April 1st, 2006 at 3:26:25 pm
Don’t you mean catty school girls?
April 1st, 2006 at 3:33:44 pm
I love how Brendan made a big deal about David’s bias in this post. When I read David’s comment, I thought the exact same thing Brendan did. David’s bias can make him blind, and his bias often trumps logic, written word and evidence. Who cares if Stern is an ass. The point is, Brendan totally called David out on his bias. Sure, David will continue to build arguments on his bias and sink with them, but Brendan is right. David knows what people “really” mean and are “really” thinking, all evidence to the contrary. Yeah.
April 1st, 2006 at 3:54:03 pm
um, yeah catty, but it doesn’t change the anacronym so the committee triumphs.
L.S.I.E.O.J.F.M.L.B.C.S.L.T.K.T.G.C
April 1st, 2006 at 3:57:55 pm
actually i don’t see the difference between the two biased opinions. one argues that stern said what he said sarcasticly and there’s evidence to support that. the other argues that stern probably said it with a twinge of truth and there’s evidence to support that. given the words and terms: “partially,” “probably” and “true to form”… i don’t see a right and wrong here.
April 1st, 2006 at 5:07:06 pm
sped-bump, think of the back and forth bewteen Brendan and David as a proxy war for something else. David is biased, and constantly uses his bias to form his opinion on someone’s argument, regardless of the person’s actual, written argument. David will argue that someone really means X even if his written argument clearly says Y. He will argue he cannot believe that the argument is really X because he (is biased) knows what that person “really” thinks, and he refuses to accept it is bias, and not evidence, that drives him. So, this is not about Stern, but about David’s inability to get over his bias, even when it comes to some lamo comment about Howard Stern.
April 1st, 2006 at 8:21:18 pm
You guys are all so full of crap. David is dead-on here.
APRIL FOOL’S!!!!!
“[Laughs]�
April 2nd, 2006 at 1:11:54 am
Damn, David is getting str8-up clowned on!
May 8th, 2007 at 7:03:12 am
Top 3 penis enlargement pills