Skip to comments.
“Goodbye Howard Stern, and Good Riddance”
PTC ^
| 11/16/2001
| PTC/Brent Bozell
Posted on 11/16/2001 1:27:05 PM PST by hchutch
Statement by L. Brent Bozell, Founder of the PTC on The Final Demise of the televised Howard Stern Radio Show
Finally, the death knell has sounded for the televised Howard Stern Radio Show. Howard Stern never even came close to fulfilling his prediction that he would devastate his shows competitors. Once the public saw the sewage that Stern was offering it wanted nothing to do with him. His ratings were abysmal. Sterns stations and sponsors, especially national sponsors, fled the show. In his first year, of the 31 national corporate sponsors identified by the Parents Television Council, 42% publicly pledged not to advertise on Stern again, while another 30% ceased advertising.
The self-proclaimed King of All Media has been exposed as a disaster to the throne when it comes to TV. Within a year of the shows debut, over 70% of the television stations that first aired Stern stopped carrying it. National advertisers all but abandoned the show. By June 1999, his ratings had fallen 67% from the debut episode, dropping from a 2.7 to a pitiful 0.9. Far from fulfilling his predictions of "Blowing Saturday Night Live" out of the water, Howard Stern's syndicated television show became a joke - a colossal failure by every measure.
After a three-year failed experiment, CBS has finally decided to pull the plug. We are gratified to see this trash-filled show gone.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
If Brent Bozell spent half the time he spent going after the WWF and Howard Stern going after more of the CRAP that is pumped out as news, we might be in better shape than we are now.
Howard's show didn't work so well on TV. Big whoop, people used their remotes. No need to do a sack dance over wasted time and effort that could have been spent better elsewhere.
1
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:05 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: Miss Marple; JohnHuang2
FYI.
2
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:05 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
Not to mention that he's just putting that particular show to bed. He's got another development deal to do another comedy show in that timeslot---a show unlike his "E" show. The reason his Sat. night show was a failure was because it was merely the E-show writ large. Fans caught onto that right quick.
To: hchutch
Howards original TV show years and years ago on WOR (i think) was way better. It was an actual show as opposed to just a video of his radio show.
BA BA BOOEY!
To: PJ-Comix
FYI.
5
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:05 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
I think this article is a bit reaching.. yes Stern was way out of line thinking his show was going to tank SNL and others... but to say he has no place on TV defies the fact he has highest rated show on E!... granted its a sucky cable channel, but it is. His show was never going to strike big on main stream broadcast, his format and material just aren't going to do it there.. I don't care much for sterne, but network is not going to let him do what he does best on the airwaves.
Just like Sex in the City would be a flop on ABC/NBC or CBS.. because the adult portions of it would be toned back down or gone all together (don't watch that show either, but it has gotten a good following being what it is) It would have failed miserably on broadcast TV.
To: hchutch
good bye to the King of sleeze! long overdue! he should've been gone a long time ago!
To: hchutch
Deadwood has to be taken out. It doesnt leave on its own.
8
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST
by
michaelje
To: hchutch
I'm probably in the minority in the conservative movement. I've always liked listening to Stern's show and watching it on TV as well. It'd probably be more suitable for HBO, however. I'm a twenty/thirtysomething year old guy and, yes, I like to see women treated as sex objects sometimes...all in the name of humor, of course. ;-)
9
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST
by
Azzurri
To: hchutch
Me? I got all dem...Me? I could kick his ass in 24 hours.
10
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST
by
Benrand
To: gardenfence
Again, when there are bigger problems out there (Dems to Freep, terrorists, etc.), why are we picking on Howard Stern and the WWF?
11
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
If Brent Bozell spent half the time he spent going after the WWF and Howard Stern going after more of the CRAP that is pumped out as news, we might be in better shape than we are now.Have you seen Bozell's website, Media Research Center? They do much, much more that go after the WWF and Howard Stern.
12
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST
by
Jean S
To: Azzurri
I catch Howard Stern driving to work, Rush Limbaugh during lunch (first hour), and sports radio in the evening.
Why do they pick on Howard?
13
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: Benrand
Open your eyes, Bozell!
Me? I hit that!
I hit that all the time!
.
14
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST
by
dead
To: JeanS
I've seen it. It's okay, but still, detouring to slam Howard and the WWF is a ways down the pecking order. Every minute devoted to going after Howard and the WWF is a minute they can't spend exposing some of those media Clintonistas.
15
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
Bozell is awesome on exposing liberal media bias. I just wish he would focus on that and not spend so much time being my nanny and trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't watch on TV.
It's guys like him who scare people away from the Republican Party by presenting us as a bunch os squares who want to impose a nation-wide bedtime.
To: Rodney King
os=of
To: hchutch
>Howard's show didn't work so well on TV. I didn't watch Stern regularly, and I didn't like _much_ of what I did see, but Stern used to do a segment that I will _always_ remember as one of the most interesting things I've ever seen on TV. (That's not saying much, of course, but it's something.)
Stern used to do a bit called "Hooker Hollywood Squares" where he would get REAL hookers and set them up in the squares and ask them questions. Now, Hollywood _glamorizes_ hookers all the time. In the Hollywood version of reality, hookers are beautiful, smart, loving people... Stern using REAL hookers did more to DE-GLAMORIZE hookers than any movie could ever do. The real life hookers were just plain sad and often PATHETIC.
I don't believe any girl watching Stern's "Hookers Hollywood Squares" would want to go out and become like the women she saw in the bit.
It's not much of a legacy for Stern to leave, but de-glamorizing prostitution isn't a bad legacy...
Mark W.
18
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:07 PM PST
by
MarkWar
To: Rodney King
Hear, hear. It's folks like Bozell and Bennett who unfairly tar folks like howard who agree with us quite often. Heck, I bet Bret Schundler didn't go on the show because he was afraid to offend that bunch.
We saw Howard Stern's endorsement help Bloomberg and Pataki. It probably could have made the NJ race closer. But Bret didn't go on the show for some reason.
We like a good party just like any other American. Ours might not have as wide a variety of stuff, but we are still capable of having a good time.
19
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:07 PM PST
by
hchutch
To: Rodney King
Isn't about time for him to write another article explaining to us all why "South Park" isn't funny?
He hasn't convinced me yet. (Timm-meh!)
20
posted on
11/16/2001 1:27:07 PM PST
by
dead
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson