Will Howard Stern effect your voting decision in November?

Don't just read the question. This is a poll. Please answer, or give an opinion.

hi buffalo...welcome.

I'm Canadian, so must answer as hypothetical, but that answer would be 'no'. The fellow may have some particularly unique understanding of Clear Channel, perhaps, but I don't think him particularly sophisticated nor educated on matters political.

I know his firing was a politically motivated act, but I made up my mind how I will be voting a few years ago.

Me too, but if I hadn't, this would have done it for me. I'm not a fan of his, but I agree with his right to do what he does. I am quite capable of changing the station if I don't like what's on.

And a radio or television station should have the right to manage their business meaning that those 'personalities' who are profitable are hired and keep their jobs and those who are not are fired. Stern refused to clean up his act and had become a serious liability to the station. If you had been the program manager, you would have fired him too.

No. The opinions of celebrities, political pundits, talk show personalities... etc don't influence my decision about who I support and vote for. I prefer to listen to what the candidates have to say, what their positions are on the issues or, if they are an incumbent, judge their job performance and then, I make my decision about whether or not I will support them and give them my vote.

To this point, I have no credible data to suggest that he was fired for political commentary. It seems more likely that the matter has to do with the FCC fine and the prospect of further fines coming if the show continued in the manner he's always done it. I happen to think the FCC is presently acting NOT in the interests of the nation, particularly in its support of further media consolidation, but also in its move to censor sexuality. And Clear Channel is deeply suspect as an inappropriate political agent. But I shan't mourn the loss of the fellow's show.

The vote looks like a resounding NO. Howard Stern will affect my vote as much as Barbra Streisand or Michael Moore or Al Franken, which is to say not at all. I know who I'm going to vote for too.

Stern has been fined several times by the FCC. He's becoming a liability and a money drain on the stations that broadcast his show. I was reading about him on the FCC website, www.fcc.gov, and one of the actions against him took something like 4 years to come to an end and generate a fine. I'm not sure why it took that long, maybe it was legal challenges, but several of the commissioners complained about the delay.

I tried to listen to his radio show once, but it was about 4 or 5 people all talking at once, and I couldn't understand a single thing they were saying, so I gave up. I've never been overly impressed with celebrities. Maybe I'm behind the times or something. If you like Howard, that's fine, but from what I've read in FCC transcripts, his show isn't something I would want to hear.

Exactly, Blatham.
It's not Howard's opinions that matter, or what might sway voters. It's the prospect of censorship, a much bigger picture.
Foxfyre, Howard Stern is very popular and making tons of money, and many stations WANT to keep his show. It is the corporate ownership of said stations, if I'm correct, that want to have a say in what the public can and cannot hear. I'd wager we'd hear a different story from many people if it was Rush Limbaugh under fire!

One of the ways in which I think that Western culture, particularly certain corners of it, is just nutty as all get out is how we relate to our own and to others' sexuality.

For example, I am far more offended by the covers of the National Enquirer than by the covers of Gigantic Asses (nod to Matt Groenig).

In my ideal world, broadcasters would be subject to fines for forwarding fallacious arguments, innuendo, and falsehoods LONG BEFORE being constrained in presentation of nipples.

There was a newspaper story yesterday about how those viagra-type commercials are losing all sense of subtlety. Where is the outrage there?

Yup. My dad, lovely and kind Englishman that he was, never came to terms with TV ads for girl leak-stoppers.

no, i won't let him effect my voting decision in november, although i do agree with him 100% on this one...

Yeah, Blatham, those ads are pretty gross too.

What about ads for adult diapers in the middle of the dinner hour? Can something be done about those please? Normally we turn the TV off for dinner, but if we're watching a playoff hockey game or something...

What office is Stern running for?

perhaps someday we'll be able to choose what version of the commercial we'd like to see.
family values press 1
single horny dudes press 2
etc...

I'm actually not offended by ads for any product, so long as the product isn't destructive (tobacco) or the ad itself deceitful. I am, though, frequently bemused by ads.

My vote for most bizarre TV ad ever was an ad for Pepsi featuring Bob Dole. What you have to also know is that at the very same time period, he was doing ads for viagra - which were getting no small mention in the media. In the pepsi ad, we see Bob sitting in his easy chair facing the TV, his large dog at his side...switch to what he is watching, which is Brittany Spears scantily clad and dancing about singing a Pepsi jingle...switch to dog also watching TV...dog barks...Bob smiles and says, "Down boy."