Talk:Howard Stern

Delete?
Look, I know this is just a start and all, but goddamn, this is crap! 13:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then change it. ShorinBJ (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would, but I don't even see how he could be on-mission. I'm waiting for you or someone else to enlighten me on how Howard Stern relates to our mission. 13:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I give it a day. If it's still crap by then, I'm gonna put this article out of its misery. 15:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was on the To Do List. It's related to censorship and the FCC. ShorinBJ (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He also tried to take "Weird Al"'s job once.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then quit debating me and make it intosomething constructive. Otherwise, given the current hubris that is this article, I'm inclined to delete it without prejudice. I'm sorry, but this stub is soooo crappy that I see no reason, pending improvement, to keep it. 08:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. It can follow the likes of Mel Gibson and Ian Paisley, both of which were complete crap at first but got better. Sophie  because liberals  10:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine with me, so long as I catually see some work on keeping this article. My issue mostly lies in with the "save it from deletion" crowd, since more has been to done thus far on the talkpage to save this garbage than has been done to actually fix up the article and make it presentable. If the ones who want to keep it would actually make it better (much better!) than it currently is, I'll have no reason to want to unleash it. 11:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kinda like the "delete it" crowd who make snide remarks on the talkpage rather than fix up the article and make it presentable? It's easier to make a good article from a bad one than to make a good article from nothing. This way you can see the parts you don't like and change or expand on them. You haven't pointed out specific issues for me or anyone to work on; you've just said "crap" over and over.
 * Well, let's start with the fact that it is three sentences and says absolutely nothing in relation to how Howard Stern is on-mission. Perhaps you missed that part where I said that above. Aside from that, I say it's crap because, let's face it, it is, in fact crap. At the current rate, it'd be far easier to just start over when somebody who knows what they're talking about regarding Howard Stern's missionality than for them to come and re-write the only three sentences in this stub so far. Of course, it should always be up to those of us who see this tripe and want to delete it to fix it, right? Instead of leaving the burden on the people who started the article and spent more time debating keeping this garbage around than they did writing the damn thing! 08:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me tone down my tone a bit here and state this blunty
I'd love to be able to work on this article and improve it. but right now, there's not even a line thrown to people like me to go off of on improvement. If we could add some things that would help someone like me see how it's on-mission, even if just another couple sentences, it'd worth keeping around. But in its current state, I don't even know where this article is supposed to go to make it on-mission. And, no, I don't think costing media outlets money through fines qualifies as on-mission. Get my drift anyone? 08:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. AceModerator 08:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. What has he said or done that furthers bigotry, authoritarianism, anti-science or long-eared jerboas? This we need to know. Sophie  because liberals  16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what is more interesting is how the FCC has clamped down on obscenity, and what Stern has had to do to get around it? Also, there might be something interesting about methods of media delivery (since he relegated himself to satellite radio in order to get around public broadcast issues).  He can say pretty much anything he wants, even be critical of his content provider SiriusXM (of which he is a major stockholder) without fear of repercussion...something that other radio/television personalities often can't do. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how "he owns a chunk of the station he broadcasts on, so he can say rude things" is on-mission. Did the FCC clamp down *because* of Stern, or did he just get caught out by it? If so, there's enough for a sentence or two in an article about obscenity laws, but nothing more. Sophie  because liberals  16:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear the first time, Sophie. The on-mission content on what he has to do in order to continue his style of broadcast journalism that other broadcasters cannot do because of the "think of the children!" moral-standardizing bullshit coming from a government agency that was and continues to be influenced by corporate interests, religious organizations and "concerned citizens".  One can also note that he's on the opposite end of the spectrum from other journalists who have yet to be tagged by the FCC despite the lies and outrage they promote.   I'm not a fan of his show (in fact I find it extremely tasteless), but there are double standards at work here.  -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps there should be an article about broadcast obscenity and its double standards, with Stern as a detail, rather than an article about Stern with the broadcast-obscenity-double-standard as background. Sophie  because liberals  17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. We do have an article on Censorship, and I know there's an article about playing records backwards that talks about reversing of curse worse words for radio broadcasts somewhere.  Somewhere in the Fox News article is something about how they won a court case that allowed them to report lies. The Federal Communications Commission, however, does not have its own article, and given the wardrobe malfunctions and F-bombs and influence from Morality in Media (which needs an article too) and other groups that would like to suspend the First Amendment. Maybe, from there, as research is done, something more RW-relevant about Howard Stern will pop up (like the fact that he's a sexist pig, or promotes woo of some sort, I dunno I don't listen to him). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Backward masking is the playing-stuff-backwards article. Shall we go for a Morality in the media article? In the UK the tabloids have been accused of living in the fifties when reporting on scandal, as if everyone lives in a nuclear family and there are no homosexuals, trans people or even strip clubs. I don't know much about how this plays out on US talk radio - do they live in the past or have some weird stereotyped world view? Sophie  because liberals  18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty much the same down here. Тy Serious Business Guy 18:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I admit that aside from the censorship aspect, Stern doesn't bring much worth thinking about. So let's agree to kill this for good and start an article on the FCC or some such. ShorinBJ (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, love the idea of a media censorship article with Howard Stern as a sub-section. Would make more sense than an entire article on the man. But let's not kill this dead until we have said article. 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This could be a great article, but I'm sick of stubs cause people who start them have no intention of doing the actual work involved. I'd say dump it, if no one is committing to fixing it right now. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the talk page is several orders of magnitude more informative and contextual than the article. Sophie  because liberals  17:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be frank, it's why i hate the "new page needed" page. (I can't remember it's name, as i never use it). It inspires people to write one liners that have to be fixed, cleaned up, and researched.  I'd rather a red link that reminds us we need to get around to something, but we haven't yet.  I'm whining, though.  so ignore me.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 17:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * maybe we should get rid of it then. if people really care about having an article X, they can write it themselves. It's a bit too "here, write this for me" as it stands. Sophie  because liberals  18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. At the very least stop the vote tags. Тy Ahoy! 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments for and against rather than anon voting? Sophie  because liberals  18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But that might actually be more useful than multicolored arrows! Тy Yes? 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MY other problme is the premise is faulty. no one is going to write an article cause it's been voted as important.  They are going to write articles they are interested in, or knowledgeable about, or whatever.  The highest rated articles are things we know nothing about, and never get written, though everyone says "wow, we should write this".  Most of us write what we know, cause it's easy.  IF we had to write something we didn't know, that has a different name: SCHOOL.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted
I've gone and deleted this then. It would appear, based on the above conversation, nobody really wanted to keep this. At least in the condition it was in. 09:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)