Now this is offensive
I see this billboard off 1&9 yesterday: Viacom now trying to make Imus the posterboy for the First Amendment.
That’s offensive. Viacom would not defend Howard Stern — and the First Amendment — when the FCC and the so-called Parents Television Council went after both (see my op-ed below). And now they are trying to exploit the First Amendment with that half-dead fake cowpoke Imus.
They had the real deal and they let him go. Fools.
Tags: Howard_Stern
December 2nd, 2005 at 9:07 am
Sort of recalls to mind ‘Bonanza’, do you think that reverberates with the ad firm?
December 2nd, 2005 at 9:37 am
So how long was Imus dead before they took that picture…
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:15 am
How long have you been waiting to write “…greater than the sum of his farts…”?
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:42 am
off topic, but Jeff your server clock is one hour ahead. Unless the server is in Nova Scotia.
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:43 am
When is that picture from? 1978? What a joke.
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:50 am
JJ, I am trying desparately to separate your First Amendment support from your Howard Stern support. Couldn’t you have picked a more attractive|entertaining|amusing|mature victim?
Must..try..harder…
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:50 am
Both Imus and Stern made careers by manufacturing controversy. So what. They’re both lame in their own unique ways.
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:16 am
Gray here posting, JJ, and I’ll tell you what’s offensive. It’s offensive that your site is now actively firewalling my IP, preventing me from accessing buzzmachine. I have to use a proxy now to view this site.
Yesterday you declared that it was your overzealous spam filter that deleted all my comments. After I managed to post again, I made this known in a comment. Then you restored my comments, saying that you fixed a problem with your spam filter. I believed your explanation then, and I even thought that this shows that you don’t want to discourage open discussions here.
Well, either you did totally mess up the spam filter today or you haven’t been honest yesterday. In fact, today my IP-range seems to be firewalled and the site again refuses my posts, indicating that the cookies, my username and the email-address that I use (it’s my real address, only slightly camuflaged against spam use) are on some kind of a black list. Maybe this is some strange behaviour of your anti-spam software again, but don’t you agree that this explanation is becoming somewhat ridiculous now? I recommed that you get your technical act together or openly declare that you don’t want me to comment here, but stop this harassment!
You have been talking alot about free speech and bloggers rights recently. How about an open thread about bloggers ethics and specifically if you want open discussion or only ‘friendly’ posters here? Imho not all is well in the state of buzzmachine.
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:30 am
I am not firewalling anything, Gray, whoever you are. Please send me email with your IP and any other info and I will go into Spam Karma to find out whether it is on the blacklist. The program did profile you as a spammer because you came into one thread so often in a short time; that’s what it does. Sorry, mate, but you fit the profile.
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:37 am
B/W/Gray: I just went through the 71 spams caught by Spam Karma since I drove into work and found no missive from you. I have — to my dread — dialed back Spam Karma to its lowest level. And as I said, if you send me your IP, I will look into the blacklist. It’s not as if you have anything new to say so far as II can tell but if you want to continue posting the same opinion, well then have a ball.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Test
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Hmm, it looks like I’m able to post again, and the site is working even without proxy access, thx Jeff! But this spam plugin is really annoying, I’m checking the informations on spam karma now, maybe I can give you some tips.
I never experienced any such problems at any other site, and I’m commenting a lot at BalloonJuice, Washingtonmonthly, Amerciablog and some other sites. This must be a special problem of WordPress.
“It’s not as if you have anything new to say so far as II can tell” - strange, very often I’m thinking the same about you and other commenters
However, if another reader directly addresses my comments, showing that he hasn’t understood my argument at all, I try to rephrase it so that maybe he can dig it. Seems to be a futile attempt most of the times 
OK, I’ll send you an email now, maybe it will help you getting a better ‘karma’
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:57 pm
f imus. f viacom. stern rulez!
but wtf up with siri only being $7?
we should be rich by now!
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:01 pm
OT: I don’t know if it’s Jeff’s spam program of my new Firefox 1.5 browser, but just now when I tried to access the comments for this post, I got a message (I believe from the browser) saying access was denied, possibly due to a firewall issue. Tried again and got in.
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Tony:
I bought it at 3.
Christopher:
Dunno. Could have been a hit of traffic from the west coast mention on stern.
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:08 pm
wait… isn’t stern the new imus?
as far as i can tell… stern has turned into everything he portrayed imus as in private parts.
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Don Imus is almost as pathetic as the DC suck-ups who fawn all over him on his show. A show that is unlistenable/watchable, BTW.
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Stern is not lame at all. He is Everyman with a microphone. The Jonathan Swift of our time. You’d have to be blind - or deaf- not to see that.
December 2nd, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Call me old-fashioned, but Howard Stern is crude, crass, fill-in-the-blank. I spent 20 years in radio during a time when a Howard Stern would have not been welcome anywhere. To think so many like to listen to such trash shows how our culture has declined in a frightningly similar way to ancient Rome.
December 2nd, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Gerard, you’re old fashioned.
To be honest, as much as I can see how Howard Stern rubs people the wrong way, it amazes me how no one sees the need to point out truly offensive other radio personalities are. Michael Savage makes it a point to verbally berate groups of people every week on his program, yet no fine. Rush Limbaugh spews hatred every time he opens his mouth, yet there is no fine.
So what is it then? Poop jokes and lesbians are offensive, but calling for the execution of homosexuals and heads of state is not? Clearly, something is wrong here.
And I know Savage and Limbaugh act that way because I have listened to them. And that’s the thing. If you are going to attack someone, you have to be sure you know what you are talking about. No one has pointed out that Stern has given a voice to the voiceless. Sure, we may think its wrong to have retards and KKK members be given a forum, but he was ready and willing to do that.
December 2nd, 2005 at 6:57 pm
I’m sorry but Stern stopped being “Everyman” a long time ago. A real “Everyman” wouldn’t charge his listeners $12.95 a month and take every Friday off.
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:04 pm
Gray, how is that you are not DENOUNCING Juan Cole the intellectually corrupt blogger who BUFFERS and BLOCKS critical comments to his blog? If you really cared about open discourse, then you should DENOUNCE Cole for his censorship. Or is your outrage truly selective?
You were demanding that JJ denounce Allawi of Iraq with your incessant Stalinist witch hunting. Now is time for you to DENOUNCE Cole and get a taste of your own medicine. Or are you a BIG SUPPORTER of intellectual corruption?
You know that you cannot critcize Cole on his blog as he will delete it. So do it here.
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Blowback, someone told me not to feed trolls like you. I guess that’s a good idea.
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:04 pm
What is it with Howard Stern and his 1st Amendment martyr complex?
There are certain lines you can’t cross on broadcast TV & Radio.
This lesson was well understood by Chris Rock, George Carlin, Dennis Miller, Bill Maher and any number of others who moved their act to HBO to avoid FCC limitations.
Finally, Howard is moving to Sirius — the radio equivavalent of HBO.
I actually prefer Imus. I’m a political junkie.
Howard can be very good, and very funny, but the day he featured a man drinking his own urine on a dare — I realized life is too short to waste time with this.
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Gray, I guess when you cannot argue the point, just like some of the western pro-Islam reactionary leftists, you have to revert to insults and ad hominem.
And as if Stalinist interrogation and hounding for confession of guilt makes you any better than a troll.
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:58 pm
I like Imus.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:25 am
Stern? Everyman? LOL. I used to watch him - every episode was some bimbo stripping on set with Stern making lame passes at her. What a joke. At least Imus abuses his staff instead of the bimbos. Stern appeals to the Jerry Springer crowd of radio.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 am
Imus and Stern are the Yin and Yang of what’s bad about radio in general–and neither is much of a poster boy for the First Ammendment. Why is it that two individuals who are all about marketing and advertising–mostly of themselves–are seen as defenders of anything Constitutional. Both remind me of the advertising executive depicted in Larry Niven’s great send up of Dante’s “Inferno” who was spewing from something other than a mouth, which had been strategically placed on his face….
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 am
What is this fascination with Stern? The guy’s a moron.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Noted BL Show’s fawning over you — Howard’s invite yesterday to march uptown on the 17th blew me away. I can’t even read the comments above blahblahing about Howard but this just to give you the STREET CREDS you deserve, Chrs
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Imus is supposed to be offensive, it’s his job and he’s good at it. His outragousness often coaxes candidness from his important guests. Though he sometimes makes himself look like an idiot while doing so…
Stern on the other hand is just offensive, infantile and only coaxes nudity and lesser things from inconsequential vapid guests.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Howard is so offensive. He is so infantile. I never actually listened to his radio show. Etc. etc.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:20 pm
This is how progressives determine Free Speech: if it’s left-wing, it’s Free Speech; if it’s right-wing, it’s Hate Speech. Progressives, sadly, squander their ideals supporting “the rights” of people like Stern. Stern’s a capitalist. He’s only interested in Profitable Speech. I’m good with that, but the rest of it’s bullshit.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:09 pm
That moron has been #1 around the country for the last decade.
So if he’s a moron, “Bob”, what does that make you?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:35 am
This is how progressives actually differentiate between Free Speech and Hate Speech. Free Speech is what everyone has the right in which to indulge. Hate Speech is what gay-bashing, bible-waving, war-mongering neo-conservatives do when they’re abusing their right to Free Speech. However, progressives will not attempt to censor it, but rather fully defend the neo-cons’ right to express it. How else can we keep tabs on who all the jackasses are?
December 4th, 2005 at 11:55 am
No, Mr. Flack, Free Speech is everything leftists condone and hate speech is everything that does not conform to their agenda. Hate speech is judges banning nativity scenes, retailers renaming Christmas trees “Holiday trees,” schools forbidding children from singing Christmas carols and banning the colors red and green! Bibles are banned while children are forced to read korans. The Christmas story in Christmas parades is replaced with rainbow flags and men dressed as women. Jesus is banned while NAMBLA members are welcomed. Reltaliating against 911 is war mongering while jihadism is a culture we must appreciate. The FCC is evil while the ACLU is good. Your idea of free speech is think as I tell you–the left way.
December 4th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
“Hate Speech is what gay-bashing, bible-waving, war-mongering neo-conservatives do when they’re abusing their right to Free Speech.”
Thank you, Reverend, for illustrating my point.
I voice support for domestic partnerships but oppose gay marriage. That’s not Free Speech, that’s Hate Speech gay-bashing.
I voice agreement that the Ten Commandments provides guidance in a chaotic world. That’s not Free Speech, that’s Hate Speech bible-waving.
I voice support in removing Saddam and his sons from power in an attempt to stabilize a volatile region. That’s not Free Speech, that’s Hate Speech war-mongering.
It continues to amaze me how progressives believe they own phrases like Free Speech, activism and, particularly craw-sticking, tolerance.
December 5th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
Progressive: let me see as many facts as I can find, and as many opinions as I can find, and I will draw my own conclusions. God gave me a brain for a reason and I’m damn sure gonna use its analytical capacity. I’ll listen to Stern and Imus and decide which one is fake.
Conservative (today’s kind, not the classic): my brain hurts, please tell me what to think and leave out anything confusing because I am afraid of anything I don’t understand. Intellectual capacity is too powerful to trust and must be suppressed at every opportunity. A strong, small ruling class makes this ever so much easier. I’ll write letters to the FCC and anyone else I’m told to but I won’t listen to Stern because I might not agree with the opinion I’m supposed to agree with; and that will cause intellectual stress, which I avoid at all costs.
December 6th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!!
OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!! OPIE & ANTHONY……………….XM Channel 202………………..SPREAD THE VIRUS!!!!
December 7th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
What a bore your blog is. I linked into it today because I had read some good things about it. I think it is awful and won’t be back.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Why would you be offended by the person that showed Howard how to do it?
April 28th, 2006 at 1:49 am
“I voice support for domestic partnerships but oppose gay marriage. That’s not Free Speech, that’s Hate Speech gay-bashing.”
“I voice agreement that the Ten Commandments provides guidance in a chaotic world. That’s not Free Speech, that’s Hate Speech bible-waving.”
No, Chico, that’s not the hate speech I was talking about either. A good combined example of gay-bashing hate speech and bible-waving hate speech would be The Westboro Baptist Church, a ‘family-oriented’ church whose motto is ‘Fags Must Die’. Granted, they are an extreme example of hate speech, but merely opposing gay marriage or finding the good in biblical passages does not necessarily constitute hate speech.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. My quote was “Hate Speech is what gay-bashing, bible-waving, war-mongering neo-conservatives do when they’re abusing their right to Free Speech. ” Now, unless you’re ready to define yourself as a ‘gay-bashing, bible-waving, war-mongering neo-conservative’, then I wasn’t criticizing your views.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:24 am
Kat, I don’t even know where to begin with you. First of all, though I may be about to give you flack for what you posted, my name is ‘Flash’, not ‘Flack’ (or was that supposed to be some kind of intentional quip that got by me?). Your comments were all over the place, both illogical and inconsistent. First you say, “hate speech is everything that does not conform to (the left-wing) agenda”. Then, in your very next sentence you describe hate speech as “judges banning nativity scenes, retailers renaming Christmas trees ‘Holiday trees,’ schools forbidding children from singing Christmas carols and banning the colors red and green”. Wouldn’t those actually be the things that supposedly DO conform to the left-wing agenda? Then you go on to say “Bibles are banned while children are forced to read korans.” Where? The Middle East? Tell me where in this country you will find a federally supported institution banning bibles and forcefeeding children the Koran (what a switch THAT’D be!). Then you say “The Christmas story in Christmas parades is replaced with rainbow flags and men dressed as women”. Again, where? San Francisco? Greenwich Village? I tune into parade coverage once in a while, but this sort of thing I’ve never seen. What are we supposed to believe from this - that Christmas parades nationwide are now celebrating the day that God left a transvestite at the end of a rainbow? Next, you say “Jesus is banned while NAMBLA members are welcomed.” One more time - WHERE? At the NAMBLA meeting where you have to where shirt and shoes to get in? (”Sorry, Mr. Christ, but you’ll have to come back wearing something more than that shroud and sandals.”) Your next gem is “Reltaliating against 911 is war mongering while jihadism is a culture we must appreciate.” Mm hm. I guess I must have forgotten THAT big Hilary Clinton speech. “My fellow Americans, it’s time to end this war and return the Middle East to the jihad-imposing cesspool for which we’ve all been hungering.” Then you say “The FCC is evil while the ACLU is good.” Well, yeah, that’s the first thing you’ve said with which I agree. But something tells me that you shifted gears here and clumsily entered the realm of sarcasm without warning. If so, how can you support a non-elected government body whose job it is to impede free speech and expression while putting down an organization whose mission is to protect those very rights which are under attack? Would you prefer the FCC go all willy-nilly with censorship with no ACLU to keep them in check? Your big closing line sounds like something poorly translated using Babelfish: “Your idea of free speech is think as I tell you–the left way.” I think you’re trying to say that MY idea of free speech is only the speech that I support - leftist speech. No, and I’ve explained this before. First of all, this comparison between free speech and hate speech is like comparing apples and oranges and is, if you’ll excuse the pun, fruitless. Hate speech IS free speech. All speech is free, or should be. I support a person’s right to speak freely no matter how crazy, evil, or stupid it may make them sound. I would never deny anyone this freedom. The right-wing can spew anything they want that conflicts with my beliefs, and I would defend their right to do so. Likewise, I don’t expect to have my speech curtailed. It just seems that while the left will often condemn speech it deems hateful (the condemnations being another form of free speech), the right will occasionally try to actually CENSOR speech it finds unfavorable (definitely not ‘free’ anything). That’s just my observation. Your opinion may differ. And if so, you go ahead and express it ! (But, Kat, you may wanna go here first: http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/ .)