You want a win? You want a scalp? That’s cool. How about half a scalp? We’ve put up more of your beloved (I know not why) Howard; more unseen portions of the Bradley interview are up at: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?channel=/elements/2005/12/07/60minutes/videoarchive1104651_1_videosection_page.shtml

On the big issue, you’re pretty much preaching to the choir. We the Webbies of CBS News would essentially like to put up everything we could get our mitts on. I really have no theoretical objections to what you (or Rosen) are talking about. There are plenty of practical problems — some legal, copyright, financial, privacy, yada, yada, yada and yada.

But the biggest problem is manpower. It takes forever to stream a four-hour interview. It takes forever to prepare a publishable transcript of a four-hour interview. You’ve been to our newsroom; you know we don’t have “forever.” We’re small. We try to hit the best balance of what our audience asks for, what we think they’re interested in and what we think is important, interesting or done well.

I know you think I’m thin-skinned, but who is doing more than us, especially in the broadcast world? Between Public Eye and all the broadcast material we not put raw on CBSNews.com, I think we’re pushing hard.

Example: later today we’re streaming today’s Evenning News lineup meeting — the editorial session where the show’s pieces are selected, debated, put in order. That will be on Public Eye. Who else among the major msm institutions is even approaching that level of transparency? How about some credit where credit is due, dude?

OK, so maybe I’m thin-skinned. Even so, there’s more Howard up if you and yours want it. And check out the lineup meeting.

Dick Meyer

Ravo, apparently some find network sitcoms amusing to watch also. But as we all know, they are mind numbing, boring, useless, uninspired and a gigantic waste of time. And when that’s over, you can go watch 2 talking heads discuss Iraq for the 5000th time. After that, go waste 20 bux seeing the latest “blockbuster.”

Remixing 60 Minutes Howard Stern segments doesn’t sound so bad after all. It might actually get the brain cells flowing a bit.

How is that project going?

Paul: didn’t read the link but you r right, 60 minutes will never let you see ohow they edit their shows to put some people in a favorable light and some in a negative, nor do they want to air good rebuttles to arguements they favor.

bens hog: you should hear howard promote his girlfriends lame “save an animal from katrina” project. save the animals folks, save the animals. i wonder if howard realizes how pussy he sounds when he promotes that crap.

ravo: no one interviews celebrities better than howard, no one. sure you can turn on the Today show and hear the tough “how is it being so loved?” questions, but howard will ask the shit you actually want to ask yourself.

Seems that the first person to complain, though, would be an interviewee expecting to get favorable treatment, expecting the editing to make them look good and eliminate potential gaffes.

I did come across the show once. I don’t remember much other than it was base, and along the lines of Howard learing and insisting the women expose themselves in various way to “earn” plugs for something they were selling. Apparently some find sacrificing one’s sexual dignity for a gain of some sort amusing and/or titillating to watch.

Blaming Howard for exposing

More like exploiting and furthering it.

Fine for those who want to indulge their sexual humiliation fetishes, but as daily public fare to all ages?

Yes, it’s very important to keep saturating young minds with potty humor and get as many lessons as possible out to them on how much fun one can have humiliating young women.

P.S. When asked by Newsweek what his lucky Sirius listeners are in store for, guess what he told them? He’s bring back old stuff that wasn’t funny years ago, like BATHROOM OLYMPICS!! All Right!!!! Now that’s 13 bucks a month entertainment!!!!