Howard was very vocal on his Sirius show about the fact that Jimmy would be televise it in this manner, so it's not a surprise. And you are way off about him going back to free radio. He has no interest in doing so, his show would be crap watered down for free radio, and he would have nothing to gain.

My bet would be that, every time that he feels down that no one hears him, that he probably has a money fight with his hot model girlfriend and suddenly feels all better.

Why the hostility towards Howard? And how can you say he has no cultural impact any more? Didn't you just write a blurb about him and link his YouTube video on this site? I'd say that if TvGasm is still reporting on Howard's activities, then his impact can't be totally extinguished. Me thinks TabloidBaby doth protest too much... And Bababooey to you all!

TB--why report on things you don't "care" about and you don't understand?? You say he couldn't be bothered to fly to LA to tape, yet Howard wanted to go tape live with Jimmy but Jimmy decided to do it this way. Howard would rather have sex with Wendy the retard than do anything like wannabes Opie and Anthony. Keep reporting on "irrelevant" Howard all you like. It's clear how culturally unimportant he is, the more you talk about him. MAC-HINE!

TB -- first, to say that O&A are more popular and "powerful" than Howard Stern, is just plain laughable. If you've ever heard them, you would know that they are as about as powerful as Rick Dees. Please cite to ratings, etc. to prove your point. Additionally, doesn't your last post prove too much? First you say that Howard is driven primarily by EGO, but then you say that the lure of money and "stock options" (the meaning of which you clearly don't understand given your post) is what drove him to Sirius. Which is it? I agree, that the lack of Howard on "terrestial radio" is a shame since his audience is significantly smaller, but to say that he was part of the mainstream is just plain false: yes, he was always popular and well compensated, but Stern was always an outsider in the industry. And, once again, you disprove your very premise and show Stern's cultural significance manifested in your resentment to his absence. Why would you resent him being gone if you truly aren't missing anything culturally significant now that he's on satellite? Oh, and also, how is Sirius a smokescreen? Please write things that make sense, not just buzzwords you've heard elsewhere.

My main question/quibble is you seem to be arguing that more listeners is the exact same thing as more culturally significant. They're not. Just as higher TV ratings don't always indicate a higher cultural significance. More people watch Two and a Half Men than the Office, My Name Is Earl,or let alone the Simpsons and no serious argument can be made that the former is the most culturally significant. Is there some validity to your arguments? Of course. But by promising some result based solely on your "knowledge" supported by no facts (and you say they doubled their ratings; I ask sincerely is that doubling actually impressive? Was their number relatively high to begin with or did they go from 20 listeners to 40?) and ludicrous assertions that O and A and Rick Dees are more culturally signifciant than a guy who was the lead segment on 3 late night shows last week just hurts your own cause. But maybe I'm just missing O and A's visits, articles in the NY Posts about them, and, lastly, TV Gasm articles about them.

TB:
1. "Stock Options" allow a person to purchase stock at some predetermined price; you are talking about stock incentives and stock as compensation. There's a difference.

2. Did O&A double David Lee Roth's ratings? Wow! What a feat! Let me know when O&A puts up the ratings Stern did on free radio.

3. Howard's so-called self censorship comes from something called "slander," not from the government -- shouldn't a so-called gossip columnist know about libel and slander and how one must watch what is said/written in order to avoid a lawsuit? People love to claim that Howard is still censored, but there's a difference between governmental regulation and common law principles that overarch all free speech.

3. I love the "contraption" argument -- are you honestly saying that in the IPod-era signing up for Sirius is actually a burden? You honestly sound outdated with that one, TB.

4. Howard talks in a vaccuum? Given, his audience is smaller, but the man can still simply ask to be on Letterman and be on the schedule the next day. As Azmad notes above, I guess I missed all of O&A's and Rick Dees' appearances on late night TV, 60 minutes, Time Magazine's MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE, and so on.

5. It's becoming increasingly clear that your posts are motivated by resentment and personal hostility toward Howard's personal financial succcess. The man was on FOR FREE for 20 years and now you begrudge him the opportunity to cash in as you call it? Why do you feel abandoned by someone you don't know personally? That's just sad.

6. Stern remains perhaps the sole honest person in the media. His opinions, therefore, continue to matter. The fact that you have chosen to tune him out speaks more to your resignation to conform to the harmless and non-confrontational likes of Ryan Seacrest than it does to Stern's lack of influence. But, oh yea, you would have to learn how to turn on a satellite radio... perish the thought of being the slave to such a "contraption..."

7. When Howard ends up not going back to free radio, will you eat crow? Although, I'm sure you'll find a way to change your tune and "predict" that Howard will stay on Sirius.

8. Enjoy the Weekly Top 40 this weekend!

TB you clearly don't have a Sirius radio, yet you state that they are a burden. I have one that I move from car to home. It is smaller and weighs less than an Ipod. I installed it myself and it cost less than an Ipod. It is not burdensome, and I value it as the best purchase I have made not only in the last year, but the last several years. I get not only the enjoyment of Howard, but also music stations that play music I would actually want to hear, not Justin Timberlake and the Pussycat Dolls every 30 minutes. Sirius is an amazing service, and my husband and I spend as many hours listening to it every week as we do watching TV, a major shift from how much time we spent with free radio. For those Howard fans who did not follow him but continue to complain about having nothing to listen to, they should just shut their trap. You have the option of buying his service and you haven't. I bet the vast majority of those same people complaining have cable TV, something that costs much more than a Sirius subscription. Howard broadcasts his show 24 hours a day and on the weekend so you can enjoy it in the car or at home. He is a pioneer in satellite radio broadcasting just as he was in terretrial radio for 20+ years. When cable TV was first introduced, people balked at the idea of PAYING FOR TV just as many balk now at the idea of paying for radio. Now cable TV is standard practice because what do you get? Better service and more options. And how many people pay more for premium channels in order to get programming with less censorship? Howard has stated that he will not air slanderous material, but this "internal document" you identify has only been referred to as "being drawn up"--please do tell what words he won't say on air, because as someone who listens every morning, I can't think of a word I haven't heard. But see, you continue to miss the point. Howard is happy, his fans who followed are happy at money well spent, he didn't sell out--he's moved on to something better (and TB, shame on you for not knowing that Howard was in therapy long before moving to Sirius!) and you can continue to make ill-fated predictions. The next time you hear Howard on free radio will be when he deigns to grace his friend Adam Corolla with another call-in or when O&A steal another bit from him.

TB, you avoid the issues raised in these posts and support your conclusions with anecdotal evidence. So, fine, I'll stay here in the rational world and stop posting about this. After all, whether you understand Howard or not doesn't really matter to me -- I'm just someone who appreciates his genius and I don't like to see him blasted for no apparent reason on a great site like TvGasm.

TATATOOTHY!

TB, Jackie Martling did not create Howard's persona. Howard was working and creating buzz in the industry long before Jackie came around and long after he left. And I do not work for Sirius. But when you slander a product, service and entertainer that I value, I will respond with arguments to the contrary. Yes, I wish Howard were available for free, but I know that I was tiring of his fatigue at the FCC's constant censorship and so in reality prefer his show and content now in the paid form I receive it. And if you deny the fact that the censorship on free vs. satellite radio is any different, you are living on another planet. You say that cable, digital, and satellite TV is "the way things work" but this was not always the case. Some people had to pioneer that, and the early days of HBO are pretty interesting if you look into it. It's only been recently that shows like the Sopranos, Sex and the City, and Oz which air on premium pay channels exist outside of the culture vaccuum. You are rigid in your acceptance of change in the way your media is provided. So feel free to enjoy Ryan Secrest and Opie and Anthony. But don't claim to be a Howard Stern fan and peddle your book while complaining about a lack of good Howard-style entertainment on your radio. It's there if you want it, and if you don't, don't discourage others from obtaining it with misinformation. I am not sure why you are disgruntled about Howard, but it's clear that you are.

You contradict yourself again and again. You like Howard or you don't? Because now you say he's a frustrated stale schnook. But you miss him? In the end, all your blabbering about the downfall of Howard and his eventual need to return to free radio is proving what is already known, as always, talking about Howard generates Buzz. So congratulations on a job well done. Now go ahead and get the last word.

Howard Stern has no legs left to stand on... his replacements are entertaining and really ADAM CAROLLA is okay but I would rather have FROST, HIEDI, AND FRANK in the morning... more entertaining that the other two.... Stern is played out and Adam....well he as a face for radio doesn't he.....and he seems to be learning how to make us listen but not want to listen.

TB -- you spelled "Bababooey" incorrectly. And I'll leave the debate with this: I agree with RachWho? -- it's now clear that your posts about Howard are flames designed to get a response about a polarizing figure, and, well, job well done. I'll stick with Sirius, you stick with the Morning Zoo. MAC-HINE!

Holy hell.
Are you people really arguing over Howard Stern, the douchebag of all Media?
Geez.

missriss-
I know, right? I mean, scholarly, well thought-out debates with footnotes and supporting documentation, and definitions and everything!
TB- Take a page from B-Side's playbook- you are not obligated to answer back to every poster's rant. By posting the news item itself, you have already stated your position, and when you jump to respond to every comment, it weakens your initial statement. Again, from B-Side's playbook, if you feel compelled to respond, do so only after multiple posts, and keep it brief. I've got no beef with you, TB, I'm just sayin', just trying offer helpful suggestions.