Connect with us
Barrett News Media Summit 2024

BNM Writers

So, Howard Stern Wants To Be President?

The Supreme Court decision, overturning Roe, apparently was so grievous that Howard Stern determined he must run for president

Andy Bloom

Published

on

The Supreme Court decision, overturning Roe, apparently was so grievous that Howard Stern determined he must run for president.

This isn’t unfamiliar territory for my old friend and comrade in arms. In 1994 Howard declared his candidacy for governor of New York. His platform consisted of three planks:

  1. Reinstating New York’s death penalty.
  2. Staggering toll booths to reduce traffic.
  3. Limiting road construction to overnight hours – also lessening traffic.

After carrying out these three goals, Stern planned to resign and turn the governorship over to the Lieutenant. Governor. He won the Libertarian nomination at the party’s convention in April 1994. 

However, Howard ran head-on into the Ethics in Government Act, which requires candidates to disclose their assets and income. In August, a New York State Supreme Court judge denied Stern’s request to stop the state from enforcing the disclosure requirements, causing Stern to drop his campaign. Stern told his audience: “I’ve told you everything about myself…There’s only one fact that I never revealed. I never told you how much money I made…The reason I never told you…is because it’s none of your business.”

Back then, some questioned Howard’s sincerity about running for governor or whether it was a publicity stunt. The three issues Stern ran on were personal to him. Somebody had recently stabbed a friend of Howard’s to death, which enraged him. “This guy now is in prison. He’s sitting there eating three square meals a day, and my friend is laying there dead,” Stern explained while calling for reinstating the death penalty.

Like most New Yorkers, Stern faced daily traffic snarls. Common sense dictated to him staggering tollbooths and limiting construction to off-peak hours. One year after leaving the governor’s race, Stern joined Governor George Pataki (who he eventually supported) at a parkway gas station to sign legislation called “The Howard Stern bill,” which limited construction on state roads to nighttime hours. Howard won without having to campaign.

I was Vice President of Programming for Greater Media during Howard’s run for governor. A research company added a question as a favor. It showed that Stern was polling into the low twenties among men in the New York City Metro. I still remember calling Howard with the data and his response. “That’s no good. I’ve got a career here….” 

People hoping to remain in the public eye over long periods usually reinvent themselves, and Stern is no exception. His persona and show gradually started shifting. Critics started noticing and writing positively about the changes around 2015. 

It earned Howard respectability and invitations to celebrity dinners. Stern discussed his metamorphosis in conjunction with his 2019 book “Howard Stern Comes Again.” Social media isn’t gospel, but the new Howard and revamped Stern show isn’t as popular with at least listeners who comment on Stern fan pages.

I understand people change but disagree with his rebuke of what he did from 1985 – 2000. Change is one thing. Telling people who made you what you are that they were stupid for buying what you did another. Regardless, Howard Stern remains the most significant and talented radio personality in the medium’s history. Nobody comes close to his accomplishments. 

This “new” Howard Stern feels he must run for president, “To make the country fair again.” Stern would be 71 on Inauguration Day 2025, making him a baby compared to Biden, Trump, Bernie, or Hillary.

Like his run for governor, Stern has a limited plan. He’s on point when he says, “The problem with most presidents is they have too big of an agenda.” Most politicians are far too ambitious and over-promise. Stern’s is a two-prong platform:

  1. Eliminate the Electoral College.
  2. Add five new Supreme Court justices – increasing the total from nine to 14.

If I speak with Howard, I will tell him that the president doesn’t have the power to change either.

Adding five justices is dumb because the court would have an even number.

The Constitution doesn’t specify the number of justices for the Supreme Court. Congress has that power and has set the number as low as five and as high as 10. There have been nine justices since 1869. Congress could change the number, but before Howard starts counting his judges, he should wait for the mid-terms to see which party controls the Senate. 

The upper chamber will still have to confirm all nominees, even if “President Stern” and Congress agree to increase the number of justices.  

The Constitution’s framers worried that heavily populated states would bully smaller states, which they called the Tyranny of the masses. Their compromise gave us the bicameral legislative branch we know as the House and the Senate and the Electoral College. Changing the Electoral College requires a Constitutional amendment.

The founders created a process to amend the Constitution because they understood times change and that the Constitution couldn’t address every circumstance that would happen. They also wanted to ensure that it wasn’t changed casually or carelessly. 

Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority in the House and the Senate. This will disappoint Howard, but the president has no official role in amending the Constitution. The president does not have to sign or approve the proposal. After passing both chambers of Congress, three-quarters of the states’ legislatures must approve it (or ratify it at a state convention) for the resolution to become a constitutional amendment.

So, is he, or isn’t he? There’s no question that he’s enraged by the Supreme Court’s decision. There’s also no doubt that the president can’t change the things that Stern would like to change. Howard isn’t any more likely to fill out the disclosure forms now than in 1994. But another day, another round of news stories for Howard Stern. Hail the King of All Media!

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BNM Writers

Proof That Both CNN and Fox News Manipulate Their Audiences

Playing with numbers and technicalities is a function of what the media does today. Since the average person just reads the headline, viewers will likely move on if it confirms their own bias.

Published

on

When news organizations collide, journalism loses. Last week, CNN posted on X saying “US inflation cooled down in January, offering some relief for Americans who have suffered through the steepest price hikes in four decades.” The same day Fox News posted “BREAKING: Inflation rises faster than expected in January as high prices persist.”

While these are seemingly opposite statements, both can be true at the same time. More importantly, both of these outlets are manipulating their audience.

People like their own opinions and want those opinions verified by others. This is what social media has done to news: You read the post, see your opinion is valid, and then move on to the next clickbait (confirmation bias). More importantly, both of these tweets are true because one is based on an estimate, and one is based on actual numbers.

Looking at CNN, while their post on X seems positive, their business headline is a little less positive, “Inflation cooled last month, but some price hikes continue to cause pain.” The change from tweet to headline is striking. One says Americans are getting inflation relief, the other says inflation continuing to cause pain. In today’s world of “Read the headline and move on,” this is why people feel CNN lies. Its post is in conflict with the headline— even though both are true statements.

It’s not until you read the article that people can see how this is possible. The outlet notes overall inflation did cool when comparing January 2023 (6.4%) to January 2024 (3.1%). Four sentences into the article it says, “CPI rose by 0.3% in January.” It goes on to break down why inflation is still high and causing pain in the pockets of Americans. Although the X post is factually correct, people on the right side of the political spectrum feel CNN is untrue because they see the inflation problem in their bank account.

Meanwhile, the Fox News X post and Fox Business headline are identical, “Inflation rises faster than expected in January as high prices persist.” However, the keyword here is “expected.” Inflation did cool year-over-year. However, because Fox is comparing the January 2024 number to what experts expected the number to be, what they have posted is factually correct. This nuance is sometimes lost on readers.

The article does not mention inflation is down year-over-year. However, nine sentences into the article, the business outlet says, “Inflation has fallen considerably from a peak of 9.1%.” The nuance of “expected” combined with the lack of mentioning year-over-year inflation is down is why the left side of the political spectrum believes Fox lies.

Let’s be clear, neither CNN nor Fox News have lied (on this one specific topic). They both chose to present the same data differently. It also needs to be noted, CNN and Fox News are not the only outlets that do this. They all do. Playing with numbers and technicalities is a function of what the media does today. Since the average person just reads the headline, viewers will likely move on if it confirms their own bias. The problem is twofold.

  • Facts are no longer direct but skewed to fit a narrative.
  • Some viewers accept headlines and posts without diving deeper into the article.

We have been trained to share a headline without reading the article. We’ve known this since 2016 when Columbia University and the French National Institute found 59% of shared social media links were never read. We’ve gone from headlines selling newspapers, forcing people to read the articles, to headlines being shared on social media, but people won’t read the articles.

This is only a small part of why The Messenger failed: neutrality. The sentiment of unbiased news was well-intentioned. However, America has lacked unbiased news since 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Many on the left believe this has helped right-leaning outlets. This is false. Not only has it benefited both sides of the aisle, it can be argued the progressives have benefited more than the conservatives (but that is a different article for a different day).

When news outlets collide, the American public loses. Not because we lack news, but because we lack the ability to read the full scope of the issues in one place. Outlets are not forced to present all sides of the political argument or present the entirety of data sets. Additionally, news is not being fully read. Headlines are now king. Shares, clicks, and likes keep the lights on in newsrooms. Most importantly, facts are now nuanced. This forces debate instead of continuity and cohesion.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

Does Dealing With Criticism Ever Get Easier?

Engage in the content of the criticism and ignore the rest – or at least take the high road. If that gets difficult, end the conversation.

Published

on

A photo of the word Truth written on a typewriter

Thick skin. If you work in media, you gotta have it. If you don’t, you either won’t last or you won’t sleep – or both.

Even if you are neutral politically, super nice, and in it for all the right reasons, there always will be people who criticize you, and some will even make it personal.

Having “thick skin” is a cliché I’ve been thinking about and dealing with for years. I find it fascinating that, somehow, I am way more sensitive at home than I am at work – and by at work, I mean on the air for hours every day.

Even the angriest of listeners are engaging, and engagement is what I want. Sometimes, it can throw a show off-balance, but if handled properly, it should never fully derail you.

Over the years, I have modified my professional behavior, perspective, and attitude, yet my foundational approach has not changed. It began with my first full-time television job when a journalist/mentor of mine told me not to ever act interested in ratings. Rather, he said, focus on my performance and content — the rest would take care of itself.

In my first two anchor/host jobs, it worked wonderfully. I immersed myself in the job, and the ratings were strong. I thought it was a mandate to always take this approach, although in retrospect, I was probably more lucky than good. Regardless, following that mantra actually allowed me to learn my craft and not be overly aware that ratings mattered.

Ignorance was journalistic bliss.

Flash forward to 2024 and it all seems rather naïve, but I think the approach really works well with criticism, too, whether it be on social media, through phone calls or even with fellow hosts.

Just a quick note on nuance: Look at the sentence four paragraphs above – don’t act interested. Looking back at the guidance given by my mentor, his point also seemed to be that even if you are laser-focused on how a show is rating, don’t make it a major topic of conversation, and don’t let people think it defines you as a broadcaster and journalist.

All of it may seem like advice from Fantasyland, but in an indirect way, this approach also makes me less vulnerable to criticism. I simply don’t focus on it too much, and over time, it stopped bothering me even if I did focus on it. Make sense?

Of course, it’s not as if I like it when a listener rips me or the show, either directly or on social media; but I never engage emotionally, and if I do respond in any way, it’s usually content-focused.

That’s the key.

Engage in the content of the criticism and ignore the rest – or at least take the high road. If that gets difficult, end the conversation.

You have the conch. Never forget that.

Ultimately, you’ll feel better, especially knowing you did not take the bait and handled it professionally – no need to create any more tension than is already out in the media eether.

That brings me to the moment a host of a show on my station was sharply critical of an interview I had done, saying it was soft, and not holding the guest (a sitting U.S. Senator) accountable enough.

Specific questions were put forth that absolutely should have been asked, according to the host, and honestly, it was used as a chest puffer for that person to show why certain guests were scared to come on that later show.

And … I thought it was great.

Great?

Well, maybe not great, but I actually had no problem with it. First and foremost, they were talking about it, which is good. When I can provide that kind of grist, it’s good radio. It wasn’t always easy to listen to — I was still in the office doing some booking — but for some reason, it did not bother me. This from a guy who gets a one-second side eye from my wife of 20 years, and I think our marriage is in trouble.

In the end, a few of the criticisms were helpful, believe it or not: One or two of the suggested questions put forth on the later show should have been asked.

It’s all part of the balance I seek to create a place where members of both political parties feel comfortable coming on our network. I always reserve the right to ask difficult questions, and I do ask them (apparently not enough for some), but I also try and be balanced and manage relationships.

It’s delicate, and sometimes, elicits criticism – sometimes deserved. Meanwhile, I just focus on the content, naïve as that may be.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

CBS Mornings Scores Big Post-Super Ratings Win

CBS Mornings became the most-watched program from 7-9 a.m. in total viewers for just the second time ever for a CBS morning news show.

Doug Pucci

Published

on

A photo of the CBS Mornings logo

The historic ratings milestones continue for CBS as a result of Super Bowl LVIII.

Less than nine hours following what turned out to be the most-watched telecast in U.S. TV history to date (120.25 million of the near-124 million watching Super Bowl LVIII did so on CBS), CBS Mornings became the most-watched program from 7-9 a.m. in total viewers for just the second time ever for a CBS morning news show.

For the Monday, Feb. 12 edition of CBS Mornings, which featured co-host Nate Burleson from Las Vegas, the site of Super Bowl LVIII, and a visit from Jon Stewart in New York to promote his Daily Show return (which generated great ratings milestones of its own later that night), it delivered 2.9 million total viewers including 654,000 within the key 25-54 demographic, according to Nielsen Media Research. It marked its best total audience and demo figures since Feb. 4, 2022.

CBS Mornings topped ABC’s Good Morning America, the usual morning news viewer leader, by a mere 7,000 viewers; it also outdrew NBC’s Today (2.86 million) by 49,000 viewers.

CBS also bested ABC in A25-54 by +103,000; the sixth time CBS Mornings has led over Good Morning America this season based on the key demo.

This was not the first time a morning show benefited from a halo effect of what the network had aired the night prior. Mar. 8, 2021, was the first time CBS won in the morning. It was the day after Oprah Winfrey’s primetime interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry had aired which drew 17.1 million viewers for CBS. The Mar. 8, 2021 edition of CBS This Morning featured an exclusive interview with Winfrey and the premiere of never-before-seen clips from the Meghan and Prince Harry discussion, had delivered 4.793 million viewers with 1.026 million of them in the 25-54 demographic.

The program changed its title to CBS Mornings in September 2021.

For this 2023-24 season, CBS Mornings has the smallest deficit margin in viewers with ABC’s Good Morning America since the 2017-18 season and the tightest margin in A25-54 ever.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement

Upcoming Events

BNM Writers

Copyright © 2024 Barrett Media.