Says who?

Says who?

: Glenn Reynolds says Howard Stern is dissing Catherine Seipp. But the truth is, Seipp dissed Stern’s audience.

Miller had wondered if the anti-Bush tirade Stern’s been on lately might affect the election, and I suggested that the radio shock jock’s core 18-to-34-year-old demographic aren’t all that likely to get to the polls anyway. I mean, how many of these guys can even get off the couch?

“That moron is Cathy Sepp,” Stern growled, in surprisingly grim and angry tones, after playing the Miller audio clip. (No one can ever pronounce my name.) “Trust me, honey, they do get off the couch.”

Well, that was moronic. I’d say the number of decouched Stern listneners beats the audience of the effing National Review by, oh, 100,000 to 1.

  • http://cathyseipp.journalspace.com Cathy Seipp

    I’m not getting into a dissing contest with Howard Stern, but…
    Is his audience really in the billions?

  • Crid

    I’d wager several grand that more NR readers vote than do Stern listeners… And that you’d be happier with the ballots of the former than the latter.
    Jeff, wake up: Stern is in the Stern business, he doesn’t give a flying fuck about anyone else’s rights of expression. People who are concerned about 1st amendment issues can find much better mine canaries. Look at the education business. Or criminal law. Or freaking Wall Street. There are plenty of people who can be blessed by your sensitivity on this issue. Why you’d piss it away on one of histories most successful broadcasters –a man who’s earned his millions discussing what fingers smell like after sex with a negress– is a continuing mystery.

  • Catherine

    Jeff – one question: Are you in love with HS? Even before the FCC thing, you would go on and on about him.
    I know Stern likes to credit himself with getting Whitman and Pataki in, but in both cases, it was a fed up electorate. The guy with the hair in NJ raised taxes all over and the economy sucked and Cuomo was a tired bag and people up state in particular were sick of him. SO give me a break.
    Frankly, I was a Stern daily listener until it became a boring monologue of how oppressed he is. Life is just so hard! I just play CD’s in the am now.

  • Elizabeth

    I have to agree with the other posters. I really don’t understand your idolatry of Howard Stern. Yes, I get the overriding point about free speech and the First Amendment, but why you get so inflamed whenever anyone criticizes the HS program and his schtick is a mystery. The guy is disgusting.

  • A_Reader

    Jeff,
    I 100% support your stand on Stern. You are right on the underlying issue. However, it would be nice for you to at least acknowledge that he is self-promoting blowhard who would take whatever position gave him increased ratings and not, as sometimes you make it sound, a holy mix of Martin Luther King/Washington/Lincoln/Jesus.

  • Mike

    A_reader, the same thing has been noted before in many a comment thread to Jeff. But he is having none of it, he has blind faith in Howard.
    Jeff, your intentions in regards to censorship are admirable, but your devotion to Stern is misguided. And I would tend to agree with the other posters here that everyone who reads the National Review votes, while those who listen to Howard and actually are persuaded by his arguments are minimal. I doubt it would be much of a contest if you put the numbers side by side, NR readers would dominate.

  • Angus Jung

    Jarvis vs. Seipp? This could rock the blogosphere to its very foundations.

  • KMK

    I saw the Miller episode and it was kind of off-the-cuff the way the comment came out and someone else on the panel also said “Do they [Stern fans] vote.” I laughed, it was funny. She could be right half the country doesn’t vote. She’s got the right age bracket although I doubt they are all Stern fans.
    Seipp went to bat for Sandra Tsing Loh when she got fired and I thought the “no Loh, no dough” in the KCRW fund drive return envelopes was brilliant. But didn’t Seipp also say something like this – “we shouldn’t have a constitutional right to say f* on television or the radio, because once we let that happen only the strongest and loudest get to speak. The entire world becomes like Times Square, pre-Guilliani and I don’t think that is freedom” – (have I remembered it correctly).

  • http://tvh.rjwest.com HH

    Oh yeah, a show that specializes in T&A has more politically active people than a political magazine… come on, Jeff, you’re better than this.

  • Duh

    *Buzzer*
    Sorry, Jeff, wrong answer. My sad social circle includes a highly disproportionate ratio of Stern fans, and I can tell you categorically that 0% of them will ever vote, short of a referendum to legalize pot. Also, very few of them take Stern’s drama about impending censure seriously, since this isn’t the first, or even second time, he’s gone through the routine.

  • http://leatherpenguin.com/MT TC-LeatherPenguin

    Angus: “This could rock the blogosphere to its very foundations.”
    Don’t get out much, do ya?

  • D.Mynack

    Jeez, Jeff, could you get Stern’s c*ck out of your mouth long enough to realize that Seipp was making an off-the-cuff remark that while a bit flippant, is in fact empirically supported by the, oh, last billion elections or so. Young men in the ange range of 18 (especially) to 34(less so) do not turn out for elections in high numbers, period, regardless of what your messiah Stern wishes to happen. If you are going to be as onion-skinned as Stern is about taking criticism, then you only undermine what has been a pretty compelling free-speech argument up until, well, this post. Lighten up, Jarvis.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Stern has 8,500,000 listeners per week (more, cume, in a month).
    Cathy’s magazine has 160,000 readers.
    And you are all, starting with Cathy, making a big mistake thinking that Stern show listeners live Stern show lives and are now citizens equal with each of you.
    You’re snobs.
    And I hate snobs.

  • Angus Jung

    “Don’t get out much, do ya?”
    Can’t recognize irony, can ya?

  • Crid

    > You’re snobs.
    Jeff, that’s frogwash. The example of the Stern discussing smell of a black woman’s fingers (via Reynolds) conveys precisely the opposite of snobbery. Stern’s critics want him to recognize to address ALL lives with a minimal standard of respect and decency. He could do it, but he wouldn’t be able to make any money through the ether (OUR ether) if he did.
    > making a big mistake thinking that Stern show
    > listeners live Stern show lives and are now
    > citizens equal with each of you.
    What on Earth are you trying to say?

  • shark

    Well, that was moronic. I’d say the number of decouched Stern listneners beats the audience of the effing National Review by, oh, 100,000 to 1
    Yeah, but how about literate members? I’d bet NR has Stern beat there :)

  • shark

    And you are all, starting with Cathy, making a big mistake thinking that Stern show listeners live Stern show lives
    Um….no. HOWARD STERN HIMSELF makes that assertion, what with his big and bold talk that his listeners will tip the election to Kerry to support him.
    In fact, YOU made the same point several times.
    And if being a snob means I feel I’m a better and more informed voter than some slackjaw kid who just got his marching orders from the girl in the Rock the Vote booth….well, I’ll be a snob then!

  • http://www.rustang.net/~ebarrett Eric Barrett

    How about some numbers?
    36% of voters aged 18-24 vote. This is the lowest percentage of any eligible age group. I’ll be conservative and use this number for the entirety of Stern’s listeners, even though a large percentage is surely over the age of 24.
    I’ve no idea what the average age range of National Review readers is, but let’s be conservative and pick 55-64, which has the second highest voting rate of any age group, at 70%. (The highest is 65-74, but that seems a bit old to me. In any case, they only vote at a rate of 72%.)
    Now, given the numbers Mr. Jarvis posted above, and disregarding invective rhetoric about the intelligence of Stern fans, this means that approximately 3,000,000 Stern fans will vote. If only 5% (my assumption) are former Bush-committed voters influenced by Stern, that’s 153,000 who will vote against Bush in the election who would not have otherwise. That’s the size of the entire National Review readership!
    But even if my assumption above is completely bogus, we’re talking 3,000,000 voting Stern listeners to 112,000 voting NR readers. And (warning: another assumption of mine here) given the political spectrum of NR is fairly fixed (i.e. much of it is “preaching to the converted”), whereas Stern has fans all across the political spectrum, the NR has even less influence relative to Stern.
    All figures taken from the US Census Bureau, “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2000″ (Adobe PDF, page 6, table B).

  • Mike

    Great post, Jeff. You’re right on with this one.