Howard Stern's "public parts:" a semiotic analysis

by Sandra Gavard

Graduate Program in Communications
McGill University
Winter 1997

Discourse Analysis: Approaches to the study of popular culture
Professor Berkeley Kaite

"Puisque les media vous font toujours dire l'inverse de ce qu'on dit,
il faudrait avoir le courage de dire toujours l'inverse de ce qu'on pense." — Jean Baudrillard, (Cool Memories II, 1990: 257)

"The standard Howard Stern 'story' goes something like this: Foulmouthed pervert shock jock revealed to be smart, mild-mannered family man who meditates in spare time. But it's not quite that simple. He turns down the volume in person, but it's still Howard: a strangely charismatic mixture of arrogance and self-deprecation. He's also very funny. Spend enough time with him, and the line between man and myth becomes a blur of public performance, private neuroses and jokes about his reputedly undersized weenie."
In Marin, Rick. (1994, February 10) Man or Mouth? The Rolling Stone interview with Howard Stern. Rolling Stone, pp. 30

Writing about Howard Stern can be surprisingly difficult. Unlike other popular superstars such as Madonna, for whom there is no shortage of commentary, Stern has not been, to my knowledge, the subject of any critical evaluation.

Nevertheless, Stern's recent maximum mediated exposure [1], in the context of the release of his movie Private Parts based on his best-selling "autobiography"[2] of the same name, offers the opportunity to analyze the construction of the popular media discourse and the way it shapes our understanding of "Howard Stern."

Before going any further, however, I think it is important to define Stern in terms of stardom since this concept is particularly relevant when it comes to the construction of images and meanings. Some scholars have suggested that we can begin to speak of stardom as such only when the popular interest is extended in terms of a paradigm of "professional life/private life."[3] Moreover, the development that leads personalities to achieve identities which extend beyond their public performances, produces the shift from the "public personality" (known only by work-related conducts) to the star with a public biography and "persona." As Richard Dyer argues it in Stars, there may be a multitude of meanings which become attached to a star.[4]

For Baudrillard, "Journalistes et publicitaires sont des opérateurs mythiques: ils mettent en scène, affabulent l'objet ou l'événement. Ils le 'livrent réinterpreté'- à la limite, ils le construisent délibérément."[5] Kaite, expresses the same concern when she writes: "the popular media construct narratives and publics for them."[6]

Therefore, because "A discourse accessed through any medium becomes personal discourse and contributes to our conception of its 'meaning'," [7] Howard Stern's "public parts": a Semiotic Analysis" proposes to analyze the narrative constructions around Howard Stern's public persona in a Barthesian perspective, it is to say in terms of myths.

I believe that it is particularly relevant to introduce Roland Barthes' concept of the myth in my analysis of Howard Stern since Barthes is particularly interested, not so much in what things mean, but in how things come to have meaning. One of the reasons Barthes is a famous and well-known intellectual figure is his skill in finding, manipulating and exploiting theories and concepts of how things come to mean something for the public. The key text which exemplifies Barthes' interest in the exploitation of semiology (science of the sign) is Myth Today [8] [Le Mythe aujourd'hui]. Myth Today is a retrospectively written method for reading myths. In Myth Today, Barthes manipulates and reworks Saussure's theory of the sign and of signification: "je venais de lire Saussure et j'en retirais la conviction qu'en traitant les 'représentations collectives' comme des systèmes de signes on pouvait espérer sortir de la dénonciation pieuse et rendre compte en détail de la mystification qui transforme la culture petite-bourgeoise en nature universelle." [9] To sum it up, Barthes is interested in the linguistic sign as in the application of linguistics to the non-verbal signs that exist around us in our everyday life. What makes this theory so exciting is the possibility to apply this methodology to the domain of culture defined in its broadest and most inclusive sense.

This paper proposes to apply Barthes' theory to the wholly mediated personality of Howard Stern. It is articulated around four major sections, each one identifying and analyzing the discourse practices in terms of myths the media used to build Stern's public persona (even if a lot of self-promotion and a canny sense of business have played their parts in the construction of this persona). I tried, as long as possible, to refer to those stories in a chronological way in order to emphasize the "constructed" and evolving characteristics of the mediated discourse. The first type of narrative, I would like to discuss in Howard Stern's case, is the one to which I shall refer to as the "Iconography of Howard Stern." Based on Barthes' famous essay "Iconography of the Abbé Pierre" [Iconographie de l'abbé Pierre [10]], I shall try to read "Howard Stern" using the same process Barthes used for the Abbé Pierre. In the section entitled "Shock Jock: the myth of the rebel," I shall demonstrate how the media have embraced and portrayed Stern as a "bad boy" or a "rebel," in the purest tradition of any Marlon Brando wannabe or any Rock'n Roll star for instance. "Revenge of the Nerd: the myth of the American Dream" proposes to examine Stern's personality in relation to what is probably the most commonly used trick when it comes to narrate a celebrity's journey to the top: the myth of the American Dream used as a narrative. Then, I shall analyze the newest facet of Stern's public persona in "Model Husband: the myth of romantic love." Finally, I shall discuss the myth of authenticity which involves all the previous constructed images and refers to the central theme of Stern's honesty. In each section of this paper I shall try to explicit the meanings of apparently neutral objects or discourses and then consider the social and historical conditions they might obscure. Moreover, this paper evokes themes and concepts recurrent to the discourse analysis study, such as private vs. public life, stardom, popularity, discourse, ideology, etc.

Because you may not be familiar with Howard Stern (hard to believe if you have been in North America in the beginning of 1997), I think it is important to define basically who Stern is and what he does. Although Owen Gleiberman gushed that Sten is "The most brilliant -and misunderstood- comic artist in America," in his B+ review of Private Parts in Entertainment Weekly [11], Stern is more well-known for being the outrageous host of the No. 1-rated radio talk show in America. The Howard Stern Show, broadcasted by New York based K-Rock radio station, goes on air on each morning at 6 and does not end so much as run out, signing off sometimes at 10:30, sometimes closer to 11 (his contract permits him to stop when he pleases) and has the logic of a late-night conversation. [12] . "I have always thought that the premise of the show is for a guy to split open his brain and let out pure oral unadulterated thoughts. iow, to let out every thought, I thought that it would be interesting!" [13] First limited to the East Coast, the Howard Stern Show started to be simulcasted out of New York in 1986. In the last 10 years the Howard Stern Show has expanded into different cities covering up to more than two dozens markets. In 1993, Radio & Records, an industry publication, named Howard Stern the most influential air personality of the two previous decades in its twentieth-anniversary issue. [14] The back cover of the paperback edition of Stern's first book, Private Parts says it all: "The fastest -selling autobiography off all time! Howard Stern is the King Of All Media! Books: The #1 New York Times best-seller! The biggest book signing in the history of publishing! Radio: #1-rated talk-how in America! Over 18 million loyal listeners! More FCC fines than any other program in history! Television:Howard new on E! Entertainment Network reaches 26 millions homes! Howard's pay-per-view New-Years' Eve special grossed over $27 million in one night! Films: Private Parts will be soon a major motion picture release!" [15]

Iconography of Howard Stern

One of Barthes' essay in Mythologies is entitled "Iconography of the Abbé Pierre" [Iconographie de l'abbé Pierre [16]]. The abbé Pierre is a French Catholic priest who achieved a certain amount of media attention in the 1950's (as well as in the 1980's and 1990's) for his work with the homeless. What interests me in this essay is how Barthes gets under the surface of abbé Pierre's clothes and in particular his haircut. One would expect such a man to be indifferent to fashion considering his opinion about his appearance. However, far from being neutral or innocent, abbé Pierre's clothes and hairstyle send out all sorts of messages.

In this section of the paper, I would like to read "Howard Stern" in a similar way. I want to show how Stern's clothes, sunglasses and hairstyle are just as rich in connotations and at making fashion statement of sorts as are the Abbé Pierre's clothes and hairstyle.

It is interesting for example to note how often Stern has been described physically in addition to being talked about regarding his radio-show. If Stern is often described in terms of his unusual height (6'5"), the two recurrent parts of his body that come back over and over are his hair (long and curly) and his eyes (blue).

In the Rolling Stone interview he gave before the release of his movie, for instance, Stern is depicted by the journalist as following: "Stern is famously funny-looking--like a cartoon drawn by a 10-year-old. From a distance he's little more than a collection of features: nose, hair, height. He has too much of all three. He is lean, rangy, 6 feet 5 inches, with long arms and long, bony fingers." [17] In 1990 David Wild was writing that "Stern -who has described himself as looking like a cross between Big Bird and Joey Ramone- is a vision in black leather, metalhead tresses and shades" [18] whereas similarly, Rick Marin, who had spent some time with Stern to write a feature for Rolling Stone in 1994, described him as "The Dark Prince of radio [wearing] black jeans, black suede fringe jacket, black shades." [19] Bill Zehme, senior editor for Esquire, gave a more detailed description in "Keeping Up with the Sterns": "[Stern] has remarkable hair (long, dark, thick, lovely sheen) [...] a luminous complexion," and "stands six foot five." [20] So did Owen Gleiberman in his lengthy portrait for Entertainment Weekly: "Long curly hair pulled back into a ponytail, baby blue eyes peering out from behind wire spectacles [...] Look beneath his signature heavy metal mane [...] his eyes are so angelic they could practically be a bar mitzvah boy's." [21]

Even if Stern does not like to say he has an image (he actually says he does not have one) the previously cited example show just the opposite. However, the first detail I would like to look into is Stern's height. Indeed, it is simply fascinating to note how many times it is mentioned in the articles that deal with him. Why do people constantly refer to his height? It is not something that has been used to describe other personalities. To me, mentioning Howard Stern's unusual size tends to suggest that Stern is not only a "freak" on the airwaves, but also one in reality: Stern is in no way a normal, standard American man. Moreover, size is not only mentioned in regard to his height, but also to his (small) endowment. Stern stands out because of his radio show, but also because of his size(s).

However, if physical description seems necessary to introduce Stern to people who do not know him or simply who do not have a clue of what he looks like because he after all hosts a show on radio , it is interesting that most of the description and even pictures emphasize Stern's image of a bad boy, a shock jock or whatever qualifiers have been attached to his name. However, his heavy-metal/hard rock look of earlier times has lead to a more "mainstream" look. Here again, I think that it is important to remember that for practical reasons, it is not necessary for Stern to dress up when he does a radio show, however the fact that his clothes are perfectly plain and not ostensively expensive allow the listener, viewer, or fan to relate to him. Therefore, I would say that Stern's simple, almost working-class clothes connote the qualities of simplicity and normality. For Andersen "Stern [...] is actually very much of an average Joe" [22] and we can see his look as an acknowledgement of what he claims to be all the time: a normal guy with a normal family who just happens to have a job that let him say out loud what everyone thinks but cannot say. Becoming a star has not changed him and he is in no way a sell-out. Stern's fans' loyalty has often been discussed by journalists in regard to Stern's integrity: for David Wild, Stern's openness "has created a genuine sense of intimacy between Stern and his fans. They're one big pissed-off family." [23] Victoria, from the Howard Stern Rules mailing list, represents this feeling when she posts: "[...] Howard is us, we are Howard. He is just a regular guy, who cannot believe he is who he is. He sings that in one of the soundtrack songs." [24]
Stern is popular because he is an alternative to other personalities whose persona may appear more constructed. His audience, according to Andersen, considers him "uniquely honest, commonsensical, funny and reckless at a time when most people on radio and TV seem phony, impersonal, dull, dissembling, hedging" [25] That is Stern's greatest strength: his look and discourse are coherent. Even his wife portrays someone people can relate to: in 1993, Kurt Andersen described her as "the very picture of the cheerful, wholesome middle-American housewife." [26]

Physical appearance, as we have seen it, is something that Stern is deeply concerned about: he even has a personal hairdresser, Ralph Cirella, who in addition to taking care of his hair, dresses him. According to Sheenah Hankin and Richard Wessler who conducted a psychological profile based on Stern's Private Parts, "He is overly concerned about physical appearance, and although he is self-deprecating about his large nose and small penis, he is vain about his hair and other matters of grooming." [27] Indeed, "hair's a big part of my life. For a while I had that layered look, and I looked like Big Bird or something. I don't look good with short hair. I'm very long and lanky, and I have a skinny neck. When I have long hair, you can't tell how skinny my neck is, so I look a little better. Same thing with the dark glasses. I think they make my nose look smaller," he disclosed during a 1994 interview. [28] "Convinced of his own ungainliness, he prefers to obscure his God-given features with dark glasses and long hair, a measure he prescribes for men similarly afflicted. It is however his coif that concerns him most." [29]

This testimony of self-deprecation, one of Stern's favorite pastimes, has the advantage of making his humor more palatable. Stern has always a "good" excuse for behaving the way he does. When he says: "Sometimes, I look in the mirror, and I want to throw up. If I could just be good-looking, it would be so much easier [...] I will never have a lot of self-esteem. I don't feel very good about myself. I don't think I'm an attractive man, No. 1. And looks plays an important part in how I feel about myself. I still have an inferiority complex." [30] Anyone (or almost) can relate to him or at least feel sorry for him. With the help of the media, Stern has been able to propagate the idea that he is miserable and that one should be sorry for him instead of angry at him. His ugliness trauma, to which he is constantly referring, humanizes him.

What I wanted to show in this section is how Howard Stern, cynically or not, manipulates his public image and I would like to make the point that nothing can be exempted from meaning. As Barthes stipulated it, every single object or gesture is susceptible to the imposition of meaning; nothing is resistant to this process. This is especially the case when, like Howard Stern, one is subjected to the attention of the media. We can even take this argument further (and Barthes does it). The media's stress on Howard Stern's self-esteem problem diverts attention from any form of investigation of the causes of the existence and success of a show like his. Howard Stern's media representations sanctify his success -as we will see later- his appearance, his psychological problems and mask out all references to the socioeconomic causes that his radio show implies.

Shock Jock: The Myth of the Rebel

In this second section of the paper I intend to write about the depiction of Howard Stern in the media as a radio rebel, radio bad boy, or shock jock (some of the most commonly used terms to qualify him.) Moreover, I shall try to analyze what social and historical conditions this discourse obscures.

As early as April 2, 1982 a report on raunchy radio presented by NBC Magazine, a prime-time newsmagazine, warned Americans about Stern. The segment featured amongst other radio personalities, Howard Stern and by any measure of journalistic enterprise, then or now, it sounded like an hatchet job: "What you are about to hear is going to shock and disgust you because it's vulgar, often obscene," NBC reporter Douglas Kiker began grimly. "A warning: If there are children in the room, you might not want them to watch this report. It's X-rated radio, barn-yard radio, and there's more and more of it on the air, because the kids love it." [31]

Since then (previous to that Stern's controversy was limited to Washington) the national media have not stopped to present Stern as a "radio bad boy." Richard Stengel in his article "Radio Daze: The FCC tries to clear the air," defined Stern as: "an equal-opportunity offender. With his raucous gibes and racy double entendres, he galls black and white. You name them, Howard Stern has insulted them. Stern's radio talk show, broadcast in New York City and Philadelphia weekdays from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., is perhaps the most scabrous of a genre that has come to be known as raunch radio." [32] David Wild, in an article for a June 1990 issue of Rolling Stone, entitled "Who is Howard Stern and why is he saying all those terrible things on the radio?" referred to Stern's reputation in the following terms "perhaps the most famous-and infamous-man on radio today," "his reputation as a world-class vulgarian," "he's the Bad Boy of Radio, the King of the Shock Jocks," "Stern speaks a grubby, cynical vernacular," "Racist! Homophobic! Juvenile! Tasteless! Morally reprehensible! These are words that have been used to describe Stern's brand of humor-sometimes fairly." [33] In "Shock Jock: Howard Stern is shaking up radio-and the FCC-with his raunchy, racist, in-your-face talk, but listeners seem to love it," Time (November 30, 1992) comments on Stern practices: "Stern demeans women, insults blacks, makes fun of the handicapped" and calls him "radio's reigning bad boy." Moreover, the article is scattered with some of Stern's most "offensive" comments of that time [34]. It is funny to note that those comments have been chosen as headings: Stern's comments may be offensive, but it is not a reason to let Time's readers ignore them(!) However, according to the author of the article, what makes Stern's show palatable is Stern's "hyperbolic wit and a disarming undercurrent self-deprecation." Stern "may be radio's biggest egomaniac, but the insecure Long Island kid who had trouble getting girls is never far from the surface." [35]

Howard Stern has assured his place in the pantheon of controversial American personalities, the ones people love to hate, because of his raunchy show, but also thanks to the media. In a November 1993 article published in Time on radio's "Big Mouths," Kurt Andersen reports on Howard Stern's and Rush Limbaugh's success in the publishing business. This article is the occasion to draw a physical and professional portrait of both men. On Stern's physical appearance, Andersen writes: "[Stern] is a skinny, 6-ft.5-in. longhair who wears jeans, dark glasses and five earrings, a teetotaler who eats no red meat and whose radio shows and book inevitably include sketches of Butthead, uncensored rap raps." Andersen then describes Stern on a professional level as "a radio-vérité comedian who is an odd fin-de-siècle hybrid of Joe Pyne, Woody Allen and Lenny Bruce and who rambles on maniacally about himself, show business and the world in general, variously appealing and exhilarating." [36]

Clearly, Stern has been categorized as a renegade in the early stage of his career. However, it is interesting to notice that the promotion of the movie has changed this. Assuring revenues for the movie implied Stern was more appealing to, or at least as mainstream as the general public. Once again the media (which is basically one big family owned by the same people anyway) have shown their skill at reverting one's image. Ciao Shock Jock, welcome to the new Howard, new face of Hollywood (and more, as we will see in the next sections of this paper).

Basically, all the articles published on Stern for the release of his movie Private Parts did publicize his radio rebel side, almost as Stern's trademark. Owen Gleiberman reminds the reader of Stern's outrageous labels: "Howard Stern--satirical Antichrist; scourge of the FCC; Lenny Bruce of the information age; man who made America safe for butt bongo, small penises, and Fartman; comic genius.", before safely introducing Stern's hidden face: "On the set, he has a warmth and graciousness that can't be faked [...] he seems to revel in being as polite and other directed off the air as he is reckless on." [37] Matt Goldberg, in an article for the March 1997 issue of Premiere, portrays Stern as "the outrageous, cantankerous, and often lewd but just as often hilarious personality we hear on the air" [38] and if Movieline uses Stern's sex image for its "More Sex than Usual" issue, there is clearly an effort to show and emphasize other aspects of Stern's persona. Even if some of the "radio rebel" mythology persists (more as an anchor to Stern's image de marque), authors of those articles stress out the pleasant sides of Stern. "Our previous conversations, including a lengthy interview in his office, had been remarkably threat- and insult-free, even thoughtful and congenial," reports Goldberg. For Martha Frankel, "Howard Stern doesn't care if you know his penis is small, but he is not so sure he wants you to know that is brain is big." [39] This comment is particularly interesting since it suggests that Stern is not the idiot or the cretin he previously appeared to be. In a survey conducted by Time in 1993 for example, only 49% of the interviewees applied the description "intelligent" to Howard Stern (lowest rate amongst all the descriptions that had been provided for the survey.) [40]

It is particularly striking that one of the most frequent ways Stern is described is in a binary opposition: good versus bad. "Love him or hate him, you can't ignore him," is written on the back of Paul Colford's paperback book. The web site designed by Paramount for his movie Private Parts plays strongly on this dichotomy: once you entered the site, you chose your side [41]: "Howard rules" or "Howard sucks." Stern is portrayed as the "most controversial on-air personality" and controversy implies that you have to have as many people that hate (to love) you or love (to hate) you. Moreover, there has been a trend to distinguish the "on-air Howard" from the "off-the-air Howard." Some suggesting that his show is "clearly a performance," whereas he does not want to admit it, arguing that his radio persona is really who he is.

However, what I would like to demonstrate is the powerful image of the rebel mythology in America. I would suggest that if that image is so often used it is because it is central to the belief that if the rebel exists, then protesting exists, and if protesting exists, than democracy, freedom of speech and of expression exist too. The rebel is a modern hero, he is like a slap in the face: its existence itself is a testimony against the reigning hypocrisy, a fight against the establishment (in the case of Stern the FCC which keeps on fining him for broadcasting indecent material). The rebel is the proof that not everything in our society is corrupted, as we tend to believe it, that there are people who "have the guts" to denunciate what is going wrong. Commonly the rebel has been associated with a certain form of authenticity and integrity. However the fact that the image of the rebel is a construction of the media, tends to obscure one's real motivations to do something a certain way. Moreover, the tendency that media have to label personalities is an easy way to skim through someone's persona, ignoring more complex patterns.

The media have not really advertised the Howard Stern who writes"I always resented the label of 'shock jock' that the press came up with for me, because I never intentionally set out to shock anybody. What I intentionally set out was to do was to talk just as I talk off the air, to talk the way guys talk sitting around a bar?" [42] or the one who discloses: "I'm no shock jock. I'm not some desperate, out-of-control loser trying to outrage people to get ratings. And I'm not just another pitiful, middle-aged asshole jock trying to be a 'bad boy' on the air. That's not what my show is all about. What the show's about is me trying to be funny, trying to tell the truth and trying to make a living." [43]

Revenge of the Nerd: The Myth of the American Dream
(or is it the American Nightmare?)

It is tempting to discuss Howard Stern in terms of the myth of the American Dream.

Indeed, Howard Stern's journey to the top, as he chose to tell it in both his books and his first movie, can be basically summed up as a testimony of one's perseverance to succeed and does illustrate some aspects of this myth fundamental to the American nation.

At the core of to this American dream is the belief that anyone in America, with enough hard work and ingenuity, can make something of oneself and become rich. This dream and this philosophy "describes the unique opportunity the United States provides every American, regardless of who your parents are or what your ethnic heritage might be. It means that, in America, you are judged only by your God-given talent and the hard work you are willing to devote to achieve your goals." [44] In many ways Stern has achieved this dream: he conquered the medium through perseverance and hard work and it made him a very wealthy man. However, what Stern says about himself in his books, in his movie and even on his radio-show, is one thing whereas what the media say is another. Yet, both versions have merged since the media have chosen to highlight this side of Stern's persona. This process is particularly striking in the Biography that the Art&Entertainment channel dedicated to Howard Stern, in which the narrator focuses on Stern's dream as a child to become a deejay and conquer New York City. His rise from deejay insignificance to shock-jock triumph can clearly be read as a model of perseverance and integrity.

The standard Howard Stern story can be summed up in a couple of points, or bits: Howard Stern was a nice Jewish kid who grew up on suburban Long Island. He had a trouble childhood (he was supposedly raised "like a veal" and called a "moron" by his father). He stumbled through college and faithfully stood by Alison, his devoted wife of nearly 19 years. His radio career was for long an anarchic parallel universe in which he, the Nice Guy, wreaked his vengeance on the world. Blasting away at all comers, including his bosses at New York's WNBC Radio, he became the renegade triumphant, a kamikaze hipster who used -and uses- his words like weapons. [45]

However, if there is a standard Howard story, the Howard Stern story is also by a lot of means a standard (at least in the world of Hollywood biographical movies). Hollywood has very early understood the fascination success stories have on the American public, developing movies which portray the journey to the top of normal people (the only way the audience can relate to the hero). One particular type of narrative has been especially accepted as the basis for the standard success story, which is the story I shall refer to as the "cursed genius" type. This particular way to approach the telling of one's legend has come to my mind thanks to two recent movies which have portrayed their heroes this way: Shine by the Australian filmmaker Scott Hicks which tells the story of virtuoso pianist David Helfgott and Basquiat by the American painter Julian Schnabel which relates artist-painter Jean-Michel Basquiat's life. Nevertheless, this cursed genius path has been deeply rooted in American conception of stardom: it has been the basis for the construction of myths from Marilyn Monroe to James Dean, from Janis Joplin to Jim Morrison, from Oscar Welles to Oscar Wilde and I think that this way of telling a story may have some relevancy in term of Stern's constructed legend.

There are four major aspects to the standard cursed genius story: First the cursed genius had generally a difficult childhood: lonely, bad-looking, life is tough for him. Seems familiar to what we know of Stern's childhood... Secondly, the "cursed genius" is misunderstood and unappreciated: whatever he does, he is criticized. Thirdly, the cursed genius has existential problems, he is not happy, he is tormented and feels miserable. Finally, the cursed genius ends badly: ideally the cursed genius's dies from non-natural death, preferably young, which allows the media to construct a posthumous legend. This legend construction: from nothingness to stardom and finally to decay has been extremely often exploited in the media discourse. Early pieces on Howard Stern have used this pattern: the February 10, 1994 Rolling Stone's cover was entitled "Revenge of the Nerd," [46] and almost three years later, the same magazine featured an interview with Stern and introduced him as "the insecure homeboy with a small penis who just wants to be liked." [47]

The American public loves those success stories, because they are the core of their nation. The basis of the American society is sustained by the belief that if you want you can do it. It is the basis of the capitalist society.

Dealing with Stern's actuality, that it is to say the release of his movie, it is no surprise that Stern has been constantly comparing his movie to a "Rocky story." What movie is more an ode to the American dream, an apology of the myth of the self-made man? "I'd compare it to a Rocky story. It's a guy beating the odds, someone who's told by his father he's an idiot. He finally gets into radio, and all the people he works with think he's out of his mind in what he wants to do. None of the management people or the so-called radio experts got it. Anybody who has a dream of succeeding, and is fought by management, will understand it." It is obvious that "one of the message he apparently would like to transmit to the audience is to follow their dream." [48] However, this theme had been understood and used by Stern long ago in Miss America where Stern entitled one of the chapter "The Path of the Warrior: The Rocky Road to National Radio Success." [49]

Another aspect implied by the myth of the American dream is the idea that achieving one's dream is not easy, one has to struggle to get to one's goal. Once again this aspect is not neglected by Stern who gladly emphasized the hard times he had to go through when working at WNBC. In the fifth chapter of Private Parts, entitled "Mein Kampf - 'My struggle'" [50], Stern tells the reader how he became the king of radio and in the following chapter he relates his struggle with his general manager at WNBC. The now almost mythological conflict that opposed Stern to Kevin Metheny, program manager at that time, who he called Pig Virus, is shown in the movie with the character of Pig Vomit (the name as been changed to, supposedly, represent radio management). The scenes of conflict are highly loaded since they recall a lot of the conflict between the protagonists in M*A*S*H for example, as well as they appeal to the viewer, who can easily identify with Stern (Popular theme of "everyone hates his/her boss.)

Howard Stern has created his own mythology using the media (especially those he can totally control like books and movies), and here I would like to introduce Barthes' ideas about catch in Mythologies. I would like to make an analogy between catch as described by Barthes in his first chapter and Howard Stern. Barthes states that it has been often stated in America, the catch stands for a mythological fight between Bad and Good. I think that we can draw the analogy here saying that the conflict which opposes Stern to the FCC can also be interpreted as a mythological fight between the government and Stern (something that Stern has suggested gladly). And what the public, the audience, wants to find in the confrontation is the progressive building of an eminently moral image: the one of the "parfait salaud," the image of the bad boy that Stern has been labeled with.

Stern is in my opinion, a perfect example of the American dream, and has used it a lot even before the movie came out. Indeed, he often referred to his failures as a teenager (when he "couldn't get laid") or his ugliness as we have seen in the first section of this paper. However, he finally achieved professional and financial success becoming the King Of All Media.

The "king of all media" turn of phrase has a very interesting story and can appear as a joke about our mediated society. The origin of this name is apparently a goof based on the fact that Michael Jackson started to call himself and made media call him "the king of pop." According to Kevin Renzulli, author of the King Of All Media Interactive Newsletter on the web, who answered my question on the origin of that name: "King Of All Media - was a goof on the fact that Michael Jackson was called the king of pop. so howard and his writer jackie martling were tossing names around when the king of all media stuck. Howard had been successful on TV, radio and books." [51]

In an interview with Conan O'Brien on NBC, Stern was asked about this title and confirmed this version [52]. It is however interesting to notice that in the case of Stern, journalists, if they gladly use this title in their features on Stern, still emphasize the "self-processed" or "self-proclaimed" factor of this title as if they could not still totally legalize it. Something that has not be done with Michael Jackson's "King of Pop" or the Rolling Stones' "world greatest rock'n roll band..." As Stern pointed it out, very few actually remember where such a designation comes from, and the most important is the fact that it is used. The meaning conveyed is, in our mediated society, more important than the way in which you actually got it.

Nevertheless, the "self-proclaimed 'King of All Media'" actually justified his title in early March 1997: his movie Private Parts released March 7th topped number one at the box office [53] generating 14,6 millions gross income in its first week of exploitation, whereas the movie soundtrack was number one at the billboard 200. [54]

The material success Stern achieved has been largely advertised in the media even before that: In October 24, 1993, The New York Times devoted an article to Stern entitled: "He Keeps Giving New Meaning to Gross Revenue." [55] However and more recently, CNN Financial Network, added money figures to those claims, calling Stern "the king of cash flow:" "Stern's radio show is heard in fewer than three dozen markets, yet it pulls in more than $20 million a year. Books by the raunchy radio host ride best seller lists for months. His pay-per-view spectacular on cable TV grossed more than $16 million, making it the biggest non-sports event ever. Stern himself made an estimated $17 million last year, but this year should dwarf that." [56]

As Biography said it to end its program on Howard Stern: "Not bad for an awkward kid from Long Island."

I think that it is not surprising to see this recuperation of the American Dream in the media discourse. As I said earlier, the myth of the self-made-man is core to the American society and culture and people believe in it. It is the "role" of the media to feed people with stories that made them dream and believe that anything is possible. This type of propaganda works especially well since Stern was a recognized loser, the typical "geek" when he was young. I think that he is probably more efficient as a product of the American Dream than someone who is good-looking, for example. Moreover, the fact that he is a man is very important: a woman who makes it to the top can always be suspected of having "slept her way there."

Model Husband: The Myth of Romantic Love

"For someone whose outlook can modestly be described as search-and-destroy, Howard Stern lives what may be the most grounded existence of any celebrity in America. When he isn't playing footsie with strippers or trolling after tales of lesbian conquest, his act feeds on the mundane confessional details of his life with Alison, 42, and their three daughters, Emily, 13, Debra, 10, and Ashley, 4. His adolescent fixation on extracurricular sex fantasies seems to emerge directly from the fact that he's too devoted to Alison and his family ever to act on them." [57] In many ways this extract of Owen Gleiberman's feature on Howard Stern, published in Entertainment Weekly as part of the promotion for his movie, is typical of the new (more mainstream) image Stern and the media have tried to impose to the public. First portrayed as "shock jock," Stern is now almost the symbol of the model husband, a role model for the America of dysfunctional families in search of "family values." This shift (which is not a real one since Stern has always highly publicized his off-the-air life) is interesting because it tells us a lot about the importance of the marriage in American society.

Romantic love has been the subject of various discussions conducted by philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists, etc. However, what is interesting is to grasp the mythological virtue it has in Stern's case. In Conjugales, Barthes describes the mythological virtue of the marriage. [58] If none of the three weddings he describes can be used à la lettre to Stern, they provide still some interesting interpretation. The second example Barthes provides us with is actually closer to the Sterns: the love marriage [mariage d'amour]. The one that Barthes refers to as "love-stronger-than-success" carries the morality of the social status quo.

Stern likes to repeat over and over that he has been married faithfully for over twenty years to the same woman, Alison Berns, whom he met at Boston University when he was a "nobody:" "I kid around about my wife on the air...but who is this woman that was willing to marry a guy who had no success, was making $96 a week, really had nothing going on in his life...and was willing to really give of herself and travel the country with me? She's either one of the great romantics or completely crazy. It's a fantastic love story. The idea that Alison fell in love with me and then stayed with me through the failure and then put up with me through the success is ridiculous. This whole thing, my success, our life together, is all about beating the odds." [59] This love story, "a real love story" as Stern pointed out several times, which is the romantic aspect of the movie, has been hugely promoted in order to appeal to people who might not be Stern's fans in the first place. For movie critics, it is Stern's relationship with Alison that brings a very unexpected level to the film. "Whereas most of his fans -- and detractors -- think of him as a wild man and out of control, it is that core relationship with his wife that drives his life." [60]

In order to demonstrate to what extent the media have emphasized the romantic aspect of the movie, I have selected quotes from different reviews of the movie:
"What does it say, content-wise? Mostly that Howard loves his wife and ain't such a bad guy." [61]
"This has to be considered a love story: Howard Stern says, 'I love you, Alison' even more often than 'penis.' Now he also wants to be How Nice. Stern hopes to be 'understood'--as a caring husband, a faithful friend, a mensch for all seasons." [62] "But the movie shows him in a surprisingly earnest, at times sweet light; indeed, a couple of romantic scenes are so borderline sappy one wonders if Stern fears he has left himself open to being laughed at, as opposed to with (a humorist's worst nightmare)" [63] "The movie, by con or charm, means to reshape our perceptions of the media storm trooper. What can I tell you? It works. Private Parts is a firecracker with a surprising human touch... Off the air, he is a reclusive, doting husband and dad." [64] Finally, Private Parts is according to Zehme, senior writer for Esquire, "considered by many to be one man's love letter to his wife." [65]

Howard Stern's discourse always comes to the same end: he is a good father and a devoted husband who does not cheat on his wife. Stern has commented often on his wife and their relationship in Private Parts: "Meeting a beautiful, normal girl like Alison was the most incredible highlight of my miserable life." [66] "Within a week after our relationship began, I knew I was going to marry her. [...] And it was true. Every time I reject another Penthouse pet, that vision gets sharper and truer." [67] "Alison has stuck with me through thick and thin, has never cared about material things or put pressure on me, and loved me even before I had a radio show." [68]

Howard Stern is probably one of the few American stars who enjoys the reputation of being both a rebel and a devoted, faithful husband. Judith Regan, editor of Stern's books, when interviewed as part of Howard Stern's Biography, a popular program aired on Art and Entertainment, said: "I asked him one day, 'Howard you are the only forty-whatever-year-old guy that I know, whose been married as long as you have who has never cheated on his wife. How do you do that? How does that happen?' He said, 'You know, my mother would kill me. My mother told me she would come here, she would take Alison and the kids and I would lose everything.' And he would never run that risk."

As if it was not enough, on February 10, 1997, Romance Classics, a 24-hour, commercial-free entertainment service devoted entirely to romance, announced Howard and Alison Stern as its pick for the most romantic couple of 1997. "The selection was made against the following criteria: strength and longevity of the relationship; outstanding demonstration of dedication to the relationship; clear and utter devotion between partners; and the best chance for success in the future." [69] According to the show executives, Howard and Alison beat out other romantic couples for the following reasons:
"In the face of endless temptation, Howard's commitment to Alison has never wavered.
In spite of his shocking public persona, Alison's love for Howard has remained true.
Howard's frequent public declarations of his love for Alison.
Alison's support of Howard throughout the many phases of his career.
Howard and Alison Stern were college sweethearts.
They have been married for 18 years, and faithful to one another for over 20 years. The couple has three children."

Kate McEnroe, president of Romance Classics, said: "If you've listened to Howard's show, watched him on E! or read his books, you have discovered a side of him that is truly romantic. It demonstrates that romance doesn't always come bundled in hearts and flowers." [70]

On the cover of April 1997 Esquire, the chosen title was "Howard Stern, model husband."

For Howard Stern his wife plays a very important in the way itself that it helps him to promote another side of his persona: the caring and loving husband he is said to be. The article published by Esquire entitled "Keeping Up with the Sterns," offers a very compelling first double-page picture by Andrew Eccles of Stern and his wife sitting at a restaurant table with above them a tapestry.

In this picture the Sterns, sitting side by side at a table of what appears to be a restaurant, look directly at the viewer's eyes. According to Kress and van Leeuwen [71], when represented participants look at the viewer, vectors, formed by participant's eyelines, connect the participant with the viewer. Contact is established, even if it is only on an imaginary level. However, the participant's gaze demands the viewer more than only connect, it actually demands that the viewer enter into some kind of imaginary relation with him or her. The kind of relation is then signified by other means such as the facial expression. In the case of the Sterns the fact that the picture is taken from below and that they do not smile, but rather stare at the viewer, with an air of skepticism intensified by the expression of their thin mouths, suggests that they want the viewer to relate to them, perhaps as an inferior relates to a superior. However, the chosen size of frame (medium close shot which cuts off the subject approximately at the waist) conveys another interesting interpretation: the Sterns are sitting at a restaurant table and you can feel you are sitting at their table, having lunch with them. The forks, knives and glasses in the foreground emphasize this impression as well, whereas the fact that they sit side by side increases it even more (They would not sit side by side on their own.); it introduces an idea of social distance.

Moreover, if we begin to look for connotations and mythology, this picture seems definitely to point towards romance. The signs are these: the flowers, the wine glass, the white table-clot, the restaurant style location, the diamonds she wears. The generally romantic is reinforced by the first part of the caption: "America's sweethearts: Howard and Alison Stern at a favorite Long Island restaurant," whereas the second part of the caption: "Would you believe that this man is not wearing underwear?" appears to reinforce Stern's image of a "bad boy."

Therefore I would say that the general impression conveyed by this picture is an invitation to the Sterns' table, an invitation to share their intimacy. However, we are warned by their air that they are not welcoming you, making you feel both uncomfortable and inferior. The other portion of the double-page is compounded exclusively by the picture of a tapestry which suggests an idea of tradition. The article then goes on about marriage and what emerged was "an inspirational portrait, something akin to the Howard and Alison Stern Marriage Manual, describable only as a glorious testament to enduring love and grim resignation." [72]

The fact that Howard Stern can get away with a lot because he has been faithfully married for almost two decades shows the importance marriage has in the American society. It seems that it can be totally associated a recent trend called "family values." The phrase "family values" has reference to what we believe about the family. It is concerned about our quality of living and how we define quality of living. It basically gets down to what we think is most important, in other words, what we value. It is nonetheless, interesting to note that family values can be tied to religious values. It is not a secret that the Sterns are both Jewish and have been married very traditionally, so I would like to relate family values to Biblical family values since it seems appropriate: Biblical values start with marriage. God created the family in the garden of Eden.
Marriage serves as the linchpin of family stability. That's why Jesus said, "...what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6). Biblical values restrict sexual relationships to marriage. Sexual interaction within marriage is pure and enhances human fulfillment. In any other context, it is to be treated as sinful behavior. "...for God will judge the adulterer and the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4). [73]

However, "in contemporary American culture generally, romantic love [...] has traditionally been seen as properly culminating in marriage." [74] This suggests that America of the 1990s is still looking for some morality. For psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, "the myth of romantic love is a dreadful lie. Perhaps it is a necessary lie that it ensures the survival of the species by its encouragement and seeming validation of the falling-in-love experience that traps us into marriage." [75] Nevertheless, Stern told David Letterman on his show that since he had been portrayed as a devoted husband who does not cheat on his wife, women would come to him and say that they love him for that. Romantic love is a powerful image because we all want to believe that it exists... If someone like Howard Stern can find it, then who could not? Moreover, this devotion to his wife makes him sound totally sincere in whatever else he might do.

Myth of Authenticity

There are good reasons for me to write about the myth of authenticity: Unlike other myths around Stern's persona that are evolving and changing, the myth of authenticity based on Stern's "honesty," has accompanied him throughout his mediated journey.

Stern, as it has been stipulated many times throughout this paper, likes and often states that his success is based on his honesty. Moreover, he has been quoted several times (from his book) saying "I am the most honest person in the world today. Anybody who admits to having a one-inch penis is honest." There we go on a very interesting case of logical reasoning:

Premisse A: I'm honest because I admit that my penis is one-inch long, premise B: I am honest, therefore if I say X then it is true. Conclusion: Because I say that I have a one-inch long penis, therefore I am honest and whatever I say is true. Furthermore, if we accept the premisse A which is "I am honest because I say that my penis is one-inch long," then we buy everything that Stern might say, but if we don't then there is no reason to believe other things that he might say. However, this logical system relies on the fact (non-verified) that Stern says the truth when he says that he has a one-inch long penis.

It is fascinating to remark how much (supposed) honesty is praised in our society nowadays. "Being open, truthful, direct and honest receives praise." [76] However, we should keep in mind as readers that what we read in the media is constructed. "Public actions are suspect, precisely because they are undertaken in the knowledge that they will be observed. A glimpse of private life can shape a public image far more powerfully, not just because the private revelation is more titillating, but because it has what public action can never have: the air of unself-consciousness, and thus the stamp of sincerity. The paradox, of course, is that the truly private is inaccessible, and thus immune to political exploitation. The solution is the creation of a new category of experience, the pseudo-private: ostensibly private action designed exclusively for public comsumption." [77]

Stern feels he's controversial because he tells the truth and that his brand of honesty is the secret to his success. 'The truth is funny because we all lie all day long,' he says. 'We have to smile at the right time. We have to act like we care what other people say. We have to pretend we like our asshole boss. I lie too, but on the radio I say what I want." [78]

However, although some things are known of his private life -the one he chose to promote, the pseudo-private one- (married for 20 years, three daughters aged fourteen, ten, and four), it is still minimal compared to other stars. Off the air, Stern does not live in the glare of publicity; Cohen writes about him: "With his house, wife and three daughters (Emily, Debra, Ashley) on Long Island, he lives the ordered, humdrum life of a million other commuters." [79]

Indeed, it seems that for Howard Stern some parts are more private than others. His earnings are one of those. And his kids are another one.

In a Rolling Stone interview (Feb. 10, 1994):
Stern: "I have always been very blunt. I've never said to a reporter, 'Don't ask me about something.'"
Rolling Stone: "How much money do you make?"
Stern: I don't answer that. See there are some things I won't talk about.
Rolling Stone: I read $9 million.
Stern: Well, I'll tell you what's weird about how much money you make-
Rolling Stone: It's something you always ask celebrities.
Stern: I do.
Rolling Stone: That's why I asked you.
Stern: There's tremendous class jealousy, I find. People are very jealous of somebody doing well. My relationships - even with people who are close to me - have changed. They see you doing well, and they say little weird things. A little dig here and there. Even a relative could call my parents up and go, "Oh, I don't listen to Howard." It's almost like they want to knock you down or something. Because I think they perceive there's been a change in me, because I might have a couple of bucks in my pockets."

His campaign for the governorship of the State of New York has been another occasion for Stern to show how reluctant he is to talk about his earnings. Indeed, in early August 1994, the syndicated radio talk show host, and the Libertarian Party's candidate for governor of New York, announced he was dropping out of the campaign because he refused to comply with the state's financial disclosure laws. "For 25 hours a week I have told you everything about my life," he said, "but there's one fact I will never reveal. I have never told you how much money I have in the bank because it is none of your business." Stern said when he got in the race his understanding of the financial disclosure laws were that he would have to reveal what stocks he owned and who he did business with, in order to protect against possible conflicts of interest in public office. He said he was willing to do that, but not reveal his income and net worth. [80]

In Miss America, Stern gives his perspective on the financial disclosure laws: "In my case this law was a nightmare. None of the other candidates were celebrities. If I disclosed my assets, the repercussions would be staggering. Immediately, that noodnick Penny Crone would broadcast my net worth all over Fox TV. Every other media person would pick up this story too. If I had less money than people thought, I'd be perceived as an idiot. If I had more money, I could never get a vacuum cleaner fixed again without being robbed." Then he adds "Who wanted my kids to know how much money I had? My daughters would find how much I was worth and suddenly I'd be saddled with lazy, spoiled kids like Johnny Carson's or the Menendez brothers." [81]

According to Paul Colford, his gross earnings in 1995 from radio work would total $8 million. In addition Stern was supposed to receive around $1.5 million from E! Entertainment Television for his videotaped radio broadcast and a $3 million advance to write his second book, Miss America. The bottom line is that Howard Stern was expected to earn about $12.5 million in 1995. [82] To my knowledge, there has been no estimation on how much money Stern got in his deal with Paramount for his movie. Some secrets are well kept. Just as is his attitude towards his daughters with whom he seems very protective. "Photographs of his three girls, which had been taken at a summer camp and published in a supermarket tabloid, apparently were going to resurface on Hard Copy but the TV show ended up airing a piece about his film instead. After all, Hard Copy and Private Parts have a common distributor, Paramount Communications." [83]

The movie promotion and the media have totally reshaped our perception of "Radio bad boy." Stern seems to achieve in many ways what a lot of stars have previously tried to do (Madonna for example): total control over his image, something that seems genuine but is probably totally constructed.

What I wanted to show with this paper is that Howard Stern could easily dethrone Madonna in the heart of scholars. Like Madonna, Stern offers a fascinating polysemic persona to study. For purposes of length and time, I did not bring up many aspects of Stern that could be of some interest for further research on him, such as his campaign for governor of the state of New York, his practice of Trancendental Meditation for more than 20 years, issues related to the essence of radio as a medium, reality vs. what is told in a movie or even a deep analysis of the content of his show. However, I believe that Howard Stern provides a lot of further areas of research. The Barthesian perspective I have used for this paper is only one possibility.

Notes

1 For the promotion of his movie Private Parts, based on his best-selling "autobiography" of the same name, no genre of magazines has been forgotten, each genre deserving the side of Stern's personality that he knows best fit the readership. In addition to movie specialized publications such as Movieline (cover story of an issue entitled "More Sex than Usual") and Premiere, Stern has also been featured inside PlayBoy's April issue,Variety, the New Yorker, People, The Globe, National Inquierer, Billboard, March issues of Vanity Fair (quick interview on the last page) and Cosmopolitan for which Stern wrote an article basically asking all the women who hate him to see his movie. Moreover, Stern was on the cover of Rolling Stones ("Howard Stern is ready for his close-up"), Entertainment Weekly, April issue of Penthouse (cover story), April issue of Esquire with his wife (title on the cover: "Howard Stern, Model Husband," and an interview with his wife is featured in April issue of Marie Claire. Other local magazines such as Steppin' Out, TVGuide (March 8-14, newsstand edition only), Hollywood Reporter, etc. have also featured stories on Stern.
In addition to this massive press coverage, the video for the first single off the Private Parts soundtrack Hard Charger by Porno for Pyros has been aired continuously on MTV, whereas "Private Parts Private Party," the party after the movie, has been broadcasted in heavy rotation also on and by MTV. Stern also appeared on almost every late night talk shows in March (Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, twice on David Letterman, etc.)

2 Stern, Howard. (1994) Private Parts. New York: Simon & Schuster.
"Less an autobiography than a book-length comedy routine about his life and politically incorrect opinions, Private Parts was vintage Stern-self-loathing and self-congratulory, hateful of his enemies and loving towards his wife, putridly rank and wickedly funny-a 448-page exercice in anti-establishment freedom that shrewdly cloned his outrageous radio persona." in Colford, Paul D. (1997) Howard Stern: King of all Media. New York: St. Martin's Paperbacks, pp.23.

3 Quoted from Tolson, Andrew. (1996) Mediations: Text and Discourse in Media Studies. London: Arnold, pp. 121-2.

4 As cited in Perkins, Tessa. (1991) The Politics of 'Jane Fonda.' In Christine Gledhill (Ed.), Stardom: Industry of Desire. London: Routledg, pp. 248.

5 Quoted from Baudrillard, Jean. (1970) La société de consommation. Paris: Editions Denoël, pp. 196.

6 Quoted from Berkeley Kaite's syllabus for the course entitled Discourse Analysis: Approaches to the Study of Popular Culture, Graduate Program in Communications, McGill University, Winter 1997.

7 Quoted from Real, Michael, R. (1996) Exploring Media Culture: A Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage pp. 92.

8 Barthes, Roland. (1972, [1957]) Myth Today in Mythologies, trans. Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang. However all the references pages are in referenece to Barthes, Roland. (February 1970, [1957]) in Mythologies. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

9 Barthes, Roland. (February 1970, [1957]) in Mythologies. Paris: Editions du Seuil, pp. 7.

10 See Barthes, Roland. (February 1970, [1957]) Mythologies. Paris: Editions du Seuil, pp. 54-6.

11 Gleiberman, Owen. (1993) Exposing Himself.. Entertainment Weekly. As reprinted in Stern, Howard. (1994) Private Parts. New York: Simon & Schuster.

12 Cohen, Richard. (1997, March 20) Howard Stern Does Hollywood. Rolling Stone, pp. 46.

13 As cited in a post from the Howard Stern Rules mailing list on March, 18, 1997.

14 From Colford, Paul D. (1997) Howard Stern: King of all Media. New York: St. Martin's Paperbacks, pp. 254.

15 Stern, Howard. (1994) Private Parts. New York: Pocket Star Books. Back cover.

16 See Barthes, Roland. (February 1970, [1957]) Mythologies. Paris: Editions du Seuil, pp. 54-6.

17 Cohen, Richard. (1997, March 20) Howard Stern Does Hollywood. Rolling Stone, pp. 46.

18 Wild, David. (1990, June 14) Who is Howard Stern and Why is He Saying all those Terrible Things on the Radio? Rolling Stone, pp. 84.

19 Marin, Rick. (1994, February 10) Man or Mouth? The Rolling Stone interview with Howard Stern. Rolling Stone, pp. 29-30.

20 Zehme, Bill (April 1997) Keeping Up with the Sterns: How to Achieve the Perfect Post-modern Marriage (Complete with the Occasional Stripper, Hooker, and Porn Star). Esquire, pp. 89.

21 Gleiberman, Owen. (March 1997) Howard's Ends: The King of All Media is about to become a movie star. Will Hollywood success spoil the man you love (or hate)? Entertainment Weekly Online
http://pathfinder.com/@@VciyIgYAC49TVYGp/ew/970307/features/stern/stern.html

22 Andersen, Kurt. (1993, November 1) Big Mouths: Populist and popular radio's right-wing king and gross-out wild man have new mega-best sellers. Time, pp. 63.

23 Wild, David. (1990, June 14) Who is Howard Stern and Why is He Saying all those Terrible Things on the Radio? Rolling Stone, pp. 84.

24 From the Howard Stern Rules mailing list (stern-rules@scifi.squawk.com), message posted by --- on Tuesday 22, April 1997. Here is the post in its integrality:
>I felt it got better a week or so after the movie. From the time they started filming, the 'my movie' >hype was nearly unbearable.
>-snip-
>What all that movie stuff did for me was to give me a good idea of what goes on in the heads of >most the Hollywood actors when their films are getting ready for release. Howard is us, we are >Howard. He is just a regular guy, who cannot believe he is who he is. He sings that in one of >the soundtrack songs. (emphasis mine)
>I never got tired of hearing about the film. Then, we went to see it 3 or 4 times, I don't >remember. We loved it each time. When the video comes out, we will buy it. Not everyone >"gets" the whole show, nor do does everyone love the whole show. Myself, I don't like when he >has really dumb broads on. I find it boring. But that is part of who Howard is. He is >entertaining himself, allowing us to eaves drop on it. THAT is what the Howard Stern Show is >all about.
>Victoria

25 Andersen, Kurt. (1993, November 1) Big Mouths: Populist and popular radio's right-wing king and gross-out wild man have new mega-best sellers. Time, pp. 63.

26 Ibid., pp. 65.

27 from A Psychological Profile based on Howard Stern's Private Parts by Sheenah Hankin and Richard Wessler, Ph.D. Cognitive Psychotherapy Associates, New York, New York in the afterword of Private Parts, paperback edition, pp. 588

28 Marin, Rick. (1994, February 10) Man or Mouth? The Rolling Stone interview with Howard Stern. Rolling Stone, pp. 53.

29 Zehme, Bill (April 1997) Keeping Up with the Sterns: How to Achieve the Perfect Post-modern Marriage (Complete with the Occasional Stripper, Hooker, and Porn Star). Esquire, pp. 89.

30 Marin, Rick. (1994, February 10) Man or Mouth? The Rolling Stone interview with Howard Stern. Rolling Stone, pp. 53.

31 Colford, Paul D. (1997) Howard Stern: King of all Media. New York: St. Martin's Paperbacks, pp.91.

32 Stengel, Richard. (1987, April 27) Radio Daze: The FCC tries to clear the air. Time, pp.32.

33 Wild, David. (1990, June 14) Who is Howard Stern and Why is He Saying all those Terrible Things on the Radio? Rolling Stone, pp. 84.

34 Quoted in Zoglin, Richard. (1992, November 30) Shock Jock: Howard Stern is shaking up radio-and the FCC-with his raunchy, racist, in-your-face talk, but listeners seem to love it. Time, pp. 72-73.
The "offensive" comments that Time chose to publish as headings in the article are the following:
To actress Stacy Galina: "Hey, I've done stuff to myself and thought about you."
On Roseanne and Tom Arnold: She's a "big fat blob"; he's "the Ricky Ricardo of the '90s."
On Connie Chung (to husband Maury Povich): "For an Oriental woman, she has got big breasts."
On his sex life: "The closest I came to making love to a black woman was I masturbated to a picture of Aunt Jemima."
On Arsenio Hall: "Malcolm X would throww up if he saw him. I've never seen such ass-smoochio."

35 Zoglin, Richard. (1992, November 30) Shock Jock: Howard Stern is shaking up radio-and the FCC-with his raunchy, racist, in-your-face talk, but listeners seem to love it. Time, pp. 73.

36 Andersen, Kurt. (1993, November 1) Big Mouths: Populist and popular radio's right-wing king and gross-out wild man have new mega-best sellers. Time, 62.

37 Gleiberman, Owen. (March 1997) Howard's Ends: The King of All Media is about to become a movie star. Will Hollywood success spoil the man you love (or hate)? Entertainment Weekly Online
http://pathfinder.com/@@VciyIgYAC49TVYGp/ew/970307/features/stern/stern.html

38 Goldberg, Matt. (1997, March) Reality Bites Back. Premiere, pp. 48-49.

39 Frankel, Martha. (1997, January/February) Howard Does Hollywood. Movieline, 54-58, 97-98.

40 Which of these descriptions do you think apply to Howard Stern?
Time, November 1, 1993. Pp. 63.
Obnoxious .................................................................81%
Has a cruel and juvenile sense of humor ...................77%
Offensive ...................................................................77%
Is demeaning to women .............................................72%
Irresponsible ...............................................................64%
Is demeaning to blacks and other minorities ...............61%
Tells it like it is ............................................................56%
Intelligent .....................................................................49%

41 Private Parts Web Site: http://www.private-parts.com

42 Stern, Howard. (1994) Private Parts. New York: Pocket Star Books. Pp. 174.

43 Wild, David. (1990, June 14) Who is Howard Stern and Why is He Saying all those Terrible Things on the Radio? Rolling Stone, pp. 84.

44 Gramm, Phil. The American Dream. http://www.rtis.com/nat/pol/gramm/dream.htm.

45 Based on Gleiberman, Owen. (March 1997) Howard's Ends: The King of All Media is about to become a movie star. Will Hollywood success spoil the man you love (or hate)? Entertainment Weekly Online
http://pathfinder.com/@@VciyIgYAC49TVYGp/ew/970307/features/stern/stern.html

46 Marin, Rick. (1994, February 10) Man or Mouth? The Rolling Stone interview with Howard Stern. Rolling Stone. Cover title: Revenge of the Nerd, Howard Stern, The Rolling Stone Interview.

47 Cohen, Richard. (1997, March 20) Howard Stern Does Hollywood. Rolling Stone, pp. 46.

48 Modderno, Craig. (1997 March/April) Naked: Shock-jock Howard Stern reveals his Private Parts. Marquee, vol. 22 no. 2, p. 12.

49 Stern, Howard. (1995) Miss America. New York: Harper Collins. Pp. 370.

50 Stern, Howard. (1994) Private Parts. New York: Pocket Star Books. Pp. 130.

51 Kevin Renzulli, recognized by Howard Stern as a super-fan, is the author of the KOAM web site: http://www.koam.com, a site entirely devoted to the King Of All Media.

52 Transcript from Late Night with Conan O'Brien, NBC, March 13, 1997:
"I was on the air one day and I said, 'look at this guy, Michael Jackson: he's calling himself the King of Pop and everyone is buying into it. He basically forced MTV to call him the King of Pop.' It is an amazing thing to force people to call you something. It reminds me of the Rolling Stone. The Rolling Stone years ago had said 'We are the world greatest rock' n roll band' and nobody declared them the world greatest band: they declared themselves the world greatest band and about a year later we all forgot that they initially declared themselves the world greatest rock' n roll band. So I said 'well, I'll give myself a title and the first anyone will be goofing on me, It'll seem ridiculous' So I said 'I'm going to be the King Of All Media.' So when I announced the press, I called a press conference and said 'call me the KOAM,' they said 'listen, were not calling you the KOAM, there's no way, that's ridiculous, you can't force us to do it.' So I waited a year and before you know it I became the KOAM."

53 Box Office Totals for the Weekend ending March 09 (Gross ticket receipts in $millions)

Movie (studio)	Total gross	03/02 Weekend Gross	03/09 Weekend Gross	Weeks in release
1. Private Parts (PA)	$14.6	$ -.-	$ 14.6	1
2. Jungle 2 Jungle (DS)	$12.8	$ -.-	$ 12.8	1
3. Empire Strikes Back: SE(20)	$ 8.0	$13.1	$ 51.7	3

Studio Abbreviations: (20)-20th Century Fox - (DS)-Disney - (PA)-Paramount.
(c) 1996 MOVIEWEB. All Rights Reserved http://movieweb.com/movie/top25.html

54 Billboard 200 Albums - (Top 100 Positions)

Issue Date: March 15,1997
Copyright © BPI Communications Inc. 1997
All rights reserved http://www.billboard-online.com/charts/bb200.html

55 Mills, Joshua. (1993, October 24) He Keeps Giving New Meaning to Gross Revenue. The New York Times, 7 (section 3).

Carter, Bill. (1993, December 13) From radio to pay-per-view, Howard Stern Climbs his mountain. Is late-night TV at the summit? The New York Times, D6.

56 Frank, Allan Dodds. (1997, March 6) Howard's a sure thing: "King of All Media" Stern branches out to take Hollywood, pop charts too. CNN Financial Network, http://cnnfn.com/hotstories/bizbuzz/9703/06/howard_stern_pkg/index.htm

57 Gleiberman, Owen. (March 1997) Howard's Ends: The King of All Media is about to become a movie star. Will Hollywood success spoil the man you love (or hate)? Entertainment Weekly Online
http://pathfinder.com/@@VciyIgYAC49TVYGp/ew/970307/features/stern/stern.html

58 See Barthes, Roland. (February 1970, [1957]) Mythologies. Paris: Editions du Seuil, pp. 44-7.

59 From the Private Parts Web Site: http://www.private-part.com

60 Ibid.

61 Wells, Jeffrey. (1997) That's Showbiz: Quick Takes. Biz Magazine, http://pathfinder.com/@@VciyIgYAC49TVYGp/bizmag/film/filmnow/showbiz.html.

62 Corliss, Richard. (1997, March 10) How Nice. Time, vol.149 no.10.

63 Handy, Bruce. (1997, March 10) What Private Parts? Howard Stern, the most Unhibited Mouth on Radio, Stars in his First Movie as... Howard Stern. Time, vol.149 no.10.

64 Travers, Peter. (1997, March 20) Private Parts. Rolling Stone, pp. 90.

65 Zehme, Bill (April 1997) Keeping Up with the Sterns: How to Achieve the Perfect Post-modern Marriage (Complete with the Occasional Stripper, Hooker, and Porn Star). Esquire, pp. 88.

66 Stern, Howard. (1994) Private Parts. New York: Pocket Star Books. Pp. 116.

67 Ibid., pp. 122.

68 Ibid, acknoledgment.

69 This information courtesy of the channel's web site was also broadcasted on Entertainment Tonight. http://www.romanceclassics.com/stern.html

70 Ibid.

71 Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo. (1996) Reading Images The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge. Pp. 122.

72 Zehme, Bill (April 1997) Keeping Up with the Sterns: How to Achieve the Perfect Post-modern Marriage (Complete with the Occasional Stripper, Hooker, and Porn Star). Esquire, pp. 88.

73 From Norman Bales' web site on Family Values http://www.softdisk.com/comp/mcoc/famval.html

74 Wexman Wright, Virginia. (1993) Creating the Couple: Love, Marriage, and Hollywood Performance. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Pp. 3.

75 From The Road Less Traveled by Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck.

76 Carbaugh, Donal. (1989) Talking American: Cultural Discourses on Donahue. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Pp. 135.

77 Krauthammer, Charles. (1985) Cutting Edges: Making Sense of the Eighties. New York: Random House. Pp. 31.

78 Wild, David. (1990, June 14) Who is Howard Stern and Why is He Saying all those Terrible Things on the Radio? Rolling Stone, pp. 87.

79 Cohen, Richard. (1997, March 20) Howard Stern Does Hollywood. Rolling Stone, pp. 46.

80 From The newspaper of the Libertarian Party (September 1994) Stern drops out http://www.lp.org/lpn/9409-Stern.html

81 Stern, Howard. (1995) Miss America. New York: Harper Collins. Pp. 384.

82 Colford, Paul D. (1997) Howard Stern: King of all Media. New York: St. Martin's Paperbacks. Pp. 264-5.

83 Ibid., pp. 275.

Additional information: links to online Howard Stern-related material

Howard Stern sites

• All Howard, All The Time!
• The Interactive King of All Media Newsletter
  
• Howard Stern FAQ [Frequently Asked Questions]
• King of All Media Fans' Web Page (the sequel)
• E! Online - E! On Air - Original Shows - Howard Stern - Index
• Howard Stern, Radio Personality
• The Unofficial Howard Stern Show Sounds Page!
• Marks Friggin' Howard Stern Stuff Home Page
• HOWARD STERN
• The rest of Howard Stern
• July 29 - Howard Stern
• george1.html
• SiteSeeker Results for howard stern
• EW MULTIMEDIA -- Howard Stern
• HOWARD STERN BATH TOWELS
• Al Westcott's Stop Howard Stern Site
• LP News May94 - Stern and LP: How and Why
• Internet Marketing Discussion list archive: Stern v. Delphi
• Welcome To The Netly News
• Halycon Records Music Catalog
• Imus
• Brian's Howard Stern Page
• ROMANCE CLASSICS: HOWARD STERN
• Zmax's Howard Stern Page!!! The King of all Media!