Stern Show Prank calls keep getting ruined by cursing

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by Sellout, Mar 11, 2016.

  1. Sellout

    Sellout Member

    Reputations:
    -29,873
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    38
    Some of the phony phone calls are funny and taken seriously, but the guys always resort to being vulgar or cursing ruining the call because the person gets offended. It would be more entertaining to see how long they can keep them on the line.
     
  2. Mark Mayonnaise

    Mark Mayonnaise You look like a tree! VIP

    Reputations:
    316,354
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    177,445
    Likes Received:
    59,412
    Fuck you faggot
     
    oldpaddy, Debo, deadbeat and 3 others like this.
  3. MyWifeHasBigTits

    MyWifeHasBigTits New Member

    Reputations:
    59
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    19
    Second
     
  4. Vincenzo69

    Vincenzo69 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    69,363
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    14,182
    Likes Received:
    17,823
    I haven't heard a funny phony phone call on Stern for about 2 years now. The calls now are typically Kyle Dumigan or some other unemployed fag calling an Internet radio show and doing a horrible trump or Schwarzenegger impression trying to rile up the host by saying fuck or pussy
     
  5. Pigsaw

    Pigsaw Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    20,707
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,576
    Likes Received:
    5,325
    Sal is a dummy. He doesn't know how to be funny without resorting to cursing. Richard is just a tag-a-long to Sal. Sal is what we Italians call a real gidrul. :stfu:
     
    vaporizer, Shortwave98 and Sellout like this.
  6. Phantom Lord

    Phantom Lord Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    11,027
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    4,180
    What are the odds that you call a person and are incredibly vulgar, then call back minutes after they hang up on you and get them to sign a release? That is why they call them phony phone calls because the person on the other line is a phony.

    I remember last year Sal called some college that had a mascot that had the word Cock in it. He called their PR department there and had a lot of questions where he incorporated the word Cock. Think about that for a second. He had to call this woman back and get her to sign a release. What employee would sign a release like that and risk their job? The ones that they do where they call into a radio show are probably real because they don't need a release. Then again, look at how obscure the shows are they have to call.
     
  7. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,788
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,435
    Likes Received:
    21,452
    Even worse, the laws changed years ago and they have to get permission at the beginning of the call. There's no way these are real. Hell, even the calls with the Wack Packers aren't real. Not too long ago (sometime this past year, I think) Crackhead Bob or Elephant boy or one of those guys slipped and mentioned how they were in the building recording a phony phone call earlier in the week. The only call with that Wack Packer they played at that time was one where he was supposedly being pranked at home.

    Even though the rules of getting permission wouldn't apply, I think the calls into other shows are even sometimes fake. Like you said, they are obscure. No one's listening to them happen. If someone were to record the actual call from the internet show and compare to what gets played on the Stern show, I'll bet you'd find R&S re-record their parts.
     
  8. The Jackie chair

    The Jackie chair Well-Known Member Banned User

    Reputations:
    125,084
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    9,897
    Likes Received:
    25,015
    They are ruined by them being unfunny.
     
    ShutupMoron, ARM and Mia1972 like this.
  9. Sellout

    Sellout Member

    Reputations:
    -29,873
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    38
    Some of the calls using sound drops talking to radio shows are funny until the guys resort to vulgarity which kills the call everytime. I agree the bad impression bits are horrible
     
  10. Sloppyjoe

    Sloppyjoe VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    101,752
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages:
    7,596
    Likes Received:
    16,973
    there is no more funny in the sterniverse
     
  11. Mia1972

    Mia1972 Active Member

    Reputations:
    898
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    247
    The phone calls are so tired and boring. Should have been retired in the 80s.
     
    ShutupMoron and ARM like this.
  12. Dick Fitzwell

    Dick Fitzwell Opinions are like assholes ... and so am I

    Reputations:
    106,530
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,084
    Likes Received:
    13,541
    It seems to me that some perfectly good cursing was being ruined by some shitty phony phone calls.
     
  13. njguy8

    njguy8 Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    135,465
    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    10,782

    I definitely respect your opinion but for me, those calls have been completely played out and have been for several years. So for me, they can curse as much as they want. Shit is still shit. Again, just my opinion.
     
    Tracy and ARM like this.
  14. SouthernListen

    SouthernListen I don't follow the crowd. Sorry about that. VIP

    Reputations:
    240,697
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    38,743
    Likes Received:
    39,494
    Virtually every "phoney phone call" I"ve heard has multiple obvious edits before and after persons speak, and in recent years they're not even logically coherent. People say shit nobody would hang on the phone for, but they go on and on. Often they've just recorded a reply to a completely different question.

    Do I have to explain that Santa Claus isn't real?
     
  15. MilkyDischarge

    MilkyDischarge Se suelto el diablo Gold

    Reputations:
    69,845
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Messages:
    8,134
    Likes Received:
    13,756
    Does it vary by state?
     
  16. Mr Vengeance

    Mr Vengeance Ladies love cool V. VIP

    Reputations:
    86,923
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,288
    Likes Received:
    12,208
    All the calls are phony and shit. I wish you'd use vulgarity to kill yourself.
     
    The Jackie chair likes this.
  17. MilkyDischarge

    MilkyDischarge Se suelto el diablo Gold

    Reputations:
    69,845
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Messages:
    8,134
    Likes Received:
    13,756

    1. Federal law and many state wiretapping statutes permit recording if one party (including you) to the phone call or conversation consents. Other states require that all parties to the communication consent. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to tell which law applies to a communication, especially a phone call.May 14, 2014
     
  18. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,788
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,435
    Likes Received:
    21,452
    That has to do with recording calls, not broadcasting them. I'm talking about an FCC rule and it has to do specifically with phone calls that will be played on-air. There was a thread on here somewhere with the rule quoted and it covered satellite. It's legit. They must inform the party at the beginning of the call that the call will be played on the radio.
     
  19. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,788
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,435
    Likes Received:
    21,452
    Enforcement Monitor
    FCC Enforcement Monitor
    Authors: Scott R. Flick, Lauren A. Birzon



    August 2012Special Issue: Recent FCC Actions Provide a Detailed (and Expensive) Look at Section 73.1206, the Prohibition on Recording Telephone Calls for Broadcast

    FCC Issues a Total of $41,000 in Fines for Broadcaster Airing Prank Telephone Calls
    The close of August in Washington, DC has brought with it a surge of beautiful weather, baseball excitement (for the first time in recent memory), and ... forfeiture orders related to the improper recording of telephone calls for broadcast. On August 22nd, the FCC issued two forfeiture orders assessing a combined $41,000 in fines against licensees owned by the same parent company for violations of the telephone broadcast rule.

    The telephone broadcast rule, Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules, requires that, "Before recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, or broadcasting such a conversation simultaneously with its occurrence, a licensee shall inform any party to the call of the licensee's intention to broadcast the conversation, except where such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the circumstances of the conversation, that it is being or likely will be broadcast." While the rule language only talks about providing notice to the party called, the FCC has reiterated many times that when a station employee intends to record a call for broadcast or broadcasts the call live, the employee must also obtain the party's consent before recording the call or going live.

    Both orders released on August 22nd involved a finding that the licensee had violated this rule. The first order involved prank calls made in April 2006 by radio personalities to members of the public during a comedy segment of the station's morning show. In one conversation, the caller pretended to be an intruder hiding under the bed of the person receiving the call; in another, the caller pretended to be a loan shark bent upon collecting a debt.

    The FCC began investigating the prank calls after receiving a complaint from a station listener. During the investigation, the licensee indicated it was unable to confirm or deny whether the prank calls aired on its morning show, and could not provide a recording or transcript of the program. The licensee acknowledged, however, that the program identified in the complaint was aired on the station and was simulcast on two co-owned stations.

    The second forfeiture order released on the 22nd also involved the broadcast of an alleged prank call in which the caller pretended to be a hospital employee who then informed the call recipient that the recipient's husband had been in a motorcycle accident and died at the hospital. When questioned about the incident, the licensee told the FCC that its parent company had contracted with an outside vendor who made and recorded the call. The licensee admitted that it broadcast the call on multiple occasions.

    In the first case, the FCC had proposed a $25,000 fine. In the second case, the FCC had proposed a $16,000 fine. In both cases, the licensee urged cancellation of the proposed fines, to no avail. In batting down a myriad of arguments raised by the licensees, the FCC affirmed not only its broad investigative powers to enforce Section 73.1206, but also the licensees' responsibility to both adhere to and demonstrate their adherence to the Commission's Rules.

    These two decisions provide an excellent primer for broadcasters on the FCC's enforcement of the "telephone call rule", as between them, the FCC addressed a multitude of defenses raised by the licensees, ultimately concluding that none of those defenses could prevent the imposition of very substantial fines. More specifically, the FCC shot down each of the following licensee arguments:

    The FCC could not have concluded from a preponderance of the evidence that the licensee violated the rule. The FCC wrote that the licensee offered no evidence to dispute the facts alleged in the complaint and could not deny having aired the calls. As a result, the absence of a recording of the material at issue was not an obstacle to a finding that a violation had occurred. In making this ruling, the FCC rejected the following three licensee arguments to the effect that the FCC had "insufficient evidence" of a violation.

    The complaint was deficient because it did not come from the call recipient and did not allege a specific violation of the FCC's rule. Therefore, the complaint did not provide a sufficient basis for FCC action.The FCC had previously entertained, in analogous cases, both third party complaints and complaints that did not allege a violation of a specific rule. The FCC therefore found no merit to this argument.

    The FCC could not have concluded that a violation occurred when the program was not recorded and the station's employees were not able to recollect any facts relevant to the case. The FCC noted that while these facts made it more difficult to establish whether the station broadcast the calls, the existence of recordings or transcripts were not vital to establishing a violation where other evidence supported the FCC's conclusion. Moreover, the FCC "has consistently ruled that a licensee may not avoid liability for a rule violation by claiming ignorance as to what was broadcast over its station."

    The FCC did not rule out the possibility that the call recipients were actors who were part of a theatrical performance, not members of the public.The FCC found this argument unpersuasive, noting that it was never raised in response to the Commission's earlier inquiries. At no time did any station employee suggest that the calls were part of a prearranged skit.

    The FCC misapplied the forfeiture guidelines by failing to consider the unique geography of the market (Puerto Rico) or the profitability of the parent company. The FCC rejected the licensee's argument that the broadcast of the prank calls on multiple stations should have been treated as only a single violation because of the unique geography of the station's market which, the licensee argued, required use of multiple stations to reach the entire radio market. The FCC cited to other cases in the same market that evaluated the broadcast of a call on multiple stations as a factor in assessing a larger fine. The FCC also rejected the licensee's argument that the forfeiture was improper because, despite having reported nearly $140 million in revenue, the parent company was actually operating at a loss. "The Commission has previously determined that, in general, gross revenues are the best indicator of a licensee's ability to pay a forfeiture."

    The "plain language" of the rule makes it applicable to recordings made by a licensee—not to recordings made by a contractor. The licensee was unable to feign innocence where it specifically contracted with the vendor for its programming and was aware that the prank calls were part of the programming. The FCC has consistently held licensees liable for programming aired on their stations, regardless of the source. "To hold otherwise would allow a licensee to circumvent the Commission's rules with impunity by simply having an agent perform, on its behalf, any acts that violate Commission rules."

    The call recipient gave permission to air the call afterwards, so the call was consensual and did not "impinge on the call recipient's legitimate expectation of privacy." The rule requires notice be given and consent obtained before beginning to record a call for broadcast, and consent obtained after the fact does not comply with the rule.
    Given that the "base" fine for a violation of Section 73.1206 of the FCC's Rules is $4,000, the $41,000 in fines issued here is an indication of the FCC's strong distaste for the broadcast of such material, and its lack of patience with licensees engaged in multiple violations of the same rule. Stations should continue to be diligent about getting consent before recording a call or going live with that call. As this month's forfeiture orders indicate, stations will be hard pressed to successfully defend such broadcasts before the FCC, and the FCC is not hesitant to increase the fine to whatever amount it believes necessary to "get the attention" of offending licensees.
     
    The Jackie chair and LaserT like this.
  20. Gretsch Man

    Gretsch Man Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    47,336
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,896
    Likes Received:
    8,669
    At this point, the cursing is the only thing that's funny.
     
    The Jackie chair likes this.