'Jesus, Enough with the Queen!' Howard Stern Fumes Over 'Annoying' Media Coverage of Monarch

[Mr. Sparkle]

Radio host Howard Stern fumed over what he deemed the excessive media coverage of the death of Queen Elizabeth II. On the Monday edition of SiriusXM’s The Howard Stern Show, the host let loose on the fact that news outlets have seemingly ditched the story of former President Donald Trump housing classified documents at his Florida home in favor of coverage of the queen’s death.

“It’s weird traditions and everything. And I’m like, Jesus, enough with the Queen! I mean, it’s America. We don’t have a queen. I get it. You know, Queen was a nice lady, I guess she was born, you know, my whole life, the queen has been the same queen and there’s a tradition there and she did her duty to her country. I get it. I get it. I get it. But we gotta get back to Trump and where those papers are that they found that Mar-A-Lago,” he said. “You don’t like the distraction of the queen?” co-host Robin Quivers asked.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/jesus-enough-with-the-queen-howard-stern-fumes-over-annoying-media-coverage-of-monarchs-passing/

[Walleye]

1. I expect Howard Stern to make a shallow complaint like this

For crying out loud two weeks of coverage for 70 years of service? Have to admit that 70 years is a long time to hold down the same job

[ChazInAz]

6. Jeezy, Howard!

I still remember the coverage of Churchill's death and funeral.
He may have been uncommon, but he was a commoner.

[Goodheart]

12. It's not a shallow complaint

He's absolutely correct... our news media should be focused on trump's crimes, the war in Ukraine, and our upcoming election, not this clown show.

[SoFloDenny]

21. +1

[geardaddy]

22. +1

[maveric]

27. +1

[Magoo48]

31. +1. I expect it on MSO (Main Stream Oligarch) tv, but not here.

[JustAnotherGen]

36. Agree

[Tommymac]

43. 100% Correct. Queen Who? nt

[Kaleva]

46. You don't believe in a free press?

[pnwmom]

64. We have a free press & the right to tell the press we're SICK of this endless, fawning coverage.

[Kaleva]

102. And they have the right not to listen to you

[pnwmom]

106. Yes, they are free to lose their credibility with those in their audience who expect them to report

REAL news.

[Kaleva]

109. They may be gambling that they'll have a net increase in viewers

[pnwmom]

111. I doubt that there are millions of viewers who want to see endless scenes of the cathedral,

the coffin, or handshaking on the streets.

I have some English ancestry, but that hasn't made me interested in days of this coverage. And I'm in a small minority these days.

A decade thereafter, in 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau recorded 25.2 million Americans reporting full or partial English ancestry, about 7.7% of the U.S. population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Americans#:~:text=A%20decade%20thereafter%2C%20in%202020,7.7%25%20of%20the%20U.S.%20population.

[Kaleva]

112. About 5% of the adult population is watching cable news in primetime

[pnwmom]

115. And probably about 7% of them are part English, and the coverage is driving others away.

Even MSNBC's political analyst Richard Stengel.

MSNBC political analyst Richard Stengel might be tired of the over-coverage that American cable news outlets gave to the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Stengel stated in a Thursday appearance on MSNBC that the reason there was so much coverage from the United States was due to the “weakness in the American character.”

“You played a clip of her speaking in Cape Town in 1947, in South Africa. That’s the year apartheid took effect in South Africa,” Stengel said.

“That was something British colonialism ushered in. British colonialism, which she presided over, had a terrible effect on much of the world.”

. . . . “There’s a weakness in the American character that still yearns for that era of hereditary privilege, which is the very thing that we escaped from.”

https://barrettsportsmedia.com/2022/09/12/richard-stengel-queen-elizabeth-ii-death-got-too-much-coverage-in-u-s/

[Kaleva]

116. When the ratings come out, we'll see if people are tired of the coverage

[pnwmom]

117. What I noticed was that Fox was covering Royalty much less than MSNBC and CNN was.

They chose instead to keep up their anti-Biden anti-Dem attacks, while MSNBC and CNN largely shifted away from US politics.

[Liberal In Texas]

104. I'm with ya. Got jumped all over Saturday for saying about the same thing.

At least today there has been some actual news mixed in with the Dead Queen coverage.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217142766

[Goodheart]

98. Of course I do.

Nothing I said implies otherwise.

[Kaleva]

103. True, you did make a suggestion and not a demand.

Although ,with the internet, I do find it easy to find reporting on issues I'm interested in as it is. I think it's the same for you.

All the coverage I've seen about the Queen is here at DU

[Bev54]

66. Agree

I am getting my news from Al Jazeera and Euro News to get news from around the world. They will have an update on the British Crown but then move on. Even Canadian News (we are part of the commonwealth), while too much time spent on the Queen's death, I find that the US news networks worse. It has to be they are using the death of the Queen to deflect from reporting the woes of Trump.

[Stuckinthebush]

71. Yup

Add me to the agree column.

[NNadir]

108. Personally, I'd rather see the issue with Monarch butterflies covered more than I'd like to see...

the Monarch "Queen Elizabeth" covered with dirt or concrete or whatever.

I mean, maybe she was a nice lady, but that does not really mean she was an important to the sustainability of the world.

The butterflies, to my mind, are important.

[tenderfoot]

18. We're not Great Britain

eom

[edhopper]

19. It's not just coverage

It has been the MAIN News story since she passed. That is the problem.

[Midnight Writer]

35. Yes. It's an important story and deserves coverage, but this is silly.

The same people saying the same things over and over. 24 hours per day.

The rest of the world did not stop because of this, and I doubt this will make much difference in very many American's lives.

[pnwmom]

63. I don't understand an American without an English background to make a comment like yours.

I don't love Stern, but I think in light of the much more important stories going on in the US and in the world, the US networks have been devoting much too much time to the 96 year old Queen of another country.

[Justice matters.]

83. So when the King of Belgium will pass out, I guess we'll get two weeks of coverage too, or...

[Dorian Gray]

118. Why is it shallow?

Coverage of the British Royal Family is essentially like coverage of the Kardashian family. It's gossip fodder and obsession with status on a slightly more elevated level.

Obviously people enjoy both, and i don't decry their escapist joy. We all need it. (I get mine from watching Big Brother in the summers.)

[Justice matters.]

2. Couldn't agree more...

It's like the US never won its hard-fought Independence!

Sick of the medias here.

[ripcord]

3. Howard Stern is the expert on annoying after all

[Tommymac]

47. N0 he is not. That is just your opinion. Stern is fun to listen to - not annoying at all.

And THAT is my opinion.

[Martin68]

75. In this case he is annoyingly correct. Annoying to lovers of an obsolete and expensive monarchy,

that is.

[Ocelot II]

4. Turn off your TV, Howard. Nobody's making you watch.

[ripcord]

8. Stern is one of those people not bright enough to self moderate their own viewing

[Tree Lady]

52. Lol his favorite show is the Bachelor

My hubby listens to him.

[ChazII]

9. +1 Totally agree.n/t

[Paladin]

39. + 1000. (nt)

[Gore1FL]

44. Turning the TV off doesn't make Trump coverage start. nt

[Ocelot II]

48. After the Queen's funeral TFG will be back in the news, front and center.

I've rather enjoyed not hearing about him or seeing his ugly orange face for a change. But the 1/6 Committee hearings will be starting again this month, so he'll be back. Coverage re: the Queen is temporary, but TFG will be with us for a long time...

[calimary]

70. Hey, history buff here. I appreciate the coverage of the Queen-related events.

Last edited Mon Sep 12, 2022, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

I realize there’s tremendous disagreement here. I’m NOT complaining OR deriding it.

But knowing trump’s hunger for being the center of attention, I’m actually kinda thrilled that he’s been bigfooted by the Queen coverage. He needs to be bigfooted by SOMEBODY, for Heaven’s sake!

I imagine he’s already making notes about how to dominate (and Bigfoot HER final ceremonies) when he finally shuts up for the last time - and probably expects a “Royal” funeral for himself.

Besides - 70 years. SEVENTY YEARS on the throne of England et al. She touched the whole world. We’ll never see her likes again. Something we can hope and pray for at the end of trump, also.

Only thing I could easily do without is the commentary from Sally Bedell Smith. OY, that creaky voice!



And - as for Howard Stern, he can just go fuck himself.

[Ocelot II]

74. I agree. I'm sure TFG is deeply annoyed that someone else is dominating the news.

And that makes me happy.

[calimary]

79. Me too, Ocelot II! I find it rather DELIGHTFUL!

ROYALLY delightful - which, I’m delighted to say, WON’T be so, for him.

No matter how big the attending entourage or how gold-colored his coffin might be whenever he finally kicks the bucket.

I’ve never sipped champagne while watching a funeral. But I will on THAT greatly-anticipated day!

[Tarheel_Dem]

97. +1000

[brooklynite]

84. What Trump coverage have you been missing out on?

Was there an indictment? A lawsuit? A new exposé? Or do you just want more opinion discussions that you already agree with?

[Gore1FL]

91. I would like to know why he is in Washington dc in golf shoes.

That beats knowing the exact geolocation of the late queen's corpse in my opinion.

I am not watching any TV coverage at the moment, but if I were, I'd prefer less "opinion discussions" and more news, as long as you are asking.

[brooklynite]

100. "Donald Trump flew to Washington" wouldn't be filling your TV as an alternative...

Trump visits Virginia golf course during ‘working’ trip to DC area

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump and his son Eric visited the former president’s golf club in northern Virginia on Monday, one day after the elder Trump’s abrupt arrival in the DC area sparked wild speculation about his legal troubles.

Trump, wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat, was photographed speaking with a group of employees on the course at Trump National Golf Club Washington, DC.

The ex-president drove his own cart, accompanied by his middle son, an executive vice president at the Trump Organization.

Larry Glick, executive vice president for development at the Trump Organization, also joined Trump on the course.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/12/trump-visits-virginia-golf-course-during-working-trip-to-dc-area/

[Gore1FL]

101. Thanks. That was most definitely better than "Where's the royal cadaver?"

I suspect there are many more examples of news more important than the imperial carrion chase.

[HAB911]

5. Look on the bright side

we get to do this all over again when the new guy passes

[48656c6c6f20]

7. Hate Howard all you want

But he's godamn right

But we gotta get back to Trump and where those papers are that they found that Mar-A-Lago,” he said

[Tetrachloride]

10. +1. nt

[UTUSN]

11. K&R

[bif]

13. STFU Howard!

[Tommymac]

49. Why? He is 100% correct here. nt

Americans need to hear about things that REALLY affect their lives on the news. After the initial reporting and coverage of the funeral, this wall to wall queen coverage is all kabucki designed to distract ordinary people from the problems the 1% has created in this world.

[AntivaxHunters]

58. lol why are you mad?

[ChazII]

14. MSNBC is still covering the monarchy however

CNN is discussing what is happening with Ukrainian offenses and Faux is discussing El Paso now sending buses to NYC.
CNN just took a commercial break, Faux is now talking about VP Harris while MSNBC is still covering the monarchy.

[Goodheart]

15. And don't you just love how being luxuriously coddled for seventy years

is called "service"?

This queen should have repudiated the notion of a monarchy a long time, along with her extravagant upkeep. Britain would not have suffered for tourism.

[Happy Hoosier]

16. He wants to be able to crass fart jokes in peace. Gorbless'im. NT

[Just A Box Of Rain]

17. Howard Stern is still alive?

[The Third Doctor]

20. I agree

I do think these news services are 24hrs so there should be enough time to cover more than EIIs death. I'm not saying it shouldn't be covered but the coverage especially on msnbc has been overboard.

[liberalla]

23. It's been a LOT. And they will drag it out for at least another week at maximum coverage...

They could cut it back some... it's not breaking news anymore.

I'd rather have coverage of Ukraine or Jan 6, or the missing top secret national security files.

[Iggo]

24. He's right.

But if you read the news instead of watch it, you can avoid a hundred percent of that shit.

[The Mouth]

25. F-off you whining POS

Howard Stern has done nothing but shit all over the airwaves for the entertainment of the lowest intellectual strata for decades. He isn't fit to clean the puke off a sidewalk.

[SergeStorms]

26. Stern sure did enough to elevate Trump.....

and helped make him famous.

Maybe we should have the media investigate why Stern had all of those criminals on his show. Why did you give Trump and all those other criminals air time, Howard?

Ratings. Right, Howard?

Stern and Trump are cut from the same cloth. Its self-promotion and always about them.

[Tree Lady]

54. He never thought he would run for president

Thought it was a joke, when he got serious Howard was all for Hillary and said why and then was all for Biden.

[Caliman73]

57. Trump was famous way before Stern was on the air.

Trump was on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous several times. He had his own board game, editions of Monopoly, etc...

I am not arguing that Stern didn't promote Trump for his own ratings, but to say that Stern elevated and made Trump famous is inaccurate. Stern used Trump's fame to draw attention to himself and his show. He did not pluck Trump from obscurity and lift him to fame.

I would not compare Stern and Trump, certainly they both have an interest in keeping their names relevant, but that is where the similarities end.

[SergeStorms]

90. "and helped make him famous."

Trump was well known in NYC and surrounding states, but Stern has a national audience and he helped spread Trump's name throughout.

"Helped" is the key word in my statement.

As far as self-promotion and ego, they're both cut from the same cloth. Maybe you're not aware of how much of a prick Stern can be, and how petty and vindictive he can be as well.

You seem to have a high opinion of Howard Stern. He deserves no such praise and esteem, believe me. He's every bit as foul and nasty as Trump. Perhaps not quite as dishonest, so I'll give you that much.

[Jarqui]

28. I don't follow Stern much but

when Charles speech gets national network attention in the US
but Biden's speech on his concerns for the democracy don't,
I do not think it is unfair to question those priorities.

Charles is a figurehead relic that the US left behind in 1776.

Biden is fighting to keep what got started in 1776 going.

I think the US network decision on this is appalling and stinks.

[jaxexpat]

33. Truest comments on this issue I've seen so far.

[JustAnotherGen]

38. Exactly

The didn't cover their President's speech at a critical turning point in our Democracy.

[bonniebgood]

72. 100% agree Jarqui

[Iggo]

113. Great comment.

Mad ups, yo.

[NH Ethylene]

29. It's always too much when a major world figure passes.

He has a point about the queen. It should have been the lead news the day she died, but from then on it should have been talked about but not the lead story each day.

The US cares, but not THAT much.

[housecat]

30. Watch or don't watch a glimpse of extreme pagentry celebrating a 70-year reign.

The visuals of Scotland and England are stunning. Putin treachery, Trump treason, and Ukranian patriotism aren't going anywhere while we take a brief break to enjoy watching the funeral and customs of an historic monarchy. stfu Howard. "Excessive media coverage" gave us trump and the subsequent unraveling of Democracy. It's been decades in the making, then six years of trump's pathetic existence, and his romances with murderous dictators that we've been force-fed. Not just Fox bullshit, but propaganda on every outlet owned by the corporate media.They control what we think. I'm drifting, but I make no excuses for taking a short break to observe something other than non-stop obscene treachery in Russia, by Russians in Ukraine, and their quest to destroy America and the West. Slava Ukraini.

[orleans]

32. i'm not watching much of the tv news

i understand the queen and the rituals regarding the monarch are newsworthy
i also understand that trump & the stolen documents is far more important for those of us on this side of the pond (as the expression goes)

if the media could walk and chew gum at the same time that would be great

[twodogsbarking]

34. I'm with Howard on this one. Enough already.

[Emile]

37. This is getting ridiculous. Makes one wonder

why?

[Kaleva]

50. Thankfully, only a small percentage of adults in the US watch cable news.

[Kaleva]

41. With the internet, news sources are so numerous and diversified....

one can easily be well informed about any issue they are interested in and not see much of anything about the Queen.

I think people are more upset about others not watching or reading news that they believe is important for others to see.

If it wasn't for DU, I wouldn't know didly squat about the Queen's passing nor would I know that some think the coverage is excessive. As for myself, I look for and easily find coverage about the war in UKR.

[Caliman73]

60. I agree with you, but there is a generational thing working here too...

Stern is still of the generation of us who got our news from the legacy papers, the Big Three broadcasters, and the beginnings of Cable News. Media was put out to us and we watched, Tom Brokaw, Ted Koppel, Dan Rather, etc...

You are absolutely right that now, you can seek out whatever niche of news you want. If you want to watch all about Ukraine, all about the Fed and the interest rate hikes, all about Trump, all about what is happening with the neighbors down the street, etc... you can do that.

Like I said, I think Stern is mostly talking about the major news outlets that are still fed to viewers who turn on the television or only look at the major headlines online.

Like you, I heard the Queen died, thought, "Oh, sad for her family" then never looked for or cared about any other story related to the Queen. I have very little interest in royalty or celebrity.

[Kaleva]

69. You could very well be tight

[Sympthsical]

78. I think you've hit upon it

Every morning I load some usual sites, open a bunch of tabs with stories I'm interested in, and read. Anything I don't care about doesn't get opened. I've been Trumped out for ages. I just don't care about the day-to-day. When something important happens, it'll be a big blaring headline. That is sufficient for me. I have no cause to obsess daily over details that may or may not be relevant or factual.

I think if someone is spending a lot of their time watching cable news or social media, they've limited themselves to very specific streams of information. And if those limited streams are overtaken by an event they don't like, they get very cantankerous - because they don't see anything else. And because they don't, they assume no one else does either.

This morning, I saw a lot of posts complaining about the Queen and "Why aren't we talking about Trump?!" So I opened a bunch of sites like CNN, NYT, MSNBC, etc, and there was all the Trump stuff on the upper half of the page on nearly every single one. Anyone who wants to read about Trump and discuss him has all the tools and information readily available to them.

I think it's also, "People aren't talking about what I want to talk about!" tantrums. Those types make for the dreariest dinner companions.

[budkin]

42. Totally agree

It's ridiculous.

[Mr.Bill]

45. They might even spend more time on her

than they did on Tiger Woods' car accident.

[llashram]

51. +++times10000

the queen is dead, long live the king...move on

[dlk]

53. Misogyny takes many forms...

Some men can’t handle a woman in the headlines for any length of time.

[Martin68]

76. Balderdash. Suggesting that the Queen and her monarchy are detrimental to the nation is not

anti-woman or anti-feminist. It is anti-monarchy, anti-elite, and anti-absurdity

[dlk]

88. That wasn't the point I was making

[Martin68]

92. It seemed you were suggesting that people like Stern who criticize the Queen do so because

"Some men can’t handle a woman in the headlines for any length of time." I suggested criticism of the over-reporting on the funeral and life of Queen Elizabeth II has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. I love Charles no more than I love Elizabeth. I think the brouhaha obscures the fact that the British monarchy is an anachronistic institution with a vile history of subjugation, death, and destruction. The pageantry of the monarchy is just a Cecil B. DeMille dog and pony show with a cast of thousands, fancy costumes, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Emile]

81. OMG

[treestar]

55. The media will cover what they think

will get them the most viewers. They will never cover what they "should." Whatever will get the most eyeballs on the ads.

[DFW]

56. Howard Stern might try multitasking

I find myself able to handle the media's coverage of both, and that's from 4000 miles and six time zones from Washington. Maybe it's easier when the main media I watch is German, and they are most focused on how the country's housing units are going to heat themselves this winter.

[pnwmom]

67. Maybe you're too far away from DC to understand how annoying it is to have actual US news

displaced, day after day, by the British royalty extravaganza.

Enough already!

[DFW]

80. I don't get US TV here, it's true

I don't think I was missing out on much, either, even while the Queen was still alive.

[pnwmom]

85. On MSNBC, CNN, and the local stations, we've been seeing almost as much Royalty coverage

as on the BBC.

[DFW]

89. I only get BBC when I'm on the road in hotels

Here at home, it's ARD and ZDF, and occasionally a German, Swiss, Austrian or private German-language cable station. My w+ife's English is good, but she still has difficulty with some nuances of TV news jingoisms. So we watch only German language programs when we're together.

[pnwmom]

95. Today there was a filing in the Special Master case, and I'm sure we'd be hearing all about it

if cable news wasn't full of royalty instead.

[whathehell]

59. I can't stand Stern, but I agree with him on this. n/t

[Silent3]

61. Yes, there's way more important domestic and world news going on

Threats to US democracy and developments in Ukraine are just two way more important topics to be covering.

[Brainfodder]

62. YES! Back on the ESPIONAGE super creep! FOCUS!

[Torchlight]

65. I'm getting the idea he's feeding the story even more angles.

Which is my position on most things: if I'm uninterested or have no real investment in a story, I ignore it; but if I assert I don't care at all, then advertise that lack of care to all who would hear, and go on and on about how little I care, I'd be forced to realize that on one level or another, I do care.

I don't really care about football, and no one will see me chiming in on any discussions about the game with my hackles raised and my fist in the air telling people I don't care about they're discussing. It would be counter-productive to my apathy regarding the game. Despite its prominence in local news, I'm not really distracted by it, and I go onto pursuing my interests with it or without it.

[brooklynite]

68. So a guy with a fan base is unhappy with fan obsession about the British royals...

[Martin68]

77. Howard Stern actually does something, whether you agree with his opinion or not. The Queen has been

held up as a symbol of stability. How silly is that? If Britain would fall apart without a King or Queen, then they deserve to. It's a country that needs to grow up.

[brooklynite]

82. Has nothing to do with falling apart. Its their country...

Aguy who interviews porn stars and whomever a frat boy audience swoons over seems to me to have an irrelevant opinion.

nb: I could care less about the British Royals. Haven't watched a minute of the funeral coverage. But I don't feel the need to vent my spleen about their social-political structure.

[pnwmom]

86. The problem is that the funeral coverage, and royalty coverage "Charles looks every inch a king!"

is displacing everything else.

And we're supposed to be in the middle of an election here in the US, but almost no discussion of that on TV these days.

[Martin68]

93. You don't feel the need to vent your spleen about their social-political structure,

but Stern does, and I agree with him. The public school boys who ran the empire were overdressed frat boys who engaged in a trade of human and drug trafficking. They were no better than porn stars.

[Martin68]

73. My sentiments exactly. We threw off the yoke of England because we didn't want to be ruled by a

monarchy. All of this starry-eyed mooning over the British royal family turns my stomach. The British Crown has left a history of death, destruction, starvation, torture, and genocide in their wake. All of this, "nothing will ever be the same" and "she was such a stable influence," if true, is proof the monarchy must go.

[Hekate]

87. Enough with Howard Stern

[IcyPeas]

94. Howard's just doing what Howard does

he probably complained about a dozen other things on his show.

[leftstreet]

96. Lots of boomers losing their elderly parents

...or have recently lost

I've seen news clips with mourners of a certain age in tears, kinda triggering maybe

Personally I tune in occasionally to see if I'm mentioned in Elizabeth's will

[GoodRaisin]

99. Yeah Howard, what we need is more

Donald Trump.

[tishaLA]

105. it's not the amount of coverage per se

(well, OK it is somewhat), it's that so much of the coverage is hagiographic. I saw an interview when I was half asleep this morning with one of the "royal experts" talking about her love of horses and how the horses knew that she was in control and on and on. I was expecting it to end with "and she could have competed in equestrian events in the Olympics if she'd chosen to," but he mercifully held back on that.

I get that we all want to create mythographies and create totems, but maybe lay it on a bit less thick.

[GuppyGal]

107. SO DON'T WATCH PROBLEM SOLVED

GEE-ZUZ

[Tarc]

110. Howard's right, there's much more important things that are more newsworthy

than the demise of a the head of what is essentially an expensive medial cosplay company.

Relics of a dead era, dissolve the whole thing.

[DavidDvorkin]

114. I turn it off, and I've never turned Howard Stern's show on.

[alphafemale]

119. Does anyone under 70 even still listen to Howard Stern?

I guess he was edgy or something 40 years ago.