i just watched ten minutes of the jerry springer show

somebody explain to me how is expects to get a pass on what he has been doing for the last 13 years.

the part i saw was a lead up to the moment when a gay crossdresser reveals to the woman who has been his girl friend for some years that he has been using her.

at one point the guest starts pursuing jerry and then the 'bouncer' and then staffers hold another member of the staff down on the floor so that the guest can grind on him, as the audience chants 'steve is gay".

and this makes no difference to the voters of Ohio?

You *BLEEP* *BLEEP* son of a *BLEEPITY BLEEP*

:D

on the *BLEEP*ing Jerry *BLEEP*ing Springer piece of *BLEEP*!

i live in Pa, and i'd hate to think that just a couple hundred miles away, things are so bad in relationshop to the dem party that he is taken seriously.

I have no idea who he is...from up in Cleveland I think. Hes the pick of the party regulars and will probably get the nomination...and be pretty much trounced by Voinovich.

The Democrats seem to use the Cleveland area as their pool for sacraficial lamb canidates.

which is more than may pukes can say.he will bring many new voters in, but I think he will have to stop his show for a while. I like what he has to say, also, Beisides there are enough people giving their advice to Californians around here, the least I could do is return the favor

:D MsBF, I presume?

her mother's sister that is. i'm alone with the wildlife.

he usually wraps it up speaks to the satire he is portraying...only thing is America can't see satire when they are the satire.

YOu have to watch the last ten minutes if you are going to watch a piece

that the Republican campaign advert writes itself.

In a serious voice:
"In the very dangerous and complex world that we now find ourselves, a world that requires a strong and stable moral compass, the Democratic Party have decided to put this person up to stand for the Senate."

Cue suitable clips from the Jerry Springer show.

that one of the componants of the democratic Party attack on bush* is a moral one, immoral foreign policy, contracts for Haliburton, stealing Iraqi oil, bush*'s highly dubious early career, etc.

You don't need the comeback "yeah but what about Jerry Springer".

If you are going to attack bush* on moral grounds then you have to do it from a position of moral authority.

that's your answer.

OH MY F'ing Lord!!!!!!!

That just went right over my head.

Okay, OHIO, get your act together............

I mean...we lost James "the Hairpiece" Trafficant, we need some form of comic relief! :crazy:

Having leaved in the Cincinnati area for the past 15 years I saw Springer get several awards for his commentaries while he was a newscaster. He really is in touch with the people. His show in current form is trash and the show will be a liability. Time will tell how the voters will respond to him.

Some Ohio repugs are worried about Springer. The Democrats in Ohio can only hope that Springer is not taken seriously by the Repugs. If he ingnites the Democrats he could replace Voinovich and right now just about anyone one looks better than Voinovich.

i hate to say i'm at a loss to decide whether this would incite their base more to vote against or for him.

either way, it should pump up republican participation.

and nothing more

sorry...i guess there is something wrong with me as i don't see the comedy.

People say it is a satire, but in the film Bamboozled a network puts on a blackface minstrel show under the guise of it being a satire and the result is still the degradation of black people. Similarly, even if the Springer show is a satire it results in a degradation of poor Americans, people whom our party should be trying to help. Depicting the poorest level of society as a bunch of "toothless trailer trash" or "Ghetto Ho's" is not a constructive activity, and he should be held accountable for it.

Jerry Springer is not portraying anybody as anything. The people who come on his show are real people. We may not like to admit to ourselves that so many people are like this. People from a more sheltered background may be in denial that there are so many poor people, tacky people, troubled and confused people out there, and so they think it is exploitation. But you know what? Those poor people, those tacky people, those troubled and confused people...sometimes they want to be heard. They want to be seen. They want the world to know that America isn't all some Armani suit working in a bank all day and dining at Emeril's in the evening and driving home in a Jaguar.

It is hard for us sometimes to watch because we don't like to see people losing their dignity. But these people have a different view of it. They feel they are gaining something important -- visibility. They are being seen. Maybe they won't be understood today or tomorrow or any time soon. But at least they are being seen and not totally swept under the rug.

When I was a kid, as the child of a "hillbilly," I was horrified and offended by "Hee Haw." Yet, when we would visit in the mountains, I soon learned that the family members who were never able to get off the mountain were not shocked or hurt by "Hee Haw." They didn't feel it offended their dignity. They thought it was hilarious and, in many ways, the truest thing they'd ever seen on TV. They thought they were being recognized. Their existence was being acknowledged. They were no longer invisible.

I don't crap on Jerry Springer for letting tacky people be seen and have their moment on TV. I have no way of knowing just what it means to someone to be on Jerry Springer or even the more socially acceptable Oprah. I could not open myself in that way. But for some people, this really does mean acknowledgement. And it really is helping them. Do you know what it means to feel acknowledged after years of hiding some dirty secret in a closet? It can mean everything to some people...it can mean their sanity.

There may indeed be a better Dem. candidate for Senator in Ohio but Springer says a lot of the right things and he has some good experience. I'm not inclined to write him off because the GOP laughs at him. They laugh and scorn all our candidates.

Just my humble opinion. You may want to get your own.

areas, there are many thoughtful decent people but there is a HUGE contingency that actually PRIDES themselves in their ignorance..it isn't about pverty but about a rather deliberate stubborn resistance to think.
One can't paint everyone with a broad brush but anyone who's been to the neck of the woods where DELIVERANCE was filmed knows what I mean...even MEAN people don't drive those roads at night.

Is that all there is to it? No, not by a long shot. But it's a major contributor.

For one thing, poverty is societal child abuse. Think on that one for a while.

Eloriel

Yeah, I know those are real people. I used to have them for neighbours...

I know guys who have done the show a few times.

The shit is completely made up.


Half those people don't even know each other until they meet at the show.


The only stuff that is real is when they have shows where they get like KKK guys and and the JDL on stage together to go at it... or when they get deformed folks like conjoined twins on the show.


But most of the stuff, the telling my wife I'm gay type stuff is faked.

The guys I know are a couple of gay comedians who did the show called "Surprise I'm Gay" where one guy introduces his girlfriend to his gay lover. He'd never even met that girl who was his “girlfriend” until that day.

Springer runs a freak show, nothing more. He is a carnival barker at a side show. I see nothing wrong with what he does.

Who if vote, tend to be repukes. (Remember the Eddie Murphy skit about Jesse Jackson running for president; the one about people getting drunk and then voting for JJ as a joke, sobering up the next day and finding out he fucking won. I could see that happening.)

.

a friend of mine was on 2 jerry springer shows and was paid the handsome sum of $2000 a pop to be 1) a bitter girlfriend who's pregnant with her brother's stepson's child and 2) a bitter wife who's pregnant with her brother's stepson's child's child..or something.

Seriously. it's on her resume!

entering politics, but Jerry has a political background. Also, he's not a Republican, so I say go Jerry go.

Unless they want to see midgets throwing donuts at fat ladies and blacks dancing jigs and chasing white women in the halls of politics.

midgets tossing donuts at fat ladies would be a welcome change from the specter of perpetual war and mushroom clouds.

Even if he is now running as a Dem, I won't forget that tidbit to throw into the debate. When he wrote the check, he was a "family values" Repuke.

He DID pay a hooker with a check though.

I'll leave the decision up to the citizens of Ohio, but you have to admit, Senator Jerry would never be boring. Actually the thought of him encouraging other senators to throw chairs at repukes comes to mind :evilgrin:

Jerry came into politics as an organizer for RFK. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

i was there.

Thats a suprise! I though the Charterites where fairly upper-middle-class types.

I don't have the link, but if you Google "Cincinnati Mayors," the first site up gives a list of all mayors of Cincinnati, and Springer is clearly listed as a Democrat.

for ahwile...but yeah, that predated Springers career.

Odd to think that a city has its own political party...

(oh and thanks for that link)

...a rather extensive interview in which Jerry Springer got stuck answering the questions for once. He actually seems like a level headed nice guy when not doing his show. Even so, I NEVER watch his show so I am at a loss to figure out what happened to CHANGING THE CHANNEL. Or, at the very least giving the guy credit for creating a show that people actually watch.

http://www.runjerryrun.com/

and i suggest that we all take a deep breath and remember that even whores, drug users and transsexuals are still americans, with voting rights and the sacred, protected privilege and duty to speak out about their gov't, and to participate if they see fit.

look, i am friends with a producer on the show and yes, it's as bad as it seems. but don't confuse the product with the man, or more importantly the man's political views and aspirations.

after the cowboy, actor, cheerleader, i really don't see why everyone is so unhappy.

I think it mustve been a long strange trip from disgraced mayor of Cinicinatti to daytime TV star.

listen to him talk and explain himself and his show. He's wonderfully liberal and is a great speaker.

with our country when the host of a TV show in which the audience routinely chants "WHORE WHORE WHORE" or "SLUT SLUT SLUT" at women onstage is considered to be a champion of liberalism.

First off what the audience does is not Jerry's doing. He's not telling them to chant that.

Second, they chant stuff at guys as well, if not more. So it isn't like this is just unfair bashing of women.

#1 Hosts can and do exert control over audiences. Jerry chooses to give his audience a long leash. If you don't believe me, try screaming at guests on Oprah.

#2 Two wrongs don't make a right. I know they chant stuff at guys, which can also be wrong. I chose to point out the chanting at women because it is something I thought most people would think is wrong. I would have chosen depicting lower-class people as scum to be wrong, but evidently some people here think that it is perfectly fine. These things matter! People watch this and then when it comes time to cut programs for those in poverty they often think, "Those people are animals anyway, why should my tax dollar go to them"

edited for typo

"#1 Hosts can and do exert control over audiences. Jerry chooses to give his audience a long leash. If you don't believe me, try screaming at guests on Oprah."

I did not say that he was unable to stop it, should he decide to toss the whole audience out. However letting them chant stuff is not the same as telling them to do it or prompting them etc.

To attack Springer for what the crowd says is unfair.


"#2 Two wrongs don't make a right. I know they chant stuff at guys, which can also be wrong. I chose to point out the chanting at women because it is something I thought most people would think is wrong."

Exactly, you focus on the thing most likely to upset more people. Because chanting stuff at guys is OK to most, but double standards say if the same is done to women it is a horrible sexist tragedy.


"I would have chosen depicting lower-class people as scum to be wrong, but evidently some people here think that it is perfectly fine."

Sure it is perfectly fine. Newsflash, some people are scum, regardless of class. Bad taste is not a crime against humanity, nor is displaying it..


" These things matter!"

Only to prudes who want to force their idea of good taste on others.


" People watch this and then when it comes time to cut programs for those in poverty they often think, "Those people are animals anyway, why should my tax dollar go to them""

Yeah I'm sure a lot of policy makers are home at 4 sharp to tune into Springer. The fact is the folks watching Springer fall into two groups... freaks much like those on the show, and people who tune in to look at the freaks for all of about 5 minutes.

Face it, you do not personally like the show and you want to bash and attack it. I do not like it either, but I see nothing wrong with people who do like it, watching it. But some think that if something offends them personally, it must be an affront to everybody or there is something wrong with everybody.

Trying to make something so stupid into some massive social cancer in order to rationalize censorship, is far worse than anything that has ever come from Springer's stage.

Jerry springer is responsible for the content of his show.

I'm not attacking Springer. I'm criticizing his show. I think his show does a lot to hurt liberal interests. Interests such as: social equality, stopping racism, stopping sexism, stopping homophobia, and breaking down barriers that divide Americans.

You accuse me of being one of the "prudes who want to force their idea of good taste on others." This is not true. Criticism of a show is not forcing my idea of taste on anyone.

"Yeah I'm sure a lot of policy makers are home at 4 sharp to tune into Springer. The fact is the folks watching Springer fall into two groups... freaks much like those on the show, and people who tune in to look at the freaks for all of about 5 minutes."
Voters who watch this and absorb the bigotry that this show contains will vote for policies that correspond to that bigotry. At the very least this show dissolves the solidarity of the public. Shows like this and COPS repeatedly show extremely unsavory aspects of society, they are essentially anti-public propaganda. COPS teaches us to think that everyone is a criminal. Springer teaches us to think that they're scum. Neither lesson is a good one.

"Jerry springer is responsible for the content of his show."

True, but not the behavior of the audience... which is what you were attacking.


"I'm not attacking Springer. I'm criticizing his show."

No, you're attacking him and using the show as ammo. Hence your comment about the audience's behavior.


"I think his show does a lot to hurt liberal interests."

Now that's just dumb. Like saying that godawful movie Showgirls did a lot to hurt the stripping industry. This stupid show may be a big deal to you, but frankly it is no more socially damaging than bart simpson, judas priest, or batman comics.

There is always some prude that wants to blame all their woes on popular entertainment and cast it as the downfall of all they hold sacred.

Horse crap.

" Interests such as: social equality, stopping racism, stopping sexism, stopping homophobia, and breaking down barriers that divide Americans."

I disagree, by presenting those who hold those views racists, homophobes, etc. as slobbering jackasses, I think it does a lot to make people see the foolish nature of those individuals and their views.




"Voters who watch this and absorb the bigotry that this show contains will vote for policies that correspond to that bigotry."

So watching Springer will make you a racist and force you to vote that way at the polls?

Most Springer viewers are not old enough to vote.


"At the very least this show dissolves the solidarity of the public."

Funny chanting is usually an indicator of solidarity.


"Shows like this and COPS repeatedly show extremely unsavory aspects of society, they are essentially anti-public propaganda. COPS teaches us to think that everyone is a criminal. Springer teaches us to think that they're scum. Neither lesson is a good one."

These shows do not teach us to think anything... that's the big lie. These shows are pabulum to kill 30 minutes.

If someone watches cops or Springer and concluded everybody is a scummy criminal... that person is a fucking moron who more likely than not can't find their way to the polls if they even vote in the first place.

i saw one of his staff start a chant today. are you saying he can't control his staff?

This show is not live. Everything that shows up on the screen has made it through editing. He's responsible for the show.

telling people what to chant. Which would make it unfair to blame him for those chants, as if he told the crowd to call someone a whore.

we would not be talking about it now, would we?

the first talk show was Phil Daonahue. when i was in college, the admin restructured the schedule because they had trouble filling up the nine o'clock classes because nobody wanted to miss Phil. he showed us gays as regular people. he showed us vietnam. he should us the beginings of the woman's movement.

to think that the media he created has morphed into chanting whore is heartbreaking. jerry springer's show is the worst of the worst.

shame..

"#1 Hosts can and do exert control over audiences. Jerry chooses to give his audience a long leash. If you don't believe me, try screaming at guests on Oprah."

I did not say that he was unable to stop it, should he decide to toss the whole audience out. However letting them chant stuff is not the same as telling them to do it or prompting them etc.

To attack Springer for what the crowd says is unfair.


"#2 Two wrongs don't make a right. I know they chant stuff at guys, which can also be wrong. I chose to point out the chanting at women because it is something I thought most people would think is wrong."

Exactly, you focus on the thing most likely to upset more people. Because chanting stuff at guys is OK to most, but double standards say if the same is done to women it is a horrible sexist tragedy.


"I would have chosen depicting lower-class people as scum to be wrong, but evidently some people here think that it is perfectly fine."

Sure it is perfectly fine. Newsflash, some people are scum, regardless of class. Bad taste is not a crime against humanity, nor is displaying it..


" These things matter!"

Only to prudes who want to force their idea of good taste on others.


" People watch this and then when it comes time to cut programs for those in poverty they often think, "Those people are animals anyway, why should my tax dollar go to them""

Yeah I'm sure a lot of policy makers are home at 4 sharp to tune into Springer. The fact is the folks watching Springer fall into two groups... freaks much like those on the show, and people who tune in to look at the freaks for all of about 5 minutes.

Face it, you do not personally like the show and you want to bash and attack it. I do not like it either, but I see nothing wrong with people who do like it, watching it. But some think that if something offends them personally, it must be an affront to everybody or there is something wrong with everybody.

Trying to make something so stupid into some massive social cancer in order to rationalize censorship, is far worse than anything that has ever come from Springer's stage.

I NEVER SAID THAT SPRINGER SHOULD BE CENSORED!!!
I did say that he creates a show that is not in line with liberal values.

First of all, I have watched a good number of episodes of the Jerry Springer show. Some of them were quite funny, but almost any pleasure derived from the show was a guilty pleasure. Just because something is funny doesn't make it right.

Secondly, I have read up on Springer and I support his liberal statements; however, I am forced to wonder why an intelligent man like him would not see that his show gains popularity at the expense of not only the dignity of the guests but also by lending creedence to the many offensive stereotypes about poor people in this country.

Back to our fight.
I said: "I would have chosen depicting lower-class people as scum to be wrong, but evidently some people here think that it is perfectly fine."

You replied: "Sure it is perfectly fine."

I am not going to continue any argument with you. It is obvious that you have great contempt for the lower classes. Why don't you just vote Republican if it is perfectly fine to depict lower-class people as scum?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for a while, i felt like that biblical character sent to town to find an honorable man.

if, as some say, these people want what his show has to offer, i say he is no better than a drug pusher. i try, i mean i really try not to be judgemental but when a person's actions encourage debasement of women or gays in general, even if a particular woman or gay is willing, i'd hope a resonable man, an intelligent and responsible man would not endorse or profit from the activity.

there is nothing about this show that reflects well on him as a dem or as a liberal. i wouldn't vote for a pusher or a pimp and i wouldn't vote for springer because he is in the same vein.

on whatever you embrace. Don't hate on Jerry. He earns a living and trust me on this, none of the people who appear as guests on his program were drafted against their will.

And to this day, I wonder why someone doesn't RUN as soon as an S.O. suggests going on Springers.

Yikes!

or man for that matter really is a whore or slut? Some of the people they bring on that show are exactly that.

.

i saw a couple of clips of him in the past days and wanted to see for myself.

I thought that the democratic party was the party of the common people and you can't get any more common than the people who watch his show.

Jerry's show is entertainment, the people who go on it know what the show is about. That being said...

The Springer show Has not caused 6.5% unemployment, looted pension funds, Killed thousands of Iraqis, and Afghani's, Lied about Why it was important to kill all those Iraqis, Stolen an election, caused the largest national debt in history...
The Springer show is just lowest common denominator entertainment, Whining about it makes you sound like the Stereotypical Liberal elite that the right is always complaining about.

Take some time look at Springer's positions and bitch about them not about his show.

And believe me, if you take 100 people into a room who know nothing about his TV show and let Jerry go to work on them for about fifteen minutes, you'd have about 80 people in the room voting for him.

Getting people to ignore his show is an admittedly tough hurdle. But the problem is that everybody in Ohio knows about the show. They know that he once wrote a check to a hooker (and was subsequently elected mayor of Cincinnati). They know everything there is to know about Jerry Springer, so the effect of a negative Republican campaign (is there any other kind?) will be muted.

I'll say here what I've said on other boards. Springer will generate interest in politics among people who don't normally vote. If that translates into higher turnout, it could tip the scales in General Assembly elections (the entire House and a third of the Senate are up for grabs in 2004). It will also bring attention -- and campaign dollars -- to other races in Ohio.

Sen. Eric Fingerhut (the other potential Democratic candidate) is a good and honest public servant. But he doesn't stand a chance against the fund-raising prowess of George Voinovich. Springer might well lose, too, but his candidacy could have the effect of refilling the coffers of the Ohio Democratic Party, which have been virtually empty for nearly a decade.

what has his show done? it has legitimized the behaviors and actions portrayed by the people he displays.

people don't need validation for following their dark side.

i'm no snob. i'm one step away from what so many here call trailer trash but i can recognize scum when i see it. the scum is the one holding the microphone and raking in the money.

the guests come from. "Are policies hurting poor people? Fuck 'em they are just a bunch of trailer trash anyway." "I can either hire the 16 year old from a nice home or the 30 year old from the trailer park to work at McDonalds. I'll hire the 16 year old, even though they are equally qualified the poor man has gapped teeth while the 16 year old has good orthodontics. I know the poor man needs the job more, but he's trash"

Use the term "trash" to describe his guests and viewers. I guarantee you'll be in an instant argument -- I've seen it happen.

I don't think that they are trash either. That is why the sentences were in quotes. They are not my thoughts but the thoughts that happen when people view each other as trash.

I am glad that Springer doesn't want his guests and viewers called trash, because I don't want them called trash. What bugs me is that his show unwittingly promotes the idea that these peoplea are trash to the public. I've read up on Springer and I find his political views to be very good, but I think that the legacy of the show will stick to him. He is not unlike Larry Flynt. Although the politics are good he carries some serious baggage. In fact I hope he wins the Senate seat because that may make him too busy to continue the show and he'll be making a better contribution to our country.

But something tells me that Jerry shouldn't be 'misunderestimated'. I've heard him talk, both about politics and his show, and he's pretty damn articulate. I've got a feeling that his opponents in a debate will be wearing their ass for a hat.

There's this peculiar Ami "show biz" mindset that you can only be ONE THING. It's a LIE. Oh? You're the prima ballerina, well you can't possibly write a coherent sentence even though your life experiences are amazing, your education stellar and you speak 5 languages fluently. NO ONE will take you seriously. :eyes: :shrug: :eyes:

....its very "Jerry Springeresque" in parts.

Not that these folks would vote for Jerry, or even vote at all....but...its not like his guests are all that unlike the great unwashed in this state.

some of those "unwashed" are my relatives! A few I'm even still talking to...:grr:
:P

Seriously, Jerry's audience is not much different from some of the less well-known shows (some of the worst crap on ComedyCentral, for example), but he was the one who hit it at the "right" time and caught on. I suspect he's now been devoured by the image--typecast, if you will--and don't think his candidacy will fly unless he manages to connect as a populist and surprise us all.

There is a big white trash element in parts of this state...oddly enough these parts are not necessarily rural areas!

he is not his show. reagan was not bonzo.

and after 10+ years of that crap, i daresay he understands how to communicate a populist message, which is what will win in 2004. its how dean is getting traction, isn't it? you'll be shocked at his traction amongst the working class who have been swinging right out of fear of losing their precious, precious guns.

do you want the senate or not, self-defeating liberal? i want the senate back.

And I won't forget the impotent party leadership that brought us to the point where we need people with significant stains on their curriculum vitae in order to survive. Mark this as another one of the defeats of a once great party.

if there is a better indicator of our status as a party than jerry springer, i can't name it.

after months of hearing the DU loyalist 'the worst democrat is better than the best republican' meme and their defenses of the 'zell millers' of the party simply coz they have (D)s by their name, i find the attacks of those self same zealots on a populist democrat that might actually oppose bushco highly amusing.

so feel free to use your 'self-defeating liberal' comment as a rectal thermometer.

He said someone has to talk about uneemployment and deficits and health care and someone has to care about the little guy. Said his show never got us into war, cost anybody their job, etc. Makes sense if you can get them to talk about something besides his show. I don't mind if he represents Ohio in the senate. At least he does not wear a pink tutu.

..sounds like some obscure no-name politician. Another sacrificial lamb the Democrats have drafted, probably from the Cleveland area as Ive never heard of him (and probably wont after Voinovich cleans his clock).

I don't watch the show, and I like his politics, that's all I need to know.