NationStates Jolt Archive

MSNBC cancels simulcast of Don Imus show (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6433090.html)

MSNBC said it has cancelled its simulcast of the Imus in the Morning radio show after an "ongoing review" process of its embattled star beginning with a suspension earlier this week.

The network issued a statement saying: "what matters to us most is that the men and women of NBC Universal have confidence in the values we have set for this company. This is the only decision that makes that possible."

Imus drew a firestorm of criticism for comments he made on his popular show last week. During the show, he called the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy headed hos."

Activists across the country howled in protest at what they called racist remarks. In the face of some advertisers pulling spots from the show, NBC faced a difficult decision.

"Once again, we apologize to the women of the Rutgers basketball team and to our viewers," the network's statement said. "We deeply regret the pain this incident has caused."

Now, that's progress.

All week, people have been saying to me, "He'll just get the slap on the wrist, the two-week suspension. He's famous. His show is profitable. Protests don't do anything against that kind of power."

Then Staples, Proctor & Gamble, and Bigelow Tea pulled their ads from his show.

And now MSNBC is cancelling their simulcast of his show. For my part, I sincerely hope CBS fires him as well.

Racists and sexists have every right to their beliefs. But I don't think they should get paid to broadcast them on public airwaves.

Thoughts?

Its a shame they didnt wait til AFTER his Tommorrow's Children's Fund charity drive, which he has been doing for 18 years.

Cutting him off is going to impact that.

But no one really wants to hear any of the good Mr.Imus has done.

When are we going to ruin Sharpton's career for being a racist?

Its a shame they didnt wait til AFTER his Tommorrow's Children's Fund charity drive, which he has been doing for 18 years.

Cutting him off is going to impact that.

But no one really wants to hear any of the good Mr.Imus has done.

Indeed right CL.

However,I applaud MSNBC for doing this.

After it became clear the advertisers were bailing on Imus, this seems to have been the only thing that there was to do.

All the same, I do think that the reaction to this bit of stupidity has been more than over the top.

After it became clear the advertisers were bailing on Imus, this seems to have been the only thing that there was to do.

All the same, I do think that the reaction to this bit of stupidity has been more than over the top.
I don't.

I think it just seems that way because we don't manage to mobilize this kind of momentum in opposition to EVERY asshole "shock jock."

Each and every one of them should get exactly the same treatment.

I don't.

I think it just seems that way because we don't manage to mobilize this kind of momentum in opposition to EVERY asshole "shock jock."

Each and every one of them should get exactly the same treatment.

And I rather don't think it's worth it. If anything, if we were to constantly mobilize against every so-called "shock jock," I would personally fear a resulting chilling effect. Yeah, sure, they're stupid and they're wrong...but what happens if legitimate commentators start to fear a similar retaliation for dealing with controversial topics? That's what would concern me. A chilling effect.

I'd far rather permit people to continue to be wrong, rather than run that risk.

I don't.

I think it just seems that way because we don't manage to mobilize this kind of momentum in opposition to EVERY asshole "shock jock."

Each and every one of them should get exactly the same treatment.


Huh I don't get it, what did he say? Why was it bad?

When are we going to ruin Sharpton's career for being a racist?

His career as what? A professional leech? A skilled instigator? A tensions fueler?

The only one that can do that is the next person with a problem that he wants to exploit that tells him to get lost publically.

When are we going to ruin Sharpton's career for being a racist?

Olbermann AND Rome had some good points about that yesterday, imnsho.

And I rather don't think it's worth it. If anything, if we were to constantly mobilize against every so-called "shock jock," I would personally fear a resulting chilling effect. Yeah, sure, they're stupid and they're wrong...but what happens if legitimate commentators start to fear a similar retaliation for dealing with controversial topics? That's what would concern me. A chilling effect.

I'd far rather permit people to continue to be wrong, rather than run that risk.While I'll give you credit for a very nuanced slippery slope argument, it is a slippery slope nonetheless.

As always, the slippery slope results from a refusal to make distinctions. In order for the outcry against racist, sexist, etc. shock jocks to exercise a chilling effect on legitimate commentators dealing with controversial topics, you would need to convince me that the average person can't tell the difference between the two.

I remain unconvinced.

And I rather don't think it's worth it. If anything, if we were to constantly mobilize against every so-called "shock jock," I would personally fear a resulting chilling effect. Yeah, sure, they're stupid and they're wrong...but what happens if legitimate commentators start to fear a similar retaliation for dealing with controversial topics? That's what would concern me. A chilling effect.

I'd far rather permit people to continue to be wrong, rather than run that risk.

And-if "nappy headed ho" is so absolutely horrible, why have I heard it repeated a hundred times by a dozen different broadcasters and in print on the ticker at the bottom of the screen and in every newspaper for almost a week?

How many people actually heard this live as it was said? Few compared to how many have been so "injured" by it being repeated since.

Now- no broadcaster will utter the "N-word". Why are they all chanting the nappy headed ho then?



Its Bullshit-Thats why !!!


I do remember someone calling NY "Hymietown" though-certainly more hateful slur and to more people than a descriptive word-
But the one that said that is given any venue to spout his beligerant stupidity anytime the whim strikes him.

Huh I don't get it, what did he say? Why was it bad?He referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's."

No backbone at MSNBC, apparently.

Letting a good and decent person like Don Imus, who may be annoying but has done immeasurable good for the world with his chrities, be cut down by some sleazy pimp like al sharpton is a travesty.

Score another point for the victim-pimps, another step backward for black america.

I do remember someone calling NY "Hymietown" though-certainly more hateful slur and to more people than a descriptive word-
But the one that said that is given any venue to spout his beligerant stupidity anytime the whim strikes him.


As we all know, it was said repeatedly by Sharpton, who also made other anti-Jewish slurs at the time.

It's part and parcel of US politics and culture that a black man can never be racist - ever - no matter what he says or who he slurs.

What irritates me is that MSNBC is trying to play the concientious employer by letting Imus go when in fact up until now they were perfectly happy with all the money they were raking in from his show.

I was listening to Chris Core this morning and he makes an interestig point. In the radio business, the execs really don't care as long as the money flows. They do push their people to be edgy because edgy is what sells. The problem is that when someone crosses the line, they're toast and suddenly the network plays innocent.

Imus wouldn't be Imus without goading by his bosses. And now we're supposed to believe that they're shocked by this? Oh, CBS will probably fire him now that MSNBC has dropped him, and they'll be guilty of the same hypocrisy.

Racists and sexists have every right to their beliefs. But I don't think they should get paid to broadcast them on public airwaves.




in your thought process does this include thought on if people who speak out against racism should get paid to voice their opinion on air?


im betting it wont be too long before he gets a job offer from sirius satelite radio to host a show for them. If howard stern is good enough for them it cant be too hard to get a job with them.

What irritates me is that MSNBC is trying to play the concientious employer by letting Imus go when in fact up until now they were perfectly happy with all the money they were raking in from his show.

QFT.

He referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's."

hehe yeah I read, that. I don't know who these people are, or what nappyhead refers to?

hehe yeah I read, that. I don't know who these people are, or what nappyhead refers to?

I would say The Cat-Tribe has a pretty good angle as to a definition or two on "nappyhead".

If he really cares about charity he'll continue doing it even WITHOUT his job.
The guy is an asshole, and I'm pretty sure he did too many drugs in the past. He has the look.

Note: I mean asshole in that's his personality, he will be insulting without even meaning too. He just doesn't care.

As we all know, it was said repeatedly by Sharpton, who also made other anti-Jewish slurs at the time.

It's part and parcel of US politics and culture that a black man can never be racist - ever - no matter what he says or who he slurs.

It was actually Mr.Sharpton's esteemed colleague Jesse Jackson that used teh "Hymietown" slur,during his failed bid for the Presidency,no less.

Mr.Sharpton may have parroted the phrase since,but I'm not aware of it.

Mr.Sharpton did,however,use some more creative terms to describe the Jewish population during his manipulation of the Crown Heights tragedy.

in your thought process does this include thought on if people who speak out against racism should get paid to voice their opinion on air?Yes, people may get paid to speak out against racism and all forms of bigotry.

Any respectable company should be happy to hire a host who fights for justice.

But a company should be ashamed to hire a host who perpetuates prejudice and bigotry.


im betting it wont be too long before he gets a job offer from sirius satelite radio to host a show for them. If howard stern is good enough for them it cant be too hard to get a job with them.You're probably right, and Sirius should be ashamed of themselves.

But, there is one key difference: at least they don't broadcast on public airwaves. You have to pay if you want to hear that shit.

I don't.

I think it just seems that way because we don't manage to mobilize this kind of momentum in opposition to EVERY asshole "shock jock."

Each and every one of them should get exactly the same treatment.

Note to you: Find case law or constitutional passage that states you have the right not to be offended. It's simple, you have the choice to change the channel when he's on. Did you hear his comments on air, or from the new media after the fact? This is a clear first amendment issue and the case law is on the side of Mr. Imus. You want to get to the heart of the matter? Try treating the underlying problems which cause African American people themselves to devalue their life by calling each other bitches, niggas, hoes, tricks, etc. Mr. Imus is just the latest crick to creep up on us to shed light on the true issues that face us as a nation. No, it's easier to attack a man or an industry. You are traverse to the principals of this nation.

hehe yeah I read, that. I don't know who these people are, or what nappyhead refers to?

All nappyheaded means is that someone (usually a black person) has bad/messy hair. At any rate I've only ever heard it used by black people to describe blacks so thats how everyone transformed it into a racial slur when a white guy said it.

Personally I don't think what he said was all that bad.

EDIT: Though I suppose he owes the girls a personal apology, since they might not be prostitutes. Whether or not they had bad hair is of course a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't expect a girl to get her hair done to play basketball...

Note to you: Find case law or constitutional passage that states you have the right not to be offended. It's simple, you have the choice to change the channel when he's on. Did you hear his comments on air, or from the new media after the fact? This is a clear first amendment issue and the case law is on the side of Mr. Imus. You want to get to the heart of the matter? Try treating the underlying problems which cause African American people themselves to devalue their life by calling each other bitches, niggas, hoes, tricks, etc. Mr. Imus is just the latest crick to creep up on us to shed light on the true issues that face us as a nation. No, it's easier to attack a man or an industry. You are traverse to the principals of this nation.

Apparently, Sharpton disagrees with you. He says this isn't the end, and he's going to see that there are legal restrictions on what you can say on the air.

Not that he'll get much past the First Amendment, but he'll try.

Yes, people may get paid to speak out against racism and all forms of bigotry.

Any respectable company should be happy to hire a host who fights for justice.

But a company should be ashamed to hire a host who perpetuates prejudice and bigotry.


You're probably right, and Sirius should be ashamed of themselves.

But, there is one key difference: at least they don't broadcast on public airwaves. You have to pay if you want to hear that shit.

I see. So what your saying is that you hope that companies will become censors and decide which people are okay for us to hear and which aren't? Noted. Here I thought censorship was a bad thing.

The guy was talking about them being ugly. Is that idiocy? Yes, of course. But who cares. The first part of the term was meant to refer to their hair, not their skin color. The second part of the term was the part I thought was odd, since I don't see even how it fit the point he was trying to make.

My guess is he was TRYING to be inflammatory, rather than simply trying to make his point known. Yes, yes, I know every piece of evidence we have about him supports this notion, but isn't it much for fun to just call him a racist and hide him in a dark place.

The guy's an idiot and the majority of the world would have NEVER heard the comment if not for people like you spouting off about it like its the end of the world.

Hell, one of the players actually had the nerve to say she was "scarred for life". Are you kidding me? Who is that weak? "Some idiot I've never met, heard of and don't care about just called me a random name? Really? Oh, my heart. I don't think I can carry on."

Note to you: Find case law or constitutional passage that states you have the right not to be offended.What difference does it make?

I'm not asking any government entity to press charges against Don Imus. I am asking responsible corporations to refuse to give money to bigots.

This is a clear first amendment issue and the case law is on the side of Mr. Imus.No, it's not. And even if it were, the courts have allowed broad regulatory power when it comes to deciding what people are allowed to say on public airwaves. Radio has always been more restricted than other media. And there IS case law on that.

I don't.

I think it just seems that way because we don't manage to mobilize this kind of momentum in opposition to EVERY asshole "shock jock."

Each and every one of them should get exactly the same treatment.

Why?

You're capable of changing the channel aren't you?

Why should there be some nanny pushing this stuff under the rug?

People aren't little children, they should learn not to listen to things that offend their po' lil' sensibilities.

"Oh mommy, don't let that mean man be on de radio! make the mean man lose his job mommy, i'm offffffffffffended"

:rolleyes:

Not that he'll get much past the First Amendment, but he'll try.Check the case law on public broadcasts. Currently, the legal restrictions are basically centered on obscenity, but it is certainly conceivable that the mandate of the FCC could be expanded to prohibit blatant racial slurs.

What difference does it make?

I'm not asking any government entity to press charges against Don Imus. I am asking responsible corporations to refuse to give money to bigots.

No, it's not. And even if it were, the courts have allowed broad regulatory power when it comes to deciding what people are allowed to say on public airwaves. Radio has always been more restricted than other media. And there IS case law on that.

Yes, because let encouraging corporations to decide what messages are okay for public consumption is MUUUUUCH better.

I see. So what your saying is that you hope that companies will become censors and decide which people are okay for us to hear and which aren't?Isn't that what they already do? I'm just asking them to exercise a degree of social responsibility when they do so.

The guy was talking about them being ugly. Is that idiocy? Yes, of course. But who cares. The first part of the term was meant to refer to their hair, not their skin color."Nappy" is a term referring specifically to the tight, curly hair of people of African descent.

While I'll give you credit for a very nuanced slippery slope argument, it is a slippery slope nonetheless.

As always, the slippery slope results from a refusal to make distinctions. In order for the outcry against racist, sexist, etc. shock jocks to exercise a chilling effect on legitimate commentators dealing with controversial topics, you would need to convince me that the average person can't tell the difference between the two.

I remain unconvinced.

I'd argue that it's irrelevant what the average person perceives, rather it is what the commentators perceive. We need not have any direct action carried out against commentators discussing controversial topics, only the development of a sense of fear amongst them, when faced with potential hot potatoes.

Even if a chilling effect were to not develop, I would rather not run the risk, because that would set precedent in favor of censoring other unpopular opinions, be they yours or mine.

Check the case law on public broadcasts. Currently, the legal restrictions are basically centered on obscenity, but it is certainly conceivable that the mandate of the FCC could be expanded to prohibit blatant racial slurs.

Indeed, because what we need is more government censorship, not less.

America needs a nanny to protect our po wittle dewicate sensibilities.

:rolleyes:

Yes, because let encouraging corporations to decide what messages are okay for public consumption is MUUUUUCH better.THEY ALREADY DO.

What do you not understand about this?

There is limited time in the day. Broadcasters do not have the option that, say, a newspaper does to simply add more pages if there are more viewpoints that need to be heard.

Instead, they have to allocate limited time to various shows. When one show gets picked, something else gets excluded. All I am suggesting is that ONE of the factors that they take into account in making such decisions is, "What is the socially responsible thing to do?"

I'd argue that it's irrelevant what the average person perceives, rather it is what the commentators perceive. We need not have any direct action carried out against commentators discussing controversial topics, only the development of a sense of fear amongst them, when faced with potential hot potatoes.It is relevant what the average person perceives, because the perception of an average, reasonable person is a common standard used to determine legal rules.

Moreover, I see no reason to expect that commentators are any less able than the average person to distinguish between "controversial topics" and "racial slurs."

Check the case law on public broadcasts. Currently, the legal restrictions are basically centered on obscenity, but it is certainly conceivable that the mandate of the FCC could be expanded to prohibit blatant racial slurs.

Which of course would only mean that it would be bleeped. Not prevented from being on the air. So who decides what ideas are okay? You? Me? GWB?

Which of course would only mean that it would be bleeped. Not prevented from being on the air. So who decides what ideas are okay? You? Me? GWB?

The commercial sponsors.

THEY ALREADY DO.

What do you not understand about this?

Sure, they do. But we shouldn't encourage it. You're lauding it like we should desire censorship and the idea is more than sad. People should simply listen to who they wish. If nobody wants to hear him he won't be on the air. We don't need corporations to censor it for us.


There is limited time in the day. Broadcasters do not have the option that, say, a newspaper does to simply add more pages if there are more viewpoints that need to be heard.

Instead, they have to allocate limited time to various shows. When one show gets picked, something else gets excluded. All I am suggesting is that ONE of the factors that they take into account in making such decisions is, "What is the socially responsible thing to do?"

Yes, there is limited time in the day. There are multiple channels, however. If he makes money, put him on. If he doesn't, don't. It's really very simply. You're asking them to choose based on what people say instead of whether there is a market. One is censorship and the other is business.

The socially responsible thing is NOT to become censors.

The commercial sponsors.

That's not what he's suggesting. He's talking about the FCC.

It is relevant what the average person perceives, because the perception of an average, reasonable person is a common standard used to determine legal rules.

Moreover, I see no reason to expect that commentators are any less able than the average person to distinguish between "controversial topics" and "racial slurs."

I would suspect that they would be able to, but that they'd expect the general public not to be able to. They'll always be asking "Oh, does this step over the line? I don't know...better safe than sorry though." I don't even know if it will happen, but from my point of view, the risk that it would stifle debate is far too great to run.

Which of course would only mean that it would be bleeped. Not prevented from being on the air.Bleeping would, in fact, be a step in the right direction.

So who decides what ideas are okay? You? Me? GWB?As with every other legal standard, it would develop through the work of Congress as the representatives of the people, the FCC as the executors of the will of the people, and the courts as interpreters of the will of the people.

That is, democratically.

But more importantly, I'm not concerned with banning "ideas." I'm concerned with banning words that do nothing other than stigmatize people of a particular group.

If Imus would have stopped at his first comments that the Rutgers team looked "rough," commenting on their tattoos and suggesting that they come from a particular background, I would have thought he was a prejudiced asshole, but I would not have called for him to be fired.

As it happens, he really is prejudiced and the young women involved are nothing like the stereotype he attempted to portray. Nothing at all.

I would suspect that they would be able to, but that they'd expect the general public not to be able to. They'll always be asking "Oh, does this step over the line? I don't know...better safe than sorry though." I don't even know if it will happen, but from my point of view, the risk that it would stifle debate is far too great to run.What we need is a legal rule, and I think the rule is very simple: any idea is fine, but racial slurs and bigoted terms are not.

Broadcasters who do not refer to groups of people using racial slurs would, under such a rule, feel free to express any ideas they want.

"Black people are dumb" is wrong, but, I think, protected speech.

"N*****s are dumb" is wrong and, I think, should not be protected on public airwaves.

That's not what he's suggesting. He's talking about the FCC.

Yes, I know. But grandstanding alarmmongers and commercial sponsors and producers with no balls and no knowledge of the First Amendment are much better at silencing than the FCC will ever be, even if unconstitutional laws are passed.

Sure, they do. But we shouldn't encourage it.You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether we encourage it will not. It will happen anyway. They have no choice: they MUST make decisions about what content to put on the air, and what content not to put on the air. There's only so much air to use.

Yes, there is limited time in the day. There are multiple channels, however.Yes, but any given broadcaster only has the choice about what they will put on, not others. They need to decide what they want on their channel. And they have no choice but to turn most people away.

If he makes money, put him on.I'm sure a 24-hour all-rape all-the-time channel would make money. That doesn't mean it should be there.

I would suspect that they would be able to, but that they'd expect the general public not to be able to. They'll always be asking "Oh, does this step over the line? I don't know...better safe than sorry though." I don't even know if it will happen, but from my point of view, the risk that it would stifle debate is far too great to run.

I think this is a perfect example. I don't many people know how offensive the term "nappy-headed" can be. I'm fairly educated but TCT had to explain it before I had any idea. In my neighborhood it was a common term for anyone with really curly hair regardless of skin color. We didn't view it as anymore offensive than tomboy or various other generally unflattering common terms.

I understand how people could be offended by his comment, but this issue was brought to the President of the US by reporters. The response to this is absurd and sad. You'd think people would be above this.

Or, you know, we could freak out about Michael Richards some more. At least, Michael Richards most certainly knew he was using a racial slur. This doesn't even pass THAT muster. And both simply don't matter. It's sad behavior by has-beens.

What we need is a legal rule, and I think the rule is very simple: any idea is fine, but racial slurs and bigoted terms are not.

Broadcasters who do not refer to groups of people using racial slurs would, under such a rule, feel free to express any ideas they want.

"Black people are dumb" is wrong, but, I think, protected speech.

"N*****s are dumb" is wrong and, I think, should not be protected on public airwaves.

I'd still rather not walk down that road. Prior review, under any circumstances, is dangerous.

I'd still rather not walk down that road. Prior review, under any circumstances, is dangerous.Who said anything about prior review?

You use a racial slur, you get fined.

No prior review.

Bleeping would, in fact, be a step in the right direction.

As with every other legal standard, it would develop through the work of Congress as the representatives of the people, the FCC as the executors of the will of the people, and the courts as interpreters of the will of the people.

That is, democratically.


So you want to vote on what words are acceptable? Forgive if I A) think we have more important things to do and B) don't agree with censorship.


But more importantly, I'm not concerned with banning "ideas." I'm concerned with banning words that do nothing other than stigmatize people of a particular group.


Why? What good will that do? And you've said bleeping would be a step in the right direction, which suggests you think it should go further. That means you're not banning words. You're banning the people behind them. Censorship, plain and simple. Keep calling it progress. I'll be in the front of the pack protecting the rights of people I disagree with.


If Imus would have stopped at his first comments that the Rutgers team looked "rough," commenting on their tattoos and suggesting that they come from a particular background, I would have thought he was a prejudiced asshole, but I would not have called for him to be fired.

As it happens, he really is prejudiced and the young women involved are nothing like the stereotype he attempted to portray. Nothing at all.

Exactly. So why does anyone care? Why does anyone take this seriously? Why is the whole country repeating these words out of context over and over if they are so horrible and hurtful? Why not just let them drift off into the silent abyss.

Who said anything about prior review?

You use a racial slur, you get fined.

No prior review.

You are saying, beforehand, that a specific phrase cannot be used. That is most certainly a form of prior review, and if you introduce the bleeping out of certain words, then it most definitely is prior review.

More than that, how do we decide what words are acceptable? Is it by popular vote? Do we ask minority communities? Do we hand it off to linguists and lexicographers? What do we do to determine what words are inappropriate?

Who said anything about prior review?

You use a racial slur, you get fined.

No prior review.

Why? What good do you think this does beside make you feel better and make commentators afraid to make comments you disagree with?

Man, I wish people would actually think about the things they wish for. It's not a slippery slope. The minute you make it okay for the majority to say what is and isn't okay to say though punative means then you open the door. The minute. And that door should stay as close to shut as we can muster and we should be fighting to close it tightly, not open it further.

So you want to vote on what words are acceptable? Forgive if I A) think we have more important things to do and B) don't agree with censorship.I don't believe in censoring ideas, arguments. I don't even believe in censoring words, per se--you can run around saying n***** and "ho" all day long, and I'll think you're a moron but I won't take action against you.

But "time/place/manner" restrictions are an old part of our free speech jurisprudence. Public airwaves have been subject to special, legally upheld restrictions since the early days of radio.

Why is the whole country repeating these words out of context over and over if they are so horrible and hurtful?I agree with you there. I think people know what he said, and if they don't it is easy enough to look up sources of this information. It is an ugly fact about our media that they seem to relish the fact that they can "get away" with repeating these slurs over and over again as a part of their reporting.

http://www.grumpygourmetusa.com/imus_200w.jpg

Anyways, what is he doing talking about other people's hair in the first place? Look at that...mullet...thing....

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether we encourage it will not. It will happen anyway. They have no choice: they MUST make decisions about what content to put on the air, and what content not to put on the air. There's only so much air to use.

You keep saying this. It does not support your point. We are talking about how they make those decisions not whether they must. You keep bringing this up because it's the only thing you've said that any reasonable person should agree with.

Yes, but any given broadcaster only has the choice about what they will put on, not others. They need to decide what they want on their channel. And they have no choice but to turn most people away.

And you're trying to get advertisers to make this happen on a broader sense while calling for the FCC to step in. If you had any sense you'd prefer to simply excercise this ideas through education instead of censorship. Censorship doesn't work.

I'm sure a 24-hour all-rape all-the-time channel would make money. That doesn't mean it should be there.

Yes, because allowing people's rights to be violated is the same as my call to respect people's rights. The 24-hour all-rape is closer to what you're calling for. Becuase in your mind it's okay to violate the rights of others if the majority wants it.

According to you we should democratically decide what goes on the air, rights be damned. And an all-rape channel fits right in with your claim.

Y'know, in all the debate about free speech, we seem to have forgotten a simple rule. In America, we're guaranteed the right to say whatever the fuck we want to say, wherever the fuck we want to say it. But, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Imus acted like a racist asshat. I don't know if he actually is a racist asshat, but the fact remains he acted like one. Now, he's paying the consequences for his asshattery.

Losing one's job may seem like an extreme consequence for a moment of asshattery (assuming he does lose it). Hell, it seems extreme to me, but that's up to CBS. If continues hemorraging sponsors, he will.

Can you tell I like using the word 'asshat'? I've played wayyy too much Kingdom of Loathing.

I don't believe in censoring ideas, arguments. I don't even believe in censoring words, per se--you can run around saying n***** and "ho" all day long, and I'll think you're a moron but I won't take action against you.

But "time/place/manner" restrictions are an old part of our free speech jurisprudence. Public airwaves have been subject to special, legally upheld restrictions since the early days of radio.

Yes, but we aren't talking about keeping certain things off the television or radio to protect children. You're trying to protect everyone, even people who don't want that protection. I don't need your help. I'm quite aware of how to work my radio.

And I don't agree with such laws. We have laws that outlaw gay marriage. They're wrong too. I believe in rights. We can't start abandoning that idea because people are using them for something that the majority doesn't agree with.


I agree with you there. I think people know what he said, and if they don't it is easy enough to look up sources of this information. It is an ugly fact about our media that they seem to relish the fact that they can "get away" with repeating these slurs over and over again as a part of their reporting.

No one would know what he said. Even people I know that listen to the show didn't hear it. It's like Jackson's boob. If they hadn't kept talking about it, no one would have known. I was watching and I sure didn't see it.

You are saying, beforehand, that a specific phrase cannot be used. That is most certainly a form of prior review, and if you introduce the bleeping out of certain words, then it most definitely is prior review.Laws respecting speech always describe the kinds of things that cannot be said beforehand--that's how people know not to say them.

You're confused about the issue of prior restraint. The issue is whether the government can prevent the publication of certain materials, or whether they can only proceed with legal action against them after the fact. This was addressed, for instance, in New York Times v. United States.

Prior restraint would mean that the government could look at the script for a show beforehand and cross words out or prevent the show from airing.

Under the kind of restriction I am proposing, the government prohibits the malicious use of racial slurs on the air. When someone uses a racial slur, the government may or may not proceed with legal action against him.

Supposing they do, he will be entitled to due process: he might defend his use, for instance, on the ground that his remark was ironic rather than malicious, or that he was attempting a reasoned discussion of the use of such words, or that he was reporting on their use by someone else.

Not prior restraint.

It's the same as knowing that there are laws against fighting words. If you are arrested for using fighting words, you can defend yourself, arguing that the words actually didn't have the intent or the effect that the government alleges.

More than that, how do we decide what words are acceptable?The same way we decide whether something falls under the rules prohibiting obscenity: someone brings a charge, and the courts decide whether it satisfies the legal rule or not.

Any good law would not create a list of specific words. Rather, it would create a legal standard for judging whether a given usage was an example of a bigoted racial slur.

That's how law works.

Man, I wish people would actually think about the things they wish for. It's not a slippery slope. The minute you make it okay for the majority to say what is and isn't okay to say though punative means then you open the door. The minute. And that door should stay as close to shut as we can muster and we should be fighting to close it tightly, not open it further.


I don't think people think it through either. They think, "Well, the people who think like I do are in charge right now, so those restrictions wouldn't bother me - in fact, it would be swell."

Not realizing that politics change over time, and one day there's another set of people in charge. Let's say it was Christian Fundamentalists.

Now they tell you that you can't disparage God on the air. You have to listen to Christian music - nothing else is allowed. And because you're in the minority, you - the very person who voted in this power - are being screwed to the wall by your own idea.

You keep saying this. It does not support your point. We are talking about how they make those decisions not whether they must. You keep bringing this up because it's the only thing you've said that any reasonable person should agree with.No, any reasonable person should agree that broadcasters granted a license to use public airwaves has a public responsibility regarding their use.

You don't have a "right" to broadcast. The government grants you a license to do so. And that license comes with a responsibility to the public that grants it.

This is why the FCC currently regulates obscenity on the air.

Laws respecting speech always describe the kinds of things that cannot be said beforehand--that's how people know not to say them.

You're confused about the issue of prior restraint. The issue is whether the government can prevent the publication of certain materials, or whether they can only proceed with legal action against them after the fact. This was addressed, for instance, in New York Times v. United States.

Prior restraint would mean that the government could look at the script for a show beforehand and cross words out or prevent the show from airing.

Under the kind of restriction I am proposing, the government prohibits the malicious use of racial slurs on the air. When someone uses a racial slur, the government may or may not proceed with legal action against him.

Supposing they do, he will be entitled to due process: he might defend his use, for instance, on the ground that his remark was ironic rather than malicious, or that he was attempting a reasoned discussion of the use of such words, or that he was reporting on their use by someone else.

Not prior restraint.

It's the same as knowing that there are laws against fighting words. If you are arrested for using fighting words, you can defend yourself, arguing that the words actually didn't have the intent or the effect that the government alleges.

The same way we decide whether something falls under the rules prohibiting obscenity: someone brings a charge, and the courts decide whether it satisfies the legal rule or not.

Any good law would not create a list of specific words. Rather, it would create a legal standard for judging whether a given usage was an example of a bigoted racial slur.

That's how law works.

I obviously got hung up on the earlier statement about bleeping out words, and we clearly went into different territories on the first bit.

Indeed, because what we need is more government censorship, not less.

America needs a nanny to protect our po wittle dewicate sensibilities.

:rolleyes:

The worst part about it is there are people who would advocate exactly that

Yes, but we aren't talking about keeping certain things off the television or radio to protect children.Considering the well-documented adverse effects on minority children of being exposed to racism, I'd say that we are, in fact, protecting the children.

No one would know what he said.
This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard. He reaches millions of people every day.

If no one had heard, no one would have complained. Clearly, someone heard.

I obviously got hung up on the earlier statement about bleeping out words, and we clearly went into different territories on the first bit.The FCC doesn't bleep words.

Broadcasters bleep words in order to comply with FCC rules. That's not the same as prior restraint... because if a broadcaster thought something should be heard (either because they thought it wasn't really obscene, or they thought it was worthy of risking reprisal), they could publish it unbleeped.

The worst part about it is there are people who would advocate exactly that

anarchyel is advocating this exact thing in this thread.

Considering the well-documented adverse effects on minority children of being exposed to racism, I'd say that we are, in fact, protecting the children.

Yes, because of all those minority children clamouring to listen to Imus. If they required him to be played at times when kids weren't listening I might support that. You are trying to prevent EVERYONE from hearing him so this argument is less than genuine. Why don't you stick to honest arguments about your purpose? They will serve you better.


This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard. He reaches millions of people every day.

If no one had heard, no one would have complained. Clearly, someone heard.

He reached SOME people. The majority of people heard it from newscasters. Shall we do a poll here and see how many people actually heard Imus say this live? What do you think the percentage will be? 5% at best?

He reached SOME people. The majority of people heard it from newscasters. Shall we do a poll here and see how many people actually heard Imus say this live? What do you think the percentage will be? 5% at best?Does it matter?

It would be just as offensive on local radio as on a national broadcast.

No, any reasonable person should agree that broadcasters granted a license to use public airwaves has a public responsibility regarding their use.

You don't have a "right" to broadcast. The government grants you a license to do so. And that license comes with a responsibility to the public that grants it.

This is why the FCC currently regulates obscenity on the air.

Okay, so let's start forcing them to be responsible. I don't like the word God. I mean it's public airwaves and government controlled so I don't want them using it to promote their religion. Banned.

And I also don't want to hear about people who don't want same-sex marriage. Offensive and biggoted that is. Banned.

See, it's not a slippery slope. There is NO difference. If the public should decide what is acceptable because that's "responsible" then I can't wait to get to voting. Both Republicans and Democrats will barely be able to speak at all.

Does it matter?

It would be just as offensive on local radio as on a national broadcast.


Yes. Yes, it does. It's so offensive that we made sure everyone heard it. I doubt anyone on that team would even have known if he said it if the news hadn't jumped all over it. It's bizarre and absurd.

The reason people listen to this idiot is because they love listening to people like you freak out about it.

We have 'victims' claiming their 'scarred for life' because some idiot made a statement. People seriously need to get a life and move on. We should be talking about important things.

CBS has just fired (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18072804/?GT1=9246) Imus.

Okay, so let's start forcing them to be responsible. I don't like the word God. I mean it's public airwaves and government controlled so I don't want them using it to promote their religion. Banned.Well, but you need to explain what legal rule you want to implement that would prohibit the word "God."

Certainly it doesn't fall under my "malicious slur" rule. If you can't think of anything different, we'll use the Establishment Clause precedent that we already have... and broadcasters on public airwaves saying "God" clearly does not implicate government in religion in any way that violates existing constitutional law.

And I also don't want to hear about people who don't want same-sex marriage. Offensive and biggoted that is. Banned.Again, that kind of censorship of ideas is, and should be, unconstitutional. While I think such people are offensive and bigoted, they are free to express their opinion.

Of course, if they choose to express their opinion using a word like "faggot," I think they've crossed the line.

See, it's not a slippery slope.Yes, it is. It is caused by your failure to acknowledge the very clear difference between the expression of an idea, and verbal assault.

CBS has just fired (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18072804/?GT1=9246) Imus.I can't wait to say "I told you so" to all those people who insisted he was invincible.

I can't wait to say "I told you so" to all those people who insisted he was invincible.

To be fair, I think a lot of people thought he would get to stay on because, well, he has a long history of these sorts of comments, and they let him stay on the air for years. There's a long history of it being allowed to continue.

I'm honestly not quite sure what changed the dynamics in this case.

the long and the short, is he can say whatever he wants....but those that employ him don't need to continue to employ him

In 3 weeks, you'll see him on sat. radio...making more than he ever did with CBS and MSNBC

I think it's ridiculous that he thought he could make a comment like that without there being fallout.

To be fair, I think a lot of people thought he would get to stay on because, well, he has a long history of these sorts of comments, and they let him stay on the air for years. There's a long history of it being allowed to continue.

I'm honestly not quite sure what changed the dynamics in this case.Well, I think many Americans finally thought "enough is enough."

Also, on another level, there seems to be a moral subtext driven in part by our recent appalling failures in foreign affairs. America' moral compass is all fogged up, and I think a lot of people--including the heads of major corporations--needed to feel like they could stand for something decent for a change, like we can actually make some progress as a culture.

Well, I think many Americans finally thought "enough is enough."

Also, on another level, there seems to be a moral subtext driven in part by our recent appalling failures in foreign affairs. America' moral compass is all fogged up, and I think a lot of people--including the heads of major corporations--needed to feel like they could stand for something decent for a change, like we can actually make some progress as a culture.

That's possible. Though the cynic in me suspects that they were motivated by public relations concerns rather than more basic moral concerns.

I'm curious. Do you think Americans, in addition to highly valuing freedom of speech, also value the moral use of speech to the same extent? Or is it lesser, greater?

he has a long history of these sorts of comments

I don't think he's ever made such blatantly racist comments before. I'm not an Imus expert, but yes, he says shocking things, and yes, he says things that make people uncomfortable, but racist like that...I don't think so. Maybe he didn't think it would be construed as racist. I don't know.

The problem, whether he meant the comment to be racist or not, whether you think it's censorship or not...his employers rely on the sponsorship of products for their revenue. When the sponsors started pulling out, they realized they needed to do something. it would be catastrophic to a network if P&G pulled all advertising from all aspects of that network, or if staples did. They needed to look out for themselves. too .

Imus and his wife do alot of good...it's too bad that he made a poor judgment call.

Well, I think many Americans finally thought "enough is enough."

Also, on another level, there seems to be a moral subtext driven in part by our recent appalling failures in foreign affairs. America' moral compass is all fogged up, and I think a lot of people--including the heads of major corporations--needed to feel like they could stand for something decent for a change, like we can actually make some progress as a culture.This also isn't the first outcry recently that's had some fallout for 'the chattering class.' The Coulter incident wasn't that long ago. Maybe (hopefully) people will quit letting the various mouths hide slander behind free speech.

Someone, on another forum, put it this way
Every time stuff like this goes out in a speech or on the air, and people DON'T scream and yell and demand justice like it was the end of the world, the envelope of what level of racism is acceptable grows and grows. This month it's nappy headed hos, next it's double dribbling tar babies. The Right constantly sends up little balloons to see what they can get away with, and see how far they can spread their invective.

The long and short of it though, is that Imus wasn't silenced because he was speaking out against the powers that be, he was silenced because he is an asshole.

That's possible. Though the cynic in me suspects that they were motivated by public relations concerns rather than more basic moral concerns.Well, NBC in particular stated that the outrage of their own employees was partly responsible, in addition to the loss of key advertisers... and I'm inclined to believe them. Surprising as it may be, political scientists have found that moral claims play a role even in the most cut-throat capitalist markets.

Moreover, the extremely rapid response of several advertisers suggests genuine moral concern. Usually when something like this happens they give things a fair bit longer to see which way the wind blows... or whether it keeps blowing.

My sense overall is that a lot of Americans are experiencing a felt need to be on the side of decency. In a way we have long "prided" ourselves on the success of Civil Rights, hailing Martin Luther King Jr. Day and so on... and in the midst of the blatant hypocrisy of our Presidential leadership on so many important issues, Imus became a symbol for the hypocrisy of a supposedly race-blind society that still laughs at racist jokes.

And I think a lot of Americans were simply sick of feeling ashamed to be a part of this culture. Enough is enough.

I'm curious. Do you think Americans, in addition to highly valuing freedom of speech, also value the moral use of speech to the same extent? Or is it lesser, greater?Well, to a certain extent. It's certainly a countervailing ideal, but overall I think the freedom of speech tends to trump the notion of responsibility: we are an incredibly legalistic people, and the idea of "absolute" rights accords with us better than virtually anywhere on the planet.

I don't think he's ever made such blatantly racist comments before. I'm not an Imus expert, but yes, he says shocking things, and yes, he says things that make people uncomfortable, but racist like that...I don't think so. Maybe he didn't think it would be construed as racist. I don't know.

He's got a history (http://mediamatters.org/items/200704060005) of doing it. It's not that Imus wasn't racist before--it's that he could get away with it in the past. The world has changed, and he hasn't changed with it.

And for the record, I still think it's that asshole McGuirk who deserves to be fired more than Imus. I'm not shedding any tears over Imus, but McGuirk is the real fuckhead here.

And for the record, I still think it's that asshole McGuirk who deserves to be fired more than Imus. I'm not shedding any tears over Imus, but McGuirk is the real fuckhead here.Agreed.

I am inclined to believe that the only reason he is being dropped is because they are now losing money on Imus because advertisers dont want to be associated with him and thier listeners are no longer happy with their product (the two going hand in hand really). I don't think it really has to do much with the image/morals the networks are trying to portray (maybe a little, but looking at his history and the networks history turning a blind eye tells another story)

Well, it's good to see what cowards the media are when it comes to taking the heat for what essentially was a schoolyard taunt.

Two questions though: is McGuirk losing his job too (as he said worse), and when are we going to pillory rappers?

thank you for clarifying that for me.

I would assume, that the action taken has more to do with sponsors and money than anything else.

Indeed, because what we need is more government censorship, not less.

America needs a nanny to protect our po wittle dewicate sensibilities.

:rolleyes:

Sadly, Ray Bradbury hit the nail on the head back in '58: we don't need government censors -- we're doing it fine ourselves.

An Excerpt from Beatty’s Speech, in Fahrenheit 451

“We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man's mind. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man? Me? I won't stomach them for a minute. And so when houses were finally fireproofed completely, all over the world (you were correct in your assumption the other night) there was no longer need of firemen for the old purposes. They were given the new job, as custodians of our peace of mind, the focus of our understandable and rightful dread of being inferior: official censors,) judges, and executors. That's you, Montag, and that's me.'…
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country, above all? People want to be happy, isn't that right? Haven't you heard it all your life? I want to be happy, people say. Well, aren't they? Don't we keep them moving, don't we give them fun? That's all we live for, isn't it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these."
"Yes. “…
"Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it. Someone's written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator. Funerals are unhappy and pagan? Eliminate them, too. Five minutes after a person is dead he's on his way to the Big Flue, the Incinerators serviced by helicopters all over the country. Ten minutes after death a man's a speck of black dust. Let's not quibble over individuals with memoriums. Forget them. Burn all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean….
“If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can, nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide-rule, measure, and equate the universe, which just won't be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely. I know, I've tried it; to hell with it…
“The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we're the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought. We have our fingers in the dike. Hold steady. Don't let the torrent of melancholy and drear philosophy drown our world. We depend on you. I don't think you realize how important you are, we are, to our happy world as it stands now."…

Well, it's good to see what cowards the media are when it comes to taking the heat for what essentially was a schoolyard taunt.

Two questions though: is McGuirk losing his job too (as he said worse), and when are we going to pillory rappers?

I think the only thing the media is afraid of is losing money.


When rappers stop being profitable I would imagine.

Two questions though: is McGuirk losing his job too (as he said worse), and when are we going to pillory rappers?

Rappers get pilloried all the damn time, Kat. So did rock and rollers when their genre was young (and occasionally it happens now). I'm so tired of this argument--it's ridiculous.

I was only wondering, Nazz, because I hear a lot about "hos" and "bitches" being thrown about by people who are getting paid quite a bit to say it.

Move Bitch
Ho
Back Off Bitch
Crazy Bitch


And we've got Nappy Roots, and Da Nappy Headz out there singing, but that's ok too. So I'm wondering at all this outrage and offense.

We've got a kid's picture book called Nappy Hair, which is critically acclaimed.

Sorry if I'm a little cynical.

I was only wondering, Nazz, because I hear a lot about "hos" and "bitches" being thrown about by people who are getting paid quite a bit to say it.

Move Bitch
Ho
Back Off Bitch
Crazy Bitch


And we've got Nappy Roots, and Da Nappy Headz out there singing, but that's ok too. So I'm wondering at all this outrage and offense.

We've got a kid's picture book called Nappy Hair, which is critically acclaimed.

Sorry if I'm a little cynical about where all this offense is coming from.
Gee--you mean there's a difference of opinion on this from inside the black community? Who'd a thunk it?

Gee--you mean there's a difference of opinion on this from inside the black community? Who'd a thunk it?

And yet we hear FAR LESS about that, than we've heard about this story, now, haven't we?

I was only wondering, Nazz, because I hear a lot about "hos" and "bitches" being thrown about by people who are getting paid quite a bit to say it.

Move Bitch
Ho
Back Off Bitch
Crazy Bitch


And we've got Nappy Roots, and Da Nappy Headz out there singing, but that's ok too. So I'm wondering at all this outrage and offense.

We've got a kid's picture book called Nappy Hair, which is critically acclaimed.

Sorry if I'm a little cynical.


Dont try beating him over the head with the double-standard bludgeon.

If Nappy headed hos was so terrible,why have I heard it repeated so many times by so many other broadcasters in the past few days?

Because its Bullshit. Thats why.

while I don't agree with a lot Imus said especially with calling out the rutgers women's team who didn't do anything what he said was not racist..unless your going to agree that all black people are hoe's or that all black people have nappy hair...just another example of them bringing up the race card to gain sympathy etc etc...and if they (the black community) want any respect 1. They need to stop with the double standard crap if you don't want white people calling you the "N-word" don't call each other derogatory names and until that happens keep your mouth shut about it and quit trying to play the race card simply to get things your way..also...stop asking for reparations for the whole slavery bit...lots of slaves were bought in Africa from other Africans so take your arguments up with them...2. And this is for all minority groups in America..stop with the whole African-American or Mexican-American...we're all Americans and by seperating yourself you only make it harder for you to be assimilated and accepted sure keeping your native cultures alive and what not is fine infact every group of Immigrants has done that that has come to the country but who goes around calling themselves German-American or French-American???.

Dont try beating him over the head with the double-standard bludgeon.

If Nappy headed hos was so terrible,why have I heard it repeated so many times by so many other broadcasters in the past few days?

Because its Bullshit. Thats why.

I believe this argument fails in that one person pointing and saying "that person is a ******" and another person responsding by saying "that guy said that person is a ******" are two completely different things. I don't think people are worried about so much about the word but the way the word is used. Of course the fact that the guy has a history of racial slurs doesn't help his case either.

I'm sure you can easily see the difference between one person using a slur and another person reporting on the use of a slur. I have confidence in you Bud!

Would you call me racist if, as a white guy, I called you a cracker in jest?

And yet we hear FAR LESS about that, than we've heard about this story, now, haven't we?

And whose fault is that? Are we going to blame this on Sharpton as well?

And whose fault is that? Are we going to blame this on Sharpton as well?

Seriously, lol!

Pretty much the only people that don't put gangster rap down are the people who listen to it.

Seriously, lol!

Pretty much the only people that don't put gangster rap down are the people who listen to it.

It seems to me that Sharpton and Jackson are in a no win situation here. If they complain loudly about something, they're "race-pimps" or glory hounds just looking for a tv camera, and if they say nothing, then they're hypocrites.

And just like what happens when I find myself defending Hillary Clinton, I do this even though I don't like either man. But for fuck's sake--what does everyone want here?

Would you call me racist if, as a white guy, I called you a cracker in jest?

What the Hell is it with this "cracker" thing, anyway? Crackers are those things you find under bits of cheese and other yummy things on trays, at parties - or served along with a bowl of soup, at lunch. I don't get it.

It seems to me that Sharpton and Jackson are in a no win situation here. If they complain loudly about something, they're "race-pimps" or glory hounds just looking for a tv camera, and if they say nothing, then they're hypocrites.

And just like what happens when I find myself defending Hillary Clinton, I do this even though I don't like either man. But for fuck's sake--what does everyone want here?


I was curious and did a quick search on Sharpton and rap and found him fighting against gangter rap (http://www.fradical.com/Al_Sharpton_violent_rap.htm) and rap that puts women down (http://www.bet.com/Music/Archives/BET.com+-+Al+Sharpton+Disses+Rap+Against+Women+1081.htm) which seems like he's not just going after the white man.

What the Hell is it with this "cracker" thing, anyway? Crackers are those things you find under bits of cheese and other yummy things on trays, at parties - or served along with a bowl of soup, at lunch. I don't get it.

Neither do I my white cracker friend (spreads soft cheese on you).

I also don't get honky, white bread, spic, wetback, ******, nip and the entire cast of other racial slurs. *shrug*

A cracker is someone who talks too much (cracks). It's a scots term originally.

I was curious and did a quick search on Sharpton and rap and found him fighting against gangter rap (http://www.fradical.com/Al_Sharpton_violent_rap.htm) and rap that puts women down (http://www.bet.com/Music/Archives/BET.com+-+Al+Sharpton+Disses+Rap+Against+Women+1081.htm) which seems like he's not just going after the white man.

You're correct that they do consistently battle these things.

Here's my problem with this whole thing. Where is the 'meh'? This guy doesn't matter. Michael Richards doesn't matter. Anyone who listens to him and goes "yeah, they are nappy-headed hos" is already racist. And everyone else just shakes their head and REMEMBERS that Imus is and always was a racist.

This incident made him look worse than it ever will them, but we have them saying silly things about how they're 'scarred for life'. If that little bit is true, then aren't we doing them a disservice by repeating it 80 Million times. How many people would even have heard this or considered his statements if not for the media frenzy.

You're correct that they do consistently battle these things.

Here's my problem with this whole thing. Where is the 'meh'? This guy doesn't matter. Michael Richards doesn't matter. Anyone who listens to him and goes "yeah, they are nappy-headed hos" is already racist. And everyone else just shakes their head and REMEMBERS that Imus is and always was a racist.

This incident made him look worse than it ever will them, but we have them saying silly things about how they're 'scarred for life'. If that little bit is true, then aren't we doing them a disservice by repeating it 80 Million times. How many people would even have heard this or considered his statements if not for the media frenzy.

Well I wouldn't say that anyone who listens to him are all racist since it was the listeners who first started calling in to complain as soon as they heard what he said.

There are a few things at play here I think which has this getting far more attention that it deserves: a shock jock saying stuff to get controversy up and therefore ratings and ad revenue (looks like the advertisers went a different way though, but good on him for meeting with the team last night to apologize at least), a media company or two who want the controversy but want ad revenue more so fired his ass when they lost money (although I personally think it was a mistake because I bet this will up the ratings and advertisers are pretty replaceable), "news" people who just need a controversial story so they'll run it as far as they can, and a few media whores who attach themselves to any controversy just to be in the spotlight as much as possible.


The scarred for life thing is pretty silly, but then again maybe the scarred for life girl is in it for fame... perhaps she wants some attention and a book deal :p although they should be happy that so many people have gotten behind them to defend them.

You're correct that they do consistently battle these things.

Here's my problem with this whole thing. Where is the 'meh'? This guy doesn't matter. Michael Richards doesn't matter. Anyone who listens to him and goes "yeah, they are nappy-headed hos" is already racist. And everyone else just shakes their head and REMEMBERS that Imus is and always was a racist.

This incident made him look worse than it ever will them, but we have them saying silly things about how they're 'scarred for life'. If that little bit is true, then aren't we doing them a disservice by repeating it 80 Million times. How many people would even have heard this or considered his statements if not for the media frenzy.

The problem right now is the spin. Imus defenders--and they are legion--are all making it sound like this was a one-off, and that the punishment, therefore, doesn't fit the crime. And I don't blame them, because to admit this was a long time issue means that they share some responsibility for not saying something sooner, and if you're a lesser voice in a smaller market, you probably don't want to piss off someone with enough stroke to crush you.

But if this was a one-off, then Imus wouldn't have lost his job over it, no matter how loudly Sharpton yelled for it. Advertisers wouldn't have feared the fallout, because they'd know that this went against Imus's character--except that it didn't. Imus and McGuirk have been racist misogynists for years, and it used to not only be acceptable, it was hip. They didn't evolve, and they got smacked by the Sharpton meteorite.

Would you call me racist if, as a white guy, I called you a cracker in jest?

I would be terribly hurt and degredaded. Then I would start calling for all sorts of things.

I would be terribly hurt and degredaded. Then I would start calling for all sorts of things.

I'm glad you saw my point. :cool:

I'm glad you saw my point. :cool:

Its all said and done now,so wether we agree or disagree,it doesnt matter.

Imus will likely not be re-hired by anyone.

And you know what? No one has benefitted from this at all.

Everyone is a loser in this case.

Rappers get pilloried all the damn time, Kat. So did rock and rollers when their genre was young (and occasionally it happens now). I'm so tired of this argument--it's ridiculous.

I don't neccisarily like 'QFT' but...

QFT

MSNBC cancels simulcast of Don Imus show (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6433090.html)



Now, that's progress.

All week, people have been saying to me, "He'll just get the slap on the wrist, the two-week suspension. He's famous. His show is profitable. Protests don't do anything against that kind of power."

Then Staples, Proctor & Gamble, and Bigelow Tea pulled their ads from his show.

And now MSNBC is cancelling their simulcast of his show. For my part, I sincerely hope CBS fires him as well.

Racists and sexists have every right to their beliefs. But I don't think they should get paid to broadcast them on public airwaves.

Thoughts?

My thoughts: Free speech my ass. I have no love for racists or their comments, but they have as much right to express them as you or I.

Now, let's explore the double-standard: Chris Rock, for example. When he speaks to his audience, he talks about white people being the scum of the earth (and that's when he's in a good mood), but notice that this doesn't make a blip on the give-a-crap-meter. But now watch as a white man says something not nearly as offensive as what Mr. Rock says, and all of a sudden it's everybody's business and his professional head is served on a proverbial platter.

If this is equality, then I'm a hobbit.

My thoughts: Free speech my ass. I have no love for racists or their comments, but they have as much right to express them as you or I.

Now, let's explore the double-standard: Chris Rock, for example. When he speaks to his audience, he talks about white people being the scum of the earth (and that's when he's in a good mood), but notice that this doesn't make a blip on the give-a-crap-meter. But now watch as a white man says something not nearly as offensive as what Mr. Rock says, and all of a sudden it's everybody's business and his professional head is served on a proverbial platter.

If this is equality, then I'm a hobbit.

It's not a free speech issue. Never has been, And when you understand what the words "free speech issue" mean, then you'll understand why. In fact, if you read the thread instead of coming in umpteen pages later and thinking you have something original to say, then maybe you'll figure it out, as it has been covered already at length.

The problem right now is the spin. Imus defenders--and they are legion--are all making it sound like this was a one-off, and that the punishment, therefore, doesn't fit the crime. And I don't blame them, because to admit this was a long time issue means that they share some responsibility for not saying something sooner, and if you're a lesser voice in a smaller market, you probably don't want to piss off someone with enough stroke to crush you.

But if this was a one-off, then Imus wouldn't have lost his job over it, no matter how loudly Sharpton yelled for it. Advertisers wouldn't have feared the fallout, because they'd know that this went against Imus's character--except that it didn't. Imus and McGuirk have been racist misogynists for years, and it used to not only be acceptable, it was hip. They didn't evolve, and they got smacked by the Sharpton meteorite.

The problem is why should we care if he's a racist. It's a reason to stop listening to him. But then anyone with a brain wasn't to begin with. He's Fred Phelps. And who cares?

I don't see why changing the channel isn't good enough for some people. I personally don't care if he's the leader of the klan and Tide advertises on his show how clean it can get your sheets. I won't be mad at him or Tide. I, however, will think he's an idiot.

My thoughts: Free speech my ass. I have no love for racists or their comments, but they have as much right to express them as you or I.

Now, let's explore the double-standard: Chris Rock, for example. When he speaks to his audience, he talks about white people being the scum of the earth (and that's when he's in a good mood), but notice that this doesn't make a blip on the give-a-crap-meter. But now watch as a white man says something not nearly as offensive as what Mr. Rock says, and all of a sudden it's everybody's business and his professional head is served on a proverbial platter.

If this is equality, then I'm a hobbit.

Pardon? I'm calling BS. Can you please provide a link or a quote of Chris Rock calling white people the scum of the earth?

Its all said and done now,so wether we agree or disagree,it doesnt matter.

Imus will likely not be re-hired by anyone.

And you know what? No one has benefitted from this at all.

Everyone is a loser in this case.

not me! :p

The problem is why should we care if he's a racist. It's a reason to stop listening to him. But then anyone with a brain wasn't to begin with. He's Fred Phelps. And who cares?

I don't see why changing the channel isn't good enough for some people. I personally don't care if he's the leader of the klan and Tide advertises on his show how clean it can get your sheets. I won't be mad at him or Tide. I, however, will think he's an idiot.

Well, for better or worse, giving someone a microphone and broadcasting what they say gives them a certain level of credibility, simply by virtue of the fact that they have access to a limited-access medium. Having a radio show is a lot different from having a website--which is why the web has struggled to gain credibility over the years. Less limitation to access.

So when a person with that sort of credibility says something like Imus did (which wasn't as bad as some of the stuff he's said in the past, by the way), the microphone tells the world--absent any reply to the opposite--that that kind of language is okay, that it's acceptable. In this case, it wasn't, even though it and worse had been in the past.

Well, for better or worse, giving someone a microphone and broadcasting what they say gives them a certain level of credibility, simply by virtue of the fact that they have access to a limited-access medium. Having a radio show is a lot different from having a website--which is why the web has struggled to gain credibility over the years. Less limitation to access.

So when a person with that sort of credibility says something like Imus did (which wasn't as bad as some of the stuff he's said in the past, by the way), the microphone tells the world--absent any reply to the opposite--that that kind of language is okay, that it's acceptable. In this case, it wasn't, even though it and worse had been in the past.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Imus who told the world. It's not Imus on the air talking about this 24 hours a day since it happened. Imus is more famous and more defended than he was before this happened. If the goal was to destroy his credibility then those with that goal failed.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Imus who told the world. It's not Imus on the air talking about this 24 hours a day since it happened. Imus is more famous and more defended than he was before this happened. If the goal was to destroy his credibility then those with that goal failed.

All I'm saying is that if no one had protested Imus's characterization, then those who listen to him would have assumed there was nothing wrong with what he said. Maybe they still will--people are hardheaded. But that was the reason for the pushback, and I'm glad it came.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Imus who told the world. It's not Imus on the air talking about this 24 hours a day since it happened. Imus is more famous and more defended than he was before this happened. If the goal was to destroy his credibility then those with that goal failed.

And the sucker made a very contrite and genuine effort to appologize.

Arent Sharpton and Jackson evangeical preachers? Arent they supposed to be preaching forgivenness and acceptance of his appology?


Imus' fundraiser seemed to go alright though,despite the efforts to squash him.

And the sucker made a very contrite and genuine effort to appologize.That's a matter of opinion. He didn't sound all that contrite or genuine to me.

Arent Sharpton and Jackson evangeical preachers? Arent they supposed to be preaching forgivenness and acceptance of his appology?
You would think so. They certainly haven't improved their public standing any. Of course, given how immediately they're reviled by so many in the media no matter what they're doing, maybe they figure they've got nothing to lose.


Imus' fundraiser seemed to go alright though,despite the efforts to squash him.
Good. It doesn't make up for a career of misogynistic and racist humor, but it's something.

All I'm saying is that if no one had protested Imus's characterization, then those who listen to him would have assumed there was nothing wrong with what he said. Maybe they still will--people are hardheaded. But that was the reason for the pushback, and I'm glad it came.

I'm going to wonder who you want evaluating what you think is funny and entertaining.

If I dont agree with it, you're going to have a problem.


This is Don Imus saying something silly. Not Don Imus suggesting we get together and hurt someone.

This isnt Walter Cronkite.

This isnt Jesse Jackson calling NY "Hymietown" during a presidential bid.

It was a radio jock with a comedy based show.

That's a matter of opinion. He didn't sound all that contrite or genuine to me.


You would think so. They certainly haven't improved their public standing any. Of course, given how immediately they're reviled by so many in the media no matter what they're doing, maybe they figure they've got nothing to lose.



Good. It doesn't make up for a career of misogynistic and racist humor, but it's something.

You were at the three hour meeting he went to with them last night?
Three hours he gave them!!! You dont think he means it??

They have nothing to lose-other than the dollars from their unwitting supporters. They are lower than scum.

Yeah-raising millions a year for EIGHTEEN YEARS for ill children and their families will never make up for those terrible,terrible words. :rolleyes:

What a waste of time. My kids are both on the honor roll again,so its off to a celebratory dinner. I'm outta here.

I'm going to wonder who you want evaluating what you think is funny and entertaining.

If I dont agree with it, you're going to have a problem.
I'm not scared of that at all, because this isn't a matter of taste. This is a misogynistic and racist joke that, because it was objected to publicly, caused corporations to pull their ads. What don't you get about that?


This is Don Imus saying something silly. Not Don Imus suggesting we get together and hurt someone. So because he didn't say "Kill all blacks" it's not a problem?[/quote]

This isnt Walter Cronkite.Never said it was.

This isnt Jesse Jackson calling NY "Hymietown" during a presidential bid.A move which he was forced to apologize for and which cost him whatever momentum he'd picked up on the campaign trail. A reaction similar to what happened with Imus, no?

It was a radio jock with a comedy based show.
You can't just call Imus a radio jock. He had politicians and newsmakers on all the time. That's puts him in a different league than Opie & Anthony.

You were at the three hour meeting he went to with them last night?
Three hours he gave them!!! You dont think he means it??

Look, I was talking about the various public statements he made afterward. If he's sincere now, fine--maybe it took the kick in the teeth to wake him up. Time will tell, because he'll get another job in the next few months, no doubt. If he changes, it'll be a good reclamation.

I'm going to wonder who you want evaluating what you think is funny and entertaining.

If I dont agree with it, you're going to have a problem.


This is Don Imus saying something silly. Not Don Imus suggesting we get together and hurt someone.

This isnt Walter Cronkite.

This isnt Jesse Jackson calling NY "Hymietown" during a presidential bid.

It was a radio jock with a comedy based show.

Funny? Entertaining? "Something silly"?

Let's look at that "something silly" again. Imus made the remarks below on his April 4 show in reference to the Rutgers Women's Basketball team who finished their season on Tuesday as National Runners-Up:

IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and—

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there. I’m gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some—woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like—kinda like—I don’t know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes—that movie that he had.

Those are sexist and racist comments. They aren't just "silly." They aren't "funny" or "entertaining."

It is truly sad and pathetic that you are bending over so backwards to defend these remarks.

Imus reaped what he sowed.

Funny? Entertaining? "Something silly"?

Let's look at that "something silly" again. Imus made the remarks below on his April 4 show in reference to the Rutgers Women's Basketball team who finished their season on Tuesday as National Runners-Up:

IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and—

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there. I’m gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some—woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like—kinda like—I don’t know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes—that movie that he had.

Those are sexist and racist comments. They aren't just "silly." They aren't "funny" or "entertaining."

It is truly sad and pathetic that you are bending over so backwards to defend these remarks.

Imus reaped what he sowed.

I don't think he is reaping, though. I think the only thing we're doing is changing his venue. I put him on Syrius within a few months with a whole new following of people happy he managed to "weather the storm". People like shock jocks for some stupid reason. I don't see the appeal, but I also don't see why people are making such a big deal about this idiot. It's like Fred Phelps. Who takes those guys seriously who isn't already a lost cause?

I don't think he is reaping, though. I think the only thing we're doing is changing his venue. I put him on Syrius within a few months with a whole new following of people happy he managed to "weather the storm". People like shock jocks for some stupid reason. I don't see the appeal, but I also don't see why people are making such a big deal about this idiot. It's like Fred Phelps. Who takes those guys seriously who isn't already a lost cause?

Except that Imus isn't your regular shock jock. Senators don't show up on the Opie and Anthony Show, but they showed up on Imus. If he wants to do that sort of humor, and someone wants to pay him, fine--but don't expect mainstream adulation for it, or you'll get people in your face over it.

Look, I was talking about the various public statements he made afterward. If he's sincere now, fine--maybe it took the kick in the teeth to wake him up. Time will tell, because he'll get another job in the next few months, no doubt. If he changes, it'll be a good reclamation.
From Face in the Crowd, which if any of you haven't seen I highly recommend it:
Suppose I tell you exactly what's gonna happen to you. You're gonna be back in television. Only it won't be quite the same as it was before. There'll be a reasonable cooling-off period and then somebody will say: "Why don't we try him again in a inexpensive format. People's memories aren't too long." And you know, in a way, he'll be right. Some of the people will forget, and some of them won't. Oh, you'll have a show. Maybe not the best hour or, you know, top 10. Maybe not even in the top 35. But you'll have a show. It just won't be quite the same as it was before. Then a couple of new fellas will come along. And pretty soon, a lot of your fans will be flocking around them. And then one day, somebody'll ask: "Whatever happened to, a, whatshisname? You know, the one who was so big. The number-one fella a couple of years ago. He was famous. How can we forget a name like that? Oh by the way, have you seen, a, Barry Mills? I think he's the greatest thing since Will Rogers."