NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember the Imus story? Made an insensitive comment and got canned. Here's what Al Roker had to say about it. http://www.roker.com/journal_archive_display.cfm?journal_id=5674 Don Imus needs to be fired for what he said. And while we're at it,his producer, Bernard McGurk needs to be canned as well. McGurk is just as guilty, often egging Imus on.

The "I'm a good person who said a bad thing" apology doesn't cut it. At least he didn't try to weasel out of this by hiding behind alcohol or drug abuse. Still, he said it and a two week suspension doesn't cut it. It is, at best a slap on the wrist. A vacation. Nothing.


Here's a little joke Al recently made about epileptics.

Remember that controversial Olympic logo for the 2012 Olympics in London? Some folks have complained that the campaign actually sent them into epileptic seizures,” Roker said on Thursday’s show.

“Well, we asked you to weigh in on our Web site in an informal poll; those of you who could get up off the floor after shaking around were able to actually log in . . . ” http://www.jossip.com/olympics/al-roker-is-sorry-20070611/


So Al, when are you going to hand in your resignation?

That's pretty tasteless.

Fire his black ass and you'll have the rest of 'em after you.

Fire his black ass and you'll have the rest of 'em after you.

Who? Fat black weather men? Anyway, I really don't want him fired. I want TV and radio broadcasters to stand by their on-air talent and understand that sometimes someone will say something that offends a group of people. It happens. So what? Boycotts don't last. Ratings are what matters.

It's about time that people realized that you're going to get offended some of the time. There are certain things that definitely do cross the line (promoting genocide, slavery, etc), but joking about epilepsy is hardly that. Get over it.

Who? Fat black weather men? Anyway, I really don't want him fired. I want TV and radio broadcasters to stand by their on-air talent and understand that sometimes someone will say something that offends a group of people. It happens. So what? Boycotts don't last. Ratings are what matters.

Al Roker made fun of a medical condition.

If Imus can't refer to a basketball team as a bunch of "nappy headed hoes", he shouldn't be granted the air time to take a jab at those who can't enjoy waving their hands in front of strobe lights!

Sorry, I don't have the power to fire Al Roker.

Does Al have a history of insensitive remarks? I say, if this comment loses the station advertising money then he is likely going to lose his job (just as that was the reason for firing Imus) or at least get some sort of suspension, but if not enough people are bothered enough by it to warrant some sort of punishment.

If nobody can handle being offended how do they expect to be able to handle slightly important things?

Remember the Imus story? Made an insensitive comment and got canned. Here's what Al Roker had to say about it. http://www.roker.com/journal_archive_display.cfm?journal_id=5674

Here's a little joke Al recently made about epileptics.

http://www.jossip.com/olympics/al-roker-is-sorry-20070611/


So Al, when are you going to hand in your resignation?

Al Roker made fun of a medical condition.

If Imus can't refer to a basketball team as a bunch of "nappy headed hoes", he shouldn't be granted the air time to take a jab at those who can't enjoy waving their hands in front of strobe lights!

Meh. Imus made a series of extremely racist and misogynist statements. He deserved to be fired. Get over it already.

Al Roker's comments were insensitive, but they are not in the same ballpark as Imus's comments.

If nobody can handle being offended how do they expect to be able to handle slightly important things?

False dichotomy. Nothing about either set of comments (Imus's and Roker's) was related to even a slightly important matter. Let alone being intrinsic to an important discussion.

Meh. Imus made a series of extremely racist and misogynist statements. He deserved to be fired. Get over it already.

Al Roker's comments were insensitive, but they are not in the same ballpark as Imus's comments.

So you support the 3-strike idealogy?

Meh. Imus made a series of extremely racist and misogynist statements. He deserved to be fired. Get over it already.

Al Roker's comments were insensitive, but they are not in the same ballpark as Imus's comments.

I don't think he deserved to get fired. He was hired as a shock jock. It's expected that they will say some outrageous and sometimes offensive shit. Al Roker's comments were less tolerable because he's not hired to try to be funny. He's a weather man. A comic can slip up and say something offensive. A weather man has to go out of his way to be offensive.

Neither should be fired though. Broadcasters should understand that sometimes a person on air will say something offensive. It happens to everyone. On-air personalities just might have a camera on them when they slip. I'm not offended by the epilepsy joke despite having epileptic family members. I'm offended by Roker's hypocrisy.

So you support the 3-strike idealogy?

I'm not sure what the fuck you are talking about, but I think the answer is no.

Imus's comments were way beyond the pale and he reaped what he sowed.

Roker's comments, while bad, are nowhere near as offensive.

Got it?

Imus's comments were way beyond the pale and he reaped what he sowed.

His contract said to be inflammatory, and he followed his contract. Why should he be fired? When you work at McDonald's, you're supposed to serve customers. Should you be fired for serving customers extremely well?

Yeah, Imus' comments went so much farther than this, it's not even funny. To equivocate them is foolishness. Imus' joke effectively said: "A female black basketball team are dirty whores". Roker effectively said "epileptic people may fall down during a seizure, and that's kinda funny."

When Steve Harvey's radio show's cast put on fake hillbilly white accents or when Tom Joyner brings out his D. Whiteman character I have no problem with it. I really don't have any problem with Al Roker's epileptic joke. I just want other radio and TV personalities to have equal rights to joke about controversial subjects. Al Roker's hypocrisy bothers me though. He was instrumental in getting NBC to fire Imus over a subject that hits home with him, but he goes ahead and makes fun of sick people even though they might be insultred.

I don't think he deserved to get fired. He was hired as a shock jock. It's expected that they will say some outrageous and sometimes offensive shit. Al Roker's comments were less tolerable because he's not hired to try to be funny. He's a weather man. A comic can slip up and say something offensive. A weather man has to go out of his way to be offensive.

Neither should be fired though. Broadcasters should understand that sometimes a person on air will say something offensive. It happens to everyone. On-air personalities just might have a camera on them when they slip. I'm not offended by the epilepsy joke despite having epileptic family members. I'm offended by Roker's hypocrisy.

Triple meh.

1. Being a "shock jock" is not a get out free card for whatever an asshole may say. What Imus said was completely uncalled for and way past the line.

2. Al Roker is supposed to be funny. His job is more than straight weather reporting.

3. There isn't anything hypocritical about thinking Imus was way overboard and Roker was mildly offensive. Quit trying to compare pineapples and hand grenades.

Yeah, Imus' comments went so much farther than this, it's not even funny. To equivocate them is foolishness. Imus' joke effectively said: "A female black basketball team are dirty whores". Roker effectively said "epileptic people may fall down during a seizure, and that's kinda funny."
Imus would still be working if he said the basketball team were dirty whores. It's because he said they were nappy headed hoes that he got fired. He only got fired because of mentioning race. That's what got Roker to talk to the brass at NBC and that's what got Sharpton to organize his followers against Imus.

Imus is a shock jock. His job is to make off-color comments.

Al Roker is a weatherman. His job is to tell me the temperature in Pittsburg.

I've said enough. :)

Imus would still be working if he said the basketball team were dirty whores. It's because he said they were nappy headed hoes that he got fired. He only got fired because of mentioning race. That's what got Roker to talk to the brass at NBC and that's what got Sharpton to organize his followers against Imus.

ummmm...no...If he had called the basketball team dirty whores, he still would've gotten fired. It just would've been Women's groups instead of Blacks who would've been outraged.

And anyway...I think its bad enough being Al Roker...do we really want to take away his job too?...

Triple meh.

1. Being a "shock jock" is not a get out free card for whatever an asshole may say. What Imus said was completely uncalled for and way past the line.

2. Al Roker is supposed to be funny. His job is more than straight weather reporting.

3. There isn't anything hypocritical about thinking Imus was way overboard and Roker was mildly offensive. Quit trying to compare pineapples and hand grenades.

If I may draw an analogy here, think of it this way. A surgeon may end up cutting a major artery that threatens a man's life. It may be malpractice, but it's not a crime. A tatoo artist who does cut open a big vein and causes bleeding may be charged with a crime because he shouldn't have been cutting into anyone at all.

A shock jock is supposed to be playing with the line of what's acceptable and what's not. It's his job, and it's understandable when he crosses that line. Al Roker is supposed to do the weather and engage in light banter. He should be nowhere near any line between acceptable and offensive. That's why what he did was less excusable.

It's not pineapples and hand grenades. It looks to me like certain people are allowed to get away with more than others, or certain groups are allowed to be insulted while others are protected.

Furthermore, I don't see why anyone whines when their feelings get hurt. Tough shit, you don't have to listen to it if you don't like it. I'm certain far less people would be offended if it was less publicized...because to be honest I don't even know anyone who even listens to Imus' show to begin with.

His contract said to be inflammatory, and he followed his contract. Why should he be fired? When you work at McDonald's, you're supposed to serve customers. Should you be fired for serving customers extremely well?

I'm not impressed by this argument. Under it, Imus could say anything -- no matter how offensive -- and he can't be fired, even in the face of economic repercussions to his employers. That is just absurd.

Imus would still be working if he said the basketball team were dirty whores. It's because he said they were nappy headed hoes that he got fired. He only got fired because of mentioning race. That's what got Roker to talk to the brass at NBC and that's what got Sharpton to organize his followers against Imus.

Really?

Many people, myself included, were outraged by both the racism and the misogyny of Imus's statements. Do you have some proof that the misogyny was irrelevant?

And, for the record, he did a bit more than "mention" race.

Why is it you are always trying to downplay what Imus actually said?

Imus would still be working if he said the basketball team were dirty whores. It's because he said they were nappy headed hoes that he got fired. He only got fired because of mentioning race. That's what got Roker to talk to the brass at NBC and that's what got Sharpton to organize his followers against Imus.

And what, openly rascist comments are OK now? Remember, there was nothing justifying his comment aside from the fact that they were female and black. Do you think he should have kept his job if he'd just called them a bunch of niggers?

His contract said to be inflammatory, and he followed his contract. Why should he be fired? When you work at McDonald's, you're supposed to serve customers. Should you be fired for serving customers extremely well?
It's more like this: When you work at McDonald's, you're supposed to put a piece of cheese on every burger. Should you be fired for serving customers a hamburger that is nothing but two buns and a slab of cheese, when they want a Big Mac?

Anyone who has their name in a thread title, without me having heard of them beforehand, should be fired, from whatever job they happen to be employed in!

Cat-Tribe, do you think South Park should have been taken off the air after the Jesse Jackson episode this year? ****** was said 42 times in that episode alone. What about other "offensive" TV shows such as Drawn Together, or Mind of Mencia which both include lots of racial humor? What makes Imus' case so special? ...

And what, openly rascist comments are OK now? Remember, there was nothing justifying his comment aside from the fact that they were female and black. Do you think he should have kept his job if he'd just called them a bunch of niggers?


It's more like this: When you work at McDonald's, you're supposed to put a piece of cheese on every burger. Should you be fired for serving customers a hamburger that is nothing but two buns and a slab of cheese, when they want a Big Mac?

It was an attempt at humor. I didn't find it funny, but the guy was just trying to do his job. The big mac analogy fails because a live show is not like a big mac. Every big mac is identical. A shock jock's show has to be different every day and play near the line of what's acceptable and what's offensive. Sometimes that line will be crossed.

Cat-Tribe, do you think South Park should have been taken off the air after the Jesse Jackson episode this year? ****** was said 42 times in that episode alone. What about other "offensive" TV shows such as Drawn Together, or Mind of Mencia which both include lots of racial humor? What makes Imus' case so special? ...

1: We know to expect that from South Park and Drawn Together.

2: Honestly, Imus went farther than Drawn Together or South Park really ever has. It wasn't just the mention of race, or the words used, it was the implication that this basketball team were prostitutes, based on nothing more than being black and female. The racist assumption went far deeper than simply the racial slurs used. The implication is that all black women are prostitutes, or aren't good for anything but selling their bodies. This is overwhelmingly racist and offensive,

It was an attempt at humor. I didn't find it funny, but the guy was just trying to do his job. The big mac analogy fails because a live show is not like a big mac. Every big mac is identical. A shock jock's show has to be different every day and play near the line of what's acceptable and what's offensive. Sometimes that line will be crossed.

And this time, it was crossed so far that he had to backpedal severely to even get back on the line. A "Shock Jock" has a balancing act to do, and while they are expected to be inflammatory, if they are too offensive people will just say "wow, this guy's an asshole" and stop watching him.

I'm surprised no one has read the second piece the OP linked:

The next day, Roker apologized on the air, saying, “We were joking about the logo - not about epilepsy. If anybody was offended, I heartily and really humbly apologize.”

The big difference between what Imus did and what Roker did was that Imus meant to call the women's team a group of nappy-headed hoes. He specifically singled out a group for a misogynistic, racist comment, while Roker screwed up a joke about a logo. Really, is everyone so worked over special treatment of certain groups that they missed this?

Cat-Tribe, do you think South Park should have been taken off the air after the Jesse Jackson episode this year? ****** was said 42 times in that episode alone. What about other "offensive" TV shows such as Drawn Together, or Mind of Mencia which both include lots of racial humor? What makes Imus' case so special? ...

Nice strawman. Of course I don't believe that anything vaguely racial should be censored.

Imus's case is "special" because what he said was so beyond the pale and so completely uncalled for. There was no context that excuses the remarks. To the contrary, the context makes the comments worse.

Those of you that think Imus was treated unfairly do yourselves no favors by downplaying what Imus actually said and in what context he said. His remarks were overtly racist and misogynist.

1: We know to expect that from South Park and Drawn Together.

2: Honestly, Imus went farther than Drawn Together or South Park really ever has. It wasn't just the mention of race, or the words used, it was the implication that this basketball team were prostitutes, based on nothing more than being black and female. The racist assumption went far deeper than simply the racial slurs used. The implication is that all black women are prostitutes, or aren't good for anything but selling their bodies. This is overwhelmingly racist and offensive,

1: And you don't know to expect shock humor from a shock jock?

2: That's just making a mountain out of a molehill, honestly. I sincerely doubt the point of Imus' statement was to say "all black women are prostitutes..."

1: We know to expect that from South Park and Drawn Together.

2: Honestly, Imus went farther than Drawn Together or South Park really ever has. It wasn't just the mention of race, or the words used, it was the implication that this basketball team were prostitutes, based on nothing more than being black and female. The racist assumption went far deeper than simply the racial slurs used. The implication is that all black women are prostitutes, or aren't good for anything but selling their bodies. This is overwhelmingly racist and offensive,

From the context I don't think he was calling them prostitutes. I think he was trying to use ho as a white dude's attempt at a hiphop slang derogatory term for women in general.

Kind of like in this fragment from Dr. Dre's "Bitches ain't shit"

Now as i'm rollin' with my nigga Dre and Eastwood
Fuckin' hoes, clockin' dough up to no good
We flip flop and serve hoes like flap jacks
(Snoop: But we don't love them hoes) Bitch, and it's like that
This is what you look for in a ho who got cash flow
Ya run up in them hoes and grab the cash
And get your dash on
While you're chillin', with your homies and shit
And how my niggaz kick the anthem like this

You don't have to emphasize that "we don't love them hoes" if you're actually talking about prostitutes. I think that's the meaning of the word that Imus was using.

Nothing was done about Dr. Dre and snoop though.

I'm surprised no one has read the second piece the OP linked:



The big difference between what Imus did and what Roker did was that Imus meant to call the women's team a group of nappy-headed hoes. He specifically singled out a group for a misogynistic, racist comment, while Roker screwed up a joke about a logo. Really, is everyone so worked over special treatment of certain groups that they missed this?

Roker did not make a joke about a logo. He made a joke about epilepsy. The whole setup to the joke made it clear that it was about epileptic seizures, not an ugly logo. That's just another thing about Roker that pisses me off. He can't even apologize. He tries to lie and say he didn't really say anything offensive. He's not even honest enough to make a real apology. Imus did apologize. Sincerely and profusely. He went out of his way to visit the basketball team and apologize and to visit Al Sharpton and apologize. Roker just basically said I didn't say anything wrong, but if you're dumb enough to be offended I'm sorry.

1: We know to expect that from South Park and Drawn Together.

2: Honestly, Imus went farther than Drawn Together or South Park really ever has. It wasn't just the mention of race, or the words used, it was the implication that this basketball team were prostitutes, based on nothing more than being black and female. The racist assumption went far deeper than simply the racial slurs used. The implication is that all black women are prostitutes, or aren't good for anything but selling their bodies. This is overwhelmingly racist and offensive,
Wait, what?!

When did he make such implications? I would like to see this, please link us to it.


-----

When Steve Harvey's radio show's cast put on fake hillbilly white accents or when Tom Joyner brings out his D. Whiteman character I have no problem with it. I really don't have any problem with Al Roker's epileptic joke. I just want other radio and TV personalities to have equal rights to joke about controversial subjects. Al Roker's hypocrisy bothers me though. He was instrumental in getting NBC to fire Imus over a subject that hits home with him, but he goes ahead and makes fun of sick people even though they might be insultred.From the context I don't think he was calling them prostitutes. I think he was trying to use ho as a white dude's attempt at a hiphop slang derogatory term for women in general.

Kind of like in this fragment from Dr. Dre's "Bitches ain't shit"

Now as i'm rollin' with my nigga Dre and Eastwood
Fuckin' hoes, clockin' dough up to no good
We flip flop and serve hoes like flap jacks
(Snoop: But we don't love them hoes) Bitch, and it's like that
This is what you look for in a ho who got cash flow
Ya run up in them hoes and grab the cash
And get your dash on
While you're chillin', with your homies and shit
And how my niggaz kick the anthem like this

You don't have to emphasize that "we don't love them hoes" if you're actually talking about prostitutes. I think that's the meaning of the word that Imus was using.

Nothing was done about Dr. Dre and snoop though.
/thread

It's about time that people realized that you're going to get offended some of the time. There are certain things that definitely do cross the line (promoting genocide, slavery, etc), but joking about epilepsy is hardly that. Get over it.

I'd be pretty sure that a news reporter making a joke on-air about mental retardation, AIDS, cancer, bed wetting, epilepsy or anorexia would be equally inappropriate.

I guess people don't care unless it's THEIR ox being gored.

What I hate is this illusion that people seem to have that no one has the right to offend them in any way. When you have the right to free speech things are going to be said that offend people, it's inevitable. People need to stop being so hypersensitive and learn to take things in stride. If they ever got down off their damn pedastal they'd realize they say plenty of things that are offensive to others every day.

WHen are people going to learnd that media companies are into making money and only get rid of people when they feel that they won't do so any longer on a certain personality? Sure it might be because a bunch of people are pissed off at something someone said, but the end result is loss of advertising money because of seemingly widespread public opinion and more than likely not because of a small group of people who wet themsewlves over a comment?

Nothing was done about Dr. Dre and snoop though.

Well, they're black, and therefore it's okay.

No, of course I'm not serious. Though some people do seem to think like that...

What I hate is this illusion that people seem to have that no one has the right to offend them in any way. When you have the right to free speech things are going to be said that offend people, it's inevitable. People need to stop being so hypersensitive and learn to take things in stride. If they ever got down off their damn pedastal they'd realize they say plenty of things that are offensive to others every day.

And people have every right to be offended and to seek redress as well. It doesn't mean they are going to win a huge lawsuit, but there's nothing wrong with making it clear to a television personality who is SUPPOSED to be entertaining people, "making fun of epilepsy is offensive."

If I may draw an analogy here, think of it this way. A surgeon may end up cutting a major artery that threatens a man's life. It may be malpractice, but it's not a crime. A tatoo artist who does cut open a big vein and causes bleeding may be charged with a crime because he shouldn't have been cutting into anyone at all.

A shock jock is supposed to be playing with the line of what's acceptable and what's not. It's his job, and it's understandable when he crosses that line. Al Roker is supposed to do the weather and engage in light banter. He should be nowhere near any line between acceptable and offensive. That's why what he did was less excusable.

It's not pineapples and hand grenades. It looks to me like certain people are allowed to get away with more than others, or certain groups are allowed to be insulted while others are protected.

The doctor can get fired for taking too many risks and putting the hospitals credibility or income on the line as well

Even if he was not criminally negligent his employer can decided that the benefit is not worth the risk ...

Maybe Rokers benefit to risk ratio is higher even if he did push the envelope this time with a very tasteless joke

I'd be pretty sure that a news reporter making a joke on-air about mental retardation, AIDS, cancer, bed wetting, epilepsy or anorexia would be equally inappropriate.

I guess people don't care unless it's THEIR ox being gored.

Hmm. Calling a basketball team whores because of race > botching a joke about epilepsy.

The Onion, for instance, makes fun of Alzheimers - why aren't Alzheimer's patients or their families complaining? South Park said the "n-word" forty-something times in one episode - but the creators aren't forced to issue an apology.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't have a problem if Al Roker or any other celebrity insulted any type of condition I had. Why? Because if society's ever going to function, it has to get over the inane desire to have a politically correct world.

Hmm. Calling a basketball team whores because of race > botching a joke about epilepsy.

The question is not whether Imus was wrong (he was), but whether a mildly entertaining weatherman should treat having a seizure as amusing.

I'd say no, he shouldn't have.

Wait, what?!

When did he make such implications? I would like to see this, please link us to it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011
On the April 4 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team, which is comprised of eight African-American and two white players, as "nappy-headed hos"

The implication is in the context. Imus didn't know the women on this basketball team. All he knew about them was that most of them were black. So to call them "hos" (a slang term meaning "prostitute") based on nothing more than the fact that they are black women, he is implying that all black women are prostitutes. This is why it was so offensive. (The phrase "nappy-headed", a racist slur for black people, just adds fuel to the fire.)