Blogger Spurs US Radio Host's Firing 505
jas_public writes "The Wall Street Journal reports on the controversial events which ultimately led to the firing of radio shock jock Don Imus. 'At 6:14 a.m. on Wednesday, April 4, relatively few people were tuned into the "Imus in the Morning Show" ... Ryan Chiachiere was. A 26-year-old researcher in Washington, D.C., for liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America, he was assigned to monitor Mr. Imus's program. Mr. Chiachiere clipped the video, alerted his bosses and started working on a blog post for the organization's Web site.' The article breaks down how that viral video clip and word of mouth outrage reached the ears of the presidents of CBS and MSNBC, ultimately leading to Imus' dismissal."
this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, rapper DMX [wikipedia.org] uses lyrics such as "what these bitches want from a nigga", and "I fuck with these hoes from a distance", and we hear cash registers.
Just as racist, just as misogynistic, just as insensitive.
And this was a liberal watchdog group? Gimme a break. I thought the left at least gave lip service to freedom of speech.
This is not a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Lesson from this debacle (Score:5, Insightful)
"Blogging" is the most overrated thing ever (Score:5, Insightful)
It reminds me of the early days of Slashdot, when *anything* having to do with Linux was featured in big bold headlines like it was a miracle. This has toned down a little bit over the years but even today the hype factor for Linux on this site is a bit annoying (and I am a huge fan of Linux, it's the reason I started reading Slashdot back in '97 - despite the hyping of everything Linux, it was a good place to get news when such news sources were scarce).
I can't shake the feeling that people who don't really understand "them Internets" hear a word that has no meaning - "blog" - and assume that it just must be something really cool and important. Because really, it isn't. I nearly hurled at the idiocy of it all the first time I heard the word "blogosphere".
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:4, Insightful)
FUCK off (Score:3, Insightful)
see, im a humanist. many of you morons in those watchdog groups do not know about danton, erasmus, rousseau, french revolution and what brought human civilization to this point in the scale of civility, but i do.
im also kinda a hippie. i dont condone divisions, labelings, agression and such.
i am also liberal. i want any group to live as they please as long as they dont become harmful.
so with all these qualifications, to the watchdog that caused this shit and the other watchdog groups who are supposedly maintain a vigile for civility, i tell this on that matter :
FUCK YOU.
morons. this is the point where your or any minorities' sensitivities and rights end.
you like any other group of the society are NOT allowed to discriminate. If some black person CAN use the a slang, a white man or an indian can ALSO use that slang. Carve these words into your heads.
from now on, i also will be using that slang, not because i particularly need to, but only for idiots like you, in your grand stupidity and ignorance, have offended ME and my freedoms as a human being, and i dont condone any group, black or white, to have more freedoms than me. if you dont like what you see below, you will have to stop black people saying those before ever having a chance of stopping me.
so, fuck of bitches, stop being a hoe and straighten up your black/white ass before some other guyz in the hood sorts those out with da' baskets.
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:3, Insightful)
So did I. He may be obnoxious but setting some attack dog on him to pick up and publicise his misdeeds does rather stink. If someone feels personally insulted and takes offence, fine. But that is not what happened here.
The difference with rapper DMX is that he is not employed by someone who will sack him for perceived outrage. His performance is measured in how many CDs he sells, not how many people he does not manage to offend.
"ebonics" is related to this issue, and also wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
"ebonics" is rooted in racist practices (forced submission to white schemas of "black inferiority", denial of education, the list goes on and on).
it is at the same time promoted by and derided in mainstream america, with the obvious ulterior motive of promoting separatism.
weather it either supplants "normal" dialect, or is killed off, it should be eliminated as a separate dialect.
Re:It should be obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the land where the media went berzerk over a nipple...
I don't like Imus, but I HATE the PC movement (Score:2, Insightful)
So some girls at Rutgers got their feelings hurt. I hate to tell them, but it's not going to be the last time in their lives that happens. In the grand scheme of things? If this is the worst insult they ever have had in their short lives, and if this is the worst insult they ever get... they're going to be the luckiest people on earth. I was called worse by the time I was six.
If only the politically correct crowd would wake up and realize how offensive THEY are. Using the "correct" terminology doesn't make you not a racist. When you start thinking of euphemisms that are "appropriate" to use for every race, class, gender, disability, or quirk real or imagined, you're spending waay too much time categorizing and much less time seeing the person as a whole.
Al Sharpton (Score:1, Insightful)
Al Sharpton, you are idiot, a stupid clown who deserves to be called by the title n****r. Oh and incase you were wondering it has nothing to do with the color of your skin, the characteristics of your hair or anything else superficial like that. It has everything to do with your repeated demonstration of idiocy. Most people are able to grasp simple civics lessons. Most public figurers are over the course of decades able to figure out how the American system works.
This is America Al, the country where people have a right to express ideas whether they are popular or not, I agree Imus made an unfair generalization. I bet most people agree with that. The thing is he as a write to express his thoughts. You and the rest of this nation have the responsibility to evaluate them and dismiss them if you find them to be without merit.
Tell me Al, why is it that you are allowed to run your mouth but other people can't? I am sure that the people Imus was referring too had their feeling hurt. What about when you say awful things. Like when you and Jackson accused him of intentionally flooding New Orleans. That would be a monstrous crime. As hated as he is by so many he is not a monster and with no real evidence that is a horrible thing to say. What about his feelings, why do you have a write to hurt people when nobody else does?
You have made many baseless charges against a political party I associate myself with thought the years. Often you accuse us of being bigoted racist oppressors. The fact is most of us are not. I consider it a hurtful and unfair generalization. I don't personally feel any less insulted by it then I suppose the girls Imus was talking about might feel about what he said. Still I am not out there trying to stop you from spreading your lies. I am not trying to take your mike away. I don't go out and protest loudly for news agencies to stop carrying your hate filled sound bytes.
When confronted with your lies I respond calmly and intelligently to them. I work to convince people of their false hood by my own actions and presentation of concrete examples from history showing them to be wrong. Above all I respect peoples freedom to say and think whatever they like.
Go ahead and continue to make my case;
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Imus' performance is measured in ad dollars. Nothing more. Some majors pulled out, he got sacked.
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech or hate speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
The man makes a racist comment on a syndicated talk show and someone heard it. No shock there. This person was recording the show and passed on portions that were of interest to other people. Like Slashdot, Digg, and other information aggregators and disseminators. People took particular offense to the issue which, given a long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination didn't sit too well. Then the invisible hand of the free market came down upon the companies that were making millions from this talk show and said that it was completely unacceptable. Rather than lose more money, the companies cut their losses.
A few casually racist words on the air may not seem like much but it does imply that racism is okay. It reinforces the idea in the minds of the public and it tacitly condones actions like this: http://www.texasnaacp.org/jasper.htm [texasnaacp.org].
"I said personally, 'You're not going to drag this man like you did that mailbox?'" Brewer said. "And he said, 'I know where we're taking him.'"
Berry backed up over Byrd's body, then drove along the dark roads.
"I told Shawn again, 'Pull over and take the man off ' the chain, Brewer testified. "He said, 'We're almost there. Don't worry.'"
They stopped in front of a predominantly black church, where the remainders of Byrd's body were left.
Re:FUCK off (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUCK off (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, just because we have the right to say whatever the fuck we want and be offensive doesn't mean we should. That's called being an asshole, asshole.
There's a framing alignment issue here (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO, the actual cause of the outrage is that Imus made an unprovoked derogatory slur on national media against a -specific- group of women, simply because they were female and black. This was basically a public sucker punch against an innocent group of actual, real life young women with parents, relatives and friends.
Can anyone here reasonably say that if a popular, well known personality, on national TV and radio, called your wife or daughter or good friend a (insert race specific stereotype) (insert culture specific derogatory slang for whore), you wouldn't want to defend them at least by complaining to their employer? What if this crap was directed against your team, business, or place of worship?
Somehow this is getting played into making folks look like they're supporting censorship, and it appears to be some sort of insidious dividing tactic that splits folks into the false dichotomy of "if you don't support commercialized hate speech, you support big brother censorship". Man, we are so getting played here.
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:5, Insightful)
So from the *very* beginning, this was not a case of listeners being morally outraged; it was a matter of a leftish organization waiting for a conservative radio talk show host to say something that they could use politically. Granted, everyone knows that both sides do this and on a purely tactical level, it was idiotic of Mr. Imus to GIVE them material to work with. But does anyone else object to this? Who *wouldn't* run afoul of the the Thought Police if they had people "assigned" to monitor their speech?
Ironic and probably surprising to some that it was the Left (generally positioned as the side most concerned with Free Speech issues) who issued this particular politi-fatwa.
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:4, Insightful)
To paraphrase Chris rock - If you call your kid an f'ing moron it's acceptable, if someone else calls your kid that you're going to be upset.
I'm hispanic, moderate. I didn't think it was funny, I also didn't think it was offensive. Kinda a throw away remark if you listen to it in context. Taken out of context it could be seen as offensive, I guess. What's sad is how media has become so huge and competitive, they will disect every single word to try and create a story.
"Attacked" them? You sure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Youtube (Score:2, Insightful)
Once again, we the people have allowed Sharpton, Jackson, et. al. to ruin someone for mere words.
Remember "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"?
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:1, Insightful)
So now right wing racists finaly get measured by the same standards of gotcha that they have used to take liberals off the air for years. They have been blubbing about how a person can't make a racially insulting comment any more without being criticized for it all along, its not like they can pretend this was some sort of supprise.
There are plenty of liberal journalists who lost their jobs for nothing more than doing their jobs. Eric Alterman got dropped because he was too liberal, because his questions about the administration were too good. Nobody gets fired for being too Conservative, ask Bill O'Riely.
So now the same group of whackos who complained about the 'liberal' (i.e. true) journalism of Alterman and co get upset because the same tactics are used to take a racist, hate-filled bigot off the air.
Now that is synthetic outrage.
Re:There's a framing alignment issue here (Score:2, Insightful)
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.
Abuse of power (Score:2, Insightful)
OF COURSE IT MATTERS WHO YOU ARE!
Can you imagine language like this from President Bush? The Pope? How about a teacher? At the other extreme, we expect rappers to come out with hurtful foul language, and just look at the result: some people seem to think that that makes it ok for Imus. The law applies equally, at least in principle, but standards don't. We adjust our language and manners according to context, and pointlessly tearing down young relatively vulnerable people on public airwaves doesn't meet the standards Imus should have met, even for a shock jock.
The really scary aspect of this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone posted comments earlier about the alleged irony that a "liberal watchdog group" pulled the trigger on the Imus fiasco. But the real scary thing is the working of one sentence in the story:
A 26-year-old researcher in Washington, D.C., for liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America, he was assigned to monitor Mr. Imus's program.
Wow. "...assigned to monitor Mr. Imus..."
Now, since my liberal friends and foes are always screaming about the alleged erosion of their constitutional rights, and some believe it's necessary to make specious claims, such as comparing George Bush and Hitler, doesn't it concern anyone that this "liberal media group" is "assigning" their staff to "monitor" radio personalities? Do you not have a picture of a room full of people, hunched over their desks with headsets on, pen in hand, jotting down any comments they perceive to be offensive to someone? Then reporting to some self-proclaimed arbiter of political and social correctness for action?
I have to wonder what else they plan to "monitor" if their like-minded compatriots ever regain full political power.
Re:FUCK off (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that, even though this was a so-called white-on-black thing, I do not think the issue is particularly racial. And I do not think, in the end, Imus was fired for racist remarks, or that the indignation was primarily a result of the racist nature of those remarks. I believe what got Imus fired, and what was shown by the constant repetitions of the clip, and his failed apologies, was that he was fundamentally uncouth and uncivilized, and while such things are entertaining for a while, such uncivilized behavior is often only tolerated for a while.
Let me explain what I mean. It is quite accepted now to make fun of celebrities. We can call a big screen actress a ho, we can say the president couldn't find his office without an aides help, we can say the NBA is bunch of drug laden deadweights. All that is acceptable because these are highly paid highly trained professionals. Their job is to, in some respect, entertain us, and part of that entertainment is being the butt of sometimes very demeaning jokes. Whether we accept it as right or wrong, that is reality.
OTOH, the Rutgers team are not highly paid professionals. They are kids. Many play ball to get an education. They are protected. We don't allow bully's to attack our kids, no matter what. If a person tried to murder a kid who accidently wandered around at night, we would not say, oh well, the kid should not have been out so we will let the kid be murdered, we still protect the kid as best we can. If a young women got up on stage and did something silly, in a dress that was cut too low, and way to short, few of us would tolerate anyone on the radio saying that she looked like she was ready to service the entire theater. It is just not civilized. We tolerate bully's but expect them to pick on celebrities their own size. Not be so cowardly that they need to pick on people who cannot defend themselves.
It seems to me that this is also what happened to prosecutor in the Duke case. He thought he was prosecuting a professional athletic team. He wasn't. He was prosecuting some kids who made a mistake, and hoped to make his name known by attacking them. Like Imus, It was only a matte of class and race in that he was using those factors to further his career. It was true that these kids in their delusions, like so many other student athletes, thought they were pros, and though they could handle being treated like the pros, but that was clearly not true. They were kids, doing what kids do. They should not have been treated like some mutli million dollar athlete who is paid to know better. As a result, the prosecutor's career might be at an end. Like Imus this is how it should be. Because next time it will be the paparazzi sneaking into the girls locker room of the high school, claiming that their pics are protected speech.
One last thing. Your last line illustrates why most rap music and comedies are so much less offensive. In general, the lyrics are telling a story of hurt, or are directed at a specific, equal, and known adversary. They are seldom directed at a random specific person. I know of no rap song that attacks a college athletic team. I know of no rap song that says, hey, you Mary, who I just picked out the phone book, is bitch because you won't sleep with me. About as bad as it gets is the denigration of the person we see in the street, which is bad, but at least names are not named.
Not that the purpose is to justify, just to say that I fully support uncivilized person being removed from the public grandstand. Imus may, if he wishes, stand in Manhattan apartment, with his windows open, and scream down to the street all the insults he wishes. Though i do imagine that his neighbors will sue him for uncivilized behavior.
Re:Credit where credit is due (Score:5, Insightful)
No, here's what led him to getting fired...
1) He makes an inappropriate, racist comment.
2) Someone senses opportunity to make political hay and gets the mainstream media involved.
3) Sharpton and Jackson get indignant and get more media involved.
4) ** Major advertisers start pulling out of Imus' show **
5) Imus is fired.
Imus does *not* get fired unless #4 happens. To WFAN and MSNBC, this is strictly about money, nothing else. When the controversy started, they mostly just poo-pooed the critism of Imus. When the firestorm started in earnest, they suspended him for two weeks (hoping that this action would quell the controversy, and Imus could go back to being host of their top show). But when it didn't stop and the networks started seeing real dollar losses as a result of sponsers pulling out, it was over. No major sponsers were ever going to be associated with Imus ever again, and he instantly became an albatros to the networks' bottom line. Whoever replaces him permanently will probably not get the same ratings as Imus would have. Hell, his ratings now would be *huge*. But ratings aren't the issue: it's revenue, and if no one wants their name attached to Imus, he's toast.
All the racist comments in the world would not have gotten Imus fired. All the indignation in the world would not have gotten Imus fired. Money got him fired.
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't been following the whole thing too closely, so maybe someone did - and I agree that that, assuming it happened, was/would have been bad. But outside of that, I just can't see the problem.
Radio shows like that are meant to be listened to, so the fact that these folks listened to this one can't be the problem. Or is it the fact that political organisations, rather than private individuals, do? But any political organisation will do so - and watchdogs in particular will, since that's the only reason why they exist. Unless you want to argue that no political organisation should be allowed to monitor radio talkshows and the like, I still don't understand your reasoning.
Also, keep in mind that this was not something that he said in private - the entire show was broadcast with the sole intention of reaching as many people as possible. Did he honestly expect people who don't agree with him to not listen to him, or does he honestly expect that he can be outraged when it turns out that they did after all? Does he honestly expect that when HE screws up and makes a remark that's off-colour at best and racist at worst, he can blame those who REPORTED it for his own screw-up?
Do you?
Re:FUCK off (Score:4, Insightful)
That's ridiculous. Of course Imus is free to say whatever he wants; but of course, people are just as free to disapprove of it, and - and this is important - the station he worked for is just as free to fire him for it.
Utter rubbish. Of course I'm allowed to discriminate, and so's Imus. The ones who are NOT allowed to discrimate are the government - no matter whether it's the federal, the states', or whatever.
The only exception to this is discrimination by private parties in public places - see e.g. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States [wikipedia.org]. But to attempt to construe from that that a radio station can't fire a talk show host because the language he used is similar to the language some random other people who happen to be black use... that's ridiculous.
Re:Al Sharpton (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe "most of us" was not supposed to include you, but I doubt that's what you intended, so I'll go ahead and say you just outed yourself as not just a hate-spewer, but also a bigot.
I think there's nothing I can add to that.
This is NOT a First Amendment issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Imus is perfectly free to say all of this in his living room, on a soap box in the park, and just about anywhere else. That's the first amendment. He's not free to broadcast it on the air. That's regulating the air waves.
It's time for you all to worry less about (heavens to betsy!) Political Correctness and start lobbying to take back the air waves. They go to a very limited set of very rich corporations who reap enormous profits, especially when they push the FCC's regulations as far as they will go. These airwaves are a lot more valuable than that.
Use them for Internet access, which IS a true free speech zone. Connect it to landlines and you can reach the whole world with your offensive crap. Everybody, not just some overpaid asshole.
Re:"Attacked" them? You sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly... as opposed to Sharpton and Jackson, who actually ruined the lives of a couple of "rich white guy" lacrosse players (also college sports players) accused of rape, who not only got away with destroying their lives (as opposed to just hurting their feelings with a few badly chosen words), but Jackson is giving the accuser a free college education!
The moral of the story? You can say whatever you want and get away with it... if you're black. Otherwise watch out for the "hit squads" listening to your radio show at every hour, even when nobody else is.
Re:Radio vs TV (Score:2, Insightful)
Backing Kerry makes perfect sense when the alternative is W. I would personally back Dan Quayle against Bush (barely). Bush combines the dishonesty of Nixon, the corruption of Grant and the incompetence of Warren Harding.
Kerry made one remark that was deliberately interpreted in a stupid way.
The Dufus in Chief on the other hand says something stupid every time he opens his mouth. On Wednesday he was saying that any delay in delivering the emergency spending bill for Iraq might cause tours of duty to have to be extended. Then on Thursday the Pentagon was forced to admit that tours of duty were going to be extended anyway because of a leaker. So in other words Bush said a deliberate and calculated lie on Wednesday, blaming Democrats for a policy he had already decided on.
More important is the intent behind the statement. Kerry's target was very clearly Bush and not the troops as the right wing echo chamber tried to claim. Imus deals in racist ad bitogtted trash talk continuously.
Oddly enough I blogged on gotcha journalism aimed at Giuliani a couple of days ago when he was caught with the old 'how much does a gallon of milk cost' quizzer. Its a stupid tactic. I don't think much of Giuliani, after hearing him speak in person I think he is an empty suit. But the gotcha journalism s just as stupid.
Re:Most women basketball players are hideous. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if we can just get "outside forces" to get Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton [larryelder.com] fired (oh, that's right, they don't actually "work", per se). The incredible double-standard in this country is just mind-boggling. I never payed attention to Imus before now, but after seeing (repeatedly) his remark and apologies played on the news I'd say that the suspension would have been a good reminder that free speech is not just a right, it's also a responsibility. Firing him, though, pissed me off for reasons that I can't say (because I'm of "Northern European" descent and not entitled to "those feelings")
I'm actually considering listening to whatever show he comes up with next, if for no other reason than spite. I've heard the Rev. Jackson and Sharpton say much more "racially insensitive" things than Imus did, but I suppose that, since it's only insensitive to "white" people, it's acceptable (or to be expected).
From my perspective, firing Imus is going to cause more racial tensions, not less. I know it doesn't suddenly make me all warm and fuzzy, that's for sure. It got me thinking about the people I work with. We only have one person (out of about 120 at my building) that immediately springs to mind as "black". I had to stop and think for a while before I could come up with who some of the rest were (Once I got to thinking about it, I started realizing just how racially diverse my coworkers are. Huh.). I guess I never really considered their race before - they were just co-workers and competent professionals doing their jobs. Like I said, only one person immediately sprang to mind as someone who seems to define themselves by their race. ...Sad.
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:5, Insightful)
What he said was idiotic, but the reaction was ridiculous. I mean, holy shit. He called them "nappy headed hos." The only part of that phrase that is an insult is "hos." Kind of by definition most of the girls on the team have worn their hair nappy [wikipedia.org] before -- "nappy" describes the natural state of the hair of people of African descent.
Hell, the producer of the show fucking called them jigaboos, and nothing happened to him! Some people have wanted to get Imus fired for a while, and they used this time as the way to do it. Of course CBS has every right to fire him; I don't have much of a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the hypocrisy coming from the liberals here. To speak in incredibly general terms, I've been gradually becoming a liberal the past few years, and this is one of those things that I really hate about many liberals in the US -- it's OK to speak your mind as long as you don't insult a minority. If Imus had called the golf team a bunch of bitches (80% of the team is white), nothing would have happened to him.
In summary, Imus called a bunch of black basketball players "hos." Some people raised a stink, and he got fired. So many people get away with so much worse every single day, and nothing happens to them. In my opinion, that's how it should be. The more you clamp down on racist speech, the more people will rebel. How many people do you think are talking today about "those fucking niggers who got Don fired"?
Let's set a few things straight about free speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Free speech means that you can say that George Bush (or if you have a time machine, try it under Clinton's term if you're a Bush fan) is a crook and his cabinet is filled with incompetent idiots and not be dragged to jail for your comments. Try doing that in China. I don't think it'll take you long over there to appreciate what free speech means. Free speech means the government cannot prosecute you for expressing opinions, such as criticizing them. Sure, there are some exceptions, such as threats, libel, and yelling "fire" in the wrong place, but the important fact is you have the power to verbally attack those in power, which was pretty revolutionary for its time.
As others have pointed out Don is paid, by advertisers, to entertain the viewers. His customers decided they don't want someone of his reputation promoting their products. His employers don't provide charity airtime, they pay him to get advertisers. Don lost them money and had to go, in the mind of his producers. The anti-Imus movement was orchestrated by the private sector, not any government agency. What Imus said is irrelevant. You have no free speech rights in the private sector. The bottom line is that he pissed of his customers.
We can debate about the racist hypocrisy that a person can say whatever they want about their own race. However, this has nothing to do with Imus. He was employed, at will, and terminated by the will of his employer. There was no injustice here. Had he lost his sponsors due to boring his audience, he would have had the same fate.
Had his advertisers not cared about his racist views, he could do the show one whatever topic he wanted. He could host a KKK rally hour as long as he found willing partners to pay him. Free speech is well and alive. This issue is simply a matter of the consumer pushing back and telling "the media" what they do not want to hear on the airwaves.
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone keeps repeating the same mantra "Oh, he's saying the same thing that people in media have said" (quoting rappers, shock jocks, etc...)
The problem with that statement is Don Imus plays in the conservative camp, where such things are NOT allowed. If you want to be a shock jock.. then my all means. Light'em up baby. (it is what they are PAID to do) You want to be a rapper, then strap on your best gold chain and go chase those hoes (its what people expect.. and I might add much of that stupidness tends to be confined to the groups they belong to.. but IANRE (only heard one in my life, and it sent me fleeing from the room in terror)
But you can't play the game of Mr. Conservative, and toss out verbal granades and expect no collateral damage when one hits the TNT. It doesn't work. Mr. Lard-ass himself Rush L. has gotten into quite a lot of hot water over similar (NOT IDENTICAL) things, but he's pretty safe as long as he's the classic white cat being stroked in SPECTRA headquater of the political groups.
Howard stern got banned pretty much from all public radio for being "too much". And dispite the fact that he is indeed a "shock jock" I might add.
Yes, he said it.. and yes, if it were a different show (or a different network, say FOX, vs. MSNBC or CBS.. because remember boys and girls, the big 3 are still getting over the "moral outrage" of the infamous "nipple slip". (Does anyone really think that a country that spent 2 months and FCC rules, and letter writing campains for a momemtary slip of an item that every other person on this planet has two of (and that happens quite a lot in real life, except not set to music) that wasn't even noticed except by slow-mo cameras to NOT react this way?) So everyone is on hyper alert for ANYTHING that can be viewed as offensive) the reaction would be different because the EXPECTATION would be different.
Myself, what he said was offensive, however it was said in passing rather than with ire. So stupid it was, insensitive it was, but enough to get him fired, personally.. no. However fined (a la many many many many other previous cases of similar cases) yes.
Re:missing the point, its about double standards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The really scary aspect of this. (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you not get this? What's the problem with a private media watchdog group watching and listening to the media? There is no conflict with anyone's constitutional rights here -- this isn't a government censorship board, it's a private group watching TV and listening to the radio! You could do this from home!
You really should check out their web page [mediamatters.com]. From the About Us section:
What's the problem? I urge you to check out their web page. Even if you disagree with them politically (and I'm guessing you do), it's a reasonable read. They're very even-handed. You might not be upset about the same things, but they give detailed context to each of their references and try to be fair. Don Imus had a platform to spout his bile. Why shouldn't he be called on it by some obscure web site?Oh, wait, I see what your problem is. It's this:
Oh. My. God. Let's not talk about what the Bush administration has done (NSA wiretapping, and who needs habeus corpus?). No, let's smear the Democrats that they might do something if they get back in power.Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Just look at the controversy you're talking about. Minority groups and traditionally "liberal" organizations were asking for this guy's head on a pole, while conservatives like Michelle Malkin were defending him. And Don Imus is a liberal!! This isn't a case of partisan politics, but it should be a clear indication of which political ideology is more supportive of free speech.
Blacks have opposed degrading lyrics for years (Score:5, Insightful)
"Black people"? I'm black. My family and friends are black. We will not tolerate the use of those words in out presence. I think you meant to say "some black people."
Rappers? Yep, many do use those words. And believe it or not, both Al and Jesse, as well as many other influential blacks like Oprah, Rosa Parks, Bill Cosby and Chuck D have been been going after [freerepublic.com] misogynistic [fradical.com] and violent [daveyd.com] lyrics for some time [nobodysmiling.com]
So why is this stuff so pervasive in rap music? This movie [pbs.org] address the question, and the answer is simple: because it sells. Kirk Franklin [wikipedia.org] and Yolanda Adams [wikipedia.org] can produce all kinds of uplifting music, but as long as Eminem and 50 Cent sell 10 million albums, people are going to make music in that vein - and by the way, once a rap album crosses the 750,000 sales mark, it's not just black people buying it.
Just like in the Imus case: follow the money. The same people who are suing grandmothers are also the ones facilitating the production, marketing and distribution.
Re:Most women basketball players are hideous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhmm. What I said was "We only have one person (out of about 120 at my building) that immediately springs to mind as "black"". I said nothing about them being the only "race-concious" person. We've got several people who spring to mind as "redneck", they flaunt their southern roots from their drawls, pickups and union jacks to their belt-buckles. If you had asked me if I worked with any rednecks, I'd be able to count them easily. We have 2 people who spring to mind as "Polish" (they're great people and I consider one of them my friend, but her polish accent is so thick you could cut it with a knife). If you had asked if I work with any Poles, I'd think of them. We have a *very* Puerto-Rican guy that who is iconic for playing the "Hey, I'm just a dumb Puerto-Rican..." and "What do joo know, white-boy...?" routine. That's what he's known for. It's his "shtick" (No offense intended to any Jews out there). If you had asked if I work with any Puerto-Ricans, I'd have said yes - but in this case if you asked how many, only one springs easily to mind, I'd have to really think about the others.
These are the people who draw obvious attention to their race, gender, orientation, or "subgroup". This is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just a fact. It's like that scene in City Slickers where the black dentists are talking to the other tourists and the younger dentist says "Yes, we're black AND we're dentists - don't make a issue out of it." and his father turns to him as says "Son, they're not making an issue of it. The only one making an issue of it here, is you."
I've been working for my company for more than 10 years and I swear, every time I have to go through the same, tired, "Race and Healing" seminar it drives me nuts. It seems we have an entire department who's only job is to point out how "different" we all are and how we (white people) can never fully understand just how oppressed everyone else is. Fuck! I never kept slaves. None of my ancestors did either. I dated a "person of color" when I was in college, english is my second language, I grew up in a non-American country and culture, and I'm married to a Polack. This doesn't make me a better person than anyone else. It just makes me who I am.
I'm tired of the insinuation by you ("...anyone who thinks that racism problem is a problem with blacks is ... well, pretty obviously white") that I must be racist because I'm white (or even that I am "white", as if my Dutch ancestry has no validity except to make me "white"). I'm tired of my employer making me sit through the same stupid seminar every year. Why do we have to go out of our way to point out how different we all are. And by different, they mean how "white people" are different from specific non-whites. Somehow they don't seem to include the Asians, Mexicans or Puerto-Ricans. I must be a total racist asshole, because I lose more and more respect for "minorities" every time I have to sit though that. The guy in the next office over does the same job I do, has the same education and certifications I do, gets paid the same amount I do, brings his dishes to the same office potlucks I do. How am I supposed to treat him? We get along great until that fucking class every year and then shit gets all uncomfortable for a while before we settle back to just being "friends, coworkers and competent professional who were hired to do a job". I know he hates it, even more so since he's not required to go.
It would almost make everything much easier to just fucking BE a racist. It seems to be what they want and expect from me.
Re:FUCK off (Score:2, Insightful)
So context means nothing to you? There are no such things as cultural differences, differences between perspectives? You would feel comfortable saying "What's up my nigga?" instead of hello to a black person?
George Carlin also said he was WRONG about words not having power in an interview with Dick Cavet. Words DO have power, they come laden with cultural significance. They are chosen for that power. Poorly chosen words can result in harm. They don't always, but they can.
Snoop Dogg talking about prostitutes in his neighborhood by calling them "ho's" is different than Imus calling college basket ball players "ho's".
The Slashdot libertarian noise machine may claim otherwise, but words matter. Context matters. By not jumping all over Imus and getting rid of him, by giving him a pass on bigotry, we're saying that there's nothing wrong with expressing bigotry. This is a guy who hosts Senators and Presidential candidates- like it or not, he had/has mindshare. It's NOT okay for him to say these things on the air. If society gives him a pass, it gives everyone a pass on this, saying it's okay to be openly bigoted to people- it's okay to use the language of racial superiority, language used to distance the superior from the inferior.
A Liberal realizes that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", that a healthy society relies on the striving for equality, fairness and justice for all. A Liberal realizes there is no place for language that only has the purpose to push down one racial group and elevate another, not on the airwaves we all own, not using the resources of the Commons. He can say whatever he wants on his own time- he can print up his own fliers, make his own blog, do what he wants with his bigotry- but he's on the public airwaves spreading his vitriol, on OUR airwaves. We have every right to complain. The complaints reached his employer who terminated his contract. Even the Libertarians should recognize the simple market economics involved here.
All of you Libertarians should not be whimpering about how powerless Imus was or how much of a victim of a public witch hunt he was, but rather that your precious corporations buckled so quickly under public pressure, how they wouldn't stand up and defend their champion, how they wouldn't stand up for "free speech" rights. But I don't hear a peep from them about that. No, they blame the Public for being oversensitive.
The long and short of it is that Imus was fired for being jerk in public. He was a branded media "ho" and his corporate masters dumped him like a rotten sausage the moment he became a liability.
Re:"Attacked" them? You sure? (Score:2, Insightful)
No the moral of the story is that if you're getting paid by advertisers, don't sully up their image by calling a specific group of people a name. Imus was far more specific than rappers etc. talking about "bitches & hos" in general.
The point is this, if you are going to make a racist insult, don't expect to have widespread support of it
Imus screwed up on what the advertisers are paying him for (if Imus alienates a large group of people, he sucks at making increasing the amount of products/services his advertsiers sell overall).
Al Sharpton has far less supporters than Imus
Imus is free to say what he likes (on his own supporters dime), and so is Al Sharpton. But nobody is forced to support either one.
Rehab (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:2, Insightful)
Today, fortunes are made and lives are ruined by intentional context dropping. The whole enemedia is nothing but SNL's "Fun With Real Audio" taken to the extreme. "Gotcha" politics depends on context dropping. Pressure groups are vessels empty of context.
The unfortunate first victim of context dropping is humor. By itself, the punch line of any joke is often unfunny or even offensive. "...they thought the bowling balls were nigger eggs!" But in context, the joke is about how some Houstonians and other east Texans are still racists. That the racists are so stupid and so extreme they threw bowling balls into the ocean.
Usually, the context droppers will then insert their own sick interpretations. "He wouldn't have said that if he wasn't a racist/sexist/homophobe deep down inside." Thus they commit projection in public.
The next victim of context dropping is civil discourse. For example, the debate about illegal immigration to the United States. The context droppers always, always, always call it a debate about "immigration," and call their opponents "anti-immigration" and "racist." When the truth is, everybody (except a nut club in Idaho) is in favor of immigration. The only debate is how to treat illegal immigrants without spitting upon the legal immigrants.
Context dropping is such a habit of some it is hard to ascribe any intentionality. It is a form of lying but they do it like they breathe, easily and unconsciously.
Indeed, context droppers can hardly be called "conscious" in any true sense of the word. They have voluntarily become dumb animals, well below the intelligence of a dog who knows what "go for a walk" means.
And they vote.
Re:All a business decision (Score:1, Insightful)
Was what Imus did malicious? Nope. Is the overraction, and the fact that his cootness was treated as "news" smart, or useful? Nope. It's just a crowd of stupid people wailing on each other while the people who know better change the channel. And that's all it is.
Re:So, how does your own medicine taste? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Radio vs TV (Score:2, Insightful)
Racism is the belief that a particular race (usually one's own) is inherently better than another or that a particular race is inferior. How that manifests itself - genocide, slavery, hate, discrimination, apathy, etc. is up to the holder(s) of those racist beliefs.
Re:this whle Imus thing is insane (Score:3, Insightful)
What he said was not an FCC violation in any shape or form. He could have said "nappy headed niggers" and it still would be legal.
Frankly the FCC's regulation of certain words is a fucking criminal act in my opinion. The FCC violates our civil liberties by doing this... But here's the wierd part.. The FCC allows the use of the word "nigger" but not "fuck"
The government shouldnt be telling us what words we can and cant say, and neither should Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton said last night on Bill Marher's Real Time that it is absolutely different when Don Imus says nappy headed ho's than when a black rapper uses it. That is RACIST far more than anything Don Imus ever said.
According to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Whites are not allowed to speak freely. That sounds like not allowing blacks to drink from white water fountains if you ask me. Look how far we come. Jesse Jackson has expressed his hate for jews, and Al Sharpton has expressed his hatred of white people and is on video doing a shadey deal with someone. He's also never appologized for ruining a group of white police officers lives during the Tawana Brawley case.... The cops counter sued him when they were found innocent of the rape charges that Al Sharpton was hell bend on hanging them with.... but AL NEVER apollogized to them, AND HE NEVER PAID UP THE MONEY THAT THE COURT AWARDED THE WHITE COPS.
Al Sharpton is a peice of shit. Jesse Jackson hates jews. Stupid Network news allowed these two to weasel their way into the public eye again through the use of our white guilt, and the corporate networks need to profit off sleeze. Thats all this is. Its a media built soap opera based on nothing but a fucking joke said by a radio jock that has in the past called the NY Knicks "Car Jackers in shorts" and no one cared then.
Re:Nifong did nothing wrong. Duke's three did. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, how does money buy you DNA evidence, turn the prosecutor in an overactive publicity seeker, and make your accuser keep changing her story? Please cite some specifics.
In this case, it looks like money kept innocent people out of jail -- If they were poor, they would be innocent people going to jail. That's the only difference. The lesson is that we should let the courts decide the truth rather than the media. It sounded like they were guilty, because it was a plausible story, and I figured they were guilty too. Then came the DNA evidence which failed to link any player on the team, changing stories by the accuser, and Nifong's obvious megalomania. Yet for much of the media, it was still full-steam ahead.
Re:Radio vs TV (Score:4, Insightful)
Calling me a moron is an ad-hominem attack.
Prejudice is one of the ways racism is manifested. Prejudicial thoughts are not all necessarily based on "hate" but can be based on ignorance as well.
Racism is another matter. The people going after your father hated him for a reason. If you father has more tact than you do, I would assume by your argument that race was the reason:
Hating someone just because of the color of their skin is a way of expressing racism.
"Mexicans carry knives" is a stereotype
"Watch that Mexican, I bet he's carrying a knife" is a prejudicial statement
"Mexicans are dumber than whites" is a racist statement
Still, people can be racist and not be violent. Not all racists wear sheets. Violence is just one of the many ways racism is expressed.
Re:Radio vs TV (Score:3, Insightful)
Would "Mexicans are less intelligent than whites" be racist? What if it were demonstrated to be true?
I'm not saying that it is true, or even that I think it might be true. It's just that I'm a little uncomfortable ruling out a whole family of statements because they may be unpleasant, even if correct.