Imus Suspended for 2 Weeks after Racist Remark- Page 3

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 1:24pm

Bravo, Robbie.

Why so much energy condemning Sharpton (who really has NOTHING to do with any of this) and so little venom targeted, by comparison, at Imus?

Updated On: 4/11/07 at 01:24 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 1:28pm

Excellent post, Robbie.

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 2:22pm

Thanks, bitches...oops...sexist...sorry!

At any rate, I just got a salad and still feel like hopping up on the soap box.

The media circus around this is just as sickening as the comment itself. Media folk falling all over themselves to defend Imus, or 'put it in perspective.' The thing that leaves the worst taste in my mouth is the 'BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN' defense that is happening. Things like, 'Big Bad Imus should stick to targets his own size.' Even Gwen Ifill's response in the Times has a tinge of the 'I'm a big girl...I can take it. But leave the children out of it.'

First of all, these people are not children. They are young women who accomplished a great deal in one season. These are not po', helpless colored girls who need media big wigs to fight their battles. That was proven yesterday when the women and their coach spoke for themselves. And, were they not full of class and grace and humanity, they could probably kick the sh*t out of that old, honky, racist, homophobic (BUT DON'T FORGET ANTI-IRAQ SO IT'S ALL OK) muthaf*cka.

Watching the talking heads (both Imus and not, both pro and con) go on and on is a bit like watching a snake mistake it's tail for a mouse. We can only hope that the snake devours itself.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 3:10pm

Marty Kaplan of the Martin Kaplan, associate dean and Norman Lear Professor of Entertainment, Media and Society at the USC Annenberg School for Communication imagines what it would be like if the public's appetite for outrage were as strong about the attorney general's misdeed as it is about Imus's.

===

Either Imus Goes, Or Gonzales Goes

The most important thing to know about Don Imus is that he's a cash cow for Viacom and General Electric. Or was, until his advertisers began peeling away. The only reason that shock jocks are on the air in the first place is that people pay attention to them. They - we - lend our ears and eyeballs to Imus and his ilk because their outrageousness amuses us.
A merely curmudgeonly cowboy would not pull big numbers, and neither the political class nor the punditocracy would return his bookers' calls. What makes the powerful kiss his ring, and what makes people tune in, is how badboy - how rude, disrespectful, licking-the-razor - Imus is. Clearly, large audiences like to gasp at what he gets away with, and CBS and NBC have been champs at spinning those OMG's into ka-ching.

The same could be said of the envelope-pushing by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and the dozens of other circus acts in the infotainment freak show. Their effect may be to debase discourse, inflame prejudice, sow ignorance, exculpate criminality, incite rancor, ruin reputations, and stoke the right-wing base - but their effect is not their job. Their job is to make money for the corporations that employ them. We may revile them for being Rove's toadies, but we're chumps if we ignore how relentlessly the companies that employ them monetize their noxious shtick.

Those conglomerates are not in the news business, or the public interest business, or the patriotism business. They're in the profit business. Imus, Idol - it's all "product" to them, content for the pipeline, means toward Nielsen ends, grist for the Arbitron mill. Yes, good, thoughtful, creative people work there, too, but it's the feces-flingers who rack up the really big numbers, the kind that command the priciest ad buys.

Outrage artists will say whatever they can, until they can't. For the last couple of decades, the It words among programmers have been edge and attitude. The desired demo - the 18-to-34s - is said to love irreverence. Sometimes it's brilliant (South Park), sometimes it's pathetic (the Ho-man), but the media companies could care less about the critical kudos or social opprobrium that may come with the terrain. As long as the government fines are tolerable, as long as the advertisers covet those consumers, there's no civic storm they can't weather.

The next best thing to the outrage demo is the meta-outrage demo. People are as avid for coverage of Imus's groveling, and of the journalistic fraternity's granting him absolution, as they are to hear his ho-talk. As long as this freak show, or the one in the Bahamas, or the next one, slouching towards Burbank, waiting to born, captures and holds the audience's attention, there's no need to give Alberto Gonzales more than cursory coverage, no need to interrupt our gambling!-in-Casablanca! sanctimony with details of the silent coup that has abrogated the Constitution.

Imagine if the audience's appetite for outrage extended to the dying of American democracy. Imagine if media bosses believed that we're insatiable for information about the Republican attempt to rig the '08 election by politicizing the Justice Department and prosecuting phony voter fraud. Imagine if the same kind of blanket coverage that's currently conferred on loopy astronauts, bratty rehaboholics, and, yes, outrageously slandered basketball teams, were afforded instead to the slow-motion fascism now on the move in America. Would we watch it the same Pavlovian way we watch tits, twits and tornadoes?

Media executives think not. They believe the jury is in on that one. They don't believe that we're addicted to junk news and shock jocks because it's the only diet they've offered us; they think the market for civically useful information is simply saturated. They don't think that because they're just tools of the vast right-wing conspiracy (though some, like Fox, have made that their market niche), or just because it serves their economic self-interest (though the tax cuts and wealth transfers whose consequences they've declined to cover have benefited them handsomely). No, they air what they air, and cover what they cover, as a capitalist service to us. Us, in the form of our mutual funds, our pension funds, our IRAs and 401(k)s, our collective American existence as Wall Street. Entertainment is exquisitely sensitive to demand. As long as we demand quarterly growth in profits more aggressively than we demand real news, the clowns will always get more airtime than the fifth column of hacks who have penetrated the halls of Justice.
Either Imus Goes, Or Gonzales Goes

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 3:23pm

>> I'm in complete shock that people here could actually just brush this off...or deflect it by calling attention to Sharpton.

No one's brushing it off. Imus has apologized several times over. I think he knows his career is now over because of a moment of bad judgment. What more do you want him to say or do?

Sharpton's getting whacked because he's done the same thing as Imus and never seems to think he needs to be held accountable in the same way. Last year he was one of the first to come running to Raleigh-Durham to pillorize the Duke lacross team. In his eyes, they were guilty, period, end of story. He had them off to jail because of what they did to an "innocent black woman", who really wasnt so innocent after all. HE MADE IT A RACISM ISSUE -- and now that he's been proven wrong, what pray tell will HE do about it? Anything? Should we expect him to act the same way he DEMANDS of everyone else?

Imus didnt have to appear on Sharpton's radio show. He certainly didnt need to be browbeaten for three hours by this self-described "reverend". I repeat: no one is brushing Imus' words under the rug, but the reaction nationally has been idiotically over the top, and people like Sharpton had made sure it stays that way.

If we're not supposed to judge Sharpton by his own actions in this case, then I repeat: what more should we demand of Imus? When is the apology enough?

And what are all of you going to do if the Rutgers team finds it in their hearts to accept his apology?

Updated On: 4/11/07 at 03:23 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 3:28pm

them uppity colored gals shouldn't ought to get so upset. heck he talked about 'em on the radio didn't he?

now just to be clear, since bush has not been impeached yet and karl rove is still a free man, no one has any right to feel outrage about anything else. in fact you should all be ashamed of yourselves for getting all upset over this little trifle of a thing. now go sit in the corner and think about what you haven't done yet and leave that poor old man alone.

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 3:36pm

As Al Sharpton was not the DA, prosecutor, judge or indeed any other person of authority regarding the Duke case, I have absolutely no idea why he should be held responsible for anything involving the Duke case.

Again, your harping on Sharpton while dismissing the hateful, racist, sexist phrase used by Imus as bad judgement is really troubling. Sharpton, full-of-sh*t, self-aggrandizing blowhard that he is, is only a point in this discussion because he aided Imus in making his apology.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:24pm

>> I have absolutely no idea why he should be held responsible for anything involving the Duke case.

Let's see:

(1) He decided, upon his arrival in the RD area, that these boys were guilty, and he made it a personal mission to whip this thing into a racism frenzy.

(2) He described the three in question as "white people of privilege" who would, in his considered opinion, get away with rape.

(3) Upon his return to NY, he immediately went on the talk show circuit and brayed his opinions for all to hear, in effect describing these three, as well as the rest of the team, the college, and anyone else who had doubts about the accuser's veracity, as "stooges who would perpetrate racism for their own agendas".

Im sorry, but that's LIGHT YEARS beyond anything Imus might have said in a moment of poor judgment. Sharpton's words were calculated in their inherent racism... and you dont seem to think there's a problem with that?

Lets get real here for a moment. Imus' words were wrong, no doubt about it. He's being held accountable for them, and he will suffer well beyond anything those words might have borne out. And you will no doubt be happy to see his demise in the process. Let the dancing in the streets begin.

But if we're going to be shutting down people saying things because of their inherent racist intent, let's remember that the door swings both ways. Sharpton should be held for his own hypocricy in this, as well as his actions in the Duke case and the countless other cases he's stuck himself into just for the sheer joy of perpetrating racist attitudes. Without racism, the man has nothing to talk about, and you guys have let him do this for years, if not decades. He has been malicious in intent, and I dont hear a single squeak from any of you calling him on it, even though he apparently took great delight in verbally beating up a guy for three hours.

But let someone like Imus come along who says something that's pretty much the equivalent of professional wrestling, and you're handing out the torches and the pitchforks.

And that's hypocricy. You can say whatever you want, but there's no denying the simple fact that you're being a bunch of hypocrites about this. Deal with it.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:25pm

The responsibility of self-editing needs to go hand in hand with "freedom of speech". It's become more and more the norm that the First Amendment banner is waved as justification why anyone should be able to say whatever they want about whomever they choose to say it. Truth or accuracy be damned. Consequences be damned.

I've never been a fan of censorship, but I also think that the Don Imuses and Howard Sterns of the world are doing considerable damage to women, minorities, you name it. The argument is, inevitably, that "everyone knows it's a joke" or "that's what they're paid to do". Whatever. The excuses don't fly. What such uncontrollable mouth flapping and spewing of offensive and degrading terms serves to do is to lower the bar of what is acceptable in society.

I would prefer that the Rev. Al stayed the hell out of it because he hurts more than he helps. And I, for one, won't ever forget Jesse Jackson's "hymie-town" remark. But they are not the issue here. Don Imus said something that is likely to have a life, or at least career, -changing impact for him. And I am sure that he is very sorry about that. But no matter what his intent, sometimes people use bad judgement things are said that can never be taken back. And sometime apologies aren't enough to make it all go away.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:30pm

all hail iflit, official censor of the airwaves. can we count on you to take up the internet as well? i know of some who would welcome your use of the big delete button upon the bullies who use bad words. will you be taking bribes or will your purity of heart keep you from abusing your power. i for one look forward to not being able to say much of anything in your newer, cleaner world.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:33pm

But...but...but...what about Ann Coulter/Rush Limbuagh/Michael Savage/Glenn Beck?!?

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:43pm

I am really tired of people using the first amendment argument as a shield for their hate. I think it's time it be used as a sword against them.

This all should have started with Michael Richards and Ann Coulter as far as I am concerned - but something has to be said. And now people are saying "That's just the way society is"? Of course that's the way it is - no one is speaking against it.

These young women are studying to be doctors, and lawyers, and one of them is studying to be an enviromental engineer. Frankly I would take a nappy headed environmental engineer over a dried up blow hard radio personality any day of the week.

Updated On: 4/11/07 at 05:43 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:46pm

that's right, let's scrap that pesky amendment! i never liked it in the first place.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:47pm

Obama says: FIRE HIM!

===

RAW STORY
Obama first presidential candidate to call for firing of Don Imus
Josh Catone
Published: Wednesday April 11, 2007
Print This Email This

Two days after facing criticism from some in the black community for silence over a racially charged remark radio host Don Imus made on his April 4th show, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) today publicly called for the veteran host's firing.

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama said in interview with ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Obama said that Imus "fed into some of the worst stereotypes" that young African-American females face in America, and said he would not appear on the 'Imus in the Morning' radio program in the future.

Obama is the first presidential candidate to call for Imus' firing.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) differed on the growing backlash against Imus, saying, "He has apologized. He said that he is deeply sorry. I'm a great believer in redemption." Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani also told reporters that he had called Imus and felt that "he understands that he made a very, very big mistake."

Among Democrat front-runners, the reaction to the Imus flap was similar to Obama's, without an outright demand for his dismissal. Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) released a statement on her website blasting Imus' remarks as "small-minded bigotry and coarse sexism," but fell short of calling for the radio host's removal.

John Edwards seemed to echo McCain at a campaign stop Wednesday when he said of Imus, "I believe in redemption, I believe in forgiveness."

Edwards and Clinton did not say whether they would appear on the Imus program in the future. Giuliani and McCain have both said they would.

Imus' comments have had a far-reaching effect. A Stroudsburg, PA radio host was fired this morning after repeating the shock jock's words on his morning radio show. The host, Gary Smith, apologized for making "I'm a nappy-headed ho" his "Phrase that Pays" on the April 10th morning program. The station said that the comments "crossed the line."

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:49pm

this is clear evidence that o-bama-lama-ding-dong is a tool of karl rove. i knew it all along too.

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:51pm

I am sure Karl wished he had Obama's tool...oh wait, that's not what I was going to say.

I did not say scrap it papa - you nappy he...but being the constitution does not seem to get much use except for violating American rights anymore, maybe it's not as bad an idea as I was going to make out.

Updated On: 4/11/07 at 05:51 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 5:58pm

just remember that once you open that door, you're never gonna get it closed again. ever.

but, hey give us 649 days of deciding what is and what isn't free speech. i'm a little hard just thinking about it.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 6:26pm

It was just announced on the news (WNBC) that Imus has been fired from MSNBC...I'm sure CBS will follow.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 7:24pm

Ya know, papa, on many occassions I've understood the point you were trying to make when you go off on seemingly homophobic or grossly sexist rants. And do I sometimes wish you would self-edit? Sure. But there is a big difference between you posting alont on a message board, and someone like Imus shooting his mouth off over the airwaves to an enormous audience who see him as someone "famous" and quotable.

I doubt that holding that view makes me a candidate for the chief censor of the airwaves. And do I care that MSNBC used their delete button on him? Nope. In a perfect world, someone who is more intentionally a hatemonger would have been hung out to dry, but I think that Imus's acceptance among somewhat mainstream crowds allowed his words to have more of an impact. Just because others are worse, doesn't mean he shouldn't be accountable.

[pab]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 7:35pm

Here is a link to that news story:
MSNBC drops simulcast of Don Imus show

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 8:31pm

Loved the story. Full of gems, such as:

.. American Express said Wednesday that it had also pulled its advertising from Imus’ show as of Tuesday. “Our policy isn’t to advertise on controversial programming,” company spokeswoman Judy Tenzer said

Okay, let's think about this for a moment, shall we? They've been a regular advertiser on his show for some time, and they're just now figuring out that he's controversial? See, this is what I mean about hypocricy, folks. Imus makes an off-the-cuff remark, and people treat it like it's from Satan Himself. Other people can say exactly the same thing, and they get deals for platinum-selling records. Gosh.

More and more, I'm thinking Imus is getting a really raw deal here. Yeah, he made a mistake. Yeah, he said things that were insensitive and racist. He opened his mouth before he engaged his brain, but that's nothing new for him. Hes been doing it for years, and no one really cared all that much. But know what else, guys? He didnt say anything new. He didnt say anything that none of us havent heard before from a helluva lot of other people who, for some mysterious reason, can get away with it while you guys are standing in line to lay a few more lashes to him.

So in light of the fervor here, I fully expect to see you guys now take on the recording industry, MTV, BET, not to mention the scores of far more offensive movies made by and for black folk, all in the name of "entertainment". Let's schedule the bonfire of those 25,000 DVDs of "Booty Call"! Dont let me down, guys. Let's see that self-righteous anger *really* kick in to make this world a better place.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 9:10pm

Seanmartin...

I really don't understand what your point is. You admit what Imus said is wrong. But you're somehow using rap lyrics to excuse it. They're BOTH wrong. And if you feel so strongly about rap/hip hop lyrics what don't YOU do something about it? And it would probably be an interesting discussion to talk about why those lyrics don't get the media attention you think they deserve.
What Imus said was not only racist AND sexist but a personal attack on a group of women who did nothing to deserve. A group of women who should be considered role models for young girls everywhere.

[chicolini]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 9:17pm

Imus can say whatever he likes thanks to that ol' freedom of speech thing we have in this country. Sharpton can use his freedom of speech to say whatever he likes in rebuttal. SeanMartin can go after Sharpton, and so forth. Not to get all Churchill or anything, but it's the worst system except for all the others that have been tried.

Yes, it was a hateful, ignorant comment and it certainly wasn't the first time he has said something inflammatory. Maybe if there had been more of an outcry at earlier insults (made by Imus and others), we wouldn't be in this situation now.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 9:33pm

Sharpton has made many a racist comment & one indirectly resulted in a few deaths (Freddy's Fashion Mart)but he has always gotten a pass.

Who can forget Jesse Jackson's Hymietown remarks. He has made others. Does Imus deserve punishment - Yes. 3 months would be appropriate . There should simply be some punishment when comments made by others are not given the same treatment.NYC Councilman Charles Barron has made a few real good ones & to date he has not been been chastised

There should simply be some equality here

Updated On: 4/11/07 at 09:33 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/11/07 at 9:50pm

there should simply be some punishment...

sorry, that's the thing that i can't get behind. some nebulous punishment or the idea that someone should not be allowed to say something.

there's ways of dealing with offensive speech. if a politician says something offensive, work to get that person voted out of office. if a performer does the same, don't support that performer and contact the people who do support that performer and convince them not to support him or her.

there are avenues available by which a person can be held responsible for their words and made to face consequences. but i do shudder when i hear people saying, "he shouldn't be able to say that" or "they must be punished for saying that." do you who advocate such things not see how easily it goes from only being the really bad stuff that's banned to things that you might not see as so bad being banned to things that you might even want to say someday being banned. what was that book so many people are always referencing? the one that shares a title with a van halen album?

i would much rather hear them say it out loud so we can know where they stand. i'd prefer that such comments on message boards or forums or blogs be left up rather than deleted. let the people who make those comments be seen for who and what they are. whether they are one person posting on a message board or a talk radio host with an audience of millions.

now, flitty, i know you're just trying to protect those poor dumb folks out there who don't know any better from falling into bad habits and using mean words, but doesn't the spectacle of him losing his position from having spoken those words offer a better lesson than not having allowed him to speak them in the first place?

he lost his job. the system worked. now can we dispense with the talk of word police before i'm arrested for thinking about buttf*cking boomer while starbuck watches?