PDA

View Full Version : NEWS FLASH - We have a right to offend you!!!


Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 02:30 PM
This is getting crazy.

I try to avoid this stuff publicly but it's starting to make me sick.

These are words, you idiots.

We are witnessing Witch Hunts.

http://oakland.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/09/don-imus-suspended-two-weeks-for-rutgers-comments/


Don Imus Suspended Two Weeks for Rutgers Comments
Posted Apr 9th 2007 8:16PM by Michael David Smith
Filed under: Big East Basketball, NCAA Basketball Media Watch, Women's Sports, Breaking News
Radio talker Don Imus has been suspended two weeks for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos." It's a joint suspension between CBS, which syndicates his show on the radio, and the cable network MSNBC, which televises the show.

Imus has promised to knock off the racially-tinged humor on his show. An MSNBC statement said, "Our future relationship with Imus is contingent on his ability to live up to his word." Imus has said he would like to visit the Rutgers women's team to apologize to them in person, though it's not clear whether the players will take him up on the offer.

My only question about the suspension is this: What took so long? Imus initially made the "nappy-headed hos" comment last week, but he was still on the air this morning. Why did it take so long for the networks to realize the seriousness of Imus's comments?

Do you Racially oversensitive windbags realize how much this guy does for kids with Cancer and Blood Disorders?

He runs the IMUS (http://www.imusranchfoods.com/) ranch.

He dedicates weeks of his radio/tv show (and the entire staff of WFAN 660 in NY) to raise money for these children.

What happens when you Facists get him fired for saying words?

In comedy?

Where's the Al Sharpton ranch?

What has that self-appointed ass done besides wasting millions of tax-payer dollars on fake rape cases?

Why are corporations bowing to him?

If YOU are offended by MY post, enjoy.

You have that right.

Enjoy.

Aardvark
April 10th, 2007, 02:53 PM
PC'ness has gone too far but Don Imus is well established as an unfunny asshole. He has proven to be a mean spirited cocksucker of the lowest order for decades. I think it's great he does work for the less fortunate but he is...and I repeat...

A: NOT Funny

B: A festering dick boil on the viagra aided shaft of conservative talk radio.


Having said that....if Eddy Murphy made the same comment nobody would bat an eye.


And yes...the Rev. Sharpton is a miserable excuse for a civic or moral leader and has done much to make race relations worse through his tireless campaigns of self promotion and bandwagon jumping in terms of highly public legal situations.

I do not recall him ever apologising for the venomous crap he spewed during the Tawana Brawley affair. He and Imus exist for the likes of each other and little else.




Cheers,
Aardvark

:Roll eyes::Roll eyes:

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 03:03 PM
I do not support Don Imus as a fan of his.

I also do not enjoy his show butÖ

I am against minority (opinions, not race) leaders deciding what is allowed and not allowed to be heard on the air waves.

It's a Slippery Slope and we are starting to live in a world where "Words" are being deleted from our vocabulary.

We are black-balling are entertainers.

Didn't we see this with the black-listed writers before?

It's just amazing to see that the left can be just as facist as the right.

Fulcrum
April 10th, 2007, 03:54 PM
Don Imus, in his heyday, and here I'm talking the early-to-mid 70s on WNBC-AM (where their slogan was "If we weren't so bad, we wouldn't be so good!")-- that was entertaining.

Imus today, sitting on that chair like he's got a pole up his sphincter, mumbling into his microphone, that's not entertaining.

If I am not mistaken it's the majority, i.e., the brass at WFAN-AM, if not also the brass at MSNBC, deciding that Imus crossed a line, not the minorities. Because. He. Did.

It isn't just the minorities who were offended by those comments. I was, too; me, a WASP.

Calling someone a nappy-headed ho, even if you think it's in jest, is not funny. It's painfully small-minded for someone who obviously has the heart and conscience to do good for the less fortunate when he puts his mind to it.

Johnny
April 10th, 2007, 04:12 PM
PC is going to be the death of Western Civilization.

We have this weird schizophrenia of desiring to hear the most outrageous and offensive talk and then getting all offended by it.

I think he crossed the line with what he said and as a station manager I would discipline him for it. He's a guest in the home/car of his listeners and a guest should be civil, even if he has a unique viewpoint.

But that's his bosses' call and I don't think it should be dictated by PC standards.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 04:17 PM
I'm not arguing as to whether he's entertaining.

I'm not even saying it's not offensive.

But it's FREE SPEECH.

He should be allowed to say what he wants.

If people don't find it entertaining, MSNBC or WFAN can decide not to renew his contract.

It's not an FCC violation. It's not HATE speech. It was said in humor. Just like South Park, Family Guy & The Simpsons.

This does not stop at Imus.

It's about power. The Michael Richards and Mel Gibson stories have shown that an audience exists. That's all the media is feeding off of.

But people will lose jobs and we are losing our freedoms.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 04:18 PM
PC is going to be the death of Western Civilization.

We have this weird schizophrenia of desiring to hear the most outrageous and offensive talk and then getting all offended by it.

I think he crossed the line with what he said and as a station manager I would discipline him for it. He's a guest in the home/car of his listeners and a guest should be civil, even if he has a unique viewpoint.

But that's his bosses' call and I don't think it should be dictated by PC standards.

:Thumbsup: :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup:

Johnny
April 10th, 2007, 04:27 PM
I also think the entire concept of "hate speech" is, well, ghey.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 04:27 PM
I'm watching this press conference right now.

I'm calling it right now.

He is SOOO FIRED!!!!!

Can we start banning books now?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0786804270.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_AA240_SH20_.gif

BTW - I love Nappy hair and would trade it in an instant for what God left on my head.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 04:38 PM
As I watch this press conference, it strikes me that the only reason these beautiful young girls are standing on this stage, is because some small-minded-wanna-be-target decided to tell them what someone had said about them.

Do these girls listen to Imus regularly?

Do they really care what he thinks?

Tim Armstrong
April 10th, 2007, 04:45 PM
Kenny, I'll defend you or Imus or anyone's right to say any goddamn thing you want to say!

On your time.

I'll also defend any employer's right to fire you for pissing off the folks who pay the bills (listeners, advertisers, etc) by saying outrageous or stupid shit at work. Bottom line, if you say stupid shit and it costs me money, you'll suffer!

Pretty straighforward situation, seems to me...

Cheers, Tim

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 05:09 PM
And if his bosses had desired to fire him, that would be business. I would have no problem with that.

This is the severely minority (non-listeners) public putting pressure on them to fire him.

It's not about real money or ad revenue. It's scare tactics in which corporations seem to cave 100% of the time.

rockdart
April 10th, 2007, 05:24 PM
It would be a different story if vilification and rampant bigotry weren't an issue in this country. If everyone knew they shared equal footing, then humorous lines wouldn't offend.

Unfortunately, we know that bigotry and racism is rampant in this country. (here comes the 'reverse discrimination' BS crowd - I can feel them warming up their keyboards)

Has anyone actually gone back and seen all the sh*t he's said? It's far reaching. But... Imus has been an avenue for all the shills and pundits to get their books promoted. If he wants to talk about whores, all he needs to do is look at who his guests are on his show.

For a different perspective (and more on this)- what Digby says (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/its-hard-out-here-fo-pimp-by-digby-ive.html)

Fulcrum
April 10th, 2007, 05:38 PM
I'm no big fan of political correctness either... but language like that on the public airwaves is politically, socially, and societally incorrect. In fact, it's pretty much all that anyway. The thing about Imus is that he knows better than to spout that nonsense, or he should. On the one hand he does do a fair amount of charity work, but on the other he comes out with this? even if he doesn't mean it? And if he doesn't mean it, what the hell is he doing saying it?

Free speech is one thing, but you don't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, and you don't use a public pulpit such as Imus has/had to say something that racially charged, and to say it that carelessly.

PRobb
April 10th, 2007, 07:52 PM
If the government were to react by threatening his station's broadcast license I would join the march to protect his freedom of speech. But if people react strongly to outrageously offensive words and make it clear that such talk is not acceptable, I think that's great. This is not about PC nonsense. What he said went waaaaaay over the line. A two week suspension and public humiliation are appropriate. He should be ashamed of himself.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 08:05 PM
Free speech is one thing, but you don't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, and you don't use a public pulpit such as Imus has/had to say something that racially charged, and to say it that carelessly.

Yelling fire in a crowded movie house is dangerous as it can actually cause bodily injury and is a physical disturbance.

What Imus said was an off-handed comment which has been completely blown out of proportion.

He didn't stand up and say "OK. I have an announcement to make." It was just a tastless comment. Not something that he should lose his job over. And not something that the world needs to take notice of.

To be clear: If MSNBC wanted to fire him right after he made the comment, I would have had no problem with that. It would be a little harsh, but it is their decision. I just don't like corporations setting up precedents for these race baiting ambulance chasers, Al Sharpton and even Jesse Jackson.

These people have no and should have no power over corporations.

But if we cave to them, they do.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 08:12 PM
If the government were to react by threatening his station's broadcast license I would join the march to protect his freedom of speech. But if people react strongly to outrageously offensive words and make it clear that such talk is not acceptable, I think that's great. This is not about PC nonsense. What he said went waaaaaay over the line. A two week suspension and public humiliation are appropriate. He should be ashamed of himself.

I agree. I'm fine with punishment. But the troublemakers aren't happy with it. They want more.

Imus has spent 2 full days apologizing and has taken his punishment. These press whores are not accepting it and want to see him fired. That is my problem.

And let us not forget that these stations that hire Shock Jocks encourage them to walk the line and then turn on them what a few public noise makers demand satisfaction.

Peace.

Fulcrum
April 10th, 2007, 08:23 PM
What Imus said was an off-handed comment which has been completely blown out of proportion.

The fact that it was offhanded, that he didn't really think about what he was saying, makes it all the more egregious. It indicates that he really thinks this way.

And not something that the world needs to take notice of.

Why not? Isn't this how we send the message that thinking like this, and the subsequent verbalization of it, is unenlightened? That this is not us at our best? It'd be nice if his parents taught him better, or if at the very least he had come to that conclusion on his own, but that apparently didn't happen in this case! How then do we get that message across?

I just don't like corporations setting up precedents for these race chasing ambulance chasers. Al Sharpton and even Jesse Jackson. These people have and should have no power over corporations. But when we cave to them, they do.

Gotta disagree here too. Everyone, including and perhaps especially minorities, should feel that there is recourse, and be able to take a corporation to task for its actions-- actions as large as failure to comply with a court order to pay for damages stemming from an environmental disaster they directly caused (e.g., ExxonMobil and the Valdez) or as relatively insignificant as putting a perpetually loose cannon on the air (MSNBC).

Fulcrum
April 10th, 2007, 08:30 PM
As far as punishment goes, I'd be happy with a bit of sensitivity training. Anything more than that would be far too much.

He says in his defense that he's a good man, and at the end of the day I agree that he is, or tries to be. But even good men can have one or two things in their closet that make them less good. One of Imus' got exposed in perhaps the worst way it could have been.

weedywet
April 10th, 2007, 08:33 PM
on the one hand I believe in total and complete freddom of speech.

that means I should have the right to attend a Bush rally with a Kerry shirt on (something that the Secret Service didn't permit in 2004)

that means that Imus (or other senile, unfunny, cranky rascist, dumb assholes) has the right to say whatever he wants without the secret police coming in and arresting him and without it being censored form say an Op-Ed page or a Letters To The Editor column.

THAT"S what "freedom of speech" means.

but despite the Reagan attempts at re-working the idea, the airwaves still DO belong to the entire public.
And that's NOT the same thing.

He has a right to his political point of view.
He even has a right to think rascist thoughts.

what he doesn't have a "right" to do is intrude those ideas over the public air into millions of homes, many of which are OFFENDED by it.
For EXACTLY the same reason he can't yell "fuck" on the air.

in both cases it's protected speech, but not on the public airwaves.

I don't want him ARRESTED.. so his speech is 'free'.
but he deserves to be fired.

plus, he wears a cowboy hat, so CLEARLY he's an idiot.:Twisted:

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Everyone, including and perhaps especially minorities, should feel that there is recourse, and be able to take a corporation to task for its actions-- actions as large as failure to comply with a court order to pay for damages stemming from an environmental disaster they directly caused (e.g., ExxonMobil and the Valdez) or as relatively insignificant as putting a perpetually loose cannon on the air (MSNBC).

But you can't compare the two. One was a major disaster, and the other was a comment. No injuries were incurred. Except the ones imposed by the people who forced these kids to pay attention to the comment.


He says in his defense that he's a good man, and at the end of the day I agree that he is, or tries to be. But even good men can have one or two things in their closet that make them less good. One of Imus' got exposed in perhaps the worst way it could have been.

And should he lose his job for that?

I'm not a fan of Death Metal. If I criticize it publicly should I be forced to find a different line of work?

Aardvark
April 10th, 2007, 08:50 PM
...It was just a tastless comment. Not something that he should lose his job over. And not something that the world needs to take notice of.

Except that he has a history of saying ugly, nasty things. He has mercilessly pilloried a number of folks with his caustic, insensitive and uncalled for tasteless comments.

Fuck him.

I hope he looses his gig and his place in the family of big-mouth bigots who pander relentlessly to the lowest common denominator of social and political discourse.

Although you raise some good points about various sanctimonious and insufferable media whores/cretins, your poster-boy for injustice has years of rotting egg on his smarmy visage.

He has lived by the sword of pointed words and I hope he falls hard on it now.


Cheers,
Aardvark
:Thumbsup:

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 08:50 PM
but despite the Reagan attempts at re-working the idea, the airwaves still DO belong to the entire public.
And that's NOT the same thing.

He has a right to his political point of view.
He even has a right to think rascist thoughts.

what he doesn't have a "right" to do is intrude those ideas over the public air into millions of homes, many of which are OFFENDED by it.
For EXACTLY the same reason he can't yell "fuck" on the air.

in both cases it's protected speech, but not on the public airwaves.

I don't want him ARRESTED.. so his speech is 'free'.
but he deserves to be fired.


But he's not fighting to intrude those ideas over the airwaves. He apologized. His show is not based on racist ideals. He made a stupid comment. Once.

And unlike the word "Fuck", "Nappy headed Ho" is not a banned word. The FCC has strict guidelines for what you can and can't say on the air. What Imus said is not on the list.

Check this out:



"Imus yesterday promised that his own show will change and some topics will become off-limits for humor, like, presumably, women's basketball teams.
But the JV and Elvis show on WFNY (92.3 FM) was already making "nappy-headed ho" jokes yesterday, and JV said it's almost impossible to draw strict content lines outside of Federal Communications Commission-prohibited areas like cursing.

"You're going 100 miles an hour on radio," he said. "You want to have fun, you're just making observations - how someone looks, how they talk."

Almost anything said in that kind of free-range context, he suggested, will offend somebody.

He and Elvis said their reaction to the Imus flap was, "What's the big deal? It's a joke."" - The Daily News

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Except that he has a history of saying ugly, nasty things. He has mercilessly pilloried a number of folks with his caustic, insensitive and uncalled for tasteless comments.

Fuck him.

I hope he looses his gig and his place in the family of big-mouth bigots who pander relentlessly to the lowest common denominator of social and political discourse.

Although you raise some good points about the various sanctimonious and insufferable media whores/cretins, your poster-boy for injustice has years of rotting egg on his smarmy visage.

He has lived by the sword of pointed words and I hope he falls hard on it now.


Except that most of that history was before he was hired by MSNBC. They paid him for this past history.

You can't hire a mercenary to kill for you and then complain about the mercenary.

Aardvark
April 10th, 2007, 09:04 PM
Except that most of that history was before he was hired by MSNBC. They paid him for this past history.

You can't hire a mercenary to kill for you and then complain about the mercenary.

Correct. But you can leave him to die at the hands of those of whom he was willing to kill for mere lucre.


Cheers,
Aardvark

:Roll eyes:

dwoz
April 10th, 2007, 09:06 PM
First of all, I think that there are some SERIOUS misconceptions about what is happening here.


Let's frist be perfectly honest with each other about ONLY ONE THING: "Nothing in the main-stream-media ever gets there unless it advances the financial interests of SOMEBODY".


Every time "IMUS" is mentioned in the mainstream press, its one mention of "IMUS" that doesn't have to be paid for.


"There's no such thing as bad publicity".


First amendment issues aside, there's actually nothing to see here. He's an idiot, he mumbles on the radio, how ANYONE can listen to him and his "howard stern flunky wannabe" crew is entirely beyond me.

And I NEVER listen to howard stern.....

Its all just 2nd-tier nonsense trying to get 1st tier recognition.


I never pegged IMUS as a conservative hack...just a derivative wannabe. He sees Limbaugh's numbers, and goes for that. Simple.

dwoz

PRobb
April 10th, 2007, 09:09 PM
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltaire


Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. And that applies to stupid, obnoxious speech too.

But if the next time someone starts into a racist rant he remembers of what is happening to Imus and stops and thinks, that will be a very good thing. I think the reaction is healthy, if overblown. I'd be upset if that kind of talk didn't get you into trouble.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 09:13 PM
Normally, I would agree with you Dwoz but this is very different.

This is BAD publicity. He is an old white guy in a cowboy hat. If he gets fired, nobody wins. Nobody.

He will be finished. Nobody is buying the book written by the racist who is unemployed.

And, I've never ever seen Imus visually shaken. He is now.

Personally, I don't get it. He doesn't need this bullshit. He can quit tomorrow and live rich forever.

The only thing I can think is that he's scared of his legacy.

Which means he's not liking this publicity.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 09:16 PM
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. And that applies to stupid, obnoxious speech too.

But if the next time someone starts into a racist rant he remembers of what is happening to Imus and stops and thinks, that will be a very good thing. I think the reaction is healthy, if overblown. I'd be upset if that kind of talk didn't get you into trouble.

How can you quote a great line and then completely destroy it's purpose?

You honestly believe that it is healthy to have Al Sharpton control the airwaves?

Aardvark
April 10th, 2007, 09:39 PM
...The only thing I can think is that he's scared of his legacy.

Which means he's not liking this publicity.

No. He is worried about the perception of his legacy. This is a typically shallow concern of media whores like him. If he has lived the life of a good man, done many honorable things and brought relief and comfort to those he has dealt with (I understand this to be somewhat the case btw...) then he has nothing to worry about. The fact is he, like others of his ilk, are really only worried about how things look...not how they are.

A certain 'style over substance' quote from a famous Irish bard comes to mind.


Cheers,
Aardvark

:Wink:

rockdart
April 10th, 2007, 10:21 PM
And what happens if everyone just looks away? Then we get to hear more about "halfrinamericans" and other nonesense from the rest of the bigot world. Right now, they're on notice (though their ego's may be getting in way of viewing the memo).

Is it fair to Imus that he gets to be the example that's set? Hell yeah - he initiated it.

Besides, we could use one less old white man of influence from inside the beltway who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. This guy has been repeatedly shown to say wrong things. Then he 'appologizes', though there's no real remorse there.

Talk about "cheap grace". Like a guy who thinks he can do whatever he wants as long as he asks for forgiveness in private to his god, yet turns around the next day and repeats the steps, never actually atoning for his wrongs - and especially against those whom he has wronged.

Is Imus going to go talk to those he offended? This time, yes he is. Because his back is against the wall. Maybe if somebody had done this 30 years ago, he wouldn't be up shit creek right now.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 10:23 PM
No. He is worried about the perception of his legacy.

Cheers,
Aardvark

:Wink:

How can you separate perception from how things actually are?

All we have is perception. Billions of little perceptions.

Does it really matter if Michael Jackson really touched little boys? He is living the life of a convicted pedophile.

But I digress as (mentioned previously) this is not a Don Imus problem for me.

It's a Freedom of Speech issue.

PRobb
April 10th, 2007, 10:25 PM
How can you quote a great line and then completely destroy it's purpose?

You honestly believe that it is healthy to have Al Sharpton control the airwaves?

There is no contradiction in defending his freedom to speak while excoriating how he uses that freedom. If the public says that kind of talk loses you your ratings and your job that's healthy. If the government says he can't say it, that's a whole 'nother story.

Cross burners, flag burners, Communists and Nazis all have freedom of speech. In America you have the right to be a Nazi. And the government can't tell you not to speak your twisted little mind. But society can, and should, say that that those opinions exclude you from the the company of decent people.

And I'm choosing an extreme example, not comparing Imus to Nazis.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 10:32 PM
And what happens if everyone just looks away? Then we get to hear more about "halfrinamericans" and other nonesense from the rest of the bigot world. Right now, they're on notice (though their ego's may be getting in way of viewing the memo).

Is it fair to Imus that he gets to be the example that's set? Hell yeah - he initiated it.

Besides, we could use one less old white man of influence from inside the beltway who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. This guy has been repeatedly shown to say wrong things. Then he 'appologizes', though there's no real remorse there.

Talk about "cheap grace". Like a guy who thinks he can do whatever he wants as long as he asks for forgiveness in private to his god, yet turns around the next day and repeats the steps, never actually atoning for his wrongs - and especially against those whom he has wronged.

Is Imus going to go talk to those he offended? This time, yes he is. Because his back is against the wall. Maybe if somebody had done this 30 years ago, he wouldn't be up shit creek right now.

But is this the issue that we really need to tackle?

Is this the problem facing black people in this country?

Do black people in general place their concerns in what some old white man might say on the radio?

Does Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson really call this progress?

Shutting down speech?

This is somehow a real issue and not just pathetic symbolism?

I'll tell you what happens if we look away:

People talk freely. Open dialogue. We stop looking at the race of the man who said what. We eventually move towards a society that is colorblind and tolerant.

This is intolerance and I can't help think what this will eventually be met with.

Aardvark
April 10th, 2007, 10:41 PM
How can you separate perception from how things actually are?

Have you ever read 'Mother Night'?


Does it really matter if Michael Jackson really touched little boys? He is living the life of a convicted pedophile.

No. He is living the life a wealthy person who travels freely around the world. Convicted peds tend to end up in jail. Whatever the truths are about him he is another manipulator of perception whose behavior has brought him ridicule and shame...and he is deserving of the scorn and animus directed at him. If he is not a ped he sure managed to act just like one...his choice. Nobody told him to spend his nights having sleepovers with little boys.


It's a Freedom of Speech issue.

I understand. He is free to say whatever he wants as far as I know...he just has to be careful where and how he says it. This is called responsibility, it comes with certain jobs. He has shirked his and is getting his just desserts. If he wants to give up the regular airwaves he can go to sat-radio or do podcasts from his home studio...but he won't if he doesn't have to because he will loose money.

This is only about his income stream.

Cheers,
Aardvark

Evil!:Wink:

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 10:42 PM
There is no contradiction in defending his freedom to speak while excoriating how he uses that freedom. If the public says that kind of talk loses you your ratings and your job that's healthy. If the government says he can't say it, that's a whole 'nother story.

Cross burners, flag burners, Communists and Nazis all have freedom of speech. In America you have the right to be a Nazi. And the government can't tell you not to speak your twisted little mind. But society can, and should, say that that those opinions exclude you from the the company of decent people.

And I'm choosing an extreme example, not comparing Imus to Nazis.

Yes. But we're not talking about Imus's audience being unhappy with what he's saying on the radio. These trouble makers don't listen to Imus.

They're not complaining about being unsatisfied with their entertainment.

They're telling me that I can't be entertained by it because it offends them.

That's Bullshit.

You don't have a right to not be offended!!!!!

rockdart
April 10th, 2007, 10:49 PM
well, if it means that intolerance of the promotion of bigotry and racism, I say bring it on.

For some reason, I don't think Ken Tomlinson would be fining him like he did CBS over the whole Janet Jackson rediculum.

The guy who teaches ethics and diversity at my company says "keep your junk in your trunk". Methinks Imus' trunk runneth over. Is it really shutting down speech when it's only the loss of tired, old bigotry and racism? Or is it society as a whole saying "we won't tolerate this"? And while you may be pointing to this and implying that all free speech is now endangered, this is its own case about a specific form of reference toward people that should not be tolerated. It's not just the speech factor in this - it's related to hate crimes in all their forms, so this is just an extension of that.

What have we seen lately as people have been intollerant of gays and have been openly expressing their opinions? We've seen beatings, assaults, discrimination. By allowing the rhetoric to go unchallenged and unopposed, society has allowed an implied "it's OK" to take the actions these victimizers have taken.

To say that we should not address an issue of bigotry and racism is the way for it to go away... well, it just won't work. Humans have only been addressing these issues for 200 some odd years (seriously and with action) with THOUSANDS of years of not doing anything about it.

Had the previous THOUSANDS of years example led toward what you suggest, the struggles of the last 200 or so years would not have been necessary and most certainly we wouldn't be discussing Imus' predispositions.

dikledoux
April 10th, 2007, 10:55 PM
But it's FREE SPEECH.
I fail to understand how a guy getting paid to put on a radio show that's broadcast over the public airwaves while he's working for a stockholder-owned company is characterized as anything like free speech.

It's just another "look at the monkey!" issue that's pushed out onto the mainstream media so cons and libs can point at each other as the enemy rather than lighting torches and heading for the castle gates. In the meantime a thousand more important things get suppressed in the media every day that are WAY more worthy of note.

dik

PRobb
April 10th, 2007, 10:57 PM
They're telling me that I can't be entertained by it because it offends them.

That's Bullshit.

You don't have a right to not be offended!!!!!
I'll agree with that. And Sharpton is a foolish, egotistical blowhard. And this is being blown way out of proportion.

At the same time, I'll repeat that I'd be worried if Imus's rant didn't get him into trouble with the public. Same for Richards and Gibson. With freedom comes responsibility.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 10:57 PM
Have you ever read 'Mother Night'?



No. Are they making a movie?


He is free to say whatever he wants as far as I know...he just has to be careful where and how he says it. This is called responsibility, it comes with certain jobs. He has shirked his and is getting his just desserts. If he wants to give up the regular airwaves he can go to sat-radio or do podcasts from his home studio...
Cheers,
Aardvark

Evil!:Wink:

That brings up an interesting point. Racist humor is acceptable on Sat. but not on terrestrial radio. For how long?

There is that Slippery Slope again.

What he said was not an FCC violation. Nappy and Ho are not banned words. It was not a nice thing to say and he should be reprimanded. And he clearly was. He apologized for 2 full days. These creeps want blood. They won't accept his apology.

Wasn't it Jesse Jackson the one who used the phrase

Jesse Jackson's 'Hymietown' Remark Ė 1984
Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman. Jackson had assumed the references would not be printed because of his racial bond with Coleman, but several weeks later Coleman permitted the slurs to be included far down in an article by another Post reporter on Jackson's rocky relations with American Jews.

A storm of protest erupted, and Jackson at first denied the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. The Nation of Islam's radical leader Louis Farrakhan, an aggressive anti-Semite and old Jackson ally, made a difficult situation worse by threatening Coleman in a radio broadcast and issuing a public warning to Jews, made in Jackson's presence: "If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm."

Finally, Jackson doused the fires in late February with an emotional speech admitting guilt and seeking atonement before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue. Yet Jackson refused to denounce Farrakhan, and lingering, deeply rooted suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews. The frenzy also heightened tensions between Jackson and the mostly white establishment press.

dikledoux
April 10th, 2007, 11:00 PM
well, if it means that intolerance of the promotion of bigotry and racism, I say bring it on.
Well said.

I'm amazed that anyone would pick THIS instance as the indicator that free-speech is endangered.

dik

Aardvark
April 10th, 2007, 11:15 PM
No. Are they making a movie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Night_(film)

A very good film.



That brings up an interesting point. Racist humor is acceptable on Sat. but not on terrestrial radio. For how long?

There is that Slippery Slope again.

Not really. I mentioned responsibility...on terrestrial radio you have different responsibilities and he failed to meet them.



What he said was not an FCC violation. Nappy and Ho are not banned words. It was not a nice thing to say and he should be reprimanded. And he clearly was. He apologized for 2 full days. These creeps want blood. They won't accept his apology.

Wasn't it Jesse Jackson the one who used the phrase...

You are using the example of one idiotic racist remark to justify another. Two wrongs will always be two wrongs.

I notice Imus is not making this a freedom of speech issue because he is a gutless coward to whom money is more important than the principles you claim are in play. He wants the biggest bully pulpit he can get because of the money, otherwise he could go elsewhere and say whatever he wants without concern for this kind of interruption of his 'entertainment'.

Simple as that.


Cheers,
Aardvark

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 11:25 PM
well, if it means that intolerance of the promotion of bigotry and racism, I say bring it on.

But that leads you to a whole new set of problems. If a black comedian uses the "N" word on stage is it offensive? Not to me. What about a white comedian?

Who defines this stuff? It's all speech.

It does not IMHO lead to hatred but that's just my opinion.

But it is free speech.

How about in the name of Patriotism we denounce any negative music or speeches against the Iraq war?

Would that be OK? In the name of Patriotism? Seems fair.

Without a clear line, all speech needs to be free.

Is it really shutting down speech when it's only the loss of tired, old bigotry and racism?


Yes. Absolutely.

It's fascist.



It's not just the speech factor in this - it's related to hate crimes in all their forms, so this is just an extension of that.


I'm sorry. You're wrong. There is no tie in with Hate crimes. Your banning Ozzy for Suicide Solution here.



To say that we should not address an issue of bigotry and racism is the way for it to go away... well, it just won't work. Humans have only been addressing these issues for 200 some odd years (seriously and with action) with THOUSANDS of years of not doing anything about it.

Had the previous THOUSANDS of years example led toward what you suggest, the struggles of the last 200 or so years would not have been necessary and most certainly we wouldn't be discussing Imus' predispositions.

I'm not suggesting that we don't address it. But we need to be more tolerant.

Just as I am tolerant of the black muslims yelling into a bullhorn 2 blocks away from me how "Whitey is the problem."

I have no problem with them doing it at all. Even though little kids walk by all day. It's his opinion. As long as none of them (and they are big dudes) physically threaten me, I applaud there effort.

Pancho Ballard
April 10th, 2007, 11:32 PM
Thank God I live in England. For a start, I don't think my band would go down too well with the over-sensitive liberals (with a small l, I vote Liberal) in America. We have them over here too, but the rest of the country tends to tell them to piss off.

I get the impression you can get away with much more over here.

Kenny Gioia
April 10th, 2007, 11:32 PM
Well said.

I'm amazed that anyone would pick THIS instance as the indicator that free-speech is endangered.

dik

Happy to amaze you.

I'm actually amazed how easy it is for everyone to let there liberties just slip away.




You are using the example of one idiotic racist remark to justify another. Two wrongs will always be two wrongs.



No. I'm not. I'm not justifying anything. Imus was wrong. Jesse Jackson was wrong. Imus will be remembered as a racist. We'll probably have a Jesse Jackson holiday in 50 years.


I notice Imus is not making this a freedom of speech issue because he is a gutless coward to whom money is more important than the principles you claim are in play. He wants the biggest bully pulpit he can get because of the money, otherwise he could go elsewhere and say whatever he wants without concern for this kind of interruption of his 'entertainment'.


Cheers,
Aardvark

That is what is surprising me. Imus is not usually a pussy. In this instance, it seems like someone really big is scaring the shit of him.

He was almost in tears.

I would think he saw Keyser Soze.

E. Shaun
April 10th, 2007, 11:45 PM
Just as I am tolerant of the black muslims yelling into a bullhorn 2 blocks away from me how "Whitey is the problem."

I have no problem with them doing it at all. Even though little kids walk by all day. It's his opinion. As long as none of them (and they are big dudes) physically threaten me, I applaud there effort.

There's some irony there, though...you're tolerating someone who is preaching against the tolerance of you and your way of life. I'm not sure why physical threats carry any more weight than memetic ones.

Whatever the case may be, I'm actually with you on this issue to a certain extent Kenny, insofar as I view the freedom of speech as the most hallowed of our freedoms. Nonetheless, like I mentioned in the Joshua Bell thread yesterday (in regards to art), these things are often defined by both their context and their venue. If someone turns on the television to the Food Network, expecting to see someone chopping tomatoes and talking about parsley, only to see a cinematic depiction of someone getting shot in the head, they're bound to be rather shocked and awed. If, however, they turn on the television to watch a war movie, then it's going to be completely contextualized and pretty much expected.

I'm not familiar with Don Imus' "work" or "schtick", but if listeners are made aware of his bigotry or racist leanings, then some of the responsibility has to be borne on the listener to not tune in to the rantings of some depraved human being. Then again, he's also the employee of a communcations organization who DO have the right to keep him on air, in light of his viewpoints, or fire him over his remarks. And finally, he bears the responsibility of knowing his audience and knowing that there are some lines (some written, some unwritten) which oughtn't be crossed.

And just to revisit your comment about the tough muslims near you talking about how whitey is the problem...you're absolutely right that it is indeed their prerogative to voice their opinions. However, those opinions should be voiced in a context and venue that is complementary to their objectives, rather than in a context and venue (i.e.: a public street) that serves only to undermine those objectives by thrusting them into conflict with the dominant view of those who surround them. I would say the exact same thing about Christianity, by the way. Free speech: yes. Free speech placed in a context where it has to be rammed down your throat: no.


P.S.: And Mother Night is an excellent book, and a great citation. :Thumbsup:

rockdart
April 11th, 2007, 12:17 AM
I fail to see how keeping bigotted and racially slurred speech off the airwaves is a loss of liberties. Imus can let all the junk out of his trunk anytime he wants, in the company of others who prefer empty trunks. Nobody's going to stop him.

However, if your (in the general sense) predisposition does not agree with a civilized and social society and you are not on public radio, then you need to either 1. Follow the rules or 2. Find a different avenue to spew your utterances.

But, as dik pointed out (and as I expound upon it), wasting this kind of energy over this gasbag is rediculous. Defending bigotted and racial slurring is just... well, I don't have one word that would describe my feelings on that.

You want to do something about civil liberties? How about we get 6 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights back by getting rid of the POS Patriot Act?

Insofar as comedy; if a comedian who belongs to a group/sect/creed/etc wishes to make fun of his/her people, usually it is done to point out the rediculousness within his own group and it is done in a way the enlightens people within that group.

If another comedian does it in order to some how prop himself up to be better than or to lessen the worth of someone else, that's just a bunch of betas puffing up and beating their chests thinking they're alphas. It's people not facing their fears and trying to demonize something they're afraid of in hopes that the sound of all the chest thumping might frighten away the bogeyman.

And it's not comedy, it's a tragedy.

PRobb
April 11th, 2007, 12:57 AM
However, if your (in the general sense) predisposition does not agree with a civilized and social society and you are not on public radio, then you need to either 1. Follow the rules or 2. Find a different avenue to spew your utterances.




This is where it starts to get dangerous. There is a definite gray area here. Unpopular ideas have to have a forum. But there is a line. And that line is an agreed upon social construct, not a legal matter. And I think we have, finally, reached the point where overt racism is aver the line.

rockdart
April 11th, 2007, 01:09 AM
This is where it starts to get dangerous. There is a definite gray area here. Unpopular ideas have to have a forum. But there is a line. And that line is an agreed upon social construct, not a legal matter. And I think we have, finally, reached the point where overt racism is aver the line.

I agree here. "The rules" I was referring to were those social contract rules. As long as the rules or conventional wisdom protects the most people and regard reality, humanity and respect, I'm apt to agree with them (for the most part).

In some cases, I think that people are hypersensitive to perceived racism, but I don't think that's so in this case(especially in the context of the whole thing - btw, how come the focus is soley on Imus? McGuirks remarks were just as bad if not worse.). That's my take anyway.

Palewailer
April 11th, 2007, 01:16 AM
He has every right to speak his mind.
That said, his employers have every right to fire the racist fucktard.

I, for one, hope they do.

Tim Armstrong
April 11th, 2007, 02:31 AM
Let's not leave out the sexist slant in his remarks, either. These young women, young college student women, had just made the Final Four of the NCAA Women's Basketball finals. Lots of hard work, and being students at Rutgers ain't a cakewalk.

They're the furthest thing from "hos"...

Tim

PRobb
April 11th, 2007, 03:18 AM
Let's not leave out the sexist slant in his remarks, either. These young women, young college student women, had just made the Final Four of the NCAA Women's Basketball finals. Lots of hard work, and being students at Rutgers ain't a cakewalk.

They're the furthest thing from "hos"...

Tim
Yeah, he really covered all the bases, didn't he?

Kenny Gioia
April 11th, 2007, 03:44 AM
I fail to see how keeping bigotted and racially slurred speech off the airwaves is a loss of liberties.

Who defines bigotted and racially slurred speech?

You? Al Sharpton? David Duke?


However, if your (in the general sense) predisposition does not agree with a civilized and social society and you are not on public radio, then you need to either 1. Follow the rules or 2. Find a different avenue to spew your utterances.


There are no rules in place to restrict racial slurs.

PRobb
April 11th, 2007, 03:51 AM
Who defines bigotted and racially slurred speech?

You? Al Sharpton? David Duke?



There are no rules in place to restrict racial slurs.
I dunno, but "nappy headed hos" qualifies. Like someone said about pornography, "I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it".:icon_eek: :lol:

Kenny Gioia
April 11th, 2007, 03:54 AM
Let's not leave out the sexist slant in his remarks, either. These young women, young college student women, had just made the Final Four of the NCAA Women's Basketball finals. Lots of hard work, and being students at Rutgers ain't a cakewalk.

They're the furthest thing from "hos"...

Tim

What about intent?

What was Imus's intent?

I truly am embarrassed by the lack of respect for humor (for fear of hurting someone's feelings) and our rights regarding Freedom of Speech.

Soon we will all be wondering how we ever lived without the chip in our heads that filtered out the insensitive words while we re-elect George W. Bush to a 3rd term and burn The Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore for protesting that election.

Enjoy. :Sad:

Johnny
April 11th, 2007, 04:01 AM
Ironically, there's a lot of music on the air as y'all read this calling those women the exact same name, among other colorful titles.

Fulcrum, I don't think sensitivity training is a solution, as I'm sure Mr. Imus like most people already knows that racist remarks are rude and socially unacceptable. He's not lacking training; he's lacking manners (or the charity to exercise them).

Mixerpuppet
April 11th, 2007, 04:10 AM
I remember not too long ago Howard Stern leaving the government controlled air waves because he felt his ability to speak freely was being infringed upon.

It's a sad state of affairs when we'd rather have the phrase "F" wad word being uttered in front of children and jump on "Nappy haired Ho's" as being offensive.

Now can someone explain to me how the phrase Nappy haired Ho's is racial? It's a foreign phrase to me which sounded like "Lazy Sluts". Is that ok... Lazy Slut can't be offensive can it?

I think the double standard of the minority PC crowd needs to be addressed...

gbacklin
April 11th, 2007, 04:26 AM
While this was about pornography, Zappa had it right about words ....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc

Johnny
April 11th, 2007, 04:34 AM
Soon we will all be wondering how we ever lived without the chip in our heads that filtered out the insensitive words while we re-elect George W. Bush to a 3rd term and burn The Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore for protesting that election.

Enjoy. :Sad:
Somehow, I don't see the Revs. Sharpton or "Hymietown" getting behind any of that.

cozmicslop
April 11th, 2007, 05:39 AM
Now can someone explain to me how the phrase Nappy haired Ho's is racial?
If you can't figure that out, words would only be wasted on you.

As far as free speech, nothing you say on your gig is really free, is it? Otherwise bosses everywhere would be listening to employees telling them everyday where they could go and the shortest way to get there.

Campanis, and jimmy the greek had their asses handed to them over shit they said when they were out drinking. This dude was on the job on the air.

Fuck 'em and feed him salt.

blackieC
April 11th, 2007, 06:05 AM
Imus should just shut the fuck up and take his lumps for a dumb-ass move.


Just like Sharpton should have, but didn't, for his "Hymietown" remark.

On any side of the fence, racism is just fucking wrong.


Many people have said many stupid things, and I still believe that it should be thier right to do so.


It just makes it easier for the rest of us to spot the dipshits.

Kenny Gioia
April 11th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Imus should just shut the fuck up and take his lumps for a dumb-ass move.


Just like Sharpton should have, but didn't, for his "Hymietown" remark.

On any side of the fence, racism is just fucking wrong.


Many people have said many stupid things, and I still believe that it should be thier right to do so.


It just makes it easier for the rest of us to spot the dipshits.


He did apologize. Going on 3 days now. He's taking his lumps.

And yes. Racism is very wrong but it is protected speech.

It's not freedom of popular speech.

PRobb
April 11th, 2007, 03:39 PM
He did apologize. Going on 3 days now. He's taking his lumps.

And yes. Racism is very wrong but it is protected speech.

It's not freedom of popular speech.
Absolutely. There is no such thing as freedom of popular speech. The only thing more un American than flag burning would be a constitutional amendment banning it.

That being said, and I don't think anyone is disputing it, there is such a thing as socially unacceptable speech.

I think this thread has become a bit circular. But I think we can agree that while there shouldn't be anything you can't say, there are things you shouldn't say.

Kenny Gioia
April 11th, 2007, 04:12 PM
I think this thread has become a bit circular. But I think we can agree that while there shouldn't be anything you can't say, there are things you shouldn't say.

Agreed.

Kenny Gioia
April 11th, 2007, 04:20 PM
While this was about pornography, Zappa had it right about words ....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc

Fucking Brilliant!!!!!!!!

It's amazing how dumb the opposition comes off.

blackieC
April 11th, 2007, 04:45 PM
He did apologize. Going on 3 days now. He's taking his lumps.

And yes. Racism is very wrong but it is protected speech.

It's not freedom of popular speech.



I guess what I meant to say was that one or two, possibly three, apologies will do if they are sincere. I just lack the stamina for a week long apology marathon.

rockdart
April 11th, 2007, 05:21 PM
I thought everyone may get something out of how Al Roker approached this (http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/11/130527.aspx)(emphasis are mine):

I don't think I've ever had more response to an online journal than yesterday.

As you may know I called for the firing/resignation of WFAN/MSNBC morning host Don Imus. This after he and his morning "Crew" referred to the Rutgers Women’s basketball team as, among other things, "nappy-headed hos." Ugly racism and sexism at its worst.

Based on the passionate responses we got from people on both sides of the issue, it seems we still, after all this time, have a long way to go in our country when it comes to race.

And, by the way, it's not like I hold a deciding vote at CBS, Inc., Mr. Imus' actual employer, or at NBC Universal, the company that owns MSNBC, and my place of employment, NBC News, as to whether Imus and company stay or go.

I was expressing an opinion, not as a member of NBC News, but as an individual online.

My freedom of speech was questioned. Some of the complaints that came in fell in that same category; I was denying Don Imus his freedom of speech. Far from it. Don Imus has the right to say whatever he wants, however hateful, stupid or uncaring. He DOES NOT have the right to say it on public airwaves or on the cable broadcast of a publicly owned company. That is a privilege, just as you do not have the right to have a license to drive a car. It is a privilege. Privileges can be revoked if certain criteria are not met.

Another point some of my critics raised was that I was holding Don Imus to a different standard than the rappers and African American comedians who traffic in the same kind of language.

Guess what? I think their speech is hateful, too. I don't condone it. Don't allow it in my home. Don't use the words. Don't go to those concerts. Those companies that profit in the demeaning of women via musical lyrics, whether rap or rock, should be put on notice, as should the radio stations that play the music. Others who have used hateful language have recently been fired from prominent radio jobs. They have been held accountable. African-Americans who believe certain elements of rap music, music videos and popular entertainment need to be more respectful toward our own should speak out and repudiate that element. I know I have, and many others have as well.

A slippery slope, to be sure, deciding what should be heard or not heard. But the difference again is, where it is heard and who is saying it and what is their intent.

A team of young women, striving to excel academically and athletically surely does not deserve to have all that they worked for, all that they sacrificed for stripped away in the name of a "comedy show," in the words of Don Imus.

Mr. Imus misspoke when he told Matt that if all we could come up with was a few instances of racial intolerance in the span of a 30-year program, it was, in essence, not that big a deal.

Not so fast, Don. On a regular basis, African-Americans, no matter who they are, were generally portrayed in a "pimp" or "Aunt Jemima" voice. People of color were routinely denigrated. There was an atmosphere of intolerance going under the guise of comedy. Imus would have you believe this is an isolated incident. It is not. Maybe not to the extreme such as was the case last week, but It exists, thanks to Don Imus, Sid Rosenberg and Bernard McGuirk.

People have written in asking why haven't I spoken out against others who have made similar transgressions. The answer is simple; one that I'm not particularly proud of: It wasn't in my "house" and it wasn't so profoundly blatant.

Don Imus broadcasts under the NBC News banner via MSNBC. This is a reflection of my company. I won't stand for the idea that someone who has the privilege of working under the aegis of NBC News could damage this organization with the taint of racism and sexism.

And a word about this organization. There has been a lot of soul searching going on, both publicly and privately. And it is the strength and character off the management of NBC News that gives me a source of pride. Our president, Steve Capus, has been about as transparent in his dealings with this as anyone could be. It visibly pains him, as it does all of us here, both people of color and white, that we are going through this. His support, and the support of Jeff Zucker has meant a lot to the people of this company.

It has been a good process and a necessary one. One that we hope we can help foster both inside and outside of NBC News. This can make us all better people and treat each other with more respect.

No doubt there's going to be more about this in the days and weeks to come. Advertisers are bailing out of the Imus broadcast and the marketplace. In the end, this may decide his fate.

In the meantime, I hope that the debate over this can be civil and meaningful, not one of name-calling and anger.

Mixerpuppet
April 11th, 2007, 08:04 PM
If you can't figure that out, words would only be wasted on you.




Wasted?

<cosmicslops slaps mixerpuppet> "Snap out of it"!

Your right...

I can understand it being wasted in the sense that the phrase and explanation of it being pointless since Im not really interested in learning new ways to insult people for being different.

I'm probably alot better off in my ignorance.

I turned talk radio off a few years ago because I felt it was a breeding ground of negativity. People seem to be thriving on it right now. Nice shows don't finish first...

I'm in the wrong room here...

Hear no evil...

Speak No evil...

I don't need to know...

weedywet
April 11th, 2007, 10:44 PM
How can you quote a great line and then completely destroy it's purpose?

You honestly believe that it is healthy to have Al Sharpton control the airwaves?

If I thought Al Sharpton DID "control the airwaves" I might have an opinion.

as it is, ClearChannel and GE and Disney and a host of other ammoral corporate assholes "control the media".

not Al Sharpton.

again... you can't say "fuck" on WNBC either.
does that mean that the christian right, or whoeever else objects to the word 'fuck', "controls the media"?

Unfcknblvbl
April 12th, 2007, 12:46 AM
Like someone said about pornography, "I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it".:icon_eek: :lol:

I could never buy that Potter Stewart line - eye of the beholder being what it is and the loathsome self-appointed "culturally elite" being who they are...

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 01:15 AM
I'm sorry but Al Roker is just plain wrong.

Yes. Being on the public airwaves is a privilege. But you (Al) and the (so-called) black community do not own those airwaves. As Mr. Weedywet has pointed out, the evil corporations do. And if those evil corporations chose to fire Imus based on his statements, I would have no problem with that. None at all.

What is happening here is very different. The (so-called) Black community is trying to silence Imus. And his opinion. They don't want him suspended. Fined. They want him to lose his job and his platform to state his opinions. Forgetting about the fact that he is sorry for what he said, a group in this country is trying to silence another for what they say. A different point of view. Fucking words. Grow up.

I'll give you a perfect example.

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative right wing icon. Al Franken has a very different political ideal than him.

Did he organize protests to get Rush thrown off the air?

Write letters to Rush's loyal sponsors?

No. He wrote this book:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0440508649.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_V44915944_AA240_SH20_.jpg

He took him to task. In public. Keeping the dialogue open.

Silencing differing opinions is Fascist. Offering up opposing views or discrediting those differing opinions is the only honest way to handle it.

As a Moderator of this forum, I can ban anyone who disagrees with me on this matter.

Should I? Or do you like the fact that your voice can be heard?

Get on your radio shows. Your TV shows. Write your articles and editorials. Complain about Imus until you're blue in the face. He was wrong. Let's debate it.

But NEVER EVER throw him off the air.

Why?

Because your sending a message to every single special interest group in this country. Your telling them that if you pay attention to every word that your ideological enemy says publicly, you can win the battle simply by silencing them.

And that my friends is scary!!!!!!

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 02:24 AM
UPDATE!!!!!!

IMUS FIRED!!!!!!

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=9eda7c17-a144-4967-afc2-148d5b6cd050

I sincerely hope that the Black community will help recoup the millions of lost dollars that his foundation was planning on raising for kids with Cancer, Autism and Blood Disorders this weekend which will clearly not be donated.

Thanks.

Long live Fascism.

Enjoy.

(BTW - Imus re-routed his plane the other day from New Mexico to Arizona to pick up a little 6 year-old boy who had Cancer in his eye. That boy was Black.)

Johnny
April 12th, 2007, 02:35 AM
The thing about this is, most of the people trying to get Imus fired have never listened to him. Hasn't his entire career been about saying rude things on the air?

Why is it goofy when a bunch of pietists want to get artists they've never heard off the air, but not when political activists do it with shock jocks? Both are silly.

I haven't heard the comments in context or seen the basketball team. Are they hos? How's their hair look?

As for the aforementioned pietists, they're a load of big-haired imbeciles. Ban me.

emtou2u
April 12th, 2007, 02:38 AM
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Voltaire







i have about six pages of 'opinion' but since the thread seems to have exhausted everyone already i've boiled it down to the above statement.

frankly - i do not follow these radio shows and cannot speak to the history of Imus - so prior to spewing my own thoughts on the matter - i was going to mention my own concern with the public reaction and hysteria to the Imus offense.

this situation is multi-faceted and therefore inherently convoluted. i'm only concerned with the general interpretation of freedom of speech. since 1791, the constitution has guaranteed 4 freedoms (religion, speech, press and assembly) and these freedoms have been discussed, debated, fought and died for. our founding fathers knew what they were doing. They believed in the power of ideas and debate, not censorship. freedom of speech is really the freedom for any citizen to speak his mind and belief system without concern for punishment from his government.

the underlying premise is, if the government censors you today, i could be next tomorrow, perhaps for an entirely different reason. that’s why it is so important to uphold the principle, even when in practice it is difficult to do so. there’s no challenge involved in defending someone you agree with; the stretch is standing up for your opponent—so that everyone’s rights are preserved.


but please note this is all in reference to the government censorship.

this imus debate really starts to bring up not so much the freedom of speech issue because based on "freedom of speech" his rights haven't been violated by the government. he isn't in jail.

however for as long as the First Amendment has protected our right to free speech and expression, elements have tried to undermine that right. censorship often raises its ugly head during trying times when our nation faces difficult, seemingly insoluble problems.

this is absolutely a case of corporate censorship and a societal hunt. deserved or not.

the next issue that comes into play is the blurred line between racism and hate speech. in no way, should what Imus said be 'acceptable' in fact, i find it a verbal form of degradation...but i do have to really think about whether it is classified as "racism" or hate speech. but i'll leave that for another post...






(please keep in mind this is a somewhat incomplete thought...i'm just getting started...but thought i'd spare you a formal essay:Wink: )

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 03:04 AM
[SIZE="4"]

this is absolutely a case of corporate censorship and a societal hunt. deserved or not.

the next issue that comes into play is the blurred line between racism and hate speech. in no way, should what Imus said be 'acceptable' in fact, i find it a verbal form of degradation...but i do have to really think about whether it is classified as "racism" or hate speech. but i'll leave that for another post...



:Thumbsup: :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup:

Cosmic Pig
April 12th, 2007, 03:14 AM
Call the Dixie Chicks... maybe, Just maybe, they'll care. Witch hunts work both ways.

This is a bbasement topic and rawther droll. There's bigger fish to fry than another asshole getting fired for being an asshole. The shit everybody can agree on like hemorrhaging money to China stays silent as usual. Sorry to piss on everyone's valuable input, but fuck off.

Btw Kenny, thanks for the tutorials, I don't have PT but I've learned much from them.

Cos.

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 03:23 AM
At least there's no fallout:

http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1290218.php/Language_Police_DJ_fired_for_having_callers_imitat e_Imus

By Stone Martindale Apr 12, 2007, 0:38 GMT


A Stroudsburg, Pennsylvannia morning DJ is out of work on the heels of the Don Imus fracas. WSBG-FM radio station fired its longtime morning DJ Wednesday after he had listeners repeat talk-show host Don Imus' slurs in an on-air contest.
WCBS affiliate in New York reports that DJ Gary Smith told the WSBG-FM listeners to call and say "I'm a nappy-headed ho" for Tuesday's "Phrase that Pays" contest, according to Rick Musselman, executive vice president of station owner, Nassau Broadcasting Partners L.P.
"Musselman said three of the listeners who called were awarded tickets to a NASCAR promotion at a local club," reported WCBSTV.
After the management team reviewed the tape from "Gary in the Morning," they fired Smith, Musselman said.
Smith, according to WCBSTV, a native of New Jersey, "was one of the radio station's most popular and prominent disc jockeys."

emtou2u
April 12th, 2007, 03:40 AM
Call the Dixie Chicks... maybe, Just maybe, they'll care. Witch hunts work both ways.

This is a bbasement topic and rawther droll. There's bigger fish to fry than another asshole getting fired for being an asshole. The shit everybody can agree on like hemorrhaging money to China stays silent as usual. Sorry to piss on everyone's valuable input, but fuck off.

Btw Kenny, thanks for the tutorials, I don't have PT but I've learned much from them.

Cos.




hey cos...sorry i wasn't more clear but i highlighted your point above and that was the point i was trying to allude to with:




"censorship often raises its ugly head during trying times when our nation faces other difficult, seemingly insoluble problems."






ok...since i'm not a big fan of basements in general :Wink: ....i'm done.

cozmicslop
April 12th, 2007, 04:02 AM
UPDATE!!!!!!

IMUS FIRED!!!!!!

I sincerely hope that the Black community will help recoup the millions of lost dollars that his foundation was planning on raising for kids with Cancer, Autism and Blood Disorders this weekend which will clearly not be donated.



The Black community does not own NBC.
The Black community did not fire Imus.
The Black community did not say the stupid shit that got him fired.

The foundation lost what it lost because the founder was a fucking moron. Please place blame where it belongs.

Johnny
April 12th, 2007, 04:08 AM
Bruce Gordon, former head of the NAACP and a director of CBS, said Wednesday he hoped the broadcasting company would "make the smart decision" by firing Imus.

"He's crossed the line, he's violated our community," Gordon said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "He needs to face the consequence of that violation."
Sorta.

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 04:18 AM
The Black community does not own NBC.
The Black community did not fire Imus.
The Black community did not say the stupid shit that got him fired.

The foundation lost what it lost because the founder was a fucking moron. Please place blame where it belongs.

The (so-called) Black community did get Imus fired.

Nobody mentioned the word fired besides Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.



From The Daily News:

Hosts on both morning shows at WFNY (92.3 FM) blasted what they called a gross overreaction to WFAN morning host Imus' offhand description of Rutgers women basketball players last week as "nappy-headed ho's."

But morning hosts Steve Harvey of WBLS (107.5 FM) and Miss Jones of WQHT (97.1) just as strongly declared that the official response so far - WFAN and MSNBC have suspended Imus' show for two weeks starting Monday - hasn't yet matched the offense.

"People who think these terms can be used anywhere are wrong," said Harvey. "And no one should ever use them without realizing there will be repercussions."

"Imus uses 'nappy-headed ho'," said Miss Jones, "as his way of saying n-."

Steve Harvey said it's not the action of blacks that needs attention.

"If black people want to talk about each other a certain way, that's their option," he said. "Mr. Imus, you don't have that option. You can't say what I say."


Steve Harvey is a Separatist!!

weedywet
April 12th, 2007, 05:32 AM
lots of other people thought Imus should be fired.


if Sharpton had the kind of power you attribute to him, the city, and the country, would look a lot different.


the corporate masters, and their advertisers, don't like to piss large groups of potential customers off.
that's all.

the guy was, and is, a moron.

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 05:41 AM
lots of other people thought Imus should be fired.


if Sharpton had the kind of power you attribute to him, the city, and the country, would look a lot different.


the corporate masters, and their advertisers, don't like to piss large groups of potential customers off.
that's all.

the guy was, and is, a moron.

So you honestly believe that sales would have been affected from these sponsors and it wasn't just grandstanding and cowering to fear?

bunnerabb
April 12th, 2007, 07:07 AM
The news story, here, isn't that Imus is a mouthy, hillbilly wanker with a predisposition for shooting his mouth off about blacks.

He was that way back in the day in Cleveland, hanging out with Gary Dee.

The news story is that he still has a career at all, after 30 odd years of this.

We don't care about news, we don't care about entertainment, we don't care about music.

Radio, especially talk radio, is a shitstream of sophomoric twaddle, fart jokes, titty jokes and seeing how far one can "push the envelope" in being licentious and offensive.

Jim Rome's sports show... Hours and hours of him bagging off about "sports" but it's not about sports. The games and stats aren't interesting enough to carry that much radio, day in and day out.

What does he talk about?

The same pillory boys du jour as every other muckraker.

We've become a nation of fishwives, wide-eyed grandmothers and gossip fence biddies.

And until you close the valve, the sewer is just going to pour more crap in.

You want to change the world?

Change your appetites.

It's not that he called a women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed hos" and that that's ignorant and racist and sexist and ridiculous. It's that that sort of shit is the norm, now and people enjoy the scandal as much as the content.

We allowed standards to recede for broadcast content and guess what?

The new show is watching the media slide into the sewer and saying "OMG!".

Somewhere between the blue-nosed censor and the greasy moron pulling at his dick, drooling at the TeeVee and the nail chewing maiden aunt staring at her screen for some cheap titillation and schadenfreude is the sort of entertainment we keep SAYING we want, but don't pay for.

rockdart
April 12th, 2007, 07:45 AM
bunner, can't agree here man.

We've seen a propensity towards this in the last decade and there are a select few who have been consistent in this type of propensity toward bigotry and racism.

But the people are starting to find their voice and saying 'enough of this bullshit'. People want to be respected. People don't want somebody who hob-nobs and rubs elbows with the inside the beltwar crowd, to - without provacation - attack them for excelling.

Rutgers folks. not the community college down the street. Anybody know anything about these young women who were the subject of this.

"yeah, but if nobody raised a stink, then they never would have known". So fucking what? If somebody's going to talk shit, it should be assumed they at least have the balls to say in front of someone's face.

This isn't the loss of "freedom of speech". He can go hang with the hooded idiots or atone for forever (hopefully he'll straighten up and be a true leader in turning around the ugly current that keeps growing like the fucking evil slime in GBII). He screwed up.

Repeatedly. This isn't the first and only time. It was within this century that he read a vow on the air to never to do this type of crap again after being a consistent racist and bigot.

The people are sick of seeing these examples everywhere. And nobody calling them on it. After all this "moral majority" lack of morality that we've been subjected to, they are sick to death of being riduculed because they're not part of the Kool Kids Klub. While the people who frequented Imus' show pretend to speak for those people who are just trying to make their way in this life, but spurn them repeatedly and question their ability to make decisions 'on par' with 'what's correct' - that being the conventional wisdom at the DC cocktail parties.

People want respect. People want to know that acheivement doesn't result in ridicule. Unprovocated, unwarranted, unnecessary, demeaning and disrespect for such basal stupidity and prejudice as skin color and gender (and in the greater sense; sexual preference) will not be tolerated. We as a nation have tried to move past this. There are many factions who have pushed too far in their attempts to move us back into the stone age.

And hide behind an apples and bowling ball comparisons of what a citizen's rights are while allowing real freedom, liberty and rights to fade quietly and tearlessly into the night.

bunnerabb
April 12th, 2007, 07:52 AM
And what I was saying is; we keep giving these people microphones as if it's something they should be issued at birth to keep in perpetuity.

This is a large turd in a sea of effluvia that got more attention, but it's a symptom, not the ailment.

And you know.. what if it WAS the community college up the street?

They shouldn't be insulted, either.

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 01:40 PM
You guys are nuts!!!

It doesn't matter if his speech is despicable or deplorable. It's supposed to be protected. Let the free market figure out what they do and don't want to listen to.

I agree that the current mood of Anna Nicole Smith being more newsworthy than the Iraq war is pathetic but it is not for me to decide.

It really saddens me that people really are missing the point.

:Sad: :Sad: :Sad:

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 01:46 PM
From Al Roker's Blog:

Another point some of my critics raised was that I was holding Don Imus to a different standard than the rappers and African American comedians who traffic in the same kind of language.

Guess what? I think their speech is hateful, too. I don't condone it. Don't allow it in my home. Don't use the words. Don't go to those concerts. Those companies that profit in the demeaning of women via musical lyrics, whether rap or rock, should be put on notice, as should the radio stations that play the music. Others who have used hateful language have recently been fired from prominent radio jobs. They have been held accountable. African-Americans who believe certain elements of rap music, music videos and popular entertainment need to be more respectful toward our own should speak out and repudiate that element. I know I have, and many others have as well.

I'd like to point out another hypocrisy in this "Weatherman's Blog".

Why isn't he trying to get the record executives of Rap Music fired? He said that he won't allow the music in his house. Why not treat Imus the same way? Turn it off if you don't like it. Don't call for his FIRING.

You are being inconsistent!!!!!

Bryson
April 12th, 2007, 02:16 PM
"A team of young women, striving to excel academically and athletically surely does not deserve to have all that they worked for, all that they sacrificed for stripped away in the name of a "comedy show," in the words of Don Imus."

So they lost it all eh?
Well then....

dikledoux
April 12th, 2007, 02:44 PM
The Black community does not own NBC.
The Black community did not fire Imus.
The Black community did not say the stupid shit that got him fired.

The foundation lost what it lost because the founder was a fucking moron. Please place blame where it belongs.
Thank you CS.

This isn't a free-speech issue. Imus wasn't arrested for what he said, he was fired. And he wasn't even fired, his show got cancelled on MSNBC because they chose not to air it any longer rather than losing advertising bucks. He's still got an audience of fucktards somewhere and he can bank on picking that audience back up when someone else wants to make money off of them.

I can't say whatever the fuck I want to at work, and neither can Imus, apparently. He was getting paid because he supposedly had a talent for walking a fine line between tasteless and offensive. I'd say he's in hot water cuz his chops are crappy. It's nothing more than a market correction, and one I'm glad to see.

dik

prmntwaves
April 12th, 2007, 10:52 PM
Women's basketball has never had such widespread publicity.

dikledoux
April 12th, 2007, 10:57 PM
...Imus wasn't arrested for what he said, he was fired. And he wasn't even fired, his show got cancelled on MSNBC...

and

...I can't say whatever the fuck I want to at work, and neither can Imus, apparently.
oops - now he IS actually fired. And I just realized that I work for the same company that Imus USED to work for. So my analogy was a lot more dead on than I even imagined.

dik

weedywet
April 12th, 2007, 11:00 PM
So you honestly believe that sales would have been affected from these sponsors and it wasn't just grandstanding and cowering to fear?

well first off, yes... I think some people would think twice before supporting sponsors who sponsor the guy who calls them, or others, racially charged names.

and much more important, advertisers WERE cancelling,... so THEY thought so, whether you or I did or not.

my bottom line is I don't think it's a GOOD thing to have a white guy in a cowboy hat on the radio/tv calling black women "nappy headed ho's" just like I don't think they'd put on a black guy calling Asian's "chinks" or "gooks" or calling Italian-American girls "guinea pigs"

again.. I'm for his right to express his political point of view.
that's protected.
the "right" to keep a million dollar job on the public airwaves while insulting large segments of the public, is NOT.


I might add, that I ALSO think the White House is running a secret second email system to hide from legally mandated transparency... the immoral pointless war for Halliburton continues... gasoline is creeping toward $4 a gallon... nothing is being addressed about health care... or global warming...

and we're only seeing on tv Imus because there's nothing new with Anna Nicole or Duke Lacrosse players.

POINTLESS.

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 11:05 PM
This absolutely was a free speech issue.

Let me ask you this:

What if Jay Leno makes an Anti-Bush joke that hurts George W's feelings.

And Pat Robertson calls for him to get fired. And Jay Leno apologizes profusely. Pat Robertson refuses to accept it until NBC and NBC's advertisers eventually cave into the Religious Right and decide to fire Jay Leno.

What happens then? Would that not be a Freedom of Speech issue?

Would it be allowed?

bunnerabb
April 12th, 2007, 11:18 PM
I might add, that I ALSO think the White House is running a secret second email system to hide from legally mandated transparency... the immoral pointless war for Halliburton continues... gasoline is creeping toward $4 a gallon... nothing is being addressed about health care... or global warming...

and we're only seeing on tv Imus because there's nothing new with Anna Nicole or Duke Lacrosse players.

Boy howdy.

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 11:18 PM
and much more important, advertisers WERE cancelling,... so THEY thought so, whether you or I did or not.

And they were canceling because of Gestapo tactics. or White guilt. Not because Imus doesn't have an audience that would buy their products.


my bottom line is I don't think it's a GOOD thing to have a white guy in a cowboy hat on the radio/tv calling black women "nappy headed ho's" just like I don't think they'd put on a black guy calling Asian's "chinks" or "gooks" or calling Italian-American girls "guinea pigs"

I'm glad to hear your opinion but it is STILL your opinion. I'm not a fan of and I'm kind of offended by some of the stuff on Black Entertainment television. But you know what. As long as it has an audience, I want it on the air.


I might add, that I ALSO think the White House is running a secret second email system to hide from legally mandated transparency... the immoral pointless war for Halliburton continues... gasoline is creeping toward $4 a gallon... nothing is being addressed about health care... or global warming...

and we're only seeing on tv Imus because there's nothing new with Anna Nicole or Duke Lacrosse players.

POINTLESS.

And unlike the girls on the Rutgers Women's basketball team, the students at Duke actually did have their lives ruined.

rockdart
April 12th, 2007, 11:20 PM
There is legal precedent set for this. We can all thank Larry Flint for that.

And understanding the basis of that legal case pulls the support out from under the strawman you're trying prop up.

Kenny Gioia
April 12th, 2007, 11:22 PM
http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html



Imus isnít the real bad guy

Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.

By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist
Thank you, Don Imus. Youíve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

Youíve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

Youíve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like itís 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While weíre fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, Iím sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Centís or Snoop Doggís or Young Jeezyís latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ainít saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they donít have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

Itís embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

Iím no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didnít do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That shouldíve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, itís only the beginning. Itís an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, weíre supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgersí wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I donít listen or watch Imusí show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that itís cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that theyíre suckers for pursuing education and that theyíre selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and Iíll get upset. Until then, he is what he is ó a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when youíre not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. Thereís no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

rockdart
April 12th, 2007, 11:48 PM
That's interesting. Let's go back a year and a half... (http://www.rjgeib.com/biography/ventura/geib-great-art-challenge/rap-jazz.htm)

...soon after shots were fired by the rival entourages of 50 Cent and the Game outside a New York radio station. Al Sharpton demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban violent rappers from radio and television, and he launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed special concern about white perceptions of African Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has learned through rap images to identify black male culture with a culture of violence."

Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who issued a statement claiming that music companies and rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and black souls as less moral, oversexed and less intelligent."


Methinks Jason needed to do a bit more research.

Kenny Gioia
April 13th, 2007, 01:04 AM
So MSNBC fires Imus a few hours before he starts his Thu & Fri Radiothon raising money for kids with Cancer and other childhood diseases being simulcast on TV.

Despite that, Don Imus still managed to raise more money than last year at this point being only on CBS radio. WFAN.

Unfortunately, CBS has now also gutlessly fired Imus so there will be absolutely no money raised for these children on Friday.

I'm hoping that children healthy and sick will protest both of these chicken shit corporations.

BTW - Despite firing Imus, MSNBC has decided to devote all of it's programming today to discussing the firing of him.

What's really odd is that for all of this coverage, no mention of the Cancer kids. None.

Shame on you. Shame!!!!!!!!

rockdart
April 13th, 2007, 01:11 AM
So now there's a kids with cancer human barrier for him to hide behind?

Maybe he should have thought of those kids prior to being a bigot and a racist on the air. Now, more than just the victims of his mouth, he's hurt his decent cause.

Personal responsibility sucks.

I'm sure there's plenty of avenues for helping kids with cancer other than his fund raiser. I'm sure it wasn't and end all, be all proposition.

bunnerabb
April 13th, 2007, 01:15 AM
Peace sells, but who's buying?

Kenny Gioia
April 13th, 2007, 01:29 AM
So now there's a kids with cancer human barrier for him to hide behind?

Maybe he should have thought of those kids prior to being a bigot and a racist on the air. Now, more than just the victims of his mouth, he's hurt his decent cause.



The sheer stupidity of your response deserves none from me.

Go spend a few minutes at a Kids Cancer ward at your local hospital and come back with the same opinion.

:Thumbdown: :Thumbdown: :Thumbdown:

Johnny
April 13th, 2007, 03:05 AM
Remember all the silly actors claiming "McCarthyism" because no one wanted to go to their movies, or the Chicks claiming censorship because no one wanted to hear their records?

Here's the same sort of thing, happening to someone who tends toward their political viewpoint no less, but ending in a much more legitimate claim to "censorship" than what any of those clowns experienced.

And again, at the moment the cowboy hat wearing white guy was saying that, far worse things about black ladies were being played on the air.

Rosie O' Donnel, of all people, was right to ask "who's next?"

Again, I support the right of his employers to do what they want, but the way this particular incident played out does not bode well for public discourse. Yes, in this case it was something rude and insensitive, but next time, possibly not.

MGMc
April 13th, 2007, 04:06 AM
I'm all for free speech.

Imus had the right to say what he said.
Sharpton had the right to say what he said.
MSNBC and CBS had the right to say what they said. ("You're fired")

Free speech for everyone.

Who can go around saying whatever they want to all the time without any consequences? (Hint: he lives in the White House)

Seriously, try that with your boss/clients/mook/wife/whoever. Instead of filtering your thoughts try exorcising your freedom of speech and let everyone know what you really think. Try it for a week and see what happens.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

Kenny Gioia
April 13th, 2007, 04:10 AM
Again, I support the right of his employers to do what they want, but the way this particular incident played out does not bode well for public discourse. Yes, in this case it was something rude and insensitive, but next time, possibly not.

And this IS my point.

If they had fired him immediately or with at least some level of decisiveness, I would have no reason to protest. It would have been harsh, but their decision to make.

This situation screams of bowing to pressure from someone with an agenda. Not based on the words spoken. Right now, they are gunning for their next target.

You'll see.

Johnny
April 13th, 2007, 04:26 AM
Bowing to pressure from someone with an agenda, who had nothing to say for the 30 odd years prior in which the guy said the same kind of crap.

Why now? is the other question besides who's next?

Kenny Gioia
April 13th, 2007, 04:30 AM
I'm all for free speech.

Imus had the right to say what he said.
Sharpton had the right to say what he said.
MSNBC and CBS had the right to say what they said. ("You're fired")

Free speech for everyone.

Who can go around saying whatever they want to all the time without any consequences? (Hint: he lives in the White House)

Seriously, try that with your boss/clients/mook/wife/whoever. Instead of filtering your thoughts try exorcising your freedom of speech and let everyone know what you really think. Try it for a week and see what happens.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

Does that include no limits?

Would it be OK if I cut your head off for authoring cartoons that depict Mohammed in a negative light?

Those are repercussions. No?

jerryskid
April 13th, 2007, 04:40 AM
We worked up a bit for the morning show here at our local station where we were discussing the use of the word "hos"
Silly little jokes like I wonder if the guys at the fire station get offended when we say "go get the fire hose" and how can we mention Santa Claus without saying "ho ho ho"....as soon as the bit aired, we got a phone call from an African American woman stating we were being racist....I took the call and told her that she needs to thicken her skin a bit...."Hos" is not racist...there are white ho's and black ho's and nothing we said was offensive to people of any color....she didn't buy it and said she was going to call our station manager...I said go ahead and called the boss...he said not to worry...we did nothing wrong....I agree that what Imus said was wrong...but give some of these people an inch and they want a mile......

Kenny Gioia
April 13th, 2007, 04:52 AM
but give some of these people an inch and they want a mile......

What do you mean by these people?

Ah hah. Just teasing you here. See how easy it is though?

When Imus met with Al Sharpton on his show, they trapped him into saying "I can win with you people."

Of course Sharpton replied with "What do you mean by you people."

Simple case of, "If you're looking for something, you will eventually find it."

bunnerabb
April 13th, 2007, 04:58 AM
Nappy means tightly cropped hair.

Ho is a black American, urban digressive slang for hole or whore.

Free speech is essential in the context in which our forefathers delineated it.

Everybody go back to 6th grade and remember it's primary lesson:

"Don't be a dick."

This includes not calling women whores or reducing them to nothing more than a sexual orifice, demeaning the natural state of the body hair on any race or perching like a vulture for the latest witch hunt with a vial of eye of newt up your sleeve.

Then go to bed and try and wake up in a world you want to make better with thought and deed.

And bring me back a sandwich.

Kenny Gioia
April 13th, 2007, 05:04 AM
First they came for the Shock-jocks, and I didnít speak up,
because I wasnít a Shock-jock.

Then they came for the Comedians, and I didnít speak up,
because I wasnít a Comic.

Then they came after the internet, and I didnít speak up,
because I wasn't a blogger.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left
to speak up for me.

blackieC
April 13th, 2007, 05:34 AM
Remember all the silly actors claiming "McCarthyism" because no one wanted to go to their movies, or the Chicks claiming censorship because no one wanted to hear their records?




And yet it's not the same sort of thing. Not really.


The Chicks still managed to move quite a few units in spite of the lack of airplay they got as a result of programmers pandering to a demographic report. They certainly weren't "censored", but thier exposure was undeniably diminished for purely political reasons rather than lack of talent.

As for the actors that may have cried "McCarthyism" as an excuse for lack of talent, I can be reasonably sure of two things.
One, those that did did so only after making sure that they were "untouchable" by the Torquemada of Wisconsin, and Two that they were far outnumbered by the actually talented actors and writers who had to assume names and beg for scraps to continue to practice thier art.


I'm just saying that it's an unfair analogy.

Imus said some stupid shit.

Sharpton and Jackson saw a chance to jump back into the spotlight and did so.

If MSNBC or CBS had stepped up and canned his ass the next day, or even the day following that, then that would have been a respectable move.

But instead, they waited for the baiters to jump in and throw up the spectre of financial loss over loss of face before doing diddly squat.


From my point of view, absolutely no party involved in this fiasco is a "winner". It has been a festival of idiocy, shameless grandstanding and bowing to loudmouth hypoctites at every turn.

And that statement goes both ways for everyone involved.


My previous statement that people should be free to say what they want because it makes the dipshits easier to spot still stands.

And by the same token, standing back after a dipshit speaks to wait and see what other dipshits have to say about the initial dipshit statement and then responding in a manner that makes the word belated completely inadequate is so far beyond stupid that it fails comprehension.

weedywet
April 13th, 2007, 07:00 AM
First they came for the Shock-jocks, and I didnít speak up,
because I wasnít a Shock-jock.

Then they came for the Comedians, and I didnít speak up,
because I wasnít a Comic.

Then they came after the internet, and I didnít speak up,
because I wasn't a blogger.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left
to speak up for me.

and then they medicated him appropriately and he realised no one was "coming for him"










I said "coming" heh heh

weedywet
April 13th, 2007, 07:03 AM
Does that include no limits?

Would it be OK if I cut your head off for authoring cartoons that depict Mohammed in a negative light?

Those are repercussions. No?

did they cut Imus's head off?
or did they just say you can't make 8 million dollars a year being a rascist dickhead?

did they make him take off his stupid cowboy hat first?

Kenny Gioia
April 13th, 2007, 02:24 PM
did they cut Imus's head off?
or did they just say you can't make 8 million dollars a year being a rascist dickhead?

did they make him take off his stupid cowboy hat first?

No. He still has his head.

But they set a precedent.

We can get you fired from your job if we feel you offended us.

No rules previously discussed.

We'll make those up as we go along.

cozmicslop
April 14th, 2007, 01:56 PM
No. He still has his head.

But they set a precedent.

We can get you fired from your job if we feel you offended us.

No rules previously discussed.

We'll make those up as we go along.

Like Poppa used to say, "common sense aint all that common."

graveleye
April 14th, 2007, 03:50 PM
did someone refer to Imus as a "conservative talk show host"? I never considered him to be conservative.

Johnny
April 14th, 2007, 04:30 PM
He said something racist, so he must be.

rockdart
April 14th, 2007, 08:06 PM
He said something racist, so he must be.

Which shouldn't be surprising, given the propensity toward being so (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/).

Johnny
April 15th, 2007, 12:41 AM
:lol: