It's still okay to bash gays and Arabs. The list grows ever shorter but these targets are still legit for the haters.

M.J. -- Get thee to the horse track !!!

Limbaugh will fight back and refuse to give any ground. It'll be a liberal conspiracy, according to him. The dittoheads will defend him to the death. As Imus was nominally a liberal, or at least an equal opportunity hater, he had no one to stand up for him.

I'm afraid I share your pessimism.

Hmmm...I certainly don't think we should see self-and group-identity in terms of what makes us better than the "other", but I don't think trying to erase difference is the answer. Difference is part of what makes America great and enriches the broader culture. IMHO, I think that ending racism and sexism will require learning to respect one another, rather than erasing or tolerating difference.

I have two comments to make, and I'll make them in to two separate posts.

1. Mazel tov, MJ, for a brilliant prediction!
I am impressed.

a bunch of guilty white folks...

and makes everyone fear speaking about race relations on any level...

Hasn't there actually been a lot of talk for the last week about race, and sexism?

And the guilty white folks were actually all the ones saying how much they forgive Imus for his remarks.

The real outrage, and really what moved this whole story, was the press conference at Rutgers. When the people actually offended  -- black women, not the white guys we've seen all week in The Situation Room -- got to speak.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

almost never. They are afraid to.

Let's be clear about why Imus got the deal he did (well deserved, IMHO) while other talkshow hosts will not meet the same fate. Imus ridiculed young Black women who are not celebrities, not politicians, not household names. A large proportion of the women athletes on this team are college freshman. The strong reaction against the Imus show slurs was due not solely to the language used, but also, and probably primarily, to the fact that these were college athletes, private citizens, many of them still minors.

While I appreciate people trying to link Imus's fate with a hoped-for fate for other "merchants of hate" in our culture, the Imus situation was easy for mainstream media to gain traction on due to the people he slandered.

The situation developed in this way because of the targets of the speech, not the speech itself. (If it were due to the language only, Imus would have been off the air a decade or more ago, as would a lot of other radio hosts.)

Remember, despite what they're saying, CBS made its tardy decision due to advertiser pullouts, not any freestanding moral position. CBS has no freestanding moral position other than to serve its investors, and the moment that Imus became a liability to its bottom line--rather than an asset--they pulled the plug on the old bigot.

Now let's hope people who have done far worse things to this country than Don Imus have to pay an equally serious price.

By Friday?

Mebbe if you make a prediction, it'll happen :-)

Viacom will have to come to grips with the images that it allows to be shown on BET. Robert Johnson, the Negro founder and former CEO of BET was given a pass on the images shown during his tenure. Johnson's excuse was that he had told the record companies that he would have no problem televising better images if the record companies wanted to make them. The billionaire entrpreneur was suggesting that if he had told the record companies that he wanted to see better video images on his station, he would have had no impact.
Reality shows and game shows targeting the 18-25 age group could have been used as a threat to replace the offending videos.
The rap artists will alter their acts to conform to what sells.
I really don't view this as censorship. I view it more as the marketplace in action. Imus will either find a place on satellite radio or another land based network. The hardcore rappers will find outlets for their mp3s online. The overall change in discourse initially will be minimal. Hopefully over time things will improve.

The feeding frenzy is certainly over the top, but the issue isn't fake at all. There has been very little discussion of race relations in the last couple of decades. Some thought that after Katrina that would change, but it did not. Many of us spend a lot of time worrying about the state of the world but very little worrying about what's going on a few miles down the road.

I think this analysis is wrong. We shouldn't draw attention to important issues (like the racism and sexism that continue to plague us as a nation) because it will give the Repubs a boost?? Come on.

Maybe it's because I have actually NEVER seen or heard him that I discount his importance. Yes he's an asshole, but I work all day and so what he says in the morning is a mystery to me.

No, I am not exstatic that someone I've barely heard of is off the air when I still see the pretensious and lethal Anne Coulter interviewed as a "pundit" and a legitimate "expert" on MSNBC and CNN (not to mention FOX)

This is much ado about nothing. It is a way for the right to say, "See? You get what you want because you make a big stink!"

BULLSHIT!

Jan Knaus

Come on, 6000 years of mankind, Cain killing Able, and somehow you think, you've done what no nation has been able to solve, hatred.

Get real and solve the problems you can deal with. Your never going to stop the tide from reaching the shore, and your never going to solve mankinds hatred for one race over another.
It'll take God to solve that problem.

You really want to help race relations solve poverty, solve lack of medical care, something that ALL the people, whatever race can find benefit from. Teach Love, something Sharpton and Jackson forgot. Scriptures that say "Love covers a multitude of sins," or "how many times should I forgive my brother 7 times and the Lord said not 7 times but 77 times." So Reverend Jackson, what do those scriptures mean? Sharpton what do you know about driving wedges and creating devisive issues? Causing contentions? And the Christ freely forgave you... and this is how you pay his undeserved kindness?

Forgiveness, I think that would go along ways in helping Race relations.

You can't even end the war, people killing one another. Americans murdering people on our own streets. Black on Black, but oh no, lets lynch the Jock. and now that you've torn down a weakened flesh, and sinful man (IMUS) maybe you'll start the song KUM BY JAH.

As your apparent moral indignation, not at your own sinful behavior, but lets throw stones at IMUS, because YOU evidently are not as bad as he.

I can see a few sides to this. Imus is a bit of a repugnant figure (his public persona at least), so I can understand the rush for blood. Howard Stern had many of the same problems, he just covered by acting cute along side. The problem here is really in what precedent does this set? Will any college or pro athlete that says "honkey" or "cracker" or "N***" or anything else we can think of in a national interview, get kicked off the team? Are politicians still allowed to refer to Middle Eastern combatants (freedom fighters to some) as "Terrorists" and "Insurgents" do they get impeached for that?

Ok, so there's that side of the cube (and no I don't have six sides to show...), the Free Speach angle.

On the other hand if people are disgusted by a commercial broadcast's content they have every right to complain. They can tell the talent, producers, advertisers etc... just what they think and they can boycott. Some of all of this was done here and the stations that syndicated Imus responded by cancelling his show. Nothing illegal there.

So, this was a battle over a few folks that thought Imus crossed a line he couldn't come back from. Most were probably already tired of Imus' broadcast. I think I read "Three Strikes...etc."

Here's my question on this one...: If a relativly benign entertainer like Imus can have a 30+ year career destroyed over a few ill concieved comments made in (a poor attempt at) humor. Why is it that so many sources of broadcast talent hold on to people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and even super left-wing crazies on the air. These people call for assasination, murder, gassing, imprisonment; they bash gays, choice for women and even ferret ownership all the time on the very same airwaves that Imus shared. Are we as an "outraged" group just scapegoating a lowly radio entertainer in place of the myriad hate-mogers that we just can't seem to squelch?

I for one would rather have a thousand Imuses..Howard Sterns..Jimmy Kimmels than even one Ann Coulter.

So, if we as (mostly) like minded people can crucify one off-base broadcaster so quickly for insulting a group of (even specific) people, can't we come together and take some sort of effective action against the Coulters of the air waves?

phil common

(looks at skin) I'm kind of pinkish-beige with brown spots here and there. The only way I am going to deal with "race relations" is to say that biologically, there's a human race.

Many years ago, I received a questionnaire for the US District Court's jury commissioner. It had a section in it, originally marked "voluntary" for race, which had a red tag citing new legislation making it mandatory, in the interest of avoiding discrimination.

I returned it, filling in "unknown" in the "race" blank. They sent it back, circled. I pointed out that I was under oath, I was adopted (although I knew both families), and any relatives I could trace lived in areas of Europe where the Mongols came raping for a while. If the Jury Commissioner would give me a Racial Classification Handbook, I'd be glad to follow it, but, not being an anthropologist and not having genetic definitions (and this was early in molecular genetics), I didn't know what I could swear to be true.

I certainly didn't want to be uncooperative, so I sent along some references in case they wanted to tell me which rules to use for racial classification. Since I had been doing research on another subject at the National Archives, it wasn't hard to look up the Record Groups for the racial laws of the Confederacy, and the Nazi Nuremberg Laws. Not to miss any opportunity to be helpful, I also sent along the phone number of the Embassy of South Africa, where apartheid still had its rules.

Further, I sent along an interview with the chief of the Ethnic Origins Branch at the Bureau of the Census, who said that for census purposes, "race" was whatever the subject thought was subjectively correct. I pointed out that I didn't make a point of thinking about it. If they wanted my blood type or anything else objective, I'd be happy to cooperate, but they couldn't make me think by their rules.

I was vaguely disappointed when the Jury Commissioner called and said "will you leave us alone if we leave you alone?"

I was disappointed, because I'll value learning from anybody in any culture, and I'll use medical information that comes from a genotype. Quite a few medical journals have concluded that "race" is simply a surrogate for socioeconomic group, and will ask for socioeconomic or educational factors, or specific genetic information, rather than the contrivance of race.

Sorry, I'm going to treat people as individuals, or members of voluntary organizations. Why "race"? Why not "beauty"? Why not "height"?

I will not play games based on what I consider a fantasy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"I'd rather have Imus, Limbaugh, Savage and Coulter than political correctness."

Howard, you have me confused. I thought you agreed with me that NBC and CBS aren't obligated to have someone like Imus on their payrolls. Now that they've fired him you are saying political correctness (definition - please) is worse than Imus trashing college women and Coulter trashing 9/11 widows and using "faggot" when speaking of John Edwards?

I don't get it - big time

Tom

Just wanted to let you know, chuckie, you're dead-on right. There is a reason the vast majority of blacks vote Democratic and a majority of whites generally vote Republican. Out in America, many voters see the Democratic Party as the one supporting the aspirations of blacks to the detriment of whites. In a lot of places, opposing the firing of Imus, or at least showing insufficient outrage over his remarks, is frowned upon (can anyone say "politically incorrect?"). But with the secret ballot, voting is done in secret. If you're wondering why conservative Republicans did not jump up in support of Imus, well, I don't think they're too disappointed over all this.

Anyone figure out that story?

I read the NYT and WaPo and still don't know who pays Ms. Riza's salary, how much she makes in total (World Bank and State Department), or even, where she works.

Howard Stern saw Imus as a competitor. That certainly gives Imus some shockjock credibility.

Further, having politicians on the air doesn't make someone a serious, mainstream journalist. I doubt any one of us would call Bill O'Reilly a serious, mainstream journalist. O'Reilly is a political shockjock, more similar to Rush Limbaugh than Walter Cronkite.

Speaking of Bill-O, I find it interesting that this Imus thing happened about a week after Geraldo appeared on O'Reilly's show. That tirade stuck me as being far more racially charged than Imus's stupid 3-word joke. Where's the outrage over Bill-O?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/05/bill-oreillys-head-practically-explodes-as-he-screams-at-geraldo/

Let's see if we can see if we might be more in agreement than it seems. I can't define political correctness. Can you? As best as I can tell, the phrase was first used by Soviet political officers to tell Red Army officers that something was not ideologically acceptable, and to hell with military realities.

Personally, I've heard it applied by very humorless people that conclude some sort of speech is against some Diana Moon Glamperish-concept of utter egalitarianism, or that somehow I should be guilty of being some kind of Eurocentric patriarch exploiter. Remember, I was responding here to someone saying that political correctness was worse than all the other alternatives. If no one can define it, it's totally subjective. Who enforces it?

My own goal is not to stereotype. When an Imus does something reprehensible, let there be an economic backlash, which, in this era of media consolidation, is a real whip.

I guess I don't respond to words quite the same way as other people. If Ann Coulter were to go onto national television and announce Howard Berkowitz is a faggot, I'd say "so?" No, I don't identify as gay, but I'm also not insecure about my sexuality. In the case of John Edwards, as Mr. Dooley said, "politics ain't beanball." If the American public isn't willing to boycott Ann Coulter, if she says something that I might consider reprehensible, I can turn the channel -- in the unlikely event that I watched on which she appeared.

So who is going to enforce political correctness, whatever it may be? Whatever Administration is in power? Thank you, I'd rather put up with the speech permitted by the sponsors and producers and then, if I consider the speech sufficiently baneful to the society, I would work in economic boycotts -- not of the entertainers and shock jocks, but of the commercial interests who own those presses. I'll work in areas of telecommunications policy, such as overconcentration of ownership and equal access, that makes more opinions flow.

Until someone can tell me what "political correctness" may be, and who enforces it, I'd rather take offensive speech than turn over the judgement of speech to some undefined authority. Until then, I'll look toward more fairness in media.

Government control of speech, no matter how offensive -- is to me more dangerous than Imus trashing college women and Coulter trashing 9/11 widows and using "faggot" when speaking of John Edwards. Now, if people want to sue such people for defamation of character, as Pagones did Sharpton, fine. The court system at least makes some attempt at fairness.

So who do you want deciding what speech is offensive, and what authority do you give them, Tom? Nowhere in the First Amendment do I see a freedom not to be offended.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The Imus stuff is overwhelming, so maybe someone else has made this point, but if he’s looking for things to blame, he can go after the agglomeration of big media companies. His supporters said the market should decide, but that’s not feasible these days.

If he were at an independent station or even if he were syndicated through a company that concentrates on radio, he could try it: he and the station(s) might lose some listeners and sponsors, but his drawing power could make up for the loss in revenue, or at least make the hit manageable until the furor dies down. Given that most of his regular audience is used to this stuff, he’d likely make it, and the sponsors would return quietly.

Now, once one of these controversies hits critical mass, the potential revenue loss is far beyond what any one radio guy can cover. His show cleared about $15 million annually for MSNBC. What if the controversy got so hot that even one company like Proctor and Gamble sharply curtailed its ad spending across the NBC networks for a quarter, or a “grass-roots” campaign led to a 15 percent drop in revenue for a Universal film?

With Viacom, people were starting to make unfavorable references to things that go on MTV and BET. Once that happened, you got the Sumner Redstone kiss of death quote (“I’ll leave it up to Les Moonves to do the right thing.”)

Someone whose reputation might take a big hit is Tim Russert. He was always on that show, plugging “Meet the Press,” his books, and yukking it up as a true member of the inner circle. He’s in a very unique spot: he’s an NBC executive, an on-air talent, a constant Imus guest and seemingly a personal friend. He hasn’t said a word, not even a written statement.

When they asked the NBC flack about it, she said he agreed with the general NBC statement. That just does not cut it. Frankly, I think he’d be better off either way: a loyal guy who sticks by a friend in a terrible situation or a brave man who puts what he feels is right ahead of a longtime friend. By remaining mute until after the situation was resolved, he comes off as someone unwilling to either stand up for a friend or to do what he thinks is right.

Bob Schieffer handled it very well, saying “I hate what he said, and with anyone else I’d drop them, but he’s been such a good friend I will give him another chance.”

Now let's hope people who have done far worse things to this country than Don Imus have to pay an equally serious price. - MJ

Lol. To the horse track? I wouldn't want to stake MJ's latest, and totally delusional, hope.

All he proved was that the left can still form a circular firing squad. All people have done is give them PC excuse to fire the closest thing to a lefty they have on their radio lineup.

Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Rove and such are overjoyed!

Now the commercial talk radio spectrum, which is a huge market, will range from rt wing, to really out there Rt Winger Crazy. Now any up and coming radio exec can make the financial argument that Rt Wing radio sells and is profitable, while left or even moderate radio is a big risk. Thereby further reinforcing the institutional bias for conservative media.

Great job MJ and the like minded! :rolleyes:

For the next act maybe we can burn down Watts again, to really show "the man" we mean business! (if by business you mean complete economic loss, going back to square zero, so that someone else can rush in and buy up all your business for their agenda, like selling you guns, alcohol, and Rt Winger talking points.)

Want to know why empires of small numbers manage to thrive on inequality and the suffering of many? simple: education and leadership denied.

Instead of MLK making real change, people get Al Sharpton throwing a fit over the issue du jour, defending black athletes right to be exploited by universities and receive a pittance of an education before being discarded back to the ghetto, and the role models that provides to young blacks.

The Plebs are encouraged to think in terms of scandal and outrage and run around chasing their tails, accomplishing nothing in the long term, defeating themselves more than helping themselves. Then the elite cite that as evidence of the intellectual inferiority of the plebs, justifying their condition.
business as usual.

What will tomorrow's meaningless scandal be?

What else can distract me from real issues that actually matter?

How else can I manage to not accomplish anything to better my condition in the long term?

I can hardly wait to find out!

I feel perfectly comfortable bashing republicanism.

This is just painful.

No caps, please. Have some tact.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

European columnists (I am surprised you would have to ask for names)

spewed hate with impunity for years, and that encouraged people to think that being antisemitic was nothing to be ashamed of.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

French Soldier: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Sir Galahad: Is there someone else up there we can talk to?

French Soldier: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

The fasces is also on the back of a dime (and the fesces is in the Oval Office).

Tom

Ms. Riza now serves as a consultant to the foundation, known as the Foundation for the Future, while still drawing her World Bank salary, the State Department said. NYT

So --- why is she drawing a World Bank salary while working at the Foundation for the Future? Was she drawing a World Bank salary while working at the State Department for Dick Cheney's daughter? Was the State Department also paying her? Is the Foundation for the Future also paying her?

I don't understand any of it. Do you?

Yeah, but unfortunately it just created a Vampire.

In many ways racial tension also created MLK, and it also created Farrakhan, and people like Malcolm X in the middle, before he moved towards MLK.

People like MLK and real leaders had greatness in them. They never limited themselves to being defined by what narrow outcomes racial hate would make of them. They rose above to inspire and produce real change.

By comparison guys like Farrakhan just converted the racial hatred into his own little personality cult, his followers didnt accomplish anything much in the long term.

Al Sharpton is way more Farrakhan than he is MLK.

It's a real darn shame if all those IMUS listeners stay home on next election day. All that educating IMUS gave them on love, health care, stopping the war and such will juss go to waste, and Sharpton and Jackson will juss get more of, you know what I'm talkin', to vote and then we won't have much chance to elect anyone as God fearin', honest, white, respectable, straight and true as George Dubya Bush. Darn shame. Even the Pope can't stop the war. Maybe Hoppy can stop it, keep tryin'!

I don't think Bob Schieffer is dropping anyone. That guy looks about 5'6" 135.

Good. I wasn't referring to sensitivity when thinking of political correctness. The first thing that it brings to mind is a Communist political officer, and next an especially humorless sort of domestic radical. I had something of a feedback howl of hysterics the first time someone told me I was politically incorrect, and I blinked and then went into hysterical giggles.

I have a lot of friends in what are more often than not called disability service boards and disability activists, but more often than not, they use the term fairly interchangeably. "Handicapped" tends to be more associated, in my experience, with mobility impairments. For example, since I can have episodes of somewhat mysterious chest pain with exercise, much better than it used to be, I had a $FOO parking permit. Once in a while, I'd have someone start challenging me, and the activists and county government people would use the term that I have a "hidden handicap". Quite a few people I know with movement disabilities are comfortable with "crippled". I don't think I've ever heard anyone with a $FOO use the term "differently abled" without snickering.

There's a lot of variation. I also have a hearing loss on one side, that's more of an annoyance, but I've never remotely felt part of deaf culture. I used to attend a county organization that wore the hats of the Disability Service Board (county) and Commission for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (county). Why is blindness apparently not a physical handicap but deafness is? I haven't a clue.

There was one lovely moment when a new management consultant had done a buzzword-generating engagement with one group. The new brochures, in print and Braille, were passed out, and people around the table, depending on their personality and reading speed, began to make choking or other noises, until everyone realized the same thing and the room exploded in laughter.

Is it politically incorrect to suggest that the phrase "vision statement" might not be the ideal choice of words for the National Federation for the Blind?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't think Imus is gonna starve to death, so enough of this tear jerking already.

The big issue REMAINS that soft-bigotry appeals to some folks for some reason.  What is the reason?  Everyone on  the left wants to say that whites or men who say they have a grievance are big cry babies.   Such denial has really moved us a long ways out of racism, hasn't it?

Fine, let me just say he's a parasite then.

As far as MLK goes, he was an eloquent speaker who always made well reasoned points. That's why he, and leaders like him, got things done. That's why he was powerful. Were he still alive, or were there more leaders like him today, there would still be eloquent black leaders getting things done.

Al Sharpton isn't, and doesn't.

Al Sharpton is the kind of leader blacks got when they gave in to despair. Instead of finding the next MLK after he was shot, they turned to anger and angst. Same thing happened when Gandhi was shot. Instead of finding the next Gandhi, people gave in to hatred and India tore itself apart. For the assassins and Rt Wingers who love to see people destroy themselves: mission accomplished.

The MSM is a willing accomplice. All too happy to spotlight guys like Sharpton because he's the most self defeating and non threatening chump of them all. If you're the status quo, guys like Sharpton are exactly what you like to see. No issue is ever going mainstream and no benefit will come to black people from Al Sharpton "helping" it along, because the guy is a buffoon. A comedy act. He hurts every issue he comes near.

M.J. Rosenberg called it. He nailed it. He gets the fuzzy, stuffy #1 prize at the top shelf for his #1 girl. People who can spot rank, coarse bigotry a mile away, like Mr. Rosenberg, have this uncanny ability to predict celebrity bigot firings and ostracism. I had my doubts when M.J. made his prediction earlier this week. I thought, no effing way, Imus will get save and be refluvenated and rehabilitated by weeks' end.

But M.J. is the man.

Kudos to you, sir. You nailed it.

You are the GPS and Loran of bigot firing detection systems.

I don't think Imus is gonna starve to death, so enough of this tear jerking already. -- Good 4 America.
---

Thank you. You saved me a lot of writing. Cheers.

"I Was A Day Off"
I'll never trust you again.
When does Wolfy go? Tomowwow?

2 -2's from sources you would think were adults and capable of discourse.

It's a typical tactic, in debate when your opinions are weak, or your afraid to debate an issue, attack the messenger, not the message.
I expected more from the two of you. LOL

Now 3 -

I guess 1991 and Crown Heights were before your time.  1995 and Freddy's Fashion Mart?

Hmmm.... The Crown Heights thing is more complex than Al's pretty stupid show...

I admit to never having heard of Freddy's Fashion Mart before you mentioned it here.  My opinion of Sharpton, never good in the first place, has dropped substantially. 

In Imus's case, the market did decide. The market is advertisers, not listeners.

Ok, IMUS got dumped, now what?

I posted the above at 6:32 am. At 7:00 am C-SPAN's Washington Journal came on and the subject is ;

"IMUS fired, what now. " :-)

There had been some cscs.  But with the firing of Imus it'll (the discussion) all quickly evaporate like the morning dew.  Mission accomplished, the book is closed...the racist is off the air...Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have proved they are still political forces to be reckoned with...and nothing much will happen in terms of a honest discussion of the race relation problems in America. 

Hmmm...I certainly don't think we should see self-and group-identity in terms of what makes us better than the "other"

But that is basically why the identifiers are used.  To highlight the differences and usually not in a positive way in terms of cultural unity.  I feel Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Don Imus are Americans, with the same rights, just like all of us.  Our country is a mixing pot of assimilation where everybody should enjoy the same level of rights in the eyes of the Constitution.  It is what makes America great and in that sense it makes no difference where a person's ancestors called home...

If Don Imus represented "moderates" on the radio, then I'd say "moderates" are a bunch of a-holes.

We could have done something constructive...

And I love how, by saying "we," you somehow place yourself within the ranks of those offended by Imus's statements.

I'd say, unless you happen to be one of the girls on the Rutgers team, or perhaps the victim of racism, what you think could or should have been done is largely irrelevant.

Your argument, that Imus should be kept on the radio because he's not as much of a racist as the other racists on the radio, is twisted. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Imus decided to appear on the radio with Sharpton. MSM has Sharpton and Jackson on their computer Rolodexes. When you see the All-White all-night lineup on CNN, CNNHNN, and MSNBC, how wide an ethnic net do the network anchors really have cast? I'll single out Paula Zahn for having a more diverse set of guests. Beck, on the other hand, openly admitted that he had difficulty talking to Black people. Who does Beck seem to use as his expert on Black issues? Say hello to Al Sharpton.

It's always useful to have a standard of measurement when speaking of effectiveness. Edward R. Murrow attacked a political wrongdoer. Would you like to compare his results to Imus?

1. What was his level of success, compared to Imus?


2. Did Murrow's method of attack make public discourse better or worse?


3. How did Murrow's management measure his performance? (this varied over time)


4. To what extent did he make a separation between personal and network positions?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

In our society, it seems odd that more condemned prisoners haven't had, as their last words, "but I was only joking and didn't mean any offense"?

That's nonsense. You sound like a real know nothing. Go vote for Nader or break some Starbucks windows or something.

Imus is no Bill Moyers, but for talk radio he's about as good as it gets. What do you even know about Imus, and who would you replace him with? Got an answer for that or are you just talking big because you know so little?

The truth is Imus could have and would have done something positive to make amends. He regularly covers left issues and has been a friend to the left more that any other radio host with a big audience. He could have brought attention to black issues to make amends for example.

This could have brought about a positive outcome.

Instead, all the knee jerk fools have done is kick the most moderate radio show host out, and left all the real bad guys to absorb his market. Sharpton gets a scalp, for the glorification of Sharpton, but doesn't accomplish anything for black people. Real genius.

Republicans, not republicanism.

Tom

The outrage is on Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC. Bill -O has been the nightly "worst person in the world" many times.

Tom

Corvid

If Imus was so horrible, with a long record of offensive remarks, why was he so damned popular? I still say his audience should have been allowed to decide his fate--though I admit that it's less than ideal that huge corporations are making commercial decisions about what we see and hear.

What's worse, however, is this rising howl for our corporate masters to inject thought control into their little calculations. Next thing you know, MSNBC will be firing Phil Donahue because his anti-war politics offend right-wing viewers.

My question to anyone on the other side of this who might care to respond: What would have been wrong with letting Imus' audience/viewership decide?

You sound like a real know nothing. Go vote for Nader or break some Starbucks windows or something.

Wow. Brilliant.

And I should give a shit what else you say at this point....why???

You can apologize for Don Imus on someone else's time. 

I've seen any number of TV anchors on any number of networks use the term IMUS got fired for; "nappy headed hos."

Now I ask you; why is it ok for these anchors to use this term, "nappy headed ho" when referring to another person's usage, but have to say "the 'N' word" when referring to another persons use of the word "nigger"?

Should these anchors be made to use the term "NHH words?"

I found your comments about God, Jesus and the quoting of scripture to be very appropriate chuckie.  Both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are ministers and I think it is reasonable to ask how their words and actions in this matter measure up to what is said in the book they claim to extol...

On April 13, 2007 - 11:21am rmrd0000 said:

No let's just have them say that some n****rs gave Imus a bunch of crap about calling some Black b*tches a dirty name and got him fired.

I was attempting to show the hypocrisy of it all.
Even you didn't want to use the word "nigger", when refering to another's use of the word.

The word "Jew" is sometimes used pejoratively by the troglodytes, should we start saying "He used the 'J' word?"

Maybe we can start using "the 'F' word" instead of faggot. As in, "Ann Coulter insinuated John Edwards was "The 'F' word."

There's nothing more hypocritical than those suffering righteous indignation over IMUS' words and using the same words 20 times during a broadcast.

SeeDee

I really doubt, unless permanent eclipse is desired by Imus himself, that he is 'finished' in his profession.

Ala Rush's survival of his racist comments on the Monday Night Football stint, (If ANYBODY needs to be shut-up, it is Limbaugh...please note, I said 'IF), Imus may re-emerge sooner, rather than later.

If Imus was so horrible, with a long record of offensive remarks, why was he so damned popular?

Because racists liked listening to him. And because people like me thought that he got a more genuine response out of political figures than other interviewers do, and also, unintentionally, provided insight into the narrative construction by the beltway media.

My question to anyone on the other side of this who might care to respond: What would have been wrong with letting Imus' audience/viewership decide?

They never get to decide. Advertisers decide on what airs. Advertisers concluded that the amount of positive marketing messaging that would come out of buying time on the program would be offset by negative message that came from being associated with the program. So the market did make the decision here.

I thought he'd survive on CBS based on the advertising that airs here in NYC on WFAN, which would, I think, have been little affected by this. It may have actually raised ratings, attracting new listeners who like to hear racist commentary. My guess is that CBS decided that the political component of the show had been irreparably damaged--that in a presidential election period, he would not be able to get Biden and Kerry, and that the beltway media would be forced to not participate. It's one thing for Clinton not to appear on the show. It's another thing entirely for her to announce that stance loudly and publicly.

John Dewey wrote,

It is surely better for our young people to face controversial issues in the open atmosphere of the schoolroom, than to seek out what is forbidden in some dark, unwholesome corner. No thought is so dangerous as a forbidden thought.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Bart:Are we awake?
Jim,The Waco Kid: We are not sure. Are we ... black?
Bart: Yes we are.
Jim,The Waco Kid: Then we're awake, but we are very puzzled.

On April 13, 2007 - 1:18pm hcberkowitz said:

If it is necessary, in objective reporting, to say exactly what someone said, it is tampering with truth to use euphemisms. The idea that using an offensive word, in context, means that one loves the concept represented by the word is rapidly getting into dystopian thoughtcrime.

Howard, thank you, you explained it much better than I.

I see a difference between a reporter using the word "nigger" while doing a story on someone who used the word, and the person who orignially used it in a pejorative way.

Joe Blow didn't accuse Obama of being an "N"
he used the word "nigger" and for accuracy's sake, that's how it should be reported. You can complain all year that Joe Blow used the "N" word, and when you frame it that way, what you get from Joe Blow is laughter.

Howard,

Race is not a biological category, it's a social one. But that doesn't make it less "real." Not only do people perceive themselves as belonging to races, they perceive others as such, whether those others like it or not. This has real effects on people's lives. I see your point and certainly think people should be treated as individuals, but that doesn't mean that race relations can be ignored. In fact, race "neutrality" is used by some right-wingers, e.g., George Will, as a way of avoiding dealing with racism. Widely held harmful fantasies have to be dealt with.

Dan

Until last week Moonvees' CBS (and MSNBC) was little associated with its number one shockjock.

But up to last week they were very happy to be associated with the $30M of ad revenue he brought in annually.  So they had no idea what Imus was all about for all these years?  This took them all by surprise?  "OMG, we had no idea!!!!".  It still doesn't pass my smell test...

That whole "news" network should be fired.

Tom

That's funny because that's exactly how I feel about your comments.

You're right, unless he wants to retire, he's not finished. It's a bit like a Bill Maher. The difference here is that Imus has a much bigger audience than Maher, millions, and the PC Police in this case are the left and blacks instead of the right wingers.

Ironically, people should hope he doesn't retire. If he does, his 3 million listeners will go somewhere, and my bet is they'll go to one of the many Rt Wing radio choices and not NPR, especially since many of them are probably feeling bitter at the left for axing Imus.

So, just like every Maher fan thought the people who got him fired are sanctimonious aholes, Imus's millions of fans are going to feel the same about the left and black leadership. Which is especially counter productive, because Imus actually endorsed Democrats and had a lot of moderate listeners.

Again, this could have ended with Imus atoning for the offensive speech, by partnering with black leaders on black issues for example. It would have been entirely fitting for him to atone by highlighting the lowered academic standards of University athletic programs, who exploit and discard ghetto kids, and create role models not of educated, upwardly mobile blacks, but of semi-literate ballers, which just helps perpetuate bad priorities for poor kids and institutionalized racism and poverty.

But that won't happen now, and guys like Limbaugh are laughing all the way to the bank. Way to go! :roll eyes:

What good came out of this? We established you can't call people "nappy headed hos" on the airwaves? Unless you're a comedian of course, or a rapper, or a real Rt Winger, and there are only about a hundred of them saying it every day. Even Imus already knew it was wrong, he just didn't think and was trying to make a "hip' joke which is a bad idea for a 75yo dood who wears flannel shirts.

All this scandal has accomplished nothing except to make talk radio even more Rt Wing. Once again the left goes off half-cocked and shoots itself in the foot.

To Libertine Thanks for your reply.

That was my point. The hypocrisy of both Sharpton and Jackson. Instead of bringing calm and Godly wisdom to determine the proper response, we got divisiveness.

Evidently they haven’t put on the new personality,

(Colossians 3:5-14) But now really put them all away from YOU, wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of YOUR mouth. 9 Do not be lying to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new [personality], which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, foreigner, Scyth´i·an, slave, freeman,….. as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved, clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, mildness, and long-suffering. 13 Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Even as (GOD ) freely forgave YOU, so do YOU also. 14 But, besides all these things, [clothe yourselves with] love, for it is a perfect bond of union.

 Any observer might conclude these men really, have  a form of godly devotion, but....

(2 Timothy 2:24-3:7) 24 But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come back to their proper senses…... 3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

These men did not glorify God, they seek the praise for themselves. Self assuming? Head strong ? Puffed up [with pride]? having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power;

One could envision the Grand Ayatollahs making decrees about how the people should live and who to punish.

Imus should have stayed away from Sharptons program, he was not going to find mercy there? Or a calm spirit? He should have went straight to the Rutgers girls. 

Before going to him to discuss the matter, consider: what is your motive in taking this first step to solve your difficulty? Is it merely to prove to him that he has wronged you, and to bring him to his knees to seek your forgiveness? By no means; there should be no attempt here at self-justification.  "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." 

The correct motive: to gain your brother. You want to effect a reconciliation between you and him, to be at unity again, and at the same time to get personal relief by clearing your mind of this matter that has been troubling you. But, remember, love "does not look for its own interests." (1 Cor. 13:5)

Paul wrote in Galatians 6:1: "Try to restore such a man in a spirit of mildness, as you each keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted."

It is wise to pause and think of a possible previous occasion when you may have been the one who had offended another and how difficult it was to humble yourself and apologize so as to effect a reconciliation then. 

I'm looking forward to when Sharpton and Jackson go after gossip. I think more lives have been ruined, by that slip of the tongue also.