-
Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
SHARPTON VOWS MORE: "'It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves'... from drudgereport.com
I have abstained from raising the Imus issue in any big way. However, today Imus was fired from both his radio show and TV simulcast. This was accomplished by Rev Al Sharpton and to some degree Rev Jesse Jackson 'convincing' Imus' sponsor corporations to drop him, as well as bringing pressure to bear on CBS/GE.
I'm not advocating that Imus doesn't deserve to take some serious hits over what he said on the air. But these latest developments are creeping disturbingly close to a selective shutdown of free speech.
I wonder if some 'decency group' will use this precedent to bring lawsuits requiring radio stations to stop broadcasting Hip Hop, whose song lyrics are far more offensive than Imus' comment !!!
(snip)"6:12 AM: On Imus' radio program (no longer simulcast on MSNBC) this morning, Chris Carlin, who covers sports for the program, discussed yesterday's dismissal of charges against the Duke lacrosse players.
(rough transcript)
DON IMUS: When will Al Sharpton be apologizing to them?
(LAUGHTER)
CARLIN: I'm unaware of such a press conference.
IMUS: I'll be darned...
UPDATE 6:28 AM: After a station break, Imus came back to discuss MSNBC's decision. He said he was recently chatted with "another big time broadcasting executive" who was "complaining that [MSNBC] had cancelled the simulcast twelve hours before we were getting ready to conduct this radio-thon for these three charities."
Imus: "My position on all of this is not whining about the hideously hypocritical coverage from the newspapers -- from everybody -- or the lack of support, say, from people like Harold Ford, Jr. who I had my life threatened over supporting and all these kind of things. It all began, and it doesn't make any difference -- like [James] Carville said -- stop talking about the context, it doesn't make any difference. If I hadn't have said it I wouldn't be here. So let's stop whining about it...You gotta stop complaining. I said a stupid, idiotic thing that desperately hurt these kids. I'm going to apologize but we gotta move on."
UPDATE 7:37 am. IMUS: "The hypocrisy is absurd...Everybody knows what the deal is. And this is not over. This story does not end here."
Imus also gave a shout-out to Opie & Anthony, who support Imus on this issue.
UPDATE 7:57:
Imus says he spoke with MSNBC Senior VP Phil Griffin and said "some of the stuff that MSNBC has done this morning is frankly unethical and I've asked them to stop doing it."
But also said, "I'm not whining about the coverage. I'm not whining about any aspect of this."
"I've said 100 times: I said it and if I hadn't said it, we wouodn't be sitting here talking about it. And that's the bottom line."
Imus also said that losing television (via MSNBC) isn't as big as losing radio. "The big part of the program is radio. There's millions of people listening to the radio. At best a few hundred thousand are watching television."
On MSNBC's decision: "I understand the pressure they were under. I'm not stupid."
(snip)"UPDATE 9:10AM: On MSNBC:I understand their decision." "I appreciate them letting us use their studio this morning."
To "all of my friends in the media, out of the media: You can't whine about this...We wouldn't have been there if I hadn't said it."
He again called media coverage "outrageously hypocritical."
"Harold Ford, Jr. has been disgraceful in his lack of support. I endured death threats to endorse him...It's unfortunate that he has no courage."
"I'm not surprised by any of this. I'm not surprised at the hypocrisy of Al Sharpton, of Jesse Jackson or any of these people. But you can't whine about it."
"We can talk about all the good work that I've done forever, but I still said that. I'm not making any excuses. Everybody's got to stop whining and quit talking about it."(snip)
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
and this continues to get uglier ...
(snip)"The Imus lynch party
Posted: April 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
In the end, it was not about Imus. It was about us.
Are we really a better country because, after he was publicly whipped for 10 days as the worst kind of racist, with whom no decent person could associate, he was thrown off the air?
Cards on the table.
This writer works for MSNBC, has been on the Imus show scores of times, watches Imus every morning, and likes the show, the music and the guys: the I-Man, Bernie, Charles and Tom Bowman.
And Imus is among the best interviewers in our business. Not only does he read and follow the news closely, he listens and probes as well as any interviewer in America. Because he is a comic, people mistake how good a questioner he is.
(Column continues below)
Is "Imus in the Morning" outrageous? Over the top at times? Are things said every week, if not every day, where you say, "He's going too far"? Yeah. But outrageousness is part of the show, whether the skits are of "Teddy Kennedy," "Reverend Falwell," "Mayor Nagin" or "The Cardinal."
And when Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "tattooed ... nappy-headed hos," he went over the top. The women deserved an apology. There was no cause, no call to use those terms. As Ann Coulter said, they were not fair game.
But Imus did apologize, again and again and again.
And lest we forget, these are athletes in their prime, the same age as young women in Iraq. They are not 5-year-old girls, and they are capable of brushing off an ignorant comment by a talk-show host who does not know them, or anything about them.
Who, after all, believed the slur was true? No one.
Compare, if you will, what was done to them – a single nasty insult – to the savage slanders for weeks on end of the Duke lacrosse team and the three players accused by a lying stripper of having gang-raped her at a frat party.
Duke faculty and talking heads took that occasion to vent their venom toward all white "jocks" on college campuses. Where are the demands for apologies from the talk-show hosts, guests, Duke faculty members and smear artists, all of whom bought into the lies about those Duke kids – because the lies comported with their hateful view of America?
And hate is what this is all about.
While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.
The hypocrisy here was too thick to cut with a chainsaw."(snip)
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Aw, shucks, I wish we could go back to when a good old boy could slander teenaged black girls without getting all this shit for it ::) Jesus Christ, I knew there would be Imus apologists somewhere. Cry me a fucking river, it's not state-sanctioned speech, Melonie, it's market-driven speech. He wouldn't be off the air if all of the advertisers hadn't dropped like flies. He's doing a commercial show on a commercial station. It's CBS, not PBS, and I think expecting your air hosts not to use nasty racist sexual slurs is far from controlling their speech.
You notice how that second article can't quote an example of comparable slander against the Duke players? That's because there was none.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
You know we really need to come into a closure with this racisim. AL sharpton is not a very good person to be in this battle. Especially what he started agaisnt the Jewish people years ago. I dont even remember if he said his sorrys. It seems like he is always in the mist of trouble. What gets me is people are becoming more open about this racism. I believe because of Obama. Obama running for president. I believe is bring the light to racism in america. People have gotten away with far to many comments. Now America eyes seem to open and say hey this is wrong. Well at least some americans.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
^^^ be that as it may (from wherever in the spectrum that your viewpoint happens to fall), my original point was based on Reverend Al apparently calling for official censorship of broadcast media, complete with an officially approved list of 'politically correct' topics no doubt.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ be that as it may (from wherever in the spectrum that your viewpoint happens to fall), my original point was based on Reverend Al apparently calling for official censorship of broadcast media, complete with an officially approved list of 'politically correct' topics no doubt.
I know melonie. I just think Al Sharpton is not the person who should be discussing censorship issues. When he make statements like " Obama is not really black", or about the time he started stuff with the Jews. He preach racism is bad yet sometimes he do or say things that are racist.
I just also wanted to state. I notice every since Obama is running for presdient. The race issue is coming into the light, especially about the promblems we are having with racial predjuice.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Some of you might remember that episode of Politically Incorrect right after 9/11 where Bill Maher's "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away" comment were taken out of context and interpreted as a jab at U.S. troops (which it wasn't) and consequently prompted a firestorm.
As a result the program was taken off the air for a couple of weeks in some markets. By next summer, it was off the air permanently. Where was this argument about censorship back then? And why don't I hear country radio stations playing Dixie Chicks songs anymore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Susan Wayward
it's market-driven speech. He wouldn't be off the air if all of the advertisers hadn't dropped like flies. He's doing a commercial show on a commercial station.
That really is the crux of the matter when these "on air personality says something outrageous so we have to call for his head" fiascos break out. People like Rev. Sharpton or those "patriotic" zealots who got PI taken off the air wouldn't have any power if advertisers would grow a spine and stand up to such emotionally charged bullying. Its not like DI hadn't said controversial things on the air before. Those advertisers knew what they were getting into.
Just the same though, I realize they have a reputation to protect, so the businessperson in me understands the need to abandon ship when the waters are getting too choppy.
But for God sakes, even a flaky product like Head On removed their ads from Imus's show. You know things are going bad when that happens.
::)
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
The "market" nixed I-man's show. The sponsors bailed which is also what happened to Maher's show. His ratings were fine. It's just nobody wanted to buy ad-time during his show. And I don't think what Bill said was all that terrible.
As for Sharpton, he has NEVER apologized for any of his racial bomb throwing and careless slanders. Going to the FCC as he did about Imus is dangerous and unecessary. The market "censored" Imus. Let's let his career rest in peace and move on.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
if only it would stop there ...
unfortunately, if the FCC and the US Congress are going to be/get involved, it raises questions of 'equal treatment' ... as well as some unintended consequences
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
the 'game' continues to get more dangerous ...
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
You know Imus said the statement that got him booted, Imus is a grown ass man. Therfore he knew what he said and did! This is not the 1960's. We suppose to overcome this racist behavior, and sit next to each other as equals. THis man has said a lot of bad things in the past. It is about time he is being booted for his emotional, mental abuse he cause people.
AL SHaprton didnt get him booted! HE did that to himself! You know it is proubarly Imus racist butt sending him those threats. Or maybe the KKK. Uhm well I guest we are going to see how this fold out!
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
^^^ yes, but ...
the Don Imus firing seems to be drawing some serious backlash regarding the apparent 'hypocracy' of this situation.
last but not least ...
~
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
"So degrading women by word is protected by the First Amendment if the words are part of Rap Music lyrics? It’s okay to use the “N-word” as long as it is in rap music format? If Imus had "rapped" his comments would there still be an uproar? Would Sharpton defend the statements using the First Amendment excuse? Would Sharpton still be calling for getting rid of Imus?" Quoted by Robin Boyld.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11986
This is a promblem the Africa AMerican community have a promblem with, not all black support this type of music. I think it is a time we stand up and say no more! I dont like that I see children dancing to stop drop and pop it lock it! I think this is so degrading towards women.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
"The dancers are hardly role models for society either. There is no doubt that “the money is easy” compared to a regular job with structure and responsibility but what message are they sending out. Performing for a group of immature and horny students in an unsupervised private location is inviting trouble. Where is their upbringing? I hope the don’t represent the majority of the community." Quoted by Dark cloud.
http://blackandright.mensnewsdaily.c...orry/#more-256
I really do not think "everyone" look at this woman. As a black woman. They look at these women as strippers. Like stated above, Which I dont see has no relation with the Imus case.
I look at things this way, like any other mature adult. Everyone is differant no one person is the same. Thier will be people who lie, cheat, steal, break hearts, kill, and love. These type of people is in every race. Not one race is holy than the rest!
Infact I am wondering why did you include the dukes case related links. With Imus , I am not getting what you are trying to say!
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
One- I'd like the same standard used to judge Imus applied to Sharpton and Rosie O'Donnel , just to name two.
Two- I want the market to decide who stays on the air; not the FCC.
Three- I'd like everyone to try and promote respect for EVERYBODY and to refine the culture. Sharpton says he's been speaking out about use of the n-word and misogynist language which is fine. Now let's see him actually DO something about it and don't hold your breath.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Quote:
I really do not think "everyone" look at this woman. As a black woman. They look at these women as strippers. Like stated above, Which I dont see has no relation with the Imus case.
Actually the common thread being referenced between the Imus situation and the Duke Rape Case is the commentary of Rev. Al Sharpton. Ms. Mangum is only peripherally involved in that Rev. Al painted her as the automatic victim while painting the accused lacrosse players as automatically guilty.
In the Imus case, Rev. Al laid into Imus for his racial stereotype comment, and perhaps more importantly threatened to organize hundreds of thousands of black protesters against Imus' sponsors unless they pulled their sponsorship, plus stirring up new regulatory action by the FCC. However, in the Duke Rape Case, Rev. Al was at the forefront of attacking the rich white boys via equivalent racial stereotype comments (aimed at the rich white defendants though, and casting the black dancer as a victim), and organized primarily black protesters at Duke to pressure the university to expel the accused white boys with absolutely no proof of wrongdoing.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
However, in the Duke Rape Case, Rev. Al was at the forefront of attacking the rich white boys via equivalent racial stereotype comments (aimed at the rich white defendants though, and casting the black dancer as a victim), and organized primarily black protesters at Duke to pressure the university to expel the accused white boys with absolutely no proof of wrongdoing.
That's subjective as hell Melonie. Where you personally offended? Did you feel like Rev. Al made a racist remark about you?
Personally, I was more offended by Imus' "ho" portion of the remark. I was personally offended that he threw "ho" out there like it was a synonym for "woman". Maybe he meant only the Black women on the team..I'm not sure.
For argumment's sake, and since u put it out there...if Imus' remark was a racial stereotype, who are you to say what constitutes an equivalent racial stereotype with regard to the Duke player's?
How do you know what's equivalent?
I mean I'm lost..did Rev. Al say something about the players' hair??? Did he call them ho's (not that that's racist in itself)?
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Quote:
I mean I'm lost..did Rev. Al say something about the players' hair??? Did he call them ho's (not that that's racist in itself)?
no ... Rev. Al contributed to potentially ruining the personal reputations of the 'innocent' Duke Lacrosse players, which may affect their future job and income potential for the rest of their lives - while doing no damage whatsoever to the 'guilty' Ms. Mangum. In contrast, Rev, Al did a bit of financial damage to the 'guilty' Don Imus, while doing nothing to materially benefit the Rutgers players. I guess that you are concentrating on the personal insult effects of racial stereotypes being thrown around, while I'm concentrating on the financial effects (which last far longer).
The bottom line would appear to be that, regardless of the actual 'guilt' or 'innocence' of the parties involved, in both cases Rev. Al attacked white males and defended black females. This probably says a great deal in regard to Rev Al's true motivations. Rev. Al's previous actions of supporting the exact same sort of racial stereotypes being spouted on the public airwaves as the free speech right of (predominantly) black rappers, versus making a huge fuss about enacting new FCC regulations when Don Imus uses the public airwaves for the same purpose, probably says a bit more about Rev. Al's true motivations.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Let's cut to the chase here Melonie. Exactly where/how was he "on the forefront of attacking the rich White boys via equivelant racial stereotype comments"??
You said it, and I want to know what EQUIVELANT comments he made?
For the sake of this exchange, please spare me the double-talk. This is a simple request for you to back up what you said he did.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JustJayda
Let's cut to the chase here Melonie. Exactly where/how was he "on the forefront of attacking the rich White boys via equivelant racial stereotype comments"??
You said it, and I want to know what EQUIVELANT comments he made?
For the sake of this exchange, please spare me the double-talk. This is a simple request for you to back up what you said he did.
Dear me. Where to begin ?
The Tawana Brawley case where Sharpton repeatedly and publicly slandered Pagones and eventually had to pay him $65,000 in damages.
His "white interlopers" remarks that led to a firebomb assault that killed several people.
His "diamond merchants" remark.
As far as the Duke case Sharpton declared them to be guilty and demanded they be expelled.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
I don't think it's officially-sanctioned speech as much as it is political correctness. Political correctness has stifled speech for YEARS. For example, in Seattle, you cannot say "Merry Christmas' on the radio or TV because it may offend those who don't celebrate it. So instead, they say "Happy Holidays' or some other variation thereof.
That is utter BS in my mind. I would never move to another country and demand that they not talk about their national holidays simply because I'm not originally from there and it 'may' offend me.
As far as Imus goes, what he said was wrong and just plain racist. When you're in the publc eye, you are open to much more criticism than your average person.
If you offend people, they are well within their rights to protest and not to listen to you anymore and sponsors also have the right to withdraw funding if they think it is no longer a profitable endeavor.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Dear me. Where to begin ?
The Tawana Brawley case where Sharpton repeatedly and publicly slandered Pagones and eventually had to pay him $65,000 in damages.
His "white interlopers" remarks that led to a firebomb assault that killed several people.
His "diamond merchants" remark.
As far as the Duke case Sharpton declared them to be guilty and demanded they be expelled.
Eric, not to sound like a 10yr old., but I asked MELONIE what she meant.
Secondly, All the things you listed have nothing to do with one thing I'm asking HER about. Him "declaring them guilty" is not "equivelant racial stereotype comments"
Please, if you're gonna speak for someone else, answer the question posed.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JustJayda
Eric, not to sound like a 10yr old., but I asked MELONIE what she meant.
Secondly, All the things you listed have nothing to do with one thing I'm asking HER about. Him "declaring them guilty" is not "equivelant racial stereotype comments"
Please, if you're gonna speak for someone else, answer the question posed.
I was trying not to be boring and repetitive. Sharpton did not call the 3 accused "honkies" or "crackers" if that's what you mean BUT his rhetoric did dredge up Ante-bellum days of white masters having their way with black female slaves and getting away with it. He dragged around his usual bag of tricks based on race and class as did Jackson.
Btw- not that I was trying to be gallant but Melonie does not need my help.
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
^^^ Eric basically 'crossed the Rubicon' that I was trying to avoid ... i.e. calling Rev Al a racist, and in pointing out that mainstream media has no problem providing a willing forum for a black preacher like Rev. Al to spout blatantly racial stereotype comments / insults aimed at rich white boys (yes I was referring to the young white massa having his way with the slave girl analogy) or Jewish businessmen or white inner city landlord etc.- and with intent to do financial harm and/or harm to their reputations.
However, if the races are reversed, even in the absence of intent to do financial harm and/or harm to reputations, mainstream media supports Rev Al's call for the 'silencing' of the person who made the racial stereotype comment / insult.
a memory refresher ...
We can always look at the bright side. At least in the Duke case the death threats against the accused white boys which were arguably fanned up by Rev Al didn't result in injury or death ... something which hasn't always been the case in past incidents.
Quote:
I don't think it's officially-sanctioned speech as much as it is political correctness
well, when it becomes a matter of law, i.e. new FCC rules or new 'hate speech' laws on college campi, that amounts to officially-sanctioned speech - which brings us full circle back to the original topic of this thread.
~
-
Re: Don Imus ... free speech near to becoming 'officially sanctioned' speech
In other words, in this instance, he was not:
"on the forefront of attacking the rich White boys via equivelant racial stereotype comments."
Thanks