Media Matters gets it about why the Imus flap matters--it's NOT Imus.

[blondeatlast]

Now that MSNBC and CBS Radio have both dropped Don Imus, and the Rutgers basketball team has accepted his apology, Imus himself is no longer the most interesting thing about the controversy he touched off with his racist and sexist comments about the team -- if he ever was, that is.

(snip)

Imus' comments, though shocking and unusually blunt, are also a reminder that bigoted and hurtful commentary is all too common in even the most reputable mass media outlets.

The reference to "bigoted and hurtful commentary," rather than to "bigots," is intentional. As Geoffrey Nunberg has explained, it is the commentary itself, not the speaker, that matters:

Imus's beliefs and character are completely irrelevant here. When a white person calls somebody a nigger or describes a women's basketball team as nappy-headed hos, he or she has committed a racist act. As with redskin, the words trail their own sordid history behind them, and their power to hurt is independent of the intentions of the person who utters them. And my own view is that the broadcast media should have a zero-tolerance approach to this kind of language -- "use an epithet, you're out of here." To do anything less is to implicitly sanction a racist act.

See more at: http://mediamatters.org/items/200704140003

My own commentary: Imus is a PRODUCT, first and foremost. Businesses are free to choose to get rid of a product at their whim whether it be a response to public pressure or their own reasons.

(I promise I searched for duplicates and was unable to find any; my apologies if this a dupe)

[Astrad]

1. The problem with zero tolerance policies

is who decides when a transgression has occurred? It's not always obvious (obscenity laws for example.)

What if someone makes a racist remark by way of illustration or is quoting someone else? What if it truly is inadvertent? It is possible it could happen.

[blondeatlast]

2. There's this phrase used in journalism... "quote/endquote."

Any reasonably intelligent media person who doesn't use it has no business in the media.

[lonestarnot]

32. But this reason and intelligence doesn't go into the product people

are viewing day after day, all they see is Idumb's ugly hairdo that resembles mine and stupid commentary regarding forgiveness. Everyone by now knows one must forgive to be forgiven. But the onslaught continues. aaaaack.

[Vexatious Ape]

3. You're right: He is a product.

A lot of people are worried about free speech and it shouldn't be an issue here. Imus was not arrested or fined by the government. He was shit-canned because the suits thought they would lose $$$ if they continued to employ his racist ass.

[frogcycle]

4. exactly

oh, there may have actually been a modicum of actual sensitivity, but it certainly would not have carried the day, or he'd have been gone long ago

[MADem]

29. He was shitcanned because he spoke out against the war, and the sponsors all had lucrative DOD

contracts. And by lucrative, I mean BILLIONS. Way more than the consumers listening to his show pay in towards their retail enterprises.

Had he continued to stay on the BushCo ranch, and support the war, do you actually think the complaints about his remarks would have gotten ANY airplay at all? The theme would have been "He apologized, get over it."

Imus was excoriated, held up, his detractors given air time, because he called for Bush to be impeached and said Cheney (once a great friend) was a 'war criminal.'

To be clear, I am not saying his remarks were not odious, so please don't give me a fucking lecture about that, I get it--what I am saying is that the reaction by the corporate media to them had EVERYTHING to do with his war stance.

They provided the round the clock coverage for the complainers, they interviewed them, covered them, followed them around to get soundbites, ignored IMPORTANT stories (Parliament/bridge bombing in Iraq; five million emails missing, just for starters) to cover this brouhaha, and they, in essence, "Anna Nicole'd" this matter.

They didn't even wait for the Rutgers team to state THEIR desired remedy (firing him wasn't on their agenda; gee, imagine that?). Nope, they didn't dare wait for the possibility of mercy from those young ladies, because the guy, in their view, needed to GO. Not because of his words (he has said way worse without consequence), but because of his views towards the war. A view that, if it came to fruition, would cost his sponsors big money.

Hell, Limbaugh has said worse--but he's on the "right" side of the war, isn't he? So anyone griping about him isn't going to have a camera stuck in THEIR face, or their complaints heard, either.

Follow The Money.

[NYCGirl]

30. Then why doesn't Olbermann get fired? He just got a big raise. NT

[blondeatlast]

33. Exactly. By that reasoning, there'd be no one left at MSNBC; not even Scarborough. nt

[MADem]

36. Please see my response below. Scarborough is their designated rightie, but his numbers are even

smaller than Olbermann's. And that DOCBLOCK thing Abrams is doing is cheap--it costs nothing, and the advertising revenue from it is pure gold. That's how they can afford to pay Olbermann a paltry fraction of what Imus received.

I know you think that Olbermann is a BIG draw, but he's only a big draw in a small universe. That bastard DildO'Really beats him all the time. Why? Because people are stupid. And even Dildo's numbers are PISS compared to Imus.

FWIW I am NOT talking about Imus's numbers on MSNBC, though they were huge. I am talking about his numbers on the radio, on drive time. His reach was enormous:

Those shock jocks generate loads of ad revenue for its stations. Imus’ show accounts for roughly a quarter of revenue at New York’s WFAN station, according to Nielsen, and he has 3.5 million listeners across the country, according to Arbitron. As of this morning, Imus’ picture is still at the top of company’s web site as its biggest radio draw.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_11380.asp

OK, let's compare Imus's three and a half million a DAY (Republican angry men) with Olbermann's following of primarily middle-aged, lefty women:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0703260204mar28,1,6345368.story

At 7 p.m., the biggest bang still belongs to O'Reilly. He notched 2.5 million total viewers (up 11 percent) in February, including 536,000 in the 25-to-54 group (up 17 percent).
...Fueled by "Countdown," MSNBC is up 40 percent in prime time this year compared with all of '06, averaging 562,000 total viewers. CNN has 900,000 (up 6 percent) and FNC, 1.9 million (up 14 percent).

See the difference? It's not just numbers, though, it's DEMOGRAPHICS. You can preach to your choir all day, but when you reach the sinners on the other team with your word, well, THAT's something.

[NYCGirl]

37. Sure, WFAN is going to suffer — but since the advertisers were pulling out

(a number in the triple digits, according to Olbermann) they had no choice.

[MADem]

39. Did you not read what I wrote? The ADVERTISERS are the ones with the DOD contracts.

If the war ENDS, the gravy train STOPS. They can't be supporting a guy who wants the gravy train to stop, now, can they?

Again,

Follow The Money.

Proctor and Gamble has a huge, lucrative, long-term food service DOD contract. GE makes jet engines and all sorts of shit for the Pentagon. STAPLES has every frigging GSA contract for every government office, from the Department of the Interior to the Department of State, going, worth BILLIONS. All of these contracts are worth Billions, with that B.

If you boycott Staples and refuse to buy your computer paper there, well, big deal, fuck you, frankly--that's how they feel; they don't care--they're getting BILLIONS from Uncle Sam. The chump change from the subset of outraged consumers who listen to Imus and pay attention to advertisers is a teensy weensy universe of their total profit.

And quite frankly, Olbermann knows that his audience is what it is--the already converted. And so do his bosses. If they really wanted him to get a larger share, they'd move him or extend him, so he started BEFORE DildO'Really. But they don't want to do that. They want to give the LEFT a reason to choose MSNBC as their "preferred" brand over Faux (not hard, that) or their real Nemesis, CNN, who, despite their iffy domestic crew, has a top-notch international stable.

But don't be fooled. Watch it, sure, but watch it all with a jaundiced eye.

MSNBC is fueled by GE, the owners, and P and G, and Staples, and others, all of whom are fueled to the gills by this fucking war. Don't lose sight of that. The war, if you pull the string all the way, pays Olbermann's salary, really.

Again, Follow The Money.

[NYCGirl]

44. And Bigelow Tea? PetMed Express?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

They dropped their advertising because they don't want their products to be associated with Imus and his crew because ordinary regular consumers will stop buying.

[MADem]

48. Fine. Don't buy it.

Please follow the exact same guidance I gave the other disagreeing poster in this subthread.

Stick your head in the sand and pretend that this is all about "independent advertisers" with no connection to the political-military-industrial-corporate complex. Pretend that this isn't all about WAR MONEY, to say nothing of heavy contributors to the RNC.

How soon will they go after Limbaugh? Answer: Never--so long as he doesn't start opposing the war.

And oh, while you're at it, DO continue to ignore the expressed wishes of the victims in all this--clearly, they just don't have a clue what they really want, eh?

The paternal attitude by the cheerleaders of this corporate decision that others know better than the Rutgers team what's an appropriate resolution to this matter is the most telling aspect of the entire imbroglio.

IMO.

Like I have said elsewhere, the right handed the left the butcher knife to slaughter the pig. And the left is the only one with blood on their hands, and that suits the right just fine.

[blondeatlast]

38. "I know you think Olbermann's a big draw..." You lost me right there.

I never said such a thing, I never thought such a thing, and I rarely watch Olbermann.

Imus is a product, he sullied the entire product line, so his manufacturers pulled him.

All's good with the world.

[MADem]

40. Well, I didn't mean it meanly. Olbermann IS a big draw, within his universe of MSNBC.

Look, you go ahead and IGNORE what I said.

You go ahead and pay absolutely NO attention to where the ADVERTISERS get the money that keeps them in business.

You just ignore the relationship between the corporate media and the Pentagon and this Bush administration.

You go on and pretend this is all about human decency when it is really about the bottom line.

And all is NOT good with the world when the expressed wishes of the victims in this matter are completely ignored to make a "PC" point and make others feel superior in some fashion.

But don't let that bother you either.

[blondeatlast]

46. Okay, thanks. I will. nt

[MADem]

34. Because of his audience. Not just the numbers, but the demographics.

Olbermann preaches to a choir of LEFTIES. Republicans do not watch his show, except to point and laugh--they're too busy watching DildO'Really. Olbermann's share is a very small fraction of Imus's, in the hundreds of thousands per day (his total viewers per month are fewer than Imus's listeners per day). Olbermann does not change hearts or minds at all--he's a cheerleader who makes us feel like, no, we aren't crazy, there ARE people out there with our viewpoint.

Imus preached, every single day, to a massive crowd of MILLIONS of angry, white, male REPUBLICAN 'likely voters.' These angry men LIKED Imus, he resonated with them. He liked the music they liked, he said the things they wanted to say, he knew about NASCAR and sports, and the stock market, he revelled in political incorrectness, he had the sassy wife they would like to have, and he had their testosterone-laden 'attitude.' He was THEM, on the radio.

So when their radio buddy, Imus, the guy who was "just like them," said Gonzales should be jailed, called Cheney a war criminal, and Bush an idiot that should be impeached, it made it

OK

for these angry men to think that, too.

And that is exactly what he was doing, and that is why he had to go. He was fucking with the bottom line of the sponsors, every single one of whom (save Bigelow Tea, just about, who didn't call for his head) had lucrative, billion dollar Pentagon contracts. Several of them are in the top 100 Pentagon contractors, and at least one (GE--that OWNS NBC-Universal) is close to the top tier.

Look, people can dismiss the influence of Imus, but they'd be wrong. An unknown author could go on his show with a new book, and if Imus raved about it (and if he liked a book he WOULD rave about it), it would be in the top ten on the NYT list inside of a week or ten days.

Now THAT's influence--when you can get a bunch of pissed off white Republicans to BUY BOOKS.

Again, if anyone here lectures me about "how baaaaad his words were, and why don't youuuuu caaaaaaaare" I will frigging scream--I am not saying what he said was "good" or "OK" or "acceptable" or should be mitigated in any fashion. What I AM saying though, is that a voice that reached GOP voters who could never be reached by anyone on the left has been silenced and those corporate suits quite cleverly used the LEFT to do it.

It's important to note, again, and again, that the Rutgers ladies felt he should NOT lose his job, and they said that. No doubt they might have preferred that a man of his influence use some of those four hours a day he was on the air to actively correct his shortcomings. Now he won't have that chance.

But he won't have that chance because they needed to get rid of him BEFORE Rutgers had an opportunity to say what would be acceptable to them as far as what should happen to Mister Imus.

Damn that 'quality of mercy' anyway!

[Catherine Vincent]

52. You've got it all figured out don't you?

Your should send your post (trimmed) to your local op-ed and wait and see what kind of responses you get. I'd be interested to hear from republicans about your take.

[MADem]

57. They'd call it bullshit, because they want the left to carry the "credit" for this entire business.

That way, they get a two-fer. They can claim that the left silenced "one of theirs" (even though he wasn't one of theirs anymore--he was in a strange no-man's land of sexist bigotry and war opposition) and they can also claim that the GOP advertisers were the "decent" ones who pulled the plug on the guy. They can argue the case from any angle.

Joe Sixpack in the bar gets the "Those liberal bastards got rid of Imus" take, and the "liberal media" gets "It was conservative advertisers who should be credited, as they pulled the plug on this dreadful man." Either way, they win. They can take credit if over the long haul it looks advantageous, or they can, do a Jim Phelps, and "disavow any knowledge of (your) actions."

I live in a largely Democratic area--there aren't many GOP to respond to this analysis. And I suspect you weren't really looking for me to write any op-eds, anyway.

I have researched the relationships between the Pentagon, the federal government, and the advertisers and owners, though, and their heads are so far up BushCo's ass they can tickle his teeth with their noses. I've posted the relationships elsewhere on this forum.

I am-- again to reiterate, because for some reason any time I postulate a theory that isn't a pile-on, I am accused of all sorts of evil shit--not endorsing or excusing or mitigating the words of Mister Imus. I AM, however, asking the question "Cui bono?"

And the answer I come up with is the pro-war corporate suits, who shut up a very troublesome guy who reached millions of angry white Republican male likely voters, coast to coast, each and every day. Voters who listened to, and were influenced by, Imus.

The Rutgers team wasn't even listened to, at the end of the day, as to their desired redress--hell, they could have demanded Imus hire them as program consultants or cohosts, and he likely would have done it. They never asked for his job, anyway--the coach reiterated that.

Now, there's no opportunity to grab the guy by the balls and use his microphone for the greater good, because it's gone. And that's good news for anyone who doesn't want an anti-war message delivered to angry, white, Republican, male, likely voters--the segment of the population that continues to support this farce of a war in greater numbers than the bulk of the citizenry.

[iamjoy]

5. What About Entertainment?

We have African American performers using racial epithets. A commentator was on NPR talking about this yesterday morning.

Ah, but they're black, so it doesn't matter if they use the N-word.
To an extent - true. When a white man uses racial slurs, it has the weight of hundreds of years of oppression behind it. But when civil rights leaders fail to condemn this language from their own, the hateful slurs gain legitimacy. So (taking from MM, not NPR) what should be unacceptable starts down the path to barely noticed.

Should we distinguish entertainers from journalists in who is allowed to use insults? Can most Americans tell the difference?

How do we reconcile a desire to make such insults unacceptable with the right to free speech and expression?

[blondeatlast]

7. As I state in my commentary, Imus is a product. This wasn't censorship, it was a business pulling

a product that was causing more hassle than it was worth to them.

[iamjoy]

17. It Doesn't Matter

Well, of course there's a difference between actual government censorship (these words forbidden) and the "free market" doing its job. But the end result is the same.

If we as a society decide saying certain things is unacceptable and that use of these words, etc. can lead to an entertainer/journalist being fired we have become the censors. We will have become the detroyers of free speech. Is this really a good thing?

Were Bill Maher's comments on Politically Incorrect five and half years ago unnaceptable? Apparently sufficiently so as they led to his firing.

Who in our society decides what is "unacceptable"? Get some one with the attitude of Jerry Falwell, etc. but more charisma and who will be fired next?

[Saturday]

8. You bring up a good point.

Imus was not using racial epithets as a racist even though his accusers and many here on DU say he was. It was as entertainment. Just as he has dissed hundreds of others many times before for entertainment value. Is his kind of entertainment no longer politically correct? The market allows others to diss and we need to step up the pressure on them too if Imus is to be an example.

[blondeatlast]

11. They want to be thought of as respectable pundits but whine about how they are "entertainers"

when someone calls them on it. Yet they are the same ones who tell Tim Robbins, the Dixie Chiocks, etc that they aren't entitled to their opinions.

The difference between Dave Chapelle, Fitty Cent, and Don Imus? Dave Chapelle and Fitty Cent don't posture as being pundits.

[Saturday]

13. And who says you can't be both? n/t

[blondeatlast]

18. It's okay to be both, just don't tell others they can't be both. And don't whine

and cry "foul" when you're called out. It was a business decision. Imus fouled the entire product line so the product had to be pulled.

[Saturday]

22. So you're saying that Imus declared

himself as a "respectable pundit"? I disagree, he always said he was entertaining. The guests on his show might have considered him a "respectable pundit" because of his reach but he didn't IMO.

[Make7]

6. I think the job of many radio personalities is to be controversial.

They would probably be out of a job ten times quicker for not stirring up a shit-storm every once in a while than for any comments they make that may cross the line of common decency.

They get paid to say stupid shit precisely because it provokes a reaction. Any publicity is good publicity.....

As an example, look at the all ignorant crap that Ann Coulter says on a regular basis - if the people signing her checks were truly concerned with decency, she would no longer be invited to say anything in public. But the controversy is the thing they are selling, it's infotainment - without the info.

- Make7

[NYCGirl]

12. Recently, a number of newspapers dropped Coulter's column. This may

continue.

[Make7]

62. She's been fired before for something she said... and probably will be again.

 

MSNBC once fired Coulter as a regular contributor after a remark she made to a Vietnam veteran. But Coulter has appeared there as a guest on shows and the network has no policy against her.

The remarks "won't stop conservatives from buying her books and her ability to sell books is what drives her bookings on TV," said MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews.

    <-snip->

A spokeswoman for Coulter did not return a call for comment. Coulter, however, did appear on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" three days after the Edwards remark and belittled the idea that it would do lasting damage to her. It's a cycle, she said: she says something, the same people become hysterical, and that's the end of it.

It's about her 17th allegedly career-ending moment, she said.

"It happens about every six months," Coulter said, "and you're always there to put me on TV, Sean."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NQ2DLG0.html

She doesn't appear to be too concerned about it.

- Make7

[Jade Fox]

19. Exactly.

In a sense, Imus was fired for doing precisely what he was hired to do. After all, no controversy, no listeners.

[NYCGirl]

28. The market changed — Imus' show was a creaking old relic — and I hope

the rest of the "shock" shows realize that maybe people are tired of their shtick.

[Jade Fox]

31. I hope so as well.....

I've always hated the shock-jock shtick. It appeals to the worst in people: their prejudices, fears, etc. It offers listeners a phony sense of outrage as a kind of drug that excuses them from actually doing anything.

[jamez1957]

9. Ismus, like an Agent

He was used by a company to bring attention to products they advertise.
He brought the wrong kind of attention like a candle burns most
bright before it went out.

[pkz]

10. They may get it

but they are also the very ones that are implicated in fueling the fire.

Imus made the statement on a Thursday, the only mention on Friday was a little blurb on Drudge, supplied by mediamatters. You know who looks at Drudge, I think it was time for a little diversion while looking for 5 million emails.

I do agree that it is time that we had this discussion because I really resent that some can say some things and others dare not utter the words.

[blondeatlast]

15. Bullshit. I read it right here on DU shortly after it happened.

How many active blogs are there on the internet?

If you think Media Matters has that much influence, well, I only wish they did.

[pkz]

26. Lots of us heard it

I have my coffee with Imus every morning, not because I'm a fan, but because MSNBC is my first choice for topics for my forums.

I heard the statement LIVE and I guess I am numb to some of the comments, cause I do like the show's music choices.

Heard a head mention yesterday that most would have chalked this up to Imus being the I-man til media matters got involved and incited the Sharpton camp.
So I thought on that a bit, no one has been so totally offended by Imus before, if they were, they just turned off the show. I have real problems with some taking offense, and they take something away from all of us.
I am not defending the words, just the man, I have come to recognize his warped sense of humor and the crew that feeds it.

A week before, a regular on that show, made a terrible remark to a middle eastern man, and I mean so bad that I was shocked...not an easy task.
Where was the outrage then?

http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainmentheadlines/ci_5657612?nclick_check=1

[NYCGirl]

16. How did Media Matters "fuel the fire"? They merely reported his comments. NT

[MADem]

49. Actually, Media Matters was the small spark and bit of kindling that the corporate suits used to

start the fire--that was the "excuse." Normally, had Imus persisted in a pro-war mindset, there would have been outrage here and on other moderate to liberal forums, but nothing would have come of it.

So, it isn't really Media Matters that did it--they did what they always do. It was the guys in the corporate suites, who wanted to get rid of "too big for his britches, newly anti-war" Don Imus, who pointed to the Media Matters report, which would have existed anyway, and pointed cameras at anyone and everyone who wanted to weigh in--something they usually don't do. Something they never did when Imus shot off his mouth before, but was toeing the pro-war line.

The five million emails and bad news out of Iraq? That was just serendipity, I think. I believe they found an opening to get rid of an anti-war rightwinger who was becoming troublesome. So they took it.

See my commentary upthread for more specifics on my viewpoint.

[Venus Dog]

14. Don "Lonesome Rhodes" Imus

:eyes:

Just another corporate whore who actually thought he was important :puke:

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

21. Exactly, great analogy Venus Dog.

:thumbsup:

[IronScorpio5]

20. The Hypocrisy is mind=numbing...

the lynching of imus over 3 words pales in comparison to mtv and bet.

rev al "jewish interlopers" sharpton and Jessie "hymietown" jackson never accept forgiveness except for their own racism.

the caving in of nbc and cbs was gutless.

one wonders will the same morally outraged forces go after the ACTUAL purveyors of gangsta rap ? bullshit they wont. its so much easier to go after one shock jock .


the only classy people were the student athletes....who forgave imus for a stupid remark.

[NYCGirl]

23. That comment ended Jesse Jackson's presidential aspirations — he was

severely punished for that.

[IronScorpio5]

25. When....

the Rev's jackson and sharpton have the BALLS to protest and DEMAND the ACTUAL purveyors of the racist and sexist be fired , i might have some respect for these two.

they are hypocites and dont have the guts to go after them.

[MADem]

45. No, he never HAD presidential aspirations. He ran to make a point, like Kucinich is doing.

And he bounced back with few repercussions--I would hardly call that "severe punishment" unless you think not getting dessert is a "severe" punishment.

Hell, the good Reverend brought his knocked up mistress to the White House to counsel Clinton about Monica, and he bounced back once again to be the "arbiter of morality" on this issue, too.

Forgiveness for the Reverend Jackson is certainly not in short supply. To claim otherwise is to be extremely disingenuous.

[Robson]

24. Gangsta Rap is next - Sharpton, etc

Maybe this will end the hypocrisy.

SNIP

"We all know where the real battleground is," wrote Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock. "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."

"We have to begin working on a response to the larger problem," said the Rev. DeForest B. Soaries Jr., who as pastor of the Rutgers coach helped mediate the Imus imbroglio. Soaries announced Friday that he is organizing a nationwide initiative to address the culture that "has produced language that has denigrated women."

The larger problem was alluded to by CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves when he announced Imus' firing: "The effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society ... has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

Pointing out that the rapper Mims uses "ho" and worse epithets in his chart-topping song "This Is Why I'm Hot," columnist Michelle Malkin asked: "What kind of relief do we get from this deadening, coarsening, dehumanizing barrage?"

The Rev. Al Sharpton, among the loudest critics calling for Imus' termination, indicated that entertainment is the next battleground. "We will not stop until we make it clear that no one should denigrate women," he said after Imus' firing. "We must deal with the fact that ho and the b-word are words that are wrong from anybody's lips.

SNIP

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/backpage/4_13_0717_04_35.txt

[IronScorpio5]

27. Talk, talk, talk....

he wont do anything so dont hold your breath.


Whitlock nailed sharpton to the wall.

[MADem]

50. Hmmm, no wonder Sharpton looked so bummed out on REAL TIME last night.

Act One was easy--he had a ton of help from the pro-war, DoD contracted advertisers and the GE/NBC corporate suits who also wanted Imus gone.

Act Two ain't gonna be. What will he do if he cannot deliver?

[TahitiNut]

35. "lynching"?? Is that like what others are calling "capital punishment" and "death penalty"?

BULLSHIT!

Millions and millions of working people are fired or laid off every year for no 'reason' at all! There's not a single talking head or corporate elite or radio talk show host that has EVER called that a "lynching' or "capital punishment" or the "death penalty"! Just who the fuck says that some multi-millionaire has a greater entitlement to their job than the working schmuck trying to raise his kids, pay for exorbitant health care costs, and pay a mortgage?? The Mighty Wurlitzer reminds us every day if not every second that no working class citizen has a 'right' to a job - particularly a job that can be sold to lower bidders!

We heard the same obscene bullshit with Clarence Thomas. "Lynching"?? To equate the denial, or even the attempted denial of a position of public trust to a sexist or racist pig isn't even in the same Universe as a 'lynching' and demonstrates hyperbole that dwarfs the biggest pile of bullshit in all the cattle feedlots in Texas.

:grr:

[IronScorpio5]

42. As you wish....

fwiw to you



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=lynching+of+don+imus&btnG=Google+Search

[TahitiNut]

53. I'll see your "fwiw" and raise you a "Bush is a genius"

Googling "Bush" and "genius" gives 1,510,000 hits.

Googling, as you suggest, 'lynching of don imus' gives 49,000 hits.

So, according to the (brain-damaged) 'logic' you have suggested, it's more than 30 times more rational to regard Chimperor McCodpiece as a genius than to regard the treatment of Imus as a lynching.

What color is the sky in that world??? :eyes:
How can a skull not implode under such a vacuum?

[blondeatlast]

43. I think you pretty well summed up this entire controversy right there.

Good Lord, "lynching?" :mad:

[blondeatlast]

41. This is a lynching:

Imus was fired from a job. He tarnished the corporation's image.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

[JackRiddler]

47. It wasn't even the words - it was the target.

He picked on a student basketball team with comments that could only make sense in the context of their being black and our society having a long history of shared, self-congratulatory racism. Basically he called them ugly while his producer simultaneously praised their mostly white opponents as pretty. If Imus had bestowed the same level of abuse on 50 Cent, Al Sharpton, Anna Nicole, Geraldo Rivera or Dick Cheney (as he has, repeatedly) no one would have noticed. It's that he's on a very well-appointed rich white guy's perch and hurling abuse at a random group of young ladies who had no role in public discourse until then and did nothing other than playing basketball as students. That was beyond the pale and caused this reaction, imho.

[blondeatlast]

60. Exactly. Wish I could recommend this post as a stand-alone. nt

[SilentService]

51. soo ...

so by the same logic Sharpton and Jackson should be banned from yapping on the media as well.

I was very offended by Jackson and his "Hymietown" comment about NYC. But I guess since Jackson's black we'll cut him a break.

Same goes for Sharpton ... hope he get sued by the lacross players for slander.

[Catherine Vincent]

54. Fake outrage.

:eyes:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

55. Imus wasn't "banned" from anything. His free speech is intact. He is free to go to a street corner

in uptown NYC and call people "nappy headed ho's" and see how much money he can make doing that.

[blondeatlast]

59. I'd be willing to chip in for his cab fare... nt

[KharmaTrain]

56. Imus Offered A Unique Dilemna

He really didn't have an ideological bend. He's been called "liberal" cause he was recently outspoken against boooshie or Conservative due to his non-stop aping of anti-Hillary and other GOOP talking points. He really was what I call a "weathervane"...more interested in getting big names on his show than really showing one ideological bend or another (other than being sexist, racist and other "ists" that aren't the sole providence of one political party or the other). That's why he's being defended by people like Oliphant and Craig Crawford and others who we consider objective or "left-leaning". His politics really were clouded as he was more of an egotist and opportunist who blew with whatever way the "Conventional Wisdom" winds were blowing and he was close buddies to those wind blowers to be popular inside the beltway. I remember long ago reading that one of the DC papers...the Hill or Hotline...did a survey of morning radio and Imus blew away all other shows. It was one Dick Cheney and Chris Dodd listened to...think about that one.

Imus was truly "establishment" in other ways. He had survived the corporate wars and mergers and consolidations over the years. He had become a "broadcast legend" not for what he said as much as what he made for WNBC and then WFAN. For years, the station was the top billing radio station in the nation and Imus was the reasion. This led to his radio syndication with CBS that also was very successful...especially in DC, Boston and NYC...that's millions of ears...and enough of 'em that MSNBC made him a deal as one of their first moves back in '95. The dude was a survivor and evolved differently than most of the other radio hosts other than Howard Stern. Imus was "old radio" as opposed to Rushbo and the current generation of hate spewers who came up outside of the established radio culture and used deregulation and their pocketbooks to dominate it.

It's interesting to see how Imus' firing is more a shock to the beltway establishment than it is to folks like Rusbho or Hannity...who know they're safe behind a seperate corporate structure that operates in a far different world than the one Imus did. It's the world that makes Faux Noise different than the other networks and allows a Michael Weiner/Savage and other hate spewers to hog up hours of public airwave space and time with small ratings and real revenues. That world really hasn't been touched with the Imus mess, but maybe it's opened a few eyes.

[TahitiNut]

58. Yep ... there's roadkill in the middle of the road. (But Imus deserves no pity.)

When the ELITE (multi-millionaires and political elite) lose their jobs it's portayed as some HUGH deal ... but when millions of working class schmucks get laid off or fired for no reason, it's "business as usual."

We're a nation of people with rampant personality disorders. It's unreal.

[SoCalDem]

61. If Imus was sitting in his basement with his buddies, and he said "it"

who would know? who would care?

He had a microphone and he "represented" GE/NBC/Microsoft and every advertiser when he crossed that line..

he had "gotten away with it" for decades, and he thought he would again.. he was wrong.. end of story.