The Imus Scandal Thread

[mykevermin]

What gives? Imus has been dropped by MSNBC as of today (though it's not clear if that means his show is done for altogether - it seems as if the televised portion of it strictly is).

So, here's the question I have. Is it right to demand Imus' firing and reprimanding, because what he said was so reprehensible as to deserve no second chance? Or, should we actually listen to someone who has made multiple apologies and give them that chance to redeem themselves?

The offensiveness/unoffensiveness of what Imus said is not up for debate, IMO (though I find it strange that nobody seems to be bothered that he used the phrase "jigaboo" to describe the team - real strange, in fact).

What is, I suppose, is the "one mistake and you're out" rule in public discourse. Imus is no angel, and frankly, I think he's a bastard more often than not. But two things separate him from most public figures who fuck up royally:
1) He's actually suffering and lost his job as a result
2) He apologized for the mistake he made

What does it say about our society that we cast out the offensive at our own expense? We shout "OUT! OUT! OUT!" to Imus, and don't pay attention to the fact that he, unlike many, has accepted the responsibility for what he said.

He didn't go that weak-ass "I apologize if my words caused offense" passive-ass bulshit, like Pope Bernadette did when he lambasted all Muslims. He didn't pass the buck. He didn't back down. He stood up, he said "boy, that was really fucking stupid, and I apologize" (paraphrasing).

Here's what he actually said:

"Want to take a moment to apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team.

It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry."

I look at situations like this, and I look at the laughter and mockery that Mel Gibson's apology earned, and I can't help but think that we're setting a bad example here. As a nation, as a people, we don't accept apologies. We assume they're insincere, and just a way to get back into people's good graces. Worst of all, it's a double-edged sword. Those people in positions of power who we want and demand accountability for will look at these examples and see the futility of admitting error and making mistakes. Why would Bush ever admit a single thing went wrong in Iraq, in the pre-war planning, or elsewhere when he sees that those who apologize and show vulnerability, only for a moment, are eaten alive by the public?

We can't ever expect a public figure to apologize again. Why would they? I won't apologize to you either. Fuck you all. Nobody's going to believe me anyway.

Worst of all, this shows that people seem to think that racism is some old Archie Bunker bullshit. It shows that people don't recognize the systemic racism that permeates our society. Instead, we assume that it's these fleeting moments of irrationality, where a radio guy calls a woman "jigaboo." We can't see the rest of it in front of our faces, even when it's all around us. In the end, a person who genuinely apologizes for a remark loses their job, all for the purpose of making the rest feel good when we bullshit ourselves into thinking that we've succeeded in ridding society of some racism.

Other thoughts?

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm sick of this. How many different times does the guy need to apologize, and how many "leaders of the Black community" does he have to meet with before people move on to something else to be offended by?

How come his cohort, who said the team looked like the Toronto Raptors, hasn't been involved in any of this? I guess racism = media blitz, but sexism and chauvinism means nothing at all?

Don Imus calls black chicks "ho's", and it's Front Page new. Eminem does the same, and he sells millions of records. I would use a black rapper as the same example, but since they are black, I guess the Race Rule says you're allowed to call you own color bad names.

[mykevermin]

I don't know that "leaders of the Black community" are to blame here. Al Sharpton went on Imus' show (Imus put his own feet to the fire, in that case) this week. At least Sharpton tried to listen to Imus.

I get the "burn the witch!" attitude from the remainder of the media and some in the public - I wouldn't single out any black organization. Those prepared to burn him at the stake strike me as the same people would refuse to look at their own actions and attitudes.

[VanillaGorilla]

I don't know that "leaders of the Black community" are to blame here. Al Sharpton went on Imus' show (Imus put his own feet to the fire, in that case) this week. At least Sharpton tried to listen to Imus.

I get the "burn the witch!" attitude from the remainder of the media and some in the public - I wouldn't single out any black organization. Those prepared to burn him at the stake strike me as the same people would refuse to look at their own actions and attitudes.So you're saying all these white folks on the television who are wanting him fired are just closet racists themselves?

[RollingSkull]

He didn't go that weak-ass "I apologize if my words caused offense" passive-ass bulshit, like Pope Bernadette did when he lambasted all Muslims.

That's the standard apology these days. :P

I just like how Al Sharpton is the go-to guy for "If you make black people mad, seek absolution from him."

[VanillaGorilla]

That's the standard apology these days. :P

I just like how Al Sharpton is the go-to guy for "If you make black people mad, seek absolution from him."I guess Jesse Jackson is on vacation, so they had to send in Sharpton. My question is, if BOTH of those guys weren' available, then who steps up as the self appointed "Spokesman for Black People"?

[xplode427]

The offensiveness/unoffensiveness of what Imus said is not up for debate, IMO (though I find it strange that nobody seems to be bothered that he used the phrase "jigaboo" to describe the team - real strange, in fact).

totally agree

What is, I suppose, is the "one mistake and you're out" rule in public discourse. Imus is no angel, and frankly, I think he's a bastard more often than not.
totally agree, i don't like him either, but it shouldnt matter how we feel about him and you said that.


What does it say about our society that we cast out the offensive at our own expense? We shout "OUT! OUT! OUT!" to Imus, and don't pay attention to the fact that he, unlike many, has accepted the responsibility for what he said.


He didn't go that weak-ass "I apologize if my words caused offense" passive-ass bulshit, like Pope Bernadette did when he lambasted all Muslims. He didn't pass the buck. He didn't back down. He stood up, he said "boy, that was really fucking stupid, and I apologize" (paraphrasing).

i agree his apology seemed more sincere than most. however, you have to live with the consequences . will i listen to him if has a job somewhere? no but i never did. do i think he deserves a second chance somewhere? sure. would i have fired him had i been in a managerial position? i think so. you have to do what's best for your company. just as much as he deserves a second chance somewhere else, he probably desrved to be fired from that job.

[gaelan]

I'm not leaping back into this forum by any means, but I did want to comment on this particular thing. I had written an entire article on it, but I pulled it before it got published just because of the trouble I knew it would create for me.

Here's a problem I have: when did nappy-headed become a derogatory insult strictly aimed at black people? I remember when I was in elementary school, I (personally) called people nappy-headed all the time. Actually, I believe the popular term at the time was 'peasy', but I don't think that matters much. Hell, my hair got called peasy every now and again. Now I was but a child then, and hopefully children today are just as innocent about race relations as we were, but we never viewed ourselves as black and white. The school I went to was probably about 70% black, but there were no cliques, no self-segregation, no race-related fights. I was a boy, he was a boy, she was a girl. No problems. Maybe that's the root of my ignorance in this particular matter, and if so just tell me. I understand there were other racial and physical insults hurled at them, but this is the particular term I have heard so often.

Another issue I have is the amount of attention it is receiving. CNN and FSC are capitalizing on it primarily to discredit NBC News/MSNBC in my opinion. The story is less about the remarks made than about how they can keep that particular news organization in the negative public opinion for as long as possible.

The final, and biggest issue I have is of Al Sharpton. First off, the people that Imus should apologize to is the team, school, family and friends of these players. The US in general doesn't need an apology, and IMO 'Black America' doesn't either. I fail to see where this misplaced outrage comes from people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in particular, when someone makes a disparaging comment about black people in specific (as in this case), they run to the first camera and comment about how they are offended, Black America is offended, and the whole world is offended. First off, jokes in full effect, when did these two become the spokesmen for overly sensitive black people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but C. Vivian Stringer didn't call up Sharpton and ask him to go on the warpath. It was done of his own accord, and done to further his causes as a side effect. I understand more when comments like Richards's are discussed, because as I see it, those are comments made about the entire race in general.

These were not.

The comments were made because Imus and his producers thought that this particular group of girls looked tough, masculine, thuggish...whatever you want to think or believe that they thought of them. I may not get out much, but black people don't look like that in general. Only people who have those same characteristics do, and for them to get offended is absolutely justified. One could even stretch and say that all black women (or hell, women with bad hair in general) look like that. And I would be more ok with that than what Al Sharpton and others are turning this into.

It is a fact that athletes are built better than your normal person. For some reason, basketball players of either sex or any race tend to at least show, if not get, more ink than any other athletes. The players for the Scarlet Knights happen to have both characteristics. Was it wrong of Imus and those boneheads to make those statements? Absolutely. You won't find me disagreeing with that. Should they be suspended? You betcha. Do I think they should be fired? As someone who isn't female, certainly not black, and not a listener of the show, I don't really care. But I don't think that Michael Wilbon was right in calling them what amounts to klansmen on the DP Show today. You don't fix a wrong with another wrong, and you can't defend one thing while critising the same thing said by someone else of a different skin tone.

Everyone is racist. That's right, I said it. Even me. Don't believe me? What happens when someone of another sex, race, background, whatever does something to REALLY piss you off? First thoughts go to an insult, most likely a racial or sexist one. I do it, and I think, 'You know, that was uncalled for and I'm ashamed I thought of that.' I'm so confident of that line of thinking I would put money on it. I wouldn't win, because not very many people would admit to it. They think they are better than that, when in actuality they are not. 99% of the time, I don't think that way. 100% of the time I don't feel that way.

Unfortunately, all people are judged by what comes out of their pieholes and fingers in this day and age. Someone like Imus, I have to give less of a doubt to because I know he's made similar, sexist comments in the past. Just try to remember that just because someone thinks or says something doesn't mean they really feel that way.

Now Imus will get fired because there may be approaching 100 advertisers that have reportedly dropped the show. (Olbermann mentioned Head-On for Pete's sake) That's why he will get fired, and should get fired. Sharpton isn't helping out any, and he needs to get his ass down to Durham and apologize to the lacrosse kids who he basically implied raped the girl because she was black. Practice what you preach, Al.

I fully admit I may be out of touch with the times comparing them to when I was just as 'black' as any other kid at my school. If I am (and you have a similar background), then feel free to call me out on it.
$$$$er please, i ain't reading all that

my question is what about the majority of the music industry that uses derogatory statements about people of color? don't just cherry pick the parts of free speech you want to censor...get em all.

[CocheseUGA]

I'm not leaping back into this forum by any means, but I did want to comment on this particular thing. I had written an entire article on it, but I pulled it before it got published just because of the trouble I knew it would create for me.

Here's a problem I have: when did nappy-headed become a derogatory insult strictly aimed at black people? I remember when I was in elementary school, I (personally) called people nappy-headed all the time. Actually, I believe the popular term at the time was 'peasy', but I don't think that matters much. Hell, my hair got called peasy every now and again. Now I was but a child then, and hopefully children today are just as innocent about race relations as we were, but we never viewed ourselves as black and white. The school I went to was probably about 70% black, but there were no cliques, no self-segregation, no race-related fights. I was a boy, he was a boy, she was a girl. No problems. Maybe that's the root of my ignorance in this particular matter, and if so just tell me. I understand there were other racial and physical insults hurled at them, but this is the particular term I have heard so often.

Another issue I have is the amount of attention it is receiving. CNN and FSC are capitalizing on it primarily to discredit NBC News/MSNBC in my opinion. The story is less about the remarks made than about how they can keep that particular news organization in the negative public opinion for as long as possible.

The final, and biggest issue I have is of Al Sharpton. First off, the people that Imus should apologize to is the team, school, family and friends of these players. The US in general doesn't need an apology, and IMO 'Black America' doesn't either. I fail to see where this misplaced outrage comes from people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in particular, when someone makes a disparaging comment about black people in specific (as in this case), they run to the first camera and comment about how they are offended, Black America is offended, and the whole world is offended. First off, jokes in full effect, when did these two become the spokesmen for overly sensitive black people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but C. Vivian Stringer didn't call up Sharpton and ask him to go on the warpath. It was done of his own accord, and done to further his causes as a side effect. I understand more when comments like Richards's are discussed, because as I see it, those are comments made about the entire race in general.

These were not.

The comments were made because Imus and his producers thought that this particular group of girls looked tough, masculine, thuggish...whatever you want to think or believe that they thought of them. I may not get out much, but black people don't look like that in general. Only people who have those same characteristics do, and for them to get offended is absolutely justified. One could even stretch and say that all black women (or hell, women with bad hair in general) look like that. And I would be more ok with that than what Al Sharpton and others are turning this into.

It is a fact that athletes are built better than your normal person. For some reason, basketball players of either sex or any race tend to at least show, if not get, more ink than any other athletes. The players for the Scarlet Knights happen to have both characteristics. Was it wrong of Imus and those boneheads to make those statements? Absolutely. You won't find me disagreeing with that. Should they be suspended? You betcha. Do I think they should be fired? As someone who isn't female, certainly not black, and not a listener of the show, I don't really care. But I don't think that Michael Wilbon was right in calling them what amounts to klansmen on the DP Show today. You don't fix a wrong with another wrong, and you can't defend one thing while critising the same thing said by someone else of a different skin tone.

Everyone is racist. That's right, I said it. Even me. Don't believe me? What happens when someone of another sex, race, background, whatever does something to REALLY piss you off? First thoughts go to an insult, most likely a racial or sexist one. I do it, and I think, 'You know, that was uncalled for and I'm ashamed I thought of that.' I'm so confident of that line of thinking I would put money on it. I wouldn't win, because not very many people would admit to it. They think they are better than that, when in actuality they are not. 99% of the time, I don't think that way. 100% of the time I don't feel that way.

Unfortunately, all people are judged by what comes out of their pieholes and fingers in this day and age. Someone like Imus, I have to give less of a doubt to because I know he's made similar, sexist comments in the past. Just try to remember that just because someone thinks or says something doesn't mean they really feel that way.

Now Imus will get fired because there may be approaching 100 advertisers that have reportedly dropped the show. (Olbermann mentioned Head-On for Pete's sake) That's why he will get fired, and should get fired. Sharpton isn't helping out any, and he needs to get his ass down to Durham and apologize to the lacrosse kids who he basically implied raped the girl because she was black. Practice what you preach, Al.

I fully admit I may be out of touch with the times comparing them to when I was just as 'black' as any other kid at my school. If I am (and you have a similar background), then feel free to call me out on it.

[evilmax17]

So what's the solution? Since when is a forced apology reprimand enough for any wrong doing?

If Imus was let off with a simple apology, then you'd be sending the message that the behavior is effectively acceptable. A slap on the wrist, as it were. By dropping the hammer on Imus, you're sending a message that this kind of stuff won't and shouldn't be tolerated.

Ask yourself, would Imus have apologized if there wasn't an uproar over his comments? Of course not, and he shouldn't get any slack because he coughed up a phony apology.

[VanillaGorilla]

You wanna know who the biggest victim in this whole thing is? Rutgers player Heather Zurich

http://www.scarletknights.com/basketball-women/roster/images/zurich_h.jpg

She's being lumped in together with a couple of legitimately fugly Rutgers players.

[Sleepkyng]

You wanna know who the biggest victim in this whole thing is? Rutgers player Heather Zurich

http://www.scarletknights.com/basketball-women/roster/images/zurich_h.jpg

She's being lumped in together with a couple of legitimately fugly Rutgers players.

:lol: VG, that's maybe the only funny thing you've ever posted where I'm laughing with you, and not at you.

[VanillaGorilla]

:lol: VG, that's maybe the only funny thing you've ever posted where I'm laughing with you, and not at you.Thanks for the....compliment?

[RBM]

He didn't go that weak-ass "I apologize if my words caused offense" passive-ass bulshit...He didn't pass the buck. He didn't back down.
Well, sure, the Pope and the President can make meaningless apologies. Who is going to call them out on it? A radio shock jock, on the other hand, gets no such free pass.

This was a deliberate, hateful remark, and this was much more deserving of punitive action than that other radio personality who got fired for accidentally calling Rice a "coon."

Now, that was unintentional; just an out-of-context slip of the tongue (he had meant to say "quite a coup.") THAT was a clear-cut case (in my opinion) of over-reaction, and the calls from outraged listeners had me rolling my eyes. In this case? Let the outraged buggers have a field day.

[ananag112]

I am happy for this in a way. I never liked Imus in the morning on MSNBC. When CNN and Fox had dumb news on in the morning, I would switch to MSNBC but then quickly change when I saw Imus.

Plus, Imus fans can still enjoy his radio show.

[62t]

The thing is 1 local sport board caster has lost his job after making a racist comment, and a media person also lost his job after sending a racist email. Editors from major newspaper lost their job from a single mistake. Those people never got a second chance.

[Blackout]

First it was against blacks, then the comments became sexist....might as well have a person on the team come out as a gay illegal Mexican/Native American to cover all the bases of people offended. People should stop being so sensitive.

[CaseyRyback]

I don't think he should have lost his job as he got a lot of flak that others who acted in similar ways did not. Rosie didn't lose her job after her making fun of asians incident and Ann Coulter was back commenting on Fox News, specifically about the Imus situation (she criticized using the excuse that Edwards was a public figure so he could be smashed but these girls were not). Both of these incidents were much more deliberate and more offensive than what Imus said and yet they didn't recieve near the attention that his comments did.

[ch3zyp00fs]

It is not as if this is unprecedented. Just about a year ago, Larry Krueger another broadcaster got fired for calling Giant players, "brain-dead Caribbean hitters" while asking if Giants manager Felipe Alou had "Cream of Wheat on his brain?" Honestly though, I think Imus should be fired. He didn't think about what he was saying and he didn't care, he was laughing when he said that.

[YoshiFan1]

Don Imus calls black chicks "ho's", and it's Front Page new. Eminem does the same, and he sells millions of records. I would use a black rapper as the same example, but since they are black, I guess the Race Rule says you're allowed to call you own color bad names.

That's what I don't understand. Black rappers use that langauge all the time and it's ok so why aren't all these people who wanted Imus fired demanding these rappers don't have a career anymore since it should be just as offensive no matter who says it if they are as offended as they claim to be

[VanillaGorilla]

It is not as if this is unprecedented. Just about a year ago, Larry Krueger another broadcaster got fired for calling Giant players, "brain-dead Caribbean hitters" while asking if Giants manager Felipe Alou had "Cream of Wheat on his brain?" Honestly though, I think Imus should be fired. He didn't think about what he was saying and he didn't care, he was laughing when he said that.Well, to be fair, statistics HAVE proven that the average Caribbean born baseball player doesn't have a very high On Base Percentage. And honestly, who here DOESN'T love Cream of Wheat?

[Milkyman]

i think jigaboo gets a pass because its such an ancient word nobody knows what it means. I mean, i live in new york where you hear all kinds of shit, but i never heard jigaboo until my cousin came back from a college in the boonies and told me about his roommate's racist grandpa.

[mykevermin]

So you're saying all these white folks on the television who are wanting him fired are just closet racists themselves?

Define "closet racist." It's a tough thing to hash out. Do I mean people who consciously repress thoughts and feelings that resemble Archie Bunker? Perhaps.

Do I mean people who consider Affirmative Action racist, and the same people who ignore research finding after research finding that shows patterned discrimination against blacks in hiring, promotions, earnings, renting, moneylending, etc? Perhaps.

Do I mean people who think that the mere passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Amendment, and the Equal Opportunity Employment Act were enough to provide minorities with resources to succeed on parallel levels as whites? Perhaps.

Do I mean people who feel the need to label every cry of "RACISM!" as "overreacting," when they fail to realize that minorities experience an accumulation of reminders that they are minorities every day of their lives? Those who get poor service in restaurants, are followed by loss prevention people in stores, are glowered at by whites, ignored in classrooms, pulled over by police, and so on and so forth? Perhaps.

Do I mean people who vote down legislation that would equally distribute section 8 housing in a metropolitan area for fears that it would "reduce property value"? Perhaps.

One thing I want to make clear: society is plenty racist without realizing it. "Racism" is not the conscious decision to not sell homes to nonwhites, as it was in the days of residential covenants. It is not the shout of racial epithets at nonwhites. It is not the crossing of the street when people find they're walking towards a group of young black males. It is the accumulation of these experiences, repeatedly, every day, for weeks, months, years, and decades. It's not all conscious Archie Bunker bullshit. It sure can be, but it doesn't cover the domain of what can be considered "racist activity."

If you think I'm a person who strictly rides the "all blacks are always victims" card, you're misreading me. I don't believe that at all, but I don't feel it's relevant to discuss here. If you want a conversation on structural versus cultural explanations of racism, go read a copy of William Julius Wilson's "When Work Disappears" and then we can have that chat.

As for those crying that Al Sharpton is a "token," give me a break. He is a popular speaker, a charismatic leader, and a prominent member of the black community. He can discuss their shared experiences, struggles, and feelings in a very concise and articulate way. Just like any other talking head on TV. Does he represent "all blacks?" Of course not, but that's a stupid question. He's a figurehead and a leader in an era where we're still working towards racial equality. Does Bill Donahue represent me when he speaks for Christians on TV? Of course not. Who speaks for me? I couldn't tell you. One thing I can tell you: if you're going to be mad that a small group of people represent a large and diverse population of individuals in this country on 24/7 news, get in line. The conservatives, liberals, lesbians, gays, Catholics, Christians, and everyone else has first dibs, man. ALL groups seem to be represented on the news by the same gaggle of nitwits. What makes Sharpton any less tolerable than Ann Coulter?

We live in a day and age where black males stand a 30% chance of being in prison by the time they're 30 (see Bruce Western's awesome research for that). You can come to one of two conclusions looking at that kind of data:
1) On the whole, blacks are totally fucked up people
2) As a society, we failed to deliver on the promises made in the late 1960s with the passage of civil rights legislation
I don't see a third option. Either we failed, collectively, or blacks failed to take advantage of the legislation made 40 years ago, and reinforce the old Herrnstein and Murray "Bell Curve" argument.

The thing is, you find the same patterns in every city: overly poor, underemployed blacks. There's no way you'd find such consistency from city to city to city to fucking city in the United States unless one of those two options I present hold true.

That's all way off tangent, but I wanted to really address this foolish notion that one has to be Archie Bunker, either out in the open or psychologically repressive, to be a racist. That couldn't be further from the truth. I respect Cochese's arguments that reinforce this as well, and further respect that he has the moxie to admit that his mind does wander towards stereotypes - let's be honest, he is not alone.

[peteloaf]

The funny part is Al Sharpton is leading the charge of unforgivness, yet he was forgiven for antisemitism.

[VanillaGorilla]

Define "closet racist." It's a tough thing to hash out. Do I mean people who consciously repress thoughts and feelings that resemble Archie Bunker? Perhaps.

Do I mean people who consider Affirmative Action racist, and the same people who ignore research finding after research finding that shows patterned discrimination against blacks in hiring, promotions, earnings, renting, moneylending, etc? Perhaps.

Do I mean people who think that the mere passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Amendment, and the Equal Opportunity Employment Act were enough to provide minorities with resources to succeed on parallel levels as whites? Perhaps.

Do I mean people who feel the need to label every cry of "RACISM!" as "overreacting," when they fail to realize that minorities experience an accumulation of reminders that they are minorities every day of their lives? Those who get poor service in restaurants, are followed by loss prevention people in stores, are glowered at by whites, ignored in classrooms, pulled over by police, and so on and so forth? Perhaps.

Do I mean people who vote down legislation that would equally distribute section 8 housing in a metropolitan area for fears that it would "reduce property value"? Perhaps.

One thing I want to make clear: society is plenty racist without realizing it. "Racism" is not the conscious decision to not sell homes to nonwhites, as it was in the days of residential covenants. It is not the shout of racial epithets at nonwhites. It is not the crossing of the street when people find they're walking towards a group of young black males. It is the accumulation of these experiences, repeatedly, every day, for weeks, months, years, and decades. It's not all conscious Archie Bunker bullshit. It sure can be, but it doesn't cover the domain of what can be considered "racist activity."

If you think I'm a person who strictly rides the "all blacks are always victims" card, you're misreading me. I don't believe that at all, but I don't feel it's relevant to discuss here. If you want a conversation on structural versus cultural explanations of racism, go read a copy of William Julius Wilson's "When Work Disappears" and then we can have that chat.

As for those crying that Al Sharpton is a "token," give me a break. He is a popular speaker, a charismatic leader, and a prominent member of the black community. He can discuss their shared experiences, struggles, and feelings in a very concise and articulate way. Just like any other talking head on TV. Does he represent "all blacks?" Of course not, but that's a stupid question. He's a figurehead and a leader in an era where we're still working towards racial equality. Does Bill Donahue represent me when he speaks for Christians on TV? Of course not. Who speaks for me? I couldn't tell you. One thing I can tell you: if you're going to be mad that a small group of people represent a large and diverse population of individuals in this country on 24/7 news, get in line. The conservatives, liberals, lesbians, gays, Catholics, Christians, and everyone else has first dibs, man. ALL groups seem to be represented on the news by the same gaggle of nitwits. What makes Sharpton any less tolerable than Ann Coulter?

We live in a day and age where black males stand a 30% chance of being in prison by the time they're 30 (see Bruce Western's awesome research for that). You can come to one of two conclusions looking at that kind of data:
1) On the whole, blacks are totally fucked up people
2) As a society, we failed to deliver on the promises made in the late 1960s with the passage of civil rights legislation
I don't see a third option. Either we failed, collectively, or blacks failed to take advantage of the legislation made 40 years ago, and reinforce the old Herrnstein and Murray "Bell Curve" argument.

The thing is, you find the same patterns in every city: overly poor, underemployed blacks. There's no way you'd find such consistency from city to city to city to fucking city in the United States unless one of those two options I present hold true.

That's all way off tangent, but I wanted to really address this foolish notion that one has to be Archie Bunker, either out in the open or psychologically repressive, to be a racist. That couldn't be further from the truth. I respect Cochese's arguments that reinforce this as well, and further respect that he has the moxie to admit that his mind does wander towards stereotypes - let's be honest, he is not alone.Man, you really put a lot of effort into some old dude opening his mouth. You know, CheapyD doesn't give letter grades for posts.

[mykevermin]

So what's the solution? Since when is a forced apology reprimand enough for any wrong doing?

If Imus was let off with a simple apology, then you'd be sending the message that the behavior is effectively acceptable. A slap on the wrist, as it were. By dropping the hammer on Imus, you're sending a message that this kind of stuff won't and shouldn't be tolerated.

Ask yourself, would Imus have apologized if there wasn't an uproar over his comments? Of course not, and he shouldn't get any slack because he coughed up a phony apology.

I see your point, but I'd also argue that we're not dealing with a dichotomy that is (a) he gets off scot free or (b) he gets fired. He was already placed on a two week sabbatical.

And let's be honest about the source of his being removed from MSNBC. While people are shocked and outraged, it wasn't until major advertisers began pulling out from buying airtime on Imus' show that he was yanked. While this is indirectly the result of people's collective unhappiness with Imus, the catalyst that changed "people are angry" to "we've taken him off MSNBC" didn't happen until the money situation changed for MSNBC. It's yet further evidence that the newsmedia is disinterested with informing you - they could give a shit about content - and what they do care about is ad revenue.

I don't think he should have lost his job as he got a lot of flak that others who acted in similar ways did not. Rosie didn't lose her job after her making fun of asians incident and Ann Coulter was back commenting on Fox News, specifically about the Imus situation (she criticized using the excuse that Edwards was a public figure so he could be smashed but these girls were not). Both of these incidents were much more deliberate and more offensive than what Imus said and yet they didn't recieve near the attention that his comments did.

I'd like to hear more about what these two incidences were. It's not quite clear from your description what went on that was offensive.

i think jigaboo gets a pass because its such an ancient word nobody knows what it means. I mean, i live in new york where you hear all kinds of shit, but i never heard jigaboo until my cousin came back from a college in the boonies and told me about his roommate's racist grandpa.

You may be onto something. It was only a few months ago that I was watching "History of the World Part One." There was a scene where Gregory Hines was hiding among the eunuchs...long story short, he was discovered in the palace. A guardsman pointed at him and yelled "The jig is up!" Hines retorts with a frightened look, replies "AND OUT!" and runs off. I've seen that movie dozens of times (1970's Mel Brooks is about as good as comedy can get), and never understood that joke until recently.

[primetime]

Umm, I feel the need to clear the air a little bit on this issue. Imus earned his reputation as a shock jock, but this incident is not the first time he has issued racist/sexist remarks. He called Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady" William Rhoden a "quota hire," and the New York Knicks "pimps." This is not to mention all of the other offensive remarks he has made about other demographics.

I think we can all agree that America is a forgiving society, whether this is an actual product of forgiveness one of forgetfulness (aided by the non-stop news barrage) is beyond the point. Countless individuals have survived missteps and mistakes.

On the issue of his apology--- Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the chronology of the event. Wed Apr 4, comments were made; Fri Apr 6, apology was made. Thurs Apr 5 was the first coverage I saw of the issue, on ESPN nontheless. What I wonder is- where was his apology Thurs? This incident has clearly humiliated Imus, but evidently he did not recognize the magnitude of his comments or feel apologetic about them until he began feeling the heat. Perhaps he just needed to realize he offended people, I don't really know.

One thing I find funny is how the Fox Noise Channel's superstars such as Hannity and, to a lesser extent BillO, bring up rap music as a defense. I think we can all agree that some of the language in the hip hop culture is deplorable-but that is entirely besides the point. To suggest that Imus should get a free pass because some rap artists use the word "ho" in their music is not really identifying the issue. Some, like Hannity, are suggesting that Sharpton is using Imus as a scapegoat while ignoring such examples as rap music. Sharpton has already and announced today that he will continue to place emphasis on the degredation of women and innapropriate language that exists in some of the urban culture.

I think few would claim Sharpton/Jackson to be the end-all be-all spokesmen of Black America, but if you would take the time to listen to what Sharpton has to say, he has a pretty well thought out take on this situation.

[Iron Clad Burrito]

I'd like to hear more about what these two incidences were. It's not quite clear from your description what went on that was offensive.

Actually I can fix that... the coulter one is where she called John Edwards a six-letter f-word describing a heterosexual male. Discussed at length here, I believe it's the most recent Ann Coulter thread here. :)

The Rosie one... here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235842,00.html). First google hit for Rosie O'Donnell Ching Chong. Youtube clip, too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnSuZz3gWuE).

Now, for a quick two pence... as Myke's learned, Imus's firing is solely dependent on money. Nothing else. If enough sponsors pull out, he'll lose the radio show, too, and end up doing Saturday mornings in Punxatawney, PA.

I do feel terribly sorry for the Rutgers team, being forced to speak for a whole race of people.

Sharpton took him on in a publicity grab. His daughter, who faced Imus down in the studio... "This young lady just graduated . . . , went to Temple. She is not a nappy-headed ho, she's my daughter. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/business/media/09imus_transcript.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1)" Unless she co-hosts the show, or was one of the Rutgers players, I fail to see the point. (Does she co-host?)

I don't know Imus, I won't defend Imus, I only know the name through the misfortune of reading Howard Stern's first book. I have heard that he's used less than savory language before. I will give Imus this: The apology isn't one of those pansy apologies that politicians use. I've heard that he's also personally going to Rutgers to apologize to the players there.

Not like Sharpton's ever had a problem with ethnic slurs. Or Jackson.

Myke, the jigaboo reference was pulled straight out of one of Spike Lee's films -- I forget which, though it was mentioned in the same clip. I think that's the reason that one's not played up.

One last note, also to Myke... we both know that neither Jackson nor Sharpton speak for Black America. However, they often presume to. It's infuriating.

[RollingSkull]

Actually I can fix that... the coulter one is where she called John Edwards a six-letter f-word describing a heterosexual male. Discussed at length here, I believe it's the most recent Ann Coulter thread here.
Coulter said something along the lines of "Well, I'd say '[lol ghey],' but then I'd have to go to rehab." So at least half of the joke is that Grey's Anatomy thing.

You know, this is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "nappy-headed hos" so I just end up laughing at the entire affair.

I think part of that though is that, as a conservative, I hate black people. You know how it is. Just hate 'em. No real reason. I mean, they're a homogenized group who all subscribe to the same cultural identity narrative (Except for... you know, traitors to their race like Rice.), so, really, if I hate one, I hate them all. Makes it a bit easier.

But, still, as a conservative, I have a HUGE laundry list of people to hate. There just isn't enough hate in the world, I tell ya.

[ch3zyp00fs]

Well, to be fair, statistics HAVE proven that the average Caribbean born baseball player doesn't have a very high On Base Percentage. And honestly, who here DOESN'T love Cream of Wheat?

Well you know what some have said, "You can't WALK off the island."

[Francis]

You know Imus does alot of charity work infact aren't they doing some charity drive thing this week?

He runs a ranch for sick kids, always going on about helping kids with autism. He really seems to care about these issues and apparently has put in alot of money to help them.

I wonder if Al Sharpton is taking this into consideration while calling for his job. I mean if he loses his job, what will happen to the people Imus does help? Oh he doesn't care he's happy being back on tv. Does that make me racist for thinking that?

[camoor]

Remember when a bunch of Italian-American do-gooders complained about the Sopranos? There are some born whiners out there, some just get more attention then others.

[mykevermin]

One last note, also to Myke... we both know that neither Jackson nor Sharpton speak for Black America. However, they often presume to. It's infuriating.

Really? How do you know this for a fact?

Tell you what: either prove to me that Sharpton and Jackson do not represent a large number or majority of blacks in the United States, or give up your phony infuriation. If you think Sharpton doesn't speak for blacks, where is your outrage when Bill Donahue speaks for all Catholics? When Pat Robertson or James Dobson speaks for all Christians? When Ann Coulter speaks for all Republicans? When Andrew Sullivan speaks for all right-again-left-again-British-expatriate-gay-male-bloggers?

Okay, that last one was a bit of a stretch.

What is it about Sharpton that infuriates you that the others mentioned above (and their dozens of head-wagging kinfolk on 24/7 news channels) lack? Why be infuriated by Sharpton and not, say, any of the others mentioned above?

Umm, I feel the need to clear the air a little bit on this issue. Imus earned his reputation as a shock jock, but this incident is not the first time he has issued racist/sexist remarks. He called Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady" William Rhoden a "quota hire," and the New York Knicks "pimps." This is not to mention all of the other offensive remarks he has made about other demographics.

Fair enough. Two questions come to mind, though.
1) Where was the outcry for Imus' head when these things were said?
2) What about these sorts of comments (those in the quote box and the Rutgers comments) *really* separate him from any conservative blowhard talk show host? Go listen to Michael Savage and tell me he's less offensive than Imus.

[onetrackmind]

I'm so tired of people getting offended so easily over bullshit. People feel like they are owed something because the were "offended" Grow up and mor eon with your life. I'm offended everyday about things going on in the world and i go one with my life. Sharpton needs to get off his high horse of racial morality. That dude is unbelievably corrupt and just fuels more racial tensions. I'm tired of no one ever calling him on his bullshit. Imus is an idiot, how anyone could even listen to his radio program is beyond me. The faster the two of them can disappear from existence the better.

Fuck Al Sharpton, Fuck Jesse Jackson, Fuck Imus... there are three people i'd love to dropkick in the throat. Sorry for the rant i'm just sick to death about hearing about this situation.

[MrBadExample]

While not discounting the retreating sponsors idea, there was also a lot of internal pressure at MSNBC to drop Imus. The head of the network was on Countdown last night and said plenty of people at MSNBC thought Imus should be dropped.

As far as forgiveness goes, does that mean if you forgive him that he can't be punished in any way? Can't forgiveness and a fair punishment go hand-in-hand? (feel free to argue over what a "fair" punishment would be)

It sucks that the kids from his charity will be affected, but there is no one to blame but Imus. The charity work should not excuse bad behavior. Is there a sliding scale - Raise $1 million and you can call them sluts, $2 million = ho's and over $3 million you get to use the C Word!!! (Seaward for Arrested Develpment fans)

[GuilewasNK]

In general I think Sharpton is a self-serving ass and I can't stand the guy, but there are times when even he makes good points. Link is off topic, but just to serve a different viewpoint.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-3-13/26985.html

That being said, he has no business getting involved in the Imus/Rutgers situation.

[t0llenz]

On a related note -- Hasn't Imus made more offensive comments in the past? It makes me wonder why he's being condemned now and wasn't condemned previously.

If you think Sharpton doesn't speak for blacks, where is your outrage when Bill Donahue speaks for all Catholics? When Pat Robertson or James Dobson speaks for all Christians? When Ann Coulter speaks for all Republicans? When Andrew Sullivan speaks for all right-again-left-again-British-expatriate-gay-male-bloggers?
I'm not outraged unless I'm in said group, mostly, because if I'm outside the group I don't have a lot of real insight as to whether or nor he/she speaks for me. As an Evangelical Christian with a conservative lean -- I'm pissed off when Ann Coulter tries to speak for all conservatives saying such ridiculously bigotted tripe. I'm incredibly angry when Dobson tries to claim that a baptised member of the Church of Christ (Fred Thompson) isn't a Christian because of some mold he created in his head that defines Christians. And...I stopped listening to Pat Robertson years ago.

[Maklershed]

I havent had time to read the thoughts in this thread yet (I'll do that when I get home) and I dont have much time to articulate mine right now as I'm at work but I just wanted to say the following.

I'm outraged not by Imus' comments but by the lack of free speech in this country. A talk show host is now going to potentially lose his job for the simple fact that he made some tongue in cheek comments?! It would be a different story if Imus was someone of social standing or importance such as a politician or a CEO of a company/charity. The fact of the matter is the man is an idiotic talking head who has frankly has said incredibly inflammatory things about Jews in the past and there was not so much as a murmur.

The other thing that angers me the most about this situation is that Imus (and other notable figures who make questionable or racist comments) feel compelled to go to Al Sharpton to apologize. Al Sharpton himself is a horrible racist and bigot and has been on record of making multiple slurs against Jews and whites. And has been known to incite riots with intent to commit violent acts against said groups.

[camoor]

This whole story really angers me.

Specifically this attitude (here from Al Roker but I've also seen it elsewhere)

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

http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/10/129483.aspx

The first amendment is really in trouble. The message is clear: sure you can say anything you want, but if the collusion of big government and big corpos disagree (in this case the FCC/NBC), they will destroy your access to a platform and your livelihood.

Whatever happened to treating the audience like adults and letting the marketplace decide? I guess big daddy government and their big radio corporate sycophants are scared that we will hear a no-no.

Think it's just a silly issue? Well wake up - the kids are learning to walk in lockstep with this first amendment redefinition.

60% of Purdue students chiming in that anti-Bush speaker Cindy Sheehan doesn't have a right to speak on campus? For shame.

Sheehan has every right as an American to speak her mind. And this is a public University, where the nation's laws regarding citizens' rights are enforced.
So, to the many of you who think Sheehan should be prohibited from lecturing, (Exhibit B: 60 percent of April 4's opinions poll respondents who said she shouldn't be allowed to speak on campus), consider re-defining yourselves as anti-Sheehan rather than anti-free speech.
Not everyone has to agree with Sheehan's views, but everyone should recognize an individual's right to her opinion. This is a basic tenet of our country.

http://www.purdueexponent.com/?module=article&story_id=5340

[CocheseUGA]

Wait a tic.

I don't have a lot of time to write this, but one very important point needs to be made clear:

Freedom of speech is freedom from the government telling you what you can and cannot say.

That is a very important point. Imus has the freedom of speech to say whatever he wants to, whenever he wants to (except for threatening language) without fear of reprisal from our government.

That's it.

Imus has a boss. He talks on his boss's radio and TV stations at his boss's pleasure. He has a contract, but he also has certain moral clauses in it. If he says something that offends his boss, the boss can yank him from the air as long as that provision is included in his contract. It doesn't mean he can say whatever he wants and still have a job. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with your job.

If a university has a rule that you cannot protest, then you cannot protest on campus. It is a priveledge that you are allowed on campus, not a right, especially if you are a student. If you are a guest, you are allowed to be there at the school's discretion. Most public universities are property of the state government, not the federal government. The governor's mansion is paid for by the public, but it is not public property. See what I'm getting at there?

Don Imus DOES have the right to call the Rutgers players what he did. Doesn't mean he will next week. This is not - I repeat, NOT - a first amendment issue.

[camoor]

Well there were two points I was trying to make.

1) People are saying that Imus doesn't have the right to say this on-air. And technically, they are not entirely incorrect going by the convoluted way the FCC is run. The government institutes very high fines to broadcasters who offend the delicate sensibilities of the biggest voting blocks, yet at the same time the government does not publish specific guidelines on how to avoid this. When the government institutes high financial penalties for certain behavior, that sure sounds like they are criminalizing that behavior to me (no matter how some bureaucratic shill may try to dress it up with talk of priveleges and public airwaves). It is even more reprehensible that these guidelines are not published - not only may we not say certain things over the airwaves, we are not even told what we cannot say. The corporations agree to these conditions to win big chunks of the airwaves (analagous to how Google agrees to censor the internet so it can operate in China - not the same mind you - but it's a less egregious form of a similar Faustian deal) The message is clear - you offend the majority - they (IE the corpo-government collective) will shut you down.

2) Every year media corporations and the heads of these media corporations gain more control over our government and our lives. The cozyness between media business cartels and government agencies (the pertinent example here being the relationship between the FCC and huge radio corporations) allows both parties to circumvent free speech laws and censor speech on certain platforms by using convoluted reasoning and a variety of deviously slippery legal tricks. Punishing Imus is the political payback that the government gets for ceding more control of national platforms to big media.

[primetime]

Wait a tic.

I don't have a lot of time to write this, but one very important point needs to be made clear:

Freedom of speech is freedom from the government telling you what you can and cannot say.

That is a very important point. Imus has the freedom of speech to say whatever he wants to, whenever he wants to (except for threatening language) without fear of reprisal from our government.

That's it.

Imus has a boss. He talks on his boss's radio and TV stations at his boss's pleasure. He has a contract, but he also has certain moral clauses in it. If he says something that offends his boss, the boss can yank him from the air as long as that provision is included in his contract. It doesn't mean he can say whatever he wants and still have a job. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with your job.

If a university has a rule that you cannot protest, then you cannot protest on campus. It is a priveledge that you are allowed on campus, not a right, especially if you are a student. If you are a guest, you are allowed to be there at the school's discretion. Most public universities are property of the state government, not the federal government. The governor's mansion is paid for by the public, but it is not public property. See what I'm getting at there?

Don Imus DOES have the right to call the Rutgers players what he did. Doesn't mean he will next week. This is not - I repeat, NOT - a first amendment issue.

Took the words right out of my mouth. And to all of the Sharpton bashers- he is one of the most candid and sincere public personalities I can name. I don't know how some people can construe this as Sharpton's effort to personally gain (clearly the network news channels have him on speed dial, plus he has his own radio show).

And no, although he is one of the foremost civil rights activists of the present, he does not entirely speak for all blacks in America (e.g. he was quick to jump onto the Duke Lacrosse case). One of the reasons he is so visible is that the networks always request his appearance whenever an issue like this comes up-for better or for worse.

Evidently I am not the only one offended by this situation:roll: , MSNBC has dropped his simulcast and CBS has fired him from his radio show.


Finally, how do past comments he has made that he has skirted by exonerate him from this episode??? This is the impression I have gotten from some of the later posts- I really fail to understand this rationale.

[CocheseUGA]

Well there were two points I was trying to make.

1) People are saying that Imus doesn't have the right to say this on-air. And technically, they are not entirely incorrect going by the convoluted way the FCC is run. The government institutes very high fines to broadcasters who offend the delicate sensibilities of the biggest voting blocks, yet at the same time the government does not publish specific guidelines on how to avoid this. When the government institutes high financial penalties for certain behavior, that sure sounds like they are criminalizing that behavior to me (no matter how some bureaucratic shill may try to dress it up with talk of priveleges and public airwaves). It is even more reprehensible that these guidelines are not published - not only may we not say certain things over the airwaves, we are not even told what we cannot say. The corporations agree to these conditions to win big chunks of the airwaves (analagous to how Google agrees to censor the internet so it can operate in China - not the same mind you - but it's a less egregious form of a similar Faustian deal) The message is clear - you offend the majority - they (IE the corpo-government collective) will shut you down.

2) Every year media corporations and the heads of these media corporations gain more control over our government and our lives. The cozyness between media business cartels and government agencies (the pertinent example here being the relationship between the FCC and huge radio corporations) allows both parties to circumvent free speech laws and censor speech on certain platforms by using convoluted reasoning and a variety of deviously slippery legal tricks. Punishing Imus is the political payback that the government gets for ceding more control of national platforms to big media.

He didn't say any banned words, and he didn't talk graphicly about sex. Those will get you a fine from the FCC. What he said was pretty tame in terms of the FCC getting involved.

[Ugamer_X]

My dad just called and told me CBS axed his show. I think that's taking it a bit too far.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/12/imus.rutgers/index.html

[primetime]

My dad just called and told me CBS axed his show. I think that's taking it a bit too far.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/12/imus.rutgers/index.html

It didn't help that his sponsors wouldn't touch the show with a ten-foot pole anymore.

[GuilewasNK]

Imus is an ass, but he shouldn't have been fired.

[dopa345]

That's a shame but he'll probably get some satellite radio show so don't feel too sorry for him.

[primetime]

It's hard for me to feel sorry for a millionaire who's made much of his living ridiculing others losing his job-maybe I would if the punishment was grossly unjust. He might have to become a CAG now... but I have a feeling he'll be back in the biz.

[dragonreborn23]

You wanna know who the biggest victim in this whole thing is? Rutgers player Heather Zurich

http://www.scarletknights.com/basketball-women/roster/images/zurich_h.jpg

She's being lumped in together with a couple of legitimately fugly Rutgers players.

Nice

[dragonreborn23]

So when is Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other black leaders (including the new black panther party, who 'escorted' people to and from the courtroom, fully armed and wearing those fantastic berets!) going to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players?

[mykevermin]

So when is Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other black leaders (including the new black panther party, who 'escorted' people to and from the courtroom, fully armed and wearing those fantastic berets!) going to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players?

are. When "are."

And I think you know the answer to that question - but don't bore me to tears with your attempts at obfuscating the topic by suggesting other people are assholes too.

[primetime]

are. When "are."

And I think you know the answer to that question - but don't bore me to tears with your attempts at obfuscating the topic by suggesting other people are assholes too.

It's not really his fault, that's the main argument of Imus apologists such as Sean Hannity- those people have said bad things too!

[Zenithian Legend]

If Imus didn't have such a history of being a douche and a very unlikeable person he'd still have a job. On that note I can't wait for Bill O'Reilly to offend Reverend "Holier than thou" although I don't know if he's senile enough to do so yet, as he recently had the opportunity and blew it.

[Iron Clad Burrito]

Really? How do you know this for a fact?

Tell you what: either prove to me that Sharpton and Jackson do not represent a large number or majority of blacks in the United States, or give up your phony infuriation.

You're asking me to prove a negative. I tried that when the lefties here proclaimed Coulter the voice of the republican party; it's an exercise in futility on this board -- and I daresay the failure to understand is intentional. Instead, I'll ask you to prove to me that either Sharpton or Jackson represent the whole black community.

For the record, my issue with both Jackson AND Sharpton is the simple hypocricy. Both are on the record with remarks disparaging the Jewish community, and one of the two (if not both) weighing in that the Duke Lacrosse case was racially motivated. And Sharpton's got the whole Tawanna Brawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley) thing. There's other issues I don't quite remember at the moment.

Lastly, please do not bore me with the argument that if "A" makes me mad then where was my outrage for "B," "C," "D," "E," and "Q." You asked someone else to not obfuscate this topic, and I'll ask you to as well.

[Msut77]

I tried that when the lefties here proclaimed Coulter the voice of the republican party; it's an exercise in futility on this board -- and I daresay the failure to understand is intentional.

IIRC it was said that she had a significant platform not that she spoke for every damn Republican.

[JJSP]

I'd just like to say that firing Imus is a little excessive. Suspension, fine. But firing him? A little much.

[camoor]

He didn't say any banned words, and he didn't talk graphicly about sex. Those will get you a fine from the FCC. What he said was pretty tame in terms of the FCC getting involved.
That's too far. It's a slippery slope - as can plainly be seen - people now think that you don't have the right to insult others over the air - and many are calling for legislation to ban it.

I don't really care about Imus or women's basketball (does anyone?) I'm just perterbed by the people who say he doesn't have the right to say what he did.

You're correct on this point - the market pulled advertising and Imus got canned - this one is all about the market forces. That's how it should be.

[Zenithian Legend]

I'd just like to say that firing Imus is a little excessive. Suspension, fine. But firing him? A little much.

I have a feeling he was going to retire soon anyway, he made note that this year could be his last annual charity drive. Imus was also noted saying that he didn't want to go out like this, and be remembered in this way - said before he was fired.

My guess CBS decided to cut their losses figuring that by the time Imus was able to repair any of his obliterated reputation, he'd be just about ready to retire anyway. So, why waste time and risk damaging their image.

I'm sure CBS told him "Nothing personal, it's just business."

[mykevermin]

You're asking me to prove a negative. I tried that when the lefties here proclaimed Coulter the voice of the republican party; it's an exercise in futility on this board -- and I daresay the failure to understand is intentional. Instead, I'll ask you to prove to me that either Sharpton or Jackson represent the whole black community.

For the record, my issue with both Jackson AND Sharpton is the simple hypocricy. Both are on the record with remarks disparaging the Jewish community, and one of the two (if not both) weighing in that the Duke Lacrosse case was racially motivated. And Sharpton's got the whole Tawanna Brawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley) thing. There's other issues I don't quite remember at the moment.

Lastly, please do not bore me with the argument that if "A" makes me mad then where was my outrage for "B," "C," "D," "E," and "Q." You asked someone else to not obfuscate this topic, and I'll ask you to as well.

So, when you can't prove something, you simply ask the opposite to be proven by me? Please. You need more dancing lessons.

Tawana Brawley? Well, of course nobody is perfect, but isn't the shelf life on that "scandal" expired? Now, if you spend your whole life working on civil rights issues, you're bound to make a few mistakes, including this, and including Duke. If you think that excuses or negates everything else he's done in his public career, well...then you ought to be the same kind of person who thinks a handful of bigoted remarks by Don Imus negates the good things he has done, and the unoffensive things he has done in his career.

As for my last point, I'm merely asking why people seem to have animosity for Sharpton and Jackson, specifically, when they're really no fucking different than any other nonrepresentative talking head on television. I asked what separates Bill Donohoue from Al Sharpton, and you refuse to answer. Why is it that Sharpton gets under your skin for what you think is a false attempt at claiming to speak for an entire bloc of the population, yet others who do the same do not? It's a fair question, and it's obfuscating *nothing*. I'm curious why your ire is reserved for two people out of *many* who fulfill the "bullshit talking head" role, and find it peculiar that both of those two are minorities who tackle civil rights issues.

[CocheseUGA]

I'm curious why your ire is reserved for two people out of *many* who fulfill the "bullshit talking head" role, and find it peculiar that both of those two are minorities who tackle civil rights issues.

The problem is, they do so at their own convienence. When they try to defend a black person against disparaging remarks said by a white, they say that the language should not be used by anyone, the race card be damned. Which is great, I agree wholeheartedly.

But when it gets reversed, they are nowhere to be seen. Do I have a clear-cut example to give at this time? No I do not. And that has partly to do with the fact it receives no media attention. If I go on the air and call all black people porchmonkeys, then Al Sharpton would in my face so fast we'd be waiting a few minutes for the activator to arrive. If a black person goes on the air and calls all white people klansmen, it gets no more than a slap on the wrist.

I don't mind that Al and Jesse feel the obligation to stand up for black people against intolerant language. But to proclaim themselves equal opportunity defenders? That my friend is a snowjob. I'd have less of a problem with Al in particular if he just came out and said white people shouldn't say these things and not try to pretend to do things I have never seen him do.

[GuilewasNK]

So when is Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the other black leaders (including the new black panther party, who 'escorted' people to and from the courtroom, fully armed and wearing those fantastic berets!) going to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players?

While that is a different topic, they should. What they did is far more damaging than what Imus said could ever be. The sad thing is that there will be some spin on it even if it did happen.

[GuilewasNK]

You're asking me to prove a negative. I tried that when the lefties here proclaimed Coulter the voice of the republican party; it's an exercise in futility on this board -- and I daresay the failure to understand is intentional. Instead, I'll ask you to prove to me that either Sharpton or Jackson represent the whole black community.

For the record, my issue with both Jackson AND Sharpton is the simple hypocricy. Both are on the record with remarks disparaging the Jewish community, and one of the two (if not both) weighing in that the Duke Lacrosse case was racially motivated. And Sharpton's got the whole Tawanna Brawley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley) thing. There's other issues I don't quite remember at the moment.

Lastly, please do not bore me with the argument that if "A" makes me mad then where was my outrage for "B," "C," "D," "E," and "Q." You asked someone else to not obfuscate this topic, and I'll ask you to as well.

As a black person I can say that Sharpton nor Jackson in no way represents me. There is the proof that the whole community isn't represented. Even Charles Barkley said he is tired of them making everything a platform for their agendas.

[mykevermin]

As a black person I can say that Sharpton nor Jackson in no way represents me. There is the proof that the whole community isn't represented. Even Charles Barkley said he is tired of them making everything a platform for their agendas.

The point I'm trying to make is that you will *never* find anyone who represents a people or constituency as a whole. Not Sharpton, not Michael Eric Dyson, not Ann Coulter, not Paul Begala. Nobody. It's impossible.

To be fair, there's a reason that I much prefer news on NPR - they deal with topics in depth and find relevant and involved analysts, rather than focusing on some boiled down talking head parrot who they believe looks like a representative of a particular bloc or constituency, real or imagined.

The irony, of course, is that, even when they get a legit group identified (and I do believe that, for the most part, "blacks" can be included in that list), the person they get to do that representing is always an extremist. Extreme righties, lefties, civil rights advocates, environmentalists, etc. Anything resembling "reasoned discourse" or a respectable "exchange of ideas" happens on tv news. It's pro wrestling, plain and simple - by guys are the faces, your guys the heels.

Think of it this way - when seeing people representing two viewpoints on the TV news, when (if ever) have you heard someone concede to their "opponent" that they had reasonable or good ideas? How closely does that resemble the political dialogue you have in the real world?

[Iron Clad Burrito]

I'm curious why your ire is reserved for two people out of *many* who fulfill the "bullshit talking head" role, and find it peculiar that both of those two are minorities who tackle civil rights issues.

It's not. I'm sticking to the topic at hand. Donahue, Coulter, Dobson, Robertson, Sullivan? They don't belong here. If they start going all over TV, inviting them onto talk shows, playing race cards and confronting Imus, THEN we'll talk about that. You might be surprised.

I'll dance better when you bring better music. You know quite well that proving a negative is not possible, which is why you're trying to make me do it. I will not, and have explained that. I've asked you to prove your point. If you refuse to, well, it looks like we've reached an impasse.

[GuilewasNK]

The point I'm trying to make is that you will *never* find anyone who represents a people or constituency as a whole. Not Sharpton, not Michael Eric Dyson, not Ann Coulter, not Paul Begala. Nobody. It's impossible.

To be fair, there's a reason that I much prefer news on NPR - they deal with topics in depth and find relevant and involved analysts, rather than focusing on some boiled down talking head parrot who they believe looks like a representative of a particular bloc or constituency, real or imagined.

The irony, of course, is that, even when they get a legit group identified (and I do believe that, for the most part, "blacks" can be included in that list), the person they get to do that representing is always an extremist. Extreme righties, lefties, civil rights advocates, environmentalists, etc. Anything resembling "reasoned discourse" or a respectable "exchange of ideas" happens on tv news. It's pro wrestling, plain and simple - by guys are the faces, your guys the heels.

Think of it this way - when seeing people representing two viewpoints on the TV news, when (if ever) have you heard someone concede to their "opponent" that they had reasonable or good ideas? How closely does that resemble the political dialogue you have in the real world?

I dig NPR myself (for music as much as news). I haven't listened to it for awhile though.

My personal view is that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton try SO hard to get into the history books as activists. IMO they very badly want to be mentioned in the same breath as Martin Luther King Jr. IMO that drives what they do as much as the "desire" to help. I think I'll leave it at that because this is starting to get way off topic.

The snowball effect this situation has had, whether people support or disapprove, of Imus is rather frightening IMO.

[CocheseUGA]

My personal view is that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton try SO hard to get into the history books as activists. IMO they very badly want to be mentioned in the same breath as Martin Luther King Jr. IMO that drives what they do as much as the "desire" to help. I think I'll leave it at that because this is starting to get way off topic.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo.

[RollingSkull]

The point I'm trying to make is that you will *never* find anyone who represents a people or constituency as a whole. Not Sharpton, not Michael Eric Dyson, not Ann Coulter, not Paul Begala. Nobody. It's impossible.
I actually disagree with you on that one. Perhaps it is not objectively possible, but, especially with an issue like race, the rules are different. Race is easily often a part of one's identity, and it is not hard at all to tie race together with some sort of cultural narrative. I think Toni Morrison wrote a good deal on the light side of this sort of thing (She didn't make a light side, dark side dichotomy. Is purely my own rhetorical game.).

Thus, it is easy enough to make this narrative, usually one of some sort of shared grievance, something that "should" be internalized by all members of this ethnic group. And, from there, it is a hop, skip, and a jump to determining one's membership in the ethnic group on the basis of that narrative, especially if it provides some imperative. You don't toe the line? You're not really white/black/Jewish/Indian, et al.

And it isn't even a hop to allow for a charismatic figure, such as Jackson or Sharpton, to take on a stewardship role in the dictation of that narrative.

So, while 100% representation by a single individual is technically impossible (Pretty much by definition, so it is barely worth stating...), that an individual could be held in such high regard as to 'speak for' a vast majority of a group is entirely conceivable.

[mykevermin]

It's not. I'm sticking to the topic at hand. Donahue, Coulter, Dobson, Robertson, Sullivan? They don't belong here. If they start going all over TV, inviting them onto talk shows, playing race cards and confronting Imus, THEN we'll talk about that. You might be surprised.

I'll dance better when you bring better music. You know quite well that proving a negative is not possible, which is why you're trying to make me do it. I will not, and have explained that. I've asked you to prove your point. If you refuse to, well, it looks like we've reached an impasse.

Actually, it's pretty simple to hunt down opinion polls to show whether or not a randomly sampled group of blacks feel that people such as Sharpton speak for them. I'm not asking for AP Calculus, I'm asking for you to verify your claim that

One last note, also to Myke... we both know that neither Jackson nor Sharpton speak for Black America. However, they often presume to. It's infuriating.

That's all. You said something. I'm asking you to verify it for me. All I want is some poll data, not some "you can't prove a negative" nonsense. If a randomly selected group of black adults in the United States say that they disagree with Sharpton, or that they don't feel he speaks to issues they find important, or that they take positions radically different from him, then I'll concede and back down.

Opinion polls. Don't give me that "it's impossible" nonsense. I've laid down the necessary basics for you to bolster or destroy your claim. It's your duty to find them, seeing as how you made the claim from the beginning.

RollingSkull, I'm not saying it's theoretically impossible, or wasting my time saying that "since it could be 99%, but never likely 100%, it's not worth considering." I fully believe that there are people who do speak for their group, whether based on an ascribed characteristic such as race (well, half ascribed, half social), or whether based on more flexible characteristics such as sexuality or religion. It's more or less impossible for Catholics to disagree with the Pope, for example - some, such as myself, frequently do...but that doesn't make the Pope incorrect, it makes me a questionable Catholic. :lol:

[RedvsBlue]

Well just goes to show you there's no such thing as second chances in our society...

[VanillaGorilla]

Chalk up another win for Political Correctness.

I'm almost scared to keep pursuing my career as a sports broadcaster, I wouldn't want to say a black player "robbed" someone of a home run, and then be accused of racism.

[CocheseUGA]

Chalk up another win for Political Correctness.

I'm almost scared to keep pursuing my career as a sports broadcaster, I wouldn't want to say a black player "robbed" someone of a home run, and then be accused of racism.


You'll be fine. Just use stupid analysis like 'He's really athletic' when you are talking about...athletes.

BTW, that's what I'd love to do myself.

[mykevermin]

Let me clear up what may be the confusion between ICB and myself with regards to Sharpton "speaking for" the black community at large.

When I say that I believe he does, it is because he echoes the frustration a lot of blacks have, as evidenced by ample accounts of discrimination in society (I can't even call them "remnants," because they're so strong and consistent everywhere), and by virtue of the sorts of social problems, at the structural level (government, education, racial attitudes), that they seem to share.

So, when I say Sharpton speaks for the black community, I mean it.

OTOH, I do not believe he speaks *everything* for the black community. Perhaps this is the source of your frustration? He does not hold blacks accountable for very much. He may well do so, but he does it privately. It's an interesting omission that makes it easy to discredit everything he says and does.

The missing portion of his narrative is, I think, best summarized by the sorts of things Bill Cosby got in hot water for saying. Cosby became outspoken at his frustrations of inner-city black culture, of their rejection of proper social norms, their embracing of low interest in proper education, a lack of achievement orientation, and so on and so forth. Plenty of the kinds of books where you'll find plenty of blacks lamenting how society still discriminates against them (the works of William Julius Wilson, Elijah Anderson, and Katherine Newman to name a few) also contain the very same people lamenting that the culture of inner-city blacks has made the "poor culture versus social structure" argument a chicken-and-egg scenario in terms of policy. Will throwing money on education help a community disinterested in education better themselves? Will ending welfare change a culture that has little to no resources to better themselves?

Focusing on only repairing one social ill isn't going to make anything better, in short.

I would argue that Cosby and Sharpton are two halves to a complete narrative of the kinds of attitudes many blacks have in the current era - it's complex and sometimes contradictory. That's never stopped anybody else before in terms of political attitudes. ;)

Cosby was lambasted by others, I believe, not for his content but for his conduct. He was Heathcliff Huxtable to many, the Jell-O pudding guy to others...someone who, in their entire public career, *never* tackled any racial topics head on. All of a sudden he blows up and turns into the "what the hell is the matter with all you people?" kind of character. While many people agree with him, it was his sudden and accusatory demeanor, along with his career-long silence on race issues, that made people fail to take him seriously. (there's also a potential for backlash because of anger at him for "airing dirty laundry" - he didn't say anything blacks don't know, but it didn't do anything to help their average situation; I suppose you could parallel it with the Dixie Chicks controversy - the content of what they said was never under question, but the context of where and how they said it ruined any potential impact it would have had)

So, long story short, I agree with the sorts of things Cosby said, and only wish that he didn't sound like such a grade-A asshole when saying them. I think the ideal person who would "speak for black America" would combine the calling-out of racism in society of Sharpton along with Cosby's emphasis on introspection (though, of course, turning it on its head into a more hopeful and positive approach, rather than a major-league scolding). Barack Obama has a lot of these characteristics - but he is not a perfect being. It's hard to hold these two narratives down simultaneously - even if they can both be true, if you use the wrong narrative in response to the wrong situation - say in response to the Imus situation - well, the results would make Imus look like he got off light, IMO.

That's my clarification - Sharpton doesn't say *everything* for the black community, but, rather, has a direct and consistent, but *partial*, narrative that speaks to the black experience. His willful avoidance of the other half of that narrative is troubling and disappointin, but does not discount the content of what it is that he does say and argue.

[Zenithian Legend]

The point I'm trying to make is that you will *never* find anyone who represents a people or constituency as a whole. Not Sharpton, not Michael Eric Dyson, not Ann Coulter, not Paul Begala. Nobody. It's impossible.

That's right! If white people allow ourselves to believe that Jackson and Sharpton are a representation of the entire African-American race, then by that logic, non-white people could view someone like President Bush as a representation of all of white-America. Wouldn't that be something :lol:


Oh and Guile, you're right on the money with Sharpton & Jackson, they may think of themselves as zealots for racial equality, but in reality they're just out to get whatever they can for themselves. I wonder what kind of mansions they live in, cars they drive, luxurious hotels they stay in, etc all purchased in the name of equality I'm sure.

[Iron Clad Burrito]

All I want is some poll data
I failed... my google-fu is weak, I guess. Either that or the poll's never been done. I have one poll where Jackson's the most influential African-American around, but it's a fill-in-the-blank question and he has 15% of the vote. Rice, Powell, and someone else rounded out the top 4. Sharpton got about half the votes that Kanye West did in that poll... but that's beside the point. Point is, I don't have proof. So. Guess I lose?

[edit] you posted while I was googling. It looks like you articulated what I didn't about Sharpton. Interesting parallel with Cosby, too. Thank you.

[geko29]

Tawana Brawley? Well, of course nobody is perfect, but isn't the shelf life on that "scandal" expired? Now, if you spend your whole life working on civil rights issues, you're bound to make a few mistakes, including this, and including Duke. If you think that excuses or negates everything else he's done in his public career, well...then you ought to be the same kind of person who thinks a handful of bigoted remarks by Don Imus negates the good things he has done, and the unoffensive things he has done in his career.
It would be "expired" if he had actually apologized or paid the judgement against him in the case. Instead it's been TWENTY YEARS and the people whose lives he RUINED are still awaiting the justice due to them. And if Al's going to bring up a 20-year old case to show a pattern in Imus' behavior (the "cleaning lady comment" in 1987), then his dirty laundry is fair game too.

But maybe we don't need to go back that far. How about 1995, when Al's little comment about "white interlopers" got a building burned down and EIGHT PEOPLE MURDERED. Or how about his referral to jews as "diamond merchants"? The list goes on and on.

Or how about one year ago, when the Duke Rape case was breaking. Sharpton threw his support behind the accuser, and offered her a full scholarship. When asked if he would withdraw the offer should it be determined that she had completely fabricated the story and falsely accused those players, he said quite definitively "No." That's fucking unacceptable.

But that's not my point. The point is that people like Sharpton and Jackson are complete hypocrites. They have REPEATEDLY asked for and received forgiveness from the public for their many transgressions, most of which are FAR worse than the few comments they point out that Imus has made over his 37-year career. And they've been allowed to continue doing what they do despite those transgressions. But Imus doesn't deserve the same forgiveness and understanding that they have received themselves. That makes them phony, intellectually dishonest douchebags.

[camoor]

Check out what Snoop Dog said:

"It's a completely different scenario. [Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things.
First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [the cable network home to Imus] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha-----as say we in the same league as him."
-- Snoop Dogg


To me, this sounds like he's saying "don't denigrate women - that's my job!"

[RedvsBlue]

Check out what Snoop Dog said:

So basically the same old "I'm black so I can make fun of black people" thing? :roll:

[H.Cornerstone]

George Orwell was right, we are victims of the thought police, it's called "Political Correctness."

[seanr1221]

You know Imus does alot of charity work infact aren't they doing some charity drive thing this week?

He runs a ranch for sick kids, always going on about helping kids with autism. He really seems to care about these issues and apparently has put in alot of money to help them.

I wonder if Al Sharpton is taking this into consideration while calling for his job. I mean if he loses his job, what will happen to the people Imus does help? Oh he doesn't care he's happy being back on tv. Does that make me racist for thinking that?


I was thinking the same thing. If it wasn't for Imus, who knows if we'd have the current research and studies being performed on autism that we have today.

[primetime]

Trust me, Imus should have plenty in the bank to continue his charity work. The thing I don't like is how messy the situation has turned.

Hannity has been digging up old clips of Sharpton and is now suggesting that Hillary return the money from a fundraiser hosted by producer/artist Timbaland (he apparently says the N-word 24 times throughout one song).

Now all the networks are questioning rap music and whether or not it's hypocritical for Imus to be canned.

We've done a complete 180 from the Imus scandal. I hoped this would be an isolated incident, but it seems as if I was wrong (Then again, the 24-hour networks have to have something to talk about :roll: )

[camoor]

George Orwell was right, we are victims of the thought police, it's called "Political Correctness."

Yeah, I'm sure that's what Orwell had in mind by "war is peace" and "freedom is slavery" - after all, the world of "1984" is a place where people bend over backwards not to offend anyone. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that modern American culture doesn't share traits with 1984... http://www.studentsfororwell.org/

This whole episode reminds me alot more of that awful movie Demolition Man - even though I found the movie stale and derivative as a whole, I did enjoy the thematic element of a future world that has been completely neutered and dehumanized by conformist socialism and political correctness.

[dopa345]

Trust me, Imus should have plenty in the bank to continue his charity work. The thing I don't like is how messy the situation has turned.

Hannity has been digging up old clips of Sharpton and is now suggesting that Hillary return the money from a fundraiser hosted by producer/artist Timbaland (he apparently says the N-word 24 times throughout one song).

Now all the networks are questioning rap music and whether or not it's hypocritical for Imus to be canned.

We've done a complete 180 from the Imus scandal. I hoped this would be an isolated incident, but it seems as if I was wrong (Then again, the 24-hour networks have to have something to talk about :roll: )

I actually think this is a good thing. Either we end up holding everyone to the same standard (draconian as that may become but at least its not hypocritical) or people finally realize how out of hand this has been getting.

[Veritas1204]

It would be "expired" if he had actually apologized or paid the judgement against him in the case. Instead it's been TWENTY YEARS and the people whose lives he RUINED are still awaiting the justice due to them. And if Al's going to bring up a 20-year old case to show a pattern in Imus' behavior (the "cleaning lady comment" in 1987), then his dirty laundry is fair game too.

But maybe we don't need to go back that far. How about 1995, when Al's little comment about "white interlopers" got a building burned down and EIGHT PEOPLE MURDERED. Or how about his referral to jews as "diamond merchants"? The list goes on and on.

Or how about one year ago, when the Duke Rape case was breaking. Sharpton threw his support behind the accuser, and offered her a full scholarship. When asked if he would withdraw the offer should it be determined that she had completely fabricated the story and falsely accused those players, he said quite definitively "No." That's fucking unacceptable.

But that's not my point. The point is that people like Sharpton and Jackson are complete hypocrites. They have REPEATEDLY asked for and received forgiveness from the public for their many transgressions, most of which are FAR worse than the few comments they point out that Imus has made over his 37-year career. And they've been allowed to continue doing what they do despite those transgressions. But Imus doesn't deserve the same forgiveness and understanding that they have received themselves. That makes them phony, intellectually dishonest douchebags.

You know, I was going to write a post to this effect, but I don't think I could have said it any better than this.

[DJSteel]

this was an easy out for CBS..they weren't getting anywhere near the amount of money reported from the Imus show..

on what he said...

it was a bad joke... the fact that biggots like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson pile on make it even more laughable...and completely make it a joke...

[smalien1]

related-
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/article_2331.jsp

[camoor]

You know, I was going to write a post to this effect, but I don't think I could have said it any better than this.

I agree with Geko.

[Metal Boss]

Overblown, sensationalized and drug through the mud. I really do feel sorry for Imus, I don't listen to him much or find myself relating to his views very much, but this is clearly a case of double standards. To me it seemed like a very sarcastic and typical old craggy man joke, nothing more-nothing less.

I'm tired of these kinds of double standards, this kind of thing is what hurts 'race relations' more than Mr. Imus' joke ever could. Now when you analyze the people who have been demonizing him in the media right now...Ohh I won't even get into the commentators hypocrisy myself, wading through that pile of bullshit could take all night, it's such an obvious display of hiding behind your race to negate your actions & comments.

[David85]

$$$$ar!!!!

[RollingSkull]

Yeah, I'm sure that's what Orwell had in mind by "war is peace" and "freedom is slavery" - after all, the world of "1984" is a place where people bend over backwards not to offend anyone. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that modern American culture doesn't share traits with 1984... http://www.studentsfororwell.org (http://www.studentsfororwell.org/)

In accordance with 1984 standards, the thought police are on their way to your house to make you disappear.

Nice knowing you.

Hey, at least you didn't say $$$$er. Then you'd really be in trouble.

[lilboo]

I'm not racist, but I thought it was funny.
Sounds like something you would see on South Park.

[schuerm26]

Bumping an old thread but new stuff is coming out.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OTJCE80&show_article=1

NEW YORK (AP) - A lawyer for Don Imus (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Don+Imus%22&sid=breitbart.com) said Friday that the former radio host's bosses could have edited the on-air comments that got him fired—and the fact that they didn't meant they saw his remarks as routine for his often provocative show.

CBS Radio (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22CBS+Radio%22&sid=breitbart.com) and MSNBC (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=msnbc&sid=breitbart.com) had delay buttons, but didn't use them when Imus made racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team, lawyer Martin Garbus said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"That means CBS and MSNBC both knew the language that was going out, and both knew the language complied with (Imus') contract. ... It was consistent with many of the things he had done," Garbus said.
CBS Radio owns Imus' former home radio station, WFAN-AM, and MSNBC televised his show.
Spokeswomen for CBS Radio and MSNBC had no immediate comment on Garbus' comments early Friday.
Imus, 66, was dismissed April 12 after describing the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" on his nationally syndicated radio program. He was barely three months into a five-year, $40 million contract with CBS, and his attorney has said Imus would sue for the contract's unpaid portion.
Garbus cited a contract clause (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22contract+clause%22&sid=breitbart.com) in which CBS acknowledged that Imus' services were "unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial." The clause said Imus' programming was "desired by company and ... consistent with company rules and policy," according to Garbus.
CBS Radio, in a statement issued Thursday, said it would vigorously contest Imus' claim.
"We terminated Mr. Imus for cause," CBS Radio said in a statement Thursday. "Based on the comments in question and relevant contract terms, we believe that the termination was appropriate and CBS would expect to prevail in any attempt by Mr. Imus to recover money for his actions." Garbus' past clients include comedian Lenny Bruce, the rap group Public Enemy and filmmaker Spike Lee.

[Metal Boss]

Thanks for the update, more power to him if he decides to sue.