The Imus Scandal Thread

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
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."
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]So you're saying all these white folks on the television who are wanting him fired are just closet racists themselves?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']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."[/quote]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"?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
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). [/QUOTE]

totally agree

[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]
totally agree, i don't like him either, but it shouldnt matter how we feel about him and you said that.

[quote name='mykevermin']
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).[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]
nigger 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You wanna know who the biggest victim in this whole thing is? Rutgers player Heather Zurich

zurich_h.jpg


She's being lumped in together with a couple of legitimately fugly Rutgers players.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']You wanna know who the biggest victim in this whole thing is? Rutgers player Heather Zurich

zurich_h.jpg


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

:lol: VG, that's maybe the only funny thing you've ever posted where I'm laughing with you, and not at you.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']:lol: VG, that's maybe the only funny thing you've ever posted where I'm laughing with you, and not at you.[/quote]Thanks for the....compliment?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']
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.[/QUOTE]

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
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']So you're saying all these white folks on the television who are wanting him fired are just closet racists themselves?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]

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. First google hit for Rosie O'Donnell Ching Chong. Youtube clip, too.

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." 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.
 
[quote name='Iron Clad Burrito']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. [/quote]
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.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']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?[/QUOTE]

Well you know what some have said, "You can't WALK off the island."
 
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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='Iron Clad Burrito']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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

http://www.purdueexponent.com/?module=article&story_id=5340
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']You wanna know who the biggest victim in this whole thing is? Rutgers player Heather Zurich

zurich_h.jpg


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

Nice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top