Great article on the subject http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1815474/posts I posted that in the other Imus thread, but I don't really know which one is the one you guys are currently using to debate the topic.
The post right above you is one example. Much of his whole stitch(sp) was racists, misogynist, homophobic, bigot based "humor". The deal was this time is hurtful to a specific group of college women, grabbed some media traction and public outrage, and thus his show was no longer below the radar. He probably would on the air today had he not singled out the Rutgers squad because mainstream media/public wouldn’t have heard about it. Once he was exposed for what he is to a lot of people they were like what the heck is CBS and their sponsors doing supporting this guy—and the groundswell began. IMO it shouldn’t have taken this event to marginalize this public racists, misogynist, homophobic, bigoted persona from the mainstream media. What Jackson said in itself is not problematic. But if he contributed to a public lynching of the players or said the women was indeed raped by those players without due process he should admit he was wrong, and do what he can to make amends in that situation. I agree about your concern. I hope you were out in the front of defending the Dixie Chicks when mainstream country radio was colluding against them despite their popularity due to a load outraged minority, I hope you were aghast when Linda Rondstadt had her popular Vegas show canceled because she refused to be silenced about her war opposition, and I hope you vigorously defended those Florida and Colorado professors who were trying to be forced out due to their political views. We hear about censorship today and political corrections as if the origin is new, or as if PC started from the left. We have a long history of it, except before it might lead you to be in jail or dead (McCarthy era) instead of finding a new venue for your work.
Ugh. This is not censorship. Free speech is guaranteed, but it may have consequences. Imus said what he did freely and people freely criticized him for it. He's still free to say whatever he wants. He's not being tortured in a gulag. His web page won't be erased. His books won't be burned. His albums can still be played. People who listen to him won't be shipped to Siberia. He just doesn't have the platform anymore... and nobody is guaranteed a radio program. Your point about Maher is way off base... here's what he said... That's a comment that goes directly to the mindset that thought the war would be over quickly. It's not a personal insult directed specifically at a small group of people who have little ability to defend themselves. Also, you're calling "nappy-headed hos" an opinion? Please. Saying, "college athletes should be paid for the revenue they bring in" is an opinion. Insulting someone's physical appearance with racially loaded words is not an opinion. And really, according to you, we're encouraging tolerance and opening minds by letting Imus call people "nappy-headed hos?" And is your position really a call for more racist statements as a way to combat racism? Finally, this thread certainly shows we're well on the way to creating a country of rigid thinking... or not, as opinions have been all over the place.
I just wish it would have all been managed differently. I think a much more positive and healing image would have been for Sharpton, Jackson and others to announce how wrong Imus was, accept his apology, and for Imus, as well as Jackson, and Sharpton to all work together to fix the problems that exist today with racism. It would have been better for their images as Christian pastors as well to forgive and move on, rather than circle like sharks, and and just see how far they can ride this. The problem is that because Imus has been so upfront admitting how wrong he was, he's an easy target. Rush, Savage, Beck and others have said worse things, but because they aren't apologetic about it and would put up more of a fight, they are left alone.
The problem is he should have never gone to Jackson or Sharpton to begin with. What in the world did they have to do with this? He should have immediately gone to the team and apologized and left it at that.
You have a small group denying a man a voice to an audience - that's censorship. Free press is a necessity to a healthy democracy. And here, you have a small group forcing the firing of someone because they didn't like what he said. You haven't even established that what he said was racist. It was offensive - but not iron-clad to be racist. And you keep creating this precedent - Imus, Rosie, Bill Maher - all these guys said things offensive - and now you will find some group calling for the firing of anyone who says anything offensive. And in the end - you will just end up with bland, offensive free media devoid of ideas that might cause their firing. That's censorship by all means. You are saying that an audience can't listen to what they want because it offends others. How is that right?
the problem; this was Imus' modus operandi. he's done this many times before and encouraged similar instances by hiring folks ostensively to do "ni**er* jokes". (his words not mine) he apologized and promised to change his ways only to backtrack on several prior occasions. how many transgressions should his employers allow? would there be some sorta magic number where you'd say enough is enough? i just can't understand how or why you guys excuse/rationalize this kinda behavior ...
being from the south, im offended when people call bush a dumb country hick.... when will they be fired. as a white man, im offended by the racist movie "white men cant jump".
the problem is that it is excused and rationalized all over the place. If you believe that there is no place for rude/offensive remarks (i wont say racist b/c we dont know whats in imus' soul) then hold that belief constant and follow through with it everywhere it happens. And not just select and choose when to 'believe'
I understand that it was modus operendi. I don't recall him ever promising to change his ways prior to this time. I think the others on his show, except for Charles are way worse than Imus, and they should have been gone long ago. I don't have a problem with Imus being fired. I just think that Sharpton and Jackson discussing the insistance of hiring a certain number of African American on-air personalities for shows at MSNBC etc. as a result of this is looking taking it too far, and I wish that the situation would have been handled differently.
The rationale that because it goes on elsewhere, we should do nothing doesn't cut it. You've used it before, and it isn't a good reason not to take action when we see things that are wrong.
That same small group denies thousands of applicants voices everytime they throw out a group of audition tapes and reels and that they get daily. That doesn't mean they are censoring those folks.
Who called Bush a dumb country hick? Not anyone who knows anything about him. He's from the Northeast! As for the movie, I was offended by the fact that IT SUCKED!! D&D. Rogues in Space.
well saying we should only do something about it every now and then, doesnt help either. if you go after this now...go after it everywhere. be consistant.
why not take it up with the white men who wrote, directed and produced the movie? personally, if a black man said, "black men can't jump", i wouldn't be offended after i was done laughing ...
i dont know his past (other than being on the radio for 40 years) , but as soon as this came out people started immediately throwing the word racist around. a word too often used incorrectly and for dramatic effect
