Imus in the Hot Seat

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 12 2007, 05:57 PM) [snapback]422295[/snapback]</div>

You utterly and spectacularly failed to digest any part of what Pinto Girl wrote.

Read it again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Apr 12 2007, 07:37 PM) [snapback]422349[/snapback]</div>

I wasn't responding to the main thrust of what Pinto Girl wrote. I was simply taking the one bit at the end about peer pressure and taking that as a jumping off point for some thoughts on peer pressure, and specifically relating it to the main topic of this thread, the whole Imus affair.

 

Norman Lear wrote a nice short piece regarding peer responsibility.

"This could be an historic, watershed moment if American leaders in every field, in every business, were to see the opportunity as well as the responsibility to use this incident as a teaching moment, an opportunity to hold up a mirror to Americans everywhere and show them the truth of racism in our culture. And then exercise their right to clean up the areas in which they have control -- and rid them of the demeaning and the dehumanizing hostility toward race and gender.

The problem we face is endemic in our society. Imus was the boil reflective of the disease and the unending coarsening of our culture."

I might add this could be a historic, watershed moment if people were to see an opportunity for personal responsiblity and....stop listening to/watching that program, stop buying those CDs/videogames/magazines, stop using that language. We can exercise our right to clean up areas we can control through our actions (or lack thereof) and our pocketbooks.

Imus and the unending coarsening of our culture.


BTW I disagree with Lear about this being a First Amendment issue. It's not.

 

Nappy headed ho's... this whole ordeal over "nappy headed ho's".

Ok, "Ho's" is NOT prostitute.

A "HO" is short of "wHOre". Ho's put out for free.

I've heard way worse things being said on Comedy Central..

 

Whore:

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

The primary definition of whore is prostitute. There is no evidence to show any of these girls were protitutes, sexually promiscuous or compromised their principles for personal gain.

And if you want to get technical, I don't think the white girls could be considered nappy headed.

And I'd like to know exactly how many were tattooed.

It's slander. It violates FCC regs. I don't care how lax and careless the FCC is on collecting fines, following through on enforcement or being consistent. Maybe Comedy Central weighs the amount of the fine agains the amount of advertising revenue they gain. I don't know and I don't care. Apparently accountability is only important to the Bush administration when it's about teachers and a few attorney's general.

Using "everybody does it" is the kindergarten defense.

Don't even try the "well, what is a ho? It's just slang for slut."

 

I did not hear it all, but "ho" has connotations of what happened in the slave days, so that would add more sting.

Imus said just three words and succeeded to offend on at least two levels.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 13 2007, 07:49 AM) [snapback]422494[/snapback]</div>

Our main talk radio station in Rhode Island (which is owned by Clear Channel- the radio station, I mean- not Rhode Island) used to broadcast a mix of liberal and conservative programs. But then they gradually removed the liberal talk programs (a few from Air America, as well as some local progressive commentators) and replaced them with conservatives. Now they are 24/7 conservative talk (Hannity, O'Reilly, Mark Levin, as well as local conservatives). They also carry Imus, so we'll see what they replace him with, but I'm not betting on Thom Hartmann. And our local station is not an isolated case- it's an example of what is happening throughout the country, with most of the mdeia owned by Clear Channel and a few other corporations. I find this corporate supression of alternative points of view more "chilling" than Imus getting canned. No one is speaking up about this, yet everyone jumps to the defense of a guy who got fired for calling a womens baketball team "ho's".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 13 2007, 05:06 AM) [snapback]422499[/snapback]</div>

Why did ClearChannel remove the liberal programs? If it was for any reason other than low ratings, I'm with you, that's wrong.

But Imus was removed for something other than low ratings, and that's wrong too.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Imus said, and I would hope people wouldn't listen to him any more. But I would still defend his right to say it. And not just against the government, but also against political pressure on big companies to pull their advertising.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 13 2007, 08:15 AM) [snapback]422502[/snapback]</div>

Going by what the execs from MSNBC and CBS said (if you can believe those guys), it was mainly objections from employees at those networks more than sponsors that ultimately led to Imus' firing.

 

Just thought of a gag a competing radio station could try:

Announce that next week they are going to change their format, then play for a minute or two Imus in the Morning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 13 2007, 09:17 AM) [snapback]422529[/snapback]</div>

It's not chilling. Do you have a code of business conduct where you work? I do. It says, specifically, that harassment in any form will not be tolerated. I have seen people fired for it--a few times, actually. If CBS has a code of conduct that says such behavior is not permitted, then they have every right to fire him. It's not chilling at all. It's up to the company to decide--and while I thought a suspension and public flogging might be enough, I guess they decided it wasn't.

And, btw, I think what he said was reprehensible, but I agree that Sharpton and Jackson have exacerbated the situation. I don't like these women being put in the role of "victim" by anyone. They are strong-willed and strong-minded females, and no idiot of a DJ should be able to damage that. Someone else said it on this thread: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." The girls had every right to confront Imus, to tell him that his comments sucked, but Sharpton and Jackson shouting about "victimization" only serves to put those girls down more than Imus did. IMHO. I hate it when people put women in the role of "victim" unnecessarily. They didn't need some knight (Jackson and Sharpton) riding to defend them; they were quite capable of doing it on their own. Sharpton, especially, needs to be slapped. He has a knack for putting women in the role of victim...

 

I applaud the way things went. Everyone who's talking about censorship and how we'll have nothing left but "elevator music" clearly doesn't watch or listen to all of the quality broadcasting that occurs every day. There are shows and personalities that manage to bring in huge numbers, huge ratings, and huge money to their companies by being original, fresh, and informative. These shows don't use obscenity, racism, sexism, or bigotry to entertain.

If we truly want to build a world free from bigotry, we need to start with the media. We need to start by getting personalities like Imus off the air and out of people's minds. While some may disagree with the way it happens (Sunnyvale made several good points about peer pressure), there aren't any other means at our disposal. We need to recognize that companies that support such people ultimately support such racist and sexist remarks. In my personal life, i choose not to associate with individuals that spout such remarks or support them, and I don't see why that shouldn't extend to corporations.

Please keep in mind that this isn't because i "don't like what he's saying". It's because i have a moral problem with what he's saying. I won't disassociate myself from individuals or corporations for political reasons, for example. I may disagree with whats being said, but it doesn't offend my moral sense of right and wrong.

Ultimately, the first amendment protects what people like Imus say. And that is as it should be. However, it's up to every individual to decide for themselves what viewpoints they want to support, and what they don't. And with our culture and way of life, the only successful way people can do that is financially.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 13 2007, 12:38 AM) [snapback]422424[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, that's it. It's Bush's fault because he hasn't directed the FCC to go around shutting down radio and tv shows that people find offensive. Classic case of terminal BDS. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 13 2007, 06:38 AM) [snapback]422541[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you on this.

This whole affair sends the message that people who say hurtful things have power over those they say those hurtful things about. It reinforces it both for those who are hurt and those who are doing the hurting. A better message than saying that those who say hurtful things must be shut up is to say that we can survive those hurtful things and minimize them. Not let them have power over us. Send the message that those who say the hurtful things are sad, weak, pitiable people, not powerful monsters that have to be forcibly stopped.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 13 2007, 08:51 AM) [snapback]422547[/snapback]</div>

I have to compliment your honesty and openess. Not many people would openly suggest we use the media to control what people are allowed to think.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 13 2007, 09:03 AM) [snapback]422554[/snapback]</div>

In school I was always taught that big brother would come from the right. I guess my teachers were wrong, he/she is coming from the left.
The fact that some of you want to control what is printed and said to promote social engineering is very scary to me. Some of you are really clueless.

I would guess the same bunch that want to do away with the second amendment too. Absolutely pathetic. I guess the Bill of Rights is not very important as long as who determines what is acceptable shares your views of the world. Unbelieveable.