MSNBC to Imus: You're FIRED!

[Nova]

Im not new, but im not talking about no outrage at websleuths. Im talking about Sharpton and his cronies rallying to get Imus fired and while a lying, stripper falsely accused men of gangrape gets off scott free apparently. If that accuser had been white and the men african I dont think theyd sit back and let that slide. Good grief remember Susan Smith, when she falsely accused a colored man of taking her kids? Thought wed never hear the end of it.You ask me Sharpton is a rasict, attacking whites for every stupid thing they say and doesnt say one word about blacks falsely accusing whites.Double standard.
What Imus said was stupid but not damaging and theyre not going to quit until they have him lynched.
But on the other hand whos rallying for that stripper to go to jail ?? :behindbar Thats what I meant.

Sharpton is an African-American activist. That's his job, his specialty. Yes, I wish he and everyone had reserved judgment in the Duke case, but demanding that Sharpton protest every wrong equally is simply unrealistic.

As for a "double standard," in this case it's that the Duke players were able to hire top-notch attorneys and fight a corrupt system. Yes, I wish they had not had to do so, but at least they had the resources to secure a correct outcome.

The same cannot be said for inner-city black and Latino defendants, who are shipped off to prison by the thousands. Sometimes rightfully so, of course, but not so rightfully in far, far too many cases.

That is your double-standard in this context. The idea that, as a rule, African Americans get special privileges and advantages when dealing with our legal system is simply ridiculous.

 

[Nova]

But white people don't have 2 loudmouth, phony "leaders" to speak for us. How can white people demand/threaten/sue/intimidate/boycott them to do what's right, like they demand of us? I'd love to not let this drop but I don't see how.

Try taking a look at Congress and the White House.

 

[eve]

Sharpton is an African-American activist. That's his job, his specialty. Yes, I wish he and everyone had reserved judgment in the Duke case, but demanding that Sharpton protest every wrong equally is simply unrealistic.

As for a "double standard," in this case it's that the Duke players were able to hire top-notch attorneys and fight a corrupt system. Yes, I wish they had not had to do so, but at least they had the resources to secure a correct outcome.

The same cannot be said for inner-city black and Latino defendants, who are shipped off to prison by the thousands. Sometimes rightfully so, of course, but not so rightfully in far, far too many cases.

That is your double-standard in this context. The idea that, as a rule, African Americans get special privileges and advantages when dealing with our legal system is simply ridiculous.

Nova,

Sharpton (et. al.) undermines his credibility as an advocate for equality by perpetuating the very behavior he protests. The hypocrisy really has nothing to do w/ the resources of those accused. I don't care how many people are wrongfully accused, it doesn't justify what happened to those students. The nastiness took place immediately - a rush to judgment. Sharpton makes plenty of demands. It's time he answers for his wrongs.

Eve

 

[Nova]

A comment from Jackson:

Jackson, speaking with TODAY host Meredith Vieira, took the debate beyond Imus to the on-air line-up at NBC’s cable-news outlets. “No black hosts on MSNBC,” he said. “No black hosts on CNBC. Can we use this moment to desegregate the media?”


What the h*ll does that have to do with anything thats going on? His comment was just an exscuse, once again, for the blacks to cry racism.

Another Jackson comment:
Vieira asked Jackson how what Imus said is different than Jackson referring to New York during his 1984 presidential campaign as “hymie town?”
“It’s the repetition, and it’s a pattern,” Jackson said, referring to other racially insensitive comments Imus has made in the past. “He’s apologized before,” Jackson continued, adding that the offensive comments have continued.

Has Jackson not been repeating himself with stupid comments like that about white people? Hasn't he set a pattern himself? Haven't his offensive comments continued?
Yeah but thats okay, because he's black. He can do that.

Frankly, as long as we have posts like yours, nobody needs an "excuse" to cry racism. Go ahead and hit the alert button, but every post you've made in this thread shares these themes:

1. What matters in every media event is how white people are treated and how the event is perceived by white people.

2. Any African American who protests racial injustice is lying and simply looking for an "excuse" to cause a fuss.

3. African Americans get special and unjust privileges in the legal system and the media.

4. A slur against black people cannot and should not be rectified until any and all injustices against white people have been addressed.

5. Anyone who protests racial injustice has a special duty to be equally vigilant and combative toward all other injustices (or at least those that bother you).

6. Protesting racial imbalance is the same as spewing racist slurs (apparently because it's all about "them v. us," not injustice).

Now I am NOT saying you go around mistreating people in real life. I very much doubt you do. But some reflection on the views you hold and express regarding race relations is certainly in order. IMHO, of course.

 

[Nova]

*psst....Nova....you're a white male!*

Indeed, DK, point taken.

Many pages ago, you wrote to Paladin that I seem especially concerned with issues concerning relations between majority and minority groups and persons.

Maybe that's because I am both, depending on the context, and have some experience with how each functions and is affected.

 

[Marthatex]

I once heard two or three words come out of Don Imus' mouth on the MSNBC simulcast of his show and that was enough to make me fly past him with the TV muted ever since. I have no idea what he said, but it was so obnoxious and offensive that I immediately lumped him in with Howard Stern and removed him from my radar.

I personally find what he said about the Rutgers' women's basketball team to be appalling and despicable. With just a few sentences, he managed to reduce a group of people (black women athletes attending college) into some of the oldest, nastiest, stereotypes that exist. This wasn't even part of a rant, just him bantering with his boys. Which tells me that he must, on some level, believe what he says. These people, no matter what they accomplish, are still nothing more than their skin colors and genders. And since they don't match his, they're inferior. And he gets (got) to express this belief to a national audience on a daily basis. Like it or not, he has cultural influence.

I think his firing was justified not because he's white and the team members are black or because he's a man and they're women. I think it's appropriate because he used his position of influence and (for some backward thinkers) authority to denigrate other groups of people and reinforce stereotypes that just keep perpetuating the cycle of hate and distrust. He deserves to be ousted because he overstepped his bounds as a public commentator who commands an enormous audience. Claiming that he is allowed to make comments like this because he's a shock jock is just excusing him. At some point, people who are in the public eye have to accept some responsibility for their comments and actions because they're so accessible to so many people.

Firing him doesn't curb his free speech rights. He can continue to say whatever he wants if he can find an audience. Firing him indicates that he can't abuse his position of power. IMO. JMO. MHO.

Off the soapbox.

This is a great post. I didn't realize Imus had similar past difficulties.'

Today I read that they have been getting hate e-mails. Evidently they have accepted his apology. "He feels awful", says Dierdre Imus, who took over his show yesterday.

Altho I think suspension might have been appropriate; the constant problems we are having now with people using "hate language" are inidicative of greater ills we have now, that are not being solved.

No one deserves to be the victim of nasty, hate language, especially girls who are trying to have a good, wholesome athletic experience and perhaps go on to greater things. Get an education, hopeful.

The Duke case doesn't even corelate to this - the were kids doing things they shouldn't have been doing, and I image they were "calling names" too.

As for Al Sharpton, I don't think he helped the matter one bit, and should just stay quiet. The girls and the Coach can take care of themselves.

 

[Masterj]

Frankly, as long as we have posts like yours, nobody needs an "excuse" to cry racism. Go ahead and hit the alert button, but every post you've made in this thread shares these themes:

1. What matters in every media event is how white people are treated and how the event is perceived by white people.

2. Any African American who protests racial injustice is lying and simply looking for an "excuse" to cause a fuss.

3. African Americans get special and unjust privileges in the legal system and the media.

4. A slur against black people cannot and should not be rectified until any and all injustices against white people have been addressed.

5. Anyone who protests racial injustice has a special duty to be equally vigilant and combative toward all other injustices (or at least those that bother you).

6. Protesting racial imbalance is the same as spewing racist slurs (apparently because it's all about "them v. us," not injustice).

Now I am NOT saying you go around mistreating people in real life. I very much doubt you do. But some reflection on the views you hold and express regarding race relations is certainly in order. IMHO, of course.

AMEN!!!!!!! As usual, you are much more eloquent than I am. I am also saddened by the fact that not many other people are pointing this out. LOL - edited to add that I am not saddened that people aren't pointing out your eloquence and my lack of eloquence. See how I just proved my point!

Rather, I am sad that this poster has been posting comments like this in several threads yet not many people seem to see anything wrong with it. Where is julianne when I need her?

 

[Nova]

Nova,

Sharpton (et. al.) undermines his credibility as an advocate for equality by perpetuating the very behavior he protests. The hypocrisy really has nothing to do w/ the resources of those accused. I don't care how many people are wrongfully accused, it doesn't justify what happened to those students. The nastiness took place immediately - a rush to judgment. Sharpton makes plenty of demands. It's time he answers for his wrongs.

Eve

Eve, I agree with you that Sharpton would be well served by expressing regret about the Duke case. But how did Sharpton become the central figure (as opposed to the corrupt, white prosecutor) in that case and what does it have to do with Imus?

I respectfully submit that the way posters here are linking the two matters says a great deal about how people identify with racial groups to which they belong and view events through the perspective of that identity.

And if white people do that, we can't be surprised that a marginalized and much smaller group of people do that as well.

 

[MREG2]

Nova,

Sharpton (et. al.) undermines his credibility as an advocate for equality by perpetuating the very behavior he protests. The hypocrisy really has nothing to do w/ the resources of those accused. I don't care how many people are wrongfully accused, it doesn't justify what happened to those students. The nastiness took place immediately - a rush to judgment. Sharpton makes plenty of demands. It's time he answers for his wrongs.

Eve

I totally agree. He makes the demands. And he looks pathetic when that rush to judgement doesn't work in his favor. But he ignores that. Pretends that it never happened. He looks foolish but of course he doesn't see that. He just moves on to the next injustice.

I'm all for activists. We have one here in Louisville that looks into every single case against black people. The difference? He gets all of his facts before he starts crying racism. So when he is involved I will actually pay attention because I know he's for real. We also have a Sharpton wanna be. Everyone I know laughs at him. If you so much as look at a black person wrong he is in your face and screaming injustice. Pathetic.

And Nova, I disagree with you. It doesn't matter if any comment is broadcast on the air or behind the scenes. What matters is that it was said. Also, it doesn't matter what the word, no matter if one is more acceptable. What matters is that both words are wrong. I personally think "f*gg*t" ranks up there with "n*gg*er". Both are equally as foul.

 

[Nova]

I totally agree. He makes the demands. And he looks pathetic when that rush to judgment doesn't work in his favor. But he ignores that. Pretends that it never happened. He looks foolish but of course he doesn't see that. He just moves on to the next injustice....

I am not on Sharpton's payroll and it certainly wasn't my intention to defend everything he does. But the fact that so many posters are more outraged by Sharpton's comments than those of Don Imus is very telling.

And Nova, I disagree with you. It doesn't matter if any comment is broadcast on the air or behind the scenes. What matters is that it was said. Also, it doesn't matter what the word, no matter if one is more acceptable. What matters is that both words are wrong. I personally think "f*gg*t" ranks up there with "n*gg*er". Both are equally as foul.

Of course, it matters. If you say something slanderous to one person, it may not be right, but it's certainly not as wrong as broadcasting the same slander to millions. Weighing impact when evaluating right and wrong is crucial; otherwise, analysis is entirely academic (and not in the good sense).

I did NOT say SHOULD be more acceptable than , I said it remains so to much of our society, rightly or wrongly. Unfortunately.

 

[Tom'sGirl]

I read this yesterday, and it even gives links if you want to send a comment to whomever...........

It's not just Imus

On April 11, NBC News announced that it was dropping MSNBC's simulcast of Imus in the Morning in the wake of the controversy that erupted over host Don Imus' reference to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." The following day, CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves announced that CBS -- which owns both the radio station that broadcast Imus' program and Westwood One, which syndicated the program -- has fired Imus and would cease broadcasting his radio show. But as Media Matters for America has extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity continue to permeate the airwaves through personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010

 

[philamena]

Apparently, he didin't kiss enough of their behinds....:slap:

I think your're right.

 

[MREG2]

I am not on Sharpton's payroll and it certainly wasn't my intention to defend everything he does. But the fact that so many posters are more outraged by Sharpton's comments than those of Don Imus is very telling.


Of course, it matters. If you say something slanderous to one person, it may not be right, but it's certainly not as wrong as broadcasting the same slander to millions. Weighing impact when evaluating right and wrong is crucial; otherwise, analysis is entirely academic (and not in the good sense).

I did NOT say SHOULD be more acceptable than , I said it remains so to much of our society, rightly or wrongly. Unfortunately.

Is very telling of what???

To me, slander is slander. I don't care if it was to one or to a million. Imus is known for his "views" right or wrong. Plus one can quickly turn into several, granted maybe not millions. Wrong is wrong no matter how many heard.

I did NOT say that you said that it should be. Never once did in insinuate that you said that. And can you prove that the f word is more acceptable than the n word?? Because from where I sit and the way I was raised both are horrible words that should never leave a person's mouth.

 

[Tom'sGirl]

Hmmm... I don't know that he's a racist, or if he's massively insensitive or trying to be cool somehow when he uses terms like n.h.h.

The Right to be Offensive vs. Choosing to be Offensive

Most morning radio shows function to entertain. Imus, is a very satirical, acerbic, and politically incorrect entertainer. If you choose to listen to him, you should not be surprised at what he dishes up.

Now, does that give him the right to say things which are offensive? Well, those listening who are offended by his comments would say "no".
But, radio performers - within the confines of the law - can use the medium to be offensive and the constitution allows it and even protects it.
But, whether or not a radio performer (or any performer) chooses to be offensive is his or her decision and has to live with the consequences.

Hate Speech, Free Speech, Who Decides?

Let me ask you: is an HBO performance by a known comedian like Chris Rock much different than a syndicated radio show by Don Imus in terms of it’s reach and effect? The attitude of Rock’s comedy isn’t much different from Imus: biting, sarcastic, offensive, and controversial.

In a post at rateitall.com about the “Chris Rock: Never Scared” DVD , one person recently wrote online:

"Any one listening to Chris Rock's new HBO Special will hear his racist remarks. Oh. He makes a few cracks about blacks but his remarks about Whites are meant to defame and devide [sic]....A White comic would never get by with the same type of humor and racist remarks..."
Is Chris Rock a racist? I guess it depends

the rest is here.........
http://tinyurl.com/yvmmlj

 

[eve]

Eve, I agree with you that Sharpton would be well served by expressing regret about the Duke case. But how did Sharpton become the central figure (as opposed to the corrupt, white prosecutor) in that case and what does it have to do with Imus?

I respectfully submit that the way posters here are linking the two matters says a great deal about how people identify with racial groups to which they belong and view events through the perspective of that identity.And if white people do that, we can't be surprised that a marginalized and much smaller group of people do that as well.

Nova,

I really don't think that's the essence of the link. Sharpton has worked to become a central figure whenever something like this happens. Many look to him for leadership and direction on these issues in the black community, apparently. For that reason I feel he has some responsibility.

I have heard him speaking out against Imus as I believe he did against the accused in the Duke debacle, before the case had been resolved. It is HE who gives the impression that such events are linked. IMHO, of course, and with respect, Nova, :blowkiss: as always. Say what you want about the prosecutor, he was probably corrupt and over-zealous but he was doing it in the capacity of an openly adversarial job. Sharpton was just grabbing it and running with it for his own agenda and those kids were innocent. I think in his mind that's just okey dokey because of the many wrongful minority convictions. Well, to quote a worn out phrase, two wrongs don't make a right.

He would be well-served to express regret now, and it speaks volumes to me that he does not, even though it would serve him well. I think it's a shame that he doesn't want to express regret because of a sense of fairness or because of his own conscience, but that he doesn't even do it for PR and to "do the right thing" is beyond amazing.

I feel as if all past racist wrongs drive his reaction to every single current event no matter what the situation, and while I can understand that, isn't it time for all of us to have the guts to go on and make a new day, and a new way?

We hear that Imus feels terrible and I do not know whether he does or not, I do not listen to him and know little about him. At least he is paying lip service.

Eve

 

[Nova]

Nova,

I really don't think that's the essence of the link. Sharpton has worked to become a central figure whenever something like this happens. Many look to him for leadership and direction on these issues in the black community, apparently. For that reason I feel he has some responsibility.

I have heard him speaking out against Imus as I believe he did against the accused in the Duke debacle, before the case had been resolved. It is HE who gives the impression that such events are linked. IMHO, of course, and with respect, Nova, :blowkiss: as always. Say what you want about the prosecutor, he was probably corrupt and over-zealous but he was doing it in the capacity of an openly adversarial job. Sharpton was just grabbing it and running with it for his own agenda and those kids were innocent. I think in his mind that's just okey dokey because of the many wrongful minority convictions. Well, to quote a worn out phrase, two wrongs don't make a right.

He would be well-served to express regret now, and it speaks volumes to me that he does not, even though it would serve him well. I think it's a shame that he doesn't want to express regret because of a sense of fairness or because of his own conscience, but that he doesn't even do it for PR and to "do the right thing" is beyond amazing.

I feel as if all past racist wrongs drive his reaction to every single current event no matter what the situation, and while I can understand that, isn't it time for all of us to have the guts to go on and make a new day, and a new way?

We hear that Imus feels terrible and I do not know whether he does or not, I do not listen to him and know little about him. At least he is paying lip service.

Eve

Eve, I'll grant you that Sharpton has inserted himself into both events. And I agree with pretty much everything in your post.

I don't really care whether Imus is genuinely contrite. To me, the important thing was that he apologized publicly, which acknowledged that what he did was socially unacceptable, regardless of what is in this heart. I think it was enough, at least in terms of this one remark. Whether he was fired for one remark or for the entire climate of his show is debatable, I suppose. But I have never been part of the crowd calling for his ouster.

Nonetheless, the fact that the emphasis -- here and in the media in general -- has been shifted from Imus to Sharpton is very telling. And very sad.

 

[Nova]

I did NOT say that you said that it should be. Never once did in insinuate that you said that. And can you prove that the f word is more acceptable than the n word?? Because from where I sit and the way I was raised both are horrible words that should never leave a person's mouth.

I don't know what you are saying on this point.

What *I* said was that rightly or wrongly the word "" is still CONSIDERED more acceptable by many than the word "." If you want proof, try any schoolyard, any shock-jock radio or TV program, and most films.

You and I seem agree that the "F" word should NOT be acceptable anywhere.

 

[Ntegrity]

This article is great, and it's written by an Afro-American.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/50532/

 

[Paladin]

I'm not going to comment on this...except...how the hell did this get on CSPAN? And shame on those people for clapping.

http://www.break.com/index/double_standard.html

 

[IrishMist]

I read this yesterday, and it even gives links if you want to send a comment to whomever...........

It's not just Imus

On April 11, NBC News announced that it was dropping MSNBC's simulcast of Imus in the Morning in the wake of the controversy that erupted over host Don Imus' reference to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." The following day, CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves announced that CBS -- which owns both the radio station that broadcast Imus' program and Westwood One, which syndicated the program -- has fired Imus and would cease broadcasting his radio show. But as Media Matters for America has extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity continue to permeate the airwaves through personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010

Add Ann Coulter to this list, and I'd love to see them all off the air!