Imus

[ZNC Dandy]

I don't think he can be fired without an intense and costly legal battle. He has an extremely lucrative contract, pulls in LOTS of money, and what he said is in no way, shape, or form fineable by the FCC. You can go on the air all day long and say those kinds of things. May not be the best thing to do, but you can do it.

[Teubonium]

I do think that Rev. S has a point- say them at home or with your buddies but not on federally regulated, licensed public resources. Imus said something really rude and inaccurate about a group of young women. I'm not sure what his punishment should be but he's gonna have to do something.

So, rap lyrics should also be kept off licensed public resources? And rappers should be punished?
(Note, I did not call it rap "music")

[The Big Ben]

I do think that Rev. S has a point- say them at home or with your buddies but not on federally regulated, licensed public resources. Imus said something really rude and inaccurate about a group of young women. I'm not sure what his punishment should be but he's gonna have to do something.

So, rap lyrics should also be kept off licensed public resources? And rappers should be punished?
(Note, I did not call it rap "music")

The two situations are a little different. I don't listen to the stations which play rap but I have been told that the most egregious of lyrics are not broadcast and there are versions with lyrics 'bleeped'. There should be standards of what is put on the public airways but the standards are not nearly as tight as they were back in the days of the political 'Fairness Doctrine'.

Rappers should not be punished for doing what they do. It's not 'designed' for radio consumption. Imus' chunk of public airway time is 'designed' for doing what he does with it.

[Wes Krygsman]

I have an strong opinion on this matter. To be perfectly honest, Imus can say anything he wants, he has a right to, but most of the stuff that comes out of his mouth is about older people, who have experience, who can take it and turn the other cheek because they have a background to stand on.

The Rutgers girls are not at all established enough to do that. They are all younger than me (I'm 22) and are just beginning their life's journey as an adult. To be this young is to be confused about career, relationships, basically everything and ourselves in general. It is difficult figuring out where we stand in society and that we have an opinion and it matters. To be called "nappy-haired hos" during what could be the best times in their lives (getting to a championship), is stealing that feeling of accomplishment.

I don't think Imus should be fired for what he has done, but I do think that he needs more than this slap on the wrist. His comments, while made in quick jest that I'm sure he didn't think much about, ARE both racist and sexist. The Rutgers team made their comments and were very classy young ladies, along with their coach. They spoke eloquently and used language to show that they are intelligent beings. They showed me that words are powerful, and could be used for good (the Rutgers girls showing intelligence and maturity) or bad (Imus in general).

I think it is up to Imus to watch what he says in the future, and for him to personally (as in physically in the same room) apologize to those girls. They should be celebrating their accomplishment and not worrying about some old cowboy wanna be.

[TubaRay]

To be called "nappy-haired hos" during what could be the best times in their lives (getting to a championship), is stealing that feeling of accomplishment.

Again, I don't agree with Imus' saying what he said, however, I don't see how this has anything at all to do with their feeling of accomplishment. They played in the national championship game, for crying out loud. Nothing Imus or anyone else in the world can say will take that away from them. Now if they believe that what he said is true, that would be a completely different story. Only they know the real truth, but I doubt there was any accuracy in his statement. I believe it is much more difficult to change how one feels about things than it is often thought to be.

[fpoon]

His comments, while made in quick jest that I'm sure he didn't think much about, ARE both racist and sexist.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let one of the Rutgers players grow up and devote a radio show towards the slamming of old white men. It is a free country. And probably less people would be bothered by that for some reason.

[TMurphy]

I mean, its freaking Rutgers. Of course thats how they roll.

So, instead of disparaging a specific race or gender, you've moved on to disparaging an entire university???


...on the banks of the old raritan....

Location: NJ

pfft

bloke "troll"

....guess my toungue in cheek remark was too subtle....

I believe very deeply in freedom of speech. Whatever Imus said it is his right to say it, regardless of who agrees with it or not (I think it was a stupid thing to say, personally, especially considering the inevitable backlash. But, that's just my opinion.)

Ain't no troll here.

Tim Murphy, former (and soon to be again) Rutgers student.

[Travelman]

Headline of the day:

"Radio/TV host Imus axed from MSNBC over racial slur."

I guess that sort of clears this up, in part...

Now it's just a matter of time before CBS finishes the process.

When sponsors start pulling the plug, it's time for a change.

Not much more to say about it here, I'd imagine, but I'll bet the media will now continue to cover it forever...

[Tubaryan12]

Headline of the day:

"Radio/TV host Imus axed from MSNBC over racial slur."

I guess that sort of clears this up, in part...

Now it's just a matter of time before CBS finishes the process.

When sponsors start pulling the plug, it's time for a change.

Not much more to say about it here, I'd imagine, but I'll bet the media will now continue to cover it forever...

Damn...let's all run scared over ridiculous bullshit. Why is everyone so unbelievably sensitive? Everyone's poor little feelings. PFFT!!! No one was denied their civil rights - there is NO race issue. Opinions or comments alone don't count. It was a quip by a guy who quips frequently. The opinions, shocking or not, are why the guy gets paid. He meets controversy head on, and sometimes creates it himself. If his sponsors haven't figured that out by now, then they should have never been sponsors at all. Morons. Imus certainly has no obligation to any certain group to curtail his comments or opinions. If he ceases to draw an income, however, he'll have to understand why.

I also don't understand that if people don't like Don Imus, and if no crime was committed, why they can't simply CHANGE THE FRIGGIN STATION???

Maybe Imus will go on satellite radio like Howard Stern did and get off the so-called "PUBLIC" airwaves.

Doc (noting that "public" airwaves are not really "public" at all)

Doc,
Calm down. All of his sponsors will be back as soon as the heat is off. The only color this is really about is gold and green.

[Tubaryan12]

There's no excuse for that.

See page one.

[Tubaryan12]

Forget what he said - heck - he has to be the ugliest dude on the planet.

No. That honor goes to Dante Bichette.

[ai698]

The previous post was intended as satire and in no way reflects the views of the poster. Please do not fire me. Oh, please . . .

I'm pulling my ads!!

[TubaRay]

Everyone posting in this thread . . . are you listening?

You are all a bunch of nappy-headed 'hos.

There, I said it. My secret is out.

Now someone needs to leak this to CNN.

Wade "spreading the love around" Rackley

Now you done it!!!

[windshieldbug]

Freedom of expression...

As has been discussed, you are also free to not support.

[Philip Jensen]

I'm sick and tired of these Free Speech debates! I'm particularly tired of the people who say, that person X has the right to make comments Y, Free Speech is a gauranteed right, so you shouldn't complain. Pfft, so then I can't use my Free Speech rights to complain about someone else's speech. I'm definitely not saying that they can't say X, they can say it all they want, more power to them, but then I can complain about it all I want. It's a two way street

Big stink here a couple years ago when one of the student political groups hosted a halloween party and one of the attendees later posted on their website some of the photos of the several non-PC costumes. Caused quite an uproar. They kept vehemently stating over and over again that they did nothing wrong and what they did was protected by the 1st ammendment. No one ever said that they didn't have the right to post the pictures. There was lots of condemnation of the photos and the aforementioned student group got quite upset that people were complaining. How dare others infringe their 1st ammendment rights. However, it is perfectly fine for them to say that others can't use their 1st ammendment rights to complain about them. How dare someone suggest there are consequences for one's actions. It was quite interesting to read all of the letters to the editor.

[Bowerybum]

They fired the wrong guy. They need to get rid of Chris Mathass, Keith Blabberman, and Joe Scarbilly and replace them with Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and David Horowitz. Then maybe I'll watch.

[The Big Ben]

They fired the wrong guy. They need to get rid of Chris Mathass, Keith Blabberman, and Joe Scarbilly and replace them with Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and David Horowitz. Then maybe I'll watch.

</troll>

Well, I think they should all be replaced by daily concerts from the "TubeNet Orchestra". *That* I would listen to...

Once a month, TubeNet members would be flown to NYC (or LA) and record a month's worth of concerts. I would be willing to come and record my rendition of Lesson 40 from the Rubank Elementary Method and my by-ear versions of "Misty" and "Moonglow".

Anyone else????

[Rick Denney]

I do think that Rev. S has a point- say them at home or with your buddies but not on federally regulated, licensed public resources.

Where else might he say it? It's against the law to broadcast on broadcast radio frequencies without a license. Broadcast radio is part of the fourth estate just like newspapers, and except for NPR are fully funded by the private sector. The licensing should control what they do with the radio spectrum rather than what they say. If people are offended by what they say, they can spin the dial. The advertisers will run, and the offender will be out of work.

By using the FCC as the enforcer, you put the FCC in the role of censor. Every time they exercise that role, it becomes a political football, and the only real losers are the listeners. I wouldn't mind if the politicians would actually be explicit about broadcast standards, defining what can and can't be said specifically. But they don't. The line is fuzzy and variable, depending for its location on the influence of the ex post facto offendee.

I despise a lot of what is on broadcast radio, and at one time I supported the FCC enforcing moral standards. But since then, I've realized that moral haughtiness knows no political or social boundary, and we have entirely too many people in this country making a living out of being outraged according to whatever morals they espouse. What it has done is undermine the value of outrage, so that when something really is reprehensible, we no longer have the capacity to judge it for what it is.

The despicable things I've heard on the radio are no match for the despicable things that people do in the three-dimensional world. Too many people are walking around with a chip on their shoulder concerning mere words, and then overlook actions that really do cause damage.

If Sharpton wants to organize a boycott of Imus, let him. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. But then we can see what forces Sharpton can really bring to bear, rather than politically manipulating the FCC (or the threat of FCC action to apply pressure on the radio network) on the basis of the loudness of his lone voice. (Sharpton is just an example, of course. I could have also named people in my own camp who are perpetually offended by something or other.)

And if the radio network thinks that Imus has lost his grip and can't keep from embarassing them, then they should fire him. They should have the right to fire him for any reason, just as his fans have the right to follow him wherever he goes.

But the FCC will continue to be the enforcer as long as politicians bloviate about it. And I'm not just talking about elected politicians. Those who trumpet free speech when it's their speech seem to often be first in line to call for the FCC to put the thumb on someone who is goring their ox.

There is no federal standard for what constitutes offensive speech on the radio.

One fellow was fired before finishing his broadcast because he uttered the word "coon" in a verbal gaffe, instead of some other word. It was clear that it was a slip of the tongue (at least clear to me, and I heard the tape), but his bosses must be trained Fruedians because they assumed it was a latent opinion sneaking out. They fired him so quicky because they were afraid of action taken against them. Were they afraid of listener reaction? Or even advertiser reaction? I doubt it. They were afraid of the bloviators.

This is not a partisan issue by the way. Politicians I have supported seem even more willing to use the FCC as an enforcer than politicians I oppose.

Rick "thinking WE all need to lighten up" Denney

[The Big Ben]

I do think that Rev. S has a point- say them at home or with your buddies but not on federally regulated, licensed public resources.

Where else might he say it? It's against the law to broadcast on broadcast radio frequencies without a license. Broadcast radio is part of the fourth estate just like newspapers, and except for NPR are fully funded by the private sector. The licensing should control what they do with the radio spectrum rather than what they say. If people are offended by what they say, they can spin the dial. The advertisers will run, and the offender will be out of work.

Point well taken, Rick. However, radio and television are not the 'unlimited' resource that print media is. There are limited numbers of licenses available in a particular market and, with the way that things are going, those licenses are held by fewer and fewer numbers of individual people. The radio spectrum used to be run 'in the public interest' but multiple administrations have loosened up the requirements and no longer are required to try and be 'fair and balanced' no matter what the billboards say. If political candidates can't afford the minutes, they don't get on.

I'm drifting far afield of the topic at hand. The advertisers seem to be abandoning Imus in droves. I've only heard him a couple of times and I did not find him amusing. My comments are more directed at the broadcast biz in general.

Jeff

[Travelman]

<<troll>>

To learn more, I looked this up:
According to "Wikopedia":

"In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding."

Me thinks not. This was a good discussion. Look how many educated/informed people participated. And it continues.......