Imus

[pulseczar]

According to Yahoo News, Imus is fired. Link

[Rick Denney]

If Sharpton wants to organize a boycott of Imus, let him.

If such a boycott were to take place and gain some momentum, bloke might (for the first time EVER) listen to a LIVE broadcast of Ignatz, rather than an occasional 2-3 second rebroadcast soundbite.

I'm waiting for a radio network to tell the world, "look, folks, he said he was sorry--he's human and we forgive him. He promised he won't do it again. If he does, we'll fire him. Now, that's THAT." And then just let the wind blow. My bet is that after a few weeks, the fervor dies down and the advertisers come back. And ratings will likely be stronger than ever.

Regarding the limited spectrum: I'm not buying it. There is every perspective thinkable readily available in the broadcast spectrum, both on radio and TV. And even more narrow markets are served on satellite radio. HD radio, if it takes off, will increase the number of channels available on the broadcast bands by a factor of 3 or 4. The so-called Fairness Doctrine was really the Establishment Doctrine, because before you can provide the countering view, you have to define the line that divides them. Who can agree on the location of the center? And many issues don't even have a center. We did not have a more balanced media when the Fairness Doctrine was being enforced, and in fact, cover ups were easier.

There has indeed been a lot of consolidation of radio stations. This is a cycle. It will eventually go back the other way, as independent stations start to capture market because they are fresh and interesting. It is possible for the big networks to stay that way, but they usually don't. Radio is not like TV--it doesn't depend nearly as much on national programming and the networks have much less authority. (It's true on TV, too--networks have much less control over local markets and available niche television channels than they once did.) For every Clear Channel Communications station in a given city, there are 40 other stations competing with them.

If stations dump Imus because they disagree with him editorially, then I have no problem with that. If they dump him because advertisers don't want to be associated with him, then I have no problem with that, either. If they dump him because they are afraid a few loudmouths will badger the FCC into thumping them, then there is a problem.

Personally, I think what we used to call the Establishment has become timid-aggressive. In the face of excoriation on certain topics, including race and any religion except Christianity, they are timid and back down from nearly any attack by anyone with a loud voice. This includes networks and their advertisers. But they aggressively pursue market share, often abandoning morals in the process. It's not that the networks and advertisers have an unbalanced editorial position, it's that they have no editorial position. They are afraid to express anything resembling an editorial opinion, except contrition in the face of anyone pretending to be victimized by something they did. But as long as nobody is claiming to be victimized (or that the only ones so claiming are not in those official "victim" groups), they will allow anything.

Thus, they want their "talent" to be as edgy as possible. Controversial, even. That's what cuts through the usual drivel and attracts people who listen to radio in their cars to avoid falling asleep. But once they cross the magic line, which is invisible until it's crossed, they are thrown into the outer darkness.

Pusillanimous is a pompous and obscure word, but it describes it.

Rick "who wishes networks and advertisers would state their standards and then stick to them" Denney

[windshieldbug]

... but then again, as someone said, who says that freedom of speach does NOT mean freedom of consequenses

[LoyalTubist]

This guy is going to come out smelling like a rose like the other former WNBC jock, Howard Stern. I didn't like him, either, but who cares? I don't have to listen to or watch either of them!

[KevinMadden]

I feel that what Imus said was insensitive and wrong. I also know however, that I wasn't listening to Imus when he said it. Actually come to think of it... the only person I know who actually heard Imus say what he said when he said it was Al Sharpton... but yet here we are all talking about it. It only became a big deal when he exposed it to everybody. I think that thats the real problem here, ONE listener, who has influence and does not enjoy the show, has gotten a radio show listened by others, others who enjoy it, find it funny, and are entertained by it kicked off the air. Al, and everybody else for that matter, had the ability to change the station and not listen to those 'offending' words. However, now, the people who want to listen to Imus have no ability to.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING OR ARE OFFENDED BY IT PLEASE JUST CHANGE THE STATION, LEAVE THE AREA, OR TURN THE RADIO/TV OFF. SOME PEOPLE MAY ENJOY THE CRUDE AND OFFENSIVE HUMOR. IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO DICTATE THE MORALITY OF ALL

[ZNC Dandy]

Being in the broadcast business, and recently having to see the firing of a great host and even better friend, this is getting out of control. Rick is right, they want talent to be as edgy as possible, but they never say where the line is. But most importantly, when people are doing what they are told, they don't have the back of their talent. They won't stand behind them. Its insanity. I produce talk shows, and its ultimately my responsibility what goes on the air. I have to say that if a host of mine ever said that, I would probably dump it. Because quite frankly, even if I thought it was funny, its not worth the scheisse sturm that accompanies it. Finally, this is in NO WAY fineable by the FCC. It does not qualify as "indecent". I am kind of surprised he was fired actually, usually Viacom does a better job of standing by their talent. Although, maybe that was just Mel Karmazin. Broadcasting needs more people like he and especially more people like Randy Michaels.

[windshieldbug]

... So what you're saying is that working for the broadcast business is like working for a conductor...

[Rick Denney]

... So what you're saying is that working for the broadcast business is like working for a conductor...

...back in the 20's when conductors were absolute dictators (sometimes benevolent, sometimes oppressive, but always tyrannical).

But, no. In this case, it's not the individual tyrant, but rather the even scarier tyranny of group-think. The mainstream media, in its many efforts to marginalize religious speech, has created a new religion that is far more judgmental, but that is not guided by the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, or even Hammurabi's Code. Now, the standard is wherever the loudmouths say it is. And every group now has their loudmouth.

It will continue until radio stations, advertisers, the media, and the public show a little backbone, and refuse to be bullied by the loudmouths.

The racial issue is frightening. Example from nearly 20 years ago: I was once asked by a colleague in my department to prepare a publicity flyer for him. It was an extra-curricular request, even though he was appearing at the function being advertised as a city employee. (I was also a city employee.) He didn't really want to go, and he wanted his role to be minimized in the publicity. Now, he and I shared coffee breaks in the mornings, and we were friends, even after he had been promoted to one level higher than me (but not in my chain of command).

So, as a joke, I prepared two flyers. One with his name emblazoned across the top in huge letters, and one that was what he really wanted. Later, his secretary called and asked for them, but then we'd have missed seeing his reaction to the joke, so I told her that I needed to see him.

The busybody secretary concluded that I was demeaning him because he was black, and that given his higher rank, I had no business asking him to come see me. Without my knowing a thing, she complained to his boss, and suddenly I was on the verge of being fired for not respecting a black manager in a position of authority.

Nevermind that he had asked me for something (graphics design) that was a little outside my normal job duties (traffic signal operation). Nevermind that he and I were friends. And nevermind that he thought the joke was funny, once the secretary actually did what she was supposed to do and passed the message to him, and nevermind that he was as embarassed by the management over-reaction as I was fearful of it. It was my first exposure to how nutty people are about this topic, and how much everyone walks on eggshells about it.

My boss saved the day. He went to the big boss and told him that it was a joke, that we two were friends, and the secretary was making assumptions far outside her authority. The boss simmered down. But I guarantee you that after that, I had a question mark following me around in that organization. I'm sure glad I didn't work for Imus's employer!

They don't teach you that sort of thing in college, because what is there to teach? If you treat a co-worker like you would treat any other co-worker, you are still at considerable risk. The only safe thing to do is to treat those of recognized victim groups differently, never joking or taking any risk whatsoever. If possible, keep clear of them. My friend and I didn't share coffee breaks after that, mostly because he was embarassed. I feel sorry for them--they must lead a very dull life with everyone around them being so scared all the time. They must long for the folks around them to just be real.

What I don't understand is how Imus's firing is expected to ease racial tension. It seems to me all it does is increase it. I believe that this is Al Sharpton's objective.

What hasn't been said in the mainstream media is that Imus's show is a comedy show. If comedians cannot parody these issues, then Chris Rock ought to never have work again.

That said, I don't really care that Imus was fired--I also believe that employers should have that right. The First Amendment doesn't protect someone from being fired for saying something that embarasses their employer. But they should have done it immediately, and based on a reasonably clear employee policy. My company has a policy on what employees can say while representing the company. But it is clear that Imus's employer and the advertisers bowed under the pressure of a few self-appointed loudmouths, and that will only make things worse.

Rick "wondering who everyone is so afraid of" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Rick "wondering who everyone is so afraid of" Denney

attorneys and unemployment.



Again, these are the primary reason "the classes" isolate themselves, and are some of the reasons we look down, look at our watches, or look toward the buildings when we pass others on the street.

Yes, when I see an attorney approaching me on the street, I frequently avert my eyes in the hopes he won't notice me.

Rick "scared of attorneys" Denney

[windshieldbug]

attorneys and unemployment.
...these are the primary reason "the classes" isolate themselves

Must be where "class-action lawsuits are born...

[Tubaryan12]

Maybe Don had just finished watching the movie "Happy Feet". Considering the song "I wish" by Stevie Wonder was very prominent in it I think Don should get his job back.

Lookin' back on when I, was a little nappy headed boy"

hmmmmmmmmm

[Travelman]

As a "postscript"?, hundreds of people, for whatever reason, get fired from jobs everyday.

If they are any good, they land on their feet and start a new venture. Sometimes the change of sceneary and view is just what they needed all along.

So, I'd imagine that if Imus is as good as "they" say he still is, in spite of his lack of class and verbal control, he will be picked up by some other media venue and, in time, continue his particular brand of "entertainment". In fact, at some point, he will probably be called a "courageous hero"...

Anyway, in my final contribution on this subject (as if anyone cares...) here is a good article I just found, written by William F. Buckley Jr.:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20070413/cm_ucwb/imusdead

[rascaljim]

I never have nor do I care to listen to Imus, Stern or any of those idiots.

And, sure, I don't agree with trashing a basketball team in the way Imus did.

But what is kinda pissing me off is the fact that the short version that we all hear in the media is way more offensive than what he actually said, at least it seems that way to me.

I tried to locate the exact quote that I remember reading on Yahoo news a week ago and I can't find it anywhere, but I do recall feeling less offended when I read it. If anyone can find it it would be a nice addition to the thread.

I also think it's interesting that the reverends Jackson and Sharpton are gettin death threats now. I heard last night that one of their buildings had to be evacuated because of a bomb threat. I think some people (rightly so) are getting a little fed up of the media circus that ensues anything those two decide to spout off about race. I'm still waiting to hear them apologize for their racist comments about the Duke Lacrosse players.

Perhaps we all are taking this a little too far.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I tried to locate the exact quote that I remember reading on Yahoo news a week ago and I can't find it anywhere, but I do recall feeling less offended when I read it. If anyone can find it it would be a nice addition to the thread.

(Taken from http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011)

IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.

IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough --

McCORD: Do The Right Thing.

McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?

ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.

IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah.

RUFFINO: Only tougher.

McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more appropriate.

Hmmm...one has to wonder if Mr. McGuirk and Mr. Rosenberg still have jobs today...

I also think it's interesting that the reverends Jackson and Sharpton are gettin death threats now. I heard last night that one of their buildings had to be evacuated because of a bomb threat. I think some people (rightly so) are getting a little fed up of the media circus that ensues anything those two decide to spout off about race. I'm still waiting to hear them apologize for their racist comments about the Duke Lacrosse players.

This (understandably skeptical) tuba player thinks you will remain waiting and wanting for an apology...issues like this have a habit of evaporating from the public forum with no regrets from the provocateurs, IMO.

At least Imus has apologized on a number of public occasions and seemingly has brought some closure on the issue with the members of the team in question.

[ken k]

I agree that he can say what he wants...Yes, thank goodness, it IS a free country.

But it is also a "free" market system...and THAT will be the final judge on this thing. Either the public will stop watching and commercial sponsors will pull out...or he just takes his hand slap and gets back in the saddle (literally).

I wish all the best to the Rutgers players. From what I saw on their news conference today, they handled themselves with real class and dignity.

Here Here!! (or is it Hear, Hear!?)


I also agree that just as Imus has the right to say what he wants, so does Al Sharpton. Believe me I no Sharpton fan.

Would there have been such a big outcry had it been Rutgers's tuba section that would have been insulted? I think the only reason it got the airplay it did was because it was about sports... which seem to rule the world.

kenk

[ken k]

Al Sharpton may or may not have proper claim to the "right" to say whatever he wishes to say. His "free speech", in the past, has lead to deaths and the destruction of lives...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2 ... gle+Search

Can Don Imus "free speech" compete with this impressive record?

thank you for the link

here is an interesting quote from the wikpedia entry about this:
Some, including The Kansas City Star journalist Jason Whitlock, have criticized Sharpton for using the situation "to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda" when he should instead be focusing on other issues like the effects of hip-hop culture such as gangsta rap.[37] Whitlock further accused Sharpton and Jesse Jackson of "exploiting [the Rutger's women's basketball team], making [...] the problems much bigger than what they should be."[38]


as I said i ain't no Sharpton Ho

everyone has free speech for better or worse.....

FIRE!!!!!

k-

[TubaRay]

Would there have been such a big outcry had it been Rutgers's tuba section that would have been insulted? I think the only reason it got the airplay it did was because it was about sports... which seem to rule the world.

Certainly, sports are the king, presently, in America. I don't believe the outcry by Jackson & Sharpton would have resonated as well had it been about the tuba section, however I also don't believe they would have passed over another opportunity to try to keep a wedge between the races going. This is what they do. It is profitable to them both financially and from a power standpoint. Without this MO, what would they have, or be?

[The Big Ben]

...however I also don't believe they would have passed over another opportunity to try to keep a wedge between the races going. This is what they do. It is profitable to them both financially and from a power standpoint. Without this MO, what would they have, or be?

I believe there is a general consensus that their line of work is known as "poverty pimping", but - at least to me - Al Sharpton doesn't appear to be particularly "nappy-headed".

How times change....

Back in the late 60s/early 70s, Da Rev would have been called an Uncle Tom for having a process like that...

[chipster55]

About Imus, Jesse Jackson & Sharpton - other than the media, does anyone really give a S#%&?? If so, get a life!!

[windshieldbug]

It's not as if the Rutger's team, Rev. Sharpton, or Mr. Jackson would EVER listen to Imus, nor do ANY of their friends... so why did this become an issue in the first place?

That said, I don't think you can exactly let it slide, either, but ???

Is this worth Jersey almost losing it's governor over?