As long as he has an audience he has a job.
The number one failure of understanding and reasoning on the part of those who complain incessantly about the media is the basic fact that the media do nothing but reflect our selves back to us.
Imus will have a platform until the day he dies. And if not him, then another. Sad but true.
We could start a letter-writing campaign to the FCC. They usually cave pretty quickly.
Everythings ok now, he’s apologized.
What kind of chickenshits are MSNBC- “we don’t produce the show, we just air it”?
OK, how about don’t air it anymore?
From the little that I’ve heard of Imus’ show, it always sounded to me that he was playing a role as a heel. In that regard how are his comments any different than had he said them as a character in a movie?
One difference is that he’s never out of character. He’s been in front of that mic for - is it fifteen years? - saying this sort of thing, and putting his real name on it. If he’s always this character in public, and makes no effort to differentiate between himself and this character, is there any functional difference between the “real” Don Imus and the “radio” Don Imus?
Regrettably, the insincere son of a bitch will say the right things in an apology (which he has), get tons of press for it, the link to the show will be in all online news articles about it (which it is), then people who never listened to him before will hit his website, he will become more notorious and his ratings will increase. Then, he will make more money.
If I was a Seer I would say that within the next few shows, he will have people calling in, or writing in, supporting him. Then, he will act mildly humble while acknowledging he went over the top, but thanking those people for support, understanding that he was just joking and the over sensitive liberals in this nation just don’t like people like him who are “straight talking”.
In effect, he will read notes and let callers say what he wants to say, but can’t, while keeping this controversy alive long enough to increase ratings, garner support from his knuckle-dragging fans and then walk away with a big check.
Ironically, he is the whore and America is the John.
Borat is lauded.
He’s needs to get booted. This was not some lame slip of the tongue. His remarks were formulated to be as gratutiously offensive as possible. That should be grounds for termination. As it stands, the bruhaha over his behavior has only led in him getting more attention, which means higher ratings and money for him. So of course he can get up there and apologize because he knows he won’t see any real punishment.
And as far as appearance goes, Imus makes Keith Richards look like a fuckable god-man. So he really does not need to be talking about anyone else.
That’s exactly my point. He’s like the Iron Shiek. He’s playing a role as a heel. The actor who played the Iron Shiek wasn’t a jerk, the Iron Shiek was.
I’m open to the possibility that I’m off base here, because I listened to Imus for about two weeks back in high school (which wasn’t recently). But, I remember him pretty clearly playing the role of a buffoon that was quite obviously playing a role.
His show is not marketed as a comedy, but rather a radio talkshow. MSNBC is not in the business of showcasing Boratesque characters. It is a news network. Being a radio personality is different than a playing character. Imus is a personality. He’s not “playing” anything.
Unless he has drastically changed his schtick in the past 15 years (which is possible) his show is satirical comedy. Anyone out there listen to him can confirm or deny?
And if Sascha Coen had spent his entire career pretending to be Borat, without ever breaking character or portraying anyone besides Borat, or letting anyone know that his name wasn’t really Borat and that he wasn’t really from Kazakhstan, and he never acknowledged in any medium that he’s playing a character who voices opinions with which he personally disagrees, the comparison of Don Imus to Borat would actually be a significant rebuttal to my post.
But since he hasn’t done any of that, it’s a pretty stupid response.
Since you’re making this assertion, can you back it up? I’ve never seen the shown characterized as a parody or a comedy.
Well, his wiki page chapter on his career is entitled “Radio: comedy and music bits”, for starters. And also includes the nugget of information that "During this period, Imus was best known for satirical character Billy Sol Hargus, a radio evangelist who was a cross between infamous real-life radio and television preacher Billy James Hargis and real-life Texas fertilizer swindler Billie Sol Estes. "
Comedy and satire.
Cohen breaks character less frequently than Imus. There isn’t even a comparison.
Doesn’t acknowledge playing a character? His entire show is just people doing voices of different characters.
What character was Imus acting out when he called the Rutgers basketball team “nappy-headed hos”?
What about the co-hosts?
Funny how wikipedia doesn’t say he is best known for the satirical character called Imus.
Oh, really? Less frequently? You really think that? Consider: Borat is not the only character Cohen portrays. Cohen’s other characters, while coming from the same comedic philosophy, are radically different in personality and outlook than Borat. Sacha Cohen often does interviews as Sacha Cohen, wherein he reveals a personality and attitude (to say nothing of intellect) that is radically different than Borat’s. And, of course, he doesn’t say outrageously racist things when he’s appearing as Sacha Cohen, only when he’s clearly in character, which includes make-up, phony accents, and detailed fictional biographies.
You wanted to know why people give Imus a hard time, and actors who play assholes get a pass. The reason is because actors acknowledge that they are playing a role. Imus does not do this. He puts this persona forward as the “real” him. That’s why he gets treated like an asshole: because he has gone to great lengths to make people think that’s who he really is.
Changing the goal posts much? You asked for proof that his show is a comedy and satire. I provided pretty incontrovertible proof of such. His show is not a talk show, but a comedy show. Are we agreed?
But to address your point, the role of the heel is a difficult one. It requires you to be outrageously offensive. Over to top offensive. So, offensive that it is almost unbelievable that someone would say such a thing. This is what Imus is doing. I’m amazed that this is not apparent.
The Iron Shiek is the best heel example I can come up with. People HATED him. He said outrageously anti-American things. Those people in the audience screaming at him came in two catergories:
Imus’ show is a bit. It’s characters.
Andrew Dice Clay was another heel. Do you really think he was that person? But, (until recently) he wasn’t known to break character. Not breaking character doesn’t make you less of a heel.
I’ve seen interviews with Imus where he was being Imus, and not radio Imus. I suppose he could be like Cohen and wear a funny outfit to denote the difference, but I can’t believe that’s necessary.
There’s such a weird double standard with comedy. If Pacino gets up and delivers a racist speech in a movie, no one would have a problem with Pacino, just the character. When a comedian is working, he is playing a character. Don’t be the rube.
A show that often features comedy and satire does not make it synomous with a satirical comedy. I’m not moving goalposts. You’ve suggest that Imus is playing a character, but you’ve done a shoddy job of proving it.
Imus’ show is no more a bit than any other radio talkshow because most of the time he’s “playing” himself, hence the point I made in my last post. Playing characters is what personalities do. That does not make the personality a character.
And? Andrew Dice Clay was (figuratively) boohed off the stage for being gratutiously offensive at the expense of humor. So I fail to see why Imus should be held to a different standard.
I extend the same advice to you.