Well, the only way that it could possibly be more obvious that they are all acting would be, say, if the wikipedia page listed a cast of “cast members” on the show. Oh, they do.
Notice how the show “has a regular cast of members who supply news, comedy, and act as foils to Imus.”, in their words.
“Act” as foils. It’s acting. All of it is acting. Characters playing parts.
Oh, shit! A wiki link! Well, that sure settles everything, doesn’t it? Can’t argue with a wiki link, after all.
sigh
If you read what I wrote, you’ll see I said you can’t blame him for making “ho” interchangeable with “female” in the popular vernacular, because it’s already been done. Obviously you can - and should - blame him for using it anyway, because it’s assholish. My response was to the OP’s question "And since when did “ho” become a synonym for “girl” or “women” "? Didn’t say it was OK just because somebody else did it; just saying there was indeed a precedent, and a long-standing one at that.
Except for Imus himself, that is. Why is his name not on the list if he’s a character?
What exactly is your point, anyway? “Imus can say and do whatever he wants because he’s playing a character?” Is that it?
Because it’s in the section above that where it explains that his character is called “The I-man”.
How about an imdb link to the “cast” of the show?
How many cites is going to be enough? Seriously. Give me a number, and I can probably pull it off.
Excellent question.
Do you know what a nickname is? Nothing in that section says “The I-man” is a character.
Please note in your link where it reads:
bolding mine
Politics and news. Public influence. Cover of Newsweek. Interviews top politicians. Gee, nothing about satirical comedy here.
Sorry but character or not, someone who hosts interviews with presidential candidates and senators should not being calling black female atheletes “nappy-headed hoes” and jiggaboos" and still expect to keep his job. I don’t understand why you think it matters if Imus is real or not.
For the same reason that it matters that Al Pacino isn’t a comtemptible mob boss. I can dislike Don Corleone and still respect Al Pacino. Playing a character is no different just because it’s comedy.
If it’s an excellent question, then I’ll answer it. Because he isn’t always in character in public. If he had made these comments while being interviewed by CNN they would be horrid. He made them while playing a long-lived character on a long-lived show known for having characters.
Nice selective quoting. But, if you scan to what is actually the FIRST paragraph of that link:
Imus in the Morning is a daily comedy, news, and political program that revolves around the personality of Don Imus. The show is produced by WFAN and syndicated by Westwood One in the United States and airs from 5:30 to 10am. Since September 2, 1996, the show is simulcasted on cable television network MSNBC from 5:30 to 9 a.m. (Eastern time).
Bolding mine this time.
Wow, a show that features comedy means that the host is a character like Don Corleon and can say whatever he wants with impunity. It all makes so much sense now. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Wonder what the guy who plays Keith Olberman really thinks about Bush?
Pointing out that sites not affiliated with Don Imus refer to the people on his show as a “cast” does not in anyway demonstrate that his comments are meant ironically or are being delivered “in character.”
Marlon Brando was Don Corleone. Al Pacino is Tony Montana.
And I would say that “Don Imus” is not a character that Don Imus plays- he’s just himself. It’s not like The Colbert Report, where Stephen Colbert plays a fictional character named Stephen Colbert, or Seinfeld, where Jerry Seinfeld plays a character named Jerry Seinfeld, etc.
Pacino became Don by the end of Godfather I. Don Michael Corleone played by Al Pacino.
I would say that Imus is EXACTLY like Colbert.
Al Pacino was also Don Corleone. For that matter, Robert DiNiro was Don Corleone, as well.
How can you tell?
No one was offended by Borat. Well, no one sane. No one is offended by The Dave Chapelle Show. It’s satire. It’s intended to be over the top and offensive. You supposed to be laughing at the boor that is Don Imus. He is in on the joke.
Olberman is news. There is obviously a difference.
Had Olberman made these same statements, I would call for his head as well.
You can say that, but it isn’t true. I don’t understand why your arguing the point. You’ve said you don’t watch the show and don’t really know what it’s about. He isn’t playing a character. He’s never said he’s playing a character and no one interviewing him or that’s written about the show has said that either. The show has some comedy, talks about sports, etc. He isn’t playing a character anymore than Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly are on TV.
Sorry, but I think you’re not getting the joke then. It didin’t take long for me to understand that the show was intended to be satire. I can show more cites that define the show as satire (Tvguide.com definition of the show: A TV simulcast of the popular morning radio show that mixes satire and current events, and includes interviews with newsmakers, authors and entertainers).
No one will define Matthews or O’Reilly as satire. He IS playing a character.
He might be playing a character, but the character is not that different from when the old Blowhard was a Disc-Jockey that talked too much on WABC-AM in NYC in the Eighties.
Jim