Well, Imus has apologized.
Of course, his apology is as unconvincing as his original comments were insulting.
He’s been a heel too long to attempt a heel turn; Imus will never be a face.
Cervaise
Well, I am forced to agree with you about the media reflecting our desires and this guy probably being around forever. The implications are horrible. So, this guy spouts deliberately offensive language on the radio and will get away with it. And this is because people like hearing this kind of crap?
Do people just snicker and giggle when they hear something like this? Ah hell. I’ve got nothing but disgust for the whole situation.
Testy
[Bolding mine]
Lissa
I’m unsure what someone being liberal or conservative has to do with disliking someone that deliberately spouts this kind of crap over the radio. Are conservatives automatically racists or what? I must have missed the memo. To me, this seems more a matter of basic decency than political leanings.
Regards
Testy
I’d like Fiveyearlurker to note that never once does Imus mention that he was in “character” in his apology.
I’d like to note that his apology was about 20 words long.
Exactly.
According to ESPN’s PTI, Imus admitted on 60 Minutes (I think) that he had staffers call in, pretending to be listeners, and telling nigger jokes. What character is that? Also, he or his staffers have referred to the Williams sisters as animals who should be in National Geographic and routinely refers to blacks as apes and monkeys. Not a one time thing. If you’ll notice, his sidekick is the one who initiated most of the worst Rutgers comments, with Imus parroting them back- that’s probaly that guys function on the show, to actually voice the really bad stuff with Imus just agreeing along, but maybe not initiating it, like that matters. Imus may use comedy bits- just anybody talk show in the country has some brevity, but I can’t imagine John McCain, Karl Rove, etc, appearing on the Boomer and the Nooge morning zoo show.
If he were in character and the comments were all staged, don’t you think he would have said so in his apology? Wouldn’t that make sense, from a cover-your-ass standpoint?
For someone who knows nothing about Imus, you are sure working hard to defend the guy. Why?
Two separate questions.
- He gave an apology that would be torn apart by people saying that he isn’t really sorry. If he tells people he’s doing a satirical bit, that pretty much ruins the satire of it. Explaining Borat would ruin the character forever. His apology was the perfect compromise.
This was the “I-man” character that he has spent decades cultivating, spewing hatred. You’re SUPPOSED to dislike the buffoon that is the I-man. He’s a crotchety old man with outdated views. That’s the point. His apology will only reinforce that.
- I couldn’t give two shits about Imus. I don’t even know if he’s on the radio where I live. You can either believe that or believe that I’m an Imus uberfan, it doesn’t matter either way.
I couldn’t give a shit about Janet Jackson either, and that whole situation was bullshit.
I’m not a big fan of John Kerry (though I did hold my nose and vote for him), but the little game of gotcha where everyone pretended to be offended by a botched joke was stupid.
Everyone pretending to not know the definition of the word “ghetto” and didn’t realize what Newt Gingrich meant when he said “a ghetto” rather than “the ghetto”, that there was a big difference in meaning is annoying despite the fact that I would hack my own arm off before I voted for the man.
If you only defend the speach of people that you actually care about, then your defense is worthless. Context of speach means everything. I wouldn’t defend this speach if it were said in an interview. The man breaks character often. I’ve seen him interviewed about autism, and he is clearly Imus rather than the I-man. This was clearly satire (I think I’ve proven that the show is satire, no?).
Tim Hardaway’s diatribe against gays a few months ago was clearly Tim Hardaway’s opinion. The context made it took pretty terrible. He deserved what he got. The Kramer fiasco was of his own making, and other than the fact that he looked pathetic in his world apology tour, I can muster little sympathy for him. In these cases the context of it was that it appeared to be the actual person, in a non-satirical way, spewing hatred.
I remember Howard Stern’s description of Imus when he worked with him at WNBC, back in the 80’s, I believe. He was ver clear about how much Imus hated black people, calling the black secretarys “nigger” to their faces and screaming the word in the hallways. Wee Bairn’s got it right - the man is an uncompromising racist. I’d love to see him be taken down over this.
And he asks them normal, straight-forward questions, not gag ones like Sasha Cohen does when he’s in character as Ali-G. That’s not the behavior of someone who is playing in character.
Why doesn’t wikipedia say that Don Imus is playing a character if that is what he’s doing? Occam’s razor would suggest that its probably because that’s not what he is doing. Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh have the same kind of abrasive schtick, but they are not treated like fictional characters. Comparisons to Don Corleone are absolutely ridiculous. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, as much as they deserve to be horsewhipped and dipped in a vat of hot grits, do not strike me as the sort who would waste time with a comical stooge.
If Sid Rosenberg, a former member of the Imus cast, can be fired for making insensitive comments about Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer (and he probably has much more claim to the “character” schtick than Imus does), then why should Imus be treated any differently?
You don’t think Howard Stern is a fictional character? Really? Wow, then I just have no chance of turning you around. But, of course he’s a character. That’s exactly how he gets away with some of the horrendous things he says.
Rush is different. He isn’t playing a character, though I would guess that guys like him or O’reilly are playing up their opinions in order to get in the press. Had he made these comments, you could nail him to the wall. The context would be completely different.
Colbert is the quintissential comic stooge, and gets very well-respected guests. That argument is just silly. His guests understand the context, and I would guess that Imus’ do as well.
I have no idea of the situation with Kylie Minogue, so it’s difficult for me to discuss, but just because people got it wrong with another member of the cast doesn’t mean that it’s not wrong now as well.
Circular logic and absurd.
from Stern’s wikipedia page:
(bolding mine)
And as far as “getting away” with anything, where have you been? As far as I know, he hasn’t called Gwen Ifle a cleaning lady, refered to the Williams sisters as animals, or called atheletes jigaboos, but he has gotten fired and fined throughout his career for some of the stunts he’s pulled. You must not be paying attention.
If you think it was satire, and was not intended seriously, you’re a fucking moron.
What was he satirizing? Nothing. He might have been acting outrageously on purpose to get a reaction from his audience, but that’s the same as satire.
Look, you dribbling fool, no-one is required to defend speech they don’t like. There is a difference, which you seem unable to grasp, between defending freedom of speech, on the one hand, and defending the content of that speech, on the other.
No-one in this thread has argued that Imus should be denied freedom of speech, or that he should be prevented from saying this sort of shit. People are simply calling it out for exactly what it is—racist, bigoted, ignorant shit.
No.
By the way, it’s “speech.”
You don’t think Stern has said equally racist things? You must not be paying attention.
And all those firings helped him cultivate the fictional character that is “Howard Stern”. He got fired and fined all the way to a half billion (with a “b”) dollar contract.
I’ve listened to an Imus interview. Have you? Be honest. It is nothing like Colbert, which is just one joke lined up after another. Imus is shooting straight when he talks to people like McCain. Colbert is so silly that he couldn’t shoot straight if he tried. You might as well be comparing apples and elephants.
*Bolding mine.
[b}Fiveyearlurker**
I take your point about free speech but I don’t consider this a free speech issue. No one has suggested siccing the law on the guy. In my own mind, this is just an issue with a random asshole that has an audience. If there were a way to do it, I’d try to reduce that audience and make the guy go away.
Like you, I’ve never heard the guy. Actually, I’ve never even heard of the guy until the OP.
Regards
Testy
I never said he hasn’t said anything racist ever. But why don’t you share with us the equally racist things that Stern has said.
Well, in that case, why don’t we just give Imus an Emmy and a pizza party for ten of his closest friends. :rolleyes:
I knew someone–someone moronic and asshattish and has never listened to “Imus in the Morning” but keeps talking like he’s an expert on the subject, since that’s what moronic asshats do best–was going to turn this thread into a free speech issue. Like I’ve said anything about the guy being arrested or permanently censored. I didn’t even say he should be fired!
Why don’t we bring Amos n’ Andy back? I mean, they’re just characters, right? Harmless, satarical characters who don’t mean anyone harm. I’m sure someone found their antics funny. We should parade all the offensive fictional characters of 20th century pop culture on our airwaves and present them as real-life people. Simon Legree maybe can get his own show on CNN. What a ratings boom that would be! And those sambos, mammies, and pickaninnies better hush up about it! Oh yeah, and the jiggaboos too!
Neither Imus or MSNBC mentioned the “context” behind the commentary. If this were valid defense, they would have done this immediately once the shit the fan.
You must not get satire, monstro. First rule of satire is never mention satire. Because that fucks the whole thing up. You just have to figure that its satire because only a satirist would say the things he did.