Imus: Groveling isn't pretty

Cafe Society
121

[QUOTE=cochrane]
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, I haven’t watched or listened to the I-Man in years. But I do think when his producer made the first remark, that Imus should have said, “Whoa. Let’s stop right there, that remark is going to offend somebody and let’s not let it escalate. Let’s just stop and apologize for it right now.” Since he didn’t, he does deserve whatever his employers throw at him. From suspension to firing. CBS is his boss, Westwood is his distributer, they have the right to cut him loose. Let him get a satellite deal like Stern, then.

Also, I do detect a bit of a double standard. Stevie Wonder released a song called I Wish back in the 70’s. The first line of that song is
*
Looking back on when I was a little nappy-headed boy,
When my only worry was "What for Christmas is to be my toy?*

I don’t recall any outrage to that song. Granted, Wonder was referring to himself in a non-disparaging manner. I would submit that Imus’s offense was stringing “nappy-headed” with “ho’s”. I think calling the Rutgers women “ho’s” is the real outrage and is offensive in itself, whether another adjective was applied to it or not. Perhaps people should be more outraged at the sexist comment instead of focusing on the racial part of it. I would agree that if Imus and his producer were talking about a team that had white women in the majority that the expression “nappy-headed” would never have come up and that an elderly white man probably should not say it in any situation as that surely has bitten him in the ass.
[/QUOTE]
Stevie Wonder’s lyric was a self-referencing, self-deprecating lyric, which was written to paint a picture in a particular song.

Imus’ remarks, though part of a show that was *supposed * to be humorous, were not necessary to comment on a basketball team, nor as sports analysis of the outcome of an NCAA championship.

Can you see the difference?

122

[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Stevie Wonder’s lyric was a self-referencing, self-deprecating lyric, which was written to paint a picture in a particular song.

Imus’ remarks, though part of a show that was *supposed * to be humorous, were not necessary to comment on a basketball team, nor as sports analysis of the outcome of an NCAA championship.

Can you see the difference?
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I can, actually. I did note that Wonder didn’t use it disparagingly and maybe it was a poor example of a double standard. Pardon me, I’m a bit naive. I grew up in a mostly white neighborhood, but was raised to treat everybody like a human being, regardless of color, and to not direct racial slurs at anyone. I like to think I’m fighting some of my own ignorance by participating in topics like this one. Reflecting back on it, I do now think Imus’s producer, Bernard McGuirk, apparently meant “hard core ho’s” in a racially charged manner himself, so I’m going to back off my previous comment that focusing on “nappy-headed” is misleading. I do feel if the Rutgers team was mostly white, the “hard core ho” comment would not have come up either, and McGuirk, Rosenberg, and Imus were all equally to blame. Personally, I don’t find racist humor funny, and I do think the three men’s comments were disagreeable. And as I said, I don’t care if he’s fired or not, but he deserves it if he is.

By the way, MSNBC has announced they will no longer simulcast Imus’s program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036713/

123

This is an interesting article by Jason Whitlock. It is tough for me to agree or disagree as this isn’t really my fight to fight but I nevertheless found it interesting.

As I understand it, Don Imus has always been at the very least, borderline racist and has said things like this in the past. It’s like getting outraged at Stern all of a sudden because he said something sexually charged. Why something someone like Don Imus says has any effect on a person is simply beyond me.

124

[QUOTE=drm]
This is an interesting article by Jason Whitlock. It is tough for me to agree or disagree as this isn’t really my fight to fight but I nevertheless found it interesting.
[/QUOTE]
Personally, I’m tired of the reactionary “Wah! But Black People do it, too!” line of thinking (which almost exclusively comes from white pundits railing against black “spokespeople” about hip-hop and double standards and what not).

I like Matt Yglesias’ take on it:

125

[QUOTE=drm]
This is an interesting article by Jason Whitlock. It is tough for me to agree or disagree as this isn’t really my fight to fight but I nevertheless found it interesting.

As I understand it, Don Imus has always been at the very least, borderline racist and has said things like this in the past. It’s like getting outraged at Stern all of a sudden because he said something sexually charged. Why something someone like Don Imus says has any effect on a person is simply beyond me.
[/QUOTE]
This article makes some quite valid points – however, how does this let Don Imus off the hook, if that’s what you’re suggesting?

126

One thing we’ve learned is that “nappy-headed ho’s” is nowhere near as toxic as “nigger”. No one dares say the latter on the air, but the former has been repeated over and over again.

127

[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
This article makes some quite valid points – however, how does this let Don Imus off the hook, if that’s what you’re suggesting?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not in a position where I can possibly agree or disagree with the article; I just found it interesting. I feel it is the right of any race or group to use whatever derogatory phrases that have been aimed specifically at them. I guess that is contrary to the article but at the same time I find it absolutely ridiculous to get this worked up over what some racist says. A racist will say something racist. It is that simple and if people want to listen to said racist on a daily basis then that is their right.

There was this one kid in my high school who hated me. It was completely beyond me why he hated me and I don’t even understand it now (I was actually pretty nice to him). It used to really upset me when he’d start a rumour or say something nasty to me but it hit me eventually it hit me that he has said so many nasty things about me in the past, it should not shock me in the least when he says something else nasty. This really helped me and I think this is sort of the same thing.

So I guess what I’m saying in my own convoluted way is that Don Imus has a history of this type of thing (as I understand it) so it should shock no one that he says something like this now. I also feel that it would be hypocritical for both networks involved to take him off the air now when they have made so much money off of his assholish crap in the past. They knew who they were in bed with and they have no moral high ground stand on on this one.

128

[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Personally, I’m tired of the reactionary “Wah! But Black People do it, too!” line of thinking (which almost exclusively comes from white pundits railing against black “spokespeople” about hip-hop and double standards and what not).

I like Matt Yglesias’ take on it:
[/QUOTE]

Most arguments look bad when you put “Wah!” in front of them.

Wah! The earth is getting warmer!
Wah! I have to hear prayers in school!

It’s a cowardly and dismissive way to misrepresent and avoid an argument when there are no good responses.

129

[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Most arguments look bad when you put “Wah!” in front of them.

Wah! The earth is getting warmer!
Wah! I have to hear prayers in school!

It’s a cowardly and dismissive way to misrepresent and avoid an argument when there are no good responses.
[/QUOTE]
No, what’s cowardly is to give Imus a wrist-slap for behavior that he’s been doing for 30 years, and then make a race-baiting digression, focusing on African American “culpability” by drawing BS false analogies. What that amounts to is bush league debating tactics and juvenile complaining in absence of a real argument.

“Wah!” fits just nicely.

130

Yeah, can we quit the desperate manhunt for double standards here? It’s irritating and pathetic. Likening anything that David Chappelle, Eddie Murphy, or Stevie Wonder (I’m still shaking my head over that one) has said to Imus’ comments is insanity.

And, yeah, rappers call women “hos” and “bitches”, too. And the Italian mafia kills informants. And sex slavery is rampant in some parts of Asia and Eastern Europe. And no one in Al Quaeda eats pork. So the fuck what? None of that has to do with whether Imus should have said what he did.

131

[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
No, what’s cowardly is to give Imus a wrist-slap for behavior that he’s been doing for 30 years, and then make a race-baiting digression, focusing on African American “culpability” by drawing BS false analogies. What that amounts to is bush league debating tactics and juvenile complaining in absence of a real argument.

“Wah!” fits just nicely.
[/QUOTE]

Personally, I’m not in favor of slapping Imus on the wrist. I don’t think he should be punished at all. Nor do I think anyone of any group should be punished for making offensive remarks about any other group. I tend to think of the public as better than the infants they are being treated like by elitists who always know what is best for them. We can work out what we’re offended by and what we aren’t without being told.

But, if you are going to start pulling offensive content, you better be prepared to pull all offensive content. It’s valid to ask questions about how that decision is being made.

How offensive does it have to be? How many people have to be offended before it is deemed offensive. Are only some groups protected? Sharpton may have success with Imus because there are quite a few black people in the country who can be mobilized to boycott. Does that mean that you can be as offensive as you want if the constituency is too small to do anything about it economically?

These are questions that should be answered if you’re going to start pulling offensive speach from the airwaves.

The Sopranos is very offensive to a lot of people. My mother and aunt (both from Sicily) are appalled by it. It’s also consistently one of the best shows on television.

Your “Wah” argument doesn’t wash. It belittles what are real issues that arise from the “Wah! I’m offended and my delicate ears can’t handle it” crowd’s position

(see how that can be used dismissively both ways?).

132

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Yeah, can we quit the desperate manhunt for double standards here? It’s irritating and pathetic. Likening anything that David Chappelle, Eddie Murphy, or Stevie Wonder (I’m still shaking my head over that one) has said to Imus’ comments is insanity.

And, yeah, rappers call women “hos” and “bitches”, too. And the Italian mafia kills informants. And sex slavery is rampant in some parts of Asia and Eastern Europe. And no one in Al Quaeda eats pork. So the fuck what? None of that has to do with whether Imus should have said what he did.
[/QUOTE]

My post above gets into why I think it is relevant. Again, I’m in favor of quashing no one’s speach, so I don’t have to deal with these issues. But, if you are in favor of it, how do you make the decision next time? Looking at all groups and what is and isn’t allowed is relevant.

133

Imus is now history, been canned for his remarks. Let’s hope that all public speakers who indulge in racism to make their point meet the same fate.

Well, of course not Jackson, Sharpton, et al. They have a valid point and shouldn’t be held to the same standard, right?

134

Imus is being punished for making his employer look bad and for losing it money. It’s pretty simple capitalism.

135

[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
But, if you are in favor of it, how do you make the decision next time? Looking at all groups and what is and isn’t allowed is relevant.
[/QUOTE]

Make what decision? To fire someone or not?

Well, if I’m an employer and I get a lot of people complaining about one particular employee that has an established history of pissing off customers, well it might be a good idea to fire that employee.

Or better yet, if the employee says or does something that interferes with his ability to do his job because it creates a needless distraction, then again, I’m going to think its a good idea to fire that employee.

Or how about this for decision-making: if the employee says something that pisses me off and makes me think he’s unsuitable for the job, then, as his boss, I will make the decision to fire him.

Notice that none of this reasons rely on me looking at what 50-cent or the Sopranos get away with.

136

[QUOTE=you with the face]

Or how about this for decision-making: if the employee says something that pisses me off and makes me think he’s unsuitable for the job, then, as his boss, I will make the decision to fire him.

Notice that none of this reasons rely on me looking at what 50-cent or the Sopranos get away with.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your honesty (sincerely, not snarkily!). You are the first one to admit that you are only concerned about what offends you (or a group that you are a member of).

But, there will come a time where a group will want to ban something that you enjoy. Focus on the Family and their ilk have a lot of power, and have shown a willingness to boycott. I hope that networks have the guts to stand up to them.

137

[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Personally, I’m not in favor of slapping Imus on the wrist. I don’t think he should be punished at all. Nor do I think anyone of any group should be punished for making offensive remarks about any other group. I tend to think of the public as better than the infants they are being treated like by elitists who always know what is best for them. We can work out what we’re offended by and what we aren’t without being told.

But, if you are going to start pulling offensive content, you better be prepared to pull all offensive content. It’s valid to ask questions about how that decision is being made.

How offensive does it have to be? How many people have to be offended before it is deemed offensive. Are only some groups protected? Sharpton may have success with Imus because there are quite a few black people in the country who can be mobilized to boycott. Does that mean that you can be as offensive as you want if the constituency is too small to do anything about it economically?

These are questions that should be answered if you’re going to start pulling offensive speach from the airwaves.

The Sopranos is very offensive to a lot of people. My mother and aunt (both from Sicily) are appalled by it. It’s also consistently one of the best shows on television.

Your “Wah” argument doesn’t wash. It belittles what are real issues that arise from the “Wah! I’m offended and my delicate ears can’t handle it” crowd’s position

(see how that can be used dismissively both ways?).
[/QUOTE]

Oh please, insulting individuals using racist slurs on public radio airwaves is completely different from dramatic representations by fictional characters on Cable TV. Another false analogy.

There are lots of variables in play for any of these incidents. It’s all situational. Is this a one-time only circumstance? Did he recognize his error and apologize immediately? Does he have a record of keeping his word when it comes to making offensive comments in the past? Should one apply the same standard from 20 years ago that one applies today in terms of what’s appropriate on the airwaves?

The answer is No. He’s been doing this (and worse) for ages, so the fact that someone is finally holding his feet to the fire, that he’s finally being held accountable for years of similar behavior, says a lot.

If you can find enough advertisers willing to pull their support from a personalilty that I don’t find offensive (for whatever reason), then that’s just fine. It’s not a decision I would make, but that’s the market for ya! Your “my ears can’t handle it” strawman notwithstanding, everyone has expectations for how influential members of the media should behave, and expressing support for standards is how civil discourse works.

What Imus did and said after his comments speaks as much about him as the comments themselves. His defenders don’t have much of a pot to piss in, so they create “arguments” that are completely besides the point. You state “It’s valid to ask questions about how that decision is being made”, but that’s not what the “But…but…but look at Hip Hop!” whiners are doing. They’re not asking valid questions, they’re pandering to kneejerk sensibilities that are completely beside the point.

138

[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Thanks for your honesty (sincerely, not snarkily!). You are the first one to admit that you are only concerned about what offends you (or a group that you are a member of).
[/quote]

I haven’t admitted that at all, and I’m trying to figure out how you gleaned this interpretation from what I wrote.

139

[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
My post above gets into why I think it is relevant. Again, I’m in favor of quashing no one’s speach, so I don’t have to deal with these issues. But, if you are in favor of it, how do you make the decision next time? Looking at all groups and what is and isn’t allowed is relevant.
[/QUOTE]

If your local newsreporter started off the news each evening with “Let’s kill everyone named Fiveyearlurker”, I’m sure you would want something done about it, even if you could just turn the channel and stick your fingers in your ears. Do you really think “speach” is some sacred thing that should be preserved no matter who’s providing the medium, no matter what’s being said?

I don’t know why you insist on making this a free speech issue, because it is not.

140

[QUOTE=monstro]
If your local newsreporter started off the news each evening with “Let’s kill everyone named Fiveyearlurker”, I’m sure you would want something done about it, even if you could just turn the channel and stick your fingers in your ears. Do you really think “speach” is some sacred thing that should be preserved no matter who’s providing the medium, no matter what’s being said?

I don’t know why you insist on making this a free speech issue, because it is not.
[/QUOTE]

You’re right, I must have missed it when Imus told people to kill or harm the Rutgers players. If that is the case then he should definitely have been fired.