Can anybody justify all the sponsors leaving this show - msnbc cutting his feed etc? I’ve never heard of it and it’s never gotten so much exposure. I’m sure a whole lot more people started listening than stopped.
It was pretty bad press, I can hardly blame them and I wouldn’t want my product associated with Don Imus. A few more people might be watching but I guarantee a lot more are aware of him and what sort of person he is and they probably don’t want Don Imus to be associated with their company’s image.
I don’t blame them for their decision but at the same time it is hypocritical of them to claim outrage now when they used Imus to shill their products for years knowing full well what he was all about.
Yes, they’ve been aware of it for many years. A while back, I was going through old videos, and I found a TV special I’d recorded in 1984. One of the commercials was for WNBC, and showed a supposed radio executive seated between Imus and a short-haired, mustachioed Howard Stern. The executive was reading an apology on behalf of the station to “The NYPD. Mayor Koch. People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals [you spelled it out back then]. The Gay Men’s Choir. My wife.” Meanwhile, Imus blew a raspberry, and Stern took the written apology away and tore it up. WEeeennnnnnnnnnnBC, as I still think of them, thought it was hilarious, IOW.
That would be illegal, and therefore not at all what I was talking about.
It’s NOT a free speech issue. Everyone has the right to call for the man’s ouster. I just think that it is the wrong thing to do, and I hope that it fails. Just like I would hope that any boycott against Sharpton’s show would fail.
But WHY? Because people should be able to say whatever they want to say, regardless of who’s paying them or what values they are representing?
Your argument seems (correct me if I’m wrong) to boil down to this:
Speech can never been wrong, so everyone should get to say whatever they want to say, wherever they want to say it. And people who disagree with specific speech should not organize against it, no matter their intent, because this is akin to censorship. And censorship is always wrong.
I say let’s put gangsta rap on Nickelodeon and let the kindegarten set jam to it. Damn what the uptight parents! Why not? It’s speech and it’s free! People who choose to stay away from Nickelodeon until they change their programming are just ignorant facists…
I definitely don’t agree with every boycott, but there are boycotts that I think are noble and virtuous (for instance, many folks boycotted theaters that played “Birth of a Nation”…was this a bad thing for them to do?) Your blanket condemnation of this tried-and-true protest tool seems a little, I dunno, unsophisticated.
I think you are close to my argument, but not quite there.
First, to deal with your first argument. You know that isn’t what I’m saying. Had Imus called for the murder of the Rutger’s players, whether or not he should be fired would be moot because he would be under arrest. I understand that there are limits to the first amendment; but these were not an issue here. Nothing Imus said was illegal.
But, other than that, yes, free reign to say what you want (on the radio, within the silliness of FCC regulations).
If you started putting gangsta rap on Nickelodeon, there wouldn’t have to be a boycott. It wouldn’t be Nickelodeon anymore, so parents of little kids wouldn’t watch it anymore. It would have a new audience of people who watch that sort of thing. It would work itself out. So, no, I have no problem with Nickelodeon putting on gangsta rap.
If Nickelodeon parents started boycotting the cable company because of the change of formats, they would be fools. Turn on Noggin or one of those other channels because apparently some people want to watch gangsta rap.
I have no problem with boycotts of products or stores; I just think boycotting speech is counter productive. So, yeah, I think that boycotting a theater for showing Birth of a Nation is wrong. I think the decision to show it was wrong also. But, both are within the rights to do.
(aside: I think we’re having an interesting and cordial discussion, so if you don’t mind, the “unsophisticated” jab was unnecessary.)
Now it seems the Rutgers players are going to appear on Oprah, where she will call them beautiful and give them all 2008 Buick Centuries. Wasn’t part of the argument for his firing they were simple schoolgirls who didn’t look for attention like entertainers or politicians? Going on Oprah kind of contradicts that. And athletics are on TV, ESPN, and all that, so going into sports in 2007, you are aware if you do well you will get media attention.
And what exactly was the reason for the press conference? To announce to the world “we are NOT nappy headed ho’s”? People usually have those to respond to real charges, like rape or embezzlement, not to generic insults- “Don Imus said I had shit for brains, I am here to tell you I do NOT have shit for brains”?
Good Og, please tell me this is available on the interweb somewhere!
The students said that the press kept hounding them, calling nonstop to ask them for their opinions and whatnot. I suspect the press conference was a way for them to address them all in one room, at one time.
And as far as Oprah goes…this is the way these thing play out all the time. Jessica Lynch, the kidnapped boy, Elisabeth Smart. Not exactly unprecedented stuff. This is the way media works.
The show doesn’t have huge ratings, but it reaches a valuable audience. If that audience tunes out, it probably doesn’t matter if more people are listening.
Jeez!! I go on a business trip and find the thread I started all debated-up! Who knew!
A few minor points:
-
This is only about money and appearances - arguing the pros and cons of the rightness or wrongness of his words as a way to decide if what he did was wrong or what punishment he should get is naive in this business-driven world.
-
The advertisers choose to stay or pull their ads based on appearances - I don’t recall if any advertisers pulled their ads when Rushie boy screwed up regarding McNabb as a black quarterback - they may have, but I don’t recall. Bottom line is there is some relativism going on. People expect Rush to be an offensive idiot, but because Imus sometimes crosses the line into being a decent interviewer, he is held to a higher standard, rightly or wrongly.
-
It has certainly led to a national discussion - I wonder if we are all better off because of that or if we are just pushing food around on the national plate?
Rush was let go from ESPN for that comment - and it was made on ESPN, not his show. What he said was stupid, but it wasn’t the same. The gist of that remark was “the white sports media say Donovan McNabb is better than he is because they want a black quarterback to succeed.” It’s a dumb theory, but it’s not inherently racist (I think it’s more of a swipe at liberals - quite a shock coming from Rush), and it was delivered in the context of sports. The Imus bit was a personal insult out of nowhere.
Yep I recall he was let go - what Rush-boy did was call DMcNabb a “token” - in its own way as hateful, condescending and racist as what Imus did. And just as untrue, IMHO. The point is - did Rush’s radio career suffer? If not, why not vs. Imus? Imus has been booted off TV so far - if it ends there, will his “punishment” be in proportion to what the Big Fat Idiot did?
Bottom line: follow the money.
What makes me :rolleyes: is the ridiculous spectacle of Imus’ employers being shocked, SHOCKED that their shock jock would say such shocking things.
True. Especially since he apparently has gotten in trouble for saying things like this before.
CBS has canceled his radio show:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/12/imus.rutgers/index.html
Now he can go off to satellite where he can say whatever he damn well pleases.
He’ll probably have another job before his suspension would have been up.
So “nappy headed hos” should not be compared to “I’m Rick James bitch”?
This whole fiasco is irritating and pathetic. It’s just a chance for special interest groups to get some air-time so they can push their agendas.
Was Imus pretending to be Rick James?
I don’t get the comparison at all.