These threads have gotten all mixed up in my mind by now, but in one of them I already made a point similar to this, but I think that it bears repeating.
YWTF had appropriately pointed out that I would accept censorship in a variety of other circumstances, such as by a resturaunt owner who fires a waiter who referred to customers as “hos” or to me as “Jew” instead of “Sir”. And that is exactly right: we accept a variety of forms of censorship and censorship is not per se a bad thing. We are particularly wary of governmental censorship and this debacle does not involve that. We do accept that the government has a role in censorship, such as that which crosses the line into true hate speech, but he did not cross that line any more than most of Snoop’s or Johnny Cash’s did. No one’s protected rights have been infringed in any way. He was censored by way of indirect use of corporate avarice.
The issue at hand is if this particular method of censorship is the sort we want to endorse let alone celebrate. Imus was censored not because he lost his audience. The market was as interested in what he had to say as it had been before his latest idiocy, in fact probably more. This was censorship by those who did not listen to him by way of use of battery with the blunt object that is the media circus, which concerned the advertisers who then put the screws onto those who have every right to censor Imus, the media outlets.
I maintain my concern that allowing those that can play the media circus well to have this de facto veto power over what stations will broadcast or not, that calling for someone to be removed from the air because you as a non-listener want to prevent others from hearing something that is offensive to you, is no cause for celebration. It is a cause for concern.
I didn’t like it when Conservative forces tried to prevent Michael Moore from having his ability to distribute his movie. I didn’t like it when the others tried to punish the Dixie Chicks for saying things they didn’t want to hear. And I do not like this. Short of hate speech what he said and how “innocent” or how much these women were “the best of black women” is totally besides the point. The intent to silence voices that you do not like, the intent and the method, while legal, are worrisome.
I think this is an unwarranted assumption–and at the end of the day, an irrelevant one. You’re assuming that no one who watches Imus voiced a complaint about his language. Why make that assumption? He does reputable interviews with important figures of our day, and I’ve listened to a few of these interviews before. That makes me an Imus listener. A sporadic one, but one nevertheless. (I must have caught him on an “off” day, though, because I can’t recall hearing him say anything offensive).
You are still misusing the word censor, by the way. Imus is no more bound to speak his mind than any other employee in the world, but we don’t scream CENSORSHIP!!! when a regular Joe Blow is reprimanded for unprofessional speech. Calling it “censorship” muddies the water. Imus wasn’t fired because he was expressing an unpopular opinion. He was fired because he was being a jackass. As Cardiwen pointed out, he could have been fired for making farting noises, too. Is that censorship?
So those girls should just stand on the side-lines with their pom poms and stop trying to play a “man’s” game? Women athletes can’t be good on their own merits, only men’s?
[QUOTE]
Are you replying to an actual quote by someone or just one you read in your own head? Women athletes CAN be good on their own merits, but that does not necessarily make them interesting to watch. Professional sports are a business. If a team cannot generate enough interest to make money, there’s nothing to say they have to exist as professional team. There are plenty of pick-up leagues.
It seems like one of the things that made Imus’s statements so intolerable is that a lot of people had built up this whole Rutgers women’s NCAA basketball tornament in their minds. Here’s this mediocre state school from New Jersey coming in second in an NCAA tournament that has always had second billing to the men’s and Imus went and dismissed all that.
Maybe you’re just prejudiced against lesbians.
Professional athletics is not just about pure athleticism. It’s also about image and entertainment. And I’m sure there are plenty of women who watch the Yankees to see Derek Jeter or the Patriots to see Tom Brady.
The fact is that they don’t get as much respect because they simply can’t compete on the same level as the male athletes. When a female Michale Jordan or Tiger Woods comes along, then they might get the same level of recognition.
The advertisers are paying for Imus. And they will only pay for him so long as they think there will be enough people listening to him to hear their commercials.
I’m not sure if you had a point, but maybe you could explain it? If advertisers are willing to pay for Imus or hip hop or a 24 hour farting network, why shouldn’t they not be on the air? Who, in your mind, should ultimately decide what goes on the air? What should the rules be?
Obvioulsy the advertisers weren’t interested in paying for Imus anymore! That’s why they dropped him like a hot potato. What, you want to force them to sponsor him? If not, what is your point?
If the guy is popular enough, he’ll find someone to either sponsor him on a different channel or put him on satellite radio. And I won’t have a problem with it, because I never said anything about Imus not deserving his own show.
He’s just not entitled to a show. And people aren’t entitled to listen to anything and everything on the public airwaves, either. No one’s entitled to anything in a free market. Even shock radio.