In Defence of Imus and Disgust for Sharpton

The BBQ Pit
261

Well, if I don’t like music that has those words, wouldn’t I not listen to the music and ask my local stations to play something else?

I have written to my local talk radio station to tell them I don’t listen to the station anymore because of the asshole “news” guys they have. Should I have just not mentioned that they lost a listener when I was offended by their speech? Should I have not told my friends that I no longer listen to the station because I consider them to be hate-mongers? Should I continue to visit a business that advertises on the program these two idiots host when I think these guys are dickweeds and we’d all be better off if they were no longer spouting their bullshit?

How am I supposed to let people know that these guys suck and they have driven me away from the radio station and businesses that advertise on the show?

ETA:

People are assholes! I really feel for the players; they’ve done nothing but get shit on in this whole thing.

262

Right, that’s exactly whats despicable. These corporations supply outlets for people to listen to the views of other people: they supply airtime and bandwidth, and they o it based primarily on what listeners demand. Just because a corporation allows someone to have a platform to say things I don’t like doesn’t mean I shouldn’t buy talcum powder from them or their sponsors. That’s not what respect for free speech or a free market of ideas is about.

Because a commitment to free speech means a commitment to open discussion. It means recognizing that speech is not like torturing animals. It means recognizing that there is a major distinction between speech and conduct.

Sorry, but you’re rubber, I’m glue doesn’t work here. The people who are crybabies are the people who can’t get their way in a fashion consistent with free speech as a value.

No, I don’t like boycotts designed to shut down speech. I’ve never listened to Imus, and I doubt I ever would. I don’t much care about him or his case. What I care about is free speech, not just as a random restriction on government, but as a social commitment.

Al ready have. It’s valuing a free and open debate: a free market of ideas, where trying to pressure people to squelch shows and speech from the top is disreputable behavior.

Nah, that’s just how I feel about that sort of behavior.

263

I see my disconnect with you in this paragraph. I don’t consider a radio show such as Imus’s to be an “open discussion”. I think of it as a commodity–his time of free reign to spout whatever crap he wants without having to hear any dissent.

If it’s a crap show, I don’t think it should continue on the air…just like a bad sitcom. A show hosted by someone who is willing to call a bunch of female basketball players nappy-headed hos is pretty much my definition of a crap show. YMMV.

264

The thing is that there is something different with speech, and realizing this is a core part of classical liberalism. A free and open debate means just that. It means NOT trying to suppress even the products you don’t like, when it comes to speech. It means fighting speech you don’t like with more speech IN ADDITION to that speech, not towards trying to get it to shut up.

That impulse, that desire to respond to speech you don’t like by taking action to shut it down, instead of either lobby people not to listen or to speak out against it, is a BAD impulse.

265

Him being able to speak IS part of an open discussion: the open discussion is the ENTIRE SOCIETY. It’s speech that like it or not, people do want to hear. I’ve never really paid much attention or heard much about Imus before, but in my case, O’Reilly is a pretty good parallel. I DO have impulses all the time that I wish there were some way to just shut up that lying, pompous, preening scumbag. But you know what: those impulses are pathetic and lazy. The reality is, and the reality that I as someone that thinks what he has to say is terrible, is that lots and lots of people like what he has to say and listen to him.

If its really a crap show, then no one will listen, and it will go off the air. But obviously that’s not what the nannies here are content to let happen. The very thing they fear the most, and what is probably the reality of the situation, is that people will continue to listen to Imus anyway, because while most listeners might find the remark to be evil, they also aren’t after scalps.

Ok, so don’t listen, and/or speak out against it.

266

Lobbying other people not to listen or to speak out against it will result in it being shut down*. I speak out by telling people not to listen to local asshole news guys (LANG). I also tell the sponsors I don’t care for LANG and ask them if they’ve consider how it looks to have their ad ran immediately after LANG says something that at least one listen found extremely offensive. If the sponsors agree that what the LANG said was bad, they will speak out against it buy pulling advertising.

Sounds like it works the way it should.

I just think that telling sponsors about these things is part of using my speech.

*not in my case, but one can dream

267

I think I see your problem: you’re mixing up the civil-liberties concept of protected free speech with the commercial free market. They don’t operate in the same way. Free speech is constitutionally protected in the public sphere, but the commercial market is not the same thing as the public sphere. Nothing is protected in the free market if there is sufficient consumer power to destroy it.

And that’s the way it ought to be. It is not the responsibility of commercial markets to defend civil liberties or to respond to democratic ideals rather than to economic power. That’s what the public sector is for. What you’re advocating is a sort of protectionism, where consumers are supposed to refrain from full exercise of their consumer power in markets just because the market commodity in question happens to be speech.

Absolutely true, as far as constitutionally-protected uses of speech go. But it does NOT mean a commitment to providing a commercial market for any particular type of speech. The commercial market is intrinsically amoral and devoid of principle: it responds only to economic power.

Again, the problem is that you’re mixing up free speech with the free market. Markets are not ethically obligated to protect a particular commodity from commercial failure or attack just because that commodity happens to be speech.

Which is why there need to be non-commercial forums for speech, where open discussion can flourish in a constitutionally protected environment.

Where you “classical liberals” trip yourselves up is in your determination to handle everything with markets. Paradoxically, you end up sabotaging the freedom of commercial behavior in markets by introducing your own moral “nannyism”, scolding consumers for exercising their consumer power in ways you deem inappropriate.

We modern liberals handle the situation more consistently, IMO: we recognize that markets are intrinsically amoral and unresponsive to anything except economic power. So we carve out a separate public sphere where constitutional protections rather than markets rule. Civil liberties reign supreme in the public sector and consumer power in the private sector. This way, we don’t have to require free-speech protectionism in markets or demand that markets imitate the government’s role in refusing restrictions on speech.

268

I can never disclaim disgust for Sharpton, after what he did to Steve Pagones, and after he’s successfully wormed his way back to a “leadership” position (have his black people no shame?) without ever apologizing to or paying Pagones for ruining his life.

Having said that:

(a) I’ve never really understood the appeal of Imus – I just don’t get it.
(b) I’ve never really understood the appeal of any morning radio – four hours of chit-chat about – what? Skits about Ross Perot? A bunch of flunkies engaging in patter with him?
(c) What the Hell was he doing talking about women’s college basketball in the first place? This alone proves his irrelevancy – I (as a former jock/sports fan) see little point in talking (ad infinitum) about sports (ad infinitum) – but if I did, I would certainly start last with women’s college basketball and its thundering 360 degree layups (cf. The Onion | America's Finest News Source.). How lame. I’d say he deserved what he got if I didn’t think the right was right in pointing out the ten-times-worse ho-bashing lyrics of mainstream hip-hop, but I won’t miss him in any event.

269

Who, Guinastasia? What are the chances?

270

My caveat to the Imus-bashing that followed: I do know that through his ranch and otherwise, he’s done a lot of charitable stuff. Rev. Al’s activities seem mostly to redound to the greater glory of Rev. Al. Perhaps I could cut Imus some sympathy break in behalf of trying to help autistic kids? Maybe. But I still don’t want to listen to his show.

271

[godwin]Hitler got the trains running on time.[/godwin]

272

Dude (though from your Godwin tags I suspect a chain-yank).

I just got through saying I consider the guy un-listenable (and what is up with the Anthony-Perkins’s Mom shaggy dessicated look?).

And – you meant Mussolini.

273

I’m elated the way this controversy has worked itself out.

To repeat Caridwen’s link

A class act all around, providing a peaceful conclusion and allowing, at least for myself, a time of reflection.

When I heard the famous Imus exchange, I’ll admit it was entertaining for me. I didn’t see it as derogatory, coming from a man who walks charitably and talks edgy. My personal experience might suggest I should know better, but on the other hand the same experience provided a whole different understanding of the best way to deal with apparent hateful language.

At the age of eight, I developed two large teeth with a space in between that increased towards the bottom. They protruded at a 45 degree angle and it didn’t help that the adjacent teeth were extremely small. No problem for me until somebody tagged me with the nickname “bucky”. That name stuck with me for the entire time I grew up in my hometown. It affected my sense of self worth, job opportunities and made my life miserable. I could eat just fine. In fact, I could eat corn on the cob through a barbed wire fence. Later on, I elected to have my front teeth pulled and replaced with a bridge. What a relief.

Both my “enemies” and my friends used the word. It was easy enough for me to see that there were those who were deliberately being hurtful and those who just didn’t know better. Rather than allow my “enemies” the satisfaction that they were hurtful to me, I did not express my feelings.

So this is where I’m at when it comes to people using words like nappy and even jigaboo. Nigger is clearly offensive and no one can make a case that it isn’t intended to be. But the other words are descriptive of appearance that no one should be ashamed of. Even jigaboo, obviously in reference to the black skin, evokes voodoo , a legitimate black cultural entity. Either way, it is difficult for me to understand why people should take offence to nicknames or references to a specific normal physical appearence and in kneejerk reaction, claim the perp is hateful.

To get to my point. Up until the Imus- Rutgers meeting, I would have thought that the hulabaloo would only provide more ammunition and motivation for those who really hate blacks. It will happen in quiet confrontations that won’t get any press but some lone black kid will now get called a nappy headed jigaboo and that kid will know he’s being hated and the perp will know he’s getting through.

Now, it appears that the hulabaloo was worth it, common sense has prevailed, there is healing, everyone’s going to be a little more careful, and we may have cracked a racial barrier that will allow for a fair examination of a powerful subculture that affects fundamental attitudes towards women on the part of our youth. No matter how you look at it, I think we all just come out ahead.

And btw, the Rutgers team may have lost the final, but they’ve gained the respect of a whole lot of people for their action off the court.

274

Uh, dude, you’re hardly one to cast stones when it comes to THAT little sin.

275

“Jigaboo” and “ho” describe appearance now, and are thus not offensive. The basketball team was right to get upset at “nappy”, but not “jigaboo ho”. Boy, are they hypersensitive!

Flying Dutchman, I recommend you walk up to Laila Ali and call her a jigaboo ho. Then report back and tell us what happened.

276

<snort!>

277

I never intended to suggest any such thing. You totally missed the intent of my post and I guess I only have myself to blame for not being an effective communicator. On the other hand, I may be a complete idiot for not understanding my own posting.

I also want to apologize to you for starting a new thread on your topic. I wouldn’t have liked it if it happened to me and I should have been more considerate.

278

I reread your post. Excluding the whole dissection of “nappy” and “jigaboo” (which is really more offensive than “nappy”, for future reference), I agree with what you wrote.

You don’t have to feel sorry about creating a new thread. My thread was a rant expressing my feelings about Imus, and it hopefully helped people see the other side of the story–before all the raucus about suspensions and firings started. A discussion of Sharpton would have derailed that conversation, so starting a new thread was a good thing.

But I still appreciate the apology and the fact that you’ve rethought some things.

279

Yes and no. I’d say that lobbying other people not to listen isn’t really keeping with free speech either, though it’s not half as bad as trying to get an entire venue of speech shut down so that people can’t listen. By and large, the public already knows what it wants, and is going to listen to it, and maybe the idea that you know better than everyone else is gonna be a hard sell.

Ok, but why is that a good thing? Isn’t it better when sponsors sponsor all sorts of speech, regardless of who, or even they find it offensive? These sponsors are there to make money based on the number of listeners, not to determine what the public should or should not have access to in terms of speech. The public is already deciding that for themselves, freely.

It’s possibly to freely speak against the value of free speech. It’s possible to vote for oppression. The point is that your actions, while they are indeed an exercise of free speech, are also an act against it: threats you make to people about how they must do as you say and make the speech YOU want to vanish, vanish.

280

So you’re saying a sponsor should not have a say-so in what values and commentary are being attached to their products? Even if those values and commentary go counter to the economic interests of the advertisers?

An advertiser shouldn’t remove its sponsorship if a DJ goes on air and spouts hateful things about that advertiser? If I’m a DJ and I say “Proctor and Gamble SUCK!!”, I can’t expect Proctor and Gamble to take their business elsewhere, if they are sponsoring my show?

Really? Are you really thinking this through?

Listeners do not equate to money for an advertiser. The amount of their products those listeners purchase equates to money for an advertiser. If all this “free speech” an advertiser is sponsoring is economically disadvantegous to them, they are not morally bound to continue to support it. By advocating this, you remove the freedom from the market and hold everyone hostage to someone else’s speech. This is not what the first amendment is about.

Your posts display a profound misunderstanding about how marketing works.