Neil Rogers does a daily talk radio show in Florida. Talkers magazine, the industry’s leading trade publication, ranked him No. 15 on their list of greatest radio hosts of all time. A poster on another web site described him thus:
Anyhow, the current controversy revolves around a parody song about Condoleezza Rice.
Niger Innis, spokesperson the Congress on Racial Equality, said he sees a double standard at play.
I think Innis is right about what would happen to Rush Limbaugh if he broadcast these words about some African American. I think the same standard should apply to Neil Rogers.
Does anyone believe that Howard Stern is a “liberal”? Pro-gun. Pro-Capital punishment. Constantly mocking black speech. Frequently mocking black leaders. Fiscally conservative. Foreign relations hawk. (That I can recall, his only “liberal” stances are in regards to abortion and (his own) free speech.) Stern is never in (serious) danger of being censored. Are we expected to silence him, too? *
Maybe Rogers should be reined in by his handlers–or maybe we should simply accept that the First Amendment should be inclusive of jerks–even Catholic-bashing jerks.
I am not a fan of Howard, finding his humor 95% juvenile, 4% stupid, and 1% inspired: too little to justify listening to him when I am not forced to by people around me with loud radios.
—think Innis is right about what would happen to Rush Limbaugh if he broadcast these words about some African American.—
I doubt it. Have you ever LISTENED to Rush? He’s funny as hell sometimes, but stuff like this is his stock and trade. He doesn’t deserve to go off the air either.
My favorite was his recent assertion about liberal media bias stemming form some elaborate conspiracy theory about a story he read that was sponsored by the Times, but he claimed was censored out of the publication because it boded well for Republicans. Of course, the story was sitting on the frontpage the day he made this rant (Nov. 4).
I cannot recall ever having heard Limbaugh say anything remotely this raw.
I believe the story your thinking of may be the New York Times Poll that showed a sudden gain for Republicans right before the election. The Times’s faulty analysis was mentioned on several web sites. E.g., Andrew Sullivan
Sullivan’s point was that the USA Today headline on 11/4 was Late shift appears to favor GOP. The Times headline was In Poll, Americans Say Both Parties Lack Clear Vision They did report the Republican shift, but it was down in the 6[sup]th[/sup] paragraph. Then the article argued that the shift was not significant.
Now that the results are in, we can see that the Times blew it. Rush correctly criticized their analysis before the election.
BTW the Times headline not only missed the key element in the survey, it also wasn’t accurate. Those polled said the Republicans did have a vision by 42% to 39% and the Dems did not have a vision 49% to 31%. Mickey Kaus also skewered the Times for their mis-analysis. Whether the cause was bias or something else, they sure mis-represented the results of their own poll.
The bottom line is this, dec. Either people will be turned off by crap, or they will tune into it. No one is going to kick anyone off the air, though they are welcome and encouraged to condemn those that make evil statements like this.
Which is why I am breathlessly awaiting a cite showing Rush engaging in the sort of racist behavior which you claim is his “stock in trade.” Not that I don’t trust your no doubt excellent memory. But I’m from Missouri…
I shouldn’t have left an implication in there about anything having to do with racist behavior in particular. Adn indeed, I have to agree, reading dec’s wording again, that Rush is never this crude or raw.
But his characterizations of various groups, from feminists, lesbians, environmentalists, democrats, etc are just as unfair and nasty. I don’t think we need a Rush quotefest concerning homosexuals, Barney Frank prancing around in the flag, etc. They’re exactly the same character of attack: a person can’t possibly be sincerely X, because that’s just crazy: it must be because (insert nasty epithet here based on their sexuality, looks, etc.). It’s all about playing psychologist to your enemies, enumertating all the nasty stereotypes you think they represent. M. Dowd does this too.
This song is the same sort of thing: Rice can’t actually be a smart attractive black woman who is also a Republican: it must be because she’s a servile turncoat on her supposed “race” (defined by the political views people of her “race” are supposed to hold if they want to properly qualify).
I’m not defending, or even trying to draw an exact moral equivalence on racist remarks. But demonizing your enemy is always vile. But people are allowed to be vile in this country, and hte listeners, not the spin of outrage trying ot shut people down, is what decides who is listened to.
Apos, I definitely agree that Neil Rogers’s humor should not be legally censored. However some material is so disgusing that a radio station ought to take action. In other words, if enough people are upset, it could be bad business for the station to be associated with this shock-jock. I think most of us would agree that some things are just beyond the pale. Is this parody bad enough that the station ought to terminate the show? On reflection, perhaps not. Still, something ought to be done.
Many observers believe there is an anti-intellectual strain in some black culture. E.g., seeand The song seems to perpetrate this sort of thing. When Rice and Bush addresssed foreign policy during the campaign, she was the expert. It was she who explained some of Bush’s simple-minded comments. She was training him in foreign affairs. So, anti-intellectuals may drag her down because of her glaringly high intelligence and intellectual accomplishments.
ISTM that demonstrations and publicity campaigns, demonstrations, etc. are sometimes used as weapons against offensive media stuff. I think the left is more skilled at organizing such campaigns. If Neil Rogers made the same comments about an analogous black Democrat (Is there one?), there would be an organized campaign to punish him (and rightfully so.) But, a black Republican doesn’t get the same protection.
december quoted CORE’s Innis claiming that no conservative would be allowed to get away with the same thing. By any standard that I use, Stern’s politics fall more on the Right than the Left, with a single blip in regards to abortion, yet he is not being hounded off the airwaves for skits that are every bit as outrageous as those of Rogers.
(Of course, Stern gets left out of these discussions because he is a “shock jock,” but I see no reason for him to be excluded. Would Rush be pilloried if he resorted to Rogers’s tactics. Sure. Would he be cancelled? No.)
Apos, in the future, always put a quote from whatever article you’re quoting, so we know what you’re talking about, because sometimes the articles don’t remain posted on the website, or sometimes the source requires registration to read. Or both. Like many online newspapers, the Times puts its articles in the “pay to read” archive after a number of days, so folks who come into the thread late might not be able to read it.
Anyway. What Rush actually said.
The Times article.
The New York Times, like many newspapers, has both an on-line version and a print version, so Rush’s “conspiracy” is just that the story didn’t make it into the print version. That’s all.
I subscribe to the print version of the Chicago Tribune and there are frequently stories on their website that don’t appear in the paper I’m sitting here reading.
If there really was a media conspiracy to keep Clymer’s article out of the news, why would the Times put it out over the news wire and feature it on their website? Rush frequently doesn’t stop and think these things through.
Or both. Like many online newspapers, the Times puts its articles in the “pay to read” archive after a number of days, so folks who come into the thread late might not be able to read it.