The thing is, guys like Sharpton and Jackson, they were just doing same-old same-old.
The one’s I’m really annoyed with is the National Association of Black Journalists. They were the first ones out of the gate to call for the firing of Don Imus, and that’s part of what gave the story legs.
Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist.
The NABJ should have been the first, foremost defenders of the spirit of the First Amendment. To the notion that, if someone is shouting at the top of their lungs things that you find disagreeable, then the proper response is to shout back at the top of yours. In a free society, you go for the words of your opposition, not the throat.
In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, “We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it.”
But they didn’t. They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down. Popeye-like, they decided that this was all they could stands cause they couldn’t stands no more. Their belief, apparently, was that they shouldn’t have to tolerate Imus’s racist opinions anymore.
Except they were wrong. Because that’s the price you pay for living in a free society. One’s business should always be with what your opponent says, not with your opponent himself, and people calling themselves journalists should have understood that.
The answer to free speech is always more free speech…not the shutting down of that speech.
PAD
• 
I like what Bill Maher said to Imus: “your punishment will be that you’ll lose some black listeners…and you should.” And in a perfect world, he’d have been right.
As much as I think that Imus’ opinions were odious (and given his behavior over the years, I think that he is a racist), I think that his employers overreacted by firing him.
Still, nobody has a right to a nationally-syndicated radio show, and at the end of the day, Imus didn’t own his own microphone… the studio did. They can hire or fire anyone they want.
I have no doubt that Imus will find employment once this dies down. He still has name recognition and a loyal following.
It hasn’t been a level playing field for years, and anyon who thinks that it is should probably take a good look at their industry.
If the netweork felt Imyus should go because he is too much of a liabiility, that’s OK. But they shouldn’t be acting because of pressure by a pressure group. And black spokesmen shouldn’t have been calling for him to be fired. They should have attacked his opinions severly and even said that they hope he looses listeners, but not asked for his head.
True ‘Dat, PAD, True ‘Dat…
Except that, as I’ve pointed out before and will point out again as many times as it takes, this is _not_ a free speech issue. Don Imus is not in jail. He has not been deprived of liberty or property by the government for his speech. I will now underline those words, “by the government”, because that’s what the First Amendment is there for, to prevent _the government_ from depriving people of their liberty or property for speaking their mind.
Don Imus can continue to call anyone he wishes a “nappy-headed ho”. Nobody is going to stop him (although he might want to be careful about his audience. Assault and battery is illegal, but many people practice it anyway.) Don Imus can go ahead and self-publish a book, or start up a podcast, and can even call it ‘Don Imus’ Nappy-Headed Ho Show’ if he wants. He might even be able to convince someone other than CBS and MSNBC to pay him for it. Stranger things have happened.
But he does not have a constitutional right to his own radio show. Plain and simple. He wasn’t pulling in the guests, he wasn’t pulling in the sponsors, so CBS fired him. They get to do that.
Imus leaving was not due to a “pressure group” if you watch and read between the lines of what has finally come out from NBC. On Meet the Press Gwen Ifiel (And I probably misspelled her name) mad e David Brooks look foolish, had Russert stammering and really spoke to the heart of the matter. She made more sense than anyone else. Go watch it online, I believe NBC places it on-line now.
Inside NBC the employees were upset. Some of the African American staff really let their feelings be known, but it sounded like the other races did as well. NBC on Dateline Sunday is another reveal that Imus and company did not get it and the executives listened and understood how bad this was. One statement was that at the end of the day NBC had too decide how they as a News division wanted to be known. I interpreted that as not wanting to be known as turning into “FOX” and the reliance on hateful tactics to be successful. It has really been years in coming.
At the end of the day it was the African Americans in positions to make a difference spoke up. Vice Presidents, and the like. Ifiel said it best, ten years ago when she had stuff said about her, there was no one to speak up.
Imus is a little fish caught in this net. He will likely be on sattelite radio, and that’s fine. Let those that like his bitter comedy pay for it, but NBC and later CBS did right. This is not a matter of Free Speech, but the way we use public airwaves. What really needs to happen is when these Political radio guys like Beck, Bortz, Savage, Limbaugh, etc. start doing the same, the spotlight gets shined on them.
Let’s face it, Imus was poor at apologizing and in the end came off as not really being genuine. The Rutgers Ladies Basket Ball team did not deserve the 10 to 15 minute slur on their character by Imus and his co-host. You use the public airwaves, you have to be ready to lose that privilage when you cross the line.
I figure most will disagree with me, but that is ok. Thing is that this is a topic that needed to be discussed in our nation.
It seems all these people want us to live in a communist society with no freedoms. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I personally do not like Imus, but am first in line to say he has a right to speak and not have to worry about being staked to a cross for it. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon if a white guy says something offensive, but would step off if another race said something of a slur. In the eighties when hate groups were all over talk shows, everyone in the audience would stand up and speak out against the KKK if they appeared. But when a black hate group appeared they felt they were justified in their hate. Hate is hate also. Let’s see Sharpton ever go against someone of color in his crusades…
“But he does not have a constitutional right to his own radio show. Plain and simple. He wasn’t pulling in the guests, he wasn’t pulling in the sponsors, so CBS fired him. They get to do that.”
And if you can find anywhere where I said he *did* have a constitutional right to his own radio show, then everything you said would be relevant.
What I *did* say was that a group of journalists should be the foremost defenders of combating words with words, not shutting down a forum altogether.
PAD
“And if you can find anywhere where I said he *did* have a constitutional right to his own radio show, then everything you said would be relevant.”
You are the one turning this into a freedom of speech issue. Your entire post is implying that the NABJ is helping violate Imus’ freedom of speech instead of protecting it. You are the one that is framing this as a Constitutional issue.
It also seems that you, like so many others, do not seem to understand that the first amendment only deals with what the government can and can not do to you in regards to free speech. Now maybe I’m wrong, and the NABJ called for the government to crack down on Imus (as Sharpton did with his ridiculous call for the FCC to investigate). If they did, and if you have a link that you could give us to prove that, then yes, you’re right. Otherwise you are wrong.
Y’know, I’m a pretty liberal guy. But I simply cannot find it in me to defend a guy who uses his national sopabox to hurl crude personal insults against at a bunch of 20-year-old girls who have never done anything worse than lose a basketball game.
Every journalist that worked in the news divisions of these companies did have a right to speak out and say we do not want to be confused as journalist with someone who is not. When Imus used actual journalist to give credence to his “comedy” a professional journalist had every right to say he was not right and this hurts us all that work here.
This is not about free speech, but about what speech we as a society will accept. For years politicians and others who enter the public forum have been fair game, even when raicist, sexist, hateful, hurtful , and down right mean remarks have been made. Imus was one of MANY who made a living on such tactics to be successful. What cannot be overlooked is that he said these things about a group of young women who had played their best and been a Cinderella team. They were students who did not deserve to be spoken about like that. Those of you that have kids, would you overlook the remrks made about child?
Again with the Dateline “half” report, The executive that was working directly with Imus stated three things that made it worse. He said Imus went on Sharpton’s Show knowing it would be a public flogging, but 1)Had no answer to the changes he was making to not do this again. 2)Kept saying “you people” and argued instead of being contrite and listening. 3)He no idea of what punishment he could come up with for himself.
I think in the end, Imus got it, but it too little to late.
“It also seems that you, like so many others, do not seem to understand that the first amendment only deals with what the government can and can not do to you in regards to free speech.”
And it seems that you, like so many others, cannot read simple statements.
I never said it was a First Amendment issue. I said that as journalists they should be defending “the spirit of” the First Amendment. Because I’m not…y’know…stupid, and because I actually *do*…y’know…read things as they’re written, I’m aware that the First Amendment refers to governmental action. “Congress shall make no law” was the tip-off.
I’m saying that the *spirit* of the First Amendment stretches beyond those words, however. That the paramount consideration of the exchange of words should be what Hopkins said in “1776”–“In all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about.”
And I’m saying that the fact that the journalists do NOT see it as a free speech issue is limiting and wrong, because that is exactly and precisely what it SHOULD be. Since their livelihood depends upon the specific wording of the First Amendment, then they should be the first to defend its spirit.
Because you know what happens when people find excuses to close down sources of speech they don’t support? It provides just that more of a toehold for the eventual closing down of sources of speech they do support.
And reporters should understand that. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.
PAD
“Y’know, I’m a pretty liberal guy. But I simply cannot find it in me to defend a guy who uses his national sopabox to hurl crude personal insults against at a bunch of 20-year-old girls who have never done anything worse than lose a basketball game.”
What’s most impressive is that you’re not a 20 year old girl. Yet interestingly I, a Jew who lost relatives in the Holocaust, can find it within me to defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie. Different strokes, huh.
PAD
In saying they wanted Imus shut down, the NABJ simply exercised their own free speech. It’s not like they were elected Chancelor of Germany — they’re the NABJ. If the NABJ releases a periodical, they are very casual in extending its influence commercially. Their outcry seems no more a betrayal of free speech than your right to raise doubt to their legitimacy.
I don’t think it’s the NABJ who has earned your ire — I think it’s the ACLU. If you’re going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.
And — as demonstrated by coverage of missing women extending only to whites, like Jessica Lynch (more of a sleeping beauty than the Ellen Ripley she was portrayed as), Elizabeth Smart, and the runaway bride — the need for a National Association of White Journalists seems one of indulgence and fortifying existing privileges.
“Except that, as I’ve pointed out before and will point out again as many times as it takes, this is _not_ a free speech issue.”
I’ve noticed that whenever someone advocates the curtailing of free speech, it’s always because it’s “NOT a free speech issue.” It’s an interesting consistency in the discussion, right up there with (1) people saying, “I’m in favor of free speech BUT” and then proceed to put the lie to the first half of the sentence, and (2) people misquoting Oliver Wendell Holmes about fire in crowded theaters.
PAD
PAD:
What is the issue with the Holmes quote again? I ask as someone previously chastised for using it who knows he shouldn’t but can’t remember why. (If there’s a link to a place that explains it so that you don’t have to go to the trouble of typing out an explanation, that’d be great, too.)
Thanks,
Eric
“I don’t think it’s the NABJ who has earned your ire — I think it’s the ACLU.”
Well, I *would* think that if I were ignorant of the ACLU’s mandate and scope. But since I happen to know that the ACLU is designed to defend incursions on the Constitution, and since this wasn’t an incursion on the Constitution, then obviously…
PAD
Sorry PAD, but it’s not only *not* a free speech issue, it’s *not* a spirit of free speech issue, either.
Free Speech is something that Imus’s employers have, too. He represents them. In effect, they are saying everything he is saying, whether they put up disclaimers to the effect or not.
Thus, they have every right to fire him if they want to. Should they have fired him in this case? That’s a whole issue in itself. But it has nothing to do with the spirit of free speech.
This is like saying that you can’t close a nasty thread your message board because it would violate the spirit of free speech. It doesn’t. Your board, your responsibility, your rules.
If I may interject myself into the debate between PAD and Scott Bland:
I think the crux of the issue is the difference betwen what is legal and what is morally right. What the NaBJ did was legal. They used their right of freedom of speech to express their disapproval of what Imus said and said that CBS and MSNBC should both fire Imus for it.
On the other hand, the question is, was it morally right for them to use the bully pulpit to pressure the two networks to fire him? On this point, I have to agree with PAD is always better to counter hate speech with more speech rather than trying to silence it.
And that is what they have done. Now, you can argue that Don Imus can start his own blog or stand on a street corner and talk about “nappy-headed hos” all he wants. And, from a strictly Constitutional reading you would be right. But, the other side of the coining is, if one pressure group can claim a victory by forcing Don Imus off the air, what’s to stop another group from doing the same? Next, an extremist religious group could try to force the Discovery Channel to cancel a program because it doesn’t say that dinosaurs were killed in the Great Flood. Or kill a health program because it isn’t “abstinance only”. Or a muslim group could force Fox to cancel 24 because it portrayed some muslims as terrorists.
No, Don Imus does not have a Constitutional right to keep his show. If his show loses money for whatever reason, the networks have the right to take away the microphone that they were paying for.
But, as I said before, if people from outside CBS or MSNBC force Imus off the air for being an ášš, due the rest of us truly have freedom of speech? Or do we just have the freedom to say only things that do not offend certain groups? Becuase, now that Sharpton and Jackson had Imus’ head for their wall, you can believe that other groups who find things on TV and the radio that they don’t like are taking notes.
“What is the issue with the Holmes quote again? I ask as someone previously chastised for using it who knows he shouldn’t but can’t remember why. (If there’s a link to a place that explains it so that you don’t have to go to the trouble of typing out an explanation, that’d be great, too.)”
Yeah, y’know what? Let’s pre-empt it to save time.
Sooner or later some yutz always says, “Well, you know, free speech isn’t absolute, because the first amendment doesn’t give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.” First of all, yes it does…if there’s a fire. Holmes stated that the First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic. Furthermore, the statement was made in connection to a case called “Schenck vs. the United States,” in which the government fined and jailed a man who advocated the notion that the draft was unconstitutional and that potential draftees should lobby their representatives in congress for change. He did not falsely shout fire, did not cause a panic…in fact, his efforts didn’t stop a single draftee from reporting for duty. Nevertheless the court upheld his being punished for advocating notions that are far more mild than much of what currently passes for normal discourse on the internet. In other words, people hold up a decision from one of the most egregious curtailings of free speech in the history of the SC and act as if it excuses curtailing free speech now.
PAD
“Thus, they have every right to fire him if they want to.”
Christ on a crutch, what does it take to actually stick to a topic? I mean, I understand thread drift, but what IS is about free speech that causes discussions to derail THAT fast?
Please, I’m begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have “the right” to fire him.
PAD
Ok, you only dismissed the constitutional issue a few minutes prior. No need to post your “obviously”s at me.
“But, as I said before, if people from outside CBS or MSNBC force Imus off the air for being an ášš, due the rest of us truly have freedom of speech? Or do we just have the freedom to say only things that do not offend certain groups? Becuase, now that Sharpton and Jackson had Imus’ head for their wall, you can believe that other groups who find things on TV and the radio that they don’t like are taking notes.”
You get a cookie.
PAD
When words and ideas are banned, we all lose. Jackson and Sharpton are racist hate mongers IMO. When was the last time either called attention to an injustice suffered by a non-black?
“Ok, you only dismissed the constitutional issue a few minutes prior. No need to post your “obviously”s at me.”
Since I in fact never said it was a constitutional issue in the first place, then obviously I do.
PAD
Peter, I’m ashamed of you. This is not a free speech issue. No one from the government stepped in to force the hands of CBS or NBC. The people at the NABJ and regular people like me did that and the companies decided. Free speech wasn’t violated. In a way free speech triumphed because by Imus was silenced by the screams of others crying out for a better society.
Please excuse the sloppy arrival of a point as much as you can:
As far as the Rutgers womens basketball team did not accept money for sex, Imus was the guy shouting fire where there was no fire, and the free speech inconsistency you cite does not apply to the NABJ.
If I were the only one you had to make this clear to, I couldn’t disagree.
“Please, I’m begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have “the right” to fire him.”
It was in the 6th paragraph of your initial post. “They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down.” You said that asking the station to fire Imus is violating the fundamentals of free speech.
So they have an opinion about whether or not the station should continue with Imus, and you call that a problem with the spirit of free speech. PAD, if you’re willing to call what was said “thread drift” after saying that, then you’re not being honest with yourself about this subject.
Peter, I believe you’re read most of my postings here and over at Newsarama pertaining to the Gordon Lee case. I’m a pretty staunch advocate not only of the First Amendement but of the broader concept of free speech. And I understand the distinction you are making between the First Amendment and the spirit of the First Amendment.
Just wanted to get that out of the way.
I find myself somewhat conflicted on this issue. My natural instinct is to bristle at Imus’s firing, because you are correct: give censors an inch, they take a mile. Bad ideas are best fought with good ideas.
Yet one of the duties of a journalist is to act as a “filter” or a “gatekeeper.” You go with this story because it’s newsworthy, you reject that one because it’s not. You print this letter to the editor because you judge it is worthwhile, and throw that one away because it isn’t.
I guess what I’m struggling with is the question of whether or the NABJ’s stand violates the spirit of freedom of speech. One could argue that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. And while Imus may no longer have access to as wide of an audience, he has by no means been silenced. Hëll, if he wants he can set up a cheap Web site and offer his bile via streaming audio.
I was surer of myself before hearing Gwen Ifill’s impassioned talk on Meet the Press yesterday. I’m even less sure what to think after reading your impassioned words. Personally, I need some time to reflect on this before I arrive at an opinion. And I think it is important as a citizen that I DO form an opinion and act on it.
I’d welcome any further thoughts you’d care to share regarding the above, Peter.
“Peter, I’m ashamed of you. This is not a free speech issue. No one from the government stepped in to force the hands of CBS or NBC.”
God almighty.
PAD
“Please, I’m begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have “the right” to fire him.”
It was in the 6th paragraph of your initial post. “They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down.” You said that asking the station to fire Imus is violating the fundamentals of free speech.”
Yeah? So? I still never said that Imus’s bosses didn’t have “the right” to fire him. I said that the *journalists* betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by *demanding* for him *to* be fired.
Journalists are the defenders of the free speech. Radio executives are the defenders of the financial bottom line. I think it reasonable to hold the former group to a higher standard of moral obigation.
None of which, yet again, relates to CBS’s “Right” to fire Imus.
PAD
“I find myself somewhat conflicted on this issue. My natural instinct is to bristle at Imus’s firing, because you are correct: give censors an inch, they take a mile. Bad ideas are best fought with good ideas.”
Ironically, I think one of the best forums for the bad ideas and good ideas on this issue to be hashed out would have been Imus’s show. The fact that that forum has been crushed is where the tragedy lies.
PAD
Peter, I was going to ask just how likely it was that such a conversation would’ve taken place. Then it occurred to me: those who were putting pressure on CBS and NBC to axe Imus could’ve instead applied pressure to force Imus to let them on his show. They could’ve used their influence to widen the public dialog rather than to restrict it.
I am still grappling with the issue but you have given me food for thought and perhaps helped me take one step closer to gaining clarity on the issue. Thanks.
Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said. OF COURSE the NABJ has the right to say anything they want. OF COURSE NBC has the right to fire Imus. OF COURSE any of us have the right to misinterpret anything PAD says here and post comments that make us look dense.
The question is should we? To me the answer is no for any number of reasons. Journalists, as PAD pints out, have a vested interest in being able to speak freely, without fear of being fired. They are setting very dangerous precedent for themselves and I am willing to bet that more than a few of them may live to regret it. Even as we speak, partisans on the left and right are literally pouring over every transcript they can find of off the cuff statements they will try to use to get people they don’t like off the air.
It’s already having an effect. Rosie O’Donnel is, in my opinion, a poorly informed windbag who has flirted dangerouly close to being a full time nut. Nevertheless, I would not support any movement to get her fired from THE VIEW. She has just announced that she will no longer call for Bush’s impeachment on the show. Presumably she will also refrain from her 9/11 conspiracy nuttiness as well. The fact that she is doing this out of fear should make us all worry, even those who are glad that she won’t be espousing opinions we don’t share.
I don’t actually have any problem with a group that calls itself the National Association of Black Journalists. It’s just that I had assumed they would have put a greater importance on the “journalists” and not the “black”. That does not seem to be the case.
If you’re going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.
Nonsense. Being for free speech does not mean absolute support for libel, slander, fraud, communication of threats, obscene phone calls, or any of a number of crimes. It’s like saying the NRA must support people who use a gun to commit a crime if they are to be consistant.
I also didn’t see where PAD said “absolute”.
>Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said.
Hey Bill, no reason to call everyone here an idiot. 😉
“If you’re going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.
Nonsense. Being for free speech does not mean absolute support for libel, slander, fraud, communication of threats, obscene phone calls, or any of a number of crimes.”
Not to mention that there’s nothing unconstitutional about firing a reporter for fabricating a story–which was the case in all of the above–so it’s a loopy comparison no matter how you slice it.
PAD
Maybe the problem is that in some instances Free Speech is being painted with braod strokes in terms of the Ideal, and painted by more narrow means in terms of the appropriateness of good people standing up and saying, enough is enough.
I urge you to try and hear Ifill’s remarks on Meet The Press. She is the real voice of sense on the issue. Taking Sharpton and then Jackson, who was way off base this time around, out of the lead in statements might help.
You know, you evoked your cultural standing. Why? To make a point or as a status? I realized that eventually and hoped you would bring this up. You see, on a small scale, I can take offense to the terms “Christ on a Crutch” and even “God Almighty” as terms that as a Christian offend me. But, I don’t. You have free speech to say that. Now if you were to take my Real name and compare me to James Dobson or Pat Roberson, That would be a personal attack as you are insulting me and making me be seen as that type of Christian. Everybody has something that can be considered offensive.
I believe in free speech. I understand these hatemongers in the KKK and Skin head groups have the right to say and spew their hate. Had it been a derogatory remarks against Jewish people, I would agree with the same outcome for Imus. I can see free speech, but I also have the right to say I do not agree nor want to prop up the ignorance that had been tolorated for years by both NBC and CBS.
I do want to say thank you for sticking to the debate and not losing control. I hear the passion in your voice. What I read as lost is that it was not just the outside forces that pressured the companies. Their employees said ENOUGH!
Got to let this go, but I am sure there will be much more round and rounds on this. In the end, I bet most are closer to beleifs than apart.
“Peter, I was going to ask just how likely it was that such a conversation would’ve taken place. Then it occurred to me: those who were putting pressure on CBS and NBC to axe Imus could’ve instead applied pressure to force Imus to let them on his show. They could’ve used their influence to widen the public dialog rather than to restrict it.”
I’m betting it wouldn’t have taken any pressure at all. Imagine the different scenario if the NABJ had put forward the following statement: “We are utterly appalled at the substance of what Don Imus said. That said, we defend his right to say it, and think that he should offer a representative of our organization a chance to come on his show and discuss the particulars.” I don’t doubt for a moment that Imus wouldn’t have welcomed it, and it could have spurred genuine discussion rather than accomplishing what it did: Squelch it.
PAD
“I believe in free speech. I understand these hatemongers in the KKK and Skin head groups have the right to say and spew their hate. Had it been a derogatory remarks against Jewish people, I would agree with the same outcome for Imus.”
I say I believe in free speech, and you say you believe in free speech.
Except Imus HAS made derogatory remarks against Jewish people, including the heads of Simon & Schuster, for whom I’ve worked. Yet if he had been fired for those remarks, I would be protesting just as aggressively as I am now.
It’s not enough simply to believe in free speech in the abstract. You have to believe in it in practice, or else all you really believe in is lip service TO free speech.
PAD
Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should “Get AIDS and die.’ and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?
I am not baiting you here. I’m seeking to understand your stance.
I know this is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but I keep thinking about the guy who got blasted a few years ago for using the word ‘ņìggárdlÿ.’ I kept waiting for the people who were trying to get him fired for being exposed as a bunch of poorly-informed vocabulary-deficient pinheads for not knowing the word was not related to what they thought it was, but it never happened.
I’m sorry I just can’t accept this as a free speech issue. Nobody, not one person, is preventing Don Imus from saying what he pleases, no matter how stupid or racist it might be. He was fired from his job for saying something that was patently out of line — that’s life. Don Imus is not being prevented from saying what he likes because he could start a blog tomorrow and the site would most likely be one of the most visited on the web. Don Imus’ free speech is not being curtailed because he will find a sponsor for his garbage and be as big as ever. Just because our country has free speech does not mean that speech can’t have consequences. And Imus’ consequences were to lose his sponsors and his job; again, no one is preventing him from saying what he likes. He’s not being censored. No one is editing what he says. He’s not a dissident put in jail for daring to speak his mind. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. This is a man who said something stupid and disgusting and deservedly lost his job. And he didn’t lose his job because of what he said; he lost his job because sponsors did not want to be associated with him. That’s the marketplace folks.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 16, 2007 10:09 AM
Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said?
Because a lot of people believe that the right to do this or that also entitles you to a “criticism-free zone.” If you accept that premise, much of the criticism of PAD is justified.
Problem is, that premise is a pile of crap. I remember arguing with a friend of mine who owns a comic-book store about the practice of putting a one-week old comic-book in the back-issue bin and jacking up the price. He asked me, “Don’t I have the right to run my store as I please?”
I replied, “Sure you do. Hëll, if you wanted to operate your store wearing nothing but a tank top and cotton briefs, you could. You’d be in compliance with laws against indecent exposure. I suspect store traffic would decline, though.”
See what I mean? Just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean it’s a wise thing to do. And I can question the wisdom of something without questioning your right to do it.
Any questions?
Three points:
1) I completely understand that Imus’s employers have a right to fire him, and that they should probably have done it earlier to disassociate themselves from racist speech. I certainly can understand African-Americans feeling better that such speech is no longer sanctioned by the network.
But, I’m looking at it from the point of view of African-Americans. And it seems to me that even the impression that Imus lost his job as a result of political pressure groups twisting the arm of the network is bad for Africa-Americans and the issue they are fighting for. It creates the false impression that African-Americans are stronger than they really are, and that they are using their power with a heavy hand. It makes Imus look like a victim, and distracts from his original outragous statements. It also makes it seem as if African-Americans are not committed to the spirit of free speech, instead of them being the ones using free speech to its fullest in order to label Imus as what he really is.
Nowe, it’s possible that this was simply tthe last straw for the network, who anyway should have and actually was planning to say goodbye to Imus. But then from a PR standpoint it lookes even worse that it seems as if Imus lost his job because of politically powerful African-American spokesmen and organization instead of because he was a longtime racist.
2) Socialism. Not a very popluar word in the US. But one of the good things about socialism (without ignoring its bad aspects), what it added to the achievement of documents like the US constitution was in showing that private companies, private organizations, economic forces, can become as much of a threat to freedom as the government. The constituton was worried about the government, but the danger that private companies or organizations can somehow silence people is also troubling.
Certainly an organization of journalists should be concerned about that as well as the threat of the government curtailing the constitutional right of freedom of speech.
3) I have no problem with the idea of a National Association of Black Journalists. Sub-groups in society sometimes feel the need to create organizations in order to protect and promote the interests of their group in the public arena, so as not to be poerless in the face of the power of the majority. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s empowerment. But if such organizations use their rightfully gained power in a heavy handed way, or even if they are just perceived as doing it, it causes more harm than good to the very same group whose interests they are trying to protect.
“Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should “Get AIDS and die.’ and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?
I am not baiting you here. I’m seeking to understand your stance.”
It’s a fair question, and the answer is no, he shouldn’t have been. Or if they felt compelled to do so, they should have also fired the exec who hired him in the first place. Otherwise they’re just being mealy-mouthed. They knew what they were getting when they hired him. He’d made no secret of his ultra-conservative leanings. He wrote books about the subject, for heaven’s sake. No one compelled them to hire him and, for that matter, no one compelled liberals or gays to listen to him. To hire someone whose entire gig is being offensive and then firing him for being offensive…I just don’t get that kind of thinking.
PAD
I don’t get how people can let their agendas blind them into being so short sighted. If the NABJ doesn’t defend Imus’ free speech, how can they expect anyone else to step in to support their member’s free speech? It’s as if they don’t think their free speech will *ever* need defending.
“In a way free speech triumphed because by Imus was silenced by the screams of others crying out for a better society.”
How is that a better society?
A better society would be shrugging off one man’s viewpoints if you don’t agree with them. An even better society would be an open discourse amongst both parties. An ideal society would not have racism as an issue at all.
For myself, I have but one question: isn’t Imus considered a “radio shock jock”?? If so, why is everyone so surprised that he said something SHOCKING, on the RADIO, about JOCKS?? (ok, 2 questions)
Let me put forward the following scenario:
A revival of “HAIR” is mounted. It’s well-directed, well-acted, criticially acclaimed for how much its anti-war stance relates to modern day, and ticket sales are strong.
NABJ gets together and declares that the songs “Colored Spade” and “Three-Five Zero Zero” which includes the line “Prisoners in Nìggërŧøwņ, it’s a dirty little war” should be cut from the show. The producers refuse to do so. The Revs Sharpton and Jackson pile on and lobby the theater, and the theater owners–not wanting the grief–pull the plug. No other theater on Broadway will touch it. Show’s over.
But of course the argument is that it’s not REALLY censorship because “no one is stopping” other theaters around the country from mounting productions…without the offending songs, of course.
You guys okay with that?
PAD
On this point, I have to agree with PAD is always better to counter hate speech with more speech rather than trying to silence it.
On the other hand, in the marketplace of ideas, there are both postive and negative responses to stimulus. I’m not so sure that eliminating all negative responses is the best way to make sure that the marketplace works.
And another thing..if Imus was working in a journalistic capacity, he was doing a pretty poor job of it, violating principles press people generally hold dear. Being a bully and throwing unfounded accusations is just not something a journalist does–and it’s not something out of line for a journalist to condemn.
I’m paraprhasing several ideas here, and probably doing a bad job of conveying any of them…but the mark of a good man is in what he does in the face of bad things. From the meek that rise up to be heroes in the face of the worst evils, to regular men that step to defend beaviour that they find legal, but reprehensible.
What we have here with Imus is an example of people behaving badly because they can get away with it. It’s the proverbial “would you commit murder if you knew, 100%, that you would never be caught or found out.” Imus’ has made a career on being a jerk. He’s a jerk to everyone, pretty much. His fans consist of people he hasn’t attacked lately, or those that have thick enough hides that they can laugh at themselves when they are the target of Imus jokes.
So, outside his fans, he’s got very few friends.
No surprise, then, when that long list of people that’d consider themselves to be Imus’ enemy is presented with a perfectly acceptable and legal means of committing career murder, they take it. It’s leterally mob mentality, only there’s no illegal act taking place.
Granted, I think everyone on some level understands the problem with the actions. Maybe not behind the actual firing from MSNBC, if the network is being truthful. And any sentence with “network” and “truth” in it should make us all suspect at this point. But perhaps the execs at MSNBC really did have a bout of conscience, and decide they didn’t want such trash associated with their network any longer.
Then again, NBC’s current lineup of shows includes…The Apprentice, where the contestants are rarely models of our best citizenry…The Miss USA contest, highly controversial of late for it s objectification of women…Saturday Night Live, which essentially makes comedey at the expense of someone or some group…their wesite features Triumph, the Comic Dog/Hand Puppet, no exactly a model of PC sensitivity…and the Office, which belittles and satirizes a predominatly white office environment. NBC isn’t exactly a paragon of sensitivity and positive programming.
So the claims that NBC acted because it’s employees were upset, and that it was somehow trying to do the right thing, seem empty to me. Maybe if NBC’s lineup and programming overall change over the next few seasons, I’ll change my opinion on that. But for now, it seems like NBC was just caught up in the swell to get away with career murder.
For this is a free speech issue. Any time a group decides to boycott something because of an expressed opinion, it involves free speech. Not an impermissable attack on free speech, but an attack on free speech all the same. As some have tried to point out, the Consitution only prohibits the government from trying to infringe on free speech. Absolutely correct.
But why do so many people assume that only the government needs to be concerned with curtailing free speech? The ideals of free speech are the the exchange of ideas…even bad ones…is more valuable than having a society where unfavorable expressions are stifled. The response to an idea you don’t like should never be to try and silence that opinion by taking away his voice…it should be to counter it with ideas of your own. This exchange over Imus demonstrates is that certain groups can bring enough public and potential consumer pressure to bear on corporations to influence programming. Almost secondary is the discussion over the actual topic of racially and sexually insensitive statements. Also glossed over is Imus reaction…and almost immediate apology, a willingness to meet those expressing offense to DISCUSS the issue, and also to meet the subjects of his words to personally offer his apology and, once again, DISCUSS the matter.
Isn’t that the true purpose of free speech? To generate debate, discussion? To have ideas lead to the creation of even more ideas? If our reaction of an idea we don’t like is to cut off the income of the person expressing the idea, our entire basis of free speech is jeapordized?
Don’t believe me? Why is the Rutgers team getting death threats? Because some…maybe Imus fans, maybe just bigots…blame them for the consequences (which, personally, is highly ignorant, because the team and players, so far as I know, haven’t called for Imus’ termination…ever). And then there’s the potential backlash of Imus fans’, and other groups that find such attacks against the ideals of free speech distasteful while also misunderstanding the concept, for retailiating against the networks and sponsors that abandoned Imus. Because that’s what happens when you boycott because of speech…there’s going to be someone out there, like you, that doesn’t agree with your speech, and decide to try and punish you by taking away their support of your commercial product.
Is that legal? Totally. Does it violate the ideals of free speech? Absolutely.
Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should “Get AIDS and die.’ and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?
In my opinion, it was the right response from MSNBC from their perspective, as was firing Imus in this case. As I said before, as long as MSNBC and its sponsors are paying for the microphone, they have the right to take that support away if the person in question uses it in a manner which causes them to conclude that it is in their best interest to no longer be associated with Savage or Imus.
What I believe PAD is trying to say, and I agree with, is that it is morally wrong for a group like the NABJ or individuals like Sharpton to Jackson to force the network to make that decision and then still claim that they are for freedom of speech.
Now, again, this is defining freedom of speech, not just limited to the legal/constitutional limits on what the government can do, but as a more abstract ideal for society. This is about more than just Imus getting fired for embarrassing his employer, it’s about who gets to to make the decision to fire him. Should it be the market or should it be a select group of aribiters who have decided what is and is not acceptable to be heard?
And Jimmy, as I said before, just because Imus can start a blog or go on satellite (still willing to bet that any terrestrial or satellite radio station that signs him will face the same threats from Sharpton and Jackson), doesn’t mean that his firing won’t have a chilling effect on what is acceptable to discuss on the radio or on TV.