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
• 
“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.”
There’s a problem with you application here. I agree, free speech doesn’t mean you should be in a criticism free zone. But that’s not the case here. Imus wasn’t just criticized…he was terminated. Using the comic-shop analogy, it’s not enough that business would drop…to make the analogy parallel, you’d have to say some parent comes into the shop, sees the way the clerk is dressed, and then petitions the city council to shut the place down. Not because of bad sales, but because she doesn’t agree with the way the shop is run.
That’s not the ideals of free speech, that’s the ideals of oppression and stifling expression and freedom because you find something distasteful.
If she’d just expressed her distaste to the owner, and told him she’s never shopping there again, and then maybe tried to get others to likewise stop shopping there, that’d be different. Maybe only slightly, but at least it puts the idea into circulation, and gives others a chance to discuss the topic and make their own decision.
The Imus parallel would be to see what happens with his ratings. If his ratings continued, or even went up, that’d be proof that, for all the public outcry, it’s still good business. If his rating go down, Imus and his networks could decide if they wanted to alter the format of the show, or choose termiation alltogether. But by going directly to termination, before that, you eliminate any benefit gained from the exchange of ideas, and all you do is stifle it in related areas.
I don’t see that this is about the First Amendment since no one has said Imus can’t continue to make racist and sexist comments.This is about facing the consequences of those comments. He exercised his rights, and now he’s being forced to accept the consequences of doing so in the manner he did. It appears it been decided that those consequences will be to lose the privilege of his own radio and television show. As such, he’s just lost the means to exercise his first amendment right to such a large audience as he previously enjoyed.
In all the rhetoric I’ve heard surrounding this incident, I’ve never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not.
Whether these consequences are over the top, I don’t feel it’s my place to to say. After all, I’m a white man. That means I’m neither black, nor a woman, and certainly not both, nor am I affiliated with the Rutgers team in any way. I have no experience with what it’s like to be the targets of language like that, and I have no idea of the impact it had on those women, or anyone in those segments of our society. How can anyone who has not felt the full impact of those remarks truly understand it.
All I can say about it is that, regardless of what you feel about them, Imus is now facing the consequences for saying what he said. That’s something we all have a responsibility to do when we say something. That is what I see all this as being about, and that is most people seem to be missing.
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.
That’s a good point. I had the same reaction when Pepsi pulled their sponsorship of Madonna (whome I despise as a performer) because she made a sexually explicit video with imagery offensive to Catholic. Um, did they not see her previous work?
On the other hand, I can see the POV of these companies. They hire celebrities to promote their products or produce entertainment content that will attract sponsors. If the celebrity does something that causes them to lose sales or sponsors, then, since that was the opposite of their stated goal, they are within their rights to pull the plug.
Savage was hired by MSNBC because he was a provocative firebrand. IIRC, he was actually hired to replace Mr. Sensitivity Phil Donahue, whose show was tanking. So yeah, they hired Savage precisely because they knew what they getting and were hoping that his freak show would attract viewers, much for the same reasons that Viacom kept Howard Stern on the air. Should the executives at MSNBC have realized that it was inevitable that Savage would go “too far” and end up costing them sponsors? Sure, it was stupid of them not to expect it, but I think that’s a separate issue as to whether or not they were right to can him when his statements started to cost them sponsorhsip.
I don’t see that this is about the First Amendment since no one has said Imus can’t continue to make racist and sexist comments.This is about facing the consequences of those comments.
And I see this particular discussion here as being about who gets to decide what those consequences should be: His employers or NABJ/Al Sharptaon/Jesse Jackson? Remember that both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two-week suspension and sensitivity training was sufficient punishment for his offensive remark. It was only after continued pressure from the above that they switch it to termination.
In all the rhetoric I’ve heard surrounding this incident, I’ve never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not.
Then I don’t think you’ve been reading my comments, because I’ve been very clear that Imus had a responisiblity for his speech, but his responsibilities were to his employers, not the NABJ.
Bobb Alfred, either you missed my point or I did a poor job of making it. My illustration was offered in support of what you and PAD are asserting, not in opposition to it.
I wonder if 90% of these comments would have been eliminated if PAD had written “spirit of free speech” instead of “spirit of the first amendment.” That seems to be where a lot of people have hangups.
Yogzilla touched on the point I was going to raise. Imus is/was a shock jock. He isn’t, in fact, a journalist. But the fact that his radio show was simulcast on MSNBC seemed, in some people’s minds, to elevate him to journalist status. Now, if an actual professional journalist had said something like this during their news program or in a news article, I could almost see calling for his/her/it’s head. But the NABJ getting involved in this, doesn’t that break one of the rules of journalism, ie, don’t make yourself part of the story?
So much for tolerance.
Sean, at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, it sort of depends on how you define a journalist. Imus was an interviewer. Numerous national politicians had appeared on his show, even despite his reputation for being a shock jock. He had a big audience and many political figures wanted to reach that audience. On of the current presidential candidates (I forget which, Mitt Romney maybe) even announced his candidacy on the show.
Does that make him a journalist? Maybe, but then I guess that makes Bill O’Reilly one, too. And I don’t want to got there.
“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.”
Well, seeing as the owners of the theater had a choice about whether to cave to pressure, I don’t have a problem with the scenario. In addition, nothing, except an unwillingness to risk the wrath of those who shut the first show down, is stopping other theaters from putting that show on with the offending songs intact. As far as I know, there’s nothing stopping the director from finding his own venue for performing the show, one where he doesn’t have to worry about the theater owners.
In addition, NABJ, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, and anyone else who may wish to, has every right to put pressure on those theater owners as long as they don’t break to law to do so.
It’s a matter of who’s standing up for what they believe in, and people making a decision about what is more important. Is it more important to to make a stand, even if it loses money, preventing you from continuing with getting your message out? Is it more important to try to find another way of getting your message across? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, the people making the decision see that maybe the people putting pressure on them are making a point they agree with?
If you have a message or a goal, and it’s getting lost in the noise of a scandal, you have to decide for yourself whether it’s worth the fight, or whether the issue you’re fighting over isn’t what’s important. If you do decide to fight, or you’re employing the the people responsible for the fight, you have to make a decision about what’s important.
As for you never saying it was a First Amendment issue, you’re right. I misread what you said. The point that it’s not a free speech issue still stands, though. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Don Imus or your theater production, they still have to face the consequences of what they say and how they express themselves.
“Bobb Alfred, either you missed my point or I did a poor job of making it. My illustration was offered in support of what you and PAD are asserting, not in opposition to it.”
Bill, y’know, I had to read your post three times before I could decide which way you were trying to come out. In the comic shop, were you trying to tell your friend that he shouldn’t put jacked up week old comics in the bin, or that he should? It seemed like you were telling him he shouldn’t…essentially, that he shouldn’t do something in his profession that might pìšš øff his customers, because his business might suffer for it.
I took that to be an implication of Imus, in that he needed to be careful what he said. I take it you meant instead for it to implicate MSNBC and CBS, for acting too quickly to silence him. That such moves are totally legal, but might themselves not be the best way to run their business.
Which, no surprise, in that case I’m in total agreement with you. Anyone can react to negative pub. The true test of morality is to refuse to act before the consequences arrive. MSNBC and CBS made the choice…sometimes for decades…to air Imus. It’s not like Imus woke up that fateful day and said “I’m going to try something new, something I’ve never done in my decades of broadcasting…I’m going to make a joke in poor taste directed at someone that might not deserve it.” He’s made a career on that, and MSNBC and CBS have both made probably billions of dollars selling add time on it. Pepsi and Staples and a slew of other advertizers have made countless connections with customers because of it. When the public outcry against him was small, did those entities have a problem investing in Imus, in giving him air time, in supporting him with his show? No. Not at all.
And, so far, who’s the only one to pay the commerical price of his actions…which, at least according to my brief exposure to his show, had little to distinguish it from any other day his show was on? Imus himself. The countless programmers and marketing executives that supported his show for decades, they don’t even get a second glance.
That’s where the hypocrisy of this whole thing comes from.
I’m going to try to address Mr. David’s post, unlike a lot of the people here. If some of you will go back and read it, he was wondering why an organization of black journalists would want to shut down Imus’s show as a free speech issue.
Y’see, I don’t think the organization was criticizing him on simply a matter of race. They were criticizing him because he was a fellow journalist who had gone too far.
Yes, Imus is a journalist, because the line between journalism and entertainment has just about been obliterated. There are people who are getting their news from Colbert and Stewart, and finding it more incisive than what’s on the network. You may recall that Stewart tore into Tucker Carlson for this when invited on Crossfire as a guest (which some say cost Carlson his job).
That’s fine for the liberal minded. Others see Rush Limbaugh as the ideal replacement for Walter Cronkite’s anchor chair (which nobody at CBS has adequately filled). The recent screaming match between O’Reilly and Rivera (some think it was as honest a feud as a steel cage chainsaw match in the WWE) was Meet the Press for this age.
So, Don Imus is a journalist. Is it not right for an organization of journalists to establish a code of conduct for journalists? And if Imus wasn’t a black journalist, why was a substantial portion of his daily news describing blacks and black behavior? I say that both Imus and Mo’Nique are black journalists. Wanna bet they aren’t?
“And I see this particular discussion here as being about who gets to decide what those consequences should be: His employers or NABJ/Al Sharptaon/Jesse Jackson? Remember that both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two-week suspension and sensitivity training was sufficient punishment for his offensive remark. It was only after continued pressure from the above that they switch it to termination.”
NABJ and Revs. Jackson and Sharpton are closer to being part of the verbally targeted segment of our society than I am. They have every right to put pressure on the sponsors, on the broadcasters, and on Imus himself. They are more likely to have a better understanding of the true impact those words had than many of the people in charge of making the final decision would ever be. Regardless of the pressure, only the executives at MSNBC and CBS were in a position to make the final decision. They had to consider the reputations of their companies, the feeling of their employees, possibly the stockholders, and their ability to make money instead of losing it, and not necessarily in that order.
“Then I don’t think you’ve been reading my comments, because I’ve been very clear that Imus had a responisiblity for his speech, but his responsibilities were to his employers, not the NABJ.”
You’re right, I hadn’t read all the remarks. I only recently found this page and I haven’t had time to read all the remarks.
Bobb Alfred: “I take it you meant instead for it to implicate MSNBC and CBS, for acting too quickly to silence him. That such moves are totally legal, but might themselves not be the best way to run their business.”
You got it.
Moreover, I was trying to point out that criticizing my friend’s business practices is NOT tantamount to questioning his right to engage in such practices. By the same token, PAD’s criticism of the NABJ’s pressure tactics is NOT tantamount to questioning their right to engage in such tactics.
Whenever someone says, “Gee, I don’t think this was the best thing to do,” people have this odd habit of asking, “What, you don’t think so-and-so has the right to do that?” It’s a complete non-sequitur.
Don Imus has said many things that I find offensive and stupid (which aren’t necessarily the same thing). So have Savage, Limbaugh, Medved, Stern, and a local neocon radio personality named John Carlson.
I have a very simple reaction to all of the above. I don’t listen to any of them. They’re perfectly free to continue their ignorant spewing all over the airwaves, just as I am perfectly free to decline to hear any of it. If enough people elect to not listen, pretty soon they dry up and blow away – no sponsor is ever going to back a show with no audience.
If, instead, you pressure their employers into firing them, all you’ve demonstrated is that you can be a bigger bully. Imus never pressured Rutgers to get rid of the women’s basketball team; Savage never pressured his caller’s employer to fire him; Carlson hasn’t even pressured his station to take away his show “partner”, the liberal Ken Schramm. Who has done this thing? Who has thrown a chill over the entire idea of the “marketplace of ideas”? Why, that would be the National Association of Black Journalists.
As PAD pointed out, the irony is staggering, if not the least bit amusing.
(Oh, PAD – I also think you’re soon going to find yourself shrouding this Mike character. He has a tendency to ignore anything that contradicts his own beliefs, and seems to think that shouting louder constitutes some sort of effective counterargument. I gave up on him back during his first exchange with one of the Bills, some time back…)
Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at April 16, 2007 11:54 AM
I gave up on him back during his first exchange with one of the Bills, some time back…
Speaking as one of the Bills, I only wish it had not taken me so long to do the same.
FlameStrike: Again, no one is disputing that NABJ/Sharpton/Jackson have the right to express their disapproval of Imus’ statements, nor has there been any attempt to minimize the emotional impact of Imus’ racist/sexist comments. As I said before, just because they can organize people and put pressure on a station to fire Imus, doesn’t mean it was morally right for them to do so.
I can’t stand Imus. I never listened to his show. I also can’t stand Bill O’Reilly (in case you hadn’t noticed), but I wouldn’t organize a campaign to get him ousted either.
Let me put this way: both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two week suspension was an appropriate punishment for Imus. Why should anyone from outside those organizations be able to force them to impose a harsher penalty?
Remember this: Imus did not get fired by CBS and/or MSNBC. He was fired by the sponsors that paid $50 million per year for the show. Once they left, CBS and MSNBC could not keep that show on the air.
My problem is that Imus was right on one thing: Why didn’t Al Sharpton (and by extension, Jesse Jackson) apologize to the Duke students accused of rape? Their words were much harsher, and nearly ruined the lives of three students, two of which weren’t even in the house when the dancer accused them of raping her. Read the Newsweek article on the incident, and you’ll see just how disgusting that whole thing turned out to be.
FlameStrike, I think you’re missing some information…chiefly, that PAD never said those ogranizations don’t have the right to act as they did. But as Bill Myers suggests, and in the words of Goldbloom channeling Crichton, just because they could, doesn’t mean that they should.
As representatives and members of a minority that has been oppressed, persecuted, enslaved, murdered (and to some degree continues to suffer from the effects of those atrocities), the leaders of those communities and organizations should understand, more than anyone, the impact of censure. Slaves didn’t just not have free speech rights…they could be killed for speaking out. That’s a kind of censure that thankfully doesn’t exist at large in the US today.
But as the victims of such control, you’d think they’d be the first to understand the negative implications of such control, and refrain from using tactics that silence offensive words. Clearly, a white slave owner shooting a slave for speaking up is of a different caliber than Sharpton and Jackson bringing public pressure on MSNBC and CBS to get them to terminate Imus for speaking out. But while the scope and impact are terribly different, the base actions themselves are not. Both are an attempt to control the expression of an idea that’s considered offensive to one party.
I’m just curious. Since Imus said this on a nationally broadcast format, wouldn’t it be appropriate for the young women who comprise the Rutgers team to sue him for libel or slander (I’m not sure which is correct), since they are not, in fact, “nappy-headed” (two of them have exceptionally straight hair, not chemically induced, iirc) or “hos”? That way, Mr. Imus is punished, because any future funds he makes will pay for those words in a literal sense.
“Savage was hired by MSNBC because he was a provocative firebrand. IIRC, he was actually hired to replace Mr. Sensitivity Phil Donahue, whose show was tanking. So yeah, they hired Savage precisely because they knew what they getting and were hoping that his freak show would attract viewers, much for the same reasons that Viacom kept Howard Stern on the air. Should the executives at MSNBC have realized that it was inevitable that Savage would go “too far” and end up costing them sponsors? Sure, it was stupid of them not to expect it, but I think that’s a separate issue as to whether or not they were right to can him when his statements started to cost them sponsorhsip.”
In fact, Donahue had the highest rated show on the network, much higher than Savage ever had. Only Keith Oberman has beaten his ratings on MSNBC. No, his liberal anti-war, anti-Bush stance, at a time when the media was acting like the propaganda wing of the White House, was too much for his bosses.
Remember this: Imus did not get fired by CBS and/or MSNBC. He was fired by the sponsors that paid $50 million per year for the show. Once they left, CBS and MSNBC could not keep that show on the air.
But the question is, why did the sponsors pull out of the show now, and not after any of other thousands of other offensive racist/sexist comments said on Imus’s show? The answer is because this one, for whatever reason, this one happened to get the attention of NABJ, Sharpton, and Jackson.
My problem is that Imus was right on one thing: Why didn’t Al Sharpton (and by extension, Jesse Jackson) apologize to the Duke students accused of rape? Their words were much harsher, and nearly ruined the lives of three students, two of which weren’t even in the house when the dancer accused them of raping her.
Well, I would first say that Nifong did far more to ruin th elives of these students than Sharpton or Jackson did, but yes, they do still owe them an apology for their rush to judgment.
“In all the rhetoric I’ve heard surrounding this incident, I’ve never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not.”
That’s true.
Imus exercised his free speech in a needlessly hurtful way, apologized repeatedly for his actions, and tried every way he could to make amends to the ones he’d hurt. He acted responsibly.
The NABJ has a right to free expression guaranteed them by the First Amendment. It’s what their profession hinges on. Therefore it is their responsibility to act vigilently and thwart attempts to curb free expression…not initiate such curtailing themselves. They acted irresponsibly.
PAD
Should an organization of journalists recommend a media personality be fired for what they say?
No.
CAN THEY? Sure. But their JOB is to cover EVERYONE ELSE screaming over putting Imus’ head on a platter, not to officially join in the chorus themselves.
Well, here’s a bit of a diversion along the same lines as the current talk about Imus:
Steve Spurrier, head football coach at the University of South Carolina, commented that he wishes they could get rid of “that dámņ Confederate flag”, and that it was “embarrassing”.
“Steve Spurrier, head football coach at the University of South Carolina, commented that he wishes they could get rid of “that dámņ Confederate flag”, and that it was “embarrassing”.”
Along those lines, Superbowl Champ Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy doesn’t think gay marraige should be allowed. Steve Nash thinks the war in Iraq is wrong. Should these people be fired because their comments are insensitive to some group, offensive, or unpopular?
And before someone else comes along and says “ah-ha! But these people weren’t PAID to give their opinions, and thus their opinions don’t reflect on their ogranizations. It’s not as bad when they say it…”
In what way does this make sense? It suggests that someone that is paid to give their opinion over the airwaves for money can get fired for….doing their job. While people that aren’t paid to give such opinions over the airwaves, but do, are safe because that’s not their job?
“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’re mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.) Not that I’m excusing the reprehensible (yet clearly free speech) actions of the nappy-headed hosts who kept the furor going. In the Imus case, the direct revenue stream was from the advertisers, who were (albeit under pressure) came forward and said they were not going to spend their money for the show. Similarly, if a theater producer put on “Hair” and the general public determined they weren’t going to pay for tickets for the show… well, yeah, it would fold. At least in that market.
Oddly enough, I heard a lady on the radio this morning who went to see “Chicago” playing in St. Louis, who was registering offense at hearing the word “honky”. See how silly we’ve all gotten now that we’re “tuned in for offense”?
You’re mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.)
Not relevant. The FCC did not force the networks to fire Imus. The entire fracas involved private individuals and organizations.
As far as I know, the FCC did not even fine any of the radio stations that carried Imus’s program. Apparently, “nappy-headed hos” doesn’t violate the FCC’s standards of decency. At least, not this week. The FCC’s broadcast standards are about as permanent as a Hollywood marriage.
Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war? That makes about as much sense as caring what the Dixie Chicks think about Bush.
Den: “Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war?”
For the same reason that we should care about your opinions on these issues: because we all have a stake in them.
CBS and MSNBC were idiots.
They should have just replaced the stupid coward sponsors and then when Imus’ suspension was up, take two weeks to look at the ratings. If they couldn’t replace the sponsors because Imus’ ratings plummet, THEN fire him, but not because of American Terrorists waging a war of words against words.
(Yes, I see people like Sharpton and his ilk as little better than terrorists, threatening boycotts if they don’t get their way, a.k.a. economic terrorism.)
Ladies and gentleman, on a somewhat side note, but also related, whatever agency it is that regulates radio (i somewhat recall it being called the NAB…but ive seen that mentioned here as well, so that could be wrong) has been seeking legislation to regulate satelite radio.
Mostly due in part to Howard Stern, and probably a lesser extent Opie and Anthony…but the point is…this is no longer a free venue they are trying to regulate. Now why? Why is it that a service I pay for, because I want to hear uncensored views…why do certain people want that regulated? Are these people buying the service and not liking what they hear? Then why would they buy it? Why do they care if I listen to things that are indecent? I LIKE indecent things. Is that wrong? Apparently so.
The answer is simple. The politician who brought it up said that indecency should not be allowed to be aired ANYWHERE. (And the broadcastin society, for whatever hidden reasons, agreed and latched on to this.)
This is something that goes far beyond Imus…because it seems everywhere, that other people just want to make certain that other’s views cannot be broadcast. It really doesnt matter if Imus said it on the radio or not…because its getting to a point where the ONLY places you can express any view that is somewhat outside the mainstream is in the privacy of your own brain, or anyonmously on the internet.
Den – “Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war? That makes about as much sense as caring what the Dixie Chicks think about Bush.”
You don’t have to care about their opinions, that’s the beauty of freedom of speech. Just because someone can say something doesn’t force anyone else to listen or take seriously or to heart those words.
But unless you are a hypocrite that doesn’t actually car about Free Speech, then you should care that they are allowed to EXPRESS those opinions.
Where terrorist tactics; whether they be threats of violence, or threats to a person’s ability to earn a living; are allowed to succeed, then we ALL lose.
It may be your freedom they target next…
“You’re mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.)”
No, I’m really not. A comparison doesn’t have to be completely one to one to be relevant. The fundamental notion remains the same: The free market showing an interest in something that is squelched into non-existence by individual groups who focus on one small part of the total production and turn it into a cause celebre. Substitute “advertisers/network” for “theater” and it’s exact.
Here’s the real tragedy of the thing: If the emphasis had been on education…on exploring how such language makes people feel…then Imus could really have done some good. The people who listen to his radio show might possibly–through discussion of it on the air–been prompted to consider just how hurtful certain words and expressions can be. Because they listened to Imus and were influenced by him, then maybe–just maybe–they might have been influenced in a positive way.
Instead that opportunity is gone, and Imus’s faithful listeners are left with a very different lesson entirely: Black People Are The Enemy. Specifically, the Black People Who Were Responsible For Imus Being Fired Are the Enemy. And if you don’t believe me, then I refer you to the hateful e-mail directed to the basketball players and the death threats directed to Al Sharpton.
This is why–again–the answer to free speech is more free speech. When you smash the speaker into oblivion, you don’t generate good will. You simply generate more anger amongst the speaker’s audience.
PAD
In fact, Donahue had the highest rated show on the network, much higher than Savage ever had. Only Keith Oberman has beaten his ratings on MSNBC. No, his liberal anti-war, anti-Bush stance, at a time when the media was acting like the propaganda wing of the White House, was too much for his bosses.
Maybe, but Keith Olberman doesn’t agree:
http://www.tvguide.com/news-views/columnists/the-biz/default.aspx?posting={2911903E-35C2-4F37-B067-320CF68F3AAE}
TVGuide.com: One of your predecessors, Phil Donahue, was an early critic of the war and was canceled when he had the highest ratings on MSNBC.
Olbermann: He was the highest-rated show on the network. But there were two things people leave out of the equation. I would be the first person to scream about bias against a liberal point of view anytime — or a bias against a conservative point of view. When the show started in Secaucus, New Jersey, nobody watched. When they put him in New York with a studio audience, the ratings increased; unfortunately, the cost doubled. The staff was twice the size as mine. It was very expensive to produce for a “we don’t want to put a lot of cash into it” branch of the industry. That memo about him being too liberal at a time of war — it really was a straw on a very laden camel’s back. There was a consideration there, but it was marginal.
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.
PAD, this statement implies that the NABJ is limited to blacks only – nothing in the NABJ application states any kind of race requirement.
Most people don’t seem to realize that organizations like HBCU’s, NABJ, and NSBE are not ‘blacks-only’ clubs -they are organizations that were formed to support blacks in specific industries and occupations.
If you’re white/Asian/whatever, and you genuinely want to support their causes (and you meet all the necessary requirements), you are free to join.
But unless you are a hypocrite that doesn’t actually car about Free Speech, then you should care that they are allowed to EXPRESS those opinions.
Um, Bladestar, was that the first one of my posts in this forum that you have ever read?
I believe that I have been very consistant in that I strongly believe that everyone should have the right to express their opinions. My point is, that there is not reason why we should freak out if a football coach or entertainer’s opinion on something that is irrelevant to their job differs from our own. If you liked the Dixie Chicks’ music before one of them said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas, that should change your opinion of their music, nor should whether or not you agree with Steve Spurrier about the confederate flag should dictate whether or not you’re a USC fan.
So in short, everyone must have the right to express their opinion, but what the opinion is, should not carry any additional weight just because that person is a celebrity.
Bill Mulligan, that sort of cost analysis goes on all the time in the TV industry. I remember when Star Trek: TNG was cancelled at the seventh season even though the ratings were as strong as they ever were. Paramount was pretty up front about why it was cancelled: The show had simply gotten too expensive to produce. The contracts for the cast members were up for renewal and everyone was expecting a raise. After crunching the numbers, the studio decided the show wouldn’t be profitable any more.
Den, your quote was used for convenience, the line you quoted wasn’t aimed at you specifically.
It was aimed at the “Why should we care what other people say, even if they are celbrities” mind set expressed in the quote, my statements had nothing to do with the weight of the statement based on “celebrity”. I really don’t see where I implied that.
I really don’t see where I implied that.
I didn’t think you did. I was merely expanding on my original thought which was about this tendency in society to give credibility to the opinions of celebrities simply because they are celebrities*. Looks like we both took general statements and thought they were aimed at us specifically.
*See Tom Cruise trying to pass himself off as an expert on psychiatry.
But, but….Tom Cruise has studied the history of psychiatry. He said so…that makes it so, no?
Hi there, PAD and friends,
As a regular reader of your site, I know that you’re a good liberal soul, so I hope it’s okay that I post this message. My brother attends Virginia Tech. Fortunately, he was not on campus today. However, the fact that he could have been, and would most likely have been in Norris Hall… fills me with dread and outrage. Today is a tragic day, and I feel the need to do something, even if it is a small thing. If you feel similarly, my wife and I are encouraging people to go to the Brady Campaign website, which has a petition calling for making access to firearms more difficult, to which you can add your name:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/ (the petition link is on the right side of the page)
There really is no such thing as “gun control” in Virginia. I fear that what happened today will only motivate politicians to finger-point and the NRA to claim that more metal detectors are the solution. American society needs to take a hard look at itself. How many tragedies do we have to tolerate before we wake up?
I hope that everyone reading this is happy and healthy,
Jonathan
In case anyone’s not seen this…here’s what CNN quotes Snoop Dog’s reaction to claims that hip hop and rap say worse things than Imus..
“The superstar rapper Snoop Dogg also denied any connection to Imus. “(Rappers) are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports,” he told MTV.com. “We’re talking about hos that’s in the ‘hood that ain’t doing —- that’s trying to get a n—- for his money.””
The big difference I see? Imus was joking…if you’ve heard the clip, you can can hear him laughing about it. Whereas Snoop seems to be saying that he’s talking about actual people.
So, what’s worse? Making a joke about people, or using terms to describe your true thoughts about someone?
I’ve heard about that Snoop Dogg quote.
Here’s the problem:
Once a concept is introduced into the language, it immediately expands to cover aspects far beyond its intent.
Take, for instance, sexual harrassment. It used to be something very specific: A boss or someone in a superior working position forces unwanted advances upon a subordinate and makes clear to her that her job is forfeit if she’s not accommodating to him. Sex as weapon.
So where are we now? If a guy tells an off-color joke in the break room and a woman doesn’t like it, she can level charges of sexual harrassment and suddenly everyone’s taking sensitivity classes.
As much as Snoop Dogg wants to claim that he was referring to a certain type of woman, even if he wants to claim that such descriptions were warranted–and I don’t say I agree with the idea–but it’s very typical for a term to spread far beyond its original intent. Claiming now that the use it’s being put to isn’t what was meant, when I hear teens nowadays routinely referring to girls as a “ho” or a “skanky ho,” and these girls are hardly ghetto girls…well, he’s just kidding himself if he thinks that he is somehow absolved of responsibility.
PAD
“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.”
When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That’s not the case, though, so, no.
“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.”
The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee anyone the right to have a radio show, or to have that radio show simulcast on cable news. This fact should be blindingly apparent to anyone who thinks about it for longer than half a second or so.
“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.””
Imus’ right to say whatever he wants is completely and utterly separate from the question of whether he should have a radio show.
“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.”
No. Their belief was that Imus’ racist opinions should not be given hours of radio airtime five days a week.
“Except they were wrong.”
Actually, you’re wrong.
“Because that’s the price you pay for living in a free society.”
The price of living in a free society is that a racist creep gets to broadcast his racism on the radio every morning? Where did you buy your copy of the constitution, sir?
“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.”
Someone who calls himself a writer should understand that the right to say whatever you want does not equal a right to use whatever platform you want — particularly when that platform is the public airwaves, and when your ability to access those airwaves is only possible thanks to your employer’s broadcasting license and equipment and studio.
“The answer to free speech is always more free speech…not the shutting down of that speech.”
Imus’ speech has not been shut down. He can still say whatever he wants to say. And — this is the part you never want to acknowledge — other people can say whatever they want in response to Imus’ speech, including telling Imus’ sponsors that they won’t buy the products of a company that sponsors racist filth, and telling Imus’ broadcasters that they’re not going to listen to a station that airs racist filth. This is a simple concept and one that you seem physically incapable of understanding.
Was your right to free speech violated when you were fired from the Hulk? Was your right to free speech violated when DC canceled Fallen Angel? The answers to both questions is obviously no. And just as your free speech rights were not violated in those cases, telling the folks responsible for putting Imus on the airways that they should stop supporting his racist filth does not, in any way, shape, or form, violate Imus’ right to free speech.
I’m surprised I have to explain this.
“The NABJ has a right to free expression guaranteed them by the First Amendment. It’s what their profession hinges on. Therefore it is their responsibility to act vigilently and thwart attempts to curb free expression…not initiate such curtailing themselves. They acted irresponsibly.”
As I believe I saw someone else here pointing out, the perception does exist that Imus was a journalist. Given that such a perception exists, I don’t find it irresponsible for a group of journalists to try to hold another journalist, even if he’s only a journalist by perception, responsible for what he said, or to hold him to a higher standard.
In any case, no one has curtailed Imus freedom of speech. No one is preventing him from continuing to say what he wants, no matter how offensive. The only thing he’s lost is the privilege of his own show with such a large audience. I’ve never heard of anyone having the right to their own radio show, much less having the right to have it funded by someone else.
So, I don’t see that the NABJ has done what you see them as doing. Maybe, like Imus being a journalist or not, it’s another matter of perception.
“The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee anyone the right to have a radio show, or to have that radio show simulcast on cable news. This fact should be blindingly apparent to anyone who thinks about it for longer than half a second or so.”
Just as it’s blindingly apparent that you’re spouting an awful lot of arrogance for someone who clearly hasn’t bothered to read any of the previous posts where many replies to the by-now-tired irrelevancies you’ve brought up have already been posted.
PAD
“In any case, no one has curtailed Imus freedom of speech. No one is preventing him from continuing to say what he wants, no matter how offensive. The only thing he’s lost is the privilege of his own show with such a large audience.”
And right there–RIGHT THERE–is where you just shot yourself in the foot.
“With such a large audience.”
There was, and is, a large audience for Don Imus. That should be what determines whether or not his show goes off the air; not pressure groups who owe their living to the concept of free speech; not judgmental áššhølëš with their own axes to grind and potential benefits (how convenient that Jackson and Sharpton, both with radio shows, have knocked off a competitor while getting publicity for their own shows.)
If the audience deplores what he says and deserts him, THEN it makes sense to cancel his show. But they didn’t. And judging by the backlash we’re seeing against the poor basketball players and against Sharpton, I’m thinking they’re making it very clear that they object to the plug being pulled.
Claiming that “no one has curtailed” his freedom of speech when there was a concerted effort to accomplish just that…frankly, you’re kidding yourself.
PAD
I think if Imus had just called them ugly hos, he’d still have a job. If he had just called them ugly, there would have been no national coverage.
“When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That’s not the case, though, so, no.”
How many black people living today were American slaves??? NOT A GØÐÐÃMN ONE! Quit lying and spouting this ignorant bûllšhìŧ! (and don’t forget it wa often their fellow black man that sold them to the white man)
Where did you get YOUR copy of the constitution? Radio, TV, and oh, by the way, RACIAL SLANG isn’t mentioned in it ANYWHERE, nor is “Protection of your feelings”. If you don’t like what any TV or radio personality has to say, geuss what Junior? You can turn it off or change the station, You do NOT have the right to take it away from everyone else however.
As long as this double-standard continues I don’t see any chance if the racism people complain about getting any better.
Time for white people to quit apologizing for being white and walking on egg shells and for blacks to realize that just because they say they can use words and whites can’t doesn’t make it so.
The injustices of the past can’t be dumped on the sons and daughters of the perpetrators. Our system doesn’t work that way, and no rational system can. So quit with the “Oh, you owe us for slavery and the racism of the past.” crap.
Grow up and look to the future and think about how everytime you use a word or phrase but tell us when we use it it’s an insult, that just makes you look so weak and inferior.
Frankly I think the silent majority of the black people in this country needs to open it’s collective mouth and tell the Sharptons and Jacksons and Snoop Doggs to “Shut up, you don’t represent us all. And we’re tired of you referring to our daughters and each other as “Nìggërš/Nìggáš” while claiming that the word is such a horrible and total insult to black people.”
(left out the “as hos” part of “referring to our daughters”)
Y’know, I really wasn’t going to have anything more to say on this. I really wasn’t. Then I read Chris’s post. Chris may not be aware that my people, that is, the Irish, were also used as slaves, notably under Elizabeth I. Don’t even get me started on “Irish Need Not Apply.”
Chris’s post further illustrates the problems that I, and some others, have with this. A relatively small but increasing-in-volume group was calling for Imus’s head on a platter after his Rutgers statements. That’s their right. What I want to know is why they weren’t making the calls for Imus to be off BEFORE this? His insults have pretty much always been equal-opportunity. Where was the outcry before this?
Now for a simple concept that Chris doesn’t seem capable of understanding. One of the prices of living in a free society is that others can (GASP!) disagree with you. You might not like it that someone is racist. Fine. I’m not crazy about it myself. However, not only does living in a free society mean that racists, evangelists, weathermen and car dealers can have air time, living in a free market culture means that also. If there’s an audience to be advertised to, they will be there. An apparently large segment of the population listened to Imus’s show. Lots of people to advertise to. It’s not as much a free speech issue as a free market issue.
Last thing–Chris, don’t know what your profession is. Don’t care, either. But I’m sure whatever it is, it someone questioned your abilities because of an opinion, as you did with PAD, I imagine you’d be at least slightly miffed. PAD is in FACT a writer, he doesn’t just call himself one, and my ability reach behind me and pull a dozen or so titles written by him proves that fact. Throw in that I don’t know that PAD or pretty much anyone else here said that Imus has a right to use whatever platform he wants, and your arguement loses most of whatever credibility it might have had.