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
• 
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
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.
Affirmative action programs are a form of institutionalized discrimination against whites, and are widespread. Slavery was abolished over a century ago.
I find the idea that blacks cannot be held to the same standard as whites to be repugnant. It implies black inferiority, and as history has shown no race is inherently inferior to any other.
By the way, Peter is Jewish. It’s a good bet that he knows a thing or two about discrimination.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
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.
It was also blindingly apparent from the get-go that Peter David never said anyone’s First Amendment rights were violated. He deliberately referred to the spirit of the First Amendment. Free speech encompasses more than just the idea of preventing government censorship.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
Imus’ right to say whatever he wants is completely and utterly separate from the question of whether he should have a radio show.
We’ve already covered this: no one said Imus has a right to have a radio show. But firing him limits the public discourse and encourages censors to keep pushing inward. That’s not just bad for Imus, it’s bad for everyone.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
No. Their belief was that Imus’ racist opinions should not be given hours of radio airtime five days a week.
And rather than engaging the now-conciliatory Imus on his show, where they had a chance of changing some minds, they squelched the show and blew an opportunity to widen the national dialog about race.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
Actually, you’re wrong.
Is he? You certainly haven’t said anything very persuasive.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
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?
Actually, that’s kind of how it is. Even if no radio station would ever take him ever again, he could set up a Web site and offer streaming audio.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
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.
But Peter has already demonstrated he understands that. His point is that the best way to combat bad ideas is not with censorship but with good ideas.
When corporations limit the national discourse, it may not be illegal but the effects are still negative.
By the way, Peter doesn’t merely call himself a writer. He writes for a living. He is therefore by definition a writer.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
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.
But firing Imus has limited his audience and polarized many of them. The benefit to that is… what?
By the way, your angry, mean-spirited tone very much reminds me of Imus’ rhetoric. Racism isn’t the only form of reprehensible behavior, as you are demonstrating.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM
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.
Yes, well, that’s because you’re accusing someone else of failing to comprehend, when in fact the lack of comprehension is your own.
I don’t know why this makes you so angry. Are you black? Do you feel that this is a dialog between a bunch of whites who just don’t get it? Because as I’ve said, it’s no secret that Peter is Jewish and is probably no stranger to discrimination.
Michael T said:
“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. “
—–
These are the same people who are trying to further restrict cable television AND also trying to restrict free access to the internet.
Chris: “”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.”
Doesn’t enter into it. If you say that it is a-ok to exclude all people from your group other then just one type of person, then you can’t say that others cannot do the same. If you say that you can have a black, Asian, Native-American, Hispanic or women’s only organization then you have to allow a white or men’s only organization of the same kind. To sanction or promote the one while denying the other is discriminatory.
Now, on to groups like NABJ, Imus and his firing.
I’m not entirely sure that they’re failing the spirit of the First Amendment here. Plus, there are a several additional factors in this that do add to the overall discussion.
Imus has had more then a few racial comment snafus of late and he has promised to not do it again each time he has been called on it. This may have just been the final straw after having Imus break his word so many times prior to this.
Besides, I’m not sure that criticizing how someone chooses to say something is quite the same as criticizing someone actually saying something. Some of this may be over tact and style as much as it was over content. Imus and his crew were talking about how the team looked a bit rough with their tattoos and whatnot. There are a million different ways to say something like that without putting racial references or insults into it and would never have brought this firestorm down on his head.
It would be like commentating on an outbreak of gang related violence in a predominantly black inner city area caused by a conflict with a rival Hispanic gang trying to move into that area. A commentator could say almost exactly what I just said to describe it and not raise an eyebrow. Now, if the commentator were to say on a live TV or radio broadcast that a bunch of “violent n*****s” and “gáņg báņgër w******s” were shooting each other downtown…. Well, I think the commentator would find himself unemployed.
Same thing with Imus. I think that groups like NABJ can criticize the way he said something rather then what he was saying without running counter to the First Admendment. You can say just about anything and be fairly safe in job like that, it’s just how you chose to say it that can put your butt in a sling. Imus chose to say something in a poor way on the public airwaves and he got spanked for it.
Bladestar said:
“Time for white people to quit apologizing for being white and walking on egg shells…”
—–
Wow. This sounds…, well, it sounds weird.
I’ve heard variations of this at work, usually from lesser educated, angry, white men. From reading previous postings by Bladestar, I know he is not one of the “lesser educated”, so I have to ask what makes Bladestar so angry?
Tom Delay (remember him?) has started a campaign to get Rosie O’Donnell removed from The View.
The double-standard bûllšhìŧ and censorship, that’s what pìššëš me off.
Hope you enjoy it when you start getting censored. Start standing up for free speech rather the applauding the squelshing of it.
But, but….Tom Cruise has studied the history of psychiatry. He said so…that makes it so, no?
You’re being glib, Bobb, you’re being glib.
These are the same people who are trying to further restrict cable television AND also trying to restrict free access to the internet.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6175549.html
Senators propose labels for adult Web sites
Operators of Web sites with racy content must label their sites and register in a national directory or be fined, according to a new U.S. Senate proposal that represents the latest effort among politicians to crack down on Internet sex.
The requirements appear in legislation announced Thursday by two Senate Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana, that they say will “clean up the Internet for children.”
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…
Intriguing. Does this legislation include a working definition of “racy content”? Would “Something Positive” (www.somethingpositive.net) have to register because sex is fairly frequently mentioned (especially between Aubrey and Jason, who are married), or because Aubrey operates a (fictional, of course) website catering to tech support and phone sex (Nerdrotica)?
For that matter, would Television Without Pity have to register because of the frequent use, in their Motivators thread, of pictures of various leading men, either with wet shirts or underwater, and with the caption, “WATER – It’s not the only thing that’s wet”?
Where do we draw the line between slightly racy humor and pornography? Or is this going to wind up being like the infamous NetNanny, in which one can’t access pørņ, but neither can one read of the latest advances in the fight against breast cancer, because both include the word “breast”?
(And with that, I stop NetNanny from accessing this very site – sorry about that, PAD!)
The answer to free speech is always more free speech…not the shutting down of that speech.
****************
SER: Peter, I think the reason I have trouble agreeing with your POV here is that Imus admitted what he said was a boneheaded mistake. In other words, Imus isn’t really analogous to an Ann Coulter. I would definitely be in your corner if the NABJ or whoever set out to keep Coulter from running down liberals (no one seems to have successfully done this). Imus himself, though, would probably have gone on record as saying that he was not about to refer to black women as “nappy-headed hos” in the future.
So, I don’t really see this as about protecting his speech (even speech as odious as insulting kids). I view the incident similar to if I was goofing around and, as an editor for The Times, printed a headline that said NÍGGÊR RUNS FOR PRESIDENT about Barack Obama. That might be charmingly satirical if I’m THE ONION but in the context of THE TIMES, it ruins their reputation.
Basically, I believe Imus was canned because he was stupid and he made his organization look bad. That’s business to me. If he was really deprived of his first ammendment rights, of his right to slam black kids on the air, then he might actually have the guts to say that. He hasn’t.
And I think the NABJ and others were calling him on the fact that he would use hateful speech and then the next day have a politician on his show. Those are mixed messages. Hillary Clinton isn’t going to turn up on Howard Stern any time soon.
Ultimately, free speech *is* really a government issue, spirit and all. Why? Because everything else boils down to business. And no one has a right to an audience. I mean, Michael Richards could have stood his ground and said that his calling audience members “ņìggërš” was part of the “performance art” of his show but people would have stopped coming to the show and club owners would not have booked him.
Taking it back to Imus, this whole incident was like a gangrenous leg — and his employers decided to ampute before the whole body was compromised. Acting when they did, they can appear to have made a moral stand rather than a base corporate stand when a few months down the line this just got worse. And believe me, that’s where this was headed. Imus was going to lose high profile guests. He was going to lose sponsors. And CBS was going to be tainted in association. The decision they made was that they stood more to lose from their association with him than they had to gain.
There are plenty of venues where I can have my ethnicity insulted. I don’t think there’s any threat of that vanishing any time soon. Limbaugh is still on the air — but he is clever about what he says (and he goes right after Sharpton and Jackson).
*******************
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.
****************
SER: I think that’s a strawman — only in that there are many groups for white ethnics — Italians, Jews, Greeks, and so on. They might not use so overt a title as the NABJ but they do exist. Moreover, the NABJ serves a purpose as a networking organization for blacks that didn’t really exist prior to its creation but that existed by default for whites.
Of course, here’s where I play both sides of the issue: I actually hate the NABJ and groups of that sort. I’m not big on tribalism of any kind. When I was an intern at a newspaper, I felt very self-conscious about being the first black intern or having won what was viewed as a “black” scholarship (even though I also qualifed for “white” scholarships). One of the reporters at the newspaper was the nicest woman in the world and who really made an effort to make me feel welcome — for no other reason than she was nice and identified with the geeky teenage intern. However, a couple black reporters there sort of adopted me as a “pet.” To them, I was really just the black intern. They didn’t attempt to identify with me on any level other than that. One day, they invited me out of to lunch. I didn’t realize until we were leaving that they had only invited black reporters and had intentionally excluded the reporter who — to me — wasn’t just the “white” reporter but who was, well, my friend. One of the reporters defended this by saying, “Sometimes you just want to hang out with your own, you know.” I remembered thinking, “No, I actually prefer to hang out with my friends.” And that’s sort of been my viewpoint ever since.
And, long story short, that’s why I don’t do NABJ functions.
***************
Tom Delay (remember him?) has started a campaign to get Rosie O’Donnell removed from The View.
*************
SER: It’s disappointing when Republicans reveal that they actually *don’t* believe in capitalism and a free market economy. Don’t watch THE VIEW if Rosie offends you, Mr. Delay (granted, although I freely admit to being a viewer, you think he wouldn’t). It’s basically democracy in action. Enough people turn off the TV because they don’t like what she says; the show loses viewers; the ratings decline and the producers seek to rectify that by canning her. It’s business.
I tend to think people stage these sorts of boycotts because they are impatient of actually *waiting* for the free market system to work.
SER: “One of the reporters at the newspaper was the nicest woman in the world and who really made an effort to make me feel welcome — for no other reason than she was nice and identified with the geeky teenage intern.”
I had that EXACT same experience when I was the geeky teenage intern at a radio news station.
Small world.
“And right there–RIGHT THERE–is where you just shot yourself in the foot.”
No, I’m not even seeing a scratch on my boot. Either of them. I appreciate the concern though.
“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.)”
I don’t see anyone stopping Don Imus from funding his own show, buying his own equipment, and broadcasting on the internet. I don’t see anyone stopping him from buying a transmitter and getting a license and finding an open frequency and broadcasting his show that way. Granted, I don’t know how much he has or how much the equipment costs, but that, and perhaps himself, is all I see stopping him from doing so. If he did so, I don’t know of any reason his audience couldn’t somehow follow him.
Something else I don’t see is a reason why the size of the audience should determine the consequences. The unspoken opposite side of the idea that he shouldn’t have been canceled for this simply because he has a large audience could well be described as “It would be acceptable to do so if he had a smaller audience.” Now, I don’t believe you mean to say that, and judging from what you’ve said, I believe you’d object to just that occurrence as well.
What I see it coming down it is Imus is someone these broadcasters didn’t want to be associated with. They had a reputation they wanted to protect, they saw that reputation being damaged by the comments and the backlash, and they acted to protect it. As far as I can see, that’s as much a free speech issue as Imus being permitted to say what he said.
“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.”
And if the audience sees nothing wrong with what he said, or what they’re doing in response, I’m wondering if that might not be an indicator of an even bigger problem in this country.
Obviously, based on the fact that we’re here discussing it, the opportunity to have that discussion has not been lost just because Imus was fired.
“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.”
No one is stopping him from continuing to say what he wants. No one is preventing him from paying for a show out of his own pocket. No one is preventing him going on the internet and saying anything he wants. I don’t see that he has had his freedom of speech curtailed. I only see a privilege being revoked. He is simply, and quite possibly temporarily, reduced to the same level as most of the rest of us in this country.
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that Imus was canned for being a old white guy trying to talk young, hip and urban. If Tom Joyner had said the same thing (and I’m NOT saying that he would have), would there be the same uproar?
PAD it totally right on this one. Instead of giving a chance for learning, all that’s been learned is that if you scream loud enough, and make enough threats, you’ll get your way.
“Instead of giving a chance for learning, all that’s been learned is that if you scream loud enough, and make enough threats, you’ll get your way.”
I don’t know about that. I’d say the government’s been teaching that lesson for years. After all, that is, in effect, the definition of “politics.”
I’m with PAD on this.
It reminds me of things like Ultra-Conservative Christian groups pressuring TV Networks to remove the plethora of shows they find offensive. What the NABJ did here was just as heinous and totalitarian.
Every free-thinking individual has a right to choose whatever they want to watch, listen, or read. They do not have a right to make that decision for others, no matter how just the cause.
If you don’t like a idea, you may ignore it, you may denounce it, or you may present an alternate idea. You do not remove the opponent’s forum.
I find myself disagreeing to a degree with PAD, and to a greater degree with his Firebrand and Chris.
1) Firebrand, suppose I and a few other posters decided that you should not have access to this blog because we find your ideas repugnant. And we pressure PAD to block you from the blog. Obviously, you could go to other blogs, since the net is very wide. But less assume fr the sake of argument that the net only had a limited number of blogs. And let’s say that the more popular ones will not want to have you either, after seeing PAD throw you out, and because i have a strong pressure group. You could start your own blog instead of posting in other blogs, if you had the time, money, knowhow. But by then your ability to speak to the vast audiences that visit this blog and othe rmajor nlogs would have been significantly curtailed, and their opportunity to hear yoour words of wisdom would similarly have been curtailed. Most of them would probably have not followed you to your own blog even if they agreed with you. So you see, although in principal and legally your right for free speech would not have been hurt at all, in reality what would have happened is that my pressure group would have successfully reduced your access to audiences and worse, would have reduced their ability to listen to your words of wisdom ad decide for themselves whether to continue reading or not. The free exchange of ideas would havce been harmed.
2)As a matter of principle I tend to agree with those who say that it is bad that a pressure group forced the network to fire Imus; that it was not good for them to pressure the network that way; and that what should have determined whether the show continues was the general attitude of the audiences. However, in practice I have a hard time believing this story of Sharpton and Jackson twisting the network’s arm (which some person went as far as to descibe as terrorism). It seems to me (living half a world away) that Imus has been courting trouble for some time, and that his last statement was just a last straw that drew a lot of attention and discontent — from the general public — which in turn caused sponsers to back away, and the network to decide that Imus is more trouble than he’s worth. Perhaps they thought he was going to loose audiences. In short, that there was a real public reaction and not just a small pressure group.
Now you could claim that as an ideal Imus should remain on the air so long as he has sufficient audiences for his show, and not be fired even if he causes problem to the network as a whole or the sponsers as a whole. Or conversly you could claim that even if he had some audiences — perhaps as racist as him — a network that respects itself should have fired him of its own accord rather than wait for a public outcry or the supposed pressure of Jackson & Sharpton. Or you could claim that there is a public interest in giving voice and arguing with racist jerks rather than pushing them to dark corners of the media. But, if I understood correctly nobody here is questioning the corporations’ right to remove a show off the air for their own economic reasons.
I took your point about the the constitution, but as far as Imus took money from NBC News (he was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus), he was subject to judgment by journalistic standards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_imus :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imus_in_the_Morning :
You seem to agree there’s nothing wrong with firing a reporter who fabricated a story. As far as Imus took money from the news division of a broadcasting company, he was fraudulently benefitting from the pretense of journalistic principle. It seems the NABJ upheld the trust other journalists failed to uphold.
I took your point about the the constitution, but as far as Imus took money from NBC News (he was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus), he was subject to judgment by journalistic standards:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_imus:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imus_in_the_Morning:
You seem to agree there’s nothing wrong with firing a reporter who fabricated a story. As far as Imus took money from the news division of a broadcasting company, he was fraudulently benefitting from the pretense of journalistic principle. It seems the NABJ upheld the trust other journalists failed to uphold.
Great post, PD. I’m still wondering what Imus was thinking, calling other people “nappy haired.” How did he describe his? I’m thinking “desicated tribble on crack.”
At first I was unsure about what should’ve been done with Imus, but now I say this has gone way too far.
Him being turned into public enemy #1, raked over the coals, turned into a pariah, and now FIRED? And after he apologized and tried to make amends? This is too much for uttering one sentence.
Plus, if this is how we’re treating bigoted speech, why has Ann Coulter not been dropped after she called John Edwards a “fággøŧ?” Why does Bill Bennett still have a job after he said:
“…it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down…”
Neither of them has apologized as Imus did. And there are plenty more. Jesus Christ, if people insist on doing this whenever somebody says something offensive, then they oughtta go after the worst offenders first. Whatever else you can say about the man, Imus was not the WORST offender.
Tom Delay (remember him?) has started a campaign to get Rosie O’Donnell removed from The View.
Shouldn’t he be focused on his criminal defense instead?
Shouldn’t he be focused on his criminal defense instead?
Yeah, when’s he gonna see the inside of a courtroom, hopefully followed by the inside of a cell? It’s been a while, hasn’t it?
Hello, I thought I’d weigh in on this issue.
We seem to have this impression in this country that we have the ‘right’ to do this or that, after all, it’s in the Bill of Rights, forests of trees converted into law books, legal precedence, and all that. Or that there is a shared collective value of what justice constitutes. That, at the end of the day, someone in charge will pull thier head out of thier ášš and say ‘Hey, that’s not right, this goes no further’.
We all know that not to be the case. I am just getting over a year of neurosis and depression from being railroaded from a job with a Chicagoland Sheriff’s Department where, because I had been seeing the wrong (see also: bitterly vindictive at being dumped) woman, she said anything she wanted, and was believed on the basis that A) she was a woman and B) needed to be protected against the Evil White male, I lost my job and was threatened with legal action if I tried to protest it through the Fraternal brotherhood of Police. This led to a year of nearly succumbing to drug addiction and severe depression.
Where was justice then? Where was the sense of ‘This is inherently unfair, this should go no further’? Why, because it was legally and politically expedient to get rid of nameless, faceless little ole me instead of following legal protocol and actually investigating what went on. It was easier to screw the one guy instead of looking around and getting the facts, or even giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
How does this pertain to my point? This whole ‘Free Speech’ issue is a non-issue. Your ‘rights’ extend to how much money you have to get a lawyer and media coverage, and if you don’t have that priveledge, you have no rights. The powers at be can do what they want to you, and you can’t say or do anything because you have no power. Your opinions, feelings, and total worth do not mean anything unless you have the clout to back it up.
Don Imus, moron that he is, had committed the grievous sin of offending a portion of our society that gets preferential treatment that only applies to maybe 1 – 5% of thier total demographic – the black community. Oh, and women too, a significantly bigger demographic, but since the only people out of that pie slice who really care would be black women and bored white women who have nothing better to do than gnash thier teeth at the injustice of the world. Now we’re just talking about the vocal subsection of the black community, the upper crust elite who have the money and the access to media coverage who can raise a godawful stink about an ‘injustice against thier people’. And because the company didn’t want to pay a lawsuit or, heaven forbid, lose advertising, they dropped him like a hot rock, because he wasn’t worth the money and aggravation. Nobody cares about Don Imus, or the young black women he insulted, it’s all about the money.
The vocal media whørëš in the affulent black community, the so-called ‘experts’ who are consulted any time there is a crime against black folk, they win influence and a following. They are the ones who won, and the station, for acting contrite and punishing the moron who was stupid enough to insult such a vocal minority.
Keep in mind, the upper crust of the black community is no better than the upper crust of the white community, they worship the almighty dollar just like everyone else. They don’t give a fûçk about an insult against the ‘black community’. There is no black community. There are black neighborhoods, hëll, I work in one everyday, watching the thugs shoot each other, the drug dealer with his Escalade while living in a rent controlled rat hole, the culturally reinforced ignorance and rejection of intellectuallism… If the upper crust of black society really cared about the struggle and the ‘hurt Don Imus’ words inflicted upon the black community’, they’d protest BET off the air, the rappers, every negative stereotype of black people in the media, it’d all have to go. They’d work to destroy the negative stereotype of ‘The Nìggër’ and thier culture of failure. But they don’t, because that too makes money, doesn’t it? Oh, does it ever.
Don Imus was an idiot, he was more or less appropriately sacrificed in the name of the dollar, the black Talking Heads got to notch another one on thier belt, and life goes on. Free Speech wasn’t even an issue here, because we’re operating under the delusion that those rights still apply, because given enough political and financial pressure nobody is safe from the axe falling upon thier neck. Don Imus, so far, doesn’t appear to have the kind of clout to fend off such political pressure, after all, he’s a racist jáçkášš who hosts a radio show, no spin doctors coming to his defense. The points given above are poignant, to be sure, and I totally understand where you guys are coming from – I just wanted to share my point of view. Sorry if I went off on a little rant. I’ve been in a ‘disappointed with black culture’ mood ever since I started working security in a predominantly black suburb of Atlanta, and what did I see down Memorial Drive, not far from the DeKalb County Jail? ‘Free At Last’ bail bonds. The legacy of Martin Luther King and the struggle of the civil rights movement compared to the struggle a young black male goes through trying to get out on bond for being busted for a bag of weed. Disgusting.
Hmmm…
Sam, I will take you at your word and express my sorrow that you were subjected to the stigma of (I presume) being viewed as an abusive boyfriend. That’s why reasonable doubt should always equal a not guilty verdict, and a person should not be convicted in a court of law or the court of public opinion unless it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are guilty.
I admit that your bitterness about the actions of black people today comes across as a bit disturbing on an emotional level, although I can certainly understand how one might feel that way. Aaron McGruder, African-American creator of “The Boondocks,” has made it clear through stories in both the tv show and the comic strip that he’s frustrated and embarassed by the behaviour of many black people today (Al Sharpton even criticized McGruder after the episode “Return of the King” aired).
That being said, you’ve gotta try to remember that even if the neighborhood you work in doesn’t have a single good person in it, you can’t judge people by their appearance. I’m certain you know this in your mind, but if you hang around black people who behave badly long enough without seeing any who behave well, then you may come to subconsciously look down upon the entire race. Or you may develop the preconception that most of them are like the ones you deal with in your day to day life, and therefore your first instinct upon meeting a black person from another part of the country might be wariness. Such things have been known to happen, unfortunately.
As difficult as it may be sometimes, we must try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt until they give us reason not to, and ignore how they look or speak…even if most or all prior encounters with people who look or speak that way have been negative.
I know that white males sometimes don’t have it easy because there is resentment that white males had it so good for so long while black people and women were second class citizens or slaves. Also, that if there is a conflict, people may be more inclined to take the side of the woman or the black person out of a desire to make amends for how women and black people suffered in the past. But this is not always the case, and reasonable people will take sides based on the facts, and not on the basis of gender or race. I’m a pessimist in most things, but when it comes to this I have faith that the majority of people will see reason and that the future will bring a society where race and gender don’t matter. I don’t believe that, in the future, there will be a big swing of the proverbial pendulum resulting in white males being under the thumb of minorities and women.
From Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
Justice Holmes, dissent
“…the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purpose of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Wow, I thought I would never see the day when Peter David would lose this badly in an argument.
Flamestrike is taking him apart…he is even getting in zings that I am laughing at eventhough I DISAGREE with him.
Anthony W obviously isn’t reading the same blog the rest of us are…
“Posted by: Anthony W at April 17, 2007 06:06 AM
Wow, I thought I would never see the day when Peter David would lose this badly in an argument.
Flamestrike is taking him apart…he is even getting in zings that I am laughing at eventhough I DISAGREE with him.”
For some reason I wrote Firebrand instead of Flamestrike in a post above. Talk about a Freudian slip. But Flamestrike is not winning he argument since he’s basically repeating what he said at the beginning of theis thread wthout adding anything new that might make his argument more compelling. To claim that it is constitutional to fire Imus, and that he has the option to start a show elsewhere is to miss PAD’s point completely. And I think PAD made his point pretty well. The fact that Imus was also apparently antisemitic beisedes his other wonderful qualities sugests that PAD’s opinion is motivated by sincere concern over free speech.
It seems to me that this issue has revealed a deeper reaction in this thread against the attitudes of blacks and/or women, which is spinning out of control and beyond the good point PAD started with.
Wow, I thought I would never see the day when Peter David would lose this badly in an argument.
it’s a matter of opinion–if this is an example of PAD losing an argument he might consider a second career as a high priced lawyer. From where I stand he’s more than held his own.
“Wow, I thought I would never see the day when Peter David would lose this badly in an argument.
FlameStrike is taking him apart…he is even getting in zings that I am laughing at eventhough I DISAGREE with him.”
What it comes down to is Mr. David and I happen to disagree about what constitutes a violation of someone’s right to free speech. I feel it’s not a violation to take away the microphone of someone who abused the privilege of having one, and he seems to disagree. I see it as simply a consequence of what Imus said, and he feels it’s an overreaction and an infringement on his rights.
Given some of the comments here though, comments I believed were directed elsewhere, it’s obvious no one here agrees with me. Fine. I’ve said what I had to say, as someone pointed out, many times, which was my first mistake. I’m not going to do what I should have done in the first place, and follow advice I’ve long agreed with.
Say what you have to say, and get out before you overstay your welcome.
“What it comes down to is Mr. David and I happen to disagree about what constitutes a violation of someone’s right to free speech. I feel it’s not a violation to take away the microphone of someone who abused the privilege of having one, and he seems to disagree.”
Kind of the point: He didn’t. The “abuse” of such a forum is clearly delineated by law: He committed no violation of FCC mandates. Even in these days of the FCC’s itchy trigger finger when it comes to fines, none has been levied upon–or, to anyone’s knowledge, even discussed–about Imus.
He was fired because a group of people didn’t like something he said. It’s called the “Heckler’s Veto”–Hecklers shouting down speech that they don’t like, and hiding behind one of the oldest wheezes of all: “Well, gee, we weren’t curtailing his freedom of speech because he’s free to speak elsewhere. Just not here.” The implication is that if the Hecklers did not, say, rip out the speaker’s tongue, or maybe just kill him, then they were displaying generosity and high regard for the principles of freedom of expression, which is simply monumental bûllšhìŧ.
The result? A celebration of the stifling of unpopular speech instead of addressing the core issues that resulted in that speech. What else would you call death threats to Al Sharpton but a manifestation of the same spirit of speech suppression that Sharpton himself displayed, except taken to the next level? “The Chicago way,” as explained by Sean Connery in “The Untouchables.”
Wasted, wasted opportunity, all in the name of a small group of people exercising the Heckler’s Veto with the confidence that they wouldn’t be called on it.
PAD
Flamestrike, no on agrees with you because you’re having an argument that isn’t. It’s been said, but clearly you need to hear it again…PAD never claimed that anyone violated Imus’ free speech rights. Probably because no one has violated Imus’ free speech rights.
However, what PAD was trying to do…the point you’ve missed at least three times now…is that a group of journalists…folks that make a living because of the concept and ideal of free speech, in addition to the legal protections of free speech…were among those calling for Imus to be fired over something he said. Seems to me that all PAD was doing was commenting on the hypocrisy of such a stance.
You’re the one that interpolated that into PAD saying Imus’ free speech rights had been violated. It’s like you held your own personal game of “telephone.”
So, no, you’re not winning any debate, because for a debate to occur, you need two sides discussing the same topic. Feel free to come back when you want to addess the hypocrisy of a journalistic group calling for the termination of a talk show host because of comments he made on-air.
Posted by: FlameStrike at April 17, 2007 07:28 AM:
“Given some of the comments here though, comments I believed were directed elsewhere, it’s obvious no one here agrees with me. Fine. I’ve said what I had to say, as someone pointed out, many times, which was my first mistake. I’m not going to do what I should have done in the first place, and follow advice I’ve long agreed with.
Say what you have to say, and get out before you overstay your welcome.”
As far as I’ve seen, the spirit of free speech is excercised in this blog in such a way that you are welcome to stay even if nobody agrees with your opinions (although I’m not sure this is the case here).
As far as any group of journalists are free to say “NYT, USA Today, New Republic, WaPo: you’ve passed fabricated stories as news — get rid of the reporters responsible or be subject to rebranding,” saying “MSNBC & CBS: you’ve passed ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes as news — get rid of Imus or be subject to rebranding” is not a hecklers’ veto.
Oh, and just so we’re clear, I’m not using “Heckler’s Veto” in the legal terminology that requires governmental intervention, but in the broader, vernacular sense. I acknowledge that just so we don’t get a lawyer jumping in dclaring, “You know, that really entails governmental involvement…”
PAD
“As far as any group of journalists are free to say “NYT, USA Today, New Republic, WaPo: you’ve passed fabricated stories as news — get rid of the reporters responsible or be subject to rebranding,” saying “MSNBC & CBS: you’ve passed ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes as news — get rid of Imus or be subject to rebranding” is not a hecklers’ veto.”
You’re being completely ridiculous–which, in your capacity as current resident troll, is entirely within your purview. First you tried to say that the ACLU was somehow remiss in not supporting the rights of reporters to pass off fabricated news as reality (or that if I didn’t condemn the ACLU for not doing so, I was putting forward a double standard). And now your latest comment is…I really don’t know how to describe it. Idiocy. Pure idiocy. The NABJ didn’t need to tell newspapers that they should fire reporters who wrote fake stories because the papers did that upon discovering it. The NABJ cannot possibly assert that what Imus said was “passed…as news” because it was obviously opinion, and joking opinion at that. They just didn’t like the joke. So nothing you’ve said makes the slightest sense, and does nothing other than present the latest example of why a number of people on this board consider you such a waste of time that they don’t bother talking to you.
PAD
Flamestrike’s problem, as I noted way above, is that he’s continuing to argue from a legal standpoint while PAD is arguing from a moral one. The fact that he doesn’t understand that the legal issues are not in dispute means he can never win the argument.
That said, I still see two problems with the “he can just go somewhere else” argument, both of which stem from the fact that heckler’s are never satisfied with just one victory. The first problem is the chilling effect this has. Even though Imus’s comment was indefensible, this will now make many other people second guess what they say. Fewer people will be willing to say something controversial or try to stimulate a real debate out of fear of being the next target of a heckler. Second, even if Imus gets another radio to TV gig, I am 100% sure that Sharpton and Jackson will be focusing their attention on him like a laser and trying very hard to kill that deal as well.
I took your point, and not at all subtly repeated that I took your point. Your wardrobe is taking that chip better than you would have thought a couple days ago, isn’t it?
As far as Imus took money from NBC News, was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus, and a lawyrer at CBS performed any review of an agreement for the news division of a competitor to pass along those opinions under the pretense of journalism, they can.
What the NABJ did was no more inconsistent with free speech than a consensus to critically pan a movie.
What the NABJ did was no more inconsistent with free speech than a consensus to critically pan a movie.
Only if Ebert and Roeper started pressuring the studio to withdraw the movie from the theater than just saying that they don’t like it.
The first problem is the chilling effect this has. Even though Imus’s comment was indefensible, this will now make many other people second guess what they say. Fewer people will be willing to say something controversial or try to stimulate a real debate out of fear of being the next target of a heckler.
************
SER: Do you really view this as having a “chilling” effect? Coulter referred to a presidential candidate as a “fággøŧ” and she hasn’t lost book deals or talk show appearances (she actually gained the latter as a result of her latest lapse in sanity). Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox (and inaccurately at that) regarding his Parkinson’s disease and he’s still on the airwaves.
The difference was that John Edwards is a politician and Fox a wealthy actor, even if afflicted with a disease. When Edwards’ wife was diagnosed with cancer, a coworker made the crass remark that “maybe now she’ll lose weight.” If Coulter had said this or even Howard Stern, I’m willing to bet they would keep their jobs because Mrs. Edwards is a public figure.
Imus’s firing was, to me, the culmination of many factors — one, he attacked young people who weren’t in the public eye (I am convinced that he could have called Condoleeza Rice a “nappy-headed ho” with very little repercussions). It was also a pattern of behavior, so many people were probably less inclined to believe his apology. If Jay Leno had made the same joke (unlikely but bear with me), I would like to think there would be more forgiveness — if not from Sharpton (though he would have had less ammunition) — but from his sponsors, guests, and employers.
As to your other point, I don’t see it as a negative if people “second guess what they say.” Yes, the image of someone afraid to criticize the War in Iraq because of the possibility of losing their job is chilling. However, someone just taking a moment to consider the impact a joke might have is not really the worst thing in the world. For one, comics tend to do that all the time. Freedom should not mean freedom from responsibility. And there is a responsibility when one has a large audience, either in print, radio, or TV.
“SER: Do you really view this as having a “chilling” effect? Coulter referred to a presidential candidate as a “fággøŧ” and she hasn’t lost book deals or talk show appearances (she actually gained the latter as a result of her latest lapse in sanity). Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox (and inaccurately at that) regarding his Parkinson’s disease and he’s still on the airwaves.
The difference was that John Edwards is a politician and Fox a wealthy actor, even if afflicted with a disease.”
No, the difference is that networks and advertisers aren’t afraid of angry gays or angry people with Parkinson’s disease. They are, however, afraid of angry Black organizations and angry Black rabblerousers such as Sharpton and Jackson.
PAD
PAD’s point seems clear to me. Journalists are the first to raise the shield of freedom of speech (either legally or morally). The NABJ used their shield to attack and destroy Imus’s shield, with the specific intention of removing him from the air. There’s a logic loop in there somewhere.
Moreover, the underlying principle of free speech is that bad words are best defeated with better words. The NABJ did not counter Imus’s words with better words. They pulled a Bill O’Reilly and demanded his bosses “cut his mike.”
“As far as Imus took money from NBC News, was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus”
So I guess the next time my wife is watching Real World or Road Rules on MTV or VH1, she’s really watching a music video?
The difference was that John Edwards is a politician and Fox a wealthy actor, even if afflicted with a disease.
No, PAD is right. The difference is that in this case, the offended group in question managed to flex their muscles and win a victory to get the offender off the air. There’s also the fact that in Ann Coulter’s case, she doesn’t have a regular TV or radio show to be fired from.
As far as movie studios adopt the appropriate brand, your exception does not apply. The boundaries to calling fraud in entertainment are not the same boundaries to calling fraud in journalism.
It’s the brand vulnerability that is the leverage in all this. As far as a studio can pass a popular movie with an ambiguous brand, the challenge to rebrand is not the threat it is to a news brand.
Otherwise, thanks for confirming my analogy.
I’d reply to Mike’s latest post, but after reading it three times, it still makes no sense. When did the NABJ call fraud? And what does the “appropriate brand” have to do with anything?
“SER: Do you really view this as having a “chilling” effect? Coulter referred to a presidential candidate as a “fággøŧ” and she hasn’t lost book deals or talk show appearances (she actually gained the latter as a result of her latest lapse in sanity). Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox (and inaccurately at that) regarding his Parkinson’s disease and he’s still on the airwaves.”
Actually this is an example of another phenomenon we see on the airwaves. In a society in which there is overcompensation on political correctness you also see people making careers and reputations by deliberatly breaking social norms, deliberatly being nasty. Now, in the case of Southpark and (I think) Howard Stern or Sarah Silverman, this is a form of satire on society. But you also have people like Limbaugh, who find a dark corner of the media where they are hailed for seriously and sincerely saying nasty things about people.
If Imus now moves to some fringe right wing station where he will be praised for insulting blacks instead of criticized for it, that won’t be a good thing at all.
SER: “Imus’s firing was, to me, the culmination of many factors — one, he attacked young people who weren’t in the public eye (I am convinced that he could have called Condoleeza Rice a “nappy-headed ho” with very little repercussions).”
I think it would have been equally wrong of him. But perhaps you’re right about the public sentiment.
But if you’re right about this. That means that his words were perceived as a bad joke and not as a case of actual racism and sexism toward these women, and that the problem was not what he said as much as that he made a joke about people undeserving to be the target of a joke. If that is the case, although I may agree with the sentiment (pick on somebody your own size), there is no cause for firing someone for making a bad joke.
SER: “It was also a pattern of behavior, so many people were probably less inclined to believe his apology. If Jay Leno had made the same joke (unlikely but bear with me), I would like to think there would be more forgiveness — if not from Sharpton (though he would have had less ammunition) — but from his sponsors, guests, and employers.”
I agree with you on that. But it seemed to me that Michael Richards got into a lot of trouble despite not having any record of making racist statements. Maybe I’m wrong.
SER: “As to your other point, I don’t see it as a negative if people “second guess what they say.” Yes, the image of someone afraid to criticize the War in Iraq because of the possibility of losing their job is chilling. However, someone just taking a moment to consider the impact a joke might have is not really the worst thing in the world.”
Yes, I agree. But I feel the lesson should be that it is wrong to use sexist demeaning language against blacks or women, that one should be sensitive to their feelings. Not that people should be afraid of pressure groups monitoring them. If Imus goes home at the end of this event saying to himself not that he crossed a line, but that he was somehow the victim of black political power, that’s not good.
“Yes, I agree. But I feel the lesson should be that it is wrong to use sexist demeaning language against blacks or women, that one should be sensitive to their feelings. Not that people should be afraid of pressure groups monitoring them. If Imus goes home at the end of this event saying to himself not that he crossed a line, but that he was somehow the victim of black political power, that’s not good.”
Judging by the hate mail that the basketball players have been getting and the death threats aimed at Sharpton, I have to think that’s exactly the lesson taken away by Imus’s listeners. As I said earlier, a chance for social discourse has instead been replaced by a huge festering wound of anger. Short term satisfaction and display of power has been embraced in lieu of long-term gain in genuine sensitivity.
PAD
Free Speech doesn’t end with the First Amendment, it begins with it. Imus’ speech was curtailed as much as the Hollywood 10 and John Henry Faulk were in the 1950’s – by a pressure group exerting influence on timid advertisers and networks. What Imus said offended me, but what I say offends others. Offensive speech is the most important speech to protect. Inoffensive speech doesn’t require protection.
But I feel the lesson should be that it is wrong to use sexist demeaning language against blacks or women, that one should be sensitive to their feelings.
Well, that should have been the lesson and had Sharpton and others been actually interested in dialogue or if Imus had not been so defensive on Sharpton’s show, we might have come away with that lesson. But the real lesson is that if you can raise the media attention enough to make advertisers nervous, you can kill a show you don’t like.
That said, there is no justification for the hate mail sent to the players or death threats against against Sharpton.
“Posted by: Den at April 17, 2007 10:58 AM
Well, that should have been the lesson and had Sharpton and others been actually interested in dialogue or if Imus had not been so defensive on Sharpton’s show.”
I’m not sure I support the kind of ritual in which a celebrity who said something offensive goes to his friendly neighborhood black preacher/rabbi/feminist and goes through an act of contrition and penance. As far as the offending party is concerned, it seems insincere. And it still creates the impression as if the spokes-people of a certaiin community have the power to twist the celebrity’s arm into a phony act of contrition.
I think he should have appologized privately to the young women, and publically on his own show to his own audience. I think he should have cleaned his own act on his own, and let the public judge, instead of his sins being absolved or condemned by some media priests.
Oh, and Mike’s recent posts don’t make any sense. It seems he’s twisting reality like a pretzel in order to oppose PAD’s point, and justify the NABJ, instead of dealing with it as it is. But this is not new.
If we untwist the argument there might be justified to say that the NABJ were right, as journalists as well as blacks, to criticize Imus for using the airways to promote racial language. But of course not for the strange reason Mike suggests. And this does not contradict PAD, since he’s only criticizing them for calling for Imus to be removed from the air, not for criticizing him.