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
• 
Micha, Imus did apologize privately and directly to the Rutgers team. He met with them, and I don’t recall him making it part of his show or recording it. Right from the beginning, he offered to meet with the team personally to apologize and discuss, if they wished.
I don’t blame him for being defensive. Instead of pretending like he didn’t do anything wrong, he admitted full responsibility for his mistake, he accepted his suspension without appeal, and he offered to personally act to offer his apology. What more is expected of someone when they make a mistake?
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
He went on Sharpton’s show, not exactly a “friendly neighborhood” forum on Imus these days.
and goes through an act of contrition and penance.
Which I believe was the original intent of the two-week suspension and sensitivity training. Now we’ll never know if that would have improved his act.
I think he should have appologized privately to the young women, and publically on his own show to his own audience.
He did both and apparently, that wasn’t enough for some people.
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.
That’s the problem, the public never really had a chance to judge whether or not he cleaned up his act. That option was taken away from us by the self-appointed speech police.
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.
****************
SER: I think artistic freedom is different from journalistic freedom. As an artist, I can make the stand for absolute free speech, including the right to make fun of blacks, gays, amputees, what have you. As a journalist, there are standards. That’s why Howard Stern having Mariah Carey on her show and asking her if she’s “mixed” or not and insisting that she’s actually white is hilarious (all in the delivery). Katie Couric doing the same thing during an interview with Barack Obama is less so and would result in a firestorm.
I understand the argument that Imus was basically an insult comic but I think the reason his bosses canned him is not because they are afraid of big, bad blacks but because they couldn’t deal with him as *just* an insult comic, which is where he was headed. Hillary Clinton isn’t about to go on Howard Stern and talk about her breasts and whether she dated women in college. That’s fine. Stern does well despite that degree of respect. But if Imus were to lose that — which he pretty much had — then it was overall a lost cause. He wasn’t funny enough to be just another Stern.
**************
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.”
***************
I agree that “bad words are best defeated with better words.” However, that’s not really the point here. Imus was not Limbaugh. It’s not like Imus stood by what he said. That would be a different argument. If he wanted to, as someone suggested, just say that his show was about making racist and sexist jokes and the audience should deal with it, then… well, I don’t see how that would have ended well. He would have lost high-profile guests. He would have lost sponsors. He would have been cancelled. Is the idea here that the sponsors and guests should have stood by his first ammendment right to make racist and sexist jokes? Sure. But that’s not really good business. There’s such a thing as freedom of association: Who wants to be associated with a guy who says this sort of thing? His bosses saw where this was going and decided to preemptively make a move that could be seen as a “moral stance” rather than going down in flames with him.
What’s important to note is that Imus *admitted* that what he said was wrong and that he made an error in judgment. It’s a nice policy to forgive mistakes (even ones constantly made as in Imus’s case) but in practice, it is perfectly acceptable to punish mistakes.
***************
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: Of course there’s cause for firing someone for making a bad joke. If your intent is to be funny and you fail, then you are not successful as a comedian and will lose your job. Maybe this was one joke out of hundreds that went wrong but that’s the biz. You certainly can’t use the first ammendment to defend your overall incomptence at your profession.
When I was in college, there was this obnoxious kid who was a “disciple of Limbaugh” and wrote columns that were basically rip-offs of Limbaugh’s radio shows. However, he lacked Limbaugh’s talent (and say what you will about him, he does have some degree of talent) and just came across as a complete racist ášš (one might argue, though, that Limbaugh does the same). The Editor told the kid that “Limbaugh walks a delicate line — you just aren’t talented enough to do this.”
SER: I think artistic freedom is different from journalistic freedom. As an artist, I can make the stand for absolute free speech, including the right to make fun of blacks, gays, amputees, what have you.
Someone needs to tell Michael Richards that.
It’s a nice policy to forgive mistakes (even ones constantly made as in Imus’s case) but in practice, it is perfectly acceptable to punish mistakes.
Which brings us back to the question of who gets to decide what Imus’s punishment should be: His employers or Al Sharpton? I think that’s what bothers me the most about this situation. Both MSNBC and CBS decided a two-week suspension was appropriate, but that wasn’t good enough for Al Sharpton, so the pressure was kept up until they relented and fired him.
SER, I think the point where you and I (and probably others) diverge is that you seem to be talking about an academic hypothetical…all of which I agree on…but Imus case isn’t hypothetical or academic. It’s a real world example. None of us here know for certain what the motivating factors are in this instance. There’s probably not a single factor, although we can hazard which events lead us here.
But the appearance of what happened really suggests that the strongest factor leading to Imus’ termination from CBS, and to a lesser degree MSNBC, is the meeting with Sharpton and Jackson. The termination was announced, or at least presented by the news source I heard it from, as occuring immediately after this meeting. Maybe this was the straw/2×4 that broke the camel’s back, but it certainly has the appearance that the termination was to appease the factions represented by Jackson and Sharpton.
Certainly, those groups are presenting the termination in that light.
So for many people, it’s not about a failed joke, or the networks deciding enough was enough. It’s about a group using political and economic threats, really, to influence a show that arguably was the most succesful radio talk program of all time.
Whether reality matches this appearance or not, the damage has been done. Jackson and Sharpton have demonstrated that no one, no matter how successful or in demand, is safe from them. Say the wrong word at the wrong time, and they can have you shut down. Sharpton and Jackson have the claim, now, to be more powerful than the government. The FCC couldn’t shut Imus down like this, but all it takes is one meeting from Jackson and Sharpton, and Imus is off the air.
Even if the Reverands never again try to use their influence in this way, other groups will have learned that such a tactic can work…and they’ll try it.
And by the way, did you just compare Imus to Katie Couric? Or at least say he’s more Couric than he is Stern? I mean, have you ever listened to his show?
But the appearance of what happened really suggests that the strongest factor leading to Imus’ termination from CBS, and to a lesser degree MSNBC, is the meeting with Sharpton and Jackson. The termination was announced, or at least presented by the news source I heard it from, as occuring immediately after this meeting. Maybe this was the straw/2×4 that broke the camel’s back, but it certainly has the appearance that the termination was to appease the factions represented by Jackson and Sharpton.
Certainly, those groups are presenting the termination in that light.
**************
SER: I’m not surprised that Sharpton and Jackson would position it that way but it doesn’t really reflect reality. Why then is Limbaugh still on the air? Limbaugh has said far worse about Jackson. Sharpton and Jackson tried to boycott BARBERSHOP because of statements made about Rosa Parks and it had no real effect on the film.
*****************
Even if the Reverands never again try to use their influence in this way, other groups will have learned that such a tactic can work…and they’ll try it.
***********
SER: They’d be mistaken. As I’ve said, this was a perfect storm — Imus’s past comments and his unfortunate choice of targets. His past comments made it clear that this was not an abberation, which made his apology fall short and seem insincere (the whole “you people” thing didn’t help, either). He also didn’t seem to state that he was changing his show entirely so there was also the potential that something like this would occur again. His targets also ensured that he would receive little to no sympathy.
I don’t see that repeating itself any time soon with other broadcasters.
I would respectfully state that you and others are perhaps viewing this an academic scenario or a potential slippery slope rather than the straightforward “guy made a mistake that embarrassed his employers and was fired as a result.”
If this was a more presentable free speech issue — i.e. Bill Maher referring to Condoleeza Rice as a “nappy-headed ho” and thus defending his right as a comedian to do so — then I could see CBS attempting to go the distance. Maher would do the talk show circuit and would make a stance for free expression that would counteract any negative publicity Sharpton could drum up. I imagine it was deemed that Imus wouldn’t make such a good candidate for an offensive.
***************
And by the way, did you just compare Imus to Katie Couric? Or at least say he’s more Couric than he is Stern? I mean, have you ever listened to his show?
****
I’ve listened to his show. I understand that people try to compare him to Stern but my point is that that’s a bit hypocritical since of the three (Stern, Couric, and Imus), reputable politicians are more inclined to visit Couric or Imus than Stern.
“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.”
I agree. This brand of angry political correctness is always deleterious in the long term. The idea that you can somehow ENFORCE tolerance and understanding is ridiculous. I have no doubt that this incident will make many racists feel even more justified in their racism. Sharpton and co. are erecting walls instead of bringing them down.
SER: I think artistic freedom is different from journalistic freedom. As an artist, I can make the stand for absolute free speech, including the right to make fun of blacks, gays, amputees, what have you.
Don:
Someone needs to tell Michael Richards that.
*************
SER: It’s hard to say what the fall-out from Richards’ rant was given that his career was a flat-line anyway. However, much like Imus, Richards did not defend his right to insult blacks with racial epithets. He went on a mea culpa tour. Admitting that you’ve made a mistake implies that it’s OK for others to assume you’ve made a mistake (seems logical enough to me).
Also, Richards didn’t use the word ņìggër in his act — he flipped out and railed at hecklers who happened to be black. There’s no real artistic defense there and he didn’t attempt to say that he was pulling an Andy Kaufman.
***********
It’s a nice policy to forgive mistakes (even ones constantly made as in Imus’s case) but in practice, it is perfectly acceptable to punish mistakes.
Which brings us back to the question of who gets to decide what Imus’s punishment should be: His employers or Al Sharpton? I think that’s what bothers me the most about this situation. Both MSNBC and CBS decided a two-week suspension was appropriate, but that wasn’t good enough for Al Sharpton, so the pressure was kept up until they relented and fired him.
********
SER: The two-week suspension was a joke, though. It was a paid vacation. That most likely added salt on the wounds and made things worse.
I would have been more inlcined to defend Imus if he’d stated that this was an epiphany for him and he was going to re-examine his whole approach. Maybe he could actually change and be entertaining without going for the lowest common demoninator. Then the punishment might have seemed superfluous because he’d actually changed.
I’ve had a chance to think this over, and I believe I’ve reached some semblance of clarity on the issue. Or at least I’ve clarified my own thoughts! For those who care what I think, here goes…
First, Imus is not a victim. He did this to himself. His remarks were stupid, cruel, and unacceptable. I don’t care whether he truly hates blacks in his heart or not, what he did was inexcusable. And after the Michael Richards flap, he should’ve known this stuff wouldn’t fly like it used to. And if this was just about Imus, I’d leave it at that. But it’s not. It’s about freedom of speech, and the importance of a vigorous and robust public dialog.
And I’d like to ask that people stop smugly telling us that this is not a “First Amendment” issue, and that the NABJ, CBS, NBC, and Imus’ sponsors all had a right to take the actions they took. You’re arguing with a straw man, because no one is saying they didn’t have the right. But having a right to do something doesn’t include immunity from criticism. Moreover, having the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
See, “freedom of speech” encompasses more than just the First Amendment. Far, far more. Private sector censorship is legal, but it’s no less damaging than government censorship because the net effect is the same: it limits the public dialog.
And yes, I know Imus will land on his feet and hasn’t been truly silenced. Not the point, because this is about more than just Imus himself. It’s about the networks and their sponors, who will probably be going over content with a fine-tooth comb to avoid anything else that might trigger another šhìŧ-storm. And that may mean an important voice, a novel perspective, or just a new way of looking at things will die stillborn, never making it to an audience. Never adding to the publid dialog.
As Peter has so eloquently pointed out, that’s the real tragedy. Rather than demanding Imus’ firing, had the NABJ demanded airtime on Imus’ show, they could’ve taken the discussion about race to a whole new audience who hadn’t been exposed to the black point-of-view. Some minds may have been changed. Progress might’ve occurred.
Instead we have angry Imus fans threatening players on the Rutgers women’s basketball team. We have black people telling white people they “just don’t get it.” Everyone’s polarized. They’ve drawn their battle lines, plugged their ears, and ready-aim-fire! No increase in understanding between people — just more acrimony, more accusations, more resentment… more of the šhìŧ we don’t need.
So, ultimately, I’ve come down on the side I always come down on. I believe that more freedom of speech is almost always better than less. Not because I support what Imus did — because I abhor it. Not because I don’t care about black people — because I actually do. But because I believe that the more we talk, the more we exchange ideas, the more we’ll be able to filter out the bad ones and embrace the good ones.
There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to have your own radio show and get paid lots of money for it.
Posted by: ravenwing263 at April 17, 2007 01:36 PM
There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to have your own radio show and get paid lots of money for it.
Oh, for the love of God, I give up…
SER: “I would respectfully state that you and others are perhaps viewing this an academic scenario or a potential slippery slope rather than the straightforward “guy made a mistake that embarrassed his employers and was fired as a result.””
SER, I think this is your strongest point, which you’ve made very well. However, I also think you should take into consideration the seperate general concerns voiced by the other side of this argument that emerged out of this specific case.
After all, what makes this case significant is that it opened up a whole list of general concerns both from blacks and from whites that just somehow coincided in this case.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at April 17, 2007 01:50 PM
Posted by: ravenwing263 at April 17, 2007 01:36 PM
There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to have your own radio show and get paid lots of money for it.
Oh, for the love of God, I give up…”
Bill, please don’t give up. There are people on this thread (and this previous one) making very sensible (or sometimes only semi-sensible) arguments on both sides o this issue. I highly recommend Marcus’s last post in the previous thread. I think you will like it.
ravenwing263. If you are going to post on this thread it would be advisable, at the very least, to read over PAD’s own posts on this thread, on the off chance that he already responded to the point you’ve just made. Which he did.
This is why I miss Captain America.
Cap would have given Imus back a well-reasoned, hard-to-refute speech about why although men and women have fought and died for Imus’s right to say what he did, Imus needs to consider the social responsibility of what he says. There is no law impeding him from saying what he says. But in the interest of a better and strong America, using the Constitution to spread hate speech is a legal but poor excuse for being an American.
Unless Imus was the Red Skull in disguise. Then Cap woulda socked him in the jaw.
It’s hard to say what the fall-out from Richards’ rant was given that his career was a flat-line anyway.
And now it is beyond hope of rescuscitation.
SER: The two-week suspension was a joke, though. It was a paid vacation.
It did serve to censure (not censor, okay, well , it did that too) him as both NBC and CBS made it clear that he would be fired if he didn’t clean up his act.
And even if it was a joke, that doesn’t address the question that I raised as to whose call is it: The network’s or Sharptons?
I would have been more inlcined to defend Imus if he’d stated that this was an epiphany for him and he was going to re-examine his whole approach.
I’m not defending what he said or him as a person. I’m just not agreeing that any particular group or spokesperson has the right to eseentially blackmail a broadcast network into changing their programming.
There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to have your own radio show and get paid lots of money for it.
Sigh
(bangs head on the desk repeatedly)
SER: “I would respectfully state that you and others are perhaps viewing this an academic scenario or a potential slippery slope rather than the straightforward “guy made a mistake that embarrassed his employers and was fired as a result.””
Yes, I am viewing this as potential slippery slope. I believe that I’ve been very clear about that. But just because this is a case of guy screwing up and getting fired doesn’t mean that that the potential for a slippery slope does not exist.
Micha: “Bill, please don’t give up.”
Micha, I’m only giving up on the concept of reaching those people who insist on arguing with straw-men. It seems they are not reachable.
I read each and every post in every thread in which I participate. I read Marcus’s post and agree with you that it was thoughtful and insightful, even if I don’t agree with him 100%.
SER: “I would respectfully state that you and others are perhaps viewing this an academic scenario or a potential slippery slope rather than the straightforward ‘guy made a mistake that embarrassed his employers and was fired as a result.'”
Yes, of course we’re viewing it as a potential slippery slope. It is one.
I have never been in a serious car accident, but I wear a seatbelt because of what could happen. For the same reason, I oppose restricting free speech.
And nothing about the Imus case is very “straightforward.” The media isn’t like a lot of other industries. I work in sales. My job is to sell, not to communicate to a mass audience. If I mouth off and get fired, I’d argue it’s not really a free speech issue. But Imus is part of the mass media, which is the vehicle by which we engage in a public dialog. We all have an interest in a vigorous and robust public dialog, and when pressure groups can get media personalities fired we all lose out.
Again, as Peter pointed out, Sharpton, Jackson, and the NABJ could have demanded air-time on Imus’ program. They could’ve communicated their point-of-view to people who maybe hadn’t been exposed to it. They could’ve increased the level of understanding about what black people endure, and why racial slurs are so upsetting. Instead, the squelched the show and gave up on a chance to reach some minds.
Bill Myers for President!!! Who’s with me?
Seriously great post Bill, your posts are why I rarely post because you have usually said it better than I could anyway.
James
It did serve to censure (not censor, okay, well , it did that too) him as both NBC and CBS made it clear that he would be fired if he didn’t clean up his act.
***********
SER: If the threat is that he will be fired if he doesn’t clean up his act, then it’s not a free speech issue. His right to continue making offensive comments is not being protected. Then it’s just a matter of whether he gets a second (or third or fourth) chance.
*************
And even if it was a joke, that doesn’t address the question that I raised as to whose call is it: The network’s or Sharptons?
***********
SER: It’s the networks. Sharpton has no power of them other than to pressure them. I don’t think he could exert much pressure if Imus hadn’t basically given him a loaded gun. As I said, Coulter and Limbaugh are still doing OK — mostly because they don’t attack such vulnerable targets.
****************
I’m just not agreeing that any particular group or spokesperson has the right to eseentially blackmail a broadcast network into changing their programming.
****************
SER: I agree with you. I don’t listen to Imus regularly, so it’s a non-issue. If I was offended by a storyline on DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, I’d just stop watching rather than attempt to ensure that others don’t watch.
However, I think there’s an argument to be made for attempting to educate an audience to reject negative speech. Persuading people that they have better things to do with their time than listen to someone insult people is not particuarly anti-free speech.
*************
Yes, of course we’re viewing it as a potential slippery slope. It is one.
I have never been in a serious car accident, but I wear a seatbelt because of what could happen. For the same reason, I oppose restricting free speech.
*************
SER: I can understand that concern. However, I usually reject slippery slopes (for example, stem cell research will lead to such and such horrible scenario or gay marriage will lead to this and that horrible scenario). Logically, I will be concerned if what occurred could happen again under similar circumstances. In this instance, I see no evidence of that. Imus had history that came to a head.
I think the opportunity for dialogue is already taking place — both here and in other venues. Imus’s continued presence on the air wasn’t really a deciding factor in that. Since no one — including Imus — really thinks that calling college students “nappy-headed hos” is a good thing, I’m not sure where the debate would be headed.
Posted by: SER at April 17, 2007 03:56 PM
I think the opportunity for dialogue is already taking place — both here and in other venues.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of it is preaching to the choir. Whereas having the discussion on Imus’ show might’ve brought the message home to some people who most need to hear it.
Posted by: SER at April 17, 2007 03:56 PM
Since no one — including Imus — really thinks that calling college students “nappy-headed hos” is a good thing, I’m not sure where the debate would be headed.
No one? Really? Imus clearly thought it was a “good thing,” something that would get a laugh. I know others who feel the same way. Those are the people who need to hear how hurtful such remarks are.
Hëll, even lily-livered liberal white boys like me (actually, I’m 37…) need to hear it from time-to-time. It’s one thing to say that oh, yes, I know how hard it is for black people. But what really drives the point home best is hearing people’s stories. They turn the issue from an abstract into something real, something human. They remind me of the importance of constantly examining my own conscience in order to root out any bigotry in my own soul.
So, yeah, there’s a lot worth talkin’ about, SER.
I’m pretty certain Imus’ suspension was without pay. That’s the way radio suspensions usually work. It’s not administrative leave, after all, but punishment. If suspended means you don’t have to work and still get paid, show me some nappy haired hos so I can get me suspended.
SER, I disagree with you that this instance isn’t a cause for concern. Slippery slope works when there’s a credible threat that this is not a one time event. We’ve got prior cases that it’s not. We’ve already got several people that look to be good cases of it happening in the future.
If this event had occurred without Sharpton and Jackson meeting the CBS immediately prior to terminating Imus, I’d be inclined to agree with you…Imus just said one dumb thing too many, or maybe those networks had new program managers that were just looking for an excuse to can him. But the Revs. did get involved, they did exert their influence, and the result..however you want to attribute the causes around…was the termination of a radio personality known for being a universal ášš, being fired because he was doing what he’s been paid for decades to do.
Posted by: Shadowquest at April 17, 2007 03:18 PM
Bill Myers for President!!! Who’s with me?
Uhm… I smoked pot three times in college, I liked it, and I inhaled. I don’t go to church. I live with my girlfriend and we have no intention to marry. I don’t think I’d sell well in Middle America.
Posted by: Shadowquest at April 17, 2007 03:18 PM
Seriously great post Bill, your posts are why I rarely post because you have usually said it better than I could anyway.
I think you should have more confidence in your ability to express yourself. But I thank you profusely for the compliment. It made my day!
SER: If the threat is that he will be fired if he doesn’t clean up his act, then it’s not a free speech issue. His right to continue making offensive comments is not being protected. Then it’s just a matter of whether he gets a second (or third or fourth) chance.
It is a free speech issue (though not a constitutional one, people!) for CBS and NBC. It’s about his right to make offensive comments. It’s about whether the people who own his microphone have the right to decide what speech they are going to support.
Sharpton has no power of them other than to pressure them.
And yet he did manage to almost single-handedly get Imus fired.
I don’t think he could exert much pressure if Imus hadn’t basically given him a loaded gun.
Imus loaded that gun every week for 20 years. I still don’t get what made this one particular comment worse than the 10,000 other sexist and racist comments made on his program before.
As I said, Coulter and Limbaugh are still doing OK — mostly because they don’t attack such vulnerable targets.
I wouldn’t say that gays and people with debilitating illnesses are less vulnerable than blacks or women, but they do lack a media-savy, self-appointed spokesperson to bully a network into cancelling a show.
SER: I agree with you. I don’t listen to Imus regularly, so it’s a non-issue. If I was offended by a storyline on DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, I’d just stop watching rather than attempt to ensure that others don’t watch.
It always amazes me how many people forget that their TVs and radios come with off switches. But the difference between people like you and me and people like Sharpton or James Dobson is that they want to make sure other people can’t watch something that they find objectionable.
However, I think there’s an argument to be made for attempting to educate an audience to reject negative speech. Persuading people that they have better things to do with their time than listen to someone insult people is not particuarly anti-free speech.
Absolutely. Let me know when Sharpton starts doing that.
If this event had occurred without Sharpton and Jackson meeting the CBS immediately prior to terminating Imus, I’d be inclined to agree with you…
**********
SER: I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on the influence Sharpon and Jackson had. I can see your point that perhaps all the other factors (Clinton, Obama, and other politicians refusing to appear on Imus’s show) were a result of Sharpton making an issue out of Imus’s statements. That said, there’s nothing wrong with Sharpton expressing disgust with the statements, so the resulting fall-out is not something I would negatively attribute to Sharpton.
I jokingly said to a coworker that the Rutgers’ team appearance on Oprah spelled the end for Imus. You don’t mess with the Oprah. I cynically think that Sharpton and Jackson were opportunistic enough to have their meeting with CBS at a point in which CBS was going to fold anyway. The press was just too bad.
However, I can’t read minds, so maybe CBS did — improbable as it seems to me — blinked because of Sharpton. In that case, yes, I agree that that’s way too much power for someone to have.
***************
It is a free speech issue (though not a constitutional one, people!) for CBS and NBC. It’s about his right to make offensive comments. It’s about whether the people who own his microphone have the right to decide what speech they are going to support.
*******************
SER: But they make that decision based on feedback from their audience and their sponsors. You could say that they should have a more democratic approach and make their decisions based on the majority and not on a few disgruntled people. However, the network most likely didn’t view it as a vote: X amount of openly unhappy people trump Y amount of content people.
Sharpton doesn’t own CBS, so all he could do was attempt to coerce them to make a decision. However, ultimately, that decision was the network’s.
*************
And yet he did manage to almost single-handedly get Imus fired.
***********
SER: See my previous statements. He was certainly influential in what happened: He made it a news story. However, the fall-out was not something that I would consider an example of his “almost single-handedly” getting Imus fired.
Don’t overestimate Sharpton’s power. I imagine he won’t succeed in getting the police officers who shot Sean Bell convicted. Imus is a very small victory overall.
************
Imus loaded that gun every week for 20 years. I still don’t get what made this one particular comment worse than the 10,000 other sexist and racist comments made on his program before.
***********
SER: As I said, Imus had a history that came to a head. This is why people did not take his apology all too seriously, nor did they believe that he wouldn’t do it again.
**************
I wouldn’t say that gays and people with debilitating illnesses are less vulnerable than blacks or women, but they do lack a media-savy, self-appointed spokesperson to bully a network into cancelling a show.
*************
SER: I would say that gays have a great deal of influence in the media. That said, I think the reason Isaiah Washington still has a job is tht he called a fellow actor a “fággøŧ” not a non-celebrity teenager. This is where Imus crossed the line.
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.
I think that it is flawed to simply swap the terms “black” and “white”. In this context, the term “black” is synonymous with “African-American” which denotes a single ethnicity. This ethnicity is comprised of American descendants of African slaves and practices a single culture/subculture. Despite what the term seems to literally imply, African immigrants, African nationals, Caribbeans, Hispanics of African descent, etc. don’t fall under this category. When folks in the U.S. speak of “black culture” they are not talking about African or Caribbean cultures.
Thus, “black”/”African-American” organizations are no different from (ethnic) Jewish organizations, Irish American organizations, Italian American organizations, Polish American organizations, Russian American organizations, etc. Organizations based on European ethnicities exist and are overwhelmingly accepted.
1) Bob, Bill and Den claim that Imus got fired because of Sharpton and Jackson, and that it is a bad thing.
SER agrees that if it were true it would be a bad thing. But,
2) SER is claiming that Imus got fired because he was generally rejected by the public at large, which caused the sponsors and networks the step away from him.
Bob, Bill and Den accept that that’s a legitimate cause for termination, I think.
Or maybe even a general public rejection like that is not a good thing.
Or maybe it’s a bad thing for networks to bow to public outcries.
Or maybe there is a public interest for Imus to remain even if their is a real rejection by the public, and not just pressure by Sharpton and Jackson.
It is necessary to discuss these questions indepedantly of the question of Sharpton’ and Jackson’s power. The resentment by some of the way these two individuals behave should not distract from greater issues.
3) However, let’s remember PAD’s original point. Even if Sharpton, or Jackson, or the NABJ, did not really have the power to get Imus fired, as SER says, they did call for him to be fired, and they did seek to create the impression that heir pressure got him fired. Are either of these things good? Or is PAD right, and an organization of journalists and radio hosts should not be calling for another journalist to be fired. Maybe they should limit themselves to criticizing his words.
This also leads to the greater question about how groups like the NABJ or self appointed spokesmen like Jackson and Sharpton should behave in general.
———————
“Posted by: Johnny Fuller at April 17, 2007 05:14 PM
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.
I think that it is flawed to simply swap the terms “black” and “white”. In this context, the term “black” is synonymous with “African-American” which denotes a single ethnicity. This ethnicity is comprised of American descendants of African slaves and practices a single culture/subculture. Despite what the term seems to literally imply, African immigrants, African nationals, Caribbeans, Hispanics of African descent, etc. don’t fall under this category. When folks in the U.S. speak of “black culture” they are not talking about African or Caribbean cultures.”
True, an acquaintance of mine whose mother is Jewish American, and whose father was Jewish-Ethiopian lived in the US and was often asked by Americans what she was. She replied that she was African-American. I told her that she souldn’t identify herself in this way since she did not share the history and experience of African-Americans.
Posted by: Johnny Fuller at April 17, 2007 05:14 PM:
“Thus, “black”/”African-American” organizations are no different from (ethnic) Jewish organizations, Irish American organizations, Italian American organizations, Polish American organizations, Russian American organizations, etc. Organizations based on European ethnicities exist and are overwhelmingly accepted.”
True. African-Americans have very good reasons both culturaly and politically to form group specific organizations, just like these other groups. The question then is how should organizations like this be used and how they should behave.
Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM
1) Bob, Bill and Den claim that Imus got fired because of Sharpton and Jackson…
No, I don’t. As I’ve already said, pressure from the NABJ, and from black execs and employees of NBC and CBS, also had a lot to do with it.
Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM
2) SER is claiming that Imus got fired because he was generally rejected by the public at large, which caused the sponsors and networks the step away from him.
Bob, Bill and Den accept that that’s a legitimate cause for termination, I think.
Except that’s not what happened. Television and radio ratings are measured quarterly during “sweeps weeks.” No one knows what the impact on Imus’ listenership would have been.
2) SER is claiming that Imus got fired because he was generally rejected by the public at large, which caused the sponsors and networks the step away from him.
Bob, Bill and Den accept that that’s a legitimate cause for termination, I think.
Except that’s not what happened. Television and radio ratings are measured quarterly during “sweeps weeks.” No one knows what the impact on Imus’ listenership would have been.
*****
SER: You’re right, Bill, that the ratings weren’t in yet. However, major guests were pulling out, which I would qualify as rejection by the public at large. Also, advertisers were pulling out, as well. This is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/nance/343974,CST-FTR-MONEY17.article
P&G, GM, Glaxo, Staples, and others pulling their advertising (in adition to ads from MSNBC’s entire daytime schedule).
This is where it reaches the point at which ratings don’t really matter — you’re losing serious advertising revenue.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at April 17, 2007 07:05 PM
Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM
1) Bob, Bill and Den claim that Imus got fired because of Sharpton and Jackson…
No, I don’t. As I’ve already said, pressure from the NABJ, and from black execs and employees of NBC and CBS, also had a lot to do with it.”
Then we should discuss what’s the appropriate reaction of employees of NBC and CBS to working at he same company as someone whose opinions they find offensive. This is a different category than Jackson and Sharpton.
Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM
2) SER is claiming that Imus got fired because he was generally rejected by the public at large, which caused the sponsors and networks the step away from him.
Bob, Bill and Den accept that that’s a legitimate cause for termination, I think.
Except that’s not what happened. Television and radio ratings are measured quarterly during “sweeps weeks.” No one knows what the impact on Imus’ listenership would have been.”
If I’m not incorrect networks often remove shows based on their projection that they will not do well during ‘sweeps weeks.’ It is part of their job to make such projection and take preemptive action, althogh some good TV shows were dropped due to lack of confidence by networks.
Networks and sponsors might have also fired Imus because they thought it was bad for their PR to be associated with it even if that show itself stil had enough listeners, and independantly of whatever pressure Sharpton or Jackson might wield.
To argue that NBC and CBS caved in to pressure groups, and to say that they caved in to their own PR considerations or their own fears that the show will loose ratings if kept, are two (or three) different arguments.
You may wish to claim that the network should not have fired Imus for any of these reasons. Or you could say that the problem is not the power wielded by pressure groups but the willingness of the network the cave in to a momentary and unmeasured public sentiment. But if so, it is necessary to distinguish these arguments from the one that focuses on pressure groups, which is the one primarily brought by people on this thread, myself included.
It is very convenient for me to believe that the problem was Jackson and Sharpton, since it justifies my initial ieas on this issue. But with the other alternatives make it more difficult for me to decide what was right or wrong.
Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 07:58 PM
Then we should discuss what’s the appropriate reaction of employees of NBC and CBS to working at he same company as someone whose opinions they find offensive.
That would depend on each individual, his/her position within the company, and his/her unique point of view. There is no one correct reaction for everyone.
As for the rest… I’m really getting exhausted arguing about this. For me, it’s time to agree to disagree.
Have to say I feel a bit uncomfortable about what could be seen as the subtext of some of the things PAD wrote:
“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.”
If you’re putting the notion aside the notion, why put it up here? Perhaps to not-so-slyly insinuate that the NABJ is a blatantly racist organisation that all right-thinking people should condemn just for existing? As the reactions of some in this thread would indicate, such statements are appealing to those who like to think of whites (and especially white (Christian) males) as the most oppressed group in present-day US society.
“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.”
Why black journalists should conform to a higher standart here, why they should have a greater responsibility to protect the right of free speech than anybody else, is however not explained.
We have here some very lofty, idealistic sentiments, but perhaps they are not quite self-evident if you look at it from the point of view of the African-American experience. Free speech and the “spirit of the 1st Amendment” as it existed in reality was not always in their interest for the first 150 years of the amendment’s existence in a society which in its majority thought it perfectly ok that blacks and other groups had fewer rights than white males. The amendment did nothing to protect the right of free speech of blacks in the areas where most of them lived. The net result of attempts in the half-century before the Civil War to convince the inhabitants of the slave-holding states by moral suasion etc. was a hardening of pro-slavery sentiments and a growing solidarity of non-slaveholders with the slaveholding elite. The abolition of slavery was made possible by a bloody war and its effects on the national and state governments (without the war and Reconstruction the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments would not have been passed and ratified). And of course there are other examples where free speech led to a consensus among the white majority (of voters) of a state or the nation as a whole that led to laws, policies and Supreme Court decisions that made life for blacks or other minorities worse, that denied them rights they might have (e.g. ante-bellum slave states passing ordinances that forbade teaching free blacks from learning to read and write, post-bellum courts deciding that “separate but equal” was compatible with the anti-discrimination amendments passed during Reconstruction etc.).
Other impressions from this debate:
In PAD’s previous post on the matter, the argument seemed to be that Imus was not to be taken seriously anyway, now apparently we are to believe that his firing presages the end of free society as we know it. Isn’t that a little bit over the top? Are there really no more serious matters that are more hazardous to the free exchange of ideas? Such as the way big media are run and how they cooperate with the government?
Free speech, freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas are apparently only threatened by protesters. Voices being denied a forum through the whims of their networks’ owners, because of withdrawal of financial support by sponsors, or due to their audience being too small is perfectly all right for many who responded to this thread. I can’t agree.
People who protest against a media star for his racist and sexist abuse apparently are more objectionable than the abuser. Even the horrible messages to the victims of Imus’s abuse and death-threats against Al Sharpton are largely portrayed as provoked by those nasty black spokesmen (and thus at least partly excusable?). Strange.
Posted by: Bill Myers at April 17, 2007 08:22 PM
“As for the rest… I’m really getting exhausted arguing about this. For me, it’s time to agree to disagree.”
OK. I don’t want to pester anybody. The only reason I’m asking all these questions is that I’m not completely sure at this stage with what I agree and with what I disagree. We’ve steped away from clear principles the nuances, I think.
If this has already been mentioned earlier I apologize.
I think that it is unfair to characterize the NABJ as blatantly racist. The majority of of journalists are white. Therefore a journalistic organization is going to be overwhelmingly white. This is not to say that that organization is going to be racist, but there are differences in experiences of different ethinic and racial groups, and there are going to be concerns that subsets within the organization are going to have that it will be difficult or even impossible to deal with under the umbrella of the larger group. In that case it makes sense to have a sub organization that can deal with those issues. It seems to me that to have a White subgroup would be effectively redundant. There are examples of this on the college campus that I attend. There is the student union and the Black student union. White people make up roughly 80% of the population at this institution. The make-up of the student union is about the same. The point of the Black student union on this campus is to cater to the unique experience that one has as a Black student here on this campus. The point is not to be racist toward any other group. There are a host of other organizations on this campus that have the same purpose for other groups as well.
Posted by: Menshevik at April 17, 2007 08:41 PM:
1) “If you’re putting the notion aside the notion, why put it up here? Perhaps to not-so-slyly insinuate that the NABJ is a blatantly racist organisation that all right-thinking people should condemn just for existing? As the reactions of some in this thread would indicate, such statements are appealing to those who like to think of whites (and especially white (Christian) males) as the most oppressed group in present-day US society.”
Others,myself included, have already said they do not agree with this part of PAD’s argument. But it is possible to disagree with him on this issue, based only on what he said, without attributing to him anything further than holding a position we feel is mistaken. I would think he deserves the benefit of the doubt before being labeled.
2) “Why black journalists should conform to a higher standart here, why they should have a greater responsibility to protect the right of free speech than anybody else, is however not explained.”
As journalists, whose work depends on free speech, they certainly should be held to a higher standard as far as protecting free speech is concerned.
As blacks they should certainly not be held to a lower standard. Or is this the subtext of your statements? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
3) “We have here some very lofty, idealistic sentiments, but perhaps they are not quite self-evident if you look at it from the point of view of the African-American experience. Free speech and the “spirit of the 1st Amendment” as it existed in reality was not always in their interest.”
Since one of the points of your Bill of Rights, if I understand it correctly, is to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from the tyrany of the majority, it seems that minorities have a great interest in defending those rights than the majority.
4) “for the first 150 years of the amendment’s existence in a society which in its majority thought it perfectly ok that blacks and other groups had fewer rights than white males. The amendment did nothing to protect the right of free speech of blacks in the areas where most of them lived.”
It is certainly true that the words of the constitution were not enough to protect their rights, but it was still to the constitution that they made their appeal when they demanded their rights. Why would it be in their interest to give up on the constitution on this stage? Because the people making the appeal are people whose opinions you/they/we find offensive?
5) “The net result of attempts in the half-century before the Civil War to convince the inhabitants of the slave-holding states by moral suasion etc. was a hardening of pro-slavery sentiments and a growing solidarity of non-slaveholders with the slaveholding elite.”
That’s a strawman argument if there ever was one. Nobody is saying that blacks, or anybody else, should restrict themselves to speech and persuation when their life and liberty is or was at stake, as was the case during slavery.
I think what PAD is saying is that blacks, or anybody else, should restrict themselves to persuation by speech when they are dealing only with offensive speech.
6) “The abolition of slavery was made possible by a bloody war and its effects on the national and state governments (without the war and Reconstruction the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments would not have been passed and ratified).”
I’ve been down this road already. Nobody would have gone to war to abolish slavery if some people (black and white) would not have gone to the effort to persuade them, using the freedom of speech, that slavery should be abolished, and that it is worth going to war to abolish it.
Also, let’s not forget that the oppression of blacks did not end with slavery. There was also another hundred years of segregation. And segregation was defeated by the ability of the black minority to affect the minds of the white majority through persuation, using the freedom of speech, and other constitutional freedoms. And, just so we’re clear, civil disobedience is also a form of speech. It could only work if it causes opinions to change.
7) “And of course there are other examples where free speech led to a consensus among the white majority (of voters) of a state or the nation as a whole that led to laws, policies and Supreme Court decisions that made life for blacks or other minorities worse, that denied them rights they might have (e.g. ante-bellum slave states passing ordinances that forbade teaching free blacks from learning to read and write, post-bellum courts deciding that “separate but equal” was compatible with the anti-discrimination amendments passed during Reconstruction etc.).”
You call yourself a menshevik, but you sound more like a bolshevik. Or maybe I’m just reading the wrong subtext. Surely you are not suggesting that it is better to dispose of free speech and majority rule, and instead protect the rights of minorities by a dictatorship of a minority which restricts the right of the majority or the minority for free speech. It is true that dictatorships (often communist) were sometimes capable of suppressing strife between ethnic groups that way. But I personaly don’t consider it a desirable method to promote the rights and interests of minorities.
8) “Are there really no more serious matters that are more hazardous to the free exchange of ideas?”
That’s always an easy way to remove an issue one finds inconvenient. It doesn’t matter right now. It could also be claimed that the exact weight of a few insiginifact words by a shock jock, and the hurt feelings of a few women is not important compared to other graver issues. But maybe they are important. Maybe not the most important. Maybe not the only important thing right now. But certainly important.
Or maybe PAD is just selfish? Maybe as a writer he is more concerned about free speech, and the risk that an individual might loose his job for making a wrong statement, than about other issues.
9) “Such as the way big media are run and how they cooperate with the government?”
Yet this time it appears the intersts of big media coincided with the interests of those who wanted to put an end to Imus’s racist statements.
10) “Voices being denied a forum through the whims of their networks’ owners, because of withdrawal of financial support by sponsors, or due to their audience being too small is perfectly all right for many who responded to this thread. I can’t agree.”
These are issues worth discussing at length. They are complex issues, which I pointed to earlier in this thread. But the general tone of your post doesn’t offer a very promising start for such a serious discussion. Even if the discussion itself is worthwhile, would people also find it worthwhile to have this discussion with you? I personaly would be willing to ignore a negative first impression, but I can only speak for myself.
11) “People who protest against a media star for his racist and sexist abuse apparently are more objectionable than the abuser.”
Would you say that a criminal denied his rights is more or less objectionable than the system that denies him his rights? Or perhaps they are both objectionable, and need to be dealt with. Don’t you think that to suggest that people fighting for the legal rights of horrible criminals is somehow indifferent to the suffering of the victims is a cheap way to delegitimize the arguments of such people? Or do you think only the rights of nice people should be defended? Of course not. I’m just reading the wrong subtext.
12) “Even the horrible messages to the victims of Imus’s abuse and death-threats against Al Sharpton are largely portrayed as provoked by those nasty black spokesmen (and thus at least partly excusable?).”
Yet, if you look at previous posts you will find at least one saying clearly that such violence is comletely unjustified.
13) “Strange.”
What I find strange is how quickly people are willing to label people they disagree with as racists, fascists, communists, non-patriotic, indifferent, and so forth. I find it harmful to serious discussion of serious and often complex issues.
“If you’re putting the notion aside the notion, why put it up here? Perhaps to not-so-slyly insinuate that the NABJ is a blatantly racist organisation that all right-thinking people should condemn just for existing?”
Not at all. I’m simply observing the irony that on the one hand people can decry the notion of racial bias…and on the other hand accept without question the existence of organizations that are, by their very concept, separatist and segregationist. I, on the other hand, don’t tend to accept things without question. Questioning is what makes life interesting.
People are all for freedom of speech…for themselves. When it comes to other people’s freedom of speech, however, it’s debatable.
People are all for equality, equal treatment, and abolishing the concept of exclusionary organizations…for others. But not for themselves.
Examples of similar organizations can be trotted out to your heart’s content, but I notice that no one has actually refuted what I originally said: If an organization was created call the National Association of White Journalists, refusing to allow membership to anyone who wasn’t Caucasian, it would be ferociously slammed as racist in its concept and probably sued into oblivion. The fact that people have tried to argue with everything BUT that proposition kind of signals to me a tacit acknowledgment of that simple observation, with a reluctance to admit it because you feel that it automatically pegs NABJ as a racist organization. Except I didn’t say that. I just said there’s a double standard. And there is.
PAD
If not to protect their reputations as news sources, tell me, why did the networks fold on Imus? Everyone agrees Imus’s broadcasts were constitutionally protected. Why didn’t the networks feel free to disregard the criticism? What were they afraid was going to happen if they kept Imus, if not the loss of their status as credible news sources?
As far as Imus took money from NBC News, was fired from MSNBC by the president of NBC News, and a lawyer at CBS performed any review of an agreement for the news division of a competitor to pass along Imus’s broadcasts under the pretense of journalism, the NABJ can cry fowl to passing ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes as news — I’m not pleased to repeat the phrases, but that is the plain agenda being danced around in this argument.
This is a point that remains challenged only arbitrarily.
If progress depended on the avoidence of death threats there would have been no Jackie Robinson. I can’t think of any example of greatness that was nurtured by consensus, that wasn’t founded on disobedience to convention.
The relevence of fidelity to sensitivity seems to be one of gratification and, as an obstruction to progress, is perhaps at best a double-edged sword. The lesson needed is how to challenge unearned credibility, perhaps the most important virtue of free speech, which is what the NABJ has done.
“We have here some very lofty, idealistic sentiments, but perhaps they are not quite self-evident if you look at it from the point of view of the African-American experience. Free speech and the spirit of the 1st Amendment as it existed in reality was not always in their interest.”
Menshevik, I think that it’s perfectly okay, as long as the person is upfront about it. If a black spokesman says he will fight for the betterment of black people no matter what and admits that the free speech issue is a very secondary priority for him (if it’s a priority at all), then okay.
What I can’t stand is hypocrisy. It reminds me of something that happened in my own country (Brazil). Brazil’s Worker Party has had a long tradition fighting for ethics and the strengthening of democratic values, it was their crusade, and many people supported them.
Then they got in power, one of them became our current President. And then the people of the Worker’s Party engaged in lots and lots of corruption, and lots and lots of authoritarian maneuvering, all of that stuff they preached against before.
And their excuse is: “We’re making life better for the poor. That is all that matters. It’s justifiable for us to engage in corruption and totalitarianism, because we’re doing it to stay in power so we can fight poverty.”
I would respect them a lot more if they didn’t pretend they ever cared about honesty and democracy, that all they cared about was making life better for the poor, no matter what. But no, they had to pay lip service to certain other values to get in power.
It irks me a lot when people say they value free speech, they value democracy, they value the rule of law, but they’re quick to show that deep down they only value these things as long as they’re useful to the cause of their own particular group.
You don’t get to say that free speech is a good thing when a black guy publishes a book denouncing racism, and then says free speech isn’t so hot anymore when a white guy writes something offensive.
What many people here feel isn’t that white males are the “most persecuted people in America”. It’s only that people expect better from a crusading feminist, or a crusading black rights advocate. If a ultra-conservative white dude or big media does something corrupt and immoral and curtailing of freedom, it’s expected of them, because they are the bad guys anyway.
Now, when a group like the NABJ does it, it’s worse. They’re supposed to be the good guys. Of course they’re held to a higher standard. They should be. If even they start to use authoritarian methods, then we might as well give up any pretense that these ideals even matter, right?
Peter,
You’re wrong, you’ve lost, stop embarrassing yourself, and move on. You should probably have Glenn delete this whole thread so there’s less of a record of how completely clueless, petulant, wrong, and whiny you’ve been through this little tantrum of yours.
“Anonymous”
Relax dude. Peter doesn’t have much left. It’s almost over.
Okay. There are a number of posts here that i could tie this to, but instead of just picking one, i’ll just post it bare.
What we’re looking at here is, in its way, a free speech issue. However, it’s even more akin to the Hollywood blacklist that blighted so many careers.
If someone can be run out of his chosen profession because pressure groups (and the NABJ *is* a pressure group in this context) push his employers to fire him, and let it be known that they will similarly bring pressure to bear on anyone who might hire him otherwise, we are entering the era of the Blacklist.
And, if, as someone has pointed out, Imus’s firing has had a chilling on others exercising their right of free speech for fear of being fired and/or blacklisted, we’re also on the very edge of that slippery slope that begins “When they came for {fill in group} I said nothing, because I was a {not-member of fillin gorup)…”
// The point of the Black student union on this campus is to cater to the unique experience that one has as a Black student here on this campus. The point is not to be racist toward any other group. //
That may be the point but that is very often not how it is perceived.
// There are a host of other organizations on this campus that have the same purpose for other groups as well. //
True, but that doesn’t make thier existance right either. Making an observation about a black organization does not necessarily mean you would feel differently about a woman’s organization, religious organizations or organizations like the gay alliance. The fact of the matter is the minute you discriminate in either direction you are no longer being equal or treating others as equals. If you have an issue with that inequality when it thrown in your direction but defend it when it goes the other way, you can expect that someone, somewhere, at sometime will point out that there’s a slight hyprocracy there.
“If not to protect their reputations as news sources, tell me, why did the networks fold on Imus?”
Because the advertisers were bailing.
Imus had been slammed any number of times in the past and he survived it because the advertisers hung in. So Imus wasn’t fired. This time around, thanks to the wave of pressure and the media focus–and nothing focuses the media like protests leveled by a media-related organization such as the NABJ–advertisers were running. All the ratings in the world don’t matter if you can’t sell the commercial time.
So they canceled it.
PAD
You’re talking about closing access, and the NABJ didn’t say Imus should have access denied to him. As far as their leverage was the credibility of the news divisions in question, they were right to challenge them for passing ņìggër, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism. From what I’ve read, the NABJ hasn’t crossed into the boundary of denying access any more than if they said a reporter who fabricated a story should be fired.
NBC News denied the drop in advertisers was the motive in dropping Imus, and didn’t deny they were protecting their credibility. And, if other shock jocks — who keep getting pulled and put back, and pulled and put back — can continue to pull in advertising dollars, it’s reasonable to assume Imus would have found new advertisers. You all seem to agree Imus is just going to come back with no drop in ratings.
As such, you’re denial the vulnerability of the broadcasters’ credibility seems arbitrary. They could have chosen to counter the Sharpton and the NABJ by rebranding and begun competing for Fox’s slice of the news market. The same seems true for CBS rebranding and fighting conservative talk radio for their share of the market. Instead they decided to shelter the credibility they’ve claimed all along.
Is it just me, or does Anthony W. seem to be Flamestrike’s sockpuppet?
For that matter, I think the latest Anonymous might be, as well…
(Mike), what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this (thread) is now dumber for having (read) it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
With apologies to Adam Sandler for shamelessly stealing his material.
Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 08:57 PM
OK. I don’t want to pester anybody.
Micha, you weren’t pestering me in the least. It’s just that I’ve articulated my thoughts to the best of my ability and don’t have a lot more to say. Moreover, I’ve read the counterarguments from those who disagree and, well, we still disagree. I don’t see that there’s much more to be gained by belaboring the issue, that’s all.
Also, I’m getting sick of jáçkáššëš like Flamestrike and his sockpuppets (as if we wouldn’t see through that flimsy deception!), and the other trolls in this thread. Those who disagree with PAD but lack the intellectual skills to phrase their replies in an intelligent manner should step back and let people like SER represent the opposing side in this debate. SER has been respectful and logical, and has argued with what others have actually said rather than creating strawmen. I remain unpersuaded by SER’s arguments, but at least they are cogent, well-reasoned, and well-articulated.
Examples of similar organizations can be trotted out to your heart’s content, but I notice that no one has actually refuted what I originally said: If an organization was created call the National Association of White Journalists, refusing to allow membership to anyone who wasn’t Caucasian, it would be ferociously slammed as racist in its concept and probably sued into oblivion. The fact that people have tried to argue with everything BUT that proposition kind of signals to me a tacit acknowledgment of that simple observation, with a reluctance to admit it because you feel that it automatically pegs NABJ as a racist organization. Except I didn’t say that. I just said there’s a double standard. And there is.
If such an organization existed, it would be a double standard. Members of the NABJ, while of African descent, are not necessarily exclusively of African descent. A biracial person of African descent could easily be a member. Since 90% of African Americans have white ancestry, going by this standard, 90% of African Americans could join the NAWJ. If the requirement for membership in the NAWJ was being pure white, that would be a double standard.
Also, we must be realistic and note that mainstream whites have never expressed a real need nor desire for white exclusive organizations. Those who do express the need for them are almost always radicals who do so spitefully. The ADL’s website quotes language from the NAAWP showing their anti-black, anti-minority, and anti-Jewish sentiments.
Also, what double standard there is is not so much race based as it is based on status. There is a double standard between the dominant majority ethnicity and the less dominant minority ethnicities. If the roles were reversed and the history of whites was swapped with the history of blacks, we then would have an NAAWP and an NAWJ.
Either way, I still say that it is disingenuous to simply swap the terms “black” and “white” in this context.
I’ve been thinking a lot about your post (and your response to my response to your post, waaaaay back up there near the very tip of the thread.) And here’s what I think.
I think that you’re right about one thing. The NABJ is, in fact, engaging in a de facto attempt to curtail Don Imus’ freedom of speech (with the caveat that they’re allowed to do so, since they aren’t the government.) Where I disagree with you is that they shouldn’t. Now I know that sounds a bit, um, well…fascist…but hear me out. It might make more sense by the end.
The NABJ make their living, as you’ve pointed out, through the exercise of the principle of freedom of speech. Like all social principles, this principle is not absolute and does not exist in a vacuum. In other words, we might say, “I’m against murder,” but in practice, we make exceptions to that rule based on its interactions with other rules. We’re constantly in a process of negotiating the boundaries of our social principles with one another, and like any principle, the right to freedom of speech is constantly subject to interpretation.
The NABJ, as people intimately familiar with the process and with the principles in question, has as much of a duty to themselves to prosecute abuses of freedom of speech as they do to defend the exercise of it. They can, and I’d argue should say, “Hey, we’re the biggest defenders of freedom of speech you’ll find, but this clearly crosses the boundaries of civilized behavior. We won’t defend it, because to defend it is to abrogate our common sense and reduce us to yes-men for racists.” Because if they _always_ defend someone’s speech, even when it’s indefensible, nobody will listen to them when they defend legitimate exercises of free speech.
Now, you might say that this makes them “not the biggest defenders of freedom of speech you’ll find”, and you might argue that “The answer to freedom of speech is always more freedom of speech, not the shutting down of freedom of speech”…in fact, I believe that you actually did. 🙂 But, carefully and politely, I will point out that you yourself negotiate these same boundaries that the rest of us (including the NABJ) do.
Not too long ago, a poster made a comment in another thread about a member of your family. I don’t know what that comment was, because you deleted it and replaced it with a statement that comments about your family that you found inappropriate or insulting would be deleted, as they were beyond the boundaries of what you were willing to allow in your comments section. You did not respond to that poster’s speech with more speech–you deleted his comment, and set a boundary beyond which “free speech” would not be allowed.
I am not, in the slightest, attempting to suggest you were wrong to do so. I fully support that action, because I do believe that while free speech is important, vital, and indeed necessary to our society, there are boundaries to it–and while I don’t want to see anyone narrowing those boundaries to oppress, I also don’t want to see people getting away with ignoring them. (To quote Terry Pratchett: “Freedom without limits is just a word.”)
In your case, the boundary (which again, let me stress, I’m not in the slightest disagreeing with, and I sincerely hope you’re not angry for bringing up what might be a touchy subject) is negative comments about your family. In the case of the NABJ, it’s racist remarks about a bunch of teenage women whose only crime seems to have been to lose a National Championship. I’m not saying you should have the same boundaries they do, but I do think that you should be able to sympathize with the notion that people can have limits to their ability to defend freedom of speech, and that some people have been pushed past theirs by Don Imus’ latest reprehensible comments.
(Oh, and because I always feel uncomfortable disagreeing with people, let me just make a cheap attempt at defusing any tension by adding that I really liked your run on ‘Marvel Adventures: Spider-Man’. Loved seeing Werewolf by Night, Man-Thing, and the Frankenstein Monster again.) 🙂
You’re wrong, you’ve lost, stop embarrassing yourself, and move on. You should probably have Glenn delete this whole thread so there’s less of a record of how completely clueless, petulant, wrong, and whiny you’ve been through this little tantrum of yours.
You must think we are really low wattage bulbs to try something this obvious. Nobody is going to respect an opinion that is so clearly put here by someone who is obviously a long-time reader who hasn’t the guts to reveal him or herself.