Friday, April 13, 2007

Imus & Andy

Okay... there is no Andy, but I thought that sounded better than Imus & Al. Anyway... since I've been suffering from bloglag recently I thought I'd highlight some comments from another discussion board about Imus and his struggles on the bread line.

Tom: Personally I think that what he said was distastefull and rude but other than that it was nothing more than a bad insult. He called them ugly, so what. Why is there such a crazy uproar over the whole situation? We are allowed to free speech in America, he's a radio personality who's job is to talk so he's bound to make a mistake once in a while, and he said he's sorry. What more is necessary? I'm pretty tired of hearing about how these girls are "deeply saddened" by his words. I guarantee you that every girl on that team has said something insulting about another person before, if not several times that sameday. Then, the Reverend Al Sharpton calls for him to be fired. Shouldn't he be forgiving him for his words, not promoting them for ratings on his own radio show?

Nilay: No.

Matt: Truth be told... if I (or Josh, or Kevin, or you, or Heather, or just about any of us) talked about a woman as a "nappy headed ho" at our job, we would be canned, with no recourse.... no opportunity to state our case... no nothing. Imus walks the decency line for living (just like O&A, just like Stern...) and for those that choose to entertain by walking that line.... well.... eventually you are likely to cross it one too many times....

Matt: Sure it's a double standard.... and I'm okay with that. Our lives are full of double standards, and I doubt they're going away anytime soon.

Josh: He's offensive, old, and has no business in a public forum if he is going to spit out mess like this to the masses.

Me: That's right! If you have something to say and it's not appropriate for all people to hear... you shouldn't be allowed to say it. The freedom of speech is only extended to polite individuals with objective and relevent comments. Now... that sarcasm aside... I absolutely agree with MSNBC's decision to stop broadcasting the show and with CBS's decision to stop giving Imus his paycheck. What I don't like is Al Sharpton (for many reasons, but I'll tellyou one here). He had Imus on his show shortly after these comments were made. He didn't let Imus speak at all. Al Sharpton wasn't interested in discussing the issue. He simply wanted to berate and ridicule Imus for his listeners. I think Al Sharpton is a horse's ass. Someone should drag him out to an alley and beat the shit out of him.

You: Feel free to comment! Please!


Sassy said...

It does make me mad that it's a double standard, but what can you do about that? Nothing. Would an African-American have gotten canned for saying the exact same thing? Would Chris Tucker had been fired? No, probably not. He probably would've gotten a lot of laughs. Who knows, though? There will always be sucks, but that's life.

My issue is that these girls are being called "victims." On WEEI (Boston radio station) this morning, they read a statement by someone (I can't remember who..sorry) who likened this situation to the Duke lacrosse players. Saying that they were getting too much sympathy and focus, I guess because they're privileged, upper-class white males - when the REAL victims are the women on the Rutgers basketball team.

Give me a break...since when are insults by off the wall comments by a KNOWN shock-jock cause for victimization and martyrdom? Just because of the race-issue? I think that's stupid. The guy said he was sorry - his consequence was being fired. I maintain that CBS was right in firing him...there have to be examples set.

But should we CONTINUE to nail him on a cross for the alleged suffering and pain these girls have been caused? God.

frauschlager said...

I don't have much to say...ok, well maybe I do. I will just have to wait and see how long this gets.

I never have really cared for Imus. I thought he was old, and drab, and kind of boring. He tried, much like Stern, to shock, but I found it boorish and annoying. Clearly I am not part of the group for which CBS and MSNBC earn millions from when listening to him. But isn't that what this is really all about? Money?

CBS & MSNBC took a full week to determine that his remarks were offensive enough to dismiss him? Of course not, it took a week for companies with corporate boards that spend money advertising on his show to start worrying that Al Sharpton and other activists would drag their names into this mess, and pull the plug. As soon as the money was fleeing, suddenly the radio and TV stations grew a back-bone? I think not.

Is any black man better in this world for Imus being off the radio? No. How about a black woman? Answer still no. How about anyone not named Al Sharpton? The answer again is no. The firings did nothing but point out the hypocrisy of an industry that has earned millions off of Imus's provocative back.

As for Sharpton, I seriously doubt you will hear him apologize for slandering 3 clearly innocent young 'Dukies' anytime soon. He kept their names, and the horrendous acts for which they were accused in the news for weeks, making sure that their names would be forever linked to despicable crimes against women, the black community, and all others in our civilized world. However, with a team of 40+, only three who were accused of untrue crimes took the full brunt of his furry, and when proven innocent, he makes no mention of his mistake. Let us not forget his support for Tawana Brawley...

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...

Kevin said...

Good comments, Frau... But, I don't have any problems with CBS or MSNBC. You're right, they didn't can Imus until they started losing money. That was a good business decision. You don't hold onto stock that drops, unless you think it will go back up.
Imus' stock dropped and the media companies lost alot of ad revenue. They didn't think his stock was going to go back up, so they fired him.
If I were a large corporate entity, I think that profit would be my first concern... social responsibility would be a distant second.

frauschlager said...

Good point Kev. However, I disagree with you only slightly. MSNBC didn't say it was making a business decision (though as a business, it should). Of the decision, "What matters to us most is that the men and women of NBC Universal (which owns MSNBC) have confidence in the values we have set for this company. This is the only decision that makes that possible." Apparently, it takes more than a week to poll your employees to determine just what your core values are.

As for CBS, "'There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society,' CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. 'That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision.'"

Again - going for the moral imperative, even though it is fundamentally an economic issue.

Just call a spade a spade. CBS & MSNBC don't give two squats about morality, or values, or anything else that isn't colored green. It was an economic decision, and to pretend it was anything different is disingenuous.

Kevin said...

It's all fluff. You never want to come right out and say, "We can only earn 8.1 billion dollars if Imus is still on the air instead of 8.4 billion dollars if we toss him and find someone else that won't say something stupid for atleast 5 years."
So instead, you use words like "values" and "integrity" and hope that most of your viewing and/or listening audience buys your line of crap.