"The Imus Fallout: Who Can Say What?" Time Mag..(A Good Read)

[KoKo]

The Imus Fallout: Who Can Say What?

By JAMES PONIEWOZIK

Of course, assessing Imus' show is a subjective judgment, and setting these boundaries is as much an aesthetic call as a moral one. It's arbitrary, nebulous and, yes, unfair. Who doesn't have a list of artists or leaders whose sins they rationalize: Elvis Costello for calling Ray Charles a "blind, ignorant nigger," Eminem for peppering his lyrics with "faggot," Jesse Jackson for "Hymietown," D.W. Griffith for lionizing the Klan or T.S. Eliot for maligning Jews?

You might say that there's no excuse and that I'm as big a hypocrite as Imus' defenders for suggesting that there is one. Which may be true. That's finally why "Where's the line?" is a misleading question. There are as many lines as there are people. We draw and redraw them by constantly arguing them. This is how we avoid throwing out the brilliance of a Sacha Baron Cohen — who offends us to point out absurdities in our society, not just to make "idiot comments meant to be amusing" — with a shock jock's dirty bathwater. It's a draining, polarizing but necessary process.
Which may be why it was such a catharsis to see the Rutgers players respond to Imus at their press conference in their own words. "I'm a woman, and I'm someone's child," said Kia Vaughn. "I achieve a lot. And unless they've given this name, a 'ho,' a new definition, then that is not what I am." She stood with her teammates, a row of unbowed, confident women. For a few minutes, anyway, they drew a line we could all agree on and formed a line we could all get behind.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1609490-5,00.html

[MADem]

1. The first analysis of the matter I've seen that is devoid of invective or 'outrage'

How, well, refreshing. It is a good read.

[Berry Cool]

3. What I find interesting is how it outlines the role so many played as "enablers"

by going on his program and then pretending there was nothing wrong with it because "he never said anything bad during the part when I was on."

As if you don't get tarred by the whole atmosphere of the show merely by appearing on a single segment with its host.

[MADem]

4. I have discussed this elsewhere, but the biggest 'enablers' were the

sponsors, and GE, the owners of NBC-Universal. Most of the sponsors have contracts with the Pentagon totalling BILLIONS.

Imus was just their ideal fellah so long as he supported the war. The minute he started turning against the war, that's when he became problematic for these corporate suits, many of whom are also heavy RNC contributors.

I think they "laid in wait" knowing full well he'd do this, and while they usually would have his back on a rude comment (apologize, and move on, now) this time, they whipped up the winds to fan the flames. I do think the corporate sponsors AND NBC were just waiting for the ideal moment to get his ass out of there. His anti-war remarks had serious potential to interfere with their bottom line--they're all making a bloody fortune off this war and the GOP Federal government--everyone from GM, GE, Sprint-Nextel, Staples, even Proctor and Gamble, which has a billion dollar food service DOD contract. And the ones who aren't war profiteering are "GOP profiteering"--like our 'friends' at Glaxo Smith Kline--and those clowns are heavy RNC donors.

Follow the money...

But the other angle--the media enablers--they're all tied up, too. The appearances by Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, David Gregory, Chris Matthew, the occasional Scarborough appearance--all mandated by the GE boss owner of NBC Universal. CBS, affiliated with TIME Warner, syndicated the guy, and supplied THEIR people to the hopper as well--everyone from Wonkette to Matt Cooper to Jeff Greenfield. It's all incestuous. And these media conglomerates have advertisers, and their advertisers make a fucking BUNDLE off this war. That's bundle, like BILLIONS, with a B.

The worst of it is that he probably could have been persuaded to change, if shown how it wasn't working anymore. A little chit-chat with the suits and I've no doubt their would have been a course correction long ago. But they didn't do that. So long as Imus was cheerleading the war, well, he was Okey-Dokey. The minute he went off the BushCo ranch with his "Cheney is a war criminal" and that riff with Barnicle about hanging the two of 'em, and impeaching Bush, and jailing Gonzalez, and that incredible bit with Matthews about the "bullshit war"--well, that was IT for him.

Racist and sexist? No problem.

Anti-war? BIG problem.

[Berry Cool]

6. I would agree, except that MSNBC/NBC aren't going after all their antiwar talking heads.

I do agree that the networks served as enablers here. As long as Imus and his minions made them money, he could stay on the air forever as far as they were concerned.

And Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, David Gregory, Chris Matthews, etc., were enablers too. But I do not believe their appearances were "mandated." They volunteered.

[MADem]

8. Because they need to brand MSNBC as the "Democratic" network, is why

They're seeding for the future.

But look at the ratings--KO gets way fewer viewers than O'Reilly. If they wanted to 'grow' his audience, they'd start him a half hour early to steal Dildo's viewers.

I do think those NBC appearances were directed, and directed specifically by Bossman Tim Russert, who is the honcho of the DC reporters. And he took HIS orders from the suits in the corporate suites.

It is well known that his network has what's called "contributor contracts" with some news elements. See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001861.html?hpid=topnews

They can't FORCE people to go on, but if they know what's good for them, they'll do it.

Others can't be so certain. This is particularly true of Newsweek (owned by The Washington Post Co.), which has a "cooperative" relationship with NBC and MSNBC. Several of the magazine's writers have "contributor" contracts with the network. And while none have formal, paying gigs with Imus, Newsweekers including Jonathan Alter, Evan Thomas, Howard Fineman and top editor Jon Meacham have become frequent contributors. Newsweek now has its brand to consider in deliberating whether to allow its people to joust once again with the "I-Man."

Andrea Mitchell was one who often seemed uncomfortable in the format--probably due to things like this:

Imus urges them to digress, take shots (a running gag when he's grilling a just-the-facts reporter -- say, NBC's Andrea Mitchell: "Wouldn't you agree, Andrea, that Dick Cheney is a war criminal?") and bring out aspects of their personal lives. It was on "Imus" that Schieffer, the venerable chief Washington correspondent for CBS News and host of "Face the Nation," disclosed his bout with cancer.

So, too, did Newsweek's Alter in 2004...

As for the advertisers, they make the really big money off the Pentagon. P and G, GM, GE (owner of MSNBC and NBC), Sprint, Staples--they all have billion dollar government contracts. The rest of the advertisers are heavily populated by RNC contributors in their boardrooms.

An anti-war, GOP-dissing, Republican cowboy who reached angry GOP white voting males with an anti-war message was no longer their cuppa tea. And that, IMO, is why they leapt at this very good, and certainly justified chance to get rid of old Don Imus. And they even let the left do the heavy lifting. It was all quite well done, from their perspective.

[havocmom]

2. Athletes as cultural icons for honorable, sterling behavior and thought...

My, those young women are taking it to America and what we have put up with for way too long. Much appreciation to them, the parents who raised them, the teachers, coaches, mentors who had influence on their growth.

My ol heart sored listening to those strong, wise young women. That such people still remain in America is cause to maintain hope for the nation. Speak truth to power and to those who continually show no remorse for bad behavior. Do it constructively, without hate or malice, but firmly, and with the knowledge of being on the side of righteousness, justice, and REAL values.

My gawd, those young ladies are awesome. They gave lessons to all of us about what real champions are.
They took the posers who claim to be leaders in America out to the woodshed by sheer comparison.

[Kagemusha]

5. Maybe people generally find Imus' targets to be more deserving?

And in this case they were innocent people who had done no wrong and it ticked people off?

I know people have told me otherwise here and elsewhere but, racist comments are a dime a dozen. I don't hear university women's teams ripped like this much, white, black or anything else.

[1932]

7. Did I miss something? were you allowed to say "Nappy ho" before this?

I've listened to a lot of morning radio, and I've never had the impression that that was appropriate.

[MADem]

9. Well, shock jocks have certainly gotten away with worse, frankly

How's Money Grubbing Jewish Bastard, for starters? http://mediamatters.org/items/200612080006

And get a load of these. I suspect the Cindy Sheehan as a"pretty big prostitute" might strike a nerve with some who post here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010

On the January 10, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Beck called anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute," later amending, at the behest of his executive producer, Steve "Stu" Burguiere, that "tragedy pimp" would be "the most accurate description."
On the September 9, 2005, edition of his radio show, Beck referred to survivors of Hurricane Katrina who remained in New Orleans as "scumbags." Also, after acknowledging that nobody "in their right mind is going to say this out loud," Beck attacked victims of the disaster and the families of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, saying: "I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims."
On the May 17, 2005, broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck said he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"
Neal Boortz

On the August 3, 2006, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz asked his audience: "I want you to think for think for a moment of how incompetent and stupid and worthless, how -- that's right, I used those words -- how incompetent, how ignorant, how worthless is an adult that can't earn more than the minimum wage? You have to really, really, really be a pretty pathetic human being to not be able to earn more than the human wage. Uh -- human, the minimum wage."....On his March 27, 2006, radio program, Boortz suggested the U.S. government should "store 11 million Hispanics" who entered the country illegally in the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans before deporting them to their home countries.

This one, for some reason, isn't the worst of the lot, but it's a personal favorite--the ignorance just SHINES through:

On the July 12, 2006, edition of his radio program, during a discussion of the development of ethanol-fueled vehicles in Brazil, O'Reilly stated that "they still have people in Brazil running around with their little darts, hitting you in the head with the poisoned darts, with the loincloths."

Read 'em all, there's a whole BUNCH of 'em, and be astounded.

The pro-war nature of their discourse, though, inoculates them to a large extent.

[1932]

10. Imus interviews presidential candidates and celebrities. He's not

the equivalent of the drive time dj on radio schenectady.

[MADem]

12. No, he isn't. But he was the grandfather of the genre, as I have said elsewhere.

And he combines political reportage with current events and those old shock jock elements that he originated.

[1932]

14. That doesn't entitle him to a lower standard.

He should be held to the standard for the job he's evolved into and not the standard that the job he originated has involved into (ie, I doubt that what he said would have been acceptable 40 years ago).

[MADem]

15. I think viewers and listeners should be held to the "pick up the remote" standard

Turn the radio off, there's a standard. I don't need the Radio and TV Nannies to "help" me decide what my tender ears might hear or my innocent eyes might see.

Here's a link for you to check out. This guy is not called a shock jock--he's a "political commentator" from a particular viewpoint who has the VP on his show, often.

Listen to this, and tell me, where's the "standard" when it comes to this kind of "schtick?"

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200703230002

I will tell you where the standard is--it is a DOUBLE standard. One guy came to oppose the war, the other is a BushCo cheerleader. One had to go, the other can't get a single complaint about him aired on the networks or the cable news outlets.

Gee, why do you suppose that is?

[1932]

17. Then think of this as the owners of the stations picking up the remote.

After the public set it on the coffee table in front of them.

[MADem]

19. The owners just happen to earn billions from the Pentagon every year

GE, we bring good things to light...AND we have lucrative DOD contracts worth billions, too, that would shrink if the war ended.

The "public" had little to do with this--the event was orchestrated by the corporate suits, the "public" played the adoring audience and was tricked into thinking their opinion mattered. They gave you outrage on your TV screen around the clock, and then--just in case you missed the point--they gave you more outrage. They got you foaming at the mouth.

Hell, even the Rutgers team wasn't tricked into the piling on that the public got into--they certainly didn't ask for the guy's job; in fact, they specifically stated that they did not ask for it and did not think he should lose his job--but the suits took it, anyway, in a hurry, too, before the outrage they whipped up had a chance to subside.

If the opinion of the vaunted public REALLY mattered, do you think a fat bastard could run around singing "Barack, the Magic Negro" in a minstrel voice without consequences? And the "public" never heard a single peep raised about that?

[1932]

22. I'm sorry, but Imus has being doing nothing to help democracy the last

eight years. He's a boorish ass who admittedly hired a producer to bring more racism to his show.

[MADem]

24. You don't think his anti-war views have helped to depress GOP support for the war?

Have you even seen the show? He did do a very bad thing, but your assertion that he has done NOTHING to help democracy is, well, absolute CRAP.

Look at these clips--Chris Matthews talking about how coverage of the war SUCKS...and it is BS. Imus calls the media a bunch of war enablers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpzyMp2pQk8

Listen to Imus calling Dildo Really a son of a bitch, telling him to "stick to making dirty phone calls to the help" and angered about O'Reilly's exploitation of the military: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHP9FHVaKxE&mode=related&search=

I don't excuse Imus's racist remark, but now there is no Republican saying this kind of stuff on the air, reaching other Republicans with tiny doses of bitter truth.

BushCo has gotta be THRILLED.

[1932]

25. On this issue, he's following and not leading.

[MADem]

26. Did you see the discussion? That's hardly 'following'.

Here's more:

WALTER REED scandal "That arrogant bastard oughta be court-martialled! They're gonna blame the wounded soldiers...after they hang Cheney, they oughta hang (Kiley)...you can't make it up!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIokMeSNNWA

"Someone who oughta be put to sleep is Bill O'Reilly..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EBCr8N46D0

This is the voice against the war that was lost. And it's a voice the Rutgers team did not ask to be removed from the stage.

[1932]

27. He hired a producer specifically to write more racist jokes.

His form of journalism is crass and aimed at the lowest common denominator.

He waited a long long time before he decided he didn't want to be associated with the right wingers in the WH, and he's not going out on a limb now in doing that.

And I'm willing to bet money that he's not saying anything that the next Republican nominee for president wouldn't feel comfortable saying. Everyone is going to be running against Bush and Cheney in '08, and if Imus's track record is any indication, he'll be working for the Republians in '08, helping them get their themes across to voters.

In fact, it's probably going to look a lot like this, from Feb '07, with Imus saying America wants fascism and then praising Rudy G. -- http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070011.

[MADem]

28. And that was wrong. But he'll never have a shot at atoning, because GE shut him up.

Again, the point no one seems to take is this is a Republican, who reached other Republicans. He spoke to GOP, angry white male voters in their language. He made it OK for them to oppose the war.

You think Olbermann is gonna reach that crowd with his lousy hundred or three grand viewers per night (depending on if the networks have a strong show in opposition)? Republicans don't listen to the left wing talkers on TV or radio. Imus was the only one punching through. No other Republican is saying 'Stop the war.' Just Imus. And he's silenced.

And again, the Rutgers team did not call for his job. They said that several times. They said they did not WANT him to lose his job.

But hey, they're just "girls." What do they know? Why consider their feelings on the matter? They're just the victims, their take isn't important.

[agincourt]

11. If Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck

had said the same thing, they'd be still picking up their checks as if nothing happened. It just shows how coddled GOPig scum are in this country.

[MADem]

13. The level of "offense" and the degree of publicity has everything to do with the

level of support for this administration. If you click on the link at this site http://www.overspun.com/?p=1602 you can hear, of all people, Howard Stern talking about Rush Limbaugh calling, of all people, CHUCK SHUMER, a "spear chucker."

Is it because the remark was idiotic that he didn't get called on it? There's plenty offensive in the Stern clip too. Fair warning.

More recently, there was the "Barack, the Magic Negro" business that went completely unnoticed by the mainstream media...of course, the offender was Rush--but as I have been saying, he's pro-war. Media Matters covered THAT, too (way more than the national media or this forum did, certainly): http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200703230002

There's a clip (link to the right)--and you can hear the song sung, by I guess, Rushbo himself, or one of his underlings. Again--OFFENSIVE. Fair warning.

[1932]

18. Neither of them was the cover story on Newsweek a couple years ago in article

called "the new face of the NEWS."

Imus is actually treated as a source of true information. He should be held to a higher standard.

[MADem]

20. Coulter made the cover of TIME, no one holds her to a higher standard

She's treated as a source of information, too. And her "conservative flamethrowing" was excused, right on that very cover. Is she held to a higher standard? Not really--those half dozen or so newspapers that dropped her column? They're starting to come back, now that the heat has died down.



When you start taking as gospel from fucking Newsweek about what someone is or isn't, you've got trouble. That's just their corporate viewpoint, and we've all got at least one of those.

And on edit: Limbaugh made the cover of TIME, too, in the early 90s. They asked the nation if he (and Howard Stern) were indeed the VOICE OF AMERICA. But just because THEY put the concept out there, it doesn't make it so:

[1932]

21. She's on the cover for being PARTISAN. Listen to Tavis Smiley last Friday.

Smiley talks about how he and Imus and 18 or so other people were featured in a Newsweek article (with Imus on the cover) about being the new places to go to get your NEWS.

[MADem]

23. And TAVIS doesn't have a point of view? And state it often? Come ON.

Certainly, Tavis's point of view goes down easier than Imus's, but those who think that they know Imus are often very surprised to learn that he has called for the firing of Gonzales, suggested that Bush and Cheney should be hanged like Saddam, called Cheney a war criminal, and is a vociferous opponent of the Iraq War, having once been a staunch supporter. There would not be a vet's center for traumatic brain injuries if it weren't for him. He raised millions for that effort.

He is, in essence, the "Republican who came around." Who used to reach millions of his fellow Republicans every morning, for four hours a day, and spending a good chunk of that time calling BushCo criminal and this war a disgrace. But not anymore.

Jon Stewart has a point of view. Steven Colbert has one too. DildO'Really has a point of view. Hannity has a point of view. So does Colmes for that matter.

I don't take your point, really. Are you saying that the public must be "protected" from newsreaders with a point of view? We could put robots or cartoons up there, but then we'd need to be protected from the newsWRITERS I suppose.

Or is it just the racist and misogynistic remark that causes you to take that viewpoint? Really, if it is so dreadful that people are getting their "news" from the likes of Imus, it's equally unacceptable that they get it from Stewart, Limbaugh, Colbert, or Hannity. So, what to do? Take them ALL off the air? Give TV viewers and radio listeners a lecture about what is "news" and what isn't? Put disclaimers on TV or radio programs? (Warning: This program contains both news and commentary. Handle with extreme caution.)

I mean, really. If the thesis of the NEWSWEEK article is that people are getting their news from partisan sources, well, so what? The Brits have had that system for eons--you know, ahead of time, if the reporter is right or left. No secrets, no "pretense" of being impartial--because we all know, NO one is really impartial. Might as well get it all out in the open.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

16. Here's what I said about Imus on another site

This doesn't mean that I'm not fine with what's happened to him. He isn't being censored off the air, he's been hounded off the air. That's part of the free speech process. If you piss a bunch of people off, they you gotta deal with it. I'd love to see Rush and Hannity and all the other tough talking blowhards step over a line and create media lynch mob.

But I really don't think Imus had ill intent when he said it. Here's what I said on Common Dream.

I think Don Imus was being a “wigger” (white-Nword) — you know, those kids who wear baggy clothes and try to talk with inner city argot (Eminem, who seems to have disappeared from public life, is their patron saint) because they believe that to be anything less than a gangbanger is to be a wus. He probably felt that “da brothas” would see him as one of them if he talked like that, that he was being the modern equivalent of hip and with-it, a real modern guy. I’m sure he was as shocked as the people he offended with the backlash.

I’d like to put a slogan out out there for all aspiring whatevers: Don’t act black if you don’t got the knack.