Have any Dems said anything about the Imus incident?

[politicasista]

I know Obama is now calling for his firing, but what about Kerry, Dodd, or Harold Ford Jr.? What about the DNC?


Are they distancing themselves from it or just staying silent above the fray? :shrug:

[Mass]

1. Here are Hillary and Edwards's statement on the issue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3210248&mesg_id=3210248

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2803126&mesg_id=2803126

I have not seen anybody else. Apparently, Dodd and Kerry made a statement criticizing Imus's words, but I have not seen the statements.

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070411/ZNYT01/704110505/1002/business.

From what I read on GD a minute ago, the simulcast is cancelled, which will certainly mean the end of the show. Good riddance.

[politicasista]

2. Thanks. I heard Anderson Cooper was going to be talking about

whether the sponsors and politicians going on Imus' show should be held accountable also?

Hope Kerry comes out strong on this. Glad that mess is being cancelled. Enough is enough.

[beachmom]

3. Have you read TMOE, politicasista?

What's really troublesome, or confusing, or whatever the best adjective that can describe it is that Imus's Ranch and particularly his wife Deidre is featured in the chapter about toxins getting in our bodies. Deidre came out with a Green cleaning line of products and got two states to make sure that these were used in schools instead of the regular cleaners which have dangerous chemicals in them. They figured out that chemicals raise the risk that kids get cancer. That's a good thing she did.

But now we have Imus doing this really bad thing. And I guess he's been saying bad things for years.

I didn't engage in your last thread, but I agreed with you. But I wonder if they'll get questioned because Imus is in their book. Luckily, their media appearances are over (for now, anyway), and they came before this hit. But Anderson Cooper will probably target them, let's face it.

[politicasista]

5. I haven't got it yet,

but will when I get my money together.

Yes, that is really troublesome. Call me jittery, but if this comes out, hopefully Kerry will still have his AA support in MA. (I don't live in MA so I don't know how it is right now. :shrug:) but hopefully it will still be there. The reason is that Kerry has done a lot for AA (and they don't know it or didn't want to pay attention in 2004). He may not call for his firing, but hopefully he condemns this statement behavior. Racism and sexism is NOT ok. And it's against everything that he and the Democratic Party stands for.

I don't think I will watch the AC story. I bet it and the guests will be snarky towards politicians that go/went on that trash show. I agree with Mass, I thought Kerry was not at his best (except the interview with Momma T) on that show.

[karynnj]

11. He may try to target them

but if he tries to target them on this - it's a loser. As you said it does demonstrate that people can be both good and bad. They are on solid ground. Diedre was able to get one of the largest hospitals in the NJ (Hackensack) to use only green products in the hospital. This is incredible because it meant proving that they were as effective at cleaning as other products.

In fact, Thomas Kean Jr, who lost to Menendez angered Imus because the success of that hospital led him to right a bill to push other hospitals into adopting it when possible - without mentioning Diedre.

Anderson Cooper would not be a match for either Deidre or Teresa and John in disccusing this issue - i doubt he knows enough.

[politicasista]

12. But I am just thinking about the backlash

if Kerry comes out and defends Imus. It will not look good in lots of people's eyes. (mainly the loudest voices that are calling for him to be fired and urging politicians to stop going on his show).


I don't understand how it's a loser on this deal. :shrug:

[karynnj]

17. From the comment in the paper Mass had a link for

he criticized the comment. I was saying it would be a loser to criticize the Kerry's for including Deidre in their book. I don't think he would go out of his way to defend Imus - at least Not without very clearly criticizing him on this and other bad things he's said. I hope Kerry stays off the show. But, I also think we are at the stage where comining out and condemning him is kicking him when he is down. At some point, it is enough.

[politicasista]

25. Yes, that could backfire n/t

[wisteria]

33. I would be disappointed personally if Kerry didn't defend Imus on some

level. He knows Imus better than we do and I don't think he would have gone on his program if he thought he was a racist.

[karynnj]

4. The Wilmington paper that Mass links

to aludes to Kerry criticizing Imus's comments but mentioning the apology. The Wilmington paper describes the dilemma of both politicians and businesses.

"
Procter & Gamble’s response underscored a delicate balance that has existed on “Imus in the Morning” for years. For those who have been the beneficiaries of Mr. Imus’s largess, putting a product or a cause in his hands is not unlike a spin of the roulette wheel. Sometimes, he will talk about someone after a thoughtful 12-minute interview of Senator John Kerry or Senator John McCain that is as substantive or illuminating as any on programs like “Meet the Press.”

Other times, he might sing a person’s praises after uttering an ill-considered remark or after a member of his supporting cast had done a scalding send-up of such regular targets as the embattled United States attorney general, Alberto Gonzales; the mayor of New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin; or Cardinal Edward Egan of New York.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” said Bo Dietl, a former New York police detective who appears weekly on the program to plug his private security business. “I do the show because the power of that show is enormous. But I’ve also lost a lot of business for being on that show.”

That said, the program, which draws an estimated two million listeners and viewers each day, is lucrative for Mr. Imus’s bosses, which could well be what saves him. "

I would go further and say that that chance of a thoughtful 12 minute interview is worth more for Democrats in general and non media favorites in particular. There were times when Imus was likely the easiest show for Kerry.


From the front page of the NYT site, MSNBC has cancelled Imus on TV. This doesn't affect CBS syndicating the radio show - but the same article said they hadn't made a decision.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/business/media/11cnd-imus.html?hp

Given this and the possible termination of the radio show, I serious doubt Kerry will do anything other than say what he always has about hate speech. I don't think Kerry will pile on at this point.

[MH1]

6. Enough is enough. This has turned into a witchhunt.

Will you still be celebrating if Imus' slot is filled with a right-winger Glen Beck clone?

I'm just wondering how much this incident is worth.

[politicasista]

7. No, I won't because he should have been fired long ago

I was listening to Al Sharpton on Tom Joyner this morning and he thinks the reason why this incident has blown up nationally is because these were young women, unknown until yesterday, just playing basketball, successful student athletes, earning Academic honors, and one game from a National Championship victory after a slow start. The comments were made by a well know radio personality. These wasn't attacks on just black women, but women period.

[wisteria]

34. sorry, but Imus' firing was done because of calls of racism.

Sharpton is trying to stop a backlash. He knows if people start gloating about this, it will stir the pot of resentment and further racism. He took his little outrage too far, IMO.

Oh, and I liked to watch Imus. His show was entertaining. I enjoyed his guests and it was better than the usual morning programs. I never cared for the jock talk, but I over looked it. And, as a woman I never took what he said seriously. I use to be a member of NOW.

Sharpton is very much accountable for Imus losing his livelihood. I am saddened this makes you happy. He did many good things especially in helping AA children.

To many people jumped on the get Imus bandwagon without knowing much about him. Did you? Did you do any research on the man you are happy was fired?

[politicasista]

41. I meant, people like Beck, Limpbaugh, etc should have been fired long ago

I have done some research on Imus. I remember him when he was a VJ on VH1 (when it first launched) back in the 80s. There was a post noting his past remarks such as calling PBS anchorwoman Gwen Ifil as the "cleaning lady" and so on.


It doesn't make me happy because I don't like to see anyone lose their job. Imus clearly crossed the line, therefore, there needs to be some accountability.

[MH1]

40. A stupid statement from someone like Imus is not an "attack on women period"

It was just a stupid insulting statement that any one of us could have ignored.

Meanwhile, in some countries in the world, a woman who is raped will then be stoned to death. Or if she is caught in an illicit affair (i.e. hanging out with a guy who wasn't selected by her father) she could have acid thrown in her face. Or be flogged in public.

And don't be caught without wearing the hijab.

In other places, female children have their genitals mutilated so that sex will be painful.

THOSE are attacks on women.

Even those are not "attacks on women, period." But at any rate they are actually attacks.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. Whoa, what?

Of course Imus's statement is a far cry from the barbaric treatment women receive in other countries, but that doesn't make it okay. Sexism continues in this country PRECISELY because it is still considered "funny" for comedians like Imus to demean and mock women with their jokes.

Frankly, I'm tired of "ignoring" sexist jibes - from Imus, from other comedians, from TV shows and movies, from all quarters of society. They add up - the little snide remarks here and there that contribute to our patriarchal culture that subliminally teaches boys that girls are inferior to them and are to be treated as objects, and which conditions girls to accept this treatment as "normal."

Is Imus being singled out? Yes. Is he the worst offender? Probably not. But anytime society actually steps up and says, "hey, this kind of language is hurtful and divisive and unacceptable" is a small victory. And it's a mistake to call this a witch hunt, because a witch hunt involves scapegoating an innocent victim. However you feel about Imus, he is neither innocent nor a victim in this incident. He chose to say what he said, and now he's suffering the consequences for it.

[wisteria]

55. The punishment does not fit t his comments and bullying people into .

seeing your POV is just wrong. This is the wrong approach if you want to discuss understanding and respect. Respect isn't gained through fear and intimidation.

[WildEyedLiberal]

58. How else are you going to enforce accountability?

There's a point at which apologies aren't enough. Apologies mean next to nothing in our society. The whole idea that all can be forgiven if you just say "sorry" in the end diminishes the idea of real repentence.

If Imus were a first time offender, you might have a point. But he's not. He's said things like this repeatedly, over and over, for 20 years. He's sorry, in other words, that there's a scandal. Not sorry that he offended anyone. Offending people is what he DOES. It's his schtick. Yeah, it should have been stopped a long time ago - the first time he made a remark like this. But better late than never.

Would you be opposed to boycotting, demands for resignation, etc, if the offender wasn't Imus, but instead Limbaugh or Savage or Coulter? Would it still be the "wrong approach" to take?

[wisteria]

165. Wrong, yes. No matter who it is. n/t

[Inuca]

82. I whole heartedly agree

It's part of what I tried to say below, you put it better and more succinctly. Your last sentence perfectly expresses why I feel so upset about this whole incident. Inequality, lack of respect, injustice, intolerance... all these things deeply offend and hurt me. Also accountability does not mean public stoning, and that's what was done here. Stoning and public humiliation. Doe the first time, I started liking Imus a bit when I saw how he was trying to apologize (seemed sincere to me, but who can actually read into his soul) while maintaining some shreds of self-respect.

[wisteria]

54. I agree, and I was at one time a long standing member of NOW.

I can tell real hatred and anger when I see it and this is not Imus-period.

[ProSense]

9. Exactly! n/t

[beachmom]

15. I think there are real feelings here. It's clear to me what Kerry

needs to do -- not go on the show anymore, if one is reborn. This is a really tough situation -- damn Imus to hell for being so cruel and sparking this major scandal. And it is a major scandal rocking a lot of the power elite who appeared on his show. I think that previous guests on Imus should be given the benefit of the doubt for not knowing (maybe) how bad Imus was. But no more. It's OVER.

[ProSense]

8. Here's my take:

As much as Imus was a d***head on his show, he's been doing that show for years. I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that his show is gone, but the notion that what Imus said in this case is different from what he said two days to two years ago is ludicrous. NBC condoned his statements and program format for years.

In this thread, I posted this comment I found reminding me about Bill Bennett.

Then there is the circus: outrage, excuses (same person), and more.

Now that Imus is gone, I hope Senate Democrats focus on these issues, tackle the war, injustice and racism from the legislative standpoint. Racism is a serious issue, but I don't believe for a second Imus' firing represents progress.

[politicasista]

10. I hope they focus on those issues too

but I don't see anything wrong with releasing statements condeming this incident. :shrug:

I think the ones that go on his show should distance themselves from this, otherwise, they will be a target for black leaders and other organizations that are calling for Imus' firing.

[Mass]

13. They have. The Wilmington Paper I quoted says that Kerry and Dodd have

released statements condemning the incident.

For the rest, I agree, Imus should have been fired a long time ago.

[politicasista]

14. Thanks for the link n/t

[MH1]

16. Imus is being made an example of.

The rules were changed overnight, and only for him. He apologized, and offered to change the format of his show. The changed format would have failed anyway, because it's not what the audience wants.

I hope Kerry says nothing more than what he already has. There is no need to.

And I don't give a damn what Al Sharpton says about it. He has zero credibility with me.

[Mass]

18. Not really - Here in MA, several people have been fired for comparable incidents on the airwaves.

There is a limit to apologizing. How many times should Imus apologize before he is held accountable for his actions.

Certainly, Imus is not the only guilty person, but this incident is perfectly symptomatic of the lack of respect that people show to other people. If he is made an example and that people understand that something must change, at least in the media, it is will be a good thing (and I am not worried about Imus needing money).

[MH1]

20. People will NOT understand and something will NOT change.

The Glenn Becks and all his ilk will roll merrily along.

A token minor player will get fired here and there - yes I know that happens. But the truly evil ones will stay and multiply.

[Mass]

21. So, should we stay silent, throw our hands in the air, and hope that

THEY will understand?

I am not saying that I think politicians should spend their time on that, but I have no issue with the fact Imus is fired. Good riddance. And for the rest, may be the MSM will spend a couple hours thinking about the tone of their shows, about fundemental respect for everybody, and not the rich and powerful.

The question concerning Imus reflects more than racism, it reflects a lack of fundemental respect between people, and mostly people different from us. We all know examples of that, whether it relates to another race, another sex, another class, or people with different abilities.

DU (particularly GD and GDP) is interesting as a microcosm of the society, because, even if we are all supposed to be liberal, treatment of such subjects (be it racism, immigration, disabilities, pure elitism) is very enlightening.

[MH1]

29. No, not at all

but I think expanding the outrage to people who went on his show in the past is going too far.

And I think that a lot of what is happening now is people being played.

I am sorry that is my opinion.

I see A LOT of fundamental disrespect for people in A LOT of places, by people of all ethnicities and characteristics, and I think Imus is being made a whipping boy for some of it.

(Whipping boy = the one being punished so a bunch of other offenders can get off.)

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy emanating from some quarters is farcical. And I absolutely agree that what we are seeing on DU is quite enlightening.

[karynnj]

80. I will withhold judgement until I see the replacement.

I think if we looked at the archives of this group, we will not find a single Imus appearance where someone did not question whether he should be on that show. The Wilmington paper you linked to had the best summary of this that I have seen. Imus did have thoughtful interviews, but he and the people on his shows could be completely inappropriate 5 minutes later. He did have enough respect for Kerry and other politicians that he did not say these things while they were on. This however says he knew they were inappropriate.

[ProSense]

19. You're right!

KO just nailed it, running down all the right wing so-called journalists and their racist comments, which included calling Katrina victims "scumbags."

The basketball coach is saying that she didn't want her and the team to determine the rise and fall of Imus' career, but it puts a face to a much larger issue. It's a matter of decency. This transcript should be gotten and posted.

[politicasista]

22. He appears on his show (See post #7)

Why does Kerry not need to say more? :shrug:

Shouldn't sticking up for his AA MA constituents who may have been offended be the right thing to do? Considering (and Momma T) he has done a lot for minorities and women.

[Mass]

23. Because he has already spoken?

I am not sure why he has to do it again.

[politicasista]

26. Did the TV media pick it up?

I saw the statement, but hadn't seen any Dems statements today on TV? And I bet AC 360 is going to put out some snark about the politicians that go or now went on his show.

[Mass]

28. I do not know, but issuing another statement will not ensure that it is taken more.

I am sure the statement has been sent to all the media. In fact, it was sent when the story started, not today or yesterday.

I am not sure what another statement at this point would do, except create the idea that he is jumping on the bandwagon.

Of course, he (or somebody else) could make a post about the respect that a talk show host has to show to everybody, because, while I thing it was important to fire Imus, it is also important to tell the lesson. The problem is not Imus by itself (he is just an example among many of the problem). It is a culture which rewards bigoted remarks by a proeminent job in the media.

[Mass]

24. delete

[beachmom]

27. Because it's over. If asked, he should answer. But it seems

like beating a dead horse now. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were on KO which seemed appropriate because these are the issues they deal with every day.

I understand you want Kerry to be a hero on this one, but in the end, the real heroes were the coach and the Rutgers Basketball Team.

As to the Mass. AA community, I'll defer to the expertise of Mass. residents.

[MH1]

30. The coach said THE right thing.

It was covered on NPR: "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission."

Unfortunately, in the same segment it was revealed that at least one of her players either didn't listen, or didn't get it.

[beachmom]

31. Hey -- that's actually an Eleanor Roosevelt quote. Just love it.

I have this Dale Carnegie book of quotes and Eleanor's was one of my favorite. She used to be really shy and unsure of herself before she became that great first lady.

I didn't hear the program. What happened with one of the players?

[MH1]

39. Sorry, I can't go into details

it will just stir more stuff here. Suffice to say one of the players made a statement that showed she didn't take what the coach said to heart. For whatever reason. I hope it was innocent and she grows out of it.

[politicasista]

42. I didn't know that n/t

[politicasista]

44. And I am glad the real heroes were the ladies

I know Kerry can't do everything. :)

[wisteria]

37. he condemned the comments and called them stupid. That is sticking up for

AA's. Perhaps, some AA's are asking for too much to expect him to end a friendship with a man he has known for a long time because some people think he should. Wouldn't that be disingenuous? Why should he have to condemn Imus when he obviously doesn't think he is racist? I don't think Imus is racist either and I think you are wrong to take his firing as a confirmation of this.

[politicasista]

43. No, but the perception is now that he is a racist

and that anyone who dares go on his show or appear with him is wrong for doing so.

My family can not stand Imus and my father thinks that Democrats should stay far away from him.

[wisteria]

47. Well, they are entitled to their opinion. My family thinks Imus has been

used as a scapegoat and that he isn't a racist. Not everyone shares your take or perspective. My family doesn't. I have nothing at all against the AA community, but I think this was all wrong and the whole thing was blown out of proportion. AA's aren't the only people who vote.

[Mass]

62. Either he is a racist or he is an idiot - If it was his first comment, it would be one thing.

But he has an history of racist comments, starting at least in 98 with a comment calling Gwen Ifill "the cleaning lady". Since, he has made a lot of bigoted comments against black people, Arabs, Jews, ...

I agree with your father. Whatever good he has done otherwise, this still does not give him the right to spew his prejudices on TV and radio.

For once, Vennochi has an excellent column on the issue (and yes, I am aware of her numerous faults).
Here is an example of previous outrages from Imus, that make clearly the point
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/12/imuss_last_outrage/

The national media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting recycled numerous examples of racist, sexist, and generally bigoted commentary from the Imus show over the years. Besides the "cleaning lady" crack about Ifill, Imus called New York Times sports reporter Bill Rhoden a "quota hire." He once called Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz a "beanie-wearing Jewboy." He called the New York Knicks "chest-thumping pimps." More recently, according to Media Matters for America, Imus sidekick Bernard McGuirk, performing as his character Cardinal Egan, said on March 16 that the "whole nation is talking about" reports of a "young colored fellah pretty much deckin' the old bag from New York and takin' away some of her money." Added McGuirk: "I'm speaking, of course, about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton." On March 6, McGuirk said Clinton "will have cornrows and gold teeth before this fight with Obama is over."

The pro-Imus argument goes like this: He donates millions to charity and runs a camp for young cancer patients; some of the cancer patients are black. Therefore, he is a self-described "good person " and cannot be racist.

Well, a man can beat his wife and still give away money to women's causes. It makes him a generous wife-beater. The same logic applies to Imus.

Honestly, my only question is: why was he not fired before?

[wisteria]

36. I am with you on that. Sharpton is a charlton IMO. He stirred the pot

to gain attention and money. I actually got a call the other night from a group called the African American Defense Fund asking me for money and mentioning this incident. I thought it was deplorable they were trying to capitalize on this incident.

[politicasista]

46. It's not just Al Sharpton, it's celebrities and organizations that are doing the same thing n/t

[wisteria]

48. It started and ends with Sharpton. He is more responsible than anyone.

Do any of these celebrities and organizations really even know anything about Imus or have they gotten their information from Sharpton and the media?

[WildEyedLiberal]

51. No, it starts and ends with Imus. Let's be real here.

Sharpton didn't put a gun to Imus's head and force him to say those things about the Rutgers basketball players. No one did. Imus chose to make derogatory comments about those girls, and he's paying the price for it. Excuse me if I can't work up any tears of sympathy for someone capable of making such a crude, bigoted remark.

I really don't get the defense of Imus here in THIS forum of all places. I really don't. His comments were unacceptable. Period. He should be held to account for them. Period.

Yeah, in a perfect world, every radio hatemonger and rightwing bigot would suffer this treatment. But you know, you can't have a fire without a spark. I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over Imus, because he chose to gamble that hateful speech is "funny" - and he lost. And yes, it's hateful to call a group of young women "nappy headed hos."

Yeah, in a perfect world, this will lead to a crackdown on all sorts of vile people like Beck, Limbaugh, etc. I'm not holding my breath for that, unfortunately. But neither am I going to rend my garments over Imus's fate.

[wisteria]

53. Yes, lets be real here.

Have you watched Imus for any length of time?
Do you know anything about the man?

I do, and I don't for a moment think he is racist. He has apologized and has tried to make up for the stupid thing he said. He is a shock jock and actually he is not where near as bad as they get. it is a damn shame that in America that a man's good deeds and his apology mean nothing.

Now, what do you know about Mr. Sharpton? I remember him from years and years ago. IMO, he is a self-promoting grandstander. He cares only about Al and making money for Al and his organization. I think he is a bad representative for the AA community. I have not one iota of respect for the man. I also think MLK would be shocked to see what Mr. Sharpton has become.

Sharpton stirred the pot after it was picked up by FOX News and he saw an opportunity and he took it. He is responsible for stirring up false outrage and over the top dramatics.

Go on and believe that you have done your part to eradicate racism by mob rule and outrage and by getting one man fired from his job. I personally don't think this will bring about further understanding and open up discussions on the issues of discrimination and racism. It sends a message of fear and silence and when it is heard from again it will be more angry and violent.

I don't even personally like Imus, but I feel he is the one that needs defended here.

[JI7]

57. Imus' comments were offensive regardless of what Sharpton says or does

this has nothing to do with Sharpton. Sharpton can be the worst person in the world and it doesn't take away what Imus said .

i don't see anyone claiming they have eradicated racism by having Imus fired.

[wisteria]

71. Frankly, I have heard a lot worse than what Imus said.

And, I think to much has been made out of the comments. He never said these words with malice. He isn't a racist and he was repeating common slang in the black community. Yes, he said them, but he did apologize and way to much has been made out of this whole issue. Frankly, as a woman his comments didn't offend me at all. This is locker room talk by a bunch of boneheads. Racism and discrimination was never even intended.

Sharpton saw an opportunity to get some attention and raise some money so he stirred the pot.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. It doesn't matter whether Imus is personally racist or not

Don't you see? It's not even ABOUT Imus. It's about ending society's tolerance for the kind of comments Imus made that have landed him in hot water to begin with. It has nothing to do with Imus personally, who as far as I know may be the kindest guy on earth who loves children and kittens and rainbows. I don't personally wish him ill - I'm quite sure he'll be able to survive financially if he loses his show.

You know, I think all shock jocks should lose their jobs. They do what they do because they make money by being offensive. The free market in action, I suppose. I see nothing wrong with pressure being brought to bear on the advertisers and owners of stations who hire offensive jocks. If they are going to be offensive because it's profitable for them, then the only way to combat the racist, sexist "humor" is to fight back in the only language they understand - money. If that means persuading advertisers to drop the show and persuading the media companies that it is not in their financial best interests to hire media personalities who say intolerable things, then so be it. If it's okay for radio jocks to make money by being offensive, why is it not okay for regular citizens to register their disgust through the same channels?

[Island Blue]

60. WEL, I'm with you 100% n/t

[Mass]

61. I agree 100 %.

[Noisy Democrat]

63. I hope you're right

<i>It's about ending society's tolerance for the kind of comments Imus made that have landed him in hot water to begin with.</i>

I hope that next we see genuine racists and hate-mongers like Limbaugh getting their comeuppance. I fear that it'll end with Imus, though, who I think is not a genuinely hateful person.

[cadmium]

125. That's what I think also.

"hope that next we see genuine racists and hate-mongers like Limbaugh getting their comeuppance. I fear that it'll end with Imus, though, who I think is not a genuinely hateful person."

The serious ones will tone it down for a few months and then come back full force with no repercussions.

[ProSense]

64. Yes, it does matter.

If he's a racists, then people who associate with him are condoning racism. The rush to brand Imus a racist is cause for concern. I hate those shows too, and they all should be off the air, but it was a format that MSNBC, the advertisers and a lot of Americans condoned until this latest incident. Imus' show getting canceled says that format is no longer acceptable, but to brand a person who is not a racist as such is also hurtful. He apologized and that should be it, and atonement is in order. Still, I never did like media lynch mobs. The last one I witnessed was in November. Pile-ons are sickening and just as despicable and hurtful as Imus' comments. Rush, Malkin and Coulter are on the bandwagon, how sick is that? I don't need to hear two wrong don't make a right. I know that. Throwing around the racist label isn't right either.

[beachmom]

65. You mention something that also had me uneasy through this:

Still, I never did like media lynch mobs. The last one I witnessed was in November.



I think (OBVIOUSLY) that what Imus said was a million times worse than the "botched joke". But this whole thing sounds familiar. Remember those troops in Iraq with their sign? Luckily, it was humorous, but there were other examples of widows who had just lost their husbands in Iraq who were highly offended by "the joke", and wanted an apology from him. His was clearly a mistake, a misstatement, but let's face it -- this media lynch mob against Imus did, in fact, remind me of that horrific week back in November (a Halloween horror, actually). Maybe my memory is faulty, but there seems to be an awful lot of emphasis on language here -- more outrage from the media than a war that is killing thousands. That's the disconnect I'm feeling about this. I'm with Politicasista and WEL about the nastiness on the radio and TV, but on proportionality, what the government has done with that war is far worse. Yet the outrage over Imus's remark seems bigger. Why is that? Why is offensive language more important than, say, the outrages in Iraq, New Orleans, the uninsured, the lack of a living wage for working Americans?

And why is Imus gone, but the others WHO CONTRIBUTE to the above injustices will still have their jobs and continue their (not just offensive language) but PROPAGANDA to further a REAL coarseness in society against the powerless?

[Mass]

67. Kerry never said what he was accused of saying. Nobody could

think he did if they had a bit of honesty.

Imus said what he said, and, if his past shows are an example, he probably meant it. The list of his guests this year, as compiled by MediaMatters, is very enlightening. Apparently, Harold Ford is representative of all AA people.

I understand what you and Prosense are trying to say, but I do not think it is an either or proposition. Imus needed to go. It was overdue. AND we need to continue to fight about these reporters that are just propaganda for the White House, and I am not speaking of Rush or O'Reilly here. I am talking of those who are on NBC, ABC, CBS and are considered by most people as legitimate reporters.

This morning, Campell Brown was interviewing Pelosi on NBC and her questions could have been written by the WH.

But, once again, it is not an either or proposition. Both MUST be done. This is why I support the FOX boycott for the presidential campaign. It is only by making clear that people will not take it anymore that something will change.

[beachmom]

69. True, but if you only watched CNN and read my local newspaper

you would have thought that was what he MEANT to say, and that he had DEFINITELY insulted the troops. The lynch mob case against him was open and shut immediately. A few days later, after he had been properly lynched and defamed, only then did the pundits admit that maybe it was all a mistake.

You're right that there is no ambiguity of what Imus said. But in many circles, there was no ambiguity of what Kerry said, too. And there is a whole group of people in the military who STILL think he insulted them. I suppose we don't have a word like racist for "insulting the troops", but that is perceived as big a sin in this country as being a racist.

[Mass]

72. OK - I am going to take a break.from this thread.

I am sorry, but I see Imus as a part of the system, not the victim here. It bothers me to see what happened to him compared to what happened to Kerry. One is a very deliberate distortion of the truth and Imus took part in it. The other one is a just outrage on something Imus said. Imus is part of the problem, not a victim of it.

I have issues with what some who said that, because he is not the only one, he should not pay (not talking of you here). This is just something people do to escape their own responsibility. Imus should be held just as accountable as anybody else. If others are not held responsible does not mean he should not. (I heard the same thing about Libby who should not be condemned because Rove is not!!!).

I guess I have a big problem here. I want this system to be fixed, and, if Imus is the first stone and not necessarily the worst, so be it. We just need to continue.

[beachmom]

73. Well, I agree that Imus is paying for the terrible thing he said.

I still stand by my remarks of proportionality, though. "Scalping", which is what the Right does, is sometimes justified, sometimes not. But it seems to be the only thing our media can do. Investigative reporting? Not so much. That's all I'm referring to.

Anyway, just read this that Deirdre's book tour about "Green cleaning" has been cancelled indefinitely. As I said upthread, she was in the Kerrys' book. So like it or not, this does put them in a bit of a quandary.

http://ww.tmz.com/2007/04/11/casualty-of-don-deirdre-imus-ditches-book-tour/

[ProSense]

78. I'm not talking about either or;

I'm talking about branding some a racist because he did an offensive-style program paid for by major corporations, aired on a major cable station and condoned by many Americans. It was a product that made money for them.

Here's the problem, Kos "It's not as if Dodd didn't know what Imus was about." This is typical of why it matters. Was Dodd condoning racism?

[wisteria]

75. I agree with everything you have said. n/t

[karynnj]

104. I had the same feeling

but hesitated to write the comparison - because in Kerry's case he said nothing he should be ashamed of - even in what he literally said. There was a concerted effort to immediately translate,

IF( you don't study) then (you go to Iraq)

into

if (you are in Iraq) then (you didn't study)

That would get you an "F" in Boolean logic, because a implies b, does not mean b implies a. Yet every talking head made that same error. I don't think the majority of talking heads eally make this type of error in logic simultaneously. Not to mention, that as soon as it became an issue - they told the media that the intended text was available before hand.

Unlike Kerry, in Imus's case what he said was wrong - but as Prosense's post shows Limbaugh has many equally disgusting racist statements.

What sickened me was the way they figuatively tore him to shreds. He looked like hell the day before they fired him - I can't imagine where he is at now.

[beachmom]

105. The difference also is in the FINAL reaction.

For Kerry, it was humbleness, and from what I saw on election night, he literally became ill over the whole episode, because of the fact that he is a good person, and everything went against him, and worse, it caused some pain to troops in Iraq. Imus, OTOH, who is wrong (no way to explain away what he said) is becoming more defiant, saying he won't apologize anymore. That for me, is the final nail in his coffin.

[Noisy Democrat]

66. That is what bothers me about all this

When people say that Imus is definitely racist, it's very disturbing to me. The Right specializes in reading people's minds and informing the public of what the person "really" thinks and feels -- as when they told us over and over that Kerry didn't misread a joke, or if he did, it was a Freudian slip that revealed what he really feels, and so it didn't matter what he *meant* to say. That kind of symbolic invasion of the other person's psyche -- "We're empowered to ransack the mind of Kerry/Imus/whoever-we-don't-like and inform you of what's in there, no matter what that individual might have to say about it" -- and refusal to allow the other person to clarify his/her intentions, attitude, etc. is abusive and dehumanizing. Sure, a person can be skeptical; a person can say, "OK, Imus says he's not genuinely racist, but when we add up all the evidence (not only comments made in his persona as a shock jock, but comments in personal life plus relevant concrete behavior), it looks as if he's either lying or not very self-aware." But the tone of what's been going on doesn't feel like there's been anything remotely approaching that kind of careful deliberation, weighing of evidence, or engaging with Imus as a human being who may have something legitimate to say about his intentions. The tone comes much closer to, "He's an asshole, therefore not human, therefore we can freely make s*** up about what he really thinks and feels, because who cares?"

Well, if the whole idea is to improve the tone of public discourse, I think we all should care. It may be that more thoughtful, reflective consideration of Imus's whole track record -- public and private, words and behavior -- would lead to the same conclusion (that he's racist). But to jump to that point and insist that the case is closed without any more thought is a bit like saying that it doesn't matter whether we have the rule of law or vigilante justice, because the important part is to let the posse string up the cattle rustlers. If we really think this debate is about moving towards a more civil society with more respect for human beings, it matters very much.

[Mass]

68. See #62 and this list.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704110005

I am sorry. I call that racist, and, whether it is just for business reasons or because he believes it does not matter. It is not acceptable.

Now, I am really bothered to see people compare " the botched joke" and this. Any person with a minimum of good faith knew Kerry did not mean (and actually did not say) what the RW media said he said.

Imus said it. I do not care if he plays a racist for money or if he is a racist. He should be held accountable for his acts. I am not even sure why there is still a debate at this point.

[Noisy Democrat]

79. It's legitimate to find the comments unacceptable

But I'm talking about imputation of motives and attitudes. Even after reading the one list of comments on the Media Matters site, I still don't know whether Imus is genuinely racist. In fact, some of the comments sound so over-the-top that they seem obviously intended as comedy. The thing about "Some young colored fella" and the "bag from New York" -- that's such an old-fashioned way of talking, it seems like a parody of an out-of-date hick trying to describe the Democratic 2008 race. I'd like to hear the tone of the original, but that one doesn't remotely strike me as good evidence of racism, hatred of old ladies, anti-New Yorkism, or what have you; it just seems silly. And I don't know the original context, but I can easily imagine that saying that Hillary will have gold teeth and corn rows was a criticism of the ridiculous ways Hillary tries to ingratiate herself to the AA community, e.g. with her over-the-top "plantation" remark; I'd want to see the whole context before concluding it was a slam at Obama or black people in general, rather than a slam at Hillary's tone-deaf pandering.

A lot of it's the same -- so strange that I don't know what he really means. Does he really want to support Giuliani because he (Imus) thinks we should drop nuclear bombs on the Saudis? Has he generally supported an all-out escalation of war in the Gulf? That wasn't my impression; my first reaction to the Giuliani comments was to think that they were over the top and not meant seriously, but I could easily be wrong; I don't know the context or what Imus has said more generally about our Middle East policy that would help me interpret that. His comments about the money-grubbing producers with their beanies are a bit more persuasive evidence of anti-Semitism and disturb me more than the silly "gold teeth and corn rows" stuff, but then stuff like saying Obama has a Jew-hating name -- I don't even know how to categorize that. Is it anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, or just bizarre? And as for the fact that he called Obama a "creep"; unless he doesn't call white people creeps, that's not racism, though it is thoughtless and obnoxious.

The overall impression I get is that Imus just talks s***, and it's not clear to me which things he really means and which things are him just running his mouth for laughs. It's totally legitimate for people to say that radio personalities shouldn't just let s*** dribble out of their mouths in such an irresponsible way, that people should say what they mean and mean what they say, and so it's past time for him to get his comeuppance. I have some sympathy for that view, though not 100% agreement. A related but slightly different view would be to say that whether or not *he's* racist, the *comments* (whether meant to be sincere or over-the-top) are racist, and therefore unacceptable; I think that that's a very reasonable analysis. What does bother me, though, and what I was referring to in my previous post, is the imputation of specific motives, the implication that we can quickly and easily read his mind, and the claim that we can know -- without much reflection -- that someone is genuinely a racist, not just an irresponsible clown, not just being over-the-top, etc. There's something about the tone of that kind of claim that bothers me, for the reasons I described up above.

[karynnj]

83. Hillary having cornrows etc

was likely in the context of commenting on her use of a bad imitation of African American dialect in reading a few lines of a poem in Selma, Al. That Hillary soundbite was all over the place out of context - and until I read the explanation, I was mystified by it (and actually thought it was likely not Hillary). Given that no African Americans I know speak remotely like the accent she affected - Hillary herself may have been somewhat in the wrong itself - as the strange accent became the story, not the words themselves.

Whether Imus is a racist at heart is almost a moot point. He has said racist things for at least 3 decades. It was a major part of his image to make inappropriate comments. No one can know what is in his heart, and in a way, it doesn't matter - you become the sum of your actions and words. In college, I remember a long late night discussion of whether a hypothetical person who consistently did good things to hide that he was really bad was good or bad.

[wisteria]

143. Well, I am on board with your way of thinking about this.

And,I will add, that to take a compilation of someones comments over a span of many years, listing them out of context and they providing them as proof of ones guilt would never hold up in a court of law.

I am sure if someone took comments I had made, say when I was made at my husband, over a period of time and listed them, I would sound like a horrible person too.

I was shocked that MM would do this. This is extremely unfair and this is what many people based their opinions on who never even watched Imus.

Imus wasn't that bad, but by the time the pile on was over, he became Attila the Hun.

And, I won't even get into the danger of messing with free speech.

[wisteria]

76. Good observations. It has been my experience what is going on now

is detrimental to changing society for the better.

[wisteria]

74. I absolutely love you, you say what I try to so much better. You are right.

Oh, the real haters are on this? OMG, what a mockery.

Also, Hannity and Sharpton are to have a discussion about racism in America. Hannity claims it was planned a while ago. Sure it was.

[wisteria]

70. This is about Imus and making him the scapegoat for all the ills in the world

and even though you think you have done a great thing and this will send a lasting message it won't. It ends with Imus. You want respect and a better world? This is not the way to go about it. These types of mob attacks do nothing but harm. Understanding and discussion is never achieved through bullying and intimidation. You wanted to make a point? Why didn't you just contact the station quietly and express your displeasure?

Imus got paid to be a shock jock. That is why MSNBC and CBS hired him. This all could have been handled quietly if you were so offended as I said. There was no need to make a media circus out of it. However, everyone was out for blood and to make a point so you decided to use Imus as a example. Well, Imus was one of the better ones. He has been wonderful with his ranch for dying children and his passionate support of our soldiers. He alway put his money where his mouth was too.

Don't even bother trying to pull the feminist routine on me. You are in your twenties. You have no idea what real discrimination against women is. I could tell you things that would shock you. You have no idea, believe me. I was an active member of NOW years ago. I marched, I protested, I wrote and I expressed my anger in many different ways much in the same ways as all you new crusaders are doing now. I can tell you from personal experience, these tactics don't work. They cause more harm than good.

I don't like nasty talk either, I do believe in free speech though, whether I like the speech or not. There are also censorship issues and you silence Imus because you don't like what he says I ask you where does it stop? You don't care what someone says, write the station giving them a chance to rectify the situation. Or, you can always turn off what offends you.

I will be watching closely to see just how much "good" this actually does. I want to see you and the others exhibit the same outrage over the music and movie industries as well as see you all tackle all types of discrimination.

[WildEyedLiberal]

119. There is absolutely no need to personally insult me. This is ridiculous.

So far this has remained a fairly civil debate, which doesn't surprise me, since a good number of us know each other and we are all intelligent, insightful, mature people.

But your last comment is going way too far. Why are you making it all about me by referring to me specifically in comments like "if you wanted to make a point, you should've called the station" and "you think you have done a great thing..." as if I'm some major player in this saga who had a hand in Imus getting fired.

*I* haven't done anything. I'm a poster on Democratic Underground expressing her opinion on a news story. I can assure you that I'm hardly significant enough to bear any responsibility for what happened to Imus. I thought I could discuss this issue civilly with my friends in the JK forum. I guess I thought wrong.

I don't need you to patronize me. I don't need you to belittle my life experience. I don't need you to imply that I'm too young and naive to be a "real" feminist. I don't need you to make false implications that I only care about lynching Imus rather than combating sexist speech in all forms of media (which, if you'd read my actual posts, would know is an unfair and untrue accusation to make).

I never thought I'd be *flamed* in the DU JK group of all places. I certainly don't mind disagreeing with anyone here - debate is healthy. But your last post went beyond debate and into the territory of lashing out at me as a person, and so I'm done here. If you wanted the last word, congratulations - I'm done with this thread.

I have NO idea why you are so emotional and angry over Don freaking Imus that you'd insult some of your friends.

[karynnj]

77. I agree completely

They are pilloring Imus for exactly what they rewarded him for since at least the 1970s. He is a stange mix of a petulant child, an intelligent interviewer, a passionate advocate and an insensitive jerk. The title of a 1960s era London Times editorial captures what I feel now. Rees Mogg wrote a Times editorial, entitled Why Break A Butterfly On A Wheel, about Mick Jagger's drug bust and court case.

In a time when there are people doing genuinely bad things - such as Gonzales and Rumsfeld condoning torture as an official US policy or Bush and Cheney blatantly ignoring American and International laws and values, it would seem that the level of outrage expressed against Imus is excessive. This has gone on for days and he has at minimum lost his MSNBC job.

I saw segments of his show earlier this week - he looks like Hell and he was trying to reconcile his view of himself as a good person and the recognition that what he said was wrong. It is true that this is not the first time where he was caught, apologized and then returned to do the same thing. I actually feel sorry for Imus at this point.

As to Kerry saying more, I assume he is far more concerned by the suicide bomber in the Baghdad Parliment. I also think that Kerry would be more likely to privately reach out to Imus (as he did to Bob Kerrey - although I am not equating the two situations. Imus brought this on himself) out of kindness - while denouncing all hate speech - than to join the attack and pile on.

[wisteria]

35. Prosense, I am with you 100%. n/t

[wisteria]

32. I still disagree and think this was the wrong approach from the beginning.

Imus has been made a scapegoat and his firing will not make things any better for AA's, it may make them worse. It will not bring about understanding or discussion and may just bring about more resentment.

I am sad for Imus, he has done a lot of good and I honestly believe that he didn't mean what he said intentionally. I also am saddened because it appears that America has become a place where good deeds and apologies mean nothing. Mob rule and some fake outrage coupled with some honest concern was what mattered.

As for Obama, this may ultimately hurt him at the voting booth. People may dare not speak about racism, but anger and resentment will come out in one form or another and it might just be at the voting booth where no one will know how someone votes.

And, I didn't even like the man that much personally, although I did enjoy the format of his show and his guests.

This is my opinion and I realize many don't agree with me, but time will tell if what was done to Imus was the right thing to do and if it makes a positive or negative difference. It will also remain to be seen if this takes us a step closer to censorship in America.

[MH1]

38. I agree with you

and "scapegoat"was really the word I was looking for.

I never really liked Imus' show - except for when he had good guests on. I hardly ever watched it. I think the "insult" schtick is deplorable. But it's what sells, and that isn't really Imus' fault.

I think a lot of people have twisted Imus' comment into something it wasn't.

So I guess I am in the minority here too.

[wisteria]

49. Thanks, I appreciate the backing. n/t

[Inuca]

81. Another agreement here

for what it's worth... I never liked Imus, hardly ever watched him, I think he behaved like a jerk on the show, and did not even find him funny. And what he said was stupid and offensive. But not a "capital crime". I kind of ignored the whole thing until I saw a short snippet of what he said when he was on Sharpton's show. It was PAINFUL to watch and hear, and a significant part of the disgust and empathy for Imus that I felt was due to the way Sharpton was gloating. I do not like gloating, I do not like hitting people when they are down just because you can, and I do not like dishonesty. As somebody already mentioned up thread, Sharpton IS a charlatan, a smart and even charming one, a great speaker, I am sure he also did a lot of good things (though I have no idea about any specifics), but a charlatan nevertheless. And I am sorry to say, but I do not have a much better opinion of Jesse Jackson either. It was mentioned over and over and over and over, but I still do not have an answer why Jackson's famous comment about NY was less offensive. In my possibly biased view (I am jewish), it was much more offensive because Jackson is not a entertainer making stupid and highly inappropriate jokes, but is supposed to be a respectable political and community leader, a leader of the black community in the view of many. IMHO one bad thing from this whole affair is that it legitimizes Sharpton's bully tactics. I do not think that this is the right way to change people's minds. I know racism is real (though, from the little I know, I doubt Imus is racist, just idiotic, an all too common disease), and I know it hurts. But the way Sharpton and his ilk behave only deepen the racist attitudes in those that already have them, and may stir them is some that don't. I hate to say it, and I sincerely hope I do not offend anyone here, but I see it as a ghetto attitude, rebellious and activist, but still a ghetto attitude that emphasizes the separation and the differences, not the unity and the things that all people have in common. As I said earlier, dishonesty offends me to the core, more than idiotic comments without much substance. I am sure you heard Jackson commenting on the lack of black presence on the news programs, and how this MUST change. Keith O politely pointed out that Allison something (I forget her last name) often takes his place when he is absent, but did not mention that she actually has her own afternoon show. CNN also has at least one black anchor that I can think of from the top of my head, possible more. Not to mention the many commentators, guests, etc. Is there a under representation? Probably, I do not know. But the way Jackson presented and argued the whole issue was wrong and dishonest. All IMHO of course. All this is one reason that, in spite of everything, somewhere deep inside I have a secret and maybe irrational wish that Obama will be our nest president. I hope he will have the guts and honesty and intelligence to be a new kind of black leader, setting a new type of powerful and exhilarating example for the younger generation. End rant.

[politicasista]

45. This is a losing battle

So I will go cool off now.

[sandnsea]

89. I'm on your side

He's been a pig for years, his producer is even worse. I know a lot of white male pigs like that, that's the angry white male vote right there. They're the ones who say they "judge the person", and give the appearance of non-partisanship which is why so many politicians were willing to ignore the filth and go on the show. But when push comes to shove, they always revert to form and break along racial and gender lines. I'm surprised so many women in this thread don't understand that guys like this are not their friends. You may have to tolerate them and laugh at their stupid jokes in the work place, they may even be your brother or cousin or uncle; but when you have a chance to stand up against this kind of bigotry, you ought to take it. IMO.

[ProSense]

92. Apples and oranges? Do you know that

Imus spoke to his co-workers and other people in his life that way? I wouldn't expect my co-workers to get away with such speech because they're not shock jocks. I never believed this was an acceptable format. There are people on this board condemning Imus and supporting Howard Stern. There was a lot of outrage on the left when Stern was taken off the air. There are others condemning the language only when it comes from a white person. I think I have a good grasp on racism in American culture. When I was in the "good-old-boy" military, I was subjected to enough sexists and racists comments, and do not take such statements lightly.

This isn't about Imus being my friend. It is, as I said before, about brandishing the word racist for maximum impact. No one is even interested in Imus' apology, and some are more interested in his complete isolation, calling for everyone who has ever associated with him to condemn him. I have said MSNBC knew who they hired, the advertisers knew what they were paying for, and viewers knew what they were watching, evidently even those who didn't watch knew about the content of Imus' program. Still, some people have even gone so far as to suggest that anyone who appeared on his show and didn't speak up before condoned the behavior of this person they want to brand as racist, which means they condoned racism. It's a lynching.

How can there ever be a honest discussion about race when everyone is arguing intolerance?

[sandnsea]

93. Intolerant of racism???

You bet I am.

I'm becoming increasing disillusioned with all Americans. It started when so many people in this forum admitted they didn't know any "service" workers. It went on when people admitted they'd consider voting for a Republican over Hillary. Now the defending of a bigoted pig? Because Kerry went on his show? Ridiculous.

This hate speak has gotten completely out of hand, it gets worse every year. Does it not occur to anyone that Clear Channel is the one out there creating the spin because if this attitude takes hold - their entire hate-speak lineup will collapse.

The opportunity to destroy those idiots - what everybody said they wanted a week ago - but for whatever insane reasons I'll never understand - half the Democratic Party sides with the racist.

Incredible.

[ProSense]

94. Intolerant of racism?

Where did you get that from my response? Intolerant of forgiveness.

[sandnsea]

96. He's not sorry

He's had an opportunity to change his behavior for years. In making his apology, he continues to try to deflect blame. He calls Sharpton a coward?? Sharpton doesn't owe him anything, how dare he attack Sharpton. The hip hoppers didn't make him do it. On the one hand, he argues that he's always been this way, long before hip hip - on the other he blames hip hop, the black community he victimized. It's an entire crock of shit concocted by right wing hate radio trying to save their own asses.

"How can there ever be a honest discussion about race when everyone is arguing intolerance?"

Yeah, I am arguing intolerance of racism. You are not arguing forgiveness, you're arguing to ignore what any given individual does if it suits your political purposes.

[ProSense]

97. "you're arguing to ignore what any given individual does if it suits your political purposes."

Absolutely not! That's disgraceful to even suggest that. Nothing in my statements imply that Imus was right for saying what he said or that he should be excused.

You are attacking my motives because I don't agree with you on how this went down.

[sandnsea]

98. You're defending Kerry

I'm not even going to play.

Imus has been fired from CBS. Do we keep defending Imus or do we acknowledge it was the right thing and go after the rest of the hate talkers next.

[ProSense]

100. From what?

Is he guilty of condoning racism?

Here is what the president of NBC said:

CAPUS: I think this particular remark was way, way over the line, and this was—I think he—this is as—they had gone further with this one than they had ever gone before. And there‘s no question that this was the final straw.

And it caused a lot of us to examine what was on that program. And I

look, I take no delight in making this decision. I believe, Keith, that Don Imus is a good man. And I believe when he says to me that he‘s not racist, but I also believe that the comments that came out of his mouth were, in fact, racist.

And this wouldn‘t be happening were it not for those comments, and the cumulative body of work. You‘re absolutely right. We looked at it, and it became readily apparent that the body of work, and this on top of all of it, was too much.

He, like the advertisers, discovered Imus' on-air act for the first time as a result of this incident. Imus was fired, yay! I still think the way it went down stinks!



edited typo

[sandnsea]

101. What??

Discovered his act for the first time??? Oh brother. You are seriously saying all these people sponsored his show and went on his show and not a one of them had a clue what the show was about??

:eyes:

The way it went down? What exactly does that mean?

[ProSense]

107. No, everyone knew what is show was about. They knew it when they hired him.

That's the problem. This was until this incident an acceptable format, brought to MSNBC because viewers enjoyed it and advertisers were willing to pay for it. That's the problem, everyone wants to pretend Imus single-handedly created the shock-jock format, kept it on air and financed it.

This latest outrage, as the Rutgers coach said, came about because the young women were brought into the spotlight by Imus' comment, and the furor grew from there.

Again, no one in condoning what Imus said, but I take issue with the fact he is being scapegoated. How it went down, from a previous post:

It is, as I said before, about brandishing the word racist for maximum impact. No one is even interested in Imus' apology, and some are more interested in his complete isolation, calling for everyone who has ever associated with him to condemn him. I have said MSNBC knew who they hired, the advertisers knew what they were paying for, and viewers knew what they were watching, evidently even those who didn't watch knew about the content of Imus' program. Still, some people have even gone so far as to suggest that anyone who appeared on his show and didn't speak up before condoned the behavior of this person they want to brand as racist, which means they condoned racism. It's a lynching.

[beachmom]

102. If I may interject one more fact:

I looked at CNN, and apparently Imus said on his radio show this morning "No more apologies". Hell, no other way for me to interpret that is: now that he lost his BIG GIG with MSNBC, and was in trouble at CBS (now fired there, too), he felt no need to apologize anymore.

I don't feel uneasy anymore like I had upthread. Fuck him, he's an asshole. The way he is behaving TODAY is more telling than everything before. Now that he has no job to protect, he is actually not all that sorry.

Yeah, the Kerry connection is unfortunate (but I'm thinking it was VERY superficial), but there's no need to defend this mean spirited man for one more second. If he looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, than he IS a duck.

[Democrafty]

103. It's not just a Kerry vs. Imus issue, though.

There's so little substantive dialog about race in this country, and about what racism really IS. So you don't have to like Imus, or defend him, or believe he should continue to be on the air, to look at the scapegoating and call BS.

The problem with the scapegoating is that it has turned Imus into THE PROBLEM, when he is not or was not ever THE PROBLEM. He's part of the problem, to be sure, but for me, it's hard to see how all the histrionics from all sides have done anything to create a more tolerant country, or media.

[sandnsea]

108. That's my thought too

It was one thing when he was crude - but honest and compassionate. That's fine. But for me, when he started deflecting the issue off to everything else, I lost any thought that he should be defended. Specifically, when he whined that Sharpton was a coward for not going on his show. WTF? Sharpton didn't owe Imus anything, Imus was the one who made the mistake. He just got worse from there. I sincerely hope he meets with those girls and they make him realize he just didn't know what minorities really went through. If he came out next week and was truly enlightened, that would be awesome. That's all Kerry has to say. I sent an email to that regard, we'll see.

[MH1]

127. Why should he continue to apologize?

No one has given a damn so far that he apologized (except Kerry and maybe a few others).

The way I understood it, he was saying that the only person he owes any further apologies on this is the Rutgers girls.

I don't see what's so bad about that. And I don't see why someone should have to keep apologizing to people for whom it will NEVER be good enough. If they've already condemned him why should he keep groveling?

[beachmom]

130. Actually, CNN wasn't very clear on that part of it.

But (sigh, I went over to Drudge which had the transcript), he went TOTALLY off on Harold Ford Jr. -- completely uncalled for considering the position he put Ford, Kerry, Dodd, and so many others in with his hideous remarks. The fact that he singled out Ford (when he could have mentioned one of the others) is really telling, in my view.

I think he's a jerk and a racist (but the type who doesn't know he is). Period.

[karynnj]

160. My suspicion

I bet when this started to blow up he called Ford - maybe to get him on or do to something to stop the snowballing. I don't know how much Imus helped Ford - because I don't know how much viewership he gets in TN, but I suspect that Imus thinks he helped him.

I also suspect that Kerry might well have called him privately. Kerry's comment in Radaronline spoke of Imus saying he would change etc. He did say these on air - so this could be off base. My reason is that when blaming Ford - he did not say "Where was Kerry - and mention Kerry came on his show over the joke and further back when the RW was trying to say Kerry was saying the toops were "terrorizing" people. (Also, it would seem in character as Kerry was one of the few who quietly stood by Kerrey when he faced a fire storm - which I'm not equating in any way other than many other likely wouldn't think of doing that.)

[karynnj]

106. There's a difference between defending Imus

which NO ONE is doing and feeling some compassion for someone who was publicly reviled and demonized and lost his jobs for doing what he has been well rewarded for doing for decades.

I seriously can't imagine what Imus is going through. He was not innocent, nor is he likable but it seems like he was publicly torn apart. There are few people, outside of the Bush administration, who merit this treatment.

As to hillary - if I saw her as I did BC in 1992, nearly my last choice, but not Bush or even BC in 1996, there is no doubt I would vote for her. But I really will have a hard time believing in her unless something radical changes. Given the likely Republicans, I will likely vote for her - but not work for her election. I can't because just as you've correctly said to so many "I held my nose, but canvassed for hours for Kerry" people, I would be useless.

I also - even given the voting records - would vote for Snowe if she ran. Why, I think she is likely to the left of her record and she is a good person. BC acted to the right of his already conservative Democratic status and he was corrupt. Obviously, if this came about - which it won't - I would leave DU or not post on anything other than Kerry.

[sandnsea]

109. People lose jobs all the time

For a lot less than calling a customer or client a bigoted name. I say the wrong thing in my town, I lose business. I've lost business because of my political views, I'm certain of that. And all I've ever done is supported Kerry in a Kucinich/Dean town and state. Yeah, I lose business for both not being right enough AND not being left enough. Oh well. That's the way it works. Why should a bigoted millionaire be treated differently than me or some guy delivering pizzas? You think you can keep a "service" job by calling customers "nappy headed hos"??

[ProSense]

110. People lose jobs all the time,

and bosses get fired for condoning certain behavior. Imus is a shock jock, they hired him as a shock jock. Certainly his bosses weren't shocked that he was a shock jock.


The Rutgers coach:

STRINGER: You know, Keith, to be honest, that was a statement that I was saying all along, that these young people shouldn‘t be responsible for the, you know, the fall or rise of Don Imus. They were only responding to the comments that were made about them. And we—that‘s all that we were all responding to. We didn‘t ask for his resignation.

I think that what—I had faith in, and that is, the American public. And that I think that really, this is the reaction to we, the people, not Mr. Imus, and I think that we put a face on the chairman or the president of MSNBC.

[sandnsea]

114. Not racist, not sexist

They did not hire David Duke for chrissake. Quit buying into this right wing spin who are just trying to keep the storm from blowing them off the air too.

[ProSense]

115. What right wing spin are you talking about?

Imus is David Duke? Please, this is nonsense!

[sandnsea]

116. Exactly

They didn't hire David Duke. They didn't hire a racist pig. So what's the shock jock bullshit about they knew what they were getting. They never hired Imus to spew racist crap - it's ludicrous on its face.

It's right wing spin. To deflect attention away from hate speech on radio. Simple.

[politicasista]

121. Thanks n/t

[ProSense]

50. Here's some

food for thought.

[wisteria]

56. Thanks.I recommended the post. n/t

[beachmom]

84. Shit:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/12/101029/707

Look at comment #1. I'm not commenting. Politicasista was right that this was going to leave him vulnerable.

[ProSense]

85. More posturing, like this piece from

those hate-speech critics at the WSJ.

Rampant hypocrisy!

[wisteria]

86. This stinks and smells more and more like a RW set up.

Fox News first covered this story, then Sharpton got involved. Isn't it interesting that now the only politicians loyalties and integrity being questioned are Democrats. Plenty of Repubs were on Imus' show too.
And, of course, the Democrats go right along with the "outrage".

Now, that said, just being a guest on a program does not mean your support the content. It was a popular program that was becoming more and more political and people went on there to promote their causes and books.

This whole thing is so sad, now they are trying to make accusations of racism and sexism just by distant association. Isn't it interesting this has come up now, right before the Dem's are going to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment.
The RW is trying to claim the Dem's who went on the program as hypocrites.

Sadder yet, is that Imus has now been branded a racist and those who associated with him are now being accused of supporting a racist. This has gone to far, the only people benefiting from this seem to be the right.

[Noisy Democrat]

88. I've been wondering about this myself

I don't know the timeline of events -- who first made an issue about what Imus had said? How did it get catapulted to prominence? I wasn't following it; does anyone know where the outcry started?

It's very disturbing to see people like Chris Dodd being attacked for appearing on the show, and the tone of the comments on Devilstower's recent Kos diary is very much like a witchhunt. Denouncing politicians who didn't denounce Imus. What's next? Loyalty oaths? "Are you now or were you ever scheduled as a guest on Imus's show?"

[wisteria]

90. I first heard about this on the Hannity show on his NY radio program then Fox News. n/t

[wisteria]

91. Hear is an interesting link to the Gibson radio show from 4/4 that mentions

Imus' comment and wonders why he hasn't been fired.

KEEP IN MIND, JOHN GIBSON'S COMMENTED ON THE COMMENTS THE VERY DAY IMUS MADE THEM- WEDNESDAY AND THEN WENT AFTER MSNBC WITH ACCUSATIONS. BY APRIL 5TH THIS WAS "BIG" NEWS.

I couldn't get the link for the audio to work, I am working on finding the transcript. But the links tell the story well enough.

Interesting how Fox is now trying to blur the connections to themselves with conflicting support and less apparent attackes.

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/04/05/gibson-on-imus/

and

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20070405015829/

Also, Imus has been complaining about all the times Gulliani appeared on Hannity's show and has been badmouthing O'Reilly.

[fedupinBushcountry]

99. It was noticed by

Media Matters.

Timeline: A week in the life of Imus in the Morning
In the wake of MSNBC's decision to drop its simulcast of the Imus in the Morning radio show, Media Matters for America has prepared the following timeline documenting events from Imus' slur of the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" on April 4 to MSNBC's announcement on April 11.

Wednesday, April 4

On Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus referred to the Scarlet Knights, the Rutgers University women's basketball team -- which is made up of eight African-American and two white players -- as "nappy-headed hos" after executive producer Bernard McGuirk called the team "hard-core hos." Media Matters for America noted Imus' comments at the time.
The New York Times later noted that "Imus's remarks were picked up ... by the Media Matters for America site," and Salon.com's Jonathan Miller similarly credited Media Matters for posting video of Imus' comments.

more> http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120001

[wisteria]

112. MM may have noticed it, but it was Gibson of FOX that gave it legs to begin with.

Fox News- msm site that it is made it big news, MM and Salon, I doubt they had much influence. Interesting Hannity is saying that Imus didn't make these words up, he got they from the Black culture of music and video.

[wisteria]

87. Yeah, don't place any importance on this post by commenting on it.

I agree with you, it is too ridiculous to even respond too.

[karynnj]

111. I didn't comment

The comments were relatively mild - compared to what they would have been a year or so ago. Defending Kerry's appearances - as one of the few places he could get air - is true for 2004 - now, but Kerry was on the show years before that.

So, there really is no defense - other than Kerry was trying to reach an audience that wouldn't see him on talk shows and which would not catch the fact that he was not the stereotype of a NE liberal - but a real guy - who flew airplanes, played sports etc. We all know he used Imus, but that did create this link.

Kerry's statement is not even known and that is clearly his preference- just that it existed. This is second hand and Kerry's statement reflects Kerry's usual reluctance to make personal attacks. He apparently did criticise the comments - but no one married to Teresa (or who has two daughters like his and the relationships he has with them) could be sexist. Kerry is clearly not racist as well.

I think that Politicasistah was very on target with this. I think the best thing Kerry can do is just be himself and if at all possible get on Tavis Smiley as often as possible on issues like environmental racism, some of the Small Business programs and Iraq.

[wisteria]

113. i don't think Kerry needs to defend his appearances on Imus. They have been acquaintances for a long

time and I am sure he knows Imus is no racist. I have watched the man enough to have figured that out. Many people have appeared on Imus he has been around for 30+ years- it is a shame now he is such a piranha according to some people.

Frankly, I would view Senator Kerry as a hypocrite if he were to denounce Imus and accuse him of being a racist when they have known each other for so long. It would seem to me that he was pandering and being disingenuous just to get the black vote.
If the AA population doesn't realize all that Kerry had done for them then that is their fault.

[politicasista]

120. Why is it their fault?

They can't help it if they get the news from the cable news networks or the newspapers. A lot of them are not average bloggers like we are.

[wisteria]

128. Well why aren't black leaders informing other AA's about what other leaders like Senator Kerry have

done for the Black community?

[politicasista]

131. That's a good question

Maybe they were too busy complaining about or critiquing him. Doing what you have asked would have helped in 2004.

[wisteria]

137. You pose a good point too. n/t

[rox63]

117. JK and THK know Imuses away from the spotlight

By the way they (especially Dierdre) are featured in TMOE, it's obvious they've known them for years. I'm sure JK condemns the racist/sexist statements Imus made on the air. But I suspect he's addressing the matter with them privately.

[ProSense]

95. Transcript, the team's coach appeared on Countdown lastnight

Posted in GD-P.

[beachmom]

118. I found a statement from John Kerry:

I believe this is the same website that defamed one of our own bloggers, but I guess that's another conversation. I'm not sure what the title given to him is supposed to mean. Nevertheless, there is a quote.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/04/imus-guest-list-whos-out-whos-in-whos-waffling.php

He is listed in the "Fence sitter" category, not saying whether or not he will appear on the show again:

John Kerry, Democratic nuisance

No definitive decision, but "I am encouraged by his apology, the planned changes to his show and that he asked for an opportunity to meet with the team and apologize in person," the Senator says in an official statement to Radar.


This was obviously given before he was fired. It probably isn't good enough for many, but seems in character as he's not one to throw people under the bus on a whim. He takes his time and isn't rash. Unlike any of us, as Rox has pointed out, the Kerrys know the Imuses personally, and I know he has visited the Ranch, because they talked about it once on the show.

[Mass]

122. Except if Kerry has given radaronline a separate statement, this is NOT the full statement.

As indicated by the wilmington article, the statement starts by a condemnation of what Imus said. No surprise that radaronline only gives a part of the statement though, as they are idiots. The statement was days ago, too.

[beachmom]

123. You're right. It leaves off the first half which was to condemn

Imus's remark. Incidentally (and I won't link), Drudge has many excerpts of what Imus said today, and he REALLY spewed vitriole at Harold Ford Jr., acting like he should have gotten a medal having Ford on his show, since he got death threats for it. What a prick. Imus claimed Ford wasn't backing him up. WTF??? Ford was in the same category as Kerry, a fence sitter, and this was his statement:

Harold Ford Jr, Democratic Leadership Council chair

"I am a big believer in redemption. Yet, no amount of philanthropy gives anyone the license to offend innocent people. So I'm going to follow the lead of those brilliant and gracious women of the Rutgers basketball team and wait and see how the next two weeks unfold," he says in an official DLC statement.

Why did Imus choose Ford to condemn, and not Kerry? Oh wait . . .

[Mass]

124. Harold Ford, the only AA he has invited in 2007.

I guess he was expecting some gratitude :sarcasm:.

[wisteria]

133. Oh, you know that to be fact? You have watched the show regularly?

I have watched the program and he has often spoken about African Americans he is friends with. Recently, with Kerry on the show, he spoke about the death of a recent black religious leader whom he had known and called right before he died. He spoke about the man's life and about his wife. Kerry said he didn't know them very well.

Also, Harold Ford appeared on Imus' show in 2006, when he was running for the senate seat in Tenn. And Imus promoted him and defended him so much, you might have thought he was on ford's payroll. Oh, and this is the same Ford that screwed over Kerry during the botched joke incident. Ford is a jerk.

Now your can fault imus for not have more black guests on his program, but that doesn't make him a racist. Many shows on television do not have many minority guests.

[beachmom]

135. Here's the problem. You're mixing politics in with decency.

I taped KO, and just watched him speak at the beginning, and he's now letting his rage spill out and talk about what was happening BEHIND the scenes. Imus put his NBC employees through hell. This has NOTHING to do with politics.

"Being nice to Kerry" doesn't absolve someone of racist remarks, nor does "being mean to Kerry" mean everything that person does is wrong. Ford's statement was correct, and in fact, a lot nicer than his statement about the "botched joke". So Ford DID consider what Imus had done for him. The fact that Ford is the head of the DLC or is not the kind of Democrat we particularly like simply doesn't come into play in this situation.

[wisteria]

138. i judge a person by how he stands by his friends and supporters.

I still resent the terse comments Ford made when he referred to Kerry remarks against our troops. Ford owes a lot more than he gave to Imus. And as far as KO,he is entitled to his opinion, but I would take it with a grain of salt. KO is beginning to think to highly of himself. Imus viewed his support and promotion of people as more than just politics- he considered them friends. He considered Ford a friend and IMO, friends don't let friends hang out to dry without doing all you can for them. If Imus was wrong about one thing, it was in not considering that Ford is a typical politician.

Imus said some nasty remarks, I do not believe he said them in a racist or sexist way. I have watched the show frequently as has my daughter and husband and we all feel Imus was scapegoated for just about everything wrong with society. Imus is Imus, a grumpy older man. If his staff didn't like what he supposedly put them through, they had the option to quite. It is interesting to me that now that he is down and out, he is still being kicked around. I personally don't think Imus was a bad man. KO, sure isn't going to change my mind on this. Just wait until he says something out of line and they go after him.

Also, I wasn't referring to Imus just being nice to Kerry. I was speaking of a friendship. One that weathered the good and the bad. I judge people by their loyalty and their integrity they show other people and Ford strikes me as an opportunist.I mention the DLC because this is the wing that supports Clinton and I am sure that may have played a part in Ford's response. This is the second time he has not stuck his neck out for anyone. Let me just say this, I would defend a friend and someone who helped me out as much as I could. Ford doesn't strike me as being willing to do that at all. To put it in perspective, I wouldn't want to be drowning and waiting for Ford to save me. I don't think he would do it unless there was good press in it for him.

[beachmom]

139. Kerry's and Ford's responses were in the same vein from what I could read.

Why is Ford a jerk and Kerry not? Imus would only have been satisfied if they had said what good friends of Imus John McCain and Rudolph Guiliani said -- that they would still go on Imus's show. I will also add there were some pundits and journalists in that category, too, like Tom Oliphant, Tom Friedman, and Bob Schiefer.

I agree that Ford was a jerk during the botched joke, but not on this one. In fact, Ford was overly gracious to Imus.

[wisteria]

129. I don't agree with your comments. Ford was given very, very special treatment

and was defending regularly on Imus' show. Ford should have been a bigger man about this and defended Imus. He knows Imus well enough to know he is not a racist. I think Ford looks like the little man here. I would of thought that Ford, who is suppose to be a religious man would have a little more courage and forgiveness in him. It sound like he is the prick.

Also, I don't think Imus is a prick. I think he has every right to be angry at how he was treated. He was doing what MSNBC wanted him to do and they loved him while he was raising money for them and rating too. Then, this comes up and they run away like chicken shits.

I listened to four hours of Imus on the radio today and most of the time he blamed himself for what has happened because he said the things he did. In between the families of the children he has helped spoke about how they appreciated all imus and his wife had done for them, and Imus talked about each and every one of those kids like they were his own. Discussing the unique things they did and expressing sadness at having to attend their funerals. And in between he helped raise a million dollars in five hours for his ranch for sick children and two other charities for children.

I called up and gave a donation and when I did, I also expressed my POV, the person donating their time on the other end for this charity said that donations were up and that the majority of the calls were very supportive. Obviously, some other people- including myself, don't think he is a prick.

Oh, and your getting your facts from Drudge?

[beachmom]

132. Wow. So no matter WHAT Imus says, Ford HAS to defend him?

I just don't agree with that. There's loyalty and there's the kind of loyalty Bush demands. What's the difference? Principle. Ford is many things, but I think it's asking a lot that he has to grovel to someone who made such a horrible remark against AA women. Ford's remarks were proper, and his decision to wait and see VERY charitable toward Imus.

I think that's great that you're supporting the charities, which are good causes.

[wisteria]

134. He could have at least given him more support than he did.

But, then, this is the same Harold Ford who screwed over Kerry after the botched joke and after Kerry had raised money for him.
Ford is a first class jerk IMO.

[beachmom]

136. And about Drudge -- it was a transcript, not an opinion piece.

And your responses seem to tell me that what I read was correct, and that you agree with Imus about Ford.

[wisteria]

144. He barely mentioned Ford. Once in the whole four hours I listened.

He even thanked Bigelow Tea for standing by him. Now, that is one company that has some integrity.

[karynnj]

126. They were the lamest people reviewing the book

I also think Dodd's statement is quite good. Kerry's comment is fine as we know he denounced the comments first (per the Delaware paper). This sounds more like an answer on what he thinks Imus should do - and as such it's fine.

It's notable that they appear to have ignored Edwards all together. Likely due to the GLB endoursements - he would eiither be with Kerry or the ones with Imus.

[wisteria]

140. "Imus, Bias, Devils and Heaven"

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/04/imus_bias_devils_heaven.php

[Noisy Democrat]

141. He really said it... and I want to add one more comment

That piece is brilliant. He puts his finger on much that's been disturbing to me. It was never that I thought Imus did nothing wrong; it's the frenzy and the sense that his accusers long ago lost sight of the fact that he's a human being.

What bothers me most about what Imus said is that he was picking on teenage girls who had done nothing to him. It's one thing if he taunts the powerful, but it's another thing entirely to go after the vulnerable. It's very creepy to see a 67-year-old man picking on young women like that; one would think that there would be a line of decency there that one would know not to cross. I wonder if he actually did attack young, powerless, relatively unknown victims a lot, or if this was a case where he crossed a line without actually noticing that the target of his joke wasn't a politician or a celebrity. I do feel that much of the yelling about "racism" is opportunistic, though, and doesn't help to restore a sense of decency or concern for our fellow humans.

What I want to know is whether he will still meet privately with the Rutgers team now that he's already lost his job. That decision, to me, will speak volumes.

[wisteria]

142. He met with them tonight at the Gov. mansion in NJ. Corizine was on his way

to meet with both the team and Imus when he was involved in an accident. He is ok though, but he broke his ribs and a leg in the accident.

As for Imus, I think he got carried away with the conversation. He really didn't consider who he was referring too. His producer, Bernie started the conversation and began the "ho" dialog. Imus just wasn't paying much attention to what all was going on. I was watching the show that morning and he was wrapped up in the play by play. They were jock talking. Imus is Imus,I got use to him and even admired him sometimes for his ability to actually engage his guests in meaningful conversations. I will miss watching his show in the morning.

You know, I can't get over people so quick to jump to conclusions and to assume they know what someone else was thinking or doing. The media and Sharpton have told everyone that Imus is a racist. Now, because they have branded him, we are all suppose to accept that as fact. I want to know how Sharpton and others at DU can be so certain what is actually in this mans heart. Now, some at DU are going after his wife. I suppose she is guilty by association, just like all the people who went on his program.
for me, I will not accept someone else's declarations of racism. I watched Imus enough to determine in my mind, that he is nothing of the kind.

[Noisy Democrat]

146. That was what I figured

As for Imus, I think he got carried away with the conversation. He really didn't consider who he was referring too. His producer, Bernie started the conversation and began the "ho" dialog. Imus just wasn't paying much attention to what all was going on. I was watching the show that morning and he was wrapped up in the play by play.

I haven't seen the video of the original comments, but I guessed that he was just joshing along with Bernard and wasn't really thinking it through. Doesn't make it right, not even close, but it also doesn't make it premeditated all-out assault on young women with intent to kill, so to speak.

According to the WSJ today, this all began with Media Matters getting on the case, so it wasn't a right-wing set-up after all. I do think the final resolution was too extreme -- though I know others here think it was appropriate --, and I will really miss hearing someone ask JK utterly tactless and ridiculous questions like, "So, do you hate John Edwards? After all, he screwed you pretty bad." JK always seemed relaxed on that show, able to roll with the punches and get his message across without being fazed by any of the obnoxious things Imus said.

But I will say one thing -- if this turns out to be the first big demonstration of Media Matters flexing its muscles, and if it can then activate people so as to do some serious damage to the likes of Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc., *then* I think a lot of good will come from this (though I still strongly object to the witchhunt atmosphere, the sense of "We can read his mind and tell you with absolute authority that he's a racist asshole" and all the rest of that dehumanization). If it just stops with pushing Imus off the air, I'm not so thrilled. But we'll see. Maybe MM will really change things in this country.

[ProSense]

147. Media Matters covers this stuff every day and

the MSM never picks up their coverage. For the WSJ (of all papers) to claim that the origins of the furor is Media Matters is suspect. Here is a diary at Kos on how the media is spining this story.

Here is my theory about who might have been behind the story gaining national media attention so quickly.

[wisteria]

150. Wow, Prosense, great investigating. The shadows of men in the dark. n/t

[wisteria]

148. Problem is, I see this all ending with Imus. MM is a liberal site, the RW

will not take it seriously and the RW pundits and radio jocks are much more well protected than Imus was. They are with Clear Channel and Fox. The armies will come out to protect anyone of them that is singled out. For example,with the latest incident with Coulter, she had Hannity and Limbaugh backing her up. Most people didn't bother to care what she said. I hope there can be dialog without the mobs and the opportunists taking the stage and dictating the message. We really need to talk to each other one on one- as human beings.

On the point of MM reporting this first, that may well be true, but it is Fox News that actually reaches a larger audience and it is at Fox News that this was made an outrage because it was a way for Fox to get back at MSNBC.

Also, keep in mind First amendment rights to free speech and censorship issues. We may not like what people always have to say, but our constitution protects free speech. And, how far do we take the idea of silencing speech we don't like to hear? Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

To end, I liked the reference to Imus and Kerry, when Imus asked if he was going to support Edwards. LOL. Imus could be very blunt.

[politicasista]

151. He has had a history of this behavior

He compared Venus and Serena Williams to farm animals and said they belonged in National Geographic Explorer instead of Playboy. He called PBS' Gwen Ifil the "cleaning lady" and so on.

Like it or not, the perception is still out there that Kerry "catered" or "caters" to Imus, and that will not be easy to defend.

JMHO

[MH1]

152. Well, I don't know who has that perception and who might be promoting it

but it's ridiculous.

Kerry "catered" to Imus? Bullshit. Kerry USED Imus as a platform to reach a certain demographic - just as many others did, and just as many others did and WILL CONTINUE to use the other nasty entertainment jocks as conduits to reach that audience - because the audience exists and that audience VOTES. And we need to try to elect people who will make this country better for all, even if that means talking to assholes. (As you may have noticed, an alarming percentage of the voters in this country are "assholes." Particularly when so many of us count anyone who doesn't fit our own mold of propriety as an "asshole.")

I never heard Kerry condone the coarse aspects of Imus' show, and Kerry did condemn the comment about the Rutgers team.

Kerry did and I suspect will continue to promote the good things Imus and Deirdre do - like the environmental work and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund - a bunch of us in here donated to that, you know? Or did you know?

Just curious - is your implied "some people" YOU? If it isn't, I hope you will speak up and straighten out those "some people."

And btw, because I hope this is my last post in here on the subject, I heard something this morning that caused me to compare Imus' careless comment about the Rutgers' girls appearance (which is all his comment was), with the way Jackson and Sharpton went after 3 accused but NOT YET CONVICTED young men. Now, I'll admit I didn't follow the Duke case (because I thought it was over the top), but if as I heard this morning, Sharpton et al were going around calling the boys "rapists" that is a FAR WORSE assault with far worse consequences to those young men. The Rutgers girls, and the Rutgers community, could have chosen to announce a big "F U" to Imus, everyone would have cheered, and we all could have moved on. No one would have sided with Imus if it had been left at that. But the Duke kids have had much worse impacts to their lives - and what Sharpton and Jackson did (based on what I heard this morning and barely remember from the time) went WAY beyond careless remarks. It was intentional and it was designed to stir feeling against those boys.

The Duke boys may actually have been guilty as accused. Too bad the accuser was such an ineffective witness that we'll never know. (And I feel for her too - I think she was poorly treated too, by people wanting to exploit the situation.) But the point is - we DON'T know. And in this country, you are SUPPOSED to be considered innocent until proven guilty. NO ONE had the right to crusade against them and call them "rapists" when the evidence wasn't even there.

Which is worse to call someone - a "rapist" or a "ho"? Does it matter what color is the skin of the person doing the namecalling? Does it matter whether it is made as a casual insult versus part of a crusade to turn public opinion against someone?

Just wondering.

[wisteria]

157. MH, very good points. n/t

[politicasista]

158. I think "ho" is more degrading than a rapist

And I never said Kerry condoned anything. I said the perception is that he "catered" to Imus because he was a regular on his show.

And yes, I am aware of the good things the Imus and Kerry's have done. And NO, I am not dissing them for that. If they continue to do more of that, more power to them.

Your anger seems to be more at Jackson and Sharpton. They didn't say the word "ho." Imus' words were NOT twisted. They were played over and over.


And those SOME PEOPLE are my family. They thought Imus should have been gone years ago and they were ok with Kerry,(except maybe for my uncle cause he was very lukewarm on him). just cause he wasn't Bush.


I can't believe I just ask one question and get visciously attacked for it.

[karynnj]

159. Rapist is FAR worse than "ho"

Both are completely unacceptable - and Imus's comments disgusting. But, the actions of the Durham DA, who seems to have pressed charges before an elction for political reasons and people like Sharpton who went after these boys before they were proven quilty is at least as bad. The fact is after the charges were withdrawn because the witness was not credible and the supporting evidence was not there, one black woman on cable was still referring to the woman as "the victim".

One of the boys was from a neighboring town. He was an alumnus of a very exclusive Catholic boy's high school. This school, has a reputation for very high standards on every level, not just academic. (It is so good that the alumnus I know was sent their by his family even though he was Jewish.)

This boy and his family had good reputations. Yet the early stories in the local newspaper read like many stories, where the neighbors all expressed shock - he always seemed like a nice kid. But, like many reading it, I know I - because of my white middle class background - without thinking, assumed he was likely quilty. There's a tendency to think the police don't arrest people for no reason - though of course I know cases to the contrary.

This boy was accused of a crime. His good name was smeared in every peper in this country for months. Think about that - every person he went to school with at Duke and at his high school, every relative, every neighbor, every friend, every one he went to church with, every girl he ever dated, or played sports with - all heard him accused of this crime. The entire team lost the ability to play their sport.

I don't want to diminish the pain these girls felt, but - even from the beginning Imus saying it was disgusting, but no one who knew any of these girls likely spent a second thinking it was true - they thought Imus was a creep. The girls were then quickly (and appropriately) praised for who they were.

Which of these two experiences were worse?

[wisteria]

161. Why didn't Sharpton and Jackson just allow the Rutgers team and Imus to work out their differences.

Why, after Imus requested to appear on Sharpton's show did Sharpton demand he sign a resignation form and why would two men who purport to be men of God, not find any room for forgiveness? They fanned the flames and they encouraged the Black community to get Imus and have tagged him with a very harsh term- racist. How can they be so certain to accuse another man of such a thing? This insult was directed at these women, not at the Black race as a whole.

As for your family, I would bet they never even heard of Imus in the Morning until Rev. Sharpton made an outrage out of what was said. How does Rev. Sharpton know for sure and without any doubt that Imus is a racist? That accusation is a strong one and should not be thrown around lightly. Rev. Sharpton seems to through around accusations willy nilly without any recriminations when he is wrong. What give him the right to be judge and jury? You know, if you spend your time doing nothing but looking for wrong, eventually you will find something to use against someone.

I am outraged that Rev. Sharpton could accuse the Duke lacrosse players of being rapists without even a trial and based on very, very questionable testimony form the woman accuser. Rev. Sharpton should not be allowed to through accusation and condemnations around so lightly. In this country, we are Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Polisista, where is your new MLK, Sharpton and Jackson couldn't hold a candle to Mr. King and don't deserve the admiration bestowed upon them by AA's. That is my opinion.

[JI7]

162. your comments are condescending and offensive

[Noisy Democrat]

163. Let's not go there

Wisteria, I do share many of your misgivings about how the Imus thing was handled -- though I can see why some people felt that his firing was long overdue, I would've preferred to see a solution that involved more dialogue and listening, and I strongly objected to the demonizing/dehumanizing *tone* that many people took and the sense of witchhunt-style hysteria that was whipped up (especially on DailyKos). But I hope those of us on this board can disagree about how it should've gone down without attacking *each other*. I don't think turning this into a discussion of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson is a good idea, and I'm *really* uncomfortable with your addressing a specific other member of this board with harsh questions about AA leaders. Shorter version: I sympathize with your upset about how this played out, but I think you need to cool your jets.

[wisteria]

166. My remarks weren't meant as racist ones, they were legitimate questions that

many people have. Perhaps, I should have asked them directed through e-mail, but non-the-less this is part of a dialog that needs to be discussed.

[TayTay]

164. You mean the Dr. Martin Luthor King, Jr. who said this?

From "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to 6e solid rock of human dignity.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html
Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Dr. Martin Luthor King, Jr. April 16th, 10963

Dr. King was one of the most hated men in America in the 1950's and 60's. He was attacked from the left for not being more strident and from the middle for being 'upsetting' to people who basically agreed with him and from the right from people who believed he was upsetting the natural order of things. Dr. King, in his time, was hated, disparaged, ridiculed, followed by the FBI, decried as a communist and most of all, feared by huge numbers of flag-waving, patriotic Americans. He was no peace-maker sent out to reassure white liberals that he knew they had good intentions and should be let off the hook because of that. Not ever. That is insulting, demeaning and shows base ignorance of American history.

[wisteria]

167. I can not put AS and JJ in the same catagory as MLK, MLK was fighting a larger battle for something

bigger and not for himself- I do not see that as being the situation with the other two.
Also, I do not consider myself a moderate and do beleive in stiring the post, I just don't like the way stiring things up has been done and I see no good coming from it.

[ProSense]

153. He has a history of doing this show.

He also called a lot of white people offensive names too. That aside, do you know Imus? Did he use this language outside the show? Imus has been fired and the Rutgers Team has accepted his apology. I hope the focus will turn to getting racist like Limbaugh and Beck off the air. Or is this just a crusade against Imus?

[beachmom]

154. No, this is about Kerry. Kerry went on Imus quite a bit, and came

out sounding good. This is very Kerry related. And as I said on the other thread, we're going to know this is a GOOD THING that this temporary embarrassment will not be a worse embarrassment later on.

I would rather marinalize the others, actually. If they're taken down like Imus, they'll come out of it like martyres. I would rather hit them in the ratings. Get people to think it simply is not respectable to listen to all the others you mentioned. Get it down to the hardcore Right. And even within that demographic, peal off some who don't want to be viewed as racists for listening to their shows.

Good talking point: Yeah, Imus was bad, but so were the others, who are just as racist. Respectable Republicans don't fancy themselves as racists. It'll make them think.

[ProSense]

156. No it isn't. This is about

Imus, and it's not about "yeah, Imus was bad, but so are the others" because I don't believe Imus is a racist. I believe he used a lot of racist and inappropriate language on his show. I do believe Glenn Beck is a racist. When the president of MSNBC spoke about firing Imus, he said he believed he was a good man and he was not a racist. Like I said, he certainly wasn't shocked by the fact that he hired a shock jock. He certainly didn't miss all the other comments Imus made. This is an incident. It resulted in Imus being fired, but portraying Imus, the man, as a racist and as the problem is nonsense.

[wisteria]

155. You know, if someone recorded everything I said to my husband over

a twenty five year span,and just reported the bad things I said, I would look like a bad person too. However, I think my husband would tell you I am not a bad person.
What bothers me about this list is it is all one sided. It presents just the bad over 25 to 30 years. Where are their good comments or compliments to provide balance? Presenting just the negative seems to suggest a real effort to dehumanize the man.

[MBS]

145. this is terrific, wisteria

I'm sending it around to people. By far the best I've seen, and the author really nails down what's been bothering me about this whole issue (not to mention our whole tattered society)

[rox63]

149. My very last comment ever on this subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x648219