Imus on his knees begging

Originally posted by seagull
Where is the apology to the Duke lacrosse players?

YES, that's a crime! The DUKE story is huge ... and yet it has almost entirely disappeared. Sharpton and Jackson BOTH went on TV and whipped those three INNOCENT young men. They BOTH said that the men were guilty.

Sharpton and Jackson owe the DUKE players an apology. IMUS apologized. Sharpton and Jackson have not. It seems that IMUS is the better man .... doesn't it?

Imus is a twit, but he's at least a seeming repentant twit. Sharpton and Jackson are also twits, but unapologetic twits who have only the best interests of this young lying girl at heart. Hmmm...I wonder if they'll be helping with her legal bill, or help get her into the councilling she so desperatley needs. I think not...nope, it's off to the next big media oppourtunity.

I wonder if the firring of Imus will cause some uprising from the "the other side" that seems to be completely forgotten and that actually support Imus and let say freedom of speech . . .

The side that is not happy with the double standards and the hypocrisy being played here . . .

So far it has been some interesting polls done about him and losing his job is showing that Americans care more about freedom of speech.

As we should, Marg, as we should.

Yes, what he said was out of line; and he should have been sanctioned, but to fire him? That was a little too harsh. As I've said, he's a twit, but seemingly a repentent twit. My attitude as his boss would have been something along the lines of "happens again, you're gone; now go forth and sin no more."

He appologised to the girls that was the important thing for me to see. Not his meeting with Al Sharpton or whatever. It was that he went and tried to make it right with the girls that he offended.

It was uncalled for and it targeted a specific group of young woman. People who had not done anything to him, and who he therefore did not have a right to do that to.

His comment was not general it was pretty specific, and I think seeing him meet with the specific people he offended was the right thing for him to do.

I hope the girls can put it past them, and I hope he can be more cognizant in futrue of his words.

I think we all say things in anger, or of context or not thinking at times, but his comments were unncessacary, and I think he knew what he was saying at the time, the only thing he did not know was the impact that it would have.

My other question is, he has said stuff like this before, but it's never made headlines. Why did this make headlines? Was it because he on the same day said from what someone else has mentioned that 9/11 was an inside job?

I have not been able to find any clips of this to verify the matter, but was this specific comment pushed into the publics attention to cover up the real reason for the stations and the sponsors anger?

It's an area that really was not looked into, but last night I keep thinking about what that poster was trying to point out and it has me wondering. Why did it make the headlines, certainly other things he has said before have caused as much outrage and disgust, apparently this is not new territory for this man.

So was this used to mask the fact that they do not want people commenting about 9/11 at all? Just wanted some feedback, and did not want to start another thread abou this.

Originally posted by marg6043
I wonder if the firring of Imus will cause some uprising from the "the other side" that seems to be completely forgotten and that actually support Imus and let say freedom of speech . . .

There is quite a lot being said about Freedom of Speech. This article explains beautifully why this is indeed about Freedom of Speech as well as the FCC and boycotting. It's a must read for anyone who thinks this is just about the FCC or boycotts alone.

In the Imus Crucification We Failed as Progressives

Every Progressive that has justified firing Imus because his speech is hurtful, incendiary, ignorant or bigoted, has violated every single Progressive principle towards speech that I have grown up to value.
...
Free speech doesn't exist in a vacuum. It must be protected not just by the government, but by society. We must be open to different and objectionable ideas. We must even allow them to be broadcast over the airwaves.
...
The Southern establishment had no interest in hearing from Martin Luther King, Jr. Many would have considered Malcolm X's diatribes racists. Should he not have been allowed on television or radio?

Mrs. Imus Says Rutgers Hate Mail Must Stop

She added that no one should heckle the team members, and that all hate mail should be directed to her husband.

"I want to say the hate mail being sent to them must stop," Deirdre said. "If any one has hate mail, send it to my husband. … You're doing the wrong thing here."

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This article explains beautifully why this is indeed about Freedom of Speech as well as the FCC and boycotting.

Good article with some good points, but I still think he's wrong. At what point does a media company abrogate their rights to control what goes out over their channels?

If the federal government, or state or local, came in and shut down Imus's show, I've got a big issue with that. If the owners of the company putting the show out there decide it's become a business liability to continue, that's a bottom-line profit-loss decision, not a First Amendment one.

And I'm a little sick of NBC and CBS posturing like they've done something noble here. Imus has been Imus for over 30 years on the airwaves. What he's done recently isn't any different than what he was doing in the 70s. You don't hire Imus to do anything other than be Imus, so how the hell are you shocked to put Imus on the air and "suddenly" realize he's not William F. Buckley?

Would you hire Andrew Dice Clay to entertain at a children's party? Or a retired nun's convention? I wouldn't either, but if someone does, they've got no moral grounds to be shocked by what they get.

Are the heads of CBS and NBC lying, complicit, hypocritical, money grubbing sleazebags, or just the most unaware, oblivious morons on the planet? Pick one.

They made a business decision to hire him (and pay him a fortune) because he delivers an audience. They made the decision to dump him because he'd become a bigger (potential) liability than asset. And if at some point, he's determined to be an asset again, and he's willing, he'll be back.

Anyone who's heard Imus has heard him call Bush and Cheney "war criminals who should be dragged into the street and executed". Think he was taken seriously about that?

Originally posted by seagull
As we should, Marg, as we should.

I know, it is sad that for a long time reasons and examples has been given to show that freedom of speech needs to be controled.

So far it has been for the wrong examples and reasons.

Like BH posted and I agree with it, this just another reason to misuse the examples of why freedom of speech needs to be controlled.

People need to fight and voice their outrage and we need to stop anybody that wants to use Imus issue to pursue just that.

The polls are coming with a very interested twist, people are condemning Imus comments but they support freedom of speech at all cost.

I wonder if something bigger and greater is going to come out of all this.

This no longer about racism anymore.



[edit on 13-4-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Harassment101
Why did it make the headlines, certainly other things he has said before have caused as much outrage and disgust, apparently this is not new territory for this man.

It's not new territory at all. This blog, written before CBS fired him, raises several interesting points.

Where Have the Imus Critics Been for 20 Years?

For at least the past two decades, Don Imus and his merry band of radio assistants have been filling the airwaves with racial slurs and innuendoes on a daily basis.
...
CBS radio may indeed fire Don Imus for his racial slur. Yet CBS/Viacom, which owns the stations Imus broadcasts on, plus Paramount Pictures and TV, Black Entertainment Network, Showtime, MTV, and other properties, also signs the paychecks of the rappers and hip-hoppers who use the term “ho” on an hourly basis.
...
Oh, by the way, during Imus’ two-week suspension, he will be replaced by former Boston newspaperman Mike Barnicle. It was Barnicle who referred to the marriage of former defense secretary William Cohen and Janet Langhart as “Mandingo.” That’s the title of a movie some thirty years ago about a sexual encounter between a black slave and a white woman.

So was this used to mask the fact that they do not want people commenting about 9/11 at all? Just wanted some feedback, and did not want to start another thread abou this.

The very first post mentioned this and the thread was originally in the 9/11 forum. I'm thinking this might have merit.

I'm looking for a complete transcript of the offending show, but haven't found it yet. Interestingly, though, I've come across this, from (I think) 2000:

Imus Transcript 2000

Newman: There are people that you look upon as moral leaders in the development of this country. Let's start with George Washington. He was a ho. Thomas Jefferson was a ho.

Imus: We know that, yeah.

Newman: Doris Kearns Goodwin will tell you Abraham Lincoln was a ho-mo (laughter). Franklin Roosevelt was a ho. J. Edgar Hoover was a drag queen ho (laughter). Brian Gumbel was a [unintelligible] bro ho (laughter). Bill Clinton will take any ho who walked through the do' (laughter). Don Imus was a ho-mo who claims he's a ho no mo' (laughter).

Rutgers Team Accepts Apology

"We, the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team, accept - accept - Mr. Imus' apology, and we are in the process of forgiving," coach C. Vivian Stringer read from a team statement a day after the team met personally with Imus and his wife.

"We still find his statements to be unacceptable, and this is an experience that we will never forget," the statement read.

"These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture. It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place."

Sharpton and Jackson both have very poor testimony. They have skeletons in their closets too. They are the last people that I would want to standup and defend me.

They aren't strong enough to admit wrong in the duke case then they have no business demanding one from Imus.

On top of everything else, I don't like Imus at all. But if they go after the people I don't like and I don't say anything what can I say when they go after the broadcasters I listen to?

We have to take a stand for free speech even when it is for someone we don't agree with.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by ConstantlyWondering]

Originally posted by yeahright
Good article with some good points, but I still think he's wrong.

I do, too.

At what point does a media company abrogate their rights to control what goes out over their channels?

They don't. They had every right to fire him and I support them to do that. I don't AGREE with them, but I support them. Just as I don't AGREE with Imus, but I support him to speak his mind and to say what he said.

That's what many people don't seem to understand about our First Amendment right. If we were all 100% politically correct, we wouldn't need it. It's specifically needed when someone says something that we find offensive or we DON'T agree with. That's when the true supporters of the Constitution are separated from those who pay lip service to it.

I totally support MSNBC and CBS making their own business decisions. It's all the people who wanted Imus fired for what he said because it was offensive that I find hypocritical. If Imus had called the Syracuse women's softball team "white trash skanks" he'd be on the air this morning and those here who had never heard of him, wouldn't care one bit. And race relations would still be on the mend instead of taking this huge step backward.

Several people also don't seem to understand the concept of disagreeing with what Imus said, but supporting his right to say it. As I have discovered, not only in this thread, but elsewhere on this board, if I support his rights to free speech, I am accused of supporting what he said. This is simply ignorance.

Imus has been Imus for over 30 years on the airwaves. What he's done recently isn't any different than what he was doing in the 70s.

That's why I'm beginning to agree with the OP and Harassment that this may have more to do with 9/11 than someone being called a nasty name.

Are the heads of CBS and NBC lying, complicit, hypocritical, money grubbing sleazebags...?

Yes. As stated earlier, they PAY rappers to say the same things.

Please forgive me for the essays I'm posting, but I have a lot to say and I have the right to say it. Unless someone can work to get me "fired" from the board, I'll continue to post these essays and people are free to read them or not.

Your essays are welcome here BH. This issue has really upset us all, in one way or another. It seems that the Rutgers team didn't want Imus fired...

Stringer emphasized Friday that the basketball team had never called for Imus to be fired.

"It would sadden me for anyone to lose their job," she said. "And he came [to the meeting] in spite of the fact that he lost his job. So let's give him credit for that."

www.cnn.com...

And that racist POS Al Sharpton is patting himself on the back....

The Rev. Al Sharpton applauded the Imus firings as a victory in the battle against abuse of the airwaves.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by 27jd]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do, too.

By 'he" I meant the author of the article in your link, just for clarity.

It's all the people who wanted Imus fired for what he said because it was offensive that I find hypocritical.

I think the networks claiming it was because of what he said is hypocritical, for sure. If that were the case, he'd have been off the air and fired 10 minutes after he said it. Instead it took over a week, and after the sponsors responding to boycott threats, pulled out. Then suddenly it became "yasss, we're all concerned about the reputation of our news organization yaddayadda". It was, is, and will be about the $$$. Corporations are profit driven entities, not moral agents.

Several people also don't seem to understand the concept of disagreeing with what Imus said, but supporting his right to say it.

The sheer irony is, he didn't mean it literally. It's part of his whole "shock humor" riff. He wasn't passing a value judgement or making a political point. He made an ill advised attempt at being funny, and picked the wrong target. Slamming these college ladies was way over the line, and I know you agree. And I think it would have been just as wrong had it been a group of white softball players, but it probably would not have garnered the same attention.

That's why I'm beginning to agree with the OP and Harassment that this may have more to do with 9/11 than someone being called a nasty name.

Personally, I don't believe that, either. He was hoist on his own petard. And he blowed up good.

Please forgive me for the essays I'm posting, but I have a lot to say and I have the right to say it. Unless someone can work to get me "fired" from the board, I'll continue to post these essays and people are free to read them or not.

It's all fuel for discussion. Have at it.

Originally posted by yeahright
Anyone who's heard Imus has heard him call Bush and Cheney "war criminals who should be dragged into the street and executed". Think he was taken seriously about that?

What's wrong about that? lol!

Originally posted by CSIfan
What's wrong about that? lol!

So, to you, it's okay to call for somebody to be dragged into the street and executed, but calling somebody a "ho" is an egregious offense? Are you serious? You've been calling for Imus's head on a platter this entire thread, and the one thing you agree with him on is a call to drag into the street and execute the president and VP. Wow. Don't get me wrong, I don't like them either, but come on.

Originally posted by 27jd
It seems that the Rutgers team didn't want Imus fired...

Stringer emphasized Friday that the basketball team had never called for Imus to be fired.

"It would sadden me for anyone to lose their job," she said. "And he came [to the meeting] in spite of the fact that he lost his job. So let's give him credit for that."

www.cnn.com...

Funny thing, when I read that, as it is written...although the team never "called for" the firing of Imus publicly, I could not possibly surmise what they may have wanted. Read it again, carefully.

And that racist POS Al Sharpton is patting himself on the back....

Now, that's an amazing amount of anger and strong language...one would think that, for some, the actual outrage of the incident takes a back seat to the presence of Rev. Sharpton!

What's the matter, is Rev. Sharpton too "uppity" for you?

Freedom of Speech for everyone EXCEPT Rev. Al, huh?

What about the National Organization of Women (NOW)? Are they turds too?



[edit on 13-4-2007 by 27jd]

Originally posted by CSIfan
What's the matter, is Rev. Sharpton too "uppity" for you?

Wow, good usage of an old racist word to paint me as a racist because I can see how clearly hypocritical Sharpton is. Bravo. Yes, he is too "uppity" for me.

Freedom of Speech for everyone EXCEPT Rev. Al, huh?

Nope. He has every right to be a racist POS and I support is right to spew all the hypocritical, false concern he wishes.

What about the National Organization of Women (NOW)? Are they turds too?

Not unless they are hypocritical sexists who hate men and pretend to be concerned about other women just so they can be in the spotlight.



[edit on 13-4-2007 by 27jd]

Originally posted by 27jd
So, to you, it's okay to call for somebody to be dragged into the street and executed, but calling somebody a "ho" is an egregious offense? Are you serious? You've been calling for Imus's head on a platter this entire thread, and the one thing you agree with him on is a call to drag into the street and execute the president and VP. Wow. Don't get me wrong, I don't like them either, but come on.

Okay, okay 27, maybe I got a little carried away, but, how about impeachment?
Do you have a sense of humor? Didn't you notice that I put a little (lol) after that sentence?

By the way, I don't disagree with everything Imus has ever said; funny is funny, UNTIL YOU TARGET SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY, which he boldly did many times...(LIBEL!)

Truth be told, his undoing has been on the horizon for quite a long time...and most people know it, but are in denial.

And I hope I never hear his name again! But, deep down I know he'll be back...there is an element in this Country that needs Imus...sort of like a "FRANKENSTEIN MAKER" (under the guise of Freedom of Speech, please!

Take a nice person, or kid and give them a steady diet of Imus...it won't be long before they begin to say hurtful things and begin to manifest lots of HATRED.

That's how I see Imus...how I saw Imus!
Goodbye to BAD RUBBISH!

Originally posted by FlyersFan
YES, that's a crime! The DUKE story is huge ... and yet it has almost entirely disappeared. Sharpton and Jackson BOTH went on TV and whipped those three INNOCENT young men. They BOTH said that the men were guilty.

And? I would love to see apologies go to all the appropriate parties, in all incidents such as this, but in the Duke/LaCrosse matter, I would reserve my request for apologies until the SEALED DOCUMENTS (2000 pages?) have been made public.

There is much information about this case that is being withheld BY THE AUTHORITIES.

Deny Ignorance!