Don Imus got fired / thought police on a rampage

[going_home]

I dont listen to him but you would have to have been in a hole for the last two weeks not to know what he said.
He is an idiot for trying to talk like a black rapper on a national radio show.
Even though what he said was rude, and he shouldnt have said it, theres the double standard.
Dont get me started on Jesse "love child" Jackson or Al "Twanna Brawley" Sharpton, and who these self appointed ministers (of what gospel) congregation are.

This aint political, and its not religion.....so we should be able to talk about it.

My opinion is this, who's next ?
They have let the thought police out of Pandoras box now, who's next ?
Rush Limbaugh ? Shawn Hannity ? Glenn Beck ? Michael Savage ?
You bet they are.

Express your thoughts on the Imus firing.

[BigEvil]

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. If he were black, no one would have even noticed.

Imus should give up on being a DJ and take shot at making a rap album. Lets see what people say then.

[wjr]

I think what he said was just plain stupid, not really racist. It makes sense he was fired though.

ABC doesn't want his "racist" remark to reflect on them negatively, so they fired him. It makes sense to me.

Rush or Sean wouldn't get fired... they are popular with the people. Imus isn't...

So he got fired.

[olinar]

anyone got a link to the article? i dont know whats going on right now.

[MedicDVG]

I remember listening to him when he was just a shock Jock on WNBC before it went all politiical.

Anyone remember "Tres Juevos!" :dance:

He has been fired from better jobs. He will show up soon on some cable channel or something.

[grEnAlEins]

ABC doesn't want his "racist" remark to reflect on them negatively, so they fired him. It makes sense to me.

Rush or Sean wouldn't get fired... they are popular with the people. Imus isn't...

So he got fired.
Imus sure is. He is one of the most popular morning men in radio history, although he has fallen from grace in recent years.

It had nothing to do with racism of the comment. His advertisers backed out, meaning CBS Radio and MSNBC can no longer profit from him, so they let him go. It is all about the bucks my friend, that is the way of the world.

[grEnAlEins]

anyone got a link to the article? i dont know whats going on right now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070412/ap_en_tv/imus_protests

[going_home]

I think what he said was just plain stupid, not really racist. It makes sense he was fired though.

ABC doesn't want his "racist" remark to reflect on them negatively, so they fired him. It makes sense to me.

Rush or Sean wouldn't get fired... they are popular with the people. Imus isn't...

So he got fired.


He claims 15 million listeners on 100 stations, I'd say he was pretty popular and had a pretty good following.
Just a little note, he was on CBS not ABC ?
:wow:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml

[wjr]

He claims 15 million listeners on 100 stations, I'd say he was pretty popular and had a pretty good following.
Just a little note, he was on CBS not ABC ?
:wow:


:shrug: I always confuse those two...

Yes, I don't doubt that he was very popular. But don't you think the majority of America now considers him racist?

[SCpoloRicker]

My opinion is this, who's next ?
They have let the thought police out of Pandoras box now, who's next ?
Rush Limbaugh ? Shawn Hannity ? Glenn Beck ? Michael Savage ?
You bet they are.

Express your thoughts on the Imus firing.

Somehow I feel like you're not an ACLU fan.

/Ironic?

[Mind'sEye]

Don Imus has made his living saying offensive things off the top of his head for years. Since he's certainly not the only one out there plying the shock trade, it will be interesting to see how "evenhandedly" this new found social conciouness is applied. I'm reminded of Isaac Hayes quitting South Park after they poked fun at Scientology, saying that the writers were "intolerant". Apparently he didn't have a problem when the show satirized other religions. My guess is our freedoms are not more secure. It makes me want to go put flowers on poor Lenny Bruces grave.

[Dark Side]

Let's just hope "Mind of Mencia" is never canceled. Double standards aside, I do love the comedy.

[NotKai]

Let's just hope "Mind of Mencia" is never canceled. Double standards aside, I do love the comedy.

Jesus Christ, you are stupid.

[Dark Side]

Jesus Christ, you are stupid.


Because I made a comment about a double standard in media today? Or is it because you could not read deeply enough into 2 sentences to figure out a point?

[pennywise]

Because I made a comment about a double standard in media today? Or is it because you could not read deeply enough into 2 sentences to figure out a point?
Neither. It's because Carlos Mencia is not funny and he steals material from comedians who are.

/nutshell.

[pennywise]

I dont listen to him but you would have to have been in a hole for the last two weeks not to know what he said.
He is an idiot for trying to talk like a black rapper on a national radio show.
Even though what he said was rude, and he shouldnt have said it, theres the double standard.
Dont get me started on Jesse "love child" Jackson or Al "Twanna Brawley" Sharpton, and who these self appointed ministers (of what gospel) congregation are.

This aint political, and its not religion.....so we should be able to talk about it.

My opinion is this, who's next ?
They have let the thought police out of Pandoras box now, who's next ?
Rush Limbaugh ? Shawn Hannity ? Glenn Beck ? Michael Savage ?
You bet they are.

Express your thoughts on the Imus firing.
You know, I thought the First Amendment covered every citizen, regardless of their career... :confused:

[lather]

I wouldnt have a problem with Imus' firing so long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are called on to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse team. But no, only white people are racist, and as such are the only racial group that has to face the ramifications and responsibilty of inflamatory comments. :tard:

[pennywise]

I wouldnt have a problem with Imus' firing so long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are called on to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse team. But no, only white people are racist, and as such are the only racial group that has to face the ramifications and responsibilty of inflamatory comments. :tard:
QFT

[bornl33t]

I wouldnt have a problem with Imus' firing so long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are called on to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse team. But no, only white people are racist, and as such are the only racial group that has to face the ramifications and responsibilty of inflamatory comments. :tard:


HEAR HEAR!

[Mongoose]

I wouldnt have a problem with Imus' firing so long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are called on to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse team. But no, only white people are racist, and as such are the only racial group that has to face the ramifications and responsibilty of inflamatory comments. :tard:
yes i agree.
If we are all supposed to be equal, then we should all be able to speak the same language.
If imus where black, whould he have been fired?....... :nono:
So how are we to end rasism if we keep drawing lines!!

[Pacifist_Farmer]

Ok, on a side note, is it just me or does anyone else hate the fact that the only radio stations they get on the way to work, play nothing but talk radio each morning.

You can find any music anymore! It's crap!

Honestly I think Imus needs the vacation. He's getting up there in years, time to relax and learn how to fish.

[Raven001]

I dont listen to him but you would have to have been in a hole for the last two weeks not to know what he said.
He is an idiot for trying to talk like a black rapper on a national radio show.
Even though what he said was rude, and he shouldnt have said it, theres the double standard.
Dont get me started on Jesse "love child" Jackson or Al "Twanna Brawley" Sharpton, and who these self appointed ministers (of what gospel) congregation are.

This aint political, and its not religion.....so we should be able to talk about it.

My opinion is this, who's next ?
They have let the thought police out of Pandoras box now, who's next ?
Rush Limbaugh ? Shawn Hannity ? Glenn Beck ? Michael Savage ?
You bet they are.

Express your thoughts on the Imus firing.

First, what he said was racist. Why he would call a bunch of mostly black women hoes for losing a game is beyond me. Should he have been fired? Not in my opinion but it does send a message out to other idiots who spew whatever enters their tiny little mind that there are consequences. Personally the shock jock thing is something I've never been able to appreciate.

Second, if JJ or AS make racist comments, they should be charged as applicable by your laws. That they are not does not make what the idiot said acceptable. As my math teacher used to say, two wrongs don't make a right....
.

[thecavemankevin]

My opinion is this, who's next ?
They have let the thought police out of Pandoras box now, who's next ?
Rush Limbaugh ? Shawn Hannity ? Glenn Beck ? Michael Savage ?
You bet they are.

sounds like something that crazy right wing nut job chick said the other day (her name escapes me at the moment).


Somehow I feel like you're not an ACLU fan.

/Ironic?

the ACLU is single handedly destroying the USA



I wouldnt have a problem with Imus' firing so long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are called on to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse team. But no, only white people are racist, and as such are the only racial group that has to face the ramifications and responsibilty of inflamatory comments. :tard:

QFTMFT :clap:



Second, if JJ or AS make racist comments, they should be charged as applicable by your laws. That they are not does not make what the idiot said acceptable. As my math teacher used to say, two wrongs don't make a right....
.

we have something here called the first amendment that entitles us to free speech. So they haven't broken any laws in the extremely racist remarks they've made. But apparently because they are black they aren't capable of being racists. Even though they are clearly the two loudest bigots in America today.

[BigEvil]

Here's food for thought.. does making a comment about race mean that the person making it is a racist?

[Raven001]

we have something here called the first amendment that entitles us to free speech. So they haven't broken any laws in the extremely racist remarks they've made. But apparently because they are black they aren't capable of being racists. Even though they are clearly the two loudest bigots in America today.

I understand the concept of free speach but it should be restricted to truth. While some of those women were nappy haired not all were and there is no evidence that they were or are ho's. :)

on a lighter note, I love how quick americans are to make a buck from anything

http://www.cafepress.com/NappyHeadedHo.123453717

[bleachit]

Here's food for thought.. does making a comment about race mean that the person making it is a racist?


in the "politically correct" US today, yes, if you are white.



"I understand the concept of free speach but it should be restricted to truth. While some of those women were nappy haired not all were and there is no evidence that they were or are ho's."

it is restricted to truth, in that there are laws against libel and slander. However, someone's personal opinion on someone or something is also protected.

[Raven001]

Here's food for thought.. does making a comment about race mean that the person making it is a racist?

Depends on how PC you are. I may state that black people appear to be athletically superior to whites based on results of events in which both compete. I think that is an observation of what I feel is a fact but some may see that as a form or racism.

For most of us who are white, it does appear to be that we are restricted in what we can now say while others (non whites) are not. It is reverse discrimination and should not be allowed either. While we experience it though, maybe we can get an insight into how the others feel n'est pas?

[y0da900]

Imus has always been an equal opportunity jerk, it was only a matter of time before he angered someone both anxious enough to throw a fit, and with enough clout and or sympathy from the public to make a change. If he deserved to be fired for it, then he should have been fired years ago when he offended someone the first time. Gotta love double standards.


I was talking to my girlfriend about this last night, and she was telling me that they were talking about it on the View, and that Rosie O'Donnell was saying that if people are offended they just need to not listen and get over it, but a month ago she was flipping out on Kelly Rippa for saying something that had the possibility of stemming from homophobia. Again with the double standards.

[AirAssault]

The guy called a group of mostly black women "nappy headed hoes". In what way is that not racist?

The difference if he was black is this, it is commonly understood that when you are a member of a race, saying certain things are acceptable than if you're not. Deal with it.

The ACLU was formed to protect your rights. Sorry that you feel it is "single handedly destroying the USA". I bet if you ever need them to stand up for you, you'll change your mind.

Al S. and Jessie J. are both racists, and have said racist things in the past. The difference here is they don't need commercial enterprises to back them like Mr. Imus does. Take away the money, lose your show, simple economics.

The simple fact here is that Mr. Imus said something that was both very stupid and racist. Do a little research on the word nappy as it relates to blacks and maybe, if you disagree with all this, you will change your mind.

[Raven001]

sounds like something that crazy right wing nut job chick said the other day (her name escapes me at the moment).

Ann Coulter not sure of the last name spelling.

Question for those who feel that the first amendment allows unrestricted free speech (if that’s the one that covers free speech) does it allow the discussion and encouragement of exterminating a group of people like say Jews? If not, would you then agree that free speech has limitations apart from legal remedies for libel or slander?

[Mongoose]

The guy called a group of mostly black women "nappy headed hoes". In what way is that not racist?

The difference if he was black is this, it is commonly understood that when you are a member of a race, saying certain things are acceptable than if you're not. Deal with it.

The ACLU was formed to protect your rights. Sorry that you feel it is "single handedly destroying the USA". I bet if you ever need them to stand up for you, you'll change your mind.

Al S. and Jessie J. are both racists, and have said racist things in the past. The difference here is they don't need commercial enterprises to back them like Mr. Imus does. Take away the money, lose your show, simple economics.

The simple fact here is that Mr. Imus said something that was both very stupid and racist. Do a little research on the word nappy as it relates to blacks and maybe, if you disagree with all this, you will change your mind.

This country has gone soft!!!! everybody wants to sue everyone and no matter what you say you will always offend someone!! It's all about money.
i agree al.s and jessie.j are both very racist..but becouse they are a minority it is ok...does that make any sense...and we put them on tv and radio.
i hate to tell you but we are running out of rights...

[Ole Unka Phil]

Well he should not have said it.... but...

I cannot help but think that had he reacted to the thing differently that this would not have been the result. As a comedian shock jock the best reaction to this is to not appologise. It is to take a indifferent approach and just tell people to lighten up. Oddly enough...

[bleachit]

Question for those who feel that the first amendment allows unrestricted free speech (if that’s the one that covers free speech) does it allow the discussion and encouragement of exterminating a group of people like say Jews? If not, would you then agree that free speech has limitations apart from legal remedies for libel or slander?


The US does not have an unrestricted freedom of speech, to what extent that freedom goes is mostly left up to the courts.

the discussion of exterminating a group could be protected "I think group x should be wiped out"

encouragement probably not, depends on extent of encouragement and probably other factors. but Im no expert on the subject, just my opinion.

[SCpoloRicker]

Guys the first amendment protects you from government impingement on speech. It's not a blanket protection, and in particular does not protect your speech as an employee.

I agree that JJ and AS are both hypocritical, racist morans. Here a link (http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/time-for-jackson-sharpton-to-step-down/20070411111509990001) to an article by Jason Whitlock calling out these two. And yes, he's black.

[beam]

Guys the first amendment protects you from government impingement on speech. It's not a blanket protection, and in particular does not protect your speech as an employee.

I agree that JJ and AS are both hypocritical, racist morans. Here a link (http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/time-for-jackson-sharpton-to-step-down/20070411111509990001) to an article by Jason Whitlock calling out these two. And yes, he's black.


Ricker, that's the best article I've seen, hands down, on the whole Imus thing. Thanks.

[Lohman446]

This country has gone soft!!!! everybody wants to sue everyone and no matter what you say you will always offend someone!! It's all about money.
i agree al.s and jessie.j are both very racist..but becouse they are a minority it is ok...does that make any sense...and we put them on tv and radio.
i hate to tell you but we are running out of rights...

He had the right to say it

The groups that protested had a right to protest it

The corporations that pulled funding out of fear of reprisal had a right to do so.

The networks had a right to remove shows they felt would no longer be profitable.

This is not an example of our rights getting trampled, but instead exercised. While I agree that Sharpton and Jackson have far too much political pull and are hypocritical bigots, the fact of the matter is they do have that pull. This is an example of the checks and balances of society rather than law that libertarians dream of.

[Mongoose]

He had the right to say it

The groups that protested had a right to protest it

The corporations that pulled funding out of fear of reprisal had a right to do so.

The networks had a right to remove shows they felt would no longer be profitable.

This is not an example of our rights getting trampled, but instead exercised. While I agree that Sharpton and Jackson have far too much political pull and are hypocritical bigots, the fact of the matter is they do have that pull. This is an example of the checks and balances of society rather than law that libertarians dream of.

i have to agree with you. very well said...you hit the nail on the head...now back to paintball :cheers:

[grEnAlEins]

Well... at least the Rutgers team accepted the apology :spit_take

[toXicpb]

I never knew what exactly he said, because everything I saw on the news just said, Don Imus, You all know what he said.... blah blah... and nobody would ever show or say what he said lol.

[paintballfiend]

I wouldnt have a problem with Imus' firing so long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are called on to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse team. But no, only white people are racist, and as such are the only racial group that has to face the ramifications and responsibilty of inflamatory comments. :tard:
I don't know, I thought it sounded kind of weird when those Duke guys were talking about injustice and racism. :tard:

[Aggravated Assault]

While Imus uttered stupid comments, that, at most, hurt and offended these players feelings, the Lacrosse players were smeared in the media, had criminal charges brought against them, financial suffering, plus being humiliated in the publics eye.

Let's see how many: from professor, to journalist, to talking head, loose their job because they tared and feathered these players right off the bat. Loose their livelihood because they leveled what seems now to be totally false accusations at these young men. My guess is zero.

But Imus had to go..? huh?

Love it or hate it, the first amendment protects free speech. Even this kind of political speak/social commentary that is unpopular and distasteful. All those who joined in calling for Imus's head....think; When this line not to cross is drawn in the sand, where will the next one be, and the one after that? Look at the two examples at Duke and Rutgers. We're on a slippery slope.

[wjr]

I totally agree with you Aggravated Assault. Free speech in this country is seriously in jeopardy.

I want an america where I can publicly make disparaging racist comments and know that I'll still be able to go to work the next morning, no matter how many people I've offended.

[Lohman446]

While Imus uttered stupid comments, that, at most, hurt and offended these players feelings, the Lacrosse players were smeared in the media, had criminal charges brought against them, financial suffering, plus being humiliated in the publics eye.

Let's see how many: from professor, to journalist, to talking head, loose their job because they tared and feathered these players right off the bat. Loose their livelihood because they leveled what seems now to be totally false accusations at these young men. My guess is zero.

But Imus had to go..? huh?

Love it or hate it, the first amendment protects free speech. Even this kind of political speak/social commentary that is unpopular and distasteful. All those who joined in calling for Imus's head....think; When this line not to cross is drawn in the sand, where will the next one be, and the one after that? Look at the two examples at Duke and Rutgers. We're on a slippery slope.

As has been noted - Imus firing had absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or any governmental interference for that matter.

Imus lost his job because his comments threatened to cause a backlash against the sponsors of his show. They pulled out. Without commercial support the show would not have been profitable and the networks chose to pull it for $$ reasons.

Don't like what some professor, journalist, etc said then get enough people to threaten to boycott sponsors of there commercial entity. Get enough (as Jackson and Sharpton appeared to have done) and you will get what you want. For a school, go towards the donors.

[gimp]

Here's food for thought.. does making a comment about race mean that the person making it is a racist?


Absolutely not, but to many people think it does. It really ticks me off.

[iambored]

Imus shouldn't have been taken seriously, he has attacked lots of people and this wasn't anywhere near as big of a deal till Jesse Jackson and that other dude stepped in. Personally, I'm fed up with Jesse Jackson recently. He is stepping in to things he doesn't belong in for the publicity. This should have never gotten this big, and it wouldn't have been bad if an African-American had said it, and even a few people who work for the media agree with that and they're are suppose to be making this grow so that the companies in the media make more money.
On the duke lacrosse player thing that someone mentioned, the minute that the case was thrown out it should have been over, not the media feeding the monster. Sad, when freedom means "media control." Feels like nothing isn't affected by the media anymore.

[paintballfiend]

Since the courts are not involved (yet) it was not an issue about free speech.

[Mind'sEye]

There's certainly nothing wrong with boycotts. They amount to votes in the public forum. The Imus affair DID NOT involve a boycott. There was no consideration given to the court of public opinion. His firing was based on threats by certain groups and fear on the part of sponsors. A society which makes hasty decisions based on fear does not have a healthy set of checks and balances. I was not an Imus listener. I never cared for his cranky demeanor. His departure is no loss to me, but there's more to this than mass public outrage. Make no mistake. This was a succesful power play. Now we can sit back and see who or what is next...........

[SCpoloRicker]

Aggravated Assault and wjr, this is not a free speech issue. Seriously. Serious Cat serious.

/I work for the first amendment, so I'm really.... ;)

[going_home]

Guys the first amendment protects you from government impingement on speech. It's not a blanket protection, and in particular does not protect your speech as an employee.

I agree that JJ and AS are both hypocritical, racist morans. Here a link (http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/time-for-jackson-sharpton-to-step-down/20070411111509990001) to an article by Jason Whitlock calling out these two. And yes, he's black.

I hate to agree with Howard Stern on anything.
But he said Imus should have said : "F" off, it was just a joke.

I agree with Ricker, he should have just had a press release apology and refused to talk to the press about it, and it would have died in a week or two.
His running around the country apologizing for the sins of the world just made it far worse than it would have been had he done what Howard said.

[SCpoloRicker]

I agree with Ricker,

Oh lord, I think we may have triggered the apocalypse. :)

[wjr]

Aggravated Assault and wjr, this is not a free speech issue. Seriously. Serious Cat serious.

/I work for the first amendment, so I'm really.... ;)


I was being facetious guys.

Here are some belated smilies that should have been in that post.

:rolleyes: :tard: :nono:

[SCpoloRicker]

I was being facetious guys.

My internets sarcasm meter is off, apologies :)

[Lohman446]

In consideration...

If a group of young college African-American men had been falsely accused of raping a white stripper, had been treated the same as the Duke players by the DA, media, and public, and ended the same way how much outrage would we hear from Sharpton and JJ?

Yes, these two people who speak of the ungodliness (reverand.. :rolleyes: .) of racially motivated hate should reconsider the fundamental lessons of New Testament that our actions should be motivated out of love, compassion, and understanding of our fellow man. Surely there coalitions about every race, have room to show compassion to everyone, regardless of race.

[Aggravated Assault]

Aggravated Assault and wjr, this is not a free speech issue. Seriously. Serious Cat serious.

/I work for the first amendment, so I'm really.... ;)

I think wjr was being sarcastic. ;)
(*edit* sorry, I see you realized you had your meter off. :D )

Umm, no, This, in itself, is not a free seech issue. Yet. But the potential is there.

Here is what I'm getting at. I personally dont care $.02 about imus. He's a hack. As said before, free speech lets you say it, but dosen't protect your job. Thats fine. Never could find where I said the constitution guaranteed Imus a job or protected against stupidity.

Lohman, you missed the point too, but got real close to what I was leading to. The Scary thing to me is how america decides how it vents it's "outrage", and how we "choose" what to be outraged about. what's next...Regulation? Are we now going to have monitors just listening to every station, all of the time, waiting to be offended? Who decides when someone is offended? Al Sharpton? Anybody hear his "victory" speech? He said in no uncertain terms this is only the begining.


Al Sharpton as Americas moral compass anyone?

[Lohman446]

The first time JJ or Al Sharpton are called on there threat of boycott I expect them to have a problem. I do not think that the people they claim to "represent" are behind them enough to successfully boycott a product. Not knowing who actually listens to them (I know for a fact it is not the entire African American population) and has the will to mount an effective longterm boycott I highly question how effective they could be.

Hypothetical example

Company A markets a product aimed at people who make 100K + a year

Protest leader X is offended and threatens to boycott company A over some sponsorship

Protest leader X "followers" comprise a demographic where 90% make less than 100K a year. Out of the remaining 10% only 1% are even willing to consider to give up my product over protest leaders X recommendation.

Protest leader X has effectively no useful threat.

I think JJ and Al Sharpton are in for a problem when companies realize that there threat is near meaningless considering the short memory of the American public as a whole. Remember when France refused to support our actions. There was going to be a great boycott of French products. How's that going? How much effect did it ever have? Or the great Baptist boycott of Disney? I can't recall the last actually effective boycott of a product. Is it possible that it goes all the way back to New Coke (which was not really a boycott for a goal, people did not like the taste).

The point is simple. Americans are not *generally* willing to give up consumer luxuries to effectively enact politcal change. Not JJ followers, not Limbaugh followers... just not.

[Miscue]

Stupid thing to say, sure... but I think the resulting furor is stupid too. My other issue with this is... take a guess where the terminology originated - and it was used with the same context. Hmm.

[Aggravated Assault]

The first time JJ or Al Sharpton are called on there threat of boycott I expect them to have a problem. I do not think that the people they claim to "represent" are behind them enough to successfully boycott a product. Not knowing who actually listens to them (I know for a fact it is not the entire African American population) and has the will to mount an effective longterm boycott I highly question how effective they could be.

Apparently pretty effective. :D Who needs a long term boycott?




I think JJ and Al Sharpton are in for a problem when companies realize that there threat is near meaningless considering the short memory of the American public as a whole. Remember when France refused to support our actions. There was going to be a great boycott of French products. How's that going? How much effect did it ever have? Or the great Baptist boycott of Disney? I can't recall the last actually effective boycott of a product. Is it possible that it goes all the way back to New Coke (which was not really a boycott for a goal, people did not like the taste).

Well, I don't know well these examples prove your point, except one worked, Who really knows about Disney (I sure dont do their books), and (I thought) the French so-called "boycott" bordered on the absurd.

Anyway, I just don't know if guys like JJ or AL need a real threat. America might have a short memory, but it has developed a knee-jerk overreaction to quite a bit of stuff. Controversial political speak/Political corectness/social commentary falls in there nicely. These people are calling for "cleaning up the airwaves", suggesting more FCC or government oversight, or regulation, of speech and music. I heard stuff like that all over the media, and not just from Jessie and Al.

Imus provided the reason or excuse. That's not the free speech issue. It's if this whole mess dosent blow over quickly and we really do have the "thought police" lobbying for tighter government oversight of the airwaves, etc.

[omegaman]

Not everyone is an Imus fan. He has been known to say controversial things since the late 70's. The issue about his firing is actually a slipery slope that we had just gone down...and the wrong way. Imus saying something controversial or even derogatory against a defenseless target is not grounds for being fired. Yes, what he said was not appropriate. But, have we not forgiven his critics for worse. Jesse Jackson called NY - HymieTown. Al Sharpton...don't get me started about his words. Anyhow, due to the controversy surrounding the issue and the fact that NO FCC Guidelines were violated - I think the two week suspension was an appropriate action. If the publis did not feel that so and that his apology was insensere then it is the PUBLIC's responsibility to put preasure on the sponsors of Imus' program to withdraw their support and Imus would be forced into the night.

No amount of preasure should have been allowed to dictate policy by a radio station when the content is simply offensive to a segment (albeit a large one) of the listening audience. What was said was inappropriate, to be certain. Offensive, perhaps. I have not heard the segment and will therefore make no judgements on what was said. Was Imus sincere in his apology - Again, I have not heard. Upon hearing of the suspension...I thought it an appropriate response. Hearing of the firing...I thought we have now moved into dangerous territory.

I won't miss Imus. I actually haven't listened to him since the late 80's. But I will remember why I no longer CAN listen to him more than I will ever remember what he said.

[hitech]

I can't recall the last actually effective boycott of a product.

Tuna. It worked, but it took a long time. It's the only boycott I ever participated in. I still don't eat tuna...

So, yes, you are correct. Boycotts almost never work. The Tuna one was how many years ago? Before most people on this forum were born.

And the firing was based solely on money. Period.

:cheers:

[SCpoloRicker]

I assume everyone is aware that major companies pulled their ads from MSNBC and that is the real reason Imus lost his show.

[Aggravated Assault]

I assume everyone is aware that major companies pulled their ads from MSNBC and that is the real reason Imus lost his show.
Imus had been losing ratings & sponsors since before this happened.

Look, There was no boycott. Just a knee jerk reaction. The network and sponsors folded like a deck of cards. Is regulation so far fetched if something similar happens again? That's all I'm getting at. An overreaction that could infringe on my and every one elses right to listen to what we want and express ourselves as we want.

:( With the tragedy that just occured at VT, I assume a lot of this will be forgotten, which to me will be a good thing. That tragedy shows there is a lot more to be concerned about than stupid comments by a washed up hack. Thoughts and prayers to those people.

[SCpoloRicker]

I'm disagreeing with you less than most would think :) . Several large advertisers had been concerned with Imus, and there definitely was a chain reaction effect with his show being dropped.

However, I see that as a good thing. I say that it is indicative of market forces, not that "they" pushed him out. "They" in this case is a bunch of boring marketing guys, which in terms of government regulation is a good thing. I think.

[Aggravated Assault]

So, I guess that you're seeing "they" as the marketing people crunching numbers and I'm seeing "they" as being the sponsors hiding under a table from JJ and AS, trying to figure out a way to make them go away.

For me, it isn't a big leap to imagine senator x and rep y doing the same thing.

[SCpoloRicker]

To me, the difference is that businesses are held accountable. If public, they answer to their shareholders, if private they can do whatever they want.

[Aggravated Assault]

Ah, well I guess thats where, at least you and I, disagree a tad then.

I just don't think that shareholders had anything to do with the fiasco. And if, god forbid, we have another PC "incident" that brings government into it, I worry at bit.

Guess we'll just have to wait till next time to see :D

[paintballfiend]

All the hail the all mighty dollar. Imus was pulled because of money. The sponsors didn't want to seem like they support a racist/prejudice/opressed/crazy guy.