Imus: "I'm a good person"

This is a good place to drop general and weird news, entertainment, and general show prep material that might be interesting to air talent or producers. Hot dog threads ALWAYS welcome.

Moderators: The People's DJ, David Paleg

was Imus right to apologise?

yes, his comments were wrong.
3
12%
no, this is what his show's been like for 20+ years.
13
52%
pff. Who cares?
9
36%
 
Total votes: 25

User avatar
The People's DJ
Pimp Hand
Pimp Hand
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: Not in Wheeling...thank God.

Post by The People's DJ »

You know..Al Sharpton is one to talk. Lets look...
1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent -- the crime never occurred -- but Sharpton taunts him: "If we're lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it." Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and stabbed to death.

1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, Freddy's white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy's are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We're going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.


If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe. But far from being spurned, he is shown much deference. Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him. And journalists report on his comings and goings while politely sidestepping his career as a hatemongering racial hustler.

Imess should have nailed him with ever one of these events. But oh no..he bowed down and kiss ass.
AARON SCOTT
Member
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Morgantown

Post by AARON SCOTT »

Had a black man made these comments, you would have never heard about it. Imus has been like this for as long as he has been on the air. I am not a racist, I am a realist!!! Freedom of speech is dead
kriss kross will make ya jump, jump
User avatar
Ace Purple
Member
Member
Posts: 1050
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2001 6:26 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by Ace Purple »

Now Al Roker is calling on Don Imus to be fired:

"Don Imus needs to be fired for what he said. And while we’re at it, his producer, Bernard McGurk, needs to be canned as well. McGurk is just as guilty, often egging Imus on."

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200 ... 16906.aspx
On Twitter: @LouPickney
User avatar
Arp2
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Post by Arp2 »

Bob Campbell wrote:Arp, c'mon. You wrote,

"That makes no sense...I've not heard any of those ever make a racist comment or even get anywhere in the neighborhood."

A day doesn't go by without those guys making racist remarks about either blacks or Hispanics.
Bob, c'mon. You're simply repeating what you've heard enemies say or write. Not only have I not heard any of those ever make a racist comment or get anywhere close, you haven't heard any of those ever make a racist comment or get anywhere close.

You should listen and think for yourself.
Here's a clue, whenever they say "those people".
That's absurd.

A day doesn't go by, huh? Well, tell me yesterday's "those people" for each of the shows. And the day before's. And the day before that's.

And, by the way, I'm not going to accept that a simple "those people" or "these people" represents racism or any -ism.
Still, the scariest part of all this for me is the call for even more regulation of speech. I wouldn't want the Limbaugh crowd regulated any more than Imus, or the Grease (another I worship like a god).
Is this the first you're noticing this? For years, other liberals have been pushing hard. Have you not noticed "political correctness," university "speech codes," and virtually every leftist group saying "(opponents) shouldn't be able to say that" and "(s)he doesn't have the right to say that!" (Which is mind-blowing.)

It's now advanced to a consistent tactic...how often are we now hearing the left say "the debate on that is over; we're not even discussing that anymore." In every area of life, the left is rapidly working to end free speech, and you're just noticing it?? Sheesh....
Bob Campbell
Member
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:13 pm
Location: Blue Heaven

Post by Bob Campbell »

Well, I listen to Limbaugh a bit almost each day ( not yesterday, didn't get out of the office in time) and hear slurs constantly when he rants about immigration. I run Liddy and hear it from him every day also.

The attack on freedom of speech comes equally from extremes on both sides (see Janet Jackson Super Bowl et al).

Here's what I see as the bottom line. Imus (or Rush,hell, or me) says something offensive on the tv/radio/internet/blog/comedy stage. So what? If it offends you, don't patronise the artist,sponsor, venue. As long as it doesn't rise to the famous level of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, let the marketplace decide. Respect the intelligence of the audience enough to give them the credit for knowing the difference between hate speech attempting to divide races, nationalities, etc. and satirical references commenting on a specific subject.
The next thing you know, we won't be able to make fun of midgets and monkeys.
User avatar
Arp2
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Post by Arp2 »

Bob Campbell wrote:Well, I listen to Limbaugh a bit almost each day ( not yesterday, didn't get out of the office in time) and hear slurs constantly when he rants about immigration.

Then list the exact quotes...if they're "constant," this should be easy for you.

There haven't been any. Not a single one.
The attack on freedom of speech comes equally from extremes on both sides (see Janet Jackson Super Bowl et al).
That wasn't "freedom of speech." That was intentional, choreographed nudity, done with the complete knowledge of all involved in complete and blatant disregard of the rules.
Respect the intelligence of the audience enough to give them the credit for knowing the difference between hate speech attempting to divide races, nationalities, etc. and satirical references commenting on a specific subject.
"Hate speech?" What would such a thing even be? Even if there were such a thing, what would it matter, Constitutionally-speaking? "Speech" -- the spoken or written word -- is "speech," and there shall be "...no law...abridging the freedom of speech."


Hey...just heard yet another example. Listening to a west-coast morning show over the internet, I just aheard a feminist-type say to the host, "I disagree with that last woman; she needs to hang up her phone and not be able to call."

That paradigm, an exclusive property of the left, has more than just entered our society; they're seriously going for it...and sooner than later.
User avatar
Lester
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2803
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2001 5:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Lester »

Hate Speech can only be determined by Thought Police.
Bob Campbell
Member
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:13 pm
Location: Blue Heaven

Post by Bob Campbell »

Couple things. First, the first amendment does not, as the famous ruling says, give one the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I kind of doubt if it applies to someone who would say, "Let's kill all the (fill in the blank with the people you hate most)".

Hey, Liddy's playing in my office now. Give me a minute, I'll get you a quote.

The Super Bowl incident, while planned, was certainly not nudity, as a pasty was covering Janet's naughty part for the less than a second it was visible. And thus, not actually a violation of any rules. It actually generated very few unique complaints. And it was certainly used as an excuse to crack down on Howard Stern and others.
You're right. Hate speech is way too vague a term. I'm talking about a call to action like in the above example. Or, "let's kill the president". The First Amendment does not allow you to say that.
But I am against damn near all forms of restriction. Were it up to me, I'd say anything goes, let the listeners/viewers/readers decide by partaking or not. What Imus said was made worse by his choice of targets, defenseless kids. He forgot to pick on somebody his own size. It makes him seem petty and small, all of which he may be. But I've said a few insensitive things on the air myself. Insensitivity and tastelessness are not, and should not be, illegal.
Many times I've heard complaints from listeners saying, "That was tasteless". My general response is , "so?" Tasteless and insensitive are all in the eye of the beholder.
User avatar
fearpeddler
Member
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:27 pm

Post by fearpeddler »

Bob Campbell wrote:What Imus said was made worse by his choice of targets, defenseless kids.
lol,, that reads like he insulted a bunch of 3rd graders... these are college students for christs sake, I hope their smart enough to raise their middle fingers at him, if their not then theres the absolute proof that college athletes arent worth the free educations we give them..... Those girls are all adults and hopefully educated enough to stand up for themselves and declare proudly " we use conditioner " ...



my point is, there are far more things people could get all up in arms about other than a withered up old man taking a stab at sum college kids.........
Doesn't MSNBC stand for the Media that Spins the News for Barrack's Cabinet?



Political Correctness is always having to say you're sorry. - Me
OldSkool
Member
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:45 am

Post by OldSkool »

FearPeddler wrote:my point is, there are far more things people could get all up in arms about other than a withered up old man taking a stab at sum college kids.........
Amen.
"When a dog runs at you, whistle for him." ~Henry David Thoreau
Lee
Member
Member
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri May 03, 2002 8:56 pm

Post by Lee »

Image
twitter.com/CrypticBullshit
User avatar
Arp2
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Post by Arp2 »

One thing...well, two things...now seem obvious:

1. As I said, he never should have started apologizing. He should have said something like, "Rev Al, are you just trying to get attention now that you've lost the stage to Barack? Does it anger you that he now owns the stage but refuses to act like you and say the things you say? Are you pretending to be upset now because you need to find or create several of these controversies every year to keep your money rolling in?"
2. He should have spent an entire morning "insulting" every person mentioned in a similar way with the whole team chuckling about it...whoever would note an opportunity first would interject "you mean that blonde-haired ho?" "you mean those straight-haired hos?" "you mean those mullet-haired morons?" "you mean those shaved-head hos?"


By the way, I'm watching the Rutgers press conference "responding to" Imus. The AD made an expected kind of speech, as did the coach (who took the opportunity and pretty shamelessly turned it into something of a recruiting speech). The AD then told us we'd hear directly from the team...and introduced one of the only two "Caucasian-Americans" on the team to speak on its behalf.

Now, to be complete and fair, one of the eight "non-Caucasian-Americans" on the team later spoke...and, frankly, was far more eloquent than the first player and probably even a little more than the coach. But the point is this -- if I wanted to react as the race hustlers have, I could accuse that white AD of racism because he designated one white player to speak on the behalf of eight black players and put her on first. And why did this AD obviously bless the black girl from Brooklyn speaking but disallow the black girl from The Bronx from speaking? He's an anti-Bronxite! Why aren't the other girls being allowed to speak, either? Why is this Rutgers AD oppressing them??

If Imus was revealing racism, well, by golly, so was this AD, and I demand he apologize 400 times and then be fired from every position he has or ever will have!

It's just that easy. And ridiculous. :evil:
User avatar
PassiveObserver
Member
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:58 am
Location: Charleston, WV

Post by PassiveObserver »

Of course the first amendment allows you to say "let's kill the president." If that were not true, then I couldn't tell a friend "I'm going to kill you" in jest after he plays a prank on me. It doesn't matter what you say, it's what type of physical action you take after you've said what you said.

Again, I don't think this would have been an issue had his show not been aired on MSNBC. One of the female players is quoted as saying "we were stripped of this moment by a degrading comment by Mr. Imus." No, you were stripped of this moment by the media that hyped a dumb comment. If you're really that upset, then we'd better send in the grief counselors.

And by the way, I think the girl's hair is just fabulous, I don't know what Imus is talking about.
"Being a bastard works." - Spider Jerusalem
jag
Member
Member
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:57 pm

Post by jag »

The Imus incident is done. It now, for better or worse, shall set precedent. What we must ask ourselves is this:

If our rights to free speech and free press have, indeed, been compromised (some say so--some say not...after all, it was not a law that was broken, but rather, a policy that might or might not have been breeched), then what must be done to address the issue (NOT the Imus thing, but rather, the issue of rights to free speech and press)?
weaver
Member
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:56 pm
Location: NP

Post by weaver »

Imus should have ignored Al "Da Reb Charlatan" Sharpton altogether. He owes him nothing. Al Sharpton does not represent the entirety of the black population. He represents nothing.

The only people to whom he owes an apology are the members of the Rutgers women's basketball team. If Imus had any cojones, he would have apologized to them - personally - for stupid and offensive remarks, and then told the black journalists, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and any other race-baiting poverty pimp who tried to interject himself in this matter to get lost.
User avatar
Lester
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2803
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2001 5:47 pm
Contact:

Post by Lester »

Bob Campbell wrote: The Super Bowl incident, while planned, was certainly not nudity, as a pasty was covering Janet's naughty part for the less than a second it was visible. And thus, not actually a violation of any rules.
It wasn't a pasty, it was a nipple shield... held in place by a metal stud through the EXPOSED nipple.

And thus, a violation of safe harbor, and thusly punished.
sportsvoice
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:06 am
Location: O-H...

Post by sportsvoice »

The People's DJ wrote:You know..Al Sharpton is one to talk. Lets look...
1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent -- the crime never occurred -- but Sharpton taunts him: "If we're lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it." Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and stabbed to death.

1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, Freddy's white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy's are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We're going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.


If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe. But far from being spurned, he is shown much deference. Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him. And journalists report on his comings and goings while politely sidestepping his career as a hatemongering racial hustler.

Imess should have nailed him with ever one of these events. But oh no..he bowed down and kiss ass.
Would have been perfect timing. Show up and say you're there to apologize, then nail him on his own hypocrisy. :twisted:
User avatar
Arp2
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:58 pm

Post by Arp2 »

Staples and Bigelow Tea pull ads from Imus program.

...and a big one....

P&G pulls all daytime ads from MSNBC.
User avatar
Big Media
Member
Member
Posts: 2286
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:46 pm
Location: Cruising I-64

Post by Big Media »

Arp2 wrote:Staples and Bigelow Tea pull ads from Imus program.

...and a big one....

P&G pulls all daytime ads from MSNBC.
Hideous overreaction.
User avatar
The People's DJ
Pimp Hand
Pimp Hand
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: Not in Wheeling...thank God.

Post by The People's DJ »

Arp2 wrote: P&G pulls all daytime ads from MSNBC.
So...whats the deal with that? "We're going to pull all our daytime ads..but we'll run at night."
?????????????????????? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Unless they don't run night time ads. Don't know. Don't watch. Don't care.

Oh...and I'm looking for a new avatar. I might offend someone(s) with it. Don't want to do that.

Imess did get one thing right. You can't say anything in the United States without pissing someone off.
Post Reply