OFFICIAL FIRE RUSH, BECK, AND COULTER THREAD

This is a networking / mobilization thread.

If you want to discuss other offensive broadcasters, RW or not, start your own thread.

It is assumed that posters on this thread agree that recent statements by Rush, Beck, and Coulter are so incredibly offensive and intolerable that anyone who broadcasts or advertises on their networks should be targeted for allowing these people to remain on the air.

Now we must do it -- now, not some time in the future after they have time to establish a discourse that suddenly firing them bears no relation to what happened to other broadcasters recently. Either liberals want to establish a new standard or they don't. The new standard must be applied now or else it does not exist.

Let the mobilization begin.

What action can we take to get the ball rolling.

Perhaps contacting Sharpton and maybe Jackson and asking them to join the public push against these three would help?

There are four key tasks, I think.

See Post #27 for suggestions on how to proceed.

I have to sign off now, please K&R! :hi:

remarks. Might become a powerful voice.

Imus could serve penance by turning his curmudgeonly cynicism on other broadcasters who get a pass for the same (or worse) infractions that got him fired.

Not to mention formerly-RW Dems like Murtha, and Byrd!

Then he might actually make a good spokesman, provided
he was contrite... then again, he doesn't seem very
contrite to me (and he would be percieved as having a
bone to pick.)

What about Michael Richards as a spokesperson?

More contrite, at the very least... already striving
to save his career with Sharpton and other folks who
are working on this issue.

I don't think he's going to slink away, he'll take prisoners :D

She doesnt really work for anybody. People have to stop buying her books (wont happen).

I agree that Imus's fate should be visited upon Coulter, Rush, and others who engage in the exact same kind of hate speech.

Ghost writer or not, I don't think she's going to be able to string together a coherent sentence, much less another "book", for much longer. Personally, I suspect meth to be the culprit. She's really unhinged lately, even for her.

But personally, I think it's a congenital issue. She seems to feed on hatred.

She's like Gollum, but without the sex appeal.

:rofl:

emissions - that is "firing" her - she is an independent contractor of sorts, but the market can work against her.

CNN should be held to the same standard as MSNBC and CBS (so should Fox Noise, but we have to take it one step at a time).

will_in_chicago posted this list of Beck's sponsors earlier. It's a good place to start, IMHO.

These kinds of firing only happen when the networks are threatened with loss of revenue.

Until it reaches that stage, the controversy -- even putting Rush or Beck on probation -- is actually a revenue booster.

They have to be threatened with loss of revenue owing to specific comments they have made.

We need to compile a list of advertisers and pressure them to drop these shows.

definitely be helpful. Of course, it will be interesting to find out if I've purchased anything from those sponsors.

The more similar to the Rutgers remarks the better.

And get commentators "on record" via Kieth Olbermann and other sympathetic journalists.

"On record" meaning anyone who said the same about Imus.

"CNN must fire Glenn Beck" same for Rush, and Coulter.

There can be no double standard, or else the commentators in question
don't really care about the Rutgers girls and other victims of this sort
of abuse, in which case they should be mocked on-air for their hypocrisy.

"It has recently been revealed."

Right Wingers use their version constantly to
create new issues every week and direct the crowd to act
in a certain way, regardless of when the info first came out:

"Some people are now saying...."

We happen to have our own such statement:

"It has recently been revealed."

This puts the talking heads on Olbermann's and other show in a tight spot
because it forces them to say "no, we already knew about that" or "that's
ancient history and not really relevant."

Which opens them (apologists for Beck et al) up to immediate charges of
defending racism and sexism.

"We've heard alot about Imus. However, it has
recently been revealed that Glenn Beck said ----.
What should the consequences be? Please don't
avoid the issue. It seems to me it is time for
Beck to go. Wouldn't you agree? The statement
is not as bad? How so?"

as for the off-air sponsor campaign, simple and polite emails, phone calls, and letters have a significant impact.

Plus, just *listing* the advertisers by name on a public form tends to get their attention. It's really amazing how effective that can be.

Rush told a black man to "get that bone out of your nose."

Obviously, words can hurt, and statements have consequences.
We know that. Our friends in the media know that. As more
and more of these statements are Just Now coming to light,
I believe It is time for Rush to go.

:hi:

Should we start with lower people, or go right for the big guy meaning rush.

Rush or O'Reilly are too big and too explicitly political, go after one of their hacks like Beck or Weiner.

He should be next in line. Your tax dollars are paying for him to be broadcast to the troops by way of Armed Forces Radio. Do you think ALL the troops in the field benefited from hearing rush tell the troops in the field things like, "Call me back after you take that bone out of your nose?"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

Ask your congressman why your money is being spent to fund hate radio, by way of the Pentagon.

I also think that Rush is a worse offender than Hannity and Beck, though they are both very bad.

WE own that!

Edit...I wrote Senator Byrd about it several months back and in a few days I saw him bring it up on the Senate floor and raise hell about it! If more senators spoke up about this things might change! The PEOPLE raising hell is what brought Imus down. The people STILL have the final say so!

The Hate Speech Must Stop

Please keep this thread kicked!

I suggest we break it down into four parts, one person should bottomline each part --

** Prioritize the worst offender. Consult with groups like RAINBOW PUSH and ADL.

-------> Order of 1, 2, 3

** Prioritize who is most difficult to defend, jobwise. Consult with media types.

-------> Order of 1, 2, 3

** Media campaign ("it has recently been revealed...they must go.")

-------> List of offending statements.

** Sponsor campaign (pressure, boycott if need be, stay in contact w/ groups mentioned above)

-------> List of offending advertisers.

I forgot that part.

A fifth DUer is needed to bottomline this task.


-------> List of possible media spokespeople / bulldogs


(Jesse Jackson, KO, a contrite Imus or Michael Richards
a la George Wallace, you name it, they have to be sincere and willing)

Sharpton might be too obvious a choice, due to his "ambulance chasing"
reputation among the people who have to be convinced. He has staked
out a reputation as a mediator, but having Sharpton take the lead on
pressing this issue further might be too transparent. We need a
"good cop, bad cop" strategy on spokespeople.

Yeah, yeah I'm pimping the thread. Since I'm going
offline for the rest of the day, I don't want this
to disappear down the memory hole.

ie: sponsors/advertisers. The networks that employ them know what they are about, they are used to the outrage from the left, hell, they thrive on it.

At the end of the day though, networks look at the bottom line, how much money are we making off these jerks. convince the advertisers to pull out and take their money elsewhere, and you have them by the short hairs.

will remain as an example of what we do to those cockroaches.

This is an important topic. This institutionalized racism is the engine behind this current invasion. It is the reason that so many of our soldiers are blacks and hispanics have been driven into the armed forces in search of a 'better life'. I have had to listen to these bastards poison public discourse for almost thirty years. The RW used to get lots of attention and capitulation when they loudly boycotted sponsors of 'liberal' media. Now WE are the damn majority. Time for the same from us. NO MORE!

please?

who sponsors his show?

I will never forget that disgusting performance of his. He needs to be off the air.

Do we have a list of the crap they have said and done?

I have no idea what his ratings are but I doubt they're anyway near that of O'Reilly's or Hannity's.

I saw a poll on one of the boards here (can't remember where) about whether this whole thing is being overplayed, and MOST people said it is. This is on DU, mind you.

I think it is definitely being overplayed. Drudge now has a quote from Sharpton up on his site: "SHARPTON VOWS MORE: 'It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves'....

Is this really the position we want to take? Shutting down what is permitted on the airwaves? What about shutting down what is permitted on the Internet? Does that come next? And who gets to decide what's offensive?

I seriously hope we don't become the party of silencing our opposition, because that is NOT going to play well with Americans who value freedom of expression. You can't shut up everybody who says something offensive. These kinds of orchestrated campaigns to shut people up and get them fired are going to make people wonder who is next to be silenced. Republicans are already gathering ammunition on Al Franken for some of the comedy bits and outrageous statements he has said/written about groups ranging from gays to blacks to Republicans when he was a writer for Saturday Night Live and on Air America. This WILL come back to bite, and potentially in very ugly ways.

I don't want a party that tries systematically to shut up its enemies. Talking back and making idiots and bigots look like the fools they are is the best response, and always has been. Getting people fired, sequentially, as you seem to be suggesting here, is a monumentally bad idea.

As much as I would love to see those douchebags shut up for good, I don't want the Dems to be the party to silence the opposition. The Republicans did that to us, and it nearly destroyed the country. One party having too much power can be a bad thing, and Bush and his cronies certainly proved that one.

Either demand Imus be reinstated on free speech grounds (and let me see
a poll of hypocrites on DU who don't want to have their cake and eat it too)

Or make sure the principle is applied equally across the board.

Let me clear about this. I think it was wrong for them to fire
Imus. But now that the principle has been established, IT MUST
BE APPLIED FAIRLY. WE must exercise the same right CBS did.

Otherwise you are saying WE don't get to play by THEIR rules.
Is that what you're saying?

I have NO sympathy for right wing talk jocks, NONE. The principle
has been established with Imus and it will do NO further damage to
"freedom of speech" for THEM to suffer the blowback.

Indeed, WHEN we do this and get them fired in the course of this year,

it will make them think twice NEXT time they use the levers of power
to sacrifice a "liberal" like Dan Rather or Imus for making
stupid remarks of the sort they say in private EVERY DAY.

These sort of racist statements get made all the time -- if not
on the air, in private by ruling-class journos who live in cushy
Manhattan flats and Chevy Chase or Westfield bungalows. No sense
in setting up a scapegoat who they can use to claim the problem
has been solved, a la Martha Stewart. The ball must be passed
to the opposing team, along with the ground gained.

Now that you have had your sacrificial lamb, you can't say "OH, WE
DIDN'T MEAN THIS DECISION TO APPLY TO ANYBODY ELSE GOING FORWARD
(Remember Supreme Court 2000?) AND FORTUNATELY IT WON'T, BECAUSE
WE DON'T PLAN ON APPLYING IT TO ANYONE WE DON'T WANT TO. SORRY IF
THE PEOPLE WE DID APPLY IT TO HAPPENED TO HAVE THE WRONG FRIENDS,
AND THE WRONG ENEMIES, AND THE WRONG INVESTMENTS. WHEN WE WANT TO
REMIND EVERYONE OF THIS PRECEDENT NEXT TIME WE DECIDE TO MAKE AN
EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE, WE WILL LET YOU, THE CONSUMER, KNOW. IT IS NOT
YOUR CALL TO MAKE."

When the Television tells you the principle will be applied to someone else, someone
they deem expendable, you will find out from the Television, and the Pavlovs who
vote in these polls will suddenly "switch on" and demand THAT person's resignation, too.

Or we can take power in our own hands and prove a point.

Look, violence is immoral too. It is generally considered forgivable,
however, to attack someone who is invading your house. The house of
democracy is being burned down all about you and you want to play fair.

First off, what Imus said was insensitive to the women of the Rutgers basketball team. We've all said some stupid things in our lives that we wish we could take back, and I'm sure the "nappy-headed hos" comment is one of them for Imus. He should have been subjected to a disciplinary procedure like being suspended without pay. If MSNBC and CBS decided to fire him, they should have made their decision without being influenced by all the hair pulling and jumping about from Imus's critics. But in watching the media circus of the last week, the management at both networks caved to the will of hypocrites (Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson) to give this matter the whiff of "doing the right thing."

Now that there's this precedent of Imus being fired, critics of right-wing talk radio are on the warpath and want the scalps of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck -- heck, all of them, right? This is the stuff that led to the proscriptions during the latter years of the Roman Republic. If, as has been said, that the house of democracy is burning, eliminating opposing voices is like adding jet fuel to the flames. Where does it stop? It won't stop. The left got its revenge for Dan Rather by seeing Imus eliminated, and now it wants more. More, more, more! Critics of talk radio might eliminate another name or two from the airwaves, but then the right will shoot back and take down an Olbermann or a Maher (again). And then the right will want more, more, more! It will then spiral downward from there. The silencing of political speech will burn this country down to its foundations.

True, the opposition is prone to saying outrageous and, quite often, offensive statements. But we still have a First Amendment, and it applies to all of us. If something is said by a right-wing media figure that crosses the line, you also have the right to turn the radio dial, switch the TV channel, not buy the publication, and -- of course -- give them hell right back with your opinion. If what's spoken or written REALLY crosses the line, the employer of said media figure should act accordingly. By all means, let's hear what everyone has to say. After all, it's the liberal thing to do.

There are other, better ways to deal with the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of this world. Bartcop probably has the best tactic to deal with them, if you read his blog. But citing the precedent of Imus being fired to get the others off the air is not it. It's dangerous, and I'm opposed to anyone on any side desiring to open that Pandora's Box.

For instance, Imus can't get away with what he said, but Rush can
because people on DU let him.

Interesting how Television is capable of getting DUers riled up to
get Imus fired, on the basis of equally repulsive statements, that
Rush has made, but go back to sleep afterwards.

but the people defending Imus aren't willing to fire someone like
Glenn Beck, or Rush for saying "take that bone out of your nose."
It's consistency -- or nothing.

The ball is in your court.

Either start a thread demanding that Imus be re-instated.

Or demand that the principle be applied consistently.

Otherwise you're simply hijacking a thread which was intended to
DO SOMETHING about the horrible comments Rush, Beck and Coulter
have made recently.

It's not enough to say "I'm willing to live with Imus being fired,
but turnabout isn't fair play, OK? Let's not have us on DU play
according to THEIR rules. That would be arrogating too much power
into the hands of bloggers. Television is a FREE medium!"

If the Imus firing established a precedent, you're now going to use it to retroactively declare conservative commentators "guilty" for their past statements, pre-Imus debacle. But when a precedent is set, should it be just, compliance with the decision is applied from that point forward. Whatever happened before the precedent should not be subject to punishment. What I'm seeing in the majority of opinion in this thread is that the Imus firing is actually not a desire to act upon a precedent, but a justification to eliminate the opposition, any opposition. You've already stated you don't want to play fair, and what's the point of fair play if you're not going to follow a precedent?

I also don't think the "Imus Principle" will be applied consistently. For example, will Sean Hannity lose his job if he describes a conservative witch-hunt by liberals wanting him off the air as part and parcel of a "mob mentality," especially if his opposition is led by Al Sharpton? Maybe, maybe not. Will Ann Coulter be taken off the air as a Fox commentator if she calls John Edwards "Breck Girl?" Maybe, maybe not. Who decides, and what is his or her motivation? And when will someone actually lose his or her job -- or worse -- for simply disagreeing with us, even if they are not being disagreeable?

I reiterate that if we silence the voices of the opposition, no matter how much we don't like what they say, it's a dangerous thing for the Republic. You and your supporters on this thread are playing into the right's hands when they criticize liberals who believe "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."

As for starting a thread to get Don Imus reinstated? That's someone else's problem. My problem is with a faulty principle that will never be applied consistently and -- more importantly -- fairly. There is nothing fair about silencing opposing opinions.

that is retroactive to all the things he said in the past
(or else he wouldn't have lost his job.)

If the Imus firing established a precedent, you're now going to use it to retroactively declare conservative commentators "guilty" for their past statements, pre-Imus debacle. But when a precedent is set, should it be just, compliance with the decision is applied from that point forward. Whatever happened before the precedent should not be subject to punishment.

This isn't a court of law. Your concern for the livelihoods of these guys is noted, though.

I'm all for freedom of speech. We now know what the limits are on the radio. Time to play fair. Fair is fair.

You and your supporters on this thread are playing into the right's hands when they criticize liberals who believe "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."

Who said anything about "freedom of speech for me"? I don't see a lot of people advocating freedom of speech for Imus here. Those of us who ARE advocating freedom of speech for Imus -- including Bubba, Ed Schultz's sports color commentator BTW -- are simply saying the principle has to be applied fairly or else this is a RAW EXERCISE OF POWER.

Freedom of speech is already a dead letter when it comes to radio jocks, because of the 1996 Telecom act (signed by our very own Bill Clinton) and the 1980's repeal of the Fairness act.

What the right wingers are saying is "Freedom of speech for me, but not for Imus."

In which case it's our jobs to prove to them that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Didn't your pa ever tell you that? Or do we have a lot of "be sensitive" folks in the house? Hell, I believe "love your enemies" -- but don't let them put one over on you.

Apply the principle fairly or reinstate Imus -- don't be hypocritical and say you have no problem with Imus being fired, but you do have a problem with Rush being fired.

As for starting a thread to get Don Imus reinstated? That's someone else's problem. My problem is with a faulty principle that will never be applied consistently and -- more importantly -- fairly.

Because you're unwilling to be consistent.

And nobody leading a petition drive will get his job back because it's one big waste of time. Furthermore, Don Imus is a big boy. He can take care of himself without anyone else's help. For all we know, he's probably in negotiations with satellite radio as we debate this matter. Furthermore, I don't give a hoot for Imus's welfare so much as I care that people in this country can still make provocative opinions short of inciting violence.

If I have any problem with Imus being fired it's because his employers gave in to the demands of civil rights leaders who made worse racial statements themselves. Jesse and Al are throwing stones in their own glass houses, but Imus's former bosses must think those homes are made of Plexiglas.

Now if Limbaugh said the same thing Imus did (as a political commentator, not a sports commentator) and got himself fired by the same court of public opinion, I'd have a problem with that, too. And I'd still have a problem with the left seeing said firing as an opportunity to silence all conservative voices who don't skip to its lou. In that regard, I am consistent.

Should Limbaugh, Hannity, et al be defeated, they have to be taken down by a better offering in the marketplace of free ideas -- not by the faults of Don Imus, and not by advocates of censorship and prior restraint. With Bush's ratings in the tank, I'd say liberals are offering the public a better choice on all fronts these days. The president's right-wing court jesters aren't fooling people like they used to. But to pull the plug on them en masse just because they are the provocative opposition? You're staring into the abyss, and it's staring back into you.

c'mon folks, if we put our minds to it...

Summary: On his national syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh referred to the alleged victim of a rape by members of the Duke University lacrosse team as a "ho[]."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004

He absolutely should go. He doesn't just mouth off opinions, he stirs up hatred and racism. His comment about Rep. Ellison was way beyond decent speech. He called the Katrina victims "scumbags." :wtf:

That's it, for me. Hate speech is profane, and I want it off the air. We don't allow the KKK to promulgate their hatred on our airwaves, do we? Nor do we allow NeoNazis to discuss over our airwaves that Jews all deserve to die and the Holocaust never happened. Why aren't they allowed to spew their vitriol? We have the right to free speech, don't we?

Up to a point. That point is called decency.

I despise Glenn Beck. Media matters has a nice little list of some of his comments. If you want to immobilize an army, take down the generals. Beck is a general in the right wing army.

Either reinstate Imus or apply the principle fairly.

RATHER WAS ALSO SHITCANNED. ALL THE LIBERALS ON AIR EXCEPT "Token" Olbermann -- who is openly mocked by his bosses as their "Howard Beale" -- ARE BEING SHITCANNED

and DU still wants to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules.

and even worse, AGREES with Rush when he calls someone a "ho" -- I am
beginning to think we have a "coalition of concerned centrists" on DU.

Maybe because we don't have a huge membership of Katrina survivors on DU? There are certainly quite a few, but nothing touches a nerve on DU quite like bigotry towards blacks, probably because we have purposefully made ourselves aware that it is a genuine problem in America.

Beck, however, is a coward at heart and chooses "safe" targets: Muslims, women, disaster victims, terrorism victims. He knows where the line is and doesn't cross it. Imus is an idiot, but he's not a coward like Beck. Glenn Beck is a slow-acting poison in our society, like Coulter, like Limbaugh. But for some reason, maybe because it's his cornpone demeanor, people don't recognize how insidious his vitriol really is.

Here's the Crooks & Liars link to Franken singling out Beck. He makes some good points.
http://tinyurl.com/33tz7o

We label speech on CD's, why not have them labeled as occasionally offensive and not to be taken as news? The whole problem with these folks is acceptance of their spew as some sort of legitimate truthful news with commentary by some members of society.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Except for election fraud and a couple other hot-button topics that
a few people are willing to hammer away on. (which does not include Katrina)