I know, not another Imus thread, but.........

For better or worse, here's my take on the Imus debacle.

First of all, for the record, I think Imus is a first class asshole. I used to listen to his program from time to tome but stopped listening during the summer of 2004 when I got satellite radio in my car. I always thought that he was a jerk when I listened back then but didn't really care as he often had interesting guests on and often got them to say things that they wouldn't say in other forums.

While I was aware that there occasionally was racist, sexist and just plain mean-spirited banter going on, I guess that I put up with it by convincing myself that it was "satire" and that I'd heard worse on Limbaugh and other right wing shows. I'm also sure that I heard a lot worse things said than "nappy headed hos" on Imus over the years. Usually I'd just grimace and let it pass. I suppose I should have been more outraged, but like many, I took the bad along with what I perceived was the good.

In any case, when the story broke last week I thought, "Imus made an offensive comment? Yeah, and what else is new?". Anyone who had ever listened to him must have known that this was his shtick. I thought that the remark was nothing out of the ordinary for that show. When the controversy blew up as it did I was really surprised. If you had asked me a week ago if Imus would be fired, I would have said that that was never going to happen. How wrong I was.

I'll be honest here, what Imus said was totally out of bounds and I don't care one way or the other that he lost his job, but what was the big deal with this particular statement? Why was this one more scrutinized than the hundreds of other offensive ones that he's uttered over the years. I'm reminded of "Casablanca" when Capt. Renault was "Shocked, Shocked!" to see gambling in Rick's casino. Folks, the guy was paid to say these things. If being racist, misogynistic or homophobic was truly a fireable offense by these media outlets, Imus should have been canned 20 years ago. Rush, O'Reilly, Boortz, Gallagher and all the other right wing clowns would be long gone too. Again, all of those have said a lot worse than Imus.

I'm not trying to defend Imus here. I'm trying to point out that for some reason, this episode and it's result was an aberration. The interesting story, for me at least, is why Imus became the sacrificial lamb. Why did the sponsors abandon him (especially on the radio) so quickly? Had Imus kept his mouth shut, left the air earlier in the week to serve his suspension - would that have been enough to take the story off the front page and allow the frenzy to die down? Something's odd about this. I really thought Imus was going to survive this, at least on the radio due to his powerful connections, many of whom continued to defend him to the end.

I'm also scratching my head over the belief of so many in the sincerity of the motives of the corporations here. What an amazing display of feigned sanctimony. What a total crock! Again, Imus was encouraged (or at least never discouraged) by his employers to say hateful things because people listened, advertisers liked the demographics and the show made a shitload of money for CBS. As soon as the calculus became clear that enough sponsors had baled or might bail if he stayed, he was toast. Don't think for a minute though, that this had anything to do with corporate concerns about racism or the feelings of the Rutgers women's basketball team. It's all about the money and always will be.

Finally, The left won nothing, despite their "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" bloviating. Don Imus ---- big fucking deal. Limbaugh's the 800 pound gorilla here and he's doing just fine, thanks. Seen any right wing talkers lose their jobs lately? No you didn't. Imus is not a right or left winger, he's a narcissist (thanks, LTR). Right wing talk is completely unscathed by this. If anything, all of this energy spent over toppling Imus will probably work to strengthen right wing talk. The left will sit around and gloat mistakenly thinking that they won some battle over "civility" or against hate radio on the airwaves and the right will use it as a lesson on how not to handle things the next time one of them says something stupid and offensive (which will happen about 20 times today). Do you really think that Cheyney's going to stop appearing on Limbaugh?

In a week we'll be on to the Gonzales testimony. In six months Imus will be on XM radio. In one year the right wing will be spewing hate over the airwaves just as vehemently and successfully as the do today.

It's hard to read like it is now.

Thanks. CB

I'm sure there were people back in the day who said, "sure I realize it's wrong that blacks have to sit in the back of the bus, but why the big deal with Rosa Parks all of a sudden? This has been going on for years, so why now? Besides, does it really matter where she sits as long as she gets to where she's going?" Rosa Parks took a stand and it caught the national imagination and sparked a new awareness in the nation.

I submit that this Imus transgression was just one such incident that suddenly made people sit up and react ... even though it was not unique and even though others commit the same 'crimes' on the radio all the time. Why this one? Because people like basketball; because these were young women and students, not public figures; because they were specific girls--not abstract groups or entities-- who had achieved much and done nothing wrong. It struck the nation as suddenly morally unacceptable, and hopefully it will lead to new pathways toward more civility in our media and society in general.

You're looking at it wrong if you see this as some sort of "punishment" meted out to Don Imus. This was not a court of law and he did not do anything illegal. He did something socially unacceptable ... something the nation finally decided to think about and reject. It was not about firing him. It was about the networks' consciousness being raised, and their having to decide whether this type of show should be part of their schedule.

Chill ... Imus will be just fine. Our focus should be on continuing to build on issues of responsibility in the media, on our public airwaves.

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I don't feel Imus was "punished". I contend that this has little to do with Imus's comments per se. He committed an offense much worse than racism in America: threatening corporate profitability. This had to do with an actual loss of revenue to CBS and a fear of revenue loss by the sponsors. CBS decided Imus's show would never regain it's ability to generat cash and so he was cut loose. This should have happened to many others in addition to Imus before but for some reason it didn't. Perhaps you are right about the fact that it was a personal attack on young black atheletes although that's been done plenty before. This thing took on a life of it's own. Again, I am in no way defending Imus, but I hear and read worse all the time and never notice a peep from any corporate source. I guess that the multi-nationals are just fine and dandy with what Rush says. As for the Rosa Parks analogy, I'm afraid that this will have no long term positive effect on race relations, although I hope that I am wrong.

I think Imus found himself on the wrong side of the line when he took a step over, huge bonehead move, and the line moved away from him and msnbc built a wall on the new line to keep him out. He never should have moved to the msnbc studio. MSNBC tried to have women sit at Charles desk and read the news, plus all the activity in the studio. Very bad mix. As bad as Imus could be he had more information than the other morning programs. The last thing I want is Matt Lauer clones every where I turn.

...but I tend to agree with your post.

I also could care less if Imus were to be on the air for another 30 years or rather just be replaced by a younger (probably more cleverly vile) host. I am for freedom of speech. I see that while his remarks did not violate any broadcasting rules or regulations set forth by the FCC they were in bad taste.

Being a white male I probably do not have the same gut reaction to his words that some may. Perhaps I have no room to even speculate on the hurt his words may have caused.

First let me say that if people want to protest a personality being broadcast over the public airwaves, I support them as their free speech to protest is just as protected as anyone else's free speech. Also, for sponsors to remove their support for a specific radio host is completely understandable. If I were in the advertising business this whole situation would probably be enough for me to reconsider my sponsorship of a show like Imus'.

However, there are 2 things that I'm not sure I'm happy about in this whole situation. First and foremost the seemingly hypocritical outcry THIS time.(maybe this is just how I see it?) As mentioned in the original post, Imus has been spewing hate and basically his racist, sexist, discriminatory views on the world for decades. Others have and still do as well. So why the outcry this time around? Second, this proves that loud angry voices can change the world. But forced change out of anger does not stop the hate it only promotes it.

For as many reasons as Imus' words can be seen as either racist or sexist, I'll call them "discriminatory" from here on, I feel that the hypocritical outcry is just as "discriminatory". After all, many others on many forms of media have spoken discriminatory words probably much more offensive than these. To only outcry IN THIS SITUATION seems to be discriminatory in itself. I don't care who is making the noise, only that they are making an outcry against one but not another. To me that is more telling of the discriminatory atmosphere in our country than ANYTHING Imus said THIS time around. To point out one and not another is no better than how shrub laid into Pelosi but made no mention of McDoofus or any other repuke that also visited Syria. Am I wrong on this???

That being said, there is now proof that if someone dislikes someone who is different enough, and makes a big enough stink, they can cry discrimination and force a change on the world. Doesn't this only point out that people of different races, genders, cultures, etc dislike each other? Whats the point?

Why not instead simply point out that people using discriminatory words are in fact the ones who are the outcasts. Those who choose to respect one another are the mainstream. It will only be through allowing people the option to be either respectful or hateful that we will ever accomplish anything.

Most people discriminate on some level, even subconsciously. It is human nature to fear what is unknown to us. It is only through education and a mutual understanding that discrimination can be shed from our minds. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but the thought of anything less leads me to believe that the world is hopeless, so why even try?