Imus won't go quietly

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/news/newsmakers/pluggedin_arango_imus.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007050208

Imus won't go quietly

The talk show host has hired a top First Amendment lawyer, and an unusual clause in his contract could give him a $40 million pay day, writes Fortune's Tim Arango.

FORTUNE Magazine
By Tim Arango, Fortune writer
May 2 2007: 8:21 AM EDT

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Don Imus, the tousled and acerbic radio host whose racial remarks engendered a media storm that triggered a swift upending of his career, is not going away quietly even if the imbroglio has all but disappeared from the national conversation in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre.

For Imus, who made a career out of operating in the murky space between sophomoric humor and high-brow political talk, there is the little matter of about $40 million left on his contract with CBS Radio - whose boss Les Moonves fired the shock jock on April 12. CBS' lawyers contend Imus was fired for cause and not owed the rest of the money.

But Imus, has hired one of the nation's premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted, according to a source who has read the contract.

The language, according to the source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of - making off-color jokes. The source described it as a "dog has one bite clause." A lawsuit could be filed within a month, the source predicted.

A CBS spokesman declined comment, and Imus, through his attorney, also declined an interview.

more...

I am certain that DU will handle this new legal challenge in the same measured calm way we dealt with the initial incident.

Or more likely we'll ignore it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Measured calm? Ignore??

:rofl: :spray:

Gee, it looked to me like a smug white multi-millionaire making fun of a bunch of college women who had no warning that he was going to pick on them, couldn't do anything about it, and couldn't bring nearly the public airwave and money backing to fight back effectively to his unfair, racist, and sexist slur.

Gosh, the I-man is such a victim in all this. I'd almost forgotten how unfair the world is to white male multi-millionaires who "work" nearly three hours a day, four or five days a week.

I would think a lawyer versed in contractual agreements would be more fitting. It boils down to what his contract says and not what the Constitution says. No one has a Constitutional right to a TV or Radio program...Imus can stand on the street corner and spout all the hatred he wishes but when accepting another person's money he must accept his bosses wishes as what is acceptable, or find another job...

I submitted a guest editorial to the local newpaper yesterday. I have the right to say what I said, but they have no obligation to print it. Similarly, Imus can say anything he wants to say, but MSNBC doesn't need to broadcast it. It is, as you said, a contractual issue rather than a constitutional issue.

he has decided to make an issue of his firing. The trial could be must see TV with clips of all of his bigoted remarks and the CBS suits yucking it up with him as he trashes somebody who can't fight back. Should be a real eye opener.

No, I don't miss.

for an undisclosed amount, out of court.

more years than most on this board are old.... His boss was unhappy with his job performance, he has been warned numerous times before. Your services are no longer required.... End of story.. Some lawyer talked him into doing this, count on it. Mucho billable hours.

Assuming that female college players in a sport that is not all that popular are not considered public figures, making an untrue comment about a woman's virtue used to be libel per se. Surely in a case like this in which the women in question are quite young and have no forum in which to defend their reputations, a libel per se claim would have some merit. Imus had no basis whatsoever for saying that these young women were "Hos." Even today, saying that specific young women you have never met are "Hos" without any basis is not protected by the First Amendment. How would the husband or fiance of one of these young women feel? It was a personal insult and a lie about outstanding young women who had no way to correct the record.

MSNBC should do what is right and fight Imus to the last penny on this one.

Let's hope this teaches them not to hire these extreme right-wingers.

College athletes over 18, who play in a nationally televised game, are public figures. That's the whole point. It's not like they are playing in a club. No libel there.

I find it interesting that Imus had "character attacks" in his contract. If he had had a change of heart, and started doing a polite and mature show, he would have been fired for breach of contract. Quite a business.

Maybe Glenn Beck was contractually required to imply Rep. Ellison was working with terrorists?

jim

Hope before this ends that all the lying, spinning, complicit media hacks are exposed. Imus has done considerably less damage than Russert, Tweety, Fugger, Blitzer et al. His big mistake was calling for Cheney to be inpeached and hanged. He chose the wrong moment to make that disgusting racist 'so called off color joke' about the Rutgers ladies.

Bring them all to book.