So what would you have Imus do?

[A-Tex Devil]

The local afternoon radio show made an obvious statement about all this tonight, although I'd never really thought about it before:

When a white male says something derogatory/controversial about women or another race, and the only ones that are saying "things are getting blown out of proportion" are white males, there is likely a problem.

Not to say that this particular situation is or is not getting blown out of proportion, but, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aside, other people who are not white males are upset, and that's a pretty key thing to remember.

[gus]

First things first, Imus is not a racist.

I have a small sample size to work with - I don't listen to him. His comments about Ifill and now, several years later, his comments about the rutgers women, don't really help support your assertion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/ar...on/07imus.html

And in 2001 he took a pledge, guided by the Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, to refrain from making further racist comments on his program.

Someone who "is not racist" shouldn't have to make a pledge to refrain from making racist comments.

If it quacks like a duck...

[TNTDevil]

I have a small sample size to work with - I don't listen to him. His comments about Ifill and now, several years later, his comments about the rutgers women, don't really help support your assertion.

Someone who "is not racist" shouldn't have to make a pledge to refrain from making racist comments.

If it quacks like a duck...

Two comments, both intended to be humourous (but missing the mark), over 30 some years... yeah, he's a flaming racist. What about the other examples I cite, the ones you chose to ignore?

[gus]

Two comments, both intended to be humourous (but missing the mark), over 30 some years... yeah, he's a flaming racist. What about the other examples I cite, the ones you chose to ignore?

Whether his racist comments were intended to be humourous does not change the fact that they are racist comments.

The fact that he had to take a pledge to stop making racist comments would seem to imply that he's had more than the two cited. That he had to make this public pledge surely must say something to you... and the fact that even *after* making that pledge he continues to make bigoted statements is even more damning.

As for your examples... well I'm not sure how supporting children with cancer refutes the notion that he's racist.

Supporting Ford- well, okay. People are complicated. Please forgive the cliche, but it's never black and white. I guarantee that Ford has support from other white racists as well. I don't know Imus's politics, but I imagine he supported Ford because they take similar positions on issues, and not because Ford is of african descent. My guess is that Imus agrees with his position on federal funding for stem cell research (pro), and based on the fact that Imus has also been criticized for repeated homophobic statements, his position against equal rights for gays.

[feldspar]

I have a small sample size to work with - I don't listen to him. His comments about Ifill and now, several years later, his comments about the rutgers women, don't really help support your assertion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/ar...on/07imus.html



Someone who "is not racist" shouldn't have to make a pledge to refrain from making racist comments.

If it quacks like a duck...

I would assume that with such a small sample size, you have no basis for passing such a sweeping judgement on a person. He made racist comments, yes, but I think you're over the line in calling him "a racist." You don't know Don Imus. I don't know Don Imus. None of us probably do.

I can think your comments are foolish, but that does not give me basis for calling you a fool. Why? Because I don't know you, gus.

The hyperbole being spewed forth as a result of Imus' hyperbole strikes me as incredibly ironic.

[gus]

I would assume that with such a small sample size, you have no basis for passing such a sweeping judgement on a person. He made racist comments, yes, but I think you're over the line in calling him "a racist." You don't know Don Imus. I don't know Don Imus. None of us probably do.

I can think your comments are foolish, but that does not give me basis for calling you a fool. Why? Because I don't know you, gus.

The hyperbole being spewed forth as a result of Imus' hyperbole strikes me as incredibly ironic.

Well, I tend to believe that hyperbole will save us all. But your point is taken- I don't know Imus personally. I don't know that he's *actually* a racist. All I know is that he repeatedly makes racist statements, even after pledging not to. Whatever his motivation is, the results are the same, and I'm not sure a non-racist idiot spouting racism is any more deserving of respect.

[JasonEvans]

My point would be this--

I don't care whether Imus is or is not a racist at heart. I don't care whether he does good things outside his radio program.

What I care about is that he has repeatedly made racist, biggoted remarks on his program. He's been warned about it in the past and has pledged to stop. Clearly, he has not stopped. Whether Imus believes what he says, his mean-spirited racist comments are not suitable to be broadcast to the masses. There are people out there whose own beliefs are affected by what they hear from someone like Imus. Racists hear Imus and think it is ok to feel that way. People who don't have clearly defined views on African-American women may hear Imus and be tilted a bit toward opinions that are destructive to society.

Look, you may say I am overreacting or whatever, but there is at least some real-life impact behind what Imus says on his program. MSNBC and CBS should not continue to allow this man on their air.

I suppose a zero-tollerance policy might be ok toward Imus, but my inclination would be to point out that he has been down this road in the past and there are certain things where you do not get 3rd or 4th chances.

-Jason "Imus has enough money-- his best move right now might be to retire and try a comeback in a year or so" Evans

[MrBisonDevil]

I believe racist comments may be an indication of a racist mindset. But, the majority of racist people do not say anything racist in public. Most racists prove themselves by actions which the vast majority of the public does not see or detect. I feel words are the easiest indicator of a possible racist mindset; therefore I tend to think racist words lead to racist actions.

Ducks my friends…

Though I do believe most people can change if they start learning from a different flock.

I've become numb racism in the U.S. (in business, in education, in the media) because it’s a part of everyday life in most places. Therefore, I could care less about what happens to Don Imus. He isn't nearly as bad as the shock jocks...

That's all I have to say.

[tux]

Well, you're right --- it was a cheap shot. (I editted the post.)

I was not reacting to the comments being called objectionable. They were way over the line. What I was reacting to was lumping Imus in with "shock jocks" --- it seems to me that people who don't watch his show have just seen or read one or two clips and are now drawing overly broad conclusions. Much of what is being said here and elsewhere does not capture IMO the essence of the show.

That being said, I'm in no way trying to give Imus a pass for what he said. He's been suspended for 2 weeks. He may very well be fired. I watch/listen for the serious component (which is quite good, for a morning show). That was my point. This is not Howard Stern talking to strippers and porn stars. Many democratic presidential candidates in 2004 made multiple appearances --- the interviews are usually quite good. Does that component make the comments worse? I don't know. Perhaps.

[Duvall]

Well, you're right --- it was a cheap shot. (I editted the post.)

I was not reacting to the comments being called objectionable. They were way over the line. What I was reacting to was lumping Imus in with "shock jocks" --- it seems to me that people who don't watch his show have just seen or read one or two clips and are now drawing overly broad conclusions. Much of what is being said here and elsewhere does not capture IMO the essence of the show.

Come on - it's more than one or two clips. At least admit that part of Imus' show is making forbidden and inappropriate statements for shock value. It's schtick, nothing more.

That being said, I'm in no way trying to give Imus a pass for what he said. He's been suspended for 2 weeks. He may very well be fired. I watch/listen for the serious component (which is quite good, for a morning show). That was my point. This is not Howard Stern talking to strippers and porn stars. Many democratic presidential candidates in 2004 made multiple appearances --- the interviews are usually quite good. Does that component make the comments worse? I don't know. Perhaps.

I guess that's what bothers me. Radio is a fetid cesspool of screeching morons and banal corporate music, and firing Imus won't change that one bit. But for some reason, Imus has this veneer of legitimacy that Stern and his countless imitators don't have - he has a show on MSNBC, a putative news channel, and he interviews presidential candidates, journalists and policymakers. They all treat him like a person of substance, and it's annoying.

[The Gordog]

Why is that everytime a white man says something racist, people always bring up Sharpton and Jackson? I realize they put themselves out there calling for opprobrium, but they are not usually the only two calling for apologies. Yet somehow any criticism of a racist like Imus is always met with "yeah, well Imus should apologize as soon as Sharpton apologizes for Tawana Brawley!". How far does that queue of required apologies go? Should David Duke and every other KKK member have to apologize before Sharpton apologizes? What Imus said is despicable independent of Sharpton's past.

But should Imus be suspended? He's a racist idiot - it shouldn't be a surprise when he says stupid things. If that's what his listeners what, why can him? Granted, it would be a sad commentary about how little progress the US has had, but getting rid of him won't fix that.

Here's a good op-ed from another target of Imus's idiocy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/op...=1&oref=slogin

Good question. I should have asked Steven myself.

[tux]

Come on - it's more than one or two clips. At least admit that part of Imus' show is making forbidden and inappropriate statements for shock value. It's schtick, nothing more.

Yes, that is part of the show. Usually, the cruel remarks are directed at bigger fish. The women of Rutgers didn't deserve to be targeted, for sure. Now, when he calls Cheney a "fat porkchop" and a "war criminal" --- well, that just warms my heart...

I guess that's what bothers me. Radio is a fetid cesspool of screeching morons and banal corporate music, and firing Imus won't change that one bit. But for some reason, Imus has this veneer of legitimacy that Stern and his countless imitators don't have - he has a show on MSNBC, a putative news channel, and he interviews presidential candidates, journalists and policymakers. They all treat him like a person of substance, and it's annoying.

In some cases, he is a person of substance. He raised quite a bit of money and awareness for the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, which funded the Center for the Intrepid in San Antonio; he also hammered away at the Walter Reed issue for several weeks --- casting blame in several directions, including at himself for not knowing how poorly the returning soldiers were being treated there. He has been an advocate for children with cancer and autism. So, those good deeds don't negate the "shock" elements or his recent comments, but they are legitimate and deeper than just veneer.

[crote]

Please, someone, explain this to me. I must not be getting it. What did Imus say that was so racially appalling? Is "nappy" no longer an acceptable term for describing African hair? Is "ho" considered tantamount to the n-word? Would this situation have developed if Imus had called a predominantly white team "a bunch of blonde-haired valley girls"? If not, what's the difference between the two?

He didn't make sweeping generalizations about black people, or women, or even female college basketball players. He was simply comparing the two teams. The Rutgers women looked sort of rough, whereas the Tennessee women were pretty. He was trying to be funny by using words not usually in the vocabulary of a 60-something white man.

Imus is probably guilty of taking unfair potshots at amateur athletes, possibly guilty of objectifying female basketball players, and definitely guilty of making a somewhat questionable comment in a media and political climate that thrives on these kinds of trumped up, manufactured controversies. I don't think any of that merits dismissal.

[g_olaf]

Please, someone, explain this to me. I must not be getting it. What did Imus say that was so racially appalling? Is "nappy" no longer an acceptable term for describing African hair? Is "ho" considered tantamount to the n-word? Would this situation have developed if Imus had called a predominantly white team "a bunch of blonde-haired valley girls"? If not, what's the difference between the two?

From the O.E.D.: ho (n.) 1. derogatory. A sexually promiscuous woman. 2. A prostitute.
Perhaps a more fair comparison would be if he said that the Duke team looked like a bunch of trailer park skanks, or a bunch of low-rent prostitutes. I would certainly find that offensive.

[TNTDevil]

Jeez, does no one understand that words actually still have meaning or, is the point of debate just to make over-reaching statements in defense of one's position?

He (Imus) has made, and been overheard/recorded, two statements! He's never used the "N" word or other overtly racist statements. Is two repeatedly? Persons on his crew (namely Bernard McGuirk) have mad many, many more very “iffy” comments about EVERYONE. But other than Imus’ “cleaning lady” reference and the latest comment those are the only two directly attributed to Don Imus.

And to Jason's point:
"People who don't have clearly defined views on African-American women may hear Imus and be tilted a bit toward opinions that are destructive to society."

Really? If these statements are possibly going to damage society then why is no one, particularly the leaders of the Black community, working to rein in the various forms of music where the words “I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.es, “hoes”, “n******”, “crackers”, “whitey” and, much worse are spewed over and over and over again to a target audience of black youth- a much different audience than Imus in the Morning. Yet no one seems to be railing against the likes of Fifty Cent or others who are actually profiting from these words and their “gangsta’” lifestyle.

Well, IMHO, the reason we’re going after Imus and not “Gangsta” rap music is because Imus is an old white dude and everybody feels the way to overcome racism is to punish the white man. What about the racism within the black community? Was Reverend Sharpton’s accusation toward the white police officers and prosecutor in the Tawana Brawley case far more damaging than the “nappy hair” statement? And Jackson's rush-to-judgment of the Duke LAX players- that wasn't based on the players being white?

I’ll stipulate that being born black in America can make life like running a race with a 50lb. sack on your back but, I fail to see how firing Imus will strike a blow against racism. Let's move past this manufactured controversy and get to a real dialogue on racism in America. And that can only start, IMHO, once the so-called black leaders take a good hard look themselves and get their own house in order.

[crote]

From the O.E.D.: ho (n.) 1. derogatory. A sexually promiscuous woman. 2. A prostitute.
Perhaps a more fair comparison would be if he said that the Duke team looked like a bunch of trailer park skanks, or a bunch of low-rent prostitutes. I would certainly find that offensive.

First of all, I'm amused that the OED actually has an entry for "ho". Second, you know just as well as I do that the way a word is used in the vernacular doesn't necessarily correspond with its dictionary meaning. Even more so when a word originates as slang and when someone is borrowing it from a vernacular that is not his own. In my estimation, "skank" is a much more severe and much less ambiguous word than "ho".

I'm not going to go on a philological investigation of the word, but let it suffice that "ho" needn't mean "whore" in every instance. In this instance, when it was spoken by an old white man, it almost certainly didn't. I would definitely take offense at a commentator calling the Duke women (or any women's team for that matter) a collection of whores. To put what Imus said in that light would be to misrepresent what he was saying, from my perspective at least.

Imus was trying to make a comparison between two sets of girls, and in doing so he used language that could be construed as sexist and, with a little ingenuity, as racist. He should have been more careful. But I'm not convinced that that alone makes him a racist or a bad man.

[EDIT: added the second half of the second paragraph]

[g_olaf]

He didn't know what ho means? I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that. The usage has been around for 40 years. An old white guy is more likely to use it in its original meaning. We can argue about what the definition of 'is' is, but the bottom line is, he called their team a bunch of whores, and I'm 100% confident that he knows what the word means.

I'm not going to weigh in on whether Imus is a 'bad man', but he crossed the line.

[crote]

He didn't know what ho means? I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that. The usage has been around for 40 years. An old white guy is more likely to use it in its original meaning. We can argue about what the definition of 'is' is, but the bottom line is, he called their team a bunch of whores, and I'm 100% confident that he knows what the word means.

If you listen to the statement in context, I really don't see how you can draw the conclusion that that was his intent, and in my book its intent that matters on issues like this. But I guess that's just a matter of opinion.

In any event, it's not the sexist nature of his comment that is drawing the most ire, but the racist component. How does that figure in? If he had just called them "skanks" and left out the nappy headed part, would this be largely forgotten by now? Probably. It only continues to be an issue now because we have a media that feeds on controversy, and a legion of Sharptons and Coulters and Jacksons and O'Reillys that thrive over such mountain/molehill inversions.

[JasonEvans]

MSNBC announced this evening that it has pulled Imus' show off their air for good.

As I stated earlier, I think this is an appropriate punishment.

It is still to be seen if this incident will cost him his radio show too.

The problem is going to be advertisers. MSNBC pertty much had to pull the show after a slew of really big companies announced today they would not advertise on his show any more. When Procter & Gamble, GM, Staples, and others are saying they won't have anything to do with you, you are in real trouble. I know radio advertising is a world apart from TV advertising, but I wonder if CBS is going to have trouble getting his syndicated radio show sponsored. I imagine that he wil stay on WFAN. He's an institution there.

-Jason "the only advertiser that stuck with him was GE-- which owns half of MSNBC" Evans

[feldspar]

From the O.E.D.: ho (n.) 1. derogatory. A sexually promiscuous woman. 2. A prostitute.
Perhaps a more fair comparison would be if he said that the Duke team looked like a bunch of trailer park skanks, or a bunch of low-rent prostitutes. I would certainly find that offensive.

Or perhaps a better comparison would be someone calling a bunch of Duke LAX players rich lilly-white trust fund rapists.

Or something like that.