Imus... Whose to Blame?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: The Decider Sharpton and Jackson could not have succeeded without a strong core of support in the nation.

I disagree. All they need to do is make the corporations THINK they have strong support. In the Imus case, nobody actually boycotted ANYTHING. The threat was apparently enough.

The Dixie Chicks have survived with a new audience and so will Don Imus.

I completely agree. They will do fine. The Chicks are still good and Imus is still rich. I see this debate as more the principle behind the firing and not the actual participants.

[sevendogs]

Imus was a pig. Another pig still at the trough is Rush Limbaugh, a drug addict and a liar. I would like to see him to follow Imus.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: sevendogs Imus was a pig. Another pig still at the trough is Rush Limbaugh, a drug addict and a liar. I would like to see him to follow Imus.

Frankly, I would like to see YOU and others who think this way just change the goddamned channel and allow others to watch and listen to what THEY want.

Or maybe other people should start "editing" what YOU like on the radio and TV. Would you like that?

[Ken Carman]

The employers made a business decision following the pull-out of Imus' only real worth to those employers--the big corporate sponsors. The employers kept the offensive I-man as long as the sponsors stayed with him. When they bailed, the I-man's value tumbled. For talk show hosts with huge audiences, like Rush Limbaugh, the loss of a few sponsors wouldn't be decisive. Twenty million listeners will attract new sponsors. Imus NEVER had those kind of listener numbers. I mean, his flagship station was a sports talk channel!

As I stated earlier, sponsors come and go: this is the nature of radio. I'd bet they'd find other sponsors to fill that void. The problem really isn't sponsors. And, yes, it was a business decision, just like taking the contact to build the death camps in WWII was a business decision. My question is one of ethics and morals. If you are ethical, which I define as the willingness to live up to the morals one claims to have, then regardless of profit you don't build the camps, or dump out quickly when you realize what's happening, or about to happen. You dump Imus when you realize what an arrogant, loudmouth prick he is... not long after that ethical horse has left the barn.

If business were only about profit then every business person would sell drugs, be involved in prostitution, or be selling poison as candy. Illegal? Yes. Profitable? Oh, God, yes. We as a society have decided to regulate and ban such things because, in part, of morals and ethics. Not that it works... but that's another dicussion, really. Many good business men and women, IMO, avoid the darker side to profit, even if it's legal, because they are ethical.

BTW, I've run my own business for well over twenty years. There are a lot of businesses I could have gotten into that would be far less ethical, but make a hell of a lot more money.

"Succeeded" in getting Imus fired,

I question even that. If this was only about what Jackson and Sharpton then it wouldn't have gone this far. I think you're giving them far more credit than they are due.

The label did not drop their talent because they knew the Chicks could appeal to other audiences. They still had economic value. Why would any company throw money away unnecessarily? In Imus' case, after companies like Procter and Gamble dropped their sponsorship, Imus was damaged goods. Why would CBS and NBC keep an economic liability? They are businesses first, moral activists second--a distant second.

There's a connection--music and advertising.

DUH. Played enough ads and wrote enough to know that...

.
And I'd bet that Imus still would have had economic value. Radio is a very flaky biz. Advertisers come and go. This would have blown over. Instead they tucked their tails in and ran. I disagree he was damaged in the long term. Radio has always been like this. Today you're the worst thing that hit the airwaves, tomorrow "you suck." Yesterday you were fired by J79. Tomorrow they hired you righty back.

The company can also argue that Imus' past insults targeted celebrities...

Of course they could argue that, they can argue any damn thing they want. But like George Bush, just because someone says "he never let the inspectors in" or "it's never been 'stay the course' doesn't make either true.

His "style of programming" no longer promised the big bucks.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's a weird business. Program directors have made a business, without getting fired, out of possibly bad predictions like that. Hell, I've worked under more than a few of them. I was one... for a short while, enough to know I'm not very fond of the breed. Stern's use of the name "Pig Vomit" for one of his programmers is probably one of the few things about Stern I find appealing. He knows radio, and how stupidly sleazy management can be. Could one claim that one who deals in sleaze on a daily basis, professionally, knows sleaze better than most when he hears, sees and "smells" it?

Yes.

[GHook93]

I heard the guy on 60 minutes. All I can say is what an utter piece of shit. I have no respect for his. I am glad he is off the air and I hope he take Rush Nutjob with him.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Ken Carman As I stated earlier, sponsors come and go: this is the nature of radio.

The Imus show was on TV and radio. He was fired from the TV show first. If Imus was just another radio shock jock, like Michael Savage, he'd probably still be spewing his insults today. His show was different. It appealed to the mainstream. It attracted big name politicians and writers.

Quote by: Ken Carman I'd bet they'd find other sponsors to fill that void.

Who? Procter and Gamble is one of America's most wholesome trademarks. If they think Imus would soil their business, how many other US companies would take such a risk? Imus wasn't in any danger of losing his job until P & G and others pulled the plug. And those decisions came after the Rutgers team held their first press conference, which turned the tide against Imus for good.

Quote by: Ken Carman My question is one of ethics and morals. If you are ethical, which I define as the willingness to live up to the morals one claims to have, then regardless of profit you don't build the camps, or dump out quickly when you realize what's happening, or about to happen. You dump Imus when you realize what an arrogant, loudmouth prick he is... not long after that ethical horse has left the barn.

It's business, period. Imus' shtick worked for MSNBC and CBS because the public outrage never threatened the sponsor revenue. This time Imus went after young college athletes and then botched the PR damage control for 48 hours. MSNBC and CBS still stuck by their foul-mouthed shock jock until the sponsors pulled out. What else did Imus have of value--his huge listener ratings? That was it. A business decision.

Quote by: Ken Carman If business were only about profit then every business person would sell drugs, be involved in prostitution, or be selling poison as candy. Illegal? Yes. Profitable? Oh, God, yes. We as a society have decided to regulate and ban such things because, in part, of morals and ethics. Not that it works... but that's another dicussion, really. Many good business men and women, IMO, avoid the darker side to profit, even if it's legal, because they are ethical.

And yet Imus wasn't immune to ethical lapses either. Hiring a man for "nigger" jokes was legal, but was it "ethical?" Did he have to court that "darker side" of the radio business to make a few extra bucks? That MSNBC and CBS profited from Imus' ethical lapses does them no credit either. But let's be honest, ethics is neither Imus' or MSNBC/CBS's strong suit. That leaves business. Imus became an economic liability.

Quote by: Ken Carman BTW, I've run my own business for well over twenty years. There are a lot of businesses I could have gotten into that would be far less ethical, but make a hell of a lot more money.

Well, I'm glad racist/sexist/homophobic shock jock was not one of those businesses you chose to pursue.

Quote by: Ken Carman If this was only about what Jackson and Sharpton then it wouldn't have gone this far. I think you're giving them far more credit than they are due.

If you've been following this debate you'd know that I'm not the one giving credit to Jackson and Sharpton for bringing down Imus. I've said repeatedly that "Imus screwed Imus." It was his words and especially the impact of those words on the Rutgers team during their first press conference that unseated the I-Man. Even Imus himself concedes that point. All other explanations, as he said during his last radio broadcast, are just "whining."

Quote by: Ken Carman And I'd bet that Imus still would have had economic value. Radio is a very flaky biz. Advertisers come and go. This would have blown over. Instead they tucked their tails in and ran. I disagree he was damaged in the long term. Radio has always been like this. Today you're the worst thing that hit the airwaves, tomorrow "you suck." Yesterday you were fired by J79. Tomorrow they hired you righty back.

I agree. Imus has a niche on radio. But Imus' unique career as TV/radio political interviewer-cum-shock jock is over. Do you see ABC resurrecting Imus in the Morning? Or even FOX? I don't, not in the short term anyway.

Quote by: Ken Carman Of course they could argue that, they can argue any damn thing they want. But like George Bush, just because someone says "he never let the inspectors in" or "it's never been 'stay the course' doesn't make either true.

Maybe Imus will try this argument. Is he fighting CBS/MSNBC for his old show? I don't remember seeing any mention of employment discrimination lawsuits.