Imus... Whose to Blame?

[Ken Carman]

My most recent Inspection takes a right angle, or left if you wish, off of the Imus affair. If you wish to read the whole column before commenting, there will be two links at the bottom of my post; one off site, one on. Choose your weapon.

Otherwise, here are two short blurbs.

"It's not an 'Imus' problem. If his employers had had a problem with Imus, or had the ethics of at least a child, they would have let him go a long time ago..."

"So the issue isn't Imus. The issue is the ethics of those who backed him financially until, as a society, the loudest amongst us said, 'Enough.'"

[tman_ndsu08]

Whose => ownership.

Who's => contraction of who is.

[Scribbler1]

I thought people here stopped nit-picking people's grammar some time ago.


Personally, I don't think ANYONE is to blame for the existence of Imus on the air. The bottom line is he made money for the networks, and they caved to pressure, thinking they would LOSE money if they kept him. People liked his show, and if his insults didn't turn off the fans, and in turn kill his ratings, the advertisers stayed and everyone concerned made money.

There are many things in our society that turn people off, but they either don't turn ENOUGH people off, or they don't have some pressure group to "champion" their cause. And, in a huge country like this, what you like is almost guaranteed to offend someone else. It's time we as a society either grew some thicker skin or learned to tune out what we don't like, because it's none of our damned business what others like.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I thought people here stopped nit-picking people's grammar some time ago.

I make my fair share of them. I want people to point them out so I can correct them.

[Scribbler1]

As long as people aren't SO awful that you can't understand what they write (Pam comes to mind), I just don't think it's productive to correct them.

But let's not swipe Ken's thread with such trivial matters.

[xyzer]

scribbler posts in part...

And, in a huge country like this, what you like is almost guaranteed to offend someone else. It's time we as a society either grew some thicker skin or learned to tune out what we don't like, because it's none of our damned business what others like.

No truer words were spoken! The Imus goof was heard by only a few hundred thousand listeners who choose to listen to his risque dialogue. Then with the aid of a racial opportunist, Sharpton, was made into a major media conflagaration and exposed, with embellishment, to millions. As you point out those who choose to be offended by almost anything anyway are offended. People then get into the fray, some for and some against, conspiracy theories abound and someone has to do something. The major media outlets who condoned the same stuff for many years now get a holier than thou attitude and cut off the source. So some worthwhile endeavors will will suffer(Imus Ranch) Though Imus wont miss the pay that much. Sharpton has amassed some more earning power and the world will go on. Some other outlet will give Imus a podium to peddle his smut because some are not offended and there is money to be made!..

[Scribbler1]

I'll admit I like Imus, and have listened to his show since he was on NYC radio some 35 years ago. And as a long time listener I can say the kind of thing he said to get him in trouble is not a regular thing at all. The show featured a lot of other good content.
Having said that, I also say I'm not going to cry over Imus' firing. He is a very rich man (MSNBC and CBS STILL has to pay him millions) and he will be just fine. It's not like he and his wife are living in a refrigerator box today. He's been fired before and it hasn't killed him yet.

The principle that I object to behind this is the blatant blackmail by self-styled "activists" who are interfering with the free market by denying others a popular show (ANY show) they like, and one that made a lot of money for all the people and entities involved.
The only reason MSNBC and CBS caved is that Sharpton and others threaten to see to it these companies lose a LOT more money than they paid Imus.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Whose => ownership. Who's => contraction of who is.

Correct. It was a last minute posting.

I tried to go back and correct that but, because of the way my week was set up, by the time I got back to it Volconvo wouldn't let me edit. Some kind of weird time limit to the edit function here... or at least that's been my experience.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: xyzer scribbler posts in part... No truer words were spoken! The Imus goof was heard by only a few hundred thousand listeners who choose to listen to his risque dialogue. Then with the aid of a racial opportunist, Sharpton, was made into a major media conflagaration and exposed, with embellishment, to millions. As you point out those who choose to be offended by almost anything anyway are offended. People then get into the fray, some for and some against, conspiracy theories abound and someone has to do something. The major media outlets who condoned the same stuff for many years now get a holier than thou attitude and cut off the source. So some worthwhile endeavors will will suffer(Imus Ranch) Though Imus wont miss the pay that much. Sharpton has amassed some more earning power and the world will go on. Some other outlet will give Imus a podium to peddle his smut because some are not offended and there is money to be made!..

True.

I'm amazed, after Brawley, Sharpton's taken seriously by anyone. Yes, it was a long time ago, but still...

[shawmutt]

I find it funny that a ruinous insult by one man is a money maker for another.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Ken Carman True. I'm amazed, after Brawley, Sharpton's taken seriously by anyone. Yes, it was a long time ago, but still...

Jesse Jackson admitting he spit in White people's food when he was a waiter.

Although Jackson is known mainly for his works in the civil rights arena, many people have alleged that Jackson uses his influence and reputation primarily to extort businesses for his personal gain.In a 1969 Life Magazine interview, Jackson said that when he worked as a waiter in a Greenville, South Carolina restaurant, he would spit into the soups and salads of white customers. "[Spitting into the food] gave me a psychological gratification," Jackson said.

That was a long time ago too, but that doesn't mean I forget it.

[Osborn F Enready]

I blame the media.

They made it their baby, they raised it, and now they are strangling it.

Kind of like they want to do to your free speech, now that the government and corporate monopoly has overtaken theirs, while we the people just sat there watching.....dumbfounded with the pretty glitter.

[Scribbler1]

I blame a free society and free speech. Shame on them.

Nobody forced people to make Imus famous and rich. He opened his mouth and a LOT of people said, "hey, I like that" and the rest is history. If this wasn't a (relatively) free society he wouldn't have stood a chance and there wouldn't have BEEN an Imus for MSNBC to look at and say "hey, I like the money that guy can make for us".

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: shawmutt I find it funny that a ruinous insult by one man is a money maker for another.

That's what makes this specific case so obnoxious to me. Imus was famous for these kind of comments. If his bosses really had any problem with that kind of programming his ass would have been shoved down the toilet a long time ago. Imus was still making money for them. He had become inconvenient. Be aware, anyone may be next... no matter who you listen to. Hell, it could be you. True free speech tolerates inconvenience.

[shawmutt]

What really irks me are the people that "rose to the occasion" to get him out of his job. Jesse "I spit in white people's soup" Jackson, Al "the only real Christians are black Christians" Sharpton, and Hillary "Timbaland is helping to pay for my presidency" Clinton. Slimy, slimy business.

What happened to the true black heroes?

[Scribbler1]

For that matter, what happened to the true WHITE heroes? I think in both cases the people who did truly big things have been replaced by people with truly big MOUTHS.

That, and people who are extremely wealthy, despite HOW they gained their wealth. The "Donald" comes immediately to mind.

[brien]

I'm amazed, after Brawley, Sharpton's taken seriously by anyone

I have heard tape recordings of Sharpton back in the Mayor Dinkin's Administration calling Greeks "homos" and saying Europeans lived in caves. The hate speech coming out of his mouth was absolutely pale compared to Imus. He is about as credible a spokesman for civil rights as is the KKK.

Here is short synopsis of the "Rev" Sharpton

FrontPage magazine.com :: The Nine Lives of Al Sharpton by John Perazzo

[The Decider]

Quote by: shawmutt What really irks me are the people that "rose to the occasion" to get him out of his job. Jesse "I spit in white people's soup" Jackson, Al "the only real Christians are black Christians" Sharpton, and Hillary "Timbaland is helping to pay for my presidency" Clinton. Slimy, slimy business. What happened to the true black heroes?

Actually, you need to include Barack Obama, Harold Ford, and Condi Rice to the list of people who called for Imus' firing.

Does free speech exclude economic boycotts and group pressure? I see people defending Imus' free speech rights. Do the people listed above not have the same rights to rally opposition against Imus and Imus' corporate sponsors?

Consider the Dixie Chicks case. They jokingly told a London audience that they were "embarrased" that Bush came from their home state of Texas. The outcry among conservative talk show hosts was immediate. Internet campaigns targeted radio stations and their advertisers with mass emails. Organized burnings of Dixie Chicks CDs occured. All of this was protected "free speech." I disagreed with that campaign but I understood that country music fans and their conservative spokespeople in talk radio had every right to "vote with their dollars."

Sharpton and Jackson could not have succeeded without a strong core of support in the nation. Perhaps not a majority, the polls are a mixed bag. But companies can't afford to displease large minorities either. The Dixie Chicks, despite being in the majority on the war these days, are still being punished economically by the country music industry. That's life in capitalist America. The Dixie Chicks have survived with a new audience and so will Don Imus.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: The Decider Actually, you need to include Barack Obama, Harold Ford, and Condi Rice to the list of people who called for Imus' firing. Does free speech exclude economic boycotts and group pressure? I see people defending Imus' free speech rights. Do the people listed above not have the same rights to rally opposition against Imus and Imus' corporate sponsors? Consider the Dixie Chicks case. They jokingly told a London audience that they were "embarrased" that Bush came from their home state of Texas. The outcry among conservative talk show hosts was immediate. Internet campaigns targeted radio stations and their advertisers with mass emails. Organized burnings of Dixie Chicks CDs occured. All of this was protected "free speech." I disagreed with that campaign but I understood that country music fans and their conservative spokespeople in talk radio had every right to "vote with their dollars." Sharpton and Jackson could not have succeeded without a strong core of support in the nation. Perhaps not a majority, the polls are a mixed bag. But companies can't afford to displease large minorities either. The Dixie Chicks, despite being in the majority on the war these days, are still being punished economically by the country music industry. That's life in capitalist America. The Dixie Chicks have survived with a new audience and so will Don Imus.

Does free speech exclude economic boycotts and group pressure? I see people defending Imus' free speech rights. Do the people listed above not have the same rights to rally opposition against Imus and Imus' corporate sponsors?

No and... yes. I question his cowardly employers.

Sharpton and Jackson could not have succeeded without a strong core of support in the nation.

The question here would be...

"How much have they succeeded?"

Sharpton less than Jesse over the past 40 years, IMO. Yes, they each do lead their own specific loud minority voices who believe in them, follow them. Sharpton was kind of the Bozo the Clown who, while posing some important questions, wasn't taken seriously in 04. He was allowed into debates and such because excluding him would have created more problems than not. Jackson actually has had a far more reaching movement that has lessened over the years. His support of a breathing corpse with water for brain hurt him more than I think he realizes.

So... overall? I think "succeeded" is far too generous.

If I remember right The Chicks were not dropped by their label... so I think the analogy was far less than perfect. Radio stations can, or at least should be able to, play whatever the hell they want. Of course employers can employ whomever they want, but firing without cause is the issue here. Imus was still bringing in the money, maybe less, but still bringing it in. They obviously had no problem with his style until it became convenient to claim to have a problem. So, IMO. slamming the jackasses who gave him his checks is not only on traget, but necessary. If their "problem" with his style of programming were sincere, then I wouldn't consider their firing him a free speech issue.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Ken Carman No and... yes. I question his cowardly employers.

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!

Quote by: Ken Carman The question here would be... "How much have they succeeded?"

"Succeeded" in getting Imus fired, not in their own little twisted worlds. Focusing solely on Sharpton and Jackson misses the larger controversy that ended Imus' show. You had Barack Obama and Condi Rice and major NBC figures like Al Roker all calling for Imus to step down. I know that people want to give all the credit, or rather discredit, to Jackson and Sharpton, but the facts don't support that claim.

Quote by: Ken Carman If I remember right The Chicks were not dropped by their label... so I think the analogy was far less than perfect.

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.

Quote by: Ken Carman Radio stations can, or at least should be able to, play whatever the hell they want.

That's right. And sponsors can sponsor ads on any radio station they want. There's a connection--music and advertising. The Dixie Chicks lost the stations and the advertising.

Quote by: Ken Carman Of course employers can employ whomever they want, but firing without cause is the issue here.

Without cause? Imus just lost the biggest sponsor contracts in the talk radio business. That was a huge hit to his employers, caused by Imus' own words. The company can also argue that Imus' past insults targeted celebrities. This time he went after defenseless amateur college athletes. Imus could try to get his job back in labor arbitration, but he's got show that attacking college girls and angering his biggest sponsors (under pressure from many quarters in the black and women's communities) was just "business as usual." You don't see Imus making any legal arguments. His job is worthless without sponsors.

Quote by: Ken Carman Imus was still bringing in the money, maybe less, but still bringing it in.

Not after the sponsors left. NBC and CBS had no obligation to retain an old bitter man with little sponsor appeal. His "style of programming" no longer promised the big bucks.