Rekna

ace the point is there is hostility toward white people from the black community. I'm still trying to see what part Imus's comment brought in race. The word Hos isn't racial it is sexist. Nappy haired could be racist but i'm not so sure i'd consider that to be a racist comment. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have jumped on this because it is another case where they can claim racism even though they will ignore the reverse case any time. Look at hip hop lyrics and tell me there isn't plenty of anti-white lyrics.

In addition the KKK is derided for what they say (rightly so). I'm deeply offended by the KKK and have no sympathy for them one bit. I think they are racist bigots and are more worthless than a cockroach.

pan6467

Yes, my bosses are white.

I don't know what to do. I feel there is nothing I can do. Because every time I say something they bring her race into it and act as though her lawsuit would be worse.

They are working harder to protect her rights than they are mine.

How is that fair?

And how can someone who speaks out saying, "Imus said.... and needs to be fired." And sit there and smile and say, "She called you a devil worshiper... get over it.... she harasses you get over it... she's black and 70 and will sue and win . You're a white male, who can't afford a lawyer.

If calling one person something is wrong.... then any negative labels are wrong and the people who speak out against one label need to speak out against ALL labels, regardless of who is getting labeled.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

The_Jazz

Pan, I haven't called you anything, let alone a racist or KKK member; neither has aceventura3 for that matter. My involvement with this topic is to try to focus on what I see as the larger issue here, the message outside of the racial aspect. If you'd like to discuss something other than race, I'll be happy to do so, but just like Janet Jackson, I think that the mainstream has missed the bigger problem here.

I can't view the video at work, so I can't make any comments one way or the other at this point other than to point out that I'm sure that if I dig long enough I can find white supremist on the radio or TV (Jerry Springer anyone?) to make a nice counterpoint if it is what I expect it is.

As for your example, maybe she just doesn't like you or your religion. I don't see where race is necessarily an issue unless you make it one. The only way we'll ever know for sure is if you ask her. Any opinions expressed here are pointless since we're talking about an individual who may or may not be an asshole and may or may not be crazy. I don't know, and actually, I don't care.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

aceventura3

They said there was outrage.

Then like I said above, Fox News looked high and low to find a "black" guy they could use for their rating who would take an extreme position.

What hostility? Are you talking about Jackson and sharpton and a few other media "ho's"?

The team was either all "black" or mostly "black", and you have a "white" guy commenting on how they look and their sexuality in a derogatory manner. That's the race part.

Look at acid rock, or any other form of protest music. Music is music. Direct personal attacks are different.

Plenty of people deride "gansta" rap.


Your bosses are p*ssies. It is sad that you have to pay the price for that. Have you gone to higher levels? Can you get the lady on video tape? Try going to the media, like Jessie and Al. Organize your co-workers and stage a walk-out until your bosses get it together. There is plenty you can do, including going to work for people with a backbone or just ignore the lady.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

pan6467

1) I'd like to see where I said you or Ace called me anything.

2) you obviously aren't reading my posts.

I was called a devil worshiper and have been harassed and discriminated against by this woman.

I went to my bosses (who are also hers) and was told basically I'm a white male, she's a black 70 yr old female..... we aren't doing anything.

The argument I use with my bosses is this.... if she invited me someplace because I raised a stink and she gave me an invitation to be nice.... and later on I told someone I wasn't going because she was black and then I discriminated and harrassed her the way she does me.... I'd be gone, I'd be sued and I would be thrown entirely out of my profession....

so what is the difference between what she said and her actions toward me and my hypothetical.


And in this Jazz,

you lose any respect I had for you.

Basically we were talking about an issue in this thread I was able to add from my personal experience and instead of using it for the subject... you chose to dismiss it and blow it off when it is germain to the subject at hand. I am not asking you or anyone what I should do.... I am explaining how in a situation I am in, I am experiencing reverse discrimination, and I am simply saying those who state Imus is wrong need to show that in this situation.

Instead you turn the situation back on me... and act like it has nothing to do with the subject. You sir, have let your little Mod title go to your head.

BTW before I get into trouble.... I brought up Jazz's Mod status for a reason... it has nothing to do with anything in this talk.... just like my being white and male and under 50 has nothing to do with my being called a devil worshiper.

Yet, the powers at my place of employment bring it up and show a discrimination that my rights, feelings and what I believe are less important than those of someone else.

Labels.... either you denounce ALL labels and point out wrongs as they happen or you point out nothing. That's my point.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

LazyBoy

I simply find it humorous that the people who are so adamant on prosecuting are "revrends".....who would be the ones you'd expect to forgive and move on...

-Will

__________________
Life is nothing, everything.....and something in between...

pan6467

I talked to a co-worker (a counselor in Central Assessment a different division) that has a relationship with the administrator of our building. I asked her if I should go to him. She said yes.

I then get called to the Head Nurse's office (my immediate supervisor) and she yells at me for going over her head (when I hadn't yet, I just asked if I should... came to find out there's bad blood between the person I asked and the Head Nurse... I was not previously aware of).

The Head Nurse then proceeds to tell me how she could have fired me for any number of reasons and belittles me, ignoring the whole situation that I was wanting resolved.

I did go to the Big guy who basically said, "Get over it, there's nothing we are going to do."

I have already learned what happens going over people's heads and so I am stuck. This is the only game in town for someone like myself starting out in this profession. To leave here I would have to change professions and I refuse to because I am damn good at my job and I love what I do.

So again, I use my experience to bring something into this debate. No I don't expect or ask for it to be resolved here.... but I am demonstrating reverse discrimination and how people will gather around the popular... but blow off the discriminations that in their minds aren't important.

ALL discrimination is wrong or none of it is wrong.... we cannot have it both ways.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ubertuber

Pan, your commentary here is really hard to follow. First, it isn't clear that there is any racism going on here, reverse or otherwise. Just because this lady is black doesn't mean that this fact informs her every interaction with you. You're jumping straight from correlation to causation and flinging accusations all over the place. Secondly, it sounds like she's just an old lady (you said 70, right?) who is afraid of and scornful of things that are outside of her experience, such as paganism. Thirdly, you kind of invited her to be upset by passing out invitations to an event at work when not everyone was invited. Fourthly, I thought I saw something about you claiming to have been called something, but you've edited one of your posts - so who knows? It could have been one of the many other threads were you've felt attacked. Lastly, your bosses seem to be the ones who have injected racial connotations into this, but not by claiming that this woman has made slurs against you because of race. They are concerned about risk, and they know (correctly) that managing the risk from her claiming persecution is a bigger deal than you claiming that she's rude to you and made an ignorant comment about your spiritual beliefs. Pretty much the only thing you can do is respond to your management in writing and say that her comment amounts to a slur, which their tolerance towards promotes a hostile work environment. You can't really do much but put them on notice.

But the whole situation is tied to racism in such a convoluted and tenuous way (and then back to Imus in a twist that still eludes me) that I, too, sort of think it's not relevant. I can see that you're upset about the situation, but it doesn't really equate to incidents involving media stars, Al Sharpton, government regulation, and accusations of racist content. You're seeing hypocrites were none exist.

One last thing: I still don't get what the thing about The_Jazz letting his mod title go to his head was all about, but it bothered me. I think that accusation was completely off base. He's been more than fair since coming on staff, and he's been more respectful of you than you have been of him.

I really hate posting stuff like this in public - much prefer PMs - but this whole thing has been out in pubilc in a thread that has potential, so sorry.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

pan6467

Ok when I stated to my bosses that this woman called me a devil worshiper and I gave examples of harassment and discrimination I was told she's black and anything they do could end in her suing them for racism?

I'm as lost as you in how it got there but that is what I was told in so many words.

I don't understand how this is hard to follow. An African American woman who pretty much gave a guilt trip to me for a wedding invitation gets one.

She proceeds to call me a devil worshiper, harasses me, belittles me at work, discriminates against me and I am told it's ok because she is black and there's nothing anyone will do.

My point is how can people (and there are some at work who agree with the bosses decision not to do anything) raise a stink against Imus... yet allow this to go on?

Is discrimination wrong or not? Is it just wrong in varying degrees? So a black person can call, harass and discriminate against a white man for his religious beliefs because she's black?

(BTW she is one who yesterday was going off on Imus.)

I just am honestly confused how one is wrong Imus and one is ok because it is a black woman talking about a white man.

Other than Ace... no other person calling for Imus' head in this thread is touching this....other than Jazz telling me he doesn't give a shit, I need to talk to her, maybe she doesn't like my religion...etc (perhaps she doesn't but that gives her no right to do and say what she is).... yet he can sit there and call for Imus' head? Sounds hypocritical.

You think Sharpton, Jackson, or any of these "righteous" civil rights people would stand up for me?????? Especially against a black woman?

Just showing the hypocrisy.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

FoolThemAll

Disagree. It's not suppression of speech, it's removal of a medium for speech. And that's an important distinction because while one has a right to speak, one does not have a right to amplification. Unless Imus had a contract - one not voided by his comments - then it isn't and shouldn't be in his hands whether or not he gets use of corporate property. Such a decision belongs in the hands of the corporation, the owner of the physical or non-physical property in question.

To argue that corporations can't end business arrangements for any reason - even for reasons that leave a bad taste in your mouth and mine - is cow doody. Yeah, I said it.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

The_Jazz

I see we're still not going to talk about the real issue here, but fine, I'll play along.

First, you went back and edited the portion of your post where you implied that Ace and I were calling you names. I'm sure I can get an admin to dig it up if needed, but I think I'm being petty enough by just pointing it out.

I read all of your posts. I even went back and reread them after you edited them. And it wasn't until #47 that the truth came out. Your immediate bosses don't want to get caught up in a petty squabble. Their bosses don't either. The woman in question, in my opinion, was most likely offended when you handed out invitations at work and she didn't get one, then when she did, it was with a backhanded apology and statement that made it seem like you didn't want her there. You fueled the fire when you told her that it's a pagan wedding. In the minds of the two 70ish year-old black women that I just talked about about the subject, pagan = devil worshiper. Both of the women in my office are closeminded on the subject, and I expect the woman in yours is too. So she doesn't like you now because you were rude and worship some god that goes against everything she's ever been taught.

And since she doesn't like you, she's not going to do you favors. When you complain, no boss wants to get involved in that kind of disagreement. She's not harrassing you or discriminating against you - she just doesn't like you, so she's being difficult. And you know what, I still don't care. She's your problem - not mine. You deal with her.

What I'm really confused about is why you brought up my job. Even with your cryptic explanation, I don't get it. Before I had this job, I wouldn't have cared about someone who doesn't like you. I think I'm being consistent in my lack of caring here, and I'll even go so far as to state that I really don't care what anyone outside of TFP cares about any one member. I'm not singling you out - I simply just don't care how popular any one member is with their coworkers. But maybe you want to feel special; fine, I like you Pan. Sometimes you come off as a ranting lunatic, especially when we're talking about immigration or race, but I generally find you amusing enough to read most of what you post, which is the highest praise I'm capable of giving right now.

And you're being called a devil worshipper because someone thinks you're a devil worshipper. That should be your motivation to go talk to her and smooth out the rough patch as well as educate her on what you really believe. Me? I just think you're some

I still don't see any discrimination against you beyond someone not wanting to be in the same room with you, but that seems to be based more on your personality and beliefs than the color of your skin. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you tried to take this to court with only the evidence presented here, you'd probably find it impossible to get even the most desperate ambulance chaser to take it.

Finally, respect. The 1000 gorrilla in the room. On a personal level, I don't care if you respect me, just like I don't care if someone doesn't like you. You need to work out for yourself what is and isn't worthy of your respect, and I'm certainly not capable of influencing that one way or another. I don't expect you to care if any of my coworkers or clients like me or not, which is consistent with what I'm doing.

The flip side is that you need to respect the position, whether it's held by me or anyone else. In my job, I'll keep right on doing what I've always done. I suspect that you're man enough to respect that at least.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ubertuber

Cow doody and horse pucky in the same thread!!

This used to be such a classy neighborhood.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

pan6467

YOU want to make this personal attacks against me now? You are not reading the posts... and post 47 went top ask what I have been asking all along THAT WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE.... (I changed the post because as I posted it Ace answered it... so I did change it.

Why do you want Imus' head but this incident I put forth from my experience... is ok and different.

And no, my bosses don't think it is petty... only you seem to.

You want to make this personal attacks not me Jazz.

I can leave TFP..... I mean I don't need this from someone who is supposed to be a leader.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

The_Jazz

Pan, I'm now openly laughing at this exchange. Really, this is just too funny. You're accusing me of not reading your posts and making it personal? Seriously? Now, I'm not laughing at YOU, I'm laughing at the SITUATION.

In posts #5, #37 and #43, I tried to draw the conversation back to the fact that Imus first and foremost attacked successful amateur athletes for their personal appearances. I still feel that right there is the biggest problem. Other people have made this about race, but not me. I've stated several times that his racial comments are secondary as far as I'm concerned. In posts #13, #18 and #24, I was asking how the First Amendment could be applied here (it still can't IMHO).

Then you went off the rails in #45. Apparently I'm somehow personally attacking you because I think that there might be another explanation besides reverse discrimination or that I don't care that someone doesn't like you. Where's the personal attack? Is it personal to not care? Wow, I never knew not giving a shit could get me in so much trouble...

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

pan6467

I'm done with TFP...

this could have been done respectfully and with some dignity in PM's instead you choose to humiliate me in public.... and this is a mod??????

I'm done.

You can laugh all you want..... enjoy you just took great pride in truly humiliating someone who may have been emotionally charged but was trying to make a valid point. Which you still choose to ignore and make all about me.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Elphaba

I think I will take the touchy, feely position on this one rather than legal rights or commercial obligations. What Imus said was beyond cruel because he was referring to very specific young women, rather than some generalized group. Nappy-headed, ugly, rough looking, whores? A national audience heard his comments, followed by the current firestorm of a much broader audience.
These young women have been the focus of all of this attention because of how Imus negatively judged their appearance. These women are excellent atheletes, but more importantly, scholars at an Ivy league college and he reduces all of their accomplishments to mere nappy-headed hos.

He is speaking to those young women today and they are the ones that deserve the apology, not Sharpton and other media whores. It will be interesting to learn whether Imus has the ability to understand how very personal and hurtful his so-called joke was to very real people.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

The_Jazz

Maybe you'll read this and maybe you won't. I hope you do.

I responded in the format you chose. Might it have been with more dignity behind the scenes? Perhaps. I don't want to humilate you. I don't think I have. As I stated, I like you. I don't want you to go away thinking that I don't.

All of this seems like a big misunderstanding, and that was my point. You've read what I've posted out of context. All I did was offer a counterproposal that there might be other reasons for your perceived discrimination than racism.

If I thought an apology was necessary and correct, I'd give you one, but I really don't see where either of us have done anything wrong.

You're not a dick; Imus is the dick. He should quit, not you.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Bill O'Rights

Well...now that we're back on topic?

That is a statement that I can get 100% behind. Screw Sharpton. Screw Jackson. And, for that matter, screw Imus. This has turned into a media circus, and for what? Publicity.
I really don't believe that Al or Jesse give anymore of a crap about those girls than Imus did. But, Ohhhhh the free publicity.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

American

Apologies only count when you're a liberal; if you're a conservative (which Imus is not) only the death penalty will begin to pay for your sins. If it were me, I'd never have said it....but that's what the Imus show is all about and always has been. He's been suspended before. Apparently he and his producer were carrying out a little spiel or skit that went too far. Nevertheless, Jackson's "Heimy Town" comment, Sharpton's endless hate speech, Hillary's jew comments, Danson's "blackface" costume and many others get basically overlooked by the supposed disadvantaged.

We all know that the N-word is a political word, and that's all it is. If it didn't get political mileage you could say it all day long on the radio.

__________________
American
A Conservative in your face

smooth

I prefer a fire pit and tasty BBQ sauce, personally

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

AVoiceOfReason

I've skimmed through this thread, and as I thought might be the case, some have raised the First Amendment issue. It does not apply, no matter how much someone may think it does, or should. It's a sad commentary on the American society when one of the citizens doesn't know this.

Here is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It's not long, nor is it hard to understand. Read the first five words, and if you don't understand what it being prohibited, read them again:

"CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW respecting an establisment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievences."

Got it? CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW. It is GOVERNMENT action, not private corporate decisions, that is covered by the First Amendment.

Anyone that misses that point after reading this note is trying to be obtuse, and should be ignored.

__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

samcol

But the problem with your argument is THEY HAVE PASSED LAWS abridging free speech and press.

Hasn't the governement already prohibited the freedom of speech and press through over REGULATION in the media? What I mean is requiring licenses etc. not just by chastising people who say four letter words. By rejecting someone a license their freedom of speech has been abridged, thus allowing them to voice their free speech in only the seven major media corporations.

Don't forget these major corporations only got this big by following the LAWS (which congress is not supposed to make laws regarding free speech as you quoted).

My argument is that as we are approaching an ologopolistic media (that was only achievable through government intervention), shouldn't the government protect free speech of individuals in these corporations since it took the free speech away from the little guys by over regulating and requiring licenses in TV and broadcasting and soon to be internet?

So, it's ok for the government to protect free speech, but unfortunately its been regulated out of existance by the government so your free speech is now at the beckoning of 7 major corporations.

I guess you're right that the Imus thing is technically not a first amendment issue, but I honestly belive it is approaching one as the business gets more monopolistic. The government either needs to stop regulating tv, radio, press, and internet (which is against the first amendment by your own acknowledgement), or it needs to protect free speech of the individuals in these massive corporations.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

ubertuber

Samcol:

In your last paragraph, you and I can come together. I don't think the Imus thing is a constitutional issue - it's a commercial one. I do think, however, that there's is a lot of interesting territory to explore in just how corporate our government is, and in just how governmental our corporations have become. That might be a great thread...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

samcol

I've had the most difficult time trying to put the concept into words.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Bill O'Rights

Hmmm...interesting concept.

Corporate sponsored government, as opposed to the standard corporate payrolled politician.
"This session of Congress has been brought to you by McDonald's"
"The Supreme Court will hand down its ruling right after these messages from Phizer Pharmaceuticals."
On governmenr raids, instead of jackets bearing FBI, ATF...and what have you...they will wear Ford, GM and Chrysler logos.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

roachboy

this article from this morning's ny times gives a glimpse of the cash levels involved with this affair:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/bu...hp&oref=slogin

it is vaguely interesting to note the way the article is framed: imus has created problems at the level of brand identity, and it is to the degree that brand identities are involved that this becomes a "real" problem.

there are a number of problems.

a) radio and television occupy a strange in-between zone: they are privately owned in the states, for better or for worse (generally for the worse in terms of quality of information in particular, which is reduced to a function of brand identity formation an maintenance and so is a commodity, with all that entails)...but they are also a public service in a sense. this distinction between ownership and function can be used to pose questions of freedom of speech in a more complicated manner. while legally everything that is happening is hunky dory (this is not a first amendment matter technically), effectively this is problematic. the dominant media does have the effect of setting the terms of "legitimate" debate--you have seen this happening obviously in political matters----if this is somehow unclear think about the role of the once-powerful conservative radio apparatus and its role in shaping the ideological conditions that enabled the bush administration to happen. or consider the history of mass media coverage of opposition to the war in iraq and the ways this has changed from 2003 to the present.

major media infotainment and the ways in which it frames information has effects on the ways in which public discourse happens and because that is the case, the actions of media conglomerates in situations like this also have effects on public discourse.

so there is a freedom of speech issue involved here, but it is best debated at the level of norms---and the article above provides a kind of interesting insight into how conflicts of such norms unfolds in the states, given the private ownership of the media (television, radio, written forms)....

b) so imus. imus the brand. imus the brand is an advertising relay system, not in the sense that say television news is--the narratives built into news presentation are linked to advertising segments, they are about advertising segments, but the segments are outside the infotainment delivery itself, where in the case of imus there is no operatie distinction between infotainment and advertising. imus the guy makes 10 mil a year. (what the fuck?) imus the brand enables other brands to access his demographic. so what matters really about his speech, insofar as what is really at play here is imus the brand, is that he maintain a degree of neutrality such that he causes no real disruption of advertising delivery. this is the field that circumscribes his actual freedom of speech. so there is a way in which the issue, though symbolically problematic on freedom of speech grounds (see above) is in fact a joke.

c) it is interesting across all this to notice what passes for political debate in the states in the context of the "public" airwaves. look at the statements in the article above from cbs; look at the actions of proctor and gamble. what are they about? fear of some kind of consumer action. what is the logic? maintenance of brand identity. what is the danger? negative associations. what is at issue? revenue. what are the effects? run away. commerically driven censorship is an unintended consequence of brand identity maintenance. what are the indices that trigger this reaction? the stream of talking heads that has been deploying in other talk show contexts. what do they do? reinforce negative associations with imus-the-brand.

what are the limits of meaningful political debate in the states? these limits are circumscribed by the limits of access to television.
what is political debate? conflict between brands.

is there a popular movement of any kind behind this? who knows? talking heads represent us. did we elect them? no. did we choose them? well, that depends on how you interpret consumer choices in the economic sphere. do you conflate your buying patterns with anything like democratic process?

in the states, information is a commodity. it is only relevant insofar as it is a commodity. there is no particular desire to inform the public--private interests are interested in this function only to the degree that it functions to polish their brands.

so the imus affair provides a little window onto the reality of information formation and dissemination under american capitalism. it shows you the actual interests at play behind the infotainment you confuse with information. it shows you something about the economic infrastructure, about the priorities that are shaped by this infrastructure. it gives you something to think about--if this bizarre intertwining of commercial activity and information had somehow eluded you up to this point.

in the end THAT is the disturbing aspect of this situation so far as i am concerned.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

shakran

Wow, for a voice of reason you sure are taking an obnoxiously belligerent tone. Let's go over what I've said very carefully. Nowhere in this thread have I ever said it is unconstitutional for Imus to be fired or suspended. It's not. We all get that.

What I'm trying to get across is that in a country who's very constitution expresses the concept that people should be able to express themselves the way they want to, it is disingenuous for someone to say "he can't say that." It's not illegal. It's not unconstitutional. It's just idiotic.



In other news, I too feel Jazz has been unfairly mis-characterized. Becoming a mod does not mean you have to check your opinions at the door.

ubertuber

No one here says that "he can't say that." What we saying is that CBS doesn't have to let him say it with their voice. How's that for "idiotic"?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

shakran

And I didn't say anyone here said that. You guys really do need to read more carefully if you're gonna try to nail me for stuff. I was referring to the protesters who were running around demanding that he be fired. As far as I know, none of you guys were in that mob.

Even though I've already said it, it has been one whole day since the post, so for the record lest anyone get confused, Imus is an idiot, and what he said was reprehensible. That said, let the listeners vote with their wallets. If people don't like what he has to say, they won't listen to him anymore. That simple. If they keep listening, then maybe we should open up a dialog as to why the public seems to think calling people nappyheadded ho's should be rewarded by paying attention to the person that says it.

As it is, all this running around enjoying the holy hell out of getting very angry at someone for saying something *offensive!* is doing nothing more than raising interest to a fever pitch in a show that is filled with idiotic insults and derogatory comments. If you really want to shut Imus up, ignore him. Otherwise, just like Howard Stern, he'll never go away.

StanT

Go figure, a "shock jock" actually said something shocking. Comedy isn't funny unless you push the boundarys occasionally. A simple apology might be in order, nothing more. The sponsors and his employers are free to make their own decisions.

I find it amazing that Jessie "Hymietown" Jackson is stepping into this. Pot meet kettle.

The_Jazz

From the Onion man on the street:

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ubertuber

I'm not trying to nail anyone - I was not clear that you were talking about some other people. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I have been clear for years now that my interest in this forum has nothing to do with "nailing" people. I am just sensitive about it being clear what I and saying and what I'm not. I don't want to be thought of as saying the thing you wrote before.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

AVoiceOfReason

Precisely. The freedom to express oneself does not require others to make sure that expression is heard, nor does it obligate anyone to listen. We're free to express ourselves (within certain limits, such as the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example that is often used, and obscenity, which has been held not to be protected speech). The FCC, which would be the arm of the government that would be involved here, isn't going to do anything, and therefore, it's a matter of discrimination not censorship. CBS and MSNBC can discriminate against folks that speak as Imus did, and the goverment isn't going to tell them they can't. Nor is the goverment going to tell them they have to shut him up.

It's really not that hard of a concept, and I can't help but wonder why some are trying to blur the lines between censorship by the public body--usually a prior restraint of speech--and retribution by a private party. It's not even apples and oranges, which are at least both fruits. It's apples and marbles.

JcS

__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

ubertuber

If I'm understanding shakran correctly now, he's not implying that anyone should be regulating speech, but that in a country theoretically founded on the principles of free expression it is ironic for citizens (Sharpton, et al) to be clamoring to shut people up.

I agree with that... If I've got it right.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

mixedmedia

Well, I'm not a huge fan of Al Sharpton politically, he is an opportunist, no doubt about that. Although, as a personality I find him to be quite charming. I don't think that Al Sharpton is so much clamoring to stifle free speech, but rather to get someone fired for saying something stupid in the course of doing their job. To be fair, they aren't exactly the same thing.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

ubertuber

Would they be the same thing if Imus said that his remarks weren't a mistake? Then Sharpton would be effectively policing Imus' ability to express his beliefs.

Just little devil's advocate here...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

mixedmedia

I don't think so. No one or no entity is under any compulsion to do what Sharpton says. How is he policing anything?

Sharpton is a citizen with the right to voice his opinion about what Imus said and what should be done to him just as much as any one of us. If he wants to organize and make a fuss about it that is his right as a citizen.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

shakran

you do, sir.

I'll go further than that. If we ARE going to decide to shut people up for making racially unpleasant comments (nappy headed ho's being only the latest example) then I would expect that in addition to Don Imus and Michael Richards, that we also move most urgently to silence Jesse Jackson (Hymietown), Chris Rock (who is not only apparently pursuing a new world record for most frequent use of the word "nigger," but who's "comedy" is liberally laced with racial slurs against white people - a line from one of his more popular act reads "''Motherfucker, cracker-ass, motherfucker
cracker! Shit, cracker, motherfucker", and who has written a song called "Snowflake, White Bitches"), and anyone else, of *any* race, who says racially offensive things.

Racist attitudes and speech are wrong, no matter who is saying them. It's wrong for Imus. It's wrong for Richards. It's wrong for Limbaugh. It's also wrong for Rock and Jackson.

It's high time this country realize that racism is not limited to one race, and that racist attitudes will never be cured until everyone, of *all* races, stops worrying about what color everyone is.

It should not take MSNBC and CBS suspending someone's radio show to get this message across. The message should come across because people should stop patronizing performers, of any race, who profess their racist attitudes. Imus's suspension should be meaningless because people, if they are truly against racist attitudes and statements, should no longer be listening to him anyway.

But all that being said, everyone, Even Chris Rock and Don Imus, has the right to hold and express racist opinions. Citizens of a country that professes to encourage free speech should not seek revenge upon or punishment of those who express these opinions. If you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it. It's as easy as that.

The_Jazz

I've said it once on TFP today (although not in this thread), so I'll say it again:

There's a fine line between clever and stupid.

In terms of this discussion, I mean that I agree with Shakran's arguement that everyone has the right to believe whatever it is they want to believe, but that doesn't mean that we have to listen to it.

That said, I think that the first Chris Rock special on HBO is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. The same with the first Eddie Murphy concert tape. Both of them are racially charged, but not as much as some of Richard Pryor's early work. All of them, at the time, were the heights of comedy for me. At that's where the Spinal Tap quote comes in - I honestly think that it's ok to say racist things if it's funny to the entire audience. There are two important caveats there - "funny" and "entire audience". If you don't meet both, you're just stupid. If you do, you might end up as Dr. Doolittle.

Honestly, if you're going to spout off about racial politics or cultural differences, you need to know your audience very well, which includes the folks that are going to see the tape of the event, should one exist. Imus should have known that. Stern is probably an even bigger on-air asshole than Imus aspires to be, but the former is smart enough to stay away from racial issues without having his producer Robin act as the voice of reason/tempering influence.

Now I'm going to go back to grumbling about the fact that everybody except Elphaba has missed the bigger problem here. I described as being like Imus blew up a truck bomb and you're all arguing about the color of the truck. This is much closer to Imus making fun of Little Leaguers for being funny looking than Michael Richards' "nigger" comments.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

FoolThemAll

This is key. I think a fair amount of the confusion/argument in this thread comes from an unintended blurring of this distinction - either on the part of the speaker or the listener or both.

That said, in this case at least, I'm not a big fan of either action. Obviously, I'm not favoring the stifling of free speech - I'm not sure anyone in this thread supports that.

But I also don't like the is-legal and should-be-legal action of trying to get him fired, because I don't see a useful point to it. Not many are actually supporting what Imus said, he's being disciplined, and he himself has at least publicly recognized the wrongness of what he said. Society didn't approve. And even for those who do support it - typically in the South Parkesque "either all offensive remarks are okay or none are" mindset - they're not going to alter their thoughts based on whether he gets suspended or put off the air permanently.

What would a firing acheive, other than retribution? What would be the use of such a firing that negative publicity and a temporary suspension couldn't provide?

I could be missing something, but so far it just looks like petty revenge to me.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.