Imus blast away

Parent Cafe
321

<p>Imus the Conservative broadcast on MSNBC with guests the likes of Tom Oliphant, Russert, Matthews, Evan Thomas, Altermann, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, Greenfield, etc. These guys were major buddies of Imus’. Give me a break.</p>

<p>Can you count how many times these people have been on Limbaugh’s show? Okay - Matthews actually sat in for Limbaugh, but that was when Matthews went nuts over Monica. He quickly returned to form after that episode.</p>

<p>Imus is an equal opportunity offender (and loved McCain), but he is NO conservative. If so, explain to me why these people went on his show, and MSNBC (that bastion of conservatism, LOL) ran his show.</p>

<p>But you can believe anything you want no matter how misguided–it’s your right, of course.</p>

<p>Nope–didn’t think there’d be any accountability demanded from the rappers by you, ldmom. Now it’s the Republican free market. LOL.</p>

322

<p>Hey hh…I LOVE a free market economy (and have been known to vote for Republicans because of it). But I also like to get to the crux of the problem.</p>

323

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s very rich coming from you. Look at a few of your distortions. </p>

<p>I post that bluegrass glorified violence against women before rap did. You post that people are saying that rap has musical roots in bluegrass. (Remember garland asking you to back up that big of outrageousness?) </p>

<p>I post that I don’t even listen to Howard Stern but looked up something as a courtesy to another poster. You post that I am apparently a “fan” of his. </p>

<p>I post that the attention is getting turned away from hate radio, you post that I want to string them up and now “muzzle” them. </p>

<p>You have a long history of twisting everything I say. Even making up things out of whole cloth as you did in the Iraq thread (when you falsely claimed I said there was nothing that could be done about Iraq, even though I had said no such thing). </p>

<p>I have read all your posts in this thread and I’ve fairly represented your position. Seems to me that before pointing out the (non-existant) speck in someone else’s eye, you should look to the plank in your own.</p>

<p>Oh I forgot. First you would have to identify who is “really responsible” for your distortions.</p>

<p>And for the record, my concern is not that misogyny in African American music shouldn’t be addressed–it’s that the herculean efforts to exculpate any and all segments of the white talk radio community are inappropriate and misguided. Especially given how all this got started.</p>

324

<br>

<br>

<p>Liberals and Democrats liked to go on his show because it was a major pipeline for them to speak to politically-unaffiliated white males:</p>

<p><a href=“Democrats have lost a soapbox with firing”>Democrats have lost a soapbox with firing;

<p>Imus was indeed a equal-opportunity hater, but he was still often the darling of conservatives because he frequently bashed Hillary and regularly said insulting things about minorities (the Rutgers thing being only the most recent example), both which are in line with the sentiments of many conservatives.</p>

325

<p>No, I would argue insulting minorities is what liberals do best. You know…minorities aren’t smart enough to make it on their own so we must have affirmative action to help them get into the college of their choice.</p>

<p>That’s insulting. Libs are great insulters.</p>

326

<p>Wow! Out of the goodness of my heart, I offer this to you:</p>

<p><a href=“The Big Lead - Sports, Media, News Coverage & More”>The Big Lead - Sports, Media, News Coverage & More;

<p>

</p>

<p>You go, Jason!</p>

<p>Great stuff.</p>

327

<p>I keep forgetting that Imus was kidnapped at gunpoint and forced to appear on Sharpton’s show.</p>

328

<p>What a great point, conyat: that’s what I call lookin’ at the big picture. :rolleyes:</p>

329

<p>Here’s what the women themselves have to say about Al Sharpton:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And about Don Imus:</p>

<p>“But reading the transcript … it hit too close to home,” she said. “His message was conveyed to so many people. Can you imagine how many people think there is some truth behind the joke?”</p>

<p>“I want to ask him, ‘Now that you’ve met me, am I ho?’” said Rutgers center Kia Vaughn of the Bronx. “Unless they’ve given ‘ho’ a whole new definition, that’s not what I am.”</p>

<p>Declaring that Imus has “stolen a moment of pure grace for us,” the wounded women spoke out for the first time about Imus’ racist radio remarks.</p>

<p>“This has scarred me for life,” said guard Matee Ajavon of Newark.</p>

<hr>

<p>I guess it’s not too surprising that there would be people arguing that these women don’t know who is “really responsible” for the hurt they felt, that the person they thanked is “really responsible”. </p>

<p>But I won’t be the one adopting that insulting, paternalistic attitude toward these women.</p>

330

<p>Guess you didn’t enjoy the Jason Whitlock video.</p>

331

<p>Like all the people you bemoan, he’s in a position to get himself a lot of personal publicity by injecting himself in the debate. With that said, he does have an interesting perspective that’s worth hearing.</p>

<p>But I’m still not convinced that the women on the Rutgers team are such benighted children that they need someone from the outside, who knows what’s best for them, to decide who is “really responsible” for the hurt they feel. What on earth makes you think you’re a better judge of this than the women themselves?</p>

332

<p>Don Imus isn’t the real bad guy here
By Jason Whitlock
McClatchy Newspapers</p>

<p>KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.</p>

<p>You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.</p>

<p>You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.</p>

333

<p>For Jason Whitlock–who wasn’t even involved in this controversy and is now drawing tons of attention to himself over it–to call the Rutgers women names like “opportunists” and “intellectually dishonest” because they don’t conform to his view of how they should deal with what happened to them is beyond paternalistic and patronizing. </p>

<p>Who’s the real opportunist? The Rutgers women who have handled themselves with grace and dignity or the ex-jock calling them more names?</p>

334

<p>So NOW Jason Whitlock wants the African American community to get a social conscience? Not long ago, he was climbing down Ralph Nader’s throat for suggesting that black athletes use their celebrity and power to push a social agenda on behalf of their community. I believe he stated America’s ‘social ills of racism and sexism would be stymied more effectively if the white men in power’ would be as “courageous” as black athletes were expected to be. And I don’t think we can ‘extend Black History Month’ because Whitlock has already requested the time following Black History Month be designated …in his words…“White Social Consciousness Month”. Hey, maybe we can but Imus in charge of that.</p>

<p>Face it, Jason Whitlock is trying to resuscitate his career by assuming the anti-Jackson position and taking it to anyone who will listen (Tucker Carlson for pete’s sake?). Whitlock is just another player in this game for himself.</p>

335

<p>I’m tired. Everybody makes a certain amount of sense in this. On the other hand, nobody does. I don’t even know how I feel anymore. … Goodnight.</p>

336

<p>Conyat</p>

<p>“His message was conveyed to so many people.”</p>

<p>Not by Imus.</p>

<p>He said it once. …in the very early AM - eastern time - when few people are listening to WFAN and almost nobody is watching MSNBC. I would guess that far less than 1% of those to whom his message was conveyed to heard it when aired. </p>

<p>All the rest can “thank” media matters who recorded it and then sent it apparently to everyone in the bleepin world. …including Sharpton and Jackson. It seems media matters is a democrat “watch dog” engaged in doing negative opposition research. They have somebody monitoring Imus’ show full time.</p>

<p>please…before you say “its about time someone did” and I respond “um…well…wasn’t that CBS’ and NBC’s responsibility and either they fell down horribly doing it or they were on board with the show’s content…”…
they were not monitoring Imus himself - so remove them from the angel’s list as well</p>

<p>Media Matters monitors Imus because Republicans appears on his show… (and because he frequented baits his guests into potentially embarrassing sound bites)</p>

<p>Thus it is not unreasonable to say that while Imus offended the girls, it was the ensuing personal agenda driven media frenzy that caused whatever harm the girls may have suffered. The media circus has clearly made them uncomfortable and seems something they would have preferred not to endure. Still, it would be difficult to make much of a case for grievous damages, given that no one - including Imus - has argued that what was said was true, that the universal perception has been that these young women have been done wrong by some ancient old fool (or worse), and that the result has been nothing but good press about the team. </p>

<p>Had media matters truly been concerned for the Rutgers players, perhaps directing the tape to the Rutgers AD, PR dept, President, and/or coach might have been a more constructive and sensitive approach? Maybe let them decide how to handle it in the best way for the team?</p>

<p>The team deserved an apology from Imus and got one. It was up to the team what to do with that apology, and they accepted it.</p>

<p>The team also deserved an apology from Imus’ partners NBC and CBS. FROM NBC and CBS saying that they were sorry that THEY did this, not BY NBC and CBS saying that they were sorry that IMUS did this. They didn’t get those apologies.</p>

<p>Imus deserved chastisement - and got it. Maybe he even deserved a suspension - but to retool the show going forward - not as a financial penalty. The unpaid suspension smells of CBS saying “not our fault - his fault”. Anything else should have be meted out in the marketplace - over time. The advertisers who pulled at MSNBC immediately have as little claim to not knowing the content of the show they were buying tome on as do the networks claiming not to know the content of the show they were airing. </p>

<p>As for those saying Imus’ should have been fired for that basic content of his show, he wasn’t. Direct you fire at CBS and NBC because any discussion about the acceptable content of “hate” radio starts there.</p>

<p>Imus will be back. He’s already got offers. He’s already got a national network of stations. And he’s got New York. He’s been the largest revenue producing program in NYC for decades. Something that always ticked Stern off, even after he moved from Imus’ afternoon drivetime partner to his morning competition. WABC right now has Curtis Sliwa and Ron Kuby on in the morning drive. Imus would be a huge upgrade.</p>

<p>CBS just signed him to a $50 million 5 year extension. They still owe him. They have to work out a financial settlement. …and according to yesterday’s papers, once that is done, he will be back. </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see if he changes and how.</p>

337

<p>

</p>

<p>What makes you more qualified to judge this than the women themselves? </p>

<p>I just don’t get what it is about these women that makes people think they’re so inexpert at their own lives. Did they come across in their interviews to you as somehow unintelligent or not astute? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly! People have very neatly exculpated white hate radio and those who fund it, while directing any and all criticism on to gangsta rap and now the Rutgers women themselves, who are being characterized as too inept to understand their own lives. It’s very clever and also very nauseating.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That was an easily foreseeable consequence. Imus would have been well aware of this when he chose to trash these women. And if you’re one of the women trashed, does it matter if only 10,000 people heard it or 10,000,000 ?</p>

338

<p>One of the great ironies here is that a Democrat Party front group - mediamatters - helped kill off someone who was very important to Democrat politicians (see post #324).</p>

339

<p>That’s kind of a myth. The only person who thinks Imus was important to Democrats is Joe Lieberman, who isn’t a Democrat. </p>

<p>And although there is clearly a liberal agenda, Media Matters is hardly a Democratic Party front organization. You need to get your tinfoil beanie checked.</p>

<p>You’re out of style with the name calling, by the way. “Democrat Party” is oh-so-passe in the right wing hate circles. The name of the party is “Democratic.” Not even the president lowers himself to this kind of slur anymore.</p>

340

<p>Actually, I checked, and Whitlock has been very consistent in his views going back years.</p>

<p>Please provide the exact quotes in context and a source for your claim that Whitlock called the Rutgers women’s basketball team’s members “opportunists” and “intellectually dishonest.” I’m not going back to check, but it doesn’t sound like something he would say to me. Thanks.</p>

<p>We could probably do with some sources from you, too, ldmom.</p>

<p>From what I can see, Whitlock wrote an article about this affair which resonated with many people and some media outlets (CNN and others–not just Tucker Carlson) took notice.</p>

<p>After that, I’m out of here, because it rather turns my stomach to see the lengths you will go to denigrate a perfectly honorable man (from all I can see) simply because he holds views contrary to your own. It’s rather sickening.</p>