Captain's Quarters -

Cap'n Ed wrote:

Imus has the right to say what he did. For that matter, the Ku Klux Klan has the right to say what they do, as long as it doesn't foment violence. That doesn't mean that the First Amendment requires CBS and NBC to give either of them a platform for it. Free speech does not include a right to commandeer someone else's press or microphone without their permission.

Agreed.

The problem is that we have standards of broadcast "decency" that the FCC is supposed to regulate. I've heard Smilin' Al complain that Imus' remarks violated those standards, and hence the government should take him off the air.

Where does free speech end and "indecency" begin? I think that Larry Flynt would claim that there is no dividing line: you can't have truly "free" speech so long as the government is looking over your shoulder, ready to shut you down the moment somebody complains that what you say is "indecent". If one person thinks that it's right to put one program off the air because it is "offensive" or "indecent", then where do we draw the line?

Personally, I'm in favor of letting the market decide, but that might well open up a whole can of worms. If a network determines that it can get great ratings by broadcasting Jenna Jameson films, then who's to stop them? Should we even try?

Cap'n Ed,

It is interesting to note the subtle difference in the way offensive speech is handled by the differing ideologies. In the Imus instance we have people demanding his livelyhood as a means to silence him. Conversely, in the case of the Dixie Chicks, we had people that refused to support them thereby threatening their livelyhood.

Not much difference, but the take home message is: You don't need government to handle every little problem.

It is interesting to note the subtle difference in the way offensive speech is handled by the differing ideologies. In the Imus instance we have people demanding his livelyhood as a means to silence him. Conversely, in the case of the Dixie Chicks, we had people that refused to support them thereby threatening their livelyhood.

Not much difference, but the take home message is: You don't need government to handle every little problem.

Big difference though. The Chicks were speaking out about a person and his policies ... Imus did nothing of the such.

Should he be fired. Probably, but not because of what he said, yeah he can say whatever he wants. But as an employer who takes in mega bucks and will lose that income, fiscally he needs to be gone ...

Guys like Imus, Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony surface, get in trouble, lose their jobs, and then resurface, it would seem, all the time.

"The Chicks were speaking out about a person and his policies ... Imus did nothing of the such. "

OK - let's replace the Chicks with the artist that sculpted "My Sweet Lord" (the anatomically correct Christ carved in chocolate). I didn't see any Christians demanding that the artist never work again! They simply got that one gallery showing of the one offensive work closed. In this case, the artist were not speaking out against a single person/policy....he was "insulting" Catholics and Christians.

Cindy

I've met Michael Meyers, and he's a smart, charming, African-American liberal who enjoys a friendly debate with his conservative friends. Michael's utterly fearless, and utterly principled.

I suspect that Michael is thinking about the implications for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio commentators of the Imus case. Calls to shut people up who express unpopular or even racist views make Michael nervous. At the same time, he'll be the first to condemn offensive content.

Ed's correct about the First Amendment, and also about F.C.C. authority to regulate the airwaves. There are serious efforts afoot by Democrat Congressman Maurice Hinchey and others to restore the old "fairness doctrine". Such restoration likely would shut down Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Given government regulation versus the "marketplace of ideas", I'll take the marketplace any day.

Big difference though. The Chicks were speaking out about a person and his policies ... Imus did nothing of the such.

Imus spoke of several people (Hereinafter, The Team) and did speak of their 'policies', namely their moral turpitude.

Should he be fired. Probably, but not because of what he said, yeah he can say whatever he wants. But as an employer who takes in mega bucks and will lose that income, fiscally he needs to be gone ...

Should you at least try to make some sense? "As an employer"? Are you trying to say the market should handle it, or are you just some troll?

Guys like Imus, Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony surface, get in trouble, lose their jobs, and then resurface, it would seem, all the time.

So fire the guy and let someone else hire him and make 'mega bucks'... makes sense to me.

I believe it will be the advertisers who ultimately make the call with Imus. Few, if any of the vocally offended people ever heard of Don Imus before this incident. They do, however, have a significant constituency that buys the products that advertise on Imus' show.

Liberals threatening to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh would be an empty threat. Same here.

"Here's the crux of the matter: media stars shouldn't attack kids, regardless of the nature of the attack. It's bullying, and nothing turns off people more than a bully. Imus either forgot this, or never learned it before now."

Imus is a jerk. Who didn't know this before?

I agree with most everything here, except there are no "kids" involved here. I'm not sure why there is this push to infantalize those of college age. Last time I checked they were supposed to be adults.

When you are in the public eye you can draw unfriendly comments and that is particularly true in athletics. Adults have to deal with stuff like that. Acting as if these adult women were 8 year old little leaguers does them no service.

Imus' remarks would have been moronic no matter what the age of those he was speaking about. Let's just let the real kids be kids, and the adults who worked their butts off to reach the championship game in NCAA Division I basketball be adults.

"Here's the crux of the matter: media stars shouldn't attack kids, regardless of the nature of the attack. It's bullying, and nothing turns off people more than a bully. Imus either forgot this, or never learned it before now."

Imus is a jerk. Who didn't know this before?

I agree with most everything here, except there are no "kids" involved here. I'm not sure why there is this push to infantalize those of college age. Last time I checked they were supposed to be adults.

When you are in the public eye you can draw unfriendly comments and that is particularly true in athletics. Adults have to deal with stuff like that. Acting as if these adult women were 8 year old little leaguers does them no service.

Imus' remarks would have been moronic no matter what the age of those he was speaking about. Let's just let the real kids be kids, and the adults who worked their butts off to reach the championship game in NCAA Division I basketball be adults.

At least three advertisers associated with Mr. Imus's program on either radio or television -- including the nation's biggest marketer, Procter & Gamble -- suspended their ad support amid a growing controversy over racist remarks he made about the Rutgers women's basketball team last week.

This is precisely how the market rules on these cases. We don't need government meddling in everything we do. Imus has every right to say those things; the market will hold him accountable.

I wish Imus had the balls to begin every show by reading the lyrics from some racist, 'hate directed at women' rap CD, then announce the sales figures for that CD, followed by the name and telephone number of the CEO of the company that produced the CD.

Right on Labamigo!
It is truly a curious thing why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are quick to blast a white man when he makes a morally offensive statement, but you NEVER hear them blast rappers who are putting out cds on the market daily with much worse language, offensive to women than what Imus said.

Proctor and Gamble are full of crap. They are the biggest sponsors of that hen party "the view". rosie the warthog is constantly spewing lies and making inappropriate remarks. She offends the hell out of me. Why haven't they pulled their sponsorship from that garbage show? Hypocrites. Like Labamigo said, why doesn’t that paragon of right, Brotha Al, go after rap artists for their derogatory comments about women or comedians who base their whole shitck on racist remarks? Ah, but I forget, in this country only white's can be racist.

Imus has indulged in such vulgar nastiness, under the guise of coarse comedy, for decades, but that hasn't stopped every politician and TV celebrity (both liberal and conservative) from showing up and bantering with the I-man.

Why the sudden outrage? Because he and Bernie used rapper language on a bunch of girls? On black radio, it wouldn't have been noticed.

If ever there were a racist bigot and con-man, Al Sharpton is surely one. The pot calls the kettle. . . black?

Hypocrisy run rampant. "I am shocked, shocked to find that Don Imus is a self-aggrandizing boor!"

Apropos of nothing, Imus and his brother published a bunch of nice-looking photographs of the Southwest a while ago. I looked at it in the bookstore, and discovered that the captions were rife with four-letter words. You wouldn't want to leave this out on the coffee table for your little kids to look at. It pretty much sums up the Imus failing: much talent, no class.

I listen to the show now and then, for the music.

/Mr Lynn

Captain- As I commented yesterday in your other post on this Imus subject, tell Rush Limbaugh (and ESPN) that it's a question of free speech. Maybe he would still have that sports job on cable. And tell Trent Lott about his free speech rights while you're at it. Maybe he would not have lost his leadership position over an innocent comment at a birthday party for a fellow senator. Or is it that the pressure was too much to bear and they both had to resign. Then I say we aren't bringing enough pressure yet on Imus to bring him to the same conclusion. It's not a question of free speech whether he goes or not. It's a question of how much pressure we can bring to bear, just like what was done to Rush and Lott. Conservatives lose because they are too nice. It's time to start playing by their rules.

If Don Imus can be suspended for his guttermouth remarks, how come Rosie O'Donnell can spew 9/11 conspiracy theories and hatred for fundamentalist Christians and still stay on "The View"?

re: Rosie O'Donnell. Not only does she spew truther garbage but she's also denegrated Asians when she di d her impression of Asian speak by saying "ching chong ching chong".

Don Imus's unpardonable sin is NOT that he acted like a low-class loud-mouth boor when he was describing the Rutgers Ladies basketball team. His sin was that he used a trashy rap street argot to refer to someone black.

Had he used yiddish gutter vulgarity to describe someone jewish, no one would care. Had he picked almost ANY other non-designated victim group to slander, who would care? His real sin was that he failed to recognize the real boundaries of the little verbal "free fire zone" that is his morning show, and he'll pay dearly for the stumble.

Rosie O'Donnell says far worse on a daily basis and nobody cares because she pick's the targets that her friends won't defend.

"Don, meet Rosie! Rosie, meet Don! Rosie, would you please tell this nitwit how it really works? Thanks!"

Does the arguments relating to advertisers not wishing to be associated with some types of broadcast apply if, for instance, to politicians refusing to be on a certain network due to perceived bias?

One thing I don't understand at all...

Why didn't Imus's two-week suspension start "immediately" instead of waiting until next week? Anyone know the answer?

This just in...

Fox News now reporting that MSNBC has "cancelled" the Imus Show effective immediately...

Still, I'm curious why originally the MSNBC plan was to suspend "next week"...

I watched the Rutger's team press conference and was startled when C. Vivian Stringer opened with Maya Angelou's famous quote "The only person who can strip you of your dignity is yourself" (paraphrased) and then proceeded to do exactly that by painting her team as victims of the white man.

I'm wondering what music these young women have on their iPODs - think any of them have Fifty Cents, Snoop, NWA playing?

Probably my favorite take on the whole issue was Jason Whitlock's - one of my favorite commentators.

Give it a read - it's worth it.

http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html

jiHymas@himivest.com wrote (April 11, 2007 03:55 PM):

Does the arguments relating to advertisers not wishing to be associated with some types of broadcast apply if, for instance, to politicians refusing to be on a certain network due to perceived bias?

Sure. It's called voting with your pocketbook.

But is it smart? If XYZ Co. decides not to advertize on Imus or any other program because they don't want to offend their customers, they're making a business decision.

The dems boycotting Fox are making a similar decision, in effect pandering to their "customers" (voters) who can't stomach seeing them on the hated FNC. O' course, given the size of the audience reached by FNC, one wonders if this isn't cutting off their nose to spite their face.

It's kind of like a company deciding not to advertize during the Super Bowl because some of its customer base was offended by Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". If you really DON'T want to put your company's name before millions of people because some of your customers are having a fit of pique, it's your business...

If the dems really don't want the millions of people who watch FNC to see them, or (better still) to see them as crybabies and sissies who are afraid of mean ol' Fox News, that's their business... and juuuuuust fine with me.

I am tired, very tired, of people defending offensive language under the guise of free speech. What is offensive language? Anything that I shouldn't have to explain to my seven-year-old daughter because she heard it on tv or on the radio. It may be hard to define but most people know it when they see or hear it.

Sorry if I am offending any of you free speech hawks but I am really tired of seeing our public discourse continually degraded. I was reminded today that the 2005 Academy Award for "Best Song" went to Hustle and Flow for "It's Hard Out There For A Pimp" which was rife with every vulgarity and obscenity known to man. Our culture is very sick if we are not only accepting but actually rewarding this kind of speech and behavior.

The Imus controversy is, in my opinion, as much a reflexive backlash against vulgarity and profanity on the public airwaves as it is a race issue. I think that it IS a race issue because of the usual race-baiting suspects and their willing accomplices in the media...but I think it resonates more with most people because they are, like me, really fed up with the deterioration of civility, etc. That it is considered funny by anyone to describe female college athletes as whores is, to me, inexplicable. But then there is a lot about the culture that baffles me.

I only hope that this mess can spill over into the other areas of the media such as the hip hop culture where the conglomerates are profiting from the same thing. Let's see David Geffen explain his hip hop profiteering. Let's see BET stop running "music" videos that showcase women as whores, that glamorize the drug and gangster culture, etc. But most of all let's see the public airwaves cleaned up. It probably won't happen but it would be a good thing if it did.

And before you say it or think it, no, I am not for government intervention or censorship. I just get really tired of being told that if I don't like what I hear or see I should just turn it off. Why should anyone be shut out of exposure to the media because of the prevalence of offensive language and/or images?

Imus being in trouble= dems not appearing on Fox News?????????? Thats close to insanity how those two items could be related in someones mind. What doesn't set you wingers off? Hannity and Rush are ALWAYS enraged by something. You righties have some anger issues you need to work out. I used to be a hothead when I was younger....BUT I GREW OUT OF IT. Maybe being a rightie is just about being angry all the time. Its almost like righties LOOK for some indignation. That angers gonna eat you up. You can ride the tiger for a while, but he'll eat you in the end. But hey, don't listen to me, I'm the enemy.

conservative democrat = oxymoron

docjim505 But is it smart? If XYZ Co. decides not to advertize on Imus or any other program because they don't want to offend their customers, they're making a business decision.

The dems boycotting Fox are making a similar decision, in effect pandering to their "customers" (voters) who can't stomach seeing them on the hated FNC.

I agree with you all the way. I think that such boycotts are a business decision - even for the political business - and I think that the Dems have made a bad one.

I'm just a little curious as to why the Cap'n sees the Imus boycott as a business decision and the Fox boycott as a matter of courage, that's all.

jiHymas@himivest.com wrote (April 11, 2007 10:38 PM):

I'm just a little curious as to why the Cap'n sees the Imus boycott as a business decision and the Fox boycott as a matter of courage, that's all.

"Courage" and "business" do not have to be mutually exclusive. A company could decide that, "If we continue to sponsor XYZ radio program, we'll lose X% of our revenue. However, we don't think that it is morally right to drop our sponsorship, and we're willing to take the hit."

In this case, I don't think the dems made any such calculation. For example, I'd be much surprised to learn that they ran any sort of a poll among likely democrat voters to the effect:

"If a democrat presidential candidate appeared in a debate on Fox News, how would it affect your decision to vote for him / her?"

(A) I would be more likely to vote for him / her

(B) I would be less likely to vote for him / her

(C) It would not affect my voting decision at all

I believe that Cap'n Ed is right: the dems are stiffing Fox News (and its large audience) as a way to throw a little red meat to their rabid base. It's rather gutless, but I'm happy with the decision and hope that the dems decide to boycott all the TV and radio programs. I, for one, could go the rest of my life without seeing the Hilldabeast or hearing her shrill, harpy voice, or listening to Silky Pony's schtick about "two Americas" after seeing his mammoth house in Orange County.