What harm hath he wrought?

[Dana Sheets]

Mike - you're correct. It wouldn't be the same news if Imus hadn't been Imus and if he hadn't been talking about the Rutgers team.

Broadcasters are held to a higher standard. Like it or not. That's the business.

Several major corporations have already pulled their support for Imus. If he'd been somebody else speaking in private nobody would have ever heard about it. Instead he makes a comment on national radio, makes another comment on another national radio show the next day and compounds his problems. And now, he's on the outs in media land.

In my world it often comes down to comments educators make in interviews about their students they don't end up in the show or comments physicians make about their patients or patient self-efficacy that don't end up in the show. Teachers can't talk about smarter kids and less intelligent kids - that's verboten. They have to talk about a student's readiness to learn new material or their comfort level of current material. By the same token we don't include comments from physicians that frame patients as chronically self-sabotaging or overly non-compliant. The reason? The programs I make have specific teaching goals for the target audience. So I have to play by the rules.

Imus knew the rules, he lost focus and broke them. Now there are consequences. That's basically what he said about himself going into the Sharpton interivew. I don't agree that there should be FCC intervention. The free-market version of regulation seems to be working just fine. I love free speech, I'm in favor of it. Doesn't mean I like or support all of what is said under that banner.

[MikeK]

Dana, I'm a big fan of radio. I hung around in the studios of several stations, have a lot of friends who are GM's and DJ's and been on the air many times. The reality is broadcasters are not held to a higher standard. The boys in the corner offices will let a show go as far as the FCC will let them as long as the sponsors are handing over the money. If Staples was still there, then Imus would still be on MSNBC. The mistake Imus made from a business standpoint was to help publicize his crass remark.

[Mary S]

We allow our ignorance to prevail upon us and make us think we can survive alone, alone in patches, alone in groups, alone in races, even alone in genders.

Maya Angelou
US author & poet (1928 - )

[Bill Glasheen]

Bill - you know I care for you.

Indeed. And I for you.

No blood, no foul.

However, I will stand by my reasoning that the line you posted was inappropriate.

Indeed. And I responded accordingly.

Perhaps I could have articulated that better, Dana, but...

I acknowledged the situation as it was. I was sloppy with my language.

If you write long enough, you're going to goof sooner or later. All I ask is that the reader take a single gaffe in the greater context of what I am saying. Because if you read the entirety of what I posted, I can't see where any person who believes in justice would disagree.

My opinion, of course...

Yea, I know... People hate that "but" word after admitting a goof.

Please do re-articulate your point more clearly because I, for one, would like to better understand your sentiment. Your second post still did not help me understand how the reaction of the Rutgers women should be tempered or related, in any way, to contemporary rap music.

Gosh... If you had only watched The Today Show this morning, you'd have seen that my very sentiments were being expressed. If you listened to ESPN Radio this morning, you would have heard an editorial that went several steps farther down the path.

Of COURSE there is debate about the particulars... That's why we have these discussion forums.

Here's what I believe concerning Imus and Rutgers.

• Of ALL people, the Rutgers University women's basketball team did not deserve Imus' abhorrent, denigrating comments. How much farther can you achieve in life as a group of 18 to 22-year-old women than to play in a national championship game while a degree-seeking student at a prestigious university? These women were superstars in full bloom.
  
  It's one thing to say somebody is ugly. The stars of the championship Florida team (2 years in a row) make ugly look good. It's one thing to comment on one's taste in fashion. I'm not wild about tattoos, and if I was a coach I wouldn't allow a player to have one. Whether or not they like it, they are ambassadors for a University that's giving them a platform and a free education. Sacrifice is in order.
  
  It's an entirely different thing to slight someone for their ethnicity, or to suggest that their achievements are at all associated with the oldest profession. This speaks to the heart of the glass ceiling for minorities.
  
  Imus couldn't have been more mean spirited and inappropriate with his language.
• Many of "the outraged" (e.g. Al Sharpton) have no business being so when they are only outraged at behavior exhibited by those of another color. This is like me cursing up a blue streak at home with f this and s that, and then expecting my son not to curse. The rap and hip-hop culture uses the words b----, n-----, and ho, EVERY DAY in their artform. Yes, I've heard the arguments by Snoop Dog that this takes the negative power out of the words. I love Snoop and his music, and disagree with this opinion.
  
  We cannot be selective about enforcement of rules. Society can't be promoting free speech in one artistic venue, and then censoring it in another ON THE SAME PUBLIC AIRWAYS.

Women don't deserve to be referred to as hos, bi-----, and n------ by anyone of any color. To tolerate it in your own race and demand someone's job because they don't have your skin color is the height of mean-spiritedness, hypocrisy, and bigotry.

Al Sharpton can't call himself a preacher when he holds the fork of the devil. And this isn't the first time for him. I wouldn't be all over him if he didn't show a pattern of racism and a rush to judgment that destroys the lives of innocent people.

BTW, the ESPN editorial I heard this morning went into great detail on that one. The Tawana Brawley incident is for all practical purposes identical to the Duke Lacrosse incident. Just take out Naifong, and insert a racist Al Sharpton with his own political agendas.

Liberty loves justice. And justice isn't justice if it isn't blind to race and gender.

I have high standards as well, Dana. You might wonder why I would be so quick to respond. Well... Walk a mile in my shoes. I'm not unfamiliar to Black culture. I grew up in it. I was a minority where my home was. It is my comfort zone. It is what I am familiar with. It is part of who I am. I also have worked for Fortune 500 companies which claim to have policies against harassment of many kinds.

No matter where I go, I see the good, the bad, and the downright nasty.

People are people are people. Nobody gets a pass for their race, their gender, or the size (or lack thereof) of their wallet. If we are to have justice, we must ask all to play by the rules. Otherwise the whole exercise is a farce.

Society isn't as stupid as we take it for.

As for Imus, well... Corporate America has spoken. When the corporate sponsors flee en masse, you find a new line of work.

It is what it is.

As for the topic of women in society, how much damage has been done? Have Naifong and Sharpton made it any easier for a woman to respond to the very serious crime of rape? Have they helped women break through the glass ceiling in Corporate America? I think not. I think they've set us all back half a generation.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

The following exchange occurred earlier in this thread.

***
Yes, blacks need to get their own house in order before pointing an accusing finger at Imus ***

***

Wow. I mean just, wow.
The very idea that "blacks" are a collective group of some kind and that one segment of that group needs to address and counter-balance another part is pattently absurd to me. These are two completely unrelated events involving completely unrelated people.

It's difficult for some who haven't lived the life I've lived and seen what I've seen to understand what I (unsuccessfully) tried to convey with that one line (amidst many). It comes across as racist.

But I've never shyed away from speaking my mind because I know where my heart is and I know what I'm talking about. I'm just not as good at articulating it as I could be.

Jason Whitlock is a columnist for a Kansas City newspaper.



I couldn't have said this any better. I'll step aside and let a better man take the baton.

- Bill

Posted on Wed, Apr. 11, 2007

COMMENTARY

Imus isn’t the real bad guy

Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.

By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

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.

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.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

[Stryke]

Yur not alone , Jorviks favourite PM , is singing the same tune Bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/sto ... 48,00.html

[Gene DeMambro]

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.

If Jason Whitlock had done any amount of research on Vivian Stringer, he'd know she is probably the last person who deserves any amount of grief in this matter. If he did his job as a journalist, he'd know that Vivian Stringer is no victim.

And where has Jason Whitlock been on AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson all these years? He waits until NOW to oppose these two? That dog don't hunt.

There has not been deafening silence on the issue of what lyrics hip-hop/rap music use. We just choose not to listen - including Jason Whitlock Plenty of people - black or otherwise - oppose the use of derogatory words in music. We just choose not to listen.

The women of Rutgers are not boo-hooing, They are handling the issue with class and dignity. These are not pampered collegiate athletes, taking Introduction to Televison to make just enough college credits to stay in school, waiting at the first opportunity to jump to the pros. These women will all graduate and move on to great personal and professional lives. They have absolutely NOTHING to answer for. And they certainly don't answer for music lyrics. Any attempt to link to the two really is misplaced.

As for Don Imus, as much as I liked to listen to him at timnes - he got what he deserved, in my mind. He'll sign on with Sirius, get his own channel, and be able to use any insults he wants.

There was a just ending in the Duke lacrosse case. We can debate the merits of college students hiring exotic dances and having that kind of party, but the crimes alleged did not happen. I'm saddened that it delayed 2 student's education, delayed one graduate from moving onward and upward in his life and cost a coach who did nothing wrong his job (he's since been hired as the lacrosse coach at Bryant University). Nifong deserves to get disbarred.

Gene

[MikeK]

There is a lot of hypocrisy in this entire mess. I haven't seen surprise like that shown by MSNBC since Capt. Renault found out there was gambling going on at Rick's.



What are the chances of any heads rolling that are attached to the shoulders of those who signed the contracts for Imus or built the nice big studio for him a few years back? Or the clowns at CBS who were happy to rake in the millions in revenue from the show until now.

FWIW, I grew up on Imus in the 70's and 80's, but I turned off Imus a few years back when I heard things I didn't want my kids to think was acceptable to say. I voted with my TV remote.

[Bill Glasheen]

Gene

Interesting hearing your thoughts. I know you have opinions on legal matters that I disagree with, so... It helps me understand your perspective.

Two thoughts:

• Whitlock's editorial isn't about Jason vs. Jesse or Jason vs. Al or Jason vs. Vivian. I think you're missing the point. You REALLY missed it on Jason vs. Vivian. But then I'm not surprised, since I think you're on the other end of his point of view.
  
  FWIW, I thought Jason best expressed what Mike was trying to say earlier in how he thought the Rutgers women should respond to Imus' perfectly inane comment.
  
  Jason abhors the victim mentality. Jason is about personal responsibility and accountability. If you want to point to an "activist" who thinks more like him (but a bit more rough around the edges), it would be Louis Farrakhan. Remove the hate talk, the mindless obsession with numerology, and the religious overtones, and you have Jason.
  
  To some extent, it's a political point of view.
  
  Jason also understands the difference between being Martin Luther King and Al Sharpton. Dr. King faced a real enemy - and deftly defeated it. Al is living in the shadows of Dr. King. He wallows in self pity, and is a master of the blame game. He also happens to be pretty transparent when it comes to self promotion.
  
  Jason isn't attacking individuals. He's attacking a lifestyle, a mindset, and the consequences of identifying with those. If what he says resonates with you, you will "get" it. The people whose attitudes he attacks are immaterial.
  
  Jason's attitude is what got me through graduate school. Thirty-three people started my program, and three ended up with doctorates. It was a terrible program when it came to producing students with degrees. But at the end of the day, it didn't pay to wallow in self pity. It didn't get you a degree. Those who finished did so through their own creative and tenacious efforts.
• You make light of what the 3 Duke kids and their families went through. You forgot the minor detail of it costing them somewhere in the neighborhood of a million a piece in legal bills. And let's not forget the time value of the money not earned in the early part of their careers.
  
  Let's not forget the damage caused by using a woman who needed help. Let's not forget the damage caused by showing true rape victims how difficult it can be to fight back. Let's not forget unnecessarily fanning the flames of racial tension. Let's not forget the class warfare bullcrap.
  
  Perhaps you don't know Durham. Perhaps you don't know that what Naifong did was equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. And to what end? Perhaps we'll never know.

Something to think about.

- Bill

[MikeK]

You know what these two situations show to me? It's how many people use others to benefit themselves. Everybody from Imus, to GM and Bigelow Tea ("we're offended and pulling our ads after advertising with Imus for so many years"), to the basketball coach (sorry Gene but you don't build successful teams without using some people and discarding others. Also if she wasn't pushing her program at least a little why have them at the press conference in their warmup suits and not business suits), to Nifong (gotta get those votes). And so far outside of the Duke and Rutgers players, you name someone in either of these two cases and the odds are good that they're looking at how to make this benefit them.

That's something for all of us to keep in mind.

[Gene DeMambro]

Read what I wrote again, Bill, and you'll see where you are wrong in your assessment of my thoughts.

Not at all am I making light of what the 3 Duke players went through. To be suspended from a prestigious university based on accusations that were not true saddens me. The two undergrads could say "screw you, Duke". If it were me, I'd return to the university and show them up - big time. As for the million a piece in legal fess, this is precisely why we have civil litigation. Nifong deserves to be disbarred, get sued and loose, and I dare anyone to prove me wrong.

I've written about the plight of the mentally ill before, Bill. Nothing more left to say on that matter from me. The accuser deserves help, and it is just that she herself not face criminal charges herself.

Sorry, Bill. Jason Whitlock wrote:

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

and

I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos

And he knows this...how?

It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$

So there he is - calling Vivian Stringer a victim and out for money.

There he is, yapping about Vivian Stringer and her players. He's attacking them as individuals. That dog don't hunt.

When he writes that, he is missing the point.

I'm not going to answer for or discuss the actions and words of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson - mostly because I don't really care about those two. But if Bill Glasheen or Jason Whitlock or the man on the moon want to, feel free. But don't lump Vivian Stringer in there as well.

If he wants to bitch about hip-hop culture good for him, but Vivian Stringer, her players and her university have nothing to do with it. Want to yap about how AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't get it nowadays? Go right ahead. But Vivian Stringer, her players and her University are not part of that. Leave them out it. Again, they have NOTHING to answer for.

Something to think about.

Gene

[MikeK]

Nothing to answer for, but if she's as smart as I think she is, then she's seeing the opportunity in this mess.

[MikeK]

an interesting perspective

The New York Times


April 13, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Our Prejudices, Ourselves
By HARVEY FIERSTEIN

AMERICA is watching Don Imus’s self-immolation in a state of shock and awe. And I’m watching America with wry amusement.

Since I’m a second-class citizen — a gay man — my seats for the ballgame of American discourse are way back in the bleachers. I don’t have to wait long for a shock jock or stand-up comedian to slip up with hateful epithets aimed at me and mine. Hate speak against homosexuals is as commonplace as spam. It’s daily traffic for those who profess themselves to be regular Joes, men of God, public servants who live off my tax dollars, as well as any number of celebrities.

In fact, I get a good chuckle whenever someone refers to “the media” as an agent of “the gay agenda.” There are entire channels, like Spike TV, that couldn’t fill an hour of programming if required to remove their sexist and homophobic content. We’ve got a president and a large part of Congress willing to change the Constitution so they can deprive of us our rights because they feel we are not “normal.”

So I’m used to catching foul balls up here in the cheap seats. What I am really enjoying is watching the rest of you act as if you had no idea that prejudice was alive and well in your hearts and minds.

For the past two decades political correctness has been derided as a surrender to thin-skinned, humorless, uptight oversensitive sissies. Well, you anti-politically correct people have won the battle, and we’re all now feasting on the spoils of your victory. During the last few months alone we’ve had a few comedians spout racism, a basketball coach put forth anti-Semitism and several high-profile spoutings of anti-gay epithets.

What surprises me, I guess, is how choosy the anti-P.C. crowd is about which hate speech it will not tolerate. Sure, there were voices of protest when the TV actor Isaiah Washington called a gay colleague a “faggot.” But corporate America didn’t pull its advertising from “Grey’s Anatomy,” as it did with Mr. Imus, did it? And when Ann Coulter likewise tagged a presidential candidate last month, she paid no real price.

In fact, when Bill Maher discussed Ms. Coulter’s remarks on his HBO show, he repeated the slur no fewer than four times himself; each mention, I must note, solicited a laugh from his audience. No one called for any sort of apology from him. (Well, actually, I did, so the following week he only used it once.)

Face it, if a Pentagon general, his salary paid with my tax dollars, can label homosexual acts as “immoral” without a call for his dismissal, who are the moral high and mighty kidding?

Our nation, historically bursting with generosity toward strangers, remains remarkably unkind toward its own. Just under our gleaming patina of inclusiveness, we harbor corroding guts. America, I tell you that it doesn’t matter how many times you brush your teeth. If your insides are rotting your breath will stink. So, how do you people choose which hate to embrace, which to forgive with a wink and a week in rehab, and which to protest? Where’s my copy of that rule book?

Let me cite a non-volatile example of how prejudice can cohabit unchecked with good intentions. I am a huge fan of David Letterman’s. I watch the opening of his show a couple of times a week and have done so for decades. Without fail, in his opening monologue or skit Mr. Letterman makes a joke about someone being fat. I kid you not. Will that destroy our nation? Should he be fired or lose his sponsors? Obviously not.

But I think that there is something deeper going on at the Letterman studio than coincidence. And, as I’ve said, I cite this example simply to illustrate that all kinds of prejudice exist in the human heart. Some are harmless. Some not so harmless. But we need to understand who we are if we wish to change. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should confess to not only being a gay American, but also a fat one. Yes, I’m a double winner.)

I urge you to look around, or better yet, listen around and become aware of the prejudice in everyday life. We are so surrounded by expressions of intolerance that I am in shock and awe that anyone noticed all these recent high-profile instances. Still, I’m gladdened because our no longer being deaf to them may signal their eventual eradication.

The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.

Harvey Fierstein is an actor and playwright.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Italics mine.



[/url]

[Gene DeMambro]

Also if she wasn't pushing her program at least a little why have them at the press conference in their warmup suits and not business suits

From Random House Unabridged Dictionary:

team –noun 1. a number of persons forming one of the sides in a game or contest. 2. a number of persons associated in some joint action:

And perhaps you missed the photo of the team after their meeting with Imus in ... gasp ... street clothes?

Gene

[MikeK]

Still Gene, that wasn't the official press conference/photo op.