This must have been what forced CBS’s hand in firing Imus:
Before the CBS announcement, Imus appeared on WFAN radio Thursday. He lashed out at MSNBC, at the black activists who were his antagonists and at a prominent black Democrat, Harold Ford Jr., who ran for Senate last year with his endorsement.
“I mean, Harold Ford Jr. has been disgraceful for his lack of support,” Imus said on WFAN. “Because I endured death threats to support him in Tennessee.”
In a statement Wednesday – before Imus lost his job – Ford had called Imus “a good friend and a decent man.” But he also said Imus’s remarks were “reprehensible.”
After all this, after his apologies, after arranging to meet with the Rutgers’ team … Imus still plays the victim card? The decent thing to do would have been to say, “Yeah, I screwed up, and I deserve everything I’ve been getting.” Instead, whiny defensiveness. Amazing. He really doesn’t get it.
Speaking of denial and rationalization, here’s our good friend, “reasonable” conservative David Brooks:
“You know, most of us who are pundits are dweebs at some level. And he was the cool bad boy in the back of room,” Brooks said. “And so, if you’re mostly doing serious punditry, you’d like to think you can horse around with a guy like Imus.”
Brooks, who’s also a regular analyst for NPR’s All Things Considered, says he doesn’t believe Imus is a bigot.
“He deserved to feel some public humiliation. But he didn’t deserve to have his career ended,” Brooks said. “You know, when you’re dealing with humor, you’re not dealing with literal words. You’re dealing with people who are putting on a costume.”
Vapidity and shallowness of the punditry — check. Maintaining that “he’s not a bigot”, in spite of mountainous evidence to the contrary — check. Mind-warping rationalization: “Well, he doesn’t really mean what he says” — check.
That’s what passes for “reasonable”, I guess.
Update: shiltone correctly points out that it was sponsors like Staples and P&G (owners of Gillette) that forced CBS’s hand. Reward good behavior: Buy pens and razors from the locals.
The Glob story here.
<
p>
What’s disturbing is that CBS was just going to slap him on the wrist until
I don’t think I’m being too cynical to think that if the advertisers stay, CBS crosses its fingers, waits for his 2-week suspension to lapse, then for it to blow over; and meantime keeps collecting the cash.
<
p>
All of this regardless this guy’s long history, or how egregious the comment in this instance; as John Dickerson mentioned on the Slate Gabfest podcast today, he hit the trifecta this time: “Nappy-headed hos” is simultaneously racist, sexist, and classist.
that CBS and NBC employees, from regular desk jockeys to television camera operators to Al Roker were all pressuring their companies to drop Imus. They didn’t want to work near him, with him, or for a company associated with him.
<
p>
I’m not saying that any of them would have quit in protest if Imus stayed, but when your employees are all upset, it’s a good time to start listening to them.
I think I read this on a link off of kos, and no I don’t have a source to back it up.
are really quite shocking. “Putting on a costume”?? How’d that work out in the south when lots of white dudes enjoyed “putting on costumes” consisting of their bedsheets?
<
p>
As for the bit about how it always made dweebs like Brooks feel “cool” to “horse around” with a “bad boy” guy like Imus, one word comes to mind.
<
p>
Pathetic.
Now you’ve got him in the KKK?!?!?!?!
<
p>
It’s nice how above them all you feel. A news guy goes on a psuedo-news comedy show and gets to let his hair down a bit and thinks it was fun so he’s pathetic.
<
p>
Or did you find a spot where Brooks was on and they were all prancing around in hoods?
<
p>
I think the costumes refer to the fact that they stepped outside their normal roles. There was a lot of unscripted, straightforward talk on the show and believe it or not, 99.9% of it was not offensive in the least. It was refressing, honest talk about political issues that didn’t occour anywhere else. There were also a lot of impressions included on the show. And no, they weren’t Al Jolson impressions.
<
p>
The self righteousness on this site is off the charts at times, really.
Oh please. The only guy who feels “above them all” is David Brooks. Do you actually read his commentaries?
<
p>
I understood the original costume reference. I was using the happenstance of the word having a couple of different meanings to make an intentionally over-the-top comparison. A common technique.
<
p>
And yes, “pathetic” is about right. I’ll stand fully behind that one.
Three front page posts about Don Imus?
<
p>
For better or worse, words like those used by Imus are part of today’s culture. I am confident Don Imus is not credited with introducing them. The outrage is misguided.
<
p>
It is also harmful. It perpetuates a victim mentality. Anyone properly schooled in PC thought knows that only the oppressor class can offend. The oppressed cannot offend one another. Making a big deal of Imus’s comment serves only to cement black women in the role of “oppressed”.
<
p>
This is absurd.
<
p>
you seem to think, as does imus in his statement above, that only blacks, particularily women felt opression (and other things) oozing from imus’s comments. you couldn’t be more wrong. hence, the outcome. do you really think those major advertisers would put support of a cash cow just because the feelings of one small group of young athletes was hurt. laughable.
unlike some other liberal commenters (Atrios, for example), I am totally comfortable with expanding the discussion to talk about the debasement of women in hip-hop. I’ve been meaning to comment on it since the Deval/50-Cent thing … just haven’t gotten around to it.
<
p>
This is actually a big deal, I think, and I hope that something good can come of it.
<
p>
This pissed me off, for instance:
<
p>
<
p>
Yeah, they just reflect reality, as if they don’t also have any influence on it. Pathetic.
<
p>
There damn well should be a progressive response to culture that debases women and glorifies violence and brutality. I don’t have any interest in defending these bozos on anything other than 1st Amendment grounds. They shouldn’t be censored. They should be vilified.
Please don’t rush the post; I hope it is measured and considered. Do not fall into the trap many MSM commentators have fallen into of propping up hip-hop straw men/boogie men. All I’ve been seeing is 50 Cent and Nelly’s “Tip Drill” – to be clear, examples of hip-hop pandering to the lowest common denominator – as African American parallels to Imus’s remarks. It doesn’t take an intellectual giant to rail against 50 and Nelly. I mean, coming out against “Tip Drill” is like coming out against cancer.
<
p>
It is a Herculean task, however, to unpack hip-hop and hip-hop culture and show that the lyrics and images of 50 and Nelly are not a true representation of the entirety of the art form. We hear hundreds of criticisms of “Tip Drill-style” rap for every three or four examinations of rap as legit social criticisms, giving voice to a whole class who have virtually no other outlet to express views, and – Simmons’s* opinion although tragically incomplete, is the truth – much of what is criticized is representation and reflection of real life for this class of people. To clarify, much of the misogyny seen in hip-hop is only there because that is what is believed to be what sells. However, if you grow up in a household or perhaps a neighborhood where it was OK to hit a woman and call here names, those attitudes are going to bleed into artistic expression.
<
p>
Another question I hope you do not ignore is the question from my other post. Does rap deserve its place as the default misogyny (and race and violence) “boogeyman” when in the dominant “mainstream” culture there are countless examples?
<
p>
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, social critic and professor at UPenn, had this to say regarding violence in rap to John McCain in a 2000 Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing:
<
p>
<
p>
I agree with your comment that progressive social criticism is a wonderful thing. The really hard question is How do we put a fresh spin on it? How do we avoid the tired arguments of `Tip Drill’ is outrageous!
=============================================
*Russell Simmons has a history of skirt the real issues of hip-hop criticism claiming artistic expression. Either Simmons is lazy, delusional, or, more likely, he stays out of the conversation because, as a mogul and record exec, he doesn’t want to rock the boat of the artists and industry that pays his bills. I believe Simmons’s ducking of this question is a black mark on him intellectually and he should not get a pass; but he does make many good points about hip-hop and culture that are valuable to the debate.
will be, let’s not limit the discussion to Don Imus, let’s widen the discussion as far as it needs to go.
<
p>
Let’s talk about hip-hop culture and the poisonous effect of the misogyny that seems to be central to many rapper’s portrayal of power. Let’s also talk about the possibly conflicted attitudes of some of its audience, who may love the music, but detest the attitudes expressed.
<
p>
And if that’s bad, let’s also talk about Martin Scorsese, who won an Oscar for a movie in which women are only good to be fucked, lied to, or brutally murdered — but never as actually having agency in their own lives. PS — I liked The Departed, in spite of that. Again, am I part of the problem?
<
p>
As I mentioned, let’s talk about opera, which is chock-a-bloc with idiotic portrayals of women and non-white people.
<
p>
Let’s talk about the limits of moral relativism: Should the United States have anything to do with countries that countenance female genital mutilation, or honor-killings? How can this not the pre-eminent human rights issue in the world?
I hear exactly what you are saying about being conflicted, Charley. I am constantly asking myself: what does it mean to enjoy things that are potentially hurtful to others in our society? What are we willing to give up “for the greater good”? Where is the line between art and misogyny for profit’s sake? How can I, in good conscious, be upset at Jay-Z’s video for “Big Pimpin'” because it shows a rapper pouring champagne on a bikini-clad woman but then recommend his “Black Album” as a hip-hop classic?
<
p>
I think we all make moral compromises in the media and art we consume. Much of the art that I enjoy can be construed as poisonous and misogynistic – both fairly and unfairly. I feel conflicted when I tune into the wildly popular Family Guy and its companion show, American Dad. At times, I see the comedy as creative and brilliant; other times I see a disproportionate amount of “humor” at the expense of violence (physical and sexual) against women, even killing as humor.
<
p>
I was thinking about The Departed (great film) today, specifically the way Nicholson established his relationship with his “girlfriend”. He used his power to claim her when she was a teenager (seemed like around 14) in order to have her and keep her as an adult. I was disgusted, but it helped the story because it made Jack’s into a bigger monster in my eyes. I think Scorsese presented the movie in a realist/verismo tradition by presenting the information free of prejudice, not stamping his on value judgment on the way Nicholson treated women, allowing the viewers to make their own moral judgments. In that sense, Charley, I don’t think men like you or I are part of the problem – we recognize the misogynistic elements of Nicholson’s (and other characters’) masculinity as traits we reject in our own self-definitions of manhood. We can enjoy a movie where a woman is beaten without enjoying the fact that the woman is beaten.
<
p>
The potential problem may lie in certain men, especially young men, who have a respect for gangster-like behavior and see the way Nicholson bullies the girl into being his future sex toy as a positive. Another hypothetical problem is to let misogynistic attitudes go unchecked in other men. When Adriana, a female character in the Sopranos, was killed, in my opinion she was a meant to be very sympathetic character and many viewers felt bad that she died. However, I heard many of my male friends laughingly say, “The bitch deserved it!” I would say that men like you and me who are conscious of the ingrained misogyny, whether it be overt or casual, pervading all aspects of American culture are part of the problem when we let hurtful attitudes go unchecked.
<
p>
We can enjoy gangster films, rap, rock, opera etc, so long as we a.) keep are critical razor sharp and always evaluate the messages – does Scorsese endorse this behavior, or does this make Nicholson into a bigger monster? What were the conditions for women in Mozart’s time that makes it acceptable for Zerlina to implore Masetto to beat here, and are there residual effects of that attitude today? – and b.) recognize that these same images of which we are critical can be misconstrued by others as positive examples of masculinity. As men it is our duty to keep the dialogue open with friends, brothers, uncles, nephews, etc as to what true masculinity involves and not let men get away with thoughts such as “Adriana deserved it! Ha!”. In that sense, we are all complicit when we don’t speak up. Just as you pointed out, we are all complicit when we ignore genital mutilations and honor killings.
<
p>
This is a fantastic topic; again, I’m looking forward to participating in the conversation. This is a Herculean task, and can’t imagine where you are going to begin. On the other hand, pointing out misogyny in American culture is like shooting fish in a barrel.
<
p>
Good luck.
and their removal from Country Radio. It was just the market.
<
p>
If the market forced Imus out, then it did. But I believe he will be able to find a new job, and a new audience. Just as the Dixie Chicks did.
<
p>
Sniff Sniff, is that hypocrisy I smell wafting in the air???
it’s the odor of BS on your breath.
<
p>
Things have worked out pretty well for the Dixie Chicks. Imus will no doubt find another gig. The difference is that the Dixie Chicks are actually much better off than they were before, and Imus will be worse off. Because of the market.
I assume you’d agree that there’s no moral equivalence between expressing a partisan political viewpoint (“we’re ashamed that Bush is from Texas,” or whatever the DCs actually said), regardless of whether it’s one with which you agree, and expressing racist sentiments.
<
p>
Or maybe you wouldn’t. Why don’t you explain it for us.
(This isn’t a direct response to your comment, David, btw, but I just decided to post the comment here)
<
p>
As far as I can tell, the Dixie Chicks re-invented themselves after their political comment. They were–and are–a young and innovative group, with a rather substantial following, and via their re-invention, have gone on to a larger audience.
<
p>
It is probable that Imus shot himself in the foot, and will have a difficult time recovering, in large part because he’s relatively old (youth has its privileges) and he apparently has a history of such outbursts. Does he have the wherewithall to recover? I don’t know, and, since I am not a regular listener to his program, I quite frankly don’t really care.
<
p>
Is it right that Imus should have been canned? I don’t know–I’ll leave it for the beancounters to decide. The beancounters always are the decision makers, aren’t they? Well, they are in a country with a receding economy. My only interest in the matter is in responding to people who claim it is a 1st amendment “free speech” issue, when it isn’t.
The Dixie Chicks had the audacity to say they “were ashamed to be from the same state” as George Bush…pretty mild statement compared to what hides under the quise of comedy/entertainment in any number of venues where women are insulted, marginalized, demeaned and derided just to get a few cheap laughs and profits.
<
p>
I am for free speech…but with free speech comes the responsibility to be accountable for what you say…the Dixie Chicks statement did not hurt George Bush…he is a public figure who has received far more serious criticism than a public admission of geographic embarrassment by a female singer.
<
p>
But, the remarks of Mr. Imus and his sidekick McGuirk had a different effect on people who they had no consideration for…it goes far beyond the Rutgers women…it is the last in a long, long history of similar remarks that they now try to pass off as “comedy”…they can say what they want and spin it any way they want…but in the end, they have been held accountable for the free speech they chose to use to entertain their audience at the expense of others.
<
p>
That the Dixie Chicks statement on foreign soil, hurt the national security interests of the United States. By publicly calling into account the leadership of the United States during war time on foreign soil. Something most of us were brought up to believe was wrong. But hey, they’re on your side right, so they couldn’t have been wrong.
<
p>
The outcome of the two cases are both the same. As they were economic sanctions to speech.
Some of us have learned to think for oursleves, not just blindly follow what we were brought up to believe. Kids can be tought to believe anything. Isn’t that scarry?
There’s just something so wrong about being brought up right.
means teaching them to think critically and form their own opinions, not toe some moldy line just because it is there. naturally the insecure and the “my way or the highway” types hate it.
You confuse being constantly critical with thinking critically.
<
p>
Having a solid moral foundation is neither moldy nor insecure. And is certainly preferable to being intransigent and doctrinaire.
…including stupid things like
<
p>
That the Dixie Chicks statement on foreign soil, hurt the national security interests of the United States.
As if the words of 3 country music artists have any affect on national security and as if the words of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have had postive impacts on US national security.
Where is the outrage?
<
p>
Schwarzenegger pimps green machine
http://www.cnn.com
“Pimp” isn’t racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever. I probably would have referred to Ahnold as being a carny-barker instead of a pimp, but it is unlikely that anyone under the age of 70 would have understood the reference.
Or actually, you know, read. If you did, you would know that the noun pimp and the verb to pimp is not slang and did not originate 25 years ago in “the ghetto”. You demaen yourself by spouting such an ignorant, laughable remark.
<
p>
As we have already established here, the pimp and prostitute analogy has been used since the 1800s to discuss economy and the sexual division on domestic labor. Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary shows the noun pimp first appearing in 1600 and the verb to pimp appearing in 1639 – over 300 years before the first rapper was even born.
<
p>
Here is but one example of the noun pimp being used in the political context from 1878: “Edwardsville (Illinois) Intelligencer 16 Oct. 4/2 With a weak and servile chairman, and a political pimp for a secretary.
<
p>
Here is an example of the verb to pimp in regards to economy from 1855 “T. PARKER Trial T. Parker 218 When Mr. Webster prostituted himself to the Slave Power this family went out and pimped for him in the streets.”
<
p>
Sorry you couldn’t induce any outrage; maybe you can demand an appology directly from Gov. Schwarzenegger? Let us know how that goes.
I see you are not serious about discussing the issue.
You failed to make a point.