As Don Imus’s career appears to be screeching to a halt [UPDATE: CBS has fired Imus, so he’s done], there are two interesting takes on the whole business in today’s Herald. First, Casey Ross got an apparently exclusive interview with Deval Patrick on the Imus flap.
“I’m sick of this,” Patrick told the Herald. “I’m sick of the careless insults that get hurled around. I’m sick of the lack of respect. And why? Because you can’t make a point about a basketball team without talking about them that way?” …
Patrick declined to take a position on whether Imus should be fired, saying, “That’s up to the station.” But he sharply denounced cynicism that results in the public airing of disrespectful commentary. “It has nothing to do with being (politically correct),” Patrick said. “It has to do with respect and saying, `We don’t accept that kind of thing.’ ”
Contrast that sensible take with the usually sensible Brett Arends (see, for example, his excellent column from yesterday trashing Mitt Romney), who for some reason doesn’t see a big problem with what Imus said.
I have watched with disbelief as the media mob has formed around talk jock Don Imus. OK, so he wasn’t paying a compliment to the young women of the Rutgers basketball team. But so what? Are compliments the only kind of speech permitted these days?
Uh, what? Again, folks, how many times do we have to explain this? This is not about free speech. Don Imus has every right to stand on a street corner and rant about anything he wants. Or he could start a blog. He’s probably even got enough money that he could buy a printing press and start cranking out pamphlets if he felt like it. But he has no right to a radio or TV show, and MSNBC and CBS are well within their rights to can his ass. With sponsors bailing out like rats from a rapidly sinking ship, they didn’t have much of a choice.
Here’s another thing that puzzled me about Arends’ column.
“Nappy-headed hos” was crude and off base, but it was obviously tongue in cheek, and it is not hate speech.
It is not, for example, like calling Jews “Hymies” and New York “Hymietown.” That, of course, is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson once did.
Hmm. Not sure I’m seeing the logic there. Wasn’t “Hymietown” a “tongue in cheek” comment, which apparently makes it OK? And let’s not forget, Brett, that Imus is the same guy who said of African-American journalist Gwen Ifill’s covering the White House for the NY Times several years back, “Isn’t the Times wonderful. It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.” Tongue in cheek? Maybe. As bad as Hymietown? You make the call. [UPDATE: Vennochi has a good rundown of some of Imus’s other humdingers, and the Globe also has a guest op-ed column that explains why the “nappy headed” thing matters — an interesting read. Also, don’t forget that Media Matters has been driving the Imus story from day 1 — kudos, once again, to them.]
As for Mitt Romney, a true profile in courage on these kinds of issues, he (well, not him, exactly) heroically weighed in as follows:
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, also running for president, has faced criticism for his silence on the issue, but a spokesman said last night Romney believes the comments were “hurtful” and “wrong.”
“If he’s ever invited back (on Imus’ show), he’ll tell that to him directly,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said.
Wow! Romney’s spokesman said that the next time Romney’s on Imus, he’ll speak to him — sternly, no doubt. Well, how ’bout this as an alternative plan, Mitt: don’t go on the show. And say so yourself. Pretty simple. I know, Romney’s not the only one not ruling out appearing on the show in the future. Shame on all of them.
Oh, and speaking of Romney, have you actually seen the video of his “varmints, if you will” speech about how he really is a hunter? It’s one of the funniest things yet to happen on the campaign trail, and it could easily spell the end of any support his campaign might once have enjoyed among people who care about guns.
Hi-frickin’-larious. He will use, no doubt, his spear and magic helmet to kill those varmints.
these deserved two different threads — the only think linking them is the ‘nitwit’ and that ain’t enough these days.
<
p>
I was expecting to read about how Romney weighed in on the hair of others, and to my dismay he was just rambling about quail being rodents or somesuch.
i find it in poor taste to follow somthing as serious as mainstream racist talk with a bit of romney nitwittery, although i think i see what you’re trying to do, David.
<
p>
that said, here is the bubble caption i saw over willard’s head during that clip: “I inhaled, I swear I did!”
Gotta do the taxes and all.
…and it is beneath him.
<
p>
Are you THAT desperate to link Romney to EVERY passing scandal?
it’s obviously not what i’m seeing.
that I actually forgot to include Romney’s comments about Imus, which make the post a bit more coherent. I’ve updated. Sorry for the omission, and thanks for the comments!
pathetic that willard can’t say out loud that promoting bigotry on the public airwaves is a bad thing. but you know that gun tottin willard. he can’t afford to be seen to be too friendly with fairminded people. and, perhaps most importantly, he doesn’t want to lead. he’d rather follow mccain and giuliani into the imus studio of shame. because we all know from his coulter moment that he values groveling for attention above being an ethical man.
..Sorry,
<
p>
i find it in poor taste to follow somthing as serious as mainstream racist talk with a bit of romney nitwittery
<
p>
for me, the relationship is rooted in the fact of Romney’s obvious homophobia, and that so many black religious leaders in MA not only go along with it, but they also foster it.
<
p>
If and when the black religious leaders are silenced for their homophibia–as Coretta Scott King called them out to do–I’ll be interested. But the interesting thing is that black religious leaders mostly (some do, but apparently not most) abhore gay people. Whatever.
<
p>
I really do have little sympathy for those who express antipathy for me. That really is the social contract. Do unto others, as you would do unto me. But don’t expect me to do unto others, what others won’t do unto me.
<
p>
That’s the social contract. It really is.
I read today that he was considered very “liberal”.
Is that considered accurate?
<
p>
I put him in the same box a Howard Stern. Another loathesome creature. Who listens to nitwits like these people other than other nitwits?
<
p>
So Romney pulled a John Kerry, “Can I get me a hunting license here”? I guess he missed that part of the Kerry campaign.
what other history would he condemn us to repeat? sobering question, huh?
Romney basically did, viz: “I’ve been a hunter all my life.” That has been shown by Romney’s own admissions to be a total crock, if you will.
There has never been a 20 point buck on Naushon , on MV, NT or the cape.
<
p>
I guess JFK and Willard were cut out of the same bolt of cloth, well except that Willard didn’t dump his wife when she got sick for a rich widow.
are you the game warden? sometimes the wild claims people make about what they know just cracks me up.
“My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.”
<
p>
Who said this?
<
p>
A.) Tag Romney about pappa Mitt
B.) Rudy Giulliani’s son
C.) Mary Cheney
D.) Dr. Evil from Austin Powers
I choose E.), all the above. they’re right about the chestnuts, you know.
Great stuff, tblade. Gave me a great afternoon laugh out loud. It’s not for everyone but I think the entire passage warrants posting. Forgive the indulgence serious people.
<
p>
The details of my life are quite inconsequential… very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum… it’s breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.
I listen to Stern every single day. And used to listen to Imus somewhat regularly.
<
p>
If you don’t listen to the shows, you can’t really characterize either. And if you’ve ever listened you are–by your own definition–a nitwit yourself.
<
p>
And since this is a subject dealing with insults and denigrating people, I think you should refrain from characterizing anyone as a “loathesome creature” unless you are addressing a mirror.
<
p>
Comment on what you know. If you’ve never listened to Imus, just say you don’t like what he said and leave it at that.
<
p>
To answer your question, I didn’t find Imus more of a liberal or conservative. He pretty freely admitted to going with whoever was popular or who he liked personally (whoever came on the show). So while he was a fan of Kerry, he’s also sucked up to Weld, McCain, JD Hayworth and media folks commonly considered liberal and conservative. You might’ve liked it. Some of his “impolite” humor targeted Ted K. Though I’m sure you would’ve considered it wrong to trivialize the death of MJK.
I’m hunting wabbits.
<
p>
Actually, David, I do think this has a little something to do with free speech.
<
p>
No doubt there are limits to free speech. Notably, the ability of a private company to terminate a private employee who was hired to talk when the person says something they don’t like.
<
p>
BUT some of us like to think that the right to speak freely allows fruitful debate, education of audiences on various topics, greater exploration of ideas and beliefs. And that limiting that debate because you don’t like what someone said limits our society.
<
p>
So I’d like to see a company that mainly deals in news to follow the guides for free speech that our nation has developed in the last two hundred years or so.
<
p>
A professor I had used to teach that the best solution for bad speech wasn’t stopping speech, but more speech. I believe that. And while Imus’ words, while considered by many to be bad words, COULD have initiated a debate that would have positive results. But I don’t think there will be a positive result because more of the debate is focusing on shutting him up than dealing with the underlying issues of racism and why it persists.
<
p>
Some here don’t want to broaden the discussion to include other ways in which African American women are denigrated. They’ve said we should just deal with what Imus has said here and now and move on. I think the Imus situation should trigger a discussion of hate or intolerance demonstrated through words spoken by Rush Limbaugh, Al Sharpton and even religous people from Christian, Evangelical, Muslim or Jewish religions against others.
<
p>
But that’s the way I think we make progress on these issues. More speech, not less.
if imus’s employer made him scoot over on the bench to make time share room for people of differing opinions, we could have what you’re espousing. but they won’t, and they don’t have to. i really don’t think for a moment that him losing his job is shutting up debate. here we are, after all, talking it over! and so is everyone else. his firing has enhanced debate. besides, and he can continue to speek on whatever he wants to. he just isn’t going to be able to do it under MSNBC’s purvue anymore. was her born deserving a platform? i don’t think so!
They’ve been trying to put him out of business for a long, long time. No luck.
<
p>
Now he’s on a pay service so that no one can claim to be offended by accidentaly stumbling across his show.
<
p>
And he’s doing quite well, thank you for asking. Show is funnier than ever and adding subscribers at a good clip. They voluntarily give their money to hear the show.
<
p>
And you won’t have any luck by going after his sponsors. He does about 5 minutes of commercials an hour and then only so show cast can go to the bathroom, maybe have something to eat and reset to keep the show on schedule. Every day they go close to two hours without a break at some point.
<
p>
So how do you expect Stern they’ll get him?
<
p>
Sorry. You’ll have to suffer with the fact that we get to enjoy him every day.
<
p>
And that’s one more reason the Stern show makes me happy.
does he?
On your idea of MSNBC sticking to 1st amendment guidelines: I totally disagree. Among other things, like I said, sponsors were bailing on Imus right and left. NBC is a business, nothing more. To ask them to keep on someone like Imus who is costing them money would be bad policy, and bad business.
<
p>
On your larger point, I have some sympathy with what you say — that, after all, is why we try to keep BMG more open than other left-leaning sites. But to argue that MSNBC’s cancelling Imus is somehow related to “free speech” only confuses the issue, IMHO. Again, there’s no government actor trying to shut him up, and that’s what the 1st amendment is about.
…but your remark about a ‘government actor’ piqued my interest.
<
p>
Why HAVEN’T we heard from the FCC about this?
Thanks for the Looney Tunes cartoon, that ones a classic,
really my main issue is that you should not have to be a hunter to be President, in fact the vast majority of Americans don’t hunt. Much like Bush or Kerry hunting, this is just a move by east coast elitists to pander to the redneck voter and make people think “oh schuks golly gee he’s just like me” which is not true. And in fact the President should not be the average American, he should be a part of the elite, should be a smart and intelligent person, and should be above pandering most of all.
Don’t you get the Republican policy manual? It clearly states, in section 354.23, that racial slurs of all kinds are acceptable on the public airwaves — free speech, you know. But if you say “shit” or “fuck,” or accidentally show a female breast on TV, especially when the children might be tuning in, you’re in deep, deep trouble.
<
p>
Seemed the ‘progressives’ were the ones up in arms…
http://www.deliberat…
http://www.propagand…
http://www.propagand…
http://www.projectce…
http://www.globalres…
<
p>
Never, ever listen, believe, watch MSM propaganda.
Or Mark Twain is in deep do-do.
<
p>
Al Sharpton can read can’t he? He must, he went to theological school.
.. doesn’t mean he’s illiterate.
…you could have fooled me, given her tenure on Lehrer’s news hour and Washington “meet with the cretins.”