Asymmetrical Information

Mike Nifong and Alberto Gonzales would give Imus a run for his money, but yeah.

'people who make really stupid and awful remarks in public'

Which I thought was Imus's job description.

If a black celebrity had made insulting comments about a group of white athletes, he would be applauded.

Funny how the focus is on the racial and not the misogyny. But it's plain to see that Imus was just talking about them the way pretty much any college kid (black, white, or otherwise) might. And that's the real problem. We have a 66 year old man talking about 18 - 22 year old women as sex objects. That's just disgusting.

You’re sort of assuming that notoriety in that business is a bad thing. Yes he takes a hit, goes off the air for a couple of weeks, but when he returns his show will have received tons of free publicity and people will tune in out of curiosity if nothing else. In which case there’s a pretty good chance that this incident will turn out to be net plus for his show. In which case the three sponsors who have left could very well be replaced by others willing to pay even more for the ad space.

My problem is that these incidents pop up where we suddenly act as though our cultural discourse is otherwise tasteful and refined. If we were really constantly monitoring this stuff on a daily basis, how many radio personalities would have jobs left? It's not that I didn't find Imus' statement disgusting. It's that I find the ensuing sanctimony almost as bad.

I think the misogyny was part and parcel of the outrage, whether or not it gets mentioned. If he'd said something like "They're really impressive nappy-haired ass-kicking ball players" then there would be a bit of reaction but nothing like what really happened. He'd have made an "I'm sorry you misunderstood me" non-apology and got on with it.

Anyway, what we learn is, only rich black rappers can call black women "hos"

Well, Don, you just--suddenly and for no apparent reason--

I've never really listened to Imus, but my understanding is that his job is to say shocking things that make some people laugh and make other people outraged. From what I've read of this "scandal", it sounds like he did just that. He just forgot that there are certain sacred cows that no public figure (even a shock jock) is allowed to ridicule.

But claiming there's "no apparent reason" for him saying what he did strikes me as a bit precious.

Imus' job is to sell commercial spots. When the networks that pay him can do that better, or more profitably, with somebody else, it's time for Imus to go. It really doesn't matter why the situation has arisen.

Imus' job is to sell commercial spots. When the networks that pay him can do that better, or more profitably, with somebody else, it's time for Imus to go. It really doesn't matter why the situation has arisen.

I don’t disagree, the question is though is there someone with comparable or greater ability in the wings who can do it better or more profitably? Also it seems to me that if they used this as a reason to fire him, he would probably have several offers from other stations wanting to add “the I-Man” to their program. In which case not only would his employers have to find a replacement, they would have to worry about some of Imus’ loyal listeners leaving with him. So the replacement not only has to be as good as Imus, he or she would also have to be good enough to keep Imus’ listeners or bring in enough new listeners to make up for any lost ones.

Well, Jane, there you go - he believes he can keep his job because he has a bunch of fanbois who excuse his actions and try to direct the blame/attention elsewhere.

"Imus' job is to sell commercial spots."

"I don’t disagree, the question is though is there someone with comparable or greater ability in the wings who can do it better or more profitably?"

Actually, that hasn't been Imus job for quite some time. His ratings have been terrible. While he does have a lot of listeners, it is because he is in the best time slot in every major market in the country. He is always trounced in the ratings by his competitors.

I don't know exactly what his function is. I think he generates some kind of prestige for his guests. That will come to an end. The DC insiders all seem to think he is some kind of "thinking-man's shock jock", which is a sad commentary on DC insiders.

Njorl, I don't know the radio biz, but I presume that the 10 miilion annual compensation he earns (so I've read) has a rational reason. I suspect it has something to do with the demographics of his listenership. PGA golf pulls in much larger ad revenues, than one would expect simply from the number of viewers it attracts, for the same reason.

At least Imus' apology didn't start out with,
"IF I offended anyone..." He seems like he "gets it" and is suitably contrite. So, why are several Chrisian "reverends" calling for his head, instead of doing what Jesus advised: forgiving him, and turning the other cheek? Apparently, Christianity is only something to be done for an hour or two on Sunday,
and the rest of the time Chrisians can howl for blood?

So, why are several Chrisian "reverends" calling for his head, instead of doing what Jesus advised: forgiving him, and turning the other cheek? Apparently, Christianity is only something to be done for an hour or two on Sunday, and the rest of the time Chrisians can howl for blood?

Um, probably because forgiveness is appropriate when you’re the person who has been wronged. Third parties don’t really “forgive” because they weren’t the one against whom the transgression was committed which would make their “forgiveness” as meaningless as an “apology” offered by an innocent and disinterested third party. In which case it would be up to the basketball players and not Al Sharpton to offer “forgiveness” just like it would be up to Don Imus and not Bill Clinton to offer an “apology.”

Anyone besides me find a rather large mountain of irony in Al Sharpton complaining about Don Imus saying bad things about people? To be specific, has Sharpton ever paid the court-ordered damages he owes to Steve Pagonis, the prosecutor Sharpton nastily in the infamous Tawana Brawley case?

Oh, and Jane, while we are on the subject of "bad words on the radio", have you listened to rap/hiphop lately? I dare you, double-dare you, to discuss the lyrics in the column:

Top 40 Depravity

"If a black celebrity had made insulting comments about a group of white athletes, he would be applauded."

AAAAAAAAAAAAH. Is anyone else just maddeningly sick of seeing this predictable bullshit trotted out every single time there's an incident like this? Yes, there's a "double standard". Yes, "nigger" is more offensive than "cracker". Sometimes, when a country has a lopsided and fucked up racial history, two standards are appropriate, because the situations of the groups in question are different. Is this genuinely puzzling to anyone who's thought about it for five seconds?

I don’t disagree, the question is though is there someone with comparable or greater ability in the wings who can do it better or more profitably?

Sure, check out the "Internet". It's filled with people who acquired the basic topical tastes of adulthood without ever maturing past thirteen.

two standards are appropriate, because the situations of the groups in question are different. Is this genuinely puzzling to anyone who's thought about it for five seconds?

And here I thought the goal was to achieve equality of rights and dignity, preferably in the shortest time frame possible. How, exactly, does the existence and persistence of two standards, work toward them ends?

Two standards are appropriate? Really?

Does anybody care to comment which standard might be superior? What might that say about those individuals that the inferior standard applies to?

I don't buy that argument.

That kind of double standard leads to stuff like this.

Which don't really do anything to remedy any wrongs that were done to anyone else in the past. Or so this cracker says.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/11/duke.lacrosse/index.html

Forgive my misunderstanding of Christianity, Mr. Winston. I didn't realize that the one trespassed upon is to forgive the trespasser, but that the bystanders are given leave to hurl stones if they wish. Sorry, I'll make a marginal note in my Bible.

We have a 66 year old man talking about 18 - 22 year old women as sex objects. That's just disgusting.

OK - so I guess about half of what's on television has to go away?