The focus should be on "nappy headed" and the other slur he said (which, for some reason, is being omitted from the discussion?) I think it was "jigaboos".
Really, Terry_Clizzho's said all that needs to be said though.
The focus should be on "nappy headed" and the other slur he said (which, for some reason, is being omitted from the discussion?) I think it was "jigaboos".
Really, Terry_Clizzho's said all that needs to be said though.
Yes, Imus's statements were racist and misogynist.
Pointing out other people's supposedly misogynist statements doesn't negate his racism (or his misogyny, for that matter).
How come this didn't happen when Imus called Serena and Venus Williams apes?
Probably would have if he actually had called them 'apes'....I believe the actual retort was something about 'they should be in National Geographic instead of Sports Illustrated.'
See, stuff like that is obviously racist and derogatory, but it doesn't make the clean sound-bite that 'nappy headed hos' manages. And he did get a rise out of the media watchdogs at the time, but it didn't have the traction (read:didn't sell the story) like this gaffe does. Probably a bunch of factors, but I bet that a)Venus and Serena are 'out there' so (even ill concieved)comedy at their expense is more easily brushed aside, wheras b) the Rutgers team were completely innocent passers-by in comparison.
Rallying Around Their Racist Friend Before firing, pundits defended Imus
4/11/07
In the aftermath of the racial outburst that got talkshow host Don Imus' dropped from MSNBC--referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"-- a Washington Post editorial (4/10/07) posed a question many critics have been asking for years: How do prestigious journalists defend their cozy relationship with a well-known bigot?
As the Post put it: "But those who bask in the glow of his radio show ought to consider whether they should continue doing so. After all, you're judged by the company you keep." Since discovering Imus' long record of bigotry, misogyny and homophobia is not difficult (Slate, 4/10/07), it's a question reporters should have been asking long ago???FAIR posed the very same question to NBC's Tim Russert six years ago, for example (Action Alert, 3/1/00).
When journalist Phil Nobile (TomPaine.com, 6/28/01) presented many top pundits with evidence of Imus' bigotry, few (of the white ones, anyway) seemed to think what Imus was saying should affect their decisions to appear on his program. Nobile noted that Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz wrote in his 1996 book Hot Air that "Imus's sexist, homophobic and politically incorrect routines echo what many journalists joke about in private."
Really? Do Washington journalists really call people "thieving Jews"--and then make mock apologies, saying that the phrase is "redundant" (Imus in the Morning, 12/15/04)? Did they really call Clinton's attorney general "old Bigfoot shaky Janet Reno," taunting her for her Parkinson's disease (Imus in the Morning, 6/12/01)? Do they really laugh uproariously at the news of hundreds of Haitians drowning (Imus in the Morning, 3/20-24/00)? If so, Kurtz has been sitting on a great many scoops.
Whatever their private conversations, many pundits are now being forced to answer questions about their associations with Imus, and those answers are worth documenting. Appearing on the Imus in the Morning show on April 9, Newsweek's Howard Fineman explained:
You know, it's a different time, Imus. You know, it's different than it was even a few years ago, politically.... And some of the stuff that you used to do, you probably can't do anymore.... You just can't. Because the times have changed. I mean, just looking specifically at the African-American situation. I mean, hello, Barack Obama's got twice the number of contributors as anybody else in the race.... I mean, you know, things have changed. And the kind of???some of the kind of humor that you used to do you can't do anymore. And that's just the way it is.
Fineman's suggestion, clearly, is that Imus' brand of racism was acceptable not too long ago??? at least before Barack Obama was able to raise significant campaign donations.
On PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer (4/9/07), Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant rejected the notion that appearing with Imus gave some form of cover to his bigotry:
I don't consider myself an enabler. But I recognize--and one reason I feel that it's possible to be this tough on him is that I think he understands that those of us from politics and public affairs and whatever who work with him are going to be seen as enabling. And if that's the case, then his conduct is of interest to me as much as it is to you.
Those words stand in contrast with what Oliphant said on Imus' show that very morning:
The train went off the tracks, which, you know, can happen to anybody. And, of course, what counts when the train goes off the tracks is what you then do.... Those of us... who know better, have a moral obligation to stand up and say to you, "Solidarity forever, pal."
That's not enabling?
Other media defenders point out that Imus does charity work, as if this gives him more room to be a racist. As USA Today's Peter Johnson noted (4/10/07), "His politically incorrect satire has been tempered by an intellectual and considerate side: He runs a camp for sick kids, cares about politics and has an eye for books that can catapult them onto the best-seller list." (As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out???3/24/05???Imus' ranch spends $3,000 a night to host each child; other organizations that do similar work spend about one-tenth as much.)
Appearing on the CBS Early Show (4/10/07), CNN host Lou Dobbs said much the same. While calling Imus' remarks "inexcusable," Dobbs went to offer what sounded very much like an excuse:
These calls for his resignation, frankly, in my opinion, this is a man you have to take into account. He does more public service, works with kids, he is an absolutely exemplary person in terms of his humanitarianism. And those who suggest you can't take into account the broader man for these, as I say, ignorant and inexcusable remarks, I don't think is adequate.
NBC reporter David Gregory (MSNBC, 4/9/07) stressed that "Imus is a good man," and that "this is a difficult time, not just because of the hurt that he has inflicted and what he said, as he tries to deal with it, but for all of us who are on the program and certainly don't want to be associated with this kind of thing that he's done, as all of this plays out." Gregory apparently wasn't so bothered with his association with Imus before this latest controversy.
Others made it seem as if deciding not to appear on the Imus show would be a problem. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas told the New York Times (4/9/07), "He should not have said what he said, obviously. I am going on the show, though. I think if I didn't, it would be posturing." To which the Charlotte Observer editorialized (4/10/07), "Which raises this question for Mr. Thomas: What posture would that be--upright?"
In a Los Angeles Times report (4/11/07), some Imus guests appeared to have second thoughts about their silence. CBS reporter Jeff Greenfield said, "That's something people like me should have challenged him on." (Greenfield, to his partial credit, did try to raise the issue when he interviewed Imus on Larry King Live--2/24/00.)
Others, meanwhile, seem to think Imus really means it when he says he's sorry. CBS host Bob Schieffer condemned Imus' remarks, but "said he would probably go on Imus' show again, noting that they had been friends for 15 years." The Times quoted Schieffer: "There's probably a good lesson for all of us in this. We all need to refocus and be sensitive to these things. Maybe sometimes he's gone too far and some of us really haven't been paying attention." Newsweek editor Jon Meacham (Washington Post, 4/11/07) said: "We don't want to rush to judgment.... Imus appears genuine about changing the tone, but if there's any backsliding, then it's over as far as we're concerned."
Pundits making such assessments might consider that this was not the first time Imus has appeared to sound contrite about his words, so it's hard to know why to believe him this time around. In a recent Vanity Fair profile (2/06), Imus said: "I regret the times I've been mean to people.??? It's fine to pick on people who can defend themselves and deserve it. Some people don't deserve to be picked on who I picked on, so I don't do it anymore."
He made a similar pledge on his show years earlier (3/4/00):
There's no reason to hurt people's feelings. In some cases I have, and I'm not going to do it anymore. I get accused of being a racist all the time, but I'm not. I realize that we do things here that are misconstrued and frankly I regret it. People have criticized me and they're right.
Given Imus' repeatedly violated vows to rein in his racist schtick, one has to look to his pundit friends???his enablers???to show more resolve. Unfortunately, given their co-dependent relationship with the talk host, such resolve is unlikely. As Newsweek's Fineman put it (Imus in the Morning, 4/9/07): "You know, all of us
who do your show, you know, we're part of the gang. And we rely on you the way you rely on us."
I love how the essence of half those quotes is "People are really sensitive these days--and Don needs to be more mindful of that," i.e., he didn't really say anything wrong, people just took it wrong.
I remember when I had cable I'd flip past the Imus show (the most boring looking thing ever, radio on TV) and get a gut feeling he was an asshole. Never heard a word he said back then but saw an old white guy in a cowboy hat with a radio show and kinda knew what to expect.
What disturbs me is the recent barrage of rascist comments reported in the media. From Mel Gibson, that Kramer dude, Imus, the Clemson "gangsta party", to that idiot senator.
I feel two different ways about it.
One, and most likely, white people feel in control and on top due to the conservative Rebublican atmosphere in the U.S., they feel comfortable enough to not have to watch what they say. Why should they? They're in charge. Political correctness and cultural sensitivity are a joke these days. White wealthy suburbia is so removed from the the multi-cultural inner cities that they feel they can say and do whatever they want, wherever they want. They don't feel threatened by black people or non-rascist whites. Maybe it's time to change that.
Or second, and less likely, our country and media are becoming so advanced and culturally sensitive that they're reporting more of it and rooting these people out into the open for public scorn.
"Wahler then "repeatedly" called Officer C. DePina, who is not black, a "n-----" and a "f-----," DePina wrote in the report. "Wahler stated he was rich and would have my ass. Wahler made vague threats to assault officers."
"What disturbs me is the recent barrage of rascist comments reported in the media."
as if the influx of reporting it means its happening more? i dont buy that. hell, if anything, its the exact opposite of what you are saying, and the fact the country is so damn PC is why we are hearing about the shit. you can't honestly try to blame the conservative leadership for an increase in racism??? (i'm as liberal as they come, but this seems ridiculous) am i missing something in your post?
"One, and most likely, white people feel in control and on top due to the conservative Rebublican atmosphere in the U.S"
because as a white male i've felt repressed under past leadership??? you're confusing me yo
hell, if anything, its the exact opposite of what you are saying, and the fact the country is so damn PC is why we are hearing about the shit.
read the second part, which I will entertain but not fully accept.
you can't honestly try to blame the conservative leadership for an increase in racism??? (i'm as liberal as they come, but this seems ridiculous)
Why not? Last time I checked, conservatives are not really leading the pack as far as anti-rascism. In fact, they use their resources to strip away Affirmitive Action, paint most welfare recipients as black (which they're not), and stir up an "us verse them" crime mentality in white rural/suburban areas (their base) among other things.
because as a white male i've felt repressed under past leadership??? you're confusing me yo
Only if you feel some sort of entitlement for being white and male. Most white men do, whether they realize it or not. I'm saying that the current political and social climate in america benefits white people most, and those who do feel a sense of entitlement can choose to flaunt it openly without being put in check.
my point is that as a white male, i do not feel like i am any more empowered than i was 10 years ago. if anyone else wants to chime in i'd be interested. same goes for the level of racism. do i believe that maybe the pubs/conservatives may have a little more tendency to be racist than others....probably (which isnt really fair but its my view), but i dont think that translates to "more racism" in the year 2007.
you can't honestly try to blame the conservative leadership for an increase in racism??? (i'm as liberal as they come, but this seems ridiculous)
Why not? Last time I checked, conservatives are not really leading the pack as far as anti-rascism.
SPECIOUS
You've clarified your position a lot here, but the examples you site are only symptoms of racism or political opportunism, not ways the repugs are increasing racism. I basically hear the rest of what your saying, but i dont know, of all the things to blame conservatives for, at this point its fish in a barrel, why stretch....
This is a figurative improvised explosive device my friend. Be careful, you may be emboldening Al Sharpton, when you should should be smoking him into his hole or whatever.
That video reminds me of Michael Rapaport's character in Higher Learning. I'm sure he's had his mind manipulated in some way.
I don't know what to make of the media cirus that's going on, but I think there are more important stories being ignored because of it. Some old (well known) conservative bigot says something foul. Fire him, let him apologize and be forgotten about.
I think this microscopic analysis by the media is more detrimental and divisive to the country than anything.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine was on his way to a meeting between the Rutgers women???s basketball team and Don Imus.
This type of schitt makes my blood boil--why is the governor participating in this charade? Nobody should be giving Imus the time of day right about now.
try this on for size. any other race in the world can speak out/make fun of any race they want, with impunity. no one says anything and comedians of can make dough spouting off racial stereotypes and generalizations. this ugly ass white dude says something and the nation is in an uproar and he gets fired. isn't that racism in itself? what the nation is saying that races with melanin can say whatever they want about whoever, but if you're white, you can't. has anyone considered this before?
Comments
The focus should be on "nappy headed" and the other slur he said (which, for some reason, is being omitted from the discussion?) I think it was "jigaboos".
Really, Terry_Clizzho's said all that needs to be said though.
Yes, Imus's statements were racist and misogynist.
Pointing out other people's supposedly misogynist statements doesn't negate his racism (or his misogyny, for that matter).
It's sickeningly desperate.
How come this didn't happen when Imus called Serena and Venus Williams apes?
Probably would have if he actually had called them 'apes'....I believe the actual retort was something about 'they should be in National Geographic instead of Sports Illustrated.'
See, stuff like that is obviously racist and derogatory, but it doesn't make the clean sound-bite that 'nappy headed hos' manages. And he did get a rise out of the media watchdogs at the time, but it didn't have the traction (read:didn't sell the story) like this gaffe does. Probably a bunch of factors, but I bet that a)Venus and Serena are 'out there' so (even ill concieved)comedy at their expense is more easily brushed aside, wheras b) the Rutgers team were completely innocent passers-by in comparison.
30 Pro-Imus shirts sold on Ebay
0 Anti-Imus sold
And yes they are both on for sale
????
Rallying Around Their Racist Friend
Before firing, pundits defended Imus
4/11/07
In the aftermath of the racial outburst that got talkshow host Don Imus' dropped from MSNBC--referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"-- a Washington Post editorial (4/10/07) posed a question many critics have been asking for years: How do prestigious journalists defend their cozy relationship with a well-known bigot?
As the Post put it: "But those who bask in the glow of his radio show ought to consider whether they should continue doing so. After all, you're judged by the company you keep." Since discovering Imus' long record of bigotry, misogyny and homophobia is not difficult (Slate, 4/10/07), it's a question reporters should have been asking long ago???FAIR posed the very same question to NBC's Tim Russert six years ago, for example (Action Alert, 3/1/00).
When journalist Phil Nobile (TomPaine.com, 6/28/01) presented many top pundits with evidence of Imus' bigotry, few (of the white ones, anyway) seemed to think what Imus was saying should affect their decisions to appear on his program. Nobile noted that Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz wrote in his 1996 book Hot Air that "Imus's sexist, homophobic and politically incorrect routines echo what many journalists joke about in private."
Really? Do Washington journalists really call people "thieving Jews"--and then make mock apologies, saying that the phrase is "redundant" (Imus in the Morning, 12/15/04)? Did they really call Clinton's attorney general "old Bigfoot shaky Janet Reno," taunting her for her Parkinson's disease (Imus in the Morning, 6/12/01)? Do they really laugh uproariously at the news of hundreds of Haitians drowning (Imus in the Morning, 3/20-24/00)? If so, Kurtz has been sitting on a great many scoops.
Whatever their private conversations, many pundits are now being forced to answer questions about their associations with Imus, and those answers are worth documenting. Appearing on the Imus in the Morning show on April 9, Newsweek's Howard Fineman explained:
You know, it's a different time, Imus. You know, it's different than it was even a few years ago, politically.... And some of the stuff that you used to do, you probably can't do anymore.... You just can't. Because the times have changed. I mean, just looking specifically at the African-American situation. I mean, hello, Barack Obama's got twice the number of contributors as anybody else in the race.... I mean, you know, things have changed. And the kind of???some of the kind of humor that you used to do you can't do anymore. And that's just the way it is.
Fineman's suggestion, clearly, is that Imus' brand of racism was acceptable not too long ago??? at least before Barack Obama was able to raise significant campaign donations.
On PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer (4/9/07), Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant rejected the notion that appearing with Imus gave some form of cover to his bigotry:
I don't consider myself an enabler. But I recognize--and one reason I feel that it's possible to be this tough on him is that I think he understands that those of us from politics and public affairs and whatever who work with him are going to be seen as enabling. And if that's the case, then his conduct is of interest to me as much as it is to you.
Those words stand in contrast with what Oliphant said on Imus' show that very morning:
The train went off the tracks, which, you know, can happen to anybody. And, of course, what counts when the train goes off the tracks is what you then do.... Those of us... who know better, have a moral obligation to stand up and say to you, "Solidarity forever, pal."
That's not enabling?
Other media defenders point out that Imus does charity work, as if this gives him more room to be a racist. As USA Today's Peter Johnson noted (4/10/07), "His politically incorrect satire has been tempered by an intellectual and considerate side: He runs a camp for sick kids, cares about politics and has an eye for books that can catapult them onto the best-seller list." (As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out???3/24/05???Imus' ranch spends $3,000 a night to host each child; other organizations that do similar work spend about one-tenth as much.)
Appearing on the CBS Early Show (4/10/07), CNN host Lou Dobbs said much the same. While calling Imus' remarks "inexcusable," Dobbs went to offer what sounded very much like an excuse:
These calls for his resignation, frankly, in my opinion, this is a man you have to take into account. He does more public service, works with kids, he is an absolutely exemplary person in terms of his humanitarianism. And those who suggest you can't take into account the broader man for these, as I say, ignorant and inexcusable remarks, I don't think is adequate.
NBC reporter David Gregory (MSNBC, 4/9/07) stressed that "Imus is a good man," and that "this is a difficult time, not just because of the hurt that he has inflicted and what he said, as he tries to deal with it, but for all of us who are on the program and certainly don't want to be associated with this kind of thing that he's done, as all of this plays out." Gregory apparently wasn't so bothered with his association with Imus before this latest controversy.
Others made it seem as if deciding not to appear on the Imus show would be a problem. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas told the New York Times (4/9/07), "He should not have said what he said, obviously. I am going on the show, though. I think if I didn't, it would be posturing." To which the Charlotte Observer editorialized (4/10/07), "Which raises this question for Mr. Thomas: What posture would that be--upright?"
In a Los Angeles Times report (4/11/07), some Imus guests appeared to have second thoughts about their silence. CBS reporter Jeff Greenfield said, "That's something people like me should have challenged him on." (Greenfield, to his partial credit, did try to raise the issue when he interviewed Imus on Larry King Live--2/24/00.)
Others, meanwhile, seem to think Imus really means it when he says he's sorry. CBS host Bob Schieffer condemned Imus' remarks, but "said he would probably go on Imus' show again, noting that they had been friends for 15 years." The Times quoted Schieffer: "There's probably a good lesson for all of us in this. We all need to refocus and be sensitive to these things. Maybe sometimes he's gone too far and some of us really haven't been paying attention." Newsweek editor Jon Meacham (Washington Post, 4/11/07) said: "We don't want to rush to judgment.... Imus appears genuine about changing the tone, but if there's any backsliding, then it's over as far as we're concerned."
Pundits making such assessments might consider that this was not the first time Imus has appeared to sound contrite about his words, so it's hard to know why to believe him this time around. In a recent Vanity Fair profile (2/06), Imus said: "I regret the times I've been mean to people.??? It's fine to pick on people who can defend themselves and deserve it. Some people don't deserve to be picked on who I picked on, so I don't do it anymore."
He made a similar pledge on his show years earlier (3/4/00):
There's no reason to hurt people's feelings. In some cases I have, and I'm not going to do it anymore. I get accused of being a racist all the time, but I'm not. I realize that we do things here that are misconstrued and frankly I regret it. People have criticized me and they're right.
Given Imus' repeatedly violated vows to rein in his racist schtick, one has to look to his pundit friends???his enablers???to show more resolve. Unfortunately, given their co-dependent relationship with the talk host, such resolve is unlikely. As Newsweek's Fineman put it (Imus in the Morning, 4/9/07): "You know, all of us who do your show, you know, we're part of the gang. And we rely on you the way you rely on us."
What disturbs me is the recent barrage of rascist comments reported in the media. From Mel Gibson, that Kramer dude, Imus, the Clemson "gangsta party", to that idiot senator.
I feel two different ways about it.
One, and most likely, white people feel in control and on top due to the conservative Rebublican atmosphere in the U.S., they feel comfortable enough to not have to watch what they say. Why should they? They're in charge. Political correctness and cultural sensitivity are a joke these days. White wealthy suburbia is so removed from the the multi-cultural inner cities that they feel they can say and do whatever they want, wherever they want. They don't feel threatened by black people or non-rascist whites. Maybe it's time to change that.
Or second, and less likely, our country and media are becoming so advanced and culturally sensitive that they're reporting more of it and rooting these people out into the open for public scorn.
I'm currently leaning towards the first.
And then there's this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/10/people.jasonwahler.ap/index.html
Police: Arrested 'Laguna' star spewed slurs
"Wahler then "repeatedly" called Officer C. DePina, who is not black, a "n-----" and a "f-----," DePina wrote in the report. "Wahler stated he was rich and would have my ass. Wahler made vague threats to assault officers."
SONIC
as if the influx of reporting it means its happening more? i dont buy that. hell, if anything, its the exact opposite of what you are saying, and the fact the country is so damn PC is why we are hearing about the shit. you can't honestly try to blame the conservative leadership for an increase in racism??? (i'm as liberal as they come, but this seems ridiculous) am i missing something in your post?
"One, and most likely, white people feel in control and on top due to the conservative Rebublican atmosphere in the U.S"
because as a white male i've felt repressed under past leadership??? you're confusing me yo
read the second part, which I will entertain but not fully accept.
Why not? Last time I checked, conservatives are not really leading the pack as far as anti-rascism. In fact, they use their resources to strip away Affirmitive Action, paint most welfare recipients as black (which they're not), and stir up an "us verse them" crime mentality in white rural/suburban areas (their base) among other things.
Only if you feel some sort of entitlement for being white and male. Most white men do, whether they realize it or not. I'm saying that the current political and social climate in america benefits white people most, and those who do feel a sense of entitlement can choose to flaunt it openly without being put in check.
SONIC
*shrug*
I think racist language has more to do with not viewing people as equal human beings.
SPECIOUS
You've clarified your position a lot here, but the examples you site are only symptoms of racism or political opportunism, not ways the repugs are increasing racism. I basically hear the rest of what your saying, but i dont know, of all the things to blame conservatives for, at this point its fish in a barrel, why stretch....
Whitey on the
This is a figurative improvised explosive device my friend. Be careful, you may be emboldening Al Sharpton, when you should should be smoking him into his hole or whatever.
I don't know what to make of the media cirus that's going on, but I think there are more important stories being ignored because of it.
Some old (well known) conservative bigot says something foul. Fire him, let him apologize and be forgotten about.
I think this microscopic analysis by the media is more detrimental and divisive to the country than anything.
True, but television news stopped leading with the most newsworthy story a long time ago, and print has been following ever since.
There's a reason the phrase "If it bleeds, it leads" became cliche. It's so true and succinct, people overused it.
Why is he speaking so softly? Is he hiding in his bedroom? I keep waiting for his mother to call him to dinner and for him to scream "MOM!!!!!!"
He's telling you a secret.... shhh!!!!! (pass it on)
I don't know what is up with that guy, but something is.
His myspace page is kinda nuts too.
I just wiki'd her and damn man....what a fuckin' sell-out.
New Jersey Governor Is Injured in Car Crash[/b]
Gov. Jon S. Corzine was on his way to a meeting between the Rutgers women???s basketball team and Don Imus.
This type of schitt makes my blood boil--why is the governor participating in this charade? Nobody should be giving Imus the time of day right about now.
Boom: