Outcry against Imus

[suzer1013]

Anyone else noticed the now huge outcry against Imus's racist comments against the female basketball players?

Where was the huge outcry from religious leaders (black and white) when a U.S. general depicted GLBT people as "immoral"? Where was the huge outcry from these same leaders when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot"?

This is very depressing to me. It seems that when racial epithets are used, everyone can jump on the bandwagon to decry what was said. However, when the GLBT community is insulted and oppressed, there is little outcry against it. I know the reasons why, but it just frustrates me to no end. And I'm a bit resentful that these same leaders shy away from any words of support for the GLBT community.

That said, I think the Imuses and Coulters of the world should be allowed to spew their invective. I think it actually helps our cause, as those who are more moderate will be turned off by the hateful rhetoric and be more likely to realize that we deserve equality. There is, however, a fine line. When rhetoric is successful in dehumanizing a group, we are on a path trod by the Nazis or the Hutus in the past. I tend to think the Ann Coulters and Fred Phelpses of the world will eventually implode from their own hateful vitriol. At least, I hope so.

Just venting. Thx.

Susan

[scott snedeker]

I think the Imuses and Coulters of the world should be allowed to spew their invective. I think it actually helps our cause, as those who are more moderate will be turned off by the hateful rhetoric and be more likely to realize that we deserve equality. There is, however, a fine line. When rhetoric is successful in dehumanizing a group, we are on a path trod by the Nazis or the Hutus in the past. I tend to think the Ann Coulters and Fred Phelpses of the world will eventually implode from their own hateful vitriol. At least, I hope so.

Just venting. Thx.

Susan


I Agree. please let'em show their....petard! It's their credibility they are sacrifing not ours!

[Emproph]

:award: :flower2: :flower: Good post Susan :flower: :flower2: :award:

I was thinking that the outcry may not have been sufficient with Coulter, but I felt that the response was a significant improvement (at least as far as I was expecting), especially given the climate of “religious tolerance” for such horrendous behavior.

I almost felt somewhat encouraged that so much attention was paid to the “controversy.” So many groups/people had to respond, and like you mentioned, I agree that responses attempting to defend such behavior work in our favor.

What strikes me as different though – as rountinely but mildly offended as I am by Imus' show sometimes – is that he seems to be willing to understand the nature of his offense.

He’s not excused from the behavior, he’s excused from approving of the behavior. That’s the difference I see.

Ann on the other hand, IMO, should be fired from writing and speaking altogether.

Just my 2¢ worth.. :D

[suzer1013]

He said it so much better than I could have.....

Susan
_________________

New York Times: Op-Ed Contributor
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.

[Emproph]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but one thing I’ve noticed to be lacking in the media discussions about Imus’ words is the comparison with Coulter’s. I’m assuming it’s for fear of insulting those who feel that religious bigotry against GLBTQI Americans is still acceptable.

Given the firing of Imus in light of the plethora of equally offensive statements continually made by other broadcasters, I’m wondering if this is a trend in sensitivity or just an exercise in distinguishing which forms of bigotry are still acceptable.

Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010):
It's not just Imus

On April 11, NBC News announced that it was dropping MSNBC's simulcast of Imus in the Morning in the wake of the controversy that erupted over host Don Imus' reference to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." The following day, CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves announced that CBS -- which owns both the radio station that broadcast Imus' program and Westwood One, which syndicated the program -- has fired Imus and would cease broadcasting his radio show. But as Media Matters for America has extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity continue to permeate the airwaves through personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson.

They give a long list of examples.

[Rick336]

I’m assuming it’s for fear of insulting those who feel that religious bigotry against GLBTQI Americans is still acceptable.

I don't mean to be annoying, but can you please expain to me again what the Q and I mean in "GLBTQI"?

Thanks

Rick

[Emproph]

I think it means questioning, and I is for intersexed.

[Zerbie]

I don't mean to be annoying, but can you please expain to me again what the Q and I mean in "GLBTQI"?

Thanks

Rick

Q: Queer! (and/or, the Q can also encompass "questioning," and sometimes you might see the Q listed twice to be clear that both Queer and Questioning are meant.)

I: intersex

[ladyinred]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704140001

[ladyinred]

http://mediamatters.org/index Full article

[Rick336]

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz said: "Over the years, Imus made fun of blacks, Jews, gays, politicians. He called them lying weasels. This was part of his charm."

Yep. He's a real charmer.

Rick

[ladyinred]

"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."


My view: It seems that the definition of politically correct has changed to the approval of those who take snipes at a certain person or group they don't like. Of course it is now fashionable to be bigots for God.

[BruceChris]

I emailed MSNBC, and made a complaint

It also occurs to me, belatedly, that we could re-issue Imus's famous phrase, and refer to him as a "napp-ing headed snore"

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Emproph]

Includes:


“Knappy haired” is a term that has a history of saying – you can’t even grow hair like a woman, you look too much like a man..

And an especially animated and interested MSNBC anchor Alex Witt, exploring the money/sponsor angle, AND an honorable "same-sex" mention (within context) by guest Earl Ofari Hutchinson. :award: :tup:

(2 parts and about 2 min)
M59FxQqgJps

[Diane Vera]

I just now ran into the following earlier stories about Imus:

Wed, Jun 7, 2006 8:00pm EST
Joining MSNBC's Imus, CNN's Beck called Hillary Clinton the "Antichrist"
Summary: On CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck program, Beck echoed MSNBC host Don Imus's repeated references to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as "Satan," calling Clinton the "Antichrist."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080001

Wed, May 24, 2006 8:06pm EST
Imus smeared Hillary Clinton, "that buck-toothed witch, Satan," and Gore, "the phoniest bastard on the planet"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250001

Google "Hillary Clinton Satan Imus" and you'll also find a whole bunch of right wing commentators claiming that HC was somehow responsible for getting Imus kicked off the air.

[ladyinred]

The same ol' yada, yada, yada, now it's fashionable to call anyone anti-christ (Beck's a rightie, I don't know about Imus )they don't like or agree with. The Christian coalition gave her low marks for family values. What I read about her on the on the issues website, makes me think the opposite, I don't see anything that would make me think that she is anti-family, just not a part of their values and ideas of "family." which dates back to the dark ages,or more like the prehistoric ages where man was king. This from the on the issues website: Hillary Clinton: Family and children:

Leave no child behind; it still takes a village. (Aug 2000)
Leave politics out of Elian decision. (Apr 2000)
Governments can’t love child; but it can help families. (Apr 2000)
Decide Elian’s fate via ongoing INS legal process. (Apr 2000)
Caution in treating preschoolers with psychiatric drugs. (Mar 2000)
Parents’ dedication improves kids’ lives. (Jan 2000)
Treat kids as “child citizens” not “minors” under the law. (Dec 1999)
No dividing line between government vs. parents & children. (Dec 1999)
Community support is key to valuing families. (Dec 1999)
Boycott violent media and products. (Aug 1999)
Send message: It is the job of children to learn. (Jul 1999)
Early-warning hotlines for homicidal & suicidal students. (Jul 1999)
Society is responsible for alienation that causes violence. (Jun 1999)
Help “sandwiched” parents care for elderly plus kids. (Jan 1999)
More funds for after-school programs. (Nov 1998)
Keep kids busy from 2PM to 8 PM to avoid trouble. (Nov 1998)
Expand Family and Medical Leave Act. (Aug 1998)
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence. (Apr 1998)
“It Takes a Village” is about relationships, not geography. (Oct 1996)
Change what kids see in the media. (Jun 1995)
Men should be full participants in child-raising. (May 1994)
No tea and cookies for her, but no insult intended. (Jul 1992)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)


Hillary Clinton on Fo

[ladyinred]

on education and other funding: (definitely "anti-family of course")
Transfer tax cuts from rich & corporations to student aid. (Jun 2006)
Teacher testing only for new teachers. (Oct 2000)
Arkansas education: improvement against great odds. (Oct 2000)
Testing only new teachers respects professionalism. (Oct 2000)
Reforms: teacher corps; more federal funding; modernize. (Sep 2000)
Buffalo teacher’s strike inappropriate; hope for negotiation. (Sep 2000)
Opposes merit pay for individual teachers. (Apr 2000)
Supports merit pay for entire schools. (Apr 2000)
Scholarships for teachers who go to urban schools. (Mar 2000)
Increase resources to meet increased standards. (Mar 2000)
Pushed teacher testing in Arkansas. (Dec 1999)
AR ed reform: mandate kindergarten, no social promotion. (Dec 1999)
Hold kids to high standards, starting at home. (Jul 1999)
Address teacher shortage with salary increases. (Jul 1999)
Teachers need more peer consulting & more recognition. (Jul 1999)
Social promotion cheats our children. (Jul 1999)
More after-school; smaller classes. (Jul 1999)
Read to young kids 20-30 minutes daily. (Jul 1999)
Entire school staff should focus on school safety. (Jul 1999)
Metal detectors at school are not much of an intrusion. (Jun 1999)
Arts education is needed in our schools. (Sep 1998)
Give kids after-school activities to prevent gangs. (Apr 1998)
Supports structured inner-city schools, with uniforms. (May 1996)
Passing illiterate students is educational fraud. (Sep 1983)
School Choice
More teachers, smaller classes, no vouchers. (Oct 2000)
Vouchers would take money from public schools. (Oct 2000)
Vouchers drain money from public schools. (Sep 2000)
Fight with Gore for public schools; no voucher “gimmicks”. (Mar 2000)
Vouchers will not improve our public schools. (Jul 1999)
Let’s build up our schools-not tear them down. (Jul 1999)
Charter schools provide choice within public system. (Jul 1999)
Charters meet needs of failing public school students. (Aug 1998)
Vouchers siphon off much-needed resources. (Aug 1998)
Parents can choose, but support public schools. (Feb 1997)
Voting Record
Solemn vow never to abandon our public schools. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Yep, definitely an anti-Christ(Sarcastic) Probably too "liberal" She advocates taking tax cuts from the rich and corporations( Horrors!!!!!!!) and using the money to help fund student aid.(Definitely not what the radical right has in mind or wants)

[alisaeyes]

I know I am going to upset some people with this statement...but here goes...I don't think Imus should have been fired..why,,because of free speech...something we all have in the US...I don't like him and I think he very rude and prejudice...but we have to take the good with the bad,,,it kinda like a domino affect...if one falls the rest will...we are walking on a thin line when it comes to free speech...

[andrewlittle]

I know I am going to upset some people with this statement...but here goes...I don't think Imus should have been fired..why,,because of free speech...something we all have in the US...I don't like him and I think he very rude and prejudice...but we have to take the good with the bad,,,it kinda like a domino affect...if one falls the rest will...we are walking on a thin line when it comes to free speech...

I am very interested in why people think that Imus right to free speech ahs been violated. It has been discussed widely in this other thread:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2726

Imus can still say whatever he cares to say. He was not arrested or imprisoned, or otherwise prevented from speaking his mind. What did occur is that he was prevented from speaking his mind while using other people's dollars to have a large audience for his pronouncements.

It costs money to be a radio personality, beyond the pay of the person. It takes a large infrastructure and business network, transmitting capabilities, and the like that are provided by a business - in this case a radio/TV network. That business makes its money by selling advertising to businesses that want to reach the personalities audience.

When this personality says thing that alienate the very people the businesses want to reach, they withdraw their support and sponsorship. This is what happened to Imus. If his sponsors didn't bail, he would still be broadcasting.

He can spout his opinions and insults, it's just that he has no business sponsored airwaves to do that over. Free speech does not include the right to require a radio station to broadcast your speech, nor sponsors to pay for it. His rights have not been violated - he has been fired for losing credibility with his sponsors and audience. It is a business transaction that went south because of his mouth. But no-one has taped his mouth shut, or isolated him from the rest of humanity.

If he wants to be radio, he'll just have to fund it with his own money, or find sponsors that want to reach the audience that likes hearing young, black, female athletes denigrated as whores and insulted because of racial traits. I have no doubt, in this country, that he will do just that. I just don't want to meet his new audience or his sponsors.

[sjbouza]

I agree with Uncle Andy. Imus' right to free speech wasnt taken from him. He just got fired for saying something that the people that paid for his time didnt want to be associated with for fear of losing revenue themselves. I dont blame them.

However, I think America really needs to get over itself. I think there are to many people acting like spanked little children because of past wrongs that were done. Dont get me wrong, I am horrified at what has been done to many different classes in the past in this country. It saddens me that the Bible was used to justify it too. Things are still going on today that were going on 200+ years ago. People are still and always be prejudice. That is just a fact, all be it and ugly one, of human nature. There is not one class of people in this country that hasnt been a victim of prejudice. Prejudice is prejudice and we all have been its victims. You can sit there and say that what Imus said stepped way over the line. But you hear rappers saying FAR WORSE things, and people are paying money for it. So what are people suppose to be shocked when a white man says something that isnt even close to what a rapper will say about his own people? If Imus had of been a black man you wouldnt have heard boo about it. At the very most it would have been a 30 second blerb on the news and that would have been it.

This country has become to sensitive. James Dobson and Pat Robertson can call the GLBT community everything but late to dinner and it is alright. But no one can say anything about any other minority without fear of retaliation or retribution from some sect of that class. Maybe the GLBT community needs to start going after, I mean legally, the James Dobson and Pat Robertsons of the world. Make them prove in a court what they are saying. Sue their butts for defimation.

Sorry, I just get so irritated sometimes when people will jump the bandwagon of political correctness to get themselves in the news. Get over yourselves people, no one in this country hasnt been a victim.

[BrianB]

I tend to agree with you. If you take away someone's right to say what's on their mind; however offensive it is, then someone may find what you say offensive. Another reason to let someone like Imus speak is that most people can see what kind of Jerk, Creep, A**, that he is. Have you ever seen the KKK on one of these TV talk shows? They don't need help to look bad. They do it all themselves.

I know I am going to upset some people with this statement...but here goes...I don't think Imus should have been fired..why,,because of free speech...something we all have in the US...I don't like him and I think he very rude and prejudice...but we have to take the good with the bad,,,it kinda like a domino affect...if one falls the rest will...we are walking on a thin line when it comes to free speech...