Don Imus

[LaszloWalrus]

Give me an example where the "bromide" does not apply.

[Seeker]

Give me an example where the "bromide" does not apply.

Give me an example where I said that the "bromide" does not apply. My point is that in this specific case, as with all instances of humor, there are many complexities present to consider that go well beyond your analysis. For instance, taking into account the entirety of the context - including the elements of personality, emotion, timing, emphasis, voice intonation, laughter, rapport with co-hosts, and so on - was Imus really "targeting" the good for destruction, as you suggest? Or was this, as I hold, an example of a simple throwaway remark that in its context was intended simply to amuse? My attempt here is to accurately characterize, not thoroughly dissect the remark (which frankly I didn't find funny). An honest attempt to consider the question will admit these complexities and not rely on gross oversimplification.

[Groovenstein]

There are two things wrong about this situation:

1) Imus' comments, for obvious reasons; and

2) the public reaction. The guy said something stupid, and the big deal is . . . what, exactly? There are so many things happening every day that are far more offensive than racist comments or a bad joke. I save my anger for things of far greater import, such as, say, taxes or a murder.

[gags]

I predict Imus will get picked up by satellite radio. He'll land on his feet.

[Wotan]

When will people figure out the obvious? American blacks are much worse racists than whites. Sharpton is much more a bigot than Imus. Why are white people today so defenseless and weak?

[DarkWaters]

CNN.com quoted Al Sharpton this morning as describing Imus' firing as a "first-round victory." I find this chilling. The last thing the United States needs is having a bunch of people looking for racism under rocks. Perhaps the creators of South Park are next given the topic of this season's first episode.

When will people figure out the obvious? American blacks are much worse racists than whites. Sharpton is much more a bigot than Imus. Why are white people today so defenseless and weak?

I adamantly recommend against making short-sighted, ignorant racial generalizations to combat racism. If anything, you will realize how self-defeating such a tactic truly is. If you think that Al Sharpton and his followers are being racist, say that. Do not generalize to everyone of a certain skin color. You have no reason to do so.

[gags]

Most people are intimidated when it comes to race in America. If you try to discuss the issue openly, you are inevitably branded a racist.

[Korthor]

When will people figure out the obvious? American blacks are much worse racists than whites. Sharpton is much more a bigot than Imus. Why are white people today so defenseless and weak?

You jumped from "Sharpton" to "blacks" in general. Isn't that an example of racism? Isn't your rush to feel victimized as a poor victim of the PC police the same kind of victimhood claimed by Sharpton and his clones?

Oh, poor, poor, poor white people. They've had it so badly.... blacks really should apologize to whites for how badly blacks have treated them.

Finally, do you have any studies to support your analysis of racism in America? If not, you sound like a reverse-Sharpton spouting off nonsense to support your own sense of victimhood-entitlement.

[Gary Brenner]

From law.com:

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages.

Here is an ideal opportunity for the young women of Rutgers to make a little extra folding money. Under our venerable system of laws, what other people think of you is treated as your own personal property. Imus’s words have damaged the basketball players’ reputations, therefore they should be allowed to collect compensation.

How about a million bucks per gal? Or why not two million? Surely there must be some objective way to set such damages.

[DarkWaters]

Most people are intimidated when it comes to race in America. If you try to discuss the issue openly, you are inevitably branded a racist.

Similarly, if an individual identifies a remark as racist, many assume that the individual is accusing the man who made the remark as being racist.

What a country!

Edited April 13, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Antonio]

What was wrong with their "behavior" or "grooming"? Were they behaving badly? Why is not having straight blonde Nazi hair bad grooming? So black people are OK as long as they look and act like white people? I'm glad Imus made his comments so all the racists would out themselves.

I don't know if there is anything wrong with their behavior or grooming. And I NEVER said anything judging black people's hair. Like your earlier ad hominem attack on me, it only shows that you don't understand how to debate a point, nor understand the issue at hand, because attacking the messenger and putting words in his mouth only sheds more heat, not light. The state of their grooming or behavior is not the point. That doesn't matter. What matters is the media and activists' reactions to Imus' comments.

Earlier Imus' comments were described as "low rent." Well put. The point is not whether Imus was right nor whether there could have been higher-level vocabulary words he could have used. Low-rent comments should not be shut down by minority pressure groups any more than deep philosophical commentary should be. The problem is the few trying to control the agenda for the many.

Finally, (apologize for forgetting who) someone noted that whites can have nappy-headed hair too. No single race has the monopoly on hair quality. Look at any white homeless person and you'll understand. Actually, the very-white former mayor of a city near where I live comes to mind. At a Fourth of July event, when I went to introduce my wife to him, she had initially thought he was a homeless guy because of his gastly appearance.

Same goes with the term "ho." Most of my friends of varying ages and races (I am 37, many in their 20s work for me) for whatever reason use "ho" to describe women who are loose, skanky or provocatively dressed versus "whore." I don't know if using a nickname of the original seems less severe, but the fact is that the word has spread into the popular lexicon, used by people of many stripes.

What's ridiculous is that race often enters the debate because it is an effective tool of the victim culture, or as Robert Hughes put it, the culture of complaint. It's time to take away that card from their deck.

[exaltron]

Similarly, if an individual identifies a remark as racist, many assume that the individual is accusing the man who made the remark as being racist.

What a country!

[Alessa36]

The man made a stupid remark. But I am absolutely disgusted with the way this is being played out. On top of the aburd level of hypocrisy displayed by Al "Diamond Merchants" Sharpton, practically everyone in the media is calling for him to be fired. Advertisers are pulling their ads. It is certainly their right to do so. But they wouldn't be doing it at all if not for all this media hooplah. People sometimes speak before they think. Everyone does it. Unfortunately for Don Imus, he happens to be a radio host with millions of listeners, who all happened to be listening when he made his stupid comment.

He is now being investigated by the FCC, which is beyond ridiculous. I guess I missed watching the news on the day when racial slurs were made illegal.

Fear of being labeled "racist" has gotten to truly ridiculous proportions in this country.

My boyfriend who listened to the actual tapes said that Sid Berstein , who was also commenting on the womens basketball team...said first...those are some rough women...imus chimes in , "Yeah big rough women". Sid then says and tough ho's ( or something ho's) Only then did Imus chime in..yeah..nappy headed ho's. Both times he was responding to Sid's original comments. I'm curious as to why no mention of that comment from Sid in the press??

[Gary Brenner]

My boyfriend who listened to the actual tapes said that Sid Berstein , who was also commenting on the womens basketball team...said first...those are some rough women...imus chimes in , \"Yeah big rough women\". Sid then says and tough ho\'s ( or something ho\'s) Only then did Imus chime in..yeah..nappy headed ho\'s. Both times he was responding to Sid\'s original comments. I\'m curious as to why no mention of that comment from Sid in the press??

His name is Sid Rosenberg.

[Seeker]

My boyfriend who listened to the actual tapes said that Sid Berstein , who was also commenting on the womens basketball team...said first...those are some rough women...imus chimes in , "Yeah big rough women". Sid then says and tough ho's ( or something ho's) Only then did Imus chime in..yeah..nappy headed ho's. Both times he was responding to Sid's original comments. I'm curious as to why no mention of that comment from Sid in the press??

The press isn't interested in the context of the remark because it's not necessary to making the story fit their predetermined stereotype. In fact, it gets in the way. You didn't think they would let a little thing like facts stand in the way of a good story, do you?

Let's run down the essential plot progression:

*Once upon a time there were some amazingly virtuous young black women basketball players making it in an unfair world

*And then one day they played in a championship game

*And just when everything was going so well, a mean racist white male viciously attacked them, destroying the greatest moment of their lives

*When just at the last minute, justice was served; the American people arose and sent the evil white male villain to oblivion!

*Evil was defeated, political correctness was vindicated, the media cleansed itself and they all lived happily ever after

So, yeah, that bit about context doesn't really fit in the story. It's not essential to the plot, and definitely deserved to get cut.

[The Wrath]

Seriously. If the modern media had been around in 1945, D-Day would have been portrayed as an Allied agression against a bunch of Germans who were just trying to enjoy a day at the beach.

[hunterrose]

Low-rent comments should not be shut down by minority pressure groups. The problem is the few trying to control the agenda for the many.

Minority pressure groups didn't control Imus's agenda. CBS (or is it NBC?) did. Imus's sponsors did. If Imus's bosses/sponsors had chosen to stick to their guns, Imus would not be shut down. And since no is arguing that they should have continued to support Imus...

"The few" spoke their mind. The owners responded. No force, no controlling, no "postmodernist" problem with what has happened to Imus.

[Thales]

When will people figure out the obvious? American blacks are much worse racists than whites. Sharpton is much more a bigot than Imus. Why are white people today so defenseless and weak?

I adamantly recommend against making short-sighted, ignorant racial generalizations to combat racism. If anything, you will realize how self-defeating such a tactic truly is. If you think that Al Sharpton and his followers are being racist, say that. Do not generalize to everyone of a certain skin color. You have no reason to do so.

DarkWaters is entirely right. Just remember that we're all individuals, and all any of us have control over is our individual selves.

But to answer your question as to why so many whites won't defend themselves, it's probably because they fear being labeled racists. If you're white you're supposed to feel guilty for the crimes of people in the distant past who were also white. It's collective guilt, as it were. Not everybody is that way, but you're right that too many are.

This attitude is something that has to be broken, and this is done by promoting reason and individualism, and not feeling guilty for something you didn't do.

Most people are intimidated when it comes to race in America. If you try to discuss the issue openly, you are inevitably branded a racist.

This is true, but my sense is it's worse in other countries. For example, not long after 911 I was arguing for the bombing of Iran, and some Swiss guy on the Internet accused me of being a racist -- or in his words "rassist" -- clearly with the idea of shutting me up. I know that anyone who wants to deal with muslims in a tougher manner are labeled racists by powerful European groups. I tried to explain to him that this had nothing to do with race, and he seemed to never grasp the point. Not long ago, perhaps five months, there was an English girl on a reality TV show who was charged with racism (some comments she made) against, IIRC, an Indian girl. This was on google news, so it was made international. I know such pressure it exists in Australia and New Zealand with the aborigines. It appears to be in all of the Western countries.

So, yeah, it's not good that it's here, but so long as collectivism and tribalism are a force in this world, and individualism is rejected, we'll get this kind of thing.

[The Wrath]

I actually agree with Wotan's statement that blacks are, as a general rule, more racist than whites. No one suggests that this statement applies to all blacks and, as such, it is not a racist claim. It's not racist for the same reason that it is not sexist to claim that men are physically stronger than women. It's not the case 100% of the time, but it is true often enough that the statement can be considered true, as a general rule.

[RationalBiker]

I actually agree with Wotan's statement that blacks are, as a general rule, more racist than whites.

How does one validate this claim?

[The Wrath]

How does one validate the claim that men are stronger than women? That Arabs are more likely that little old ladies to be terrorists? Repeated personal observation. Of blacks that I have known, a far higher percentage harbor some degree of measurable racist feelings, than do the whites that I have known.

EDIT: I should add that this applies primarily to American blacks. I have known a number of Africans...as in, people who are actually from Africa. And they are some of the most polite, non-judgemental people I have ever met. But the American black culture has a way of programming American blacks to have a gigantic chip on their shoulder about all things dealing with race.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Moose

[LaszloWalrus]

I haven't have the same experience, and even if I had, I wouldn't generalize it to the country or the world as a whole.

From my experience, white racists are more subtle: their racism manifests as a patronizing attitude (i.e. affirmative action and diversity advocates). Black racists are more overt (i.e. Al "Diamond Merchant" Sharpton).

I don't understand the basis for saying blacks are generally more racist than whites.

[The Wrath]

I haven't have the same experience, and even if I had, I wouldn't generalize it to the country or the world as a whole.

From my experience, white racists are more subtle: their racism manifests as a patronizing attitude (i.e. affirmative action and diversity advocates). Black racists are more overt (i.e. Al "Diamond Merchant" Sharpton).

I don't understand the basis for saying blacks are generally more racist than whites.

You may be right about the subtlety. Blacks can show racism with impunity and get away with it. I've been called "cracker" before with plenty of witnesses around, but no one seemed to think anything of it. I guess if you factor in subtle racism, there can be a case made either way.

But if a white man walks into a traditionally black club, he will most likely get stared down. I don't think the same is true of a black man going into a bar that is frequented mostly by whites.

I actually think this would make an interesting psychological study. Someone should come up with a quantifiable measure of racism and administer it to people of different races. I've got a hunch that blacks would, in general, show a greater trend of racism.

[DarkWaters]

From my experience, white racists are more subtle: their racism manifests as a patronizing attitude (i.e. affirmative action and diversity advocates). Black racists are more overt (i.e. Al "Diamond Merchant" Sharpton).

I suspect that the patronizing attitude of the former emboldens the overt ignorance of the latter. Programs such as affirmative action unfortunately give some individuals of a minority background an unjustified sense of entitlement as some programs encourage if not require employers to achieve a vaguely define level of "diversity". Similarly, such regulations also discredit many hardworking, brilliant individuals who happen to be of minority backgrounds as others might assume that they made their achievements largely because of such diversity programs.

The city of Atlanta in particular seems to have a lot of tension in this respect. Anti-aggressive panhandling laws and a plan to recreate a county have both been calumniated as "racist" proposals.

Thomas Sowell has written a book on this topic entitled Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Has anybody read it? It sounds pretty good.

Edited April 14, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Antonio]

The press isn't interested in the context of the remark because it's not necessary to making the story fit their predetermined stereotype. In fact, it gets in the way. You didn't think they would let a little thing like facts stand in the way of a good story, do you?

Sometimes it's not only the press that is not interested in the context of remarks. In my experience in the press most of the time it is usually a loud pressure group that is behind the out-of-context knee-jerk reactions. The press eats it up because it's an easy story to do, and much of the press is lazy.

But not all. We had a local official - a member of a services district board (basically a very limited form of township here in California) say "I've got f---ing balls." His opponents latched onto that and screamed and shouted all over the place, including the discussion boards on my paper's own Web site. Then they screamed louder when we did not cover the story. TV did not cover it, I believe, because its reporters did not understand the situation in general, and typically they follow print journalism anyway - they're not news leaders in local markets.

The context of those remarks was that they were made at the end of a very long meeting that ran past 2 a.m. after nearly eight hours of rankerous debate, one of hundreds - perhaps thousands - in 30 years over a long-delayed and highly divisive public works project that still hasn't happened. The board member's critics earlier in the night had accused him, literally, of not having balls, in addition to other abusive and berating comments that descended into ad hominem attacks. Folks would like up by the score and go one after the other using their three minutes not for an issues discussion but to berate the board members personally. The other side was also a little guilty because they'd have their people do some cheearleading during the same public comment time. That was harmless by comparison though.

I chose not to have my reporter who covers that area write about this because it wasn't news. My fellow editors and senior editors agreed. It only would have put my newspaper as a pawn in a political game that has been going on for decades. It would not have served to shed any light, only heat. Basically, it would not have provided our readers with tools they need to be citizens.

There were those among the opposition who disagreed, and the best they can do is call us "biased." It's a free market, not just of economics but of ideas. They have their blogs, and ironically one could say, our own open discussion forums, to spread their "news." So we're not supressing anything. It was out there. We just examined the issue (don't think we didn't jump on this though) and found it did not merit being considered news.

Believe me, most of my media brethren do not show such restraint, not use logic and reason to judge what is news. That is why this Imus thing has been blown out of proportion. It's a talker. It sells papers and boosts ratings. Look at what we're doing here, after all. We've all just fallen into the vortex.