Letters to the Editor
burlydee
Published Letters: 197 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Why is Rap Music Blamed for All Misogyny
[Read the article: Black rappers made him do it!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aren't there other examples and causes of sexism in our society? Is rap music the reason we've never had a female president? Or why women get paid less than men? Rap music reflects attitudes already present in the culture.
The difference between what a rapper does and what Imus does is that a rapper doesn't rap about how the Rutger University women's basketball team are a bunch of ho's. They don't name specific people. Imus called out a very specific group of people who were completely defense against his insults and he needs to face punishment for that.
Not to mention the fact that he used a racial slur on the airwaves. He called those girls jigaboos. I'm sorry, but if you stand up on your job, and refer to a group of women as ho's, jigaboos or nappy headed you will get fired. Why should Imus be any different?
Really, this has nothing to do with rap music. It is an effort to confuse the point - a greater racism and intolerance being spread through American radio.
In all actuality, rap music is on the decline. In sales and influence, hip hop reached it apex 8 to 12 years ago. So are we going to continuously look at this art form to blame all the world's problem. Crime - rap music. Gun violence - rap music. Sexism - rap music. Racism - rap music.
When do people take responsibility for their own words?
-
Black rappers, youth and Imus
[Read the article: Black rappers made him do it!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When will we let Imus take the responsibility for his own words? It doesn't matter that some foul-mouthed kids on the a-train use bad language. I see foul-mouth white kids everyday where I'm from, cursing, flipping people off... i don't think black people have the market cornered on bad children.
The basic distinction between those kids and Imus is that Imus has a platform on the airwaves. When he makes statements, he is representing the people he works for and the advertisers that pay his salary. If they don't want to be represented by him, than by all means, that is their perogative.
And why do people keep glossing over the fact that he used a racial slur? Jigaboos is a racial slur, and I can't use racial slurs at my jobs. Can you use them at your jobs? Anonymous - can you call someone a jigaboo and not get fired? I don't think so. THis has nothing to do with free speech. Imus can say and think whatever he likes. But that doesn't mean CBS and NBC have to employ him if he can't leave his racist views at home.
-
FDL and Lieberman
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What was FDL's smear of Lieberman? Putting him in black face? As a non-regular reader of FDL I am not aware of the incident.
Having said that, there are a few things I'd like to note -
First, Joe Lieberman did more harm to Democratic chances in 2006 than any single person for either party. He is not a democrat. Putting his opposition to the war aside (yeah, i know tough) he has repeatedly threatened to switch parties, wondered aloud how a Democratic majority in Congress may damage the country, and publicly ripped many Democratic presidential candidates. Speaking to an advisor of Lieberman as a source for the feelings of mainstream Democrats is asinine. In my mind Lieberman is worse than Zell Miller, at least Zell left the party and gave voters in his area an honest choice.
I also think the mainstream media fears liberal blogs because it is clear that many of the more active Democratic supporters have turned a blind eye to the news media, print and tv. I believe the lefts turned from the media because of the way Bill Clinton was treated, the way Bush has been treated, and the Iraq War. Those 3 major issues caused the left wing to distrust the mainstream media. Attempts to discredit left-wing blogs are fruitless because most liberals simply trust GG, FDL, C&L and Kos more than they do the Washington Post. To regain that trust, the media would be better served following the lead of Charlie Savage than attempting to tar Jane Hamsher.
Finally the media, and I think this would be true with Republicans or Democrats, has a problem with anonymous sourcing. The media can't seem to understand that there difference in between granting anonymity so someone can tell an important truth (the secret prison story) and granting anonymity so someone can land a political blow or score political points (95% of political articles in the NYT and WaPo). Until they learn that difference, the media will be reflexively stuck in he said/she said politics. And therefore simply a tool which both sides will try to exploit.