Letters to the Editor
-
Where is the real problem?
This is not a free speech issue. Imus' rights are not being abridged. There was no prior restraint. The free market is racting by expressing its opinion of this sort of behavior. Directing attention on Sharpton, comedians or rap artists is mere diversion that should be dismissed.
The application of social and economic pressure is a perfectly democratic method of social enforcement. Don't want to hear racist remarks? Change the channel. Don't want to hear misogynist and derogatory rap songs? Don't buy them. These are methods by which economic pressure can be applied. But democratic forces are not and should not be limited to economic forces. The social voice can speak with amazing force when aroused. Public outrage can be directed against those that undermine society by voicing such divisive, racist views. It can also be directed against those than enable, fund and even encourage such behavior and speech; these are the broadcasters and sponsors.
"Sponsor" is such a descriptive word. Dictionary.com defines sponsor as "a person who vouches or is responsible for a person or thing". So those that advertise on this particular show are sponsoring, and indirectly, assuming responsibility for this sort of behavior. The sponsors have condoned long-standing remarks of this nature by continuing to fund and reward it with their dollars.
What have they funded? In this case, a racist attack against the young women of Rutgers. Society reserves its most severe sanctions for those that harm our young. Such remarks are divisive, antidemocratic and subject to social reaction and sanctions.
I feel it is appropriate to react quickly and strongly to apply strong social pressure for change. We eliminitate racism by ending its practice, one generation at a time until it is weeded out. Will firing Imus help to accomplish this? Perhaps so; then again perhaps the real issue of racism can be quickly swept back under the rug if Imus is fired quickly. Pressure directly on the sponsors of this sort of behavior would be a much stronger statement that just calling for Imus' dismissal. Such pressure would send a message to sponsors everywhere that sponsorship is responsibility. Democracy still has a voice; that voice should be used to attack the underlying problem, starting with the sponsors.
-
wow
I'm most shocked that people actually STILL listen to the radio!
who knew?
-
The radio business model: piss off your customers
Kansasgirl writes, So my advice to all of you is what the receptionist at my last job used to tell people when they complained about TV shows we aired: try using the "off" switch.
Apparently alot off people are doing just that. Radio listenership has declined 20% in the last two decades.
And maybe you would still have a job in TV if you didn't aim to piss off half the audience.
-
David Sugarman
Andrew Dice Clay?
-
Everyone's talking about the racism
He called these women WHORES because he didn't like their hair.
And he wasn't the only one; the other guy on his program started it.
The racism was bad, don't get me wrong, but the expression "nappy-headed" just says that Imus didn't like their hair (specifically because their hair looked like black women's hair -- but it still boils down to "you're ugly"). But for no reason whatsoever he called them "hoes". The word means "whores". He compared athletes to prostitutes because they didn't give him wood.
And don't tell me that this is just street language -- it's not acceptable there either, but then it's not spoken by highly paid guys with microphones.
Nasty language toward women on the airwaves should be unacceptable. (Toward men, too, Parson Jim and brightstar and all you guys -- I don't condone nasty gendered language toward *anyone*, which is why it pisses me off when men are called pussies or faggots for being decent humn beings, but that's not what we're discussing here.) But it happens so often that no one cares. The racial thing is why this is being discussed at all. Because if a *white* guy had called a bunch of athletes "straw-headed whores", or a *black* guy had called the Rutgers team "hoes", it would be perfectly acceptable. Today Mickey Kinsella on 98Rock's Morning SHow in Baltimore called Rosie O'Donnell a man (repeatedly) because "she didn't get her job by being a hot chick". Apparently in the world of shock jocks, if a woman doesn't get you hot, she is not a woman. And, y'know, I bet no one is going to call for *him* to lose his job.
-
Imus' bizarre choice
was to grovel before sharpton. just think of what he COULD have done, had he *actually* reallized he said something hurtful (and HAIR is a PAINFUL subject among black women (in more ways than one)). suppose he called up the Rutgers' team, apologized, and left a $200,000 scholarship for future black women basketball players. he could have even left that as a MESSAGE! of course, they'd accept it - and it would be more than just words. and what is 200 large to a guy like Imus? one percent? (and tax deductable, something very understandable to the owner of the T-Dodge Ranch) as for varelse's, "Change the channel", "Don't buy", most of us don't have that much clout. real boycotts are difficult in this anomic age (look at the problem i'm having "earning an opinion!"). we want more. we want quicker. and we don't want to TALK to each other!
-
Ridiculous
This is not the first time that Don Imus has made offending and racist remarks on his show. Each time he has gotten away with it and been allowed to continue because of the fact that he is a cash cow. If NBC really had any interest in fairness and making a point they would have fired him. As it is their suspension of Imus just says to me that, while they find his comments offensive, Don Imus can continue to work for them if he promises to be a good boy and never say those bad words again. I can't help but feel that, if a stink had not been made, Imus would still be on the air with no suspension. Pathetic, but not surprising.