Letters to the Editor
-
Nothing to do with the free market
wkiernen writes: The "force" which pushed Imus out of his job has nothing to do with government. He got canned because the networks decided he was going to cost them lost advertising revenue.
And also writes: Now Rush Limbaugh lost his job as a sports-caster on ESPN . . . because there are a lot of black sports fans, and they were not obviously going to listen to racist idiocy like that."
And concludes: So provided he can restrain himself from saying anything blatantly actionable, I think Limbaugh is perfectly safe from the market forces that fell upon Imus last month.
But Imus wasn't removed because of market forces. There's absolutely no evidence that his audience would have abandoned him, especially not after his many apologies.
Imus was removed because broadcasters and sponsors were afraid that Al Sharpton & Co. would show up with a thousand sign-waving protesters outside their offices. That's not the free market; that's the threat of intimidation used as a way of accomplishing what the free market wouldn't accomplish. That's forcing a product off the market, not because the consumers don't want it, but because those who didn't buy the product themselves don't want anyone else to buy it. This is what passes for "free speech," and "the free market" in the U.S. today.
If someone is happy that Imus is no longer on the air, great, but then at least call it what it is: intimidation.