Letters to the Editor
-
It is About Capitalism and the First Amendment
Imus was on the air because there is a market for his brand of hatred, arrogance and divisiveness. Ironically, he was fired because he pissed-off a large group of Americans who united, spoke up, put pressure on advertisers and successfully threatened profits. Opinions are broadcast if there is a market for them. It is about dollars.
These days, hatred and bigotry feed the fears of many frustrated, angry Americans who find comfort that their emotions are shared. Unfortunately, it is mostly the extreme right who seems to need it the most, and the broadcasters fulfill that need.
I can't listen to Rush Limbaugh for more than a minute simply because I can't hear what he is trying to say over his loud anger and hatred. Personally, I can't stand the negativity, the false facts being broadcast to millions just begging to be brainwashed. But there is a market for this stuff.
I may not respect the speaker but I respect the rights of all of us to speak, yell, babble or chant whatever drabble someone wants to puke out. More legislation to protect or restrict broadcasted speech isn't necessary. We just need to respect the First Amendment, even when we don't like the side effects.
It is only when we decide to think for ourselves and stop fearing knowledge that the hate-broadcasters will no longer have a market. As long as they are profitable we must live with them. I support those who put Imus out of business (until he lands somewhere else) and I do not support Imus, but I am deeply grateful that both sides may speak without government interference.
Jennifer S.
St. Charles, MO
-
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.
-
Mishima:
If Don Imus were making CBS a big enough pile of money, why would they be afraid of Al Sharpton & Co. showing up with a thousand sign-waving protesters outside their offices?
What exactly would their presence threaten?
Their safety?
Their reputation?
Their bottom line?
In your opinion, how exactly is Sharpton's Mob able to intimidate?
And why couldn't their voice be effectively countered?
If a vocal minority is able to bully a silent majority, couldn't their power be neutralized if the majority simply chose to speak up?
-
Can't compete with Hannity?
Wasn't it Hannity who "cut and ran" from a one-on-one debate with Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson just last month? Of course Liberals can't compete with him. How do you compete with someone who hides in the locker room instead of coming out onto the court?
I saw a radio show host named Tom Hartman on one of the C-Span channels just before the November '06 elections and his take on the Fairness Doctrine was that while hard to sometimes work within it's guidelines, it ensured a necessary balance in that for private enterprise to be granted access to airwaves they had to provide a benefit for the public at large and that benefit was real factual news. He stated that even in his rather small market station it was not uncommon to have six people just in the station's news dept. and that the station was able to write the added cost of so many people off as a tax loss at the end of the year.
Although I have nothing but contempt and utter disgust for the current crop of hate radio bigots and most of it's listeners, I don't think Dems could or even should try to ram legislation through Congess to restore the Doctrine. At this point I think it's better that it come from the grass roots support so that if and when the day comes it will be done by the will of the people. I wonder had the Fairness Doctrine been in place the last 15 years and had there been news with real facts at critical junctures instead of Ken Starr's witch hunt, Judith Miller's and Michael Gordon's stunningly incompitent articles rubber stamping Bush administration propaganda as truth, and Al Gore "inventing the internet", if just maybe things would be a whole lot better for a majority of Americans today.
Besides, the more Limbaugh has had to raise the stakes lately to pander to that idiot base of his, the better chance he has of hanging himself just like the original king of fear-mongering parasites, Joe Mccarthy. I mean it just didn't get any better than when good old Rush went into that all-time clown act mocking Michael J. Fox, and in the process hanging Republican Jim Talent out to dry while control of the Senate hung in the balance. If that pill-popping blowhard wants to torpedo another one of his own party's Senate candidates in another down to the wire election in '08, I say Liberals are better off not competing with that.