Give me a break...if you dont like the "shtick" change the channel...and it is a freedom of speech issue darling. When you take away the forum, you take away the speech. This was gross overkill and overreaction by a lot of people who ought to know better. Yeau, it was a crude, hurtful comment, but the ones hurt are the only ones he owed an apology to. He groveled for three days before people he owed nothing to. American blacks are hyper-sensitive to everything and invented the terms he used, terms they use toward whites as well. Imus doesnt deserve what is happening to him. But deserving in current Americana, land of the politically correct, home to the greatest accumulation of pansies on planet earth, means nothing. Its all about money, genuflecting to the screaming mob when dollars are in play, and reflective of knee-jerk, illogical comments like yours. People watched and listened to Imus because he undressed the ruling class. He went too far this time and probably on other occasions poking at sacred cows. But that was the deal. You shouldnt go ballistic about it. Move on if you dont like it. Hes going to be gone, and thats too bad. What youre left with are the milquetoast, cookie-cutter, feel-good crap purveyers, like Hillary, and the insane and inane right wing kool-aid drinkers. You deserve what you get. He didn't.

Joan Walsh may have been correct in stating the Imus firing was correct but her comment about the chocolate Jesus being no big thing kind of exposes a bias. Why do the Catholics deserve less? Does it depend on who the target is for Walsh? Why couldn't the people just be advised not to listen to Imus just as they were instructed not to see the jesus exhibit?

What I don't like about this whole thing is that it is a little too much like Pavlov's dogs for my taste.

Media decides this could be a big story, so they run with it, then everyone predictably gets excited and outraged, even though the same thing happens every day.

I don't like the fact that some media exec can dictate what I get outraged over. It is an obvious shaping of public opinion. Instead of this comment it could easily have been some other comment by Imus, or a comment by any other shock jock. People that have never listened to Imus and never mentioned him before are now prattling about his longstanding and awful pattern of behavior, as if they've been concerned for years.

Then you have people like Joan Walsh, who stand on their soapbox preaching when they don't have a leg to stand on. (To mix metaphores)

I don't like being told what to think, what I should be angry about, what I should consider important. In the case of Imus his words were awful but much more offensive *ideas* are expressed daily all over the place. I'd rather someone call someone else a "nappy-headed ho" than seriously advance the notion that Middle Eastern people are all savages who are incapable of maintaining a peaceful civilization.

One is just a tasteless attempt at humor. The other is an extremely destructive idea that justifies atrocities.

I'm going to have to agree with Rob Anderson on this one. Taken as an isolated case, of course I personally like the fact that Imus got fired. But it's hard to avoid the slippery slope argument. And while Joan may be technically right about the first amendment not protecting your high-paying broadcasting job, did not the right-wingers invoke that same argument when Bill Maher got dropped by ABC?

The point is that 'free speech' is completely meaningless when all important avenues for said speech are controlled by corporate entities whose main goal is to create profit. Because any speech that jeopardizes said profit is as good as banned. The result becomes a tyranny of the majority, where the only things that can be said are those that at least half the population will agree on. In America that translates to soccer mom-oriented programs on catching 'predators', American Idol, and empty political debates where people trade bumper sticker slogans about 'freedom' and trip over each other to assert just how important religion is to them. For any other views, it's "why don't you go write a blog". Except even then people can boycott your ISP to shut you down if they really want.

The blog defense would perhaps be more valid in a world where the dominance of the corporate media weren't so complete as to render most other forms of 'speech' practically useless and ineffective. Personally, I'm always a bit surprised when anyone makes a big deal out of something that TV or radio personalities say because I read all my news and opinion, and my drive-time is Iron Maiden time, not uninformed loudmouth time. But then I have to remind myself that there are a ton of people out there who haven't yet outgrown the morning paper/morning tv/morning radio lifestyle and made the jump to the internet, and are basically relying on whatever gargbage comes down the pipeline. Salon, Slate, and the various blogs have no shortage of garbage, but at least you're exposed to different kinds of trash rather and have the power to choose, rather than being hostage to whatever comes on the air.

A decentralized media (and perhaps the demise of TV and radio shows that rely more on the speaker's personality and tone than the actual facts) would definitely be the best option. But until we have that, the restriction of discourse in mainstream media is a legitimate concern.

Actually, if enough people believe that Imus' free speech is being violated, they could boycott ABC or the advertisers who pulled out. Thankfully, I doubt enough people believe that. Something of the sort should have been done for Bill Maher though.

I personally am glad to hear that Imus will no longer be on MSNBC. And frankly, it's about damn time people started to do something about this sort of thing. And I mean something serious. Sadly it's a shame it took so long to get this show pulled.

This isn't about political correctness - I really hate that term - it's about punishing people for abusing the public forum. I'm sick and tired of how often news and entertainment are abused by people. And to be honest, what occurred in this instance needs to be broadly and liberally applied elsewhere in our nation's media. For example, we have media outlets that spread rumors as breaking news. And then if we're lucky sometime later they may come back with some real information (Glenn Greenwald has been contributing some amazing work on this issue on his page here on Salon). Republicans have made a trade out of doing this. They toss the headline grabbing smear, truth be damned, and then say they were misquoted or taken out of context. Half the time they don't even care if it's false. The key is to do the damage first because few people stick around for corrections. Do we need to be reminded that it's these kinds of abuses that got us into the debacle of Iraq?

I see all of these things as, in a way, related. They're all abuse - abuse of media and the public forum. Telling lies or spouting hateful bigoted slander is not free speech. Certainly not in venues where people go to learn about what is happening in their country. And it's a shame that there people willing to stand up and defend this kind of assault on our public well being. Hate is bad and truth is good. That's supposed to be what parents teach their kids isn't it? What is wrong with this country for cryin out loud?

Sorry if I wandered a bit off topic, and as always, keep up the excellent work Joan.