In its boilerplate apology for Brokeback smears, MSNBC omitted mention of Matthews
SUMMARY: In its apology for comments made by Don Imus and Chris Matthews -- which was identical to an apology MSNBC issued in 2004 over ethnic slurs made on Imus's show -- about the film Brokeback Mountain, MSNBC did not mention Matthews or his affiliation with MSNBC.
MSNBC issued an apology for comments made during Imus in the Morning, a radio show the news channel simulcasts, by MSNBC personalities Chris Matthews and Don Imus about the film Brokeback Mountain (Focus Features, 2005). But the apology -- which was identical to an apology MSNBC issued in 2004 over ethnic slurs made on Imus's show -- failed to mention Matthews by name and drew no connection between the network and Matthews, an MSNBC employee. During the January 18 edition of Imus in the Morning, Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball, quoted radio host Michael Savage in referring to the film as "Bareback Mounting." Imus in the Morning host Don Imus responded that his own producer called it "Fudgepack Mountain."
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) complained about the comments to MSNBC, and Jeremy Gaines, the news channel's vice president for communications, subsequently made the following statement, according to GLAAD:
"Imus" is produced by WFAN radio and is simulcast by MSNBC. The views expressed on the program are not those of MSNBC. Having said that, it was unfortunate that these remarks were telecast on MSNBC. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by these remarks.
But MSNBC failed to apologize for the fact that the remarks were made by Matthews -- one of its lead news hosts -- instead deflecting responsibility to WFAN, which produces the Imus show. In posting the apology, GLAAD criticized MSNBC's failure to name Matthews, writing:
[I]t's ludicrous to suggest that Chris Matthews, one of the network's anchors and most visible commentators, should not be held accountable to the network's standards and practices, particularly for comments he makes on MSNBC.
The language of the apology repeated a previous MSNBC apology. After WFAN sports anchor Sid Rosenberg, a regular guest on the Imus's show, on the November 12, 2004, edition called Palestinians "stinking animals" and said, "They ought to drop the bomb right there, kill 'em all right now," MSNBC issued an apology to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). According to CAIR, the apology read: "The views expressed on the program are not those of MSNBC. Having said that, it was unfortunate that these remarks were telecast on MSNBC. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by these remarks."
In 2003, MSNBC fired Savage -- whom Matthews called "wonderful" while quoting his variation on the Brokeback Mountain title -- for labeling a caller to his MSNBC show a "sodomite" and instructing him to "get AIDS and die."
I have said elsewhere on this site that this film doesn't promote any agenda, it's a good film - a tragic love story that is beautifully photographed and worth seeing. If you're offended by it, I haven't a clue why?, then stay home.
That being said, what is this apology nonsense that GLAAD demands. So these humorists, talk show hosts or otherwise said distasteful, disparaging and offensive, politically incorrect remarks - they have every right to say what they want without fear of some group demanding an apology.
Why do so many people get so worked up over comments made by private citizens, no matter how dumb the comments are? If you or I don't like it, switch channels and make your disguist known to station management. But to get your feathers all in a huff over it is ridiculous.
Who cares?
AMEN TOMMY, GOOD POINT AND ON POINT.
What is this criticism nonsense above? So GLAAD demands and apology and MMFA reports disgusting conservatives' comments - they have every right to say what they want without fear of some Tommy critiquing their actions.
Why do so many people get so worked up over comments made by organziations, no matter what these comments are? If you don't like it, go to another site.
You have a good point: vote by switching channels, calling the station. However, the reason MMFA included this in today's postings has to do with the form-letter, canned apology that MSNBC issued in response. GLAAD has every right to suggest the inflammatory comments warrant an apology. If Imus (and Mathews) had some more integrity (and a little less homophobia) they wouldn't have given the "locker room" banter any play on the air that day. Or maybe they could be honest that they haven't seen the movie. Or they could spin off into a confession of how they did a little experimentin' back in college (Mathews does have such a pretty mouth, don't you think?). But then, they would alienate the troglodite mouth-breathers in their audience. MMFA is right to point out that MSNBC's "apology" (probably copied and pasted from a folder on the network server full of such responses to controversial issues) deliberately avoided the fact that their star Chris Mathews had echoed the "unfortunate" comments. Something you learn in counseling is to take ownership of your actions when you apologize. The form-letter took no ownership. GLAAD and MMFA therefore justly indicate that the apology is a farce.
I love MMA for revealing and correcting the lies of the right. Given the right's meretricious and skillful use of messaging and media, I think MMA plays an important role, politically and socially.
Patrolling the airwaves for bad jokes, on the other hand, is just silly. And that is just what Imus & Co traffic in. Broad, bad humor. Naughty jokes, skits and bits. Bad taste, and maybe even a little hurtful.
I hope you collect your considerable analytical skills and resourses, and instead target the liars who really deserve your umbrage.
MSNBC's apology to GLAAD was sufficient:
**"Imus" is produced by WFAN radio and is simulcast by MSNBC. The views expressed on the program are not those of MSNBC. Having said that, it was unfortunate that these remarks were telecast on MSNBC. We sincerely apologize to anyone who was offended by these remarks.**
Short of censoring FREE SPEECH what should they have done? Imus is a well known idiot who has probably OFFENDED almost every group or individual at some time...Matthews, is also FREE to express his opinion, and they are both FREE to "joke" about any subject...INCLUDING this one.
IF anyone is beginning to show an "Agenda" here I'd say it is MMFA. This movie is NOT some "sacred" entity that is immune to jokes, or negative comments.
As I wrote on another thread I've no plans to see it, BUT not because it depicts a Gay love story. I'm just NOT inclined to watch romantic movies--UNLESS they are also Comedies. I just prefer other genres (comedies-suspense). One of my all time favorite comedies "The Bird Cage" had a Gay theme.
I do think it's funny how SOME in the media are bothered by this movie...HOWEVER, they have the right to express their concerns or indulge in locker room humor WITHOUT needing to apologize. IF MSNBC or any network feels the need to release an apology that's up to them. But no group has the power or right to DICTATE how that apology reads.
MMFA and GLAAD are FREE to express their opinion, and they are both FREE to request any apologies...INCLUDING this one. I do think it's funny how SOME here are bothered by these apology requests... They (MMFA and GLAAD) have the right to express their concerns, PERIOD. No one has the power or right to DICTATE how MMFA and GLAAD should behave.
simply quoted Michael Savage on Imus, which MMFA is treating as Meet the Press or something. He quoted someone, it wasn't even his joke.
Good grief, if you quote every off-color joke on Imus you will need alot of bandwith. Maybe you should monitor Howard Stern on Sirius, that should keep you busy.
simply quoted Matthews and Imus, which LH is treating as Meet the Press or something. Good grief, if you complain about every such MMFA item, you will need alot of bandwith. Maybe you should monitor Howard Stern on Sirius, that should keep you busy.
or blow it way out of proportion.
But to give you some idea of the cultural implications of this movie's subject. Pres. Bush was asked in a public forum if he had seen the movie and what he thought of it. Bush about got the vapors. I thought as I was listening that some kindly Secret Service again might scream "GUN" and tackle him. But this is how polarized we are no one can in office can afford to voice an opinion. That's why the debates are controlled by the extremes in our present society because we are too scared to have an honest debate.
Lastly, to apologize for Chris Matthews any more MSNBC would need to hire a full time position.
I actually don't consider Mathews to be a journalist anymore, since yesterday, when he "interviewed" Scott McLellan's mother, who wants to be Gov of Texas. He asked her point blank if she would go after the companies that hire illegal aliens in Texas and without any hesitation, he allowed her to talk abbout being a independent and dodging the real question. That is not journalism ( informing the people ") but plain old entertainment. That pretty much leaves Charlie Rose and David Gregory as those who are left for me to admire for their work.
Mathews, Russert...none have the guts to pursue honest answers. They've become Barbara Walters clones, hung up on celebrity interviews, even if the "celebrities" need to be challenged on substance--or lack thereof.
That's Sean Hannity.
He's not a journalist and he annoys even me but he asks the question 50 times until they answer it.
A friend of mine recommended the film. I didn't know if I'd have time to see it. Well, negative comments by the likes of Imus and Mathews? Yep. I'll see it now. It MUST be worthwhile.
I just turned on Imus and we went off with "fudge packer" jokes.
He also said if someone doesn't like his gay jokes or they are upset ... then try to get him of MSNBC.
The whole Imus crew was just laughing at anyone who is offended ... they said "tough".
Boo-Hoo! When funny looking heterosexuals get together, we all have a blast. However, when it concerns a gay guy...ohhhhh hush hush..
You guys are pathetic..
mathews has become a caricature of a caricature.
msnbc is on its way to replacing cnbc as inconsequencial.
how imus has lasted this long in the nations largest market is a mystery to me.
You surprised me, Tommy. The polarization of Republicans and Democrats is lessened when a member of a party articulates an unexpected position.
Ufleirx, I too saw Bush's response to a Brokeback query. I interpreted it as code for: "I'm a real man and real men don't watch such films." Imus had a similar response a bit back when he said, "Why would I see such a film?"
The answer to that is clear: you see it because you're obviously ignorant.
Imus just used the slur again. And Vanity Fair just profiled Imus. My impression was one of fraility. My neighbor also denigrates gay people with such words and he's an itty-bitty man. I suspect that many men find comfort with such words are itty-bitty on the outside or the inside.
Leatherhelmet, we've all heard the word, fudgepacker, ad nauseum. Why is it funny to you? Is the n-word also funny? If Imus wants to be the bad boy of radio, the fearless provocateur, he should use the n-word. And the c-word.
Or he should use the f-word. No, not the word that rhymes with duck. He should deem him self a fossil, because that's what he is. He's made a fossil not by his age, but by his attitude.
They come close to using the words you mention. They routinely refer to women as skanks. Racial stereotypes are routinely used including Bernie's reference to Ed Bradley as looking like a resverse negative and a joke about Byonce wrestling someone for a chickenwing. My daughter often asks me why I watch it since I do find the regulars an ignorant offensive bunch, but somehow Imus interviews with politicians and journalists can be quite effective and revealing. It seems like they let their hair down with him and you get a glimpse behind the facade. Sometimes what's behind isn't so pretty. I don't think Chris Matthews would have made that comment on anyone else's show.
Holly, judging by some of the logic above, folks like Matthews and Imus can joke about the maimed, handicapped, overweight people, the speech or hearing impaired, ethnic groups, Alzheimer's and-basically anything and anyone-without concern and without those nagging calls for apologies. There is no fretting about crossing lines, because there are no lines.
Some people-maybe conditioned by morning radio dj zoos-have low standards over what constitututes maturity and good taste, and what is funny.
I've long believed that a listener empowers a speaker. We are allowed to say what people let us say. So, maybe Imus delivers a public service in allowing people to articulate their bigotry. I'd rather have bigotry revealed than wonder who's the bigot. The problem with listening to many bigots is that one can become inured to bigotry. And hearing it a mass media platform can signal to some that bigotry is a fine and dandy affair.
". The problem with listening to many bigots is that one can become inured to bigotry." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I agree hold heartedly with that statement; I also think the Imuses of the world have found an audience because of what some like Letherhelmet and other right wingers here view as over zealous political correctness. Now the pendulum is swinging in the other direction and they are becoming quite tolerant of this type of behavior, so the moronic statements emanating from Imus’ staff are greeted as bold and defiant. This explains Imus daring the network to do something about it; he knows he has an appreciative audience. Maybe I should seriously think about removing my self from that audience. Ironically I have never heard a joke on this show that had White males as a group be the butt of the joke; of course the staff is all White and all male.
Hi Lynn,
Do you have some insider source at Imus' show that fills you in on the sex and race of his entire staff (all white and all male, as you say?).......I have never even given it any thought....
Regardless, the point is if you, or I, find a certain program offensive or a particular host repugnant - then I turn him/her off. If I am so inclined I may communicate my disguist to the station airing the program and they can choose to ignore it or consider it.
People have the right in this country to say stupid, dumb and horribly insensitive remarks and we have the right to voice our opinion against it. I concern myself more with our elected officials and policy and laws that may come from their remarks, private citizens don't worry me much.
I was referring to his on air people. Bernie, Charles, the semi-regulars. I said before I should probably stop watching even though as I said his interviews are strangely intriguing to me, but you're right I have to ask myself is it worth it.
That's right, Dave. In targeting the less powerful, shock jocks can substitute crudity for wit. Is their purpose to pander to the prurient desires in all of us or is their purpose to avoid work, for wit is a whole lot less work than slinging "fudgepacker" and "skank."
Wit is a LOT more work than slinging "fudgepacker" and "skank."
...the point is, a guy like Mathews is supposed to be a legitimate newscaster, versus folks like Imus, Stern...even Rhodes and Malloy, who are basically entertainers with strong opinions. If Mathews is to be taken seriously, he should uphold a higher standard than mere "shock-jocks".
Also, what would happen if one of these people said something good about the movie instead of reducing the discourse to schoolyard name-calling... god forbid defend homosexuals! "Bareback Mounting"... Come on! That's 3rd grade level at best.
Matthews is a legitimate newscaster? He's no better than Coulter. Imus, like Limbaugh, is an entertainer. He will say what he wants to, as will Savage, Beck, Stern, etc. If you don't agree with or get offended by, change the channel. Its that easy. The media outlet that hired them will not fire them because they get nasty emails from angry leftys or some group called GLADD who were offended. Ratings equal money for his employer. Imus garners good ratings, so I'm confident he nor Matthews lost any sleep over this.
As for making fun of fictional gay cowboys, who cares. I'm sure with all this hype, the producer and actors are laughing all the way to the bank.
I, like you, don't believe Mathews to be a legitimate newscaster. But, many out there do. And his show is portrayed as "hardball" or, the truth, facts, etc. Of course it is all ultimately about ratings. But, I do believe the point of MMFA is to bring (hopefully) some sort of accountability back to the "news". That may be a bit too optimistic... but...
You're probably right, Dave. Even bad press is good press. And people that respond to a movie they haven't seen are people I tend to pity, for an opinion sans data is a pretty good sign of a weak mind.