Tom Oliphant to Imus on racial slur controversy: "Solidarity forever, pal"
Referring to host Don Imus' April 4 comments on MSNBC's Imus in the Morning -- in which the radio host referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" -- and the controversy that ensued, former* Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant began his appearance on the April 9 edition of Imus in the Morning by stating: "Good morning, Mr. Imus, and solidarity forever, by the way." Oliphant also referred to political pundits like himself who appear on the show as Imus' "constituency."
During the interview, Oliphant related a discussion he had with New York Times reporter David Carr, who wrote an April 7 article about the controversy, saying that Carr "calls up, and the first question he asks me is, 'Are you thinking about not appearing on Imus?' And for once in my life, I answered a direct question with a direct answer. I said, 'No, I'm not.' " Oliphant described Carr's questions as "a cute little trick to see if your constituency would falter" and said he was "very happy to say no." Oliphant also said that "those journalistic giants at Fox News are wondering how your regular posse could possibly appear, and the answer is, 'It's simple: We know you.' "
While purporting to "know" Imus, Oliphant apparently disregarded Imus' history and that of his executive producer, Bernard McGuirk -- as well as frequent guest and former Imus sportscaster Sid Rosenberg -- of making racially insensitive and incendiary remarks, which Media Matters for America has extensively documented.
Later in his appearance, Oliphant asserted, "I don't know beans about hip-hop culture or trash-talking, or what do you call those things where you run on forever? Riffs, or whatever. But even I could see the beginning of what appeared to me to be a riff. And the train went off the tracks, which, you know, can happen to anybody." Oliphant added that "what counts when the train goes off the tracks is what you then do." Oliphant's train-off-the-tracks comment echoed remarks earlier in the program by Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman, who said of Imus' show, "[T]he form of humor that you do here is risky, and sometimes it runs off the rails."
Oliphant concluded his appearance by restating, "[T]hose of us who, through an accident, were scheduled [to be on the April 9 broadcast], who know better, have a moral obligation to stand up and say to you, 'Solidarity forever, pal.' "
From the April 9 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: Good morning, Mr. Oliphant.
OLIPHANT: Good morning, Mr. Imus, and solidarity forever, by the way.
IMUS: Thank you.
OLIPHANT: That's pretty easy. You know, I don't know if you know this, but yesterday, The New York Times tried to put me and [Newsweek assistant managing editor] Evan Thomas -- who was on earlier -- on the spot. Did you know that?
IMUS: No, sir.
OLIPHANT: This guy -- David Carr, who writes a pretty good media column on Mondays --
IMUS: Right.
OLIPHANT: -- calls up, and the first question he asks me is, "Are you thinking about not appearing on Imus?" And for once in my life, I answered a direct question with a direct answer. I said, "No, I'm not." And he says, "Well, why not?" And I said, "Because, being the world's most boring person, I had taken the trouble to go all the way though this episode from about two minutes before you said what you said last Wednesday, and then all the way through the statement you made spontaneously on Thursday and then the more prepared one you made on Friday, and I said that's it. That took care of it as far as I'm concerned."
And -- but it was a cute little trick to see if your constituency would falter, and I was very happy to say no.
IMUS: Well, I appreciate that. I don't think your loyalty is misguided or that I am --
OLIPHANT: No.
IMUS: -- unworthy of it, but I do.
OLIPHANT: Well, you know, one of the things that you're condemned to do in my racket is if you know something in a situation like this, you have a moral obligation to say so. And this is one of those occasions where, as you said earlier, fairness and accuracy and context matter. And what -- for what it's worth, what I really appreciated was the fact that, No. 1, you understood how important it was to get across to those wonderful athletes on the Rutgers basketball team what was really in your heart.
And secondly, I have this understanding that you understand the really dangerous moment in these episodes. And, you know, I'm thinking of, you know, an 8-year-old black kid being driven to school by his dad or mom who hears this and wonders what he just heard. And it's in that initial hurt that all these problems begin to show up.
And so what I told David Carr was I didn't think for a second like that. You should also know that your -- our good friends, those journalistic giants at Fox News, are wondering how your regular posse could possibly appear, and the answer is, "It's simple: We know you."
[...]
OLIPHANT: What I thought would be instructive for people is to go back on the tape to a minute or so before this happens and see if you can see it developing. Now, believe me, as you well know, I don't know beans about hip-hop culture or trash-talking, or what do you call those things where you run on forever? Riffs, or whatever.
But even I could see the beginning of what appeared to me to be a riff. And the train went off the tracks, which, you know, can happen to anybody. And, of course, what counts when the train goes off the tracks is what you then do. And that's why I, you know, didn't have a moment's hesitation talking to this guy from The New York Times yesterday. Of course I didn't think about reacting like that because I saw the whole episode in context, including your statements about it.
[...]
IMUS: A lot of friends of mine called, but I didn't want to put up -- put anybody on this morning who wasn't scheduled, because I can make my own case, and it is what it is.
OLIPHANT: But to me, that only means that those of us who, through an accident, were scheduled, who know better, have a moral obligation to stand up and say to you, "Solidarity forever, pal."
IMUS: Thank you, Tom.
OLIPHANT: Anytime.
Maybe somebody can explain to me the context that makes "nappy-headed hos" an OK thing to say.
Also, Oliphant's taking the refrain of Ralph Chaplin's song to show support for this asswipe is the lowest yet, in my book. Fornicate unnaturally all the Oliphants of this world.
Is this the same Oliphant who used to call in to Al Franken's show? Maybe I'm confused, but that guy seemed pretty sharp. If it's the ame guy, maybe he tailors his act depending on who he's talking to.
Yes it is the same person who was a regular on the Franken Show. I was suprised at Oliphant, but some of these MSM types are indebted to Imus for helping sell books.
Gimme a break, guys-- a little less sanctimoniousness, alright?
Oliphant IS a liberal, and a very wise one. Imus was clearly joking and he wasn't serious, does ANYONE get that?
This is the kind of thing that makes the Left look ridiculous-- so get off your high horses. A little more reason and a little less outrage, OK?
Good point, you scumbag liberal traitor! LOL.
I get it. I got it from the beginning. Imus rips on everybody. But give Imus credit, he opened the door for the rest of the media to indulge in a 'nappy headed ho' fest. All under the guise of criticising him for saying nappy headed ho. Cracks me up.
WOW!
Let me repeat that...
WOW!
Tom Oliphant was one of the most LIBERAL columnists out there!
Being from Massachusetts I used to read his op-eds on & off over the years in the Boston Globe so I can write THAT as a FACT.
What's going on here? Why is this LIBERAL kissing Imus's butt? How can he blow off what Imus said?
Maybe I could see a few Right-Wingers doing this, but NOT Tom Oliphant. I think I'm in shock :-O
I will end this post with another...
WOW!
Jeter, I do not believe this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. Imus calls Cheney a War Criminal. It has to do with decency and respect.
Doris,
I often find, that those on the Right that are public figures [on TV/radio/op-ed columnists] often defend *remarks* that those on the Left [ TV/radio/op-ed columnists] will attack as racist, smears, slurs. THIS is why I'm so shocked about Tom Oliphant.
I can't believe anyone should be defending this jerk [Imus]. And I'll be interested to see which journalists & politicians will stay away from Imus's program.
IF they don't...well that to me will speak volumes.
Hey J2, while you and I and most of the posters around here know which side of the political fence Oliphant is on, MMFA or MSNBC (as shown on the graphic) don't seem particularly interested in pointing that out. The shame.
EXCELLENT POINT Bruce!!!!
IF Tom Oliphant had been a Conservative Columnist MMFA would have included that information in the article!
And how many times has MMFA run an article here just because Wolf or someone didn't INCLUDE that a guest was a Conservative something or other.
Great catch!
Trying to wrap my head around this one... MMFA makes a whole post out of something this guy said, criticising him for going on Imus, and your problem with it is... what again?
I thought before your beef was "why are they criticising people for going on Beck when liberals are on Imus's show all the time?"
Val,
Try to keep up. Bruce & I are simply pointing out that MMFA omitted the fact that Tom Oliphant is a LIBERAL columnist. A fact that they would have INCLUDED had he been a CONSERVATIVE.
Bruce & I brought up the fact that Oliphant is a Liberal.
Nice to see them [MMFA] call Oliphant on his slobbering over this fool Imus, but it would have been nicer to see MMFA include the facts they so often call others on. Please note my example of a Wolf Blitzer being called on the carpet here for not mentioning a guest has Conservative credentials.
What example are you referring to?
Val,
Here's 2 examples--one Wolf, the other O'Brien [ I know there are others--maybe I'll take a stab at searching for them later]
CNN identified Bennett only as "CNN contributor" as he praised Rove, bashed Democrats
CNN's O'Brien failed to identify Luntz as Republican
Remember these? MMFA was *concerned* that Bennett & Luntz were not I.D'd as Conservative/Republicans.
William Bennett = Republican politician
Frank Luntz = Repubican pollster
Tom Oliphant = ?
Tom Oliphant = Liberal columnist [he wrote for the Boston Globe for many years--I live in Massachusetts & used to read him] He's a Liberal. I don't think you'd find anyone that will argue that point.
My point, and I believe Bruce's was that omission in MMFA's article.
Now I'm gonna go watch Keith to see if he mentions Imus.
There is a specific situation in which MM will call out a show if the guest is not labeled a conservative and I mentioned it below.
I guess the question would be, does MMFA regularly label columnists as conservative?
The only time I see MM label a pundit as conservative is when that pundit is bashing the Democratic Party. These pundits may only be bashing the Dems to advance the conservative agenda so they must be labeled a conservative (in opinion situations only).
Anybody who can't decide whether a philosphy, idea, action, whatever is good or bad without knowing the political affiliation of the person who said or did it owns an opinion that I wouldn't give 2 cents for.
What difference does it make?
A guy who broadcasts a racist insult and they guy who defends him are both jackasses, no matter which end of the political spectrum they fall on.
It doesn't make any difference.
Jeter .. don't bother. Olbermann was in his usual Monday spot on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, and Dan pressed him on the issue. Olbermann basically admitted what most of us already know: that he is contractually prohibited from criticizing someone who works for the same network.
He did, however, basically skewer Imus on ESPN. So there ya go ... all you Olbermann haters can feel free to get a life now.
sportsguydave,
Actually Keith did mention the Imus controversy on Countdown tonight. No Worst Person In The World award, but hey a mention is better than nothing. Of course every one of the MSNBC shows from Tucker, to Hardball to Scarborough Country have highlighted it [I'd guess they had no choice considering it's all over the news] so that Keith followed suit isn't a huge deal.
I like Keith. I watch him instead of O'Reilly, who I stopped watching last November.
So Keith's contract with MSNBC is more important than his principles. Got it. Anything for the money. I thought Libs have higher standards, but I guess not.
I take issue with your assertion. I have seen no evidence whatsoever of 'thought' from ANY of your posts. I think you first need to aquire the requisite equipment.
Get back to us after you've taken on your employer.
We all (most of us anyway) don't confront the guys or women who sign our paychecks. If we did, most of us would be out of work.
I think that depends on whether what our "boss" is doing is against our standards or not. I've left a couple of jobs because I didn't agree with what my boss expected me to do (or not do).
MMFA has trained us well.
Keith did mention Imus on his show last night. Keith also specifically stated that he (Keith) made a conscious decision NOT to go on Imus' show beginning in the late 1990's sometime (don't remember the exact date).
I know you guys are on here enough to recall that MMFA's mission statement dictates exposing conservative misinformation. Let the freepers waste their time looking for liberal misinformation.
As far as Tom Oliphant goes, I am very disappointed. I listened to him quite a lot as a regular guest of Al Franken and always found him to be quite thoughtful in his analysis of current events. He has a way of cutting right to the heart of an issue, but he sure dropped the ball this time. Imus is a turd. That kind of comment has NO PLACE on OUR federally licensed PUBLIC AIRWAYS. EVER!!! Oliphant smells like s#!t on this one.
Do you think it's a waste of time to look for conservative misinformation? Or just liberal misinformation? I personally don't like either.
In a situation where a conservative guest on one of these shows is criticizing a Democrat(s), Media Matters will call these shows out if they don't mention that the guest is conservative.
From what I've seen, MMFA notes when a guest on a show with official party ties or connections to right wing organizations is not noted as such. The posters here are stretching it a bit to imply that even columnists should be labeled.
In Jeter's case I understand. Yankee fans start to get a bit aggressive this time of year. ;D
Beach,
No what Bruce & I were pointing out was that MMFA on occasion highlights here that CNN or others neglect to mention party affliation or the ideology of some of their guests [please see my post to Val--scroll up]
So we were simply curious as to why Tom Oliphant wasn't identified as a Liberal columnist.
As you can see this has upset a few people, and may have sent Truth Seeker into therapy :-O
If you think I'm aggressive now...wait till the Fall. Especially if those damn Red Sox have a good year ;-)
Go BoSox-! tire 'em out for my hapless Angels!
Oh, back on topic- my point (and I may be wrong) is that I see the omission noted when it applies to a guests job or connection with a decidedly Republican group, not their perceived leanings or how they personally vote.
No, you said MMFA would have labeled him a conservative, that's an absolute statement. Now you say on occassion MMFA labels conservatives.
You are right to be curious why he isn't labeled, I am too. But I think HBL spelled it out pretty well.
Jeter, why did you cherrypick Oliphant as an example that liberals support Imus, while ignoring Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, MSNBC (the media is liberal, remember?), the NAACP, CBS radio, etc.
I don't even get what your point i...Is your point that since 1% of liberals condemned Imus, it follows that he was right and the Rutgers girls deserved to be called "nappy l;ittle hoes"? your argument is weak as usual.
Jeter, why did you cherrypick Oliphant as an example that liberals support Imus, while ignoring Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, MSNBC (the media is liberal, remember?), the NAACP, CBS radio, etc....by truth seeker
Um duh. THIS thread is about Tom Oliphant. That's hardly "cherry picking". Do you even have a clue what you're talking about?
I don't even get what your point i...Is your point that since 1% of liberals condemned Imus, it follows that he was right and the Rutgers girls deserved to be called "nappy l;ittle hoes"? your argument is weak as usual....by truth seeker
????? Man you've lost me. My point was that I was surprised, shocked even, that Tom Oliphant, a Liberal, would stick up for a scumbag like Imus. Did you even read my posts? I'm sorry, but did you have a liquid lunch today and are having trouble with your reading comprehension?
By the way Jeter, MMFA did not note that Imus was a conservative when it broke this news:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011
look it up yourself.
When MMFA reported Imus' apology, Imus was not called a conservative either.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704060005
Again, what's your point?
By the way Jeter, MMFA did not note that Imus was a conservative when it broke this news...by truthseeker
Yes MMFA can be quite inconsistent on occasion. And it may also be debatable about Imus's *ideology* since he attacks both sides. The man may only be operating on only a few brain cells.
More evidence that Jeter's post was written while under the influence:
The last MMFA article about O'reilly, he was NOT labeled as a conservative:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040006
In the lats MMFA article about Rush Limbaugh, he was NOT labeled a conservative:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703280008
In the last MMFA article about Sean Hannity, he was not called a conservative:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704060010
As we can see, your argument that "All conservatives are labeled by MMFA", therefore Oliphant should have been labeled a liberal" has been debunked.
Even if the label had been used sometimes in the past to describe Limbaugh or O'reilly, your overgeneralization about conservative labels has been proven baseless.
In defense of Jeter 2...
First, Imus is NOT a conservative, neither is he liberal. Politically, he is like most Americans and not a partisan of either side. It is one of the reasons his show garners the guests that it does, and the audience. So if MMFA had labelled him as such, it would be wrong.
Second, no MMFA does not always label persons as conservative but to use the example of O'Reilly and Limbaugh is just out of place. Their political leanings is so obvious that it doesn't need stating. However, MMFA does run items criticizing guests for not labeling guests properly, so it is appropriate for contributors here to make the same criticism of MMFA.
Third, there is no reason to imply Jeter was under the influence of anything. He gave his opinion, you gave yours, and I have given mine. They are like bellybuttons, everyone has them and that's why there is a comment section.
ramsquire,
I wish I had read your post before replying to truth seeker, I might have used more restraint in my remarks. I usually try not to be so testy, and resort to digs...but I felt he had it coming in this instance.
Thanks for backing me up when you wrote:
However, MMFA does run items criticizing guests for not labeling guests properly, so it is appropriate for contributors here to make the same criticism of MMFA.
That is all Bruce or I were trying to point out.
Jeter, I think you are trying a little too hard to be critical of MMfA. The context for the complaints here about guests being identified as conservative is when they are appearing as presumably objective commentators for an issue - for example Luntz, a pollster who only works for Republicans.
I don't know much about Oliphant. If he is as obviously liberal as you say, how would so identifying him have changed the thrust of this post? Do you think MMfA is hiding his liberalism because they are embarrassed that one of us is a hypocrite (hint: many are)? If so, why post about him at all?
I don't know much about Oliphant. If he is as obviously liberal as you say, how would so identifying him have changed the thrust of this post?
Val, because Oliphant is not as well known as some covered here by MMFA, some posters might have simply assumed he was a Right-Wing columnist. If I didn't know the man's background, that would have been my impression. So in this instance I just feel MMFA should have offered more detailed information. Especially in light of Oliphant's bizarre [IMO] loyalty to a serial racist such as Imus. Keep in mind this isn't Imus's first smear/slur. I find it hard to believe that Oliphant, as a Liberal, would ever jump to the defense of a Limbaugh or Coulter, yet he embraces Imus who certainly falls within the same category, so yes I would have expected MMFA to be far more forthcoming about Oliphant's background in this instance.
While I'll give them kudos for even highlighting Oliphant's remarks, I'd have been more impressed if they'd mentioned that Oliphant was a Liberal columnist. Do I think MMFA was deliberately hiding his Liberalism? I'm not sure. But I do find it a tad curious that no mention was made of it.
Just my opinion.
Not even Luntz was called a conservative the last time MMFA wrote an article about his bias, even though as you said, Luntz does polling for the Republican Party.
On March 5th, MMFA referred to Luntz as "Republican pollster", not "conservative".
link
Do I think that MMFA chose not to identify Oliphants political affiliation in this case? They absolutely chose to not disclose it. The people who write these threads are extremely smart and know exactly what information they are including and what information they are excluding in order to make the the strongest argument possible. Noting that Oliphant is a liberal doesn't enhance their case in the least bit.
In fact, I agre with your point in that I'm surprised they posted this thread at all, knowing who said it, but they must value Imus' hide over Oliphants reputation.
That's right the authors at MMFA are extremely smart. They know their readership is generally pretty smart, too. They know we would know Oliphant, they're not hiding anything. MMFA doesn't label every single commentator one way or the other.
What is funny is the righty's here grouse and complain that MMFA never expose hypocrite lefty's on the forum, eventhough conservative misinformation is their stated target. But now MMFA has called out a lefty and you and Jeter are still whining, still trying to find something to moan about. Congratulations you guys sound exactly like the crybaby liberal strawmen you purport to abhor.
Your Jeter defense was weak, Ras, and here is why:You said that Limbaugh and O'reilly are so obviously conservative that MMFA ommits the label. But Jeter himself said Oliphant is "one of the most liberal" columnists there are. And All of us liberals here know Tim Oliphant and know he's a liberal. I listened to his appearances in the Al Franken show and he's obviously a liberal. Then why don't you defend MMFA for not labeling this obvious liberal?And why don't you show some evidence in the form of links of MMFA labeling people that are conservative, but not as "obviously" conservative as Limbaugh and O'reilly? It looks like you and Jeter did not conduct any research whatsoever to back up the claim that MMFA always labels conservatives as "conservative".What is the frequency with which MMFA labels conservatives?You come here to make claims without evidence. It's time you present support to your premises.
Truthseeker,
Scroll up & read my post to Val about THIS very topic. MMFA does on occasion highlight the fact that media personalities are NOT mentioning that their guests are Conservatives/Republicans.
All you've accomplished here is looking pitifully foolish.
Now hurry & go seek help.
I am sorry, but you are a flip-flopper categorigally stated that if it were a conservative, and not Oliphant, whom we were talking about, MMFA would not have ommitted the label, in this case "conservative". But you went from making a decisive absolute statement to admitting that "sometimes MMFA is inconsistent". Well, if MMFA is inconsistent, how were you so sure that MMFA would have labeled a conservative? You could only be sure if MMFA were consistent.
Your case is weaker than Scooter Libby's.
"fornicate unnaturally"? What does homosexuality have to do with Oliphant's comments? I truly don't get it.
<i>Maybe somebody can explain to me the context that makes "nappy-headed hos" an OK thing to say.<i/>
Valentinian, allow me to offer to you this belated, anecdotal plausibility: I come from a Jewish family and spent a couple of years in college with a half-Japanese roommate with whom I have been friends since 4th grade. At some point during the rooming experience one of us would, in conversation and completely out of the blue and out of context, hurl an epithet at the other which would go unreturned. I don't remember which of us started down this path or why, probably out of a perverse affinity for nothing-sacred, no holds barred shock humor of the likes of Sam Kinison and Andrew Dice Clay who were in their heyday at the time. Initally this took place when nobody else was around. At some point we were both comfortable enough with the practice (and the shock value sufficiently diminishing) we started doing this in the company of mutual friends. This "phase" terminated with our college roomie days and we remain friends to this day, nearly 20 years later.
Your next question is probably "what the *&%^$%$ does that have to do with MMFA's post? My answer is that I am giving Oliphant the benefit of the doubt that he is secure in the knowledge that Imus' words on-air are not equal to his off-air deeds. Those among Imus's core audience who think this is a big to do over nothing may believe the same as Oliphant or maybe have latent racist and/or misogyny tendencies and believe the same is true of Imus. I would be curious to know how many of his listeners were put off by his slur. Irrespective of Oliphant's or his listeners' feelings Imus' latest quip, like those before it, fail to pass the smell test in that his target, this time the Rutgers lady basketball team, lack the comfort of familiarity with Imus which might allow them to dismiss his comment as nothing more than edgy humor. I understand that Imus will be meeting with the Rutgers team after which the latter will render their judgement. Since I have never listened to Imus' show I am inclined to defer to their judgement.
Tom Oliphant is a FORMER Boston Globe columnist. Now, I believe he bills himself as an author.
He also took a swipe at FOX. Amazing how they are trying to turn this around. The fact is Imus does not work for FOX Mr. Oliphant, and if Sean Hannity or BO said this him and Fineman would be on the radio SCREAMING for the removal of them. Its a double standard and its an outrage.
Is this where it would be appropriate to say "just ignore the Oliphant in the room."?
It's appropriate. Thanks for the laugh!! Interesting to see some get in a huff here today because Oliphant has been called out as a liberal by the posters and not by MMFA (who does take great pains to call out conservatives when they need that point to try to make something out of nothing, in most cases).
You are wrong, and you are assuming we will not do research and find out that MMFA did not label Rush Limbaugh as a conservative in the last article written about him:
link
No label was given to Bill O'reilly in the last article about him. He was simply referred to as "host Bill O'reilly:
link
The same with Sean Hannity. No conservative label. He was just referred to as "co-host Sean Hannity:
link
Imus was not labeled a "conservative" either. Most of the time, mainline conservatives are not labeled as such (RashL, Shamity, etal), but MMFA will go out of the way to point out that others are not labeled that way by MSM when doing so would make a "weak" topic stronger. Wow, you must have had a nasty weekend, you are certainly in a "differnt" mood today!!!!
I don't know if its appropriate, however it WAS funny.
Tom Oliphant obviously doesn't listen to the Imus show closely.
I have heard on the show Bernard McGuirk offer up a slur about what he clearly considered Oliphant's fey voice. Imus didn't bite, so there was no back and forth chortle/chuckles. But that is how close to the edge these creeps have always played.
It is incredible Oliphant would offer up defense of Imus.
And today Imus had no hatemonger Sid Rosenberg on or the disgusting Bo Dietel. Or his characters who play "Bill Clinton" or "Ted Kennedy". MMFA should be very proud, without MMFA reporting on this story last week, it would never have reached the critical mass it now has reached.
Wow, do these guys think that they're speaking in a kode that only those in the klub can understand?
"And, of course, what counts when the train goes off the tracks is what you then do."
-----
If I remember correctly, Imus and his buddies laughed about it. And this isn't by far the first time "the train [went] off the tracks." The tracks are so broken it's amazing the train ever stays on the tracks.
So, business as usual for Imus: Make racist statements, have a good laugh about it, then pretend to apologize so you can do it all again a few weeks later.
Some train.
What tracks?
I watch Imus occasionally and he CAN be a bit crude at times
but IMHO the real culprit here is Bernard McGuirk - he is a racist,
misogynistic pig - dump McGuirk
Getting rid of Bernie should be the least MSNBC/CBS Radio should demand. American airwaves should have no place for racism.
Oliphant- solidarity with racist - what fun!
Geeze. The schmozze fest never stops. I think Fineman, Oliphant, Imus, and McJerk (producer) should challenge the Rutger's women's basket ball team to some one one one b-ball.
I'd pay a pretty price for a ticket to that show. These idiots as Imus likes to say so often really need their heads turned inside out.
What's with the schmooze fest already? Gawd I hope Sharpton lets Imus know the depth of how his "insults" are just hate speech.
This was no riff. This was a slur. I agree with all who are calling our the producer- he's especially vile.
I don't give Imus a free pass on this, or a lot of his other crap.
Yeah, he is also putting his money where his mouth is, and doing some good in the world. But when he spews racist, sexist and just hate speech and allows his minions to perpetrate stereotypes that are hurtful and harmful to minorities..then he has no place on the free airwaves on prime morning shows.
He needs to go. And Oliphant just showed how the corporate system of propping up this kind of "controversy" is just sick.
Shame on him. Yeah, Imus you apologized. Great.
Now go away.
Well, nobody can accuse Media Matters of being party line, now. Does Media Matters really think that it is wrong to defend Imus?
The problem really isn't liberal or conservattive: the problem is the Kool Kids Komplex. The Press Club are all good buds, and of course all deserve their fabulous salaries and invitations to all the right parties. What, so the guy's an ignorant vulgarian racist? Well, nobodys perfect. You taking the yacht out to Russert's place on Martha's Vineyard?
My objection to Imus is not that he's a conservative or liberal, but that he's a dope. He contributes nothing to the national discourse--but he's One Of Them, so they stand by their bud.
Hey, Tom--who's standing with the Rutgers players?
But it is clear that Imus is not a racist. Did you just hear of him when you heard about his "nappy" comment? Put away the torches, please. Why are you looking for trouble where there is none?
Now, Jeshopk, that's just plain stupid. While I read your defense of Imus and that he meant to use “nappy-headed hos” like one of the urban brothers on the street. Even if that’s the case, he should’ve known that this, coming out of a 67 year old white man, would sound incongruous and inappropriate to folks who aren't his usual fans. Sure, he probably meant to use this in a hip hop style—since that disgusting, racist, sexist, homophobic prick Bernard McGuirk constantly eggs Imus on with this sort of ethnic-bashing—but it backfired on him, and it served him right.
If he had listened to black journalist Clarence Page when he appeared on the show, pleading with him to tone down on this type of material, he wouldn’t be in this situation right now. Then you have McGuirk who is by far the worst culprit on the show. Equating the great Maya Angelou to a gangsta rapper; saying Senator Obama has a “Jew hating name;” saying that the parents of a football player named De-Marcus were too drunk on 40 ounce, that’s why they gave him which an “odd name”; there’s more and more. Yeah, I may be black and probably in the minority when it comes to his target demographic, but I’ve been viewing it for quite some time, and no one will ever convince me that Bernard McGuirk isn’t racist. And let’s not talk about his grotesque imitation of Mayor Ray Nagin and his usual homophobic remarks.
The fact of the matter is Imus gimmick doesn’t work well on the morning format and it’s more suited on satellite radio than MSNBC. They tried to do this once before by giving Michael Savage his own daily talk show in the afternoons, and as soon as Savage said something extremely offensive, they canned his ass. Not to say Imus deserves the same fate, but he should know better by now.
"nappy comments"? Why didn't you choose "hoe comments" instead?
And why was it necessary to point out the hair type typical of African Americans? Indicating that they have nappy hair is no different than saying "big nosed Jew" or "sombrero-wearing Mexican".
Hypocrisy from MMFA as usual:
Why is it then when Imus referred to CBS execs as "money-grubbing Jews", a much more direct racial assault than "nappy-headed hos" (whatever that even means), MMFA ran one, maybe two articles about it but here when there is a perceived slur against blacks, it becomes a federal case...I guess that it shows that anti-semitism is slightly more tolerable than anti-black racism among some.
So you consider "nappy-headed ho" to be a PERCEIVED slur?
Wow.
Your complaint is that when Imus made racist comments about Jews MMfA wrote about it, but when he made racist comments about blacks, MMfA is... writing... about it?
Huh?
You're not particularly bright. 1 or 2 vs. many. Figure out the difference.
MMFA reports on media in proportion to what media reports. If you have a problem take it up with media outlets that skipped the story, not MMFA.
Your post makes little sense. MMFA did point out Imus anti-semitism. What more did you want them to do? If MMFA ran "two" article about the anti-semitic comments, I would say they very much called attention to the incident.
MMFA made as much sense about a week ago when they ran a thread bitching about TIME not using as many words as NEWSWEEK while discussing the attorney general scandal.
Yes I do. Now address the substance of my post you complete idiot.
There was no substance to your post. That was the point.
"And this is one of those occasions where, as you said earlier, fairness and accuracy and context matter." - Oliphant
Did any of you who are excoriating your liberal savior Oliphant even see the broadcast? Is it possible your savior has a point that context matters? I don't watch Imus so I have no idea but it seems you're ready to throw Oliphant under the bus. I can't stand Oliphant so it's kind of funny to watch you libs hammer him but maybe the guy deserves a break?
In what context does "nappy-headed hoes" sound good to you?
Did you see the broadcast, Loonz? If not, then stfu.
You're the one that said context matters so I'm asking you in what context does 'nappy-headed hoes' sound good? I can’t think of any situation where that comment would be acceptable. BTW, the video and transcript were posted on Media Matters and it was on ESPN.
No, Loonz. I didn't say context matters. I said that Oliphant said it matters, which led me to believe Imus could have been taken out of context. If Imus wasn't taken out of context then Oliphant is a racist according to a lot of the posts here.
If you can't pay the fiddler don't call the tune.
You raised T.O.'s context defense. Honestly do you, not Oliphant or any other sycophant, think what Imus said has any redeemable context?
It is elementary, empirical, foundational really. There is no context whatsoever that legitimizes such harsh terms.
Why dont YOU stfu. You are a completely worthless poster, not a single post you have ever made has a shred of insight, information or logic in it. You just come here to argue and tweak liberals. You are pathetic and sad. Get your mommy to check under your bed and go away.
You referred to him twice as our savior. We arent conservozombies, liberals dont DO hero worship and leader idolotry. That is YOU guys. Oliphant is a columnist I am familiar with but hardly a hero to anyone I know. Get a grip. Are you really THAT desperate to disparage liberals that this abject stupidity is the best you can come up with?
just looking at jack cafferty on cnn,he was explaining how he has known don imus for (30) years etc.His point being that somehow Al Sharton,Jeese Jackson got imus suspended.Hey Jack smell the coffee this suspension is bigger than Al Sharoton or Jesse Jackson.
Why is it that the mainstream media reacts when Imus makes anti-black comments (CBS and NBC pulled him), but when he made anti-Jewish comments (when he referred to "those money-grubbing Jews at CBS", it was A-OK with NBC and CBS. I'm curious to see what you guys think about that phenomenon. I can't explain it.
I agree with you. I think it shows they are more concerned with racial slurs against Blacks than slurs against Jews. I think its unconcionable. Perhaps they were sensative to the stereotype of Jews owning the media and didnt want to come down on him for fear of feeding that stereotype and then were more on guard this time but frankly it looks like a double standard to me.
Incidentally, I can't wait till Imus appears on Ubermench's "worst person in the world" list...wait they're on the same network? So you're telling me that it won't happen? Damn..and I actually thought that MMFA's god had some integrity (note the sarcasm).
note that your comments make no sense? Will do!
Yes any time MMFA or Ubermench is criticized, it makes no sense to one dimensional/non-thinkers like you.
And anytime a rightwing bloviating screechmonkey is criticised you wingnuts come in here and try to turn the thread into a discussion about Olbermann. Doing their propaganda troll work for the day. I guess it makes sense to Manichean thinking morons like YOU.
"Manichean?" According to American Heritage Dictionary, Manichean is the adjectival form of "Manichee" which means "an adherent of the dualistic religious system of Manes, a combination of Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and various other elements, with a basic doctrine of a conflict between light and dark, matter being regarded as dark and evil."
Where in my post did I express zoroastrian/buddhist/Christian/Gnostic beliefs or did I suggest a conflict bween light and dark? Before using big words, which I'm sure impresses all of your friends, try learning what they mean.
The Imus controversy points to the hypocrisy of social critics when they step in front of a microphone or a camera. There is not a person reading this who has not made rude comments and laughed at ethnic jokes among their friends. In public we turn into phonies and feign outrage. I want Imus to have the freedom to say anything about blacks; that preserves my freedom to say anything about whites. The Imus comment was funny precisely because of its absurdity. Even a dog knows the difference between getting kicked and being tripped over.
Not so much, dude. Not everyone needs to disparage the people around us to make funnies. Many of us go to lengths to do and say the right thing when noone is looking or nobody would take offense.
So, please save your justification for your personal lack of decorum for your equally lacking 'friends'.
Look, if you don't like Imus, don't listen to his show. The comments were certaintly offensive but I don't think they are a barometer of his true character. The man has, on a daily basis, brought attention to the lying activities of the President. His work for children in conjuction with other activites such as the Walter Reed scandal indicate that he is much more of a patriot than Oreilly, Hannity,Boortz, or any of those other freaks. For the people who are calling for his head, they should ask themselves how much work have they done for those less fortunate. As far as Shartpton and Jessee Jackson, come on give me a break. I think their history speaks for itself in that they have no right to judge anyone.
It's a great disappointment to me to hear Oliphant stand up for Imus. Oliphant has always been one of my favorite writers and commentators but I see now that he has a real crack in his personality - an inability to see a bully publicly humiliating young women. Goodbye Mr. Oliphant - I won't be reading or watching you anymore.
The context that you just availed yourself of.
Self-correction; MMFA wrote ONE article about the Jew comments AND it was written by an intern.
Wow, this repartee with Tom Oliphant and Don Imus dismays and confuses me. I always appreciated Oliphant's segments on Al Franken's show, but here, he's just way out of line. I don't care that he "knows" what kind of guy Don Imus is, what Imus said was absolutely assinine, and so horrible hurtful, and he should know that. That he is supporting Imus, is really sad. I keep hearing people say what a really great guy Don Imus is, and that this is just a comedy show, and people are taking it out of context, blowing it out of proportion. What kind of a great guy makes such disparaging comments in public or private, in earnest or in jest, about people he knows nothing about? Tom Oliphant is free to have whomever he chooses as a friend, and he can also support Don Imus as a colleague if he wants, but he should have kept this support to himself, unless he wants to become as outcast as his good friend Imus.
Hello Mr. Oliphant, As a parent of a women who has dared to participate in NCAA athletics stressing her class time, encouraging sexual and detrimental slurs and not helping her socially, I think your responce to Don Imus as lacking in substance and encouraging his lack of sensitivity regarding his comments about women. I would love to hear what his wife has to say about this fracas.
I just want to know how to reach Tom Oliphant, because I've been on the slow boil since I heard what he said to Imus.
I am somewhat surprised by Oliphant's comments, but not enough to completely disregard his positive contributions. I guess I am just scratching my head ... as I am about this being rascist. I mean, I get it - it just seems to be more sexist than anything, suggesting that the women look like men, that they are not "cute" and calling them "hos". To add insult to injury, there was a racial element thrown in for good measure ... but why is it okay to degrade women? Perhaps I missed something , but I'm curious as to why no one has brought up this point.
Simulcastoff.
Until "they" go after Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, and whatever others I may NOT know, then theire punishment of Imus--as deserved as it may be, should be just the first of many.