It's not just Imus
April 12, 2007 6:55 pm ET
On April 11, NBC News announced that it was dropping MSNBC's simulcast of Imus in the Morning in the wake of the controversy that erupted over host Don Imus' reference to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." The following day, CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves announced that CBS -- which owns both the radio station that broadcast Imus' program and Westwood One, which syndicated the program -- has fired Imus and would cease broadcasting his radio show. But as Media Matters for America has extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity continue to permeate the airwaves through personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson.
Glenn Beck
- On the March 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, Beck called Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, a "fat witch," claimed that O'Donnell has "blubber ... just pouring out of her eyes," and asked, "Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?" On the March 23 edition of his radio show, Beck said, "I'm a little ashamed" for calling O'Donnell "a fat witch" -- then added, "But she's so fat."
- On the March 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck said: "Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because ... there's something about her vocal range." He went on to say, "There's something about her voice that just drives me -- it's not what she says, it's how she says it," adding, "She is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?" Beck subsequently qualified his statement: "I never said that Hillary Clinton was a bitch. I said she sounded like one."
- On the February 28 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, while discussing racy photos of American Idol contestant Antonella Barba, Beck asked his female guest: "I've got some time and a camera. Why don't you stop by?"
- On the November 14, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck said to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim ever elected to Congress: "OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. ... With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "
- On the September 5, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck warned that if "Muslims and Arabs" don't "act now" by "step[ping] to the plate" to condemn terrorism, they "will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West."
- On the April 27, 2006, edition of his radio program, Beck claimed that there are three reasons that an illegal immigrant "comes across the border in the middle of the night": "One, they're terrorists; two, they're escaping the law; or three, they're hungry. They can't make a living in their own dirtbag country."
- On the August 24, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck claimed that Braille on walls (used to identify rooms for blind people) "drives me out of my mind." When he made his comment, Beck was discussing the "politically correct world we live in." He then said, "Just to piss them [blind people] off, I'm going to put in Braille on the coffee pot ... 'Pot is hot.' "
- On the August 10, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Glenn Beck warned that "[t]he world is on the brink of World War III" and that "Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets" will face dire consequences. Beck made his comments toward Muslims who he claimed "have not been saying, 'Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head.'"
- On the August 9, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck aired a segment mocking the names of several missing Egyptian students in which the announcer said that one "may or may not be accompanied by his camel." The segment showed pictures of crowds and pointed to random, unidentifiable people as the missing Egyptians. It ended with a reading of the students' names in quick succession followed by the announcer pretending to gag as he struggled to pronounce them.
- During the March 16, 2006, edition of his radio show, in describing Nigeria's new public education campaign to fight the spread of bird flu, Beck stated that the country has "actually resorted to radio jingles," and then asked if the United States could be "as dumb as Nigeria."
- On the January 10, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Beck called anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute," later amending, at the behest of his executive producer, Steve "Stu" Burguiere, that "tragedy pimp" would be "the most accurate description."
- On the September 9, 2005, edition of his radio show, Beck referred to survivors of Hurricane Katrina who remained in New Orleans as "scumbags." Also, after acknowledging that nobody "in their right mind is going to say this out loud," Beck attacked victims of the disaster and the families of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, saying: "I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims."
- On the May 17, 2005, broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program, Beck said he was "thinking about killing [filmmaker] Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"
Neal Boortz
- On the August 3, 2006, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz asked his audience: "I want you to think for think for a moment of how incompetent and stupid and worthless, how -- that's right, I used those words -- how incompetent, how ignorant, how worthless is an adult that can't earn more than the minimum wage? You have to really, really, really be a pretty pathetic human being to not be able to earn more than the human wage. Uh -- human, the minimum wage."
- On the July 19, 2006, edition of his radio show, Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show, Boortz claimed that "at its core," Islam is a "violent, violent religion," and said, "[T]his Muhammad guy is just a phony rag-picker." Boortz asserted that "[i]t is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."
- On the March 31, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Boortz said that then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looks like a ghetto slut." Boortz was commenting on a March 29 incident in which McKinney allegedly struck a police officer at a Capitol Hill security checkpoint. Boortz said that McKinney's "new hair-do" makes her look "like a ghetto slut," like "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu." McKinney is the first African-American woman elected to Congress from Georgia.
- On his March 27, 2006, radio program, Boortz suggested the U.S. government should "store 11 million Hispanics" who entered the country illegally in the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans before deporting them to their home countries.
- In a December 12, 2005, weblog post, Boortz predicted that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) would commute the sentence of convicted murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams to life imprisonment because "Schwarzenegger knows full well that as soon as Tookie's death is announced there will be riots in South Central Los Angeles and elsewhere." Boortz wrote that "[t]here are thugs just waiting for an excuse ... not a reason, an excuse" and explained that "[t]he rioting, of course, will lead to wide-scale looting." Boortz added: "There are a lot of aspiring rappers and NBA superstars who could really use a nice flat-screen television right now."
- On the October 24, 2005, broadcast of his radio program, Boortz suggested that a victim of Hurricane Katrina housed in an Atlanta hotel consider prostitution. "If that's the only way she can take care of herself," Boortz posited, "it sure beats the hell out of sucking off the taxpayers."
- On the October 14, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, Boortz stated that if the country is faced with an impending national disaster, then "hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity."
- On the August 17, 2004, broadcast of his radio show, Boortz, in response to reports from Florida that looting was occurring in Hurricane Charley's aftermath, said: "If they see someone looting, shoot him. They go up there, they just spray paint an 'L' on him and get about their business, and then after everything is over, they can go collect them all and bury them in a mass grave."
- On the July 21, 2004, broadcast of his radio show, Boortz referred to McKinney as "the cutest little Islamic jihadist in Congress."
- On the March 2 broadcast on his nationally syndicated radio show, Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh stated that "since [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] has -- on his mother's side -- forebears of his mother had slaves, could we not say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, he will own [Rev.] Al Sharpton?"
- On the February 1 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh responded to a Reuters report on a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated form today's government" by asserting: "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."
- On the November 30, 2006, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh proclaimed: My "cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life" because his pet cat "comes to me when she wants to be fed," and "[s]he's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually [a] very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it."
- On the August 23, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Limbaugh commented on a season of CBS' reality TV program Survivor in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity. Limbaugh stated that the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim." Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic tribe" -- which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican or two" -- provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves." Limbaugh added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." When the Survivor producers decided to dissolve the show's racially segregated "tribes" after only two episodes, Limbaugh declared that "[t]here can only be one reason for this ... that is the white tribe had to be winning."
- On the January 10, 2006, broadcast, Limbaugh suggested that some women "would love to be hired as eye candy."
- On the July 17, 2005, broadcast of his radio program, Limbaugh announced a new "advertising campaign" for the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in which he would call the facility "Club G'itmo, the Muslim resort," a "tropical paradise down there where Muslim extremists and terrorist wannabes can get together for rest and relaxation." On his website, he sold "Club G'itmo" T-shirts that read: "I Got My Free Koran and Prayer Rug at G'itmo," "Your Tropical Retreat from the Stress of Jihad," "My Mullah went to Club G'itmo and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt," and "What Happens in G'itmo Stays in G'itmo."
- On the March 1, 2005, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh claimed that "[w]omen still live longer than men because their lives are easier."
- Limbaugh noted on August 9, 2004, than in recent television appearances, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd appeared "just joyless," "miserable," and "did not seem happy at all." Limbaugh then concluded: "Must be a guy. Isn't it always a guy when a woman's unhappy?"
- On June 14, 2004, Limbaugh shared with listeners his "pet name" for the National Organization for Women (NOW): "National Association of Gals" (his acronym: "NAG"). Limbaugh claimed that the "militant feminists" who make up the "NAGs" "aren't determining who wins elections. White men are."
- Responding to an Associated Press report that women had recently been appointed as chiefs of police in four major U.S. cities, Limbaugh on May 27, 2004, referenced the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib: "If we've got four new female police chiefs out there, then I guess we can watch out for some naked pyramids among prisoners in these new jailhouses that these women ran, because we had a woman running the prison in Abu Grab [sic]."
- On April 26, 2004, Limbaugh claimed that women "actually wish" for sexual harassment, and said he then "laughed [him]self to tears" when Media Matters for America documented that and other sexist remarks he has made. The Media Matters report also noted that Limbaugh used the term "femi-Nazis" eight times between March 15 and April 29.
- In 2003, Limbaugh made controversial comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, which led to Limbaugh's resignation from his position as a commentator on ESPN. During the September 28, 2003, edition of ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown, Limbaugh said that "[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well" and, therefore, that McNabb "got a lot of credit for the performance of this team [the Eagles] that he didn't deserve."
- According to a June 7, 2000, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) article, "As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: 'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.' " In the early 1990s, "after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: 'Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?' " According to FAIR, "[w]hen Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the 'Movin' On Up' theme song from TV's 'Jeffersons' when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting 'ax' for 'ask'-- when discussing black leaders." FAIR also reported that "[i]n 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: 'Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out.' "
Bill O'Reilly
- On the April 6 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Westwood One's The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly stated that Virginia Beach Mayor Meyera Oberndorf "should be baking pies, not running a major city."
- On the April 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, while discussing the British soldiers captured by the Iranian government, Nancy Soderberg, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that "the Arab Sunnis are uniting against Iran" and said: "[I]t's going to be the Arab world against the Persian world. And that's a fight we don't want to have played out in Iraq." O'Reilly responded: "Well, I'd like to see that fight with us out of it. That's what I'd like to see." O'Reilly continued: "I want -- let them kill each other."
- On the February 28 edition of his radio show, O'Reilly told co-host Lis Wiehl that "women were treated better than men" at ABC News and CBS News because "[t]hey had a little cabal; and they intimidated the men in the organization and said, 'If you look at me cross-eyed, I'm gonna bring you up to Human Resources and destroy your life.' " O'Reilly added that "every man in the place was terrified of them." He later stated that, "in a lot of places, women have formed cabals to terrorize the men because they take advantage of, 'Oh, we're downtrodden. You're kicking us in the teeth.' " He then discussed how, in every country he'd "ever been to, women are treated worse [than] in the United States. ... Guys are gonna put their hands on you in that society in Italy, in Spain." O'Reilly concluded: "So, all of this whining about American women -- 'We don't have this; we don't have that' -- to me, I'm not real sympathetic. But I am a barbarian."
- Discussing Iraq during the January 24 edition of his radio show, O'Reilly claimed that "the Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. ... They have fun. This is -- they like this. This is what Allah tells them to do, and that's what they do." O'Reilly then asserted that the "essential mistake of the war" was failing to anticipate that "these people would act like savages, and they are." Later, O'Reilly said that he had not predicted that the Iraqis "were going to act like savages in the aftermath of Saddam [Hussein]," and added: "[N]ow, Iran, we know they're savages."
- On the January 16 broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly agreed with a caller's assertion that illegal immigrants "bring corrupting influences" to the United States, including "a third-world value system" that "can corrupt the education system." O'Reilly replied: "Absolutely. And that's why the dropout rate is so high."
- On the January 15 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said of Shawn Hornbeck -- who was abducted at the age of 11, held for four years, and recently found in Missouri -- that "there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances" and that he "do[esn't] buy" "the Stockholm syndrome thing." O'Reilly also said: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted." When fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren pointed out that "[s]ome kids like school," O'Reilly replied: "Well, I don't believe this kid did."
- On the December 13, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly dismissed scientific research on same-sex parenting to assert, "Nature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum" form of child-rearing. O'Reilly asked "why," if children suffer no psychosocial deficit from being raised by same-sex parents, "wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?" O'Reilly declared that by arguing in favor of same-sex couples' right to raise children, "you're taking Mother Nature and you're throwing it right out the window, and I just think it's crazy." In fact, studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development.
- On the November 29, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly denied that Iraq is in a "civil war as NBC News wants you to think" and asserted that "they're all Muslims, and they're doing what they do. They're killing each other. And they're killing Americans."
- On the August 16, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly argued extensively for "profiling of Muslims" at airports, arguing that detaining all "Muslims between the ages of 16 and 45" for questioning "isn't racial profiling," but "criminal profiling."
- While discussing the rape and murder of 18-year-old Jennifer Moore during the August 2, 2006, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly appeared to suggest that the clothing she was wearing at the time helped incite her killer. O'Reilly discussed several factors that contributed to the "moronic" girl's rape and murder, including that she was drunk and wandering the streets of New York City alone late at night. But in addition to those factors, O'Reilly added: "She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at 2 in the morning."
- On the July 12, 2006, edition of his radio program, during a discussion of the development of ethanol-fueled vehicles in Brazil, O'Reilly stated that "they still have people in Brazil running around with their little darts, hitting you in the head with the poisoned darts, with the loincloths."
- During the April 12, 2006, broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly claimed that on the April 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, guest Charles Barron, a New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate, which was "to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America."
- While discussing New York City Councilwoman Christine Quinn's decision to boycott Manhattan's St. Patrick's Day parade due to the decision by the Ancient Order of Hibernians to ban the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization (ILGO) from marching O'Reilly attacked Quinn, calling ILGO's potential participation in the parade "inappropriate." O'Reilly asked, "Why doesn't Ms. Quinn and others who support her wise up?" Continuing, O'Reilly stated: "You have your Gay Day parade. You have your Stonewall celebration. You have your Halloween deal, OK? You don't need this." O'Reilly also asserted, "I don't want these people intruding on a parade where little children are standing there, watching" for fear that children would ask "mommy, what does that mean?" O'Reilly's comments came during the March 17, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor.
- In a February 27, 2006, conversation with a caller about the disproportionately few jobs and contracts that have gone to locals in the rebuilding of New Orleans, O'Reilly said: "[T]he homies, you know ... I mean, they're just not going to get the job."
- On the November 10, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, during a segment on a telecommunications executive who spent $250,000 in one night at a New York strip club, O'Reilly asked Wiehl if "it might be worth learning how" to dance for a $10,000 tip, adding, "You're [Wiehl] a good-looking girl. I mean, if you haven't seen Lis on TV, she's a good-looking blonde."
- On the November 3, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly called for "a full-body search" of Wiehl. During a conversation about a New York Sun editorial on a lawsuit over New York City's policy of subway bag checks, O'Reilly said: "Would you please -- would you please bring in some security to do a full-body search on ... Lis Wiehl." When Wiehl repeated, "I said my bags, not my body," O'Reilly responded, "Full-body search on Lis Wiehl right this minute. She asked for it." Wiehl is also an author, Harvard-trained law professor, and legal analyst for Fox News.
- On the September 13, 2005, broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "many of the poor in New Orleans" did not evacuate the city before Hurricane Katrina because "[t]hey were drug-addicted" and "weren't going to get turned off from their source." O'Reilly added, "They were thugs."
- On April 15, 2005, a caller to O'Reilly's radio show claimed that each undocumented immigrant crossing the border "is a biological weapon." O'Reilly agreed, further stating, "I think you could probably make an absolutely airtight case that more than 3,000 Americans have been either killed or injured, based upon the 11 million illegals who are here."
- Responding to a Jewish caller to his radio show who objected to "Christmas going into schools" and expressed his "resentment" that "people were trying to convert me to Christianity," O'Reilly asserted that America is "a predominantly Christian nation" and said that "if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel." O'Reilly labeled the caller's concerns "an affront to the majority" and insisted that "the majority can be insulted, too." During his December 3, 2004, exchange with the caller, O'Reilly also mistakenly referred to "the seven candles" of Hanukkah.
- On the June 21, 2004, broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly referred to Wiehl as "eye candy ... for me," telling Wiehl that she is on the show "because you're good-looking, so I got somebody to look over" while he's on the air.
Michael Savage
- On the March 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, The Savage Nation, Michael Savage stated that he "agree[d] 100 percent" with a caller who said: "I'm very concerned that the Jews are now accepting gays as rabbis. And as a Catholic, I can tell you it almost destroyed our church when we accepted gays as priests." The caller added, "[T]hey were raping teenage boys, and if you allow them to come into your churches, I'm sorry, your synagogues, I have no reason to believe they're not going to do the same thing." Savage responded: "The idea of a gay rabbi is an oxymoron. Think about it: 'Rabbi' means teacher. You cannot have a homosexual teacher teaching boys how to be a Jew," adding, "I'm not going to mince words for fear of offending homosexuals. They're everywhere, anyway, trying to tell me what to say and what not to say and what to think. I know what's right and what's wrong. And that's all there is to it."
- On the March 20 broadcast of his radio show, Savage discussed a San Francisco Chronicle report detailing the murder of a transgender woman whose body was found naked near a freeway outside San Francisco. Savage read a sentence from the article stating that "it appeared the victim had been in the process of becoming a woman," to which Savage replied: "Yeah, process of becoming a woman -- psychopath. [She] should have been in a back ward in a straitjacket for years, howling on major medication." He went on to say, "And what's this sympathy, constant sympathy for sexually confused people? Why should we have constant sympathy for people who are freaks in every society?" adding, "But you know what? You're never gonna make me respect the freak. I don't want to respect the freak." Savage concluded: "The freak ought to be glad that they're allowed to walk around without begging for something. You know, I'm sick and tired of the whole country begging, bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down."
- On the March 16 broadcast of his radio show, Savage played audio clips from Barbara Walters' interview with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, portions of which aired on the March 16 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, and called her a "double-talking slut." Savage added: "She's an empty mind-slut. She'd peddle anything for a ratings point." Savage went on to call Walters a "mental prostitute" and said, "I think that the woman is vermin. I think she's dirt."
- On the February 26 broadcast of his radio show, after playing an audio clip of the beginning of singer Melissa Etheridge's acceptance speech at the Academy Awards in which she thanked her wife and four children, Savage said: "I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse." Savage later similarly stated: "I want to puke when I hear about a woman married to a woman raising children because, frankly, I think that it's child abuse to do that to children without their permission. What does a child know? Ask them when they're 16 whether they want to be raised by two lesbians or two men," adding: "What are the two men doing behind the other wall? You think the children don't hear it?"
- On the February 7 broadcast of his radio show, Savage claimed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "was chosen by George Bush as part of an affirmative action program in order to make his Cabinet look like America" and called her "a schoolmarm who has been pushed up the ladder all of her life because of social engineering." Savage also stated that President Bush's secretary of state "should have been a man because he would have more respect in the Middle East than does a woman to begin with."
- On the January 15 edition of his radio show, in a monologue about Martin Luther King Day, Savage called "civil rights" a "con" and asserted: "It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it." Savage then said, "Take a guess out of whose hide all of these rights are coming. ... [T]here is only one group that is targeted, and that group are white, heterosexual males." He added: "They are the new witches being hunted by the illiberal left using the guise of civil rights and fairness to women and whatnot."
- On the November 27, 2006, edition of his radio show, Savage declared that in order to "save the United States," lawmakers should institute "an outright ban on Muslim immigration" into the country. Savage also recommended making "the construction of mosques illegal in America, and the speaking of English only in the streets of the United States the law."
- On the November 13, 2006, edition of his radio show, Savage declared that "[t]he radical homosexual agenda will not stop until religion is outlawed in this county," adding that gay people "threaten your very survival." Savage also stated that homosexuals are "all not nice decorators" and warned: "Gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. They want full and total subjugation of this society to their agenda."
- On the October 23, 2006, edition of his radio show, Savage said of Ethiopians: "The people down there have flies around their eyes," adding, "I never went into an Ethiopian restaurant. The Ethiopians come here to eat American food." Earlier in the broadcast, while discussing Ramadan and the continued violence in Iraq, Savage suggested that Islam is "a bloodthirsty religion that's practiced over there by a bunch of throwbacks, and we're gonna to kill 'em." Savage called for the United States to say: "That's it, we're leaving them; we're killing them."
- On the September 21, 2006, edition of his radio show, Savage claimed that the "average prostitute" is "more reliable and more honest than most U.S. senators wearing a dress."
- On the September 12, 2006, edition of The Savage Nation, Savage claimed that "we" were "told" that "before Barbara Boxer [D-CA]... before Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] ... [and] before Hillary [Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] became ... U.S. senator[s], that when women became senators, we'd have a kinder, gentler Senate." Instead, Savage said, the Senate has become "more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into" it.
- On the August 7, 2006, edition of his radio program, Savage declared that CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Larry King "look like the type that would have pushed Jewish children into the oven to stay alive one more day to entertain the Nazis." Savage remarked that Blitzer "will do the astonishing act of being the type that would stick Jewish children into a gas chamber to stay alive another day. He's probably the most despicable man in the media next to Larry King ... a close runner-up." Savage opined: "The reason they curry favor with the turbaned hoodlums is to gain access to the turbanned hoodlums, domestic and foreign, for their news shows. They need more turbanned hoodlums to build ratings."
- On the July 28, 2006, edition of his radio show, Savage predicted Israel is "going to lose in Lebanon" unless it wins a "devastating, catastrophic, overwhelming victory" in which "nothing is left living in southern Lebanon, south of the Litani River." Later in the program, Savage chastised the Israeli government for displaying a "Holocaust mentality" by shying away from his proposed course for victory, adding that Israel cannot continue to "live" unless it "frees itself of the men who are acting as though they are still hiding in the sewers of Warsaw" and "act[ing] like Holocaust Jews hiding in the sewer."
- On the July 24, 2006, edition of radio program, Savage declared that Blitzer is "the type who would have let children into the gas chamber in order to stay alive an extra day." Savage accused Blitzer of being "anti-Semitic ... anti-Jewish, and pro-Arab" because he "doesn't want to appear too Jewish ... and too pro-Jewish."
- During the April 10, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Savage warned political leaders not to sympathize with illegal immigrants, whom he described as "vermin." Savage stated: "If you take to the streets with the vermin who are trying to dictate to us how we should run America, even though they're not even entitled to vote or be here, you're going to be thrown out of office." Savage added that Americans are "craving leadership" because "[f]eminism is destroying America. Homosexuality is destroying America. Weepy liberalism is destroying America."
- On the May 21, 2004, Savage Nation, Savage expressed disdain for a newspaper article about "what breeds of dogs came first" that did not include that "the Asians still chew 'em [dogs] up."
- On his May 11 and May 12, 2004, radio shows, Savage called Arabs "non-humans" and "racist, fascist bigots"; asserted that Americans would like to "drop a nuclear weapon" on any Arab country; and that "these people" in the Middle East "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity" in order to "turn them into human beings."
Michael Smerconish
- Substituting for host Bill O'Reilly on the April 4, 2006, broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Smerconish repeatedly discussed "the sissification of America," claiming that political correctness has made the United States "a nation of sissies." Smerconish also claimed, several times, that this "sissification" and "limp-wristedness" is "compromising our ability to win the war on terror."
- On the November 23, 2005, broadcast of The Radio Factor, while guest-hosting, Smerconish took issue with a decision by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority to provide a designated prayer area at Giants Stadium. The decision was in response to a September 19 incident involving the FBI's detention and questioning of five Muslim men who were observed praying near the stadium's main air duct during a New York Giants football game. Smerconish stated: "I just think that's [the men's public praying] wrong. I just think they're playing a game of, you know, mind blank with the audience. And that they should know better four years removed from September 11."
- On the November 23, 2005, edition of The Radio Factor, Smerconish interviewed Soo Kim Abboud, author of Top of the Class: How Asian Parents Raise High Achievers -- and How You Can Too (Penguin, 2005). Smerconish asserted that "if everyone follows Dr. Abboud's prescription ... you're going to have women who will leave the home and now get a great-paying job, because you will have gotten them well educated." He continued, "But then they're not going to be around to instill these lessons in their kids. In other words, it occurs to me that perhaps you've provided a prescription to bring this great success to an end."
John Gibson
- On the May 11, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson advised viewers during the "My Word" segment of his program to "[d]o your duty. Make more babies." He then cited a May 10 article, which reported that nearly half of all children under the age of five in the United States are minorities. Gibson added: "By far, the greatest number [of children under five] are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic." Gibson later claimed: "To put it bluntly, we need more babies." Then, referring to Russia's projected decline in population, Gibson claimed: "So far, we are doing our part here in America but Hispanics can't carry the whole load. The rest of you, get busy. Make babies, or put another way -- a slogan for our times: 'procreation not recreation'."
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
It will be interesting to see how the incendiary blowhards will handle their rhetoric post Imus. They may have their Rovian agenda (and privilege$ therein), but do they have the guts to lose the big paycheck over their "truth."
How about Al Sharpton's racist/ anti-semetic statements, or Jessie Jackson w/ his anit-semetic statements. Maybe we should go ban everyone from speaking.
"Hymietown" was from 1984 and Jackson apologized for it plenty. Moreover, he thought he was off the record. Lord only knows what these media blowhards and their politician friends say off the record. Its a lot worse than Hymietown, for sure. (Well, we do know some of what O'Reilly says with his masturbation comments in those phone calls with the female producer that he got sued for and paid $10 million to settle).
Stop making excuses for Jesse JAckson, Whjo cares if his comment was off the record, he still said it. We need people leading this debate on racism who aren't racist. Jesse Jackson is a hypocrite. You can't say an anti-semitic comment and then preach about how bad other racists are. When the time comes when whites are offended by racist comments towards blacks, and blacks offended towards anti-semitism and jews offended by racism towards hispanics and so on and so on, then this country will be moving in the right direction. But what is the sense of having Jesse Jackson preaching about tolerance and respect towards the black community when he has no respect for other human beings? It is ridiculous and hypocritical.
We need people leading this debate on racism who aren't racist.
Well, you are NOT going to find any in THIS web site. You have some of the worst racists promoting this site. And, if we can take a quote from mmfa, they have "extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity". All you have to do is read posts by heru, solon, rusty, clamscasino, openmind, iflurry. With this small selection you have some of the most racist, hateful, bigoted posters on the site. But, since only right wing radio hosts are not allowed the freedom of speach, then these posters will continue to further their personal racism, hatred and bigotry.
You liberals are getting pretty stupid right about now. You better hope you don't get what you're after...the denial of free speach. Because that dog will end up biting you on your own but. It's kinda ironic that you are trying to get civil rights added to a chosen lifestyle, but are trying to get free speach rights denied to half the nation. No wonder Savage always says liberalism is a mental disorder!! He is certainly right-on with that assessment for 95% of the liberals I know and 99% of the liberals who attend this site.
translation: It's okay that right wing radio hosts make sexist, racist, homophobic and zenophobic comments because some people do it on the internet.
This is the kind of logic that drives people away from the Republican party in droves.
I didn't realize that Al Sharpton was a right wing radio host. I thought he was left wing. So, from your logic then it's dispicable when right wing hosts use racist, hateful comments on air, but it's commendable when left wing hosts do it? That doesn't make ANY sense at all! Maybe when a lefty does it then you have selectable memory, but when righties do it then no amount of apologies seem to count. Heck from what I remember, Sharpton still hasn't paid what he owes after being sued for defamation of character after the Brawley incident. And, I haven't heard him apologize when he said to "jew the numbers" or any of the other anti-semetic (sp?) remarks he constantly makes. But, I guess as long as you're a left wing radio host then no apologies are in order. Perhaps those remarks aren't even considered bad unless a righty says them?
You're calling, among other people, ME a racist here. Since I'm German, I take significant offence at that. You'd better have a good reason...
I don't care if that ANTI-JEWISH Jackson made the Hymietown comment in 1884, he is a Racist anti-JEW who should be put in jail for all kinds of financial manipulartion, tax evasion, and blackmail.
By the way, Hyman was my GrandFathers first name. So SCREW YOU and Jackson TOO!
By the way how many illegitimate children has the Rev Jackson fathered?
They should be held accountable too.
BTW who has been banned from speaking?
Yes firer them all.
Duncan, why don't you stand up and state a position rather than this false-flag nonsense.
Fire Sharpton and Jackson from what?
Just put them in jail for all the crimes they have committed.
Looks like the trolls are allergic to specifics.
Yeah, they caould share a cell with Bush and Cheney.
Brock, do you want radio that does not hurt anyone's feelings?
That is how Nixon got elected.
I don't want the Fairness Doctrine reimposed by a government who can't keep social security numbers and credit card numbers confidential. I don't want government censors from either the right or the left. I don't want anyone telling you, or me, or Boortz (for example) that you can't call someone names and outline their shortcomings.
Imus should have been canned...it was too bad he went off the edge. But have you listened to Jesse Jackson's "Keep Hope Alive" radio show? Or inquired into his shakedown businesses? Or heard Sharpton and Jackson ask for forgiveness from the kids at Duke? No...and you won't.
Are you so afraid of the marketplace that you cannot adopt the Donald Wildmon boycott tactic instead of asking for the FCC or the White House to govern what is said on the radio?
Buy a backbone.
I didn't read the entire article because it seems to be a list of ugly comments. But, in the first paragraphs, I didn't read anything about either
restoring the fairness doctrine
employing government censorship
The market worked in the Imus case. Advertisers could feel the heat, in much the same way that they felt the heat from conservative groups over the years, and they pulled their dollars from Imus' program. End result was that gave MSNBC and CBS the "strength" to make a now much simpler business decision with regards to Imus.
The market worked in the Imus case. Advertisers could feel the heat ... This is on the mark. The media react mainly for economic reasons. But why only in the Imus case?
Maybe you should get a life and stop dragging up old stories.
This is 2007. Wake up.
Conservatives like old stories when it involves their enemies. Just a couple weeks ago around here we repeated heard about how Al Franken said something bad about homosexuals something like 30 years ago.
Sharpton and Jackson don't have radio shows, what do you want them to do?
Sharpton does.
If he offends people, let them protest him. I see no problem with that.
Ah-Ha!!! The real agenda revealed! Headline: “Liberals take out one of their own in order to go after the real prize…Limbaugh”. Whether it’s the call for the return of Fairness Doctrine or the Imus witch hunt, it’s all about shutting down media voices that disagree with liberals. The time does not fit the crime…Imus should have had a two week suspension and that would have been enough. There was no need to fire one of the few liberal voices left on the radio.
I believe what Imus said was wrong and should not have been said. However, the outrage that has resulted from liberals on this subject IMO is really a combination of attempting to stifle conservative talk radio, which has been a very effective tool to counter routine liberal media bias, and the continued attempt to show some kind of relevance by the so-called civil rights leaders like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton who are really nothing more than "race pimps" at best.
Translation:Imus was wrong, but anyone who says anything about it has ulterior motives and therefore is wrong also.
Brilliant.
Hooray!
Now if the so called liberal media could address this...
So who gets to play next? Even money Savage won't be able to help himself. I expect some restaint and sublty elswhere. A few more go down and rest will be screaming conspiracy,wrapping themselves in the flag, and saying god bless america to any question.
Can we find out who their sponsors are w/o having to listen ??? I just couldn't bear it..........I will be happy to write to sponsors, tho.
I hope those that protested against Imus will turn their spotlight over to this list now.
So let me get this straight!!!!!
You want to boycott people who you haven't even listened to. God, you libs are the dumbest people I've ever seen. So so scary.
And you're one of the sweetest people I've ever encountered! Muah!
I'll boycott anyone I find offensive, just as I would write a letter to the principal/BoE of a school my child doesn't attend, should I find out a teacher there is saying something offensive in a classroom.
It escapes me why one might have a problem with that.
Nice list, MMFA.... everyone please email this to 6 friends... good fortune will follow- lol! Seriously, I like this running tab list- keep 'em coming! And tell your friends, bar stool mates, and any disillusioned Republicans...
disillusioned Republicans become liberals after their drunk. Liberals are all ex-right wingers who couldn't understand what was good for them so they created their own list. A very screwed up list that starts with allow the killing of unborn babies, but demand murderers are not punished. Allow the execution of old folks so they don't trouble the younger liberals. Demand restricted speach of everyone who is not a card carrying communist...oops, I mean liberal. Liberals are truely mentally deranged.
You need to educate yourself. Your simplistic argument shows you are a troll and are not here to discuss things in an intelligent way. You are just throwing bombs or attempting to.
Why don't you grow up like the more intelligent conservatives here. Right now, you are just a waste of time.
Perhaps you should mind your own business, then! You whine about me having a reply to someone cutting down friends of mine and tell me to grow up. It's time for you to stop your whining! You don't like my comeback? Too bad! I'm here to state my opinion, just like the poster that I replied to is here for. You don't like the opinion I have? Sounds like YOU want to restrict my freedom of speach, too.
Let's here a logical arguement telling me WHY you approve of Al Sharpton's anti-semitic rhetoric but disapprove of Imus's racial remarks. Let's here why YOU and other liberals don't feel a need to restrict Sharpton's speech but you do feel a need to restrict conservative's speach. Think you got one? I don't think so either.
Thank you MediaMatters. That's a lot of work compiling something like that. But it's correct; if I had to go with my gut (as well as years of being a news junkie) I'd say the non-compassionate buffoons above do far worse damage to the intelligence of their own viewers and the overall discourse in our country than Don Imus.
Imus took the fall. And these guys get away with monumentally worse.
Glaring omission: Sean Hannity. Public Bigot #1.
Jeremy, I don't know if you saw Hannity reading a quote from Snoop Dogg last night. He was reading the *bleeps* intact and wouldn;t say "ho", even though it was up on the screen.
When he finished, Colmes told him he was "a very white person"
And Sean said, with a big smile, "Thank You!"
No Huntington, I missed that one. But...I sure can see it.
Hannity loves to discuss race related isolated incidents on Hannity and Colmes and since he runs the program and chooses what topics are discussed, those issues get the floor about once a week I estimate. You know, just little localized things/conflicts that have, or he creates, a racial element to.
In 5 years or so of watching that program (and I know it's not healthy and I probably need a support group) I have never, never seen Sean Hannity take the side of the non-white party. It doesn't matter if it's the exact same issue but the races are reversed from one week to the next. He stays white, by God.
Likewise Sharpton.
Yeah, Hannity's really fired up on himself right now. He (naturally) proclaimed the Duke Lacrosse guys innocent from the moment the story broke, before any info was out there, and it looks like he may have been actually right (according to the courts, I didn't really follow that case)
In righty world , that one time being right buys a whole year of wronginess credits.
I really want to let "wronginess" stand alone, unmolested, but as a neofascist libtard with no sense of humor, I have to point one thing out.
All we really know about the Duke case, as with the Brawley case, is that there is not enough evidence for the DA to want to prosecute. That's all.
Those boys are innocent until proven guilty, as is the dancer at their party. As is Tawana Brawley.
That's not the way it is. The way it is is that the DA came out and proclaimed that these boys were innocent of the charges. From the statement:
We've interviewed people at the party, the DA, police officers, the accuser on several occasions, reviewed dna evidence and records.
The result shows clearly there is insufficient evidence on any the charges. We are filing dismissal of all charges against the three defendants. The cases are over and no more criminal proceedings will occurs.
The cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse. There are significant discrepancies in the evidence.
We believe the three indivicuals are innocent of the charges.
The inconsistencies were so significant that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night.
The accuser wanted to go forward, but the contradictions in her account and the physical evidence could not be reconciled.
No evidence supports her version. The evidence contradicts her. She contradicts herself.
The eyewitness identification process was flawed.
The DA went ahead unchecked. Caution would have been better than bravado. He lost the ability to see clearly.
Whatever the reasons the case was pushed forward, the result was wrong. We must make sure it doesn't happen again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
These three players are looking at legal bills of upwards $3 million dollars if what I've read about that is true. And when that case broke a year ago, funny I don't recall the "innocent until proven guilty" card being played around here, it was another round of "stick it to the white, rich guys". That's what I recall reading as the majority opinion.
Now, hopefully Nifong will get what he's got coming.
There is no doubt that Niefong will take a beating over this, as the state is riled up over his misconduct and how the boys were railroaded into these charges. One of them had said at one point that they didn't know WHAT they would have done if they didn't have the money behind them to support them. Having just watched a good friend get railroaded into a trumped up charge by yet another NC DA, I can understand that. When you don't have the money to hire the right support on your defense, you are truly at the mercy of the DA. My friend was looking at Life or a "deal" of 15 years, and he had to take the deal, or risk his no-account defender's non-action getting him life for a first offense. It's disgusting.
You said:
the DA came out and proclaimed that these boys were innocent of the charges
And here's what you said he said:
We believe the three indivicuals are innocent of the charges.
That is not proof of anything in my book. All we know if that we don't know what happened. You can't take that and say that the woman lied, any more than you can say that about Brawley.
I don't know why Sharpton does what he does. Maybe he really thinks he's helping, maybe he thinks it's all about him. But two black girls say they were raped, and I don't like it when people assert without evidence that they were lying. We just don't know. And that is all.
Yes, we don't know what happened but we know what didn't happen.
That's just it, we don't know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes.
I mean, we have a sense of what probably happened, in the same way that OJ probably killed those people. But we don't know, to a standard of proof that can hold up in court. And I think that is a significant distinction.
No evidence supports her version. The evidence contradicts her. She contradicts herself.
When a DA comes out and even uses the word "innocent" with regard to the accused, you know damn well the case is null and void. That is not a word that gets thrown around in legal circles lightly.
As for OJ, I would love to have a lengthy discussion with anyone who cares about justice on the relative merits of OJ's offense compared to Imus' offense. On October 3, 1995, as I was driving to lunch the OJ verdict was read on the radio. I nearly drove off the road. When I got home from work and turned on the news, the media was showing two things: Stunned white folks in disbelief, and cheering blacks at Howard University. What I would have given to hear the kind of outrage that a murderer went free that I'm hearing about Imus' comments this week.
I apologize for being "off topic".
And you have the balls to proclaim this in the face of exculpatory DNA evidence? The absence of any DNA match alone brands this woman who claims she was raped a liar. She claims these Duke lacrosse players had forcible sex with her, yet there is not one scrap of DNA evidence to support this chage. What wear they doing, wearing body condoms while they raped this liar? They were drunk and disorderly, but if they raped anyone, it was not this accuser.
Nifong is a despicable opportunist. He is going to get disbarred for this. More, he will also get sued for civil damages and I sincerely hope he is totaly destroyed. It will be a lesson to the next DA who thinks he needs a political case.
Although I agree with you largely that Nifong likely did some improper things and should be disbarred, I don't necessarily believe that absence of DNA in a rape case is necessarliy exculpatory as you claime all in itself. I think you are overstating that quite a bit.
Yeah, Val, that's why I wrote "according to the courts". Not meaning that Hannity is/was right, just right in his mind.
You say Hannity selects the topics. I don't know but I doubt it. I think the direction of most of these shows comes from way above the hosts, especially at Fox. As O'Reilly once said, "I'm just the monkey in the window."
In contrast, I would say a Michael Savage for example does in fact pick his topics. He doesn't work for a huge company like Fox. He's not televised. He has an academic background that demanded rigorous thought.
jeremy, you've never heard Hannity defend Condi Rice or Michael Steele? I'd say you ain't been listening very hard, brother...
And re-reading this, O'Reilly should've been buried with that Shawn Hornbeck thing, but the liberally slanted media just....couldn't bring themselves to expose the rotten things he said. Man, that vicious left wing media!
The flying monkeys will love this list...
See, this kind of dishonesty bothers me. It is also why this will be last post and visit to MMFA site. I cannot support David Brock in his attempt to destroy people's lives and their livelihoods.
Imus, flawed, and stupid as he was was no Limbaugh or Savage. In addition, bigoted comments are bigoted comments, not a form of "conservative misinformation" and they are not borne out of conservative philosophy. Further Imus is no conservative and to be dumped in with these guys is wrong and misleading. Finally, all the nasty comments above were either general in nature, or to persons of a public nature who put themselves into the public. To compare it to Imus is misleading and wrong. Imus attacked, with vile language, young women who were just trying to compete a major accomplishment in their lives. They were not on America's Next Top Model or American Idol. They were wounded through no action of their own. That is the travesty of this situation. But to shoehorn political comments onto this is simply cheap and wrong.
And to all the progressive people who may not understand the kind of person Mr. Brock is. Just remember that his legacy as a Republican was Troopergate and the attempted destruction of Anita Hill. That is who Mr. Brock is, and I cannot with good conscience support him in that endeavor. I'll still be on the lookout for misinformation from both sides so that I can make informed decisions come election time. But I will not participate, by giving this site hits, in the destruction of any one else.
Finally, there are many good, intelligent, respectful and smart people that I have argued, joked, threatened over the years, who I will miss. My decision to leave is not about them or any other poster here. To those posters, I say thanks for the good times.
Good luck, and good bye.
Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
What bothers me about this piece is that it ignores Imus's enablers. If he was so bad for so long why did Chris Dodd announce his candidacy on his show? Why did Imus support John Kerry in 2004? Why did Imus regualary make fun of Bush and Cheney?
Keith Olbermann the poster boy of MMFA was asked to stop using the Nazi salute, it is insensitive. If one of the people named did this i am sure MMFA would post it. Everyone involved in thi s is a fraud and two faced.
Keith OlbermannCountdown with Keith OlbermannMSNBC <!-- <td width="170" class="bk10">Friday, July 28, 2006<br><br><br></td> --> July 28, 2006 <!-- <td width="230"class="bk10">Letters to the Editor<br><em>MSNBC</em></td> <td width="170" class="bk10"><br> </td> -->Dear Mr. Olbermann,
We are deeply dismayed by your ongoing use of the Nazi "Sieg Heil" salute, both on your program and in public appearances -- including the recent Television Critics Association press tour -- while holding up a mask of Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly.
While we understand that your aim is to entertain your audience by taking pot shots at Mr. O'Reilly, your repeated use of the Nazi salute has resulted in many complaints from our constituents, including Holocaust survivors and their families who find the use of this gesture offensive and repugnant in any context.
The Nazi salute is more than just a remnant of history, but serves as a calling card for modern-day neo-Nazis and white supremacists. We believe that the use of gestures and imagery associated with the Nazis – even in jest – only serves to trivialize the Holocaust and denigrate the memory of the six million Jews and others who died as a result of Hitler's Final Solution.
As a respected and well-known media personality, your actions have consequences and can set a standard for others to emulate. We are especially concerned that young people viewing your program might take their cues from your free use of the "Sieg Heil" salute.
In light of these concerns, we hope that you will reconsider your use of the Nazi salute in the future.
Sincerely,The Anti-Defamation League
http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htmYeah, well, Ramsquire gets on Brock for taking on Imus even though he's not conservative, and you pile on for his not taking on Olbermann who is not conservative.
The problem with your point, as if anyone had to point it out is that while Don Imus doesn't toe the line of the Republican party, he's clearly more of a conservative-leaning independent (he likes McCain and Rudy) whereas Keith Olbermann literally gets most of the information he puts on air from this very website. It's silly to liken the two and suggest it's simply a case of being unable to please everybody and not a case of MMFA having a distinct conflict of interest when it comes to not reporting the disgressions of Mr. Olbermann.
Why don't you click the "About us" link up top before talking about "conflict of interest." This is a partisan site. There is no expectation that they should be going after people on the left, and no hypocrisy in them not doing so.
That's simply a rationalization. The partisan nature of the site doesn't excuse it from recognizing faults in nature or actions of people in its own party. Or it shouldn't. The fact that it does illustrates the conflict of interest and the basic lack of credibility the site has as a news gathering entity (see: Fox News).
This site doesn't hide the fact that it's about conservative misinformation. That is totally unlike Fox News, which will not 'fess-up to its obvious right-wing tilt.
One doesn't have to search for conservative sites that are about "liberal" misinformation. If you're looking for that (which I doubt you truly are), Media Research Center is one such site. Will you complain to MRC as you did at Media Matters? I don't think so. Because I strongly suspect your own partisan leanings will prevent you from doing so.
That's right, I'm not going to do that. Although, probably not for the same reason you think. I'm not going to do that because conservative sites don't interest me much. Unlike with MMFA, I don't share similar politics on many issues with sites labeled 'conservative', so the only reason to go to said sites would be to act as some lone antagonist to people who are not capable of hearing criticism. Now, one could say that I'm doing essentially the same thing here, and it would be difficult to deny considering the tone of the responses to most posts that don't carry the same self-congradulatory 'we're better them 'em' comments that generally follow stories in this and other similar sites (regardless of slant). Still, I find it more disheartening when somebody who shares my politics tries to further those politics in a dishonest way. I therefore, see my occasional criticisms to liberals and would-be free-thinkers as being more constructive than they may be received. I like to come to the defense of intellectual honesty. You seem to prefer to justify and defend double standards and hypocrisy when they suit your cause.
As for Fox News, aren't we done acting like anybody thinks their statements of 'fair and balanced' are anything but conscious ironies? I mean, the very phrase has come to mean the opposite of itself. No one thinks Fox News is anything but conservative. That doesn't mean it isn't trusted by a lot of people. It means those people are conservative. Same thing goes for MMFA. You'll defend it even when you know they're wrong. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, that ain't me, babe.
I'm not sure this is sinking in - MMFA is a "conservative misinformation" site. They will generally not take on "liberals" unless said liberals are spreading conservative misinformation. MMFA has apparently embraced the spread of misogyny and racism in this, as they have taken Imus to task for both before.
If you want a less partisan site, I recommend FAIR, which takes on less petty issues. Until then, I simply recommend that you pay attention to how an organization defines itself before you criticise them for not following some strawman organizational persona that you've constructed all on your own.
I don't think this is sinking in with you: misinformation is misinformation. By only pointing to what one deems as misinformation when the source of that 'misinformation' is someone either self-identified or MMFA-labeled as 'conservative', and essentially giving a free pass to all those who do not fall into that category, MMFA is actively taking part in it's own misinformation campaign. One of omission.
It is nice to see that you at least recognize what goes on here as being petty. With such an absurdly self-aggrandizing name as 'Media Matters FOR America' one would simply hope they could focus on things that actually do matter to America. The truth, for instance.
I disagree. MMfA is very up-front about who they are and what they do. To complain about a partisan site being partisan is like blaming water for being wet.
I disagree. I think by standing against misinformation, you become duty-bound to stand for information, what sites like this one and others do is stand against a kind of misinformation by becoming beholden to another. I also don't like the water analogy, because water is nurturing. If anything, what I'm doing is complaining because the spring I drink from has become polluted.
We agree to disagree, then. I don't look to this site for the whole picture on anything, and I don't really think anyone else does.
Breaker,
I think you make some very good points. I think we should all be wary of becoming what we seem to detest. Personally I consider partisanship to be a fairly basic conservative quality. As someone who considers myself "liberal", I have always had a particular dislike for partisanship.
I wrestled with the idea of partisanship early on in my involvement on this site and I am troubled by MMFA participating in knocking these idiots off of the air.
That said, I do believe the best criticism (amongst much petty criticism) can come from an adversarial mindset. A site dedicated to being absolutely fair to both sides in its criticism may be an utter failure if one side deserves more of the criticism, but that criticism is muted in order to maintain some sense of false balance. Of the more fair websites, factcheck.org does a pretty good job, but at times they seem very timid and can at times even give some subtle misinformation the false patina of truth.
MMFA is at its best when exposing conservative misinformation and silliness. I do not support efforts to take these conservative morons off of the air.
Open,
I tend to agree with you on the strange linguistic flaw in partisan liberalism. I, too, have long considered myself a liberal. When I was younger, I suppose I accepted the 'left v. right' characterization of what it means to be a liberal. I saw it as a battle between sides, but at some point it occurred to me that liberalism is supposed to reflect, as is reflected by your handle, a willingness to see beyond our own preconceived ideas of the way things are and the way things should be. Like you, I consider partisanship to be a form of conservatism--or fundamentalism, if you will. Ironically, it seems the only true liberals left are those who fall into the moderate bracket in today's political discourse.
As for partisan sites: I'm really not against their existing, or even flourishing. I believe, like many, there can be a lot of good to be found in theoretically forming a check to the commonly accepted narrative. In principle, I'm totally behind the planned mission statement of MMfA. It's undeniable that news organizations, in attempting to respond to criticism of an implied bias and increase their bottom line, have done quite a bit of over-compensating when it comes to trying to provide a whole voice. Rather than defend the notion of objectivity, and the principle that objectivity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a balancing of opinion, they've caved to the notion that a complete story means presenting the two major arguments and let the audience decide. A lot of times, presenting two sides is silly. Other times, two sides seems like hardly enough.
My great criticism for this and other sites is that they're ideal news organization seems unclear. Do we only want criticism of Republicans and blind acceptance of all Democratic candidates and ideas? Do we want a 'progressive' news channel? A Fox News for liberals? I can't be the only one who thinks that sounds like an awful idea. Yet, all too often it seems like that's what MMfA is demanding. And it seems silly. It's like when everyone demanded Air America, and when they got it, they realized how good NPR was. Liberals shouldn't be looking for a liberal radio station. Or a liberal cable news channel. Once more, they should anticipate and welcome criticisms of their candidates. Part of being liberal is supposed to be about looking for the truth even when it's not the truth we expect or even want to hear(e.g. The war in Iraq is not only one we cannot win, but it may also be one we can't afford to lose.) But this isn't about the war, that was only an example.
But yeah, I don't have any real issue with anybody saying anything. If they're right, they're right, if they're wrong, I'm not afraid to tell them. I think a lot of people have made good and fair points in this talkback. I'm sort of contrarian, so I probably put up more of an offense at times than was necessarily necessary. It's an old habit. One that sort of goes against that whole liberalism I was describing before.
This site's not a "news gathering entity". It reports secondhand and thirdhand. It highlights instances of anti-Democrat/anti-liberal reporting and political commentary. The problem with Fox is that it purports to be a news gathering entity.
By collecting and reporting on supposed misinformation perpetrated by the mainstream media, MMfA, regardless of mission statement (which, by the way, says nothing about the Democratic Party), is placing itself in the implicit position of being a source of information as opposed to misinformation. In this context, that's often referred to as news.
As for Fox News' credentials, I've already commented on that elsewhere. In short: Fair and Balanced is an open joke to make people like you mad.
News is stuff that's happened recently or has been discovered recently and to most people doesn't include analysis of same. Information includes news but also includes analysis of the news, how-to books, databases of names, etcetera.
An open joke? That would be real smart of Fox to impune their own credibility as a news gathering operation.
I included a contextual separation between generic information and the information gathering and reporting done for the expressed purpose of debunking what passes as news and news commentary in the mainstream media. If you are in a campaign designed to hault misinformation within the news media, your intent is clearly to either discredit or act as a check to that news media. You therefore become a separate arm of the news media.
Furthermore, if you can't recognize 'Fair and Balanced' as an open joke (one everyone is aware of), then how can you begin to say it's not news when you're exposing bias in the news media?
On your first paragraph: I originally posted to you that this site, MMFA, is not a "news gathering entity" as you had stated. Your current declaration that this site is "a seperate arm of the media" is very different. Media is not necessarily news.
On your second paragraph: The Fox slogan has NOW become widely accepted as a joke. My point was that Fox probably did not intially intend for it to be taken as a joke.
In actuality, what I said was that it was an arm of the news media (not simply the media). And further, my point is that uncovering misinformation in network and cable news broadcasts (I know cable broadcast is an incorrect phrase, but let's use it all the same), by pointing out that the great and trusted sources of news to most Americans are full of unidentified, misleading, and partisan rhetoric, liberal or conservative watchdog sites are acting as defacto news organizations determined to bring the 'real' story or at least unveil the biased language.
As for the Fair and Balanced lingo. Fox News is a corporate entity that came along during a time where many powerful people within the conservative movement were sounding the old cry of media bias. Fair and Balanced began as a code to those people who thought CNN was too liberal. It was telling them Fox was a different kind of network--one that was meant for them. So while it may not have begun as a joke, I'd argue that it was never an ernest goal for the network. It was a code. Once the network became a powerhouse, it became an open joke.
On both points, 1.) 'What's news?' and 2.) 'Fox's motives' given it's logo, you are now a lot closer to speaking correctly IMO.
But we still disagree. I see the news as "Bush veto's the bill." ---not all the punditry or analysis from non-elected officials about said veto. That includes punditry on the punditry which is what the the MMFA engages in......Many (including myself) will hear about some of these media incidents for the first time here---my point is that that does not make this a NEWS site. Not even a defacto one. The blurring of asserted facts about new happenings (news) and opinion in so much of the news media is the reason I think it's important to maintain the distinction here.
On Fair and Balanced: You basically stated everyone is on the joke. This would create a moral equivalence between Fox and MMFA in the sense that as long as nobody puts a gun to your head it's your own fault if Fox fools you. Unfortunately many Fox viewers think it's on the level. And most all people (a much smaller absolute number BTW) do in fact know that MMFA has a bias and what it is.
.
Yeah, I think we're going to have to go ahead and agree to disagree on both points A and B. I could go into it deeper, but I don't think either of us are getting any closer to agreeing, so it should I'll let your last post be the last substantive one. Thanks for the conversation, though.
I agree with you on that. MMFA is very upfront about what they are trying to accomplish and who they go after. But as I've said before, partisan points of view can only have so much credibility. When they ignore obvious offenders like Olbermann and Franken, it's kind of like me telling you that you shouldn't smoke as I'm firing up a Camel straight. The words may be true but they ring hollow.
I think you have exposed a bit of the problem. Subjectivity. I don't particularly have a problem with anything that Olbermann or Franken has said. Pretending I do would be disingenuous. Attacking Franken and Olbermann for some of the things you might consider worthy, might lower MMFA's credibility in my eyes by them participating in what I would consider to be the spread of conservative misinformation about KO and Al Franken.
Credibility is subjective and should be evidenced by each article on an individual basis. The same could be said for aim.org mrc.org or newsbusters.org. When MMFA sticks to the facts and cite their sources (as they have been known to do), it is harder to argue they aren't being credible.
And exactly what is your complaint agains Oberman? He has used Hitler's salute to mock is pollitical enemies. That is simply not offensive, regardless of what the hack, pro-Likudinute organization claims.
Funnymanpants, just because you, in your sheltered and narrow little world, are not offended by the Nazi salute does not change the fact that the gesture (in any context) is most certainly offensive to many, many people. Try giving the salute in Germany and you'll find yourself under arrest.
You apparently don't know what a fact is. You are asserting that many people find the German salute offesnsive, an opnion, since it can't be quantified.
I lieved in Germany a year. I think some of the German laws are wrong and would be considered violating free speech. However, I also doubt that what Olberman does would offend Germans. They passed laws against it to stop people from using it in ernest, not for those who use it in a satirical way in an entirely other country.
More to the matter, the poseter is claiming that what Olberman does is equivelent to what Imus does. That is patently ridiculous.
Verstehst du?
PWNED Linus. Don't mess with the man cause he has a funny handle. He'll wipe the floor with your ass...
Come on, you have to understand that calling somebody a Nazi is offensive to that person. I'm personally not concerned about whether something is offensive or not, but if you're going to say it's somehow less offensive for a man to call you a Nazi in jest than for him to call you a ho or 'nappy-headed' in jest, then you might want to take a moment to reconsider whether you'd rather be nappy-headed or a Nazi. It's all mean. It is. It's out of line. Once more, it's idiotic. But the notion that this phrase is what needed to be singled out, that this man needed to be let go because of something he said and that was heard by the otherwise gentile ears of morning radio listeners is just ridiculous. Especially when you consider what can be labeled as art and entertainment. Awards and tens of millions of dollars are given to musicians who populate their lyrics with various slurs against women, various races, and homosexuals. The most popular video games, movies, and television desensitize our children to the likes of realistic violence often perpetrated by men against women (sometimes labeled ho's, bitches, or otherwise), and have unquestionably spawned copycat real-life atrocities. These realities are often attacked by the conservatives, and are always defended by progressives who see encroachment on in these areas as dangers to free speech and expression. Not to mention, an encroachment on the Democratic base. Where is the progressive defense of Imus? They're shocked and appauled. Meanwhile, we get another week or two to avoid talking about the war nobody's gonna save us from.
Come on, you have to understand that calling somebody a Nazi is offensive to that person. I'm personally not concerned about whether something is offensive or not, but if you're going to say it's somehow less offensive for a man to call you a Nazi in jest than for him to call you a ho or 'nappy-headed' in jest, then you might want to take a moment to reconsider whether you'd rather be nappy-headed or a Nazi. It's all mean. It is. It's out of line. Once more, it's idiotic. But the notion that this phrase is what needed to be singled out, that this man needed to be let go because of something he said and that was heard by the otherwise gentile ears of morning radio listeners is just ridiculous. Especially when you consider what can be labeled as art and entertainment. Awards and tens of millions of dollars are given to musicians who populate their lyrics with various slurs against women, various races, and homosexuals. The most popular video games, movies, and television desensitize our children to the likes of realistic violence often perpetrated by men against women (sometimes labeled ho's, bitches, or otherwise), and have unquestionably spawned copycat real-life atrocities. These realities are often attacked by the conservatives, and are always defended by progressives who see encroachment on in these areas as dangers to free speech and expression. Not to mention, an encroachment on the Democratic base. Where is the progressive defense of Imus? They're shocked and appauled. Meanwhile, we get another week or two to avoid talking about the war nobody's gonna save us from. Thanks MMFA.
always defended by progressives who see encroachment on in these areas as dangers to free speech and expression
Wow, nice straw man.
If you have some examples of the thing you're talking about, I'm sure it would lead to a more interesting conversation. We could swap broad-brush accusations all day.
Are you actually going to suggest progressive groups haven't regularly come to the defense of the entertainment industry whenever the topic of limiting violence, sexual content, and bad language is brought in defense of America's children? Are we really going to live in that world of make-believe?
In case you missed it, I'm not criticizing past defenses of attempts at censureship. That being said, I believe the inundation with all types of violence and obscenity from such a young age clearly has an effect on all of us regardless of age. But I believe in personal responsibility and personal freedom.
What I'm criticizing here is the point at which the line got drawn. And the absurdly false indignation fueled by all arms of the media on this scandal. It's clearly hypocritical and everyone knows it. This whole scandal has been a ridiculous distraction that has accomplished, I'd imagine' two things: It's pushed Don Imus to satelite radio, and it's increased the ad revenue at the cable news outlets who find it difficult to get sponsors for war coverage. That's about it.
I'm going to suggest that if you talk in specifics rather than generalities, we might actually be talking to each other rather than past each other.
What you label "hypocrisy" or a "double standard" might actually just be a case of you taking two completely different things (like, say, media violence in general and a specific, repugnant statement by a popular media figure) and conflating them to make a point.
Until I know what you are talking about, though, I can only guess at what you mean.
I'll bite, and if you think violence is too off-topic, we can use examples of repugnant lyricism vs. repugnant talk radio utterances. Explain to me why they're so very different. Seriously, we don't need links to agree that the world of popular music is full of words and phrases far more offensive than those used by Don Imus last week do we? If some are not simply okay but lauded as poetry and art, then why can we not for the sake of argument say the same about the terribly mean-spirited thing Don Imus said last week? For argument's sake, I mean.
Again, it's a very general statement. I don't know what in particular is "lauded as poetry and art" that is on a par with what Imus said.
Lots of black entertainers depict - some might say glorify - the life of violence and misogyny that is the real world for a lot of black men. If you feel that a white man can use those same words to describe a young black woman without drawing a strong reaction, then I think you don't know a lot about the state of race relations in this country.
You are being very general, so it's har for me to know if I am reading you correctly. But you seem to be completely eliminating any consideration of the context in which particular words are said.
I freely admit that I'm speaking in generalities. I'm trying to treat this issue as evidence of a corrupted principle, and I hardly think we need a litany of links (or even a single link) to agree that there are any number of vulgarities and offenses committed within the realm of the entertainment community. You spoke to the ubiquitous use of mysogynist, violent, and oftentimes, homophobic content of a lot of contemporary popular rap music. Artists, generally black (although sometimes white) men, who sell millions upon millions of records worldwide. You illustrated a bit of my point in your description of the work as reflective of their environment. That's a rationalization of why this form of speech is acceptable coming from these people and not from others (e.g. the countless suburban white kids who make them rich by buying their records, for instance). The problem is, you can't live in a world where the backwards world where people profit off of the use of offensive content while making that same content off limits to the people supplying the profits. That wasn't my original point, but it's fair, I think.
I'm not trying to defend Imus's comments as not being offensive. I'm trying to point out that their coming from an old white man (who's not a racist), makes them no more (or less) offensive than had they come from a young black man (or woman!) And yet, we do live in a society in which we're asked to accept that not to be true. Issues become out of bounds based on what group you belong to, and while I accept that being the way things are, I simply state outright, that's not the way things should be. And being progressive is supposed to be about recognizing the difference between how things are and how they should be.
The Nazis were a political movement, who pursued their nightmarish agenda as a political and military force. To accuse a person in the political arena of acting like a Nazi, while a hard blow, is a perfectly legitimate one. To call somebody a communist, which has a history just about as bad, is also legitimate. Likewise fascist, Stalinist, Klansman, pinko and so on. Those are all political movements and positions. I call the cirrent administration fascists because I believe they are, and I believe it because they act like fascists. Keith has not only shown that Bill O'Reilly supports fascists, but that he exculpates Nazis.
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
Political assaults, insults, and criticisms for the political arena. Based on people's actions, positions and opinions.
Not sexual and racial slurs.
Just a quick point before, and I think I'll be done with this particular story (unless someone really wants to continue it). Simply because someone takes part in a political movement doesn't make it legitimate to refer to them as a Nazi. I'm not suggesting we silence the people making such an offense. I'm simply suggesting we recognize it for what it is: an idiotic, ahistoric, hyperbole which is made to stiffle debate. Same thing with calling people communists, although one has to admit there are far more communists in the world than there are Nazis. Furthermore, Nazis were members of a particular party, but the form of government was not Nazism. It was fascism. It's a little less offensive, but no more helpful, to refer to people who seem to gain all of their power through the use of the military, and who seem to believe their authority extends to limiting personal freedoms of its people, as fascists since those are characteristics of fascism. But to call them Nazis is really just stupid. As much of an imperial power as the United States may be, we're not invading our neighbors with the intention of making each country an extension of ourselves. We're not systematically collecting, putting into slavery, and eventually exterminating a race of people, either. In short, if you want to call somebody a fascist, it's not really a conversation starter if a conversation is what you're looking for, but if you want to call somebody a Nazi you just make yourself look like you don't know what it means to be a Nazi in the first place.
But back to the original point: it's offensive. And if you stop to think about it for just a moment, just about everything is offensive from a certain point of view. The question I'm asking is why we should put this offense over others. I wasn't the originator of the Olbermann/Nazi thing. I was just trying to explain how a previous poster saw the omission of instances of Olbermann using an obviously insensitive gesture as a simple expression of MMfA hypocrisy. While you may decide that one offense is clearly greater than the other, the obvious question is 'why?' And it's simply not a good enough answer to say, well, they're politicians especially when it's not simply the politicians who are offended. It's also the descendants of the people massacred and those who died defeating the Nazis some of whom are the very people being referred to in this way. Again, whatever happened to being honest? You don't like Don Imus, so when he says something mean (which is all it was, just plain mean) you are more than happy to jump on him and demand he lose his job. Meanwhile, someone you like and respect says or does something that you cannot deny is offensive to a lot of people, and at best you say 'let's give him the benefit of the doubt' and at worst you ignore it altogether. That is why your indignation over Don Imus is absolutely disingenuous. Because you're only willing to be upset with some people. You're as guilty as all of the people outed on this site for spreading misinformation. I mean, you have to understand that, right?
I think you are right on some level, but the comparison is a little weak (I know it wasn't yours) to demonstrate the point.
The fact that Olbermann was pretty undeniably sarcastic is a valid defense for not covering his actions. Imus has an apparently long history of this kind of behavior, which makes such a "sarcastic" or "joking" defense much more difficult to believe.
Perhaps someone can come up with a more appropriate comparison. For what it is worth.
Thank you for recognizing that this whole thing didn't originate with me. I work with what I'm given. Weak though it may be, I still think it works perfectly well here. I recognize the difference, but I don't fully understand why people dismiss the notion that he simply didn't mean it. Not that that's a defense in and of itself, but if sarcasm and irony are acceptable excuses for some offensive behavior, why do we dismiss them out of hat in this situation. Now, I'm not suggesting that he was being sarcastic. I'm simply suggesting he wasn't being sincere. That he was playing a role. And that in doing so, he said something he shouldn't have about a group of young women he doesn't know nor would he have any interest in offending. I doubt that he meant to go as far as he did, but that's no defense, and as I've said a number of times already, it's not my intention to defend anybody. Simply to make an observation. The number of times he's been out of line are no more a condemnation of his intent in this particular event than they are an understanding that he's long been playing this same role.
I have a feeling this conversation is going to be archived soon, so I'll avoid new topics just now.
I get pretty upset just watching Hogan's Heroes.
As a point of fact, the fascist salute is illegal in Germany because it's so offensive to so many people. It's offensive. Does that mean he shouldn't do it? I don't think so. I don't care who's offended. That's the whole freedom of expression thing. That being said, once things start being off-limits, you can't keep these double standards around. You have to understand that.
As a point of fact, the fascist salute is illegal in Germany because it's so offensive to so many people.
Please provide a pointer to this "fact" of yours that the Nazi symbols and the party itself are banned because they're "offensive."
As I say below, I think to make such a statement is every bit as trivializing of the events of that era as it is to use those symbols carelessly.
The idea behind those laws was to exterminate the Nazi party, a party which had become so fiercely intertwined with both the German government and to a large degree life in Germany.
I'm really trying to figure out how you see your argument holding up. Does it really rely on denying the notion that people are offended by the fascist salute? Or Nazism as a label? I mean, are you really taking issue with the very idea that such a thing offends people?
The thing about offense is that it doesn't need links. The way it works is in a simple cause and effect relationship. Something is said or done, and there's a gutteral emotional reaction to that thing.
For the tenth time, I'm not arguing about whether or not one should be allowed to offend another. Or whether it's right or wrong. I'm simply arguing about the double standard created by sounding the cry for righteous indignation regarding one offense, and either denying the right of a people to be offended by the other, or to claim, based solely on your own ideas of what is and is not offensive, that one offense is necessarily greater than the other.
The thing is, the only path to righteousness is to truly be righteous. I'm not claiming that I am. I simply recognize my own hypocrisy and allow myself to get through it. You seem to live in a world where only what you deem to be right or wrong (from an ethical or moral perspective) matters.
You don't quite understand the issue.
Of COURSE O'Reilly would be bothered by someone referring to him as a Nazi. So? Liberals are constantly referred to by all manner of ugly phrases, terms, etc. by conservatives, and vice versa. There's nothing illegal about it.
The issue about the Nazi salute isn't that a person being mockingly saluted is offended. The Anti-Defamation League letter that was posted above pointed out that to trivialize a reference to such a horrible period of human history is to trivialize those events. THAT is what they find offensive. It's also the kind of thing that conservatives label "PC" and whine about every time they're called on their idiocy.
So please stop acting like you care if someone is referred to as a Nazi. If it didn't happen all the time, Godwin wouldn't have drafted his law.
And the reason the Nazi party is illegal in Germany isn't because it's "offensive." You trivialize the issue yourself for suggesting as much.
I've lost track about whether this was directed at me or at somebody else. Either way, I'm neither condemning nor praising any offensive behaviour. I'm just noting that there's all sorts of behavior out there offensive to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. The fascist salute and likening someone to a Nazi is offensive to the ADL for trivializing the sacrifice of the Jewish people because the group itself is first and foremost a group fighting anti-semitism. But are the Jews the only people allowed to be offended by likening non-Nazis to Nazis? You have to recognize the possibility for someone to take legitimate offense to any number of characterizations, labels, language, or symbols. Are people oftentimes overreacting or even feigning offense? Sure. One could effectively argue there's quite a bit of false indignation surrounded the issue of the day (or of the other day).
But if we are to ignore those who are disingenuous for a moment, how do you objectively determine who's overreacting? You cannot. You're therefore forced into subjectivity which is a dangerous ground on which to tread when dealing with principles. Because unless you are going to stand for everyone, you stand for only a few, and it's at that point that your principle loses its vitality and virtue.
Olbermann literally gets most of the information he puts on air from this very website.
Proof, please. I've personally seen no evidence of this whatsoever.
Not that it has one bit of anything to do with this article.
I didn't bring Olbermann up, so don't blame me for putting his name or the issue of him out there. That being said, on any given day, you can look at this website and watch his show later in the night, and see distinct similarities. Likewise, this website regularly hails Olbermann's 'Worst Person Ever' segment which is basically MMfA patting itself on the back for a job well done.
You can act like you see no evidence of that, but you're lying to suit your own argument, and whether anybody else wants to say it, that's simply the case.
Personally I think it's the networks and their sponsors that are the enablers of these "talk personalities"
What a strange trip this continues to be.
This post is a fraud for 2 reasons. First, it is rather ridiculous to claim that using the Nazi salute is anti-semitic. If comparing your enemies to Hitler is anit-semitic, than there is anti-semitism on every boad of posts.
In addition, the ADL is hardly a group I have any respect for. It uses the tragedy of the holocuast to silence any critics of Israeli policy, often equating fair crtiicism of human rights violations by Israel with anti-semitism. The ADL is so phony that one of its operatives, Roy Bolluck, was actually coopering with South African intelligence agencies during the apartheid regime. link
But is it fair to deny their right to be offended simply because you lack a respect for them? Which gets back to what I think one of the original points was: Why is it worse to be offensive to some than to others? I don't disagree that some offenses are greater than others. I simply recognize that the criteria on which such a thing can be judged is a subjective and therefore unprincipled one.
And didn't Olbermann stop?
I am a little confused about Imus being a good person based on having Chris Dodd on his show or supporting John Kerry in 2004 or supporting children with cancer. You can be politically liberal and provide service in different areas and still be racist and mysoginist. No should excuse his vile statements and those of his co-workers on the show. Barely funny and certainly crude. And funny doesn't give you an out. I want all of them to go. We have free speech in the country, but they are providing a product, not giving a speech. Free speech that breaks the law or offends, deserves to have consequences.
Also, Keith is great, but Nazi stuff can trivialize and offend others. Did he stop the behavior? Did he address the concerns presented to him? Imus has a history of being sorry and repeating the behavior. I tell my kids that if you say you are sorry and continue to make the same purposeful choices, then sorry stops meaning anything.
As far as Nazis, they started slow and built up by taking control of the national frustrations and focusing the hate against the "other". They focused on corporate control of resources. You need to be aware of what this country is doing now for and against this type of speech and how awareness can be brought to peoples attention while using humor.
I would rather hear a joke that raises my awareness and takes the sting out of the current situtation, rather than an obnoxious blowhard who thinks he's funny. Imus may have been the first one decades ago, but now he is the second one. The massive list of offenses shows that those presonalities are solidly on the second half of that statement, also.
OOF. That one's not going to get any traction. Hogan's Heroes? The Producers?
I think that if anyone other than Brooks had made The Producers - and if Lorenzo St. Dubois hadn't have been played by a Jew - there would have been an outcry, and justifiably so.
Double standard? How about sensitivity?
I'm all for being sensitive, but it's still a double standard.
As Valentin says, the crazziness just keeps coming. Pleae don't leave, Rams, your posts are absolutely hillarious.
You claim to be a fair minded person, and then defend all this hate speech because it was directed at general audiences or public figures. And that makes it okay? These hate mongers attacked blacks, hispanics, Muslims, Ellison, Barba--who didn't they insult? So it is okay to call Hillary a "Bitch" because she is a public figure?
And I'm glad you're so fair-minded that you bring up Brock's past. That is simply an ad hominem attack and has nothing to do with this thread. We all know what Brock did in the past. He admits it. He has said it was absolutely wrong.
I never understood the argument that its ok to insult people by the millions but to insult a single person is taboo.
On the way out of the door maybr you should get decrapified as well!
He's no Eddy...
Griffin or Murphy that is. Or, for that matter, Imus is no Chris Rock, Chris Tucker, Dave Chappelle and surely no Richard Pryor.
He should've stopped acting like a black comedian long before the idiocies that got him dumped. Black comedy isn't for white guys - period.
However, I don't believe Imus should've been fired just as firmly as I do believe it's not valid to use what he did as an excuse to discuss music lyrics (Rap, Gangsta, etc.). That's another subject.
I do think that this is a good time for MMFA to point out what other loudmouths have said.
It's also a good time to send MMFA's list to the networks/syndicates that carry their shows as well as to the companies that sponsor them.
Of course he should have been fired and long ago but finally the advertisers took a stand. Proctor & Gamble is MSNBC's top advertiser. Its a soap company. Their customers are largely women and they put women in their ads and the women they put in their ads are not caricatured as whores. When they had to take a stand about which image of women they were going to endorse, women degraded as whores or the women in their ads, of course they weren't going to side with the Viagran view of women.
Ramsquire - I wish I understood if your beef is, like mine, with scapegoating Don Imus, or with exposing the vile stuff that gets said on the airwaves..?
As far as "destroying people's lives" when I re-read Neal Boortz's comments above, particularly when compared to the media blitz about Don Imus this week, that SOB should be put out on the street. Not by a federal licensing commission but by being exposed via by-the-grace-of-God bloggers to advertisers on his program. I don't believe in censorship but I fully believe in someone like him being held accountable for the poison he spews. To me it hurts crucially because he, and the others listed above, continue to misinform their listeners, distort, lie, and smear and in turn affect legislation drawn up by frenzy whipped neocons on Capitol Hill and at the voting booth.
If it weren't for Mediamatters, Crooksandliars, Newshounds, Huffingtonpost, and all the other "liberal" blogs out there the right wing smear machine, led by the hate merchants above, would've rolled right through this country unchallenged. Because we all know the mainstream press won't fight back, for fear of being tagged with a "liberal bias".
So my personal discouragement with this issue stems from burying Don Imus alone while a cauldron of neocon liars, hypocrites, and smear merchants continues to peddle that sh-t every day.
As a news junkie, and a progressive, I'm deeply bummed that these other guys walked away scot free, (and even are commenting on this issue like they have the high ground!) while Imus was bled dry.
Well Jeremy you've made me a liar. I guess that wasn't my last post. It's OK, though
My beef is not with MMFA pointing out bigoted comments, and discovering conservative misinformation. I think it is good to do that, and shine a light on some of the scum that is being doled out over the airwaves. What I have a problem with is calling for someone to be axed, and in the apparent glee, when they are axed. Today I listened to the radiothon on the WFAN and heard the sadness in the voices of the people who knew IMus best, his coworkers for 20 years, kids who went to the ranch and thought it was the best experience in their lives. All of that is now up in the air, admittedly because of Imus, not MMFA. Considering the loss of a 30 year career, I just don't have the stomach for this kind of rounding up, especially when Imus is a saint compared to some of the people on this list, and some of the quotes on that list are not nearly as damaging as what Imus said. I don't have the stomach for this, so I'm bowing out. As despicable as some of these people are with the things they say, they're firing affects many more innocents, staffers, families, staffers families, etc. Apparantly, I feel for them a little bit more than Mr. Brock does based on his prior history, so I can't stand with him. I'll still be at Newshound and the other sites dedicated to exposing lies, but just not here. I've long since turned off O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and never listened to any of the others here. Now I have to do the same for MMFA for the same reason-- Personal Choice.
>>Today I listened to the radiothon on the WFAN and heard the sadness in the voices of the people who knew IMus best, his coworkers for 20 years, kids who went to the ranch
>>they're firing affects many more innocents, staffers, families, staffers families, etc.
Not firing Imus is for the kids and the American workers!
Just when you think you have heard all the excuses possible.
By the way, I am reluctant to bring this up because I am making an unequal comparison, comparing something bad with something monstrous, but I have read all of Solzinistin's *Gulag,* which depicts the concentration camps in Stalinist Soviet Union which killed over 20 million people. After he wrote the book, some Soviets attacked him because they had ruined the reputation of their husbands and sullied their careers. Oh, Nobel prize winning Solzinistin, have you no compassion on the Soviet bureaocrats just trying to do their jobs?
what punishment would you suggest?
Well, I think I see your larger point Ramsquire - that this overzealous reaction to everything and these calls to fire everyone can be superficial and just destroying careers.
At the same time, (and I just can't help this) as someone that believes Foxnews, and most of the bums above, does actual harm to the country, not by offending people, but by influencing voters with misinformation, spin, omission of facts and context, and rabblerousing hatespeech I've been waiting for someone to pay for their big, unchecked mouth for a long time. That's just my personal tendency towards "what goes around comes around". But I've always thought it should be done by pressure on advertisers and public opinion, not by say, federal censorship.
I just am personally bummed out that it completely backfired and the guys I think do real harm to our country are walking away from this controversy clean as a whistle.
So I guess we disagree. I think intense pressure should be mounted on the guys listed above for just the sh-t they said during Katrina not to mention the garbage they continue to spew. Not censorship. Pressure.
Anyway, I used to post here, then left for a long time, now I've come back. Thanks for the response. Sorry to see you go.
First of all its not like when one person leaves the air that timeslot goes blank. There will be another show and they need just as many workers as Imus had so that isnt a point at ALL. I would have been of with Imus just being punished, I wasnt pushing for him to be fired. We mustnt forget the airwaves belong to US. We have every right to demand they be used responsibly and call for removing those who dont do so. I think it unfair to characterize us holding people like Boooooore accountable for what he says professionally as ruining their lives. As if they did NOTHING and we are just going after him because we disagree with his politics. THEY have no right to be exempt from accountability. THEY spew the bigotry and hatespeech into the wind they reap the whirlwind. THATS how it works. I dont see why this offends you but if it does perhaps this isnt the venue for you.
Apparently, I feel for them a little bit more than Mr. Brock does based on his prior history, so I can't stand with him.
So there's absolutely no room for forgiveness, atonement, or anything? You seem to want that for Imus, but it's not available to Brock, who from what I can see, is doing a fine job of redeeming himself for past acts.
Imus appears to have a documented history of apologizing... and continuing to do the same damn thing over and over. I'm not seeing a similar pattern from Brock, though I'm always willing to be enlightened.
If it were not for MMFA
I believe this would never of been as public as it was. Thank you MMFA for this.
I'll write the epitaphs for these guys:
I lived.
I loathed.
Or:
I hate no more,
but I wanna.
Or the simple descriptor:
Hatemonger
Hey Holly!
Great to see you back!
Thanks, Spin!
I am really upset that the Chock Full O'Nuts post was taken down.
I wonder how many of those advertisers that pulled the plug on Imus, sponsor the likes of Limbaugh and Savage?
All of the above people that Media Matters brings up should be fired. I don't believe Don Imus should be fired, though. I guess I am in the minority that is not rejoicing over the firing of Don Imus.
The Mob Mentality won this time. Racial ambulance chasers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson dictated to CBS and NBC how to handle the Don Imus controversy, instead of letting the network honchos decide how to handle it.
CBS and NBC didn't do this out of concern for racial harmony. They dismissed him only because they were concerned about their bottom line and the two leading self-appointed "civil rights" leaders who could yell and scream the loudest were the networks' biggest financial threat. The two "leaders" even succeeded in intimidating advertisers to pull their advertising dollars out as well until Imus got canned.
What Don Imus said and did last week was highly innappropriate and insensitive, but not a firable offense. He apologized, he took responsibility and he owned up to his mistakes. He even made arrangements to meet with the Rutgers team this evening to explain himself.
Yet, none of his actions prevented the two leading racial charlatans from demanding his ouster. We seem to forget that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are guilty of making anti-Semitic comments in the past. Yet, both apologized and expected the rest of us to forgive them. Neither offered that to Mr. Imus.
Where was Jesse Jackson when Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan called Judaism a "gutter religion"? Also, didn't Jesse Jackson once refer to Jews as "hymies" and New York as "hymietown"? And where was Al Sharpton when black actor Isaiah Washington of ABC-TV's Grey's Anatomy refer to white co-star T.R. Knight with an anti-gay slur? And where was Al Sharpton when that 101-year-old woman in Queens, New York was mugged and it was caught on tape?
Finally, to this very day, Al Sharpton still thinks Steve Pagones raped Tawana Brawley.
Today is a very sad day in America and an even sadder day for race relations in general. Martin Luther King must be turning over in his grave.
Is there an echo in here?
You know what really bugs me about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? They didn't condemn the Romans when they crucified Jesus. Why are you such Jesus haters, Jackson and Sharpton! Why are you such hypocrites, and who are you to condemn Imus?
Try saying something like what Imus said at YOUR work place next week and see what happens. You might get away with a first offense after a warning and some punishment. But if you demonstrate a pattern of similar behavior, no amount of good luck is gonna help you keep your job.
So many targets, so little ammo.
And here we go, I'm watching Michelle Malkin, subbing for Bill O'Reilly, and Dick Morris in strong agreement that the politicians and journalists that went on Imus should be held accountable for his hateful remarks as well.
Michelle. Malkin. This whole thing has been a goldmine for the neocon pundits. They get to kick back, smoke the moral highground cigar, and criticize..and now, they get to extend the criticisms to the Democrats that have appeared on the Imus program.
Sorry to keep beating this horse but the pot/kettle thing doesn't even begin to do this backfire justice.
Jeremy, you can't possibly question criticism of Imus based on the reactions of people like Malkin. It's spin. It's crap. You know it and I know it.
If nobody on the left criticized Imus for this, then it's proof that the left is being partisan by not attacking him just because he has Democratic guests. If they do, then they're fascists and guilty of censorship and forgetting the first amendment and any other number of BS talking points.
There are other offenders out there. There are going to be other incidents worthy of notice and criticism. When that happens, it gives MMfA and others credibility to attack them, because they criticized Imus. If they didn't do that, then the meme is going to be "well why is it OK for Imus to say 'nappy-haired hos' but Beck/Coulter/Limbaugh/Savage can't say blah blah blah...". So either way you're going to get spin. This way it plays out better in the long run, because it shows it's not just about what's good for Democrats, it's about an honest and responsible media. That, my friend, is the high ground, the stronger position to take in battle.
The more intelligent people will recognize this, and dismiss Malkin's spin for what it is. The less intelligent people are going to believe whatever people like Malkin and O'Reilly tell them anyway, so it's utterly ridiculous to refrain from valid criticism of anyone over such minor concerns.
LOL. So that's the latest spin.
"We took down one of our own so we can gain credibility"
That is pathetic. Where was the indignation when Hillary was making Ghandi jokes?
First off, there's no "spin" in my post. I'm making my statements in good faith. I'm not sure Imus is "one of our own" anyway, the point is that it doesn't make any sense to ignore someone who deserves criticism just because they're not a rabid conservative. By criticizing Imus it lends credibility to other efforts, because this one is not a partisan matter. You can't really address that in a meaningful way, so you have to label it "spin". I know it's a foreign concept to you, but perhaps you should look up the word "integrity".
As for your obligatory Clinton reference, she did apologize and she should have done so. If she continued to make similar remarks afterwards, like Imus did, maybe you would have something resembling a valid point for once in your life.
I hear what you're saying about how it is the left's responsibility to go after Imus. It's just that it was done with gusto, by both bloggers and the mainstream media, I have never seen in play for the neocons I mentioned in my post. I won't concede the point that those guys MMFA has done a good job of highlighting in this post are far and away more damaging to this country than Don Imus.
Obviously, I think you know that, but where is the "liberal" media's 5-6 day leadoff story outrage over Hannity/Savage/Boortz, etc., etc.?
This was painful to watch as someone that has wanted those scoundrels to be exposed to the unaware country for so long.
Oh, of course the others are more dangerous to the country. They should get more attention, absolutely. I wouldn't dare dream of suggesting otherwise. I'm just saying that the backlash from partisan hacks is no reason to avoid doing the right thing and demanding a higher standard from everyone.
It's almost like christmas.
He's making a list,
checking it twice,
gonna find out...
Who's next! buh bye!
Mmmmm now who was it that described Anita Hill, a Black Woman as: "a little bit nutty and a little bit sl#tty."
Sl#tty? Isn't that like being a Ho?
Nutty? Well that's not nice
Did you apologize Mr Brock?
Doesn't matter. You're fired.
[Wow David's site wouldn't even let me quote him without using a #]
How come I can write Ho but not sl#tty?
;-)
Point Jeter.
That sucks, I don't care if he had a "come-to-Jesus moment" or not, that Anita Hill business was disgusting.
Yes it was. In Brocks defense he wrote a booklength mea culpa about his whole career without whitewashing it one bit. He took special pains in that book (Blinded by the Right) to say his hatchet job on Anita Hill was unconcionable. Lots of people appologize. Doing so in booklength fashion is impressive to me.
You've got to be kidding me, Jeter. Though I don't have the exact words, Brock expressed contrition for what he did, didn't he? Isn't that why he changed from being a conservative hitman to running this site? Morever, he didn't utter his apology because he was forced to, as Imus did. He did so on his own, and he completely changed his whole life. That seems like true repentence.
Correct me if I am wrong.
(Didn't he write the book *Blinded by the Right,* in which he exposed the right-wing smear machine and himself?)
For future reference Funnyman when I add a ;-) to my post it usually means I'm being a tad playful.
My post was not meant to ream Mr. Brock.
It was merely a gentle reminder that Brock had, not unlike others, made a derogatory remark about an African-American Woman.
You said it. You own it.
Brock apologized, and that's admirable. That he did so BEFORE being forced to [like so many others] is also admirable. But it doesn't delete that disgusting remark from his history.
Brock of all people should have some empathy for those that find themselves having to eat their words. This site's piling on Imus [and I'm no fan] has been, IMO, excessive beyond reason.
Jeter, I thought the smile face was because you coldn't say sl**t.
I don't have that much sympathy for Imus. What he said was ugly and dumb, though I don't think Imus is a racist. But he has intentionally insulted people for years to make himself well known and to make himself huge amounts of money (milllions?). He finally got caught. He can retire a rich man.
I dont think MMFA could have handled this matter any other way.
Jeter, I thought the smile face was because you coldn't say sl**t.
Oh ok I can see why you thought that. I have my own little system. When one line in my post is *playful* or sarcastic or meant to be uproariously funny I sometimes tag it with a ;-) at the end of the sentence/paragraph
When the entire post is meant to be tongue in cheek or playful, or not grimly serious I'll sometimes add ;-) at the end on it's own.
I think maybe I've been posting here so long I'm developing some peculiar idiosyncrasies ;-)
As far as Imus goes, I don't know that he deserved to be fired. Yes the guy has a history of over the top remarks but perhaps he was enabled along the way by the fact that no one ever called him on it before--or certainly not like this. And he seemed to attract an endless stream of politicians & journalists eager to do his program, giving him further credibility.
I do think MMFA has piled on here. But it's their call.
"Isn't that why he changed from being a conservative hitman to running this site?"
Right. And now he's just a liberal hitman. He's doing the exact same thing as he was before, except from the other side of the political spectrum. He's on a Joe McCarthy like witch hunt to rid the media of conservatives. He knows that liberals can't compete with conservatives in the market place of ideas, so he wants to silence conservatives through censorship.
It's THEIR OWN WORDS that are so embarrassing to their sponsers and their management/puppet masters.
'Cause Santa says, "Ho," you know.
Yes! Holly can do more with six words than I can with a hundred.
No more books, my dear. Stay with us.
You're too kind, but I must be terse, due to my word exhaustion. You ascribe my compact composition to wit. I ascribe it to my depletion.
Yeah, well you're better on Empty than I am with a full tank.
brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes
Again, you're too kind!
I remember reading a piece in college one time that began: "I'm sorry this letter is so long, I didn't have time to write a short one."
I've always thought that was brilliant! But I don't remember who wrote it.
'Cause Santa says, "Ho," you know....by holly
Of course! Leave it to your quick mind to see what my rather slow brain functions missed ;-)
Nice to see you back on board Holly--hope you'll be sticking around for awhile :-)
But what I'm now wondering is what Santa really means when he says, "Ho, ho, ho," and chuckles. And isn't he ho-ho-ing most the one night he's not with Mrs. Claus???
Perhaps MM should ban "Ho" too!
Ban 'em! Ban all those bad words!!
Also, can we ban the apostrophe-s? Everybody screws it up anyway, so let's just have plurals and possessives spelled the same. Can we huh, Lord Brock?
C;mon,I can-t remember that I,ve ever had any stinkin" prolbem's with apostrophe's.
Lefty, that really did make me laugh out loud!
C'mon Jeter..
That's absolutely ridiculous. A guy looks in his heart and changes for the better, and continues to fight against the past hate, and you're gonna bring up past indiscretions.
Just before he went into rehad, Rush said that African-Americans voted in a block for Democrats because they missed the "plantation" and their "massahs". Hope he is next. By the way, last Friday, there was a skit on Imus where a Bill Clinton impersonator said Obama raised the 25 million by "pimping" and "selling crack."
Here's some more "racist and sexist remarks".
"Don't think I forgot about your fat a**. Ain't no mothaf*&kas leave her alone cause she a bi&%h f**k that nigga."
"Ain't nothin' you can do to stop meYou niggas get so emotionalYou remind me of my bi*^h Y'all niggas is p**sy"
"f#@k wit you big b**ches but I'm a stay the f**k away from ya Stay the f*&k away from, you f#$kin fat bitch""And if I don't feel a nigga, I don't get on his sh$%Y'all can love me, or hate me, or suck my d*&kI like my hoes just like Summer, no classAnd niggas working so hard, and getting no a**Why y'all niggas acting like, it's all ill in y'all squareMotherf**ker you ain't know that it's a hood everywhere"
And just who is this racist, sexist threat to our society??
RAPPER "50 Cent". PEOPLE, OUR CHILDREN HAVE THIS STUFF ON THEIR IPODS AND RINGTONES!!!
Folks, reality check. We have MUCH bigger problems than some talk radio hosts. Get a life, go out and MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE.
I'm a black man, and I approve of this message.
"RAPPER "50 Cent". PEOPLE, OUR CHILDREN HAVE THIS STUFF ON THEIR IPODS AND RINGTONES!!!"
So take their iPod away!
Excellent Post! I've saved this and printed it out to keep, thankyou.
The O'Reilly statement about the young man who was kidnapped left me feeling the same way that I did on hearing the slurs on Imus (and I heard them live the day they were made on his show).
And nothing would have made my day more than would have seeing Bill O'Reilly fired in the same way that Imus has been. I've never had the stomach to watch Glenn Beck, but it sounds like he's in the same ugly mix.
What about Howard Stern? As a black female I believe he has done a lot more demeaning things to women than Imus. Some want to justify singleling Imus out by talking about caliber of his guest and the number of people he reaches. They argue the rappers and commedians are not as accountable because we have to buy their product to be exposed. Can we say remote control and besides I do not buy this stuff but Ido get expose via blaring car stereos, free radio and flipping channels. I would never defend what Imus said but I will not rejoice in his firing. He is a symptom not the disease of a culture that has too long tolerated disrespect of others. Some were shocked that the Rutgers team still wanted to meet him. They have never been out for blood but only trying to understand where he was coming from. And Maybe finding a way to get something positive out of this. Again I think we all should have taken a page from their book. I do not for one minute believe for one minute that Imus was fired for anything other than the loss of profit. If the opinions of the employees mattered so much why was he not fired before now. There had to be complaints before. Also As A black american the double standard of the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who do not speak for the majority iof black people makes me sick. Jesse owes the Duke lacrosse team an apology. I speak as a mother of three sons .And Al Sharpton Mr Pagones is still waiting on his apology.Then we have some trying to excuse black racism and the demeaning of our young black women by our own race by bringing up history. This makes absolutely no sense .. Imus Was wrong but we want to get mad because he said he learned from us but excuse those of us who say it is okay for us to say these things because we were called these things in the past by white people.Huh!
"What about Howard Stern?"
Howard Stern has already been removed from publicly available airwaves, and anyone who wishes to listen to his sophomoric "humor" must do so by paying for it.
Speaking as a conservative troll posing as a black liberal, I think we are all pretty pathetic. I think we should all grow a pair and own our opinions, rather than pretending to be something we're not.
Death to neo-libertard-fascist-ism!
Val, I enjoy reading your post even though we end up on opposite sides of the argument quite a bit. But your sharp wit is very entertaining! Keep up the good work.
Likewise, I'm sure. I definitely would not be here if it weren't for the presence of intelligent people to debate. Echo chambers are boring.
Jeez, MMFA, this piddly little list is all ya got? [sneers] I thought it would have been much worse [does Barney Fife imitation]
Ramsquire, I think you're wrong to compare David Brock with the current crop of smear merchants. It's true that he wrote really vile things while working for the dark side, but if memory serves, he actually apologized not only to society in general, but also specifically to Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton, and performed a general mea culpa. Just in doing that, Brock became an honorable man. I note every once in awhile that people on these boards try and bait him and he stays above the fray by refusing to engage them. Once David Brock fessed up, he never did it again. You can't say that about Imus. He's a repeat offender, and ultimately, that's what got him pilloried.
Having said all that, I also think that people like Rev. Sharpton have no moral standing until they come clean as well. In Sharpton's case, I think that any conservative blatherer interviewing him could just utter "Tawana Brawley" and watch the reaction to totally deflate any perceived moral authority that Sharpton has. I think he's tried to act more like an adult in the past few years, but to my knowledge he's never apologized for the anger he incited over the Brawley incident, and he needs to in order to have any moral authority. I have similar feelings over things said by Falwell, Pat Robertson, and several others, but we as a society tend to have such shallow memories.
I also think it's a false sympathy to feel for Imus' staff and the children he helps at his ranch, and maybe imply that MMFA needs to feel ashamed for this. All MMFA has done is point out Imus' own conduct. They never called for a boycott, never called for a firing or suspension, but did expose his latest in a relatively long list of racist comments that he had heretofore been given a pass on. This is the point of a free press in our country.
It's historical fact that Hitler had a soft spot in his heart for many children as well, and even launched a steamship that sailed along the coast, offering free cruises to middle class Germans in the 30s, but no one gives him a pass on killing six million Jews and doing a pretty good job of trying to destroy Europe (well, maybe that guy in Iran who's the current president, and David Duke, but I digress).
But Imus isn't/wasn't as offensive as the people listed in this post. I'm hoping that he's a sacrificial lamb that creates a new level of discussion about what's acceptable in media, about how low politicians will go to pander to target audiences. I suspect that I'm probably wrong about this really happening, but isn't it great to even see these issues being discussed far and wide?
I listened to and watched Imus for many years. Although the remarks made about all people (black, white, women, men) based on innate characteristics made me cringe periodically, I also enjoyed much of the satire and humor, the live music presented, and almost all of the interviews. He was about twice as talented an interviewer as most of the journalists working in the broadcast/cable media today. Another enjoyable thing about listening to him was his ability to cut through the BS to the heart of an issue, even if one didn't agree with his conclusion. His remarks regarding the Rutgers women were awful, and he was rightfully castigated for them; but in my opinion, the cancellation of his program results in an overall net loss to society, based on his work for our children and soldiers/veterans, and the information that could be gleaned from the discussions on his show regarding political and social issues.
What really bothers me about Media Matters and its campaign against Imus is that it seemed to be conducted by people who either had no knowledge of or interest in the program or the man as a whole. Just as with certain other media figures, MMFA's focus seemed to be on just the negative buzz words or phrases; sometimes criticisms were even made of bits that were actually satires of points of view that MMFA would otherwise be critical of. In the end, I get the feeling that this was a hatchet job from start to finish. MMFA wanted to get someone, and Imus was a prime opportunity because he was not protected by an ultra-conservative sponsor or audience who would resist public and economic pressure; Imus' own relative progressiveness made him an easier target. Of course, Imus handed them the hatchet, and he has to take the blame for that. In the end, however, MMFA has apparently ended the broadcast career of a relatively progressive and vehemently anti-war and anti-Bush voice. When they are able to shut down Limbaugh, Coulter, or Horowitz, I will cheer, but I'm not holding my breath. Like I said in another post, somewhere tonight, Dick Cheney is smiling.
Ha! Is that a threat? MMFA's entire existence has been to land one of the "big fish"....yet nary a nibble! Remember Bill Bennett?? MMFA and Brock creamed their collective shorts thinking they had him filleted! In case your view is obscured by your bong haze....he's alive and well and thanks to your free publicity, thriving.
Another poster( Taz?) mentioned "bagging a Limbaugh", so I'm guessing that the Republican view of media watchdog sites is that they are here to hunt down media personalities and put them out of jobs by force.
This site exposes media bias and misinformation. The public ultimately decides what happens to the propagandists.
So I'm wondering- when you come on and brag that the liars you believe and support are still fooling you, and enough others that they're making a living, are you expecting any reaction besides pity for you?
He shoots, he scores. BANG.
Why do you think Fox News was defending Imus? Because Fox News traffics in the same kind of racist and hate talk. Limbaugh started it first. Then along came Ann Coulter and Fox News. The main staple of all these people is hate speech.
MMFA, that's your list of offenses? LOL! Are you kidding? What, people aren't allowed to have an opinion anymore without you getting your panties in a wad? And since when did it become so horrible to "offend" someone? I mean, this country is full of pansies just waiting to be offended at something. Here we have the perfect example, an entire "progressive research and information center" dedicated to looking for things to be offended by!! I love this line in the "about" page:
"dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Why doesn't it just say: "dedicated to being offended and shutting people up that we don't agree with"? More accurate and captures the true essence of MMFA. I'm offended!
No one is shutting anyone up. Imus is now free to spew whatever nonsense he likes on whatever streetcorner he is comfortable on. THAT is the only RIGHT he ever had. What you have failed to understand is we KNOW these morons have the right to be offensive then WE have the SAME right to tell them what we think about it. It speaks volumes that YOU are offended that we criticise those who are offensive but find no ability to criticise THEM for being bigoted, hateful and just plain stupid. Here is a clue for the clueless. Tolerating their offensive speech does NOT obligate us to take it without telling them what we think about it. NOR of giving OUR opinion about how OUR airwaves should be used.
Right, YOU find their speech offensive. Many don't. Poor taste sometimes? Sure, but rarely is it truly offensive unless you are looking to be offended!
Lots and lots of people like it when their kids are called dirty prostitutes on a national radio program. Thanks for pointing that out.
"Many don't."
'Many' doesn't matter at all. What matters is what the sponsors think, and in this case, the sponsors decided he wasn't worth their money. The same will happen with any other windbag from any political party or ideal as soon as capitalism and its market factors start the pressure for change.
I know you're refering to the insulting speech, but what offends me routinely is the constant stream of lies and distortions told by many of these pesonages. Perhaps it will take their base manners betraying them to get through to their sponsers. The page scandal worked.
As I'm reading this list of "offenses", I can't help but laugh. What must it be like to live in a world where you are offended by EVERYTHING and have it be your job to document said offenses? Good grief, welcome to hell!
"On the February 28 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, while discussing racy photos of American Idol contestant Antonella Barba, Beck asked his female guest: "I've got some time and a camera. Why don't you stop by?"
That's offensive? He was joking!! Don't tell me your brain is so narrow that you can't recognize a joke. By your standards, we'd all have to never speak again.
Hey, I think Rush just farted, so be sure to go document it and also be sure to be offended for the next 10 minutes.
you fail to understand anything at all about anything, ever.
like, i can call you a soulless husk of a human being who's mother you probably sodomized on her death bed and who's only god is money. and that's some lousy stuff to say to someone. i mean, i was joking, and not even quite sexually hurrassing you, to boot.
and if that's the kind of discourse you dig, then dig it. but go dig it with your friends in whatever dungeons you hang out it so i don't have to be assaulted with it on the t.v. where there's no reprocussions for the awful spew you no doubt delight in, or maybe out in public so i can celebrate your freedom of speech by grinding my knuckles into your nose. cheers!
Dude, you are filled with an extra amount of hate. You don't know me so if those are the things you'd like to call me, feel free. Says a lot more about you than about me. For the record, I never agreed with what Imus said moron. I was commenting on the list of "offenses" which were hardly offensive at all. People like you are the ones offended - and are constantly offended because you look for ways to be offended. Grow a pair.
Wow, you sure do get offended easily. Maybe you should get over it, after all, it was just a joke.
Looks like someone needs a sense of humor. It was just a joke.
HA HA HA!
Watching all of you stumble over each other while racing to condemn the next radio talk show host is sooo funny. Let me remind you all, since you have such short memories, that IMUS is a Dem and supported Kerry for President. THe really funny part is that he's the only major talk show host to do so. Congratulations on eating your own.
I. Don't. Care. Wrong is wrong. I am not a conservozombie who doesn't know if something is right or wrong until I have checked the political orientation of whoever did that something.
I honestly believe the trolls are upset because they can't condemn anyone for a double-standard here. And they can't point to Imus as evidence of "liberal racism" because his behavior wasn't tolerated.
That makes their jobs so much more difficult.
After their president took what was left of this nation's good name and dragged it in the dirt with Abu Ghraib, treating our injured troops like a used rubber and running the deficit up like Paris Hilton on meth, there is absolutely nothing left for them to take the high ground on.
All that they can do is to accuse others of hypocrisy, which is the one sin where you really always can cast the first stone. This IMO accounts for the proliferation of false equivalence defences, e.g. 'why are you so upset about Imus, Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK.' Ad nauseum.
It's a little sad, really.
It would be great if Americans would just STOP listening to all the hate-mongers out there.
The climate of anger and meanness starts at the top with the likes of Cheney telling Pat Leahy to Go F*** yourself on the floor of the Senate. Or Bush calling a NY Times reporter, "a major league ass***."
When they are not held accountable and to a better standard of decency and integrity, don't be surprised when FAUX news and their friends aid and abet this toxic atmosphere.
But no one has mentioned Pat Robertson of Jerry Falwell and the hate-spewing RIGHT--WING. Robertson and his billions of dollars holds much greater influence ( can anyone say REGENT LAW SCHOOL?) than all the Limbaughs & Savages!
So let's hold them accountable for their horrid messages as well.
SUE C
ROCKVILLE MD
Sue,
I interesting your examples. Do you know the story behind Cheney's remark? He was not speaking to the Senate as many would have you believe. Yes, he was on the floor of the Senate engaged in a conversation with some Senators when Leahy tried to shake his hand. The comment, although vulgar, was a private one.. but in a public place. I'm guessing Cheney had no idea he would be quoted. It is common knowledge that many politicians use "salty" language in private. That is no excuse for Cheney's remark, but it does put it in context.
Whenever I see Cheney's remark brought up, I never see the same people bringing up Kerry's interview with Rolling Stone where he either pandered to his audience, or has a much more cavalier attitude with the use of th f* word.
My only point is that is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Your post seems to me to be an argument to silence only those with whom you disagree politically. Dangerous ground my friend.
I am no fan of Robertson and/or Falwell and do not subscribe to them at all. However having seen snippets of some of their remarks it seems to me that 99.9% of what they say could very well be described as "love speech" and the other 0.1% is open, in my mind, to interpretation.
AA,
Great post. I agree entirely.
I would like to know how to find what advertisers contribute to the programs and figures listed above. Imus did not get fired due to his statements, per se. He was fired because the company was going to lose money when the advertisers bailed on the shows. I would not be suprised if there was already another personality ready to take his place. Some people have blogged that Imus was trying to walk the line between comedy and news and fell of the line. Well, what about O'Reilly and the rest that are on the "news" side of things. They are not objective and beyond any reasonable expression of personal comment on the subjects discussed. So again, I would like to have an O'Reilly-esque boycott of his advertisers, as long as it doesn't do what O'Reilly did for France.
I wish the airwaves would be rid of all of these parasites. They contribute nothing beneficial to our culture, they are corrosive and corruptive. They are paid millions to be nasty, vulgar, cruel bullies, ringleaders, provoking the mob mentality. And like all bullies when they are called to account, they whine and act victimized, say they were just joking. Who's laughing? Who needs them but the corporations that rake in the bucks off them? Oh, and we are supposed to feel bad if they lose their livelihoods? What about the livelihoods of the people they destroy with their slander, lying and hate-mongering? Exercise your right to freedom of speech and demand that every last one of these thugs be fired.
Who are you people? The thought police?
We do (still) have freedom of speech in this country.
Stating that Michael Smerconish uses hate speech? It's obvious that you don't listen to his show or the context in which he speaks.
Although Michael is an acknowleged Republican, he is not an ultra conservative, he is moderate at best.
I noticed your list of hate speakers are all Republican/Conservative. If you were fair and balanced you would list liberal "hate speech" as well.
This site is not fair and balanced, nor does it claim to be. That's Fox you're talking about.
I actually think it would be good to have reporting that is openly partisan rather than the pretend-unbiased media that we have today. Let Fox drop the "Fair-and-Balanced" bushwa, we have Democracy Now! and Free Speech TV as balance.
Unfortunately, our current media industry provides news as a product, and nobody with deep pockets to subsidise left news as Fox was propped up for years before it became profitable.
GREAT SUMMARY MM! BRAVO.
When I first logged into your website, I was under the belief that your goal was to make sure that truth in media was protected. That you were there to make sure that the disinformation being spread by the likes of Fox News and such were being offset with counter views. I believed that you existed as guardians of the First Amendment.
Now I see I was wrong.
Your treatment of Don Imus and aid in creating the climate for his firing has shown me that you do not believe in free speech, only free speech that you deem appropriate. That’s not how the country I live in was set up to work. You cloak yourselves in the Constitution only to in turn wipe your nose with it.
I was raised to believe free speech isn't always nice or polite or complimentary or well thought out; it is what it is and sometimes that is ugly. That if you say something you own it. If you hurt someone's feelings when you didn't mean to, you make a sincere apology and, if it is accepted or not, you move on. If someone says something you don’t agree with, you can stand and argue the point or leave the room, but you can’t physically assault him. If someone says something you don’t agree with on the radio or TV you can change the channel, but you have no right to deny him the right to make a living.
Just so you understand here are a few things about me: I am forty-three. I am a registered Democrat and I vote. While I have many views that could be considered liberal, I called myself a progressive long before it was considered the trendy way to describe yourself. I make a decent living, but I am far from wealthy. I am not the right-wing, conservative that you paint the Imus listeners to be.
I also have strong views regarding a free press based on family history. My great-grandfather while reporting on corrupt land dealings referred to one of the principals as a “bastard” in print and lost his publication in a libel verdict. I guess in turn of the century Australia the difference between figurative and literal held little sway.
One other thing, I am heavy set and always have been. I learned early on that some people are the butt of jokes, some people make jokes and sometimes the people who are the butt of the jokes are the people who get to make the jokes. That’s life. You get over it or go crawl in a corner, but don’t bring the rest of us down with you.
So in conclusion, I am disgusted by the vile pandering to a small group of agenda-driven hypocrites that led to the dismissal of Don Imus and your part in it. It is actions like these and not an off-hand comment on the radio that do real damage to race relations in this country.
Please remove me from your mailing list. I no longer wish to be associated with your group in any way.
You see, I’m not calling for your organization to be disbanded or your website shut down. I’m just choosing to ignore you because your credibility in my eyes is now less than zero. This is how you protect free and opposing speech; not the way you support.
Richard Ottenstroer
Go Richard !
I am a Republican and we completely agree. If I don't like what's being stated on Air America, I change the station! I don't call for the hosts to be fired.
Few here have actually called for Imus to be fired. Imus was fired because apparently some big name advertisers got cold feet about being associated with Imus. Just to set the record straight on that.
I think MMFA is being a little scary here, though in setting sights on the other morons mentioned. I doubt many of the others conservative talkers would be so vulnerable as they generally have the support of their broadcasters and their advertisers are largely not nearly as mainstream as Imus's were. I would think that Beck (at least his TV show) is the most vulnerable of them all by far as both of the above are not as much the case with his situation.
Right on, Richard (that is, if you're still around to read this).
Let me say right up front that I'm a conservative, lest the usual suspects accuse me of being a liberal-in-disguise, a troll, etc. Like you, I had hopes for this site. But, not being a progressive, my hopes were that this site would provide a forum where I could hear the "other side", and debate issues. I have taken part in discussions on several topics here, at least until the usual suspects (again) began to circle, at which point they would lower the debate to the level of grade school (or at least a really poor junior high debate team). Not unusual for a political web site of any slant.
However, it didn't take long to determine the real purposes of this site, which are: 1) to generate left-wing talking points for distribution to the media in the hopes that they would be echoed, and 2) to attempt to silence those who disagreed with such talking points.
Congrats on your success in getting Imus fired. Not for the idea of firing per se, but for good execution (so to speak). Like many, I was offended by his statements, but I think what made them especially offensive, and distinct, was that they were made against people who made no attempt to put themselves in the public arena. How fitting that the voices of reason and class came from the players and the coach.
Now, MMFA, smelling blood, decides to move the thought police tactics into another gear, by reminding the press that "It's Not Just Imus", and listing the same people they have been going after since 2004, linking to the same statements they have forwarded to friends in the press for years, hoping that this time, it will stick.
And, I know, someone will try to refute this by explaining that this is not "censorship", because only the government can censor. Well, guess what. MMFA's campaign to control the Armed Forces Network content is promoting censorship. Their campaign to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" is promoting censorship (those on this site that believe that the market is dealing with Imus, please explain why the market can't also deal with the distribution of content). And those on this site that were actively rooting for Rush Limbaugh to be jailed, what is that but an attempt to silence your enemies through the government (i.e., censorship)?
Boycotts aren't themselves censorship. For that matter, neither is a church-organized book and CD-burning bonfire. But doesn't something about this situation creep you out a bit, maybe make you look for a deeper agenda? Well, for several regulars here, they don't have to look, because they spend their time supporting the same agenda, usually on their own blogs or websites. For others, things are being revealed.
As a conservative, I want Rosie O'Donnell to have a public forum (not just a street corner). I want Randi Rhodes to have a forum. Same with Mike Malloy, Keith Olbermann, Al Franken, Whoopi Goldberg, etc. Even a moderate liberal like Imus. The more I hear them and others speak, the more I believe that many in the public will reject their opinions. Liberals should want conservative shock-jocks on the air, as it should reinforce their own beliefs. For those that worry that the uninformed will somehow be converted, you probably don't want people that stupid in your camp anyway.
What makes this most interesting to me, as an outside, conservative lurker, is that topics like these are good filters, separating true "liberals" from political left-wingers. Much as some on this site have separated true conservatives from "neo-cons", I'm enjoying the separation here.
Make no mistake, however, on what side MMFA falls.
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. I too believe that the cure for hate speech is more speech. I would rather have seen the discussion (such as it has been) continue than have Imus lose his job.
When people get sick of his stupidity, then society might have a chance to move on. Now, he gets to wear the mantle of a martyr, and the outrage at his distasteful comments gets morphed into "censorship." The idea that "edgy" speech in our society is calling a gutsy, come-from-behind women's basketball team "Nappy-headed hoes" is about as sad a commentary on America in the 21st century that I can imagine. And the level of the ensuing debate has only confirmed my strong desire to emigrate.
That was an excellent post. I couldn't have said it better. I think that there should be a distinction made between traditional liberals who support free speech rights like the poster above, and this new brand of neo-fascist liberalism that seeks to silence those with whom they disagree. I don't think it's right to say that all liberals oppose free speech rights, but it's simply a new and growing faction of liberalism that does. I guess that you probably could call these people The Thought Police. That's a good name as well.
I am also troubled by this apparent transformation of MMFA's mission as well. I am just wondering where all you conservatives were when Donahue was canned (who was immensely more popular than Don Imus on the same network) or the Dixie Chicks?
If you didn't speak up back then, do you see how it was wrong not to speak up in retrospect? If not, I regard much of this supposed concern as a form of hypocrisy along with the supposed liberals who decried the banning of the Dixie Chicks or the firing of Donahue and are cheering now.
What? Holy mercy. Are you seriously arguing that it's hypocritical to decry the treatment Donohue or the Dixie Chicks got, but to accept what happened to Imus?
You admit yourself that Donohue was popular. Unless he made some offensive comments I don't remember, his removal had nothing to do with market forces. As for the Dixie Chicks, are you really comparing what they said to what Imus said? That was simple disapproval of the President. Over half the country now holds a similar sense of shame as Natalie Maines expressed then. The circumstance of Imus making the comments he did are much different from those examples.
I certainly hope I misunderstood your last line, if so I apologize.
Brabantio,
I agree that the Dixie Chicks and Donahue are much clearer examples of what the conservatives are trying to get at here. Perhaps even a better one is Bill Maher. I am simply playing the devil's advocate a bit here.
Assuming that Imus's situation was as aggregious as the firings of Maher, Donahue and the banning of the Dixie Chicks (which perhaps it isn't), I am just wondering where the conservatives were when this stuff happened.
As a liberal, I am troubled when anyone is taken off the air as a punishment for unpopular speech. Although that does not seem to be entirely the case with Imus, it gives me pause. I think we should be careful what we say about this and remember that some of the same arguments liberals are using now with regards to Imus were once used by conservatives with regards to Maher, Donahue and the DC's. in the recent past.
Bill Maher is an excellent example. I agree with a lot of what he says, in fact I found his comments about terrorists not being cowards completely correct (by definition, someone who dies for their beliefs is very difficult to categorize as a "coward"). However, I completely understand the backlash he got from it, and that's the risk those like him take. I think it's an important distinction that "unpopular speech" can be unpopular because of personal opinion ("the Beatles made horrible music") or because of common decency ("the Beatles were homo communists and I'm glad Lennon was shot"). For any reading-impaired trolls, neither of those quotes are intended to be from anyone, especially me. As far as the Dixie Chicks and Donohue are concerned, at best the cause of the problem was their unpopular opinions, not anything genuinely offensive to common decency. As for Bill Maher, his comments did obviously strike the wrong chord, even though he wasn't really saluting the character of terrorists. So yes, conservatives who celebrated Maher's firing and are crying "free speech!" now, or liberals who are doing the exact opposite are being inconsistent.
I do think it interesting that some progressive groups are not siding with those that called for Imus to be fired, etc. Like The Progressive Review. Anyway, I think some of the frustration here is that MMfA is against "Conservative Misinformation in the Media" and many, many people fail to see why Imus's slur was "conservative misinformation."
If MMfA was all about "nobody insult anyone" then it's a different story. Personally, Beck calling Rosie a Bxxxx is an insult, but isn't a slur, and it's directed toward a woman who makes controversial statements herself in a very public forum, not against a college student who plays basketball. The line can be very fine sometimes, but insulting and lying are two different things.
Well, MSNBC and CBS are simply controlled by CEO's. I have recently discovered there is a National Black Chamber of Commerce. I live in the wealthiest Black community in the USA. I'm happy for the Blacks of the USA. BUT all Imus did was report the conversation of dying black kids as they watched the sports on tv. That's how dying black kids talk. Why is it wrong to report what dying black kids say?
On top of all this Hillary is going to talk to the Women. She kissed Arafat's wife. Arafat's wife probably lives very nicely in France? Wolfowitz has a mistress and isn't he married?
I believe in African too. My African hero is Kungulu. I think the National Black Chamber of Commerce should get a spokesperson from the Abayudaya since they call themselves African Americans.
The Orthodox Kosher Chamber of Commerce should join the National Black Chamber of Commerce to do this because the Abayudaya arre kosher.
So is that the problem? Does the guy who started all this support Hillary? She's speaking to Rutgers women today.
Isn't this how Imus talks? Does he tell falsehoods? Do dying black kids on the ranch talk like he says. Has anyone interviewed one of the dying black kids on his ranch?
rk'n'rl w/torah scroll
What?!?
I guess they do. I heard one of Imus' mea culpa and he said they had sent kids home from the Imus Ranch because of language like that.
Lead by example. If it wasn't good enough for the kids, he should have known it wasn't good enough for himself and his audience.
Hey, racists like Sharpton and Jackson overcame their public racial slurs......Imus will be back on the air in time.
The only thing that will remain is the widening racial divide thanks to disgusting race-baiters, peddlers and hustlers like Media Matters and the collective Liberal Left.
Again, it's not the fault of those who are making comments like "nappy-headed hos", it's the fault of those that react to it. They should learn their place and be silent, right?
The fact that not one single black rapper uttering "nappy-headed ho" has been confronted by Brock and his blogging lemmings proves that he (you) are not remotely concerned about the welfare of the victimized racial minorities......it just exposes him (you) to be a disgusting, petty race-peddling "ho".
Let me get this straight. A site devoted to conservative misinformation is supposed to make a note everytime some rapper uses derogatory language?
What the hell are you smoking?
Qwerty couldn't read the "About us" tab through the bong haze.
They can't do everything. My guess is MMFA's strategy is to show, in whatever way available, the TYPE of thing that goes on these days in the media. Also, if a Democrat talker loses his position, then it will be easier politically for the real villians to fall later.
Troll much?
Yes, free speech must be stamped out. Only when cons are silenced can we truly be free from tyranny. Funny how Imus supported Kerry for president but the majority of the people that called for him to not be fired were conservative talkers. What Imus said was wrong everyone agrees on that but the scary thing here is te presedence that has been set that if you offend the wrong group you are in danger of losing their right to free speech, free press and possibly your livelihood. Overbearing political correctness is impeding our freedom. Welcome to facism, hail the police state.
What part of free speech and free press did Imus lose? Could you clarify this? Was his toungue cut out? Was he banned from starting his own network or website or rado station?
I think you might be confused a bit.
Well if you agree that what Imus said is wrong, then what the hell do you suggest? He has a long history of this behavior. When does it end? If never, then how do you reconcile that with the conclusion that his statements are wrong? You seem to be arguing that he has the right to say "wrong" things as long as he wants to. Or at some point he should be fired, but when he offends some group other than black women, because somehow the opinion of black women isn't important enough.
This has nothing to do with free speech. He has not been arrested. Everyone is accountable for what they say on the radio. You can call for genocide if you like, but you're going to get kicked off the air. Nobody has a first amendment right to their own radio or television program. That is a job where one can be hired or fired as the bosses see fit. Is it really so uncommon for conservatives to have even the most vague familiarity with the Constitution?
This was a calculated effort by Sharpton and others to stifle Don Imus' ability to speak through the medium of radio. His right to speak was not eliminated but it was stifled. His next stop is probably sirius or xm and smaller (if that's possible) ratings. Do you not see anyway that this censorship through protest isn't dangerous?
He wasn't censored, he was fired for saying something stupid. Anyone can still say what he said on air, but they will just have to roll with the consequences of their words.
Again I think you are a bit confused.
Let's say tomorrow Rush said that all conservatives are Inbred morons (stay with me I'm just tryin to make a point) and the listeners protested which lead to him being fired. What part of this scenario falls under censorship or freedom of speech?
Do you understand that if you or I or anyone else said any one of the above (including Imus' comment) in the workplace, during work hours, in front of customers, that our jobs would likely be forfeit? Now, if I were fired for using Imus' slur about an employee in another department, would I be fired for being unprofessional, or would I be fired because the corporation is trying to stifle my right to free speech?
(I'll give you a hint - option B is not correct)
The same rules do not apply to those in the entertainment industry as they do in everyday life. Just watch any stand-up comedian or catch Bill maher's show or notice that Joy Behar basically implied that the duke lacrosse boys got what they deserved. Imus was a shock jock, it was his job to say controversial things. He made fun of everyone but because he crossed the line with one group the villagers showed up with pitchforks to eliminate what they did not deem excusable. The problem facing the sponsors was that if they didn't bow down to the pressure they would be looked at as racist as well.
But you admit that he can "cross the line", and did. So what do you recommend when that happens? What if, like Imus, the person does it over and over and over again? Once you admit that he went too far, bringing the motivations of Sharpton and others into the picture is irrelevant. I don't agree with Sharpton on everything either but he was right on this one. Do you really think that CBS and NBC bowed to the will of a couple of private citizens? Or that sponsors quiver when Sharpton calls them? Please.
Where were you?
I largely agree, but I can't help but wonder where you were when MSNBC fired Donahue (who was far more popular than Imus) or ABC fired Bill Maher? I don't recall much conservative circumspection back then.
What is this? An MMFA hit list? My God, look what your saying. Your suggesting that because you don't approve of their point of view, they should be removed from the airwaves. Oh theres always the obligatory "We're not advocating censorship", but what else can you call it? You disagree with their OPINION - Get over it! Millions (including me) AGREE with their point of view.
Talk about "hate speech": Where is Rosie O'Donnell, John Stewart, Bill Maher, Steve Colbert on your list of hate mongers? They are ABSENT from the list because they tow the left agenda they are given a pass. (For the record, I wouldn't want to see any of them taken off the air).
David Brock's hit list is very reminiscent of a Joe McCarthy blacklist. We should be very afraid.
Left-wingers are "fighting the good fight" and are, therefore, incapable of "hate speech".....at least I think that's how it works.
Please take a moment to respond and explain to me very carefully why I, as a fat woman, should approve of my hard-earned money being spent to support Glen Beck, who think it's perfectly OK to attack a woman just because of her size, because he can't find anything intelligent to say about her political differences?
Please tell me why I, as a woman who has in her life earned less than minimum wage while working HARD in school should approve of my hard-earned money going to Neal Boortz through his sponsors' dollars after he has sternly stated that I must be an idiot for not making whatever dollar amount he considers to be socially acceptable.
Please tell me why I, who lost a dear Transsexual friend three years ago in a tragic car accident, should tolerate my hard-earned money going to the likes of Michael Savage after he justifies the murder of a Transsexual on his radio program, and spends the following days villifying the dead woman and those like her.
My money pays for these hatemongers' vehicles, their vacations, their homes, their retirement savings. When I give my money to a corporation, and that corporation takes my money and gives it to these hatemongers for advertising dollars, I then have a right to give my opinion to the sponsors of these programs to tell them how I feel about the host, and how the content of the program reflects on their brand, and how I will be spending my money in the future. It is then up to the sponsor to determine whether or not they wish to be associated with these kinds of comments.
Your whining, petty BS notwithstanding, this is the free market at work. If enough people like yourself write to P&G and say, "Boy, I'm glad to see you still sponsoring Michael Savage, because his hatred of homosexuals really speaks to me. I'm going to buy extra Tide this month as my way of saying thanks! Keep up the good work," there will be no problem for you, as the sponsors will not feel that their revenue is in danger. I, however, am not required to keep sponsoring corporations with my earned dollars if they in turn are sponsoring entertainment that directly impacts my life and the lives of those around me.
Bra-VO!
Well, you obviously don't listen to Beck because if you did you wouldt already know that he does use facts to refute many things that Rosie says. I'm well aware of the fact that it's the free market at work here which leads me to this, if you don't like the opinions associated with certain host don't buy his sponsors products. The problem arises in the fact that a boycot wouldn't work on most of these hosts because more people like their message than dislike it. Bottom line, if you don't like it turn the channel don't launch a campaign to get somone fired that is censorship.
Well yes, I do actually catch Beck's show quite often. It's full of opinion, and I must repeat - if you can effectively attack someone's argument, you have no reason to insult their appearance, their nationality, etc. Beck's analysis is very short on fact, although his guests do sometimes fill in for that void.
"Bottom line, if you don't like it turn the channel don't launch a campaign to get somone fired that is censorship."
The bottom line is that you obviously don't know what censorship actually is. I can't help you with that, but a junior high level civics class may help some. Good luck with that!
Yes, avoid the issue that this is censorship through protest. I guess if you can't refute what I just posted you'll just spout an insult and avoid the issue....kinda like Glenn Beck calling Roise fat huh? The only difference is that he calls her names AFTER he disproves her crackpot theories.
"Yes, avoid the issue that this is censorship through protest."
You seem to suggest that I should be shutting up and just letting sponsors use my product dollars however they see fit, regardless of the harm those dollars contribute to. I have difficulty understanding exactly how that works in your brain, but I do see that you're continuing to misuse the term censorship, which traditionally applies to governmental action silencing the speech of free citizens, and instead are freely and inaccurately applying it to individuals who want to ensure that the money they toil for day after day do not come back to bite them on the rear, so to speak.
Take, for example, those companies that purchase "blood diamonds" and other fine jewelery-crafting materials (other gems, precious metals, etc.). For decades, the money that my mother, your father, our great-grandparents spent on fine jewelry that often symbolized their love for each other went into the pockets of corporations that were flourishing because of near-slave labor and human rights abuses. As this became more widely known in the past couple of decades, the consumers protested about how their money was being spent - I know I don't want to wear an "Eternity Ring" if what I'm wearing cost a 12 year old boy his innocence, or a 43 year old man his life. Because of consumer pressure, there are now corporations that can and do certify which jewels are produced from corporations whose mines do not engage in unsafe labor practices and human rights abuses. This is progress.
It is my opinion that your approach to the matter is thoroughly irresponsible for those people who find the right wing echo chamber harmful to our country. Sitting by does nothing to improve our situation. Simply not listening does not help - our money is still being spent to keep misinformation and hatred on the airwaves. Only by asserting our wallets can we effect any kind of meaningful change. It's a shame the change began with such a relatively meaningless host.
something that is meant to prevent free expression
That's one definition of censorship....can we say GOOGLE boys and girls? Here's another
Decisive acts of forbidding or preventing publication or distribution of media products, or parts of those products, by those with the power, either economic or legislative, to do so.
I would say Sharpton's standing puts him in the "those with power" catagory so either I don't understand the term censorship or you don't quite get the concept that one word can have more than on defintion. I guess while I'm taking my civics clas you could be looking into vocabulary.
Please confirm or deny: People who believe their money is being spent in ways that actively harm other people should sit down and shut up, because they have no right to say where they spend their money, or how that money is used by the corporations they give it to.
Yes or no?
Actually, they should stop purchasing those sponsors items. I have no problem with boycotting a sponsor but a concentrated effort to get someone fired by using pressure from a political group led by a race baiter like Sharpton wcich leads to censorship is scary. What happens if a powerful christian group decides to protest the discovery channels sponsors because they support evolution? This is a pandora's box that big Al has opened here. I actually found myself agreeing with Rosie O'donnel because even she sees that this method could potentially be used to silence other voices that are deemed "offensive".
"Actually, they should stop purchasing those sponsors items."
Huzzah! We have a point of commonality. I do agree with this, however, I also think that if you're going to stop purchasing items for a specific reason (aside from, "God! This stuff is CARP!"), you let the sponsor know why.
"I have no problem with boycotting a sponsor but a concentrated effort to get someone fired by using pressure from a political group led by a race baiter like Sharpton wcich leads to censorship is scary."
If that were the truth, it might be scary, but it's not what happened. Yes, JJ and AS were on TV because the white corporate media (in my opinion) really likes trotting them out because they feel the need to have a dark-skinned person on TV who is loud, opinionated, and obnoxious. It feeds their need to stimulate controversy all while they can claim to honor diversity. It's truly sickening and very manipulative, because the vast - VAST! - majority of minorities in this nation neither need, want, nor HAVE a "black leader" or a "spokesman" for their race. JJ and AS have a deep-seated need for power and attention, and it is the corporate media, which is largely controlled by white people, that feed it to them.
Getting back to the point, however, as much as AS & JJ got their media attention, they still were not the impetus for this. Others noticed Imus' remarks. Many of us who have known his history knew that this was not only one remark in many, but it was also hardly the worst thing this man has said on the air. I think the outrage truly came from two different places: Women and women's groups saw that in the eyes of the old white man no matter what they accomplish, they're nothing but whores; Black people and black interest groups saw that in the eyes of the old white man, no matter what they accomplish, they're still trashy and inferior. This is going to upset a LOT of people, and a LOT of people who give their hard earned dollars (TM) to the sponsors of the program.
"What happens if a powerful christian group decides to protest the discovery channels sponsors because they support evolution?"
Discovery likes to parade Jesus stuff too much for this to happen, although noteably not as much as History does. The better question is: What happens if a powerful christian group decides to boycott Disney because they let gay people marry in the park? The answer is: This has happened. The boycott fell on its face, because it was truly a non-issue for the vast majority of those people who patronize Disney. Conservative groups have been doing this for years, they're just not that good at it, because they tend to pick issues that aren't that popular.
"This is a pandora's box that big Al has opened here. I actually found myself agreeing with Rosie O'donnel because even she sees that this method could potentially be used to silence other voices that are deemed "offensive"."
I would agree that Imus was overly punished, even, though I know his history. I think he finally "got it" and would have repented accordingly, and I'd like to have seen him get that chance.
The diffeernce in the christian boycott of disney and the threatening of boycotts from Sharpton and other is that the christians were boycotting disney's policy toward homosexuality whereas the Imus backlash deals with silencing what his opinion. I do believe he should have been suspended but not fired. I think by your last point you might agree with that
Is a policy on homosexuality a statement in and of itself?
It is a statement but it comes from a company, not a single person. The boycott was against an entity not a quest to stifle one person's speech
It appears you are trying to have it both ways. You use a very broad definition of censorship above, which you will note does not make a distinction between media products of individuals and those of entities, which would seem to undermine the supposed relevance of your distinction.
"Decisive acts of forbidding or preventing publication or distribution of media products, or parts of those products, by those with the power, either economic or legislative, to do so."
"The diffeernce in the christian boycott of disney and the threatening of boycotts from Sharpton and other is that the christians were boycotting disney's policy toward homosexuality whereas the Imus backlash deals with silencing what his opinion."
Another perspective: Christians boycott Disney's policy regarding homosexuality, and these groups were threatening to boycott the Advertisers' policy regarding shock jocks.
But they were not trying to stifle the freedom of speech or press of a single person, that is the difference.
Imus was an employee. There is no "freedom of speech" issue here. Nobody owes him a radio show any more than they owe you one.
As for censorship, you can't throw that out there as if it's always wrong. If there was no censorship, they'd be showing porno on network television. If you didn't censor yourself, you'd say a lot of things you regretted later on. It's sort of like "discrimination". If you're a 400-pound male, you can't sue for discrimination because a strip club wouldn't hire you. Sure it's discimination, but it's fair discrimination. Similarly, censoring offensive (not differing) opinions is fair.
The bottom line is that being a shock jock doesn't give someone a license to say whatever they like and get away with it. It's a balancing act. You have to go far enough to keep the ratings up, but not far enough to alienate the audience and the sponsors. Imus screwed up one too many times, and he paid the price. Why anyone thinks it should have ended up differently is beyond me.
As previously pointed out you have the freedom to call a sponsor and say "Boy, I'm glad to see you're still sponsoring Michael Savage, because his hatred of homosexuals really speaks to me. I'm going to buy extra Tide this month as my way of saying thanks! Keep up the good work." (made me laugh BLR, great quote, worth repeating)
AND I have the right to call a Sponsor and say "Your supporting Michael Savage indicates to me your company supports hatred and has no integrity. I can no longer buy your products."
News and opinion entertainment is 100% percent based on the PUBLIC paying for the product, indirectly through SPONSORS or directly though paid subsription services. I am not sure if you arguing there could be abuse, by manipulating the PUBLIC in order to silence political voices. In that case I agree, and the Iraq war is example number one on how the PUBLIC and NEWS both can too easily be manipulated. However I would not want that power to be any other place than with the PUBLIC.
More appropriate analogies would be with regards to the conservative bans on Fahrenheit 9-11, the Dixie Chicks, Bill Maher and Phil Donahue's firings. Where were you back then? Was it wrong then?
I think it was wrong to fire Imus, but this is not a new phenomenon unless apparently you are a conservative.
The issue isn't that people disagree with their viewpoint, the issue is how they express their viewpoint. Why can't people demand a more responsible media in general rather than having to find other programming?
By your standards, people can say anything as long as their fans agree with them. If Beck suggested the solution to black hunger is for black people to eat their children, would your response be "turn the channel"? What if Rosie said it? Is there any point where you can agree that someone's comments are unacceptable?
Actually, yes, I do believe that hosts who don't tout themselves as 100% serious should have some leeway. I belive this for both ends of the spectrum. I listen to Savage, Beck, Boortz, etc., but I also enjoy Colbert and Stewart. The scary thing from the Imus case is the ability of a left wing campaign led by a known racist (diamond merchants anyone?) can influence someone's sponsors in a way where an individual is essentially censored, ironically the person in question is not a con but I digress.
>>The scary thing from the Imus case is the ability of a left wing campaign led by a known racist (diamond merchants anyone?)
What the heck are you talking about? Diamon merchants?
Sharptoan called jews "diamond merchants" at one point so I think that eliminates his opinion on race relations since he is a racist. I know it's unbelievable but black people can be racist as well
You are a very confused person. Colbert is parody of people like O'Reilly. It is inherently not to be taken seriously. People like Limbaugh run actual political shows. You can't tell me he doesnt' lean right. The leeway you so graciously grant Colbert is inherent in the premise of his program, which is not the case for the right-wing examples you cite.
So if Rosie said tomorrow that all Republicans should be castrated so they can't reproduce, you'd be the first in line to criticize all the right-wingers shouting about it.
Right.
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert spread hate speech? Really? Perhaps you have heard of their network, COMEDY CENTRAL. I am guessing your reply to that was Imus was just being funny and when all of the other hateful commentators listed above say something, its only a joke, right?
Seriously, I think the list here is to evaluate what people are saying. If the advertisers had stuck by Imus, he would still be on the air. Period. I am sure he will land on satellite radio and be just fine.
You really agree with all of those listed? So, you fear Muslims? You think that a kidnapped kid had more fun with his captors? Is Rush's "Barack the Magic Negro" on your IPod?
If sponsors of these men and women are made more aware of what their advertising dollars support and decide not to sponsor these individuals, is that censorship? C'mon!
"Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert spread hate speech? Really? Perhaps you have heard of their network, COMEDY CENTRAL. I am guessing your reply to that was Imus was just being funny and when all of the other hateful commentators listed above say something, its only a joke, right?" FRIEDBURGERBOY
You don't get it! They are ALL comedy or entertainment shows. Becks motto is "A Fusion of Enlightenment and Entertainment". It's all entertainment. Also, Imus has been saying this kind of stuff for YEARS - it's idiotic, but it's his shtick!
By the way...if advertisers pull out or they are not getting ratings and get let go, that's free market. My beef is with MMFA encouraging them to be fired because it doesn't agree with their political views. That's advocating censorship, which is dangerous and shouldn't be supported. It's just as bad as the Religious Right calling for boycotts of products that support programs that don't fit into THEIR narrow point of view.
Which political views of Imus do MMFA not suppport?
Thanks for misspelling my name :)! If they are merely entertainment, why is Rush on NEWSradio 850 out here in Denver. Why is Glenn Beck on Headline NEWS, why is Bill O'Reilly on Fox "NEWS?" The radio guys are on our airwaves and given a free platform. Stewart and Colbert are on cable and bill themselves as fake news.
I mean it's entertainment in the sense that they are trying to get listeners to tune in and be "entertained". John Stewart definitely mixes real commentary with obviously fake news (I am a fan of his show, by the way).
Sorry about the name misspell - My bad.
No offense taken, its just been a while since someone spelled my name as a product found at McDonald's.
The distinction I hold, for me is simple. My mother listens to Rush, O'Reilly, et al to get the news. She is aware there is commentary in there as well, but she thinks of them as legitimate news sources and not purely entertainment. Rush calls himself "America's Anchorman" which certainly makes it sound like what he is saying about general topics is pure news. Stewart and Colbert bring in their views, yes, but its not nearly the race baiting, gay baiting or what you hear on the shows mentioned above.
I'll say it again, this was not a censorship issue, but a sponsor issue. If the sponsors had stayed on board I guarantee you Imus would still be on CBS radio.
Yes - I totally agree with you that it is the sponsors and employer's call to fire someone and that is not a censorship issue. Employers should be able to hire / fire people as necessary. I don't even like Imus and think what he said was deplorable. That's not the issue.
My problem is with David Brock and MMFA compiling the hit list of other personalities who they deem to be offensive and advocate they all be removed from the air.
I think you have a good point there. MMFA loses me when they suggest hit lists like I believe they are doing here.
There are a lot of people who would agree with almost anything that is said on the radio, so what? If someone called for Bush to be shot on the White House lawn, does it really matter if people agree with them? Would you really take that into consideration when evaluating the nature of the comments? Would you argue that they have "free speech" and so nobody can hold them accountable for what they say?
I don't think so!
don't forget Ann "Big C" Coulter... I know she does a print column instead of a regular broadcast, but what's the difference? (that was rhetorical; I know FCC rules don't apply to the former)
she's done enough TV and radio to have offended many, many people... wasn't that gay slur about Edwards broadcast on C-SPAN? this woman should have been fired a long time ago for her comments both in her column and in public appearances... yet last time I checked, she was still gainfully employed... that should change...
Interesting point regarding Coulter's crack about Edwards.
I interpreted it as a sarcastic remark aimed at liberals and Edwards. In the context of the speech she gave, she was referencing the actor who checked into rehabilitation for using the term. Many of us find that checking into rehab for expressing a very un PC attitude to be laughable. Of course she was also using it at the expense of Edwards who has the 'pretty boy' makeup video to try to live down.
Be that as it may, (and correct me if I am wrong,) but I've been told some gays use fa****t when describing other gays, much like some blacks use the terms Imus used.
I have no love for Imus, so I am not at all sorry to see him go, but the broader implication is that use of words are deemed hate when used by some are accepted when used by others. Why is that? Why do we let some people say such things with impunity while others are reviled?
"Be that as it may, (and correct me if I am wrong,) but I've been told some gays use fa****t when describing other gays, much like some blacks use the terms Imus used.
I have no love for Imus, so I am not at all sorry to see him go, but the broader implication is that use of words are deemed hate when used by some are accepted when used by others. Why is that? Why do we let some people say such things with impunity while others are reviled?"
My issue with your statement is that in a way it assumes that everyone is participating in selective outrage. People have been called out for saying such things with impunity. All the black rappers and comedian that some have been quick to bring up have had their critics in the past, present and most likely the future. Many people are trying to imply that the black community as a whole has a double standard and that isn't true. Some people have a double standard, many don't. When this talking point keeps getting parroted on fox and the like, the are basically broad generaliztions that don't hold up. THere has been tons of criticism about the entertainment industry and the amount innapropriate content and language, so at the end of the day this talking point does hold up. Are people conveniently forgetting that the hip hip community and the segment of the black community that partakes in this dialogue have been being scrutinized for years by the public at large and amongst the black community?
"Be that as it may, (and correct me if I am wrong,) but I've been told some gays use fa****t when describing other gays,"
When you find a gay person who uses the term f*ggot to DENIGRATE another person let us know.
Sigmund Freud said everyone needs atleast one thing to hate to be happy. Who will we feel better then and demonize once we censor everyone in talk radio? What will Media Matters do if this country becomes completly sanatized and child approved?
I really hate what you're doing. You're not standing for the freedom of speech.
If only they would JUST spread hate. They do so in large part by spreading lies and distortions. And then their audience votes.
This situation highlights the situation that this great country of ours finds itself in.You can bring out documents,photos,videotape,etc.And you will still get another reason as to why the evidence whatever argument you may be having just isn"t good enough.Here in the east at 1.30 pm CNN is bringing on three more t.v spokespeople to answer the question did the punisment fit the crime.It is clear by now that applying these standards to the people who this discussion is about,I am quite sure the post and comments would be the same regardless of who is being ignorant.
I can't stand Glenn Beck, but I'd have invited Antonella over too.
It seems as though David Brock and some of you have forgotten that this is America. This is a free capitalist country based on a specific set of rights that are undeniable. People are allowed to do what they want within the law, and if there are enough like-minded people to support such activity, then so be it.People like David Brock and Al Sharpton are all about free speech as long it supports their own causes. The minute someone speaks out against what they believe in, they want them taken down and quieted. This is similar to the Weather Channel meteorologist who wanted the AMS to revoke the license of any meteorologist that didn't agree with her viewpoint of global warming.It's stupid.If people don't agree with you, silence them? Is that what you're saying?No David Brock, you can't have it both ways. You have the right to express your opinion any way you wish within the law, and so does everyone else. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are just as guilty of hate speech as Don Imus or Michael Savage, but they all have the right to speak their mind. If you want Imus, Savage, Boortz, Beck, etc. silenced for expressing their honest opinion, then logic dictates that your organization, website, publications and media appearances must be equally silenced. It's all or nothing David.
Wow, you people are hilarious. Free speech to you is the right for someone to earn millions of dollars to make biggotted remarks. Oh, poor Imus! Poor free speech! Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves because hacks can't be guarenteed the righte of millions of dollars to say dumb things.
By the way, why are you against David Brock's free speech to experess himself?
Just as I thought. This was just the beginning. Brock and Media Matters ultimate goal is to get all conservatives off of radio and T.V. They know that they can't compete against conservative thought in the market place of ideas, so they have to try to silence conservatives through censorship. David Brock is becoming more and more like Joe McCarthy all the time. What he's doing is sick and disgusting. He and Media Matters thinks that anything that doesn't toe the liberal line 100% of the time is hate speech. To him and the new and dangerous neo-fascist left, simply voicing conservative opinions amounts to hate speech. I know that several traditional liberals on this website have condemned this new and dangerous form of neo-fascist liberalism, and I applaud you for that. This is a crucial issue. We need to preserve free speech rights in this country, or else we will end up being no different than a Communist country. I hope that all of the traditional liberals out there will stand with me and condemn this new and dangerous anti free speech movement. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Those on both sides of the aisle should condemn all efforts to stifle free speech.
>>David Brock is becoming more and more like Joe McCarthy all the time.
With the exception that McCarthy was lying and Brock is not. Besides that, though, they are identical.
I suppose you have failed to notice that Brock is not attacking anyone for expressing a conservative opnion. He is attacking for them for using hate speech.
"I suppose you have failed to notice that Brock is not attacking anyone for expressing a conservative opnion. He is attacking for them for using hate speech." - funnymanpants / Friday April 13, 2007 03:17:53 PM EST
And that's YOUR opinion. I don't think it's "hate speech" so why do you want to infringe on my right to listen to and enjoy conservative talk radio.
I don't infringe on your right. I didn't have the power to fire Imus; that was a corporate deision.
What MMFA posted here is a good list of hate speech. I'm sorry you want to play dumb and pretend it is not. Calling someone a "sl**t" is just oh so not funny and oh so fricking stupid.
"What MMFA posted here is a good list of hate speech"
Once again, that's just your opinion. You aren't the final arbritor of truth. If you don't like these conservatives, then don't listen to them. But don't tell me what I can and can't watch or listen to. Try being an actual liberal and stand up for 1st Amendment rights. You think that any kind of conservative opinion is hate speech. No one side of the political spectrum engages in "hate speech" any more than the other side. Controversial remarks happen occasionally, and they are protected by the 1st Amendment. The FCC has the authority to regulate obscene content, but not political speech or even speech that you may find to be controversial. The government does not have the Constitutional right to control political speech.
God grief! And the crazziness continues. Yes, it is my option that calling someone a "sl**t" is hate speech. Just like it might be, say, your option that murdering someone is wrong (which after all is a moral judgement and an opinion). You make it sound that because I have an opinion on what is hate speech that my option must be discounted.
You need to look up the 1st ammendment. Hint: it doesn't guarentee the right for idiots to make milllions of dollars.
And on that line nof thought, you know who else is a McCarthyite and against free speech? The conservative NRO, who fired fired Ann Coulter for her hateful comment that the US should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Wow, the NRO was vioating free speech long before MMFA!
"You need to look up the 1st ammendment. Hint: it doesn't guarentee the right for idiots to make milllions of dollars"
That may just be the dumbest statement I've ever read in my life. They made that money by their own hard work. They put on shows that are entertaining and millions want to listen to. Most of these people all have large audiences, and they built those audiences through hard work, not luck. Liberal talk radio has failed simply because nobody buys the crap they say. People don't like to listen to commentators bash the U.S.A. all the time. These private citizen commentators like Rush and Hannity can say whatever they want to say, because they don't receive any taxpayer money. The government does not have the right to regulate private political speech.
Like I keep saying, keep it coming! Be totally over the top crazy and stupid! I just love it!
You claim you have read the dumbest thing ever. Just read your own post if you want to see a real example of that.
I know how these hate mongers make their money. Getting them fired so that they can no longer make millions is not a violation of the first ammendment. Have you even read the 1st ammendment--do you know what it says? I'm beginning to wonder.
But I am proud of you for standing up for these American's rights to earn millions by calling women "sl**ts" and "bi**tches." It warms my heart.
"Besides that, though, they are identical."
Wow. That's quite an admission there. I hope you're proud of that. Also, you and the other anti-free speech liberals think that any kind of conservative views is hate speech. You just use that word as a cover to give your censorship views more credibility. It really is unbelievably frightening what Brock is trying to do here. If he had his way we would be no different from a Communist or fascist country. Those of us who support freedom of speech rights, conservatives, moderates, and traditional liberals, need to come together and fight this new form of neo-fascist liberalism that seeks to end free speech rights.
God that was a supid post. I was being ironical! Good grief! If McCarthy lies and Brock doesn't then they are obviously very, very different people.
Can you see the difference now?
Please, Rhino, don't go away! Your posts are absolutely hilarious.
So first: Calling someone a "sl**t" is just my definitoin of hate speech. Or calling them a "bi**tch." That's just my opinon, of course.
Then: if we don't pay idiots millions of dollars to say hateful things, we are going to be like a communist country! (Or maybe like Canada, or Germany, or any of the rest of the industrail world that can't believe we have let our news turn into a scream fest.)
"Then: if we don't pay idiots millions of dollars to say hateful things, we are going to be like a communist country"
You don't have to pay one dime to these people!! These are all private radio stations that employ private citizens. These talk show hosts do not receive any money from the government. As I said, if you don't like listening to these people, then don't listen. It's that simple. Our tax dollars are not going to these media people. They are employed by private citizens and have the right to say whatever they want to say.
The sad thing is that you are serious.
I never said I paid a dime to these people. Nor did I say government did. Are you just playing dumb?
I am criticizing your argument that we are violating Imus's 1st ammendment rights. No, we are not. Read the constitution before you quote it. The only thing "we" (actually it was a CEO decions, but for the sake of simplicity let us pretend that the left influenced it) did was get Imus fired. He can no longer makes money by saying dumb things. Getting him fired is not a violation of the 1st ammendment.
Got it?
In reference to your comments about Michael Smerconish ant the first two example you used. How are these the same as what Imus has done? Even with what you wrote you can plainly read them as personal opinions. Is that not what we have the right to here in America? As far as the private prayer area at Giant Stadium, don't we want a seperation of Church and State? From my take of his opinion, he sees this as suspicious considering who we were attacked by on 9/11 and the area at the stadium these men chose to pray (Near an airvent and with former President Bush in attendance). Again this is his personal opinion that it appeared to be suspicious to him. How can you blame a man for having a personal opinion?
Now with your example of him and Dr. Soo Kim Abboud, you neglected to state that he praised Dr. Abboud and that he agreed with her and her parents. It is a very fair question though that he asked, will Dr. Abboud with her success and her time at her job have the same time and effort available to her for her children as her parents did for her? That is a fair question of common sense that Dr. Abboud welcomed. How can you twist that?
Now I can see how a very liberal sports talk show host, Howard Eskin, claimed that because of this Imus issue a witch-hunt will begin. Here it is.
Media Matters is so right - unfettered free speech is dangerous. All these scary radio hosts need to be sent to re-education camps. It is definately worth sacrificing some of our freedoms so our society may eliminate the threat posed by a small number of white male conservative commentators. We need a federal speech committee to determine what may or may not be said. I truly trust politicans with these types of decisions. They will act for the greater good and purge our society of any unsavory speech peddled by white male conservatives. We need protection from this sort of thing! Let blood-letting.. opps, I mean, healing.. begin!
More crazziness. So MMFA is advocating reeducation camps? Wow, I didn't now! (Have you heard of strawman?)
Pooor Imus and poor free speech! What is going to happen to American when dumb jerks can't get paid millions of dollars to say bigotted remarks.
I don't care what Media Matters or any other organization, corporation, person or private adovacy group boycotts, etc... I just think that federal government's role in regulating speech should be as limited as possible. It will always control the licensing of the air waves, and, as a result, what is said on the air waves to some degree. But Media Matters clearly wants greater regulation - in the form of the fairness doctrine. I have the same view of MM as I did about the PMRC back in the day. And MM's efforts are likely to have the same effect as the PMRC - increasing the popularity of the thing of which it disapproves. Ice T wrote a song called "Freedom of Speech" in 1989 - check out the lyrics directed towards Ms. Gore. Should he have lost his record contract over the song? Leave that to the record company and consumers to decide, not the federal government. That is my point.
What are you talking about? MMFA has never advocated federal censorship. Either have I. I am wholeheartedly against any federal censorship as is every liberal on this board. The government shouldn never, ever, make laws determing what people say.
MMFA has never advocated federal censoship. So please stop making things up.
Re-read my post. I specifically chided MM for its support of the Fairness Doctrine. I drew a comparison to the PMRC, which by the way, did not advocate censorship either. It advocated voluntary ratings and labels of records (which were instituted as a result and exist to this day). But the broader point is that the less government regulation of speech, the better. However, there is a great irony here. At the time of the PMRC, many liberals, including one very articulate Frank Zappa, argued against the labels. They claimed it was a step on the slippery slope towards censorship. My how times have changed. In another irony, the fairness doctrine used to be wrongly supported by many Republican-types since they felt so out-numbered in the media. My view is not partisan - it is just a concern about the proper role of government in regulating speech. That is the core issue. Corporations will always follow their sponsorship money for better or worse, but the government's precise role can be changed by legislation within the limits of the first amendment. Given the general silliness of politicans on the right and left, I do not trust the federal government with regulating speech. Am I wrong about the fact that MM advocates the fairness doctrine?
You don't know what you're talking about. It's a documented fact that David Brock wants to bring back The Fairness Doctrine. It has always been liberals that have supported the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives have always been against it. Conservatives stand up for free speech, and many liberals do not. There are still a few traditional liberals out there who support free speech rights, but they are becoming fewer in number. It's a known fact that MMFA wants to silence all of the conservatives mentioned in this post. Whether they do it through an angry mob like they did with Imus or through government censorship, the goal is the same. To get as many conservatives off the air as possible, so that they don't get their asses kicked over and over again in substantive debates with these conservatives.
Dear Mr. Rhino Hunterman,
I don't what talking about? I'm not sure why you wrote that - the whole point of my post was to criticize MM for supporting the Fairness Doctrine and to note the irony of the liberals abandoning free speech concerns. But regarding the Fairness Doctrine, you plainly are ill informed. See the quote today from Byron York's excellent article in the NRO regarding MM's intentions and past Republican support for it - a well known historical fact. But that has little to do with the current issue that brought me to this silly webpage - the PC witch hunt, which MM apparently wants to expand. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzUyYTg3YzUwOWY0NjRiOTU4MjNmNzc3MTk3OGQzYWY="One seldom-remarked irony of the current controversy is that in the 1980s debate over the Fairness Doctrine, some of the Doctrine’s loudest defenders were conservative activists. The late Reed Irvine, who founded the group Accuracy In Media, argued that repeal would make the problem of liberal bias in the media even worse. “Many [broadcasters] have done no more than pay lip service to fairness even when it was required by law,” Irvine wrote in a letter to the New York Times in 1987. “It is foolish to think that they would suddenly become addicted to fairness if all legal restraints on their uninhibited exercise of power were removed.” In addition, some conservatives used the Doctrine to file suits against media organizations — among other cases, the Doctrine was part of Gen. William Westmoreland’s action against CBS News. After repeal of the Doctrine and the growth of conservative talk radio, those activists abandoned their opposition."
I think the Fairness Doctrine is wrong-headed and I always have. The freemarket isn't perfect, but I don't think the government should insinuate itself into what content is on the airwaves. I think they do way too much of that now.
I don't want to silence conservatives, I just want them to back up their opinions reasonably and honestly.
Or would that be the same thing as silencing them, after all?
They can back their opinions up however they want to. You don't get to tell them how to run their shows. You don't get to make up your own definition of reasonably and honestly either. I do believe that they back up their opinions reasonable and honestly. I also believe that liberals usually resort to personal attacks more often than do conservatives. It just depends on what side of the politicle aisle you are on. That's why we need free speech, because no one can ever be 100% right! We can only have debates and persuade each other that our way is right!
"They can back their opinions up however they want to. You don't get to tell them how to run their shows. You don't get to make up your own definition of reasonably and honestly either. I do believe that they back up their opinions reasonable and honestly."
Interesting that the first thing that comes to your mind is that they don't have to reply reasonably and honestly. Then it occurs to you that they do argue in that manner. That seems just a bit odd, and suggests to me that you know that they're dishonest and often off the deep end. The examples of that behavior is shown here every day, and on this very thread in particular.
It should also be noted that your opinion of what is honest and reasonable is coming from someone who argues that black people are intellectually inferior. That should help to define your side of this rather well.
As far as personal attacks are concerned, I think we know what your criteria are. Limbaugh saying that Michael J. Fox is faking his symptoms is not a personal attack, but quoting Limbaugh saying that is an attack on him. Otherwise, I'm sure you have no basis for your conclusions, as usual.
I was replying to the Funnymanpants guy, not you. I agree with you on the censorship issue. Read all of my posts and you will see that.
Well, gotta go. Nice blacklist mmfa! McCarthy would be proud.
And the silliness continues. MMFA is against hate speech is the same as McCarthy. Who knew McCarthy was a progessive way before his time!
Why can't hatemongers have the right to make millions of dollars to say stupid things? Oh Brock, you are so unAmerican!
You are behind the times. Ann Coulter has said that McCarthy was actually a hero. No. I'm not kidding! Therefore it is the new truth.
Nice!
great job mm! this is stuff to print and save. a few days ago, billo had an e-mailer on his kangaroo court of a program and asked her to cite one specific instance of his hate speech. clearly flustered at not being able to come up with one immediately, she admitted she could not. had she had the very list on this mm blog, she would have discredited him right then and there. bill o'reilly, this century's worst fox noise liar! (and that's sayin' somethin').
The truth comes out on media matters -- they [media matters and the left wing george soros crowd] hate the 1st amendment.
Conservative talk radio and Christian history/speech in the public square is the greatest threat to the liberals because it speaks Truth and Morality.
God help us if Hillary takes the White House -- Freedom will be lost across the board.
Another person who doesn't know what the 1st ammendment says.
Hint: it doesn't say biggotted morons get the right to earn a million dollars for saying dumb things.
Brock's selective moral outrage disguised as concern for hate speech in general is transparent as air. This along with choosing race hustling hypocrites Sharpton and Jackson as spokesgoons is backfiring on Brock and the neofascist Left as we speak.
"This is just the beginning"???? HA! Yeah, the beginning of the end of your charade. I think you better find a rain barrel to put on your naked Emperor Brock!
Beck on this year's MLK Day said that he himself was an Oreo.
Is that more stupid or offensive?
Since you are accusing other media outlets of "misinformation", I suggest you take some of you own advice. By cherry picking which statements to include on you website and leaving out pertinent information about the context of such statements, you are contributing to the very problem you claim to be fighting. Your convenient use of the . . . is despicable. Since you are taking the time to tape all of these radio and television programs, try taking a moment and actually listen to one with an open mind, leaving aside your obvious agenda. You might be surprised what you hear!
What about Bill Bennet? Anyone else thinking he should be on here? Oh yeah, and "Dubyah" too. If you haven't seen the fan-made music video of the Legendary K.O. song Bush Doesn't Care About Black People, go to [link to gnn.tv]
There used to be a time in America when "liberals" proudly claimed that they "disagree with what conservatives have to say, but will die for their right to say it."
Sadly, that mindset is all but gone from the American left. The liberal/progressives of today are nothing more than petty little Euro-state-socialists and neo-fascists who seek to silence all those with whom they disagree.
http://www.savage-productions.com/savage_rap.html
WeinerSavage has now become MC WeinerSavage.
Yeah --his rap is awesome -- he's totally the man.
go savage.
I don't get it. I listened to it and read the lyrics. I don't see where the humor in it is. Was it supposed to be funny? If not, that's fine! I just don't see the point of recording a song when you have no talent if it's not funny. It certainly didn't have any other aesthetically pleasing qualities.
This article is perhaps the biggest piece of blowhard writing that you have attempted in sometime. The list of people you did not include is astouding. Where is Al, Jesse, Rosie, Keith, Bill and on and on. You front for the "Vast left wing-nuts" and then try to portray others as incompetent. This article is truly one sad and pathetic piece of dung literature.
Silly conservative! Don't you realize that libs don't have to comply to fairness standards? Only when conservative radio and foxnews are stopped can we truly have a balanced media.
I am No conservative, but neither am I a Liberral. I say I hope both sides rot in Hell where you belong!
David Brock, president and CEO of Media Matters, once wrote that Anita Hill was a "little bit nutty, a little bit sl*tty."
Hill, of course, was an African-American woman who had gone through law school.
When will Media Matters fire Brock?
Note: I initially tried to post this without the asterisk. I received an error message advising me to try to express my opinion without profanity. This is yet more evidence that Brock used a term to describe an African-American woman that is unacceptable.
As solon pointed out, Brock wrote a book length mea culpa on his misdeeds with regards to Miss Hill long, long before anyone (like you) ever said anything about it. Perhaps you should read that book if you have any lingering issues with him.
They forgot Ann Coulter
Savage should add Imus to his "Political Zoo", 2nd edition...
Imus was a tired, old, moderate liberal with practically no audience ("Talkers Magazine" lists his show way back in ratings at #21 in terms of listenership).....he was like the tired, old, sick gazelle, blind in one eye, and just waiting to be drug down by filthy, blood-covered hyenas like the fake reverend, Al Sharkton.
Of course, street hucksters, con men and cowards like Sharpton & Jesse won't take on a true lion like the mighty Michael Savage......he'd bite their black asses off!
Strange times. I've heard some allusions in independant media to some big-time celebrities possibly making some radical statements about some very touchy issues in the near future, so this whole Imus affair seems like a pre-emptive deterrent measure...stay tuned!
FUNNYMANPANTS,
In typical liberal fascist form, you completely dodge the point of others arguments and repeat the same claim over and over. You say that some of us don't understand the First Amendment, but you are wrong. It is you who doesn't fully grasp the meaning of our First Amendment. You are, however, partially correct. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to make millions of dollars using hate speech, but it doesn't deny it either.
As I stated in my original comment, America is a free capitalist society. Savage, Imus, Beck, Boortz, Rush, etc. aren't breaking any laws. They've built careers out of their ability to voice their opinion. They've found sponsors that agree with them and are willing to support them financially.
Guess what? You, David Brock, Al Sharpton and the like have the same freedom to express your dislike of conservative media personalities. You have the right to disagree with them. How do you do that? You can turn them off and listen to something else. You can choose not to listen to them.
This is America. Everyone individual has the right to choose what they listen to on the radio and see on T.V. You do NOT, however, have the right make those decisions for others. The Media Matters organization and people that support it are trying to silence those that they disagree with in the media. Granted, you are not trying to force federal censorship, but you're still trying to make decisions for others because you think you what's best for everyone else.
Now, to address the Imus issue. Imus was fired because the sponsors pulled out. That's how our free market works. He made a mistake, and suffered the consequences. Here's the problem I have with how things happenedMedia Matters, opportunistic as they are, shot off an e-mail blasting Imus for his comment toward the basketball team in a attempt to get the attention of some bigger puppets that could stir up some trouble. They succeeded. When the story first got traction in the major media, it was simply told that Don Imus made yet another controversial comment in poor taste.Enter Al Sharpton. In typical Sharpton fashion, he instantly played the race card and used that to get himself on T.V. to stir up a media frenzy. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson began pressuring CBS and MSNBC to fire Imus for his comment. For a short time, the networks stood their ground and handed down a two week suspension. Then, under the same pressure, the sponsors jumped ship. This is where everything gets fishy.Don Imus has been the same guy for 30 years. He's had the same foul attitude, and used the same language since day one. The major sponsors that ran away had been running ads with Imus for years and years knowing full well who he is and what he is about. Suddenly, the bright light of the mass media brought on by Sharpton's racial arsonist tactics was shining down on the situation. Then, and only then, did they decide to get a conscience. There's something wrong there.
Just because you don't agree with someone's opinion doesn't mean you get to bully them into silence with street thug methods. Everyone has equal freedom in expressing their own beliefs. If you want to silence someone for their opinion, then you must also silence yourself.
So let me get this straight. Media Matters is evil because it merely publicized what Imus already made public on the airwaves. It did not, to the best of my knowledge, engage in a systematic effort to get him fired. Nevertheless, because the words of Imus struck a chord with many who decided to use their free speech rights to hold the sponsers of Imus accountable, Media matters is supposedly censoring Imus and anti free speech. REPEAT - MEDIA MATTERS DID NOT GET IMUS FIRED - THEY JUST PUBLICIZED WORDS HE ALREADY MADE PUBLIC.
So pointing out the public statements of others publically = being anti-free speech.
As far as the hit-list goes, all it does is point out that many conservatives make similar hateful statements. Maybe I missed somthing but I don't believe the article called for the firing or incarceration of those on the list, only that Imus is not alone. MCcarthy did call for the firing or worse of his targets.
If all you "wallowing in your victimization" conservatives are so upset, why don't you pressure the sponsers and the networks to bring Imus back and defend his "right to slur" on the public airwaves.
David Brock, and his transparent attempt at partisan censorship here is far, far more offensive and disturbing than ANYTHING, ANYTHING that Imus, Limbaugh, Bortz, etc. have EVER said.
His tricky method of blurring the lines in order to transfer the public mindset from largely Democrat friendly Imus to conservative radio commentators is disgusting and of course, inaccurate.
ANYONE can take a few clips and out of context quotes and construct just about ANY kind of person they wish.
In fact, a fair and thorough and in context listening to the ranks of those he falsely lambasts will result in a completely opposite picture, and it becomes evident that people of Brock's ilk are IN FACT WHAT they accuse others of being.
Media matters and Brock attempt to paint themselves as innocent, valuable and ethical "watchdogs", but they are no less the partisan hacks that they attempt to portray their political enemies as being, all the while keeping it a big secret from the uninformed public.
And these disingenuous DNC operatives presume to tell us all about ethics and honesty, and expect everyone to adopt their particular definition of "accepted" speech.
If this attempt doesn't send a chill up your spine, you're truly unfamiliar with the ideals and concepts this country was founded upon.
GTK - this comments board is getting ridiculous and you can't find any particular post but I opened up to yours and thought I'd respond.
If you weren't being completely dishonest with yourself you'd be able to admit that MediaMatters went after Imus with incredible gusto and I think they considered that a little bit and chose to repost the vile stuff conservatives have said. For you to say that exposing those hateful things is Much, Much worse than what say, Boortz has said, is absolutely ridiculous.
This is a site that proclaims their goals - to expose conservative hatespeech; so....what's your problem?
Neo-fascist, street-huckster hyenas kill a tired old hippie.
....now, where will Chris Dodd declare his candidacy in 2012?
LOL!
SAVAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And there isn't a one of you lefties who thinks that all of this, Imus included, is not just the exercise of free speech?
Free speech does not necessarily mean everything that is said will be (a) innoffesive to all listeners or (b) agreeable to your own point of view. It is entirely within the rigts of private broadcasters to decide what content their programming will have. CBS is entitled to fire Imus if they wish because they do not like his content, but neither the state nor other private citizens have the right to compel them to do this. This same is true of every last one of these other editorialists Media Matters has singled out. Their broadcasters are free to fire them if they do not like their content. Calls to silence them through coercion are simply censorship, something the left seems to have a flair for.
I get the impression you and your ilk don't think it's that big a deal to misinform the electorate. You wouldn't probably want to personally misinform YOUR president, Bush, but apparantly misinforming the people who put him and the congress in office is the American way.
The Imus story has raised public awareness and therefore the bar on hatespeech currently practiced by the Republicans. Americans need a civil discourse to discuss our issues and arrive at conclusions. When our media is controlled by the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter or Hannity, we don't get the truth but do get Republican propaganda and the resulting hatespeech. Because of this, Americans are misinformed. We must return to civil discourse and respect in our media.
Tell that to HymieTown jackson and the Anti-Jewish Sharpton!
You really should whittle this down to the most offensive matterial. Most of this makes you look small and petty. Bill Maher was essentially right when he said it makes you look like sissies. And where are your attacks on him him? He called Bush "sh*t for brains" Friday night. Not that I mind but it's worse than some of the irrelevant stuff you listed here. Look, Imus attacked innocent schoolgirls with a very clear insult. He wasn't uttering disdain for some political pol or corporate scam artist. You're casting to wide a net and padding the list with filler. It makes you look bad.
Can you set these comments to allow sorting newest first. I'm clicking page after page AGAIN to get to the end and I'm half way and I'm tired of it so I'm going to another website.
Yeah I just signed up today, and the design of the comments is horrible, a couple of options to go to the end and pick a range to view would be cool. Its definetely not worth the bother.
This collection of quotes is evidence. The original audio ought to be broadcast in place of the Imus show, or maybe over the Emergency Broadcast Service, so that everyone gets the idea that the guy who got fired was an angelic, silver-tongued sweetie-pie in comparison. Only in comparison.
Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton have done more for this country than anybody on that list ever did combined. Get your facts straight people and read your history if you are under 45 and you'll see why these gentlemen are respected around the world and weild the clout they do.
I wonder if the dimond merchants and hymies respect them, since apparently thats how they view jews. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" you'd think these "reverends" would know that one.
diamond, diamond, diamond, diamond, diamond.....there now I've got it down
Jessie HymieTown Jackson has done Nothing for anybody but himself. He is a complete anti-Jewish NUT and with a Grandfather who had a first name of Hyman, I will never forget or forgive this Nut Jackson for his HYMIETOWM name calling. You picked a Bigoted Racist as your Hero. Screw YOU TOO!
I notice that foul mouth Rosie O'Donnell is not on this list. Why is that? She is every bit as offensive as Michael Savage. Could it be further evidence of hypocrisy on the left?
knowing the left i'm sure they'll find a way to somehow increase their hypocrisy....they always seem to pull that off.
You act as if conservatives aren't entirely hypocritical as well on the issue by the same standard. When is the last time mrc.org, aim.org or newsbusters.org criticized Limbaugh? Yet you seem to indicate mmfa is hypocritical for not attacking prominent liberals?
Michelle Malkin is leading the effort to get her fired. If sponsors and the public really feel that's warranted, then they can certainly follow her advice. Personally, when she made her comments about tower 7 I myself said she needs to have a reasonable basis for making them, since they lead to extremely serious insinuations.
Fair enough?
I don't know, maybe you should stroll on over to mrc.org, aim.org or newsbusters.org and ask them why they don't go after the people in this article. I smell some conservative hypocrisy there.
The problem with your position is that you expect your enemy -- the liberals to unilaterally disarm while your side makes no changes at all.
Pretty disingenuous and self-serving argument as usual.
MMFA focuses on these individuals because they know your side won't do it. I imagine your side does the same about those they focus on. Wake up a little and smell the coffee.
It looks like what we have here is a bunch of attention starved manipulating little tattle-tales, kind of like that kid in 3rd grade you remember who's main goal was to catch someone doing something he knew the teacher wouldn't like, and then run run run to tell her all about it. And of course if necessary, he would also tweak and exaggerate the story just enough to insure action by the teacher so he could then get that delicious rush of power through his bloodstream.
The more savvy teachers would catch on to the self-serving ploy, and would call the divisive little wrench-thrower on it.
[link to tinyurl.com]
Interesting info. Thanks for the link. It is pretty funny how the right is trying to depict Imus as a liberal.
why not just focus on a few main people at first and launch a campaign against them? i would suggest: Glenn Beck, Neil Bortz, and and maybe savage or dr. laura. of course maybe all these people will go xm, but at least they can't vent for free listeners which eliminates lots of people.
jesse and al sharpton say they've protested before. when, where, who? notice how oprah didn't speak out angrily until it was all over and she jumped the bandwagon. where had her voice been all this time? russell simons is one of her close friends.
during the 2000 campaign, bush, coming from west coast, made a special effort to not only visit, but spend the night in the little home of rush limbaugh's mother in like kansas or missoui. he's too much in bed daily with bush personally to get too.
why not try the smaller fish first?
bg
We're forgetting the executives and must complete the cycle here. If Imus has been getting away with hurting people, then Capus must go too. Capus was the gatekeeper. The one question I haven't heard asked in the Imus affair is WHY did Capus let this goon, as he has backgrounded the situation?
Then there's MSNBC. It shouldn't escape punishment by dumping Imus and Capus. If they truly want to lead a dialogue on the bigger issue, I suggest that they donate the profits they've made on their Imus simulcast to the Sharpton/Jackson efforts to go after the rappers and comedians.
Surely, this would make a watershed statement. And, I understandfrom reports, that the Imus revenues were just a drop in the NBCcoffers anyway.
I suggest they donate the money for Sharpton and Jackson all right, to put those two Bigots in jail for all the crimes they have committed against humanity. Both of them are Bigoted Jew Haters from way back. Let's get those two BIGOTS NOW!
Too many posts to read, but here is my take: should public displays of bigotry be redacted for decorum sake? Perhaps it is preferable to let the bigots have their say, let them illustrate for us their ignorance, so we can laugh at what fools they are.
“Look, honey, see the bigot. Listen to the torrent of nothings coming from him. He, too, must be nothing.”
That is how we should punish Don Imus, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Laugh at them, turn away, and ignore them.
It is just words, stupid ignorant words, spoken by jangling jesters of a bygone era. Words have never killed or maimed. That is why humans invented clubs, swords, bullets, cannons, and nuclear weapons: to do the violence words cannot bring off.
I bet the Iraqis wish Bush 43 had gone on TV and called them all a bunch of backward-ass sand ni**ers. There sure as hell would be a whole lot less dead people.Randy
Not Bad!
Let's not forget Boortz is a Certified Liar, a Certified "Chickenhawk" on only a High School Graduate! How is all that possible? Boortz until Sept '05, claimed he couldn't serve in the Viet-nam War because he was 4-F,(bad eyes,asthma) WRONG! A FOIA outed him and also led to the discovery he had flunked out of Texas A&M! While in school ('64-'67) he was in the ROTC Unit that protected him from the draft,but after 3 semesters he dropped out,and then completely flunked out in June of '67!
But "Rule of Law "Boortz never informed the Selective Service of his change of status, after quitting ROTC and then flunking out completely, as required by Federal Law informed the Selective Service of his "Change of Status" "BUT" when his daughter was born ,9 months after he left Texas A&M,with his head stuck up his A** Boortz all of a sudden remembered to update his draft status ,one that protected him from being drafted, ever!
Boortz then until 2005, told anyone who was listening, how he had graduated from College and was 4-F. He went as far to have listed in his bio's that he had graduated from Texas A&M in '67! But no more.
That's some insight to a bigot's early lying life! Go to the Archives Section of johnsugg.com For the months Sept-Oct '05,and Mar-May '06 for verification
What about Ann Coulter?
That's all well and good, CPL FRANK, and we'll assume for the sake of argument that it's all true about Boortz.
Now, let's pretend you're a talk show host and you've just called someone a "liar", a "certified chickenhawk", a lawbreaker, and a "bigot". (Keep in mind that Glenn Beck called Rosie "A Fat Witch", *gasp*, and that's simply unacceptable, according to David Brock and media matters.)
Someone with the ear of the media has been monitoring your broadcasts and makes them aware of this barrage of "highly offensive insults", as they presume to define them, and everyone starts calling for your job. You don't have the right to use the public airwaves to make such "hurtful" accusations, they say. This is not the way we want to teach our kids to behave, no no no, so they decide.
Before you know it, you're fired. You're canned. Not necessarily because of the accuracy of your accusations and their complete context, but because of a bunch of ginned up emotions and attention that only existed because some busybody tattletale made it their mission to bring you down, while of course ignoring whatever Beck, Limbaugh, etc. ever say. You'll of course never work again in radio, being under this rather manufactured dark cloud.
Let's stop trying to destroy people's livelihoods for simply expressing their views. Will you be next? Let's stop with all this "monitoring" of perfectly innocent and well-meaning Americans, especially while at the same time screeching about the same thing being done in the name of the Patriot Act.
Let's BOTH SIDES knock the ginning up, and mass flash emailing OFF. It's artificial, inauthentic, and invariably results in injustices being done and free speech being choked off or put under a cloud of fear.
I don't think anyone who truly respects the right of free speech wants this, unless of course they're self-serving partisan hacks who of course exist on both sides of the political aisles.
"...Let's stop with all this "monitoring" of perfectly innocent and well-meaning Americans, especially while at the same time screeching about the same thing being done in the name of the Patriot Act." --gtskauai3556
Actually I think the monitoring is a very good idea. It keeps these people honest or at least helps to hold them accountable for their misinformation and/or silliness. If they weren't monitored, their claims of being "taken out of context" or "I never said that" could not be challenged. Maybe you would like that.
As to the Patriot Act, I think you know there is a substantial difference between government activity and public activity. It is pretty odd that you seem to be pushing for government monitoring systems over free enterprise systems here. Kind of anti-conservative argument.
Uhh guys please inform BILL MAHER who the hell you guys are. He has some idiot producer misquoting this piece on his show.. It was incredibly pathetic for a guy like MAHER to be lauded as a semi-credible left wing pundit and when he says " I don't know who the hell these media matters people are". and totally takes a quote from you piece here totally out of context. I think Real Time just got dropped a few pegs.
So, we can put the argument to rest that Imus learned the language from rappers when we can clearly see he learned the language from a bunch of white right wing blowhards.
Then again, aren't these idiots blaming it on the rap music, too?
Yes, yes. Don Imus. The guy who called Bush a moron and Cheney a war criminal. We got him off the air. Great!
Let's pick up from here and get Max Cleland re-elected to the US Senate and actually do ourselves some good Then maybe we can get Don back on the air and get Rush, Bill, Neil, Shaun et al, off.
Christ, you liberals are the biggest suckers since the days of Barnum.
First of all, I am a liberal and I didn't want to see Don Imus get fired. Secondly, I think you are pretty silly to repeat the silly meme that Imus is a "liberal" using cherry picked anecdotal examples.
It appears you are the sucker for believing what the conservative talking heads are telling you.
How about we play devils advocate here.1) "Conservative" Premises: a: "Don Imus is a liberal/progressive/moderate-leftie shock jock."b: "Rap/Hip-hop music/lyrics are not censored"c: "Free speech means you can't get fired/canned or lose corporate endorsements no matter how offensive/provocative what you say is."2) "Conservative" views of the Don Imus debacle: a: "Liberals/Progressive/moderate-lefties went after Don Imus while hypocritically ignoring those other liberals/progressives/moderate-lefties that do the same thing." b: "Ohh yeah, and those gangsterrrs in rap music do it too, so lets censor all the rap/hip-hop artists to be consistent."Wow, you conservative/rap bashing/racists/racists apologists/race baiting people are delusional. Seriously delusional.- Let’s start from the first premise, 1a. Don Imus is a liberal/progressive/moderate-leftie. OK. He supported Kerry in 04’ and bashes Bush everyday. No argument there. If we assume that argument 2a is true, then 1a must be false to maintain logic. In short, that means either 1a is false or argument 2a can’t hold water. Moving on… - Premise 1b states that rap/hip-hop music/lyrics are not censored. If we assume that argument 2b is true, then premise 1b must be true to maintain logic. “See!! :), our logic is sound, so what’s your point you neo-facist liberal?” Ahhhh, but that’s not the entire story now is it?? In fact, the premise is flat-out wrong. For those of you just joining planet earth, ALL music (rock/metal music too!) containing anything remotely offensive IS censored; on public airwaves that is… even some of the privately funded ones! That includes BET (there is a difference between UNCUT and UNCENSORED for those of you who wanted to go that route), MTV, most of the other cable channels (except those you have to pay extra for like HBO/Showtime, or certain late nights on comedy central), all FREE OFFICIAL AM/FM radio stations, and any news organization that chooses too air it. Are we forgetting about Parental Advisory labels, remember those?? In other words, the only way you’re gonna hear or see the “real” lyrics (words like ho, n*gga, etc..) and/or content is if you purchase a CD/DVD or whatever medium they chose to distribute it under. Hell, the music industry (that includes rap-artists) has gone the extra mile by creating watered-down versions of the songs for play on radio and public airwaves. And finally...- Premise 1c states that free speech means you can't get fired/canned or lose corporate sponsorship no matter how offensive/provocative what you say is.
In this case, the premise actually seems to be the argument, and in reality, that’s all it is. An argument not based in fact. Here are the facts, well, only one is really necessary. There is no constitutional guarantee (read - first amendment right) to private funding, it’s that simple. All else be damned, the sponsoring companies can at there discretion pull funding for any reason at their sole discretion. Ohh and yes, everyone has the first amendment right too call or contact any sponsor or network entity and make complaints. Everyone. No matter who you are.
GTSKAUAI 3556,
Cute play on words,everything wrote about Boortz was true,so why would I be worried about saying anything wrong . When what you write or say is truthful,you're not crossing any line!
"Just the facts,Mam"
I find it interesting how every host mentioned is Conservative commentator. There is no mention of Al Franken or Rosie O'Donnell. Can anyone say "Agenda"?
Can you say "mission statement"?
I am looking for a littel consistency. Nothing these people say is any different than what left wing commentators say.
That's a dubious assertion, to say the least. And as has been pointed out, there are right-wing sites that criticize such people and not anyone on this list, do you expect differently from them? If so, why?
MORONS!!!!! THE AMERICAN MEDIA IS OVERRUN WITH MORONS!!! The biggest issue here is not the First Amendement but the importance of using the airwaves for responsible speech. I've listened to Imus for over 30 years. In many ways the wannabes hanging out today can't hold a cadle to the shtick that the I-man produced. The issue here is that the goon squad of Beck, O Reilly, El Drugbo and others aren't people who generate discussion as much as they agitate for ratings and listeners. Imus went upscale the last 20 years; he tried to form a more "corporate" type image as he took the program to syndication. In the end syndication betrayed him. Perhaps the hate mongering will betray the others.