Kurtz: "Imus made fun of blacks, Jews, gays, politicians. He called them lying weasels. This was part of his charm"
On April 12, during a report on the controversy sparked by Don Imus' remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, ABC's World News aired comments by Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, in which he said: "Over the years, Imus made fun of blacks, Jews, gays, politicians. He called them lying weasels. This was part of his charm." Kurtz's quote aired shortly after CBS Radio announced it would discontinue broadcasting Imus in the Morning.
Despite Imus' propensity for incendiary remarks, Kurtz has previously been a guest on the Imus program, a fact he acknowledged in his April 12 Washington Post column. Kurtz wrote: "Journalists like me who have gone on Imus's show have done so because we enjoyed the opportunity to talk about politics and media without the stuffiness of so many other programs. And it's probably true that too many of us looked the other way when he went over the line with some of his cruder comedy bits." Yet, as Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting documented, Kurtz wrote in his 1996 book, Hot Air (Crown) that "Imus's sexist, homophobic, and politically incorrect routines echo what many journalists joke about in private."
As Media Matters for America documented, Imus has a long record of bigoted remarks. He has previously described CBS Radio's "Jewish management" as "money-grubbing bastards." On the March 6 edition of the program, executive producer Bernard McGuirk said that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was "trying to sound black in front of a black audience" when she gave a speech in Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 1965 "Bloody Sunday" civil rights march. He further stated: "Bitch is gonna be wearing cornrows."
From the April 12 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
KURTZ: The pressure on CBS -- just as it had been with NBC -- from this national eruption over Imus' racial remark simply proved to be too great. He became the symbol, the poster boy, for all of the anger in the country about radio hosts and television hosts who go too far and, in the end, he couldn't survive.
DAVID MUIR (World News Saturday anchor): Imus and his radio show had a long history of off-color remarks. Just last year, he called his own bosses "the Jewish management," and he used other words to describe them, as well.
KURTZ: Over the years, Imus made fun of blacks, Jews, gays, politicians. He called them lying weasels. This was part of his charm. But when he went too far, he became his own worst enemy.
That WAS part of his charm. This scandal is going to destroy media matters. Never before have I seen MM harp on a subject so long, so consistently. You have far too much to prove. Why the hell do you think that Howard Stern is so friggin popular and rich. People like to hear people say things they can't say in polite society. Removing people for doing their jobs is just completely stupid.
So let me get what Kurtz is saying here: That anyone who isn't a racist, homophobic and anti-semitic is stuffy. Kurtz should follow Imus down the memory hole along with all the other right wing enabling corporate psuedo-journalists.
To be honest, this site just flaps in the media winds. If the "news" media went off about where some Democrat ate his lunch, Media Matters would be there to cover every single irrelevant article!
Meanwhile, out in the real world, people are dying in Iraq, starving in Palestine, and going homeless in the USA. But that's not on tv, so Media Matters don't mention it. We Americans need to focus on what the media is NOT talking about far more than what it is. Therein lay the real stories of the day.
Come on PinkQueen..why pick on Media Matters...haven't been around here for long but there have been many, many outstanding threads discussing the War in Iraq, etc. But it seems that the Righties just want to deny the war for what it is. Media Matters only lists topics (nice name for lies and misinformation) and all are permitted to discuss within the threads..But to call out MM for not listing what you want..well, too bad.
Pardon the PinkQueen comment, I am trying to get on the fabulous news channel, FOX. I must start insulting people. Naturally, the rest of the Royal clan doesn't like for me to stir up the anger in the peons.
Howard Stern went Sirius for a reason
This guy obviously is working from a different definition of "charm" and "making fun" than mine.
Hey Howie, what if he was calling one of your three daughters a dirty whore? Would your response be "he's just making fun... isn't it charming?"
Charm and fun ARE subjective and that is the way it SHOULD be. We can still be equal races while shockjocks and gangsta rappers remain a voice in the media.
Jeshopk, Shock jock refers to Howard Stern. No one has EVER announced their candidacy for President on Howard's show.
Does this sound like simply comedy?
www.onthemedia.org
Mike Wallace: You told Ton Anderson, the producer, in your car coming home that Bernard McGuirk is there to do ni**er jokes
Don Imus: Well I've n--I never used that word
Mike Wallace: Tom?
Tom Anderson: I'm right here
Don Imus: Did I use that word?
Tom Anderson: I recall you using that word.
Don Imus: Oh, okay, well then I used that word, but I mean--of course that was an off the record conversation--{LAUGHTER}
For all of you who think that Imus was just a shock jock, think again. He elevated himself above the shock jock and now has to pay the price. This was also after he made an on air pledge the Clarence Page "That I (Imus) promise to cease all simian references to black athletes -- a ban on all references to non-criminal black as thugs, pimps, muggers and Colt 45 drinkers.
Lots of politicians have gone on Howard Stern's broadcast radio show.
Former governor George Pataki (R-NY) is one of them, and probably wouldn't have been elected the first time without Howard Stern's help. Former US Senator Al D'Amato (R-NY) also went on Stern's show.
Don Imus and Howard Stern are both shock jocks who interview politicians.
Both wanted NY voters, ran in NY and appealed to NY broadcaster Stern.
Got a better example?
Charm and fun ARE subjective
"Nappy-headed:" unkempt, untidy. "Ho:" prostitute. This is not "subjective," this is definitional.
If you can't understand why a white man calling a black woman a dirty whore is offensive, you may want to consider if you are so wedded to your position that you are ignoring common sense.
If you can't understand why a black rapper using the same words is offensive but in a different way, you may have grown up on different playgrounds than I did.
From what I have researched about Imanas_, he seems to be an "equal opportunity abuser", somewhat lost in the 70s. He'll probably be back in the near future on satellite radio. Who's the next target?
Gee, equal opportunity? How many times have you heard him bash white Christian Republicans for being white Christian and Republican? It's all besides the point anyway. Men aren't the arbiters of what's offensive to say about women, whites aren't the arbiters of what is offensive to blacks, Christians aren't the arbiters of what's funny to say about Jews or vise a versa. Imus making derogatory statements about blacks isn't funny, it never was and it doesn't compare to blacks making statements about blacks. We can all make self-effacing jokes about ourselves or our own group, but when you do it about someone else it isn't charming and it isn't funny.
Then you weren't upset about what Imanas_ said about the Rutger's women's BB team?
Who the hell is that? Never heard of them. Does this person of which you speak have major corporate networks forcing them down the public's collective throat? Do politicians and journalists appear regularly on their show?
Guess I need to spell it really slow for you. Nah, if you can't read, I can't help you.
My guess is that you are trying to call Don Imus "I'manass." That's kind of cute and kind of clever, but I think it's a little weak to insult people who don't understand a fairly obscure play on words obfuscated with an underscore...
Now, if he had also signed his post "Oscar the Crotc_," we would have seen the brilliance in his spelling of Imus' name.
What is the "charm" in making fun of minorities? Is it just harmless fun among politically powerful middle age white males? Besides engaging in concise, perceptive, witty political opining you can also receive a daily dose of racist rantings.
Actually, it's funny when all races do it. Carlos Mencia is a master of bigotry humor. It's good to laugh about the invisible lines and stereotypes in society. Laughing about it lessens the tension and brings us together.
I guess I just don't see how it "brings races together" for us, the majority race, after centuries of abuse and hate towards a minority race, to lecture them about what they should find funny.
I agree that it is good to laugh about stereotypes in society. It doesn't harm anyone. When are we going to understand that a person should be judged by his actions and not his words. Also, I fail to see how hundreds of years of injustices towards people of color should directly effect me. I don't owe anyone in the black community anything based upon past treatment. The only thing I owe anyone regardless of color is the respect and civility that I would want in return. To talk incessantly about past injustices really does nothing to move us forward. For anyone to expect special treatment because of past injustices to their ancestors is appalling. It is just as appallling for someone to suggest that a group of people should receive special treatment because of past injustices. People of color are just given more difficult circumstances in today's society. As unfair as that is, it's a reality.
Today it's a joke , tomorrow it's not entirely a joke, next week one group has been dehumanized to the point of open hostility and violence. It's called eliminationist rhetoric and it always starts out as those guys are funny, ha ha and ends up those people are to blame for everything; they are holding you down, they must cease to exist.
Also, cognitive science shows us that words can chemically alter our brain and thus the way we perceive reality. And if you think I'm being touchy, feely, it is important to note that even cold, calculated logic is governed by emotion. We are emotional creatures. The right learned that lesson long ago, that's why they abandoned argumentation based on issues and focused on values. One can more easily manipulate another once trust has been established.
Anyway, your argument is inconsistent, you say: "People of color are just given more difficult circumstances in today's society. As unfair as that is, it's a reality."-achrispage
And despite that reality you still argue 'special treatment' is unfair. What is special treatment? Special treatment must mean justice? That's all I can think to call it. If a group of people are 'given more difficult circumsances' in a country of equal protection under the law, that group is then having justice denied them.
People of color are just given more difficult circumstances in today's society.
So what's so wrong about just having a little sensitivity, for goodness' sake. I mean, we're not talking reparations or affirmative action or even forty acres and a mule... just, maybe, laying off the demeaning references on the radio.
"Actually, it's funny when all races do it. Carlos Mencia is a master of bigotry humor."
-----
You mean Ned Mencia, who makes fun of Mexicans but was born in Honduras? Yeah, he has real standing to do bigot humor. The fact that he isn't funny and steals jokes from others has been documented. But if he's the best example you can come up with, you don't have much of an argument.
Joseph,
That's your opinion and humor is subjective of course. I hate that guys show, his humor doesn't take much imagination. In fact, other that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report there are few things that I like on Comedy Central. South Park is crass and juvenile I also was no big fan of Dave Chapelle although I have seen skits that were pure genius satire, but mostly he's way too crude for my taste. Moreover, it seems that Chapelle began having a problem with how he thought White audiences were perceiving his satire about bigotry and that they were laughing in the wrong places and completely missing that he was actually doing satire. I guess he thought the White audiences thought his jokes were funny because they were true huh?
I agree MWPHOTOMAN. I can't believe that middle aged white man, Chris Rock, gets away with making fun of minorities.
Freedom of speech. That's what this all boils down. to. And I'm rather shocked that a progressive-leaning site like this seems so condemnatory of Imus and his ilk. These people are entertainers more than they are journalists. We all know this. They're doing an act, and part of that act is goofing on anyone and everyone. If you don't like, turn the damn station off!
I don't know if you've posted it, since he certainly comes from the right, but pat buchanan's take on the imus debacle is right on target.
It is the most reprehensible speech that needs the most protection, for it forces listeners/readers/etc to make up their own minds. This is a scary development in terms of free speech in this country. The market should have forced the decision over Imus ultimate fate, not CBS' morally vacuous leadership or the outrageously hypocritical posturings of Al Sharpton and Hymietown Jackson.
"Freedom of speech. That's what this all boils down. to."
-----
Right-wing nutjob point attempted, and right-wing nutjob point rebuffed many, many times.
The First Amendment applies to Government censorship. Last I heard, neither MSNBC nor CBS were entities of the Federal Government.
But, thanks for playing. Please take advantage of the parting gifts, and please depart with them.
I agree reprehensible speech needs the most protection. However there is as has been shown a couple of dozen times NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE. Imus has no RIGHT to a nationally syndicated audience. Imus still has all the free speech rights we all have no more no less. He can aquire a soapbox stand up on it at the park and rant to his hearts content. When he gets arrested for THAT get back to us, until then his free speech rights have NOT been effected in ANY way.
If being a bigot is charming, then let me be repellent.
Actually, being respectful and tolerant of others is repellent to some people unfortunately.
I’ve always said that personally as an African-American male, and one who loves great satire, it’s not the point that Imus made jokes about blacks that I found deplorable; it’s the fact that his jokes were very 18th century and outdated—anachronistic, if you will. I have no problem with white comedians who make jokes about blacks if the material is satirical and insightful. Don Rickles, Sarah Silverman, Colin Quinn, Lisa Lampanelli, Nick DiPalo, and tons of white comedians who appear on BET’s Comicview, have all made jokes about blacks, but you’ll never see many black leaders going after them. Why? Because they’re material is modern, smart, funny and intelligent. The constant references to Apes, degrading blacks because our ethnic traits doesn’t meet up to white standards, lampooning certain African-American subcultures without understand the deep complexity it has with history and social conditions, sets Imus, McGuirk and Sid out among the rest because their views of race belong to a completely different era.
I’ve had a problem with Imus’—but mostly McGuirk’s—jokes about blacks because their more comfortable in an era of Stephin Fetch and Amos N Andy, than this modernized, technological, multiculturalistic age we’re living in today. Performing routines that are borderline minstrelsy will not fly over with folks who are a lot more understanding about race than we were centuries ago. Had Imus listened to Clarence Page who damn near begged the man to tone it down and update the jokes, rather than staying in a comfort zone, he would not be in this situation today without a job. There’s only so long that you can do outdated jokes about race and gender before it backfires on you. Granted, America is still a very racist and sexist country, but we’re a little more understanding and sympathetic to the struggles, inner-workings and identity of minorities than decades ago. If Imus wanted to be a hip white man and stick with the times, then he should’ve went all the way with this transformation and change his misguided views about race and gender.
Preston, I agree that there is humor, from many different groups of people, that might be based in sexism or racism, etc, that is not offensive.There has to be some element of humor in it.
Same with context for books, movies, song lyrics, poetry- I hate to see any words completely forbidden, in any context. I'm a pretty rabid fan of free speech, as I think it's one of the bedrock elements of liberal thinking.I get bugged a little when I talk to people or see posters here, supposedly free-thinking progressives, who want to silence people or want them banned/fired.I say let them talk, put the sunlight on them.
The whole Imus thing was not a big deal to me in itself. I wasn't really familiar with the guy, and found his show about as exciting as cafeteria pizza the few times I've caught it.I am glad it was publicized, if only for the issues it brought up in public discussion.
,Pretty eye opening for me, I'm a white guy and have just been amazed at the people who can't quite grasp the difference between one guy singing about a (real or fictional) "ho" in a song, and another guy calling a specific group of young women whom he has never met, and knows nothing about, "ho's". That's completely leaving out the race of either guy.
I do think you're a little generous in comparing Imus' humor to Amos & Andy. I've heard and seen some of those radio and tv bits, and for all the stereotypes, they were actually depicted as humans, and given more personality than could be described with one derogatory word like "ho".
While I don't think Imus words were the worst thing that's happened in the world this week, and for all I know he may be a decent guy who just lets his lips flap trying to find a joke, I appreciate it as a subject. I've learned a lot these past few days.
"it’s not the point that Imus made jokes about blacks that I found deplorable; it’s the fact that his jokes were very 18th century and outdated—anachronistic, if you will."
-----
I won't, thank you. I've looked through some of the world literature and satire of the 1700's, and I don't think I ever saw the word "nappy-headed" in Tom Jones or in any works by Jonathan Swift, and I don't think Robinson Crusoe ever referred to Friday as a "ho." Nor have I seen either of those terms in Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac.
But I'll keep looking, maybe I'll find something. Probably I won't.
This episode will go down as the turning point, giving the rabid right many more votes than they would ordinarily get. Many people are more afraid of the overbearing Left imposing it's morality than the crazed Christian Right imposing it's. It's really quite simple, free speech specifically refers to speech YOU hate. Just like the school prayer question, unless it's IMPOSED on a captive audience, turn the other cheek and walk away
I largely agree, but I am equally wary of the so-called overbearing left and the religious right.
Racist speech is actually protected by the First Amendment, for just the reason you say.
However, there is no guarantee that anyone will want to pay to broadcast racist jokes any more than they would want to sponsor Osama bin Laden hosting a variety show called "F*ck America 2007."
[link to www.kansascity.com] sums this all up beautifully, read it
Looks like the author of your article is unaware that black leaders have frequently spoken out against gangster culture.
The author also makes the silly conservative/bully argument against the victims in this situation for simply being victims -- totally abetting bully behavior in the process. Shame on him.
Try and find someone next time who is not so clueless.
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 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. You serve at the pleasure of the sponsors if you must.
How about we play devils advocate here.
(1) "Conservative" view of the Don Imus debacle:
"Liberals/Progressive/moderate-lefties went after Don Imus while hypocritically ignoring those other liberals/progressives/moderate-lefties that do the same thing."
(2) "Conservative" Premise:
"Don Imus is a liberal/progressive/moderate-leftie shock jock."
Let’s start from the premise, (2). 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 (1) is true, then 2 must be false to maintain logic. In short, that means either (2) is false or argument (1) can’t hold water.
Have a clue as to which it is? Hope you were paying attention!
Sorry about the repeat posts...