LA Times claimed Dems "came to count on Imus," but obscured his attacks on Clinton and support for McCain
In an April 13 article about the cancellation of Don Imus' radio show by CBS Radio and its simulcast by MSNBC, the Los Angeles Times reported that "over the years, Democrats such as [former Rep. Harold] Ford [TN] came to count on Imus for the kind of sympathetic treatment that Republicans got from [radio host] Rush Limbaugh or [Fox News host] Sean Hannity." It was not until near the end of the article that the Times noted that not all Democrats could "count on" such "sympathetic treatment" from Imus: The paper informed readers that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), whom Imus vowed never to allow on his show, was "a frequent target of Imus' jokes." Moreover, while the Times noted that Republicans, such as Sen. John McCain (AZ), have also appeared on Imus in the Morning, it did not note that Imus said in January, "I'm going to vote for McCain at this point," or that he subsequently expressed support for former New York City Mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.
In addition, the Times offered only thin evidence for its assertion that "some Democratic strategists are worried about how to fill the void" left by Imus. Of the two strategists the Times quoted suggesting that Imus' firing posed a problem for Democrats, one -- Dan Gerstein -- worked for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) in 2006 when Lieberman ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to challenger Ned Lamont:
With Imus' show canceled indefinitely because of his remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, some Democratic strategists are worried about how to fill the void. For a national radio audience of white men, Democrats see few if any alternatives.
"This is a real bind for Democrats," said Dan Gerstein, an advisor to one of Imus' favorite regulars, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). "Talk radio has become primarily the province of the right, and the blogosphere is largely the province of the left. If Imus loses his microphone, there aren't many other venues like it around."
Jim Farrell, a former aide to 2000 presidential candidate and Imus regular [former Sen.] Bill Bradley [D-NJ], said the firing "creates a vacuum."
Addressing the Times article in an April 13 online chat, Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote: "I find Dan Gerstein's judgment on this to be suspect. I like Dan, but he's not exactly the spokesman for mainstream Democrats anymore." In an April 8 New York Post column, Gerstein described Giuliani as "a socially tolerant 9/11 hero" who has "an impressive record as a governmental CEO." In a March 30 post on his personal weblog, Dangerous Thoughts, Gerstein referred to Giuliani and McCain as "the two straight talkers currently leading the field."
The Times also reported that "Ford strategists believe his relationship with Imus was central to earning credibility in the eyes of white voters in conservative regions of Tennessee." However, the Times did not quote any Ford strategists and did not report that any Ford strategists believed Imus' firing would hurt Democrats in the future.
The article, headlined "Democratic politicians lose a soapbox with firing of Don Imus," cited Imus appearances by Ford, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Bradley, and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), whom Imus endorsed for president in 2004. From the first three paragraphs of the Times article:
They came by the hundreds that hot August day in tiny Johnson City, Tenn., gathering on an asphalt parking lot to meet Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. It was not just that he might become the state's first black senator. More than that, even in Republican eastern Tennessee, the Democratic congressman was a celebrity -- a regular guest on Don Imus' radio show.
And today, with Imus' career in tatters, the fate of the controversial shock jock is stirring quiet but heartfelt concern in an unlikely quarter: among Democratic politicians.
That's because, over the years, Democrats such as Ford came to count on Imus for the kind of sympathetic treatment that Republicans got from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
Not until the 11th paragraph of the 15-paragraph article did the Times acknowledge:
Not all high-level Democrats were drawn to the self-styled "I-Man." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a party presidential front-runner and a frequent target of Imus' jokes, said she never had the desire to appear.
The Times did not address the content of these "jokes." As Media Matters for America has noted, Imus has referred to Clinton as "that buck-tooth witch, Satan." On April 4, Imus pledged not to allow Clinton on his show "[b]ecause she and her fat, stupid husband screwed me about 10 years ago, and I'm not going to get over it."
Moreover, while the Times noted that "such GOP figures as Sen. John McCain of Arizona" also appeared on Imus' show, it did not note that during Dodd's January 11 appearance on the show, Imus announced: "I'm going to vote for McCain at this point."
From the January 11 edition of Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: I tell you who I saw last night who was very impressive is Barack Obama. I'm not one of those Hollywood phonies jumping on the Barack Obama bandwagon. I'm going to vote for McCain at this point, but --
DODD: But now, wait a minute. Now, wait a minute, now. I mean, this, you know -- I come on the program, I blow everybody else off. I announce here, I mean, at least leave the door open for me a little bit here. I mean Charles and, you know, everybody,
IMUS: You -- no, no.
DODD: A little quid pro quo here. This is politics, you know, Imus. I mean --
IMUS: You're gonna have to open --
DODD: And I'm your pal. Fourteen years together.
IMUS: Yes, I know you are.
DODD: You don't just walk about from me like that.
IMUS: I'm not walking away I'm just saying that --
DODD: Just leave that door open a little bit.
IMUS: No, no. You've got to open it.
He voted for Kerry.
Along with about 50 million other people most of which were not liberals.
I listened to one of his shows some time before the election and he said that he supported Kerry but he had no idea why. And after the election, I listened to another show and it didn't seem to bother him that Kerry (the candidate he supported for reasons unbeknownst to him) had lost. He said something to effect that he was glad Bush won because Clinton (who he apparently hates) denied his father a second term and now junior gets to live it out.
And he supported Bush in 2000.
He's a lib.
Imus is a lib? But he makes racist and sexist comments like a con!
"...like a con...". Surely you jest, Son. Where'd you grow up?
Very cognizant and reasoned argument.
LDOREN:
So, THIS is how you Rightwingers choose to SPIN this story? That Imus was a LIBERAL, and his loss to the airwaves is a loss for Democrats?
I guess this is part of the Rightwing's not being able to admit a loss, or defeat, of any part of their agenda.
The HATE talk comes from the Rightwing. the list is long, and MMFA has the offenders pictured on this topic's header, and the list is both impressive and clear of the HATE spewed as a calculated tactic by the Rightwing.
Imus was a SYMPTOM of the crass rightwing disregard for civil discourse and the casual use hateful language ... racist, bigoted, misogynistic. That's the RIGHT's agenda, shared by Rightwing broadcasters across the land. COORDINATED, in many instances, and often originating with Drudge. Imus is the first round of public backlash against the nasty mean-spirited hate-talk coming from a host of Rightwingers.
Imus was and is NOT a "Liberal" ... he pushed for the Republicans to win, if in no other way by opposing the Democrat's frontrunner. Imus was no friend to Society, let alone Democrats; HE CARRIED THE RIGHTWING MESSAGE USING THE RIGHTWING's TACTICS.
And now he is gone. He's the first.
If this tide sweeps the media -- and it will -- eliminating habitual HATERS from our public airwaves, the Rightwing will lose THOUSANDS of spokesmen, while the Leftwing will lose maybe TWO or THREE. And I say good riddance to ALL.
It's the HATE, and not partisanship, which should guide this cleaning up of our public discourse. And the Rightwing have a near monopoly on that emotion. That, and FEAR. NO MORE. Enough.
One thing about you Tex--you've NEVER exaggerated, have you?
Brock's starting to catch hell for his part in destroying Imus, a good friend to the liberals. So of course MMfA has to try to prove Imus was a conservative.
Too bad, we all know otherwise.
Did you guys even read any of this post?
Of course they didn't.
I'm a former registered Democrat, and unabashed liberal (probably why I'm a former registered Democrat) and I'd never even heard of Don Imus until about 2 months ago.
Some heap big lib he must be. The wingnuts said so. And they're never wrong...
I don't care if he has a tattoo of Dennis Kucinich on his right butt-cheek. Imus is no liberal.
PS: or would that be the LEFT butt-cheek? Cuz...y'know...Left...Right...
Aww, forget it. Screw you guys...
:)
Just a thought: Why is it that people are staunch conservatives and unabashed liberals? What do liblerals have to be abashed (ashamed, embarrassed) about? Every single idea that has contributed to the improvement of human life on earth, including the outrageous proposition that surgeons should wash their hands (google Semilweiss), has been viciously fought by conservatives.
Unabashed my *ss.
Dunno how unabashed your **s is, but that's off-topic.
There are those who are to the left of you. That makes you one of those (yecchhh!) conservatives. Beg forgiveness, wretched creature.
No Kidding! Imus was never brutal with the Clintons either. He would tease them about the same things Leno or Letterman would do. He never attacked their credibility as being good politicians. I PRAY that Imus gets on Satellite et. al. and fights back against this cruel, unfair lynching of a decent, liberal talk show host. I myself will not forget Hillary Clinton or Barrack Hussein Obama kicking the man while he was down.
decent, liberal talk show host
Stop! Yer slayin' me! Oh, my aching sides...
Do you tell any other jokes?
Yeah. When the joke will be when Rush will talk about the hypocracy of this whole thing everyday from this point on until the elections. When Imus is picked up on another media forum and is twice as popular because of this free PR. When CBS and NBC fight back against a charleton like Sharpton that made them lose some money. GOOD LUCK!!! Don't ever forget that white, middle-class, moderate to conservative Americans still rule the airwaves in this country. The liberal cause is toast now. Nice :-)
While you are dreaming why not dream up the lottery numbers. Your deslusions are amusing they however have no connection with reality
Since hypocrisy is such a central component of the Bushevick, Republican approach, you should at least know how to spell it.
Pants flute, do you have any idea what "lynching" means ?
I understand it's easier making stuff up instead of reading and collecting and assessing facts, but try it some time.
The backlash must be starting and this is the start of the cya process, trying to paint Don Imus as Falwell. Good luck with that MMFA.
MM's headline: "LA Times claimed Dems 'came to count on Imus,' but obscured his attacks on Clinton ..."
The MM article states, "It was not until near the end of the article that the Times noted that not all Democrats could 'count on' such 'sympathetic treatment' from Imus: The paper informed readers that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), whom Imus vowed never to allow on his show, was 'a frequent target of Imus' jokes.'"
In other words, the Times DID mention that not all Dems counted on Imus and that Imus DID attack Clinton.
Wow. Great post, MMFA. </sarc><roll eyes>
Perhaps you are not familiar with certain journalistic ideas. Most articles start with the seemingly most important details, because it is understood that most people will not read an article all the way to the end. Therefore the end of an article is always regarded as the least important information. Placing the mitigating information about Imus with regards to his Dem-friendliness at the end of the article does indeed obscure that information as MMFA says.
That said, I agree with you that this is a fairly weak point being made by MMFA here.
"BURYING THE LEAD"
When the NY Times finally got around to printing the results of the Consortium Report, they headlined that Bush had indeed WON.
Of course, this was AFTER 9/11, and the Times was worried that the clear proof that Bush HAD NOT won the election might be destructive and divisive to the nation. So, the TRUTH was cast aside.
However, deep in the very long story, the statistical evidence was quite clear: The ONLY what Bush could be made to seem to have WON in Florida is ONLY if blocks of VALID, LEGAL votes were not counted. With every count of all VALID and LEGAL votes, GORE WON.
This is called "burying the lead", and in the extreme instance, the lead actually directly CONTRADICTS the headline and the conclusions reached by the "reporters".
This story is in the same vein. The "reporter" decided what his lead was going to be: Imus being fired hurts Democrats the most. Any information that CONTRADICTS, or makes even ridiculous, that conclusion, was relegated to the tail end of the story.
So, as dishonest and sensationalistic PARTISAN coverage, this story is a good example. People reading this story, and taking it at face value, will be MISINFORMED into thinking Imus was a beacon of Liberalism and a big help to Democrats. This is called LYING to the public. It's also DAMAGE CONTROL, part of carrying the water for the Rightwing Media.
What will they say when Limbaugh is next? Or Savage? Or Boortz? Or Beck? Hmmm?
Time to give up the 2000 general election my friend. You can spout off all you want, but it ain't gonna change the outcome. Your beef is with the Supreme Court not anyone here. Besides it makes you out to look like a gore loser. ;
move.on my friend.
Yup, MMFA totally screwed up on this one. They silenced an advocate for peace, an anti-war promoter, a philanthropist, somebody that voted for Clinton, someone that was objectively a non-racist. You ROASTED the poor guy for some stupid, insensitive remarks the guy made. If he had said the big 'N' word then I could support roasting him as well; however, the guy was just doing what he does best: trying to be funny through shock. Idiots! Couldn't go after the BIG TUNA like RUSH so you attacked your own liberal. IDIOTS!!
Imus was taken down by a business decision on the part of the people who pay his salary.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Wrong. They were intimidated by Sharpton. They look to lose atleast $10,000,000 at CBS alone over this whole charade. Nice try. Everybody can see now that with Sharpton, it is THEM against US. Sharpton made this an issue, not Imus. Imus has been doing the same stuff for 40 years. I don't remember the Democrat's that used his show for free PR complaining about anything!! And to THINK I was becoming a liberal. Forget you guys.
WRONG, Imus made this problem all on his own with his racist slur. He got hoist on his own petard. This isnt about Sharpton its about Imus and his big mouth.
What is it with conservatives to always look for the ultimate bad guy. Like Saddam suddenly became the cause celebre evil mastermind of the world. Right. Sharpton can be a thorn but is not as powerful as you would like to make him in your comic book world. Imus tried to use Shartpton in his remption and Shartpton did not play along. Oops.
The PUBLIC pressured SPONSORS who pulled advertising dollars, forcing media OWNERS to drop IMUS. So if you are looking for a single driver leading the backlash against IMUS, look around you, it's called the PUBLIC.
You are part of the PUBLIC so feel free to call SPONSORS and tell them, "I am no longer buying your product because your business model does not support calling young black women in college whores."
Just knew you were a big free enterprise booster.
You ROCK, Ajwan!
No, JScott, I don't think any of the other posters read it. I think the idea of people criticizing a person who may be on the "same side" as them on some issues is very confusing.
If I'm reading the other comments correctly, Imus was a liberal, and MMFA decided to destroy him because they were afraid to criticize Rush limbaugh, and one poster doesn't know what "obscure" means.
I'm going to keep checking the Imus related posts. I'm not that interested in him, but the Republicans going berserk is mildly entertaining.
Unlike you cons we dont inspect someones political resume before we decide what he did was right or wrong. Racist slurs are what they are no matter who says them. You guys are so caught up in this simpleminded Manichean worldview. Things are either this way or that way. The world isnt that simple and people arent just one thing. I dont care WHO Imus is what he did was wrong. Unlike brainwashed cons who want to pillory a president who lies about his sexual pecadillos, because he is a Dem but want to lionize a president LIES us into a war because he is a Republican.
hahaha.. thanks for the glimpse into your mind. (Not that I didn't already know.)
I simply ask you to go back and re-read your post to see the obvious. You immediately contradict your thesis with your proof. You defend a Democrats when it was proven they did something illegal and immoral, (I like your euphanism, 'peccadillo'... haha,) and to use your term, pillory a Republicans president based on selective items you've compiled, that serve your cause.
Until then you sound to me to be rabidly partisan.Another "American":
Solon is a partisan, and so am I. We generally share the world view that our government should serve US, and not just the rich and the warmongering elites. We believe the nation is strong and moral enough to follow the teachings of Christ by helping out citizens in need. We believe wars can be necessary, but if so, they can be justified -- and Bush has provided no justification for this war he started.
As Liberals, we share many opinions about world events, about how this nation should be governed, about how equality should be addressed, and about what is important and what is NOT.
On that basis, we BOTH have determined that the GOP impeached a president for not telling the complete truth about a sexual affair, and that this was a huge disservice to the nation, wasting everyone's time in a partisan vendetta. This president Bush has lied to us, but not about a personal sexual affair; he lied to us in ways that have cost tens of thousands of lives (which would have been spared if he had told the truth). We have determined that THIS is a very important issue to the American people, while the affair was NOT.
Unfortunately for you rightwingers, your warped sense of priorities is coming home to roost. The things you think are important (smearing the opposition while grasping greater wealth for the already wealthy) are not the American People's values. On the other hand, a president who simply cannot tell the truth about anything, and goes about being divisive by accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being traitors ... that has pissed America off. Bush's numbers are in the toilet, and have been there for over a YEAR. He has very very little support, no credibility, and no ideas except to "stay the (disasterous and bloody) course".
To put an analogy to your sense of proportion, you would argue with a kid in your store over whether he had two or three gumballs, while the local gang hauled all the appliances out of your store. Blind to the large crime before your eyes, while making a federal case out of an insignificance. But that's YOUR style of partisanship. It's just wrongheaded and ultimately self-destructive, because it lauds the trivial while ignoring the monumental. This harms America, and you with it ... yet in your blindness you cannot see.
You rightwingers are BAD for America, but thankfully you are now a tiny minority, and getting smaller (albeit MADDER).
I reject the basis of your thesis, and upon that, all else fails, and that thesis is Bush lied. I do not believe he did. There is overwhelming evidence to support his belief. You and Solon, and the Democratic leadership in Congress, have to resort to this falsehood of Bush lying in order to make you case. Wilson has been thoughoughly discredited and the hypocricy of the Democratic Senators who are trying to weasel out of this is appalling.
Hey, you can disagree with the war and the reasons for going to war, but don't make up cannards that are patently false. Much like many of the arguments here, they do not stand up. simply recycling them time after time does not make them the truth. Much like Rathergate, you lose all credibility to me when you offer these false arguments.
Therfore I reject your conclusions. I have little doubt that if it were WWII you'd be saying the same thing about FDR. I think your solution is one of defeat and I think defeat is unnaceptable. If that is a right wing talking point. I'll take it everytime.
Don Imus?
.....a tired old hippie who didn't even rank in the top-20 of talk radio shows. RIP.
Good thing that Imus is not a senator or congressman because we would also be seeing blurbs like: "Don Imus (D)"
Heres the facts oh yee righty sychophants. Imus regularly admits on his show to be a registered republican. He also admits to being an avowed libertatian. John Kerry has been his personal friend for over 25 years and he voted for his "friend" not the party he represented. While Imus may not have been in the top 25 shows demographically, he alone is the national leader in receipt of gross revenues. He was deemed to be one of the u.s.'" top 25 most inflential people" by Time. Strange, has the right ever gotten it correct, and the most disgusting and dispicable trait of them is that they overwhelmingly continue to support this administration as well as its policies. Reality anyone?
Brain impaired cons don't need no stinkin' reality.
Yeah, they still think Democrats are liberals.
Jeff,
How condenscending of you!
Has anyone else noticed that since this came out we have a dozen or more new con posters?
In the past at least we had somewhat intelligent posters (Tommy, Jetter, etc.) heck, every the fake Col. Roy made a few logical posters every once in a while.
These new people, just post and run. Or when proven wrong just continue with the less than logical attacks (most of which are directed against MMFA). Tells me MMFA is doing something right, way to go!
Hadn't noticed.
Imus positions are more complex than Cons vs Dems. In fact so contradictory it is probably beyond hope trying to pigeon hole. For example he called Hillary, Satan and voted for Kerry, supported wingnuts like Santorum, but calls Cheney a War criminal.
For the the media to imply the Imus firing as an exclusive loss or that Imus was the only outlet for Liberals is lazy negligent reporting. Misinformation.
Imus is not a liberal or conservative, he is a brainless cog in the mainstream media machine and faithfully recites all the mainstream media's Officially Approved Storylines.
I don't listen to Imus; I prefer to listen to people smarter than me (who are many, but not Imus). But I'd be willing to bet that Imus didn't attack the administration until _after_ the war fell apart, the approval ratings dropped, and the obvious finally became an Approved Storyline.
Steeve,
You make a great point about the OASL.
I don't follow Imus so I don't know his positions and if and when they changed. But I agree with you that it seems like if you see one account in the mainstream press, you've seen them all.
I found it extremely telling that MMFA criticized Time Magazine a few days ago by not printing the same amount of words as Newsweek regarding some sort of issue. (I forget the issue now.)
MMFA has it's own radical left storyline and anyone who doesn't follow it is immediately branded as 'conservative misinformation'.
Imus never was a conservative. Favoring Rudy or McCain does not make you conservative and disliking Hillary does not make you conservative either. Supporting Kerry and bashing Bush on a daily basis makes Imus look more like a liberal then anything else.
I personally could never understand why liberals such as yourselfs at Soros funded Media Matters would ever want to carry the Clinton's water.
Good luck on your agenda of getting the rest of your conservative hit list. You'll need it. Those you have on your hit list tend to be better at this then anyone on your staff. Keep in mind Rush is only operating with half his brain tied behind his back to make it fair for you guys.
This is off-topic, but Valsetz had some of the best timber (still does) that ever grew outside--but you already know that.