Colmes claimed that Imus "satirized" Rutgers women's basketball team
On the October 15 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, responding to the National Association of Black Journalist's Eric Deggans' assertion that former MSNBC host Don Imus is "returning to the air essentially without fully apologizing for what he actually did wrong," co-host Alan Colmes said that Imus "did apologize" and went on to say: "The team that he allegedly insulted -- I would say 'satirized' -- they accepted his apology. Why can't you?" When Deggans asserted, "What he did wrong was build a 25- to 30-year broadcasting career on humor that's racist and that exaggerates stereotypes," Colmes responded, "Well, that's what satire is."
Colmes and Deggans were discussing recent reports that Imus will be hired to host a nationally syndicated radio show on WABC in New York.
As Media Matters for America documented at the time, on the April 4 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team, which included eight African-American and two white players, as "nappy-headed hos" immediately after the show's executive producer, Bernard McGuirk, called the team "hard-core hos."
Earlier in the Hannity & Colmes segment, when Sonia Ossorio, president of the National Organization for Women's New York City chapter, said that Imus is "a bigot and a racist ... and a misogynist," Colmes asserted, "He's not a bigot and a racist," and added: "He's a satirist. He's doing humor. He's doing satire."
Later, Deggans said, "This is about a 25- to 30-year history of cracking these kind of jokes," and claimed that Imus "admitted in an interview with 60 Minutes that he had a producer on his staff to make n-word jokes." Co-host Sean Hannity replied, "Yeah, but jokes. Jokes. You may not like the humor." Hannity then asked, "Should Chris Rock, who says far worse on a regular basis -- have you ever come out and demanded that he be taken off the air?" When Deggans noted that "Chris Rock is not a news and information person," Hannity said, "He's a comedian."
From the October 15 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: Sonia, let me start with you. Why not give him a second chance? What's your objection to putting him on the air?
OSSORIO: It's not a decision I would have made.
COLMES: Why not?
OSSORIO: ABC, we'll see if it works out for them.
COLMES: But why not?
OSSORIO: Because, you know, he's had 30 years to be on the air. He's been a bigot and a racist --
COLMES: He's not a bigot and a racist.
OSSORIO: -- and a misogynist.
COLMES: He's a satirist. He's doing humor. He's doing satire. He takes pokes at everybody.
OSSORIO: A lot of people don't find it humorous anymore.
[...]
COLMES: How long is the right amount of time?
DEGGANS: He was basically off for a few months -- he was basically off for a few months. He negotiated a very lucrative end to his contract with CBS Radio, and now he's returning to the air essentially without fully apologizing for what he actually did wrong.
COLMES: Well, first of all, he did apologize. He went on Al Sharpton's show and apologized. Al Sharpton accepts him back. Jesse Jackson accepts him back. The team that he allegedly insulted -- I would say "satirized" -- they accepted his apology. Why can't you?
DEGGANS: I think Don Imus hasn't really apologized for what he's done wrong. What he did wrong was build a 25- to 30-year broadcasting career on humor that's racist and that exaggerates stereotypes.
COLMES: Well, that's what satire is. But you call it racist --
DEGGANS: There's examples going back 15 years, 20 years, where he's called Gwen Ifill, who was then with The New York Times, a cleaning lady. He called another person of color who was an official a quota hire. He's called Howard Kurtz from Washington Post a "beanie-wearing, hook-nosed Jew." I mean, he's used the kind of humor that has been abandoned by other --
COLMES: He also goes after people from the South, on Oklahoma, Okies like he is. He goes after everybody. That's his act. Everybody knew that was his act. They knew that was his act when they hired him. It was in his contract. If they decided to act on letting him go because of those things, he ought to get a warning, which he didn't get, which is why he got a settlement.
And, again, what about the free marketplace? You don't like that kind of humor, you don't find it humorous, don't tune out [sic]. Other people have the opportunity to hear what he's got to say if they choose to listen. If advertisers choose to support it, and if ratings will substantiate his appearance, what's wrong with that?
[...]
DEGGANS: That's the mistake that you're making, is that you're boiling this down to one comment. This is not about one comment. This is about a 25- to 30-year history of cracking these kind of jokes.
HANNITY: You keep repeating it, but --
DEGGANS: He admitted in an interview with 60 Minutes that he had a producer on his staff to make n-word jokes. I mean, this is a longstanding--
HANNITY: Yeah, but jokes. Jokes. You may not like the humor.
DEGGANS: This is a long standing history.
HANNITY: Wait a minute. I was watching Chris Rock over the weekend. Should Chris Rock, who says far worse on a regular basis -- have you ever come out and demanded that he be taken off the air?
DEGGANS: First of all, Chris Rock is not a news and information person.
HANNITY: He's a comedian.
DEGGANS: Secondly, there's a difference between when somebody is inside a group and they make a joke about that group and when somebody is outside of a group. If you look at "The Daily Show" and you watch Jon Stewart...
HANNITY: Oh, so if you're inside -- OK.
DEGGANS: ... he makes jokes about being a Jewish man that somebody who's not Jewish could not make. There's a difference.
HANNITY: Eric, the person that Don Imus made most fun of was Don Imus. The next person he made the most fun of -- and even kiddingly called his wife a ho -- was his wife, his own family, the people on his own show. So it wasn't applying a double standard here, but I find it interesting that you're willing to give Chris Rock a pass.
So now Colmes is called out and slapped on the wrist for his opinion. Does anything positive come of revisiting this controversy and reopening old wounds again? People have made up their minds - this is nothing but a gratuituous provocation on the part of these cable chat shows in dragging this out again, and anyone else covering it.
I agree about the media revisiting it, but Imus returning to the airwaves doesn't exactly help the healing process either, except in the case of Imus healing his wounds.
So MMFA highlights a Liberal? I'm impressed. Now many here will claim Colmes isn't a Liberal, just a FOX tool. But every time I've heard him he sure sounds Liberal to me.
He's wrong about this particular remark being satire, but....
Enough already about Imus!!
The guy apologized. Got fired. And if someone is willing to hire him, then good for him.
How long to you think a "healing process" must take? Are the standards the same for everyone?
Doesn't this guy have a ranch somewhere? If I were him, I'd retire there. He's gonna be under a microscope from here on...
BTW, I'd say this is strike 3 for MMFA.
Imus is back.
Rush carries on.
So does O'Reilly.
"Now many here will claim Colmes isn't a Liberal, just a FOX tool"
You're exactly right Jeter. Many here if not most claim that Colmes isn't really a liberal and is simply a tool of Fox. A "phony liberal" if you will. Others simply call him a moderate. To them, anybody who doesn't toe the far left line 100% of the time can't possibly be a liberal. It has to be total conformity or else you're branded as a phony liberal or a moderate.
I think Colmes is both an unabashed liberal AND a Fox tool. He nearly half heartedly apologizes when offering an opinion stronger than milquetoast.....he tries to counter Sean's liberal/Democratic feeding frenzy hysteria by being seen as reasonable and more moderate - but it's all part of his instructed passive role.
"He nearly half heartedly apologizes when offering an opinion stronger than milquetoast"
I've never seen that. The rhetoric he uses is simply polite and respectful, and because of that he actually makes himself look better than Hannity at times. His more reasoned tone often makes him look more intelligent and makes Hannity simply look like an angry right winger. I don't think that Colmes is weak; he's simply polite and respectful.
Well, we disagree. Have you ever seen him sit through an interview with Ann Coulter? - she as much as dismissively mocks and makes fun of him to his face - and he sits there and giggles and looks foolish. If he had the authority and not fear for his job, he would give it to her exactly the way she does......he only battles to a point and then makes broad "let's all get along" statements that his conservative guests eat up and spit out.
He is no match for the barrage of left bashing stories that are highlighted on his program.....Sean or the rightwing producers hand pick the stories slanted to make liberals look like raving lunatics all the time, it is nearly unwatchable for me. Colmes is a dim-witted player on purpose.
Good thing it's so easy to make liberals look like "raving lunatics." MM does that.
Not as easy as it is for conservatives to make themselves look like complete MORONS.
SOLON:
I'm stunned at this point to find myself agreeing with TOMMY, and finding your comment inadequate.
TOMMY's "take" on Colmes and his role at FOX News is correct. Colmes is as much a FOIL for Hannity as the Generals are for the Harlem Globetrotters. In both cases, the point is to create the ILLUSION of a "game" with all the rule-following and fairness that implies, but is in reality a "show" with a pre-determined outcome.
If the Generals represented an actual constituency, that constituency would feel betrayed; their team doesn't even TRY to win! Colmes DOES represent a constituency ... "Liberals" ... and his betrayal is complete. For a wage, he agrees to play his part in the farce of "fair and balanced" ... and he has forfeited any integrity by doing so. He cannot be respected, and that is the entire POINT: "Here is a Liberal. He is weak and compliant. He cannot LEAD. There is no force to his opinions. He is like ALL Liberals" is EXACTLY the message FOX wishes sent ever day.
If Rightwingers were "MORONS", there would be no chance of their gaining enough power to affect everyone's lives. We know this is not the case. Rightwingers are shrewd and calculating, ruthless and singleminded, ambitious and all too often successful. While the policies they promote or their tactics and words may seem "moronic" to the observer, Rightwingers are NOT "morons." That kind of namecalling does not begin to address the danger these people pose to this nation.
With MMFA, we Liberals are finally fighting back against the morally bankrupt tactics of today's rightwing, and it's demonstrably effective. We need to include SUBSTANCE to our arguments, which distinguishes us from the rightwing. You, SOLON, are usually at the forefront of such substantive arguments. I like THAT role better than just namecalling. (but I do understand your frustration!)
It's funny that you're so paranoid about all this. That vast "right wing smear machine" is so terrible! Oh well, you can at least take comfort in the fact that you still have control of about 80% of the media.
Specifics, please? Also, name the smear outlets that the left has and please provide examples.
I didn't mean to imply that they're "smear outlets." I just stated that the left has control of the vast majority of the media, as they do. They have control of all three broadcast networks, most major newspapers, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc.
Sure, the left has a stranglehold over all of that, that's why we have Glenn Beck, Wolf Blitzer, Tucker Carlson, Limbaugh and Cheney fan Brian Williams, and however many other people we've seen on this site. That's why CBS is lifting material from right-wing news sources, and why ABC ran a "docudrama" that showed manufactured events blaming Clinton and absolving Bush for 9/11. That's why liberal Phil Donohue was fired when he had the highest rated show on the network.
Yes, it all makes sense.
Name one liberal with his own show on any of the CNN networks. Please point out specifics of your control ideas with examples as to how this bias, in your mind, has affected the news outlets. Point out the shows on cable that the left has to smear the right like the right has to smear the left.
It MIGHT be comforting if it were true. It isnt. Just because it is your hivemind assignment to regurgitate this everytime the media is brought up will never MAKE it true. I know in your delusions there is this number of times you can repeat a lie and it will magically become true but in the reality based universe that will never happen.
Enough about Colmes. I don't think Imus' remarks were "satire." & he has a chance to redeem himself, hope he does, but I've a right to never listen to him, and I won't.
Imus, a withered old dude
Will need a new attitude
We'll see if this bigot
Can turn off his spigot
Of tired, unfunny, and rude
JJ:
LOVE your limericks!
And your POINT is right on the money. Over 30 years, Imus has mined racism and bigotry for gold, and claimed it NOT as real racism and bigotry (and mean spirit), but instead it's "SATIRE."
Sadly, many ARE entertained by overt racism and bigotry. Playing to stereotypes CAN be satire, but proper satire has a motivation. SATIRE is defined as using irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
Where was the vice or folly in the women on Rutger's basketball team, that Imus felt compelled to direct his "satire" at them? What had they done to deserve the RIDICULE of "satire"? Other than, of course, being BLACK.
"SATIRE" does not excuse bad behavior for its own sake. The "TARGET" of satire must be clear, and that target held up for scorn and derision.
Swift's "Modest Proposal" is often used as an example of social satire, notable in that when his proposal was actually understood (the Irish should simply eat their children), the notion horrified everyone. There was not any constituency which said, "Yeah! That's a great idea!"
By contrast, the things Imus says and proposes have many supporters. Racists and bigots are not subjected to scorn or derision by Imus; instead they find a spokesperson in Imus. Apparently, the "satire" is lost on them.
Vonnegut's "Mother Night" tells the story of an American spy whose "cover" as a radio commentator leads him to being the the premier propagandist of the Third Reich. As an American, did he consider his bold promotion of the Nazis to be "satire"? He might well have made that distinction in his mind, but the REALITY was that his effectiveness had nothing at all to do with satire; his message(s) were heard literally, and the listeners were on board with what he said.
Satire is hard. Racism is easy. Imus has chosen the easy path, and he finally got called on it.
The REAL question is, now that Imus is back on the air, will his audience remain if he abandons his overtly racist and bigoted schtick? Or will he continue the same act, claiming it as "satire"?
Sorry, Colmes is correct on this one.
If you listen to the whole Imus tape-- I mean the whole conversation about Rutgers, he was obviously trying to do a Spike Lee type riff on that team, but it came off badly. He even mentioned Lee a few moments before-- something excluded from most transcripts of the event.
I think Imus is a jerk, but his comments were blown out of proportion and taken out of context. He was clearly not being serious....anyone who thinks so, well, listen to the whole tape...the Spike Lee movie reference is vastly relevant to the whole matter, but, alas, ignored...
Fair's fair guys.
Maybe old white dudes shouldn't try to be Chris Rock or Spike Lee. Anybody who thinks this is benign is an idiot.
RINO,
Colmes isn't a "phony Liberal" just a bit of a wimpy one ;-)
He's no match for bully-boy Sean, & when Colmes tries to come off tough he ends up sounding shrill. Poor Alan, he can't win.
I agree that Liberals tend to reject those that don't parrot the party line 100%.
Colmes isn't a "phony Liberal" just a bit of a wimpy one ;-)
Colmes tends to argue within whatever frame Hannity sets up. He's not a good debater.
I agree that Liberals tend to reject those that don't parrot the party line 100%.
Liberals would say the same thing about conservatives.
"To them, anybody who doesn't toe the far left line 100% of the time can't possibly be a liberal. It has to be total conformity or else you're branded as a phony liberal or a moderate."
Ironic quote from someone who calls himself a RINO HUNTER, no?
I don't have any problem with moderates within the Republican Party. I don't have a problem with guys like McCain and Guiliani. I just don't like the outright liberals like Specter and Chafee. That's what my name means.
I know, RH, but your definition of a RINO is probably the same as what some people consider Colmes. Your standards, like theirs, are open to what you make them.
Guess who said this:
“Well, I’m a Republican mayor, but I’m really not,” ______said. “I’m the mayor of ______. I ran as a Republican, I ran as a Liberal — which really confuses all kinds of people — and I ran as an Independent…. So I’m not the most partisan of Republicans.”
Sounds like a RINO to me.
Many people on the left find Specter to be moderate like you do with Colmes. Its all perspective.
But Colmes has all liberal positions on the various issues while Specter actually votes with the Democrats more often than he does with the Republicans. So it's simply false to say that Colmes is a moderate when he takes the liberal view on every issue. If he had a few conservative views like being pro life, against gun control, then you might have a point. But Colmes has no conservative views as all, unless you count opposition to government censorship of the media as a conservative view.
Colmes did say he voted for Rudy Giuliani, Specter continuously votes for Bush's judges so I think debate can be had.
Thats Bunk he told USA today in 1995 "I think I'm quite moderate,". You DO NOT KNOW how he votes so give it up. He MAY be a Democrat but in the few times I have watched Hand C I have seen him agree with the conservatives and just being a Dem doesnt make him a liberal. He calls HIMSELF moderate YOU are delusional if you think YOU are a better judge than HE is his political orientation.
You have to go back to 1995 for that? That's pretty weak Solon. On Hannity and Colmes he describes himself all the time as a liberal, and he basically repeats the Democratic Party line. Simply the fact that he supports free speech rights does not make him a moderate. He agrees with the far left line on every issue except for free speech.
So he identified himself as a moderate then but all of a sudden he is a liberal. As far as free speech goes you are just a liar. I have shown over and over there is no free speech issue involved in the use of OUR airwaves. I cited the speech by the head of the FCC saying that directly. YOU are just a liar. You didnt even TRY to argue the point you slinked away and told the lie again another day. STOP LYING about this. Just because you SAY he agrees with the left on every issue doesnt make it true. The few times I have seen the show I have SEEN him agree with the conservatives.
"The few times I have seen the show"
Thanks for pointing out that you hardly ever watch the show and have no credibility at all. Thanks!
Um, Rino, if he's watched the show five times (for instance) and Colmes has agreed with conservatives every time, what are the odds that each one of those occurances is some sort of anomaly, an exception to the way he otherwise always is?
As if every time, or almost every time Solon isn't watching the show, Colmes acts the way you say, and it's just some wild statistical fluke that he happened to catch the several episodes where he broke out of character.
It's not very likely.
You really arent very bright Rhino you said THIS
He agrees with the far left line on every issue except for free speech.
Leaving off your continued LYING about free speech the fact is that I have SEEN him agreeing with conservatives. If I had only watched the show ONE TIME and seen that it would refute your assertion that he agrees with the left ALL THE TIME. Try to keep up. It is embarassing to continue to point out these elementary bits of logic that most reasonably bright ten year olds would get without having their hands held
Maybe back then he was a 'moderate', but now he's a 'liberal'?
Perhaps the reason former moderates are 'lefties' all of a sudden is because the 'right' has shifted the playing field a coupla miles over, like they keep saying the librul media has?
Every liberal claims to be a moderate.
No they dont. For instance I have NEVER claimed to be moderate in any way. Never heard Kucinich claim to be a moderate. You really hate factual reality dont you leatherhead?
He isnt a liberal. He agrees with the cons all the time he describes HIMSELF as a moderate. Just because to YOU anyone not to the right of Jesse Helms is a liberal doesnt make it true.
He never agrees with the conservatives on anything except for free speech, which is something that everyone should support. Simply because the left now supports a Stalin like agenda doesn't mean that Colmes isn't a liberal. And you think that anybody to the right of Fidel Castro is a conservative, so you have no credibility on this at all. Even all your fellow liberals describe Colmes as a liberal.
YOU are a liar. You can continue to lie about this free speech issue all day long all it shows is you are a liar. Just because the rightwing has taken to LYING to support their FASCIST agenda doesnt change reality itself. He described HIMSELF as a moderate. I am a liberal. Kucinich is a liberal. Colmes, moderate.
RINO:
So we might better understand the points you're trying to make, list for us what a "STALIN LIKE" agenda looks like.
Specific issues, please, with what STALIN actually did, along with what Democrats are actually proposing.
This is a defining moment for YOU, RINO. It should be FUN for you, too. Take each issue, foreign and domestic, and use the form: "LIBERALS are like STALIN, in that STALIN did X, and the LIBERALS want to do X too!"
Very much looking forward to your presentation, RINO!
uh, RINO?
<sound of crickets chirping>
Jeter, come on Colmes in all fairness is the FOX "Token" liberal. He can not be taken seriously.
Did I call that or what?
JLyons didn't say Colmes wasn't a liberal. He said he's Faux's "token liberal". I agree with Tommy and Jeter -- Colmes is a liberal. He just isn't a very strong or forceful liberal, which suits Faux just fine.
JLyon,
Colmes is a bit of a wimp, & Hannity is a big bully...it's never a fair fight. However, I once watched Colmes take on substitute host Ollie North & leave him sputtering. I was so impressed I fired off an e-mail to Colmes congratulating him. He wrote back thanking me :-)
I think Colmes problem is Hannity. So no, I don't think Colmes is necessarily a "token Liberal".
How is this a strike against Media Matters, much less a third one? The Web site's mission isn't to rid the world of evil (which Bush contends he is pursuing, all the while making the world infinitely worse) or even to silence the ridiculous, un-American blowhards it keeps track of. It's to point out when said blowhards are being stupid, un-American and just plain wrong.
This is not an either/or situation - Colmes is a liberal AND a fox tool.
Wah.
I'd ask you to explain how Imus' remarks involve Satire, as you obviously are not disagreeing with Colmes' faulty assessment of what was said, but considering your history of making up definitions in order to suit your bias of the day, I'll resist.
Colmes is welcome to his opinion. MMFA is welcome to point out that Colmes' opinion is not based in fact.
You are free to have any impression you care too. I could care less. It's an old story and has been covered six ways to Sunday......Colmes is entitled to his opinion. Bend yourself out of shape on it if you must.
I think what you're trying to say is you could NOT care less. Unless you're trying to indicate that there are all sorts of ways you could find to care less than you already do, in which case... why mention it?
Second, pretty much everything said on a commentary program like the ones colmes appears on is opinion. Everything said in these comments is opinion. So it's hardly an argument in his defense to say it's his opinion so back off. To call what Imus did that day "satire" might be his opinion, but it's completely wrong and worthy of being pointed out on a site like this.
Colmes has his opinion and you have yours.
Both are irrelevant to me.
Both seem worthy of voluminous air-headed commentary on your part, though. You seem to comment an awful lot on stuff you don't care about. Very odd.
Yet you can't refrain from trolling around and responding to all this air-headed commentary?
Who looks more foolish now?
I like to correct inaccuracies whereever I find them, even if they're as simple as "I could care less" kind of comments. And it's easy when some posters spend their days just saying the same thing over and over in one topic as though that's a real argument.
Tommy,
I think some will not be happy until we all live in this utopia in which politically correct speech is the only speech tolerated. People want to demonize Imus for making a living out of juvenile remarks concerning racial stereotyping. Let's all be honest, more than Imus have made millions dong the same thing, racial boundries have not applied to that supposition. Anyway, it seems strange to me that one could accuse Colmes' opinion of satire being wrong, especially if the person can't tell us why it is wrong. Typical elitism.
ACHRISPAGE is a nappy-headed ho.
Don't like it...ain't my fault. It's satire; you just have no sense of humor. Get over it, etc.
Wow! Your unbounded intellect surprises me. Of course, I never expected a coherent and civil argument from you. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am easily offended cupcake. I don't run and proclaim racism or insensivity anytime someone uses satire in my direction. I could not care less about such trivial crap or your trivial attempts to be cute. Ta Ta.
Cupcake? That's so 1960s. But neverthe less...I deduce from your remarks that you are not black and you are not a woman. Therefore, you don't care about this.
And you do not understand satire.
Why Mary, Chris said you were cute
He called you a cupcake to boot
Guess you hit a nerve
So he returned serve
Since satire's not his long suit
Tommy likes to hear himself talk
And say liberals just like to balk
At the foolish and profane
Why that's just inane!
But he's here (every other post) just to squawk
Oh JJ, I am flattered, I am now a topic in one of your poetic journeys.
As you skip through the Media Matters political meadow tossing out flowery rhymes, your fluffy contributions bring out the child in us all.
You keep at it Dearie, and many thanks.
Tommy is actually flattered
that Julia thinks it mattered
what he thought of her ditty.
And although he got snitty,
only his ego got battered.
That was perfect. Nicely done.
It really didn't hit a nerve lady. I post here for fun. disagreement is part of life and I am certaintly wrong my share of the time. But, I don't take this stuff personal or serious enough to lose sleep or let it hit a nerve as you so eloquently noted. I am just glad you were able to find a discussion worthy enough to allow you to fulfill your role here as the class clown.
To degrade, to put down a group of women for NO REASON at all is not satire.
I'm glad you admit that you are wrong occasionally. You are wrong here, wrong, wrong, wrong. Try calling your wife degrading names and see if she thinks it's satire.
Someone needs to strike a nerve in you for you to wake up. Being dulled to other people's lives and feelings is not a positive attribute.
Mary,
Again, the point here is obviously not resonating with you. For your summation to be accurate you would have to prove that Imus was intentionally being malicious or saying these things out of contempt for their gender, race, etc. As I have pointed out numerous times, the historical precedent set by the Imus show is one of comedy and satire. His statements were undoubtedly in poor taste but again unless you can prove that they were a commentary on his general feeling towards African American woman then your argument has no validity beyond the statements being crude and in poor taste. It was satire whether you like it or not. It is my understanding that the players his comments were directed towards have accepted his apology, why can't you get over this? Your incessant attempts to continue to make this something it isn't is tiresome.
I really hate to do this, Chris, because generally I do like you, but you’re being pretty stubborn and irrational in defending Imus’s remarks. First, Imus degraded people for such a long time, when he said “nappy-headed hos” he was so nonchalant and unconscious he said something offensive, he didn’t even realize how bad it was until a couple of days later when the heat was building up where he FINALLY apologized. If you remember, he didn’t apologize the same day on the show, or a day after, but THREE DAYS after many blogs and journalists started to highlight his comments. Imus has insulted folks so habitually it never occurred to him that his targets—especially the Rutgers basketball team—were out of bounds; these are women we should be applauding and uplifting, not degrading. The reason for him being unaware that his comments were foul because he rarely was reprimanded for proliferating some of the vilest stereotypes imaginable of minorities and women. This is not the first time Imus degraded blacks as if they’re some type of inferior sub-species. Journalist Clarence Page pleaded with Imus to stop referring to black basketball players as “monkeys” and “apes”; however, being as defiant as always, Imus ignored Page’s plead and continued with his degradation of minorities. Not only that but his sports commentator Sid degraded the Williams sisters for being too “masculinity.” Imus, Sid, McJerk, etc., often mocked and degraded blacks because black ethnic features, culture, behavior patterns, etc., were too outré for their taste. Do you remember when Sid said that the Williams sisters should be on the National Geographic channel, and Imus, McJerk, etc. laughed at the comments as if they were harmless? These type of insults—laced with white superiority—was commonplace on Imus, and he never faced the music or cleaned up his act. The fact is his jokes were pretty regressive—they weren’t satirical.
Second, in order for Imus’s and McJerk’s comments to be Satire, the humor should purposely achieve covert humor not overt humor. The humor should be a sly, subtle way of criticizing events, individuals or groups that deserve and invite such criticism—in a wink-wink manner. Satire is used to make educated theories and assumptions on subjects with sly witticism. There was nothing subtle or educational about the way Imus called a basketball team “nappy-head hos.” Parody may be the correct term to use for Imus’s and McJerk’s comments, because in a way, they were trying to parody urban youth and their language in how they talk in the streets. I don’t think their intentions were to even call those girls “whores,” they were trying to compliment the girls for being tough and “street.” Kind of like how some guys call certain women “tough broads.” However, it backfired on them, and because of their history of mocking blacks in the past, it caught up with them. You see, in parody, the subjects are mocked just for the hell of it; there’s no intellectual subtext involved in parody as is with satire.
Finally, I should note I have no problem with whites making jokes about blacks. I’m a huge fan of Don Rickles and I find him to be hilarious. However, what differentiates a Rickles with an Imus (and especially McJerk) is that one never sense this patronization and disgust of the people he targeted; he had equal respect and love for his targets. I never got that feeling from Imus and McJerk; I felt they mocked minorities because they viewed them different than whites and were in need of white correction. They mocked blacks as being eccentric, unbeautiful and tainted; it’s the type of humor one could find from radio broadcasters during Jim Crow. The fact Imus use to play Amos-N-Andy clips on his radio program with no shame proves how behind-the-times he were with his views on race.
Preston,
I have never defended Imus' remarks at any time. Your preaching to the choir here. I do stand by my assertion that it was satire, poor taste and poor use of satire but satire nonetheless. Imus' show has always been comedic in nature and yes insensitive to people of your line of thinking. As I have said before, if the man was making a general commentary on African American women or a political statement on his feeling towards minorities one could certaintly define his statements as purely racist. That is not the case here. Imus and Bernard were ridiculing their perceived folly in the players appearance, thus satisfying the definition of satire. It doesn't make the remarks any less appalling. Satire is not confined being satire only if it is accepted humor. That is a rather one dimensional take on the term. Even if he didn't realize that it was inappropriate until days later does not negate it being satire as well. Such elements are not needed by rule to disqualify remarks or literary works as satire. Satire pisses people off, it has for a long time, also insensitivity is not criteria for negating what constitutes satire. If that were the case, satire would be a rarely used comedic tool.
Chris, I’m simply telling you that your definition of satire is not accurate. I’ve studied classic literature and read many theoreticians, and your definition of “satire” is not a valid one. There are different forms (or I should say “styles”) of humor: Parody, Irony, Satire, etc. To accept your definition of satire would mean that Imus’s and McJerk’s intentions were indeed to call accomplished female basketball players “whores” with “kinky, undesirable hair” -- as if the ridicule was well-deserved. You are confusing satire with parody, and they’re not the same. It would be the equivalent of me calling “Hamlet” a melodrama when it’s a drama. To quote the great literary theoretician Northrop Frye, he refers to satire as, “"attempts to give form to the shifting ambiguities and complexities of unidealized existence." Thus, what “ambiguities” and “complexities” were Imus and McJerk getting at when they referred to an accomplished female basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”? That under such prestige of being accomplished athletes and students, that secretly these women were “whores” with “nappy” (read: not white) hair? Satire is not the correct usage of Imus and McJerk’s remarks. I believe parody is more like it because both were trying to riff off each other and make comments in a way they felt was comparable to urban youth. This is why both found Hip Hop as the perfect scapegoat to soften what they said (e.g., “Black guys demean and degrade black women all the time, especially in Hip Hop music, and they’re never reprimanded for it!”) They scapegoat Hip Hop as if those artists (i.e., the gangsta rappers) magically put those three little words on the tip of their tongues and forced both at gunpoint to say them to an accomplished basketball team.
Therefore, I don't accept this notion that what they said was satire. Perhaps this is all semantics, but to me, there are different forms of comedy and humor and how it's used, and satire is not how I'd classify Imus's and McJerk's remarks.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. The definition that I am familiar with states that satire is the sarcasm and/or ridicule of vice and folly. You will have to excuse me if it seems that I am over simplifying, but based on the context and tone of Imus' statement on that date it appears to me to fit the definition above. I am not in any way defending Imus' remarks but I am defending Colmes'. I will admit that satire is a rather too often used excuse for what are simply insensitive remarks made in poor taste, but given the climate of his show from a historical perspective these remarks were satirical. Imus' intent also says alot about how this can be perceived as satire. As distasteful as the remarks may have been, they were not an anger filled rant using sterotypes to comment on his view of African American women. It certainly does not fit the paradigm of parody given the context of the discussion. They were specifically talking about the masculine appearance of the team members. Obviously it was their distasteful perception that the players physical appearance was foolish i.e folly, and they therefore ridiculed them for that specific thing. I firmly believe that Imus used sarcasm and ridicule of the players appearance which to him was their folly. It was truly in poor taste and he deserves any reprobation he received. I don't want you to think that by calling his remarks satire it somehow lessens the inappropriateness of them. That is not my intention.
Well, the 60's were my hayday cupcake. So there you have it.
Because you don't want to accept Imus' remarks as satire does not mean you are the omnipotent authority on what constitutes satire. Given the historical instances of how Imus conducted his show in a comedic manner one could certaintly argue his comments were satire. Satire in extremely poor taste but nonetheless satire. I believe that Imus geniunely felt that the female players appearences were folly to be ridiculed. It doesn't make it right but the ingredients are there satisfy such a designation. So it seems you are the one who fails to understand. That is o.k. cupcake, try harder next time.
Well, homeslice, I'm all broken up over your idiocy at thinking this was satire. You notice the women on this board aren't too thrilled with being called a ho by bigoted old white dudes. Like Pearlene said, I'm sure you call your momma a ho. Don't think any real satirists or comdeians needs to worry about their jobs.
With all due respect, stick to your limericks, your positngs make no sense. When did some old white dude call anyone here a "ho"? Furthermore, it is your inept inability to grasp the concept of satire that is making you look rather idiotic here. Imus' remarks were not a general commentary on his feelings toward African American Women. Given the historical content of his show as being primarily made up of comedy and satire, it is quite evident that his comments were at least an attempt at such. Obviously it was a poor choice, showed poor taste, and noone here myself included has supported those remarks. Why don't you show the same disdain towards minority comedians or rap stars who say much worse towards African American Woman?
For the record, I never referred to my mother in a derogatory manner, if you have the ability to speak to the dead then maybe you could verify that. Until then, concentrate on your role of class clown.
It only takes a few sentences to tell the truth. The truth is that this is not satire, it is racism and sexism. Stop wasting our time with pathetic excuses for your support of a bigoted ignoramous. You have revealed yourself. Don't blame anyone else that held up the mirror.
You equate my agreement with Colmes' as support of Imus. By doing so you show you have no civility or ability to intelligently debate a specific point. I have given concrete opinions of how I believe his remarks, as inappropraite as they are, do in fact meet the definition of satire. You have done nothing but write cute little rhymes followed by generalized assumptions about me and my views on racism. You are essentially calling me a racist but have done nothing to support that assumption. You have not even once attempted to debate, in a civil manner, why you believe these remarks are not satire. Just because I agree they are satire does not automatically equate me with agreement of the content of the remarks. That is a ridiculous notion and you know it. You should read Preston's comments. He disagrees and makes a valid argument of why I am wrong. Something you are incapable of doing.
Well, I have to admit that I quit caring/reading what you write a long time ago. I think we all know your point without any more novels. If you want to insult me, so what. More words don't change your original point. Which was this was satire and it isn't. It is insulting to try to convince anyone about the rightness of your POV. If you aren't a bigot, that is between you and your conscience.
Love your limericks and your prose. Thank you kindly, jj...
"I believe that Imus geniunely felt that the female players appearences were folly to be ridiculed."
What the hell were they wearing that suggested they were "ho's"? Were they playing in tube tops, mini-skirts and stiletto heels, with twenty dollar bills stuffed in the tops of their stockings, or what?
What little nugget of truth is there that can be ridiculed to make the use of "ho's" legitimate here?
And if he believes that any black woman is a "ho" regardless of appearance, then obviously that's an issue.
It is apparent to me that Imus attempted to use the word "ho" in a colloquial manner which directly followed his poor use of satire towards their appearance. Again, I know noone who supports his remarks but I fail to believe that they are a commentary on his feeling towards African America women. If that was the case then this definitely would not be satire.
So "ho" was just used in an informal conversational manner, with nothing to base it on. That would sort of suggest that's how he views all women in general, even if not just black women as a group.
You should be aware there's some history of him making racist comments.
No, that would suggest that he was actually being satirical as evidenced by the informal conversational tone which was taken. It wasn't a anger filled rant on his views of women. He was attempting to ridicule the players for his perception of their masculine looks. Just becasue it is satire does not make it right or excuse it. That is not what I am trying to say here.
What does "ho" have to do with masculine looks?
It doesn't have to be an "anger filled rant", for God's sake. Imus can refer to a black man as an "ape" in the most casual tone imaginable and it's still racist. His tone doesn't prove it's "satire" in the least little bit.
Chris,
As I said some people would rather sit by and scrutinize every word out of the mouths of conservative talkers praying for a slip-up to bash them off them the air, instead of concentrating on those that make laws and affect our lives through government policies - which are far more deserving of the scrutiny.
And some people would rather come to a site that SPECIALIZES in scrutinizing the conservative media and SNIVEL like a little girl that they are doing what they SAY THEY DO and not what YOU think they OUGHT to do. IF it is so important to go after ONLY politicians then what are you doing HERE. That is not what this site does, its not what this site EVER does. So why not take your OWN advise and go worry about politicians and quit snivelling that others think calling the media on THEIR transgressions is also important
Solon, Tommy still hasn't figured out that this site is for media. That's why it's called "media" matters.
Tommy, write to your senator/congress person. Or get with a group and try political activism.
I am not suprised you missed it JJ, but I am referring to concentrating on the media and it's misinformation put out about elected officials and policy or laws that affect us all.
But I see your point.......you keep up the political activism concering monitoring Ann Coulter's mouth - now that is some real important stuff that you and liberals can whine and finger point about being offensive, and her point is even more driven home.
Tomtom, you completely missed MY point. Posting on this site is not political activism. I don't post here much because I'd rather spend the time either writing to people with actual influence over who gets into office. That includes media people who have a direct hand in who gets into office because of the media bully pulpit. And it includes many others. If you choose to spend all day every day here calling us names and making snide remarks, then I will guess you don't care about real activism. You definately aren't changing anybodys mind here with all of your false bluster and blunder.
Ann Coulter is a nice target for some richly deserved accrimony. Again, anonymous posting board here. Get it? We aren't doing anything by posting here. MMFA just highlights her stupidity because sunlight is the best disinfectant and she stinks up any media joint she encounters. Real ideas and policy aren't heard because of media outlets having people like your darling on the tube. You people aren't interested in having a real discussion about anything, just changing the subject.
Oh my dear JJ, do you think I am here to change the minds of some mindless rabid liberals who get their feathers all ruffled when their opinions hit the "sunlight" of scrutiny? Hardly.
Just your cute little phrasings and the obvious way I irritate you is enough reason for me to know why Ann does what she does, so effectively. And that drives liberals nuts, look around for plenty of evidence of that.
Mindless rabid liberals like yourself give us reasonable liberals a bad name, Tommy.
You were outed as a liberal about a month ago, so just admit it. :-)
Great point, Tommy. And you know, I've always wondered why people worry about teeth. Your teeth aren't going to kill you or anything, right? All these people going into dentistry should be concentrating on cancer research or finding a cure for AIDS, because those are obviously bigger concerns.
Great point Brab. Next time you see an AIDS sufferer clinging to life, or a cancer victim struggling to stay alive - remind them that flossing twice a day is essential. They will appreciate your priorities.
The point is that things besides the top priority still have to be taken care of. It's not like everyone in the field of medicine should drop what they're doing to work on the biggest concern.
You take my point one step further though, as I thought you would. By saying that someone dying of AIDS doesn't have to worry about flossing, you're saying that someone whose life is affected by policy doesn't have to worry about the media.
Oh, but they DO, don't they? Our representatives, the ones that make the laws that shape our policies, they're elected by us. We use our impression of people to decide who we vote for, and you have to rely on the media in one form or another.
You can talk about how people should know better, how people should do their own research, but it doesn't change the fact that most people don't have the time or interest in doing that. There's an expectation of honesty, accuracy and fairness from our media, and so most people will believe what they are told. Otherwise, why do we have it at all? If people can't trust them at all, if the media can't be expected to uphold some standards, then they might as well not even be there.
Just as a crazy hypothetical, let's say that there's evidence that the administration started a war based on ideology, adjusting the facts to conform to the decision to go to war. Not that this could ever happen, but go with me on this. That would obviously be bad policy, right? Now, if the media ignores the evidence, for whatever reason, then surely there are some people who are affected by that policy that otherwise might not have been. Someone who supports the war, up to the point of letting their son sign up for it, might not have done so if the media had done their job adequately, and informed him of the actual nature of the war.
As another example, consider how much influence the President has over policy. If the media ignores negative stories about one candidate, and hypes less relevant negatives about another candidate, you might just get someone in office who is going to create bad policy which affects people's lives.
Wouldn't that be just terrible? Can you imagine one of those scenarios ever actually happening?
As much as you'd like to pretend that it doesn't, the work of the media actually does matter. And that makes your point completely invalid, as is so often the case.
Oh, I forgot. Some would say that heart disease is a major priority as well. I know I would.
Did you know that periodontal disease is linked to heart disease? If you take good care of your gums, you can reduce the risk of a heart attack.
In case you're not connecting the dots, it's an analogy that if our media is in good condition, it might help to prevent the bad policy you're worried about. Sometimes a lower priority still makes a difference.
- achrispage6992
Political correct speech? How about simply decency? How about we simply try decency. No PC needed.
Let me teach a small lesson on black women for all you white boys and girls who don’t quite understand the problem with Imus. Hopefully you will understand (I doubt it) why black women found Imus’s remarks not satire but extremely offensive. Black women have hair issues. They have always had hair issues. Nappy or kinky describes a lot of black women's hair and they have never been very comfortable with discussing it with others who don’t share the same issue. When you tell a black woman she has ’nappy hair’ it’s an insult, period! I’m not going to educate you any further cause frankly I shouldn’t have too, calling a ’black woman ’nappy headed’ is an insult. Calling any woman a ’ho’ is an insult. Do you call you momma a ’ho’? Do you allow people to joke about your momma and jokingly call her a ’ho’. When you watch a comedian who is there for comedy one might expect to hear someone called a ’ho’ cause the forum is comedy. When you watch a morning show with some guests being the possible President of the country one does NOT expect to here the word ’ho’. GET IT!
The difference is pretty simple.
What you fail to GET madam is that the Imus show was basically a comedy show interrupted by sporadic instances of serious political discussion. Even then, Imus would inject comedy into his interviews. When one attends a Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, or Chris Rock concert one would expect the satire used by Imus. The Imus show was not some kind of hard hitting journalistic expose on hard news. It was a morning show that routinely used comedy and satire. Although his comments were certaintly in poor taste (as satire sometimes is) it doesn't negate the fact that such drivel could be expected on his show just as it would be expected from a comic. Furthermore, I just love your honesty and sensitivity by calling me and others "white boys". That is rather ironic coming from an open minded progressive who spouts the need for decency in discourse. In any event, you have never met me so how do you know my race? Pitiful, pitiful, pitiful.
Pearlene, I guess these guys probably do call their mommas ho. Really, it's so totally out of the realm of common decency, not to mention comedic folly for these guys to STILL be insisting this was satire.
Typical elitism? Excuse us for actually knowing what a word MEANS. IE. Satire
I would like to reply to you Solon but I can't read the small print. I'll take a shot in the dark and suppose it is filled with all caps on some words, says someithing about brain function or the famous "what part of ------don't you understand" if not, I apologize and will be happy to discuss this with you in a civil manner. Just let me know.
It is not too difficult to cut and paste the small print into Notepad homie. Here it is:
"A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. Exactly WHAT part of that definition includes calling people nappy headed ho's? What folly or vice is being attacked? Why NONE. He is trying to be funny exploiting a rude racial stereotype but NO vice or folly of those women is being attacked. So no reasonable definiton of satire is being used. I dont really see this as being that subjective. Words have meanings and those meanings dont change in order to give cover to churlish behavior."
Nothing about brain function. Nothing about "what part don't you understand?" It all seems civilized enough to me (and basically accurate). Hope this helps calm you down a little. If not try yoga or something. You've been running through this thread on a hair trigger.
I really odn't know enough about computers do such tasks, While that may be pitiful to you, I am old and am lucky to be able to type and post. In any event, as I said before it seems to me that Imus was geniunely attempting satire here. As the context of the conversation would show you the comments came after Bernard made a comment on the players looks. It is quite apparent that Imus was attempting to creat a folly in their appearance (as masculine, etc) which he ridiculed. That is not too hard to grasp, huh, Homie?
Hey bucko, I'm old too. I'm also missing an arm. I have never been inclined to use either as a excuse though. By the way English is my third language (never inclined to use that as an excuse either). It might come as a surprise to you but not only are your positions transparent they are also predictable. What is not understandable is your tenacious clinging to opinions unsupported by any credible evidence despite the multiple refutations you have been confronted with. Intransigence--is just another name for conservative I guess. That is not what Patanjali meant when he said: "Yogas citta vritti nirodha". Like I said--try yoga.
Just because I don't know the in and outs of computer use as you obviously do I am lazy? Is there a pre-requisite which requires mastery of computer use before one can participate here? Talk about predictable, well how about your self inflating, pat yourself on the back crapola you have spouted here. Who cares how many arms you have or how many languages you know. Do you want a medal?
As for your ridiculous attempt to actually negate my argument, it quite frankly loses itself in its own sef aggrandizing diatribe of useless words. Here is the bottom line, #ucko, satire is sarcasm and ridicule of vice and/or folly. the context of the conversation between Imus and Bernard was centered around the players appearance as masculine looking. The folly being poorly presented by Imus and Bernard was that such appearance by a woman is foolish, therefore their appearance (folly in this context) was ridiculed, which meets the needed criteria for satire. Now, go try your psuedo-intellectual, egotistical trappings on someone else. Shoo fly, you bother me.
"you bother me..."
It might surprise you to know that I didn't really need you to point that out. Thanks for the compliment anyway. An interesting perspective for someone who thinks I need to calm down. Whatever homie. If you don't want to get burned don't stick your hand in the fire. Down to earth enough for you bro?
Again, you fail to negate the argument on whether Imus' comments are satire. I have explained my opinion which is backed up by the definition. Your incessant attempt to take this disucssion elsewhere is tiresome. What is a homie, anyway? Seems to me that a person who knows three languages and is full of two dollar words could do better. But then again, you are interested in taking a psychological approach by congratulating yourself in your delusional belief that you have accomplished making me mad. What a pitiful existence it must be to get your jollies off trying to make others mad. How old are you really? I used to do that crap when I was like...........12. Go away fly, you bother me.
de·ni·al (d-nl) n. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
Are you ever going to debate the specific point at hand? You have continued to fail to present a cogent argument as to why you believe this is not satire. I'll learn to not expect any less from you in the future. Go away fly, you bother me.
The refutation has already been made. Unless you can come up with a cogent argument that demonstrates that a women's basketball team dressed for a game is a legitimate object of satire because of their appearance then your position has no validity--logical or otherwise. Calling a team of black female athletes "nappy headed hos" may qualify as satire in your world--not in mine. All you did in defense of your argument was cherry pick the portions of the definition of satire that were convenient. Now you go away--and stop wasting our time.
Again weak. Show me in the history of literature the great work of satire based on someones LOOKS. Their appearance. I dont believe it exists. You are reaching. No way this qualifies as satire because at a sporting event in uniforms they didnt look the way Imus thought they should. Their looks is what Imus chose to use to insult them. Their appearance is what is normal in that context. He ridiculed them for no reason having to do with folly or vice. There was no deeper meaning BEYOND the insult. It fails every reasonable definition of satire
So their very APPEARANCE is a folly or a vice? Appearance in UNIFORM? I think that is weak. I dont see any reasonable argument that this was satire. It was racist, meanspirited, and insulting for the SAKE of being insulting that isnt satire. There was no deeper meaning which is the very NATURE of satire.
Imus and Bernard perceived their appearance as a folly. The context of their discussion centered around the players looks. Subsequently, Imus ridiculed that perceived folly. Just because it is satire does not excuse the vileness of the remarks, but I beleive that Colmes was right and given the context and tone it meets the definition of satire. Certainly you would that something meeting the definition of satire does not negate it from being other things as well.
I dont see how women dressed in uniforms can possibly be satirized because of their looks. I dont see how it could possibly be considered a folly of any kind. I deny this is a reasonable take only a stretch to pretend it is in compliance with the definition. Had they been wearing clown suits it could be taken seriously. I can see no deeper meaning beyond the insult. I dont think it qualifies as satire. It was JUST an attempt at HUMOR not satire in any meaningful sense.
Oh yeah, If you took the time to read the post, I apologized ahead of time to Solon if my earlier assumptions were incorrect. I stand by that and will readily admit that I jumped the gun and was wrong about my preconceived notion about his posting. I doubt though that he needs you to protect him. I think it is you who needs to calm down as it is apparent that you troll looking for instances to attack someone. I could not care less about such petty arguments such as those we engage in here. I find them fun and they are good to take up free time, quite frankly it is somewhat relaxing for me to engage in debate. Each to his own I guess.
I dont really see the print was that much smaller. I am getting to need reading glasses and have a very hard time with small print. I also am not very computer literate and if I cant read it I pass on it.
Wow. So you expected an attack, though I had no reason to make one in this case. You didnt get one so you just pretended you did?
Yeah, I expected an attack. I apologized ahead of time in case I was wrong, which I was. It's not the first time, it won't be the last. I jumped the gun and had a pre-conceived notion as to your posting content. My fault.
"You are free to have any impression you care to. I could care less..."
- tommy / Wednesday October 17, 2007 01:04:16 PM EST
OK, here goes. I nitpick the King Of All MMFA Nitpickers: You wrote "I could care less..." when you meant to say you couldn't care less. However that is also wrong, because you cared enough to write. You certainly could have cared less, and proven it by not writing. So this time Tommy's wrong, nothing unusual there, but he is also wrong about being wrong! So congrats to you, Tommy, as you have proven that two wrongs do indeed make a right! Q.E.D.
Since when, except in extreme cases, is "satire" something that is NOT up for interpretation?
Within the limits of the definition. I already posted that and cant see any reasonable argument that calling a group of women nappy headed ho's who have NOT exhibited any vice or folly being exploted can apply
I'd agree that applying the label of satire onto the months-old comments of Don Imus is based on flawed logic. Satire implies that the person being ridiculed deserves it. Or that the ridicule is at least not entirely unwarranted. What Imus did was ridicule a bunch of young women who did nothing wrong. While that may have been enough to fuel outrage, his ridicule contained language most anybody would consider to be, at the very least, racially insensitive.
All of that being said, I'm not convinced this qualifies as conservative misinformation. It's actually more like semantic or etymological misinformation. I don't think it's fair to equate conservativism with racial insensitivity.
I never watched or listened to Imus and what little I know of him was that over the course of time he would say little racially charged snipits.
By themselves at the times they were said, meant little, and was individually meaningless.
But, like Rush or Sean when you take what they say over time and add it all up you come up with a history of remarks that can be construde as racially insenitive or plain stupid.
Imus was fired, whether he should have been is up for debate, but if Imus was fired for his last racial remark.....
Shouldn't then Rush or Sean or Bill be for their sick attacks? or even Jon Elliott (for his recent claim that Randi Rhodes was mugged/attacked by a right-wing conspiracy) be fired for when they go this route?
Of course, Jon Eliott did the correct thing by appologizing for his remarks in a way that is easy to see or hear.
Rush/Sean/Bill and those on the right-wing find themselves either incapable or unwilling to do the same and when they do, it is hard to see/hear it or it sounds stressed and can't be easily believed.
I hope Imus does a better job this time around and wish him luck. I won't bother with him this time around either
Imus was fired because he was losing advertising support, secondary to his comments. Hannity/OReilly are clearly not losing the same support.
Racist jokes about innocent young women was not "satire". Alan Colmes should be ashamed of himself.
Imus getting a new job is a huge setback for the progressive blogosphere that got him fired in the first place. That is what is between the lines in this current fit of Imusness.
So, it's your opinion that the progressive blogosphere's mission is to get people fired when they do something liberals don't like?
No, I was saying the right wing media was caught off gaurd when Imus went down, and is relieved that they can now point to Imus as a hero who fought his way back onto the airwaves after being the victim of assasains funded by Soros. All that is between the lines, IMHO.
I think Imus sunk himself - his advertisers felt he was too radioactive and began dropping their support. When that happens it's best for the powers that be to cut their losses and stop the bleeding controversy. That is what happened with Imus.
Now that that has died down a bit, Imus will resurface - it happens all the time in most of these instances.
If that's true Tommy.....
What does that say about the advertisers of Rush? Sean? Savage? or Morgan?
I guess they don't feel the same way that Imus' did. Advertisers make decisions all the time about where they promote their product and what media outlet they want to be identified with; if they feel they aren't getting enough bang for their buck, or there is too much negative publicity, they will most likely discontinue their sponsorship.....it's called prudent business.
Companies are in the business of making money, not aligning themselves with so much controversy that their market appeal is diminished and their customer base shrinks. If that happens someday with Rush or Sean, then you will probably see the same "jumping of the ship"
A huge setback??? LMAO.
I think the progressive bloggers will trudge on, as difficult as it may be. After all, there's a real shortage of other things to talk about. ;-)
I dont see it that way either. There were consequences. I didnt even care if he got fired. There was outrage. That was good enough for me. I only want to see the universal maxim that actions have consequences extended to those on the air. THAT alone was good enough for me
Facts are facts are facts, which these stupid little debate roundtables never note.
1) Imus said what he said. It was incendiary, and he suffered the consequences.
2) Outcry was imminent, but included the death knell of money being pulled out.
3) Imus was fired.
Being an apologist or trying to characterize it as "satire" doesn't change the facts. The business who decides to hire him will deal with whatever he says beyond that.
As was said above, stop beating a dead horse.
Imus should have lost his job for being incredibly slow and boring.
Another good point. Anybody watch him on Tv? Like watching hair grow on a bald guy.
DEGGANS: Secondly, there's a difference between when somebody is inside a group and they make a joke about that group and when somebody is outside of a group.
Uh huh... Typical Liberal Logic.
AA,
So if you made a joke about someone in your family about one of their habits and everyone knew that you were messing around with that person because you were family, you would equate this with a complete stranger making the same joke without knowing any of the history you had?
If you affectionately called your grandmother "The Old Bag" to your cousins and they knew you were joking, would that be the same as an outsider using the same term as an insult?
Yeah. Also known as LOGIC. I know it is a concept COMPLETLY alien to conservatives but it is well understood to those of us with a functioning cerebral cortex
Barney, that may have been your funniest post ever.
Hey HBL, Notice how AA is trying to create a new term "TLL", typical liberal logic. Now that is funny coming from the logic impaired.
I think that BillyBob must be secretly giving "logic lessons" to the Reichwingers that regularly post here.
It is interesting that you give Chris Rock a pass.
Jesus, Media Matters, who don't you do something useful for a change? Why don't you try to be helpful instead of using little snippits to persecute people. Why don't you investigate some DEEDS for a change and stop taking words out of context?
I've noticed an uptick in the dissenting voices on this site since it's gotten so much publicity recently.
Yeah, and most of them are of the "hit and run" variety of weiners wanking in their parent's basements. This is not a personal attack, just a descriptive :o).
Little proof on that "out of context" charge? We won't hold our collective breath waiting.
Why dont YOU stop lying and regurgitating whatever talking point the hivemind ASSIGNED you to repeat like a demented myna bird? MMFA does NOT take things out of context. HAD you spent any time at this site you would KNOW that. Since you only KNOW what the hivemind TOLD you that you know well you make a fool out of yourself
Why don't you investigate some DEEDS for a change and stop taking words out of context?- bellalu0
Are land disputes in the mission statement?
What is a "deed" ? ONly a physical action? Do you not realize the power of (mis)information?
Attacking one of your own now.
Colmes is completely correct and I applaud his having the guts to say it. The truth is the truth. Mr. Imus was attempting to be funny and it came out insensitive and he apologized and his apology was accepted.
Even the team said he should never have been fired and wish him well.
Time to move on because he's coming back whether MM likes it or not. Imus fans have his back this time around.
I doubt sincerely whether MMFA cares whether he comes back or not. But racial insults like the one he tossed out that day shouldn't be tolerated on our public airwaves. We'll see if the same sponsors he had in the past show up to back him on his AM venture, or if he'll be pushing Extenz and other crap that's common the the butt end of the AM dial.
I love it when liberals jump on their pedestals and shout out what they think should and should not be tolerated on our public airwaves. Such sanctimonious baloney from certain posters here who toss out the most insulting invective towards people they don't like all day long.
Hysterical.
I love it when regressives spend half their day on a little website pointing out what they think should and shouldn't be posted. Hysterical.
I love it when cons show how little they know what they are talking about. Like THIS venue is the same as a nationally syndicated radio program. The airwaves belong to US and we darn sure have a right to say how they are used.
No Colmes was not right. Sure he was trying to be funny within his racits and ignorant slur on the basketball team. It was NOT satire no reasonable interpretation of the word applies. I couldnt care less if Imus comes back. We could use him to bore prisoners in interegation and take a kinder gentler approach to torture. I neve cared if he got fired he still knows actions have consequences now. That cant be a bad thing.
The satire of calling the RU womens' basketball team "Nappy Headed Ho's" is and was completely lost on me.
Be that as it may, I do not wish any ill will on Don Imus or his attempt to reintroduce himself to the listening public. For what is is worth, I have heard that he has stated his show will be different. For all the fans who "have his back", I hope you won't be disappointed.
What I do have a problem with and I find contradictory to his stated intentions is that Don Imus has chosen to associate himself with WABC radio. WABC radio, 770AM where I am in the northeast is the homebase of the right wing spin machine, profering all the misinformation and outright lies that is commensurate with that patina; Rush Limbaugh, John Gambling, Larry Kudlow to name a few.
These should be intersting bedfellows for Mr. Imus. I hope he doesn't get fleas.
The satire of calling the RU womens' basketball team "Nappy Headed Ho's" is and was completely lost on me.
It's HILARIOUS if you're a racist, sexist jerk.
This is what I like the most about Colmes' statement:
"And, again, what about the free marketplace? You don't like that kind of humor, you don't find it humorous, don't tune out [sic]. Other people have the opportunity to hear what he's got to say if they choose to listen. If advertisers choose to support it, and if ratings will substantiate his appearance, what's wrong with that"
Finally, a traditional liberal who opposes censorship and supports freedom of the press. We need more liberals like Alan Colmes and Bill Maher. We need people to stand up for free speech rights, liberal or conservative. Free speech rights must be protected and those that are trying to undermine those rights must be exposed.
Like the Bush administration, RH?
There are examples of elements on BOTH the right and the left who want to silence those with whom they disagree, but in my opinion it's much worse on the left than the right. At least the right doesn't have some kind of thought police on the internet trying to get broadcasters in trouble for every little controversial thing they say, and then do everything they possibly can to get these people off the air.
At least the right doesn't have some kind of thought police on the internet trying to get broadcasters in trouble for every little controversial thing they say, and then do everything they possibly can to get these people off the air.
Um, War on Christmas anyone?
Al Franken and Olbermann are common targets for the Right right now, and one of 'em isn't even broadcasting at the moment! You guys are ALL ABOUT attacking the messenger.
RH,
You are seriously more worried about sites like this than the Bush administration goons arresting people for t-shirts?
I disagree with both, but I'm just saying that there's more of a movement on the left to silence those with whom they disagree, while on the right it's mostly just a few isolated incidents, mostly within the Bush administration which isn't traditionally conservative anyway.
RH,
The big difference is Bush has tons more power than this site ever could. You protest here when you think censorship is going on, but not in real life when the government is doing it, why?
It's more than just this site. Democratic members of Congress have talked about reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine and Kucinich even had legislation written seeking to re-impose it. The concept of a free press is being threatened by a segment of the left. And just to be clear, I don't think that I'm really doing anything constructive by being here. I simply come here for fun. I like to debate people that I disagree with. I disagree with many on the left about the concept of a free press, and I like to talk about that issue. I don't write to my representatives about anything, whether it be something that helps my party or criticizes it for something. I just don't think that it does much good. Do you honestly think that I could stop Bush from bannning dissenting protesters at his rallies?
RH,
For the issues I truly believe in, yes, I think writing would help. I believe in being an active member of a democracy and I don't think my responsiblity to my country is over when I vote.
I fight for the things that I believe in and don't believe in being passive when issues like this come up. I want to do everything I can because that is what makes this country great.
Except the fairness doctrine only mandates both sides be heard which is like the opposite of censorship. NO ONE has a free speech right to a national audience so until the fairness doctrine mandates arresting people for what they say YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT. Since this has been explained and PROVEN to you over and over at this point you are just LYING.
RINO:
Couple of questions.
GM has an in-house newsletter for Cadillac dealers called "INNOVATION". Is this an example of a "free press"?
A true "free press" is investigative, and can be critical of anyone if there are facts about wrongdoing, corruption, or fraud. "INNOVATION" will never contain any information about Cadillacs which is critical. This is because content is tightly controlled by GM itself, and critical information is not helpful to sales.
Politics is sold exactly as a "PRODUCT". It has brand-name identification, advertising, and first and foremost a spirit of competition, i.e. WINNING.
The "press" is OWNED in America. The owners are called "publishers" and they have similar agendas which comport with a certain political party. The Rev. Moon and Rupert Murdoch are unapologetic rightwingers, and both seek to influence politics through the publications they own and control.
With such ownership, whether it be by GM or NewsCorp, what leads you to believe that the same rules applied to in-house newsletters would not be applied to a "daily" newspaper?
Would an owner tolerate information that was critical to his preferred product? At FOX NEWS, for example, we know that there is a daily memo which explains how each issue or event is to be covered, and what latest "hot topic' talking point is to be promoted. (Today, it's "Hillary's cackle"!)
My point is, America has all but lost its "free press" to a near monopolistic ownership by people with the interests of the monied elites, corporatism, and rightwing policies.
The result has been media coverage that is little more than an in-house newsletter for the RNC.
PRINT, of course, is covered by the First Amendment. But the AIRWAVES are owned by THE PEOPLE. WE are the "owners", and we SHOULD have the say in what kind of coverage is presented.
The "FAIRNESS DOCTINE" stood in the way of the partisan takeover of the public airwaves by virtue of mere purchasing power. Rightwing icon Ronald Reagan recognized this roadblock to his chosen ideology, and so he struck it down, allowing the molopolization to commence. (Ironically, Reagan's rationale that the FD was "too restrictive" ignored the fact that his own political career was taken national by his own radio program!)
The Rightwing opposes the Fairness Doctrine for the exact same reason they oppose restrictions on the use of PUBLIC LANDS for mining, logging, and oil exploration. Just another resource to be exploited to further PROFITS.
Yeah you are a liar. When the left begins getting people ARRESTED for expressing their opinion like those examples you will have an argument so far you dont. We have already PROVEN there is no free speech argument here. At this point you are just lying.
RH,
If you were an advertiser on a radio talk show and the host started going off on Christians and how terrible they are, what would you do? Let's say, for sake of argument, that you don't pay too much attention to the show, but the show's ratings are great.
Do you:
A) Pull the plug on your advertisements?
B) Keep supporting the show financially despite the fact you find the show's content offensive?
If you choose A) and someone had pointed out to you the comments, would you appreciate their efforts?
I would probably pull the plug on the advertisements, but not because of some orchestrated effort by any group to try to convince me to do that. I would do it because of my own concience rather than some orchestrated effort by a certain segment of society.
RH,
Thank you for the candid response. So, do you think that the people who wrote to Imus's advertisers got them to change their minds because of their conscience or the pressure?
Should we not accept their explanations as you would expect one to accept yours?
I think that the main thing was that they didn't want to be associated with someone who had been branded as a racist. It made their companies look bad, and they were probably afraid that it could hurt them financially. So it probably ended up being a financial decision. But I just never even understood why Media Matters made such a huge effort to get Imus off the air. They certainly succeeded in that effort, and they then came up with an entire black list that McCarthy would be proud of. They named their next targets which they recently hit, Limbaugh and O'Reilly. And the fact that it's legal for them to do this doesn't make it right. It's not noble for an organization or political party to try to silence those who have different political points of view, whether it's done through a legal means or not. If you don't like O'Reilly's show, then simply change the channel. We have freedom of choice in this country. Nobody is forcing you to watch his show.
RH,
Why are you allowed to say you would listen to your conscience, but that advertisers are just victims of peer pressure?
If the advertisers hear what Rush and O'Reilly are really saying, why are they not allowed the same considerations you said you would make?
Why should advertisers not hear from people who are concerned about what they are promoting?
There is no blacklisting going on. People are voicing displeasure with the content put on by these companies. There is nothing wrong with that. Its not blacklisting in the least!
Why should people not be accountable for what they say? You said you would pull your content if someone said anti-Christian things. Why can't someone pull content for what they think is racist?
Will they still have the right to write books? Say whatever they want on the streetcorner or at the Park? Then THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE INVOLVED.
Rino,
Of course the left does it far more - they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
They are failing miserably in their attempts to beat conservatives in the media ratings war. Next....
They failed miserably in whining to government to bail them out by bringing back the idiotic Fairness Doctrine. Next......
Now they tape every word and troll for offensive language to hang them up with and get them canned. This is probably the last best hope until they figure out to compete like adults.
So, Tommy, why are you here then :)? If we have the hit the bottom of the barrell, why would you feed with us?
The bottom of the barrel in fretting over the talk show hysteria and the fact that many liberals are bent on saving the world from the evil rightwinger talkers, Yes. :)
Other more important issues are fair game and well intentioned.
Fair enough, thanks for the comment.
It is a specious argument. Things need done. Different people do them. There are more important things than painting my garage too yet there are people who make a living painting things like my garage. Its ok to do ONE THING WELL and let other people do the more important things.
Then why dont YOU spend YOUR time on those important issues rather than snivelling about what is done here?
Says the WORLD CLASS WHINER who snivels constantly about this site. WWAAHHHH, why is this here, WWWAAHHHH why dont you STOP exposing the lying, racism and outrageousness of my heroes? WWAAHHHHHH
That is your opinion for two reasons. First you have no CONCEPT what free speech is and two that is what the Limborg hivemind TOLD you to think
Rhino says "Free speech rights must be protected and those that are trying to undermine those rights must be exposed." I'll make a deal with you rhino, you expose any one who tries to undermine constitutional rights to free speech (might I suggest a modest donation to the ACLU?) and I'll expose those that try to manipulate the FCC and free market capitalism to gain monopolies. Between the two of us a reasonable might be achieved.
("might I suggest a modest donation to the ACLU?)"
Why would I want to donate to the ACLU? They're actually one of the worst offenders. They want to silence those who have different beliefs as well. Just ask any kid who tries to talk about God in school whether the ACLU supports free speech rights.
Rhino I was tweaking your nose old boy. But, at my son's hs graduation two of the valedictorians took it upon themselves to witness about their faith in Jesus. No boos, no catcalls, no lawsuits, a few people dozed off in the sweltering heat though. The night before there was a ceremony called, uh , I can't remember, but it was a Christian service in the school gym, with multiple sermons, prayers and various forms of Christian music. No lawsuits.
I'm glad to hear that. Maybe things are getting better. But if someone had actually let the ACLU know about it I imagine it would be a different story. There's lots of examples of the ACLU filing lawsuits against students in public schools who openely share their faith.
No they wouldnt you NEVER know what you are talking about. You never even know what you beleive until the hivemind tells you. The ACLU will protect the rights of individuals talking about God anywhere they want. They went to court to protect the rights of a teacher to wear a cross to school. They are against the school itself prosletyzing. Any GOVERNMENT establishment not about PEOPLE expressing their religious beliefs. If you EVER knew what you were talking about you would know that. Then again I guess the hivemind didnt tell you so how could you POSSIBLY know
Just to clarify, from the ACLU web site:
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your desire to expose anyone who undermines free speech rights seems to dovetail nicely with the ACLU in general. I think you are focusing too much on their efforts to protect someones right to be free FROM religion.
YOU are such a liar.
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Politics\American Civil Liberties Union ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religion and Religious Expression.htm
* The ACLU of New Jersey (2006) filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking a federal court to uphold an elementary school student's right to sing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605
reasonable balance.
Fear not, I have an appointment on the 25th to replace the glasses I lost. As you may guess, my wonderfull free market insurance policy does NOT allow me to choose a doctor and I must wait until the assinged doc can see me at his convienence.
But that's what you prefer. We hear it all the time.
Yeah, you're a victim of "bad choices" apparently.
[Colmes said]: "If advertisers choose to support it, and if ratings will substantiate his appearance, what's wrong with that"
As pointed out, those are Colmes' words and not your words, RINO, but you seem to agree with them. So tell us all, what is it that advertisers use to determine if they should support a particular program with their advertising dollars?
YOU are such a LIAR. We have repeatedly shown you that there is NO free speech issue here. Just because the hivemind assigned you to react to any criticism of a radio host with SKWAAAK free speech, SKWAAAKKK censorship doesnt mean it makes sense. I already cited the head of the FCC saying DIRECTLY that radio and TV programmers undrstand they have a public interest function and that there is no free speech issue involved wont stop you from LYING about it. Facts mean nothing to you. Reality means NOTHING to you. You have your hivemind assignment and you just keep repeating it. IF the government CHOOSES someone to have a license and megaphone which other citizens DONT have that obviates ANY FREE SPEECH ARGUMENT. When these guys get arrested or told what they can say on a streetcorner you can get back to us with this Freespeech argument until then STOP LYING.
"We need more liberals like Alan Colmes and Bill Maher."
I'll say this would certainly make politics a heck of a lot smoother for you cons.
colmes is wrong...imus is a bigot and a racist in real life....just read howard stern's and robin quivers' accounts of the guy while they were working at nbc.
No offense to Stern and crew but who needs a third person account when you've got the man's words out there for everyone to see?
Colmes is a centrist Democrat, not a liberal. Sean is a far-right Republican. They are a mismatch, just the way Fox likes it.
Racially inflamatory rhetoric is not "satire." Give me a break!
I don't think Imus is any better than Ann Coulter. Both make lots of money by being disgusting. I think they would make a great couple.
Media Matters (very little),
This story actually shows that MM matters even less now than it did before. Imus on the rebound is a real slap in your face. He gets a huge bonus when fired and now is coming back with an even bigger contract. Plus, he sounds like understands more clearly the true nature of Mrs. Clinton and ready to share the wonders of all she embodies!
Great work MM(vl)!!
ProudMoron matters not at all. As usual you dont know what you are talking about. I saw no attempt by MMFA to keep Imus off the air. An outrage was expressed at his racist comments. At that point everything I wanted WAS accomplished. I never cared if he was fired or not.
Saloon,
Sorry but MM(vl) thought they were hot stuff back then (see the articles below)...now it is just a parade of buffoonery in the guise of correcting the falsehoods of conservative thought. Nice try but as with Imus, democrat attempts to incite war, propogandizing health care and squelching free speech, MM is mattering less and less. Despite its lame efforts it does one good thing though, it's one more way for America see how far to the left the democrat party is today. That's why MM(vl) should keep up the good work!
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117641076468168180-TfMzyqKQiK1gcJfwRly5ONRZTEo_20080411.html
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/newsprint.cgi?file=/news2007/0412-02.htm
ProudMoron. I am sure that is what the hivemind told you to think. There could be no other explanation for the demented projection of Democats as inciting war or any of the other delusions you are so proud of citing as if they could be taken seriously being attributed to Dems instead of you ReNAMBLAcans. Your ignorance and astonishing capacity for self delusion are noted. They however make it unlikely we are going to take YOUR silly talk about how satisfied MMFA was with anything or some agenda that exists in YOUR head not in their actions. Try someday to have a thought of your own not initiated by the hivemind. It may set you free. Few liberals I knew cared one way or another about Imus being fired nor about him coming back. There was an outcry. Actions had consequences and people saw that racist diatribes can cost you. That was the only point I wanted to see made. Remember even IF this site matters very little people like YOU who are so proud of being morons matter not at all.
ProudCon, MediaMatters matters very Little would actually be MMMVL. Unless you think the media isn't important.
I think where you Ratings Queens get confused is in thinking that MM and other groups are trying to censor or get people off the air. The idea is simply to expose and document the pathetic state of our media.
Rush Limbaugh, for example, has a loyal audience made up of a very small segment of this country. This audience is, generally, a homogeneous group who don't really enjoy thinking. This allows Rush to play to there fears and prejudices, and maintain a voice on the airwaves.
There is no cohesive audience for anything comparable on the liberal side. Trying to corral a group of independently thinking people who read real newspapers and magazines and use the internet,is a pretty difficult job as compared to lining up a dittohead gang.
Many liberals even watch and listen to right wing sources, for laughs or counterintelligence, so they add to the ratings. I wouldn't guess that many conservatives use as broad a range of sources. A lot of conservatives come to this site, but it appears that very few of them pay any attention to anything but their own posts.
My point is, if you (and the others who do it) think coming here to gloat that the worst of our nation's media is very popular, and you think that's going to make anybody feel hurt, you're not too clear on the concept.
Mass media will always find it's mother lode in the average and the lowest common denominator.That may sound like stating the obvious, defining the average as average, to many here who don't equate popularity with quality.I think it's something to ponder for those who post here to brag about how gullible they are, and how many others are like them.
http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/spgt808.html
As the Supreme Court ruled in the Red Lion case
There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and present those views which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.(4)
In other words, no one has a First Amendment right to monopolize a broadcast frequency. Unlike newspaper owners, every broadcaster knows going in that his ability to pursue his private interests are constrained by the obligation to serve the public interest.
You really ought to STOP LYING about this Rhino
Alan is an easy-going man. He has a mild-mannered personality. He's cool, though. I like Alan better than evil Sean.
Don Imus is at that age when he needs to retire at his ranch. WABC in New York City will probably resume his show. Would it be a kick if Don Imus replaced Sean at his flagship station? Imus would be cheaper than Sean anyway. Sean would have a heart attack if that happened.
If anything is a joke, it would be Hannity and Colmes. This tired old show-and media hack Sean-should be replaced immediately.
Why is it when a media figure says disparaging things about Jewish people in the media it isn't categorized as satire? Someone spouts off on gays, not seen as satire. There is always an exception when it comes to African Americans. I personally am not bothered by Don lmus' comments. Why? Because he doesn't speak for the majority of white men I know. Maybe I'm naive. Still if we could substitute nappy headed ho's for any Jewish, homosexual, muslim or other slur and it changed how you feel - there's a good chance you are a bigot.
I totally agree with Colmes on this. It was satire and nothing more. I am glad Imus will be back to listen to. He makes me laugh.
Well you have no understanding of satire, and imo opinion you have lousy taste in who you listen to.
Imagine if your sister or your daughter was part of a team that worked very hard to win a championship. Then some creep on a national radio program used this kind of language to describe her and her teammates. Don't think you would find it funny or satire. At least I hope not for your sake.
Mary, if everybody was as uptight as you the world would be a miserable place to live. Do I think Ann Coulter was bigoted and anti-semitic when she spoke of Jews last week? Yes. Do I think Rush Limbaugh is a serial racist? Yes. Do I think the Bush Administration was racist when they didn't act quicker in regards to Katrina? Yes. But Don Imus? Give me a break. The guy even apologized and I don't think he needed to.
Why isn't Don Imus a serial racist, in your opinion?