BlogHer - CBS Fires Don Imus - Comments

Agreed

Kim Pearson — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:41:12 -0500

Thanks for the clarification, Dana. And I think you get my point about BET, so I won't belabor it.

I'm thinking that one simple thing we can do as bloggers is to make an effort to cover and link to information about media education efforts. I'll commit to getting a BlogHer post up this week about some of the resources that are on our rolls. There's the Women's Voice Blog and Common Sense Media for starters.

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

No, Kim, I was saying that

Mamalogues — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:52:09 -0500

No, Kim, I was saying that Imus hurt his own character. His character ws hurt; he did it himself. It's irrelevant who supports it (I just used BET as an example), two wrongs don't make a right. We need to come to terms with how it should be handled.

I caught a bit of Oprah's discussion on this very topic this afternoon; pretty good. She and her guests are making many of the same points about the hip hop industry.

I'm serious too, let's do it. I've started by teaching my sons to deflect all that pop-culture throws at them. Advertisers will be sorely disappointed in us!

Dana
Mamalogues.com
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Pop Mama
Since Eve

No argument

Kim Pearson — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:51:19 -0500

Dana, I am saying I agree with you that everyone should live by the same code. As for Imus being defamed,if I've done that, please point it out. I don't recall saying anything about who is he is, just about what he did.

Let's talk about BET. It's owned by Viacom, which also owns MTV,VH 1, CBS and Nickelodeon. Before it was sold to Viacom, it was run by Robert Johnson, who founded it with money from John Malone. Malone said he backed Johnson because he knew Johnson wouldn't push a social agenda. And Johnson himself has said that he cared about money more than anything else. Here's what he told USA Today, and how one black critic responded:

"I'm in business to make money," says Johnson in a wide-ranging interview in his new offices in this Washington, D.C., suburb. "You can do well and do good. But at first, you have to focus on the blocking and tackling of running a good business."

That attitude has made Johnson an overwhelming business success. When he took BET public, it was the first black-owned company on the New York Stock Exchange.

But his stance has frustrated and angered some African-Americans, such as Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer newspaper columnist Barry Saunders, who say Johnson flourished by selling low-cost programming that focused on sex and violence rather than quality shows that explored more enriching areas of black culture. "His history of exploiting African-Americans means he is going to have to prove himself," Saunders says.

You see, a lot of "black media" that you would think would be a vehicle for protest and reform isn't really black controlled. That, and the lack of mainstream media coverage, help to marginalize any real protest effort. Case in point: a while back, Essence Magazine had a campaign to clean up hiphop. I believe it was Mark Anthony Neal who asked whether the editors of Essence where going to take their protest to their corporate parent, which also owns a major hiphop record label. Uhh, no.

That's why there needs to be a broader movement. I'm serious, Dana. You and others who feel the same way, let's work together.

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

I think Dana has the answer

Maria Niles — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:18:13 -0500

Realize that the only way to temper this behavior in our society is by practicing respect ourselves and teaching our children and other youth respect. Take away their future consumers.

Since women and African Americans have spoken out against violent, sexist, racist and degrading song lyrics for decades and it hasn't made a dent I hold out little hope for suggestions that the attention on Imus be refocused to hip-hop music. Remember Tipper Gore's PMRC campaign? The target there was rock music and it gave the world warning labels that only succeeded in selling more of the recordings that earned a label.

Why is it that we allow our children to buy the music that parents have been helpfully warned to pre-screen and judge the acceptability for their children? Either parents are not screening, don't care what their children are listening to or think that nasty lyrics are acceptable fodder for their children.

I've worked in the music business and I know that many in the industry have voiced their opposition to both the horrific lyrics sold by labels (and the horrific misogyny in the industry itself). So expecting self-regulation is out. However, frustrating as it may be, any government regulation of speech itself that makes no use of public goods would be trampling on our rights.

So we are left with three options 1. Encourage artists to be more sensitive in their word choice which is never going to happen as long as millions of people buy their "art" 2. Pressure corporations not to sell the offending "art" which is never going to happen as long as millions of people buy the "art" 3. Work towards creating a culture and society in which degrading people based on their gender or race is not what we desire as entertainment and not what we spend our money on nor teach our children is in alignment with our values and therefore desirable to them. We get what we demand and therefore deserve.

I'm not talking about not satirizing the public and the powerful. I believe that while that can be offensive, it's also often powerful art. I'm talking about the everyday nastiness directed at ordinary people and groups based simply on who they are. It's a culture that I think dehumanizes and cheapens us all.

I hope that what comes out of all this discussion is that finally we really move towards no longer consuming the coarse culture and will see a lessening of it. I felt the same way after 9/11 and I changed some of my own habits - no more watching reality shows that are all about being awful to your fellow "players" for example. I'm not suggesting that makes me a saint but I do think the most powerful response we can make as individuals is to vote with our dollars, attention, energy and focus for the world we want to see.

But it isn't the black

Mamalogues — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:19:35 -0500

But it isn't the black community that put Snoop Dogg in a Chrysler commercial.

I could say no, but that hasnâ€™t stopped his demographic from buying his albums that glorify degradation. It hasnâ€™t stopped BET from honoring such artists with hip hop awards. We could spend days going tit-for-tat. Passing the buck. Thatâ€™s beside the point and doesnâ€™t solve our problem.

I see these two options:
Option 1
We force everyone to live by the same moral code. We arbitrarily establish which parts of speech are acceptable and which are not, as well as which parts of speech can be used by what groups of people when and in what manner at what time. I suggest that members of the group elected to enforce such regulations wear satin jackets denoting their divine powers of judgment.

Option 2
We realize that everyone is entitled to make an ass of themselves and hallelujah for that because for without it we would not have reality television. Realize that the only way to temper this behavior in our society is by practicing respect ourselves and teaching our children and other youth respect. Take away their future consumers.

One station fired Imus? I guarantee heâ€™ll get another job. A better paying job. Because people will listen and advertisers will pay for those listenersâ€™ ears. Who's fault is that?

We remedy the problem, not the symptom. We have NOT EVEN BEGUN to do that.

Iâ€™m on deadline now and harried, but you get the gist of it.

(Speaking of defamation of character, the true injury of libel or slander, Iâ€™m observing that Imusâ€™ character took the hit, and not his target.)

You know how I taught my son, whose best friend is Jamaican, about racism â€“ something he wouldâ€™ve never known about if society wasnâ€™t still fighting over it and behaving so damn inconsistently? From a confederate flag decal on some hoosierâ€™s (not Indiana) truck. Thank you, hoosier, for giving me a talking point and for serving as a living teaching tool. I'm grateful that people have the right to wear who they are on their sleeves (or back window). I appreciate that. I like to know with what Iâ€™m dealing.

I'm going to quote myself.

Or we can say that it's okay/not okay for everyone - NO MATTER THEIR COLOR - to say these things. Anything less promotes racism. If it's not okay for one, it's not okay for all.

Dana
Mamalogues.com
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Pop Mama
Since Eve

Hi Dana,

Kim Pearson — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:51:56 -0500

Any ideas how we can get more of the rest of America to pay attention to the protests against violence, misogyny and homophobia in some elements of hip-hop and popular culture that have been going on since Jesse Jackson first decried sexually explicit lyrics in the 1970s? Maybe we can get more communities to show Byron Hurt's great documentary Beyond Beats and Rhymes. Maybe we can get book discussions going on BlogHer of works by Mark Anthony Neal, Joan Morgan, Patricia Hill Collins and Jelani Cobb. Maybe you can share information about those protest efforts with other country music fans -- I mean, what does Kid Rock think about all of this. Maybe we can get Aisha Shahidah Simmons' documentary NO! shown at BlogHer '07 -- but would people think her anti-violence documentary was only for black women?

What do you think? I'm open to ideas. Clearly there are a lot of people outside of the black community (and some people who identify themselves as being inside the community, such as Juan Williams and Jason Whitlock) who know nothing about the work that has been going on for years. Consequently, there are well meaning people out there who think people like Snoop Dogg are getting a free pass.

But it isn't the black community that put Snoop Dogg in a Chrysler commercial.

So this hurts all of us. How do we fight back -- together?

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

Wait -Now because Imus has

Mamalogues — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:21:51 -0500

(Thank you for your comment on my photo.)

Wait -

Now because Imus has been fired some white people want to discuss racism and misogyny in gangsta rap. Puhleeese! I say, "Don't come to me whining about gangsta rappers to make a point about Imus." It reminds me of the "good ol' boys" in Slidell ..."

To me, that seems like an assuming, universal statement meant to discredit anyone who tries to draw a comparison. So if a critic is white are you assuming that:
a) They don't know what "ho" means
b) They have never listened to rap unless it makes media headlines
c) All white people ignore black culture until it is convenient for them?

I apply your own words to this:
"I believe good adults can find themselves trapped in racist thinking even when they try their best to eliminate such thinking from their minds. "

If all stereotypes were true, this world would be the most boring place on earth in which to live.

I'm not writing this as anything but an impassioned response. I don't want to argue, but to exchange unfiltered ideas. We're both against double-standards and I think we have the same goal in mind, if only all of society could share it.

Nevertheless, some activists have talked about boycotting radio station sponsors over gangsta rap, and that's another way to share one's opinion and exercise free speech. Where do you suggest they start? How do we encourage civility without ever supporting consequences for incivility?

For starters, we stop giving them Oscars and Grammys for it. We stop defending them in saying that they're artists/musicians/making a political statement/in a different spectrum/blahblahgah. We can stop buying their albums. We can start by teaching respect in the home.

Or we can say that it's okay/not okay for everyone - NO MATTER THEIR COLOR - to say these things. Anything less promotes racism. If it's not okay for one, it's not okay for all. I personally want people to make up their own minds and not be led to a behavior as it would contradict with liberty.

I've never said that Imus should be exempt from action - I've never said that CBS should not have fired him. CBS is its own company; they've a right to handle their affairs however they want because they have that right.

My whole entire point is society's reaction to this.

I'm going to gansta rap/hip hop because honestly? And I can't believe that no one has acknowledged the MAMMOTH in the room. From my perspective I see many people silent for years on their own race's abuse of this term who suddenly speak out when a crusty, old white man says it. Of course, some people avoid the discussion altogether to avoid being mislabeled "racists." Some people just want a honest discussion. But fear of rocking the boat prevents such discussions from taking place.

You're right in saying that I expect fairness across the board. I do not believe in special treatment or the promotion of one group's rights over another: equality is equality is equality. I believe in true, unconditional equality and rights.

I also don't care what Imus' intentions were upon using the phrase. Humor? I've heard some people say that. You know, they coat some medicines with a hard, candy coating to make the pill more palatable. Humor does the exact same thing and there are many dark agendas hidden under the weak guise of humor. Just as there are many dark agendas hidden behind "political speech" and "artistic expression."

Instead of snuffing all of it out, perhaps we should strive to teach the generations how to recognize when they're being dosed.

Or maybe I don't know anything but country music and farming because I'm just a skinny white girl from the Midwest! OKAY, slender. I flatter myself.

Dana
Mamalogues.com
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Pop Mama
Since Eve

Mamalogues, I applaud your sense of fairness

Nordette — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 02:47:23 -0500

Mamalogues, you've been offended by some of my language. I apologize because I was not saying that you personally actually want to insult people. I put that statement in the form of a question knowing the answer would be "No," that you don't want to do that. You don't want to do that anymore than I think it's okay to insult people privately and declare I'm practicing free speech.

I also admit that I can see how you would believe that everything I said was directed at you because I responded to you in the thread, and for that I'm sorry. My comments reflect an accumulation of thoughts I built up reading comments on the Imus issue all over the blogosphere and in print. I've seen your argument presented by law students, young lawyers, and respected journalists. So, you've got some good company with you, but you should know that I don't agree with them either on this subject.

I don't think Imus' predicament can be whittled down to "who can say what" and double standards. I think there are some actual laws that may be applied to Imus' predicament that have nothing to do with racism or misogyny. People probably don't want to apply slander to what Imus said because it would force them to examine what comes out of their own mouths and what would happen if people held them accountable for what they say in a tangible way.

I think there's a strong case for saying the Imus situation falls in the defamation, slander, libel, and malicious intent category rather than under free speech. In responding to your comment, I forgot that I was responding to an individual and wrote my response more like a hard editorial.

You strike me as a young woman with a strong sense of fairness. From that perspective, I see your point. You want everyone to suffer the same penalties for the same types of deeds.

I have a strong sense of fairness as well, but I'm probably not as idealistic and responded to you from the more narrow sense that in actual court law free speech has limits with consequences and that Imus crossed one of those limits in a way that fits slander/defamation of character. He boxed himself in and the box collapsed.

The issues about race and misogyny make it harder to see the box. I consider the possibility that once the sponsors jumped ship and CBS officials saw more and more pieces about the Rutgers women and their parents that the idea "potential lawsuit" crossed their minds. At that point they had to consider how far they'd go to support Imus, and it probably was far more a money decision than they'd care to admit. Even if you win, a slander suit still cost you money and keeps the matter before the public for a longer period of time.

Shock jocks and some of the meaner political pundits hide behind the reality that most people don't want to go to court over defamation or slander. Usually the person attempting to get his/her reputation back gets more bad publicity and has more horrible things said about him/her when trying to defend his/her reputation. I think that Americans don't have recourse when defamed because of how the media attacks such stories isn't fair to those who've been injured. I don't think this climate gets us better news stories. I think it gets us more sensationalized coverage.

Neither do I think that supporting Imus within the context of free speech means the person is racist. However, I'm sure you recognize that there are some people, sadly a significant number, hiding behind free speech on this matter and declaring there's a double standard who are in fact racist and who find nothing wrong with what Imus said. What really outrages them is African-American leaders who object to anything related to African-American Civil Rights. They'd prefer they not protest anything, no matter how deplorable, and they want them to shut up already; shut up and never speak again. They hold them to higher standards than they hold "white" leaders, people who in reality represent everyone, as though African-American leaders must prove they're superhuman to people who actually don't think of them as human period. You don't seem to belong to the group that would think such things and be that unfair.

I hope this additional comment clarifies my point for you and lets you know that I was not wrestling with you as a person but with the double standard/free speech argument as applied to Imus and attitudes expressed all over the Net and in the brick and mortar world. In the narrow sense of Imus' predicament, I don't think the letter of law on free speech applies as much as people may think it does no matter how it looks on the surface, and I shudder to think that we would want the spirit of free speech to apply in such cases.

Nordette
PS: Cute baby and picture.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

It's not a free speech issue

Nordette — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:58:43 -0500

You majored in journalism. Okay. The Imus situation is still not a free speech issue.

If it were a true free speech issue, then we wouldn't be discussing why Imus was fired; we'd be discussing why Imus is being prosecuted in court by the government. Imus is still free to say whatever he wants to say and insult whomever he pleases just not anywhere he wants. He's lost a job, not his right to speak freely.

I have the right to say whatever I please, but I don't have the right to say it on public airwaves, especially on public airwaves to which someone other than me owns the license. People who honestly believe Imus' free speech was violated should be starting a legal defense fund for him to tell CBS "see ya' in court." You want to do that? Have fun.

I was careful to say bloggers in the beginning of my other comment and not you specifically when I spoke of bloggers comments about free speech. My thoughts went all the way back to similar debates over the Kathy Sierra train wreck and the bloggers squabbling over free speech then. So, it's not all about you and your journalism degree. I think many bloggers don't understand free speech laws.

Judging by what I read in some newspapers today, I suspect many trained journalists could use refresher courses as well.

As for who is racist and who is not, I believe many adults of all races don't examine themselves enough to consider how some of their own thinking may be racist in some areas. I believe good adults can find themselves trapped in racist thinking even when they try their best to eliminate such thinking from their minds. The more subtle their racist thinking, the harder it is to identify. Usually such thinking can be traced to ignorance, a lack of knowledge or education in a certain area or subject, and sometimes to cultural indoctrination that's difficult to overcome.

Sometimes people of European descent go ballistic if anyone evens hints that they're racist. Why is that, and is that my problem? If we go with your argument that what I said meant anyone who supports Imus is racist, then you'd have to say that I also mean that anyone who supports Imus is misogynistic because throughout my blogs on this I point out that his comment was both racist and misogynistic. Perhaps I should revisit my blogs and make sure I always use both words together; otherwise, it's clear to me that some people will focus only on race and forget that we're also talking about misogyny.

You can scream about the gangsta rappers all you want. Many black people in general and black women in particular have been screaming about the rappers for years. Now because Imus has been fired some white people want to discuss racism and misogyny in gangsta rap. Puhleeese! I say, "Don't come to me whining about gangsta rappers to make a point about Imus." It reminds me of the "good ol' boys" in Slidell who suddenly wanted to discuss black children being victims of violence rather than address that their sheriff had just insulted all black people from New Orleans. Where was their concern for black children before the sheriff said what he said?

It reminds me of my ex. If you pointed out a problem that he didn't want to address like he bounced a check, then he'd say "Well, you didn't wash the dishes." Deflection will be the death of us, and that's all some people are doing when they bring in gangsta rap; they're deflecting. Perhaps you specifically aren't doing that because you seem to sincerely believe this is a free speech issue, but I've read a lot of pieces supporting Imus that focus on gangsta rap and it's clear that they're using deflection. Some people who've never paid attention to gangsta rap are now surfing the Net looking for lyrics to make their point.

Why go to gangsta rap? Is it because the rappers are black? The group Guns 'n Roses had the same problems, but no one could stop them either. Musicians and Imus don't practice in the same medium. Imus can cut a record and say "nappy-headed ho" all he wants to. It's unfortunate, but it's true. You can vote against that by not buying the record and making him rich.

So back to this issue of free speech, there's no double standard here. Imus and the gangsta rappers, while both insulting, are not in the same neck of the media woods. Also, gangsta rappers are not usually talking about a specific group of women that are unlikely to be called public figures. They make generalizations about all women which sadly could possibly be viewed as a political statement, an argument that keeps protecting the KKK, but gangsta rappers generally hide behind freedom of speech concepts tied to artistry. Imus got very specific and slandered a certain group of women.

Slander is illegal by the way. It's an illegal form of speech, and Imus does not pretend that he was talking about anyone other than the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Nevertheless, some activists have talked about boycotting radio station sponsors over gangsta rap, and that's another way to share one's opinion and exercise free speech. Where do you suggest they start? How do we encourage civility without ever supporting consequences for incivility?

The situation with gangsta rappers is far more complicated than the Imus situation. Furthermore, why some young black men are calling each other "n****r" and women "b****s" and "hos" and why a white man should not join them, especially over public airwaves, is not less complicated than French idioms but more. I wasn't talking about the meaning of one word like "ho" since an idiom is rarely one word. I was talking about origins, use, and connotations of the phrase "nappy-headed hos" when used in the black community. Imus doesn't understand it anymore than a non French speaker understands French idioms, and he admits he doesn't understand. The one thing he did understand was that it's insulting usually, so why did he say it?

And this is where I get off the train. I don't have the energy to explain why gangsta rappers do what they do nor why an old white male should know better, nor do I wish to go on and on about what is and isn't free speech. So much has been written on the subject already I point people to libraries, not the Web, but libraries.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Why I think it's not about free speech

Kim Pearson — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:03:47 -0500

Hi Dana,

When I hear "free speech" invoked, I do think in terms of press law. That's why I disagree with your framing of this as a free speech issue. I am curious about a few things:

1. To the extent that Imus' comments disparaged the characters of people whose status as public figures is questionable, do you think that he exposed himself and the networks to potential slander lawsuits? If you think that's a possibility, it's not about his free speech.

2. I assume that you recognize that there is a reason that Chappelle, Maher, Stern, et. al. are on satellite or cable. Thay can't do the same things on network TV and radio because of FCC rules. And under those rules, people who believe that what has been said or done on network violates decency standards can file complaints with the FCC, or challenges to broadcast licenses. It's the reason that even the vilest hip-hop "artists" have to make "clean" versions of their songs for radio.

Cable and satellite, as you know, don't operate in the same way because people voluntarily subscribe to those networks. No one is stopping Imus from going on satellite radio, or Comedy Central, for that matter.

Personally, I think Stern shouldn't be on network. I don't have premium cable, so I don't know what Bill Maher says, and even Dave Chappelle came to realize he was done a minstrel act and needed to change direction. That's what made him run off to South Africa. If I had my way, I would have opened a big ol' can of whoopass on the staff of Chappelle show, BET, MTV and a lot of other forms of popular entertainment. But I'm not, and it's up to people who object to that kind of filth to make it unprofitable. That is something that many of the visible protesters in this episode have been trying to do for years. The only difference in this episode is that the rest of the country paid attention.

3. The jury is still out on Rosie. It took decades before Imus crossed the ultimate line. I think that if people find Rosie violates decency standards, they should complain about it. That's what the system is for. The National Association of Black Journalists, the group that started the calls for Imus' firing, got involved in this one because Imus' show had elements of journalism in it, and because journalists and politicians were frequent guests. Most of the others you cite don't fall into that category, so they wouldn't come under NABJ's scrutiny.

4. The elephants in the room that we are not discussing are white supremacy and patriarchy, which played a role in why Imus' attempt at humor took the form that it did, and why people such as "Snoop Dogg" (to me he's still Calvin Broaddus) distinguished himself from Imus in the way that he did.

Broaddus invoked the Victorian madonna/whore paradigm when he said that gangster rappers aren't talking about women who work hard and educate themselves -- they just denigrate women who are golddiggers with low morals. Where did he learn that from? There's a larger culture out there there that teaches men and women to think that way.

And when Imus coupled the sexual epithet with a racial reference, he invoked the entire racial and sexual mythology surrounding black women, going back to Saartje Bartmann. As scholars such as Patricia Hill Collins note, this kind of essentializing doesn't juat imprison black women. It creates a race/gender hierarchy that traps everyone into a drama that reinforces oppressive boundaries.

What we invoke as humor and entertainment is very telling. Presumably none of us wants to see these ways of essentializing other women -- or men, for that matter -- continue. I think the challenge for us at Blogher is to talk about how we create new conversations.

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

I majored in journalism

Mamalogues — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:29:22 -0500

I majored in journalism while in college and studied ethics. It seems harsh and unnecessary to call into question the knowledge of those with whom you disagree.

Before I respond though, it HAS become a free speech issue because the government's involvement in the Howard Stern case set a precedence.

Granted, you face consequences for hollering racial slurs on the company dime. It's within that company's right to reprimand the employee.

I also find your hyperbolic statement: "Do you have some urge to insult people of ethnic groups and women that you can't control?" offensive and you completely ignored the context. Yeah, so I can make racial slurs, that's exactly it. No, the bigger picture is that you can't pick and choose which speech is allowed and which isn't. Hicks get the right to free speech along with everyone else. It's unfortunate but it's how it rolls. That was my point. I'm also not crying for Imus, I'm b*tching about society's double-standards.

Few seem to understand that "free speech" does not mean you'll face no consequences for what comes out of your mouth.

I said this earlier this week, so on that we do not disagree.

This was also most certainly not used to pressure the media into doing anything because the media plays us like pawns - where do you stand on Three 6 Mafia calling women "hoes" in a song for which they won an Oscar? Or the Ludacris song of the same name? I don't recall public apologies over those incidents. Why is it "acceptable" for them to degrade black women? Where was the fuss over that; forgive me if I missed a post about it, but if there was fury over that it is incomparable to the Imus situation.

I use the Gibson and Washington examples to point out the contradictions. So are you saying that you are okay with racial or misogynistic slurs if they are made on someone's free time as opposed to in the workplace? That factor seems inconsequential to me. When the statement is made has nothing to do with its offense. And no, Washington did not pay a severe consequence as he still has his job, as does Gibson. People weren't successful in getting them fired because no one tried; everyone looked the other way. (In my opinion, especially when I compare it to other similar situations.)

If Imus has to go, get rid of Mahr, Sarah Silverman (who says her jokes are to highlight racism but according to your stance on Imus' wretched use of claimed "humor," she does not get a pass) Stern, Dave Chappelle, Rosie O'Donnell, all of them because every single comedian or jock has made heinous remarks while on the job at one time or another.

"he was an idiot to use the phrase himself for that reason alone the same way I'd be foolish to use French idioms if I didn't understand them within the context of French culture and history. "

Are you comparing the word "ho" to the complexity of a French idiom? I don't care where the word came from - I knew already - but I can tell you how it's been popularized over the past ten years. I was introduced to the term by listening to my cousin's Too Short album (early, early 90s).

I also EMPHATICALLY disagree with your stretch that anyone who supports Imus's free speech supports ignorance (or racism). Let's be honest, that's what you're trying to say (you've said as much on your blog) and I find it purposefully antagonistic. The two are not one and the same. As I've carefully said a frillion times, anyone has the right to say whatever they want, no matter how ignorant. I support that right but I do not support their sentiments, nor does anyone else who concurs on the same point. So please stop referring to me and others as "Imus supporters." That's not what we're supporting. Plus, I've never liked Imus.

America isn't waking up to anything. Rappers will still push out albums calling women "bitches" and "hoes," shock jocks will take the air and broadcast their vitriol. If America was truly waking up as you say, it wouldn't behave so inconsistently.

I'm trying to figure out how you came to your last conclusion from my statements.

Dana
Mamalogues.com
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Pop Mama
Since Eve

The more I hear bloggers go on about what is free speech

Nordette — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:07:57 -0500

The more I hear bloggers go on about what is free speech, the more I think that those who've suggested bloggers take journalism ethics courses may be right. Increasingly "free speech" is the buzz phrase people shout when they want to excuse someone for verbal abuse.

It's almost like they'd argue that democracy is synonymous with anarchy or that they didn't have parents who taught them the rules of civil speech and discourse. Few seem to understand that "free speech" does not mean you'll face no consequences for what comes out of your mouth.

A study of libel and slander or perhaps being sued for libel or slander would quickly shut up bloggers who go on about "free speech."

It's a stretch to say that Imus' comments fall under humor or parody and satire, but even if one did, his freedom of speech rights have not been violated. Imus wasn't prosecuted for saying what he said in a court of law. Despite being fired, Imus still has the freedom to say whatever he wishes, just not on CBS' dime. Free speech is the freest when one's language isn't tied to a business deal.

I read the TheTimes piece you linked to and while I concede its a well-written piece, I wonder how you read it and arrived at the idea Imus "can cost you your free speech." Do you have some urge to insult people of ethnic groups and women that you can't control?

I don't know if it's that I'm getting old, but I look at the people crying for Imus and wonder if they were alive when white people regularly pressured sponsors to remove anything from airwaves and television screens that suggested black people were equal to white people. I was pretty young when southern white stations refused to run the Star Trek episode of the so-called interracial kiss between Ohura and Kirk, and that was a fiction piece. Pressuring media to fire people for what the society finds offensive or remove it from the air is nothing new. The only difference is this time it was used to pressure media to stand against misogynistic, racist language and to open the door for people to be taken more seriously who have been protesting such language for decades.

This nation's freedom of speech concepts can be traced primarily to having the freedom to protest government and powerful institutions, not to having the freedom to insult and demean women or minority groups. Was anyone paying attention in his/her American Government classes?

I found this Imus quote interesting in that article.

But in the middle of his stunning medley of sneer, apology and rationalization, Imus asked a pretty good question: "This phrase that I use, it originated in the black community. That didn't give me a right to use it, but that's where it originated. Who calls who that and why? We need to know that. I need to know that."

The writer says this is a good question. I say that if Imus couldn't answer it himself and mistakenly believes racist and misogynistic language originated in the black community, then he was an idiot to use the phrase himself for that reason alone the same way I'd be foolish to use French idioms if I didn't understand them within the context of French culture and history. Furthermore, that Imus quote tells me that Imus represents ignorance on the airwaves, and I wonder why so many people support such ignorance and choose it as their rallying cry for free speech.

The term "nappy head" did not originate within the black community. The word "ho" did not originate in the black community. "Ho" is a mispronunciation of the word "whore." The mispronunciation has been popularized by gangsta rap music, a very small segment of music coming from the black community. It happens to be popular now, but in the history of music contributions from African-Americans, it's an extremely small portion that's performed by what I call young men suffering from a testosterone overdose.

So, given that white slave owners were the people who started ostracizing African-Americans for having kinky hair and ridiculing the natural texture of most Africans hair by calling it "nappy," and referring to black children as pickaninnies and the like, no honorable and educated person would say that "nappy head" originated in the black community any more than they'd say that the word "n**g*r" originated in the black community.

Are we now going to debate where the word "whore" came from and its connotations to support Imus? As I said in my post, "The Imus Insults: Can America put it behind her?," Imus supporters should study American history:

Or would they have us believe that old white men learned to demean women from what's basically a group of young, poorly-educated black males who can spin a rhyme, many of them not that well? A good look at American history immediately disproves their argument.

These people who make statements like the Imus quote above are bigger hypocrites. They don't care about the degradation of women. And are they saying that because some black male musicians demean women that makes demeaning women okay?

Furthermore, as Kim suggests in her comment, people, including Al Sharpton, have consistently objected to and protested lyrics that demean women and other degrading language ill-used by so-called artists. I addressed this as well as ethnic insults within ethnic communities in "Imus, gangasta rappers, and knowing when to quit."

And as Kim said above, it's also possible that what Imus said about the women's basketball team amounted to slander. These girls, while in the public eye, are not public figures in the true sense.

As someone who earns a living through speech, Imus should've known this day was coming because the literate should have heard somewhere that "to whom much is given, much is expected." People with talk shows that influence the masses should be careful about what they say, especially when what they say perpetuates and empowers hate speech.

We may put the Imus nastiness behind us, but I hope we never forget the lesson learned from it. It's time to be kinder to one another and to stop promoting the idea that doing harm is mitigated simply by the words "I'm sorry." (link)

The Imus firing is not a blow to free speech; it's the first sign that America may be waking up from its stupor of racist/misogynistic drunkenness in a long time.

As for Jesse Jackson and "hymie town," he was severely sanctioned by media and the public for that statement. Could he be fired? No, Jackson worked for his own organization. Mel Gibson lost work for his comments, and Isaiah Washington was also called out repeatedly for what he said. The thing about these comments you mention is that none of them were made over the airwaves on the person's television or radio show. Nevertheless, while they were exercising free speech, the speakers still paid consequences via public outcry and condemnation.

If the public were successful in going after these people's jobs the way people called for Imus' head, then that would indeed be a blow to free speech. Are you suggesting that if I overhear you on your cellphone demeaning someone that I should take action to have you fired?

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Honestly? It's a kick in the

Mamalogues — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:51:15 -0500

Honestly? It's a kick in the balls of free speech.

I wrote about it yesterday in the Post-Dispatch.

So are we subjecting free speech to a litmus test now? Only if we agree with speech is it free? Well, that's not truly free speech.

Free speech means having to put up with the ignorant hicks who tell flat "jokes," the ignorant rappers, Hollywood, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton - have we forgotten "hymietown?" - Mel Gibson, Isiah Washington, and anyone else that chooses to talk from their backside. (It's curious to me that Washington is still on television and that many people still watch "Grey's Anatomy.")

The bottom line is that this case isn't going to be an isolated incident. We're either going to step back and realize that with REAL freedom we take the good with the bad; or, we're going to live in a world where ALL OF US live in fear of pissing off someone with our speech and losing our jobs as a result. Yes, Imus went over the line, So does Stern, and Bill Mahr - what, he gets a pass because he's agreed with? he's a substanceless, tacky shock jock just like the rest of them - Jackson, Hollywood and tons of people every single day.

People say stupid things. It's their RIGHT. Just as it's our right to not listen. I don't want a butthat like Don Imus to cost me my free speech. I also think I would take all of this outrage a bit more seriously if it was consistently applied to all offenders.

(Here's Times's take on it. AWESOME.)

Dana
Mamalogues.com
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Pop Mama
Since Eve

They did

heivilinj — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:10:59 -0500

They need to tell us what they stand for as a network.The problem is they don't know what they stand for.

I think you're mistaken here.

They quite clearly did tell us what they stand for. They fired him when ad revenues were affected negatively. To me that speaks volumes.

Jim Heivilin

Sharpton on forgiveness; his protests against rappers

Kim Pearson — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:33:17 -0500

Two quick factual points:
1. Rev. Al Sharpton was asked about his Christian duty to forgive on the Today Show, if I remember correctly. He said that he had no problem forgiving, but that did not mean that someone was excused from the consequences of his or her actions. He noted that when a man stabbed him some years ago, he visited the man in prison and forgave him. However, that didn't mean that the man didn't deserve a prison term.

2. Sharpton has been lambasting gangsta hip-hop artists and the corporations that market them for years. So have others. He has promised to hold a town meeting on the subject in the near future.

BlogHer Contributing Editor|
Professor Kim|
Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

CBS Fires Don Imus

Kim Pearson — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:23:18 -0500

(CBS/AP) CBS announced Thursday its decision to cease broadcasting the Imus in the Morning radio program, effective immediately, on a permanent basis.

Imus initially was suspended for two weeks for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" on the air last week, but outrage continued to grow and advertisers bolted from his programs.

"From the outset, I believe all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made on our air about the young women who represented Rutgers University in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship with such class, energy and talent," said CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, in announcing the decision....

Here's the story.