Imus at it again

For some unknown reason the constitution reads "WE THE PEOPLE" not "OMSIGDAVID THE PERSON"

0 Replies

Ragman wrote:

This simply is an issue
called community standards.

To call attention to other side issues is either being naive or intellectually dishonest. I see nowhere there is any freedom of speech being questioned or threatened. He has the freedom to be a fool and his boss has the freedom to fire him if he doesn't like his work.

You have the freedom to (falsely) yell fire in a crowded theater...even when there is no fire. Then, as a consequence, you'll have the privilege of going to jail for creating a panic.

From my reading of this thread,
I take the inference that almost all posters
were strongly implying that he shud have kept his damned mouth shut
because what he said did not conform to community standards
(i.e., was not popular, stylish speech) and that no one shud say anything
that fails to conform to community standards.

I believe that this is a fair and accurate summation
of the posting on this thread.

I 'd never challenge the right of the radio station owner
to control his own property.

David

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

For some unknown reason the constitution reads "WE THE PEOPLE" not "OMSIGDAVID THE PERSON"

Sounds like U got one with a misprint; maybe a smudge.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Ragman wrote:

This simply is an issue
called community standards.

To call attention to other side issues is either being naive or intellectually dishonest. I see nowhere there is any freedom of speech being questioned or threatened. He has the freedom to be a fool and his boss has the freedom to fire him if he doesn't like his work.

You have the freedom to (falsely) yell fire in a crowded theater...even when there is no fire. Then, as a consequence, you'll have the privilege of going to jail for creating a panic.

From my reading of this thread,
I take the inference that almost all posters
were strongly implying that he shud have kept his damned mouth shut
because what he said did not conform to community standards
(i.e., was not popular, stylish speech) and that no one shud say anything
that fails to conform to community standards.

I believe that this is a fair and accurate summation
of the posting on this thread.

I 'd never challenge the right of the radio station owner
to control his own property.

David

Seeing that you want to distort what I wrote (and whatever anyone writes) into something totally beyond recognition, I bid this thread and you fond adieu!

0 Replies

This time I think the poor sap was actually intending to sound magnanimous about injustice toward blacks (which is by the way totally inappropriate in the case of Mr PacMan, who happens to be an inveterate self-destructive ass), and his past cases of severe foot-in-mouth just biased everyone's reading of what he said.

Poor old no talent longwinded know nothing Imus.

0 Replies

thanks, Snood, for an objective view. I could no more concentrate on his actual intent of his words than I could bear looking at him.

Imus is so much last-week-news and smelling of desperation.

0 Replies

I never listen to him.
I don ' t know when he is on
and have no interest in his opinions qua athletes,
but I don 't like the idea of anyone being afraid to freely speak his mind,
even a commie, a politically correct or a nazi.

David

0 Replies

David, you are among the vast majority of radio listeners, they dont listen to Imus either. If real market forces applied to Imus, he would have been dfired in the early 90's when it wS DICOVERED THAT HE LACKED ANY NOTICEABLE TALENT.

Imus, for reasons known only to his handlers, has marketed his association with controversy as a draw to sponsors who actually control the hiring and firing of radio personalities. Despite Imus's long history of low and negative ratings, he has attracted loyal sponsors to underwite his form of entertainment. Many od his sponsors enjoy his periodic tasteless rants so that tghey can abandon him publically. That way the sponsors appear as resonsible arbiters of good taste and the piblic gets its desired meat sacrifice. Then, when all the hoo haw is over, the sponsors re-attach themselves to Imus in his new format and lopcation. This has been his draw.
He doesnt have the same talent to organize ensembles of entertainment like Howard STern or as the pioneers of this format who paved the way for guys like stern. So Imus has turned his cyclic self destruction into a market ploy.

Snood, Imus 's handlers came up with that explanation only after about a day of no responses. Im somehwat suspicious of the ewxcuse since it was so contrived.

0 Replies

Snood, Imus 's handlers came up with that explanation only after about a day of no responses. Im somehwat suspicious of the ewxcuse since it was so contrived.

More than likely.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

David, you are among the vast majority of radio listeners,
they dont listen to Imus either. If real market forces applied to Imus, he would have been dfired in the early 90's when it wS DICOVERED THAT HE LACKED ANY NOTICEABLE TALENT.

Imus, for reasons known only to his handlers, has marketed his association with controversy as a draw to sponsors who actually control the hiring and firing of radio personalities. Despite Imus's long history of low and negative ratings, he has attracted loyal sponsors to underwite his form of entertainment. Many od his sponsors enjoy his periodic tasteless rants so that tghey can abandon him publically. That way the sponsors appear as resonsible arbiters of good taste and the piblic gets its desired meat sacrifice. Then, when all the hoo haw is over, the sponsors re-attach themselves to Imus in his new format and lopcation. This has been his draw.
He doesnt have the same talent to organize ensembles of entertainment like Howard STern or as the pioneers of this format who paved the way for guys like stern. So Imus has turned his cyclic self destruction into a market ploy.

Snood, Imus 's handlers came up with that explanation only after about a day of no responses. Im somehwat suspicious of the ewxcuse since it was so contrived.

I seldom listen to the radio, without a particular reason for it.

I have no opinion of Imus's talent, be it good, bad or indifferent.
Apparently he is a commentator on sports, judging from the last 2 Imus scandals.
I don 't care who wins the basketball games.
When groups of strangers strive among themselves, I have no need to spy on them.
I have no preference qua which group of strangers shud prevail; none of my business.

I remember him for something entirely unrelated, to wit:
years ago, he said that his father was a nasty drunk who favored scotch.
He used to knock little Imus around, when drunk, such that he despised his father.
Imus swore to himself that he was never going to drink, and that he ESPECIALLY
was not going to drink scotch.
He grew into adulthood, and became a drunk, with scotch being his drink of choice.

The moral of the story is that it appears that the subconscious mind
is independently programed such as to accept parents as examples
of how to live and this mental programing can drag u along into a style
of life that u despised in your youth.

Hence: u gotta be careful (unless u had good parents whose conduct
is worthy of emulation). I think its good to spread the word and to
warn people about that.

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

yitwail wrote:
brandon, it doesn't require special insight to realize that his remarks would be interpreted in a derogatory way, considering his past remarks about the Rutgers womens' basketball team. it would be one thing if he clarified his latest remarks at the time he made them, but issuing a statement a day later isn't too convincing.

Do U mean that he has NO RIGHT TO HAVE AN OPINION ?
or that he can HAVE one but he must keep it SECRET; he can 't express it
unless it is POLITICALLY CORRECT ?

WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH ??????????

David

haven't had a chance to catch up on my reading until now, so let me first say,
he has a right to say anything he wants to, regardless of how stupid it might be
(barring well-established exceptions like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, libel, or defamation. i must have pulled an Imus, implying something i didn't intend to imply, that only "politically correct" speech is allowed. i was questioning the motivation behind his remarks, not his right to make them. do me a favor and point out any posts i have made, where i deny anyone the right to express an incorrect opinion. i do however insist on the right to point out opinions i feel are incorrect, politically or otherwise, along with my reasons for finding them incorrect.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Snood, Imus 's handlers came up with that explanation only after about a day of no responses. Im somehwat suspicious of the ewxcuse since it was so contrived.

More than likely.

I didn't come to my opinion about what he said from listening to the explanation after the fact. I listened to the whole supposed faux pas - in context of the discussion It sounded to me like Imus began with the attitude of "so what if someone got rowdy in a nightclub - that's what people do in nightclubs!"

So, when he asked "what color is he?" then said "well, there ya go", it seemed totally consistent with what he had begun by saying - that the police shouldn't be arresting anyone for what he understood Pacman to be doing, and the fact that he was black explained to him why he was being arrested.

I have no reason to defend Imus - I think he's pretty much a scumbag. But from all I can see, in his befuddled way he was actually trying to say something sensible about blacks being targeted (as unlikely as that might seem to anyone who knows who Imus is).

0 Replies

I agree with Snood on this one. I was not so sanguine about the earlier episode, but leave him some room this time.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
Snood, Imus 's handlers came up with that explanation only after about a day of no responses. Im somehwat suspicious of the ewxcuse since it was so contrived.

More than likely.

I didn't come to my opinion about what he said from listening to the explanation after the fact. I listened to the whole supposed faux pas - in context of the discussion It sounded to me like Imus began with the attitude of "so what if someone got rowdy in a nightclub - that's what people do in nightclubs!"

i listened to that preamble as well, and it still doesn't resolve the ambiguity because he could have been making that point about rowdy nightclub behavior in a sarcastic way, ie, "here's how they're going to excuse him this time."

0 Replies

thing is yitwail - I don't think he had a clue who Pacman Jones was...

Anyway - I am fully cognizant of how this could be taken a couple of ways - especially since Imus has said a lot of smarmy racial things before.

It's a judgement call. Me, I'd say cut him some slack on this one - if he really is a dyed-in-the-wool racist, it will definitely come out again in less ambiguous ways.

0 Replies

snood, along with most (all?) of the people who posted on this thread, i don't listen to him, never have, and probably never will, so it's much ado about little to me. i also recognize that he's an entertainer, not a journalist, so he's entitled to some slack, but i sure won't be heartbroken if he gets the boot. Razz

0 Replies

I admit to be ambiguous on this point. Which is why I said early on we ought to take his explanation at face vaue. I wavered after that, but return to my original position, simply because I do not know.

0 Replies

yew wood no if yew wuznt so stoopid, edgar.

0 Replies

Duhee... I'll just have myself a Lone Star and go off to ponder it.

0 Replies

I'm not even so sure he was racist on the first bit - he works in sarcastic mode - but I really doubt it in this episode. Of course it can be worked up...

Are irony/sarcasm from apparent racially different people never allowed?

Well, first of all, none of us are different by whatever walls we think are built.

0 Replies

Imus at it again

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know