Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Because this time the customers got mad. Seems like a simple business decision to me. Less popular= less valuable. They acted accordingly.

I'm not arguing with this. But why is it that this time the customers got mad? That's what I'm not getting. Where they so stupid it took them 11 years to noitice that Imus said offensive things? Where they so insensitive it took them 11 years to start being bothered? That's what I'm not getting.

0 Replies

It may be that the Rutgers basketball team was a "Cinderella" team, who was never expected to get so far in the tournament, and there was a corresponding outrage at Imus' remarks because of the emotionally-charged nature of the situation. You've got Rutgers just over the water in New Jersey, and this putz shoots off his mouth in a situation in which the news is going to get around quickly to the supporters of the Rutgers team, and probably to the family members of the athletes as a result.

Ordinarily, when he makes a jackass of himself, not that many people listening would necessarily have had a stake in it for it to get blown up to these proportions--but he broadcasts from New York in the clear, in addition to the syndication, and Rutgers is right there, well within the broadcast range.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Because this time the customers got mad. Seems like a simple business decision to me. Less popular= less valuable. They acted accordingly.

I'm not arguing with this. But why is it that this time the customers got mad? That's what I'm not getting. Where they so stupid it took them 11 years to noitice that Imus said offensive things? Where they so insensitive it took them 11 years to start being bothered? That's what I'm not getting.

The simple answer is: Don't know, don't care. Nor would I be particularly concerned about this anomaly if I were his employer. In business; common sense gets trumped by dollars and cents most every time. Maybe they overreacted this time, or under-reacted in years past, but it is what it is.

0 Replies

Shock Jock's Radio Show Dumped by CBS
Shock Jock's Radio Show Dumped by CBS
AP
NEW YORK
April 12, 2007

CBS fired Don Imus from his radio program Thursday, the finale to a stunning fall for one of the nation's most prominent broadcasters.

Imus initially was given a two-week suspension 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 CBS radio show and its MSNBC simulcast.

Epic Fall for Cantankerous Radio Host

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

Rutgers women's basketball team spokeswoman Stacey Brann said the team did not have an immediate comment on Imus' firing.

Time Magazine once named the cantankerous broadcaster as one of the 25 Most Influential People in America, and he was a member of the National Broadcaster Hall of Fame.

But Imus found himself at the center of a storm as protests intensified. On Wednesday, MSNBC dropped the simulcast of Imus' show.

Losing Imus will be a financial hit to CBS Radio, which also suffered when Howard Stern departed for satellite radio. The program is worth about $15 million in annual revenue to CBS, which owns Imus' home radio station WFAN-AM and manages Westwood One, the company that syndicates the show across the country.

The Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson met with Moonves on Thursday to demand Imus' removal, promising a rally outside CBS headquarters Saturday and an effort to persuade more advertisers to abandon Imus.

Sumner Redstone, chairman of the CBS Corp . board and its chief stockholder, told Newsweek that he had expected Moonves to "do the right thing," although it wasn't clear what he thought that was.

The news came down in the middle of Imus' Radiothon, which has raised more than $40 million since 1990. The Radiothon had raised more than $1.3 million Thursday before Imus learned that he lost his job.

"This may be our last Radiothon, so we need to raise about $100 million," Imus cracked at the start of the event.

Volunteers were getting about 200 more pledges per hour than they did last year, with most callers expressing support for Imus, said Tony Gonzalez, supervisor of the Radiothon phone bank. The event benefited Tomorrows Children's Fund, the CJ Foundation for SIDS and the Imus Ranch.

Imus, whose suspension was supposed to start next week, was in the awkward situation of broadcasting Thursday's radio program from the MSNBC studios in New Jersey, even though NBC News said the night before that MSNBC would no longer simulcast his program on television.

0 Replies

thomas said

Quote:

In your opinion, is it valid front page news for the New York Times? Is it worth the attention of US Senators, who could otherwise pay attention to Iraq or healthcare? Is it a worthy target of civil rights activists, who could be marching for the homeless instead? If it is, let's see if Al Sharpton marches for my rights when I tell him that I as a German find "Hogan's Heroes" offensive and stereotypical. I bet he'll petition whatever TV station re-runs the show to take it off the air.

The history of blacks in America and the history of Germans in America are not comparable. And it is not as if the magical birth of Martin Luther King or the turn of the calendar to 2000 delivered the American psyche from all the tentacles of that history. I'm simply not prepared to argue with African Americans when they, so broadly and consistently, relate that racism remains a significant factor in their lives. And I might have my own preferences or notions regarding which issues they confront that ought to be given priority, but again, I don't think that is a viewpoint I can insist be shared.

Senators and the NY Times surely can validly speak to this issue. This has Anna Nicole Smith beat all to hell.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Because this time the customers got mad. Seems like a simple business decision to me. Less popular= less valuable. They acted accordingly.

I'm not arguing with this. But why is it that this time the customers got mad? That's what I'm not getting. Where they so stupid it took them 11 years to noitice that Imus said offensive things? Where they so insensitive it took them 11 years to start being bothered? That's what I'm not getting.

But, was it actually the customers themselves who got mad? I can't find any evidence that this is true unless you extrapolate 'customers' to mean 'a bunch of people who don't identify themselves as Imus listeners.'

His customers probably have known his behavior for a long time - and had no problem with it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Here, let me take that shovel away from you, so that you can't dig that hole so deeply and so quickly.

Thanks.

Cycloptichorn

I've got a small brooch/pin that I try to wear when I'm going to be out with a group of friends who like to debate. It's a lovely little shovel :wink:

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thomas wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Because this time the customers got mad. Seems like a simple business decision to me. Less popular= less valuable. They acted accordingly.

I'm not arguing with this. But why is it that this time the customers got mad? That's what I'm not getting. Where they so stupid it took them 11 years to noitice that Imus said offensive things? Where they so insensitive it took them 11 years to start being bothered? That's what I'm not getting.

But, was it actually the customers themselves who got mad? I can't find any evidence that this is true unless you extrapolate 'customers' to mean 'a bunch of people who don't identify themselves as Imus listeners.'

His customers probably have known his behavior for a long time - and had no problem with it.

Cycloptichorn

Right again!

A trend?

Unless one defines his customers as his advertisers.

Listeners of his show tune in to hear the very sort of comment that has gotten him in so much trouble. Anyone who tries to argue that all of the other comments were OK but this one was over the line is disingenuous at best.

This one took him down because Jesse Jackson, and, more importantly, Al Sharpton called for his scalp. The irony is delicious, but the effect is a bit disturbing.

As large a couple of hypocrites as Jackson and Sharpton may be they certainly have every right to call for the firing of Don Imus. This is not censorship just as it isn't censorship when parents call for the firing of some flaming Liberal professor who applauds a plane flying into the Pentagon.

It's disturbing because if our collective skin is so thin as to find these comments intolerable then we are in danger of bleeding out from rubbing up against a cotton ball.

Why does anyone care what Don Imus says? How is he capable of ruining the moment for the Rutgers' women's basketball team?

He's not a public official. He's not a recognized private citizen of heroic proportions. He's not someone anyone should want their child to grow up to become.

He, like so many Rap Stars, is an entertainer.

I may have missed it, but I don't think either Sharpton or Jackson have led any movements against rap stars whose lyrics make the comments of Imus seem like a nursery rhyme.

OK, let's stipulate that African-Americans somehow have the right to use racist terms because they, as Blacks, are the targets of racism. However they also seem to get a free pass on their sick misogynistic lyrics. How so? They ain't "Hos" themselves.

I don't, for a minute, feel sorry for Imus. Become a millionaire by the sword, get fired by the sword.

I admit that I enjoyed listening to him from time to time. He was a Liberal Redneck, and a self-absorbed ass, but he has a sharp wit and I get a kick out of raw humor. One need not be in favor of violence to appreciate Punch & Judy.

I never got angry over what he said anymore than I have ever gotten angry over what Rosie O'Donnell says.

They are paid clowns, both of whom believe they are more substantial than any sane person could ever imagine.

Allowing their inane comments to effect one's life is not favorable testimony to the vitality of that life.

0 Replies

Nonsense Finn. Of course the advertisers are the customers. Think with your wallet for a minute: Idiot I employ says something that costs me big money (and may cost even more)= bye bye idiot.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nonsense Finn. Of course the advertisers are the customers. Think with your wallet for a minute: Idiot I employ says something that costs me big money (and may cost even more)= bye bye idiot.

Notwithstanding the fact that you responded to the least important point I made, even the most basic appreciation of the economics of broadcasting will understand that Advertisers are not forces of morality. They promote a product that will, in turn, promote their product(s).

I will bet you any sizeable amount of cash you choose that this is not the end of Imus. The audience for his "talent" remains tremendous.

If MSNBC and CBS had anything approximating balls they would have had no problem finding replacements for the scared rabbit advertisers that fled Imus on account of Big Bad Al and Jesse.

Imus, like that a-hole Stern, will find another outlet because in the marketplace his humor is a favorable commodity. In fact, he will likely attract an even more rabid following.

The real point of this is that this idiotic nod towards political correctness will not, by any means, bury Don Imus, but it will favor the positions of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Nonsense Finn. Of course the advertisers are the customers. Think with your wallet for a minute: Idiot I employ says something that costs me big money (and may cost even more)= bye bye idiot.

Notwithstanding the fact that you responded to the least important point I made,

Mostly I was responding to "Right again!"

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

even the most basic appreciation of the economics of broadcasting will understand that Advertisers are not forces of morality. They promote a product that will, in turn, promote their product(s).

I will bet you any sizeable amount of cash you choose that this is not the end of Imus. The audience for his "talent" remains tremendous.

If MSNBC and CBS had anything approximating balls they would have had no problem finding replacements for the scared rabbit advertisers that fled Imus on account of Big Bad Al and Jesse.

Imus, like that a-hole Stern, will find another outlet because in the marketplace his humor is a favorable commodity. In fact, he will likely attract an even more rabid following.

The real point of this is that this idiotic nod towards political correctness will not, by any means, bury Don Imus, but it will favor the positions of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Be that as it may (and I don't doubt it); it doesn't change the fact that canning him was a fiscal decision and the private enterprises that employed him rendered their judgment, based in turn on what their employer's (advertisers) bean counter's decided.
IMO, Sharpton and Jackson merely road the bus because it was heading their way anyway. Do you really think the outcome would have been any different if they'd stayed home? Hell, for the press feeding frenzy any black substitute would have sufficed. PC sells, too.

Whether it's out of morality ( Laughing

), political correctness (probably) or a TOTALLY trumped up misunderstanding (clearly not); the bean counters made a business decision and IMO a sound one. Why should CBS and/or MSNBC stand up for some idiot's right to be wrong if they don't want to? I doubt their decisions will prove to be against their best interests in the long run.

I further don't think you're on solid ground suggesting our collective skin has become too thin based on their decision.

0 Replies

But when we let a white man like Imus call African-American athletes "nappy headed hos", does't that validate the thesis we have heard coming from Jackson and Sharpton---namely---that racism is
institutionalized and is just as bad as it ever was?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Mores is taken directly from the Latin, and is a plural noun for which there is no corresponding singular noun (which is mos in Latin). Therefore, you would not usually use an article with the noun mores, and certainly not a singular indefinite article. I'm not saying this to be a prick, just so you can improve your English.

Of course, if you would rather think of me as a prick, i'll try to do my best not to disappoint you.

No, this was actually interesting. I just learned something. The only condescending thing I could call you in response to this post is a total failure at being destructive.

Setanta wrote:

It may be that the Rutgers basketball team was a "Cinderella" team, who was never expected to get so far in the tournament, and there was a corresponding outrage at Imus' remarks because of the emotionally-charged nature of the situation. You've got Rutgers just over the water in New Jersey, and this putz shoots off his mouth in a situation in which the news is going to get around quickly to the supporters of the Rutgers team, and probably to the family members of the athletes as a result.

Ordinarily, when he makes a jackass of himself, not that many people listening would necessarily have had a stake in it for it to get blown up to these proportions--but he broadcasts from New York in the clear, in addition to the syndication, and Rutgers is right there, well within the broadcast range.

Oops, you did it again! That was constructive and interesting too.

0 Replies

Blatham wrote:

Senators and the NY Times surely can validly speak to this issue.

Dunno. To me it seems like a classical, Monty-Pythonesque case of never be rude to an Arab

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But, was it actually the customers themselves who got mad? I can't find any evidence that this is true unless you extrapolate 'customers' to mean 'a bunch of people who don't identify themselves as Imus listeners.'

The customer is the one who pays. Imus's viewers and listeners aren't his customers, because they're not paying him. The relevant customers, then, are the networks who paid for the content in Imus's show, and the companies who paid to run their commercials during its brakes. I find it totally hypocritical that now, after 11 years (even 30 years in CBS's case), they suddenly discover that Imus offends their values.

Values, my arm.

0 Replies

Something that I think might have goten missed in all this is that there are minorities of color and women employed at NBC, MSNBC and CBS who raised their voices in protest. Also, there are more blacks and other minorites now in positions of influence than there were when Imus first started his "act" 30-some years ago. One of the members of the board of CBS news is the former president of the NAACP. The times they might be a'changin'...

And "Why here, why now, why Imus?" are valid questions, I suppose, but "Why not here, why not now, why not Imus?" is also valid, IMO.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

And "Why here, why now, why Imus?" are valid questions, I suppose, but "Why not here, why not now, why not Imus?" is also valid, IMO.

Sure. I'm not defending Imus. I'm just trying to understand what's going on. And in my experience, "why" is a more useful question for figuring out something than "why not".

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

snood wrote:
And "Why here, why now, why Imus?" are valid questions, I suppose, but "Why not here, why not now, why not Imus?" is also valid, IMO.

Sure. I'm not defending Imus. I'm just trying to understand what's going on. And in my experience, "why" is a more useful question for figuring out something than "why not".

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Something that I think might have goten missed in all this is that there are minorities of color and women employed at NBC, MSNBC and CBS who raised their voices in protest. Also, there are more blacks and other minorites now in positions of influence than there were when Imus first started his "act" 30-some years ago. One of the members of the board of CBS news is the former president of the NAACP. The times they might be a'changin'...

And "Why here, why now, why Imus?" are valid questions, I suppose, but "Why not here, why not now, why not Imus?" is also valid, IMO.

And I'll add to that, as a total stab in the dark, that I don't really think Imus is on that many peoples' radar. Sure, many of the other things he said were just as bad, but they weren't highly publicized (to my knowledge) so only his listeners would even know about them. In this case, whether or not he was actually intending to call them unkempt sluts, the words themselves were stark enough to grow legs. Thus, people who ordinarily might have no clue what Imus says in the morning, like the head of Amex, suddenly get a very convincing sound bite in their inbox and have to do something about it.

I think he'll end up on satellite radio.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Blatham wrote:
Senators and the NY Times surely can validly speak to this issue.

Dunno. To me it seems like a classical, Monty-Pythonesque case of never be rude to an Arab

Cycloptichorn wrote:
But, was it actually the customers themselves who got mad? I can't find any evidence that this is true unless you extrapolate 'customers' to mean 'a bunch of people who don't identify themselves as Imus listeners.'

The customer is the one who pays. Imus's viewers and listeners aren't his customers, because they're not paying him. The relevant customers, then, are the networks who paid for the content in Imus's show, and the companies who paid to run their commercials during its brakes. I find it totally hypocritical that now, after 11 years (even 30 years in CBS's case), they suddenly discover that Imus offends their values.

Values, my arm.

Yeah, but they aren't the ones who are listening to his show. The people who placed ads on his show don't listen to his show. They look at a ratings and time chart, and that's it.

And, once again, it wasn't his advertisers - according to you, his customers - who were leading the charge against him; they responded to pressure, not created the pressure. They didn't 'wake up' to the guy at all.

I find the attitude that the only customers in the media, are advertisers, to be a little odd, honestly. I don't think that most would look at it that way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Blatham wrote:
Senators and the NY Times surely can validly speak to this issue.

Dunno. To me it seems like a classical, Monty-Pythonesque case of never be rude to an Arab

.

Of course that skit needs to be updated. In the post 9/11 world, it is now mandatory to be rude to an arab.

Neither position here is irrefutable. We can be too sensitive or too insensitive on such matters and there's no clear demarkation in there. But I step back from insistence that someone is being too sensitive where I'm not a member of that community, particularly in those insistances where members of that community (women and blacks being prime examples) remain measurably and inarguably disadvantaged.

0 Replies

Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know