Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Perhaps, but i'd say this has been a reality of public life, and something with which public figures have been obliged to deal, at least since Henry II wondered aloud in 1170: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" and Thomas à Becket was murdered. Public figures have to take the consequences of what they say publicly.

Lincoln was able to paint Douglas into a corner because for many years in the Senate, Douglas had been making his political career within the Democratic Party by catering to the attitudes of slave state legislators. Imus has been peddling "unfunny" nasty remarks for years--it finally caught up with, just as Douglas' behavior caught up with him in 1858. I don't assert that this is justice, but it should come as no surprise to anyone in the public eye.

Thank you for the compliment, Thomas. It means a lot to me especially because it comes from you.

Loved the last article BumbleBee posted. It exposes the hypocrisy of almost everyone involved in this debacle, with the obvious exception of the Rutgers women.

I know this topic has been discussed to death, but I'm glad to see all the arguments. This is something that holds real importance in terms of our Constitutional rights. In this respect, it isn't some gossipy item to slather over on a slow news day; it is an important aspect of how far one should go vs how far one can go in terms of freedom of speech.
As Osso said, the arguments have been particularly good and there seems to be less animosity than usual, at least on this thread.

Oh happy day…

Yes, but 1) as I said, I'm not definding Imus. I'm worried about the sensitivity police. And 2) this sensitivity police doesn't just prosecute public figures. It doesn't even take great pains to make sure their adversaries actually said or did what they're being accused of having said or done. Witness the Duke Lacrosse rape case. It was pulled out of thin air, escalated into a national scandal about vicious white males victimizing helpless black females, and only then collapsed. It looks as if none of the pundids overeager to condemn the players will face any consequence for ruining (a year of) the Duke players' lives.

Again, I don't have any solution to this problem. But I do think it's a problem, and I'm not ready to just dismiss it with a laconic slogan such as "that's the way things go."

I find it telling that someone as sharp witted and outspoken as Thomas is taking steps to avoid the un-PC term PC Police in favor of sensitivity police.



(You're afraid of Deb, aren't cha? )

No.

That is confined to the land of: "'T'were a consummation devoutly to be wished".


Or "If Only Land.....the crappiest kingdom of them all".

the duke rape case is a "red herring" imo .
there are certainly many rapes taking place ... and too many go unpunished !
should the reasoning be that since the duke case was a sham , rape crimes should not be pursued ?

perhaps my comments are inappropriate because i'm not fully informed about that case , but i doubt anyone can deny that there are too many cases of rape taking place .

i think it's difficult for young people growing up today , to understand that what they hear and see on radio , Tv , songs and movies is not always appropriate behaviour .

i'm even getting annoyed when i see car ads showing someone driving like a maniac and see in very small letters under the ad :
"professional driver - do not attempt" - so why are they showing the ad ?
(old man growling)
hbg

In my opinion, it's the opposite case to Imus in terms of reality, but a parallel case for the sensitivity police. A bunch of young, white football players does not commit any crime. For reasons still unclear to me, a young black stripper wrongly accuses them of rape. An overeager district attorney prosecutes. Almost immediately, public opinion condemns the accused, without waiting for the outcome of the trial. The two cases are parallel for purposes of political correctness because the accused were white, and the presumed victims black. And it's an opposite case in terms of facts because Imus was guilty whereas the Duke players were innocent.

There is no way the Duke players would have been publically pre-condemned had they been black and the stripper white. And there is no way that the usual civil Black civil rights activists will now demand racial justice for the white Duke players.

In my opinion, that's why the Duke case is not a red herring in the discussion about Imus.

I don't know that race played a part there at all. I don't know that it didn't, but I am curious as to why you think it did? Was it the coverage, or something else? (I never look at the coverage of celebrity criminal allegations in the USA, because I am so utterly horrified at the manner in which these cases appear to be prosecuted in the media as much as in the courts in the US....I am accustomed to these things being sub judice).

This would seem to me to fall more into the celebrity hunting category.


I would think black athletes get as much of this sort of thing when accused of rape as white. Historically, of course, they would have got a lot more ****.

Can you elucidate re your reasoning?

Do you think the Duke players can go after Sharpton and Jackson for slander?

It was the zeal of the prosecutor, and the coverage in the media. If you have a New York Times online subscription, I recommend that you search for "Duke Lacross" and check out the analysis and commentaries shortly after the story broke. They feature prominently the tension between rich, mostly white Duke university and the blue-collar, mostly black town of Durham, NC that surrounds it.

For details, I'd have to go back to these articles myself. I'll do it if it's important to you, but for now I'll stop.


I don't know. I also don't know that the Rutgers team is going after Imus for slander. To my knowedge, they have accepted his apology and moved on. As an aside, the Rutgers team, aged 20 or so on average, seems the by far the most mature group of people in this scandal. Which is sad, considering the purported grown-ups who created the mess.

Yeah but the Rutgers players weren't looking at 10 years in prison.

I don't know that after the district attorney pressed charges, the Duke team did anything immature either. In the Duke case as in the Rutgers case, it was people twice the teams' age who made carnage out of common sense, due process, and plain basic decency.

True.

But my point was that it is much easier to forgive and move on from insensitive remarks, than it is to move on when people are trying to railroad you into a jail cell.

Gwen Ifill Hits David Brooks, Tim Russert Silence on Imus
Gwen Ifill Hits David Brooks, Tim Russert for Silence on Imus
By E&P Staff
Published: April 15, 2007

Gwen Ifill, formerly of The New York Times and now host of PBS's "Washington Week," appeared with Times' columnist David Brooks on NBC's "Meet the Press" today. The discussion turned to the Don Imus firing this week. Ifill wrote an op-ed for the Times several days ago recalling when Imus had mocked her with a racial stereotype about ten years ago.

Today she criticized Russert and Brooks -- frequent guests on the Imus show -- for saying little this week about the controversy. Many other print journalists also appeared often on the program.

Brooks explained today, "Well, you know, I did the show about a half a dozen times, and Gwen and I have talked about this. But I, I, I have the lamest excuse for why I did it, which is I didn't know what he said. And when I did the show, it was like C-SPAN. You'd go on, you'd talk about Iraq. And I confess, I didn't listen to the show except for the five minutes before when I went on, I'd hear it over the phone."

Russert said that on the show Imus poked fun at him being Irish and "husky." While he agreed that Imus's remarks about the Rutgers basketball team were distasteful, he added, "I also feel sadness for Don Imus and his wife and his family. I think he said a terrible thing. I think he regrets it. She's a former college athlete. They've done a lot of good things for a lot of good people. And I think the discussion was not whether or not he said something terrible or offensive, but what should be the magnitude of his punishment, which I think is a fair discussion to have."

Ifill's comment follows:

You know, it's interesting to me. This has been an interesting week. The people who have spoken, the people who issued statements and the people who haven't. There has been radio silence from a lot of people who have done this program who could have spoken up and said, I find this offensive or I didn't know. These people didn't speak up.

Tim, we didn't hear that much from you. David, we didn't hear from you. What was missing in this debate was someone saying, you know, I understand that this is offensive.

You know, I have a 7-year-old god daughter. Yesterday she went out shopping with her mom for high-top basketball shoes so she can play basketball. The offense, the slur that Imus directed at me happened more than 10 years ago. I would like to think that 10 years from now, that Asia isn't going to be deciding that she wants to get recruited for the college basketball team or be a tennis pro or go to medical school and that she is still vulnerable to those kinds of casual slurs and insults that I got 10 years ago, and that people will say, I didn't know, or people will say, I wasn't listening.

A lot of people did know and a lot of people were listening and they just decided it was okay. They decided this culture of meanness was fine ?- until they got caught.

My concern about Mr. Imus and a lot of people and a lot of the debate in this society is not that people are sorry that they say these things, they are sorry that someone catches them. When Don Imus said this about me when I worked here at NBC, when I found out about it, his producer called because Don said he wants to apologize. Well, now he says he never said it. What was he apologizing for? He was apologizing for getting caught, not apologizing for having said it in the first place.

I saw that discussion. I found it somewhat difficult to watch because I have a fair amount of respect for everyone involved in it and there were moments when consensus was very difficult to achieve because, I think, the values held by these folks were both sincere and defensible but which sprung from divergent experiences in the liviing the american life...divergent because of race and the experiences of being black in america. All are in the media elite, all well educated, intelligent, thoughtful and priviledged. But only one was african american.

I don't know how we can refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of that voice. I don't know how we can refuse to grant it a unique importance and a unique status as truth-bearing.

Well, I know of some people who would tell you that being african-american doesn't grant you any special insight or perspective or voice about issues specifically involving african americans. I had someone on this forum tell me that being an african american man gave me no better idea about how african american men are regarded in america. Still trips me out to this day...

If all blacks had exactly the same opinion, it would be valid.

If they were pristine creatures with no bias, personality quirks or fallibilities--it would be valid.

You wouldn't take my word for gospel about women's issues, would you?

I'd say you know more about being a woman than I. And that was my WHOLE point, in its ENTIRETY.