Why, some of his best friends ...
MANIFESTO
I think Atrios pretty much nails the flap concerning WFAN's do-gooder.(Updated to include this article wherein the self-serving I-man lets all know what a really good person he is.)
posted by monocle at 4/09/2007 12:32:00 PM
6 Comments:
What ever happened to changing the channel? Imus is an ass, always has been always will be: if he weren't who would tune in? These comments are hurtful, but comments like these don’t create racists anymore than criticism of the conduct of the war in Iraq encourages Al Qaeda members or Iraqi insurgents. Imus isn’t a journalist he’s an entertainer, and should be lumped in with media content that is intended to amuse, not inform. While both of those shape people’s attitudes, they are clearly different grades of the same product. I think people should let this drop, if only because when Imus gets pulled from broadcast radio he’ll probably end up with an ever larger, multi-million deal going head to head with Howard Stern on satellite; and the only thing more obscene that what these guys say is what the free market seems to think they are worth.
If that turn out to be true what does it say about the country has a whole when the less socially acceptable the bile you spew becomes, the more we decide to pay for it?
Imus is an ass and an idiot. There is a reason I stopped listening to him more than a decade ago.
My question is this, ow is this any different than anything said or written by any of the following: Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc., etc., etc.? The only difference I can think of is that Imus directed his racism at a identifiable group of individuals vs. the others, who spend their days and nights lobbing racist/sexist/homophobic diatribes at the group as a whole.
I'm not exactly sure why that gets a pass since it seems more, rather than less dangerous. But I do know that no amount of complaining will ever change what the Limbaughs of the world do.
The fact that Imus is being punished while others are as guilty has been duly noted in the blogosphere--here among other places.
Thanks for the link. Can't say that is on the limited part of the blogosphere that I look at. But the point of the post you link to is that Imus isn't being punished as severely as he otherwise would be if he weren't a "liberal," not that anybody else is "guilty." The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly in the comments) was about how or why we are even having this converstion when similar language (perhaps less severe) is used by others on a daily basis on the airwaves.
Limbaugh was only fired from his ESPN gig for making a derogatory comment about a specific individual, Donovan McNabb. But it is well-documented that he makes broader, more-offensive comments on a regular basis about all sorts of "groups." For some reason, these broader, coarser comments are acceptable, or at least not widely denounced. But when similar language is directed at an individual or collection of individuals (Donovan McNabb, the Rutger's women; or maybe more precisely, at somebody that "we" know and like) it is denounced. Is that the standard, we only care if you say something racist about somebody famous?
Or is the difference here simply the larger issue of the role of television. You can't say stupid things on TV but you get a lot more leeway on the radio?
Or is it, as I've seen mentioned, because of the sychophantic treatment Imus has received from the press and politicos for the last decade or more?
Or is it because the news cycle was tired of spreading lies about Nancy Pelosi and this is the first sensational story that they could push?
The interesting question to me is why do we care about this now, in this instance while we let similar cases slide. Imus deserves whatever fate he gets and should probably be fired. I'm more interested in the broader implications of his conduct and what that means for our society and the media. I have no doubt that those implications will be completely ignored and that this will be treated like an isolated case from a single individual. That is how it is being treated so far, from everybody in the media to the blogosphere. What happens after we punish Imus?
My choice of links was arbitrary and probably didn't point out what I wanted to--which was pretty much Chill's point.
It certainly seems to be the case that Imus--with all of his shortcomings--has become a scapegoat in all of this while the effluvia of Limbaugh, Weiner, Coulter, et alia is countenanced.
See the Daily Show for the final word on this controversy.
Post a Comment
<< Home