insomnia, leewee and imus ... oh my! ((UPDATES))
second question. why don't you think this will have an impact on freedom of speech? don't you think this opens the door even wider for the fcc to step in and define what's appropriate and not appropriate?
rye rye from earth observation, better known as fifth dimension daddy of doom dishes up his thoughts:
"I hear your concern and I share it only to the extent that I'm paranoid in this age we live in about the increasing infringements of rights.
But Imus and anyone who is on corporate radio or television is engaged in commercial speech, and thus whatever serves the corporation or is perceived to serve the corporation goes. I know the argument that it's the public airwaves, but that horse left the barn even before Reagan deregulated the spectrum and permitted nearly unlimited ownership of stations.
So someone who says despicable shit on a commercially sponsored show that goes beyond his employer's understanding of what is tolerable... I don't have a problem with the firing. And if Imus wants to be heard again someone will hire him. Even the Greaseman is working again."
but, rye-rye, doesn't that argument support the government in censoring speech and defining what's appropriate and not appropriate?
more from cp...
"Oh, uh, I get it - the updates are on the actual post and not in the comments! :)
Your first question:
I had not thought about this from an economics perspective. that's a great point. two questions for you cp. others who enjoy the same stature who have said similar hateful, vile, unforgivable things have not been fired, much less suffered a financial hardship. why do you think that is?
Good question. If you're referring to Mel Gibson & Michael Richards, I don't know if they are or were actually working for anyone who could fire them. Mel is self employed and Michael is, I think, freelancing.
In any event, in my view the decision to fire someone is in the hands of the employer. If that employer cares at all about public opinion, they have the choice to listen to those opinions and then make a decision. It's up to the network to decide what kinds of messages they want going out from their station - and no one but them has the right to make that decision. Again, we can (and should) tell them all we want about what we think of their programming. But the decision should be theirs and theirs alone and, in my opinion, should have nothing to do with the First Amendment. A radio network is not the government.
Your second question:
Why don't you think this will have an impact on freedom of speech? don't you think this opens the door even wider for the fcc to step in and define what's appropriate and not appropriate?
I don't think that people getting upset about Imus and expressing it in all sorts of ways has a chilling effect on free speech because this entire interaction IS free speech. Imus spoke, and others are speaking out against him. "I think you should fire that bastard!" is a perfectly acceptable opinion for these people to express. The network, to my knowledge, did not fire him because they fear some sort of government reprisal. They fired him because they see that a large portion of the public is pissed off and are going to choose NOT to listen to their station any more if Imus stays. Economics, pure and simple.
It's a complex question as to "why won't this have an effect on free speech?" I'm not sure what the question implies. Does it imply we should not speak out against those we disagree with? Does it imply that if many people are upset about a certain program that is on the air, the airers shouldn't be allowed to take public opinion into consideration?
Or, should concerns that the FCC or another government agency might step in and start quashing free speech control our very freedom to speak the speech in the first place? If so, haven't we already lost the game, then?
As I told you over email, I would indeed be VERY concerned if the GOVERNMENT wanted to get heavily involved in things like this because, as I said, First Amendment (free speech) concerns are a function of government action. The First Amendment protects our speech vis a vis the government's ability to regulate it. The First Amendment has nothing - and should have nothing - to do with decisions an employer makes regarding firing an employee.
Why am I not afraid that hearing all this ballyhoo, the FCC might step in and say "ok everyone, we see a lot of consternation here. Therefore, from this day forward, we're adding the following 10 words to the forbidden list....?" Probably because this entire episode, this entire debate goes to the heart of the democratic process. In a democratic society, people have the right to petition the government to do whatever they want. And others have the right to petition the government to stay out of it.
Sure, your opinion may be that "hey, if we make too much noise about this, we might incite the government to step in and start regulating us more." And that's a perfectly valid opinion. But as I said before, I think that if we quash our own speech for fear the government may quash it for us, we've already lost. Besides, I guess it's not personally a fear of mine. People scream and yell all the time without the government doing anything."
I am running out the door, but will be back to share my thoughts (eh, who cahes, schwartzy). in the meantime, check out mount joy's comments, please!
"Does sacking Imus solve the problem? Just because no one is allowed to say "nappy haired hoe" does that mean people are no longer thinking it? I've always felt that freedom of speech is its own leveller - and I guess Imus' fate is living proof. But I fear that this case may be a wedge for every minority and splinter group that has ever existed to now cry foul every time they are defamed... Should we be able decide right or wrong on our own?
We have a broadcaster in Sydney who has just had his knuckles rapped (and that is all) for all but inviting a bunch of thugs to join in on some Muslim bashing a little over a year ago ~ yet the guy still has the support of our Prime Minister."
from daddy bubs at ramshackle compound....
"I love that coffee ad!
Anyway...about Imus.
A couple of things: it's ironic that a network hires a "shock jock" knowing what his shtick is, and then ultimately fires him for doing his shtick.Here's the ultimate lesson: if you're a washed up old white guy without much of an audience, you'll be terminated for spouting offensive racist bullshit. If you're a white guy with a 15 million + audience and millions of dollars in ad revenue (Rush Limbaugh) you're safe. Likewise, if you're a multi-million dollar black entertainer like (insert name of favorite hip-hop artist here)."
more from rye-rye at earth observation, baby.
...doesn't that argument support the government in censoring speech and defining what's appropriate and not appropriate?
"I don't think so in this case, because I really don't believe there was a threat of FCC action here. If they came after CBS for this, they'd have to first come after every hip-hop station on the dial. I think this was, for better or worse, the marketplace speaking. And what's interesting is that the fleeing advertisers were not responsing to a truly well-organizaed campaign a la Donald Wildmon.
As a former broadcaster, I believe this was the right decision for MSNBC, because a show such as Imus should never have been part of the offerings of the NBC news division, and an overreaction by advertisers and CBS.
The crux of the whole thing was that Imus had a hybrid of a show that didn't really work. I think the majority of his audience was like me: admired the intelligent newsmaker interviews, thought the scripted bits were often funny and incisive -- though sometimes offensive -- and thought the banter, which is where this comment came, was boring and insipid. And I never understood why he thought Delbert McClinton was the greatest musical artist of the day.
But I would say -- and this comes from someone who was a Jesse Jackson delegate to my state convention in 1988, and who applauded Sharpton's speech at the 2004 convention -- they have some "stones" for guys living in glass houses. Remember Hymietown? At least Jesse apologized for that one. Sharpton has never apologized for his role in the tawana Brawley case, which made the recent Duke fiasco seem like a Sunday walk in the park.
I put a comment on Al Roker's blog that said it is really up to the African-American leaders in this country to attack the misogyny of hip-hop, and to realize that when in those recordings they talk of hos, bitches and niggas they are not speaking amongst themselves, but teaching a generation of not only young blacks but white suburban kids that this talk is acceptable.
Comments
(I have to admit, I might steal that birthday party idea.)
I can't wait until her dauhter grows up to be a huge, dripping slut.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-sense-your-confusion-time.html
I don't believe it is the same attack as Janet.
JDC
Next, the freedom of speech issue can be a tricky one. I definitely see your point. However, the way I see it, this is not an issue of free speech; it's an issue of capitalism, pure and simple. CBS and MSNBC deciding to fire him is based purely on economics.
Imus spoke. Those who didn't like what he said spoke up too. (Let us not forget the crucial importance of freedom of speech for those who are against Imus!) Imus's employers decided in the end that they would rather risk alienating Imus's supporters than his opponents. If they continue to employ Imus, there are many people and sponsors who are going to be less than happy, resulting in less than millions of dollars in revenue.
I don't see this as having a chilling effect on free speech. The danger with curbing free speech is really only relevant when the government is trying to downright outlaw speech. If anything, I see this Imus episode as a good example of how free speech is alive and well in our culture. Imus is still free to say whatever he wants - no one is suggesting he go to jail or anything. Yet, just because he is free to make these kinds of remarks, that does not mean the rest of us have to take it in silence. And it certainly does not mean that his employers have to continue to pay him to say the kinds of things he does.
The right wing in this country has done a very good job of convincing the populace that when the left speaks out, they are trying to destroy freedom of speech. They've done a good job of convincing us that when downtrodden people stand up and scream "QUIT STEPPING ON ME!" that they are doing themselves, and everyone else, a disservice. Devious, if you ask me.
(I hope you asked me?) :o)
Your BFF,
CP
But Imus and anyone who is on corporate radio or television is engaged in commercial speech, and thus whatever serves the corporation or is perceived to serve the corporation goes. I know the argument that it's the public airwaves, but that horse left the barn even before Reagan deregulated the spectrum and permitted nearly unlimited ownership of stations.
So someone who says despicable shit on a commercially sponsored show that goes beyond his employer's understanding of what is tolerable... I don't have a problem with the firing. And if Imus wants to be heard again someone will hire him. Even the Greaseman is working again.
Your first question:
I had not thought about this from an economics perspective. that's a great point. two questions for you cp. others who enjoy the same stature who have said similar hateful, vile, unforgivable things have not been fired, much less suffered a financial hardship. why do you think that is?
Good question. If you're referring to Mel Gibson & Michael Richards, I don't know if they are or were actually working for anyone who could fire them. Mel is self employed and Michael is, I think, freelancing.
In any event, in my view the decision to fire someone is in the hands of the employer. If that employer cares at all about public opinion, they have the choice to listen to those opinions and then make a decision. It's up to the network to decide what kinds of messages they want going out from their station - and no one but them has the right to make that decision. Again, we can (and should) tell them all we want about what we think of their programming. But the decision should be theirs and theirs alone and, in my opinion, should have nothing to do with the First Amendment. A radio network is not the government.
Your second question:
Why don't you think this will have an impact on freedom of speech? don't you think this opens the door even wider for the fcc to step in and define what's appropriate and not appropriate?
I don't think that people getting upset about Imus and expressing it in all sorts of ways has a chilling effect on free speech because this entire interaction IS free speech. Imus spoke, and others are speaking out against him. "I think you should fire that bastard!" is a perfectly acceptable opinion for these people to express. The network, to my knowledge, did not fire him because they fear some sort of government reprisal. They fired him because they see that a large portion of the public is pissed off and are going to choose NOT to listen to their station any more if Imus stays. Economics, pure and simple.
It's a complex question as to "why won't this have an effect on free speech?" I'm not sure what the question implies. Does it imply we should not speak out against those we disagree with? Does it imply that if many people are upset about a certain program that is on the air, the airers shouldn't be allowed to take public opinion into consideration?
Or, should concerns that the FCC or another government agency might step in and start quashing free speech control our very freedom to speak the speech in the first place? If so, haven't we already lost the game, then?
As I told you over email, I would indeed be VERY concerned if the GOVERNMENT wanted to get heavily involved in things like this because, as I said, First Amendment (free speech) concerns are a function of government action. The First Amendment protects our speech vis a vis the government's ability to regulate it. The First Amendment has nothing - and should have nothing - to do with decisions an employer makes regarding firing an employee.
Why am I not afraid that hearing all this ballyhoo, the FCC might step in and say "ok everyone, we see a lot of consternation here. Therefore, from this day forward, we're adding the following 10 words to the forbidden list....?" Probably because this entire episode, this entire debate goes to the heart of the democratic process. In a democratic society, people have the right to petition the government to do whatever they want. And others have the right to petition the government to stay out of it.
Sure, your opinion may be that "hey, if we make too much noise about this, we might incite the government to step in and start regulating us more." And that's a perfectly valid opinion. But as I said before, I think that if we quash our own speech for fear the government may quash it for us, we've already lost. Besides, I guess it's not personally a fear of mine. People scream and yell all the time without the government doing anything.
We have a broadcaster in Sydney who has just had his knuckles rapped (and that is all) for all but inviting a bunch of thugs to join in on some Muslim bashing a little over a year ago ~ yet the guy still has the support of our Prime Minister.
I don't think so in this case, because I really don't believe there was a threat of FCC action here. If they came after CBS for this, they'd have to first come after every hip-hop station on the dial. I think this was, for better or worse, the marketplace speaking. And what's interesting is that the fleeing advertisers were not responsing to a truly well-organizaed campaign a la Donald Wildmon.
As a former broadcaster, I believe this was the right decision for MSNBC, because a show such as Imus should never have been part of the offerings of the NBC news division, and an overreaction by advertisers and CBS.
The crux of the whole thing was that Imus had a hybrid of a show that didn't really work. I think the majority of his audience was like me: admired the intelligent newsmaker interviews, thought the scripted bits were often funny and incisive -- though sometimes offensive -- and thought the banter, which is where this comment came, was boring and insipid. And I never understood why he thought Delbert McClinton was the greatest musical artist of the day.
But I would say -- and this comes from someone who was a Jesse Jackson delegate to my state convention in 1988, and who applauded Sharpton's speech at the 2004 convention -- they have some "stones" for guys living in glass houses. Remember Hymietown? At least Jesse apologized for that one. Sharpton has never apologized for his role in the tawana Brawley case, which made the recent Duke fiasco seem like a Sunday walk in the park.
I put a comment on Al Roker's blog that said it is really up to the African-American leaders in this country to attack the misogyny of hip-hop, and to realize that when in those recordings they talk of hos, bitches and niggas they are not speaking amongst themselves, but teaching a generation of not only young blacks but white suburban kids that this talk is acceptable.
Anyway...about Imus.
A couple of things: it's ironic that a network hires a "shock jock" knowing what his shtick is, and then ultimately fires him for doing his shtick.
Here's the ultimate lesson: if you're a washed up old white guy without much of an audience, you'll be terminated for spouting offensive racist bullshit. If you're a white guy with a 15 million + audience and millions of dollars in ad revenue (Rush Limbaugh) you're safe. Likewise, if you're a multi-million dollar black entertainer like (insert name of favorite hip-hop artist here).