Don Imus goes back on air tomorrow.

[Myk JL]

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1378007.php/Don_Imus_goes_back_on_air_tomorrow (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1378007.php/Don_Imus_goes_back_on_air_tomorrow)

Personally I'm glad. What I was offended by is if anyone else had made that joke it would have just been consider a joke. Such as Dave Chapelle, Mencia, The Man Show, etc. The fact he was fired for the joke is what I find racist. Furthermore Imus In The Morning was the only show that didn't involve a quak in a suit. All of those guys are full of $#!+.

[Saiel]

Imus had a portfolio of growing racist remarks prior to his comments against the Rutgers' girls. The difference is that Dave Chapelle, the Man Show and the like are ridiculous comedy shows packaged as such, and which make fun of themselves and their own race just as often as others in a way that simultaneously comments on bigotry and stereotypes. Imus was a news and sportscaster who liked to put down any race and gender other than his own with no social agenda beyond expressing his own disgusting beliefs. He doesn't deserve a public podium, and I doubt he'll be able to maintain one much longer.

[Myk JL]

Imus is a Shock Jock. As long as his remarks aren't threatening he should have to right to say whatever he wants.

[Mathias]

Imus was a newsman? That's news to me. Bad pun, sorry. :)

[Wolflord]

Diversity will be part of the "new" Imus - he will have one and perhaps two regular or semi-regular black cast members according to the Daily News.

There's no point in putting them on there if their sole purpose is so that the show can go "look black people! We're not racist." It's not diversity if it's done for the sole purpose of being diverse, IMO.

I've never heard his show but I agree with Myk. If his comments are non-threatening he should be allowed to say whatever he wants. Nobody makes you listen to his show so if it offends you, change the channel.

[Anime Pimp]

Why do people insist on turning this issue into a debate about freedom of speech? If Imus has the right to broadcast potentially racist commentary, then his listeners have the right to voice their complaints about it. (He did. They did.) The fact that his employer would rather remove his show from the air than deal with bad press and failing sponsorship has nothing to do with censorship or fifth amendment rights. (Or racism, though the idea that Imus being fired is somehow resulted from racism is moronic.)

The difference between Imus's show and the ones mentioned is that those shows make money by offering this type of racial humor. Imus's show being canceled was the result of several of it's major sponsors backing out and the negative publicity surrounding the controversy. Why keep a sponsor-less show on the air when you can cancel it and look like the good guys despite the fact that the host has been making racist, sexist (and several other -ist type words, to be sure) comments since the early seventies?



That being said, Imus is an obvious bigot (the cowboy hat is a dead giveaway) and shouldn't be allowed the influence that radio provides. I'm frustrated by the fact that another station is belligerent enough to put him back on the air, but its only a matter of time before he gets caught snorting coke, binge drinking or making offensive comments again and gets canned. Again.


edit: Still can't sleep, so you have to read more of this shit. Also, feel free to ignore all of this; I probably won't respond anyway.

As I mentioned, the reason Imus was ultimately fired was due to the loss of advertisement dollars and not, necessarily, because the radio station and/or it's listeners didn't agree with or took offense to Imus's comments. However, the reason shows like Mind of Mencia are able to stay on the air is because, as Saiel said, the viewer is made aware ahead of time what type of content is involved (read: Comedy Central). You can't air what is ostensibly a news and sports-related talk show which appeals to a broad range of listeners and expect them all to agree on an accepted standard for political correctness.

As far as the shock jock argument is concerned, I have to ask, what is a shock jock, exactly? Using the term as you have makes it sound like something that is common or mainstream and therefore socially accepted, but the only other "shock jock" I can think of now works for a satellite radio station that requires a monthly subscription.

Also, don't tell me that Imus can't be considered a newsman. He interviewed political candidates for fuck's sake.

[Myk JL]

An insult is an insult. The fact that someone is offended that what he said was "racist" or "sexist" only makes a double standard in insults that can be used. In other words some how it would have been magically ok if he insulted another white male, but the fact he didn't all the sudden means he's gone to far?

The people who made the controversy of the joke are nothing more than a bunch of monkeys in suits. Whoring themselves to any controversey they could find.

The people that wanted his show canned were most likley people who never watch.

So if Imus anounced that he was going to make racial jokes ahead of time it would have been ok? That sounds silly. It just would've meant that monkeys in suits would be speaking of controversy earlier.

Some forms of being PC only do more harm than good by creating double standards. The Race & Gender cards are only played when the person who says it is a white male.

What is a Shock Jock? Someone who says shocking things & is on the radio. Also Shock Jocks have been around before Sattelite Radio. Anyone knows this if they know who Howard Stern is.

Also he can't be. Just because he interviews political guests doesn't really mean much. If that's the case then all the sudden newsman are magically late nite talk show host because they talk to stars.

[DeathscytheX]

As long as his remarks aren't threatening he should have to right to say whatever he wants.

Yeah, he'll also have the right to get shot, ran over, or beaten to death. That had to be the most short sighted statement I've seen this month. Plenty of media figures have been fired for similar reason within the last few years.

You accuse his critics as being monkeys in suits just as blindly as I could accuse you of being a complete tool. Except I would have a better case as you have generously provided us all with evidence.

[Myk JL]

Yeah, he'll also have the right to get shot, ran over, or beaten to death. That had to be the most short sighted statement I've seen this month. Plenty of media figures have been fired for similar reason within the last few years.

You accuse his critics as being monkeys in suits just as blindly as I could accuse you of being a complete tool. Except I would have a better case as you have generously provided us all with evidence. What you just stated in the first sentence isn't anywhere in anyone's rights.

I'm pretty sure Morning Joe is hosted by a monkey in a suit & so are all of MSNBC's other shows. I comment more on you, but you have an itchy ban finger & take offence to me insulting you despite you insulting me.

[DeathscytheX]

Oh really?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RobertMR83/dan2.jpg

I wasn't being serious, but he is entitled to such things if he just goes about saying whatever he wants. Free speech comes with a price, anyone can punch another in the face for saying something derogatory to them or someone close to them. While they have the right to "say" something, that doesn't mean there are no consequences. There is no such thing as true free speech, however, here in the United States we can get away with speaking more openly on certain topics like government and social issues without legal repercussions. We call this "free speech" Its more figurative then literal just as we call our governmental system a democracy when its really a republic.

I throw no insults, If you take offense of me then you are obviously unsure of your own opinion. I purposely form my arguments that way to gauge the reaction. You have a habit of forming half-truths to back your argument when your proposed view is endangered by someone else, and when that doesn't work you turn to insults and calling people lairs without any basis to do so.

By admitting you are intentionally attempting to insult another member of the forum, you also are admitting you have total disregard for the rules of this forum. But out of kind generosity I will grant you with my grace and save you from all temptation to comment further on me.