Is sports also a big part of this Imus thing?

[vi5]

I can't help thinking that this part of the whole equation hasn't really been addressed nearly as much as everythign else, despite in my opinion it being perhaps one of the biggest factors here. I mean people keep wondering on here and other places why Imus, who is small potatoes as far as hate radio and speech goes got raked over the coals for this when the Glenn Becks and the Limbaugh's and the Savages, and the Hannitys have not. And there's definitely something to that. I mean the fact that Limbaugh gets away on his show every day with spewing the hate and racism he does, yet was fired from his job for what he said about Donovan McNabb should tell us something about it right there Of all the things as documented by Media Matters and other places that Imus has said previously, as many before me have pointed out, why this. Why now?

This culture puts sports and athletes on such pedastals both as players, success stories, and also revenue generation. I really hate to bring up the rap music thing because I think that anyone using that as an excuse for what he said is completely missing the point. But by that same context, can people honestly say that if he had said what he sad about Lil Kim or Foxy Brown or Missy Elliot or Eve or even taking it a step further any african american female singer who wasn't part of the hip hop culture (Whitney Houston, Alicia Keys, etc.), that there would have been as big an uproar? Despite the fact that each of those african american women are good at what they do and highly successful, and may in fact end up being more successful by some standards than any member of the basketball team in question? But as these women were athletes, that somehow this places them beyond race. I mean even the fact that Imus has said just as horrible things about other successful african american women (Gwen Ifill being one of the most prominent examples) and not had even 1/10th of this uproar.

As a caveat to all this, I don't have the answers on this. And I'm not even saying it shouldn't be this way. I just thought it was one of the few aspects of this long, drawn out, overheated discussion that hasn't really been discussed. I'm not a sports fan in any way shape or form. At all. Male, female, any of it. So as an outsider this aspect of our culture and it's obsession with the same and placing this stuff on a different plane of existence has always fascinated me and this situation seems a prime example of it. And in some ways I do respect the sports establishments for being one of the few areas of our culture that for whatever the reason, can have this differentiation in some ways. If anyone has any articles or anything where it is that I may have missed, I would appreciate it.

[izzie]

1. Face it some thing that makes more money for these corp. will

take over Imus spot. Most likely was lined up before they got rid of him. Since I am an old women I have lived a life of hearing things about women that should not be on TV or radio usually done by 'nice' white men who have held most of the power in my life time. I will frankly miss Imus and his guest even if I found the sports and music dull as can be. It was always a good brake from a dull guest on c-span and I gave up regular morning TV 20 years ago.

[Dawgs]

2. Maybe, but...

not because of the reasoning you're using.

There is a stereotype among sports fans (especially men) that women sports is full of butch tom boys and it is not worth watching. I think Imus thought he could use this stereotype to make a joke.

Let me ask you. Are you a sports fan?

[vi5]

3. No, which is why I added that caveat....

My take on this is definitely as an outsider to the world of sports which is why I'm interested in this aspect of it. Like I said, from the outside I"m looking at both this instance and the Limbaugh/McNabb instance from the fact that "Of all the things both of these guys have said over the years that were racist/sexist/whatever, why in both instances were the only time they were called to the mat on this?" when they said this stuff about sports figures.

It didn't strike me that what he said was playing off of the butchness or any of that, but I could be wrong.

[MADem]

4. I think it's politics, myself

Limbaugh can call folks 'Halfricans' and there's no consequences. He can say shit like this with impunity as well:

As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." A decade ago, after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

In 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out."

In a similar vein, here is Limbaugh's mocking take on the NAACP, a group with a ninety-year commitment to nonviolence: "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

When Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the "Movin' On Up" theme song from TV's "Jeffersons" when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting "ax" for "ask"-- when discussing black leaders.

Such quotes and antics -- many compiled by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) for our 1995 book -- offer a whiff of Limbaugh's racial sensibility. So does his claim that racism in America "is fueled primarily by the rantings and ravings" of people like Jesse Jackson. Or his ugly reference two years ago to the father of Madonna's first child, a Latino, as "a gang-member type guy" -- an individual with no gang background. .... Once, in response to a caller arguing that black people need to be heard, Limbaugh responded: "They are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"....

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549

But he's a loyal Republican.

Imus can say equally offensive things, but he's NOT a loyal Republican. He is a registered Republican, but not a loyal one, and he reaches an audience of millions, many of whom ARE Republicans who are looking for someone who will tell them how to think.

He's challenging the administration on just about everything of late. And that, not his insult to the basketball champions, is the reason for his firing, IMO. The offense he made was just the excuse.

[vi5]

5. Well, that at least explains to me why people on here defend him..

I didn't realize he had turned into a Bush critic. I couldn't figure out why there were so many pro-Imus people on here but it makes sense now. As long as someone criticizes Bush then all is forgiven.

[MADem]

6. Hell, NO ONE here likes his racist and sexist schtick--what made the show worthwhile was the

window into the "rebelling Republican" mindset, AND, of course, the political guests--and the guest spots were very good. Imus may be a boorish ass, but he can conduct one helluva interview. He let people talk, but he would cut them off if they were talking crap--and then he'd TELL them they were talking crap. Quite different from some of the other talking heads who would let people go on and on, eating up airtime and saying nothing.

[vi5]

8. I still think that's pretty pathetic...

..that people on here were o.k. with his sexist, racist behavior simply because he's anti Bush. But hey, everyone has their different motivations for what is or isn't o.k.

[MADem]

9. Did you not read what I wrote? NO ONE found it acceptable.

I think I made that pretty goddamned clear. But here's the bottom line--you cannot know thine enemy without looking and listening to what they have to say. If you want to preach to the choir, and have only the choir preach back to you, your life will be pretty insular. "But hey" if that's your "motivation" well you just enjoy yourself, now.

Jesus, I give up. Sometimes you just cannot make your point here, because people will not read the goddamn words in front of them.

Pathetic, indeed.

[vi5]

10. Yeah, but I've heard people on here say the same thing...

...that they liked his interview style and he had good guests on. Which to me seems like a pretty shallow reason to put up with and look past bigotry and hatred.

I don't believe at all in only listening to the choir preach. You go the wrong guy on that one. I don't even listen to Air America because for that very reason it bores me to tears. But I also think that in this day and age that listening to right wing garbage or watching Fox or any of that under the guise of "knowing what the enemy is saying" is a cop out. There are enough places and resources on line and otherwise to get what "the enemy is saying" and knowing what their mindset is. I've not listened to any right wing radio in the 8 years Bush has been president and yet I still manage to know every right wing talking point, and be fully kept up to date on what they are all saying.

I personally don't think he should have been fired. I think politicians and media figures should have just stopped coming on his show and putting up with his BS. Then his support would have withered and died and it could have been chalked up to market forces and "the people" deciding what they did and didn't want to listen to as oppossed to what it's being spun as now with censorship and the pressure of small groups of special interests being blamed.

My issue with him is and always has been that he got to the prominence he did and got the power he did because otherwise sensible politicians went on his show, and supposedly respectable journalists went on his show, and supposedly liberal people listened to his show and touted his opinion as somehow worthwhile, and all were willing to look past behavior and language and words that were clearly offensive. I'm sure Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony and Mancow and all the rest use language and words that offend me far more than anything Imus has said. But I don't see democratic politicians going on those shows, and I don't see supposedly serious journalists going on those shows, and I don't read countless posts on here daily about the political implications of what those shows are saying because they don't matter. They are entertainment and entertainment is sometimes off color and tasteless and what have you. But if Imus and his guests and fans want to be treated like serious political voices then they need to be held to the same standards as other serious political voices. It can't be had both ways.

[MADem]

11. Who ever "looked past" bigotry and hatred? Sheesh, I love the way people take shit to the next

level, even when there is no evidence whatsoever that this was the case.

Geez, every time Imus stepped over the line, all I ever saw here was outrage.

But most people CAN hold two thoughts in their head at the same time.

And if YOU don't want to listen, well, don't. But don't pull out a "cop out" charge to those who do want to see what the other team is up to--that's just a cheap "I'm better than you" shot.

If you think Imus's audience would wither and die if the lefties stopped listening, you're smoking crack. His BASE was "angry, white men." And to be precise--angry REPUBLICAN white men. MILLIONS of them. And they didn't have a problem with what he said. They never did. They still don't. So for you to suggest that "people" taking exception would make a difference, well, that's just foolishness. These "angry, white" guys don't CARE about what females of any color think, or say, or do. They aren't attuned to 'diversity' issues of any sort.

And as for politicians, if they have a chance to interact with MILLIONS of likely voters, they'd be batshit crazy not to take that opportunity. And it doesn't matter how they have to do it, if they are given the platform, the time, the opportunity to get their message out, they are gonna take it.

And FWIW, you got the timeline backwards--the shock jock shit came FIRST, the politicians, later. Imus HAD his audience in the palm of his hand well before the first politician even appeared on his show.

What the left does not realize is that they have lost a huge resource. This was an angry, white, old, white, Republican man, preaching to an angry white Republican choir, and he was preaching the message of "Impeach Bush." It's a message that the left can't preach in a way to reach that demographic. You can put your Al Frankens and your Keith Olbermanns on the air around the clock, and they won't, in a month, reach one-one thousandth of the GOP white male demographic that Imus reached in one hour of his morning show.

And I will continue to aver that the right took swift and gleeful advantage of this outrage, fanned the flames, and handed the butcher knife to the left to slaughter their troublesome "off the ranch" pig. It was a two-fer for them: They got rid of a "disloyal" bastard who had broken ranks with the party, and they managed to keep the news cycle off parliament/bridge bombings in Iraq, dead troops, missing emails, criminal attorneys general, and the incompetence of General BetrayUs and the entire BushCo team.

[vi5]

12. O.K. but then why didn't they go on Howard Stern?

If the purpose was for these politicians and journalists to get a larger audience, then why not go on Howard Stern? Before his going to Satellite, his audience was much larger than Imus's (I believe Imus tops out at 2 million radio listeners)? And he was anti Bush long before Imus was. So what's the difference? Especially since as you say Imus's shock jock stuff came first?

Look despite posting about this stuff on a message board, I legitimately do not give a shit if people listen to Imus, even if they are liberal. I really don't. Honestly I personally don't read posts about Randi Rhodes either since as liberal as she is, she bores me and is insufferable for me to listen to and her superfans are even worse than the Imus superfans. And as I said very clearly, I don't even think he should have been fired. My original post wasn't even about any of that though. It was about the role that sports figures are given in our society played in all of this.

[SoCalDem]

13. Because Howard was fascinated with fart jokes & naked women

Imus was their cowboy/Nascar/football buddy

[MADem]

14. Doubleposted, pardon me. NT

[MADem]

15. Because Howard Stern trades in midgets and strippers and women who delight in getting naked in front

of him, for his "approval" and his critique of their physical forms. He trades in salacious talk about matters of a sexual nature, with these women, with his audience, and with his sidekicks--and from what I understand he is quite overt on his satellite show, too. And his demographic skews younger and stupider than Imus's. There's way fewer 'likely voters' in the Stern corral.

That's the difference.

Imus 'transitioned' from the shock jock genre to the political/current events/sports/country music/'white boy-fratboy' humor genre. Stern is still doing shock jock shit as his stock in trade.

Imus gets them from their twenties to their eighties. Stern's audience is a narrower gauge, and also leans towards those who have absolutely no interest in current events, but wouldn't miss a night out at the lap dance club.

Your point about sports is interesting, and it may have played a minor role in all this, at least in terms of getting the party started. People get all exorcised about 'sports incidents'-- more so than they do about incidents that occur in other venues. Hell, while kids were dying left and right in Iraq, the once-GOP Congress saw steroids in baseball as "the" most important issue facing us today...

[vi5]

16. Understood, but don't you see that as odd?

That going on a show that revels in consensual sexuality is frowned upon and would never happen because it would look bad for these politicians and media types to go on a show that talks about sex and naked bodies and whatnot, but that going on a show that traffics in racism and just as blatant sexism as Stern exhibits is o.k.? That's the disconnect I don't get.

And obviously you've never listened to Stern's show or at least not in a while because his show is and has for a while been just as current events, news, and politics based as Imus, with the exception of the fact that he doesn't get politicians to appear on his show like Imus did.

And for better or worse Stern's audience is far more tabula rosa and easily swayed with regard to voting than Imus's audience. Cranky old white men who tend to already follow the news know how they are going to vote and nothing anyone says is going to change that. They can claim all they want to be "independent" but the fact is that Imus's audience skews old and white and they're going to vote how they are going to vote and are already somewhat aware of what's going on in the world. Which is why now republicans are claiming he is liberal and liberals are claiming he's a republican. He wasn't changing any minds.

Stern talking about hating Bush and highlighting some little covered news story (which he does regularly) to twenty and thirty somethings who listen to very little other news and also hang on his every word is going to have more of an impact and I believe has had more of an impact than Imus talking to middle aged white men who largely hang on insidery political rhetoric.

Again, I'm not suggesting that politicians go on his show either. Just that Imus made his bed as some sort of politican and media insider, so then he has to play by their rules. My only point is that I'm surprised it took this long for him to get called out on it, and it says a lot about the people who may or may not have been more than willing to overlook this stuff for so long.

[MADem]

17. I understand what you are saying, but there is a serious difference in "degree" to consider as well.

Imus did not "trade" in racism. Or sexism. He did bumps and 'bits' that had those elements, but he could, and did, go for weeks without pulling that kind of shit. Sometimes, he traded in country music, shopping CDs for artists for an entire show, or in books, touting a book for a mystery writer. Of course, in the interim, he might poke fun at Jews, Catholics or Evangelicals (his favorite religious targets--the Muslims were well back in the pack, overall) in his skits and bits. Stern, OTOH, unless he's changed mightily, always had naked women and sex talk in his program as a staple each and every day.

As for Stern's influence, I seem to remember that he promised to deliver his audience to Kerry, but it turns out a lot of them just didn't vote. He didn't GOTV as he promised.

I haven't listened to Stern in a while. I used to see him on E if I was flipping through the dial, but I never sought him out, and haven't seen any simulcasts lately.

He just doesn't resonate with me, so consequently I don't make the effort to find him on TV, if he is even still on (and I don't have that PAY RADIO either--I'm just not ready to go that route yet), but then, I'm really too old for his demographic.

[Arkansas Granny]

7. I was discussing this with a co-worker just this morning. I feel that

a lot of it has to do with the fact that these young women play as a non-professional team and don't present themselves as public figures. When you run for public office, play for a major league team, make a movie, etc. you can expect this sort of thing (whether it's fair or not is another matter altogether) and you have to grow a pretty thick skin. But I don't think that anyone expects this sort of negative, sexist and racist comment for competing in college level sports and I think that's what fueled a lot of the outrage that was directed at Imus. Many of us have daughters, granddaughter, sisters in this age group and I think we could identify with how the remark might have affected them.

Another thought: maybe people are just getting fed up with hearing ugly, negative and hateful remarks all the time. Look at the attention drawn to Ann Coulter for her statements about John Edwards.