Thursday, April 12, 2007
Beyond the Pale
I have always accused Hillary Clinton of being a somewhat disingenuous, opportunistic politician. I know that all of them play the "politics game" but I have always found Hillary to be particularly objectionable. This is partially an informed opinion and partially just a gut reaction to a politician I don't like.
To me, though, this latest stunt is beyond the pale. Front and center on Hillary's website (I am consciously declining to link to it) is the picture below with the caption "Join Hillary in sending the young women of Rutgers a message of respect and support."
To me, though, this latest stunt is beyond the pale. Front and center on Hillary's website (I am consciously declining to link to it) is the picture below with the caption "Join Hillary in sending the young women of Rutgers a message of respect and support."
Give me a break. This is nothing more than shameless, opportunistic pandering at its worst. The reason behind this, of course, is that (in addition to her campaign's perception that she will win favor with voters by getting involved in this) if you sign up to send the message then you get to give Hillary's campaign your e-mail address, and they can hit you up for money down the road. What's next, an online greeting card congratulating Larry Birkhead on being named the father of Dannielynn?
I understand that as national figures campaigning for a major political office, all of these candidates have to take a position on what has become a headline issue. Indeed, they've all done so. But taking a position on the issue when asked about it (such as John McCain suggesting that Imus was wrong but should be forgiven, or Barack Obama suggesting that the comments warrant Imus' firing) is one thing, putting it front and center on your campaign's public platform in a transparent attempt to win brownie points and inflate your viral marketing abilities is abominable.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Barry Situation
Through seven games and 22 at-bats this season, Barry Bonds is hitting .227, with one home run and four RBI. He has walked six times. While it is not a foregone conclusion, it seems more likely than not that Bonds will hit the 20 home runs necessary to equal Hank Aaron's career mark of 755, as well as the one more he will then need to better it.
The record is stained, of course, by rampant allegations that Bonds used performance enhancing steroids (some would say overwhelming evidence, given that he basically admitted it) that were at best not allowed in baseball, and at worst illegal. For the record, I don't know that Bonds used steroids, but I also don't know that OJ did it, I don't know that man landed on the moon, and I don't know that the sun will come up tomorrow. Instead, I look at all the evidence available to me, and form an opinion. As open bar pointed out to me the other day, the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, while probably the right one when debating whether to imprison someone, doesn't bind us in forming an opinion about another person outside of a court of law (side note: in fact, a different standard is used 
even in court when money, rather than jail time, hangs in the balance. In a civil suit, juries are instructed to make their decision based on the preponderance of the evidence (i.e., 50.1%) standard). My point is simply that I can honestly believe (and believe strongly) that Barry Bonds used steroids to enhance his performance, and I don't have to apologize to the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd in holding that belief.
The record is stained, of course, by rampant allegations that Bonds used performance enhancing steroids (some would say overwhelming evidence, given that he basically admitted it) that were at best not allowed in baseball, and at worst illegal. For the record, I don't know that Bonds used steroids, but I also don't know that OJ did it, I don't know that man landed on the moon, and I don't know that the sun will come up tomorrow. Instead, I look at all the evidence available to me, and form an opinion. As open bar pointed out to me the other day, the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, while probably the right one when debating whether to imprison someone, doesn't bind us in forming an opinion about another person outside of a court of law (side note: in fact, a different standard is used 
even in court when money, rather than jail time, hangs in the balance. In a civil suit, juries are instructed to make their decision based on the preponderance of the evidence (i.e., 50.1%) standard). My point is simply that I can honestly believe (and believe strongly) that Barry Bonds used steroids to enhance his performance, and I don't have to apologize to the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd in holding that belief.So what?
What does it mean that baseball fans (I daresay a majority, but I can't be sure) think that the most famous record in all of sports (side note: I guess we can debate that, but come on) is going to be broken by someone who cheated? Well, it means a lot of things to a lot of people, and reactions can range from the very indifferent (at the end of the day, the world has much bigger problems than this) to the outraged (he's tarnished the game, he cheated, what does this say to kids, steroids are a huge health risk, etc.). I'm not sure exactly where I fall (I'm somewhere between the middle and the latter), but there are a two specific steroid-related issues that I keep coming back to:
1. The Hall of Fame
1. The Hall of Fame
I know that a lot of people out there believe that, because of the steroids, Barry Bonds should not be admitted to the Hall of Fame. First, let's all agree that, but for the steroids, Bonds would be a lock for first-ballot admission to the HOF. His career numbers are up there with the greats of all time, and it can hardly be disputed that those numbers justify admission. Enter the steroids, though, and the implications of cheating that accompany them, and it seems at least possible (if not likely) that Bonds will not make the Hall of Fame, at least not on his first try. Just ask Mark McGwire.
Do you still "amaze yourself," you arrogant, cheating prick? (No, not you, Barry, the guy on the right).
In a vacuum, fine. No great loss in my book when a guy who cheated gets denied entry into the HOF. Some could say that keeping Bonds out is nothing more than the sportswriters (who vote on a player's admission) performing their gatekeeping role admirably. But what about the next guy? What happens when Sammy Sosa is up for admission? Well, he's kind of like Bonds, right? Everyone knows he did it, so he doesn't get in. Ok, fine. What about Roger Clemens? Well, wait, he's never done steroids, has he? No, ok, he gets in. Are you sure? How about Mike Piazza? Steroids? No way. Wait a minute. Did he? That groin injury when the muscle separated from the bone when he was merely leaning back to avoid an inside pitch? The lunatic rant when Guillermo Mota hit him in spring training in 2003 (yes, that Guillermo Mota)? You're still not convinced? Ok, good. I love Piazza, so he's in.
My point is only that in the easy cases it is . . . well, easy. In the closer cases, where well-informed people can genuinely disagree, it is a much tougher call. Someone could come back and say that the "close calls" on steroids are no different than "close calls" with respect to statistics; the writers simply have to make up their mind. The problem with steroid allegations is that you have issues unrelated to the player's on field achievements informing that decision. In such a case, I worry that unrelated factors (a player's popularity, willingness to talk to the media, race (yes, race)) will factor even more in to the decision than they already do. To me, that would be a very, very unfortunate result.
(Side note: Please don't tell me that player popularity, as well as race, do not affect HOF admission. Jim Rice, who played in 2,089 games, collected 2,452 hits (.298 AVG), went yard 382 times, and knocked in 1,451 runs in his career is not in the HOF; Ryne Sandberg (2,164 games, 2,386 hits (.285 AVG), 282 HR, 1061 RBI) is in the Hall of Fame. Don't even get me started on Andre Dawson.)
I don't have the perfect answer, but I do think it is a problem. Steroid allegations could quickly become a smokescreen to keep unpopular players out, yet be overlooked when writers want to elect a more beloved player.
Maybe Tiger would have won the Masters if
he had partied with Barry the night before.
he had partied with Barry the night before.
2. The Witch Hunt
The Hall of Fame problem is a concern for players after their career is over, but the witch hunt starts sooner than that. It seems that every two-bit sports reporter (I'm looking at you, Bob Klapisch) has an opinion about who is, was, isn't and will be on steroids at any given point in time. It's not uncommon to hear the Mad Dog (puke) rattle off a list of names, as that fat self-proclaimed sage of all things sport Francesa gravely announces, or not, that "he's juicin', dawg." (puke twice).
The truth is, of course, that we don't know. Does Pudge Rodriguez look like he's lost 50 lbs.? Yes, he does. Was Giambi great, then crappy, now great again? Well, yeah, sort of. What about A-Rod? He sure looks clean, but I can't stand him, so it's kind of fun to throw the steroid thing around.
Given that you can probably never know for certain -- unless the MLBPA agrees to aggressive, frequent testing (and there is no indication that (a) they will, or (b) the testing could keep up with the development of undetectable steroids) -- it seems almost a foregone conclusion that at least one or two cheaters will get away with it, and at least one or two innocent guys will get dragged down by it. In both cases, it could be a lot more than one or two.
To me, that will always be Barry Bonds' legacy.
Yep, sounds about right
Oh those yankees... While a-rod is inexplicably playing well (cough--steroids--cough), the yanks' minor league mascot seemed to feel that classic yankee sense of entitlement:
A Scranton man identified in arrest papers as a Grump mascot for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees was arrested during the weekend on charges he used the Internet to solicit sex with a boy who actually was a police decoy.
Here's the whole story. What a franchise!
A Scranton man identified in arrest papers as a Grump mascot for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees was arrested during the weekend on charges he used the Internet to solicit sex with a boy who actually was a police decoy.
Here's the whole story. What a franchise!
Yes, Imus is dumb, racist, and sexist, so fuck him.
After all the hub-bub recently over the Imus incident, I've gotta weigh in on this. Basically, what Imus said was clearly both racist and sexist. He picked on a bunch of college girls from places all over the country whose team managed--against all odds--to get to the championship game of the NCAA tournament. They lost a bunch of games early in their season, but they somehow managed to pull it all together when it counted most. What they did was pretty fuckin' awesome (women's basketball or not).
And then Imus calls them a bunch of "nappy-headed ho's."
And he does it in an environment that is this: a tiny radio station studio full of a bunch of other old white guys who fear him.
I freely admit that I let loose the occasional rip on minorities / retards / women / midgets / paraplegics / vegans / goats / anyone-who's-different-from-me, but then again, I don't have a radio show listened to by a shitload of people that is broadcast on the public airwaves. As the video Notorious LJT played demonstrates, we're all "a little bit racist," but we don't all have the same forum in which to display it that Don Imus has. I don't for a second get upset if someone makes a Polish joke (I'm Polish), but you have to know who you're with, where you are, and whether something that you're about to say is appropriate for that environment.
There's nothing wrong with making a non-P.C. comment or joke, but there's a line, and that line is determined by the circumstances. For example, when Comedy Central shows the Roast of William Shatner or Pamela Anderson or Hugh Hefner, Captain Kirk, Pam and Hef know full well that it's gonna be no-holds-barred in terms of hearing Spock-fucking jokes, Tommy Lee's dick jokes, and Viagra jokes; they agreed to be roasted, after all. They also know that: 1. It's all in good fun--to be roasted is to be honored; and 2. They will have a chance to speak at the end, where they have the chance to respond and make jokes at everyone else's expense, and they will have the last word.
I also fully agree with Danny G that society cannot function without the freedom to say whatever you want. But that freedom also makes you responsible for what you say. If you are too dumb to realize that what you're saying is gonna piss someone off, then you're probably not gonna understand when someone does in fact get pissed off. Don Imus knows that he is pissing people off when he says what he says; it's what he's been doing for years, as have many other "shock jocks" on radio.
As American society has evolved since the '60's civil rights movement (which I've only read about and seen Forrest Gump) into the heyday of "multiculturalism" and "diversity" that blossomed in the '90s (which I experienced directly growing up in Teaneck), I really think people now feel some sort of entitlement to be "offended." This is the idea that if someone does something that you either disagree with or are particularly sensitive about, then that person owes you an apology. That is bullshit. I could think of a million things that I'm "offended" by--assholes who don't wait for me to get off the train before they push their way on, pretentious broadcasters who explain basic elements of baseball as though they're the first to think of it (Joe Buck), people who talk on their cell phones in an elevator--but it doesn't mean that that person is out to get you.
I absolutely think that in order to "offend" someone, you must actively be trying to do that. Who hasn't ever said something that has upset someone else? It happens every fucking day. The difference is if the person is trying to offend you. If I say something to you or around you or even in distant earshot of you that pisses you off, you--as the listener--must take into account whether or not I was saying it to piss you off. If I was, then yes, by all means, get offended! That would be the whole point, right? But if not, and this is generally the case, I'm just saying something about something regarding how I feel, or something, just like we all do all the time. If it's something you're particularly sensitive about, you've gotta either let it go or tell me that it bothers you. Please don't assume I said it to attack your delicate vulnerabilities. You cannot be offended unless someone is offending you. To "offend" someone requires a direct intention. You can get pissed off because someone's being a dickhead, but being "offended" is different--it is the result of someone deliberately trying to get a rise out of you.
This Imus thing, though, is different. This is about a guy who not only doesn't care about people's sensitivities, 1. He definitely intends to get under people's skin by saying outrageous things (he was one of the original "shock jocks"); 2. He has a history of either making directly racist comments (that's a TimesSelect link, sorry!) or condoning it when people with him make racist comments (like when one of his cohorts compared a black guy climbing the Empire State Building to King Kong--ask LJT for further info); and 3. He makes a living off it.
To me, the real issue of this Imus thing is that a 66-year-old white guy who thinks he's invincible totally belittled a group of young--mostly black--women who just achieved something tremendous, something no one thought they would be able to do. Imus belittling people is nothing new, but he chose to do it by calling them "nappy-headed ho's." Does Imus even know what "nappy-headed" means? Or where the term "ho" comes from? It doesn't matter. To be blunt, he may as well have called them "nigger whores." He knew enough not to say that, but he seems to have figured that by softening it up a bit, who's gonna make a fuss?
Go back to your ranch, Donny boy. As you have made perfectly clear, the world has passed you by.
And then Imus calls them a bunch of "nappy-headed ho's."
And he does it in an environment that is this: a tiny radio station studio full of a bunch of other old white guys who fear him.
I freely admit that I let loose the occasional rip on minorities / retards / women / midgets / paraplegics / vegans / goats / anyone-who's-different-from-me, but then again, I don't have a radio show listened to by a shitload of people that is broadcast on the public airwaves. As the video Notorious LJT played demonstrates, we're all "a little bit racist," but we don't all have the same forum in which to display it that Don Imus has. I don't for a second get upset if someone makes a Polish joke (I'm Polish), but you have to know who you're with, where you are, and whether something that you're about to say is appropriate for that environment.
There's nothing wrong with making a non-P.C. comment or joke, but there's a line, and that line is determined by the circumstances. For example, when Comedy Central shows the Roast of William Shatner or Pamela Anderson or Hugh Hefner, Captain Kirk, Pam and Hef know full well that it's gonna be no-holds-barred in terms of hearing Spock-fucking jokes, Tommy Lee's dick jokes, and Viagra jokes; they agreed to be roasted, after all. They also know that: 1. It's all in good fun--to be roasted is to be honored; and 2. They will have a chance to speak at the end, where they have the chance to respond and make jokes at everyone else's expense, and they will have the last word.
I also fully agree with Danny G that society cannot function without the freedom to say whatever you want. But that freedom also makes you responsible for what you say. If you are too dumb to realize that what you're saying is gonna piss someone off, then you're probably not gonna understand when someone does in fact get pissed off. Don Imus knows that he is pissing people off when he says what he says; it's what he's been doing for years, as have many other "shock jocks" on radio.
As American society has evolved since the '60's civil rights movement (which I've only read about and seen Forrest Gump) into the heyday of "multiculturalism" and "diversity" that blossomed in the '90s (which I experienced directly growing up in Teaneck), I really think people now feel some sort of entitlement to be "offended." This is the idea that if someone does something that you either disagree with or are particularly sensitive about, then that person owes you an apology. That is bullshit. I could think of a million things that I'm "offended" by--assholes who don't wait for me to get off the train before they push their way on, pretentious broadcasters who explain basic elements of baseball as though they're the first to think of it (Joe Buck), people who talk on their cell phones in an elevator--but it doesn't mean that that person is out to get you.
I absolutely think that in order to "offend" someone, you must actively be trying to do that. Who hasn't ever said something that has upset someone else? It happens every fucking day. The difference is if the person is trying to offend you. If I say something to you or around you or even in distant earshot of you that pisses you off, you--as the listener--must take into account whether or not I was saying it to piss you off. If I was, then yes, by all means, get offended! That would be the whole point, right? But if not, and this is generally the case, I'm just saying something about something regarding how I feel, or something, just like we all do all the time. If it's something you're particularly sensitive about, you've gotta either let it go or tell me that it bothers you. Please don't assume I said it to attack your delicate vulnerabilities. You cannot be offended unless someone is offending you. To "offend" someone requires a direct intention. You can get pissed off because someone's being a dickhead, but being "offended" is different--it is the result of someone deliberately trying to get a rise out of you.
This Imus thing, though, is different. This is about a guy who not only doesn't care about people's sensitivities, 1. He definitely intends to get under people's skin by saying outrageous things (he was one of the original "shock jocks"); 2. He has a history of either making directly racist comments (that's a TimesSelect link, sorry!) or condoning it when people with him make racist comments (like when one of his cohorts compared a black guy climbing the Empire State Building to King Kong--ask LJT for further info); and 3. He makes a living off it.
To me, the real issue of this Imus thing is that a 66-year-old white guy who thinks he's invincible totally belittled a group of young--mostly black--women who just achieved something tremendous, something no one thought they would be able to do. Imus belittling people is nothing new, but he chose to do it by calling them "nappy-headed ho's." Does Imus even know what "nappy-headed" means? Or where the term "ho" comes from? It doesn't matter. To be blunt, he may as well have called them "nigger whores." He knew enough not to say that, but he seems to have figured that by softening it up a bit, who's gonna make a fuss?
Go back to your ranch, Donny boy. As you have made perfectly clear, the world has passed you by.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Taking Goldie's Advice
I don't listen to Imus any more. There was a time that I did listen, I formed an opinion of him, and then I stopped listening. I was offended by his comments, and feel I must act. Since I can't listen less than the zero that I already listen, I will instead urge others to stop listening if they do.
Everyone on Earth, please stop listening to the Imus program. I think he sucks and you shouldn't support him. My opinion is more important than yours, so you should do what I say, rather than what you feel. In order to take back the night, I am going to reclaim "nappy headed ho" for everyone who was insulted. If I use it often enough, then it will lose its power.
Goldie, I was offended by what you said about me, and I think you should be fired. I can't defend my liking Dave Matthews. I can defend my pacifism. While you would call it punking out, I think most of the time it's harder not to fight than to fight. Also you end up getting derided by the people who's best interest you're looking out for.
Everyone on Earth, please stop listening to the Imus program. I think he sucks and you shouldn't support him. My opinion is more important than yours, so you should do what I say, rather than what you feel. In order to take back the night, I am going to reclaim "nappy headed ho" for everyone who was insulted. If I use it often enough, then it will lose its power.
Goldie, I was offended by what you said about me, and I think you should be fired. I can't defend my liking Dave Matthews. I can defend my pacifism. While you would call it punking out, I think most of the time it's harder not to fight than to fight. Also you end up getting derided by the people who's best interest you're looking out for.
bibbydaddy
And the winner is . . .
Birkhead father of Smith’s baby!
He's the Daddy!: DNA tests show Anna Nicole Smith's former boyfriend Larry Birkhead is the father of her infant daughter.
Smith baby's dad: I told you
Imus.
Birkhead father of Smith’s baby!
He's the Daddy!: DNA tests show Anna Nicole Smith's former boyfriend Larry Birkhead is the father of her infant daughter.
Smith baby's dad: I told you
Imus.
People Who Live in Glass Houses Should Get Dressed in the Basement
(Props to Goldie for the song idea.)
With the uproar over Don Imus, especially by Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom refuse to accept his apology and demand his firing, I thought it may be interesting to see if these two stone-casters were without sin. After all, they realize how powerful words are and would never throw them around irresponsibly, right???
"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ, cited in "Democrats Do the Dumbest Things
1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent -- the crime never occurred -- but Sharpton taunts him: "If we're lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it." Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and stabbed to death.
1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, Freddy's white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy's are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We're going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.
Jesse Jackson, according to Wikipedia has had some less than flattering comments about those Old-Testament Readers, himself: Rev. Jackson has remarked "that he was "sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust"; that there are "very few Jewish reporters that have the capacity to be objective about Arab affairs"; In addition Rev. Jackson had referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson#Remarks_about_Jews
Anyway, I'm not trying to justify what Imus said - just pointing out that his biggest critics are a little bit racist sometimes, too.
Monday, April 9, 2007
On a Roll-ins
I guess Jimmy Rollins was right . . . the Phillies really are the team to beat in the NL East this year. Thanks to his error in the 8th inning this afternoon, the Mets have already done it once; now they just need to do it 18 more times this season. Hey Jimmy, you better be careful, or you will find yourself in the wheeeeeeere's luke? pantheon of most hated athletes . . . move over Scott Speizio, you've got company.
Counterpoint: Defending My Boy
So Imus-gate continues, with nationally-recognized figures such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Chuck calling on him to resign or be fired.
I have always been a fan of Imus, and have always based that preference on the contrast between the Imus program's more political, intellectual bent on the one hand, with the more low brow humor of Stern or Opie and Anthony on the other.
I assume everyone is familiar with what was said (if not, just scroll down to Jerry's previous post), so I won't repeat it here. Jerry has suggested that I defend "my boy," but I am not sure that I either (a) can, or (b) want to. I am still up in the air (side note: get it?) on this, so what follows is really just a collection of thoughts and observations. I'll figure out what my conclusion is by the end (or not).
First, two points of clarification from Jerry's post:
1. In the context of questioning why mad politicians go on the show, Jerry asserts that "It's not as if [Imus] has any listeners." I think that's wrong. In fact, the New York Times reports that Imus has millions of listeners on 70 stations around on the country. I am not sure which way that cuts, as you could easily argue that the fact that so many people listen to him is one more reason why he needs to be mindful of what he says, but it is worth noting.
2. Jerry pokes fun at the written apology Imus issued last week (or read on his show aloud, I'm not sure which) for the use of the pronoun "we." In fact, I think this was right, because the offensive colloquy was actually between Sid Rosenberg, Bernard McGuirk, and Imus. As I read the apology, it was a mea culpa on behalf of the show (side note: if you were to collect the racist offerings over the past 20 years from the show, I think Bernard would be way out in front of everyone else, and query whether he should be the one getting more heat on a day to day basis).
While it's easy to find two little things from Jerry's post to pick on, it's harder to decide whether Imus should be fired/forced to resign for what he said. On the one hand, there is the argument (likely to be advanced most vociferously by Goldie) that if you don't like what he said, don't listen. If enough people find what he says offensive, and they decline to listen to or watch his program, then market forces will take over and he'll be gone. In other words, each member of society can police the airwaves by simply tuning out (literally) that which they find offensive (or boring, or stupid, or whatever).
On the other hand, MSNBC is not a government agency (side note: and even the FCC, which is a government agency, can regulate scarce airwave space and decline to permit obscene material on the air), and they have every right to decide that, freedom of speech notwithstanding, they don't want to be associated with someone who makes mad bigoted remarks. (In reality, that's really just another angle on the market forces argument, as it is more likely that MSNBC would get rid of him to retain viewers, i.e. for business reasons, as opposed to some genuinely held moral outrage at what he said).
I think both of those positions are valid, but I think you can't end the inquiry there; I think you have to look specifically at this program, and refrain from making snap judgments based on one incident. Unfortunately for Imus, that more restrained, level-headed review actually does him no good. Over the 30-year history of the show, the host and other participants have made dozens of racially insensitive (and downright racist) comments. As noted above, I often think Bernard is the biggest culprit, but either way, Imus doesn't catch a break from the "this was an isolated incident" defense. It is decidedly not an isolated incident (side note: that same New York Times article posted above notes that in 2001 Imus took a pledge to refrain from making racist comments after referring to PBS anchorwoman Gwen Ifil as a "cleaning lady.").
Still on the other hand, though, this is hardly a show that singles out black people for ridicule. Gay people, Jewish people, Irish people, Catholics, Hispanics and a whole host of other groups are often lampooned on the show. I am not suggesting that being a bigot across the board excuses individual incidents of racism, but I do think it is noteworthy that this particular comment set off a firestorm where others have not.
An additional consideration that informs my opinion on the proper result is that Imus is hardly the only radio, talk show or TV show host who makes insensitive comments. Rush Limbaugh has said dozens of things about gay people, Jewish people and democrats that I find reprehensible. That lunatic who runs the 700 Club - Pat Robertson - has said more dangerous things on the air than perhaps every one else combined (most recently suggesting that the United States should assassinate a foreign head of state). Lou Dobbs says offensive things about people who immigrate to this country every single night. Etc. The intolerant speech of other people hardly justifies the intolerant speech of one particular guy, but it does run counter to basic ideas of fairness and consistency for Imus to get canned over this while those guys get to keep spewing their garbage (side note: query whether the fact that Imus is at the center of the political spectrum actually hurts him here; were he way to the right or way to the left then any assault on him could be dismissed as "the other side" trying to get him by "playing politics.").
Lastly, I think it is worth noting (and this goes back to the market forces argument) that this is a comedy show. It's not like someone thought they were getting teletubbies and accidentally heard this remark. The show is known for being irreverent, and not altogether "cleaned up." It's hardly as sexually explicit as Stern, but none of the participants have ever shied away from making fun of anyone, and it is not uncommon for it to be in a harsh and biting fashion. These guys typically make comments that are on the edges of what is generally considered "offensive" and it is inevitable that they will occasionally cross the line. If that inevitability is troubling to a listener or viewer, then they should not listen or view. I think, though, that I am not ready to conclude that he should be fired or forced to resign for saying or doing things that some people find offensive.
UPDATED:
One more thing, I just watched that clip again. I think it is worth noting that he also comments that the Tennessee players are "lovely" when the majority of players on both squads are black. Was it a racist comment or was it a sexist comment? I think certainly the latter, since he was making disparaging comments to Rutgers based on their appearance. But was it also the former? "Nappy headed hos" is hardly a term that he would have used to describe any non-black players, so from that perspective it is clearly racially-charged. I just think that the sexist overtones (i.e., girls have to look good, etc.) are more potent than the racist overtones. I am surprised that there aren't more women's advocacy groups that are fired up about this (at least not as prominently as the NJ NAACP, National Association of Black Journalists, Rainbow/PUSH, etc.).
Also, it dawned on me that Chris Carlin is the sports reporter on the Imus show and also does Rutgers football games. I wonder what kind of awkward position - if any - this puts him in with respect to his relationship with Rutgers sports. It would be interesting to see what he would do if the Rutgers AD said that no one at RU would talk to him as long as he is affiliated with the Imus show.
I have always been a fan of Imus, and have always based that preference on the contrast between the Imus program's more political, intellectual bent on the one hand, with the more low brow humor of Stern or Opie and Anthony on the other.
I assume everyone is familiar with what was said (if not, just scroll down to Jerry's previous post), so I won't repeat it here. Jerry has suggested that I defend "my boy," but I am not sure that I either (a) can, or (b) want to. I am still up in the air (side note: get it?) on this, so what follows is really just a collection of thoughts and observations. I'll figure out what my conclusion is by the end (or not).
First, two points of clarification from Jerry's post:
1. In the context of questioning why mad politicians go on the show, Jerry asserts that "It's not as if [Imus] has any listeners." I think that's wrong. In fact, the New York Times reports that Imus has millions of listeners on 70 stations around on the country. I am not sure which way that cuts, as you could easily argue that the fact that so many people listen to him is one more reason why he needs to be mindful of what he says, but it is worth noting.
2. Jerry pokes fun at the written apology Imus issued last week (or read on his show aloud, I'm not sure which) for the use of the pronoun "we." In fact, I think this was right, because the offensive colloquy was actually between Sid Rosenberg, Bernard McGuirk, and Imus. As I read the apology, it was a mea culpa on behalf of the show (side note: if you were to collect the racist offerings over the past 20 years from the show, I think Bernard would be way out in front of everyone else, and query whether he should be the one getting more heat on a day to day basis).
While it's easy to find two little things from Jerry's post to pick on, it's harder to decide whether Imus should be fired/forced to resign for what he said. On the one hand, there is the argument (likely to be advanced most vociferously by Goldie) that if you don't like what he said, don't listen. If enough people find what he says offensive, and they decline to listen to or watch his program, then market forces will take over and he'll be gone. In other words, each member of society can police the airwaves by simply tuning out (literally) that which they find offensive (or boring, or stupid, or whatever).
On the other hand, MSNBC is not a government agency (side note: and even the FCC, which is a government agency, can regulate scarce airwave space and decline to permit obscene material on the air), and they have every right to decide that, freedom of speech notwithstanding, they don't want to be associated with someone who makes mad bigoted remarks. (In reality, that's really just another angle on the market forces argument, as it is more likely that MSNBC would get rid of him to retain viewers, i.e. for business reasons, as opposed to some genuinely held moral outrage at what he said).
I think both of those positions are valid, but I think you can't end the inquiry there; I think you have to look specifically at this program, and refrain from making snap judgments based on one incident. Unfortunately for Imus, that more restrained, level-headed review actually does him no good. Over the 30-year history of the show, the host and other participants have made dozens of racially insensitive (and downright racist) comments. As noted above, I often think Bernard is the biggest culprit, but either way, Imus doesn't catch a break from the "this was an isolated incident" defense. It is decidedly not an isolated incident (side note: that same New York Times article posted above notes that in 2001 Imus took a pledge to refrain from making racist comments after referring to PBS anchorwoman Gwen Ifil as a "cleaning lady.").
Still on the other hand, though, this is hardly a show that singles out black people for ridicule. Gay people, Jewish people, Irish people, Catholics, Hispanics and a whole host of other groups are often lampooned on the show. I am not suggesting that being a bigot across the board excuses individual incidents of racism, but I do think it is noteworthy that this particular comment set off a firestorm where others have not.
An additional consideration that informs my opinion on the proper result is that Imus is hardly the only radio, talk show or TV show host who makes insensitive comments. Rush Limbaugh has said dozens of things about gay people, Jewish people and democrats that I find reprehensible. That lunatic who runs the 700 Club - Pat Robertson - has said more dangerous things on the air than perhaps every one else combined (most recently suggesting that the United States should assassinate a foreign head of state). Lou Dobbs says offensive things about people who immigrate to this country every single night. Etc. The intolerant speech of other people hardly justifies the intolerant speech of one particular guy, but it does run counter to basic ideas of fairness and consistency for Imus to get canned over this while those guys get to keep spewing their garbage (side note: query whether the fact that Imus is at the center of the political spectrum actually hurts him here; were he way to the right or way to the left then any assault on him could be dismissed as "the other side" trying to get him by "playing politics.").
Lastly, I think it is worth noting (and this goes back to the market forces argument) that this is a comedy show. It's not like someone thought they were getting teletubbies and accidentally heard this remark. The show is known for being irreverent, and not altogether "cleaned up." It's hardly as sexually explicit as Stern, but none of the participants have ever shied away from making fun of anyone, and it is not uncommon for it to be in a harsh and biting fashion. These guys typically make comments that are on the edges of what is generally considered "offensive" and it is inevitable that they will occasionally cross the line. If that inevitability is troubling to a listener or viewer, then they should not listen or view. I think, though, that I am not ready to conclude that he should be fired or forced to resign for saying or doing things that some people find offensive.
UPDATED:
One more thing, I just watched that clip again. I think it is worth noting that he also comments that the Tennessee players are "lovely" when the majority of players on both squads are black. Was it a racist comment or was it a sexist comment? I think certainly the latter, since he was making disparaging comments to Rutgers based on their appearance. But was it also the former? "Nappy headed hos" is hardly a term that he would have used to describe any non-black players, so from that perspective it is clearly racially-charged. I just think that the sexist overtones (i.e., girls have to look good, etc.) are more potent than the racist overtones. I am surprised that there aren't more women's advocacy groups that are fired up about this (at least not as prominently as the NJ NAACP, National Association of Black Journalists, Rainbow/PUSH, etc.).
Also, it dawned on me that Chris Carlin is the sports reporter on the Imus show and also does Rutgers football games. I wonder what kind of awkward position - if any - this puts him in with respect to his relationship with Rutgers sports. It would be interesting to see what he would do if the Rutgers AD said that no one at RU would talk to him as long as he is affiliated with the Imus show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)