OK, so he's been fired from MSNBC and now CBS Radio. Yes, and even though I think Imus is a drug-addled animated corpse, I think the firing was excessive. That being said, I stand by the advertisers who wanted to take their business elsewhere after Imus' remarks about the Rutgers Lady Knights.
My 2 cents:
I defend the First Amendment with my life and I abhor censorship, all kinds of censorship, including Tipper Gore's desire to rate music CDs. However...LISTEN UP, KIDDIES...just because you have the right to say it, doesn't mean there won't be any consequences. If you make inflammatory remarks about blacks, Jews, women, Catholics, Zoroastrians, whomever, someone somewhere is going to get pissed off. DEAL WITH IT!
Pissed off can mean many things: letters to the editor, letters to the station manager, protests in the street, advertisers pulling dollars, politicians getting their collective panties in a wad, you name it. (And yes, grandstanding by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, whom I think are as equally reprehensible as Imus. But that's another blog posting on another day.)
So, why are people surprised at the backlash? If Imus is allowed to call a bunch of college girls whom he has never met "nappy-headed ho's", I--and lots of folks--have the right to get pissed off. And, if I am CEO of Proctor & Gamble, I have the right to pull my ads if I don't agree with the content of the show. Period. This is not fascism, people. It's my right. I'm not saying shut the guy down, I'm just saying that I'm not going to spend my ad dollars on his show.
Let's say the CEO of some big corporation was an animal-loving vegan. He or she is not going to be spending advertising dollars on a broadcaster who advocates wearing fur or hunting animals. And, that is his or her right. I have friends who won't frequent certain establishments because the corporate office of said establishment gives money to Pro Life causes. I could give countless other examples but I think you get the drift.
Yeah, I think Imus is an ass. He's narrowminded, not funny and he hasn't had an original idea since the Eisenhower administration. But should he have been fired? Absolutely not. Fined, yes. Reprimanded, yes. Hit in the wallet by advertisers, yes.
But people should be allowed to hang themselves with their own rope.
One more thing and then I promise that, unlike Imus, I will shut up about this. Lots of people have been saying, "But he gives so much to charity, to sick kids, blah-blah-blah!" That may be and that is admirable but it doesn't give you the right to be a prick. A poster on Gawker said it best: "I gave money to UNICEF in the 7th Grade. Does that give me the right call you a fag?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Very well said, Martta. You really summed it all up. I totally agree with all of your points.
I know this is very delayed comment, but if I can make you see how shallow the thinking behind your post is, you may be able to improve your future posts.
The First Amendment protection was no bar to Don Imus's firing. It simply protects the government from gagging you. If a company wants to fire an employee for saying stupid, hurtful things, they have the right to do so.
So the "firing was excessive"? Excessive for whom? For nobody but Mr. Imus and his fans, but who cares?
Imus DOES have the right to be a prick.
Imus DID hang himself. He went a step too far.
The companies DO have the right to fire him.
What else could have happened? If the show lost advertising money, they would have fired him anyway. MSNBC and CBS were saving themselves money AND time. Would you prefer that he had gotten tarred and feathered by an angry mob of basketball players? THAT would have been illegal (and wrong). All is right in the world.
As far as censorship goes, such an absolute position as to abhor ALL censorship is naive. Parents and teachers do it all the time, and they don't need some political ideologue telling them it's wrong.
Likewise, the state, as representative of the people, has a right to determine what standards of morality in verbal and artistic representation is suitable. Call it paternalistic, but when there is a catastrophe or other need, the "free citizens" demand assistance from the same pater they may have previously resisted and rebelled against. That's reality, not ideology.People DON'T always know what's best for them, or else why would so many of them watch Oprah?
Besides, if no one tells you what's forbidden, where's the fun of breaching the boundaries? It's because of a lack of censorship that deviancy keeps getting defined down. When everything is permissible, nothing is objectionable.
Your positions seem a little too pat. Think about it some more.
But why just stop at Imus then? Not that I'm defending him. I DO happen to think he's a prick. But what about everyone else who tasteless remarks? Gee, even my own beloved Michael Savage is guilty of that.
I still disagree with your that we need the government to police us in regards to the First Amendment. Let the advertisers speak with their ad dollars.
Post a Comment