DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on April 13, 2007, 09:27:04 AM
-
<<"He says he wants to be forgiven," Sharpton said. "I hope he continues in that process. But we cannot afford a precedent established that the airways can commercialize and mainstream sexism and racism.">>
In other words, it's much bigger than Imus.
Two or three points I wanted to make:
By doing the right thing and canning this guy - - harshly and dramatically in the middle of his Telethon, because the network recognized that it was a symbolic issue and had to be dealt with symbolically, the symbolism had to be right - - the network made the statement that racism and sexism were front-and-centre issues to the mainstream of the American people and instantly marginalized Imus' defenders who had variously claimed (a) this was NBD or (b) Imus could once again apologize and play-act his way through various acts of contrition and once again get his ticket stamped to continue spewing his venom over the public airwaves (a variation of the "NBD" justification) or (c), not really a defence, but a playing of the "hypocrisy" card, that "others" (always un-named) are all doing it too, or that rappers say worse. Essentially the networks recognized the bogus nature of the latter "defence" and with regard to the first two, stated emphatically, (a) that this really IS a BFD, and (b) that in fact it's so big a deal that no apology can save his ass.
But aren't the networks really just responding to the sponsors who baled? Partially, sure, but who are the sponsors responding to? Slice it up any way you want motivationally, the bottom line is that a whole whack of commercially savvy and astute individuals in top-of-the-line positions seem to have taken a reading of America's soul (admittedly, not Mississippi's soul, not Alabama's soul) and determined that more folks than not just won't stand for this shit, that this can't be swept under the rug any more. Like it or not, this is a milestone day for America (one among many of course, and far from the most significant one) and it's one to be celebrated, though not for the racists and closet racists who remain diehard Imus fans, and there are still way too many of them. Nevertheless - - congratulations, America!
But isn't it all a big joke because rappers still rap and hip hoppers still hop? Bullshit and nonsense. Apples and oranges. Rappers and hip-hoppers are performance artists, nothing more, nothing less. They portray characters to an audience (which one survey says are mostly teenage suburban white males) which has equal access to slasher movies, hard- and soft-core porn and anything else the First Amendment guarantees and protects. They DON'T have prime-time access to every American living room. That's one umbrella they DON'T shelter under. The fact that most of their performances are accessed in ways meant to prevent minors or unsuspecting adults from accidentally witnessing them imprints them with a message that these guys are so marginal that ONLY America's devotion to freedom of speech permits their work to be enjoyed at all. And now Imus and his ilk are so categorized as well.
-
But isn't it all a big joke because rappers still rap and hip hoppers still hop? Bullshit and nonsense. Apples and oranges. Rappers and hip-hoppers are performance artists, nothing more, nothing less.
Then you and Sharpton disagree. I watched part of his press conference yesterday and he said the opposite - that rappers need to clean up their act as well.
-
They DON'T have prime-time access to every American living room. That's one umbrella they DON'T shelter under. The fact that most of their performances are accessed in ways meant to prevent minors or unsuspecting adults from accidentally witnessing them imprints them with a message that these guys are so marginal that ONLY America's devotion to freedom of speech permits their work to be enjoyed at all. And now Imus and his ilk are so categorized as well.
Imus has less access to "every American living room" than rappers do, so this point is flawed.
-
<<Then you and Sharpton disagree. I watched part of his press conference yesterday and he said the opposite - that rappers need to clean up their act as well.>>
Sharpton and I probably disagree on a lot of things, but I still respect him. In this particular matter, he's not calling for the rappers' heads, he's just found another way of saying he doesn't like what they have to say or the way they say it. Tough shit.
-
In this particular matter, he's not calling for the rappers' heads, he's just found another way of saying he doesn't like what they have to say or the way they say it. Tough shit.
Actually, he is. He said that record companies need to drop artists that use the term "hoes" to refer to black females.
-
MT, you fail to realize that ALL these folks, Imus, rappers and the like, ANYONE in the public eye, is a role model to younger people. As such, they all should be held to a higher standard. "To whom much is given, much is expected."
This applies to ALL public figures whether they are on the airwaves or sports figures.
-
<<Imus has less access to "every American living room" than rappers do, so this point is flawed.>>
How you figure that? Keeping in mind that I never watched or saw Imus before this, I still assume he had a radio show and a TV show or a spot commentating on televised games. Further, that all of his TV appearances could come in on network TV in prime time to any American home. I would think that hard-core rappers DON'T come into American homes on network TV in prime time, that if they come in at all it's by cable TV with plenty of options for people to keep them out.
Radio, of course, is just radio. I guess anyone with a receiver can tune in anything out there. Sorta like Howard Stern (who I've also never listened to, but at least nobody ever had to explain to me who Howard Stern was.)
So maybe, radio-wise, you're right. Still, those rappers never picked out a bunch of innocent college girls by name and specifically insulted them and their families. They've got more class than that. And they are performers, entertainers, embodying a character, so they need a little more latitude. They can't play tough street characters and go around calling everyone "sir" and "madam" and "miss."
The radio smackdown of Don Imus was important regardless of how he got into people's homes or heads, or how many he reached - - basically a statment that, No, the American people DON'T support this kind of shit, they (here, obviously speaking for most of them, not the Trent Lotts and Sen. Macacawitz's or their supporters) actually find it abhorrent.
-
How you figure that? Keeping in mind that I never watched or saw Imus before this, I still assume he had a radio show and a TV show or a spot commentating on televised games.
Don Imus had a syndicated radio show, which had outlets in 61 cities and an audience of 1.6 million. He was also simulcast on MSNBC which is a cable channel that is not carried by all cable systems, and is usually part of an "add on" package rather than being a base package.
Rappers, on the other hand, have radio outlets in every part of the US, plus broadcast television and cable / satellite.
-
<<He [Sharpton] said that record companies need to drop artists that use the term "hoes" to refer to black females.>>
Then he went too far. If you don't like their "music," then don't buy their records. If Imus distributes his opinions the same way as the rappers distribute their opinions? impersonations? performances? then freedom of speech and expression are preserved and the "artists" (including Imus) are still marginalized - - although I don't really see the need to marginalize the rappers anyway, if you understand what they're really all about.
-
If Imus distributes his opinions the same way as the rappers distribute their opinions? impersonations? performances? then freedom of speech and expression are preserved and the "artists" (including Imus) are still marginalized - - although I don't really see the need to marginalize the rappers anyway, if you understand what they're really all about.
I would argue that Imus, being a shock-jock, is as much a performer as any rapper.
-
<<MT, you fail to realize that ALL these folks, Imus, rappers and the like, ANYONE in the public eye, is a role model to younger people. As such, they all should be held to a higher standard. "To whom much is given, much is expected.">>
I understand that to some people rappers are role models and I understand this is a problem. I think it's a worse problem that Rambo and John Wayne are role models and this is a much bigger problem, in that it contributes to a culture of violence and war. There's no doubt in my mind that some of the initial support and some of the residual support for the current war comes from attitudes learned from war movies, much more so than from attitudes learned from rappers. But it's an inevitable consequence of free speech and freedom of artistic expression. I don't want to censor John Wayne movies, Rambo movies etc. and I don't want to censor rappers - - from what in America would be called First Amendment concerns. That doesn't mean I approve of any of them as role models. There has to be some room for parental guidance and it has to coexist with freedom of expression. Uneasily, I guess.
-
<<Rappers, on the other hand, have radio outlets in every part of the US, plus broadcast television and cable / satellite.>>
I kind of question the "broadcast television" outlet for rappers. Is it only because I live in Canada? I can't recall one instance of hardcore rappers with "bitch" and "ho" and cop-killing on any TV I've ever watched, although I'm sure that there are specialty TV cable packages that I could have purchased that would have allowed them in.
I've seen lots of televised sports on any of which Imus could have been right in my living room. And we certainly don't subscribe to any specialized sports channel.
-
<<I would argue that Imus, being a shock-jock, is as much a performer as any rapper.>>
He's not all shock-jock all the time. It's a part of his persona, but mostly he's a commentator, from what I understand. Howard Stern, in contrast, is a shock-jock nearlly 100% of the time.
But even if you take Imus as a performer, his performance went way beyond any rapper, or any Howard Stern broadcast, that I ever heard of.
-
I kind of question the "broadcast television" outlet for rappers. Is it only because I live in Canada?
Possibly. Do you not get shows like "Soul Train" and the like up there? They're on broadcast TV in the US, and include many rap and hip-hop artists.
I've seen lots of televised sports on any of which Imus could have been right in my living room.
Why would a shock-jock that does a morning drive-time politics / comedy / talk show be on your living room TV while you're watching sports?
-
It's a part of his persona, but mostly he's a commentator, from what I understand.
Then I believe that you "understand" incorrectly.
-
<<Possibly. Do you not get shows like "Soul Train" and the like up there? They're on broadcast TV in the US, and include many rap and hip-hop artists.>>
I've seen Soul Train but really don't recall anyone rappin about shooting cops, smackin down bitches and hos etc. I just assumed some kind of network censorship. Seemed pretty mainstream to me. Something like the old Ed Sullivan show not showing Elvis from the waist down.
-
He [Sharpton] said that record companies need to drop artists that use the term "hoes" to refer to black females
sharpton got it all wrong rappers never called black females "hoes"
they call females in general "hoes"
his statement would mean it`s ok to call non-black females "hoes"
-
I've seen Soul Train but really don't recall anyone rappin about shooting cops, smackin down bitches and hos etc.
Not seen it lately?
-
But isn't it all a big joke because rappers still rap and hip hoppers still hop? Bullshit and nonsense. Apples and oranges. Rappers and hip-hoppers are performance artists, nothing more, nothing less. They portray characters to an audience (which one survey says are mostly teenage suburban white males) which has equal access to slasher movies, hard- and soft-core porn and anything else the First Amendment guarantees and protects. They DON'T have prime-time access to every American living room. That's one umbrella they DON'T shelter under. The fact that most of their performances are accessed in ways meant to prevent minors or unsuspecting adults from accidentally witnessing them imprints them with a message that these guys are so marginal that ONLY America's devotion to freedom of speech permits their work to be enjoyed at all. And now Imus and his ilk are so categorized as well.
No, it isn't all a big joke, but you might be. One of my main problems with this issue is just exactly this sort of double standard. Imus said "nappy hos" once or twice, and people are screaming about racism and how important his being fired is. And many if not most of those people are excusing much worse language used repeatedly by rappers and such because, well, golly, they're rappers. There is your bullshit and nonsense.
And that is why I have a very hard time taking all these accusations of racism seriously. Lots of people make big noise about racism, and when a media circus starts up, they quickly join in, whooping and hollering, following the bandwagon. But start pointing out something worse to them, they get all indignant and start insisting that you don't understand just how really important this is. Why is it important? Because it gives them an excuse to feel like they're saying something important.
Oh yeah, Imus and his ilk have been so marginalized. I'm sure those folks will all now think twice before saying something bad about female, African-American basketball players. We really showed them. We can now all feel good about ourselves because we condemned racism. Now we can go back to ignoring it until the next media circus. (Yes, I know, that was sarcasm. Old habits die hard.)
I watched with some revulsion liberals and conservatives unite to oppose Dubai Ports World because they're in Dubai. I regularly see and hear people talk about how we have to stop jobs from going to non-Americans, either because they're overseas or because they're here but it's all supposedly ruining our culture just the same. And yet somehow this public condemnation of one man, a mostly irrelevant man until now, is somehow a major and culturally important issue? No, but if you really believe it is, I have some ocean-front property in Wyoming I can sell you real cheap. Or maybe a bridge or two if you prefer. Anyone interested in buying a genuine Mona Lisa?
-
his statement would mean it`s ok to call non-black females "hoes"
I wouldn't be surprised if Sharpton feels that way. He seemed to specify black females, using the term "our women".
-
He [Sharpton] said that record companies need to drop artists that use the term "hoes" to refer to black females
sharpton got it all wrong rappers never called black females "hoes"
they call females in general "hoes"
his statement would mean it`s ok to call non-black females "hoes"
However, that word is really short for whores, so is it not still unacceptable, regardless of color?
-
<<Not seen it lately?>>
Get to the point. Do they or don't they feature hard-core rap lyrics, e.g. killing cops (without remorse,) smackin down hos and bitches?
(Of course I haven't seen it lately - - I would have told you unequivocally what they do or do not show.)
-
However, that word is really short for whores, so is it not still unacceptable, regardless of color?
you`re right
but the context is totally diiferent
it`s said not to call them whores ,but as a term of control
ex. need to keep them bitches in thier place.
so it`s not to insult,but to demean
did I make it worst?
-
Get to the point. Do they or don't they feature hard-core rap lyrics, e.g. killing cops (without remorse,) smackin down hos and bitches?
I've not seen it lately, either, but it's my understanding that they do. Even if they don't, there are other shows on broadcast tv where they do.
You continue to act as if Canadian television broadcasts are indicative of those in the US; they're not. There is a reason why Canadians are breaking Canada's laws to get US television, but people in the US aren't breaking US laws to get Canadian television (mostly because it's against the law for Canadians to buy US television service, but it's not against the law for Americans to buy Canadian television service).
-
It pains me a bit to defend Imus .
He is constantly saying stuff I whish were not said.
But I defended Ann Colter so I need to defend Imus , I can't have it such that I defend the first admendmendment only for conservatives and not for liberals.
If Imus is rejected by National leaders , Religious leaders , Racial leadeers etc. that doesn't mean he ought to be fired.
If he is rejected by his listening audence , then for sure he ought to be fired .
He is the servant of his listener not the other way around.
-
Just like Ann Coulter's losing newspapers who will print her columns, Imus lost advertisers who wanted to be associated with him. This was not a fine or a sentence handed down by the government, it was driven by market forces. Howard Stern, on the other hand, did have a gov't fine. Where were you all then?
This isn't a free speech issue (IMO). It's a market issue.
-
And if the market responds with an offer for Imus to host a satellite show like Stern does, then you would have no problem with that?
Because it probably would not be a bad move on satellite radios part bringing in a guy with a built in audience.
-
I won't listen to Stern or Imus, but that's beside the point. If the market will bear another Imus show, and if he doesn't say things that make advertisers run from him in droves or tie him up in litigation, then he'll have a show.
It's just not a free speech issue. We all have the right to freedom of speech. We do not any of us have the right to a platform for that speech.
-
If Imus is rejected by National leaders , Religious leaders , Racial leadeers etc. that doesn't mean he ought to be fired.
If he is rejected by his listening audence , then for sure he ought to be fired .
He is the servant of his listener not the other way around.
Indeed, he is. I wouldn't have known Imus from Adam a week ago, now I'm intimately familiar with every detail of his life.
What do you want to bet within 6 months, he's back on the air with a fatter contract and a bigger audience than ever?
Best publicity stunt since Sinead O'Connor tore up a picture of the Pope, or the Dixie Chicks slagged Bush in London...
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
--Keith Richards
-
Howard Stern, on the other hand, did have a gov't fine. Where were you all then?
Then, I thought Stern was offensive (still do), but I thought the demands for him to be fired were stupid. And I thought the government was wrong to fine him. How about you?
-
However, that word is really short for whores, so is it not still unacceptable, regardless of color?
you`re right
but the context is totally diiferent
it`s said not to call them whores ,but as a term of control
ex. need to keep them bitches in thier place.
so it`s not to insult,but to demean
did I make it worst?
Well, insult or demean, it is still unacceptable. ouch! This is why I had the local cable co. not allow stations like MTV into our home. My two teenagers at home screamed about it, but that's just too bad!
-
And if the market responds with an offer for Imus to host a satellite show like Stern does, then you would have no problem with that?
Because it probably would not be a bad move on satellite radios part bringing in a guy with a built in audience.
I fullt expect this to happen, BT.
-
I really didn't know much about it. I didn't listen to him. Government fines...All i remember about this incident, really, is that everyone said it would give him a built-in audience for satellite radio.
-
I really didn't know much about it. I didn't listen to him. Government fines...All i remember about this incident, really, is that everyone said it would give him a built-in audience for satellite radio.
Well, the government can't fine Imus, because he didn't use any of the "banned" words.
-
<<You continue to act as if Canadian television broadcasts are indicative of those in the US; they're not. There is a reason why Canadians are breaking Canada's laws to get US television, but people in the US aren't breaking US laws to get Canadian television (mostly because it's against the law for Canadians to buy US television service, but it's not against the law for Americans to buy Canadian television service).>>
Well, that's true and I guess I'm somewhat at a disadvantage in discussing the specifics of what is or is not allowed into American homes. Particularly since we're talking about the kind of programs (current entertainment, sporting events) that I hardly watch anyway) and there are no kids left in the house. HOWEVER, I am sure that the basic principles that I relied on in making my point are still valid, even if I got some of the details wrong.
My premise is that America has a basic framework of near-absolute First Amendment values that are by far the highest in the world, but that within that framework there is a kind of commercially-based censorship that operates less efficiently than government censorship would, and can choke off, to varying degrees, but not to zero, the access that any individual or group has to the American public. (Think Dixie Chicks.) Some of these groups can fight their way back into the ratings, sometimes even inadvertently assisted by the very efforts made to ban them in the first place, but that doesn't negate the power or effect of the ban or attempted ban - - a lot of wasted energy was required just to overcome its effects.
My second premise has to do with content, and I base it on the example of NAMBLA - - the National Association for Man-Boy Love Affairs. This organization, if it still exists, promotes the ideas that adult males should be able to have lawful, non-violent, loving sexual relations with young boys of any age by Constitutional right, and that such relations would or at least could be mutually beneficial to the participants. I think it's reasonable to assume that NAMBLA's views are highly offensive to at least 99.99% of the American people (or any other people) and also that their right to express such views, offensive as they may be, are fully enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America. (to America's everlasting credit)
I would speculate that if any of America's top anchorpersons or commentators, Imus included, had ever suddenly converted to the NAMBLA point of view, and began holding forth publically, on or off the air, about the Constitutionally-guaranteed wonders of man-boy love and what great work NAMBLA was doing, and what an injustice it was to seven-year-old boys that their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to enjoy love and sex with older men were being trampled upon by a fascist police state and its Supreme Court stooges, his or her ass would be canned with a speed that would make the speed of light look stodgy and tired by comparison. Without in any way infringing upon any First Amendment rights.
My point being that there is and has always been an anti-hierarchy of values in the MSM, which renders ridiculous any post such as Modesty Blaise's, which bemoans a vanished "freedom" trashed in the Imus case, and that in that anti-hierarchy of values, homosexual pedophilia ranks at the very top, probably followed closely by pedophilia, "anti-Americanism," (i.e., any informed examination of America's REAL role in the world after WWII,) "Islamocommunopervofascism," disrespect for the troops, and, way down on the list, racism and sexism.
The real Imus debate was not about Imus, or even the First Amendment, but the hierarchy or anti-hierarchy and whether or not racism and sexism should rank closer or further from the NAMBLA level of repulsiveness in it. It was therefore a test of the real values of the American people. Which they passed with flying colours.
-
I would speculate that if any of America's top anchorpersons or commentators, Imus included, had ever suddenly converted to the NAMBLA point of view, and began holding forth publically, on or off the air, about the Constitutionally-guaranteed wonders of man-boy love and what great work NAMBLA was doing, and what an injustice it was to seven-year-old boys that their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to enjoy love and sex with older men were being trampled upon by a fascist police state and its Supreme Court stooges, his or her ass would be canned with a speed that would make the speed of light look stodgy and tired by comparison. Without in any way infringing upon any First Amendment rights.
Of course; because the First Amendment does not apply to private corporations - such as most media companies.
CBS was within their rights to fire Imus. I think it was a stupid move on the part of CBS, however. Expect a lawsuit for illegal termination.
-
<<Of course; because the First Amendment does not apply to private corporations - such as most media companies.>>
I was talking about any possible infringement on Don Imus' First Amendment rights, not the rights of the network.
<<Expect a lawsuit for illegal termination.>>
Hey, this is the U.S.A., remember? Expect a lawsuit for anything from anyone at any time. Won't do him much good, far as I can see, unless they (CBS) hired some rookie lawyer to draw the Imus contract. Not bloody likely.