IT WAS OUR MOMENT, LIKE JOHN TRAVOLTA, WALKING INTO THE DANCEHALL ON SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER.

DID WE BELONG??

MY SISTER AND I CALLED LONG DISTANCE JUST TO TALK ABOUT HIS SHOW AND WHO HE HAD ON IN THE MORNING.

“ARE YOU ALRIGHT”

WISH HE WAS BACK.

Double standards, hipocracy, selective application, everyone in the media plays this game. The ends justify the means as long as you are calling the shots. Imus is just the latest guy to suffer this schizophrenic behavior of our entertainment / media types.

For the rest of Scott Cooper’s opinion on the topic, go to http://www.orato.com/node/2172

BUT - what I want to know is since Nappy is a highly offensive and racist stereotype word - how is it o.k. for Halle Berry’s next movie to be titled: NAPPILY EVER AFTER????

Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry, at age 40, is preparing to go where few leading actresses would dare. Berry is going bald. Berry will shed her hair for a romantic comedy, which she said is currently titled “Nappily Ever After,” that could start shooting as soon as this summer. “I’m going to shave my head bald. I can’t believe it,” she said.

UMMMMM……Where is the uproar - where is the public outrage…why is this o.k. - Somebody please explain (and why hasn’t this been brought up in the Media???) We can’t tolerate racism - at any level.

What about other racists remarks when an italian is called a Wop, a Mexican a spick, cacasians are called honkys, or crackers all are racists remarks.

But that’s a process in a far larger context, Mike. Here, we’re dealing with the opportunity to let politicos get hoisted by their own petards…in spades. That’s a far cry from overthrowing a government - in fact, it’s the opposite: it’s showing up the paper mache floats and shiney wigets as so much foofaraw and letting the people who actually have CONTENT float to the surface…a little different from rounding up all the aristocrats and shooting them.

For Staten Island guy: Pat Moynihan, you’re right…would never have survived. He would’ve needed a new hair stylist, wardrobe consultant and a speech writer…oh yes, and a LOBOTOMY…

You are a fascist. The Constitution guarantees free speech, not “balanced speech” (whatever that means).

Seriously, you should’ve been born in Stalin’s USSR. Your zeal for controlling what people are allowed to say would’ve been put to good use there.

Jeff, you don’t think Americans have a “right to not be offended”? I concur. In fact, Rush Limbaugh has been singing that refrain for about twenty years.

I had no idea that you were on the path to salvation.

#1 - Freedom of listen? Which Constitutional Amendment is that listed under?
#2 - You’re confusing this with the choice to listen. When people don’t choose to listen to certain outlets, you don’t like it and want their choices taken away.
#3- The government and the FCC don’t regulate cable news because it isn’t public airwaves.
#4- CBS is a conservative corporation? NBC? CNN? ABC? Heh.

The real demeaning of black women did not come about from what IMUS said…but more from the how the rappers portray black women in their TV musical videos for all the world to see. This portrayal by rappers not only demeans black women but exploits them as well….and whadayaknow … no one has said anything….is that because it’s okay when black brothers make a living off black sisters.

Yet, the black community is also conflicted by this exploitation of their race by their race, but are not potent enough to do anything about it…so they have found themselves a scapegoat in the form of Don Imus. Now they can express their disgust and clear their conscience all at once…and how convenient too.

Their action says a lot more about how weak and superficial is the black community…how much hate and anger is in their soul…and ultimately, this outcry against Imus is nothing more than an expression of the anger and hate the members of the black community feel for themselves.

I tried listening to Howard Stern and gave up, not because of his offensiveness (which is good enough reason to), but because he was so unbelievably boring (junior high humor).

My major complaint against everyone jumping all over Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (both of whom I have no love for) is that it ignores Newsweek’s article which pointed to the uproar within the black journalistic community that had put so much pressure on his firing: In other words, Jackson and Sharpton were not the pivotal figures in his firing that everyone is making them out to be (see Oliphant’s cartoon this week). Unfortunately Jackson and Sharpton set themselves up as (understandable) targets of the political right, particularly the racist political right.

I’d like to read some articles by white males acknowledging how much racism still plays a role in America today; and to discuss the impact this racism has on the ordinary person (e.g. I am a counselor, and the stress that triggers schizophrenia is more prevalent among the poor, particularly the black poor).

P.S. I am a white male.

Now there are libel laws in this country so, in principle, he could take legal action against Fox for this, but as a public figure it would be almost impossible for him to win the case, and the publicity would just give Fox the added exposure it seeks.

Turning it off is an appropriate mechanism in theory, but it works better in some contexts than others. In print there are lots of outlets for opinions (although there are very few major dailies left), so with a bit of effort one could read anything from the “Nation” to the “National Review”. This is not true for TV. There are three (four?) major broadcast outlets and a similar number on cable. They are all controlled by large, essentially conservative, media conglomerates. Where are TV viewers supposed to go to get another point of view?

Efforts to broaden the range of voices has been relatively unsuccessful. Al Jazeera in English has been kept off all cable outlets in the US. (I won’t comment on whether they are biased or not since I’ve never been able to watch them.) The BBC is shown in a limited fashion in some markets, beyond this there is almost nothing.

So there are two points to be made. First. that a major TV outlet sees nothing wrong with slander and second, that a reasonable percentage of viewers don’t see anything wrong with their doing it. With the dropping of the fairness doctrine the opportunity to present the other side of an issue has vanished as well.

Freedom of speech only means something if people also have freedom of listen. With a controlled media environment this is not a realistic option.

Heh. And another FOX-hater gets pwned by reality.

Suggestion, people - if you don’t like what a host is saying, TURN IT OFF. You are free not to listen, watch or internalize. You have the power.

We all have the freedom of choice here. If certain Stalinistic forces like the Sharptons, and the Kucinich/Hinchey/McCain/Feingolds of the world get their way, there are fewer choices for everyone.

Which would you rather have - a burgeoning marketplace with lots of choices, or a milquetoast set of pre-approved-by-government-bureaucrats garbage to choose from?

I know what I choose. And by the way, it wasn’t Imus. The market is a beautiful thing.

The back of my mind was telling me — having witnessed the Mainelli thread several months ago — that Jeff doesn’t delete posts (at least afaik not there), while the front of my mind never asked if I was in *two* threads here.

Sincere apologies to all.

See Essentially Contested America

http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/2007/04/14#a1032