Lying Media Bastards

April 13, 2007

Liver-Spotted Hosebag

I really don’t have much to say on all this Don Imus crap. I don’t listen to his show, and I don’t know anyone that does. He’s a racist, sexist homophobe and he lost his show. Good. I don’t label him as such because of this one remark, but because of his long history of doing this shit.

And we can’t pretend that his firing was done because of media execs taking a principled stand; they’re firing him because the controversy is losing them sponsors and guests (actually, this commentator argues it wasn’t just a money thing, that pressure from employees/celebs inside the CBS and NBC organizations helped get Imus fired). I imagine that his open racism and sexism will make him even more popular among some folks, and that he’ll get a show with a smaller audience someplace within the next year.

I can’t read minds, but I don’t see this as malicious racism or sexism, like he was actually out to hurt those basketball players. But it seems that treating women or people of color with the same respect he gives white men doesn’t even occur to Imus. He doesn’t have to try to be racist or sexist, it’s down in his very bones.

The best comments I’ve seen on this come via Steve Gilliard’s News Blog (currently featuring guest bloggers while Gilliard recovers from some serious health trauma).

The first, part of a long rant by LowerManhattanite about Imus, race, power, and the art of comedy:

So, we come back to Imus. “Nappy-headed hos”. A multi-car pile-up where classism, sexism and basic human respect come down their individual roads and again. criss-cross at that dangerous traffic circle called racism. But where-oh-where was “teh funny”? Well, looking at the wreck CSI-style, we can suss out this much. He was probably falling back on the humor staple of the anachronism. The supposedly incongruous emanating from the unexpected source. Like the Staples commercial with the office dweebs dancing heartily to Salt n’ Pepa’s “Push It”, or the nerdy arena organist freaking the Funkadelic keyboard part in Nike’s “Roswell Rayguns” spot a few years ago. Imus thought it would be cute and ironic for a creepy, old White guy to diss young Black women based on their looks, using stilted ghetto lingo.

Except he forgot one thing. Creepy old White men dissing young Black women is such a part of Americana that it’s near impossible to do it ironically. That is, without coming off as…yeah, a creepy, old White guy dissing young Black women based on their looks…

And I have a daughter. An athletic African American teenaged daughter who’s had to contend with the “beauty standard” bullsh*t foisted upon her by society in general. She’s one of the few “chips in the cookie” at her school in Jersey and has enough to deal with on that tip. So for a prominent, and influential broadcaster to “jokingly”–ha-ha–call these Black women–who he doesn’t even know–at Rutgers “Nappy-headed Hos”, is to call my daughter a “Nappy-headed Ho” as well. And that ain’t gonna sit well with me…ever. So for the record, f*ck R. Kelly. F*ck Luke from 2 Live Crew. F*ck Rush Limbaugh, and yes indeed Don Imus–f*ck your shriveled old *ss too.

This comment following that same post by “golden” is also excellent:

Ultimately what society wants from blacks and women is for us to compromise on these issues.

The idea that we have to sell away our dignity and humanity for the same rights that white men get for nothing.

That any person in this world have to do some fucked up calculus of subtracting their self-worth to get even the smallest amount of respect is unacceptable.

That’s what Imus and his supporters don’t understand and that’s why he needs to be off the air.

Luckily what NBC and CBS don’t have the balls to do Imus’ advertisers will do for them.

While it’s obviously a good thing for Imus to get the fuck off the air, there are plenty others just like him still broadcasting away. And worse, plenty of our own friends, neighbors and co-workers who think the same damn things but don’t say them out loud.

Posted by Jake on April 13, 2007 9:35 pm

24 Comments »

  1. My take on this: I want a matrix of things that outrage me to express precisely how much more I want to tear down the whole media system rather than pretend we exercised righteous anger here.

    Comment by Benjamin Melançon — April 14, 2007 @ 5:48 pm

  2. Hell yeah. I think we should next set our sights on:

    Rosie O’donnell(Ching chong comments)
    Jesse Jackson(Hymeytown)
    Anne Coulter(list is too long)
    Hip Hop rappers who use the N-word, FA-words, and Ho.
    Rush Limbaugh(insert every race)

    There seems to be a huge hypocrisy amongst critics of Imus espcially the left. Sure, it’s great to see him get the axe. Let me be clear, I’m no fan of the right wing, but come on, let’s be fair and put this on everyone that does the same or similar offense.

    Along those lines, this business of “taking back” derogatory words such as the “N-word” or “F-word(gay one)”. I think that’s just
    a load of horseshit. You muddle the already sensitive issue by trying to take back the word. Condemn the use entirely. Don’t use it. And if you are using it, then you should be socially berated.

    Comment by herschel — April 15, 2007 @ 1:38 pm

  3. just because you dont like what someone else says or THINK it is hurtful does not mean you need to get rid of them or silence what they say. that is bigotry. free speech ring a bell?

    so what if what someone says somthing that is racist or hurtful or whatever. . . they have the right to say it. period. in america its not illegal to be an asshole.

    Comment by Matt H — April 16, 2007 @ 10:44 am

  4. so you are advocating that there should be no line to cross with free speech? or is this just restricted to verbal words? say anything, and you should be able to get away with it? it’s an all or nothing answer?

    Comment by herschel — April 16, 2007 @ 1:29 pm

  5. YES ALL OR NOTHING

    free speech is free speech is free speech.

    just because you dont agree with something does not mean that you cant silence it. even if people preech hate and violence, you dont have to listen.

    for example the KKK has spoken at NAACP events and other black community gatherings. many times the NAACP and other black community groups have paid for the extra police and stage equipment for the KKK to speak. this is done because some people understand the value of free speech.

    plus the idea of denying a group to speak implies your afraid of them. is it not a better idea to let whatever be said on a public forum and let people decide/learn for themselves? of course most people detest the KKK but we let them speak and now we all get to be the better person and choose to not subscribe to thier logic. they had a chance to be heard just like the rest of us.

    Its as simple as this:

    if you take away some peoples rights, where does it end?

    say next week the government labels anitwar protestors as a terorist group and denies them the right to speak. this is not that crazy of a senario and the laws need to do so allready exist, its just a matter of labels. be weary when you government silences anybody.

    Comment by Matt H — April 17, 2007 @ 7:35 am

  6. ***SMALL CORRECTION***

    just because you dont agree with something does not mean that you can* silence it.

    Comment by Matt H — April 17, 2007 @ 7:36 am

  7. then if you are saying no free speech should be censored, then what about flag burning, and threats to any U.S. president or using your terrorism example a group of al-qaeda sympathizers decides to march and advocate the downfall of the US government and institute a wahhabist form of government? you are, by your argument, in support of those things being said. i mean by your definition, those can be defined as free speech. these are specific cases, but they illustrate my point that there has to be some form of limits, determined by the people, and ultimately by law. black and white interpretation of the constitution turns it into a religious document.

    Comment by herschel — April 17, 2007 @ 8:31 am

  8. you fool … you just justified my argument.

    let people decide for themselves, that is the heart of democracy. you support a narrow minded view of this argument and want to tell people that “big brother knows best and we dont want you to hear this”.

    this is a one way ticket to total removal of all freedoms.

    politicains will milk it dry and one by one remove every right we have today because it brings in votes for whatever political group they are part of. for instance what is “hate speech”?. a right winger would say “hate speech is anything negitive about the christian religion, so lets make all speech of that nature illegal”. where does it end?

    do you truly think that simply because someone says somthing is true, that makes it true or believable? NO! one mans right is another mans wrong, its up the the person to interperate!

    lets say i DO support the killing of a president, i should be able to say so and tell others as much as i want. this does not mean it will happen, its just my view and i can say it as much as i please.
    (i can only hope someone does that soon too, bush has gotta die)

    RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH OF ANY KIND WILL RESULT IN THE EROSION OF FREEDOMS OVER TIME. THIS IS UNAVOIDABLE.

    have a little bit of faith in people to make rational decisions. i know they dont deserve it but usualy people are smart enough to figure out that perticular politcal/social views are just plain ignorant or destructive and will not employ them in daily life. of course you wil allways have a percentage of the masses that are just plain fools. that you will never rid the planet of, so why legislate as if all of us are fools?

    Comment by Matt H — April 17, 2007 @ 9:15 am

  9. free speech is not an optional thing. Matt’s Right. all or nothing or the people who R silenced have a right to be angry, regardless of what they want to say.

    Comment by kalama — April 17, 2007 @ 9:29 am

  10. why would you go calling people a fool, when they’ve not personally insulted you?

    and actually, i don’t have a narrow minded view of this point, it’s really much more sophisticated and if you read more carefully what i wrote, it’s not supporting your argument. you argue for a simple free for all answer.
    there’s never a black and white, all or none answer to these issues.
    the real answer is more sophisticated, nuanced. it’s not yes or no. if you’ve studied case histories regarding freedom of speech presented to the US supreme court, you’d see that the decisions are rarely just a yes or no, all or none. your answer is a typical layman’s knowledge one when you haven’t actually studied the issue in accordance with constitutional law. no fault of your own, and no offense meant. i’m just saying.

    i’m not advocating for full on government censorship. but i’m not saying it should be a free for all. if that’s the case, as you’re saying…then you’re all for the FCC to be dismantled? that would be ultimate freedom of the airwaves. Anyone could say anything without fear of monetary fines or regulation.

    and if you believe the constitutional right to freedom of speech should be literally interpreted, does this mean you believe everything else in the constitution should be interpreted literally as well?

    Comment by herschel — April 17, 2007 @ 10:40 am

  11. The whole Nappy thing doesn’t seem so bad in retrospect at this point does it? It was a lame attempt at a joke. Anyone who buys or listens to rap music is also guilty and should be condemned by these standards.

    Comment by Ben — April 17, 2007 @ 11:42 am

  12. first of all the consistution is a fucking bag of shit writen by rich slave owning plantation operators to keep rich whites in power. im not arguing that whole document but that just needs to be said. its obsolete.

    it has a few good ideas, namely the right to bear arms and free speech amoung a few others BUT, i degress….

    it is foolish to tell anyone to not say somthing. who the hell are you to tell me or anyone else what to say? public or private its your choice to listen. period.

    the FCC is a criminal organization that stifles free speech and somehow allows corperations to “own” a part of the electromagnetic spectum. it TOTALY stamps out any free speech and acctually will put you in jail for violation its broadcast regulations. fucking evil people. the peoples intrest is not what the FCC has in mind. it has CORPERATE intrests holding the pupet strings.

    this is absolutly a black and white issue. as i said before, where does it end? you have to draw a thick line in the proverbial sand and say NO FURTHER.

    mark my words if free speech is denied to all, then the rest of our rights are out the window.

    foolish people like yourself like to try to tangle this argument up with court histories and constitutional babble but here is the bottom line:

    you can not tell one person its ok to speak and another its not. that is bullshit and will only enrage the people being denied to the point of either action (terrorism) or going under ground and creating anti-government sentiment. if you give them the opportunity to say what they want to say then maybe they would realize that what they are saying (if indeed violent or profane) no one will listen too because its ridiculious! people will make the decision themselves and the government should not stick its big fucking nose into the argument!

    it is foolish to pick sides . . . that is what i meant.

    no equality = no peace

    its that simple.

    Comment by Matt H — April 17, 2007 @ 1:35 pm

  13. just for the record i thought what Imus said was hillarious. nothing more american than being fired because you lose sponsors though. thats the name of the game in radio, serves him right.

    THAT is freedom of enterprise for ya!!!!

    Comment by Matt H — April 17, 2007 @ 1:36 pm

  14. obviously you’re looking at this issue with your gut, and not looking at the past factual data to reach your conclusion, since you consider it babbling.

    you base your entire argument off of this sentence, am i correct?:

    RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH OF ANY KIND WILL RESULT IN THE EROSION OF FREEDOMS OVER TIME. THIS IS UNAVOIDABLE.

    it’s a good statement, if you look at it with your gut. but is it true? does it really standup to the data?

    so please, prove it to me. in this country, with its strict governmental regulations, you say that there already has been restrictions on speech. have you seen a perpetual restriction of speech that has led to erosion of freedoms over time? make it simple, let’s keep it within the past century. has freedom of speech been more limited now than it has in 1900? are people more regulated and saying less today, than they did in 1900? is it really ANY degree of restriction on speech leading?

    Comment by herschel — April 17, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

  15. OK, here we go. . . . . . . .

    My “gut” sadly has no brain so it’s not worth thinking with.

    If you remove yourself from this convoluted constitutional babble that will only lead you in circles and look at the REAL issues with free speech/censorship you will come to the same conclusion as the ACLU:

    “To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. ANY RESTRICTION ON EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY BECAUSE OF ITS CONTENT WOULD COMPLETELY UNDERCUT THE PROFOUND NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT DEBATE ON PUBLIC ISSUES SHOULD BE UNINHIBITED, ROBUST, AND WIDE-OPEN.”

    It is simply a backwards, obsolete, old-world, ignorant idea to limit free speech in any way. It will only lead to the erosion of speech and other rights in America and the rest of the world. This will lead (I believe) to a world of big brother and surveillance at all times. It’s like a snowball rolling down hill, you cant stop it once it starts and it only gets bigger as it goes.

    To answer your queries:

    Q:
    Are people more regulated and saying less today, than they did in 1900?

    A:
    Yes without a doubt. Now, unless you have a huge bankroll to fund your inevitable legal battles, you’re silenced. Freedom of the dollar at work. (Read on)

    Q:
    Have you seen a perpetual restriction of speech that has led to erosion of freedoms over time?

    A:
    Yes, without a doubt. Pick up a fucking American history book yourself smartass.

    Comment by Matt H — April 18, 2007 @ 6:48 am

  16. *****(post to big for 1 post needed 2)******

    Here is a small recap of the raping of free speech rights in America over the last 100 years. (This is only a SMALL recap; I don’t have time to put out a 1000 page essay for you)

    Congress, concerned by an increase in social upheaval as well as the advent of World War I, passed first the Espionage Act in 1917 and then a second Sedition Act the following year. The Espionage Act made it illegal “to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States” or to foster disloyalty within the armed services ranks.
    Four-time Socialist candidate for president Eugene Debs was convicted in 1918 of hindering enlistment, and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
    Journalist H.L. Mencken was tossed behind bars in 1926 after censorship groups in Boston declared that his periodical American Mercury, a journal of scathing criticisms of American culture, was obscene

    Smith Act in 1940. The Smith Act made it a crime to “advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government of the United States by force of violence.”
    The “clear and present danger” test was used bu the U.S Government in determining when speech could become criminal in 1957, when it required proof that the speaker was advocating potentially violent activity, and again in 1969.
    This act quickly came under fire as unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court supported it, arguing the government had the right to repress free speech in time of “national emergency.”

    Whether an investigation conducted under the aegis of state legislature to determine whether a professor was a “subversive person” in the State and including asking him for the contents of a lecture he gave at the State University and his knowledge of the Progressive Party violated the First Amendment.
    Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957)

    In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

    The Supreme Court reaffirmed this position in its 1997 decision on the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that sought to limit material placed on the Internet

    And I wont even got into the patriot act!

    Lets just say that CIA, FBI, DEA, and the White House are probably reading this as I type it out. They are also listening to my phone conversations, reading my emails, and monitoring my assigned IP to compile data on my internet viewing. Unbelievable!

    SO THE ANSWER IS YES YES YES!

    My rights and your rights to free speech are unequivocally being eroded day by day and terrorist attack by terrorist attack. You simply cant deny this, THIS is fact.

    1984, HERE WE COME!!!

    Comment by Matt H — April 18, 2007 @ 6:49 am

  17. Here is a small recap of the raping of free speech rights in America over the last 100 years. (This is only a SMALL recap; I don’t have time to put out a 1000 page essay for you)

    Comment by matt h — April 18, 2007 @ 9:31 am

  18. aside from your aclu quote, you don’t back anything up with examples. and the aclu/supreme court quote is an idea. a great one, but in my opinion, needs minor adjustment(unlike what your ideas are about the obsolete constitution-really, only 2 rights-guns and yapping are worthy? not voting?) but hey, i agree with you to an extent…free speech is a fundamental right, i just don’t agree when you think it should be a free for all. and i surely don’t agree with you when you say we have less freedom of speech than we did in 1900. you may be able to argue at some level it’s the same, but worse? no. look at mainstream culture these days and how much more diverse and accepting it is of minority groups, overall.

    however, my point about some level of regulation is that it tempers focused and directed hate speech that is designed to influence a society. you, matt, may be mature enough to laugh and tune it out, but there are 100s of others who are more easily swayed.

    Comment by herschel — April 18, 2007 @ 9:32 am

  19. jesus christ this board is fucked up i cant post anything as a whole….WTF…..

    Comment by matt h — April 18, 2007 @ 9:33 am

  20. this board is fucking messed up i cant post anything long…..somthing is wrong. it keeps telling me its a duplicate comment but its not!!!

    Comment by matt h — April 18, 2007 @ 9:35 am

  21. Congress, concerned by an increase in social upheaval as well as the advent of World War I, passed first the Espionage Act in 1917 and then a second Sedition Act the following year. The Espionage Act made it illegal “to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States” or to foster disloyalty within the armed services ranks.

    Comment by MATT HHH — April 18, 2007 @ 9:37 am

  22. Smith Act in 1940. The Smith Act made it a crime to “advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government of the United States by force of violence.”
    The “clear and present danger” test was used bu the U.S Government in determining when speech could become criminal in 1957, when it required proof that the speaker was advocating potentially violent activity, and again in 1969.
    This act quickly came under fire as unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court supported it, arguing the government had the right to repress free speech in time of “national emergency.”

    Comment by MATT HHH — April 18, 2007 @ 9:37 am

  23. Whether an investigation conducted under the aegis of state legislature to determine whether a professor was a “subversive person” in the State and including asking him for the contents of a lecture he gave at the State University and his knowledge of the Progressive Party violated the First Amendment.
    Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957)

    In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

    The Supreme Court reaffirmed this position in its 1997 decision on the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that sought to limit material placed on the Internet

    And I wont even got into the patriot act!

    Lets just say that CIA, FBI, DEA, and the White House are probably reading this as I type it out. They are also listening to my phone conversations, reading my emails, and monitoring my assigned IP to compile data on my internet viewing. Unbelievable!

    SO THE ANSWER IS YES YES YES!

    My rights and your rights to free speech are unequivocally being eroded day by day and terrorist attack by terrorist attack. You simply cant deny this, THIS is fact.

    1984, HERE WE COME!!!

    Comment by MATT HHH — April 18, 2007 @ 9:38 am

  24. sorry about the messy amount of posts… this board wont let you post long stuff…or its just poorly maintained. i had to change my username and post in pieces….weird…..anyway sorry everyone.

    Comment by MATT HHH — April 18, 2007 @ 9:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)



Fatal error: Cannot redeclare class CM_client in /home/lyingmed/lyingmediabastards.com/xml.php on line 287