The Rude Pundit: Firing Don Imus Stinks

[meegbear]

No, no, for the Rude Pundit, this doesn't pass the smell test, this whole Don Imus thing. You know the smell test - when you pick a pair of panties up off the floor and sniff them to see if they're not too rank to wear. If they smell okay, then you put 'em on, confident in your decision and able to go about your day. But if they stink and you still wear 'em, well, hell, then you'll just wonder when people are gonna sniff the air around you and know that you are foul.

We'll leave this topic behind next week for loftier discussions of Stuff That Matters (you shall know them by their numbers: 5 million lost e-mails, 15 month deployments, John McCain's poll data). But the Rude Pundit's gonna rassle with the implosion of Don Imus for a few minutes here.

The Rude Pundit fuckin' hates Imus. His show was boring - filled with guests who would ram their heads so far up his bony ass that they could talk to his desiccated liver. His cohorts, McGuirk and who-the-fuck-cares, were boobs who acted as if the show was their own private school for infantile boys, giggling at their farts and burps. And Imus himself, with his vocal intonation that was somewhere between a brain-damaged cowhand who's been kicked in the face too many times by jumpy steers and a drag queen with balls in his mouth, was virtually incomprehensible and definitely unlistenable. (One of the great ironies of the whole situation is the clarity with which Imus spoke the phrase "nappy-headed ho's." Most of one's time spent listening to Imus was chewed up wondering which words the mushmouthed bastard was saying.) And then there was Imus's charity work, his goddamn ranch, his fundraisers, other such confession booth absolution shit. It's like the frat house that says it's okay to rape passed-out co-eds because they have blood drives once a year.

So, like, on a very basic level, the Rude Pundit doesn't give a happy monkey fuck about Imus. And that's what's so fucking frustrating about not rejoicing in his firing from MSNBC and CBS. Man, what fun it would be to stand there while Imus's jugular is cut and then dance around in the spraying blood with all the others, like natives worshipping mad gods who must be appeased. But the Rude Pundit can't. And he feels a bit like the guy who can't find a free orifice to penetrate at an orgy.

Because, ultimately, what happened to Imus happened because of his speech, and if you wanna, say, giggle when the Rude Pundit attacks someone, then Don Imus gets to say his non-FCC violating insults. Yes, the Rude Pundit's aware that there's a qualitative, historical, and ethical difference between calling white conservative evangelicals nasty names and calling a women's college basketball team "whores," but it's still speech. Hate speech is speech; yes, sadly, angrily, we must call it "speech."

The Rude Pundit's concern can be divided into two incompatible areas with cliched names: the slippery slope and the sacrificial lamb.

The slippery slope is that we start getting 'em all fired, de-advertised, whatever. And this is where the Rude Pundit's grappling with this fucker like he's trying to put snakes in a bottle (yeah, yeah - it's early, the Rude Pundit hasn't slept yet, fuck off). No, of course MSNBC and CBS don't have to give Imus a platform for his speech. But this point is that they did. And they knew, they fucking well knew, what Imus was about. Just because this time his bullshit, sad, I'm-down-with-poor-man-lingo fucktardery got noticed by Media Matters and others, that doesn't mean that they didn't use Imus and profit off him and, to be sure, egg him on for ratings.

Advertisers, too, knew where they were putting their ad dollars. Like the lefty blog that gets Ann Coulter book ads (and doesn't decline them, it should be noted, because the blogger doesn't want to be seen as "endorsing" the products that advertise on the blog), companies know exactly who they are trying to reach and why. They knew the demographics of the show. They knew the content. No one involved is innocent or clean. And, to turn this shit around another way, yeah, if all the advertisers pull out, then, yeah, good capitalist society that we are, that's a reason to take Imus off the air. But that's not the reason we were given, even if it is the real cause.

But once Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, et al are chased from the air, what next? Television shows written by white people that portray women, gays, or non-whites negatively? Will conservatives turn this shit around to say, "Oh, look, that one guy with a blog called us 'tiny-dicked prison bitches'"? (And they are, you know.) Whose hurt feelings aren't allowed to get salved by uncomfortable silence? Who gets to decide?

The real solution is to use speech to combat speech, not silence. Rather than getting Imus fired, why not get people to stop listening? And if they don't, if they wanna listen, well, fuck, you lost then. But you need to keep trying to get people to shift away from one way of thinking. Just because you got rid of Imus doesn't mean the sentiments go away. Just because you come up with some pussy voluntary ban on the word "nigger," or you say "the n-word" instead, doesn't mean the word or the feeling goes away. Civil discourse? Fuck that. It's not possible. You don't change hearts and minds by silencing people. (The Rude Pundit has called for Ann Coulter to be kicked out of newspapers, but not for her pathetic little wet spaghetti slap insults - it's because she says things are facts that are, in fact, lies.)

Then there's the sacrificial lamb. That Don Imus is just a surrogate for our own inability to articulate a dialogue about these issues without yelling at each other on Fox "news." That, yes, admit it, it isn't possible to think about what Imus said without thinking about the rampant sexism of hip-hop (that, yes, Al Sharpton, showboating glory hog he may be, is also working to address). That Imus is taking the hit for the place of that speech in our culture and the endless degradation that cuts across race and class lines. And that, now that Imus is off-the-public-air, we can, like this blog will, move on to other things rather than get down to the nitty-gritty of curing the diseases that have plagued this nation since it began.

Imus is gone, yes, and, really, at the end of the day, who the fuck cares? Another asshole takes a dive. Wheeee.

But, see, like that bleeding sacrifice mentioned earlier, the Rude Pundit's afraid that once again we're going to think we've pleased the volcano god. The lava's still bubbling, and that fucker's gonna blow. The only sure way to save ourselves is to move the village. Chances are, though, we'll just wait for the next rumble and earthquake and toss in another virgin.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com

[MADem]

1. The real solution is to use speech to combat speech, not silence.

My goodness, I am on the same page with the foulmouthed RP! ( My pathetic attempts at swearing are so amateurish compared to his!)

Of course, when I said that here, I got a bit of the old "I'll bet you are a ______" (fill in favorite slur to associate someone with the right wing) for my trouble. Will the Rude Pundit be spared that sort of treatment?

[realisticphish]

8. I don't think the RP cares

:)

His blog is one of my favorites... sometimes it's nice to see someone who just doesn't give a shit about what other people think.

[Tom Joad]

11. I agree with the idea of countering racist speech with more speech,

just not with the idea that anyone is inherently entitled to such a job. Imush does have the right to speak out, to publish a blog, or whatever.

I don't think anyone thinks any person is entitled to a network slot. and if you start besmirching the name of the network, and lose sponsors, better think of packing up your stuff.

[MADem]

17. See my comments about the sponsors, downthread

Sponsors who took a week to be outraged, and are making a fortune off the Iraq war, who are heavy GOP contributors, getting a conscience all of a sudden after years of ignoring his shit, working to shitcan a registered Republican who reaches other Republicans, who opposes the war and this President and VP.

Forgive me if I smell a rodent!

[Tom Joad]

18. Proctor and Gamble is making a fortune off the Iraq war?

Please explain.

[MADem]

26. If you would LOOK at the cites I directed you to downthread, you would see that

P and G rakes in a FORTUNE in food service contracts from the Pentagon. Here's another cite along the same lines: http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=279

Proctor and Gamble has done $1.325 million worth of business with the Pentagon between the years 1998 and 2003; this company annually makes the Pentagon's top 100 contractors list.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=001367960
General Electric, one of the largest and most diversified manufacturers in the world, is the Pentagon's top supplier of aircraft engines. Among its other major industrial products are locomotives; electricity production, distribution and control equipment; plastics; and medical imaging equipment. The company also provides financial services and owns the NBC television network.

Staples has gotten rich off the government--even paying a lousy four million dollar fine for not "buying American" was just a slap on the wrist to them. They are STILL doing business with defense contractors and the US government:

http://www.staplesnationaladvantage.com/SNA/docs/industry-success.asp
eProcurement integration: a major defense contractor/manufacturer
eProcurement brings together a customer, customer suppliers and third-party service providers. What makes Staples® different is our ability to effectively address the strategic, tactical and operating connection between the groups as well as the individual members of the groups involved in an integration.

OK, now see this: http://www.examiner.com/a-667909~Staples__Procter___Gamble_pull_advertising_from_Don_Imus__show.html

Staples, Procter & Gamble pull advertising from Don Imus' show

Follow the doggone MONEY. It's always all about the money. If you think those sponsors "care" about Black people, be they Kanye West or the Rutgers Champions, I have a bridge to sell you. The naivete is touching, but those sponsors are looking at their bottom line, and the curmudgeonly antiwar bigot was getting in the way of it. If they shut down the guy who opposes the war and actually REACHES the BushCo base, the money keeps rolling in.

Imus has called Halliburton the WORST war profiteer--I imagine the other war profiteers got a bit nervous when he started up with that riff.

He needed to be silenced.

[LandOLincoln]

25. You kidding? The PC Poe-lice is ever

vigilant for those who stray from orthodoxy, although-- since it's been revealed that Don and Dierdre Imus are vegans who do extensive charity work--some may be reconsidering their hardline stance. Wouldn't hold my breath, though...

[MADem]

28. Please read my other posts on this thread that talk about the BushCo connection to the

"offended sponsors." It's all about the war, and profiteering.

None of those sponsors gives two shits about those young ladies. But they did want to shut up an antiwar bigmouth.

[LandOLincoln]

38. Read 'em all yesterday, and almost posted a message

asking you to go over to Kos and post there as well, since you were stating the case much better than I was.

[MADem]

44. I am not a KOS poster, but feel free to lift my shit verbatim if you'd like.

I've posted stuff on other threads to include citations.

Something stinks, mightily. And it ain't European cheese!

[rolfboy]

2. Here, Hear

I posted something similar, though without the flowery language,
earlier today (see link below).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=644516&mesg_id=644516

Yes, it's a shame that Imus is a sacrificial lamb for the
money-changers, and real hate mongers, but I can't say that
i am too sorry to see him go.

thanks for your great read.

[meegbear]

4. No problem, rolfboy ...

and :party: WELCOME TO DU!! :party:

[CreekDog]

5. Imus is not a sacrificial lamb

He was fired for something he did.

He was not fired because of all the racism in the USA. He was fired for contributing to racial stereotypes, being a boorish lout and mocking in a gross way, the achievements of women who should be lauded for their accomplishment.

Let's get this straight. You can disagree that he should have been fired. You cannot say that Imus is a sacrificial lamb and not be spreading a falsehood. He was fired for what he did, he admitted that he did the wrong thing, everyone knows he did the wrong thing.

[rolfboy]

6. Don't you think that if the sponsors...

didn't pull out, that MSNBC and CBS would've kept him on after his "two-week suspension"?

I do.

Yes, he was fired for being an asshole (too bad the other assholes: beck, orally, gibson, etc) don't get the same treatment. But it's precisely because the other assholes haven't been taken off the air, that I believe neither would Imus...until it started to affect the bottom lines of the media moguls.

my $0.02

[MADem]

13. Republican sponsors, too. Interesting, that...

Proctor and Gamble are making a BUNDLE from the Iraq War: http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=001316827

And General Motors--look at where they threw most of their political money (hint: not to Democrats): http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00076810&Cycle=2004
And look at the money they make from the gubmint:
http://www.icij.com/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=098155158

But of course, it's not about the cash flowing from the GOVERNMENT to these sponsors, is it? There was NO pressure by the government to these bozos they pay handsomely to cut this antiwar Republican trash-talking guy off at the knees...or was there?

:sarcasm:

[MADem]

9. Well, he IS a sacrificial lamb in a flock of sheep that include Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck,

and so forth. That's the universe from which he was sacrificed.

He's not the first, and he isn't the ONLY, to use that sort of language by any stretch.

The only difference I see between his odious speech and the odious speech of others is that he is a Republican who opposes the Bush administration, while the rest of those unsacrificed lambs I mentioned are cheerleaders for the administration.

[sandnsea]

3. In fact, they all lie

so one down, whole bunch of liars to go.

We've been trying to "use speech" for 200+ years. It hasn't worked. Sometimes you just have to stand up and say no. Imus should be just the first to go, and those that can't express their political opinion without using "tiny-dicked prison bitches" should most certainly be on the list too.

As I suspected these last days that a whole lot of people haven't given a shit about racism at all. It's a whole lot of people putting their personal agendas first, including rude pundit. Sad, but I''m not surprised.

[realisticphish]

7. who goes then?

anyone who uses profanity? anyone who offends anyone else? I by no means agree with Imus, and I couldn't care less that he was fired, but let's not start using this a precedent to suppress speech we don't agree with. That's the whole point of the first amendment.

[sandnsea]

12. Right now, I don't care

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the bulk of DU. This post just validated what I had believed the last few days. If something comes along that might bump someone's little world, then standing up for justice flies out the window. This guy doesn't care about anything except how this affects him. What a pig.

Don't use degrading words against groups of people who have historically been oppressed. Duh.

[realisticphish]

14. There's nothing wrong with standing up for justice

it's the methodology we disagree on. I don't approve of the silencing of dissent; there will always, and i mean ALWAYS, be racist bastards. The way to deal with them is ridicule; shout them down, don't shut them down. Be louder than them.

[sandnsea]

22. Be louder than them??

Oh just what we need. For political and social debate to get worse.

Any time you can get one of these real pigs off the air, good. Where was this uproar when Savage got fired??? Or when Limbaugh got fired from ESPN? Why now with Don Imus? Makes no sense. Except he's "our kind" of racist I guess.

[realisticphish]

30. yeah, you're right

I'm in the KKK. I'm a huge fucking racist. You win.

[sandnsea]

36. How about address the question

Where was the outrage when Savage and Limbaugh got fired?

[LandOLincoln]

46. Fine. But first be so good as to find me a group

of people who HAVEN'T "historically been oppressed" by somebody. Deal?

[gratuitous]

24. I think that's part of the Rude Pundit's argument as well

And my response is that I think (and God forgive me, because I've been real wrong on this count so many times before) that people are a little smarter than that. Imus losing his job isn't an instance of suppressing free speech, though a lot of folks would like to make it about that. Many people who are trying to make this episode some kind of First Amendment defense are no more worried about free speech than they are about where their next meal is coming from. What they're really defending, and using the First Amendment argument as a dodge, is their "right" to keep on enjoying the elevated privileges and public subsidy that has made them so financially well off for the last several decades.

Imus and everyone else who uses the public airwaves of the broadcast spectrum is receiving a huge subsidy from the taxpayers who own those airwaves. Imus is no more stopped from ranting on about "you people" or "nappy headed hos" today than he ever was. He's just lost his national broadcast platform to do so anymore, and he will never have as personally lucrative a spot to do it ever again. Too bad for Imus, but he fumbled it away all by himself.

And if other people on the public airwaves are as irresponsible with that subsidy as Imus was, they'll lose their privileged position there as well. But it doesn't stop them from saying anything they want; they're just not in line to make a pile of money off of it. Will the example of Imus "chill" free speech? I don't think so, and here's where the tricky part comes in that I really think the public is smart enough to make some pretty fine distinctions. And the sight of an overpaid and too-full-of-himself-by-half white multimillionaire busting on a bunch of black teen-agers was just too much. If it was defensible at all, Imus might have survived this episode. But it wasn't defensible, and as example after example from the past was exhumed for public consideration, Imus' chances to survive sank lower and lower until he didn't survive.

[realisticphish]

31. no, in this case

I don't think it was suppression of free speech. It was business; he was hired by a business, and fired by a business, for advertising purposes. I don't think boycotting advertisers is suppression at all; it's actually exactly what I mean when I say we need to be louder than them.

"What they're really defending, and using the First Amendment argument as a dodge, is their "right" to keep on enjoying the elevated privileges and public subsidy that has made them so financially well off for the last several decades."

That's exactly right; in this case, he was simply removed from having a national audience. He can say all he wants, but no one has to give him a national stage.

[Tom Joad]

10. firing imus was about corporate accountability, about competence

yes, idiots have a right to free speech.

People who can't do their job get fired all the time. Imus did not bring quaility to these networks.

[MADem]

15. Don't you think it's funny, though, that the "outraged" sponsors

1. Took a week to be outraged?

2. Have lucrative US government contracts that depend to large extent on the continuation of the Iraq War, a war that Imus opposed?

3. Are heavy donators to the GOP, and very light donors to the Democrats?

I always ask that pesky 'cui bono' question when I try to guage the end result of an event. And the answer I keep seeing in this case is BushCo.

[Tom Joad]

16. they cut Imus because it would hurt their PR. Imus's

spent much more time talkin about sports and garbage than he did "opposing the war"
Let's just get over this, imus was incompetent, not worthy of hours of network tv every freakin' week.

[MADem]

19. Look at those links. Look at the money to the RNC. Look at the Pentagon dough they rake in.

Now look at Imus, a Republican morning host, who reaches a demographic of angry white Republican males. Who opposes the war. Who opposes BushCo. Who has called for the heads of everyone from Bush to Cheney to Gonzales to Rumsfeld.

Here, check this shit out; Imus calls the media WAR enablers, among other things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpzyMp2pQk8
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/cheney_msnbc_describes_as_war_criminal.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/22/imus-reed/

He didn't cover "mostly sports" but you go ahead and keep saying that if it makes you feel better. His schtick was politics, with a mix of current events, music and sports. But not primarily sports.

And go ahead and ignore the relationship between GE, the owners of NBC, and Proctor and Gamble, and GM, the primary "outraged sponsors" and the Pentagon and BushCo AND the RNC. Just ignore those relationships. Because, sure, this was all about three words....really.

[Tom Joad]

20. I know, GE is a war profiteer. but still, Imus does not deserve air time.

replace him with someone smart... like amy goodman or Cornel West or they should bring back phil donohue.

[notundecided]

23. Bring back Donahue. So we can be bored to death.

[MADem]

32. And P and G, and Staples, and ALL of the ones that complained.

Who NEVER complained when he was SUPPORTING the war.

Frankly, if people actually had to "deserve" the airtime they got, by some arcane "Is this material high-minded, inclusive, polite, and sufficiently acceptable" standard, the airwaves would be silent. If the criteria, though, is listeners, Imus "deserved" airtime because he made big money for his sponsors. The only thing that could compel them to dump him is the fear of losing even BIGGER money, the money they got from the Pentagon.

And if you think he'll be replaced by some leftie with a peace sign tee shirt, grow up. It'll be some asshole like Howie Carr or Jay Severin--despicable pigs on those lines. GE, who sucks at "first teat" from the Pentagon cow, OWNS the NBC outlets, see? They aren't gonna give the slot to a peacenik.

Imus, imperfect as he was, was the best hope for reaching the 'angry white male' Republican demographic with a hard hitting antiwar message. Now that hope has been crushed.

Any replacement will be a pro-war stooge who plays it safe, and only makes ugly, nasty and hateful references about DEMOCRATS.

So, what have we "won?" The Rutgers team said they didn't want him fired.

But he's already gone--those sponsors needed the 'rush to judgment' BEFORE the Rutgers team made a statement contrary to their goal of getting rid of this guy, so they hustled him out the door before the 'victims' could weigh in on how they felt the matter should be handled.

And now, there's no one to reach those angry white, male GOP likely voters, to feed them facts they refuse to hear from the left.

Oh, well...what a victory. NOT.

[primative1]

39. Ah, you see the light ..

In the game of coalition building you need a mix.
People trapped in their cars for hours and used to hearing IMUS will now do what ... move the dial a tad to the right and get a whole new perspective ... How is that better?
The motivation here is so apparent to me I want to scream when I read people taking the bait.

[MADem]

43. I saw it from the git-go. And of course, got the usual, "You must be a

(fill in RW invective)" for my trouble.

Hell, the damn coach of the RUTGERS team gets it, too. She stated that the team did not want his job taken. And she said it in no uncertain terms.

Gee, they'll put some bastard on the payroll who does the same crap, only who supports the war. And that will help us, how?

[Tom Joad]

27. David Duke opposes the war in iraq... I sure as hell don't want him on network tv either.

[MADem]

33. Well, don't worry, because PandG, Staples and GE aren't going to hire an antiwar commentator.

So gee...you get your wish. :eyes:

[rolfboy]

29. exactly my point!

that it took a week for sponsors, et al to be outraged.

that's not about racism, political correct speech, free speech, etc.

that's about $$$$$!

thanks for re-iterating the point, MADem.

[MADem]

34. Keep pulling the string--you'll see. The "outrage" came from the sponsors with PENTAGON contracts,

not the ones who had no business with the Pentagon. Funny how that works, eh?

[otohara]

21. CBS/Viacom Is Evil Empire

along with Time Warner, News Corp, ABC, Clear Channel, NBC/General Electric. Don't think for one moment that this move had anything to do with accountability or competence. They had no choice in the Imus mess and had it not been for advertisers pulling off these channels and an angry public & politicians, the two weeks would have stuck. Had it been about countability, they would have fired him immediately.

[MADem]

37. The advertisers are all Pentagon contractors. Imus opposed the war. Follow the money. NT

[primative1]

40. I am Following the Money ...

Thats what has me hounding the Reverend Sharpton. Who better to have a nose for the cash? Check out his website 'sharptonforpresident.org'.
The message boards there are filling in with the expected trickle of racist crap and the moderator leaves them stand. Hmm , ya might think they would pull that stuff down, no?
But try posting a line about how Al's new found exposure is sure to help him in the run for federal matching dollars and watch how fast the message gets pulled off. Like, wow, it realy isnt a dead board after all.
So why leave the racist stuff up, to give the story legs perhaps?
This whole thing smells worse the more you look into it.

[MADem]

41. More details here--and the broken 'good cheer' between Imus and Cheney is interesting, too

Those BushCo muthafuckas are VENGEFUL baaastids. I've been following money all day....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=274777&mesg_id=274799

[AtomicKitten]

35. you know what they say about opinions?

Imus had this coming for a loooooooooong time.
Firing him was the right thing to do.

[LandOLincoln]

42. I dunno...

that all assholes have 'em? :bounce:

[AtomicKitten]

45. well, something stinks

[pscooper]

47. I know something about stinking

And yes, it stinks that Don Imus was fired. But the man is a jackass, and he's set on cash, so why feel sorry for him? He'll land on his feet, write a book, and enjoy some down time.

Now the Savage Cabbage...that's a REAL jackass. Ann Coulter -- much larger penis than the Savage Cabbage, and also a major jackass.

I dig this website!

pscooper

[Gregorian]

48. One more Imus comment.

Quite simply, we hold those who communicate to the masses at a higher level of accountability. I would expect this from Archie Bunker.

These are people who are supposed to represent the enlightened. They are supposed to inspire. They are supposed to be better. Not just better thinkers, but higher levels of social skills. They represent what we should all aspire to. Greatness. This isn't just some guy after work at his kitchen table belching and blabbing. This is a nation of listeners, listening to representation. And hopefully learning.

To be honest, there aren't but a very few who can inspire on a continuous basis. We just lost one the other day.

[HuffleClaw]

49. hear hear n/t