Imus In Trouble With Jackson and Sharpton

[CrankyYankee]

The first time I can recall hearing the uttering of the word "ho" on television was by Eddie Murphy on Saturday Night Live.

 

[talkjim]

I've never read so much inane pap in one thread in all the time I've been visiting this site. So much inaccuracy.

First off, this controversy did not originate with Jackson and Sharpton--it originated with the big and hateful mouth of Don Imus. It was then picked up by several websites and by the New York Times before either Jackson or Sharpton said word one. Your attempts to make it about Jackson and Sharpton are not resonating with the American public--it's still very much about Imus, as it should be.

Talkradio will survive just fine without Don Imus and his racist banter. Every day, all over the country, talk hosts of various political persuasions go on the air, create entertaining radio, and in many cases get substantially higher ratings than Don Imus, without resorting to picking on a group of accomplished and relatively anonymous young women as "nappy-haired hos". Shame...don't any of you guys have wives or sisters?

and Radio Realist..I read your rambling explanation of the derivation of the word ho--however the term originated, it is a well-known slang term throughout the American culture and it doesn't mean "woman"--it means "prostitute", and everyone but you knows it. If you don't believe me, I suggest you try out your philosophy on the wife of a 350 pound body-builder.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Kudos to the young ladies at Rutgers University for showing the country what fine upstanding people they are. Watching the news conference on CNN I was deeply touched when one of players talked about how their dreams of overcoming a poor season to end up in the playoffs were destroyed because of the remarks made by Don Imus, yet they are willing to meet with Imus face-to-face to ask him why did he make those crude comments. As a parent I am very proud of them. As Winston Churchill once said, “this is not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning.” Let's hope that is the case for these "shock jock" announcers and entertainers who use hurtful words as part of their routine.

 

[evnlee]

I've never read so much inane pap in one thread in all the time I've been visiting this site. So much inaccuracy.

First off, this controversy did not originate with Jackson and Sharpton--it originated with the big and hateful mouth of Don Imus. It was then picked up by several websites and by the New York Times before either Jackson or Sharpton said word one. Your attempts to make it about Jackson and Sharpton are not resonating with the American public--it's still very much about Imus, as it should be.

Talkradio will survive just fine without Don Imus and his racist banter. Every day, all over the country, talk hosts of various political persuasions go on the air, create entertaining radio, and in many cases get substantially higher ratings than Don Imus, without resorting to picking on a group of accomplished and relatively anonymous young women as "nappy-haired hos". Shame...don't any of you guys have wives or sisters?

and Radio Realist..I read your rambling explanation of the derivation of the word ho--however the term originated, it is a well-known slang term throughout the American culture and it doesn't mean "woman"--it means "prostitute", and everyone but you knows it. If you don't believe me, I suggest you try out your philosophy on the wife of a 350 pound body-builder.

I would agree with you that the controversy begins and ends with Imus.

However, the insertion of Jackson and Sharpton ( for thier own personal gain ) doesn't help. Sharpton calling for Imus' resignation after he 'cowboyed up' and went on Al's show to apologise speaks to a bigger issue here. If you cannot see that, there is no sense in any further discussion. Go ask a 'person of color' what they truly think about those two, and be prepared for a shock.

I worked for many years with a local civil rights hero, Hosea Williams. He was present when Dr King was shot in Memphis. He has told the story many times how Jackson 'scooped' up errant blood off the concrete outside the hotel, and smeared it on his dress shirt, so when the TV crews arrived he could loudly proclaim ' I cradled the dying King in my arms!'. He went to his grave with nothing but contempt for Jackson and Sharpton, and he did more for the civil rights movement then those two clowns.

As for 'other hosts', you are correct~ others do better than Imus without resorting to childish labeling, and others do better than Imus by going even further. But my friend Hosea would not want Imus fired. His view was that it was always better to let bigots speak freely, then you know where they are coming from. It's the ones that whisper prejudice that you need to be worried about.

 

[talkjim]

I'm old enough to have worked in the civil rights movement myself, Evn, so I don't need a lecture from you on that. I also don't deny that Jackson and Sharpton have strong opportunistic streaks--the same is true for most people in radio--funny how it seems that only Jackson and Sharpton get singled out. Jackson and Sharpton have done many good works--for little or no money by the way--that's partly why they are both popular in the black community, and if you dont think they are popular-regardless of anything Hosea Williams might say--you don't know the black community. I've seen Jackson speak and I've interviewed him--he is no clown, and I hope the day comes when you broaden your view of him. Sharpton still needs to apologize for refusing to back off his support for Tawana Brawley, but he too has matured and chooses his words and causes more carefully than he once did.

Sharpton called for Imus' resignation PRIOR to Imus appearing on his show, Imus made a lame appearance, and Sharpton didn't change his mind--why should he?

Like your pal, Hosea, I too feel that bigots should be allowed to speak freely--I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment. I also have no problem with ethnic humor--we should be able to laugh at our differences. But I also know that the First Amendment guarantees no one the right to host a talk show, and radio management should discourage hate on the air. There is still a huge racial divide in this country--all the interest in this issue illustrates it, and Imus' remarks have at least temporarily widened that divide. And yes, what constitutes hate and what doesn't, is sometimes the subject of legitimate debate. But there's no debate here. Even Imus admits he was way over the line.

 

[dampier]

This entire issue is another giant distraction that has been given far more prominence than it should, and amongst the national figures throwing their two cents into the mix, we've managed to overbook the Hypocracy Hotel.

Imus, who is an anachronistic throwback to shock radio of yesteryear suffers from his own decrepitude. His glory days are long, LONG since passed, and his show is more of a filler for MSNBC which apparently doesn't want to get up too early in the morning to do actual NEWS, his dwindling radio affiliate base, and a Washington insider tea party, where the elite media can hobnob with the politicians. The rest of America has largely moved on.

Second, Imus has suffered from one of those sudden shifts in what is okay and what isn't. Imus' show is littered with insults and comments thrown back and forth about everybody. This was hardly an isolated incident - just another throwaway insult salad. There aren't many people he hasn't tossed insults at. His listeners don't seem to be taking this latest incident too seriously because they realize it's what Imus does. And MSNBC and CBS Radio sure didn't have a problem with it until the perfect storm of piling on started.

What Imus said was stupid, but please... what else is new on radio/tv? And why do people like El Rushbo (MJ Fox is "faking it"), Ann Coulter (9/11 widows are harpies, Democrats are gay/worse), and Savage (wetbacks, AIDS-ridden scum, etc.) get not only free passes, but invites back on shows like NBC's Today to serve up even more? If NBC is willing to have the Coulter dog and pony show back on Today, Imus should hardly be singled out for his comments.

And now the Victim Gravy Train is filling up. That Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, who has never met an issue he couldn't exploit and cash in on and Rev. Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson have crowned themselves the moral authority on this issue is hypocracy at its worst. And it's bemusing at best watching Sharpton and Jackson battle it out over who can grandstand this issue more (note to Jackson - you've lost - picketing an NBC building in Chicago? Please... give it up).

Watching Imus grovel at the feet of Al Sharpton was an incredibly unpleasant experience, and his over-apology tour threatens to alienate his core listeners. I'm glad the guy didn't blame his faux pas on dehydration, rush into rehab, or try and paper it over by suddenly planting a black guy in the studio as part of the Imus team, but make your apologies and then shut up and go on vacation for two weeks.

And this too shall pass.

I don't think Imus is a card carrying racist. If you want to find someone who injects race into every issue, that would be El Rushbo and his obsession with African Americans and Savage on Mexican immigrants. And they are still on the air, and I wouldn't have it any other way. When I find a big fan of Michael Savage, I know what I'm dealing with right away.

He shouldn't get a free pass for saying it, but looking for salvation from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson doesn't do the rest of the country any favors. Instead, you get your butt over to the Rutgers' players (without media) and you personally apologize to each and every one of them, atoning for your remarks and then move on. I promise the majority of the country already has.

This incident isn't doing his friends in the media elite any better as we watch the aging self-important media types rushing to send the flowers and candy to Imus. Fineman, Oliphant, and all the rest who would wring their hands and write "me oh my how awful is this" columns about anyone else doing this kind of thing are proudly waving their I-Train first class tickets. A bunch of aging, clueless media guys rushing to the defense of the wizened cowboy from Connecticut... spare me and the rest of America... please!

 

[evnlee]

I'm old enough to have worked in the civil rights movement myself, Evn, so I don't need a lecture from you on that. I also don't deny that Jackson and Sharpton have strong opportunistic streaks--the same is true for most people in radio--funny how it seems that only Jackson and Sharpton get singled out. Jackson and Sharpton have done many good works--for little or no money by the way--that's partly why they are both popular in the black community, and if you dont think they are popular-regardless of anything Hosea Williams might say--you don't know the black community. I've seen Jackson speak and I've interviewed him--he is no clown, and I hope the day comes when you broaden your view of him. Sharpton still needs to apologize for refusing to back off his support for Tawana Brawley, but he too has matured and chooses his words and causes more carefully than he once did.

Sharpton called for Imus' resignation PRIOR to Imus appearing on his show, Imus made a lame appearance, and Sharpton didn't change his mind--why should he?

TalkJim, quoting to you the views of a civil rights pioneer on the subject of this thread ( Al and Jesse ) is not 'lecturing'. While I was only born in 1967, I did march in Forsyth with Hosea, taught his grandchild Owodele for 6 years, and worked within his charity for over 15 years. I had daily interaction with Hosea. He did not suffer these fools gladly, and to state otherwise is to tarnish the image of a great man.

Hosea never bowed to 'political correctness'. He used to appear regularly on Boortz show and give him hell. But he was honest~ and he told everyone who would listen not to trust Sharpton or Jackson.

C'mon, Jim. Do you really believe that 'Jackson has strong opportunistic streaks' is an appropriate response to Jackson using the blood of the fallen King to bolster his own image moments after his assasination? If so, I would love to hear you 'splain that one to ol Hosea. That would have been some great radio there!

I hate to admit it, but Phillip has it right. There are more hate filled radio hosts out there besides Imus. Just as many in the 'conservative' camp and in the 'progressive' camp. And this statement should end this debate right now

"He shouldn't get a free pass for saying it, but looking for salvation from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson doesn't do the rest of the country any favors. Instead, you get your butt over to the Rutgers' players (without media) and you personally apologize to each and every one of them, atoning for your remarks and then move on. I promise the majority of the country already has."

Well put, Phillip.

 

[Radio_Realist]

The first time I can recall hearing the uttering of the word "ho" on television was by Eddie Murphy on Saturday Night Live.

It seems like the most common word used to refer to women in most rap recordings, though "bitch" comes close.

"it is a well-known slang term throughout the American culture and it doesn't mean "woman"--it means "prostitute", and everyone but you knows it. If you don't believe me, I suggest you try out your philosophy on the wife of a 350 pound body-builder."

[EDIT]
Kudos to the young ladies at Rutgers University for showing the country what fine upstanding people they are.

Hogwash! The "young ladies" at Rutgers showed the world that they're working on becoming professional victims. Now, had they reacted with some class, or maybe some cleverness, the reaction would have been something along the lines of, "Who's Imus?" or "Is that old fossil still on the air?".

One should never wrestle with a pig in the mud. One gets filthy dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

"I also don't deny that Jackson and Sharpton have strong opportunistic streaks"

Talk about understatements! Jesse Jackson is nothing more than a thug. He's a gangster who extorts money from businesses under the guise of working for civil rights. Jesse Jackson has done more to harm the cause of African-Americans in the last four decades than any other individual alive. The only positive thing Jackson has done is to keep Sharpton from wearing that crown. Thanks to Jackson's strangehold on the #1 slot, Sharpton is stuck in #2.

the same is true for most people in radio--funny how it seems that only Jackson and Sharpton get singled out.

Most people working in radio don't pretend to be Ministers of God. People who have the honorific "Rev." in front of their names are rightly held to a higher standard of behaviour than disc jockeys and talk show hosts.

Savage on Mexican immigrants.

Michael Savage's obsession is with illegal immigrants. It is a crime to be in the nation illegally. Illegal aliens are not "immigrants", they are criminals. And the simple fact is that many radio talk show hosts are rightly obsessed with criminals. Whether someone is selling crack to school children or in the country illegally, there's no difference. Being a criminal is being a criminal.



[EDIT-offensive]

 

[talkjim]

Radio Realist, I could care less about a personal experience you had with one person about the use of the word "ho". I say again the obvious: we all, except for the self-styled Realist, know what the word "ho" generally refers to.

You should also be ashamed of yourself for victimizing young women who have already been victimized once, simply because they publicly responded to a bigoted attack on a national radio program. So I guess in your warped world, anyone who responds to a verbal attack is a "professional victim"? How Orwellian. The only "professional" here is Imus--he made money off this attack--the Rutgers women, so far as I know, have yet to have a pay day. Not that I would begrudge them one.

Jesse Jackson is an articulate civil rights activist, who sometimes makes mistakes, but even on his worst days, he doesn't make as many inane statements as you do, Realist. He is also not an extortionist, and has never even been charged as such. Does he play hardball with large companies who discriminate? Yes, and he should. We hear a lot about companies he has allegedly "shaken down" but we hear very little about what happened to create those situations in the first place. If you keep up on the news Realist, you know that there has been a little corruption lately in corporate America. I applaud Jackson for helping to monitor corporate corruption and discrimination. Some of these guys don't want to shell out a few bucks to buy a wall hanging for their offices? So are you really naive enough to believe that high-level CEO's would become victims of "extortion"--your word, not mine--if they didn't have something to hide?

Michael Savage is a vicious hater, who lacks credibility with many hard-core conservatives. If you don't already know that, I'll never convince you. If you want your criticisms of Jackson and Sharpton to have any credibility, you ought to stop running interference for Savage.

Evn,

There are various stories told as to what Jackson did and didn't do at the time of the King assassination. I could care less. You seem to have a fascination with blood. I can think of all kinds of scenarios--positive and negative--as to why Jackson might have wanted to get up close and personal with King's blood. But I don't care. And while I haven't taken a poll lately, I don't know of anyone other than yourself who is obsessed with this. What's important is what has happened in the forty years since. He's filled an important void in black leadership left by King's death (no one else stepped up like Jackson), he's inspired many who were hopeless, and he's raised a ton of money for humanitarian causes. Funny that people who call attention to Imus' fund-raising never want to give Jackson any credit in that regard.

One other thing, Evn. It's a good thing that you had a nice experience with Hosea Williams. But I'm assuming that you've never met with Jackson. You have a right to form your own opinions of people,but in my own life, I've learned the danger of forming rigid opinions of people on the basis of hearsay. Just a thought.

 

[evnlee]

There are various stories told as to what Jackson did and didn't do at the time of the King assassination. I could care less. You seem to have a fascination with blood. I can think of all kinds of scenarios--positive and negative--as to why Jackson might have wanted to get up close and personal with King's blood. But I don't care.

And while I haven't taken a poll lately, I don't know of anyone other than yourself who is obsessed with this. You have a right to form your own opinions of people,but in my own life, I've learned the danger of forming rigid opinions of people on the basis of hearsay. Just a thought.

Jim.

I told you of one man, a civil rights pioneer, who was 'obsessed' with the story of the fallen King. One who would tell anyone who would listen ( Like editor Micheal Kramer of the NYDN ) not to trust Jackson.

Hosea Williams has done more for the poor, hungry, and disenfranchised in the city of Atlanta then Jackson. Look into it.

I'm basing my opinions of Jackson on the word of a honored civil rights warrior, you are basing your opinions on him on 'your' personal interactions with him. That's fine. I'll leave it at this~ I only wish Hosea was alive to see Jesse get burned ala 'Swaggart'. Actually, Swaggart probably used a condom, and did not produce a bastard child, which makes him somewhat better. But, to me, they are the same~ snake oil salesmen. And you can throw Sharpton in with the lot.

The question is: who made these 2 clowns the figurehead to approach and supine yourself when you've crossed the lines of race? Guys like you, Jim. That's pretty sorry.

Why not go on Ken Hamlin's show? Why not go on Larry Elder? They certainly have more credibility.

Imus' huge mistake is that he did not go to the all powerful Oprah right off the bat. Oprah's forgiveness would have muted Jackson and Sharpton, because she has more power and credibility.

 

[talkjim]

As usual you are full of unfounded assumptions, Evelyn. For one thing, someday when you mature a bit, I hope you come to understand that very few people can be painted with a broad brush--good or evil. Most of us, and I include myself, fall somewhere in between. So do Jackson and Sharpton. Jackson is viewed by many prominent people of various political persuasions as the greatest living orator. He's been a bold fighter against racism and poverty when there was a void in black leadership, and he secured the release of Americans being held captive abroad when the State Department couldn't do it. He also screwed up big-time by referring to New York as Hymietown, and he paid a price. He had been a rising star at the time, and his momentum slowed considerably. His presidential campaign in 1988 fizzled-in part because he was unable to raise money from the Jewish community. While Jackson has declined, Sharpton has matured and learned to think before acting and talking. Don't be too hard on him Evelyn--you yourself have had trouble at times getting your facts straight--as I have documented in other threads.

Who, you ask made "these two clowns" the "figurehead" to approach when you have crosssed the line of race? The answer this week, is obvious. Imus did. He went to Sharpton's radio show and so far as I am aware, no one dragged him there against his will.

Why not go on Ken Hamlin's show? The best reason is that he no longer has a show. He hung up his headphones several years ago--mainly because no one was listening--which may have been because many blacks perceived his show as anti-black and bigoted. Contrary to what you suggest, he had zero credibility in the black community and was carried on zero black radio stations. The same is true to a lesser extent of Larry Elder.

Happy hunting, Evelyn.

 

[evnlee]

As usual you are full of unfounded assumptions, Evelyn. For one thing, someday when you mature a bit, I hope you come to understand that very few people can be painted with a broad brush--good or evil. Most of us, and I include myself, fall somewhere in between. So do Jackson and Sharpton.

Your right Jim. We must not paint with the 'broad brush' of 'good and evil'.

Osama's not 'evil'. He's just 'misunderstood'. :

Perhaps someday, I can mature enough to wish failure on our military troops because I don't agree with the reasons behind thier deployment, like you have done so eloquently in past threads.

I would agree that Hamlin and Elder may not be the best candidates to 'beg forgiveness' from, but I disagree that Jackson and Sharpton should be the default ombudsman.

I would instruct you to watch 'Barbershop', or listen to Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle's views on these two. Then you may get an accurate idea of how they are viewed by those they claim to represent.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Jackson is viewed by many prominent people of various political persuasions as the greatest living orator.

Being a skiled public speaker only proves one is a skilled public speaker. Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers who ever lived. So was George Wallace. That proves nothing. It's not the presuasiveness of the voice that matters, it's the content of the message.

 

[talkjim]

You've left substance behind Evelyn, and are now reduced to unfounded personal attacks and misrepresentations. I'm done.

 

[talkjim]

Being a skiled public speaker only proves one is a skilled public speaker. Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers who ever lived. So was George Wallace. That proves nothing. It's not the presuasiveness of the voice that matters, it's the content of the message.


So true Realist. He has a tremendous oratorical skill, and he's used it on many occasions in very positive ways. There are numerous examples of this, but the one I find the most moving is when he sometimes visits poor black kids and has them repeat after him as he says "I am somebody" and other similar phrases. It's an incredible thing to watch and hear,and something that I doubt even you could find fault with.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

something that I doubt even you could find fault with.

Now who's the one stating unfounded personal attacks and misrepresentations?

 

[talkjim]

"something that I doubt even you could find fault with."

Now who's the one stating unfounded personal attacks and misrepresentations?

I give up, Johnny. Who's doing it? Not I. I am simply referring to the obvious fact that Radio Realist likes very little or perhaps nothing about Jesse Jackson.

No need to get the boxers in a bunch.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Obvious fact?

And you can know that from one or two posts on this thread?

My boxers are fine. Then again, I'm not parading about applauding crusades against forms of speech that are objectionable if coming from whites, but less so (if at all) when coming from blacks.

If the words are per se bad, they are bad in all instances, It doesn't matter from whose mouth they were spoken. This argument that rap or hip-hop music gives some "color" or "context" or "real-life" experience to the words (as has been argued on other threads in which you have taken part on this board, and by Calvin Broatus yesterday) is laughably ridiculous.

If it really is the *words* that are the problem, they should always be a problem, not selectively to start up the well-worn, yet still accepted media crusade against apparent racism (or racialism) perceived amongst white people.

If it's all about getting the blood of "racist" whites, say so. But don't couch it in terms of "words" or "context". That's a lie from the start, and it further obfuscates the truth.

And if it's about having a dialogue on race in this country, let's talk. But it's pretty damn hard to talk when there are calls for people to lose their jobs.

 

[evnlee]

Obvious fact?

And you can know that from one or two posts on this thread?

My boxers are fine. Then again, I'm not parading about applauding crusades against forms of speech that are objectionable if coming from whites, but less so (if at all) when coming from blacks.

If the words are per se bad, they are bad in all instances, It doesn't matter from whose mouth they were spoken. This argument that rap or hip-hop music gives some "color" or "context" or "real-life" experience to the words (as has been argued on other threads in which you have taken part on this board, and by Calvin Broatus yesterday) is laughably ridiculous.

If it really is the *words* that are the problem, they should always be a problem, not selectively to start up the well-worn, yet still accepted media crusade against apparent racism (or racialism) perceived amongst white people.

If it's all about getting the blood of "racist" whites, say so. But don't couch it in terms of "words" or "context". That's a lie from the start, and it further obfuscates the truth.

And if it's about having a dialogue on race in this country, let's talk. But it's pretty damn hard to talk when there are calls for people to lose their jobs.

\

another fine post. very well put!

When Rosie and O Reilly are agreeing, ( on thier distate for the 'witchhunt' now being mounted by JJ and AS ) you know that something is definitely wrong.

When Phillip D and I can agree, it's the same.

Sharpton could put this mess to bed, but instead he's making statements along the lines of 'this is just the beginning'. Jackson and Sharpton dont want this incident to go away. They want to milk it for all it's worth.

That does not make them 'evil' IMHO, but it sure doesnt make them 'look good'.


Nuff said!

 

[Radio_Realist]

He has a tremendous oratorical skill, and he's used it on many occasions in very positive ways.

I'm more impressed with his skills at sitting down with the CEO of a company and quietly telling the CEO that either the company pays the Rainbow Coalition a whopping big pile of money or else the company will experience racial "problems". It's called extortion, and it's what Jackson is a master at.

He is very positive at lining his own pockets, that's for sure. I'm surprised Jackson doesn't have an informercials on the radio like Bruce Berman telling people how they to can get rich by following his proven method.