Imus In Trouble With Jackson and Sharpton

[talkjim]

"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."

As a business/financial news reporter, I'm well aware of the mountain of corruption in corporate America, and I applaud Jackson and many others for taking it on. Lou Dobbs (not that I agree with Dobbs on everything) has also complimented Jackson's efforts. What prosecutor or government attorney has called it extortion Realist?

And if there is any merit to what you say, please cite an individual case. What company and what CEO has been extorted? And why hasn't there even been an investigation of such a thing? Where is the evidence that he is lining his pockets? There have been more questions raised about the financing of Imus' ranch than about anything to do with Jackson's negotiations with CEOs. And are you really naive enough to believe that there is not massive corporate corruption these days and that some of that may involve racial discrimination?

Please spare me any lame rhetoric about how Jackson gets a pass on this stuff. Jackson's a controversial character and we saw how many people were willing to take him on over the Hymietown remark--as they should have. It was a foul thing to say, and he paid a price for it.

There is plenty going on in corporate America that needs to be shaken up (and shaken down). I hope to see more shaking down (as you would put it).

 

[Johnny Morgan]

It was a foul thing to say, and he paid a price for it.

Oh?

What job did he lose? Who called for him to be fired? What advertisers refused to have their products seen with him?

 

[evnlee]

It was a foul thing to say, and he paid a price for it.

Oh?

What job did he lose? Who called for him to be fired? What advertisers refused to have their products seen with him?

In Jim's world, Jesse Jackson had a 'real chance' at becoming a President or VP. Or some kind of 'rising star'. In his demented view, he would say 'His presidential campaign in 1988 fizzled-in part because he was unable to raise money from the Jewish community', which is ( at best) not only incorrect, but borderline anti-semitic.

If we were to play the same game Jackson does, we could infer from TalkJim's statement that 'without funding from the Jews, no politician has a chance to run an effective campaign' ( Like HRoss Perot?) or can hope to aspire to the presidency.

But, lets not be like that. Let Jim have his 'crazy theories'

 

[talkjim]

"His presidential campaign in 1988 fizzled-in part because he was unable to raise money from the Jewish community".

That's my statement, Evelyn. How is it in ANY way anti-Semitic? And please-none of your usual weasel words or generalities. How, specifically, in any respect, is that statement anti-Semitic? And while I'm posing the question, is there anyone other than Evelyn who finds this statement to be remotely anti-Semitic? If so, specifically in what way?

It's no secret that the Jewish community, and other minority communities have provided large amounts of money to Democratic candidates over the years. This fact has been repeatedly noted by numerous political analysts at major media outlets for years. I suppose they are all anti-Semitic also Evelyn?

When Jackson made his Hymietown remark, money from Jewish contributors understandably no longer came his way. I was personally acquainted a few years after Jackson's presidential campaign with the man who ran it.

I know you don't like me Evelyn, and believe me, the feeling is mutual, but if you desire to retain any degree of credibility on this board, you'll retract your statement that this comment is anti-Semitic. But then again,no big whoop if you don't. Just one more idiotic remark from Evelyn.

 

[talkjim]

"What job did he lose? Who called for him to be fired? What advertisers refused to have their products seen with him?"

He's largely self-employed, so no, he didn't fire himself. He also doesn't host a talk show, so the advertising issue was not a factor. He did however receive a huge amount of negative media publicity (even from that ultra-liberal mainstream media Johnny, which is one reason we all remember this incident so well twenty years later). The incident occurred in 1987. A year later, his presidential campaign did indeed fizzle. I never said, as Evelyn inaccurately stated below, that Jackson had a "real chance" of becoming President. What I did infer is that the campaign did not go as well as some seasoned political observers expected it to. And many attributed that failure in large part to the Hymietown remark. I would agree. It's also a fact that Jackson didn't raise the money that he had hoped to for that campaign, and contributions declined to Operation PUSH--his Chicago-based civil rights organization. I'm not the only observer who has said that he lost massive credibility from that remark.

Make no mistake--the Hymietown remark was wrong...wrong...wrong. But here's why the Imus remark was even worse: Imus did something that it's very difficult to pulll off--a trifecta slur with just one line. In the same way that Jackson made a generic attack on Jews, Imus made one on blacks, with his "nappy-headed" reference. But Imus went two steps further. He made a very charged sexist remark with the use of the word "ho". By the way, one reason that's sexist is because there is no equivalent term to describe a male.
Imus also...and this is perhaps the worst part of it...personalized this attack by targeting the Rutgers women's basketball team---a group of young girls---by all accounts exemplary young women--who did nothing at all to invite such an attack. He also robbed them of their moment in the sun, because the media focus naturally shifted to Imus' remarks. And not because of any media bias against Imus, but because the media covers controversy. In fact, if Imus didn't have so many high-profile media friends, this whole thing, bad as it was for him, might have been much worse.

I realize that many of you disagree with my analysis and that's fine--that's why there's a message board in the first place. And I can be tough on those with whom I disagree. But I also hope you note the difference between a "TalkJim" post and an "Evn" post. I make a serious effort to adhere to the facts--I'm trained as a reporter. I've also been around long enough to realize that there are very view "saints" and "sinners". Most of us are somewhere in between, including myself.

 

[evnlee]

"What job did he lose? Who called for him to be fired? What advertisers refused to have their products seen with him?"

He's largely self-employed, so no, he didn't fire himself. He also doesn't host a talk show....

I make a serious effort to adhere to the facts--I'm trained as a reporter.

that's some grade A fact checkin' there Jim!

Jackson not only HAS a radio show now, he also HAD a TV show ( Voices of America ) and a Radio show (Chicago) shortly after he dropped out of the 1988 race.

http://keephopealiveradio.com/


as for the 'anti-semite' statement, your reporter filter is showing. I did not say it was anti-semitic, only that it could be viewed as such if we were to get all 'sensitive' and act like Jackson.

So now Imus is gone, his childrens charity gets screwed, MSNBC gets a black eye and Jackson and Sharpton should be happy, right? I guess we will never hear from them again :

 

[talkjim]

"In Jim's world, Jesse Jackson had a 'real chance' at becoming a President or VP. Or some kind of 'rising star'. In his demented view, he would say 'His presidential campaign in 1988 fizzled-in part because he was unable to raise money from the Jewish community', which is ( at best) not only incorrect, but borderline anti-semitic."

"as for the 'anti-semite' statement, your reporter filter is showing. I did not say it was anti-semitic, only that it could be viewed as such if we were to get all 'sensitive' and act like Jackson".

I hope everyone who visits here regularly takes a good look at this post, in order to see what a mess Evelyn really is. He's even able to contradict himself in the SAME THREAD. Above are excerpts of two posts. In the first, he says my observation that Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign fizzled in part because of a lack of contributions from the Jewish community, is "borderline anti-semitic".

I asked Evelyn in a subsequent post to substantiate his charge that my remark is in any way anti-semtic. And it is here that Evelyn's predictable "deny and attack" strategy sets in. He says "I did not say it was anti-semitic" but he did say it is "borderline anti-semtic". "Borderline" is of course a classic weasel word. However, he still has yet to tell me how my observation, which has also been made by numerous veteran political analysts, was in any remote respect anti-semitic. It's this kind of shuck-and-jive that gives the internet and message boards a bad name. By the way he also observes that my "reporter filter is showing". Thank God it was. At least someone has some respect for accuracy here. And once again my point in an above post is proven--the difference between me and Evelyn is regard for truth and accuracy.

But there's more.

Evelyn sarcastically says that I did "some grade A fact checking" because I stated that Jackson "doesn't host a talk show", and my research indicates that he did not at the time of the Hymietown comment in 1987, which is what Johnny Morgan was referring to, when Johnny asked me about what job Jackson lost for that remark (see below). Yes, I'm aware of the radio and TV shows after the 1988 presidential campaign, but those were jobs for which he was hired more than a year after the remark. So far as I'm aware, it's impossible to be fired after a controversial remark from a job you don't hold. Bottom line: I stand on my fact checking.

But Evelyn cant even keep his facts straight in the course of one thread. Worse yet, he engages in personal attacks that he can't substantiate, and then takes the extra step of trying to weasel his way out of them. Evelyn, you are the worst of slime.

 

[evnlee]

Poor Jim.

Everybody knows that it is impossible due to federal election laws that you cannot simultaneously host a show and run for president. Johnny's question stands~ who protested Jackson's 'hymietown' remark when he wanted to host a radio show? Nobody. Who will protest if Imus gets another shot at radio( say, in 9 months, which is similar to Jesse's time frame )? Jackson and Sharpton will, that's who.

As per the 'weasel words', that's classic Franken!! Nice.

If I think your an anti-semite, I will state it thus. My point ( which you missed ) is that someone as sensitive as JJ or AS could misinterpret your statement as 'anti-semitic'. That makes it 'borderline'.

I've tried to keep most of these threads within the context of 'radio'. For instance, in a previous thread, I asked " why do progressive hosts have such a hard time answering the question 'do you want our armed forces to win in Iraq'?" That's a queation dealing directly with talk radio hosts, not politics by itself. Or: why didn't Imus go to 2 black radio talk hosts ( Hamlin or Elder ) instead of the usual suspects? Again~ that's a radio question.


Jim wrote "He also doesn't host a talk show". Not this :" he also did not host a talk show at the time of his 'hymietown remark'."

That's the correct statement, and any decent reporter would have written it that way.

Way to go Jim. Happy to see Imus go and Al Queda win. We need more reporters like you out there :