O and A with a really interesting observation/contradiction

[TowerBuzz]

O and A were on the air today making a really solid point that TV is divded into different categories, news, drama, comedy, etc. Whereas radio is only seen as the collective, RADIO; with no differentiation between shows. I agree, but there is a difference between Imus who for the past fifteen years has been perceived as a news show, simulcast on MSNBC, intereviewing opinion makers, news people, politicians both running and currently serving, and JV and ELvis, a comedy show, period. There is a difference but the problem is that this new argument seriously contradicts their entire stance on Imus, While they were screaming about how wrong it was for Imus to get fired a few weeks ago they just proved why he should have been. Imus doing a news show was out of line and out of character by making the comments that he did, Jv and ELvis being a comedy show were clearly doing something in the spirit of comedy (which was deemed offensive by some) but they're not presenting themselves as anything but a comedy show. The attempted defense for Imus was " he's a shock jock, he's been this way for years" but he really had not been a shock jock for a long time. He had re-invented himself as NEWS talk host but whenever he got into trouble they would run back to the "he's a shock jock" mantra as a defense. They could not have it both ways, he's either a shock jock or he is not and iff he were he could not get the Joe Biden's and the Orrin hatch's of the world to come on that show. So I think Imus should have been fired for his situation, JV and ELvis werre mishandled for theirs.

 

[bighabeeb]

I take things from the opposite standpoint. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. What Imus said was dumb, no doubt about it...but to be fired for it?

What JV and Elvis said wasn't EVEN dumb...it was funny...but it got the wrong people's panties in a twist and voila, you fired.

This whole thing is just out of control. It's funny how one of the freedom's people tout so highly is freedom of speech, when they come to this country. But the second that freedom displeases them because of something someone says, BANG, they're the first to jump up and down screaming how inappropriate it is.

I would love to see some of these groups put into a situation where there is NO freedom of speech for awhile...they'll learn to appreciate humor in a big way, real freakin fast.

 

[Starscream]

It's NOT a freedom of speech issue.

What it is is political correctness run amok, with people who have no vested interest in the show, and people who don't listen to the shows, taking pieces out of context and creating fake outrage in order to further their agenda. As soon as CBS caved on Imus, the special interest groups smelled blood in the water and decided to go after every little thing that offended them.

 

[bighabeeb]

It's NOT a freedom of speech issue.

What it is is political correctness run amok, with people who have no vested interest in the show, and people who don't listen to the shows, taking pieces out of context and creating fake outrage in order to further their agenda. As soon as CBS caved on Imus, the special interest groups smelled blood in the water and decided to go after every little thing that offended them.

I agree about the blood in the water, but I feel it is very much a freedom of speech issue.

Special interest groups have been given the ability to control individual's rights to speak what is on their mind. No longer can a jock just say what he's thinking, without fear of being fired/suspended etc.

This is an issue I've argued about for a long, long time even with my wife. Its sortof like the mid 80s push for women's rights. Many (not all, but many) women don't really want equal rights, they want SPECIAL rights. I.e. yes let me vote, yes give me equality in the workplace, but I dont want to have to register for the draft

Same deal here. The special interest groups all want the ability to say what they want...and they're OK with other people saying what they want...unless it is in any way controversial to what they like. Black comedians joke about 'crackers' all the time...but god help the white comedian that uses the 'n' word.

It's all ABOUT rights and freedoms...its almost like making up for lost time: because minority groups were denied certain rights for so long, they now feel they are the ONLY ones entitled to them now.

Now before anyone starts yelling and screaming and calling me a racist, read through what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that all minority individuals, or even all special interest groups fall into these categories. There are many out there that do alot of good, I'm sure, and I apologize for generalizing. When I read that the OCA has compared JV and Elvis to hitler, it seriously makes my blood boil. Hitler rounded up a particular group and started gassing them (Several groups, really). JV and Elvis made a prank phone call...and while I know that the OCA was just trying to drum up sympathy for their group, can we PLEASE put things into perspective here??? Jeezus.

 

[TowerBuzz]

I have to disagree Strascream and I will try to explain it in terms that you may be able to understand because a lot of this seems to be a bit over your head (no offense meant by that Ill try to explain what im trying to say ) The moment you say "people with no vested interest in the show" well that is the public at large. No vested interest in the show, in other words people who are not "fans" like you. I dont think you have to have a vested interest in the show to express your opinion about something that offends you especiallyif you are not part of the priviledged class. Nobody wants to talk about that becuase it is beyond the comprehension of most people who have never felt oppressed which is where the political correctness comes from in the first place. When people say " hey you can make fun of white people and there's no problem" well the truth is that there really IS no problem in the sense that whites will continue to be the majority in most of the country and more importantly in the seats of power in most of the country. The standing of whites being at the top of the preverbial food chain will not change with a joke or two. Minorities on the other hand are usually not in the seats of power and unfortunately certain jokes like " Those are some nappy headed hoes" feed into the perception that these are people who ARE beneath "us" and will continue to be. That triggers feelings of second class stature and guys like Sharpton spring into action and Imus saying it to his audience of politicial movers and shakers that he often talks to regularly, well it only perpetuates the plight of a people who alredy have historically been locked out of opportunity, YEAH IT IS THAT DEEP. That is (I imagine ) why so many got so upset, if you're part of the majority or prvelideged class in this society you never have to think about things like that. WE all have an advantage that we just take for granted. You may not understand that but that does not make it incorrect. Im trying to look at things from a perspective other than my own.Nobody has ever said that humor is wrong but in the case of Imus for example he went (in the opinions of some) too far and it is their right to express that to him, the company (becuase expressing it to him means nothing), and even their advertisers. Thatt is their right to free speech you just do not like it because you cannot argue the point, and you disagree. You cannot argue about it, period. The second you bring up free speech then it has to go both ways like it or not. You also cannot dismiss someone else's feeling that they are offended just because you were NOT offended, you and your wife (who probably thinks very much like you do, that's the point of marriage, compatability) chuckles at the homesless Charlie bit.........so what? that is you and your wife. The problem is that many people who have been posting here have no ability to step outside of themselves and see the view other than their own. The one constant that I have seen througout this strange period in broadcast history is that many people confuse their OPINION with fact. In other words Starscream you think " there was nothing offensive about that" because it did not offend YOU, and since you feel that way, everyone else does or should, it's "fact".

That just is not reality and I dont like the present climate at all but Im also intelligent enough not to just take sides because I like a show without being able to see where the other side is coming from. You lack any ability to understand where the other side is coming from and as a memver of the privelidged class you have not had to for probably your whole life. So now someone exerted their power over you in a very small way by organizing and boycotting etc and gettting a couple of shows you defend fired and threatening one you love (O and A) you dont like feeling pwerless is all this is about. That is why the Sharpton lobby was so upset because they are coming from a perspective of people who have traditionally felt pretty powerless, and felt Imus went too far and they spoke up. You dont like feeling powerless or feeling that someone elses power trumped yours, so you wave the "free speech" flag. So when you say " why can't people just learn to take a joke" if you feel you have been the butt of jokes historically for years and years, your ability to just shrug it off has to wear pretty thin after a while, especially when you tune into a news show expecting news and find yourself the butt of jokes again as if it were a comedy show. It's that deep and you're not even fully aware which is why Im trying to show you there is more to it than "it was just a joke". You can disagree and I bet you will but I imagine that this these are some f the things that were lingering below the surface of all of this bruhaha. And you know what? they have a valid point in that if it's a news show they should not have to expect the same treatment if it is a comedy show with an edge. In addition "nappy headed" is an unfortunate stereotypical characteristic that is pretty much indigenous to people from a specific ethnic backround so to put it another way there are not any disticntive white physical traits that someone say of color could have pointed out if they tried to make the same point. Ms Jones on Hot 97 in referring to a white player would havee nothing to say because there is no sterotypically "white" traits. BUt imagine if she or anyone were referring to a jewish player from a predominately jewish team and they said" Those are some BIG NOSED, penny pinching, yentas"....imagine how quickly the protest machine would spring into action, and they would not be overreacting either.

Think about it.

 

[winreader]

O and A were on the air today making a really solid point that TV is divded into different categories, news, drama, comedy, etc. Whereas radio is only seen as the collective, RADIO; with no differentiation between shows. I agree, but there is a difference between Imus who for the past fifteen years has been perceived as a news show, simulcast on MSNBC, intereviewing opinion makers, news people, politicians both running and currently serving, and JV and ELvis, a comedy show, period. There is a difference but the problem is that this new argument seriously contradicts their entire stance on Imus, While they were screaming about how wrong it was for Imus to get fired a few weeks ago they just proved why he should have been. Imus doing a news show was out of line and out of character by making the comments that he did, Jv and ELvis being a comedy show were clearly doing something in the spirit of comedy (which was deemed offensive by some) but they're not presenting themselves as anything but a comedy show. The attempted defense for Imus was " he's a shock jock, he's been this way for years" but he really had not been a shock jock for a long time. He had re-invented himself as NEWS talk host but whenever he got into trouble they would run back to the "he's a shock jock" mantra as a defense. They could not have it both ways, he's either a shock jock or he is not and iff he were he could not get the Joe Biden's and the Orrin hatch's of the world to come on that show. So I think Imus should have been fired for his situation, JV and ELvis werre mishandled for theirs.

That sounds very intelligent, except it's wrong and besides the point. JV, Elvis, Opie, Anthony should have been fired several months ago for one reason...no ratings.

 

[TowerBuzz]

O and A were on the air today making a really solid point that TV is divded into different categories, news, drama, comedy, etc. Whereas radio is only seen as the collective, RADIO; with no differentiation between shows. I agree, but there is a difference between Imus who for the past fifteen years has been perceived as a news show, simulcast on MSNBC, intereviewing opinion makers, news people, politicians both running and currently serving, and JV and ELvis, a comedy show, period. There is a difference but the problem is that this new argument seriously contradicts their entire stance on Imus, While they were screaming about how wrong it was for Imus to get fired a few weeks ago they just proved why he should have been. Imus doing a news show was out of line and out of character by making the comments that he did, Jv and ELvis being a comedy show were clearly doing something in the spirit of comedy (which was deemed offensive by some) but they're not presenting themselves as anything but a comedy show. The attempted defense for Imus was " he's a shock jock, he's been this way for years" but he really had not been a shock jock for a long time. He had re-invented himself as NEWS talk host but whenever he got into trouble they would run back to the "he's a shock jock" mantra as a defense. They could not have it both ways, he's either a shock jock or he is not and iff he were he could not get the Joe Biden's and the Orrin hatch's of the world to come on that show. So I think Imus should have been fired for his situation, JV and ELvis werre mishandled for theirs.

That sounds very intelligent, except it's wrong and besides the point. JV, Elvis, Opie, Anthony should have been fired several months ago for one reason...no ratings.

OH SURE!!!!!!! If you want to be all shallow and make it about RATINGS!

;D

That is the sad truth and a big factor that everyone has overlooked that considering JV and Elvis had no ratings the easiest thing to do is cut them loose and cut their losses.

 

[robbbc]

This free speech BS is getting out of control. The Supreme court did not stifle Imus. The FCC did not issue fines. Congress did not pass a law to stop Imus from speaking, to err on the side of political correctness (a word that has become little more than a defense of poor manners as some sort of point of pride). Imus got fired. He got fired because people got upset at what he said. So what? Imus is hired to talk and he said something that got him fired. He has every right to say what he wants, but no one has to pay him to say it. This is no slippery slop. Bill Maher got fired- was that justifiable? Sure, Bill has every right to say anything he wants. He just won't get a paycheck to do it from Disney. Now he'll get it from HBO.

 

[TowerBuzz]

Total sense made right there.

 

[BackRib]

Anthony made an iteresting point last week. Television and newspaper have a great rea$on to create a story where there really is none. It is easy for them to take advantage of the climate of fear that exists today for one very good reason. Money. Radio still competes for the advertising dollar with both TV and newspaper. Once it became clear that the big companies like Clear Channel and CBS would not back up their hosts when they made a "mistake" (that same mistake would be tolerated in print or prime-time network tv) it was all over. What better way to hurt the revenue of a radio station than to take away their most profitable hosts! More $$ for the dinosaurs at newspapers and the TV people.

Imus and JV & Elvis are just the beginning. There are more big names (and small ones) in markets all over the country that will fall victim to this P.C. gone mad mess that radio has created for itself and radio will continue to lose revenue and valuable talent. Until someone at a corporate level steps up and says something along the lines of:

"Our hosts said someting that offended YOUR GROUP HERE and our company is sorry that someone was offended. But we stand by our hosts. It is up to YOUR GROUP HERE to either accept this apology and move on, make your next move or get a thicker skin. If YOUR GROUP HERE doesn't like what is said on the show, then don't listen. It is a COMEDY SHOW and should be treated as such. No FCC rules were broken and we feel their remarks, no matter how insensitive, are protected by free speech."

You may now direct any questions you have to that brick wall over there.

 

[tomservo]

OK, here are some intemperate thoughts. Nothing to really challenge what you said, though. I'm still digesting it. It's actually been quite compelling.

The moment you say "people with no vested interest in the show" well that is the public at large. No vested interest in the show, in other words people who are not "fans" like you. I dont think you have to have a vested interest in the show to express your opinion about something that offends you especiallyif you are not part of the priviledged class.

I can see where you are coming from. I have no vested interest in the Klan, but what they stand for and preach in public offends me. For me to organize an active contingent to try to eradicate them from the town square would fail. After all, they have their permits and police protection. What could I do that wouldn't get me arrested? There is no company to threaten with boycotts. (I know this brings nothing to the table. Sorry.)

The standing of whites being at the top of the preverbial food chain will not change with a joke or two. Minorities on the other hand are usually not in the seats of power and unfortunately certain jokes like " Those are some nappy headed hoes" feed into the perception that these are people who ARE beneath "us" and will continue to be. That triggers feelings of second class stature and guys like Sharpton spring into action and Imus saying it to his audience of politicial movers and shakers that he often talks to regularly, well it only perpetuates the plight of a people who alredy have historically been locked out of opportunity, YEAH IT IS THAT DEEP.

Is it?

Implying that the general populace is so backwards and ignorant that racially insensitive jokes are all it takes to incide widespread hatred is ludicrous. Most folks are raised to take a joke, against them or their friends, as just a joke. The ones shoutin' to their radios, "right on, Imus," aren't going to be convinced to abandon their ignorant beliefs by his firing.

If this were 1963, and MLK was sitting in a Birmingham jail, then I would agree that harsher restrictions on insensitive speech might be beneficial to community at large; it was a time when tensions were high and injustices were rampant.

This logic implies that because whites are still the biggest power holders in this country, that they are fair game for insensitive, mean spirited jokes. (I argue this due to the deafening silence of protesters outside of Dave Chappelle's shows, or Chris Rock's performances, or Sharpton's "white interlopers" speech.)

Don't get me wrong - I agree that those in power shouldn't be ammune from horrible jokes and whatever we can throw at them. That's why I think the homeless guy who wanted to forcibly have sex with Condi, Laura and da Queen should be perfectly acceptable. Horrible, distasteful, gross to imagine (who'd wanna do the Queen? Ew.) But protected satire.

That is (I imagine ) why so many got so upset, if you're part of the majority or prvelideged class in this society you never have to think about things like that. WE all have an advantage that we just take for granted. You may not understand that but that does not make it incorrect. Im trying to look at things from a perspective other than my own.

Who's this "WE", kemosabe?

You are assuming that others on here are all married, middle-class or better, white, successful white collar suburbanite males, living in our gated communities.

I assume nothing about the people on here. It's something that makes the message board concept so appealing. Hiding behind our nicknames, all notions of class, color, gender and nationality fall away. We only reveal what is relevant. We're individuals. Heck, I don't even assume anyone in these threads is from New York!

I believe in individuality, not group-think. If 10,000 individuals had called to register their disgust with JV & Elvis' Chinese bit, I'd say the listeners were onto something. When one group that merely claims to have 10,000 members claims offense, I can only dismiss it as PC pandering.

I've been quite offended by some things that Opie & Anthony have said about a certain "group" that I belong to. I won't say which group just yet. Y'know what? Read on...

So when you say " why can't people just learn to take a joke" if you feel you have been the butt of jokes historically for years and years, your ability to just shrug it off has to wear pretty thin after a while, especially when you tune into a news show expecting news and find yourself the butt of jokes again as if it were a comedy show.

Joke after joke. Hurtful word after hurtful word. It was starting to wear thin in my conscious. "I like this show, I just wish Jim Norton would stop calling everyone a '******' so damn much."

Then I questioned myself. Why am letting a word offend me? I'm not a ******. Heck, it's not like I haven't heard that word a million times before turning on this show. Having grown up gay in Alabama in the 90's, I can certainly relate to how oppressed and substandard blacks had to feel in the 50's and 60's, during the peak of the civil rights movement. Having no real outward "gay" traits, I was part of both the priviledged class AND the oppressed class. So on the one hand I sympathize with those who want an end to the insensitive speech, the hate speech if you will... But at the same time, I developed a real thick skin to keep me from wanting to kill myself after some of the things people'd said to/about/around me. After awhile, I had an epiphany. That kindergarten saying is actually quite true: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." We've lost that childlike simplicity in our attitudes.

It's that deep and you're not even fully aware which is why Im trying to show you there is more to it than "it was just a joke". You can disagree and I bet you will but I imagine that this these are some f the things that were lingering below the surface of all of this bruhaha.

I don't disagree with the idea, just the execution. What's lingering below the surface is the fact that these advocacy groups have usurped the noble climb to racial equality and harmony to further their PC agendas. Wiping out the insensitive commentary means they don't have to confront uncomfortable ideas about themselves.

And you know what? they have a valid point in that if it's a news show they should not have to expect the same treatment if it is a comedy show with an edge.

Here's a thought - why can't their be an edgy comedy show which also tackles the news of the day? The two aren't exclusive ideas. Jay Leno interviews politicians now, but he can be edgy sometimes. Where's the outrage there?

Oooh! What about "Real Time With Bill Maher"? It's comedy, satire and political commentary.

In addition "nappy headed" is an unfortunate stereotypical characteristic that is pretty much indigenous to people from a specific ethnic backround so to put it another way there are not any disticntive white physical traits that someone say of color could have pointed out if they tried to make the same point.

God forbid anyone poke fun at white stereotypes like being successful or holding a steady job.

Seriously, though: "successful", "oppressive", "privileged", "won life's lottery", etc.

Ms Jones on Hot 97 in referring to a white player would havee nothing to say because there is no sterotypically "white" traits. BUt imagine if she or anyone were referring to a jewish player from a predominately jewish team and they said" Those are some BIG NOSED, penny pinching, yentas"....imagine how quickly the protest machine would spring into action, and they would not be overreacting either.

Jews, last time I checked, have a sense of self-depreciating humor. Or is that another stereotype? Imus once referred to someone as a "bony-nosed, beanie-wearing Jewboy." There was no outcry from the Jewish community of New York. And don't tell me they're not well organized.

This free speech BS is getting out of control. The Supreme court did not stifle Imus. The FCC did not issue fines. Congress did not pass a law to stop Imus from speaking, to err on the side of political correctness (a word that has become little more than a defense of poor manners as some sort of point of pride). Imus got fired. He got fired because people got upset at what he said. So what? Imus is hired to talk and he said something that got him fired. He has every right to say what he wants, but no one has to pay him to say it. This is no slippery slop. Bill Maher got fired- was that justifiable? Sure, Bill has every right to say anything he wants. He just won't get a paycheck to do it from Disney. Now he'll get it from HBO.

Was Bill Maher's head being called for by minority groups? I don't know, just askin'. When he says something that ruffles some feathers, people may call for his firing. But I bet HBO, being no stranger to controversial subjects and movies, will stand behind him, and the groups will get nowhere. His style and viewpoints may not have been compatible with ABC, so his firing would be logical. CBS seems to think this hot talk thing has wings, but they act shocked and scared when the hot talk genre lives up to its promises.

The real issue here is the radio companies like CBS who aren't standing behind their talent. They give 'em all this money and promote them from the backwater to big markets, then immediately cave in when a minority group claims offense. Either support them or don't - it ain't that complicated.

If Imus were to return to the airwaves somewhere, wouldn't that defeat the entire effort of Sharpton's efforts? I'm sure JV & Elvis will be back somewhere. Was the OCA's effort wasted? Why is New York, market #1, having to be sanitary and safe?

Last but not least, my horoscope from Monday: "That whole eye-for-an-eye policy just means that eventually all the parties involved will go blind. Ever thought about operating with another body part -- like turning the other cheek? It'll get you where you want to go."

Too bad more don't adhere to this concept.

 

[robbbc]

"Was Bill Maher's head being called for by minority groups? I don't know, just askin'. When he says something that ruffles some feathers, people may call for his firing. But I bet HBO, being no stranger to controversial subjects and movies, will stand behind him, and the groups will get nowhere. His style and viewpoints may not have been compatible with ABC, so his firing would be logical. CBS seems to think this hot talk thing has wings, but they act shocked and scared when the hot talk genre lives up to its promises."

Why are you "just askin'"? Why does that matter? IMHO it was a minority group. Some right wing groups (self-selected minority groups funded by rich and powerful elitists?- egads!) that do not represent the majority of Americans got it up their noses and the rest is history. He got fired for what he said about the 9/11 terrorists. The only thing I have ever heard is that he was on a show called "Politically Incorrect" and he said something that was politically incorrect and was fired for it. I imagine most people would say that Bill shouldn't have been fired, rebuked by the other panelists, maybe, but not fired. But there was no FCC fine. No Supreme court ruling. No intervention by a compassionate conservative congress. That's the way it should be.

 

[tomservo]

Well, I wasn't sure if Disney/ABC decided on their own to can him or if it was due to pressure from outside sources.

See, if was just the execs who didn't like what he said, I'd think they were dopes but within their rights. But if they caved in to outside sources then they reacted, much like the radio companies that have been under pressure.

I wasn't familiar with the situation and wanted clarification. That's all.

 

[robbbc]

Well, I wasn't sure if Disney/ABC decided on their own to can him or if it was due to pressure from outside sources.

See, if was just the execs who didn't like what he said, I'd think they were dopes but within their rights. But if they caved in to outside sources then they reacted, much like the radio companies that have been under pressure.

I wasn't familiar with the situation and wanted clarification. That's all.

What's the difference? Fired is fired. If a show has no sponsors because of ratings or boycots or what have you that's the end of it. You have no right to have a TV or radio show.

 

[Starscream]

You have no right to have a TV or radio show.

POTUS?

 

[raydofan]

I take things from the opposite standpoint.  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  What Imus said was dumb, no doubt about it...but to be fired for it?

Yes. This was an activation of the marketplace-no matter how artificial-to take Imus to task on his words. Now, the fact that it was persued by Sharpton-with a questional pedigree himself-is a wonder all its own. Imus could have stood his ground and said 'f you', and this would have not have snowballed.

What JV and Elvis said wasn't EVEN dumb...it was funny...but it got the wrong people's panties in a twist and voila, you fired.

Comedy is subjective. To, me the only thing that was funny was the fact that they used a computer generated voice to do the bit. The content? Eh...

This whole thing is just out of control.  It's funny how one of the freedom's people tout so highly is freedom of speech, when they come to this country.  But the second that freedom displeases them because of something someone says, BANG, they're the first to jump up and down screaming how inappropriate it is.

Let's be clear here: redress of grievences this is not. This is a show bought and paid for by advertisers in varying degrees. Any time you are beholden to the dollar, you have to respond to who holds same. It's not their megaphone. If Imus was dismissed for something he said that was political in nature (this whole debacle may qualify in an at-some-distance sense) in his personal life, or in the street, then I would be inclined to agree. Those with the purse strings react to bad publicity poorly. They do not stand strong and they are feckless in the face of what could affect the bottom line. He had no decent ratings, and it was easy to wipe the floor with 'im. That's (almost) Entertainment!

The cause of 'content issues' could be taken up with the Feds by the media corporations, which shows you where the corporations and our government are at. Pull some campaign contributions here and there; rewrite regulations...who would win that war?

I would love to see some of these groups put into a situation where there is NO freedom of speech for awhile...they'll learn to appreciate humor in a big way, real freakin fast.

Hmmm..let's dial it back to 2003, or the 50s, where prior constraint was the order of the day in some circles...

 

[raydofan]

You have no right to have a TV or radio show.

POTUS?

Don't be daft.