# Did Don Imus deserve to be fired?



## scotu

Don Imus was fired for for calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos” on the air last. Was his dismissal deserved?


----------



## cuchuflete

Yes, he deserved to be fired.  Racist insults, whether or not in the form of a supposed joke, should not be tolerated.  If he had only called the young women 'ho's' he should have been fired.  It's not a decent thing to say about people, especially those he has no personal knowledge of. Combing the racism and the insult should be clear grounds for getting fired.  I'm sure that if another employee of CBS radio referred to people in those words while in an elevator or cafeteria, it would be a violation not only of human decency, but also of company policy.  To say it during a radio and television broadcast is even worse.


----------



## scotu

Here's the results of an MSNBC vote survey...These results astound me:

"What should happen to Don Imus after his remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team? * 182814 responses

He should be fired -- there's no excuse for what he said *33*% 
The two-week suspension is enough *30*% 
A suspension is too much. He's a shock jock, this is what he's paid for. *37*% "


----------



## xrayspex

_These results astound me:

_
Should your employer fire you for stating your opinion?  What if your employer hired you to say controversial things in the first place?  Would that be different? 

I'm really torn over this.  I hate Don Imus, from his $3000 cowboy boots to his ridiculous looking wig.  But I think he should have the right to say any stupid thing he wants to.  If he were a grocery store cashier, and called a customer a nappy headed ho, I would expect him to be fired.  But saying that kind of stuff made CBS $5,000,000.00 a year, and I think it's incredibly hypocritical of them to toss him to the wolves now.   Not to mention that Imus' biggest critics are ALL a bunch of pandering hypocrites who make THEIR living off of stirring controversy (just like Imus.)  Did Al Sharpton ever apologise to anyone over the Tawnna Brawly thing?  Nope.  Is he going to apologise for the things he said about the Duke lacrosse players?  Nope. Hypocrite.


----------



## vachecow

cuchuflete said:


> If he had only called the young women 'ho's' he should have been fired.



I agree, but if you have seen the broadcast, he wasn't the one who started it.  The other guy said that they looked like "hos" and he added on.  I think this shows that the only reason he was fired is because Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton threatened a boycott.


----------



## TRG

I used to watch a bit of Imus, mainly becuase a lot of his guests were very influential people and it was fun to hear their unscripted banter with Imus and crew. But, after not too much time the crass and crude behavior of Imus was more than I could bear. His stock in trade is being outrageous and insulting. His "nappy headed ho" comment was very typical of the kind of street talk and jive that he liked to indulge in. He was truly hoisted by his own petard. I would say "good riddance", but I'm afraid the notoriaty well just propel him on to some other venue.


----------



## winklepicker

I'm divided on this one (or so my alter ego tells me). Ideally, I don't think people should be fired for 'blasphemy' (which strikes me as an imaginary crime). Following that logic, one shouldn't be fired for not being PC. Words are words - how can a word be offensive? (If a c**t is a thing of beauty [and it is], how can the word for it be ugly?)

On the other hand, though, the historical oppression of blacks (presumably the target of the remark) makes the reaction understandable.


----------



## cuchuflete

Comparing the jerk Sharpton to the Jerk Imus is besides the point.  Imus shouldn't keep his job because Sharpton is a grandstanding buffoon or a different variety.   I used to listen to Imus on my drive to work,
and grew quickly tired of his calling every group by some 'cute' name or other.  Remember 'towel heads' for
Arabs?  You might try to argue that such a label was about attire, but the prejudice behind it was clear.  

As to the opinions of his listeners...would you expect something different?  They listen to him precisely because they enjoy what he does, which is to raise money for adorably dying children, prod politicians until
one of them sucks up to him enough to be the favorite of the month, and insult minorities.  Something for every taste except mine?


----------



## Brioche

From my rather distant observation of American culture, it seems to me that Imus's mistake to was to talk like a black while being a white.

We have similar PC double standards in Australia. It's not *what* is said, but *who* says it.


----------



## lizzeymac

A few African American activists have made the same point. 
As long as this type of language & attitude is tolerated in the multi-billion dollar rap music industry how can you punish anyone else - even a universally-offensive prehistoric poser like Imus?  
I can't decide whether he should have been fired because I dislike him too much - I think he's one of the most uninteresting, unintelligent, & annoying people on radio.  I think he was struggling to stay current & popular & has been becoming more & more offensive out of desperation.
From a business perspective it was simple - Imus is a brand-name product & he damaged & devalued the brand significantly.  The network did the math & dumped him.


----------



## Acrolect

Brioche said:


> We have similar PC double standards in Australia. It's not *what* is said, but *who* says it.


 
But doesn't our judgement on the offensiveness of a remark always depends on who says what? Self-criticism or self-insult - whether it applies to an individual or a whole group - will always be judged and interpreted differently than criticism and insult from outside (and rightly so).


----------



## cuchuflete

So far I've seen a few blogs and news articles and this thread, and in all of them people properly bring up the facts that-

Al Sharpton is a racist or opportunist or hypocrite;
Some classes of popular entertainment use disparaging language to talk about black people;
Imus's listeners are entertained by his behavior.

Whether you agree with any or all of those statements (I think they are all true.) or not, Imus 
followed his own long term pattern of insulting groups of people, supposedly for a laugh.
He wasn't fired because of things Mr. Sharpton does or doesn't do.
He wasn't fired because of what is or is not in hip hop lyrics, if you can call them lyrics.
He certainly wasn't fired because his listeners enjoy his program.

When another popular radio talk show host, Bob Grant, was fired for a racist remark--one of many--I didn't
see so many comparisons to others' behavior.


Might it be that these people were fired because they did something wrong?


----------



## conquer

No. Neither a suspension.

If this is the case about insults, the several rapers who say in the lyrics words like "killing cops" or "shooting others" must be also fired from the music business. 

The case of songs mockering of others or inciting crime is worst that jockes made by a sport commentarist, and this is because the songs are repeated by people, and this negative information sometimes posses the will of some individuals to the point to commit killings or just do actions against society.

The Rainbow coailtion with a sure loser reverend Jackson didn't miss the opportunity to show up on tv as usual. Of course, Jackson's followers do nothing about making street meetings to complaint about rapers...maybe repars money is feeding this organization...who knows.

The point is that if you cannot make jokes...there is no freedom in US.


----------



## Kelly B

I think there is a significant distinction between what is _legal _and what is given _airtime _(or is printed in the newspaper, or whatever)_. _Imus still has freedom of speech. If he wants to stand on street corners calling people nasty names, he can still do that. He just doesn't get paid to spread it all over America anymore. His work no longer fills the needs of his employer. Too bad.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think this has been blown out of proportion SOOOOOOOO Much.
I mean the media has blown this out of proportion, I 100% agree with *conquer,*

This is the ONLY issue I have ever been on the same side as Sean Hannity, and that makes me shudder, as he correctly pointed out to his guest on the night he was fired, someone called Elizabeth from "The View" and he made the point about Rosie O'Donnel saying offensive things but not in a nasty way and she apologised people moved on. This guest of Hannity & Colmes wouldn't stop saying how "he was right to be fired" but refused to comment about Rosie when the case is near exactly the same, I hate people like that.

Anyway, before that, that evil snake woman was covering for O'Reilly and she also made a fair comment that night about why are black rappers allowed to absolutely fill their songs with words like "hos" etc and Don Imus uses it and he gets sacked.

Don Imus is old and a bit out of touch with reality and anyone like that must hear "hos" used all the time, I don't think he fully knew what he was calling them, but also, as someone stated he is also a shock-jock, it's just the over-politcally-correct media now love to make big news out of nothing (*Anna Nicole Smith*/*That astronaut woman/John Kerry*) and this is just another case of it.

My god I'm beginning to hate our own race. (and before anyone says anything I am refering to the* human* race)


----------



## cuchuflete

Why did Mr. Imus issue an apology?

Either he recognized that he had done something wrong,
or he is a cynical, bare-faced liar.  I'd rather give him credit for
having understood that he had made a serious error, but
we can really only speculate about what goes on inside his head.


----------



## Alxmrphi

But he did, didn't he, realised by the way everyone acted, that something he said had such an impact (I don't believe) he ever imagined it would turn into the media-circus it did, I think then he realised people took what he said differently to how he thought it when he said it, and he apologised for it.


----------



## panjandrum

It reminds me rather of:
_English TV soccer pundit Ron Atkinson, whose 'off mike' comment calling       former Chelsea defender, Marcel Desailly, "a f**king lazy, thick ni**er,"       was broadcast live. Atkinson's comments cost him two media positions plus       a lucrative sponsorship deal with a soft drink company_.

As Kelly B suggests, he was punished not for saying it but for saying it "on company time". So "the company" had to fire him.

_Because of the way the modern media operates -- feeding on a staple diet       of bad news, pouncing on any slips or slurs of the tongue -- every word       uttered either at work or at play could catalyze a personal or corporate       PR disaster.

Quotes from:
_*Loose       Talk Costs Careers & Credibility*


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Why did Mr. Imus issue an apology?
> 
> Either he recognized that he had done something wrong,
> or he is a cynical, bare-faced liar. I'd rather give him credit for
> having understood that he had made a serious error, but
> we can really only speculate about what goes on inside his head.


You could staple my earlobes to a thesauras written my Adolf bloody Hitler and I would still not be able to utter such a base and ugly mongrel of a statement.
A bloke can accidentally say fuck but a bloke can't accidentally launch into a racist and sexist and performance based invective in the space of one hyphenated portmanteaux word and another contracted without a lifetime of practice behind him.

.,,


----------



## emma42

I completely agree, dotcommacomma.

Also, arguments such as "But when XXX said YYY he wasn't fired..." are irrelevant.  

The arrogance of types such as Mr Imus is almost beyond belief.


----------



## .   1

Brioche said:


> From my rather distant observation of American culture, it seems to me that Imus's mistake to was to talk like a black while being a white.


Is that how a black talks?
Which black?
Is this generally accepted as being the case?
I have never heard of nappy as an epithet.
Are you saying that a black commentator could have used that word pattern and not been fired?



Brioche said:


> We have similar PC double standards in Australia. It's not *what* is said, but *who* says it.


Like for example?

The only Aussies who can speak with any impugnity are filthy rich lawyer lovers and even then some go too far. Alan Jones, the closet creeping, shirt lifting shock jock is copping it in the neck as he should for inciting that ugly racial brawl at Cronulla.

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

. said:


> Brioche said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my rather distant observation of American culture, it seems to me that Imus's mistake to was to talk like a black while being a white.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that how a black talks?
> Which black?
Click to expand...


Er, the gangster scene, recently, most American TV talk shows have been on the topic of "Why is it ok for 50cent/P Diddy/Snoop Dog etc to use this language in their songs?"

- Many responses, people said it was ok because it was art, and it's their culture and it's ok to do that, and the question was finally being asked, WHY.

100% agree with you Brioche, it is like a white guy talking like a black guy, the topic of this kind of language has long been debated in American gangster culture .,, this is the "black language" I believe is being referred to here.
To an outsider of the culture, who will probably see only stereotypes of street culture, yes, that is how a black talks.


----------



## .   1

Alex_Murphy said:


> To an outsider of the culture, who will probably see only stereotypes of street culture, yes, that is how a black talks.


A Martian opinion only confuses me.
This burke was not using 'black speak'.
He was being a freaking bigot.
N to the nth degree of twists and turns will not change this one iota.
Gangsta Rap is abhored by most 'black' people.
It is base and ugly and bigotted and yes it is art and has no place here.

What do you reckon would happen to Half Brain or 50 IQ if he started strutting down the main street of 'black America' telling Muhammed Frazier that his wife was a  nappy-headed ho . The next sound he made would probably be a gurgle 'cause it be damned hard to talk through fist clenched around your throat.

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

Probably some sort of gurgle I agree, but my impression from gangster videos is (as has been noted by all for a long time) that women are degraded and referred to as hos and they seem to accept it and some to an extent even like it, in this kind of sense referring to a black woman as a ho must not seem offensive, as someone else said before in this thread _it's not *what* is said, but *who* it is said by_.
I'm not saying this is the case with Don Imus, but I can't say it wasn't the case either.


----------



## Brioche

Acrolect said:


> But doesn't our judgement on the offensiveness of a remark always depends on who says what? Self-criticism or self-insult - whether it applies to an individual or a whole group - will always be judged and interpreted differently than criticism and insult from outside (and rightly so).



This seems to me a variation on the "ad hominem" argument.

Should I be less insulted or offended when an Australian calls me an arse-hole, than when an American calls me an ass-hole?


----------



## MarcB

Well I do not like what he said regardless of the reason. I am against racial and gender insults whether the targets are blacks or others. In the US as well as other countries there is a long history of ethnic injustice which includes people more integrated now than African-Americans may be. That said I do not necessarily think he had to be fired, for what ever reason he apologized. The behavior of other who I agree is equally bad is nonetheless irrelevant. Basically he was fired for economical reasons. I also believe that people in the public eye should be held to a higher standard.


----------



## Acrolect

Brioche said:


> Should I be less insulted or offended when an Australian calls me an arse-hole, than when an American calls me an ass-hole?


 
No, because this is a personal insult and has nothing to do with your being Australian or American. But - at least for me - it makes a difference whether I criticize myself or somebody says the same thing about me, whether I criticize my family or somebody from outside says the same thing about my family, or whether I criticize my culture, my country or my ethnicity or somebody from outside does so.

Anyway, I have realized that my point was not well taken because people referring to rap did not necessarily mean the use of what would count as racist slang outside black hiphop culture, but really offensive things about out-groups.


----------



## Brioche

If you want the truth, according to *Pravda*, which incidentally is the Russian word for truth,
click here:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/89728-0/
Read and be amazed.


----------



## maxiogee

Of course the man had to be fired - asking the question whether he deserved it shows a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the offence.

On the subject of the apology…
Some people just don't understand the principle.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I'd agree with you Tony, if I hadn't read the article Brioche posted.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> I'd agree with you Tony, if I hadn't read the article Brioche posted.



Alex, I can't hope to be aware - at this distance from both Imus and Pravda - of the accuracy of that 'story', but the way it capitalises the phrase (used seven times) US War Leaders gives me a hint of where its loyalties might lie.


----------



## Forodio

Personally, I don't he deserved to be fired. I am a high school student, and if you walk down the halls of my high school for just a few minutes, you will hear people calling other people worse things than that. It is just not that uncommon, and so everyone has built up an immunity to it. 

What makes it even stupider is that he was calling college students this, who have most likely heard similar phrases like this before and have also most likely called others the same things. Therefore, their acting as the victims of some horrible crime is idiotic.

I do agree, though, that it is a flaw in our culture that should be fixed, but if you want to fix it, go after the recording industry and all the rappers, who curse and swear through the entire five minute long songs. The only reason he was fired is because he was white, which brings us to the idea of the politically correct double standard, which is utter crap that is equally as racist as what Don Imus said, but trust me you won't hear Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton saying that anytime soon.


----------



## .   1

Forodio said:


> Personally, I don't think he deserved to be fired. I am a high school student, and if you walk down the halls of my high school for just a few minutes, you will hear people calling other people worse things than that. It is just not that uncommon, and so everyone has built up an immunity to it.


Yes.  I agree but that is on a level of equal to equal. 
The girls had no right of reply.



Forodio said:


> What makes it even stupider is that he was calling college students this, who have most likely heard similar phrases like this before and have also most likely called others the same things. Therefore, their acting as the victims of some horrible crime is idiotic.


Yes again but it is the manner of the insult.  
College students are not allowed to wave placards like that around.  
Teachers are not allowed to yell that at students.
Strangers are not allowed to stand at the fence of the school and yell it into the school.
Supporters are not allowed to yell that at basketball games.



Forodio said:


> I do agree, though, that it is a flaw in our culture that should be fixed, but if you want to fix it, go after the recording industry and all the rappers, who curse and swear through the entire five minute long songs. The only reason he was fired is because he was white, which brings us to the idea of the politically correct double standard, which is utter crap that is equally as racist as what Don Imus said, but trust me you won't hear Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton saying that anytime soon.


We should vote with our dollars and not buy the junk.
We should boycott radio and television stations that promote the junk.
Radio and television is merely our reflection.

Fix blokes like that on an individual level and eventually all individuals will be on the same level.

.,,


----------



## Hovjm23

Brioche said:


> From my rather distant observation of American culture, it seems to me that Imus's mistake to was to talk like a black while being a white.



As a black man, I can honestly say that I have never called a female collegiate basketball player a "nappy headed ho."


----------



## scotu

maxiogee said:


> Of course the man had to be fired - asking the question whether he deserved it shows a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the offence.
> 
> On the subject of the apology…
> Some people just don't understand the principle.


 
I think that the person who posed the question did so precisely because he had an appreciation of the seriousness of the issue. He also thinks that your attack of the question is offensive.


----------



## .   1

Hovjm23 said:


> As a black man, I can honestly say that I have never called a female collegiate basketball player a "nappy headed ho."


What would your opinion be of a black man who called a female collegiate basketball player a "nappy headed ho."?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

scotu said:


> I think that the person who posed the question did so precisely because he had an appreciation of the seriousness of the issue. He also thinks that your attack of the question is offensive.



A person who makes their living from speaking,
A person who makes their living from the number of listeners they can draw,
A person who ultimately makes their living from the people who pay for his wages,

.... can not claim to have a respect for any of the listeners when he refers to people in the way this guy did, nor can be claim to be respect for his superiors, nor even to have an understanding of the employer/employee/audience relationship involved in the media industry.

I noted with strange concern that although he began his apologise with "I" the offence was committed by "we" - he hasn't even understood the simply fact behind an apology - admit you are wrong, say you are sorry, and accept responsibility for the action.

I note that while you asked the question, you haven't offered an opinion yet. Your only contribution to the thread was to pose the original question and then to express that your astonishment at the results of a poll, again without expressing an opinion on it.

How would you have answered your own question? 
What would you have expected the results of the poll to be?


----------



## scotu

maxiogee said:


> How would you have answered your own question?
> What would you have expected the results of the poll to be?


 
My real question is not whether or not he deserved to be fired for this particular remark. He spews out equally offensive insults to arabs, jews, gays, Mexicans, etc on a daily basis. He was well paid to be a master of offensiveness. Respectible sponsors such as General Motors and Ameritrade supported the show with big bucks. I'm sure that he will be quickly replaced with a clone that engages in the same uglyness for entertainment.

My real question is; "What is going wrong when an offense monger like Imus can attract such a large supportive audience that finds this kind of "humor" so attractive."


----------



## maxiogee

scotu said:


> My real question is what is going wrong when an offense monger like Imus can attract such a large supportive audience that finds this kind of "humor" so attractive.


 
How large is "large"? I can't find any source of data as to the size of his audience.

Can anyone who trades on 'shock' content be very surprised when the content actually does shock, and shock to the extent that people finally know just how many straws it takes to break a camel's back?

The claims that there are others who say worse things sounds to me like the naughty child's standard line of defence .... "John is worse than me!" - "John wasn't punished for his offence".


----------



## scotu

maxiogee said:


> How large is "large"? I can't find any source of data as to the size of his audience.


 
"Imus was carried by 61 stations across the country and had an estimated audience of about 2.3 million listeners a week, according to Talkers Magazine, which covers talk radio. The simulcast of Imus's show on MSNBC gained him about 360,000 viewers a day."

citation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202309.html


----------



## winklepicker

Kelly B said:


> His work no longer fills the needs of his employer.


Hmm. According to this morning's radio, he only got fired _(has he actually? His wife is keeping his seat warm on one show at least) _because the advertisers started to pull out. His employer, apparently, will have a hard time getting the same audiences without him. So is it more that money talks? Are editorial standards being compromised (well, affected, anyway) by advertising spend?

Moderator's note: Please treat the last question posed by winklepicker as a rhetoric one or answer opening a different thread.


----------



## maxiogee

winklepicker said:


> Hmm. According to this morning's radio, he only got fired _(has he actually? His wife is keeping his seat warm on one show at least) _because the advertisers started to pull out. His employer, apparently, will have a hard time getting the same audiences without him. So is it more that money talks? Are editorial standards being compromised (well, affected, anyway) by advertising spend?
> 
> Moderator's note: Please treat the last question posed by winklepicker as a rhetoric one or answer opening a different thread.


 
In a commercial operation for what form, or degree, of misconduct would one 'deserve' to be fired?

Don Imus' employers have taken what action they could to protect their interests. What other people - employed by other organisations - were or were not fired for is immaterial and cannot be taken as any sort of 'precedent'. Neither can things Mr Imus may have 'gotten away with' in the past. (Will the public ever know what he might have been slapped over the knuckles for, prior to this incident? Will they ever know how often he might have 'been spoken to' by his superiors?)
In any commercial broadcasting organisation there are two things one doesn't do too often (a) lose ratings, and (b) affect the revenue of the operation.
With Chaska's warning in mind, I am not going to do more than say that no commercial organisation can afford to keep on staff people who do either or both of those things.

As to the seriousness of the offence - that again is for his employers to decide. But they, being a commercial organisation, will have more considerations going through their collective minds than if he had been the demoralised coach of a team the women in question had just beaten hollow in a competition hauled up before his faculty to explain his outburst.


----------



## Fernando

As a non-English speaker. Can someone explain to me what does "nappy-headed hoes" stand for? I had not heard those words in my life.

I assume hoes < whore and "nappy-headed" is a description of the hair of black people. Am I right?


----------



## badgrammar

Hmmm.  Yes, "hoes" is is refernece to the vernacular pronunciation of "whores" (prostitutes), and nappy-headed does refer to black people's hair, and it is an insult, among blacks, to say that someone's hair is "nappy", meaning either not of good quality, or that they do not take measures to groom it into something _some_ blacks would consider "more presentable".


----------



## badgrammar

Brioche said:


> This seems to me a variation on the "ad hominem" argument.
> 
> Should I be less insulted or offended when an Australian calls me an arse-hole, than when an American calls me an ass-hole?



depends.  If he calles you an "Aussie Arsehole", then indeed it may pack more punch when said by an American, because it implies not only an insult to your person, but also to your nationality.  If it's another Aussie who says it, then the "Aussie" part is not part of the insult.  

Now, does this make rational sense?  No.  But I really think it's like if one member of your own family badmouths someone else in your family (say your brother complaining about your Mom), it probably won't elicit the same reaction as someone outside your family (say your girlfriend or a neighbor) saying the same thing.  

Sample sentence:  
Mom is driving me nuts, she is such a (insert expletive here)
Sheila is driving me nuts, she is such a (insert expletive here).


----------



## konungursvia

I think freedom of speech means he has a right to think and speak the way he did. The network, however, was perfectly within its rights to fire him. Freedom of speech does not imply the right to use the broadcast airwaves to propagate racist sentiments to millions of members of the public.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

konungursvia said:


> I think freedom of speech means he has a right to think and speak the way he did. The network, however, was perfectly within its rights to fire him. Freedom of speech does not imply the right to use the broadcast airwaves to propagate racist sentiments to millions of members of the public.



Would it be a case of "freedom of speech" if I called you "fu*king Canuk" ?
I call this abusing someone roundly. (it's only an example, of course: no intention of giving you offence at all).


----------



## scotu

Fernando said:


> As a non-English speaker. Can someone explain to me what does "nappy-headed hoes" stand for? I had not heard those words in my life.
> 
> I assume hoes < whore and "nappy-headed" is a description of the hair of black people. Am I right?


 *asi es!*
see this thread:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=457482


----------



## Fernando

Thank you very much to Badgrammar, scotu and Cuchu (PM). I should have searched for the open thread. Sorry.

The bad part (to me) is to call a group of people "wh***s". The racist implicit comment does nothing but to increase the force of the insult.

In Spain, radio and TV speakers use very strong language (see soft racist comments in "Humor amarillo", as an example) but I can not imagine anyone naming a basketball team "un grupo de p***s".


----------



## scotu

Fernando said:


> Thank you very much to Badgrammar, scotu and Cuchu (PM). I should have searched for the open thread. Sorry.
> 
> The bad part (to me) is to call a group of people "wh***s". The racist implicit comment does nothing but to increase the force of the insult.
> 
> In Spain, radio and TV speakers use very strong language (see soft racist comments in "Humor amarillo", as an example) but I can not imagine anyone naming a basketball team "un grupo de p***s".


 
I hesitate to offer any defense for Imus, but unfortunately the word "hos" (and also "bitches") have become part of (black) American slang through rap music and television. I think that among some groups (ie rap music fans), these words have about the same impact as the word "_cabron_" between good friends in Mexico. As has happened, a person who is not a part of the subculture causes great offense when he uses the same words.


----------



## Poetic Device

scotu said:


> Don Imus was fired for for calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos” on the air last. Was his dismissal deserved?


 
Absolutely!  It would be the same if he used a derrogative statement towards any other gender, race, ethnicity or nationality.  Would you feel any different if he said "W.O.P.s" or "N_ _ _ _ _" or "wet backs" to name a few?  These are all horrible things to say about people, especially if you don't know them personally, IMHO.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> Absolutely! It would be the same if he used a derrogative statement towards any other gender, race, ethnicity or nationality. Would you feel any different if he said "W.O.P.s" or "N_ _ _ _ _" or "wet backs" to name a few? These are all horrible things to say about people, especially if you don't know them personally, IMHO.


Yep.
I am happy to be called a lot of names by intimates but my hackles rise the moment a stranger starts hurling epithets.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

scotu said:


> I hesitate to offer any defense for Imus, but unfortunately the word "hos" (and also "bitches") have become part of (black) American slang through rap music and television. I think that among some groups (ie rap music fans), these words have about the same impact as the word "_cabron_" between good friends in Mexico. As has happened, a person who is not a part of the subculture causes great offense when he uses the same words.


 
I think the word has gone beyond black American slang into general use by people, sometimes in a playful or falsely confident manner. 

Oddly enough, I happened to catch a few seconds of some TV contestant (reality?) show with Tyra Banks where she was critiquing a model's photo shoot.  It was of a pillow fight with a male model and their job, apparently, was to look very sexy in the shot.  Tyra said, "That shot didn't scream 'ho'.  It was too tame, too held back."  The model she was critiquing was white.  It was a strange experience to hear this on the television while reading this thread.


----------



## Hovjm23

. said:


> What would your opinion be of a black man who called a female collegiate basketball player a "nappy headed ho."?
> 
> .,,



I would be disgusted nonetheless. These females are in college, playing basketball. They are role models for others and examples of hard work at its finest. They deserve nothing less than our respect. 

I've never called any female a ho, but some of my friends have. Although I usually disapprove of it, if any of my friends were to call a collegiate basketball player (or any woman doing something with her life) a "nappy headed ho," I would surely tell them that what they have said is unacceptable.


----------



## .   1

Hovjm23 said:


> I would be disgusted nonetheless. These females are in college, playing basketball. They are role models for others and examples of hard work at its finest. They deserve nothing less than our respect.


What did the N-H Hs do to derserve being told that they were not exemplary human beings?



Hovjm23 said:


> I've never called any female a ho, but some of my friends have. Although I usually disapprove of it, if any of my friends were to call a collegiate basketball player (or any woman doing something with her life) a "nappy headed ho," I would surely tell them that what they have said is unacceptable.


What would your response be to your friend if your friend insisted in defending his comments and claiming that it is acceptable terminology and, therefore, opinion?

.,,


----------



## xrayspex

Hovjm23 said:


> would surely tell them that what they have said is unacceptable.


 
Would you try to get them fired from their job?


----------



## .   1

xrayspex said:


> Would you try to get them fired from their job?


If they insisted that their position was valid and that the words and opinions were valid and if their job was to deliver words and opinions what would you do?

.,,


----------



## Calloway

I am black-american and i dont believe that don should of been fired,the simple reason that america is "freedom of speech" but i think that he should of sustained major punishment like suspension of his show,a big fine,a lawsuit or something of that matter

its good that he said what he said because it shows that hes a racist,some people says that it was horrible humor well i dont agree..
and also even though he apologized what he said about black people thats
exactly what he thinks of us..therefore hes a racist


----------



## Derblur

Yes, Don Imus deserved to be fired. Hopefully others like him will also fall. We also need to need to stop the verbal abuse spread by the "rappers".
Who made up these phrases to begine with?


----------



## xrayspex

_If they insisted that their position was valid and that the words and opinions were valid and if their job was to deliver words and opinions what would you do?
_ 
I honestly don't know.   If they were my employee, and they represented me to my customers, I would have to fire them.   That's where (to me) the Imus thing gets fuzzy... it's NOT obvious to me that his employers actually disagreed with anything he said (despite their apologies and mea culpas).  If he was doing what they paid him for, they're hypocrites for firing him. 

The other problem I have is in determining what is offensive.  Some things obviously are offensive to many or most people.  Some things just as obviously are not.  MOST THINGS lie in between.  Who determines what becomes offensive enough to merit punishment?  The smart people?  The loud people?  The majority?  The offended parties?  How about if it just offends one person... I mean REALLY DEEPLY offends them.  How serious is that?  Or... two people.  Is that enough?  Five?  What number do you put there?  If it's an arbitrary number, who decides that? 

To ME, the ideal solution is for 99% of the world to ignore it.   And if one of the offended parties waits for him in a parking lot after work one night, well... THAT'S the real price you pay for being an asshole.


----------



## .   1

xrayspex said:


> To ME, the ideal solution is for 99% of the world to ignore it. And if one of the offended parties waits for him in a parking lot after work one night, well... THAT'S the real price you pay for being an asshole.


Yeah but pussies like Donny Boy would just go bleating to teacher and tattle even if he were simply subjected to a verbal spray.

You have identified the very nature of the danger in this matter.
The propensity to incite righteous vengence and mighty smiting.
This is what is tearing many communities apart.

.,,
We are not immune to this concept here in WR.


----------



## Poetic Device

> If he was doing what they paid him for, they're hypocrites for firing him.


  That's the corporate American business world for you.


----------



## swift_precision

As a black man myself, I would never use the those words to decribe ANY black woman and never the word "ho" to describe ANY woman for that matter. I can not say definatively whether or not he should have been fired because as has already been said, I don't know what it is his employers paid him to say. However, anytime anyone has access to the public through some kind of medium whether it is TV, radio, CD, ect... that person should be aware that what he says, how he says it, and what he DOES NOT say has the potential to be miscontrued and therefore offend people. Let us not forget the case of Mel Gibson and the inflammatory comments he made for which he used intoxication as an excuse for having said them. Also what in the world does rap music have to do with this discussion here? From my experience in having lived in certain communities where simliar language was used to describe black woman and having listened to rap and Hip Hop music for many years those who used the aforementioned language actually *knew* those who they addressed with such vile terms. Those same people,out of ignorance perhaps, tended to extrapolate the use of the term and apply it to any woman they came in contact with but this was based on their previous experience with other women. I am not saying this is good, but just what I have observed. Also please be aware that in the music industry it is the music label that has the final say as to what goes onto a record and less of what the actual artist wishes.


----------



## TRG

I was a Don Imus customer.  I fired him a long time ago because I thought he was crass, rude, and a complete phony.  It is insufficient to talk about the relationship between the sponsors and Imus without any consideration of the listeners.  It’s a four way deal involving the sponsors, the broadcaster, the actual producer, and, of course, the audience.  It is ultimately the audience that is in control by their consumption of the show and the products of the sponsors.  Trying to lay the blame on the sponsors or the broadcaster ignores the fact that if nothing had ever been said about the offending remarks, Imus would still be on with a huge audience.  Furthermore, look at the guests that Imus routinely had on his show.  Many of them were socially and politically liberal and you would expect be the very last people to want to associate with someone like Imus, yet he had no trouble getting important people to appear on his show.  So there is no one to blame but “the people”, you know, the ones who politicians love to speak of as having infinite wisdom.  I think not.


----------



## scotu

Don Imus has reached an undisclosed settlement over his firing from CBS. He was seeking $120 million but He’s been rumored to have actually received only a measly twenty-million dollars.

Hmmm...wonder if he deserved getting cheated out of $100 million like that?

scotu


----------



## Derblur

Imus received 1/2 of the balance of his existing contract... 20 Million USD
Did he deserve it......... Hell NO !!


----------



## emma42

That's only ten million in ££, so it's not much, really.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's take this in small pieces, as it is loaded with personal, unproved opinion.  In the interest of "freedom of speech", I will offer some contrasting views.





Cristina Allende said:


> I agree that there is a HUGE difference between what is legal and what is given airtime.


  We begin with a strong agreement. 

Or...maybe we don't. One of the young women slandered by Mr. Imus has brought suit against him for, I believe, defamation of character.  He may be judged to have acted beyond what the law allows, and have to pay substantial damages. 



> Imus didn't say anything illegal; freedom of speech gives him the right to call some black college girls "hos."


  Not so fast.  There are libel laws, laws against slander, etc.  The court system has yet to determine if he did or didn't cross the line.
Clearly the law, if one plays it carefully, allows a person to mock the innocent for a cheap laugh.



> But his employer fired him because he recognized that the media was blowing it out of proportion, and he had to save face.


  That statement is utter nonsense.
What Imus did was scandalous.  It was petty, cheap, rotten, uncouth, scummy, and other things I'd rather not put on the screen in front of you.  He is to be condemned by
one and all who believe that decency should guide even a commercially driven buffoon, who goes on and on about his service to sick children.  You say the media was "blowing it out of proportion"?  I accuse you of minimizing something that stinks.  Certainly the media reported it, and very prominently.  Imus is a very prominent person.  When a bigshot makes a big mistake, it normally gets big news coverage, right?  What is disproportionate about media reports that Imus had scandalized some of his biggest sponsors?   That, by the way, is why he was fired: economics.   No advertiser in their right mind wants a close association with a person who displays such obvious bigotry.
His long-standing tastelessness was tolerable.  His racism was not.  Dollars and cents got him fired, not what you deem to be disproportionate reporting.  

Who saved face, and how?   The jerk got fired.  Is that an exercise in face-saving?
Was his meeting with those he insulted, to apologize to them, face-saving?  




> There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as it is his own business.


You surely got this one dead wrong.  What a prominent public figure does in a very public forum such as a leading radio program, and the consequences of that, are much more than just "his own business".  It is a public matter, and the widespread condemnation of Imus's acts by the public, as well as by much of the media, is also a public matter.   Did even Rush Limbaugh defend Imus?





> I think what Imus said is despicable and I think he deserves to get thrown in jail for a while.


   Oh, really, your Honor?  Do you think people deserve to be thrown in jail for what you have said is legal activity?  Remind me to take that matter up with an expert on convoluted logic.  



> But it technically is his right to say all that stuff.


 Unless, of course, he libels someone, in which case he may have to make substantial monetary amends for doing what is _not_ his right to do.  



> Why did the media blow it out of proportion?


You, Your Honor, have declared that the media blew it all out of proportion.
I respectfully submit, Your Honor, that you are incorrect in that personal judgment.

If you were a family member, friend, neighbor, classmate of a person so defamed, by
a big, powerful celebrity, through no fault of your own, you might feel a bit differently
about whether the media did enough to draw attention to the Imus display of bigoted
humor.  Just suppose for a moment that you and your friends were the ones so ill-used for a bit of puerile, racist humor.  Think about it.  






> Well, because it had to do with a *white *guy using racist and sexist comments towards *black* girls.  If it were a black man calling white girls "hos," it wouldn't have received so much attention.  In America everything is all screwy with reverse discrimination and racial favoring.  Blacks and Indians get more benefits than whites.  What ever happened to complete equality?


  This final final rant speaks for itself.  Badly packaged falsehoods.


----------

