PeterDavid.net

I like what Bill Maher said to Imus: "your punishment will be that you'll lose some black listeners...and you should." And in a perfect world, he'd have been right.

As much as I think that Imus' opinions were odious (and given his behavior over the years, I think that he is a racist), I think that his employers overreacted by firing him.

Still, nobody has a right to a nationally-syndicated radio show, and at the end of the day, Imus didn't own his own microphone... the studio did. They can hire or fire anyone they want.

I have no doubt that Imus will find employment once this dies down. He still has name recognition and a loyal following.

It hasn't been a level playing field for years, and anyon who thinks that it is should probably take a good look at their industry.

If the netweork felt Imyus should go because he is too much of a liabiility, that's OK. But they shouldn't be acting because of pressure by a pressure group. And black spokesmen shouldn't have been calling for him to be fired. They should have attacked his opinions severly and even said that they hope he looses listeners, but not asked for his head.

True 'Dat, PAD, True 'Dat...

Except that, as I've pointed out before and will point out again as many times as it takes, this is _not_ a free speech issue. Don Imus is not in jail. He has not been deprived of liberty or property by the government for his speech. I will now underline those words, "by the government", because that's what the First Amendment is there for, to prevent _the government_ from depriving people of their liberty or property for speaking their mind.

Don Imus can continue to call anyone he wishes a "nappy-headed ho". Nobody is going to stop him (although he might want to be careful about his audience. Assault and battery is illegal, but many people practice it anyway.) Don Imus can go ahead and self-publish a book, or start up a podcast, and can even call it 'Don Imus' Nappy-Headed Ho Show' if he wants. He might even be able to convince someone other than CBS and MSNBC to pay him for it. Stranger things have happened.

But he does not have a constitutional right to his own radio show. Plain and simple. He wasn't pulling in the guests, he wasn't pulling in the sponsors, so CBS fired him. They get to do that.

Imus leaving was not due to a "pressure group" if you watch and read between the lines of what has finally come out from NBC. On Meet the Press Gwen Ifiel (And I probably misspelled her name) mad e David Brooks look foolish, had Russert stammering and really spoke to the heart of the matter. She made more sense than anyone else. Go watch it online, I believe NBC places it on-line now.

Inside NBC the employees were upset. Some of the African American staff really let their feelings be known, but it sounded like the other races did as well. NBC on Dateline Sunday is another reveal that Imus and company did not get it and the executives listened and understood how bad this was. One statement was that at the end of the day NBC had too decide how they as a News division wanted to be known. I interpreted that as not wanting to be known as turning into "FOX" and the reliance on hateful tactics to be successful. It has really been years in coming.

At the end of the day it was the African Americans in positions to make a difference spoke up. Vice Presidents, and the like. Ifiel said it best, ten years ago when she had stuff said about her, there was no one to speak up.

Imus is a little fish caught in this net. He will likely be on sattelite radio, and that's fine. Let those that like his bitter comedy pay for it, but NBC and later CBS did right. This is not a matter of Free Speech, but the way we use public airwaves. What really needs to happen is when these Political radio guys like Beck, Bortz, Savage, Limbaugh, etc. start doing the same, the spotlight gets shined on them.

Let's face it, Imus was poor at apologizing and in the end came off as not really being genuine. The Rutgers Ladies Basket Ball team did not deserve the 10 to 15 minute slur on their character by Imus and his co-host. You use the public airwaves, you have to be ready to lose that privilage when you cross the line.

I figure most will disagree with me, but that is ok. Thing is that this is a topic that needed to be discussed in our nation.

It seems all these people want us to live in a communist society with no freedoms. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I personally do not like Imus, but am first in line to say he has a right to speak and not have to worry about being staked to a cross for it. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon if a white guy says something offensive, but would step off if another race said something of a slur. In the eighties when hate groups were all over talk shows, everyone in the audience would stand up and speak out against the KKK if they appeared. But when a black hate group appeared they felt they were justified in their hate. Hate is hate also. Let's see Sharpton ever go against someone of color in his crusades...

"But he does not have a constitutional right to his own radio show. Plain and simple. He wasn't pulling in the guests, he wasn't pulling in the sponsors, so CBS fired him. They get to do that."

And if you can find anywhere where I said he *did* have a constitutional right to his own radio show, then everything you said would be relevant.

What I *did* say was that a group of journalists should be the foremost defenders of combating words with words, not shutting down a forum altogether.

PAD

"And if you can find anywhere where I said he *did* have a constitutional right to his own radio show, then everything you said would be relevant."

You are the one turning this into a freedom of speech issue. Your entire post is implying that the NABJ is helping violate Imus' freedom of speech instead of protecting it. You are the one that is framing this as a Constitutional issue.

It also seems that you, like so many others, do not seem to understand that the first amendment only deals with what the government can and can not do to you in regards to free speech. Now maybe I'm wrong, and the NABJ called for the government to crack down on Imus (as Sharpton did with his ridiculous call for the FCC to investigate). If they did, and if you have a link that you could give us to prove that, then yes, you're right. Otherwise you are wrong.

Y'know, I'm a pretty liberal guy. But I simply cannot find it in me to defend a guy who uses his national sopabox to hurl crude personal insults against at a bunch of 20-year-old girls who have never done anything worse than lose a basketball game.

Every journalist that worked in the news divisions of these companies did have a right to speak out and say we do not want to be confused as journalist with someone who is not. When Imus used actual journalist to give credence to his "comedy" a professional journalist had every right to say he was not right and this hurts us all that work here.

This is not about free speech, but about what speech we as a society will accept. For years politicians and others who enter the public forum have been fair game, even when raicist, sexist, hateful, hurtful , and down right mean remarks have been made. Imus was one of MANY who made a living on such tactics to be successful. What cannot be overlooked is that he said these things about a group of young women who had played their best and been a Cinderella team. They were students who did not deserve to be spoken about like that. Those of you that have kids, would you overlook the remrks made about child?

Again with the Dateline "half" report, The executive that was working directly with Imus stated three things that made it worse. He said Imus went on Sharpton's Show knowing it would be a public flogging, but 1)Had no answer to the changes he was making to not do this again. 2)Kept saying "you people" and argued instead of being contrite and listening. 3)He no idea of what punishment he could come up with for himself.

I think in the end, Imus got it, but it too little to late.

"It also seems that you, like so many others, do not seem to understand that the first amendment only deals with what the government can and can not do to you in regards to free speech."

And it seems that you, like so many others, cannot read simple statements.

I never said it was a First Amendment issue. I said that as journalists they should be defending "the spirit of" the First Amendment. Because I'm not...y'know...stupid, and because I actually *do*...y'know...read things as they're written, I'm aware that the First Amendment refers to governmental action. "Congress shall make no law" was the tip-off.

I'm saying that the *spirit* of the First Amendment stretches beyond those words, however. That the paramount consideration of the exchange of words should be what Hopkins said in "1776"--"In all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about."

And I'm saying that the fact that the journalists do NOT see it as a free speech issue is limiting and wrong, because that is exactly and precisely what it SHOULD be. Since their livelihood depends upon the specific wording of the First Amendment, then they should be the first to defend its spirit.

Because you know what happens when people find excuses to close down sources of speech they don't support? It provides just that more of a toehold for the eventual closing down of sources of speech they do support.

And reporters should understand that. The fact that they don't speaks volumes.

PAD

"Y'know, I'm a pretty liberal guy. But I simply cannot find it in me to defend a guy who uses his national sopabox to hurl crude personal insults against at a bunch of 20-year-old girls who have never done anything worse than lose a basketball game."

What's most impressive is that you're not a 20 year old girl. Yet interestingly I, a Jew who lost relatives in the Holocaust, can find it within me to defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie. Different strokes, huh.

PAD

In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

But they didn't. They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down.

In saying they wanted Imus shut down, the NABJ simply exercised their own free speech. It's not like they were elected Chancelor of Germany -- they're the NABJ. If the NABJ releases a periodical, they are very casual in extending its influence commercially. Their outcry seems no more a betrayal of free speech than your right to raise doubt to their legitimacy.

I don't think it's the NABJ who has earned your ire -- I think it's the ACLU. If you're going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.

And -- as demonstrated by coverage of missing women extending only to whites, like Jessica Lynch (more of a sleeping beauty than the Ellen Ripley she was portrayed as), Elizabeth Smart, and the runaway bride -- the need for a National Association of White Journalists seems one of indulgence and fortifying existing privileges.

"Except that, as I've pointed out before and will point out again as many times as it takes, this is _not_ a free speech issue."

I've noticed that whenever someone advocates the curtailing of free speech, it's always because it's "NOT a free speech issue." It's an interesting consistency in the discussion, right up there with (1) people saying, "I'm in favor of free speech BUT" and then proceed to put the lie to the first half of the sentence, and (2) people misquoting Oliver Wendell Holmes about fire in crowded theaters.

PAD

PAD:

What is the issue with the Holmes quote again? I ask as someone previously chastised for using it who knows he shouldn't but can't remember why. (If there's a link to a place that explains it so that you don't have to go to the trouble of typing out an explanation, that'd be great, too.)

Thanks,

Eric

"I don't think it's the NABJ who has earned your ire -- I think it's the ACLU."

Well, I *would* think that if I were ignorant of the ACLU's mandate and scope. But since I happen to know that the ACLU is designed to defend incursions on the Constitution, and since this wasn't an incursion on the Constitution, then obviously...

PAD

Sorry PAD, but it's not only *not* a free speech issue, it's *not* a spirit of free speech issue, either.

Free Speech is something that Imus's employers have, too. He represents them. In effect, they are saying everything he is saying, whether they put up disclaimers to the effect or not.

Thus, they have every right to fire him if they want to. Should they have fired him in this case? That's a whole issue in itself. But it has nothing to do with the spirit of free speech.

This is like saying that you can't close a nasty thread your message board because it would violate the spirit of free speech. It doesn't. Your board, your responsibility, your rules.

If I may interject myself into the debate between PAD and Scott Bland:

I think the crux of the issue is the difference betwen what is legal and what is morally right. What the NaBJ did was legal. They used their right of freedom of speech to express their disapproval of what Imus said and said that CBS and MSNBC should both fire Imus for it.

On the other hand, the question is, was it morally right for them to use the bully pulpit to pressure the two networks to fire him? On this point, I have to agree with PAD is always better to counter hate speech with more speech rather than trying to silence it.

And that is what they have done. Now, you can argue that Don Imus can start his own blog or stand on a street corner and talk about "nappy-headed hos" all he wants. And, from a strictly Constitutional reading you would be right. But, the other side of the coining is, if one pressure group can claim a victory by forcing Don Imus off the air, what's to stop another group from doing the same? Next, an extremist religious group could try to force the Discovery Channel to cancel a program because it doesn't say that dinosaurs were killed in the Great Flood. Or kill a health program because it isn't "abstinance only". Or a muslim group could force Fox to cancel 24 because it portrayed some muslims as terrorists.

No, Don Imus does not have a Constitutional right to keep his show. If his show loses money for whatever reason, the networks have the right to take away the microphone that they were paying for.

But, as I said before, if people from outside CBS or MSNBC force Imus off the air for being an ass, due the rest of us truly have freedom of speech? Or do we just have the freedom to say only things that do not offend certain groups? Becuase, now that Sharpton and Jackson had Imus' head for their wall, you can believe that other groups who find things on TV and the radio that they don't like are taking notes.

"What is the issue with the Holmes quote again? I ask as someone previously chastised for using it who knows he shouldn't but can't remember why. (If there's a link to a place that explains it so that you don't have to go to the trouble of typing out an explanation, that'd be great, too.)"

Yeah, y'know what? Let's pre-empt it to save time.

Sooner or later some yutz always says, "Well, you know, free speech isn't absolute, because the first amendment doesn't give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater." First of all, yes it does...if there's a fire. Holmes stated that the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic. Furthermore, the statement was made in connection to a case called "Schenck vs. the United States," in which the government fined and jailed a man who advocated the notion that the draft was unconstitutional and that potential draftees should lobby their representatives in congress for change. He did not falsely shout fire, did not cause a panic...in fact, his efforts didn't stop a single draftee from reporting for duty. Nevertheless the court upheld his being punished for advocating notions that are far more mild than much of what currently passes for normal discourse on the internet. In other words, people hold up a decision from one of the most egregious curtailings of free speech in the history of the SC and act as if it excuses curtailing free speech now.

PAD

"Thus, they have every right to fire him if they want to."

Christ on a crutch, what does it take to actually stick to a topic? I mean, I understand thread drift, but what IS is about free speech that causes discussions to derail THAT fast?

Please, I'm begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have "the right" to fire him.

PAD

...since this wasn't an incursion on the Constitution...

Ok, you only dismissed the constitutional issue a few minutes prior. No need to post your "obviously"s at me.

"But, as I said before, if people from outside CBS or MSNBC force Imus off the air for being an ass, due the rest of us truly have freedom of speech? Or do we just have the freedom to say only things that do not offend certain groups? Becuase, now that Sharpton and Jackson had Imus' head for their wall, you can believe that other groups who find things on TV and the radio that they don't like are taking notes."

You get a cookie.

PAD

When words and ideas are banned, we all lose. Jackson and Sharpton are racist hate mongers IMO. When was the last time either called attention to an injustice suffered by a non-black?

"Ok, you only dismissed the constitutional issue a few minutes prior. No need to post your "obviously"s at me."

Since I in fact never said it was a constitutional issue in the first place, then obviously I do.

PAD

Peter, I'm ashamed of you. This is not a free speech issue. No one from the government stepped in to force the hands of CBS or NBC. The people at the NABJ and regular people like me did that and the companies decided. Free speech wasn't violated. In a way free speech triumphed because by Imus was silenced by the screams of others crying out for a better society.

Please excuse the sloppy arrival of a point as much as you can:

And I'm saying that the fact that the journalists do NOT see it as a free speech issue is limiting and wrong, because that is exactly and precisely what it SHOULD be....

Sooner or later some yutz always says, "Well, you know, free speech isn't absolute, because the first amendment doesn't give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater." First of all, yes it does...if there's a fire. Holmes stated that the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic.

As far as the Rutgers womens basketball team did not accept money for sex, Imus was the guy shouting fire where there was no fire, and the free speech inconsistency you cite does not apply to the NABJ.

Since I in fact never said it was a constitutional issue in the first place, then obviously I do.

If I were the only one you had to make this clear to, I couldn't disagree.

"Please, I'm begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have "the right" to fire him."

It was in the 6th paragraph of your initial post. "They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down." You said that asking the station to fire Imus is violating the fundamentals of free speech.

So they have an opinion about whether or not the station should continue with Imus, and you call that a problem with the spirit of free speech. PAD, if you're willing to call what was said "thread drift" after saying that, then you're not being honest with yourself about this subject.

Peter, I believe you're read most of my postings here and over at Newsarama pertaining to the Gordon Lee case. I'm a pretty staunch advocate not only of the First Amendement but of the broader concept of free speech. And I understand the distinction you are making between the First Amendment and the spirit of the First Amendment.

Just wanted to get that out of the way.

I find myself somewhat conflicted on this issue. My natural instinct is to bristle at Imus's firing, because you are correct: give censors an inch, they take a mile. Bad ideas are best fought with good ideas.

Yet one of the duties of a journalist is to act as a "filter" or a "gatekeeper." You go with this story because it's newsworthy, you reject that one because it's not. You print this letter to the editor because you judge it is worthwhile, and throw that one away because it isn't.

I guess what I'm struggling with is the question of whether or the NABJ's stand violates the spirit of freedom of speech. One could argue that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And while Imus may no longer have access to as wide of an audience, he has by no means been silenced. Hell, if he wants he can set up a cheap Web site and offer his bile via streaming audio.

I was surer of myself before hearing Gwen Ifill's impassioned talk on Meet the Press yesterday. I'm even less sure what to think after reading your impassioned words. Personally, I need some time to reflect on this before I arrive at an opinion. And I think it is important as a citizen that I DO form an opinion and act on it.

I'd welcome any further thoughts you'd care to share regarding the above, Peter.

"Peter, I'm ashamed of you. This is not a free speech issue. No one from the government stepped in to force the hands of CBS or NBC."

God almighty.

PAD

"Please, I'm begging you: Show me where I said his employers did not have "the right" to fire him."

It was in the 6th paragraph of your initial post. "They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down." You said that asking the station to fire Imus is violating the fundamentals of free speech."

Yeah? So? I still never said that Imus's bosses didn't have "the right" to fire him. I said that the *journalists* betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by *demanding* for him *to* be fired.

Journalists are the defenders of the free speech. Radio executives are the defenders of the financial bottom line. I think it reasonable to hold the former group to a higher standard of moral obigation.

None of which, yet again, relates to CBS's "Right" to fire Imus.

PAD

"I find myself somewhat conflicted on this issue. My natural instinct is to bristle at Imus's firing, because you are correct: give censors an inch, they take a mile. Bad ideas are best fought with good ideas."

Ironically, I think one of the best forums for the bad ideas and good ideas on this issue to be hashed out would have been Imus's show. The fact that that forum has been crushed is where the tragedy lies.

PAD

Peter, I was going to ask just how likely it was that such a conversation would've taken place. Then it occurred to me: those who were putting pressure on CBS and NBC to axe Imus could've instead applied pressure to force Imus to let them on his show. They could've used their influence to widen the public dialog rather than to restrict it.

I am still grappling with the issue but you have given me food for thought and perhaps helped me take one step closer to gaining clarity on the issue. Thanks.

Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said. OF COURSE the NABJ has the right to say anything they want. OF COURSE NBC has the right to fire Imus. OF COURSE any of us have the right to misinterpret anything PAD says here and post comments that make us look dense.

The question is should we? To me the answer is no for any number of reasons. Journalists, as PAD pints out, have a vested interest in being able to speak freely, without fear of being fired. They are setting very dangerous precedent for themselves and I am willing to bet that more than a few of them may live to regret it. Even as we speak, partisans on the left and right are literally pouring over every transcript they can find of off the cuff statements they will try to use to get people they don't like off the air.

It's already having an effect. Rosie O'Donnel is, in my opinion, a poorly informed windbag who has flirted dangerouly close to being a full time nut. Nevertheless, I would not support any movement to get her fired from THE VIEW. She has just announced that she will no longer call for Bush's impeachment on the show. Presumably she will also refrain from her 9/11 conspiracy nuttiness as well. The fact that she is doing this out of fear should make us all worry, even those who are glad that she won't be espousing opinions we don't share.

I don't actually have any problem with a group that calls itself the National Association of Black Journalists. It's just that I had assumed they would have put a greater importance on the "journalists" and not the "black". That does not seem to be the case.

If you're going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.

Nonsense. Being for free speech does not mean absolute support for libel, slander, fraud, communication of threats, obscene phone calls, or any of a number of crimes. It's like saying the NRA must support people who use a gun to commit a crime if they are to be consistant.

I also didn't see where PAD said "absolute".

>Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said.

Hey Bill, no reason to call everyone here an idiot. ;)

"If you're going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.

Nonsense. Being for free speech does not mean absolute support for libel, slander, fraud, communication of threats, obscene phone calls, or any of a number of crimes."

Not to mention that there's nothing unconstitutional about firing a reporter for fabricating a story--which was the case in all of the above--so it's a loopy comparison no matter how you slice it.

PAD

Maybe the problem is that in some instances Free Speech is being painted with braod strokes in terms of the Ideal, and painted by more narrow means in terms of the appropriateness of good people standing up and saying, enough is enough.

I urge you to try and hear Ifill's remarks on Meet The Press. She is the real voice of sense on the issue. Taking Sharpton and then Jackson, who was way off base this time around, out of the lead in statements might help.

You know, you evoked your cultural standing. Why? To make a point or as a status? I realized that eventually and hoped you would bring this up. You see, on a small scale, I can take offense to the terms "Christ on a Crutch" and even "God Almighty" as terms that as a Christian offend me. But, I don't. You have free speech to say that. Now if you were to take my Real name and compare me to James Dobson or Pat Roberson, That would be a personal attack as you are insulting me and making me be seen as that type of Christian. Everybody has something that can be considered offensive.

I believe in free speech. I understand these hatemongers in the KKK and Skin head groups have the right to say and spew their hate. Had it been a derogatory remarks against Jewish people, I would agree with the same outcome for Imus. I can see free speech, but I also have the right to say I do not agree nor want to prop up the ignorance that had been tolorated for years by both NBC and CBS.

I do want to say thank you for sticking to the debate and not losing control. I hear the passion in your voice. What I read as lost is that it was not just the outside forces that pressured the companies. Their employees said ENOUGH!

Got to let this go, but I am sure there will be much more round and rounds on this. In the end, I bet most are closer to beleifs than apart.

"Peter, I was going to ask just how likely it was that such a conversation would've taken place. Then it occurred to me: those who were putting pressure on CBS and NBC to axe Imus could've instead applied pressure to force Imus to let them on his show. They could've used their influence to widen the public dialog rather than to restrict it."

I'm betting it wouldn't have taken any pressure at all. Imagine the different scenario if the NABJ had put forward the following statement: "We are utterly appalled at the substance of what Don Imus said. That said, we defend his right to say it, and think that he should offer a representative of our organization a chance to come on his show and discuss the particulars." I don't doubt for a moment that Imus wouldn't have welcomed it, and it could have spurred genuine discussion rather than accomplishing what it did: Squelch it.

PAD

"I believe in free speech. I understand these hatemongers in the KKK and Skin head groups have the right to say and spew their hate. Had it been a derogatory remarks against Jewish people, I would agree with the same outcome for Imus."

I say I believe in free speech, and you say you believe in free speech.

Except Imus HAS made derogatory remarks against Jewish people, including the heads of Simon & Schuster, for whom I've worked. Yet if he had been fired for those remarks, I would be protesting just as aggressively as I am now.

It's not enough simply to believe in free speech in the abstract. You have to believe in it in practice, or else all you really believe in is lip service TO free speech.

PAD

Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should "Get AIDS and die.' and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?

I am not baiting you here. I'm seeking to understand your stance.

I know this is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but I keep thinking about the guy who got blasted a few years ago for using the word 'niggardly.' I kept waiting for the people who were trying to get him fired for being exposed as a bunch of poorly-informed vocabulary-deficient pinheads for not knowing the word was not related to what they thought it was, but it never happened.

I'm sorry I just can't accept this as a free speech issue. Nobody, not one person, is preventing Don Imus from saying what he pleases, no matter how stupid or racist it might be. He was fired from his job for saying something that was patently out of line -- that's life. Don Imus is not being prevented from saying what he likes because he could start a blog tomorrow and the site would most likely be one of the most visited on the web. Don Imus' free speech is not being curtailed because he will find a sponsor for his garbage and be as big as ever. Just because our country has free speech does not mean that speech can't have consequences. And Imus' consequences were to lose his sponsors and his job; again, no one is preventing him from saying what he likes. He's not being censored. No one is editing what he says. He's not a dissident put in jail for daring to speak his mind. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. This is a man who said something stupid and disgusting and deservedly lost his job. And he didn't lose his job because of what he said; he lost his job because sponsors did not want to be associated with him. That's the marketplace folks.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 16, 2007 10:09 AM

Why are so many people here not able to read what PAD actually said?

Because a lot of people believe that the right to do this or that also entitles you to a "criticism-free zone." If you accept that premise, much of the criticism of PAD is justified.

Problem is, that premise is a pile of crap. I remember arguing with a friend of mine who owns a comic-book store about the practice of putting a one-week old comic-book in the back-issue bin and jacking up the price. He asked me, "Don't I have the right to run my store as I please?"

I replied, "Sure you do. Hell, if you wanted to operate your store wearing nothing but a tank top and cotton briefs, you could. You'd be in compliance with laws against indecent exposure. I suspect store traffic would decline, though."

See what I mean? Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's a wise thing to do. And I can question the wisdom of something without questioning your right to do it.

Any questions?

Three points:

1) I completely understand that Imus's employers have a right to fire him, and that they should probably have done it earlier to disassociate themselves from racist speech. I certainly can understand African-Americans feeling better that such speech is no longer sanctioned by the network.
But, I'm looking at it from the point of view of African-Americans. And it seems to me that even the impression that Imus lost his job as a result of political pressure groups twisting the arm of the network is bad for Africa-Americans and the issue they are fighting for. It creates the false impression that African-Americans are stronger than they really are, and that they are using their power with a heavy hand. It makes Imus look like a victim, and distracts from his original outragous statements. It also makes it seem as if African-Americans are not committed to the spirit of free speech, instead of them being the ones using free speech to its fullest in order to label Imus as what he really is.

Nowe, it's possible that this was simply tthe last straw for the network, who anyway should have and actually was planning to say goodbye to Imus. But then from a PR standpoint it lookes even worse that it seems as if Imus lost his job because of politically powerful African-American spokesmen and organization instead of because he was a longtime racist.

2) Socialism. Not a very popluar word in the US. But one of the good things about socialism (without ignoring its bad aspects), what it added to the achievement of documents like the US constitution was in showing that private companies, private organizations, economic forces, can become as much of a threat to freedom as the government. The constituton was worried about the government, but the danger that private companies or organizations can somehow silence people is also troubling.

Certainly an organization of journalists should be concerned about that as well as the threat of the government curtailing the constitutional right of freedom of speech.

3) I have no problem with the idea of a National Association of Black Journalists. Sub-groups in society sometimes feel the need to create organizations in order to protect and promote the interests of their group in the public arena, so as not to be poerless in the face of the power of the majority. There's nothing wrong with that. It's empowerment. But if such organizations use their rightfully gained power in a heavy handed way, or even if they are just perceived as doing it, it causes more harm than good to the very same group whose interests they are trying to protect.

"Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should "Get AIDS and die.' and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?

I am not baiting you here. I'm seeking to understand your stance."

It's a fair question, and the answer is no, he shouldn't have been. Or if they felt compelled to do so, they should have also fired the exec who hired him in the first place. Otherwise they're just being mealy-mouthed. They knew what they were getting when they hired him. He'd made no secret of his ultra-conservative leanings. He wrote books about the subject, for heaven's sake. No one compelled them to hire him and, for that matter, no one compelled liberals or gays to listen to him. To hire someone whose entire gig is being offensive and then firing him for being offensive...I just don't get that kind of thinking.

PAD

I don't get how people can let their agendas blind them into being so short sighted. If the NABJ doesn't defend Imus' free speech, how can they expect anyone else to step in to support their member's free speech? It's as if they don't think their free speech will *ever* need defending.

"In a way free speech triumphed because by Imus was silenced by the screams of others crying out for a better society."

How is that a better society?

A better society would be shrugging off one man's viewpoints if you don't agree with them. An even better society would be an open discourse amongst both parties. An ideal society would not have racism as an issue at all.

For myself, I have but one question: isn't Imus considered a "radio shock jock"?? If so, why is everyone so surprised that he said something SHOCKING, on the RADIO, about JOCKS?? (ok, 2 questions)

Let me put forward the following scenario:

A revival of "HAIR" is mounted. It's well-directed, well-acted, criticially acclaimed for how much its anti-war stance relates to modern day, and ticket sales are strong.

NABJ gets together and declares that the songs "Colored Spade" and "Three-Five Zero Zero" which includes the line "Prisoners in Niggertown, it's a dirty little war" should be cut from the show. The producers refuse to do so. The Revs Sharpton and Jackson pile on and lobby the theater, and the theater owners--not wanting the grief--pull the plug. No other theater on Broadway will touch it. Show's over.

But of course the argument is that it's not REALLY censorship because "no one is stopping" other theaters around the country from mounting productions...without the offending songs, of course.

You guys okay with that?

PAD

On this point, I have to agree with PAD is always better to counter hate speech with more speech rather than trying to silence it.

On the other hand, in the marketplace of ideas, there are both postive and negative responses to stimulus. I'm not so sure that eliminating all negative responses is the best way to make sure that the marketplace works.

And another thing..if Imus was working in a journalistic capacity, he was doing a pretty poor job of it, violating principles press people generally hold dear. Being a bully and throwing unfounded accusations is just not something a journalist does--and it's not something out of line for a journalist to condemn.

I'm paraprhasing several ideas here, and probably doing a bad job of conveying any of them...but the mark of a good man is in what he does in the face of bad things. From the meek that rise up to be heroes in the face of the worst evils, to regular men that step to defend beaviour that they find legal, but reprehensible.

What we have here with Imus is an example of people behaving badly because they can get away with it. It's the proverbial "would you commit murder if you knew, 100%, that you would never be caught or found out." Imus' has made a career on being a jerk. He's a jerk to everyone, pretty much. His fans consist of people he hasn't attacked lately, or those that have thick enough hides that they can laugh at themselves when they are the target of Imus jokes.

So, outside his fans, he's got very few friends.

No surprise, then, when that long list of people that'd consider themselves to be Imus' enemy is presented with a perfectly acceptable and legal means of committing career murder, they take it. It's leterally mob mentality, only there's no illegal act taking place.

Granted, I think everyone on some level understands the problem with the actions. Maybe not behind the actual firing from MSNBC, if the network is being truthful. And any sentence with "network" and "truth" in it should make us all suspect at this point. But perhaps the execs at MSNBC really did have a bout of conscience, and decide they didn't want such trash associated with their network any longer.

Then again, NBC's current lineup of shows includes...The Apprentice, where the contestants are rarely models of our best citizenry...The Miss USA contest, highly controversial of late for it s objectification of women...Saturday Night Live, which essentially makes comedey at the expense of someone or some group...their wesite features Triumph, the Comic Dog/Hand Puppet, no exactly a model of PC sensitivity...and the Office, which belittles and satirizes a predominatly white office environment. NBC isn't exactly a paragon of sensitivity and positive programming.

So the claims that NBC acted because it's employees were upset, and that it was somehow trying to do the right thing, seem empty to me. Maybe if NBC's lineup and programming overall change over the next few seasons, I'll change my opinion on that. But for now, it seems like NBC was just caught up in the swell to get away with career murder.

For this is a free speech issue. Any time a group decides to boycott something because of an expressed opinion, it involves free speech. Not an impermissable attack on free speech, but an attack on free speech all the same. As some have tried to point out, the Consitution only prohibits the government from trying to infringe on free speech. Absolutely correct.

But why do so many people assume that only the government needs to be concerned with curtailing free speech? The ideals of free speech are the the exchange of ideas...even bad ones...is more valuable than having a society where unfavorable expressions are stifled. The response to an idea you don't like should never be to try and silence that opinion by taking away his voice...it should be to counter it with ideas of your own. This exchange over Imus demonstrates is that certain groups can bring enough public and potential consumer pressure to bear on corporations to influence programming. Almost secondary is the discussion over the actual topic of racially and sexually insensitive statements. Also glossed over is Imus reaction...and almost immediate apology, a willingness to meet those expressing offense to DISCUSS the issue, and also to meet the subjects of his words to personally offer his apology and, once again, DISCUSS the matter.

Isn't that the true purpose of free speech? To generate debate, discussion? To have ideas lead to the creation of even more ideas? If our reaction of an idea we don't like is to cut off the income of the person expressing the idea, our entire basis of free speech is jeapordized?

Don't believe me? Why is the Rutgers team getting death threats? Because some...maybe Imus fans, maybe just bigots...blame them for the consequences (which, personally, is highly ignorant, because the team and players, so far as I know, haven't called for Imus' termination...ever). And then there's the potential backlash of Imus fans', and other groups that find such attacks against the ideals of free speech distasteful while also misunderstanding the concept, for retailiating against the networks and sponsors that abandoned Imus. Because that's what happens when you boycott because of speech...there's going to be someone out there, like you, that doesn't agree with your speech, and decide to try and punish you by taking away their support of your commercial product.

Is that legal? Totally. Does it violate the ideals of free speech? Absolutely.

Peter, when Michael Savage told a caller he should "Get AIDS and die.' and was then fired from MSNBC, was this the wrong response from the Network?

In my opinion, it was the right response from MSNBC from their perspective, as was firing Imus in this case. As I said before, as long as MSNBC and its sponsors are paying for the microphone, they have the right to take that support away if the person in question uses it in a manner which causes them to conclude that it is in their best interest to no longer be associated with Savage or Imus.

What I believe PAD is trying to say, and I agree with, is that it is morally wrong for a group like the NABJ or individuals like Sharpton to Jackson to force the network to make that decision and then still claim that they are for freedom of speech.

Now, again, this is defining freedom of speech, not just limited to the legal/constitutional limits on what the government can do, but as a more abstract ideal for society. This is about more than just Imus getting fired for embarrassing his employer, it's about who gets to to make the decision to fire him. Should it be the market or should it be a select group of aribiters who have decided what is and is not acceptable to be heard?

And Jimmy, as I said before, just because Imus can start a blog or go on satellite (still willing to bet that any terrestrial or satellite radio station that signs him will face the same threats from Sharpton and Jackson), doesn't mean that his firing won't have a chilling effect on what is acceptable to discuss on the radio or on TV.

"Because a lot of people believe that the right to do this or that also entitles you to a "criticism-free zone." If you accept that premise, much of the criticism of PAD is justified.

Problem is, that premise is a pile of crap."

There's a problem with you application here. I agree, free speech doesn't mean you should be in a criticism free zone. But that's not the case here. Imus wasn't just criticized...he was terminated. Using the comic-shop analogy, it's not enough that business would drop...to make the analogy parallel, you'd have to say some parent comes into the shop, sees the way the clerk is dressed, and then petitions the city council to shut the place down. Not because of bad sales, but because she doesn't agree with the way the shop is run.

That's not the ideals of free speech, that's the ideals of oppression and stifling expression and freedom because you find something distasteful.

If she'd just expressed her distaste to the owner, and told him she's never shopping there again, and then maybe tried to get others to likewise stop shopping there, that'd be different. Maybe only slightly, but at least it puts the idea into circulation, and gives others a chance to discuss the topic and make their own decision.

The Imus parallel would be to see what happens with his ratings. If his ratings continued, or even went up, that'd be proof that, for all the public outcry, it's still good business. If his rating go down, Imus and his networks could decide if they wanted to alter the format of the show, or choose termiation alltogether. But by going directly to termination, before that, you eliminate any benefit gained from the exchange of ideas, and all you do is stifle it in related areas.

I don't see that this is about the First Amendment since no one has said Imus can't continue to make racist and sexist comments.This is about facing the consequences of those comments. He exercised his rights, and now he's being forced to accept the consequences of doing so in the manner he did. It appears it been decided that those consequences will be to lose the privilege of his own radio and television show. As such, he's just lost the means to exercise his first amendment right to such a large audience as he previously enjoyed.

In all the rhetoric I've heard surrounding this incident, I've never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not.

Whether these consequences are over the top, I don't feel it's my place to to say. After all, I'm a white man. That means I'm neither black, nor a woman, and certainly not both, nor am I affiliated with the Rutgers team in any way. I have no experience with what it's like to be the targets of language like that, and I have no idea of the impact it had on those women, or anyone in those segments of our society. How can anyone who has not felt the full impact of those remarks truly understand it.

All I can say about it is that, regardless of what you feel about them, Imus is now facing the consequences for saying what he said. That's something we all have a responsibility to do when we say something. That is what I see all this as being about, and that is most people seem to be missing.

It's a fair question, and the answer is no, he shouldn't have been. Or if they felt compelled to do so, they should have also fired the exec who hired him in the first place. Otherwise they're just being mealy-mouthed. They knew what they were getting when they hired him. He'd made no secret of his ultra-conservative leanings. He wrote books about the subject, for heaven's sake. No one compelled them to hire him and, for that matter, no one compelled liberals or gays to listen to him. To hire someone whose entire gig is being offensive and then firing him for being offensive...I just don't get that kind of thinking.

That's a good point. I had the same reaction when Pepsi pulled their sponsorship of Madonna (whome I despise as a performer) because she made a sexually explicit video with imagery offensive to Catholic. Um, did they not see her previous work?

On the other hand, I can see the POV of these companies. They hire celebrities to promote their products or produce entertainment content that will attract sponsors. If the celebrity does something that causes them to lose sales or sponsors, then, since that was the opposite of their stated goal, they are within their rights to pull the plug.

Savage was hired by MSNBC because he was a provocative firebrand. IIRC, he was actually hired to replace Mr. Sensitivity Phil Donahue, whose show was tanking. So yeah, they hired Savage precisely because they knew what they getting and were hoping that his freak show would attract viewers, much for the same reasons that Viacom kept Howard Stern on the air. Should the executives at MSNBC have realized that it was inevitable that Savage would go "too far" and end up costing them sponsors? Sure, it was stupid of them not to expect it, but I think that's a separate issue as to whether or not they were right to can him when his statements started to cost them sponsorhsip.

I don't see that this is about the First Amendment since no one has said Imus can't continue to make racist and sexist comments.This is about facing the consequences of those comments.

And I see this particular discussion here as being about who gets to decide what those consequences should be: His employers or NABJ/Al Sharptaon/Jesse Jackson? Remember that both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two-week suspension and sensitivity training was sufficient punishment for his offensive remark. It was only after continued pressure from the above that they switch it to termination.

In all the rhetoric I've heard surrounding this incident, I've never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not.

Then I don't think you've been reading my comments, because I've been very clear that Imus had a responisiblity for his speech, but his responsibilities were to his employers, not the NABJ.

Bobb Alfred, either you missed my point or I did a poor job of making it. My illustration was offered in support of what you and PAD are asserting, not in opposition to it.

I wonder if 90% of these comments would have been eliminated if PAD had written "spirit of free speech" instead of "spirit of the first amendment." That seems to be where a lot of people have hangups.

Yogzilla touched on the point I was going to raise. Imus is/was a shock jock. He isn't, in fact, a journalist. But the fact that his radio show was simulcast on MSNBC seemed, in some people's minds, to elevate him to journalist status. Now, if an actual professional journalist had said something like this during their news program or in a news article, I could almost see calling for his/her/it's head. But the NABJ getting involved in this, doesn't that break one of the rules of journalism, ie, don't make yourself part of the story?

So much for tolerance.

Sean, at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, it sort of depends on how you define a journalist. Imus was an interviewer. Numerous national politicians had appeared on his show, even despite his reputation for being a shock jock. He had a big audience and many political figures wanted to reach that audience. On of the current presidential candidates (I forget which, Mitt Romney maybe) even announced his candidacy on the show.

Does that make him a journalist? Maybe, but then I guess that makes Bill O'Reilly one, too. And I don't want to got there.

"NABJ gets together and declares that the songs "Colored Spade" and "Three-Five Zero Zero" which includes the line "Prisoners in Niggertown, it's a dirty little war" should be cut from the show. The producers refuse to do so. The Revs Sharpton and Jackson pile on and lobby the theater, and the theater owners--not wanting the grief--pull the plug. No other theater on Broadway will touch it. Show's over.

But of course the argument is that it's not REALLY censorship because "no one is stopping" other theaters around the country from mounting productions...without the offending songs, of course."

Well, seeing as the owners of the theater had a choice about whether to cave to pressure, I don't have a problem with the scenario. In addition, nothing, except an unwillingness to risk the wrath of those who shut the first show down, is stopping other theaters from putting that show on with the offending songs intact. As far as I know, there's nothing stopping the director from finding his own venue for performing the show, one where he doesn't have to worry about the theater owners.

In addition, NABJ, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, and anyone else who may wish to, has every right to put pressure on those theater owners as long as they don't break to law to do so.

It's a matter of who's standing up for what they believe in, and people making a decision about what is more important. Is it more important to to make a stand, even if it loses money, preventing you from continuing with getting your message out? Is it more important to try to find another way of getting your message across? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, the people making the decision see that maybe the people putting pressure on them are making a point they agree with?

If you have a message or a goal, and it's getting lost in the noise of a scandal, you have to decide for yourself whether it's worth the fight, or whether the issue you're fighting over isn't what's important. If you do decide to fight, or you're employing the the people responsible for the fight, you have to make a decision about what's important.

As for you never saying it was a First Amendment issue, you're right. I misread what you said. The point that it's not a free speech issue still stands, though. It doesn't matter whether it's Don Imus or your theater production, they still have to face the consequences of what they say and how they express themselves.

"Bobb Alfred, either you missed my point or I did a poor job of making it. My illustration was offered in support of what you and PAD are asserting, not in opposition to it."

Bill, y'know, I had to read your post three times before I could decide which way you were trying to come out. In the comic shop, were you trying to tell your friend that he shouldn't put jacked up week old comics in the bin, or that he should? It seemed like you were telling him he shouldn't...essentially, that he shouldn't do something in his profession that might piss off his customers, because his business might suffer for it.

I took that to be an implication of Imus, in that he needed to be careful what he said. I take it you meant instead for it to implicate MSNBC and CBS, for acting too quickly to silence him. That such moves are totally legal, but might themselves not be the best way to run their business.

Which, no surprise, in that case I'm in total agreement with you. Anyone can react to negative pub. The true test of morality is to refuse to act before the consequences arrive. MSNBC and CBS made the choice...sometimes for decades...to air Imus. It's not like Imus woke up that fateful day and said "I'm going to try something new, something I've never done in my decades of broadcasting...I'm going to make a joke in poor taste directed at someone that might not deserve it." He's made a career on that, and MSNBC and CBS have both made probably billions of dollars selling add time on it. Pepsi and Staples and a slew of other advertizers have made countless connections with customers because of it. When the public outcry against him was small, did those entities have a problem investing in Imus, in giving him air time, in supporting him with his show? No. Not at all.

And, so far, who's the only one to pay the commerical price of his actions...which, at least according to my brief exposure to his show, had little to distinguish it from any other day his show was on? Imus himself. The countless programmers and marketing executives that supported his show for decades, they don't even get a second glance.

That's where the hypocrisy of this whole thing comes from.

I'm going to try to address Mr. David's post, unlike a lot of the people here. If some of you will go back and read it, he was wondering why an organization of black journalists would want to shut down Imus's show as a free speech issue.

Y'see, I don't think the organization was criticizing him on simply a matter of race. They were criticizing him because he was a fellow journalist who had gone too far.

Yes, Imus is a journalist, because the line between journalism and entertainment has just about been obliterated. There are people who are getting their news from Colbert and Stewart, and finding it more incisive than what's on the network. You may recall that Stewart tore into Tucker Carlson for this when invited on Crossfire as a guest (which some say cost Carlson his job).

That's fine for the liberal minded. Others see Rush Limbaugh as the ideal replacement for Walter Cronkite's anchor chair (which nobody at CBS has adequately filled). The recent screaming match between O'Reilly and Rivera (some think it was as honest a feud as a steel cage chainsaw match in the WWE) was Meet the Press for this age.

So, Don Imus is a journalist. Is it not right for an organization of journalists to establish a code of conduct for journalists? And if Imus wasn't a black journalist, why was a substantial portion of his daily news describing blacks and black behavior? I say that both Imus and Mo'Nique are black journalists. Wanna bet they aren't?

"And I see this particular discussion here as being about who gets to decide what those consequences should be: His employers or NABJ/Al Sharptaon/Jesse Jackson? Remember that both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two-week suspension and sensitivity training was sufficient punishment for his offensive remark. It was only after continued pressure from the above that they switch it to termination."

NABJ and Revs. Jackson and Sharpton are closer to being part of the verbally targeted segment of our society than I am. They have every right to put pressure on the sponsors, on the broadcasters, and on Imus himself. They are more likely to have a better understanding of the true impact those words had than many of the people in charge of making the final decision would ever be. Regardless of the pressure, only the executives at MSNBC and CBS were in a position to make the final decision. They had to consider the reputations of their companies, the feeling of their employees, possibly the stockholders, and their ability to make money instead of losing it, and not necessarily in that order.

"Then I don't think you've been reading my comments, because I've been very clear that Imus had a responisiblity for his speech, but his responsibilities were to his employers, not the NABJ."

You're right, I hadn't read all the remarks. I only recently found this page and I haven't had time to read all the remarks.

Bobb Alfred: "I take it you meant instead for it to implicate MSNBC and CBS, for acting too quickly to silence him. That such moves are totally legal, but might themselves not be the best way to run their business."

You got it.

Moreover, I was trying to point out that criticizing my friend's business practices is NOT tantamount to questioning his right to engage in such practices. By the same token, PAD's criticism of the NABJ's pressure tactics is NOT tantamount to questioning their right to engage in such tactics.

Whenever someone says, "Gee, I don't think this was the best thing to do," people have this odd habit of asking, "What, you don't think so-and-so has the right to do that?" It's a complete non-sequitur.

Don Imus has said many things that I find offensive and stupid (which aren't necessarily the same thing). So have Savage, Limbaugh, Medved, Stern, and a local neocon radio personality named John Carlson.

I have a very simple reaction to all of the above. I don't listen to any of them. They're perfectly free to continue their ignorant spewing all over the airwaves, just as I am perfectly free to decline to hear any of it. If enough people elect to not listen, pretty soon they dry up and blow away - no sponsor is ever going to back a show with no audience.

If, instead, you pressure their employers into firing them, all you've demonstrated is that you can be a bigger bully. Imus never pressured Rutgers to get rid of the women's basketball team; Savage never pressured his caller's employer to fire him; Carlson hasn't even pressured his station to take away his show "partner", the liberal Ken Schramm. Who has done this thing? Who has thrown a chill over the entire idea of the "marketplace of ideas"? Why, that would be the National Association of Black Journalists.

As PAD pointed out, the irony is staggering, if not the least bit amusing.

(Oh, PAD - I also think you're soon going to find yourself shrouding this Mike character. He has a tendency to ignore anything that contradicts his own beliefs, and seems to think that shouting louder constitutes some sort of effective counterargument. I gave up on him back during his first exchange with one of the Bills, some time back...)

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at April 16, 2007 11:54 AM

I gave up on him back during his first exchange with one of the Bills, some time back...

Speaking as one of the Bills, I only wish it had not taken me so long to do the same.

FlameStrike: Again, no one is disputing that NABJ/Sharpton/Jackson have the right to express their disapproval of Imus' statements, nor has there been any attempt to minimize the emotional impact of Imus' racist/sexist comments. As I said before, just because they can organize people and put pressure on a station to fire Imus, doesn't mean it was morally right for them to do so.

I can't stand Imus. I never listened to his show. I also can't stand Bill O'Reilly (in case you hadn't noticed), but I wouldn't organize a campaign to get him ousted either.

Let me put this way: both MSNBC and CBS decided that a two week suspension was an appropriate punishment for Imus. Why should anyone from outside those organizations be able to force them to impose a harsher penalty?

Remember this: Imus did not get fired by CBS and/or MSNBC. He was fired by the sponsors that paid $50 million per year for the show. Once they left, CBS and MSNBC could not keep that show on the air.

My problem is that Imus was right on one thing: Why didn't Al Sharpton (and by extension, Jesse Jackson) apologize to the Duke students accused of rape? Their words were much harsher, and nearly ruined the lives of three students, two of which weren't even in the house when the dancer accused them of raping her. Read the Newsweek article on the incident, and you'll see just how disgusting that whole thing turned out to be.

FlameStrike, I think you're missing some information...chiefly, that PAD never said those ogranizations don't have the right to act as they did. But as Bill Myers suggests, and in the words of Goldbloom channeling Crichton, just because they could, doesn't mean that they should.

As representatives and members of a minority that has been oppressed, persecuted, enslaved, murdered (and to some degree continues to suffer from the effects of those atrocities), the leaders of those communities and organizations should understand, more than anyone, the impact of censure. Slaves didn't just not have free speech rights...they could be killed for speaking out. That's a kind of censure that thankfully doesn't exist at large in the US today.

But as the victims of such control, you'd think they'd be the first to understand the negative implications of such control, and refrain from using tactics that silence offensive words. Clearly, a white slave owner shooting a slave for speaking up is of a different caliber than Sharpton and Jackson bringing public pressure on MSNBC and CBS to get them to terminate Imus for speaking out. But while the scope and impact are terribly different, the base actions themselves are not. Both are an attempt to control the expression of an idea that's considered offensive to one party.

I'm just curious. Since Imus said this on a nationally broadcast format, wouldn't it be appropriate for the young women who comprise the Rutgers team to sue him for libel or slander (I'm not sure which is correct), since they are not, in fact, "nappy-headed" (two of them have exceptionally straight hair, not chemically induced, iirc) or "hos"? That way, Mr. Imus is punished, because any future funds he makes will pay for those words in a literal sense.

"Savage was hired by MSNBC because he was a provocative firebrand. IIRC, he was actually hired to replace Mr. Sensitivity Phil Donahue, whose show was tanking. So yeah, they hired Savage precisely because they knew what they getting and were hoping that his freak show would attract viewers, much for the same reasons that Viacom kept Howard Stern on the air. Should the executives at MSNBC have realized that it was inevitable that Savage would go "too far" and end up costing them sponsors? Sure, it was stupid of them not to expect it, but I think that's a separate issue as to whether or not they were right to can him when his statements started to cost them sponsorhsip."

In fact, Donahue had the highest rated show on the network, much higher than Savage ever had. Only Keith Oberman has beaten his ratings on MSNBC. No, his liberal anti-war, anti-Bush stance, at a time when the media was acting like the propaganda wing of the White House, was too much for his bosses.

Remember this: Imus did not get fired by CBS and/or MSNBC. He was fired by the sponsors that paid $50 million per year for the show. Once they left, CBS and MSNBC could not keep that show on the air.

But the question is, why did the sponsors pull out of the show now, and not after any of other thousands of other offensive racist/sexist comments said on Imus's show? The answer is because this one, for whatever reason, this one happened to get the attention of NABJ, Sharpton, and Jackson.

My problem is that Imus was right on one thing: Why didn't Al Sharpton (and by extension, Jesse Jackson) apologize to the Duke students accused of rape? Their words were much harsher, and nearly ruined the lives of three students, two of which weren't even in the house when the dancer accused them of raping her.

Well, I would first say that Nifong did far more to ruin th elives of these students than Sharpton or Jackson did, but yes, they do still owe them an apology for their rush to judgment.

"In all the rhetoric I've heard surrounding this incident, I've never yet heard anyone bring up the fact all rights also have attendant responsibilities, whether you like them or not."

That's true.

Imus exercised his free speech in a needlessly hurtful way, apologized repeatedly for his actions, and tried every way he could to make amends to the ones he'd hurt. He acted responsibly.

The NABJ has a right to free expression guaranteed them by the First Amendment. It's what their profession hinges on. Therefore it is their responsibility to act vigilently and thwart attempts to curb free expression...not initiate such curtailing themselves. They acted irresponsibly.

PAD

Should an organization of journalists recommend a media personality be fired for what they say?

No.

CAN THEY? Sure. But their JOB is to cover EVERYONE ELSE screaming over putting Imus' head on a platter, not to officially join in the chorus themselves.

Well, here's a bit of a diversion along the same lines as the current talk about Imus:

Steve Spurrier, head football coach at the University of South Carolina, commented that he wishes they could get rid of "that damn Confederate flag", and that it was "embarrassing".

"Steve Spurrier, head football coach at the University of South Carolina, commented that he wishes they could get rid of "that damn Confederate flag", and that it was "embarrassing"."

Along those lines, Superbowl Champ Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy doesn't think gay marraige should be allowed. Steve Nash thinks the war in Iraq is wrong. Should these people be fired because their comments are insensitive to some group, offensive, or unpopular?

And before someone else comes along and says "ah-ha! But these people weren't PAID to give their opinions, and thus their opinions don't reflect on their ogranizations. It's not as bad when they say it..."

In what way does this make sense? It suggests that someone that is paid to give their opinion over the airwaves for money can get fired for....doing their job. While people that aren't paid to give such opinions over the airwaves, but do, are safe because that's not their job?

"NABJ gets together and declares that the songs "Colored Spade" and "Three-Five Zero Zero" which includes the line "Prisoners in Niggertown, it's a dirty little war" should be cut from the show. The producers refuse to do so. The Revs Sharpton and Jackson pile on and lobby the theater, and the theater owners--not wanting the grief--pull the plug. No other theater on Broadway will touch it. Show's over.

But of course the argument is that it's not REALLY censorship because "no one is stopping" other theaters around the country from mounting productions...without the offending songs, of course."

You're mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.) Not that I'm excusing the reprehensible (yet clearly free speech) actions of the nappy-headed hosts who kept the furor going. In the Imus case, the direct revenue stream was from the advertisers, who were (albeit under pressure) came forward and said they were not going to spend their money for the show. Similarly, if a theater producer put on "Hair" and the general public determined they weren't going to pay for tickets for the show... well, yeah, it would fold. At least in that market.

Oddly enough, I heard a lady on the radio this morning who went to see "Chicago" playing in St. Louis, who was registering offense at hearing the word "honky". See how silly we've all gotten now that we're "tuned in for offense"?

You're mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.)

Not relevant. The FCC did not force the networks to fire Imus. The entire fracas involved private individuals and organizations.

As far as I know, the FCC did not even fine any of the radio stations that carried Imus's program. Apparently, "nappy-headed hos" doesn't violate the FCC's standards of decency. At least, not this week. The FCC's broadcast standards are about as permanent as a Hollywood marriage.

Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war? That makes about as much sense as caring what the Dixie Chicks think about Bush.

Den: "Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war?"

For the same reason that we should care about your opinions on these issues: because we all have a stake in them.

CBS and MSNBC were idiots.

They should have just replaced the stupid coward sponsors and then when Imus' suspension was up, take two weeks to look at the ratings. If they couldn't replace the sponsors because Imus' ratings plummet, THEN fire him, but not because of American Terrorists waging a war of words against words.

(Yes, I see people like Sharpton and his ilk as little better than terrorists, threatening boycotts if they don't get their way, a.k.a. economic terrorism.)

Ladies and gentleman, on a somewhat side note, but also related, whatever agency it is that regulates radio (i somewhat recall it being called the NAB...but ive seen that mentioned here as well, so that could be wrong) has been seeking legislation to regulate satelite radio.

Mostly due in part to Howard Stern, and probably a lesser extent Opie and Anthony...but the point is...this is no longer a free venue they are trying to regulate. Now why? Why is it that a service I pay for, because I want to hear uncensored views...why do certain people want that regulated? Are these people buying the service and not liking what they hear? Then why would they buy it? Why do they care if I listen to things that are indecent? I LIKE indecent things. Is that wrong? Apparently so.

The answer is simple. The politician who brought it up said that indecency should not be allowed to be aired ANYWHERE. (And the broadcastin society, for whatever hidden reasons, agreed and latched on to this.)

This is something that goes far beyond Imus...because it seems everywhere, that other people just want to make certain that other's views cannot be broadcast. It really doesnt matter if Imus said it on the radio or not...because its getting to a point where the ONLY places you can express any view that is somewhat outside the mainstream is in the privacy of your own brain, or anyonmously on the internet.

Den - "Oh, and why should we even care what a football coach thinks about the confederate flag, gay marriage, or the Iraq war? That makes about as much sense as caring what the Dixie Chicks think about Bush."

You don't have to care about their opinions, that's the beauty of freedom of speech. Just because someone can say something doesn't force anyone else to listen or take seriously or to heart those words.

But unless you are a hypocrite that doesn't actually car about Free Speech, then you should care that they are allowed to EXPRESS those opinions.

Where terrorist tactics; whether they be threats of violence, or threats to a person's ability to earn a living; are allowed to succeed, then we ALL lose.

It may be your freedom they target next...

"You're mixing apples and bicycles, though (unless the production company had to lease the theater from the public, in the same way radio stations have to lease the airwaves.)"

No, I'm really not. A comparison doesn't have to be completely one to one to be relevant. The fundamental notion remains the same: The free market showing an interest in something that is squelched into non-existence by individual groups who focus on one small part of the total production and turn it into a cause celebre. Substitute "advertisers/network" for "theater" and it's exact.

Here's the real tragedy of the thing: If the emphasis had been on education...on exploring how such language makes people feel...then Imus could really have done some good. The people who listen to his radio show might possibly--through discussion of it on the air--been prompted to consider just how hurtful certain words and expressions can be. Because they listened to Imus and were influenced by him, then maybe--just maybe--they might have been influenced in a positive way.

Instead that opportunity is gone, and Imus's faithful listeners are left with a very different lesson entirely: Black People Are The Enemy. Specifically, the Black People Who Were Responsible For Imus Being Fired Are the Enemy. And if you don't believe me, then I refer you to the hateful e-mail directed to the basketball players and the death threats directed to Al Sharpton.

This is why--again--the answer to free speech is more free speech. When you smash the speaker into oblivion, you don't generate good will. You simply generate more anger amongst the speaker's audience.

PAD

In fact, Donahue had the highest rated show on the network, much higher than Savage ever had. Only Keith Oberman has beaten his ratings on MSNBC. No, his liberal anti-war, anti-Bush stance, at a time when the media was acting like the propaganda wing of the White House, was too much for his bosses.

Maybe, but Keith Olberman doesn't agree:

http://www.tvguide.com/news-views/columnists/the-biz/default.aspx?posting={2911903E-35C2-4F37-B067-320CF68F3AAE}

TVGuide.com: One of your predecessors, Phil Donahue, was an early critic of the war and was canceled when he had the highest ratings on MSNBC.

Olbermann: He was the highest-rated show on the network. But there were two things people leave out of the equation. I would be the first person to scream about bias against a liberal point of view anytime — or a bias against a conservative point of view. When the show started in Secaucus, New Jersey, nobody watched. When they put him in New York with a studio audience, the ratings increased; unfortunately, the cost doubled. The staff was twice the size as mine. It was very expensive to produce for a "we don't want to put a lot of cash into it" branch of the industry. That memo about him being too liberal at a time of war — it really was a straw on a very laden camel's back. There was a consideration there, but it was marginal.

Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist.

PAD, this statement implies that the NABJ is limited to blacks only - nothing in the NABJ application states any kind of race requirement.

Most people don't seem to realize that organizations like HBCU's, NABJ, and NSBE are not 'blacks-only' clubs -they are organizations that were formed to support blacks in specific industries and occupations.

If you're white/Asian/whatever, and you genuinely want to support their causes (and you meet all the necessary requirements), you are free to join.

But unless you are a hypocrite that doesn't actually car about Free Speech, then you should care that they are allowed to EXPRESS those opinions.

Um, Bladestar, was that the first one of my posts in this forum that you have ever read?

I believe that I have been very consistant in that I strongly believe that everyone should have the right to express their opinions. My point is, that there is not reason why we should freak out if a football coach or entertainer's opinion on something that is irrelevant to their job differs from our own. If you liked the Dixie Chicks' music before one of them said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas, that should change your opinion of their music, nor should whether or not you agree with Steve Spurrier about the confederate flag should dictate whether or not you're a USC fan.

So in short, everyone must have the right to express their opinion, but what the opinion is, should not carry any additional weight just because that person is a celebrity.

Bill Mulligan, that sort of cost analysis goes on all the time in the TV industry. I remember when Star Trek: TNG was cancelled at the seventh season even though the ratings were as strong as they ever were. Paramount was pretty up front about why it was cancelled: The show had simply gotten too expensive to produce. The contracts for the cast members were up for renewal and everyone was expecting a raise. After crunching the numbers, the studio decided the show wouldn't be profitable any more.

Den, your quote was used for convenience, the line you quoted wasn't aimed at you specifically.

It was aimed at the "Why should we care what other people say, even if they are celbrities" mind set expressed in the quote, my statements had nothing to do with the weight of the statement based on "celebrity". I really don't see where I implied that.

I really don't see where I implied that.

I didn't think you did. I was merely expanding on my original thought which was about this tendency in society to give credibility to the opinions of celebrities simply because they are celebrities*. Looks like we both took general statements and thought they were aimed at us specifically.

*See Tom Cruise trying to pass himself off as an expert on psychiatry.

But, but....Tom Cruise has studied the history of psychiatry. He said so...that makes it so, no?

Hi there, PAD and friends,

As a regular reader of your site, I know that you're a good liberal soul, so I hope it's okay that I post this message. My brother attends Virginia Tech. Fortunately, he was not on campus today. However, the fact that he could have been, and would most likely have been in Norris Hall... fills me with dread and outrage. Today is a tragic day, and I feel the need to do something, even if it is a small thing. If you feel similarly, my wife and I are encouraging people to go to the Brady Campaign website, which has a petition calling for making access to firearms more difficult, to which you can add your name:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/ (the petition link is on the right side of the page)

There really is no such thing as "gun control" in Virginia. I fear that what happened today will only motivate politicians to finger-point and the NRA to claim that more metal detectors are the solution. American society needs to take a hard look at itself. How many tragedies do we have to tolerate before we wake up?

I hope that everyone reading this is happy and healthy,
Jonathan

In case anyone's not seen this...here's what CNN quotes Snoop Dog's reaction to claims that hip hop and rap say worse things than Imus..

"The superstar rapper Snoop Dogg also denied any connection to Imus. "(Rappers) are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports," he told MTV.com. "We're talking about hos that's in the 'hood that ain't doing ---- that's trying to get a n---- for his money.""

The big difference I see? Imus was joking...if you've heard the clip, you can can hear him laughing about it. Whereas Snoop seems to be saying that he's talking about actual people.

So, what's worse? Making a joke about people, or using terms to describe your true thoughts about someone?

I've heard about that Snoop Dogg quote.

Here's the problem:

Once a concept is introduced into the language, it immediately expands to cover aspects far beyond its intent.

Take, for instance, sexual harrassment. It used to be something very specific: A boss or someone in a superior working position forces unwanted advances upon a subordinate and makes clear to her that her job is forfeit if she's not accommodating to him. Sex as weapon.

So where are we now? If a guy tells an off-color joke in the break room and a woman doesn't like it, she can level charges of sexual harrassment and suddenly everyone's taking sensitivity classes.

As much as Snoop Dogg wants to claim that he was referring to a certain type of woman, even if he wants to claim that such descriptions were warranted--and I don't say I agree with the idea--but it's very typical for a term to spread far beyond its original intent. Claiming now that the use it's being put to isn't what was meant, when I hear teens nowadays routinely referring to girls as a "ho" or a "skanky ho," and these girls are hardly ghetto girls...well, he's just kidding himself if he thinks that he is somehow absolved of responsibility.

PAD

"Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist."

When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That's not the case, though, so, no.

"The NABJ should have been the first, foremost defenders of the spirit of the First Amendment. To the notion that, if someone is shouting at the top of their lungs things that you find disagreeable, then the proper response is to shout back at the top of yours. In a free society, you go for the words of your opposition, not the throat."

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee anyone the right to have a radio show, or to have that radio show simulcast on cable news. This fact should be blindingly apparent to anyone who thinks about it for longer than half a second or so.

"In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it.""

Imus' right to say whatever he wants is completely and utterly separate from the question of whether he should have a radio show.

"But they didn't. They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down. Popeye-like, they decided that this was all they could stands cause they couldn't stands no more. Their belief, apparently, was that they shouldn't have to tolerate Imus's racist opinions anymore."

No. Their belief was that Imus' racist opinions should not be given hours of radio airtime five days a week.

"Except they were wrong."

Actually, you're wrong.

"Because that's the price you pay for living in a free society."

The price of living in a free society is that a racist creep gets to broadcast his racism on the radio every morning? Where did you buy your copy of the constitution, sir?

"One's business should always be with what your opponent says, not with your opponent himself, and people calling themselves journalists should have understood that."

Someone who calls himself a writer should understand that the right to say whatever you want does not equal a right to use whatever platform you want -- particularly when that platform is the public airwaves, and when your ability to access those airwaves is only possible thanks to your employer's broadcasting license and equipment and studio.

"The answer to free speech is always more free speech...not the shutting down of that speech."

Imus' speech has not been shut down. He can still say whatever he wants to say. And -- this is the part you never want to acknowledge -- other people can say whatever they want in response to Imus' speech, including telling Imus' sponsors that they won't buy the products of a company that sponsors racist filth, and telling Imus' broadcasters that they're not going to listen to a station that airs racist filth. This is a simple concept and one that you seem physically incapable of understanding.

Was your right to free speech violated when you were fired from the Hulk? Was your right to free speech violated when DC canceled Fallen Angel? The answers to both questions is obviously no. And just as your free speech rights were not violated in those cases, telling the folks responsible for putting Imus on the airways that they should stop supporting his racist filth does not, in any way, shape, or form, violate Imus' right to free speech.

I'm surprised I have to explain this.

"The NABJ has a right to free expression guaranteed them by the First Amendment. It's what their profession hinges on. Therefore it is their responsibility to act vigilently and thwart attempts to curb free expression...not initiate such curtailing themselves. They acted irresponsibly."

As I believe I saw someone else here pointing out, the perception does exist that Imus was a journalist. Given that such a perception exists, I don't find it irresponsible for a group of journalists to try to hold another journalist, even if he's only a journalist by perception, responsible for what he said, or to hold him to a higher standard.

In any case, no one has curtailed Imus freedom of speech. No one is preventing him from continuing to say what he wants, no matter how offensive. The only thing he's lost is the privilege of his own show with such a large audience. I've never heard of anyone having the right to their own radio show, much less having the right to have it funded by someone else.

So, I don't see that the NABJ has done what you see them as doing. Maybe, like Imus being a journalist or not, it's another matter of perception.

"The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee anyone the right to have a radio show, or to have that radio show simulcast on cable news. This fact should be blindingly apparent to anyone who thinks about it for longer than half a second or so."

Just as it's blindingly apparent that you're spouting an awful lot of arrogance for someone who clearly hasn't bothered to read any of the previous posts where many replies to the by-now-tired irrelevancies you've brought up have already been posted.

PAD

"In any case, no one has curtailed Imus freedom of speech. No one is preventing him from continuing to say what he wants, no matter how offensive. The only thing he's lost is the privilege of his own show with such a large audience."

And right there--RIGHT THERE--is where you just shot yourself in the foot.

"With such a large audience."

There was, and is, a large audience for Don Imus. That should be what determines whether or not his show goes off the air; not pressure groups who owe their living to the concept of free speech; not judgmental assholes with their own axes to grind and potential benefits (how convenient that Jackson and Sharpton, both with radio shows, have knocked off a competitor while getting publicity for their own shows.)

If the audience deplores what he says and deserts him, THEN it makes sense to cancel his show. But they didn't. And judging by the backlash we're seeing against the poor basketball players and against Sharpton, I'm thinking they're making it very clear that they object to the plug being pulled.

Claiming that "no one has curtailed" his freedom of speech when there was a concerted effort to accomplish just that...frankly, you're kidding yourself.

PAD

I think if Imus had just called them ugly hos, he'd still have a job. If he had just called them ugly, there would have been no national coverage.

"When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That's not the case, though, so, no."

How many black people living today were American slaves??? NOT A GODDAMN ONE! Quit lying and spouting this ignorant bullshit! (and don't forget it wa often their fellow black man that sold them to the white man)

Where did you get YOUR copy of the constitution? Radio, TV, and oh, by the way, RACIAL SLANG isn't mentioned in it ANYWHERE, nor is "Protection of your feelings". If you don't like what any TV or radio personality has to say, geuss what Junior? You can turn it off or change the station, You do NOT have the right to take it away from everyone else however.

As long as this double-standard continues I don't see any chance if the racism people complain about getting any better.

Time for white people to quit apologizing for being white and walking on egg shells and for blacks to realize that just because they say they can use words and whites can't doesn't make it so.

The injustices of the past can't be dumped on the sons and daughters of the perpetrators. Our system doesn't work that way, and no rational system can. So quit with the "Oh, you owe us for slavery and the racism of the past." crap.

Grow up and look to the future and think about how everytime you use a word or phrase but tell us when we use it it's an insult, that just makes you look so weak and inferior.

Frankly I think the silent majority of the black people in this country needs to open it's collective mouth and tell the Sharptons and Jacksons and Snoop Doggs to "Shut up, you don't represent us all. And we're tired of you referring to our daughters and each other as "Niggers/Niggas" while claiming that the word is such a horrible and total insult to black people."

(left out the "as hos" part of "referring to our daughters")

Y'know, I really wasn't going to have anything more to say on this. I really wasn't. Then I read Chris's post. Chris may not be aware that my people, that is, the Irish, were also used as slaves, notably under Elizabeth I. Don't even get me started on "Irish Need Not Apply."

Chris's post further illustrates the problems that I, and some others, have with this. A relatively small but increasing-in-volume group was calling for Imus's head on a platter after his Rutgers statements. That's their right. What I want to know is why they weren't making the calls for Imus to be off BEFORE this? His insults have pretty much always been equal-opportunity. Where was the outcry before this?

Now for a simple concept that Chris doesn't seem capable of understanding. One of the prices of living in a free society is that others can (GASP!) disagree with you. You might not like it that someone is racist. Fine. I'm not crazy about it myself. However, not only does living in a free society mean that racists, evangelists, weathermen and car dealers can have air time, living in a free market culture means that also. If there's an audience to be advertised to, they will be there. An apparently large segment of the population listened to Imus's show. Lots of people to advertise to. It's not as much a free speech issue as a free market issue.

Last thing--Chris, don't know what your profession is. Don't care, either. But I'm sure whatever it is, it someone questioned your abilities because of an opinion, as you did with PAD, I imagine you'd be at least slightly miffed. PAD is in FACT a writer, he doesn't just call himself one, and my ability reach behind me and pull a dozen or so titles written by him proves that fact. Throw in that I don't know that PAD or pretty much anyone else here said that Imus has a right to use whatever platform he wants, and your arguement loses most of whatever credibility it might have had.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That's not the case, though, so, no.

Affirmative action programs are a form of institutionalized discrimination against whites, and are widespread. Slavery was abolished over a century ago.

I find the idea that blacks cannot be held to the same standard as whites to be repugnant. It implies black inferiority, and as history has shown no race is inherently inferior to any other.

By the way, Peter is Jewish. It's a good bet that he knows a thing or two about discrimination.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. It does not guarantee anyone the right to have a radio show, or to have that radio show simulcast on cable news. This fact should be blindingly apparent to anyone who thinks about it for longer than half a second or so.

It was also blindingly apparent from the get-go that Peter David never said anyone's First Amendment rights were violated. He deliberately referred to the spirit of the First Amendment. Free speech encompasses more than just the idea of preventing government censorship.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Imus' right to say whatever he wants is completely and utterly separate from the question of whether he should have a radio show.

We've already covered this: no one said Imus has a right to have a radio show. But firing him limits the public discourse and encourages censors to keep pushing inward. That's not just bad for Imus, it's bad for everyone.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

No. Their belief was that Imus' racist opinions should not be given hours of radio airtime five days a week.

And rather than engaging the now-conciliatory Imus on his show, where they had a chance of changing some minds, they squelched the show and blew an opportunity to widen the national dialog about race.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Actually, you're wrong.

Is he? You certainly haven't said anything very persuasive.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

The price of living in a free society is that a racist creep gets to broadcast his racism on the radio every morning? Where did you buy your copy of the constitution, sir?

Actually, that's kind of how it is. Even if no radio station would ever take him ever again, he could set up a Web site and offer streaming audio.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Someone who calls himself a writer should understand that the right to say whatever you want does not equal a right to use whatever platform you want -- particularly when that platform is the public airwaves, and when your ability to access those airwaves is only possible thanks to your employer's broadcasting license and equipment and studio.

But Peter has already demonstrated he understands that. His point is that the best way to combat bad ideas is not with censorship but with good ideas.

When corporations limit the national discourse, it may not be illegal but the effects are still negative.

By the way, Peter doesn't merely call himself a writer. He writes for a living. He is therefore by definition a writer.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Imus' speech has not been shut down. He can still say whatever he wants to say. And -- this is the part you never want to acknowledge -- other people can say whatever they want in response to Imus' speech, including telling Imus' sponsors that they won't buy the products of a company that sponsors racist filth, and telling Imus' broadcasters that they're not going to listen to a station that airs racist filth. This is a simple concept and one that you seem physically incapable of understanding.

But firing Imus has limited his audience and polarized many of them. The benefit to that is... what?

By the way, your angry, mean-spirited tone very much reminds me of Imus' rhetoric. Racism isn't the only form of reprehensible behavior, as you are demonstrating.

Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2007 06:26 PM

Was your right to free speech violated when you were fired from the Hulk? Was your right to free speech violated when DC canceled Fallen Angel? The answers to both questions is obviously no. And just as your free speech rights were not violated in those cases, telling the folks responsible for putting Imus on the airways that they should stop supporting his racist filth does not, in any way, shape, or form, violate Imus' right to free speech.

I'm surprised I have to explain this.

Yes, well, that's because you're accusing someone else of failing to comprehend, when in fact the lack of comprehension is your own.

I don't know why this makes you so angry. Are you black? Do you feel that this is a dialog between a bunch of whites who just don't get it? Because as I've said, it's no secret that Peter is Jewish and is probably no stranger to discrimination.

Michael T said:
"Ladies and gentleman, on a somewhat side note, but also related, whatever agency it is that regulates radio (i somewhat recall it being called the NAB...but ive seen that mentioned here as well, so that could be wrong) has been seeking legislation to regulate satelite radio.

Mostly due in part to Howard Stern, and probably a lesser extent Opie and Anthony...but the point is...this is no longer a free venue they are trying to regulate. Now why? Why is it that a service I pay for, because I want to hear uncensored views...why do certain people want that regulated? Are these people buying the service and not liking what they hear? Then why would they buy it? Why do they care if I listen to things that are indecent? I LIKE indecent things. Is that wrong? Apparently so. "
-----
These are the same people who are trying to further restrict cable television AND also trying to restrict free access to the internet.

Chris: ""Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist."

When Caucasians face widespread institutional racism after centuries of being kept as chattel slaves, this will be a somewhat relevant argument. That's not the case, though, so, no."

Doesn't enter into it. If you say that it is a-ok to exclude all people from your group other then just one type of person, then you can't say that others cannot do the same. If you say that you can have a black, Asian, Native-American, Hispanic or women's only organization then you have to allow a white or men's only organization of the same kind. To sanction or promote the one while denying the other is discriminatory.

Now, on to groups like NABJ, Imus and his firing.

I'm not entirely sure that they're failing the spirit of the First Amendment here. Plus, there are a several additional factors in this that do add to the overall discussion.

Imus has had more then a few racial comment snafus of late and he has promised to not do it again each time he has been called on it. This may have just been the final straw after having Imus break his word so many times prior to this.

Besides, I'm not sure that criticizing how someone chooses to say something is quite the same as criticizing someone actually saying something. Some of this may be over tact and style as much as it was over content. Imus and his crew were talking about how the team looked a bit rough with their tattoos and whatnot. There are a million different ways to say something like that without putting racial references or insults into it and would never have brought this firestorm down on his head.

It would be like commentating on an outbreak of gang related violence in a predominantly black inner city area caused by a conflict with a rival Hispanic gang trying to move into that area. A commentator could say almost exactly what I just said to describe it and not raise an eyebrow. Now, if the commentator were to say on a live TV or radio broadcast that a bunch of "violent n*****s" and "gang banger w******s" were shooting each other downtown.... Well, I think the commentator would find himself unemployed.

Same thing with Imus. I think that groups like NABJ can criticize the way he said something rather then what he was saying without running counter to the First Admendment. You can say just about anything and be fairly safe in job like that, it's just how you chose to say it that can put your butt in a sling. Imus chose to say something in a poor way on the public airwaves and he got spanked for it.

Bladestar said:
"Time for white people to quit apologizing for being white and walking on egg shells..."
-----
Wow. This sounds..., well, it sounds weird.

I've heard variations of this at work, usually from lesser educated, angry, white men. From reading previous postings by Bladestar, I know he is not one of the "lesser educated", so I have to ask what makes Bladestar so angry?

Tom Delay (remember him?) has started a campaign to get Rosie O'Donnell removed from The View.

The double-standard bullshit and censorship, that's what pisses me off.

Hope you enjoy it when you start getting censored. Start standing up for free speech rather the applauding the squelshing of it.

But, but....Tom Cruise has studied the history of psychiatry. He said so...that makes it so, no?

You're being glib, Bobb, you're being glib.

These are the same people who are trying to further restrict cable television AND also trying to restrict free access to the internet.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6175549.html

Senators propose labels for adult Web sites

Operators of Web sites with racy content must label their sites and register in a national directory or be fined, according to a new U.S. Senate proposal that represents the latest effort among politicians to crack down on Internet sex.

The requirements appear in legislation announced Thursday by two Senate Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana, that they say will "clean up the Internet for children."

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Intriguing. Does this legislation include a working definition of "racy content"? Would "Something Positive" (www.somethingpositive.net) have to register because sex is fairly frequently mentioned (especially between Aubrey and Jason, who are married), or because Aubrey operates a (fictional, of course) website catering to tech support and phone sex (Nerdrotica)?

For that matter, would Television Without Pity have to register because of the frequent use, in their Motivators thread, of pictures of various leading men, either with wet shirts or underwater, and with the caption, "WATER - It's not the only thing that's wet"?

Where do we draw the line between slightly racy humor and pornography? Or is this going to wind up being like the infamous NetNanny, in which one can't access porn, but neither can one read of the latest advances in the fight against breast cancer, because both include the word "breast"?

(And with that, I stop NetNanny from accessing this very site - sorry about that, PAD!)

The answer to free speech is always more free speech...not the shutting down of that speech.
****************
SER: Peter, I think the reason I have trouble agreeing with your POV here is that Imus admitted what he said was a boneheaded mistake. In other words, Imus isn't really analogous to an Ann Coulter. I would definitely be in your corner if the NABJ or whoever set out to keep Coulter from running down liberals (no one seems to have successfully done this). Imus himself, though, would probably have gone on record as saying that he was not about to refer to black women as "nappy-headed hos" in the future.

So, I don't really see this as about protecting his speech (even speech as odious as insulting kids). I view the incident similar to if I was goofing around and, as an editor for The Times, printed a headline that said NIGGER RUNS FOR PRESIDENT about Barack Obama. That might be charmingly satirical if I'm THE ONION but in the context of THE TIMES, it ruins their reputation.

Basically, I believe Imus was canned because he was stupid and he made his organization look bad. That's business to me. If he was really deprived of his first ammendment rights, of his right to slam black kids on the air, then he might actually have the guts to say that. He hasn't.

And I think the NABJ and others were calling him on the fact that he would use hateful speech and then the next day have a politician on his show. Those are mixed messages. Hillary Clinton isn't going to turn up on Howard Stern any time soon.

Ultimately, free speech *is* really a government issue, spirit and all. Why? Because everything else boils down to business. And no one has a right to an audience. I mean, Michael Richards could have stood his ground and said that his calling audience members "niggers" was part of the "performance art" of his show but people would have stopped coming to the show and club owners would not have booked him.

Taking it back to Imus, this whole incident was like a gangrenous leg -- and his employers decided to ampute before the whole body was compromised. Acting when they did, they can appear to have made a moral stand rather than a base corporate stand when a few months down the line this just got worse. And believe me, that's where this was headed. Imus was going to lose high profile guests. He was going to lose sponsors. And CBS was going to be tainted in association. The decision they made was that they stood more to lose from their association with him than they had to gain.

There are plenty of venues where I can have my ethnicity insulted. I don't think there's any threat of that vanishing any time soon. Limbaugh is still on the air -- but he is clever about what he says (and he goes right after Sharpton and Jackson).

*******************
Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist.
****************
SER: I think that's a strawman -- only in that there are many groups for white ethnics -- Italians, Jews, Greeks, and so on. They might not use so overt a title as the NABJ but they do exist. Moreover, the NABJ serves a purpose as a networking organization for blacks that didn't really exist prior to its creation but that existed by default for whites.

Of course, here's where I play both sides of the issue: I actually hate the NABJ and groups of that sort. I'm not big on tribalism of any kind. When I was an intern at a newspaper, I felt very self-conscious about being the first black intern or having won what was viewed as a "black" scholarship (even though I also qualifed for "white" scholarships). One of the reporters at the newspaper was the nicest woman in the world and who really made an effort to make me feel welcome -- for no other reason than she was nice and identified with the geeky teenage intern. However, a couple black reporters there sort of adopted me as a "pet." To them, I was really just the black intern. They didn't attempt to identify with me on any level other than that. One day, they invited me out of to lunch. I didn't realize until we were leaving that they had only invited black reporters and had intentionally excluded the reporter who -- to me -- wasn't just the "white" reporter but who was, well, my friend. One of the reporters defended this by saying, "Sometimes you just want to hang out with your own, you know." I remembered thinking, "No, I actually prefer to hang out with my friends." And that's sort of been my viewpoint ever since.

And, long story short, that's why I don't do NABJ functions.

***************
Tom Delay (remember him?) has started a campaign to get Rosie O'Donnell removed from The View.
*************
SER: It's disappointing when Republicans reveal that they actually *don't* believe in capitalism and a free market economy. Don't watch THE VIEW if Rosie offends you, Mr. Delay (granted, although I freely admit to being a viewer, you think he wouldn't). It's basically democracy in action. Enough people turn off the TV because they don't like what she says; the show loses viewers; the ratings decline and the producers seek to rectify that by canning her. It's business.

I tend to think people stage these sorts of boycotts because they are impatient of actually *waiting* for the free market system to work.

SER: "One of the reporters at the newspaper was the nicest woman in the world and who really made an effort to make me feel welcome -- for no other reason than she was nice and identified with the geeky teenage intern."

I had that EXACT same experience when I was the geeky teenage intern at a radio news station.

Small world.

"And right there--RIGHT THERE--is where you just shot yourself in the foot."

No, I'm not even seeing a scratch on my boot. Either of them. I appreciate the concern though.

"There was, and is, a large audience for Don Imus. That should be what determines whether or not his show goes off the air; not pressure groups who owe their living to the concept of free speech; not judgmental assholes with their own axes to grind and potential benefits (how convenient that Jackson and Sharpton, both with radio shows, have knocked off a competitor while getting publicity for their own shows.)"

I don't see anyone stopping Don Imus from funding his own show, buying his own equipment, and broadcasting on the internet. I don't see anyone stopping him from buying a transmitter and getting a license and finding an open frequency and broadcasting his show that way. Granted, I don't know how much he has or how much the equipment costs, but that, and perhaps himself, is all I see stopping him from doing so. If he did so, I don't know of any reason his audience couldn't somehow follow him.

Something else I don't see is a reason why the size of the audience should determine the consequences. The unspoken opposite side of the idea that he shouldn't have been canceled for this simply because he has a large audience could well be described as "It would be acceptable to do so if he had a smaller audience." Now, I don't believe you mean to say that, and judging from what you've said, I believe you'd object to just that occurrence as well.

What I see it coming down it is Imus is someone these broadcasters didn't want to be associated with. They had a reputation they wanted to protect, they saw that reputation being damaged by the comments and the backlash, and they acted to protect it. As far as I can see, that's as much a free speech issue as Imus being permitted to say what he said.

"If the audience deplores what he says and deserts him, THEN it makes sense to cancel his show. But they didn't. And judging by the backlash we're seeing against the poor basketball players and against Sharpton, I'm thinking they're making it very clear that they object to the plug being pulled."

And if the audience sees nothing wrong with what he said, or what they're doing in response, I'm wondering if that might not be an indicator of an even bigger problem in this country.

Obviously, based on the fact that we're here discussing it, the opportunity to have that discussion has not been lost just because Imus was fired.

"Claiming that "no one has curtailed" his freedom of speech when there was a concerted effort to accomplish just that...frankly, you're kidding yourself."

No one is stopping him from continuing to say what he wants. No one is preventing him from paying for a show out of his own pocket. No one is preventing him going on the internet and saying anything he wants. I don't see that he has had his freedom of speech curtailed. I only see a privilege being revoked. He is simply, and quite possibly temporarily, reduced to the same level as most of the rest of us in this country.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Imus was canned for being a old white guy trying to talk young, hip and urban. If Tom Joyner had said the same thing (and I'm NOT saying that he would have), would there be the same uproar?

PAD it totally right on this one. Instead of giving a chance for learning, all that's been learned is that if you scream loud enough, and make enough threats, you'll get your way.

"Instead of giving a chance for learning, all that's been learned is that if you scream loud enough, and make enough threats, you'll get your way."

I don't know about that. I'd say the government's been teaching that lesson for years. After all, that is, in effect, the definition of "politics."

I'm with PAD on this.

It reminds me of things like Ultra-Conservative Christian groups pressuring TV Networks to remove the plethora of shows they find offensive. What the NABJ did here was just as heinous and totalitarian.

Every free-thinking individual has a right to choose whatever they want to watch, listen, or read. They do not have a right to make that decision for others, no matter how just the cause.

If you don't like a idea, you may ignore it, you may denounce it, or you may present an alternate idea. You do not remove the opponent's forum.

I find myself disagreeing to a degree with PAD, and to a greater degree with his Firebrand and Chris.

1) Firebrand, suppose I and a few other posters decided that you should not have access to this blog because we find your ideas repugnant. And we pressure PAD to block you from the blog. Obviously, you could go to other blogs, since the net is very wide. But less assume fr the sake of argument that the net only had a limited number of blogs. And let's say that the more popular ones will not want to have you either, after seeing PAD throw you out, and because i have a strong pressure group. You could start your own blog instead of posting in other blogs, if you had the time, money, knowhow. But by then your ability to speak to the vast audiences that visit this blog and othe rmajor nlogs would have been significantly curtailed, and their opportunity to hear yoour words of wisdom would similarly have been curtailed. Most of them would probably have not followed you to your own blog even if they agreed with you. So you see, although in principal and legally your right for free speech would not have been hurt at all, in reality what would have happened is that my pressure group would have successfully reduced your access to audiences and worse, would have reduced their ability to listen to your words of wisdom ad decide for themselves whether to continue reading or not. The free exchange of ideas would havce been harmed.

2)As a matter of principle I tend to agree with those who say that it is bad that a pressure group forced the network to fire Imus; that it was not good for them to pressure the network that way; and that what should have determined whether the show continues was the general attitude of the audiences. However, in practice I have a hard time believing this story of Sharpton and Jackson twisting the network's arm (which some person went as far as to descibe as terrorism). It seems to me (living half a world away) that Imus has been courting trouble for some time, and that his last statement was just a last straw that drew a lot of attention and discontent -- from the general public -- which in turn caused sponsers to back away, and the network to decide that Imus is more trouble than he's worth. Perhaps they thought he was going to loose audiences. In short, that there was a real public reaction and not just a small pressure group.

Now you could claim that as an ideal Imus should remain on the air so long as he has sufficient audiences for his show, and not be fired even if he causes problem to the network as a whole or the sponsers as a whole. Or conversly you could claim that even if he had some audiences -- perhaps as racist as him -- a network that respects itself should have fired him of its own accord rather than wait for a public outcry or the supposed pressure of Jackson & Sharpton. Or you could claim that there is a public interest in giving voice and arguing with racist jerks rather than pushing them to dark corners of the media. But, if I understood correctly nobody here is questioning the corporations' right to remove a show off the air for their own economic reasons.

If you're going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.

Well, I *would* think that if I were ignorant of the ACLU's mandate and scope. But since I happen to know that the ACLU is designed to defend incursions on the Constitution, and since this wasn't an incursion on the Constitution, then obviously...

Ok, you only dismissed the constitutional issue a few minutes prior. No need to post your "obviously"s at me.

Nonsense. Being for free speech does not mean absolute support for libel, slander, fraud, communication of threats, obscene phone calls, or any of a number of crimes. It's like saying the NRA must support people who use a gun to commit a crime if they are to be consistant.

Not to mention that there's nothing unconstitutional about firing a reporter for fabricating a story--which was the case in all of the above--so it's a loopy comparison no matter how you slice it.

I took your point about the the constitution, but as far as Imus took money from NBC News (he was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus), he was subject to judgment by journalistic standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_imus :

• His exchange of insults ("fat pig") regarding his show’s former news reader, Contessa Brewer, made news as did Brewer's response ("cantankerous old fool"). When Tucker Carlson brought up Brewer on the program in 2005, Imus hung up on him, calling him "a bowtie-wearing pussy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imus_in_the_Morning :

• On the December 15, 2004, Imus in the Morning show, Don Imus referred to the publishers Simon & Schuster as "thieving Jews" and later in the same show gave a mock apology, calling the phrase "thieving Jews", “redundant”.
• On October 19, 1998, Newsday reported that Imus called Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz "that boner-nosed ... beanie-wearing little Jew boy".
• On November 30, 2006, on Imus in the Morning, Imus referred to the Jewish management at CBS as “money-grubbing bastards”.
• Sid Rosenberg, who provided sports updates on the Imus show, got into trouble when he suggested on air that tennis stars Serena and Venus Williams were animals better suited to pose for National Geographic than Playboy.
• Rosenberg also stated that Palestinians mourning the death of Yasser Arafat were "stinking animals" upon whom the Israelis "ought to drop the bomb right there, kill 'em all right now..."

You seem to agree there's nothing wrong with firing a reporter who fabricated a story. As far as Imus took money from the news division of a broadcasting company, he was fraudulently benefitting from the pretense of journalistic principle. It seems the NABJ upheld the trust other journalists failed to uphold.

If you're going to back free speech unconditionally, the ACLU not only failed Imus, they seemed to have failed Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, and Janet Cooke as well.

Well, I *would* think that if I were ignorant of the ACLU's mandate and scope. But since I happen to know that the ACLU is designed to defend incursions on the Constitution, and since this wasn't an incursion on the Constitution, then obviously...

Ok, you only dismissed the constitutional issue a few minutes prior. No need to post your "obviously"s at me.

Nonsense. Being for free speech does not mean absolute support for libel, slander, fraud, communication of threats, obscene phone calls, or any of a number of crimes. It's like saying the NRA must support people who use a gun to commit a crime if they are to be consistant.

Not to mention that there's nothing unconstitutional about firing a reporter for fabricating a story--which was the case in all of the above--so it's a loopy comparison no matter how you slice it.

I took your point about the the constitution, but as far as Imus took money from NBC News (he was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus), he was subject to judgment by journalistic standards:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_imus:

• His exchange of insults ("fat pig") regarding his show’s former news reader, Contessa Brewer, made news as did Brewer's response ("cantankerous old fool"). When Tucker Carlson brought up Brewer on the program in 2005, Imus hung up on him, calling him "a bowtie-wearing pussy."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imus_in_the_Morning:

• On the December 15, 2004, Imus in the Morning show, Don Imus referred to the publishers Simon & Schuster as "thieving Jews" and later in the same show gave a mock apology, calling the phrase "thieving Jews", “redundant”.
• On October 19, 1998, Newsday reported that Imus called Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz "that boner-nosed ... beanie-wearing little Jew boy".
• On November 30, 2006, on Imus in the Morning, Imus referred to the Jewish management at CBS as “money-grubbing bastards”.
• Sid Rosenberg, who provided sports updates on the Imus show, got into trouble when he suggested on air that tennis stars Serena and Venus Williams were animals better suited to pose for National Geographic than Playboy.
• Rosenberg also stated that Palestinians mourning the death of Yasser Arafat were "stinking animals" upon whom the Israelis "ought to drop the bomb right there, kill 'em all right now..."

You seem to agree there's nothing wrong with firing a reporter who fabricated a story. As far as Imus took money from the news division of a broadcasting company, he was fraudulently benefitting from the pretense of journalistic principle. It seems the NABJ upheld the trust other journalists failed to uphold.

Great post, PD. I'm still wondering what Imus was thinking, calling other people "nappy haired." How did he describe his? I'm thinking "desicated tribble on crack."

At first I was unsure about what should've been done with Imus, but now I say this has gone way too far.

Him being turned into public enemy #1, raked over the coals, turned into a pariah, and now FIRED? And after he apologized and tried to make amends? This is too much for uttering one sentence.

Plus, if this is how we're treating bigoted speech, why has Ann Coulter not been dropped after she called John Edwards a "faggot?" Why does Bill Bennett still have a job after he said:

"...it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down..."

Neither of them has apologized as Imus did. And there are plenty more. Jesus Christ, if people insist on doing this whenever somebody says something offensive, then they oughtta go after the worst offenders first. Whatever else you can say about the man, Imus was not the WORST offender.

Tom Delay (remember him?) has started a campaign to get Rosie O'Donnell removed from The View.

Shouldn't he be focused on his criminal defense instead?

Shouldn't he be focused on his criminal defense instead?

Yeah, when's he gonna see the inside of a courtroom, hopefully followed by the inside of a cell? It's been a while, hasn't it?

Hello, I thought I'd weigh in on this issue.

We seem to have this impression in this country that we have the 'right' to do this or that, after all, it's in the Bill of Rights, forests of trees converted into law books, legal precedence, and all that. Or that there is a shared collective value of what justice constitutes. That, at the end of the day, someone in charge will pull thier head out of thier ass and say 'Hey, that's not right, this goes no further'.

We all know that not to be the case. I am just getting over a year of neurosis and depression from being railroaded from a job with a Chicagoland Sheriff's Department where, because I had been seeing the wrong (see also: bitterly vindictive at being dumped) woman, she said anything she wanted, and was believed on the basis that A) she was a woman and B) needed to be protected against the Evil White male, I lost my job and was threatened with legal action if I tried to protest it through the Fraternal brotherhood of Police. This led to a year of nearly succumbing to drug addiction and severe depression.

Where was justice then? Where was the sense of 'This is inherently unfair, this should go no further'? Why, because it was legally and politically expedient to get rid of nameless, faceless little ole me instead of following legal protocol and actually investigating what went on. It was easier to screw the one guy instead of looking around and getting the facts, or even giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

How does this pertain to my point? This whole 'Free Speech' issue is a non-issue. Your 'rights' extend to how much money you have to get a lawyer and media coverage, and if you don't have that priveledge, you have no rights. The powers at be can do what they want to you, and you can't say or do anything because you have no power. Your opinions, feelings, and total worth do not mean anything unless you have the clout to back it up.

Don Imus, moron that he is, had committed the grievous sin of offending a portion of our society that gets preferential treatment that only applies to maybe 1 - 5% of thier total demographic - the black community. Oh, and women too, a significantly bigger demographic, but since the only people out of that pie slice who really care would be black women and bored white women who have nothing better to do than gnash thier teeth at the injustice of the world. Now we're just talking about the vocal subsection of the black community, the upper crust elite who have the money and the access to media coverage who can raise a godawful stink about an 'injustice against thier people'. And because the company didn't want to pay a lawsuit or, heaven forbid, lose advertising, they dropped him like a hot rock, because he wasn't worth the money and aggravation. Nobody cares about Don Imus, or the young black women he insulted, it's all about the money.

The vocal media whores in the affulent black community, the so-called 'experts' who are consulted any time there is a crime against black folk, they win influence and a following. They are the ones who won, and the station, for acting contrite and punishing the moron who was stupid enough to insult such a vocal minority.

Keep in mind, the upper crust of the black community is no better than the upper crust of the white community, they worship the almighty dollar just like everyone else. They don't give a fuck about an insult against the 'black community'. There is no black community. There are black neighborhoods, hell, I work in one everyday, watching the thugs shoot each other, the drug dealer with his Escalade while living in a rent controlled rat hole, the culturally reinforced ignorance and rejection of intellectuallism... If the upper crust of black society really cared about the struggle and the 'hurt Don Imus' words inflicted upon the black community', they'd protest BET off the air, the rappers, every negative stereotype of black people in the media, it'd all have to go. They'd work to destroy the negative stereotype of 'The Nigger' and thier culture of failure. But they don't, because that too makes money, doesn't it? Oh, does it ever.

Don Imus was an idiot, he was more or less appropriately sacrificed in the name of the dollar, the black Talking Heads got to notch another one on thier belt, and life goes on. Free Speech wasn't even an issue here, because we're operating under the delusion that those rights still apply, because given enough political and financial pressure nobody is safe from the axe falling upon thier neck. Don Imus, so far, doesn't appear to have the kind of clout to fend off such political pressure, after all, he's a racist jackass who hosts a radio show, no spin doctors coming to his defense. The points given above are poignant, to be sure, and I totally understand where you guys are coming from - I just wanted to share my point of view. Sorry if I went off on a little rant. I've been in a 'disappointed with black culture' mood ever since I started working security in a predominantly black suburb of Atlanta, and what did I see down Memorial Drive, not far from the DeKalb County Jail? 'Free At Last' bail bonds. The legacy of Martin Luther King and the struggle of the civil rights movement compared to the struggle a young black male goes through trying to get out on bond for being busted for a bag of weed. Disgusting.

Hmmm...

Sam, I will take you at your word and express my sorrow that you were subjected to the stigma of (I presume) being viewed as an abusive boyfriend. That's why reasonable doubt should always equal a not guilty verdict, and a person should not be convicted in a court of law or the court of public opinion unless it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are guilty.

I admit that your bitterness about the actions of black people today comes across as a bit disturbing on an emotional level, although I can certainly understand how one might feel that way. Aaron McGruder, African-American creator of "The Boondocks," has made it clear through stories in both the tv show and the comic strip that he's frustrated and embarassed by the behaviour of many black people today (Al Sharpton even criticized McGruder after the episode "Return of the King" aired).

That being said, you've gotta try to remember that even if the neighborhood you work in doesn't have a single good person in it, you can't judge people by their appearance. I'm certain you know this in your mind, but if you hang around black people who behave badly long enough without seeing any who behave well, then you may come to subconsciously look down upon the entire race. Or you may develop the preconception that most of them are like the ones you deal with in your day to day life, and therefore your first instinct upon meeting a black person from another part of the country might be wariness. Such things have been known to happen, unfortunately.

As difficult as it may be sometimes, we must try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt until they give us reason not to, and ignore how they look or speak...even if most or all prior encounters with people who look or speak that way have been negative.

I know that white males sometimes don't have it easy because there is resentment that white males had it so good for so long while black people and women were second class citizens or slaves. Also, that if there is a conflict, people may be more inclined to take the side of the woman or the black person out of a desire to make amends for how women and black people suffered in the past. But this is not always the case, and reasonable people will take sides based on the facts, and not on the basis of gender or race. I'm a pessimist in most things, but when it comes to this I have faith that the majority of people will see reason and that the future will bring a society where race and gender don't matter. I don't believe that, in the future, there will be a big swing of the proverbial pendulum resulting in white males being under the thumb of minorities and women.

From Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
Justice Holmes, dissent
"...the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purpose of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

Wow, I thought I would never see the day when Peter David would lose this badly in an argument.

Flamestrike is taking him apart...he is even getting in zings that I am laughing at eventhough I DISAGREE with him.

Anthony W obviously isn't reading the same blog the rest of us are...

"Posted by: Anthony W at April 17, 2007 06:06 AM
Wow, I thought I would never see the day when Peter David would lose this badly in an argument.

Flamestrike is taking him apart...he is even getting in zings that I am laughing at eventhough I DISAGREE with him."

For some reason I wrote Firebrand instead of Flamestrike in a post above. Talk about a Freudian slip. But Flamestrike is not winning he argument since he's basically repeating what he said at the beginning of theis thread wthout adding anything new that might make his argument more compelling. To claim that it is constitutional to fire Imus, and that he has the option to start a show elsewhere is to miss PAD's point completely. And I think PAD made his point pretty well. The fact that Imus was also apparently antisemitic beisedes his other wonderful qualities sugests that PAD's opinion is motivated by sincere concern over free speech.

It seems to me that this issue has revealed a deeper reaction in this thread against the attitudes of blacks and/or women, which is spinning out of control and beyond the good point PAD started with.

Wow, I thought I would never see the day when Peter David would lose this badly in an argument.

it's a matter of opinion--if this is an example of PAD losing an argument he might consider a second career as a high priced lawyer. From where I stand he's more than held his own.

"Wow, I thought I would never see the day when Peter David would lose this badly in an argument.

FlameStrike is taking him apart...he is even getting in zings that I am laughing at eventhough I DISAGREE with him."

What it comes down to is Mr. David and I happen to disagree about what constitutes a violation of someone's right to free speech. I feel it's not a violation to take away the microphone of someone who abused the privilege of having one, and he seems to disagree. I see it as simply a consequence of what Imus said, and he feels it's an overreaction and an infringement on his rights.

Given some of the comments here though, comments I believed were directed elsewhere, it's obvious no one here agrees with me. Fine. I've said what I had to say, as someone pointed out, many times, which was my first mistake. I'm not going to do what I should have done in the first place, and follow advice I've long agreed with.

Say what you have to say, and get out before you overstay your welcome.

"What it comes down to is Mr. David and I happen to disagree about what constitutes a violation of someone's right to free speech. I feel it's not a violation to take away the microphone of someone who abused the privilege of having one, and he seems to disagree."

Kind of the point: He didn't. The "abuse" of such a forum is clearly delineated by law: He committed no violation of FCC mandates. Even in these days of the FCC's itchy trigger finger when it comes to fines, none has been levied upon--or, to anyone's knowledge, even discussed--about Imus.

He was fired because a group of people didn't like something he said. It's called the "Heckler's Veto"--Hecklers shouting down speech that they don't like, and hiding behind one of the oldest wheezes of all: "Well, gee, we weren't curtailing his freedom of speech because he's free to speak elsewhere. Just not here." The implication is that if the Hecklers did not, say, rip out the speaker's tongue, or maybe just kill him, then they were displaying generosity and high regard for the principles of freedom of expression, which is simply monumental bullshit.

The result? A celebration of the stifling of unpopular speech instead of addressing the core issues that resulted in that speech. What else would you call death threats to Al Sharpton but a manifestation of the same spirit of speech suppression that Sharpton himself displayed, except taken to the next level? "The Chicago way," as explained by Sean Connery in "The Untouchables."

Wasted, wasted opportunity, all in the name of a small group of people exercising the Heckler's Veto with the confidence that they wouldn't be called on it.

PAD

Flamestrike, no on agrees with you because you're having an argument that isn't. It's been said, but clearly you need to hear it again...PAD never claimed that anyone violated Imus' free speech rights. Probably because no one has violated Imus' free speech rights.

However, what PAD was trying to do...the point you've missed at least three times now...is that a group of journalists...folks that make a living because of the concept and ideal of free speech, in addition to the legal protections of free speech...were among those calling for Imus to be fired over something he said. Seems to me that all PAD was doing was commenting on the hypocrisy of such a stance.

You're the one that interpolated that into PAD saying Imus' free speech rights had been violated. It's like you held your own personal game of "telephone."

So, no, you're not winning any debate, because for a debate to occur, you need two sides discussing the same topic. Feel free to come back when you want to addess the hypocrisy of a journalistic group calling for the termination of a talk show host because of comments he made on-air.

Posted by: FlameStrike at April 17, 2007 07:28 AM:

"Given some of the comments here though, comments I believed were directed elsewhere, it's obvious no one here agrees with me. Fine. I've said what I had to say, as someone pointed out, many times, which was my first mistake. I'm not going to do what I should have done in the first place, and follow advice I've long agreed with.

Say what you have to say, and get out before you overstay your welcome."

As far as I've seen, the spirit of free speech is excercised in this blog in such a way that you are welcome to stay even if nobody agrees with your opinions (although I'm not sure this is the case here).

He was fired because a group of people didn't like something he said. It's called the "Heckler's Veto..."

As far as any group of journalists are free to say "NYT, USA Today, New Republic, WaPo: you've passed fabricated stories as news -- get rid of the reporters responsible or be subject to rebranding," saying "MSNBC & CBS: you've passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as news -- get rid of Imus or be subject to rebranding" is not a hecklers' veto.

Oh, and just so we're clear, I'm not using "Heckler's Veto" in the legal terminology that requires governmental intervention, but in the broader, vernacular sense. I acknowledge that just so we don't get a lawyer jumping in dclaring, "You know, that really entails governmental involvement..."

PAD

"As far as any group of journalists are free to say "NYT, USA Today, New Republic, WaPo: you've passed fabricated stories as news -- get rid of the reporters responsible or be subject to rebranding," saying "MSNBC & CBS: you've passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as news -- get rid of Imus or be subject to rebranding" is not a hecklers' veto."

You're being completely ridiculous--which, in your capacity as current resident troll, is entirely within your purview. First you tried to say that the ACLU was somehow remiss in not supporting the rights of reporters to pass off fabricated news as reality (or that if I didn't condemn the ACLU for not doing so, I was putting forward a double standard). And now your latest comment is...I really don't know how to describe it. Idiocy. Pure idiocy. The NABJ didn't need to tell newspapers that they should fire reporters who wrote fake stories because the papers did that upon discovering it. The NABJ cannot possibly assert that what Imus said was "passed...as news" because it was obviously opinion, and joking opinion at that. They just didn't like the joke. So nothing you've said makes the slightest sense, and does nothing other than present the latest example of why a number of people on this board consider you such a waste of time that they don't bother talking to you.

PAD

Flamestrike's problem, as I noted way above, is that he's continuing to argue from a legal standpoint while PAD is arguing from a moral one. The fact that he doesn't understand that the legal issues are not in dispute means he can never win the argument.

That said, I still see two problems with the "he can just go somewhere else" argument, both of which stem from the fact that heckler's are never satisfied with just one victory. The first problem is the chilling effect this has. Even though Imus's comment was indefensible, this will now make many other people second guess what they say. Fewer people will be willing to say something controversial or try to stimulate a real debate out of fear of being the next target of a heckler. Second, even if Imus gets another radio to TV gig, I am 100% sure that Sharpton and Jackson will be focusing their attention on him like a laser and trying very hard to kill that deal as well.

First you tried to say that the ACLU was somehow remiss in not supporting the rights of reporters to pass off fabricated news as reality (or that if I didn't condemn the ACLU for not doing so, I was putting forward a double standard).

I took your point, and not at all subtly repeated that I took your point. Your wardrobe is taking that chip better than you would have thought a couple days ago, isn't it?

...saying "MSNBC & CBS: you've passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as news -- get rid of Imus or be subject to rebranding" is not a hecklers' veto.

The NABJ cannot possibly assert that what Imus said was "passed...as news" because it was obviously opinion, and joking opinion at that.

As far as Imus took money from NBC News, was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus, and a lawyrer at CBS performed any review of an agreement for the news division of a competitor to pass along those opinions under the pretense of journalism, they can.

What the NABJ did was no more inconsistent with free speech than a consensus to critically pan a movie.

What the NABJ did was no more inconsistent with free speech than a consensus to critically pan a movie.

Only if Ebert and Roeper started pressuring the studio to withdraw the movie from the theater than just saying that they don't like it.

The first problem is the chilling effect this has. Even though Imus's comment was indefensible, this will now make many other people second guess what they say. Fewer people will be willing to say something controversial or try to stimulate a real debate out of fear of being the next target of a heckler.
************
SER: Do you really view this as having a "chilling" effect? Coulter referred to a presidential candidate as a "faggot" and she hasn't lost book deals or talk show appearances (she actually gained the latter as a result of her latest lapse in sanity). Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox (and inaccurately at that) regarding his Parkinson's disease and he's still on the airwaves.

The difference was that John Edwards is a politician and Fox a wealthy actor, even if afflicted with a disease. When Edwards' wife was diagnosed with cancer, a coworker made the crass remark that "maybe now she'll lose weight." If Coulter had said this or even Howard Stern, I'm willing to bet they would keep their jobs because Mrs. Edwards is a public figure.

Imus's firing was, to me, the culmination of many factors -- one, he attacked young people who weren't in the public eye (I am convinced that he could have called Condoleeza Rice a "nappy-headed ho" with very little repercussions). It was also a pattern of behavior, so many people were probably less inclined to believe his apology. If Jay Leno had made the same joke (unlikely but bear with me), I would like to think there would be more forgiveness -- if not from Sharpton (though he would have had less ammunition) -- but from his sponsors, guests, and employers.

As to your other point, I don't see it as a negative if people "second guess what they say." Yes, the image of someone afraid to criticize the War in Iraq because of the possibility of losing their job is chilling. However, someone just taking a moment to consider the impact a joke might have is not really the worst thing in the world. For one, comics tend to do that all the time. Freedom should not mean freedom from responsibility. And there is a responsibility when one has a large audience, either in print, radio, or TV.

"SER: Do you really view this as having a "chilling" effect? Coulter referred to a presidential candidate as a "faggot" and she hasn't lost book deals or talk show appearances (she actually gained the latter as a result of her latest lapse in sanity). Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox (and inaccurately at that) regarding his Parkinson's disease and he's still on the airwaves.

The difference was that John Edwards is a politician and Fox a wealthy actor, even if afflicted with a disease."

No, the difference is that networks and advertisers aren't afraid of angry gays or angry people with Parkinson's disease. They are, however, afraid of angry Black organizations and angry Black rabblerousers such as Sharpton and Jackson.

PAD

PAD's point seems clear to me. Journalists are the first to raise the shield of freedom of speech (either legally or morally). The NABJ used their shield to attack and destroy Imus's shield, with the specific intention of removing him from the air. There's a logic loop in there somewhere.

Moreover, the underlying principle of free speech is that bad words are best defeated with better words. The NABJ did not counter Imus's words with better words. They pulled a Bill O'Reilly and demanded his bosses "cut his mike."

"As far as Imus took money from NBC News, was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus"

So I guess the next time my wife is watching Real World or Road Rules on MTV or VH1, she's really watching a music video?

The difference was that John Edwards is a politician and Fox a wealthy actor, even if afflicted with a disease.

No, PAD is right. The difference is that in this case, the offended group in question managed to flex their muscles and win a victory to get the offender off the air. There's also the fact that in Ann Coulter's case, she doesn't have a regular TV or radio show to be fired from.

...saying "MSNBC & CBS: you've passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as news -- get rid of Imus or be subject to rebranding" is not a hecklers' veto....

As far as Imus took money from NBC News, was fired from MSNBC by NBC News President Steve Capus, and a lawyrer at CBS performed any review of an agreement for the news division of a competitor to pass along those opinions under the pretense of journalism, they can.

What the NABJ did was no more inconsistent with free speech than a consensus to critically pan a movie.

Only if Ebert and Roeper started pressuring the studio to withdraw the movie from the theater than just saying that they don't like it.

As far as movie studios adopt the appropriate brand, your exception does not apply. The boundaries to calling fraud in entertainment are not the same boundaries to calling fraud in journalism.

It's the brand vulnerability that is the leverage in all this. As far as a studio can pass a popular movie with an ambiguous brand, the challenge to rebrand is not the threat it is to a news brand.

Otherwise, thanks for confirming my analogy.

I'd reply to Mike's latest post, but after reading it three times, it still makes no sense. When did the NABJ call fraud? And what does the "appropriate brand" have to do with anything?

"SER: Do you really view this as having a "chilling" effect? Coulter referred to a presidential candidate as a "faggot" and she hasn't lost book deals or talk show appearances (she actually gained the latter as a result of her latest lapse in sanity). Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox (and inaccurately at that) regarding his Parkinson's disease and he's still on the airwaves."

Actually this is an example of another phenomenon we see on the airwaves. In a society in which there is overcompensation on political correctness you also see people making careers and reputations by deliberatly breaking social norms, deliberatly being nasty. Now, in the case of Southpark and (I think) Howard Stern or Sarah Silverman, this is a form of satire on society. But you also have people like Limbaugh, who find a dark corner of the media where they are hailed for seriously and sincerely saying nasty things about people.

If Imus now moves to some fringe right wing station where he will be praised for insulting blacks instead of criticized for it, that won't be a good thing at all.

SER: "Imus's firing was, to me, the culmination of many factors -- one, he attacked young people who weren't in the public eye (I am convinced that he could have called Condoleeza Rice a "nappy-headed ho" with very little repercussions)."

I think it would have been equally wrong of him. But perhaps you're right about the public sentiment.
But if you're right about this. That means that his words were perceived as a bad joke and not as a case of actual racism and sexism toward these women, and that the problem was not what he said as much as that he made a joke about people undeserving to be the target of a joke. If that is the case, although I may agree with the sentiment (pick on somebody your own size), there is no cause for firing someone for making a bad joke.

SER: "It was also a pattern of behavior, so many people were probably less inclined to believe his apology. If Jay Leno had made the same joke (unlikely but bear with me), I would like to think there would be more forgiveness -- if not from Sharpton (though he would have had less ammunition) -- but from his sponsors, guests, and employers."

I agree with you on that. But it seemed to me that Michael Richards got into a lot of trouble despite not having any record of making racist statements. Maybe I'm wrong.

SER: "As to your other point, I don't see it as a negative if people "second guess what they say." Yes, the image of someone afraid to criticize the War in Iraq because of the possibility of losing their job is chilling. However, someone just taking a moment to consider the impact a joke might have is not really the worst thing in the world."

Yes, I agree. But I feel the lesson should be that it is wrong to use sexist demeaning language against blacks or women, that one should be sensitive to their feelings. Not that people should be afraid of pressure groups monitoring them. If Imus goes home at the end of this event saying to himself not that he crossed a line, but that he was somehow the victim of black political power, that's not good.

"Yes, I agree. But I feel the lesson should be that it is wrong to use sexist demeaning language against blacks or women, that one should be sensitive to their feelings. Not that people should be afraid of pressure groups monitoring them. If Imus goes home at the end of this event saying to himself not that he crossed a line, but that he was somehow the victim of black political power, that's not good."

Judging by the hate mail that the basketball players have been getting and the death threats aimed at Sharpton, I have to think that's exactly the lesson taken away by Imus's listeners. As I said earlier, a chance for social discourse has instead been replaced by a huge festering wound of anger. Short term satisfaction and display of power has been embraced in lieu of long-term gain in genuine sensitivity.

PAD

Free Speech doesn't end with the First Amendment, it begins with it. Imus' speech was curtailed as much as the Hollywood 10 and John Henry Faulk were in the 1950's - by a pressure group exerting influence on timid advertisers and networks. What Imus said offended me, but what I say offends others. Offensive speech is the most important speech to protect. Inoffensive speech doesn't require protection.

But I feel the lesson should be that it is wrong to use sexist demeaning language against blacks or women, that one should be sensitive to their feelings.

Well, that should have been the lesson and had Sharpton and others been actually interested in dialogue or if Imus had not been so defensive on Sharpton's show, we might have come away with that lesson. But the real lesson is that if you can raise the media attention enough to make advertisers nervous, you can kill a show you don't like.

That said, there is no justification for the hate mail sent to the players or death threats against against Sharpton.

"Posted by: Den at April 17, 2007 10:58 AM
Well, that should have been the lesson and had Sharpton and others been actually interested in dialogue or if Imus had not been so defensive on Sharpton's show."

I'm not sure I support the kind of ritual in which a celebrity who said something offensive goes to his friendly neighborhood black preacher/rabbi/feminist and goes through an act of contrition and penance. As far as the offending party is concerned, it seems insincere. And it still creates the impression as if the spokes-people of a certaiin community have the power to twist the celebrity's arm into a phony act of contrition.

I think he should have appologized privately to the young women, and publically on his own show to his own audience. I think he should have cleaned his own act on his own, and let the public judge, instead of his sins being absolved or condemned by some media priests.

Oh, and Mike's recent posts don't make any sense. It seems he's twisting reality like a pretzel in order to oppose PAD's point, and justify the NABJ, instead of dealing with it as it is. But this is not new.

If we untwist the argument there might be justified to say that the NABJ were right, as journalists as well as blacks, to criticize Imus for using the airways to promote racial language. But of course not for the strange reason Mike suggests. And this does not contradict PAD, since he's only criticizing them for calling for Imus to be removed from the air, not for criticizing him.

Micha, Imus did apologize privately and directly to the Rutgers team. He met with them, and I don't recall him making it part of his show or recording it. Right from the beginning, he offered to meet with the team personally to apologize and discuss, if they wished.

I don't blame him for being defensive. Instead of pretending like he didn't do anything wrong, he admitted full responsibility for his mistake, he accepted his suspension without appeal, and he offered to personally act to offer his apology. What more is expected of someone when they make a mistake?

I'm not sure I support the kind of ritual in which a celebrity who said something offensive goes to his friendly neighborhood black preacher/rabbi/feminist

He went on Sharpton's show, not exactly a "friendly neighborhood" forum on Imus these days.

and goes through an act of contrition and penance.

Which I believe was the original intent of the two-week suspension and sensitivity training. Now we'll never know if that would have improved his act.

I think he should have appologized privately to the young women, and publically on his own show to his own audience.

He did both and apparently, that wasn't enough for some people.

I think he should have cleaned his own act on his own, and let the public judge, instead of his sins being absolved or condemned by some media priests.

That's the problem, the public never really had a chance to judge whether or not he cleaned up his act. That option was taken away from us by the self-appointed speech police.

PAD's point seems clear to me. Journalists are the first to raise the shield of freedom of speech (either legally or morally). The NABJ used their shield to attack and destroy Imus's shield, with the specific intention of removing him from the air. There's a logic loop in there somewhere.
****************
SER: I think artistic freedom is different from journalistic freedom. As an artist, I can make the stand for absolute free speech, including the right to make fun of blacks, gays, amputees, what have you. As a journalist, there are standards. That's why Howard Stern having Mariah Carey on her show and asking her if she's "mixed" or not and insisting that she's actually white is hilarious (all in the delivery). Katie Couric doing the same thing during an interview with Barack Obama is less so and would result in a firestorm.

I understand the argument that Imus was basically an insult comic but I think the reason his bosses canned him is not because they are afraid of big, bad blacks but because they couldn't deal with him as *just* an insult comic, which is where he was headed. Hillary Clinton isn't about to go on Howard Stern and talk about her breasts and whether she dated women in college. That's fine. Stern does well despite that degree of respect. But if Imus were to lose that -- which he pretty much had -- then it was overall a lost cause. He wasn't funny enough to be just another Stern.

**************
Moreover, the underlying principle of free speech is that bad words are best defeated with better words. The NABJ did not counter Imus's words with better words. They pulled a Bill O'Reilly and demanded his bosses "cut his mike."
***************

I agree that "bad words are best defeated with better words." However, that's not really the point here. Imus was not Limbaugh. It's not like Imus stood by what he said. That would be a different argument. If he wanted to, as someone suggested, just say that his show was about making racist and sexist jokes and the audience should deal with it, then... well, I don't see how that would have ended well. He would have lost high-profile guests. He would have lost sponsors. He would have been cancelled. Is the idea here that the sponsors and guests should have stood by his first ammendment right to make racist and sexist jokes? Sure. But that's not really good business. There's such a thing as freedom of association: Who wants to be associated with a guy who says this sort of thing? His bosses saw where this was going and decided to preemptively make a move that could be seen as a "moral stance" rather than going down in flames with him.

What's important to note is that Imus *admitted* that what he said was wrong and that he made an error in judgment. It's a nice policy to forgive mistakes (even ones constantly made as in Imus's case) but in practice, it is perfectly acceptable to punish mistakes.

***************
That means that his words were perceived as a bad joke and not as a case of actual racism and sexism toward these women, and that the problem was not what he said as much as that he made a joke about people undeserving to be the target of a joke. If that is the case, although I may agree with the sentiment (pick on somebody your own size), there is no cause for firing someone for making a bad joke.
****************
SER: Of course there's cause for firing someone for making a bad joke. If your intent is to be funny and you fail, then you are not successful as a comedian and will lose your job. Maybe this was one joke out of hundreds that went wrong but that's the biz. You certainly can't use the first ammendment to defend your overall incomptence at your profession.

When I was in college, there was this obnoxious kid who was a "disciple of Limbaugh" and wrote columns that were basically rip-offs of Limbaugh's radio shows. However, he lacked Limbaugh's talent (and say what you will about him, he does have some degree of talent) and just came across as a complete racist ass (one might argue, though, that Limbaugh does the same). The Editor told the kid that "Limbaugh walks a delicate line -- you just aren't talented enough to do this."

SER: I think artistic freedom is different from journalistic freedom. As an artist, I can make the stand for absolute free speech, including the right to make fun of blacks, gays, amputees, what have you.

Someone needs to tell Michael Richards that.

It's a nice policy to forgive mistakes (even ones constantly made as in Imus's case) but in practice, it is perfectly acceptable to punish mistakes.

Which brings us back to the question of who gets to decide what Imus's punishment should be: His employers or Al Sharpton? I think that's what bothers me the most about this situation. Both MSNBC and CBS decided a two-week suspension was appropriate, but that wasn't good enough for Al Sharpton, so the pressure was kept up until they relented and fired him.

SER, I think the point where you and I (and probably others) diverge is that you seem to be talking about an academic hypothetical...all of which I agree on...but Imus case isn't hypothetical or academic. It's a real world example. None of us here know for certain what the motivating factors are in this instance. There's probably not a single factor, although we can hazard which events lead us here.

But the appearance of what happened really suggests that the strongest factor leading to Imus' termination from CBS, and to a lesser degree MSNBC, is the meeting with Sharpton and Jackson. The termination was announced, or at least presented by the news source I heard it from, as occuring immediately after this meeting. Maybe this was the straw/2x4 that broke the camel's back, but it certainly has the appearance that the termination was to appease the factions represented by Jackson and Sharpton.

Certainly, those groups are presenting the termination in that light.

So for many people, it's not about a failed joke, or the networks deciding enough was enough. It's about a group using political and economic threats, really, to influence a show that arguably was the most succesful radio talk program of all time.

Whether reality matches this appearance or not, the damage has been done. Jackson and Sharpton have demonstrated that no one, no matter how successful or in demand, is safe from them. Say the wrong word at the wrong time, and they can have you shut down. Sharpton and Jackson have the claim, now, to be more powerful than the government. The FCC couldn't shut Imus down like this, but all it takes is one meeting from Jackson and Sharpton, and Imus is off the air.

Even if the Reverands never again try to use their influence in this way, other groups will have learned that such a tactic can work...and they'll try it.

And by the way, did you just compare Imus to Katie Couric? Or at least say he's more Couric than he is Stern? I mean, have you ever listened to his show?

But the appearance of what happened really suggests that the strongest factor leading to Imus' termination from CBS, and to a lesser degree MSNBC, is the meeting with Sharpton and Jackson. The termination was announced, or at least presented by the news source I heard it from, as occuring immediately after this meeting. Maybe this was the straw/2x4 that broke the camel's back, but it certainly has the appearance that the termination was to appease the factions represented by Jackson and Sharpton.

Certainly, those groups are presenting the termination in that light.
**************
SER: I'm not surprised that Sharpton and Jackson would position it that way but it doesn't really reflect reality. Why then is Limbaugh still on the air? Limbaugh has said far worse about Jackson. Sharpton and Jackson tried to boycott BARBERSHOP because of statements made about Rosa Parks and it had no real effect on the film.

*****************
Even if the Reverands never again try to use their influence in this way, other groups will have learned that such a tactic can work...and they'll try it.
***********

SER: They'd be mistaken. As I've said, this was a perfect storm -- Imus's past comments and his unfortunate choice of targets. His past comments made it clear that this was not an abberation, which made his apology fall short and seem insincere (the whole "you people" thing didn't help, either). He also didn't seem to state that he was changing his show entirely so there was also the potential that something like this would occur again. His targets also ensured that he would receive little to no sympathy.

I don't see that repeating itself any time soon with other broadcasters.

I would respectfully state that you and others are perhaps viewing this an academic scenario or a potential slippery slope rather than the straightforward "guy made a mistake that embarrassed his employers and was fired as a result."

If this was a more presentable free speech issue -- i.e. Bill Maher referring to Condoleeza Rice as a "nappy-headed ho" and thus defending his right as a comedian to do so -- then I could see CBS attempting to go the distance. Maher would do the talk show circuit and would make a stance for free expression that would counteract any negative publicity Sharpton could drum up. I imagine it was deemed that Imus wouldn't make such a good candidate for an offensive.

***************
And by the way, did you just compare Imus to Katie Couric? Or at least say he's more Couric than he is Stern? I mean, have you ever listened to his show?
****

I've listened to his show. I understand that people try to compare him to Stern but my point is that that's a bit hypocritical since of the three (Stern, Couric, and Imus), reputable politicians are more inclined to visit Couric or Imus than Stern.

"If Imus goes home at the end of this event saying to himself not that he crossed a line, but that he was somehow the victim of black political power, that's not good."

I agree. This brand of angry political correctness is always deleterious in the long term. The idea that you can somehow ENFORCE tolerance and understanding is ridiculous. I have no doubt that this incident will make many racists feel even more justified in their racism. Sharpton and co. are erecting walls instead of bringing them down.

SER: I think artistic freedom is different from journalistic freedom. As an artist, I can make the stand for absolute free speech, including the right to make fun of blacks, gays, amputees, what have you.

Don:
Someone needs to tell Michael Richards that.
*************
SER: It's hard to say what the fall-out from Richards' rant was given that his career was a flat-line anyway. However, much like Imus, Richards did not defend his right to insult blacks with racial epithets. He went on a mea culpa tour. Admitting that you've made a mistake implies that it's OK for others to assume you've made a mistake (seems logical enough to me).

Also, Richards didn't use the word nigger in his act -- he flipped out and railed at hecklers who happened to be black. There's no real artistic defense there and he didn't attempt to say that he was pulling an Andy Kaufman.

***********
It's a nice policy to forgive mistakes (even ones constantly made as in Imus's case) but in practice, it is perfectly acceptable to punish mistakes.

Which brings us back to the question of who gets to decide what Imus's punishment should be: His employers or Al Sharpton? I think that's what bothers me the most about this situation. Both MSNBC and CBS decided a two-week suspension was appropriate, but that wasn't good enough for Al Sharpton, so the pressure was kept up until they relented and fired him.

********

SER: The two-week suspension was a joke, though. It was a paid vacation. That most likely added salt on the wounds and made things worse.

I would have been more inlcined to defend Imus if he'd stated that this was an epiphany for him and he was going to re-examine his whole approach. Maybe he could actually change and be entertaining without going for the lowest common demoninator. Then the punishment might have seemed superfluous because he'd actually changed.

I've had a chance to think this over, and I believe I've reached some semblance of clarity on the issue. Or at least I've clarified my own thoughts! For those who care what I think, here goes...

First, Imus is not a victim. He did this to himself. His remarks were stupid, cruel, and unacceptable. I don't care whether he truly hates blacks in his heart or not, what he did was inexcusable. And after the Michael Richards flap, he should've known this stuff wouldn't fly like it used to. And if this was just about Imus, I'd leave it at that. But it's not. It's about freedom of speech, and the importance of a vigorous and robust public dialog.

And I'd like to ask that people stop smugly telling us that this is not a "First Amendment" issue, and that the NABJ, CBS, NBC, and Imus' sponsors all had a right to take the actions they took. You're arguing with a straw man, because no one is saying they didn't have the right. But having a right to do something doesn't include immunity from criticism. Moreover, having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

See, "freedom of speech" encompasses more than just the First Amendment. Far, far more. Private sector censorship is legal, but it's no less damaging than government censorship because the net effect is the same: it limits the public dialog.

And yes, I know Imus will land on his feet and hasn't been truly silenced. Not the point, because this is about more than just Imus himself. It's about the networks and their sponors, who will probably be going over content with a fine-tooth comb to avoid anything else that might trigger another shit-storm. And that may mean an important voice, a novel perspective, or just a new way of looking at things will die stillborn, never making it to an audience. Never adding to the publid dialog.

As Peter has so eloquently pointed out, that's the real tragedy. Rather than demanding Imus' firing, had the NABJ demanded airtime on Imus' show, they could've taken the discussion about race to a whole new audience who hadn't been exposed to the black point-of-view. Some minds may have been changed. Progress might've occurred.

Instead we have angry Imus fans threatening players on the Rutgers women's basketball team. We have black people telling white people they "just don't get it." Everyone's polarized. They've drawn their battle lines, plugged their ears, and ready-aim-fire! No increase in understanding between people -- just more acrimony, more accusations, more resentment... more of the shit we don't need.

So, ultimately, I've come down on the side I always come down on. I believe that more freedom of speech is almost always better than less. Not because I support what Imus did -- because I abhor it. Not because I don't care about black people -- because I actually do. But because I believe that the more we talk, the more we exchange ideas, the more we'll be able to filter out the bad ones and embrace the good ones.

There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to have your own radio show and get paid lots of money for it.

Posted by: ravenwing263 at April 17, 2007 01:36 PM

There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to have your own radio show and get paid lots of money for it.

Oh, for the love of God, I give up...

SER: "I would respectfully state that you and others are perhaps viewing this an academic scenario or a potential slippery slope rather than the straightforward "guy made a mistake that embarrassed his employers and was fired as a result.""

SER, I think this is your strongest point, which you've made very well. However, I also think you should take into consideration the seperate general concerns voiced by the other side of this argument that emerged out of this specific case.

After all, what makes this case significant is that it opened up a whole list of general concerns both from blacks and from whites that just somehow coincided in this case.

"Posted by: Bill Myers at April 17, 2007 01:50 PM
Posted by: ravenwing263 at April 17, 2007 01:36 PM

There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to have your own radio show and get paid lots of money for it.

Oh, for the love of God, I give up..."

Bill, please don't give up. There are people on this thread (and this previous one) making very sensible (or sometimes only semi-sensible) arguments on both sides o this issue. I highly recommend Marcus's last post in the previous thread. I think you will like it.

ravenwing263. If you are going to post on this thread it would be advisable, at the very least, to read over PAD's own posts on this thread, on the off chance that he already responded to the point you've just made. Which he did.

This is why I miss Captain America.

Cap would have given Imus back a well-reasoned, hard-to-refute speech about why although men and women have fought and died for Imus's right to say what he did, Imus needs to consider the social responsibility of what he says. There is no law impeding him from saying what he says. But in the interest of a better and strong America, using the Constitution to spread hate speech is a legal but poor excuse for being an American.

Unless Imus was the Red Skull in disguise. Then Cap woulda socked him in the jaw.

It's hard to say what the fall-out from Richards' rant was given that his career was a flat-line anyway.

And now it is beyond hope of rescuscitation.

SER: The two-week suspension was a joke, though. It was a paid vacation.

It did serve to censure (not censor, okay, well , it did that too) him as both NBC and CBS made it clear that he would be fired if he didn't clean up his act.

And even if it was a joke, that doesn't address the question that I raised as to whose call is it: The network's or Sharptons?

I would have been more inlcined to defend Imus if he'd stated that this was an epiphany for him and he was going to re-examine his whole approach.

I'm not defending what he said or him as a person. I'm just not agreeing that any particular group or spokesperson has the right to eseentially blackmail a broadcast network into changing their programming.

There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to have your own radio show and get paid lots of money for it.

Sigh

(bangs head on the desk repeatedly)

SER: "I would respectfully state that you and others are perhaps viewing this an academic scenario or a potential slippery slope rather than the straightforward "guy made a mistake that embarrassed his employers and was fired as a result.""

Yes, I am viewing this as potential slippery slope. I believe that I've been very clear about that. But just because this is a case of guy screwing up and getting fired doesn't mean that that the potential for a slippery slope does not exist.

Micha: "Bill, please don't give up."

Micha, I'm only giving up on the concept of reaching those people who insist on arguing with straw-men. It seems they are not reachable.

I read each and every post in every thread in which I participate. I read Marcus's post and agree with you that it was thoughtful and insightful, even if I don't agree with him 100%.

SER: "I would respectfully state that you and others are perhaps viewing this an academic scenario or a potential slippery slope rather than the straightforward 'guy made a mistake that embarrassed his employers and was fired as a result.'"

Yes, of course we're viewing it as a potential slippery slope. It is one.

I have never been in a serious car accident, but I wear a seatbelt because of what could happen. For the same reason, I oppose restricting free speech.

And nothing about the Imus case is very "straightforward." The media isn't like a lot of other industries. I work in sales. My job is to sell, not to communicate to a mass audience. If I mouth off and get fired, I'd argue it's not really a free speech issue. But Imus is part of the mass media, which is the vehicle by which we engage in a public dialog. We all have an interest in a vigorous and robust public dialog, and when pressure groups can get media personalities fired we all lose out.

Again, as Peter pointed out, Sharpton, Jackson, and the NABJ could have demanded air-time on Imus' program. They could've communicated their point-of-view to people who maybe hadn't been exposed to it. They could've increased the level of understanding about what black people endure, and why racial slurs are so upsetting. Instead, the squelched the show and gave up on a chance to reach some minds.

Bill Myers for President!!! Who's with me?
Seriously great post Bill, your posts are why I rarely post because you have usually said it better than I could anyway.
James

It did serve to censure (not censor, okay, well , it did that too) him as both NBC and CBS made it clear that he would be fired if he didn't clean up his act.
***********
SER: If the threat is that he will be fired if he doesn't clean up his act, then it's not a free speech issue. His right to continue making offensive comments is not being protected. Then it's just a matter of whether he gets a second (or third or fourth) chance.

*************
And even if it was a joke, that doesn't address the question that I raised as to whose call is it: The network's or Sharptons?
***********
SER: It's the networks. Sharpton has no power of them other than to pressure them. I don't think he could exert much pressure if Imus hadn't basically given him a loaded gun. As I said, Coulter and Limbaugh are still doing OK -- mostly because they don't attack such vulnerable targets.

****************
I'm just not agreeing that any particular group or spokesperson has the right to eseentially blackmail a broadcast network into changing their programming.
****************
SER: I agree with you. I don't listen to Imus regularly, so it's a non-issue. If I was offended by a storyline on DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, I'd just stop watching rather than attempt to ensure that others don't watch.

However, I think there's an argument to be made for attempting to educate an audience to reject negative speech. Persuading people that they have better things to do with their time than listen to someone insult people is not particuarly anti-free speech.
*************
Yes, of course we're viewing it as a potential slippery slope. It is one.

I have never been in a serious car accident, but I wear a seatbelt because of what could happen. For the same reason, I oppose restricting free speech.
*************
SER: I can understand that concern. However, I usually reject slippery slopes (for example, stem cell research will lead to such and such horrible scenario or gay marriage will lead to this and that horrible scenario). Logically, I will be concerned if what occurred could happen again under similar circumstances. In this instance, I see no evidence of that. Imus had history that came to a head.

I think the opportunity for dialogue is already taking place -- both here and in other venues. Imus's continued presence on the air wasn't really a deciding factor in that. Since no one -- including Imus -- really thinks that calling college students "nappy-headed hos" is a good thing, I'm not sure where the debate would be headed.

Posted by: SER at April 17, 2007 03:56 PM

I think the opportunity for dialogue is already taking place -- both here and in other venues.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of it is preaching to the choir. Whereas having the discussion on Imus' show might've brought the message home to some people who most need to hear it.

Posted by: SER at April 17, 2007 03:56 PM

Since no one -- including Imus -- really thinks that calling college students "nappy-headed hos" is a good thing, I'm not sure where the debate would be headed.

No one? Really? Imus clearly thought it was a "good thing," something that would get a laugh. I know others who feel the same way. Those are the people who need to hear how hurtful such remarks are.

Hell, even lily-livered liberal white boys like me (actually, I'm 37...) need to hear it from time-to-time. It's one thing to say that oh, yes, I know how hard it is for black people. But what really drives the point home best is hearing people's stories. They turn the issue from an abstract into something real, something human. They remind me of the importance of constantly examining my own conscience in order to root out any bigotry in my own soul.

So, yeah, there's a lot worth talkin' about, SER.

I'm pretty certain Imus' suspension was without pay. That's the way radio suspensions usually work. It's not administrative leave, after all, but punishment. If suspended means you don't have to work and still get paid, show me some nappy haired hos so I can get me suspended.

SER, I disagree with you that this instance isn't a cause for concern. Slippery slope works when there's a credible threat that this is not a one time event. We've got prior cases that it's not. We've already got several people that look to be good cases of it happening in the future.

If this event had occurred without Sharpton and Jackson meeting the CBS immediately prior to terminating Imus, I'd be inclined to agree with you...Imus just said one dumb thing too many, or maybe those networks had new program managers that were just looking for an excuse to can him. But the Revs. did get involved, they did exert their influence, and the result..however you want to attribute the causes around...was the termination of a radio personality known for being a universal ass, being fired because he was doing what he's been paid for decades to do.

Posted by: Shadowquest at April 17, 2007 03:18 PM

Bill Myers for President!!! Who's with me?

Uhm... I smoked pot three times in college, I liked it, and I inhaled. I don't go to church. I live with my girlfriend and we have no intention to marry. I don't think I'd sell well in Middle America.

Posted by: Shadowquest at April 17, 2007 03:18 PM

Seriously great post Bill, your posts are why I rarely post because you have usually said it better than I could anyway.

I think you should have more confidence in your ability to express yourself. But I thank you profusely for the compliment. It made my day!

SER: If the threat is that he will be fired if he doesn't clean up his act, then it's not a free speech issue. His right to continue making offensive comments is not being protected. Then it's just a matter of whether he gets a second (or third or fourth) chance.

It is a free speech issue (though not a constitutional one, people!) for CBS and NBC. It's about his right to make offensive comments. It's about whether the people who own his microphone have the right to decide what speech they are going to support.

Sharpton has no power of them other than to pressure them.

And yet he did manage to almost single-handedly get Imus fired.

I don't think he could exert much pressure if Imus hadn't basically given him a loaded gun.

Imus loaded that gun every week for 20 years. I still don't get what made this one particular comment worse than the 10,000 other sexist and racist comments made on his program before.

As I said, Coulter and Limbaugh are still doing OK -- mostly because they don't attack such vulnerable targets.

I wouldn't say that gays and people with debilitating illnesses are less vulnerable than blacks or women, but they do lack a media-savy, self-appointed spokesperson to bully a network into cancelling a show.

SER: I agree with you. I don't listen to Imus regularly, so it's a non-issue. If I was offended by a storyline on DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, I'd just stop watching rather than attempt to ensure that others don't watch.

It always amazes me how many people forget that their TVs and radios come with off switches. But the difference between people like you and me and people like Sharpton or James Dobson is that they want to make sure other people can't watch something that they find objectionable.

However, I think there's an argument to be made for attempting to educate an audience to reject negative speech. Persuading people that they have better things to do with their time than listen to someone insult people is not particuarly anti-free speech.

Absolutely. Let me know when Sharpton starts doing that.

If this event had occurred without Sharpton and Jackson meeting the CBS immediately prior to terminating Imus, I'd be inclined to agree with you...

**********

SER: I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the influence Sharpon and Jackson had. I can see your point that perhaps all the other factors (Clinton, Obama, and other politicians refusing to appear on Imus's show) were a result of Sharpton making an issue out of Imus's statements. That said, there's nothing wrong with Sharpton expressing disgust with the statements, so the resulting fall-out is not something I would negatively attribute to Sharpton.

I jokingly said to a coworker that the Rutgers' team appearance on Oprah spelled the end for Imus. You don't mess with the Oprah. I cynically think that Sharpton and Jackson were opportunistic enough to have their meeting with CBS at a point in which CBS was going to fold anyway. The press was just too bad.

However, I can't read minds, so maybe CBS did -- improbable as it seems to me -- blinked because of Sharpton. In that case, yes, I agree that that's way too much power for someone to have.

***************
It is a free speech issue (though not a constitutional one, people!) for CBS and NBC. It's about his right to make offensive comments. It's about whether the people who own his microphone have the right to decide what speech they are going to support.
*******************
SER: But they make that decision based on feedback from their audience and their sponsors. You could say that they should have a more democratic approach and make their decisions based on the majority and not on a few disgruntled people. However, the network most likely didn't view it as a vote: X amount of openly unhappy people trump Y amount of content people.

Sharpton doesn't own CBS, so all he could do was attempt to coerce them to make a decision. However, ultimately, that decision was the network's.

*************
And yet he did manage to almost single-handedly get Imus fired.
***********
SER: See my previous statements. He was certainly influential in what happened: He made it a news story. However, the fall-out was not something that I would consider an example of his "almost single-handedly" getting Imus fired.

Don't overestimate Sharpton's power. I imagine he won't succeed in getting the police officers who shot Sean Bell convicted. Imus is a very small victory overall.

************
Imus loaded that gun every week for 20 years. I still don't get what made this one particular comment worse than the 10,000 other sexist and racist comments made on his program before.
***********
SER: As I said, Imus had a history that came to a head. This is why people did not take his apology all too seriously, nor did they believe that he wouldn't do it again.

**************
I wouldn't say that gays and people with debilitating illnesses are less vulnerable than blacks or women, but they do lack a media-savy, self-appointed spokesperson to bully a network into cancelling a show.
*************
SER: I would say that gays have a great deal of influence in the media. That said, I think the reason Isaiah Washington still has a job is tht he called a fellow actor a "faggot" not a non-celebrity teenager. This is where Imus crossed the line.

Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist.

I think that it is flawed to simply swap the terms "black" and "white". In this context, the term "black" is synonymous with "African-American" which denotes a single ethnicity. This ethnicity is comprised of American descendants of African slaves and practices a single culture/subculture. Despite what the term seems to literally imply, African immigrants, African nationals, Caribbeans, Hispanics of African descent, etc. don't fall under this category. When folks in the U.S. speak of "black culture" they are not talking about African or Caribbean cultures.

Thus, "black"/"African-American" organizations are no different from (ethnic) Jewish organizations, Irish American organizations, Italian American organizations, Polish American organizations, Russian American organizations, etc. Organizations based on European ethnicities exist and are overwhelmingly accepted.

1) Bob, Bill and Den claim that Imus got fired because of Sharpton and Jackson, and that it is a bad thing.

SER agrees that if it were true it would be a bad thing. But,

2) SER is claiming that Imus got fired because he was generally rejected by the public at large, which caused the sponsors and networks the step away from him.

Bob, Bill and Den accept that that's a legitimate cause for termination, I think.

Or maybe even a general public rejection like that is not a good thing.

Or maybe it's a bad thing for networks to bow to public outcries.

Or maybe there is a public interest for Imus to remain even if their is a real rejection by the public, and not just pressure by Sharpton and Jackson.

It is necessary to discuss these questions indepedantly of the question of Sharpton' and Jackson's power. The resentment by some of the way these two individuals behave should not distract from greater issues.

3) However, let's remember PAD's original point. Even if Sharpton, or Jackson, or the NABJ, did not really have the power to get Imus fired, as SER says, they did call for him to be fired, and they did seek to create the impression that heir pressure got him fired. Are either of these things good? Or is PAD right, and an organization of journalists and radio hosts should not be calling for another journalist to be fired. Maybe they should limit themselves to criticizing his words.

This also leads to the greater question about how groups like the NABJ or self appointed spokesmen like Jackson and Sharpton should behave in general.

---------------------

"Posted by: Johnny Fuller at April 17, 2007 05:14 PM
Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist.

I think that it is flawed to simply swap the terms "black" and "white". In this context, the term "black" is synonymous with "African-American" which denotes a single ethnicity. This ethnicity is comprised of American descendants of African slaves and practices a single culture/subculture. Despite what the term seems to literally imply, African immigrants, African nationals, Caribbeans, Hispanics of African descent, etc. don't fall under this category. When folks in the U.S. speak of "black culture" they are not talking about African or Caribbean cultures."

True, an acquaintance of mine whose mother is Jewish American, and whose father was Jewish-Ethiopian lived in the US and was often asked by Americans what she was. She replied that she was African-American. I told her that she souldn't identify herself in this way since she did not share the history and experience of African-Americans.

Posted by: Johnny Fuller at April 17, 2007 05:14 PM:
"Thus, "black"/"African-American" organizations are no different from (ethnic) Jewish organizations, Irish American organizations, Italian American organizations, Polish American organizations, Russian American organizations, etc. Organizations based on European ethnicities exist and are overwhelmingly accepted."

True. African-Americans have very good reasons both culturaly and politically to form group specific organizations, just like these other groups. The question then is how should organizations like this be used and how they should behave.

Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM

1) Bob, Bill and Den claim that Imus got fired because of Sharpton and Jackson...

No, I don't. As I've already said, pressure from the NABJ, and from black execs and employees of NBC and CBS, also had a lot to do with it.

Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM

2) SER is claiming that Imus got fired because he was generally rejected by the public at large, which caused the sponsors and networks the step away from him.

Bob, Bill and Den accept that that's a legitimate cause for termination, I think.

Except that's not what happened. Television and radio ratings are measured quarterly during "sweeps weeks." No one knows what the impact on Imus' listenership would have been.

2) SER is claiming that Imus got fired because he was generally rejected by the public at large, which caused the sponsors and networks the step away from him.

Bob, Bill and Den accept that that's a legitimate cause for termination, I think.

Except that's not what happened. Television and radio ratings are measured quarterly during "sweeps weeks." No one knows what the impact on Imus' listenership would have been.
*****

SER: You're right, Bill, that the ratings weren't in yet. However, major guests were pulling out, which I would qualify as rejection by the public at large. Also, advertisers were pulling out, as well. This is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/nance/343974,CST-FTR-MONEY17.article

P&G, GM, Glaxo, Staples, and others pulling their advertising (in adition to ads from MSNBC's entire daytime schedule).

This is where it reaches the point at which ratings don't really matter -- you're losing serious advertising revenue.

"Posted by: Bill Myers at April 17, 2007 07:05 PM
Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM

1) Bob, Bill and Den claim that Imus got fired because of Sharpton and Jackson...

No, I don't. As I've already said, pressure from the NABJ, and from black execs and employees of NBC and CBS, also had a lot to do with it."

Then we should discuss what's the appropriate reaction of employees of NBC and CBS to working at he same company as someone whose opinions they find offensive. This is a different category than Jackson and Sharpton.

Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM

2) SER is claiming that Imus got fired because he was generally rejected by the public at large, which caused the sponsors and networks the step away from him.

Bob, Bill and Den accept that that's a legitimate cause for termination, I think.

Except that's not what happened. Television and radio ratings are measured quarterly during "sweeps weeks." No one knows what the impact on Imus' listenership would have been."

If I'm not incorrect networks often remove shows based on their projection that they will not do well during 'sweeps weeks.' It is part of their job to make such projection and take preemptive action, althogh some good TV shows were dropped due to lack of confidence by networks.

Networks and sponsors might have also fired Imus because they thought it was bad for their PR to be associated with it even if that show itself stil had enough listeners, and independantly of whatever pressure Sharpton or Jackson might wield.

To argue that NBC and CBS caved in to pressure groups, and to say that they caved in to their own PR considerations or their own fears that the show will loose ratings if kept, are two (or three) different arguments.

You may wish to claim that the network should not have fired Imus for any of these reasons. Or you could say that the problem is not the power wielded by pressure groups but the willingness of the network the cave in to a momentary and unmeasured public sentiment. But if so, it is necessary to distinguish these arguments from the one that focuses on pressure groups, which is the one primarily brought by people on this thread, myself included.

It is very convenient for me to believe that the problem was Jackson and Sharpton, since it justifies my initial ieas on this issue. But with the other alternatives make it more difficult for me to decide what was right or wrong.

Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 07:58 PM

Then we should discuss what's the appropriate reaction of employees of NBC and CBS to working at he same company as someone whose opinions they find offensive.

That would depend on each individual, his/her position within the company, and his/her unique point of view. There is no one correct reaction for everyone.

As for the rest... I'm really getting exhausted arguing about this. For me, it's time to agree to disagree.

Have to say I feel a bit uncomfortable about what could be seen as the subtext of some of the things PAD wrote:

"Let us put aside for a moment the notion that if someone wanted to form a group called the National Association of White Journalists, with membership limited to Caucasians, such a move would be roundly condemned as blisteringly, unforgiveably, blatantly racist."

If you're putting the notion aside the notion, why put it up here? Perhaps to not-so-slyly insinuate that the NABJ is a blatantly racist organisation that all right-thinking people should condemn just for existing? As the reactions of some in this thread would indicate, such statements are appealing to those who like to think of whites (and especially white (Christian) males) as the most oppressed group in present-day US society.

"The NABJ should have been the first, foremost defenders of the spirit of the First Amendment. To the notion that, if someone is shouting at the top of their lungs things that you find disagreeable, then the proper response is to shout back at the top of yours. In a free society, you go for the words of your opposition, not the throat."

Why black journalists should conform to a higher standart here, why they should have a greater responsibility to protect the right of free speech than anybody else, is however not explained.

We have here some very lofty, idealistic sentiments, but perhaps they are not quite self-evident if you look at it from the point of view of the African-American experience. Free speech and the "spirit of the 1st Amendment" as it existed in reality was not always in their interest for the first 150 years of the amendment's existence in a society which in its majority thought it perfectly ok that blacks and other groups had fewer rights than white males. The amendment did nothing to protect the right of free speech of blacks in the areas where most of them lived. The net result of attempts in the half-century before the Civil War to convince the inhabitants of the slave-holding states by moral suasion etc. was a hardening of pro-slavery sentiments and a growing solidarity of non-slaveholders with the slaveholding elite. The abolition of slavery was made possible by a bloody war and its effects on the national and state governments (without the war and Reconstruction the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments would not have been passed and ratified). And of course there are other examples where free speech led to a consensus among the white majority (of voters) of a state or the nation as a whole that led to laws, policies and Supreme Court decisions that made life for blacks or other minorities worse, that denied them rights they might have (e.g. ante-bellum slave states passing ordinances that forbade teaching free blacks from learning to read and write, post-bellum courts deciding that "separate but equal" was compatible with the anti-discrimination amendments passed during Reconstruction etc.).

Other impressions from this debate:

In PAD's previous post on the matter, the argument seemed to be that Imus was not to be taken seriously anyway, now apparently we are to believe that his firing presages the end of free society as we know it. Isn't that a little bit over the top? Are there really no more serious matters that are more hazardous to the free exchange of ideas? Such as the way big media are run and how they cooperate with the government?

Free speech, freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas are apparently only threatened by protesters. Voices being denied a forum through the whims of their networks' owners, because of withdrawal of financial support by sponsors, or due to their audience being too small is perfectly all right for many who responded to this thread. I can't agree.

People who protest against a media star for his racist and sexist abuse apparently are more objectionable than the abuser. Even the horrible messages to the victims of Imus's abuse and death-threats against Al Sharpton are largely portrayed as provoked by those nasty black spokesmen (and thus at least partly excusable?). Strange.

Posted by: Bill Myers at April 17, 2007 08:22 PM

"As for the rest... I'm really getting exhausted arguing about this. For me, it's time to agree to disagree."

OK. I don't want to pester anybody. The only reason I'm asking all these questions is that I'm not completely sure at this stage with what I agree and with what I disagree. We've steped away from clear principles the nuances, I think.

If this has already been mentioned earlier I apologize.

I think that it is unfair to characterize the NABJ as blatantly racist. The majority of of journalists are white. Therefore a journalistic organization is going to be overwhelmingly white. This is not to say that that organization is going to be racist, but there are differences in experiences of different ethinic and racial groups, and there are going to be concerns that subsets within the organization are going to have that it will be difficult or even impossible to deal with under the umbrella of the larger group. In that case it makes sense to have a sub organization that can deal with those issues. It seems to me that to have a White subgroup would be effectively redundant. There are examples of this on the college campus that I attend. There is the student union and the Black student union. White people make up roughly 80% of the population at this institution. The make-up of the student union is about the same. The point of the Black student union on this campus is to cater to the unique experience that one has as a Black student here on this campus. The point is not to be racist toward any other group. There are a host of other organizations on this campus that have the same purpose for other groups as well.

Posted by: Menshevik at April 17, 2007 08:41 PM:

1) "If you're putting the notion aside the notion, why put it up here? Perhaps to not-so-slyly insinuate that the NABJ is a blatantly racist organisation that all right-thinking people should condemn just for existing? As the reactions of some in this thread would indicate, such statements are appealing to those who like to think of whites (and especially white (Christian) males) as the most oppressed group in present-day US society."

Others,myself included, have already said they do not agree with this part of PAD's argument. But it is possible to disagree with him on this issue, based only on what he said, without attributing to him anything further than holding a position we feel is mistaken. I would think he deserves the benefit of the doubt before being labeled.

2) "Why black journalists should conform to a higher standart here, why they should have a greater responsibility to protect the right of free speech than anybody else, is however not explained."

As journalists, whose work depends on free speech, they certainly should be held to a higher standard as far as protecting free speech is concerned.
As blacks they should certainly not be held to a lower standard. Or is this the subtext of your statements? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

3) "We have here some very lofty, idealistic sentiments, but perhaps they are not quite self-evident if you look at it from the point of view of the African-American experience. Free speech and the "spirit of the 1st Amendment" as it existed in reality was not always in their interest."

Since one of the points of your Bill of Rights, if I understand it correctly, is to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from the tyrany of the majority, it seems that minorities have a great interest in defending those rights than the majority.

4) "for the first 150 years of the amendment's existence in a society which in its majority thought it perfectly ok that blacks and other groups had fewer rights than white males. The amendment did nothing to protect the right of free speech of blacks in the areas where most of them lived."

It is certainly true that the words of the constitution were not enough to protect their rights, but it was still to the constitution that they made their appeal when they demanded their rights. Why would it be in their interest to give up on the constitution on this stage? Because the people making the appeal are people whose opinions you/they/we find offensive?

5) "The net result of attempts in the half-century before the Civil War to convince the inhabitants of the slave-holding states by moral suasion etc. was a hardening of pro-slavery sentiments and a growing solidarity of non-slaveholders with the slaveholding elite."

That's a strawman argument if there ever was one. Nobody is saying that blacks, or anybody else, should restrict themselves to speech and persuation when their life and liberty is or was at stake, as was the case during slavery.
I think what PAD is saying is that blacks, or anybody else, should restrict themselves to persuation by speech when they are dealing only with offensive speech.

6) "The abolition of slavery was made possible by a bloody war and its effects on the national and state governments (without the war and Reconstruction the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments would not have been passed and ratified)."

I've been down this road already. Nobody would have gone to war to abolish slavery if some people (black and white) would not have gone to the effort to persuade them, using the freedom of speech, that slavery should be abolished, and that it is worth going to war to abolish it.
Also, let's not forget that the oppression of blacks did not end with slavery. There was also another hundred years of segregation. And segregation was defeated by the ability of the black minority to affect the minds of the white majority through persuation, using the freedom of speech, and other constitutional freedoms. And, just so we're clear, civil disobedience is also a form of speech. It could only work if it causes opinions to change.

7) "And of course there are other examples where free speech led to a consensus among the white majority (of voters) of a state or the nation as a whole that led to laws, policies and Supreme Court decisions that made life for blacks or other minorities worse, that denied them rights they might have (e.g. ante-bellum slave states passing ordinances that forbade teaching free blacks from learning to read and write, post-bellum courts deciding that "separate but equal" was compatible with the anti-discrimination amendments passed during Reconstruction etc.)."

You call yourself a menshevik, but you sound more like a bolshevik. Or maybe I'm just reading the wrong subtext. Surely you are not suggesting that it is better to dispose of free speech and majority rule, and instead protect the rights of minorities by a dictatorship of a minority which restricts the right of the majority or the minority for free speech. It is true that dictatorships (often communist) were sometimes capable of suppressing strife between ethnic groups that way. But I personaly don't consider it a desirable method to promote the rights and interests of minorities.

8) "Are there really no more serious matters that are more hazardous to the free exchange of ideas?"

That's always an easy way to remove an issue one finds inconvenient. It doesn't matter right now. It could also be claimed that the exact weight of a few insiginifact words by a shock jock, and the hurt feelings of a few women is not important compared to other graver issues. But maybe they are important. Maybe not the most important. Maybe not the only important thing right now. But certainly important.

Or maybe PAD is just selfish? Maybe as a writer he is more concerned about free speech, and the risk that an individual might loose his job for making a wrong statement, than about other issues.

9) "Such as the way big media are run and how they cooperate with the government?"

Yet this time it appears the intersts of big media coincided with the interests of those who wanted to put an end to Imus's racist statements.

10) "Voices being denied a forum through the whims of their networks' owners, because of withdrawal of financial support by sponsors, or due to their audience being too small is perfectly all right for many who responded to this thread. I can't agree."

These are issues worth discussing at length. They are complex issues, which I pointed to earlier in this thread. But the general tone of your post doesn't offer a very promising start for such a serious discussion. Even if the discussion itself is worthwhile, would people also find it worthwhile to have this discussion with you? I personaly would be willing to ignore a negative first impression, but I can only speak for myself.

11) "People who protest against a media star for his racist and sexist abuse apparently are more objectionable than the abuser."

Would you say that a criminal denied his rights is more or less objectionable than the system that denies him his rights? Or perhaps they are both objectionable, and need to be dealt with. Don't you think that to suggest that people fighting for the legal rights of horrible criminals is somehow indifferent to the suffering of the victims is a cheap way to delegitimize the arguments of such people? Or do you think only the rights of nice people should be defended? Of course not. I'm just reading the wrong subtext.

12) "Even the horrible messages to the victims of Imus's abuse and death-threats against Al Sharpton are largely portrayed as provoked by those nasty black spokesmen (and thus at least partly excusable?)."

Yet, if you look at previous posts you will find at least one saying clearly that such violence is comletely unjustified.

13) "Strange."

What I find strange is how quickly people are willing to label people they disagree with as racists, fascists, communists, non-patriotic, indifferent, and so forth. I find it harmful to serious discussion of serious and often complex issues.

"If you're putting the notion aside the notion, why put it up here? Perhaps to not-so-slyly insinuate that the NABJ is a blatantly racist organisation that all right-thinking people should condemn just for existing?"

Not at all. I'm simply observing the irony that on the one hand people can decry the notion of racial bias...and on the other hand accept without question the existence of organizations that are, by their very concept, separatist and segregationist. I, on the other hand, don't tend to accept things without question. Questioning is what makes life interesting.

People are all for freedom of speech...for themselves. When it comes to other people's freedom of speech, however, it's debatable.

People are all for equality, equal treatment, and abolishing the concept of exclusionary organizations...for others. But not for themselves.

Examples of similar organizations can be trotted out to your heart's content, but I notice that no one has actually refuted what I originally said: If an organization was created call the National Association of White Journalists, refusing to allow membership to anyone who wasn't Caucasian, it would be ferociously slammed as racist in its concept and probably sued into oblivion. The fact that people have tried to argue with everything BUT that proposition kind of signals to me a tacit acknowledgment of that simple observation, with a reluctance to admit it because you feel that it automatically pegs NABJ as a racist organization. Except I didn't say that. I just said there's a double standard. And there is.

PAD

When did the NABJ call fraud? And what does the "appropriate brand" have to do with anything?

If not to protect their reputations as news sources, tell me, why did the networks fold on Imus? Everyone agrees Imus's broadcasts were constitutionally protected. Why didn't the networks feel free to disregard the criticism? What were they afraid was going to happen if they kept Imus, if not the loss of their status as credible news sources?

As far as Imus took money from NBC News, was fired from MSNBC by the president of NBC News, and a lawyer at CBS performed any review of an agreement for the news division of a competitor to pass along Imus's broadcasts under the pretense of journalism, the NABJ can cry fowl to passing nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as news -- I'm not pleased to repeat the phrases, but that is the plain agenda being danced around in this argument.

This is a point that remains challenged only arbitrarily.

Judging by the hate mail that the basketball players have been getting and the death threats aimed at Sharpton, I have to think that's exactly the lesson taken away by Imus's listeners. As I said earlier, a chance for social discourse has instead been replaced by a huge festering wound of anger. Short term satisfaction and display of power has been embraced in lieu of long-term gain in genuine sensitivity.

If progress depended on the avoidence of death threats there would have been no Jackie Robinson. I can't think of any example of greatness that was nurtured by consensus, that wasn't founded on disobedience to convention.

The relevence of fidelity to sensitivity seems to be one of gratification and, as an obstruction to progress, is perhaps at best a double-edged sword. The lesson needed is how to challenge unearned credibility, perhaps the most important virtue of free speech, which is what the NABJ has done.

"We have here some very lofty, idealistic sentiments, but perhaps they are not quite self-evident if you look at it from the point of view of the African-American experience. Free speech and the spirit of the 1st Amendment as it existed in reality was not always in their interest."

Menshevik, I think that it's perfectly okay, as long as the person is upfront about it. If a black spokesman says he will fight for the betterment of black people no matter what and admits that the free speech issue is a very secondary priority for him (if it's a priority at all), then okay.

What I can't stand is hypocrisy. It reminds me of something that happened in my own country (Brazil). Brazil's Worker Party has had a long tradition fighting for ethics and the strengthening of democratic values, it was their crusade, and many people supported them.

Then they got in power, one of them became our current President. And then the people of the Worker's Party engaged in lots and lots of corruption, and lots and lots of authoritarian maneuvering, all of that stuff they preached against before.

And their excuse is: "We're making life better for the poor. That is all that matters. It's justifiable for us to engage in corruption and totalitarianism, because we're doing it to stay in power so we can fight poverty."

I would respect them a lot more if they didn't pretend they ever cared about honesty and democracy, that all they cared about was making life better for the poor, no matter what. But no, they had to pay lip service to certain other values to get in power.

It irks me a lot when people say they value free speech, they value democracy, they value the rule of law, but they're quick to show that deep down they only value these things as long as they're useful to the cause of their own particular group.

You don't get to say that free speech is a good thing when a black guy publishes a book denouncing racism, and then says free speech isn't so hot anymore when a white guy writes something offensive.

What many people here feel isn't that white males are the "most persecuted people in America". It's only that people expect better from a crusading feminist, or a crusading black rights advocate. If a ultra-conservative white dude or big media does something corrupt and immoral and curtailing of freedom, it's expected of them, because they are the bad guys anyway.

Now, when a group like the NABJ does it, it's worse. They're supposed to be the good guys. Of course they're held to a higher standard. They should be. If even they start to use authoritarian methods, then we might as well give up any pretense that these ideals even matter, right?

Peter,

You're wrong, you've lost, stop embarrassing yourself, and move on. You should probably have Glenn delete this whole thread so there's less of a record of how completely clueless, petulant, wrong, and whiny you've been through this little tantrum of yours.

"Anonymous"

Relax dude. Peter doesn't have much left. It's almost over.

Okay. There are a number of posts here that i could tie this to, but instead of just picking one, i'll just post it bare.

What we're looking at here is, in its way, a free speech issue. However, it's even more akin to the Hollywood blacklist that blighted so many careers.

If someone can be run out of his chosen profession because pressure groups (and the NABJ *is* a pressure group in this context) push his employers to fire him, and let it be known that they will similarly bring pressure to bear on anyone who might hire him otherwise, we are entering the era of the Blacklist.

And, if, as someone has pointed out, Imus's firing has had a chilling on others exercising their right of free speech for fear of being fired and/or blacklisted, we're also on the very edge of that slippery slope that begins "When they came for {fill in group} I said nothing, because I was a {not-member of fillin gorup)..."

// The point of the Black student union on this campus is to cater to the unique experience that one has as a Black student here on this campus. The point is not to be racist toward any other group. //

That may be the point but that is very often not how it is perceived.

// There are a host of other organizations on this campus that have the same purpose for other groups as well. //

True, but that doesn't make thier existance right either. Making an observation about a black organization does not necessarily mean you would feel differently about a woman's organization, religious organizations or organizations like the gay alliance. The fact of the matter is the minute you discriminate in either direction you are no longer being equal or treating others as equals. If you have an issue with that inequality when it thrown in your direction but defend it when it goes the other way, you can expect that someone, somewhere, at sometime will point out that there's a slight hyprocracy there.

"If not to protect their reputations as news sources, tell me, why did the networks fold on Imus?"

Because the advertisers were bailing.

Imus had been slammed any number of times in the past and he survived it because the advertisers hung in. So Imus wasn't fired. This time around, thanks to the wave of pressure and the media focus--and nothing focuses the media like protests leveled by a media-related organization such as the NABJ--advertisers were running. All the ratings in the world don't matter if you can't sell the commercial time.

So they canceled it.

PAD

What we're looking at here is, in its way, a free speech issue. However, it's even more akin to the Hollywood blacklist that blighted so many careers.

If someone can be run out of his chosen profession because pressure groups (and the NABJ *is* a pressure group in this context) push his employers to fire him, and let it be known that they will similarly bring pressure to bear on anyone who might hire him otherwise, we are entering the era of the Blacklist.

And, if, as someone has pointed out, Imus's firing has had a chilling on others exercising their right of free speech for fear of being fired and/or blacklisted, we're also on the very edge of that slippery slope that begins "When they came for {fill in group} I said nothing, because I was a {not-member of fillin gorup)..."

You're talking about closing access, and the NABJ didn't say Imus should have access denied to him. As far as their leverage was the credibility of the news divisions in question, they were right to challenge them for passing nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism. From what I've read, the NABJ hasn't crossed into the boundary of denying access any more than if they said a reporter who fabricated a story should be fired.

Because the advertisers were bailing.

Imus had been slammed any number of times in the past and he survived it because the advertisers hung in. So Imus wasn't fired. This time around, thanks to the wave of pressure and the media focus--and nothing focuses the media like protests leveled by a media-related organization such as the NABJ--advertisers were running. All the ratings in the world don't matter if you can't sell the commercial time.

So they canceled it.

NBC News denied the drop in advertisers was the motive in dropping Imus, and didn't deny they were protecting their credibility. And, if other shock jocks -- who keep getting pulled and put back, and pulled and put back -- can continue to pull in advertising dollars, it's reasonable to assume Imus would have found new advertisers. You all seem to agree Imus is just going to come back with no drop in ratings.

As such, you're denial the vulnerability of the broadcasters' credibility seems arbitrary. They could have chosen to counter the Sharpton and the NABJ by rebranding and begun competing for Fox's slice of the news market. The same seems true for CBS rebranding and fighting conservative talk radio for their share of the market. Instead they decided to shelter the credibility they've claimed all along.

Is it just me, or does Anthony W. seem to be Flamestrike's sockpuppet?

For that matter, I think the latest Anonymous might be, as well...

(Mike), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this (thread) is now dumber for having (read) it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

With apologies to Adam Sandler for shamelessly stealing his material.

Posted by: Micha at April 17, 2007 08:57 PM

OK. I don't want to pester anybody.

Micha, you weren't pestering me in the least. It's just that I've articulated my thoughts to the best of my ability and don't have a lot more to say. Moreover, I've read the counterarguments from those who disagree and, well, we still disagree. I don't see that there's much more to be gained by belaboring the issue, that's all.

Also, I'm getting sick of jackasses like Flamestrike and his sockpuppets (as if we wouldn't see through that flimsy deception!), and the other trolls in this thread. Those who disagree with PAD but lack the intellectual skills to phrase their replies in an intelligent manner should step back and let people like SER represent the opposing side in this debate. SER has been respectful and logical, and has argued with what others have actually said rather than creating strawmen. I remain unpersuaded by SER's arguments, but at least they are cogent, well-reasoned, and well-articulated.

Examples of similar organizations can be trotted out to your heart's content, but I notice that no one has actually refuted what I originally said: If an organization was created call the National Association of White Journalists, refusing to allow membership to anyone who wasn't Caucasian, it would be ferociously slammed as racist in its concept and probably sued into oblivion. The fact that people have tried to argue with everything BUT that proposition kind of signals to me a tacit acknowledgment of that simple observation, with a reluctance to admit it because you feel that it automatically pegs NABJ as a racist organization. Except I didn't say that. I just said there's a double standard. And there is.

If such an organization existed, it would be a double standard. Members of the NABJ, while of African descent, are not necessarily exclusively of African descent. A biracial person of African descent could easily be a member. Since 90% of African Americans have white ancestry, going by this standard, 90% of African Americans could join the NAWJ. If the requirement for membership in the NAWJ was being pure white, that would be a double standard.

Also, we must be realistic and note that mainstream whites have never expressed a real need nor desire for white exclusive organizations. Those who do express the need for them are almost always radicals who do so spitefully. The ADL's website quotes language from the NAAWP showing their anti-black, anti-minority, and anti-Jewish sentiments.

Also, what double standard there is is not so much race based as it is based on status. There is a double standard between the dominant majority ethnicity and the less dominant minority ethnicities. If the roles were reversed and the history of whites was swapped with the history of blacks, we then would have an NAAWP and an NAWJ.

Either way, I still say that it is disingenuous to simply swap the terms "black" and "white" in this context.

I've been thinking a lot about your post (and your response to my response to your post, waaaaay back up there near the very tip of the thread.) And here's what I think.

I think that you're right about one thing. The NABJ is, in fact, engaging in a de facto attempt to curtail Don Imus' freedom of speech (with the caveat that they're allowed to do so, since they aren't the government.) Where I disagree with you is that they shouldn't. Now I know that sounds a bit, um, well...fascist...but hear me out. It might make more sense by the end.

The NABJ make their living, as you've pointed out, through the exercise of the principle of freedom of speech. Like all social principles, this principle is not absolute and does not exist in a vacuum. In other words, we might say, "I'm against murder," but in practice, we make exceptions to that rule based on its interactions with other rules. We're constantly in a process of negotiating the boundaries of our social principles with one another, and like any principle, the right to freedom of speech is constantly subject to interpretation.

The NABJ, as people intimately familiar with the process and with the principles in question, has as much of a duty to themselves to prosecute abuses of freedom of speech as they do to defend the exercise of it. They can, and I'd argue should say, "Hey, we're the biggest defenders of freedom of speech you'll find, but this clearly crosses the boundaries of civilized behavior. We won't defend it, because to defend it is to abrogate our common sense and reduce us to yes-men for racists." Because if they _always_ defend someone's speech, even when it's indefensible, nobody will listen to them when they defend legitimate exercises of free speech.

Now, you might say that this makes them "not the biggest defenders of freedom of speech you'll find", and you might argue that "The answer to freedom of speech is always more freedom of speech, not the shutting down of freedom of speech"...in fact, I believe that you actually did. :) But, carefully and politely, I will point out that you yourself negotiate these same boundaries that the rest of us (including the NABJ) do.

Not too long ago, a poster made a comment in another thread about a member of your family. I don't know what that comment was, because you deleted it and replaced it with a statement that comments about your family that you found inappropriate or insulting would be deleted, as they were beyond the boundaries of what you were willing to allow in your comments section. You did not respond to that poster's speech with more speech--you deleted his comment, and set a boundary beyond which "free speech" would not be allowed.

I am not, in the slightest, attempting to suggest you were wrong to do so. I fully support that action, because I do believe that while free speech is important, vital, and indeed necessary to our society, there are boundaries to it--and while I don't want to see anyone narrowing those boundaries to oppress, I also don't want to see people getting away with ignoring them. (To quote Terry Pratchett: "Freedom without limits is just a word.")

In your case, the boundary (which again, let me stress, I'm not in the slightest disagreeing with, and I sincerely hope you're not angry for bringing up what might be a touchy subject) is negative comments about your family. In the case of the NABJ, it's racist remarks about a bunch of teenage women whose only crime seems to have been to lose a National Championship. I'm not saying you should have the same boundaries they do, but I do think that you should be able to sympathize with the notion that people can have limits to their ability to defend freedom of speech, and that some people have been pushed past theirs by Don Imus' latest reprehensible comments.

(Oh, and because I always feel uncomfortable disagreeing with people, let me just make a cheap attempt at defusing any tension by adding that I really liked your run on 'Marvel Adventures: Spider-Man'. Loved seeing Werewolf by Night, Man-Thing, and the Frankenstein Monster again.) :)

You're wrong, you've lost, stop embarrassing yourself, and move on. You should probably have Glenn delete this whole thread so there's less of a record of how completely clueless, petulant, wrong, and whiny you've been through this little tantrum of yours.

You must think we are really low wattage bulbs to try something this obvious. Nobody is going to respect an opinion that is so clearly put here by someone who is obviously a long-time reader who hasn't the guts to reveal him or herself.

Bill; you are so right. That may be the absolute best post ever!

Why thank you. I am blushing.

Bill Myers is just the coolest person in the world. I wish I could be Bill Myers.

Loved seeing Werewolf by Night, Man-Thing, and the Frankenstein Monster again.) :)

Totally off-topic, but I never got the name "Werewolf by Night", was there also a "Werewolf by Day"?

Why, thank you, Bill!

And no, that wasn't me impersonating Bill. I mean, you don't see a link to my Web site at the top of the post, do you?

You do????

Oh, God damn it...

"Also, we must be realistic and note that mainstream whites have never expressed a real need nor desire for white exclusive organizations. Those who do express the need for them are almost always radicals who do so spitefully. The ADL's website quotes language from the NAAWP showing their anti-black, anti-minority, and anti-Jewish sentiments."

Johnny, Reality called me. History was on the line with her. They would like to remind you of several facts: Several "white only" clubs that do not bear the initials KKK have, in fact, existed. Some still exist today, and some still exclude non-whites. I believe the Union Club of Chicago, as recent as 10 years ago, still denies membership to non-white males. I recall a story from the past 10 years of Michael Jordon being denied permission to golf at an exclusive, all-white club.

I don't know if you'd call CEOs, legacy families, nouveau rich, etc., "mainstream," but they certainly don't seem like shadowy fringe crazies, either.

True, but that doesn't make thier existance right either. Making an observation about a black organization does not necessarily mean you would feel differently about a woman's organization, religious organizations or organizations like the gay alliance. The fact of the matter is the minute you discriminate in either direction you are no longer being equal or treating others as equals. If you have an issue with that inequality when it thrown in your direction but defend it when it goes the other way, you can expect that someone, somewhere, at sometime will point out that there's a slight hyprocracy there.

Lets look a very hypothetical situation. Lets say that there is a serious social problem that plagues 50% of black Americans ONLY. Such a hypothetical problem would thus plague only 6% of the overall American population. 50% tends to be seen with much more urgency that 6%. If half of white Americans ONLY were plagued with this hypothetical social problem, that would equate to 35% of the U.S. population. 35% tends to be seen with much more urgency than 6%.

This is the reason that many feel it necessary to look at certain social problems from an ethnic perspective and to deal with them from such a perspective. People are never going stop pointing out the numerous negative statistics associated with black Americans such as crime, AIDS, poverty, unemployment, out of wedlock births, single parent households, school dropout rates, low academic scores, obesity, etc. What's the point of repeatedly pointing these out, yet frowning upon attempts by black Americans to organize and deal with the reasons for being overrepresented in most negative statistics?

Johnny, Reality called me. History was on the line with her. They would like to remind you of several facts: Several "white only" clubs that do not bear the initials KKK have, in fact, existed. Some still exist today, and some still exclude non-whites.

I'm speaking of modern day mainstream whites. Maybe I should have been clearer. Within the last 30 years, there has been no significant expression by mainstream whites to have organizations based on the white race. Even the organization you listed above did not exist as a race based organization. It just excluded non-whites from participating in whatever purpose they had. Heck, this was the case with mainstream organizations throughout history in this country. The KKK was probably the first organization designed specifically to serve, protect, defend, etc. the whiter race. Other organizations were for other purposes and just excluded non-whites from participating.

"CEOs, legacy families, nouveau rich, etc." are not race based organizations. They may utilize means to unofficially exclude non-whites or give advantage to whites, but serving the white race is not their official goal.

White organizations created to serve only whites overwhelmingly are fringe and express real disdain for non-whites and Jewish people. So that is what non-whites and Jewish people associate with organizations created specifically to serve whites. Maybe if there was a history of such organizations consistantly showing respect and good will toward non-whites and Jewish people, there would not be such a stigma.

"NBC News denied the drop in advertisers was the motive in dropping Imus, and didn't deny they were protecting their credibility."

Yeah, that's called a "lie."

PAD

"The NABJ, as people intimately familiar with the process and with the principles in question, has as much of a duty to themselves to prosecute abuses of freedom of speech as they do to defend the exercise of it. They can, and I'd argue should say, "Hey, we're the biggest defenders of freedom of speech you'll find, but this clearly crosses the boundaries of civilized behavior. We won't defend it, because to defend it is to abrogate our common sense and reduce us to yes-men for racists." Because if they _always_ defend someone's speech, even when it's indefensible, nobody will listen to them when they defend legitimate exercises of free speech."

And that's where their entire argument would fall apart. Basically you've just put forward one of the oldest saws: That certain types of speech don't deserve protection. That's the problem: Yes, they do. Popular speech doesn't need protection by definition. It is protecting the right of Don Imus to say things that are insulting or unpopular that enables you and me and the NABJ to say things that other people might find objectionable. "Crosses the boundaries of civilized behavior?" No. Burning crosses on someone's front lawn crosses that line. Going up to the girls, saying, "You're looking too uppity for your own good" and spitting in their faces is crossing the boundary of civilized behavior. Making a bad joke involving a racial epithet that's routinely already used by blacks and then apologizing for it is way, way, way within the boundaries. I would further say that the NABJ doesn't get to decide what Don Imus can and cannot say any more than I get to decide what the NABJ can and cannot say.

"Now, you might say that this makes them "not the biggest defenders of freedom of speech you'll find", and you might argue that "The answer to freedom of speech is always more freedom of speech, not the shutting down of freedom of speech"...in fact, I believe that you actually did. :) But, carefully and politely, I will point out that you yourself negotiate these same boundaries that the rest of us (including the NABJ) do.

Not too long ago, a poster made a comment in another thread about a member of your family. I don't know what that comment was, because you deleted it and replaced it with a statement that comments about your family that you found inappropriate or insulting would be deleted, as they were beyond the boundaries of what you were willing to allow in your comments section. You did not respond to that poster's speech with more speech--you deleted his comment, and set a boundary beyond which "free speech" would not be allowed."

I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

Here's the difference: This website is my personal property. Monitored by me, overseen by Glenn, read by my entire family. I decided to introduce exactly one limit: You can't insult my family. Say what you want about me, but my wife, my kids, etc., are off limits.

What the NABJ did would be the equivalent of someone saying something nasty about my family on Newsarama and I actively lobbied Matt Brady to ban that poster. Which I would never do. In fact, there have been times when Matt banned someone on the basis of the fact that they were insulting me and I urged him not to do so because of my belief in free speech.

So to create a parallel situation: If the NABJ had invited Imus to give a speech at one of their meetings, and Imus had said in the course of his speech, "And hey, what about those Rutgers girls; what a bunch of nappy-headed hos, huh?" and the NABJ subsequently declared that Imus would never be asked to speak there again and was banned from all future meetings...I've got no problem with that.

But that's not what they did.

So clearly the NABJ could SAY that they were the biggest defenders of free speech you'll find, but judging by their actions, it seems obvious that there's plenty bigger defenders of free speech right here.

PAD

I don't think that Imus should have been fired. Neither do I think that Tim Hardaway should have been fired.

However, [the NABJ pressuring the firing of Imus] even more akin to the Hollywood blacklist that blighted so many careers.

As far as their leverage was the credibility of the news divisions in question, they were right to challenge them for passing nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism. From what I've read, the NABJ hasn't crossed into the boundary of denying access any more than if they said a reporter who fabricated a story should be fired.

Because the advertisers were bailing....

This time around, thanks to the wave of pressure and the media focus--and nothing focuses the media like protests leveled by a media-related organization such as the NABJ--advertisers were running. All the ratings in the world don't matter if you can't sell the commercial time.

...if other shock jocks -- who keep getting pulled and put back, and pulled and put back -- can continue to pull in advertising dollars, it's reasonable to assume Imus would have found new advertisers.You all seem to agree Imus is just going to come back with no drop in ratings.

As such, you're denial [of] the vulnerability of the broadcasters' credibility seems arbitrary. [MSNBC] could have chosen to counter the Sharpton and the NABJ by rebranding and begun competing for Fox's slice of the news market. The same seems true for CBS rebranding and fighting conservative talk radio for their share of the market. Instead they decided to shelter the credibility they've claimed all along.

(Mike), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this (thread) is now dumber for having (read) it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

With apologies to Adam Sandler for shamelessly stealing his material.

Well, there was a typo, and an ambiguous use of a pronoun that stands out.

So which notion is nonsensical:

• that shock jocks have gotten fired and returned with advertisers returning to them?
• that no one disagrees Imus will find a new broadcasting job with no loss in ratings?
• that Imus took money from and was fired from NBC News?
• that corporations protect their brands? Are you baffled by what a brand is, Bobb? Are you saying, as a government worker, brands are nonsensical to you?
• Do you still need an explanation how Jackie Chan offended the black characters in Rush Hour? He heard Chris Tucker greeting them, you see, and didn't know there was a double-standard in the word-choice of the greeting.

If you aren't determined to arbitrarily dismiss my point, let me know which aspect of it crosses into the the realm of nonsense. Start anywhere. We can get through this.

NBC News denied the drop in advertisers was the motive in dropping Imus, and didn't deny they were protecting their credibility.

Yeah, that's called a "lie."

My take on the situation accepts everyones' word as it has been given, and requires no one to lie to achieve the same results. Can you articulate the motive to lie? Why not cite the loss of advertisers as the reason for firing Imus?

Because from a political point of view and a CYA point of view it comes across much better for the execs to say, "We were shocked, SHOCKED that he said this and naturally on the basis of morality and our credibility yadda yadda we had to fire him" than for them to say, "Our advertisers were bailing so we had to fire him." The latter implies that, if it weren't for the advertisers pulling out, they would have been "okay" with Imus's comments. You know...like they've been for the past several decades. For that matter, even recently, they didn't immediately pull him from the air. A number of days passed before they did so, which implies that they bowed to outside pressure rather than acting from internal indignation.

That's why.

PAD

"You're welcome to live any life you want... up until the moment you threaten someone else's."

I love that line--twenty imaginary bucks to anyone who can guess which X-Men issue that came from.

That's how I feel about freedom of speech. Imus had every right to say what he wanted, when he wanted. The NABJ should have been screaming at the top of their lungs defending the man’s right to speak out. His words weren't hurting anything except black people's pride. I know I felt wounded when I read about what he said. That's the whole issue, I think, our pride.

Here's my theory: Imus's remark was a slap in the face to many blacks. Here are these smart, talented young women who are not just role models to young black women but all young women; all likely go on to be successful, useful members of society, if they’re not already. Yet to this ancient old white man their accomplishments meant nothing; it was nothing to him to denigrate them.

That's difficult to accept. It reminds us that no matter how hard we try to get along in America we’re always targets to be disrespected and dismissed regardless of how well we live our lives. I’m sure a lot of PoC feel the same way when they see or hear their race being mean-spiritedly mocked and insulted.

In the end, though, I think the NABJ’s response was a major league cock-up. Yes, many of his listeners got off on his remarks. They’re racists… at best they’re thoughtless, immature bastards, but they are not going to magically disappear now that Imus is off the air. All NABJ has done is made the asshat a martyr—one I have to support because he *is* a martyr. Nothing’s been solved by their actions, only made worse, if death threats are flying around.

P.S. I've been watching The Daily Show too much. I cannot tell you how many times I almost typed NAMBLA while writing this post.

As far as their leverage was the credibility of the news divisions in question, [the NABJ was] right to challenge them for passing nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism. From what I've read, the NABJ hasn't crossed into the boundary of denying access any more than if they said a reporter who fabricated a story should be fired....

...if other shock jocks -- who keep getting pulled and put back, and pulled and put back -- can continue to pull in advertising dollars, it's reasonable to assume Imus would have found new advertisers. You all seem to agree Imus is just going to come back with no drop in ratings.

As such, [your] denial [of] the vulnerability of the broadcasters' credibility seems arbitrary. [MSNBC] could have chosen to counter... Sharpton and the NABJ by rebranding and begun competing for Fox's slice of the news market. The same seems true for CBS rebranding and fighting conservative talk radio for their share of the market. Instead they decided to shelter the credibility they've claimed all along....

Why [deny] the loss of advertisers as the reason for firing Imus?

Because from a political point of view and a CYA point of view it comes across much better for the execs to say, "We were shocked, SHOCKED that he said this and naturally on the basis of morality and our credibility yadda yadda we had to fire him" than for them to say, "Our advertisers were bailing so we had to fire him." The latter implies that, if it weren't for the advertisers pulling out, they would have been "okay" with Imus's comments. You know...like they've been for the past several decades. For that matter, even recently, they didn't immediately pull him from the air. A number of days passed before they did so, which implies that they bowed to outside pressure rather than acting from internal indignation.

No one disgrees Imus made a pantsload of advertising dollars for NBC News or that they had every right under free speech to take that money. No one disagrees that Imus's audience will find a way to access him again and that advertisers will sponsor him when they do.

What result of admitting they were ok with the last 10 years of Imus did NBC News avoid by lying?

"As far as their leverage was the credibility of the news divisions in question, [the NABJ was] right to challenge them for passing nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism."

Was that the reason the NABJ gave for calling Imus to be fired?

In other words, was it their leverage, or just your leverage in this discussion?

Imus wasn't arrested. He wasn't fired because of what he said...if that were true he would have been fired automatically and that would be censorship. This is not censorship though. He was fired by his bosses because he did something stupid that cost his company money. How many of you have immunity from being fired due to stupidity and loss of revenue? He can still host a radio show, and he still has the right to say whatever he wants. All this complaining about what happened to him is BS...but you have every right to voice your BS.

As for the "reverse racism" of organizations focussed on minority groups, they tend not to exclude anyone. Usually, people from other groups just don't see any reason to join. Also, they give voice to a minority that (in a majority rules system) would never have the voice or votes to do what they want. I'm sure almost every member of NABJ is also a member of whatever the main journalism organization is, and they can voice their free speech concerns there along with the majority.

Was that the reason the NABJ gave for calling Imus to be fired?

In other words, was it their leverage, or just your leverage in this discussion?

The only statements by the NABJ I saw cited Imus's racism in calling for his firing. They seemed to leave the detailed specifics of their rational to the beholder.

Peter, if I'm interpreting him correctly, said the NABJ calling for the firing of Imus inherently worked against the free speech that shelters them, and benefits us all. In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus's firing based on intolerance of his opinion.

As far as Imus took money from NBC News, and the status of his MSNBC telecast was determined by NBC News President Steve Capus, Imus's nigger, kike, and pussy jokes were passed as journalism. Therefore, calling for Imus's firing doesn't cross into the boundary of restricting free speech any more than if they said a reporter who fabricated a story should be fired -- an intolerence considered acceptible because of the role credibility plays in legitimizing a news source.

Peter's counter to this seems to be that credibility was not a deciding factor because without advertisers, there is no news division -- that Steve Capus must have lied when he claimed advertiser-loss wasn't an issue.

But advertising is no longer a factor when no one disagrees Imus will broadcast again, his ratings will return, and advertisers will sponsor him. As anyone has yet to mention any other feared result avoided by such a lie, the claim Steve Capus lied when he said advertising was not a deciding factor seems made only to substantiate an otherwise arbitrary claim the NABJ sacrificed free speech to indulge in intolerance.

Money follows ratings. The threat to the broadcasters seems to be based on having their credibility challenged, and the prospect of NBC and CBS being forced to rebrand to compete with Fox and conservative talk radio for their slices of the news and radio markets.

This requires rephrasing:

In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus's firing not based on intolerance of his opinion.

"This requires rephrasing:

In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus's firing not based on intolerance of his opinion."

Oh yeah, THAT clarified it. Nothing clears things up like a double negative...

PAD

"In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus's firing not based on intolerance of his opinion."

Oh, I get it.

Since
a) It is impossible that PAD is right, and that the NABJ 'failed in their public trust as journalists'.

and since
b) PAD is right that calling for the firing of Imus based on his opinions would be inappropriate for journalists committed to free speech.

The only option left for Mike is that they called for Imus's firing for a different reason.

What is that reason? They do not say. But Mike has been able to figure it out: they called for Imus's firing because for a shock jock who is employed by NBC news to make racist jokes is like a reporter fabricating a story.

I love it. This logical twist is like a sureal picture. It doesn't make much sense but it's a work of art nevertheless. and it's completely self contained. Nothing you say can break it. It's a little like one of those pictures where the waterfall falls into itself.

-----------------

Is it me, or does Imus look a little like Sabertooth?

Let me see if I've got the 200 posts plus or so.

And for those math majors out there...

PAD believes J(journalist group) main goals is to say A(anyone) can say anything within the law - free speech (FS). So J=A+FS. Except when a specific someone - Imus(I) does this J calls for I to be Fired. So J=A+FS except when I+FS then I+FS=Fired. Except if if Imus is considered Anyone or I=A then J isn't making any sense.

The other point is the contention of Imus' firing.
Imus made wacky(racist, sexist, ridiculous) comments for years advertising was fine, no threat of public protests in front of corporate HQs - he had job. Imus makes wacky(racist) comment, advertisers pull out, threats of public protests in front of corportate HQs - he is fired.

MSNBC/CBS claims firing is because of wacky statements. Yep that makes total sense.

Until later
John

In order to believe the NABJ failed in their public trust as journalists, there must be no justification for calling for Imus's firing not based on intolerance of his opinion.

Oh, I get it.

Since
a) It is impossible that PAD is right, and that the NABJ 'failed in their public trust as journalists'.

and since
b) PAD is right that calling for the firing of Imus based on his opinions would be inappropriate for journalists committed to free speech.

The only option left for Mike is that they called for Imus's firing for a different reason.

What is that reason? They do not say. But Mike has been able to figure it out: they called for Imus's firing because for a shock jock who is employed by NBC news to make racist jokes is like a reporter fabricating a story.

I love it. This logical twist is like a sureal picture. It doesn't make much sense but it's a work of art nevertheless. and it's completely self contained. Nothing you say can break it. It's a little like one of those pictures where the waterfall falls into itself.

Peter portrayed the NABJ call to fire Imus as inherently working against the free speech that shelters journalism and that benefits us all.

In order for this to be true, there must be no justification for firing Imus based on something other than intolerance of his opinions. If such a motive exists, then free speech as we know it did not depend on journalists' withholding calls for Imus's cancellation. Please review the bolded text emphasizing that such a motive must be completely absent for Peter's criticism to be true.

Just as calling for the firing of a journalist who fabricates a story is not an action to curb lying in general, calling for the firing of Imus for passing nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism is also not an action to curb dissemination of Imus's opinions -- both are justified as preserving the credibility of the journalism institutions in question. No one disagrees Imus will return to broadcasting, his ratings will return, and advertisers will sponsor him.

As I have provided a motive to fire Imus that does not depend on intolerance of his opinions, Peter's criticism seems to be unambiguously wrong.

Mike, I am certain that all this makes perfect sense to you, and that nothing Icould say would convince you otherwise. So let's agree to disagree.

You cite the parts of my last post that are nonsensical to you, and I will revise them to distill the clarity of my point.

Where you do not cite such a passage, your calling my point nonsensical -- and thus your disagreement -- is arbitrary.

Thanks, that's not necessary. Your post is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with it. You think it makes perfect sense, I don't. It happens. Since we are unlikely to change each other's views all we can do is move on.

You think it makes perfect sense, I don't.

I made no claim the sense of my posts was perfect -- I'm not a platonist, remember? If I thought the sense of my posts was perfect, I wouldn't offer to clarify what you find nonsensical.

No, it's just that at first, second, and up to the fourteenth, understanding the FIRST explanation is like trying to ride a ten-speed up a hill through a blizzard while sitting backwards on the seat and looking over your shoulders through goggles that are covered in cookie dough.

Micha--Sabretooth? Really? I was thinking he looked like a classic Scooby-Doo bad guy.

It's just a figure of speech. You can remove the word 'perfect' if it makes my post unclear to you. Aside from that there is no need for you to clarify your post for me, it is clear enough. Thanks anyway.

"Sabretooth? Really? I was thinking he looked like a classic Scooby-Doo bad guy."

Yes. You're right.

Do you think somebody is going to pull the mask off Al Sharpton's face and it's going to be Imus?

Your post is... clear. I just don't agree with it. You think it makes... sense, I don't.

Determining that which is clear and that which is obscure is the province of our senses. To say my point is clear, then deny my point makes sense, is nonsensical.

Oh, God, have to lift the shroud, if only for a moment...

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Micha says he wants to agree to disagree... and Mike is parsing THAT and arguing about it!!!!!!!!

Oh, Mike, thank you. I needed a good laugh.

Bill, I'm happy you are taking this discussion with the appropriate attitude.

Mike, let's also agree to disagree about your recent post too. Bye.

You cite the parts of my last post that are nonsensical to you, and I will revise them to distill the clarity of my point.

Where you do not cite such a passage, your calling my point nonsensical -- and thus your disagreement -- is arbitrary.

Mike, let's also agree to disagree about your recent post too. Bye.

Micha, some day you may be generous to answer the following: if you were to discover you were wrong about something, but decided to simply retreat from your wrongness by accusing me of making no sense and offering to agree to disagree -- how would that be different from your accusation what I say is nonsensical and offer to agree to disagree now?

Here's what I'm getting from PAD's point: He think all journalists, especially those of a minority group, should always defend the right to be heard. That's fine, and it makes sense.

I just don't see how this is a free speech issue. Imus wasn't fired for what he said. He was fired because his work drew enough criticism for the company to lose a lot of revenue. That's why most people get fired.

As for the black journalists, I don't recall anyone saying what could or couldn't be said on the radio. I think their point was that these corporations in particular shouldn't sponsor that kind of behavior. What's wrong with that?

PAD, what if they said this? "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it. However, we will not work for the companies who employ him or support the companies who sponsor him."

...generous enough...

He was fired because his work drew enough criticism for the company to lose a lot of revenue.

As the histories of suspension and return to the air of other shock jocks demonstrate, Imus will recover listeners and sponsors. As NBC News President Steve Capus denied loss of advertisers was a motive in firing Imus, he probably knew this.

Is it me, or does Imus look a little like Sabertooth?

I always think of the cryptkeeper.

"I just don't see how this is a free speech issue. Imus wasn't fired for what he said. He was fired because his work drew enough criticism for the company to lose a lot of revenue. That's why most people get fired."

Except it was the reaction of the NABJ that initiated the firestorm of negative reaction. Nothing seizes the attention of journalists like the reaction of other journalists. When the NABJ started shouting for Imus's head, that ensured the story would build and build and build.

"As for the black journalists, I don't recall anyone saying what could or couldn't be said on the radio. I think their point was that these corporations in particular shouldn't sponsor that kind of behavior. What's wrong with that?"

PAD, what if they said this? "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it. However, we will not work for the companies who employ him or support the companies who sponsor him.""

And that's defending his rights...how?

I mean, let's set aside the BS, shall we? Everyone knows that advertisers are the weak link in the chain of support for free expression. Pressure groups that despise certain TV shows go after the sponsors to try and make the show unprofitable enough that the networks have to dump them. It's completely ridiculous to assert that, on the one hand, a group is supporting free speech while on the other hand displaying pressure tactics to try and shut down the venue of that free speech. Basically the notion is that they're supporting free speech, but only in the abstract. Taking steps specifically designed to impede a venue for free expression cannot, within any stretch of the imagination, be considered "defending to the death." That's not even defending to a coma.

PAD

mike, are you saying that blacks are not educated enough to speak what they mean? they clearly wished to see imus removed because of his remarks about the team. that was their only stated reason on many of their statement releases. for you to be making an arguement based on the idea that some other reason other then the one they themselves state is why they wanted imus gone is stupid or saying that you think that they are too stupid to say what they mean. no racism there buddy.

http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53029p-81732c.html

Imus apology too little too late; 'It is time for him to go'

UPDATED4/12/07
NABJ erroneously reported several companies were sponsors of the Don Imus show, including the New York Stock Exchange and Newsday. While both companies had been sponsors in the past, neither were or are current sponsors. We regret the error.

(APRIL 6, 2007) WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The National Association of Black Journalists remains outraged after the racially inflammatory insults made by radio personality Don Imus, even though the shock jock offered a two-line apology days after he called members of the Rutgers women's basketball team 'nappy-headed ho's.'

NABJ is calling for the immediate removal of Imus and his WFAN producer, Bernard McGuirk -- who referred to the players as "jigaboos and wannabees" -- by Monday morning.

The association also questions if sponsors of his show -- which include the Simon & Schuster and Random House -- will want to continue to be associated with the program.

"What he said has deeply hurt too many people -- black and white, male and female," said Bryan Monroe, NABJ president. "His so-called apology comes two days after the fact, and it is too little, too late."

Imus has had a history of racial insults on his program, having called award-winning journalist Gwen Ifill of PBS a "cleaning lady" and referring to columnist William Rhoden of the New York Times as "a quota hire."

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But free speech comes with responsibility, and sometimes with consequences. His removal must be that consequence."

"These were nothing but hard working student athletes — young women, just trying to do their best. After 40 years on the air, it is clear that he has lost touch with all that is decent and honorable in America," said Monroe. "It is time for him to go."

On his show at 6 a.m. Friday morning, Imus read the following prepared statement: "Want to take a moment to apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team. It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry."

MSNBC also issued the following statement: "While simulcast by MSNBC, 'Imus in the Morning' is not a production of the cable network and is produced by WFAN Radio. As Imus makes clear every day, his views are not those of MSNBC. We regret that his remarks were aired on MSNBC and apologize for these offensive comments."

NABJ appreciates the swift action from NBC and its cable channel MSNBC in condemning his remarks, and now hopes the network will continue to do the right thing and separate itself permanently from the incendiary host.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An advocacy group established in 1975 in Washington, D.C., NABJ is the largest organization of journalists of color in the nation, with nearly 4,000 members, and provides educational, career development and support to black journalists worldwide.

Posted by: :( at April 20, 2007 11:38 PM

mike, are you saying that blacks are not educated enough to speak what they mean? they clearly wished to see imus removed because of his remarks about the team. that was their only stated reason on many of their statement releases. for you to be making an arguement based on the idea that some other reason other then the one they themselves state is why they wanted imus gone is stupid or saying that you think that they are too stupid to say what they mean. no racism there buddy.

The only statements by the NABJ I saw cited Imus's racism in calling for his firing. They seemed to leave the detailed specifics of their rational to the beholder....

Peter portrayed the NABJ call to fire Imus as inherently working against the free speech that shelters journalism and that benefits us all.

In order for this to be true, there must be no justification for firing Imus based on something other than intolerance of his opinions. If such a motive exists, then free speech as we know it did not depend on journalists' withholding calls for Imus's cancellation. Please review the bolded text emphasizing that such a motive must be completely absent for Peter's criticism to be true.

Just as calling for the firing of a journalist who fabricates a story is not an action to curb lying in general, calling for the firing of Imus for passing nigger, kike, and pussy jokes as journalism is also not an action to curb dissemination of Imus's opinions -- both are justified as preserving the credibility of the journalism institutions in question. No one disagrees Imus will return to broadcasting, his ratings will return, and advertisers will sponsor him.

As I have provided a motive to fire Imus that does not depend on intolerance of his opinions, Peter's criticism seems to be unambiguously wrong.

My point did not depend on deviating from anything I've heard the NABJ say. Your citation does not change this.

Did you need a Doctorate in Philosophy to ID yourself as ":(" or can anyone do that?

This needs a bit of PERSPECTIVE.

This coming Wednesday at 9pm, PBS will air the Bill Moyer special "Buying the War." It reveals specific details about how prominent media personalities 'sold' the Iraq war to their viewers without any attempt to substantiate White House claims. In fact, the media went out of its way to SHUT DOWN any 'counter-war' discussions.

I just want to know...where were all these "with free speech comes RESPONSIBILITY" people back then???

"for you to be making an arguement based on the idea that some other reason other then the one they themselves state is why they wanted imus gone is stupid or saying that you think that they are too stupid to say what they mean."

Actually, I think it's just that he thinks some people here--other than his sock puppets--are stupid enough to believe it.

""As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But"

And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.

PAD

Mike: "Micha, some day you may be generous to answer the following: if you were to discover you were wrong about something, but decided to simply retreat from your wrongness by accusing me of making no sense and offering to agree to disagree -- how would that be different from your accusation what I say is nonsensical and offer to agree to disagree now?"

I understand your confusion. I can only promise you that if I discovered I was wrong I would not hide it, and that my disagreement with you is sincere. I believe my record on this thread speaks for itself. However, you are free to disagree with me on that too. That's the nature of agreeing to disagree.

PAD, I understand your point completely about the

NABJ. But what to you think people who work for media personality like Imus, or for a company employing such a media personality, should do if they feel that person is saying things they consider racist?

What would you do if a publisher you were working for was publishing racist material?

(I should make it clear that I'm asking this question sincerely, and not because I'm trying to trip you).

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it. This non-sensical denial epitomizes every challenge to what I say you issue

As portrayed in your post, the following qualification would be no less a dilution of free speech:

As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech, but a journalist who fabricates a story should be fired.

Obviously, journalists do not benefit from the unqualified principle of "We disagree with everything [you say], but will defend to the death his right to say it."

Micha, some day you may be generous to answer the following: if you were to discover you were wrong about something, but decided to simply retreat from your wrongness by accusing me of making no sense and offering to agree to disagree -- how would that be different from your accusation what I say is nonsensical and offer to agree to disagree now?

I can only promise you that if I discovered I was wrong I would not hide it, and that my disagreement with you is sincere. I believe my record on this thread speaks for itself.

You once refused to relent from portraying compatible statements as mutually exclusive of each other:

Plato portrayed Forms as independant of Nature.

No. Nature is dependant on the forms.

This kind of nonsensical denial seems to epitomize every challenge to what I say you issue.

Mike, you'll excuse me if I don't consider you the best judge of the quality of my posts.

Naturaly, I also disagree with you on the last pist. You see, that's the nature of agreeing to disagree, when two people realize that their disagreement cannot be solved by continuing the discussion.

But it is funny that you're disagreeing about the agreeing to disagree. This could go on ad infinitum. But let's end it before the fabric of time and space is shattered by the absurdity of this discussion. Bye.

PAD, here's something I really hope everyone understands: Don Imus still has the right to broadcast and say whatever he wants. This right has not been taken away from him...not by the FCC, CBS, NBC, nor the NABJ. Freedom of speech is a legal issue so unless this qualifies, stop using this loaded term and call it something else.

Using racially-charged accusations, Imus has personally attacked at least two black journalists in the recent past so one would expect this to be strike 3 for them. Your point seems to be that it's wrong for journalists to take this stance on this issue. You want them to be objective or supportive, but unbeknownst to you, they've been a part of the Imus story long before this incident.

What are you asking for exactly? Since you said that the answer is more free speech, what did the NABJ do besides speak freely? What exactly can or can't the NABJ speak freely about? I understand you're just annoyed, you don't want to limit the speech of the NABJ, and you're simply speaking freely yourself, but it all sounds like BS.

Also, realize that after the original 2-week vacation he was given, he'd be back to work on Monday. I'm looking forward to the answer to Micha's question.

"As portrayed in your post, the following qualification would be no less a dilution of free speech:

As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech, but a journalist who fabricates a story should be fired"

That's just idiotic.

I mean, do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can't distinguish between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories? Or do you just choose not to for sake of argument? If it's the former, than you're too stupid to talk to anymore, and if it's the latter, then this is just a waste of time.

PAD

"NABJ. But what to you think people who work for media personality like Imus, or for a company employing such a media personality, should do if they feel that person is saying things they consider racist?"

Depends on what that person's job is. If the personality is, for instance, supposed to be giving inspirational speeches Sunday morning, and he said, "And to all my black brothers and sisters...sorry, but God hates people of color and you're going to hell," it doesn't seem unreasonable for the broadcaster to say, "Yeah, uh...time for you to go," particularly if the listening audience starts dropping in response. But Imus has been doing the exact same thing for thirty years, and there was no evidence that the audience was dropping in response to Imus's comments...plus he apologized up one side and down the other.

"What would you do if a publisher you were working for was publishing racist material?"

What if they were? They've a right to publish whatever they want to publish.

PAD

"PAD, here's something I really hope everyone understands: Don Imus still has the right to broadcast and say whatever he wants. This right has not been taken away from him...not by the FCC, CBS, NBC, nor the NABJ. Freedom of speech is a legal issue so unless this qualifies, stop using this loaded term and call it something else."

Bullshit. I'm sorry: Bullshit. Imus is a radio personality. Assorted black pressure groups and individuals teamed up to remove him from the radio. Trying to say that that does not fly in the face of supporting free speech is like going up to a guy preaching on the street, ripping out his tongue, and then saying that his free expression hasn't been taken away because he can always write. It goes back to what I said before: Supporting free speech in the abstract while attempting to eliminate the venue in reality is mealy mouthed.

"Using racially-charged accusations, Imus has personally attacked at least two black journalists in the recent past so one would expect this to be strike 3 for them. Your point seems to be that it's wrong for journalists to take this stance on this issue. You want them to be objective or supportive, but unbeknownst to you, they've been a part of the Imus story long before this incident."

Oh my GOD! I wanted journalists to be OBJECTIVE! What the hell was I thinking? I must have been out of my MIND! Because in journalism school they teach you that the absolute LAST thing a journalist should be is objective! So expecting objectivity from an entire organization of journalists...I see the error of my ways.

Sheesh.

"What are you asking for exactly? Since you said that the answer is more free speech, what did the NABJ do besides speak freely?"

Take away the forum of someone whose speech they didn't like.

"What exactly can or can't the NABJ speak freely about?"

They can speak freely about whatever they want. But since journalists depend upon free speech for their livelihood, when they go out of their way to stifle someone's free speech, I call them on it and say they're hypocrites.

"I understand you're just annoyed, you don't want to limit the speech of the NABJ, and you're simply speaking freely yourself, but it all sounds like BS."

I'm not annoyed. I'm pissed off. And you can say it sounds like bullshit all you want, but you know what my stance is that the so-called journalists of the NABJ isn't? It's consistent. It holds to the ideal of free speech for all...not just for those who no one finds offensive.

PAD

Also, realize that after the original 2-week vacation he was given, he'd be back to work on Monday. I'm looking forward to the answer to Micha's question.

First of all, I don;t want any connections between my question and the questions of ME. I asked my question because all the other questions were already answered, and I wanted to examine anoher angle of the greater ssue of freedom of speech.

I was trying to put myself in the position of somebody working for Imus or his network, listening to his allegedly racist statements for a while. And I'm not talking here about an executive whó is worried about the effect on the bottom line. I'm talking about a gofer, a technician, a fellow broadcaster in the same network, who is sitting there asking himself: "this guy is saying things that not only don't I agree with, but I find them morally reprehensible, and I'm associated with this person. What should I do? Do I stay and say nothing, for the sake of free speech? Do I leave quietly? Or do I go to the employer and demand that something changes or I leave? Maybe there's another option? Some fellow broadcasters could have had the option to publically criticize Imus. Thus excercising free speech against him. But what about the others?"

I don't know. It would seem that PAD believes, if I'm interpreting him correctly, that such employees should not feel that ther are associated with Imus's words, and therefore shouldn't care what he says, unless it is their job to care. If I'm misunderstanding then I'm sorry.

I've worked for advertisers who did work for political parties and groups I opposed, and did work for them myself. But nothing that caused me to feel I need to disassociate myself from this work.Yet, I can imagine a situation where it would be impossible for me to stay.

"But Imus has been doing the exact same thing for thirty years, and there was no evidence that the audience was dropping in response to Imus's comments...plus he apologized up one side and down the other."

This goes beyond the question of free speech to the question of Imus's own specific conduct, which I'm not in a position to comment about. I don't have enbough information. Was it a failed joke, or the last straw in a career of racist statements? Was his apology sincere, or fake. I don't know, and it's not relevant to the basic question of free speech, since he'd have the right to free speech regardless.
The fact that he's made similar comments in the past is similarly not relevant, since the willingness of people to accept or not accept things like racism, racist jokes, sexist jokes etc. changes over time. That's why Southpark could never have been made in the 50's. But had it been made, it would deserve the same freedom of speech then as it does now.

PAD: "I mean, do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can't distinguish between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?"

Yes.

PAD: "Or do you just choose not to for sake of argument?"

Likely that too.

PAD: "If it's the former, than you're too stupid to talk to anymore, and if it's the latter, then this is just a waste of time."

Pretty much.

We have a shroud for sale that specializes in Mikeness. It's pretty used, but it's cheap as hell and all proceeds go to charity. My child's college fund will appreciate the $1.35.

I followed that NABJ link from above, and now I'm really disliking NABJ. They had a statement from a couple of days prior to that one demanding that Imus apologize. Imus apologized. Hell, he did an apology tour that ended with the team themselves and them accepting his apology.

What's their response to that? Too little too late?!? Screw them.

There's only one group of people that really had the right to demand an apology from Imus and that's the girls themselves. Once they accepted the apology, that should have been the end of it.

I'm not an Imus fan, but, by the end of it all, this whole thing got blown way too out of proportion and Imus was penalized way too heavily.

I have to say that I think someone can be a supporter of free speech and the First Amendment without believing that those principles extend to giving someone a paid platform for their speech.

As far as Imus took money from NBC News, and the status of his MSNBC telecast was determined by NBC News President Steve Capus, Imus's nigger, kike, and pussy jokes were passed as journalism. Therefore, calling for Imus's firing doesn't cross into the boundary of restricting free speech any more than if they said a reporter who fabricated a story should be fired -- an intolerence considered acceptible because of the role credibility plays in legitimizing a news source....

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.

As portrayed in your post, the following qualification would be no less a dilution of free speech [than the NABJ's call to fire Imus]:

As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech, but a journalist who fabricates a story should be fired.

Obviously, journalists do not benefit from the unqualified principle of "We disagree with everything [you say], but will defend to the death his right to say it."

I mean, do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can't distinguish between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories? Or do you just choose not to for sake of argument?

I never said the 2 actions were interchangeable, and my point doesn't depend on them being interchangeable offenses.

Peter, you made "As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech, but..." the damning qualifier. Not me. You. As far as you dismissed any exception to free speech as a journalistic principle -- whatever stupidity you are referrring to is yours.

Funny thing about this thread. It proves one of the problems with freedom of speech. That being, people are free to say whatever they want however they want without understanding A)they only think they know what's being discussed without understanding anything more than their own personal bullet points and B)some people are so enamored of either their own personal freedom of speech (or the sight of their own typed words) that they don't realize that by continuing to argue a point, they're demonstrating that they don't understand that freedom of speech doesn't equal necessity of speech. Especially when the person hasn't the barest comprehension of the nature of the discussion.

One more thing before I shut up. (Hey, I KNOW I talk too much.) Jerry, I'll take ya up on that offer if you autograph it. Might be a valuable collector's item someday. Wonder what I could get for it on eBay?

I followed that NABJ link from above, and now I'm really disliking NABJ. They had a statement from a couple of days prior to that one demanding that Imus apologize. Imus apologized. Hell, he did an apology tour that ended with the team themselves and them accepting his apology.

What's their response to that? Too little too late?!? Screw them.

Your facts are wrong. The NABJ called for Imus's cancellation, then Imus lost his show, then he apologized to the Rutgers players personally.

Funny thing about this thread. It proves one of the problems with freedom of speech. That being, people are free to say whatever they want however they want without understanding A)they only think they know what's being discussed without understanding anything more than their own personal bullet points...

My posts are relevant to the comments they are responding to, so I'm glad you aren't referring to me.

B)some people are so enamored of either their own personal freedom of speech (or the sight of their own typed words) that they don't realize that by continuing to argue a point, they're demonstrating that they don't understand that freedom of speech doesn't equal necessity of speech.

I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds like the vulnerability you refer to is so devastating, it makes me wonder what the virtue is in you not saying what it is, and dismissing the wrongness in question.

"I have to say that I think someone can be a supporter of free speech and the First Amendment without believing that those principles extend to giving someone a paid platform for their speech."

No one said that was the case; otherwise everyone would be entitled to having a paid platform for their speech, which is obviously ridiculous.

Look, it's really simple: If someone says, "I do not believe in freedom of speech, and will do everything that I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I can respect that.

If someone says, "I believe in freedom of speech and will do nothing to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I can respect that.

When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

PAD

When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

"Everything I can?" Who said anything remotely like that? Are these pistol-packing journalists ready to shoot down anyone who says anything they don't like?

But I think it's more the platform they have an issue rather than the speech itself; after all, we hear people say ignorant things every day and nobody tries to shut them down. I think the protests came about because Imus had a nationally syndicated radio and TV show, and people did not think he deserved that platform.

When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

And the NABJ has called for only Imus's cancellation. Taking your strawman literally, that would mean Imus is the only person saying things they don't like. That means the NABJ likes everything George Bush says, they like every movie they see -- and they don't have arguments with their family.

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure you've just disqualified yourself from calling anyone stupid ever again.

"When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

"Everything I can?" Who said anything remotely like that? Are these pistol-packing journalists ready to shoot down anyone who says anything they don't like?"

Yeah, okay, it's official, you're an idiot. Done with you now.

PAD

"But I think it's more the platform they have an issue rather than the speech itself; after all, we hear people say ignorant things every day and nobody tries to shut them down. I think the protests came about because Imus had a nationally syndicated radio and TV show, and people did not think he deserved that platform."

Yeah, here's the thing: The NABJ shouldn't get that determination. In a free society, if an individual or group doesn't like what someone on the radio has to say, their response should be as follows: (a) turn the radio dial to something they like better, and/or (b) say specifically in whatever forum they can WHY they don't like what the individual on the radio had to say.

The problem is that the counterargument is, "But since this IS a free society, then I'm free to try and shut someone down permanently." And that's true. Unfortunately that goes back to a very simple concept: Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. As journalists whose stock in trade is entrenched in free expression, the NABJ should have known this, acknowledged this, and fought for this. The fact that they didn't is unfortunate and displays a limitation on its thinking.

PAD

I wonder what Turin did on the blogosphere in order to be shrouded with the Shroud of Turin.

Now we have a Shroud of Mike, and an official confirmation as an idiot. I feel there should be a ceremony. Something involving the Pope, the Queen of England, or the Academy of Motion Pictures. Hopefully I weon't win best supporting....

When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

"Everything I can?" Who said anything remotely like that? Are these pistol-packing journalists ready to shoot down anyone who says anything they don't like?

Yeah, okay, it's official, you're an idiot. Done with you now.

Your strawman (speaking of sock puppets) characterized the NABJ as tolerating absolutely no dissent.

Your inability to associate the totalitarian behavior completely and obviously compatible with an absolute intolerance of dissent demonstrates that whatever stupidity you are referring to is yours.

That's, like, 2 lifetimes you've disqualified yourself from calling anyone stupid ever again. You should stop before you make it 3.

"I wonder what Turin did on the blogosphere in order to be shrouded with the Shroud of Turin."

Turin got tired of people wondering where the soup was and got bitchy.

Oh, wait, is that for the Shroud of Tureen? Oh, okay. Then it forgot to pack up some cables and amps after the last show.

Oh, right, that's for the Shroud of TOURIN'.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today."

I just think it's ridiculous to chastise people for taking a stance against what they feel is racism because they're somehow bound by their job title to say nothing. You seem to feel that journalists can't have opinions (or must have pre-determined journalism opinions) even when they aren't actually on the job. Oh, well...I can agree to disagree.

I was actually using your words from the original article (2nd paragraph, 5th word) when I said you were annoyed. Maybe, I should have used quotation marks. Since you were just annoyed when you posted the article, it seems this discussion is what pissed you off. I'm just going to forget all of this, and only think of you as the guy making "X-Factor" such a great read.

"I just think it's ridiculous to chastise people for taking a stance against what they feel is racism because they're somehow bound by their job title to say nothing. You seem to feel that journalists can't have opinions (or must have pre-determined journalism opinions) even when they aren't actually on the job. Oh, well...I can agree to disagree."

Agree or disagree, but this is an incorrect representation of PAD's opinion. If you'll think about it a moment you'll realize that too.

a) He did not say they should say nothing if they found Imus offensive, only not call for him to be fired.
b) He did not say they should have no opinions, only that they should not call for Imus to be removed from the medium from which he convays his opinions even if they dislike them.
c) He does believe that journalists should hold to "pre-determined journalism opinions" about freedom of speech.
d) Since the NABJ is an organization of journalistsm and it made its statement as such, the journalists who made these statements were "actually on the job" when they made it. They spoke as journalists, or else what's the point of these statements.

Now, you can agree or disagree with these ideas. I personaly was not sure about a variation of that idea, so I asked a question. But please at least understand and represent the opinion correctly.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

Huh. So, if I were to suggest that atheism is inconsistent with being a Christian, would I too be guilty of having a small mind?

A journalist's job sometimes requires him or her to report that which is inconvenient to the Powers that Be. That's why free speech is vital to journalists, and why it's something they should defend tooth and nail. That's not a "foolish consistency," but instead a recongition of the logical implications of the job, just as a belief in God is one of the logical implications of being a Christian.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

That's one of those clichés that people trot out whenever they've been caught in a colossal contradiction. I've used it myself.

It's right up there with another favorite--when a columnist or editor proudly claims that they get nasty letters from the left and the right and that "if we are getting criticized by both sides we must be doing something right!". Alternate explanation--you suck so badly that people of all persuasions think you suck.

Me: I just think it's ridiculous to chastise people for taking a stance against what they feel is racism because they're somehow bound by their job title to say nothing. You seem to feel that journalists can't have opinions (or must have pre-determined journalism opinions) even when they aren't actually on the job..
Luigi Novi: No, he doesn't seem to fee that. He already made his feelings explicitly clear, and that wasn't it. Try scrolling up and reading it.

That CBS and NBC should fire Imus is both the opinion they held and the statement they made. Anyone who says they shouldn't have said or believed this because they are journalists wants to limit what journalists can say and should believe. If all you want to do is say that you disagree with their opinion or their statement, that's fine. Just realize that there's a difference.

As for the quote, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between "a foolish consinstency" and consistency itself. For good or bad, consistency makes thinking unnecessary, and right or wrong, I think these people should be allowed to go against journalism's default stance. That's freedom too. I'm not caught in any contradiction. I actually believe what the quote says, and therefore, I have no fear of contradictions. That's a different kind of freedom. I was actually offering an out for those I feel aren't being consistent. I happen to value honesty over consistency.

Me:That CBS and NBC should fire Imus is both the opinion they held and the statement they made. Anyone who says they shouldn't have said or believed this because they are journalists wants to limit what journalists can say and should believe.
Luigi Novi: No, that's false. Peter didn't say anything about limiting what they say or believe. If you read what he actually said, you'd know that.

Me: I think these people should be allowed to go against journalism's default stance.
Luigi Novi: Peter didn't say otherwise.

Me: I happen to value honesty over consistency.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you resort to Straw Man arguments.

"Me:That CBS and NBC should fire Imus is both the opinion they held and the statement they made. Anyone who says they shouldn't have said or believed this because they are journalists wants to limit what journalists can say and should believe.
Luigi Novi: No, that's false. Peter didn't say anything about limiting what they say or believe. If you read what he actually said, you'd know that."

What I said is actually true, but this statement itself accuses no one of doing this. I kind of hit reset on my way out of this thread, and you missed it. This statement simply states fact and says if it doesn't apply to you don't worry about it. I don't recall referring to PAD in that statement. Only PAD can determine if what I said here applies to him. If you read what I said, you'd know that.

"I just think it's ridiculous to chastise people for taking a stance against what they feel is racism because they're somehow bound by their job title to say nothing. You seem to feel that journalists can't have opinions (or must have pre-determined journalism opinions) even when they aren't actually on the job. Oh, well...I can agree to disagree."

I have an even better thought: How about if we agree to discuss what I said rather than what you claim I said, since there's a gulf the width of the mighty Mississippi between the two.

If you can find ANYwhere that I said ANYthing remotely close to your characterization, then fine. But you won't. What I SAID was that their business should have been with what Imus SAID rather than trying to shut Imus down. I have said that repeatedly and consistently since the beginning of this thread, and frankly, I find it dismaying that otherwise intelligent people seem woefully unable to hold such a simple concept in their brains. Do you see the gargantuan separation between "they should have supported Imus's right to free expression" and "they should have said nothing?" Because the two sentiments are NOTHING alike, and I don't know whether to feel offended that you would ascribe that belief to me or just sorry for you that you can't distinguish.

PAD

"That CBS and NBC should fire Imus is both the opinion they held and the statement they made. Anyone who says they shouldn't have said or believed this because they are journalists wants to limit what journalists can say and should believe."

I'm sorry: That's just idiotic. Mind-bendingly idiotic. What you're effectively saying is that to disagree with ANYone--to assert that someone said something that was wrongheaded or hypocritical or damaging to the commonweal--is tantatmount to imposing restrictive thoughts or censorship. So basically you've just tried to dispesnse with the very concept of criticism by claiming to do so is to advocate censorship. To say nothing of the blistering double-standard you're supporting. On the one hand you decry my saying that the NABJ was out of line in their stance; on the other hand you seem to have no problem with the NABJ attempting to say that Imus "should not have thought or said" the things he did.

Your position is bizarrely restrictive and makes no sense, agreeing to disagree or not.

PAD

Actually, I think it's just that he thinks some people here--other than his sock puppets--are stupid enough to believe it.

Your hosting account should be logging your posters' IP addresses (which can be traced to their geographical locations), and some of their configuration info like their browser, their platform, and type of connection. You should be able to match the posts to this page, for example, to the page visitation in your logs.

Hosting companies tend to automatically delete logs after a certain time, like a week. If you suspect someone of posting under more than one identity, it might be a good idea to back-up the logs for periods of time where such actions seem to be taking place -- in case you need to hand them over the police.

Of course, as there seems to be universal agreement to the non-relevence of the anonymous "Me"'s posts, I would be curious to see if his connection info matches that of any other poster's, since their only purpose seems to be in opening criticism of your (very vulnerable) point to discredit.

"Posted by: Mike at April 23, 2007 08:06 AM
Actually, I think it's just that he thinks some people here--other than his sock puppets--are stupid enough to believe it.
Your hosting account should be logging your posters' IP addresses (which can be traced to their geographical locations), and some of their configuration info like their browser, their platform, and type of connection. You should be able to match the posts to this page, for example, to the page visitation in your logs."

I don't know why PAD thought you had sock puppets, since I haven't seen anyone, from both sides of the discussion, who agreed with your ideas on this thread.

Also, my posts are complete in challenging Peter's post. The invasion from Dimension Me, and everyone's rebuttles of his nonsense, only seems to serve the purpose of covering Peter's retreat from my challenge.

Sorry Mike,

PAD already answered your challenge, and he's moved from you to more logical people, like Bizarro.

Retreat from his challenge! So, so needy.

"Retreat from his challenge! So, so needy."

That's the all-purpose internet lose/lose scenario, don't'cha know. Stake out a position and argue it for an extended period of time, and you're characterized as stubborn and intransigent. Realize that the person you're speaking to is not worth wasting time on anymore, and you're running away.

What's the old line about the pointlessness of wrestling with pigs? The pig enjoys it and you just wind up smelling like pig.

PAD

Yeah, but if you pin the pig and get the three count, you win!

Or Bacon!!!

Mmmm..... bacon...

PAD, you've just mischaracterized my position. I guess you're just getting back at me, huh? To paraphrase the part of my statement you purposely omitted, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they shouldn't have even made the statement you disagree with. Do you at least understand this? It's like the difference between saying one disagrees with Imus and saying Imus shouldn't even say whatever it is he wants to say.

Me,

You seem to be missing a couple of points here.

To paraphrase the part of my statement you purposely omitted, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they shouldn't have even made the statement you disagree with.

The NABJ didn't just say that they disagreed with Imus, they did say that he shouldn't have said what he said. They didn't just disagree with him and state their reasons for disagreement, they declared that nothing short of removing a man from his positions of employment and ending his career in radio was acceptable for the statements that they felt that he should not have said.

Moreover, the people making these statements were journalists speaking as journalists. You're taking the tact that a journalist can speak his or her mind on personal opinions about matters without being limited in that by their profession. You're right. However, these guys are putting forth this opinion as professional journalists representing other journalists. They're saying what they're saying not as private citizens, but as professional journalists. Is this too difficult to get?

You or I could say that Imus should be fired and PAD will disagree with us. What he won't do is find some aspect of hypocrisy in our statements or say that we are somehow failing to uphold the standards that we should be defending. Hell, if one of these guys had said that his personal opinion was that Imus should be canned but his professional view was to just let the market decide and offer alternatives to Imus's ideas it might get the same reaction. But this was a group of journalists using their status as journalists to get someone fired because they feel that what he said should not be said.

I don't agree with with everything PAD has had to say on the Imus thing, but I'll give him that point. Journalists should not be the people leading the charge to curtail another's freedom of speech. They certainly shouldn't be doing it as journalists. I don't support it when Fox News jahadist extraordinaire Bill O'Reilly does it against someone I agree with and I shouldn't let my personal views on what Imus said allow me to accept it here. Then I would be just as hypocritical as them.

Sorry Mike,

PAD already answered your challenge, and he's moved from you to more logical people, like Bizarro.

No, not really:

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.

As portrayed in your post, the following qualification would be no less a dilution of free speech [than the NABJ's call to fire Imus]:

As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech, but a journalist who fabricates a story should be fired.

Obviously, journalists do not benefit from the unqualified principle of "We disagree with everything [you say], but will defend to the death [your] right to say it."

That's just idiotic.

I mean, do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can't distinguish between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories? Or do you just choose not to for sake of argument? If it's the former, than you're too stupid to talk to anymore, and if it's the latter, then this is just a waste of time.

Peter, you made "As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech, but..." the damning qualifier. Not me. You. As far as you dismissed any exception to free speech as a journalistic principle -- whatever stupidity you are referrring to is yours.

When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

"Everything I can?" Who said anything remotely like that? Are these pistol-packing journalists ready to shoot down anyone who says anything they don't like?...

And the NABJ has called for only Imus's cancellation. Taking your strawman literally, that would mean Imus is the only person saying things they don't like. That means the NABJ likes everything George Bush says, they like every movie they see -- and they don't have arguments with their [families].

Yeah, okay, it's official, you're an idiot. Done with you now.

Your strawman (speaking of sock puppets) characterized the NABJ as tolerating absolutely no dissent.

Your inability to associate the totalitarian behavior completely and obviously compatible with an absolute intolerance of dissent demonstrates that whatever stupidity you are referring to is yours.

As far as he is unable to address how intolerance of fabricated stories isn't the least bit an exception of the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle, or is unable to address how the absence of militant, totalitarian enforcement isn't the least bit an exception to the relentless and absolute intolerance he characterized the NABJ of sheltering, he is experiencing a deficit of introspection.

This isn't necessarily bad. We aren't machines who form every judgment in the sequence we approve them, or experience every sensation in the sequence we observe them. This seems no less true for Peter professionally, where, say, an editor may find something Peter included in a manuscript the editor thinks people will find arbitrary, he can tell Peter he needs to dumb it for the stupid people, or maybe Peter will minimize the dependence of plot or character on understanding the otherwise arbitrary reference.

However, review the offense Peter has taken when asked to reconcile the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories, or when asked to reconcile his citing the NABJ of tolerating absolutely no dissent and the absence of totalitarian enforcement. The degree to which Peter has taken offense seems to be the degree to which his deficit of introspection is severe.

What's the old line about the pointlessness of wrestling with pigs? The pig enjoys it and you just wind up smelling like pig.

Plus you have to deal with all those pesky restraining orders when the pig calls Kim Basinger "Mom."

"As far as he is unable to address how intolerance of fabricated stories isn't the least bit an exception of the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle."

I believe PAD answered that point quite clearly when he said:

"I mean, do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can't distinguish between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?"

You've failed to explain why you can't make the obvious distinction between "voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?", nor to take that obvious distinction into consideration in any of your later posts. PAD answered your challenge quite clearly, and you have failed to answer his. In none of your later posts did you provide a clear explanation why you can't make this obvious distinction which is essential to this discussion.

Since the reason you fail to understand PAD's very clear answer to your challenge, is that you are incapable of making the necessary distinction which is the linchpin of PAD's simple answer, you are unable to continue the discussion until you've figured how to understand the distinction between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories.

This is primarily directed toward Micha, but applies to others as well:

I find it odd that you keep trying to set Mike straight. It can't be done. It just can't.

Micha, you've said you continue to engage Mike from time to time because you like to explore how other people think. That has me kind of flummoxed, because Mike is pretty one-dimensional and easy to figure out: he sees all discourse in terms of wins and losses, and he wants to win so bad it makes his teeth ache.

To Mike, arguments are like professional sports: you either win, or you lose. There are no moral victories, and there are no points given for lessons learned. Winning is good, losing is not. Period.

That's why during the course of a thread Mike's posts devolve into sheer lunacy. Once he's staked out any rhetorical ground, he has to defend it to the death. He can't acknowledge that someone else may have a point, because that would be like an athlete letting an opponent score. Were he to allow himself to understand that even people with whom he disagrees may have a decent point here or there, he might not WIN.

Hell, recently he scoured my blog for something he could use against Jerry Chandler. Of course, he took it out of context and robbed it of its unambiguously intended meaning, but that's Mike. He actually spends time looking for "ammo" to use against his online "opponents," because, again, to him this about WINNING.

He gets angry, of course, because none of us will play right. We don't acknowledge his bogus "victories." We don't play by his arbitrary, autism-like rules.

It doesn't matter what you say to Mike, because he doesn't communicate or even apprehend the world the way a rational person does, Micha. You may as well try to explain calculus to a newborn baby. Seriously.

Don't get me wrong, Micha. You're not upsetting me by conversing with Mike. It's your time to spend as you choose. But I like you and it seems like there are better ways to fritter away your time if fritter you must. So I thought I'd share my two cents.

I'm not missing anything. I completely understand your POV. I disagree with it. I still see a difference between accusing the NABJ of being hypocritical on this issue and telling them what they should say and believe. Since consistency is so important to some of you, here's what I feel is consistent: Imus, the NABJ, and PAD have said things I disagree with. Imus, the NABJ, and PAD should say whatever they want because it's what they want to say. If saying what they want to say makes them hypocrites, I think it's better for everyone to know they are hypocrites and to know how they truly feel about the issue (which is the more important thing to know). Some of you think it's more consistent for someone to say or believe one thing as an individual and say or believe the opposite as a part of a group, but by definition, that's just as hypocritical. If hypocrisy is unavoidable, why not be honest? If they felt Imus should be fired, saying anything else would have been a lie.

By the way, organizations that publicly call for someone to lose their job when they have no authority to take that person's job are doing nothing but hoping and wishing even if the desired result takes place. Even if you take the call as a threat, it doesn't mean anyone has to respect it. None of you would have, right? And why are people saying they ended his career in radio? Give me proof he's been banned from radio. If he wasn't so old, I'd bet money he'd be back on the air somewhere by next year saying he apologized and deserves another chance.

Me--and I think you are an actual real person and not, as Mike seems to believe, someone deliberately acting stupid to make him (Mike) look bad--can I ask a question? Do you think there was anything particularly wrong with the Hollywood Blacklist?

Keep in mind that, like Imus, a lot of those who were blacklisted managed to get work in movies and TV again. Eventually. The ones who didn't kill themselves anyway.

Me: "I still see a difference between accusing the NABJ of being hypocritical on this issue and telling them what they should say and believe."

See, this is where you enter into either strawman territory or just plain don't get it territory. Go back and read PAD's original bit at the top of the thread. He expresses disappointment at the NABJ for what he sees as their failing to defend the spirit of the First Amendment. In no part of what he wrote does he say that the NABJ cannot say or believe certain things. He merely states that he finds it disappointing that they chose to fight, basically, against the spirit of the First Amendment. Unless I've missed it, he has also not made the statement that they cannot say or believe certain things in any of his posts in this thread. That being the case, you're arguing against a point that was never made.

Me: "... I think it's better for everyone to know they are hypocrites and to know how they truly feel about the issue (which is the more important thing to know). Some of you think it's more consistent for someone to say or believe one thing as an individual and say or believe the opposite as a part of a group, but by definition, that's just as hypocritical."

I agree that it's a good thing to know when you're dealing with a hypocrite. That's not really an issue here. If you present yourself as an organization that represents journalists and journalistic standards (and talk up freedom of speech in several areas of your website) in this country, then you do have a duty to uphold and defend certain things like the First Amendment. If you fail to do so, then you open yourself up to criticism.

It's also not hypocritical to not express some personal beliefs on behalf of a group. The department I work for has very strict guidelines for what we are allowed to say and to whom we can say certain things when in uniform and on the job. At those times, we represent the department whether we want to or not. I can't make public statements about politics, departmental procedures, whether or not a law is good or bad, etc. without permission, if I could even get it, from our press coordinator. I can't use department stationary to write letters to my representative or to the local newspaper.

Now, there's nothing that says I can't speak my mind here, in a local bar or even to the press when I'm not in uniform, on the job or in some way saying that I'm representing my department's views while expressing my own. There are some laws that I disagree with in some way or another that I still enforce everyday. I'll exorcise my voice on them anytime except when I'm being paid by the department. That's not hypocrisy, that's acknowledging the limitations of my allowable speech when I'm representing the organization of which I am a member.

Same here. They are presenting themselves as an organization that represents journalism. As such, it is hypocritical of them as an organization to assault another's freedom of speech. And it's especially hypocritical when they claim to promote or defend that right in their own literature.

Me: "And why are people saying they ended his career in radio? Give me proof he's been banned from radio. If he wasn't so old, I'd bet money he'd be back on the air somewhere by next year saying he apologized and deserves another chance."

Gee, I don't know... Maybe it has something to do with his former employers dropping him like a hot rock and the people who tried so hard to get him canned have also made it clear when interviewed and the question comes up that they'll go to war against anyone else who picks him up. Right now, the threat of financial damage and the massive headaches and hassles to prospective employers is too great to want to deal with employing Imus. If I get you fired from your job and then make it impossible for you to find work by threatening your prospective employers, then I'm trying to destroy your career. Right now, they're partly responsible for destroying his career (with, I will readily admit, huge amounts of help from Imus himself.)

You've even admitted that his being fired under this controversy may have nailed his career's coffin shut with one statement. "If he wasn't so old, I'd bet money he'd be back..." His age does come in to play here. He has been removed early, rightly or wrongly, from his career in radio. You sometimes deal with a limited shelf life in careers like that. You yourself have said that his has just possibly become even more limited due to his age at the time of his removal now. He may well find an outlet to express himself again, but it likely won't be what it was. His career as he knew it is over.

Bill Mulligan: "and I think you are an actual real person and not, as Mike seems to believe, someone deliberately acting stupid to make him (Mike) look bad..."

What, like anyone would believe that he needs help to do that? He's become the Arnold Rimmer of the blogosphere minus the wit, personality and charm. Who could possibly believe that he needs any help with looking stupid?

Yes, I do think it was wrong, but let me know when Imus and other suspected racists in the media get called before Congress and threatened with imprisonment. Also, explain what anybody on the Hollywood blacklist did in their work that they needed to so much as apologize for. It's completely different. Give me a better comparison too. That was weak.

PAD has stated that as journalists they should not take a stance against Imus' "freedom of speech"/employment with NBC and CBS. He didn't just say he was disappointed though. He said the statement shouldn't have been made. He even tells us what they should have said. Now if you want to say he's not really saying what they should and shouldn't have said, that's fine. I'll let it go...again. Please, let me. I just disagree with you. As for me, I actually believe in freedom of speech so I think they all should have said whatever they wanted to say and deal with the consequences.

As for other statements, what happens when you go against any of your department's rules? You'll get fired or at the very least disciplined, right? Well, those who employ members of the NABJ have the right to fire them for losing credibility as journalists and endangering the sales of their publications if anyone internally or externally saw fit to make an issue of it. Fair is fair, right? What's the problem? Only care enough to complain on an unrelated writer's blog? Shake those fists.

Also, hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and the definition doesn't change depending on the public view you falsely hold even if it's the right thing to do. Considering my belief that we're all hypocritical in some fashion, the word doesn't have the stigma for me that it has for others hung up on the negative connotation. Truth is truth. They had 3 options: be honest (and be hypocrites), lie (and be hypocrites), or be quiet (and be punks). Which would you want them to do?

I'm open-minded so show me where the NABJ have threatened sponsors or future employers.

You, as I understand it, all PAD has stated is that they shouldn't have used their POSITIONS as jounalists to say that Imus should've gotten the boot. They may not have written in their papers about it, but saying that "We're the NABJ, fire Imus," is as much using their positions as if they did. As members of the NABJ, their statements carry much more weight than if they got together and said, "Hey, we're a bunch of guys, fire Imus."

Yes, I do think it was wrong, but let me know when Imus and other suspected racists in the media get called before Congress and threatened with imprisonment. Also, explain what anybody on the Hollywood blacklist did in their work that they needed to so much as apologize for. It's completely different. Give me a better comparison too. That was weak.

Obviously they are two very different cases. The point was, you were minimizing the fact that Imus lost his job. Big deal, if he weren't so old he'd be back. Well, Dalton Trumbo came back and wrote Spartacus so, big deal, a few studios didn't want to work with him for a time. All's well that ends well, right?

I'm open-minded so show me where the NABJ have threatened sponsors or future employers.

I'm personally not aware of any such threat but I don't see why they would not try to pressure any future employers of Imus. the website of the organization has several articles detailing why they thought he should be fired adn all of them would be just as applicable to any future emplyment. basically they say he is a repeat offender and his apologies mean little and it's time for him to go. Why would a change of radio stations alter that opinion?

PAD's initial point - which I assume is that it is counterproductive and perhaps self-damaging for black journalists to call for the silencing of Don Imus - is quite good. I would also agree that any attempt by government to act to silence him, or any call by others for the government to do so, would involve serious First Amendment concerns. What did happen in this case, however, seems almost entirely a matter of Imus's bosses exercising their right to look after their own wallets. If they thought keeping him on would have increased or maintained their profits, I'm sure they would have done so. To bring the situation much closer to PAD's (but not, really, to attack him), suppose that he took some position with which his readers took serious issue. If DC, Marvel or some other entity decided to remove him from a project, in fear that they would lose readers, good will and dollars, that would be their call, except as regards any contractual obligations they had to PAD. If they came to his house and prevented him from speaking or writing for some other publisher that would be a violation of his human or civil rights, or perhaps of his much-expanded view of ur-First Amendment freedom. Making a determination that they like money more than they do PAD would just be capitalism in action. With as much real world experience as he has, while he would be upset, he couldn't be surprised. Backing away from this a little, I also suspect he would be very unlikely to act as stupidly as did Don Imus.

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it....

When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

As far as [Peter] is unable to address how intolerance of fabricated stories isn't the least bit an exception of the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle, or is unable to address how the absence of militant, totalitarian enforcement isn't the least bit an exception to the relentless and absolute intolerance he characterized the NABJ of sheltering, he is experiencing a deficit of introspection.

I believe PAD answered that point quite clearly when he said:

I mean, do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can't distinguish between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?

You've failed to explain why you can't make the obvious distinction between "voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?", nor to take that obvious distinction into consideration in any of your later posts. PAD answered your challenge quite clearly, and you have failed to answer his. In none of your later posts did you provide a clear explanation why you can't make this obvious distinction which is essential to this discussion.

Since the reason you fail to understand PAD's very clear answer to your challenge, is that you are incapable of making the necessary distinction which is the linchpin of PAD's simple answer, you are unable to continue the discussion until you've figured how to understand the distinction between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories.

Peter dismissed as a journalistic principle any exception to free speech. Period.

Not me. Peter.

As such, the burden of reconciling the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories is his. Not mine.

This isn't brain surgery.

"PAD, you've just mischaracterized my position."

Perhaps you just presented it poorly.

"I guess you're just getting back at me, huh?"

Uh...no. But between your anonymity (unless you're Mark Evanier, hence "ME") and your persecution complex, you're not making much of a positive impression.

"To paraphrase the part of my statement you purposely omitted, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they shouldn't have even made the statement you disagree with. Do you at least understand this? It's like the difference between saying one disagrees with Imus and saying Imus shouldn't even say whatever it is he wants to say."

Sure, there's a difference. Point is: The NABJ didn't distinguish. They not only disagreed with what Imus said, they then subscribed to the notion that "Imus shouldn't even say whatever it is he wants to say" by taking away his venue. I have no problem with the first one; major problem with the second. Clear?

PAD

"To bring the situation much closer to PAD's (but not, really, to attack him), suppose that he took some position with which his readers took serious issue. If DC, Marvel or some other entity decided to remove him from a project, in fear that they would lose readers, good will and dollars, that would be their call, except as regards any contractual obligations they had to PAD. If they came to his house and prevented him from speaking or writing for some other publisher that would be a violation of his human or civil rights, or perhaps of his much-expanded view of ur-First Amendment freedom. Making a determination that they like money more than they do PAD would just be capitalism in action."

Are you under some sort of impression that nothing like that has ever happened?

At least two or three times a year, someone somewhere contacts Marvel (or DC, when I worked for them) and announces that they themselves are going to boycott my work/get their friends to boycott my work/organize a boycott of the entire company unless I'm removed from all future assignments, all because they don't like my politics. I'm not even talking about stuff that goes into my books; I mean here. You following that? People come here, read my opinions, then go to my employers and try to get me fired.

None of which has the slightest relevance to what I said in the first place: The NABJ is an organization of journalists. They are NOT the same as the I-Hate-Liberal-Peter-David contingent. They practice a profession beholden to freedom of expression. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, I believe they should be held to a higher standard than a bunch of schmucks who believe that freedom of speech means the freedom to shut down whomever they want to when they don't like what they have to say.

PAD

"Peter dismissed as a journalistic principle any exception to free speech. Period.

Not me. Peter.

As such, the burden of reconciling the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories is his. Not mine."

Not true. The distinction between "opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories," is imlicit in his words. It is so obvious nobody but you though to question it. But when someone came around who was not aware of this obvious inplicit distinction, PAD made it explicit by saying: "do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can't distinguish between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?" From this point even you can assume that whenever PAD talks about free speech he's including this very explcitly stated exception. If you choose to ignore that exception, as provided by him, it is probably because you do not understand it.

Bll Myers, I often beat myself up for wasting my time in many ways. I have made it into an art. And it is something I'm extremely not proud of. However, I'd appreciate if you do not add your voice to my ongoing self criticism.

Whenever I come to this board, I do so for the sake of entertainent, instead of doing the things that I probably should be doing. Sometimes the entertainment I find on this thread is more high brow, like a discussuion in free speech, or the imminent threat of zombies. At other tmes it is enjoyable to second guess movie makers like George Lucas or Brian Singer, ot just be silly. but whatever it is, it is usually a form of entertainment and relaxation. And sometimes dealing with Mike is its own form of entertainment for me, especially because I know exactly what to expect. It might not be the most high brow of entertainment. Certainly reading a good book, or getting on with my life, would be better. But since I'm already in entertainment mode, this is good enough, and I'd rather not combine it with another one of my favorite passtimes, self-criticism. (oh, and I'd rather not open this post for discussion either please).

Posted by: Micha at April 24, 2007 09:14 AM

However, I'd appreciate if you do not add your voice to my ongoing self criticism.

It wasn't actually intended as criticism, but I will respect your request that I back off. And I apologize if I upset you.

For what it's worth, I admire many of your qualities and aspire to develop such qualities in myself. In fact, if it came down to a question of who brings more value to these conversations, you or I, I would say the answer is you, hands down.

And that too is not open for discussion. ;)

Thanks :)

We'll agree to disagree.

To bring the situation much closer to PAD's (but not, really, to attack him), suppose that he took some position with which his readers took serious issue. If DC, Marvel or some other entity decided to remove him from a project, in fear that they would lose readers, good will and dollars, that would be their call, except as regards any contractual obligations they had to PAD. If they came to his house and prevented him from speaking or writing for some other publisher that would be a violation of his human or civil rights, or perhaps of his much-expanded view of ur-First Amendment freedom.

To make this analogy complete, we should then imagine that the CBLDF comes out and supports PAD's firing. Someone points out that this is a terrible position for them to take, Me argues that a little hypocrisy is ok as long as it's honest, others decry supposed attempts to deny the CBLDF the freedom of speech to deny freedom of speech, Mike talks to the little people in his salt shaker and we are pretty much right at where we are now.

You know, this amazes me. Peter's point is so very simple: the NABJ, in their capacity as journalists, should not be advocating that anyone be fired, suspended, or otherwise punished because of what they say. Furthermore, Peter believes that a desire to see anyone silenced is incompatible with a belief in the value of free speech.

I happen to agree with the above, but I believe there is a counter-argument to be made, albeit one with which I would likely not agree. Why the hell are some people still spinning their wheels arguing with phantoms of their own making?

"Mike talks to the little people in his salt shaker..."

The alternative being what, exactly? Ignoring them? That would be downright rude.

And are those little people in any way related to the denizens of the Bottled City of Kandor?

Don't know about any relation, but I hear in that city at any co-ed party, it's a federal offense to suggest playing Spin the Bottle, and people that collect bottle caps are looked on with great suspicion. I hear people get fired from radio jobs for talking about it.

Even when I was a kid the Bottled City of Kandor bugged me because it was one more piece of evidence in the theory that absolutely nobody died when Krypton blew up!

You had a whole chunk of the planet floating around with Supergirl's clan. You had the Phantom Zone criminals. You had the assortment of animals that Jor-el sent up to test the rocket, You had Kandor. "Last Son of Keypton" my ass.

It got to the point where it was beginning to look lkie the only people who DID die on Krypton were Superman's parents...and then he found them, floating around in a space-coffin!

Me: "I'm open-minded so show me where the NABJ have threatened sponsors or future employers."

http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53027p-81729c.html

NABJ appalled by Imus’ racist comments, Calls for boycott of show

http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53029p-81732c.html

Imus apology too little too late; 'It is time for him to go'

"The association also questions if sponsors of his show -- which include the Simon & Schuster and Random House -- will want to continue to be associated with the program. "

"UPDATED4/12/07
NABJ erroneously reported several companies were sponsors of the Don Imus show, including the New York Stock Exchange and Newsday. While both companies had been sponsors in the past, neither were or are current sponsors. We regret the error."

They called for a boycott of guests and they gave out sponsor information on their own website. Further, their own president called for boycotts in several TV interviews given around the time he was meeting with CBS. If you threaten to damage sponsorship, then you threaten the financial bottom line of anyone who would employ Imus. With that threat hanging in the air, no one else would pick him up anytime soon, if at all, either.

Me: "What's the problem? Only care enough to complain on an unrelated writer's blog? Shake those fists."

First, PAD complained on his own blog, not me. Second, my first post on this thread was actually in disagreement with some of what PAD said. I just understand where PAD is coming from and what he's actually saying VS what you're arguing that he's saying.

You want to know something? The thing I find funny about this is that I'm not in complete agreement with PAD on this, but I can at least understand what he is saying and leave it at that without creating odd tangents that he didn't actually say to further disagree with.

Me: "Also, hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and the definition doesn't change depending on the public view you falsely hold even if it's the right thing to do."

No, you don't hold a false public view. That would be hypocritical. You simply don't express certain of your own personal opinions when representing an organization that holds standards that are different or better then your own. I don't speak about how great something is when on the job and then change that opinion when off duty. I simply don't divulge certain personal positions and beliefs that I hold when on the job and around anyone other then my fellow officers or people who know me outside of work. That's not hypocrisy, that's being a responsible adult and recognizing certain obligations one makes to his or her employer.

I'm not a fan of laws that make seatbelts a mandatory thing with penalties for not wearing them. I'll still write you a ticket for failing to wear one because that's what my job says I'm required to do. I don't complain about the stupidity of seatbelt laws when on the job, in uniform or in some way representing my department. I don't give my opinion of them at all. Again, that's not hypocrisy, that's being a responsible adult and recognizing certain obligations one makes to his or her employer.

People in America have every right to speak their minds on whatever they want to as a private or public citizen, but they do have a personal obligation to be mindful to the obligations of their profession when making a point to speak as a representative of that profession. It's actually very simple.

***********************************************************

"... Mike talks to the little people in his salt shaker..."

"The alternative being what, exactly? Ignoring them? That would be downright rude."

The salt shaker? No, no, no, no. He Who Must Not Be Mentioned would never speak to the little people in his salt shaker. Why would he want to talk to those evil, white oppressive salt shaker people when there are so many cinnamon, pepper, cumin, paprika and basil shaker people for him to wile away the hours with in long discussions of oppression and the crimes of those spices and herbs that shelter race privilege.

Me: "I'm open-minded so show me where the NABJ have threatened sponsors or future employers."

www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53027p-81729c.html

NABJ appalled by Imus’ racist comments, Calls for boycott of show

www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/story/53029p-81732c.html

Imus apology too little too late; 'It is time for him to go'

"The association also questions if sponsors of his show -- which include the Simon & Schuster and Random House -- will want to continue to be associated with the program. "

"UPDATED4/12/07
NABJ erroneously reported several companies were sponsors of the Don Imus show, including the New York Stock Exchange and Newsday. While both companies had been sponsors in the past, neither were or are current sponsors. We regret the error."

They called for a boycott of guests and they gave out sponsor information on their own website. Further, their own president called for boycotts in several TV interviews given around the time he was meeting with CBS. If you threaten to damage sponsorship, then you threaten the financial bottom line of anyone who would employ Imus. With that threat hanging in the air, no one else would pick him up anytime soon, if at all, either.

Me: "What's the problem? Only care enough to complain on an unrelated writer's blog? Shake those fists."

First, PAD complained on his own blog, not me. Second, my first post on this thread was actually in disagreement with some of what PAD said. I just understand where PAD is coming from and what he's actually saying VS what you're arguing that he's saying.

You want to know something? The thing I find funny about this is that I'm not in complete agreement with PAD on this, but I can at least understand what he is saying and leave it at that without creating odd tangents that he didn't actually say to further disagree with.

Me: "Also, hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and the definition doesn't change depending on the public view you falsely hold even if it's the right thing to do."

No, you don't hold a false public view. That would be hypocritical. You simply don't express certain of your own personal opinions when representing an organization that holds standards that are different or better then your own. I don't speak about how great something is when on the job and then change that opinion when off duty. I simply don't divulge certain personal positions and beliefs that I hold when on the job and around anyone other then my fellow officers or people who know me outside of work. That's not hypocrisy, that's being a responsible adult and recognizing certain obligations one makes to his or her employer.

I'm not a fan of laws that make seatbelts a mandatory thing with penalties for not wearing them. I'll still write you a ticket for failing to wear one because that's what my job says I'm required to do. I don't complain about the stupidity of seatbelt laws when on the job, in uniform or in some way representing my department. I don't give my opinion of them at all. Again, that's not hypocrisy, that's being a responsible adult and recognizing certain obligations one makes to his or her employer.

People in America have every right to speak their minds on whatever they want to as a private or public citizen, but they do have a personal obligation to be mindful to the obligations of their profession when making a point to speak as a representative of that profession. It's actually very simple.

************************************************************

"... Mike talks to the little people in his salt shaker..."

"The alternative being what, exactly? Ignoring them? That would be downright rude."

The salt shaker? No, no, no, no. He Who Must Not Be Mentioned would never speak to the little people in his salt shaker. Why would he want to talk to those evil, white oppressive salt shaker people when there are so many cinnamon, pepper, cumin, paprika and basil shaker people for him to wile away the hours with in long discussions of oppression and the crimes of those spices and herbs that shelter race privilege.

Sean,

I heard the phrase "did the bottle spin for you" in Kandor is the equivalent "did the earth move for you" in our world. Hence the request to play spin the bottle has whole conotations there that it dosen't here. As does drinking straight from the bottle ...

And hence a discussion about Imus, racism, and the concept of free speech ends with an impassioned discussion about the Bottled City of Kandor.

That is just so us.

"And hence a discussion about Imus, racism, and the concept of free speech ends with an impassioned discussion about the Bottled City of Kandor."

The connection is obvious. Where do you think Imus is going to work now?

Peter dismissed as a journalistic principle any exception to free speech. Period.

Not me. Peter.

As such, the burden of reconciling the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories is his. Not mine.

Not true. The distinction between "opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories," is [implicit] in his words. It is so obvious nobody but you though to question it. But when someone came around who was not aware of this obvious inplicit distinction, PAD made it explicit by saying: "do you have THAT much of a bone chip in your brain that you actually can't distinguish between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?" From this point even you can assume that whenever PAD talks about free speech he's including this very explcitly stated exception. If you choose to ignore that exception, as provided by him, it is probably because you do not understand it.

...

You know, this amazes me. Peter's point is so very simple: the NABJ, in their capacity as journalists, should not be advocating that anyone be fired, suspended, or otherwise punished because of what they say. Furthermore, Peter believes that a desire to see anyone silenced is incompatible with a belief in the value of free speech.

I haven't challenged the distinction between opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories, because my point doesn't depend on them being interchangeable to be true.

You have not reconciled the unconditional free speech Peter cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories. Anyone who wants to take a stab at reconciling the principle of unconditional free speech with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories can make it a first for the History of Civilization.

Uhm, exCUSE me, but we are NOW talking about the Bottled City of Kandor. Imus is yesterday's news.

Geez, some people...

"As does drinking straight from the bottle ..."

Eesh, what do they do for babies?

That's one of the reasons I keep coming back here. The conversations that are just so full of candor.

[

My dear Mike, the answer is quite simple. Since Peter's 'journalistic principle' (as in the way he expect an organization of journalists to behave) is one of intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories and tolerance of opinions that others don't like, there is nothing that needs to be reconciled and no challenge.

I'm telling you all--IT'S A COMIC BOOK WORLD!!!

#1- KRYPTON DISCOVERED- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268166,00.html

Astronomers Believe They May Have Found Earth-Like Planet

Scientists say the planet has a radius only 50 percent larger than Earth, and is very likely to contain liquid water on its surface.

The research team used the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO’s) 3.6-m telescope to discover the planet, which orbits a red dwarf

#2-- KRYPTONITE RECOVERED-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6584229.stm

'Kryptonite' discovered in mine

Kryptonite is no longer just the stuff of fiction feared by caped superheroes.

A new mineral matching its unique chemistry - as described in the film Superman Returns - has been identified in a mine in Serbia.

#3--CAPTAIN AMERICA UNCOVERED

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0424071capt1.html

Meet Dr. Raymond Adamcik. The Florida man, dressed as Captain America and with a burrito stuffed in his tights, was arrested Saturday night for allegedly groping women at a Melbourne bar.

Bring on the exo-suits!

I'm telling you all--IT'S A COMIC BOOK WORLD!!!

#1- KRYPTON DISCOVERED- foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268166,00.html

Astronomers Believe They May Have Found Earth-Like Planet

Scientists say the planet has a radius only 50 percent larger than Earth, and is very likely to contain liquid water on its surface.

The research team used the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO’s) 3.6-m telescope to discover the planet, which orbits a red dwarf

#2-- KRYPTONITE RECOVERED-

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6584229.stm

'Kryptonite' discovered in mine

Kryptonite is no longer just the stuff of fiction feared by caped superheroes.

A new mineral matching its unique chemistry - as described in the film Superman Returns - has been identified in a mine in Serbia.

#3--CAPTAIN AMERICA UNCOVERED
thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0424071capt1.html

Meet Dr. Raymond Adamcik. The Florida man, dressed as Captain America and with a burrito stuffed in his tights, was arrested Saturday night for allegedly groping women at a Melbourne bar.

Bring on the exo-suits!

What sense does it make to admit that the Hollywood blacklist is completely different and still try to make an effective comparison with it?

I have to address something else though. When members of the NABJ meet strictly as journalists, they are members of the many journalism organizations. As the NABJ, they are basically black people dealing with racial BS in the media (whether they go about it the right way or just use more BS). Their actions were to combat the idea that Imus just made a bad joke, just needed to make an insincere apology followed by another one that may have been real, had to suffer through Al and Jesse, and can finally get back to work until the whole cycle started over again in a year or two. I write all that to say that's what they do, and that's what they did. Their opposition is basically whining...here.

The members of NABJ aren't obliged to do anything for anyone except their employers (just like the officer said), and if their employers don't care, those restrictions don't apply. If they have damaged their credibility as journalists and people care so much, why don't people seem to care?

This isn't damaging to them at all. Back to my initial point, all this complaining is BS. It's the only reason I posted. At least, the people I'm complaining about are right here. The people the NABJ were complaining about lost their jobs. The people you're complaining about are celebrating their victory. Maybe, I missed it though. Is anyone taking members of the NABJ to task over this? Just whining? You don't have to pressure their sponsors or their outlets.

PAD, the NABJ said someone shouldn't say something and said this in a way that got results. You tell me if he'll say it on the radio again. You simply said the NABJ shouldn't say something and said it in a way that made me think it wasn't worth saying...unless of course it made you feel better.

As for my apparent inability to clearly present my POV, I'm certainly no writer, but it's not something that has hindered my success. As for the impressions we've made on each other, the amateur shrink in you read too much into a poorly written joke, and I'm going to just think of you as the guy who makes X-Factor such a great read.

Regarding my anonymity, what difference would it have made if I'd used the name Greg Hamilton the entire time? I'm not scrolling all the way up, but to my knowledge, Bill Myers is the only person besides you who has volunteered any information that would make him any less anonymous than me. What would you really like to know about me?

Thanks for the links, officer.

What sense does it make to admit that the Hollywood blacklist is completely different and still try to make an effective comparison with it?

The fact that people lost their jobs and the seriousness of that aspect seems applicable. If you want to ignore that point and simply say there are no comparisons to be made and that's all there is to it, so be it.

Their opposition is basically whining...here.

I don't think this blog is the nexis of of all opposition to the NABJ. As for "whining"---I thought most of the people here gave a good account of themselves, the usual exceptions excepted.

If they have damaged their credibility as journalists and people care so much, why don't people seem to care?

Well, when they do some folks call it whining. And I wonder how you can be so sure that nobody cares?

This isn't damaging to them at all. Back to my initial point, all this complaining is BS. It's the only reason I posted. At least, the people I'm complaining about are right here. The people the NABJ were complaining about lost their jobs. The people you're complaining about are celebrating their victory. Maybe, I missed it though. Is anyone taking members of the NABJ to task over this? Just whining? You don't have to pressure their sponsors or their outlets.

kind of rambling here, don't you think?

I'm not scrolling all the way up, but to my knowledge, Bill Myers is the only person besides you who has volunteered any information that would make him any less anonymous than me.

More than a few of us use our real names. I have no real problem with people who don't but when I made the decision to participate here at a level that would entail making opinions and often disagreeing with people--including the host--it seemed as though using my actual name was the only ethical choice. But that's just how I feel for myself, there are some great posters here who use pseudonyms.

I also think putting one's actual name for all to see tends to make one a bit more careful about saying things one might regret. From our experience here, the most obnoxious, pathetic, nutty posters have usually been people who don't put their full names down. As a result, I think new posters who actually use their names are probably given greater respect (and, as happened to you, they are less likely to be accused of being fakes trying to make Mike look bad).

Just my 2 cents.

No, that's not Krypton - Krypton had, apparently, a day/night cycle, while this planet is probably tidally locked to its primary.

No, any Larry Niven fan worth his chocolate-covered manhole cover knows that a watery world that's presenting one face to a red dwarf star is obviously a chirpsithra colony world!

Yeah, I kind of had a double take with the Kryptonite thing. How do you actually work out that a real sustance found now is just the same as a fictional substance from back when? I don't remember lots of in depth study in what K was made of and in what amounts.

That comparison is insulting to the Hollywood 10. As for the true nexus of the anti-NABJ opposition, I did ask if I'm missing some underground movement to spread the word about the lack of credibility of NABJ members.

And can I go back and enter the name Greg Hamilton instead of Me? Would you have respected me more even if I'd used a fake first and last name the whole time? Why? Because instead of thinking I'm hiding something you would have fell for a lie? That's kind of silly isn't it? Why is Greg Hamilton is a more respectable fake name than Me? At least, I am Me. I've been Me longer than I've had my real name. The truth loses again to the well-told lie.

That comparison is insulting to the Hollywood 10.

Why?

What PAD has been saying is that, if you want to defend the principle of free speech, all speech must be protected, with no exceptions. That you and me agree that the Hollywood Ten were far more admirable human beings than a racist like Imus shouldn't enter into the equation at all.

Who gets to decide which causes and persons are "worthy" of having their speech protected and which are not worthy of said protection? You? Me? If some ultra-conservative religious group were putting pressure to get a liberal media personality fired from his job for saying something they deem offensive, would your reaction be the same?

Strangely, the best shows that I can think of do involve characters that express a faith (real or fictional) or at least discuss them. TV has a long history of hit shows that have regular characters who have their religion displayed in. Maybe it's just the ones I like.

Damn.

Wrong thread. That's what I get for having several windows open at once.

My reaction has been the same when this has happened to both liberals and conservatives (I am both and neither) in the past and present. People have the right to say whatever they want. People have the right to lobby for whatever they want. Employers have the right to fire their employees. Employees have the right to what they're owed. Sponsors have the right to withdraw sponsorship. Those losing sponsorship have the right to what they're owed. People have the right to criticize or lobby against anyone mentioned above, and people have the right to criticize and lobby against those making criticisms. Everyone just has to face the scrutiny of others. That's freedom of speech. By the way, some speech is illegal and should be, but that's where the scrutiny comes in.

My reaction has been the same when this has happened to both liberals and conservatives (I am both and neither) in the past and present. People have the right to say whatever they want. People have the right to lobby for whatever they want.

They do have the right, it isn't and shouldn't be illegal for people to lobby for a media personality to lose his job because of an expressed oppinion that said people disagree with.

I don't think anyone here has challenged the right. It's more that some of us think it's a morally despicable and cowardly thing to do, particularly by journalists. And that it violates the spirit of freedom of speech, even though it doesn't violate any laws.

It disgust me. But I don't think the people shouldn't have the legal right to do it. (And yes, Imus's joke also disgusts me, so we have a case of something despicable being fought with despicable methods, IMO).

"The members of NABJ aren't obliged to do anything for anyone except their employers (just like the officer said), and if their employers don't care, those restrictions don't apply. If they have damaged their credibility as journalists and people care so much, why don't people seem to care?"

I'm not a person. I see.

See, I happen to think that holding an opinion that isn't held by the majority is not worthless. I happen to think that voicing notions that may not have occurred to others is not worthless. I'm a person. I care. The people who had agreed with me care. The newspaper that recently contacted me and wants to use my posting as an op ed piece seems to care. Or are they not "people?" For that matter, even the people in opposition here care enough to present counterarguments.

What kind of view point is it to hold that if the majority of people aren't raising a ruckus, then it's wrongheaded to do so? That's the exact sort of sheepish compliance that has allowed the current administration to run roughshod over civil rights.

"This isn't damaging to them at all. Back to my initial point, all this complaining is BS. It's the only reason I posted. At least, the people I'm complaining about are right here. The people the NABJ were complaining about lost their jobs. The people you're complaining about are celebrating their victory. Maybe, I missed it though. Is anyone taking members of the NABJ to task over this? Just whining? You don't have to pressure their sponsors or their outlets."

Yeah, here's the thing: I don't play the NABJ's game. I don't traffic in punishment, retaliation, and pressure. I express ideas, thoughts. I ask people to come to their own conclusions rather than try and use economic pressure to punish them for not coming to mine. I hold to the standard of free expression in reality that they only give lipservice to.

It takes a certain kind of mindset to dismiss actions as "whining" simply because it displays a belief in free expression. Sure, I could go along with the sort of sheep mentality that doesn't question the actions of others, particularly for such ephemeral notions as speaking contrary to popularly held beliefs. I choose not to...whether you think that's worthless or not.

PAD

"What kind of view point is it to hold that if the majority of people aren't raising a ruckus, then it's wrongheaded to do so? That's the exact sort of sheepish compliance that has allowed the current administration to run roughshod over civil rights."

Hell, if we only paid attention to "the majority" opinion, I think Rosa Parks would've still been riding the back of the bus and we'd still have separate water fountains for blacks and whites, the whole civil rights movement would've been crushed...

I've been Me longer than I've had my real name. The truth loses again to the well-told lie.

I know that must have sounded good when you thought it but...

Seriously, if you want to call yourself ME or Princess Banana Hammock or whatever, fine by me. Personally--and this is strictly my own opinion--it's a lot easier to think of people as "real" when they have a real name. Yes, they could well be using completely fake names. For all I know, Bill Myers is actually Belvedier C Hornswaggle and he has gone to the incredible trouble of constructing a fake persona, complete with house and girlfriend. Why he would pick "Bill Myers" as a fake name is beyond me; I'd do for something a bit more tough and manly, like Dirk McChin or Lance "Race" Hardrod, or, well, Princess Banana Hammock.

But you can certainly use whatever name you want. The part about the truth and the well-told lie sounds, frankly, nutty. It's not THAT big a deal.

Similarly, if you don't see the parallels between people losing their careers during the McCarthy era--and it was far far more than the Hollywood 10--and what happened to Imus, well, I guess there's no point in belaboring the point.

1. In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

   "As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

2. And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.
3. When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

Since Peter's 'journalistic principle' (as in the way he expect an organization of journalists to behave) is one of intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories and tolerance of opinions that others don't like, there is nothing that needs to be reconciled and no challenge.

The way Peter expects journalists to behave is to dismissed any exception to free speech. And he reinforced this expectation repeatedly, even when the issue of intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories had been brought to his attention.

Again, anyone who wants to take a stab at reconciling the principle of unconditional free speech with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories can make it a first for the History of Civilization.

Mike, I really don't know who you're talking to at this point, or where anyone...PAD or otherwise...made the claim that you're currently putting forth. Frankly, I don't care, and I hope you take that to heart, because otherwise I know you'll post something that supposedly supports your finding, and I'll read it and think "huh? Wha?" Again.

So, anyway, as to your actual point...which I find somewhat funny, because it seems you're arguing against yourself these days, as it was you that made that whole "branding, fear of re-branding" argument. Anyway, how can you reconcile unconditional free speech (which, so far as I can recall, PAD has never advocated, nor has he suggested that's what we haveor should have, although it's certainly an ideal we should aspire to, where wird or thought alone are seen as harmless) with an intolerance for journalistic lies? Simple. Journalists are paid to present facts. To ask questions, and present the facts they uncover. When a journalist just makes stuff up, but presents it as news, they aren't doing what they are paid to do. When people do things they aren't supposed to, when they're being paid to do something else, they usually get fired. For not doing their job.

See, Mike, a journalist isn't presenting his opinion, or excercising his free speech rights. He's being paid by some agency to collect facts and report them...hopefully without embellishment, and mostly accurately. When the journalist lies, he hurts his employers credibility...the news brand...and possible hurts sales.

That's the long, explanatory answer. The simple answer is that one...unconditional free speech...has nothing to do with the other...what I'll call journalistic integrity.

And FYI, I don't consider Imus to be a journalist. He's an entertainer that says outrageous, inflamatory things. He occasionaly crosses over and has newsworthy guests, and might even have broken a story in his time. But he's hardly Bob Woodward.

Bobb Alfred: "The simple answer is that one...unconditional free speech...has nothing to do with the other...what I'll call journalistic integrity."

Actually, Bobb, I have to disagree with you. I believe the concepts of "journalistic integrity" and "free speech are intertwined."

When most people use the term "free speech," it is implicitly understood that the concept needn't be extended to things like libel, slander, or journalists fabricating stories. "Free speech" is about protecting the flow of ideas and thoughts, and I don't think anyone would argue that the public dialogue is unfairly restricted when we punish people who knowingly spread lies that damage another's reputation.

I think the only reason to assume that such reasonable limits aren't implicit in the term is if you're playing a game of "gotcha" in the name of winning an argument at all costs. And Bobb, you know I ain't talking about you. ;)

Not this time, Bill. I don't think I'd play that game with Mike.

And I agree with you, in a broad, general context, free speech and journalistic integrity are intrinsically intertwined. I think that concept is the basis for PAD's initial reaction to all this, because as a journalistic entity, the NABJ, of all entities, should embrace the concept of free speech.

It's only in the narrow context of Mike's psosition...that unconditional free speech and journalistic integrity are unreconcilable...that the distinction needs to be made.

Something of a sidebar: Rosie O'Donnell will be leaving "The View" after her contract ends in June.

But this Yahoo! article comments on the "Imus Effect":

"Statements by public figures are being watched more closely in the post-Don Imus era. The lobbying group Focus on the Family said it was preparing to contact advertisers on "The View" as part of a campaign against O'Donnell. The group is angry at O'Donnell for comments they feel were insulting to Catholics."

Let the games begin.

"Let the games begin."

You mean continue, correct? This isn't anything new...groups have been lobbying for years to get people to say only non-inflamatory things. The only problem is, now they've got some idea that they can actually succeed.

This is where MSNBC and CBS screwed up. They canned him before there was a clear indication that he was a detriment to the broadcast. And they canned him in a way that strongly suggests it was to cater to the voice of the current vocal minority. Never a good way to make a decision, because you never know when it's just the idiots speaking up.

Here's a thought. If freedom of speech involves the flow of ideas, thoughts, and the like, and journalism is the expression of facts, are they actually as related as all that? Could some reporter get in trouble for printing facts about someone that the someone didn't want out? If some reporter were to print in a paper that I'm a tall video geek with a root beer gut, poofy hair, and more scars than Frankenstein, I can't say I'd be happy about it, but it's all true. Would I have any recourse against this guy? Now, if the reporter said all that, and my videos were simply mahvelous and my writing is worthy of the highest praise, (no, I won't call those facts) I'd call THAT free speech, since it's more opinion than fact. But if the reporter was using whatever media to which he had access to as a reporter to get my stuff produced, wouldn't that be going beyond his role as a journalist? Or does it only apply when a journalist says something bad about somebody?

Posted by: Bill Myers at April 25, 2007 09:56 AM

"When most people use the term "free speech," it is implicitly understood that the concept needn't be extended to things like libel, slander, or journalists fabricating stories. "Free speech" is about protecting the flow of ideas and thoughts, and I don't think anyone would argue that the public dialogue is unfairly restricted when we punish people who knowingly spread lies that damage another's reputation.

I think the only reason to assume that such reasonable limits aren't implicit in the term is if you're playing a game of "gotcha" in the name of winning an argument at all costs."
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 25, 2007 10:10 AM

"And I agree with you, in a broad, general context, free speech and journalistic integrity are intrinsically intertwined. I think that concept is the basis for PAD's initial reaction to all this, because as a journalistic entity, the NABJ, of all entities, should embrace the concept of free speech.

It's only in the narrow context of Mike's psosition...that unconditional free speech and journalistic integrity are unreconcilable...that the distinction needs to be made."

Well, of course.

It's obvious to people like you of the 'not crzy' persuation.

But now you've ruined my fun. I was enjoying playing Mike's game by his own rules, responding to his words instead of to the point, playing around rather than having a serious discussion. It was certainly much easier than offering actual thoughtful posts like you did. And it is the only effective way to deal with someone like Mike, not to take what he says seriously. But now the jig is up. Nevermind, I was ready to move on.

GEEZ, MICHA! I can't do ANYTHING right by you this week, can I? ;)

Sean, you make a good point. I guess I'd say in response that "free speech" also encompasses the free flow of information.

"Here's a thought. If freedom of speech involves the flow of ideas, thoughts, and the like, and journalism is the expression of facts, are they actually as related as all that? Could some reporter get in trouble for printing facts about someone that the someone didn't want out? If some reporter were to print in a paper that I'm a tall video geek with a root beer gut, poofy hair, and more scars than Frankenstein, I can't say I'd be happy about it, but it's all true. Would I have any recourse against this guy?"

Depends what you mean by "recourse."

Legally? No. The only step you could take would be to sue him for libel, and truth is an absolute defense in libel. So if you showed up in court with your root beer gut, poofy hair, and more scars than Frankenstein, and looked up long enough from your video player to complain you'd been libeled, the judge would take one look at you, look at the article about you, and toss the case.

BUT...let's say that in addition to the above, you're black. And you try to present a case that the reporter described you as such because he's a racist, and should be fired. And you say it loud enough and long enough and to the "right" people that your complaint, however fabricated, supercedes reality. And advertisers start bailing, and no one will talk to the reporter because they don't want to be associated with a "known racist." And six months later he's let go.

PAD

It will be interesting to see what the truth behind Rosie leaving The View is. According to O'Donnel and ABC it was nothing to do with any boycotts--in fact, ABC wanted her to sign a 3 year contract! She only would committ for 1 year and wanted $10 million to boot. They just couldn't make the deal.

I doubt we'll ever find out what the "truth" is. Neither O'Donnel nor ABC would want to admit that they parted ways because of O'Reilly's crusade against her even if it were true.

My only thought about it is that I'd pay to see both O'Donnel and O'Reilly fight it out in the Thunderdome. No matter which one left, I'd still win.

Here's an interesting bit of what might be fallout:

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070425/ap/d8onpv0g3.html

Dean: Bar Media and Candidates Will Talk

The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media.

...Dean said politicians live in fear that their words will be twisted for the sake of headlines.

"Politicians are incredibly careful not to say anything if they can possibly help it, except if it is exactly scripted. And if you want to hear anybody's true views, you cannot do it in the same room as the press," Dean said. "If you want to hear the truth from them, you have to exclude the press."

I don't know if it's the Imus situation he's worried about or a certain well publicized scream, but this seems a bit...worrisome.

PAD, you're mischaracherizing my position again. You seem to be suggesting that I wanted you to play the NABJ's game when I specifically pointed out that using their methods was unnecessary. Plus, I never stated that your opinion was worthless because it's the minority opinion. On the contrary, it doesn't make sense for someone like me doing what I'm doing here to believe that or for anyone to come to that conclusion. I usually don't speak up unless I disagree with the majority. I didn't call what you were doing whining because it displayed freedom of expression. Again, neither having that opinion nor drawing the conclusion you did makes sense. I called it whining because it's a post on your website for people looking for you and not necessarily commentary on this issue. It's like complaining about your job to your friends when they come to your house instead of doing something at work or in your industry to improve your situation. That's what I consider worthless unless it makes you feel better. Words don't always count as action. You know better than me how many come here to read what you have to say so considering the results, I admit that your article here actually has some merit beyond just venting. You are a writer afterall. I'm even willing to count you as "people" instead of one person. I never claimed you weren't a person, but I admit that I didn't count those on your website saying they agree. My bad.

As for the NABJ, you have to understand that what they feel on the issue is not a decision they made. They just feel a certain way about this. Some of these people lived in an era where Imus' comments were common, and there was nothing they could do about it. They're a bit antsy. Now, how they act is another thing, but considering how they felt, they had 3 actions: lie, be quiet, or be honest. Considering how they feel, I think they made the right choice to be honest despite the consequences. If PAD's article reaches enough people, they may have made the choice to end their own careers as well, but they just have to live with that.

Lastly, I pointed out the Hollywood 10 because they actually served time in prison, and someone is trying to compare them to Don Imus who's probably complaining about having to spend more time in his luxury suite. Now, I have to go sue someone's freedoms away for giving an accurate description of me that was in no way insulting but can still somehow be racist libel since I happen to know the "right" people. It sounds so easy I have to try it.

I called it whining because it's a post on your website for people looking for you and not necessarily commentary on this issue. It's like complaining about your job to your friends when they come to your house instead of doing something at work or in your industry to improve your situation.

It's Peter's blog and he posts on various topics, including his opinions on current events. It's always been like that. I would guess that the vast majority of hits this site gets are from people expecting that.

I'll gop further--given what Peter has posted in the past I think there would have been more than a few regulars who would have wondered why PAD hadn't posted on the Imus situation, had he ignored it.

To turn your analogy around, calling his posting "whining" is like going to someone's house uninvited and complaining about the conversations among the household. PAd has welcomed anyone who wants to participate here. You are also welcome to avoid any posts that don't interest you. Anything else seems rather presumptuous.

Lastly, I pointed out the Hollywood 10 because they actually served time in prison, and someone is trying to compare them to Don Imus who's probably complaining about having to spend more time in his luxury suite.

Actually, the first person to mention the Hollywood 10 was yourself. I mentioned the the Hollywood Blacklist. I would assume you are aware that the blacklist was waaaaaaay more than just the Hollywood 10. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Blacklist and you'll find a list of literally hundreds of blacklisted artists. Only a tiny percentage went to jail. Most "just" lost their jobs.

The simple answer is that one...unconditional free speech...has nothing to do with the other...what I'll call journalistic integrity.

Thank you for agreeing journalistic integrity does not depend on unconditional free speech -- the point Peter has characterized me as an idiot for making.

And FYI, I don't consider Imus to be a journalist. He's an entertainer that says outrageous, inflamatory things.

Well, FYI, Imus took money from NBC News, and the status of his MSNBC telecast was determined by NBC News President Steve Capus -- Imus passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand.

As far as the rational for firing reporters who fabricate story is the role credibility plays in legitimizing a news source, calling for Imus's firing is no more a restrictoin of free speech. As far as FAN didn't want to rebrand to compete for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage's slice of the talk radio market, they followed suit with NBC News.

It's only in the narrow context of Mike's [position]...that unconditional free speech and journalistic integrity are unreconcilable...that the distinction needs to be made."

Well, of course.

It's obvious to people like you of the 'not [crazy]' [persuasion].

As far as he has characterized me as an idiot for making the observation in the first place, it isn't obvious to Peter.

And it wasn't obvious to you:

As far as [Peter] is unable to address how intolerance of fabricated stories isn't the least bit an exception of the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle, or is unable to address how the absence of militant, totalitarian enforcement isn't the least bit an exception to the relentless and absolute intolerance he characterized the NABJ of sheltering, he is experiencing a deficit of introspection.

I believe PAD answered that point quite clearly...

How do you reconcile your claimed Peter explained how the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories fits within the domain of unconditional free speech he says journalism depends on -- with your claim to have understood the obvious incompatibility of intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories with unconditional free speech?

Everybody here remember the old commercials for Tootsie Roll Pops that had the cartoon owl in them? He used to ask how many licks it would take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Rool Pop.

Well...

How many cans of Guinness Stout do you need to drink before Mike's last three posts start making any sense? I'm thinking it's wayyyyyy more then three.

"It's only in the narrow context of Mike's [position]...that unconditional free speech and journalistic integrity are unreconcilable...that the distinction needs to be made."
Well, of course.

It's obvious to people like you of the 'not [crazy]' [persuasion].

As far as he has characterized me as an idiot for making the observation in the first place, it isn't obvious to Peter."

No. Peter characterized you as an idiot for not being able to make the distinction between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?

With some cough syrup it's only 2.

"Well, FYI, Imus took money from NBC News, and the status of his MSNBC telecast was determined by NBC News President Steve Capus -- Imus passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand."

But that didn't, in fact, make him a journalist. That'd be like saying since I get my pay for working in the TV department at a racetrack I'm either a TV or a horse.

Den--about whether or not we ever find out the truth about why Rosie O' Donnell's leaving the View--O' Reilly's gonna take credit, Trump's gonna take credit, everyone and their midget brother with a lisp is gonna take credit. But, really, as to whether or not we're ever going to hear The Real and True Story--
I don't care.

I think the place where he did his show can somewhat cloud or confuse the issue for some. I said as much before. But, yeah, that line of logic would also mean that Dennis Miller, Ollie North, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage are all real journalists because they are or were at one time being paid by a news channel to host a show on its line up.

I'm sorry, but there's no way anyone would be stupid enough or crazy enough to argue that those guys are real journalists just to argue that Imus could in some way be said to have been a real...

Oh, wait... We are talking about Him, aren't we.

Never mind.

Hey, as long as Miller doesn't put "sportscaster" on his resume, I don't care WHAT he calls himself.

And yeah, we were, but peeking behind the shroud is kinda like looking at a car accident. Sometimes you just can't NOT look.

Actually, it's like I was offered my run of the place as well as the opportunity to listen to him complain, but I responded by questioning what good it was to tell people like me when I didn't realize there were others here who might actually do more than just agree with him. I'm not a regular poster, but I come here a decent amount and expected comments as well. If this didn't interest me, what sense would it make for me to be here? Also, no one is coming here just to read about Imus. This isn't the go-to place for that. They came here to read what PAD has to say about things like this Imus situation because they know who PAD is and that he has a blog.

Also, I don't need Wikipedia, and I've known about the Hollywood Blacklist since childhood. Again, I pointed out the Hollywood 10 specifically to emphasize all the differences that makes this such a bad comparison. Take the entire blacklist if you like, and Imus actually did something wrong, wasn't investigated by the government, and didn't go to prison like 10 on the blacklist. It's just a dumb comparison, but you can keep comparing Imus to people who did nothing wrong, some of whom went to jail for it.

Actually, some of those DID do something wrong, if you think that supporting murderous dictators is wrong. I don't think the balcklist was wrong because the victims were all espousing good politics and were hounded for it. I oppose it because they had the right to believe even the stupidest communist propaganda and even try to convince others if they so wished. Keeping them from being able to work is fundamentally incompatable with what should be basic American ideals of freedom.

So if we have a person who was pro-soviet union at a time when that regime was murdering thousands and he or she doesn't go to jail but is fired and prevented from working in their profession because people don't like their politics...would you have a problem with that?

No matter what some of them did, you're still comparing Imus to those who did nothing wrong and went to jail for it. Bringing up the other extreme makes the issue even more complex and even worse of a comparison for that reason. It's just a bad comparison. Try Jimmy Snyder for a better comparison...one media personality, one racially controversial comment, one questionable firing.

I noticed a while back that some assumed to know the answer to a question I now refuse to answer if asked, but what good would it do to have my answer to your last question if you don't understand whether I "have a problem" with the current situation you're trying to comparing it to? Again, I tend to comment on specific things I disagree with, and all you can assume is that I disagree with those things.

Posted by: Me at April 25, 2007 08:20 PM

I called it whining because it's a post on your website for people looking for you and not necessarily commentary on this issue...

Peter's writings about free speech have inspired me to join the CBLDF. Moreover, I was conflicted about what happened to Imus until I read and thought about what Peter had to say on the issue. I was persuaded by his cogent arguments not because I like his comic-books and novels (although I do like them very much) but instead because his arguments were powerful and made sense.

Posted by: Me at April 25, 2007 08:20 PM

It's like complaining about your job to your friends when they come to your house instead of doing something at work or in your industry to improve your situation.

Peter is on the Board of Directors of the CBLDF, and donates significant amounts of time and money to organizations that support free speech. He does plenty to help improve things.

No matter what some of them did, you're still comparing Imus to those who did nothing wrong and went to jail for it.

No matter what they did they did nothing wrong? And I specifically asked about those fired but not jailed so...

I noticed a while back that some assumed to know the answer to a question I now refuse to answer if asked, but what good would it do to have my answer to your last question if you don't understand whether I "have a problem" with the current situation you're trying to comparing it to?

Maybe it's the cough syrup talking but I have a hard time following your line of thought.

I guess we are just in the agree to disagree category.

The question of whether Imus is a journalist or not is irrelevant. The title journalist doesn't include only people reporting facts, but other people as well, like columnists for example or news anchors. It doesn't even matter if Imus also worked at times in journalistic capacity. Journalists are entitled both by the principle of free speech and by journalistic ethics to voice opinions and make bad jokes, but fabricating stories is unethical from a journalistic point of view.

Look, if Tom Friedman, respected journalist of the New York Times, met with Mike and reported that he dresses as a clown, is in fact the leader of the Clown Liberation Front (the northern branch) that he had an interview with Mike in which Mike presented his manifesto to topple every blog on the net with his clownish antics, that would be a fabricated news story, and unethical. However, if he said that Mike is behaving like a clown, and should probably dress as one so everyone knows that he is a clown, that would either be an opinion or a joke or both, and in either case it is protected both by freedom of speech and journalistic ethics.

The idea that Imus's racist or sexist jokes are a breech of journalistic ethics because he somehow presented them as news is absurd, and is indicative of someone who is either a clown or does not understand the difference between voicing opinions (or bad joke) and fabricating news stories.

It's only in the narrow context of Mike's [position]...that unconditional free speech and journalistic integrity are unreconcilable...that the distinction needs to be made.

Well, of course.

It's obvious to people like you of the 'not [crazy]' [persuasion].

As far as he has characterized me as an idiot for making the observation in the first place, it isn't obvious to Peter.

No. Peter characterized you as an idiot for not being able to make the distinction between voicing opinions that others don't like and fabricating stories?

Again: Peter dismissed as a journalistic principle any exception to free speech. Period.

Not me. Peter.

As such, the burden of reconciling the absolute free speech he cites as a journalistic principle with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories is his. Not mine.

Now you have as much as said he can't. Thank you.

Well, FYI, Imus took money from NBC News, and the status of his MSNBC telecast was determined by NBC News President Steve Capus -- Imus passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand.

But that didn't, in fact, make him a journalist. That'd be like saying since I get my pay for working in the TV department at a racetrack I'm either a TV or a horse.

Saying Imus isn't a journalist is like saying a reporter caught fabricating a story isn't a journalist -- as far as they've disqualified themselves as journalists, they should be fired from passing their non-journalism as journalism. Thank you for confirming -- along with the NABJ and Steve Capus's firing -- that Imus is not a journalist.

I think the place where he did his show can somewhat cloud or confuse the issue for some. I said as much before. But, yeah, that line of logic would also mean that Dennis Miller, Ollie North, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage are all real journalists because they are or were at one time being paid by a news channel to host a show on its line up.

And no nigger, kike, or pussy jokes have been tolerated by a news brand from any of your examples.

"I didn't call what you were doing whining because it displayed freedom of expression. Again, neither having that opinion nor drawing the conclusion you did makes sense. I called it whining because it's a post on your website for people looking for you and not necessarily commentary on this issue."

I don't think it's really possible to mischaracterize a position as bizarre as that. Allow me to counter it: Perhaps people are coming to this website because they ARE "looking for" my "commentary;" that they're not, in fact, looking for loopy responses such as yours, and they consider YOU to be whining. Howzabout that possibility?

PAD

Can I skip the stout and just hit the cough syrup? I keep trying to make sense of 'is post, and it's just not coming.

Although 'e does seem to ahve perfected the old "keep repeating something...no matter how dumb it sounds...over and over until people start to believe it" routine.

"Although 'e does seem to ahve perfected the old "keep repeating something...no matter how dumb it sounds...over and over until people start to believe it" routine."

Not really. Nobody else but Mike believes in it. And I really don't think there's a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike. There's also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn't make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.

Posted by: Peter David at April 26, 2007 09:06 AM

Perhaps people are coming to this website because they ARE "looking for" my "commentary;"

YES. BINGO! I actually LIKE your commentaries. I get something out of them. Quite a lot, actually. For example, your commitment to the principle of free speech, manifested in both your words and your deeds, has inspired me to also commit to that principle. Plus, your cogent arguments about the flap over Imus helped me shape my own thinking about the issue.

Your fiction writings are indeed what drew me to begin reading your commentaries, but it's the quality of the commentaries that keeps me coming back. I love John Byrne's artwork, but I stopped going to his online forum because I didn't find any value in his opinions. Your creative work and your editorials are separate things and I judge them separately.

Posted by: Peter David at April 26, 2007 09:06 AM

...that they're not, in fact, looking for loopy responses such as [Me's,] and they consider [him] to be whining. Howzabout that possibility?

He shoots, he SCORES!

Posted by: Micha at April 26, 2007 09:22 AM

Not really. Nobody else but Mike believes in it. And I really don't think there's a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike. There's also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn't make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.

To be honest, Micha, I don't think Mike even really believes in it, in the sense of it being a deeply held belief that he is fighting to present. I just think, as Bill Myers has suggested before me, that Mike picks what he percieves to be weaknesses and attacks with whatever he thinks will work best. Because it's all about winning with Mike. (Though what it is he thinks he's winning is beyond me. And most rational people, I think...)

That said, though, he is entertaining at times (albeit tiring after prolonged exposure). He's almost raised trolling to the level of perfomance art.

And I really don't think there's a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike.

Paint thinner, glue, lawn chemicals, household cleaners or industrial toxic waste inhaled or consumed in quantities just shy of being fatally toxic?

There's also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn't make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.

But we can always dream, can't we?

Hmmm, bizzaro html stuff has somehow not shown all of what I bolded. The above was in response to this, which was indeed from Micha, as the only surviving text from the Great Bolding Collapse of Aught-Seven -

Not really. Nobody else but Mike believes in it. And I really don't think there's a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike. There's also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn't make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at April 26, 2007 10:33 AM

"And I really don't think there's a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike."

"Paint thinner, glue, lawn chemicals, household cleaners or industrial toxic waste inhaled or consumed in quantities just shy of being fatally toxic?"

I would add a few drops of Tabasco sauce for taste.

"That said, though, he is entertaining at times (albeit tiring after prolonged exposure). He's almost raised trolling to the level of performance art."

Yes, that's the attitude I have taken to his posts, treating them as comedy, however...

"To be honest, Micha, I don't think Mike even really believes in it, in the sense of it being a deeply held belief that he is fighting to present."

I don't know if Mike holds opinions he knows to be nonsense just for the fun of it. If that is the case he should win an academy award for never breaking character and appear on the Actors Studio to explain how he does it.

But what if he has some kind of disorder that affects the way he processes information. This option bothers me because how do you deal with someone like that? Am I being cruel toward a disabled person by conversing with Mike? I ignored Bill Myers request to stop talking to Mike, because I didn't consider these conversations significantly harmful to me. But if it is harmful to him then that's a completely different consideration. I find it difficult to ignore him considering his constant posting on this board. But if I'm indulging a mean streak on someone who is not responsible for his own actions by talking to Mike then I should stop.

"I just think, as Bill Myers has suggested before me, that Mike picks what he percieves to be weaknesses and attacks with whatever he thinks will work best. Because it's all about winning with Mike."

That's also possible, namely that he prefers to win an argument by making absurd claims and holding to them until everybody tires of him rather than accept someone else's point of view. But it is hard to imagine something like that.

Micha,

Here's two leads to better make an informed decision. I take no responsibility for the damage they may do to your mind.

www.chickensoup4thedamned.com/

www.sevenquestions.com/new7q/mikeleung.shtml

Although 'e does seem to [have] perfected the old "keep repeating something...no matter how dumb it sounds...over and over until people start to believe it" routine.

You are a believer:

The way Peter expects journalists to behave is to [dismiss] any exception to free speech. And he reinforced this expectation repeatedly, even when the issue of intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories had been brought to his attention.

Again, anyone who wants to take a stab at reconciling the principle of unconditional free speech with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories can make it a first for the History of Civilization.

It's only in the narrow context of Mike's [position]...that unconditional free speech and journalistic integrity are unreconcilable...that the distinction needs to be made.

You agreed unconditional free speech cannot be reconciled with journalistic integrity -- which is the antithesis of Peter's stated opinions.

Not really. Nobody else but Mike believes in it. And I really don't think there's a substance that could cause it to make sense to anybody else but Mike. There's also nothing that will cause Mike to realize that it doesn't make sense, or stop repeating it and arguing with people about it.

You are also a believer:

Well, of course.

It's obvious to people like you of the 'not [crazy]' [persuasion].

You also agreed unconditional free speech cannot be reconciled with journalistic integrity. It ain't Rocket Surgery.

To be honest, Micha, I don't think Mike even really believes in it, in the sense of it being a deeply held belief that he is fighting to present. I just think, as Bill Myers has suggested before me, that Mike picks what he percieves to be weaknesses and attacks with whatever he thinks will work best. Because it's all about winning with Mike. (Though what it is he thinks he's winning is beyond me. And most rational people, I think...)

I don't believe unconditional free speech cannot be reconciled with journalistic integrity? What's not to believe?

It's a simple point. I never said whether or not I felt Imus should have been fired. To ask me whether I felt those on the Hollywood Blacklist should have been fired for comparison to my opinion on Imus' firing without knowing it makes no sense.

I didn't say the people who did wrong didn't do anything wrong. It's dumb to even try to pretend I said so. Some of the people on the Hollywood Blacklist did nothing wrong. You never said which of them you wanted to compare to Imus. I just reread your comments, and you did not specify those who were at fault or those who didn't go to jail. You even compare Don Imus to Dalton Trumbo who was jailed.

I don't consider it whining when I got the direct and nearly instant responses that I wanted from those I'm talking to. (We haven't really talked about any of my issues with you in days.) I realize now your words have made some impact, but have you spoken with any members of the NABJ to change their minds on the issue? I think that would be the most direct and effective way to get anything done.

Everybody here including myself found this place because they know PAD personally or knows him as a comic book writer. We're all here for PAD. I don't know a single person who heard about Imus and thought to come here. My point is that anyone who feels the way you do might want to speak to those who aren't seeking you and won't hear you unless you go to them.

I didn't say the people who did wrong didn't do anything wrong. It's dumb to even try to pretend I said so.

It seemed to me that when you said No matter what some of them did, you're still comparing Imus to those who did nothing wrong and went to jail for it. you wwere saying just that. true, that would be a dumb statement but, and I don't mean this to be as insulting as I know it sounds, in my opinion you haven't been particularly great at expressing your opinions. Maybe it's me.

Some of the people on the Hollywood Blacklist did nothing wrong. You never said which of them you wanted to compare to Imus.

I thopught that the question I asked--So if we have a person who was pro-soviet union at a time when that regime was murdering thousands and he or she doesn't go to jail but is fired and prevented from working in their profession because people don't like their politics...would you have a problem with that?--was doing just that--comparing the present situation to a person who was blacklisted for no greater crime than having a foolish and unpopular political position (which is to say, no "crime" at all).

If you don't want to answer or feel the question is not worth answering, fine, I'll be crestfallen but my faith will somehow sustain me.

As PAD clarified his position - yes, it is possible that no clarification was necessary - I suppose he is right that it is unseemly for an association of journalists to call for censorship, or at least counterproductive, but in light of his position that there should be virtually no censorship, prior restraint, or any other restriction of free speech, I would ask this: If Don Imus should be allowed to say foolish and offensive things regarding race, gender and sexuality - because censorship is BAD - why should this organization be allowed to say foolish and offensive things regarding free speech?

PAD wondered whether I thought he never had to deal with readers angry with his political or social positions. To answer, no, I was fairly confident he had faced such things - obviously, I am only one example of those who have criticized him harshly. The point I was trying to get at is this: He has a good deal of real world experience with publishers, and I am certain he realizes that any publisher of his or someone else's work is likely to determine his tenure on a title and continued employment based on profitability: Poor sales figures = dismissal. Angry sponsors withdrawing advertising = dismissal. Making the publisher/producer/network angry even without the preceding actions = possible dismissal. Isn't that the main reason Imus is off the air?

Just as more important news was pushing this off the radar screen--Rosie leaves the view! Alec Baldwin calls his own kid a pig!--here comes some interesting news about the CBS contract Imus had.

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/05/03/360-on-imus-contract/#more-5796

Company [CBS Radio] acknowledges its familiarity with the program Conducted by Artist [Imus] on the station [WFAN] prior to company’s ownership thereof and it, and its familiarity with the reviews and comments, both favorable and unfavorable concerning Artist and his material by critics, reviewers and writers of the various media both in New York and nationally. Company acknowledges that Artist’s services to be rendered hereunder are of a unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial and personal character and that programs of the same general type and nature containing these components are desired by Company and are consistent with Company rules and policies.

I'd say his odds of getting a good chunk of that 40 million he says he is owed just went up.

"I'd say his odds of getting a good chunk of that 40 million he says he is owed just went up."

Personally, I think it'd be interesting if he filed suit against the NABJ, Sharpton and Jackson. It might be argued that they embarked on an orchestrated campaign of character assassination and defamation that cost him his livelihood. I've no idea if it would hold water, but it'd be interesting to see.

PAD

He would have a hard time winning a defamation lawsuit since he pretty much admitted to every characterization they made about his statement. He could try to argue against the characterization of being a racist but that's awfully hard to do and all of his past jokes, serious or not, would come back to haunt him.

I've thought all along that the lesson that many might get out of this is to admit nothing, no matter how in the wrong you may be. No apology was going to work. He would have been better to go the Clarence Thomas route and go on the offensive, hoping to scare off the attacks.

Apparently there was also a clause in the contract that he had to be warned before being fired. If that's the case they may have to cough up a lot of money to make this go away and there is always the possibility that Imus has enough money to not want to accept ANY settlement. he may want to instead hold their feet to the fire and take a few with him--if they encouraged him to be controversial and ignored far more egregious examples of "racial humor" on the show he might succeed in at the very least getting Al Sharpton et al after some of the same executives that he feels threw him to the wolves.

Yeah, it WOULD be interesting...

From his contract, it does look like CBS owes him the $40 million, but his public role is one of informality. Taking CBS to court may demonstrate enough of a counter to this informal public role as to make it difficult to take him sincerely as a performer, not to mention making him look difficult to future broadcasting opportunities. I think Imus will have to choose between retaliating by going for the $40 million and retaliating by rebuilding his show, but not both.

If Imus takes CBS to court, his lawyer may still be able to refer to the contract without needing Imus to testify. But if he takes Sharpton, Jackson, and/or the NABJ to court, it seems likely he will need to testify to the damage they've done. He would have to be a fool to allow himself to be sworn in -- and face answering under oath for everything he's ever said -- for the sake of retaliation.

"...all of his past jokes, serious or not, would come back to haunt him."

In a way, it could also haunt CBS, too. Imus has a history of this kind of statement. What specifically would separate these statements from any of his other ones? Sure, Imus was the one who said these things, but CBS was the one who stuck the mike in his face so that everyone ELSE could hear it. If anyone from CBS claims they didn't know Imus could talk like that, they'd lose a lot of credibility. They don't call 'em Shock Jocks because they've built a static charge by walking across a carpet in their socks, after all.

In a way, it could also haunt CBS, too.

Absolutely. The same thing that will make it hard for him to win a defamation lawsuit will make it easy for him to win against CBS. Which is where the money is, anyway.

At his age and health (which is to say, death warmed over) I don't know how much he really wants or needs to win by starting over (and quite possibly failing). Winning by making CBS pay through the nose (and look like craven cowards to boot) might have a lot of appeal.

At his age and health (which is to say, death warmed over) I don't know how much he really wants or needs to win by starting over (and quite possibly failing).

A court victory won't establish Imus was the real deal as a comeback will after being protested and ousted as he's been. The best retaliation for Imus is to return to broadcasting and harvesting tremendous ratings. (Even a successful podcast will accomplish this but, not to diminish the importance of hiring well, he seems to need the support of a team to hold a large listening audience.) Anything he does counterproductive to this -- like his pleading that he is actually a good person, and maybe even his apology -- demonstrates he was successful in spite of his not really knowing what he was doing.

And the fallout continues:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070512/D8P31G880.html

Asian Slurs End Shock Jocks' Show on CBS

What amazes me is that you can actually get a job as a "shock jock" when your alleged talent is to call up a Chinese restaurant and order "shrimp flied lice". These guys make Howard Stern look like Oscar Wilde.

What amazes me is that you can actually get a job as a "shock jock" when your alleged talent is to call up a Chinese restaurant and order "shrimp flied lice". These guys make Howard Stern look like Oscar Wilde.

Well, what do you think it means to navigate a culture where the highest paid broadcasters cater to privileges exclusive of you? You're amazed in your middle age at what the more vulnerable segments of the American population stopped being amazed at when, to take a public example, the state Bush/Cheney campaign chair systematically flushed votes from black counties in Florida.

(If you want a more intimate example: when someone enforces the taboo of even talking about privilege by ridiculing his strawmen of you obsessing over the evil of salt.)

Sometimes it's hard to decide whether to agree with Mike, because he's writing in some alien language.

I think that if one protects all forms of free speech one must necessarily also protect speech which calls for the silencing of others' free speech. Let's compare this to the famous Nazi parade in Skokie: The orthodox ACLU position (which I reluctantly support) was that free speech and free assembly concerns required that a Nazi parade not be banned. This is so despite the obvious fact that the Nazis have no record of supporting such free speech and free assembly for others. In the case of the NABJ, it would be a denial of their free speech rights to forbid them to say what they want about Don Imus - even though their statement is a call for denying Don Imus the rights they are exercising.

The right to free speech includes the right to speak against free speech!

Sometimes it's hard to decide whether to agree with Mike, because he's writing in some alien language.

Feel free to give me something other to think than that what you mean by "some alien language" is "reason distilled to a purity I am unfamiliar with."

I think that if one protects all forms of free speech one must necessarily also protect speech which calls for the silencing of others' free speech. Let's compare this to the famous Nazi parade in Skokie: The orthodox ACLU position (which I reluctantly support) was that free speech and free assembly concerns required that a Nazi parade not be banned. This is so despite the obvious fact that the Nazis have no record of supporting such free speech and free assembly for others. In the case of the NABJ, it would be a denial of their free speech rights to forbid them to say what they want about Don Imus - even though their statement is a call for denying Don Imus the rights they are exercising.

The right to free speech includes the right to speak against free speech!

As far as journalism does not tolerate the fabrication of stories, journalistic integrity simply does not depend on unconditional free speech.

As I've said this repeatedly, this simple disqualification seems to be another example of reason distilled to a purity with which you are unfamiliar being dismissed as an alien language.

"Feel free to give me something other to think than that what you mean by 'some alien language' is 'reason distilled to a purity I am unfamiliar with'" is as good an example of what I meant as there could ever be. I'll (perhaps unwisely) give Mike the benefit of the doubt: Perhaps he has a clear idea of what he wants to say; He just hasn't made it comprehensible to English-speakers. I will agree that libel, plagiarism and fabrication of stories are unacceptable in journalism, and also that they have nothing to do with free speech.

If we are to have unfettered free speech, one effect will be that speech intolerant of free speech will be every bit as protected as that favoring it. While it can seem unfair, it is unavoidable and much less harmful than the alternative.

Bringing all of this back to PAD's initial post, I am sure that in defending Imus's right to say ugly things he never suggested that he supported or approved of such things; He just felt that they were covered by free speech. That is probably correct. Where I differ is in how to react to the NABJ's response. PAD believes it was in restraint of free speech, and therefor impermissible in a way that Imus's statements were not; I believe it was an expression of NABJ's own free speech - as protected as Imus's, and perhaps no more objectionable. For journalists to want to suppress free speech is disturbing, certainly, but everyone is free to be foolish. Imus has expressed that freedom for decades.

"Where I differ is in how to react to the NABJ's response. PAD believes it was in restraint of free speech, and therefor impermissible in a way that Imus's statements were not."

Unfortunatly, this was not what PAD said or believes (if I understand him correctly).

I think what PAD said is closer to: "for journalists to want to suppress free speech is disturbing," and, in his opinion, inappropriate, but certainly permissable.

I believe that if you understand PAD's view correctly you will find that there doesn't seem to be any real difference between you two.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 09:22 AM

...PAD believes it was in restraint of free speech, and therefor impermissible in a way that Imus's statements were not

Jeffrey Frawley, I'm a bit dismayed that after Peter, myself, and several others have explained again and again (and again... and again... and... oh God...) the difference between criticizing someone's actions and opposing their right to act in that way, there are still those who fail to understand the distinction. That said, I'm going to try to do something I haven't done in awhile: I'm going to try to be the "nice, reasonable, patient Bill Myers" people believed me to be when I first hooked up with this blog, and try to explain this once again in a nice way.

Peter never said what the NABJ did was "impermissible." He said they betrayed what should be one of their core principles. There is a difference.

There is also a difference between the First Amendment and the greater principle of free speech. The First Amendment protects speech (or at least it is supposed to) from undue governmental restrictions. But there are other forces that can restrict freedom of speech. If a newspaper chooses not to run a letter to the editor, it has restricted freedom of speech to some extent even though said newspaper has not run afoul of the First Amendment. When Peter, myself, and others here refer to "free speech," we are referring to a broader principle of which the First Amendment is merely one component.

If Peter had declared that the NABJ had run afoul of the First Amendment and called for the government to slap an injunction on them, your point would be valid. But Peter did no such hypocritical thing. He did not once ever question the NABJ's right to do what they did, he asserted it was not the right thing to do. (And I happen to agree with him.)

The guarantee of free speech provided by the First Amendment does not include a guarantee of freedom from criticism. And you can support someone's right to do something while still believing that it was the wrong thing to do.

While this will fall on deaf ears, since Mike has demonstrated repeatedly that he is incapable of relating to normal people, what amazed me was the simple lack of humor in their "joke". It isn't funny. It's older than dirt. And it wasn't funny back then either. This point was lost on you because, well, you're not a very funny guy.

But feel free to yammer on in your usual way. At this point you'd have to cure cancer and/or rescue a busload of Nigerian Orphans for anyone to think better of you.

Jeffrey, I think Bill Myers and Micha have explained the issue well.

I'm sorry I brought this up. But as long as I'm here...Opie and Anthony are also in hot...well, moderately tepid water over a bit where a homeless man described raping Condi Rice. Not the smartest move when their satellite radio company (XM) is trying to survive with a government approved merge with Sirius but they should survive since 1-they are on sattelite radio so if one is offended it's your own damn fault for buying the service and listening to it and 2-they picked the correct victim. I don't see Al Sharpton protesting anything bad said about Ms. Rice.

It's interesting how this is playing out. Radio is being singled out to an amazing degree--imagine if those two shlock jocks had read a transcript of any South Park episode involving Tuong Lu Kim, (The City Wok Guy). This seems to have been the case for a while. I wonder why radio is subject to such harsh restrictions while other media gets a freer pass?

OK, so PAD didn't like what NABJ said, and said so: PAD thinks that is fine. NABJ didn't like what Imus said, and said so: PAD doesn't think that is fine. Imus talked about nappy headed hos - which neither PAD nor NABJ liked, but PAD thinks he should be left alone, and NABJ does not.

If this is a free speech issue, NABJ can say whatever it wants without PAD's permission. Here's the question: Most of us agree that PAD can say what he wants - It's a free country (theoretically); Most of us feel Imus's comments were offensive (Let's hope "nappy headed hos" raises some hackles); Many, but not quite so many, of us think NABJ should not have taken a position for punishing free speech (It seems right to support the maximum journalistic independence possible). Why does NABJ's offensive exercise of free speech bother PAD in a way that Imus's does not?

I'm afraid that PAD cannot escape from the notion that everyone should feel free to agree with him, but such foolishness as disagreement doesn't pass muster.

Micha: "(Y)ou will find that there doesn't seem to be any real difference between you two"? Well, I doubt either PAD or I would go that far. As far as I can see, the difference is this: Both of us think PAD should be allowed to say what he wants; One of us thinks NABJ's rights are different, and the other doesn't. I'll agree that NABJ shouldn't favor restraint of free speech. I'll disagree on whether doing so isn't exactly the sort of free speech he adores.

"Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 11:58 AM
Micha: "(Y)ou will find that there doesn't seem to be any real difference between you two"? Well, I doubt either PAD or I would go that far. As far as I can see, the difference is this: Both of us think PAD should be allowed to say what he wants; One of us thinks NABJ's rights are different, and the other doesn't. I'll agree that NABJ shouldn't favor restraint of free speech. I'll disagree on whether doing so isn't exactly the sort of free speech he adores."

Honestly Jeffrey, I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. You keep misrepresenting PAD's view.

"One of us thinks NABJ's rights are different."

That's not PAD's view.

This is PAD's view:
"NABJ shouldn't favor restraint of free speech."

"doing so isn't exactly the sort of free speech he adores."

Yet he is not saying this exercise of free speech by the NABJ should be restricted. He is only criticizing it.

This is not that complicated.

Neither is the answer to your question:

"Why does NABJ's offensive exercise of free speech bother PAD in a way that Imus's does not?"

PAD addressed it in his original post:

"The NABJ should have been the first, foremost defenders of the spirit of the First Amendment."

"In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

But they didn't. They betrayed the fundamentals of a free press by deciding that they wanted to shut Don Imus down."

It's all quite simple.

PAD is not calling for restricting the free speech of the NABJ, he is criticizing them for using their free speech to get Imus shut down instead of standing to higher principles.

You can either disagree with his criticism of the actions of the NABJ, but, according to your own statement, support his right to criticize them. Or you can agree with his criticism and support his right to criticize the NABJ. But, whether you agree or disagree with him, please don't misrepresent his point of view.

Jeffrey, I'm really not getting what you're saying. Nobody as far as I can see, is advocating that the NABJ be stripped of its ability to say anything, however foolish. But surely we all have the right to call it foolish, yes?

If the ACLU suddenly advocated for the firing of Bill O'Reilly because of the hurtful things he's said about them, that would be grounds for us calling them on it, right? I mean, they can do it if they really want to. Nobody can stop them. But it would be dumb and I think anyone would be well within their rights to call it as such.

It looks like you're really stretching here to find something to play the hypocrite card on PAD and it just isn't there.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 11:58 AM

One of us thinks NABJ's rights are different, and the other doesn't.

No. Peter never said the NABJ didn't have the right to call for Imus' firing.

Think of it this way: you "reluctantly" support the position that the Nazis had the right to march in Skokie. Using your logic, you must then refrain from criticizing them in any way.

Criticizing how someone behaves is not the same as saying they don't have the right to behave that way.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 11:58 AM

I'll agree that NABJ shouldn't favor restraint of free speech.

That's all Peter, myself, and many other posters are saying. No more, no less.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 11:58 AM

I'll disagree on whether doing so isn't exactly the sort of free speech he adores.

Peter never said otherwise. But, again, supporting someone's right to do something doesn't mean you forfeit the right to oppose it. Peter has never once called for any retaliation against the NABJ. He merely opined that they were wrong.

Again, using your logic, you have no right to criticize the Nazis who marched on Skokie for their hateful, monstrous views.

The problem may be that PAD assumes the NABJ's interest must be the general welfare of journalism, while it may prefer to think of itself as devoted to the general welfare of African-Americans. From the point of view of journalistic freedom, punishment for expressing oneself is bad. From the point of view of pro-African-Americanism, it makes perfect sense in this case. As a comparison, suppose an organization which consisted of young females supported a program which helped young females at the expense of old males. Saying "This doesn't improve the situation overall, and it hurts old men" would not be much of an argument to make the organization change its ways - It would only be looking out for the interests of its members. Perhaps the NABJ sees itself as "the national association of BLACK journalists" rather than "the national association of black JOURNALISTS." Cui bono?

Jeffrey Frawley: The problem may be that PAD assumes the NABJ's interest must be the general welfare of journalism, while it may prefer to think of itself as devoted to the general welfare of African-Americans.
Luigi Novi: Then it should state this in its name. by calling itself an association of JOURNALISTS, it's making a statement that its devotion is to the ideals of, oh, I dunno....JOURNALISM?

The fact remains that criticizing the validity of one's statement and calling for their right to make that statement to be curtailed are two different things.

Well, just to remain as uncooperative as possible, let me throw this out: They call themselves the National Association of Black Journalists because A. the organization has members nationwide (I bet this is true); B. they are an association (again, I'd be surprised if they are not); C. their membership is for the most part black (very likely) and D. the membership consists of journalists (probable). With that out of the way, they choose to express themselves as they wish, rather than asking Luigi Novi what he thinks.

"Criticizing the validity of one's statement" is a little bit different from saying that an association of journalists has no business saying something with which you disagree. "Criticizing the validity..." is pointing out the error in the reasoning of a statement. The other is more of an ex cathedra declaration of what is and is not appropriate to say.

As a comparison, suppose an organization which consisted of young females supported a program which helped young females at the expense of old males. Saying "This doesn't improve the situation overall, and it hurts old men" would not be much of an argument to make the organization change its ways - It would only be looking out for the interests of its members.

And saying that would not in any way be saying that this organization has different rights than the rest of us. So I'm still puzzled over how you got that idea from what PAD said.

Bill Mulligan: That was more in response to Luigi Novi, who - I think - believes that an association with the word "journalist" in its name is honor-bound to form its opinions entirely on the basis of what is best for journalism. Part of free speech is that Luigi is not permitted to determine what topics and opinions other people may address. This comes back to PAD because he opposes NABJ's decision to form its opinions based on the interests of B instead of J. Clearly, he doesn't suggest NABJ be stopped, but merely bemoans its stupidity in not thinking as he tells it.

Isn't that a valid opinion? If journalism suffers won't Black journalists be hurt as well?

One can argue that the Imus situation has resulted in more damage to free speech than it has contributed to any gains for African-Americans. In that case the decision of the NABJ was foolish and short sighted. Of course, one could easily take the exact opposing point of view.

If your argument is just that PAD thinks that people who disagree with him are wrong...well...how exactky does that make him different from anyone else? I mean, if you think that the people who disagree with you are correct shouldn't you change you opinion to match theirs? What am I missing?

"Why does NABJ's offensive exercise of free speech bother PAD in a way that Imus's does not?"

Because Don Imus did nothing to try and stop other people from expressing themselves.

I mean, it takes an almost willful misreading of my statements to misunderstand what I've been saying.

If the group was called the National Association of Black Censors, then it's a different story. And as I noted, guys like Sharpton...you expect them to try and censor others in a manner that they would shriek over if the same tactics were applied to them. But these are journalists, who owe their livelihood to valuing free expression. If they elevate the color of their skin or the level of their indignation over the fundamental philosophy that supports their jobs, then they are betraying that philosophy.

I never said they should be PREVENTED from saying what they did. I said they should not have said it in the first place because it was a betrayal of free speech principles. In other words: Just because they COULD say what they did doesn't mean they SHOULD have said what they did.

PAD

PAD: Clearly you hold free speech as an extremely important thing; I agree with you there. It appears that you think it is the only important thing; I do not agree with you there. It would be putting words in your mouth to speculate on your response if Imus's comments hit much closer to home. In fact, he has said things before which certainly must have been offensive - antisemitic things, certainly; anti-Israel, I don't know, but probably, yes; insults of people based on appearance, I'm certain, some of it probably applicable to your current or previous appearance. That you have not compromised on your strong free speech beliefs is quite commendable (and no, there isn't a hidden attack coming). Whether it seems to you like good sense or not, many people hold other values in competition with free speech, and some of them value their comfort, safety or self image higher than what seems an abstraction. That you believe it is sinful for the NABJ to promote restraint of free speech doesn't change the fact that they just don't see things the way you do. If you could hear what the members of the NABJ would think of your "sorta" defense of Imus, it might go something like this: "Yes, that Peter David has the RIGHT to say that. It's a free country, and he can spew that kind of bilge if he wants to, but we're just saying....We oppose anyone who attacks us! Anti-racism is an important thing, and in the balance, it outweighs the free speech issues that mean so much to Mr. David." I don't know which pole of the argument is more convincing, because there really are a lot of competing interests, and no outcome is possible which doesn't slight one or more interest.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but those who weigh things differently aren't necessarily wrong either.

Getting off my high horse for a moment - OK - PAD can disagree with whomever he wants. If I am wrong that he is going beyond opinion and declaring what can and cannot be done by the NABJ - deciding for it its mission and goals - all of this has been nitpicking.

Since he agrees with the stand of the ACLU as to the rights of Nazis to have free speech...and given that he's Jewish...and given what Nazi's tend to do to Jews...I don't think you need to speculate on what would happen if someone's free speech "hit close to home".

Yes, Bill. You may have noticed that I didn't speculate.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 13, 2007 06:24 PM

Yes, Bill. You may have noticed that I didn't speculate.

Then there was no reason to bring it up.

You obviously have a personal axe to grind against Peter. Don't know why. Don't care. But it's getting tiresome.

Perhaps he has a clear idea of what he wants to say; He just hasn't made it comprehensible to English-speakers. I will agree that libel, plagiarism and fabrication of stories are unacceptable in journalism, and also that [the intolerance of fabrication in journalism is irreconcilable] with [unconditional] free speech.

Jeffrey, I've annotated your your own words to where they demonstrate a complete compatibility to my point you otherwise claim is incomprehensible. Thank you for supporting my point as Bobb and Micha have already done.

What amazes me is that you can actually get a job as a "shock jock" when your alleged talent is to call up a Chinese restaurant and order "shrimp flied lice".

Well, what do you think it means to navigate a culture where the highest paid broadcasters cater to privileges exclusive of you? You're amazed in your middle age at what the more vulnerable segments of the American population stopped being amazed at when, to take a public example, the state Bush/Cheney campaign chair systematically flushed votes from black counties in Florida.

While this will fall on deaf ears, since Mike has demonstrated repeatedly that he is incapable of relating to normal people, what amazed me was the simple lack of humor in their "joke". It isn't funny. It's older than dirt. And it wasn't funny back then either. This point was lost on you because, well, you're not a very funny guy.

My reply does not demonstrate a lack of understanding in what you say.

Since you didn't find the joke funny, and I didn't find the joke funny, how does your response that I am humorless demonstrate the deaf ears are not yours? What in our compatibility of our not finding humor in the failed joke demonstrates our incompatibility is based on my denseness and not yours?

But feel free to yammer on in your usual way. At this point you'd have to cure cancer and/or rescue a busload of Nigerian Orphans for anyone to think better of you.

Who's reputation would not benefit from such a contribution? You? Well, good for you that you should enjoy any privilege where your social standing would not benefit from perhaps the largest contribution to the human race in History.

And is that why people perform great contributions to society and great acts of heroism: to raise their esteem in the eyes of others?

As far as I am presenting a reason distilled to a heretofore purity that renders people and their thinking less dependent on the approval of others, I plainly am, and have always been, for freedom -- and I am therefore not ashamed of how I spend my time here.

...these are journalists, who owe their livelihood to valuing free expression.

But not unconditionally, otherwise journalists would shelter the fabrication of stories. As far as journalism does not tolerate the fabrication of stories, journalistic integrity simply does not depend on unconditional free speech.

The issue then is unambiguously settled against Peter's criticism of the NABJ until someone can provide a reason why this is no longer true. If his dismissal of this example of pure logic depends on his calling me an idiot, shame on him for letting an idiot call check on him and his walking away from the gameboard he set in the firstplace.

I don't see Al Sharpton protesting anything bad said about Ms. Rice.

I stand corrected: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/13/2007-05-13_dog_gone_cbs_axes_radio_show_after_prank.html

The pair - whose real names are Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia - apologized Friday after a broadcast in which a guest mused about raping Secretary of State Rice, First Lady Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth.

They are still expected to be on the air tomorrow.

...The outrage was led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who said yesterday he wants to meet Hughes and Cumia's bosses about the rape comments.

"My personal feeling is they should have already been fired," he said.

Sharpton may now be the most powerful man in radio.

"The pair - whose real names are Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia - apologized Friday after a broadcast in which a guest mused about raping Secretary of State Rice, First Lady Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth."

Rape is never funny, no matter who you insult.

Jeffrey Frawley: Well, just to remain as uncooperative as possible, let me throw this out: They call themselves the National Association of Black Journalists because A. the organization has members nationwide (I bet this is true); B. they are an association (again, I'd be surprised if they are not); C. their membership is for the most part black (very likely) and D. the membership consists of journalists (probable).
Luigi Novi: An organization is not simply a group that assembles randomly and then names itself according to who’s there. An organization forms because it has mutual interests and goals, and those goals are indicated in part by its name. It should not be the goal of journalists to try and get someone fired for saying something offensive—particularly after he has apologized. No interests of journalism were served by Imus’ firing. If the NAACP called for his firing, I could at least find that a bit more understandable; Imus maligned African American woman, so the NAACP would not want to that go unchallenged as it may have the effect of legitimizing that. (I’d still disagree that they should be more forgiving in light of his apology, but that’s a separate point.)

Jeffrey Frawley: With that out of the way, they choose to express themselves as they wish, rather than asking Luigi Novi what he thinks.
Luigi Novi: Which is not the topic of this discussion.

Jeffrey Frawley: "Criticizing the validity of one's statement" is a little bit different from saying that an association of journalists has no business saying something with which you disagree.
Luigi Novi: Which is not what Peter did. As soon as you’re interested in returning to the actual topic of this discussion, and referring to what Peter actually said, feel free to do so.

Jeffrey Frawley: "Criticizing the validity..." is pointing out the error in the reasoning of a statement. The other is more of an ex cathedra declaration of what is and is not appropriate to say.
Luigi Novi: No.

One can criticize the validity of different aspects of a statement. They are not limited by your narrow imagination or interpretation of that phrase.

The fact remains that disagreeing with the association’s actions in question is not the same thing as wanting to limit their speech.

Jeffrey Frawley: Bill Mulligan: That was more in response to Luigi Novi, who - I think - believes that an association with the word "journalist" in its name is honor-bound to form its opinions entirely on the basis of what is best for journalism. Part of free speech is that Luigi is not permitted to determine what topics and opinions other people may address.
Luigi Novi: None of this bears any resemblance to what I have actually said. Try again.

Jeffrey Frawley: This comes back to PAD because he opposes NABJ's decision to form its opinions based on the interests of B instead of J. Clearly, he doesn't suggest NABJ be stopped, but merely bemoans its stupidity in not thinking as he tells it.
Luigi Novi: And bemoaning one’s stupidity is not tantamount to trying to limit their freedom of speech.

Jeffrey Frawley: PAD: Clearly you hold free speech as an extremely important thing; I agree with you there. It appears that you think it is the only important thing.
Luigi Novi: Nope. That’s just another one of your Straw Men. He never said this. Try again.

Luigi Novi remains impenetrable. The little bit I do understand has him taking my disagreement with some of his own arguments as specific criticism of PAD. In fact, it is specific criticism of Luigi Novi.

Jeffrey, I don't think he's saying anything all that impenetrable.

Well, I tried giving Jeffy the benefit of the doubt but should've known better. He's a troll with a history of coming here with the sole purpose of using any flimsy excuse to pick a fight. This thread from June of last year is a good example.

Jeeze, I'd forgotten all about that, which shows what an impression he made. Ok, done now.

Bill Mulligan: I do find it impenetrable. Perhaps you'll allow me to continue doing so.

Bill Myers: Yes, that has a lot to do with this conversation. I still stand by the position I took in the string you reference: PAD made a joke about Paul McCartney's divorce; I thought it unfunny and speculated that he would have found such a mockery of his own divorce tasteless. Several here thought it incredibly cruel of me to say so, or even to mention that he had in fact gotten a divorce. PAD said (on this string or another - I don't recall) that I had offended his wife by mentioning this. I thought she probably already had a good idea of the provenance of his first three daughters and wasn't surprised to hear they had a mother. You could have found examples of me being needlessly cruel, but this isn't one of them. If PAD felt divorce jokes were tasteful, he had no business being offended by the suggestion of one; If he did not, then my point - that it was cruel to mock Paul McCartney for getting a divorce - was proven.

I think that if one protects all forms of free speech one must necessarily also protect speech which calls for the silencing of others' free speech. Let's compare this to the famous Nazi parade in Skokie: The orthodox ACLU position (which I reluctantly support) was that free speech and free assembly concerns required that a Nazi parade not be banned. This is so despite the obvious fact that the Nazis have no record of supporting such free speech and free assembly for others. In the case of the NABJ, it would be a denial of their free speech rights to forbid them to say what they want about Don Imus - even though their statement is a call for denying Don Imus the rights they are exercising....

"Criticizing the validity of one's statement" is a little bit different from saying that an association of journalists has no business saying something with which you disagree. "Criticizing the validity..." is pointing out the error in the reasoning of a statement. The other is more of an ex cathedra declaration of what is and is not appropriate to say.

Jeffrey, how does Peter's position qualify as an "ex cathedra declaration of what is and is not appropriate to say" and your criticism of him not qualify for the same alleged hypocrisy?

"That you believe it is sinful for the NABJ to promote restraint of free speech doesn't change the fact that they just don't see things the way you do."

Obviously. The problem is, the way I see it is consistent with the free speech that is necessary for journalists to function, and the way they see it...isn't.

"Rape is never funny, no matter who you insult."

Oh really.

Not that I'm endorsing the Opie and Anthony crap, but since you said that: What else is the monster's kidnapping and sexual relationships with Elizabeth in "Young Frankenstein" *but* playing rape for laughs?

PAD

...the way I see it is consistent with the free speech that is necessary for journalists to function, and the way [the NABJ] see it...isn't.

As you've never retreated from your specific references to unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, I have no reservation against reiterating the qualification that seems to settle this issue definitively: as far as journalism does not tolerate the fabrication of stories, journalistic integrity simply does not depend on unconditional free speech.

Rape is never funny, no matter who you insult.

Borat was able to milk a laugh at the expense of the character's sister by amusing himself with an inane, extended joke about his sister's rape by their caged, mentally-defective brother, then asking the humor expert if rape was then not funny, and the expert saying no, rape is never funny. The humor was enhance by the establishment of a formidable bond of intimacy with its audience, and the laughter in the theater was real.

In the immortal words of the ever-wise George Carlin:

"I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd."

-Rex Hondo-

PAD - I guess you win. Your view of free speech is, at least, self-consistent. It's true that the NABJ's position is not good for journalism, and, since you are very clear in saying you don't want to interfere with NABJ's right to say self-destructive things, there is very little ground left to argue over. I think it was Mike, rather than you, who insisted that an association of black journalists is REQUIRED to form its opinions based on the interests of journalism rather than blacks. He, you and I all agree that maximum free speech is a wiser goal than is trampling on free speech to teach Imus a lesson. I guess I have trouble distinguishing between your opinions (which you are certainly entitled to have) and orders to other people on what they can and cannot do. Apparently the problem is more in my understanding than your posts, based on popular reaction.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 14, 2007 07:28 AM

Bill Myers: Yes, that has a lot to do with this conversation.

Actually, yeah, it does. It firmly establishes that your behavior here is part of a larger pattern of trolling. You're a waste of time. Good-bye.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 14, 2007 09:38 AM

I guess I have trouble distinguishing between your opinions (which you are certainly entitled to have) and orders to other people on what they can and cannot do. Apparently the problem is more in my understanding than your posts, based on popular reaction.

Okay, wow.

Geez.

I saw the above just after I submitted my last post.

People can surprise you.

Jeffrey Frawley, perhaps I misjudged you. At the very least, I have to give you credit for being willing to listen to others. Not everyone does that.

George Carlin can make anything funny.

He just turned 70 this past weekend, so we should all wish him a happy birthday.

Well, he couldn't have made Borat funny. Am I the only one who thought Borat was the most overrated movie since Kill Bill vol I (Another movie that I seem to be alone in not liking)?

Since I haven't seen Borat and don't remeber if I saw Young Frankinstein, I don't know if rape was funny in that context. It is hard for me to think of rape as funny in any context, but perhaps there are contexts in which it could be funny. It seems to me that for rape to be funny it can't really be rape, but I am not expert on rape in humor. I just made a general statement.

--------------

"true that the NABJ's position is not good for journalism, and, since you are very clear in saying you don't want to interfere with NABJ's right to say self-destructive things, there is very little ground left to argue over."

Yes. That's the point I was trying to make 7 posts ago.

I would also submit that the NABJ's position is not good for blacks either. It deflected the discussion away from the inappropriateness of Imus's original words and created the impression that blacks are more powerful than they really are and that Imus is somehow a victim.

"I think it was Mike, rather than you, who insisted that an association of black journalists is REQUIRED to form its opinions based on the interests of journalism rather than blacks. He, you and I all agree that maximum free speech is a wiser goal than is trampling on free speech to teach Imus a lesson."

What Mike said has very little to do with what PAD said, or anybody else in this thread (or in this solar system) for that matter.

Bill Myers: Don't be so quick to forgive me. Some of my posts have been pretty asshole-y, but I've been trying to behave on this string. I nearly agree with PAD's views on the importance of free speech and the self-contradiction of journalists calling for punishment for unpleasant statements. I just think he underestimates the importance some people give to other concerns. For whatever reason he has, he is willing to tolerate even speech which attacks him personally - antisemitism, pro-fascism, ad hominem attacks on nationality, appearance, etc. - and that is completely consistent with his position on a free press. It just seems myopic to assume everyone will recognize the correctness of his opinions. I mustn't put words into his mouth, but I wonder if there is not at least one subject which would make him erupt. Lewd or threatening comments about close family members, for example, might make him for once value the free press less than family love. Speaking for myself, I'm sure I would turn my back on those principles. I'm just cynical enough to think virtually everyone has such a hot button; For the NAMJ, race baiting may be that button.

On this particular string, I think it is Mike that I have the most conflict. His posts seem like throwing out words whose meanings are known only to himself, except when he makes flat statements about what the NABJ's focus must be - because he says so. Those statements are pretty clear, but I don't agree with them. If "The National Association of Black Journalists" cares to look out for its members' interests as blacks, rather than as journalists, that's their own business. It's fair game to say it isn't doing what's best for journalism (as PAD does say); It's not fair game to deny it the standing to say what it wants (as PAD does not, but I think Mike would, if he could).

The string you noted: It would be provocative for me to rehash my position there, except to say PAD joked about Paul McCartney's divorce, I took strong exception, and I thought the pot was calling the kettle black. I still don't know why it was supposedly fine for PAD to make light of someone else's divorce, but hugely offensive for me to mention his. Someone - not PAD, whose sense of ethics appears better developed than this - suggested that the distinction was that McCartney was unlikely to read the comments about him, while PAD was certain to read comments aimed at him. There is a distinction, but it works in the exact opposite of what the poster suggested. It is less honorable to talk behind someone's back than it is to confront him. Anonymous sniping - which the poster liked very much - is cowardly. Direct criticism lets the target have a chance to respond: If it is poorly founded, it can be exposed (as some think they have my posts, whether I agree or not). If it is well founded, at least the target knows about it. In this particular case, very obviously PAD felt that his joke was not transgressive; Many agreed with him, but I did not. There really isn't much more to it.

"I wonder if there is not at least one subject which would make him erupt."

That's not the point. There are many subjects that would cause one personor another to erupt, respond angrily, leave or shut down threads, write irate letters to the editor, shroud or whatever. Certainly Imus's original statement deserves much condemnation. But al these responses fall under the category of using free speech in order to combat people who use free speech in order to promote hatred or are extremely rude and so forth. Calling for someone to be fired falls under a different category, even if we assume that the harm to Imus is not that significant and that he will find other venues from which he can make racist jokes.

"On this particular string, I think it is Mike that I have the most conflict. His posts seem like throwing out words whose meanings are known only to himself, except when he makes flat statements about what the NABJ's focus must be - because he says so. Those statements are pretty clear, but I don't agree with them. If "The National Association of Black Journalists" cares to look out for its members' interests as blacks, rather than as journalists, that's their own business. It's fair game to say it isn't doing what's best for journalism (as PAD does say); It's not fair game to deny it the standing to say what it wants (as PAD does not, but I think Mike would, if he could)."

I'm afraid you completely don't understand what Mike's been saying, repeatedly. You have good reason, since he's often incoherent, and his ideas tend to the absurd. But in any case, he hasn't been saying what you think he does. His argument is that the NABJ, as a journalistic association, was correct to call for Imus to be fired because (drumroll): when Imus was making his jokes he was violating journalistic ethics againt fabricating stories because his jokes were like fabricated stories. Do you find this idea convincing? If not, you are not alone.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 14, 2007 11:38 AM

It just seems myopic to assume everyone will recognize the correctness of his opinions.

Except he's not doing that. He's acting as an advocate for his point-of-view, articulating it in an attempt to persuade others that it is correct. In my case, he succeeded. I was on the fence about this issue until I read Peter's cogent and well-reasoned thoughts.

The bottom line is this: if the leaders of the NABJ continue to hold a contrary point-of-view, then Peter will likely continue to disagree with them. Your criticism of Peter could just as easily apply to the NABJ. Perhaps moreso: they were among the groups who lobbied to have Imus fired, after all.

Anyone who holds a firm belief in something believes, by extension, that those who disagree are incorrect. Peter is not unique in that regard, and it seems odd to me that you keep pounding on him when there are others -- myself included -- who have articulated the same or similar beliefs in this very thread.

As for the Paul McCartney thread, I regret having brought it up. I've dredged up something that upset both Peter and his wife. May I ask that we drop it? I'd rather not be responsible for upsetting our host unnecessarily.

Micha: If you are right about Mike, then I agree that categorizing jokes as fabricated stories is absurd. That kind of thinking would mean that any form of scripted broadcasting, novel, short story or poem would be fair game. On the subject of trigger points, I just can't imagine anyone continuing to champion the right of people to attack what is dearest to them - killing or degrading loved ones, and that sort of thing. You are right that the principles involved don't change, but one would have to have a monomaniacal adoration of free speech to follow through in terrible circumstances: It's RIGHT, but too difficult to expect from anyone.

" just can't imagine anyone continuing to champion the right of people to attack what is dearest to them - killing or degrading loved ones."

I don't think killing falls under freedom of speech.

In any case, when somebody says something truely offensive you have the right, and in some cases the duty, to go after him very aggresively -- using words. Imus seems to have deserved to be grilled by anybody black or white, male or female, for his statements. But by pressuring his company to fire him (assuming that was the cause for his firing) the NABJ went beyond criticizing him severely, and it would seem rightfully, for his racism: they restricted his ability to speak at all (although not completely of course). In so doing they also harmed the issue they were trying to promote.

About Mike, you can look for yourself at his original posts.

Jeffrey Frawley: Luigi Novi remains impenetrable. The little bit I do understand has him taking my disagreement with some of his own arguments as specific criticism of PAD.
Luigi Novi: I did no such thing. I merely pointed out when you deliberately distorted his words (and mine), and pointed out that thinking that what someone says or does is wrong is not the same thing as calling for their right to do or say to be curtailed.

When Luigi Novi says something with which I disagree - "(B)y calling itself an association of JOURNALISTS it's making a statement that its devotion is to the ideals of, Oh, I don't know....JOURNALISM?" he should have enough self-awareness to know that he is the one who said it, and he is the one with whom I am disagreeing. PAD is an entirely different person (I assume - Some time ago someone thought I was a stalking horse PAD had created. It really doesn't seem any more likely in this case than the last.) whose postings appear near the acronym "PAD," rather than "Luigi Novi." I suspect that identifying your own posts with his persona makes you feel a bit more invulnerable to criticism. In that quote, you made quite a big deal of the significance of the word "Journalists" in "The National Association of Black Journalists." A completely parallel argument could be made for the significance of the word "Black." I don't think it would be for the best for the association to parse all issues exclusively in terms of "Black," but I can't expect that aspect to be ignored, either. There is no magic in the words: It's a collection of black journalists which expresses the will of the membership. They have taken no oath to join an ascetic brotherhood; They are adult men and women who decided they hated Imus's guts. I don't know what your profession is, or with what group you identify yourself, but it wouldn't amaze me if you formed some of your opinions on your own, rather than regurgitating the boilerplate of the group. I think PAD's grasp of such things is quite a bit better than Luigi Novi's.

Micha - I think it's important that the NABJ was not Imus's employer, so it neither dismissed him unfairly nor restricted his right of free speech. His employers are the ones who fired him, right or wrong, and whose actions diminished his access to an audience. If it is true that his contract protected him from firing at will, then he might collect damages from them for firing him. Sleazeball that he is, he would still deserve correct treatment under his contract. Free speech would mean very little if one were not free to act as NABJ has - advocating whatever policies it favors. Let's try this: 1. I don't like the current Senior Senator from such and such a state. 2. I tell everyone I can reach how I feel about him, and I recommend that he be voted out. 3. I organize marches against the SOB, and plant people in the audience at his campaign speeches, so as to ask him embarrassing questions. 4. He becomes so hated that he is impeached and convicted, and finds himself out of a job. Was I not entirely within my rights to do so? If the NABJ sees things in this way, that's how it's going to be.

Let's go over it one last time. (whenever I attribute an opinion to PAD, I wil try to represent his opinion as I understand it. If I get it wrong, I'm sorry).

1) The NABJ has the right to say whatever they want. Nobody said otherwise at any point. So continuing discussion on this point is a waste of time.

2) The NABJ is an organization of journalists, so Peter feels they should represent ideals of journalism. that seems reasonable, regardless of the fact that they happen to be black.

3) The NABJ is a black organization so it was dismayed by Imus's words. That's understandable. a strong response was called for. But I don't think it is in the best interest of blacks to be perceived as being able to get people fired for annoying them. Nor is the fact that they're black mean that they should be held to lesser ideals than other journalists, or for that matter people in general. PAD, who is not a journalist, also seems to hold himself to high standards on the issue of freedom of speech, and so do others on this board, it would seem.

4) I don't live in the US so I have no way to judge what happened. The way it has been presented to me by the people on this thread, Imus was only fired as a result of pressure by black organizations like the NABJ, and not for other reasons, like say a drop in audiences. If that's true, then the NABJ wielded its power in order to remove IMUS's offensive speech from the airways, or at least from the national airways. PAD believes this is an inappropriate use of power by an organization of journalists, and I agree. I also feel it is an unwise use of power by a black organization.

5) For a shock jock to make jokes, even bad ones, does not constitute a violation of journalistic ethics comparable to fabricating stories, nor did the NABJ use this strange argument when they called for Imus's firing.

6) The analogy to the senator you (Jeffrey) present doesn't work for two reasons.
a) The story you present doesn't make sense: it is not clear if your hypothetical senator was voted out as a result of your campaigning or impeached and convicted. In the first case he would have been fired by his electorate -- the voters. In the second he would have lost his job for committing a crime (assuming elected officials are not impeached for being disliked).

b) The analogy to a senator doesn't fit. An elected official and a radio host are two very different things. and even if we tried to make the analogy fit it doesn't work. Imus was not fired for committing an 'impeachable' crime. PAD touched on this point in a way when he said that Imus did not violate the FCC regulations. Nor was he 'voted out' by his electorate, namely the listeners. He was fired by his network -- which has no equivalent in the senator analogy.

Now, it had long been argued on this thread that the network has the right to fire him (which is a subject for another discussion). But PAD's criticism was not about that. His criticism was directed at a journalistic organization because:
a) They called for the firing of a fellow journalist by the network -- in effect reducing his abiility to speak -- thus not abiding by the ideals of free speech that PAD believes they should hold.
b) They -- he claims -- were able to use their power to actually and effectively pressure the network to fire Imus, thus moving from speech to an actual attack on his ability to speak (and work).

Beyond that we seem to be going around in circles: the NABJ are within their right to say what they want, but in doing so they fell short of ideals of free speech which, it is PAD's opinion, they should be committed to as journalists. That's his opinion, which is also shared by others. Agree with it or disagree as you will. It is that simple.

Jeffrey Frawley: I suspect that identifying your own posts with his persona makes you feel a bit more invulnerable to criticism.
Luigi Novi: When have I ever identified my posts with his persona?

Jeffrey Frawley: In that quote, you made quite a big deal of the significance of the word "Journalists" in "The National Association of Black Journalists." A completely parallel argument could be made for the significance of the word "Black." I don't think it would be for the best for the association to parse all issues exclusively in terms of "Black," but I can't expect that aspect to be ignored, either. There is no magic in the words: It's a collection of black journalists which expresses the will of the membership. They have taken no oath to join an ascetic brotherhood; They are adult men and women who decided they hated Imus's guts.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s not what they decided. They decided to persecute him, to get him fired for something offensive he said, even after he apologized for it, and in so doing, had him punished for expressing his First Amendment rights—something with exists at the fundamental core of their profession. If any of its members tried this in a capacity other than representing that organization, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it. But journalism requires near-unfettered freedom of expression. For journalists to think that doing what they did was in the best spirit of journalism was nothing short of debaucherous.

Jeffrey Frawley: I don't know what your profession is, or with what group you identify yourself, but it wouldn't amaze me if you formed some of your opinions on your own, rather than regurgitating the boilerplate of the group.
Luigi Novi: Thank you. I appreciate the compliment, inasmuch as I’ve done this many times on this blog.

Impeachment is bringing an elected official to trial in order to determine whether to remove him from office. Conviction (in this case) is a finding that he should be removed: Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached, but neither was convicted; Richard Nixon was neither impeached nor convicted, but resigned before either could happen. My analogy may have been too inexact - you are probably right about that. As to Imus's firing, I don't believe it was ever possible for NABJ to get rid of him without other factors contributing: NABJ does not own the broadcaster or have any authority over it beyond persuasion. If the broadcasters had believed there was more money in keeping him than firing him, we'd be hearing him every morning.

The whole black thing came up only because Luigi Novi found a magical talisman in the power of the word "Journalists" - If you designate yourself a journalist, journalistic interests must surely be your lifeblood. Therre are actually six words in the name of the organization:

"The" - They are "The" - no problem there!

"National" - It looks as if they really are national.

"Association" - It looks just like an association.

"of" - They do consist of something, so "of" is OK.

"Black" - It's awfully likely they are, and consider themselves, black. Perhaps they think it is important.

"Journalists" - They are journalists, whether or not anyone here likes their priorities.

The words are all right there. Choosing Journalists as the only word that designates the membership is arbitrary. The members don't want any advice on journalistic ethics, and don't need any on being black. Let's agree on "The", "National", "Association" and "of" being accurate.

"I mustn't put words into his mouth, but I wonder if there is not at least one subject which would make him erupt. Lewd or threatening comments about close family members, for example, might make him for once value the free press less than family love."

I've been totally up front with the notion that I don't allow people to trash talk my family on my blog. That is a simple courtesy I ask for in what is essentially my house. But if, for example, some guy was being a total jerk about my family over on Newsarama, I wouldn't be lobbying Matt Brady to ban the poster.

"On this particular string, I think it is Mike that I have the most conflict."

That's only because you're bothering to talk to him. Slowly most people are coming around to the point of view that I long-ago realized: There's no point. Mike is literally in a world of his own, where people refute the things he says up one side and down the other and he pretends that they haven't.

PAD

PAD: Apparently you really are willing to live as you speak on this issue. It would be trollish to bait you on it. I think what I was trying to get at on this was that you treat freedom of speech as an absolute good, overwhelming all other factors. If you are steadfast on that, what can I say? I consider free speech extremely important, but I must not rate it quite so absolutely. As you can easily see, Luigi Novi's arguments have done nothing to make me see things more your way. "They're journalists, so every breath is breathed the journalistic way!" is easily attacked with "They're black, so..." As journalists, yes, they should think hard before endorsing prior restraint, but the assumption that they are their jobs first and their ethnicity second is something that must vary for each person. What you KNOW is most important may not be what someone else KNOWS. Even this far along in American history, it isn't unexpected that some would react viscerally and autonomically to really crude race baiting - even though some are initiate in the priesthood of journalism.

Jeffrey, having given up on the notion that PAD was trying to restrict freedom of speech, and that he was being a hypocrite, you now decided to latch onto another absurdity of an almost Mike-ish level, and start analyzing the name of the NABJ.

"What you KNOW is most important may not be what someone else KNOWS."

This is not about knowledge or about other principles or about analyzing the name of the organization.

Obviously the members of the NABJ reacted viserally as blacks to Imus statements. It is PAD's opinion that, as journalists (and they do not stop being journalists or the members of a journalistic organization by virtue of being black or angry ), it would have been appropriate for them to adhere to the principle of free speech to its fullest (although it seems to me that he holds non-journalists to that ideal too). He doesn't expect them to hold only to that ideal, but in this case his opinion is that they should have prefered the ideal of free speech to the viceral reaction (and it is a viceral reaction not a 'black'reaction) -- because this is basically the idea of free speech: to defend the right of people to say even things one finds disgusting. This is his opinion, period. If you think that they should not adhere to that ideal, that's your opinion. You may articulate the other principles which you believe supercede the ideal of free speech, according to which you think the NABJ should act. And we can then discuss that.

If you agree with PAD that they should have adhered to this ideal, but you sympathize with their emotional reaction, that's fine too. We can discuss that. I don't know if PAD is being insensitive to their viceral reaction. But in any case it would seem his view -- that they should have prefered the ideal to the viceral reaction --would have remained the same.

It's that simple and does not require all these
games and this silly discussion on whether the NABJ is more journalistic or more black, and absurd statements like: "the priesthood of journalism." Get to the point of your point of view or drop the issue, but if we are going to discuss something let it be the real issue and not language games and hyperbolies.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 14, 2007 05:01 PM

I think PAD's grasp of such things is quite a bit better than Luigi Novi's.

Ah. I see. You've stopped reflexively attacking Peter for a moment, so you need another target. It seems I was too quick to compliment you.

Luigi's one of the most civil, reasonable, and intelligent posters here. If you can't debate him without resorting to snarkiness (and it seems that you cannot), you must be doing something wrong.

You've validated my initial negative opinion of you. I'm therefore disengaging, because life's too short. I encourage others to do the same.

I know how trolls' minds work: you will likely tell me that my failure to refute your "points" is "proof" that I can't. Whatever. You're a waste of time. 'Bye.

Posted by: Micha at May 14, 2007 08:26 PM

Get to the point of your point of view or drop the issue, but if we are going to discuss something let it be the real issue and not language games and hyperbolies.

Amen, Micha!

I'll let that be my last word in this post, which is getting frighteningly long.

Micha: By "KNOWS" I meant that which one is certain is obvious. Different people KNOW different things. Since we all just adore free speech so very much - sorry - but I don't need your permission to say whatever I want.

Bill Myers: The fact that you think Luigi Novi is a marvelous fellow doesn't really make any difference. If I tell you otherwise does it blast your opinion out of the water? I suspect not, so why do you think your opinion is different? Of course, vowing to disengage is really setting yourself up if you should change your mind: I've fallen into that myself. Perhaps you should be wiser.

Luigi Novi: I think you give the NABJ too much credit for firing Imus. He didn't work for them, and neither do his former employers. Isn't it far more likely that his employers thought he was just more trouble and of less value than they wanted? If an offended group isn't permitted to air its views and call for any goal which is legal, just what do you mean when you say you like free speech?

Luigi Novi was the one who insisted that because the NABJ acronym includes "Journalists" it must conduct itself as and believe what he feels journalists should. Of course it's ridiculous to parse the other five words; It's also ridiculous to latch onto the one. Free speech includes the right to say stupid things and work against what others think is one's best interests. Why should anyone here think he should take that out of NABJ's hands? Please think carefully before you say the NABJ can't be trusted to look out for itself. That kind of paternalism isn't needed.

I'm afraid you completely don't understand what Mike's been saying, repeatedly. You have good reason, since he's often incoherent, and his ideas tend to the absurd. But in any case, he hasn't been saying what you think he does. His argument is that the NABJ, as a journalistic association, was correct to call for Imus to be fired because (drumroll): when Imus was making his jokes he was violating journalistic ethics againt fabricating stories because his jokes were like fabricated stories. Do you find this idea convincing? If not, you are not alone.

No.

1. Peter's criticism of the NABJ depends on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle.
2. The intolerance of the fabrication of stories demonstrates journalism simply doesn't depend on unconditional free speech.
3. Imus didn't have to fabricate a story to demonstrate that journalistic integrity does not depend on unconditional free speech, and that the argument Peter has presented is wrong.

Peter could simply acknowledge that journalistic integrity does not depend on unconditional free speech, and acknowledge his need to rephrase his criticism so that it's compatible with that simple truth -- but he refuses. I'm only left to imagine he doesn't have enough faith in his position to free it from an obvious inconsistency.

Peter could simply say he doesn't have the time to liberate his criticism of the NABJ from the obviously wrong notion that journalistic integrity depends on unconditional free speech, and that he invokes his right to keep his opinion in spite of reason siding against the argument he has presented -- I think we all know Peter is the busiest person who frequents his comments sections -- but again, he refuses. I'm only left to imagine Peter's faith in his own authenticity is too fragile for the practice of such flexibility to be anything but devastating.

Mike is literally in a world of his own, where people refute the things he says up one side and down the other and he pretends that they haven't.

I live in a world where establishing a metaphor with the word "literally" is literally wrong.

Ohm, this is really a waste of time. You persist with these pointless games. If you KNOW something say it, if you have an OPINION, say it. You are exactly like Mike, just playing around. with words, strawmen and things that exist only in your imagination, and you perceive yourself to be the great defender of the downtrodden NABJ. At least Mike is entertaining (sometimes). You don't need my permission to say whatever nonsense pleases you. But if you want to have a conversation with me about this issue, you'll have to start talking to the point. If not than you can talk with yourself or Mike.

Mike, I understand why you think like you do: you're an idiot. We both have to accept that. You simply are incapable of doing or understanding anything else. It's a disability. Even if I were to say to you that Peter's criticism of the NABJ does not and never did depends on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, your mind wont be able to comprehend it because you are an idiot. You are incapable of arguing with PAD's rather simple point of view so you had to construct your own argument that is binary enough for your mind to deal with. I accept that, enjoy it.

1. In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

2. And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.
3. [Peter portraying the NABJ's relent on unconditional free speech as totalitarian] When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

Even if I were to say to you that Peter's criticism of the NABJ does not and never did [depend] on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, your mind [won't] be able to comprehend it because you are an idiot.

If you were to say that Peter's criticism of the NABJ does not and never did depend on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, you would be wrong.

Jeffrey Frawley: The whole black thing came up only because Luigi Novi found a magical talisman in the power of the word “Journalists” - If you designate yourself a journalist, journalistic interests must surely be your lifeblood. Therre are actually six words in the name of the organization…The words are all right there. Choosing Journalists as the only word that designates the membership is arbitrary.
Luigi Novi: I already responded to this point. The organization is an association of journalists. Therefore, any time they take some type of public position or action as a group, they are making a statement that what they’re doing is in the best interests of journalism. All the words before that are just qualifiers: It doesn’t matter if they’re Irish journalists, left-handed journalists, red with yellow polka dot journalists, black-leather-s&m-outfit-wearing journalists, or whatever. And in my opinion, persecuting a guy for insulting someone, even after he has apologized, and in general, trying to stifle offensive speech by getting the speaker fired, is not only not in the best interests of journalism, but antithetical to it.

If say, John X, a member of the NABJ, wanted to speak out, he could’ve done so as a private citizen. Or as a member of the NAACP. I would still have disagreed with the call to have Imus fired in light of his apology, but I would not have opined that doing so was a betrayal of John X’s occupational principles. If an organization dedicated to the welfare of black women, or black athletes, or female black athletes (since that’s who Imus insulted, not journalists) spoke out against him, ditto. Or, if Imus’ crime had been one that was relevant and detrimental to jouranlism (faking a photo or a story, not protecting a source, plagiarism), that would’ve perfectly justified the NABJ in advocating his firing.

Jeffrey Frawley: The members don’t want any advice on journalistic ethics, and don’t need any on being black.
Luigi Novi: Nor have I provided any. I merely expressed an opinion on their actions.

Jeffrey Frawley: PAD: Apparently you really are willing to live as you speak on this issue. It would be trollish to bait you on it. I think what I was trying to get at on this was that you treat freedom of speech as an absolute good, overwhelming all other factors. If you are steadfast on that, what can I say? I consider free speech extremely important, but I must not rate it quite so absolutely. As you can easily see, Luigi Novi’s arguments have done nothing to make me see things more your way. “They’re journalists, so every breath is breathed the journalistic way!”
Luigi Novi: I have not expressed this opinion, for the simple reason that I don’t share it. That free expression—or any right or principle, for the matter—is somehow absolute, is an idea of your own invention. It is not one I have either stated or implied, nor do I ever recall Peter doing so either.

Jeffrey Frawley: As journalists, yes, they should think hard before endorsing prior restraint, but the assumption that they are their jobs first and their ethnicity second is something that must vary for each person.
Luigi Novi: I haven’t made any such assumption, and I explained this above. They are journalists when they are speaking in their capacity as members of an association of journalists. If they want to speak as black men, then they shouldn’t do so while representing an occupation that not only bears no relevance on that, but that is damaged by the solution that they propose. If I happen to be a member of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, do I represent that organization when I speak my mind on a totally unrelated issue, like say, abortion? If I’m an illustrator who works for Joe Schmoe Comics, do I represent that company when I speak my mind on the issue of legalizing marijuana?

Jeffrey Frawley: Luigi Novi: I think you give the NABJ too much credit for firing Imus. He didn’t work for them, and neither do his former employers. Isn’t it far more likely that his employers thought he was just more trouble and of less value than they wanted?
Luigi Novi: Sure. And on what basis did he become “trouble”?

Simple.

The people and organizations that put pressure on his employers by calling for his firing.

Among them, the NABJ.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Jeffrey Frawley: If an offended group isn’t permitted to air its views and call for any goal which is legal, just what do you mean when you say you like free speech?
Luigi Novi: No one suggesting that a group not be “permitted” to air its views or call for a given goal. You simply don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between honoring a person’s right to do this, and disagreeing with the content. If I wrote to my Congressman, and said, “Sir, I want you to introduce a bill that will ‘trim a little fat’ off the Constitution, so that journalism organizations are not legally allowed to call for the firing of someone they don’t like,” then this accusation would have merit.

Jeffrey Frawley: Free speech includes the right to say stupid things and work against what others think is one’s best interests. Why should anyone here think he should take that out of NABJ’s hands?
Luigi Novi: As soon as you can show me where I suggested any such thing, feel free to quote that post.

But since you chickened out of answering me when I asked you in my last post for an example of where I identified my posts with Peter’s persona, which you accused me of in your May 14, 5:01pm post, I’m guessing that this will go unanswered as well.

Luigi, when I disagreed with many things you (not PAD) said, your responses accused me of misunderstanding what PAD was trying to say. It's not any more complicated than that.

I'd say that Imus became trouble for his employers when the crassness of his statements was publicized. Certainly NABJ wanted him out, and certainly it publicized his stupidity: So what? By your reasoning, the Washington Post and the New York Times were wrong to publicize Watergate. (After all, if no one had known about it Nixon's popularity would have remained much higher.) To say "NABJ consists of journalists; I know what is best for journalists - defense of all free speech; NABJ didn't do what I said it should: NABJ was wrong to not let free speech concerns decide its position" is definitely quite absolutist. It presumes that free speech as an issue must always trump other interests. It is very defensible to say you think they were wrong; It is not defensible to say they can only be right to do things as you decide.

Luigi, when I disagreed with many things you (not PAD) said, your responses accused me of misunderstanding what PAD was trying to say. It's not any more complicated than that.

I'd say that Imus became trouble for his employers when the crassness of his statements was publicized. Certainly NABJ wanted him out, and certainly it publicized his stupidity: So what? By your reasoning, the Washington Post and the New York Times were wrong to publicize Watergate. (After all, if no one had known about it Nixon's popularity would have remained much higher.) To say "NABJ consists of journalists; I know what is best for journalists - defense of all free speech; NABJ didn't do what I said it should: NABJ was wrong to not let free speech concerns decide its position" is definitely quite absolutist. It presumes that free speech as an issue must always trump other interests. It is very defensible to say you think they were wrong; It is not defensible to say they can only be right to do things as you decide.

"If you were to say that Peter's criticism of the NABJ does not and never did depend on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, you would be wrong."

You're only saying that because you're an idiot. But that's OK, it's a valid life style.

1. In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

"As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

2. And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.
3. [Peter portraying the NABJ's relent on unconditional free speech as totalitarian] When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

Even if I were to say to you that Peter's criticism of the NABJ does not and never did [depend] on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, your mind [won't] be able to comprehend it because you are an idiot.

If you were to say that Peter's criticism of the NABJ does not and never did depend on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle, you would be wrong.

You're only saying that because you're an idiot. But that's OK, it's a valid life style.

Well, considering someone you persist in calling an idiot corrected you, and you can't disqualify that correction, it must suck to be you. Thank you for demonstrating how a valid lifestyle is not a casual accomplishment.

Micha: "You're only saying that because you're an idiot" is a little bit less responsive to Mike's statement than it could be. He says a lot of things that are either mistaken or impenetrable, but his assertion that PAD's criticism of NABJ has something to do with unconditional free speech isn't far off the mark. PAD values free speech at least highly enough to trump NABJ's members' interest in punishing Imus's bigotry. We could argue forever whether he is right to place free speech that high (I think he might be), but it seems disingenuous to pretend he isn't doing so. Please - and I'm not joking - tell me if I am mistaken in thinking his argument is something like this: "NABJ is quite upset about Imus's statement. Really, I do understand that. Nonetheless, It is clear to me that, as journalists, they are foolish to advocate restrictions on free speech. They really shouldn't do so!" I'm not convinced that their action IS restriction of free speech, but that is still the issue at hand.

Micha - what do YOU think PAD was saying, if it wasn't that opposing free speech seemed a bad mistake for an association of journalists to make? (with the proviso that, of course, he didn't want to prevent NABJ from saying what it wanted.) I'm coming around to believing PAD's statement wasn't all that outrageous - but I still quibble with the absolutism of his position. This is one of those areas in which PAD has made his philosophy quite clear: You, Mike, others and I can all express ourselves as we please.

"NABJ is quite upset about Imus's statement. Really, I do understand that. Nonetheless, It is clear to me that, as journalists, they are foolish to advocate restrictions on free speech. They really shouldn't do so!"

I think that is indeed PAD's point of view. and this is the argument people should respond to.

"I'm not convinced that their action IS restriction of free speech, but that is still the issue at hand."

I'm not convinced that it is true that they caused Imus's firing. I have no way of judging without research, so I'm leaving that question open.

It is also true that the NABJ did not silence Imus to the degree we're familiar from more totalitarian places.

However PAD is right on the principle. What the NABJ said basically was that the best way to counter Imus's offensive language is to remove it from the airways. That's a very problematic position for journalists to hold.

PAD's position is in no way absolutist. The case we have here is a classic free speech case. Imus said something that was found offensive by many people -- nothing more nothing less. we don't have here any of the cases where freedom of speech is placed against a clear opposite value. Had he called for the murder of black athletes, or slandered, or fabricated a story, then we would have a different kind of discussion. If you believe that there is an opposing ideal that is necessary to prefer in this case over free speech, you have to present it, and then they should be weighed against each other. You don't seem to have done that. At best you said we should sympathize with the gut reaction of blacks to Imus's words, which I do. But then the discussion should be about sensitivety to the gut reaction of blacks. But it wasn't about that either.

"Micha: "You're only saying that because you're an idiot" is a little bit less responsive to Mike's statement than it could be."

Not really. Had Mike been a person capable of processing information and discussing it in a meanigful way then I would have been very responsive and patient with him even if I found his position absurd. I would have presented a counter argument and tried to explain calmly and in detail why I think he is wrong, at which point we would have either reached common ground or agreed to disagree. This is usually my policy. In fact, this was what I did when he presented one of his first, and most absurd statements. I treated him like someone who deserves a serious consideration. However, if you look at most of what he's been saying in any of the threads o this board, the way he's been saying them, and the way he responded to the points of view of others, you will see that Mike has some serious cognitive problems that make him incapable of processing the kind of response you expect me to make. so, all that can be done is to ignore him; respond to his nonsense for the benefit of others on this thread; or laugh at his antics, which is what I decided to do at times.

"His assertion that PAD's criticism of NABJ has something to do with unconditional free speech isn't far off the mark."

You are mistaken to assume that the way you are processing PAD's position , namely: "PAD values free speech at least highly enough to trump NABJ's members' interest in punishing Imus's bigotry," and the way Mike is processing it are in any way related to each other. Despite my annoyance with some of your posts here, you are clearly able to process what I and PAD and others are saying, and respond to it. Mike cannot. By this stage his argument has become a self contained logical loop that has little to do with Imus, the NABJ or PAD or what they say (although it wasn't originally like that). You can see this loop three or four posts above. By running repeatedly around this logical loop like a rat in a maze Mike believes that he has refuted PAD, and is crowing about it repeatedly while ignoring completely the real issues. I do find his logical loops quite entertaining, like optical illusions. But I don't take them seriously.

Micha, if you are certain that "you're an idiot" is really the most responsive thing you can say, it's not my business to gainsay it. When I said Mike wasn't wrong to think PAD's position had to do with free speech, that meant that I thought PAD's position had to do with free speech - not that every (or any) part of Mike's argument was correct. I'll get some criticism for this analogy, but here goes:

Idi Amin: The grass is green.
Micha: Idi Amin is a dumb-ass.
Jeff: And yet, the grass IS green.
Micha: Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...Why are you standing up for that dumb-ass? He's no good. Let's not talk about grass; You're just encouraging him.

It may be a very rare thing for Mike's statement to be more accurate than yours, but on this very narrow subject, it is.

"Micha, if you are certain that "you're an idiot" is really the most responsive thing you can say."

It is not the most responsive thing I could say. I can be very responsive, as you may have noticed. However the kind of response you expect me to make is futile in the context of discussion with Mike, as experience teaches us. The only reason for me to respond would be to clarify to somebody else how big an idiot Mike is. Do you think that's necessary?

"When I said Mike wasn't wrong to think PAD's position had to do with free speech, that meant that I thought PAD's position had to do with free speech - not that every (or any) part of Mike's argument was correct."

Acually what you said was:

"He says a lot of things that are either mistaken or impenetrable, but his assertion that PAD's criticism of NABJ has something to do with UNCONDITIONAL free speech isn't far off the mark."

Obviously PAD's position has to do with free speech, and I never suspected that you agree with Mike's position. I don't think your positions are even related to each other on the issue of free speech, which was the point I was trying to make.

And you're right, your analogy doesn't work. You and Mike are not saying anything remotely similar, nor do I expect you to refrain from saying something you believe in because it may resemble something Mike says (which it doesn't), nor am I worried that Mike will be encouraged by what you say. He is not affected by such things.

Do you wish to discuss the 'grass' that you're talking about or the 'grass' that Mike is talking about. These are two seperate subjects. The truth is, I think we pretty much covered your position. And Mike's position would only need to be discussed if there was a need to clarify something about it.

"It may be a very rare thing for Mike's statement to be more accurate than yours, but on this very narrow subject, it is."

Hardly. Your mistake is assuming that because mike talks about free speech he is actually saying something accurate that bears any relation to your point of view.

Do you believe that PAD supports 'unconditional' free speech including cases of journalists fabricating news stories?

Do you think that pointing out that journalists oppose fabricating news stories and therefore do not support 'unconditional' free speech is in any way relevant to PAD's position, your position, or what Imus or the NABJ actually said?

If not, than what makes you consider Mike's statement accurate in any way or form? It's only accurate in the sense that he spelled the words 'free speech' correctly.

Jeff: "Micha: 'You're only saying that because you're an idiot" is a little bit less responsive to Mike's statement than it could be.'"

Micha: "Not really"

That's where I got the idea that you disagree that calling Mike an idiot is less responsive than it could be. Translating that into real life speak, that means "No, Jeff, in fact, calling Mike an idiot is as responsive as it is possible to be."Assuming that Mike is an idiot (no comment on that right now), if he says something that happens to be accurate, saying "Oh, he's an idiot" doesn't really get at the issue. It may be tedious to make a case, but it is more responsive than not doing so. I think my previous analogy works much better than you think it does - but it's not likely I could convince you of something like that.

As to the matter of Mike's assertion that opposing or refusing to protect falsified journalism is a failure to support free speech, yes: You are correct and he is not. Libel, plagiarism and fabricated news are not at all subject to free speech protections, be they absolute rights or something less. Libel and fraud statutes relate to such abuses.

Jeffrey, had Mike said something accurate I would not have called him an idiot. Since he said something idiotic, I called him an idiot.

Ordinarily I would not have called a person who said something idiotic an idiot. In fact I would have taken the time to explain to him why I feel he is wrong in a respectful manner, because I believe we all have our idiotic moments. But my past experience with Mike leads me to believe that any response other than 'you're an idiot' to one of the many idiotic statements he makes is a complete waste of time. Perhaps it would have been better for me simply to ignore him, but I'm not perfect.

As to the question of whether or not Mike is an idiot you are free to look at his many many posts in this thread and in many other threads and judge for yourself. I am not alone in calling him an idiot. But if you feel the need to make your own diagnosis, either by talking to him or reading prior posts, be my guest.

"Do you believe that PAD supports 'unconditional' free speech including cases of journalists fabricating news stories?

Do you think that pointing out that journalists oppose fabricating news stories and therefore do not support 'unconditional' free speech is in any way relevant to PAD's position, your position, or what Imus or the NABJ actually said?"

It comes down to something even simpler than that: Doing one's job.

Imus's job was to be a shock jock and say outrageous things on the air. He did his job...and was fired for it.

A journalist's job is to report the news accurately and to the best of his ability. When a journalist fabricates stories, he is failing in his job, and failing spectacularly. On that basis, firing him is a reasonable, even necessary, course of action.

The nonsense that Mike was spouting about a journalist making stuff up being as equally protected as Imus being insulting is just typical reducto ad absurdum, which I personally think should be renamed reducto ad Mike since he so personifies it.

PAD

"As to the matter of Mike's assertion that opposing or refusing to protect falsified journalism is a failure to support free speech, yes: You are correct and he is not. Libel, plagiarism and fabricated news are not at all subject to free speech protections, be they absolute rights or something less."

Nor did I ever say they were. That's where the disconnect comes from. Any rational person is aware of what I said and the distinctions I made. Mike is unaware of them. That tells you something about Mike.

PAD

PAD - Any disagreement I have with you on this issue is a fairly minor one of how one prioritizes free speech. In practice, I favor very broad freedom of speech - probably slightly less than you, but still very broad. My understanding of NABJ's reasons for attacking Imus and compromising journalistic ethics has led me to quibble where it wasn't necessary. Your strict defense of free speech is probably correct as far as setting goals and ideals; That you don't propose forcing your will on those who disagree takes virtually all of the ground from under those who disagree.

I suppose you win this one!

"Your strict defense of free speech is probably correct as far as setting goals and ideals; That you don't propose forcing your will on those who disagree takes virtually all of the ground from under those who disagree."

Well, that's the advantage of not being a free speech but-head ("I believe in free speech BUT--")

"I suppose you win this one!"

Mwaaaahahahaha...

PAD

Wait'll next time! Why, I'm SURE you'll be bad one of these days. Ooooh, my brain hurts.

Wait'll next time! Why, I'm SURE you'll be bad one of these days. Ooooh, my brain hurts.

(If this posts twice, I'm not just being a butthead (the other kind) - My computer just lost this site for a moment when I tried to Post.

"I suppose you win this one!"

Well Jeffrey, that's the difference between you and Mike -- he would have claimed that he won, and in fact does just that.

""I suppose you win this one!"

Mwaaaahahahaha...

PAD"

Terrific. Now you've created a monster. PAD's going to go about trying to get all of us to tell him he's "won" something.

I keed, I keed.

I'll admit that the third or fourth thing I do when I come here...after checking thread titles, avoiding spoilers for shows that are on tape-delay for me...is look for a Mike post. His logic is like an Escher. It works because...well, you can't really tell how or why it makes sense in any way that your brain recognizes as sense, but when you look at it, you just can't see anything wrong with it. Other than knowing that it's wrong. It can only exist on paper.

I suspect it will not be an every-day occurrence with me.

If PAD were to say my word is infallible, then I guess I'd have to defer to his genius - That's one way of making me agree with him.

So, in new news, a pair of shock jocks has been fired for a racist bit.

I don't live in their broadcast area, and wouldn't tune in anyway, but I'm guessing, being shock jocks, this was far from the first time they did a bit that contained racist elements. But of course, the station had to wait for them to open their mouths...and for some group to complain...before firing them.

I'm totally concerned. Because, isn't all humor made at the expense of someone else? The classic slipping on a banana peel...how funny is it to the poor person who's just bruised their tailbone? Not funny at all. And I'm sure they'd be pretty ticked off at someone making a joke, as part of a show, at their expense.

I don't think you're required to agree with PAD all the time. Do you? In any case, you can agree, disagree, agree to disagree. The problems usually occur when someone behaves in a way that indicates he has no respect with other people and their opinions, does not seek to communicate with them, listen and respond to what they say, but simply wishes to pummel everybody relentlessly with wild, outragous statements. Usually this causes people here to get angry and undermines the purpose of this blog, which is, I think, communication and discussion.

"look for a Mike post. His logic is like an Escher."

This is the simile I was looking for to describe Mike's arguments. They are like the pictures of the stairs that are climbing up to themselves. When you first look at them and follow them with your eyes, it seems they are leading from the ground up to somewhere. But when you look again you realize that they start nowhere and end nowhere. Yet there's still something mezmerizng about them.

Well, I suppose if you have to be a troll be an entertaining troll.

However PAD is right on the principle. What the NABJ said basically was that the best way to counter Imus's offensive language is to remove it from the airways.

I've only heard the NABJ say Imus should be fired, not that he should be prohibited from broadcasting.

As far as Imus passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand, they were no more intolerent than if he were fabricating facts under a news brand -- an intolerance that demonstrates journalistic integrity doesn't depend on unconditional free speech.

If you believe that there is an opposing ideal that is necessary to prefer in this case over free speech, you have to present it, and then they should be weighed against each other.

Credibility. As far as Imus passed nigger, kike, and pussy jokes under a news brand, the news brands of NBC and CBS became tainted. The NABJ upheld a journalistic integrity all other news associations should be embarrassed to have neglected.

I would have presented a counter argument and tried to explain calmly and in detail why I think he is wrong...

Thank you for admitting you haven't presented, and can't refer to, a counter argument to:

1. Peter's criticism of the NABJ depends on unconditional free speech as a journalistic principle:

1. In other words, people whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should have been the first ones out of the box to declare, "We disagree with everything Don Imus says, but will defend to the death his right to say it."

   "As journalists, we firmly believe in the First Amendment and free speech," Monroe added. "But..."

2. And there it is. The inevitable statement of someone who *doesn't* believe in either the First Amendment or free speech, but only in paying lip service to it.
3. [Peter portraying the NABJ's relent on unconditional free speech as totalitarian] When someones says, "I believe in freedom of speech BUT I will do everything I can to shut down someone who says things I don't like," then I say that's rubbish.

   Your strict defense of free speech is probably correct as far as setting goals and ideals; That you don't propose forcing your will on those who disagree takes virtually all of the ground from under those who disagree.

4. Peter David at May 15, 2007 03:31 PM: Well, that's the advantage of not being a free speech but-head ("I believe in free speech BUT--") [Peter again demonstrating he expects all journalists to find any exception to free speech an anathema]

2. The intolerance of the fabrication of stories demonstrates journalism simply doesn't depend on unconditional free speech.
3. Imus didn't have to fabricate a story to demonstrate that journalistic integrity does not depend on unconditional free speech, and that the argument Peter has presented is wrong.

You are mistaken to assume that the way you are processing PAD's position , namely: "PAD values free speech at least highly enough to trump NABJ's members' interest in punishing Imus's bigotry," and the way Mike is processing it are in any way related to each other. Despite my annoyance with some of your posts here, you are clearly able to process what I and PAD and others are saying, and respond to it. Mike cannot.

If by "processing" you mean overlook that Peter has said journalistic integrity depends on unconditional free speech, no I'm not overlooking what Peter has said and refuses to rephrase.

Reason is my shelter against your or anyone's attempts to coerce me by ridicule. Privilege -- as in the privilege to ignore in Peter's favor what he has said -- is your house. As I am displaying a logic distilled to a heretofore unknown purity, I have no intention of abandoning it while its benefits have yet to be inventoried. That's why you're stuck with me.

I never said it was a First Amendment issue. I said that as journalists they should be defending "the spirit of" the First Amendment. Because I'm not...y'know...stupid, and because I actually *do*...y'know...read things as they're written, I'm aware that the First Amendment refers to governmental action. "Congress shall make no law" was the tip-off....

The nonsense that Mike was spouting about a journalist making stuff up being as equally protected as Imus being insulting is just typical reducto ad absurdum, which I personally think should be renamed reducto ad Mike since he so personifies it.

Jim Lehrer and Dave Barry are journalists who make stuff up, and I'm pretty sure you know very well that the right to fabricate stories is as protected in this country as is Imus passing nigger, kike, and pussy jokes, even as journalism -- you readily acknowledged the Imus firing isn't a first amendment issue.

No one is protesting the Weekly World News -- because the Weekly World News isn't taken seriously as a news brand.

As for reducto ad Mike, as far as you are too fragile to address my simple reasoning, you should be embarrassed. Go to the outline of reason I keep posting and refute something. Anything. As far as you can't refute it, why should I not refer to it as we refer any other truth?

I'll admit that the third or fourth thing I do when I come here...after checking thread titles, avoiding spoilers for shows that are on tape-delay for me...is look for a Mike post. His logic is like an Escher. It works because...well, you can't really tell how or why it makes sense in any way that your brain recognizes as sense, but when you look at it, you just can't see anything wrong with it.

There is no innovation that doesn't come at the expense of some established paradigm. That is what Campbell meant when he said every act of creation is an act of destruction. All innovation is based on some form of disobedience.

Other than knowing that it's wrong.

What virtue is nurtured by "I can't see anything wrong with it, but I know it's wrong anyway?"

This is the simile I was looking for to describe Mike's arguments. They are like the pictures of the stairs that are climbing up to themselves.

And within the scope of reason distilled to a heretofore unknown purity, I am free.

When you first look at them and follow them with your eyes, it seems they are leading from the ground up to somewhere. But when you look again you realize that they start nowhere and end nowhere. Yet there's still something mezmerizng about them.

Isn't our very model of the universe that the totality of being begins from and ends in nothing? Is Nirvana not the Sanskrit word for "nothing?"