April 11, 2007

Jason Whitlock has no idea what he is talking about. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have long been outspoken critics of hip hop music. The fact that they aren't given the opportunity to appear on the Today show to talk about those issues hardly means they are avoiding the real problem. This is a ridiculous article, and it makes light of the comments that Imus made. Criticizing these student-athletes because they don't look white enough at the pinnacle of their athletic achievement is not something to take lightly.

posted by bperk at 01:17 PM on April 11, 2007

Wow. Not pulling any punches, I see. Hard not to agree when it's presented thusly, but it almost smacks of a little self-immolation. Whitlock seems to reject the entire modern black pop culture - be it music, sport, leadership... I like hip-hop for the most part. But I would certainly agree that the Imus thing is more revealing for the opportunism it seems to have generated on the leadership side rather than illuminating any genuine racism, or racist agenda. Well, I hate to say it, but - Where's Bishop? That and the worst thing to come from the Imus issue is all the pictures of Imus. Holy crumbly old man. He looks dead - just too busy being a racist dinosaur to notice.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:22 PM on April 11, 2007

It's kinda ironic...A lot of people wouldn't have even know who the woman's Rutgers team is if not for Imus' remarks. His words brought the team to the forefront whereas they had drifted off into the limelight. That doesn't mitigate what he said. Just an observation. And I agree with yerfatma. Bloody sick of hearing about him (and yet, here I am. Go figure).

posted by jmd82 at 01:25 PM on April 11, 2007

Well, I hate to say it, but - Where's Bishop? This is exactly what has happened with Sharpton and the media. They like to pick the most vocal (not necessarily most reasoned) black person to be the spokesperson for all of black people. It makes it easier to dismiss his opinion, regardless of how reasonable it may be.

posted by bperk at 01:30 PM on April 11, 2007

The whole thing makes me sick, but not because I'm hearing about it. It makes me sick that Imus said what he said, and further that he seems on some level genuinely surprised at the outrage. It makes me sick that apparently, more than a few people feel that the outrage is, across the board, manufactured rather than genuine. It makes me sick that the racist part of Imus's comments got plenty of focus -- as it should have -- but that the sexism and misogyny (both in the use of the word "ho" and in the tired old criticism of female athletes for not looking like women are "supposed" to look) have gone almost completely unremarked-upon. When you get right down to it, there really isn't much of anything I've read about this that doesn't make me sick, except for the remarks of Stringer and the players.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:22 PM on April 11, 2007

Comparing music (or any art form) to journalism (or people discussing current events on a news channel) is a fool's game. Race doesn't enter into it.

posted by chicobangs at 03:15 PM on April 11, 2007

They like to pick the most vocal (not necessarily most reasoned) black person to be the spokesperson for all of black people. It makes it easier to dismiss his opinion, regardless of how reasonable it may be. I don't want to assume I know what you're talking about, so I'll ask: are you blaming/crediting the media for inventing and/or promoting Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton as some sort of "spokesperson for all of black people?" Because, if you are, I'll respectfully disagree. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton seem all too happy to frame themselves as the "spokesperson for all of black people." Put a bottle in front of a boozehound, he'll drink it; put a loaded spike in front of a junkie, he'll use it; put a magnet for racial (and other) controversy in front of the media, they'll plaster it all over every form of media that exists. It's the nature of addiction. The Rev. Jackson and the Rev. Sharpton seem to be addicted to public attention. Even worse, they seem to crave power that they have no right usurping from a community that's already been hurt by outside forces, a community that definitely doesn't need to be marginalized by the behavior of those who purport to help them.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:24 PM on April 11, 2007

I don't want to assume I know what you're talking about, so I'll ask: are you blaming/crediting the media for inventing and/or promoting Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton as some sort of "spokesperson for all of black people?" Because, if you are, I'll respectfully disagree. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton seem all too happy to frame themselves as the "spokesperson for all of black people." I guess I am. They do think they are the voice of black people, I just think the media is irresponsible for acting like they really are. They both have serious credibility issues, yet they are often the first and only stop on the what-black-people-think tour.

posted by bperk at 05:03 PM on April 11, 2007

Hip-hop music is far from the problem. If your radio and or cd player is raising your children; check the mirror. As for the comments made; waaaaay to muuuch aiiiiirrrrr tiiimme for a comment that ignorant. Can we move on. He's suspended (alot that going on lately), apologized, and lost to big sponsors; I don't think they still tar and feather or cut tongues out. (Hey there's a thought) Yeah, Yeah, thats it out with his tongue.

posted by fourthreeforty at 05:58 PM on April 11, 2007

People who immediately summon Jackson or Sharpton, when they feel like they have offended Black people, don't realize that running to these figures is just as offensive. They are not the Pope's of the Black race. "uht oh, I said the "N" word, I better call Jesse and AL to let "their" people know I didn't mean it (or really they didn't know the mic was on). This is not to demean the positive work that both men have done as activists (and they both have done positive things). But when someone runs to them to quickly show "they like Blacks", only further shows the disconnect they have with the race all together. Why not write the local black congressman or woman. Why not summon Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice. Oh, you forgot these 2 were black because they're not always preaching at a church or leading some march? Why not call Louis Farrakhan? Because inside you feel like what you said actually refers to Black people like him? If you want to "make up" for something that you think offended the Black race, here's a hint. Man the hell up and admit you don't give a fuck. Don't further disrespect us by doing some dumb shit to save your own ass. What? You think we don't know you have certain prejudices against us? apologized, and lost to big sponsors; I don't think they still tar and feather or cut tongues out. (Hey there's a thought) Yeah, Yeah, thats it out with his tongue. No, I say we make him get up every morning and go to work for free. And while we're at it, have a Black woman from the Rutgers team come up with a dress code for his ass. Then have another woman (of any race) come up with a new "personal conduct policy" that is bigot ass has to follow every day. How about that. Then let's randomly piss test him and make the results public. You know his old ass is on something. Then let's ban that damn "gang member" bandanna and cowboy hat he wears. God forbid he be allowed to show his southern culture or heritage. NBC shouldn't allow him to look like a country western singer, all they sing about is booze and getting arrested right? I'm not going to far am I?

posted by Bishop at 06:19 PM on April 11, 2007

I've never liked Imus, and have always struggled to explain his popularity. He has a face that's tailor-made for radio, talks like he's got marbles in his mouth, and really isn't that humorous. His apologies after his comments were pointless and merely an attempt to save his own ass. If he gets axed for good, who really cares. The next idiot out to get ratings will jump into his place. While I agree you can't equate music and other entertainment genres to journalism, there still needs to be some serious thought put into this issue by artists who, unfortunately, are the ones many people pay the most attention to. It seems as if calling women bitches, hoes, whatever, is fine as long as it's nameless individuals on the TV screen. When it's aimed at actual people, such as a basketball team, then it's seen as horribly unacceptable. But it can't go both ways, because many individuals remain far too narrow-minded to make any distinction between art and reality. And if it's all about making money with whatever is being pedaled, then the guilty individuals need to step forward and let everyone know they just-plain don't care. Blow it off as being protected by the giant blanket known as "Freedom of Speech" and then all's fair.

posted by dyams at 09:24 PM on April 11, 2007

Sharpton and Jackson are hypocrites. Does anyone recall Jackson using the racial term HymieTown in reference to NYC while he last ran for President of the U.S.? Hymie is a racial slur for people of Jewish decent. I don't recall anyone picketing his campaign or calling for him to withdraw from the election race, or him being blasted in the media, etc. What Imus said was terrible, however, racism is a two-way street in this country.

posted by FonGu at 04:55 AM on April 12, 2007

Don't blame Imus for this circus blame the media with Sharpton parading along next to the elephant. This remark by Imus never should have gotten any media attention. I don't see that. People need to be called on their actions, regardless of who points out their error.

posted by yerfatma at 06:02 AM on April 12, 2007

I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. I used to like Jason Whitlock and respected what he had to say but now he just sounds like he found a platform to blast Mike Lupica and ESPN. He's just disgruntled that he's no longer part of the "Worldwide Leader of Sports" family and this is a way of sending that message. What did the whole Don Imus thing have to do with Mike Lupica and ESPN? Nada, zip, zero, zilch but he still found a way to toss them in the same bunch with Don Imus like ESPN sponsors him. What a shame. He made some valid points but as soon as I saw that he put Lupica and ESPN alongside Imus, he lost me. IMO, the difference between rap (not hip-hop) and what Don Imus does is in his morning show are two different things because Imus is being broadcasted Live while the music is censored and to purchase the product, a person must be at least 18. One is music/entertainment while the other is more of a political standpoint where the guests are respected individuals dealing with politics, more or less. Who listens to rap and who listens to Don Imus' show? There's your answer~

posted by BornIcon at 06:52 AM on April 12, 2007

I'm not really of the opinion that this has gotten too much attention. I don't ever recall hearing anything on a channel like MSNBC that was this racist and sexist. I think the problem is that a lot of people hear the word racist and immediately assume that the politically correct police are patrolling. Perhaps as a result, they were unwilling to take a look and realize how shockingly racist his statements were.

posted by bperk at 07:31 AM on April 12, 2007

Thank you so much llb for expressing so eloquently what I was writing. Then I read your post. I agree wholeheartedly with you. "Stinky drawers" ROFL

posted by yzelda4045 at 08:02 AM on April 12, 2007

Having once been a minority of two in a school, I know what it is to be different and be teased and picked on and taunted. When I decided that what those kind of people say tells more about their own inadequacies than mine, and that I was ok.... to myself at least, the teasing and taunts stopped. Lesson, respect yourself and others will also.. And who cares what anyone else says. (Purposeful criticism is always valid.... and should be considered as honestly delivered.... but we are talking about something else here). Piscator

posted by Fly_Piscator at 11:46 AM on April 12, 2007

Where is the thread today about how the Duke lacross team that many of you wanted to hang without trial last year was found completely innocent of all charges. Like I said in another post, I actually posted that story early this morning but our SpoFi moderator decided to delete it for whatever reason. That's a story that I wanted to talk about but I guess he felt otherwise.

posted by BornIcon at 12:23 PM on April 12, 2007

Imus is getting just desserts for all the other times he's made ugly remarks (and for all the mainstream journalists who spent their mornings kissing his ass). The thing that offended me most about this incident is that Imus took on an obscure and powerless subject -- a women's college basketball team who just hit the pinnacle of their sport and don't deserve to be the butt of ridicule. Now we'll all remember them for being called an ugly name by an imbecilic octogenarian. If Imus had turned his skewering sense of humor on a powerful subject, I'd cut him more slack.

posted by rcade at 12:39 PM on April 12, 2007

Don't beat yourself up Debo, it's cool~ I think I'm pretty computer savvy but it took me a minute to figure it out for myself as far as posting a story goes. It's not that hard, really but I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually. My question is why was my post on the Duke lacrosse team deleted? It's a fair question that I feel deseves an explanation. It's a story most of us would like to discuss. At least I know I do~

posted by BornIcon at 01:14 PM on April 12, 2007

-yerfatma (after reading all of my 1,000 word screeds). Sorry. Long before you ever came along I developed adult-onset ADD. Any comment that scrolls on a 1600x1200 monitor causes me to scroll past. Brevity being the soul of something or other.

posted by yerfatma at 01:44 PM on April 12, 2007

Any Duke stories involving the rape accussations have been being deleted for a long time now. The very first link didn't get that bad, but when the next update was posted it got really ugly. I tried to find it in the archives, but to no success. If I remember correctly, the last reason given about deleting those posts was that it had moved on past the sports realm a long time ago.

posted by MrFrisby at 01:47 PM on April 12, 2007

I think we deserve the benefit of the doubt of being adult enough to discuss this....wait, I almost forgot where I was posting this. Nevermind~ BornIcon, before you really get carried away with the snide remarks, what exactly were you linking to? It's not always the content; sometimes it's the source (for example, if you linked to Yahoo). Don't be so quick to assume why it got torpedoed -- it could be something fairly innocuous. (and, btw, discussions of SpoFi policy really should take place in the Locker Room, so if you want to pursue this rather than hijacking this thread, that would be the place to do it)

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:17 PM on April 12, 2007

With all due respect, Debo, I don't see the similarity just yet. After months and months of investigations, the Duke lacrosse players were cleared. If, in 8-10 months (or however long it may take), Adam Jones is cleared of all charges, then I'd see a clear similarity. I'm not sure I'll see any similarity (or connection) between the situations involving either Duke lacrosse players or Pacman Jones and the Rutgers women's basketball team no matter how many months I wait.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:19 PM on April 12, 2007

With all due respect, Debo, I don't see the similarity just yet. After months and months of investigations, the Duke lacrosse players were cleared. If, in 8-10 months (or however long it may take), Adam Jones is cleared of all charges, then I'd see a clear similarity. TBH, there is some similarity. The lacrosse players were suspended from Duke upon their indictment. It was only after the charges appeared more and more shaky that Duke allowed them to come back. This is rather similar to what happened in Jones's case, except there was a consistent pattern of behavior that led to his suspension.

posted by Howard_T at 04:33 PM on April 12, 2007

For starters, the Duke thread is sitting in between the Michael Vick "vindication" thread for NOT being in possession of weed, and the thread about the Vikings players on the boat, who basically did the same thing the Duke players did (hire women to come do things at a party that they shouldn't have been doing.) Again notice there is a call for vindication concerning some kids who basically pulled a pacman jones by having a party with a few under age kids, beer, undoubtedly drugs, and strippers. But because they were falsely accused of rape note how the previous is being totally ignored and there is a call for a Spofi thread to proclaim them innocent. Innocent of rape? Obviously. Innocent of what NFL and NBA players get a verbal thrashing for here at Spofi twice a month? No chance. hopefully the black community will use this open dialogue (excessive publicity) to take on their biggest threat - the gangsta rappers, "street cred" athletes, and thug drug dealers as role models. Since your such an expert on the Black community, I'll have you know that twice as many eminem wanna be's (your son, nephew, daughters boyfriend included) are out there trying their hardest to get what they think is "street cred". And trust me, people like Imus are a far bigger threat to the Black community than the stereo-typical BS you listed. To avoid the things you listed just requires proper home training. No amount of home training will help the Black community avoid people like Don Imus. We just have to learn to live with it.

posted by Bishop at 06:21 PM on April 12, 2007

An ESPN article on the firing, with some interesting statements by CBS president Leslie Moonves, also says that a possible replacement for Imus's slot is Mike and the Mad Dog. Wow, that'll be a big improvement. Unless I'm completely misremembering, in that piece de resistance of sportswriting The Greatest 100 Sports Arguments of All Time, Chris "Mad Dog" Russo opined with considerable invective that women's hoops is the dumbest thing since dog sweaters. Think maybe I'll write Mr. Moonves a letter...

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:51 PM on April 12, 2007

Howard, my bad, I didn't clarify, I was just referring to the Duke players being exonerated, and applying that to what happens if Jones is eventually exonerated. As far as the suspensions, though, I certainly understand your point.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:33 AM on April 13, 2007

Chris "Mad Dog" Russo opined with considerable invective that women's hoops is the dumbest thing since dog sweaters And what's the problem with that opinion? It's not like he called anyone a degrading name or made a racist remark, he gave his opinion about women's basketball and from the ratings for the WNBA, he's got a point.

posted by BornIcon at 06:00 AM on April 13, 2007

Imus is a jackass and a talentless jackass who speaks with marbles in his mouth at that.

posted by urall cloolis at 07:16 AM on April 13, 2007

And what's the problem with that opinion? If you have to ask that question, BornIcon, you'll probably never know. But if you're interested in figuring it out, context is your friend. So's critical reading. The Mad Dog is a sexist pig; replacing Imus with the Mad Dog over this incident would be a slap in the face.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:31 AM on April 13, 2007

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with someone who has a radio show. That protection is limited to the government limiting speech. I don't buy that if you don't like it, don't listen to it argument. There are plenty of things that people should not be given a forum to say. Sure, they can say it legally, but there is no reason it has to be broadcast over the airwaves to millions of people. I'd bet that all but the most libertarian of people would have limits. The fact that they trot out free speech as an excuse for those spewing racist or sexist garbage is probably more of an indication that those particular comments don't really offend them.

posted by bperk at 08:02 AM on April 13, 2007

No, it doesn't. The freedom of speech is something that is given to us in the Bill of Rights, and is solely a limit on what the government can do. It has absolute no relevance to a radio personality working for a company broadcasting on the radio. None. They can't be arrested for broadcasting a certain view, but they can certainly have their broadcasting privileges taken away. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

posted by bperk at 08:50 AM on April 13, 2007

If you don't agree with someone's comments or views and there's nothing controversial about it, they don't have the right to express that? It's not about what I agree with: it's about what the radio station, the media syndicate, and all the advertisers involved agree with. If I piss off any of them to a strong enough degree, I'm gone. You'll notice that CBS only dropped Imus when all the sponsors started pulling their ads from his show.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 09:01 AM on April 13, 2007

Random prediction: Imus gets picked up by one of the satellite radio companies and another nail gets driven into the coffin of terrestrial radio. Random reaction: You're out of your mind. Satellite radio is dead unless they clean up their financial house. Satellite radio reaches 14 million people a day (if you belive their figures, which have been artificially inflated since their inception); terrestrial radio reaches 4 billion plus a day. Terrestrial radio isn't going anywhere. Stern couldn't do it, Opie and Anthony couldn't do it, and Imus sure the hell won't do it.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:33 AM on April 13, 2007

TBH, I mentioned that prediction to someone I work with. He said he was thinking the same thing, with a twist. Satellite radio will over-estimate him and he'll just speed the sinkin'. I think that makes more sense than my prediction.

posted by SummersEve at 10:38 AM on April 13, 2007

I'm not so sure satellite radio will pick up Imus; Sirius and XM want that merger to go through. You'll always have freedom of speech on the radio until your sponsors decide freedom is too expensive.

posted by Newbie Walker at 12:51 PM on April 13, 2007

Paul R. La Monica of CNNMoney doesn't see Imus as a good fit for satellite radio during the merger attempt.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 05:27 PM on April 13, 2007