| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sass
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 5576
Location: where it's sunny and warm
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/14/07 11:17 am ::: hope or no hope from Imus situation? |
Reply  |
|
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-rutten13apr13,1,2129712.column
| Quote: |
| Partly, that's a matter of crossing a rather mysterious boundary that snakes invisibly across the media landscape these days. Our current media culture tolerates all sorts of mean-spirited and offensive speech, but every once in a while, the practitioners of invective blunder onto a target that's just too sympathetic and our collective gag reflex is triggered. |
| Quote: |
| Then there's the fact that the one institution in American society that has zero tolerance for racist epithets masquerading as satire is sports. Rush Limbaugh discovered that when he disparaged Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. There's a simple explanation: Competitive sports is one of this country's pure meritocracies, and the genuinely level playing field that provides has given African Americans a voice there that cannot be ignored because they generate the money on which the whole edifice depends. It's possible to talk away African American sensibilities in law or medicine or, for that matter, journalism, but not in sports because too many of the people who really have clout are black. |
The columnist correctly summarizes this nation's citizens as inborn optimists:
"We Americans are an unquenchably optimistic people, and our news media can't report even the most wrenching or distasteful controversy without finding "signs of hope" somewhere in the muck."
We're also very quick to forgive and forget, too, and progress doesn't come quickly.
I suppose only time will tell whether this is "progress" or not - assuming you believe Imus' firing was progress in the first place.[/quote]
_________________
_________________
More high school team allegiances than can be believed
_________________
He's the greatest of the greater
get it straight - he's great
- Run-DMC
|
|
Hoops24/7
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 19
Location: Central PA
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 2:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Interesting ideas...I wonder if people will fall into optimistic or pessimistic camps depending on their pre-existing beliefs about human nature in general. (Just realized I left out the "realist" camp.) What gives me pause re: hope is the tendency for our media to condense and package material in the way that will sell best. We in turn support those media and so they deliver what we implicitly ask for. It's been said by people far wiser than me: if no one tuned in to shock jocks, there would be no issue. Imus would never have the podium he does.
I suppose that more than anything, I hope that the young women involved emerge as unscathed as possible. Will Imus change? Absolutely not--because then he has no identity. He's not compelling enough to warrant an audience based solely on intelligence and humor. He needs to lurch further and further beyond the pale (see: Ann Coulter) in order to meet his particular audience's expectations. Would he have even apologized had there been no outcry? I believe not. Will we learn anything? I think that only time will tell.
_________________
"I always wanted to be someone, but I see now I should have been more specific." Lily Tomlin
|
|
eclair
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 3914
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 2:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think my issue with all the "discussions" here at Reb's is that people seem to think that this is a basketball issue. This has nothing to do with the silly and rather insignificant game we all love. The Rutgers basketball team just happened to be the women who this landed on.
The issue is about changing the world (or, perhaps, the changing world). I am glad to live in an age when powerful people agree that it's wrong for a middle-aged white man to belittle and disparage young black women for the amusement of himself and his peers.
It wasn't too long ago that such behavior was acceptable. Encouraged, even.
I'm raising young men. I'm grateful that the values I've tried to impart to my kids have held up in this big, splashy, attention-getting case--not only is there right and wrong, but wrong's got consequences. There are some things that one should never ever be excused for. Not even famous people with a lot of money and a big fan base.
|
|
lola528
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 218
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 2:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I have been wondering about this issue a lot--and I think that the difference in this particular case is the fact that the slur was made directly toward a small group of individuals, as opposed to a larger group of unseen and unknown people. There are those who have disparaged gays, but they didn't call out one particular gay individual for ridicule. They disparage blacks, and women, but stop short of nasty slurs against one sympathetic individual woman or black. In this case, the slur was made directly toward a small group of young black women--and they became, as word of the slur spread, "Every man's (and woman's) daughter(s)." To me, that's why Imus found his head on the chopping block and others have not. This particular slur was particularly nasty, and it was aimed directly at a small group of young individual women. Maybe some people have learned that crude and offensive humor isn't funny when you direct it at a large group, and it's even less funny and causes a huge outcry from decent people when you direct it toward individual members of a group or groups. Perhaps it remains to be seen if society as a whole has learned better behavior. My guess is "probably not," but I hope that we might be turning in that direction.
|
|
luvDhoops
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 8229
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 3:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| lola528 wrote: |
| I have been wondering about this issue a lot--and I think that the difference in this particular case is the fact that the slur was made directly toward a small group of individuals, as opposed to a larger group of unseen and unknown people. There are those who have disparaged gays, but they didn't call out one particular gay individual for ridicule. They disparage blacks, and women, but stop short of nasty slurs against one sympathetic individual woman or black. In this case, the slur was made directly toward a small group of young black women--and they became, as word of the slur spread, "Every man's (and woman's) daughter(s)." To me, that's why Imus found his head on the chopping block and others have not. This particular slur was particularly nasty, and it was aimed directly at a small group of young individual women. Maybe some people have learned that crude and offensive humor isn't funny when you direct it at a large group, and it's even less funny and causes a huge outcry from decent people when you direct it toward individual members of a group or groups. Perhaps it remains to be seen if society as a whole has learned better behavior. My guess is "probably not," but I hope that we might be turning in that direction. |
I think the outcry came about because these were kids. The team has quite a few freshmen. Those are teenagers... kids. Kids who were doing nothing but going to school and playing basketball. He has said disparaging remarks directly at people like the Williams sisters for example. However, they are rich and are adults and I don't think anyone could feel quite as sympathetic towards them as they could young female student athletes.
|
|
lola528
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 218
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 3:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| luvDhoops wrote: |
| lola528 wrote: |
| I have been wondering about this issue a lot--and I think that the difference in this particular case is the fact that the slur was made directly toward a small group of individuals, as opposed to a larger group of unseen and unknown people. There are those who have disparaged gays, but they didn't call out one particular gay individual for ridicule. They disparage blacks, and women, but stop short of nasty slurs against one sympathetic individual woman or black. In this case, the slur was made directly toward a small group of young black women--and they became, as word of the slur spread, "Every man's (and woman's) daughter(s)." To me, that's why Imus found his head on the chopping block and others have not. This particular slur was particularly nasty, and it was aimed directly at a small group of young individual women. Maybe some people have learned that crude and offensive humor isn't funny when you direct it at a large group, and it's even less funny and causes a huge outcry from decent people when you direct it toward individual members of a group or groups. Perhaps it remains to be seen if society as a whole has learned better behavior. My guess is "probably not," but I hope that we might be turning in that direction. |
I think the outcry came about because these were kids. The team has quite a few freshmen. Those are teenagers... kids. Kids who were doing nothing but going to school and playing basketball. He has said disparaging remarks directly at people like the Williams sisters for example. However, they are rich and are adults and I don't think anyone could feel quite as sympathetic towards them as they could young female student athletes. |
I think that's true. The fact that they were kids had a lot to do with it! And as you pointed out with the Williams sisters, they are celebrities, and IMO, people don't really care that much what is said about the rich and famous.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 3:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I agree that the youth of the team made a difference. The photo that pilight's been using as an avatar was spread all across the country, and they really did look like kids. (As it happened, the picture was of the five frosh, which didn't hurt.)
I'm also reminded of something I've long thought about prejudices, which is that they sometimes don't survive meaningful contact with the people you're prejudiced against. There is someone in my office who I know harbored, shall we say, less than nice feelings about gays, but he also was slightly clueless, and he interviewed and approved the hiring of an out gay man maybe ten years ago. That man has been a huge success and now is not just an integral part of the team for the guy who hired him, but hosts company events at his house with his partner. I won't say his boss is entirely bias-free now, but I know his attitude has changed enormously, and one of the important factors was having a gay man right in front of him every day. Of course, it doesn't work for everyone, and you still get the people who say "Well, Bob is okay, but he's different than other [fill in the blank]," but sometimes it works.
In this case, I think seeing the team and getting to "meet" them, had a similar effect. It was apparent instantly that what Imus said was completely off base, and that affected a lot of people in a visceral way.
|
|
JACKOWACKO
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 2884
Location: Right now? Cambridge
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 7:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| luvDhoops wrote: |
| lola528 wrote: |
| I have been wondering about this issue a lot--and I think that the difference in this particular case is the fact that the slur was made directly toward a small group of individuals, as opposed to a larger group of unseen and unknown people. There are those who have disparaged gays, but they didn't call out one particular gay individual for ridicule. They disparage blacks, and women, but stop short of nasty slurs against one sympathetic individual woman or black. In this case, the slur was made directly toward a small group of young black women--and they became, as word of the slur spread, "Every man's (and woman's) daughter(s)." To me, that's why Imus found his head on the chopping block and others have not. This particular slur was particularly nasty, and it was aimed directly at a small group of young individual women. Maybe some people have learned that crude and offensive humor isn't funny when you direct it at a large group, and it's even less funny and causes a huge outcry from decent people when you direct it toward individual members of a group or groups. Perhaps it remains to be seen if society as a whole has learned better behavior. My guess is "probably not," but I hope that we might be turning in that direction. |
I think the outcry came about because these were kids. The team has quite a few freshmen. Those are teenagers... kids. Kids who were doing nothing but going to school and playing basketball. He has said disparaging remarks directly at people like the Williams sisters for example. However, they are rich and are adults and I don't think anyone could feel quite as sympathetic towards them as they could young female student athletes. |
Well your wrong because his whole thing is about calling out people directly. Thats his whole thing.
And IMO this situation has done NOTHING to help racial tension. NOTHING.
Most white people think his firing was unjust, most blacks think his firing was just. Bottom line.
IMO it would have been much better if he kept his job, was able to work his radiothon, and have the girls from Rugers on his show for a while. Maybe do some things for them, such as giving them airtime on his show.
He was fired because sponsors were threatening to pull out, but there were actually more sponsors who pulled out AFTER he was fired because they didnt agree with his firing.
CBS made a mistake on so many levels
_________________
LAUREN JACKSON is the greatest of alltime.
|
|
BallState1984
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 1892
Location: Halfway between Muncie and West Lafayette
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 9:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Except Limbaugh did not disparage McNabb. He pointed out McNabb's lackluster season and called the MSM on the carpet for being afraid to say anything even remotely negative about a black athlete.
It never was a black or white issue with Limbaugh. It was a performance issue with McNabb and that was it.
_________________
Terminally afffected with Our Girl Syndrome and proud of it!
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 10:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| JACKOWACKO wrote: |
Most white people think his firing was unjust, most blacks think his firing was just. Bottom line. |
I don't know where you get that. I can buy the second part, but I don't think there's much evidence for the idea that "most" white people didn't agree. Some people, some of them very loud, say he shouldn't have been fired, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure whether they were close to a majority. (And the last online poll I saw suggests that most people with an opinion thought he ought to be fired, although I take any online poll with a grain or shaker of salt.)
I saw a fair number of posts on the RU board suggesting something along the lines of having the Rutgers team on the show, but that never was going to happen. Never ever. That's not how these things play out. He either was going to get some kind of minor punishment or he was going to be fired. And, besides, I can't imagine that anyone from Rutgers had the slightest interest in being on his show. Heck, they debated whether to meet with him at all. Appearing on the show would have felt like more punishment for them, not some kind of victory.
|
|
hooper1
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 2300
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/14/07 10:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| JACKOWACKO wrote: |
Most white people think his firing was unjust, most blacks think his firing was just. Bottom line. |
I don't know where you get that. I can buy the second part, but I don't think there's much evidence for the idea that "most" white people didn't agree. Some people, some of them very loud, say he shouldn't have been fired, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure whether they were close to a majority. (And the last online poll I saw suggests that most people with an opinion thought he ought to be fired, although I take any online poll with a grain or shaker of salt.)
I saw a fair number of posts on the RU board suggesting something along the lines of having the Rutgers team on the show, but that never was going to happen. Never ever. That's not how these things play out. He either was going to get some kind of minor punishment or he was going to be fired. And, besides, I can't imagine that anyone from Rutgers had the slightest interest in being on his show. Heck, they debated whether to meet with him at all. Appearing on the show would have felt like more punishment for them, not some kind of victory. |
I know white people (many, many white people), and not one thinks that Imus should have been kept on the radio.
I love the L.A. Times. They have such good writers and thinkers there. I personally think the reason that this was such a big deal was that Imus was shooting at innocent by-standers. He didn't know the Rutger's basketball team. He didn't following women's basketball. They didn't say anything to offend him. He just seemed to randomly pick a group of women, of black women, of young, black, women, and started shooting at them. There's absolutely no way to justify that.
|
|
Sass
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 5576
Location: where it's sunny and warm
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/15/07 12:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| The LA Times (indeed, a wonderful newspaper) reports that AM 1050 here in L.A. will broadcast the offending radio show this coming Monday, at 6 a.m. Needless to say, I'll be tuning in.
_________________
_________________
More high school team allegiances than can be believed
_________________
He's the greatest of the greater
get it straight - he's great
- Run-DMC
|
|
Carol Anne
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1739
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/15/07 6:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
Sex games -- Imus' bile places spotlight on state of women's sports
Wayne Coffey, New York Daily News
... Even as opinions about Imus swirl and people stake out their positions and the debate rages on, Linda Carpenter, the researcher and former Brooklyn College professor, says the most instructive lesson that could come from the episode is if it moves people to think about how much words can hurt, and how it feels to be on the receiving end of that hurt. Have we gotten to a point where we don't care if such hurt is inflicted, Carpenter wonders?
"This is very different from political correctness," she says. "This is the measure of the soul of a society." ...
Four years ago, Martha Burk took on the all-male corridors of Augusta National Golf Club, trying to mobilize a corporate boycott to exert economic pressure on the club to admit a female member. The companies basically ignored her, and the Masters went on its hidebound way. ...
"It is the difference between race and gender," Burk says. "They totally stonewalled us on Augusta, but they couldn't do that here because of the racial element. The issue of race is much more of a cultural no-no. Without that, they would've bypassed it the same way they did with Augusta. They would've said, ‘Oh, it's just a bunch of dykes playing basketball', and would've gone right on." ...
Burk believes that Imus felt emboldened to pick on the Rutgers' women precisely because they were women, and thinks he never would've discussed the Rutgers' men's team in the same spirit.
"My view is that had been the men's team, he would not have called the team Brillo-headed pimps. But because it was women, he gave himself permission in the first place to say something."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2007/04/15/2007-04-15_sex_games.html |
I "personalized" MSNBC.com (long, boring story) this morning, just before I read Wayne Coffey's excellent feature story. In the Sports section, MSNBC.com offers twenty columnists: every single one is male. Yes, men can write about women's athletics, but I want to hear from women, too. As for Don Imus, I'm white and think his firing was long, long overdue.
|
|
|
|
