[Rhodes22-list] Don Imus

[TN Rhodey]

Todd,

Well said. - Wally


>From: "Todd Tavares" <sprocket80 at mail.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Don Imus
>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:39:51 -0500
>
>  Dave,
>
>No one changed the spotlight from Imus to Sharpton and Jackson, they did
>that themselves.   I am not trying to change the subject any more than
>you by changing the focus to what shock jocks say and get away with.
>This is not about shock jocks in general.  This has less to do with FCC
>rules and everything to do with political correctness. It is about how a
>white man made a disgusting and vile comment about a team of mostly black
>athletes.  It's a racial issue. PERIOD!  It's all about victims and
>victimization. You don't see white "reverends" complaining in the media
>on behalf of  the couple of white girls on the squad do you? The kind of
>grandstanding that Sharpton does perpetuates that role as a victim. They
>(Sharpton and Jackson) gave these women no options; no voice of their
>own. These women did not deserve what Imus said, but also it shouldn't
>have affected them that much either.  I'll say it again; They cause the
>controversy, then jump in to stand up for the victimized  Black folks.
>That is why they have more support in the (vocal) Black community than
>someone like Whitlock or Bill Cosby.
>
>As for Imus, the focus of this argument, he has to follow rules enforced
>by the FCC.  Calling a group of women basketball players names is
>offensive, degrading, and morally unacceptable.  If it violated the FCC
>rules, then they should take what ever action is at their
>disposal......fines..... taking away the radio station's
>license....whatever!  But there is still a First Amendment and you still
>have a knob on your radio.  Howard Stern and others are offensive without
>a doubt, but they bring in tons of money for their stations, regardless
>of what sewage pours out of their mouths, and their listeners love them
>anyway.  When they cross the line, the free market (within FCC
>guidelines) should prompt the action. Remember Doug Tract?  If sponsors
>started cancelling and/or ratings dropped, MSNBC would have taken
>necessary actions to protect their bottom line.  But it is not, and
>should not be, up to people like Sharpton to stick his nose in it and
>make it national scandal.  Like I said "If a tree falls in the woods,
>does it make a sound?"
>
>Todd T.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: DCLewis1 at aol.com
>   To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>   Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Don Imus
>   Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:45:36 EDT
>
>
>   Todd,
>
>   With all due respect, I think the people that have made this a
>   Sharpton/Jackson issue are being a little devious. The issue is
>   Imus, MSNBC and CBS, not
>   Sharpton/Jackson, black women, rap, or
>   certainly-any-other-issue-than-Imus.
>   The argumentation technique is called change the subject, put the
>   burden on
>   someone other than Imus. The issue is Imus and his behavior. I think
>   we
>   could stop spending a lot of time focusing on
>   Sharpton-did-this/Jackson-did-that
>   and keep narrowly focused on Imus and the effect he’s had on these
>   young
>   ladies, and whether they deserved it.
>
>   As to your statement “ there is no positive outcome from the
>   trouble Al
>   Sharpton started...unless you consider getting Don Imus fired a
>   plus.” I think
>   you’re wrong. The present dispute can resolve a long festering
>   need to curb
>   abusive behavior by all shock-jocks and the networks that support
>   them. Today
>   networks understand that if they can get a suitably offensive
>   shock-jock on
>   board they can make $XM. The shock-jock can make even more. If
>   tomorrow they
>   understand that they can make $XM, but they have a legal liability
>   risk of
>   $YB (or $y100M) they will reasonably reconsider their efforts and
>   perhaps
>   temper their enthusiasm. One tangible positive result from this
>   present flail
>   would be to clearly establish that there are substantial risks and
>   costs, not
>   just profit, associated with shock-jock behavior.
>
>   As to your thinking Whitelock makes a lot of sense: you are not the
>   issue,
>   the issue is the black community. What do they think? Who has more
>   support
>   in the black community, Whitelock or Sharpton? I don't know the
>   answer to
>   that, and you don't either, but I'd bet Whitelock has precious
>   little support.
>
>   JMO.
>
>   Dave
>
>
>
>   ************************************** See what's free at
>   http://www.aol.com.
>   __________________________________________________
>   Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. 
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07