Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on April 15, 2007, 07:43:08 AM
-
They criticize Imus but won't publicly say that Ludacris should stop using the N-word because they don't want to interfere with his "art". They don't want to interrupt his "carnival atmosphere".
IMO, if you're willing to outright say a man should lose tens of millions of dollars and his platform to make life better for kids with cancer, then you should have the balls to say Ludacris shouldn't say worse things.
-
Also they won't criticize Borat for demeaning women (and if you remember the scene in teh beginning where he goes to a womens empowerment session, that was way worse than the word 'ho')
-
They criticize Imus but won't publicly say that Ludacris should stop using the N-word because they don't want to interfere with his "art". They don't want to interrupt his "carnival atmosphere".
IMO, if you're willing to outright say a man should lose tens of millions of dollars and his platform to make life better for kids with cancer, then you should have the balls to say Ludacris shouldn't say worse things.
For some reason, we are being told by the millionaire pundits that this is not a free speech issue.
Yes it is.
If one does not want to hear a shock jock say, "nappy head hoe" or "black" or any other slur, then by all means, change the radio/tv station. In the principle of freedom, we do not head-off language at the pass. We do not censor unpopular ideas/language.
Language can be unpleasant. People can be demeaning. That's all part of a free society.
Wow. I just saw preview of my message and the software is censoring the word "black".
Let's see: shit, piss, fuck, girl, guy, guy, tits.
Wow. I had no idea of the level of censorship here.
-
This is not a "free speech" issue.
Imus can go out on the street in front of the CBS studios and say whatever he wants.
He can also go into a studio and record whatever he wants and try to sell it in the open market
Once he goes on the air he no longer has free speech. He now has to say things that please his employers or at the very least don't upset his employers. His employers make money by selling advertising during his show. If his show is popular they can charge more for adverstising. If he upsets the advertisers then his employers have a right to censor his speech or even fire him. He can then go back out on the street corner and say whatever he wants.
Just imagine if Rush Limbaugh woke up one morning and decided to go on the air and excoriate the Republican party. How long do you think it would take for his advertisers to protest and if he kept doing it how long before he was fired.
-
Once he goes on the air he no longer has free speech.
Not true, he runs a certain type of radio show that was setup to shock and awe people, targeted a whole different set of people like Stern, just because your being broadcasted over radio waves does not mean you can't say what you want.
Someone needs to start a white racial group and listen to all black broadcasters, and nail their asses to the cross if the words whitey, cracker, white slip out.
-
They criticize Imus but won't publicly say that Ludacris should stop using the N-word because they don't want to interfere with his "art". They don't want to interrupt his "carnival atmosphere".
IMO, if you're willing to outright say a man should lose tens of millions of dollars and his platform to make life better for kids with cancer, then you should have the balls to say Ludacris shouldn't say worse things.
being a disc jockey isn't an art? We all can admit that in America blacks are the "protected" group right? If he had called them big nose having Jews would we even of heard about it? Seriously
-
This is not a "free speech" issue.
Imus can go out on the street in front of the CBS studios and say whatever he wants.
He can also go into a studio and record whatever he wants and try to sell it in the open market
Once he goes on the air he no longer has free speech. He now has to say things that please his employers or at the very least don't upset his employers. His employers make money by selling advertising during his show. If his show is popular they can charge more for adverstising. If he upsets the advertisers then his employers have a right to censor his speech or even fire him. He can then go back out on the street corner and say whatever he wants.
Just imagine if Rush Limbaugh woke up one morning and decided to go on the air and excoriate the Republican party. How long do you think it would take for his advertisers to protest and if he kept doing it how long before he was fired.
In your heart of hearts, do you think that Imus would have been fired by CBS if this had never been brought into the limelight. I mean if Moonves ws sitting in his office, listening to Imus and heard what he said but that was as far as it went...was Moonves offended enough personally to have fired him?
-
Not true, he runs a certain type of radio show that was setup to shock and awe people, targeted a whole different set of people like Stern, just because your being broadcasted over radio waves does not mean you can't say what you want.
Someone needs to start a white racial group and listen to all black broadcasters, and nail their asses to the cross if the words whitey, cracker, white slip out.
OK - let's clarify a bit. Imus (or you or I) are free to say whatever we want but if we're doing it at work then our employers have the right to fire us. Even if I just worked in an office and went around making racist and sexist remarks I could also be fired. So yes you have free speech in the sense that no one is requiring you to wear a muzzle but context does matter. The classic example of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater applies here.
-
OK - let's clarify a bit. Imus (or you or I) are free to say whatever we want but if we're doing it at work then our employers have the right to fire us. Even if I just worked in an office and went around making racist and sexist remarks I could also be fired. So yes you have free speech in the sense that no one is requiring you to wear a muzzle but context does matter. The classic example of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater applies here.
no one here argues that CBS had no choice once Sharpton and team got involved, I just don't like how CBS got FORCED into it. Sharpton knew that CBS would cave, just like the German Army will. Notice he left South Park alone...
-
In your heart of hearts, do you think that Imus would have been fired by CBS if this had never been brought into the limelight. I mean if Moonves ws sitting in his office, listening to Imus and heard what he said but that was as far as it went...was Moonves offended enough personally to have fired him?
Let's say his boss heard it and wasn't offended. Let's also assume the girls on the basketball team weren't offended.
The millions of listeners to his show still have the right to be offended and they have the right to express their own free speech and raise a protest with his employers and advertisers. His employers and sponsors have the right to ignore these people if they choose to do so. Let's even go one step further and say that someone doesn't even listen to his show but they still heard about it and were offended. Since these are public airwaves any person has the right to protest what's on them.
-
OK - let's clarify a bit. Imus (or you or I) are free to say whatever we want but if we're doing it at work then our employers have the right to fire us. Even if I just worked in an office and went around making racist and sexist remarks I could also be fired. So yes you have free speech in the sense that no one is requiring you to wear a muzzle but context does matter. The classic example of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater applies here.
Damn, you have free speech but you have to answer to someone. Government controls the airwaves. BS. But all the above scenarios make for a funny day.
-
being a disc jockey isn't an art? We all can admit that in America blacks are the "protected" group right? If he had called them big nose having Jews would we even of heard about it? Seriously
I'm willing to clarify being a disc jockey as art.
Who buys his art - I mean really - who pays for it.
His sponsors pay for it.
Imus is still free to say whatever he wants - put it on a cd and try to sell it in the open market
I think if Imus called a bunch of girls on a basketbell team big nose jew or big nose jewish ho that there would have most likely been a similar reaction, perhaps not quite as severe.
The reality is that race is still a big issue in this country
-
I'm willing to clarify being a disc jockey as art.
Who buys his art - I mean really - who pays for it.
His sponsors pay for it.
Imus is still free to say whatever he wants - put it on a cd and try to sell it in the open market
I think if Imus called a bunch of girls on a basketbell team big nose jew or big nose jewish ho that there would have most likely been a similar reaction, perhaps not quite as severe.
The reality is that race is still a big issue in this country
Straw I'm not disagreeing with you. CBS had to fire him and was well within their right as a company to do so...but if it was never brought up in the public, then the sponsors wouldn't have left etc....
-
OK - let's clarify a bit. Imus (or you or I) are free to say whatever we want but if we're doing it at work then our employers have the right to fire us. Even if I just worked in an office and went around making racist and sexist remarks I could also be fired. So yes you have free speech in the sense that no one is requiring you to wear a muzzle but context does matter. The classic example of yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater applies here.
Yes it is a free speech issue. It may not be a first amendment case.
Just b/c that speech is broadcast over a certain medium doesn't diminish the fact that he was fired for the content of that speech.
He was fired for what he had said. Now his employment contract will govern this situation b/c I seriously doubt that Imus was an "at will" employee.
-
Straw I'm not disagreeing with you. CBS had to fire him and was well within their right as a company to do so...but if it was never brought up in the public, then the sponsors wouldn't have left etc....
how they found out about it is irrelevent.
If I kill someone and no one finds out does it make any difference? (granted not a perfect analogy)
Like I said before - it doesn't matter whether the sponsor or protestors heard about it at the time or not.
When they found out about it they have the right to make a judgement about it.
-
how they found out about it is irrelevent.
If I kill someone and no one finds out does it make any difference? (granted not a perfect analogy)
Like I said before - it doesn't matter whether the sponsor or protestors heard about it at the time or not.
When they found out about it they have the right to make a judgement about it.
wow...sigh...I know this straw, that is why I am not mad that they fired him...but if sharpton hadn't have made his push no one would have cared and he woudl still be working....
-
Yes it is a free speech issue. It may not be a first amendment case.
Just b/c that speech is broadcast over a certain medium doesn't diminish the fact that he was fired for the content of that speech.
He was fired for what he had said. Now his employment contract will govern this situation b/c I seriously doubt that Imus was an "at will" employee.
Granted, Imus (or anyone) is free to say whatever they want but there is a difference if you're saying it on a street corner (although if that street corner is in Harlem you might have a problem) as opposed to the public airwaves where someone is paying for you to be there.
-
wow...sigh...I know this straw, that is why I am not mad that they fired him...but if sharpton hadn't have made his push no one would have cared and he woudl still be working....
[/b]
yeah, but he did (actually I think he might have been third or fourth to get on board) and that's his right. CBS/MSNBC and their various sponsors could have chosen to ignore it if they wanted.
BTW - I'm no fan of Sharpton. He seems to me to be an opportunist and has made his own outrageous comments in the past.
-
This is not a "free speech" issue.
Imus can go out on the street in front of the CBS studios and say whatever he wants.
He can also go into a studio and record whatever he wants and try to sell it in the open market
Once he goes on the air he no longer has free speech. He now has to say things that please his employers or at the very least don't upset his employers. His employers make money by selling advertising during his show. If his show is popular they can charge more for adverstising. If he upsets the advertisers then his employers have a right to censor his speech or even fire him. He can then go back out on the street corner and say whatever he wants.
Just imagine if Rush Limbaugh woke up one morning and decided to go on the air and excoriate the Republican party. How long do you think it would take for his advertisers to protest and if he kept doing it how long before he was fired.
I agree with this.
-
I wonder how long we're going to be trapped in this endless cycle of American Blacks being victims. In another decade will we still be getting browbeaten by this Politically Correct agenda that employs no common sense?
You know, the more the black community justifies their own victim status the more they hurt their own cause. All it does is create resentment and give them an excuse (that they readily use) to fail. The pure idiocy of the whole situation drives me crazy.
-
newsweek as well as Harold Ford Jr, both frequent imus guests, were conveniently *unreachable* for an entire week. Then, when he was fired, both criticized his words to anyone with a camera who would listen.
-
Yes it is a free speech issue. It may not be a first amendment case.
Just b/c that speech is broadcast over a certain medium doesn't diminish the fact that he was fired for the content of that speech.
He was fired for what he had said. Now his employment contract will govern this situation b/c I seriously doubt that Imus was an "at will" employee.
I doubt he was at will, but his comments absolutely gave his employers cause to fire him. It's not a free speech or First Amendment issue at all. These are private employers. You adhere to the standards your employer sets, or you find another job.
-
I wonder how long we're going to be trapped in this endless cycle of American Blacks being victims. In another decade will we still be getting browbeaten by this Politically Correct agenda that employs no common sense?
You know, the more the black community justifies their own victim status the more they hurt their own cause. All it does is create resentment and give them an excuse (that they readily use) to fail. The pure idiocy of the whole situation drives me crazy.
I am a fraid it won't go away in our lifetime. Everytime someone does something (superbowl coach etc) they all talk about being "the first black this, the first black that" I think it diminishes their achievement in the US as a whole. Sure it is celebrated in black community, but other races are tired of hearing it. It needs to be dropped, they need to stop doing homicide studies based on race, they need to stop having everything based on it. Like in the NFL, they said there weren't enough representation of blacks in the head coaching ranks. Yet if you take the percentage of coaches that are black, and compare it to the percentage of the population that is black, there were twice as many coaches. All they do is diminsh the next black coach that is hired because people will chalk it up to affirmative action right from the start. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Spike Lee etc..make way to much money off of rasicm to ever let it drop. What would those 3 do if there was no racism?
-
news is cyclical.
every 2-3 years there is a huge news cycle about race.
every 6 months there is a kidnapping craze.
every 12 months there's an anti-gun angle.
every 5 months like clockwork there is another "foiled terror attack" for Bush to brag about in which 8 hapless retarded dishwashers are foiled at the last minute before they can blow up the world with the help of their FBI snitch who fed them the plan.
It's the political news - it's primetime sitcoms with ugly people.
-
news is cyclical.
every 2-3 years there is a huge news cycle about race.
every 6 months there is a kidnapping craze.
every 12 months there's an anti-gun angle.
every 5 months like clockwork there is another "foiled terror attack" for Bush to brag about in which 8 hapless retarded dishwashers are foiled at the last minute before they can blow up the world with the help of their FBI snitch who fed them the plan.
It's the political news - it's primetime sitcoms with ugly people.
do you think this cycle coincides with the Jackie Robinson celebrations?
-
do you think this cycle coincides with the Jackie Robinson celebrations?
i have no clue. could be they tie in nicely and people will give JR more attention now, which would be a positive ripple.
Or, could be it is designed to take attention off the failed Surge. In the same time that Imus was breaking news for the last 8 days, we've had 3 massive attacks (green zone which is now called an inside job by ABC news, bridge, and the shrine/market) and the daily death toll is 3rd highest ever.
A cynic might mention to you that NBC's parent company GE makes a LOT more money during the surge from its war machine division, so reporting its ineffectiveness will cost the company millions, and might not be in their own best interest.
Of course, you'd never admit that a CEO who answers to shareholders for a nice large salary would *ever* encourage the editorial dept to focus on something less damaging to that org's bottom line.
-
i have no clue. could be they tie in nicely and people will give JR more attention now, which would be a positive ripple.
Or, could be it is designed to take attention off the failed Surge. In the same time that Imus was breaking news for the last 8 days, we've had 3 massive attacks (green zone which is now called an inside job by ABC news, bridge, and the shrine/market) and the daily death toll is 3rd highest ever.
A cynic might mention to you that NBC's parent company GE makes a LOT more money during the surge from its war machine division, so reporting its ineffectiveness will cost the company millions, and might not be in their own best interest.
Of course, you'd never admit that a CEO who answers to shareholders for a nice large salary would *ever* encourage the editorial dept to focus on something less damaging to that org's bottom line.
oh geese....first of all NBC is not doing anything to help Bush, and there are lots os signs that the surge is working as well. So in your logic wouldn't NBC want to report those things to help fuel the war effort?. So was it Imus that agreed to create a distraction or was it Sharpton? or both together?
-
there are lots os signs that the surge is working as well.
Like more deaths?
-
oh geese....first of all NBC is not doing anything to help Bush, and there are lots os signs that the surge is working as well. So in your logic wouldn't NBC want to report those things to help fuel the war effort?. So was it Imus that agreed to create a distraction or was it Sharpton? or both together?
I'm sure there are signs of everything. but there are facts, too:
1) Massive "inside job" attack killing 3 Iraqi congressman inside green zone.
2) Entire major bridge taken out by bomb
3) US/UK deaths per day at third highest this month, since war started. Top 3 of what, 50 months?
4) Shrine blast yesterday kills 40+
Now, I am sure we are progressing in some areas, so people will always say "It's working!". But deaths in the top 94th percentile and green zone suicide bombings are signs of moving BACKWARDS, not FWD. And it cannot be denied that NBC/GE would make LESS money if the lagging surge was the topic of the month. All we can argue about is, "would they" move focus to make more money. You tell me.
-
oh geese....first of all NBC is not doing anything to help Bush,
Um, I didn't say they were trying to help Bush. I said it's conceivable they would change focus of their reporting if it meant they all got rich this year. It's not politics, it's public opinion. If people forget about the surge for 6 months, that's 6 months that GE gets very high missile order numbers. If people see it and and public opinion says "leave Iraq" and we pull out, GE loses hundred of mill per year. This is a fact.
Now, would they slightly over-emphasize Imus, and maybe talk a little less about surge shortcomings, to make several hundred millions of dollars? yes or no, in your opinion?
-
I'm sure there are signs of everything. but there are facts, too:
1) Massive "inside job" attack killing 3 Iraqi congressman inside green zone.
2) Entire major bridge taken out by bomb
3) US/UK deaths per day at third highest this month, since war started. Top 3 of what, 50 months?
4) Shrine blast yesterday kills 40+
Now, I am sure we are progressing in some areas, so people will always say "It's working!". But deaths in the top 94th percentile and green zone suicide bombings are signs of moving BACKWARDS, not FWD. And it cannot be denied that NBC/GE would make LESS money if the lagging surge was the topic of the month. All we can argue about is, "would they" move focus to make more money. You tell me.
Point taken and I really hope you don't thik I look at this through rose colored glasses (I used to love that song) I know bad things are happening, and I know they still outweigh the good things, so I acknowledge that. I just want to other side to do the same and see that there are good things going on and acknowledge those , and one bad week isn't necessarilly a setback. All over Iraq things are improving, and Baghdad isn't the only place in Iraq. Your whole thing with NBC/GE though...You accuse the military, FOX and others of making up news, so why wouldn't NBC do the same this past week to ensure more money?
-
Um, I didn't say they were trying to help Bush. I said it's conceivable they would change focus of their reporting if it meant they all got rich this year. It's not politics, it's public opinion. If people forget about the surge for 6 months, that's 6 months that GE gets very high missile order numbers. If people see it and and public opinion says "leave Iraq" and we pull out, GE loses hundred of mill per year. This is a fact.
Now, would they slightly over-emphasize Imus, and maybe talk a little less about surge shortcomings, to make several hundred millions of dollars? yes or no, in your opinion?
In my opinion, they were reporting what the people want to hear...just like everyother media outlet this last week. If they really wanted to cover up the Surge they could have found ALOT of things that would support their "profitering" But why would they report everything bad all year long if in theory it will hurt their profits?
-
In my opinion, they were reporting what the people want to hear...just like everyother media outlet this last week. If they really wanted to cover up the Surge they could have found ALOT of things that would support their "profitering" But why would they report everything bad all year long if in theory it will hurt their profits?
As you know, I watch FOX, MSNBC, and CNN most of the day, every day, and have for 2 years now.
Since the surge started, IMO, there have been stories like Anna Nicole and Imus, which have received an inordinate amount of attention. In the past, monster news less than those 3 attacks and high deaths during the surge would get daily analysis, and they really haven't now.
I look for the most self-serving motive to do this, and I see NBC is profiting (for perhaps the last time, if we do leave next year) on this surge. it might just be ratings pushing it. But we all know there is always that little gray area where they decide where the emphasis lies. And the huge dropoff in war coverage is, IMO, just a lil bit caused by their own financial interests.
-
As you know, I watch FOX, MSNBC, and CNN most of the day, every day, and have for 2 years now.
Since the surge started, IMO, there have been stories like Anna Nicole and Imus, which have received an inordinate amount of attention. In the past, monster news less than those 3 attacks and high deaths during the surge would get daily analysis, and they really haven't now.
I look for the most self-serving motive to do this, and I see NBC is profiting (for perhaps the last time, if we do leave next year) on this surge. it might just be ratings pushing it. But we all know there is always that little gray area where they decide where the emphasis lies. And the huge dropoff in war coverage is, IMO, just a lil bit caused by their own financial interests.
I agree to a point and if they had been the ONLY news outlet paying so much attention to Imus I would think like you...