Was it wrong to fire Imus?

Question

When you buy a rappers album, thats all they talk about
they use profane language, and controversial phrases about women, sexes, or homophobia or whatever.
does this challenge what our forefathers who founded our countrys decisions? The freedom of speech. what this challenged? though people were offended, when u listen to hip hop or radio, closely isn't that what every person is saying? smack that
shake that and ill give you money
shake ur money maker? idk i think it was wrong for saying what was on his mind what do you think?

Answer 1

These are not my personal words but they touched me.
The Human Race needs to hear this..



Injustice has prevailed once again

The firing of Don Imus brings back frustrating, and distressing memories that hit all to close to home.

My father was radio personality Bob Arthur, of KABC's morning talk radio program "The Ken and Bob Company". It aired from 1969 to 1990 in Los Angeles, and was never below 3rd place in the Nielsen ratings for 17 years. His awards consist of a Star on the "Hollywood Walk of fame", numerous California Gold Medals, three Golden Mics, and congressional appreciation for a lifetime of achievement, to name a few.

He was one of the most respected and dignified news anchormen in the industry. He worked with Cronkite, interviewed John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and most famously, Lyndon Johnson who clasped his large Texas hand over my dad's microphone, muffling it after being asked a difficult question about the war in Viet Nam. Johnson then grinned at my father and muttered;

"If you think I'm gonna answer that, you're f**king crazy!"

At that time, he was dubbed the most "un-bias" newscaster by the associated press, and the Los Angeles Times, truly living up to the phrase: "Fair and balanced".

It all came to an abrupt end in August of 1990. He was called into the office of KABC's president and general manager, and was told he had one of two choices . . . retire, or be fired. When asked why, his boss hinted that he was getting too old.

My dad chose to go out with dignity. He retired on September 14, 1990, at the age of 69 (just 3 years older than Imus is now).

I realize the circumstances surrounding Don Imus are dramatically different. While my father was fired due to his age, Don was, due to his mouth. However, there are similarities. They were both pioneers, both on very popular programs, and both fired unjustly.

My first question is, why wasn't Don Imus given the opportunity to go out gracefully, after such a remarkable career? Why didn't CBS and NBC offer Don Imus a chance to resign? I think we know why . . .

If sponsors such as GM, American Express, Sprint, and the like had not pulled their advertising dollars out of the equation, Don Imus would still be on the air. It's as simple as that.

Sure, the president and CEO of each of the networks, and others may claim it's because of Al Roker's article, or other employee outrage, but they're not fooling anyone.

I realize that Al Roker thinks he's "something-else" but the truth of the matter is, he is under contract with NBC, nothing more (despite his self-proclaimed belief that he is "America's most loved weatherman"). To even suggest that he has "all mighty power and influence" over the networks, is silly at best.

There is only one thing that drives the networks, and that is ratings, which equals sponsors, which equals dollars. It was that way throughout my father's career, and it will be that way until the sun explodes. Take away the dollars, and the "show" is worthless.

The sad fact is, if the sponsors of the "Today" show suddenly pulled their advertising, Al Roker and the gang, would be out on their ear before they could say "stormy weather".

Now, lets talk about the first amendment. I've heard it claimed recently, that as long as your words are not hurtful, nor racial, then and only then, does freedom of speech apply.

That's not accurate. I believe a little clarification is in order. May I present, "The Bill of Rights" in regards to free speech;

''Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity."

Notice, it does not say, that you can not utter illegal or improper statements (if it did, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be in a heap of trouble) it merely states, to be prepared for the consequences. Imus can say what ever he wants, but he has to pay the piper for his own impudence. The question is, should the consequences have been so severe? To those who say "yes", I ask the following questions;

"Was what Don Imus said illegal?"

No. However distasteful, it was not illegal. If it were, the FCC would have filed charges. Therefore, on this count he should not have been fired.

"Was it improper?"

I believe it was, but many weren't even phased by it, so where do we draw the line? With that said, this isn't sufficient grounds for his termination. The majority of Americans overwhelmingly feel that Imus was wrongfully terminated.

"Was it mischievous?"

Most certainly, but that is what he was, a mischievous character, for nearly 40 years. He was hired to be outrageous, pushing the envelope at every given opportunity, and it is clear that this time he pushed a little too far. However, I believe his words did not have the spitefulness that is alleged.

Yes it was tacky, salty, and unacceptable, but it wasn't meant to be vicious. There is a big difference.

Don Imus probably has an excellent case for wrongful termination, but I'm sure that will all be settled with a very large sum, and out of court. I wonder if NBC and CBS can feel the ice cracking beneath their feet?

I believe most of all, what is being overlooked by those who choose their careers in broadcasting and public speaking, is living up to the responsibility of being on the air.
From the moment you're signaled that the world is listening, to the instant the microphone is turned off, there is a colossal accountability.

Does that mean you can't make mistakes? Nobody's perfect. People will make mistakes, they will say things "off the cuff" so to speak.

However, to whom much is given, much is expected.

It is my personal opinion, that Don Imus (although unbelievably contentious over all these years) has lived up to the responsibilities of the airwaves more than anyone involved in this matter.

Not only has he kept the first amendment kicking and screaming while so many "double-standard -snakes" have tried to stomp it dead, he has lived up to his liability by paying for his recent audacity, first with his livelihood, and then with a heartfelt apology to the members of Rutgers basketball team. Which they formally accepted, I might add.

What of Al Sharpton? Has he lived up to the responsibility for what he has said in the past? For the damage he has done? What about Jesse Jackson? If anything, they are the ones who have ill-used free speech, for they try to silence and censor what they do not approve of.

That leads me to Rosie O'Donnell. Has she taken her accountability seriously? She has blamed 9/11 on the government, with no proof of her accusations (other than trying to make us believe she has an engineering degree, as she explains how the buildings could not have collapsed without explosives). She has also blatantly insulted Asians with her despicable on air mimicking of their language. Why is she still allowed a platform?

Because she's a woman? Because she's gay (can you say; "Can't touch this!").

Also, I had to laugh when I heard people say Don Imus really wasn't sorry, and the real reason he apologized was he was trying to save his job.

Ah . . . he doesn't need a job, folks. This is not some broke DJ, only on the air for three weeks.

He has a 30 million dollar beach front home in Connecticut, a penthouse apartment with a 1,400 square foot balcony over looking Central Park West, and a 4000 acre cattle ranch in New Mexico. Does that sound broke to you?

The man has enough money to probably buy "Radio One" (the company that gives Al Sharpton his platform to spew sly and crafty racist points) and wouldn't that be a chuckle! How I'd love to be a fly on the wall that day.

Don Imus could care less about a "job". What he cares about, is that his career doesn't end this way, and he doesn't go down as a bigot.

Don Imus is anything but a bigot. A bigot would have never apologized for those words. A racist would have tried to justify what he said with further division, promoting more separation, and more racism.

Wait a minute . . . I just described Al Sharpton again.

Perhaps above all, the following statements by Al Sharpton infuriated me the most. When asked about Imus' philanthropist achievements, Sharpton said that was a separate issue, not to have any influence on the matter.

It should not have any influence? Is it me, or is this an outright attempt to manipulate?

He was then asked;

"What do you think is really in Don Imus' heart?"

Al replied;

"I don't think it matters."

It doesn't matter? Well, isn't that convenient. Are these guys making this up as they go along, or what? What do you mean it doesn't matter? Of course it matters! It matters to the very core of this issue!

Tell me Reverend Sharpton, how do you separate a man's character? Talk is cheap (and he ought to know) a man's moral fiber is measured more by what he does, then by what he says (of course, Sharpton and Jackson would have us believe otherwise, since they talk a lot about civil rights, but do little to defend them).

Perhaps this article dated April 13, 2007 by black columnist Jason Whitlock says it best;

"It's time for Jesse and Al to step down. They've had 25 years to lead us. Other than their accountants, I'd be hard pressed to find someone who has benefited from their administration."

This same columnist voiced his opinion on national television that both Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson were "terrorists" that went around lighting human fires to line their own pockets.

What they have achieved is questionable, especially in the black community, but what is clear, is that they have profited by the demise of others. These men make a living off destroying other people and their careers. They dim the lights around them, so they alone can shine. They are truly beings of darkness.

History will show that they have achieved little more than division, discontent, anger, and yes . . . racism. They have concentrated on dividing this country, and the Imus affair is just the latest example of how they have driven a deeper wedge, leaving a legacy of contempt for generations to come.

This world is a far lesser place due to their bigotry, and they should be the ones removed from public speaking, permanently. As a matter of fact, being the son of a well respected radio broadcaster, I have the right, and hereby call for both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be band from the airwaves, effective immediately.

Al Sharpton has the gall to call for standards on the radio, when he consistently breeches the most fundamental standard of all . . . literacy!

In the interview with Don Imus, Al Sharpton said;

"Now, let me axe you this,"

Then, he said it again with;

"Why would you feel that we are out of order to axe that you step aside?"

Axe? AXE??? What in the world is this man doing on the radio? The word is ASK, not AXE! If he can't pronounce a simple word like "ask" then what gives him the right to be in front of a microphone in the first place?

By the way, that sounds like a threat to me. Sharpton says he wants to axe him, does that mean he wants to chop Imus up into little pieces? If we can't get him for assault, then perhaps we can prosecute him for slaughtering the English language!

Furthermore, I demand that the church revoke his doctrine. This is no reverend. This is no Christian! This is a vulture that hides behind the cloth, and passes judgment while he himself is shrouded in unscrupulous behavior. He should be striped of his title, and forever condemned as one of the greatest heretics of our time!

I submit Don Imus not only has light-years on Al's lexis (and no, I don't mean the sedan) but that he has done more for people, be them black, white, yellow, brown, child or adult, than either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, could ever hope to.

As for Don Imus, I believe this country, and this world, is a better place because he has lived, and I am thankful for all he's done.

You can silence Imus (in my opinion illegally) and with it my right to hear one of the most informative radio programs ever produced, but you can't change his impact.

It's impossible to ignore the good this man has done, and you can't say to me;

"Well, sure he's raised millions of dollars for charity, but that doesn't mean he's a good person."

HUH?

Do I flush away all this man has done because of three words not even of his own design? I'm sorry, but that's asking me to be blind to the truth, and I refuse to do so.

I'm proud to say, that no matter what, Sharpton and Jackson can't take away all the informative education, perspective, and charity I have learned by listening to "Imus in the Morning" program all these years.

If some shallow minded, bigoted "Preachers" wish to place all I take with me, into the blurb of an asinine, and ill-mannered joke (uttered on live radio of all things) then so be it.

Personally, I would like to thank Don and Deirdre Imus for their charity and hard work, along with Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Lou Rufino, and all those that made up one of the funniest, talented, informative, diverse, and meaningful programs I have ever had the pleasure of listening to.

I will miss your program almost as much as I miss my father's.

From the son of another great broadcaster . . . I thank you with all my heart.

Sincerely,

James "Arthur" Prince.

Answer 2

i think of the firing of Don Imus replaced right into a sparkling cut back sign of ways this usa has been systematically dismantling our civil liberties. What Imus reported, no count how despicable is replaced into, is secure below the astonishing of unfastened speech. to no longer point out that it's not the 1st hateful factor he has reported a pair of team of individuals. The question is why now? The political correctness in this usa has reached an all time extreme, and oddly sufficient the only those that would desire to tip-toe around what they say are entertainers. the individuals who actual represent our government are becoming away with a techniques worse, nonetheless possibly much less obtrusive, acts of discrimination, classicism, and racism. even with the undeniable fact that i think that what Imus reported replaced into incorrect, i think they might desire to have permit the marketplace place come to a determination his destiny. If the typical public replaced into incredibly so outraged, they could end listening, and advertisers could pull from his coach, and the tip effect may be the comparable...he could be fired. without, breaching our first substitute rights.

Answer 3

He has a right to speak his mind as our forefathers suggest. The problem was that he specifically called 9 beautiful women *&*&*%. Those girls were imbarrassed when they should have been most happy because of what Imus said. They did not do anything to him. They probably worked hard in basketball in order to get a scholorship just to go to college. Imus makes over 10 million a year? He had become larger than life such as Noland Richardson.

Answer 4

Imus did not get fired for expressing his freedom of speech. He got fired for violating his employee contract.

There is nothing wrong with saying what's on your mind as long as what you say doesn't violate any sort of contract you are working under.

Imus was a paid employee. As such, he had certain perameters he was required to stay within. He lost sight of the fact that he was the employee and not the employER.

As a teacher, I might THINK a certain kid is a real pain in the azz... but if Iever said that outright, you can bet your sweet bippy I'd get fired and blackballed from teaching. Sometimes you have to decide which is more important, being employed or saying what's on your mind, will-nilly.

More often than not, it's better to just THINK about the things on your mind and carefully consider what you actually say.

I was not as offended by "nappy-headed" as I was at the "hos" remark by Imus. A black author actually wrote a book about "nappy" hair, and that is where I first heard the term. But calling a bunch of college girls "hos" - or "whores" is simply uncalled for.

Freedom of speech, by the way, is for a public forum, not for privately owned places of employment... such as radio stations.

Answer 5

i think that it was wrong because he is a very well looked up to man and he should not have made such a stupid remark about females that he doesn't know anything about.He should think before he spills his his guts and he's old enough to understand that if you say something it may hurt feelings and how would he like it if someone called him a wrinkled old bat?he would be pissed for all I know he could be a woman or something.he deserves to be fired and looked down on too.he should be careful what comes out of his mouth the next time that he decides to open it he never knows who will take it the wrong way and he is responsible for his own mouth.rappers should also be very careful of what they say in public.now,as for on their cds then it's your choice to buy it or listen to it.you know what artists are safe listeners and which aren't so don imus has a show that lots of people listen to and he is a role model whether he accepts that title or not kids could've been watching and their self-esteem could be damage by such a negative comment.

Answer 6

Yes and no. I mean I have to agree with you on the rap artists take on the whole women's perspective, but I still stand strong to my belief that if Imus had made those SAME comments while the whole Baghdad influence situation was going on, no one would even pay it a seconds notice but because he made the remark on a slow news time, he got the boot out the door. Just because a white man happened to make the comment doesn't make it more offensive than if a black man said the exact same. Me, personally, I say give him his job back.

Answer 7

No, it wasn't wrong to fire Imus. It is time to draw a line as to how far shock jocks will go. I'm sure that he will land on his feet, and be much the wiser for it. But as much as what Imus said disgusted me, Al Sharpton made me sick. With Tawana Brawley and other bonehead things he's done, to demand his job and an apology from Imus was a joke. Do you think Sharpton will ever say he's sorry to the Duke Lacross team? Not! As far as I'm concerned, Al sharpton is to civil rights what ambulance chasers are to law.

Answer 8

Well personally I'm sure I wouldn't have fired him for it, but I don't think he had any right to expect not to be fired.

Im sure he realized that in a high profile network job like that there were going to be limits on what he was allowed to say, that the limits might be capriciously defined by others as events evolved. That's how it goes.

It's his own fault he didn't keep that in mind.

Answer 9

I only read the title.If he wasn't such an immature jerk he wouldn't have been fired.Its that easy he screwed up and got punished.Anyway there are more important things happening now.This Imus thing is over

Answer 10

I don't agree with what he said...but if your going to fire him you have to fire everyone that has an opinion about anything and broadcasts it. If you don't like him, don't listen, but no one has the right to make that choice for me.