Hiatt on Imus: One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others

Here is WaPo/Fred Hiatt on Imus:

NEW YORK radio host Don Imus is an equal-opportunity insulter. He called noted African American journalist Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady." He called a columnist at the New York Times a "quota hire." He's labeled Vice President Cheney a "war criminal." But none of those comments has landed Mr. Imus in as much hot water as the offensive, racist and sexist remarks he made last week about the women's basketball team from Rutgers University.

Called Gwen Ifill "a cleaning lady." Called the great Bill Rhoden a "quota hire." Called Cheney a "war criminal." One of these things is not like the others.

Isn't it amazing that Hiatt would equate what Imus said about Ifill and Rhoden to what Imus said about Cheney? How far up the Neocons' behinds has Hiatt placed his head?

Update [2007-4-11 12:38:20 by Big Tent Democrat]: Howard Kurtz thinks it is a civility issue:
It's one thing to make fun of politicians or journalists as liars and weasels; we're in the public arena and fair game. A group of hardworking student athletes isn't. They didn't do anything to warrant being slimed.

Um, racism and sexism directed at ANYBODY is the problem Howie the Shill. See? You are fair game but I do not get to hurl racial or ethnic slurs at you. Understand yet? What is it with WaPo? Are they this dense?

< American People: Go Gonzo Go! Away | Ending The Iraq Debacle Represents The Will of The American People >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So says Snoop Dogg: (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    "It's a completely different scenario," said
    Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [the cable network home to Imus] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha----as say we in the same league as him."

    He also sd. Imus should be fired.

    what do we fire snoop from? (none / 0) (#15)
    by fairleft on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:55:21 PM EST
    Sexist pig on a pretty consistent basis. And the quote just shows he doesn't get it. It ain't that the Rutgers players are "girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports" and so should be immune from being described in racially and sexually derogatory ways. It's that no black women deserve to be described the way Snoop and Imus describe them.

    We are in absolute agreement. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    Here's what imus said about Howie (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    when (2.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    did mr. imus call gwen ifill a "cleaning lady"? according to ms. ifill herself, she doesn't know if he did or didn't. "apparently" isn't the same as "did", per webster's dictionary. you could look it up!

    mr. imus isn't very funny. nor, is he very entertaining or insightful. his actual comments were in poor taste enough, without making things up.

    so, stop it.

    He did (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    This has been confirmed.

    So YOU stop it.

    You really need to slow down with the hostility.

    And get your facts straight.


    The NABJ (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:42:36 PM EST
    which keeps track of such things, said:

    Imus has had a history of racial insults on his program, having called award-winning journalist Gwen Ifill of PBS a "cleaning lady" and referring to columnist William Rhoden of the New York Times as "a quota hire."

    Imus denied it but his story is false. He said:

    SHARPTON. But didn't you once promise Clarence Page you would stop making these kind of statements?

    IMUS. Yes, I did.

    SHARPTON. So what, do you repent every decade?

    IMUS. No, sir. Well, I can - no, sir, I mean that's a good point. But no, sir, I didn't think that. I wasn't thinking. If I'd been thinking, I wouldn't have said this, Reverend Sharpton.

    SHARPTON. I mean you said this before, you called Gwen [says Euwell, he means Ifill] a cleaning lady -

    IMUS. No, no, don't do - no, don't start that. That is not true. That is absolutely - that is a lie.

    SHARPTON. What did you call her?

    IMUS. I didn't call her anything.

    SHARPTON. You didn't.

    IMUS. No, I did not. You want to know the facts?

    SHARPTON. Yes, please.

    IMUS. This is back during the Reagan administration. And how long y'all got to dig something up. It's the Reagan administration.


    IMUS. And we had a bit on the radio called "Imus in Washington," which is like fake news. And I had a fake like a David Duke character. And Gwen Ifill had just been named the White House correspondent for NBC News, and this David Duke-like character, reflecting the philosophy and the attitude of the Reagan administration, said, isn't it great that Gwen Ifill's been invited back to the White House as a cleaning lady. And for years people have said I said that. I didn't say that. We were trying - that was satire. That was a reflection of the racism we perceived of that administration. And for years I've had to - people have then said, well, you said this about Gwen Ifill. I did not say that.

    The fact is Gwen Ifill did not start covering the White House or join NBC until the CLINTON Administration. Imus is not telling the truth.


    The substance of his point (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    was that the comment was made by a character he played during a satirical "bit."

    Is he not telling the truth about the substance of his point?


    No he is not (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:31:48 AM EST
    Imus... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ryle on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    Major companies are now planning to take away his advertising.  I heard Staples is pulling out.  So is another company.. just not sure of the name.

    It's ugly for Imus. (none / 0) (#2)
    by walt on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:35:00 AM EST
    I read somewhere, can't recall, that Proctor & Gamble will pull their ads.



    Politicians, journalist fair game (none / 0) (#3)
    by TexDem on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    It's the Imus defense. He has already put that one out there. The others are just taking it up.

    Hiatt is another tool (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    It's not about Imus. Hiatt is just looking for a way to pick up his paycheck for keeping us politically entertained. Hiatt, like Imus, is a paid tool. He and other "journalist" independent contractors regurgitate their political cud, and the WaPo editors, hired by the corporate elite, pick out which worthless tripe, political opinion, or BS lies to spread on the paper made from organisms much more valuable to the planet than they are. The only task remaining is to sell this sh*t better than Tribune or Copley.

    Privatized news = Propaganda

    "Privatized news" (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    as opposed to what--government owned?

    those aren't the only two options (none / 0) (#14)
    by fairleft on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    There's a continuum between the two. News organizations need to be regulated and better regulated (as the case may be) so they serve the public interest as well as the interest of their 'owners' and advertisers. The regulatory agencies need to be independent of who controls Congress or the Presidency.

    entertainment (none / 0) (#9)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    Remember how offended people here were when the two bloggers John Edwards hired were exposed for being repeatedly, grossly, and offensively anticatholic on their blogs?  Somehow their blogs were for "entertainment value only" and calls for their firings were the result of a great right wing conspiracy rather than of concern that choosing them reflected on Edwards.
    Calling the Rutgers women's team "hos" only resonates because that is a usage generated by the African-American rap subculture.  A "ho" is not a term created by whites.  

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:22:00 PM EST
    Whoever "generated" it what does that do to excuse Imus' use of it?

    Really (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    A "ho" is not a term created by whites.  

    So if you spin the accent it somehow makes it acceptable? Didn't really mean it, just repeating lower class slurs? B F'ing S.

    Calling someone a ho, hooh, bawd, fish etc, when describing someone in order to put them down because they are a threat, of lower social class, or just someone you do not like is still nasty. The fact that Imus has a national audience of ignoramuses who think that black women who have worked harder than they ever have or ever will in their lifetime makes it even more disgusting and worth condemnation.