MSNBC Pulls Imus Simulcast for Two Weeks, CBS Radio Does Same

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:24:43 PM EST
Tags: Don Imus (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

MSNBC is suspending the simulcast of Don Imus' radio show for two weeks.

NBC News President Steve Capus released this statement late Monday:

"Beginning Monday, April 16, MSNBC will suspend simulcasting the syndicated 'Imus in the Morning' radio program for two weeks. This comes after careful consideration in the days since his racist, abhorrent comments were made. Don Imus has expressed profound regret and embarrassment and has made a commitment to listen to all of those who have raised legitimate expressions of outrage. In addition, his dedication ' in his words - to change the discourse on his program moving forward, has confirmed for us that this action is appropriate. Our future relationship with Imus is contingent on his ability to live up to his word."

What do you think? Is that enough punishment? What should CBS do?

Update: CBS has also suspended him for two weeks.

< Sharpton on Imus: Post Show | 7th Circuit's Reversal of Georgia Thompson Conviction >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

MSNBC Pulls Imus Simulcast for Two Weeks, CBS Radio Does Same | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Cash penalty (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:23:36 PM EST

Allow him to work after the penalty period but for two years 75% of his salary goes to racial awarness early school programs that counter the damage he and others do with their off handed remarks.

Not picking on Imus (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:52:40 PM EST

in particular. MSM commentary is dangerous to our collective psyche. Propaganda is constantly being shown as "news". This news, communicated by jounalists (sic) like Imus, et al, is intended to mold public opinion. Since these outlets are owned primarily by billionaires who dine daily with the corporate elite and heads of state, the information put out reflects THEIR politics. That politics is greed and power. They hire these flashy, sometimes controversial newscasters and give them some celebrity to present the propaganda in an appealing (like a car crash) manner. It is packaged neatly, with scrolling banners, 30 minute updates, and multi-screened studios, so that one is certain to be getting the best news even while on lunch break. And if successful, people will be more interested in Nancy Pelosi's fashion sense than the fact that she just made history.

I know I am not the only one who has noticed that 9 times out of 10 the cafeteria, waiting rooms or lounge TV's we run across ALL have Fux news on. To me that is an indication of the success for the ruling elite, the super rich. Either that or someone slipped some LONG acting LSD into my food 30 years ago. My working hypothesis is the former. They have managed to convince tens of millions of people that they can treat Fox news, the Wall Street Journal, Matt Lauer and Paula Zahn as reliable news sources.

Maybe the "journalists" who make their fortunes off of this propaganda machine will wake up and smell what they are shoveling to us every day. But their careers are the NEWS, not politics. They have jobs, just like us. But they are, in fact, implements of the elite, like them or not

If we are to wrest control of our country's collective intelligence back from these few fortunate heirs who own the MSM propaganda mills, and I believe this is one huge part of the puzzle-smash the propaganda machine, then the last best chance we have is the internet. That is JMHO. If you got this far, thanks for taking the time to read this.

Don Imus (4.00 / 1) (#1)
by annie58 on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:30:11 PM EST

I believe Don Imus is sorry, however he has been getting away with bad behavior for a long time. I am glad he has been called on his behavior. It is time he stops calling Hillary the devil, evil, liar etc.

A two week suspension is a good start.

"A two week suspension is a good start." (none / 0) (#3)
by bx58 on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:40:17 PM EST

And he should get a two year extension on his one good lung to keep saying Hillary is the devil,evil,liar etc.


: no doubt this commenter ... (none / 0) (#24)
by Sailor on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:15:28 AM EST

... thinks hillary is a 'nappy headed ho' too.

imus -- meet the gate. gate -- meet imus. (2.00 / 1) (#16)
by the rainnn on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 10:18:36 PM EST

that is, he should be gone.

perma-banned. . .

i think i wrote in another
thread here, or over at the
firedoglake blog, that his
good-will, give him-another-
chance-card is done-burnt-up,
after his apparently-false
pledges to clarence page
of several years ago. he
promised he understood the
issues surrounding racist
rhetoric, then -- so i cannot,
in good conscience, countenance
a two-week-"probation",
this time around.

"don't let the gate whack yer'
the caboose, as you go, there,
cowboy imus. . ."

having on-air access is a privilege,
not a right -- someone else can do
his version of this job -- and do it
without insulting the scholars at rutgers.

Imus Out (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by mjames on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:08:02 PM EST

No, this is not acceptable. He should be out - for good. They're letting him stay on because he's powerful and has lots of connections.
Let's face it. Only a racist, sexist, homophobe (who has been given carte blanche to air his disgusting "humor") would have uttered those words. I don't care what his "friends" say - they're lying. He's not sorry about what he said. He's sorry he got called on it.
Out - for good. He is not a good man. He is not good. He is not a man. He is a disgusting excuse for a human being. There are plenty of other worthwhile charities. We don't need his self-aggrandizing.
Out - forever.

No. Think Al Campanis. (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 06:30:30 PM EST

: He needs to be fired------ (3.66 / 3) (#4)
by lindalawyer on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 07:07:28 PM EST

Nappy headed ho? Where does that come from. And what does that say to the youth of this country. Its inexcusable and you have to ask, what is in the heart of this man?

Imus (none / 0) (#8)
by womanwarrior on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:15:52 PM EST

And does it matter that the esteemed network does not recognize that calling a fabulous women's basketball team "nappy headed ho's" is also totally sexist? I wonder if it would make any sense to sue the bum for defamation? Bankroll that anybody?

sexist indeed, (none / 0) (#9)
by Electa on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:39:05 PM EST

yes, sue the hell out of him and the networks for allowing it. In fact it should be a class action for all the bigoted and racial slurs he's uttered over the airways against jews, women and other ethnic groups with color. What if we were bigots against ugly white men, w/wire eyebrows sporting idiot top hats who pimp their wives to sell products in the name of charity? Imus would reign at the top of the ugly white men list. But who would demean themselves to stoop to such a debase level? Huh, not me of course.


: Lorena Bobbit returns (none / 0) (#10)
by bx58 on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 08:59:50 PM EST

Just another reason not to try and get married again.

Imus gets the last laugh (none / 0) (#17)
by theobserver on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 11:01:35 PM EST

If you watched Imus you would know that he is not a racist and is supportive of women's rights. He has a conservative moral code but uses biting irony to castigate people. It requires a level of intelligence to comprehend and has to kept in the context of what is occurring around us.
He was anti war from the begining, he called the racism that got to Harold Ford and he called for firings for the Walter Reed scandal long before anybody else.
First, the appearance of the Rutgers women needed comment. They appeared to be emulating the Dennis Rodman look. It is not the image for women in college sports.
Second, the most offensive word used in this controversy was "Ho" However the majority now accept the term as commonplace because of its use in a black culture that berates women in music and videos, therefore everybody missed it.( note that Jerilyn never even criticized its use having somehow been reduced to such a level. Probably listens to her kids rap music and watches too much MTV) Nobody commented on the fact the side kick Charles first called them "Hos'. (You missed the real offense).
Third, everybody hits on his use of the term "nappy headed". This was said by a white person. However if you listen to rap or watch performances of black comedians, you will hear the term "black ho" or "nigga ho'. Extremely demeaning terms but white people do not criticize blacks for using. The use of such terms can only be destructive of black women.The failure of whites to call blacks on the use of these terms speaks of the underlying racism. Blacks can call blacks what they want because they are perceived to be below whites. Black on black violence is tolerated because blacks can only expect that. Essentially racism by default.
Fourth, Imus sees the hypocosy, so he goes on the Al Sharpton show. Anybody with an iota of intelligence knows the Sharpton is a piece of fecal matter. He built a career exploiting black racism and white guilt. If any sense of decency exists, Sharpton would never have a radio show or even be acknowledged in the media. Imus by going on the show essentially says look you idiots this piece of fecal matter has a show and you kiss his butt. You have demonstrated no morals in recognizing Sharpton, you have no morals in calling women Hos, piss on you.
Imus gets the last bitter laugh.
He was contrite this morning realizing that he can get beyond many people and like many other performers, think Andy Kaufman, you need to be wary of being misinterpreted. Of course Kaufman and Lenny Bruce never apologized

Wrong (none / 0) (#19)
by Electa on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 06:37:01 AM EST

Second, the most offensive word used in this controversy was "Ho" However the majority now accept the term as commonplace because of its use in a black culture that berates women in music and videos, therefore everybody missed it.

"Nappy-headed" was the most offensive words spewed over the airwaves and the term "HO" IS NOT an accepted term as commonplace in black culture. It is rather an accepted term among the Big 5 music giants who have allowed this breach of free speech to infest as maggots. The good thing about this insult is that it will give attention to the greater problem of vile, demeaning lyrics used to falsely describe black women and distort our global image.


: Seconded, and check this out: (none / 0) (#32)
by Christopher King on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:39:15 AM EST

I actually used to like Don Imus 30 years ago in Cleveland when I was a kid, but here's a comment I noted by an apologist for this creep in my comments section:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/04/kingcast-responds-on-sexism-and-racism.html
Here's an apoligist on the Browns blog:
41. Oh my God, Imus says nappy, said nappy head whore and you want to crucify him. Have you ever listened to a conversation between Blacks? Ever seen Chris Rock on stage? Don Imus is a saint in comparison. Most of the replies about this are worse than what Imus said.If you don't like him, don't listen.
****
.....Ummmmm.... Chris Rock is a comedian, not a highly syndicated talk show host.
.....Ummmmmm.....And okay, the very next time a syndicated black news host calls a white women's team of any sport a "bunch of trailer-trash hos" and gets away with it, you let me know, okay?
What an idiot.
Namaste.

No (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 11:12:09 PM EST

You are correct that Sharpton and Jackson are both guilty of the same, and both have made what many consider racist remarks... eg "Hymie Town.."

But what this does is bring moral equilavence into the picture and three wrongs make a right. I don't buy that from the Left, so I'm not going to buy it from the right.

Imus should be fired. Now.

Did I miss something???? (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:02:37 AM EST

Even though I agree with you for once I think your insertion of Jackson into the thread is nasty and uncalled for. Sneaky too, since you slip it in as if you were responding to someone's comment about him. Apologies if I missed something or you were responding to a comment that was deleted.


Squeaky, I was responding. (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:45:34 AM EST

and I think that it is pretty plain. I should have inserted Amir's name in the title.

I did not insert Jackson or Sharpton into the thread.

It was done by Amir. My comment was a rebuke to him for doing that, and using their sins as what I see as an excuse for Imus. Evidently TalkLeft deleted his comment, so we again have the dreaded word "context."


Amir??? (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:26:47 AM EST

Amir has not commented on this thread, or his comment was deleted.


Squeaky (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:57:46 AM EST

or his comment was deleted.

Uh, yes. That's what I said. If you think I am incorrect, take it up with TalkLeft.


provide links ... (none / 0) (#25)
by Sailor on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:17:01 AM EST

... to amir's comment.


Sailor (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:28:31 AM EST

As you know, when a comment is deleted, you cannot link to it.

And if you don't believe it, take it to Talk Left.


I don't beleive that ... (none / 0) (#27)
by Sailor on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:40:38 AM EST

... the comment was deleted, I think you are having a senior moment.

bx58 is making continual offensive off topic posts and manages to survive. you manage to do the same and survive. And appaprently your the only one who claims to have seen this 'amir' comment.


Uh, guys (none / 0) (#28)
by glanton on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:05:28 AM EST

I saw Amir's comment last night. Jim's post was a response to him.


In that case my apologies. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Sailor on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:01:34 AM EST

Thanks Glanton, sorry ppj.


: sailor (1.00 / 1) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:16:26 AM EST

I could be gracious and accept your apology..
But I don't.
You have a long history of name calling and attacks. Just go over to the thread on Wolfowitz thread for a perfect example, and your past habit of calling me a liar has placed you on my "I don't care what he thinks list."
Have a nice day.

Again, It's not about personalities (none / 0) (#31)
by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:38:25 AM EST

It's about the policies of MSNBC, the FCC, and the producers of the show in New York.

: So true, place the shame (none / 0) (#33)
by Electa on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:25:45 PM EST

where it belongs. Imus is merely a reflection of the network that pays his millions.

Didnt (none / 0) (#34)
by jondee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 04:03:33 PM EST

that bag of flatulence Limbaugh say something about having "an office bet going on how many women would get picked up at the King funeral and how many would be pregnant nine months from now?"

Was that less racist than what Imus said; and why did that get buried and this story get so much play?

I love (none / 0) (#35)
by jondee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 04:09:13 PM EST

when these say-absolutely-anything-for-attention hacks compare themselves to lenny Bruce. Imus couldnt eat Lenny Bruce's sh*t.