Besides, I’m always far more comfortable with the viewing audience making decisions on what should or should not be broadcast. I don’t like the idea that corporations are deciding what is and is not appropriate for America. They weild power with their money, but it’s the viewers that are the true market. Let’s not pretend that it’s a GOOD thing that corporations are making moral judgments for us. That’s not a pretty road to follow.

And yes, I realize I’m being idealistic. But as a strong supporter of free markets, I hate to see the term abused to make a suspect decision seem to be an appropriate, well-considered one.

Looks like it’s time for Sharpton to go too?

The term NAPPY HEADED HO is not racist… AT ALL.

Nappy means “kinky”. I know people of several different races with nappy hair.

Ho’s isn’t racist, it’s simply degrading and offensive.

So at the MOST, due to the context with which Imus used the phrase, “nappy headed ho’s” was “offensive” and that’s IT.

P.S. A bombing IN the Green Zone kills eight, including parliament members, but that’s not really important.”

P.S. A bombing IN the Green Zone kills eight, including parliament members, but that’s not really important.”

Don’t ever use that bigoted term again in any comments section or you’re gone.

I portrayed Richard Pryor as a pimp. They said it perpetuated a negative stereotype. I disagreed with that then, as I disagree with it now. I was merely paying homage to his role in The Mack and how that would have translated to Star Wars if his character had replaced Yoda…

I probably would have just given you a wedgy for being a huge nerd.;)

No, I don’t define a free market as just corporate decision-makers. I define it as anyone who wants to spend money getting to decide what they want to spend money on. Consider: a “free press” only means that anyone with a printing set-up can publish, not that anyone who wants to publish an opinion gets someone to do the publishing for free, or that anyone who wants to hear an opinion gets a guarantee that someone else will print it so he can read it. Unless there are only a handful of presses, and no way to get another one, that’s not a controlled market.

As for the media mob: sure, they looked rather like one. But so what? Last I looked, those media folks just provide a service for the advertisers, not the other way around. If the advertisers think Imus will sell their products, they could care less what pundits (in or out of the media) think of him. Some of us may forget who the customer is here — but the people running the media sure know (no matter what they like to posture about in public).

If Imus has enough fans, that are willing to pony up money to hear him, he can always go with subscriptions. If he has people with money who are willing to buy him air-time, there will be stations willing to take the money and broadcast. I don’t know how to set something like that up . . . but then, I wouldn’t have known how to set up a PayPal deal like Michael Totten uses to pay for his reporting trips. If there’s a demand, someone will figure it out.

You’re right. It’s not about liberals not wanting free speech. They just want their own speech heard (like the Dixie Twits) and then shut down everyone else.

Yeah…you totally nailed it…great argument…

And, besides, I’m blaming this on the media mobsters, not the sponsors. The sponsors got backed into a corner by the pitchfork mob. I don’t blame them.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The advertisers pay for the media to exist. Remember the Rosanne kiss? Remember the advertisers threatening boycotts because people complained? It’s nearly always about the advertisers. There are numerous examples to show that this is trend. And while these decisions can work the other way sometimes, it’s usually stupid stuff like they focus on the “Runaway Bride” or Anna Nicole.

No, the Imus thing filtered up to the media instead of down from the media. CBS suspended him because of the pressure that outside groups placed on the advertisers…who then pulled out of Imus’ show.

Sometimes it can work the other way where management just nips it in the bud immediately. I think that’s how it went down with Michael Savage, after he made some bigoted comments about gays. But it’s usually pressure from the people who put pressure on the advertisers who put pressure on the media.

And yes, the media is a controlled market. They have advertisers who pay them lots of money to produce programming. There have to be standards…and so we have the FCC and ethics. But free market principles still govern what stays on the air. And by the way, there really is no such thing as a free market in this country in my opinion. Everything is governed by a set of rules or limitations of some sort.

As to what’s bigoted and what’s not…that’s going to be a continuous debate. I was called a misogynist by somebody in college because I drew a cartoon that had a character referring to women as “chicks.” Was that enough for the paper to fire me? Nope, the market supported that speech. But I did have a cartoon pulled from publication because I portrayed Richard Pryor as a pimp. They said it perpetuated a negative stereotype. I disagreed with that then, as I disagree with it now. I was merely paying homage to his role in The Mack and how that would have translated to Star Wars if his character had replaced Yoda…something which they didn’t understand until after they decided to pull it without telling me. Oh well.

In any event, all cases are different, but if somebody says something transparently bigoted on the air…yes, he or she should be fired. This isn’t public access.