It's quite illuminating to see the reaction the whole Imus affair produces with different people. I was having my weekly beer with the usual Friday night crowd and of course the subject of Don Imus' firing came up. One of......

.. ignores the fact that this is exactly what Jackson and Sharpton ahve been doing for decades, now.

Ok, Bithead, Im not sure where that quote is from, but it supports my point: it was due to advertiser pressure that Viacom and GE sacked Imus.

Heh... Quite true. Which is precisely why I said that in the first place. Where you go wrong, however, is what drove the advertisers. What drove the advertisers was an extortion campaign on the part of Al Sharpton.

James:

I'm not particularly concerned that a multi-millionaire lost his radio show. I suspect he'll survive. I'm concerned about the broader point that this case illustrates, of mere words being punished by public ostracism and corporations bowing to the lowest common denominator to avoid controversy. It's not a healthy situation.

It most certainly is not, because it affects our free speech rights in a very real, very concrete way. I.e., two, was less than concerned with the Imus losing his perch. the fact is he'll be back, probably on satellite someplace, in very short order.

But in the meantime, let's consider the ramifications of this, in a somewhat longer term fashion; (no, Tom, this isn't going away next week)....Ddoes anybody really think that now that the beast has been fed, and Imus is gone, that the beast won't be back to feed again, and being stronger will be even harder to oppose?

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have never been anything but lying shake down artists who represent no one but themselves. Opportunist is too good a word for JJ and Al. Extortionist is more accurate.

Not commenting on the cultural or political ramifications of this episode. I don't think there will be any. Imus' firing is a blip on the cultural radar. It'll be forgotten next week.

I am pretty sure you are correct: that the Dixie Chicks suffered very little (if at all) in terms of sales.

I'm not particularly concerned that a multi-millionaire lost his radio show. I suspect he'll survive. I'm concerned about the broader point that this case illustrates, of mere words being punished by public ostracism and corporations bowing to the lowest common denominator to avoid controversy. It's not a healthy situation.

James shows here a typical line of "reasoning" amongst conservatives: presenting a racist such as Imus as the "victim" of a largely inconsequential person of color while at the same time willfully ignoring the ACTUAL points of influence and power that led to Imus' sacking.

and instantly invoked a leftist tactic of 'reasoning' that throws in a bunch of non-germane information that has spooky overtones.

The CEOs of the advertisers didn't pull the plug on their Imus ads. Their marketing directors did. If those marketing directors are like most other marketing directors in my ken, they are typically and vaguely 'left'. They hold their positions through their efforts to ensure that the brand doesn't get stuck to any tar babies of public outrage, not through their efforts to take public stands.

But go right ahead. Introduce the fact that the CEOs are conservative with the (hint, hint) that big business is creepy. Ignore the fact that even megalithic corporations do not, as a rule, have monolithic political viewpoints. Is so much more effective in preaching to the choir.

.. ignores the fact that this is exactly what Jackson and Sharpton ahve been doing for decades, now.

Ok, Bithead, Im not sure where that quote is from, but it supports my point: it was due to advertiser pressure that Viacom and GE sacked Imus.

Sharpton and Jackson are opportunists, clearly. However, they are usually unsuccessful. Remember when they tried to take up the case of Michael Jackson a couple of years ago, saying Sony was being racist for not promoting the album enough? Well, Sony, basically told them to f*cK off and nothing came of it.

Sharpton and Jackson have minimal organization and little constituency. Hell, Jackson's "protest" in his hometown of Chicago on Monday only drew 50 people!

Procter and Gamble is not afraid of 50 people.

Instead, however, CBS and MSNBC bowed to a swarm of protests and the clammorings of Al Sharpton and company. That strikes me as fundamentally different.

This is a mischaracterization of what happened.
For both networks the main issue was that the ADVERTISERS expressed problems with the show--especially Proctor and Gamble and Staples.

Quite so. However, your statement:

To think that Sharpton has enough power to push around Viacom and General Electric--two of the largest media companies in the world--is absurd.

... ignores the fact that this is exactly what Jackson and Sharpton ahve been doing for decades, now. IN this case, it works like this...(AS I told Beck the other night)...

Since when have leftists ever needed a majority to hold sway in society?
OTOH, look at this from the perspective of the owners; Imus has NEVER drawn huge ratings, even in the Musicradio/W*N*bc days, in comparison to the amounts of money invested. The talk show has been more expensive yet. The issue from the perspective of the networks was is and always shall be, the bottom line.

The people that reacted to what really wasn’t there was the ADVERTISERS. Advertisers will be more prone to reacting so to a small vocal minority. (No pun intended).

Remember, too, that the Jacksons and the Sharptons of the world have a rather long track record of shaking down major corporations…. advertisers.. to get their way… including their massive funding. I guarantee you that’s what drove all this.

Mind you, I’m not overly happy about it; I can think of an awful lot of reasons to be blowing him out the door. But because I was being blackmailed (No pun intended) by Jackson and Sharpton, and their ilk, would not be first on my list.

As to why the gruesome twosome would be flexing their muscles just now; I wonder how many people it’s occurred to, that we’re on the cusp of a presidential election season? I suspect and suppose that now that the baby has a cookie, and a pat on the head, he’s now going to want some milk, too.

The Dixie Chicks said that they were ashamed that George Bush is from Texas. They did not say they were ashamed to be Americans.

Thats a pretty gross mischaracterization James.

Accuracy is hard to reconcile with talking points sometimes.

Thats a pretty gross mischaracterization James.

I think their sales have been pretty good lately, haven't they?

Instead, however, CBS and MSNBC bowed to a swarm of protests and the clammorings of Al Sharpton and company. That strikes me as fundamentally different.

This is a mischaracterization of what happened.
For both networks the main issue was that the ADVERTISERS expressed problems with the show--especially Proctor and Gamble and Staples.

Al Sharpton expresses his disapproval at all sorts of things, but has very LITTLE POWER. Companies normally ignore his protests. However, when your advertisers protest, you can't afford to igore them.

Instead of blaming Sharpton, blame Proctor and Gamble. They are thoroughly infiltrated with such leftists as Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, CEO A.G. Lafley who gave the RNC 10,000 during the last presidential election and whose family gave money to both Bush and Republican stalwart Bob Portman (now Bush's Budget Director).

The board of P&G also includes liberals like the CEO of Boeing, the CEO of Verizon Wireless and the CEO of Delta Airlines. In fact, the Procter and Gamble PAC gave a quarter of a million dollars to Republican candidates last year.

The second factor that led to the two networks dropping Imus were internal pressures from their own employees. The Wall Street Journal reported on internal meetings at MSNBC and CBS. Especially at MSNBC, many of Imus' fellow workers were uncomfortable with his behavior. Management, recognizing that their top corporate talent didn't want to be associated with Imus, made the decision to drop him.

To think that Sharpton has enough power to push around Viacom and General Electric--two of the largest media companies in the world--is absurd.

James shows here a typical line of "reasoning" amongst conservatives: presenting a racist such as Imus as the "victim" of a largely inconsequential person of color while at the same time willfully ignoring the ACTUAL points of influence and power that led to Imus' sacking.