Merged: The Imus threads

[SheaSeals]

Whitlock has his fans, his foes. But this, I thought, was excellent.


http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/time-for-jackson-sharpton-to-step-down/20070411111509990001

 

[Ace]

Re: Best Imus take I've read


Shea,

You are a newbie, so it's not your fault, but starting a thread about a controversial Jason Whitlock column is not exactly necessary.

It will make it to the board -- somehow.

 

[JCT89]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

I agree with practically everything Whitlock said. Jackson and Sharpton are both clowns and Stringer is just using this opportunity to gain more attention for poor Rutgers and maybe to try to land some players along the ride.

 

[jgmacg]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

This is already up on the one of the Sports/News Imus threads. I asked a set of questions about this piece over there, but everybody's been too hot under the collar to respond. I'll repost them here:

1) Sharpton and Jackson aren’t the only folks up in arms about this. I believe the NABJ was the first group to call for Imus’s firing. They did so late last week (Apr. 6). That every social and cultural movement in this country’s history has had its share of charlatans and con men and snake oil salesmen, including Dr. King’s, is well known. Is Mr. Whitlock saying now that the entire movement toward civility in language and behavior, both black and white, can only be defined by the least trustworthy participants in the discussion?

2) The sports media establishment in this country spends two months a year and hundreds of millions of dollars reminding America what a defining moment March Madness is to “student-athletes." What Mr. Whitlock is saying now, by denying Stringer and her players the right to be upset and to express themselves in any way they see fit, is that it’s not really very important at all. Which is it? And why does it matter that Imus is not himself a member of that sports media establishment? His comments were directly addressed to the women of the Rutgers team.

3) This piece is more about who’s qualified to moderate our national discussion on race than it is about the discussion itself. That Ms. Stringer isn’t Dr. King, and that her press conference doesn’t rise to the level of his oratory, is beside the point.

4) Just because prejudice exists in one place doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in other places, too. If the Imus story provides the occasion for a further, deeper discussion about the self-loathing nature of gangsta rap lyrics, why should Mr. Whitlock care how that discussion began? And why argue over who gets to chair the discussion?

5) That history grinds forward only slowly, and imprecisely, should be of no more concern to Mr. Whitlock than who gets caught up in the gears in the process. History presents its opportunities at random. Imus’s careerlong devotion to half-assed wisecracks finally caught up with him. Imus isn’t Lenny Bruce, nor is he Chris Rock or Dave Chapelle. There is no consciousness-raising intention in his choice of material, and he should receive no special exemption for perpetuating the kind of casual cruelty that Mr. Whitlock decries.

6) As to the public nature of this story, and whether it's germane to the outcome, ask yourself this: If you used Imus or McGuirk's language to describe a colleague in your workplace, how much longer would you have your job?

 

[Lugnuts]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

Is Mr. Whitlock saying now that the entire movement toward civility in language and behavior, both black and white, can only be defined by the least trustworthy participants in the discussion?

Great point.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

3) This piece is more about who’s qualified to moderate our national discussion on race than it is about the discussion itself. That Ms. Stringer isn’t Dr. King, and that her press conference doesn’t rise to the level of his oratory, is beside the point.

Next you'll be telling us Jason Whitlock is no Leonard Pitts Jr. Who, by the way, has yet to weigh in, although I'll sure be reading if he does.

Which is not to insult Jason, but to make a point that no one's credentials are beyond reproach when they decide to speak for others.

This is why I like the anonymity of this board, where for the most part we are judged on the substance of what we say and how well we say it. (And I must have serious mental problems if I am touting SportsJournalists.com as morally superior to the real world, but in this sense that's exactly what I am doing.) I really don't care what motive is behind what Jackson and Sharpton say, I care about the substance of what they said. And short of calling for Imus to be burned at the stake, they get a free pass on this one -- they may not have done anything to earn the moral high ground in this instance, but they own it by, at minimum, default.

 

[The Legacy of Mike Lum]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

(And I must have serious mental problems if I am touting SportsJournalists.com as morally superior to the real world, but in this sense that's exactly what I am doing.)

A sentence to treasure.

 

[jaredk]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

Jgmacg did more constructive thought in every graf than Whitlock did in his entire so-called column.

 

[Point of Order]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

That's a fine column.

I never checked in on the Imus stuff - not here and not with any of my friends in real life - because I'm unable to articulate my feelings on the issue well enough. That column hit pretty close to them, though. I'm pissed that Imus said what he did, but I'm just as upset with the superficiality of the whole topic, in the press and the public at large, thanks in large part to Jesse and Al.

In a similar vein, I don't think Newt Gingrich should have said Spanish was the language of the ghetto, either, but the larger point he was trying to make about the best way to assimilate hispanic immigrants into American society (I also happen to disagree with the methods he suggests on the issue) was so much bigger than that comment, and it got overshadowed when their could have been a real substantive debate on what Newt was trying to pitch. I fundamentally disagree with Gingrich on many issues, but he is absolutely the most thoughtful man in conservative politics today.

 

[awriter]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

(And I must have serious mental problems if I am touting SportsJournalists.com as morally superior to the real world, but in this sense that's exactly what I am doing.)

Or, there really are serious problems in the world, since you're touting SportsJournalists.com as morally superior.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

Now THAT's creative misuse of the quote function.

 

[Sweetness]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

It's a good column.

Whitlock makes some valid points that extend beyond Black America. We get too worked up about the wrong issues in this country. Sure Imus should be severely disciplined, if not fired. But the real issue is a culture that allowed this guy to say things like this for years.

And the Rutgers press conference did feel over the top. One girl said she will be scarred for life. You'd think a Division I athlete would have a little more mental toughness.

Meanwhile, like Whitlock says, we have a multitude of real-world issues -- Iraq funding, Alberto Gonzales, stem cell research, the trade deficit, housing costs, death of the middle class, corporate journalism -- that aren't getting the same kind of play as Hogate.

Let's step back and look at the bigger picture for a second.

 

[Write-brained]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

I liked the column and I liked Jmacg's and Ridgeway's comments. Good thread. Good debate. Sorry I'm not taking a side, I guess I'm still taking it all in ...

 

[Twoback]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

This is going to curl some toes, but I think Jason is becoming one of the most important and relevant voices in America, regardless that his venue is sports.

 

[FantasyAlliance.cm]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

As a whitie, I'm scared to say it for fear or being labeled racist, but great column. My favorite line was "That is a (freaking) shame."

 

[Twoback]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

6) As to the public nature of this story, and whether it's germane to the outcome, ask yourself this: If you used Imus or McGuirk's language to describe a colleague in your workplace, how much longer would you have your job?

Talk about finessing the argument.
Couldn't you say the same about Nelly or Jay-Z?
When Imus said what he said, he was not talking about a colleague or co-worker. So what place does that have in the discussion?

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

Also, as someone pointed out above, it's Imus' JOB to say offensive things -- about people, about events, about life in general. The real culprit is the culture that has made a celebrity out of somebody whose job description is to be as big an a-hole as possible, over and over again.

 

[amraeder]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

Is Mr. Whitlock saying now that the entire movement toward civility in language and behavior, both black and white, can only be defined by the least trustworthy participants in the discussion?

My guess would be that the idea is along the lines of: a movement, for better or worse, is judged by its most visable participants.When you go out of your way to make yourself the most visable member, you have an obligation to lead that isn't being followed through on, in his view, by Sharpton and Jackson. Or something along those lines (Don't think I'm articulating it very well).

 

[jgmacg]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

6) As to the public nature of this story, and whether it's germane to the outcome, ask yourself this: If you used Imus or McGuirk's language to describe a colleague in your workplace, how much longer would you have your job?

Talk about finessing the argument.
Couldn't you say the same about Nelly or Jay-Z?
When Imus said what he said, he was not talking about a colleague or co-worker. So what place does that have in the discussion?

I'm not finessing anything. If you can't say those things in the hallways at CBS or MSNBC, per their employee handbooks, why should you be allowed to say them on the air?

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Re: Best Imus take I've read

This is already up on the one of the Sports/News Imus threads. I asked a set of questions about this piece over there, but everybody's been too hot under the collar to respond. I'll repost them here:

1) Sharpton and Jackson aren’t the only folks up in arms about this. I believe the NABJ was the first group to call for Imus’s firing. They did so late last week (Apr. 6). That every social and cultural movement in this country’s history has had its share of charlatans and con men and snake oil salesmen, including Dr. King’s, is well known. Is Mr. Whitlock saying now that the entire movement toward civility in language and behavior, both black and white, can only be defined by the least trustworthy participants in the discussion?

There is no movement toward civility.

Just African-American constituencies making big noise.

If the comment had just been bull dykes or cracker hussies the issue dies, because no Sharpton or Jesse.

There is NO civility shift.