Robo--"that single incident". It was part of a pattern, as has been already pointed out.

Anybody who doesn't like the way pressure was brought on advertisers--in fact that's a far better way than government interference--as most posters here should see.

Big article--front page--in the WSJ today on the Imus affair. It was not just pressure on advertisers, though that was certainly most of it. It was also some people of integrity in the corporate world. Bill D has cited one instance.

"He (Imus) has flourished in a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people" said CBS CEO Leslie Moonves.

Precisely.

Also, this time Imus picked the wrong victims. These girls were precisely the opposite of Imus' smarmy racist remark--neither "nappy" nor "ho's". In fact they were playing the game exactly the way the US supposedly wants--going to college and obviously rejecting the sick stereotypes some others seem to endorse.

This is exactly what Bill Cosby's message was. And if blacks who do this get this sort of response from "the media"--personified in Imus, that's just criminal.

Just for that, he should have been fired--on the spot.

Why didn't it happen? That's already been noted--money talks--and Imus got good ratings.   So it took awhile to build. Actually, less time than it might have--in fact years ago it might well not have led to Imus' firing.

The WSJ's headlines convey it well: "Behind the Fall of Imus, a Digital Brush Fire: In a Blur, Watchdogs, Blogs, E-Mail Spur Radio Host's Firing".

"This time it was different. The target was a sympathetic team of young athletes. In the ensuing furor, the lucrative and often vulgar business of talk radio found itself running into new limits, as the Internet sent Mr. Imus to millions of PC screens, driving executives, advertisers and employees to distance themselves from his racist words."

Since the advent of the Net, in a big way, these things will go faster than ever. And anybody who thinks that just the Left is exploiting the Net has conveniently forgotten about the Swift Boat affair, in which the Net also played a substantial role.



BB--I deduce from your comment "What will you do when somebody decides your comments are over the line?"--that I perhaps have said something that annoyed you. As the Pope would say, I'm so sorry you were offended by anything I said.

Would you mind specifying which comments were "over the line"? And perhaps you'd like to compare mine (and yours) with, say, the collected works of the late lamented "Martin Gibson", who has been "fired", in a manner of speaking, from Mudcat.

You have to admit, he's set a high standard for the rest of us.

Now would you like to defend his body of work--as some others who defended his right to spew his poison?

By the way, to return to Mr. Imus, it was pressure from people on advertisers, more than anything else, which caused his firing. If pressure from advertisers causes my firing from Mudcat, I can live with it. But somehow, I don't think it's that likely.

Also, as I recall, you did not object when there was a campaign to boycott Citgo, because of alleged ties to Chavez. That is directly comparable to the Imus situation--and it's part of capitalism. Supply and demand. We will not buy your product unless you stop sponsoring racist fools. Just as "we will not buy Citgo gas because of ties to Chavez".

Simple as that.

Exactly what part of capitalism do you find objectionable?