"In one sense it was. Thomas was talking about a generic group of people, whereas Imus was talking about specific individuals"

But, to those impacted, would a comment on someones hair be considered to be more significant than suggesting a group of people should be expelled and shipped back to their original homes. I suspect the word Ho is often used in the media in a variety of situations without sanction (right or wrong). Imas seemed to be trying (unsuccessfuly and untastefully so), to make a Joke. Helen Thomas seemed to be trying to make a statement.

Would a statement like, "African orggin people (For example, Americans) should be shipped back to Africa" be more equal?

If Imas is recognized as a "comedian/shock jock, whose stock-in-trade is/was outrageous gags and pranks and commentary", and Helen thomas is a "distinguished journalist", would not the potential impact be greater....because more folks would likely put more stock in her statements, than Imus?

My point is what is the standard? Should it be a measure of what was said and who was injured and how,whether people feel injured, who puts up pressure for sanctions, the media outlet, the journalists career, whether they are likd or not,or some other criteria?

On a related thought, I recall a few years back someone claimed in a court case that they were defamed by a tabloid newspaper (possibly the World Weekly News). The publications main defense is that everyone knows nothing is true in the publication, so the damage was minimal.