Buchanan attacks Sharpton for getting Imus "dropped off the air for two words at 6:15 in the morning"
October 15, 2009 6:55 pm ET
From the October 15 edition of Hardball:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
by Eric Boehlert - 8 hours and 14 minutes ago -
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
by Greg Lewis - November 20, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
Oh, the Punditry!!
The point was never about him saying those words or at what time he said them, Mr. Buchanan. It was the group of young women those words were targeted towards that the general public found so outrageous. It was never about Imus' freedom of speech but about the absolute disrespect that he demonstrated for those ladies.
He was free to say it... just like we are free to call him on saying it and advertisers are free to pull their support of him for saying it. He deserved everything that happened to him.
Nappy-headed is hyphenated, actually.
The problem with the First Amendment-ers is that it applies to anything. It doesn't. There ARE limits:
1) It ONLY protects you from the Government punishing you for speaking out against it.
2) It does NOT apply to employers.
3) It does NOT apply to people being denied opportunities due to racist comments.
4) It does NOT apply in cases of slander and libel.
Because of this, Limbaugh and imus's employers are free to terminate their services whenever they choose, free from lawsuits from those targeted.
Now, if only Premiere Radio Networks would fire Limbaugh...*wishing, praying*
Nope. Only Congress.
And the award for "Best Retort that Proves Nothing" goes to...
I don't need no stinkin' links! I was watching ESPN when Limpbaugh made his racist (and erroneous) claim that McNabb was being hyped because the media wanted a "black sports hero". Since race wasn't even involved in the discussion, why did he feel the need to bring it up?
At least the left is consistent; when David Schuster accused Hillary of "pimping out" her daughter, he was taken off the air.
Finally, your defense of "Well, you guys do it to!" Is reminiscent of my 4 year old.
It perfectly fine however for Joe Morgan to say that he wished he could of played for a black manager and he bets most black players did to.
Um, lowlighter -- what part of
Limbaugh: "Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go ... I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
are you having trouble understanding?
You're not in the best position to suggest that anyone else needs reading comprehension lessons.
No, what Limbaugh argued without any statistics or evidence of any kind was that however good McNabb was or wasn't, McNabb was getting credit he didn't deserve because he was black. Limbaugh was denying the man credit for his own successes by claiming that the color of his skin inflated his achievements.
In 2003? Was there any actual evidence of such pressure from the media? Who in the media is on record saying, "Hey, we want a black quarterback even if he's not the most talented!"?
Oh and by the way, I don't expect you to apologize, but you could at least be civil and acknowledge that besides the attribution of the phrase "black sports hero" to Limbaugh, michaeldgiles4407's characterization of Limbaugh's comment on ESPN was fair and not, as you chided, "so far off it [sic] not even funny".
Here's michaeldgiles4407's characterization of Limbaugh's comment:
"I was watching ESPN when Limpbaugh made his racist (and erroneous) claim that McNabb was being hyped because the media wanted a "black sports hero". "
Here's your version:
" He simple was stating that there was a desire by some in the media for successful black quarterback so in is opinion they were overrating McNabb."
If you take issue with michaeldgiles4407's description of Limbaugh's comments, why did you write a description that agrees with his?
Exactly, rkallen.
Poor Pat -- doesn't seem to realize that it wasn't Sharpton who got Imus dropped off the air -- it was the free market system neoKKKons so love in action that did . . .
Bending over backwards to defend racially offensive comments is pretty much what I expect from Buchanan. I just love the tone:"Are you proud of what you did..." Oh, the shame one must feel for boycotting an idiot must be overwhelming, indeed!
I believe 'booger' is acceptable.
WKRP, Cincinnati
;)
Actually, most of the radio stations I worked for were pretty much like WKRP (some were even weirder)
Then again who better to discuss racial matters than Pat Buchanan? Urgh.
Imus would suggest something and McGuirk would carry through with his barbed comments freeing Imus to play the indignant observer strait man.
Imus admitted his culpability and apologized but McGuirk continues unabashed.
Their material is old.
It's a tactic that absolves the host, while still allowing the racist buffoons to do their act.
Imus and O'Reilly often slip onto the other side and appear to be racist themselves when they get further into the story. It's bad enough when they use prominent people in their routines but when they drag college basketball players into their games it crosses a line. When that type of line is crossed, there must be accountability.
Any commercially supported broadcast runs the risk of losing advertisers when the host dances on the edge. If they want to play that game they're the ones who wind up losing.