Hey, it's worth a shot, right? I sent it to karen.mateo@cbsradio.com, one of the VPs at CBS Radio.
Dear Mz. Mateo,
I am writing to suggest a replacement for the recently-departed Don Imus.
I admit to not knowing very much about Mr. Imus, except that he had been on the radio a long time. When the story of Mr. Imus' racist comment came out, I also learned that he did some charity work using his fame and fortune (good), and that he had repeatedly stuck his foot in his mouth on issues of racial insensitivity (bad).
I know that the reason he was let go was not the 'nappy-headed hos' comment in and of itself, but of the chilling effects it had on Imus' advertisers as an angry population called them up and asked very hard questions about why they were supporting a person that casually, almost admiringly, made such comments.
Sadly, Mr. Imus' comments were part of a pattern that is all too common on talk radio. That is, bigotry. Mr. Imus' "shock jock" show was not primarily political or informational, but entertainment, of which politics, opinion, and information were used, along with the usual tools of hyperbole, skits, sound effects, etc. to entertain the listeners. However, there are many other personalities on the radio, popular ones, who's primary focus IS on politics, news, public policy, and opinion. The majority of these people are to the right of the political spectrum and the regularly make use of bigotry in their comments as well.
Media Matters has an excellent clearinghouse of bigotry in the past few years or so. Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, and of course Rush Limbaugh, plus a few others such as Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage. Bigotry against Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, women, and others. Some of the things Michael Savage said would qualify him for a white sheet and hood, in the opinion of many. For example:
On the January 15 edition of his radio show, in a monologue about Martin Luther King Day, Savage called "civil rights" a "con" and asserted: "It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it." Savage then said, "Take a guess out of whose hide all of these rights are coming. ... {T}here is only one group that is targeted, and that group are white, heterosexual males." He added: "They are the new witches being hunted by the illiberal left using the guise of civil rights and fairness to women and whatnot."
Apparently Mr. Savage thinks institutionalized slavery, legal discrimination, 'seperate but equal' and Jim Crow laws have absolutely no social, legal, or economic impact or residue once they were repealed.
Media Matters has an excellent sampling here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010It is my belief that, with the Imus story scratching off a scab that has grown on the issue of bigotry and racism in radio, there will be further backlash, and that it will be focused at those that are not 'shock jocks', such as the radio hosts mentioned above.
It is also my belief that there is an obvious need in the world of talk radio for a news, politics, discussion, and information show that is not another right-leaning Rush Limbaugh wanna-be. I think that Sam Sedar, who was recently let go from his morning weekday slot on Air America for reasons both stupid and obscure, would fit the bill nicely. His personality and format I think were well-suited for a morning show, being both serious without being heavy and fun without being silly, with a goodly amount of humor and dialogue with both his producer Justin and his callers.
I think if this happened reasonably quickly, and CBS Radio made a good PR effort to say things like "we realize now, in light of the comments made by Imus, that there needs to be a broader range of viewpoints on the radio than is expressed by many talk-radio hosts", Sam Sedar could quickly gain a respectable following.
Thank you for listening to my opinion. I wish you a good weekend.
Sincerely,
<<krispos42>>
================
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Si Hoc Legere Scis, Nimium Eruditionis Habes