Why Was Imus Fired But Ann Coulter Is Still Popping Up On Television?

[ruggerson]

I guess for a lot of people using the word "faggot" isn't as bad as "nappy headed ho."

I didn't see Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson marching outside Ann Coulter's publisher.

I didn't see the heads of MSNBC and CBS condemn her and issue an edict that she was unwelcome on their airwaves.

Selective PC.

Just sayin'.

[Catshrink]

1. I'd like to never see her again...

I think the difference is that Imus had an employer that outrage could be directed at. Who is Coulter's boss? As far as I know, she sells books for a living.

[ruggerson]

5. Here's her publishers

Peter Olson, Chairman and CEO
Stuart Applebaum, Public Relations
Random House, Inc.
1745 Broadway
New York, NY 10019

Jenny Frost, President and Publisher
Tina Constable, Vice President, Executive Director of Publicity
Crown Publishing Group
1745 Broadway
New York, NY 10019

and here's Universal Press Syndicate which publishes her columns:

http://www.uexpress.com/

[G_j]

8. good to know

thanks

[NormanYorkstein]

2. Why isn't GLAAD outside her appearances protesting?

Really Sharpton and Jackson can't do *everything*.

[NYCGirl]

3. Her column was dropped by a number of newspapers, not all of them, but

they are waking up.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703090005

Sixth and seventh newspapers drop Coulter -- editor of NC paper calls her CPAC comments "the last straw"

Media Matters for America has learned that two additional newspapers, The Sanford Herald of North Carolina and the Daily Chronicle of DeKalb, Illinois, have dropped right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's column following Coulter's appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where she referred to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards (NC) as a "faggot." On March 8, Media Matters published a list of newspapers that carried Coulter's columns, as well as the email addresses of those papers' editors.

In an email to Media Matters, Herald editor Billy Liggett said that the paper "will no longer run Coulter's column effective Sunday, March 11," and added, "The newspaper will run an explanation of its decision in that day's editorial." Earlier, on the weblog The Horse's Mouth, Greg Sargent had reported that Liggett said "he received 834 emails today asking the paper to drop ." Liggett told Sargent that Coulter's comments at CPAC "were kind of the last straw -- they sealed the deal as far as our decision goes."

On March 9, the Daily Chronicle posted a statement on its website titled "Ann Coulter no longer welcome in the Chronicle," also noted by The Horse's Mouth. The statement said Coulter's CPAC remarks were "wrong and hurtful and stepped way beyond the line of human decency, much less political commentary." The statement went on to say that Coulter "could not or would not resist the temptation to offend, hurt and lash out at those voicing opinions that differed from her own" and that "not dealing" with Coulter's comments on the grounds that the comments did not run in the Chronicle "is a cop-out."

As Editor & Publisher reported, the Lancaster New Era (Lancaster, Pennsylvania), The Oakland Press (Pontiac, Michigan), and The Mountain Press (Sevierville, Tennessee) dropped Coulter following her comments at CPAC. On March 8, Media Matters noted that The Times of Shreveport, Louisiana, also dropped Coulter. Times editor Alan English said in a statement that Coulter's CPAC remarks were "the back-breaking straw for a decision we've openly discussed for some time."

[MADem]

11. Plenty kept her on, though. And she's getting new venues even now.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200704030008?f=i_related

UPDATE: Several papers explain decision to keep publishing Coulter; two newspapers added to list
Several newspapers that publish right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's syndicated column recently announced their intention to continue publishing her column after remarks Coulter made on March 2 at the Conservative Political Action Conference. During her speech at the conference, Coulter referred to Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) as a "faggot." To date, nine newspapers have been confirmed as having dropped Coulter's column since her remarks. In addition, Media Matters for America has added two newspapers -- Stars and Stripes, a daily published for the U.S. military community, and The Morning Journal of Lorain, Ohio -- to its list (below) of papers that publish Coulter's weekly column.

Four newspapers have recently run or posted explanations by editors of their decision to continue running Coulter's column (in addition to those previously noted by Media Matters): The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois; The Robesonian of Lumberton, North Carolina; the Times-Union of Warsaw, Indiana; and The Marshall News Messenger of Marshall, Texas. All four had been included on a list published by Media Matters on March 8 of daily newspapers that carried Coulter's column. In explaining their decision to keep Coulter, these newspapers' editors cited reader support and invoked free speech and censorship concerns, among other reasons.....

[NYCGirl]

14. As I said, people are just now waking up. Political discourse does not change

overnight. But I have hopes it will.

[MADem]

20. No, they are going back to sleep. Your cite is March, mine is April.

They've waited until the brouhaha has died down.

They'll quietly put her back in the rotation, a paper or two at a time. Already the justification for keeping her on is in full swing.

She won't be touched. She's pro-war, pro-Mitt.

[NYCGirl]

26. I think the Imus situation is making people think. I prefer to think the change

is coming. After all, it didn't get this bad overnight — it won't change overnight, but I have hope it will change.

Edited to add: Saw Donnie Deutsch on the Today Show yesterday. I hope he's right.:

Donnie Deutsch, the host of CNBC’s "The Big Idea," saw Capus’ action as a turning point.

"This to me is a seminal moment," he told Lauer. "This was not even about race or sexism. It’s about hate. I’m going to make a prediction now that nice is going to be the new black. I don’t mean in terms of race, I mean in terms of style."

As an example, he cited "American Idol," the most popular show on television. Shrugging off Lauer’s observation that the show prospers because of Simon Cowell’s "nasty" comments, Deutsch said, "It’s fun. It’s about inspiration."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18072729/

[MADem]

34. We shall see. I personally think the only thing that will change the situation is a Democratic

president in the White House.

The corporate media knows what side their bread is buttered on. They'll stick with power. Right now, the Executive branch is still GOP, and the Senate is DINO, thanks to that asshat Lieberman. The GOP aren't in the catbird seat like they used to be, but they aren't routed yet, either--not by a long shot.

[NYCGirl]

37. I agree with you — that will surely help matters.

Let's make sure that happens!

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

4. When was the last time you actually saw her on tv? Just sayin'.

She was fairly well ostracized after her faggot comment.

[ruggerson]

6. She was on Fox two nights ago tossing her hair around

n/t

[Bluebear]

21. I can live with her being quarantined on FOX.

Only those with the lowest possible taste tune it there anyhow :)

[ruggerson]

25. Yeah, but it spreads

if she's on Fox now, she will be back on Hardball in a few months when the election heats up.

[Bluebear]

35. Quite facaetious of me.

I actually would like her quarantined on some island in the south pacific, truth be known!

[SemperEadem]

65. I prefer

her to be quarantined on a small 3ft by 3ft aluminum capsule hurtling forever into the black and cold void of space, never to encounter anything that would alter her orbit or stop her acceleration towards a black hole.

[Hardrada]

42. I never watch Hairball so I guess I won't see her again.

Good!

[G_j]

7. absolutely! or Rush or a score of other hate mongers,

I consider this the most crucial point in this story, which as yet to be seriously discussed in the media to my knowledge. Look at what happened in Rawanda to understand how destructive to society hate radio can be.

[MADem]

9. My theory is this

Imus was (recently converted from a war supporter) anti-war and he reached voting, angry white Republican men. His major corporate sponsors made a fortune selling their shit to the Pentagon--billions. Because Imus continued to crap on their gravy train, he became a liability. They waited until he screwed up, because they knew he would, he always did, and they "helped" others to take him down. They didn't do the heavy lifting at all--they just facilitated things like TV air time, interviews, opportunities to speak in the national media. They also put the story ahead of rather significant bombs blowing up in Iraq and millions of missing WH emails, too.

Rush, Coulter, and the rest are pro-war. They can say anything, and no one will give complainers about them the media access that the Imus complainers got. The corporate media doesn't want to silence those assclowns.

And also, I'd wager that Al and Jesse don't care much about "faggots." To be fair to Al, he has come out in favor of equal rights across the board, but I doubt that the issue is the first one he'd take on if he had a choice. That's just an opinion, I could be mistaken.

Now, Jesse Jackson, on the other hand, is the guy who insists that gay rights aren't civil rights, and they shouldn't be so compared, so he's well to the right of Al on this matter. Those who seek full equality for gay people shouldn't hitch their wagon to Jesse's star.

[G_j]

12. good take

Perhaps this is a window of opportunity to make a point and maybe even hope to get somewhere.
Pressure from the public and some personalities on the level of Jackson and Sharpton to get vocal and apply hot pressure?

[Arkansas Granny]

24. Here's my theory about the Imus situation:

Most of the hate speech we hear is directed at public figures such as political candidates, movies stars, authors or other celebrities. We've almost come to expect it, even if we don't like it. Imus, however, made his rude remarks about a group of young women who have not put themselves in the public eye individually but are members of a school sports team. Many people have daughters, granddaughters, sisters, nieces, etc. in this age range and I believe that this was the reason for most of the outrage. Nobody wants to see the young women they love be subjected to sexist, racist remarks such as this and I think it struck a nerve.

[MADem]

63. There was certainly that element as well. I agree.

But Venus Williams, even though a pro athlete, was a young girl when she caught shit, too. And there wasn't any outrage there. Of course, Imus was still a war cheerleader back then.

Compare and contrast the reaction to the Imus thing with this little ditty sung by Rush less than a month ago. How many even heard about this? Now, even if the level of coverage weren't the same, because the target is a politician and not a youngster, you would think this would have gotten say, a forty five second MENTION on the news??? A "now, that's just WRONG" remark ... from someone? Anyone?

Warning--offensive audio content linked in this story. http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200703230002

But not a peep. Then, the corporate owners, and sponsors of the media all have DOD and government contracts that are valued in the billions. They benefit from the GOP in power and a continued war. Right wing, bigoted pro-war talkers carry their water for them, so they are deserving of protection. Right wing, bigoted anti-war talkers are problematic, OTOH, and need to be forced out by whatever means necessary.

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Do some of you expect Sharpton and Jackson to protest every fricking bigot?

They are not Supermen!

[MADem]

16. Jackson wouldn't touch that issue for another reason. He doesn't see gay rights as civil rights.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2004/02/17/6

Gays will get very little help from Reverend Jackson:

In Massachusetts, the state that's served as one of the main battlegrounds over same-sex marriage, the Rev. Jesse Jackson declared Monday that the fight of gays and lesbians wanting to marry should not be compared to the fight African Americans faced for civil rights.

"The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote," Jackson remarked in an address at Harvard Law School.

Later, in an appearance at Holy Cross Church in Worcester, Jackson made sure others knew that he did support some rights for same-sex couples, noting "Gays deserve the right of choice to choose their own partners."

"If you don't agree, don't participate and don't perform the service," he said, according to the Associated Press.

But Jackson reiterated his support for the heterosexual definition of marriage, saying, "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship....

[terrya]

17. Al Sharpton has been trying to start a dialogue about homophobia....

in the African-American community. I believe his sister is a lesbian.

Which is sort of perplexing about why he wouldn't condemn homophobia in the media.

[G_j]

18. no of course not, it shouldn't be that hard

to address hate media in general in my opinion. The degradation of our discourse as a society is a pervasive issue. Why not address the whole problem across the board?

[rhett o rick]

59. Glad you asked. Yes. They should demonstrate that they are willing to

defend anyone subjected to hatred. They more than most should side will all victims of bigotry.

[izzie]

13. She just pops up, Imus has space they can sell.

==

[youngdem]

15. I suspect it is due to the thorny issue of the difficulty in ascertaining her sex or species

Making determining the nature of her bigotry a somewhat slippery affair.

[sandrakae]

19. A big ole double standard.

I wrote emails to. GE, General Motors, Staples, P and G and Cingular, telling them they have proven a double standard. I asked why they are still advertising on fox. Don't get me wrong. I think what Don Imus said was rude and disgusting and he should have been reprimanded. I just do not believe his show should be gone for it, while we still have all that filth on fox. I also would like Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's outrage not to be so one sided all the time. Jesse Jackson rewarded a liar with a college education. I think he needs to explain that one. I would also like someone to take a look at what is said on the Tom Joyner show. I used to listen to it a lot in 2004 during the campaign. I was offended by his Stupid white folk segment and stopped listening.

[MADem]

66. Fox is pro-war, that's why. The bulk of those sponsors have DOD or government contracts.

I keep asking people to follow the money. These sponsors all make up a "shadow Pentagon" of private resources that feed the war machine. And they make tons of money off of the taxpayers, and the taxpayers don't even realize it. So I ask, indeed plead folks, to "Follow the Money!!!"

What I get back when I ask this, often as not, is "Proctor and Gamble? Why, they sell dog food, make up and HOUSEHOLD goods!!!" followed by a remark that I don't know what I am talking about and that, by suggesting an alternative reason for Imus's firing, I am somehow pro-bigot. I am not pro-bigot, or racist, either, FWIW. I am just stepping back and seeing the larger picture.

I invite every one to check the relationship between these sponsors and owners and the government. What we learn is pretty surprising. GE is a top one hundred Pentagon contractor. And P and G? Check this out: http://www.buyingofthepresident.com/pns/list.aspx?act=topcat&caid=89

http://www.buyingofthepresident.com/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=001316827
Proctor & Gamble is the United States’ leading manufacturer of household items and the Pentagon's top supplier of food products.

General Electric? http://www.buyingofthepresident.com/pns/list.aspx?act=topcat&caid=28

http://www.buyingofthepresident.com/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=001367960

General Electric, one of the largest and most diversified manufacturers in the world, is the Pentagon's top supplier of aircraft engines. Among its other major industrial products are locomotives; electricity production, distribution and control equipment; plastics; and medical imaging equipment. The company also provides financial services and owns the NBC television network.

Sprint Nextel (scroll down to see the campaign contributions, too): http://www.buyingofthepresident.com/pns/db.aspx?cinfo&coid=006942395
Defense Contracts
Total Defense Contracts, 1998-2003: $503,554,229
Rank: 158

AT and T (which is AT and T/Cingular, now): AT&T, one of the world's leading telecommunications companies, runs a distant second to WorldCom (MCI) in providing phone service to the Defense Department. They rank first, however, in the leasing and rental of communications equipment.
http://www.buyingofthepresident.com/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=006980080


General Motors: http://www.buyingofthepresident.com/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=005356613
General Motors is the world’s leading manufacturer of cars and trucks. It has long been a major defense contractor as well, though it has sold several of its biggest defense-related subsidiaries in recent years.
GM-GDLS Defense Group LLC was a joint venture owned in equal shares by General Motors and General Dynamics Land Systems until General Dynamics acquired GM Defense in 2003. They manufacture armored combat vehicles. The totals here cover the period before its acquisition by General Dynamics.

http://www.buyingofthepresident.com/pns/db.aspx?act=cinfo&coid=098155158


These guys gave double the contributions to the GOP as they did to the Dems...gee, what a shock!

[Bluebear]

22. I stood with women of color over the Imus debacle. One small tick off the dog.

Hopefully this puts the angry white shock jock on notice that their party is over.

[ruggerson]

28. So do I

but a disturbing number of african americans don't stand with us. Look at all the black churches that actively work against marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

[Bluebear]

29. I have noticed that with great sadness. nt

[bliss_eternal]

52. But a great many do....

...some of which happen to consider themselves members of the glbt community (i.e. African America gay men, African American lesbians, AA bisexuals of both sexes and the transgendered). Some are African Americans are straight allies.

Statements (and op's) like this do nothing to foster good will or change between communities and keep negative energy and bad feelings flowing to each.

Just some things to consider. :hi:

[sandnsea]

23. Imus the Martyr

Because the people who should be screaming about Coulter and Beck and Limbaugh are turning Imus into a martyr instead.

[Selatius]

27. You can't fire Ann Coulter. She has no show. That's a big difference.

You are free to say whatever you want, but you have no guarantee of job security for whatever you say. Imus was fired because he lost advertisers, not because he couldn't say what he said on-air.

[ruggerson]

30. So you're telling me

that people have a God given right to get published?

Ann Coulter has a show and Random House and Universal Press Syndicate enable it.

[Selatius]

33. Nope.

You have a right to free speech. Whether or not you have a job (Imus) or are put into somebody's newspaper (her columns) as a result of an editorial decision by the editor of said newspaper is another question. That also applies to book publishing as well.

She has a right to free speech, but they chose to allow themselves to be used as a platform for her message. They can just as easily rescind their choice. Nobody makes these book publishing companies publish her. They did that on their own.

[ruggerson]

36. Which is my point

why do MSNBC and CBS fire Don Imus for saying "nappy headed ho" but Random House and Universal Press Syndicate do NOT fire Ann Coulter for saying "faggot?"

[Batgirl]

39. do you really believe MSNBC fired Imus for saying "nappy etc. etc.?"

I thought it was obvious this was a financial decision when the advertisers bailed.

Imus had a history of make this kind of remark and MSNBC did nothing about it as long as his show was bringing in money.

The idea they fired him because they were suddenly concerned about his racist, sexist language is laughable to me.

[ruggerson]

54. And you don't think corporations could just have easily

said they would stop advertising in the newspapers that Universal Press Syndicate utilizes to publish Ann Coulter?

But, they didn't. And, sadly, we all know why.

[Selatius]

40. They fired him because he lost advertisers, thus advertising REVENUE.

He became unprofitable. Hence, he was let go.

[MADem]

64. That revenue, large as it may seem, is a teensy, tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of

the dough those corporate sponsors get from the Pentagon. They get BILLIONS from the federal government and DOD--and so long as the GOP is in power and the war continues, so does the cash cow. The IMUS enterprise generates paltry millions.

Look at the sponsors--GE, owners of MSNBC/NBC (sells engines to Pentagon, a top one hundred DOD contractor--billions!). GM, they make a bundle from both DOD and the feds. Sprint-Nextel--same deal. Staples--they have all the GSA supply contracts. It's billions, with a b, each and every year that they are getting from the Feds. They could run the Imus show at a total loss and STILL make money hand over fist.

This was all about getting rid of a guy who was opposing the war and reaching Repubicans with an anti-war message. Couldn't have that. Imus went 'off the ranch,' see--he used to be a reliable pro-war shill, but over the last year or so, he's changed.

Imus, to be certain, sealed his own fate with his remarks, but those corporate suits just "laid in wait" for him. And the second he fucked up, instead of doing what they used to do (Quick Imus, apologize, and that will be that) they stuck the camera and the microphone in front of Jesse and Al ... and LEFT them there -- for a WEEK. To the exclusion of all other news, even Parliament blowing up in Iraq, or five MILLION missing emails, they made a corporate decision to make the news "All Imus, all the time" -- and the rest of the media followed suit.

This was an orchestrated effort, make no mistake. Imus could have avoided it -- this time-- by watching his big mouth. But they would have gotten him for something else had it not been this incident. They needed him gone.

[SoCalDem]

31. Don Imus' show was a regularly scheduled show ON a network

and a radio station.

Ann C is a INDEPENDENT "commodity". She's self-employed, so she cannot be "fired".

As long as there are venues out there who agree with her, she will always have access to airtime, through THEM..

Rush, Savage, Boortz, et al, are SYNDICATED radio scum. Radio stations here and there may drop them, but they still hang around.

Only the ones who are employees of networks/stations will ever risk "firing".

Most of the vile ones are employees of Fox, and they fit the model of the station, so they will not be fired unless they suddenly start thinking and accidentally tell some truth.

The "calmer ones" infiltrate CNN & MSRNC & radio stations and they are the dangerous ones.. Bill Bennet, Tucker Carlson, Armstrong Williams,etc.. they are the ones who are 'careful". They present themselves as reasonable, friendly, thoughtful.. They move right to the edge, but no further.

the bomb throwers sometimes blow themselves up, but since they are mostly "self-employed contractors,they will always have job security. Their popularity may ebb from time to time, but they will always keep their core audience..

[Catshrink]

49. The Walgreen's sign!

:rofl:

[Batgirl]

32. I think a crucial factor in why the Imus situation

garnered such a frenzy of widespread disapproval, was the nature of who was targeted by his hateful remarks.

When Coulter and her ilk use gutter language in reference to well known public figures, such as Edwards and Hillary, I think there's a sense that these people are seasoned adult participants on the national stage. People who have their own power and wealth, and who entered into the game knowing the rules and expecting such attacks.

In the case of Imus, his victims had all the vulnerability these other targets are perceived to lack. They were college kids engaged in athletic competition. There was too much disparity between their youth and vulnerability, and the rich, powerful tv/radio host. This is called bullying. Most people are highly disapproving of bullying from the first time they encounter it on the gradeschool playground.

These young women had faces and names and once the public saw them, that made it personal. Made it harder for people to just shrug off Imus' remarks, when everyone could see they were directed at exactly the kind of young people that should be applauded for their accomplishments, not belittled.

The closest comparison I can think of was the outrage that resulted when Rush attacked Michael J. Fox. Again, the powerful, connected insider-with-a-mic bullying a beloved entertainer, one made vulnerable as a well known sufferer of Parkinson's. But in the case of Fox, you're still taking about a person with his own wealth, power and access, who had taken a stand on the issue of stem cell research. Which he was obviously smart enough to realize could result in being splattered with wingnut excrement.

I think the level of public outrage is determined less by specific words, than by the context of the incident and the power disparity of the intended targets.

[malaise]

38. Coulter did not say that Cheney should

be impeached and hanged now did she. Coulter did not blame Bush and Cheney for Walter Reed now did she? Imus made a crucial mistake- he insulted the wrong women and gave all the Rethug advertisers the perfect cover and the perfect moment to remove him.

[KharmaTrain]

41. She Didn't Call Edwards The "N" Word

Yes, it is selective PC as it also represents how diversified our various interests are opposed to the right wing.

Coulter attacked gays, not blacks...so why would Jackson and Sharpton care? If anything they may privately agree with her based on their religious backgrounds. Also Coulter took a shot at a public figure...one she could easily "laugh" off in the arena of public domain where Imus shot "down"...at unknown people and for no partisan reason. While what Coulter said was offensive, it's always been aimed barely inside the lines of "acceptable".

Except for Faux, I think Coulter is "box office poison" on other networks. I haven't seen her on either CNN or MSNBC for a while and even some on the right have distanced themseles from her. She's become a liability for the Repugnican party and the list of people calling for her opinions have shrunk tremendously.

I wished other black voices had stepped forward rather than Jackson and Sharpton...the corporate media's annointed "black litmus" whenever there's an issue of race. I felt they both took advantage of the limelight and that their hogging the limelight gives the right wingers an easy target to use to muddy the issue...which they surely did. People like Roland Martin and Faye Emerson were drowned out.

The lesson we need to learn here is how to marshall the various groups that many of us ally ourselves with and work in unison to counter the right wing and hate radio spin. We need to work together to hold the large corporates accountable and that way our individual special causes will all get better chances to be heard in the public square.

Cheers...

[renie408]

43. A. She attacked a politician, not a group of innocent young women

B. She went to ground for a pretty long time after that comment. But she is a pundit, not a regularly employed person. They couldn't really 'fire' her, just not use her for awhile.

and finally

C. As wrong as it is, it is easier to get away with picking on gay people than it is to get away with picking on black people.

[rhett o rick]

58. Her attack on "ragheads" wasn't on a politician. She is a tool of the

corporate fascists and Imus is not.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. Huh?

The guy with the nationally-syndicated radio program (simulcast on cable) owned by one of the biggest media conglomerates on the face of the earth isn't a tool of the corporate facists? On which planet?

Ann Coulter, love or or loathe her, is a free agent, which is to say that she doesn't have a regular gig on anybody's network. Her publisher is a privately-held company (which means they don't answer to shareholders -- or anybody else). That being said, I totally agree that we should put pressure on the mainstream media to not allow her to come one, drop a few outragous and offensive insults, and then move on. She has no place on MSNBC, CNN, or any of the three major networks.

If Fox wants her, they can have her.

[MedleyMisty]

44. You can't end bigotry in a day

If we can't do anything unless we do it all at once, then nothing will ever get done.

Don't buy her books or papers that carry her column. Don't buy any books published by her publishing company, and tell them why. Get a lot of other people to do the same thing, and then maybe she won't be making money anymore. I'm sorry that we couldn't stop all the hate spewers from making money off their hate in one fell swoop, okay?

[randr]

45. Chelsea Clinton

I remember the attacks on Chelsea. Many repugs, including Sen. McCain, refered to her as the white house dog.
I am sure Coulter was in on the feeding frenzy.
I wish someone could find the items and broadcast them far and wide.
Nothing the repugs did to the Big Dog came close to the attacks on his daughter.

[SoCalDem]

48. they did the same to Amy Carter, BUT in the larger sense,

these two girls were brought onto the world-stage by their parents. Vile pundits have always belittled family members of political foes. It's one sure way of baiting the foe into saying something they may regret.

[saltpoint]

46. Hi, ruggerson. Agree. I think a case can be made that Coulter's

slur on John Edwards is as bad as Imus' on the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Imus' comment in effect appeared to reduce the females on the Rutgers team to a very specific and limited sexual function, while overall dismissing them in the process. Insensitive and bigoted.

Coulter's slur attempted to reduce Edwards to a sexual pariah, a status "unacceptable" to straight men or straight women, and also dismissing him in the process. Also insensitive and bigoted.

Since Imus' remarks were sexist and because he didn't know anyone on that team personally, he know more knew their sexul proclivities than he knows God's ATM pin.

Coulter had clinical evidence of heterosexual activity. Elizabeth and John have had three children, 3 surviving. Short of actually attending coital events, Coulter used bigotry and distortion in much the same way Imus did.

Neither had evidence to support their claims. Their words pointedly subtracted form the dignity of their targets.

It wouldn't bother me one iota to see Ms. Coulter shown the door.

[saltpoint]

50. late edit: "...he no more knew their sexual proclivities..."

Typos suck.

[dysfunctional press]

47. because firing imus was a wrong-headed knee-jerk reaction...?

nt

[bliss_eternal]

51. Perhaps...

...you should ask Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Ann Coulter's employers. Rev. Sharpton has spoken supportively of the rights of the glbt community and he seems to enjoy being able to help. Maybe if glbt people contacted him and asked him to work on their behalf on the Ann Coulter issue he would...Something to consider at least. :think:

Maybe it would be a good idea to write a letter to some organizations asking this question--calling them on being so unsupportive and insensitive.

Also, kindly don't assume. Just because there wasn't "media attention" doesn't mean that some haven't made statements and provided their own protest efforts regarding Ms. Coulter's comments. :mad:

While you bring up a valid issue, I don't see the necessity in being so divisive.

The way you phrase this is as if there's a minority competition--who gets more attention and what issues should or should not be paid attention to. Keep in mind, there are "black women" that are also a part of the gay community (i.e.lesbian, bisexual or transgendered)--that may be offended and affected by both issues, maybe even some that were on the Rugers team. But questions like yours slam them between a rock and a hard place.

So, when you take the time to finger point and be divisive about who (and what) is being paid attention to, keep in mind you're doing what you are accusing others of.

Respectfully submitted,
bliss :)

[ruggerson]

53. I can only speak for myself

but, having grown up on the outside looking in, I know that on some deep, gut level I empathize with and relate to the African American struggle in this country. I also react viscerally to misogyny. When I see black people trying to distance themselves from gays and lesbians (both black and white) with the usual "it isn't the same struggle" or "you can't hide being black", I just have to shake my head. One would think that people who experience bigotry and institutionalized oppression would naturally ally themselves with another group that is experiencing the same thing. And no, I don't think it's divisive to bring this up, the OP was originally about the general public and corporate America's reaction to racism vs. homophobia. And, obviously, there's quite a difference between the two, unfortunately.

[bliss_eternal]

57. Yes, I agree...

...I don't understand anyone that can't see the similarities in the struggles. It really pains me when I see the kind of comments you mentioned. But when I see that sort of comment on DU from African Americans (and others), not only do I shake my head--I call them on it. I believe it is divisive and I say so. So I'm sorry, to be fair--I believe your comments were too. But of course, it is your right to disagree with my opinion. :)

I have a visceral reaction to seeing minorities pitted against one another. As if they are all in competition with one another for media attention, equality, visibility and rights. It is a device of the establishment (the man). I don't like seeing minorities playing into their hands, by finger pointing and playing that game of "who's issue got attention this week." All it does is divide those that should be working together.

Also, to be fair--this was NOT the first time that guy said what he did. As such, the impetus surrounding this incident had a great deal more energy. Yes, they were racial comments, but the effort was helped by the fact it was also a sexist comment. As such, NOW (and a couple of other women's sports organizations) worked with this effort to get him off the air. It wasn't just Jackson and Sharpton.

I'll be honest with you. I thought he'd get another wrist slapping over it, as usually comments denigrating women (of any ethnicity) aren't taken as a big deal in our society. I'm more than a little surprised by the outcome.

I recall after the incident when Rosie O'Donnell said something about asians on the View, Asian American organizations were all over it, and it didn't even take 24 hours. Is there an organization like this, that speaks on behalf of the glbt community when the Ann Coulters' of the world make homophobic statements?

:hug::hi:

[BenDavid]

55. Because she has an Adam's Apple and

a set of steel balls....

[Zhade]

56. Imus is a scapegoat.

Oh, don't get me wrong, that fascist racist pigfucker is guilty, but he's a lightning rod.

Remember Trent Lott? Think of them as a way to dump bad feeling for all things conservative and backward on one person in a desperate attempt to fool the public.

[rhett o rick]

60. Ann is a tool of the corporatist fascist and Imus isn't. The corporatist

saw a chance for more diversion and a chance to shut-up one of their critics. Imus isn't liberal but he was a strong critic of Bushco. What Imus did was wrong but the decision to fire him wasn't because he is a racist, there are many still on, but because he was a Bushco critic.

The expression comes to mind about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[jakem]

61. Because her heads keep growing back if you cut them off anyway...? nt

[hack89]

62. A womens basketball team that handled themselves with great grace

and dignity are much more sympathetic victims then a politician. Americans view politics as dirty business and have a much high threshold for getting upset about insults made in a political setting.