In the interest of full disclosure I will say that I dislike Don Imus. Talk radio is a medium that attracts loudmouthed boors and Imus is no exception. He has a history of saying stupid things (as documented by Slate, here).
If you want opinions on the whole affair from those who are qualified:
1) Michael Wilbon probably wrote the best piece I've read on the subject, highlighting Imus' pathology. Particularly stirring is the excerpt from a "60 Minutes" interview where Imus first denies hiring former producer Bernard McGuirk to do "nigger jokes" and subsequently admits to it only after being called out.
2) Stephen Metcalf, an excellent writer, characterizes Imus as an artifact of sorts that "ought to have been shit-canned" in a headier piece about Imus' place in culture.
3) Jason Whitlock approaches the subject from a less direct vantage point, calling out the glorification of gangster culture in hip-hop. He's right, The Game and Young Jeezy are probably not great role models.
As for the opinion of someone less qualified (because, by my own definition, the criteria for qualification is to be published in a major media outlet- I'm aware that this definition qualifies Dan Shaughnessy and Stephen A. Smith which is an unfortunate externality) and a response to Ian, I offer my two cents.
Ian, despite what Les Moonves or CBS's PR person may have said, the real reason for dismissing Don Imus was not for just this one comment about the Rutgers womens basketball team. Principally, it's a financial decision. As Dr. Z from SI put it: "CBS Radio did an assessment of the balance sheet, which is how corporate people adjust their morality, and decided that whatever financial gain Imus might generate in the future would be offset by the loss of advertising revenue, plus image..." When Imus said the words, “nappy-headed hos” it was picked up by the media, the blogosphere, and the youtube community launching an off-the-cuff remark into a maelstrom. The writing was on the wall. Once MSNBC quit on Imus, CBS has no other option than to follow suit or they would look like a collaborator, damaging their public image and, in turn, their bottom line.
And to say that Imus’ history or saying racist and sexist things was not an issue here is just plain wrong. Here’s a hypothetical: a producer at CNN hears of the Imus story and says to his coworkers, “Yeah, but Imus has been saying s*** like this for twenty years- wait a minute, Imus HAS been saying s*** like this for twenty years…” and two hours later it comes out that Imus once referred to journalist Howard Kurtz as a “boner-nosed… beanie-wearing Jewboy” and sidekick Sid Rosenberg noted that Serena and Venus Williams would “more likely be featured in National Geographic than in Playboy.” Sure “nappy-headed hos” was the tipping point, but there were PLENTY of coins in the curse jar before it overflowed. “Why now?” is NOT a suitable argument in defense of Don Imus.
As for your characterization of Jesse Jackson as a hypocrite for calling Imus out after he spoke out against the Duke lacrosse players, it’s specious at best. The situations are wholly different. When Jackson spoke, there were pending, serious criminal charges against the Duke students and Jackson felt he was speaking out against an injustice. Perhaps Jackson should not have presumed their guilt, but at least there was a question of it. The facts from the case are that a group of predominantly affluent, predominantly white, student-athletes threw a party in which they hired significantly less affluent African American strippers and provided alcohol to 18, 19, and 20 year olds. Excuse me if I give Mr. Jackson a pass on this one.
On the flip side, Don Imus turned a female Division I basketball team into an object of ridicule for no perceivable reason other than his own edification. Here is an extended excerpt from the video: “…some rough girls from Rutgers. They got tattoos… some nappy-headed hos… the girls from Tennessee they all look cute… the jigaboos versus the wannabes…” (the last line belongs it Bernard “the nigger joke man” McGuirk referencing the Spike Lee movie School Daze in which two dichotomous groups of students at an all-black college fight over race and identity, one group more “black” and the other more “white.”)
I’m not going to go into why what he said was so bad, the odds are you’ve read about it ad nauseum at this point. But I do want to focus on one fact: these girls are innocents. Complete innocents. And Don Imus calls them out for being less attractive and less “feminine” than their opponents in a manner that reeks of both racism and sexism. Female athletes, especially female student-athletes, have a hard enough time dealing with the specter of the feminine ideal without the Don Imuses of the world making it more difficult for them.
And I just can’t get behind you equating the Rutgers womens basketball to Alex Rodriguez or Jason Kidd or even J.J. Reddick. These girls are student-athletes. They’re not mugging for the camera or endorsing Pepsi. It’s possible that none of them will get a dime more than their scholarship out of basketball. And this was no baseless insult from the peanut gallery, some drunk heckler that shouted “nappy-headed hos” from the fifth row. This is a radio personality, and not even a sports radio personality, de-humanizing and de-feminizing them just to make himself cackle. It’s malicious from top to bottom.
And please don’t weep for Don Imus or his throngs of listeners who won’t get to hear his farewell. Idiots are like cats, they always land on their feet (SEE ALSO: Rush Limbaugh). Soon the ink will dry on a behemoth of a deal with Sirius or XM and Imus can join Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony as the shock-jock dinosaurs in the retirement home of satellite radio.
You're right on so many levels. We agree on so many levels. We should not however, let our opinion of Don Imus, or our disgust with his humor and history of crass behavior get in the way of making an objective report of what happened. At the very essence of this case is the despicable way CBS handled it, and it's atrocious the amount of hypocrisy coming from every corner.
On your first point we're in complete agreement. The reason they gave was a lie. Terrible job by CBS.
On your second point, Jesse Jackson called the lacrosse players "rapists" when they weren't. Forgive me for saying that such a statement is much more unjust than Imus saying something stupid during an unfunny comedy riff. Jesse Jackson is a role model, a Congressman, and a civil rights activist. Imus is a guy on the radio that has carved a niche for himself doing this kind of inane stuff, with never a public word from CBS condoning him. So, to recap, Jackson, someone who is supposed to be held to a higher standard, carefully chose his words and described as fact that accused innocent men had committed one of the worst crimes you could admit, completely oblierating their reputations until the case completely fell apart. Meanwhile, Imus, a guy who everyone knows should be taken with a grain of salt, said something off the cuff that he later apologized for, including to their face, and the girls have done nothing but gain from this situation. You're right, the two aren't even comparable.
Fine, forget the athletic comparisons. I concede the high ground there.
And I am not weeping for Don Imus. I don't like him. I think he's said a ridiculous amount of stupid things in his career. But is there any evidence of CBS saying, "Listen, Don, tone it down or we're going to let you go."? The coin that overfilled the jar does not work here, as you can tell when the jar is getting too full and know not to put another coin in. A more apt analogy would be placing rocks in a pond and then stuffing in Everest...when this issue should have been not much bigger than the other rocks. Again, I am in complete agreement that those were all awful things, and if he was warned by his employer that they were unacceptable and could result in termination, than I'd be okay with this.
But they fired him for doing his job, a job that made them millions of dollars for decades. He should not have been fired for this. He's apologized. The more this drags out, the more all other disingenuous parties make him look better by comparison. People want to make him jump through hoops, do the talk show circuit, apologize to the world. He was right in drawing the line. He said he'd apologize to those girls and he did. He's insinuating political correctness is becoming a joke. Some people deserve respect, like those girls. Other don't, like the hypocrites.
And for the first time in a long time, I respect Don Imus.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Don Imus: Wronged Jerk
Listen, Don Imus is a jerk. We know this. What he said was stupid. We know that. And now we know he's out of a job. Can someone please TELL ME why doesn't Don Imus still have his job?
The answer IS because he's made some recently insensitive comments about a group of innocent female athletes. The answer is NOT that this is the latest in a long line of moronic insults, although he's undoubtedly made them. That is NOT what got him fired. It was this one comment. CBS even stated as much in their statement.
Please, please, PLEASE tell me how there aren't numerous double standards in this fallout...
Tell me how Jesse Jackson can demand that Don Imus be fired after Jackson himself called the innocent Duke lacrosse players "rapists" and "thugs." Which is more disparaging, being called a nappy headed hoe or being called a rapist? Which victimized group got sympathy and which got death threats? Someone find me that Jesse Jackson apology and someone show me where Jackson's income is getting slammed.
Tell me how Howard Stern never lost his job while making endless racist jokes. Tell me how South Park is still on the air after last night's episode alone insulted gays, Persians, Mexicans, and Butters. Tell me how Carlos Mencia still has a job on Comedy Central making a living off racism.
Tell me how a rapper can call women hoes and have no recourse, but Don Imus does it and gets FIRED. Both are entertainers. Both are public figures. Both can be listened to by any demographic.
Tell me how Imus' endless insults and barbs towards just about everyone goes without even the threat of him losing his job, and then one public outcry costs him his job.
Tell me how the Rutgers girls basketball team can claim to be athletes yet not be able to take baseless insults from the peanut gallery. Has Alex Rodriguez, Jason Kidd, or J.J. Reddick heard any insults or disparaging remarks hurled at them?
Tell me how Rosie O'Donnell can take personal shots at Republicans on The View (among an endless list of other moronic comments) and keep her job.
Tell me how Rush Limbaugh can criticize a Parkinson's Disease victim as faking it (among an endless list of other moronic comments) and keep his job.
Finally, tell me how CBS, the most gutless character in this overblown story, spends years making money off Don Imus saying stupid shit for four hours every morning, and then fire him, without warning, for saying something no stupider than many things he's said in the past. Moreover, they did it during a week where he was raising money for charity, without letting him finish this week of fundraising, not even allowing him to say good-bye to listeners that have listened to him for decades. Tell me why he deserves to be fired by his employer for doing what practically must have been his job desription. Tell me that.
The answer IS because he's made some recently insensitive comments about a group of innocent female athletes. The answer is NOT that this is the latest in a long line of moronic insults, although he's undoubtedly made them. That is NOT what got him fired. It was this one comment. CBS even stated as much in their statement.
Please, please, PLEASE tell me how there aren't numerous double standards in this fallout...
Tell me how Jesse Jackson can demand that Don Imus be fired after Jackson himself called the innocent Duke lacrosse players "rapists" and "thugs." Which is more disparaging, being called a nappy headed hoe or being called a rapist? Which victimized group got sympathy and which got death threats? Someone find me that Jesse Jackson apology and someone show me where Jackson's income is getting slammed.
Tell me how Howard Stern never lost his job while making endless racist jokes. Tell me how South Park is still on the air after last night's episode alone insulted gays, Persians, Mexicans, and Butters. Tell me how Carlos Mencia still has a job on Comedy Central making a living off racism.
Tell me how a rapper can call women hoes and have no recourse, but Don Imus does it and gets FIRED. Both are entertainers. Both are public figures. Both can be listened to by any demographic.
Tell me how Imus' endless insults and barbs towards just about everyone goes without even the threat of him losing his job, and then one public outcry costs him his job.
Tell me how the Rutgers girls basketball team can claim to be athletes yet not be able to take baseless insults from the peanut gallery. Has Alex Rodriguez, Jason Kidd, or J.J. Reddick heard any insults or disparaging remarks hurled at them?
Tell me how Rosie O'Donnell can take personal shots at Republicans on The View (among an endless list of other moronic comments) and keep her job.
Tell me how Rush Limbaugh can criticize a Parkinson's Disease victim as faking it (among an endless list of other moronic comments) and keep his job.
Finally, tell me how CBS, the most gutless character in this overblown story, spends years making money off Don Imus saying stupid shit for four hours every morning, and then fire him, without warning, for saying something no stupider than many things he's said in the past. Moreover, they did it during a week where he was raising money for charity, without letting him finish this week of fundraising, not even allowing him to say good-bye to listeners that have listened to him for decades. Tell me why he deserves to be fired by his employer for doing what practically must have been his job desription. Tell me that.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Papelbon, Fenway ovations
Idle thoughts while waiting for the Red Sox home opener (2:05)
This was my stance on the Papelbon debate on Easter morning:
When the Sox had a 2-3 record and Papelbon had one appearance with a 3-run lead, it seemed foolish that Julian Tavarez started the game that had the Sox fall to one game under .500. If Papelbon was a starter, Wakefield's strong outing could have occured in the fifth game of the year and the Sox would be one game over .500. The only other difference would have been that a different Red Sox reliever would have been counted on for that 3 run save, and probably have gotten it. More importantly, Julian Tavarez wouldn't be starting every fifth game.
Well, I wouldn't say I've done a 180, but I certainly paused to think about going in a new direction.
On Sunday night, with Boston leading Texas 3-2 with one out and the tying run on third base and two of the most dangerous hitters in the league (Young and Teixeira) coming up, Francona called on his closer. A few minutes later, the lead is still safe and the eighth is over. An inning later and Papelbon finishes off a dominant five out save and the Sox hang on. Saj proceeded to ask me: "How big is your Papelboner right now." And I could only reply truthfully. "Enormous."
But here's the thing. He's too good. He is Rivera, Smoltz, and Gagne in their prime good. Papelbon, like Smoltz, was meant to be a starter. Guys like that are too good to be a closer. There's a reason Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson did not pitch out of the bullpen. They would have been the best two closers ever, no doubt in my mind. The door would be slammed shut as soon as they came in. But where were they more valuable? As a starter, of course.
Now, I am by no means saying I expect Papelbon to be as good as Martinez. What I am saying is that he can be a great starting pitcher. He has heat, stuff, a brain, and catcher who calls the best games in the world. He could be great. And a great starting pitcher is much more valuable than even the best closer ever. Just ask the Yankees, mired in an oh-too-long-for-that-payroll six-year drought, despite having the best closer in the league.
Anyway, with every Papelbon save, my opinion will probably waiver. I'm never going to say he doesn't look fantastic out there. He does. But the Red Sox will lose a majority of Tavarez starts, and maybe half of Wakefields. And that's difficult for a closer to make up.
Saj, I'd like your thoughts on this. Also, quick predictions before the Fenway home opener. Rank what you think will be the five loudest ovations at Fenway, and then name one or two players whose ovations will be luke warm.
Five loudest
1. Matsuzaka
2. Papelbon
3. Ortiz
4. Varitek
5. Manny
Worst ovations (non-bench players): Lugo, Crisp, Tavarez
I disagree with you on Papelbon, and here's why:
1. Papelbon was a closer in college and a damn good one.
2. This Peter Gammons piece from yesterday (ESPN Insider). It perfectly summarizes what Papelbon does for the Red Sox, mentally. He basically ensure that the Red Sox win games that they are in a position to win through seven or eight innings. It's a morale boost to know that if you score runs early you have a great insurance policy.
3. What he did on Sunday was one of the best relief performances I have ever seen. He came in with guys on first and third with a one run lead and threw 15 pitches for 5 outs and 3 strikeouts, including a three-pitch domination of Brad Wilkerson to end the game. I'm well aware of the "200 innings is better than 100 innings" argument, but we seem to take "Papelbon being an ace starter" as a given when it is not. He's got great stuff, but so did Eric Gagne and he was a complete bust as a starter.
4. That glower on the mound. Papelbon is, hands down, the scariest white dude in baseball. He personifies the intimidation that Randy Johnson used to have back when he wasn't 300 years old and his left arm wasn't fossilized.
5. Top to bottom, Papelbon makes the bullpen better. Now Francona can use Romero, Donnelly, Pineiro, Timlin in innings 5 through 8 with seemingly reckless abandon. Like I said before, this is the best Red Sox bullpen since El Guapo was rolling around out there and we all know what a good bullpen can do in the playoffs.
6. Jon Lester is only six weeks away at a time when the fifth starter is the least necessary. I do think Tavarez should be taken out of the rotation ASAP in favor of the incredible Devern Hansack (who has an incredible tale) as Lester's placeholder. Remember Lester is only 23 and, as a fifth starter, he's major league ready.
Giddy for opening day at the Fens: watching on www.mlb.tv in the office, over/under on when I get fired is 3:30.
This was my stance on the Papelbon debate on Easter morning:
When the Sox had a 2-3 record and Papelbon had one appearance with a 3-run lead, it seemed foolish that Julian Tavarez started the game that had the Sox fall to one game under .500. If Papelbon was a starter, Wakefield's strong outing could have occured in the fifth game of the year and the Sox would be one game over .500. The only other difference would have been that a different Red Sox reliever would have been counted on for that 3 run save, and probably have gotten it. More importantly, Julian Tavarez wouldn't be starting every fifth game.
Well, I wouldn't say I've done a 180, but I certainly paused to think about going in a new direction.
On Sunday night, with Boston leading Texas 3-2 with one out and the tying run on third base and two of the most dangerous hitters in the league (Young and Teixeira) coming up, Francona called on his closer. A few minutes later, the lead is still safe and the eighth is over. An inning later and Papelbon finishes off a dominant five out save and the Sox hang on. Saj proceeded to ask me: "How big is your Papelboner right now." And I could only reply truthfully. "Enormous."
But here's the thing. He's too good. He is Rivera, Smoltz, and Gagne in their prime good. Papelbon, like Smoltz, was meant to be a starter. Guys like that are too good to be a closer. There's a reason Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson did not pitch out of the bullpen. They would have been the best two closers ever, no doubt in my mind. The door would be slammed shut as soon as they came in. But where were they more valuable? As a starter, of course.
Now, I am by no means saying I expect Papelbon to be as good as Martinez. What I am saying is that he can be a great starting pitcher. He has heat, stuff, a brain, and catcher who calls the best games in the world. He could be great. And a great starting pitcher is much more valuable than even the best closer ever. Just ask the Yankees, mired in an oh-too-long-for-that-payroll six-year drought, despite having the best closer in the league.
Anyway, with every Papelbon save, my opinion will probably waiver. I'm never going to say he doesn't look fantastic out there. He does. But the Red Sox will lose a majority of Tavarez starts, and maybe half of Wakefields. And that's difficult for a closer to make up.
Saj, I'd like your thoughts on this. Also, quick predictions before the Fenway home opener. Rank what you think will be the five loudest ovations at Fenway, and then name one or two players whose ovations will be luke warm.
Five loudest
1. Matsuzaka
2. Papelbon
3. Ortiz
4. Varitek
5. Manny
Worst ovations (non-bench players): Lugo, Crisp, Tavarez
I disagree with you on Papelbon, and here's why:
1. Papelbon was a closer in college and a damn good one.
2. This Peter Gammons piece from yesterday (ESPN Insider). It perfectly summarizes what Papelbon does for the Red Sox, mentally. He basically ensure that the Red Sox win games that they are in a position to win through seven or eight innings. It's a morale boost to know that if you score runs early you have a great insurance policy.
3. What he did on Sunday was one of the best relief performances I have ever seen. He came in with guys on first and third with a one run lead and threw 15 pitches for 5 outs and 3 strikeouts, including a three-pitch domination of Brad Wilkerson to end the game. I'm well aware of the "200 innings is better than 100 innings" argument, but we seem to take "Papelbon being an ace starter" as a given when it is not. He's got great stuff, but so did Eric Gagne and he was a complete bust as a starter.
4. That glower on the mound. Papelbon is, hands down, the scariest white dude in baseball. He personifies the intimidation that Randy Johnson used to have back when he wasn't 300 years old and his left arm wasn't fossilized.
5. Top to bottom, Papelbon makes the bullpen better. Now Francona can use Romero, Donnelly, Pineiro, Timlin in innings 5 through 8 with seemingly reckless abandon. Like I said before, this is the best Red Sox bullpen since El Guapo was rolling around out there and we all know what a good bullpen can do in the playoffs.
6. Jon Lester is only six weeks away at a time when the fifth starter is the least necessary. I do think Tavarez should be taken out of the rotation ASAP in favor of the incredible Devern Hansack (who has an incredible tale) as Lester's placeholder. Remember Lester is only 23 and, as a fifth starter, he's major league ready.
Giddy for opening day at the Fens: watching on www.mlb.tv in the office, over/under on when I get fired is 3:30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
