Don Imus fired by CBS over "racist/sexist" comments **Updated**

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'd like to see what would happen if WET was created.

It's called CMT

With substantial differences. They don't disrespect women, police officers and the general public to no end, and if you do happen to be black and have country talent they'll play you and your videos. There are many more black people that like country music than you can possibly imagine some of it crossing over to blues or rhythm and blues --- being in Ft. Worth TX you see them and learn that black cowboys have a long history in America, but they DO NOT disrespect women the way rap artists do and literally promote crime on the streets.

I would surmise that there are more than a few on CMT that might be a tad prejudiced, but not NEARLY to the extent that your typical top of the chart hardcore rap artist is, and it's not blatantly named WET or WPCM ('white peoples' country music).

There are white people on BET...

Yeah true, very seldom have I seen it though when flipping through channels, but you still can't have a TV show called WET now can you? or 'white' anything associated with any company or media program. Don't you really think if they can have a show called BET then there should be a show called WET allowed with zero backlash? (even though I wouldn't care to see it).

The double standard needs to go, or if it's not going to apply at all, then the same things that are allowed for one group of people should be allowed for the other.

Are all those women's channels sexist?

It doesn't matter what it's called. BET is no different from CMT. The premise of BET is to focus on black culture in America, CMT focuses on white "country" culture in the same way. Curb You Enthusiasm focuses on Larry David and his Jewish friends- Jewishness is a focus of the show, let you don't see anyone calling it racist against other ethnic groups. It 's ridiculous to single out a single media outlet for an ethnic group's culture and call it racist. It just makes no sense, especially when that ethnic group comprises 12% of the population, and isn't trying to oppress other groups, or claim superiority. It's simply a special interest. CMT, BET, AZN, BBC--- what's the difference?

Is anyone calling St. Patrick's day a racist holiday because it celebrates Irishness?? No! Is anyone calling Irish pubs racist? NO!! Is Blue Collar TV called racist because it's supposed to be about white working class people, and not black working class people? No.


The whole "There's a BET, why not WET" arguement is old and ragged, and seems to be used by people who don't like to put any significant amount of thought into political and social issues.

 

[s0ssos]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Imus got the axe because his sponsers dropped him.

I am not sure I understand the people here who support Imus in this on the basis of "freedom of speech". Imus can put out a CD that records anything he wants.

But if I owned and or ran a company, I would not want my company associated with someone who called anyone a "nappy headed ho". I definitely would not pay someone who says crap like that.

.

What is up with the people who are sending the Rutger's team hate mail?

can he put whatever he wants?
what if he rails on black people in it. would a company put it out?

 

[s0ssos]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'd like to see what would happen if WET was created.

It's called CMT

With substantial differences. They don't disrespect women, police officers and the general public to no end, and if you do happen to be black and have country talent they'll play you and your videos. There are many more black people that like country music than you can possibly imagine some of it crossing over to blues or rhythm and blues --- being in Ft. Worth TX you see them and learn that black cowboys have a long history in America, but they DO NOT disrespect women the way rap artists do and literally promote crime on the streets.

I would surmise that there are more than a few on CMT that might be a tad prejudiced, but not NEARLY to the extent that your typical top of the chart hardcore rap artist is, and it's not blatantly named WET or WPCM ('white peoples' country music).

There are white people on BET...

Yeah true, very seldom have I seen it though when flipping through channels, but you still can't have a TV show called WET now can you? or 'white' anything associated with any company or media program. Don't you really think if they can have a show called BET then there should be a show called WET allowed with zero backlash? (even though I wouldn't care to see it).

The double standard needs to go, or if it's not going to apply at all, then the same things that are allowed for one group of people should be allowed for the other.

Are all those women's channels sexist?

It doesn't matter what it's called. BET is no different from CMT. The premise of BET is to focus on black culture in America, CMT focuses on white "country" culture in the same way. Curb You Enthusiasm focuses on Larry David and his Jewish friends- Jewishness is a focus of the show, let you don't see anyone calling it racist against other ethnic groups. It 's ridiculous to single out a single media outlet for an ethnic group's culture and call it racist. It just makes no sense, especially when that ethnic group comprises 12% of the population, and isn't trying to oppress other groups, or claim superiority. It's simply a special interest. CMT, BET, AZN, BBC--- what's the difference?

Is anyone calling St. Patrick's day a racist holiday because it celebrates Irishness?? No! Is anyone calling Irish pubs racist? NO!! Is Blue Collar TV called racist because it's supposed to be about white working class people, and not black working class people? No.


The whole "There's a BET, why not WET" arguement is old and ragged, and seems to be used by people who don't like to put any significant amount of thought into political and social issues.

actually, a lot of women were complaining that american airlines' new website for women is sexist. but that's not what you're talking about.
blue collar tv is not racist cause it's about white folk. now, if we're talking blacks living the slums, and making fun of them, would that be ok? and i don't mean a black person making fun of them-a white person.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: s0ssos

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: will889

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I'd like to see what would happen if WET was created.

It's called CMT

With substantial differences. They don't disrespect women, police officers and the general public to no end, and if you do happen to be black and have country talent they'll play you and your videos. There are many more black people that like country music than you can possibly imagine some of it crossing over to blues or rhythm and blues --- being in Ft. Worth TX you see them and learn that black cowboys have a long history in America, but they DO NOT disrespect women the way rap artists do and literally promote crime on the streets.

I would surmise that there are more than a few on CMT that might be a tad prejudiced, but not NEARLY to the extent that your typical top of the chart hardcore rap artist is, and it's not blatantly named WET or WPCM ('white peoples' country music).

There are white people on BET...

Yeah true, very seldom have I seen it though when flipping through channels, but you still can't have a TV show called WET now can you? or 'white' anything associated with any company or media program. Don't you really think if they can have a show called BET then there should be a show called WET allowed with zero backlash? (even though I wouldn't care to see it).

The double standard needs to go, or if it's not going to apply at all, then the same things that are allowed for one group of people should be allowed for the other.

Are all those women's channels sexist?

It doesn't matter what it's called. BET is no different from CMT. The premise of BET is to focus on black culture in America, CMT focuses on white "country" culture in the same way. Curb You Enthusiasm focuses on Larry David and his Jewish friends- Jewishness is a focus of the show, let you don't see anyone calling it racist against other ethnic groups. It 's ridiculous to single out a single media outlet for an ethnic group's culture and call it racist. It just makes no sense, especially when that ethnic group comprises 12% of the population, and isn't trying to oppress other groups, or claim superiority. It's simply a special interest. CMT, BET, AZN, BBC--- what's the difference?

Is anyone calling St. Patrick's day a racist holiday because it celebrates Irishness?? No! Is anyone calling Irish pubs racist? NO!! Is Blue Collar TV called racist because it's supposed to be about white working class people, and not black working class people? No.


The whole "There's a BET, why not WET" arguement is old and ragged, and seems to be used by people who don't like to put any significant amount of thought into political and social issues.

actually, a lot of women were complaining that american airlines' new website for women is sexist. but that's not what you're talking about.
blue collar tv is not racist cause it's about white folk. now, if we're talking blacks living the slums, and making fun of them, would that be ok? and i don't mean a black person making fun of them-a white person.

There are two generalizations that hold relatively true to both women, as well as black people. Both seem to have difficulty letting go of the past.

So, was that sexist, racist, or both? If your humor / sarcasm meters are not turned on, shame on you.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
The only thing that I hate about the whole situation is that his fund raisers will receive much less attention, and the kids that he is helping will receive less help...

You don't hate the fact that the man who lead the call for Imus to be fired is also the same man who doesn't call for action against black rappers and their record companies for saying even worse things?

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
The only thing that I hate about the whole situation is that his fund raisers will receive much less attention, and the kids that he is helping will receive less help...

You don't hate the fact that the man who lead the call for Imus to be fired is also the same man who doesn't call for action against black rappers and their record companies for saying even worse things?

I'm not a hater, but this past week has filled my spirit with hate. I have always tried to see the good in all beings, but lately, I see the bad in a few beings, and it brings out some emotions that I've never felt on such an intense level.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Get over it, the corporate sponsors pulled the plug on his show, the market has spoken.

Nice simple analysis.

There was more than a little hypocrisy in their decision. First, it wasn't like they pulled the plug that morning. If the uproar had died down quickly, they would have gone on advertising on his show. Plus, as anyone who is truly familiar with the Imus show knows, much worse things have been said, usually by McGuirk, which allowed Imus to distance himself from it. The sponsors weren't upset by his comments, they were afraid of losing business.

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
What is up with the people who are sending the Rutger's team hate mail?

I've been wondering about that too.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
The only thing that I hate about the whole situation is that his fund raisers will receive much less attention, and the kids that he is helping will receive less help...

You don't hate the fact that the man who lead the call for Imus to be fired is also the same man who doesn't call for action against black rappers and their record companies for saying even worse things?

I'm not a hater, but this past week has filled my spirit with hate. I have always tried to see the good in all beings, but lately, I see the bad in a few beings, and it brings out some emotions that I've never felt on such an intense level.

I wasn't accusing you of being a "hater", although I don't see a problem with hating a situation or attitude. So, what exactly has gotten you upset? Imus, the 'activists'?, the comments, the kids with cancer?

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
The only thing that I hate about the whole situation is that his fund raisers will receive much less attention, and the kids that he is helping will receive less help...

You don't hate the fact that the man who lead the call for Imus to be fired is also the same man who doesn't call for action against black rappers and their record companies for saying even worse things?

I'm not a hater, but this past week has filled my spirit with hate. I have always tried to see the good in all beings, but lately, I see the bad in a few beings, and it brings out some emotions that I've never felt on such an intense level.

I wasn't accusing you of being a "hater", although I don't see a problem with hating a situation or attitude. So, what exactly has gotten you upset? Imus, the 'activists'?, the comments, the kids with cancer?

I don't hate Imus. I don't agree with his mis-step, or what he said.

However, the racial activists, who essentially lynched Imus, well, those are the ones who are fueling my hatred. Both of those two, have a lot of scars on their own integrity, but yet they can get away with this. That is what I hate.

Nobody ever sold Imus as a roll model. His job was to be a controversial person in the media. That is his trademark. Shock a few people, of course. This crap was just another day at work. Apparently, the two holier than thou reverends decided to pay attention, on that day.

IMO, they were looking for a "Fall Guy". In that endeavor, they chose Don Imus. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Agentbolt]

I still haven't quite figured out what you're saying, with the double-negatives - but irregardless

You realize, sir Grammar Police, that "irregardless" is not a real word. It's a made-up word that has no place in the English language because it means the exact same thing as "regardless", which IS a real world. Also, it's a double negative.

The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the consensus among references is that it is a portmanteau of irrespective and regardless, both of which are commonly accepted standard English words. By blending these words, an illogical word is created. "Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."

Oops. Sorry!

I anxiously await your heated response that has absolutely nothing to do with my factually correct statement. Perhaps some tear-filled criticism of how mean I am when disagreeing with people, that appears to be your wheelhouse.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I still haven't quite figured out what you're saying, with the double-negatives - but irregardless

You realize, sir Grammar Police, that "irregardless" is not a real word. It's a made-up word that has no place in the English language because it means the exact same thing as "regardless", which IS a real world.

I anxiously await your heated response that has absolutely nothing to do with my factually correct statement. Perhaps some tear-filled criticism of how mean I am when disagreeing with people, that appears to be your wheelhouse.

Agentbolt, your post has no relevence to this thread. You brought nothing to this discussion. What does does calling someone out, on their choice of grammar have to do with anything in this discussion?

Now, back to the subject at hand..........

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: JoeFahey
The only thing that I hate about the whole situation is that his fund raisers will receive much less attention, and the kids that he is helping will receive less help...

You don't hate the fact that the man who lead the call for Imus to be fired is also the same man who doesn't call for action against black rappers and their record companies for saying even worse things?

Did you do your research before posting that?

 

[Red Dawn]

Hopefully every little thing Jackson and Sharpton does from now on will be srutinized and every time they screw up it will be blown out of proportion and they will be harrassed for the hypocrites they are!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hopefully every little thing Jackson and Sharpton does from now on will be srutinized and every time they screw up it will be blown out of proportion and they will be harrassed for the hypocrites they are!

IMHO a pipe dream Red...double standards are what guys like that thrive on.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hopefully every little thing Jackson and Sharpton does from now on will be srutinized and every time they screw up it will be blown out of proportion and they will be harrassed for the hypocrites they are!

IMHO a pipe dream Red...double standards are what guys like that thrive on.

There's some hope. There is a backlash against Sharpton and Jackson in all of this.

Sports Columnist Jason Whitlock call Jackson and Sharpton "terrorists" (video in link)

Little strong but he's got a couple of good columns up about this here and here.

There are others in the media doing the same.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hopefully every little thing Jackson and Sharpton does from now on will be srutinized and every time they screw up it will be blown out of proportion and they will be harrassed for the hypocrites they are!

Scrutinised for what? Hypocrite?

Nobody can right all the wrongs of the world.

In life, you got to choose your battles. That's what they did. They where wildly succesfull in this case.

What wrong will the scrutiniser right?

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
By losing his livelyhood?

This coming from someone north of the border that doesn't value individual freedoms at all. :roll:

Livelyhood? He's got plenty of money, and likely will get picked up on satellite radio before the year is out.

We talk about the double standards between whites & blacks, what about the double standards between them and us? If while at a tradeshows representing the company I work for, I call a group of people nappy-headed hos, I'd be immediately fired.

Individual freedoms is not the issue here. Nowhere is it guaranteed that everyone must have the job of their choice at all times. Neither Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, nor the NAACP fired Imus. CBS did. If CBS does not want to keep him employed, it is their right and freedom to do so.

Nowhere is it guaranteed that everyone should never feel offended. Sharpton and Jackson decided to whore themselves out to the media a bit more and pursue something that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter at all.

And?

I was just saying Imus being fired is not destroying his livelihood, and is not a violation of his personal freedoms.

I still haven't quite figured out what you're saying, with the double-negatives - but irregardless, what I think you said, I don't quite follow how it counters my argument, or adds to it. Or for that matter, relates in any way other than the sentences both start with "Nowhere is it guaranteed that everyone".

You were shifting blame from Sharpton and his ilk to CBS. I was trying to bring it back to them...

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hopefully every little thing Jackson and Sharpton does from now on will be srutinized and every time they screw up it will be blown out of proportion and they will be harrassed for the hypocrites they are!

Scrutinised for what? Hypocrite?

Nobody can right all the wrongs of the world.

In life, you got to choose your battles. That's what they did. They where wildly succesfull in this case.

What wrong will the scrutiniser right?

It's not only that they're choosing the absolute wrong battles to fight if they truly want to advance the African American race; they've done some things in the past (and have not apologized or even in some cases admitted fault) that they ought to be ashamed of. Most recently the lives of two Duke students were made a living hell over the past year - and I sincerely doubt they sided with the accuser over 'evidence.'

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
By losing his livelyhood?

This coming from someone north of the border that doesn't value individual freedoms at all. :roll:

Livelyhood? He's got plenty of money, and likely will get picked up on satellite radio before the year is out.

We talk about the double standards between whites & blacks, what about the double standards between them and us? If while at a tradeshows representing the company I work for, I call a group of people nappy-headed hos, I'd be immediately fired.

Individual freedoms is not the issue here. Nowhere is it guaranteed that everyone must have the job of their choice at all times. Neither Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, nor the NAACP fired Imus. CBS did. If CBS does not want to keep him employed, it is their right and freedom to do so.

Nowhere is it guaranteed that everyone should never feel offended. Sharpton and Jackson decided to whore themselves out to the media a bit more and pursue something that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter at all.

And?

I was just saying Imus being fired is not destroying his livelihood, and is not a violation of his personal freedoms.

I still haven't quite figured out what you're saying, with the double-negatives - but irregardless, what I think you said, I don't quite follow how it counters my argument, or adds to it. Or for that matter, relates in any way other than the sentences both start with "Nowhere is it guaranteed that everyone".

You were shifting blame from Sharpton and his ilk to CBS. I was trying to bring it back to them...

Understandable. I was just confused by the satire.

I wasn't trying to shift blame, I was just saying that ultimately it is CBS's decision whether Imus is fired or not. Certainly Sharpton and the NAACP had influence over the firing. However you want to interpret the situation, I just don't believe that his livelihood and personal freedoms are a part of this equation.

The Duke case is an entirely different situation, where now you're punishing people even before they are convicted of doing anything. And that is a violation of livelihood & freedom. Couple pages earlier I posted a link to an interview with Jessie Jackson that was given yesterday, and he was being hammered with questions about the Duke case, and he holds firm that his stance was the right thing to do, and believes the Duke students were "close enough" to being guilty, almost as if they still deserved to be drug through the ringer. :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hopefully every little thing Jackson and Sharpton does from now on will be srutinized and every time they screw up it will be blown out of proportion and they will be harrassed for the hypocrites they are!

I noticed on one of the news blurbs last night that when they put the Title of a person in the lower part of the screen it labeled Sharpton as "Activist".

They used to label him "Reverend".

How often do you see "Activist's" actually able to get something accomplished like Sharpton got Imus fired?

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hopefully every little thing Jackson and Sharpton does from now on will be srutinized and every time they screw up it will be blown out of proportion and they will be harrassed for the hypocrites they are!

I noticed on one of the news blurbs last night that when they put the Title of a person in the lower part of the screen it labeled Sharpton as "Activist".

They used to label him "Reverend".

How often do you see "Activist's" actually able to get something accomplished like Sharpton got Imus fired?

Now I'm just getting lost in all the mess of this. But I ask, was it Sharpton that got him fired? He certainly said he wants Imus fired, but how much influence did he personally have? The NAACP held protests somewhere there was a news story about it as I was flipping channels. And the Rutgers team had the press conference.

Were Sharpton's hands in all of this, or did he just get the snowball rolling? I don't know, but I just do not think Sharpton alone has that much power.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hopefully every little thing Jackson and Sharpton does from now on will be srutinized and every time they screw up it will be blown out of proportion and they will be harrassed for the hypocrites they are!

I noticed on one of the news blurbs last night that when they put the Title of a person in the lower part of the screen it labeled Sharpton as "Activist".

They used to label him "Reverend".

How often do you see "Activist's" actually able to get something accomplished like Sharpton got Imus fired?

Now I'm just getting lost in all the mess of this. But I ask, was it Sharpton that got him fired? He certainly said he wants Imus fired, but how much influence did he personally have? The NAACP held protests somewhere there was a news story about it as I was flipping channels. And the Rutgers team had the press conference.

Were Sharpton's hands in all of this, or did he just get the snowball rolling? I don't know, but I just do not think Sharpton alone has that much power.

Very well written timeline of the whole 8 day lynching:

4-13-2007 Behind the Fall of Imus, A Digital Brush Fire - In a Blur, Watchdogs, Blogs, Email, Spur Radio Host's Firing

At 6:14 a.m. on Wednesday, April 4, relatively few people were tuned into the "Imus in the Morning Show" when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's."

Ryan Chiachiere was. A 26-year-old researcher in Washington, D.C., for liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America, he was assigned to monitor Mr. Imus's program. Mr. Chiachiere clipped the video, alerted his bosses and started working on a blog post for the organization's Web site

Civil-rights leaders such as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson raised the volume of their protests over the weekend, holding rallies in New York and Chicago. At a Saturday rally at the Harlem headquarters of the National Action Network, Mr. Sharpton called for Mr. Imus to be fired.

On Wednesday, CBS board member Bruce Gordon, a former head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, dropped a bomb by telling the Associated Press he had called on Mr. Moonves to fire Mr. Imus.

Mr. Redstone left the decision to pull the show largely to Mr. Moonves, says a person familiar with the matter. On Thursday morning, Mr. Moonves spent an hour and a half meeting with about 10 African-American leaders and women's rights advocates.

Mr. Moonves called Mr. Imus late yesterday afternoon at home and told him that his show was canceled.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: eits
you gotta admit, it's pretty offensive what he said

really ... or was it truth?

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: KeypoX

Originally posted by: eits
you gotta admit, it's pretty offensive what he said

really ... or was it truth?

Do you think it was?

You think Imus was right, it was the women who where offensive?

Some kind of public service anouncement?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Very well written timeline of the whole 8 day lynching:

4-13-2007 Behind the Fall of Imus, A Digital Brush Fire - In a Blur, Watchdogs, Blogs, Email, Spur Radio Host's Firing

At 6:14 a.m. on Wednesday, April 4, relatively few people were tuned into the "Imus in the Morning Show" when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's."

Ryan Chiachiere was. A 26-year-old researcher in Washington, D.C., for liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America, he was assigned to monitor Mr. Imus's program. Mr. Chiachiere clipped the video, alerted his bosses and started working on a blog post for the organization's Web site

Civil-rights leaders such as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson raised the volume of their protests over the weekend, holding rallies in New York and Chicago. At a Saturday rally at the Harlem headquarters of the National Action Network, Mr. Sharpton called for Mr. Imus to be fired.

On Wednesday, CBS board member Bruce Gordon, a former head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, dropped a bomb by telling the Associated Press he had called on Mr. Moonves to fire Mr. Imus.

Mr. Redstone left the decision to pull the show largely to Mr. Moonves, says a person familiar with the matter. On Thursday morning, Mr. Moonves spent an hour and a half meeting with about 10 African-American leaders and women's rights advocates.

Mr. Moonves called Mr. Imus late yesterday afternoon at home and told him that his show was canceled.

Wait, wait. This didn't get started by someone actually being offended by what Imus said, but rather by someone transcribing Imus for the sole purpose of looking for anything that might be offensive?

When did being a nosy, busy-body become an organized, legitimate career choice?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Very well written timeline of the whole 8 day lynching:

4-13-2007 Behind the Fall of Imus, A Digital Brush Fire - In a Blur, Watchdogs, Blogs, Email, Spur Radio Host's Firing

At 6:14 a.m. on Wednesday, April 4, relatively few people were tuned into the "Imus in the Morning Show" when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's."

Ryan Chiachiere was. A 26-year-old researcher in Washington, D.C., for liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America, he was assigned to monitor Mr. Imus's program. Mr. Chiachiere clipped the video, alerted his bosses and started working on a blog post for the organization's Web site

Civil-rights leaders such as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson raised the volume of their protests over the weekend, holding rallies in New York and Chicago. At a Saturday rally at the Harlem headquarters of the National Action Network, Mr. Sharpton called for Mr. Imus to be fired.

On Wednesday, CBS board member Bruce Gordon, a former head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, dropped a bomb by telling the Associated Press he had called on Mr. Moonves to fire Mr. Imus.

Mr. Redstone left the decision to pull the show largely to Mr. Moonves, says a person familiar with the matter. On Thursday morning, Mr. Moonves spent an hour and a half meeting with about 10 African-American leaders and women's rights advocates.

Mr. Moonves called Mr. Imus late yesterday afternoon at home and told him that his show was canceled.

Wait, wait. This didn't get started by someone actually being offended by what Imus said, but rather by someone transcribing Imus for the sole purpose of looking for anything that might be offensive?

When did being a nosy, busy-body become an organized, legitimate career choice?

I posted this previously in this thread. Media Matters is an ultra-liberal media watchdog group funded by George Soros. The irony in this is that Imus leans liberal himself and often had liberals and Democrats on his show as well as some Repubs like McCain.

There is a conservative media watchdog group as well called Media Research Center. They run a blog called newsbusters.org.