 |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) jmhm | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's awkward, isn't it, when the rabble get all tetchy? In that forgiving light, let's be especially grateful for Mr. Oliphant, of the Boston Globe, who took the trouble to fill us in on what the boundaries of acceptable discourse are OLIPHANT: Good morning, Mr. Imus, and solidarity forever, by the way.
IMUS: Thank you.
OLIPHANT: That's pretty easy. You know, I don't know if you know this, but yesterday, The New York Times tried to put me and [Newsweek assistant managing editor] Evan Thomas -- who was on earlier -- on the spot. Did you know that?
IMUS: No, sir.
OLIPHANT: This guy -- David Carr, who writes a pretty good media column on Mondays --
IMUS: Right.
OLIPHANT: -- calls up, and the first question he asks me is, "Are you thinking about not appearing on Imus?" And for once in my life, I answered a direct question with a direct answer. I said, "No, I'm not." And he says, "Well, why not?" And I said, "Because, being the world's most boring person, I had taken the trouble to go all the way though this episode from about two minutes before you said what you said last Wednesday, and then all the way through the statement you made spontaneously on Thursday and then the more prepared one you made on Friday, and I said that's it. That took care of it as far as I'm concerned."
And -- but it was a cute little trick to see if your constituency would falter, and I was very happy to say no.
IMUS: Well, I appreciate that. I don't think your loyalty is misguided or that I am --
OLIPHANT: No.
IMUS: -- unworthy of it, but I do.
OLIPHANT: Well, you know, one of the things that you're condemned to do in my racket is if you know something in a situation like this, you have a moral obligation to say so. And this is one of those occasions where, as you said earlier, fairness and accuracy and context matter. And what -- for what it's worth, what I really appreciated was the fact that, No. 1, you understood how important it was to get across to those wonderful athletes on the Rutgers basketball team what was really in your heart.
And secondly, I have this understanding that you understand the really dangerous moment in these episodes. And, you know, I'm thinking of, you know, an 8-year-old black kid being driven to school by his dad or mom who hears this and wonders what he just heard. And it's in that initial hurt that all these problems begin to show up.
And so what I told David Carr was I didn't think for a second like that. You should also know that your -- our good friends, those journalistic giants at Fox News, are wondering how your regular posse could possibly appear, and the answer is, "It's simple: We know you." Nappy-headed. See, that would be a reference to people of african descent whose ancestry is insufficiently intermingled with people of european descent (voluntarily, let's take it for granted, because gee whiz, that's how that mostly happened, right?) so that their hair isn't straight (although I understand that can be arranged). This is, clearly, a completely class- and race-neutral statement. "Hos" would, of course, be a reference to garden implements, because if it wasn't, there surely wouldn't be nearly as many people pretending this was acceptable discourse. I so enjoy dipping my toe into the world of responsible journalism. The General has some pictures of the troublemakers. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: April 13th, 2007 09:15 am (UTC) |
| (linkie thing) |
Disappointed in Oliphant
|
Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said "nappy-headed hos". Would Tom Oliphant have defended him? Probably not. But he seemed to defend Imus. The question is: Why?
If I'm right, the reason might be that Oliphant thinks that Imus is a "good person". But would a good person make repeated verbal slaps at blacks (Ifill, et al.) over the years, all in the name of "humor"?
Imus might be a good person, but it seems that when it comes to saying nasty things about blacks, he's done more than "a bad thing". He's done a number of them. That makes me wonder whether, in fact, he is quite the "good person" he should be over the airwaves. After all, fool on you, shame on you. Fool me multiple times, and shame on ... both of us.
So why should Oliphant have defended him? Seems to me he shouldn't have. Oliphant was wrong when his comments implied that Imus had taken care of this last tempest by making an apology. As it turned out, Oliphant was also wrong in stating that Imus didn't or at least wouldn't offer any excuses, since ultimately, he did, by claiming that blacks used the same terms he did. Seems to me it's consistent with these things, therefore, that Oliphant was wrong, too, in defending Imus.
What a shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
then