Imus FiredFollow

I really didn't see the big deal either. Yeah, it was a fine display of ignorance, but nothing much worse than you'd see on O'Reilly.

Aren't you in college?

Only if you buy into the idea that the outrage was purely generated by Sharpton & Jackson.

So outrage never actually ever exists. Got it.

The humorous thing is that gbaji is normally the #1 supporter of the free market. And now in a case where someone is ousted through free market economic pressure and not government intervention, he complains that it wasn't fair

No. You're correct. I normally fully support the use of boycotts and economic pressure to resolve social issues like this rather then "marching on Washington" type solutions.

My concern in this case, is twofold:

1. The "outrage" was generated via political process, not naturally as a result of the action in question. If we were talking about people who listen to Imus' show calling the sponsers and complaining, or organizing some sort of protest against his remarks, I'd have no issue with it. But in this case, the outrage wasn't those who were actually invested in any way with the advertising on his show.

2. There's no evidence that the outrage was anywhere near enough to actually have impacted the sales or advertising revenue of the principles involved. A free market "solution" would involve people actually carrying through with their threats. Vote with your dollars. But that's not what happened here. The sponsors responded to a political debate that was largely exagerated by the media and pulled his show *before* there was any actual economic backlash. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that there would not have actually been any if they'd chosen to ignore it.


Thus, this wasn't a true free market process. It's a hijacked process. Hijacked by whom? I'm not sure. But hijacked it was. The sponsors were not afraid of the dollars lost due to "the people" being upset about this issue. They were afraid of the political backlash that could be brought against them much much more. I'd argue that that is very much antithical to a free market.


Do you really think this had to do with them being afraid that they might lose some customers? Or that the FCC might clamp down on them, or they might have a harder time getting that federal licensing deal, or might not get suppport the next time they want to fight an anti-trust case? This was very much about political pressure, not economic.


And ultimately, it misses the key point. Why? Why was this issue made into a "big issue", while other's that are vastly more harmful are given a pass? All one has to ask is "who stands to win?" and "who stands to lose?". I'd go into a long diatribe about how the social and political structures in place in our nation benefit by *not* actually fixing social problems like this, but rather simply convince people they are "on their side" on the issues, but this post has already been long enough.

Yeah, it was a massive liberal media ploy to take down someone in the liberal media by manipulating the liberal media to make everyone hate him.

God, you're a 'tard sometimes.

1. The "outrage" was generated via political process, not naturally as a result of the action in question.


Wrong. You're upset because the outraged parties were black.


If we were talking about people who listen to Imus' show calling the sponsers and complaining, or organizing some sort of protest against his remarks, I'd have no issue with it. But in this case, the outrage wasn't those who were actually invested in any way with the advertising on his show.

It must be an interesting fantasy land to live in where instead of researching anything you just arbitrarily decide what reality best fits your prejudice and go from there.


2. There's no evidence that the outrage was anywhere near enough to actually have impacted the sales or advertising revenue of the principles involved. A free market "solution" would involve people actually carrying through with their threats.

Wrong. Now, I realize you don't understand how market economies function in any way shape or form, but even you must realize that decisions are made based on predicted outcomes, not on actual supply and demand. What you're saying is identical to arguing that when Toyota manufactured 100,000 Camrys to meet anticipated demand that market forces aren't at work because no one's ordered one yet, and in a free market they'd wait to manufacture them until that happened.

Also, you're a rock fucking stupid buffoon, so let's not lose sight of that I suppose.



Vote with your dollars. But that's not what happened here. The sponsors responded to a political debate that was largely exagerated by the media and pulled his show *before* there was any actual economic backlash.

Right, that's what happens in free markets. Shocking, I know, taking actions based on predicted supply and demand. People making decisions about the most effective use of their assets. ******* crazy talk.


In fact, I'm reasonably sure that there would not have actually been any if they'd chosen to ignore it.


IF we compiled a list of things you were 'reasonably sure' about that were completely dead wrong, we'd all be long dead before anyone could conceivably read it all.


Thus, this wasn't a true free market process. It's a hijacked process. Hijacked by whom? I'm not sure. But hijacked it was. The sponsors were not afraid of the dollars lost due to "the people" being upset about this issue. They were afraid of the political backlash that could be brought against them much much more. I'd argue that that is very much antithical to a free market.

What political backlash, exactly? That someone would pass a law banning the sales of Coca Cola because they sponsored Imus? What sort of hallucinogenics do you take before posting, exactly?

idk, I'm starting to buy into what gbaji is saying here.

Afterall, I didn't give a rat's *** about this before, but seeing so many people in heated debate about it makes me think that maybe I should be offended and upset.

Wait, I think I might be able to demand a firing...

Nah, still don't care enough.

Well, it's a pity then that these companies didn't hire you to tell them what to do. It's insane to think that they may actually have people on the payroll, maybe even people better qualified than you, who predict what the value of advertising on Imus's show is vs the risk of economic fallout. If only someone there had thought "Hey, I wonder what the real chance is of this becoming an issue..."

And here's where I take issue with the claim that the outrage over Imus was because he was white. It wasn't. It was because he was talking about successful, privileged, educated college girls. A black sports commentator saying the same thing would have generated plenty of outrage (maybe not quite as much, they don't have his record, but nonetheless people would've gotten mad). But most people in positions of power don't take issue with Snoop Dogg or rappers in general because rappers are talking about poor women, and poor women don't matter.

Pretty much. "Classless society" takes on a whole new meaning.

Good, at least now I know how to tailor my insults so they will not get me fired from my non-existent radio job.