Imus in the Hot Seat

Looks like dbermanmd got his wish:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/05/03/imus.cbs/

If Imus wins the lawsuit and is awarded $40 million, and then uses that money to establish basketball programs for women, I might change my opinion of him.

 

not terribly surprising... it is 40 million dollars, after all.

 

You read a 1/2 page article and suddenly know everything about his contract?

You're jumping to conclusions here, my good doctor... Imus won't be rehired - although he may win the money, but that is no guarantee.

 

They don't have that choice, Berman. Plain and simple. Given that you don't understand that, i wonder how much you actually understand...

They fired him. It's done, the contract is breached. Even if they rehired him, the contract would still be breached.

Furthermore, rehiring him would be the absolute worst thing they could do. He has gotten such bad press, and their firing him was seen as morally correct but a huge percentage of the US. If they rehired him, they would lose a ton of viewers and sponsors. It would be a nightmare for them. Instead, they'll go into court and fight it out. If they win, they'll come out of the court room and tell the world "What Imus said was horrible, we don't condone it, and the courts just backed us up." If Imus wins, then they still come out, only this time they say "what Imus said was horrible, and the Rutgers team didn't deserve that. the 40 million we were just ordered to pay is a small price to pay to ensure that this level of depravity is off the air." Either way, it's a huge marketing bonus for them, and increases their ratings.

 

I'm betting this never sees the inside of a courtroom. CBS & Imus will reach some kind of settlement where Imus gets some money (whether it's the full 40 mil or not, who knows) and neither side admits fault for their respective roles.

 

I’m interested in the outcome of this. My understanding is that Imus' defense rests upon this clause in his contract:

Imus claims that he was fired for making a remark that was "irreverent" and "controversial", even though that is what he was contracted to do.

I was in a similar situation myself. I wrote a weekly column for a local newspaper. The editor knew of my political activism and read a similar column that I wrote for another paper. He explicitly asked me to go after my targets "full barrel". The name of the column was, "Where's the Outrage", so there was no question about its controversial nature. Now the objects of my wrath were George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, etc.; not women basketball players, so I don't know if Dr. Berman would equally defend my right to free expression. The publisher of this paper, who has acquired a number of formerly independent small newspapers in my state, fired the editor and replaced him with a kid right out of college, and proceeded to micromanage the paper. I was then told my column was axed. I only had a verbal agreement, not a contract, and my pay was a tiny fraction of what Imus got. But if Imus is successful, maybe I'll hire the same lawyer to sue the paper on the grounds that I was fired for doing what the editor asked me to do. I'd be happy to settle for only, say, $4 million.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 3 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]434736[/snapback]</div>

They very well may settle. Thats really not for me to say. however, my point stands that they won't hire him back.

As for ratings... check this out:
Feb:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/nielsen.htm
Last week:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/ne...sens-charts.htm


A summary, if you will, of the top 20 watched shows in America:

Feb April
ABC 4 6
CBS 9 10
FOX 5 3
NBC 2 1


Seems to me that CBS is still doing just fine without Imus. I can promise you that bad media if they hire Imus back will lower their ratings.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 3 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]434855[/snapback]</div>

I appreciate your kind words. And my comment that I might sue as well was purely in jest. In my case, I didn't have a contract, and legally I'm sure the publisher had the right to terminate my column at any time. And as writing is not my primary occupation, my livelihood wasn't affected.
What I think is most unfortunate about my situation is not that my column was terminated, but that it was a consequence of a formerly independent newspaper being acquired by a corporation. This is representative, on a small scale, of what is happening all over the country with our print and broadcast media. Regardless of what one's political perspective is, I think that it's sad that independent voices are dissapearing and that everything (including music) has become homogenized. While the internet may not always be a reliable source of information, at least it is one refuge remaining for diverse and dissenting voices.
And I really think it's important that everyone has a voice- yes, even the right wing. I even listen to them- honestly. Last night, for instance (after coming home from a great talk that environmentalist Bill McKibben gave at a nearby library), I attempted to watch Glenn Beck's special on CNN about how global warming is just hype. But when he cited the Oregon Petition as "evidence" that global warming is a hoax, I was yelling so loud that my wife made me change the channel. But at least I tried!

p.s. I forgot to mention that the newspaper in question has a new editor who called me recently to say that their circulation was suffering, and that she might want to bring my column back (I used to get both supportive and angry letters to the editor, both of which are good from their perspective). I'm also talking to a larger newspaper. So I may be back soon.

 

TV, i don't know where to go to get radio numbers, and truthfully, more money is made by TV than radio.

I was never saying they wouldn't settle, just that they wouldn't hire him back. I don't think he wants that, either. We'll see, 6 months from now, what happens. You'll be eating your words.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 3 2007, 03:26 PM) [snapback]434931[/snapback]</div>

That's unfortunate. Every university has its own policy for funding student activities, but supporting a student newspaper should never have anything to do with its political viewpoint. If the school paper chooses to criticize the opinions your son expresses in his paper, that's fair play. But personal attacks are not (I wish some of the other folks in FHOP would get this distinction- I know you do). And it is very sorry that they had to resort to anti-semitism; that should be beneath any academic institution.
While I think that the issue of "academic freedom" is often blown out of proportion, I understand that conservative college students often feel that they don't have the same freedom to express their opinions (I went to Penn and Brown; two of the arguably more liberal universities). What the students on the school paper should realize is that when students such as your son challenge them by making them confront opposing points of view, it is for their own benefit- they will become more adept at defending their own beliefs.
I hope your son is able to get into the law school of his choice despite the obstacles, and that he does well. You can probably use a good lawyer in the family!