August 14, 2007

The return of Imus.

Drudge has this "exclusive":
Radio host Don Imus has agreed to settle his claim with CBS for $20 million, and a non disparaging clause, legal sources claim. The move opens the possibility Imus will soon return to the airwaves -- on WABC in New York! Developing...
This is playing out predictably... and incredibly well for Imus. I'm sure he'll get back on the radio, with tons of publicity -- including this humble blog post. Think he'll be able to lure his big political guests back? I think he'll be able to get some sharp-tongued political analysts on the show right away.

UPDATE: AP confirms the story and adds:
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who led the move to fire Mr. Imus for his comments, did not immediately return a call for comment, he did say last month that he would not oppose a return to radio by Mr. Imus.

[Imus's lawyer Martin] Garbus had said Imus would sue for the contract’s unpaid portion. He cited a contract clause in which CBS acknowledged that Mr. Imus’s services were “unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial.”

The clause said Mr. Imus’s programming was “desired by company” and was “consistent with company rules and policy,” according to Mr. Garbus.

23 comments:

AJD said...

If it is Drudge "exclusive," then it's probably not true.

And the idea that you could ever be humble is laughable.

But your enlarged picture is great! Really shows your age!!

vet66 said...

Shameless polls will be standing in line to welcome him back, decrying the unfairness of allowing worse language in Hip Hop/gangsta rap while keelhauling The Don for little more than tasteless, but funny,humor.

I hope they carry him on Sirius/XM as an in-your-face slam against the Sharptons/Jacksons of the Black Caucus bunch of hypocrites.

$20 million? That's gotta burn somebody!

Sloanasaurus said...

We are all laughing at you Ajd.

Back to Imus:

Heads should roll at CBS. In the end, CBS is the big loser. It pays $20 million to Imus, and then Imus shows up with a competitor. All because they fear the race card... alas they are reaping what they sew.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But your enlarged picture is great! Really shows your age!!

I detect some jealously there.

Fen said...

Radio host Don Imus has agreed to settle his claim with CBS for $20 million, and a non disparaging clause, legal sources claim. The move opens the possibility Imus will soon return to the airwaves

Good for him. I don't like his show - too much dead air and he's abusive to his staff - but I thought the scandal was overblown.

Sidebet: I give 2-1 that Imus sinks the majority of that 20 mil into his charity camp. He screwed up, but his heart is in the right place.

Roger said...

I have always liked Imus because he was non-PC for the most part. I have a feeling there wont be many democratic candidates appearing on the Imus show--I suspect they will perceive as too high risk. I rather suspect Guiliani to show up on it at some point, however. Don't know why I do..just do.

Maxine Weiss said...

So this is how it's gonna be from now on: Posts culled from Drudge Report. Whatever's on Drudge will be repeated and offered up here. How imaginative.

As a columnist, I'd think the NYT would be free for you.

SteveR said...

And we know the NYT never gets anything wrong.....

hdhouse said...

If ABC Rad Nets syndicate him he won't have to worry about getting his big guests back. It is an election year. He will probably start out with 5 million listeners and go to 20 million with their support. Hillary might even show up.

rdkraus said...

Hey, get ajd an egg salad sandwich.

Yea for Imus.

My mornings have been bleak without him. Can't even shave to the other crap on at that time.

bill said...

Don't miss the A.V. Club interview with D.L. Hughley. Apparently he also made some comments about the Rutgers basketball team that weren't appreciated.

On Don Imus: And I think Don Imus will be back on the air in the next couple months, and his numbers will be better than ever. I watched Don Imus for probably seven or eight years, and I watched him make remarks about everybody. I watched him support Harold Ford and Barack Obama. I also watched him take politicians to task for their treatment of Katrina victims. I have a bit of context. And it would be hypocritical for me to deny somebody else the right to express themselves the way they see fit.

on black activists: But look, people like her have systematically killed an industry. Every year, a television show comes on, black activists get together and go, "This show is stereotypical. We don't want it on." Anything from The Secret Diary Of Desmond Pfeiffer to Homeboys In Outer Space to Booty Call to Barbershop to whatever. Now studios don't even make black television shows any more, because they're so tired of this controversy. This is the same woman who had a problem with Hot Ghetto Mess—the whole purpose of which was to be satirical, to get people to look at themselves and go, "Wow, we don't want to be that." I don't see the world the way she does. My gig is to call it like I see it, and I'll do it until the day before forever.

on Al Sharpton: Al Sharpton's actually gonna say "self-promotion"? Al Sharpton?! C'mon, man, let's be real. How many people really respect what Al Sharpton says, really? He doesn't show up unless there's a camera around. I'm one of the best in the country at what I do, and I don't need to pretend to be anything else. I'm not pretending to be a preacher while going all over the country getting involved in bullshit fights. I don't go to Duke University and accuse people of shit and then when I found out I'm wrong, not apologize. I don't pretend to be a leader and then do the most asinine shit. I don't pretend to ban the "n" word while watching people starve. The only difference between me and Al Sharpton is that I'm paid to make people laugh. And when his tally is said and done, if the fact that he got Don Imus off the air is his greatest accomplishment in civil rights? If Al Sharpton's mad at me, I think I've done something right. [Laughs.] That's the fvcking truth.

on should he apologize: I didn't talk to the Reagans when I made fun of them. I didn't talk to Anna Nicole Smith when I made jokes about her. I haven't talked to Paris Hilton when I made jokes about her. I haven't talked to George Bush when I made jokes about him. What's the difference between all the people I made jokes about and them? Stevie Wonder fired me from a radio station he owned. I was brand new and joking around, and I said, "I bet this place wouldn't look this bad if you could see." And he fired me. That's asinine to ask me to apologize to everybody I ever talked about. What is the difference between them and the Rutgers girls?

davidc. said...

I am glad to see that some of you missed Imus. I do hope that he gets a TV slot in the am as I feel like morning sickness trying to watch the PC shows or Fox.

Revenant said...

That D.L. Hughley interview is pretty cool.

Methadras said...

Of all people, Al Sharpton should know that you get what you wish for. Hey, sort of like a lot of people that thought John Ashcroft should leave the AG's office only to get you know who instead...

rhhardin said...

Nondisparagement clause, naturally CBS executives are willing to spend company money to protect themselves from mockery. I'm surprised the directors don't fire them for just that.

Here's Imus on Moonves, from March 1, 2001

Cedarford said...

The moral outrage the black "spokespersons for all blacks" and the MSM media heaped on Imus was that he made gratuitous attacks on "a team of innocent college athletes, young girls who had done nothing wrong, and scarred them for life". That he must apologize. Grovel. Take back his inexcusable comments.

The Rudgers Team embraced the Absolute Moral Authority that comes from such sanctioned victimhood. Player after player basked in the pathos of how Imus tried wrecking their lives, was hurtful, but they would triumph - to gushing MSM commentators who talked about how fine and noble the mostly tatoo'd up gals, a few who were single mothers, were. Who overlooked the team provoking fights with other teams or playing rougher than "norms" accepted. Booed by many other teams for lack of sportsmanship...

They saved their biggest geyser of gush for Coach Vivian Stringer, who gave an hour-long self-righteous speech on the utter nobility and triumph over the incredible travails and bigotry the "young innocent players" had accomplished. How their NCAA run and the satisfaction of it was "ruined" by Imus, and how she, the Great Coach, would help them.....

This circus was entirely absent in another matter of innocent college players the same age as the "young ladies at Rutgers" who were subjected to far worse slurs -

Rapists
Callous, violent thugs all too common in organized collegiate sports.
People who partied sometimes and who sometimes illegally drank alcohol.
Abettors of rapists, cover-up artists.
Poor students.
Predators on vulnerable black women.
Full of racial prejudice and at the same time irrestibly attracted to black women and harassing, raping them.
Led by a coach who let the out of control hooligans run wild.

All vigorously denounced by black leaders and MSM media that wanted
the Coachs and the player's heads.

Yep, Duke Lacrosse. All innocent. Coach fired instead of lionized like Vivian Springer. No racists. No poor students, led all national Lacrosse teams in academic All-Americans. Their NCAA run "ruined" by false accusations. The only interracial rapes and harassment established to have happened at Duke in the last 10 years was black Durhamites and 2 black Duke students and one black prof involved in various varieties of sexual assault on white female Duke students.

MSM and black bigots, white Lefties kept after the young players long after it was obvious they were innocent victims of a lying black stripper and a "system" determined to punish young white men on race, gender, and class grounds. The metanarrative of white oppressors and black victims was the template the MSM stuck to.

As Evan Thomas of Newsweek famously, for history's later quotebooks, tried to justify it - The media was largely right in the Lacrosse Case. "The narrative was correct, the facts were wrong."

Imus might have some deliciously ironic interviews at WABC with Duke players who were denounced by the same media people that called for his head. Just trot out all the names of the people that called for Imus's head for his despicable remarks towards innocent young players who also called the Dukies "rapist hooligans" and ask if each person named, (Starting obviously with the Most Reverend Two Head Negroes) have anything to apologize for in their double standards.

rhhardin said...

alas they are reaping what they sew.

Should probably be ripping what they sew.

Imus didn't say anything wrong, even slightly wrong. The media hordes are simply from another species, on this.

If you choose whole-body tattoos to make yourself pretty, don't be surprised if there are consequences, like being called a nappy-headed ho'.

Which is what Imus and crew were talking about.

vet66 said...

All indications point to the Rutgers Girls Basketball team just sued Imus for an undisclosed amount, I'm guessing $20 million dollars.

They were patiently waiting for the fat lady to sing before the poor helpless girls and their handlers pounced on Imus like a coyote on a pork chop.

Pathetic! Predictable!

igbalonigbanlo said...

I think this whole charade is stupid and pathetic not to mention hypocritical on so many levels for the accusers of Imus.

However, Mr. Rhhardin, are you saying that because your concept of good taste precludes whole body tattoos, anyone having such is a whore? What about half-body tattoos, whole arm tattoos? Where do you draw the line?

Is this a case of if it offends my sense of decorum/fashion/taste then the person in question if denigrated deserved it? Would I be right If I consider a girl a skank/whore for having tattoos on her lower back?

What if you had a daughter that rebelled against your sense of good taste and got one such tattoo and in your presence was called a whore by a bystander? Would you be okay with that?

What about piercings? This includes earrings too because nobody was born with pierced ears.
They must have been sacrilegiously against good taste once. In that time and age considering what you feel comfortable with now, would you consider it to have been right to call an 'errant' girl with pierced ears a whore?

Is this enforcement of your taste/sense of what's acceptable by accepting of insults to those who run afoul of it?

Revenant said...

You know, I didn't really care if Imus got fired or not. Or if he has a ninety-year career, or never works again.

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that those dorks at CBS basically just paid their top radio personality $20 million dollars to take half a year off and go find a job at another network. Nice business sense, guys! I can see why the networks are doing so well.

hdhouse said...

I'm not excusing Imus's remarks one bit.

I am a bit disappointed at the attorneys who built this case to the point of suit. Was it in this woman's head to sue him from the getgo or after approached by Dewey Cheatem and Howe. The attorneys on this blog should have a field day with it.

If I were the defense attorney, which thankfully I'm not, I would simply hand this young lady a blank piece of paper and ask her to list the reasons she has been harmed and give a dollar value for each infraction. Just an idea.

hdhouse said...

and to Cedarford....off the meds again huh?

From Inwood said...

The NYT had a story on 8/8 about a resolution before the NYC Council “banning” the use of the words "bitch"& "ho". “Ban”. I do not think that the NYT understands the meaning of that word. The resolution, after a slew of “whereases” says only that

"The Council of the City of New York calls for a symbolic moratorium on pejorative use of the 'b' word and the word 'ho'.

IMHO, this wording does not amount to a “ban” in the normal meaning of that term. It’s just feel-good legislation calling for people to adopt a symbolic moratorium on the "pejorative" use of the words. I would say that this proposed legislation is a good example of a failure in the basic elements of communication, but I don't want to be bitchy.

So, Fuhgedaboudit!

Anyway as some commentators have noted, I'm glad that NYC’s politicians have solved all NYC's problems so that they can focus on the important issues like this & while they are at it, perhaps they should ban people being mean to each other.

But that would mean the end of Imus & the trolls on your Blog.