[BC] Imus Firing

[Xmitters@aol.com]

R:

Thank you for that explanation. That does make a little more sense. However, 
it is still no surprise that PMSNBC decided not to carry the Imus show with 
him on "suspension."

The news reports have not been clear to me exactly why the advertisers pulled 
their spots. There was a report on NPR that said some sponsors were going to 
hold out for a couple weeks to see how the situation panned out. Hmmm. Same 
period as Mr. Imus's suspension. 

I'm interested in knowing if the advertisers pulled out just to let things 
cool down or if they pulled out because they don't want their name associated 
with the Imus comments. If you or Rich know the answer, I'm interested in 
knowing.

Thank you again for your response. That information did help clear up some of 
my confusion and lack of understanding. 

While I think the Imus comments are far beyond the threshold of appropriate 
comments, the actions taken as a result of this incident is going to set a 
scary precedent. People should be punished for inappropriate comments. But fire
d? 
I'm not so sure about that. These comments don't hold the same water as 
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Imus comments were beyond heartless and st
upid. 
However, they did not have the potential of causing physical harm as would 
yelling "fire." Not a reasonable comparison. I would rather turn that big 
"Tuning" knob than compromise free speech. With free speech however, comes 
responsibility and consequences for bad choices. 


Kind Regards,


Jeff Glass

Dell CPi-D266 Win98SE AOL 5.0







In a message dated 4/14/07 12:00:50 AM Central Daylight Time, 
broadcast-request at radiolists.net writes:

<< Maybe you do not understand how that kind of advertising works.  Those   adv
ertisers had long term contracts. Two weeks would have made little   difference
 and the account rep would have discounted spots during those   two weeks or of
fered bonus coverage. The advertisers already knew that,   they do deals like t
hat all the time.  Sometimes points based on   ratings. Sports coverage has thi
s kind of thing built in as you don't   know if a game is rained out or is a bl
ow out or what. Rich Wood can   explain in further depth WHY they pulled out.  
  R    mitters at aol.com wrote:    >Hello:
 >
 >I am rather confused about something and maybe you can help me sort this 
out:
 >
 >Imus was suspended for two weeks and _then_ his advertisers pulled their 
 >commercials. HELLO! I'm sure those advertisers were paying a premium price 
to 
 >advertise in the Imus show. If Imus is suspended, you would have to be one 
stup
 >id 
 >advertiser to continue paying those prices when the main draw for the 
 >demographic that you're paying for, is not on the air. The news coverage is 
mak
 >ing 
 >this removal of sponsors sound as it those sponsors are protesting to what 
was 
 >said.
 >
 >Then MSNBC decides not to carry the Imus show. Same reasoning! Imus is 
 >suspended, why carry his show!!
 >
 >Today, CBS fires Imus because of the sponsor reaction supposedly to his 
 >comments. Does CBS have memory failure?? They are the ones that gave Imus a 
 >suspension. What did they expect the advertisers to do? Continue to pay top 
dol
 >lar 
 >for an Imus fill-in? Who would be dumb enough to do that?
 >
 >I just do not understand this part of the Imus ordeal. I have  my own 
 >opinions about what he actually said and respect those who object to the 
commen
 >ts and 
 >those who don't. I am not confused about the offensiveness of what he said. 
 >
 >I AM confused about how CBS handled the suspension/firing; that's the part 
 >that makes no sense.
 >
 >Help me unravel this.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >Jeff Glass
 > >>


**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.