http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6586787.stm

again, attempting to erase three words will only cause three new words to take their place while keeping the same definition. attack the intent, not the language.

Simmons: “It is important to re-emphasise that our internal discussions with industry leaders are not about censorship… Our discussions are about the corporate social responsibility of the industry to voluntarily show respect to African-Americans and other people of colour, African-American women and to all women in lyrics and images.”

well, too bad for them considering the major label system is failing because it cannot keep up with the consumers. Any of their future policies to deter hateful or careless lyrics won’t effect the rising numbers of independently distributed rappers. That said, there’s already a “conscious” hip hop movement so it seems annoying that Simmons (and the rest of the media) doesn’t point to any of them as a beacon for artists to follow. Perhaps they aren’t on his friends’ labels…

The Second Amendment, or loss thereof, is being used as a spector to frighten us away from discussing how to build a concensus toward social norms of civility. I’m not as concerned about what one has the legal right to do – I don’t want to put someone in jail for words – but whether we want, as a society, to push ourselves toward adopting norms that call for more civility. Yes, I can turn off the radio or not purchase offensive material. But as a member of a larger society, I will still be concerned with how the language and imagery used is forming the ideas and behaviors of my fellow citizens. Now, if I’m the only one that is concerned with the issue, then it’s just my concern. In our society of free speech, I can try to talk to as many people about it as I like and I may just bore people to death. If enough people are concerned with the issue, though, a critical mass may be formed that leads to adapting our norms. These adaptations can be forced upon the society as a whole in places where we all contribute – government and public air waves. This is not about restricting free speech. It’s about determining what our tax dollars support or don’t support. People are still free to speak whatever they wish, just not on my dime.

There are reasons for slander and liable laws. You can damage the life of another with words. Careers are ruined and people land in prison based on the words of others. We have long since recognized that the First Amendment needed some limits applied if we are to have a chance at civility.

On -isms: if you are the object of an -ism, it’s a relentlessy creepy thing that molds you. And it is not for those who are not subject to the -ism to proclaim whether or not it does or should. Humans are social creatures. We are designed to respond to social cues. Those who don’t are labeled with a condition called Asperger’s Syndrome or Narcissism. I would appreciate it if we would stop using the disingenuous argument that people who are strong enough just don’t respond to these things.

Responses to bias are insidious. It can take years of self-reflection to realize how much of your character has been shaped by your response to an -ism. How long will it take for women to realize that they capitulated to the masculine as superior in order to gain some rights for themselves? I was quite literally trained in my MBA program – designed by women for women at a women’s college – that in order to succeed you must study and adopt the ways of men. Not one mention of supporting the idea that the ways of women could be equally valuable and that we might want to seek ways of increasing the valuation of women’s ways.

I recommend reading Joan Walsh’s reflections on her experience as a female writer at Salon.com. She is both self-reflective and articulate about the impact that a bias has had on her. Something she touches on is that she and her female colleagues would refer to their need to ignore the attacks on them as “manning it up”. Also, in the comments, someone writes that women open themselves to attacks by writing like, um, women. If only they wrote like men did…… While I find this comment lacking in introspection, it also reflects a certain reality: while women now have legal rights, they are still up against a deeply imbedded cultural bias. One that they tend to adopt themselves as a matter of survival – and because they are social creature that respond and form their character based on social input. For me, the question is: 1) can we agree that it is uncivil to hold these biases?, and 2) if so, how would we work on it? What can actually affect change? 3) Can we even agree on what the definition of civiity is?

On race versus class:; this is a tough one. I tend to think that classism will outlast racism. The dominant race is different in different places around the globe. As we “globalize” the wealthy white man from the US is more likely to feel an affinity for the wealthy black man in Nigeria, than for the poor white man. It’s about power. That said, racism has something that makes it easier to apply: immediate visual cue. It’s a lazy form of prejudice. What just came into my mind as I was typing was this question: “Is racism more virulent amongst those less educated? Is it likey to be the last stronghold of racism because race is, for the most part, the easiest thing to suss out?”

Okay, these are my first random thoughts. Not thorough by any means, simple first response gut level comments. I’m sure any flaws in logic will be highlighted…..

Bobo: people do get their news from varied sources, purposefully or not. coworkers who read the NYT share news at the lunch table, sisters emailing youtube videos, and friends discussing the BBC coverage over the phone. you choose your media like you choose your friends. if you hang out with people who make sexist jokes, then Imus might be for you. If not, then you probably didn’t give him your advertising dollars’ worth in the first place.

Rahbuhbuh: I agree that it would be wonderful if everyone could get ten different perspectives on the news every day. Personally, since I live in an area with no TV reception or cable, I check websites for my news. At least 5 times a day I check (in this order) Google News, CNN, BBC, FOX, Al Jazeera. I find that it gives me an excellent grasp of what’s going on in the world.

However, for me to assume that everyone does/can/should do this is preposterous. If I only got my news from Democracy Now! I would probably be imbibing an equal amount of mis-truth as those who only get their news from FOX. Need an example: Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. All it took was a little bit of slander, and despite the best efforts of all the news networks to correct the error, enough people didn’t get the proverbial memo that it was still able to influence the election. When people miss out on the controversy, they generally believe the first thing they hear. That’s what’s so dangerous about slander.

no. let the press do as they wish and set their own standards, even FOX and NBC with their arguably slanted or sensationalist coverage. If one network or news organization’s speech is too colorful (as my grandmother would say), then let the listener/viewer change the channel. I prefer the multi-pronged approach to news coverage, let people have the option to hear stories from 10 sources and discern who’s being objective. Private spun news is better than properly sanctioned State-run news.

First; Fox news I vaugely recall the story, Correct me if I am wrong but did not FOX come out with a correction, and apology. With the Rather gate it was quite different. They ran with a story that they knew in all probability was either false or had serious questions regarding it’s truth. Their own experts even expressed concerns.

Also Rather and the network only fessed up after overwhelming evidence was thrown in their face exposing the big lie.Even after this they somehow in a convoluted sense of reasoning stated that even though the facts were wrong the story still had merit. This is why Rather came under such fire.It was not the original lie it was the cover up and denial that caused the problem. A simple admission and apology would have ended it.

Second: Ailes has a right to say what ever he likes in his private life. This is a non issue and should have no bearing on your argument, unless you are in favor of repealing the second amndt. I’m not sure why you brought up his private joke .

Third;Although I agree with you on your concern that the press seems to get away with reporting news that is false and inaccurate. (try being a conservative and listening to all the MSM outlets that constantly lie about conservatives).

We have to put free speech right at the fore front. If not, under your wishes 90% of all news outlets would be forced to shut down.

Would your rules also apply to political parties that lie? A few years ago the Dems ran adds in black communities stateing if republicans are elected black churches will be burned.

fourth: The reason Britain has different laws than the USA is because they do not have the same freedom of speech protections as we in the US have. If you are willing to give up your freedom of speech because you don’t like something FOX news said than I would suggest that you are taking your first amndt rights way to lightly.

I’m offended by the lies and distortions I hear and read from the likes of the NY Times,Boston Globe,PBS,NPR,CNN, etc. The proper recourse is exposing lies and distortion, not censorship.

One thought which has been kicking around in my head for a while: is there / should there be a difference between freedom of speech for private individuals and freedom of speech for members of the press?

I know that the word ‘censorship’ will immediately pop-up in any counter-argument on this point, but I would suggest reconsidering any absolute stance against censorship.

Aside from Imus, let me present another example of racial or ethnic defamation which went out on the airwaves recently. Fox News, in a ‘special investigation’, reported (quite falsely) that Barack Obama had attended a Wahabist / Jihadi school when he was a child in Indonesia. Shortly after that, the president of Fox News made a joke which compared “Obama” to “Osama”.

Now we can spend an entire day talking about how Fox News is full of proverbial excrement, but the fact remains that many Americans get their news from this organization. Dan Rather was crucified for his journalistic mistake. Yet the story directed against Barack Obama was not met with nearly as much scorn.

The president of Fox News can say whatever he pleases, even in public. He is, after all, a citizen. However, when a false and racially charged story is put out over the airwaves, it concerns us all. I consider this story racist because it made the assumption that all Muslims are Jihadis. (Maybe racist isn’t the proper term, maybe sectarian.)

In Britain, where slander and libel laws are much stricter than the US, Fox News would probably have been shut down a long time ago under a swarm of lawsuits. The question remains, to what extent should we govern the airwaves which supposedly belong to us? The FCC is supposed to play this role, but they spend their time worried about titties and Howard Stern. Should we, as the public, demand that ‘News’ organizations be held to a higher standard of free speech? Don’t we have a responsibility to ensure that blatant lies, racist defamations, and politically motivated slander don’t go out over our airwaves? If Fox News reported that Muslims all over the US were about to rise up and start killing infidels, would that cross the ‘shouting fire’ line? Where is that line, and is it more strict for broadcasters?