OT: Imus vs. TAFKAPacman

[Pujo]

So you're gonna tell me that there are people out there willing to buy HD screens but not pay for cable? Does that make ANY sense?

They can regulate all they want. They're only going to lose business. Then where will the sponsors go?

I'm pretty sure I recall Michael Irvin spewing a plenty.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What does HD have to do with anything? The change to DIGITAL does not mean a change to HIGH DEF. Standard Definition TV's will continue to be produced for quite a few years, and they will be able to receive over-the-air digital signals.

And yes, there will also be over-the-air HD signals (there already are), so I'm sure some people will buy HDTV's without having cable. Right now, with the cost of HDTV's, I'd be surprised if that was too common, but that's neither here nor there.

All I'm saying is that the airwaves are public & regulated, cable is not.

 

[upstater1]

So you're gonna tell me that there are people out there willing to buy HD screens but not pay for cable? Does that make ANY sense?

They can regulate all they want. They're only going to lose business. Then where will the sponsors go?

I'm pretty sure I recall Michael Irvin spewing a plenty.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense.

I get 30 channels over the air.

And the HD picture is much much much better than any HD picture on cable.

You can put them side by side and compare. I have.

Over the air, the picture blows away cable HD, because cable HD is compressed. Over the air is not. Try watching a CBS HD football game over the air sometime.

 

[Deus Irae]

There's a lot wrong with that statement. First, the FCC has statutory authority to regulate the airwaves. They do not have that authority with cable, and with subscription services like satellite TV.

Second, the "move to HD" (which isn't a move to HD at all, but a move to digital), won't change that at all. There will still be on-air TV, but people will need to have a decoder box (similar to a cable box now) to convert the signal from digital to analog. The FCC will continue to regulate the (now digital) over-the-air broadcasts, but still will not gain authority over cable & subscription services.

The FCC does regulate cable, although it does not wield a heavy hand in doing so at the moment.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

So you're gonna tell me that there are people out there willing to buy HD screens but not pay for cable? Does that make ANY sense?

Yes. I have a friend who bought an expensive SONY HDTV 4 years ago and interestingly enough, has never once watched anything in HD on it.

Then again, he's a former Teachers Union member.

 

[Pujo]

The FCC does regulate cable, although it does not wield a heavy hand in doing so at the moment.

Sure, lots of things about cable are regulated by federal, state, and local governments. I'm specifically talking about content, though. The FCC has no authority to regulate cable content, except for obscenity, which has no first amendment protection. Indecency, on the other hand, which the FCC can regulate over-the-air, they can't regulate on cable. They could not have investigated Bono's use of the F word had it occurred on cable TV, for example.

 

[Pats726]

- Voltaire

Freedom of speech isn't about the right to say something that's acceptable to others. It's about the right to say something that's NOT acceptable to others.

When you use your freedom of speech to attempt to suppress the freedom of speech of others, you are simply laying the groundwork for any and all speech, including your own, to be limited by the same means.

That's a good quote by Voltaire and I agree with that...but it hardly speaks to this issue here directly.
The times of Voltaire were a lot different than today..there was clear and open censorship of many things and society was quite a bit different.

 

[Pats726]

Sure, lots of things about cable are regulated by federal, state, and local governments. I'm specifically talking about content, though. The FCC has no authority to regulate cable content, except for obscenity, which has no first amendment protection. Indecency, on the other hand, which the FCC can regulate over-the-air, they can't regulate on cable. They could not have investigated Bono's use of the F word had it occurred on cable TV, for example.

Do qwe want to get into all the fines the FCC has leveled because of the Janet Jackson incident and years after against some shows..."NYPD Blue"..I believe. To me that is totally ridiculous...a misuse of FCC power...

 

[Pats726]

That's not an accurate analogy. The public rents airwaves for free and in return they are expected to serve a public interest. They may swap and purchase different licenses from each other, but these license must still be approved by the FCC and can be revoked at anytime. The ownership of land is a different situation. FCC deregulation has allowed for the conglomeration of spectrum with greater ease, which is a different subject, but those airwaves are still being rented for free with the expectation of a public service in return. Corporations that hold such licenses must prove they provide such a public interest every 8 years in order for renewal.

I am not sure how true that is today...with deregulation I do believe there is less review today. The words "public good"..mean a lot less now than many years ago. While they are still being rented, I do believe in many cases they are under less scrutiny....except in seems in cases of 'indecency" when the FCC head wishes to wield his stick.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's a good quote by Voltaire and I agree with that...but it hardly speaks to this issue here directly.
The times of Voltaire were a lot different than today..there was clear and open censorship of many things and society was quite a bit different.

If you don't think that there is clear and open censorship of many things in today's United States of America, I've got some bridges in the desert to sell you.

 

[Pats726]

If you don't think that there is clear and open censorship of many things in today's United States of America, I've got some bridges in the desert to sell you.

If you think it's anywhere NEAR where it was in Voltaire's time..you are just silly...

 

[Pujo]

If you don't think...

If you think

And if anyone thinks it's a good idea to pet a burning dog, they are mistaken.

 

[PatsFan24]

Dear Media:

Thanks for your interest in Don Imus over the past 24 hours.

It was fun to watch you fall all over yourselves, making assumptions and claims about him with no basis in fact. We especially like how you used the clips posted online by bloggers to do your reporting. The questions of "will he lose his job for good?" were specially entertaining.

It reminded us of April 2007, when you completely lost your minds during the Rutgers controversy, lecturing all of us on how America needed an honest discussion on race.

Now that you've heard Imus explain what he meant by his latest comments, you seem to be on to more important issues again, such as pregnancy pacts, Eliot Spitzer's hooker and what Barack Obama thinks of the Bible.

As interesting as those topics sound, we'll probably stick to listening to Imus in the morning. Not sure if you heard, but he's actually having that discussion on race all of you called for over one year ago. But then again, those conversations don't work so well in a 10 second sound bite, so you're probably not interested.

Until next time!
Imustruth.com

 

[upstater1]

Dear Media:

Thanks for your interest in Don Imus over the past 24 hours.

Why would you listen to Imus?

He said that Pacman Jones has never done a thing to warrant an arrest.

You actually agree with that craZY STATEMENT?

 

[PatsFan24]

Why would you listen to Imus?

He said that Pacman Jones has never done a thing to warrant an arrest.

You actually agree with that craZY STATEMENT?

no.......

he said there was no reason to arrest him six times

 

[JoeSixPat]

If you don't think that there is clear and open censorship of many things in today's United States of America, I've got some bridges in the desert to sell you.

Just to be clear - sponsors who decided they don't want to spend money to put Imus on the air anymore, or consumers who choose not to buy the products of those sponsors who support Imus is not censorship.

That's THEIR constitutional right to excersise those freedoms. And that need not be a bad thing.

What we need is consumers to collectivey learn that they do have a substantial amount of power in this consumer driven society and use that for good - not for censorship - but to enact positive change.

 

[upstater1]

no.......

he said there was no reason to arrest him six times

No, he said, and I quote, "Jones has never done anything to warrant arrest."

Those are his words, not mine.

 

[Patslifer]

If you don't like Imus change the frigging channel. Honestly, the media needs to get a life. Love him or hate him, who really gives a crap? No one is forcing you to listen to Imus, and the fact the guy is a "shock jock" is well documented by now.

 

[upstater1]

If you don't like Imus change the frigging channel. Honestly, the media needs to get a life. Love him or hate him, who really gives a crap? No one is forcing you to listen to Imus, and the fact the guy is a "shock jock" is well documented by now.

What the hell are you going on about?

 

[godef]

I'm not going to address Campanis's dimwittedness from many years ago (he suggested blacks don't have the lung capacity for buoyancy) and I can't see why you'd defned it, but...

...I would point out that what you're arguing about Imus has been completely nullified by Imus himself this afternoon. First off, I can't understand what you mean by "reverse racism." If Imus was saying that Jones is being profiled, well then, that's straight racism. Not reverse.

But basically Imus admitted this afternoon that he knows who Pacman Jones is and in his own defense, Imus said he thinks Jones never did anything wrong that would warrant an arrest.

Does that sound like a preposterous defense to you? It does to me.

Again, people are saying don't jump on Imus on this thread, don't be PC. Yet Imus himself is...

1. Clearly running away from accusations of racism (i.e. he makes the case that his statement was misunderstood). Which means, even Imus recognizes that his statement may have been interpreted as racist.

2. In defending himself and his intent, he says that Jones never did anything wrong to warrant arrest.

#2 makes me think he is absolutely full of crap about #1.

OK, I admit right off that I wasn't up to speed in my memory of the Campanis comment. Now that you reminded me, I'm embarrassed to have included that reference in my comment. However, though it was obviously ignorant, his comment was also rather harmless.

As pre the reverse racism thing, I didn't claim or think this was actually the case, only that this was the only possible controversy. And the reverse racism would be dependent on whether any charge of racial profiling in this situation was accurate. In other words, was Imus fair to law enforcement in general when he insinuated Pacman was the victim of profiling. Personally, I think Imus was exaggerating the case. But was his comment racist? His explanation is not unreasonable, that it was a sarcastic response in which case it made sense; the question in my mind is whether this was an honest explanation. If not, then his comment was racist.

But if it was, then that led to my summary comment, that in the greater scheme of things, I think this incident has been totally overreacted to, and is the result of those who are sensitive to being reminded of this nation's grave racial legacy.

 

[Patslifer]

What the hell are you going on about?

The fact that there are more important things to worry about, than what some shock jock says, when no one is forcing you to listen. Half the people blasting imus dont even listen to him....

Honestly, who cares?