quote: Former radio talk show host Don Imus has hired one of the country's top trial lawyers to sue CBS Radio following his dismissal last month for making racial and sexual on-air comments about members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team.
Attorney Martin Garbus told CNN Wednesday that he has agreed to represent Imus in a wrongful breach of contract suit against his former employer.
quote: Imus had $40 million remaining on a multiyear contact that began in 2006 and included a clause that CBS wanted him to be "irreverent" and "controversial," according to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who was shown part of the contract.
So the situation stands thus, in my reasoning.
Imus makes gaffe
Imus attacked (not physically attacked, you know what I mean) by civil rights/anti-discriminatory groups.
Imus apologizes publicly Imus apologizes publicly
Imus is publicly sacked
Imus claims that he had a riht to be "contraversial", and sues CBS for breach of contract.
posted
Well, if they really did contract him to be "irreverent" and "controversial," he certainly fulfilled his end of the deal.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He has a point. If that is in his contract then they don't have much to say. That being said, CBS can still get him for conduct detrimental to the company. Much like military courts almost always getting someone on "Conduct Unbecoming".
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they fired him for simply causing a public outcry, that's one thing; but I think they were within their rights in firing him if he had become a liability. I didn't follow the story closely enough to know if advertisers had begun pulling out, but if they were then Imus was no longer an asset to the broadcasters.
posted
Apparently he was too irreverent and controversial.
I think they wanted him to be controversial enough to get free publicity for the show...but not so much as to damage CBS itself. It's a fine line, and Imus crossed it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what little I have heard from Imus, those comments were not the worst he has ever said. I wonder what made this comment explode as big as it did?
Either way, good riddance. I don't mind hard core, adult themed shows, I just don't like them over the public airwaves.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm of the opinion that racist statements definitely cross the line of "contraversial and irreverent".
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And he...what...doesn't know that there is a difference between being irreverent and controversial and being a racist, sexist jerk?
Please. I don't know which is more stupid...this lawsuit or the judge that is suing his dry cleaners for something like $64 million for losing a pair of his pants.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And he...what...doesn't know that there is a difference between being irreverent and controversial and being a racist, sexist jerk?
Can you explain the difference?
Well, yeah...Just discuss controversial subjects or topics that some people hold sacred without using racist epithets or insulting people based on their gender or sexual orientation.
Watch Keith Olbermann sometime. He is often controversial and irreverent (and very funny)...heck, he's sometimes (often) witheringly insulting to people he thinks are less than the sharpest crayons in the box...but I've never heard him using racist or sexist language. I suspect the same is true about Jon Stewart, but I haven't seen his show enough to know that for a fact.
I don't know, maybe our culture has devolved to the point where it is impossible to get a laugh from some audiences (which, I assume, is what Imus was trying to do) without insulting someone based on their ethnicity or gender. I hope not, and I hope that most people can discuss (for laughs or seriously) controversial topics or things like religion, where irreverence is most likely to occur, without having to call names, be they racist or sexist.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, yeah...Just discuss controversial subjects or topics that some people hold sacred without using racist epithets or insulting people based on their gender or sexual orientation.
So, he's supposed to be irreverent while holding race, gender, and sexual orientation sacred.
What makes those three particular things so special that they are off limits, whereas everything else is fair game?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMA, I agree with Porter. I'm afraid that 'controversial and irreverant' are such subjective terms that to define them as precisely as you are doing is an exercise in futility.
At what point does a racist remark go from irreverant to intolerable? Is Mel Brooks crossing the line when he played Rabbi Tuckman?
Edit:
quote:...sometimes (often) witheringly insulting to people he thinks are less than the sharpest crayons in the box...
I'm curious: why is it acceptable to be rude and insulting on the basis of their perceived stupidity, and not on their race, gender, or nationality?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...race, gender, and sexual orientation...What makes those three particular things so special that they are off limits, whereas everything else is fair game?"
posted
CBS should pay Imus because of the contract they signed with him. CBS can put him on the 'bench' but they should be forced to honor the contract that they signed with him. Imus was doing what CBS paid him to do, so if they want to break his contract they should have to pay him.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
