On Apr 16, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Derek Kalweit wrote:
> That sounds like perfect context for someone getting their facts from
> the media. If you, however, actually listened to the show, you'd know
> it was something more like this.
"More like"?
> Once(not a 'habit'), this happened.
Around the incident in question, yes. But after his firing, there
was a segment on him on WHAM-TV, and they played at least 3 other
times in prior mayoral campaigns where he used monkey noises and
references.
> Lonsberry regularly hosted a
> 5-minute "listener's on the loose" segment to end his show each day--
> each caller got on the air, unscreened, and got to say anything they
> wanted(usually about 10-20 seconds; they were cut off if they went
> over). There was a dump button of course.
>
> The day the monkey escaped from the zoo, a listener played monkey
> noises over the phone during his 10 seconds or so. Lonsberry replied,
> laughing(as he almost always does, making a short comment on the
> caller), and made a comment regarding the monkey escaping the zoo and
> how maybe he'd run for county executive.
No, no 'maybe' about it. Lonsberry said "a monkey's loose up at the
zoo again--and he's running for county executive."
> Yes, this can be interpreted as racist by some-- particularly those
> looking for it. To me, listening to it live, I took it as "even a
> monkey could do better than the fools that are running".
Either you're delusional, or you've lived to long in the lily-white
outskirts.
You don't equate a monkey and a black man unless you're trying to
insult him because of his race. If you don't understand that, well,
good luck if you ever leave your sheltered little corner of the world.
Also, since Lonsberry supported the current executive at the time,
it would be hard to claim that he was insulting all people in that
position.
> What Imus said, which I fully support(free speech is free speech-- if
> it offends or not), was far more direct and far more 'racist', IMO.
In your opinion? How could anyone construe it otherwise? Imus
directly referenced them, while Lonsberry was more subtle.
> If free speech didn't offend people, we wouldn't need laws
> defending it....
'Free speech' has nothing at all to do with it. The 1st Amendment
protects the station, not any individual broadcasting on that
station. It also protects the right of people who think that people
who use such racial crud are jerks to speak out against them. It also
protects the right of advertisers to vote with their wallets and only
advertise on shows that they feel enhances their public image.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
