Monday, April 09, 2007

Maybe I'll be the first, maybe not, to point out the difference in the way MSNBC responded to Imus' outrageous on-air comments with the way ABC has failed to take any disclipinary action against Rosie O'Donnell for her outrageous comments...

Imus gets suspended two weeks for saying the girls on the Princeton basketball team looked like 'nappy haired hos' (whatever that is supposed to mean)... while ABC has done nothing about Rosie O'Donnell's comments that 'radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam'... and done nothing about her using "ching chong" in referring to Chinese people... and done nothing about her implying that the US Government was involved in some way in the collapse of World Trade Center 7...

I come not to praise or defend Imus; I think he is a mean person who ought to have kept to himself his thoughts on the beauty - or lack thereof - of the girls on the Princeton basketball team. I don't know if his comments reflected a dislike of Princeton basketball or 'nappy haired hos' (again, whatever a 'nappy haired ho' is supposed to be) but, either way, his slam was rude and in poor taste.

But if Rosie O'Donnell's offensive and repeated comments establish a baseline at which no corporate discipline is warranted, I fail to see how Imus' comments can be viewed as significantly worse than what she said to the point where he ought to have been kicked off the air... heck, by what standard should his comments be viewed as even just as bad as what she has said?