Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Remarks made by a popular DJ (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=229831)

  • Jun 23, 2008, 10:16 AM
    Tuscany
    Remarks made by a popular DJ
    Below is a article written by a popular DJ in the Rochester NY area. People in the area are calling for him to resign. While I might not agree with what he says (then again I might). Either way I am all for freedom of speech. I would like to add, the last time he had a run in like this he called our African American Mayor a monkey. I have a very biased view on anything he says...but would like others opinions.


    Bob Lonsberry's column for Monday, June 16, 2008.
    Bob Lonsberry's column for 06/16/08, Now removed from His Web Site

    Déjà vu ALL OVER AGAIN

    Today in Rochester, shortly before noon, a group of black activists will call for me to be fired.

    They will call me a racist.

    Their claim is baseless, but it was the last time, too. And the last time I got fired.

    So we'll see how this goes.

    If worse comes to worse, I've got six months of severance in my contract and a book deal to fall back on.

    Here's their beef: I criticized a program that honors “black scholars” and a newspaper story that praised pregnant teen-agers who graduate from high
    School.

    Actually, I did a lot more than criticize them, I ripped them from stem to stern. I think that the program and the story are examples of a sinister tendency to praise failure and mediocrity, and to offer false respect and honor for inadequate performance.

    This tendency is sinister because it lulls people into thinking that second-best is good, when it isn't. It deceives them into being satisfied with less than their best. In short, false praise dooms people by throwing water on the fires of ambition and drowning out the desire for excellence.

    First, the pregnant teens.

    The newspaper – all newspapers – periodically runs ridiculous stories about teen-age mothers who get their high school diplomas. These young women are praised and petted and given special honors and called courageous and strong.

    Which is insane.

    The courageous and strong young women are the ones who kept their pants on. With out-of-wedlock births tied to a whole slew of social pathologies and failures, and with African-Americans particularly troubled by out-of-wedlock births, these unmarried teen pregnancies should be discouraged, not facilitated.

    I said on the radio that they should write newspaper stories about girls who do what's right and excel. I said that they should particularly honor girls from troubled neighborhoods, where out-of-wedlock birth is so high, who don't get pregnant and who go on to graduate.

    Honors should be for those who do right and deserve them. We should hold up as examples, in our newspapers and in life, those who have faced difficulty, made the right choices and excelled. Those people should be honored, not those who have messed up.

    The other thing has to do with the “black scholars” program. This is a deal where black kids who have a B or above get their name and picture in the paper as “black scholars.”

    This program irks me, and it should deeply offend every black mom and dad.

    Why?

    Because it sets a lower standard for black kids. If you get a B and you're white, you're average, you don't make the honor roll or the merit roll or whatever they call it. If you get a B and you're black, you get your name and your picture in the paper and you're a “black scholar.”

    Why?

    How does that make sense? And what do you think happens if you tell white kids that a B is mediocre and you tell black kids that a B is a big enough deal to get your picture in the paper? Isn't it racist to expect less from one group of people than another? Shouldn't the bar be set at one level for everybody? Don't different expectations result in different outcomes?

    If you praise black kids for doing less than white kids, don't you set those black kids up for failure when they ultimately have to compete head-to-head with white kids?

    Isn't it condescending to expect less of black kids and to give them false praise? And doesn't that false praise hurt people by lowering their motivation and standard of accomplishment?

    If you tell one group of runners that 25 seconds is a fast time in the 100-yard dash and you tell another group of runners that 10 seconds is a fast time in a 100-yard dash, which group do you think is going to tend to run faster?

    And haven't we sold black kids short long enough?

    Haven't we learned that lowered expectations lead to lower outcomes? Isn't that a fundamental aspect of human nature?

    And when we praise sub-standard performance, don't we cheat those who truly achieve? Don't we steal their thunder and take away some of the motivation for others to excel?

    If the newspaper stories lionized City School District girls who did not get pregnant, wouldn't that honor true achievement and hold out a good example for others to follow? If the “black scholars” program put the pictures of African-American students who got an A+, or were above a 95, wouldn't that honor true achievement and hold out a good example for others to follow?

    Shouldn't those who've actually done something good get the praise?

    What's unfortunate is that these programs exist at all. They are a curse that weighs down an entire community. The only people who praise them are those who make money off them or who can gain political capital by advocating them.
    I think someone who lowers standards for anyone – including African-Americans – is an enemy, not a friend.

    City teen-age girls, and black students in high school, are in no way inferior or second fiddle to anyone. They have just as much innate ability to make moral and wise decisions, and to achieve academically, as anybody.

    Setting lower standards for them – as this story did and this program does – is disrespectful and offensive. Criticizing that lowering of standards is not attacking the black community, it is defending it.

    I stand by what I said.

    Because I was right.

    But we'll see how this plays out. The right thing to do would be to tell these activists to go pound salt. But there are a lot of other factors involved. Rochester is home of the powerful congresswoman who is pushing the new “Fairness Doctrine” that would end conservative talk radio. And the Democrats are about four months away from taking the country over lock, stock and barrel.

    The odds are that a few no-names are going to get thrown to the beast to buy time and cover for the industry, and there's nothing to say I couldn't be one of those.

    All I know for sure is this. Rochester's urban black community is falling in on itself. The perfect storm of personal and social dysfunction is crushing lives on a daily basis. After decades of politically correct social programs, things are worse than they've ever been – and that's not a coincidence. Many of Rochester's so-called black “leaders” are interested in nothing more than feathering their own nests -- in filling their purse or building their political base or stroking their ego.

    And more babies are born without fathers and families, more people slide into welfare, lawlessness increases, educational failure is epidemic, more people are murdered, drugs and alcohol trap more and more, and none of that is the fault of the guy on the radio.

    But it's easier to hold press conferences about me than it is to actually do something that does anybody any good.

    So the attack begins today.

    Only time will tell how it turns out.

    By Bob Lonsberry © 2008
  • Jun 23, 2008, 10:23 AM
    N0help4u
    Unfortunately when you go against any organization for what they believe no matter how wrong what they are saying is it makes you a racist or politically incorrect and open for
    Problems. People hide under their organization to promote things that may have no bases of being right but since they are advocating whatever they have rights that protect them.
    The left wants the fairness doctrine because they can not get any success with their own radio programs so it kills them to see the republicans being heard.
    From what you are saying it sounds like you would do better to get Bill Cosby to back you
    Because he is black and says the same thing.
  • Jun 23, 2008, 10:37 AM
    Synnen
    FWIW, I agree with the guy.

    I think that programs like those he is denouncing are worthless to society as a whole, for exactly the same reasons he listed.

    The problem is: people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, or the actions of their organization. By setting the bar low, it makes their organization look that much more successful--and it makes it so that no one else holds THEM to a high standard.

    I feel the same way about the "No Child Left Behind" policy, too. If you can't learn at the level of your peers, you SHOULD be left behind. Classes should NOT be taught to the lowest denominator, but to the highest. Standards should not be set so that anyone can meet them, they should be set so that only the best and brightest can reach them--or the most ambitious.
  • Jun 23, 2008, 10:37 AM
    Tuscany
    Nohelp- I am not saying that I agree or disagree with his beliefs. I just don't think he should lose his job over it.

    Edit: Synn just saw your post. As an educator I agree 110% with what you say with regards to the No Child Left Behind. We are helping nobody with NCLB, it hurts those students who are not at grade level, and it hurts those that are above. We should teach to the child not to the test and or standard.
  • Jun 23, 2008, 10:42 AM
    Synnen
    Oh... and he shouldn't be fired for his opinion. Nothing he said (if that article is the whole story) is in any way racist.

    If I were him, though, I'd start a "white scholars" program. You have to have a B average, and you get your picture in the paper. Wonder how many people would scream about THAT? Yet it's perfectly okay to have a "black scholars" program... um... where's the racism here?
  • Jun 23, 2008, 10:47 AM
    N0help4u
    Yeah he should not but it is that we are being conditioned to accept losing freedom of speech by anything that does not go along with society as hate speech.

    Meant the guy, not you, was easier to type you to type as fast as I was thinking and then forgot to change the you to the DJ.

    I have said for 20 years how wrong I think the No child left behind and the 'everybody gets a trophy so that no child feels bad' is wrong because if they are further behind when they get to high school then it is harder for them and when all kids get trophies the ones who earned it feel why did they try so hard.
  • Jun 23, 2008, 10:58 AM
    tomder55
    He will get " Imused "
  • Jun 23, 2008, 10:59 AM
    N0help4u
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    he will get " Imused "

    I was thinking that too.
  • Jun 23, 2008, 11:01 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    he will get " Imused "

    Not the same, the DJ didn't use demeaning terms like "nappy headed hos".
  • Jun 23, 2008, 11:16 AM
    N0help4u
    That doesn't mean they will not fire him for what he said.
    They will still find a way to use the same reasoning to fire him.
  • Jun 23, 2008, 11:37 AM
    tomder55
    The broadcasting company doesn't have the guts to face an organized protest against it so they will succumb.
  • Jun 23, 2008, 05:04 PM
    magprob
    Who died and left this guy in charge of dictating what high moral standards are anyway. In Africa, the girls are ripe for childbirth at 12 or 13. They are traded for a few goats or pigs and become a wife.
    If you are a white, American christian, this may be appalling to you but then, the puritanical belief system is fading fast. These days, anything goes so get used to it.
    If you can't get used to it, who died and left you in charge of dictating the high moral standards for others anyway?
  • Jun 24, 2008, 02:24 AM
    tomder55
    Well for one thing there are laws about age of consent. That is not me or the DJ but the people deciding that .
  • Jun 24, 2008, 04:48 AM
    Tuscany
    I guess that is my thing. He might think all these things which is absolutely fine, but saying them would absolutely have reprecussions. While I do not think that the comments made by the above DJ are as racially harsh (is that the correct term) as that said by Imus, I am unsure as what the aboves DJ's reprecussions should be.
  • Jun 24, 2008, 05:27 AM
    tomder55
    There is a simple equation to follow . If his ratings suffer he should be canned. But he will go because the next step in these lynchings is to pressure advertisers of the show to drop their ads.
  • Jun 24, 2008, 05:35 AM
    NeedKarma
    The people who are offended will turn the dial, those who love this kind of sensationalism will keep on listening. Guess which way the american public will go?
  • Jun 24, 2008, 05:52 AM
    Tuscany
    Well I know what way I went... dial turned
  • Jun 24, 2008, 07:22 AM
    excon
    Hello T:

    I don't know. It appears that he didn't SAY these things on the air. He wrote them on his blog. I don't know what difference that makes...

    Actually, I do. We have a jillion blogs. The government doesn't license blogs. It DOES license the airways, because they're limited. He isn't bound by the same regulations if he WRITES stuff, than if he SAID the same stuff. When he writes it on his blog, there's no mistaking HIS opinion from his BOSSES.

    So no, he shouldn't be fired.

    excon
  • Jun 24, 2008, 07:29 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    I dunno. It appears that he didn't SAY these things on the air. He wrote them on his blog. I dunno what difference that makes.......

    Actually, I do. We have a jillion blogs. The government doesn't license blogs. It DOES license the airways, because they're limited. He isn't bound by the same regulations if he WRITES stuff, than if he SAID the same stuff. When he writes it on his blog, there's no mistaking HIS opinion from his BOSSES.

    So no, he shouldn't be fired.

    excon

    Wait, I didn't get that from the original post but you are correct, it's text from his blog not a transcript from his show, and yes, it does make a difference for the exact reason you mentioned.
    No, he should not be fired. Of course if his listenership (is that a word?:)) declines drastically because of it or if he violated a clause in his contract then he may be discipline then he may indeed be disciplined by his employer.
  • Jun 24, 2008, 07:48 AM
    Tuscany
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Hello T:

    I dunno. It appears that he didn't SAY these things on the air. He wrote them on his blog. I dunno what difference that makes.......

    Actually, I do. We have a jillion blogs. The government doesn't license blogs. It DOES license the airways, because they're limited. He isn't bound by the same regulations if he WRITES stuff, than if he SAID the same stuff. When he writes it on his blog, there's no mistaking HIS opinion from his BOSSES.

    So no, he shouldn't be fired.

    excon

    It is a blog that he wrote in response to comments made on his morning show.
  • Jun 24, 2008, 12:12 PM
    Emland
    The Freedom of Speech is a concept many people misunderstand. Many think the Freedom of Speech allows you to say whatever you want, whenever you want and nothing bad will happen to you because you are excercising your Right.

    The truth of the matter is the Freedom of Speech allows you to say whatever you like without having to fear being thrown in jail as long as what you say isn't fraudulent or causes a panic.

    The Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from being fired if you say something that angers the customer base and causes problems for management. The Dixie Chicks went on years ago that they were being "censored." When your own demographic tells you to kiss off and stops buying your product, you aren't being censored, that was the consequence of your Freedom of Speech.

    No one is going to arrest this fellow for his opinion on unwed mothers and academic levels. I happen to agree with his point. However, he had to know that making this bold statement could cause big problems and that is the consequence that he will have to live with. Freedom isn't free.
  • Jun 24, 2008, 01:09 PM
    Synnen
    I agree with Emland. He can SAY whatever he wants, as long as it's not an outright lie, or not dangerous in general. His CONTRACT, however, probably prevents him from saying things that would detrimentally affect his employer. That's the same in ANY business.

    What his Freedom of Speech DOES protect, though, is the right to say those things without being thrown in jail. It's also unlikely that the groups he was talking about would be able to successfully sue him for his comments, because they are, in a sense, true--as true as any opinion can be.

    Should he lose his job? I don't know. It depends on what his contract says, and what sorts of things he USUALLY says on his show. If it's the kind of show where that sort of topic is discussed regularly, and the only difference is the groups targeted for comment, then why should he lose his job? If, however, the comments were totally out of line from what his show usually is--well, you're not allowed to have a bad day when you work in the public's eye. Changing your show without taking into account your listeners and your employer is a really bad idea.

    Is what he said derrogatory? I don't believe so. I believe that his comments were pointing out a problem with what people expect from others---and from themselves. Had he made a similar point at a high school graduation, about not letting others set the bar low for you--he probably would have been cheered. He didn't minimize the accomplishments of the groups he talked about---he talked about how those accomplishments had been diminished to begin with, to make them achievable. He pointed out OTHER accomplishments, ones that were not given enough recognition, and all of a sudden he's a bad guy?

    Maybe I need to hear the original show to hear exactly how offensive his wording was on-air. But really--telling people to stop accepting the mediocre as achievements isn't a truly horrible thing to say.
  • Jun 24, 2008, 04:08 PM
    Skell
    IMO he makes sense with what he said. Tom, to compare what he said with Imus's remarks was one of your sillier posts.
  • Jun 25, 2008, 04:37 AM
    tomder55
    Not at all . He is undergoing a "lynching " by the PC crowd.
  • Jun 25, 2008, 04:40 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    not at all . He is undergoing a "lynching " by the pc crowd.

    What's your alternative, one can say and do anything they please?
  • Jun 25, 2008, 04:45 AM
    tomder55
    The DJ is subject to the rules of the company that hires him and to the few restrictions on language that the FCC has imposed. To date there is not restriction on the free expression of ideas ;and I don't want them. The market place knows how to deal with those who go over the line.
  • Jun 25, 2008, 04:52 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    The market place knows how to deal with those who go over the line.

    Isn't that exactly what's happening?
  • Jun 25, 2008, 04:57 AM
    tomder55
    In a way ;but the market that counts in my books in this case is the dj's ratings. If people don't like what he says they won't listen.
  • Jun 25, 2008, 06:50 AM
    Tuscany
    The owners of the radio station have supported the dj, but also issued a statement saying that they support the listeners right to disagree.

    Personally I think he overstepped his bounds on this one and action should be taken. I am just not sure what.
  • Jun 26, 2008, 09:26 AM
    inthebox
    Bill Cosby said things in a similar vein - truthful to the point of being harsh, and the PC establishment criticized him.

    While I agree with the dj's statements, I do think that teenage mothers should be praised for graduating HS, because 1] they chose to have the child - not an abortion. 2] they had more obstacles to overcome compared to non pregnant teens.

    Why is there no outcry for the boys that get these girls pregnant? Are they manning up and standing by her and the child? Are they financially, emotionally supporting the family they created? All the focus is on the pregnant female, because it is obvious, how about calling out the boys that get them pregnant?
  • Jun 26, 2008, 10:25 AM
    Synnen
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox
    Bill Cosby said things in a similar vein - truthful to the point of being harsh, and the PC establishment criticized him.

    While I agree with the dj's statements, I do think that teenage mothers should be praised for graduating HS, because 1] they chose to have the child - not an abortion. 2] they had more obstacles to overcome compared to non pregnant teens.

    Why is there no outcry for the boys that get these girls pregnant? Are they manning up and standing by her and the child? Are they financially, emotionally supporting the family they created? All the focus is on the pregnant female, because it is obvious, how about calling out the boys that get them pregnant?

    By your logic, girls that choose adoption should be even MORE praised--not only did they not choose adoption, but they gave a childless couple a chance at a family. AND they're not a burden on society. Plus, they have even MORE obstacles to overcome, since they have to deal with some pretty serious forms of depression while going to school, along with the stigma of having been pregnant (and therefore not a "good" girl) plus the stigma from choosing adoption (how could you give your baby away? Didn't you LOVE him/her?) from their peers, and without the consolation of having a baby to show off.

    Girls who get pregnant have a different set of obstacles to overcome than other high school students, but I certainly don't think it's any MORE challenging than, say, a student from a poor family who needs to work to help support the family, maintain good grades in school so that he/she has a chance at a scholarship, and help take care of younger siblings. And it's not more challenging than living in a neighborhood where doing drugs in high school is the norm, and breaking away from that.

    We shouldn't be rewarding the kids that got themselves into trouble and then made the best of it. We should be rewarding the ones that avoided the trouble to begin with.

    Or --let's be novel here--let's reward kids in school for how well they do academically, regardless of their circumstances! You never know what is going on behind closed doors, so you can have no idea how hard or how easy the challenges in the rest of a student's life are to overcome. The kid that everyone likes, and that gets decent grades, is popular, on student council, and is captain of the basketball team might go home every night to an abusive parent. And two kids that came from good families, with decent money, and supportive parents, but were bullied by their peers shot 12 of their classmates then themselves 9 years ago at Columbine.

    So I guess my position is that the SCHOOL should reward kids for good grades or other academic achievements. Planned Parenthood (or some similar organization) can reward those teen parents that graduate. The Black Youth Organization can support and reward black kids that get a B average on their report card. Local churches can reward kids that make it through school and still stuck to their morals.

    Doesn't that make more sense?

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:37 AM.