Fired Radio Hosts Offer Apology for On-Air Rant

[Carolyn Marie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/26/kimberly-and-beck-apologize_n_5392631.html

Carolyn Marie

[VickySGV]

Forrest Gump said it best "Stupid is as Stupid does!"

[Guest Kaylee]

Back-paddling!

That's all there is to it!

These are the things that kill careers!

Kaylee

[Guest LizMarie]

One can only take such an apology at face value and see where it goes from there. But if they get jobs somewhere else and pull the same sort of stunt again, after a public apology like this, they're likely to find themselves facing a rough go of it trying to find jobs yet again. Hopefully they actually learned something but the cynic in me doubts it.

[Guest KimberlyF]

I dont agree with their views, but wish they didnt get fired.

[Carolyn Marie]

I dont agree with their views, but wish they didnt get fired.

Business owners and corporations don't like controversy, and hate bad publicity. They will do what they have to do to keep advertisers and customers happy. While some listeners probably liked what these two said, the adverse publicity affected the bottom line. That the company could not allow. It is a tough world out there, Kimberly. The disc jockeys went over the line, and there is a price to pay for that.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest KimberlyF]

On principle I always side on the freedom of ideas. Not just freedom of the ideas I agree with.

I get that it's a business, and all that. I don't agree with censorship or pushing people off the air in such a way. One can only be pushed off if there is implied power behind the threat. An old lady complaining because a host doesn't like her fav movie is going to be ignored. If, as stated, the listeners all liked this, but the station would make a bad business decision, then it would come about by outside pressure on advertisers. There are plenty of controversial radio personalities with huge ratings would could have said the same with no penalty. Their advertisers don't seem to care. Money talks.

So people at this station can't say this. And people in stations in Russia can't be pro-gay. In both cases, you can't silence people's ideas by shutting down their voices. Usually it ends up making them stronger for a bit anyway.

The only way to make lasting real change is not by trying to force it or shutting down discussion, but by allowing it. On the other hand,the best way to get many kids to do something is telling them they're forbidden from trying it. Many adults never move past that.

If, as assumed, these people have not changed their views but are just looking out for their careers, now instead of the enemy you know, it's the enemy among us. They are doing what we did growing up. Learning the game-what is socially acceptable, and what needs to be kept private or among people they're out to as non-trans friendly.

Instead of firing them, the station could have contacted GLAAD and asked for a few educated guests to appear on the show. There is a chance for real change and education. Now, one side is happy, and the other is outraged. Progress?

[Guest Brenda Hailey]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Ironic now those two will be struggling to find work over transgender issues now,,,,welcome to the party.

I hope they arent going to rely on the government in their search of being hired again without being discriminated against for who they are...you know,,, just toughen up and take their lumps only a nutjob would expect fair treatment for having an oversize mouth with a foot stuck in it.

If the station owner was transgender would it be a mistake firing them?

There are any number of things I could say to my clients that would get me fired from serving them. I dont expect I am immune to such action because I am "cis" or "transgender" it has everything to do with respect and the quality of my work. My company is not promoting hate as a marketing technique to sell my services so "hopefully" I have less chance of being fired for my views.

Can one be a shock jock radio host and still respect people? I dont know, but I guessing these two are going to find out the hard way. These two were simply working in the wrong market seems like to me.

Brenda Hailey

[Guest LizMarie]

Just because a particular radio personality persists, doesn't mean they aren't being slowly flushed down the toilet. As of today, over 3200 advertisers have pulled their ads from Rush Limbaugh's show, for example. He's reduced to running some pretty absurd stuff, including some "enlargement" ads from China. In major markets like Los Angeles, he's down to 39th place in the ratings and falling. Yet to listen to major media, he's still a major force in talk radio. Clear Channel has been slowly pulling his plug because consumers complained to advertisers who decided they did not want to advertise on the radio show of a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, transphobic bigot. Eventually, he's going to start getting dropped completely instead of being shoved to lower stations on the totem pole. And not just him, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and others are experiencing the same sort of backlash.

These station owners here have every right to act in what they believe is the best interest of their business, so long as such actions are in accordance with the law. These radio hosts did something that the station owners rightly feared would cost them business and they acted out of their own economic self interest as much as out of any moral imperative. Free speech as accorded by the first amendment simply precludes government from punishing you for your speech. If I ran around my company's office screaming the N-word at every black person, exactly how long do you think I'd have a job? After I was fired, I could still use that word but my employer has no obligation to tolerate that. (For the record, I am not a racist and have never once used that word against anyone. I was simply creating an example here.)

These hosts crossed a line and the station owners have rights just like the talk show hosts. They don't have to put up with that under the law so they did not. As a note, this is exactly why laws protecting certain minority groups are needed. The default perspective in US law is "default allow" and groups are only protected if specifically listed in laws stating such. This is why the constitution itself was insufficient to counter widespread cultural racism and why we ended up with the Civil Rights Act. It's also why we need laws like ENDA for the LGBT community.

Finally, the argument that the only real way to make lasting change is to allow things to persist as they are is fallacious. If that was true, why did the situation of US blacks not improve drastically from the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation until the late 1950s, when the Civil Rights movement began gathering steam? Why did we see extensive social changes in the US since the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960s.

The canard that things will simply change on their own over time for the better also begs the question of how long should people suffer before society decides to treat them with respect? One year? Ten? Two generations? Two centuries? When stated like that, it immediately becomes apparent just how absurd that meme actually is.

Sometimes society needs a swift kick in the pants to get moving in a just and moral direction. Sometimes those swift kicks are delivered by private individuals, like these station owners. Sometimes these swift kicks are delivered with the hand of government, like the Civil Rights Act.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Just because a particular radio personality persists, doesn't mean they aren't being slowly flushed down the toilet. As of today, over 3200 advertisers have pulled their ads from Rush Limbaugh's show, for example. He's reduced to running some pretty absurd stuff, including some "enlargement" ads from China. In major markets like Los Angeles, he's down to 39th place in the ratings and falling. Yet to listen to major media, he's still a major force in talk radio. Clear Channel has been slowly pulling his plug because consumers complained to advertisers who decided they did not want to advertise on the radio show of a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, transphobic bigot. Eventually, he's going to start getting dropped completely instead of being shoved to lower stations on the totem pole. And not just him, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and others are experiencing the same sort of backlash.

I think this is less backlash, and more the political talk format dying. People are growing increasingly sick of both parties and don't want to listen to people bash one while making excuses for the other for doing the exact same things in the past. It isn't like someone on the left is stepping up into the void left by any of the above. Ed Schultz is doing internet only and Piers Morgan's obsessive anti-gun rhetoric didn't win him any ratings.

But Rush Limbaugh could make the same jokes and have a job next week, and has said many things over the years that make this pale in comparison.

These people were fired within days.

Finally, the argument that the only real way to make lasting change is to allow things to persist as they are is fallacious.

strawman claim that was never made so I don't have to address the rest.

As of this moment, I can have a different opinion and people won't hunt me down and go after my job and look to out me. Well, I should rephrase that. The vast majority of civilized people won't do that simply because I have a difference of opinion on how these people should have been treated. But I'm sure some would read my words and want to hurt me in some way. Just to shut me up. Maybe lean on my place of employment. It is a weapon that has been mentioned as a tool to silence the opposition. I think it's heavy handed.

Again, it's great if you're side is the one willing to do it. But what if they decide to silence you.

Of course the radio station has a right to do what they want. The initial reports were a suspension, but then they were pressured. I don't blame the radio station in this.

And I understand the first amendment and what it means. But I have my own moral code. I believe in freedom of speech the same as I am against murder. It doesn't matter what the laws of the land are or if I were in international waters or on the moon. If I can restrict your speech, then why shouldn't you be allowed to restrict mine? Of course one shouldn't yell fire, but I don't think people have a right to not be offended. I am much more liberal in my own definition of free speech.

From my last post I shared an idea from the top of my head:"Instead of firing them, the station could have contacted GLAAD and asked for a few educated guests to appear on the show. There is a chance for real change and education." One may or may not agree with me, but it was an idea and it wasn't stay the course.

Is that "the argument that the only real way to make lasting change is to allow things to persist as they are"?