Besides giving 52 craps (where two is the minimum for caring), I see the story from the point of view of morning/afternoon Zoo Crew radio being about done. This is just the first volley.

Unfortunately, this also means that we're going to hearing screechy protests from Bubba the Love Sponge, Opie and Anthony, and everyone who wants to be them about 1st Amendment rights for the next x+1 years.

Which they are entitled to. The only question is who will be willing to sponsor them while they use them.

Sent by Drew Johnson | 11:47 PM ET | 04-12-2007

Luke,

I actually participated in a panel discussion on Michel Martin's show Tell Me More several hours ago, and that seemed fine for them since they tried to look at the story from how someone like me -- a white male, not a female or African American -- felt about the whole snafu. That was their angle, but there were many other general panel discussions about the issue. So unless you look at it the Imus debacle from some unique point-of-view like Martin's crew, an interview or panel discussion is run of the mill.

I would suggest that you chronicle the history of "shock jocks." What's common between men like Imus, Howard Stern, and Rush Limbaugh? What happens when they're fired from one gig? How about shock jocks in other countries? Are they much different from our own?

Concerning the Duke story, why not investigate to see how socioeconomic relations have changed in the community surrounding the university since the brouhaha erupted?

Sent by Steve Petersen | 1:01 AM ET | 04-13-2007

How about exploring this event from a viewpoint of "Is this really news?" An angle could be exploring how broadcast outlets (NPR, CBS, CNN, etc.) decided how much coverage to give to the Imus firing. What stories did not make it to the airwaves because of the Imus story?

Sent by Sandy H | 9:16 AM ET | 04-13-2007

Is it ever ok for anyone in the public eye to purposely make a negative comment or judge someone they do not even know personally--even if it is for a laugh or shock value? How about discussing the Imus situation compared to the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud? I think it goes beyond the racial aspect--he said something mean about people he has never even met, just for the heck of it. We try to teach our children to be kind to one another, we try to stop them from spreading hurtful rumors and picking on each other in schools, but then they see the exact opposite behavior from adults when every other magazine on the shelf is a gossip rag (usually full of lies) and talk show hosts are making fun of celebrities and politicians every day & night (or cracking on innocent b-ball players) and not only is it ok, it's enjoyable. Can't we all just be nice to each other people?!?

Sent by Amy | 10:02 AM ET | 04-13-2007

When something race-related like Imus' comments or Duke lacrosse happens, I always find it interesting how much controversy it generates, how willing the media (controlled by rich, white men) is to jump on it. Does this lead to any productive discussion? Does the media learn or teach any lessons from what happened to Imus or the lacrosse team?

I tend to think not. The race issue subsides after a week or so, and we can all go back to pretending it's not there. What these major news events that the 24 hour cycle feeds off bury is any kind of coverage on the issues that are always there, and don't cease to be issues when Anna Nicole Smith goes and dies in a hotel room.

So what I would like to see are interviews with people talking about what lessons we really should be taking home from Imus and Duke lacrosse... and how they would have liked to see it handled differently.

Sent by LP | 1:02 PM ET | 04-13-2007

Actually, I really like the idea of asking the Rutgers team about the Duke Case, and how about vice versa as well. I doubt you would get anything very interesting by calling the Duke dorms. And re: "Concerning the Duke story, why not investigate to see how socioeconomic relations have changed in the community surrounding the university since the brouhaha erupted?" - are you kidding me? Briefly -- they have not. One of the main things that interested me at the time as a local resident was the total media zoo--Duke has overhauled their policies around media on campus as a result. They were blind-sided. It was interesting to suddenly be worthy of interest to the likes of Juan Williams.
The controversies the erupted on campus, the faculty "Group of 88" and their ad of support for the victim, the econ department's letter in response, etc.

Sent by jd | 3:04 PM ET | 04-13-2007

It seems you're looking for a different angle that hasn't been done to death by the rest of the media, and that's good; a few possibilities come to mind.

For the Imus story:
- How the economics of media (in this case, radio) determine who gets to stay on the air, and who goes. An earlier commenter said that the media is controlled by rich, white men; I think it's controlled by the money, which is controlled by the ratings, which is controlled by us, the viewers and listeners. It seems NPR is in a good position to analyze this.
- Imus didn't create the term "ho" to describe African-American women. Are there any groups, organizations or leaders (especially African-American leaders) working to make this term unacceptable in music? Again, there's the money angle.

For the Duke case:
- This might be a good time to check with others who have been wrongfully accused and convicted in popular opinion before ever getting a chance to defend themselves (the accused Olympic bomber comes to mind). How have they dealt with this in the long run?

Sent by Joel Brown | 11:57 AM ET | 04-14-2007

Imus: All of the outrage seems to have come from people who wouldn't listen to him anyway. How about tracking down those who actually were avid listeners, and get their responses?

Duke: We've got on our hands an overzealous prosecutor who's been publicly disgraced and well on his way to being disbarred... because he was overzealous against the wrong kids. How about finding some far more common examples of overzealous prosecution against poor and/or minority defendants? How were their lives affected? Where was the media? Where was the public outrage?

Sent by Nick | 1:03 PM ET | 04-14-2007

The Duke story points to the issue that we almost never hear or see: racism among blacks, rather than whites. I don't call it "reverse racism" as some do since that some how justifies it. It's simply racism.

What makes both the Imus and Duke story important is that in concerns race in America. It's just about the only thing that I think could ruin our country and yet we only pay attention to it when some shock jock says something - one of many inappropriate things he apparently has said.

The Duke incident has the potential of exploring real racial tensions, but instead most stories now focus on the "rogue" prosecutor. Let's instead focus on the black community's initial reaction, its willingness to rush to judgment. To believe that a bunch of rich "white boys," also a racial slur, would obviously take advantage of a black woman.

And speaking of that black woman: Why do we know so little about her? Why aren't we hearing about investigation of her and her false statements to police authorities? She, apparently, gets a pass.

Sent by David Kolhoff | 3:12 PM ET | 04-15-2007

I listened to coverage of these stories from a perspective I don't often hear in my hometown--Seattle--while I was driving through the South this week. Listening to radio hosted by and targeted to a black audience gave me a perspective that was really lacking in the rest of the press. I wish I could have heard that on NPR.

Interview Michael Eric Dyson, interview Tim Wise, interview Peggy McIntosh, interview someone who actually knows something about race in America and let your show be where people my age wish the rest of the media was--getting real about race and willing to challenge the dominant discourse. It's not about racism--its about whiteness and how terrified me and other white people are to talk about or understand it.

Take some risks, and use this as an opportunity to start talking about white culture. Locate yourself in the discussion and be real about your own ignorance or anxiety about talking about race.

What's so great about Jon Stewart is that he doesn't pretend to be above the discussion, objective or especially informed. He says: "I'm a guy who who finds this story baffling, amazing. Don't you--dear viewer?"

Then he asks the same questions we all have: "how can anyone think it's o.k. to say such racist s**t?" "What does it say about race relations in America that we could all be whipped-sawed by guilt about the Duke case one minute, and indigant the next?"

Stewart's honest, he's self-aware, and he's like you and me: humble about our own knowledge, incredulous about the hubris of everyone else, willing to joke, swear (o.k. you can leave that out), and wonder out loud how weird and sick it all is. Be real, locate yourself in the story, and don't be afraid to look at the deeper issues.

That's what you need to do, IMHO.

Sent by Bruce | 12:34 AM ET | 04-16-2007

I am sick of hearing about Imus already. And Virginia Tech. Skip both of these stories.

Sent by Scott K. | 12:44 AM ET | 04-19-2007

I am very curious (Albeit it's definitely voyeuristic and none of my damn business I suppose) about Imus's radio/tv buddy that actually originated the racial "ho" comment. When I first read about the story, Imus was simply repeating what this other guy said. I'm surprised no one has talked about this. I am wondering if Imus wants to kill this guy who lost him his empire by saying something pretty dumb and explosive, meaning to be funny and Don just repeats it cause he's only half awake for those morning broadcasts anyway. Have they had "words" or this? Probably nobody cares but from a human interest standpoint, I am curious about this (Not curious about the discussion of Imus's responsiblity in repeating etc.. just the human to human factor.)

Sent by Maggie | 8:25 AM ET | 04-20-2007

I agree with David Kolhoff in regards to the Duke case. I think we should be looking at why it was okay for the NAACP and other black community leaders to not have to apologize for their remarks and actions early in the Duke lacrosse case while they force Don Imus to crawl on his knees and apologize for one comment. What about the scholarship money paid to the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case? It's racism plain and simple but because caucasians have leftover slavery guilt, we're not supposed to comment.

Sent by Kate | 12:36 PM ET | 04-20-2007

Ditch the Duke story.

As for Imus, this would be a terrific opportunity to focus on the bigger picture.

Where else does racist and negative language appear in our culture?

Perhaps, how is it promoted or enforced?

Lastly, and probably most daring to touch, who is promoting and enforcing racism and negative imagery in our culture?

Sent by Jesse Bufton | 9:45 PM ET | 06-01-2007