Video: Fired Imus producer calls Sharpton a terrorist

posted at 10:38 am on April 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

Yeah, look — people really need to dial it down on the “terrorist” rhetoric vis-a-vis Sharpton. Jason Whitlock dropped that on him too and it was the one sour note in an otherwise sweet medley. Call the good reverend a repellent, malevolent, exploitative, grandstanding race-baiting McCarthyite, by all means, but let’s reserve the “terrorist” label for killers. Otherwise we’re heading into “Christianist” territory with Sullivan.

Anyway, from last night’s Hannity & Colmes, it’s now-former Imus producer Bernard McGuirk discussing the seven eight nine umpteen and counting dirty words that can’t be said on the airwaves. He actually used the word “ho” before Imus did that morning, which is why his contract has been terminated while that of Imus’s sidekick, Charles McCord, has not. He says he’d have avoided it if only he’d gotten the memo from the millions of people who’ve been laughing at the program for years — not to mention the CBS executives who paid his salary — that it was now, suddenly, beyond the pale.

Surprising to see how sympathetic Colmesy was to him, too.


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bernard needs his own show. He’s the PC polices biggest nightmare.

roninacreage on April 27, 2007 at 10:40 AM

OK AP, what would you call what Sharpton did if it wasn’t terroristic in nature? It was not designed to silence Imus as he was already contrite. His words and actions were designed to terrorize others. How often are Sean and Colmes on the same side of an issue? They are terrified that they are next and are trying to build a consensus as a hedge against that day Al and Jesse come after them.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 10:53 AM

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 10:53 AM

So, just so I’m understanding here, Al Sharpton has committed “verbal terrorism” that is of a nature with, you know, actual terrorism where people get blown up? Is that anything like Imus’ “verbal violence” being of the same species with Psy-Cho’s deadly violence?

Seriously?

Because if so, perhaps I should start taking Democrats more seriously when they use “terrorism” to describe everything from $5.50 minimum wage to deforestation.

Lehosh on April 27, 2007 at 11:01 AM

I need to go back to the dictionary I suppose. I thought a terrorist was one who deliberately attempts to invoke terror, intense fear in other people. Didn’t know it was limited to murderers.

I agree in this particular case though, these are calculated decisions based on money, not fear.

Spirit of 1776 on April 27, 2007 at 11:03 AM

The MSM tried to crucify McCain over his “bomb bomb bomb(Iran)” thing and he told them to “lighten up and get a life” and he never groveled and the MSM went away when they realized he wasnt’ going to genuflect(to them) in contrition over it… More, I’m sorry to say, white executives need to grow some and stop cowering everytime Sharpton and Jackson try to exploit something to get their tv face time…what is wrong with those execs? Sharpton and Jackson only have the importance they give them.

CCRWM on April 27, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Call the good reverend a repellent, malevolent, exploitative, grandstanding race-baiting McCarthyite, by all means, but let’s reserve the “terrorist” label for killers. Otherwise we’re heading into “Christianist” territory with Sullivan. — AP

Good point

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Treason!

a4g on April 27, 2007 at 11:08 AM

He’s BALD because IMUS stole his rug….DUH.

seejanemom on April 27, 2007 at 11:12 AM

McGuirck has the edge to make folks believe he’s a blue collar guy with his head on straight, when in fact he’s a towel boy to the Liberal parade that was the Imus show.

Both he and his boss got caught for saying something beyond the pale and got fired. It’s like cheap crooks that complain they got arrested for stealing chump change after a life of hitting banks. Boo freakin’ hoo.

Hening on April 27, 2007 at 11:23 AM

What happens to pond scum after the pond is drained?

fogw on April 27, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Call the good reverend a repellent, malevolent, exploitative, grandstanding race-baiting McCarthyite, by all means, but let’s reserve the “terrorist” label for killers. Otherwise we’re heading into “Christianist” territory with Sullivan. — AP

No. For two reasons. McGuirk has used the word terrorist correctly. You could look it up! /yogi
Christianist is a made up word. Worse, it has no meaning. I refer you to Sully-Hewitt exchanges about the word. Sully would not define it.

Stephen M on April 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM

I heard Jackie Mason talk about Al Sharpton/Imus on Bill Handel’s show this morning, as one of the “Schmucks” listed in his latest book. He didn’t call him a “terrorist”.

He did say that A. Sharpton caused people to be killed.

Entelechy on April 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Yeah, look — people really need to dial it down on the “terrorist” rhetoric vis-a-vis Sharpton.

But Alec Baldwin is still a terrorist, right?

Oh, sorry – I mean, he made “terroristic threats” in the infamous voice mail to his daughter.

John from WuzzaDem on April 27, 2007 at 11:56 AM

He’s not a terrorist, a murdering sh!t bag…Yes, but terrorist no.

Tim Burton on April 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Call the good reverend a repellent, malevolent, exploitative, grandstanding race-baiting McCarthyite, by all means, but let’s reserve the “terrorist” label for killers. Otherwise we’re heading into “Christianist” territory with Sullivan. — AP
Good point

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 11:08 AM

If we reserve terrorist for killers then are we revisionists?

Wade on April 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM

terror

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: ‘ter-&r, ‘te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
synonym see FEAR

Wade on April 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM

If we reserve terrorist for killers then are we revisionists?

Wade on April 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Every killer is not necessarily a terrorist. Every terrorist is not necessarily a killer (but certainly would like to be).

Sharpton may be an unpleasant gasbag to many people but he has not been convicted or charged with murder. He doesn’t advocate the overthrow of the government either.

When a word such as terrorist is applied too “liberally” (LOL) it loses its original meaning. Racist is a good example of how that can work.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Call the good reverend a repellent, malevolent, exploitative, grandstanding race-baiting McCarthyite, by all means, but let’s reserve the “terrorist” label for killers. Otherwise we’re heading into “Christianist” territory with Sullivan.

Agreed. Good call Allahpundit.

Theworldisnotenough on April 27, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Then this discription of terror does not apply, is that what you are saying?

1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE
b : a frightening aspect
c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY
d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT

Wade on April 27, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Wade on April 27, 2007 at 12:31 PM

So you are saying that Al Sharpton causes you to live in an intense state of fear, feeling belittled, worried he will cause you physical injury, need meds to sleep due to worry, and he is a valley girl as well?

Like I said the meaning is diluted when applied with too broad a brush.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Geez, it’s not even difficult.
terrorist – One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
terrorism – The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Start reading about Sharpton here.

And again, a definition of Sully’s Christianist is as mutable as his moods.

Stephen M on April 27, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Stephen M on April 27, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Geez one more to add to the list

All race baiters are terrorists
All Republicans are racists
All Democrats are traitors
All Muslims are evil
All Christians are good

Feel free to add your favorites

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Bradky,

So what you are saying is that now because of Islamist terrorist we need to redefine the word terrorist so that you only qualify as a terrorist if you kill people???

That my friend is called revisionism. Oh and maybe you should Google Al’s early career and pay attention to the riot he started and how many people were kill as a result of Al……..

Rock on……….

doriangrey on April 27, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Sharpton makes his living by fanning the flames of class warfare and racial strife. He trades in hate speech that’s calculated to bully his adversaries. It seems useless, possibly counterproductive to defend him from hyperbole.

Why not just focus on Sharpton’s accountability for hate speech?

petefrt on April 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM

doriangrey on April 27, 2007 at 12:50 PM

No you miss the point.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 1:00 PM

I saw a video of sharpton calling on his audience to
“kill pigs…”

Kaptain Amerika on April 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM

people really need to dial it down on the “terrorist” rhetoric

AP, are you the PC police now? What have we come to? Oh, the humanity.

faraway on April 27, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Call the good reverend a repellent, malevolent, exploitative, grandstanding race-baiting McCarthyite, by all means, but let’s reserve the “terrorist” label for killers. Otherwise we’re heading into “Christianist” territory with Sullivan.

I’m gonna have to agree with this, and before people start railing against Allah, we should save the word terrorist for actual terrorists or we cheapen the word.

And the St. Andrew comparison is pretty good.

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Oh, and that was brutal when McGuirk told Colmes he looked like a ferret in a suit.

I’m not all that surprised by Colmes being on defense for Imus, he’s in the radio industry, he’s one of the few liberal talk radio guys that has made a real career for himself, he knows the Fairness Doctrine is poison for all political talk hosts, and that too much zealotry against radio hosts destabilizes his platform.

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 1:40 PM

We’ve pronounced Al Sharpton a repellent, malevolent, exploitative, grandstanding race-baiting McCarthyite, are there pickets yet?

Stronger language is OK and some real action would be cool.

Speakup on April 27, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Calling Al Sharkton a “terrorist” and putting him in the same class as al-Qaeda and Hamas is clearly a bit much (British Understatement), but we need a stronger word than “repellent”, “malevolent”, “exploitative”, “grandstanding”, “race-baiter” or “McCarthyite” for somebody deliberately inciting race riots leading to deaths and destruction.

At least in my ever-not-so-humble opinion.

I’m open to suggestions.

Misha I on April 27, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Mind you, I’m not saying that you can’t make a good case for calling Al Sharkton’s incitements “terroristic”, because you can, but if we choose to do so, we’re going to have to come up with a new and ever worse term for the likes of Osama bin Laden, Nasrallah et al.

Misha I on April 27, 2007 at 2:14 PM

So you are saying that Al Sharpton causes you to live in an intense state of fear, feeling belittled, worried he will cause you physical injury, need meds to sleep due to worry, and he is a valley girl as well?

Like I said the meaning is diluted when applied with too broad a brush.

Bradky on April 27, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Where in the world did you stretch this to be perpetrated upon me. The terrorism referred to was to CBS. Keep on subject.

Like you said..well like you did not say, that is your opinion and does not make it so. If you want to apply your definition of terrorist to the statement from Bernard, take it up with him.

I was only pointing to facts, I hope you do know what those are, there are different definitions of terror. If you want to ignore that, so be it.

Wade on April 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Mind you, I’m not saying that you can’t make a good case for calling Al Sharkton’s incitements “terroristic”, because you can, but if we choose to do so, we’re going to have to come up with a new and ever worse term for the likes of Osama bin Laden, Nasrallah et al.

Misha I on April 27, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Why? What is wrong with the current definition? Are you suggesting the change the meaning of a word or the image it imposes?

Wade on April 27, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I’m open to suggestions.

Misha I on April 27, 2007 at 2:10 PM

If you only add a “dash” of salt to the water when you’re cooking pasta, try using a teaspoon, or even as much as a tablespoon. You’ll be surprised at how much flavor it brings out.

Just a suggestion.

John from WuzzaDem on April 27, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Lehosh on April 27, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Actually I, and most people, make a distinction between Imus’ joke and Sharptons attacks on free speech.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Why? What is wrong with the current definition? Are you suggesting the change the meaning of a word or the image it imposes?

Well, the problem is that if we call Al Sharkton a “terrorist”, then using that same term for Ayman al-Zawahiri… well, somehow that makes al-Zawahiri sound not all that bad, no?

I mean, is al-Zawahiri worse than, better than or equal to Al Sharkton? (Rhetorical question).

Misha I on April 27, 2007 at 4:09 PM

well, somehow that makes al-Zawahiri sound not all that bad, no?
Misha I on April 27, 2007 at 4:09 PM

If we can agree that sharpton is selectively terrorizing people over speech issues, then it is my contention that he is just as bad as al-Zawahiri albeit using a different tactic. The actions either engage in is unacceptable.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Misha right AQ is a whole lot worse than ole Sharpton, but his ass should be in prison for inciting riots thats for sure.

djohn669 on April 27, 2007 at 4:34 PM

I mean, is al-Zawahiri worse than, better than or equal to Al Sharkton?

Has Ayaan Hirsi Ali ever thrown a bomb?
Context.

Stephen M on April 27, 2007 at 5:28 PM

He is a pathetic self pity Woo-is-poor-little-me jerk got what he deserves. All I hear is excuses and no CLUE. He does NOT GET IT.

Sharpton did not get them fired, The Rutgers coach at the press conference with the team did, along with public outrage and the sponsors of the show, aka free market, is what sunk their boat.

The press conference was the tipping point the death nail. If you have not heard the speech the coach gave, elegant, powerful, from the heart, extemporaniously and so moving than you should. (Think about Bush and his oratory skills when you do listen to it…..brother. Also when you listen to her wisdom and think about the pathetic BS that Imus spewed daily, the contrast is stark.)

The old man I’m-A$$ and his skin head white supremacist looking Mr. death producer jerk got what the FREE MARKET GAVE THEM, Pink slips. I THOUGHT CONSERVATIVES EMBRACE FREE MARKET, DEMOCRACY? No? Hey it was totally fair. Shock jocks get fired, Bill Maher of Politically correct lost his show, why? Sponsors. THEY ARE FREE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY AS THEY LIKE. Its a free country. Imus has freedom to speak, like Rosie-O, but than there are responsibilities and ramifications of opening our mother freaking Pie HOLE.

When RUSH Limbaugh did “Obama is a Magic Negro” this week you did not hear much. First he is a white man and most of his audience is white. No one complains the sponsors will keep advertising. No one really Listens to Rush except for Right wing wackos, he is a clown, a comedian spewing his brand of humor. He is not an intellectual, only a self admitted republican water carrier (in his own words). No one expects much or believes him, but Imus had all kinds of powerful people on and his audience was most of DC.

Al Sharpton was irrelevant. The American people said enough you crossed the line.

gmcjetpilot on April 27, 2007 at 9:16 PM

The Rutgers coach gave a recruitment speech for the university.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 9:50 PM

gmcjetpilot on April 27, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Dude, come on.
Every other city we go, every other video, no matter where I go…I see the same uhh, do dare say it, HOHO…. ( i love them, those little swirly cakes with pure white fat for filling)
2pac all about u

kahall on April 28, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Dude, come on. Every other city we go, every other video, no matter where I go…I see the same uhh, do dare say it, HOHO…. kahall on April 28, 2007 at 12:36 AM

You are RIGHT, kahall, but when I was young, my parents taught me some basics that are LOST on today’s society: Two wrongs don’t make a right……..Do on to others as they do onto you……..use common sense and THINK before you open you mouth.

Next is REALITY!!! ALL white people, espcially old white men on the radio who have a history, don’t get to call any black person ‘N’ or ‘H’ or ‘B’, especially, especially young 18, 19 and 20 year old girls who are students and happen to be black, espcially ON THE RADIO! Deal with that “loss of free speech”. Call it Karma or just common sense.

As a white person I have to say whites don’t get that WE DON’T GET TO USE ‘N’ word? We don’t get to talk rap crap lyrics in public or especially towards minorities.

I know its free speech! Great SAY IT, say it all day. Call Obama the magic negro or half-rick-american like Rush does, and pretend its just humor. However you know, I know it is thinly veiled racism. People that listen to it and ENJOY it are probably rasist. If you don’t notice than you are not very sensitive to what being Black is in america. I am no expert, but I have a better idea after this. However I am smart enough to know not to talk like 50-cent or DMX as a white guy. Duuh. WHAT GAVE A 67 YEAR OLD WHITE MAN IDIOT OR HIS IDIOT SIDE KICK THE IDEA THEY COULD?

When Dave Chapelle uses the ‘N’ word or makes fun of white people, there is clearly a sense of humor and truth to it, this is saying clearly, THIS IS ALL IN FUN! Bottom line ITS FUNNY!! It has a truth to it that makes whites, blacks, asian and hispanics laugh at stereotypes and bigotry. Lets just say its artfully done.

Imus was just tearing these young girls down AND ITS NOT FUNNY. THAT IS THE UGLY TRUTH, THESE MEN ARE RACIST. LOOK INTO THE MIRROR, WE ALL HAVE BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE. They just choose to let thier freak flag fly on radio.

NOW RAP CRAP? I hate it, at least 90% of it is the lowest form of hate pretending to be poetry. Some is OK and does not have extreme violence, language and worship of drugs, sex and hate (of woman and law). BUT THIS IS A SEPERATE ISSUE. We are talking about two white men calling young black woman………….. Don’t justify Imus with rap, that is an argument that violates what every 6 year old knows, two wrongs don’t make it right.

Do I think they should be fired? No but its a free market. We “Whites” don’t get to call blacks N, H, B…… and so on. Bottom line: If you are honest and don’t think the skin head producer and Imus have racist tendencies you are kidding your self. That is the ISSUE, many people are STILL OK WITH RASCIST.

gmcjetpilot on April 28, 2007 at 5:54 PM

gmcjetpilot on April 28, 2007 at 5:54 PM

gmcjetpilot – why don’t you tell us what you REALLY think?

I think its about time you get back on your meds!

OBX Pete on April 28, 2007 at 7:23 PM