The new trickle down theory

Is the Rev. Al Sharpton the single most powerful man in the country? Is he the most dangerous? Or is he a combination of both?


There’s no doubt in my mind that Sharpton’s assault on all things Imus forced the major marketers to pull their advertising support of Imus (or run the risk of a Sharpton-inspired product boycott). The networks, in turn, fired Imus in order to placate the advertisers. And Imus is gone and we’re left contemplating a new type of trickle-down theory: the loudmouthed activist with an agenda scares the advertisers who, in turn, scare the networks who pull the plug on the politically incorrect source of the controversy.

So, Sharpton has won. And the double standard reigns supreme. It’s ok for Sharpton to pile on the Duke lacrosse players and never be held accountable for his reckless statements. But, Imus, apology or no apology, is gone.

The losers here are the kids. What signal are we sending them? Are we saying it’s ok to say what you want as long as it’s politically correct? Are we saying you needn’t worry about accountability if you’re attacking the mainstream, power sources (i.e. White society)?

The other loser is the already battered image and reputation of American society. What must America watchers be thinking of this latest charade?

I’m all for fairness, justice and equality. But, not when it’s a one way street. So, Rev. Sharpton, when will you start holding Hip-Hop artists to the same standards you’ve held Don Imus?

10 thoughts on “The new trickle down theory

  1. Repman, back to your original post … Apparently the nappy headed HOs” forgave Imus. I guess Sharpton and his “assault” didn’t “win.” Sharpton, THE “single… [and] the most dangerous … most powerful man in the country …”could not convince the 17-year old nappy headed HOs to tow the line and pile-it-on poor Imus. Hey Repman, the “power sources (i.e. White society)” are/is safe and can hope to strive for another better day where the “double standard [no longer] reigns supreme” and “we [a.k.a Repman and ‘white society’]” need not “worry about [Sharpton’s]accountability.” “What must America watchers be thinking of this latest charade?” Good question Repman, good question indeed. By the way, those are some scary-ass nappy-headed looking thugs in that picture in your post–is that a photo of the Rutgers girls?

  2. Oh i-man, you should be in a better mood given the fact that the Rangers got off to a good start in the Playoffs.
    I’m the first to admit that our industry doesn’t always practice what it preaches. Like any other profession we’re far from perfect. A valid complaint about our industry has always been that there is too much spin and not enough substance. We need to change if we want to be taken more seriously by our consituents.
    That’s why it is important to make decisions for the right reasons and then be totally transparent about why you make those decisions. I think the decision to pull the ad from Imus was the right decision. However, I felt the reason given by this person was probably not the real reason that actually led to the decision.
    I-man – it’s very easy to point fingers from the outside, like you’re doing. It’s a lot harder to be on the inside, admit when there’s a problem and try to offer solutions that will fix it. It’s called leadership.

  3. Classic! Ted just admitted in his comment that the PR industry is a bunch of BS! “I do have a problem with giving a bullshit excuse to a room full of bullshit artists.”
    I don’t know of another industry where a big dog at an award-winning well-known firm would admit to the fact that his peers were all a bunch of BS artists! Kind of makes you wonder…

  4. Ted, I just read and was surprised to learn that Imus’ net proceed generation for CBS was in the range of 2 million dollars (of a total 1.6 billion) annually. Firing him was a no-brainer and entirely unrelated to Sharpton and his repugnant Ilk.

  5. The head of PR for a retail company spoke briefly today at an industry event that I was attending about their decision to pull all company ads from Imus. In light of the main focus of the conference, which was all about CSR, he said they did it for only one reason: because Imus’ comments went against their corp values and it was the socially responsible things to do.
    I almost laughed out loud. What a crock of you know what. They did it out of pack mentality fear and to avoid becoming a target of the Sharpton’s of the world. They did it to cover their asses. I don’t have a problem with those reasons – after all they have a responsibility to their shareholders and employees to sell product and avoid anything that could disrupt business. I do have a problem with giving a bullshit excuse to a room full of bullshit artists. As one of my favorite clients of all time once said, “You can’t spin a spinner.”

  6. (1) Find me a rap song wherein the “artist” issues a direct, personal and unfounded racial attack against the student athletes of a prestigious public university, which universities alumni saturate the media and business hub of the planet (if you have an adolescent male child who is white check his cd collection, as he is the target demographic for hip hop) which “artist” is still in the employ of a publicly traded record company. (2) Tell me the name of that publicly traded company that continued to maintain Al Charlatan in its direct employ after the jerkoff’s Tawanna episode. (3) Prove to me that Nancy Grace did not, on a nightly basis, spend the better part of a year assuming, rather, pronouncing the guilt and criminal culpability of the Duke three. (4) Prove that Nancy Grace is not white.(5) Provide me with evidence that the Fox News Network, the pulpit from which Nancy repeatedly preached her BS vis-à-vis the Duke three, is owned and operated by people whose cause fat Al claims to represent. Do this and I’ll begin to buy into the I-Man’s situation as demonstrative of your argument of a double standard in our society.

  7. Read my original blog, Withclue. I’m not condoning or defending Imus. I’m talking about the serious double standard that exists in our society.

  8. “Naiveté in grownups is often charming; but when coupled with vanity it is indistinguishable from stupidity.” Repman you are stupid if you think Rev. Al Charlatan had any influence whatsoever in CBS’s decision to terminate Imus.
    Remember this: “A hypothetical for you: what would you think of Imus’ comments if Sharpton hadn’t been the one to bring them to the fore — if it had instead been, for instance, the Dean of Rutgers University who started the rock rolling down the hill? Would you still be defending him?”
    Answer the bloody question. Or don’t, but if you don’t replace “Rep,” with “Straw” in your handle.