On Thursday April 30th, Boston radio station WTKK-FM announced that it had suspended right-wing talk show host Jay Severin indefinitely over derogatory comments he made on the air against Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Mexico in general. In a discussion about illegal immigration, Severin referred to Mexicans as “the world's lowest of primitives”, accused them of bringing the Swine flu to the U.S., and stated that "they are ruining the schools, the hospitals, and a lot of life in America" among other things. You can read the story, as reported in the Boston Globe, by clicking the WTKK Suspends Jay Severin link.Severin's comments feed into that "they are trying to take what belongs to us" mentality that can be very dangerous. It'll be interesting to see if WTKK brings Severin back after the suspension or decides to fire him instead. Unless they want people to say they should take out the "T" in their call letters and replace it with a "K", I have a feeling that Severin won't be returning to the station except to clean out his office.
The You Tube player below contains Jay Severin's racist comments followed by a lively and insightful discussion by Cenk Uygur and Ben Mankiewicz on the liberal talk show The Young Turks.
Update: Jay Severin returned to the airwaves of WTKK on Tuesday June 2, 2009. Here is a clip of him offering an on-air apology for the anti-Mexican remarks he made which earned him the suspension:
15 comments:
One word: UGH! I won't even comment on his remarks other than they are nauseating. I've read a couple of other articles about this and a I've seen a few comments from people who feel it's free speech and he's getting penalized for it, along with Miss California. Of course, not the same thing-you already know my opinion of that fiasco.
He should be fired, but the commentators are right-someone else will probably hire him.
Ditto Rock Chick! I don't know why these idiots think that can say any offensive thing they want and have little or repercussions. I believe in free speech too, but not at the cost of human dignity. This guy made some very repugnant, over-the-top, stereotypical and generalized statement about a whole group of people and how dare he! Shame on him! I am so tired of the apologies also, because they are not sincere. They say what's on their heart and then when they are called to task, they try to back peddle their way out of trouble.
I've never even heard of the guy until now.
I don't agree with what he says.
I don't think he should be fired.
I'm sick to death of only one side having to answer for what they say.
It was in bad taste and he deserves what he gets, but if he said the exact same thing about poor, white Americans, he'd be given his own show on MSNBC, PBS, CNN, Comedy Central, or a column in a paper like the Times or Chronicle.
It's considered okay to make those types of comments about entire groups of white people or anyone considered a republican/conservative (see what the Tea Party protestors were called for an example), and others, including women who disagree with the progressives (see the treatment of Palin and Miss CA for examples).
Things have to be wrong on both sides or they're not wrong at all.
People are always going to be saying stuff like this about other people. The fact that it's only deplorable when one side/group says it just pushes America further toward its destiny of becoming history's greatest banana republic.
It's a luxury we have to cherry pick our outrage; one that should not be abused. The wolves'll eat the sheep and nobody will show up to help.
The Rock Chick: I think the station should fire his ass too. Since Jay Severin is now a martyr for free speech in the eyes of some, there's a good chance that some media outlet will hire him (assuming he does get fired) just to prove a point.
Pjazzy: Severin's lawyer seems pretty confident that his client will be back on the air. I'm not sure if that's false bravado or what. If WTKK does bring Severin back, I hope that all ethnicities join in the protest because this just isn't a Latino problem.
Josh: You say that you are sick to death of only one side having to answer for what they say. Can you cite an example of a non-white talk show host making comments similar to Severin's (but anti-white) and not suffering any repercussions? Even though I don't agree with the sweeping generalizations made by some against the Tea Party protesters, I didn't hear any comments that approached the level of venom spewed by Severin.
When you say that Severin would have been hired by several media outlets if he had said the exact same thing about poor, white Americans, are you using the fact that Mark Fuhrman serves as a guest/contributor on the Fox News Channel as a basis for your statement?
Also, you say that Severin deserves what he gets. Does that mean if he gets fired, you'll be in favor of it?
It's a pity we don't all share Josh's insight. Could it be your sight is so clear because you've grown content in looking in one direction? In case you didn't know, that's called tunnel vision. With all due respect, sounds to me like you are very much aboard the victim train and traveling solo.
By thinking that all manners of hate speech should be punished I have tunnel vision?
If I'm naive thinking that hate is hate, so be it. But I just can't bring myself to accept hate speech from anyone. This bozo of a host was wrong for what he said, deserves what he gets, and should be laughed at at every attempt to apologize. I believe pjazzypar speaks the truth when she stated that he spoke what was really in his heart.
However, I do not find it becoming of America to only punish certain forms of hate speech while celebrating the rest. As I've stated, we're not fascists. And therefore I don't agree with his firing so long as others who spew hatred are allowed on the air.
If that view warrants my mocking, well, there's nothing I can do about that.
Josh: Thanks for clarifying what you meant by "one side" because after reading it again, it sounds like you were referring to both race and political beliefs.
You keep mentioning insults against white conservatives. You also say that Matthews, Maddow, Olbermann, et al. are promoters of hate speech against white conservatives. Are you comparing them to Jay Severin? I hope not because that's 4 week old fish... I won't buy it.
By the way, did someone actually call conservative white people racist, uneducated homophobic, nut-suckers or are you just using that term as an analogy?
I don't compare this moronic radio talk host's unwarranted and ridiculous attack against the Mexican people directly with the unwarranted and ridiculous attacks of TV hosts against non-liberals in terms of them both being racist remarks.
I compare them to be on the same level in terms of hatred. What is racism if not intolerance; a belief that you're better than someone else due to a trivial evolutionary happenstance of skin tone? This makes racism hate.
What is intolerance? Does a belief that you're better than someone else due to an ideological stance register? Would that not also be hate -- especially when the self-annointed holy viciously rebut and attempt to silence whomsoever dare to oppose?
My point is that hate speech is accepted in America, so long as it's not terrorizing the ears of those put into specially protected groups. I think this is wrong. Everyone should be protected against hate speech (and hate crimes, but that's another debate).
In my estimate, racist hate speech and ideological hate speech and class hate speech and territorial hate speech and so forth should all be punished.
Sadly, and the evidence is everywhere and overwhelmingly shocking, some brands of hate speech are accepted. Depending on who you insult, it's allowed to take place.
Instead of lumping people into groups and saying, "Youse can't say this about 'those,'" I want to hear, "You can't spread slander and hate about anyone, lest there be consequences."
If I have a political leaning, it's anti-liberal. In my short 29 years on this earth, I've watched liberals dictate the tone of who and what it's okay to show hatred toward. And I'm over here shouting, "I thought we were all the same," and begging someone to listen.
This is another instance where I say that you cannot have it both ways. One side cannot be allowed to hate... for any reason. It's misleading, hypocritical, and detrimental to a collective people's progress at the very least. At the very most, this division in America is something that no one will walk away from.
If hate speech is wrong, let it all be punished. America has always been working toward a better brand of living. The past cannot be undone, but let's start seeing a just society where the individual is held accountable for the individual(s) harmed based on the fact that we're all individuals - unique and beautiful and rightful citizens of the same sphere until we're not.
Josh: Your statement that what Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et al do is on the same level with Jay Severin in terms of hatred is mind boggling to say the least. You’ve accused them of habitually promoting hate speech toward the white conservative, yet haven't provided any examples of them doing so. In your recent comment you provided plenty of generalities, but not much else. Can you provide examples of them or any of the other commentators you listed of practicing hate speech towards white conservatives?
I feel your statement is false in another regard because Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews haven't limited their criticism to white conservatives. For example, I heard Matthews call into question then Presidential candidate Obama's accomplishments in the U.S. Senate and Olbermann was very critical of President Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA interrogators for torture. Furthermore, one of the commentators that you accused of practicing hate speech towards white conservatives (Wolf Blitzer) actually defended Sarah Palin for her infamous interview with Katie Couric.
As for white liberal commentators criticizing white conservatives, I don't see it as a matter of counting vs. not counting. I see it as them criticizing conservatives who happen to be white. I've heard white liberal commentators be just as critical of people like Michael Steele and Condoleeza Rice.
I don’t believe that a political commentator necessarily thinks they are better than someone else due to a difference in ideological stance. For the most part, I think it’s just a matter of them disagreeing with a different point of view. This is how I would categorize the commentators that you accused of promoting hate speech. Let me also add that although I feel the Hannitys and Becks of the world are guilty of despicable tactics, I wouldn’t put them in the “hate speech” category either. Would you say that people such as Hannity, Beck, and Laura Ingraham are promoters hate speech? If not, how would you describe them?
In my last comments, I asked you a question that you neglected to answer so I will ask it again. Did someone actually call conservative white people racist, uneducated homophobic, nut-suckers or are you just using that term as an analogy?
Evidence?
Google, YouTube, Hulu, whichever you'd like, and type in any of the names and watch them speak about conservatives. The latest in liberal media's promotion of hate speech was the lifting up of Garofalo after calling party-goers racists.
Miss CA's treatment doesn't count either? That's not hate speech, what the left are doing to her?
"Nut suckers" would be "tea baggers," which the aforementioned threw around like kids using their first curse word. A term used solely to demean people.
When it comes to what I think about Hannity and Beck compared to the lefties: I don't see them getting pure nasty like the "other side." I just don't see it.
Now, Beck did say once that he hated some 911 victims' families. I think this is hate speech and should be punished. Wherever he was working at the time, I hope he was fired, or at least demoted to scum-sucker.
I'm not on a ideology kick here (although I despise far-left zealots :D). I'm on a justice kick. Punish hate speech across the board or leave it the hell alone! That's my stance.
If Hannity (whom I don't like anyway) ever crosses a line and starts acting like Olbermann, I hope he's canned from Fox as punishment.
A lot of people take their freedoms for granted far too often! Freedom of speech? Okay, but you shouldn't be able to spread hate with it. Freedom of the press? Okay, but the Times (LA and NY) shouldn't be allowed to blatantly lie and put American lives in harm's way. (And before you get started, there's a HUGE difference in Hannity's selective editing and the newspaper of record, the New York Times! lmao)
See how simple this all could be? Just punish everybody from every side from every walk of life if they attempt to harm others. Why is not okay to say stuff about Mexicans? Because racism is not tolerated in a moral America. Should any hate speech be tolerated then?
I constantly see hate speech thrown at conservatives. My point is that since they're a group considered to be predominantly white, nobody cares. It ties in with the theme of the blog here... it really does.
Having "specially protected" groups means NO EQUALITY. Where's my common sense button?
How am I(!!emphasis!!) the one with blinders on here? If the right-wing guys are spewing hatred, can their asses too! It's an across-the-board brand of justice America needs OR WE'RE FASCISTS.
And as far as limiting, again, Malcolm, that isn't logical.
By your standard, you're claiming that, because the aforementioned have criticized others, it's not hate when they criticize conservatives (in the hateful manner I've noted). Talk about mind-boggling.
All Severin ever did in his career was bash Mexicans? I'm sure he's criticized a lot of other people, places, ideologies, etc, before his hate-filled comments about the Mexican people. The fact that he would criticize others as well doesn't make his anti-Mexican comments any less anti-Mexican.
Now, did I get all the questions this time? I counted 59 and answered 61. That means I'm a 2-question favorite on my next comment. ;)
My entire point in a beautiful four-word sentence: Punish all hate speech.
Josh: Suggesting that I go online to watch clips doesn't do much to prove your point that the commentators you cited habitually promote hate speech. That would be like me saying that the Fox News Channel is right leaning and when asked for examples I say, "Just watch them and you will see." I'm starting to wonder if you actually watch any of the commentators you cited on a consistent basis. I have and I just don’t see where you are coming from with the “hate speech” tag.
In regards to Miss CA, the comments by Perez Hilton did go over the line. However, much of the criticism she received was valid. I see nothing wrong with commentators questioning her "Biblical correctness" in light of some of her actions.
As for the term "tea baggers", it's not like the left created it as a form of ridicule. Some of the protesters used it to refer to themselves. There was even footage of protesters wearing tea bags on their clothing!
As for Hannity's selective editing, he isn't the only guilty party at the Fox News Channel or on the right-wing for that matter of using such tactics. Politicians/commentators using one sentence in a speech by Sonia Sotomayor to "prove" she's a racist and Bill O'Reilly claiming that Thomas Jefferson hated the press when quotes by Jefferson suggest otherwise are just two examples.
Your statement ("By your standard, you're claiming that, because the aforementioned have criticized others, it's not hate when they criticize conservatives (in the hateful manner I've noted).") is totally off base. For one thing, you never gave any specific examples of Matthews, Maddow, Blitzer, et al habitually promoting hate speech. Lastly, where you see hate speech, I often see legitimate criticism (even though I may disagree with said criticism).
One thing that you and I can agree on is the punishment of all hate speech. Where we disagree is the definition of hate speech.
I am hesitant about calling about firing some one because I believe in freedom of speech and I also like to know were a man stands so there is no "misunderstandings".
But when you are spreading lies, half truths, and hateful language around on a platform were like minded people can hear, than you are sowing seeds of fear in the people.
People forget that the genocide in Rwanda was helped along by that nation's "shock" jocks who spread hateful messages on the air about each others tribes motivating the people to kill each other.
Here all it takes is for one wacko after listening to this kind of show to decide that all his problems are the fault of some one who doesnt look like him and he is going to "do" something about it.
The truth is there is an intelligent way to express your views and get your point across with out paronoid inciting language.
This idiot knows that so he should be out of a job.
So basically I believe in speaking your mind, just watch what you say.
Clnmike: Welcome back man! Good point about the role a member of the Rwandan media played in the 1994 genocide that took place over there. I think it's worse in Africa because I've heard that radio (as opposed to the newspapers or TV) is the mass medium in many parts of Africa.
As you may already know, Jay Severin returned to the airwaves of WTKK this week.
Help mexicans
Let them know the way they have done things DOES NOT WORK!
"hardworking" because they'll do manual labor. Or, as I've heard many claim in defense of illegal immigration, "They'll do anything to earn a living." That's a lie. There's one thing the majority of Mexican and Central American immigrants won't do to make a living: think. I teach in Los Angeles. The majority of students in the district are Hispanic — Mexican and Central American. The majority are failing — they're relatively illiterate. They fail because they are lazy. They will not do the work. They will gladly tell you that. What I have come to find, sadly, is that the majority of Mexicans from Mexico and Central America would rather do manual labor than use their brains. This is why Mexicans in the Southwest constitute a growing and perpetual servant class: because they have a visceral hatred of education. It's part of a white-liberal myth that manual labor makes for "hard work" when it comes to illegal immigrants and their children. Manual labor makes for sweat, nothing more. Intellectual effort is far more difficult, makes for success and competitiveness, and is why the majority of the Mexican students I work with are headed for little better than their illegal immigrant parents: manual labor. The reason: not oppression and not racism, but because, as so many of them proudly exclaim, they're lazy. So define "lazy gabacho," most of whom can do better than work in the fields, in contrast to "lazy Mexican," many of whom can't muster the intellectual effort to imagine anything better.
Help them in anyway you can our country depends on it if we do nothing we will end up with a country that looks and acts just like our neighbors south of the border
vh M ED
Post a Comment