Anus in the Morning settles with CBS


 Don imus

Hat Tip: Pat Milton, Associated Press

Don Imus has reached a settlement with CBS over his multimillion-dollar contract and is negotiating with WABC radio to resume his broadcasting career there, according to CBS and a person familiar with the negotiations.

Imus and CBS Radio “have mutually agreed to settle claims that each had against the other regarding the Imus radio program on CBS,” the network said in a statement Tuesday.

The terms of the settlement will not be disclosed, according to the CBS statement.

The settlement pre-empts the dismissed radio personality’s threatened $120 million breach-of-contract lawsuit.

CBS confirmed only that the settlement had been reached. The person familiar with the talks told The Associated Press that Imus is taking steps to make a comeback with WABC. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details had not been announced, also said the deal with CBS calls for a “non-disparaging” agreement that forbids the parties from speaking negatively about each other.

The settlement and possible comeback come more than four months after Imus created an uproar over his racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.

Just before his dismissal, Imus signed a five-year, $40 million contract with CBS Radio (owned by CBS Corp.). Famed First Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus said in May that Imus planned to sue CBS for $120 million in unpaid salary and damages.

WFAN, the New York radio station that was Imus’ flagship, also announced Tuesday that former pro quarterback Boomer Esiason will take over the morning time slot along with Craig Carton, a New Jersey radio personality.

WABC is a New York talk-radio station that features political and topical shows with such stars Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

Imus, 66, was dismissed April 12 after describing the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos” on his nationally syndicated radio program, which was also simulcast on MSNBC. (General Electric Co.’s cable TV channel now has the “Morning Joe” program with Joe Scarborough.)

Garbus had said Imus would sue for the contract’s unpaid part. He cited a contract clause in which CBS acknowledged that Imus’ services were “unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial.”

The clause said Imus’ programming was “desired by company and … consistent with company rules and policy,” according to Garbus

14 thoughts on “Anus in the Morning settles with CBS

  1. What this should show us is the near-futility of black media activism when it is pursued purely in reaction to the latest outrages.

    We protest, and when the corporate media elevate Jesse and Al Sharpton to be our spokespeople, they sometimes throw a white boy under the bus for a minute. A few months (or in this case just weeks) later they relent and it’s as if it never happened.

    This is why we need to be struggling for power over the media universe, not reacting to the latest outrage. The problem is the power relationship itself between the few, the owners of media and the many, to whom the airwaves belong. Black media owners may be a little better, but not always, and sometimes not at all. Look at what Cathy Hughes and Bob Johnson have wrought. Radio One has completely eliminated news from its offerings, just as BET did ages ago.

    Demanding that the stations black people already listen to hire local news crews and bring back locally produced, locally relevant news would do more for our community, do more to boost the vitality of local community organizing than putting Imus, O’Reilly, Neil Boortz, Mike Savage and a half dozen others at the bottom of a river.

  2. Watch how fast Bernard McJerk gets Imus to break that agreement not to say anything negative about CBS.

    As for his comeback? He’ll start out trashing everyone who slung him under the bus, including the Dark Sith.

  3. It’s not the old “money talks and bullshit walks” maxim operating here. Rather it’s money & bullshit ride the bus. So what’s the fuss, Gus? ###

  4. Bruce

    The ignorance shown on this blog is showing. For he who believes that Sharpton and Jackson lead the black race, should forever remember, right always wins over wrong. And Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson were wrong in getting involved.

    Keep following these so called leaders and all of the Black race will die in disgrace.

  5. Bruce

    I am sorry AlexofTheTurnips. Don Imus will not die. He will make more money in a year then you will in a lifetime.

    Thank God there is a God and that we live in America.

    And tell your sister Kia Vaughn she is barking up the wrong tree for filing a defamation suit against everyone involved. I hope she has no skeletons in her closet or she will be sure to have it exposed.

  6. To the other “Bruce”

    Kia Vaughan deserves whatever she can get out of that SOB.

    You’ve been watching too much “Morning Joe”, and Scarborough is either high or drunk that early in the morning or high and drunk; take your pick.

    Honestly, that whole Rutgers team should sue Imus, since he’s getting fat paid even after being fired. He shouldn’t be benefitting from the pain and embarassment he caused those young women.

    And you could never masquerade as Bruce Dixon – we know him, and you, sir, are no Bruce Dixon.

  7. I now believe that bullshit can walk and talk=Imus. Not only does he get off free, he gets on WABC in the morning and he’s back on the other network. What the deuce, Bruce?

  8. Suzan

    I’ve an idea…
    Why don’t you, Skeptic, call on Sister Louise Patterson in Memphis and ask her about Imus (he was instrumental in having a downtown Memphis street renamed “G.E. Patterson Ave”). Then, when she tells you how she and her husband feel/felt about him, go on a tirade about what an “Uncle Tom” or racist she is and her husband was.
    Good luck with that !
    Oh, and you might also take a trip through the blogosphere to witness the overwhelming MAJORITY reaction to Miss Kia’s unfortunate money grab attempt (pay particular attention to the Rutgers comment board). A tattooed hard-core ho indeed.
    Lastly, let me leave you with a few questions…
    – Why did Imus call the Tennessee team “cute”?
    – Who are the “Jigaboos and Wannabes” ?
    – In your world, do people normally ACCEPT apologies and then turn around and sue ?
    – Why did Imus play the ENTIRE MKL Dream speech each year ?
    – Why did Imus go to the funeral of a black boy who’d been at the Ranch twice ?
    – Would you not consider Coach Stringer’s quote about her team that day – “We looked like a deer stuck in headlights” – more damaging to the potential career of one her players than a stupid, reckless joke made about their appearance at 6:00 am by some old white radio dude ? If not, why ?
    – Do you honestly believe that Imus was fired BECAUSE of the comment. Or, do you think that perhaps white corporate greed actually intervened on the black agenda’s behalf. THAT would be hard to swallow, I suppose, so I wouldn’t expect an honest answer actually.

    Keep on hatin’ Brotha ! You’re doing a world of good. [snark off]

  9. The only thing that is showing on this blog and in this series of exchanges is the disgusting racism on both sides of the street. None of you get it, do you?

  10. kong Laing

    It is time for justice to prevail and this lawsuit should continue, what he did to those women will follow them for the rest of their lives and will be written up in historical archives long after they retire from basketball. Some bloggers are not even bothering to address them by their proper names anymore, only by the new Imus ordained catch-phrase that has been unduly bestowed upon them. How would any of you imus buffs like any woman relative to trade places and live their humiliation? What if it were you who’d been insulted at this same universal level? (choose your insult), so that everywhere you turn bloggers, newspaper journalists and critics were debating it, or radio and television stations were discussing it, and most were blaming you, the innocent victim, for fighting for your rights. Something has to done because this is just not right.

    It’s obvious that the Imus supporters are deliberately turning blind-eyed, and are trying to pretend they don’t see the effects and conditons his actions has caused these women. When they know very well, with every fiber in their bodies, that had these women been white and Imus black, they would easily put them selves in Vaughn’s place and understand her point of view.

    Some claim that no one knew her name before April 4th 2007, (which is nothing more than a blatant lie and a pathetic attempt to defend an imitation of a man), but the fact remains that they were public figures long before that.
    1) She and her team members were well known in their hometowns as well as on college campus.
    2) They were known on the day of their televised Championship game with Tennessee before the slander.
    3) They were known by other rival teams members they’ve played against.
    4) They were known in other cities and state by the people and fans there who attended and watched those games, and
    5) They were known by anyone who followed women college basketball, including the varies medias who covered the games.
    So Imus’ attorney would not do well to use that argument.

    But even if it were true that no one knew their names before this incident, the point is you don’t have to be famous to sue for defamation if enough people heard the slur. Any private individual can bring this type of lawsuit If they were similarly exploited by an Imus or whomever. Your sister or mother, or wife or daughter, although probably not world known, are still entitled to certain Liberties. Even an uncle or brother can sue on grounds of slander and defamation, these suits are not limited to women.

    Kia’s entire team without a doubt, despite their notoriety, or the lack there of, (depending on the amount of honesty that people are will to acknowledge), had their inalienable rights interrupted big-time, because what happened to them completely embodied the intent of slander and defamation.
    1)There was an abusive verbal attack, and the spoken injury willfully depicted them out of their character.
    2)They were the victims and target of the abusive attack and language.
    3)The perpetrator knew the statements he made to be false and malicious at the time he them. (done purely in the context of amusement)
    4) Their lives were disrupted because of physical, emotional, or social distress (evident in the lawsuit claiming continual good name association with derogatory and malicious terms). and
    5) The statement was communicated to the pubic, (who has treated the remarks as if it were fact with repetitious tormenting and oppressive taunts everyday since the occurrence of the incidence).

    His insults referred to each and everyone of them, meaning EITHER OR All of them are entitled to sue with or without the whole group. It’s impossible to move beyond this unscathed, and I don’t think Imus will escape this scene he has created for himself without facing more harsh consequences, contrary to what most believe.

Comments are closed.