Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Have Fancy Dress & Thirst For Spotlight, Will Crash State Dinner
A few NYC politicians lashed out against Hot 97 for playing a controversial song mocking the South East tsunami for four days. City Councilman Robert Jackson called Hot 97 "sick." Councilman John Liu noted that morning personality Todd Lynn said disturbingly "I'm going to start shooting Asians" and is working with others to have the FCC throw down its weight on Emmis Communications, owners of Hot 97, and prompt the firing of Miss Jones, the morning show host - essentially, do more than apologize and simply ask its morning show staffers to donate a week's salary to the tsunami cause. Councilman James Gennaro emphasized the need to go after Hot 97's advertisers.
hiphopmusic.com has more updates. Gothamist recommends that anyone who is offended by the lyrics to send complaint letters and sign petitions.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I understand the outrage, and people will have to be let go, but to get the FCC involved is a bit much. Of course I don't agree with the song, it was sick, but for the federal government to be invloved?
Already emailed Mine in. I suggest anyone who send emails keep it professional. Sprint, Reebok and "Hot" 97 will be unimpressed with people's Rantings.
In all respect, I disagree. Getting the FCC involved is exactly the proper response. They say they are apologetic, but http://www.missjones.net/ has no mention of an apology. Did you hear the "exchange" between Miss Jones and Miss Info? I recommend people listen to the MP3 file and make an informed decision then. IMO, Miss Jones has issues...
Also, Turn it around: if this was an Asian DJ using the "N" word, what would be the proper response?
I agree, if the radio station refuse to levy out the appropriate punishment then the damn FCC needs to do something abuot it. By the way, Maria Sharapova is hot.
instead of just donating one week's pay, these djs should be forced to travel to thailand or sri lanka and volunteer for a few days in an orphanage or in a relief camp. maybe seeing the victims first hand would be a more fitting punishment. who cares if some rich dj loses one week's pay?
To be honest, I'm not sure what would be appropriate. Me, I'd shed Not One Tear if the Morning staff was fired, but I don't know it that would be Way over the top or not. I *might* be mistaken, but Tarsha Jones (Miss Jones) *IS* the program director At "Hot" 97, so frankly, this Parady *DOES* represent what that Station is all about. Apparently, "Hot" 97 didn't just play it once, but a least a few times. Anyone know how many times? This complete lack of judgement makes me question any "Apology" that station makes.
"you feel superior, probably because you're Asian."?
"I'm gonna start shooting Asians."?
I marvel at the sheer stupidness these two have publically displayed. What's next? Since Miss Info is Korean American, will Miss Jones Berate her over Korean Deli's?
BTW, this wasn't just on the Air, The Hot 97 Staff had an MP3 of the "song" called USA_For_Indonesia.mp3 onthier website.
Here's the thing... I've thought since last year's Super Bowl that the FCC was full of crap, and that they were tools of the Administration's efforts to throw a bone to radical right-wingers, to show that "See, we're being the morality police, look at the FCC."
I also didn't find Janet Jackson and Howard Stern all that offensive, either.
Now this song is offensive, deeply so, and tasteless, deeply so, but the fact of the matter is they have a right to broadcast it. And we have a right to be offended, and sign petitiions, and write letters, etc. And Hot 97 has the right to fire Miss Jones and the whole crew. But if you think the FCC's involvement is wrong when you're not offended, then its wrong when you are.
It's always the tough thing to accept, but people have the right to be jerks, and to make asses of themselves.
Why does the FCC need to get involved again? Does anyone know a damn thing about why our rights are so important?
Anyone heard of the First Amendment?! The content of the song is obviously sick and in poor taste, but why would it be so bad as to be ILLEGAL? Petitioning the station is fine, writing letters to the advertisers is fine, but intervention from the government (the FCC) would cross the line, BIG time.
"Does anyone know a damn thing about why our rights are so important?"?
Ok, I'm scratching my head at that one...
"Anyone heard of the First Amendment?!"
Sure. We're all excercising it right now. You too. Are you implying that "Hot" 97 should use it's 1st ammendment Rights, but not us?
Interesting...
The content of the song is obviously sick and in poor taste, but why would it be so bad as to be ILLEGAL?
Who said it was "ILLEGAL"? The FCC Licences the bandwidth used by Radio & TV Stations. This was originally done to prevent a monopoly on broadcasted information. Ever notice that when a Coup takes place in another country, the people overturning the Gov't goes for the Mass Media Control FIRST? This is why it's licensed here in the US, to prevent an information Monopoly. As such, people are allowed to make "Obscenity" complaints. In this case, I doubt the FCC will do anything as they didn't use Any of the 7 words you can't say on air.
"intervention from the government (the FCC) would cross the line, BIG time."
I disagree. Gov't is there to carry out the will of the people. If the people want John Liu or James Gennaro to do something, they should.
As a Japanese guy, I'm kinda ambivalent about pop culture's treatment of Asians. Yeah, it bugs me that Asians are still acceptable for caricature, but I don't believe in legislating taste or morality.
And yeah, the First Amendment - it doesn't exist to protect socially acceptable speech. It exists precisely to protect this type of expression - socially unacceptable, tasteless, offensive speech.
Sure, boycott the station. Call and write letters to the advertisers. But to get the FCC involved is the height of dumbfuckery.
Our Constitutional right to free speech does not give Hot 97 the right to broadcast whatever they want. Radio and television stations are using public property - the airwaves - to broadcast their shows and therefore it is appropriate that they be regulated. Whether or not you like the FCC, someone has to oversee these idiots.
Of course everyone has the right to make asses of themselves but not on my dime. Let them follow Howard Stern's lead and sign up with a pay service.
as much as i despise censorship and our current federal govt, i think that if this 'personality' broadcast that he was going to start shooting asians, then FCC intervention could be justified. i see that as possibly a death threat and incitement to commit hate crimes.
the rest, including the stupid song, is definitely covered by freedom of speech.
...
...
I think Hell has offically frozen over.
After reading it Several Times, I find myself agreeing with Nola...
How did this Sad State of Affairs come to pass???
;)
Just kidding. It had to happen sometime.
The FCC has no place with this. Is it offensive, sure. Distasteful? Yup. But the FCC has no place sticking their nose in this one. Remember Opie & Anthony? They had the Sex in St. Pats scandal - which while offensive to some, didn't broadcast anything "offensive" as defined by the FCC. They got fired because of pressure from the Catholic league - not because of the FCC. The FCC later fined the station because of indecency, which is questionable, according to their vague guidelines. The bottom line: If you want Ms. Jones fired, pressure the advertisers. Seems her time is limited anyway, as Star and Bucwild are back to crush them.
Incidentally, Rick Delgado, former producer of O & A is the producer for this morning show.
nola,
I agree with you in principle - publicly owned airwaves, community standards and whatnot - but in reality, deregulation has rendered FCC irrelevant and it is, at best, selective in choosing which rules to enforce.
I'm not arguing that Hot 97 go nilly willy broadcasting whatever they want. But I do believe there is a line between tasteless and not fit to air. Does it piss people off? Yes. Does it encourage violence or other criminal/antisocial acts? No.
In any case, advertisers and the audience will let Emmis know whether the song was acceptable for broadcast. Remember, it was the grassroots email/phone campaign that proved effective during the Sinclair Broadcasting controversy last year, not the FCC.
Whether it's right for the FCC to get involved or not, threatening their ad revenue is a much more effective way to fight Hot 97.
The right wing uses (abuses) the FCC complaint line whenever they find something offensive. What the right wing finds offensive, I usually don't find offensive, so when they complained to the FCC about Janet's boob, I didn't join in. But that doesn't mean I discount the entire FCC complaint system. It exists for me, too, to register my complaints when I find something offensive. (And IMHO, disrespecting the quarter million tsunami dead by branding them with an ethnic slur is pretty offensive. As someone else noted, imagine if another radio station mocked some African natural disaster by joking -- singing -- about dead niggers. Would that be offensive enough?). I say, if you found the Hot 97 broadcast offensive, then complain to the FCC -- if only to prevent the FCC complaint system from becoming a tool of the right wing in their culture war.
even if the public owns the airwaves, the constitution still applies. i don't want to see my 'dime' used to broadcast religious sermons, but it is. you don't want your 'dime' used to play idotic garbage, but it is. the govt is there to carry out the will of the people, but that will is spelled out in the constitution to protect minority opinion from being trampled by the majority.
anyway, are you or i actually paying for them to be on the air or do the licenses the station pays cover the federal costs? i don't know. like toyochin, i think it's better for the free market to sort this out naturally than for the FCC to expand its role as morality police.
but beyond all that, what about the guy saying he's going to shoot asian people?
Wouldn't the will of the people be carried out via the FCC Complaints?
"Wouldn't the will of the people be carried out via the FCC Complaints?"
It is and it isn't. Any FCC action would carry out the will of the people who complained, but it could also come at the risk of overextending FCC's authority and threatening free expression.
Keep in mind that FCC Complaint system considers the opinions of people who are offended enough to write in, but does not consider people who were not offended, or were offended but not enough to contact the FCC.
Remember when FCC fined Fox for "Married By America"? That fine came as a result of 22 unique complaints. Considering the millions who watched it, then went on with their lives, that's a teeny weeny minority. Will of the people? Not quite.
yes, s.d.... at the expense of the minority. but the point of the constitution is to protect the minority view from being suppressed by the majority. that's why i think it'd be better for the free market to handle it.
I find Rush Limbaugh offensive.
I find Sean Hannity offensive.
No big surprise, I find most of Fox News offensive.
These are my opinions. They may or may not be widely held, but they are what they are.
Should I call the FCC and have these guys fined, or worse, because I, just I, think they're racist or homophobic?
I think Miss Jones is way out of line. That may be a more widely-held opinion, but it's still just that... an opinion. In a democracy, opinions are not subject to government regulations.
You're right, Nola, they are public airwaves. But that means they are open to all, including the assholes. When you don't like what I say (including, probably, this post) you answer back, you don't seek to have my internet access taken away by government edict.
If the airwaves belong to the public (as they do), then the public should police themselves.
"the point of the constitution is to protect the minority view from being suppressed by the majority."
Note: I'm not for suppression of *ANY* Minority.
That being said, I must disagree about the Constitution (Another topic?). IMO, the formation of the Senate is the balance to protect the minority. Each State gets 2 Senators regardless of size. The Constitution exists, IMO, to help the Individual. While the Individual is the ultimate Minority, I think that was the focus, not minority protection.
Can I be the first one to say I have always hated that station? I just don't listen to it.
I do think calling advertisers is a better idea than the FCC. I would rather have more choices of programming than less.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say RADIO IN NYC SUCKS.
by 'minority view', i mean the view not held by the majority. not ethnic or demographic minorities if that's what you're getting at. freedom of speech protects the views not held by the majority from being taken away by that majority. whether those views are in a group or not... i don't see the relevance.
The rationale behind the 1st amendment protection of the freedom of speech is to promote robust public debate, like the discussion we are having on this blog for the last two days. So, ironically, the more we publicly discuss HOT97's debate, the more value we are instilling in the comments, and therefore, the stronger the argument that such speech is constitutionally protected. Value of speech, after all, is a factor in determining whether speech is obscene. I just thought this is a curious observation.
Now, people who are really offended by the comments should file a complaint with the FCC. The ideal person would be someone who obviously is damaged by such speech. E.g. a friend or relative of the Queens native, Hannah Shi. Personally, I wouldn't file a complaint with the FCC because (a) I think it'll be more effective and damaging to HOT97 and its parent co if we attack their bottom line--target their advertisers, get their stocks to drop (if publicly traded), etc. (b) I don't want this current administration to indirectly regulate morality. Would you?
I think people are definitely overreacting. Was the song offensive? yes... Do we need to have a witch trial over it? no. Should we get the FCC involved? definitely not.
Let's step back and think about this for a second. People were offended by the song. However, in the same way, some people were offended by Howard Stern and Stewie's butt on Family Guy. How can we, on one hand, say that the FCC is going overboard on Howard Stern and television shows and on the other hand sic the FCC on this radio station? How can we say that we are more offended by this than the Christian Coalition by Howard Stern? In the end, you become as bad as the groups that are up in arms every time they say "ass" on television.
Secondly, I find it hypocritical that the left and the right defend their right to free speech only when it suits them. Why weren't you guys up in arms when the Brooklyn Museum displayed the art piece of a cross in a bottle of urine? Why didn't you guys support Ashcroft when he was covering up the nude statues? Art is art is art. It may be offensive, it may be beauty, but it's still art.
Lastly, it has become a problem in this country that when someone makes a judgement in error, the "mob mentality" takes over and they try to destroy the person or institution that made the error in judgement. We are all human. Mistakes are made. People apologize. What more can you ask for? Would you be willing to give up a week's pay everytime you offend someone? How about a week's pay everytime you made the wrong decision at work? Remember, these employees are people too. It doesn't help any if we try to destroy the institution that they've worked so hard to build up.
Now, my stance on this is that, yes the song is offensive. But, I do have a choice of not listening to it. The point is that this country is very divided as it is. There is no point in getting all up in arms everytime something like this happens.
If you feel offended by a joke, you should speak up and let the offender know. Just because I don't speak up about Howard Stern, or some art in some museum doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion on how offensive this material was. Everyone has to pick and choose their fights carefully. If not, then you would be one tired and bitter individual. By the way, Maria Sharapova is hot!
This issue has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Nobody's right to freedom of speech is taken away because radio and television stations have to adhere to certain standards. We are all free to make fun of disaster victims and insult minorities, but all freedoms have certain limits. Can schoolteachers stand in front of the classroom and tell racist jokes? Why not, hijiki? What about their freedom of speech?
If you don't like the FCC, fine. You have the right to speak out against it and to work for reform. But if you took a poll I would bet that the vast majority of people don't want this kind of crap on public airwaves. The FCC is carrying out what it was charged to do. It was not charged to ban religious programming and Fox News, so don't use this as an excuse to cry over every show you don't like.
Maybe the FCC should suppress the use of bold on comments because the majority find it annoying.
I don't have a record collection of tsunami songs. I don't know anyone rocking out to tsunami songs on their iPods, so I could give a damn about it.
Seriously, there is a danger when a government body uses arbitrary power to define what is or isn't appropriate. Right now, things don't seem so bad because they're targeting the obvious: swearing, boobies, middle fingers, blood and guts, etc., things that are pretty much universally recognized as "bad."
The danger is arbitrary power, where conceiveably 10 years from now it could be fine-worthy to say "I don't like the government's policies." Seem unlikely? As far as the law is concerned, it's EXACTLY as arbitrary as saying tsunami songs should be banned by the FCC. The FCC could have the power to ban nearly anything they want right now.
This same ban-happy mentality also led to the regulation of current-day "free speech zones" during the RNC. Last I checked, the forefathers declared the whole country a free speech zone.
If people don't want so much crap on the airwaves (I agree), then why is there so much crap on the airwaves?
People who do things like Miss Jones, or the schoolteacher who tells racist jokes, usually meet their own punishments (usually at the hands of their employers). There's really no need for government involvement. If the public at large doesn't like how its airwaves are being used, then they can take care of it. Accepting the consequences of your actions is a vital part of exercising your freedom of speech.
Once you introduce the government, then you become subject to their whims (right v. left, left v. right) and it's not about the issue at hand anymore.
I'd be one of those people answering the poll saying that I don't want this crap on the airwaves. So I tell the station, I tell their advertisers, etc. It doesn't need to be done by government edict.
Because if we're gonna open that door, there's lots of crap I'd like to see off the airwaves (start with "American Idol," "Who's My Daddy?" "Fear Factor" etc.). These shows, like MJ, are guilty of (in some cases extreme) bad taste, which (pretty obviously) is not illegal.
I disagree with "There is no point in getting all up in arms everytime something like this happens".
Whenever someone is offended by something, They should speak up (What's wrong with Bold?!?!? j/k). Did you listen to the MP3? After that tirade, Miss Jones "Apology" seems, IMO, insincere at best. I'm certainly NOT advocating her Crucifiction, but IMO, she might want to go on vacation for a few weeks.
As for Gov't intervention, well, IMO, people will speak up and complain about the Gov't when it goes too far. (Remember the patriot Act?)
public school educators are not in the realm of free of speech. they have specific programs for which they are hired to pass on to children. entertainers and artists, do in fact practice free speech.
it doesn't matter that all but a few don't want to hear it. it's the same whether it's less than 1% (as in this case) or more than 49%. take a poll on rush... if more than 50% say he should go, should we call the fcc and send him to satelite? despise him as i do, i would be defending his right to free speech. just because we, the majority, find it offensive doesn't make it illegal.
what i find odd is that while i'm suggesting a free-market solution, you're pushing for a big govt solution. i thought you were conservative.
I don listen to hot97, nor will I ever, and not because of this incident,I just have no interest in what they play, though my son does. I read in The NY post about this and thought, "Oh well, more stupid radio people out there", and thought nothing more of it. After reading the comments on this board,to satisfy my own curiousty, I went to hiphop.com and listened to the 6 minute MP3 posted there to form my own opinion. Nevermind the song itself, I could not believe the HATE coming from their crew. If any other ethnic group ranted ethnic slurs about blacks on the air, the shit would most DEFINITELY hit the fan. I agree that the FCC should probally not have to get involved, because it is so slam dunk that Hot97 should have already fired these RACIST idiots! Most stations welcome any kind of publicity, but this cannot be good for them. Oh, I forgot, freedom of speech. What a cop out. As far as Miss Info, good for you for standing up to these THUGS! I would hope you can find a job on a real radio station and separate yourself from these a-holes.
while i agree with everything you say, that sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, bruce. of course they're idiots. so are the kkk and many other groups who also get 1st ammendment protection. and of course the public has the power to put them in their place... a slam dunk as you say. but the first ammendment is a cop out? you should elaborate on that one.
Does "a-holes" mean "ASSholes"?
Schoolteachers are not in the realm of free speech? That's a funny one. We all have to deal with limitations on our speech, and many of these limitations are related to our jobs. Schoolteachers are restricted in what they can say while on the job. And radio DJs are well aware of the restrictions placed upon them by the FCC. Stations fully understand that there are conditions that must be met in order for them to retain their broadcast licenses.
You have every right to protest the FCC standards, but they were created through a democratic process and have the support of the American public. Several posters seem to be quivering with fear over the possibility that the FCC will start imposing some Victorian-era set of standards, but where is the evidence of this? These stations are not heavily censored, and cable and satellite programming provides plenty of options for those of you in the trench coat set.
As for the whole free-market vs. government intervention issue, I assume you believe that radio stations who refuse to hire blacks should not have to face any government sanctions?
Hijiki, I do value your opinion. And yes,it is most definitely a knee jerk reaction, otherwise I would not even have posted my feelings here. I do believe that the Hot97 crew will ultimately invoke their 1st ammendment rights, because that is what everybody does in the situation they put themselves in.What other defense could one have for this kind of racial outburst but say we are using our right to freedom of speech. As you stated Hijiki, you are right, there are groups like the KKK,JDL,IRA,and many others, but their message is not on commercial radio because what advertiser what want to be affiliated with them. Would it be o.k.for a radio station in the USA to broadcast Al-Jazera and their message on our public airwaves.Obviously not. Unfortunately, that is why the internet appeals so much to hate groups, because it is free, and not regulated. Ned, that is exactly what I meant by A-holes.
Hijiki, Nola... you guys gonna take this act on the road? Just don't bring up the hawks! :>)
Just to keep throwing my two cents in... schoolteachers are absolutely in the realm of free speech. As a matter of fact, they have more freedom than the average joe in their place of employment in the way of tenure. It would be SIGNIFICANTLY harder to fire a teacher who's an out and out racist/homophobe than it would be to fire Miss Jones and her whole crew over this song issue.
As for government involvement with regards to hiring, that's a civil rights issue, not a free speech issue. It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but if you think about it, the FCC denying someone their first amendment rights (and subsequent conseqences) is not all that different than an employer denying someone their 14th amendment rights.
Anywho, gotta run, all, but a great sequence! You've all made me think, which is an accomplishment in itself. Thanks.
Just because the majority of the American public support something, doesn't make it right. There was a time when the majority of the American public didn't legally want blacks to vote. There was a time that the majority of the American public didn't want women to vote. There was a time that the majority of the American public didn't want interracial marriage to be legal.
Just because the majority thinks something doesn't make it right. Opinions will always vary, but every law and ordinance must comply with the Constitution. This is why many of the above mentioned injustices have been corrected; it was determined that the denial of rights were not supported by Constitution.
In its age, the Constitution is still brilliantly designed. The more people ignore it or take it for granted, the more likely things will get worse. The smallest things must not be taken for granted; these principles were put in place for a reason, not just to please the perversions of the "trench coat set".
evidence? there have been several recent television broadcasts that have been 'volantarily' censored as a direct result of the recent fcc crackdown. it's the chilling effect caused by unclear rules on the part of fcc. among the casualties are documentaries on pbs, er proceedures and cartoon butts.
you can turn off the radio or change the channel (powell even advocated this as the best solution to most problems like this). you can complain to the station and to their advertisers. on the other hand, education is required by the govt. you can't turn off your teacher. the school programs are directly funded by tax dollars. if a schoolteacher played this song to a class, s/he would certainly be fired. they do not have the same freedoms.
we all know why the fcc is there, but i don't see what standards are being broken by airing that song. now threatening to shoot asians is a whole other story.
bruce, i think we're just agreeing that advertisers in the free market will control what get's broadcast more naturally than federal rules can. i mean, how can you codify what they did? you end up with rules based on subjective concepts like 'obscene'.
brucemir,
-------
Not to get too off tangeant, but what is wrong with Al-Jazeera broadcast? People have this misconception of AJ as 24-hour one-stop source of Anti-Americanism. In fact, only a tiny percentage of their broadcasts deal with the US, and isn't too unlike American cable news channels. Yes, they tend to be anti-US involvement, but they're relatively politically neutral. Think Fox News, except ran by some idealistic Arab journalists. I recommend watching Control Room - mediocre film, but very informative
---------
In any case, I don't understand what's wrong with simply pressuring the advertisers to have Miss Jones fired? You know what's going to happen with an FCC complaint? At most, the station gets fined, while giving the agency a clear precedent for legislating decency.
Let's put it this way:
Calling advertisers = more effective, less guv'mint, lets businesses decide what to do with their own money
Complaining to FCC = more red tape, less effective, possibly dangerous precedent
Look, it wasn't pornographic, it wasn't obscene (at least by NY radio standards), it wasn't an incitement to violence or otherwise criminal act. Leave the FCC out of this.
Apparently, at least one Sponser got the message. As per hiphopmusic.com.
As for the FCC, I think people will Do what the feel is appropriate. I thought Jin's response was well done.
Also, the CBS Video explained that the "Tsunami Song" was played for 4 day's prior to being pulled.
Wow. As per http://www.hiphopmusic.com At 6:03am, "Hot" 97 announced that "The Morning Show" is suspended indefinately. Listen to the MP3.
The New Announcer (E-Bro?)opened the phones to discussion about this.
I wonder if it's permanent? *And* does it include "Miss Info"? Anyone know her Web site? I'm curious as to her thoughts.
ms. info's info:
http://www.hot97.com/airstaff/missInfo.aspx
Thanks, but That's her "hot" 97 page, not personal web site (Assuming she has one.)
Never mind the legal mumbo-jumbo.
The matter of fact is, there are a lot of young kids who listen to this station.
A lot of young kids don't understand how big of a tragedy this whole tsunami event is in asia.
And many kids may think that this kind of parody songs are cool.
It sends shivers down my spine to even think of a 5th grader strolling down the street singing lyrics to this song.
It's not just because it's an asian issue.
All this show did was promote racial issues that have long been out of media.
Now it'll be like the 90's all over again.
This isn't about color, because i know 99% of the blacks don't like what happened at Hot97 either.
Whether FCC gets involved or not I could careless, for all they'll do is fine them.
What I'm more concerned about is that stations like HOT97 is supposed to be #1 in Hiphop and R&B, but they are just being hypocritical.
I also don't like the way Jin lashed back at them, even though I agree with everything he said.
So in the end... Hot97 is screwed no matter what... I don't think any other stations would even think about pulling another stunt as such...
So let's move on...
Superbowl's comming soon, I'd won't have such an event like this ruin my weekend.
look all i got to say is big Fing deal they made a joke out of i who cares it is not our probem anyway i dont care whats happening in other countries and i dont see why you should either, yes alot of ppl died but how many ppl die around the world each day, i wouldnt donate one red cent to thoes pppl in asia you know why, its there problem not mine, thats the problem with the world today no one wants to take responsability fo rshit they need to take care of, if that would happen to us un te us would we get support? no, did ppl in other countries rally ogether and onate to 9-11? no they sat back and let us sort it out just as we should them . why?? CAUSE ITS NOT OU F'ING PROBLEM
I know this is eons after the fact, but did miss jones and her cronies get kicked off the air for good? I've posted here before, so u know I am not from the NY area. I haven't heard anything about miss jones lately. and is miss info still on the show? I would think she'd quit after that situation.