The following is a memo obtained by Amatotalk.com written by Leslie Moonves CEO of CBS, to the employees of CBS, announcing and explaining the firing of Don Imus.
To: All CBS Employees
From: Leslie Moonves, CEO
Date: April 12, 2007
I want to inform you that we have decided to cease broadcasting the Imus
in the Morning radio program, effective immediately, on a permanent
basis.
> We reach this decision after a period of thought, discussion, listening
> to you, and the pursuit of due process in this painful matter. From the
> outset, I believe all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the
> statements that were made on our air about the young women who
> represented Rutgers University in the NCAA Women's Basketball
> Championship with such class, energy and talent. While we have already
> made our disappointment and outrage clear, I would like to take the
> opportunity to offer my personal apologies to the Rutgers team, its
> impressive Coach, and the entire Athletic Department and Administration
> of Rutgers University. CBS has nothing but the highest regard for that
> establishment and its students, and we are sorry that offense was given
> in such a brutal and insensitive manner.
>
> I would also like to extend an apology to everyone beyond Rutgers. Those
> who have spoken with us the last few days represent people of goodwill
> from all segments of our society - all races, economic groups, men and
> women alike. In our meetings with concerned groups, there has been much
> discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people,
> particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this
> society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we
> made our decision, as have the many emails, phone calls and personal
> discussions we have had with our colleagues across the CBS Corporation
> and our many other constituencies.
>
> At the same time, we wanted to take the time necessary to listen to the
> many diverse voices that were raised on this issue. In so doing, we have
> been trying, as best as is possible in such a complex and emotional
> environment, to determine what is, indeed, the right thing to do. I
> believe that in taking this action, we are doing the right thing.
>
> Many of you have come forward during this past week to share your
> thoughts and feelings. I thank you for that. At the end of the day, the
> integrity of our Company and the respect that you feel for CBS becomes
> the most important consideration.
>
> One thing is for certain: This is about a lot more than Imus. As has
> been widely pointed out, Imus has been visited by Presidents, Senators,
> important authors and journalists from across the political spectrum. He
> has flourished in a culture that permits a certain level of
> objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people.
> In taking him off the air, I believe we take an important and necessary
> step not just in solving a unique problem, but in changing that culture,
which extends far beyond the walls of our Company.
I want to thank all those who came to see us to express their views. We
are now presented with a significant opportunity to expand on our record
on issues of diversity, race and gender. We intend to seize that
opportunity as we move forward together.
The decision as to what is "relevant" is an issue for the Court, specifically here, the Military Judge in the trial. Is Mr. Laurences' opinion relevant to the Court? No. Unless you were one of the attorneys on the defense team (myself, Captains Miller & Merriam) you have no idea what was relevant to our defense strategy or to the co-accused and their attorneys. I pray that when I see this film I deem it irrelvant to the trial.
My concern is that it will be and SSG Girouard, a decorated, multiple combat tour soldier, is sitting in the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks and a piece of evidence, the documentary, could have been used at his trial.
Again, I was not afforded the opportunity to form my opinion as his attorney because I was not allowed to see the entire film. Mr. Laurence's job is creating Documentaries and my job is defending Soldiers - why could the 2 have not come together?
Bottom line:
1.COL Steele was given immunity by the Government so his 5th Amend. rights are not at issue
2.I saw a snipit of the documentary on the Saturday before the start of trial and had no idea that this documentary existed until the eve of trial. Did you know of this court-martial or this investigation? I did not know of you so the real question is did you know of the Iron Triangle Investigation?
3. A news anchor who saw the piece stated, as I understood it, and I could be wrong, that you (John Laurence) allegedly threaten legal action.
4.I never said that a briefing alone, given 8 months prior was an excuse for the killigs in this case. Again, you and no one else for that matter are privy to the defense strategy. I was charged with defending SSG Girouard from Life Without the Possibiity of Parole. My curiosity is what if anything else do you have closer in time to the event? Had a he made similar speeches as the one given the day before?
5.Finally, and most importantly, SSG GIROUARD WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED MURDER! He was found guilty of Negligent Homicide, in essence he negligenty entrusted those detainees to those 2 squad members, the 2 sqaud members who actually shot the detainess not SSG Girouard.
All this being said, we both obvioulsy care about soldiers and I hope too see the entire film and I hope that it facilitates more dialogue on the issue".
Anita Gorecki