[leadpenny]

Lost what?

Look, I wouldn't try to change your mind about Imus. It's adult entertainment.

If you don't believe Imus is doing good charity work - take your money elsewhere.

[finnman69]

I never said Imus does not do good charity work.

But the reporter was not wrong in stating that Imus lives on a 4000 acre ranch with a 14,000sf house or that he spends a lot of time at the ranch. It looks like a really really nice place to live despite Imus's absurd claim, it's hard living there.

[surfatsixty]

Hey, I'll weigh in a bit since I've read the WSJ every business day for 25 years and also listened to Imus for alot of those years. A reporter doesn't get his article on the WSJ front page left column without having his every last duck in a row. That is the nature and quality of that paper. There is no finer written or edited paper in the country, rivalled only by the Christian Science Monitor. Additionally, the front page writer/editors are scrupulously separated from the editorial page writers/editors and receive no influence/intimidation, unlike the NYTimes.

That said, I trust the article. What does the article say, however? Basically, it comes down on Imus for being sloppy, unknowledgeable about running a charity, and for having a board of himself, his wife and their two personal accountants. Tax errors, sloppy accounting work, and his penchant for hyping himself weave their way through the article.

My final opinion is that the article was geared more to readers who engage in charity work, showing them what can happen to a sloppily run, high-profile charity.