It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry over the world of trouble that Don Imus has gotten himself into. On the one hand, it’s the sort of natural progression of a lot of talk radio, especially the big-time national shows, where audiences are fickle and if the host’s comments don’t make the water cooler conversation then there’s a serious problem. On the other hand, there’s the whole business of a person’s right to say what they want to say—regardless of how offensive it is.
As I’ve noted before, journalists take the first amendment very seriously. Free speech/free press. It also includes freedom of religion (an issue careening across Forsyth County right now) freedom to petition the govt. and freedom of assembly.
It’s important to note that the Bill of Rights doesn’t say anything about broadcast radio and shock jocks. At the time, even a thinker and futurist as brilliant as Thomas Jefferson had no idea what was coming down the pike. But we treat broadcast different from newspapers and just shouting out your window or what have you, because the airwaves are seen as a public domain. In essence, the government can’t control what you say, but they can determine the size and existence of your broadcast equipment. That hasn’t happened yet with Imus.
Instead, the marketplace seems to be doing its job, with various businesses and marketing executives evaluating whether they want to keep advertising on his show. If they do, he’ll be fine. If not, he’ll probably end up in a greatly reduced role.
My guess is that Imus will survive in some fashion for several key reasons. First, he’s got a huge audience. I’m an occasional,once every three month listener, but my guess is that before the YKW hit the fan, lots of people chuckled at his remark about the Rutgers bball team. He says what many people think. Two, his support base among elected officials and the powers that be is broad. He has a lot of chits to call in. Three, Americans love nothing more than a story of redemption. If Imus can sell group two that he’s serious about three, then he is good to go.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
My Paraphrase of Today’s Final Paragraph Using Quite a Few of Ken’s Words:
My guess is that Imus will survive in some fashion for several key reasons. First, he’s got a huge audience of racist listeners, lots of people who think his remark about the Rutgers bball team is funny. He says what many people think. Two, his support base among elected officials and the powers that be is broad. There are racists among the rich and powerful, too. Three, Americans love nothing more than a story of redemption. If Imus can convince us he’s just like us (read: racist), then he’s good to go.
Please note:
I don’t listen to Imus and don’t think racism is funny.
We’ve got a long way to go.
Imus has his first amendment rights intact. He will be persecuted by his sponsors and bosses. He will not be arrested.
He might lose his job with CBS Radio. If that happens he most likely will be picked up by satellite radio with a Howard Stern type deal. Rightly or wrongly this is the way it works now days. Bad publicity is really great publicity in many cases.
Let’s not forget Imus is a shock jock. It’s entertainment pure and simple. He audience is not made up entirely of racist listeners as Helen said. Saying dumb things does not necessarily make Imus racist. My very liberal and tolerant mother-in-law listens and enjoys his antics daily. She is now angry at many of her heroes for, what she calls, “a feeding frenzy.
For all the bad, the guy does many good things for sick children at his ranch. He will surely land on his feet somewhere and hopefully be a better person for it.
I wonder why no one in the liberal media speaks of the culture that drives the statements such as that made by Imus. The term he used did not originate at a Klan meeting or in a trailer park. It comes from black culture. And it thrives in the pop culture of today in music and movies. Michelle Malkin’s column for today spells that out quite well:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/04/11/the_culture_of_bitches,_hos,_and_niggas
People like Helen Losse seem to me to drag us backwards with the way they approach the matter of racism. As a white person, she exudes “white guilt” and the “blame it on whitey” mentality that drives minorities in this country to stay where they are and seek reparations rather than pushing forward and overcoming the brutal cycle of poverty, violence, and isolation. I hope for her sake and society’s that it is not her goal to do that. I know she means well. I truly believe she wants the same thing I want - healing in our country, and in our world. But, this country and society will never recognize that we are all truly equal while people sit back in their chairs of judgement and finger point all the day long. We need to work together to overcome the hysteria and evil of racism. Working together starts with each of us looking at ourselves and dealing with our own demons. Then moving forward and embracing our brothers of other colors to become one united force against the evils of racism past. That way we can have a present day and future that sees no colors, and knows no hatred. It will never work if the races separate and try to overcome racism apart from one another. We all have to work together!
Imus made a stupid statement. He has to bear the burden for it. But, in the bigger picture, is he the only one to blame?
David in K-ville
Hi David. What makes you think I’m white?
And instead of Michelle (too-conservative-for =words) Malkin, try reading this: http://apoeticjustice.blogspot.com/2007/04/nappy-headed-ho-is-we.html
Good comments all. We’ve talked about this a lot yesterday in our newsroom. The correctness of racially or ethnically inflammatory remarks—who can say them, who can’t, etc.—is a mine field. My opinion, context is everything. I think back to Stevie Wonder and his great lyric from I Wish, “looking back on when I was a little nappy-headed boy ...” It’s hard to imagine that that riff somehow opens up the floodgates for anybody to use that phrase willy-nilly.
No. He didn’t “survive” it. And to suggest that he says “what many people think” is to assume you know those many people. Now this statement may be true, sure, but it is an easy guess, and a “generalization”, something Imus enjoyed as a broadcaster.
“lots of people chuckled at his remark”
Are you sure about that?
“He has a lot of chits to call in.”
Maybe he’s just good ol boy who’s full of chit?
Peace.
David in K-ville,
“Imus made a stupid statement. He has to bear the burden for it. But, in the bigger picture, is he the only one to blame?”
You sound foolish attacking Helen like some ignorant race baiter.
The color of ones skin when debating racism might be important for certain contexts but you just assumed that a native American was “white”. You sound like the ignorant racist to me. Michelle Malkin? She is not a source for anything my friend. “Sources” do matter. Skin color not so much.
A poetic rsponse is on my blog
http://helenl.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/white-into-black-3/
(Psst, helen and poetryman.
When helen links her comments to her homepage, where she has a photo of herself at the top of her “about” section, it doesn’t really take sleuth action and/or a racially-based assumption to know that she is, in fact, white.
Just saying, David J might be basing his position on Helen’s pics rather than “an ignorant racist” position.)
Esbee, You miss the point. The Poetry Man knows who I am. My ancestors are from England, yes, and my skin is light, hair straight. But I gave up beinng “white.” It’s far too great a burden to bear.
See “White Into Black,” URL listed above.
See M. Quinn’s “The Call for a New Paradigm” http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976954495
thepoetryman, it seems far fetched that I might be able to reason with you based on your posts, but I did want to say that the poster “Esbee” was correct. I did go to Helen’s web page, read some of her work, and look at her picture, which appeared to be that of a white woman. You said at the end of your post: “Sources do matter. Skin color not so much.” Are we talking about racism here? (Rhetorical, please. No response needed.)
And, Helen, I do apologize if I offended you. I was not meaning to attack you more than I was simply stating my opinion of what you originally posted. It struck me as a very harsh, reactionary, biased, and judgmental generalization of a broad spectrum of Imus listeners. I have never listened to Imus, but if he has “millions of listeners” I am guessing he has them of all stripes.
As for your reference to Michelle Malkin, I am sure you might find much in “conservative” thought or opinion as not worthy of your time, but the link you provided to thepoetryman left me scratching my head. Is that supposed to be more objective in nature?
Trying to remain peaceful and civil for the sake and respect of Ken’s web log,
D in K
No, helen, you missed *my* point.
You asked David J what made him think you were white. Poetryman took it a step farther and, after noting what he believed to be the assumoption on David J’s part as to yoru color, used the words “ignorant racist”.
I’m just saying there’s another explanation for David J knowing - correctly - that you are white: your publically posted picture on your publically posted blog that you publically linked to your comment.
I have no doubt that poetryman knows that you are white, but I also have no doubt that *anyone* who clicks your name here on this thread also knows it. That’s my point. Sorry it wasn’t as clear to you as it could have been.
And with that, I bow out. It’s a wonderfully windy day, and we are off to fly kites.
Peace.
D in K,
I apologize if I offended you by what I assumed was an attack on Helen. You seem to think that words have no meaning. What about my posts do you find that makes me unreasonable? And to that end what could you possibly mean by you being able to reason with me? Is that reasonable? For you to reason with another by your phrasing leaves me to assume you think opinions must be the same or aligned with yours in order for there to be reason involved.
You missed my point on your need to mentiion Helen’s skin color. The fact that it is irrelevant is the point.
Michelle Malkin is not a reliable source for anything. I stand by that. Do you have any idea her credentials and from what position she comes from to land her own broad generalizations? I mean if you’re going to say that Helen’s comment was a “broad generalization” and cite the Queen of generalizations Malkin you’ve shot yourself in the foot.
Rhetorical. No response needed? If one must add “no response needed” after making the uneeded point of declaring a “rhetorical” a “rhetorical” then you’ve shot the other foot as well.
Minutes ago, CBS Radio fired Don Imus. Now, both CBS Radio and MSNBC have finally gotten the message: women and African Americans have had it with hate speech.” Feminist Majority Foundation
Ken, Thanks to and to your Blog the Journal for providing a forum for this issue.
Helen. I hope you are correct. If, as you say, women and African Americans have had it with hate speech. I would hope rappers and hip hop artists get the same message and are held to the same standard and suffer the same consequences as Imus. CBS, NBC and other media outlets also own record labels that have many African American artists under contract that have spewed more hate filled, demeaning and slanderous speech towards women and African Americans in one recording than Imus has in years on air. Will CBS or NBC take any action against these insidious and morally corrupt so called artists. Sadly I think not. There is a double standard.
The language of hate can be, in no small part, blamed on some from the very community currently making the most noise and that makes them no better or worse than Imus.
All races and peoples have a stake in finding a solution.
Doug,
Yes. All races and peoples. I have heard several African Americans speak quite eloquently about certain parts of the hip hop culture. It is rather sad that it takes a white man’s racist comment and the controversy that ensued bring so many of the white defenders out of the woodwork. They defend Imus by saying “they do worse to their own”. they defend Imus by saying, “Nappy-headed hos ain’t that bad”, They defend Imus by saying, “Imus is mnor compared to what they call each other”. They defend the indefensible by gently placing a large part of the blame at the foot of the back man. Now, with that said, of course there are issues that need be addressed in the hip hop culture both white and black and there are systemic problems within the community of African Americans, but it is rather telling that it took a white man to open this can of worms, because there is not only racism reflected in language but racism reflected in economic hardships on the middle class and poor and on a majority of african Americans. I don’t need to go into detail on the lopsided socio-economic structure in this country regarding the African American, you know this. Being overwhelmingly poor surrounded by other overwhelmingly poor and all pushed to the fringes of society is a factor that many of the aforementioned defenders of Imus and the quick to condemn the African American are forgetting to mention.
How ironic that this issue is not black and white.
I agree with Doug Grimes. When will there be some accountability towards the artists who put out that filth? Who is writing these networks and telling them to do something about it?
http://twisi-sgaither8504.blogspot.com/
Check out my blog from the perspective of a young African-American in college who listen’s to hip hop.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.