Michelle Malkin gave us her thoughts about Don Imus a few days ago. I think they deserve a response, because she is by no means the only person to make the points she makes.
Here they are, in a nutshell: Imus was wrong to insult the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team. But why don't people like Al Sharpton, who have taken such umbrage at Imus, do more to clean up the language in the rap and hip-hop communities?
Malkin thus apparently completely misses the whole point of people's anger at Imus:
Rap recordings are not directed against specific people. They are statements about the world. As such, they can be walked away from and ignored if they give offense.
And in the rare circumstances in which they are directed against a specific person - say, a rival rapper - they are directed against someone who has already volunteered to be in the rapper's arena.
In contrast, Imus's comments were directed against real, specific people. In fact, people who are students at a college, trying to get an education, trying to get some success in this life by being on a basketball team.
They were blindsided by Imus's racist, sexist vulgarity. They had no reason to expect it. And, in fact, could not just ignore it.
Could anyone ignore being called out like that, insulted, by a figure with a microphone such as Imus?
I'm surprised Malkin and so many other people don't get this.
It's Communications 101.
Maybe it's more obvious to me, because I've been teaching this for so many years, but there's a world of difference between a public generality, and a public insult hurled at specific people. The law recognizes this, too. The second kind of speech can land you at the end of a slander suit.
In Imus' case, he has so far been fired by MSNBC. Just as he should have been. No one is taking away his right to speak, only his right to be paid for it, and his right for it to be heard by millions of people.
CBS - wake up! Your turn to do that right thing.
As for Michelle Malkin, I'd be happy to recommend one of many common textbooks on communication to her.
Useful links:
Day After Imus: What Doesn't Need to Be Done
Four Imus Fallacies
Snoop Dogg's thoughts on the matter - he gets it
Comments
I disagree with the statement of rappers not directing their offensive words at the public and being statements about the world. Ten years ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly however, in recent days rap has become a way to promote living in bad neighborhoods and the gangster lifestyle. Specifically songs like "This is why I'm hott" and "Tipsy" have nothing to do with trying to better the way of life for the downtrodden. They are not even in a rival rap war it is just trying to mainstream the lifestyle that many people fought to escape. I strongly feel we shouldn't promote songs like this that encourage wanton acts of sexual promiscuity and recreational drug use. So if Imus is getting punished, so be it but it is a complete double standard to let recording artists say things ten times more offensive then this. And if we restrict them then it's only a matter of time before our right to freedom of speech is all but gone.
Posted by: Mike at April 12, 2007 09:24 AM
Thanks for posting this.
I, for one, didn't really know what to think. I was perturbed by the issue, as I knew something was wrong with the comparisons that I was hearing, but could not pinpoint what it was.
The comments I heard were more in the vein of comparing Imus to comedians who entertain using racism that they have experienced, thus because Imus was doing it for entertainment, it is also acceptable.
While I was listening to this stuff, I was thinking to myself is that Imus is behaving like a spoiled bully picking on someone else to assert his own authority. Your point has definitly put it into perspective for me, that he is picking on individuals who are easily identifiable to the public versus anonymous, generalized accounts of comedians or rappers.
Posted by: Laura at April 12, 2007 01:11 PM
Laura - thanks!
Mike: I'm not sure what statement of mine you're disagreeing with. I said rappers do not generally attack specific, real, individual people - but rather attack, disparage, promote, etc general societal classes and conditions.
The examples you cite support my point.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 12, 2007 01:20 PM
The only point I was disagreeing with was the one that rappers, comedians, or any other type of media icon only attack general concerns or ways of life. There is an immense amount of name dropping in recordings and other things. I find it hard to take when the only type of person who isn't allowed to make bluntly conservative jokes and poke fun at racial stereotypes is a white male. Maybe viewer discretion should be advised on his show. Maybe it was wrong for me to blame the rappers and such for committing many of the same acts and point out the double standard. I do not want them to be punished I just want freedom of speech for everyone.
Posted by: mike at April 13, 2007 10:16 AM
Your commentary is the typical "You're distracting us from the real issue" train of thought. The real issue is not whether Don Imus' comments were wrong, but that his firing is indicative of two very troubling trends that currently exist in the media. Issue number one - Imus' firing was wrong because it is based on a double standard that exists in the media today, that double standard being that whites must operate within more rigid boundaries in terms of what they can say compared with media pundits of other races. Comments made in the media should not be consequence-free, however individuals must face those consequences equally. If this were the case, all religious radio and television broadcasts in which religious leaders are heard to be condemning homosexuality as wrong and immoral, should be removed from the air. If this were the case, Steve Harvey's show would be banned because of a skit he did recently called "Redneck Radio." Of course none of this will happen because the true nature of this fight is not to address equality in the media, but to further the interests of the PC crowd, which is issue number 2. Before this media frenzy is over, the opportunity will be seized to gut the airwaves of any controversial voice, any person who is deemed making politically incorrect comments or comments deemed insensitive to others. If nobody takes a step back, takes a breath and assesses the situation, before we know it there's going to be a hostile climate where free speech is literally going to be restricted. I understand that the Imus case is not a free speech issue, but it is quickly turning into one of free speech. The way things are going, those on the Sharpton-Jackson-PC side are already making the push to "clean up" and "reform" the airwaves, and anyone not conforming to their clean or reformed standards (i.e. speaking in a way that they deem innappropriate) will be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. The movement has gained a lot of power from the Imus firing and it could very quickly and easily turn into a witch hunt. I mean, if you want to gain a true measure of the power this movement has right now, see the Hilary and Obama statements condemning Imus' comments. The leading Democratic candidates for president are issuing statements about a radio show host's firing. Why should that even be an issue to them? There's a war going on, remember? But if either remains silent, they risk the other using it as an opportunity to pounce and gain the upper hand. Politicians always have to say the right thing, but soon enough, they're going to be "doing the right thing" and agreeing with calls for stricter FCC control of the airwaves or backing legislation to the same effect. Race may be a part of this issue, but it's just a veil for the elephant in the room that nobody's paying attention to.
Posted by: Brad Schmidt at April 13, 2007 10:35 AM
You really just put this whole issue into total perspective for me. Much thanks.
I feel ashamed that as journalism major I didn't pick up on this immediately. My professors would he shaking their heads at me.
Thanks Paul.
P.S. I love the Snoop gets it part. Its funny how all his critics on the linked post don't.
Posted by: Testify! at April 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Brad, I totally agree. I know I danced around the issue a bit and maybe spent too much time worrying about the existing double standard. This should not be a political issue at all. The only change that should come of this is a slap on the wrist, a viewer discretion advised and an apology to the offended if Imus is truly sorry. I agree with all of your points and I hope that we can continue to use our freedom of speech in any medium we choose.
Posted by: Mike at April 13, 2007 12:42 PM
I understand the distinctions made between calling out public figures and innocent college students whose only crime was coming to the public's attention due to their athletic excellence. Point granted, and Imus owed them a profound apology, which he rendered and to their(the Rutgers Basketball Team's) everlasting credit, classily accepted!
Now to some of the other points. Is it OK to ignore the proposition that all men (or boys mostley in this case) are presumed innoccent until proven guilty just because of the heinessness of the crime? If not why are Al (I don't know nothin' 'bout Twana Brawley, just paid the $50,000 fine 'cause I thought it was outreach.)or Jesse (the James) Jackson ( need I bring up his Hymetown remark?) who smelled money , or at least TV time, and weighed in with his pungent remarks as to their guilt?
Two college athletic teams; two sets of remarks. Both teams innocent. Who should get the hammer? Answer: All three
Defend!
Posted by: GUILLIAM at April 15, 2007 06:03 PM
Gulliam - see my post Four Imus Fallacies - I think it answers your questions. If not, let me know.
But, in short: of course it's never right to ignore the principle that everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
That was not done in the Duke case, and the lacrosse players should sue the DA's office down there for every last penny!
And, yes, Sharpton and Jackson do owe the Duke players an apology.
But, as I explain further in Four Imus Fallacies, the Duke situation is nonetheless different from Imus's.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 15, 2007 06:47 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment