I like to be controversial in these posts, and say things that may not be obvious, or at least not already said or urged by a lot of people.
But sometimes an issue comes down the road that needs addressing, even though everyone else is addressing it, too.
Don Imus.
I think he should be more than suspended for two weeks from MSNBC for his stupid "nappy-headed ho's" remark. He should be fired, period, and not only from MSNBC but from his radio and any of his other media jobs. And any media operation that rehires him should become a righteous target of public outrage.
Life's just too short. Why should we tolerate this kind of nonsense from a media personality? Why should we risk any one having to hear it again?
Just to be clear: it's not against the law to speak as Imus did. In fact, as my readers well know, I don't think it should be against the law for anything to be spoken.
But nor do the media have to give people like Imus a microphone. I wouldn't want him in my house. I don't want him in my car, either, if he happens to be shooting his mouth off on the radio when I happen to turn it on.
Is it the worst thing that he could have said?
Of course not.
Is he sorry?
It doesn't matter. The damage has been done.
There's no reason the world has to be subject to any of this garbage in 2007. We've had more than enough already to last for millennia.
Useful links:
Memo to Michelle Malkin re: Imus and rap
Day After Imus: What Doesn't Need to Be Done
Four Imus Fallacies
Following comments are from the original PaulLevinson.net post of 10 April 2007. Feel free to comment here further.
Comments
I'm not a big fan of politically correct speech. At the end of the day, media corporations will decide Imus' fate from purely financial considerations. According to a NY Times article running today, Imus brings in about $50 million in revenue every year to CBS and MSNBC.
Compare Don Imus to Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I'd rather see Imus continue the few years left in his life on the radio than listen to 30 seconds of Rush's propaganda.
Posted by: John Furie Zacharias at April 11, 2007 01:00 AM
As a black man, I can't keep up with all the things that "WE" should be offended about. I wish it was so much easier, like a handbook or something out there for people like me. "the When to be Offended Handbook", in this case, I could just turn to, say, the Media chapter and find the page number for this instance and say "Oh, he needs to get fired!" or "Meh". Quite frankly, I'm only partially offended. Hell, I can barely even raise a damn. I just know that part of me hates Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. Remember Jackson's "Hymietown" comment anyone?
Will this mean that more media personalities will be walking on egg shells about certain race related topics? I personally hate that.
Posted by: Tone at April 11, 2007 01:11 AM
John - I'm no fan of pc speech either - in fact, I hate it. But there's a far cry between racially demeaning speech (Imus) and speech that's not pc (for example, a man saying a woman is sexually attractive - or anyone saying anyone is sexually attractive). That's the spice of life. What Imus said is just insulting.
Tone - You're of course more than entitled to your view on this. But neither one of us can speak on behalf of our ethnic groups. Obviously, many people find what Imus said insulting.
As for media personalities walking on egg shells: I don't think they should, either. Rather, people with microphones should know how to talk without minding every single thing they say. They should be naturally decent people.
Whether it's Michael Richards or Mel Gibson or Don Imus, I think it's clear that they're not. Booze or whatever Imus's problem is doesn't suddenly or accidentally turn someone into a bigot.
But I will say this: if the media and the advertisers think that enough people will continue to listen to Imus, and they'll still rake in the money, then he'll continue on the air.
And although I hope that doesn't happen, I'd never want to pass a law against it.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 11, 2007 01:38 AM
Interesting.
"But nor do the media have to give people like Imus a microphone."
So instead, we pass microphone to artist like 50-Cent or Young Jeezy or Mims. Point is, humanity has a common bond, it is fear that keeps people like you blind to it.
If you weren't scared you would be helping.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007286.htm
A case in point.
Posted by: Mark ElRayes at April 11, 2007 11:14 PM
Right, Mark - I'm so scared and blind, I even published your comment ... and its link to Malkin's post, which misses the point completely.
Which is - rappers etc are talking in generalities, they're not directing attacks on specific, real people.
Actually, what Imus did was even worse than that. He didn't attack some specific person in the media - he attacked some college kids, who, yes, stepped into the sports arena, where their performance as athletes might be criticized, but not who they are as human beings....
See the difference?
If you do, maybe you'd be good enough to pass it on to Malkin ... I didn't see a place on her blog where I could put in a comment...
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 12, 2007 03:14 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment