Some people are up in arms about the fact that Gwen Ifill, who will be moderating tonight's debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, has written a book about Obama - The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama - to be published on Inauguration Day.
Here, as a professor who has taught many a young journalist at Fordham University, is my response:
1. Total objectivity in reporting, debate-moderating, or any human activity is a myth. It doesn't exist. Everyone has feelings, opinions, and therefore biases.
2. That being the case, the best anyone can hope for is that the reporter or debate-moderator behave in an even-handed, impartial way. It's not that hard. All you need to do is make sure that you give equal attention, concern, awareness, support, and criticism to both sides.
3. In the case of Gwen Ifill, we have someone with a distinguished record of impartial reporting and commentary. Can the Republicans or anyone point to a single instance in which she did not behave impartially? I recall that, even in her response to Imus's racist comments about the Rutger's women's basketball team in 2007, Ifill was objective. And she herself had been a target, earlier, of Imus's racist mouth.
I'm looking forward to Ifill's professionalism in her moderation of tonight's debate.
Showing posts with label Imus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imus. Show all posts
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Imus's Racist History Means He's Not to be Believed
Given the fact that Imus made blatantly racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team last year, why should we believe his claim that the following exchange on his WABC radio show yesterday was not racist:
You can hear this exchange with your own ears, as well as Imus's explanation today that what he was saying about Jones was that, of course he was arrested six times, African-Americans are subject to unfair treatment by police, in the video below.
I don't believe it. Imus has a record of racist comments going back long before his labeling the Rutgers women's basketball team last year "nappy-headed ho's" - including calling African-American broadcast journalist Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady". What he said yesterday was clearly just more of the same, and unacceptable.
As I indicated last year, this is not a question of First Amendment rights - no government agency is fining Imus or his radio station. But neither does Imus have a right to be paid millions of dollars to spew his racist garbage - Citadel, the owner of WABC Radio, has every right to fire him.
Frankly, Citadel should not have put Imus back on the air in the first place. They ought to do the right thing now, and put Imus out of his racist citadel. Otherwise, Citadel will be regarded as as racist as Imus. But I'm not holding my breath.
Warner Wolf about "Pacman" Jones: "arrested six times since he was drafted by Tennessee in 2005"
Imus: "What color is he?"
Wolf: "He's African-American."
Imus: "Well, there you go. Now we know."
You can hear this exchange with your own ears, as well as Imus's explanation today that what he was saying about Jones was that, of course he was arrested six times, African-Americans are subject to unfair treatment by police, in the video below.
I don't believe it. Imus has a record of racist comments going back long before his labeling the Rutgers women's basketball team last year "nappy-headed ho's" - including calling African-American broadcast journalist Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady". What he said yesterday was clearly just more of the same, and unacceptable.
As I indicated last year, this is not a question of First Amendment rights - no government agency is fining Imus or his radio station. But neither does Imus have a right to be paid millions of dollars to spew his racist garbage - Citadel, the owner of WABC Radio, has every right to fire him.
Frankly, Citadel should not have put Imus back on the air in the first place. They ought to do the right thing now, and put Imus out of his racist citadel. Otherwise, Citadel will be regarded as as racist as Imus. But I'm not holding my breath.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Talking To You This Morning Through YouTube (About Imus)
Hey, I thought I'd say hello to you today through YouTube.
Well actually, I was talking on Tuesday, right smack dab in the middle of bustling Manhattan, in front of Fordham University (where I teach), on a summer's afternoon ... and I was actually talking about Imus ... but, still, the synapse between production and reception of video has never been shorter.
Here’s how this happened ... not that many steps ...
I got a call late Tuesday afternoon from a producer at Channel 11 News in New York City - can they tape me for a couple of minutes, giving my views about Imus’ possible comeback.
I said sure (I always say yes to television - "say no to drugs, say yes to television"), and that’s why I’m standing in front of Fordham University about an hour later.
I give my views. The Channel 11 news is on at 10pm in NYC (that's Tuesday night). I tape my segment. Next day (Wed) I convert my 25-sec interview into a .mov file, upload it to YouTube, and it’s all yours now, right here.
What’s amazing to me about this is the speed and ease with which my words got from that corner on 60th and Columbus Avenue to you, right here and now. From my point of view, it almost doesn’t matter if I’m on a local tv news or a national show - it all gets up on YouTube, and out to you and the world, either way...
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Four Imus Fallacies
Not to worry ... I'm not going to turn this blog into a never-ending series of posts about Imus, no longer in the morning or at present anyplace in the media. But I thought I'd offer one concluding contribution, and then back to my regularly scheduled diatribes, barring something new about Imus ...
I've seen a lot of faulty analogies bandied around the media regarding Imus, his insult of the Rutgers women's basketball team, and his firing. I'll discuss (and puncture) four of them here:
1. Why are people offended by Imus, but not by the same kind of language used in rap and hip-hop records and culture?
Poor analogy. Rap and hip-hop make general statements (bad, good, insulting, whatever) about general classes of people in society. Imus insulted real individuals - in fact, women who were not celebrities, but players on a college basketball team. General insults, not specifically directed at you, can be easily ignored. An attack on a real individual cannot - certainly not by that person.
Here is an example: I'm a college professor. If someone says, "college professors are schmucks," I can laugh that off. If someone says, "you, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck," I'd still laugh, but would probably want to respond to that.
Bottom line: There's a world of difference between a general insult and a targeted insult. Rap is social commentary, and does not need to be restrained. What Imus said was personally damaging, and has no place in our media or our culture.
2. Imus apologized to the Rutgers women; why don't the Revs Sharpton and Jackson apologize to the Duke lacrosse players, wrongly accused of rape?
Also a poor analogy. Although Sharpton and Jackson do owe the lacrosse players an apology, the two situations are not comparable. Sharpton and Jackson were commenting on an alleged crime. What crime or anything of negative note occurred with the women's basketball team at Rutgers, to warrant Imus's comment? None. In fact, they were in the news because of a positive accomplishment, doing well on the basketball courts. Imus's comment was thus worse than insulting: he attacked people who should have been praised and toasted, not insulted, for their accomplishments.
3. Why don't we go after other media celebrities who traffic in insult - Ann Coulter, Rosie O'Donnell, take your pick - now that Imus has been held to account?
See my response to #1 above: Imus's insults were in a class by themselves. Coulter goes after people who are already in the news about some political or social matter. Her statements are often reprehensible, but they are directed against people who choose to enter the public arena. (Her attack on the widows of 911 was about the worst - the widows, obviously and tragically, did not choose to be widows. But they did decide, bravely, to enter the public arena on post-911 issues). In contrast, Imus went after people who had not entered any arena except the basketball court. Meanwhile, O'Donnell's language is also either directed against other celebrities, or to general classes of people (her remark about the Chinese, for example).
To be clear: None of this excuses the language and behavior of Coulter and O'Donnell - but they are not in the same league of blindsiding, personally-directed insult as what Imus said.
4. If you believe in freedom of speech and the First Amendment, how can you be happy about Imus taken off the air?
Easy: Imus's speech was not restrained, restricted, or fined by the FCC or any part of government. In fact, he is still free to say whatever he likes - that is indeed his right, under the First Amendment to our Constitution.
What he does not have a right to do is say whatever he pleases and be paid millions of dollars to say it, or be given access to a microphone that will broadcast his words to millions of people.
The distinction is crucial. The First Amendment receives an almost daily beating by the FCC, and it is important to focus on that and oppose it. Bringing Imus into the picture only confuses the issue.
In sum: Our culture and our media do not really need to change. Imus needed to go.
Useful links:
Listen to my 20-minute podcast about Imus at Light On Light Through
Memo to Michelle Malkin re: Imus and rap
Day After Imus: What Doesn't Need to Be Done
Following comments are from my original posting on PaulLevinson.net on 14 April 2007. Feel free to post any new comments right here.
Comments
Here is an example: I'm a college professor. If someone says, "college professors are schmucks," I can laugh that off. If someone says, "you, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck," I'd still laugh, but would probably want to respond to that.
Are you saying it's more acceptable to insult a wide range of people than a very specific target?
By that logic, people should dismiss something like a racial slur, because it encompasses a large group of people and not a direct target. It then follows by that logic that Imus' statement would've been more acceptable if he had insulted ALL blacks, for example, instead of singling out the basketball players he insulted, because after all, he'd be insulting a group with a sweeping generalization and not a target specific insult. Seems a little ridiculous, does it not?
Posted by: doctornine at April 14, 2007 08:53 PM
Read what I wrote, doctornine.
Does it say anything about insults to general classes of people being "more acceptable"?
In fact, I'm not talking about "acceptability" - what I'm talking about is personal hurt.
And, yes, I stand by my point that an insult directed against a real, specific individual or group of real, identified individuals is much more hurtful, and less easily ignored, than an insult against a general group.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 14, 2007 10:35 PM
Thank you for your response Paul. I appreciate it.
Posted by: doctornine at April 14, 2007 10:40 PM
Although Imus should be disciplined for his actions, it bothers me when his comments are deemed racist, when in fact, I believe that they were not. He made a positive comment about the Tennessee women's basketball team just moments before his comment about the Rutgers girls, and I do not believe that this country will make any progress if people have to sit and live in a state of paranoia just in case they make a statement that is considered non-politically correct. I honestly thought that you Professor Levinson, would be much more forgiving for a mistake made by someone who has, over the years, provided such a good commentary and insight into political life as Dom Imus has. Whereas he did make a mistake, isn't it a staple of the university you work for, to forgive?
Posted by: Johnny D at April 15, 2007 02:02 AM
Johnny D - thanks for the comment.
First, let me say that although I'm a professor at Fordham University, I'm in no sense speaking for the university when I comment on public events - either here, or on television and radio, etc.
A fundamental principle of academic life, which Fordham endorses and respects, is that professors speak and write for themselves, presenting their own views on matters of public import.
As for Imus, it's not a question of forgiving.
It's a question of whether CBS and MSNBC wanted to continue to give him the salary and access to their microphones. This a free society, which means corporations have every right to fire employees who, in the corporation's view, are not acting in the corporate interest. That's part of the deal you accept when you take that big salary.
Is Imus a racist? I don't really know - I can't look into his soul.
But, clearly, his statement was racist and sexist.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 15, 2007 10:47 AM
You, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck.
Well, you kinda asked for that.
To expand: Your response to alleged fallacy #2 is wrong in at least two respects. It is not more acceptable to make extravagant statements about people accused of a crime than it is to make them about people not so accused; it is worse, because it does palpable harm to them and their case at a time when the law deems them to be still innocent. Additionally, your statement that they were commenting on an alleged crime is not strictly true; many of their statements ventured into personal slurs on the accused themselves.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 15, 2007 07:15 PM
Thanks Paul, I think the personal attack vs. public you mention is important. However, I think the racial/sexist content of his message must be kept in context. When I watch the clip, it seems clear to me that it is in jest, it is an exaggeration. This may sound stupid, but I believe that because he thought he could tell such a joke, this is actually indicative of how far we have come.
Perhaps Imus thought that because these are frequently used terms they would be appropriate for his crowd, that his crowd would understand the absurdity of such a statement. Deriving that a woman is a ho from basketball footage is absurd. And frankly I didn't even realize 'nappy' was a racist term, I thought it simply meant mussy, or unkempt. I do think that these words, especially in this context, do not carry the same meaning that they might of say 60 years ago. (for example, I think it is great that every other word in rap songs is 'nigga'. I don't think you can kill hurtful words, but you can redefine them which is much more effective.)
I do not think this was as controversial as everyone would like it to be. That it was a personal attack, that is why Imus should apologize /be fired. This matter did not warrant this sort of attention, and I doubt it would have got too far if Sharpton and Jackson hadn't involved themselves. There are very real issues that do harm blacks in America, and I think it is unfortunate that this is what Sharpton and Jackson choose to attack.
Posted by: tobydog at April 15, 2007 10:47 PM
Do you think that the corporations who pulled their advertisements, or even MSBNC and CBS themselves, took the swift action that they did because they were reading the winds of the coming political environment? I mean, the two front runners for the Democratic nominee for president, Clinton and Obama, certainly weighed in on the controversy in public comments.
Imus regularly called Hillary Clinton "Satan" among other less-than-flattering names.
Posted by: John Furie Zacharias at April 15, 2007 10:59 PM
Chuck - thanks - I was hoping some reader would rise (sink) to the bait ... and you did! Congratulations! :)
Meanwhile, as to your points about Sharpton and Jackson:
So you seriously think that someone (Imus) who blindsides people for no reason whatsoever is better than someone (Sharpton or Jackson) who comments on people accused (wrongly, it turns out) of a serious crime?
In this country, unlike England, we permit and even encourage discussion of crimes while they are under investigation. Yes, it can do damage to the wrongly accused. But it also can help the wrongly accused, by calling attention to poor prosecutor performance.
Which is just what it did in the Duke case.
Indeed, whatever the motives of Sharpton and Jackson, their comments - along with many others - kept the media focused on Duke, which eventually led to the charges being dropped, the lame Prosecutor resigning, etc.
So, actually, I think Sharpton and Jackson may have done some good, there - again, unlike Imus.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 01:35 AM
tobydog - but surely you don't think that most women would enjoy being called a "ho'", do you?
John: I think MSNBC and CBS moved almost 100% because sponsors were dropping Imus. That's almost all the suits in charge care about.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 01:38 AM
Always happy to oblige, son.
Yeah, I do think that it's worse to attack someone who is already beleaguered, who is already under attack by a well-funded and powerful opponent, than it is to attack someone who's on top of their game and totally not expecting it. In the first case, you're piling on and making things worse. In the second, you're easily dismissed by the person, who can just shake their head and wonder if you've really stopped drinking.
Cut the debate-club bullshit and answer honestly: Do you really think that any athlete who's tough enough to master college basketball is going to be affected much by the unjustified rantings of some dried-up radio loudmouth? They won. He's pissed. Waaaah.
As for your disingenuous nonsense about Jackson and Sharpton calling attention to the situation...why would you put an argument like that in your mouth? I wouldn't pick it up with my hands. The only thing their rantings attracted was a lynch mob of idiots. It was their opposition who called attention to the actual injustices of the situation. If you were an honest man, you'd thank them.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 16, 2007 07:45 PM
Chuck - I'm sorry if you think what I've been saying is "bullshit debate" - because I stand by every single word I've written about this.
And to answer your question: I rather doubt that you have much if any real experience with college people at this age and in this situation or similar situations.
I have - as a parent, and much more often (of course) as a college professor, and even more so as a Chair of a Department, where I get to see students who need advice on all kind of things.
And you know what? If anything, being on a successful team makes many people even more vulnerable, because, having succeeded in one area, they feel a lot of pressure to succeed in other areas.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 08:02 PM
If being on a successful athletic team is stressful, do you know what is certainly worse? Being on a successful athletic team and prosecuted for a felony you didn't commit, Paul, that's what. And having half-witted slavering ghouls pile on to you, convict you in the court of public opinion, because your alleged guilt conforms to their nasty political prejudices...that'd be nigh-intolerable.
I guess the worst thing of all would be to have the nation's newspaper of record join in the pile-on, printing ignorant tripe and rancid speculation as fact...and the faculty of your university nod their bespectacled heads and cry "Aw-men". Yeah, by God, that'd be a blow, wouldn't it?
I wish I didn't believe your protestations of sincerity. I could almost tolerate your bad arguments when I thought they were mere casuistry. If the bad reasoning you've displayed here is an example of your real, sincere thought process, I believe you don't deserve your position at Fordham. A professor simply shouldn't be this poor a thinker.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 17, 2007 04:10 AM
I've seen a lot of faulty analogies bandied around the media regarding Imus, his insult of the Rutgers women's basketball team, and his firing. I'll discuss (and puncture) four of them here:
1. Why are people offended by Imus, but not by the same kind of language used in rap and hip-hop records and culture?
Poor analogy. Rap and hip-hop make general statements (bad, good, insulting, whatever) about general classes of people in society. Imus insulted real individuals - in fact, women who were not celebrities, but players on a college basketball team. General insults, not specifically directed at you, can be easily ignored. An attack on a real individual cannot - certainly not by that person.
Here is an example: I'm a college professor. If someone says, "college professors are schmucks," I can laugh that off. If someone says, "you, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck," I'd still laugh, but would probably want to respond to that.
Bottom line: There's a world of difference between a general insult and a targeted insult. Rap is social commentary, and does not need to be restrained. What Imus said was personally damaging, and has no place in our media or our culture.
2. Imus apologized to the Rutgers women; why don't the Revs Sharpton and Jackson apologize to the Duke lacrosse players, wrongly accused of rape?
Also a poor analogy. Although Sharpton and Jackson do owe the lacrosse players an apology, the two situations are not comparable. Sharpton and Jackson were commenting on an alleged crime. What crime or anything of negative note occurred with the women's basketball team at Rutgers, to warrant Imus's comment? None. In fact, they were in the news because of a positive accomplishment, doing well on the basketball courts. Imus's comment was thus worse than insulting: he attacked people who should have been praised and toasted, not insulted, for their accomplishments.
3. Why don't we go after other media celebrities who traffic in insult - Ann Coulter, Rosie O'Donnell, take your pick - now that Imus has been held to account?
See my response to #1 above: Imus's insults were in a class by themselves. Coulter goes after people who are already in the news about some political or social matter. Her statements are often reprehensible, but they are directed against people who choose to enter the public arena. (Her attack on the widows of 911 was about the worst - the widows, obviously and tragically, did not choose to be widows. But they did decide, bravely, to enter the public arena on post-911 issues). In contrast, Imus went after people who had not entered any arena except the basketball court. Meanwhile, O'Donnell's language is also either directed against other celebrities, or to general classes of people (her remark about the Chinese, for example).
To be clear: None of this excuses the language and behavior of Coulter and O'Donnell - but they are not in the same league of blindsiding, personally-directed insult as what Imus said.
4. If you believe in freedom of speech and the First Amendment, how can you be happy about Imus taken off the air?
Easy: Imus's speech was not restrained, restricted, or fined by the FCC or any part of government. In fact, he is still free to say whatever he likes - that is indeed his right, under the First Amendment to our Constitution.
What he does not have a right to do is say whatever he pleases and be paid millions of dollars to say it, or be given access to a microphone that will broadcast his words to millions of people.
The distinction is crucial. The First Amendment receives an almost daily beating by the FCC, and it is important to focus on that and oppose it. Bringing Imus into the picture only confuses the issue.
In sum: Our culture and our media do not really need to change. Imus needed to go.
Useful links:
Listen to my 20-minute podcast about Imus at Light On Light Through
Memo to Michelle Malkin re: Imus and rap
Day After Imus: What Doesn't Need to Be Done
Following comments are from my original posting on PaulLevinson.net on 14 April 2007. Feel free to post any new comments right here.
Comments
Here is an example: I'm a college professor. If someone says, "college professors are schmucks," I can laugh that off. If someone says, "you, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck," I'd still laugh, but would probably want to respond to that.
Are you saying it's more acceptable to insult a wide range of people than a very specific target?
By that logic, people should dismiss something like a racial slur, because it encompasses a large group of people and not a direct target. It then follows by that logic that Imus' statement would've been more acceptable if he had insulted ALL blacks, for example, instead of singling out the basketball players he insulted, because after all, he'd be insulting a group with a sweeping generalization and not a target specific insult. Seems a little ridiculous, does it not?
Posted by: doctornine at April 14, 2007 08:53 PM
Read what I wrote, doctornine.
Does it say anything about insults to general classes of people being "more acceptable"?
In fact, I'm not talking about "acceptability" - what I'm talking about is personal hurt.
And, yes, I stand by my point that an insult directed against a real, specific individual or group of real, identified individuals is much more hurtful, and less easily ignored, than an insult against a general group.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 14, 2007 10:35 PM
Thank you for your response Paul. I appreciate it.
Posted by: doctornine at April 14, 2007 10:40 PM
Although Imus should be disciplined for his actions, it bothers me when his comments are deemed racist, when in fact, I believe that they were not. He made a positive comment about the Tennessee women's basketball team just moments before his comment about the Rutgers girls, and I do not believe that this country will make any progress if people have to sit and live in a state of paranoia just in case they make a statement that is considered non-politically correct. I honestly thought that you Professor Levinson, would be much more forgiving for a mistake made by someone who has, over the years, provided such a good commentary and insight into political life as Dom Imus has. Whereas he did make a mistake, isn't it a staple of the university you work for, to forgive?
Posted by: Johnny D at April 15, 2007 02:02 AM
Johnny D - thanks for the comment.
First, let me say that although I'm a professor at Fordham University, I'm in no sense speaking for the university when I comment on public events - either here, or on television and radio, etc.
A fundamental principle of academic life, which Fordham endorses and respects, is that professors speak and write for themselves, presenting their own views on matters of public import.
As for Imus, it's not a question of forgiving.
It's a question of whether CBS and MSNBC wanted to continue to give him the salary and access to their microphones. This a free society, which means corporations have every right to fire employees who, in the corporation's view, are not acting in the corporate interest. That's part of the deal you accept when you take that big salary.
Is Imus a racist? I don't really know - I can't look into his soul.
But, clearly, his statement was racist and sexist.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 15, 2007 10:47 AM
You, Professor Levinson, are a schmuck.
Well, you kinda asked for that.
To expand: Your response to alleged fallacy #2 is wrong in at least two respects. It is not more acceptable to make extravagant statements about people accused of a crime than it is to make them about people not so accused; it is worse, because it does palpable harm to them and their case at a time when the law deems them to be still innocent. Additionally, your statement that they were commenting on an alleged crime is not strictly true; many of their statements ventured into personal slurs on the accused themselves.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 15, 2007 07:15 PM
Thanks Paul, I think the personal attack vs. public you mention is important. However, I think the racial/sexist content of his message must be kept in context. When I watch the clip, it seems clear to me that it is in jest, it is an exaggeration. This may sound stupid, but I believe that because he thought he could tell such a joke, this is actually indicative of how far we have come.
Perhaps Imus thought that because these are frequently used terms they would be appropriate for his crowd, that his crowd would understand the absurdity of such a statement. Deriving that a woman is a ho from basketball footage is absurd. And frankly I didn't even realize 'nappy' was a racist term, I thought it simply meant mussy, or unkempt. I do think that these words, especially in this context, do not carry the same meaning that they might of say 60 years ago. (for example, I think it is great that every other word in rap songs is 'nigga'. I don't think you can kill hurtful words, but you can redefine them which is much more effective.)
I do not think this was as controversial as everyone would like it to be. That it was a personal attack, that is why Imus should apologize /be fired. This matter did not warrant this sort of attention, and I doubt it would have got too far if Sharpton and Jackson hadn't involved themselves. There are very real issues that do harm blacks in America, and I think it is unfortunate that this is what Sharpton and Jackson choose to attack.
Posted by: tobydog at April 15, 2007 10:47 PM
Do you think that the corporations who pulled their advertisements, or even MSBNC and CBS themselves, took the swift action that they did because they were reading the winds of the coming political environment? I mean, the two front runners for the Democratic nominee for president, Clinton and Obama, certainly weighed in on the controversy in public comments.
Imus regularly called Hillary Clinton "Satan" among other less-than-flattering names.
Posted by: John Furie Zacharias at April 15, 2007 10:59 PM
Chuck - thanks - I was hoping some reader would rise (sink) to the bait ... and you did! Congratulations! :)
Meanwhile, as to your points about Sharpton and Jackson:
So you seriously think that someone (Imus) who blindsides people for no reason whatsoever is better than someone (Sharpton or Jackson) who comments on people accused (wrongly, it turns out) of a serious crime?
In this country, unlike England, we permit and even encourage discussion of crimes while they are under investigation. Yes, it can do damage to the wrongly accused. But it also can help the wrongly accused, by calling attention to poor prosecutor performance.
Which is just what it did in the Duke case.
Indeed, whatever the motives of Sharpton and Jackson, their comments - along with many others - kept the media focused on Duke, which eventually led to the charges being dropped, the lame Prosecutor resigning, etc.
So, actually, I think Sharpton and Jackson may have done some good, there - again, unlike Imus.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 01:35 AM
tobydog - but surely you don't think that most women would enjoy being called a "ho'", do you?
John: I think MSNBC and CBS moved almost 100% because sponsors were dropping Imus. That's almost all the suits in charge care about.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 01:38 AM
Always happy to oblige, son.
Yeah, I do think that it's worse to attack someone who is already beleaguered, who is already under attack by a well-funded and powerful opponent, than it is to attack someone who's on top of their game and totally not expecting it. In the first case, you're piling on and making things worse. In the second, you're easily dismissed by the person, who can just shake their head and wonder if you've really stopped drinking.
Cut the debate-club bullshit and answer honestly: Do you really think that any athlete who's tough enough to master college basketball is going to be affected much by the unjustified rantings of some dried-up radio loudmouth? They won. He's pissed. Waaaah.
As for your disingenuous nonsense about Jackson and Sharpton calling attention to the situation...why would you put an argument like that in your mouth? I wouldn't pick it up with my hands. The only thing their rantings attracted was a lynch mob of idiots. It was their opposition who called attention to the actual injustices of the situation. If you were an honest man, you'd thank them.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 16, 2007 07:45 PM
Chuck - I'm sorry if you think what I've been saying is "bullshit debate" - because I stand by every single word I've written about this.
And to answer your question: I rather doubt that you have much if any real experience with college people at this age and in this situation or similar situations.
I have - as a parent, and much more often (of course) as a college professor, and even more so as a Chair of a Department, where I get to see students who need advice on all kind of things.
And you know what? If anything, being on a successful team makes many people even more vulnerable, because, having succeeded in one area, they feel a lot of pressure to succeed in other areas.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 16, 2007 08:02 PM
If being on a successful athletic team is stressful, do you know what is certainly worse? Being on a successful athletic team and prosecuted for a felony you didn't commit, Paul, that's what. And having half-witted slavering ghouls pile on to you, convict you in the court of public opinion, because your alleged guilt conforms to their nasty political prejudices...that'd be nigh-intolerable.
I guess the worst thing of all would be to have the nation's newspaper of record join in the pile-on, printing ignorant tripe and rancid speculation as fact...and the faculty of your university nod their bespectacled heads and cry "Aw-men". Yeah, by God, that'd be a blow, wouldn't it?
I wish I didn't believe your protestations of sincerity. I could almost tolerate your bad arguments when I thought they were mere casuistry. If the bad reasoning you've displayed here is an example of your real, sincere thought process, I believe you don't deserve your position at Fordham. A professor simply shouldn't be this poor a thinker.
Posted by: Chuck Hardin at April 17, 2007 04:10 AM
Friday, April 13, 2007
Day After Imus: What Doesn't Need to Be Done
It's the day after Imus, and lots of people are saying: let's not let Imus getting fired having been in vain - let's use this as an occasion to reexamine our culture.
There are at least two varieties of this: (a) let's see what we can do to clean up the language in the rap and hip-hop communities, (b) let's start holding other radio and media commentators to stricter account.
I don't see a need for either.
First, we don't need self-appointed guardians of our culture, or any part of it, however well-meaning they may be. If people enjoy the language of rap and hip-hop, if they like it to the point of spending money on it, then it will and should survive. Anyone who doesn't like it can ignore or walk around it. I don't know any place in the country where people are tied to a chair and forced to listen to any kind of music or lyric.
And the "damage" that this language is supposed to do to our society, our children? I doubt it. As I said in my previous posts about Imus, there is a world of difference between musical performances, general culture attitudes, on the one hand, and someone (Imus) hurling a racist, sexist insult to real people (college students) on the other. People can and do get hurt from insults specifically directed at them. Have you ever met anyone hurt by a piece of music?
What about the second lofty goal - holding our media personalities to higher standards.
I don't think that's necessary, either.
The standards we have now are working fine. They held Imus to account for his unacceptable conduct. They would do the same for any other media personality. We don't need a witchhunt on shockjocks or anyone else in the media. If anyone behaves the same as Imus, he or she should receive the same treatment.
In short, we can chalk up the response to Imus as, by and large, a job well done. MSNBC and CBS took a little longer than they should have to do the right thing, but they did it. People may look for greater meaning in all of this, but, in the end, a mean-spirited person who crossed the line with a microphone got what he deserved.
The fault was mainly in him, not in our culture.
Following comments from the original PaulLevinson.net post of 13 April 2007. Feel free to comment further right here.
Comments
Well said.
Fact: we own the radio spectrum. It is government property.
If you piss off the public, we are going to kick you off the property. Black or white. Conservative or republican.
My Statement: (finally, I have an opinion) This is such a farce that this much media coverage was completely unnecessary. Manufactured outrage. McOutrage. I believe that most of the public at large really didn't care. And still don't.
Posted by: Tone at April 13, 2007 02:36 PM
McOutrage! Good call, Tone.
Plus:
**ring ring**
"Hello. This is Mel Karmazin's office. How may I help you?"
"Tell Mel that Don is calling."
--- meanwhile ---
"Hello? May I speak to Mr. Smiley? Tell Tavis that MSBNC is calling."
It's all good.
Posted by: John Furie Zacharias at April 13, 2007 11:01 PM
"And the 'damage' that this language is supposed to do to our society, our children? I doubt it."
I disagree with you here. I feel that certain aspects of mainstream media (especially hip-hop) and music DO hurt our youth. Often times I've been witness to a young person trying to imitate the lifestyle they see glorified in the MSM, such acting "hard", throwing around profanity (even sometimes directed towards their own parents), and disrespecting others and their property.
Posted by: doctornine at April 14, 2007 01:38 AM
doctorine - thanks for the comment
But on whether rap damages anyone ... you know, this debate goes back at least as far as rock 'n' roll in the 1950s, which was condemned then as damaging the morality of our youth.
I thought then as a kid and now as prof that music and lyrics never damaged anyone.
Inequality and racist attacks hurled by people in authority at individuals do the damage.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 14, 2007 10:40 PM
There are at least two varieties of this: (a) let's see what we can do to clean up the language in the rap and hip-hop communities, (b) let's start holding other radio and media commentators to stricter account.
I don't see a need for either.
First, we don't need self-appointed guardians of our culture, or any part of it, however well-meaning they may be. If people enjoy the language of rap and hip-hop, if they like it to the point of spending money on it, then it will and should survive. Anyone who doesn't like it can ignore or walk around it. I don't know any place in the country where people are tied to a chair and forced to listen to any kind of music or lyric.
And the "damage" that this language is supposed to do to our society, our children? I doubt it. As I said in my previous posts about Imus, there is a world of difference between musical performances, general culture attitudes, on the one hand, and someone (Imus) hurling a racist, sexist insult to real people (college students) on the other. People can and do get hurt from insults specifically directed at them. Have you ever met anyone hurt by a piece of music?
What about the second lofty goal - holding our media personalities to higher standards.
I don't think that's necessary, either.
The standards we have now are working fine. They held Imus to account for his unacceptable conduct. They would do the same for any other media personality. We don't need a witchhunt on shockjocks or anyone else in the media. If anyone behaves the same as Imus, he or she should receive the same treatment.
In short, we can chalk up the response to Imus as, by and large, a job well done. MSNBC and CBS took a little longer than they should have to do the right thing, but they did it. People may look for greater meaning in all of this, but, in the end, a mean-spirited person who crossed the line with a microphone got what he deserved.
The fault was mainly in him, not in our culture.
Following comments from the original PaulLevinson.net post of 13 April 2007. Feel free to comment further right here.
Comments
Well said.
Fact: we own the radio spectrum. It is government property.
If you piss off the public, we are going to kick you off the property. Black or white. Conservative or republican.
My Statement: (finally, I have an opinion) This is such a farce that this much media coverage was completely unnecessary. Manufactured outrage. McOutrage. I believe that most of the public at large really didn't care. And still don't.
Posted by: Tone at April 13, 2007 02:36 PM
McOutrage! Good call, Tone.
Plus:
**ring ring**
"Hello. This is Mel Karmazin's office. How may I help you?"
"Tell Mel that Don is calling."
--- meanwhile ---
"Hello? May I speak to Mr. Smiley? Tell Tavis that MSBNC is calling."
It's all good.
Posted by: John Furie Zacharias at April 13, 2007 11:01 PM
"And the 'damage' that this language is supposed to do to our society, our children? I doubt it."
I disagree with you here. I feel that certain aspects of mainstream media (especially hip-hop) and music DO hurt our youth. Often times I've been witness to a young person trying to imitate the lifestyle they see glorified in the MSM, such acting "hard", throwing around profanity (even sometimes directed towards their own parents), and disrespecting others and their property.
Posted by: doctornine at April 14, 2007 01:38 AM
doctorine - thanks for the comment
But on whether rap damages anyone ... you know, this debate goes back at least as far as rock 'n' roll in the 1950s, which was condemned then as damaging the morality of our youth.
I thought then as a kid and now as prof that music and lyrics never damaged anyone.
Inequality and racist attacks hurled by people in authority at individuals do the damage.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at April 14, 2007 10:40 PM
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Memo to Michelle Malkin re: Imus and rap
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
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
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
No Place for Imus in the Media
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
