Vanessa Hudgens Owes No Apologies

I was happy to see in the Reuters article published today that I'm not the only media observer who thinks that Vanessa Hudgens owes no one any apology for the nude photographs of her that came light last Wednesday. "We as a society are finally growing up and it's a healthy thing," I'm correctly quoted as saying. Then, "I predict in the next few years, the FCC will be put in its proper place and nudity will be the norm".

Robert Thompson, Professor of Media and Popular Culture at Syracuse University who is quoted in the media even more frequently than I am, put it this way: "While filling in a survey, people will always check off with one hand that there's too much sex and violence in the media, while using the other hand to search for that kind of material."

I don't know if everyone would check off that box - certainly I would not - but Thompson's completely right about the hypocrisy.

It's too bad if anyone is embarrassed by the human body. That's life. That's who and what we are. Don't look at it if it makes you uncomfortable. If you're a parent and you don't want your kids looking at it, don't call the FCC or lash out at the television station or actress or actor - exercise a little parental control.

A. E. Housman and a Princess Dying Young: Thoughts About Diana

From Greg Morago's interview with me in yestersday's Hartford Courant ...

... A.E. Housman's poem "To an Athlete Dying Young" couldn't have said it better: Dying in your prime is exceptionally stunning.

"There's something incredibly poignant about someone dying at the top of their game, at the peak of their success, whether it's an athlete or a movie star or a princess," said Paul Levinson, chairman of the department of communications and media studies at Fordham University. "As horrible as it sounds, there's something magical about it."

That magic could have something to do with the fact that a celebrity dying young means an adoring public will never have to see them crippled by time. "You will never see them getting older," Levinson said. "It's a way of keeping them young forever."

And free of scandal in an increasingly complicated world. "Once a person is dead, they're safe. They can't disappoint us by doing anything wrong," Levinson said....

And the key lines from A. E. Houseman ... Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut...

See also Anna Nicole, Phil Ochs, and A. E. Housman

Fred Thompson and the Fame-Game in Politics

Fred Thompson - former Senator and current actor - has soared into second place in the Republican presidential polls. I thought this might be a good time to post my 2003 op-ed from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

When you consider that Thompson is not only an actor, but a bona-fide public servant - unlike Schwarzenegger and Reagan before they were first elected to public office - Thompson may be hard to beat, at least for the Republican Presidential nomination...

Schwarzenegger and the Fame Game

Paul Levinson

Op-ed, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12 October 2003



Fame is a highly transferrable commodity. The part of our
brain that feels it knows someone isn't too choosy about how we
came by this comfortable acquaintance. If we admire someone as a
movie star, that person has a far better chance in politics than
a little-known politician. Although the recall election in
California was extraordinary, Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory
was predictable. As soon as he announced, most people figured
he would win. Only a robot devoid of popular culture would not
find at least a little temptation to vote for the Terminator.

Television has intensified this process, serving as a
cauldron for the fusion of fames. Martin Sheen plays President
Bartlett on The West Wing, then tapes a political commercial
against the Iraqi War. Who is talking to us in that commercial
-- an actor or a President? Years ago, Robert Young, who played
Marcus Welby, MD on television, appeared in a series of
commercials for Sanka decaffeinated coffee. Who was telling us
this coffee was good for us, an actor or a doctor?

There presumably are some limitations on this
transferability of celebrity. One hopes the Menendez brothers,
if they were able to get out of prison and run for office, would
not be elected. On the other hand, we get briskly selling books
from people behind bars all the time.

Even before television, the cross-pollination of politics
and other kinds of fame was a staple of American elections.
After all, generals from George Washington to Dwight David
Eisenhower became President on the strength of the gratitude
Americans felt for the military, not necessarily political,
prowess of these men. Of course, a general's work and experience
usually has more relevance than an actor's to the actual world.
But the experience of a governor or senator still seems the
better political credential, and would be, were the
transferrability of fame not so powerful.

The real question may be why we are still so surprised when
an actor is elected to public office. We may be getting to the
point that acting, military leadership, anything that puts
someone in the limelight is the surest path to political victory.

Not that there is anything necessarily nefarious about
this, or any use of fame in one area to make an impact in
another area. Eriq La Salle, who played Dr. Benton on ER, did a
very effective public service commercial against drugs. If the
kids who saw it were influenced by La Salle/Benton's medical
imprimatur, what's wrong with that?

Furthermore, although actors are unlikely to make good
doctors -- unless they happen to have medical degrees -- the
same is not necessarily true for actors elected to public
office. Some historians give Ronald Reagan pretty high marks for
his presidency. And generals Washington and Eisenhower have
fared pretty well in presidential history, too. The fact that
Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor for perhaps not the
best reasons does not mean that he cannot do a commendable job.

In the current age of specialization, we often forget that
multi-tasking human beings can come equipped with more than one
talent. Thomas Jefferson invented a device that automatically
copied a document as it was being written -- no shabby invention
in an age before carbon copies and xeroxes. C. G. Dawes, Vice
President in Coolidge's second administration (1924-1928), wrote
the music to "It's All in the Game" in 1912 -- which some of us
with recollections that go back to the 1950s may remember as a
beautiful recording by the mellow-voiced Tommy Edwards. Dawes,
for good measure, had also been a banker in Chicago.

Yet, there is still something at least faintly disquieting
in someone being elected to high public office on the basis of
credentials in areas other than political accomplishment and
wisdom. The concern is as old as democracy. Socrates, in his
student Xenophon's Memorabilia, points out that on a ship,
everyone follows the captain's orders (including the owner of
the ship), because the captain presumably is an expert in
navigational matters. But in a democracy such as Athens,
everyone has a say in policy, and leaders arise not necessarily
on the basis of their political wisdom or expert knowledge, but
on the basis of their popularity with the crowd. Sound familiar?

Of course, Socrates was not trying to improve or safeguard
democracy, but do away with it. In his and his student Plato's
views, the ideal leader was not someone who was elected for any
reason, but someone whose wisdom was such that he (not likely
she, in those days) would rise to the top. In Plato's
Republic, this "philosopher-king" would have absolute
authority.

In practice, in the twentieth century, such self-appointed
philosopher kings have come closer to Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam
Hussein than any democratically elected leader. (Hitler actually
was democratically elected, at first, but then seized
totalitarian power.) Even in Roman times, the generally
effective emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius disastrously
chose his son, Commodus, as successor (contrary to the Roman
proscription at the time on anointing one's child as the next
emperor). The philosopher-king failed in his most important
responsibility.

The process of free elections in a democracy, for all of
its imperfections, succeeds much better in choosing new leaders.
This is because the process is self-correcting. If the people do
not choose wisely -- if they elect someone for the wrong
reasons, such as a feeling of confidence born of seeing the
candidate in appealing roles on the screen -- they can always
vote the official out of office the next time. Or, as the
California recall has shown, even before the next election.

Winston Churchill probably said it best when he observed
that "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those
others that have been tried from time to time." So, yes, one of
the characteristics of this least worst form of government is
that people vote with their emotions. Good looks and engaging
voices were always at least as important as what candidates for
office said and did, and in the age of media a powerful persona
in fiction on the screen may be more important still. But
emotions make us human, and sometimes they can be better guides
than stringent logic. And if not? Well, the nice thing about
democracy is that there is always another election. It's not
the end of the world. It's all in the game.

Sopranos' Bobby Has Advice for Paris Hilton!

Well, Bobby Bacala (Steve Schirripa) may have been snuffed out last Sunday, but he came back to give some advice to Paris Hilton ...

Courtesy tmz.com for the video, and thanks MySpace friend "Spy!" for pointing this out to me. Classic and hilarious!

(And I'll be back tonight with my review of the finale - I have a feeling the above will be the last piece of humor we'll have about The Sopranos for a long time) ...

Paris Hilton: Media Are a Girl's Best Friend

A few words about the non-stop cable news coverage of Paris Hilton today - CNN, Fox, MSNBC - interrupted only when the Secretary of Defence announced that he was going to replace the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... and even then, just for a precious few minutes....

First, I of course think that all people should be treated equally before the law. But, second, I think that a 40-day sentence reduced to a 20-day sentence may be a little excessive for anyone who violates probation on a drunk-driving conviction by driving drunk again....

But here's what I'm 100% sure is excessive: this wall-to-wall, cable-to-cable coverage of this case.

Sure, news is what the public is interested in. No doubt this Paris Hilton story warrants some coverage...

But non-stop? At least O.J. was fleeing from double-homicide charges - not drunk driving - and he was a sports hero and a movie star.

Paris is someone who pretty much has become famous for being famous - publicity about publicity - and the media are just fueling this with their nonstop coverage.

I suppose I shouldn't be writing about this either ... but, hey, I like publicity, too...

PS - On the bright side, I did learn a new phrase from the media today - "sally port" - I think I've heard it at least 294 times already...

and a bit a comic relief - Sopranos' Bobby Bacala's advice to Paris!

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

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

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

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

Hank and Jack Bauer

I just heard on the car radio that Hank Bauer died - the great hard-hitting Yankee right-fielder from the 1950s. It's a measure of how thoroughly 24's Jack Bauer has permeated our culture - or, at least, my mind - that I first thought the announcement was about another member of Jack's family, another brother, or a grandfather. Just last week, Jack's father killed Jack's brother.

But Hank Bauer was no man of fiction. He played on one of the classic of classic Yankee baseball teams, along with Mantle, Maris, Berra, and the rest. I saw Bauer many times out at Yankee stadium when I was kid. I was probably closer to him than any other Yankee, because I always seemed to wind up in the right-field bleaches.

There's something about baseball. I was talking on KNX Radio this past Sunday to Todd Leitz about the Superbowl commercials - my regular weekly interviews - and he asked me who I was hoping would win the game. The answer was, it didn't matter to me. It's football, not baseball, doesn't matter...

And there was something about Hank Bauer. He mattered. Professional, stoic, you could almost always depend upon him to come through. Casey relied upon him, just as the fans did.

Is is it stretching things to say there's some sort of similarity between Hank and Jack Bauer? Between the real make-believe of baseball and the make-believe real of 24?

Maybe ... but I rely upon them both, in my imagination.

Helpful links:

Championship Baseball Hank Bauer's 1968 book

Digg   del.icio.us
reddit

Anna Nicole, Phil Ochs and A. E. Housman

It's always sad when an athlete or movie star or rock star or any kind of celebrity dies in his or her prime. Potentials cut short. Promises unfufilled.

Phil Ochs, a folksinger and singwriter as great as Dylan, in my view, offered the disquieting thought that we the public might derive some satisfaction from the fall of a glamorous, powerful public figure. In his 1960s masterpiece, "The Crucifixion," Ochs said we build people up to stardom, in part for the weird pleasure of seeing them fall. He was talking most about John F. Kennedy, but he also had Marilyn on his mind.

Anna Nicole Smith was no Marilyn Monroe, any more than Madonna or any modern aspirants to her throne. But Anna captured our interest - her reality show and her life became increasingly difficult to distinguish.

And all-news stations are running nonstop with her death tonight, as Ochs might have predicted.

But there's another wordsmith whose observations may have some pertinence to today's events. The poet A. E. Housman, writing early last century, "To An Athlete Dying Young":

"Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut,
And silence sounds no worse than cheers
After earth has stopped the ears"

Helpful links:

The Collected Poems of A. E. Housman

There but for Fortune: The Life of Phil Ochs by Michael Schumacher

Digg   del.icio.us
reddit

Gore Nomination for Nobel Prize Poetic Justice

Good for Al Gore - and good for us - that his work in making the world aware of global warming got him nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The naysayers can carp all they want about the smattering of unworthy nominees in the past. Nothing on this Earth, including the Nobel Peace Prize process, is perfect. But it is nonetheless one of the greatest honors and recognitions that humanity can bestow on its own. Those who gainsay Gore's selection on grounds that the Prize is not all that important would be thrilled beyond their wildest imaginings were they ever to be so nominated themselves.

Al Gore won the popular vote for President in the 2000 election. The Republican dominated Supreme Court unconstitutionally prevented a recount in Florida, thereby tainting the Electoral College process. Gore did not become President, and just look at what we got instead.

I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat were he to run again in 2008. A man of his scientific and philosophic perspective would bring a rare quality indeed to the White House - Plato's philosopher king, democratically elected and with term limits.

I have a feeling that's not likely to happen. In the meantime, Al Gore and everyone who voted for him, and everyone who appreciates his tireless efforts on behalf of this planet, can take satisfaction that the Nobel Committee saw fit to nominate Gore, along with Canadian environmentalist Sheila Watt-Cloutier. Not surprisingly, the Nobel Committee and the American people have much better judgement than the Republican justices on the Supreme Court.

Useful links:

3-min podcast of this blog post

Gore Back on Center Stage 20-min podcast, 4 March 07

An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore's 2006 movie about global warming


Digg   del.icio.us
reddit

Carl Sagan and the Stuff of the Cosmos

Carl Sagan died 10 years ago last week - at the age of 62. He was best known as the voice that humanized science, talking about "billions and billions" of stars in the universe to Johnny Carson and the millions of people who watched the Tonight Show. Fortunately, this was at the dawn of videotaping, and you can see some of Sagan's work on YouTube, where he is as mesmerizing about the human place in the universe as ever.

In 1977, when Sagan was young and in his prime and I was even younger, I was appointed Book Editor of an obscure journal named et cetera. As a way of kicking off my tenure - which turned out to be brief (I've always found editing essentially boring) - I wrote to the people I considered the five greatest thinkers of the day. Sagan was one of them. (Should I tell you my other four choices? OK - Marshall McLuhan, Karl Popper, Arthur Koestler, and Noam Chomsky - for his theories of language, not his politics).

I wrote to each of the authors, told them they had made my Top 5 list and why, and asked them to say a few words about their work. To Sagan, I wrote that it was his work as a philosopher and a popularizer, not his work as a hard scientist, that made me admire him - in particular, his view that, because we come from the cosmos, when we look back out at the cosmos with our telescopes, we are but the stuff of the cosmos looking back at itself. I still find that view thrilling, today.

Happily for me, all five cutting edge thinkers responded with a few paragraphs, mainly thanking me for the honor, etc. But Sagan said something more: he said I shouldn't discount his work as a hard scientist, because that's what he was, and his philosophy and his appearances on television were all a part of that.

And that's stuck with me too. Because, whatever else Sagan may have intended by it, to me it said that, hey, going on the Tonight Show and talking with Johnny may be as much a part of a great cosmologist's work as analyzing the light received from the stars. There's no contradiction, in other words, between the pursuit of fame and the pursuit of knowledge.

And it does make sense, doesn't it? Carl Sagan was a star here on Earth, because of what he saw when he looked at the stars above. The stuff of the cosmos looking back at itself.

A few of Sagan's books:

Billions and Billions

The Dragons of Eden

Pale Blue Dot

And my podcast about Carl Sagan: