Imus Got His Trash Talk Pass Yanked, Now Yank it for Blacks
April 11, 2007, 12:39 pm
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
The great thing about blogs and the internet: no sooner do you have a thought about writing something when someone has already written and posted. I had this thought and now Earl Hutchinson has gone to the trouble of actually expressing it: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/50407/
Thanks Earl. ht: TomPaine.com
I heard Rev. Sharpton on CNN, he was saying that his credibility in telling young rappers to refrain from that sort of speech depended on not giving Imus a pass.
I was hoping ,after all the coverage on “the most trusted name in news” of the Imus debacle, that we’d had enough – despite the fact that hje should have been clearly dumped unceremoniously.
Clearlyalos, gangster rap has a terrible impact.
I suspect it suceeds for the same reason that Imus not only was slapped on the wrist but that a significant number of folks supported him because he was only “doing what shock jocks do.”
Behind all of this and a lot more is the first rule of ethics in our world today. “If it sells.”
And for this we have no one to blame except by looking first in our own mirrors.
I think Hutchinson has it exactly right, and it’s a sad but nevertheless true fact, in a U.S. that remains so self-conscious about race, that if a non-black commentator made the same points Hutchinson makes, he or she could easily be labeled racially insensitive.
Though I don’t know for certain, it appears that some of the posted responses to Hutchinson’s commentary are by individuals who are black, and some of these individuals take Hutchinson to task for criticizing black rappers. The most common refrain seems to be that gangsta rap is either consumed primarily by whites or is foisted on the black community by white music producers. These comments may or may not be true–I admit to little knowledge about rap music and the rap music industry–but the fact remains that it is black male rappers who are delivering the offensive lyrics on records and in videos that are heard and seen by many thousands of black men and women. Who may be pulling the economic strings in the background is largely irrelevant to the offensiveness of the lyrics themselves.
As to Don Imus, he is long overdue for being taken to task about offensive comments, including his not illiberal use of the name of the Son of God as an expletive. He’s also to be criticized for creating an environment on his show where some of his cohorts use offensive terms, too, and usually seem to be there for no other purpose than to prod Imus on to new heights of offensiveness. Imus deserves the unwelcome attention he’s getting, but he’s not nearly as offensive as Howard Stern, who criticized Imus for being so apologetic about the Rutgers women’s team comments.
Not so sure we’ve had enough. Those who never listen to Imus, or rap, or trash (like me) have been given some information that should be put to use.
It’s not just economics. it’s influence and influence-peddling–the latter seems to draw major figures to appear on Imus, including many of the current presidential contenders and major media types. Dare I say–almost exclusively men, though women can be as offensive.
Clarence Page and Tom Oliphant were on the News Hour the other night defending their respective position about appearing on Imus: Oliphant does, Clarence Page once did, but no longer. There’s something healthy about the two of them debating their views. Page had the better case, but Oliphant wasn’t totally stupid. I don’t think Imus’s punishment is over yet. So keep talking.
Imus was way out of line with this one. He apologized as he should have. No question that Rappers and their sponsors are getting a free ride. Cosby has said some very corrective things to them.
However, it is a good question whether Bill O’Reilly is not worse than all of them. He got on the bandwagon and pounced on Imus and Msnbc on this one. Bill O forgot, I guess, his own problem with treatment of women.
What he recently did was pounce on an illegal immigrant, who killed two young women with his car while drunk. Not just illegal immigrants have this problem. Drinking while driving is a major problem with too many in this country. But to single out immigrants is juvenile and racist.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?040907/040907_views_oreilly&OReilly_Factor_Talking_Points&Talking%20Points%3A%204/9&Talking%20Points%3A%204/9&Bill%20O%27Reilly&-1&Opinion&180&&&exp
Ah, yes, the man is really being made to suffer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/arts/television/11watc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This is like being let out of jail on the weekends so you can do your laundry.
Trash … and $$$ …. talk.
John Leo had a good piece in today’s WSJ, pointing out that Imus has been behaving badly for years and suggesting that his enablers, the supposedly respectable people who are willing to on the air with him, could do someting about it by simply refusing to go on the air with him ever again, and meaning it.
Imus should have been sent to the Joe Pine Home for Wayward Broadcasters long ago, whether absolution from Rev. Sharpton is forthcoming or not.
In my view, one of the aggravating factors in the Imus comments is the way in which sportscasters talk about athletes in generally dehumanizing terms, often comparing them to large animals and earthmoving equipment.
The Imus comment came when McGuirk observed that the women’s team were big and tough, had tattoos, and then the racial slurs were piled on to that.
“The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat” became a cliche, but at least it acknowledged human effort and feeling.
This year, when the Super Bowl pre-game spot tried to humanize the players, some of the male students in class ridiculed it and called it “gay.”
I said I didn’t like the pejorative use of the word “gay” and invited him to describe his opinion in another way. There was a definite cooling of the atmosphere as a result of this exchange. As if talking about sports was some sort of license to shelve common decency.
Hutchinson is not the only one. KC’s great sportswriter Jason Whitlock also weighs in heavily against the hip-hop/prison culture: http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html
Bill,
I can’t believe I am doing this because I can’t stand his show, but O’Rielly is not even remotely the same as Imus (who I actually do listen to occasionally). O’Rielly is egotistical and caustic, but Imus is intentionally offensive and personally insulting.
Imus has been doing this for years. Although not racial, I have heard him discuss his desire to see certain people (most frequently conservative politicians and businessmen) tortured, raped, and hung. He regularly calls people with whom he disagrees morons. So long as he had his lips firmly planted on the posteriors of NY Times columnists, Newsweek editors, and liberal politicians. No one ever objected – it was “comedy.”
The people who have the most to complain about are the young women, and I am glad they will get a chance to confront him.
Imus seems to have lost (or be losing) most of his corporate advertisers. Egad, is it possible that the market can work when pressed to extremis!
I’m very glad the Imus is NOT available on the radio here in the Bay Area:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/media/12imus.html
It sounds as if his program is a refuge for never-matured boys with testosterone perception problems.
Sean,
Why did I expect your comments. It is the same ratio that allows the bishops to get off the hook because they have “sacred hands.”
We should all note that Imus is infinitesimal compared to the bishops.
The reason is: Action speaks louder than words.
Of course the excuse is that Catholic charities and the rest will suffer. I have news for those who think thus. The faithful will do a superior job over the clergy.
Bill,
It’s nice that you anticipated my comment – why does your response have nothing to do with them?
The bishops? I know you have a special interest in that subject, and I am a big fan of free wheeling conversations, but this story is about a shock jock and a basketball team. I must have missed the part where the evil bishops worked their way into the plot.