Interesting story in the New York Times on how, in a world where pundits are constantly saying moronic, outrageous things, Don Imus was the one who got torpedoed, in part, according to the Times, because it was a slow news week.
I've got very mixed feelings about the whole thing. On the one hand, the offending conversation was pretty repellent. While the big quote is Imus describing the Rutger's women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos," the racism is really a sort of casual, throw away thing compared to the sexism represented in basically slamming these women for not being sufficiently stereotypically feminine.
Yes, Imus is a racist, sexist idiot, or at least talks like one, and according to wikipedia this is not the first time he's gone over the line, but taken in a broader context, the ability for an outraged public to run a pundit out of town could be a problem.
First off, people say worse and get away with it all the time. Bill O'Reilly said a kidnapping victim wanted it, yet he's still on the air. But then, racism seems to get people in more trouble than anything else nowadays, just look at Michael Richards. (Note to shock jocks and pundits: you're really better off being sexist or attacking victims of child molestation than uttering racial slurs. At least then Al Sharpton won't use you as part of his fame machine.)
But the real problem with muzzling Imus can be summed up in two words: Lenny Bruce.
Like Imus, Bruce used racist language. Of course, his purpose was very different, as discussed in an excellent article at semitism.net. Bruce used provocative language to comment on society; Imus uses provocative language for cheap, crude laughs and, at least subconsciously, to promote the status quo (be prettier girls, even if you play basketball).
There's a temptation to throw in, "also, Lenny Bruce was funnier," but that's not the issue. The issue is that, you can't actually differentiate Bruce and Imus in any meaningful way in terms of law or the rules of censorship. They both used language many people found offensive and they both got in a shitload of trouble for it. So if we start saying, offensive language has to be kept out of public discourse, then we get rid of Imus but also lose Lenny Bruce.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - robert
i think what imus did was wrong but if a black man in radio would have done the same thing to a white man on the radio the white man would'nt be able to do anything because if he did the naacp would call racism and cry about it so i think the naacp should take a look at them selfs and figure out they can't alway's call everything rades
2 - Douglas Mays
Good article. That was the first thing I thought also, satellite radio!
My opinion is along the lines of, sure, he said some crap you hear way too much from 'the street culture' (which he is just copying for sake of...).
But it was his procucer that instigated the 'hos' thing. He just colored it up a bit in his response.
The Rutgers b-ball team in statements to the press are acting all 'hurt' about it. Sorry gals, you made it to the finals, no statement can knock you off that pedestal. I'm sure derogatory statements much more sexist and racist have been screamed at you from the stands of away games during the season.
In general, Mr. Imus was giving you gals praise for your tough play during the final game. He made the error of responding to his producers statements.
This whole situation is really a statement of how f***** up this whole country is. The USA is so fractured on what is and what isn't. Our leaders (government and corporate) are just a bunch of panicing nerds just sucking up to who? A bunch of people trying to figure life out.
Back to 'stick and stones may break my bones, but words...'. Sharpton, Jackson!!!! Quit using some minor thing to push your name along. The race issue has really changed since the 50s. Why can't you keep up? You are just dragging things down!
Oh man, I could just go on and on about all that. Anyway, in reality, it is a non-issue accelerated into some attack.
Imus, use the notariety to hook up to XM.
anyway...
douglas
3 - dee
This country is becoming a joke. Is this really the biggest f*cking deal that we have to be talking about? Global warming, Irag, no let's talk about an old man who botched a joke. The funniest thing to me in this whole mess is that the people who it should have mattered most to, the bball team, not sharpton or jjackson, they just forgave Imus and yet he still gets fired before we even got a reaction from the people the comment was directed at. This country is becoming extrememly gay.
4 - MBD
Is Imus an important topic to be discussing in the country?
Tough question.
But it's either Imus or Anne Nicole Smith.
It's clear that we need to review and discuss these important topics repeatedly.
It's because we have inquiring minds.
5 - casey60622
I am so glad that Imus was fired. That kind of racist, sexist language should be rejected for the violent, hateful thing it is. Racist are the one group of people in our society who SHOULD be made into shamed outcasts.
For more, check out my blog
6 - Douglas Mays
Well, one thing about this whole issue is that it was a botched joke about black women in our society.
From the whole racism/sexism issue in the USA, black women do have it the worst of any.
back in the early 90s I thought that it was pretty darn tough being gay and black. What could be a worse prejudice? Scott Thompson of the Kids In the Hall comedy troupe answered well. He said "being Canadian".
Imus will be back. We need his slamming of issues in government to set the record straight.
anyway....
DM
7 - Charles Herold
I'm seeing people refer to the Imus thing as a botched joke, but this isn't a botched joke, this is, if we want to consider it humor at all, a lame pathetic joke. Botched is when you leave out important words or screw up a punchline, as when Kerry tried to take a shot at Bush that could instead be taken as a shot at the troops. It was pretty obvious what he meant, but it could be taken wrong.
But Imus didn't try to say something and something else accidentally came out. He didn't mean to say "attractive young ladies" and somehow "nappy-headed hos" came out. I really can't think of any meaning that could be ascribed to the comment. And while Kerry was obviously going to be anti-Bush rather than anti-troops, there's no reason to believe Imus didn't purposely say something offensive because he's done that in the past.
For something to be a botched joke, you have to be able to say, okay, here's how the joke should have gone. Take Imus' comment and say how it could be rephrased to not be offensive.
8 - MBD
”Take Imus' comment and say how it could be rephrased to not be offensive.”
How about this…
‘Snoop Dog would say those gals are nappy-headed hos’
Would Imus saying that make him a ‘racist’?
And to Sharpton, Imus could have quoted Snoop directly…
whassup my nigga? Aw nigga shut up nigga
Now what would ‘reverun Sharpton’ say about that?
9 - Sisyphus
Charles, I tend to agree with your sentiments, especially the part about having mixed feelings. I think we do need to guard against making sweeping generalities from this one particular incident (not that you are). But Imus has not been "muzzled." In fact, anything he wants to say will receive wide attention in all the media -- just not as the host of "Imus in the Morning" on CBS and MSNBC.
I don't buy into the slippery slope argument that the cancellation of a talk show is the beginning of a trend of censorship. These things happen from time to time. Recall that Bill Maher was fired for making politically incorrect statements on his show, "Politically Incorrect." And here, lo and behold, we have a shock jock fired for saying something shocking!
10 - Baritone
There is always the delicate balance between political correctness and censorship to be considered. In the current climate there are just some things certain people cannot say with impunity.
It often boggles the mind when, as we have seen many times, politicians, entertainers and other people in the public eye say and do such stupid things. Of course these people are constantly talking. They are bound to screw up once in a while. As you note, sometimes they can slide by. Other times they cannot.
I don't know that Imus is a racist. His comment was an impromptu joke. One of the reasons Imus got jumped on, though is that he has so often made mean spirited remarks about just about everybody at one time or another over the span of many years. In effect, this simply serves as his comeuppance. Now he is paying the Piper. I've no doubt that a number of people are quietly, or perhaps not so quietly enjoying Imus' dressing down.
As you suggest, he will probably land on his feet somewhere, perhaps on satellite radio. But for the time being, I won't miss him much.
Baritone
11 - Clavos
The idea was put forth on FNC (Hannity & Colmes) tonight that he did it deliberately to get fired, thus freeing him to accept a very lucrative offer from XM.
12 - Matthew Milam
You get info from Fox..scary.
13 - Andy Marsh
yeah,...and you get yours from the NYT...even scarier!
14 - Svaha
American Colors: The Spin on Skin
The United States is uniquely ignorant in its obsession with race. All societies have institutionalised prejudice in one form or another; older societies have gone through many cycles of creating and dismantling hierarchies as various coalitions wrestled with the economic and social spoils available.
The idea here is to consider the American case as an anthropological absurdity rather than a comparative assessment of its moral status vis-a-vis related prejudice.
The first thing that struck me as absurd about American popular and institutional notions on race is its conscious connectivity with skin color. In reading through anthropological texts, the orthodoxy suggests that genetic differentiation intra-species was superficial (in terms of nose bridge structure/hair texture/skin color) and that the quasi-science of race nevertheless was defined in some non-superficial matrix : Austric, Caucasian, Mongoloid, etc., based on climatic and other adaptive contexts.
In the US, the census and many employment documents show a pervasive sense of politically/socially defined race categories exclusively and ignorantly based on skin color! So racial categories are white/black/yellow, etc. The sense of self/other is eurocentrically derived...so, the polite phraseology for blacks is african-american, whereas for whites, it is not european-american. So people from the Indian subcontinent who may be Caucasian or Mongoloid are called Asians (race category!). Thankfully I have not seen a category of "brown/yellow" in census documents; perhaps a young society cannot think in a less simplistic dimension than black/white in formulating prejudice hierarchies.
There is a definition of freedom and equality that seems inconsistent with the above, but is savagely upheld as being true despite the commonality of superficial race discourse across American society. A typical American is quite content to comment negatively on European or Asian (old society) class and caste hierarchies as laughably sophisticated prejudice in opposition to his/her own sense of freedom/equality in American society. The next moment, that same naive citizen will speak in the most ignorant manner about race categories in terms of skin color. This is ingrained at all levels in language, media, government, and in personal lives. A society founded on the massacre of native populations, and the systematic enslavement of other human beings must naturally be racist, but what is amazing about American racism is its focus on skin color as a defining characteristic of race, in defiance of all scientific and anthropological evidence.
15 - Clavos
#12:
You get info from Fox..scary.
#13:
yeah,...and you get yours from the NYT...even scarier!
I get info from FNC and The NYT and The WaPo and The New Republic and National Review and The Communist Manifesto and The Federalist Papers and...you get the idea.
Scariest of all.
16 - Jerry
Slow news week????? Haven't you heard about the missing White House Gonzales emails yet?
Talk about distraction, people...
17 - Doug Hunter
And I thought the distraction was to drown out the dropping of the charges against the Duke Lacrosse members; one of the more recent in a long line of lies and manipulations by the race industry salesman.
18 - What's the difference?
First of all, I don't agree with the statement Imus made. But, what is the difference between a white person making that comment than a black person? I watched a spot on MTV on 4/13/07. The skit was call "So, you have to work with a white person". Then, it proceeded to present, dorky white people and portray them as idiots. Basically, the skit was to educate blacks on how to understand whites. They commented, whites are always happy. Then, an actor comes up and tells the dorky white man that his entire family has just been killed in a horrible death. The man then says something like oh well, that is ok, can't win them all, or something like that. What does that mean? White people don't care if their families die a horrible death?
The point is this, how come black comedians and other media can slam white folks from everything to the way they dance, look, talk, body parts size and any other comment to make a joke and expect everyone to laugh. But, if a white person makes a joke or makes the slightest attempt to fit into the black culture, it is a racial issue.
So, everyone needs to quit making fun of others cultures, which will never happen. So, don't take it so hard. Whatever happened to the days of Bill Cozby? He was funny. But, he didn't drag race into it.
19 - Baritone
What's the difference,
I suppose what happened was 300+ years of slavery and oppression. They've got a ways to go until they even the score.
I know that's over-simplistic, but it does say a great deal about what one person can get away with saying or doing as opposed to another. It's all in the perception. While the balance is changing incrementally, whites just don't have license to make the same kind of remarks or jokes that blacks currently have. Blacks can use the "N" word. White's cannot. Blacks can caricature whites. Whites do so with blacks at some risk. One must tread lightly. It may not seem altogether fair and you may not like it, but that's beside the point. It is the reality. Whites will just have to accept being force fed crow for some time to come.
Also, of course, in the Imus case, there is also the issue of gender bashing. That's a whole "nuther" issue.
Baritone
20 - grj2007
The only cure for offensive speech is more speech, not less.
Those who do not see Charles Herald's point don't realize their their ability to say so has been paid for in blood, and in many parts of the world the payment is bravely being made yet today. In some of those parts, by the sole volition of the people. In others, with outside ... encouragement.
The freedom to speak one's mind ... such a trivial notion, eh? Should we have silenced the racist Ala. Gov. George Wallace? And why not also Elijah Muhhamad?
... and why not the people who supported each? or who criticized them?
Why not me, then? And why not ... you?
One part that people don't seem to remember often is that the laws of Free Speech protect it from government interference, not private intolerance. Imus was dumped by private industries (albeit federally regulated ones). But I didn't hear a hue and cry from Congress about the stress cracks left in the spirit of freedom of expression in the wake of this sanctioned censorship.
Be careful what you ask for, the adage goes.
21 - What's the difference?
Baritone,
Who is they've? The whites? That was 300 years ago. So, never let it go? Our kids weren't there and neither were we. So, blacks and whites stand still. Nothing changes if nothing changes. How can our children of the future move on, if they are forced to eat crow. Future racism and past racism. So, where is it coming from now and where will it go? I have decided not to mention my race. Maybe, I am mixed. (Aren't we all?)
22 - Baritone
What diff,
The "they" I refer to are blacks. What I am talking about is not the law, not the constitution, but the reality in American society today. Both MSNBC and CBS had a perfect right to suspend/fire Imus. Almost anyone who made a public statement which could be construed as prejudicial against any identifiable group, especially a recognized minority could rightly expect a reprimand or even firing by their respective employers.
There is no doubt in my mind though that the ultimate motive for both MSNBC and CBS was not particularly high minded or virtuous. It was money. Big time sponsors had pulled the plug on Imus. Dollars were flying out the windows. The networks simply slammed those windows shut by ridding themselves of Imus.
I have long felt that Imus was on balance an odious, mean spirited big egoed prick. As to his rights to free speech, he still retains them, but not under the aegis of the radio and TV networks who were providing him with big paychecks. Should he find another platform upon which to speak, he has the right to mount it and say whatever the hell he wishes, just as all of us do. He would still be subject to rejoinders. A free society does not guarantee freedom from criticism or even from rudeness. Imus has long been rude. Some have just jumped on the opportunity to give it back to him.
As to the "reality" of the situation; watch comedians on cable or the comedy channel. Blacks are often fairly vicious in their handling of "honkey" whites. There remains a great deal (again, about 300 years worth) of pent up anger and revenge to be dissapated. Better it be accomplished through humor than from the barrel of a gun, don't you think?
I am reasonably confident that neither you, nor I, nor anyone we know ever enslaved anyone. But both tacit and blatant racism remains in often strong currents throughout American society. I still see people who fly the confederate flag on poles in their yards, or printed on license plates at the front of their pick-ups. Yesterday I saw a fellow sporting a T-shirt with the "Stars and Bars" emblazoned across the front of it with a legend that read something like: "If this offends you, you need a history lesson." I honestly don't know what that means.
But many who still unfurl that banner often defend it as a symbol of a lost grand way of life.
I see that as a load of crap. It is no more than an unmistakable notice saying "I hate n.....s."
What "grand way of life" are they referring to? The old plantation? What a crock. The glories of gracious plantation living were reserved for richest 1 or 2 percent of the old south's population. Most of the rest - white or black - lived in more or less abject poverty without a pot to piss in. Poor whites weren't someone else's property. They did not suffer the hideous burden of slavery, but they certainly shared little in the grandiosity of plantation living.
I digress.
Perhaps political correctness is run amuck. But the society at large will not let some things go unnoticed or unpunished. Imus set himself up for just such a fall through years of mean spirited put downs and jokes at the expense of all kinds of people. This one got stuck in his throat.
Baritone
23 - Charles Herold
It's not quite right to compare a black comedian making fun of white people in general with a radio pundit specifically attacking a sports team with racist, sexist language. If Imus had just said something about woman athletes in general being nappy-headed hos he *might* have actually got away with it, but being nasty about a nice group of college girls was just too much for people. Although I still don't understand how Bill O'Reilly and others have got away with much worse.
24 - Andy Marsh
Where do you get the idea that Imus was a pundit...he's as much a pundit as Jon Stewart or Keith Olberman...and neither one of those guys are credible news sources either! I'm not defending the guy, I never liked him anyway...but really...just because he interviewed a couple of pols...that doesn't make him a credible news source...
25 - Baritone
Yeah, I have never thought of Imus as any kind of pundit. The Oxford (Pocket) American Dictionary in one definition states that a pundit is "a learned expert or teacher." The word's original definition was "a Hindu learned in Sanskrit." In any case, I don't think Imus qualifies. Neither do Stewart or Colbert. I can accept Olberman in that category, though, at least a little.
As to comparing Imus to a comedian, I don't think it's too much of a stretch. He's certainly more of a comedian than a pundit. I believe Imus considers himself to be a true wit. However, he may be only half right.
In any case, I am mainly considering the perspective of the public at large. I'm not sure they (we) make such fine distinctions between the various personalities we are presented with daily and ad nauseam on our airways.
As to O'Reilly - he's an ass. Just as is Limbaugh. I truly wish something would bring them down as well.
Baritone