Posted: Sat 21 Apr 2007 16:50 Post subject: The twisted, instructive Imus mess.
Quote:
April 18, 2007, 8:00 a.m.
An Affair at the Heart of Speech
The twisted, instructive Imus mess.
By Ward Connerly
There is so much that could be said about the social and cultural significance of the Don Imus incident, one hardly knows where to begin. His comment about “nappy-headed hos” could have been considered just as “sexist” as it was “racist,” but racism is the ultimate offense when it comes to prejudices. And besides, the “hos” was directed at black women. So it was, properly speaking, primarily a matter of racism.
No doubt if a daughter or granddaughter of mine were a member of the Rutgers basketball team, I would have been furious at her having been called a “ho.” Yet I hope that I would be able to view the incident objectively, and that this objectivity would be reflected in my judgments about what was Imus’s due.
There is general agreement that comedy has its place in American life, even irreverent comedy. Sometimes comedy is not only irreverent, but offensive, and this is less generally approved of; typically it is put up with, but occasionally it is the cause of strenuous objections. The Imus affair was obviously a case of the latter.
But has Imus been treated fairly? Not entirely, I’d say. The reaction was overblown, the denunciations intemperate; it was a mistake to terminate his shows on MSNBC and CBS. And it is worth considering all of this, lest we compound the error or repeat it.
Offense and Forbearance
A first observation: Imus in the Morning was a very popular show, which is indicative of its public acceptance. No marginal program, it was a mainstream show. Many Americans liked it and laughed at it, especially at the way Imus ridiculed politics. And countless high-profile individuals appeared on his show. It was refreshing, the way in which Imus would cut through the pretentious seriousness which clings to the “crucial issues of the day.” Imus’s audience expected his satirical, sarcastic, irreverent manner, and he delivered. This time he “crossed the line,” to use his own words.
So where is the handbook of lines, delineating what one can and cannot say on a talk-radio show? We expect these hosts to be spontaneous, creative, and entertaining, to push the envelope. And thus, when they screw up, we need to cut them some slack, letting them know that, while we have no tolerance for comments like “nappy-headed hos,” we realize it was more a result of boorishness than of malice. This “one strike and you’re out” policy is not fitting for a nation with our tradition of free speech. Offend the wrong group, and you will be fired — it’s not exactly the spirit of the First Amendment. Yet that is essentially what has happened to Don Imus.
To be certain, Imus has said many things offensive to many people over the years. He has always presumed, and received, a certain acceptance. His latest offense was not worse than much of what he was accustomed to getting away with. “Ho” is not a term that Imus originated; the term is accepted, never mind simply tolerated, by a not-insignificant portion of American society.
The rules were changed in the middle of the game, apparently. Imus was given no grace period to make an adjustment, and that is unfair. But the rule-change itself was unfair — who is going to be irreverent, and say something perhaps mildly offensive, if it might cost him his job?
Offense and Forgiveness
We are a nation that professes a commitment to the “better angels of our nature.” The majority of us are Christians, and our Bible teaches us to forgive. As I watched Al Sharpton drag Imus through the mud on Sharpton’s own show, repeatedly saying “I want you fi-yed,” I saw a bully, not a Christian. I saw one power-hungry entertainer beating up on another. Although I can’t think of one thing about which I agree with him, I was beginning to warm to the “new” Al Sharpton — more polished, frequently rational and logical, notwithstanding some outlandish ideas. The Imus incident represented a relapse to an earlier Sharpton — the schoolyard bully.
It is my sense that Sharpton overplayed his hand, and that, while he might have won the battle, he will lose the war. Americans don’t like bullies, and Imus, bully that he was on his show, was a helpless victim here. Sharpton, in victory, was a bully. What a justice it would be if Jackson, Sharpton, and the others who called for Imus to be “fired” were now to be judged by the same unforgiving standard. All of us should monitor every word they say, and, if they misstep in any way, do unto them as they did unto Imus — at least until they apologize. Jackson never apologized for what he had said about the Duke lacrosse team, when they were originally charged with rape, after the charges were dismissed. Being falsely branded as a “rapist” is certainly a far more serious offense than being called a “ho.”
I pray that Don Imus is able to regroup and to redeem himself from this dreadful, though instructive, incident. From all that I have read, the content of his character is good. In his private life, he has served America well. A racially “born again” Imus, given his creative mind, can do much more to call attention through a daily show to the destructiveness of rappers who brand black women as “hos” than a Don Imus forced into premature retirement.
Offense and Fairness
To Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bruce Gordon (former head of the NAACP), Barack Obama, and those network executives who professed outrage that Imus insulted those young black women on the Rutgers basketball team, I ask why you weren’t outraged when Joe Biden insulted essentially all black people except one? There has been no public discussion of why Biden’s comment was insulting to most black people, particularly those who have worked hard to succeed according to the rules of American life. It is offensive to them to know that Biden and others consider it an anomaly for a black person to be “mainstream, bright, articulate, clean and nice-looking.” Obama is not an exception among blacks in those respects. Yet the silence was deafening from those who wanted Imus’s head on a platter.
What about the Trent Lott incident? Why could we not put his words into their rightful context? Lott was trying to make a colleague feel good on his 100th birthday. He was not suggesting a return to racial segregation. He didn’t hurl a racial slur at anyone. The crowd that wanted Imus fired is essentially the same crowd that wanted Lott to apologize and to be removed from his position.
What about Michael Richards of the Seinfeld show? Calling members of the audience “niggers” was despicable. As I watched the video of his act, it was clear that for a few minutes he was insanely out of control. The reaction from Jackson and the anti-Lott/Imus mob was typical: “We demand an apology.” Jackson took it a step further. He wanted all Americans to eliminate the word “nigger” from our vocabulary. If someone asks ten years from now, “What was the word that Michael Richards said that was so offensive?” the correct answer is supposed to be, “He said the n-word.” That is taking things too far, stemming more from an eagerness to dictate conventions than a desire to mitigate offense.
I would be delighted if the Imus incident caused us all to make our public discourse less coarse and offensive. Two requests: First, media and network executives should know that it is racist to presume that black people are so monolithic that their sum and substance can be reduced into two personalities — Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It is racist to presume that black people have “representatives” or “leaders” who speak for them. We don’t.
Second, I would remind those who want to purify our airwaves and our culture by eliminating offensive language that those of us who are “black” and “conservative” ought to be included in this new “Non-offensive Language Bill of Rights.” Being called “Uncle Tom” and the litany of pejorative terms leveled at us is outrageous. I am still waiting for an apology from Jesse Jackson for calling me “strange fruit” — not a term of affection for anyone familiar with American history.
Something tells me, however, that I shouldn’t hold my breath for the apology to come.
Yep, another article blaming Imus' firing on Sharpton the Conservatives favorite whipping boy and media creation. If Sharpton did not exist another would have been elevated to his importance. (Again, Sharpton was headed towards oblivion but through the work of Rudy Giuliani's "racism" and the Right's need for a "racial boogeyman." Just how often does Sharpton appear on Fox News?)
DJ's have been fired for far less than what Imus said, like Opie and Andy being fired for recording sex in a church, Fox TV received a high six-figure fine for an episode of "Married with Children," Rudy Guiliani had a fit about provocative art, a group of white Chrisitans in the north east went batshit crazy when a picture of Jesus modeled on a black woman was shown, etc.
It was very ironic to read Larry Elder lamenting how Trent Lott lost his job as majority leader for his comments about Strom Thurmond. Of course, Elder was ever so careful to ignore the fact that Lott's ejection was pushed through by Karl Rove and other Republicans who hated Lott and wanted Bill Frist as majority leader.
But this is the way the game is played, when "minorities" complain and fight against mistreatment they are labeled as whiners or wallowing in their victim-hood. However, it's perfectly fine for Conservatives to wrap themselves in their victim-hood to play martyr to the evils of political correctness, blah, blah, blah.
God knows that millionaire white heterosexual men like Don Imus just have it so terribly hard in the United States. What will Imus do with all the time on his hands and millions in the bank? Oh, that's right, Imus won't be able to hire people to make "nigger jokes" as he admitted to having done so in his interview with Mike Wallace. Imus won't be able to call a successful journalist a "cleaning lady" as he did when Gwen Ifill turned down an appearance on his show. Etc., etc., etc.
Yep, another article blaming Imus' firing on Sharpton the Conservatives favorite whipping boy and media creation. If Sharpton did not exist another would have been elevated to his importance. (Again, Sharpton was headed towards oblivion but through the work of Rudy Giuliani's "racism" and the Right's need for a "racial boogeyman." Just how often does Sharpton appear on Fox News?)
.
I wonder what evidence you can muster to prove that Sharpton is a creation of the right. I would also be interested in any information you can furnish to prove that: "Sharpton was headed towards oblivion but through the work of Rudy Giuliani's 'racism' and the Right's need for a 'racial boogeyman.'"
last time I checked Sharpton has appeared on Fox News and other news channels-MSNBC, CNN, local news, Meet the Press, etc. None of these other programs or networks are conservative.
Also, Sharpton was a fixture at the Democratic National Convention and he ran for president as a Democrat. Cornel West, a leftist, was his campaign advisor. So, it's apparent that left/liberals have as much to do, if not more, with Sharpton's high profile.
Finally, I'd be curious where Connerly blames the firing of Imus exclusively on Sharpton.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 23 Apr 2007 16:38 Post subject:
triguy wrote:
Yep, another article blaming Imus' firing on Sharpton the Conservatives favorite whipping boy and media creation. If Sharpton did not exist another would have been elevated to his importance. (Again, Sharpton was headed towards oblivion but through the work of Rudy Giuliani's "racism" and the Right's need for a "racial boogeyman." Just how often does Sharpton appear on Fox News?)
I didn't see anything in this article blaming Imus' firing on Sharpton. He suggested that Imus was not treated fairly and that Sharpton is a power hungry bully...which he is IMO. If you can point me to where Ward Connerly blamed Sharpton for Imus' firing, I would appreciate it.
Sharpton most certainly is a media creation, but if you think he is a "right wing" media creation, you are wrong. He is a New York media creation as G-Man and myself have explained before on this forum.
Remember, Sharpton craves media attention, so he wouldn't be the "go to guy" if he did not seek the attention from the media in which he thrives in. Remember, I have known about Sharpton and his antics for over 20 years when he was only known in the New York Metro area, if even that.
triguy wrote:
But this is the way the game is played, when "minorities" complain and fight against mistreatment they are labeled as whiners or wallowing in their victim-hood. However, it's perfectly fine for Conservatives to wrap themselves in their victim-hood to play martyr to the evils of political correctness, blah, blah, blah.
I didn't see that in the Connerly article. Is this what you are referring to??? If so, please show me where this was, I must've read over it or something.
triguy wrote:
God knows that millionaire white heterosexual men like Don Imus just have it so terribly hard in the United States. What will Imus do with all the time on his hands and millions in the bank? Oh, that's right, Imus won't be able to hire people to make "nigger jokes" as he admitted to having done so in his interview with Mike Wallace. Imus won't be able to call a successful journalist a "cleaning lady" as he did when Gwen Ifill turned down an appearance on his show. Etc., etc., etc.
I certainly do not feel sorry for Imus at all!!! He reaped what he sowed I suppose. The thing is now, those who lead the charge against him, better not throw stones at their glass houses anymore because they will be called on it. Ah, so maybe this is a good thing after all
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 23 Apr 2007 16:52 Post subject:
triguy wrote:
(Again, Sharpton was headed towards oblivion but through the work of Rudy Giuliani's "racism" and the Right's need for a "racial boogeyman."
Really Sharpton was headed toward oblivion
Was he headed toward oblivion in the fall of 1992 when he was in the Democratic primary for US Senator from New York to run against Al D'Amato Dinkins was still the mayor in '92. It was during this campaign when it was discovered that Sharpton didn't even live in New York State, but in Teaneck, NJ A candidate for US Senator from New York must be a New York State resident........
Mr. Sharpton leaves himself wide open to be used as what you call the 'Right's need for a "racial boogeyman."' Many on the right, hell many people period, would be glad if Sharpton just faded into oblivion. Sharptons main quelm with Giuliani, was that Giuliani refused to meet with him because he didn't feel that Sharpton was a legitimate leader.
Like certain people in society have noticed, if the advertisers had not pulled their advertisements from Don Imus’ show Imus in my opinion would never had been fired just suspended.
Like certain people in society have noticed, if the advertisers had not pulled their advertisements from Don Imus’ show Imus in my opinion would never had been fired just suspended.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Sharpton was headed toward oblivion 
A candidate for US Senator from New York must be a New York State resident........
