Thursday, April 12, 2007

Quack quack.

I support Don Imus.


CBS certainly has the right to fire him, but it's a cowardly, scary thing for them to do. Caving to pressure like that is just going to embolden all the myriad First Amendment haters out there, letting them know that corporate media doesn't have the spine to stand behind the people they pay to shock us. And who will come calling to CBS's door next asking for content to be deleted? The current administration? The religious right? The New Yorker reading, latte swilling Brooklynites?

Imus said an awful thing, and he should be disciplined, called out, and made to apologize....but not muzzled.

Firing Imus because of his three mischosen words accomplishes nothing valuable. It heals no rifts, cures no ills, and only sweeps another very important topic in America under the rug. This incident should be an opening for a conversation about race, not a witch hunt. But now the witch hunt is over...or is it?

Rev. Al Sharpton said this: "It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves." I'll wait a second while you shudder at that thought.

If it's going to be left up to the likes of the good Reverend (or Pat Robertson, or George W. Bush, or Hilary Clinton) to determine what's worthy of being broadcast on the American people's airwaves, all I have to say is: thank goodness we have the internet.

4 Comments:

  • At 11:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well, as you know I disagree that this is a First Amendment issue. No one is threatening to jail Don Imus. No one is even suing him (yet). He worked for a private corporation. He still has every right to go on public access and say those same three words and even mean them. But there's a difference between freedom of speech and getting paid for your speech. And there's a difference between being fired for saying something merely controversial and fired for saying something patently offensive and legally indecent, like racial hate speech. There's already a framework for what's permitted and not permitted on the airwaves--we do have the FCC.

    The more I think about it the more I think CBS made the right decision. Yes, they seemingly bowed to pressure, but is that really in and of itself a bad thing? I don't think so, especially in this case where there's zero gray area as to what was said. And this is hardly the first time Imus made a racially insensitive remark. Sure other "special interest" groups will probably take a renewed interest in trying to get other media personalities off the air for one reason or another, but I don't think that's anything new.

    I agree there's a real danger that hysterical groups- and the media- may then begin to confuse controversial remarks with offensive ones; people with the "wrong" opinions wind up getting silenced. But I don't think that that fear warrants keeping people who make bigoted comments on the air. Frankly I think the MSM could stand to clean house!

    Nor do I think the net effect of this is to sweep a debate under the rug. True, guess no one's debating anything on the Imus show anymore. But you could certainly argue the opposite- that the dramatic act of Imus' firing is actually a catalyst on a greater scale for debate about racism, misogyny, freedom of speech and the media than a two-week censure would have been. After all, here we are having this posting debate!

    Of course, I also believe that CBS had more financial than moral reasons for giving Imus the boot. They are a corporation above anything else.

    And thank goodness we have the Internet--cheers to that.

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Geoff G. said…

    I can look at this two ways: as a capitalist/shareholder of CBS or as an American citizen/owner of the airwaves. If I were a CBS shareholder, I think I would be totally in line with the decision that was made. If I was a total capitalist, I'd agree with you that "the market has spoken" and it's just good business sense to respond.

    But, I'm (to my own detriment) a little more idealistic on media issues.

    Broadcast media (and especially terrestrial radio) doesn't exist in a capitalist vacuum, where it can do whatever it needs to hit it's profit projections. It's a public trust, where the FCC licenses the American citizen's airwaves to corporations. And as far as regulation goes, the FCC's job is to maintain "community standards" on the air. (That's the letter of the law that broadcasters have to adhere to.)

    So here's my real idealistic maneuvering: it doesn't matter what Imus said, what offends my (and plenty of other people's) sense of "community standards" is that a license-holder on my airwaves can get away with removing a voice and having the given reason be "he said three words we thought were terrible." That's just responding to the shrillest voices, and not the "community" at large.

     
  • At 3:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I found the backlash and the attention paid to this by the public and by the media to be far more appalling than the actual transgression. How the hell did Imus's racism eclipse Larry Birkhead's fatherhood of Anna Nicole's crack baby on Fox News, I ask you that? WHERE are our priorities?!

     
  • At 9:50 PM, Blogger jeje said…

Post a Comment

<< Home