12 April
2007

Imus - No Mas

So, it looks like Imus finally got fired.  I guess that was pretty inevitable.  I have more problems with his firing than I do with his original statements, and I had a lot of problems with that.

I never listened to Imus, never plan to, and disagree completely with what he said, but I have grave concerns about the chilling effect that could arise from his firing and the visceral public outcry that led to it. While this was clearly not an example of it, progress is often borne out of ideas once found to be controversial and offensive to some. One can imagine the outcry from a hypothetical 1872 radio show on which a shock jock claimed men descended from monkeys, or to use a more contemporary example, Rosie O'Donnel's statement that 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy. 

It is vital to the marketplace of ideas that people feel free to inject their thoughts, as unpopular as they may be, into the conversation. While Imus' statement clearly does not contribute much of anything to the marketplace of ideas, the frenzied reaction to his words could have a deleterious chilling effect on another person who wanted to raise an unpopular, but potentially useful, issue.  For even in rejected ideas, we gain something through the very process of considering and rejecting that idea.

I dislike Imus, and find his words deeply hateful, but it strikes me that this issue has been blown way out of proportion, and seems to be serving as a proxy to give Americans an excuse to feel like they have done something about the pervasive racism that still lingers in many segments of our society.  By expressing outrage at Imus' words, they feel absolved from having to address the real underlying issues, such as poverty and access to education and healthcare, that continue to perpetuate a racial divide in the U.S.


Posted by scott at 17:13 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)
Re: Imus - No Mas

I found this post well written and thoughtful. What have you done with Scott?

This is one of those issues that I find myself agreeing with whomever is talking. Here's an example of me being easily manipulated...My response is in parenthesis...

He apologized. (OK.)

But he shouldn't get away with it. (Yup.)

But he should have the right to say what he feels. (Sure.)

But what about the damage he is doing. (I see your point).

Posted by: Ed at April 12,2007 20:05
And the crowd goes wild...

Hoorah!! Short Attention Span Theater is back!!! Don't know how we survived without it through the long cold months of...well...summer, fall, winter and now spring, again.

Keep up the good work Scott. We're working on getting you more fans.

And, just to respond to the post: Imus is an idiot, but he's said many more insensitive things in the past and he kept his job. Why was this one so different?

And when are we going to see Al and Jesse on the steps of the Durham courthouse apologizing for their equally insensitive remarks about the guys from Dook?

Posted by: Kevin at April 13,2007 09:33
Re: Imus - No Mas

I believe that Imus is adjusting to a more politically correct world than the one he was raised. Based on the context of his comments, it seems to me that he was trying to describe the Rutgers basketball team as intimidating, but he chose the wrong words. Not the wrong words in his mind, but the wrong words for the rest of the nation. I still fault Imus for being offensive, but I can see how an old curmudgeon could make that mistake. My grandfather would make racially insensitive comments all the time, but in his mind it was not offensive. Of course he didn't say these things on the radio.

I agree with Scott here. The solution is not firing Imus for a lesser offense. The solution is more about getting to the root issue of accepting racism throughout our culture, not just from one radio shock jock.

Posted by: steve at April 17,2007 10:55
Re: Imus - No Mas

Kevin asked: Why was this one so different?

Because Sharpton heard it and had room in his schedule to push the issue. That and the fact that there were identifiable "victims" who were rather sympathetic.

I must add that I think Rutgers' players handled this completely wrong. By playing the role of victim and claiming that Imus has scared them for life and has diminished their acheivements, they are empowering the words he said. If I were them, I would have said "Who is Don Imus, and why should I care what he has to say?"

Posted by: Scott at April 18,2007 17:14
Trackbacks
Please send trackback to:
There are no trackback.
Post a comment










Prevent spam - use this code to post