Is There Any Humanity?

In the wake of the tragedy that occurred this week at Virginia Tech, several questions have arisen. First it was “who did this,” then it was “who died,” and the ubiquitous question of “why,” served as a major backdrop throughout the events. By Tuesday we found out who did this and we found out who died. On Wednesday the story took a drastic turn when it was discovered that the killer had delivered a package to NBC news. The package contained self-made video footage, photographs, and an 1800 word manifesto from the killer that law enforcement officials had hoped that would answer that ominous question of why?

Although the package gave an insightful look at a very troubled individual, it didn’t answer the great question of why.

Aside from the completely unnecessary and unwarranted murder of so many individuals, another aspect of the story that troubles me is the media coverage of the now infamous package of information. As in other recent cases the media has, in my opinion, gone too far in its explicit disclosure of all the contents of the information that the killer sent to NBC.

Imagine if you were one of the victims’ family members; would you want to relive the last moments of your childs’ life through images released to the media? Even worse, if you were one of the victims that was shot or saw classmates shot, would you really want to hear this man rail against the victims as if he knew them all?

I don’t think so.

And since the latest news cycle has past, I know that I’m no longer thinking in a speculative manner, as many of the victims and their families have expressed disappointment in the media’s decision to release the killer’s photos and videos.

Ultimately, I think the media is acting as an enabler to the sick purposes that the killer intended this package for. Obviously the killer knew that his image and his words would be heard if he sent this package to NBC. Essentially he knew that he would be glorified and immortalized by doing this, and now the media has done exactly that.

Too much emphasis has been placed on the killer and not enough attention has been paid to the people who lost their lives in such a senseless way. Fortunately the media has wised up a little in the last day, and begun expressing praise for the lives that the victims led. I think the media would be better served by continuing in that direction and the nation would be better served if the killer (his actions, intent, purpose, behavioral patterns, etc.) was thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and psychological professionals, not the media. And should any significant findings come of these investigations (findings that affect us all), then make that information part of the news coverage.

I know that in this day and age of 24 news coverage, home-made videos, full-disclosure social networking and youtube.com, we have become accustomed to seeing everything about everything. In fact, if people use any level of discretion, even if it’s to protect their family, it’s frowned upon.

Perhaps the only “normal” thing that I’ve witnessed from Tom Cruise in recent years was his refusal to allow the media to take pictures of he and Katie Holmes’ baby. But when this occurred, the media jumped on it and made a big hoopla about this lack of disclosure, and connected it to his Scientologist beliefs, and pretty much wrote it off as crazy. Honestly, I don’t see what’s wrong with protecting your baby from the media mob. I think the people who are crazy are the ones who hide out in bushes with cameras for weeks, trying to take one photo of the baby.

When Saddam Hussein was hanged, it wasn’t enough that the tv media showed everything up to the point just before his body was dropped through the floor, people wanted to see the whole thing. So millions of people signed on to youtube.com to watch the unadulterated, unedited version of the hanging.

For literally a split second, Janet Jackson’s boob was on display at the 2004 Superbowl Halftime show. Of those that were actually watching, many had no idea what they had seen. On top of that tens of millions of people would have never known or seen the “wardrobe malfunction” if it weren’t for the news. For several days the world became acquainted with Janet’s pastie, as the clip was on constant loop, making a big issue out of something that was an absolute non-issue.

We witnessed a similar occurrence later in 2004 in the aftermath of the “basketbrawl” involving the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers. ESPN ran the entire brawl on a 20 minute repeat throughout the course of the night. And it’s no conincidence to me that the following day there was a huge fight on the field between opposing college football teams (see 11.22.04 posting "The Media Again...").

The media is making a habit of unnecessarily divulging visual information that could easily be explained verbally. I think these visual images do unnecessary damage and amplify instances that don’t need to be amplified. If it was so reprehensible to see Janet’s breast, then why repeat it in slow motion on the news. In my opinion showing the basketbrawl led to other brawls in the immediate aftermath. In the current instance surrounding Virginia Tech, I suspect that we’ll see copycats in the future because the media has, in a sense, glorified him by displaying these images.

The only instance where discretion seems to have been at play is the sad story of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin being killed by a stingray last labor day. There was video footage of it, but those who were close to Irwin committed to not releasing the footage to the media even though I know there are many people who wanted to see it for themselves.

I’m glad they didn’t air the footage, and I just wish that the media would take that example and use it as a model. The story of his death was verbally told, and each of us can imagine what the scene might have looked like for ourselves. But nothing, from a news perspective, was lost by the decision to not air the footage.

Discretion can still be a good thing!

Out of respect for the victims of Monday’s shootings at Virginia Tech, I just wish that the media would demonstrate some level of humanity, and desist from glorifying the killer, focus on what we can learn from the situation, and honor the lives of those that were lost.

-Maelstrom

Where Were Al and Jesse When…

In the aftermath of the Imus debacle, I was astounded to hear the slew of criticisms of Civil Rights’ leaders, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. Critics from all sides kept saying that Jackson and Sharpton don’t have the “moral authority” to criticize Imus. I also heard that they aren’t Black leaders and there were many implications that they both are irrelevant and unnecessary. I also kept hearing that its time for new leadership in the Black community. Finally, I keep hearing “where are they (Jackson and Sharpton) when Black rappers denigrate Black women with their hip hop music?”

The only one of those criticisms I’ll agree with is that it’s time for new leadership in the Black community. But I don’t agree because Jackson and Sharpton are illegitimate leaders, rather because it is time for a new generation of leaders to stand up and carry on the work that Jackson and Sharpton have been carrying on since their predecessors passed the torch to them following the Civil Rights’ movement of the 50’s and 60’s.

In comparing Imus with Jackson and Sharpton, the media has dredged up 1 (Jackson) or 2 (Sharpton) statements that could be construed as racist, therefore maintaining that if Imus was wrong for making racists statements, Jackson and Sharpton aren’t the people to tell him so.

I disagree!

If Jackson and Sharpton did make racist statements, that makes Imus’ statements no less racist. Furthermore, Jackson and Sharpton are recognized as defenders for those who otherwise can’t defend themselves, therefore affording them the kind of clout that can bring light to a situation that deserves such attention. Acting in that capacity, despite purported past transgressions, they were certainly qualified to criticize Imus’ attack on the ladies of Rutgers. And I’m not typically into comparing levels of wrong-doing, but I think the media’s comparison of 1 or 2 politically incorrect sound bytes by Jackson and Sharpton is vastly different than a weekly barrage of bigoted, sexist and racist tirades over the last thirty years by Imus.

Above all the criticisms of the duo that bothered me over the last few days, the assertion that Jackson and Sharpton haven’t criticized Black rappers for using vile, derogatory and destructive language has just astonished me the most. I keep hearing “where are they” when rappers are using the same kind of language that got Imus canned. I submit to you that the question isn’t “where were Jackson and Sharpton when rappers used this kind of language,” but rather, “where was the media when Jackson and Sharpton were criticizing this era of rappers for using such language?”

I’m astounded that this criticism even exists given some of the events that Jackson and Sharpton have been involved with over the last 3 years.

As it pertains to Sharpton not speaking out about rappers and their violence and misogyny, I challenge anyone to do one thing: go to google.com and type these three words “sharpton rap violence.” A quick click on any of the hits that return should indicate to you that Rev. Al Sharpton has been fighting the war on violence and misogyny in rap music for several years. He’s even written editorials about it (see one in the New York Daily News archives: March 7, 2005). Sharpton even called for a 90 day ban and boycott on rap music that used such language and imagery; a boycott that got support from esteemed Princeton Professor Cornel West as well as Jesse Jackson. So, where was the media when Sharpton was attacking the rappers as he has done Imus? There is no inconsistency in his attack on Imus, it follows the same pattern he first established with rappers.

As for Jackson, due to his common last name a google search is a little harder to do, but we are on the heels of at least two major instances in which he called out Black artists for saying denigrating things. Following Michael Richards’ (of Seinfeld) racist tirade during a comedy act last year, Jackson brought Michael Richards and Paul Mooney on his radio show and convinced them both to quit using the “N” word, and Mooney committed to not using the “B” word anymore as well (in case you don’t know, Mooney is a Black comedian who is often credited with proliferating the use of the “N” word in comedy). Jackson didn’t have to bring Mooney on the show along with Richards, but he did because both men clearly had a problem using vile language in their professions. No distinction of Black or White was made at all. Where was the nationwide media at then?

Many have become well acquainted with Bill Cosby’s very loud disapproval of rap music and the way that Black parents are raising their children in this new millennium. Well one of the first prominent people to stand up alongside Cosby was none other than the Rev. Jesse Jackson. So to say that he hasn’t been around and hasn’t criticized black rappers for all these years, but is now scapegoating Imus, is completely false.

I will stop there for now, but I could opine about how both men are not “self-appointed leaders of the Black community” as several Black journalists have stated in the last week; they are leaders of the Black community by virtue of the body of work they have put together over the last 50 plus years (which include 3 very profoundly run Presidential campaigns as well as countless diplomatic acts here and abroad).

I’ll just finish by emphasizing that, with respect to Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson as it pertains to violence and misogyny in America today, THERE IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD!!! They have been consistent on these issues across the board! The media that keeps spouting these falsities should get back to journalistic integrity and dig up some files that will confirm what I’ve written in this post today.

The question isn’t “where were Al and Jesse when…,” it remains “where was the media when Al and Jesse were raising the issue before!”

-Maelstrom (a very frustrated, disturbed and disappointed Maelstrom)

PS: Sharpton certainly did apologize for his now infamous “white interlopers” comment!

Introducing Mr. Imus

Over the course of the last week many people became familiar with a man by the name of Don Imus. In case you still aren’t aware of who he is, let me fill you in. Don Imus was a CBS nationally syndicated radio talk show host who also had a television simulcast on MSNBC. He is often credited as being the original “shock jock” (that is to say that he was the first Howard Stern). Over the years he had taken on a much more intellectual and political radio persona, however he maintained many of the elements in his radio show that made him a shock jock.

He is currently in the news because last week, following the NCAA women’s basketball championship game, he made gender-cruel and racially incendiary comments toward the Rutgers women’s basketball team. The phrase that is most notably quoted from his near-minute tirade is “nappy headed hoes,” in reference to the predominantly black Rutgers team.

There are plenty of viewpoints that I could attack this issue from (including the implications of a phrase such as nappy-headed, to the issue of the lee-way money and influence can offer someone in his position), but I will try to be as targeted and focused as possible. I will direct most of this post toward explaining why I think Imus was well deserving of being fired, and briefly why comparisons of Imus to Hip-hop artists are misguided and ill-informed to a large extent.

In fact, let me start with that latter point.

Criticisms of hip-hop artists have become a major part of the conversation since this story gained nationwide attention. I’d like to say that for years rappers have been the topic of criticism by countless black leaders and commentators (including Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton). The verbal disrespect and the visual denigration they have propagated toward women, black women in particular, cannot be overstated. The negative nature of much (not all) of the culture is indeed reprehensible. However, the only similarity between Imus’ comments last week and the kinds of lyrics that we’ve become accustomed to hearing from rappers is the word ‘ho.’ And perhaps that is why the phrase “nappy-headed ho” is the only one the mass media, which is certainly dominated by white men, is the only one that we keep hearing about from Imus’ rant.

I would like to point out that Imus (and the guest on the show that day) went on to make very racially charged insinuations and gender/racial comparisons between the Tennessee and Rutgers women’s basketball teams. He even went so far as to compare watching the teams play each other to watching the Jigaboo’s playing the Wannabe’s (a reference to ‘School Daze,’ one of Spike Lee’s earlier films addressing the nature of classism amongst black people). The point I’m trying to make is that people who are upset that Imus got fired because “black rappers talk like this all the time” are looking only at a three word phrase that was apart of a much longer, more inflammatory discourse than the media is focusing on (seriously, dig up the entire tirade, I’m sure its somewhere on the internet, and you’ll understand what I’m talking about).

Imus has made racists statements totally unrelated to the kinds of misogynistic statements that (black) rappers have made over the years. Among some of his more recent racist statements are characterizations of Barack Obama as “that colored fellow,” referring to black female PBS news anchor Gwen Ifill as “the cleaning lady,” and discussing black female tennis players Venus and Serena Williams as savages that belonged in National Geographic instead of in Playboy magazine; AND THE LIST GOES ON, SERIOUSLY (a short list is included in the wikipedia.org entry about Imus)!

Certainly rappers aren’t saying such things. The two are not the same and I wish people would quit with the comparisons. Rappers are a different kind of evil which I have addressed in the past (see my 6/23/04 post ‘What’s a Tip Drill’), and will likely address in the future.

As for Imus being fired, people keep saying that “he is a good person and that it is wrong to fire him over this instance,” and “why didn’t they fire him before (when he made adverse statements) if he was so wrong this time,” and that “you have to take the man as a whole instead of just looking at one statement.” And the one that is frustrating me the most, “we have Free Speech, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants.”

Well, let me clear all of those arguments up by simply pointing out that any number of “good people” have been fired from various kinds of jobs for carrying on in behavior that their employer deemed detrimental to the company. Imus is a person who worked for large corporations, and they reserve the right to fire him for such behavior (I’m sure it was in his contract somewhere).

To briefly address the issue of Free Speech, I’d like to point out that Free Speech was totally exercised in this instance and not hampered at all. Imus exercised his right to Free Speech by saying what he said, the community and community leaders (including the very eloquent Rutgers Team) exercised their Free Speech by expressing their disdain for his comments, Imus’ corporate sponsors freely spoke by pulling their sponsorship from his shows, and his employers spoke by pulling him from their programming. Free speech was indeed exercised and not encumbered at all.

I hate it when people cower behind “free speech, free speech” when these types of situations come up. What you have to understand is the context under which you have free speech. There are regulations on virtually everything because virtually everyone has to answer to someone. We also have the “right to bear arms” as part of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can get a gun and that you can use it whenever, where ever and however you feel. So for the people crying “free speech,” are you also crying that a criminal has the “right to bear arms” when a masked fellow sticks up the local grocery store with a gun?

Free speech comes with many benefits, but can also come with consequences.

One thing that I find very interesting in watching countless hours of news coverage on this topic is that many of the people who are defending Imus by crying Free Speech were on board with the FCC for fining MTV and CBS and other stations during the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, and were upset that Bono (of U2) said the “F” word during a live telecast. So you want to regulate the F-word and a split second of a breast that most of the world didn’t see until after the news kept replaying it in slow motion, but you don’t want to censor a man who spews vile, hateful things ad nauseam everyday. I think there’s something seriously backwards with this.

On to my next point…

I know plenty of people that have been axed from their job for far less egregious offenses (like being consistently late) despite the good work they do or the good people that they are. So on this point, isn’t it fair that someone who has consistently engaged in detrimental behavior also be fired from his position. Sounds like the American way to me.

In my opinion, the great good that could easily come out of the Don Imus controversy is that now the hip-hop community may actually have to adjust the very low standards that the lyrics of the music and the imagery of the videos have set…

…And that is a great thing.

Till next time,

Maelstrom