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