April 11, 2007
The Imus Affair is About Apartheid in Media (Brent Budowsky)
First things first. Who wasn't proud of those women from the Rutgers basketball team who showed such dignity, class, and respect in their response to the travesty committed against them?
I was reading a post by a white male liberal radio host, associated with an almost totally white liberal radio network, run by white males, owned by white males, writing on an almost totally white liberal blog about the Imus affair.
He was writing about the bigoted words of another white male host, televised on a cable network run by white males, owned by a national television network run by white males, which is owned by a global conglomerate run by white males.
His basic point, not worthy of great comment here, was that while he was oh-so-concerned with what Imus said, Imus must remain since this is all about freedom of speech.
He reminded me of Mike Dukakis, who, when asked during a debate how he would react if a criminal had pulverized his wife, gave a dissertation about constitutional law.
Sorry, pal, the Imus affair is not about free speech. If he wants to throw these bigoted hate words in the face of some glorious young women, he has the right to do so, on any street corner.
The issue here is whether a publicly owned media company, in a publicly regulated industry, with sponsors dependent on the public goodwill of their customers, with some serious standard of corporate responsiblity, should peddle this crap for profit on the public airwaves.
Let's be clear: Media barons not only allow but encourage bigotry, anger, smear, derision and disrespect so long as it is good for business.
Much of my business is in entertainment, and I once had dinner with a high-level friend in the business and his wife. In a pre-planned attack, I said to them that maybe I should tell their teenage daughter she is deserving of various criminal sexual acts because she is really nothing more than a prostitute (I used different words).
Of course, Mom was deeply offended and said if I ever used such language again she'd never talk to me again. At which point I pulled out a CD, from a black rapper, using those exact words about a black woman, and asked them both: You realize I just quoted verbatim a product your company puts out, whose profit is paying for our wonderful dinner at this fine restaurant?
At which point Mom looked at my entertainment-business colleague and said, "We are going to have a long talk when we get home tonight!!!"
Does it matter if a billion-dollar white-owned conglomerate pays a fortune to a black rapper to make insulting, racist, sexist comments about a black woman? Or if a white-owned conglomerate puts this garbage on television and radio?
Trust me, if there were more African-American, Hispanic, and female owners at the highest levels of management of these companies, this kind of racist, misogynist content would disappear.
If there were more African-American, Hispanic and females as full-blown hosts on these radio and television networks, the quality and respect of our media and political discourse would far better reflect the American notions of tolerance and melting-pot inclusiveness.
There is, far too often, a race-based apartheid, and a gender-based apartheid, that plagues both our mainstream media and our corporate conglomerates, at the ownership, management and host levels.
Even Air America — which I have urged repeatedly to build major alliances with African-American and Hispanic hosts, networks and audiences — is far too much white bread for my taste, which is significantly accountable for its troubles.
It's not enough, if Air America wants to speak for progressives, to have one or two black or Hispanic hosts, or management and ownership that is so heavily dominated by white males to the exclusion of blacks, Hispanics and women in positions of true power.
I single out Air America because it seeks to stand for progressivism and could do better, should do better, and will never succeed until it actually does better.
There is a political apartheid, too, even among Democrats. Why has such little support been given to voter registration, get-out-the-vote drives, and policing honest elections in African-American and Hispanic precincts? The reason is the Democratic consultariat class makes its money not from registering or protecting the franchise of minority voters, but in its piece of the action for giant television ad buys.
There is apartheid on war and peace. One can watch the reruns from 2002, 2003, and 2004, reread the newspapers, or review the insider guests on cable television shows. What got America into the Iraq war without serious debate was not only misrepresentation by the administration, on matters that were well known to insiders but never stated publicly; it was an insider apartheid.
Virtually the entire mass media in 2002 became courtiers to power. During the fateful vote on the Iraq war resolution in 2002, the Republican talking points were almost identical to the Democratic talking points in support of the war. Dissent was disrespected; discussion of truth was destroyed by the dominance of the apartheid of insider-ism that allowed only one point of view, no matter how wrong.
America was driven to war with the bizarre and unconscionable spectacle of televisions hosts, Democrats and Republicans all reading from the same talking points in what I called at the time Putin Media.
Stephen Colbert pointed this out at the White House Correspondents dinner, to consternation in extremis of the insider media. Now even Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), normally a brilliant guy, treats the Democrats in Congress as airheads and wimps and warns them to stay away from mean old Stephen Colbert.
Give me a break.
This political and media apartheid is a tale of two cities. On one side stand the insiders, far too often white and male, conservative, liberal or merely corporate. On the other side stand the rest of us, and at the center of the rest of us stand our heroes, the women of the Rutgers women's basketball team, with their dignity and respect, which are a model for us all.
I have not proposed that Imus be fired. But a two-week vacation is utter nonsense, and I have proposed that Imus donate a full year's salary, matched by NBC and CBS, to any charity designated by the Rutger's women.
Please, spare us the collection of white male insiders (including myself) passing judgment on appropriate penance for indignities and insults that neither whites, nor males, nor higher-income older insiders can ever fully understand.
I have my views, they have theirs, but in the end, let's defer to women involved.
Those women worked their hearts and souls to reach the summit of American athletics, and had their moment stolen by the racism and sexism of a white male host, on a white male-owned cable show on a white male-owned television and radio network, part of white male-owned corporate conglomerates.
Let's hear from the women of Rutgers next week, and respect what they tell us, which is their call, because this is their moment.
My guess is, when the dust settles, these women, and their moms and dads, and our whole nation, will be double-proud of them.
Proud of their hard work, dedication and the brilliance of their athletic accomplishment.
Proud of their integrity, respect and class in the noblest sense of the word.
They are not the women Imus called them; they are the legacy of the woman who stands in the Harbor of New York.
Let's be proud of the way they remind us all of what America is supposed to be, of the values of mutual respect and tolerance that embody the American idea.
Apartheid, anywhere, is wrong, and these great women, in every way, are right.
Perhaps these women will lead America to a long-overdue discussion about what is right and what is wrong, about our media and our politics.
Perhaps these women will empower not only themselves, but all of us, against a public discourse that has become disgusting and revolting and full of bigotry, derision and pain for profit, in money and politics.
The Good Book tells us that the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.
The women of Rutgers will triumph in the end, not only on the court of sports, but in the court of public opinion, as a debate that should have been held in the hours after Lee surrendered to Grant might finally come center-stage again, in the greatest nation on earth, where tomorrow should always be better than today.
30 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I keep reading "sticks and stones" etc…but words DO hurt. If they didn't, Josef Goebbels would have been nowhere. And no, I'm not saying Imus is Goebbels–only that words have great power. They had the power to make Imus a multimilionaire. They had the power to hurt several women at Rutgers and all who love them. And they have the power to make intelligent, conscientious people say, "That's enough."
Comment by Sally Sharp Paulsen — April 11, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Is the human species capable of __not__ being racist and sexist? I sometimes wonder. But your eloquent words forestall total cynicism. Thank you.
Footnote, caveat: I won't speak about race, but I've noticed that when a handful of women make it to the heights, they often — pardon me — s***w other aspiring females with even more concentrated malice than the male establishment.
Just because a leading light is female, it doesn't mean she is not sexist — i.e., tending to favor and imitate the males. Ms. Coulter is one small and ugly example. But too many female executive and business owners as well. So it will go, until human beings can shrug off the demons of self-hatred as well as the eternal fear of the Other.
The struggle against racism and sexism exists profoundly within the souls of all of us, villians and victims, as well as in our stock portfolios. But well said. Exceptionally well said.
God bless the Rutgers women, and peace be with you.
Comment by Katharine of Alexandria — April 11, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
You are absolutely right. I am appalled at the parade of white males (republicans and democrats) all out there defending Imus. It is disgusting and actually proves the point that racism and sexism are not dead. We are pounded on the head with it every single day. MSNBC actually had some stupid pundit and a panel of 2 white males and 1 black male (not one woman) to discuss Imus. They all in one way or another defended him. It was disgusting.
Comment by Barb — April 11, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
AMEN.
Comment by rdonice — April 11, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
I know this is your opinion, but it's nothing but PC rubbish. Imus has every right to spew crap on his show…he's been doing it for 30 years. Don't listen, write to his sponsors and generally exercise your right to fight his bigotry with your right to free speech.
You talk of mutual respect and tolerance…but only to those who share your views, right? You cannot be "tolerant" while refusing to tolerate someone else's opinion, even if that opinion is loathesome and vile. I'm a pretty liberal person, but this type of Orwellian groupthink is the type of bullcrap that has made it easy to caste liberals untinking, PC indoctrinated ideologues with the critical thinking skills of a garden slug.
How about this…the next time you hear a hip-hop song talkin' about "bitches and Ho's" why don't you contact their record label and complain.
Comment by Bill — April 11, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
I just learned something. Imus is a liberal. Who knew? The man consistently sounds like no liberal I've ever known. Imus is the ringmaster of a circus of sophomoric bullyboys and the Beltway pols and media line up to do backflips on the center ring. No liberal speaks the way these people speak nor should they allow this kind of speech to occur without standing up against it.
BTW, when will we be hearing some meaningful criticism of the rest of the right wing hate mongers in heavens? You know, like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Malkin, Coulter, Beck, Smerconish, Boortz, Graham,and… I could go on but I think I'll leave some space for someone else and catch my breath. No, Brent, you don't get to hang this filth on the liberals.
Comment by Mary McIntosh — April 11, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
My guess is you haven't watched BET lately, have you? Do you have a clue what BET is?
If you do, and if you've watched it, you'd see that the people on that network throw anti-White phrases around all of the time. For example, more than once, I've heard the phrase "white boy" used on that network. How many Black people would stand to be called "black boy"? I doubt very many would.
Comment by Laurence Socci — April 11, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
The whole thing with Imus is crazy. I honestly have very mixed feelings on the whole thing. One of the guys over at Highbrid Nation who actually worked with Imus at WFAN for years wrote a good article talking about Imus' views on race from the perspective of a minority that was around him every day. You should check it out if you get a chance.
Comment by Evorgleb — April 11, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Yes Laurence Socci, I do have a clue about BET. I am also not surprised by what you are saying. That is because BET is crap in every sense of the word. Don't just take my word for that take the words of most African Americans! I am black, as they say, and I hate BET because it does not represent me, my interests or those of anyone that I know. Every time I see that channel it is the same thing over and over again…old old re-runs, bling bling shows of some kind, or half naked women dancing to mysoginistic lyrics. So please, everyone, do not think that BET represents anything or anyone black! Besides, BET is not even owned by blacks! Please don't take my word on this and do some research.
Comment by David Smith — April 11, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Well said. I read that same column by that liberal radio host, with whom I generally agree and thought: if Imus gets fired it should be harder for racist voices to be heard, not outsider voices. Imus is the opposite of outsider. His worried guests, like Tom Oliphant, are busy rationalizing and minimizing the comments in order to hold on to this good thing they've got going– a mututally beneficial club of (primarily) influential, wealthy white men. The frequent racist, sexist, and homophobic "humor" reinforces the exculsivity of the club. "I'm with you," says Oliphant. Against whom?
Comment by Katharine — April 11, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Sorry (again) Brent I don't trust you not when you state: "Trust me, if there were more African-American, Hispanic, and female owners at the highest levels of management of these companies, this kind of racist, misogynist content would disappear" ——
and then carefully point out that it is 'money and position'/'money and power'
'money and etc' which is the root of so much of the offenses.
The root is: We have no value system—period!
That allows an 'anything go goes, if it pays'mentality to prosper and that applies to all of us even purple eunichs.
This so-called War in Iraq is a perfect example, it is not shunned by all because it is illegal, immoral, full of spiteful-hateful-profiteers and a failure. The popularity tide is turning because the War is tedious—and it exposes our lack of values. Take the "loot" and spread it amongst the population and joy would rule the day.
Comment by Cole Epstein — April 11, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Mr.Budowski is completely wrong when he writes > Mr. Budowski, just take a trip to South America! There the ruling elites (while predominately of European origin) include all races, yet their newspapers and media are even more low-brow, tabloid, and shock-jock denigrating than most American papers and even tabloids.
Or might I remind of the recent Tutsi-Huti unpleasantness in Rawanda (Somalia, Sudan, Congo, Serbia, East Timor, etc, ad infinitum).
Actually, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Budowski over 90% of the time, and I was long ago disgusted with the "I-man in the morning!" Don Imus show. Here I believe the operative concepts are "BULLYING" and Imus' encouragement of his foul sidekicks. (In this most recent scandal, McGuirk and Sid Rosenthal.)
Indeed, in an otherwise excellent editorial, Nina Burleigh over at Huffpost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nina-burleigh/don-imus-and-the-rage-of-_b_45536.html
ends her op-ed by practically twitterig about Imus & crews need for those little blue pills (Viagra) - as if a man's sexual performance SHOULD be a measure of his worth?
As Nina comments: >
THAT is the crux of Imus' popularity - he appeals to the gang-like macho bonding of one portion of society (his audience), vs the nerds, women, and minorities who are the victims of his race-baiting on any given day. It's not that Imus doesn't have the right to his bullying put-downs (which he inflicts with relish on his own cohorts as well)- its just that MSNBC has an obligation to act more responsibly on such a prominent, national show.
And of course the feeding-frenzy bullying isn't limited to middle-aged white guys either; as Nina asks aloud for us, would Imus latest wife stick around if he wasn't filthy rich? Certainly, women can play the "put down" game just as well as bigoted middle-aged shock jocks - we just don't have any women hosting their own daily talk shows, unless you count Ann Coulter's less frequent appearances on TV.
Comment by Verifi — April 11, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Well, well, well, it's nice to see a bunch of liberals beat down one of their own!
I can only imagine what would happen if Imus was a conservative.
Comment by Laurence Socci — April 11, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Amen! I notice on Scarbrough Country last night they had 4 white men, one of them being Pat Buchanan of all people, commenting about Imus and all were bashing Al Sharpton like it was his fault. Look around the media, especially MSNBC there are no black pundit heads.
Comment by Wanda Brown — April 11, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Sorry Dave, but if BET didn't represent at least some people in the Black community, it wouldn't be in existence. Viacom may technically own it, but Robert Johnson is still the President. There are still companies that advertise on it and there are still people on it who use vile, racist language towards Blacks and Whites. If you don't see it then your eyes are closed.
But don't expect Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al to speak out about BET.
Comment by Laurence Socci — April 11, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
iam not a racist in any sense of the word but black comedians make many jokes at the expense of whites and everyone laughs. one of the ones freshest in my mind is dave chappel where one white guy lives with 5 blacks and they steal his girlfriend only because he is white. where is the racist line or is racism just a white mans taboo. but i can tell you iam sick and tired of blacks calling whites cracker honkeys rednecks, and hill billys and no one says anything, well iam now. So my point is Imus said something he never should have said, and he appologized, and he is suspended and iam still waiting for these black comedians to be suspended for their racial comments. and another thing i read on the naacp site that now the blacks are a community isnt that segragation.
Comment by myself — April 11, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
The Imus mess can be looked at in strict employer employee terms. In that respect, its up to his bosses whether they want to fire him or keep him on, notwithstanding any regulatory infraction with the FCC. If it was my radio station I might have to have seen a pattern of such offensive vulgarity. If this was a one-off he might be cut a break. I might also take into consideration whether the fallout would hurt my business(which controversy does not always do).
Also the issue of context would come into play. Is his material usually so edgy? And if so has he been previously encouraged by employer silence or vocal support or has he been warned that he is pushing the limits. Also one would have to assess the climate in the broadcasting biz. Is this type of slur, however offensive, usual or is it far beyond what is accepted? In this case I think it is somewhat beyond compared with other on-air material (even those much referred to rappers are routinely censored on the public airwaves)Als the fact is that the target of the slur were young girls who can hardly be considered fair-game.
My personal bias as a black-man (which I am) who is (hypothetically) his boss would be to fire him. But I would be forced to consider the full picture to protect myself from being sued for wrongful dismissal.
It is sad for the basketball team who are, after all, just young girls coming off their greatest life-accomplishment only to have it tarnished by this three-ringed-foolishness.
Comment by mars — April 11, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Someone should remaind Jesse Jackson about his statement he made a few years ago when he called New York City "Hymetown". It cost him his Presidential bid.
As for Sharpton, "Rev. Al" seems to forget all about his racial attacks on whites going back to the Tawana Brawley case in the 80s. They are both nothing more than hypocrits.
Comment by Laurence Socci — April 11, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Need a reference to "nappy-head"? How about looking back a few decades, listening to the R&B Band - WAR and their MONSTER HIT ALBUM, "All Day Music" 2.Get Down (4:29) United Artists '71. We ALL listened to their incredibly magical, mountain-scaling and silky tones…We were white kids listening to the FM radio. We loved music and we listened to WAR all the time.
We loved WAR - as did Don Imus.
Don Imus has done more to promote blues and R&B than any other radio or TV personality in the last 30 years and all of you fools want to do is find the nearest limb and lynch him.
Sponsors want to do the politically correct thing and drop him.
The black community remains indifferent to the devastating effects of HIP-HOP and Gangsta Rap.
If you were only so eager to save your own character!
funnee1
Comment by funnee1 — April 11, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
I am apalled not at Imus so much, as the Rutgers entire basketball team and head coach. Grow up! Stop playing the "victim mentality". You are only hurting yourself. One bad joke was made with racial connotation, not even a racial slur, really, and you react as if someone robbed your house. That one hour Rutgers press conference was a disgrace. Furthermore, there is such a double standard when it comes to these things..
Comment by Steve — April 11, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between "public" and "private." Last I checked, MSNBC was not owned by the government. It is owned by a corporation, owned by shareholders, who trade shares in a market that is accessible to private citizens.
Please stop with the amateurish sophistry.
Comment by Cornelius — April 11, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/index2.html
Don Imus has helped our organization and our cause by bby putting our cause on his program. Most of the people making the biggest noise here (Jackson and Sharpton) are there just to blackmail MSNBC and WFAN. Real leaders care about what you do, not what you say.
Comment by Evergreen9607 — April 12, 2007 @ 6:48 am
I agree, Brent. I frequently surf the supposed news channels searching for news and not propaganda, spin, and republicon lies and am more than frequently heard to say, "oh look, white men talking!" Sometimes they're two or three abreast on my screen. Sometimes four stacked up! Look at all the white men talking! I surf on. And honestly when are all the stupid white men who control everything going to realize we have mute buttons out here? Praise be the mute button!
Imus? One less talking old white man to surf past, muted. And if given a scroll with news I'll be reading and mostly ignoring the talking head no matter how much makeup they smear on their script readers.
Thanks for letting me vent here a bit, Brent. I could go on, being the original couch potato, and having volumes to say on the media but I'll stop (you're welcome)
Take care, Jan
Comment by Recluse — April 12, 2007 @ 7:21 am
Anyone who calls Cheney a "war crimminal" on nationwide TV can't be all bad. Blacks will overcome bigotry when they improve their image by their actions,(as the Rutgers girls were doing)and not by whining (as Sharpton and Jesse were doing. Native Americans,Slavs, Orientals, and now Hispnics have are overcoming bigotry without playing the "race card". The insults to the Rutgers' ladies will affect them very little in the long run, and is not too much different than the insults which fans are forced to ignore as a consequence of professional sports. I have read your blogs, Brent, but you are preaching to the choir and you have had little impact. Imus had an audience because of his audacity and was able to accomplish more in one hour of airtime than you can with hundreds of your unread articles. Imus was a fearless, outspoken maverick and did far more good than harm—and now there is no one to take his place—certainly not you. Where was America's outrage when the sanctimonius NBC tryed to destroy the career of the Texas Chics for criticizing our "decider".
Comment by John Sommers — April 12, 2007 @ 7:23 am
I thought it would be a cold day in H*ll before I agreed with L. Socci…. So I guess Satan must be enjoying skiing holiday.
Most everyone has racist tendencies. I have many a gay friend and often go to the bars with them. I am a straight female and have been dicriminated against frequently. I have been called names and been given nasty looks. You know what I do? Continue doing what I am doing - having a good time in the establishment, with my head held high giving the one finger salute to the haters. because I am comfortable with who I am and no words will get me.
I live in a very mixed neighborhood in Houston and have been called racist things but I still live there and keep my head held high.
Racisim is there and unfortunately will always be there. But, before anyone passes judgement on Don Imus (who has been saying this kind of stuff about EVERYONE for 30 years without this kind of outcry) look at the history of both gentlemen, Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, who so were quick to cast stones at Mr. Imus'.
Comment by L. Gilmour — April 12, 2007 @ 9:28 am
Laurence Socci, you wrote - " Sorry Dave, but if BET didn’t represent at least some people in the Black community, it wouldn’t be in existence."
That may be true to an extent, but it does not give us any knowledge of how many. From what I see most black folks don't like BET. Just because there are a few who will tolerate this crap does not tell you or anyone else anything useful about the viewing tastes of blacks. Then again, just look at many of the so-called white oriented shows, like Imus. Would you apply the same standard here and draw the same conclusions? Perhaps so, but in the case of BET I can tell you that there is a sense among many that that is all that they will get, so some folks will settle for it. But when there are many other entertainment choices BET loses because it is no good, just like the WB and UPN. They put out crap, did not respect their viewers and they were rewarded with poor ratings.
One last thing, BET may have represented some interests of some blacks somewhere before Viacom picked it up, but that is blatently not the case today, it has gotten much much worse. Also, just because Bob Johnson is still the president of BET does not mean that he brings anything for the black vewiership to the table. It is my point that he has not done that at all. Imagine that… a black man that does not represent or care about black people?! Go figure, now he fits in with all the rest of the power elite in this country. Do you think they even care about white people who are not rich?
Comment by David Smith — April 12, 2007 @ 11:39 am
To those who mentioned BET and rap music, I
dont watch BET but know a lot about the rap
issue. We should oppose all bigoted, racist
and sexist attack including when they come
from rap. We should also challenge Ann
Coulter when she says 9-11 widows are harpies
and are glad their husbands are dead and
when she makes idiot comments about Darfur.
We should challenge Rush when he makes sick
and hurtful imitations of those with Parkinsons
and should challenge these hurtful comments,
no matter who the source. Brent
Comment by Brent Budowsky — April 12, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
It always seems to be the white liberals that continue to frame issues in black and white. They blame conservatives but conservatives are not the ones perpetuating racism; white liberals and black liberals are the guilty parties there. Brent talks about all these media outlets being owned by "whites" but what is the solution? Just replace them with blacks? How do you do that fairly? If people are interested they can start their own companies and program them accordingly. Oh yeh we have that with BET. Could it be when you focus around race you limit your audience? Maybe it's time to deal with people not skin color. Get your head out of the paint can. Just a thought…
Comment by Rich — April 12, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
brent - totally can get with your POV, but please. unless you're bucking for a stint in the "amen corner" do you think you could skip the biblical references?
the days of the reese's peanut butter cup-style religio-political two great tastes that taste great together - they're over. not to mention,
the pathetic reality of white-male owned corporatocratic media and god have no relation - there is no intersection here, making the references seem - a little contrived.
no offense and thx for the article,
jackieoh
Comment by jackieoh — April 13, 2007 @ 5:55 am
oh! ps!
why in the HELL is anyone talking about rap? did the censorship police perceive themselves an "in"???
Comment by jackieoh — April 13, 2007 @ 5:56 am