Rising Like The Phoenix; But You Knew He Would!

Well, you did know that, didn’t you? That’s right, John Donald Imus, Jr., better know as Don Imus, is slated to return to the airwaves, next Monday, December 3rd. In case you forgot, or have been living sans TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, or other periodicals or publications, the 67-year old Imus is the shock jock who imploded on-air, April 4, 2007, while discussing the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship game between Rutgers University and the University of Tennessee.

During the conversation, Imus and an on-air colleague, his executive producer Bernard McGuirk, engaged in a running commentary, laced with insults, sexist comments, and racial ephitets (here, on YouTube) aimed at the young women on the Rutgers’ team. Though it took a week or so to unfold fully, the fallout from the exchange led to Imus and McGuirk being fired.

Although Imus later apologized, his mea culpa was considered too little too late to avert his firing. Indeed, that fait accompli occurred April 11, 2007, when he was axed by MSNBC, and April 12, 2007, when CBS Radio followed suit. Both media giants are located in New York City.

The dust-up that ensued from Imus’ comments, and eventual firing, featured luminaries lining up on both sides, some coming to his defense, and arguing against his firing, while others called for and promote his removal, with equal vigor.

Among those in favor of keeping Imus on the air, Pat Buchanan called Imus a good guy, who made a mistake, and apologized for it, Bill Maher intoned, an apology should suffice, while Rosie O'Donnell made a free speech pitch, on The View.

For those opposed to Imus continuing on the air, Al Sharpton called Imus’ comments abominable, racist, and sexist, and called for his firing, Clarence Page said he would not appear on Imus’ show again, and Joe Klein argued the incident was not isolated.

The National debate, and make no mistake, there was one, often unfolded along racial lines. Frequently, whites asked, “What is the big deal?” Those who posed this question often noted, “after all, he did apologize.” Alternately many blacks seem utterly perplexed that there were whites who just didn’t get the ever-elusive “it.”

One popular argument points to the wide-spread muscle and influence of that favorite whipping boy, the Hip Hop Culture, as the nefarious culprit responsible for all the hoopla. This theory holds that black youth promulgate a contemporary derivative of Blaxploitation by popularizing an inescapable rash of racist, sexist, and misogynistic language.

In other words, so-called blackspeak is such a prevalent component of contemporary interaction; one is left no choice but to engage in using this heretofore despicable verbiage. That is an interesting point of departure for discussion of the issue. However, before it can receive a logic-tested stamp of approval, it must address the fact that whites purchase the majority of hip-hop music.

In one estimate musicologist Arthur Kempton, suggests, "Today 70 percent of hip-hop is bought by white kids." Of course, beyond the consumers, most of the record company owners and key executives are white. This observation is not an effort to reassign blame, rather the infusion of key facts that defy some of the more simplistic efforts to place blame in the first place.

Another oft-used straw man asserts that many blacks use such language between and among themselves. True enough! Therefore, it is asked, how can whites be faulted, or worse attacked for using the same words and phrases? That is patently unfair, they argue, and reverse discrimination, to boot.

While there is no basis for concluding a causal relationship exists in the cases above, it is much trickier to refute in totality. I will never be confused with being a Cosby clone on this issue, but there is no denying, I am in the, bury the N-word camp, as just one example.

Finally, there are those who submit Imus and his antics are covered under free speech guarantees. The First Amendment of the American Constitution, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a component of international law, both serve to preserve the right to freedom of speech. Of course there are some clear limitations that apply to this construct. For example, it is commonly understood, it is not OK to walk into a crowed theater and yell “fire.” Good, bad, or indifferently, hateful comments such as those made by Imus do not automatically fall in that delimited category.

So Don Imus is back. Do you care? Should you? Are there compelling reasons to ensure his return? Was Imus unduly harmed and unfairly treated by being vanquished in the first place?

Questions 1 and 2 are rhetorical. I don’t need to know the answer. You may find it worthwhile to answer them for your self, however. Questions 3 and 4 are of greater broad significance, and the answers will affect how we approach Imus redux in a National context.

Many individuals felt Imus’ punishment was too harsh for the crime, so to speak. They not only believe there are compelling reasons for his return, they are glad he is back. Those same people likely think his 6-month hiatus was a source of undue harm. After all, his primary income stream was interrupted for nearly half a year. What is fair about that?
Quickly, I’ll give you my answers to all four queries:

No, I do not care. The guy is a shock jock. His mission in life, at least, as an on-air personality, is to create and maintain controversy; the more, and the more often, the better. To reiterate, no, I do not care; to add, I will not be watching…or listening.

No I should not care. Spending more than a fleeting moment being concerned about Imus inflicts an infamous double-whammy. It wastes time and is a magnet for negative energy. No way; no thanks.

No…and yes. There is no compelling socially redeeming reason to ensure he returns to the airwaves. But, market forces dictated he would be back. He will again attract viewers and sponsors in large numbers. That spells cash cow, and that is pretty compelling.

No. Staying with the market analogy, Imus’ 6-month vacation was simply an opportunity cost. If you subscribe to the belief he had the right to express his opinion, his temporary separation from employment was merely the price of that expression.

That is my take. What’s yours?

Holla Back!


Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com, or by Googling thesphinxofcharlotte. A new post is published each Wednesday.

To read and learn more about Don Imus, click on the links below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/11/imus.rutgers/index.html

http://tv.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=ce95e851-0d3b-4e3c-b59a-ca80288e62b6&entry=index

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1679772,00.html

http://www.myrateplan.com/blog/satellite/imus-returns-to-tv-but-youll-need-satellite-tv-to-see-him

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/television/14imus.html?ref=television

http://nymag.com/news/features/35539/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302075,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1609490,00.html