Imus

Since everyone is weighing in the Imus situation, I want to as well. I’ve read a few articles over the past week regarding this topic. All make good points. All agree that his comments were very inappropriate and should not have been made. People disagree over the action that should have been taken. Jemele Hill writes that Imus’ comments hurt all women, especially black women and that he should have been fired on the spot. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/070410). Jason Whitlock basically says, “Who’s Imus?” and wonders why there isn’t similar outrage over the exact same type of language that is very common among hip-hop vernacular (http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html). I wonder how many people would have even heard about this incident if the national media hadn’t spread it around to everyone. It would be interesting to find out how many people were actually listening to the Imus show at the time the comment was made and compare that to how many people have heard about it now thanks to the media making a circus of this issue. Michael Wilbon says that Imus has a pattern of spouting offensive things, especially to black people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001891.html). LZ Granderson did a fantastic job. His analysis was right on. His article is entitled, “Hate is hate, no matter the target”. Like the others, he agrees that this language is deplorable and shouldn’t be tolerated, but goes on to wonder about certain groups that would typically be up in arms over a statement that is considered offensive to them. You see, people look out for their own, but don’t care much about others, no matter how offensive the language may be. For example, is you use the word faggot, the gay lobby is upset, but you don’t hear much from the NAACP. He also cites an example of when he gave Michael Irvin a free pass after saying, in regards in Tono Romo’s athleticism; “He’s athletic because his grandmother had sex with a slave.” He then goes on to speculate, “Had Mike Ditka said the reason that Donovan McNabb is intelligent is because his grandmother had sex with a slave owner, I’d have been looking for blood.” (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=granderson/070409&sportCat=ncw) Forget Mike Ditka, imagine Rush Limbaugh making that comment on his radio program. Why the double standard? If language is inappropriate, it should be color-blind. I know that with our attitude of politically correctness, some things have been labeled “extra offensive.” To me, political correctness is a form of censorship – trying to silence voices that you would rather not hear. This is the land of freedom of speech. If Imus offends you with his racially charged language, then don’t listen. Isn’t that the same argument we hear for Howard Stern and his sexually charged show – you don’t like it, don’t listen to it. The same people who would defend Stern and his right to spew what many consider to be filth, are the same who are calling for Imus’ head over a different form of filth. In my book, filth is filth. If you don’t like it, don’t listen to it. I’m a firm believer of speaking with you wallet. If no one is listening, there is not going to be a radio show around for too long (look at Air America). I think that this situation can be used to open some needed dialogue. Is an apology appropriate? Only is he means it. Should he have been fired? Absolutely not. You don’t like him or what he says? Neither do I. That’s why I don’t listen.