I’m sure I’ve got to be missing something here, something that may be important. So if someone can tell me where I’m wrong, please feel free to point it out to me.
This whole Don Imus thing–in case you haven’t heard, it seems he thought it would be funny to refer to members of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.”
The comment was not made in response to remarks made toward Imus by members of the team, nor does the reference appear to part of a friendly, inside joke between Imus and the young ladies. He just went and referred to them as “nappy-headed hos.”
I am, as I write this, shaking my head in disbelief, literally.
So, following the public outrage, Imus issues the standard apology, the latest in part of a “great tradition,” according to Time magazine. He says he just made a joke that “went too far.”
You think?
What Imus said was, in my opinion, incredibly stupid, mean-spirited, and at the least, teetered on being racist and sexist. Rightfully, the inflammatory nature of his remarks brought about a fair amout of public outrage.
Jesse Jackson encouraged people to boycott and protest outside NBC offices. Al Sharpton called for Imus’ dismissal.
Oh, before I forget, if you ever need to find information on either Jackson or Sharpton, just Google “white interlopers” and “himey town.”
Also outraged was Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). She said his words were, “beyond racist and sexist,” and NOW launched a drive to have Imus fired.
So yesterday, following announcement of a suspension, MSNBC decided to drop its simulcast of the “Imus in the Morning” program altogether. The fate of his nationally-syndicated radio show is yet to be determined.
Now here’s the part I don’t understand.
Don Imus has been a radio personality for more than 30 years. Listeners say they like his interviewing style, and he gets very high-profile guests to appear on his show. He has a long history of being offensive and calling people names.
You see, he has what they call in the public relations field an “audience.” People like to listen to him. My 91-year-old grandmother listens to him for crying out loud.
Now I wonder, was there a point in this whole discussion in which the audience was consulted?
I absolutely understand, respect and quite honestly agree with, the opinions of most of Imus’ critics. However, I’m willing to bet that few, if any of them, were listening live when Imus made his comments. The critics who are bringing about his demise, are most likely not members of his audience.
I understand that there is an ethical issue here. But when the ethical issue is of such a nature that a reasonable response from the public could include simply not listening, as Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writer Eugene Kane has chosen to do, the audience should at least have some say. After all, aren’t they who we’re really supposed to be concerned about?
