Always behind the media curve, I have a few words about the Imus resignation. Actually I’ve been very busy. I’ve had barely enough time to read blogs let alone write one. Or I had better things to do – I don’t know. Why are you asking me?
So, radio “shock jock” Don Imus resigns over something he said. In some ways this shouldn’t surprise people. He had a history of saying very, very offensive things, especially racist, ethnic, misogynist and homophobic slurs. And yet people are surprised. They assumed that with a resume like that he should have a long and lucrative radio career. After the luxury of a few weeks to think about it, let me address a couple of common misconceptions.
1) It’s not about free speech. Yes, we all have the right in this country to set up a soap box or publish a newsletter or host a blog that espouses whatever opinions we might happen to hold. The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot arrest us or sanction us or force us to shut down because they disagree with what we say. And that’s as it should be; but that’s not what happened here. There was no government pressure at all. The pressure came from the public a large. After all, an individual’s right of free speech doesn’t mean that everyone else has to suffer in silence. Anyone who dislikes what we say for any reason has just as much right to complain, catcall, throw metaphorical tomatoes or otherwise try to belittle us in the public square. Free speech demands no less.
2) It’s not about the free market. It’s absolutely true that Imus was paid to do what he did for the purpose of profit. When the advertisers started to turn away after his shameful incident it’s easy to think “the system works; capitalism solves all problems.” But that screw turns both ways. All the previous times that Imus used slurs on air were just as wrong even though he remained profitable. The market was not and does not respond to moral value; it does respond to public sentiment.
3) It’s not about being “P.C.” Political Correctness is rightly ridiculed when it’s about outlawing specific words regardless of context. (My daughter was shocked for a while about how foul-mouthed her parents were after learning at school that “stupid” was a bad word. We had to constantly explain that calling someone stupid was bad, not the word itself.) What Imus said could be recast using PC words and would still be offensive. “Did you see that basketball game? Those young women were aggressive and tenacious in a manner I found to be most unladylike.” “Yes, I agree. They were African-American as well, which everyone knows makes them thugs or prostitutes, possibly a mix of both.” “Indeed that’s true, old chum.” Cast in street slang or BBC English, that’s never funny.
It’s about common decency. As a community we maintain a fluid set of standards for acceptable public conduct, and we expect that public figures will stay well within those parameters. As a “shock jock” (still not sure exactly what that means) Imus was allowed to stray closer to the boundaries, but as the tide of community standards rises some relics of bygone ages will be trapped on a shrinking island of popular support. It was that rising standard of discourse that removed Imus from the airwaves, and good riddance. If he had persisted he may well have sunk so low that even the mantle of free speech couldn’t protect him. While the government has no right to censor our ideas, they do have a duty to restrict the use of the public airwaves for certain specific content, such as incitement to violence, threats, assault (which may be no more than speech) and indecency. Imus and bigots like him are treading very close to that limit.
I’ll write about more timely topics later, once they’re less timely.
- jack*
Comments