Imus Was A Fool To Apologize

Photo by [Flickr User]. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

Don Imus was a fool to apologize for his remarks calling the Rutgers' Women's' Basketball team "Nappy Headed Hos." This is not to say that the aforementioned team is either nappy headed or sexually promiscuous (they're not) nor is it to say that Imus' remarks were appropriate or defensible (they weren't), but rather to highlight the consequences of a resurgence in the "P.C. Culture" insanity in the United States.

When Don Imus went on Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show last week his ill-considered apologies fell on deaf ears. Sharpton had no interest in hearing Imus' contrite words, nor did he have any intention of accepting any apology from the aging shock jock - sincere or not. Sharpton made his stance perfectly clear to any that listened to the exchange: the only acceptable apology was resignation.

In kowtowing to Sharpton's assumed mantle of moral superiority, Imus legitimated the entire fiasco and turned a non-event into a catalyst for a sort of politically correct witch-hunt. Without an apology the so-called "Imus-Scandal" wasn't just old news, it was no news at all. Without the apology, Imus' pig-headed remark was just another white shock-jock doing what he is paid to do: offend people.

Did Imus' comment marginalize black people? Yes. Does his show systematically denigrate women? Yes. But no one, not Al Sharpton, not Jesse Jackson, not even Pope Benedict XVI is in any position to dictate to the American Zeitgeist what is and is not "appropriate" material for entertainment. The American media market is free, at least mostly so, and as nothing Imus said was so horrifically offensive as to warrant the revocation of an FCC license or even the imposition of a fine against the station in question, this business of "something must be done" can take a running jump.

Imus said something offensive. Offended people ought not listen to his show.

If Black leaders want to take the boycott a step further there is certainly nothing wrong with that. The use of market pressures to force Imus off the air, from the boycott of networks that carry him to the that of products and companies that advertise on his show, is fully in keeping with the fundamental underpinnings of market governance through consumer choice. This is how markets work and what markets do. Consumers vote with their dollars and the broadcasters respond. Make no mistake, the decision to cut Imus' show is no hard-won moral victory against conspiratorial corporate influence peddlers, but a simple market decision. Concerned that a reaction to Imus might impact the bottom line, executives decided to cut the show.

And without the apology, nothing would have happened. Without the apology there is no story. Without the apology there is no media mobilization and massed public outrage. Without the apology there is no opportunity for grand-standing, no boycotts, no protests, and no threat to the bottom line. Without the apology, there is no scandal.

Which is again, not to say that the response to Imus' slurs was wrong. It wasn't.

But Imus is one voice in a flood of singers, song-writers, pundits, shock-jocks, directors, producers, and comedians that thrive on the outrage of the American people. From Chris Rock to George Carlin, Michael Savage to Snoop-Dog entertainers have long known the value of giving their audiences a laugh at someone else's expense and the impact of words deemed "inappropriate" or "offensive" by the "powers that be."

If consumers object to this method of entertainment then the market dictates that it will suffer. If individual consumer choice leads audiences to other, more politically correct venues than the media conglomerates, broadcasters, and film studios will follow naturally and logically. But in the wake of the Imus fiasco, a growing number of politicos and pundits are suggesting a more active means of "reforming" the American media.

Specifics remain nebulous, but a number of commentators from Jackson to Sharpton and even PBS' senior Washington correspondent Gwen Ifill are openly discussing a larger movement to stamp out misogynistic language and racial humor from the American media. Though a noble enough sounding goal, such an active movement smacks of a sort of lynch-mob censorship and, as was demonstrated on the April 15, 2007 edition of Meet the Press, risks the delegitimation of real and valid complaints through over-enthusiastic condemnation.

Humor is in the eye of the beholder and the market responds to the choices made by the innumerable thousands that participate in it. The judgment call of "humor" or "racism" is one that each consumer must make for themselves. Sharpton and Jackson's ability to form a sort of "consumer's union" in the face of offensive content is praiseworthy and certainly amplifies the voices of those that felt Imus' comments were beyond the pale. However, the seeming willingness of many black leaders,Gwin Ifill included, to use that union as an means to then impose their own standards for humor and political correctness upon the market at once imperils the freedom of the American media and the credibility of many prominent Black leaders.

The threat posed is two fold. First, the hijacking of the anti-Imus movement risks drowning the legitimately offended and individually motivated voices of protest in a sea of "me too"s that render all protest effectively moot. Second, such a massive movement, particularly one operating under the artificial direction of highly motivated political figureheads, raises the specters of both censorship and racism.

For evidence, look no further than the discussions which followed in the wake of the Imus controversy. Previously sympathetic individuals who fully supported the strong reaction that Imus' comments spawned drew back at the suggestion of even an informal "PC Police." Though few disagree with the specific judgment of Imus' comment as racist, broader guidelines and definitions of racially objectionable content spark real and substantive debate. Label Imus' use of the phrase "nappy headed" as bigoted and few object, extend that guideline to include all white men, or even all men and accusations of "reverse racism" and "sexism" are quick to follow. Americans are not yet ready to agree to any one standard of racially offensive or racially acceptable humor. To that end, attempts to force that conformity serve only to alienate potential supporters and delegitimize real and serious complaints.

Consumers must make their own choices, not merely follow blindly in the footsteps dictated by the leader of a public outrage. Though the allure of a means to enforce "racial sensitivity" upon the American media is no doubt strong, the long run implications show the folly of such an endeavor. In seeking to sanitize popular culture, the self-appointed censors risk the destruction of what hard fought gains have already been won. In apologizing to Reverend Sharpton, Imus risked a far greater blow to America's cultural health than he dealt in the comment he apologized for.

Back To Top

	Al Sharpton, Don Imus & A Distracted Nation	The Washington Post	Mon Apr 16	2
	Rutgers and Duke Universities Were the Focus of a National Debate on Race, Sex and Free Speech	conservativethoughts.us	Mon Apr 16	0
	Imus Firing Is Height Of Hypocrisy And Irony - Opinion -	chattanoogan.com	Mon Apr 16	0