Circling the Wagons

April 13, 2007, 2:30 pm; posted by
Filed under Articles, Josh J  | 4 Comments

There has been a lot of talk on the radio lately about the firing of Don Imus. Many fellow radio hosts, clearly not the most unbiased crowd, have been rallying to his defense, going so far as to call the decision “tragic” and “a disgrace.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m having a hard time getting worked up about Don Imus no longer having a platform to spread his particular brand of “humor.”

One of the big complaints by his defenders is that the decision was made for the “wrong reasons.” First off, they’re offended at the perception that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have perhaps successfully brought pressure to bear. I’m not necessarily a fan of either man, and certainly Sharpton should be disgraced by his vilification of the Duke lacrosse players now known to be innocent. But leaving their opportunism and grandstanding aside as red herrings, ultimately this situation comes back to CBS, and of course, to Imus himself.

The other “wrong reason” that has so offended the sensibilities of the radio brethren is that the decision was made not on ethical grounds, but because of money. I would like to pose a challenge to anyone making this argument: find me one decision a broadcast company makes that is not based on money. They are in business to make money, not because they personally enjoy enlarging certain people’s ego and opinions. The only reason Don Imus had a job in the first place was because he garnered ratings and successfully made money for his station. That’s the way business works.

Don Imus is a bigot. This can be stated unequivocally, and his choice of words, on-air and off, not to mention his choice of underlings, have proven this over the last two decades. Even his supporters generally concede this, with one host even going so far as to mount a defense summarized as, “Well, he’s a repeat offender, so why should he be fired this time?” Don Imus is free to believe what he wants, and is even free to say what he wants. Freedom of speech is one of the greatest things about this country. But there is no constitutional right to be given a frequency to daily broadcast your speech, and certainly no guarantee to be paid to do it. Imus’s job was to talk, and so it stands to reason that he would specifically be held accountable for the things he said, and how they affected his company’s image and bottom line.

I’m still having a hard time believing the world is any worse off today without the racism that once daily reached the masses, thanks to Don Imus and the formerly enabling CBS.


Comments

4 Comments to “Circling the Wagons”

  1. Steve on April 14th, 2007 12:13 am

    Yeah, I never liked him before this, and I’m not going to give him any sympathy afterwards, even if he was attacked by certain loathsome men acting in their own selfish interest.

    I am concerned about two things — first, his language was undoubtedly offensive, but the words he chose were hardly unthinkable. They’re used all the time, on hair products and in rap songs, respectively. And the second builds on that — are we entering a new phase in our discourse, where we allow the offended to control our speech through the “heckler’s veto,” much like the frightened refusal to print pictures of Mohammed?

    And if so, will the next target be so odious?

  2. Aaron on April 14th, 2007 7:38 am

    I’m going to disagree with you. Not over Imus’ choice of words and their weight. It was offensive. My problem has been with the media this entire time. This is not a news story. This is not news. This has only been an opportunity to further the parades of social activists like Al who jump on the “news of the day” as pointed out by you in the Duke Lacrosse scandal — ironically all charges were dropped the day this hit its climax.

    Should he have been fired? Absolutely not. Should he have been suspended? Yes. Was it offensive? Yes. But it was a flippant remark, a gross misspeak. A not careful choice of words. An old man trying to be funny. The media blew this thing way out of proportion — and four days after it happened at that.

    Steve — in Sharpton’s defense, and I hate I’m doing this, but he has tried to get hateful lyrics off the radio. Of course, not with the same prose and gusto he got Imus off.

  3. Josh J on April 14th, 2007 4:24 pm

    First off, in a perfect world, I wouldn’t have to listen to either Imus or Sharpton. The only unfortunate thing about their clash is that they didn’t both lose.

    Secondly, CBS (and MSNBC) is well within their rights in firing Imus. It doesn’t matter if it was the result of public pressure or financial concern or corporate taste. Either way, Don’s job was to talk. In the course of doing that job he did something that was potentially damaging to his company (and not for the first time) and they decided it was in their best interest to let him go.

  4. Steve on April 14th, 2007 5:58 pm

    I don’t think anyone argues they didn’t have the right to fire Imus. They had a right to fire him because they didn’t like his cowboy hat; we live in America, the land of at-will employment. So, in a way, it very much DOES matter why they fired him, because the firing sends a message about our culture as a whole — what behavior is acceptable on one hand, and how to get someone fired on the other.

    And I haven’t decided whether that was a good message or not.

Leave a comment!