Imusgate

Imus vs. America

When you tune into Don Imus’ “Imus in the Morning,” his morning talk show on WFAN, you basically accept the fact that he’s going to be a horrid P.C. disaster. So when a countless number of commuters flipped their dials to his morning show last Wednesday, they basically knew what they were in for. Imus is prone to controversy, as his history has been rich in it. Booze, cocaine, radio suspensions… you name it, he’s probably been there. He has been often accused of racism, sexism, homophobia and a whole other lot of isms, and there is accuracy in all of those brandings. And people love him because of all of those faults. Imus always has a lot to say, and whatever comes to mind is what comes out of his mouth. That’s what defines a true radio personality: someone who can make a statement that both entertains one person and offends another.

But listeners got an earful last Wednesday when Imus crossed the politically correct boundary. When talking on a conference call about the Rutgers female basketball team and their loss to Tennessee by 13 points, Imus made some disparaging remarks about them, calling them “rough girls” because they had “tattoos,” and continued by calling them “hardcore ho’s” and “nappy-headed ho’s.” The man on the other end of the phone referred to it as relative to the Spike Lee film Do the Right Thing, calling it a game played by the “jigaboos versus the wanabees.” Well, they eased themselves off of the subject, and continued as if nothing had happened (watch and listen here).

The media and listeners were not so unforgiving. A plethora of letters was sent to the station requesting his dismissal from radio, and dozens of articles were published about his racist remarks. The head coach of the Rutgers team, C. Vivian Stringer, issued the following statement: “To serve as a joke of Mr. Imus in such an insensitive manner creates a wedge and makes light of the efforts of these classy individuals, both as women and as women of color. It is unfortunate Mr. Imus sought to tarnish Rutgers' spirit and success.” The NCAA president, Myles Brand, and the Rutgers University president, Richard L. McCormick, issued the following joint statement: “The NCAA and Rutgers University are offended by the insults on MSNBC's Don Imus program toward the 10 young women on the Rutgers basketball team. It is unconscionable that anyone would use the airways to utter such disregard for the dignity of human beings who have accomplished much and deserve great credit.”

Imus decided to blanket the fire by issuing an apology, which stated that he regrets his choice of words and apologized to the ladies for his disrespectful remarks. MSNBC, his parent organization, also issued an apology on his behalf. But people still are not having it. Al Sharpton is all over media outlets, condemning Imus for his statements and demanding his dismissal. Letters are still flooding the inbox of the station demanding Imus’ removal as a disc jockey. People are really upset over this whole debacle, all because of a thirty second segment on the show where Imus made some ridiculous comments in true on-air personality form: shocking some and entertaining others. That’s what he was supposed to do, right? Isn’t that what makes a great disc jockey?

In this case, no one seemed entertained. Or, at least, some were entertained but don’t want to stick up for Imus because they don’t want to get pulled into the situation. I’m not one to condone racist remarks, because it signifies ignorance and overall stupidity, but this brings in the matter of both the FCC and their legitimacy. Like all of my other posts, I tend to criticize the FCC for laying low when it comes to serious matters and going after stations when not-so-serious issues occur. But this is a prime example, and they must be recognized as they happen.

The FCC is meant to control content on radio for the sake of America. By censoring stations and issuing fines, the FCC maintains a certain level of morality that is meant to be the set example for America and its citizens. After all, censorship is meant for the good of everyone. By setting a moral standard, society can have governed ethical rules to follow, thereby protecting the integrity of everyone and making our society a better entity. When someone makes racist remarks on the radio that are glaringly offensive, something should be done about it. Why bother censoring curses and letting racism slide when racism is equally as bad, possibly worse?

Of course, it all boils down to politics. Like detailed in the film Private Parts, which is an adaptation of Howard Stern’s autobiography, people tune in to Imus for the same reasons that they tune in to Stern: they want to hear what he is going to say next. When listeners tune in to Imus, they want to be offended, surprised or entertained, most likely a combination of all three. And he has an enormous listening audience. Why would the FCC want to crush a personality that has such a large audience that help keep terrestrial radio afloat? They wouldn’t, and they don’t. This is a clear-cut example of when action should be taken. Imus is great and all, and he would not have gotten so far if it were not for his shock value, but even big stars are vulnerable. Imus should be vulnerable as well.

But he isn’t. The FCC is going to let the situation slide for the benefit of terrestrial radio. Should they let it slide? You could argue that the statements were not so offensive and that people should care about much worse things in the world, but that would not be with the majority. Most people agree that this was completely inappropriate, and it was, and action should be taken. But like how the FCC will fine a college radio station for letting a curse word slip on the air, they would surely refrain from fining a station when the situation is not so blatantly offensive. Does this system of governance work well for America? Judging by how the FCC lets racism like this slide without punishment, it’s no wonder that Americans are still filled with hate. Without the proper regulation, some might think that hatred is acceptable, and will never learn otherwise. It all boils down to whether we should blame Imus or blame the FCC for promoting intolerance. And if I presented the facts correctly enough, then you should all know who’s really at fault right now.