The key concept in Imus’ unceremonious removal from radio and television is in how words and concepts constantly change with social norms. What was acceptable a generation ago becomes offensive today. Where Imus failed was in recognizing the social changes and the shrinking audience for his outdated views. His situation reflects an important part of journalism, as Jean Gaddy Wilson wrote, “Language changes to get in step with power shifts, and in a world that is globalizing, power shifts constantly.”
Wilson wrote of the task of the journalist, as it is with anyone who makes his or her living on a public forum. It is to recognize and reflect our changing times. Imus’ comments reflected an outdated outlook that was out of step with the increased power and respect of people traditionally kept “out of the loop,” most notably women and people of color.
Imus made his reputation as a ‘shock jock’ decades ago. He refused to realize his act was not playing well to a changing world, and he paid the price. He was forced out because Imus represented a sense of power that has become outdated and anachronistic.
The key is in the individual interpretation of words and the values that society places on them. As Wilson wrote, “Journalists struggle to craft intelligent work that reflects current reality, not stereotypes and labels from an out-of-date time frame.”
Even though Imus established himself as a political commentator, with many high-profile interviews as well espousing what he believed was a “grass-roots” viewpoint representing the “common man.” Imus put too much emphasis on his own limited view, and not enough on the social realities of the day.
Bertrand Russell said, “Although the dictionary or the encyclopedia gives what may be called the official and socially sanctioned meaning of a word, no two people who use the same word have just the same thought in their minds.” Imus’ fatal flaw was that he did not recognize that the meaning of his words would have a significance different from his own. What he demonstrated was stubbornness for his own values, which in reality was clinging to a past that most now saw as morally wrong.
However, I would not go as far as labeling Imus’ words “hate speech.” In America, to dismiss categorically any level of speech is to run the risk of controlling thought and concepts. To begin prohibiting certain concepts runs the risk of violating free expression, something that is the foundation of the First Amendment. Imus’ words may have been insensitive and in poor taste, but not seen as “fighting words;” the current standard of “hate speech.”
Joseph Hemmer saw the problems in codifying hate speech when he wrote, “If a code banned such words, numerous respected pieces of literature--Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn, and Harvey Fierstein's Torch Song Trilogy--could not have been written. Second, content-based expression should likewise be protected. Clearly, the expression of any hate-based theory, ideology, philosophy, subject matter, or message content enjoys constitutional protection.” As in everything, context is the key in understanding (or decrying) any word or deed. Nothing humans do occurs in a vacuum.
To keep in mind is this: Imus’ speech may have been constitutionally protected; however, there is nothing in the constitution saying business must broadcast unappealing words and concepts. Radio and television are businesses—as with any business practice, what is offensive or demeaning to any group does not have to be broadcast.
CBS radio had every right to take Imus off the air.
No comments:
Post a Comment