4/4: We Shall Never Forget

Once again too lazy-ish to type real analysis, so instead I present a series of excerpts with snide commentary.


From "Off the Air: The Light Goes Out for Don Imus"

"The CBS chief executive, Leslie Moonves met yesterday afternoon with the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson leaders in what became a national movement to remove Mr. Imus from the air in the wake of his comments disparaging members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team. On April 4, Mr. Imus referred on the air to the Rutgers athletes as “nappy-headed hos.”

I like how the first time the phrase was uttered it was the end of all things, but the next four thousand times every pundit, journalist and newscaster says it, it's A-ok. That's neat. To borrow a phrase from Ms. Stringer, doesn't the constant repetition of "nappy-headed hoes" rob the initial incident of its own moment?

Or does context play a role in defining the word's potency? If we can mention it, so long as we aren't using it to offend, it's fine? But what about the dreaded n-word? Newscasters would never use it, even in the most intellectual of settings.

In a statement, Mr. Moonves said: “Those who have spoken with us the last few days represent people of good will from all segments of our society — all races, economic groups, men and women alike. In our meetings with concerned groups, there has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society.”

That's really dignified of Les. It's an articulate, humanitarian statement at a moment of national crisis and what's really nice is that for once, in this jaded business, this had nothing to do with commerce or anything. Well played, Les.

Both CBS and MSNBC had been under pressure from black leaders and women’s groups, then advertisers began abandoning the Imus program and its networks this week, pulling out the financial underpinnings from the show.

Oh.

“It was a very productive meeting,” she said. “Players, coaches, parents, administrators, the pastor, and Mr. Imus were able to really dialogue. I’m extremely proud of our 10 young basketball players.”

Isaiah Washington even made an appearance at the love-in and, just to show how cured he is, they strapped him down in a chair, gagged him, and had a homosexual gyrate in his face. When they removed the gag, Isaiah smiled and grunted, "You...friend..."


Asked if Mr. Imus apologized, Ms. Stringer declined to answer. “We’ve said as much as we can say tonight.”

But she did add with a wink, "I can tell you this though, he won't be sitting down anytime soon."

In a memo sent to CBS employees announcing Mr. Imus’s dismissal, Mr. Moonves said: “This is about a lot more than Imus. As has been widely pointed out, Imus has been visited by presidents, senators, important authors and journalists from across the political spectrum. He has flourished in a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people. In taking him off the air, I believe we take an important and necessary step not just in solving a unique problem, but in changing that culture, which extends far beyond the walls of our company.”

Wow, that's really gr--

Both CBS and MSNBC had been under pressure from black leaders and women’s groups, then advertisers began abandoning the Imus program and its networks this week, pulling out the financial underpinnings from the show.

Oh.

Even then, it seems unlikely that he would match his current salary in a fledgling medium with a fraction of the audience of conventional radio, particularly as the two main satellite companies --Sirius and XM — try to cut costs in pursuit of a merger. Moreover, with Congress and the Federal Communications Commission reviewing that proposed deal, they may be reluctant to take on a tainted figure like Mr. Imus, who would stir controversy among the regulators who must approve the merger.

Segue!

Speaking of bravery, how about those PBS stations that are planning to go ahead and show "Operation Homecoming" UNCENSORED? That's right, they're all, F the FCC, yo! Wartime T&A, Iraqi Freedom style! God forbid all those impressionable PBS viewers should hear a soldier with shrapnel in his leg utter something uncouth.

The decision to air it uncensored at 10PM is because it falls just outside of the FCC's carefully considered "safe zone" of 6AM to 10PM. The logic here is that during these times, it is less likely that a younger audience will be watching. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't airing a show on PBS pretty much cancel out any chance of a young audience in the first place?

From today's NY Times article:

"A handful of stations [including NYC, Albany, DC, and Boston] have chosen not to bleep out eight words and not to obscure a few crude images, none of which the stations would normally put on the air."

Eight words? Crude images? Are these stations trying to let the terrorists win?

"The move comes at a time when many public television stations have chosen to be overly cautious to avoid tangling with the FCC on indecency issues, given ther hefty fines that have been imposted when viewers complain."

Just curious: who's complaining? I mean, I know people DO complain, but who exactly are they? Christian fundamentalists? Fly-over state shut-ins? Toddlers? Who are these people that are so set in their whacko code that they can extract any and everything from context without even blinking?

As a result of these offended callers, most stations are requesting the edited version from PBS. Says the eloquent VP of Washington DC's station WETA* (and Vietnam vet) Joseph Bruns: "We're not doing it to be provocative of the FCC; we're doing it because we believe in the merits of the film as it's been done... I think it's important that people do feel the raw emotions of people who were sent to war."

Important, so long as the image is tidy enough as to not upset Breakfast for Dinner Night at the Johnson home. Waffles instead of filet mignon? Mom's silly!

I bring these two stories up for a reason, but I'm not entirely sure what that reason is. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they say different but similar things about the nature of media censorship and the role context plays in both. Who gets to decide what will fly? Are the opinions of the lunatic mid-West shut-ins as valid as the African-American community? I'm curious as to what it means from a cultural stand point when "eight words" from a war documentary have the same power to offend (and indict) as does a racial epithet?

No doubt there are bigger issues at play, and need to be dealt with, but, as the always enlightening Lionel said the other night, I hope to God we don't lose our edge.




*For a second there, I thought Peter Jackson had started a side venture in DC. My heart done leaped.