My personal
opinion? Perhaps cable news giant
MSNBC should never have signed
to simulcast Don Imus’ radio show in the first place back
in September 1996. And it was long overdue
that both NBC News and CBS Radio
did something about his demeaning
brand.
There. I said it.
After
NLGJA issued a letter to the industry
in April commending the networks
for taking action by issuing a two-week
suspension
for the radio “shock jock,” I heard from a handful
of NLGJA members. Some of them valued
our response as an articulate
and forceful voice, despite not
being the mirror message of solidarity
with other journalism organizations,
including the
National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ),
the National Association
of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) and UNITY:
Journalists of Color.
Others
faulted us for not falling in line with the call for his
firing. Our letter was dismissed
as both ridiculous and embarrassing.
We were
certainly cognizant of where
the other organizations stood.
On April 6,
NABJ initially called for Imus’ “immediate,
sincere and unequivocal apology” and later
urged for “the immediate removal of Imus
and his WFAN producer, Bernard
McGuirk.” NAHJ, citing his history of
inflammatory remarks, said, “Enough is enough. Can him.” The Journalism & Women
Symposium (JAWS), in its own letter,
asserted that MSNBC “should consider
stiff disciplinary action,” without suggesting
a specific course of action.
Our
own objective was simple. We asked
news organizations to finally consider
what was being put on their
air under
their banner. And what occurred
at NBC and CBS is what
we
asked for: they took action.
Along the way, they listened
to their
employees, their audience
and, to no one’s surprise, their suddenly fleeing advertisers.
In
part, our letter said,“The ability of the media
to be a strong
and credible voice in the public
forum is compromised
when
news outlets and organizations
allow hateful, discriminatory
and
harmful speech to go
out under their banner. Whether
produced
by the organization or
not, the ultimate responsibility
rests on the
decision makers who allow
them to be broadcast
or printed.”
We
could have delved into greater detail
about Imus’ well-documented
history of hateful
language, as he
offended many
individuals who were
targeted because
they were simply
different
from him and his
on-air colleagues.
Imus and his cohorts
drenched their broadcasts
with racist, sexist,
anti-gay and anti-Semitic language
and ideology for
years, and it was addressed
by journalists and
commentators for
days after Imus’ fateful
broadcast. There
appeared less purpose
in building a case
by regurgitating the
hateful basics.
Could
we have called for Imus’ ouster? Sure. After
all, as we
noted, MSNBC in 2003
fired host Michael
Savage for anti-gay
comments. That could
be considered
a precedent. Hate speech
is hate speech,
and Imus was
given a forum despite that.
But,
on principle, NLGJA has
never in its history taken
an activist
stance
that called for boycotting or firing
an individual.
And since
our mission
focuses on journalism and news
coverage, “
shock jocks” and much of talk radio
have been, by definition,
outside of our mission. Weighing
in further on Imus
and
related issues could
change how
we conduct ourselves on a fundamental
level. That’s not to say that
we
shouldn’t consider broadening
our focus; it
would just take larger
discussions.
We
have previously taken
a pass at
responding
to
other issues regarding non-journalists.
In 2003,
when
Barry
Humphries,
a.k.a.
Dame
Edna, penned a column for
Vanity
Fair
magazine in which he offered an
offensive
string
of
observations against
Latinos,
the
magazine apologized for the
piece
but
said the comments “were offered in
the spirit
of
outrageous comedy and were
never
intended
to
be taken to heart.” NAHJ countered
that “Dame Edna gets to spout off such bigotry,
and we’re not supposed
to say
anything
about
it
because the character
is
a clown and the column
is
satire? We disagree. Humor
and
satire are not safe
hiding
places
for ignorance and bigotry.”
NLGJA,
after much discussion, chose
not to respond,
because
it was intended to be comedic and
opinion and
was not “news coverage” itself. Yes, it
appeared in a news
magazine, but
we seemingly absolved it of responsibility.
(Personally, I felt we
should have responded.)
In
2005, Dr. Ruth
Westheimer ignored contrary
research about bisexuality
and declared in
her
syndicated newspaper
column that “everyone is either straight or gay.” NLGJA
classified
it
as entertainment and
opinion, not reporting, and
didn’t
hold
newspapers accountable
for printing it. (Again, I
personally
felt we had a case to respond
in some
manner. But NLGJA isn’t
just one
person — me — and the consensus was we shouldn’t
respond.)
What
of the
Details magazine series “Gay or…” in
which gay
stereotypes
are played against other
demographics,
including
minorities?
After the
Asian American Journalists
Association
(AAJA)
and others protested a
2004 piece
contrasting gays and
Asians,
the editor
apologized, noting that
the particular
piece “was
insensitive,
hurtful, and
in poor taste.”Yet
the regular column still
runs
today, and
NLGJA has not responded
to
it. Perhaps it’s
time?
And
why didn’t NLGJA
join NABJ its
condemnation of Rush
Limbaugh
in 2003 when, as an
ESPN
commentator,
he made
racist
remarks about the NFL?
(NABJ called for the
network to “
separate itself” from Limbaugh and went on to “proudly
share
the
credit for his ouster” after
he resigned.)
For
that matter, I
wonder why NLGJA didn’t
confront
MSNBC
when it
signed to simulcast
Imus
in
1996. And why didn’t
we
raise a red flag
when, coincidentally,
the
same network
signed
Michael Savage’s “Savage Nation” broadcast
in 2003? (He
was
quickly fired
by
MSNBC after making
anti-gay
remarks, but
he
continues his racist,
sexist
and
anti-gay commentary
on
radio
stations
across the
country.)
Perhaps
our focus is too
centered
on an
old-school definition
of “news.” I’ve
noted before that
the
public
gets its news and information
from
many nontraditional
sources
in broadcast,
print and
on
the Web. Talk
shows — even
those hosted
by
non-journalists — have great power, and NLGJA could
be a
constructive force in
helping to make the
content more respectful and fair.
As
noted by journalist
Gwen Ifill (herself a onetime
target
of
Imus’ brand) on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in
April, “Words
matter,
whether
they’re meant to be comedic or not.” Maybe
this entire
incident
constitutes
a
tipping point,
as many
commentators
have
already
suggested.
There
are plenty
of
voices
within
our
organization
who
would
agree that
we’ve
hit
that point. Whether
or not we respond — and, for that matter, how often, forcefully
and consistently— is
the question we now need to consider.
