Both pieces you have to read for next class deal with the power of words: one with so-called "isms,"words that Jean Gaddy Wilson defines as "authorative language diminishing the roles and lives of women and minorities." Sometimes using language that creates stereotypes about people of a certain race, age, gender, or sexual orientation rises to the level of "hate speech," as discussed in the second article by Joseph Hemmer.A national dialogue about the role and responsbility of media took place in April, 2007 when "shock jock" Don Imus used language laced with "isms" on his nationally syndicated radio show (simulcast on MSNBC) when discussing the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Go to this link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml
After reviewing this story, do you believe that Imus' language (1) was racist and sexist according to the terms of Gaddy Wilson, or (2) rose to the level of "hate speech" as defined by Hemmer?
I do think Imus' comments were both racist and sexist, but I don't think it was near the level of hate speech. His description was hurtful to African Americans and degrading towards women. But I think it was just a slip-up by Imus. I don't think he was using his radio show as a way to spew hate messages. I just think he said something stupid and got caught.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of like the everyday and incognizant racism we discussed earlier in the semester. He probably didn't think his comment contained any kind of ism in it at all until after the backlash.
But I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this incident. Again, I think Imus just said something stupid without thinking about it first. What about all the comedians out there that say (in my opinion) even worse things about women and people who are different from them? Sometimes I think it's okay to use isms in the media, as long as it is geared toward whites. I don't think this does anything to actually solve the ongoing problems of racism in this country. It just perpetuates them.
Sadly for Don Imus, this incident marks my first impression of him, as I have never listened to his show. But for someone to call a women's basketball team 'nappy-headed hos' after they competed in the NCAA Championship game is very disrespectful and disgusting!I have a bad taste in my mouth for someone that ridicules an other sex/race, especially on radio/television. Not to mention up to this point, women playing sports was not taken seriously. And represhensible words like the ones Imus used only ignite feelings of racism in minorities, therefore he deserved to be fired from CBS.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if Imus knew he was using 'words as weapons' when he introduced the women's basketball team, but the descriptive words he used express his ignorance and lack of sensivity for minorities.
Although I think Imus was wrong on so many levels, I do not think Imus's words rose to the level of of a 'hate speech' because he was respected by so many people. But as the text reads, he is pretty close...
Delgado (1982) claims that hate messages "is the means by which society constructs a stigma-picture of disfavored groups. It... crushes the spirit of its victims while creating culture at odds with our national values.
Don Imus’ use of the term “nappy headed ho’s” was derogatory to any race that does not have straight, blonde hair. When he called the team “really stupid”, it was a personal opinion that could apply to any race, but it was taken to mean that black women were not intelligent.
ReplyDeleteThe Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson played the race card to facilitate the removal of Imus, even after he had publicly and privately apologized. He stated that MSNBC and CBS Radio were under a lot of pressure, and he did not blame them. Sharpton, Jackson and Marc Morial, CEO of the National Urban League, with their influence through the NAACP and other activist groups applied the pressure. It seems that this is a clear-cut case of reverse racism.
Sumner Redstone, chairman of the CBS Corp, said that he didn’t know if firing Imus was the right thing to do. He is a chief stockholder, and the Howard Stern and Don Imus broadcasts were a cash cow to CBS radio.
Joseph J. Hemmer’s article states that the egalitarians’ first argument is that hate speech is valueless. The “nappy headed ho’s” comment was meant to hurt and humiliate, not to communicate facts and values, and substantially diminishes First Amendment protection of our right to free speech. The comment referring to the Rutgers players as stupid could refer to coaching strategies. Imus did not use obscenities, but did cast a negative light on the black race.
Although the FCC has clear cut rules as to what words may be used in a broadcast, nowhere do they forbid the uses of nappy headed ho’s and stupid.
My feeling is that calling Pres. George W. Bush stupid, and a Crawfordville cowboy is just as demeaning as anything Imus said.
I also feel that the comments Imus did not rise to the level of hate speech.
ReplyDeleteDo I think Imus was racist and sexist in his remarks about the women on the Rutger's University basketball team? Of course, and I think most people would agree. Immediately, the subject of attractiveness is brought up during a women's basketball game. Describing the team as "nappy headed hoes" and less "cute" than the other team, takes these athletic women away from the basketball court. What does any of this have to do with a game of basketball? And would this have come up if a team of men were running around out there? I doubt it. Again, the double standard. As Imus is considered "one of the nation's most prominent broadcasters" his job is to "reflect reality" and not contribute to this labeling that makes it easier for people to discriminate.
ReplyDeleteIn Jean Gaddy Wilson's article she states "..while we may hold nonsexist and nonracist beliefs, we may unconsciously fall into the trap of dated sexist, racist, ageist, dismissive language." I think this is a perfect example of that, as Imus was quick to apologize about his "slip up" and offers no excuses for his behavior.
I do believe that Imus' statements could be on the level of "hate speech". According to the article by Hemmer, "..hate speech is valueless." I can agree that Imus' statements were valueless, they were worthless, and they were presented in a way that was humiliating, hurtful, and degrading. If this isn't considered "hate speech", then what is?
I don't believe the words were anywhere near "hate speech" level, however they were extremely racist, ignorant, and un-called for. Like Mauriah, this was my first impression of Don Imus, as I had never heard of him before this incident either. And I'm glad he was fired. Yeah, he was back on the air a little while later, but at least the message was sent that speech like that was not tolerated.
ReplyDeleteWhether I was black or white, had straight hair or curly, I would be outraged as a member of the basketball team because those girls worked hard to get where they are. Rutgers is a good school and balancing college and sports is no easy feat. Being called "nappy headed hos" is a slap in the face because the phrase also implies somewhat of a class issue too - the stereotype that "those kinds of girls" don't go to college and are generally thought of as uneducated. The comment was very hurtful and I think more people should've stood up and not let Imus back on air. From this incident alone, I would never listen to him because his racist comments and derogatory statements toward women (or at least those women) show his true colors as a person.
I can't even believe these words came to Imus' mind when he was talking about the Rutgers basketball team. I would definitely agree that these words constitute both racist and sexist speech. His words were completely inappropriate, offensive and degrading. You would expect much more from a person of his experience and there is no excuse for this language, especially on the radio.
ReplyDeleteAccording Hemmer's article you could consider this to be "hate speech". Imus' words were discriminatory, harmful, humiliating, worthless, and definitely didn't advance any valuable ideas. However I think a very important (and very difficult) part of evaluating "hate speech" is considering the intent of the statement. However, as the article says, how can you ever really know someone's true intent? I do not believe that Imus' intent was to cause harm by saying what he said. Either way, there is no excuse for what he said and I think he got what he deserved.
Although Don Imus’ comments were both racial and sexist, they may not be classified as hate speech on as surface level.
ReplyDeleteThe comments about the young women being “nappy headed hoes” were both degrading and unnecessary in the depiction of the game being played. This is a display of sexism in the expectations of their appearance, actions, skills, emotions and proper place on society. Imus’ comments imply that he sees these women as sexual beings by calling them “hoes” and was judging them based on their looks of having “tattoos and nappy heads”. Based on Wilson’s “Non-Bias Rule” Imus also probably would not have used such adjectives if white men had been paying the game. These specific vendettas are stereotyped only to the African American women.
Although what Imus said did have the principles of hate crimes, it really seems like he was just making ignorant comments (rather than deliberate attacks). Wilson's article she states “while we may hold nonsexist and nonracist beliefs, we may unconsciously fall into the trap of dated sexist, racist, ageist, dismissive language”. This seems to be exactly what happened to Imus. While he did not attack the young woman on a surface level, it was definitely a subconscious slur. The speech was indeed valueless, could have done harm to the victims and was discrimatory. Obviously a statement was made by his dismissal from MSNBC, that neither racial nor sexist comments will be tolerated by this media.
The language that Imus used was racist and sexist. Gaddy Wilson provides the following question that a writer should ask: "Would I say the same thing about an affluent white man?" In the Imus case, the answer is no. The word "ho" does not have a male equivalent; the closest thing to a male whore would likely be called a stud. The use of "nappy headed" is in reference to the race and ethnicity of the black basketball players. I doubt Imus would have said "blonde haired studs" if he were commenting on a men's basketball team that was mostly white. Because you wouldn't say these same things about an affluent white man, by Wilson's definition, the comment was sexist and racist.
ReplyDeleteImus' comment was inappropriate and distasteful, and by Hemmer's standard of "remarks that attack individuals on the basis of race, gender, handicap, or sexual orientation ... " it could be defined as hate speech. However, I don't believe that hate speech should be banned. I concede the egalitarian argument the hate speech is harmful to victims, but to put restrictions on it would be unconstitutional. As Voltaire was quoted, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." The Supreme Court has decided many landmark cases that have protected the right to free speech and expression.
Economics dictated Imus' punishment. Advertisers became unwilling to support his show, and he was fired. I think this result was appropriate. I'm a strong opponent of restrictions on speech and expression. It is not about having morality police; it is about defending the rights granted by the Constitution.
" Nappy Headed hos"
ReplyDeleteIs this racist and sexist? I think the line speaks for it's self. The non bias rule states that you should ask yourself would you say this to a white man. I would bet that Don Imus would not walk up to an affluent white man and call his mom or daughter a nappy headed ho.
And for the question Is this a hate speech I would say yes. When we hear the term hate speech we think of Hitler screaming out kill all Jews. But the definition of a hate speech is simply "type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them." Isn't this exactly what he did?
My biggest problem with this issue is that, how does one person ever get that comfortable saying things like this, not in the privacy of his own home, but on a national broadcast.
Today you are seeing more people publicly expressing their racist and sexist views without fear of punishment. Look at the politician who was caught on tape saying that he likes to spank the girls he is sleeping with. I think it is because for so long these men have always been supported by the elite class and never was told to be careful of what they say. Now Imus is confused because he is getting slapped on the hand for saying things that was okay to say in the past.
I think Imus is a perfect example of everyday racism, and I haven't heard this term used but I would say a case for ' everyday sexism" also.
I'm speaking as a Howard Stern fan and I am majorly biased against Imus.
ReplyDeleteI was very happy to see him crash and burn a few years ago, mainly as a penance for A: having terrible ratings and B: never having been funny, ever.
While I feel that his comments against the Rutgers team were made out of a feeble attempt at being "edgy" (which he clearly has never been) they were not expressly racist. It was just another string of incomprehensible words from a radioman that has never evolved beyond mumbling incomprehensible sentences.
They were, however, incredibly sexist as this rant was steeped in anti-women's athletics and anti-women's basketball fervor, an easy target in the male-dominated sports world. His words were meant to minimize the team's accomplishments against the backdrop of more meaningful sports achievements.
I am not afraid to say that Imus is probably still a huge racist and his history of assholishness extends back to when he called Robin Quivers the n word.
The fact that Imus garnered so much attention about this is beyond me. His ratings never matched true racists like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity so I am befuddled as to why Imus was singled out.
In watching this video I do believe that Imus' comments were both racist and sexist. Here we go again with the double standard we talked about on Tuesdays class. If the situation were reversed these comments most likely wouldn't have been made. Honestly if you just say "nappy headed hoes" out loud its offensive enough let alone to talk of a womens collegiate team who made it to the NCAA Championship game. Then to say the other team is "cute." Really? As far as "hate speech" is concerned I don't believe it's brought up to that level exactly but it's close enough. I think Imus simply didn't think before he spoke, it happens to us all which is no excuse whatsoever. But especially if you're going to be speaking on air you need to be careful. What an idiot!
ReplyDeleteCome on...The man is an old fool.
ReplyDeleteHe was taking a shot at being "edgy", and came off as completely ignorant. There's a fine line...maybe not even that fine of a line...but there is a line between being edgy and being a fool. Imus took a big swan dive into the foolish realm.
I don't think I would classify it as hate speech, but it is blatantly derogatory and offensive.
Imus' comment referring to the women of Rutgers basketball team, in the context it was reported, was in my opinion was sexist. He was on the phone with a sports journalist and Imus mentioned very little about the match against Tennessee. he instead only pointed out the teams aesthetics, referring to them as "Nappy Headed Hos" compared to the "Cute" girls on the other team.
ReplyDeleteWhen put to the test against the egalitarians argument for hate speech, Ismus comments were valueless to what should have been the objective of his report on the team and did not advance any relevant ideas.
What disheartened me the most though was his reference to the team as "jigaboos", as indirect and far removed as he tried to make it. This to me is were the racism comes into play, apart from his first comment of the team.
I agree with Lottie on this one though that his punishment was dictated by the free market and the people spoke out and said that this is not the type of discourse they wish to hear, and as a result he lost his job.
But what do we do about those and their hate speech that the market has less of an effect on? The average man or women not backed by big media outlets and millions of dollars. I believe in free speech and as little government involvement in American's lives, but what can we do to level the playing field so that we do not restrict one's civil liberties, which many hate speech precedents have done in the past? I really don't know, I am just asking.
Imus' comments were degrading to the Rutger's women basketball. In the article we read in the text,Delgado (1982) claims that hate messages "is the means by which society constructs a stigma-picture of disfavored groups. It... crushes the spirit of its victims while creating culture at odds with our national values." This along with the following ideas reinforce the fact that underrepresentation of a group creates a certain image of individual and groups. Both George Gerber and Gaye Tuchman point out: "if a group is not represented in media messages and the language, the group is not part of the picture we carry around in our heads." To me this further translates to not only does underrepresentation keep them out of the picture, representation that makes a group or individual look bad, allows society to carry a negative image of this person/group. This can relate to Delgado's point that racist speech "is the means by which society constructs a stigma-picture of disfavored groups.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that language must change to be more inclusive and less dismissive, is one that brings about the idea of constant change. Imus' position also effected his own image. His actions did not seem intended in that I do not think he planned to say those degrading words. Hate speech is a tricky situation because the individuals reaction has a part to play in the deciding factor.