Don Imus should not have been fired the way that he was fired.
"San Bernardino-based KCAA-AM is planning to run the "Best of Imus"" (4) starting with the now infamous show that excited the national media. "Imus" drew an audience of 2 - 3.5 million and drew in approximately $44,000,000 in advertising revenue (1 and 3). In the aftermath of the show, Imus apologized for being "insensitive" (5). His apology was not enough to save him from firing but there is speculation that he may resurface on satellite radio (2 and 3). One has to ask why this happened now when, "for more than 30 years," (4) Imus' show was, "dogged by allegations of racism, homophobia, misogyny and other crimes against common sense" (4).
After Imus' offensive comments on April 16th, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others called for his firing (3). "The firestorm of complaints and protests from civil rights activists became so deafening that advertisers started to listen. Proctor and Gamble, General Motors, Sprint, Nextel, and American Express pulled their commercials from Imus in the Morning and CBS Radio had no other option but to dump Don Imus" (3).
CBS Radio had another option - to not dump Don Imus.
The reason the media say that there was no other option is related to the desire to make money from the show and pander to advertisers. The Imus show had a two part format. One part was shock-jock style and the other part was serious interviews with journalists or politicians. Guests on the Imus show included Tim Russert (Meet the Press), Jeff Greenfield (CNN Senior Analyst), Frank Rich (NYT Columnist), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune Columnist), David Brooks (NYT Columnist) and Bob Schieffer (CBS Newsman) (1). Mike Wallace is on the record as saying that Imus' show was a forum for reaching necessary audiences, important people and for advancing recognition in influential circles (1). To some this would suggest the importance of the Imus show.
Based on this, the firing of Don Imus was not an ethical decision - It was a cash driven decision. If there are any ethics to be discovered in this whole story it is the conviction with which the civil rights activists stuck to their belief that what Don Imus said was wrong and that he should be punished. Why this was not a successful endeavor in the past, I don't know, but persistence has paid off in this case - after 30 years. Imus did not manage to dodge the "allegations of racism..."(4) this time.
The sickening part of the affair is the ease with which CBS can assert its belief in the extremity of Imus' comments on this occassion after employing him (and his material) for more than 30 years. MSNBC (A GE unit(2)) apologized and fired Imus from his 10 year simulcast (2). One must wonder if they noticed what was going on at Imus' show for the last 10 and 30 years!
I suggest that the Don Imus Show, CBS and MSNBC should have stayed the course. Instead of bowing to the power of advertisers' cash they should have continued airing the Imus Show without any revenue. All of the civil rights activists and the basketball team and others could have been invited to meet/discuss/criticize Don Imus, CBS and MSNBC on the air. Imagine how much discussion and progressive ideas might be aired without any advertising breaks!
I dare to suggest that the civil rights activists who (presumably) influenced the powerful advertisers to abandon ship, would have agreed to the continuation of the Imus Show in this suggested format. Don Imus might have actually come out good (perhaps changed), not to mention CBS and MSNBC. (Surely they can afford to lose some advertising revenue for the betterment of society while gaining popularity). There could be room for discussion about allowing advertisers back into the format at the right time. "In fact, none of the advertisers who jumped the Imus in the Morning Ship ruled out coming back after the storm had blown over" (3).
So I say that Don Imus' firing was not ethical. He should have been "sentenced" to continuing his show in the outlined format and his superiors at CBS and MSNBC should have been "sentenced" to compulsory appearances on the show.
1. http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/04/13/01?
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/business/13imus.html?ex=1192075200&en=
3. http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=5131
4. http://sodahead.com/poll/1463/?promo=IMUSBACK&gclid=CKPjjp7S1IsCFSAcYAodM
5. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036713
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
One thing that's been said in defense of the harsh reaction taken against Imus is that he targeted the media version of an innocent bystander with his comment. Rather than make a statement against public figures he basically targeted obscure young women.
Matthew,
This is an interesting defence of the harsh reaction. I would accept it if the show was cancelled before the advertisers pulled out.
Of course we can argue that the advertisers (not CBS and MSNBC) acted ethically by pulling their ads.
My arguement is that CBS and MSNBC did not act ethically, rather they reacted economically (to losing their advertisers). Therefore, after the advertisers had withdrawn, the only ethical path would have been to stay on the air for discussion/criticism without the revenues of the advertisers. (Asd I quoted in the blogg, the advertisers would probably have returned after the storm)
Tommy,
Couldn't an argument be made that because CBS/MSNBC are publicly traded companies they have an ethical obligation to the bottom-line? Therefor they were within their capitalistic ethical code to keep Imus on the air as long as he increased revenues, but once he became a liability they reacted in the interest of their share-holders.
I think the Imus situation serves as a great example of the perils of an advertiser driven media. While there is something beneficial about being able to pull programs indirectly it's definitely a double edged sword.
In defense of CBS/MSNBC I'll offer this aphorism from the 'hood "hate the game, not the playa."
Matthew,
Good point. And well said...
As long as "the bottom line" is the only interest of the shareholder. Perhaps in a more utopian society the value of critiquing/analyzing Imus on-air would have some value.
But you make a valid point.
In a Utopian society individuals like Imus wouldn't be rewarded for their behavior with multi-million dollar contracts.
Instead the true cultural warriors, the TAs, would be handsomely rewarded .
Enough said!
Post a Comment