Sunday, April 15, 2007

Don Imus - Race, Power, and the Media

For my example of a profile, I decided to post this week's Newsweek article on Don Imus and the entire controversy surrounding his comments. There is obviously a great deal amount of material being written about the situation, but I decided to post this article since it delves more into his history (and his history of inappropriate statements). It also goes into detail about many of the issues surrounding the entire situation.

At the very least, I figured it would be an article that could get a good conversation going. Most people seem to have strong opinions on the subject, and I thought it would be interesting to get some different thoughts. I, for one, was ecstatic that CBS and MSNBC fired him, and I also hate most of the other similar radio/TV personalities, like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Howard Stern.

I'll give a much-more detailed reaction on the article and on the entire situation tomorrow.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18110453/site/newsweek/

4 comments:

Wendy said...

It's interesting how different details were used by the author to show why there's a conflict about Don Imus, both as a radio personality and as a person. I liked the descriptions of how he looked, and the details about how he runs the ranch for children with cancer and campaigned to make autism and sickle cell anemia forefront issues.

I think what this article does is it shows us the human side of Don Imus. The side that doesn't think before it speaks, the side that revels in its own majesty, and the side that does try to do good as well. I'm not excusing what he said, or what he's said before, by any means. It's all hurtful and harmful. But I am saying that I don't think he's the evil son of satan that some people make him out to be.

What this article tries to do, as it shows you different parts of Imus' career and gives several examples of his racist and prejudiced speech in the past, is give you a picture of the good and the bad. Primarily the bad. I think the author uses quotes from former guests of the show as well as quotes from Imus himself to craft the picture of Imus' shock-jock style as well as a picture of the man himself. I liked the comparisons to Howard Stern; that definitely gives you a good base for comparison. Many of us are familiar with Howard Stern's style.

How many of us have known people who were the "bad boy" type, who said and did just about everything under the sun, and yet managed to remain compelling enough that you didn't sever ties with them until some larger event?

I have to admit, that I'm fairly confused as to how Imus was able to be successful for as long as he was; with the recent trend towards political correctness, most people have learned to sanitize what they're saying in the public realm, lest they be fired or chastized. I remember an incident where someone fell under fire for saying the word "niggardly", which had *no* racial connotations whatsoever, except that the word itself bore similarity to a racial epithet.

Maybe it was his obvious ability to play the power game. As sad as the fact is and as demeaning as it is to real journalism, people are drawn to those who play the game well. He obviously managed to lock himself into a niche, and enjoyed the power that came with that, until he finally stepped too far across the line.

Should he have said what he did? Of course not. But he is a free individual and it was his airtime. Should his sponsors have bailed? That's their call. Everyone winces the second that the racial bomb is dropped, especially by an older white male, knowing that the backlash will probably be severe.

The author manages to present a clear picture of the nasty side of Don Imus, and leaves us with no doubt that he deserves the blistering flame that he's falling under now. To some extent, I wonder if that is what Don Imus had been intending to some point; it's obvious that the man thrives on controversy and welcomes a fight.

I like, however, that the author managed to keep his profile of Imus from turning into a caricature or a strict focus on the man's bad side. Someone may do bad or harmful things, but that doesn't devalue the good things that they also manage to do. I would have had a much different opinion of the man if I hadn't been presented with more of his history and the other things he manages to do with his life. I think the author crafted some much needed balance in presenting Imus' personality; if you only see the bad, that's all you think about. You can appreciate the good without devaluing the impact of the bad.

My take home message from this is that Don Imus is another loud, stereotypical shock jock who tends to focus on racial jokes. He is also a human being, and seems to be taking his lumps like he should be. Who wants to wager that he ends up on satellite radio? Something tells me that he won't be silenced.

And that's a good thing. We may not like hearing what we hear sometimes, but I'd rather have it in the open where we can confront it. If it's just under the table, that's how revolutions towards things we don't want start.

Lauren said...

I am still amazed, shocked, saddened and also glad that Imus was held responsible for the things he said. I am not willing to believe that his remarks over the years are the product of comedy. I'm sick of shock value at other's expense.

But as for the writing, this felt much more like a straight feature than a profile, mainly because the reporters were denied access to direct interviews with Imus. We only hear his reponse in the end, via email. I think the article did a nice job at structure, pulling in on the events, out to look at Imus' life, in to the toppling of power dynamics that occurred. I, like Wendy, also liked the finesse of character description and creating scenes, though I believe this would have been enhanced, had the reporters been granted access to Imus. Overall, I liked what the piece said about media these days. People hold others accountable and once you put it out there, we aren't going to forget.

Lickel Wood said...

I too thought the balance of showing both sides of Don Imus as a strong point writer Weston Kosova touched upon. However loud, obnoxious, or annoying Don Imus presents himself as on radio there is always another side to the story.
Kosova uses a very good format for profiling Imus, in terms of getting to the core of his being. But I believe he tends to show much of the bad side. Which in my opinion, seemed like a fair judgement on the writers part.

Tammy said...

I think this article was a neat example of how a profile should be written. It was interesting to read different aspects of Imus' life, and even better to see them through various perspectives. Before reading the article, I had no background of who Imus was. It was helpful to learn about him from various perspectives. Imus, like everyone, is not an one-dimensional character, and the article communicates this.

I felt the authors tried to cover their bases by changing the piece's view from that of former guests, to current opposers, fans, and even family. From every perspective, it is clear that Imus has had a successful career and is secure in what he believes in--almost as if he doesn't care what others think of him. This makes it hard to formulate an opinion about the talk show host!

Imus has had a career that has offended many different groups of people. He also has led a life composed of good intentions. The article seems to avoid being biased while profiling Imus, and I think this makes it even harder to judge him. Which, I feel is a sign of good writing. I have to use a lot of energy trying to wrap my mind around this Imus character. But, it is agreed that his comment about the Rutgers was unnecessary and racist.

I especially enjoyed that the article does question bigger issues of race, gender, and the censored and biased media. Imus might have lost his show, and a job for the meantime, but he has achieved something that he is good at: questioning and testing our society's norms.