One reason that I picked this Imus article instead of others that were written in the last few weeks is that I felt that this was much more well-rounded. I felt that it presented the entire scope of the story, from his history to the comments to the move to get Imus fired. Many of the columns and other stories out now seem to be too one-sided. They can't put aside their bias to present the entire story.
As I previously said, I thought that he did deserve to be fired. If this had been his first mistake or his first racial comment, then I could possibly see him getting by with a suspension. However, one of the other columns that I read (which was actually written by the Washington Wizard's Etan Thomas for SLAM Magazine) listed some of his previous slip ups. Imus called Barack Obama "that colored fellow," called New York Times sportswriter William Rhoden a "quote hire," and called an award-winning journalist Gwen Ifill "a cleaning lady."
I just can't stand any of the "shock" radio DJ's. For one thing, I can't stand listening to talk radio. I listen to radio "only if I need to know the sports or the weather," just like Andre said (haha). Any time, I heard talk radio, I get annoyed. On top of that, they all just try to get attention for their show by taking outlandish opinions. It could be a ridiculous take on an issue, but they take a stand merely so that they get attention.
(It is the same problem that I have with ESPN's talk shows, like Cold Pizza, PTI, Around the Horn, Rome is Burning. ESPN runs all four of these shows throughout the day. All four shows argue about the same ten to twenty sports stories of the day. In order to keep the watchers entertained, and their ratings up, they have the reporters on these shows take ridiculous stands on issues and have their counterparts argue with them. On top of the fact that there is no reason to have four of these shows, they have morons like Skip Bayless, Woody Paige, or Michael Smith on the show every day. I am 100% convinced that I know more about sports than those three. They bring nothing to the show and get a paycheck for doing it. Interview me and I'll do it for free.)
A final problem that I have will the entire Imus affair is that hip-hop is not basically under fire from the media. Many people took up the cause of blaming hip-hop after Imus was fired and they were left with a deadline and nothing to write about. Now, I can absolutely understand why some people want to point the finger at some rappers for the language they use on their albums. I can buy the argument that since rappers have been using certain words they have become much more prevalent in society. I can even understand why some people want to hold hip-hop to a higher degree of accountability for their words.
However, I have three main faults with the current assault of the media on hip-hop for three main reasons. First, though they blame the music, the media appears to be actually taking on "hip-hop culture," rather than the actual music. Hip-hop has become so big and prevalent in society that it can be found everywhere now, from advertising to movies to TV shows. Hip-hop has become an important part of the media culture in the U.S. However, whenever controversial issues come up, such as the Imus affair or the NBA All-Star game controversy, the genre of music gets the blame, but the media actually focuses on how hip-hop has affected the culture. If you want to take on the music, then blame the music. Quote 2 Live Crew and Too Short; don't blame Allen Iverson.
Second, if you are going to blame hip-hop for the prevalence of violence or bad language, then movie makers and Hollywood need to share the blame. I feel that this is a strong double standard. The violence and language in movies is much, much worse than in hip-hop. How can you blame rappers and other musicians when there are increases in violence among young people and not include Hollywood? If the media claims that seeing G-Unit with guns on the cover of the "Beg For Mercy" album or Dr. Dre on the cover of the Source with a gun to his head (like he did back when he left Death Row) makes young people numb to the use of the guns, then where are the people protesting Marty Scorsese, Quintin Tarrintino, or Francis Ford Coppola movies? Many rappers are simply acting a role in order to sell records, the majority of the "hardcore rappers" today included. They see the public being gangster albums, and they market themselves accordingly. They are showing fictional stories about violence, just as in movies and TV. (And, on a somewhat related note, why was "Get Rich Or Die Trying" protested for advertising with 50 Cent holding a gun, when at the exact same time, "Casino Royale" was advertising with Daniel Craig holding a gun as James Bond and "Mission Impossible: III" with Tom Cruise holding a gun? Double standard, again)
My third, and main, problem I have with the current media attack on hip-hop is that they are taking the music as a single entity, attempting to blame the entire genre. I have read many of the columns in the last few weeks about the hip-hop/Imus situation, and I have yet to read a single one where there is mention of non-"gangster" rappers. Hip-hop is not a single type of music, just as there is no one type of rock, jazz, or classical. There are many different types of hip-hop. A single type of hip-hop is the so-called "gangster" (I know I'm spelling it gangster and not gangsta. I don't really know why) rap, and, yes, many of these acts do deserve some blame. But the entire genre is not like this. I would love for a single one of these critics to go listen to acts like Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Common, Lupe Fiasco, The Roots, Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul, etc. and then say that there is no positivity in hip-hop. I also don't mean to say that I'm some backpack hip hop fan that only listens to these groups, but if people would just listen to a broader example of the music, then they could finally learn to appreciate it.
I do not really know how I ended up talking about Kweli and Lupe from a column about Don Imus, but I guess that's what happens. This whole thing has really been annoying me and I could for days on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I loved your rant. I share many of your opinions and you brought up some really good points. I think you should write about it (for real).
But you didn't really respond to the craft of the Imus article itself, silly! Regardless, you brought up a good point. You said, "I felt that it presented the entire scope of the story." I agree with that statement. I felt that it included a good balance of dialogue, interview, and hard fact.
However, I do feel that the opinion of the writer (a negative outlook toward Imus) came through at various points. At first, I wasn't sure how I felt about that, but after doing the reading that was assigned to us this week, I began to realize that sometimes including personal reaction in a profile is allowed and even applauded. I'm still confused about the rule on that, though.
Still, I didn't like how the writer didn't spend a lot of time reporting on Imus. I agreed in my response that using interviews of others close to the character can often paint a better picture of the person being profiled, but I felt this piece was definitely lacking sufficient direct interview with Imus.
Good post!
Post a Comment