The Problem with Loudmouths

Unless you've been living underneath a rock, I'm sure you know what this commentary is about. However, for those rock dwellers, let me summarize a news story that has been getting a great deal of attention during the past few days.

The controversy involves some recent comments by MSNBC radio pundit Don Imus. One of the leading "shock jocks" in the country, Imus is known for his hard - hitting opinions, which are often laced in irreverent sarcasm and political incorrectness. One might say he is a very small step above Howard Stern. Maybe.

On a recent show, Imus turned his thoughts to the Rutgers University Women's Basketball team. Rutgers was a great feel - good story of the NCAA tournament. The Scarlett Knights had a great Cinderella-like run to the championship game, only to be bested by hall of fame coach Pat Summit's Lady Vols of Tennesee. Their valient efforts put Rutgers athletics back on the map.

Albeit briefly.

While commenting on the championship game, Imus made the following comments:

IMUS: So I watched the women's basketball game last night...between...a little bit...of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's uh...final.

SID ROSENBERG (sports host on with Imus: Yeah, Tennessee won last night, seventh championship for Pat Summit...they beat Rutgers by thirteen points.

IMUS: Boy, some rough girls from Rutgers, man, they got tattoos and...

PRODUCER: ...Some hardcore ho's!

IMUS: Some nappy headed ho's there, I'm gonna tell you that *laughter*

There you go. Straight from the horse's mouth.

As you can imagine, Imus's comments have ignited a firestorm of criticisim. Pundits everywhere are calling for his resignation. One of the loudest voices in this whole mess (besides Imus) has been, some might say predictably, the reverend Al Sharpton.

Rarely does one find a controversy that Al Sharpton doesn't take the time to weigh in on. He does, after all, have the gift of gab. Furthermore, he's not afraid to use it.

After calling for his resignation, Sharpton invited Imus onto his radio program. Imus agreed to join Sharpton on the airwaves, in an effort to clear his name.

The New York Times published a transcript of their conversation. Here is one segment:

IMUS:...I wasn't even thinking racial. I was thinking like a "West Side Story" deal, like one team's tough and one team's not so tough.

SHARPTON: Nappy is racial.

IMUS. Yes, sir, I understand that.

SHARPTON. Saying wannabes and jigaboos is racial.

Fast forward a bit...

SHARPTON: I'm not going to call you a name, I'm not going to call you bigot. I'm going to say what you said was racist. I'm going to say what you said was abominable. I'm going to say you should be fired for saying it.

A little bit later, Imus recalled a conversation he had with African American Reverend DeForest Soaries:

"...And then he said something else, he said, you know, you said, here's what you have to understand - that's what he said now - he said, black people, at the core of their soul, don't believe that white people like them. And he said, at some point when something like this happens with someone like you, who they would - who a person could, you would think, could trust and would be on our side, he said, this just confirms that whole fear..."

The interview was much longer. Read the whole thing if you want. Just go to this address: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/business/media/09imus_transcript.html?pagewanted=5

Here's my point. Think about Imus' quote. Nappy headed ho's. Let's break it down. "Nappy" is a racial slur, which makes reference to the stereotypically curly/frizzy hair that supposedly every black person has. Brilliant, really.

"Ho," translated roughly means, "slut."

From my perspective, there are two components of hate speech here in Imus' comments. He is insulting black people. But he his also insulting WOMEN.

Where, though, is that discussion in the comments I highlighted for you above? Don't bother going back to look for it. It's not there.

Sharpton did make one comment later in the interview, calling Imus' comments "racist and sexist." However, after reading the transcript, it seems clear that the racism question really is driving Sharpton's commentary. The ratio of "sexist" to "racist" in the interview is extraordinarilly lopsided.

This doesn't help Sharpton. It hurts him.

Conservative pundits everywhere salivate at these types of controversies. Why is that? Well, there are many different reasons. However, one major bonus is that people like Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will ALWAYS come out of the woodwork to weigh in on the matter. And true to form, they've done so again. Frankly, they're justified in their outrage.

But here's the problem. Critics paint Sharpton and Jackson as knee - jerk reactionaries. They portray them as vultures, circling in the air, waiting for an opportunity to swoop in and take over the situation.

In failing to provide some commentary with depth, which fully analyzes this situation, Sharpton is selling himself short. I suspect that a lot of Americans will brush him off and say he sounds like a broken record. "There goes reverend Al again, playing the race card like he always does."

That is quite unfortunate. But reverend Al's message is somewhat disconnected from the situation at hand. We're not just talking about racism here. We're talking about sexism. That merits an equal amount of discussion.

By treating the overtly sexist nature of Imus comments as little more than an afterthought, Sharpton is falling back on that knee-jerk race card playing mold that his critics have crafted for him over the years. He's playing right into their hands.

Al, for Goodness sakes. Come out of your shell. The sexism and racism are equally egregious. Give them a level playing field in the public discourse. More people might listen.

The most insightful commentary on this matter has come from PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, one of the most brilliant journalists out there. She had this to say:

"LET’S say a word about the girls. The young women with the musical names. Kia and Epiphanny and Matee and Essence. Katie and Dee Dee and Rashidat and Myia and Brittany and Heather.

The Scarlet Knights of Rutgers University had an improbable season, dropping four of their first seven games, yet ending up in the N.C.A.A. women’s basketball championship game. None of them were seniors. Five were freshmen.

In the end, they were stopped only by Tennessee’s Lady Vols, who clinched their seventh national championship by ending Rutgers’ Cinderella run last week, 59-46. That’s the kind of story we love, right? A bunch of teenagers from Newark, Cincinnati, Brooklyn and, yes, Ogden, Utah, defying expectations. It’s what explodes so many March Madness office pools.

But not, apparently, for the girls. For all their grit, hard work and courage, the Rutgers girls got branded “nappy-headed ho’s” — a shockingly concise sexual and racial insult, tossed out in a volley of male camaraderie by a group of amused, middle-aged white men. The “joke” — as delivered and later recanted — by the radio and television personality Don Imus failed one big test: it was not funny."

Amen, Gwen. You said it better than I ever could. That's why you have a gig with PBS, and I stick to a blog.

I think Reverend Al, Reverend Jackson, and every other pundit out there should take Gwen's advice. Were Imus' words racist? Yes. But, as Gwen says, "let's say a word about the GIRLS."