Don Imus, defending his most recent comment as sarcastic, rather than racist, has raised again the question of how far is morally acceptable in a free speech society in dumping on groups and individuals.
If we define it loosely, virtually anyone can become a journalist in today’s information mix. The revolution of electronic distribution has eliminated limitations that spawned previous definitions of a journalist.
Now, virtually anyone with access to a distribution system—internet, print media, broadcast media, etc., should be considered a journalist (as unpleasant a thought as that is), with all the questions that raises about how journalists should treat those about whom they write and/or speak.
New media have spawned a wildly competitive atmosphere in which those whose livelihoods depend on attracting and keeping audiences go to great lengths to pander to those audiences. This often involves stepping over lines of truthtelling (don’t let the truth get in the way of a good telling) and of using a bully pulpit to victimize others for the bully’s own selfish purposes, often just to attract and keep a life-sustaining audience. Don Imus programs seem to be short on information but successful as relentless bully pulpits.
This has produced a unique situation. A radio or cable television personality often attracts listeners/viewers by appealing to their base instincts. It may involve browbeating callers who wish to briefly coopt that pulpit, or to pummeling tempting targets (however worthy or unworthy) of the audience.
So it was that two years ago Don Imus scored a double hit against the Rutgers University women’s basketball team soon after they had surprised the nation by winning a national tournament championship. His comment was both sexist and racist.
It was also gave rise to a marvelous reason why people who mount the bully pulpit need periodically to reset their moral compasses to offset the very human tendencies to drift ethically under pressure. “Media people” is an inclusive term that covers all those who fish for audiences through the media. The uproar surrounding radio host Imus' stupid remark about the Rutgers women's basketball team in 2006 offers several lessons and gives media people an opportunity to hone moral sensitivities. Many in the media who were guests of, and often apologists for, Imus and his corrosive style, suddenly were publicly into modest, even delicate, sackcloth and ashes reflections. Some repentance notwithstanding, there are some media ethics lessons to learn from the Imus comment and its fallout. This is particularly so since he, because of his earlier history, got caught in another trap for an apparently off-hand racist comment.
In the current radio climate, the spoils often go to those who shout the loudest or spray their bile over easy targets.
The Imus examples suggest three clear areas of moral concern that are vulnerable to current competitive climates: (1) exercise of media power, (2) a pernicious herd instinct, and (3) good old-fashioned greed; all of which are serious questions now because of the instantly far reaching influence and power of the media.
All three commonly lure media people from their primary obligations: Service to audiences (borne inevitable of a First Amendment protection that create a moral obligation to be of service).
All three of these areas come into play in the Imus cases:
Lesson 1--Avoid trashing vulnerable innocents; stick to those who willingly enter the arena or who can defend themselves--assault power, not the powerless.
With their undoubted tremendous social power, media should continuously prod power centers on the assumption that those in power in a democracy ought not be comfortable in the role--uneasy crowns are good things in a democracy. However, for Imus to have selected an innocent group which had not sought power in the democratic arena for his casual dart was an egregious transgression; like a sniper lying in wait for an unsuspecting, and innocent, target—there is no defense.
He failed to recognize the difference between groups of people who should be fairly immune from public ridicule. It appears acceptable, though morally questionable, for trash talkers to home in on groups (racial minorities, women, the poor, immigrants, etc.), but when he singled out a specific group, he went way too far. In his comment he created a grievous and unnecessary harm.
Lesson #2--Think for yourself and don’t go on a show you are queasy about just because "other power people do it, so it must be okay."
The uproar sent media people who had been guests on his show, some of them even counted themselves as regulars, into some varying degrees of soul searching. Among others, Ana Marie Cox, Washington editor of Time magazine declared “No More Imus For Me,” summarizing the motives for Imus guests: “Sure, I cringed at his and his crew's race baiting. . . and at the casual locker room misogyny, but I told myself that going on the show meant something beyond inflating my precious ego.” (Time, April 23, 2007, p. 37). This from a self-professed former foulmouthed blogger. And, those who appeared on his show reasoned, other media folk of good reputation were doing it, so it must be good. To her credit, Cokie Roberts in 1996 declared she would never appear again on Imus' Show after he made a National Press Club speech. Among other things, though, those “names” who did appear bestowed some respectability and credibility on Imus by their presence.
Imus “borrowed strength”, a Stephen Covey term, from his high credibility guests; a reflected respectability that may have prolonged tolerance for his poisonous views, and enabled his long run of corrosive insults. Being a favored in a crowd seemed to be important to them.
Perhaps more importantly, by rationalizing that many others were also guests on the show, making their appearance acceptable, guests give up some measure of their own personal moral autonomy granted by the First Amendment (and very important to journalists, in particular) as they lined up to follow their media colleagues into Imus' broadcast booth. In the procession was even Howard Kurtz, an often=-critical media ethics specialist for the Washington Post. These journalists failed to act independently.Lesson 3--Listen to those guilt feelings and avoid Imus-type arenas even if appearances there can make your book a bestseller. Most journalists now profess to have been uneasy about the general content on Imus' show, but were enriched by the exposure. Some even attributed the best selling status of their books to appearances on his shows. Others say they could discuss critical issues at length. The riches of money and ego can turn otherwise wise heads. They, after the fact of Imus’ suspension, seemed to be wondering aloud why they allowed themselves to become (sometimes) regulars on a show which otherwise made them feel uncomfortable. They didn't complain, or decline to appear, even when Imus insulted them, their looks, their intelligence, etc. Their perceived personal benefits outweighed the humiliation.Jon Mecham, editor of Newsweek noted he appeared on the Imus show, despite earlier personal insults, because it “was a venue for senators, anchors and historians; to be part of the crowd conferred a certain insider status, a frisson of celebrity.” (Newsweek, April 23, 2007, p. 2).Feeding ego and self-interest at the expense of the common good is a universal moral actus reus.Despite the lessons, and the public outcries, there are still journalists who defend Imus' style, for whatever reason. Even more deplorably, though, it is suspected that the vast majority of Imus' audience still sees nothing wrong with what he said, either about the women’s basketball team, or by implication about African-Americans in general and are puzzled by the uproar.Journalists, professional or casual, should hold themselves above the controversy and not be personally linked, but there will be more Imus-like events and journalists should be wary and thoughtful about their basic responsibilities and the seductive distractions that lead them astray.
Though the First Amendment views social damage from free speech as an acceptable price to pay for all the benefits of free speech, there is some harm that is morally unacceptable. Legally, the powerless may be victimized by radio talk show hosts, morally to pummel the powerless for no better reason than to increase one's own power is unacceptable for it does unnecessary harm--causing harm for no good reason.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Pondering #3:Competition, Power and Self-Development
This is another of a group of imponderables to ponder in trying to understand the human condition, relationships and the development/fwlf-realization of the individual.
Competition is a fundamental element of a free enterprise, entrepreneurial society, but is competitiveness inherently a quest for power? If power is a zero-sum game, as a graduate school colleague claimed, then one must be competitive in accumulating power merely to maintain free agency, and probably to do some good to and for others, if that is an inclination. A zero sum game is one in which, in this case, power is neither created nor destroyed, it is moved around. If I lose power, someone else picks it up, and vice versa. Thus, if one does not accumulate power for self, someone else has that power to use, becoming, to some degree, a compelling influence on those over whom the person with power holds sway. Tactical falsehoods are a device for collecting and maintaining power. Is it likely that if there were no competition for power there would be little need to deceive or mislead (even with harmless white lies)? That is, if power were not a player in relationships, the need to deceive others would be minimal since deception tends to be a tool for collecting or maintaining power.
Such deceptions tend to be a routine part of individual lives. A person is inclined to show friendliness, for example, toward others whom he/she either dislikes or is indifferent toward. This may be largely a tactical device to maintain a relatively cordial relationship with that class of people, therefore reducing the necessity of being wary of them while concentrating on other efforts at building or consolidating beneficial relationships (which are exercises in the accumulation of power). A person with political ambitions, for example, generally tries not to alienate secondary groups while courting favor with primary groups of interest. The advent of instant-message television has made it infinitely more difficult to be an effective politician because one's selective messages to a single group is now capable of broadcast immediately to all other relative groups. Previously, a candidate could, for example, present one message to one group and move geographical locations to present a message somewhat inconsistent with the first to another group. The likelihood of the two groups hearing both messages was slight and thus both groups could be courted without a great deal of worry over the inconsistencies.
It seems a peripheral effect of power accumulation is that it breeds insecurity (the more power one has, the more one is concerned about others infringing on it, or attempting to wrest it away) and that insecurity leads to actions designed to consolidate the power one has while also accumulating more. At an extreme, it leads one to attempt to denigrate others (hence reduce their power). This insecurity also leads to the increased formulation of rules by those who hold power in order to maintain discipline. At its extreme, the effort to retain power distorts the individual's performance and pulls efforts from advancement of the entity to a retention of power at the expense of the entity.
Perhaps one way of maintaining power is to deceive with “expected answers,” as a means of relieving pressures on us as we develop. That is, we are conditioned in a variety of circumstances (from school classrooms to church classrooms to the home in our developing of children) to know what answers are expected even before the question is asked. Thus, social equanimity is maintained and the surprises are minimized. Those are the benefits. The down side, of course, is that we learn to be deceptive and that deception is acceptable for the sake of convenience and that we may be able to maintain our inner control (agency) when we give the expected answers, thus hiding our true responses. That protects us from assault when our true responses might not fit with what is expected.
These strategies tend to fall under the category of learning to be competitive, which requires that the individual recognize the desirability of being competitive in the social and professional marketplace. It is that competitive nature that pushes them toward accomplishment. Working against the competitive drive is the convenient fiction that competition is somehow bad and must be avoided if one is to develop a Christ-like attitude. This may be true, but if competition is required in a secular society, the secret for an individual is to develop an appropriate (whatever that is) competitiveness and temper it will a compassionate and altruistic attitude toward others. This recalls Louis Pojman's notion that his single identified absolute is that one must not unnecessarily harm other human beings. The accumulation of power by nature creates some harm (even if only psychic), but it seems to me that battlegrounds may be identified in which is is appropriate to be conpetitive (others in the field are competitive also, so there is much more leeway and combatants expect to either gain or lose power according to their strategies.
Still, those who do not enter the field and do not compete may expect, by virtue of their isolation from the field to lose power, therefore free agency. In this situation, they find themselves at the mercy of the power holders.
It perhaps is no coincidence that the conditioning we provide for children makes them impatient with, and intolerant of, competition that counts; thus they chose not to lower themselves. Athletic competition may be a red herring in this equation, since it creates an illusion of serious competition and becomes the major acceptable competition, particularly for boys, but increasingly for girls in recent years. However, that competition is largely a physical activity accomplishing nothing except for a sense of physical competition, which is less and less valuable in the modern world. It does, however, create an illusion that one is competitive.
Competition in the meaningful sense is cerebral and fed by intuition, experience, education and a sense of urgency.
Competition is a fundamental element of a free enterprise, entrepreneurial society, but is competitiveness inherently a quest for power? If power is a zero-sum game, as a graduate school colleague claimed, then one must be competitive in accumulating power merely to maintain free agency, and probably to do some good to and for others, if that is an inclination. A zero sum game is one in which, in this case, power is neither created nor destroyed, it is moved around. If I lose power, someone else picks it up, and vice versa. Thus, if one does not accumulate power for self, someone else has that power to use, becoming, to some degree, a compelling influence on those over whom the person with power holds sway. Tactical falsehoods are a device for collecting and maintaining power. Is it likely that if there were no competition for power there would be little need to deceive or mislead (even with harmless white lies)? That is, if power were not a player in relationships, the need to deceive others would be minimal since deception tends to be a tool for collecting or maintaining power.
Such deceptions tend to be a routine part of individual lives. A person is inclined to show friendliness, for example, toward others whom he/she either dislikes or is indifferent toward. This may be largely a tactical device to maintain a relatively cordial relationship with that class of people, therefore reducing the necessity of being wary of them while concentrating on other efforts at building or consolidating beneficial relationships (which are exercises in the accumulation of power). A person with political ambitions, for example, generally tries not to alienate secondary groups while courting favor with primary groups of interest. The advent of instant-message television has made it infinitely more difficult to be an effective politician because one's selective messages to a single group is now capable of broadcast immediately to all other relative groups. Previously, a candidate could, for example, present one message to one group and move geographical locations to present a message somewhat inconsistent with the first to another group. The likelihood of the two groups hearing both messages was slight and thus both groups could be courted without a great deal of worry over the inconsistencies.
It seems a peripheral effect of power accumulation is that it breeds insecurity (the more power one has, the more one is concerned about others infringing on it, or attempting to wrest it away) and that insecurity leads to actions designed to consolidate the power one has while also accumulating more. At an extreme, it leads one to attempt to denigrate others (hence reduce their power). This insecurity also leads to the increased formulation of rules by those who hold power in order to maintain discipline. At its extreme, the effort to retain power distorts the individual's performance and pulls efforts from advancement of the entity to a retention of power at the expense of the entity.
Perhaps one way of maintaining power is to deceive with “expected answers,” as a means of relieving pressures on us as we develop. That is, we are conditioned in a variety of circumstances (from school classrooms to church classrooms to the home in our developing of children) to know what answers are expected even before the question is asked. Thus, social equanimity is maintained and the surprises are minimized. Those are the benefits. The down side, of course, is that we learn to be deceptive and that deception is acceptable for the sake of convenience and that we may be able to maintain our inner control (agency) when we give the expected answers, thus hiding our true responses. That protects us from assault when our true responses might not fit with what is expected.
These strategies tend to fall under the category of learning to be competitive, which requires that the individual recognize the desirability of being competitive in the social and professional marketplace. It is that competitive nature that pushes them toward accomplishment. Working against the competitive drive is the convenient fiction that competition is somehow bad and must be avoided if one is to develop a Christ-like attitude. This may be true, but if competition is required in a secular society, the secret for an individual is to develop an appropriate (whatever that is) competitiveness and temper it will a compassionate and altruistic attitude toward others. This recalls Louis Pojman's notion that his single identified absolute is that one must not unnecessarily harm other human beings. The accumulation of power by nature creates some harm (even if only psychic), but it seems to me that battlegrounds may be identified in which is is appropriate to be conpetitive (others in the field are competitive also, so there is much more leeway and combatants expect to either gain or lose power according to their strategies.
Still, those who do not enter the field and do not compete may expect, by virtue of their isolation from the field to lose power, therefore free agency. In this situation, they find themselves at the mercy of the power holders.
It perhaps is no coincidence that the conditioning we provide for children makes them impatient with, and intolerant of, competition that counts; thus they chose not to lower themselves. Athletic competition may be a red herring in this equation, since it creates an illusion of serious competition and becomes the major acceptable competition, particularly for boys, but increasingly for girls in recent years. However, that competition is largely a physical activity accomplishing nothing except for a sense of physical competition, which is less and less valuable in the modern world. It does, however, create an illusion that one is competitive.
Competition in the meaningful sense is cerebral and fed by intuition, experience, education and a sense of urgency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
