Imus Affair Lessons in Media Power, Herd Instinct, and Greed

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.