Friday, April 20, 2007

I wrote this over a week ago and the terrible event at Virginia Tech pushed the national discussion of what is right and wrong in speech these days off of the media radar. The issues, of course, haven't been resolved.

What I've learned over the years – in some very bitter lessons – is that context is everything. One person can something specific in a conversation, but if another person responds in kind, it's wrong. Accusations and charges can be made about language without the context consideration.

Political context is similar. If I use critical speech in response to something nasty a righty has said, then it's unacceptable "hate" speech from me. That's what I've been told. I'm supposed to lay back and take the criticism because I deserve it as a "liberal."

Imus had no context to buffer his remarks, though. His feeble attempts at shock humor showed an inherent meaness.

The issue of "correct" speech does need to be explored, but it won't until the next time a situation such as this one arises. American society and the media have little stomach to really address this kind of thing.

It's been fascinating to see just how the talk radio industry actually the media in general has reacted to the Don Imus flap.

For those of you who have missed the incident from almost two weeks ago, the granddaddy of shock radio, Don Imus, referred to the Rutgers University womens basketball team by a term that insulted both their gender and race.

Some people have said it's just Imus doing what people expect of him: a crude comment from a once talented broadcaster who has evolved into a spent, nasty man.

What made this remark worse than the three million words of wisdom Imus has dispensed in the past is that it was aimed not at an elected official or celebrity, but at a group of young women who had taken their underdog team to the NCAA Final Four.

The conventional wisdom is that it's okay to attack people who court publicity, but not a group such as this team who were simply doing something they were supposed to do.

What has made the furor so interesting is its multiple tracks of discussion. Some talk show hosts have wondered if this is marking the beginning of a new form of censorship. Others have said that remarks made by right-wingers such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly should also be considered grounds for their removal from their programs. Issues of politics, censorship and commercial considerations have all come into the discussions.

What Imus said was supposedly in the context of humor, something that is being obscured by some people. Imus is known for his acid wit, so can that be considered "hate speech?" Are Savage's remarks attacking gays and Muslims different than Imus' attempts at humor? That's an interesting question to ponder where is the line drawn?

And who should draw that line? Should Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton both men with checkered pasts of their own be designated as the judges of correct speech? I hope not.

What isn't being spoken about is what is correct speech and what isn't, especially in the context of comedy. The late comedian Lenny Bruce, who served jail time for using profanity, would be gob-smacked to see what is generally accepted today.

Profanity is easier to define and control perhaps than the issues of race, gender and sex.

Carlos Mencia on Comedy Central has a weekly series largely built on exploiting racial stereotypes and relations. If a white or African-American comic used the word "beaner" in his or her act, they might be considered as having stepped over an acceptable line.

Are "blonde" jokes funny to blondes? Is it all right to laugh if a person of Polish heritage tells a Polish joke and you're not Polish? Are there Southerners who object to the images put forward by Larry the Cable Guy? If you see Mantan Moreland in an old horror movie say, "Feet, do your duty!" is it funny or an embarrassment?

I don't know. Do you?

Let's face it, most of have us have either made a remark deemed inappropriate or heard something that was simply wrong. And we all know that how someone says something, to whom and in what context colors that joke or comment.

If you're offended how do you change things? I like to think it's through discussion.

I hoping this national dialogue doesn't get sidetracked by politics or taken over by self-appointed holier-than-thous. People should start talking about what is acceptable speech.

By the way, in my opinion, I'm glad that Imus was fired for his remarks. It wasn't humor and it hurt innocent people.

© 2007 by Gordon Michael Dobbs


Bill Dusty said...

I don't know, Mike, I have never heard or read of any right-winger accusing a liberal of using "hate speech," unless it was in a joking, mocking tone. The term "hate speech," when used as a serious accusation, is a strictly liberal reference meant to silence those who oppose the "progressive" point of view.

I also disagree with the inclusion of Bill O'Reilly on your "hate speech" list of radio hosts. Rush Limbaugh is a bit too pompous and stuck-up for my liking, and Mike Savage is insane. But Bill's viewpoints are openly shared by very many millions of Americans - myself included. It's very easy - and convenient - for the Left to say that conservatives are all mean and hateful people, and so their viewpoints can be dismissed (or shouted down) altogether. But that does not make it correct. I have heard plenty of vile statements issued forth from the mouths of liberals (have ya read Alan Bisbort's rantings lately?), but you will never hear conservatives call for the "banning" of such speech (or publications).

Free speech is for everyone, not just the students at UMass.

Marky Mark said...

You hope the national discussion does not get sidetracked by politics, but you trot out Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Savage as the hate speech trio again. Come on, Mikey. Are you going to say that because you said "there are those who say" that you yourself are not guilty of choosing sides?

If you are truly unaware of hate speech on the left, and would like some examples, I'll get you some. There are those who say there is hate speech across the board.

Mike Dobbs said...

Okay you two liberals can mouth off as well and it can be hateful.

My reason, Mark, for bring up radio pundits is to try to draw a distinction between "humor" and "opinion" and the respective contexts in media.

Imus engaged in hate speech as far as I'm concerned and many view him as a "liberal" of some sort. The fact that many conservative talk show shotst saw Imus' firing as an attack on free speech indicated to me they were concerned on some level of having their statements viewed by the same standard.

Personally I don't see what they do as the same as what Imus did, but they did.

Bill... Michael Savage is getting the annual Freedom of Speech Award from Talkers Magazine at its annual seminar/convention nect month. He's getting the recognition as a conservative who "dared" to criticize Bush. Since I'll be there to cover the event, I'll be curious to see how Savage is "off-camera" so to speak.

Bill Dusty said...


I think Savage is actually hilarious when he gets unhinged. He cracks us up in the office here when he flies off the handle. But for me, personally, he's just too nuts to take seriously. And I also don't like his notion that if you don't agree with his beliefs, then you're either stupid or some kind of degenerate loser. I don't like it when liberals behave that way, and it doesn't sound any better when a conservative says it.

Keep us updated!

dogboy443 said...

Off Topic:

MIke, any oidea what's going on with Steve Bissette's Blog? For a week or so it was reporting overage on his bandwidth and now the newe message is that it isn't on that server anymore? Have you heard anything? I wrote him this wek but didn't get a response.

Mark Masztal

SRBissette said...

O'Reilly regularly uses Morton Downey Jr. tactics in his Fox News forums and program -- shouting down guests, cutting off microphones, etc. It's spiteful, belligerent and utterly manipulative misbehavior, bullying of the worst kind. He's done it to tin liberal guests (a beloved target group on Fox, in particular) and to 9/11 family survivors alike, and it functions not a bit as news, commentary, journalism or entertainment. "Hate speech"? No, arguably not. Hateful behavior? You bet.