Facts are not as important as myths Part 3 - 11.7.2007.3

Continued from Facts are not as important as myths Part 2...

Michael Richards went into a racist rant, and was only covered in the news after 2 ½ days of the video being at the top of YouTube. Within 24 hours the story was turned into how this might affect DVD sales of the Seinfeld show.

Don Imus took 3 days before it reached the major news airwaves. Within 2 days after that the question from pundits and news anchors was why certain words were promoted by rap artists. The questioning never addressed the fact that there have been constant debates, arguments and articles against the use of these words for over a decade. The questions also failed to address that corporate executive’s greenlighted the marketing and solicitation of a specific type of music that contains only these words, and that they virtually removed artists that promoted any other form of the genre.

I can go on. There is the month long attention to the death of Anna Nicole Smith, and the scant attention to the death or month long delay of the burial of James Brown. 2 days of conversation about Ellen Degeneres whining about a pet vs. coverage of the above mentioned Megan Williams. I’m just picking major stories; I have discussed all of these individually in blog posts.

The point is that there is a bias in the media. I’ve said it over and over again. The result is that there is the image of all African American males as being stupid, violent, drug-addicted, felons. It’s not true. It’s not even close.

Yet there is no suggestion of White males as being wife killing, co-worker murdering, school mass murdering, hate promoting fiends. If there was a fairness, an equality of the major media, that would be the conclusion. It’s actually more accurate as the numbers show. But the mere suggestion of such a thing evokes anger and cries of lack of education.

Without knowing these numbers I recently claimed that young White males are the most dangerous people in America today. For that I was told I was mentally challenged, a fool, and uneducated (all in far more colorful and explicative laden wording, which is why it was not approved). But having done the numbers it seems I was not only right, I am dramatically right.

Yet for all this information, for all the facts that more Whites are killed in a given year – overwhelmingly by other Whites – over the last 29 years (if not longer) and in every year, Blacks are feared and demonized. African American males, of all ages but particularly the youth, are considered dangerous and animalistic yet without real validation.

Concluded in part 4...

Rev. Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton - 6.7.2007.2

Here is a hot match for you. Rev. Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton. Just titillating don’t you think? Perhaps if you don’t you need to chug a 12 pack of beer. For those not inebriated I will continue.

It would seem that some exec over at Fox News, if not several other news organizations, thought that this match up made sense. Between 4 and 6pm there has been footage of Rev. Al Sharpton commenting on the news that Paris Hilton was released from prison and now is confined to 4000 sq. feet at her Hollywood mansion home for the next 40 days. I assume that whoever was the person making decisions on who to interview for an opinion of this news was inebriated. Why else pick Rev. Sharpton.


Rev. Sharpton has a dubious history, and is well noted for championing issues that solely affect African Americans. His efforts have had mixed results, the most recent being the removal of Mr. Don Imus from the public airwaves. That effort was one which I shared his view on. Other views not so much. Yet, the media has titled Rev. Sharpton as a leader of the Black community. I don’t know how he became one, nor do I recognize him in such a position, but the media seems to believe all the same.

Yet, without the sensationalism provided by the newspapers, Mr. Sharpton would probably not have become a known figure. Even with the newspapers influence what has he acheived? Has his presence led to changes in the actions of police in NYC in 1987? in 1989 or 91? Has he helped to create legislation that improves peoples lives? Is he taken seriously politically when he speaks about a subject?

Paris Hilton is a spoiled, inept, seemingly obtuse individual. Oh I forgot to mention that she has a trust fund that has almost as many digits as the national gross product of Belgium. Given that last fact Ms. Hilton has had few people reject her desires to be in movies, make record albums, and generally pretend she has talent. She has far too much money and the family has far too much clout to say no, in most cases. Such is the shame of her life, in my opinion. In my opinion having a lot of money is not a redeeming quality.

I have to say, I hope that Ms. Hilton gets a cell with ‘Shanequa’ and ‘Betty Jean Sue’. Let her think that her name will get her out of cleaning a toilet, and a couple of those rough-neck girls will straighten her out on the real facts of life. Perhaps that will help her get her act right. Or at least let us all have less chances of being forced to see and hear about her antics. Either one would be good for me.

So some executive said ‘we have to hear Rev. Al Sharpton’s comments. Let’s get the African American view.’ Or so I think it might have gone. Ratings numbers on the rise from a racializing [not a word I know] of an obvious miscarriage of justice must have danced before their eyes.

Yet I must admit that Rev. Al Sharpton was correct in part. He stated, this is the “worst example of a double standard…” There is no question of that. Rev. Sharpton went on to state the more racial inequality of the release of Paris, which I find fault with. This is not based on an issue of Black and White. It’s an issue of celebrities [no matter how dubious the claim to fame] and entertainers, in addition to those ultra-rich, being treated in a massively preferential way.

There is no question that the clout of the Hilton family was a factor in the sudden release of Paris. The D.A. was not even notified of the release. Reportedly he found out via the news just as millions of other have. That smacks of politics in action. The kind of response only large amounts of cash and connections provide. In this respect I agree with Mr. John Gibson (The Big Story anchor on Fox News), that it’s similar to the OJ Simpson trial. If anyone, of any color, has enough money and celebrity, they can beat the system. That is more than a shame, it’s a crime.

Continued in part 2...

Imus is a sympton, what is the problem? - 4.10.2007.2

What a day. There has been a lot of discussion on Mr. Don Imus and his comments against the women’s basketball team for Rutgers University. I’ve written a bit about it as well. I’ve also had, and continue to have several conversations on this with men and women, Whites, Hispanic/Latinos, and African Americans of ages from mid-twenties to the mid-forties. While there is no one that supports Mr. Imus, that I have been in touch with, there are differences in what should be done.

Every woman I have spoken too has been amazed that Mr. Imus would make such a statement. Each has been shocked and outraged by his words. To say that they took his words as offensive is to say the least. Every one of them has been absolute in their decision to see him fired.

As for the men, there are different takes on what the outcome should be. I’ve seen a guy bowled over by the comments, just stunned. I’ve seen a young man that felt it should be shrugged off. I’ve discussed this with a man that felt resignation or firing would be too harsh a punishment. And there have been calls for him to be gone.

So I have absorbed it all. And I have been challenged to explain why I felt the need for Mr. Imus to be fired. I want to share part of my reasoning, because the fact is this goes far deeper to the national psyche than anyone seems to be addressing right now.

Mr. Imus attacked innocent women that never gave a reason for this attack. They did not deserve or engender any reason for it. I doubt that any woman could. But I will give the point that were this a public figure, a politician or comedian or some such, then perhaps there could have been some sliver of humor. Had this been a response to an attack against Mr. Imus, then perhaps there could be some understanding of his words. In either of those cases perhaps there could be room for him keeping his job after an apology. But that is not the case.

I commented yesterday that I felt the decision to suspend Mr. Imus was a vacation being forced on him. I still stand by that thought. My fear was that this was something the corporations behind his radio station wanted to just wait out the storm and go back to business as usual. The fact that the suspension would not take place for a week was puzzling and seemingly confirmation of this. I have heard that the reason for the delay is due to fundraising for charities this week by Mr. Imus. I cannot confirm that right now, though it could explain why the controversy was created, though not excuse it. Obviously NBC and CBS have been evaluating the situation and seeing how the sponsors react, because that is the defining factor for them, money. Were there any other reasons that the corporations cared about action would have been immediate and far sterner.

But the pressure has run up quickly. Mr. Al Roker, who works at NBC, has called for dismissal, along with many others. I have heard that 3 sponsors have left his show, most notably Staples, but again I cannot confirm this. There has been a small protest at CBS corporate offices, and coverage in most news media (except the local Binghamton newspaper). At least one interviewee has canceled so far.


continued at my Black Entertainment USA site ...

Repost - Imus, Rutgers basketball, and Rev. Al Sharpton - 4.9.2007.1

This is a repost of this conversation found at my www.blackentertainmentblog.com - Black Entertainment USA

Ok, I’m a bit behind on this event. What can I say, I don’t like basketball and I don’t listen to either the Imus radio show or the show of Rev. Al Sharpton. As such I only recently found out about the disparaging comments made last Wednesday by Mr. Don Imus. To say I am upset is an understatement.

For those that may be in a similar situation as myself, Mr. Imus called the Rutgers women’s basketball, “…some nappy-headed hos”. This was in response to Mr. Bernard McGuirk’s comment, “some hardcore hos.” By the way, no one has asked for the resignation of Mr. McGuirk, though his comments are no less insulting. Obviously there are a lot of problems here.

Let me start with Mr. McGuirk. The fact that he calls Black women hos is despicable. I understand the argument that calling women as such is common because rappers and hip-hop entertainers do so, but that does not make it proper. I have discussed rappers using such insulting terms to describe women, I disagree with that and I disagree with this. He provided the fuel by which the far better known Mr. Imus created this furor. While I am in favor of severe actions against Mr. Imus, I feel Mr. McGuirk cannot be left out either.

As for Imus, well I’m not surprised. There has been a long history of ill-toned comments against African Americans by him. This is just another example, and furthers the viability of his being removed from the air. I find his apologies half-hearted, motivated by fear of losing his position more than his own true feelings.

Mr. Imus has tried to excuse his commentary, when speaking to Rev. Sharpton, by referring to the fact that other African Americans entertainers and people use this term often. That did not fly with Rev. Sharpton, nor does it with me. That seems to remind me of the comment my mother used to say, “If everyone jumped of a bridge, would you do it to?” To claim that one person should be excused because of the infantile actions of another, when both are acting badly, assumes that everyone involved and everyone listening is stupid. I am not, nor do I believe you my readers are either.

I understand that at 66, Mr. Imus is part of a culture that believe calling Black Americans “colored” or the n-word was a commonplace act. He grew up and was taught that African Americans were second-class citizens at best, and that the need to be separated from them socially and economically was an imperative. I understand that that was the truth of the time of his formative years. Yet that does not excuse his actions. As a seemingly intelligent man, who has worked for decades in entertainment and has lived in the probably most diversified city in the nation, he should know better. He should be capable of understanding that individuals are not stereotypes, and that stereotypes invariably target the worst aspects of any group of people.

An intelligent man does not need to demean women. An intelligent man does not need to comment on a group of sports players based on their hair or its style. An intelligent man does not need to make back-handed “compliments” to be humorous. Most importantly an intelligent man accepts the responsibility and repercussions of their actions and comments, even when this is a detrimental result. That is part of my expectation of any intelligent man.

Pleas that Mr. Imus is a good man are irrelevant. Even less relevant by the fact that it is Mr. Imus making the plea. To speak about the acts of kindness he does for a few does not excuse the damage he does to millions. I don’t care if Mr. Imus despises African Americans. That’s his choice. I do care how he speaks about us in a public forum.

I don’t agree with anyone referring to someone’s hair/hairstyle in a discussion that pertains to anything but that. Hair does not define a person any more than skin color. Does the fact that Mr. Donald Trump may have a hairpiece change anything about him? Does that mean that all men that might have a toupee share his exact qualities? If such an argument sounds ludicrous then the words of Mr. Imus are no less so. What I would like to hear Mr. Imus, and Mr. McGuirk, explain is what makes the Black women of the Rutgers basketball team hos. Then I want to hear what makes their hair nappy. And then perhaps I can hear how either of these comments have anything to do with basketball or the abilities of these women. I would listen to Mr. Imus explain that, and I’d like him to do this in front of the women that he has nationally demeaned. And then he should still be fired. Not resign, fired. He has given up his right to save face in this matter.

I do not often agree with Rev. Al Sharpton, but I find his one comment to be correct, “I accept his apology, just as I want his bosses to accept his resignation.”

This is what I think, what do you think?