The good Mr. Jason Whitlock focused his latest foxsports.com column on Imus' latest crime against Adam Jones.
To sum up the piece, Whitlock essentially believes that the media is capitalizing on the controversy of Imus' mouth/remarks to get readers/viewers/listeners (ratings!) and hyping and sensationalizing the incident; rather than promoting an intellectual exploration of the roots of the problems.
The O.J. Simpson double-murder trial taught white television and radio executives they could attract huge ratings by allowing a white host to referee a simple-minded argument pitting opposing views on an alleged black-white racial dispute.
Certainly, some might say that white television and radio executives had learned this lesson of pitting diametrically oppositional views against each other from other topics (maybe, say....politics?) to highlight controversy, present conflict and get ratings. But, yes indeed, racial topics certainly do fold themselves into a neat package for such a possibility, as well.
Under the guise of promoting racial dialogue, the networks have created a collective talk-show hybrid, "The Mr. Gerald Springer III Show," a shirt-and-tie, race-based spinoff of "Jerry Springer."
Indeed, any outlet or programming (or writing) that would sensationalize race issues certainly walks a thin line; toeing the border between relevancy and side show entertainment. When one sensationalizes race dialogue or issues, the motive clearly is to get attention. It is obviously a desperate attempt to gain ratings. Or, to promote oneself. Indeed, many a career has been enhanced through self promotion. And more than a few of that many have been enhanced by attaching themselves to race, in a quest to get invites to speak in front of a camera.
It's no secret I like to write about and discuss race. The problem is I like to do it in an honest, intelligent fashion.
Agreed. We certainly have heard of better kept secrets. And the coining of the phrases 'bojanglin' and 'Black KKK' certainly lends itself to the sort of discussion generally reserved for academia. Certainly, not this sensationalistic type of race 'discussion' perpetrated by the ratings mongering white media. Indeed!
So the interview requests poured in for me this week.
No, sir. This was a full-blown racial controversy, a Nielsen-ratings-mover, a chance for white talk-show hosts to climb into the Octagon and let Kimbo Slice and Jimbo White Rice knuckle up until the viewers tapped out.
I took a pass.
A pass indeed!
What self respecting Negro columnist would allow himself to be a pawn in the white media's ratings game? A game which treats institutionalized racism as simply a topic to provide grandstanding guests to attract viewers? We are proud that Mr. Whitlock chose to avoid this ridiculous topic and sat out the effort to fuel the white media's ever consumptive fire for racial controversy fueled ratings by not giving Mr. Imus' remarks undue attention.
Huzzah! for Mr. Whitlock, with his fist held high in the air not so much as stopping to acknowledge this latest ridiculous controversy. Huzzah!
The networks don't want to really get into this issue, not in a substantive way.
For shame, networks! The networks are probably simply happy to coin sensational catch phrases and hope that other news outlets will mention them...and bring in more ratings. For shame.......networks!
I sensed that the TV networks (and hosts and regular guests) desperately wanted Obama to win because they realized he gave them an easy racial angle to talk about whenever there was no legitimate news to address.
These networks. And their laziness. We, like Mr. Whitlock, could never respect an entity that takes the easy way out and presents some sort of contrived racial angle at any opportunity. As Mr. Whitlock's column on the absurdity of the latest Imus controversy and the leeches trying to get readers/viewers off it so honestly points out, we believe race issues should be reserved only for those who have proven capable in addressing or discussing them.
My point is that what Imus said warrants discussion. We just don't need to discuss Imus. He is not our problem.
Allahu Akhbar, Brother. And, anyone who mentions Imus more than 14 times in one column certainly would be playing right into the evil white media's sensationalistic hands.
Mentioning him 14 times is just the amount to invoke the adequate intellectual discourse, however.
Pacman Jones, with his off-field antics and stupidity, has done more damage to the image of American black men than Don Imus could ever hope to do.
So let's call Pacman what he is:
A bojanglin' member of the Black KKK...
...and let us keep it intellectual and thoughtful.
And let us avoid the white media's machinations of sensationalistic racial discourse in an effort to get people to notice