Whitlock: The House That Glass Built

As we deftly pointed out earlier this week, Don Imus is once again on trial in the court of public opinion. A court better known as being at the mercy of Rev. Al Sharpton.

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.

Way more!

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 Whitlock them.

Imus: How Dare He!

The curmudgeonly, pale artifact that is Don Imus has once again raised the ire of enlightened minds the world over.

On Monday's show, Imus and Wolf were discussing Adam Jones' request Saturday that people stop using his nickname (Pacman). Wolf explained Jones was suspended from the NFL following a shooting at a Las Vegas nightclub, and he added that Jones had been "arrested six times since being drafted by Tennessee in 2005."
Imus' next words were, "What color is he?"

First of all, how dare he.

To pretend that he is not aware what race Adam (the artist formerly known as Pacman) Jones is, is perhaps the most indulgent pretence of ignorance that has been witnessed. The notion that anyone remotely attentive to the sports media would not be aware of Mr. Jones' heritage, through seeing his image in some medium, is simply not entertainable.

No, Mr. Imus was well aware of Mr. Jones 'race' when he put the question to Mr. Wolf. Well, well aware.

That means, that Mr. Imus asked the question with a specific agenda. And, as our readers would agree, asking about race in a veiled manner with a specific agenda, climbs the slippery slope that is racism.

The answer Mr. Imus received to his question:

Told by sports announcer Warner Wolf that Jones, who used to be nicknamed Pacman, is "African-American," Imus responded: "There you go. Now we know."

Now we know. As if we didn't know before the question was asked.

But, to what end this diabolical line of questioning?

"I meant that he was being picked on because he's black," Imus said in a statement released by his spokesman.

The incident becomes more offensive!

This response, calculated and after the fact, was clearly meant as means to throw water on the rapidly burning inferno.

How dare he!

How dare Mr. Imus pretend to be in a position to assume that an individual is being singled out because he is Negro. Are we to believe there is currency in Mr. Imus' statement just because in the past he expertly singled out the women of Rutgers Basketball because they were Negro?

We think not.

Clearly, Mr. Imus is attempting to sabotage Mr. Jones' image rehabilitation project by attempting to champion him. Knowing full well that his support will ruin Mr. Jones' efforts.

However, Mr. Jones can take measure and release.

Civil rights leader Al Sharpton, one of the chief critics who successfully pushed for Imus' firing from his televised radio show last April, criticized Imus' comments Monday.

"I find the inference of his remark disturbing because it plays into stereotypes," Sharpton said in a statement. "We will determine in the next day or so whether or not his remark warrants direct action on our part."

Indeed.

Mr. Imus' actions will be tried in the court of fairness and justice. The court of the National Action Network.

We anxiously await Rev. Sharpton's verdict on this case. And as we anxiously await, we reflect on some words Jemele Hill shared in her apology on espn.com (apology for using a Hitler reference that got her suspended):

When it comes to race, uncomfortable is best. How can we learn if we always feel good about where we are? The best checks and balances require that we re-evaluate, learn and grow.

Clearly, we get the best of both worlds awaiting Rev. Sharpton's verdict.

No on makes whites more uncomfortable than Sharpton; and no one makes it more difficult for Negroes to feel good about where they are.

It's win-win.

Learn and grow we shall.

Through yet another course designed by Imus and Rev. Al.


And, eventually, we'll get to the part about re-evaluating things.

Imus: The Return

Our position as one of the more visible media watchdogs affords us the opportunity to relay important information and opinions, often purported seemingly as facts, to our readers and followers who desire an interpretation of important events without the taint provided by the mainstream media.

We advocate for news, not taint. And, we feel most can justifiable join us in this endeavor.

Most will recall the not so distantly removed racial diatribe enacted by Don Imus and his klansmen. Imus and his henchmen conducted a verbal lynching of the Negro females of the Rutgers women's basketball team. Not only stealing the shine of their Final Four appearance, but improbably detracting from the general quality of their futures. By openly belittling their race - and degrading their hair - Imus enacted a modern day version of the old Southern tradition of slave rape. The psychological damage of Imus verbally forcing his will upon the young Negresses is incalculable. We won't know for years the true damage that the penetration of his words has caused.

Now, months later, Imus is back on the airwaves.

To his credit, he introduced his new side kick, a brilliantly talented and hysterically comic Negro woman. He also acquainted us with his new sports commenter. A knowledgeable and well spoken Negro man. Certainly, we are proud to see these Negroes in the media gain employment based solely on their merits. Imus and producers actively giving positions to the best possible applicants and the applicants that best gel with his comedy and commentary stylings certainly gives full credence to the notion that this new Imus Show is a rebirth in both ideology and outlook. It isn't simply just a rehashing of the old Imus Show in black face.

Certainly, we could never be accused of judging others. That simply isn't our vocation. But we find it interesting that the Imus Show will be aired on TV on something called 'RFD' (we think), which apparently is a special network set up for 'rural' America. And, we must say, it's about time the needs of 'rural' America are being addressed. For ages we have heard the 'rural' segment of America clamoring for more Negro side kicks and sports commenters.

Just as Negro America is in debt to Imus for showing us that it is possible to rehabilitate the 'taint', 'rural' America is now in debt to Imus for bring them -what for many- is their first 'interaction' with Negroes.

We applaud Imus for building bridges in this country between 'rural' America and Negro America.

Nothing but good can come of Imus' newest endeavor which is focused on proactive undertakings, and not simple reactive preventive measures.

And, in thanking Imus, we ALL must admit to a debt of gratitude to the Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton was criticized for his views on this and demanding Imus be fired. But, now we see what the Rev really had in mind.

Sometimes, you must clear a field to plant a new crop.

And manure is the best of fertilizers.

Rutgers Player Suing Imus

Kia Vaughn, the center on the Rutgers women's' basketball team, is suing Don Imus (and the broadcasters) for his derogatory remarks about the Lady Knights.

Vaughn was humiliated, embarrassed and publicly mocked for the comments, the lawsuit claims.

No dollar amount was specified in the suit. And rest assured, despite the announcement of Imus' $20M settlement with CBS earlier in the day, this is about respect.

Vaughn, who was a center, had spoken out about Imus on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" in April. She said that the comments overshadowed her team's amazing season, one the coach has called the most rewarding of her career. "Our moment was stolen from us," Vaughn said then. "Instead of us coming here to enjoy what we accomplished and how far we came, we had to sit back and look at media asking questions about what he said."

And certainly, one would expect that in the world of high profile college sports, nothing would ever overshadow the game. Nothing would detract from the moment for the players.

We can look to men's sports as the precedent. The players always come first. Their experience and the chance to bask in the moment always are the paramount focus building up to any big game. And after big games, they are exclusively allowed the chance to enjoy the moment without any intrusion from the media.

It's only fair for a female team to expect the same treatment. Particularly when the culprit --the moment stealing thief-- is a half-baked, semi-coherent shock jock.

And then, the media scrutiny.

It seems only fair that Imus pay. And pay dearly for what he put these women through and for damaging their reputation.

Calling them "ho's" insinuated that they were prostitutes. And it forced the women to hold press conferences and appear on talk shows to explain. To explain that; no, no they aren't prostitutes. Despite the lewd off handed attempt to be funny by the ancient shock jock, they were wonderful student athletes. Examples for young women everywhere to follow.

The women even had to endure article after article and column after column written in support of their character and demonizing the man that attempted to sully their good name.

We can only imagine the pain these women experienced as they were burdened with the equivalent of a "scarlet letter" hung 'round their collective neck. Imagining that every male eye that gazed upon them was considering, "wonder how much those Rutgers women that I think are prostitutes because Imus called them ho's charge for an around the world?"

We shudder at the thought.

We shudder at the life altering after effects. Clearly, all these girls want is to return to the anonymity they enjoyed before Imus verbally savaged them.

But they can't.

Litigation requires them to file papers. And filing papers means the media will report it.

The damaging cycle created by Imus continues.

"This is about Kia Vaughn's good name," Ancowitz said. "She would do anything to return to her life as a student and respected basketball player -- a more simple life before Imus opened his mouth on April 4."

And clearly, the main step in the healing process is having her lawyer hold a press conference to alert the world to the law suit.

Let the healing begin.