Uncategorized

in

The firing of radio shock jock Don Imus is the sad conclusion of one of the greatest media overreactions I have ever seen. Consider the brief, ignorant, racist phrase ("nappy-headed hos") by Imus. Weigh that against his 30+ years as an on-air radio host with no past history of racial tirades and his charitable contributions to society. Is this a person to make an example of?

In a world where nearly every hiphop album, indie to mainstream, includes the word "ho," and sex crimes and murders are reported on your morning, evening and nightly news, media chooses to crucify a declining, elderly shock jock who tried to sound hip by repeating a phrase he doesn't know the full meaning of.

Don't blame a slow news cycle. Don't blame the lazy producer who didn't bleep him out. Blame a media ecosystem that has decided that race should be elevated above all else.

So, who are the real losers of the Don Imus fiasco?

The Tennessee women's basketball program.
After defeating Rutgers to win the NCAA women's national championship, Tennessee's achievement has been overshadowed by the hype surrounding Imus, and Rutgers has been all over the news since. Heck, Rutgers -- not Tennessee -- even made an appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."

In a few years, ask someone who won the women's basketball national championship in 2007 and that person will probably say, "Rutgers." It's a damn shame because those champion Tennessee players worked their entire lives to get to this point, probably the greatest acheivement of their athletic careers, but the media is more interested in condemning the two-second phrase Imus uttered instead of praising the players who won one of the most coveted titles in all of women's sports.

Terminally-ill children.
Let's talk about judging a person's character by actions instead of words. Imus maintains a ranch near Santa Fe where children who have cancer or serious blood disorders, or who have lost siblings to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, can spend a week in the summer and briefly escape their distress and enjoy a cowboy lifestyle — at no cost to their families.

According to the AP, the Imus Ranch, which features a re-creation of the main street of a 19th-century Western town, a swimming pool, an indoor horse-riding arena, an outdoor rodeo arena, and barns, "hosted 90 children from March 2005 through February 2006 and spent $2.5 million — or about $28,000 a child — according to its most recent federal tax filings. That's at least 10 times what the Make-A-Wish or similar camps spend on kids."

"There's not an African-American parent on the planet who has sent their child to the Imus Ranch who didn't trust me and trust my wife," Imus said on his show. "And when these kids die, we don't just go to the white kid's funeral."

Nearly half of children who stay at the ranch are from minority groups and 10 percent are black, according to the AP. The future of Imus Ranch is now threatened as Imus no longer has the income to support the ranch and corporations may decide to withdraw their support.

Society.
It's proof that race relations in America are so improved that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson now run into each other getting to a pulpit over a trivial phrase by a has-been radio host. We've come too far to hype such a minor incident and continue to elevate racism above all the other bigotries that threaten this society's progress.

Further, let's be able to forgive those who regret and move on to focus on the greater problems (war, poverty, healthcare, etc.) that afflict us.

in

WIB Editor's Note: I asked Wesley to write a guest blog for me about the passing of Kurt Vonnegut, knowing that Vonnegut is one of his favorite authors. Wesley replied, "I can't remember the last time I had such difficulty writing something... because there is no author in my life that has impacted quite like Vonnegut. How do you find the words to some up a man that gave words and definition to your philosophy on life?" WIB presents guest blogger Wesley Magee.

“I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.” – Kurt Vonnegut

A friend of mine recently asked me what I intended to do with my future on this earth. At the time, I thought the answer was too complicated to be summed up in a short conversation. I was wrong.

With the passing of Kurt Vonnegut, one the most prolific American authors of the past century, we are provided with a greater opportunity to reflect on life the way he always did: through a very small window containing moments that take us from one person/place to the next. Nothing more. We scramble around in a world of information attempting to amass greater knowledge about the things that surround us with brains growing at a rate that will eventually destroy us (Galapagos), when the most important things we need to remember are the names of those that surround us and care.

Vonnegut lived every moment as an adventure in the hearts of others. As a man who has written 14 novels and countless short stories, essays, and plays, (many were best selling and eventually made into movies) he even approached the writing process with the same “simple,” “personal” attitude. Choosing to always send out his writings to be typed and refusing to buy multiple envelopes or stamps, he awarded himself the opportunity, at the end of every piece of writing, to take a walk down to the corner store. While most of us would have regarded this as an inefficient waste of time, he saw it as an opportunity to talk and be around people (it also didn’t hurt that he had a crush on the girl behind the counter). Just fart around. It’s what we do best.

For those of you out there wishing to emulate the life of a man who lived life by his rules, take his advice: "If you really want to disappoint your parents, and don't have the nerve to be gay, go into the arts.”

I will end my note honoring Vonnegut’s life by reflecting on his death the way he would have preferred. With the same numb understanding that death is a part of life we all must go through. Kurt, you will be missed. “So it goes.” (Slaughter House 5)

in

Anna, my favorite journalism-school-chick-turned-hot-blonde-business-reporter emailed me today asking: Does your employer have an ethics policy? If so, does it address the issue of social networking and personal blogging? Good questions.

Anna is on the ethics committee at her newspaper, The Bend Bulletin, and the committee is revisiting its policies to address these questions and create rules to help reporters maintain objectivity in the eye of their audiences. Young journalists, like many entering the workforce, often maintain MySpace pages and/or personal blogs, which may threaten the unbiased profiles they must maintain. Anna actually chose to take her own blog down last year because she didn't want her personal opinions and beliefs to jeopardize her credibility and reputation as a journalist.

My PR firm absolutely maintains an ethics policy. There are statements about conflicts of interest with other occupations, activities, etc., but blogs and social networking are not called out specifically. I keep my MySpace profile private to the public but know plenty of coworkers who maintain public MySpace profiles. I, of course, maintain one of the world's most influential blogs on the Internet and now have an in-office readership, similar to the one I developed at PRWeb, which has led to no consequence. However, I also know that my firm does Google searches as part of employee background checks. I assume my bosses saw my blog before I walked in the door.

I don't think Anna's newspapers should rule out blogs entirely. Some people may keep family blogs, or non-editorial kinds of blogs, but any content that may risk objectivity should be a no-no. I say that these are OK but perhaps the committee should require employees to disclose the addresses of their personal blogs or Web sites. Guidelines defining inappropriate content, such as commenting on news, could help reporters determine the boundaries of their personal blogs, too.

MySpace is too socially prevalent to restrict, but the newspaper should require that employees keep their profiles private to the public. Some "party" pictures of a recent job applicant circulated around my office recently, which management found on MySpace. The applicant was hired regardless, which shouldn't come as a surprise if you've seen my pictures here. Everyone at the office likes to party.

Anna's newspaper should rewrite its ethics policy to include guidelines about appropriate blogging and social networking activity, but should not entirely dismiss its employees' ability to explore and utilize the online tools and resources that can enrich their lives without necessarily sacrificing their journalistic integrity.

Lastly, I advise Anna not to look too much further outside the journalism world for ethical guidelines. Why ask a guy about the ethics policies of a PR firm? We actually don't believe in ethics. We're supposed to be biased and sleezy, remember?