|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Apr 13, 2007 2:52 pm |
|
re: Politics of "Celebrity" Free Speech |
Frederick A. Babb
| |
I have to admit, up until this week, I never knew who Don Imus was (ok, living in Spain does have its benefits of not having to be exposed to such entertainment). But, maybe that permitted me to look at this without any prejudice of his past performances.
What I have decided from researching. Imus likes to be degrading, harsh, it short...the king shock jock. So, in saying that what comes out of the mouth is what is felt in the heart, I would offer an argument to that.
Is Imus really the badboy he portrays on the radio, or is the badboy on the radio being portrayed by him? Is he a politically incorrect man who doesn’t give a damn about what people think nor does he have to be always looking for someway to keep his listeners engaged?
Above all, Imus is a paid performer and, as with all performers, you have to deliver to your audience if you want to keep a job. So, now, can anyone say that while Imus made a bad decision on his words, his behavior wasn’t exactly shocking? Research indicates that the listeners expected (maybe to a lower level of political incorrectness) this type of behavior from Imus and that is why they listened to him. And, with the ever increasing world of “shock jocks” out there, how does one make themselves marketable? They do so by “outdoing” the other shock jocks.
Somehow, despite losing his job, I have a strange suspicion that Imus won’t be collecting unemployment benefits for long. Publicity, even negative, is a good thing in the world of entertainment.
So, in a sense, I agree with Linda. However, what I do find disturbing is that a group of shock jocks are so successful. That reflects on the mentality of the listening public in YourTown, USA. If there weren’t a demand for such shock jocks, they wouldn’t be on the air. The problem isn’t Imus or Stern or any other shock jock. The problem is in the hearts of those that continue to listen to them and create the demand to keep them gainfully employed.
Private Reply to Frederick A. Babb (new win) |
|
| |
|
