Opinion
 ............................

The common answer to all those charges is that none of them are relevant to the discussion about what Imus said and the appropriateness of his punishment. A fair discussion should be about Imus, his remarks and about the females he targeted. Extraneous opinions about other people and their bigotry or insensitivity do not apply.

Besides not being relevant, Imus defenders’ claims are wrong on most points. First, BET is a television channel owned as a subsidiary of the mostly white corporate entity called Viacom Inc. It operates BET Networks and County Music TV, Paramount Pictures and more than a hundred other media outlets. It describes BET as its programming outlet directed at the African-American audience.

Households other than those labeled African-American watch BET, because Viacom claims that it reaches 80 million households. However, there are only about 40 million Americans labeled African-Americans or about 10 million households. Those are the facts. Imus defenders can revise their race-based beliefs or continue them as they see fit.

Second, Imus defenders argued a contrived version of events. They claimed he was punished excessively for making the same racially insensitive remarks others made and for using “Ho” the same as rappers do in hip hop music on BET.

Rappers use “Ho”’ as a disrespectful term of hatred for women. However, Imus called ten particular young female college athletes “Hos.” The difference in significance is the difference between someone saying attorneys are dishonest crooks and someone saying on a national broadcast the attorneys at ABC Law Corporation are dishonest crooks. It is the difference between comedians joking about priests as pedophiles and one of them claiming that priests in a particular parish are pedophiles. It is the difference between objectionable language and slander.

Imus was specific enough in his derogatory remarks that he identified those young women to his national audience. We know their university and the sports team they played on. I won’t repeat their names, because they already suffered enough indignity from him. I will say that they are five freshmen, three sophomores and two junior college athletes on Rutgers University women’s basketball team. This means the sixty-something Imus attacked the reputation of 18, 19 and 20 year-old young women. They had just competed in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Women’s Basketball tournament finals. This is one of America's most wholesome and respected amateur events.

Another fact Imus defenders omitted was that he defamed those students for financial gain. This was not an event where some sixtyish man and his cronies stood around naughtily joking about young college women and overstepped. Imus intentionally included those sick, slanderous comments in his broadcast as part of a paid performance. Obviously, he lacked the talent to fulfill his contract except at those young students’ expense.

All journalists who defended Imus were being duplicitous. They knew, or should have known, the news media and entertainment industry exact performance standards. One inexcusable rule is the prohibition against knowingly offering or using false information. All writers and journalists whether freelanced or employed know they face banishment if their employer learn they met a deadline by fabricating a story based on false information. Even the comedy entertainment field requires that comedians base their biting reputation-trashing humor on some kernel of fact.

Imus had no kernel of fact to support his remarks. His defenders knew this; nevertheless, they tried to redeem his career by making phony, race-based connections between those young women and some misogynous content on BET. This deceitful ploy implies that those college women of African descent did not have a reputation of worth to society that it should protect or restore it at the cost of this white broadcaster’s career no matter his bad conduct.

Imus defenders’ remarks degrade those students as much as he did. In addition, they mock American decency standards.

Kenneth Brooks is a freelance writer and speaker. Contact him at P.O. Box 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. E-mail to: opinion@ethicalego.com.