Commentary: Imus & Media Apartheid

Indeed, the Imus to-do goes beyond the righteous Rutgers women. It's about who gets to speak on the public airwaves -- and who owns them. Here is an excerpt from an insightful piece from Brent Budowsky at My DD.

First things first. Who wasn’t proud of those women from the Rutgers basketball team who showed such dignity, class, and respect in their response to the travesty committed against them?

I was reading a post by a white male liberal radio host, associated with an almost totally white liberal radio network, run by white males, owned by white males, writing on an almost totally white liberal blog about the Imus affair.

He was writing about the bigoted words of another white male host, televised on a cable network run by white males, owned by a national television network run by white males, which is owned by a global conglomerate run by white males.

His basic point, not worthy of great comment here, was that while he was oh-so-concerned with what Imus said, Imus must remain since this is all about freedom of speech.

He reminded me of Mike Dukakis, who, when asked during a debate how he would react if a criminal had pulverized his wife, gave a dissertation about constitutional law.

Sorry, pal, the Imus affair is not about free speech. If he wants to throw these bigoted hate words in the face of some glorious young women, he has the right to do so, on any street corner.

The issue here is whether a publicly owned media company, in a publicly regulated industry, with sponsors dependent on the public goodwill of their customers, with some serious standard of corporate responsiblity, should peddle this crap for profit on the public airwaves.

Let’s be clear: Media barons not only allow but encourage bigotry, anger, smear, derision and disrespect so long as it is good for business.

Again: Save Internet radio -- the only FREE media.