Don Imus and the State of Public Discourse

The controversy sparked by Don Imus’ comments about a Rutgers basketball team prompted an e-mail exchange between Bob Steele and Butch Ward. What follows is an edited version of their conversation.  The exchange took place before CBS Radio and MSNBC announced Monday evening that they were suspending Imus for two weeks, but the issues remain relevant.

By Butch Ward and Bob Steele
Poynter Faculty

Butch Ward: Yo, Bob,

I’ve got a question for you:

Do journalists have any responsibility for the level of discourse in this country?

I’ve been thinking about this question for a while now, ever since we gathered some of the best minds in the online world at Poynter to discuss whether we could agree on some guidelines and standards for the Web. I think it’s safe to say we agreed on very few.

In the months since, I’ve watched the evolution of web civilization continue, along with a continuing decline in the quality — and civility — of conversations. Throw in the quality of discourse on our traditional platforms — think Imus and most talk radio hosts — and I’d argue we’re in free-fall.

Here’s where we are: If I can call you an idiot without using one of George Carlin’s favorite words, I can get published or aired. Indeed, if I can avoid using obscenity, I can tell you that you’re so wrong you should be dead.

And I can do it without telling you my name.

Is that the level of discourse this country wants? And needs?

Bob Steele: As media professionals and journalists we certainly have a responsibility for the quality of the content we produce. It is about civics and it’s about the civility of the discourse. I believe respect is a linchpin value in a healthy society. When respect diminishes or disappears, the society corrodes from within.

This is also about ethics, of course. We have a responsibility to use wisely the tools we have at our disposal. Don Imus happens to have a really big platform and a very large megaphone. His voice carries loud and far.

Imus was wrong to say what he said about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It was hateful and harmful. And he’s been spouting similar smears on his shows for years.

There’s nothing funny about racism and homophobia. There’s nothing humorous about denigrating people based on their gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, disability, accent or ethnicity. It’s disrespectful and damaging.

It’s inane to argue that Imus is an “equal-opportunity offender,” as some suggest. There is no positive value in bashing everyone equally.

And journalists who condone Imus’ behavior by going on his program and not challenging and condemning his verbal beatings are culpable.

Sadly, the latest incident involving Imus is reflective of much of what is happening on our media landscape.

Butch Ward: Back in March, the Orange County Register invited comments on its website to a story about April Branum, a 420-pound woman who learned she was pregnant two days before giving birth to a son. According to the paper’s March 10 follow-up story, nearly 200 comments had been posted anonymously, and Branum’s fiance, Walter Edwards II, complained to the Register about the nature of many of the comments.

“If I could reach through my computer and strangle them, I would,” the paper quoted Edwards as saying. “It just isn’t working right. The Register is a news company. That is not news.”

The story said one subscriber, who canceled her subscription, called the comments “a breeding ground for hatred, racism and bigotry.”

Do we have any responsibility for the quality of those comments? I’m not talking about legal responsibilities. I’m talking civics here.

It seems to me we have to come at this question from two directions: first, how do our own journalists affect the community’s conversations through our blogs, columns and on-air commentary?

And second, now that we’re providing the community with greater access to public discourse than ever before, what responsibility do we have for the quality of their conversation?

Bob Steele: The digital arena does give us many possibilities for new conversations. The journalists can explore and examine the issues much more quickly and in different forms. And it’s great to bring the public into the discussions in more ways.

But, there are many ethical mine fields on this digital landscape, and the example you site is a perfect example of explosions waiting to happen. What were the folks at the Register thinking when they asked for comments on that story? What did they expect to happen? The Register drew a big target and urged folks to fire away. Why would they allow respondents to attack this woman? There is no value in creating a forum for abuse. And giving the attackers the protection of anonymity only heightens the potential for serious problems.

This case is a perfect example of a lack of foresight by the media professionals and a failure to hold anyone accountable.

Butch Ward: A story in Monday’s New York Times reports that some high-profile bloggers are so concerned with this question that they’re proposing voluntary standards aimed at achieving some level of civility in public conversations.

Where are media companies in this effort? Shouldn’t we care?

Bob Steele: Definitely we should care. Media companies are still powerful even as the dynamics of the marketplace shift. Many citizens still get much of their news from the mainstream media. Journalists and other media professionals should be an integral part of the discussion about how to honor important values and practice high-quality work no matter what the platform.

That’s why we held that conference last Fall to reiterate important principles and develop guidelines for the practice of ethical journalism in the online era.

Butch Ward: Bob, it seems to me that we’ve got a big reason to address this issue right now. The 2008 presidential election might be as important as any this country has ever faced. And unless we do something to lift the quality of our public discourse, we will not only miss another opportunity to have an informed, productive discussion of issues, we will spend the entire campaign creating ways to call each other stupid, unpatriotic morons without using four-letter words.

Isn’t that a cause that journalists should embrace?