Perspective: Imus just the tip of a malevolent tongue

Don Imus talked himself out of a multimillion-dollar job by uttering his now famously intemperate remark about the Rutgers women's basketball team on the air.

On Wednesday MSNBC dropped the simulcast of his radio show, and one day later CBS canned Imus altogether. But the predictable media morality play attending this affair has overshadowed another lesson much closer to (tech) home.

Just in case anyone needed a reminder, the Imus controversy illustrates the worst-case example of what can happen when you give immediate voice to half-baked, unfiltered thoughts. Don't you think this now-abashed shock jock wishes he could have immediately reeled his words back in? Too late for that, but stuff like this happens all the time--especially in cyberspace.

In our e-mail-addicted age, online bad manners are so widespread it's hardly news anymore. I suppose you can make the argument that the phenomenon is yet more evidence that Western civilization is going to the dogs. But that's too easy and evades the issue. Many cyber blowups stem from misunderstandings. Since you can't read the facial expression or listen to the intonation of the person on the other end of an e-mail address, one thing leads to another. Next thing you know, it turns thermonuclear.

One fact of our cyber times is that the civil society slowly evolving in cyberspace too often is not at all civil.

Over the course of my career, I've been the recipient of the occasional heat-seeker from folks who wanted to give me a piece of their mind--not to mention a good kick in the butt. I wonder how many would have refrained from pressing the "send" button if they had had the opportunity to meet me in person? Maybe fewer than I would like to believe. But so it goes.

Some of this is the inevitable friction that attends everyday life. Sartre wrote eloquently about the limits put on individual freedom. The truth of our existence is that we live in a world inhabited by other people. Disagreements are always going to erupt. The question then becomes how to forge proper rules of engagement. These days, when we're reinventing those rules seemingly on the fly, cyberspace has become our national (even global) front porch.

A couple of computer scientists from the University of Pittsburgh are trying to solve the problem through technology. They invented a way to personalize Internet communications with icon software that lets people express their emotions with images they can change to create different facial expressions. Cool stuff, to be sure, but that only addresses the surface question of form, not substance. And when the substance turns ugly or threatening, we're back to square one.

One fact of our cyber times is that the civil society slowly evolving in cyberspace too often is not at all civil. In fact, it has become downright rowdy.

Late last month, Kathy Sierra, who blogs about computer design, received death threats posted to hers and other blogs that convinced her to cancel an appearance at a tech conference. That led to a call by publisher Tim O'Reilly for an online "code of conduct" to govern polite behavior. Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales reposted the guidelines and began soliciting feedback about how to "create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation."

The O'Reilly manifesto caused a momentary flutter among the geekerati. The threats against Sierra were so unnerving that the incident stirred people like O'Reilly to do something. Both O'Reilly and Wales have drawn libertarian criticism for being schoolmarms. The basic rebuttal: "We don't need no stinking codes of conduct, thank you very much."

Give O'Reilly and Wales credit for good intentions. But you can issue well-meaning manifestos until the cows come home and that still won't prevent jerks from acting like jerks. Unlike Imus, the real identities of those who made the threats remain hidden.

The more profound challenge isn't how the wider community should respond. It's whether it can respond. I can't say the outlook is promising. In the absence of any consensus of what constitutes civil behavior online, this debate is fated to remain unsettled for quite some time.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[inachu]

Help me! Should I feel insulted then?

What if I was called "White Bread."

As in:

"Yo White Bread!"

My first response was laughter as I was never called that before in my life.

[Orion Blastar]

It depends

there are worse things you can be called, like cracker or honkey, but you might laugh at those as well.

You should know that they are meant as insults. Less offensive words like redneck or hoosier are used sometimes to insult a white person.

Somehow saying these words does not get one banned like the words that Imus used, but they are still used to insult people.

Sometimes friends call each other insulting names as a joke and in humor. Now it is against the terms of service to use such insulting words. I only used them not to insult, but to inform people that they are used to insult and I did not mean them in an insulting way.

[gggg sssss]

youtube clue

Search youtube for Chris Rock and be prepared to be disgusted - whether you are white or otherwise. This guy makes national TV, the Oscars ( or one of the award droners ) and we hear nothing from Rev Al. ***?

[Orion Blastar]

Freedom of Speech verses Common Decency

That is what is at stake here. How far does freedom of speech go until you can draw a line and say "this far and no farther"?

Most people seem to think that freedom of speech is unlimited and you can say whatever you want to say and get away with it and not get penalized. But if they are lies, you might get sued for libel if they are written or slander if they are spoke, or defamation of character if they harm someone's image. In the USA we even stretched the freedom of speech to cover obscene art, and destroying property like burning a flag.

I think the days of absolute freedom of speech are over, there is going to be limits put on what one can say and do from this point forward.

I think there will be some exceptions:

#1 Insults, be they racial, based on gender, lifestyle, nationality, disability, age, color, religion, creed, etc they are no longer allowed without consequences, like what happened to Imus.

#2 Hate speech, because in a way it discriminates against protected groups and violates their rights and freedoms.

#3 Threats of violence and death. Now to be taken seriously and followed through by the police.

#4 Destruction of property not your own. This is like when those students burned someone else's American flag. Since it was not owned by them, it is destruction of property and arson. Like the Swedish guy in Thailand, he defaced government pictures of the King, which were not his property so it is vandalism. These are now crimes. Yet you can destroy your own property as long as nobody else owns it with you.

#5 Nudity, since the Janet Jackson incident, the FCC is cracking down on TV sports events and shows. There might be a limit on what is shown during normal TV hours and allow nudity during late hours after 9pm when most children are sleeping on network TV. Web sites might be required to check for age before showing nude or pornographic pictures on the Internet, perhaps by verifying a credit card with a credit card company that the person is the age they claim to be, or perhaps entering a driver's license number and verify the age with the state.

#6 Flamewars on the Internet might become a thing of the past. They seem to combine many of these taboo things into one.

[sp_jb]

RE: Freedom of Speech

Problem is ... Who controls that line. You. Me. The government ? I think the primary reason we have freedom of speech is to ensure that the minority have a voice even when the majority do not agree with the opinion expressed.

I find many of these things offensive also, but trying to draw that line in the sand is a slippery slope ... once you put it there, someone will come along to move it back further until you have absolutely no say what so ever.

[gggg sssss]

you first

what moron ( ok there are obviuosly lots of them who buy kiddie pron and then get tracked down ) would put his credit card number into ANY adult website? You first.

[Len Bullard]

Because Mean Is Succeeding

A modular code:

Compassion. Tolerance. Self-restraint.

And a very old one. It works for the same reason other code does or doesn't: lots of time and many runs so thoroughly debugged.

People don't get the point until they feel the pain of the pleasure of the practice. It's not a bad thing to cheer for civility. Leaders should. But as the Imus situation is showing in America, what you are willing to do about it and how deeply you are willing to consider that action before doing it says more about your civility than your abhorrence or acceptance.

A decision, a code, any choice really is drained of its potential by all of the subclauses. As soon as you noticed Sierra's case, you spoke up. What about the years of misbehavior preceding? Did you speak up because she is your friend or a female or an attractive female? Is it a human issue of dignity or a sexist issue of gender over gender?

A thread runs through these debates and others like it. There is an increasing revulsion to violence in the world for reasons too obvious to debate. The web is not a different medium; it just has more readily available microphones so everyone is at the podium right now. That's good, but it isn't that different.

Something like the Imus case becomes an opportunity for many powerful agendas to be attached to an issue of the moment, to ride the media whirlwind into public consciousness until it is so overloaded that it fails to make much change unless followed by an even more egregious incident of the same type. That is terrorist thinking and a terrorist strategy. It is what so many are becoming because by example, they see it working and being intelligent, they adapt to the strategy that is succeeding.

Mean has been succeeding for a long time on the Internet. It isn't men being mean or women being mean, or bloggers being mean or listers being mean, it is mean succeeding. You do better to understand why mean is the successful strategy than to create complex codes that chip away at the freedoms you worked so hard to gain in society and with these technologies.

Until you know why mean succeeds, you don't know what you need to do about it.

[Starfires]

Mean Succeeding

Very articulate post, Len and I have to agree. The problem is that
the loudest voices rise to the top, whether it's right or wrong, it's
what's happening. I actually think people are a lot nicer (or
capable of being so) than they let on, but the web is a place
where they can exert their 'will to power' without the obvious
consequences of trying to do so in the real world.

I actually find that friendly, kind people also succeed quite well
as they generate so much respect... it isn't all so pessimistic this
way. But we do need rules of civility that everyone will follow, or
be embarassed to be seen not following.

Of course, if everyone was more compassionate, we wouldn't
need to worry about all of this, everyone would just be nice all
the time. But if we are going to enjoy the freedom of the net
there needs to be some rules of conduct, of ettiquette.
Otherwise, it won't be so much fun and meaningful
communication will get lost in the crossfire.

[charlie cooper]

Well put, Len!

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Thanks for the post.

[mediadawg]

Not About IMUS

This is not about Don Imus as Al Sharpton has said in one of his many news conferences. The issue is whether *anyone* has the right to use racist speech on federally regulated public airwaves. Al and Jesse have a much larger agenda than getting Imus fired...here is an excerpt from the FCC website-

It?s Against the Law

"It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent, or profane material."

Simply replace the words indecent and profane with "racist" and you begin to see the BIG picture.

Of course this brings into play a whole bunch of issues including First Amendment rights. Where exactly would all of this end?

How about violent programming and violent language?
Then there is misogynist programming and misogynist language.
Let's not forget homophopic programming and homophobic language.

The list is endless.

The public will vote by choosing not to listen and the marketplace will vote by choosing not to advertise. Regulating free speech is NOT the answer.

[paulej]

What racist comment?!?!

I will not disagree with what you said regarding the law and the role of the FCC, but can you (or somebody else) tell me exactly what Imus said that was racist? I agree that what he said about the girls was not very polite, but where is the racist comment? And, don't say it's "nappy-headed", because that is NOT a racist expression. My white family has used that for generations.

Paul

[BakerCG]

Imus and civility? An oxymoron

Charlie:

Enjoyed your post. Thought you might be interested in some personal experience I had with Imus when I was an intern at WNBC 23 years ago.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://bakercg.typepad.com/baker/2007/04/my_week_with_do.html" target="_newWindow">http://bakercg.typepad.com/baker/2007/04/my_week_with_do.html</a>

[peiper1]

from JayD (peiper1)

Baker ... read your blog on Imus. I posted comment there. Very well said.
The man is a total jerk. And this is not the first time his mouth had run away with taste and good manners.

[aureolin]

All day, every day

Imus didn't say anything that isn't already said a thousand times a day on the radio (or worse!). Just listen to any radio station playing rap and you'll find that Imus was not alone, not the worst, and in fact, pretty tame.

So, why was Imus attacked? He's white, talking about blacks. Black rap stars have been saying far, far worse things for years. No one has been camped out at record companies or picketing concerts, protesting violent, degrading lyrics. The hypocrisy of everyone going after Imus and ignoring larger, more prolific, more degrading offenders is saddening.

To quote Costello (of Abbott and Costello fame) "Ain't we livin' in a wunnerful age?"

[ccatlin]

Funny...Jimmy Wales started his career with a search engine for porn. lol

Before wikipedia, Jimmy Wales ran a search engine for porn. hehehe I find his participation in this and his need to rewrite history, just a bit ironic.

[itango]

How about a return to civility?

I know that I will sound like a pollyanna and irrelevant, but what is wrong with treating everyone else with the respect that we ourselves feel is our due?

Bad behavior encourages more back behavior and backlashes. For example, if one encounters a rude driver on the road, then the temptation is to begin behaving rudely towards others as a matter of course. And pretty soon, you have everyone giving the finger and being extremely aggresive to everyone else, even when (or especially if) they are in the wrong.

I think it shows strength, not weakness, to refrain from escalating violence or bad behavior. Also, it usually puts an end to it, since most people will not continue "acting out" or yelling if everyone else is silently watching them - they will feel ridiculous.

Since I have been practicing this, I find that my mental well-being has improved, and I have had surprising response from previously aggresive people. What brought me to this realization is one day, when I was engaged in escalating a conflict (I was yelling and being extremely aggresive to someone else, and they were retaliating) something made me stop in mid sentence, and say, "this is stupid, we are getting nowhere. We are both rational people, and we can solve this". To my surprise, the other person calmed down almost immediately, and we were able to walk away having resolved the problem (although not friends).

We each have to try to do this. I no longer laugh at comments like Don Imus made, or tolerate the current vile language of the black rappers. If we all sent a similar message, we might just begin a return to civility, and we would all benefit.

[spruceman]

Civility, lack thereof

I dont respond to rudeness for another reason. I want the perp to think he can get away with it to no end. Eventually he will be rude to some mean MotherF***** who will tear into him and rip his head off.

[cashaww]

Welcome to the ideal

As one great thinks said, Once the ideal become phenominal, it
becomes corrupt. I argue civility has never existed in this country,
but the illusion has and still does. Civility exist as a proportion to
power. The more powerfull you are the more civil people are to
you, but it may not be recipricated.

[44lefty]

Imus just the tip of a malevolent tongue

A classic example of: "Engage brain before putting mouth in gear."

That said, there seems to more than a little hypocrisy in the mix. For thirty-six years, various employers not only winked at his shennanigans, but rewarded them quite handsomely. The business is run by advertising revenue, driven by ratings. Everyone involved knew what was going on and did nothing; - until now.

Where were all the voices of protest for the last thirty-six years? The denizens of the board room are at least as much to blame, and snickered quietly in the corner, throwing Don Imus under the bus at the first serious protest.

By the way, where were you?

[i_made_this]

Charlie, Sorry But You Missed The Point...

...on this one on two scores: (1) you invoke "tech" in the Imus imbroglio - it's a radio show, man; what tech are you discussing exactly &#38; what does that radio technology have to do with this week's Imus denouement? Radio broadcasting hasn't, essentially, changed technologically in a quarter century except for minor details that improve transmission fidelity . (2) you fail to note in your article the story behind the story which is huge here. Per FCC Regs which haven't changed in a half century, radio and tv transmissions are not instantaneous exactly because the FCC foresaw such slip-up's as Imus' - under FCC Regs, all transmissions must be delayed by one full minute before transmission so that the radio station can analyze the content as to suitability; ergo, CBS screwed up here by deciding to let the comment ride; ergo, CBS fired the guy because they know his style and didn't want him slamming them as the guilty party on their on their own network.

I hope Imus speaks up elsewhere on this reality by pointing the finger of hate in the right direction - CBS deserves to lose THEIR license by letting the comment ride.

[suyts]

whaa!!!

Jeeze, why does everyone have to cry when they feel insulted, or as in this case, when they feel someone else has been insulted. Who cares?!?!?! Andy why is it that only when certain people get the protected status. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Either we add a couple of layers to our skin, or decry every instance of hate speech, be it to our **** friends, racially different friends or ideology or political. Pass a law to where it is illegal to bash, flame, or otherwise insult everyone or no one. You can't have it both ways.

[charlie cooper]

But what about cyber talk?

A lot -- most? -- of the folks responding to my column are focusing on the rights &#38; wrongs of the Imus affair. But what about the bigger point as it affects the Internet community? First, do you agree that we're seemingly getting angrier &#38; less respectful when it comes to cyber-disputes? And second, what do you think of the O'Reilly-Wales call for a code of conduct?

[mattumanu]

What about it?

After all, the only ones spoiling for war are the knucklheads in the peanut section. Not to mention the nitwits out there.

Read your own articles, note the number of times YOU'VE called names, then report back to us.

[paulej]

It has not changed much

I do not think that people are getting angrier or less respectful. In nearly every society, there is a mix of generally respectful people and some that are not so respectful. Unfortunately, it seems that the less respectful often have a louder voice and are more persistent with trying to make a case... for whatever cause they're trying to lead.

Those who are more respectful tend to simply "drop the subject" or not engage in useless and fruitless debate. So, those left in such debates are generally those with the bolder, cruder comments.

Years ago, if a person were to say something that was unpopular, they might get "flamed". I've not heard that word in a number of years, but the e-mail that would pour in would not necessarily be polite. In any case, you would be hearing from angry voices. You're generally going to hear more angry voices than voices of agreement, since those who agree do not have anything else to say; they're content.

As for a "code of conduct", I do not think one is needed. People know how they're supposed to behave and those who behave imporperly are not going to change because there is some published "code". We already have a published code call "the law". The real question is whether what was said about Kathy Sierra or to Kathy was legal or not. If somebody broke the law, the that person can be prosecuted.

By and large, though, most people are respectful. When Kathy expressed concern over the postings about her, there were many, many people who posted to her blog give her support.

I've not read usenet newsgroups in years, but there used to be some groups in the alt.* hierarchy where numerous hateful exchanges took place. I am not hopeful it will end.

So, what is the problem? The problem is that there is a very small percentage of the overall population who enjoy making hateful comments. Unfortunately, that is the way our society is and I do not see it changing anytime soon.

The important thing to remember is that most of the people are good.

Paul

[Len Bullard]

What I Think

Mean succeeds when it is rewarded.

Mean speech is an expression of sociopathy.

Sociopathy is a act. Differentiate it from being a sociopath which is a condition.

Sociopathy rises in a society where it is profitable. As Linda Mealy puts it, the sociopath becomes "apparent at a time when immediate environmental circumstances make an antisocial strategy more profitable than a prosocial one." If sociopaths have positions of leadership in ANY community, you can predict a dramatic rise in sociopathy in the population at large.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://lamammals.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociopaths-in-white-house.html" target="_newWindow">http://lamammals.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociopaths-in-white-house.html</a>

That is a reference to political figures not intended to drag this thread into a political debate, but to demonstrate that conditions are favorable for the rise of sociopathy.

I think Tim's rules will fail to be adopted but that it is the right idea for A-listers and others to push back. The web is a massive feedback mediated evolutionary system with aspects of signal amplification, so pushback is the way to change the profitability of the condition. Badges, filters etc., are allopathic solutions but if the goal is to dampen the behavior, they might help. Tim's case is weakened by the fact that there is a scintilla of truth in the answer to the questions "why now and why these girls including Sierra" that says something about the sources of pushback.

A little soul searching is in order because the rewards for sociopathy have been legion.

[mattumanu]

knuckleheads... nitwits...

"The only folks spoiling for a war are certain knuckleheads in the peanut section."
Charles Cooper~
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/The+hypocrisy+about+Web+video/2010-1030_3-6166989.html" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/The+hypocrisy+about+Web+video/2010-1030_3-6166989.html</a>

"But they first need to forge an agreement that will protect them from nitwits who view cyber rip-offs as another expression of viral marketing."
Charles Cooper~
Same article.

Should I dig deeper into Mr. Cooper's past articles? You never replied to anyone who called you on this in your previous attempts to be relevant, but now you're calling for civility?

Here's my advice to you, sir: Stop whining and clean up your own house.

[charlie cooper]

mattumanu?

Dear "mattumanu"...nothing like a selective cut &#38; paste job to make your point. i suggest everyone go back and read the entire column I wrote instead of relying on your taking things out of context. I wasn't personally calling anybody a dummy, good buddy. I think you know that. But I was tweaking the arguments made by certain especially silly blog sites which continually promote the argument that it's fine to rip off other people's comment.

[Stating]

$1 Trillion A Hell Of A Bigger Problem

Let's put this in perspective. The Hos running the Department of War that got us into such a mess we cannot extricate ourselves from are a hell of a lot bigger problem than an acid-tongued grizzled old radio geezer. I don't see anybody going after that gang. They sit high on the hog with their pensions and post-government consulting gigs.

[toni1103]

No More Ebonics For Me

When I was 10-years young (I am now 48), I remember adults saying that curse words were for common people. It was thought of, back in those times, as only low-class or uneducated people cursed. I feel as times have changed we have desensitized ourselves to such "common words."

I recall having a nappy head as a child and hearing the word, so this is not a "black" word. However, I do not recall hearing "ho" until the last ten years, at the most. I also spelled it h-o-e because I thought it was spelled the same as a gardening tool. It was the black community who first used this word.

All this led me to do a search for the word "ho." In my search I found the following: "African American Vernacular English, alteration of *****." What on earth does this mean?!? <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English</a> I do not want to bore you with the details, but it is a form of Ebonics or Ebony Phonics.

Or

As one person defined it:
"About the LAMEST, most pathetic excuse a person could come up with for not bothering to learn even the most basic of semi-proper English. (Example) I don havta' speak no propa English! I speaks ebonics, yo!"

Therefore, I am saying all this to be saying... the next time I hear an ebonic word I will question the meaning. Such as "ho," what is ho? Short for *****, then say *****! It seems so many people are getting upset over having to deal with the Spanish language being used in America, when we as Americans cannot even speak our own language. Since "certain sensitive" people cannot accept me as a white person saying the same words they say on a daily basis, then I will shun the pathetic ebonics.

[cashaww]

Hello...

this country was founded on brutuality, meaniness, intolerance,
etc.. and it is in no short supply. We as a country glorify this in all
our media. Peace, negotiation, and just plain getting along are not
things this country values. Yes, we pay lip service to peace and the
such, but check the US history, and you will see the nation's violent
streak and it's streak of intolerence.

[patruga]

Violence is in no short supply

Sadly and tragically, your point was just underscored today with the killing of over 30 students at Va Tech.

[Stating]

A CIA Psyops Project

I think Imus, Jesse, and Al are all on the CIA's payroll to stir things up to take everyone's attention off the latest failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are bridges being blown up, the Green Zone being blown up, and a massive bus attack in Karbabala during the time of the troop surge. As if this all wasn't enough, China has SURPASSED the United States as the world's largest exporter (H2 2006). Yet the Cowboy King still goes around blindly calling for more "free trade". If there is any more free trade, half the country will be on welfare. Ohio may as well close up shop and go home.

[paulej]

I still don't get it...

Cashaww,

You said:
"just because your White family uses this term it is not raciest? Then by this logic Porch Monkey, ******, Koon, and the other lovely terms are okay? I for one have to take issue with this type of logic." (I guess the *** referred to the "N word".)

Every name that you presented is a well-known noun used in a derogatory manner.

"nappy-headed" is an adjective that describes the way a person's hair looks. The word "nappy" used in this context dates back to roughly 1500 and has nothing to do with the color of a person's skin.

So, as I said, I don't get it. If there is a wide understanding that "nappy-headed" refers to black people, then nobody told me. This is the first time that I've heard this. Moreover, I refuse agree that we re-writing dictionaries in the wake of this incident.

My daughter has a nappy head of hair, too. Am I banned from using this sentence now? This is absurd.

Paul