When first I heard of the Imus controversy, I thought immediately of Elder Jeffery Holland’s conference talk, The Tongue of Angels. As the controversy has exploded with Imus now losing not only his simulcast but also his radio show I’m wondering whether American society and pop culture is truly interested in cleaning up its verbal act. Or, is this overly dramatized single event only a media feeding frenzy and self flagellation bound up in our hypocrisy exhibited daily on talk radio, in our entertainment, music videos and modern movies?
Don Imus is but a symptom of a much larger cancer that has already metastasized throughout our media and pop culture. If any good can come of this, hopefully it will be that Imus is not just a fall guy for the likes of the morally questionable crusaders such as Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, both of whom are as or more racist to the core than is Don Imus.
Indeed words are powerful and can be extremely hurtful. Elder Holland’s conference discourse was spot on:
Said James: “For in many things we offend all. [But] if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.”
Continuing the imagery of the bridle, he writes: “Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.
“Behold also . . . ships, which though they be . . . great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm.”
Then James makes his point: “The tongue is [also] a little member. . . . [But] behold, how great a [forest (Greek)] a little fire [can burn].
” . . . So is the tongue [a fire] among our members, . . . it defileth the whole body, . . . it is set on fire of hell.
“For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, . . . hath been tamed of mankind:
“But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
“Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
“Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.”
Well, that is pretty straightforward! Obviously James doesn’t mean our tongues are always iniquitous, nor that everything we say is “full of deadly poison.” But he clearly means that at least some things we say can be destructive, even venomous—and that is a chilling indictment for a Latter-day Saint! The voice that bears profound testimony, utters fervent prayer, and sings the hymns of Zion can be the same voice that berates and criticizes, embarrasses and demeans, inflicts pain and destroys the spirit of oneself and of others in the process. “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing,” James grieves. “My brethren [and sisters], these things ought not so to be.”
Is this something we could all work on just a little? Is this an area in which we could each try to be a little more like a “perfect” man or woman?
This is an area in which we can all work on just a little (especially me). Clearly this advice cannot be and is not limited just to Latter-day Saints. To be serious we cannot smile smugly now that Don Imus is gone. If the penalty for racist, sexist and hurtful discourse is the termination of careers, will our pop culture similarly indict the likes of: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reiley, Howard Stern, Ann Coulter, and a plethora of hip hop rappers? (Note this is not meant to be a comprehensive list. There are several others, as the comments already show).
Do we who bear profound testimony, utter fervent prayer, and sing the hymns of Zion acquiesce in other voices of our popular culture that berate and criticize, embarrass and demean, inflict pain and destroy the spirit of others, if we fail to speak out and take a stand?
There is a lot of talk right now about this subject. Some of it good. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Annegb has also posted her thoughts on this controversy over at Mormon Mentality.
April 12, 2007 at 9:57 pm
And why do you not mention Sean Hannity? Is it because KSL carries him three hours a day six days a week and therefore he gets a pass?
The church cannot speak out in favor of civil discourse and be taken seriously when it embraces and idolizes the hateful, unfair, uncivil discourse of Sean Hannity and gives him more radio time than it gives to its own leaders.
He is an embarrassment to KSL and the church, as is Glen Beck, who happens to also be a church member that the church seems to be bragging about.
I suppose the brethern are too busy in their work to listen to KSL and the Sean Hannity show for certainly if Elder Holland had listened to him he would be concerned about the image of KSL and the Church.
Joe Watts
April 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Joe, I should have clarified in my original post that the list I gave was not meant to be all inclusive. I would agree 100% with you on the two additions to this list. I think both Sean Hannity and Glen Beck are equal opportunity offenders, who should be included.
I have now made the clarification in the post that my list is not meant to be all inclusive. Thank you for these worthy additions.
One of the more interesting aspects of your comment is your suggestion that perhaps KSL ought to re-think its relationship with Sean Hannity. I’m not sure KSL employs Sean Hannity the way CBS employed Imus; but, the question arises do they have to be part of his show’s syndication network? The same for Rush–though I don’t know whether KSL plays Rush or not.
I’m not so sure the Church per se endorses or idolizes Hannity or Beck. Certainly the argument can be made some members might. I just don’t agree with your assertion the Church or the Brethren do. But, your overall broad point about KSL and its programing is a good one.
April 13, 2007 at 6:10 am
You’re absolutely right. Its a cultural blight that the 1976 film Network predicted 31 years ago and is going strong. Its the, “I’ve got to be more outrageous than the next guy” mentality that has infected our culture. I don’t think the outrage against Imus is going to solve anything or create even sort of dialogue that’ll even begin to address the real problem.
Joe, I disagree with your assessment of KSL. Yes, Hannity is a moron–but I don’t think the church headquarters is in charge of the day to day broadcasting of KSL or the other 30 or so radio stations owned by Bonnevile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_International
April 13, 2007 at 7:04 am
Sherpa,
I agree that the Church is not in the business of the day to day decisions of of KSL’s broadcasts; but, someone is. The fact is that KSL, like many stations is supposed to be a family oriented and family values type of station. What would be wrong with KSL and other similar stations, in reviewing their programing selections?
April 13, 2007 at 7:55 am
I believe KSL and the other 30 channels do review their program selections. KSL has made several decisions as far as television broadcasting that have made the national news because they chose not to broadcast what NBC had scheduled. This isn’t new. Oh, there’s a good argument and one I agree with that Hannity isn’t family friendly or espouses the values that the church does—but at the same time; Bonneville Communications isn’t the Public Affairs arm of the church, its wholly owned by the church,and its mission is With this mission in mind, Bonneville has become a recognized leader in providing quality, values-oriented media products. Oh, you could argue that because it shows Hannity on KSL radio, its not giving quality, values oriented media products and isn’t holding true to the mission of the church. However, at the same time, that’s ignoring everything else it broadcasts on KSL Radio (I like the garden show personally and Doug Wright has made some good points over the years–I used to hate him, I don’t anymore) and their 30 other radio stations.
April 13, 2007 at 8:47 am
What does this mean for Freedom of Speech? We can only accept one kind of speech, but if we don’t like it we can kill it? The Left (and this is really only them who cares) has always been concerned about free speech – so long as it agrees with them. If this were a liberal (like Al Frankin), the media would be outraged he was fired!
The good news is this was financial. He wasn’t fired for his words primarily. It didn’t happen until a big spender decided not to reach in the pocket book to support him. That means the best way to make an attack on someone you don’t like is to be sure those with the pocket books are controlled. Again, money says more than words.
April 13, 2007 at 10:13 am
Its funny how many people misunderstand the constitutional term “free speech.”
April 13, 2007 at 10:56 am
Jettboy,
It means nothing for freedom of speech. Sherpa is correct, there is a distinction between “constitutional” free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment, and speech that you hear and that is filtered by networks and radio stations. The government did not censure Don Imus.
I would also observe that you and even Mr. Imus are free to say anything they want. What they aren’t free to do is chose the consequences for exercising that particular choice. So, bottom line is that free speech is alive and well in this country. The question is whether certain speech should have consequences. It should.
April 13, 2007 at 10:57 am
Sherpa, How can anyone possibly hate a guy who does a garden show? C’mon now!
April 13, 2007 at 11:13 am
Oh, Doug Wright doesn’t do the garden show. He used to be a movie critic (he’s moved away from it now) and I never agreed with his reasoning for critiquing a movie. Now he’s moved more into commenting about politics he occasionally has some good points. I think he does a better job than lets say…Orson Scott Card (*shudders)
April 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Guy Murray, I actually agree with you. Did you read my comments about this as actually a money issue rather than a free speech issue? My point is if that if this was a liberal saying something, the media largely would make this into a free speech argument and be pushing that.
April 13, 2007 at 1:13 pm
This is not a free speech issue, and no, the media would not make it into a free speech argument if it were a liberal saying something. It seems just another example of right-wingers taking a swipe at liberals where none needs to be taken.
April 13, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Guy,
The idolization of Hannity came when he was invited to be the Guest of Honor at the Freedom Festival several years ago in Provo at the BYU Stadium.
It was a flat out endorsement of him by church leaders who were entirely in charge of the Fourth of July celebration.
The Church, KSL, and Hannity were linked arm-in-arm and have been ever since. KSL and Hannity have become synonomous.
I also believe that the church can readily change the program at its will, if not, then it ought. Why would anyone put themselves in a position of having to promote rude, unfair, and uncivil dialogue?
The Deseret News made ‘civil discourse’ as its primary editorial goal for 2006, and re-iterated it again in 2007——and not once have they recognized that the greatest offender to civil discourse is on the church radio station three hours a day, six days a week, because ‘that’s all he asks.’
Hannity is the antithesis of civil dialogue coming at us daily ‘From the Crossroads of the West.”
Richard L. Evans would turn over in his grave at what has happened to his radio station.
Joe Watts
Joe Watts