Don Imus and JL Kirk
by tdaxp ~ April 16th, 2007
tdaxp, D. 2007. Why is it that if I refer to Irish as provo coal-crackers…. Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog. April 14, 2007. Available online: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/04/the_best_analysis_on_imus.html#comment-18335.
Weeks, C.G. 2007. I’ve been pondering the differences between the two approaches. tdaxp. April 16, 2007. Available online: http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/12/j-l-kirk-associates-not-a-better-business.html#c1539569
Weeks, C.G. 2007. I wonder if the garish offense is not JLK’s business practices in general…. tdaxp. April 16, 2007. Available online: http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/13/the-real-time-consequences-of-the-jl-kirk-associates-kirking.html#c1539382.
Recently, my blogging energies have been consumed by two scandals, Don Imus’s “nappy headed hos” remark and JL Kirk Associates’ threat of a lawsuit. Both cases show visceral reactions against relatively week targets (an MSNBC/radio host and a Tennessean employment agency) by groups known for political activism — blacks and bloggers. Yet Jews were silent when Don Imus called guests pointed-headed Jews, and most of the thousands of companies involved in lawsuits don’t raise a hue and cry. So what’s going on here?
The Don Imus of the Blogosphere?
Simple: outrage is a product of perceived group powerlessness and a perceived attack on the group. In the case of Don Imus, “blacks” correctly perceived their political weakness and then perceived an attack on black-ness. In the case of JL Kirk, “bloggers” correctly perceived their political weakness and then perceived an attack on blogger-ness. As Curtis says:
Not only might this describe Coble’s sense of outrage at what she perceived to be a hostile interview; but more to the point, it may explain the blogger response to the threatened lawsuit. To the degree that many bloggers may feel generally powerless in their lives — and, perhaps, also before the law of the land as adjudicated within the courts — such a lawsuit as threatened by JLK creates a backlash and outrage.
And likewise, Don Imus and JL Kirk were targets of outrage, instead of evildoers who actually mattered, because blacks and bloggers are too weak to cause substantive change. So instead, they go after symbolic targets like a cranky radio host and a litigious company:
Again, as Curtis says:
Her one post may have had more effect against JLK than a single post might have against a Microsoft or Google or Ford Motor Company that operates globally.
Both bloggers are blacks are in weak political positions. Bloggers are subject to violent, litigious assaults by corporations and do not have the resources to strike back. At best,
they can go bankrupt defending themselves from rich predators or swarm their opponents.
Likewise, widely visible black culture has transitioned from slavery to serfdom to female-farming society (arguably a lateral transmigration).
As I wrote on Tom Barnett’s blog:
Outrage is not a function of validity of argument. Outrage is a function of powerlessness, a function of Olive Treeism, a function of life in the Gap.
Because of many factors for blacks, and because of our judicial system for bloggers, too many blacks and too many bloggers experience Gap-like conditions even within the United States.
As we move into the medium a generation or two, we can expect less outrages from bloggers but probably an equiavelent number from “African-Americans.” The reason is that “African-Americans” — those blacks who are descendents from slavery in the southern United States — are considered wards of the state. So like the Lakota Indians before them, the federal government contiually makes their lot worse while trying to make it better. Bloggers, on the other hands, are ignored by the government. They exist in a state of benight neglect.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
Are you proposing a moral equivalence between Jessee Jackson and Instapundit? Or a functional equivalence? Something else?
AE,
Clearly the consequences of “nappy headed hos” is bigger than “pointy-headed Jew” because the controversy around “nappy” is bigger. My thoughts on “outrage,” though, is why.
I think widespread media directed humor at “powerful” members of society (asians, jews, whites, etc) while the same outlets that do that rarely mock “powerless” members (blacks, etc) supports my thought.
This process may compound itself. By spending resources irrationally responding to outrages, black community leaders cannot invest those same resources as outrage-free groups can.
(I responded at Soob [1] too, btw)
[1] http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2007/04/kirked-no.html
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I think that part of the reason that there wasn't that much of a response to Imus' anti-Semitic remarks was simply that they didn't get much news coverage.
News stories like the “nappy-head hoes” remark or the Duke scandal are best understood as the cumulative effect of a herd of media outlets all converging on the same point. The incident needs to generate interaction or friction of some kind to attract the attention of media outlets (which don't like to run outside the herd, despite what many reporters like to think).
Because the more activist elements of the Jewish community did not respond to it, there was no conflict and thus no lead for newspapers and news channels.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I think you're overstating the matter, we don't have outrage because it is strong, or widely felt, we have it because it's cheap.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jay,
I agree on the parasitic nature of Sharpton and Jackson. The blogosphere is lucky not to have “leaders” like that.
Steve,
… but outrage costs one political capital, as individuals and groups end of spending goods (respect, attention, energy, concern) they could have saved or traded for something more valuable. It's “irrational,” and that's what makes me think it's a reflex.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
“I agree on the parasitic nature of Sharpton and Jackson. The blogosphere is lucky not to have “leaders” like that.”
Err…”AE, will the HuffPost be bloggin the JL Kirk scandal?” [1] (and Daily Kos, Michelle Malkin, and….***INSTAPUNDIT***?)
It does seem as if some of these putative leaders often follow those they would lead; but in truth, sometimes they are actually leading. Certainly, those like Instapundit are given deference, loyalty, etc., and a recognition of being authoritative, in these situations, and even perhaps a bow and acquiescence if not always a bow and tribute.
[1] http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2007/04/kirked-no.html
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
BTW, I've always thought Malkin was shrill and slightly insane, at least when she goes into a self-righteous, self-stimulating, and self-fulfilling rage.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
rage/outrage; whichever
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
On building personal reputations with blogged outrage (however muted):
“DO BLOGS INFLUENCE SSRN DOWNLOADS? “In fact, yes they do.”
Indeed. My Libel in the Blogosphere paper has moved up over 160 places — from 1069 to 902 — in the SSRN rankings since the Katherine Coble / JL Kirk / King & Ballow affair broke out.” [1]
Nice, unintended consequence, as memetic confluences create emergence; or, Hey, this Kat thing supports and justifies what I've been saying all along! (But who doesn't appreciate such notice/proofing?) Another clue to a 5GW tactic? [2]
[1] http://instapundit.com/archives2/004193.php
[2] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2007/04/is_kirking_a_tool_in_all_gener.php
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Excellent. But I think you missed one element as far as the AA portion is concerned. The ventures of those that claim to fight the disparity you outline when in fact they maintain a parasitic and sadistic addiction to it. And like any addict the last thing they want is for the source of their malady to go away.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
To me it's simple. Imus and his sidekick(s) have been picking a fight with Sharpton for years and years. Sharpton waited patiently, saw a jaw, and knocked it into next week.
Fight started; fight finished.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
sonofsamphm1c ,
Good observation.
I give Kerry credit [1], btw:
“he'd go back on Imus's show when he returns to the air”
[1] http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzM5MDQ3MjZkM2E2ZjA5YmU0NjkwN2YzMjM1Y2M5NGM=
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
sonofsamphm1c,
And whose jaw did he see as he led the charge against the Duke students, their lacrosse coach (indeed team) and their university? Had they too been picking a fight with Sharpton?
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Some white boys who were accused of raping a black girl.
He probably should have been more patient. No heavyweight has ever been perfect.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
Your question has had an interesting result, for me. I've begun to wonder if I ever approach these considerations through a morality-inspired lens. Typically, **I think** I think through two lenses: a utilitarian lens but also through one inspired by ethics. The ethics/morality question can sometimes be blurred or indistinct; and I wonder if this may be the result of our relatively frequent misunderstandings, since you appear to have a built-in morality lens coloring your considerations!
Generally, I'm suggesting a functional equivalence between Jackson and Instapundit. They are obviously two quite different people; however, a large part of their functionality does not emanate from who they are so much as how others **use** them — functionality in the Memosphere is not an insular affair, or cannot be considered for individuals through the “island” lens but must be considered through the “ocean” lens. They are like whirlpools sometimes, sucking in all water and forcing it down; the water thus sucked down eventually reaches a point where it breaks free from the whirlpool and reemerges somewhere else, but its position of emergence is directly related to the fact that it had fallen into that whirlpool in the first place.
Or, to put it less metaphorically: Others look at Jackson and Instapundit as 1) guides and 2) convenient causes/justifications for where they themselves emerge in any controversy. Jackson could not do what he does if all the others using him in this manner did not already feel/think as he feels; but putting him out there keeps bad feedback/blowback from being directed at **them**. A similar thing occurs with bloggers like Malkin or Instapundit, since bloggers can use them as evidence of not being responsible themselves for what they say; by creating a blogospheric Godfather [1], an authoritative voice justifying their own speech, they are implying that the Godfather would need to be attacked rather than themselves because the war will continue if he isn't taken out first. (The whirlpool will continue to exist, drawing in more water.)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Godfather
April 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“Sharpton waited patiently, saw a jaw, and knocked it into next week….
He probably should have been more patient. [re: the lacrosse players story]“
sonofsamphm1c,
Very good observations. Care should be taken in analyzing the battlefield.