Hip Hop. Today there's a definite feel that the culture is under seige. In wake of the Don Imus controversy, Hip Hop has been left holding the proverbial bag. But long before the racist rants of former alcohlic shock jocks, Hip Hop has been debating within itself. The call for reform in both content, art and image has been made by activists inside the culture, who challenge not only artists but the powerful corporate industry that manipulates, controls, promotes and profit from them. The idea of "Fairness" often permeates these discussions, and so is the theme of this blog, and this post.
A Fairness Doctrine for Hip Hop
A Modest Plan to Save Our Culture
There is an on-going discussion on the state of Hip Hop throughout America, and perhaps beyond. From large broadcast media to print journalism to online message boards, it is a hot topic. There are closed-door sessions with “rap moguls” being held; and civil rights groups are set to announce planned movements. Everyone seems to have an opinion on the issue. A few even go further, and offer solutions. As a member of the loosely defined “Hip Hop Generation,” who was not there for its earliest days but lived through many of the formative years, including the now nostalgic “Golden Age,” I suppose like everyone else I have a right—perhaps a responsibility—to offer my own thoughts.
The problem with past “outsider” attempts at addressing issues of sex and violence in Hip Hop is that they were often carried out as “scorched Earth” policies. “Wars on gangsta rap” usually came across as “Wars on Hip Hop.” Little attempt was made to differentiate between the many sub-genres of the culture, which span the ideological and artistic spectrum. Emcees were “culturally profiled” under one disparaging umbrella. And elements of Hip Hop that are almost divorced from emceeing, much less “gangsta rap,”—scratch DJs, breakdancers, graffiti artists—found themselves having to make explanations for artists and lyrics to which they bear no direct responsibility. Scant attention is paid to the fact that activists within the culture have long sought reform and perhaps should be consulted before these larger “movements” begin. There is a natural suspicion among the Hip Hop community about such "movements" when the only time the media—including the black afrostocracy and punditocracy—places a spotlight on the culture, is to connect it with crime, deviant behavior or the wayward racist rants of former alcoholic shock jocks. After all, this criticism of Hip Hop isn’t new. When “gangsta rap” wasn’t the culprit, it was political rap—that was “too black” or “too threatening.” Before that it was the clothing—“too baggy, too colorful, too flamboyant.” Or it’s the hairstyles. Or it’s the dancing. Or it lacks intellectualism. Or the beats are too simple. Or the music isn’t “really” music. The list can go on, most of it trivial, much of it distorted or one-dimensional and some of it outright false. Since its inception Hip Hop has existed somewhere between the excitedly exotic (a world of entertaining blacks and Latins) and dangerously ominous for mainstream cultural and social critics. It exists under a near continuous state of “siege,” with a never-ending and never-satisfied corps of detractors. I think perhaps, there is another way.
What follows is a modest idea. I call it modest with a touch of sarcasm, because while it is simple in its general layout, it is ambitious in scale. The idea cannot be called new or unique or groundbreaking. To paraphrase Chuck D, “it’s a thought that’s been thought before.” In fact, it is gleaned from long established movements, writings on topics relating to Hip Hop, documentaries and more, including the following: ESSENCE Magazine’s Take Back the Music Campaign; the youth movement Black Girls Rock; the activist film Turn Off Channel Zero Campaign; Byron Hurt’s documentary Beyond Beats and Rhymes; the well-established activist e-zine and valued online Hip Hop source DaveyD.com, the powerful musings of Chuck D and many more. I only restate these thoughts because there seems to be momentum at present. And I think those within Hip Hop should be out in front leading, not being told where to go and what to do. The idea is not without its imperfections, some of which I explore. Neither is the idea thoroughly written out in detail on the scale of a social manifesto, a social movement or legally binding contract. Nor is it some stroke of genius. Rather it’s a pragmatic suggestion for a way to move forward, beyond the “blame Hip Hop first” crowd, and the “we have to defend our culture” siege-mentality these ceaseless attacks induce. The idea itself consists of three basic elements under one heading:
A Fairness Doctrine for Hip Hop
Element 1: Fairness and equity regarding adult entertainment. A rule should be implemented requiring that sexually explicit, graphically violent or other adult-themed Hip Hop not be marketed as the mainstream face of the culture. Hip Hop that engages in gratuitous imagery, excessive profanity and contains adult content intended for a mature audience should either (a) be limited to prime time or after hours radio and television or (b) be restricted to select cable channels that do not cater to mainstream entertainment. This is nothing different than what is already in place for other genres of music, television shows or movies. On MTV, so-called “Death Metal” was long relegated mostly to late night. On television, more adult-themed crime dramas appear during prime time; the more explicit or graphic (i.e., The Sopranos or Deadwood) exist on premium cable channels and are shown primarily at night. Movies receive ratings that are directly tied to their level of adult content. Imagine if the media industry pushed violent shows like HBOs ROME, and sexually explicit movies that now appear on late night Cinemax, as the everyday face of morning, daytime and early evening mainstream television. This would distort the image of mainstream programming. Yet this is precisely what happens with Hip Hop, as the corporate industry pushes one face—filled with sex and violence—as the mainstream norm of the music. By not requiring the same rules be followed with regards to Hip Hop, the media industry is allowed to distort the image of the entire culture, pushing black sex and violence for profit.
Element 2: Fairness and equity that displays Hip Hop’s diversity. A rule should be implemented requiring that the full diversity of Hip Hop—in topics, styles and gender—be given equal radio and television airplay. Driven by profit rather than art, the media industry pushes financially viable themes of sex and violence that conform to widely held stereotypes. This creates the impression that Hip Hop has no other face other than the one that is marketed. There is undoubtedly different music out there. A glance at online sites for “Underground” Hip Hop or Indie Hip Hop, or even cable channels like VH1-Soul, offer another world of black cultural expression. Yet much of this is put under the heading of “alternative,” while “thug” rap is marketed near singly as the universal black norm. We need to demand that broadcasters and the music industry allow for a diversity of voices and imagery on a level of fairness and equity given to other genres of entertainment.
Element 3: Fairness and equity in media depictions and coverage of Hip Hop. More voices need to demand that the mainstream media portray a more encompassing image of Hip Hop. In mainstream journalism Hip Hop is portrayed overwhelmingly as negative, usually covered during an incidence of crime or altercation with law enforcement. In television shows or movies, this association of Hip Hop with criminal activity is near constant, along with themes of gang-relatedness, anti-intellectualism and other socially "deviant" depictions. By focusing on one image of Hip Hop, notably lyrics which indulge in graphic violence and gratuitous sex, the various media outlets defame a global culture and contribute to misconceptions of Hip Hop. Furthermore, this allows for Hip Hop to be used unfairly as a scapegoat for numerous incidents, and perpetuates racial and cultural bias. Hip Hop should be afforded balanced coverage, highlighting everything from charity events to activism, as is received by other genres of entertainment.
There. That’s it. That’s the idea. It’s that simple. Of course it needs more than this. Because regardless of how simple it looks on the surface, it has far-reaching implications. But all those by-laws and contracts are things for lawyers, and activists and people who think like lawyers to hash out. I’m just making a suggestion. If you like the idea as is, that’s great. Pass it on. Most of all visit the links below and Get Involved! If you hate the plan or think it’s nonsensical, please share why in a constructive format. If you like the plan, want to know why I came up with it, have concerns or issues regarding its plausibility or the like, see the following related essays where I try to explain matters more in depth. I especially suggest Thoughts and Concerns Regarding an Imperfect Plan before you make up your mind either way.
The Essays, in any particular order, are:
Sex, Guns & Violence: Why Hip Hop is All-American
Sex and violence are often cited in rap lyrics. But while these are themes in Hip Hop, they don’t speak for the totality of the culture. Furthermore, to single out sex and violence in rap lyrics is hypocritical—when sex and violence pervade much of American culture. From old blues lyrics to rock and roll, from movies to militarism, America is a society where guns, masculinity and sexuality are glorified. This essay posits that graphic sex and violence in rap lyrics might be hyper-normal, for mainstream culture, but it’s not abnormal.
Their Eyes Were Watching Smut: Turning Pornography into Black Culture
When I was younger I watched the sitcom Sanford and Son. I had no idea that its start, Red Foxx, had an entirely different persona—one in which he performed raunchy and explicit comedy. What he was doing in nightclubs after all was adult humor for a mature audience, not the sort of thing you’d hear on daytime and mainstream television. Today we have the inverse. So why is pornography being marketed as black culture? And who’s ultimately responsible?
Thug Life, Right-Wing News and the Iraq War: How Big Media Manufactures Consent
With the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 under the Reagan administration, the way for media consolidation was opened up for broadcasters to control both the airwaves and the content on them. This resulted in an explosion of right-wing radio and the birth of conservative propaganda television like FOX News, changing the landscape of journalism and manufacturing consent in the American public. The same dynamics that left a crisis in the state of the news media have done much the same to Hip Hop, with an eerily striking similarity.
Thoughts and Concerns Regarding an Imperfect Plan
What follows are issues and questions that may arise in trying to implement anything approaching a Fairness Doctrine in Hip Hop. It’s meant to answer some immediate misconceptions or concerns about such a plan, why I think attempts to “ban” sex and violence in Hip Hop are ultimately limited, as well as some inherent dangers any attempts at reform might present if wrongly applied. Further suggestions and criticisms are certainly welcome.
The Martyrdom of Don Imus
The most recent controversy over Hip Hop erupted when shock jock Don Imus made derogatory comments towards the nearly all-black Rutgers basketball team. But did Don Imus really die for our black sins? Or is this alleged “martyrdom” nothing more than another white apologist stance for sexism and racism in America?
Get Involved!
Long before I added my two cents to this issue, there were artists and activists—from politicians to organizations to filmmakers and more—who have long waged a battle for both the soul of Hip Hop and against negative depictions of blacks in media. If you care about Hip Hop, Get Involved!
Black Girls Rock!
Blackout Arts Collective
Essence Take Back the Music Campaign
H2Ed- Hip Hop 2 Education
Hip Hop Violence- Summit 07
Kick G.A.M.E.
Save Internet Radio!
SLAMJamz
Urban Word NYC
World Up- The Global Hip-Hop Project
If you could care less about the plan, or this page, and this has been a colossal waste of your time, my bad. There’s nothing I can do to monetarily compensate you for your loss, but perhaps these irreverent but funny video clips might help: Wrong Sounding Muppets and Let the Bodies Hit the Floor.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
A Fairness Doctrine for Hip Hop
Thoughts & Concerns Regarding a Fairness Doctrine 4 Hip Hop
A FAIRNESS DOCTRINE 4 HIP HOP
Thoughts and Concerns Regarding an Imperfect Plan
Are You Saying We Should Ban Explicit or Violent Rap Music?
Don’t Artists and the Industry Just Give People What They Want?
Can’t We Just Stop Purchasing Hip Hop With Negative Lyrics?
Why Not Just Ask Artists to Change?
Is This Asking For More Socially Conscious Hip Hop?
What About Hip Hop That Portrays Flashy Materialism?
What About So-Called “Minstrel Rap”?
Will Fairness Stop Sexism and Violence in the Black Community?
Will Fairness Stop Negative and Stereotyped Depictions of Blacks in Media?
Will Fairness Stop Adult Themed Hip Hop From Reaching Younger Listeners and Viewers?
Is This Just Going After Artists You Don’t Like?
Will Hip Hop Still Be Street?
Doesn’t This Pose a Danger to Hip Hop?
What Could a Fairness Doctrine Do For Hip Hop?
How Fairness Can Help Fight Sexism in Hip Hop—By Empowering More Female Emcees.
Why Now?
Are You Saying We Should Ban Explicit or Violent Rap Music?
No. Fairness does not call for the banning of lyrics or videos with sexual or violent content. That would be hypocritical and unfair, as there are television shows, movies, books and more that all have adult content. Furthermore, there is obviously an audience for it—by most accounts, primarily white males—and no one has a right to stop anyone from engaging in this form of entertainment, or deny artists their right to perform this type of music. Besides, there’s powerful insight even in songs as profanity laced as 2Pac’s “F*ck the World” or Notorious BIG’s misogynist “Me and My B*tch.” Those songs should not be banned anymore than one would call for the banning of the late Richard Pryor’s raunchy comedy or HBO’s violent series ROME. What Fairness does ask for is that we define adult content as just that, and not make it representative of mainstream black culture. This is not a call for Hip Hop to receive special treatment; it is a call for Hip Hop to receive equal treatment. If The Sopranos or Deadwood is considered adult themed and best suited for prime time mature audiences, Hip Hop with similar content should be as well. Right now we have just the opposite rules in place that determine the mainstream face of black culture should be sexually explicit or graphically violent. Any other form of black cultural expression is deemed “alternative.” Ironically, in this way there is already censorship that operates in reverse—limiting the freedom of expression of black culture in all its diversity. This double standard needs to be challenged as forcefully as segregation, as it is similarly a form of unequal treatment whose source is directly tied to racial inequality.
Don’t Artists and the Industry Just Give People What They Want?
This was my personal stance for years, fully believing that Hip Hop would change when people demanded differently. Mos Def said as much on his first album, Black on Both Sides—“Hip Hop is goin’ where we goin.” However after all this time, nothing has changed. In fact, Hip Hop’s mainstream face has become more one-dimensional. What I came to realize, what had long been said by others, was that the appetite for sexual and violent Hip Hop was not merely the work of natural market forces. By limiting the choice of what is played on the radio or on the television, media distributors and broadcasters offer a narrowly circumscribed choice—where sex and violence wrapped in blackface dominate and there is little “alternative” to turn to. In this way Hip Hop may go where the people are going, but the people themselves are pushed and prodded where the industry wants them to go, or expects them to go, by simply limiting the options they are able to make. When these limited choices become normalized a demand is thus created for the industry to fill and make profit. Or as Mos Def cries out in warning on his second album, The New Danger, in a stark divergence from his earlier assertions—“Old white men is runnin’ this rap sh*t! Corporate forces runnin’ this rap sh*t!” In How the Media Manufacturers Consent, the attempt is made to illustrate how the corporate control of journalism is a fitting analogy. The same profit-driven dynamics that restrict and limit the scope of the news media do much the same in Hip Hop. Grassroots activism is pushing and challenging the news media for change and diversity. We should support activism that demands a similar push for change in Hip Hop, affording a wider range of entertainment and depictions from which to choose.
Can’t We Just Stop Purchasing Hip Hop With Negative Lyrics?
Yes of course. Many activists and campaigns advocate this position. But this tactic has its limits. For one, no one should have to search alternative online forums or literally “underground” locations to find Hip Hop that is not sexually or violently explicit. Hip Hop deserves the right to be provided for in just as diverse a fashion as Rock N’ Roll. In no other form of popular music other than Hip Hop is the pornographic or graphically violent pushed so heavily as the “singular” norm, while anything with an opposing theme is deemed “alternative.” The reasons for this are directly tied to racism and expectations of what mainstream black culture is “supposed” to entail. There has to be a time when we stop accepting this second-class treatment as normal. Second, with the power to manufacture consent simply through the limiting of options, it is difficult to get consumers to shift their buying habits when they accept what is marketed to them as the norm. Only by forcing a diversification of the options available to consumers—especially what is marketed as mainstream—will we bring a change in purchasing habits. And third, if statistics are anything to go on, the main consumers of Hip Hop today are white males—accounting for 60% or more of the sales that fuel the industry. If we are to wait for white males to decide they do not want to consume stereotyped images of blacks, chances are high we’ll be waiting for a long time.
Why Not Just Ask Artists to Change?
We can, we do and we should. It’s certainly possible to get some converts. Many artists after all—despite the personas they push in their music—are parents, have sisters, brothers and family. We expect they at the least all have mothers. Yet artists have pledged to change before, as has the industry, only to return to explicit lyrics. The reasons are near always a question of money. If their personal accounts are to be believed, some Hip Hop artists simply perform music they think will sell albums. In this sense they are little different from other black entertainers, dating back at least to Vaudeville, who did what they saw as necessary to turn a profit. Now, as then, the primary audience they catered to was white, and whites dominated the control of the entertainment world in which they existed. Now, as then, performing roles that were stereotypical and catered to their white audience was much more lucrative than not. It may not sound pretty, but people with limited options often play into their exploitation. Take pornography. In America it is a multi-billion industry consumed mostly by white males. The women in the film are mostly white and are degraded in ways that aren’t comparable to even the most sexist Hip Hop. That these women participate in their own exploitation may be disturbing, but hardly surprising as their reasons are primarily for financial gain, limited options, coerced participation and at times a history of hardship and abuse. Given America’s racial history, why is anyone surprised that black males would similarly engage in their own exploitation for profit? Asking artists to change without calling for the industry to diversify what will be marketed as financially viable music is unrealistic.
Is This Asking For More Socially Conscious Hip Hop?
That would be good. Politics will undoubtedly remain in Hip Hop, as it has been there—in one form or the other—since its earliest days. But this plan is not intended to turn every artist into a “revolutionary.” A space for that kind of Hip Hop to re-enter the popular mainstream would be made by a Fairness Doctrine, but it is not a requirement. Hip Hop can be diverse and mainstream without explicit lyricism. It can talk about life, it can brag, it can glorify the bad boy/bad girl, it can push capitalism or socialism. Even aspects of sexuality and violence can be talked about without taking it to graphic extremes. The idea of Fairness is not intended to create some “Pollyanna” type of Hip Hop divorced from reality. What Fairness asks for more than anything else, is balance.
What About Hip Hop That Portrays Flashy Materialism?
A Fairness Doctrine is not a manifesto on socialism or anti-globalization. If “pimped out” rides and iced out grills is what artists want to portray, let them. If they want to “make it rain” $20s, $50s or $100s and deck out their necks in enough jewelry to equal the GNP of a small nation, they have a right to do so. There will still be critics who tire of songs devoted to whips, chips and chains that hang low—for the record, I am one of them—and they should continue to voice their concerns. But crass materialism is not the same as adult themed graphic violence or the gratuitous use of women’s bodies for sexual imagery—not unless we’re talking about videos that show off “pimp cups” or, worse, real-live “pimps.” And there are some songs, like Kanye West’s “Diamonds from Sierra Leone,” which occupy an illuminating middle ground. Besides, this is where the Fairness Doctrine comes in. Dispersed between songs and imagery that glorify materialism, there need to be different and even countering viewpoints.
What About So-Called “Minstrel Rap”?
There has been recent concern that some Hip Hop videos and songs are too reminiscent of old minstrel acts, where comical dances are the main point of the song. Admittedly, some of the similarities are disturbing, as an editorial in XXL examines. While these concerns deserve discussion, there is also the fact that dance is a key element of Hip Hop. Like Afrika Bambatta said, along with peace, love and unity, Hip Hop is supposed to be about having fun. If artists want to “walk it out” or “chicken noodle soup,” or “get hyphy,” I can’t give any concrete reasons why such things should be banned. After all, I grew up in an era of dances that made no more sense—the Smurf, the Prep, the Running Man and, during my time in the South, a host of dances made famous by the New Orleans DJ Jubilee. The influences on Hip Hop dance range from soul and funk to dancehall and salsa. And like the documentary Rize showed, these forms of physical movement in the black community are part of a long rooted cultural tradition that can have deeply important social meaning. Yes, there should be some line of demarcation between the sexually suggestive, which is a normal, healthy part of black dance, and the non-stop “stripper dancing” that has taken hold in some videos. And given the common stereotypes that plague images of black bodies and dance, the concerns are worthy of debate. But this is where the Fairness Doctrine once again comes in, allowing for alternative depictions that expose the breadth of black culture—including the many variations of black dance.
Will This Stop Sexism and Violence in the Black Community?
The short answer—No. The long answer is more complex. Sexism and violence are part of American culture, as pointed out in Why Hip Hop is All-American. Removing explicit sex and graphic violence from the mainstream of Hip Hop culture will not take it out of the black community any more than relegating Howard Stern and Al Pacino films to adult audiences has made America as a whole less so. The oft-discussed problems that plague the black community have their roots in a continued legacy of structural inequality tied to race, gender and class and involve a host of factors which lie far outside the realm, influence and power of Hip Hop. “Gangsta” or “thug” rap are symptoms and reflections of larger American problems, not the cause.
Will This Stop Negative and Stereotyped Depictions of Blacks in Media?
The short answer again, unfortunately, is no. Negative and stereotyped depictions of blacks have a long history in American media as key tools in racism. To justify oppressive and discriminatory behavior, blacks were recast as the “other”—people not altogether human and easily defined by expected behavior, most of it comical, taboo, dangerous or deviant. Such stereotypes were created through exaggeration or outright falsehood and then pushed as the norm, serving as justifications for discrimination. By painting black women as sexually rapacious Jezebels, white slave owners justified rape. By painting black men as dangerous brutes prone to rape, white mobs justified lynching. Minstrels, Sambo images, violent criminals and a host of stereotypes were—and are still—necessary to sustain the institution of white racism and privilege. Rappers did not create these stereotypes, even if some may seem to play into them—which is not surprising as black America has long attempted to resist white stereotypes by at times adopting them, an exercise that is both empowering and destructive. The very expectation that gratuitous sex and violence should be the face of mainstream black America is itself based on old stereotypes. And by presenting one-dimensional images rather than diversity, the industry creates a feedback cycle from which they can profit, and shock jocks like Don Imus can use to justify their own racism. Worse still, the victims of these stereotypes may find themselves conforming to and accepting them as the norm.
Will This Stop Adult Themed Hip Hop From Reaching Younger Listeners and Viewers?
Of course not. When I was younger, my adolescent male cohorts and I still got a hold of copies of Playboy or Penthouse—despite the fact that none of our parents owned it in their homes and we were forbidden from purchasing it. Going after what is taboo is a normal part of childhood—especially when the same taboos of extreme sexuality and violence pervade the society in more subtle ways. And, given the many varied ways one can access media today, it is inevitable that youth will find their way to sexually explicit and graphically violent music—much as they can find pornography online. However they should have to go through all the hoops I had to in order to get it. And by taking it out of popular culture, they should learn like I did the difference between mature entertainment and mainstream culture.
Isn't This Just Going After Artists You Don’t Like?
No. A Fairness Doctrine does not want to “go after anyone,” except a biased media industry. On a personal level, while a lot of “thug” and sex rap is admittedly not on my top 10, I listen to Hip Hop that contains adult themes. From Bootcamp to Wu Tang to Jean Grae, some of my favorite artists engage in lyrics with sexual content, a great deal of profanity, violent depictions, allusions to criminality and other adult themes. So do some of my favorite television shows and movies. I’m a product of American culture after all, like everyone else. Holding rap artists to a standard not required by directors and novelists or actors is to expect they are somehow super-human. No cultural critic can tell me that Raekwon’s Only Built 4 Cuban Linx is not art; if so, neither is Al Pacino's Scarface. But I also know this entertainment contains adult themes and should have its proper place. At the same time, not all adult-themed music is the same. Some of it is not gratuitous but is trying to make relevant social commentary, even if the topic is for mature audiences. Thus the Fairness Doctrine should apply equally even here, allowing a diversity of artists within the sphere of music with adult content. It should also be noted that individual artists themselves create music that spans the spectrum. Ludacris’ societal commentary “Runaway Love” or even his bombastic “Stand Up!” are far removed from the sex-filled “P*ssy Poppin.” There are artists that are no more one-dimensional in their music than actors may be in their roles. They should be afforded the right to explore and portray all those aspects, if they so choose. But not all of it deserves mainstream airplay.
Will Hip Hop Still Be Street?
Hip Hop was “street” long before “gangsta” or “thug” rap came about. While that is a form of lyricism that portrays the “street life,” it’s not the only way to do so. There are many topics—from crime to sex—that can be discussed without reverting to gratuity. That’s why they call it “art.” Furthermore, we buy into common stereotypes of the poor if we assume that everyone on the streets or is poverty-stricken lives a life of high crime and sex. There are stories of struggle, hard work, resistance, love, life and more to be found in those same streets. Allow them to be told as well.
Doesn’t This Pose a Danger to Hip Hop?
Admittedly, yes. And the risk revolves around censorship. There is the chance that any attempt to push for “decent” lyrics for the Hip Hop mainstream could be used to attack Hip Hop in the main. Music containing overtly political themes could be deemed as adult content or others promoting topics the mainstream finds uncomfortable (i.e., atheism, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, etc.) could be unfairly placed outside what is considered “acceptable.” That is a real danger. And we enter a slippery slope here. The only thing to counter it will be vigilance, so that good intentions are not exploited to push a particular political agenda. This plan after all is not an attempt to rid Hip Hop of its rebelliousness, of its ability to shock and push back against the mainstream culture—even while it is part of that culture. This was in part what “gangsta” rap was supposed to do. Today however, it has become more symbolic of subservience to media control than anything advocating real rebellion. Furthermore, as previously pointed out, censorship in Hip Hop music already exists—just in reverse.
What Could a Fairness Doctrine Do For Hip Hop?
For one, it can change the face of what is expected from Hip Hop. It is very annoying to hear detractors of Hip Hop speak of it in one-dimensional terms. They aren’t aware that artists like Mos Def can make environmental songs like New World Water or that Hip Hop has a radical Marxist perspective presented by Boots Riley of The Coup. Yes, Hip Hop is dance, crime dramas and sex—but it’s also a lot more. Once in a while this diversity reaches a mainstream audience, as when Outkast won big at the 2004 Grammy Awards or when Time magazine named The Roots Things Fall Apart as the 2nd best album of 1999. But too often Hip Hop’s diverse face is buried beneath a pile of bling and thug fantasy make-up. Don’t get me wrong. I do not think by displaying the diversity of Hip Hop we will immediately stop its negative portrayal. Many will zero in on thug rap for the simple sake of vilifying the whole culture, even if it is relegated to adult prime time or a separate adult channel. But at the least, our defense of our culture will be more sound, when sexually explicit or graphically violent lyricism is no longer presented as the singular mainstream image of Hip Hop—any more than pornography or mafioso films are portrayed as the singular mainstream face of white America. Furthermore, the very art of Hip Hop can receive a jolt of creativity. When I watched Byron Hurt interview aspiring rap artists at BET’s Spring Bling for his documentary Beyond Beats and Rhymes, I noticed two things. One, they all spit rhymes about the same thing—gunplay, animosity, drug dealing, killing, etc. From their young fresh faces that seemed plucked from middleclass America, I doubted any of them had ever done one ounce of the things they talked about. Otherwise, to quote Mr. Fantastik on MF Doom’s “Rapp Snitch Knishes,” they’d be the biggest—“Rap snitches/ Telling all their business/ Sit in the court and be their own star witness.” Rather it seemed none of them were told—or believed—they could rhyme about anything different. The second thing I noticed—most were incredibly WACK! I mean terrible. Biggie, Snoop, Ghostface—all can tell a crime drama on par with Martin Scorsese. These kids had none of that artistic quality. Instead of creative freestyle battles filled with similes and metaphors, there were simple physical threats and bombasts. If this is the bar to which emceeing has been lowered, an entire generation of creative lyricism might be lost. On the Buckshot and 9th Wonder collaboration, Chemistry, the title of the album is defined thusly: “Chemistry is like…a whole lot of different mixtures brought to the table…. can’t have all of the same ingredients going into that or you’ll have a big container of the same sh*t.” Nuff said. Diversity or Chemistry—call it what you want—Hip Hop can only be made the better for it.
How Fairness Can Help Fight Sexism in Hip Hop—By Empowering More Female Emcees.
With all the cries against sexism in Hip Hop, one of the glaring yet overlooked aspects of sexual discrimination is the mere lack of female emcees that get mainstream airplay. Most of those that are heard fit a “type” that is heavily restricted to pushing some element of sexuality. And while there may be something to the argument that these female emcees use sexuality as a type of feminist empowerment—or so goes the mantra in critic-speak—the fact that many are not given the choice to do otherwise, and that we rarely hear from them, says a great deal on the inherent bias against women in the industry. Worse still, this lack of diversity may be destroying the very existence of women in Hip Hop lyricism. Essence Magazine’s Take Back the Music Campaign reported that in 2006 there were so few female emcees consistently putting out music that the Grammy Awards discontinued the Female Rap Artist category. The female rap duo or group has all but disappeared from radio or videos. The reasons for this may have much to do with an industry that overlooks female talent, and a one-dimensional market whose penchant for misogynist lyricism turns off would-be female artists. Ashlee West-Nesbitt documents some of this in her online editorial, Death of the Female Rapper. Yet Hip Hop is sold and marketed to women en masse. Women occupy powerful positions behind the scenes in Hip Hop—from marketing to journalism. That this same constituency finds itself underrepresented in numbers and diversity is both tragic and embarrassing. Writer Jason Fleurant wrote that what Hip Hop needs is a “FeMC Messiah,” to bring some balance to the rampant sexism that dominates the mainstream culture. Fact is there are already female emcees that could fit this description—Jean Grae comes easiest to mind. But ignored by the industry and relegated to the underground they remain woefully under-exposed. A Fairness Doctrine that sheds light on these artists—those lesser known, not yet discovered or even not yet inspired—might go a long way in giving Hip Hop the balance it needs.
Why Now?
There are several reasons. One is simply momentum. Despite the misinformation spread by media pundits, the call for reform in Hip Hop existed before Don Imus. Activists, conferences, summits, articles, documentaries, campaigns, grassroots organizations and artists have long pushed for substantial change. Late last year one of the culture’s reigning elites declared "Hip Hop is Dead" and sparked furious debate all throughout the culture. So the issue is nothing new. However, with the Don Imus controversy using Hip Hop as a scapegoat, the long simmering discussion exploded once again. To not seize on this momentum, despite how it was initiated, would be a missed opportunity. Second, from the moment the Imus controversy erupted many of us knew instinctively that Hip Hop would take the blame—unfairly or not. Detractors exploited the incident to attack Hip Hop, and numerous groups outside of the culture now feel the pressure to do something. What will emerge from this is hard to say at the moment. But if the voices of those within Hip Hop are drowned out in the rush to solutions, we may find ourselves in the Orwellian nightmare Nas prophesied, or something close. If it’s not with this controversy, it will be another. Even racist army training videos from Germany—the country that gave the world Nazism—are allowed to conveniently use Hip Hop as a foil. We need to be out in front because despite all its faults, no one understands or loves our culture more than us. Lastly, the Don Imus controversy was monumental in a way that most have ignored. As pointed out in a previous article, racist comments from the Don Imus show were common; this was not a new event. What was new was the reaction by advertisers and broadcasters. For reasons not altogether clear, they blinked. In an unprecedented move corporate backers pulled out of the Imus show, and his media backers were forced to drop him. If the Imus controversy has done anything, it has shown us that the industry forces that have long stood in the way of reform in Hip Hop are not immovable. When bad publicity threatens their long-term profits, they can be forced to change. But as the week and a half drive against Don Imus showed, it takes determined action.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Thug Life, Right-Wing News and the Iraq War: How Big Media Manufactures Consent
With the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 under the Reagan administration, the way for media consolidation was opened up for broadcasters to control both the airwaves and the content on them. This resulted in an explosion of right-wing radio and the birth of conservative propaganda television like FOX News, changing the landscape of journalism and manufacturing consent in the American public. The same dynamics that left a crisis in the state of the news media have done much the same to Hip Hop, with an eerily striking similarity.
Thug Life, Right-Wing News and the Iraq War: How Big Media Manufactures Consent
On his 2000 Black On Both Sides, emcee Mos Def declared that “You know what's gonna happen with Hip Hop? Whatever's happening with us. If we smoked out, Hip Hop is gonna be smoked out. If we doin alright, Hip Hop is gonna be doin alright…Hip Hop is goin where we goin.”
Profound words. And for a long time I repeated them when I was often asked what I thought could be done about the state of Hip Hop. I would say if people want Hip Hop to change they had to demand better music. People had to support artists who put out better music, and not purchase albums of artists they found detrimental to Hip Hop overall. Change in the art would come, when a change in demand was made.
However, by his second album The New Danger in 2004, Mos Def’s tone had changed. Gone were the mantras that Hip Hop’s rebirth was going to be pushed along merely by a moral uplift in the people. Instead, the forces arrayed against the art form’s future are more sinister—“ Old white men is runnin’ this rap sh*t! Corporate forces runnin’ this rap sh*t!”
Some scoff when it is put forward that much of the derogatory rap lyrics and videos they see today is pushed by the industry. They label it a "conspiracy theory" and assert that artists who make a lot of money are hardly victims, but should instead take personal responsibility. I once thought along these lines. What I didn’t understand, what I could not connect, was that the same forces that limit Hip Hop to one dimensional themes of sex and violence are the very ones that threaten media overall. It is no conspiracy, but the way an institutionalized system that works for corporate profit rather than the public good operates. It is what happens when you stifle diversity and instead pander to expectations. And until this is understood, acknowledged and challenged, changing the face of Hip Hop will remain beyond our grasp. But rap music is not alone. A more popular form of expression has found itself stifled by the same dynamics—journalism. I offer the following analogy in three parts.
The Rise & Fall of the Fairness Doctrine
In 1949, the FCC adopted what came to be known as the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that designated station licensees as "public trustees," responsible for addressing controversial and contrasting issues of public importance. The key requirement of the Fairness Doctrine was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of differing points of view, for the necessity of furthering the public good. For instance, if a radio station wanted to present conservative commentary, the Fairness Doctrine required they give equal and fair time to progressive/liberal commentary. Political candidates could demand equal time from radio and television. The Fairness Doctrine also worked as one of the checks against big media consolidation, recognizing that the airwaves belong to the people, not to corporate interests. This placed the Fairness Doctrine at continual odds with media broadcasters who sought to do away with government regulation, so that they would be beholden only to profit and not the public. As the saying goes, business is in the business of making money.
In the 1980s came the Reagan Revolution, and a major push for deregulation that would take the government out of the way of the broadcasters. Reagan’s FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler, was one such advocate. A former broadcast industry lawyer, Fowler had long made public his belief that broadcasters had no special responsibilities to democratic discourse or the public good. Instead, Fowler believed broadcasters should be concerned with the bottom line. “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants,” he would state. By placing a broadcast industry lawyer in charge of the FCC, it was not long before courts found that the Fairness Doctrine did not need to be enforced. In a hurried attempt to save what some defined as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America,” the Congress passed a bill to make the Fairness Doctrine into law. However, President Reagan vetoed the legislation. A similar veto threat doomed another attempt under George H.W. Bush in 1991.
How a Shift in the Media Helped Shift Public Opinion
The results of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine were stunning. Already not enforced since the mid 1980s by an FCC in the pocket of big media, with the doctrine out of the way broadcasters found themselves free to do with the airwaves much as they pleased. By the 1990s a series of laws allowing for media consolidation placed much of what we hear or see into the hands of fewer owners. Alongside all of this was the rise of right-wing conservative radio. As Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, noted:The rise of conservative talk radio is directly linked to the absence of the Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the myriad of shrill right-wing talk jocks are immune from having to provide even a modicum of balanced perspective. Media consolidation has greatly fueled the problem, creating powerful station chains with a distinct political perspective, such as Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcasting. While on cable and satellite networks, Rupert Murdoch's FOX News Channel offers conservative commentary thinly disguised as journalism.
The power of this limited media cannot be overstated. By shutting out nearly all forms of liberal radio, the public airwaves become dominated by right-wing commentary that enabled the monumental Republican Revolution of 1994 which culminated in the 2000 election of George W. Bush. Furthermore, channels like FOX News began to alter the very landscape of journalism. As noted by Robert Greenwald’s documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, by pushing sensationalist headlines, featuring mostly pro-conservative commentators, race-bating, creating scapegoats and fostering an atmosphere that reduced news to sex, gossip and one-dimensional opinions, FOX News slowly pushed competing broadcasters closer to its own style—favoring profits over journalism. Frightened by its success and envious of its ratings, other news media outlets became increasingly more conservative, more dedicated to gossip stories and less interested in hard-hitting investigative journalism. Instead of challenging or questioning power, they became increasingly subservient to it.
After 9/11 this turn in the media became even more glaring. With FOX News and conservative radio leading the way, the manipulation of American fear and the appeal to jingoism became commonplace. Big news media became a willing tool of the White House, offering little in the way of journalistic criticism. During the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the media practically “rolled over” for the Bush administration, becoming a mouth-piece in making the case for war. It was not that “alternative” voices didn't exist. On independent and underground news sources, everything from the charge of WMDs to the claims of a Saddam Hussein-Al-Qaeda link was challenged and even disproved. Tens and hundreds of thousands marched in the streets against impending war. Yet from FOX News to CNN to the NY Times, the face of mainstream media was either indifferent to these voices or decidedly pro-war. Anti-war journalism and activists were either marginalized or shut out altogether from the discussion. Not surprisingly, the majority of the American public—with limited diverse options in the way of information—turned pro-war, with some 3 out of 4 supporting military action against Iraq. Those that were fed a diet of strict conservative media like FOX News were the most prone to believe, falsely, that Iraq and 9/11 were linked. It was only after Iraq turned disastrous, and the mainstream news media was opened up to more diverse opinions, that a shift in portrayal of the war took place. Consequently, another vast shift in American popular opinion began to take place, this time more to the center and left, resulting in plummeting poll numbers for the Bush White House, a change of control in Congress and a solid majority who not only think the war was a mistake, but now want it to end.
How “Old White Men” Run This Rap Sh*t
The experience of the news media under media consolidation bears similarities to Hip Hop’s current one-dimensional state. The rise of “thug” rap coincided neatly with the increase of control by major corporations. Pushing exploitative tales of the “ghetto,” and laced with sex and violence—that indulge heavily in racial stereotypes—media termed “gangsta” rap became commercially viable to corporations more concerned with the bottom line than with art. With such financial success, and racial expectations, this one-dimensional face of Hip Hop became marketed as mainstream. The continued consolidation of media slowly strangled any form of diversity. As Professor Akilah Folami noted in a March 2007 article:The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has strengthened corporate control of radio stations and has allowed for the commodification of Hip Hop music. Corporate control of radio has stifled social commentary and diversity present in “old-school” Rap and Hip Hop. Instead, corporate control has encouraged the proliferation of Gangsta Rap and the Gangsta Image, which has become the defacto voice of contemporary Hip Hop culture.
As noted in a previous essay, author Nick Chiles recounted the same dynamics behind the rise and dominance of black “street literature.” As “Street Lit” became pushed as mainstream black culture by the publishing industry, it steadily began to replace any other form of black literature. That there is a market for it should not be surprising. Sensationalist topics like sex and violence will sell books or music, as easily as it sells gossip stories about Anna Nicole Smith. Consumers further bought into the trend, as it became the most common black literature offered. A proliferation of books of this type took place as authors attempted to cash in on this trend, or were pushed in that direction. In ways similar to how publishers helped manufacture the demand of “Street Lit, and how corporations manufactured consent in the news media, the popularity of “thug” rap was manufactured by marketing a single type of music and limiting the space for differing genres.
Today activists for diversity in journalism are increasingly pushing to limit further media consolidation and for some reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, so that news is made available in varied formats. In the wake of the Don Imus controversy, there is even fear in conservative and right-wing radio, television and print journalism, that a return to the Fairness Doctrine is on the horizon. In reality, the Democratic Congress is not poised to take up the issue, and there will have to be many more campaigns, rallies and more before it appears on their radar. Nevertheless, the momentum is there. A similar movement to end the one-dimensional depictions in Hip Hop is needed, where something akin to a Fairness Doctrine can be implemented on the corporate distributors and broadcasters of black entertainment media. Otherwise we will continue to have a music industry that merely manufactures consent and dictates the face of black culture.
Read the other two essays in this Series:
Sex, Guns & Violence: Why Hip Hop is All-American
Their Eyes Were Watching Smut: Turning Pornography into Black Culture
For more on the Fairness Doctrine and the News Media, see the following:
Time For a Digital Fairness Doctrine – Jeffrey Chester
Politics & Economy- Big Media- Billy Moyers, NOW
The Fairness Doctrine- Why We Need it Back – Steve Rendall
How the Media Bought the War
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Their Eyes Were Watching Smut: Turning Pornography into Black Culture
When I was younger I watched the sitcom Sanford and Son. I had no idea that its star, Red Foxx, had an entirely different persona—one in which he performed raunchy and explicit comedy. What he was doing in nightclubs after all was adult humor for a mature audience, not the sort of thing you’d hear on daytime and mainstream television. Today we have the inverse. So why is the nearly pornographic--sex and violence--being marketed as black culture? And who’s ultimately responsible?
Their Eyes Were Watching Smut: Turning Pornography into Black Culture 
“We were all represented under that placard, the whole community of black authors- from me to Terry McMillan and Toni Morrison, from Yolanda Joe and Benilde Little to Edward P. Jones and Kuwana Haulsey - surrounded and swallowed whole on the shelves by an overwhelming wave of titles and jackets that I wouldn't want my 13-year-old son to see: ‘Hustlin' Backwards.’ ‘Legit Baller.’ ‘A Hustler's Wife.’ ‘Chocolate Flava.’… I felt as if I was walking into a pornography shop, except in this case the smut is being produced by and for my people, and it is called ‘literature.’"
Even with Chiles’ disgust, it is important to note he never called for censorship. After all, like pornography, the creators of “Street Lit” have the freedom of speech and artistic expression to do as they please, and anyone has the right to consume it. What he objected to was the double standard that he put squarely at the feet of the book media industry. White pornography books after all exist. In fact, pornography—books, magazines and film—is a multi-billion dollar industry consumed primarily by white males. However, no one expects to walk into a bookstore and see white pornography sitting on the shelf next to works by Tolstoy or Hemingway. Pornography is not marketed as mainstream white literature—although some books admittedly “push the envelope.” But if the literature is black, smut is good enough. In fact, it’s more than good enough; it is pushed as the black norm.
What Chiles describes is remarkably similar to issues facing Hip Hop—the use of adult themed entertainment, which caters to racially stereotypical images of sex and violence, as representative of mainstream black culture. Does “Street Lit” accurately represent the totality of black literature? No, as Chiles himself attests, there are a variety of black writers on diverse topics. Do the explicit and violent lyrics pushed by the music industry reflect the totality of rap music? No, Hip Hop is exceptionally diverse with numerous other genres to choose from. So if there are competing artists, why are the more adult themed genres used and marketed as the face of black popular culture, as the face of Hip Hop? And allowing that there is a place for explicit “gangsta” or “thug” rap—much as there’s a place for pornography—is it as the face of mainstream black culture, or should it be somewhere else?
When I was younger I watched comedian Red Foxx on the hit sitcom Sanford & Son. I thought his funniest joke was the heart attack routine where he’d exclaim, “This is the big one!” and tell his deceased wife, “You hear that, Elizabeth? I’m coming to join you, honey!” What I didn’t know at the time was that there was another side to Red Foxx, one that told jokes that were considered crude and sexually explicit. And it was no wonder. The Red Foxx of the nightclubs was not fit for mainstream public consumption—certainly not for my young ears. There was no way that persona was going to have a show on regular television. So I got Fred Sanford. Adults were allowed to hear Red Foxx.
This has shifted today. Black music videos and lyrics that are considered explicit due to graphic violence and sex are no longer simply marketed to adults. In fact, in great part they are presented as mainstream black culture—fully approved for young ears. Images and words that I would have had to sneak in my adolescent curiosity to find are now played daily on black radio and television. It’s as if the world was turned upside down, and I had been reared on depictions of a raunchy Red Foxx as mainstream black culture instead of Fred Sanford.
This however, is not the norm across the board—especially when we take race into account. The Sopranos, Deadwood and ROME are highly rated TV shows. Graphic and violent, filled with explicit sex and language, they are relegated to premium cable channels and can be seen mostly in primetime. Given their popularity, it’s obvious there’s a substantial market for this type of entertainment. But it is entertainment that is marketed to adults. It’s recognized that a show like The Sopranos, while popular, simply doesn’t fit the definition of mainstream. Instead the mainstream is left for shows deemed suitable for mass public consumption.
Yet the same distributors and media outlets do just the opposite when it comes to black entertainment. Videos and lyrics that are filled with sexual imagery and violent content that should be considered adult themed, are pushed as mainstream black culture. It is a distinct double standard. This is not to say that rock and pop videos do not often “push the envelope” when it comes to sex and violence. Certainly Christina Aguilera and Madonna stand as prime examples. However there is a difference between “pushing the envelope” and sanctioned gratuity. What is more, rock and pop are allowed a diversity of images so that no one depiction becomes the norm. As I point out in the next essay, this privilege is not extended to Hip Hop.
Next: Thug Life, Right-Wing News and the Iraq War: How the Media Manufactures Consent by Stifling Diversity
For more on the exploitation and marketing of violence and sex as black culture see:
The Pimping of Black Death in America- Chuck D
Hip Hop Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Is Hip-Hop Really Dead?- DaveyD
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Sex, Guns & Violence: Why Hip Hop is All-American
Sex and violence are often cited in rap lyrics. But while these are themes in Hip Hop, they don’t speak for the totality of the culture. Furthermore, to single out sex and violence in rap lyrics is hypocritical—when sex and violence pervade much of what is considered 'Americana.' From old blues lyrics to rock and roll, from movies to militarism, America is a society where guns, masculinity and sexuality are glorified. This essay posits that graphic sex and violence in rap lyrics might be hyper-normal, for mainstream American culture, but it’s not abnormal.
Sex, Guns & Violence: Why Hip Hop is All-American 
The recent controversy regarding talk show host Don Imus has turned into a debate about the state of Hip Hop. It was Imus himself who blamed rap artists for his slur against the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and the media followed along. In news stories video clips of scantily clad women were displayed alongside Imus, implying a double standard. Some in the black punditocracy, exploiting the issue to settle long-held disputes with Hip Hop, eagerly jumped in, pandering to popular beliefs of Hip Hop as a violent, misogynist, materialist-driven genre propagated in great part by black males. From Earl Ofari Hutchinson to Jason Whitlock, Hip Hop became the whipping boy for the sins of Don Imus. These were of course deflections, achieved often by shoddy journalism that omitted the totality of slights committed by Imus, and by perpetuating the false ideology that racism happens to black people because of something black people do to themselves—rather than a system of white power that seeks to control, define and restrict black life, existence and reality. [For deconstructions of these arguments, see the following: (1) The Martyrdom of Don Imus, (2) Passing the Buck and Missing the Point and (3) Don Imus, Duke Lacrosse, and the Imaginary Double Standard.
Of course there are problems within the Hip Hop community of sexism, misogyny and violence—most especially within the element dedicated to lyricism, referred to as emceeing, and most commonly called “rap.” These issues have long been discussed and debated both within and without the culture, at numerous conferences and summits, through visual artistic representations, scholarly articles, documentaries and even the lyrics of the music itself. Contrary to popular media folklore, the black community—including the Revs Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson—has engaged in this debate for well over a decade. That mainstream media is not aware of this highlights the lack of coverage given to such issues, at least until rap music is needed to draw parallels to crime or used to justify racism or sexism.
The first instinct of many, as they watch derogatory images in some rap videos, is to cry foul at the artists, and denounce themes like sexism and violence. But that’s being a bit unfair. Artists like Trick Daddy did not invent sexism in black music. G-Unit did not invent violence in black music. Go back to old blues lyrics, and one can easily find themes of violence and sex. Blues singer Josephine Miles in Mad Mama’s Blues in 1924 bragged she’d get her Winchester rifle and “have blood running through the streets…everybody [be] layin’ dead right at my feet.” Skip James in the 1930s crooned about his .22, and the violence he’d inflict on his lover if wronged. Bessie Smith’s lyrics were not only lewd, but she lived a life considered just as risqué by many. Fictional Blue’s personas like “Stagolee” became symbolic of the popular black bad man. And it would live on, through Richard Pryor and Parliament Funkadelic, through Blaxploitation flicks like Superfly, and even mainstream versions like Uptown Saturday Night—a movie about hustlers starring none other than the modern persona of black self-criticism, Bill Cosby. All of this is little wonder, as American culture has a long-standing obsession with violence, guns and sex.
From the old Westerns of the six-shooter slinging frontiersmen, to the anti-heroes of 1930s gangster flicks, all the way to modern day gun-laden crime dramas and action films—violence, and the glorification of both villains and heroes alike, along with a thriving gun culture, is quintessentially American. With a history of pin-up girls, playboy bunnies, and women as eye-candy to sell everything from cigarettes to cars, much the same can be said for sexism and exploitation. Popular white music has long been filled with themes of sex and violence. Johnny Cash sang about shooting a man "just to watch him die." Country legend Porter Wagoner told stories of men who kill and dismember their cheating wives. There are so many rock songs about narcotics it’s considered a third element of the genre (sex, drugs, rock n roll). So it’s not as if the vices denounced in rap music are unique; they fit well into the American norm.
But everyone knows America is about more than sex, guns and violence. Everyone realizes that this is not the sum totality of what makes up American culture. However, when it comes to Hip Hop, the most explicit and one-dimensional depictions dominate the face of the culture. Unlike country or rock, diversity in Hip Hop doesn't seem to be tolerated by the industry. Instead, graphic sex and violence are pursued and pushed as the norm.
Next: Their Eyes Were Watching Smut: Turning Pornography into Black Culture
For More on Sex, Violence and Guns in American Popular Culture:
Armed America: Portraits of America & Their Guns
Violence is the American Way
An American Century of Militarism
American Porn- PBS Frontline
Sex in American Advertising
Object Lessons- Girls Gone Wild
Bad Rap: Racist German Army Film Blamed On Hip Hop?
A recent video clip of a German army instructor ordering a soldier to scream expletives and shoot at imaginary blacks from the Bronx, has caused outrage. Apologies have been made and there's an investigation into the bizarre incident. Yet, somehow, Hip Hop has been fingered as a culprit. Is this a legitimate charge? Or in the wake of Don Imus, are we yet again looking at an insult in search for a scapegoat? A televised cell phone video clip of a German army instructor ordering a soldier to envision African Americans from New York's Bronx borough as he fires a machine gun and yells obscenities during a military training session is igniting outrage in Europe and America. The video shows an instructor and a soldier in camouflage uniforms in a forest. The instructor tells the soldier, "You are in the Bronx. A black van is stopping in front of you. Three African-Americans are getting out and they are insulting your mother in the worst ways. … Act." A laugh can be heard on the recording. The instructor adds, "Before each shot, I want to hear a 'motherf——-!'" A German TV reporter who covers the military told ABC News that parts of American popular culture may be largely to blame for the racist behavior of the German soldiers. "There are quite a lot of [American] B movies or hip-hop songs where black people, Afro Americans, are portrayed as gangsters, are portrayed as criminals," said Carsten Lueb of the German NTV network. "Some people here in Germany they take it for real, not knowing that is completely wrong."
Racist German Army Clip Targets N.Y. Blacks- Hip Hop Takes the Rap
Was watching ABC News this evening and saw the following report:
So I'm thinking, okay. After the Don Imus affair, the news media "discovered" racism sometime last week. They'll treat it like a new phenomenon for a few days, and we'll move on to the next Anna Nicole Smith type story. What I wasn't prepared for, was a scene close to the end.
The soldier begins to fire his machine gun at the imaginary blacks and screams out 'motherf——-!" afer each round.
Oh okay. I get it, this is now part of the era of A.D.I. (After Don Imus). Hip Hop is now to blame for racism in Germany. The same Germany that gave us the Third Reich and the most extreme ideologies of white supremacy the world has yet seen. The Germany where the 20,000 to 30,000 blacks unfortunate enough to live under Nazi rule faced what the US Holocaust Museum termed "isolation...persecution, sterilization, medical experimentation, incarceration, brutality, and murder." The Germany responsible for the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews portrayed as some inferior "bastard offspring" of Africans and Asians. The Germany with a brutal and racist colonial legacy in Africa, including the Herero Massacre. The Germany where racist attacks (against blacks and others) had soared to over 40% by 2001; an Ethiopian-born man was beaten into a coma last April by a white mob. The Germany where black soccer players are taunted by thousands of fans who engage in "monkey chants" and throw bananas (part of a European continent wide derogatory ritual) when they enter on to the field. That's the Germany that now gets to blame Hip Hop for its racist sins.
Well, this must be a milestone in the history of creating scapegoats and irony. Even if one allows for the obvious reality that negative images of blacks is to blame for this incident, why lay it so easily at the feet of Hip Hop? Germany has a long history of Hip Hop, most of which is greatly divorced from "thug" rap. German Hip Hop has developed for such a time, that it now has its own indigenous sounds, beats, social movements and feel. There's hardly a need to form an image of Hip Hop based on "black criminals" from the Bronx when there's exposure to the creative diversity of indigenous German Hip Hop. Besides, of all the scary boogey-men the German army will have to face in the world, how do black residents of the Bronx skyrocket to the top? Did a group of blacks recently settle and form the ominous Republic of "Bronx-istan" somewhere near the Sudetenland?
Today Germany has a well established black community, the Afrodeutsche, who are a thriving part of modern German society. So in many ways, the country has come a long way from its past. And many of its citizens, black, white and Asian, can appreciate the full complexity of "The Bronx"--including the culture of Hip Hop that has been allowed to flourish on German soil. Incidents like this however, along with many others, show that Germany still has a long way to go on matters of race. Best to deal with that, rather than point a finger at Hip Hop.
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Martyrdom of Don Imus or The Devil Wears Hip Hop
Even in his demise talk show host "nappy-headed hos" Don Imus has attained a form of popular martyrdom. Read any of the many comment boards or blogs or gauge the reaction from commentators and regular citizens alike, and Imus is painted as a scapegoat—a sacrificial lamb (albeit a tainted one) that was vilified by a hypocritical black lynch mob that does not speak out equally against the use of derogatory language towards black women in rap music. Black commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson even advocates that Don Imus is rapper Snoop Dogg’s “Frankenstein Monster." But did Don Imus really die for Hip Hop's sins? Or is the media elite protecting one of their own in order to restrict and limit our discussion? Even in his demise talk show host Don Imus has attained a form of popular martyrdom. Read any of the many comment boards or blogs or gauge the reaction from commentators and regular citizens alike, and Imus is painted as a scapegoat—a sacrificial lamb (albeit a tainted one) that was vilified by a hypocritical black lynch mob that does not speak out equally against the use of derogatory language towards black women in rap music. Imus had as much to say. "That phrase [nappy-headed hos] originated in the black community….I may be a white man, but I know that these young women and young black women all through that society are demeaned and disparaged and disrespected…by their own black men and that they are called that name." This defense has been cited repeatedly by defenders of Imus, and by those who assert it is rap music that is to blame for his slur. Increasingly conservative commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson even advocates that Don Imus is rapper Snoop Dogg's "Frankenstein Monster." For Imus, a great deal was tolerated by CBS and MSNBC for a long time. But unlike Snoopp Dogg and the other purveyors of derogatory and sexist "thug" rap, or the radio landscape of insensitive commentary by Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Laura Ingrams, Don Imus was able to have a program on mainstream television outlets that reached millions of viewers. Unlike the explicit drug-dealer glorifying Young Jeezy or the violent fictional mob boss Tony Soprano, Imus interviewed members of the media elite, presidential candidates, influence peddlers, and more. 50 Cent is derogatory in nearly every aspect of his lyricism, no doubt. But much like soft-core porn stars on Cinemax, he and other pushers of smut and violence, aren't afforded these privileges. Imus was. And when he crossed that line—wanting his cake and eat it too—he fittingly had his "ho" card pulled. Special thanks to Media Matters.org for the invaluable information.
The Martyrdom of Don Imus
or
The Devil Wears Hip Hop 
A Martyr and the Devil ?
However there is a glaring problem with the impending martyrdom of Don Imus—it rests on a series of omissions.
"Nappy Headed Hos:" Chances are if you heard the news story repeatedly, you mostly got the abridged version. Here's the larger context. Imus began by saying the women on the Rutgers team were some "rough girls" with "tattoos." It is the executive producer of the show Bernard McGuirk who interrupts to say, "Some hard-core hos." Imus responds, "That's some nappy headed-hos" and begins to compare them unfavorably to the women of the Tennessee team. McGuirk then jokes, "The Jigaboos vs the Wannabes," alluding to Spike Lee's School Daze. He and Imus go on to talk about the lack of femininity of the Rutgers players. A fellow regular on the show, sports announcer Sid Rosenberg, adds "It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors." This larger context brings up an entirely different angle. What we have here are several white men indulging in an age old intersection of sexism and racism that degrades black women as either sexually exotic or physically unattractive—at least in comparison to white women. Put together, along with words like "Jigaboo," we have a story more offensive than the "nappy headed hos." But the media inexplicably leaves this context on the cutting room floor. And now our conversations and debates are restricted to, "well don't rappers use ho' too?" and "why is Imus being singled out?" Perhaps it's because "Jigaboo" wouldn't fit into the "it's the rappers fault" theme.
"Bitch is Going to be Wearing Cornrows:" Executive producer Bernard Guirk, who instigated the disastrous remarks about the Rutgers team but goes unmentioned in news stories, just weeks ago made comments that were even more inflammatory. Just one month ago, on the March 6, 2007 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, executive producer Bernard McGuirk stated that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was "trying to sound black in front of a black audience" when she gave a speech on March 4 in Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the infamous 1965 "Bloody Sunday" Civil Rights march. McGuirk added that Clinton "will have cornrows and gold teeth before this fight with [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] is over." Earlier in the program, in reference to Clinton's speech, McGuirk had said, "Bitch is gonna be wearing cornrows." McGuirk also said that Clinton will be "giving Crips signs during speeches," alluding to the infamous Los Angeles-based street gang. The entire time McGuirk is stating this, denigrating an important moment in Civil Rights history, Imus jokes along, never stating the words himself but urging on the comments and certainly never calling McGuirk out for them. Although all of this happened just a month ago, and McGuirk was intricately involved in this current controversy, somehow he escapes mention in most media depictions of the story. So, again, we are presented with no context by which people can make a sound examination of both the initial controversial event and the very recent history of the show.
"Whitey plucked you from the jungle"…and "took away your spears:" Bernard McGuirk made those statements just one month ago, on the same March 6, 2007 edition of Imus in the Morning mentioned above. He was doing a mocking imitation of African-American poet Maya Angelou. Don Imus, playing along, urges McGuirk to do his imitation of "that woman…the poet" who another guest (Rob Bartlett) compares to "Esther Rolles from Good Times." McGuirk eagerly indulges with a poem where he jokes about slavery and the stereotype of blacks being lazy: "Whitey plucked you from the jungle for too many years, Took away your pride, your dignity, and your spears, With freedom came new woes, Into whitey's world you was rudely cast, So wake up now and go to work? You can kiss my big black ass." It's only after a good laugh that Imus playfully warns McGuirk to stop because "I don't need any more columns."
"Bernard McGuirk is there to do 'nigger' jokes:" That was a quote attributed to Don Imus by producer Tom Anderson in 1998. Imus was speaking to CBS journalist Mike Wallace. At first denying that he had said so, when called to the carpet about it by Wallace, Imus laughed and admitted it—but said it was "off the record."
"That Animal [Venus Williams]….She's an Animal:" That was sports announcer Sid Rosenberg, a regular guest on the Imus show in June of 2001, talking about tennis player Venus Williams. Rosenberg was also part of the crew involved in this latest controversy [comparing the Rutgers women to a male basketball team] who disappeared from the headlines. "That animal…" Rosenberg says of Venus Williams in her appearance at the 2001 U.S. Open, "She's an animal." Commenting on the Williams sisters together, Rosenberg says, "I can't, I can't even watch them play anymore. I find it disgusting…They should play with the men." In his normal way, Imus calls this stupid, but allows Rosenberg to continue with his disparaging remarks. "A friend, he says to me, 'You know what,' he goes, 'Listen, one of these days you're going to see, find Venus and Serena Williams in Playboy.' I said, 'You gotta better shot at National Geographic." To this Imus responds, "That'll be fine." After a small furor erupted over this, Imus fired Rosenberg but re-hired him within a week after an apology was made on the air. Rosenberg would insist that his comments about the Williams sisters weren't racist, "just zoological." After a string of later offenses, including referring to Palestinians as "stinking animals" and mocking singer Kylie Minogue's cancer, Rosenberg was let go in 2005. However earlier this year he returned, and picking up on his old habit of demeaning women, especially black women, he referred to the Rutgers team as "a tough watch" and that "they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors."
As the above illustrates, the Imus show's problems with gender and race are not new. It was part of a larger pattern, one that had long been noted by others like Media Matters.org or FAIR, though glaringly overlooked by the mainstream media and tolerated by both CBS and MSNBC. Imus often walked a delicate tightrope, never straying directly into the most inflammatory remarks himself, but encouraging and allowing it from both Sid Rosenberg and Bernard McGuirk (the one hired to do "nigger jokes."). A May 30, 1996, column in The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, protesting the show's treatment of Maya Angelou, summed it up thusly:
In 2000, the show's treatment of blacks became so dismal, that African-American Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page appeared on the show and asked Imus to pledge to "cease all simian references [to] black athletes" and "references to noncriminal blacks as thugs, pimps, muggers, and Colt 45 drinkers." Imus responded, "I promise to do that." Page also asked that Imus put an end to black minstrel-like "Amos 'n Andy cuts," to stop the "comparison of New York City to Mogadishu," and cease with "all parodies of black voices." Imus joked, "I think Bernard should be doing this," but accepted the pledge, only to break it almost immediately.
And so the show has long operated. What was different this time was that Imus broke his own rule. Rather than letting McGuirk and Rosenberg make derogatory comments for him, he jumped into the fray, calling the Rutger's team "nappy headed hos." At first refusing to recant, when the heat was turned up he invited himself onto activist Rev. Al Sharpton's show to apologise. And it wasn't long before the media elite--from The Boston Globe's Tom Oliphant to Newsweek's Howard Fineman--rallied around him. However this time it wasn't enough. Key advertisers began to abandon him. MSNBC and CBS, perhaps fearing of opening a Pandora's Box into the show's sordid history, decided to finally cut ties with Imus and take their losses.
This has happened before. Right wing radio host Rush Limbaugh was invited in the summer of 2003 as a Sunday sports announcer for ESPN, even despite a long history of insensitive racial comments. By October of that year Limbaugh found himself mired in controversy when he made disparaging comments about black quarterback Donavan McNabb. Fearful of bad publicity, ESPN jettisoned Limbaugh quickly. Why was Limbaugh axed for what was normal fare on his radio show? Because what is usually allowed in right-wing radio commentary cannot be tolerated on a big name mainstream television station like ESPN.
