Our wallets can shock the jocks
A MONTH after CBS Radio and MSNBC fired Don Imus for referring to the Rutgers women basketball team as "nappy-headed hos," entertainment executives continue to grapple with questions of what to do with talk show hosts who use sexually and racially offensive language as a form of "entertainment." Last month CBS fired radio hosts JV and Elvis for on-air comments denigrating Asians and Chinese-Americans. This week a local Boston station canceled plans to have Imus's former producer, Bernard McGuirk, appear as a guest on a talk show. Don't be distracted by claims of infringement on speech and creativity in the name of unwarranted enforcement of "political correctness." The driving force of CBS's decisions is the changing market for the kind of entertainment that denigrates people because of group identity.
In April, when CBS and MSNBC took Imus off the air, they were responding to one element of the market, deep pocket advertisers who withdrew their support from the televised radio show. Exactly how much money was at stake in advertising dollars from all the sponsors who pulled the plug on Imus is uncertain. According to Bloomberg.com, the two largest advertisers on the MSNBC simulcast,
Consumer outrage at Imus's remark drove advertisers to act quickly and unequivocally. Yet, in the midst of the public outcry over his comments and before Imus was suspended, investors, another market participant, sent a mixed message. Shares in CBS and in
Yet, in another episode,
XM Satellite has reason to be nervous about investors' reaction to the content of its shows. Even before the Opie and Anthony episode, XM's stock prices were tanking, dropping 47 percent in the last year and 16 percent since February, when it announced a proposed merger with a competitor, Sirius Radio. On May 15, the day XM announced the suspension, its shares fell 27 percent.
Unlike CBS and MSNBC, XM's creative content is not regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. However, the FCC does have a role in the market equation, in deciding whether the consuming public is best served by a merger that would lessen competition and reduce listeners' choices. XM must determine whether the greater market risk lies in holding on to this kind of content or abandoning it.
Whether the effect is long term or short lived, investors and corporate sponsors are taking their cues from a vocal consumer market with a growing number of economically self-sufficient and well-informed women and people of color who are often the targets of abusive language in the name of "entertainment." We are increasingly aware of our role in informing the market that we will no longer pay for entertainment that capitalizes on our degradation. We are joined by many white men who, though not the direct targets of verbal assaults, understand the injury they cause.
Yet, it is not enough to react to each incident and sit back and wait for the next one. We must use our knowledge and spending power to develop and support programming that encourages positive portrayals or, at least, rejects the vile, often violent denigration of individuals based on their race or gender.
Yes, sexism and racism still sells, but its marketability is shrinking and there are a vast number of consumers poised to buy better products. The average American household spends about $2,400 a year on entertainment. That amount does not take into account the money we spend on products advertised during broadcasts or investments in companies that produce and distribute the programs. With the occurrence of each disturbing episode, many of us are sure that we're not getting our money's worth. It's time for those who supply entertainment to respond with something better.
Anita F. Hill is a of professor law, social policy and women's studies at Brandeis University. 
