Racist remarks have been flying out in the open all over cable networks lately. Some fine examples that come to mind: Glenn Beck, one of the more outrageously bigoted figures on TV asking the first Muslim congressman if he’s “working with our enemies;” John Gibson on FOX calling on all white people to have more babies to prevent the horror of having black and brown people from becoming the majority population by 2020. In the latest racist slur—Imus’s describing the women’s basketball team at Rutgers as “nappy-headed ho’s.” As David Carr writes in Monday’s New York Times, Mr. Imus’s slur was “the kind of unalloyed racial insult that might not have passed muster on a low-watt AM station in the Jim Crow South.”  Aside from the fact that these comments create publicity nightmares for network executives and the hosts themselves, what kind of a message are these networks really conveying to the public?

 Sure, these guys are clamoring for ratings and trying to get attention. This, however, is the case where bad publicity is bad publicity. Message boards are raging about Imus’s comments. But I wonder about not just the reaction of the public, but the larger picture these racist statements are really exposing.   Racism and intolerance show pundits’ own need of sensationalizing the news and their ego, thus resorting to bigotry and ignorance instead of educating and inspiring the public. In reality, the media is increasingly becoming a divisive force in the public, whereas in my understanding, it should do the opposite. I think it is the liberal pundits who have to be especially careful. If we want to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008, we have to tighten up our message and unite the public behind solid and factual reporting and non-biased debate, free of racist, ludicrous or illogical statements.