The last two weeks have shown news media's inconsistent commitment toward confronting racial intolerance. When Michael Ray Richardson was asked about a possible contract dispute, he proceeded to evoke what he thought was a positive stereotype by saying, "big-time Jew lawyers" had him covered. When it was suggested that his statement might be offensive, MRR continued, and passed his comment off as merely acknowledging the realities of the world­-Jews are crafty. The media, for the most part, labeled MRR as a silly ignorant man and moved on. When Don Imus, a popular talk radio host, described the losing Rutgers University team as "nappy-haired hoes," he was rightfully lambasted. What I see as a concern, is the selective hearing of media pundits towards racially ludicrous comments. The media correctly confronted Imus but quickly forgot about MRR. The fact that the MRR issue was only reported through sports networks suggests that there is a certain amount of selective hearing within the media. Some issues of ignorance and intolerance are to be well-publicized, and others are to be quickly addressed and then moved on from.

The disparity between the ways the media has denounced each of the speakers is striking. Imus has been blatantly called a racist and has been challenged through many forums to not only apologize, but explain why he would feasibly consider calling these girls such a derogatory name. This is the very minimum response. In Imus' case, there is little ambiguity about it. He was describing the difference between the University of Tennessee team and Rutgers, and could find no humorous escape other than to declare that one team was rough and "nappy-haired hoes." Imus idiotically used racially loaded language, something that requires the mental capacity of an ape. Michael Ray Richardson very clearly laid his argument as to the "craftiness" of the Jews. When he was questioned about his beliefs, he perpetuated the crafty Jew stereotype by citing the Tel Aviv airport, Jewish CEOs and lawyers and widespread anti-Semitism. What is worse: Imus' off-the-cuff remark demonstrating the racism of a particularly unfunny talk show host, or MRR's extended well thought-out essay supporting a stereotype? Is it worse for someone to have simple prejudice because of ignorance and insensitivity or for someone to be seriously convinced of overarching statements about a group of people? If you ask me, I would say that Michael Ray Richardson holds no particular animosity towards Jews-his basketball playing days in Israel brought him glory as well as a wife and two children that were raised Jewish. Nonetheless, his statements are an attempt to validate the stereotypes that are used to demonize Jews. Imus' insults merit attention because of their blatant racism but not because of the conviction of his statement. His remarks were off the cuff, revealing his stupidity and his complete and utter disrespect towards the black community. The media, however, chose to probe one distasteful comment more than the other. It exercised the selective hearing mentioned earlier.

The selective hearing of the media is a large reason why all the subtle forms of racism in our country continue to fly under the radar. As far as many are concerned, as long as you don't carry yourself as a total buffoon-a la Don Imus-you can pass as being an accepting person. This is a problem. This selective hearing is the reason that Muslims can be disparaged on television without consequence, that the war in the Middle East has often been described as callously covered, that the immigration debates are larger euphemistic debates discussing the comfort level of America with an influx of brown people and that there are debates about the "essential character"-i.e. white character-of the American landscape. Paying attention solely to remarks that the majority of Americans would find offensive is, in some respect, like getting the large rust spots off a car's paint job. It looks nice initially, but the small rust spots will eventually expand, and you'll see that the paint job is ruined.

Romulo Cabeza is a Junior Political Science major. He wants to eventually write awful novels under the pen name Robert Head. E-mails: rcabeza08@amherst.edu.