Why I'm Glad Imus Got the Boot

Shock jock Don Imus has finally been fired by both CBS and MSNBC, and good riddance to him. His vile, on-air idiocy was appropriately punished, but such behavior will continue to be with us for at least generations, and may very well remain a permanent fixture in our culture.

Imus was fired amidst fallout from remarks he made on his nationally syndicated radio show on CBS flagship station WFAN, which was simulcast on MSNBC. During that broadcast, he referred to the Rutgers Univesity women's basketball team, which reached the NCAA finals this year, as "nappy-headed hos."

Is anyone really startled by the I-Man's utterance? He's been trafficking in this manure for decades.

According to an April 10, 2007 New York Times Op-Ed column by senior PBS correspondent Gwen Ifill, an African American, in 1993 Imus referred to Ms. Ifill on his radio program as a "cleaning lady" who "covered the White House." The column is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/opinion/10ifill.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

In an April 10, 2007 column entitled "THIS IS AN UGLY, OLD STORY," New York Post sportswriter Phil Mushnick noted that many years ago Imus took on-air shots at Mother Teresa, asking whether she was a "no-good bitch," and referred to New York Channel 4 sportscaster Len Berman as "Lenny the Jew." Mr. Mushnick's column can be found at http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102007/news/columnists/this_is_an_ugly__old_story_columnists_phil_mushnick.htm.

About a decade ago, Imus apologized to Chicago Tribune reporter Clarence Page, another African American, about a series of racially offensive remarks that Imus made over the years. Page elicited an on-air pledge from Imus that he would never again make such utterances. Page stopped appearing on Imus's program in 2000. A discussion of this subject is available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june07/imus_04-09.html.

Shock jocks don't come out of thin air. We create them. Elite media moguls pay them big bucks to say outrageous things because millions of people listen to them and are apparently entertained by what they hear. As a result of their popularity, shock jocks gain major corporate sponsors, enriching both their employers and themselves.

In a gentler world, Imus and his ilk would be relegated to cable access or some dark corner of the dial. The mainstreaming of such personalities indicates how far we have fallen as a society.

According to an April 12, 2007 front page New York Times story, CBS Radio and WFAN earned a combined $20 million a year from corporate advertising and syndication of "Imus in the Morning." Individual affiliates collectively earned an additional $20 million. Imus's numerous corporate sponsors included General Motors, American Express, and Procter & Gamble. About two million people tuned into Imus every day, according to the story.

It was only through extraordinary public pressure that Imus was forced from his longtime perch. Major sponsors began deserting him when it became apparent that being associated with Imus was bad for business. But don't be surprised if he eventually comes back. Today's rich and powerful, no matter how unsavory, have a talent for rising from their ashes bigger and better than ever.

Howard Stern has been getting away with making sexually and racially offensive remarks on the airwaves for years. Michael Savage was fired from MSNBC for making slurs against homosexuals. Stern has a huge following; Savage does not. If you trade in dung, you have to be really good at it in order to survive.

If such vile discourse was limited to shock jocks, it could probably be remedied by various forms of public pressure, including press conferences, mass demonstrations, and boycotts. But the problem goes far beyond that. Turn on any rap or hip-hop station and you'll hear a torrent of "hos", "bitches", and n-words.

Proponents of rap and hip-hop argue that the lyrics are solely for entertainment. According to this theory, when black people use such language toward each other, their intentions are benign and therefore acceptable. You hear it in the schools, on the trains, and in the streets. It's everywhere, and that makes it okay.

I disagree. Racial, ethnic, or religious slurs directed by or towards anyone have no place in a modern, civilized society. And I question the sanity of people who get their entertainment from watching someone demean women and spew racial epithets.

That said, it is true that a white person using the n-word against an African American has hateful intent, while a black person employing the same term is likely to be just having a casual conversation. In some quarters, the n-word is considered an endearment.

But that doesn't make it benign. It's like the levels of Dante's Inferno. Whether you're on Level 1 or Level 10, you're still in hell. Casual use of vile epithets reflects a profound ignorance of history and reinforces negative stereotypes. If you hit someone with a dagger, you inflict damage on another human being whether or not you're trying to do harm. The n-word harks back to a time when people of color were considered property, something less than human.

Words have power. Contrary to the old "sticks-and-stones" adage, they can hurt people. The tear-streaked faces of the Rutgers players and their coach make that painfully apparent.

Sometimes the effect of words is not immediately obvious but nonetheless present. Call someone the n-word, "bitch", or "'ho" often enough, and she may start to define herself with those labels.

How ironic it is that Imus went groveling to the Rev. Al "White Interloper" Sharpton, and that the Rev. Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, along with Sharpton, immediately called for Imus's head. The fallout from Sharpton and Jackson's slurs was brief and did no long-term damage to their careers. Nor has Rosie "Ching Chong" O'Donnell been harmed by her slurs against persons of Chinese descent.

Such examples suggest that it's okay to venally insult some groups and not others. News flash: it's wrong to use that kind of language toward anyone at any time. The sooner that consumers and perpetrators of this garbage come to that realization, the better off we'll all be.

Some pundits say that Imus was canned, not because of what he said, but whom he singled out. Not only was his invective personal, it was directed at young women athletes rather than fellow celebrities. In other words, he didn't pick on people his own size. All that is very true, but someone punished for bad behavior cannot justify his actions by pointing to other bad behavior that has gone unpunished. Otherwise, a person convicted of murder could say that he should be let off because another murderer beat the rap.

Imus's defenders point out that he has done a lot of good during his long career. Imus runs a New Mexico ranch for children with cancer, and, in his final radiothon, raised a reported $2 million for children's charities. For that, I applaud him, but philanthropy is not a license to commit misdeeds. Al Capone and John Gotti, Sr. gave millions to charity but were still held accountable for their crimes.

As an American citizen who believes in the U.S. Constitution, I do not support censorship, except in rare cases where speech is likely to cause immediate harm to life or property. Legislative proposals to ban the n-word, such as the one recently introduced in New York's City Council, are both foolish and unenforceable. And the FCC indecency fines being levied upon broadcasters following the Janet Jackson debacle are, to say the least, troubling. These are the unfortunate results of shock jocks and other mindless individuals abusing a sacred right for which countless Americans have died.

Free speech is not infinitely elastic, even in America. Stretch the rubber band too far, and it's going to snap.

Was firing Imus censorship? Yes and no. It certainly is a form of corporate censorship, which is common in everyday life and far preferable to the government variety that goes against our national grain. People are fired every day for speech that bosses deem inappropriate, such as cursing at a client or repeatedly screaming in an otherwise quiet office. Imus's words were far more pernicious, especially given his huge microphone.

Yet Imus is still free to say whatever he wants, just not on CBS and MSNBC. There is no Constitutional right to a mega-platform.

An April 13, 2007 New York Times business story indicates that Imus may be in the market for a satellite deal. During his last gig, he earned a reported $10 million a year. Chances are, he'll land on his feet. He definitely won't starve.

I hope that someday we can return to more civil discourse through a combination of responsible parenting, public education, and ethical corporate behavior. Our political leaders can foster, but not impose, such an agenda. If undertaken, the process will be long and arduous.

Do we have the will to complete such a journey? The answer is far from certain.