Imus With Tears
I do not oppose the firing of Don Imus lightly.
It is clear that the pain Imus’s comments inflicted on many African American women, their friends and families is significant. That the culture is pervaded by name calling and ethnic and sexual tension does not alter the reality that these particular comments about these particular Rutgers athletes is somehow different. Imus rightly expects his attempts at humor to be processed in the context of a show in which “moron” is often a term of endearment. But that is not the only context which has given Imus’s transgression its weird unique power. First of all, this is not an isolated incident. Imus has long been tone deaf on racial matters and has been criticized for it.
Just as significantly, Imus’s show uniquely combines “morning zoo” insult humor with serious interviews with authors, musicians and politicians including several Presidential candidates.
For the most part, this combination has worked well. Imus has derived credibility from these guests and his radio chops give these guests access to an audience not available via NPR. But the very stature of the Imus show makes the effect of his insult worse. The anger and pain are not solely related to the content but also to the source. If Opie and Anthony or a dozen other shock-jocks made the same remarks they would be criticized but not with a fraction of the intensity generated by the Imus affair. Everyone knows that there are still plenty of racist and sexist angry white guys in America ,but many find it particularly upsetting that such views appear to have be validated on a program which the political and media elite have endowed with legitimacy.
That the Imus show has been simulcast on MSBNC adds another dimension to its impact and there is no denying Jesse Jackson’s complaint that none of the cable news channels have given air-time to an African American in which their opinions can be expressed the way Imus, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly do.
Nonetheless, I believe that no good and considerable harm would come from the firing of Imus as the result of pressure resulting from this incident. The Imus Show exists in a commercial talk-radio and cable news environment which generally serves very thin and conservative cultural gruel. In that context, Imus is a liberal which is why conservative media such as the New York Post and the notorious Radio Equalizer blog are drooling at the prospect of his downfall. Imus openly endorsed Kerry in 2004. He has given a platform to liberals like Frank Rich and Al Franken, to musicians like Delbert McClinton, Levon Helm and the Blind Boys of Alabama, and dozens of authors who owe their best-sellers to him. His fierce critique of pharmaceutical companies for trying to avoid liability on drugs that may have caused autism was only matched in the mass media by Robert Kennedy Jr. Many, if not most Imus fans listen not because of the insult humor but in spite of it.
But even if one doesn’t think that Imus’ particular cultural stew and his dedication to raising money for charity had made his show more good than bad, there is a strong argument against campaigns of loud voiced activists aimed at intimidating big media companies and their sponsors into dropping programming or products that are otherwise economically viable in the marketplace but are tainted as “controversial.”
These efforts do not constitute legal censorship and do not violate the First Amendment. But they have never made the media more progressive or more moral. I believe it was wrong when MSNBC canceled the Phil Donahue Show even though it got good ratings because corporate advisers were worried that his anti-war stance would be bad for the network’s image. It was wrong when Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect” was canceled because of his observation that the 9/11 killers were not cowards. It is wrong to try to get Rosie O’Donnel fired. It was wrong when Jewish groups tried to get CBS Records to drop Public Enemy; wrong when the FBI wrote a letter cautioning retailers about the advisability of carrying the NWA record which contained “Fuck The Police”; wrong when police groups pressured Warner Bros. Records into withdrawing Ice Tea’s”Cop Killer.” It was wrong when Joe Lieberman, William Bennett and C. Delores Tucker tried to get the big record distributors not to sell Tupac’s records and wrong when Christian groups pressured Blockbuster into dropping “The Last Temptation of Christ,” and wrong when the Rev. Donald Wildman tried to get “Married With Children,” canceled. Political blacklisting in the nineteen fifties deprived dozens of actors,writers and directors of their jobs because of supposed Communist sympathies. That was achieved not through legislation or judicial decree but through pressure on corporations. Criticism is appropriate. Blacklisting ,although legal, is not.
I see no evidence that a stronger FCC presence in approving content will add morality to TV or radio. In the past the only consequences of such regulatory pressure has been to keep works like Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” off the radio,” and to generate absurd fines to companies because supposed indecencies such as Janet Jackson’s briefly flashed a breast. Those so-called “standards” end up being enforced not by civil rights leaders or feminists but by small minded bureaucrats at best or ideologues like Kenneth Tomlinson at worst.
Entertainers and broadcasters already live under the continual pressure of commercial considerations. Countless shows with ardent fan bases have been canceled because they lost money. Although I support efforts to reduce media ownership concentration, such efforts will not eliminate commercial pressures. With all of its hideous warts, warts which reflect the pathology of various aspects of our culture, a free commercial marketplace is much more likely to produce the optimum cacophony of public conversations than one which is subject to intimidation by the loudest and best organized pressure groups. Any success in canceling Imus will be assiduously studied and copied by the likes of the Rev.James Dobson.
Even if CBS and NBC resist the pressure to fire him, Imus has a tough road ahead of him as well he should. He will have to demonstrate his commercial viability following the scandal .He will need to re-imagine his show in a way which keeps enough morning drive-time commuters and but also consistently heals rather than exacerbates racial and sexual wounds. He will have to endure months of anxiety and scrutiny from advertisers and corporate executives who in previous years kept a timid distance. If he pulls it off, the culture will be better than if he doesn’t.
What he said.....and how well he said it.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
April 11, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, exactly? Neither Imus nor Limbaugh have done so in the aftermath of previous "incidents". In fact one suspects they use such "incidents" to drive their fan base.
Seems to me that having your advertisers pull out due to massive citizen uproar over an "incident" involving the words "nappy headed ho" is a form of commercial pressure, no?
sPh
April 11, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with D. Goldberg.
April 11, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have two problems with this.
One, so, what happens when, inevitably, Imus does this again? Will he again (since, this is already repeat behavior) be given a pass? Are all the people coming now to his defense going to again defend him? Or is this his "last chance."
(Something about this "give Imus another chance" business smacks of the Republicans and the surge in Iraq..."this time" it will do the trick...)
Two, look at all the examples of when this has happened before. Howl, Janet Jackson, NWA, Married with Children. It seems to me, James Dobson is not going to "copy" this behavior -- James Dobson, et al, are the ones DOING it.
The Right, certainly the religious Right, has made a profession out of "outrage" at our liberal media. And now, for once, here's some racist remark, and what are liberals told to do?
Shut up and sit down.
So, that's fine. Imus doesn't have to be fired. We'll all be good little liberals and keep our mouths shut.
But we shouldn't be under any illusions that this is somehow going to get the Right to stop trying to banish TV shows about lesbian mommies, or any of the other things they've rallied against.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 11, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Imus should not be fired because he is "controversial." He should be fired because he is a racist. There is a difference.
April 11, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMUS is history as of 6:30 eastern time
April 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In that context, Imus is a liberal ...."
I don't doubt you really believe that and that you do is much worse than anything Imus said. The real scandal of the Imus show is how many supposedly "centrist" to "liberal" men have enabled him for years.
April 11, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Danny Goldberg: "When the AM dial is full of little Hitlers, it's dumb to get Mussolini fired."
How about getting them all fired! We'll begin with the low-hanging fruits like Imus.
Imus and his gang represent what's so repugnant about American culture: gratuitous insults and crass humiliations passing off as "wit."
Goldberg is also implying that because Imus is a "lib" (a dubious proposition) his racism should be excused. Strange logic.
April 11, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Sen Dodd had planned an announcment visit to Imus in the Morning!
Why I am writing about this nonsense? Anna Nicole Smith soap opera for the politically correct.
I need a life or maybe should apply for War Czar
Will lose for food.
April 11, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree with Danny G., and I have to say my estimation of him, as evidenced by not only this essay but by his disastrous leadership of Air America Radio, has dropped immensely since his halcyon days defending free speech and promoting progressive, fun rock'n'roll.
The issue here is not free speech, but commercial speech. And in that context Imus has no more (nor less) right to have a radio and cable talk show than do I. Given that, MSNBC absolutely did the right thing by canceling their contract with Imus's production and syndication team to run his show on their network. He offended millions of people and scared away advertisers. So MSNBC exercised its self-interested right to its profits by giving Imus and his team the boot. (Wrapping their rhetoric in the mantle of "listening to their employees" was certainly a face-saving device, but losing Proctor & Gamble was clearly the more defining element in their decision.)
Goldberg may argue (fatuously, in my opinion) that Imus can be rehabilitated and that his show has value to the culture. Obviously I disagree with D.G.'s point of view on that. But there is no First Amendment or free-speech basis for an argument against him being fired. Commercial speech is not free speech. If it were, all bloggers would be millionaires.
April 11, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imus is a liberal?
Pardon my French, but you've gotta be fucking kidding me.
If Imus is a liberal, that's all the more reason to get him off the air.
Imus is a racist, white patriarchy-affirming asshole who justly deserves whatever comes his way. In no other line of work would there even be a question of whether saying the phrase "nappy-headed hos" during work hours, to a nationwide audience, would be a firing offense.
I don't see how you can equate the furor over Imus's appalling racist and insensitive remarks with Phil Donohue being taken off the air because MSNBC wanted to please Republican corporate masters, or the fake furor over Bill Maher pointing out the entirely obvious fact that whatever derisive name you want to use against suicidal terrorists (and believe me, I can think of plenty of them), "coward" really isn't the most appropriate one.
This is the kind of judgment-free postmodern thinking that has crippled the liberal movement in recent decades. No, the fact that some people get angry when one person says one thing and some different people get angry when a different person says something different does not, in isolation, create an equivalence between the two situations.
Why do I want to see Imus fired? Not only because he's a racist shit, but because the high profile he has enables and empowers all sorts of racist nonsense. It should not be considered even remotely thinkable that a group of young women, who have never been accused of doing anything negative to anybody, should have to endure being called "nappy headed hos" by a public celebrity.
I'm really looking forward to somebody questioning my usage of vulgarity in this context. Doing so would only validate the Imus view of the world: that it is somehow acceptable for him to be vulgar and racist, but that people who criticize him should be held to a higher standard. Fuck that!
April 11, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imus is paying the consequences for stupid racist and misogynist comments. Firing him may or may not be the ultimate result of the consequences, but the reality Imus is a Disney charactor compared to fascist racist freaks like Limbaugh, the screeching harpy Coulter, and the nefarious demon Robertson, all of whom repeated pimp racist, misogynist, and or homophobic proclamations. All these fascist and many more wingnutsia mouthpieces repeatedly brute calls for murder, assisination, imprisoning, our fellow Americans who dare to question, challenge, dissent with, and/or oppose the fascist policies of the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government.
If Imus goes, then Limbaugh, Coulter, and other fascist freaks like Robertson should be held to the same standards and be punished accordingly for their reckless, racist, misogynist, and trecherous commentary.
April 11, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is clear that the pain Imus’s comments inflicted on many African American women, their friends and families is significant."
We're a nation of children.
Words are not actions.
Imus is a schmuck. That's about it.
April 11, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Danny Goldberg makes the only reasonable argument I've heard so far.
Does anyone really think Imus listeners would start reading physics textbooks or listening to Democracy Now! Radio, as opposed to Limbaugh, if Imus went off the air?
Too many are jumping on the PC bandwagon to lynch Imus without really knowing anything about him or what relative good he does on talk radio, a market inundated with right wing hate, hardline conservatism, and fundamentalist sermons.
The lesson people will take out of this is that it's ok to be a Limbaugh Rt Winger and say hateful things on a daily basis, but if you aspire for half your programming to something better, look out because the PC police will be all over you!
The result: more Rt wing radio, more market share of hate mongers.
Talk about circular firing squads and making the perfect the enemy of the relatively good.
April 11, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "funny" thing is... Apparently, the Rutgers' team took Imus' offensive term in stride -- they're used to such treatment (and that, IMO, is a much more depressing sign of the times than Imus's use of the phrase)... Until everyone else went up in arms on their behalf.
Me,I'm more worried about the gutting of the Civil Rights section of the DoJ which -- or so we're told -- has been going on, systematically, since 2002 or so
April 11, 2007 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
(NT) But I think that's totally far fetched. That's about as realistic as Nader's strategy of attacking moderates, which just helped empower 8 years of GW Bush.
This Imus scandal is classic divide and conquer. Who'll be left standing? Limbaugh and such.
He made a crass remark, but I'm sure he's sorry for it, and will do something to make amends. Otherwise, he's on the better side of the talk radio spectrum, which is a terribly Rt Wing market.
The people really enjoying this whole "media controversy" are:
1) the White House for getting real scandals out of the news.
2) Limbaugh is salivating as the prospects of expanding market.
3) Machiavellians like Rove who are always looking for the next wedge issue and circular firing squad to take out Democratic candidates. I'm sure Rove is salivating at the idea of Debra Dickerson getting lots of FOX and Limbaugh airtime claiming Obama isn't black enough for example.
April 11, 2007 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To take a phrase from Lynn Cheney, "This is not a good man." Don't give me any of that "this is PC" crap. The right is perfectly happy to apply their own PC standards to the mildest liberal commentary, but I'm supposed to go all free speech an' shit when a pig like Imus shows his true colors? Forgive me if I demur.
April 11, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of racist, apologist trash.
Oh ... and MSNBC fired his ass.
Go cry to mommy, Mr. Goldberg.
April 11, 2007 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imus and MSNBC had a deal. They would give him x amount of money as long as he would use y amount of airtime bring them z amount of viewers ("product") to be exposed to ("sold to") MSNBC's customers ("sponsors").
If he misbehaves (whether it is race, politics, or accusing the Queen of England of being a meth addict) to the point that viewers disappear, he is screwing up the contract. Exit Imus.
I think the free speech arguments are misplaced in this context. If he had bought airtime, and then they tried to shut him down for his views or even for his racist utterances, that would be censorship, but IMO this is just about the money.
If he negotiates another deal, I will wish him well in his career, and hope he has learned something.
A side benefit: a prominent talk show guy has now been canned for making outrageous statements. Since all agree that the majority of talk show hosts are fonts of right-wing spew, maybe the ice is now broken for some of them to get thrown off the air when they equal (or top) Imus.
April 11, 2007 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right. Where is there any evidence of that? That's not how things actually work.
Guys like Limbaugh say worse frequently, and get away with it. The lesson talk radio wil take away from this is 1) Air America and liberal radio aren't viable, 2) 'moderates' like imus are likley to get attacked by the left, 3) the only money making and reliable market for radio is rt wing.
Net result, more rt wing radio.
April 11, 2007 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Douglass Watts, your comments are simplistic and obnoxious.
You're a ratings abuser.
You're certainly not helping your cause by coming off as irate.
April 12, 2007 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Woman is the n****r of the world
J. Lennon
April 12, 2007 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Danny Goldberg's argument is tainted by his long personal (and business) relationship with Don Imus, which also contributed to his mismanagement of Air America, and his destruction of the morning lineup there.
Goldberg is also one of the caucasian cabal who used Imus's program to pimp their books.
I note that Goldberg disingenuously failed to disclose that relationship in his diary.
--
April 12, 2007 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, Danny, I find this defense very disturbing. To give just one example:
You say that Imus "has given a platform to ...musicians like ... the Blind Boys of Alabama." The one and only time I happened to see Imus' show on MSNBC was last fall when I chanced upon it in a hotel room. Coincidentally, he was talking about the Blind Boys - and starting a rant about how his show's management had initially been very lukewarm to having them on.
Imus and his cohorts tried to portray this as religiously motivated, and in a flash the "conversation" degenerated into unabashed anti-Semitic attacks on the "Jewish management," who were described as "money grubbing" and so on, all with lots of chuckling and "jokes" comparing Imus to Mel Gibson.
So even the good deed you described - his promotion of talented and neglected musicians - was poisoned by his bigotry. You really want to defend this in the name of liberal values? Time for a gut check, bro'. It's not a "stew" Imus is serving up, it's poison.
April 12, 2007 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
By this logic, it was wrong to fire Al Campanis, Jimmy the Greek, and the noted Donovan McNabb expert - one Rush Limbaugh.
Tom
April 12, 2007 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
How's about rating comments on content related to the subject matter, whether or not simplistic and/or obnoxious, rather than rating on one's personal dislike of the message/position within the comment, or rating against low ratings?
~OGD~
April 12, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
Sorry to hear your goose that's laid your golden eggs all these years has dumped a load of lead...
But that's what diversification is all about, at least in a business sense.
~OGD~
April 12, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
What about rap artists? Are they racists who should be fired? What is your problem with letting actual human beings--Imus' listeners and rap fans or anyone else--make up their own minds about what they listen to or watch? Why does anyone think it necessary to call on our corporate masters to make these decisions for us?
April 12, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Corvid:
It's not necessary. Although some folks have a problem with balancing actions in terms of their future consequences.
~OGD~
April 12, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to disagree with Corvid's framing of this as supportive of capitalist domination and by implication censorship. We're the public, and if we get ticked off and pressure the producers, we're not calling on them to make our decisions for us. Isn't such rhetoric the same as telling Wal-Mart protesters or union leaders that they're unwilling to let consumers decide?
I don't feel strongly about Imus myself, given the garbage out there. But it's nice people are geting angry for once at the same kind of provocation the right-wing pundits make so much money from. It's a start. As for Danny Goldberg's post, anything with "Imus" and "credibility" in the same sentence is suspect.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 12, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imus pissed me off a number of times when he threw cheap shots at people I like/support, but I accepted that he was a curmudgeon and continued watching from 6:00 till 7:00am knowing he'd be throwing shots at the likes of Rick Santorum next. Imus insults everyone, not just minorities, that's what makes him not guilty of racism in this case.
In my opinion its debatable whether or not Imus is a racist, but I think the evidence against Bernard McGurk is conclusive.
The idea that Al Sharpton is accusing someone of racism is ludicrous. I thought he outgrew his race hustling these last few years. I can see I was wrong.
April 12, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that a lot more damage is done to the reputation and psyches of young Black women by male rap artists than by Imus. Who do the young women listen to? Who do they admire? Who do they hear up and down the streets, in their community?
Imus doesn't sell low self esteem and female self-hate into the Black community, where it really counts. He's a white suburban blow hard, jacking off into the ears of white listeners who are relatively insulated from the hurt his words can cause.
I am bothered at the double standard here.
April 12, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal: if a person used the language Imus and McGuirk used in any modern workplace they would be immediately reprimanded and fired upon subsequent usages. If women were present, the women would have a fairly open and shut civil action for sexual harrassment.
So I don't understand how this stuff suddenly becomes non-actionable just because the employees, Imus and McGuirk, are saying it into microphones to 5 million people.
April 12, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Imus did was potentially worse than what Limbaugh does because Imus was the establishment. His guest list included every A list pundit and politician. He wasn't representing ditto heads, he was representing opinion leaders. In that context, he was legitimizing racism.
April 12, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What double standard - I wouldn't listen to Imus and I don't buy misogynistic music.
Tom
April 12, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm worried about both and I think they're related issues.
Tom
April 12, 2007 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My final analysis of the Imus Affair is that he wasn't fired because of the immorality of making racist statements or for being a racist. He was fired because he became a liability for some major media corporations collective bottom lines. It wouldn't bother me as much if he had been fired right after he made the offending racial slur...what is disingenuous is for NBC and CBS to initially suspend him then turn around and fire him only after they realized he hurt their profits. He had been doing this kinda schtick for years and now, with a snap of the fingers, it suddenly becomes unacceptable racism? Forgive me, if in hindsight, this doesn't pass my smell test...something stinks.
Now I want to see the "Imus Standard" applied to ALL radio/TV personalities or you can add hypocrisy to the list of what just happened this week. Either this is gonna be the standard for all or none...but not just Imus.
April 13, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink