FOR MANY OF his listeners, Don Imus is a guilty pleasure, one they are defensive about.
Just as their fathers used to insist that they bought Playboy magazine for the articles, the listeners says they tune in to the craggy old shock jock for the interviews.
But just as Playboy also has plenty of pictures of naked women, Imus has plenty of mean-spirited, sexist, racist and homophobic locker-room banter purporting to be humor. Anyone who wants to read good writing in Playboy or hear interesting interviews with politicians and journalists on Imus has to wade through a lot of trash along the way.
The question for Imus’ sponsors and network bosses was whether the trash had finally gotten too deep. Certainly, the trash has always been there.
Imus’ gratuitous and scurrilous insult to the blameless young women of the Rutgers basketball team shocked many people, but it was completely in keeping with his behavior throughout his career. What bathrooms and breasts are to Howard Stern, racial and ethnic stereotypes and slurs are to Imus. The difference between the two is that the Federal Communications Commission does not care if a shock jock says terrible, insulting things about public or private citizens, as long as nothing is said about sex or the dirty bits of human anatomy.
That is why Stern was hounded into broadcasting from outer space, while Imus and other bullies — Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity — remain comfortably on Earth.
Placing Imus in such company will shock his fans. Imus is, after all, a relatively liberal bad boy, not a conservative wing nut. Imus, his fans tell themselves, doesn’t mean the nasty things he says — he’s just pushing the envelope like any good guerrilla comic. He’s really one of the good guys, they say, helping sick kids and wounded soldiers.
Well, yes ... he does do nice things. And, sometimes, he comes across on the air as a decent, caring human being. But then he will, for no apparent reason, open his mouth and say terrible, hurtful things about people who have done nothing to warrant his attention or his rage.
The brash young man of 30 years ago has become an increasingly irascible and volatile old man who seems to have worn out the governor on his mouth — not that the governor was all that effective to begin with. His eyes can no longer distinguish between innocent bystanders and legitimate targets for harsh humor.
Will Imus change his act and learn to target only those who deserve his attention and are capable of fighting back? Will his fans stick with him? If they do, so will some sponsors and someone is certain to air his show.
But if Imus does not change, his days are numbered.
The equation of the “Imus in the Morning” show has changed.
Now there is just too much guilt for the listeners — and not enough pleasure.
JoeMorgan (anonymous) says...
Anyone notice how speech crimes are becoming as important in America as real crimes like rape and murder?
The black community has many problems, high illegitimacy rate, crime rate, drop out rate, drug addiction rate, poor schools, rap music that glorifies violence and depicts black women as "hos," "niggas," and "bitches"....
I'm glad, though, that we have found the source of this malaise and can show our disapproval and finally do something about it, rectifying the problem--
Fire a European-American called Don Imus!
April 12, 2007 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kscrusader (anonymous) says...
It is typical for a columnist to show their true political colors by the pejorative remarks he/she makes. Mr. Kelley drives his point home that he is a Democrat by mentioning prominent Republicans (Coulter, O'Reilly, and Hannity) without mentioning the equivalent for the Democrats:
Hilary, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Al Sharpton. Are you seriously equating Imus' unconscionable comments to statements that O'Reilly and Hannity have made?? (Coutler may be an exception.) I guess that life must be fairly comfortable with those rose-colored glasses on. Let me tell you: no one who vehemently extolls their political virtues is without their political vices. Imus is simply another politico whose hubris has lead to his demise.
April 12, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phil_Dillon (anonymous) says...
The media is all over this one. MSNBC has fired Don Imus because he violated their cherished principles. Really? The axe only fell when the sponsorship dollars started to shrink. This has so little to do with principle it makes me want to puke. It's more about money than anything else.
Right now they're milking it for all its worth. I'm sure the ratings will skyrocket. But, they couldn't care less about solving the problem of racism in this country.
This could be a great opportunity to bring the issue of racism into the light and bring some healing, but that's not going to happen. The media will pander, the money will start flowing again, and nothing will change.
Pat Kelley and the big boys on the national stage can ride their moral hobby horses all they want, but they're not fooling anyone. They're every bit as bankrput as Imus.
Phil Dillon
http://anothermansmeat.blogspot.com
April 12, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
midnight_rider (anonymous) says...
"IMUS" was only exercising his "Freedom of Speech." I will miss starting my mornings listening to Imus, Charles, and Bernard.
April 12, 2007 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Flashman (anonymous) says...
Come on, Pat -- are all the trash-talking media shockers only conservatives? Why not add Bill Maher and the execrable Kieth Olbermann while you're at it? The unhinged, hateful and positively violent Liberal powderkeg Al Franken also desires top mention.
Make no mistake about it - Imus is an idiot, but your inclusion of only right-wing firebrands in your little screed skews the issue.
Vitriol and hate are practicised by both sides of the political argument - witness some of your own vicious editorials. I'm amused that the Guess-ette only comes out with guns blazing when the offender is a conservative.
No liberal bias here. Nooooo.
April 13, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
As a manager of organizational development and human resources, I believe the decision made by CBS executives should be commended. Every organization has an anti-discrimination policy in its code of conduct, and without a doubt Mr. Imus violated his employer’s policy.
The world is a much different place than it was 40 years ago, foremost we have become a society with greater respect and appreciation for diversity. Freedom of speech is very important, but vulgar comments are no longer tolerated by most. We can agree to disagree. The manner in which we communicate our differing viewpoints must be mature, sensible, and respectful. The format of such discussions should never be confrontational, or else we accomplish nothing and society fails. Admittedly, we can point to many other persons in the national spotlight who are offenders of these rules, but have not been reprimanded for their behavior. It is not my desire to see the employment of these persons terminated, but I do hope to see the tone of their messages changed.
Without a doubt, CBS had to look at the big picture. Did they really want to risk losing the credibility of their listeners/viewers and employees? In the end, CBS said, “we will not tolerate or condone this behavior.” This is a fine example of another prominent organization making a decision that will have positive effects for the future.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
April 13, 2007 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ellhayes (anonymous) says...
I find it a sad comment on the state of affairs in this country when a person such as Mr. Imus makes comments on a women's basketball team as he did. What I find even sadder are those who came out in protest of his remarks, and continue to do so even after his firing, who refuse to acknowledge and protest the obsence language, degradation and humiliation of women, and filth put on the airways everyday, all day by those who create "rap". My question is merely why? Is it because they are not brave enough to take on such a giant? Or could it be because the majority of those performing "rap" are black. Could this be preferential horror and digust? Could this be preferential discrimination?
April 14, 2007 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )