On December 3, 2007, Don Imus returned to the airwaves. I’m not listening, and here’s why.
Last April, Imus was fired from his long-running, nationally syndicated “Imus In The Morning” radio program on WFAN-AM, a CBS affiliate, for referring to the Rutger’s University women’s basketball team as a bunch of “nappy-headed hos.” MSNBC, which carried the show on television, quickly followed suit. Imus subsequently settled a breach of contract action with CBS which resulted in that network’s paying him a reported $20 million, half of what he would have earned under his original agreement. Less than eight months after being fired, Imus was back on the radio at WABC-AM in my home town, New York City.
Imus’s defenders argue that the man has suffered enough, having been savaged by the media and much of the public. But when it comes to a powerful figure, does bad publicity really exist? Usually not. Imus is no stranger to slings and arrows. It comes with the territory of being a “shock jock.” As I noted in a previous opinion piece, Imus, many years ago, called senior PBS correspondent, Gwen Ifill, an African American, a “cleaning lady”, and, because of his long history of on-air racial remarks, fell out of favor with NPR journalist Juan Williams, who is also black. Now, after a wrist slap and an eight-month paid vacation, Imus is on WABC, poised to be bigger and better than ever.
Imus has returned to the air with longtime sidekicks Charles McCord and Bernard McGuirk. Mr. McGuirk was the guy who prodded the cowboy-hat-toting Imus into calling the Rutgers hoopsters “nappy headed hos.” Nothing seems to have changed. It’s the usual slick shuffle of the rich and powerful: blame the media, shed a few tears, and then keep on doing what you’ve always done.
In a December 4, 2007 column in The New York Post, Linda Stasi points out that Karith Foster, a black female Texan, has joined the I-man’s team. She appeared on Imus’s maiden broadcast for about three minutes. Sounds like window dressing to me, but time will tell.
Imus’s national reputation notwithstanding, WABC may have made a bad business deal. According to a November 1, 2007 AP article posted on MSNBC.com, the “Curtis and Kuby Show”, which Imus has replaced, had higher ratings in New York than Imus’s program did on WFAN. In fact, “Curtis and Kuby” was among the top ten “morning drive” shows in America. But Citadel Broadcasting, which bought WABC and other ABC radio stations from the Walt Disney Company in 2006, wanted a show with strong national syndication. Curtis and Kuby” is limited to the New York City area.
Civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby, co-host of the erstwhile program, was one of the few people who was defending Imus last April. In a bitter AP interview reported on CBSTV.com, Kuby regretted that action. “It’s hard not to talk for 25 hours a week and not say something stupid,” he groused. The report is available at http://wcbstv.com/topstories/imus.curtis.kuby.2.481909.html.
Defenders of Imus will cite his free speech rights and enduring popularity. But that argument is a double-edged sword.
The First Amendment notwithstanding, free speech is like a rubber band. Stretch it too far, and it will snap. Witness the draconian FCC fines levied after the Janet Jackson Superbowl breast-bearing incident which forced Howard Stern to a diminshed audience on satellite radio. Egregious speech begets diminished speech. And shock jocks who “push the envelope” don’t care. Nor do their corporate and individual enablers.
How do I know Imus’s speech is bad? After all, I don’t listen to the man. But I have read excerpts of his broadcasts and many analyses of them. I don’t need to patronize Imus’s show in order to reject it any more than I have to smoke crack to know that it’s bad for me.
Another argument put forth by the Imus crowd is that he does much charitable work thorugh his ranch for cancer-stricken children and elsewhere. Good for him. I wish him well with that. But setting up foundations and writing big checks are not acurate measures of one’s character. John Gotti, Sr. and Al Capone gave millions of dollars to charity and were two of the most vicious people to ever walk the face of the earth. I am not equating Imus with murderous gangsters, but I am saying that more is required of an ethical human being than simply raising large sums of money.
Over the past several decades, the public conversation in our society has become breathtakingly base. There was a time when if you cursed on the air, whether intentionally or not, you’d be toast. Today there is a proliferation of mean-spirited media talkers whose rhetoric is far more hurtful than any four-letter word.
Imus is a savvy businessman. He wouldn’t have gotten to where he is if he wasn’t smart. But he reminds me of kids I knew in high school that were intellectually mature but emotional cretins. Like Imus, they loved to ridicule people. The difference is that adult shock jocks get paid a lot of money for doing so.
Don’t get me wrong. Our ability to laugh at ourselves is a healthy thing. Satire has always been a part of American culture. The acerbic wit of a Don Rickles and the snappy dialogue of the cast of “All in the Family” brought Americans together. That was because these comedians made it clear to their audiences that they had no malice toward anyone. And they evolved over time. Both Rickles and Carroll O’Connor, who played Archie Bunker on “All in the Family”, cultivated a kinder and gentler image during their later years. Some argued that they weren’t as funny as they were originally, but that was only because even their most irreverent words made everyone laugh with them. They were uniters. Shock jocks like Imus are dividers.
Can Imus evolve? I hope so, but I doubt it. Chances are that he, and those like him, will continue to be a media force for quite some time. They will prosper as long as they have a market, which, in turn, produces major corporate sponsors. It’s all about money. But we, the people, can turn off the financial spigot any time by not listening to this garbage. The problem is that too many of us won’t.
