It is not generally my habit to comment on the Important Issues of the Day. Since the major planets in the blogosphere typically revolve around such concerns as Enriching One’s Life, or That Celebrity Who Died, those are issues which are exhaustively covered should one wish to gain perspective on them. No, my dealings are in matters like pretend bisexuals and flash game-ads: you know, issues you really care about. However, every so often I feel compelled to dip my toe into the gamy pool of pop culture commentary—a pool already boiling with the flamboyant splashing of other swimmers—and today is one of those days.
I’m referring to the Don Imus fiasco. I hardly feel it necessary to recap the much publicized chain of events for those reading in the here and now, but for posterity’s sake: Imus has been a radio broadcaster for thirty years, and is considered the first radio host whose appeal was chiefly in his off-color humor and cringe-worthy antics (no, I will not employ the loathsome popular term), in spite of Howard Stern’s oft-repeated declarations that he was the first to do everything and was, in fact, ripped off by Marconi. Last week he and a producer were chatting about the women’s college basketball team from Rutgers and their tough appearance, when Imus said of them, “Those are some nappy-headed hos, I’m going to tell you that.” As is to be expected, this provoked a tremendous outcry from the black community, led by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, demanding that Imus be fired. Imus, for his part, spent the following week apologizing on air, both on his own show and on Sharpton’s, as well as planning a visit with the Rutgers team to offer his apologies in person. In spite of these overtures, Imus was dropped first by advertisers, then by his MSNBC simulcasters, then by his radio employers themselves.
Let me begin the commentary phase by asserting that I do not listen, nor have I ever listened, to Imus in the Morning. I know of his humor only via association with similar shows. So I’m certainly not a fan by any stretch of the imagination. The comment—even in the context of his job—was callous, ignorant and disrespectful. It certainly deserves to be held to public scrutiny and debate, and the apology on Imus’ part was certainly warranted.
But the apology wasn’t enough. It wasn’t enough that he went on the air and apologized multiple times for the comment. It wasn’t enough that he went on Sharpton’s radio show, looked him square in the eye, and delivered further apologies to him and to his base of listeners: an act that had to require some degree of courage. It wasn’t enough that he pledged to visit the Rutgers team face to face and give his apology in person, an act of taking responsibility for one’s actions that is seldom seen nowadays. No, even after all of that, Sharpton and Jackson and others would be satisfied with nothing less than the end of his career, claiming the hope that it will lead to social dialogue and “change”.
As a supposed step toward social change, this reaction is entirely misplaced. It’s hard to envision a realistic scenario where the “healing” from this incident is somehow made better by Imus’ firing than it would have been with the apologies alone. People like Al Sharpton appear on TV full of bluster and manufactured anger, demanding heads on platters whenever someone speaks out of line. Does he really believe that Imus’ stupid off-color remark somehow lies near the heart of America’s racial inequalities, and that stamping him out will have any kind of positive result for the long term cause of race relations? Where are his press sermons full of righteous indignation when it comes to the real obstacles minorities face, such as not enough money being spent on inner city schools, and not enough tolerance being taught to all children at a young age, when their ideas about each other are being formed? Does he really think that this mobilization of a media army destroyed an important target? Is he so lacking in perspective? Of course not.
In another side to this issue, the right wing moral crusaders of America are tingly with joy at the fresh opportunity to attack the principle of free speech. These people—the products of America’s puritanical heritage, who fancy themselves the moral compass for the nation, and whose least favorite piece of literature of the past three centuries is the Bill of Rights—have taken upon themselves as their sworn duty the task of cleansing our culture of all the elements they find personally distasteful: particularly if there is some obscure interpretation of a stray passage in the Bible which, taken out of context, makes those elements appear to be unfavorable to God. They are beside themselves with glee at any opportunity to rally sympathetic Americans under the banner of moral outrage and get the movies, music, television and video games they either don’t like or don’t understand (same thing more or less) wiped off the map. There’s already been talk from some conservatives who could barely contain their smiles of “cracking down” on indecency, as they attempt to parley the anger over Imus’ mistake into a more wholesale elimination of the edgier forms of entertainment.
It won’t last, of course, as it never does. The public becomes temporarily disenchanted after the slip of this tongue or the flash of that nipple, there’s a momentary tightening of the rules, and then people decide they want their risquée TV, radio and games back and the whole movement is sloughed off again. The fact of life that none of these moral zealots ever seem to grasp is that many people seek out avenues of entertainment that they know they “shouldn’t” be entertained by, because they know they “shouldn’t” be entertained by them. The harder the crusaders squeeze, the more of a backlash there is. Every time they campaign against so-called indecency, they generate greater interest in it. It is a truth unerring and eternal.
Both Sharpton and Jackson also happen to belong to this group of morality police, and that’s what this is really about. Their true target is not racism, as I don’t think anybody seriously believes that silencing Don Imus in front of a league of already sympathetic fans is anywhere near the top of the list of acts that will create greater interracial understanding and brotherhood. Imus himself and his long history of charitable work are certainly not the targets, either. No, the ones they are actually trying to punish are Imus’ audience and the audiences of anyone like Imus, along with anyone who exhibits any kind of counter-Christian tendencies in their choices of entertainment. They saw the opportunity to pick off a subversive cultural influence and jumped all over it, apologies (and the acceptance of those apologies by those involved) be damned…literally.
Believe me, I am not at all unsympathetic to the hurt Imus’ ignorant comment caused to black people, nor am I in any way attempting to let him off the hook for it. It merits punishment and an apology to all black people, both of which were delivered before the axe fell on Imus’ radio career. But no additional justice was served by bringing the response to that endpoint. The reaction to an ugly social incident must be measured, and balanced in proportion to the incident itself.
Imus himself, after a weary week of apologies to deaf-eared moral crusaders who were out for blood (and TV facetime), said indignantly that he had “apologized enough” after expressing his personal regret in person to the Rutgers women themselves, considering his penance paid. It’s a shame men like Sharpton don’t have the same sense for when enough is enough. Take moral outrage too far, and it can and will blow up in your face.
