In the wake of the Don Imus career implosion, media critics, activists and
professional thumbsuckers are debating whether the rules of media argy-bargy
have changed.
In a long cover story, Time magazine asks, "Who can say what?" Civil rights
ambulance-chaser Al Sharpton says this is the "beginning" of a "broad
discussion on what is permitted and not permitted on the airwaves."
On the surface, it does kind of look like a new standard is emerging. After
all, by my rough estimate, this was the 1,981,293rd stupid or offensive
thing Imus said on his radio show, and yet for reasons hard to fathom this
was the one that made him a pariah.
The truth is, however, the rules haven't changed at all - and that's why
this story is so maddeningly annoying.
First of all, there are no champions here, no heroes. In fact, there
shouldn't even be victims. I agree entirely that Imus' "nappy-headed ho's"
comments were offensive and insulting. But what on earth is wrong with the
Rutgers' women's basketball team? One player dramatically protested that
Imus' insults "scarred me for life."
Really? An aging, dyspeptic poster boy for Viagra says something stupid
about you and you're scarred for life? What kind of pride is their coach
instilling in them?
Meanwhile, we're supposed to submit to lectures from Al Sharpton about what
is "permissible" to say in public life? When exactly did someone invest Al
Sharpton with such moral or intellectual authority?
Sharpton has real victims on his rap sheet. He incited Harlem protestors to
fight back against Jewish "white interlopers." When one of the protestors
invaded a store and set fire to it, killing eight people, Sharpton denied
he'd ever spoken at the rally in question. When tapes of Sharpton's
incendiary speech were produced, he responded, "What's wrong with denouncing
white interlopers?" And let's not even replay the Tawana Brawley episode.
Then there's the smug journalistic establishment, which has been kissing
Imus' behind for a decade. Suddenly, they're shocked, shocked by Imus'
insensitivity. Please. If they are so concerned with the damage done by
hurtful comments, why aren't they begging for forgiveness like Henry in the
snows of Canossa for their rush to judgment in the Duke lacrosse scandal?
And liberal politicians, too - most of whom once upon a time lined up to use
Imus' megaphone - are suddenly dismayed by Imus' comments. Sen. Barack
Obama, for example, called for Imus to be fired for his "ho" comments. OK,
but Obama and other leading Democrats routinely meet with rappers, such as
Ludacris, who use "ho" - and worse - so much that if you were to delete such
terms from some of their songs you'd have little more than a backbeat left.
Don Imus is correct when he objects that he gets this language from the
black community, and that these racial doctors should look to healing their
own communities first before pounding the table with camera-attracting
outrage.
But Imus is hardly a martyr either. Simply because it's wrong - as he now
admits - for blacks to insult black women, that doesn't make it right for
whites to do it.
What makes this whole spectacle so repugnant is that, rather than ushering
in some new set of rules, it merely demonstrates how the existing rules
remain perfectly intact.
Is this current kabuki dance really so unfamiliar? Bottom-feeding
opportunists like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson rile up a lot of racial
outrage, and guilt-ridden white liberal journalists go into a feeding
frenzy. Politicians and corporations start running for cover.
The media establishment needs to prove how racially enlightened it is, the
activists need a trophy, the advertisers wet their pants over bad publicity.
Competing media outlets ramp up coverage of their colleague's desperate
attempts to extricate himself, which only emboldens the critics to seek more
limelight and sends the politicians even deeper into their rat holes.
The cycle continues until the desired scalp is delivered. Then everything
returns to normal until the next full moon, when the werewolves once again
must feed.
There's no need to cry for Imus - not only because what he said was wrong
but also because he's been a star player in precisely this game for years.
Indeed, some hilarious attempts to paint Don Imus as a conservative
notwithstanding, one of the great ironies here is that Imus is the bad boy
of the elite liberals' locker room. That most of his buddies left him high
and dry at the first sign of trouble isn't a sign that there are any "new
rules" in place. It's a sign of how well the old ones are working.