First, a little personal disclosure. As I have mentioned before (I devoted a whole column to it a while ago), I grew up listening to Howard Stern. I reveled in his bawdiness and giggled at his debauchery. I read his book and watched his movie. I mention this for two reasons, the first being to establish that I have no problem with the existence of “shock jocks.” The second reason is that in order to be considered a true fan of Stern’s you are required to hate Don Imus. Now, there were many things with which Stern and I disagreed, but Imus wasn’t one of them. I don’t think he’s funny, or particularly insightful or relevant or sympathetic. Whenever I walked into a store that was playing the Imus show, all I heard was a boorish, grumpy old man.
    So when Imus found himself in hot water over what has been described as a casual slur, I was smiling. My only reaction as the outrage grew was, “This? This is the comment that pulls the plug after than 30 years.”
    I could walk into a convenience store that had its radio tuned to Imus for a cup of coffee and before I located the cream, would hear something racist or misogynistic or homophobic. By some of the statements I have heard on his show, “nappy-headed ho” seemed almost innocuous.
    People have defended Imus by explaining that he is not a racist, he just plays one on TV; that he doesn’t hate black people, he hates everyone; that it is his job to be shocking and push cultural boundaries and that other people say those things too, so why single him out.
This past Sunday as a storm approached from the south, I began what would turn out to be many hours in front of my television by watching “Meet the Press,” the weekly news analysis on NBC moderated by Tim Russert. The first “half” of the show was devoted to Russert discussing with a retired military officer, General Anthony Zinni, the continuing quagmire in Iraq. Following Zinni’s apperance, Russert announced, “Coming next, Don Imus, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and the 2008 presidential candidates. Our roundtable weighs in next right here on Meet the Press.”
    What followed was one of the most interesting “Roundtable” discussions I have seen on any such show and as Russert later acknowledged, they never did get around to Alberto Gonzales or the 2008 presidential candidates. The roundtable discussion began in the usual formulaic way with Russert throwing out the topic of Imus’ dismissal and asking a black newspaper columnist, Eugene Robinson for his “take.” Russert then moved on to ask a white newspaper columnist, David Brooks, for his “take.” And, had the discussion followed this formula, there would have plenty of time to talk about the Attorney General and the Hillary Clinton. Instead the next person Russert turned to was Gwen Ifill, a regular presenter on PBS’ “NewsHour,” as well as her own “roundtable” show on public television. Ifill previously worked as reporter for the New York Times and NBC news. She also happens to be a black woman and she also happens to have been personally ridiculed by Imus. A decade ago, when Ifill was the Times’ White House correspondent, Imus wondered on his show why the venerable newspaper was sending a cleaning lady to cover the President.
    For 10 years or so, Ifill has endured her colleagues, including Russert and Brooks and the politicians she covers appearing on the Imus show and giving their tacit approval to Imus’ version of entertainment.
    She wasn’t going to waste this opportunity to take them to task.
“There’s been radio silence from a lot of people who’ve done this program who could’ve spoken up and said, ‘I find this offensive’ or “I didn’t know,’ Ifill said. These people didn’t speak up. Tim, we didn’t hear that much from you. David, we didn’t hear from you.”
And so, with the presence of Ifill, a woman who had been so personally and outrageously maligned, Imus’ enablers found it very difficult to intellectualize their way out their own culpability.
Brooks sounded almost pathetic when he protested that, although he has been on the Imus show several times he doesn’t listen to the show and “didn’t realize what he said.” Brooks said the problem wasn’t Imus per se, but a culture of meanness and cruelty, which Imus merely reflects.
Russert also didn’t want to talk about Imus per se, a person for whom he portrayed as a victim in the incident (“I also feel sadness for Don Imus and his wife and his family. I think he said a terrible thing. I think he regrets it.”) and also wanted to steer the conversation safely back to the abstract ruminations about “what it all means” in a diluted national conversation about race and free speech.
But it is personal and Ifill kept reminding her colleagues. This is a case of one mean person who makes a living denigrating people for their otherness; denying people their humanity by distilling them down to racial stereotypes– blacks are thugs, Jews are hook-nosed money grubbers, Hispanics are lazy, Irish are lecherous drunks– and whether such language should be subsidized by corporate sponsors and granted legitimacy by broadcasters, journalists and politicians. How can that be defended?
It had been for more than 30 years until some people at those corporations decided it could not longer be.
Don Imus’ dismissal was not an issue of free speech. The government did not intervene. There were no fines or threats of pulling broadcasting licenses. It was a business decision. We likely have not heard the last of Don Imus. If he chooses not to go gently into a very cushy retirement, there is room for him among the limitless radio and television outlets and his brand of insight will certainly find a market.
But if the world never hears from Don Imus ever again, we’ll all be a little better off.