Letters to the Editor
-
One of the "positive" things about Imus' outburst...
...is that it shows the _real_ racial attitudes of the media figures who defend him. It's been quite eye-opening to see people-who-should-know-better like Garrison Keillor act as if it's inconsequential that Imus called the Rutgers women names that said media figures never, ever would want used towards _their_ daughters.
>My little sandy-haired gap-toothed daughter shoots baskets in the driveway, and when she hits a swisher she pumps her fist ("Yes!").<
And if she plays school basketball and gets slammed for looking "rough" and "whorish" by some radio/net commentator, will you dismiss that so easily, Mr. Keillor? What a shame--I used to respect you.
-
Great piece, Garrison!
This is a terrific piece and highlights many issues and problems I personally had with the Imus dismissal. As THE NCAC Censorship News observed in its latest issue:
Imus' words, though intentionally offensive, were a clumsy and ineffectual effort at politically incorrect humor. After all, as pointed out, rap music deploys that language all the time. But Imus is no 20-something rapper and the joke fell flat. Not only wasn't it funny, it sounded gratuitously mean .....
While no one wants to defend Imus, there's another reason why the public response should make First Amendment advocates uneasy: the ever -shrinking limits on what can be said on the public airwaves.
Catholic grooups object to content they find offensive; Jewish groups are highly sensitive about discussions of the Middle East; Feminists object to expression they think disparages and objectifies women; Conservatives recently supported the removal of an outspoken anti-war figure on public radio...
The net result of accomodating the desire not to offend is that the sphere of public debate and discussion is reduced. Promoting uninhibited language is at least as important a social goal as promoting civility - and is distinctly more valuable than promoting orthodoy
This is very true and also, As Jonathan Winokur observed in an AARP piece three yrs. ago, is more evidence that Americans are reverting to a nanny-ish, overweening state of protectiveness and an increasing inability to tolerate negative language overall.
As Winokur noted: "It's as if our American eyes, brains and ears have grown soft just like our bellies"
How did the Rutgers' girls even learn of Imus' words? It had to come not because THEY personally tuned him in, but because some officious "nanny" and squealer heard him and felt duty bound to report.
But why aren't any of these judicious monitors of national talk probity also reporting on Rush Limbaugh? In the past month he has relentlessly re-played a disgusting ditty entitled "Barack, the Magic Negro" over and over (sung to the tune of 'Puff, The Magic Dragon') He has also featured at least one spoof of a black man from the "streets" haranguing Obama about his mother: e.g. "Obama, yo' motha is so fat that if she dun got a flesh-eatin' disease she'd just be walkin' round normal size"
If Imus can be fired, why not Rush? For what I regard as far worse and vindictive racism.
It is evident this nation's hypocritical nannies only go after some voices but not all, and hence make a mockery of their self-righteous anger.
It is time to grow up. And if Americans can't grow up, at least be consistent in applying their free speeech limits!
-
And if your town's Bud's Lounge has a batch of folks who think this is okay discourse...
...than it's the kind of place my ancestors did their best to avoid by day--and by night. Proof positive that no matter what incarnation Midwestern all-American "jest folks"-ness shows up in, it's still got the same vile mess underneath.
-
Everyone who thinks Imus can't say what he wants to in a bar, raise you hands
Yes, I'm sure everything Imus said, and more, can be heard sitting in a bar, listening to drunken, aging, unhappy, dog-ugly white guys. So what? Go buy them a round if you like, Garrison. I'm sure Imus is still free to go to any bar, get a load on and rant to his heart's content. I personally think that's where he belongs. And if his various sponsors still wanted him to sell Viagra or Depends or whatever to his age group, he'd be on the air still. He wasn't removed by the FCC, the board room suits took him out. It was a money thing. Garrison is indeed feeling some empathy for Imus, because in reality they are in the same business, just at very different levels. Actually, Bill Maher was far more vocal in his defense of Imus on his own HBO show, he just didn't do so in his New Rules column here at Salon. Garrison remains free to defend Imus, just as he remains free to chuck horse apples at the Current Occupant. As with all elderly family members, we can accept a certain level of odd behavior and the occasional rant from time to time. At least as long as he keeps chucking those apples.
-
I don't buy it.
I don't even know if I agree with the premise here that there is somehow no comparable or greater disgust over Bush than what was expressed over Imus. Has Keillor not been reading? Not been glancing at polls? Did he miss those anti-war demonstrations a couple years ago that were among the biggest ever -- globally at that? I suppose if you watch only cable or network TV news (or read the Washington Post editorial page) then you might not understand how angry the public is and has been.
The difference is that Imus we can do something about in a rather direct way. I hate to think these words come from me of all people but sometimes capitalism is better forum for accountability than democracy. Sometimes. It's far easier to get a company dependent on a good public image to protect their ad dollars coming in next week to get a racist bag of crap off the air than to get a politician to respond to us more than once every four or six years.
Imus got what he deserved. No way, no how can you say that Imus wasn't a plain hateful bigot. To compare him to the guy's at "Bud's Lounge" is plain stupid. The guys at Bud's Lounge don't have a national radio show where the most major of politicians and journalists come and talk (And note to Keillor, decent people turn away from the guy at Bud's Lounge when he starts in on some hateful diatribe...they don't waste their time engaging him and lending him an ounce of credibility by even listening). That's an important difference Keillor's ignoring because even the stupidest of people understands it. I actually think the reaction to Imus was so drastic because there's a frustration over not being able to do anything about Bush and the same rich, white man protectionism the Republican party has been shoving down our throats for years. Imus represented much of that ugliness and particularly so in his attack on the basketball players.
People who scratch their heads and say Imus was hired to do that hateful crap and that's what he's always done don't understand that times change. Sooner or later, if you're smearing people without a voice in hateful and ugly ways, they'll get tired of it and find a way to bite and fight back. It's never been "so what" to a lot of people. They've finally had enough of people like Imus. And people like Keillor. Yes, Keillor. Right here he is furthering the insult to the women Imus attacked by saying "so what." Really, really surprising that Salon is printing "so what" to young women athletes being referred to in the thinnest of euphemistic terms as 'nigger whores'.
Folks like Imus and Keillor don't recognize that privilege at the expense of others never lasts. The "others" get fed up and take your privilege away. Of course, there is a way to survive and escape that fate. Stop producing or excusing hate and bigotry.
Sooner or later Mr. Keillor, decent people will stop turning away from your embarrassing, insulting ramblings and they'll take your privileged voice away.