Attack of the 50 Foot Lack of Proportion

Full disclosure: for nearly a decade, between ages 9 and 18, I woke up every morning to WFAN, 660 AM in New York. And on every weekday, what was on WFAN at 7 am was Imus in the Morning. As a pre-teen and teenager, I liked the show, even though in my early days of listening to it some of the language went over my head (once leading to an embarrassing encounter at the dinner table involving my use, despite not knowing what it meant, of the word "boner"). They did parody songs about the OJ trial, Bill Clinton impressions, and so on. By the time I was 14 or so I probably appreciated the humor of Imus' show as much as anyone in the country. But, perhaps tellingly, that's about where it peaked.

Today Imus was fired from CBS Radio, one day after MSNBC pulled the plug on its TV simulcast of his show. I can't say I'm surprised; so many sponsors had pulled out that CBS probably couldn't have afforded to pay Imus even if they'd kept him on the air. I don't know what, if anything, he'll do next - at age 67 he's old enough to retire, and it's hard to imagine anyone being able to put him back on the air for several years anyway.

It would be ludicrous to attempt to defend Imus at this point, and I have no intention of doing so. His comment about the Rutgers team was utterly tasteless, and it certainly wasn't funny; while it's arguable whether or not it was a dismissable offense, the outcry and sponsor pullout made that inevitable. All that said, I find it more than a little strange that this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Imus has a history of saying things on the air that rub people the wrong way; the most widely-reported almost all happened after I ceased to be a regular listener, and I typically only heard a small portion of his show anyway, so I can't speak to what it was like hearing them live. But it seems to me, first of all, that he has said much worse things on the air, as have members of his staff. His sports guy once likened the Williams sisters to wild animals (and not in some sort of "misguided flattery" way), and he himself said of Gwen Ifill that it was nice of the New York Times to "let the cleaning lady cover the White House." Note, however, that while these were widely reported in the wake of his recent comments, I don't have any recollection of hearing them before.

I think two things really doomed Imus here, and neither of those was his history of similar comments:

1. The people Imus attacked were amateur athletes.
There seems to be some sort of perception in the mainstream media that virtually any public figure is fair game for ridicule or disdain because, as people effectively paid to be in the public eye, they are capable of handling it. Heckling athletes is considered an art form in some circles, and many fans boo their own players with relish if said player does not succeed at a particular task, as though they were automatons that were built to work every time. (Remember, even a .400 hitter makes an out six times out of ten.) So when Imus' show attacks Ifill, or William Rhoden, or runs jokes about Chappaquiddick three decades after it happened, that's all well and good. After all, these people are professionals.

But listen to some of the comments by and about the Rutgers women. "A slap in the face?" Really? Again, this isn't to defend what Imus said, but the idea that their whole season was "ruined" by what one guy on the radio said strikes me as over the top. I'm sure none of them listened to, cared about, or probably had even heard of Imus until someone mentioned it to them; the women weren't gathered around the radio for their morning Imus powwow when, to their shock and dismay, he attacked them. However bad it was, the level to which the comment has been skewed seems terribly outlandish. True, I'm neither a woman nor black, and I'm not accusing anyone of falsifying their feelings on the incident. But I am saying that the vehemence with which the nation has turned on Imus would be better directed at real racial issues, not a more or less offhand comment by a shock radio icon who gets paid to be controversial. If not for all the sponsors pulling out, Imus probably could have gotten a raise from CBS, simply for drawing so much attention to himself and the show, more than he's had in his entire career.

The key quote comes from Linzell Vaughn, father of one of the players, as quoted in the CNN piece: "Do not disrespect our children." These women are legally adults, but as college students and amateurs there seems to be this sense of overprotection that Imus unwittingly stumbled up against. His comments were wrong, but the PC coddling of the youth in this country gets worse every year.

2. Imus actually had some credibility.
Far worse comments about a diverse range of people emanate from the mouths of radio and television mainstays like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity on a daily basis. If five comments in ten years seems like a lot, try five comments in ten minutes. The difference? These are all right-wing nutballs who no one takes seriously to begin with. Even when the story occasionally makes it into the mainstream media - like Coulter recently calling John Edwards a "faggot" - there is some quick condemnation and then everyone goes back to their business. Was there any call for Coulter's firing from anything, by, say, Edwards? Of course not. Because (a) Edwards is a public figure who has dealt with attacks before, if not of the same kind and (b) everyone knows Coulter is a space cadet. Firing Ann Coulter for saying something nasty about a Democrat is like firing John Moschitta for talking too fast.

And that was exactly Imus' problem. His show was basically Howard Stern's - except replace Pamela Anderson with Maureen Dowd. Amidst all the relatively low humor (albeit certainly not as low as Stern's), Imus ran charity telethons, discussed politics seriously, interviewed authors - it was like NPR with dick jokes. The problem is, when you do that, people tend not to focus on the dick jokes - until you go too far. And that's exactly what happened. Imus was hoist by his own petard, the petard being his credibility. Put Imus' words in Rush Limbaugh's mouth and he's on the radio right now.

So maybe that's the biggest problem I have with this whole thing. Why should the standard be so much different, just because Imus does some serious interviews? If it's national news and a firing when one person says it, it should be national news and a firing no matter who said it. But I can guarantee you it wouldn't be. The story is being reported as "Imus fired for his comments," but that's bullshit. CBS and MSNBC fired Imus because of money and because of their images, not because they were so bent out of shape over what he said. That doesn't mean it's okay to say, but of all the incidents that have ever gotten radio or TV personalities fired, this has to be among the tamest.

Finally, I liked Jason Whitlock's take on the issue (that's the first time you've ever seen those words in a row), and he's exactly right (and comes at it from a better perspective than I do). Imus' words were distasteful, but were they really that virulent? Were they really so harmful to the black community? It's hard to believe, and I wonder when I think these things if I just don't have the perspective to appreciate them, but Whitlock confirms that at least some members of the black community feel the same way. Imus' remarks should have been frowned upon, and he should have been suspended (as he was prior to being fired), but the end of his career, as this very likely will be, seems a steep price to pay for an insensitive remark that became the cause celebre of a slow news week.