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 of their own
culpability.

    Brooks sounded a pathetic excuse 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 as 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.