Friday, April 13, 2007

One More Blog About Don Imus (Who Needs It?) (1 cent)

I must admit to have been an occasional Don Imus watcher. A few years ago, I was fairly regular. Why is this? Because he was, I thought, entertaining and charismatic, and could be counted on for interesting guests. As to his crude and cruel 'humor', I generally cringed. I didn't really overlook it, but I didn't let it stop my enjoyment of the show. And, perhaps in the sense that it was 'live' and 'spontaneous', it added something. And I did wonder why no one washed his mouth out with soap.

Imus had two sidekicks on the show. One, Charles McCord, did the news and played it fairly straight. I always have liked him. The other, Bernard McGuirk (McJerk?) was the opposite; he was the crudest of the crude, the instigator of all things bad on the show. He was also the producer of the show.

Now, I don't know the working relationship between the members of this longstanding trio, and particularly, I don't know, as between Imus and McJerk, which one came up with the most outlandish lines or skits. I don't really care.

Enough has been reported about all the crude remarks Imus has made over the years, and how the audiences, the sponsors, and the networks tolerated (welcomed?) them. Was it money only? Was it enjoyment? Was it tacit approval? (By one theory, Imus was willing to say what a lot of people would think, but were not in a position to say.) Again, I don't know.

I have, however, long been intrigued about his guests, and their willingness to participate actively in the show, particularly since so many of the guests were so prominent politically, and who worked hard to maintain a level of politician morality that was so different from the Imus morality. Think Joe Lieberman. Think John McCain. Think John Kerry.

Then there were the clergymen, Rabbi Mark Geller and Father Tom Hartman. What is their excuse?

As to the NBC journalists, Tim Russert and David Gregory and the others, well I thought that business was business, and they were on to promote the networks. But then there were the print journalists who called in as well. What were they thinking?

Many people want to expand this discussion. They want to take on the rap industry (that is probably a good thing). They want to take on the conservative talk show hosts (it is about time someone did). They want to take on Bill Maher (I think he is pretty outrageous). They want to take on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (that is not going a little too far; that is going way too far). But where are the limits on this type of talk? And on whom should the limits be placed? And should they be legal limits (as they are with obscenities), or simply societal acceptance limits (assuming there is such a thing in such a diverse society). These are the questions that need to be addressed.

Of course, it is not the words themselves that are problems (although 'ho'' is not a word), but the use of the words and the identity and intent of the speaker. Can Jews tell jokes on Jews, and blacks make fun of blacks, while neither should put down the other? Perhaps, although this in many ways goes against the grain, and certainly against the American premise that everyone should be treated and considered equally. Once, I was in a group of black and Jewish professionals, and one of the Jewish members set to one of the black members: "Help me out here, what do you want me to call you? Black? Or African American?". The honest answer came back: "Whichever one you call me, I want you to call me the other one." This tension will always exist.

Well, what about Imus' charitable activity, which seems to be quite extensive, with his camp for children with cancer, his raising funds for all sorts of health facilities and programs, and his wife's work making housekeeping green? You can't excuse a murderer because he was good to his mother. You don't excuse Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. I think the same goes for Imus. His charitable work is terrific and you can only hope he keeps it up.

I think he has been properly booted, and hope he does not return to the airwaves. As Imus would say (were he not Imus): This scraggly, turkey headed, scarecrow of a weasel got just what he deserved.

No comments: