The Imus Enablers Are Ba-a-a-ack!

It didn't take long for the Don Imus enablers to re-emerge. Just months after the racist, sexist and homophobic shock jock was fired for his on-air characterization of the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" -- and less than two weeks after Citadel Broadcasting announced his impending return to radio -- the Big Media and Big Politics elite are crawling out of the woodwork to embrace Imus all over again.

It's no surprise that executives of major media corporations rushed to defend Imus by claiming, as did Citadel Broadcasting CEO Farid Suleman, "He's more than paid the price for what he did." After all, as recently noted in the New York Observer, "redemption and rehabilitation are secondary concerns" for Citadel. Phil Boyce, operations manager at the company's flagship station WABC, spelled it out in stark terms, explaining, "Obviously, there are a couple of reasons to look at him, but the biggest reason is the revenue opportunity. There's a lot of money to be made there. And we're in the business of making money."

But what excuses and explanations are being offered by the many leading journalists and politicians -- some of whom distanced themselves from the self-styled "I-Man" in the wake of the Rutgers controversy -- who now say they will once again appear on his program? No amount of high-toned talk about "guilt and redemption" and "second chances" can obscure the serial offenses of a man who made a career -- and tens of millions of dollars -- from repeatedly using hate speech against women, gays, minorities and foreigners in exchange for cheap laughs, hot controversy and higher ratings.

Consider, for example, the curious case of CNN political commentator James Carville, who had the temerity to compare the travails of Imus to those of his former boss Bill Clinton. "I think I've had some history of defending friends of mine that have been in uncomfortable circumstances," Carville told the Observer. "I defend the speaker, not the speech. If there's no redemption, what are we here for?" Dare I suggest that Carville -- set to appear as a guest on Imus' first day back, December 3 -- is there for publicity, self-aggrandizement, access to the I-Man's audience, and the benefit of the shock jock's well-known ability to help sell books?

Sadly, Carville is not alone in his purportedly principled stance. In fact, many of Imus' previous enablers from the corrupt nexus of politics and media are welcoming him back. Former Senator and presidential candidate Bob Kerrey, for example, recently gave Imus his own "Seal of approval" in an article in the New York Daily News.

Kerrey began by comparing Imus not to President Clinton but to "Freddie Krueger, the terrifying lead character in 'Nightmare on Elm Street.'" To Kerrey, "as with Freddie, there is something about the I-Man that is scary but irresistible." After urging fellow Democrats, particularly those running for president, to "sit down, chit chat and legitimize a man they once reviled as something close to a racist," Kerrey went on to note, "I myself have appeared on Imus before and would welcome the chance to go on the show again."

At least Kerrey was honest about his motivation for doing so: "As offensive as his remarks were about the Rutgers women's basketball team... he will have a big and influential audience," Kerrey said. Moreover, to Kerrey's mind, "Imus adds a lot to the American political debate." Apparently, epithets like "brillohead, dark meat, Mandingos, Uncle Ben, gooks, chinks, slanty-eyed bastards, queers, homos, ho's, lesbos, gorillas, pimps, and knuckle-dragging" African-Americans are among these worthy contributions to our political discourse.

But Kerrey offered "another reason" he believes politicians shouldn't boycott Imus. "If they keep away from the show all the way through next year, it could do real political damage, if not in votes lost, at least in courage points," he says. "We can't afford to start putting our interviewers through purity tests." Instead, Democratic politicians should simply look the other way when confronted with the "impurity" of the I-Man's transparent racism and trade their silent complicity for access to his audience of millions and their votes.

Kerrey's exhortation aside, to date only one current Democratic presidential candidate has decided to return to the racist ranter's airwaves. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will ignore Imus' history of on-air racial blunders, since, in the words of his press secretary, Tom Reynolds, he "strongly believes this is a society of forgiveness and second chances, and that the radio host has paid his debt for his mistake." On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani is already on record as saying he would not boycott the shock jock, and Arizona Senator John McCain says he will return to Imus' show, since he thinks the talker deserves -- here we go again -- a second chance. "I believe in redemption, and I've made so many mistakes in my life and I've asked people to give me another opportunity," McCain said. "What he did was unacceptable, but all of us in life, I think, ought to be able to move forward."

In addition to Big Politics figures such as Kerrey, Richardson, Giuliani, McCain and Carville, other leading Imus enablers include such media luminaries as David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert of NBC News. Russert recently told Aaron Barnhart of The Kansas City Star that he would return to the show, if his bosses at General Electric gave their permission. "If he asked me to come back and talk about political developments, I would absolutely do that," Russert said. "But I guess I'll have to check with the folks at NBC."

Perhaps Russert's corporate overlords will conveniently refuse permission. Here's hoping they follow the lead of Newsweek, whose managing editor Jon Meacham, editor-at-large Evan Thomas, and columnists Jonathan Alter and Anna Quindlen were once Imus regulars as well. They got off the hook last week when a Newsweek spokesperson announced, "We will not participate in the Imus program."

New York Times columnists Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, along withTimes Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, also benefited in the past from their appearances with Imus. Given the tone of the apologia Rich penned for the Times last April in the wake of the 'nappy headed ho's' affair, the odds seem good he will return to the program. In his column, Rich accurately included himself "Among the hypocrites surrounding Imus... I've been a guest on his show many times since he first invited me in the early 1990s, when I was a theater critic... As a book author, I could always use the publicity." In exchange, Rich explained, he was willing to look the other way: "Of course I was aware of many of his obnoxious comments about minority groups, including my own, Jews." Of course...

Times Book Review editor Tanenhaus -- whose biography of Whittaker Chambers was praised by the I-Man -- also wrote in The Times about his appearances on Imus in the Morning. In the article, entitled "Playing Along with Imus," Tanenhaus mused about the "surprisingly muted signals from some of the most thoughtful people" -- authors and journalists -- "who have traveled in the curious orbit of the Imus in the Morning program." In the wake of the Rutgers controversy, he wrote, "they are sifting through the complex issue of their own culpability and complicity." Suddenly the Times man is having second thoughts. "The whole business felt a little heavy-handed to me." Tanenhaus now says. "There was a lot of piling on. I was one of the piler-on-ers. I assume he's a little chastened, a little chagrined. So let him start all over again. Why not? When I make my own inevitable disastrous screw-up, I hope someone gives me another chance."

Other leading media figures set to return to the Imus airwaves include The New Yorker's Ken Auletta, who really ought to know better, having written extensively about Imus and his transgressions in the past. "I said I wouldn't go on at the time of the controversy," Auletta now says. "But I wouldn't make that same claim today. Because I think people deserve second chances. If you believe in rehabilitation, if you don't believe in the death penalty, you believe that some people can be reformed and changed."

Then there's the curious case of leading media pundit Howard Kurtz of Washington Post and CNN ubiquity. Kurtz is on record as saying, "I don't believe (as a regular listener and very occasional guest on the program) that Imus is in any way racist. He sometimes crosses the line, as he himself would admit, in trying to make people laugh, but it's all shtick. He's no bigot." No bigot? Judge for yourself, from Imus' own description of Kurtz as a "boner-nosed... beanie-wearing Jewboy."

Why would Kurtz put up with such bile? Perhaps it's because, as Auletta noted in his New Yorker article, (quoting a top Simon and Schuster executive,) Imus is "the second most powerful person in the country in terms of selling books." The publisher specifically credited the shock jock with boosting his company's print order for Kurtz's book "Spin Cycle" from twenty-five thousand copies to two hundred thousand. The motivation for Kurtz' acceptance was perhaps best explicated by the novelist, Newsweek and onetime New York Times columnist Anna Quindlen, who when speaking of the market power of Imus, told Auletta, "All you need do is hear him wax poetic about your book and you say, 'Hell, I'd buy that book.'" As Auletta concluded, "Five mornings a week, from five-thirty to ten, Imus in the Morning takes care of his 'guys' -- promoting their books, their columns, and their lives to more than ten million listeners." The payback? "The program generates nearly half of the fifty million dollars a year in revenue which WFAN contributes to its corporate parent, CBS Radio."

Besides book sales, there are other reasons bigwigs continue to enable Imus. Another Imus regular, ex-CNN political analyst Jeff Greenfield (now of CBS News) told Auletta, "For a lot of people, going on Imus is a way for them to be a different person." Greenfield told Auletta he often got more comments for his Imus appearances than for his own television work. "People who talk to Imus are selling themselves as personalities, far removed from, say, the confines of a scripted newscast," Auletta explained. "The television anchors Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather are regulars; another is Mike Wallace, of 60 Minutes, who says, 'You get to feel like you're a member of his club.'" Wallace in particular should have known better than to join the club; he had exposed on 60 Minutes Imus' use of the word "nigger" just a year before speaking with Auletta. (Wallace interviewed an ex-producer who quoted Imus as saying he had hired staff member Bernard McGuirk "to do nigger jokes." Imus responded that the conversation with the producer had been "off-the-record.")

Saddest of all, however, is hearing that the estimable Clarence Page has decided he too will return to the Imus airwaves. Page, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Chicago Tribune who happens to be African-American, once encouraged Imus to take an on-air pledge to stop his racist behavior and, among other things, "cease all simian references to black athletes." Forswearing his minstrel show, Imus and Andy parodies, the I-Man promised Page, "I'll do the best I can with your pledge and rein in these renegades, okay?" Now, despite the many transgressions of the 2001 on-air pledge, Page now says he too will let bygones be bygones. "You make a martyr out of him," Page told the Observer. "It's not worth it. He's not worth it." No word yet on whether Gwen Ifill, another African-American journalist whom Imus once referred to on air as a "cleaning lady," will join Page on the program...

Why can't we all just "lighten up" and "move on," you may ask... Stop being so "politically correct" and "humorless," you may complain. If you don't like what you hear, just "change the station" and "stop listening," you may advise. After all, everyone who's anyone is happy the I-Man is back. Citadel Broadcasting stands to make lots of money. Publishers will still be able to move lots of books by using the Imus show to give a platform to authors. ("I don't think he'll miss a beat," Seale Ballenger, a publicist at William Morrow, said. "I think his show will pick up right where he left off, and I think it'll be just as important as it was in its previous incarnation.") Sponsors will still be able to sell lots of products they advertise there. Impressive guests will return for expressive conversations, and listeners and our very democratic system will benefit greatly, no doubt...

One problem: it's all wrapped around the most vile sort of dehumanizing hate speech, repeated ad nauseum over literally decades. As far back as the turn of the century, the TomPaine.com website chronicled "the sewage spewing from Imus' microphone" in a series of articles by Philip Nobile and others that reached back into programs that aired years before. The website also purchased a prominent op-ed page advertisement in the New York Times and even bought time on Imus' show to raise the issue. Nobile also laid it out in an article for the Columbia Journalism Review entitled, "In the Kingdom of Imus, the Courtiers Are Quiet."

Now the courtiers have returned, and as TomPaine.com executive editor Isaiah J. Poole wrote in the wake of the "nappy-headed ho's" affair, "A lot of people who consider themselves reputable -- both Democratic and Republican politicians, political consultants, journalists and pundits -- have shacked up in this seedy AM radio motel as if it were a five-star forum for serious political discourse. They knew better, as did the advertisers who bankrolled this enterprise and the networks that broadcast it. They have no one to blame but themselves for the soil on their own images as a result, and for whatever consequences they face if they go back in."

Don Imus's Top Ten Enablers
1. James Carville, CNN, analyst, ex-presidential advisor
2. Bob Kerrey, New School president, former senator and former Democratic
presidential candidate
3. Rudy Giuliani, Republican presidential candidate, former mayor
4. Sen. John McCain, Republican presidential candidate
5. Gov. Bill Richardson, Democratic presidential candidate
6. Tim Russert, NBC News anchor
7.Frank Rich, New York Times columnist
8. Sam Tanenhaus, New York Times editor
9. Jeff Greenfield, CBS News analyst
10. Howard Kurtz, Washington Post and CNN media commentator

Follow Rory O'Connor on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rocglobal

Comments

[dba]

Rory: are you outraged by rappers and their enablers such as Russell Simmons, Snoop Dog, etal., BET and music execs who have accumulated billions of dollars by denigrating the women of their own community? Did they apologize to the women of their community, or did I miss something? I’m still waiting for Sharpton to organize a boycott of the advertisers who sponsor misogynistic videos on BET and rap lyrics on the radio’s public airwaves. “Protests” and “marches” now and again will not suffice, nor will “recommendations” by Russell Simmons to refrain from such language. Why don’t you demand the immediate firing of these rappers and executives? Why don’t you shut down Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock and other comedians? Why don’t you demand the firing of Isiah Thomas? Your self-righteous holier than thou hypocrisy is staggering!

I don’t want to live in a sanitized society in which every utterance is scrutinized and is “approved” or “disapproved”. I would rather be offended than have a self-appointed thought police determine what I can and cannot listen to or what should or should not offend me. Who appointed you as the thought police and arbiter of virtuous radio behavior? This is straight out of the former Soviet Union’s propaganda machine. Or, perhaps you are ignorant of the history of totalitarian governments – so-called “offensive” remarks, and off to the re-education camp you go!

If you don’t find that Imus has anything of value to offer, that is your prerogative but such an opinion is irrelevant. You have a right to criticize the show, but you have no right to impose your sensibilities on others. Likewise,others do not have a right to compel you to listen to Don Imus. If one believes in a free society, no speech should ever be suppressed or censured by whatever pressure group of the month. Network television generally insults my intelligence, but I have no right to demand a shutdown of the inane stupidities that are broadcast on a daily basis. I simply choose not to watch.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Anyone who calls Cheney a war criminal is not all bad.

[joemac1114]

Rory, I am an Imus enabler. Why? Because I listen and watch his show, and I was irritated when self righteous speech zealots took it away. I will choose what I want to see and hear whether speech police such as yourself like it or not.

When did Americans become such whining wimps who get upset at a joke. I think we as a nation need to suck it up and worry about more important stuff such as kids carrying guns to school,our competitive place in the world, American jobs, bridges collapsing, deadly toys, more young black men in prison than in college and the list goes on. We have real problems that are not addressed everyday. Those things seem to me to be much more important than bad jokes on the radio.

[Rooster1980]

Rory,
Why don't you take your sanctimony and start a Bill O'Reilly style boycott against all of these "transgressors" and their corporate sponsors (witness how O'Reilly destroyed the French economy). Otherwise grow up and get over it. Imus may be offensive, but no more so than most stand-up comics. Further, he is a quality interviewer and a charitable person (how many cancer-ridden kids do you spend your summer with?).

[phyllis2you]

Rory, I am an Imus enabler. Don Imus was and is a shock jock - a performer, a satirist. Guests who appeared and who will again appear on his new show, "got it". Obviously you don't. In your article, you try to prove the unprovable -- that Imus is a racist, sexist, and the other hateful things you call him -- but, it is not true. He never used hate speech as you say, he made jokes, did satire. He apologized to the team and the apology was accepted. Move on.

I think you are a gifted talent and you have a big heart. I would ask you to talk to people who are close to Imus, check your facts (the Gwen Ifill anecdote is absolutely wrong). Go visit the Imus Ranch - Imus probally won't shoot you - then write an honest, objective piece. Go visit the sick children who come to the ranch and watch the entire Imus family live, eat, work, and play with these kids, most from poor families who never caught a break. Watch them -- boys and girls, all colors, watch as they change to feeling like champions, not victims, who can do what anybody else can do. I find Imus to be a tireless fighter for the people you accuse him of hating.



Imus is a comedic performer who showcased fabulous musicians and authors, politicians, leaders of causes, most especially for children and children's health, but also those who championed the American servicemen and women. He personally raised many millions of dollars for charities, raised very unpopular questions (Autism, for example),and of the quality of care at Walter Reed Hospital. He proved himself to be a tireless fighter for the underprivileged and the underdog. I welcome him back -- sense of humor, intelligence, questioning, crankiness -- all of it.

[andyg]

what about john kerry.

[godlessclif]

You left out Kinky Friedman. I would say he is I-Man's number one enabler.

[realitytrumpsbull]

We'll never see a Denny's on the Moon at this
rate...

[JacktheBlogger]

I have been listening to Imus for fifteen years. While he is occasionally pretentious, he never came across as deliberately malicious. Also, he has always been an equal opportunity disser. If he was politically correct, he would never have branded Dick Cheney "a war criminal" and Hillary Clinton as "Satan." Besides, there are far more offensive talking heads on right-wing radio than Imus can ever be. Imus apologized for his insensitive remarks that got him fired.

He does have a very good and caring side - raising money for kids' charities and spending every summer at the Imus Ranch with kids that have cancer. Overall the package is more positive than negative. It's only fair that he gets a second chance. More importantly, we need him in the election cycle - he is going to beat up on Hillary so much - that the ensuing backlash is going to help her win!

[Nommo]

Did it ever occur to you, besides whatever financial gain may be inevitable, they too are as racist as Imus?

[Dunnage]

Take a deep breath.

And then forget Imus, forever.

[UncleDave]

Let Me be the first to say WELCOME BACK IMUS! Those that don't get satire remain monkeys in a primate world.