Randy's Blog
The Death of Irreverence
I'm writing this the week after the firing of Don Imus by CBS/Viacom and the NBC News Division/MSNBC. We had barely gotten past the Anna Nicole Smith media storm of the century when this new one blew up. It must be that distractions from the war in Iraq are needed desperately in this country right now.
I have to confess to being, through most of the coverage so far, what Imus himself would call a “mouth breather.” My mouth fell open when the band wagon of hysteria multiplied like Pharaohs locusts following Imus's now infamous misspeak while his sportscaster was covering the Women's NCAA basketball championship.
I have listened to Imus over time, and more than once I've raised an eyebrow at some of the skits, routines, and language used on his show. The writing was topical, smart, dictionary-deep, and yes, extremely edgy at times. But racist? Sexist? Misogynist?
All of those handles and more have been hung on the syndicated radio host by everyone from media moguls to columnists and bloggers in a charge led by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom have committed similar unutterables. The common denominator to all terms like these is, of course, hate, and for long time listeners who “got” the show, hate was the one component absent from Imus's steady mix of visitors, banter, and parodies.
Irreverence, on the other hand, was a regular guest. What was it about the Imus brand of irreverence that magnetized millions of fans to tune in to his broadcast daily? Could the answer be that many more Americans subscribe to irreverence than to hatred?
The First Stone
Irreverence has had a home in American popular culture through most of our history thanks to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. What is it that makes irreverence so valuable? I'd suggest that irreverence of the kind heard on Imus actually gives the lie to hatred. With equanimity, it holds stereotypes up to ridicule instead of the subjects of those stereotypes. It would be hard to come up with a vernacular not heard on Imus, but it would be equally difficult to establish hatred or prejudice behind the use of any one of the many coarse terms stirred into the mix there. What seemed understood on his broadcast, was that it's not hatred that underlies irreverence, but satire. It's satire that magnifies these stereotypes, robs them of their power, and depicts them instead as something deserving of a public chuckle. Jonathan Swift, the father of satire, had a literary roadside bomb for every stereotype in 1726 when he penned “Gulliver's Travels.”
Conversely, the Al Sharpton-led offensive against Don Imus and his career did seem driven by something closer to hate or prejudice even as he claimed otherwise. Sharpton said that as a Christian, he believed in forgiveness as long as the punishment was still meted out. Charity and mercy were therefore left out in the cold the day the Reverend went into meetings with CBS executives with one goal in mind––Imus's ruin. Sharpton had thrown the first stone.
Then, instead of applying circumspection as we might expect from news organizations, MSNBC and CBS took stock of the mob-like mentality afoot and joined the charge. Big advertisers were dropping out and employees were registering their outrage with Steve Capus, head of the NBC news division. After what should best be termed a kangaroo proceeding, the accused, though absent, was swiftly given a professional death sentence with no recourse to a defense.
True Colors in the Trench
When it's time to pick the person you want next to you in the trench and you've got deeds or words to go by, most people would choose deeds. Most of us would concur–that's where a person's stripes show. Misspeaking, on the other hand, seems to be the lot of man, and people understand that. As Archie Bunker once said, “My mouth runs and my brain tags along behind.” No one is exempt, and usually we are bushwhacked when it happens. The inappropriate quip, the hair-brained attempt at a witticism gone awry––these are human foibles, not the runes by which we read a heart.
We may wish that radio hosts, like presidents, be “held to a higher standard,” since the occasional verbal bobble can hurt feelings and send wrong impressions. The higher standard on the airwaves was Al Sharpton's position. Is that really what we want from our entertainers? If it were so, how could there have been a Lenny Bruce, a Richard Pryor or a Rodney Dangerfield? There would be no Don Rickles, George Carlan, or Chris Rock either. And there certainly would be no Mencia or Chappelle. It seems instead that the more entertainers mirror and amplify our own foibles and imperfections, the better we like them. And what we seem to like best is their irreverence.
In addition to holding court where no stereotypes were ever given a pass, Imus never attempted to pull the wool over anyone's eyes with respect to himself. He was willingly and openly eviscerated on the air for over 30 years. No part of him––his body, his looks, his views, or his drug-addicted and alcoholic past were not placed on the block by Imus himself. These are not the deeds of a bigot. The bigoted radio hosts and public figures are the ones who parade an unstained hue while keeping the pills, the women, or the skeletons securely hidden from view.
The same day that Reverend Sharpton led his blitz, selecting some Christian principles and deselecting others, Imus's multiracial, charitable works were kicking into high gear with his 18th annual radiothon. On the big stage, he passed the hat to fat cats in order to bring national focus to childhood diseases, soldier death benefits, the fallen heroes fund, and a host of other causes that overarched and embraced race. In the case of Don Imus, the deeds and the misspoken words did not balance evenly on the beam.
Outrage by Proxy
The subjects of the April 5th misspeak finally appeared the following week on national television as soft-spoken, accomplished women. They were seen in the context of their deeds as high achievers. They were calm and articulate. Instead of satisfying what some might have thirsted for, they quietly expressed a need. They wanted to meet Don Imus. They wanted to get a feel for him, ask questions, and see if they could understand where his indiscretion had come from. None appeared to be interested in his ruin.
Prior to their appearance, legions of the vicariously outraged had taken their side and framed them as victims. Then, when the women themselves appeared before the cameras, they didn't look like victims. The media moment was almost awkward. Where was the rage superimposed on them by all their champions and advocates? What we saw instead was poise.
The student/players looked proud, self-assured, comfortable in their own skins. Some of them had never heard of this radio guy. Is it possible they were not indignant in the first place––that they were the third party invited to the party late? By then, the indignation on their behalf was at fever pitch and the fast train to judgment was well along the track.
In the end, the most exemplary public image was the one set forth by the Rutgers women themselves. They were charitable in their acceptance of Imus's apology, and by all accounts, never did define themselves by what any one person said about them, much less a “boss jock.” If that had been true, they could never have achieved what they had.
By Friday the 13th the hypocrisy that always accompanies overzealous judgment began to be unearthed by a few of the more astute journalists following the firestorm. Viacom, Joe Scarborough said on “Scarborough Country,” was promoting and profiting from trashy rap lyrics denigrating African/Americans and especially women. Viacom/CBS had fired Imus for words tame by comparison to those heard on the Viacom-owned Black Entertainment Television and other venues.
Prepare to be Offended
There are evidently many who believe that America will be better off when the roles of irreverence and satire are traded in for literal interpretation. If we're now to take the words of entertainers out of context and judge them as opinion, we may be ushering in a new hey day for censorship and vigilante watchdogs. Just surgically remove the quip from context, put it up on YouTube, and the media powers will be forced to capitulate. We now have the means, as demonstrated by the Imus incident, to nuke anyone with a microphone or a show in record time. The result will undoubtedly be more people than ever who will be prepared to be offended and to do something about it. Similar periods in our history have not served America well.
It's late in the game for “what if's,” but one can't help wondering how the issue might have been served if the Imus microphone had been recruited for the very dialog Imus's words ignited. His stage was the one sought first by authors and recording artists of note. Tom Brokaw, Jim Lehrer, Brian Williams, presidential candidates, editors and journalists populated his time slot regularly. The conversation about race and language might have been enriched had this rich resource been called to its service. Silencing it under pressure deprived us of the fruits that might have come from such an intense and intelligent focus.
Footnote:
The morning after the death in late March of the singing, soulful Bishop G. E. Patterson, the famous black pastor of the Church of God in Christ in Memphis , his widow, Louise Patterson, called Don Imus on the air. Expressing a teary and heartfelt gratitude, she revealed that Imus had contributed over time to the Bishop's church and assorted causes. The work of Bishop Patterson had often been featured on the Imus in the Morning program.
Randy is a regular columnist in the "Northwoods Sporting Journal" and blogs occasionally on this site.
Please stay tuned to randyspencer.com for more blogs every month
<Back Home |
