What to add to the Don Imus media feeding frenzy? In the sea of ink and gigantobytes of internet traffic, little seems to have been made of the stupendous hypocrisy of the most vocally outraged citizens. Unlike the original targets of Mr. Imus’s scorn who, to their great credit, have comported themselves with uncommon dignity and restraint, these panderers to popular outrage have climbed yet again on their horses of high dudgeon, seemingly disdainful of any thought incapable of reduction to five words on a picket sign.
Where, one idly wonders, were these worthies at any random time in the past oh, say twenty years, while the media and arts have been as much as anything else about re-defining the lowest common cultural denominator in a downward direction? Certainly Mr. Imus’s characterization was misogynistic and racially sulfurous. And likely beyond apology, as the ultimate failure of his serial mea culpa’s would suggest. Compared to the average gangsta rap offering however, his words seem almost quaintly innocent. Those voicing outrage seem to be turning a blind eye to the larger context in their gleeful rush to flog one newsworthy individual.
Quoth the good Reverend Sharpton (ever eager to leap on any bandwagon headed for a crowd): “This has never been about Don Imus. This is about the use of public airwaves for bigoted, racist speech.” Oh, really? One must assume this good man of the cloth is too engaged in the Lord’s work to listen to the radio, download a popular song, or for that matter spend much time in the marketplace where bigoted, racist speech is too often the lingua franca. Breathtaking indeed is the disingenuousness of laying into Mr. Imus after years of ignoring hundreds of less prominent, though equally reprehensible contributors to the mediasphere.
Similarly, and closer to the fray, Les Moonves, CBS’s Chief Executive proclaimed himself shocked, SHOCKED by “the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young people of color trying to make their way in society” and then cited that consideration as having “weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision.” Thank heavens. One might otherwise have fingered the financial impact of the departure of Procter & Gamble, General Motors, and others from the show’s list of sponsors.
Beyond the numbingly predictable protest marches and self-promoting hype, what might yet usefully come of this sorry episode is a recognition that draining the swamp of sexism and bigotry calls far more for pro-action on all fronts than the sacrifice of one intemperate individual. At a fundamental level, the race, sex, and notoriety of one fomenter neither differentiates nor excuses the insult. To hold otherwise belies as much prejudice as the most hateful epithet. As we are all diminished by crudity and meanness of spirit, we each have a responsibility to reject it, however and whenever it raises its loathsome head.
