Sue the Parent Company: Imus Gets Fired

Random notes, not coherently organized.

First, applause of the loudest decibels for the women of the Rutgers team. You're stepping up into a spotlight you did not choose, for reasons no one would choose, and representing yourselves, your families, and your school with honor and grace. Brava.

Now, sigh, As any quick google search on Don Imus will show, the man is a provocateur for the sake of being provocative. Which does not require much in the way of brain power. He's hit the race button, the gender button, the ability button, he's basically paid to be a mouthy jerk. And that's where we have to ask some questions. Why do we, as a culture, pay people to be mouthy jerks?

So we can enjoy a few titters as we stick it to those overly-sensitive-Politically-Correct-liberal prudes?

Is the insult to these fine young women worth that titter of rebellion against a position with little power?

Cowardly, that humor is cowardly. A cowardly response to watching women play some serious ball for keeps. Clearly made the man nervous.

And more, why do we so easily conflate the rhetoric of the mouthy jerk (and there are mouthy female jerks, oh yes) with meaningful political analysis or questioning authority when it needs questioning?

The man has an audience. Imus gets all that expensive, advertiser subsidized air time because he has an audience. Reputable public figures appear on his show because he has an audience. A large one that enjoys listening to a mouthy jerk.

Being a mouthy jerk is not the same thing as being an incisive analyst, nor even just witty.

On The View this morning, I was listening to four women talk over each other and get the point about freedom of speech completely wrong. The First Amendment prevents the Government from censoring speech. Not corporations, not fans, not consumers, not your neighbors. You can be booed off-stage. You can be fired should your speech tarnish or endanger the reputation and the profit margin of the corporation for which you work. Lots of kinds of speech are proscribed: threats of violence, fraud, perjury, liable, defamation, verbal/emotional abuse, sexual harassment, and cetera. These kinds of speech are actionable. You might say anything you want, but to imagine that speech does not or should not have public and communal and legal consequences is childish and silly.

Linda Ronstat spoke against the war from a stage in Las Vegas and found her contract for a series of performances revoked. There was a clause in her contract that made that particular comment grounds for dismissal. Perfectly legal. I don't like it, but it's legal.

Dixie Chicks anyone? Disagree, break some CDs if you think progressive politics and country music don't mix, but death threats are not protected speech.

The recent total breakdown of civil discourse and discussion in the matter of a flame war beyond all reason and threats leveled at Kathy Sierra. More strength and safety to her.

Why is it all fun and games, a joke, to insult, defame, slander, and threaten women who achieve and speak? What kinds of people need to resort to these kinds of speech and actions when faced with competent, achieving, or opinionated women?

Well, that's obvious.

What's interesting here, as a culture, is that the Dixie Chicks were threatened with death (which is not a protected form of speech) and Imus might get a time-out for a couple of weeks. Want him off the air? Easy. Boycott NBC and MSNBC and every radio station that carries his show, and all their advertisers, and the point will be taken. Stop watching, stop listening, vote with your time and your wallet. That's what you saw happen with the string of awards the Chicks won this year. The music community told their fans to grow up and be adults about their differences of political opinion. The point will be taken that while we have a right to speak, we have responsibilities to the well-being of our communities, to respect for people.

Hell, the Rutgers team and their families might gin up a liable and defamation suit against NBC and CBS radio by way of taking a stand to say, clearly, such insult is not funny, and that's enough. From Imus, from the rest of the talking heads who pretend to cultural influence by way of being mouthy jerks. I'd sure consider suing someone called me a whore over the public airwaves and impugned my public character that way. So far, these women are showing more restraint and grace than I likely would.

Seriously. He's not an advertiser. He's on the air because those companies want him there. He's under contract. They chose him. "Opinions expressed" clauses might be in need of some reconsideration in the arena of these "news" media. I mean, do corporate news and entertainment media REALLY put programming content on the air that they can't abide? Do they? I'm sure they can abide the profit, but do they really offer programming that makes them morally or ethically queasy? Maybe so. Pardon the naivety.

He's on the air because preforming as a mouthy jerk makes money. It lets the audience sit there and feel that little rush of backing up the bully without having to get in the fight themselves. When he costs too much money, he won't be on the air anymore. And he can still run his charities. He'll have to do some fund raising, but people give money to sick children. As well we should, and gladly. Good on him for doing this. People are complicated. And, when they are grown-ups, who have public influence backed by corporate power, they sure as sunshine also carry public responsibility.

It's that a slip of the tongue, a reaching for the funny remark that goes oh-so-out-of-bounds reveals something about character, about the default program in one's thinking, one's view.

Try a basic WS101 experiment: Imus is watching male college b-ball played hard and well by a team that struggled all season to come back from an early losing streak to make the finals. What do you imagine he would say? Something with admiration in it, I would lay odds.

The community can and will respond to your speech. Your employer can and will respond to your speech. You do not have a right to live free of offense, but you do have a right to respond when offended. And there are civil courts, or some face to face education like the team is offering, attempts at mutual understanding, a hope for "redemption" and change of heart, for such purposes. You do not have an absolute right to say whatever comes into your head. Not without consequences.

The government can't shut you up. But the community to which you have an obligation simply by virtue of being a citizen of that community -- well, we can shut you up. And we would be quite within our rights to do so. Imus is nationally syndicated. His community is our communities. Frankly, if the best joke you can come up with is a bigoted joke, if that's all the game you have, then you're just not bright enough to command that level of attention. Except that there's apparently a huge and profitable audience out there who think you're just wonderful.

And that's the spooky bit. The numbers of Americans who vote with their time in favor of this level entertainment.

To raise the level of political and cultural discourse, we simply must insist that it be raised. We must insist that a comedian is not a political analyst and vice versa. Don Imus is not Chris Rock. Don Imus is not Lewis Black. Or Joy Behar. Or John Stewart. Who all sling funny and provocative truth. (Rock's bit about getting extra credit for what you're supposed to do anyway, applies to sooooo many situations.) Imus is not that funny, and his show is not a comedy show. Humor can be used to tell truth to power, to point out bad behavior, but only when it's funny and true and aimed at the foibles and abuses of power or a bad behavior. Calling those intelligent, well-educated, female athletes who were playing ball those names is neither funny nor true or aimed at the abuse of power. Though they are powerful women. (Which, for some, is bad behavior in itself, and there you go.)

There is no such thing as an unfettered right. But there is civil court, in which our rights and values are often tested, evaluated ... tried -- you might say. Here's a test. Provocative Entertainment vs. Human Dignity. It would be very interesting to see who won and why.

Still, what we need to ask is why simplistic provocation is big business in this country. What is it about being a mouthy twit that gets paid? This is not the first offense for Imus. Why do we keep confusing smut, stupidity, bigotry, with wit and insight and humor? Do you really want to keep living in a political popular culture that thinks like an adolescent? Is that really doing the nation, the society, any favors?

Why does a national evening news reporter want to know where Imus's right to free speech ends?! Of All The People not to know the rules and regulations concerning speech. My stars. In the law, clearly, his rights end where another's good reputation begins. This is not a case by case, personal taste, subjectively relativist area of law or civic practice. Get sharp, hon.

My hat's off in celebration of the women of the Rutgers team. They have conducted themselves with a maturity, grace, and sense of civic responsibility that entirely escapes Imus. Why the burden to make this all OK and smooth the feathers of a nation facing its own continuing race and gender conflicts falls to these women and their coach is another discussion. But show respect: they're playing well. I hope he comes out of his meeting with the team with a sense of both personal shame and public decorum. That is, there is some crow to be eaten, and more pie coming.