Hypocrisy and the Don Imus story

John Leo has an interesting take on the whole Don Imus controversy. He points to all the bigwigs of the media and politicians who have loved going on Imus's show to get that cachet of importance and to sell books. They have liked to pretend that they had nothing to do with all the jokes about Jews, gays, and blacks plus all the misogynistic comments that frame their own more high-minded interviews. In so doing, they became enablers for his whole shtick.

Jeff Greenfield once said that appearing on Imus is like being an important novelist excerpted in Playboy. You wish to be judged by your brilliant writing, not your proximity to the centerfold mammaries. But this raises the question of what the pols and journalists are doing when they go on Imus's show: Are they elevating our political culture or debasing it by legitimating an unusually low level of public discourse?

Imus taunted one reporter as a "boner-nosed, beanie-wearing Jewboy" and referred to the publisher Simon & Schuster as "thieving Jews," returning later with a mock apology explaining that he misspoke, since the term is redundant. He called the New York Knicks "chest-bumping pimps." Tucker Carlson, he said, is a "bowtie-wearing pussy." According to a Mike Wallace report on "60 Minutes," Imus said he picked a particular producer to do "nigger jokes" on air [I believe that Imus is denying that he ever said anything like that]. Emily Rooney made one anti-Imus comment on CNN and said Imus pummeled her for three weeks as "a cow" and accused her of "getting into the liquor cabinet." An Imus assistant, reporting on sports, called tennis star Amalie Maurismo " a big old lesbo" and referred to the Indian men's doubles team as "Gunga Din and Sambo."

Charming.

John Leo then charges some of Imus's guests of hypocrisy for going on the show and ignoring what else is being said before and after their appearances, yet these pundits are so ready to tut-tut when politicians (particularly Republican politicians) have any association with some group that could be tainted with bigotry.

In 2001, commentator Clarence Page extracted a public pledge from Imus: The broadcaster would "cease all simian references to black athletes" and ban "all references to noncriminal blacks as thugs, pimps, muggers and Colt 45 drinkers."

Mr. Page is a rare example of a well-known journalist challenging the inflammatory rhetoric. Imus's prominent guests almost never get around to criticizing his vitriol. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a left-of-center press watchdog group, points out that in 2000 Tim Russert suggested that George W. Bush's appearance at Bob Jones University was "giving affirmation to that institution." Mr. Russert asked Mr. Bush, "Why are you associating with them?" Obviously, the same question can be asked about Mr. Russert's cozy relationship with Imus. New York Times eminence Frank Rich, a regular Imus guest, is ever alert to smears of gays and women and virtually went into a swoon when George Allen used the word "macaca." Yet a computer search failed to turn up any complaints from Mr. Rich about Imus's bigoted remarks.

That would be an interesting question that I'd like to hear Russert or Rich address. Does the whole gloss of Imus being a funny shock jock exculpate them from being the enablers who gave their stamp of approval to Imus's sort of repellent humor? Does the fact that he made fun of everyone make it okay? Is it enough that he would bring on authors and do interesting book interviews cancel out the whole shock jock shtick? Or has this whole episode pulled back a curtain on a cutesy bit of hypocrisy among the elites who would go on the show and those of us who listened?