"The Post-Imus Conundrum" (Eric Alterman poses an interesting question)

[KoKo]

The Post-Imus Conundrum

Eric Alterman

Imus possessed a supernatural power to make the highest-minded of character cops turn a blind eye to his crimes against civil behavior. Sometimes he received a Good Housekeeping Seal directly from his victims, Stockholm Syndrome-style. For instance, according to Imus, Howard Kurtz, CNN and the Washington Post's deeply conflicted media cop, is "a boner-nosed...beanie-wearing Jew boy." But Kurtz, who enjoyed Imus's promotion of his books on the air, says he "just shrugged it off" as "Imus made fun of blacks, Jews, gays, politicians. He called them lying weasels. This was part of his charm."

While almost everyone involved with the man was guilty of some level of hypocrisy, perhaps the most delicious was that of the self-appointed Moralizer in Chief, Joe Lieberman, whose appearances were an Imus staple. As the late and much-missed Lars-Erik Nelson once noted, Lieberman could complain from one side of his mouth that "we are lowering the standards of what is acceptable in our society, and we are sending a message to our children," and denounce an "acceptance of rude language, foul imagery and gross behavior in the entertainment mainstream." But that very week, Lieberman's buddy Imus contributed to the public discourse references to then-Attorney General Janet Reno in crotchless pantyhose and as a drunk repeatedly saying "shit."

Because of Imus's unique status both within the elite and as the opening act on MSNBC's daily lineup, he was also uniquely vulnerable to the kind of frenzy that demanded a dramatic ending. Savage, of course, lost his brief MSNBC gig, and Beck might be vulnerable to a similar campaign someday, should Media Matters catch him in the act. But generally, white radio shock jocks are granted the same pass, when it comes to transgressing the boundaries of good taste and verbal violence, that has been accorded to gangsta rappers.

Liberals prefer to ignore this comparison, insisting that there is something authentic and artistic about hate speech coming out of the mouths of millionaire black men as compared with millionaire white men. I disagree. While the social contexts that produce such speech are obviously quite different, the desensitizing effect it has on cultural communication is the same. Both talk-radio and gangsta rap represent women as legitimate objects of sexual violence. Both teach white men to regard nonwhites as subhuman. Both invite verbal and sometimes actual violence against gays and Arabs. If we seek to eliminate one, we can hardly excuse the other. If, instead, we take a position on behalf of free speech and against censoriousness and political correctness, that has to be consistent as well. Leftists have paid a significant price in the marketplace of debate in recent decades for their failed efforts to try to control the speech of those with whom they disagree. Speaking purely politically, the "political correctness" campaign has proven a kind of boomerang, undermining the credibility of those who demand it.

Honestly, figuring all this out is a lot harder than it looks.

more at.......


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/alterman