MUSIC NAVbarz 2
THE SHOCKING STORY OF THE SHOCKJOCK WHO
SHOCKS THE WORLD BY SAYING SOMETHING SHOCKING

By Polar Levine, April 16, 2007
I know I’m late on this. It’s already history but lots of words are printed on various subjects of history -- mainly in packets of 300 pages or more. So let’s say I’m a writer of short histories. I surprised myself by the amount of pondering it took to draw some conclusion on the Don Imus issue. But here it is:
.
I have no sympathy for Imus. But it’s nothing personal. I don’t like shockjocks. What makes them shocking is the reality disconnect one feels when it becomes palpably evident that people so inebriated on their own polluted brain chemistry can attract millions of worshipers.
.
The earnest displays of conscience by CEO’s of CBS and NBC were loathsome. Imus and other creatures of his ilk, Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Bill O’Reilly, etc., are hired by these conglomerates because on a daily basis they grab a gigantic mob of bitter white American male losers and deliver them to advertisers -- greased and pulsating with the aphrodesiac of rage and primed to go shopping for car accessories and power tools. CBS and NBC hired Imus because he’s wired to say precisely the thing that got him in trouble.
.
My initial reaction to all the fuss was feverish ambivalence. The undeniable racism of the comment, particularly the context in which it was spit, was unacceptable. But what to do about it? I feel the same ambivalence when I imagine hearing, as a jew, a broadcast by Father Coughlin in the 1930’s. On one hand there’s revulsion at mass-broadcasted bigotry with its potential for violence and for the bigotry to become socially acceptable as a consequence of its ubiquity. On the other hand is my instinctive wariness over the inhibiting, legal or otherwise, of free expression, particularly in light of the entrenched power of the godsquad. Though the electability of the religious right has probably passed its peak, its influence will be felt for decades.
.
Clarity hit me after hearing some people I respect offer support for Imus on the ground that legitimate comedic license must be considered in order to avoid a dampening effect on creativity and expression in the comedic arts. I almost bought it. Here’s why I didn’t:
.
Let’s take a look at the event in the context of a comedy routine (whether improvised or scripted is of no consequence). Exactly what was the comedic angle in pointing out that the Rutgers University women’s basketball team had a lot of black women? Was it ironic that there would be so many women on a women’s team? Or that a college basketball team had a lot of black players? Maybe in 1959 that might have raised a few chuckles. I don’t think anybody would find either fact worthy of attention in the 21st Century. I just couldn’t find the joke in there. The on-air performance was humid and obscene and the glee that lubricated the delivery of the “joke” by Imus and his other two stooges was ugly beyond excuse or reason.
.
If there was no comedic G-spot in there, why even bring it up either in a comedy routine or as an item of sports news? Possibly the whole point of the “joke” was in the use of black ghetto idioms that these idiots imagined were sanctioned by the HipHop Nation. And in what context? In the service of pointing out the mundane fact that this college women’s basketball team had a lot of black (nappy-headed) female (ho) college students on it. In that context, what is the qualitative difference between saying that the court was full of “nappy-headed hos” and saying that the court was full of “niggers”? This wasn’t comedy; it wasn’t entertainment and it wasn’t a creative work. It was a few bitter, aging racists sitting on the porch shootin’ the shit with like-minded neighbors.
.
So you tell me -- is this guy a racist? If he’s not he would have found nothing about that basketball team worthy of comment aside from its commitment to excellence. But how funny is that? Is there a good reason why even a shark-like media corporation might want to unload a golden goose? I think so. Is it censorship? No. Imus is constitutionally free to stroll down 125th St. in Harlem and call passers-by “nappy-headed hoes.” Now that would be comedy.
.
By Polar Levine for polarity1.com