Our one-week-long national nightmare is over

[proud2BlibKansan]

Don ImusFor the first time in its decade of existence, MSNBC will not be relying on "Imus in the Morning" to drive tens of thousands of viewers to its air. Last night Paul Harris and I were talking off-air, and we were both kind of at a loss to answer this question: Why now? Why, of all the incidents involving inappropriate behavior by Don Imus and his crew, did this one involving the Rutgers women’s basketball team set off the perfect storm that led to the media frenzy and subsequent suspension and calls for his scalp?

Here are the factors I would cite in the I-Man Convergence: First, Media Matters for America. They were ready to go. They had video up of the I-Man’s comments last Wednesday, complete with damning histories on Imus, his provocateur Bernard McGuirk, and sports fill-in Sid Rosenberg who, as I noted here on Tuesday, was supposed to be banned forever from “Imus in the Morning” two years ago. Second, it was a slow news week, as evidenced by the flurry of “Sopranos”-related media inquiries I received. And thirdly, he said it. The I-Man goofed and allowed himself to utter a phrase that typically would have been handled by McGuirk, Rosenberg, or one of the fictional characters in the room. When Imus tells you he's a good man who did a bad thing, he’s got it half right at least.

But as for his charge that everyone covering this story is just a hypocrite — meaning, they’ve known for years he does comedy like this — all I can say is so what? There really aren’t a lot of options for leaving television. Some people do the slow fade, others retire, while still others get the hook. Imus got the hook, and although maybe he should’ve seen it coming, he didn’t. None of us did.

For years I’ve had an on-again, off-again relationship with his MSNBC show (it’s on radio here, too ... somewhere on my AM dial). I would tune it in for a few days, sometimes put it on the TiVo as a season pass, but after a while I’d stop. It wasn’t that I didn’t enjoy the conversations with authors and newsmakers, and I’d be a hypocrite to say the yuksters didn’t make me laugh. A lot. I had great respect, too, for the relationships Imus has built over the years with his newsreader Chuck McCord, his regular guests, and his wife Deirdre. But there was something about the abrasive, corrosive humor on the show. It would start to pile up like Imus Ranch cow droppings, and in time the stink would always drive me away. Rosenberg was the worst, but McGuirk was more disturbing because he could be a genuinely funny guy, too — and got the most leeway of anybody to make off-color jokes.

That MSNBC show was what separated Don Imus from his archrival Howard Stern, and don't think both guys didn't know it. Miniscule as its audience was, it gave the I-man a cachet and influence few pure radio hosts enjoy. Now that it’s gone, you realize Imus and Stern really aren't that different. Don’t believe the bloviators who say there’s “no place” for a show like “Imus in the Morning” in our culture. Of course there’s a place for it ... it’s called radio.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2007/04/our_oneweeklong.html

[Cleita]

1. I guess it was a matter of the one that sent him over the cliff.

I can only hope that Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly will also make that one last step that sends them over the cliff too. It kind of gives me hope that the era of assholes creating an us and them mentality in the nation is over.

[Karenina]

2. Ah yes. RADIO.

There's a GREAT opportunity for hate-mongering in RADIO. It's quite effective! Just ask the Hutus and Tutsis....

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Great point

I still get chills when I think of that.