Imus Back on the Radio
KURTZ: Anyone who thought that Don Imus might just move on, forget the Rutgers women, run from the racist and sexist remarks that got him fired eight months ago must have been surprised this week. When the I-Man returned to the airwaves, he spoke about his apology to the basketball players he has once mocked as "ho's."</s>DON IMUS, FRD-TV WABC RADIO: I haven't talked to anyone and didn't see any point in going on some sort of Larry King tour to offer a bunch of lame excuses for making essentially a reprehensible remark about innocent people who did not deserve to be made fun of. I will never say anything in my lifetime that will make any of these young women at Rutgers regret or feel foolish that they accepted my apology and forgave me.</s>KURTZ: So is the new "Imus in the Morning" truly a different program, and does he deserve this second shot? Joining us now in St. Petersburg, Eric Deggans, media critic for "The St. Petersburg Times." And in Springfield, Massachusetts, Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of "Talkers" magazine. Eric Deggans, you said a few weeks ago on FOX News that Imus hadn't been off the air long enough to be allowed back and hasn't fully apologized for what he did wrong. Whatever happened to the concept of second chance?</s>ERIC DEGGANS, "ST. PETERSBURG TIMES": Well, what I said back then was mostly that he had not acknowledged what he had done wrong, he hadn't apologized for what he had really done wrong, which was 30 years of racist jokes that were essentially awfully offensive. What's interesting about his return is that he seems to have made up for all of those ills, but not admitted them. So it's hard to know if he's ever going to repeat them, but he certainly seems to be of the mindset that he's not going to that type of humor, at least while everyone's watching him in the first weeks back.</s>KURTZ: So have you changed your view? Do you feel now that because of what you heard in these opening days that he does at least deserve a chance to revive his radio show?</s>DEGGANS: Well, I think all that anyone who criticized Imus wanted him to do was to stop the racist humor. And if he's going to stop it, then that's fine. I mean, that's all anyone really wanted. I think it would have been better if he could have acknowledged all of the awful things that he said on the radio, but he doesn't seem willing to do that, although he does seem willing to present a show that doesn't include that stuff. At least so far. We'll have to keep an eye on it.</s>KURTZ: All right. I want to come back to that point. But, Michael Harrison, what Imus said about the Rutgers women was reprehensible. He uses that word himself. But it seems like some critics will never forgive him.</s>MICHAEL HARRISON, "TALKERS" MAGAZINE: Well, obviously it will be controversial. I'm not even sure he is a racist. I think he had racial humor, as opposed to racist humor, but we could argue that forever. There is a big difference between the two. Imus is a satirist, Imus is a talk show host. He's not a political figure, he's not a clergy member, he's not elected to any office. And I'm a firm believer in free speech and the free marketplace of ideas. Imus has been an equal opportunity offender. His show will be fine without the insults. It's not that he has a history of racist humor, he has a history of insulting innocent people, and that happens to have been his one weakness. The one thing...</s>DEGGANS: I have to say, I disagree. I have to say that if someone wants to say something racist about me, or say something racist about Howard, as Imus did say something racist about Howard, that's no more allowable than if he says it about a private person. That kind of stereotypical, race-based, ethnic-based humor is awful. And in most parts -- in most parts of radio we've eradicated it. So why is it so hard to say that it's not fine for Imus to do?</s>KURTZ: All right. Well, let me jump in here, Eric, because you often bring up this example. This was about nine or 10 years ago when Imus called me a boner- nosed Jew. And I wasn't offended in the sense that I thought it was juvenile satire, as opposed to any trace of anti-Semitism. The man is not an anti-Semite. So it seems that you're more offended about something he said about me than I am.</s>DEGGANS: Well, what I would say about that is that someone doesn't have to be a bigot to say bigoted things. Someone doesn't have to be a racist to say racist things. I'm not saying that Imus is the Antichrist. What I'm saying is that there were times when he said things that were very stereotypical. And he's finally been called to account for them. Now, he won't admit that what he said about you is wrong, he won't admit that what he said about Gwen Ifill is wrong. He won't admit many of these things that he said was wrong. But he went on the air and sort of implied that he's not going to do it anymore.</s>KURTZ: Well, Michael Harrison, isn't there a difference between -- for example, in his comeback show, Imus said that Hillary Clinton is still Satan and Dick Cheney is still a war criminal. Isn't there a difference about mocking public figures, big targets, people who can take it?</s>HARRISON: But Howard, that's the point I was making.</s>KURTZ: Yes.</s>HARRISON: And to go off on, you know, defining what "racist" and "racial" means will take us nowhere. The fact is he insults people, and if you insult the big and the powerful, that's very different than insulting innocent people who have no power. And his insult technique and his nastiness, his curmudgeonly attitude, really works well when he aims it against the big and powerful, especially since so many of them have the courage to go on his program. That's a valuable service to the American people. So the world can get along without him insulting people, but whether he admits it or not, the fact that so many people out there are pointing out Imus' errors, that should be enough for you, Eric. He doesn't have to admit it, he's already been exposed.</s>DEGGANS: Well, I think anybody who has dealt with someone who's done something awful against them, wants them to admit that they've done it so that they know that -- so that they realize the extent to which that they have committed a transgression.</s>KURTZ: Well, Eric...</s>DEGGANS: And that's why we're sitting here sort of wondering if he really is going to change what he's doing, because he hasn't fully admitted what he's doing. And what I'll also say is that it's important -- if you're going to insult Dick Cheney, then insult Dick Cheney. Why do you have to talk about whether or not he's -- his ethnicity or his race? Why can't you talk about the person? If you're going to -- if you have a bone to pick with Howie, then talk about Howie as a person. Why do you have to talk about the fact that he's Jewish? That's what I don't understand.</s>HARRISON: But what about if he made fun of Dick Cheney for being bald or he made fun of Howard for Howard's having a small nose -- myself, I feel sorry for Howard. But...</s>HARRISON: When it's not ethnic and it's not religious? What about just insulting people?</s>DEGGANS: When there are people in America who have been oppressed for hundreds of years because they're bald, then I'll say maybe we should think about staying away from the bald jokes.</s>KURTZ: Well, I think some bald people might take issue with that. But let me ask you, Michael Harrison...</s>DEGGANS: I'm right in that camp.</s>KURTZ: Four presidential candidates in the first two days appeared on the show. There was McCain, there was Dodd, there was Huckabee and others. Is that a sign that Imus is regaining his old clout, or will that have to wait until he is distributed more widely?</s>HARRISON: In my opinion, Howard, Imus has more clout now than he's ever had before.</s>KURTZ: Really?</s>HARRISON: He's more famous than ever before. He's in the news now for the entire year of 2007. What he says and what he thinks is newsworthy. And obviously, he's going to have a bigger audience than ever before because all of his fans are going to be back and all these new people are going to check him out who never heard him before -- some of whom will stay. So he will get guests.</s>KURTZ: But, of course, he is on a small cable channel called RFD, as opposed to</s>MSNBC. HARRISON: His MSNBC exposure was minor compared to his radio exposure. And that will be the case now. However, I expect that small cable channel that took a chance on Imus to become a big cable channel before long, because look at how much attention they're getting.</s>KURTZ: All right. Eric Deggans, one thing that Imus has done is talked about how he finally realizes he needed to diversify his staff. So he's got two black members of the team, as I mentioned. One of them is Karif Foster (ph), who describes herself as a Jewish African-American. Do you think this is a good step, or is this window dressing.</s>DEGGANS: Well, the proof is in the pudding. If you look at Howard Stern, for example, he has an African-American woman who is part of his team, his sidekick, and he still manages to crack a lot of jokes that are misogynist and stereotypical. So it's up to Imus. I mean, he has to decide what's going to come out of his mouth and he has to decide what he's going to allow to come out of the mouths of the people that he works with. So it will be interesting to see. This week, to me, has all been about advertisers. He's trying to show advertisers that he can play nice enough to stay on the radio and not denigrate their products by being associated with them. So...</s>KURTZ: Michael Harrison -- OK. Michael Harrison, I've got 20 seconds. If people don't like Imus they are certainly free to not tune in or turn him off, correct?</s>HARRISON: Absolutely. Free speech and a large dial with lots of things to listen to. If you don't like it, tune out. If you do like it, you should have the right to hear it.</s>KURTZ: Well, here is my two cents. Imus has made mistakes, and he was right to apologize to the Rutgers women and his audience, of course. But Martha Stewart went to jail and she's back on TV. What people missed in all this focus on the insult humor, some of which went too far, is that there was a small part of the program, what could be kind of a thoughtful and irreverent program. So I think he deserves another shot. I enjoyed going on the program. He says he's not going to engage in any more racist or sexist humor. And if he does, I suspect some people will call him on it. Eric Deggans, Michael Harrison, thanks very much for a lively discussion this morning. Just ahead, "The New Republic" and "National Review" backing away from their war bloggers. Did both magazines compromise their credibility?