Outraged at Phony Outrage, but Not Re...

Outraged at Phony Outrage, but Not Really

by Mark Luedtke

Hardly a day goes by without some activist group calling for an apology from a public figure over some perceived insult. We grew up understanding that sticks and stones could break our bones, but words could never hurt us, but it doesn't seem that way any more. Americans haven't become as thin skinned as it seems. Today's activist groups are dominated by political opportunists who use phony outrage, squeaky wheel syndrome, to political advantage. The 24 hour news channels have empowered these opportunists.

A couple of years ago I wrote a column in this forum about CBS firing Don Imus firing for a tasteless comment imitating black cultural heroes about the Rutger's women's basketball team. Al Sharpton crusaded against Imus, the Rutgers' women's basketball players turned off the rap music playing on their Ipods and feigned outrage, and that paragon of virtuous speech Rosie O'Donald raised a stink. Smelling blood in the water, liberals circled and attacked until Imus was forced to apologize. When that didn't satisfy liberal blood lust, CBS fired him.

But liberals aren't the only people who use phony outrage to political advantage. A couple of weeks ago David Letterman made a tasteless joke about one of Sarah Palin's daughters. Doing her best imitation of Hillary Clinton, trying to rally women and keep herself in the public eye, Palin demanded an apology from Letterman. Conservatives smelled blood in the water, accused Letterman of misogyny, and finally forced Letterman to apologize. Fortunately for Letterman, that seems to be the end of it.

Some people mistake events like these as violations of free speech, but the first amendment forbids government from interfering with free speech, not employers. Every American has free speech, but no American is immune from the consequences of that speech. Neither Imus, Letterman nor I have a right to the forums supplied by our employers. CBS fired Imus because managment thought it was best for business. I'm sure CBS asked Letterman to apologize because management thought it was best for business. If I say something that harms the Dayton City Paper's business, you can bet the management will either make me apologize or drop me as a writer. Fortunately I have an editor to give me some insulation. Free speech has nothing to do with it. That's why minor comedians can get away with major, outrageous comments and major talk show hosts can't get away with minor, tasteless ones. It's just business.

The purveyors of phony outrage understand that perfectly. Because of the first amendment, it's hard to use the government to stifle speech. Not that McCain-Feingold hasn't done a fabulous job at restricting political speech to favor incumbent politicians. Not that Obama's plans for broadcast localism won't restrict free speech for right wing talk radio. But getting blatantly unconstitutional laws like those past the courts is a hit or miss proposition. Boycotting broadcasters and advertisers is a proven effective tool to silence opposition speech and to promote a political cause pioneered by Jerry Falwell and mastered by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Using phony outrage to attack opposition speech is a perfectly legitimate tactic in a free society. It's up to reasonable people to see through the phony outrage and mitigate the effects, but if a broadcaster makes a statement that fires up enough people to make him or her apologize, that's his own fault. If the statement draws enough of a response to get him fired, that's his own fault too. Businesses must defend their bottom lines, and any broadcaster who doesn't understand that or thinks he's untouchable deserves his fate.

Phony outrage is subject to the standard double standard of politics. Liberals are better at it than conservatives, and minorities do it best. White men are the most vulnerable and frequent targets. Rosie O'Donald got a free pass for more outrageous comments on a bigger stage than the comment that got Imus fired. But the market sorts those things out. Today Imus rakes in the dough while Rosie hangs upside down in her closet. CBS undoubtedly wishes it had never fired Imus. So it didn't fire Letterman.

Whether or not somebody apologizes depends on if their job is threatened and if they want to keep that job. Al Sharpton can get away with his outrages because his job is never threatened. Great work if you can get it. On the other hand, Imus was forced onto Sharpton's show to apologize because his job was threatened. Letterman must have felt that his job was potentially in jeopardy too.

I should point out that not all outrage to comments by broadcasters is phony. Howard Cosell's “little monkey” comment was outrageous by any standard. By all accounts, he didn't intend it as an insult to blacks, but his resignation was appropriate.

But every American regardless of political ideology should be wary of attempts to continue this process past firing to accusations of defamation. Wikipedia lists 10 separate subjects for which Imus has been accused of defamation. But tasteless jokes and insulting comments are not defamation. Making fun of people, even if mean-spirited, is not defamation. Letterman's comment was obviously a joke. Defamation has a definite, legal meaning, and these accusations are irresponsible. Any attempt to use the courts to silence this kind of speech would be unconstitutional.

Representative John Murtha's factually presented accusation that the Haditha Marines murdered innocent Iraqis in cold blood is a different scenario which reaches the level of defamation. Unfortunately an appeals court ruled that Murtha is immune to the charge because he was supposedly speaking in his capacity as a congressman. So much for justice being blind. Apparently lady justice can peek out from under her blindfold and tilt the scales in favor of aristocrats since they've given themselves the power to defame you and I whenever they feel like it. I'm sure nobody is surprised, but we keep re-electing these same aristocrats every two years anyway. That's outrageous.

--

McCain-Feingold favors incumbents. I don't believe this was an unintended consequence.

The FCC plans to use broadcast localism to limit free speech. Does anybody notice the irony in thinking faceless bureaucrats in Washington better understand the needs of local communities than the people in the local communities? Democrats intend to make this far more oppressive than the Fairness Doctrine ever was.

Rosie O'Donald hangs upside down in her closet. Listen to Imus. Imus on Sharpton's show. Sharpton's controversies.

Haditha Marine to sue John Murtha. Appeals court claims Marine can't sue Murtha.