MUBARAK DAHIR
Savage Ending
The firing by MSNBC of 'shock jock' Michael Savage is a mixed blessing.
I'm as happy as anyone that Savage's often racist, sexist, homophobic and otherwise antiquated ideas on life in America in 2003
will no longer pollute the airwaves via MSNBC.
But anyone who is a strong proponent of free speech should be at least a little uncomfortable with Savage's axing.
Don't get me wrong—I'm happy Savage got the boot. But we as gay and lesbian people need to understand clearly why we are
celebrating his demise. And we need to make sure the general public understands, too.
Furthermore, we need to ask ourselves some tough questions about where we stand on free speech, regardless of whether or not
we like the speaker and what he or she is saying about gay and lesbian people.
There seems to be this prevailing impression that Savage was fired because he said something homophobic. Witness this lead
sentence about the incident as reported by the Associated Press on July 7: 'MSNBC on Monday fired Michael Savage for anti-gay
comments.'
I hope that elementary analysis isn't the reason Savage lost his job—simply because he said something unkind about homos.
Savage is no stranger to anti-gay comments and language. Certainly, this wasn't the first time (and we can bet it won't be the last) that
Savage disparaged gay and lesbian people.
This is what happened: A caller who phoned in and apparently expressed his dissatisfaction with Savage. (Just what the caller
said remains unclear, as parts of his comments were cut from the air by MSNBC, and another part is simply unintelligible in the
broadcast.)
Whatever the caller said, though, it was enough to alert Savage that the man was a displeased gay listener.
'So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?' Savage asked in response to the man's comments. The man answered
that yes, he was.
'Oh, you're one of those sodomites,' Savage then continued. 'You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't
you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today?
Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. OK, do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice
night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Huh? Get me another one. Put another sodomite on! No more calls? I don't care.
Let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages.'
Savage's rant is rife with offensive comments: He uses words like 'sodomite,' and calls the man a 'pig,' and a 'piece of garbage.'
He calls us all 'bums.' He uses the stereotype that gay men are sexual predators and spend all their time lurking for sex at
bathhouses. He even covertly calls us all 'dicks,' a word he can't use on the air, so he rather boringly and uncreatively substitutes the
word 'sausage' for it.
All these comments are annoying and tedious. But to all of these remarks I say: So what? Ho hum.
Someone called us a bad name? Stop the liberation movement!
I understand that words are powerful, and can have real-life repercussions. Still—are we going to collectively wince every time
one of our opponents calls us a fag? Part of a free speech society is that all of us should be free to express our opinions openly,
regardless of how offended others might be by the ideas we hold.
If I want to call Michael Savage a fat, piggish, intellectually stunted, dumb-ass of a breeder—well, it's my right to do so. And if I
demand that right, then I have to acknowledge that he should have the right to say whatever he wants about me and my kind, too.
Some people would argue that it's not what Savage said, but how he said it. I think that's a hollow argument. An important part of free
speech is your means of expression. Are we really going to say it would be fine with us if Savage had calmly said in an even-toned
voice, 'I believe homosexuals are the demise of our society because they are unnatural sexual deviants, and thank you for calling.
Have a nice day.'
We as gay and lesbian people should remember that, even today, in much of America, it is our ideas and opinions that are most
in danger of being shut down and labeled offensive. We can't wave the free-speech banner when it behooves our side of the debate,
then trample all over it when it comes to our opponents.
Having said all that, I do think Savage crossed the line with one comment: When he told the caller to get AIDS and die. If I was his
boss, I probably would have fired him, too.
Furthermore, we need to remember that constitutionally protected free speech protects a citizen's right to criticize the government.
MSNBC has every legal right as a private organization to say what it does and doesn't want to broadcast on its airwaves.
But even so, I remain uncomfortable with the notion of a media giant silencing someone even as stomach-turning as Michael
Savage simply because I find his opinions, and the way he expresses them, gross.
I wonder: When will that standard be used against me?
SIGNORILE from 10
South, a racist Southern secessionist group. Goldberg had just spent a week piously calling on Trent Lott to step down as Senate
majority leader because of his racially insensitive remarks, and then found himself exposed as working for an out-and-out racist. (The
folks at the American Prospect's blog called on Goldberg to follow his own advice and step down from the Washington Times, but he
did not—nor did he even respond.)
So, here is a stellar example of how liberal voices are shut out of the so-called liberal media at the behest of cowardly
conservative columnists who spend much of their time railing that the media favors liberals.
After my letter appeared on Romenesko's page, Goldberg responded on the National Review's blog, the Corner:
'[Signorile's] right,' he admitted, caught red-handed. 'I wouldn't [appear on the show with him]. I didn't want to do the show in the
first place but I agreed to and so I was willing to honor my obligation. Then the producer told me late in the day that Signorile would
be on with me. And I said, screw it I'm not doing it. My reason: Signorile is an ass.'
It is the NPR station that is most egregious here, for letting him dictate the show. Goldberg has the right to refuse to appear with
me or anyone else, but if someone being an 'ass' is a good reason not to be appear on TV or radio with them, then he should just
pack and go home, considering who they put on talk shows these days. This is one point where we agree: '[N]ext time the opportunity
comes up,' he wrote, 'I guess I'll say yes to appearing with him, because if I set a policy of never appearing with asses I would rarely
do media and lord only knows how many liberals would refuse to appear with me.'
No, the next time, I imagine, Goldberg will simply make sure his demand isn't let out of the bag (and I'd bet that the NPR producer
is in a bit of trouble). But, at the very least, it's a satisfying consolation that, every once in while, you can shine a bright light on the
doings of these people and watch them scamper like a horde of roaches.
