Basically decent on-air personalities who say something really stupid get punished for it—while the biggest troublemakers usually escape with insincere apologies. Why? Follow the money.
If you were one of the "good kids" back in grade school—the kind who never, or almost never, got into trouble—you know what I mean.
The bullies in your school levied all kinds of incredible meanness on the other kids—shaking them down for lunch money, putting them in headlocks, calling them demeaning names, beating them up (or at least threatening to), keeping them in a constant state of intimidation.
The good kids? If they ever emulated one of the bullies and did anything remotely similar, even if it was just to fight back against a bully, punishment was swift and vigorous.
"I'm surprised at you!" the reaction usually was from the adults. "Someone like you. You know better than that!"
The bullies? Well, they didn't know better. So they pretty much got away with murder, didn't they? Oh, and they were often the ones whose parents were most likely to call up the school in a rage over their precious darlings getting chastised. While, if you were a good kid, your parents were more likely, if they found out you got in trouble at school, to make you wish you had never been born once you got home.
It seems that when we grow up, some things do not change. In the world of our mass media, there appears to be a comparable pattern.
Anchor Kelly Tilghman of The Golf Channel makes a very stupid, thoughtless "joke" that if other golfers want to beat Tiger Woods on the PGA Tour, they may have to "lynch him in a back alley." She apologizes to Woods, who happens to be a friend of hers. But that's not enough for the Rev. Al Sharpton, who threatens to bring a group of protesters to picket the channel until it takes stronger disciplinary action against her. Following this threat, Tilghman is suspended for two weeks.
Golfweek magazine chooses to illustrate a story on the Tilghman situation by featuring a picture of a noose on its cover. Outrage follows. Dave Seanor, the editor who came up with that not-so-smart graphic concept, is fired.
Just to make sure we know where he stands on all this, President Bush makes a Black History Month speech at the White House in which he says, "Lynching is not a word to be used in jest."
Apparently, neither is "pimping." MSNBC reporter and sometime fill-in program host David Shuster makes a statement asking whether Chelsea Clinton is being "pimped out in some weird sort of way" for her mother's presidential campaign. The Clintons and the campaign staff go ballistic. Hillary Clinton threatens to pull out of an MSNBC debate, and suggests Shuster's remark is part of a deeper culture of misogyny that permeates MSNBC. Shuster gets suspended for two weeks.
So, obviously, if one is an on-air personality and one uses a term such as "pimping" or "lynching," or even if one is a magazine editor and uses a picture of a noose to illustrate a story, it's unacceptable, and you will be in big, big trouble.
Unless your name is Bill O'Reilly.
Not long ago, the wife of presidential candidate Barack Obama said, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country." Naturally, the right-wing media pounced on Michelle Obama's statement to imply that she wasn't proud enough of America, that she was somehow unpatriotic for saying this.
Bill O'Reilly, while disingenuously pretending to buck this tide of conservative condemnation, said on his radio show: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels—that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever—then that's legit. We'll track it down."
Later, O'Reilly, reacting to a small bit of dismay expressed over the use of the word "lynching" to refer to what he did or didn't want to do to an African American woman, said: "I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody." Translation: "If some of you are hypersensitive prigs who take everything far too seriously, I sincerely regret that you are hypersensitive prigs, because you have gotten me in trouble I never deserved to be in."
So? How much outrage has there really been so far, about this white man saying he doesn't want to embark on a (presumably) hypothetical lynching party against a black woman, unless she proves to believe America is a flawed country? In which case, presumably, her hypothetical lynching will be justified?
Not too much. From Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, and columnist Eugene Robinson, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who have appeared on Olbermann's show to talk about it, yes. But, given Olbermann's history of rightful antagonism agains O'Reilly and every single inane thing he says, that's not out of the ordinary. That Olbermann should be offended, and find a few guests willing to share their own offense at O'Reilly's remarks, is only to be expected.
Left-wing blogs and participants on their discussion forums are also upset about what O'Reilly said. But that, too, is to be expected.
Otherwise, aside from a few mainstream media outlets here and there, things are pretty quiet. No one seems to care much. Why?
Simple. Because it's OK for Bill O'Reilly to say outrageously bigoted and disgusting things. The same reason it's OK for Ann Coulter to say outrageously bigoted and disgusting things, or Glenn Beck, or Michael Savage, or Rush Limbaugh, or Neal Boortz, or any of the well-known right-wing goon squad. Because they're bullies. People expect it of them. In fact, they get rewarded handsomely for spewing their venom by less brave souls who secretly agree with everything they say, but are too cowardly to be as public about it. The kind of people who would, in the old days, attend a lynching party and cheer as the victim was strung up on the tree, but would never actually go out and find him and drag him to the tree themselves, or put the noose around his neck, or pull the rope. They were just more than happy to see somebody else do it.
For being bold enough to be bullies, for being willing to wear their hatred right on their sleeve and risk the disapproval of people who believe hatred is wrong, these figures are admired by many people who are mere bully wannabes. And their books sell, and their columns get read, and their programs have audiences, which means advertisers will pay lots of money to run commercials on them.
So, people like O'Reilly get to voice whatever hideous, ugly, or just plain stupid and thoughtless notions happen to materialize in their craniums, without ever once having to worry about their employers saying: "You've stepped over the line this time. Yes, you have the First Amendment right to say this, but you're not going to say it here in our house. You're fired." The massive popularity of these media figures amongst the bully wannabes has made them untouchable. No amount of agitation or protest will get them in real hot water. They make their employers way too much money.
For many years, Don Imus was among those untouchables. He and his uncouth crew of racists and misogynists could say and do anything they wanted and get away with it. Respected public figures and journalists still stood in line to be on Imus's radio show. Why did it all end? What was the tipping point that made his "nappy-headed hos" remark about the Rutgers women's basketball team the last straw, that whipped the anger against him into an all-out media frenzy, that resulted in the advertiser bailout that made his firing inevitable? I wish I knew. In any case, it didn't last; Imus is now back on the air elsewhere, still delivering his schtick to loyal fans who think he got a raw deal.
Will there ever be any tipping point for Bill O'Reilly? It doesn't appear so. At least not now, while his ratings remain high. But if you're not a Bill O'Reilly—if you're just a Kelly Tilghman or a Dave Seanor or a David Shuster, a generally noncontroversial, nonantagonizing figure who one day does something dumb—you are expendable.
Shuster knows that. He's said as much: "Does it bother me that I was thrown under the bus to pay for the sins of the father? No. As somebody who's covered politics for a while, I understand all the forces that were in play." Well, we all know who the "father" is in his case, don't we? None other than MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who may not qualify as a media bully, but definitely qualifies as one of its loosest cannons, likely to blurt whatever he thinks—without thinking.
A while ago, he outraged Hillary Clinton's campaign by stating his belief that the main reason she became a U.S. senator and a front-running candidate for president was that "her husband messed around.” For saying this, he escaped with an on-air apology—nothing more. Because, while Matthews may no longer be "the franchise" at MSNBC (Keith Olbermann seems to have that position well in hand right now), he's still too far up the network hierarchy to be made to pay seriously for upsetting people.
Shuster, however, is easy to punish, because he's a mere reporter who sometimes steps in as a substitute program host. Because he lacks the status of an Olbermann or a Matthews, if he opens his mouth and something ill-considered comes out, he must be squelched, immediately.
This is not to say that Olbermann qualifies as a media bully. If anything, he's an anti-bully, the Ralphie Parker who, given the opportunity to pin the Scut Farkases among his fellow media personalities to the ground, is now whaling the tar out of them regularly. And the only one who, thus far, has probably developed enough "untouchability" of his own at his network not to get suspended or fired on the spot if he should make a single unfortunate slip. But even so, how safe is he, really? He's made enough enemies on the right and attracted enough attention on the left that the second he utters anything that might be offensive even to his loyal audience, legions of the outraged on both sides will call for his head. And it won't matter one bit whether or not he really deserves to lose it.
This is the media climate in which we live today. If you make your living on the radio or on television, and you someday say something on air that you immediately wish you hadn't said, or that you only now realize could be taken an entirely different way from how you intended it, you better hope you're making lots and lots of money for your employer—and that not too many people hate you, or like you but are willing to turn on you the second they think you've "changed."
Otherwise, the best career advice you can get is to polish up your résumé, fast.
Because it really won't matter to your bosses that you don't have a longstanding reputation for making crass, unacceptable statements. It won't matter that you realized the second after something unwise popped out of your mouth that you made a terrible mistake. In fact, that will make it even worse. Because, see, they expect the jerks to do things like you did. They didn't expect it of you. You're not like this. You know better.
And you're not one of those controversial, attention-getting bullies who might embarrass your employer sometimes with the awful things you say, but who more than makes up for it through massive ratings and enormous profits.
You will be gone. And, as you search for a new position, Bill O'Reilly will still be on the air, bloviating away.
Because the things he says may be rude, crude and disgusting, but they make lots of other people rich.
And that's what really matters.