The Grey One has some interesting things to say about Imus, and what Imus represents, and I've got a slightly different take on it.

As I wrote before, the problem with Imus is largely a problem of his large list of guests which make him "respectable," thus reasonably raising the bar for what should be expected from him. Arguably, calling the Rutger's basketball team a bunch of nappy-headed hoes should be a firing offense for anyone on the public airwaves, but it's certainly one for the guy who's simulcast on a "respectable" news channel and is a regular destination for all of Washington's elite.

It's not that I think politicians or other major public figures should always shun such outlets, it's just that in Imus's case everyone has agreed that he's one of them. "Part of the gang." Peers. Cut from the same cloth. Pals. In spite of Imus's long history of this stuff.

I don't exactly disagree, but I'd put it another way. Imus is a Peer alright, a member of Royalty in the media world. But politicians...not quite of the same rank. That seems to be the problem to me, the pecking order in the Swamp. It's not 1) highest elected officials 2) lower ranking elected officials & bureaucrats and 3) members of the press. It's something closer to 1) very wealthy people who may or may not own a media outlet 2) their voices in the public discourse, the members of the media who have a huge audience bought with #1's money 3) lobbyists for the very wealthy who themselves often acheive power and wealth if they're good for long enough and 4) elected officials.

In any popularity scheme or monarchy, you've got the in-group, and then the in-in-group. Politicians these days seem to me to be wanting to get into that upper echelon, and in order to do so, they fawn over and fellate certain members of the media. I've watch so many Democrats and progressives tip toe on eggshells when on certain Sunday talk shows, or act as if they genuinely fear writers like Judy Miller or Novak, and I for a long time didn't understand it. Big name members of the media aren't that smart, they are often dead wrong, and there's no obvious reason why a powerful Senator or government official should go out of the way to make them happy and not challenge them. But instead, our "leaders" frequently act as if the unelected media are those with the real power.

We speak of things like "our true masters" (the very wealthy), but I think it's interesting to note how those truly empowered people lend some of their power and authority to their media lapdogs. Getting back to the original point: if Imus were an elected official, how long would he have lasted, after his first "nigger" joke? And how is it that there is any doubt that an elected official should shun his show, and why did it take this long for the question of officials appearing on his show to even come up as a serious one? But it's likely Imus won't be fired and some politicians will return to his show, just as it's likely Dick Cheney will go back and have a friendly chat with Rush Limbaugh, and no one will think anything untoward in either of those events.

I will make a distinction between the 'grunts' in the press and the A-listers. Columnists, those with their own daily or weekly TV shows, you know, the people we hate the most- they are the ones with the real power. This is sort of a thinking out loud post, but I wonder if we in the blogosphere haven't got it all wrong, and that instead of working hard to get politicians to employ our policies, we should be targeting the power core of the Gang of 500 instead.

...the problem is, short of illegal things like tarring and feathering, I don't know how to get rid of them.