Hypocrisy and the firing of Michael Savage.

With the dust beginning to settle on the brief television career of psychotic talk show host Michael Savage, it’s a good time to look back at the hypocrisies, big and small, that enveloped many of those involved in this demented tale. From network executives and Christian conservatives to some gay activists and even a few liberal commentators in the media, there have certainly been enough contradictions to go around. Just about everyone on planet Earth seemed to praise Savage’s tv demise last week, after MSNBC fired him for labeling a prank caller to his show a "pig" and a "sodomite," and wishing the caller would "get AIDS and die." So you just had to wonder: How the hell did Savage ever get anywhere in the first place?

Let’s begin with the conservatives. Even Christian right outfits like the Family Research Council came out in support of Savage’s firing last week, though they’d not said a word all the while he’s been on radio railing that America "is being taken over by the freaks, the cripples, the perverts and the mental defectives" and charging that immigrants are "defecating on your country and breeding out of control." For the past few years Savage seemed just fine to conservatives, including Christian right leaders–and presumably to their legions, who are no doubt among Savage’s fans, the people who helped make him a success. But suddenly his venom goes public, and the religious-right crowd gets all pious about hate speech?

If they’re now going to become fed up with hatemongers in the media, they really ought to start with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who blamed feminists and gays and lesbians for bringing on 9/11, among other nasty things. And what, after all, is the difference between telling people they’re going to burn in hell if they don’t change their ways–which Christian conservatives tell us over and over again–and wishing them dead? At least Savage is more honest.

Then there are those liberals in the media who’ve defended free speech–yes, even for vicious homophobes–but who were pretty quiet about it last week when Savage got canned. Back when hate radio doyen Laura Schlessinger was under attack from gay activists, who’d launched a boycott against advertisers on her ill-fated television show, some liberal commentators chastised the activists. No matter how antigay the faux doctor was, Schlessinger had a right to speak her mind, they argued. Gay activists, they charged, were going too far in demanding that CBS drop plans for Schlessinger’s tv show because she had called homosexuality a "biological error" and advocated "reparative therapy."

Los Angeles Times tv critic Howard Rosenberg, who had always written thoughtful pieces on homosexuality and popular culture, called the activists’ demands "unsavory" and "abortive," and told them to "get over it." Even Salon lectured gay activists on the speech issue, warning of a "backlash" that might be fomented, which would hamper the left’s speech as well.

So it was odd that no liberal commentators in the media came out to defend Savage’s free speech rights last week, and that many such commentators praised MSNBC for giving him the boot. Savage’s rants are admittedly much more horrendous than Schlessinger’s, but if you’re a free speech purist, that shouldn’t matter, right? He didn’t, after all, directly advocate violent actions.

I have no problem cutting the guy loose–he should never have had a show to begin with–based simply on the fact that media companies like MSNBC claim to have standards and practices. It angers me that these companies have a history of not including homophobia in the list of things that don’t meet their standards, often hauling in the "free speech" argument as an excuse.

During the Schlessinger debacle, I argued that it wasn’t free speech that some liberal commentators–and media companies like CBS, which was airing her tv show–were defending. Rather, they didn’t think Schlessinger’s brand of homophobia was serious enough to warrant booting her, and they were just too cowardly to admit it. It’s highly doubtful that any liberal would defend a commentator who spouted blatantly racist cant. Similarly, the liberal commentators’ refusal to now defend Savage’s rantings exposes the fraudulence of their "free speech" argument. (The lesson here for gay-haters is that it’s better to couch your homophobia more politely, like those smiling blondes and smarmy guys on Fox News.)

Some gay activists, too, have been dabbling in contradictions in the aftermath of Savage’s fall, particularly at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Unlike the Schlessinger case, in which GLAAD was criticized by many (including me) for not immediately demanding that CBS pull the show, GLAAD was out front on Savage, urging MSNBC to torpedo him pronto. But, bizarrely, GLAAD dropped the ball entirely on Savage’s syndicated radio program, which reaches millions more people–far more than the dismal, third-ranked cable news station, MSNBC–and the radio show is where Savage spews his most brutally antigay remarks.

In the wake of Savage’s firing from MSNBC, reports surfaced that several radio stations had suspended his radio program; perhaps, now that Savage’s bile has been more publicly exposed and condemned, the stations were running for cover. There seems to be an opening to hobble Savage on radio, but when asked if GLAAD would be taking action, the group’s Michael Young told the Boston Globe that "radio is a little different [than television]" since "they’re not positioning themselves as journalistic enterprises."

Huh? Many of the radio stations that carry talk shows by the major fire-breathers on the right are NBC, CBS and ABC radio affiliates–and last time I checked, those companies were in the business of journalism, just like MSNBC. These stations wouldn’t give a talk show to a white supremacist calling for the return of slavery, so why let them get off easy for promoting someone as vile as Savage?

But the supreme hypocrisy here belongs to MSNBC honcho Erik Sorenson. In recent days some have actually heaped praise on this buffoon, claiming that he kept his word: Back in February, he promised to fire Savage if he used the kind of language on MSNBC he’s known for using on radio. But that lets Sorenson and the network off the hook entirely for having elevated Savage in the first place, knowing full well the kind of garbage he trafficked in.

Even if Savage could keep his trap shut on television, the network raised his stature by giving him his own program–and that only gave more credence to his distortion-filled attacks on radio. Sorenson was so desperate to compete with Fox News and save the pathetic MSNBC from the depths of obscurity that he hired a fairly deranged individual, a nutcase who, in his outburst last week, also told the instigating caller to…"eat a sausage." Savage had to get the ax, but it’s Sorenson’s head that needs to roll next.