In the segment on “Beverly Johnson And The Bill Cosby Scandal” I just completed for NPR’s “On Point” program, out of Boston with the magnificent Michel Martin hosting, I emulated the Sunday morning talk show guests I so revile for answering questions by making their own points that have little or no relevance to what was asked. Michel asked me, as the time left in the hour-long program was ticking down, what ethical obligations consumers—that is, the audience for his concerts, TV shows and albums—have regarding Cosby, in light of the rape allegations against him.
I was still stunned by the comments made by three callers, encompassing several ethically confused assertions that you know I would find annoying:
- That the victims should not be coming forward so late;
- That Cosby is “innocent until proven guilty” (GRRRRR…);
- That it’s “easy” for women to make unsubstantiated allegations against celebrities, and
- That there is a parallel between the allegations against Cosby and the Rolling Stone campus rape story.
That last one especially had my head threatening to explode, which would not be good for my relationship with NPR, so I think I can be forgiven for missing Michel’s query. Yes, the UVA rape allegation is exactly like the Cosby scandal, other than the fact that the accusers in Cosby’s case have come forward publicly while “Jackie” has not; that its two dozen (so far) alleged victims for Cosby and one in the UVA case; that one situation is a classic example of abuse of power, wealth and influence and the other is not; that Cosby settled one claim rather than air the allegations in a court of law; and that virtually every part of “Jackie” claim has failed to hold up under scrutiny and investigation, whereas Cosby, the one individual who could offer evidence to counter the allegations against him, has done nothing but have spokesmen and lawyers issue blanket protests and denials.
My answer to Michel should have been this:
“It’s up to Cosby fans, If they still can still laugh and cheer at Cosby’s nice guy schtick and “America’s Dad” persona knowing that he’s a serial rapist, fine: laughter is good, get it where you can. Personally, I can’t laugh at someone whom I know has engaged in horrific acts, hurt women who admired and trusted them, and by his own conduct left another cultural hero lying face-down in the mud. I can’t forgive it, I can’t get past it, and I’m certainly not going to keep laughing. this is no different from the NFL fans who keep wearing Ray Rice jerseys, or for that matter, Democratic women who continue to swoon over Bill Clinton. If they do, they either:
- Can’t get over their cognitive dissonance, and at some level refuse to believe what cannot be rationally denied, or…
- Don’t think the conduct involved—punching women, exploiting women, raping women—is worth getting upset about, or…
- Buy the absurd personal/public dichotomy, and can still cheer wife-beatering athletes, star-struck intern-exploiting leaders, and raping comedians.
All of these are sad and impossible to justify, but they are common. Does the continued support of a Cosby ratify his conduct? Not in the eyes of his undeterred fans, but in the culture? Of course it does. If Bill Cosby’s career escapes relatively unscathed by this, and he is not held accountable by society, the verdict of the culture will be a particularly extreme version of The King’s Pass: if you are rich enough, powerful enough and seen as contributing enough to society, then you will be held to a lower standard, and can get away with, if not murder, serial rape.”
A few other notes regarding the show:
- Michel Martin really was terrific. Her D.C. NPR program “Tell Me More” was recently cancelled; she is a superb interviewer and would upgrade any cable public affairs show immediately.
- I heard, for the first time, a portion of Whoopie Goldberg’s cross-examination of Beverly Johnson on “The View.” Her questions were clearly intended to cast doubt on Johnson’s account. Bias makes us stupid, and Whoopie is no exception. She is loyal to fellow comic, and fellow African-American Cosby, and that loyalty even transcends respect and fairness to an African American woman who has come forward as one of Cosby’s victims. Why? Because he is someone she admires, and has for most of her life–that bias colors her perception. She cannot accept the facts. This is why Cosby is an ethics corrupter, and a sinister one. Like Bill Clinton, he makes all of his admirers enablers and accomplices.
- Johnson, meanwhile, is still frightened of crossing the racial loyalty lines. Martin, who is not, suggested that Whoopie sounded skeptical. Ya think??? But Johnson, wary of making another powerful enemy, answered that she didn’t detect that at all.
- Johnson, in the interview with Martin before the panel weighed in, said that she was wary of accusing Cosby at a time when “black men were under attack.” Which victimized black men did she mention? Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown. That’s one more media validation of the dishonest narratives in these cases: Martin was targeted because he was black [Evidence: none.]; murdered [Evidence: none] and his killer was set free by a racist justice system. [ His killer was correctly set free by a system that requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.] Brown was profiled by a racist cop [Evidence: none]; harassed because of his color despite being gentle, law abiding and unarmed [Evidence: to the contrary, he had just committed a robbery and an assault, resisted arrest and tried to take a police officer’s gun]; and was executed with his hands up [Evidence: he was shot in self defense as he charged the officer]. I don’t blame Michel for not correcting the record, for this was tangential to the topic at hand. I wonder if Beverly is any relation to Dorian?