As I often do while at work, today I streamed Michael Graham’s live afternoon talk show on WTKK (an FM talk-radio station in Boston) from my computer.  I’ve listened to Graham for years. I don’t always agree with him, but I do find Graham’s ability to form an argument entertaining even when he espouses an opinion with which I do not agree.  And the guy, a former standup comedian, can be pretty funny.  So in general, I get what I’m looking for when I listen to Graham—entertainment.  But not today.  

Today when I listened to Graham, what I got was offended, and viscerally so. For an intelligent guy, Graham can be so dense when it comes to social issues.  And today he displayed both arrogance and ignorance in regard to Roland Martin’s suspension from CNN after he made what are clearly anti-gay comments.   

Maybe part of my reaction had to do with the fact that I had just watched the video of an Atlanta teen being viciously beaten—ambushed as he came out of a convenience store—by a gang of teens who hurled beyond tires and fists and shod feet at the boy, a host of anti-gay slurs. 

Graham stated his position on CNN’s suspension of Roland Martin after Martin was called out on both a tweet and a Facebook post that he made during the Super Bowl last Sunday. Graham was aghast at the suspension, finding nothing at all inappropriate about these comments:

Martin’s tweet: “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad smack the ish out of him” (ish being slang for the four letter s-word). 

Martin’s Facebook post:  “Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass[sic]”.

GLADD (Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) immediately demanded Martin’s removal from the network, citing his comments as inciting violence against gays. And as well they should.  Graham mocked the group (and, in a rather juvenile manner, substituted other words for the group’s acronymous name). Perhaps Graham missed that video of the Atlanta teen have some “ish” smacked out of him by gang of “whipdatass.”

Part of Graham’s rationale was that Martin made these comments on his own private twitter account (and Facebook page, though Graham was under the impression the comments were both tweets), and not as a representative of CNN.  What does it matter how or where one makes bigoted comments? The other part of Graham's rationale was that people are just too sensitive these days, that there was nothing at all anti-gay in anything Martin said. Graham furthered his case on his own blog today: “I don’t even find these tweets interesting, much less offensive. But this is the United State [sic] of Anal-Retentive, Thin-Skinned P.C. Offend-a-Trons.”  Oh, and free speech.  This is a free speech issue according to Graham. Martin was just espousing "opinions" and those on the "left" (because you must on the left if you support gays, apparently) have tolerance for free speech only when others don't disagree with them.  (You should read the Facebook comments from Graham's listeners about my post after he linked it to his FB page.  Now those are some heavy duty examples of intolerance of another's opinion.) 

Frankly, I’m as aghast as Graham that he could defend Martin given the weak explanation Martin provided in his own blog post on Monday. In regard to the tweet: “I often make jokes about soccer in the U.S., and my crack about David Beckham’s commercial was related to that and not to anyone’s sexuality. To those who construed my comment as being anti-gay or homophobic or advancing violence, I’m truly sorry.”

Martin’s justification is vague as best, just plain stupid at worst. Exactly how was his tweet soccer related? I mean, other than the fact that Beckham plays the sport?  Martin didn’t tweet if “anyone” at your Super Bowl party is hyped…”, he tweeted, “if a dude...”  I’m not getting the soccer connection. Probably because there isn’t one.  What I am getting is why GLAAD was so outraged.

Martin never fully addressed his reasoning behind the Facebook post, except to state this: “My joking about smacking someone, whether it was in response to a commercial or food they prepare for a Super Bowl party or wearing an opposing team’s jersey, was stated in jest.”  Well, unless either the Giants or Patriots wear pink uniforms, exactly how does this explain the “head to toe pink suit” reference? How does any of this advance Martin’s claim that the comments were not anti-gay? Even Martin himself doesn't have a good defense for his behavior; so why should others try to concoct one for him? 

During today’s radio show, Graham had his producer do some hasty fact checking on Martin only to come up empty. Had either of these two men done their research adequately, they would have easily discovered that Martin defended comedianTracy Morgan's hateful anti-gay standup routine last year.  If you haven’t heard that rant for yourself, one of the “jokes” in Morgan’s rant was, “If my son was gay, I’d stab him to death.” Funny stuff. Makes you want to laugh out loud, doesn't it? 

Still think there’s nothing wrong with Martin’s comments, Michael?  Go watch that video of the boy in Atlanta. Then pause it right about where the kid gets thrown to the ground, sliding along the sidewalk and imagine that boy is your son. Do that and then get back on the air and tell me you still support Roland Martin, that you don’t think such comments are irresponsible, that they don't incite nor condone violent behavior.

I do hope you reconsider your position. But if you don’t, you’ve lost a long-time listener, one with a big mouth and a blog of her own. 

The day after I posted this blog, Michael Graham's producer sent me an email, imviting me to speak about this issue on their talk show (Thursday afternoon).  Unfortunately, I got the email a day late and missed the opportunity. But I have to give credit where credit is due--Graham and Co. read their emails and were willing to give me a chance to discuss and debate with him on air. What more could a girl ask for?  Too bad I missed it. Would have been fun, Michael.  Perhaps another time. (Guess that means I'll have to keep listening after all...)  

AK