Should We Miss Imus?

If you asked author/lawyer Lauren Stiller Rikleen what her opinion is on the belief that Don Imus should be put back on air, after his crude and inappropriate comments directed towards the Rutgers women's basketball team, she would not hesitate to give you a definite "YES." In Rikleen's opinion, since there are "too few journalists [that] go below the surface of the initial question and answer", we need more interviewers "willing to ask the tough questions." My question is, "should we compromise our morals for it?" Rikleen does not condone the use of unnecessary, vulgar language and even admits to us that there are "no excuses for his remarks".......yet she offers us several excuses of her own.
Putting "Donny" in the time-out chair for 6 months and listening to his 7 minute apology does not justify his demeaning comments, nor does comparing him with others' offensive opinions. Writing about how much worse Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh's comments are does not make Imus seem less guilty, but it gives a perfect example of why such crude language is still being used in the media. This can be traced to the natural thought, "If he/she says it then so can I!"
(I.E. What was bounty hunter, Duane Dog Chapman thinking before he also apologized for using racial terms?)
In order to eliminate this type of language in the media, appropriate and effective consequences need to be enforced.
Still, there are columnists, celebrities, and interviewers such as Don Imus who are reprimanded, yet their punishment doesn't fit the crime. Rikleen wonders why Imus's dismissal, the attempt "to herald a new era in media discourse" was unsuccessful. She asks why, "the rest of the media did not get the memo?" Well Laura, maybe because like you, no one sees the need to correct them.